| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.
You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.
Vs.
You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best explanation of how PF1 action system was a burning mess compared to PF2 system, by LuniasM (shamelessly stealing instead of linking):
PF1:
You have a Standard, Move, and Swift action on your turn. You can trade a Standard for a Move but not a Move for a Swift, and you can't trade the other direction for either. You can use both a Standard and Move to do a Full-Round Action, but that's different from a 1-Round action which takes your turn and goes off at the start of your next turn assuming you don't get interrupted. You also have Free actions which cost nothing and can be done as many times as you like until your GM begs you to stop, and Non-Actions which aren't the same as Free Actions for some reason. You can also get an Immediate Action during other people's turns, but you only get one and it takes your next turn's Swift Action to do it - don't worry if you forget about that, because I probably will too. You also get one Attack of Opportunity if you're wielding a weapon that triggers based on stuff the enemy does, and you can get more if you take a certain feat, but they're not like Immediate Actions so they cost nothing to use. One of your available actions, the 5' Step, allows you to move 5' if it's the only movement you make during that turn - specifically a Move action to Move, or a Charge, or Run, or Long/High Jump, but not standing up, or being pushed or pulled, or teleporting. Except you can't take actions after you teleport, so remember that. But a 5' Step isn't an action, it's a Non-Action, so...? Oh yeah, you can draw a single weapon as part of a Move action to Move or a Charge, but only if your BAB is +1. Getting an item out is a Move action, but only if it's easily accessible - stuff in your bag takes a Standard. You can Charge as a Standard action if you're limited to just a Standard action, such as during a Surprise Round or when you're Slowed, but you only move half the distance. Some conditions can take away actions, but they vary in what actions get taken away and they're way worse for martial characters than casters. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.PF2:
You get three Actions, plus occasionally a single Reaction and/or some Free actions that trigger when a specific thing happens. Some classes can get one or two extra Reactions that can only be used for a specific ability. You can never activate more than one Free Action or Reaction off the same trigger. Some special actions called Activities take more than one Action to use. Sometimes you can get a fourth action with the Quickened condition, but that bonus action can only be used for specific things, and the ability that granted it will tell you what it can be used for. Some conditions take away a number of your Actions on your turn, usually either 1 or 2. That's everything.See the difference in size between those blocks of text? See how many less exceptions and corner cases I have to cover for PF2, whose system I covered almost entirely in that paragraph? Guess which action economy system I, the Eternal GM of my table, prefer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.
You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.
Vs.
You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions
I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.
1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.
|
|
Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.
You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.
Vs.
You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions
I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.
1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.
So, can you take a 5-foot step after a teleport/ddoor in PF1?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.
No they cannot. There are so many exceptions and corner cases that simply do not exist in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No I’m making counter points and when people’s arguments involve them misrepresenting game rules to say the other game is better that just shows they are incorrect. Also why am I the only one who has to be willing to change their mind, which I’m looking for example to prove you point not asserting points for mine, should those that choose to engage in the conversation also be willing to change their mind?Dude why are you casting me as the bad actor here, I'm just having a discussionNo, you are not. You are not even attempting to see the conversation from any viewpoint but your own. You are denying everything that anyone else says and putting forth your viewpoint as the only valid one. For there to be a discussion there must be the possibility of changing minds. Yours has appeared to be made up from the very first post.
There are easy arguments you can make vs PF2e and the same against PF1e. Saying PF1e can be overly complex to it's detriment is a fact. It's a simulationist game vs a more Rules lite game. The fact that PF2e has less rules minutiae is a simple fact. Do I think that makes it a "better" game? No. Do I believe that can carry it's own appeal? Sure! Do I think you might be disingenuous with some of your arguments? Yes, some bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
Maneuvers being awful without the feat is a simple fact. You provoke, and if the attack of opportunity hits, take anywhere between 1-40 penalty on your maneuvers now. Baiting AoOs so you don't provoke is always a crapshoot.
There are literally hundreds of threads proving mathematically and thematically that the Rogue is an awfully designed class. Same with Fighter pre-weapon master handbook. There's no reason to play a Rogue besides having the words "Rogue" on your character sheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.
You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.
Vs.
You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions
I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.
1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.
So, can you take a 5-foot step after a teleport/ddoor in PF1?
Not after ddoor but that’s and effect of the spell not the rules governing action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.No they cannot. There are so many exceptions and corner cases that simply do not exist in PF2.
There are plenty of exceptions to how you described 2e action. How you ‘can’ describe is vastly different in both case than a full description of something. But leaving things out and forcing GMs to make calls in place of proper rules has its own set of problems creating more instances where people’s interpretations of the rules will clash.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No I’m making counter points and when people’s arguments involve them misrepresenting game rules to say the other game is better that just shows they are incorrect. Also why am I the only one who has to be willing to change their mind, which I’m looking for example to prove you point not asserting points for mine, should those that choose to engage in the conversation also be willing to change their mind?Dude why are you casting me as the bad actor here, I'm just having a discussionNo, you are not. You are not even attempting to see the conversation from any viewpoint but your own. You are denying everything that anyone else says and putting forth your viewpoint as the only valid one. For there to be a discussion there must be the possibility of changing minds. Yours has appeared to be made up from the very first post.
There are easy arguments you can make vs PF2e and the same against PF1e. Saying PF1e can be overly complex to it's detriment is a fact. It's a simulationist game vs a more Rules lite game. The fact that PF2e has less rules minutiae is a simple fact. Do I think that makes it a "better" game? No. Do I believe that can carry it's own appeal? Sure! Do I think you might be disingenuous with some of your arguments? Yes, some bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
Maneuvers being awful without the feat is a simple fact. You provoke, and if the attack of opportunity hits, take anywhere between 1-40 penalty on your maneuvers now. Baiting AoOs so you don't provoke is always a crapshoot.
There are literally hundreds of threads proving mathematically and thematically that the Rogue is an awfully designed class. Same with Fighter pre-weapon master handbook. There's no reason to play a Rogue besides having the words "Rogue" on your character sheet.
Again I’m not arguing which is better I’m asking for examples to show that the claim 2e is better is accurate.
Yes, if you’re opponent can make an AoO and it hits there is a penalty that why you work around that circumstance. I have walked you all through how to do it effectively and your response it that’s too much trouble for me so therefore the game is bad, that is your problem not the game’s.Why is the rogue made, because people who never play the game did a bunch of math to show that the rogue is bad. I’m talking about real gameplay not forum nonsense that create things like Pun-Pun that doesn’t even work purely mechanically. Rogues and fighters work just fine in proper gameplay take from someone with actual experience.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, if you’re opponent can make an AoO and it hits there is a penalty that why you work around that circumstance. I have walked you all through how to do it effectively and your response it that’s too much trouble for me so therefore the game is bad, that is your problem not the game’s.Why is the rogue made, because people who never play the game did a bunch of math to show that the rogue is bad. I’m talking about real gameplay not forum nonsense that create things like Pun-Pun that doesn’t even work purely mechanically. Rogues and fighters work just fine in proper gameplay take from someone with actual experience.
No. My response was not that it's too much trouble and therefore game is bad. It's very rude to put words in people's mouths. I said that it's a crapshoot. It's unlikely to work and functions only in niche circumstances. If your opponent is mindless and lacks combat reflexes, sure! You MIGHT succeed(If they're humanoid/medium or smaller). Probably not with how CMD scales outrageously but that's yet another fault of combat maneuvers. And again, since you seem to be misunderstanding my point, the bad aspects to the system don't outweigh largely what I believe to be the good.
Do you really think people don't know how to play Rogues? Do you think nobody on these forums play/played Rogues since Pathfinder's release in 2009 or prior in 3.5(which they had a really rough time unless prestiging/multiclassing). It's not even that much math to show that Rogues are bad. They lack accuracy, they lack saving throws, they have poor AC, and don't have a very good Hit Die to make up for it. They're mediocre at skills and lack any unique mechanics to draw one to play them.
Rogues and fighters work just fine in proper gameplay take from someone with actual experience.
This part right here is why nobody is taking you seriously, say that you are arguing in bad faith and are possibly a bad actor. You are assuming nobody here has played Rogues/Fighters. You're assuming that your anecdotal experience is the only experience that is valid. There are an absurd number of threads on not only this forum but others stating anecdotal experience opposite of yours. Typically when more detail is given about a home campaign where a Rogue/Fighter does well it coincides with one or more of these...
A: The Dm is orchestrating the success of the party regardless of character ability(aka storytime or easy mode encounters).
B: The game itself is heavily houseruled.
C: The players have a poor understanding of the rules.
D: The rogue player has incredible system mastery. This is generally coupled with the DM having a poor understanding of the rules.
E: The game does not go past 6th level.
|
|
Not after ddoor but that’s and effect of the spell not the rules governing action.Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.
You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.
Vs.
You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions
I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.
1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.
So, can you take a 5-foot step after a teleport/ddoor in PF1?
Why not? Sure, the spell is clear, it says you can't take any actions after ddoring.
But what action is 5ft step? Is it even an action? The game has move, standard, swift, immediate, free and full-round actions and in the very "Action Types in Combat" table in the Core Rulebook, it says under "No Action", there's the 5-foot step. So is it an action, or isn't it one?
There've been massive threads where people would argue back and forth about this. Both interpretations are valid. Both could be correct if ever Paizo would issue a FAQ/errata on this (they won't). But the entire problem arises from the action system in PF1 being an obtuse mess that it is. Unlike, erm, the PF2 one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. My response was not that it's too much trouble and therefore game is bad. It's very rude to put words in people's mouths. I said that it's a crapshoot. It's unlikely to work and functions only in niche circumstances. If your opponent is mindless and lacks combat reflexes, sure! You MIGHT succeed(If they're humanoid/medium or smaller). Probably not with how CMD scales outrageously but that's yet another fault of combat maneuvers. And again, since you seem to be misunderstanding my point, the bad aspects to the system don't outweigh largely what I believe to be the good.
Do you really think people don't know how to play Rogues? Do you think nobody on these forums play/played Rogues since Pathfinder's release in 2009 or prior in 3.5(which they had a really rough time unless prestiging/multiclassing). It's not even that much math to show that Rogues are bad. They lack accuracy, they lack saving throws, they have poor AC, and don't have a very good Hit Die to make up for it. They're mediocre at skills and lack any unique mechanics to draw one to play them.
This part right here is why nobody is taking you seriously, say that you are arguing in bad faith and are possibly a bad actor. You are assuming nobody here has played...
I didn’t put any swords in your mouth dude again I have had players ya combat maneuvers all the way up to level 18 and you are wrong, I actively tried to counter my player and he was still effective, similarly I have taken and ran rogues to max level I was not just doing the things from your ABC list. The fact that list is your argument as to why rogues are bad is how I know you have no idea what you’re talking about, I’m not assuming anything you are telling me through faulty reasoning that you don’t know how to play rogues or fighters or use Combat Maneuvers don’t blame me because you can’t make a real argument.
The1Ryu, may I ask if English is your native language?
My reading of your posts is quite different depending on whether you’re typing in a second language or not (I keep going back and forth, trying to decide). No big deal if you don’t want to say, I’m just curious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t take all this sturm und drang seriously. A couple of posters who will rant and rave about how PF2 is utter nirvana and the best game ever will also, when asked why they spend all their time posting endlessly in PF1 threads, say it’s because they’re in multiple PF1 campaigns. Make of the irony what you will. Trolls just gonna troll, and edition warring is easy grist for the mill.
The very concept of a “better” game is nonsense, in my view. There’s games I like more than others, but it’s impossible to know if they’re better without knowing what the design goals were (and they’re rarely made explicit).
|
|
I don’t take all this sturm und drang seriously. A couple of posters who will rant and rave about how PF2 is utter nirvana and the best game ever will also, when asked why they spend all their time posting endlessly in PF1 threads, say it’s because they’re in multiple PF1 campaigns. Make of the irony what you will. Trolls just gonna troll, and edition warring is easy grist for the mill.
There's no irony in that at all. I'm in one Call of Cthulhu campaign despite the fact that I vastly prefer Trail of Cthulhu for my horror RPGing, but perhaps shockingly to some, playing in an RPG campaign is not just because of the ruleset, but also because of what's the story, who runs the game, who plays it and how much fun you're having despite the rules being not your first pick.
Yes, I can play both PF1 and PF2 games at the same time despite preferring PF2. If you think that's verboten or that I'm breaking some basement law on edition purity, heh, I can't feel but sorry for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a core gameplay element like action economy can be a "burning mess" and an "obtuse mess" but plenty of fun can still be had playing the game, the edition must not be quite so awful. Perhaps it'd be useful for multiple posters on all sides to cool down the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the original post? Why don't you tell us a bit about what PF1 games you're playing? I'm sure people are curious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you all please take your edition warring to another thread so this one can get back on topic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best explanation of how PF1 action system was a burning mess compared to PF2 system, by LuniasM (shamelessly stealing instead of linking):
(Go Gorbacz post if you want to read LuniasM post)
Well this is a completely dishonest comparison. Why?Because LuniasM brings up 1-round actions, which is really only allpies to a small number of spells, it's not one of the base action types, it would be like me bringing up Ritual casting time while talking about 2e actions. He comments on his personal opinions of 1e actions type, "it takes your next turn's Swift Action to do it - don't worry if you forget about that, because I probably will too." Which is a form of poisoning the well. He blatantly lies and says you can't take a 5ft step and then cast a spell that teleports you, that's not true you simple can take a 5ft step before after making a Move Action to Move. And continues this by claiming you can't take any move after teleporting which is also not true except for Dimension Door which has built into to the spell that it immediately ends your turn after casting it. Then he talking about other actions you can take as give categories of actions, but he never does this with 2e example, and situational things that effect your action in 1e but not 2e. And his point is that he wrote said explanations and because the first is longer, with much more details added in along with his personal commentary, therefore 2e is a better system. Again this comparison is completely dishonest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? Sure, the spell is clear, it says you can't take any actions after ddoring.
But what action is 5ft step? Is it even an action? The game has move, standard, swift, immediate, free and full-round actions and in the very "Action Types in Combat" table in the Core Rulebook, it says under "No Action", there's the 5-foot step. So is it an action, or isn't it one?
There've been massive threads where people would argue back and forth about this. Both interpretations are valid. Both could be correct if ever Paizo would issue a FAQ/errata on this (they won't). But the entire problem arises from the action system in PF1 being an obtuse mess that it is. Unlike, erm, the PF2 one.
Why not? Because that's how that spell works, you don't like how the spell works don't use it.
You answer your own question about 5ft steps here so I'm not going to repeat you. It is clearly explained what a 5ft step is and the reason you can't take a move action to move afterwards is because the 5ft step doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity so to make sure it's not abused, it has that limitation put on it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a core gameplay element like action economy can be a "burning mess" and an "obtuse mess" but plenty of fun can still be had playing the game, the edition must not be quite so awful. Perhaps it'd be useful for multiple posters on all sides to cool down the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the original post? Why don't you tell us a bit about what PF1 games you're playing? I'm sure people are curious.
I'm running two games, both adventure paths, Reign of Winter and Iron Gods. Interestingly they are both in the final book. My Reign of Winter Party consists of a Arcane Trickster, a Cleric of Gorum, an Greta, the Winter Wolf Fighter NPC they met in the second adventure. Iron Gods Party consists of Archeologist(Bard Archtype), a Megus, and a Paladin of Sarenrae. The Archeologist and Megus are both technologically savvy and took over the Technic League. The Paladin killed the Black Sovereign and took his place as ruler of Numeria.
|
|
If a core gameplay element like action economy can be a "burning mess" and an "obtuse mess" but plenty of fun can still be had playing the game, the edition must not be quite so awful. Perhaps it'd be useful for multiple posters on all sides to cool down the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the original post? Why don't you tell us a bit about what PF1 games you're playing? I'm sure people are curious.
Sure, I'm running Hell's Rebels, currently book 5, for a party whom I ran Skulls and Shackles for. I'm also running Strange Aeons, book 3, for another group. I have also ran the entire Rise of the Runelords and Reign of Winter for two groups that fell apart because Real Life.
Are we having fun? Yes. Is PF1 a fun game? Yes. Is the system getting in the way of fun? Yes, especially at higher levels. Will we switch to PF2? Yes, once the APG drops.
|
|
Why not? Sure, the spell is clear, it says you can't take any actions after ddoring.
But what action is 5ft step? Is it even an action? The game has move, standard, swift, immediate, free and full-round actions and in the very "Action Types in Combat" table in the Core Rulebook, it says under "No Action", there's the 5-foot step. So is it an action, or isn't it one?
There've been massive threads where people would argue back and forth about this. Both interpretations are valid. Both could be correct if ever Paizo would issue a FAQ/errata on this (they won't). But the entire problem arises from the action system in PF1 being an obtuse mess that it is. Unlike, erm, the PF2 one.
Why not? Because that's how that spell works, you don't like how the spell works don't use it.
You answer your own question about 5ft steps here so I'm not going to repeat you. It is clearly explained what a 5ft step is and the reason you can't take a move action to move afterwards is because the 5ft step doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity so to make sure it's not abused, it has that limitation put on it.
You haven't addressed the question. Is 5-foot step an action? The book says no, it isn't. It doesn't fall into any action type. The spell says you can't take an action after it. So, you can take a 5-foot step, because it's not an action.
Of course, there are lots of actually intelligent counter-arguments, starting with one that teleporting could be considered "movement", so you shouldn't be able to take a 5fs after it. Or the argument that it would be really weird if ddoor prevented you from taking a free action to talk (as much as GM allows you) but not prevented you from taking a 5-foot step.
But there's no clear answer in the rules and we can argue until the end of days.
|
All of our APs are still engaged, if hamstrung by schedule conflicts and holidays. I imagine we'll be finishing them and starting new 1E APs until there aren't any more left.
Skull and Shackles: Playing a Storm Druid/Sohei Monk, book 6, hoping to wrap up next session.
Skull and Shackles: Running through Book 2 with Plunder and Peril as a stand in for most of the content.
Rise of the Runelords: Elven Witch going through book 3/4ish.
Curse of the Crimson Throne: Playing a Dwarf Deep Marshall Magus through book 2.
Hell's Rebels: Playing a Halfling Avenger Vigilante, just wrapping up book 4, I believe.
So, to update this, schedule changes are hamstringing us further but we will continue on. We’ve added a 2E run of Fall of Plaguestone in which I am playing a Chirurgeon Alchemist. Hopefully once that is wrapped up we can get back to pirating.
My play-by-post is exploding a bit with two four scenario arcs starting up on top of my existing Seeker arc run. I’m playing Mummy’s Mask as well, though we are just starting out.
I also have three tables to run at GenCon this weekend, all 1E scenarios, while I will be playing my Crypt-Breaker Alchemist in one of the handful of scenarios I have left to play. Then I will also be pregening it up in a 2E scenario right after.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok question why did you start to play Pathfinder 1e? To remember old day of 3.5? If you want a change why don't you stick with d&d 4&5e?
Pathfinder 1e was for me to remember my old days of school and college where I can play with my friend a lot of adventure. Changing to 2e it's like to kill the 1e format
Before you criticism the 1e, try to remember why you start playing again that format.
Running Strange Aeons Book 2 in PF1e, Reign of Winter Book 1 in PF1e, Hell's Rebels in PF2e, Starfinder Homebrew campaign, and playing in a 5e Homebrew campaign. I also off and on am running my spouse through a mythic solo Wrath of the Righteous, they're still in Book 1.Hey, you forgot one! Where's my shameless plug?
Oh yeah, I'm an idiot. I totally forgot that I'll be running TGW's PF1e campaign converted to PF2e for my actual play podcast!
I actually prefer PF1e but PF2e works better for the format and the players involved. Hoping to start recording in less than a month!
I think that was agent Coulson, but I could wrong.Coulson knew BW and what she could do. IIRC it was Jon Favreau's character, Hogan.
Yup, you're correct. It's been forever since I've seen that movie.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I switched to Pathfinder because I was way more loyal to Paizo than WotC. I started with 3.5 and saw no reason to move on, even if Pathfinder was just different enough to trip me up now and then. Now it’s the system I have the most experience with and it will be painful to have that experience fade as 3.5 did over the years as people move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You haven't addressed the question. Is 5-foot step an action? The book says no, it isn't. It doesn't fall into any action type. The spell says you can't take an action after it. So, you can take a 5-foot step, because it's not an action.
Of course, there are lots of actually intelligent counter-arguments, starting with one that teleporting could be considered "movement", so you shouldn't be able to take a 5fs after it. Or the argument that it would be really weird if ddoor prevented you from taking a free action to talk (as much as GM allows you) but not prevented you from taking a 5-foot step.
But there's no clear answer in the rules and we can argue until the end of days.
A 5ft step is listed under miscellaneous actions so yes it is an action and no according to spell you can't do it.
You can consider teleporting "movement" but it's not, it's a spell. Ddoor does technically prevent your character from speaking to the other characters, but it's not as if your character is standing around for a long time unable to speak. A combat round is only six seconds and technically all the characters are acting at the same time. If your character did nothing but cast DDoor he would lose like three seconds of interaction. You seem to be confusing combat how it appears to you sitting at a table where a round could take 1, 5, 10 minutes, to how the combat appears to your character which is always no more than 6 seconds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok question why did you start to play Pathfinder 1e? To remember old day of 3.5? If you want a change why don't you stick with d&d 4&5e?
Pathfinder 1e was for me to remember my old days of school and college where I can play with my friend a lot of adventure. Changing to 2e it's like to kill the 1e format
Before you criticism the 1e, try to remember why you start playing again that format.
I started playing Pathfinder 1e because it was better than 3.5, for me. Probably the AP's and the setting as much as the mechanics.
I don't think anyone plays D&D4e at this point, which is a shame. I doubt it'll be my favorite system but I actually want to try it.
There's nothing inherently wrong with 5e, but it's not my favorite system. The foundation is very solid but everything else feels poorly designed. And yes, I've run two different 5e campaigns for well over a year each.
PF2e is very different from 5e. It took me playing it, running it, and reading it heavily to realize that it's a wholly different system than either PF1e or anything Wizards has produced. Most of my players actually prefer it.
So yeah, not criticizing PF1e (though it certainly has flaws) or really any other system. Everyone has the preference and that's cool.
If a core gameplay element like action economy can be a "burning mess" and an "obtuse mess" but plenty of fun can still be had playing the game, the edition must not be quite so awful. Perhaps it'd be useful for multiple posters on all sides to cool down the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the original post? Why don't you tell us a bit about what PF1 games you're playing? I'm sure people are curious.Sure, I'm running Hell's Rebels, currently book 5, for a party whom I ran Skulls and Shackles for. I'm also running Strange Aeons, book 3, for another group. I have also ran the entire Rise of the Runelords and Reign of Winter for two groups that fell apart because Real Life.
Are we having fun? Yes. Is PF1 a fun game? Yes. Is the system getting in the way of fun? Yes, especially at higher levels. Will we switch to PF2? Yes, once the APG drops.
I'm swapping my Strange Aeons group to PF2e once they hit book 3. If do it now but they're deep into The Thrushmoore Terror and I've already rewritten the entire book once already.
The reason? PF1e is too complicated for them. And they keep forgetting their abilities, actions, etc. That's not a jab on PF2e, it's a testament to the fact that it handles really hardcore and casual players really well.
Now to figure out how to convert the Mesmerist class...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok question why did you start to play Pathfinder 1e? To remember old day of 3.5? If you want a change why don't you stick with d&d 4&5e?
Pathfinder 1e was for me to remember my old days of school and college where I can play with my friend a lot of adventure. Changing to 2e it's like to kill the 1e format
Before you criticism the 1e, try to remember why you start playing again that format.
Backwards compatibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm swapping my Strange Aeons group to PF2e once they hit book 3. If do it now but they're deep into The Thrushmoore Terror and I've already rewritten the entire book once already.
The reason? PF1e is too complicated for them. And they keep forgetting their abilities, actions, etc. That's not a jab on PF2e, it's a testament to the fact that it handles really hardcore and casual players really well.
Now to figure out how to convert the Mesmerist class...
Man, Dreams of the Yellow King just thrashed my party. The Dreamlands just kicked their teeth in. It was one of the only adventure paths that ended in failure for us.