Which Action System Do You Like Best?

[Dragon78]

So which action system do you like best, 1E(standard, move, etc.) or 2E(3 action + reaction)?

Keep in mind I am only talking about the action system itself, not any other aspects of the combat systems.

[Henro]

2E by a long shot. The action system was the #1 factor for even getting me into 2E despite being skeptical of a few other things and not having GMed in a long time prior to 2Es release. In practice, it has been one of many reasons I fell in love with 2E.

[Temperans]

Well PF1 is more of an asymetrical 3 action system (Standard, move, swift) even if people don't typically count swift actions they are still important.

As for which system I prefer. I think both have their pros and cons.

* PF1 system allows for actions to have a natural ranking between them full action > standard > move > swift. So you can design things with the worth of the different actions in mind. Also because of the clear differences you can be sure that players wont mix things they shouldnt; Unless Paizo muddles the record, like attack action vs standard attack action.

PF1 however has the problem of turns being more rigid, due the actions being designed as 1 attack + 1 move. This makes it so combat tends to bunch up once it reaches melee. It also has the problem of Full round attack actions having too value, so most players ignore the standard action + move (casters do benefit from that).

* PF2 system allows actions to be more balanced with each other making them interchangeable. This results is much more fluid game due to access to move + strike + move or any combination. Because they are effectively equal it also means that its easier to create different routines based on what is needed at the time.

PF2 however has the problem of effects with stronger effects not having a tier as a basis. So instead things are measure in how many actions it takes. This creates problems as it reduces the flexibility of what actions (and combinations of) can be taken dramatically.

************************

Overall, I think I would prefer a mix of the two. The tiering of PF1 to allow different actions to have different value. But with some of the interchangeability of PF2, allowimg for more flexibility.

Maybe something like 1 standard action and 2 secondary actions that are overall weaker?

[Deadmanwalking]

I prefer the simplicity of PF2's action system in just about every possible way. PF1's is fiddly and complicated, and while it has advantages they aren't worth the price of admission.

[Gorbacz]

2E hands down.

The exception-based PF1 system is: hard to explain for newbies, promotes a static "stand and full attack" gameplay and makes monster design harder as it's a binary choice of "cast a spell/use an ability OR full attack".

There's literally no advantage of PF1 action system.

[Ruzza]

Not even sure how this is a question, it's absolutely 2E's action system whose presence is felt throughout the entirety of the design process. PF1's system worked, but it felt like you were trying to fit the gameplay into it rather than it flowing organically.

[Kyrone]

2e action system, it's really simple but so elegant, makes it really easy to teach new players.

[Ubertron_X]

Unpopular opinion, but 1E before swift action inflation. However I have to admit that this probably also comes down on your preferred classes respectively style of play. Martials do seem to have benefitted most from the new system, while casters are somewhat held back by their lack of actions.

[Gorignak227]

I prefer the 2e combat system for most things but all the drawing/regrip stuff can feel worse sometimes than pf1 for some edge cases.

[KrispyXIV]

2E's, by far, and just not for its impact on player-characters.

Running the game, the 3 action system allows for amazing improvements in the feel of running creatures, creature design, creature balancing, and debuff design.

Try running a dragon in the new system to see the sort of amazing flexibility it gives the GM. Its great.

[Lightning Raven]

If there's one thing to bring everyone in this forum together is the action system. By far the most unanimously accepted change from PF1e to PF2e.

[Salamileg]

I fully admit that I've never played a session of PF1, but the action system was one of the things I had trouble wrapping my head around while reading the CRB (and, truth be told, I never really got a grasp on how things worked even in the Kingmaker game). So I'd say the three action system.

[QuidEst]

I like both of them comparably to play myself. PF1's is more fiddly, but it's satisfying for builds to find the perfect swift action to use. PF2's is elegant and flexible.

But my goodness is PF2's (or even Starfinder's) action economy much more manageable to explain to new players.

[Charon Onozuka]

2E no question. Far easier to run in play without worrying about what actions can upgrade/downgrade between different action types or having to look up what action type some less used ability fell under. Most things are now just "an action" which makes everything so much simpler.

[Salamileg]

One small but noticable about 2e's action system that makes combat run very smoothly. I never have to ask someone if their turn is over. It's a small time saver, but it really adds up over time.

[WatersLethe]

2E by far. There's literally no contest.

[Shisumo]

2E hands down. The elimination of swift action logjams alone is worth the price of admission for me, and that's far from the only advantage it has. (I admit most of my frustration with swift actions comes from having played back-to-back warpriest and eldritch scion magus, but if anything will make you hate "only one swift action a turn," it's that...)

[thenobledrake]

2E style.

Continual awareness (by ease of remembrance) of what you can and cannot combine doing on your turn as a player is key.

[HumbleGamer]

Definitely 2e.

Now friends of mine still play stuff like 5e and refuse to even try 2e. On the other hand, I really don't want to go back to a non 3 action system.

[Cellion]

2E for sure.

I'll be honest though, Starfinder uses the Standard-Move-Swift action set and its far easier for people to learn than Pathfinder 1E, even if they've had no experience with D&D3.5E based systems. Pathfinder 1E's action economy is rife with exceptions and special rules that make teaching it to new players a total nightmare. Some examples in the spoiler:

PF1E Action Economy troubles:

5-ft steps and how they work are a nightmare to teach and understand. What actions can or can't be used if you 5-ft step, when you can use one, how it interacts with difficult terrain, etc. Also 5-ft steps are "not an action" according to the CRB :/

"Move" actions and "Using a move action to move" are distinct. This is really unintuitive to learn.

The "attack action" and "making an attack" are distinct. See also arguments about vital striking on a charge.

Special rules for charging, including making short charges as a standard action in some circumstances.

Swift actions in the middle of other actions.

Which actions provoke attacks of opportunity.

The Run action for some reason always proves confusing.

Splitting full-round actions across two turns with two standard actions.

Which combat maneuvers replace an attack vs. which are only a standard action.

Probably more I forgot...

[Gorbacz]

Also, PF2 action system kills the "attack action//standard action that is an attack//an attack taken as part of a standard action that is an attack//attack//standard action used as an attack//attack that isn't an attack but it counts as a standard action that is an attack//an attack roll" madness that plagued PF1.

[Squiggit]

PF1 had full attacks, which is one of the worst combat paradigms I've ever seen in a tabletop.

So PF2 wins pretty easily.

Even beyond that PF2's action economy in general feels a lot more flexible and dynamic in what characters can do, which is great. If there's anything I don't like about PF2's action economy, it's just that I don't think the developers have explored it as aggressively as they could have and I hope they keep looking into more inventive ways to utilize it as the game matures.

[Malk_Content]

Pf2. It is both simpler to understand, teach and play while also offering multiple times more depth. A win win of game design.

[Paradozen]

PF2 gets rid of having four mooks with six natural attacks most of which are going to whiff anyways, makes it easier to show off all of a boss creature's special attacks, and enables relatively normal enemies to cast spells and make attacks in the same turn. This is all from the GM side as that is the majority of my PF2 experience, though player stuff is pretty great too. Overwhelmingly my favorite part of the system change.

[Watery Soup]

I like PF2's system better, but I feel like PF1's problems weren't a problem with the system but an inevitable consequence of 10 years of rules bloat.

I think the cleanliness of PF2's system will degrade eventually. It probably starts off in a better position in terms of slotting for future expansion but right now the delta is as high as it will ever be.

[Claxon]

I felt like my turns were more impactful in PF1. The one thing I like about PF2 is moving and getting to make more than 1 attack.

Outside of that....I have a lot of problems with the game but I don't think I can de-couple the rest of the baggage of the system from the action economy to truly know whether my problems is with the rest of the system or the 3 turn action economy.

[Krysgg]

Claxon wrote:

I felt like my turns were more impactful in PF1. The one thing I like about PF2 is moving and getting to make more than 1 attack.

Outside of that....I have a lot of problems with the game but I don't think I can de-couple the rest of the baggage of the system from the action economy to truly know whether my problems is with the rest of the system or the 3 turn action economy.

Part of your turns feeling more impactful in pf1 probably stems from the fact that they were. Most second edition fights last 4-5 rounds, most first edition fights last 2-3. And an individual round in pf1 generally lasted much longer, as more happened.

I'm actually a big fan of more shorter rounds, but its absolutely true that in a given round (and the turns that make up that round) more happened in pf1.

[OrochiFuror]

I think once casters get more one action options, spells or even spell like abilities, then most people are likely to choose 2e.

[Decimus Drake]

2e all the way. It's easy to grasp and encourages players to use better teamwork and tactics.

[MaxAstro]

2e by a country mile. It so much faster in play, especially for people who are less experienced.

If I never have to explain to someone again that they can't take a swift action because they used an immediate action last round, I'll be happy.

[1bent1]

2E- The simplicity and elegance far out strips 1E for ease of use and teaching new players.

[Arklore]

2E hands down. Its also way easier to teach kids and new adults to RPGs.

Faster play and you don't spend 3 hours in a slug fest Boss or near Boss encounter. Its also interactive, so you don't take your turn and then snooze off for 20 minutes.

[Zaister]

2E by far. I'm still happily dancing on the grave of the 5-ft.-step. Because players will never remember whether you can or can't take one, no matter how often you explain the rule to them. That alone is worth the new system.

[gnoams]

It's funny to me because one of my early intros to gaming was the Mutant Chronicles miniature game, (I think it came out in the 90s sometime) in which most characters had 3 actions per turn. Some powerful heroes or monsters would get more actions, and some slow things might even get less. I thought it was such a better system than the Games Workshop version with move, shoot, assault phases, but that was an unpopular opinion at the time.

Fast forward 20-30 years and pathfinder 2 comes out with this "new" system and everyone loves it and talks about how its so much better than that old move, attack, swift actions...

Everything old is new again.

The only thing I don't like about how pathfinder implemented it is that they don't take advantage of the system to give monsters different amounts of actions. It seems to me a no brainer way of fixing the single enemy problem.

[Claxon]

gnoams wrote:

The only thing I don't like about how pathfinder implemented it is that they don't take advantage of the system to give monsters different amounts of actions. It seems to me a no brainer way of fixing the single enemy problem.

I think that's easy to start house ruling though:

Quote:

Villain Template

+1/2 CR
This creature is an important villain within the story! It get's two turns each round. Roll initiative twice for this creature and it acts on those turns, except that a player character must act before the Villain can have its second turn. So if the villain would act twice before the PCs, instead move it's second turn directly after the first PC.

[PossibleCabbage]

2e's is a lot better. Just the thing about "a full round action eats only 2/3 of your potential actions" is really hard to get newcomers to grok in PF1.

[Puna'chong]

2e. I spent hours converting everything in 1e to the Unchained Revised Action Economy. My players loved it, I loved it, and I love that 2e is a polished version of that.

2e's modularity is a huge design boon on every level, and makes describing how the game works more like a board game and less like describing a chapter of statutes.

[Henro]

In 2E, player turns go by twice as fast, and involve more choices. It’s such an improvement.

[KrispyXIV]

gnoams wrote:

The only thing I don't like about how pathfinder implemented it is that they don't take advantage of the system to give monsters different amounts of actions. It seems to me a no brainer way of fixing the single enemy problem.

They actually kindof do. Many more 'boss' type or scary type enemies will have actions that multiply the creatures investment. For example -

Draconic Frenzy (Two Actions) The dragon makes two claw Strikes and one wing Strike in any order.

You could also probably apply the quickened condition for a good intermediate boost to 'boss' type enemies - that'd probably distinguish them to a smaller degree than fullblown Elite, or similar.

[MaxAstro]

Yeah, lots of creatures cheat at actions without actually needing the complexity of a different number of actions. The gogiteth, for example, can potentially get nine "actions" in a round - four Strikes, a grab, three Strides and a Step.

[Shandyan]

And some go in the opposite direction - all zombies are Slowed 1 permanently.

[Gorbacz]

Yeah, you can tailor the monsters to go beyond the 3 action default just like you can have an entire class that's built around toying with the action economy (Monk).

[SuperBidi]

Temperans wrote:

Maybe something like 1 standard action and 2 secondary actions that are overall weaker?

If you look closely at the system, it's already the case. There are first actions, second actions and third actions. You can use 3 third actions per round (Stride, Draw a weapon, Demoralize) but you can only use 1 first action per round (Strike with no MAP for a martial, cast a 2+ action spell for a caster, Flourish ability). Part of the system mastery is to always use a first action and a second action every turn.

[HumbleGamer]

gnoams wrote:

The only thing I don't like about how pathfinder implemented it is that they don't take advantage of the system to give monsters different amounts of actions. It seems to me a no brainer way of fixing the single enemy problem.

I guess you mean some "special attacks" instead of basic strikes, am I right?

Because I see that every monster has 2/3 attacks + some extra perk ( or active ability ).

Obviously, you'll have to carefully manage your abilities:

A dragon will have to make a perma use of his jaw as main attack ( as first action ) in order to let draconic momentum trigger. If so, he will be able to dragon's breath again.

He won't be using draconic frenzy as first attack, as he won't remain and fight till his death because reasons.

It's the master the mind behind them, but we have to consider how monsters will deal ( the best not to die, as anybody else, unless braindead creatures ) while moving them.

[gnoams]

I don't think it's something that would be easy to implement after the fact. The game was designed for 3 and only 3 actions. They tweaked that by making abilities that are effectively multiple actions combined into one. Giving creatures additional actions on top of that would be difficult to balance.

I just think it would have made more sense, and have been simpler, to have designed the system from the get go as most things have 3 actions but some have more or less. Have actions just be another stat. If that had been part of the base design, then they could have played with it, and balanced abilities around that.

[Malk_Content]

I think the bespoke abilities giving action economy enhancers is better for that though.

Like many limbed monster in PF2 can make more attacks due to its special abilities. Fantastic! If you just gave it more action points then yeah it can make more attacks, but it can also run faster, cast more, demoralised or seek more.

Tailored activities let's your monster do thinks that fit with its description without giving it a bunch of unrelated benefits.

[Deriven Firelion]

I much prefer PF2. The three action system makes DMing much easier and character actions seem much more natural.

[Temperans]

SuperBidi wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Maybe something like 1 standard action and 2 secondary actions that are overall weaker?

If you look closely at the system, it's already the case. There are first actions, second actions and third actions. You can use 3 third actions per round (Stride, Draw a weapon, Demoralize) but you can only use 1 first action per round (Strike with no MAP for a martial, cast a 2+ action spell for a caster, Flourish ability). Part of the system mastery is to always use a first action and a second action every turn.

Yes the game kind of has it, but given how the game is made you get things like "casters only get 2 effective actions a turn".

I think a better system would allow casters and martial to use the "standard" action as their main ability. While the 2 "secondary/minor" actions can be used for movement, extra attacks (with MAP), bonus things, etc.

AKA, having the ability to design/use abilities that can be bigger/stronger than a single action, but that dont take multiple actions.

[breithauptclan]

Watery Soup wrote:

I like PF2's system better, but I feel like PF1's problems weren't a problem with the system but an inevitable consequence of 10 years of rules bloat.

I'll second this.

I haven't played PF1, so I am comparing my experience with PF2 action economy to that of Starfinder. And I don't find the 3-action economy all that much of an improvement.

It is better, don't get me wrong on that.

But it isn't all that much better than a good clean simple Full//Standard/Move/Swift action economy like Starfinder has.

[Temperans]

I agree that bloat and weird language brings down the action system in PF1. When compared to the latest version of 3 action economy in a new system, with clearer language.

Aka it might be a problem of PF1 being backwards compatible with 3.5 therefore inheriting some of the language problems that got missed.