| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules bloat doesn't really have anything to do with it. If anything, the opposite is more true and late PF1 did a lot to try to patch some of the fundamental holes in the system that were present right from the CRB.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full attacks are one of the biggest issues with PF1's action system, and that's been there since day 1.
I really don't think rules bloat has had that big of an impact. Just look at the action list in the CRB!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I prefer about 5e's action economy is that you can split up your move. I may house rule it in fact. Otherwise, the hierarchy of actions is something I'm happy to see the back of.
I'll add to the chorus here and say the 2e action system wins hands down.
I'd been playing PF1 since the beta playtest over a decade ago and 3.x since it came out so I was very familiar with the different action types and the way the system was set up, however explaining different action types to new players was always awful. Now the only thing that has required a bit of explaining is that any movement is one action, whether it is 5 ft or 25 ft.
Well, in PF1 can you 5-foot step after casting teleport? Why or why not?
That is, a 5-foot step can't be combined with movement, but what if you only moved because of a spell or spell like ability that caused you to be in another place? What if it was forced movement, triggered say by an AoO you provoked from something other than movement?
The only thing I prefer about 5e's action economy is that you can split up your move.
This is one thing I find kind of awkward. If you need to move a short distance and there are obstacles in the way you need to interact with it can end up taking much longer than it feels like it should and being able to move faster doesn't end up actually making it take less time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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".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.
Maybe something like 1 standard action and 2 secondary actions that are overall weaker?
Sorry to be a bit blunt, but for me this is bs.
- When playing a martial, you rarely make 3 distinctive actions. In terms of game rules, you Stride then Strike. But in the player's mind, you attack this monster using a composite action of Stride + Strike. You will rarely see players striding and then thinking what they are supposed to do now.- In terms of choices, casters win hands down. Each spell has a very distinctive impact on the fight when most martials will use similar combinations of actions every round. The first attack is not exactly a "choice".
- In terms of time spent playing your round (which is an important feel in my opinion) casters and martials are similar. Spells take longer to resolve than attacks especially when they are multi target ones.
For me, casters and martials are extremely balanced when it comes to how their round plays. I even think casters are the one playing the longer rounds with the bigger choice (once you get out of low levels when elect... cantrips are your bread and butter).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teleport isn't movement so I do think you can move.
But the motion due to an effect does make sense as causing confusion. I will make sure to explain how that works in my campaign to my players.
Make sure you explain also how 5-ft. step works with involuntary movement while at it (say, you attack a creature and his an ability to push you 10 ft. away after your attack, can you 5-ft. step now?).
And if you think teleport isn't movement, start a thread in the PF1 General on this, just make sure to bring an asbestos suit and some popcorn :)
On the awkwardness of movement actions, the gmg does advice to ease up on it a bit. While things like opening doors or moving crates should impede your movement, things like moving 5ft to a long table, jumping onto it and then moving another 15ft should be onlyn2 actions not 3.
2 actions?
You can jump as part of movement, so unless you we're deliberately taking a 5ft step to avoid provoking, that should be a single movement (assuming your move speed is sufficient).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the awkwardness of movement actions, the gmg does advice to ease up on it a bit. While things like opening doors or moving crates should impede your movement, things like moving 5ft to a long table, jumping onto it and then moving another 15ft should be onlyn2 actions not 3.
I mean, as a GM, I'd just call getting up on a table difficult terrain, not a jump action, so this might even be one action if your movement is high enough.
I really don't think rules bloat has had that big of an impact. Just look at the action list in the CRB!
Rules bloat is perhaps not the best term.
There are a lot of class options and feats that allow a character to do something as a shorter action. These have added up over time. Someone will do something as a free action (which used to be a swift), then something else as a swift action (that used to be a move), then something else as a move action (that used to be a standard), etc. Add to that interrupting actions (adding an immediate action to do something on someone else's turn) and it gets complex (AoO on AoOs!).
I'm not saying these options are bad - I'm saying they're inevitable. Eventually, everyone in PF2 will also be doing 5+ things per round, too - with multiple actions crammed into a single formal Action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For starters, undifferentiated actions are easier to teach and explain than PF1's sixty-five types or actions are.
And given that Pathfinder is at the point where you really need new people to compensate for all those who have drifted to 5e and to try win some of 5e players, going with the assumption that everyone is a 3.5e veteran and you can just tell them "actions are the same like they were in 3.5e" won't cut it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's system by a mile, no question about it.
All of the different categories of actions, and using one category of action to perform something from another category, is just a pain in the neck. Sure, with experience, it's not too difficult. But it's just...
Once you've used PF2's system, why would you EVER go back? IMO of course.
The arguments about the nightmare that is explaining PF1 actions to a new player are the strongest ones. It was so... so nice to explain actions in PF2 after doing it in PF1.
"Ok, a move action is used to move, but a standard action is basically anything, only if you move, you can only use a standard action to attack once, or get something from your pack, or cast a spell, but if you don't move you can do all the same things as your standard action except if you attack you can call it a full action and attack twice, but no, not if you only have one weapon, that only works when you're higher level, but remember also that you can attack with two separate weapons as a full attack but no you can't cast 2 spells as a full action. Ok, now a 5 foot step is a move action, but if it's all you do to move it doesn't count as a move action so you can do a full action and...."
I mean it goes on like this forever, and I only touched on move, standard and full and touched on free.
Then there's pathfinder 2's system...
You have 3 actions and a reaction each turn. You may have free actions that become available if the right trigger is met. You can do any combination of things so long as you don't exceed 3 actions and a reaction. Striding is an action, Striking is an action, and you may have some two or three action activities from your class. You may have a few actions available to you from your skills as well. Here's what the icons look like. Ok! Are we all ready to play now? I can teach you everything else you need to know as we go along. So, you're standing in the forest and you can see a thick mat of moss hanging over a cave entrance up ahead. An acid-melted statue with crude graffiti stands next to the cave. Mayor Kendra Deverin has hired you to explore this cave and find the dreaded beast Blackfang before it hunts and kills anybody from town..."
I mean, consider the reason for the 5' step- to let people move around in combat a little without losing the ability to attack multiple times. Now consider how that was accomplished in PF2 without creating an ambiguous action which is sometimes free but also sometimes completely inaccessible.
Yeah, explaining 1Es action system is a nightmare, explaining how it works in 2E is a breeze. I don't doubt 2E will become more complicated over the years, but 1Es action system was messy right out of the box - I had new players scratching their heads just trying to understand what was in the CRB.
Always safe to assume the bag is utilizing hyperbole. You'll get used to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I often ask myself "can the manoeuvre the player is attempted be represented with some variation of difficult terrain?". If yes, that is usually what I go for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three action system by a country mile.
It's interesting... because everything is interchangeable, you have more options to think about because everything can be exchanged for anything else. Some examples: in PF2, you can weigh making a 3rd strike or raise your shield versus moving away from the enemy. In PF1, once you made a 2nd attack you were locked in to a full-attack. In PF2, you have 3 versions of Heal. Do you want to use 3 actions to heal everyone, including your enemies? 2 actions to give some focused healing on 1 ally, which frees you up to use your 3rd action for something else? Or 1 action to heal the ally next to you, plus a 2-action attacking spell?
It's almost the opposite of what PF2 did to feats. By making feats NOT interchangeable with each other (skill feats cannot be given up for class feats, etc.), you are freed up to compare like/similar things within each category. Your fighter can still be a good combat character while also branching out into skill feats.
There is just great design all around that give you more options and interesting choices in both combat and character creation.
|
|
Right off the bat no feats needed, PF2 system allows you to attack-move-move and keep out of the reach of a melee attack by an enemy that is slower than you. They can spend all their 3 actions to get in your face, but by default, they can't attack you.
That was impossible in PF1, where you could move your 30 ft away from the opponent and shoot, but they, in turn, could just charge you and close the distance even if their speed was as slow as 15 feet.
|
Right off the bat no feats needed, PF2 system allows you to attack-move-move and keep out of the reach of a melee attack by an enemy that is slower than you. They can spend all their 3 actions to get in your face, but by default, they can't attack you.
That was impossible in PF1, where you could move your 30 ft away from the opponent and shoot, but they, in turn, could just charge you and close the distance even if their speed was as slow as 15 feet.
I like the strategy aspect for a PC to use this tactic and have more variety in movement options but charge no longer being available to all melee characters (or a feat tax for some) is a thing i miss from PF1.
GMs often have to pull their punches with their highly mobile monsters with ranged/spell attacks just so the melee PCs will have some fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right off the bat no feats needed, PF2 system allows you to attack-move-move and keep out of the reach of a melee attack by an enemy that is slower than you. They can spend all their 3 actions to get in your face, but by default, they can't attack you.
That was impossible in PF1, where you could move your 30 ft away from the opponent and shoot, but they, in turn, could just charge you and close the distance even if their speed was as slow as 15 feet.
I like the strategy aspect for a PC to use this tactic and have more variety in movement options but charge no longer being available to all melee characters (or a feat tax for some) is a thing i miss from PF1.
GMs often have to pull their punches with their highly mobile monsters with ranged/spell attacks just so the melee PCs will have some fun.
I haven't noticed this. The primary offensive melee characters - Fighter, Barbarian, Monk - all either have Sudden Charge or are Monk. Ranger and Rogue both have feats that give them movement options to help them keep pace with their enemies. Champions want to stay near their allies instead of their enemies in any case, and the casters obviously are casters and typically have other things to do or spells that can help with the problem.
Don't forget that moving away from an enemy in PF1 often triggered an AoO.
And denying the enemy a Full Attack by doing so also meant denying yourself a Full Attack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a pretty big difference though - full attacks in 1E were highly desirable and part of optimal strategy. For many, many 2E characters, attacking 3 times in a turn is actively a bad strategy. In this way,2E incentivizes movement where 1E punished it.
How AoOs are integrated into the system doesn't really have anything to do with the action system though.
There's a pretty big difference though - full attacks in 1E were highly desirable and part of optimal strategy. For many, many 2E characters, attacking 3 times in a turn is actively a bad strategy. In this way,2E incentivizes movement where 1E punished it.
How AoOs are integrated into the system doesn't really have anything to do with the action system though.
Its a couple of things that changed, AoO being just one of them. Attacking 3 times in a turn still is the desired course of action IF you have at least a moderate chance of connecting your 2nd and 3rd attack and enough damage potential to kill or outdamage your opponent. The thing is that apart from fighting brutally outclassed enemies PF2s new math model makes the later two rather improbable. For example, some early bosses can easily do a 4+/9+/14+ routine.
I like the 2nd edition action economy (and lack of universal attacks of opportunity) so much that it frustrates me when it's absent from similar games.
pathfinder 2e>1E
i do think that shadowrun 4e and 5e have the best. i tend to prefer simulations vs abstraction.
Its a couple of things that changed, AoO being just one of them. Attacking 3 times in a turn still is the desired course of action IF you have at least a moderate chance of connecting your 2nd and 3rd attack and enough damage potential to kill or outdamage your opponent. The thing is that apart from fighting brutally outclassed enemies PF2s new math model makes the later two rather improbable. For example, some early bosses can easily do a 4+/9+/14+ routine.There's a pretty big difference though - full attacks in 1E were highly desirable and part of optimal strategy. For many, many 2E characters, attacking 3 times in a turn is actively a bad strategy. In this way,2E incentivizes movement where 1E punished it.
How AoOs are integrated into the system doesn't really have anything to do with the action system though.
unless you are fighting cannon fodder, you can almost always find a better option than a third attack
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that the only times a 3rd attack is a good idea is when either;
-Your character is specifically built for it like a flurry ranger
-The enemies you fight are so weak it really doesn’t matter what you do.
Even when fighting enemies that only present a minor threat, using a different 3rd action will generally result in a faster/less resource-intensive fight.
I find that the only times a 3rd attack is a good idea is when either;
-Your character is specifically built for it like a flurry ranger
-The enemies you fight are so weak it really doesn’t matter what you do.Even when fighting enemies that only present a minor threat, using a different 3rd action will generally result in a faster/less resource-intensive fight.
While you're mathematically right, I've rolled enough 3rd attack nat 20's at this point to make me consider it.
I'm gonna have to echo the majority and say the 2e action system is my preference. Having taught the same group of people 1st edition Pathfinder and 2nd edition pathfinder it was a lot easier to teach 2e.
While you're mathematically right, I've rolled enough 3rd attack nat 20's at this point to make me consider it.
There ate going to be (desperate) situations where you need a miracle to win the fight. In those times, crit-fishing with your 3rd action may be a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2E's 3-action system speeds up play dramatically and is in nearly every way the better system.
About the only thing I miss is being able to change weapon grips or drop prone as a free action.
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.
My GM will hold the game up for 5 minutes if thats how long it takes you to say "My turn is over" or some equivalent. *sigh*
2E by far. There's literally no contest.
+1
2e makes a lot more sense with the 3 actions per round you can use for anything, whereas in 1e there's no explanation for why you can't use your move action to take another standard action if they take the same amount of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's been big for me as a GM as well. The fact that I can be almost 100% sure when a PCs turn is over is very nice and keeps the game running all butter smooth.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.