mellored
Legend
What about both?
Everyone get's 1 action a turn, but you can store up to 3 actions. Spells, combo's, and fancy manuvers takes multiple actions.
Reactions also take an action.
PF2 rule, 3 actions per turn, anyone experimenting with this in 5e?
Everyone get's 1 action a turn, but you can store up to 3 actions. Spells, combo's, and fancy manuvers takes multiple actions.
Reactions also take an action.
Yaarel
He Mage
AmerginLiath
Adventurer
I think “material components” works when it means the caster needs to have a component to pouch/focus/holy symbol — the spellcaster’s version of a toolkit. Just as somatic requirements are an interesting limit for when you’re grappled or chained or verbal requirements when you’re silenced or muffled, material requirements for spells in that basic fashion mean thinking about spell choice if captured or just simply gone to bed and fearing be woken up by marauders.
The complex “eye of newt, toe fungus of an accountant worth 25 silver” components, on the other hand, get out of hand. I can see where components play a role for certain rituals or for spells of permanent duration (e.g. the diamond for a resurrection), but those costs tend to either be hand-waves or else they serve to point casters away from cool spells simply because the cost of the component is too high or there’s no available side quest for it.
That’s why I like the basic idea of casting time (within a round; casting most spells more than a round again makes them not worth casting) in the old sense of segments — something this action economy gets at. Some spells are going to be “more expensive” to cast than others of the same level, but pricing that out at game level through granular components loses the fun of playing the spell in a round-based game. That’s why I like the thought experiments that come from seeing what other “costs” the action economy provides for these spells.
The complex “eye of newt, toe fungus of an accountant worth 25 silver” components, on the other hand, get out of hand. I can see where components play a role for certain rituals or for spells of permanent duration (e.g. the diamond for a resurrection), but those costs tend to either be hand-waves or else they serve to point casters away from cool spells simply because the cost of the component is too high or there’s no available side quest for it.
That’s why I like the basic idea of casting time (within a round; casting most spells more than a round again makes them not worth casting) in the old sense of segments — something this action economy gets at. Some spells are going to be “more expensive” to cast than others of the same level, but pricing that out at game level through granular components loses the fun of playing the spell in a round-based game. That’s why I like the thought experiments that come from seeing what other “costs” the action economy provides for these spells.
mellored
Legend
Yes.
Or perhaps, like 4e's action points, you can store some of the actions.
i.e.
Each turn you get 1 use-or-lose action, and 1 use-whenever action point (max 3).
Bacon Bits
Hero
Oh don't tell me they're keeping iterative attack penalties. Surely they see how absurd that is in the face of spellcaster power.
CapnZapp
Legend
Agreed. It is more than absurd - it is execrable
Yaarel
He Mage
Most PF2 spells require two actions to cast, thus only one spell per turn. Meanwhile, melee or range attacks can be three per turn.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
That really depends on how powerful each attack is, doesn't it? Iterative attack penalties means that using all 3 actions to attack as often as possible isn't a no-brainer tactic.
Similar Threads
