From 7 Action Types To Pathfinder 2's New 3 Action Economy

Charlaquin said:

I don't know how harsh spending "an entire action" on something really is when you get three of them, though. In 5e, you can move up to your speed, draw a weapon, and attack in one turn. In PF2, you'll be able to do the same. Or, if you already have your weapon drawn, you can move and attack twice, with the second attack being at -5.

I will also be surprised if there isn't a Quickdraw Feat that allows you to draw a weapon without spending an action.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. I am not comparing the 3 action PF2 system to 5E, or anything else. I am saying that having to use an action (IE lose an attack) to draw a weapon is harsh. drawing a sword is not equal, in time taken or effort expended or mechanical result given, to making an attack. It's simple, sure, but I like PF idea that you can draw your sword as part of your move (or in PF2's case maybe as part of a move or an attack). If someone with a sword drawn can move 30' and then attack twice, it makes no sense to me that a person with a sword in a sheath couldn't move 30' and then attack twice in the same time. Drawing a sword takes less time than taking an arrow from a case (quivers are only if you are not moving cos arrows fall out) and nocking it - not that it matters if it's about game balance. Still I haven't seem the full action economy yet, so I wait.

mach1.9pants said:

You misunderstand me. I am not comparing the 3 action PF2 system to 5E, or anything else. I am saying that having to use an action (IE lose an attack) to draw a weapon is harsh. drawing a sword is not equal, in time taken or effort expended or mechanical result given, to making an attack. It's simple, sure, but I like PF idea that you can draw your sword as part of your move (or in PF2's case maybe as part of a move or an attack). If someone with a sword drawn can move 30' and then attack twice, it makes no sense to me that a person with a sword in a sheath couldn't move 30' and then attack twice in the same time. Drawing a sword takes less time than taking an arrow from a case (quivers are only if you are not moving cos arrows fall out) and nocking it - not that it matters if it's about game balance. Still I haven't seem the full action economy yet, so I wait.

Click to expand...

Ok, so it’s more of a verisimilitude thing for you? If so, that’s fair. I don’t think there’s much I can discuss further there, except to say that I understand your concern but don’t share it personally.

RE: giving up one attack in order to draw your weapon... I don’t think it’s such a serious tradeoff when the attack you’re sacrificing would have a -5 or even -10 penalty to hit. If it helps keep it more versimilar, you could think of that -5 attack as being penalized because it’s faster and weaker than the first, so it takes less time - about as long as it takes to draw a weapon. And it’s only once at the beginning of the combat, if you didn’t already have your weapon drawn and you don’t have the quickdraw Feat (or it doesn’t exist).

Rather than thinking of it in terms of having three potential attacks that you have to give up to do anything else, I think it’s more helpful to think of it in terms of: you have one move, and either one spell or one attack and one “minor action”, which can be used to make a second, heavily penalized attack, or a weaker-than-average spell. In either case, you can give up your move to get another “minor action”. You can also give up your attack or spell for another “minor action” if for instance you have two of those weaker spells you really want to cast and still move, or you want to cast three weaker spells. There are also some extra-powerful spells that require your full turn to cast.

Fair points, can't wait to see the full rules cos this is a lot of guessing!

werecorpse said:

I worry that it will be an element that encourages system mastery to min max leading to numerous action combinations being traps etc

Click to expand...

So no different than any other part of D&D?

Iterative attacks at -0, -5, and -10, is something i was glad to see dropped after 3.5 in DnD and was a one of a myriad of legacy issues that kept me from getting into the original Pathfinder. Not only is calculating 3 different bonuses on the fly after buffs/debuffs needlessly clunky but we're also back to the same old pre-SWSE issue of melee characters wanting to stand still and slug it out instead of being mobile.

I do like the flexibility, I've wanted to do something like this with 5e (we did it in 4e). One issue we had when we did this in 4e was that there is a lot less movement. People just choose to attack, but we didn't have the big penalty on the 2nd & 3rd attack. So maybe that helps.

Also, how does this affect spell slots. If a spell can be cast with multiple actions (1,2, or 3 actions), does it cost more spell slots to cast it with more actions? Or is the only additional cost for more power the additional actions?

Curious how they handle range attacks.

What about making martial attacks like spells:

If you use one action to attack it is at -10 to hit (or weapon damage)

If you use two actions to attack it is at -5 to hit (or 2x weapon damage ?)

If you use three actions to attack it is no penalty (or 3x weapon damage ?)

I think something along these lines could be more interesting and fits my idea of "fantasy reality" a little better. If your only spending the same amount of effort to make an attack that you are to draw your weapon then maybe there should be a penalty (in to hit or damage or both), but if your really working to make a good attack (3 actions) then you should be rewarded (no penalty, or a bonus to hit or damage or both).

I dropped Mathfinder like a hot potato to pick up 5e a few years back. I poked at Starfinder but it was still way too Accounting-degree heavy for my taste. I was hoping PF2e would step back a bit in that regard, but it seems unlikely now.

To each their own. All games don't have to be all things to all people.

Arilyn said:

You have three actions but attacking a second time is at minus 5.At higher levels maybe fighters can reduce that penalty?
Not using the OGL and creating a whole new system would be an odd choice. Making a new edition is often a risk for game companies. Totally throwing out your previous system for a brand new one has never worked to my knowledge.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply! The only thing I'm tired of and enjoy with 5e was the bonuses with 3.5 and pathfinder. Get to 10th level and you had +28/+23 to hit number which was herolabs also helped with (plus the 2k+ in feats a couple years ago when our group stopped PF). But again, it sounds like a 5e approach with level based prof. bonus then throw in the type of multiple attacks at first level. So if it's a +2 prof bonus at first level, you decide make 2 attacks...first attack (16 STR) is a +4, second is at. -1 with the second attack. Negative 6 if o did do three. Not a big deal if it doesn't spiral into the +30 like currently in higher levels but it's not my cup of tea anymore for that dynamic while playing in game.

Charlaquin said:

If you want to move and use that 2-action spell? Yeah. Or you could use that 2-action spell and a 1-action spell and not move. How is that different than only being able to move and take one action? The only difference I see is that it gives you the option of sacrificing your movement to do even more spells on one turn. Seems like all upside to me.

Click to expand...

Just in case I was unclear with my statement (because, on rereading it, I have realized there are two equally-valid readings):
Turn 1: Wizard moves to a safe place, then casts the (presumably 2-action) summon spell. Dretch under Wizard's control appears. This dretch has a two-action attack.
Turn 2: Wizard has to move the dretch into position, then has it attack. Does the Wizard get to do anything at all himself, this turn, or is he literally just a Ming vase waiting to be smashed?

Because I agree that, if the Wizard spends two actions to summon the dretch, she should only have one action left over. I'm asking about whether or not the Wizard can act in any way, if the dretch requires two actions to use *its* attack, and one action to move into position.

That will depend on how they handle animal companions. 5e is extremely gunshy about letting Player-controlled NPCs have their own independent actions (especially early in 5e's run, they've lightened up on it a bit since then). I kind of doubt PF2 will be quite so conservative with NPC actions, but we'll have to wait and see. I'd bet that the ranger's animal companion will have 3 actions of its own that it takes on its own turn.

Click to expand...

Which, again, is a problem if the goal is simplicity and speed. This will mean animal companions (and summons, presuming you think they work the same way) will probably be severely slowdown-inducing.

That's definitely something worth being concerned about, given Pathfinder's track record. We'll have to keep an eye out for such exploits when the playtest releases and give feedback about such things if they pop up.

Click to expand...

My fear is that only nigh-on player revolt will get them to actually change anything. Essentially, a rehash of the Gunslinger debacle, except there's a huge incentive toward preserving exploits parallel to the current edition of Pathfinder.