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

The second attack is at minus five.
The 3 action economy cleans things up but may cause some other problems, like players constantly asking if something is an action or not. Think I'd have to give it a whirl before deciding if it's a worthwhile change.

 

[Szatany]

Yes, that is basically what I described.

You were talking about a feat, I was talking about a general rule.

 

[rmcoen]

Depends on how the feats are defined. spending two actions to get three specific effects (like the Charger mentioned above) is reasonable, and seen in many other games. The RuneQuest/Mythras system gives 2 or 3 Action Points, and defending yourself from an attack is an Action -- so feel free to "berserker" and use both actions on attacks... but if your target doesn't fall, his counterattack will strike you without defense!

No matter how you sell it, players will hear "3 actions" and think "3 attacks" (or spells). Anything you spend an action on is, by default, costing you an Attack. Ranged characters will "excel" because they don't need to move to attack new targets. Unless there are more expensive attacks available like more expensive spells... aim and fire, 2 actions, shoot twice at -2.

 

[dave2008]

Wasn’t that just a standard 4e rule? You could trade a standard for a move and a move for a minor, so your options were
Standard, move, minor
Move, move, minor
Move, minor, minor
Minor, minor, minor.

This seems to me to be effectively similar to what PF2 is doing

Similar yes, but not the same. A standard action was not = to a move or minor action in 4e. You generally took a hit if you traded out of a standard action.

I predict there will be a lot of Class Feats like this, that allow characters to do more than would otherwise be possible in this action economy.

I think you are right and I like the general idea, but the PF paradigm of feat bloat makes me worry about how manageable it is.

 

[dave2008]

You were talking about a feat, I was talking about a general rule.

Got it. I don't like it as a general rule personally.

 

[CubicsRube]

Depends on how the feats are defined. spending two actions to get three specific effects (like the Charger mentioned above) is reasonable, and seen in many other games. The RuneQuest/Mythras system gives 2 or 3 Action Points, and defending yourself from an attack is an Action -- so feel free to "berserker" and use both actions on attacks... but if your target doesn't fall, his counterattack will strike you without defense!

No matter how you sell it, players will hear "3 actions" and think "3 attacks" (or spells). Anything you spend an action on is, by default, costing you an Attack. Ranged characters will "excel" because they don't need to move to attack new targets. Unless there are more expensive attacks available like more expensive spells... aim and fire, 2 actions, shoot twice at -2.

Crissbows will need an action ti reload as i understanf. Not sure if archers will need an action to draw an arrow. Probably.

I actually like this. A bowfighter/crossbow fighter should not be able to fire at the rate a person can swing a sword. Ttheyre not machine guns

 

[dave2008]

Depends on how the feats are defined. spending two actions to get three specific effects (like the Charger mentioned above) is reasonable

Agreed

No matter how you sell it, players will hear "3 actions" and think "3 attacks" (or spells). Anything you spend an action on is, by default, costing you an Attack.

The difference here is the penalty to the 2nd & 3rd attack make doing something else more attractive. Personally I would rather give a bonus to using a 2 action or 3 action attack than a penalty to making additional attacks. Maybe you can only apply your proficiency bonus on a 2 or more action attack and a 3 action attack gets prof. bonus + extra damage or a rider (prone, stun, push, etc)

Ranged characters will "excel" because they don't need to move to attack new targets. Unless there are more expensive attacks available like more expensive spells... aim and fire, 2 actions, shoot twice at -2.

Do we know how many actions are required for ranged attacks? I could see needing an action load and an action to aim/fire

 

[Shasarak]

This brings back the problem from a previous edition's "Full Attack". You got your full number of attacks if you didn't move. Likewise in PF2 the less movement you use, the more attacks you get. This promotes very UN-cinematic battles where everyone just stands toe-to-toe and swings away at each other.

I dont get it, what is UN-cinematic about standing toe to toe with your enemy swinging away at each other?

I always thought that was the stuff of EPIC cinema?

 

[Szatany]

Got it. I don't like it as a general rule personally.

I understand, as D&D didn't have something like this before. But I believe it might make for an elegant solution.

 

[dave2008]

I understand, as D&D didn't have something like this before. But I believe it might make for an elegant solution.

There is a certain elegance to your suggestion that is appealing. However, I like my characters to earn the extras. If everyone can do it, it isn't anything special. I see it as an opportunity to make martial characters special (at least a little) via class features or a feat if you want to invest the training in it.

 

[CubicsRube]

I really like that you can move attack and move in 5e. It seems like this will be very costly in pf2