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]

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.

The purpose isn't to be or feel special. The purpose is to make moving during combat more enticing for players. To perhaps put that action on par with the 2nd or 3rd attack.

 

[CubicsRube]

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.

And if some feats are gated by class and gained every level (as per the impression from what im reading) then this could for the first time really give maetial characters abilities and options that spellcasters do not have.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Not yet, but I’d put money down (not much, a couple bucks maybe) that ammunition based weapons (whether bows, crossbows, slings, blowguns, whatever) will take one action to load and one action to fire, and there will be a Feat that lets you spend two actions firing for a bonus to the attack and/or damage roll. Also that thrown weapons will take an action to draw if they’re not already, and one action to throw, whether they are already drawn or not. The afformentioned Feat won’t apply to thrown weapons, but Quickdraw (which I predict will be a Feat that lets you draw a weapon and attack with it with one action) will apply to thrown weapons and won’t apply to ammunition.

 

[dave2008]

The purpose isn't to be or feel special. The purpose is to make moving during combat more enticing for players. To perhaps put that action on par with the 2nd or 3rd attack.

I understand, that is what i don't want. I want it to be special.

 

[Szatany]

I understand, that is what i don't want. I want it to be special.

You still can have it special (and better) with feats.

 

[dave2008]

And if some feats are gated by class and gained every level (as per the impression from what im reading)

Yes that is what I was thinking.

 

[dave2008]

Not yet, but I’d put money down (not much, a couple bucks maybe) that ammunition based weapons (whether bows, crossbows, slings, blowguns, whatever) will take one action to load and one action to fire, and there will be a Feat that lets you spend two actions firing for a bonus to the attack and/or damage roll. Also that thrown weapons will take an action to draw if they’re not already, and one action to throw, whether they are already drawn or not. The afformentioned Feat won’t apply to thrown weapons, but Quickdraw (which I predict will be a Feat that lets you draw a weapon and attack with it with one action) will apply to thrown weapons and won’t apply to ammunition.

That is my thought as well

 

[dave2008]

You still can have it special (and better) with feats.

Again, i don't want a standard rule for moving providing a bonus for feats. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that idea. It is just not what I want. I want there to be a separation between the commoner and the adventurer. This is one of the areas I would like to see that difference. I know there area other ways to achieve that separation, but think this a good one. Everyone can trade move for attack, but only the martially trained can attack and move with the same "Action" - thus not a genral rule, but a feature or feat instead IMO.

 

[Szatany]

Again, i don't want a standard rule for moving providing a bonus for feats.

What feats? I said nothing about no feats originally.

I want there to be a separation between the commoner and the adventurer.

I'm sure there will be a ton of separation between those two even if you gave commoner some spells or something. But I understand and agree with the sentinement overall.

I know there area other ways to achieve that separation, but think this a good one. Everyone can trade move for attack, but only the martially trained can attack and move with the same "Action" - thus not a genral rule, but a feature or feat instead IMO.

What you are proposing is not in opposition with what I'm proposing. Also, it's quite realistic to imagine a moving target being harder to hit yes?

 

[dave2008]

What feats? I said nothing about no feats originally.

Yep, I don't know what that feat comment was about. I must have changed what I wrote and didn't delete something I guess. IDK

I'm sure there will be a ton of separation between those two even if you gave commoner some spells or something. But I understand and agree with the sentinement overall.

I don't really care what PF2 is, I was just thinking conceptually. The best part of 5e (and I assume PF2) was / is all the new ideas / rethink old ideas it fostered. I just like think about and discussing fantasy RPG design.

What you are proposing is not in opposition with what I'm proposing. Also, it's quite realistic to imagine a moving target being harder to hit yes?

Hmm, maybe not in opposition, but I can't have it both ways. Nor do I think you need to. I just like / want something different than you like / want. No biggie, no right or wrong way - just different