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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Do y'all think that additional atacks need the penalty? I think if the character is in a situation whem they can get off all three attacks, theyve earned it!

Look at what happened in the previous edition. You had to stay within 5 feet of your target at all times, or else you lost everything except your one attack. If the fighter had to move, then that was almost as bad as losing their entire turn.

By applying a -10 penalty to that third attack, and having that be the one you give up when you need to move, it means you still get to keep most of your total effectiveness in a round where you have to move. Especially if they fix the attack math, such that the third attack is unlikely to hit.

 

[CubicsRube]

Look at what happened in the previous edition. You had to stay within 5 feet of your target at all times, or else you lost everything except your one attack. If the fighter had to move, then that was almost as bad as losing their entire turn.

By applying a -10 penalty to that third attack, and having that be the one you give up when you need to move, it means you still get to keep most of your total effectiveness in a round where you have to move. Especially if they fix the attack math, such that the third attack is unlikely to hit.

I agree with you on that point. Im just watlry of adding modifiers or complexity without apparent gain. Easy to do, hard to remove

 

[Jhaelen]

Mhm, taken out of context I dislike it. My feeling is that this is incredibly hard to balance properly. That spellcasting is already considered an exception doesn't bode well. They'll have to look really carefully at everything that might affect the action economy: feats, magic items, spell effects, etc. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, to be honest.

 

[rmcoen]

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.

Here's an easy "separation from commoner": Adventurers get 3 actions, commoners get 2. works with "lesser" monsters and foes, too. Maybe kobolds, wolves, and goblins only get 2 actions, but the goblin bodyguard and the shaman get 3, and the chieftain gets 4...

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

If you could explain the gunslinger debacle I would appreciate it, there is a lot of pathfinder history I do not know...

 

[dave2008]

Here's an easy "separation from commoner": Adventurers get 3 actions, commoners get 2. works with "lesser" monsters and foes, too. Maybe kobolds, wolves, and goblins only get 2 actions, but the goblin bodyguard and the shaman get 3, and the chieftain gets 4...

That is an easy method, maybe then I would be willing to implement @Szatany 's movement ideas as a general rule.

 

[Sunseeker]

The only thing I really like about this is that it mirrors other TTRPGs were things either are and Action or they are not. And it gives you some choice between how you want your turn to flow.

 

[Celebrim]

The only real problem with this is that attacks are so valuable, that if they are competing with the rest of the action economy you are guaranteeing that your combat will tend toward static as the characters gain system mastery. Forcing the other side to move will dominate the action economy, and the best strategy is almost certainly going to be to 'turret up'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you could explain the gunslinger debacle I would appreciate it, there is a lot of pathfinder history I do not know...

Long story short: during the playtest for the book it came in (Ultimate Combat, IIRC), there were several posters on the PF forums who did some heavy number crunching and fairly soundly demonstrated that the Gunslinger became more dangerous and unreliable as it gained levels. This hinged mostly on the misfire rules combined with iterative attacks; when you make 3 attacks a round, every round, the odds of eventually getting a misfire rapidly converge to 1. There were other issues, but this was the key one. Some of these posters were...very uncivil about their criticism, but others were perfectly reasonable and even offered suggestions for how things could be changed.

Almost everyone who criticized the class was banned from the forums, and the class released with no changes whatsoever. Naturally, non-fans were not amused, but even some loyal customers took this somewhat poorly. It was a minor point in the grand scheme, but it rather pointedly revealed Paizo's attitude toward playtesting and especially numerical analysis.

 

[Ancalagon]

Long story short: during the playtest for the book it came in (Ultimate Combat, IIRC), there were several posters on the PF forums who did some heavy number crunching and fairly soundly demonstrated that the Gunslinger became more dangerous and unreliable as it gained levels. This hinged mostly on the misfire rules combined with iterative attacks; when you make 3 attacks a round, every round, the odds of eventually getting a misfire rapidly converge to 1. There were other issues, but this was the key one. Some of these posters were...very uncivil about their criticism, but others were perfectly reasonable and even offered suggestions for how things could be changed.

Almost everyone who criticized the class was banned from the forums, and the class released with no changes whatsoever. Naturally, non-fans were not amused, but even some loyal customers took this somewhat poorly. It was a minor point in the grand scheme, but it rather pointedly revealed Paizo's attitude toward playtesting and especially numerical analysis.

Oy... I would hope that they learned from that mistake :O