PF2 rule, 3 actions per turn, anyone experimenting with this in 5e?

[mellored]

I'm on the fence about allowing using a move action to do other things. One one hand, it makes sense that you can do more without moving, on the other, it encourages standing still and shooting eachother at range.

Maybe if there where a lot of damage zone effects and such. Or a bonus to AC if you moved.

Hmm... actually yea. That sounds like a good trade-off. Choose between movement and defense, or standing still for offense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Action is an action. Move is an action. Object interaction is an action. And so on. And you get three.

So you can use an action to attack? And an action to attack? And an action to attack? And thus you've made a full attack?

Yeah, OK, that sounds like 3e.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm on the fence about allowing using a move action to do other things. One one hand, it makes sense that you can do more without moving, on the other, it encourages standing still and shooting eachother at range.

Maybe if there where a lot of damage zone effects and such. Or a bonus to AC if you moved.

Hmm... actually yea. That sounds like a good trade-off. Choose between movement and defense, or standing still for offense.

If a few other factors are true I think it makes a pretty balances system.
1. melee does significantly more DPR than ranged
2. there is a big disadvantage for using ranged in melee combat
3. Spells sometimes take multiple actions to cast (giving melee warriros a good chance of closing the distance, 3 move actions is a pretty good distance).

Melee warriors can close range quickly. Ranged characters take a huge hit in damage if they try to kite. spell casters bigger spells will take most if not all of their turn to get off. Meaning they can't kite very well either.

If these things are true I'm not nearly as worried about ranged combat overshadowing melee. I'm sure they've learned the lesson from 5e...

 

[mach1.9pants]

So you can use an action to attack? And an action to attack? And an action to attack? And thus you've made a full attack?

Yeah, OK, that sounds like 3e.

Not at all because you have flexibility move attack move, or move attack attack, or attack move attack etc etc. So not like 3E at all. First level any PC can have 3 attacks, with a 0 -5, -10 or 0 -4 -8 penalty depending on weapon type (a bit like 3E!)

 

[Li Shenron]

It might be interesting to try it out (I haven't) but notice that the core philosophy is additive action economy, which is quite opposite to the direction D&D is taking i.e. simultaneity. I know that a lot of people will disagree with this because they are still applying the 3e/4e additive action economy philosophy to 5e, but 5e was more meant to be "everything happens at the same time": this is why movement can be split anyway you want, and bonus actions are supposed to be interpreted as augmenting your main action rather than truly separate (which is why Mearls has been talking about removing bonus actions for clarity).

 

[CubicsRube]

I love the 3 action idea in pf2. Unfortunately i think itd be a lot of work to put into 5e. It's a pretty fundamental.

 

[Dried]

I think it's possible to experiment with something like: a bonus action costs 1 action and one "classic" action costs 2 actions (and make move, interact etc. an action).

 

[TwoSix]

I think people might be waiting to actually see how it's implemented in PF2 before they start using it in 5e. The idea is easy to grasp, but the devil is going to be in the details here.

 

[mellored]

If a few other factors are true I think it makes a pretty balances system.
1. melee does significantly more DPR than ranged
2. there is a big disadvantage for using ranged in melee combat
3. Spells sometimes take multiple actions to cast (giving melee warriros a good chance of closing the distance, 3 move actions is a pretty good distance).

Melee warriors can close range quickly. Ranged characters take a huge hit in damage if they try to kite. spell casters bigger spells will take most if not all of their turn to get off. Meaning they can't kite very well either.

If these things are true I'm not nearly as worried about ranged combat overshadowing melee. I'm sure they've learned the lesson from 5e...

Then you may end up with the opposite. People just standing in melee swinging at eachother. I mean, why use an action to move away and shoot if you do a lot more in melee?
Also, there's a difference between balanced and intresting. A "free" move encourages people to move and makes things more dynamic.

Maybe.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then you may end up with the opposite. People just standing in melee swinging at eachother. I mean, why use an action to move away and shoot if you do a lot more in melee?
Also, there's a difference between balanced and intresting. A "free" move encourages people to move and makes things more dynamic.

Maybe.

Maybe once melee distance is closed the fight should resort to melee?