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

[The Old Crow]

Requiring an action to draw an arrow could keep ranged combat in check. With an arrow already knocked an archer could get two shots the first round. Drawing a sword is an action, so it doesn't make sense that drawing or retrieving anything else would not be.

 

[5ekyu]

Given action›move›flourish,

I wonder if 5e should have defined two-weapon attack as action+flourish. That would have left the ‘bonus action’ truly a bonus that only showed up in special circumstances.

I like the concept of flourish. It is a minor action that is done as part of an action (draw sword to attack) or as part of a move (open door to continue moving thru). As I use it, flourish is never an action by itself. So, there really are only an action and a move.

The two-weapon attack makes sense with an attack action with a followup flourish.

Actualky i would have defined TWF as a weapon property... Add the damage (base no bonus) of second wpn if you hit with first. Then build weapons appropriately.

Essentially greatsword would be like 1d12+str and double wpn like at best d8+d4+str. Get rid of the two dice single 2h wpn. Make 2d wpn from TWF. Then balance accordingly.

 

[Wrathamon]

Let's give the players 3 times a many things to debate over on their turn? nope not for me.

I would rather figure out how to get rid of bonus actions and make it Action and Movement only. The current system bogs down.

I also could see people just doing three attacks and missing a lot at first.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nothing wrong with the 5e bonus action, just as long as you ignore the "you don't have it unless you have it" fud...

 

[guachi]

In principle, I like the idea of 3 actions on a turn. There's less remembering what's a free action, item interaction, action, bonus action, etc.

The devil's in the details, of course.

 

[Spookykid]

Pretty sure it wont work, we already see they tacked on a reaction to the 3 actions a turn. Its going to get messy with so many different things you can do. You cant make dropping something or yelling cost an action just like an attack.

 

[mellored]

Pretty sure it wont work, we already see they tacked on a reaction to the 3 actions a turn. Its going to get messy with so many different things you can do. You cant make dropping something or yelling cost an action just like an attack.

Dropping and talking are not actions.

A few things don’t take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon. Conversely, most of the spells in the game take two actions to cast, although some can be cast quickly, such as a heal spell that targets yourself. Many of the classes can teach you specific activities that take two more actions to perform. The fighter, for example, has a feat that you can select called Sudden Charge, which costs two actions but lets you to move twice your speed and attack once, allowing fighters to get right into the fray!

source: https://geekdad.com/2018/03/pathfinder-second-edition-first-impressions/

Otherwise, 3 actions, 1 reaction. With different ways to use you reaction beyond OA's.


It also seems like most class features are now class feats.

That’s why every class gets specific class talents (which include spells for spellcasters) at 1st level and every other level thereafter, increases to skills every other level, and feats at every level!

Which seems a lot like a 5e warlock. You get spells slots that scale every other level, and then pick whatever invocations you like.
Though you need to split it between combat and non-combat feats.

All of which sounds pretty nice IMO. Though, there is a big potential for balance issues.

 

[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...

Actually, the itterative attack penalty actually makes me feel better about encouraging movement.
If the first attack is great, the second attack is ok, and the third attack is weak. Then moving only replaces your weakest attack.


Which is weird because I always thought the iterative attack penalty as pretty stupid. But now i think it's pretty a pretty slick mechanic.
(Though, i think i would change it to a damage penalty. Say... double damage, normal damage, half damage.)

 

[Ovarwa]

Although a double-damage Mighty Blow might work well as a two-action attack, for dealing with DR or the equivalent. Providing melee fighters with a small set of attack actions rather than a single I Attack! can make life interesting too.