Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9565534" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You have completely missed the point.Doing this will simply be telling the player, "Never bother doing these things." You have created such a stupidly high opportunity cost that no one will ever do them.YES. THAT WAS THE POINT. You have made healing essentially always a wasted action!....but the opportunity cost of doing that instead of killing the enemies with a fireball or spiritual weapon is precisely what I'm talking about here. A twinned haste would be far more productive in actually ending the fight. That is my point. You had to give up doing something much more powerful in order to...reverse damage that someone else did to your friend. Which means your turn does nothing except turn back the clock. You didn't actually push the fight closer to completion. You just un-did one or more enemy turns.And my whole point here is that you are allowing your unyielding requirement of absolute "realism" (even though it is entirely possible to drink a potion in that kind of time!) to block useful, productive, enjoyable-to-play design space.Yes. I'm aware of your unyielding "realism" requirements, even when those requirements don't actually map to the real world in the first place. Reality is unrealistic. Get used to it.Correct. There are a number of class features and/or spells which now use awkward, cumbersome language in order to dance around the fact that they're allowing one thing-you-can-do to ride alongside another thing-you-can-do. E.g. "If you cast this spell as an Action, you can also take the Attack Action" sort of stuff. I doubt there's any that are explicitly written exactly like that. But I've seen at least a couple examples that work more or less that way.I find a five-step system works perfectly fine: "Full" action (you can only do this and no other things this round), Standard action, Minor action, your movement (what 4e called your "Move action"--one of the few things about 5e that I see as a distinct improvement, since you can move much more tactically if you don't have to use it up all at once), and Free actions.It should be rare--and very worthwhile--for something to eat up EVERYTHING you can do. Most actions should be Standard. Some, like basic healing effects, should be Minor so that the player can both nix an enemy's prior action and do something that actively works to overcome the threat. A very few things (not many, but a few) should be Free actions--it's always risky toAnd you'll note that in practice, every WotC edition has had this overall structure. 5e had Full actions (like Full Attack), Standard actions, Swift actions (=4e's Minor action, 5e's Bonus Action), movement, and Free actions. In a meaningful sense, PF2e continues this tradition, but divides things up differently, by saying that you have three usable actions each turn, but some things require more than one action to use. Spells analogous to a swift action in 3e, a minor action in 4e, or a bonus action in 5e are single-action spells in PF2e.There are many other ways to address this problem--and, more importantly, your preference is far from the only one that should be considered for fundamental subsystems like the action economy. Game design is about a great deal more than obsessive commitment to "realism."</blockquote>

Verification