Just in case I was unclear with my statement (because, on rereading it, I have realized there are two equally-valid readings):
Turn 1: Wizard moves to a safe place, then casts the (presumably 2-action) summon spell. Dretch under Wizard's control appears. This dretch has a two-action attack.
Turn 2: Wizard has to move the dretch into position, then has it attack. Does the Wizard get to do anything at all himself, this turn, or is he literally just a Ming vase waiting to be smashed?
Because I agree that, if the Wizard spends two actions to summon the dretch, she should only have one action left over. I'm asking about whether or not the Wizard can act in any way, if the dretch requires two actions to use *its* attack, and one action to move into position.
Ahh, I see. I think the answer to that question is the same as the answer to the ranger animal companion question: depends how they handle PC-controlled NPCs. I don’t expect Pathfinder to make you spend your own actions to command your summons or pets, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Which, again, is a problem if the goal is simplicity and speed. This will mean animal companions (and summons, presuming you think they work the same way) will probably be severely slowdown-inducing.
Have summons and pets ever not been slowdown inducing? Even in 5e I’ve found them to harm the speed of combat. That’s just part and parcel of controlling multiple characters.
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.
I guess that’s a possibility, but not much we can do about it if it goes down that way.
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!
Game balance wise, I don’t think it’s necessary at all. But iterative attacks being at a cumulative-5 from each other might be one of those Pathfinderisms that they can’t drop without alienating their existing fan base. Changing up the action economy is already a big change, dropping the multiple attacks penalty at the same time might be too big of an ask.
The way the rules are now, it could make disarming and tripping even more usefull as itpl use up ome of their actions in the following round.
Somebody attempted a disarm in the podcast, it counted as an attack and ate the -5 for being his second attack that turn. It is possible that tripping or disarming to make the enemy blow an action standing up or picking up their weapon could become a viable tactic... But you’d probably make them lose more actions in the long run just by reducing their HP to 0 faster. That’s always been the downfall of such tactics, and I doubt this action economy will change that, particularly because it’ll only be 1/3 of their possible attacks the enemy has to blow on it instead of all of them.
I would personally prefer a base set of movement that can be done per turn a la 5e, but maybe they can spend actions to gain extra movement
I agree, movement as a resource was one of the big 5e innovations I really loved. But I do see value in the ability to give up your movement in exchange for an extra action, as well as being able to do the opposite.
This brings back the problem from a previous edition's "Full Attack". You got your full number of attacks if you didn't move. Likewise in PF2 the less movement you use, the more attacks you get. This promotes very UN-cinematic battles where everyone just stands toe-to-toe and swings away at each other.
I think this will only become a real problem at higher levels when all three attacks actually have a reasonable chance of hitting. At early levels, an attack at -5 or worse, -10 is just a waste of an action. Far better to attack, 5-foot step, and move than to attack 3 times if you can’t count on the second or third attack to hit. Especially since you can’t just make them anyway and hope for a crit, since crits on Attack rolls now come from exceeding the target’s AC by 10 instead of from rolling a natural 20 (or whatever your weapon’s critical threat range is).
