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.

 

[Szatany]

I think you get to use your shield without spending an action for its base effect, but can opt to use your shield better if you spend an action. Actually I really like that idea.

 

[BigbyBear]

I dropped Mathfinder like a hot potato to pick up 5e a few years back. I poked at Starfinder but it was still way too Accounting-degree heavy for my taste. I was hoping PF2e would step back a bit in that regard, but it seems unlikely now.

This is similar to where I was (With a bit less derision and name calling) But I'm actually looking forward to PF2e. It looks like they did cut down on some of the real heavy points (CMB, CMD) but we'll have to see if they end up with something as simple as advantage/disadvantage or if it's still +1 for this -1 for that, repeat 10 times before attacking, before every roll. If it's the latter, I'm still not interested.

But I do like some of the things I'm seeing. So I'll definitely be keeping an eye out and try a playtest if I can. The three action system seems interesting, but also promotes not moving. So I think I'd prefer two actions and a move or similar.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Advantage disadvantage is a great thing

 

[Aldarc]

Not sure I like the apparent action cost to use a shield each round. What happens to it if you choose not to 'raise shield' this round? Does it hang limply at your side? Fall off your arm? Go to some magic extra dimensional pocket until you raise it again?

Still early in the play test process so I expect a lot of changes as folks get to play and report.

I kinda like this idea in PF 2E, as it kinda makes shield use sound less like passive AC. You are taking action to defend yourself with your shield. I think if you choose not to use the shield action that you are disregarding the defensive function of the shield and leaving yourself open. IMHO, that makes sense.

 

[dave2008]

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 is my one hang up. Conceptually, i like the idea of being able to trade movement for an action and vice versa. However, when I implemented a system like this in 4e, my players really stopped moving as much. They just wanted to get their attacks.

I wonder if tying the ability to move and attack to a feat might hit the right balance. So the base is three actions to move, attack, or whatever. Then a feat would allow you to move some and attack (or another action) as a single action, something like:

Charger: You can spend one action to move 10 feet and draw a weapon or make an attack with a weapon you are already wielding.

I think I'm getting closer.

 

[Szatany]

This is my one hang up. Conceptually, i like the idea of being able to trade movement for an action and vice versa. However, when I implemented a system like this in 4e, my players really stopped moving as much. They just wanted to get their attacks.

The solution could be as simple as having the move action give benefits to attack and/or defense.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is my one hang up. Conceptually, i like the idea of being able to trade movement for an action and vice versa. However, when I implemented a system like this in 4e, my players really stopped moving as much. They just wanted to get their attacks.

Wasn’t that just a standard 4e rule? You could trade a standard for a move and a move for a minor, so your options were
Standard, move, minor
Move, move, minor
Move, minor, minor
Minor, minor, minor.

This seems to me to be effectively similar to what PF2 is doing, if you assume that an attack at -5 is equivalent to a 4e move action, an attack at -10 is equivalent to a 4e minor action, and any non-attack action is equivalent to a 4e minor action. Under this assumption, PF2 spells cost a number of minor actions to cast equal to the number of different component types they require, with more powerful spells costing more components (and therefore more of your action economy)

I wonder if tying the ability to move and attack to a feat might hit the right balance. So the base is three actions to move, attack, or whatever. Then a feat would allow you to move some and attack (or another action) as a single action, something like:

Charger: You can spend one action to move 10 feet and draw a weapon or make an attack with a weapon you are already wielding.

I think I'm getting closer.

Something very similar to what you are describing here shows up in the podcast. The Fighter has a Class Feat (called Charger), which allows him to move up to twice his speed and make one attack for two actions.

I predict there will be a lot of Class Feats like this, that allow characters to do more than would otherwise be possible in this action economy.

 

[Charlaquin]

I should note, I definitely do see the potential others are noticing for this action economy to lead to fairly static fights, with characters mostly standing still and using all of their actions to attack and/or cast spells. Personally, I don’t see that as a huge problem. That will make it easier to keep track of fights in theater of the mind combat, and I imagine there will be options like Charger that will allow characters that want to be mobile to be mobile. And to me, that is worth the tradeoff for the versatility this economy allows for. But I can see why it would be concerning to others.

 

[dave2008]

I should note, I definitely do see the potential others are noticing for this action economy to lead to fairly static fights, with characters mostly standing still and using all of their actions to attack and/or cast spells. Personally, I don’t see that as a huge problem. That will make it easier to keep track of fights in theater of the mind combat, and I imagine there will be options like Charger that will allow characters that want to be mobile to be mobile. And to me, that is worth the tradeoff for the versatility this economy allows for. But I can see why it would be concerning to others.

I think that is basically where I am landing. I like the idea of feats giving access to more abilities, but only really if it is just a few feats like 5e and not the 2000+ feats of PF.

 

[dave2008]

The solution could be as simple as having the move action give benefits to attack and/or defense.

Yes, that is basically what I described.