Pathfinder 2E I played my first PF2e game this week. Here's why I'm less inclined to play again.

[Velderan]

Paizo definitely saw there were some issues with the action economy, since they addressed it requiring 1 action to put your weapon away and another action to draw your new weapon in the remaster when they just made it a single action to swap weapons.

Aside from that there's definitely some stuff I don't require as GM. It's one action to retrieve an item stowed in your backpack, then (usually) a second action to use the item. The rules actually say it's typically another action to Open or Close the backpack or pouch but I feel like 2 actions to drink a potion is plenty and just include the opening or closing into the 1st action to retrieve the item.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

The rules actually say it's typically another action to Open or Close the backpack or pouch

This rule applies specifically to 'stowed' items, which should only be the <4 bulk of items that you keep in your backpack. Consumables should always be considered 'worn' and can be retrieved with a single action. The only limitation on 'worn' items is that you cannot wear more than 2 Bulk of toolkits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

PF1 fixed one of biggest issues I had with 3.5 by simply using CMB/CMD. The only other major issue I have is when there are stacking bonuses at high levels (which are still there in PF1). So many bonus types....

There's a lot less bonus types in PF2, and a couple of the ones that remain are hard to get on-demand.

 

[Velderan]

This rule applies specifically to 'stowed' items, which should only be the <4 bulk of items that you keep in your backpack. Consumables should always be considered 'worn' and can be retrieved with a single action. The only limitation on 'worn' items is that you cannot wear more than 2 Bulk of toolkits.

That's a good point that there are some differences in how gear is stowed or worn, but the overall concept isn't something I felt was worth implementing in the game so I actually forgot smaller items can be worn. Easy enough to ignore if you're like me and don't care to bother with it.

 

[BryonD]

PF1 fixed one of biggest issues I had with 3.5 by simply using CMB/CMD. The only other major issue I have is when there are stacking bonuses at high levels (which are still there in PF1). So many bonus types....

I think my ideal D&D is somewhere between 3.5/PF1 and D&D 5E 2014 (but certainly NOT what was mostly done with 4E/PF2/D&D 2024).

Yeah, I'm still sold on PF1E for the anything goes fantasy superheroes type game. It is the overall best game out, for me. It is also a game with some issues and I've been playing it for 25 years now (counting back to 3e), so, yeah, something new is nice. And I'm 100% behind the idea that some really good new ideas have come along in those years. At this point I don't expect to see anew game that blends current innovation with the full vibe of 3X. But a nice palate cleanser (such as this interim PF2E game) and I'm good to go for another decade.

(And , yeah, I take CMB for granted now. So good call.)

 

[Incenjucar]

There's probably some room for a "free action" each round for limited actions, but the weapon swap being cumbersome is pretty important for preventing people from basically having two simultaneous loadouts they swap round after round so they can get two handed damage and sheild defense. It also reduces consumable/charged magic item spam and makes ambushes and disarming more meaningful.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's probably some room for a "free action" each round for limited actions, but the weapon swap being cumbersome is pretty important for preventing people from basically having two simultaneous loadouts they swap round after round so they can get two handed damage and sheild defense. It also reduces consumable/charged magic item spam and makes ambushes and disarming more meaningful.

Yeah, the only games where weapon swapping doesn't have some cost is ones where the weapon choice virtually doesn't matter.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Yeah, the only games where weapon swapping doesn't have some cost is ones where the weapon choice virtually doesn't matter.

Not completely convinced here. The difference between a ranged weapon and a melee weapon is almost certainly very important, even in games that have no cost for swapping.

Examples I have run campaigns in:

• Night's Black Agents (GUMSHOE) -- very combat heavy. I wanted to encourage swapping between weapons fluidly (to get a John Wick feel) so I added a house rule that you got an attack bonus when you switched weapons (freely). People were stabbing, shooting, then slamming furniture on opponents. Fun, and in-genre.
• Cal of Cthulhu. I'm not rules-expert on BRP, so maybe I just skipped the rule, but different weapons are HUGE in CoC. Rapiers and Shotguns share little in common.
• Fate. A lot depends on your world here, but I ran a campaign where every weapon had its own set of aspects that could be tagged, sometimes for free. Even in vanilla Fate, though, ranged versus melee is pretty important.

I'd think it's fairer to say that the games where weapon swapping does have some cost are ones where the system allows multiple actions in a player's turn. Most systems don't do that and so swapping weapons is just too fine-grained an action to account for.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not completely convinced here. The difference between a ranged weapon and a melee weapon is almost certainly very important, even in games that have no cost for swapping.

Not routinely. The only cases where they do is when there's either a long distance initial encounter distance, or when one side has an unassailable position (usually flight). Neither of those is the common case in my experience, and without it you can end up having a ranged weapon sit on your back most of the campaign.

(Of course the opposite tends to occur in modern period games where there's rarely a need to pull out a melee weapon if you even have one).

Examples I have run campaigns in:

• Night's Black Agents (GUMSHOE) -- very combat heavy. I wanted to encourage swapping between weapons fluidly (to get a John Wick feel) so I added a house rule that you got an attack bonus when you switched weapons (freely). People were stabbing, shooting, then slamming furniture on opponents. Fun, and in-genre.
• Cal of Cthulhu. I'm not rules-expert on BRP, so maybe I just skipped the rule, but different weapons are HUGE in CoC. Rapiers and Shotguns share little in common.

And you rarely have a situation where a rapier is needed.

• Fate. A lot depends on your world here, but I ran a campaign where every weapon had its own set of aspects that could be tagged, sometimes for free. Even in vanilla Fate, though, ranged versus melee is pretty important.

I'd think it's fairer to say that the games where weapon swapping does have some cost are ones where the system allows multiple actions in a player's turn. Most systems don't do that and so swapping weapons is just too fine-grained an action to account for.

Well, that last part is fair, though I don't actually know too many systems that don't have some kind of multiaction process; its just that with a lot of them its a different-quality-of-action process (the very common standard/move/quick or whatever its called pattern. Sometimes the latter are called "free" actions but they still usually limit the number of them you can take so the distinction between that and a quick action as used by other games is often subtle at best).

 

[Gorgon Zee]

[Nights Black Agents], [Call of Cthulhu]
And you rarely have a situation where a rapier is needed.

I don’t think you can have played these games in longer campaigns. In NBA, you are fighting vampires, and vampires are famously vulnerable to piercing weapons, and very often completely immune to bullets, so switching between pistol and stabby weapon is absolutely a common thing. In CoC guns are pretty random in terms of damage, and do not have damage bonuses applied. Plus they are harder to critical with. If you run the math on a strong character fighting an armored horror like an elder thing, you will realize that a rapier (or any sword, tbh) is a better option.

Well, that last part is fair, though I don't actually know too many systems that don't have some kind of multiaction process;

D&D style games do multiple actions in one round, but outside the d20 world, I think it’s actually uncommon: CoC, Fate, PbtA, BRP, Numenéra, *Borg, whatever the system that Alien, Bladerunner and the other Free League games use, The One Ring, pretty much every Indie game I’ve ever played, Toon, Paranoia, Everway (I’m just running through my library here), Pendragon, Hillfolk, Gumshoe — I think it’s only 13th Age and PF2 in my library that require you to choose multiple actions within a round.

Suddenly blanking on Savage Worlds, despite having run 2 campaigns using it — does it break a player’s combat round into multiple actions? I don’t recall doing so, but maybe I was playing fast and loose with the rules.