Is that a desirable outcome? The point of the 3 action economy is to provide options and encourage movement and other non-attack actions (hence the -10 penalty for that 3rd attack). By forcing people to hold on to an action for that reaction, you slow down combat and make it less dynamic and interesting. or, at least, that seems like it would be the outcome. I have not played PF2E yet, but the one things that gets almost universal praise is the 3 action economy and so I am inclined to think messing with it can't be better than they way it is.
PF2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience
- Thread starter Acolyte of Zothique
- Start date
JFranklin3000
Explorer
Really it is a 3 action and 1 reaction system. Everyone gets a reaction every turn, but since the triggers are specific you may not have it go off. It can also be very interesting, because you only have one reaction per turn. Do I make the attack of Opportunity or do I save it for the Shield Block. It also seems to have the added benefit of keeping the players extra interested when it is not their turn. In case they have a chance to use a reaction.
dave2008
Legend
Well as I noted earlier in the thread I wouldn't modify the 3-action system like that, I would use a 6 action system. See my post #531 if reactions are included, but a different value you could include them in the system adding some interesting things without costing you interesting things. I least that is what I think.
dave2008
Legend
That doesn't change in my proposed 6 action system , it just gets better, IMO.
JFranklin3000
Explorer
That sounds really complicated, but hey man you do you!
dave2008
Legend
My idea is a little different, bit it could be almost exactly like the 3 action system (1 action in the 3 action system cost 2 actions in a 6 action system), but with some extra granularity to include some extra options. PF2e is a complex game, this changes so little I don't think it really adds to the overall complexity.That sounds really complicated, but hey man you do you!
But I wouldn't change anything my self. I am confident the 3 action + reaction system plays just fine, I just like the design of the all encompassing action system better.
CapnZapp
Legend
Not sure conceptual elegance is worth it in this case.
I suspect it would nearly always be better to spend your sixth action on your own turn than save it for reactions that might never trigger. (Obviously not in the specific case of waiting out an enemy, but in general) Even if MAP means attacking is out of the question, why not spend it on a move or on whatever supporting actions the system allows (PF2 examples: demoralize, shield block etc).
If reactions were instead actions borrowed from next turn it would make more sense. Of course, there are good reasons why a designer wouldn't go there: not only would you need to remember if you borrowed actions from last turn, but I suspect players would not enjoy having "empty" turns where most of their actions are already used up.
I have my own hang-ups for sure but reactions not being interchangable with other actions is not one of them.
Anyway, there's soon enough material on your design ideas to support a thread of its own, Dave! Cheers
dave2008
Legend
I'm sure it is not, but I can't help myself! I'll will drop it, I've written to much about it now on this thread.
FrozenNorth
Adventurer
The spell literally says "you summon a creature to fight for you" (as do all of the other summoning spells).
If you are saying that it seems like an arbitrary restriction that the creature you summon will fight for you but that you cannot summon a creature because it has better senses, you want it to scout for you, trigger a trap, or any other reason, then we are in agreement.
However, from your comment, it seems that you are saying that because "you summon a creature to fight" seems like an arbitrary restriction, we should consider that it wasn't the developers' intention to impose that restriction.
I am skeptical about this second point, because the PF2 is littered with examples of arbitrary restrictions (for niche protection or other reasons):
- like Making an Impression on more than one person without the Group Impression feat;
- like the fact that a Heal spell does not remove the Wounded Condition but Treat Wounds does;
- like the fact that you need a level 6 fighter feat to leave a dagger in an invisible opponent so others can target it;
- like the fact that you need a level 2 wizard feat to make a Sleight of Hand and Deception check to obscure your spellcasting;
- like the fact that to block with a Shield you need to spend an action to raise it;
- like the fact that you can't use Performance to Create a Distraction.
No, I'm not forgetting anything. We are playing Fall of Plaguestone only, so no, there aren't higher level spells or rituals available.
billd91
Hobbit on Quest
This question is ultimately answered on page 301 of the PF2 Core Rulebook in the section about the Summoned spell trait. In a nutshell, yes, you can tell summoned creature to do things for you that aren't just fighting.
CapnZapp
Legend
Well, I can. FrozenNorth's GM, for instance.
(But you're right. Nothing says summoned critters must take only "fighty" actions. That line is flavor text, and the rules make it clear it does not set a binding restriction)
FrozenNorth
Adventurer
I don’t want to pick on my GM: he indicated that he wanted to play RAW as it was a new system, and I respect that.Well, I can. FrozenNorth's GM, for instance.
(But you're right. Nothing says summoned critters must take only "fighty" actions. That line is flavor text, and the rules make it clear it does not set a binding restriction)
FrozenNorth
Adventurer
It is also worth noting that both the “Summon Nature’s Ally” spell from PF1 and “Conjure Animals” from 5e, are a lot more transparent that you can summon animals for non-combat purposes.
CapnZapp
Legend
PF2 absolutely has its fair share of too-brief or under-explained passages.
I didn't even think RAW you couldn't do this. The only restrictions on minions I've read is that you can't ask them to do something their intelligence wouldn't allow, no spells equal to or above the level spell used to cast, and no summoning or calling other creatures or use of things like wishes or what not. No reactions as well.
I can see you using a low level summon spell for some rat summon to do what you want since a high level summon spell would be a waste out of combat for a summoner type.
If that seems fun to you and your players, give it a shot. See how it works. PF2 works with house rules as the offense and defense levels are set right if you want to modify some other variable like number of actions.
dave2008
Legend
No, it is not a game play issue, just a design one. However, I do like to tweak so what do you mean by: "...as the offense and defense levels are set right if you..."
The AC, hit points, and offensive and defensive capabilities are set high enough that a change in the action system should not upset their ability to be challenging to appropriate level players.
About 9 months ago there was a table full of us who had played the entire playtest, a homegrown set of adventures during the gap between the end of the playtest and launch, and then a module I want to call Age of Ashes (or something like that). I want to say it was about 18 months of play with PF2. IIRC the playtest got us to 20. Homegrown stuff I think took us to 10th or so.
I've largely forgotten the details of the system, but I could probably speak in generalities about how the table felt. Skimming conversations like this is my only connection to PF2 these days.
Some of what CapnZapp said recently rang familiar. I recall folks not really liking their characters and feeling like there weren't any significant choices to be made, classes being too narrowly scoped, and multi-classing not providing any relief. Basically, not being able to make the character to go with your concept, with one or two concluding that leveling a character was a waste of time.
I've watched the same group learn and play 5e over the past 6-9 months. Folks seem content. It seems pretty clear we're not coming back to PF2. Folks largely wanted to stay with Golarion, but I don't hear them saying that any more.
My other regular game stuck with PF1 and never really considered PF2. A few house rules we brought from D&D 3.5 has kept that game happy for many years.
I’m fortunate that my players aren’t really power gamers or optimizers, so not having any clearly better and worse options is not a problem (if anything, it’s a boon), but there are some areas that are pretty lacking.
I was talking to one of my players last night. He’s playing a sorcerer with a draconic bloodline. He likes to play gishes, so he wants to do stuff with his character’s dragon claws, but the options aren’t there. They don’t count as weapons, so he can’t just dip into a martial class. If he went monk/sorcerer, the monk’s unarmed attacks would be way better, and it’s basically end up a different character. Even Bespell Weapon doesn’t work (requires a weapon). I really hope the APG can fill in some of these gaps (since I run a homebrew setting and don’t use anything from the Lost Omens line).
I was talking to one of my players last night. He’s playing a sorcerer with a draconic bloodline. He likes to play gishes, so he wants to do stuff with his character’s dragon claws, but the options aren’t there. They don’t count as weapons, so he can’t just dip into a martial class. If he went monk/sorcerer, the monk’s unarmed attacks would be way better, and it’s basically end up a different character. Even Bespell Weapon doesn’t work (requires a weapon). I really hope the APG can fill in some of these gaps (since I run a homebrew setting and don’t use anything from the Lost Omens line).