Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[dave2008]

Oh. I thought you knew there were reactions in the game. Some spells are reactions. Some abilities like AoOs are reactions. Some monster abilities are reactions. There are reactions. Each character has one reaction a turn with some abilities offering additional reactions based on what they do like shield blocking or AoOs. Or something like snap shot.

No, I know there are reactions, you miss understood or I was unclear. What I don't like is they (reactions) are not part of the 3 action system. They are separate. The beauty of the 3 action system is that it encompasses all actions. However, in PF2e it doesn't included reactions, the are a separate action outside of the 3 action system. I don't like this. It conceptually breaks the narrative immersion for me.

Perhaps it is more clear with an example of an idea I have had.
The 6 action economy:

Move: 1 action (distance varies)
Standard Melee Actions: 3 actions (some class features reduce this cost)
Standard Ranged Actions: 4 Actions (some class features reduce this cost)*
Spells: 3 actions + 1 per spell level, cantrips = level 0 (some class features reduce this cost)
Bonus Action: 2 actions
Object Interaction: 1 action
Reaction: 1 action (maybe 2, or dependent on action type - undecided)

This just an example, you could obviously change the action costs, but what I like is that includes all actions. If you want to spend all 6 actions on your turn, then you have no actions available for a reaction off-turn.

*This could be weapon based too, but I made it different because I want to reduce range attack effective some

 

[Numidius]

Haven't played yet, but Reactions sound more "realistic" to me as separate from the main action turns. Instead a complete compartmentalization of PC/monsters turns, kind of breaks immersion for me.

 

[Nilbog]

For me three actions and one reaction is the sweet spot, it's enough to translate cool narration into a workable mechanic, but not too much to slow down players turns and make combat feel too unrealistic

 

[billd91]

No, I know there are reactions, you miss understood or I was unclear. What I don't like is they (reactions) are not part of the 3 action system. They are separate. The beauty of the 3 action system is that it encompasses all actions. However, in PF2e it doesn't included reactions, the are a separate action outside of the 3 action system. I don't like this. It conceptually breaks the narrative immersion for me.

Perhaps it is more clear with an example of an idea I have had.
The 6 action economy:

Move: 1 action (distance varies)
Standard Melee Actions: 3 actions (some class features reduce this cost)
Standard Ranged Actions: 4 Actions (some class features reduce this cost)*
Spells: 3 actions + 1 per spell level, cantrips = level 0 (some class features reduce this cost)
Bonus Action: 2 actions
Object Interaction: 1 action
Reaction: 1 action (maybe 2, or dependent on action type - undecided)

So... what's going on here aside from adding more complexity and (maybe) lengthening turns (I can't really tell)? 3 Actions + reaction vs 5ish + reaction? I'm not seeing the need, point, nor how it would be less likely to break narrative immersion. Is it because you're explicitly mentioning a reaction (which may or may not occur) where referring to PF2's current as 3 actions doesn't?

 

[dave2008]

So... what's going on here aside from adding more complexity and (maybe) lengthening turns (I can't really tell)? 3 Actions + reaction vs 5ish + reaction? I'm not seeing the need, point, nor how it would be less likely to break narrative immersion. Is it because you're explicitly mentioning a reaction (which may or may not occur) where referring to PF2's current as 3 actions doesn't?

I'm not discussing the 5e, 4e, 3e, PF1, 2e, or 1e action economy. I am specifically discussing the PF2e action economy. I am not comparing it to other systems. So within the PF2 action economy, I think reactions are a weak link in the elegance of the 3-action system. They don't fit conceptually within the constraints of the 3-action system. To clarify, this bothers me on a design level, not on a game play level (I haven't played yet so I can't tell).

 

[Reynard]

I'm not discussing the 5e, 4e, 3e, PF1, 2e, or 1e action economy. I am specifically discussing the PF2e action economy. I am not comparing it to other systems. So within the PF2 action economy, I think reactions are a weak link in the elegance of the 3-action system. They don't fit conceptually within the constraints of the 3-action system. To clarify, this bothers me on a design level, not on a game play level (I haven't played yet so I can't tell).

Just so I undersatnd, you want reactions to come out of your pool of actions for your turn? So, for example, if you had 5 actions total and two different enemies provoked an opportunity attack, you would want to be able to burn two of those 5 to take them, or not and still have 5 left when your initiative comes up?

 

[JFranklin3000]

So technically you can use two actions to set up a reaction at anytime with a ready. So for things you aren't as good at you can prepare one. Otherwise, I think of reactions as things you are so good at that with the proper trigger you can do it without spending an action.

 

[dave2008]

Just so I undersatnd, you want reactions to come out of your pool of actions for your turn? So, for example, if you had 5 actions total and two different enemies provoked an opportunity attack, you would want to be able to burn two of those 5 to take them, or not and still have 5 left when your initiative comes up?

Basically yes. What I envision is a pool of actions you have for a round. You can use them on your turn or not. But once they are gone, those are all the action you can do that round.

 

[Reynard]

Basically yes. What I envision is a pool of actions you have for a round. You can use them on your turn or not. But once they are gone, those are all the action you can do that round.

That could get chaotic quickly.

 

[dave2008]

That could get chaotic quickly.

Maybe, I don't know why it would be any more chaotic than the current system. This is not my ideal, but lets just say we keep the 3-action system and we only change reactions. So now, a reaction cost 1 action. If you use all 3 actions on your turn, you can't use a reaction to make the OA or cast counterspell (I assume it is a reaction in PF2e). Now there is a solid reason to hold onto an action.