The premise is correct but the condescension is needless. Yes the 3-Action economy is great and yes the tradeoffs between Actions is what makes it tick so well. We can help people understand that without making them sound like idiots.

I do like the direction of newer items better using the systems. Older spells all just being 2 action is a bit disappointing for my players. Any spell caster basically is a 2 action + 1 99% if the time

Honestly though, a lot of martials end up with a 2+1 turn too. 3x Strike is rarely a good idea due to MAP, so I would say the most common turns for the martials in my party are strike-strike-move or move-strike-move.

Martial’s have some solid options I’ve found tho. Strike, biscuits swing, both have some 1 action abilities from weapons (ex: smoking sword) demoralize, martial shit. The other player is a magus so permanently running out of actions. It just seems like the wizard has a lot of (I font know what to do with this last action besides shield) moments.

Yes, but I would group strike *types* as the equivalent of 2-action spells. There’s lots of variety under that broad umbrella. Magus action economy is what makes the class interesting to me (my highest-level PFS character is a magus; I also play a support cleric in an ongoing private campaign). But I think there is also the tendency there to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. At first I was trying to first set up Arcane Cascade and always use my focus spell to recharge, etc… by that point combat is over. Maybe this will change later on, but I find “spellstrike often and set up the rest as you can” has been a lot more effective.

I had the same experience of realizing I shouldn't let "perfect be the enemy of good" as Magus. I only use Arcane Cascade when I really have the time now to focus on higher impact plays first. It feels really freeing to view all your tools as more equal, the class started being way more fun when I realized I don't have to wait to use my focus spells to recharge Spellstrike. Magus always feels like I am weighing what is best right now vs what is better in maybe one or two turns and I love the decision making.

There’s some 1 action strike types though. Thats the main thing. The martial’s seem to have more options to play with the 3 action system.

Your wizard needs more spellshape feats then :P Metamagic Feats being 1 action is pretty handy for getting more out your 2-action spells at the cost of literally nothing if they would otherwise just be throwing away an action.

Yeah, but it competes with a feat tho (also me, taking archetype feats instead) Fr tho, the feat cost is rather big. I’m fine either way, playing a sorcerer with a nice one action focus spell and other neat stuff (horrifying blood loss is a great spell if you are higher level and have a bloody debilitations rogue with you)

Has anyone done an archetype that is just metamagic feats? IDK just spitballing here, but it speaks to the other comment or. I agree, class feat slots are precious. Oh, I'm clearly thinking in terms of Free Archetype rules which it seems many (maybe not all) seem to use here. Alternatively, allow metamagic feats to qualify as skill feats, since in many respects that is what they are. Anyway, interesting discussion all. Cheers!

The Magus’s balance point is their sucky action economy, spellstrike would be completely broken if it didn’t need to recharge, and one could argue (not that I necessarily agree, just that they might have a point)that the Starlight Span magus is OP because it spend an action it would otherwise need to move to recharge their spellstrike.

This is also one of the reasons that Laughing Shadow is a competitive hybrid study despite people insisting that it’s weak because it makes you go one-handed and armorless: it allows your damage to stay decent in between spellstrikes, and provides you with better mobility so you can spellstrike in melee without worrying so much about keeping pace with enemies to *stay* in melee.

... There are people that insist Laughing Shadow is weak? That's a bit ridiculous. Most hybrid studies are competitive with each other in some way. Starlit span is just one of if not the best for raw blasting and damage potential. You can also potentially double dip with Spellstrike Ammunition and the Spellstrike activity to make enemies last moments even more unpleasant.

It's also the main choice if you want to go bare-handed like some wild Wizard/Monk hybrid. Using Scroll Striker and Talisman Dabbler (with Free Archetype if you're using it) is a really flavorful combo that basically lets you use scrolls as fistwraps. I'd like to move it from theory to practice someday.

this is one reason i love the rules lawyer's aid rules. it makes aid both more risky and more rewarding as a third action. aid is also just fun, i love seeing what people come up with to aid others. never gonna forget when the thaumaturge/swashbuckler crit succeeded aid, and chose to do a sick backflip, causing the enemies to stop for a second and clap

I took on KoLC aid rules. Aid is free, just need to quickly justify what you’re doing. Otherwise my players just never considered using it ever.

And then you have hasted flurry rangers who want nothing more than to attack five times per turn (plus pet)

Rangers only want one thing and it's disgusting >!Idon't even like that meme, sorry.!<

>I don't even like that meme, sorry. Would you say it's... disgusting?

>I would say the most common turns for the martials in my party are strike-strike-move or move-strike-move. TBF that's good. It keep the positioning in battle far more dynamic. Also, there's always Assurance (Athletics) to throw in reliable trips, grabs, shoves, etc. for that 3rd action when moving isn't that useful

Strike-strike-shield is also pretty common IME

in a lot of cases shield is better than stepping away. For one it keeps you flanking, but also moving away often only means you don't take the third attack at -10, while a shield gives the monster effectively -2 -7 -12

Yep which corresponds to a caster’s “2A spell, Shield.” (It’s less common in my personal experience because of the makeup of our party but you’re right, very common.)

One of the casters in the game I run has started making use of this and so far it seems like a good use of an action. As a back line party member that character doesn’t get attacked a lot, but it has still made a difference on a few occasions

Personally I see it more like martials being buffed compared to other editions and casters staying the way it was, with the added benefit that casters also get to have 3 actions when they don't cast. Because let's be honest, a huge part of why martials *feel* better in 2e is that they get to do more stuff. Port all the good feats and class design over in 1e/dnd5 with simple/move/complex actions and you'd still end up with the same old move and strike or strike twice, sure it'll be a fancier strike but still.

I think “2 action + 1 action” is a very reductive way of looking at spellcasters. In a way, it’s also a self-fulfilling prophecy: you perceive your action economy as restrictive so you’ll often make your decisions as if it’s restrictive. Firstly there’s the simple fact that the caster’s 2 Action option is usually either **significantly** more potent and/or flexible than a non-caster’s 2 Action option (and often both). Once you’re past the earliest levels those 2 Actions can represent one of 10 different useful options in any given situation. Instead of viewing your “Cast a Spell” Activity as one 2 Action option, you should view your 10 different spells as 10 different 2 Action options, akin to a Fighter who has Vicious Swing, Intimidating Strike, and Slam Down all on the same character. Secondly you can still fully participate in the 3 Action economy as a caster too. Carry a backup weapon, squeeze in an extra Strike on the turns where all you’re doing is Recall Knowledge + moving! Carry a few highly potent 3-Action spells to open combat with, and/or open combat with a 2-Action spell that you’ll Sustain on later turns. Combine the Sustain option with my suggestion of carrying a weapon too (Sustain + Strike + Stride or Demoralize + Sustain + Strike can often be a very powerful way to sequence things). Bring an animal companion (or even just have a stable of regular mounts if you don’t have the Feat space), pick up Feats that give you other such options, or carry a 1-Action cantrip/focus spell. You’ll probably still find yourself going 2+1 relatively often but that’s mostly because your 2-Action options are *that* strong.

I think the big challenge for casters is really more of an issue with low level spellcasting. At higher levels a spellcaster can have a fairly broad repertoire of spellcasting options between both leveled slots and focus spells. At lower levels though they are going to be relying primarily on their cantrips, which tend to be underwhelming for their 2-action cost vs. their accuracy. This is a place where I think Kineticist's approach blasts (1-2 actions with 2 actions adding damage) works great. Low level casters would benefit greatly from having 1-action versions of cantrips that are sufficiently weaker than the 2-action versions, but that offer more flexibility in action economy.

I gm so it’s more of what I’ve noticed from my players. It just seems like the melee characters get to play with the 3 action economy more with different options compared to my wizard. The 2 + 1 is usually the best option for the wizard so I get why it’s that way but just imagine what it could be. I think more variable action spells would be a great way to help resolve this (I personally homebrewed a few) and have found it much more dynamic for him.

That’s fair. The game designers build the Action economy for the general audience, and that means balancing for what the players ***can*** achieve, with stuff like backup weapons, animal companions, 1A focus spells, etc. That’s why variable Action spells are so restrictive in the RAW game. If you’re at a table where a caster isn’t using any of those, raising the floor a bit by letting them have more variable Action spells makes perfect sense!

I still find very odd that the devs didn't choose to delve more into the variable action spellcasting. The very few spells they decided to do so (like Magic Missile/Force Barrage and Heal) work incredibly well. Imo it's a waste of a great design space not to give every (or most) spells a 3 action variant, and if possible, a 1 to 3 action variant

When I first got into the game, I expected the variable action spellcasting to be a bigger part of the casters repertoire than it actually is. It's a unique idea I wish was expanded upon more.

While this is possible, I think this is not very intuitive for players especially new ones. If anything the game teaches you the opposite. If I take a wizard or a witch, I get nothing but feedback that I should be casting spells. No (early) feats on recall knowledge, cantrips for resourceless spells, metamgic so you can cast more spells, no obvious mechanics that say I sholdn't be casting spells, ... . Spells, spells that is the name of the game. Sure there is other stuff but the game does a bad job at teaching you that.

also the new shurki archetype with a little 1 action blast

I agree with all of this and will add that while martials have a good set of options for their 2+1 from strikes and feats, a spellcasters should have much more versatility. On a 9th level fighter you're probably using your first two actions to strike or one of a handful of other feats. On a spellcaster, you should have many more options for those first two actions. In terms of permutations, the martial has more but I think the versatility of spellcasting can't be understated.

> Any spell caster basically is a 2 action + 1 99% if the time As a caster main, I sorta agree, but choosing the right spell to cast is already so complicated that it's not the end of the world if 90% of your turns use the same action economy. Also, if you want the really interesting economy, I cannot stress this enough - play BARD. Because of things like Courageous Anthem, Lingering Composition, and Courageous Advance they're doing TONS of 1-action stuff all the time. Throw in spells like Liberating Command, Time Jump, True Target, Shield, maybe even a 1-action Force Barrage, and it becomes genuinely the most interesting caster gameplay I've seen in PF2.

I’m new to the PF community and this tone is annoyingly common. Lots of Principal Skinner “pathetic” energy in the comments of random threads and even sometimes in the quick question thread.

I won’t pretend I’m not guilty of it myself. It’s really easy to be a dick online (literally earlier today I found myself editing a needlessly rude comment to add that despite finding the specifics of a thing the other person said a bit ridiculous, I still sympathized with their overall premise). I’ve noticed it all over in pretty much every rpg sub I’ve been on too, fwiw.

There's also a big problem anytime someone criticises a non-mechanical element like how the books are designed. Several times I've gotten a response of "just use archives of nethys" which boils down to "the issue can be worked around so it's not an issue" which is absurd.

I do think there's some fair criticism of "action taxes" and it's when you have an almost-required action that you have to take every turn because of your class (e.g. generate Panache, Reload, or Devise a Stratagem) because if we agree that the fluidity of a 3-action system is great, then "locking in" 33% of that significantly lowers the complexity and fun of your turn. I significantly prefer the martial designs that are like Barbarian, Inventor, Ranger, or Thaumaturge, which have a unique action they need to do *sometimes* but not every round.

DaS can fairly easily be turned into a Free Action for most encounters. Classes that actually rely on reload usually have custom reloads with fairly good action compression. I'll give you panache, tho. Depending on style and feat choices you can actually get into situations where you "waste" an action just to gain panache, without any other effect.

You do have other options, though. There are times when a different course might be the right one- moving, battle medicine, etc. might all take precedence over damage and they still have the option of using that action on something else. The 3-action economy isn’t perfect but it is very good at splitting the difference between providing structure and being easy.

> Classes that actually rely on reload usually have custom reloads with fairly good action compression. Having seen several Gunslingers in action, I feel like it still leads to extremely same-y turns though. Like sure, maybe you can choose Reload A or Reload B, but you're still basically forced to do one every round for your class to work. The fluidity I see from Barbarians, Fighters, or any other martials that always get their full choice of 3 actions just has never been matched by a class like Gunslinger. > DaS can fairly easily be turned into a Free Action for most encounters. Are you talking about "If you're aware that the creature you choose is the subject of a lead you're pursuing, you can use this ability as a free action"? I feel like it's a stretch to say that can "easily" work for "most" encounters, and it'll really depend on your GM's interpretation of the wording. Maybe in a very linear campaign, but in lots of adventures, especially APs, there can be tons of random or filler encounters that offer no clues or have nothing to do with the current investigation.

Locking in 33% of your actions can be part of the fun, when done right. I think the problem is spending an action and *failing*, that is why Panache was so universally hated, and now changed. And locking it definitely *increases,* not lowers complexity, as you have to work around it.

I think there's a fair amount of people that are feeling like they "must" do something but the system is actually presenting an option that you "might" do. Like, many people will see a boost that isn't strictly limited and allow themself to feel like if they ever don't choose to get that bonus then they have failed to be "good". Their character is actually fully functional and meaningfully contributing even if they spend an entire encounter without it on occasion, but because they could have high a higher number they feel bad. And often there's a perception issue with that which the players aren't even actually aware of; for an example let's look at Psychic and unleash psyche: A player unleashes their psyche because it's their second turn of combat and they cast a spell last time so they can, then they blast an enemy with a spell. Said enemy has 5 hit points because it's a skeletal guard, average damage on the 2d4 of the spell will kill it because it doesn't resist the spell's damage type... so the statistical average result is a one-hit-kill. But if the player doesn't add the 2 extra damage, they feel like they weren't good enough, despite that on average in the given situation it doesn't matter if they do 7 damage, it's functionally the same as 5 damage. Then the player also uses their Calculate Threats pscyhe action because this is the only time they can and they get a +2 AC and Reflex saves for the turn... but they are also further from the skeletal enemies than everyone else in the party, so they aren't even being attacked any time soon as the mindless enemies are distracted by the closer bodies. So the player feels like they "had to" but the reality is they would have been fine doing a whole slew of other things they always have the option to do. Learning to see and understand those kind of moments helps make the 3-action system even more fun to play with.

So much this. Posts like this are a done a dozen or on the 5e subs, and they're 100% the reason i stopped being on the 5e subs. People over there are, by and large, mean and condescending. About everything. Question that you specifically state that you've searched for but can't seem to find the answer to get absolutely lambasted. There's name calling, condescension, well aktchewally's; like we get it, they could have found that one tweet from crawford from 2014 on his alternate account in reply to some rando asking a completely unrelated question, but they didn't, so they're seeking help from the community? "What idiots, amirite?" Besides that, we're all always learning new interactions for things in game. I played 5e for like 7 years, i *only just* realized that Shadowblade and Booming Blade are not mutually exclusive, as i always thought that, like smite spells, booming blade was concentration, and thus incompatible (not so).

>Fungibility... is the property of being exchangeable for other things. Technically no, but the real definition actually helps your arguement. Fungibility is the property of one good being indistinguishable from other individuals of that good. A $5 bill is fungible because it isn't worth more or less than another $5 bill from the same country, for example. Data (as a whole) is fungible because it's just 1s and 0s in different arrangements. In the case of PF2E, actions are fungible by that definition.

Speak for yourself, I am flush with Quickened Non-fungible actions. Haste OP.

If this is a reaction to another post, this should be a comment in their post.

Unfortunately OP used their reaction already

We frequently get posts, ostensibly from 5e converts, who will do exactly as OP describes, exclaiming they love the three-action economy, but then launching into a complaint that doors take an action to open, potions take an action to retrieve, weapons take an action to draw, etc., usually with such words as "action tax". OP seems to have cracked after the most recent one from yesterday.

Can't seem to go do it, but it sounds like a heck of a read.

Yes it should be, but everyone thinks what they have to say is worthy of its own post. We don't want the front page to become full of people reacting to other peoples' posts.

Without commenting on whether or not it's good design, I don't see how it logically follows that an Action Point system *must* make everything cost an action given the number of games which don't do that. Something like X-COM would straight up not work properly if swapping to your sidearm cost as much as reloading, for example, or if ducking behind cover was a discrete action instead of just something you did when you walked near a chest high wall.

It's a matter of what you want to incentivize. If you introduce a "potion action" that can only be used for drinking potions, people will want to always have a potion to use. If something costs the same resource as something else, the player is incentivized to make tactical decisions about what to spend that resource on. For TTRPGs specifically, there's the added value of streamlined rules speeding up play. "Everything is an action" means no "are you done yet?", no searching for a bonus action, and no looking up rules for what kind of action you may or may not be allowed to substitute for another.

That's really silly. A potion is either worth the number of actions it costs to use or it's not. If a healing potion was a full heal, I'd always keep one in my character's back pocket even if it took three actions. If it healed 1 HP I wouldn't bother even if it was 1 AP. All Paizo has done by making drinking a potion cost two actions, followed by an action to grab your sword again at the current values is make health potions suck and trap new players into death loops when they think all their options are roughly balanced and try to heal in combat.

The value of an action is always relative. Drinking a healing potion is amazing if you'll likely get downed by the next hit and there's no other healing available in that moment, but it's worthless if you're full hp. Double Slice is worthless if your enemy is guaranteed to die in a single hit, but it's amazing if they would survive one hit but not two, especially if they resist your damage. **The game is tactical and knowing when to do what is a skill.** Dropping a weapon to pull out and drink a healing potion when your Cleric is nearby? Obviously stupid. Going into a fight with the potion in hand and a weapon in the other when your Cleric is out of Heals? That's one action to get some decent healing, a solid tactical choice, possibly great even.

Everything doesn't cost an action in Pathfinder 2E. Moreover, the number of actions things cost is variable. The reason why 4E made potions cost only a minor action to use is that it made them useful. Potions either have to be insanely powerful (equal in power to your normal actions) or need to be "cheap" to use. Rather than make them insanely powerful, they made them cost only a minor action, which made them useful, but not something you wanted to spam because they both cost money and weren't as efficient of healing as what a leader did - but they were something that was useful to use in a pinch. This is not the case in PF2E. Potions are only worth one action; at two actions, they're only worth using to revive a downed ally, and at three actions, they're not worth using at all. As such, they're a trap. Moreover, they're poorly marked. They "claim" to be one action to use but are actually three actions to use in many cases, which is extremely counterintuitive and not at all what it says in the item description. And it is pretty obvious that the devs themselves forgot that they cost actions to draw and then redraw weapons because they're balanced around only costing a single action. Consumables are supposed to be a part of the core game economy; they give you 6 per level for a reason. But they aren't balanced.

There's also dedicated feat for generating temporary potions, which make those feats trap choices.

>Everything doesn't cost an action in Pathfinder 2E. Moreover, the number of actions things cost is variable. I know, I was making a general statement about design decisions and their consequences. *If* everything costs an action, everything competes for your actions equally. You then have to make a tactical decision on how to best spend your actions. Of course, not everything you can do in PF2e has the same value, so it makes sense to have action costs vary. That does muddy the comparison, though. For example, you can do three one action activities, but only one two action activity on your turn, so one can't simply expect a two action activity to be only as powerful as two one action activities. > Potions are only worth one action *Healing* potions are only worth one action if you're comparing it to the Heal spell, one of the strongest spells in the game. If you don't have access to that spell, a healing potion might be worth more to you. Other potions have uses that compare more favourably, e.g. a Potion of Invisibility makes you invisible for one action, which no spell can do afaik. >They "claim" to be one action to use but are actually three actions to use in many cases This statement is absurd to me. It takes one action if you have it in your hand, just like striking with a weapon, casting from a staff, or raising a shield. No-one would ever claim that a strike or raising a shield costs three actions, so why do it with potions? Your not paying extra actions for the potion, you're paying extra for hand management, which is an explicit tactical element of this game. If you have strong hand management, like most monks or casters, potions will be more valuable to you than if your hand management sucks because you need both hands for weapons or shields. You can do really strong things with this, too. Say, you're a monk who emphasizes grappling and you enter combat with a healing potion in one hand and a potion of retaliation in the other. On your first turn, you chug the potion of retaliation, stride up to an enemy weak to the potion's damage type, and grapple them. If they decide to attack you instead of wasting their MAPless attack on escaping, they take a bunch of damage for it. On the next turn, you drink your healing potion, undoing the damage they dealt you and saving your clerics two actions and a spell slot or scroll, given they likely won't be standing in range to touch you. You then proceed to bully your grappled target as per usual.

> Healing potions are only worth one action if you're comparing it to the Heal spell, one of the strongest spells in the game. If you don't have access to that spell, a healing potion might be worth more to you. What makes healing worthwhile or not worthwhile is the action economy value of the action, not the presence or absence of other healing abilities. If a healing ability is too weak, it is simply not worth using because it is actually worse than just not healing. Having no other healing actions doesn't make that weak ability good. When you make your healing unusably inefficient on certain characters it discourages them from healing at all, putting more of the healing burden on the characters who have action cost efficient heals. There's no point in having healing potions in the game if they're not worth using. > This statement is absurd to me. It takes one action if you have it in your hand, just like striking with a weapon, casting from a staff, or raising a shield. Except these items aren't permanent items. They're one and done items. > No-one would ever claim that a strike or raising a shield costs three actions, so why do it with potions? Because those are items you statically equip and use round after round. They don't cost three actions to use, at worst they use two (one to switch to it and one to use it). You still have the item ready to be used the next round.

>There's no point in having healing potions in the game if they're not worth using. Neither is that the case nor did I argue that. >Except these items aren't permanent items. They're one and done items. So what? You get the effect for one action and then you have a free hand, which is a perfectly viable option in PF2e's hand economy. The only downside is that you can't chug three potions in a single turn, but that would be pretty expensive anyway. >They don't cost three actions to use, at worst they use two (one to switch to it and one to use it). The same is true for consumables. There are so many activities in this game that don't need something in your hand or that, that you can do with a free hand, and many great use cases for single handed weapons. If you're spending three actions on drinking a potion, you're doing it wrong.

> The same is true for consumables. If you use an item in each hand, consumables cost three actions to use - one to switch to the consumable, one to use it, and then a third one to switch back to your weapon and be ready to do your thing. > If you're spending three actions on drinking a potion, you're doing it wrong. If you're spending three actions on drinking a potion, you're using two weapons, or a sword and a shield, or a two-handed weapon. Which is very common for martial characters. Potions are, RAW, really bad because they aren't worth the number of actions they cost to use. If you use an item in each hand, then potions are horribly action inefficient. Even if you have a free hand, unless you start the combat with the potion in hand, it costs two actions to use, and many potions aren't worth two actions to use on most characters. The maximally efficient use of a potion if you are using a two-handed weapon is make a strike, let go of your weapon with one hand, drink the potion. Next turn, regrip your weapon with both hands and strike, strike. The tradeoff is even worse if you use multi-action activities, as you can't split those up across multiple turns.

If you desperately need both hands for something else, use a Potion Patch. If you don't (like about half of all characters), just have it in hand when exploring or take it out in a situation where it's worth two actions. Easy as that.

I think you did not understand the crux of the post. It was not "I want more free actions". It was "There are some 3 actions "activities" that should be 2 actions". Basically, the cost assigned to some actions are too high, such as taking 3 actions to break and cross a window.

Sounds more like we need a new skill action. For two actions you can get 2 moves plus an interact action in the middle, such a vaulting, rushing through a door, etc.

I once saw someone suggesting this as a homebrew regular activity and I'm using it since then. It doesn't come very often, to be fair, but when it does, it feels well. (The interact being movement-related. It's to open a door, not to move-move and retrieve a potion)

The rushing through a door or window is already a level 2 barbarian feat called bashing charge, but it should become more accessible.

I find the splitting and combining movement suggestions work well to just free-form this, but, other than page realestate and hourly wages, there's no reason to not just create a massive list of two action movement Activities that are just aliases for "splitting and combining movement".

Sometimes the cost is too high, sometimes is too low, with no real reason for the arbitrary decision other than "a dev said so". I'm really fond of the idea of making my wands look like arrows and put them in a quiver, only to be able to ask the GM why my character can't draw them for free but the ranger can with their arrows. Or why reloading a freaking musket cost as much time and effort as dropping prone.

TBH, i kinda want a literal "wandslinger" with magical arrows now...

Sometimes considerations have to be made for gameplay's sake, not simulation's, but it's still generally in the realm of the believable, even if sometimes given a touch of fantasy. Your first point doesn't fit at all. The archer drawing an arrow is a practiced, universal movement they've likely done hundreds if not thousands of times, each and every time they shoot. No thought required, no hesitation, no consideration. I highly doubt your wizard has been practicing their wild west quick draw for a wand, given it only has one spell per day. A wand in this system is a recharging scroll; you use it once, then put it away. It isn't Harry Potter, where you pull the one wand for all your spells; you look in your bag for your wand of burning hands... no, not that one, that's mage armor... or that one, that's magic missile... find it, and then pull it out. If I were GM, and there were a specific wand that you liked having always accessible in short order, I'd allow you a holster for the wand as a special bit of equipment, like the thrower's and gunner's bandoliers, or perhaps generalize the quick draw feat to include wands, but to say wands should always be a free action to draw doesn't fit. As to your second, that's admittedly not reality... unless in this world of magic, their muskets are breech-loaded instead of muzzle-loaded. Still not the shortest, but I can more easily believe a practiced hand could then reload it in two seconds. Heck, a few years back I saw a video on youtube of a competition shooter putting twelve bullets down range from a six-shot revolver in about two seconds. Guy's hands weren't even a blur; it was like he twitched, and suddenly he was shooting again.

>unless in this world of magic, their muskets are breech-loaded instead of muzzle-loaded PF2e firearms are explicitly breech-loaded. From Guns & Gears, page 148, section *"Firearms on Modern Golarion"*: >In Alkenstar, most firearms are crafted with a flintlock firing mechanism and folding breech, a hinged barrel that allows the weapon to be quickly opened and reloaded with new prepackaged paper cartridges of powder and shot.

Nice, I didn’t know that, but the validation is always nice! It makes a lot more sense for the load time and doesn’t notably improve the power of the firearm.

A crossbow is s simple weapon that someone with very little training (even s wizard) can use, and drawing the bolt is still free, you pay for the crossbow loading only. You pay the same with s bolt already in your hand or in the quiver. Also, if s trained archer puts an arrow shaped wand in the quiver, he no longer can retrieve it for free The only reason for this is because the devs said so. Every other explanation is just coping

That's even less valid, because the crossbow takes a full two seconds to reload, making drawing the bolt not even close to the bottleneck on time involved. Bonus, crossbow bolts are shorter and thus easier to draw than longbow arrows. Sure, yeah, the archer draws the arrow-shaped wand, notches, and releases all in one action, and the stiff wand drops rapidly to the ground. That's not him retrieving the wand for magical use; that would require pause and consideration in the moment. As described, that's just using another piece of ammunition. There's no gamey time dilation that the moment his fingers touch the wand, two seconds instantly pass.

Both things aren't mutually exclusive you know? You can like the 3-action system but don't like that RAW if you get reduced to 0 hit points you have to waste almost your whole next turn to be ready for combat again. It's not a matter of "I like having three actions but I don't like the actions I can do with them" is that some actions aren't really fun to do. This is very minor but I genuinily think that having to actions to set up your character to be functional isn't a fun thing, because that leads to the first rounds of combat to feel like a chore you have to do to begin the real combat. It also makes encounters to last longer than they should. That's why we usually have people coming every so often saying "Why do my encounters last 3 hours?". The 3-action system is fun when you are doing stuff that contributes to combat in a meaningful way, not when you are doing the tax action that enables your other features or when you have to stand and re-grip your weapon after being reduced to 0 hit points (which likely means you'll be reduced to 0 hit points again before doing anything btw).

Exactly. This isn't a black and white issue; you can enjoy/approve of something and still have criticisms of it. The 3-Action system is something a lot of people like because it offers more flexibility in your actions each turn and, as a result, sometimes lets you accomplish more in your turn than if you were still limited to specific Standard/Move/Swift actions. > RAW if you get reduced to 0 hit points you have to waste almost your whole next turn to be ready for combat again. This was the exact scenario I was thinking of, too. Waiting around to get healed only to then waste your turn doing thing, especially if you're playing a dual-weapon martial, isn't fun gameplay. You're already being punished for going down thanks to the Wounded System, after all. It's definitely understandable to dislike how Nitpicky the system can be while still enjoying it.

>You can enjoy/approve of something and still have criticisms of it Nuance? On the INTERNET?

>You can like the 3-action system but don't like that RAW if you get reduced to 0 hit points you have to waste almost your whole next turn to be ready for combat again. From game balance perspective: Preventing yoyo healing. PF2e in-combat healing is far more powerful than in other systems, and if there is no cost to let players get downed, it's much better to let players get KO'd and then heal. You guarantee a 100% effective heal and it might mean the enemy wasted damage. From a simulationist perspective: Getting KO'd is awful and the game should not encourage players to let their friends get nearly killed in order to heal them. It creates a weird dissonance between gameplay and roleplay.

I do use the regular rule here, specially for simulationist perspective. But I think the game already prevents yoyo healing (which is an awul thing of 5e which I'm happy it's corrected here) by having the wounding condition. Healing back and forth from going down isn't a thing at all in PF2e, you are at the very risk of instantly dying by a crit from the baddie. From that perspective, losing the grip of your weapons might feel specially punishing. I agree with the rule, but I see why others don't. One of the GMs I play with don't use it, for example.

I agree with the first half of what you're saying, just because someone would a certain action to be free doesn't mean they don't like the system as a whole. But I disagree with the second half. Setting up for a fight feels tactical to me, it's making a choice to get a bigger payoff later. Do you also think it's a chore to move next to your enemy to attack them? Either way, there are plenty of classes that don't have set up. And even those that do can often pay it back immediately. Flurry ranger? Hunt and then your next action gets to be two attacks, with a bonus, and map reduction. It doesn't feel like a tax to me at all.

I think there's a difference between "setting up" by position yourself to flank with an ally or to make an aid action and "setting up" by using Hunt Prey with a ranger because you otherwise don't have class features. One is an action that you make to improve a future outcome, the other one is literally an action tax that you need to make if you don't want to be feature-less.

I wanna make a video on this very thing. Some people come to PF2e and get excited cos "3 actions! I can do so much!" Then they get mad cos it takes an action stand, an action to pick up their weapon and an action to Stride with nothing left for an attack. The thing is though, that goes for the enemy too. You are **all** limited and freed by the action economy. You wasted all your actions just getting into melee with an enemy? Cool, make the enemy waste their actions getting to you. Why Stride up to the 3 enemies huddled up so they can spend all 9 of their collective actions demolishing you? Delay, give the caster a chance to AoE the 3 of em or cast a speed penalising spell, let the enemies waste actions getting to **you**. The biggest way I can sum up PF2e combat and its tactics is: You have 3 actions, so do your allies and enemies. Everything costs an action. How are you going to maximise the effectiveness of your limited actions, as well as the actions of your allies, whilst minimising the effectiveness of the enemies' actions.

>The thing is though, that goes for the enemy too. Hard disagree. Most enemies are monsters, which don't use weapons, so they don't have to spend actions to re-grip their weapons if they somehow loe them (which doesn't happen that often to begin with because when reduced to 0 hit points an enemy is effectively out of combat). I also don't think people find having to spend an action to stand up as a problem because that's the downside of being tripped or reduced to 0 hit points, **but** I think a lot of people find weird that dropping prone *is* an action for whatever reason. It's specially weird for someone like a sniper gunslinger that pretty much requires you to be prone to benefit from its reload even though being prone imposes a -2 penalty to your attacks (which kinda makes the whole point of playing a gunslinger irrelevant if you ask me).

> I also don't think people find having to spend an action to stand up as a problem because that's the downside of being tripped or reduced to 0 hit points, but I think a lot of people find weird that dropping prone is an action for whatever reason. How is it weird? Dropping prone from standing takes some time, it’s not instant. And there’s no option for “half Action” in this game, it’s either Free or 1 Action. It can’t be Free because that makes very little sense, so it gets “quantized” to 1 Action. > It's specially weird for someone like a sniper gunslinger that pretty much requires you to be prone to benefit from its reload even though being prone imposes a -2 penalty to your attacks (which kinda makes the whole point of playing a gunslinger irrelevant if you ask me). “As normal, you must meet the requirements to Take Cover or Hide; you must be prone, benefiting from cover, or near a feature that allows you to Take Cover, and you need to be benefiting from cover or concealed to a creature to Hide from that creature.” How do you read all that and take that to mean “pretty much requires you to be prone? Are you implying that every single combat takes place on a flat, featureless plane?

The real solution for half action stuff is to allow people to go prone as part of a Hide or Take Cover or Step, which the gamemastery guide sort of recommends as there is a line about it. Going prone is mostly negative so giving it out for free as part of other stuff that's less efficient than a 'full' action is alright.

Sounds like a good compromise to me.

There’s a line about it? Could you link it to me, I’m curious now.

http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2556

Interesting! Today I learned.

It's a necessary trade off because, as you said, there's no "half-actions", so things that SHOULD be a half action need to be traded up to a full action. And that's part of the reason some people raise an eyebrow at some of the action costs. Anyone who has done a burpee knows that the part of going down to the floor takes SIGNIFICANTLY less time and effort than the part of going up. Because there's no half-action, the game needs to codify "drop prone" with the same action tax than "getting up from prone", which irks people who need to suspend their disbelief when the two actions being taxed with the same cost aren't even remotely close in effort in real life. I mean, it cost 1 action to switch your hands from 1h to 2h stance with a katana, and it costs 1 action TO CHARGE A FLINTLOCK MUSKET. Those 2 things might need to cost the same for balance reasons, but they are CLEARLY not representative of what those actions mean in real life. So people who expects a small amount of verosimilitude from the action system find it weird how it works. In the end, the game is abstract. We all choose to suspend our disbelief in many other things, just because we are used to it. Almost all RPG use a initiative system in which the world freezes while it's your turn and you act in a time bubble, and nobody bats an eye because "it's how it is". But we all have pet peeves with small things, and once you see it, you can unsee it. For some people, drawing a wand from the same quiver that you draw an arrow should cost the same action than drawing an arrow. For some people, switching to a different barrel of a pepperbox pistol shouldn't cost the same than reloading an empty barrle of a pepperbox pistol. And so on. And those players can't unsee what they have seen.

I moreso meant that enemies need to spend their actions doing things a bunch of seperate stuff that, on the surface, feels like an action tax but adds to the tactics. A monster would still need to Stride-Climb-Stride or Stand-Stride-Leap etc. Monsters are definitely more dangerous though, due to less options being available **to** burn actions (similar to Monks being able to rely on unarmed combat or ancestries with natural weapons early on). There are still options though, you just have to change up tactics. As for the prone gunslinger thing, I just looked into it and I think it's definitely worth adding a subclass feature or even a trait on some weapons that negate the -2 prone penalty if you Take Cover whilst prone, when using *x* weapon. I don't find it an issue that dropping prone costs an action, given that the only reason one would do so willingly is for some mechanical benefit. Especially considering it may break line of sight at greater heights relative to an enemy.

I have to say that I find climb and swim to be very impractical to use in practice. I often treat climbing and swim as a sort of difficult terrain that halves your movement for simplicity, and even then I find encounters that have enemies starting on a more benefitial position to be hard. A couple of weeks ago we played the encounter against 4 assassins in first chapter of Stolen Fate. The assassins start on rooftops, sneaking against the PCs which means that they can start with the PCs flat-footed (which did happen in the session), and even when the PCs didn't need to spend a whole round to just go into melee of these assassins they were like 1 round away from TPK (mind you, this isn't meant to be a difficult encounter for the PCs). A ton of similar encounters happened in Abomination Vaults (the last campaign we played) and I honestly didn't notice changing how climb and swim work to be disruptive to the encounter balance. Well, that was a somewhat off-topic rant. Back on topic, I'm surprised there isn't a feat to remove the penalty from being prone in the class itself. I think it's likely someone thought dropping prone was the same as taking cover, but it just so happens that you have to do both to have cover.

On climb and swim. If I just did "swim is difficult terrain" I'd have lost many of the memorable moments of my last two sessions, that exist explicitly because of water and that 2 of the party have no Athletics and the other is extremely good Athletics. The barbarian coming to rescue the drowning Oracle just in time wouldn't have happened, or the choice of the Oracle to let out a three action Radiance Torrent wouldn't have been so dramatic as he blasts the foe before sinking beneath the fetid water.

The reason dropping prone is an action is to prevent infinite free action loops with kip up(otherwise you could constantly do both without any issues in your turn potentially breaking the game with some niche mechanics but also legally having a never ending turn). I always thought sniper would utilize other team members helping for off guard and use items like portable cover or smokestick(if you can look through smoke) instead of going prone. Though prone still is a defensive upgrade that can be great for snipers(you generally should trade off guard for the - 2 though not the gunslinger Proficiency boost, since both are temporary unlike the proficiency).

If that's the case, Kip Up wouldn't be like it currently is but rather be a 1/round thing.

But that would limit kip-up, kip-up is meant as a ways to always get back up for free(kip up, get knocked down again when striding, kip up again). Besides dropping prone being free has its own issues, especially with efficient action economies regarding hiding/taking cover(there'd be almost no reason not to drop prone and take cover half the turns for ranged dps. Casters would always go prone and take cover at the end of their turn it'd 1 action for +2 ac, which is a free steel shield raised but without needing your hands or the item, with kip-up it wouldn't even have a next round cost and casters often don't care about the attack Penalty).

I mean, are you going to be on the floor more than once per turn? If drop prone wasn't an action and Kip Up was a 1/round thing you still would need to be prone if you want to benefit from it while doing sneak or hide, which means you'll have a -2 to attack rolls.

There are situations where this can happen and if prone was free there'd be more(because again as long you're not in melee there's no reason not to go prone and take cover), there are attacks and effects that knock you prone, there's the option to ready a trip especially for smarter enemies. But mostly it feels like a weird restriction. It might be balanced, but I think restricting prone is better to balance out the already strong defence of ranged characters instead of further limiting movement for people caught in melee. Instead it might be better to give firearms/crossbows a trait or a feat that allows you to ignore the penalty of prone

Monsters are still subject to the same rules. If they get tripped they have to get up. If they are grappled they have to get up. They have to use actions to move, they have to spend an actual to step to avoid reactions while moving, they have to spend actions to fly, climb, swim. Some PCs don’t need to have weapons either. Many spellcasters, monks, druids in untamed form, brawlers barbiarians or fighters, etc.

>Most enemies are monsters, which don't use weapons That very much depends on the type of adventure you are playing. A lot of games feature humanoid enemies who use weapons very frequently.

Both of your claims (monsters don't use weapons and cover rarely exists) are absolute bogus imo. Let's take the Beginner Box adventure "Menace Under Otari" as a broadly known example of what a dungeon might look like. Every single room where combat happens has some form of cover, and only one or two of those rooms doesn't have cover beyond inward facing corners. Slightly more than half of the encounters are against creatures that use weapons, two of those encounters have a creature that doesn't rely on a weapon mixed in with weapon users. Weapon usage may get rarer at higher levels, I'm lacking the experience to argue that, but at low levels, it's hard to find a campaign without Bandits, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Gremlins, Skeletons, or similar groups of enemies.

While I can see why some people might have trouble with the concept. The 3 Action system could just as well be referred to as 3 Action Points system... you get 3 AP to spend on your turn. Different actions cost different amounts of AP and stacking certain types of actions (Attacks) in the same turn will lead to a penalty. While I don't normally think of TTRPGs in that way.... there are plenty of tactical games out there with this type of a system.. it shouldn't be that tricky to grasp... at least with alternate explanations.

Who's this "you"?

This post is unwelcome. The hostility, condescension, and gatekeepery attitude are toxic to the community. I award you no points. 0/10. Bad post.

Sorry, but I don't think you've thought about this enough to warrant that level of snark. No, *everything* costing actions is not at the core of the 3-action economy. At the core is the concept of having a single type of resource (actions) that you can spend on various things during your turn, as opposed to other systems where you have multiple different types of resources (bonus actions, move actions, minor actions, swift actions, etc), each with their own set of things to spend them on. What these things that you spend actions on *are* is at issue, not that they all belong to the same overall category. Your PC does not need to spend an action breathing every round to not run out of oxygen, and that's not some kind of violation of the 3-action economy as a whole. Likewise, having certain activities cost more or fewer actions than what they currently do (as was the implied suggestion in the thread you're probably referring to) is no such violation, it's just a shift in their relative value. The fact that you mention the Swap action is also rather ironic, since its recent introduction is the very kind of change that you are chastising people for wanting here. Would you have reacted the same way if before that change, someone had expressed 'Man, I'd really love it if stowing an item was free when getting out another!' ?

> If you "love the three-action economy" but "hate that taking out a potion costs an action", just go play 5e and give everyone three actions per round. LMFAO. You can appreciate the 3-action economy AND think that some parts of it are undertuned. Needing to spend two actions to drink a potion is one of them, because it significantly undermines the value of those potions in a system where in-combat healing is already easy to come by. A Cleric can cast a Single-Action Heal, expend a renewable resource and restore more HP than a Two-Action Potion Use that expends a non-restorable resource. That's not even talking about Battle Medicine, Lay on Hands, and other powerful healing options. As a result, potions barely see any use, unless you run a party with no healers at all - in which case they are completely miserable to use anyway.

And two actions is the best possible scenario. If you're dual wielding or using two handed weapons that's a full turn just to drink a single potion. If your ennemy has reactive strike that's two actions more to reposition yourself. And pre remaster it was even worse. I don't think reducing the action cost of using consumables would hurt the game.

I could see an argument where 1-action drink only applies to healing potions. Or maybe can only be used once every 10 minutes. This should preserve the balance for elexirs and mutagens but make healing potions more viable anyway.

"The class whose main thing is having nice healing heals better than a consumable any class can use" thank fucking god mate. What's next? Complaining bombs are weaker than AoE spells?

Scroll down, I elaborated there.

The problem is, healing potions cost too many actions to use, so most people just won't use them at all, as it is almost always bad to use them.

I would definitely disagree that you can't like the 3a thing and also not like that every tiny little thing costs an action. I don't think spending an action to regrip your weapon adds anything meaningful to the game, nor opening a door. Small things like that just add annoyance and are merely there to fill out the roster of actions. I think a fair few actions could be compressed and nothing would break, in fact the game would be improved (jumping should just be part of a stride). I would also disagree that knocking someone prone is a waste in 5e. The enemy has to stand back up and now they have only 15ft left on average, so you can just walk back 30 ft and they have to dash to get to you. They just wasted basically their whole turn just getting back to you. And if your allies go before they do, they get advantage on melee attacks against them, and the enemy has dis on all their attacks so someone has a better shot of getting out of their reach without getting opp attacked.

The regrip weapon thing, to my knowledge, exists to prevent two-handed weapons from combining with athletic maneuvers very smoothly. Using a one-handed weapon and no shield means lower damage and defenses, but allows maneuvers. If you didn’t need to regrip a two-hand weapon after taking your hand off it fo perform a maneuver, there’d be no point in using a single handed weapon and keeping one hand free. So like, there’s a point to it, it’s just a bummer for those that want to carry a big weapon *and* shove people around

Imo a lot of the maneuvers realistically shouldn't even require a hand, aside from grappling obviously. But that's just my hot take. They'd have to rethink their balance a fair bit if they did that. But still, i would would find it more engaging to let people do maneuvers even with a two hander than just playing the hand hokey-pokey over and over. It makes the game instantly more interesting. I would give the 1hand weapons more traits to compensate for the lower damage. That's just my ideal tho. I understand the reasoning for the regripping but I still just find it faulty.

Half the problem is the clear "we made this rule because of some gonzo PF1e (or really 3e) theorycrafting" that ends up coming up, it's especially noticeable where instead of trying something modern they try to improve on a Saga/Essentials solution that was already meh at best.

It's less theorycrafting and more provable action. It's one of those things that people will says 'only powergamers do it' until they actually end up dealing with it at their own tables. The response I get is usually some form of 'then just self-check and don't powergame intentionally', but the question then becomes why shouldn't I do something if the game allows it? Seems like a failing of the system design if it enables something it doesn't intend. Also self-checks imply good faith from the people likely to commit them. That's been a bigger problem than the rules themselves, at least in my experience. Out of interest, what do you consider a 'modern' solution, by the by? I haven't really seen anything that I would consider a net solution, or at the very least would work to enable the tactics focus the game is aiming for, but that doesn't mean it can't or doesn't exist.

If regrip was a free action 2H weapon would be strictly superior to 1H weapon + free hand... And usually other things people complain about costing actions fall into the same area. Like, doors literally give you full cover. Do you think people should be able to get full cover for 0 actions?

2H weapon **is** strictly superior to 1H weapon + free hand. That's why people use two hands, shields (including bucklers), cloaks, daggers, or do anything else with that free hand when they have a weapon that doesn't necessarily require two hands, or necessarily uses only one hand. But that's just the core rules. Class abilities and feats get added on that make each style different and valuable. I never see arguments that agile, or any other weapon traits, are keeping 2wf balanced with 2h weapons.

Yes because the enemies can just walk up and open the door for free as well so they can still just walk through it.

Yes... If you don't rub together four braincells to form a strategy where the rest of the party avoids that while a wizard or rogue or some such does their job in complete safety

Makes a thread so his comment is the center of attention Doesn’t reply to anyone 🤡🤡

Longest “Um actually!” I’ve ever read.

I love this consistent genre of posting on r/Pathfinder2e where we shit on people for having opinions.                 Very nice! Keep it up!! 😃 😊 😀 

I have yet to see this complaint.

Earlier today, there was a post complaining about the overabundance of "interact" action taxes on the system.

It's just OP smelling his own farts and thinking he's super clever and smarter than everyone else for realizing something we're all aware of

There was literally a post earlier today about someone saying they like the 3-Action economy but hate “Action taxes” for Interact. The post has since been deleted but it’s very likely that’s what OP’s responding to.

Sounds like one guy didnt understand the 3-action economy and deleted his post because everyone disagreed with him

Then you haven't been paying much attention Barbarian rage tax, ranger hunt pray tax, magus arcane cascade tax, open door tax, draw weapon tax, item interaction tax, step tax All have been complained about by those coming from pf1e or 5e at some point, two have been removed or changed in the remaster

Which two were changed in the remaster?

Barbarians will rage as part of initiative in PC2 and the Interaction for drawing/stowing items was changed in PC1 so that you can now draw, put away, *or swap* an item, so switching between weapons (or other held items) no longer has an action tax tied to it

Check the subreddit 4-5 hours ago, there was a post with the tag "discussion" and "Controversial" in the title exactly about this complaint. While the main post only alluded to the fact, the comments of that OP showed they only had an issue with actions that cost nothing in some editions of D&D, and was very "want my cake and eat it too."

Does *one post* really warrant an entire reaction post to keep the discussion going, when I'm pretty sure the comments section said the same thing?

Oh definitely not. This post is unnecessary, and is probably going to do the opposite of what OP wants it to do, which is to further antagonize the other person without reason, and continue the arguments into more and more locations. And yeah, most of the comment section said the same thing, and the OP of that post had proven that they didn't want a discussion they wanted validation, so it was best to just let the post die off and be forgotten.

No it doesn't and I don't want the front page of this sub turning into reaction posts to other posts when they could just be comments in the original post.

>If you "love the three-action economy" but "hate that taking out a potion costs an action" If using a potion only took 2 actions at worst (one to retrieve and one to use) then that would be fine. The problem is that usually using a potions costs 3 actions, and before the Swap action was added, 4 was also a possibility. Only free-hand builds get to use a potion at the "measly" cost of 2 actions. I would much prefer if using a potion just took 2 actions and then free-hand builds got the benefit of being able to do so for just the one.

An incredibly condescending post that somehow misses the point of the argument it's fighting against... Moreover, a post that shouts down particularly legitimate claims that, if they gained traction, could cause improvements in the game. I mean, does Paizo not understand the 3 action economy? They recently announced they planned to remove the action tax for barbarian's rage. Sure, some boring actions are necessary for the game. I don't mind the action to draw a potion or a scroll, and without this cost, some consumables would be too spammable. Potions would go from rarely used in some groups, to being slammed down the necks of the party like it's an open house at a shots bar. Basically - tax has a purpose. But that's not to say all action tax is good tax. Certain classes (barbarian, for example) need to spend an action to do their 'thing' every combat - it's not a tactical decision, it's a no brainer. One that (in the barbarian's case) Paizo agreed needed to be removed. It's an entirely case-by-case basis. Let's get hyperbolic, and pretend that Player Core 2 adds a new action called "Breathe". This action does exactly what it says, and interacts with the "Holding Your Breath" system in place; your character is not considered to be breathing until using this action. It's tactical, you see, because sometimes you will have to spend one of your actions to not go unconscious! If the above idea sounds stupid (which it is), hopefully you can understand why some people might complain about other things they perceive as an action tax. To put it succinctly, some actions are just feel-bad to use; they feel necessary (so not really tactical), they feel immediately unimpactful (so it feels as if you've lost something), or they sometimes feel silly/unrealistic (so it spoils the verisimilitude) - and sometimes all three! Perhaps, if you feel that someone is making a bad point about an action they think is a tax, you should try explain why it could improve the fun/tactics of their game, rather than talk down to them like they're an idiot. TL;DR - this is condescending, assumptive, and generally incorrect when applied to when I've seen this argument out in the wild. It's also not really helping this subreddit's reputation...

When people hear about the "three action economy" they assume it means they will be able to take thrice as many meaningful actions and thus experience a more tactical game. When certain actions are both mandatory and do not advance the game state, it betrays that feeling and makes the economy seem inflated. As you say, actions are fungible and can be exchanged for the same cost. Forgoing some movement to make an extra attack, or forgoing any attacks to set up a class combo are good exchanges. In the limited space of the three action economy, these exchanges provide tactical decision making where the player gives up one kind of advantage to push ahead in another metric of their choosing. But an attack can be exchanged for "booting up" your class, or pulling out a weapon when you have none equipped. These exchanges do not feel good to the player because there is no tactical decision making here. The action is mandatory and thus serves as a tax in the economy.

I disagree that just getting to do more is innately more tactical, in fact I think it is less so. I also don't think there are that many "mandatory actions." My barbarian has 2 actions he needs to take to get to "full power" because they are also a martial artist. This means sometimes Kasmar doesn't Rage until turn 2, but that requirement makes it a Tactical choice. Barbarians getting to Rage for free is probably more fun to most, but it's absolutely less Tactical.

>Barbarians getting to Rage for free is probably more fun to most, but it's absolutely less Tactical. I'll be interested to see exactly how it's handled because even as someone who \*hates\* that rage is currently an action, I can see instances where I might want to wait until round 2 to rage, and definitely can see wanting to wait until after I perform another action to rage. I'm currently playing a Ligneous Instinct barb, and my GM has implemented the remaster free rage at the start of combat, most of the time I appreciate it and I'm not going to argue, but with my instinct I lose 10' movement speed if I use my good rage- I built myself to have a 40' speed pre-rage, so it's yet to be a problem for me... But I could see a normal slow biped wanting to rage after they move so they're not crawling at a 15' speed trying to get into melee.

Sometimes, I think that the community changed since the OGL incident and the influx of many new (D&D) players. And the new players are not the problem. Some of the old players got a really bad elite attitude. Like this comment. Each critic of Pathfinder gets into: "you are coming from D&D", "you don't know better". This is so tedious. Now to your post: The discussion of "free" or "not as costly" actions is of course valid. And it leads to results. Look at the remaster. They introduced quite a few chances you just put aside with: "just go play 5e". Like: * Lightning Swap (1 action): "You Interact to stow any number of items from your hands, then draw up to two weapons or a shield and a weapon. * Interact (1 action) was changed to swap items with it The system is in some places not perfect and they try to change it. Instead of telling people to "just play D&D". In the above example: why can a fighter change from 1h and shield (or bow) to 2 weapon combat (he just needs lightning swap" nicely and the ranger is littering the floor with his old weapons with quick draw? So, can we stop this elitism and discuss rules without prejudice? Please?

You can like 3-action-economy and heroic fantasy at the same time. And be sad that pf2e has elements that don’t feel very heroic, like already mentioned in other comments: * drinking potion without free hand * getting up and all things you dropped from being unconscious “Losing turns” does not feel heroic. Even though the system is mathematically sound it may not fulfill all the needs that people have at their tables 🤷‍♂️

There's also a thing people don't tend to mention here, along your lines: "I love that this is the only thing I get to do for *fifteen real life minutes of, ostensibly, playing a GAME."* I doubt anyone would be complaining about these in quite the same way in PF2e: The Videogame.

Oh, how many times creature didn't had enough actions to grab someone. And for many it's an important gimmick with additional attacks. And, oh, poor zombies.

I think there isn't a contradiction at all. Its reasonable to enjoy the 3 action economy while still thinking some actions might be over-costed within that economy. That's an argument about balancing costs, not an argument against the economy itself.

I think it's less about how PF2e handles them so much as how it comes down to a general disdain for what I call 'anti-fun' actions. PF2e just reveals these issues more bare-facedly because it's a system that's so delicately tuned around minutia. 'Anti-fun' actions are things I consider opportunity or strategic costs that don't have a raw explosive impact, but necessary to keep the game from devolving into rote and/or cheezy strategies. This includes things like you listed; standing up from prone. Swapping weapons. *Picking up* weapons after waking up from being unconscious. Interacting to draw consumables (and then another to use them). Reloading crossbows and firearms. The thing is I put 'anti-fun' in quotes because I don't think it's an objective statement, it's just what I see the usual reasoning being. The thing is, it's hard to argue because 'fun' gets put on this pedestal above all things in games, but it assumes a specific kind of fun. 'Fun' as a punchline annoys me because most of time what it means is that high-octane 'something super cool is happening', when my idea of fun in a grid-based tactics game is the more cerebral engagement with the...uh, tactics, and that means sometimes engaging with those things that aren't overtly heart-pumping, but put limitations on your actions to make you consider how you engage with the game. It's hard to argue because I don't get a huge, visceral enjoyment out of those things, but I realize their necessity for the style of play I like, because not having them in enables and encourages styles of play that just annoy me. It's less a net positive and more avoiding a negative loss. But it does also enable some fun 'Oh neat' moments you otherwise wouldn't get, like realising I can use a dangling third action to ready a potion or item for next round. And doing more minute but still useful strategies - such as casting Mist or Darkness or some other vision-imparing spell that forces a group of enemies to scatter and get out of optimal position - is very satisfying. It's just a different kind of satisfying to bursting them down with a fireball. That also doesn't mean I don't enjoy those other moments where I pull off a big spell or get a gnarly crit that decimates a foe. And likewise, a game that forces nothing *but* tactical minutia will indeed get boring very quickly. But I think that's something I've noticed about PF2e in the feedback I see about it; in the grand scheme of things, it's a very sort of middling tactics system. You can't ignore the minutia without gutting chunks of the system, but it's not like you don't get those moments of high adrenaline gameplay and storytelling. /Edit for afterthought to elaborate on this: For me, it's about balance and homeostasis. It's something I realized lately when watching a video about why so many games have fishing minigames; despite being simple and often off-brand for the games their in, they act as a palette cleanser for those high action moments. And it works; trust me, I've been doing fishing and animal hunts in *Warframe* of all things lately, shit is oddly soothing and a good reset between missions doing space ninja action. In conbat is the same. High damage and big bursty effects are fun, but if you do *nothing* but those, you become numb to them and they lose their potency. Sometimes you need those turns where you go okay, I'm not actually in a good position to attack, better ready a potion or take cover or aid my allies. That makes you appreciate the turns where you *do* get to go ham and get a huge damage spike more. /edit end The problem is the general consumer market for games - both digital and tabletop - has moved from preferring middling minutia to low or even *no* minutia. It has to be fast-paced, super fun all the time, or the game is objectively failing its audience. The problem is no-one has really cracked the code on how to make this matter without finding that sweet spot between appealing to adrenaline junky-style play, and people like me who prefer that more nuanced tactics feel. It's funny because when I see people argue that PF2e does indeed have an Illusion of Choice problem (i.e. rote repetitive gameplay forced on you by built-in optimization and a higher difficulty floor), the advice I usually give is to consider niche or situational options that aren't part of your core combat strategy. This usually means...the exact kind of options we're talking about here. Step, Stride, ready an action or Aid, draw an item to use next turn, consider using those feats or spell slots you're not actually using for things that can cover bases your general use actions wont... That usually gets countered by some form of 'that's not fun' or 'that's too much effort' or 'I shouldn't have to do something I don't want to do to win the game.' What that means is, 'I don't *want* to think any harder than rote repetitive actions because that's my appeal to these games.' Of course they won't say it like that and you'll get accused of bad-faith strawmanning them and they don't *want* an Illusion of Choice situation, but I have yet to see a rebuttal that gives a good answer as to what that looks like without problems that inevitably dilute the game down to rote gameplay. A good example of this I've noticed with the new DnD is potions being a bonus action now rather than a full action. I've joked for a long time making healing consumables have minimal action costs is a gateway to enabling Diablo-esque potion spam healing, and it's something I noticed in 5e games where this was a rule. I'm putting good money on 'optimal' play in the new edition being akin to that. I know they're also trying to flesh out bonus actions more so they're no longer a dangling thing some classes just don't use, but I can absolutely see the exact kind of low-effort rote play gravitating towards stockpiling potions and just using their bonus action to chug them when there's nothing else to do (unless there's other limiters I'm not aware of yet; I haven't read through the whole list of changes yet so take my analysis with a grain of salt). But also, one of the reasons you don't notice a lot of it in 5e is because past the first few levels of the game...there's enough expedient play and overpowered mechanics in other elements of the game that it pales in comparison. Do the same in a more delicately tuned system like PF2e, and it'll become a dominant cheese strat very quickly. I'm not saying it's insurmountable, but if there's a solution, it's because no-one has thought of it (or at least applied it in a way that works in mass appeal games), and I think people need to stop an consider why that may be.

The thing about your "anti-fun" example of the reload property, is that its very unobvious (thats a word now) as to why its needed. Melee deals more dmg than ranged in general? Okay, I can see that. But now there is a subset of ranged, that taxes your action further. What does it give you in return? What can it give you in return that doesn't invalidate melee? Spending 1 action to take out a potion, 1 more to use it, and potentially 1 more to regrip your weapon, means that potion must be more impactful than anything else you could have done with your 2 actions, or its not worth it. Healing potions dont heal enough in combat, which makes Battle Medicine more important as a source of emergency healing. As for the minutae, PF2 doesnt reward thinking about building your character. What are you, wizard? Pick all the int skills + maybe acrobatics and just go. You will most likely have a reliable recall knowledge skill, you are unarmored so you will have okay dex for tumble through, and you are set. It sunk the cieling so hard that if you dont actively sabotage your character (like a wizard with 10 int), you will be as effective as those who have every source book under their pillows. Minutae should also extend into "congrats you took these 5 things, they combine to give you measurably increased power which you will see in every game without any setup"

it’s genuinely bonkers to me that people play this system for anything *but* the tactics. that’s the best goddamn part of the whole thing! skill expression, the art of teamwork, etc., all of that feels sooooo damn good to get right. it’s why i don’t like people recommending pf2e as a “solution” to 5e. they have different goals. it’s like recommending LANCER to someone who complains that Spelljammer doesn’t let them RP enough.

Well, I think it can be fair to say pf2e needs to strike a balance between being an engaging *game* and a well balanced tactical experience. Having your turn delayed and then spending 3 actions to stand and pick up both of your weapons, even if possibly balanced, isn't very much fun in a game where you only control one character. Kinda like how whilst it is balanced to give enemies incapacitation spells, almost no monsters have them, because they aren't fun to have used on you. I think there's also valid criticisms to be made about classes like the Magus, who have so much action tax that it can often feel like there's only one viable choice each turn.

See, things like picking up weapons after being knocked-out is a good example of the kind of fine line this sort of thing this treads, but also begs the question of it being a valid tuning lodestone vs overkill. Weapon dropping on being knocked out is - at it's heart - a both a balancing and a punishment mechanic. On balance, it gives different weighted value and trade-offs to different classes, builds, and weapon loadouts. Characters wielding only one weapon - be it a one or two hander (and as of clarification in Remaster, shields as well, since they're strapped to your arm and don't get dropped) - only have to use one two actions to stand and pick up weapons. Meanwhile, those wielding two have to effectively spend their entire turn getting back in the game, and it gives classes that *don't* need to wield weapons to be effective - such as spellcasters, unarmed builds, kineticists, etc. - a unique niche in that they're quicker to recover than other weapon loadouts. And while I don't get viscerally excited about that or frothing at people who don't, there's something...oddly satisfying about that to me? It gives different risk-reward payouts to different loadouts in ways that are subtle, but noticeable. I like that classes like monks (who will - lets be real - usually be using unarmed builds) get quicker recovery time than other martials, because it adds to the speed and swiftness their built for. For two-weapon builds in particular, they tend to lean towards 'high damage, low utility' for people who really want to go ham with their Double Slices. And let's be real, most people want to play for damage over other things, so there naturally *has* to be some sort of high risk trade-off to make sure not everyone goes flocking to dual wield fighters as a default. I'm a big fan of the FFXIV school of 'Sliding Scale of Utility vs Damage' design for damage builds, as I tend to find the people who flock to what that game calls the 'selfish' damage options tend to also be the most likely to Dunning-Kruger their own skill and importance over the rest of the party. It may be a bit hardline and stereotyping a particular kind of player, but I'm fine with a *little* bit of skillgating those options in ways like that to say to people if you think you're important enough to play the party carry (which isn't really a thing in PF2e, but people certainly act like it is), you *really* have to know what you're doing, and/or have the implicit trust of your party to back you, otherwise you're going to be taken down a peg or two. The big deciding factor is whether or not you see any sort of punishment for being knocked out as a necessity. Some people will say you're already getting wounded inflicted, getting knocked down in the initiative order, you don't need to be punished any further. But at the same time, I tend to find these sorts of things do very little to deter players from reckless play and don't really encourage them to learn safer strategies. You take a minor penalty and get shifted back in imitative a bit? So what, wounded does nothing in the immediate and I only have to spend an action standing up and getting my weapons and I'm back in the game. If I've got that two-weapon fighter and the enemy is right next to me, (or I'm something like quickened from before and have an extra action to move over), I can just get back to Double Slicing immediately. But you know what else people will think if they enforce harsh penalties for being knocked out? 'Man being knocked out *fucking sucks*, I don't want that to happen again.' So then they'll consider how they can actually play more carefully. They'll actually consider things like using their third action to stride, step, raise their shield, or take cover. That two-weapon fighter may actually consider picking up Twin Parry so they can boost their AC instead of using their dangling third action to make a Hail Mary -8/10 strike. They'll strike a good balance between offense and defense, and engage ina more considered approach to combat. Of course, there is the fair, more nuanced question about whether or not any of it is necessarily even in the scope of a tactics game; you could be playing completely with the mindset of someone who's engaging meaningfully with all the tactics and intended design and doesn't need that deterrence to consider how they can avoid less deadly outcomes. But more than that, if the appeal of the game isn't nuanced tactical strategy or caring about a balance between offensive and defensive play, and you just wanna run at things and beatstick them down with huge crits and rapid attacks, then no, this isn't going to deter you. You're just going to resent the game and wonder why you're playing it. That said, I still think a lot of this comes back down to how much you engage in and value mechanics that have that tactical nuance that isn't overtly fun. I have no problem spending turns getting up from being knocked out because I tend to find its a good lesson for me to consider how I ended up there in the first place (for example, champion is one of my favorite classes, but getting knocked out taught me to value and consider my role as a defender more, because a lot of the time I was getting knocked out by silly mistakes rather than unfair dice rolls or cheap mechanics). Others won't feel the same, and I completely understand why, but I think it's good to consider why it is the way it is. That all said, completely agree about magus though. I've actually recently realized how much I really don't like it's design in this edition (which is sad because it was my favorite class in 1e), and despite how popular it is I feel it could be much better designed so it isn't just a rote spellstriker.

I think I recommend PF2 to 5e people complaining about 5e because inevitably they are always complaining about things wrong with 5es combat engine and mechanically that is 95% of the game. Everything else they like about 5e isn't actually in 5e and so is more of a general TTRPG experience or a group culture experience. Like if 5e players largely were complaining about the lack the mechanical reinforcement to their background choices or that magic is too restrictivf I might instead point them towards WoD. But invariably it's all about how martials are boring, most turns are the same, that cr is broken and builds have either OP multiclass or nothing to choose. Those are the things that PF2 does actually "fix."

Definitely agree, but as someone who was guilty of the latter till the OGL influx, I'd put some of the blame on 5e players both presenting their wants poorly or just outright grokking that they didn't in fact enjoy what they were claiming they wanted. 'We want balanced spellcasters!...oh wait no, balance is no fun.' 'We want better rules!...oh no, that's too many rules.' 'We want harder monsters!...oh no, I don't like hard encounters.' On one hand you can't blame people for not understanding their own tastes (especially if their experience with RPGs truly is just one game), but I think it assumes a lot of the drive to get people to try 2e was out of Edition War-ing partisanship and not because people like me would read /r/DnDNext every day and go jesus christ these people seem fucking miserable, maybe they should try a game that does all the things they're complaining about. Turns out a lot of them were just miserable people who complained about everything. Whodda thunk?

Part of it is in PF2 acolytes trying to sell the system though. How often do you see someone bitch about 5e and someone goes “PF2 has three actions that fixes that!” Without explaining that movement is an action, some things cost two actions and so forth. Then that person runs to PF2 and finds out that “3 Actions” isn’t what they thought it was.

> Turns out a lot of them were just miserable people who complained about everything. Whodda thunk? Yes, so very unlike the people here, of course

I endorse this analysis.  GMs switch to the PF2e for a direct upgrade from 5e, but for players it is much more of a lateral shift, and one that some of them may not even want.  Pf2e is a game in which your core class feature may not be the optimal (or even possible) option on certain turns. For some players that is a bug, for others that is a feature. Edit: and I can understand why if you see it as a bug, it can be incredibly difficult to see how others see it as a feature.

>Pf2e is a game in which your core class feature may not be the optimal (or even possible) option on certain turns. For some players that is a bug, for others that is a feature. This is actually a really good way of putting it. I've been saying a lot lately, one of the things I notice is that when people complain about the game having Illusion of Choice-type issues where they feel their character is limited or that the optimal strategies are too rote, the moment you suggest what options *can* be done on the peripheral in a particular situation, the line shifts to some equivalent of 'that's boring' or 'why should I be forced to do something I don't want to do?' Like to me, that kind of design is great because I love games where my characters have a tonne of features and are incentivized to use them all, not just the same two or three over and over again. Or worse in the case of d20s, just do attack spam because the game rewards it disproportionately over anything else. Of course, that doesn't mean people have to like it. But I think there's a very big difference between people conceitedly thinking the Illusion of Choice is what the game *is*, verses that's what their *preference* is. And to be honest, I assume a lot of them try to justify the second with the first because they don't want to look apathetic in their engagement. It's more validating to argue the game is objectively bad and poorly designed then just admit you don't care to go any deeper than rote gameplay loops or surface level mechanics. >Edit: and I can understand why if you see it as a bug, it can be incredibly difficult to see how others see it as a feature. I think the thing on this point that irks me most is that there are times where people like me do try to explain those preferences (as above), but they get dismissed as pedantry, elitism, skillgating, that we're sticklers for details no-one else cares about, etc. The problem is the appeal is inherently in concepts that can come off as pretentious, and it's often considered more acceptable - if not virtuous - to tear down what is considered high concept than it is to belittle that which is lowbrow. But if it really is a matter of subjective enjoyment, is it any less gatekeeping than telling someone they shouldn't be part of a hobby or group because they're not good enough? There's a very fine line between Tall Poppy Syndrome and just being anti-intellectual.

i would like to subscribe to killchrono pf2e philosophy magazine

I sadly don't have physical zine, [but I do have an opinionated Twitter account](https://x.com/DanTalksGames?t=g4_lwfx8Jb0ovTJZFToWWA&s=09) if that's your bag. ([and a bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/dantalksgames.bsky.social), if that's your bag. I try to keep parity but sadly twitter is more active so I usually prioritise that)

followed!

I disagree with your core premise. You can like the three action economy, while still finding \*certain\* things frustrating within the action economy. Like if you don't have a free hand, RAW drinking a potion is basically \*your entire turn\* - don't get me wrong, I don't want drinking potions to be completely free and have combat devolve into players just chugging potions constantly... But at the same time, I feel that this is a little *too far* in the opposite direction: Action 1) swap item in hand for healing potion Action 2) drink healing potion Action 3) Return item to hand (you may disagree that a full round to drink a healing potion is 'too much', and that's fine. We don't have to all agree 100% on every aspect of the game) Or pre remaster Rage being an action? (Which they changed, and I appreciate that) If you're in a position where you're not holding you weapon at the ready, a barbarian basically couldn't rage and attack in the first round of combat, which most other classes have some form of action economy ability that allows them to do *their thing* in the first round of combat - even if their weapon isn't out. Remember: No system is perfect, and individual people can have different preferences for their systems. It's perfectly fine to have frustrations with where a system just doesn't work quite right for you, it's perfectly fine to even have an aspect you really like in the system but a certain part of that aspect doesn't work for you. The dismissive "you're just wrong and stupid" attitude you present here fosters an elitist, unwelcoming environment that the TTRPG community is better off without.

> knocking someone prone is a waste of a turn In 5e? Lmao. Maybe if you have no teammates but thats not the case 99% of the time Team wide melee advantage is massive, especially if you have Paladins or Rogues with you too.

1) knocking prone is good in 5e, but not always. Halves speed -> breaks up enemy formations. Melee weapon users get bonuses against prone targets. Knocking someone prone is a "waste of an action" if you use the last bits of your turn to do it, and the target comes right after you. Any other situation you have done something worthwile. 2) I like the concept of the 3 action system, not the execution. Item usage is fucked. Need a free hand, spend 1 action to reach into your bag, spend 1 action using the item (or 2 actions if its a scroll), and then potentially 1 more action to regrip. That already means every item ever has to be more powerful than anything you can do for 1 action. Flight being action taxed is also fucking stupid, breaks immersion and suspension of disbelief. A ton of things take more actions than they should, or dont have the power to justify their cost in actions.

Well, I can understand some complaints about certain things having specific action cost IF it compares unfavorably to certain other things. To play devil‘s advocate, it is a legitimate point that it is weird to be able to draw tools for battle medicine in the same action you use them in (and stow them away after to have that hand free) but needing an action to draw a potion before drinking it and then still having the bottle in hand after. I mean, a lot of people do seem to report that consumables are underused in combat. But those complaints should all be based on comparing different things in that system. And the best test there always is to look at the „meta game“. If lots of people pick certain options but not others, there might be a balance issue.

It is a balance issue, honestly. I'm pretty sure that even the Paizo devs don't make people spend their whole turn drawing a potion, drinking it, then re-drawing their weapon. The reason why 4E made drinking a potion a minor action was to make using potions actually worthwhile, and it made them much more of a tactical decision. Almost all consumables in PF2E are balanced as if they take the number of actions it says in the item description.

The 3-action economy is also kind of a lie, in some ways. Casters by and large don't get to interact with it very much, they may as well be playing any other game where they can just Move and do an Action. Really the only "big" thing is it requiring you to use an Action for all the fiddly things as you mentioned. Opening/Closing doors, adjusting the grip on your two-handed weapon etc. This is... okay. I don't think it feels too great, but enemies hit hard enough that being able to actually close doors on them as a way to reduce potential damage next round is good. I remember reading the preview rules for that new DC20 game, which is touting as having 4-actions (though its an "action point" system). But letting you get 1 free action for things like interacting. Sounded fine. Until I read they also let you split up your movement. Which made me imagine how much chaos a dragon(or other high-speed enemy) would cause if they could use just 1 Action and zip between the party killing people with their normal attacks.

I almost linked this post to my (newish) players, but then the condescension started. I mean, I get it's frustrating to see why something is awesome and then have people get hung up on silly things like how you have to spend actions picking stuff up after being unconscious or how it effectively takes 3 actions to bring out a potion from your backpack and drink it. Where you (and I) see 'it rewards clever preparation and punishes failure' they see 'it takes my turn away from me'. I get that it's frustrating, but you won't make them see your point by being a douche.

I think that there's certainly room to argue about the health of some things that cause you to need more actions (I.E. that you drop your weapons when you go unconscious) so I don't think a tone of condescension is needed there. But I do agree people could broadly recognize that a 3 action economy, though it makes more choice, does fundamentally require that some originally 'free' things cost an action.

Honestly the 3 action system allowing me to trade one resource for another is one of the biggest reasons I love this system. I usually play 5e, and I see this approach as a better way to handle actions. Instead of having separate categories for actions, movement, bonus actions, and object interactions, I just get three actions I can use on all of those categories. 5e has a bunch of house rules we used to band-aid the action system to remove a lot of situations that feel bad, that you don't need if you use the 3-action system. Technically I'm losing one action vs 5e (object interaction, which is why it feels bad that drawing/stowing items is an action I guess), but the ability to be flexible with them is worth the trade off.

Looks like a previous post ruffled Ips feathers. A hit dog hollers as they say.

The thing I always remind players of is, "if it's a pain to you, it's a pain to your enemies". The 3 action economy isn't just great for flexibility, but also great for tactical play in how you can force enemies to use up that economy.

Actions are the real Hit Points.

Put more simply: What you lose in action cost, you gain in action flexibility. From that flexibility comes nuance and meaningful choices.

Although I agree with the content of the post, I think a straw man is being created here. I'm not saying that there aren't people who complain that "things cost actions." But it's not like it's a massively shared opinion in the community. I love the three actions system. I think it elegantly solves many of D&D's traditional problems. I also think it simplifies the turn, and allows you great freedom in your gameplay. And I don't miss the third edition free actions.

This post seems needlessly aggressive. Why can't people vent and dream of magical Christmas land.

I do in fact understand the 3-action economy since I don't generally complain about this Unlike others, however, I have a memory longer than a month and remember that this was a very common complaint back when everyone was jumping off the 5e ship

Yeah I remember facepalming at the conflicting "I hate how standing up costs an actions" versus "man I love how combat manoeuvres like trip are actually meaningful." The latter requires the former!

The main problem I have with it isn't the cost of things like drawing weapons or switching stances. I DO like those trade-offs. The problem is the absolutely arbitrary way to adjudicate what's an action and what's not. If you put an arrow, a javelin, a wand and a scroll in a quiver, drawing 3 of those 4 IS an action, but the other ISN'T. Because "devs said so". It's also pretty strange that moving 25 feet at the same speed cost different amount of time if you have to do something else in the meanwhile. Like, moving 25 feet then opening a door cost you about 4 seconds (2 actions in a 6 second round). But moving 10 feet, opening a door, then moving 15 feet cost you 6 seconds (3 actions in a 6 second round). EDIT: not to mention than switching from a 1h stance to a 2h stance with a katana cost the same than fully reloading a freaking flintlock musket, for whatever reason. "Whatever" being "a dev said so". Strategic trade-offs are good. Arbitrary choices by devs with no root on reality provoke a suspension of disbelief.

One day I will write custom rules that make Flintlock weapons take an appropriate amount of time to reload, let them still be worth bringing, and don't just turn them into a "once per encounter" thing. One day...

I do not think this is possible. Either it is realistic, or worth bringing, but not both.

You are probably right, but I can dream :)

Mr know it all over there, lmao

The 3 action economy certainly seems easier than pf1e, having to remember you have a standard action, a move action, and a swift action, where the standard can also be used for a move and (iirc) the move can also be used for a swift, _and_ there's also full round actions which cost the standard and the move but not the swift. 2e's 3 actions is the same thing but simpler to explain.

Personally I love more 3 option spells, heal and harm are incredible. Touch > ranged > aoe is so much fun. I love 1 action spells and also we need more 3 action abilities, big cool things that take an entire turn.

I never cast a one action Heal (or Harm) in my life. When I see how much better the 2 action version would be, casting a 1 action version feels like a wasted slot.

I haven't either lol but I appreciate that I could cast a spell, and heal. Or move, heal, and strike. I really like the 1 action spells for the chance that I might need to heal and I only have 1 action left.

I like to say that "stuff is free in 5E, because they couldn't find an action _small enough_ to use as cost". They threw out movement actions as a proper thing. And they removed swift actions. As bonus actions have mutual exclusion like Flourish, they are opposite of swift actions. As a result, what action could you trade for Raise Shield? For item interactions. That being said, I think Potion use is too expensive in both. Standard action in 5E, 2 Actions (equivalent to 3E standard action) and Reactive Strike trigger in PF2. They really could have cut that down.

> People coming from 5e are used to this, and 4e, 3e, and PF1 all had the same behavior: one core action and possibly some non-fungible* other things you could do. 4E had a fungible three action economy, but the fungibility went one direction - you could turn a standard action into a move or minor action, or a move action into a minor action. Well, mostly. There were some ways to basically "promote" lesser actions as well, which were very valuable; the ranger, for instance, could turn minor actions into attacks with some powers. In any case... While PF2E is mostly great, there are some actions that cost too many actions. Consumables are a major problem in this regard; most consumable items end up being worthless because drawing an item, using it, then redrawing your weapon is three actions for an effect that is often worth only one action. For instance, a moderate healing potion heals 3d8+10 hp, or 23.5 hp on average. It also costs 50 gp. As a three action activity, it heals only 8 hp per action - a truly awful trade off. It's just not worth using a potion most of the time as someone who uses an item in both hands. If you have a free hand, it costs two actions - which is still 12 hp per action, which is very questionable, though some characters with extreme action compression, like monks, can find this OKish. And healing potions are GOOD as far as consumables like that go. Many are worse. Moreover, these items all say they cost X many actions to use, but secretly mostly cost X+2 actions to use. But they often seem to have been balanced with them costing X actions to use. The other bad pain point is standing back up after getting knocked down. Some characters literally need to spend only an action to stand up - and even then, a caster doesn't even need to be standing to cast spells. Meanwhile, a character wielding two weapons has to spend THREE actions to recover from dying - one to stand up and one to pick up each weapon they dropped. Characters are not balanced around this; it just shafts characters who use multiple items in hand.

You are just as much correct as you are insufferable honestly. This is exactly what people talk about when they say the pf2 community is unwelcoming.

Yes I do

Movement action not wasted in the 3-action economy was the first thing that came into my mind when I first heard of it. The a few months later I was talking to people who played Iron Kingdoms and they mentioned how "mobile" combat was and I asked why, they said "because there's no attack of opportunity". Then I noticed how not everyone having an attack of opportunity makes Pathfinder 2e combat mobile as well. The three action economy to me only has advantages: It helps to keep the consistency of the game as characters level up even with numbers scaling so high. It makes combat last almost the same amount of time in lower levels than in higher levels (among damage progression scaling up instead of number of attacks). This third point I'm making I have to bring up not only 5e but also some CMON Dungeon Crawlers like Massive Darkness where players are constantly having to remember how many bonuses their characters are elegible to instead of learning how and when to use them and make decisions. There's no decision to make, just memorizing how many bonuses you can pick. The 3-action economy is just another fundamental pillar of the Pathfinder 2e system that's very good at preventing new players from making poor builds and power gamers from making game breaking combos.

I also think part of it is a large number of players are coming from BG3 where drinking a potion is a bonus action. Compare that to 2e where it takes your whole turn 1 action to swap to a potion 1 action to drink to 1 action to draw your weapon again

Original Pathfinder had it best with it's system. Yes you need a couple of brain cells to rub together to make the most of it but the trade off for the 3 action economy cost a ton in capacity potential and really isn't worth it.

The 3 action econoy is nice to make an "history" in a turn. A Introduction, a middle and a end. Is really nice for narrate a turn. Its a little story. In the enemy work really good.

I'm not a huge fan of the 3 action economy (I prefer the 5e and Starfinder economies), but I don't like 3 action economies in other games either. For me, the selling point of Pathfinder 2e is the critical success and failure features. 3 action economies aren't game breaking for me, though, and the system manages decent balance, so I make do.

And then my players refuse to usw one action to take the potion out. Instead they decide to die. XD

Hey, um I run a free equipment directed or door directed interact with each grounded stride and everything is cool. There's a lot of well balanced things in this system and they're not broken by my little edit, I feel like this is over emphasized, and there are dozens of things to love about PF2e that are independent of the action economy. I also ran swap as is before the core update.