ADDITIONS: -For those interested, I used to have a proposed revision for D&D before i stopped trying to help them, and it is NOT to use PF2's 3 action economy. In that video i went over the history of action systems in D&D. Bonus Actions evolved from 3e's swift actions and 4e's minor actions. In those systems, abilities that had that cost were truly swift/minor, or were appurtenant to the "main" action you were doing on your turn. 5e changed that. (4e had some more-powerful minor actions like Healing Word, but it limited how many times you could use it in an encounter.) Link to my old video where I go into this further, and what I thought D&D should so instead: "'Bonus Actions never playtested!?' Is it time for One D&D to consider Pathfinder's 3 action economy?": th-cam.com/video/aa65RR63I-Y/w-d-xo.html -I failed to mention that casting a bonus action spell prevents casting a leveled spell as a reaction during your turn. So when an enemy Counterspells your bonus action spell, you cannot Counterspell the Counterspell. -A few people noping out of my channel because I'm criticizing 5e. Critiquing it is a responsibility if you're seriously trying to open up more eyes to PF2 and other systems generally from the default game/market leader. "Can't we all juat get along" serves WOTC and its ability to dominate TTRPGs by inertia and allows it to get away with stagnating and failing its own DM and player base.
5e was a big step back from 4e with regard to actions. The fact that you had a standard, move and a minor, and you could exchange them down (standard as a move or minor, move as a minor), and two types of reactions that were very situational (I like that as well as simply having the equivalent of a Reaction, you also had an Interrupt, allowing for clever tactics if you could make use of them) makes so much more sense compared to 5e's shambolic effort. To be honest, 5e took backward steps from 4e in many areas, which is why I never made the switch.
see Bonus actions are actually fun, as opposed to the straight jacket of tight math and 3 actions PF2 throws you in a lake bound up in....all the fun isn't choked out of the game by having to apply condition after condition to the enemy to actually get to the fun part...
@@justicar5 I disagree. With the math set up as it is, and the 3 action economy as it is, I spend my time considering the actions I am taking to make things better all around. Is it better for me to do a Power Attack, a Shove, or a Trip based on what I know my allies can do? In fact, I feel MORE free to consider how to make a particular battle feel more cinematic. I DESCRIBE how my character does what they do. Got a two handed hammer? Smack your enemy in the gut folding them over it, and Shove them into an open space that gives flanking to both you and the party rogue. Need to make it easier for the others in the party to hit the enemy? Pick them up by the throat and slam them into the ground (Trip). It is purely the description, but adds no special effect to what happened. It is players ACTUALLY being creative, rather than playing by rote. There isn't a need to stack all the best conditions and buffs in order to get the best possible outcome. In fact, I can't think of ANY table I have ever played at where optimization across all classes was how we played. Some players may wait for the bard to toss his buffs out, but that seems to be the extent. Everything else happens on the fly, and the game is still quite fun.
@@justicar5 I very much disagree. If you're a spellcaster, you'll either want to carefully plan how you use bonus action spells or avoid them entirely, and instead look for bonus action features that _aren't_ spells (because the rules for bonus action spellcasting are convoluted as hell - Ronald already went over as to why but to add onto his reasoning, you also can't cast reaction spells either if they ever come up on your turn! I don't blame anyone for getting the specifics of the rule wrong), either via a subclass or a feat or multiclassing. If you're a martial without a bonus action you can consistently use (so something like a rogue's Cunning Action), if you want to even have some semblance of doing more on your turn than just moving and attacking, you want a bonus action. Though if you aren't a class/subclass that gets one you can use consistently, you'd have to get a bonus action from either multiclassing or getting a feat. Also, there's such a thing as having too many things competing for your bonus action (like a monk's Ki features). so you not only have to get a bonus action that you can use consistently, but you can't get too much or else you just end up getting features that almost never get used. It's an issue I've had with 5e for a while now (I've even made house rules that allow you to spend your movement as a resource if you aren't using it) and I'm excited to see how Pathfinder's 3 action economy works. Seems much simpler and more intuitive. TL;DR: Bonus actions are unintuitive as hell.
The point around 3:00 about stowing/drawing weapons really hits the crux of the issue. People coming from 5E to P2E in your own playthrough of Abomination Vaults cited how putting away their weapon and drawing the other took basically their whole turn and that felt bad...but that means they were comparing P2E with a 5E HOMEBREW, not rules-as-written.
Droping weapons is free in DnD5 and Release is also free in PF2. So in both games most of the players will drop current weapon (free), pull another weapon (interact DnD5 or 1st Action PF2), attack (Action DND5, 2nd Action PF2). In DnD5 it's very-very rare that you can do nothing on your turn (unless you are just disabled with stun or something). In PF2 there are lot of ways to spend all of your actions doing really nothing. Like you are dropped to 0 hp, healed, and now you need to stand, pick up your stuff (maybe 2 times), and go after the enemy. Personally I handwave all these interactions and I'm totally fine with players switch their bow to 2 swords in melee with a single interact or a single PF2 action, but that's a houserule for both systems, and it's not for all tables.
@@БелыйКот-с6п Yeah, but the fact that you don't lose a turn when you are healed from being downed led to the meta where you let somebody totally run out of hp before you bother to heal them, then they pop right back up and act like nothing happened for a turn, get downed again, repeat. Not an actually good example in my opinion, though I honestly can't think of one that isn't already solved by one of the many feats you are able to pick up. In fact, there are so many things that can eat your only action in 5e: drink a health potion, activate a lever, stow plus equip another weapon, and it runs into the issue presented that you better have a use for your bonus action that turn, or you basically just skipped it. A lot of the time these turn wasters are hand waved away or table-ruled out because they suck, aka the point of this video.
An aside about 4:40. My group has switched to PF2e about 5 sessions ago; loving it so far. Something I didn't expect, though - how enjoyable and liberating it is to _not_ have to ask players, "Is that your turn? Are you gonna do anything else?" Whenever I played 5e I made a distinct effort to clearly state my actions and then declare, "That's my turn," because I know how awkward it can be for the DM to have to constantly interject in order to move things along. However, most players don't have that instinct; they just do their thing and then drift off, and the DM has to manually shoo them off of the limelight. It never ceases to be annoying, and it's a difficult habit to correct.
What's especially funny about the Sorcerer and bonus action spell rule interaction, is that you can Quickened Fireball and then cast a cantrip, but you can't Quickened cantrip and then cast Fireball because cantrips are still technically spells.
@floofzykitty5072, The order doesn't matter using the metamagic feature quickened spell only that the general rule still is applied. Thus, one can by Rules as Written( RAW) quicken a Mind Sliver (a cantrip, that does damage and subtracts 1d4 from the next saving throw with failure on int save) using a bonus action, then as an action cast Hold person (a 2rd level control spell). Now, you could cast as an action Hold Person first, then quicken Mind Sliver for some extra damage and extra effect on your next spell potentially but if you were trying to help ensure that Hold Person would take effect, then order of operation matters.
@leslierobinson8724 Incorrect, you *cannot* cast hold person after casting the cantrip. As soon as you use your bonus action to cast ANY spell (even cantrips, as they do, in fact, count as spells), you can only cast cantrips. "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
@@leslierobinson8724 As John mentioned, the order DOES matter. Cantrips are spells. A quickened cantrip (spell) triggers the bonus action spell rule. Quote: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift..." Notice how it says "A spell" and not "a levelled spell"?
That is the interaction that needs to go. The order shouldn't matter (even though it does RAW) not to abandon the bonus action all together. It's fundamental to other abilities beyond just spell casting too.
You guys are (sort of) both wrong. The ORDER doesn't matter, but which action you use DOES. You can cast mind sliver as an action, then quicken Hold Person as a bonus. Crucially, you can use a bonus action at any point during your turn. I'm pro bonus action, BTW. I think it's basically intuitive and fine
3 action economy was such a positive in switching from 5e to PF2E. Turn times sped up a LOT because it was so simple - you do your three actions? Okay, you're done, move on. No arguing, no nonsense, no nothing. So much quicker, yet so much more flexible and even powerful too!
The first time one of my players realized they can cast two spells in 1 round if they had actions and their excitement was a great moment. As well as hearing the cogs turning in their mind when I introduced the 'action tax' with climbing by having /them/ start on the high ground, especially with one of the enemies crit failing.
@@MalloonTarka You can take as many free actions as you want/have, the only limit is sanity and that free actions that have a trigger, you can only use one of them on that trigger. i.e. When initiative begins: if you have multiple free actions with that trigger, you must choose one. Sanity: you cannot recite the entire bee movie script on your turn.
@@SquidmanMalachar Thought so. That seems to undermine "[Y]ou do your three actions? Okay, you're done, move on. No arguing, no nonsense, no nothing." A free action is "something".
@@MalloonTarka You'd think, but not really. Things that give you a free action to use are few and far between. Unless you have a feat or whatnot, they are largely limited to talking/dropping an item/taking a hand off a 2h weapon.
The core idea of a "Swift Action" (one free per turn, can also convert your main action into one) is a pretty common thing in the DnD derived action systems. You can find it all over the videogame world. However, bonus action also has _mutual exclusion_ worked in. Everything that cost a "Bonus Action", is mutually exclusive with everything else costing a bonus action. Bonus Action is used like PF2's Flourish or Stance trait. Or the 2 Action Spells. Meaning there is no actual swift Action left (unless you count the interact). And they can not fix that, without making a proper 6E.
The point about it being clear when a player's turn is over sounds trivial, but in my 5e experience it's surprisingly relevant. Comes up sometimes with bonus actions, but where it's especially annoying is with movement, because you often end your turn with some or all of your speed remaining, and its free to use. As a DM I cannot count the number of times ive had to ask a player "are you done or are you going to move" after they perform their action(s) for the turn, usually after a prolonged moment where nobody knows whose turn it is. Of course the answer is usually "No", because dnd combat often doesn't really incentivize movement, but they forget often enough that I still have to ask every time.
Everyone getting AoO feel like half the issue. Sure Martials *tend* to get it in P2e, but want to fill a party with dread at level one? Hit and Run Compies (Those little dinos from Jurassic Park). Move strike (maybe poison) Move has never felt so good... and before someone asks, they did fine. Just some mild panicking.
I was thinking back, and 5e's bonus action has power crept a lot from the swift action of 3.5 and 4e. Nobody was attacking or moving their speed with a swift action (Kobolds getting to move/disengage 5 feet as a swift action was a huge deal and their flagship feature in 4e).
You could get attacks in 4e, but they tended to be MUCH weaker, and limited ontop. (Just one die of damage without mod, no effect.) Players tended to use minor action attacks to tap off near dead enemies.
Hey, just to correct the records: Horizon Thunder Sphere is closer to Frieza's Death Ball. It's a big orb, you throw it, and it impacts an area. What you're imagining is Inner Radiance Torrent, which can also channel over multiple turns for more damage, but fires in a line, much like the Kamehameha. Does this matter? Probably not! But so help me it is my hill to die on.
No problemmo! It's a common mix-up in the community. Inner Radiance Torrent isn't legal in Pathfinder Society so it's not like it sees much play. ....for what it's worth, I've only watched DBZ Abridged >.>
4:35 thank you! This was honestly the biggest difference I noticed after GMing pf2e combat. Especially when playing online, having less of a need for back and forth to get through the turn works so much more smoothly.
PF2e's 3 action economy is amazing, but I think it works primarily due to a lot of other smart design decisions (which might not be obvious at first). Like MAP and multiple degrees of success, which makes using all 3 actions to attack a terrible idea in the majority of (but not all) circumstances. I know that 3.5e had an issue with full attacks, where martials would use their main AND move to get multiple attacks out, essentially dedicating their entire turn to damage. It became overwhelmingly the best tactic to use because damage is so important in any combat oriented game. You were incentivized to do the same thing every round. PF2e also has a ton of universal actions with defined effects, so that you always have some use for your actions outside of attacking. And there are a ton of "action taxes" as well that enemies can inflict, to force more interesting decisions outside of optimal "rotations". If another game were to implement the 3 action system, they would need to give it a lot of thought and build systems around it from the ground up.
PF2Es Implementation of MAP still sucks a lot imo because of how static it is. In early levels it does its job well, the second and third attack are completely useless to promote the use of Utility actions. But by late midgame, you can either ignore MAP or never get a second hit in, depending on the GM.
@@lorddarki9936 What do you mean "depending on the GM", the AC will stay consistent at high levels just as at low levels. The only builds that can ignore MAP at high levels are agile fighters or flurry rangers, which is both of those classes' objectives.
After getting my start in ttrpgs via D&D, I ended up drifting towards other systems like PbtA and ended up with a bit of an aversion to games like Pathfinder. Recently I've been looking to get back into it, and your videos have been really helpful in understanding a lot of the underlying philosophies with Pathfinder. Keep up the good work!
After 3 years of 5e, I am for the first time joining a Pf2 game as a dual class wizard/witch, thanks for opening my mind about this game, and convincing me that spellcasting won't be shit, you are epic
Action type is also obnoxious when dealing with persistent spells such as Flaming Sphere or Moonbeam, as the reposition option may be a bonus or standard action.
Pathfinder 2e's 3 action economy is one of the things I always thought was a HUGE improvement over the mucky, muddy action economy of PF1e and D&D 3xe. Intuitive systems that make sense are preferable, in my opinion. But it does depend on the purpose and point of a game system. PF2e is a great system, but is still a fairly crunchy one (that hinges on the base D&D paradigm, which is fairly combat heavy). In a game system where combat is *not* one of the core aspects of play, action economy is a fairly different matter.
My group had a whole discussion about bonus action casting (amounting from the question of "how many spells can we feasibly cast per turn") and it STILL confuses us sometimes. You can cast a bonus action spell, two cantrips (with fighter's action surge), and a reaction spell. As a Sorcerer, you can quicken a cantrip, and do two spells (action surge) and a reaction spell. The restriction doesn't make much sense if you look at it like that.
Technically if you use a bonus action spell, you can't use a reaction spell if it comes up during your turn. So if a caster tries to Counterspell you while you're casting a bonus action spell, you can't then cast Counterspell on them lol. The bonus action spell rule is so dumb and is a hacky way to limit spellcasters without actually addressing the martial/caster gap in the game.
You didn't mention this explicitly, but there's another advantage PF2 has here. You critique 5e D&D for how "bonus action" spells are not justified by anything in-world: Why is this spell a bonus action? Because the game says it is. In PF2, spell action costs ARE given an in-world justification: each action required represents one component type (somatic, verbal, and/or material). This may not be as significant a factor as the ease of gameplay and elegance of design that PF2 brings to the table in terms of weighing one system against the other, but it goes to show how much care and consideration was put into PF2's design as a system overall.
I think looking at other systems overall and how they handle their action economies is great for helping people at least understand the drawbacks (and benefits) of a system. Lancer in particular has an action economy that I really like, on par with PF2's. You have two actions and your movement. However, you can't do the same action twice as a quick action on a turn: so you can't Boost (dash) twice, or attack twice, etc. However, you also a limited number of times you can overcharge to get an additional action for free that isn't subject to these limits. It provides a ton of flexibility but encourages you to do more than just attack constantly, sorta like what PF2's 3 actions do. If 5e can't handle a three action economy, I at least think it'd benefit heavily from something like Lancer's action system.
You're too nice for bonus actions. It's #1 reason to make mistakes during player turn. People have to reset their turns near the end, because at last moment they notice they've used two bonus actions... If they notice it. Planning a turn is also very hard if your class is very bonus action dependant. Even in computer game, BG3, that shows which resources you use and how many you have, it could get pretty complicated... But at least BG3 didn't have the rule about cantrips only after bonus action.
The bonus action casting rule is a classic case of where 5e groups oversimplify the system so they think the game is a simple one to pick up. I've lost count of the number of people who I have had to teach that rule to. So many people learn it as "You can't cast two spells on your turn.", which has a similar effect but isn't the rule. Being a fan of action surging wizards, I've been over it so many times.
6:50 Huh, that bonus action rule seems to be the same rule as the Swift spell action from the playtest earlier in this video. You can cast a Swift spell as an Action, or as part of an Action, as long as that Action is not another spell. --> You can cast a Bonus action spell and use an Action, as long as that Action is not another spell.-(except cantrips somehow; do they not count as spells in the playtest maybe? If so, it's the same rule phrased differently!)
5e feels more like WotC’s 2nd attempt at making DnD be a tabletop “video” game, and most of the systems reflect that in some way. Which makes sense given they were learning from the combination of 3.5e and 4e and trying to update it from that point
That is exactly correct. It was made to be Skyrim, the tabletop. You're supposed to be the biggest baddest thing at the table at all levels. It is so boring.
2:30 This is (usually) incorrect. Dropping an item in 5e is free. As such you can just drop the weapon and use your item interaction to take out a different weapon. As a whole 5e is better at weapon juggling than p2e is. The 3 action system is indeed less complicated than the 5e's action economy though.
3 action economy is much easier to get. And it sounds awesome in theory. But in reality it's much more limiting in most of sitiations. You can stand up, move, open the door and attack 2 times in D&D and still have a bonus action left. While in Pathfinder you can stand up, pick up one of your weapons and place a hand on it. And that's your turn. And that's how everything works in Pathfinder. Awesome on paper, does not work in real life. If like having fun, that is, of course
In the years of playing D&D 5e with a group that plays strictly according to RAW, the strategy for switching weapons was always to drop your weapon and draw a new one with your free "object interaction" to use during an attack. This leads to silly situations of everyone tracking the location of all their dropped weapons during combat. Usually made even more ridiculous by the generous encumbrance rules. It is noteworthy how seemingly harmless ``simplification'' of rules can result in additional complexity and ultimately lead to particularly silly "meta"-strategies to exploit the rule system.
I quite liked 4e's version of a bonus action where you had a main, movement and swift action that you can dowgrade to the one after. So you could theoretically take 3 swift actions if you forgo your main and movement actions.
I eventually want to play and run PF2e, so I watch some of your videos, but it's hard to actually enjoy doing so when you snidely call the D&D revision "6th Edition" while disengenuosly calling the Pathfinder revision "2.1". Looking at the amount of changes between AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D, they were fairly compatible. They were both a hodgepodge mess of inconsistent mechanics, but the messes were about the same, since the main point of publishing 2e was to cut everything Gygax wrote. 3rd edition D&D was an entirely different game, mechanically. 3.5 was relatively compatible with 3e. 4th Edition was an entirely different game again, and it came too soon, so many existing D&D p;layers didn't buy in. Pathfinder was relatively compatible with 3.x, so many referred to it as D&D 3.75. 5e D&D was a new game again, but stripped down compared to 3e or 4e. Then experiments with Starfinder led to enough changes in the core systems that Pathfinder 2e launched. After 10 years of 5e, D&D is getting a revision, but the amount of changes look to be a .5 at most, so you're just calling it 6e to disparage it, and anyone who plays it. Then Pathfinder does its own revision, but you downplay the changes by calling it a .1. RPG rules are not quite as measurable as the changes in software code, but D&D is not making an entirely new game (I'm actually disapointed that they're not changing _enough_). Pathfinder isn't becoming a new game either, but Paizo is not barely touching the rules like hotel staff giving an unoccupied room a light turn. I get that you prefer PF, and I might too if anyone else I know wanted to play it, but disparaging D&D to the point that those who enjoy it feel attacked is a bad move. The "mathfinder" reputation, true or not, is already turning people away. Acting superior and implying that those who play D&D are childish or dim is not going to help. People get foolishly tribalistic about sports they only _watch_. RPGs are not even competitive games, but the way you're cheerleading PF2e and dumping on D&D sounds like you're trying to drive the fans past friendly rivalry and into hostile animosity. Maybe provide courses to make people feel _welcome_ and the quality of the ruleset will speak for itself. (And if you can motivate people to advocate for and support better software tools for PF2, analogous to D&D Beyond, that would make a huge difference.)
baldur's gate reaffirmed to me that bonus actions are an excellent way to encourage utility choices that don't take away from a player's desire to deal damage
The limitation is the entire point. It's a flexibility that's occasionally allowed to everyone, but is a staple of flexible classes/subclasses. If you houserule it to death you might as well get rid of it, but played RAW it makes perfect sense for a rogue to be able to do more things in one turn than a wizard. It's one of fhe few things 5e does well for class identity.
While I agree that bonus actions are a hacky concept, and I also agree that the 3 action system is conceptually simple, I don't think cherry picking specific situations and explaining how they'd be fixed in Pf2e is a bit silly. To me the ability to split up your movement is intuitive even if it doesn't make for a simple game explanation. And I can just as easily cherry pick a game situation where splitting up movement is more advantageous than a 3 action system. Ultimately they're different games that play differently. But yeah, people should try lots of game types and not be biased towards the thing they already know.
Bonus actions are weird because they completely change their dynamic depending on whether you have access to no bonus action effects, one bonus action effect, or multiple. If you have none, then you are essentially hobbling your own turn and missing out on basically half of the things you can do per round. If you have one, then it's pretty much an auto-use every turn unless it has limited uses or doesn't stack with itself. It only really forces a real decision onto the player when they have multiple... but then that's considered a poor decision when building your character, since why double up on bonus actions that you can only use one of a turn, when you could get more flat power instead? Due to opportunity cost, you are discouraged from choosing the fun option.
0:07 I see this happen all the time with CCG players who only played Magic The Gathering or MMORPG players who only played WoW. When they try a new game, some find it more complicated, even when they move to a game that has fewer mechanics, less rules, less intricacies, etc.
I'm fairly new to Pathfinder, and haven't played any 5e (I was in a campaign of 3.5e about two decades ago, and made a character for a second campaign of it that collapsed before session 1, and that's the entirety of my D&D experience), but have played a bunch of those 'genuinely rules light' games you mentioned (and also have a bit of GURPS experience), and the action economy of Pathfinder makes a ton of sense to me because it's fundamentally the same concept that a lot of boardgames use - It's an Action Point system. There are more actions to consider for your 3AP in PF2e than the... I think it's 3? you have in, say, Pandemic, but the core idea is the same. 5e's "There are multiple buckets, if you don't use something from that bucket you don't get anything for it, you can only use one thing from each bucket" is a lot harder to get my head around with that context (Though I'm sure I'd manage if I were in a game of 5e, it's just a lot weirder compared to the games I'm used to playing)
The other complication of the Bonus Action system is a fair number of players don't understand that a Bonus Action is still an action. I've seen dozens of people not realize that conditions that cause "Incapacitated" like paralyzed or stunned, etc prevents you from using bonus actions as well as Actions. They assume the conditions are referring to the specifically named Action and Reaction, but not the idea of actions as a whole.
I agree. Bonus actions are a poor implementation. Today, players make class and character decisions based on viability of being able to use bonus actions. They've had to add and implement loads of things that are bonus actions just to give people things to do at the table. It's a bad system. I prefer Pathfinders implementation as it's far easier to balance and understand. There's too many strange things to track in 5e. Pathfinder has it's flaws but they are minimal overall.
i believe your wrong on the range attack example for 5e if you look at the ranged weapons like long bow it has "Drawing the Ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack." so you can move draw your bow with the object interaction and then shoot just fine and heck you can even use hunters mark if your a ranger which is a bonus action.
@@MrTheJoom Yes. In the second example presented, in D&D the fighter could drop their melee weapon (free action), then draw their ranged weapon (interact with object), and attack (action) all while still having their bonus action, movement, reaction available.
As a 5e GM i actually really like Bonus Actions and feel like had they been balanced better i think they're a neat concept. In my opinion BAs should be available to every class early and they should have a couple options. BAs should be of one of two kinds: An effect that you wouldnt want to spend a full action (think changing the target of Hex upon a kill) OR should be similar in power to an action but have limited uses.
@@kedraroth I think that's very good! Sadly I've lost a lot of faith in Wizards and I've been looking for a new set of rules to follow. So far PF2E has ticked an incredible amount of boxes. D&D One is something I haven't looked into much, but so far all I've seen are changes I don't care for and Wizards coming off as sketchy.
@@william4996 Nobody that I know that likes RPGs and even D&D supports WOTC in any way, I will continue to play the game I like no matter how shity the company behind the game is (and Paizo has his own dirty too, I'm not looking for a imaculate company because this doesn't exists)
@@kedraroth Well, if they purchase goods or services from WOTC they do actually support the company in SOME WAY, assuming they pay for the books and such. Not that I care, my issue with WOTC is just that I don't feel I can trust that their decisions are beneficial for the game as opposed to just being ways to make more money. With my extremely limited experience with Paizo I don't get that feeling.
I never understood why nobody just spammed 2 fireballs as 5e sorcerers, because I didn't understand that there is a 1-spell limit in most circumstances. While I'm happy that level 5 sorcerer can't just throw out 16d6 fire damage in one turn, I hate the way they go about making it not work.
Pf2e action economy: I'm 5 ft away from a door that I need to get through. I move 5 ft to it (action 1), open it (action 2), and move through it (action 3). That isn't fun. As someone who's group plays 5e and P2e concurrently (and both campaigns are about 2 years old at this point), I really don't think one action system better than the other, they're just different. Both have situations that are optimal and sub optimal within the system. For example, I hate the movement in PF. Being able to split movement and act in between is so much more fun. But being far enough away that a dash is required kills your turn. Its a toss up, and really down to preference.
It is literally a rule in PF2E that 'comboing' actions like moving part of your movement, opening a door and continuing to move through with the rest of your movement as just 2 actions is allowed, and even more inventive combos at GM discretion. Pg 14 of the Gamesmastery Guide. Ronald has specifically covered this to dismiss this inaccurate criticism of the system.
I've not played PF2e yet, does the 3 action economy mean you can attack 3 times each turn if you do nothing else? Does PF2e have things like D&D's double attack (where you attack twice with 1 action), meaning in PF you could attack six times?
"you can attack 3 times each turn if you do nothing else?" Yes... at progressively worse to hit modifiers (exactly how it was in D&D3.5e). "Does PF2e have things like D&D's double attack (where you attack twice with 1 action?" Yes... Flurry of Blows, Double Strike, and similar feats/abilities grant players that ability. "meaning in PF you could attack six times?" No. Those actions are capped at Once per Turn. So, you can attack 4 times, 5 if you're under the effects of Haste. Although, the likelihood of hitting an enemy with the 3rd or later attacks, is not worth using, unless you're attacking a crowd of lower level enemies.
Designing my own systems, I've found the weird thing about bonus actions is the interaction with extra attack. If you want to remove them entirely and have a single "action" can be really constrained. But if you have multiple actions then the number of attacks a player has comes into question. Pf2e probably had this problem which is why they made the multiple attack penalty
One thing about bonus actions and spellcasting I despise: if you cast a bonus action spell, you can cast a cantrip on your action, but if you cast a spell on your action, there's barely any bonus action cantrips! There's like 2 BA cantrips in the whole game, so I have to go out of my way to multiclass or gain a bonus action ability unrelated to spellcasting! How didn't they think of this? (I'm aware that some classes have bonus actions that are useful, like bardic inspiration. But other spellcasters don't have that privilege, or their bonus action abilities are not always advantageous, like wildshaping into a low hp/low ac creature in the middle of combat and losing your ability to cast spells).
I absolutely houserule the ability to convert a bonus action to a action. Also some bonus action/ reaction spells can be cast regardless if the CX has cast a spell.
I’m old school . I turn , 1 action Cantrips don’t take an action. Under certain circumstances you might get more attacks / round. Really it doesn’t matter as long as it’s consistent. One action per turn just seems logical. Who cares as long as you’re having fun ?
IDEA: Make Bonus Actions what their name suggests: extra FULL actions that are earned as a bonus by doing certain things, like getting crits or hitting weaknesses (ala Persona's "One More" system) or sacrificing Actions on future turns (ala Bravely Default's "Brave/Default" system).
5e has a clustering problem like this in several spots. For example, the Short Rest does a bunch of things in the system and this sometimes causes issues. Warlock wants to get spells back? Well that's locked into Short Rest and takes an hour that you might not have. You can't rest a shorter time for fewer regained. Want to make resting to heal to take less time to keep the narrative flow? Well no you made Warlock spells faster to recharge too. PF2e? Ten minute activities that are all separate but can assemble into a "short rest" of customizable length. Rechargeable spells? They are a different kind of spell and balanced for the recharge rate, not full spells like the warlock's. You can also opt to recover only some of them at a time if you have less time to recover. 2e has so much customization you can customize your snack break.
At very least, there should be no bonus actions which are used for damage. Period. For anyone in any situation. If there are damage effects which are important for class scaling like Paladin Smites (playtest edition), Monk extra unarmed attacks, or Two Weapon Fighting, they should simply be part of the attack action, and limited to once-per-turn when relevant. That would let every class and build use bonus actions for utility effects, rather than letting classes designed without bonus actions gain a tonne more damage through taking feats and multiclass dips for bonus action attacks. It’d be a lot easier to balance damage as well as encourage weapon variety.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG So many problems in DD5e keep going back to how Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert are almost always the best damage option. Everyone who can play well with them typically does good damage, and classes and subclasses which can't are at a massive disadvantage.
I played Solasta Crown of the Magister. Which is based on 5e rules. In that game you can switch one whole loadout of weapons in your hands to another with your interaction. So I thought that's how 5e did it and you example was wrong. Now that I've re-read the rulebook I think neither is correct, It seems completely up to interpretation
8:43 Okay, please do not make that one a selling point! Those 3 spells are a mess. A bodge job, on par with Bonus Actions. Every other spell follows the rule that the casting time is either maximum 3 Actions, or minimum 1 minute. These break a convention that has been in place since CRB 1st printing. Resulting in all kinds of wierd edge cases.
I can see how PF2 is 'simpler'. I wonder how certain actions will be viewed by players as they take an action, but have much less effect than other actions. I'm also amazed by the spells I've seen so far. I wonder how many players would ever want to cast Healing Word for 1 action, when using a second action just adds 8 points of healing onto the 1d8. Use a stride action and heal 1d8 vs spend 2 actions and heal them for 1d8+8... I mainly come from 4e, and I like it's action economy. You get a Standard, a Move, and a Minor action on your turn. Standard actions can be used to do a Move action. A Move action can be used to do a Minor action. A charge action includes moving and attacking, so you can move, then charge. You can even move away from the enemy and then charge back at them. I think this helps balance actions, and helps keep the idea you can move and attack in a turn. You have the option of using a standard action to do a minor, but you only need to do so if it's urgent. However it means a healer can cast their main heal ability and do a cool attack. You can have a nice move action that doesn't make you feel like you are giving up an attack to do it. In PF2, casting a healing spell needs to be as impactful as attacking. Seeing the Healing Word spell, it already feels like healing in PF2 will be as bad as 5E, so actually just attacking and killing something maybe more worth while. And with 3 actions all with equal weight, you have to consider how impactful each one is. The idea of bonus/minor actions is good imo, as it can give nice, useful effects to characters without making the player feel like they are giving up a more meaningful action.
Healing in PF2 is actually really good and encounters in the system are designed to be fought against party's with full or near full health. The spell you are referring to is called Heal and it is really good at outputing large amounts of healing, but it is also good because it is modular in its action cost. Being able to use 1 action to stabilize a dying ally and then cast another spell (if you're adjacent to the ally rather than having to move to them) is such a game changer. And sure, the 2 action mode of Heal is the defacto mode, but that's standard as most spells in PF2 are 2 actions anyways. The best way to view the spell is that the default version is 2 actions, 1d8+8 healing. Everything else on it (1 action, 3 action mode) are just cherries on top. I come from 3.5 mostly where the action economy can be very muddled. Swift actions and immediate actions being in the same category but also not is confusing. 5-foot steps and all of that are just mechanics that add complexity. You say that 4e's action economy is easy, but your example doesn't help. Charging: does it consume your Standard action? Your Move? Both? Neither?
@@stuartalt7418 Sorry, I should have made it clearer. Charging is a standard action, that lets you move your speed towards a target, and make a melee basic attack against them. I think the main problem 3.5 had is it was introducing the idea of bonus actions, but didn't have a good framework for how they fit into the game and yeah, it was messy.
4E was much less convoluted. 1 standard, 1 move, 1 minor. And there were many basic things any character could do with a minor, and actions could be exchanged for lesser actions if you so wished. The 3 action system is a bit more elegant but this does cause some actions to feel a little underwhelming compared to others. Usually characters get access to some compound actions that include these really basic actions so I guess it's not too bad. Just a little quirk.
Honestly I think letting spellcasters take bonus actions is a bit of a mistake. If the bonus action was just for martials it would significantly close the power gap in 5e. I would also make it so you can use your action for bonus actions, but not the other way around. Finally, if you think its too much to deny all spellcasters bonus actions then each subclass gets a list of spells they can cast as bonus actions that expands at later levels similar to expanded spell list. At the very least I think it makes more sense for the bonus action to be an actual bonus, as in a benefit you can get and not just part of the action econ.
Bonus action tbh isn't a bad idea. It seems quite common to do something like this. It's named confusingly though. Also, the whole "swift" thing is misleading. Also, maybe there should be some universal bonus actions. Maybe something like "tactical action" would've been better. Or primary/complimentary actions for action / bonus action. Pf2e's action economy is interesting and quite good, altho idk if it applies to everything. It does simplify bonus action / action by making actions into 2-action activities. (And stuff which grants bonus actions is limited by MAP and allowed activities to be more of a mobility thing ig)
D&D's system is far from perfect but it is pretty simple, and fun. Its all a matter of personal preference, subjectivity really, however having said that, this video is an inaccurate breakdown/representation. In the first example the fighter seems to be holding a reach weapon meaning he could (in D&D) use his 30ft of movement to move toward his foe, and still be able to attack with his weapon because he has the reach property (extending his range by 10ft.), while still having his bonus action available or an action surge or (if 5th level) another attack. In the second example, say the fighter didn't have a reach weapon but a sword instead, and he needed to attack at range then (in D&D) he could drop his sword (free action), draw his bow (interact with object), then attack (action), and not only does he still have his bonus action available but his movement as well. Furthermore, once again if the fighter is 5 level then he can attack again. Related to being able to cast leveled spells, then only a cantrip afterwards on the same turn, its been a foundation in D&D for quite some time now, and that's simply how if functions. Reminders or clarifications are needed no matter what TTRPG one is playing. Spellcasting or specifically spellcasters are weak relative to martials in Pathfinder 2e compared to D&D 5e hence changes coming down the line by Pazio. Conversely, martials in D&D 5e are weak compared to mages hence the changes they are undertaking currently. However, to say that bonus actions need to die seems extreme because they have been a core part of the game for a long time now, and work fine. I could argue that perhaps the 3 action system in Pathfinder 2e needs to go (I find it interesting but very restrictive), being replaced by a 4 action system however that would make it a different game. Take care.
The only thing I still don't like about the three-action economy is that it makes movement feel really weird. I'm not playing Hero Quest, so why can I run 25 ft. then swipe at an enemy, then run another 25 ft but I can't run 10ft, then swipe, then run 40 ft, when both versions involve doing the same thing and running the same distance? I agree that overall, the three-action economy is far better than 5e's WTF action economy but the Hero Quest movement still bugs me.
While 5es action economy is based on 3,5 / PF 1 style action economy, at least those had a bit of interchangability. You could trade your standard action for an additional move action (which could be a few things other than straight movement), and I think you could also trade your move for a swift action, but don't quote me on that. For those unfamiliar, its like so. Full round action = Use both your standard and move action to do one powerful thing. Standard action = action Move action = movement (most of the time) Swift action = bonus action. So its a small downgrade of what was before in terms of flexibility. Thel imited ability to trade up and down made 3,5 / PF 1e action economy interesting at times. 3 action economy from PF2e is better still due to its simple elegance, but I just wanted to mention.
Pathfinder is old chewed up 3rd edition bubble gum stuck to the bottom of a desk that everyone else ignored but that one guy..... That one guy took the chewed up bubble gum and stuck it in his mouth thinking... "Theres still flavor in here. Why would anyone abandon this goodness?" Thats Pathfinder players.😅
Action economy is probably the biggest problem with 5e. There should at the least be standard bonus actions that anyone can use. Also not being able to use an action for a bonus action.
The 5e bonus action is one of the worst parts of the core system. A lot of the problems of the system in terms of balance, game flow, player confusion, etc stem back to the bonus action. The sooner it dies the better and I think WotC has to be looking closely at the PF2e action economy system. The PF2e system had to rely on a whole system around to hit modifiers decreasing to make their 3 action economy work. While adjusting modifiers works it is also not necessarily all that great either. PF2e also has an in combat skill actions that are a BIG part of the 3 action game system but they don't necessarily have a clear place in the design from the standpoint of the action economy, the new player, or skill choice balance. While I think the skill system in PF2e needs a lot of work it is way ahead of 5e.
The weapon switching rules from DnD 5e (especially RaW) and PF2E are so supremely stupid that either most tables ignore it or the gm wont track it and as a player you can "cheat" switch weapons. GMs also often don't let their Monsters take an action to switch weapons. Its such a mess, to the point that I do not understand why it still wasnt changed in OneDnD or PF2E
I feel like some of this is exaggerated. DND isn’t a tight system, but y’all can enjoy Pathfinder without taking a dump of DnD just because people like it
I have to sort of disagree with your statement about Healing Word and the swift spells. I am not sure if you ommited it on purpose for the sake of "Pathfinder is the superior system." or if it was an oversight. Not to defend DnD 5e, but in my opinion it would be important to not argue about something in bad faith. The text states: A spell that has a swift casting time can be cast as your action OR as part of ANOTHER action. Now, I will be honest, I haven't playtested the new stuff as I am not interested in 5.5/6e, but in this case RAW I immediately understand it as giving you an opportunity to either say, hey I want to cast Healing Word (as an example) as my action. So action done and dusted. BUT you could as well say "Ok I do XYZ as my ACTION and AS PART of it, I cast Healing Word as it is a swift spell." So technically it seems to give more utility of swift spells in comparison to bonus actions, as if you did a bonus action (using your example here) like Bardic inspiration, you could not cast Healing Word anymore. But with this wording it at least sounds very clearly to me that you could do bardic inspiration as a swift action while casting Healing Word as your ACTION. Now I am not saying that I am 100% in the right in this as I might be missing something, but this is how I understand the situation from the presented facts.
I love PF2's 3-action economy in theory. In practice though, I think too many things are discrete actions in PF2, like individual weapon swings and raising your shield, that I prefer D&D's approach instead. I also dislike how most spells in PF2 can't be Readied because you can only Ready one action and most spells require two. And speaking of spells, I really dislike PF2's Critical Failure mechanic, but that's a rant for a different video.
Bonus actions never seemed that difficult or confusing to me or my groups? It's like an action takes ~5 seconds, movement takes ~4 seconds and a bonus action takes ~2 seconds and they overlap to fill a 6 second round. You can downgrade an action to a move or a bonus, though maybe I house-ruled that last part, it's just so intuitive. Further, spells are powerful so a creature can only ever cast one spell per turn, though cantrips are like a half-a-spell, so you can cast 1 spell and 1 cantrip if you have the time (like using an action and a bonus action). I also don't see any issue asking a player if they're done. It takes a half second and honestly gives the next player a trigger to get ready to start their turn. My players are not hardcore gamers. Most have never played before this game, but they all seem to have internalized how things work with maybe a couple "explain it to me again" moments. Is Pathfinder 2 simpler? Maybe, but it's crazy stretching to say D&D 5e is way more complicated and somehow inferior.
I just finished BG3 and there were SO many times where I couldnt make the attacks I wanted because they required a full action and a bonus action.... which means i have to choose betweeen that attack or using potions, which ALSO use bonus actions. Crazytown
I think some of the issues (especially the spell casting) are not so much a matter of the Bonus Action mechanic being a problem, but that they are using the Bonus Action mechanic is a way that is problematic. Bonus actions should be bonuses.... aka additional tricks that make a given character special. Actions are things that essentially, everyone gets to do. Some classes may favor a given type of action (attacks vs spells etc...) but they essentially all get an action and they all get to move. Bonus actions are ways to differentiate "You get to do something extra" that most character's can't. And used properly, they make characters feel more special and more differentiated. Fundamentally, you should not be creating a thing you can do exclusively as a bonus action that you would want to substitute a regular action to do. Bonus actions should either support normal actions, or they should be equal/lesser options than their regular action counterparts. I don't think bonus actions are necessarily better than standardized actions, but they do create a design space in which you can achieve a player experience that feels different than standardized actions. It lets you make people feel special in different ways which is an important part of class and character design.
The videos are tuning a little weird to me. I wish you the best Rules Lawyer. Great explanations of how to play the game. I really liked your videos explaining how to play in Vtt. I don't have personal beef with D&D and this turned to be into that for quite sometime. Take care.
D&D isn't a horrible game. But it isn't perfect enough to warrant the kind of bandwagon loyalty it holds. Bandwagon loyalty which is a detriment to the TTRPG hobby as a whole. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out how other games do some things better, if just to get people to at least peek outside of their box before WotC walls the whole thing up behind VTTs and monthly subs.
@@RustwraithThe videos on this channel appear to simply attack D&D. Why? Why not extol the virtues of Pathfinder instead? Just relentlessly piling into 5e is a huge turn off.
To be fair, PF2 has the once-per-round flourish tag, but I would imagine it's quite rare for a PC to actually end up with more than one flourish action (and many are two-action activities that you couldn't repeat, anyway).
Not as rare as you think. Some Flourish actions are situational...Power Attack, Sudden Charge, Knock Down are all Fighter Feats and all have the Flourish Tag. Yet, each action has a purpose. Power Attack, to deal more damage on a hard-to-hit enemy... Sudden Charge, to get into combat quickly, and make a strike (3 actions for the cost of 2)... Knock Down to get an attack and a trip in, but the trip doesn't have the attack penalty applied to. Of course, there is also Quick Reversal, that's 1 action cost Flourish... it allows you to attack two enemies which are flanking you, for the cost of one action.
I think criticizing D&D for issues that are frequently houseruled is not particularly persuasive. Like, sure, you technically can't sheathe your sword, draw a bow and shoot in one turn, but tell that to most players and they'll just shrug and keep playing their houseruled game
The thing is, the criticism is often lobbed at PF2e that it's so much more complicated, but if that perception is coming from people *ignoring the rules of 5E*, then pointing out what the rules of 5E actually are, and how those rules relate to Pathfinders' is totally fair. Without seeing the full essay, we can't tell whether Ronald leaves it as an exercise for the viewers or not to ultimately point out that you can also ignore Pathfinder rules, too, if you really want to.
@ChanJENI I have seen the full essay, he released it ages ago (pretty sure). All I'm saying is it's unlikely to persuade a 5e fan. 5e is a bit of a mess, but people do make it work for their tables because the core systems are reasonably malleable
If I'm not mistaken, in 5e you can draw a weapon as a part of your movement action. So in your example he could use interact to stow his melee weapon, then draw his bow as a part of his movement action (without actually moving). In the case of PF2E, you've used 2/3 of your actions to stow and then draw the bow. It's still more 'complicated' in 5e because it relies on more mechanical language, but it doesn't have to take your action.
That's not in 5e. I remember that from 3e/PF1 however: if your Base Attack Bonus was +1 or higher, you could draw a weapon as part of moving. EDIT: The language quoted after me says you can interact with "one" object for free, during "either" your move or your action. So it doesn't allow for interacting with 2 objects unless you Use an Object.
From 5e PHB, Order of Combat You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions. And then the Use an Object action from latter says You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
@@CSManiac33 this is correct. However, the way this is worded in 5e creates issues for two-weapon fighting characters, and the rules do not carve out an exception for them, so it causes a problem of its own.
@@CSManiac33 "you could draw your weapon as a part of the same action you use to attack" I think I've always just ruled that this doesn't consume your object interaction and is a component of the attack action, but I see now that isn't what they intended. It's so counter intuitive (as mentioned in the video) to need to use an action to switch weapons that unless you really examine the rules your brain sort of auto corrects it to something that makes more sense.
Personally, I dislike the Bonus Action for different reasons than the ones you present. Pathfinder 2e three action economy system, appears simple till you realize that it creates the same problem as 5e, but with a different approach. There are to many actions and you need so many codified rules to support both games.
I do not agree with your sentiment. Yes, there's a conflict between the actions you can use in PF2, but that creates choice. BA in 5e doesn't create a choice, it's another action economy alongside the actions. That's the main problem from my POV.
I'd say PF2 creates brand new problems. Want to Ready a spell? Most of them use two actions, so you're much more limited. Want to break up your move between attacks? You only get one Stride on most characters, so probably not without the right feat coupon. Want to attack three times? MAP means the third one is almost always wasted.
@@PsyrenXYOh no! I have to play this tactical, combat-focused system... tactically!!! Stop using all of your actions to attack and get rid of the mindset that dealing damage is better than anything else. Shove a creature to a better position, grapple or trip them, demoralize them, do something to help your team for once.
@@PsyrenXYI think the spell readying thing is somewhat warranted but the lack of breaking up movement and the MAP are integral to how PF2 achieves more tactical and active combat. The point of having choices in combat is that those choices have consequences, sacrifices, and rewards that you need to CHOOSE from.
This was one of the first delights I had switching over to pf2e from d&d5e. Everything is just an action. No bonus actions, just actions. It was something that always irked me in 5e, especially to do with spellcasting (which Baldur's Gate 3 fixed). It's so much more fun to just have everything cost the same resource instead of having to juggle 3 (movement, action, bonus action)
i hate bonus actions, the fact that i cant do something thats "swift" when i have my whole normal action left is silly. much prefer the Action point system
This is one of the biggest things that turns me off from playing Baldur's Gate 3. The other being short and long rests. Great game tied to a bad system.
As a 5e fan, I have a few counterpoints for you to consider. In the scenario where the fighter wants to switch weapons, it's free to drop what you are holding. So typically the solution would be to drop their melee weapon, draw their bow, and fire. We're not worried about the enemy running up and grabbing the warrior's weapon, because if they were close enough to do that without giving up their action, we wouldn't be having this problem to begin with. And if the enemy monster has higher move speed to be concerned about, the warrior can move away before dropping their weapon (since the range of a bow will not be largely inhibited by moving outside the movement distance of your enemy and the number of instances where this even matters is pretty small). But more crucially, your video has convinced me that (in this particular subject) PF2e is not simpler than 5e. It just lumps the complexity into other parts of the game. For this specific topic, we see a tradeoff where action economy is simpler in PF2e, but Spells are wildly more complex. Not only do they vary on how many actions they require, but each action cost variant might have different spell components to keep track of as well. Getting players to read and understand how their spells work is often hard enough when they do just one thing with the potential to upcast to use higher level slots. You can't really reasonably expect people to memorize their spells when each spell may function more like 3 different spells that each have different rules to how they are cast. At that point, you will have to look up your spells every time you want to cast them.
I don't think any of these are actually counter points. > In the scenario where the fighter wants to switch weapons, it's free to drop what you are holding. This is true in Pathfinder, as well. The point being made, I think, is that a lot of people treat stowing as dropping, so that they can swap back again later for free if they really want to. But that's now actually the rule in either game. And, of course, Pathfinder tables are welcome to houserule stowing every bit as much as 5e tables do. > we see a tradeoff where action economy is simpler in PF2e, but Spells are wildly more complex. Not only do they vary on how many actions they require, but each action cost variant might have different spell components to keep track of as well. I think it's kind of disingenuous to call spells "wildly more complex". Some spells let you choose to spend a different number of actions. That may be more complex than "I have one action and a spell to use" but not by very much. And it's still actually less complex than keeping straight which spells cost an action and which spells cost a bonus action. > each action cost variant might have different spell components to keep track of as well. There's no "might" here. The components are systematic. The number of components a spell has is equal to the number of actions it takes, and the components always increase in complexity, from somatic, to somatic+verbal, to somatic+verbal+material. > You can't really reasonably expect people to memorize their spells when each spell may function more like 3 different spells This is literally what character sheets are for.
5e is ridiculously easy to run and it has nothing to do with me just being familiar with it. When I first tired it I was like "finally they are making the game more approachable." Also, the 3 actions you get in PF2 is a simpler mechanic but it's not better mechanically speaking.
You present a bunch of arguments, but as far as I can tell none of them actually pertain to the argument you're actually trying to make? Yes, in D&D you can't do some things that you can do in Pathfinder. Is that really a good reason to get rid of them though? I could design a system where I could switch my weapon 4 times before making an attack, or dash twice, or whatever, does that mean it's a better idea? I don't think so
Bonus action discussion aside, there is a FAR simpler implementation of the bonus action spell rule that does almost exactly the same thing (there are some edge case differences, nothing gamebreaking): "You can't cast more than one leveled spell on your turn." You can add an exception for reactions if you want people to be able to Shield and Counterspell on their turn. I'm really not sure why the developers didn't do it like that.
@@lorddarki9936 it's almost identical to what we have now? The only difference if you allow reaction spells is a two level fighter dip stops being the ideal for casters.
With the rules at the moment, you can cast a regular levelled spell, and then a levelled bonus action spell. You just have to cast the bonus action spell second, which is a weird arbitrary limitation. Technically though your version is more limiting.@@sethb3090
I dislike both systems as both systems suffer from rules fatigue, spell fatigue and choice paralysis. Combat takes way to long with most battles taking well over an hr for scrub mobs and well over 2 hours for BBEG's. Doesn't matter how fluid your group is.
I can confirm if it is not your jam to get into big long combats it is not worth it. But as long as fights are engaging and good, it is a fucking blast to me. To each their own!
I disagree on even basic combats taking an hour, my group of 5 fought 8 goblins and a hobgoblin leading them in around 40 minutes and that was a longer fight. I will say though that both pf2e and 5e are combat focused systems and sounds like something more RP focused would be to your taste
5e fights are boring for players who enjoy tactical games and also slow. PF2 is a bit quicker once you have the system down, but mostly it fixes the problem of being boring for tactical players. If you want combat to be as quick as possible, you want a Powered by the Apocalypse game or something like Lasers and Feelings.
ADDITIONS:
-For those interested, I used to have a proposed revision for D&D before i stopped trying to help them, and it is NOT to use PF2's 3 action economy. In that video i went over the history of action systems in D&D. Bonus Actions evolved from 3e's swift actions and 4e's minor actions. In those systems, abilities that had that cost were truly swift/minor, or were appurtenant to the "main" action you were doing on your turn. 5e changed that. (4e had some more-powerful minor actions like Healing Word, but it limited how many times you could use it in an encounter.)
Link to my old video where I go into this further, and what I thought D&D should so instead: "'Bonus Actions never playtested!?' Is it time for One D&D to consider Pathfinder's 3 action economy?": th-cam.com/video/aa65RR63I-Y/w-d-xo.html
-I failed to mention that casting a bonus action spell prevents casting a leveled spell as a reaction during your turn. So when an enemy Counterspells your bonus action spell, you cannot Counterspell the Counterspell.
-A few people noping out of my channel because I'm criticizing 5e. Critiquing it is a responsibility if you're seriously trying to open up more eyes to PF2 and other systems generally from the default game/market leader. "Can't we all juat get along" serves WOTC and its ability to dominate TTRPGs by inertia and allows it to get away with stagnating and failing its own DM and player base.
Maybe "you can use a number of bonus actions equal to your proficiency bonus, you get the uses back after a short rest".
5e was a big step back from 4e with regard to actions. The fact that you had a standard, move and a minor, and you could exchange them down (standard as a move or minor, move as a minor), and two types of reactions that were very situational (I like that as well as simply having the equivalent of a Reaction, you also had an Interrupt, allowing for clever tactics if you could make use of them) makes so much more sense compared to 5e's shambolic effort. To be honest, 5e took backward steps from 4e in many areas, which is why I never made the switch.
see Bonus actions are actually fun, as opposed to the straight jacket of tight math and 3 actions PF2 throws you in a lake bound up in....all the fun isn't choked out of the game by having to apply condition after condition to the enemy to actually get to the fun part...
@@justicar5 I disagree. With the math set up as it is, and the 3 action economy as it is, I spend my time considering the actions I am taking to make things better all around. Is it better for me to do a Power Attack, a Shove, or a Trip based on what I know my allies can do? In fact, I feel MORE free to consider how to make a particular battle feel more cinematic. I DESCRIBE how my character does what they do.
Got a two handed hammer? Smack your enemy in the gut folding them over it, and Shove them into an open space that gives flanking to both you and the party rogue.
Need to make it easier for the others in the party to hit the enemy? Pick them up by the throat and slam them into the ground (Trip).
It is purely the description, but adds no special effect to what happened. It is players ACTUALLY being creative, rather than playing by rote. There isn't a need to stack all the best conditions and buffs in order to get the best possible outcome. In fact, I can't think of ANY table I have ever played at where optimization across all classes was how we played. Some players may wait for the bard to toss his buffs out, but that seems to be the extent. Everything else happens on the fly, and the game is still quite fun.
@@justicar5 I very much disagree. If you're a spellcaster, you'll either want to carefully plan how you use bonus action spells or avoid them entirely, and instead look for bonus action features that _aren't_ spells (because the rules for bonus action spellcasting are convoluted as hell - Ronald already went over as to why but to add onto his reasoning, you also can't cast reaction spells either if they ever come up on your turn! I don't blame anyone for getting the specifics of the rule wrong), either via a subclass or a feat or multiclassing.
If you're a martial without a bonus action you can consistently use (so something like a rogue's Cunning Action), if you want to even have some semblance of doing more on your turn than just moving and attacking, you want a bonus action. Though if you aren't a class/subclass that gets one you can use consistently, you'd have to get a bonus action from either multiclassing or getting a feat.
Also, there's such a thing as having too many things competing for your bonus action (like a monk's Ki features). so you not only have to get a bonus action that you can use consistently, but you can't get too much or else you just end up getting features that almost never get used. It's an issue I've had with 5e for a while now (I've even made house rules that allow you to spend your movement as a resource if you aren't using it) and I'm excited to see how Pathfinder's 3 action economy works. Seems much simpler and more intuitive.
TL;DR: Bonus actions are unintuitive as hell.
The point around 3:00 about stowing/drawing weapons really hits the crux of the issue. People coming from 5E to P2E in your own playthrough of Abomination Vaults cited how putting away their weapon and drawing the other took basically their whole turn and that felt bad...but that means they were comparing P2E with a 5E HOMEBREW, not rules-as-written.
Droping weapons is free in DnD5 and Release is also free in PF2. So in both games most of the players will drop current weapon (free), pull another weapon (interact DnD5 or 1st Action PF2), attack (Action DND5, 2nd Action PF2).
In DnD5 it's very-very rare that you can do nothing on your turn (unless you are just disabled with stun or something). In PF2 there are lot of ways to spend all of your actions doing really nothing. Like you are dropped to 0 hp, healed, and now you need to stand, pick up your stuff (maybe 2 times), and go after the enemy. Personally I handwave all these interactions and I'm totally fine with players switch their bow to 2 swords in melee with a single interact or a single PF2 action, but that's a houserule for both systems, and it's not for all tables.
@@БелыйКот-с6п Yeah, but the fact that you don't lose a turn when you are healed from being downed led to the meta where you let somebody totally run out of hp before you bother to heal them, then they pop right back up and act like nothing happened for a turn, get downed again, repeat. Not an actually good example in my opinion, though I honestly can't think of one that isn't already solved by one of the many feats you are able to pick up.
In fact, there are so many things that can eat your only action in 5e: drink a health potion, activate a lever, stow plus equip another weapon, and it runs into the issue presented that you better have a use for your bonus action that turn, or you basically just skipped it. A lot of the time these turn wasters are hand waved away or table-ruled out because they suck, aka the point of this video.
An aside about 4:40. My group has switched to PF2e about 5 sessions ago; loving it so far. Something I didn't expect, though - how enjoyable and liberating it is to _not_ have to ask players, "Is that your turn? Are you gonna do anything else?" Whenever I played 5e I made a distinct effort to clearly state my actions and then declare, "That's my turn," because I know how awkward it can be for the DM to have to constantly interject in order to move things along. However, most players don't have that instinct; they just do their thing and then drift off, and the DM has to manually shoo them off of the limelight. It never ceases to be annoying, and it's a difficult habit to correct.
What's especially funny about the Sorcerer and bonus action spell rule interaction, is that you can Quickened Fireball and then cast a cantrip, but you can't Quickened cantrip and then cast Fireball because cantrips are still technically spells.
@floofzykitty5072, The order doesn't matter using the metamagic feature quickened spell only that the general rule still is applied. Thus, one can by Rules as Written( RAW) quicken a Mind Sliver (a cantrip, that does damage and subtracts 1d4 from the next saving throw with failure on int save) using a bonus action, then as an action cast Hold person (a 2rd level control spell). Now, you could cast as an action Hold Person first, then quicken Mind Sliver for some extra damage and extra effect on your next spell potentially but if you were trying to help ensure that Hold Person would take effect, then order of operation matters.
@leslierobinson8724 Incorrect, you *cannot* cast hold person after casting the cantrip. As soon as you use your bonus action to cast ANY spell (even cantrips, as they do, in fact, count as spells), you can only cast cantrips.
"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
@@leslierobinson8724 As John mentioned, the order DOES matter. Cantrips are spells. A quickened cantrip (spell) triggers the bonus action spell rule.
Quote: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift..."
Notice how it says "A spell" and not "a levelled spell"?
That is the interaction that needs to go. The order shouldn't matter (even though it does RAW) not to abandon the bonus action all together. It's fundamental to other abilities beyond just spell casting too.
You guys are (sort of) both wrong. The ORDER doesn't matter, but which action you use DOES. You can cast mind sliver as an action, then quicken Hold Person as a bonus. Crucially, you can use a bonus action at any point during your turn.
I'm pro bonus action, BTW. I think it's basically intuitive and fine
3 action economy was such a positive in switching from 5e to PF2E. Turn times sped up a LOT because it was so simple - you do your three actions? Okay, you're done, move on. No arguing, no nonsense, no nothing. So much quicker, yet so much more flexible and even powerful too!
The first time one of my players realized they can cast two spells in 1 round if they had actions and their excitement was a great moment.
As well as hearing the cogs turning in their mind when I introduced the 'action tax' with climbing by having /them/ start on the high ground, especially with one of the enemies crit failing.
Do free actions not complicate this?
@@MalloonTarka You can take as many free actions as you want/have, the only limit is sanity and that free actions that have a trigger, you can only use one of them on that trigger.
i.e.
When initiative begins: if you have multiple free actions with that trigger, you must choose one.
Sanity: you cannot recite the entire bee movie script on your turn.
@@SquidmanMalachar Thought so. That seems to undermine "[Y]ou do your three actions? Okay, you're done, move on. No arguing, no nonsense, no nothing." A free action is "something".
@@MalloonTarka You'd think, but not really. Things that give you a free action to use are few and far between.
Unless you have a feat or whatnot, they are largely limited to talking/dropping an item/taking a hand off a 2h weapon.
The core idea of a "Swift Action" (one free per turn, can also convert your main action into one) is a pretty common thing in the DnD derived action systems. You can find it all over the videogame world.
However, bonus action also has _mutual exclusion_ worked in. Everything that cost a "Bonus Action", is mutually exclusive with everything else costing a bonus action.
Bonus Action is used like PF2's Flourish or Stance trait. Or the 2 Action Spells.
Meaning there is no actual swift Action left (unless you count the interact).
And they can not fix that, without making a proper 6E.
The point about it being clear when a player's turn is over sounds trivial, but in my 5e experience it's surprisingly relevant. Comes up sometimes with bonus actions, but where it's especially annoying is with movement, because you often end your turn with some or all of your speed remaining, and its free to use.
As a DM I cannot count the number of times ive had to ask a player "are you done or are you going to move" after they perform their action(s) for the turn, usually after a prolonged moment where nobody knows whose turn it is. Of course the answer is usually "No", because dnd combat often doesn't really incentivize movement, but they forget often enough that I still have to ask every time.
Everyone getting AoO feel like half the issue. Sure Martials *tend* to get it in P2e, but want to fill a party with dread at level one? Hit and Run Compies (Those little dinos from Jurassic Park). Move strike (maybe poison) Move has never felt so good... and before someone asks, they did fine. Just some mild panicking.
I was thinking back, and 5e's bonus action has power crept a lot from the swift action of 3.5 and 4e. Nobody was attacking or moving their speed with a swift action (Kobolds getting to move/disengage 5 feet as a swift action was a huge deal and their flagship feature in 4e).
You could get attacks in 4e, but they tended to be MUCH weaker, and limited ontop. (Just one die of damage without mod, no effect.)
Players tended to use minor action attacks to tap off near dead enemies.
@@woomod2445 And kill minions.
Hey, just to correct the records: Horizon Thunder Sphere is closer to Frieza's Death Ball. It's a big orb, you throw it, and it impacts an area.
What you're imagining is Inner Radiance Torrent, which can also channel over multiple turns for more damage, but fires in a line, much like the Kamehameha.
Does this matter? Probably not! But so help me it is my hill to die on.
I clearly do not watch Dragon Ball Z. I accept this as a friendly amendment!
No problemmo! It's a common mix-up in the community. Inner Radiance Torrent isn't legal in Pathfinder Society so it's not like it sees much play.
....for what it's worth, I've only watched DBZ Abridged >.>
@@McFatsonsoooo...what's the equivalent to the muffin button?
@@anthonynorman7545 goodberry I should think
4:35 thank you! This was honestly the biggest difference I noticed after GMing pf2e combat. Especially when playing online, having less of a need for back and forth to get through the turn works so much more smoothly.
PF2e's 3 action economy is amazing, but I think it works primarily due to a lot of other smart design decisions (which might not be obvious at first). Like MAP and multiple degrees of success, which makes using all 3 actions to attack a terrible idea in the majority of (but not all) circumstances. I know that 3.5e had an issue with full attacks, where martials would use their main AND move to get multiple attacks out, essentially dedicating their entire turn to damage. It became overwhelmingly the best tactic to use because damage is so important in any combat oriented game. You were incentivized to do the same thing every round. PF2e also has a ton of universal actions with defined effects, so that you always have some use for your actions outside of attacking. And there are a ton of "action taxes" as well that enemies can inflict, to force more interesting decisions outside of optimal "rotations". If another game were to implement the 3 action system, they would need to give it a lot of thought and build systems around it from the ground up.
PF2Es Implementation of MAP still sucks a lot imo because of how static it is.
In early levels it does its job well, the second and third attack are completely useless to promote the use of Utility actions. But by late midgame, you can either ignore MAP or never get a second hit in, depending on the GM.
@@lorddarki9936 What do you mean "depending on the GM", the AC will stay consistent at high levels just as at low levels. The only builds that can ignore MAP at high levels are agile fighters or flurry rangers, which is both of those classes' objectives.
@@zanzaklaus2496 our gm likes to throw overleveled mobs from time to time at us
After getting my start in ttrpgs via D&D, I ended up drifting towards other systems like PbtA and ended up with a bit of an aversion to games like Pathfinder. Recently I've been looking to get back into it, and your videos have been really helpful in understanding a lot of the underlying philosophies with Pathfinder. Keep up the good work!
After 3 years of 5e, I am for the first time joining a Pf2 game as a dual class wizard/witch, thanks for opening my mind about this game, and convincing me that spellcasting won't be shit, you are epic
Action type is also obnoxious when dealing with persistent spells such as Flaming Sphere or Moonbeam, as the reposition option may be a bonus or standard action.
Pathfinder 2e's 3 action economy is one of the things I always thought was a HUGE improvement over the mucky, muddy action economy of PF1e and D&D 3xe.
Intuitive systems that make sense are preferable, in my opinion. But it does depend on the purpose and point of a game system. PF2e is a great system, but is still a fairly crunchy one (that hinges on the base D&D paradigm, which is fairly combat heavy). In a game system where combat is *not* one of the core aspects of play, action economy is a fairly different matter.
My group had a whole discussion about bonus action casting (amounting from the question of "how many spells can we feasibly cast per turn") and it STILL confuses us sometimes. You can cast a bonus action spell, two cantrips (with fighter's action surge), and a reaction spell. As a Sorcerer, you can quicken a cantrip, and do two spells (action surge) and a reaction spell. The restriction doesn't make much sense if you look at it like that.
If you quicken the cantrip as a bonus action, you can still only cast cantrips using your Action Surge. (Yes, it's confusing!)
Technically if you use a bonus action spell, you can't use a reaction spell if it comes up during your turn. So if a caster tries to Counterspell you while you're casting a bonus action spell, you can't then cast Counterspell on them lol.
The bonus action spell rule is so dumb and is a hacky way to limit spellcasters without actually addressing the martial/caster gap in the game.
@@Sunny_Haven well that just makes things worse don't it
@@Etherwinter Yeah 🙃
You didn't mention this explicitly, but there's another advantage PF2 has here. You critique 5e D&D for how "bonus action" spells are not justified by anything in-world: Why is this spell a bonus action? Because the game says it is.
In PF2, spell action costs ARE given an in-world justification: each action required represents one component type (somatic, verbal, and/or material). This may not be as significant a factor as the ease of gameplay and elegance of design that PF2 brings to the table in terms of weighing one system against the other, but it goes to show how much care and consideration was put into PF2's design as a system overall.
please never get rid of this mechanic, I cannot live without hearing "boner actions hurhur" at least five times per session
I think looking at other systems overall and how they handle their action economies is great for helping people at least understand the drawbacks (and benefits) of a system. Lancer in particular has an action economy that I really like, on par with PF2's. You have two actions and your movement. However, you can't do the same action twice as a quick action on a turn: so you can't Boost (dash) twice, or attack twice, etc. However, you also a limited number of times you can overcharge to get an additional action for free that isn't subject to these limits. It provides a ton of flexibility but encourages you to do more than just attack constantly, sorta like what PF2's 3 actions do.
If 5e can't handle a three action economy, I at least think it'd benefit heavily from something like Lancer's action system.
You're too nice for bonus actions. It's #1 reason to make mistakes during player turn. People have to reset their turns near the end, because at last moment they notice they've used two bonus actions... If they notice it. Planning a turn is also very hard if your class is very bonus action dependant. Even in computer game, BG3, that shows which resources you use and how many you have, it could get pretty complicated... But at least BG3 didn't have the rule about cantrips only after bonus action.
I consider BG3 to be essentially just another example of the "DM" having to homebrew and houserule to make the game playable.
I just love the surprised Pikachu face there.
Im in a game where the dm uses the 4e actions in 5e and it works amazingly.
The bonus action casting rule is a classic case of where 5e groups oversimplify the system so they think the game is a simple one to pick up. I've lost count of the number of people who I have had to teach that rule to. So many people learn it as "You can't cast two spells on your turn.", which has a similar effect but isn't the rule. Being a fan of action surging wizards, I've been over it so many times.
You can cast a spell and a cantrip but as a DM i dont care for
But with Action Surge you can cast two leveled spells because you didn’t use your bonus action.
6:50 Huh, that bonus action rule seems to be the same rule as the Swift spell action from the playtest earlier in this video.
You can cast a Swift spell as an Action, or as part of an Action, as long as that Action is not another spell. --> You can cast a Bonus action spell and use an Action, as long as that Action is not another spell.-(except cantrips somehow; do they not count as spells in the playtest maybe? If so, it's the same rule phrased differently!)
Yes, and it also said you could use your Action to do a bonus action spell. I don't know if cantrips fell under spells; I'll need to look.
5e feels more like WotC’s 2nd attempt at making DnD be a tabletop “video” game, and most of the systems reflect that in some way. Which makes sense given they were learning from the combination of 3.5e and 4e and trying to update it from that point
That is exactly correct. It was made to be Skyrim, the tabletop. You're supposed to be the biggest baddest thing at the table at all levels. It is so boring.
2:30
This is (usually) incorrect. Dropping an item in 5e is free. As such you can just drop the weapon and use your item interaction to take out a different weapon. As a whole 5e is better at weapon juggling than p2e is.
The 3 action system is indeed less complicated than the 5e's action economy though.
3 action economy is much easier to get. And it sounds awesome in theory. But in reality it's much more limiting in most of sitiations. You can stand up, move, open the door and attack 2 times in D&D and still have a bonus action left. While in Pathfinder you can stand up, pick up one of your weapons and place a hand on it. And that's your turn.
And that's how everything works in Pathfinder. Awesome on paper, does not work in real life. If like having fun, that is, of course
7:35 iirc it is possible with Quicken cast, but you have to do the main action spell first or somethinh
In the years of playing D&D 5e with a group that plays strictly according to RAW, the strategy for switching weapons was always to drop your weapon and draw a new one with your free "object interaction" to use during an attack. This leads to silly situations of everyone tracking the location of all their dropped weapons during combat. Usually made even more ridiculous by the generous encumbrance rules. It is noteworthy how seemingly harmless ``simplification'' of rules can result in additional complexity and ultimately lead to particularly silly "meta"-strategies to exploit the rule system.
"Bonus action was never playtested." That explains so much!
I quite liked 4e's version of a bonus action where you had a main, movement and swift action that you can dowgrade to the one after. So you could theoretically take 3 swift actions if you forgo your main and movement actions.
I eventually want to play and run PF2e, so I watch some of your videos, but it's hard to actually enjoy doing so when you snidely call the D&D revision "6th Edition" while disengenuosly calling the Pathfinder revision "2.1".
Looking at the amount of changes between AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D, they were fairly compatible. They were both a hodgepodge mess of inconsistent mechanics, but the messes were about the same, since the main point of publishing 2e was to cut everything Gygax wrote.
3rd edition D&D was an entirely different game, mechanically.
3.5 was relatively compatible with 3e.
4th Edition was an entirely different game again, and it came too soon, so many existing D&D p;layers didn't buy in.
Pathfinder was relatively compatible with 3.x, so many referred to it as D&D 3.75.
5e D&D was a new game again, but stripped down compared to 3e or 4e.
Then experiments with Starfinder led to enough changes in the core systems that Pathfinder 2e launched.
After 10 years of 5e, D&D is getting a revision, but the amount of changes look to be a .5 at most, so you're just calling it 6e to disparage it, and anyone who plays it.
Then Pathfinder does its own revision, but you downplay the changes by calling it a .1.
RPG rules are not quite as measurable as the changes in software code, but D&D is not making an entirely new game (I'm actually disapointed that they're not changing _enough_). Pathfinder isn't becoming a new game either, but Paizo is not barely touching the rules like hotel staff giving an unoccupied room a light turn.
I get that you prefer PF, and I might too if anyone else I know wanted to play it, but disparaging D&D to the point that those who enjoy it feel attacked is a bad move. The "mathfinder" reputation, true or not, is already turning people away. Acting superior and implying that those who play D&D are childish or dim is not going to help. People get foolishly tribalistic about sports they only _watch_. RPGs are not even competitive games, but the way you're cheerleading PF2e and dumping on D&D sounds like you're trying to drive the fans past friendly rivalry and into hostile animosity.
Maybe provide courses to make people feel _welcome_ and the quality of the ruleset will speak for itself. (And if you can motivate people to advocate for and support better software tools for PF2, analogous to D&D Beyond, that would make a huge difference.)
baldur's gate reaffirmed to me that bonus actions are an excellent way to encourage utility choices that don't take away from a player's desire to deal damage
The limitation is the entire point. It's a flexibility that's occasionally allowed to everyone, but is a staple of flexible classes/subclasses. If you houserule it to death you might as well get rid of it, but played RAW it makes perfect sense for a rogue to be able to do more things in one turn than a wizard. It's one of fhe few things 5e does well for class identity.
While I agree that bonus actions are a hacky concept, and I also agree that the 3 action system is conceptually simple, I don't think cherry picking specific situations and explaining how they'd be fixed in Pf2e is a bit silly.
To me the ability to split up your movement is intuitive even if it doesn't make for a simple game explanation. And I can just as easily cherry pick a game situation where splitting up movement is more advantageous than a 3 action system. Ultimately they're different games that play differently.
But yeah, people should try lots of game types and not be biased towards the thing they already know.
Bonus actions are weird because they completely change their dynamic depending on whether you have access to no bonus action effects, one bonus action effect, or multiple. If you have none, then you are essentially hobbling your own turn and missing out on basically half of the things you can do per round. If you have one, then it's pretty much an auto-use every turn unless it has limited uses or doesn't stack with itself. It only really forces a real decision onto the player when they have multiple... but then that's considered a poor decision when building your character, since why double up on bonus actions that you can only use one of a turn, when you could get more flat power instead? Due to opportunity cost, you are discouraged from choosing the fun option.
0:07 I see this happen all the time with CCG players who only played Magic The Gathering or MMORPG players who only played WoW. When they try a new game, some find it more complicated, even when they move to a game that has fewer mechanics, less rules, less intricacies, etc.
I'm fairly new to Pathfinder, and haven't played any 5e (I was in a campaign of 3.5e about two decades ago, and made a character for a second campaign of it that collapsed before session 1, and that's the entirety of my D&D experience), but have played a bunch of those 'genuinely rules light' games you mentioned (and also have a bit of GURPS experience), and the action economy of Pathfinder makes a ton of sense to me because it's fundamentally the same concept that a lot of boardgames use - It's an Action Point system. There are more actions to consider for your 3AP in PF2e than the... I think it's 3? you have in, say, Pandemic, but the core idea is the same.
5e's "There are multiple buckets, if you don't use something from that bucket you don't get anything for it, you can only use one thing from each bucket" is a lot harder to get my head around with that context (Though I'm sure I'd manage if I were in a game of 5e, it's just a lot weirder compared to the games I'm used to playing)
For switching weapons, could you drop your current weapon as a free action, instead of sheifing it as an action?
I'm pretty sure you can stow or pull out a weapon as a part of your attack
You can pull out, but not stow. You can drop a weapon for free at any point during your turn, though.
I had the exact same problem when playing dnd: always searching for viable bonus actions.
Some classes dont even get anything from what I remember.
The other complication of the Bonus Action system is a fair number of players don't understand that a Bonus Action is still an action. I've seen dozens of people not realize that conditions that cause "Incapacitated" like paralyzed or stunned, etc prevents you from using bonus actions as well as Actions. They assume the conditions are referring to the specifically named Action and Reaction, but not the idea of actions as a whole.
I agree. Bonus actions are a poor implementation. Today, players make class and character decisions based on viability of being able to use bonus actions. They've had to add and implement loads of things that are bonus actions just to give people things to do at the table. It's a bad system. I prefer Pathfinders implementation as it's far easier to balance and understand. There's too many strange things to track in 5e. Pathfinder has it's flaws but they are minimal overall.
Really great insight and analysis. Thanks
i believe your wrong on the range attack example for 5e if you look at the ranged weapons like long bow it has "Drawing the Ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack." so you can move draw your bow with the object interaction and then shoot just fine and heck you can even use hunters mark if your a ranger which is a bonus action.
Drawing the ammo is different from drawing the weapon though
In PF2e, drawing ammunition for a bow is part of the attack action.
I mean drawing the weapon is only 1 object interaction so you can still pull out your bow and shoot, no?@@TheRulesLawyerRPG
@@MrTheJoom Yes. In the second example presented, in D&D the fighter could drop their melee weapon (free action), then draw their ranged weapon (interact with object), and attack (action) all while still having their bonus action, movement, reaction available.
As a 5e GM i actually really like Bonus Actions and feel like had they been balanced better i think they're a neat concept. In my opinion BAs should be available to every class early and they should have a couple options. BAs should be of one of two kinds: An effect that you wouldnt want to spend a full action (think changing the target of Hex upon a kill) OR should be similar in power to an action but have limited uses.
That is what OneDnD is doing, every class will have meaninful uses for BA
@@kedraroth I think that's very good! Sadly I've lost a lot of faith in Wizards and I've been looking for a new set of rules to follow. So far PF2E has ticked an incredible amount of boxes. D&D One is something I haven't looked into much, but so far all I've seen are changes I don't care for and Wizards coming off as sketchy.
@@william4996 Nobody that I know that likes RPGs and even D&D supports WOTC in any way, I will continue to play the game I like no matter how shity the company behind the game is (and Paizo has his own dirty too, I'm not looking for a imaculate company because this doesn't exists)
@@kedraroth Well, if they purchase goods or services from WOTC they do actually support the company in SOME WAY, assuming they pay for the books and such. Not that I care, my issue with WOTC is just that I don't feel I can trust that their decisions are beneficial for the game as opposed to just being ways to make more money. With my extremely limited experience with Paizo I don't get that feeling.
I never understood why nobody just spammed 2 fireballs as 5e sorcerers, because I didn't understand that there is a 1-spell limit in most circumstances.
While I'm happy that level 5 sorcerer can't just throw out 16d6 fire damage in one turn, I hate the way they go about making it not work.
Pf2e action economy: I'm 5 ft away from a door that I need to get through. I move 5 ft to it (action 1), open it (action 2), and move through it (action 3). That isn't fun.
As someone who's group plays 5e and P2e concurrently (and both campaigns are about 2 years old at this point), I really don't think one action system better than the other, they're just different. Both have situations that are optimal and sub optimal within the system. For example, I hate the movement in PF. Being able to split movement and act in between is so much more fun. But being far enough away that a dash is required kills your turn. Its a toss up, and really down to preference.
It is literally a rule in PF2E that 'comboing' actions like moving part of your movement, opening a door and continuing to move through with the rest of your movement as just 2 actions is allowed, and even more inventive combos at GM discretion. Pg 14 of the Gamesmastery Guide. Ronald has specifically covered this to dismiss this inaccurate criticism of the system.
How often do you need to open a door during encounter mode? That's more of an exploration mode thing.
I've not played PF2e yet, does the 3 action economy mean you can attack 3 times each turn if you do nothing else? Does PF2e have things like D&D's double attack (where you attack twice with 1 action), meaning in PF you could attack six times?
"you can attack 3 times each turn if you do nothing else?"
Yes... at progressively worse to hit modifiers (exactly how it was in D&D3.5e).
"Does PF2e have things like D&D's double attack (where you attack twice with 1 action?"
Yes... Flurry of Blows, Double Strike, and similar feats/abilities grant players that ability.
"meaning in PF you could attack six times?"
No. Those actions are capped at Once per Turn.
So, you can attack 4 times, 5 if you're under the effects of Haste. Although, the likelihood of hitting an enemy with the 3rd or later attacks, is not worth using, unless you're attacking a crowd of lower level enemies.
Designing my own systems, I've found the weird thing about bonus actions is the interaction with extra attack. If you want to remove them entirely and have a single "action" can be really constrained. But if you have multiple actions then the number of attacks a player has comes into question.
Pf2e probably had this problem which is why they made the multiple attack penalty
Saying that 5th edition is more complicated than earlier additions of dungeons & dragons is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
One thing about bonus actions and spellcasting I despise: if you cast a bonus action spell, you can cast a cantrip on your action, but if you cast a spell on your action, there's barely any bonus action cantrips! There's like 2 BA cantrips in the whole game, so I have to go out of my way to multiclass or gain a bonus action ability unrelated to spellcasting! How didn't they think of this? (I'm aware that some classes have bonus actions that are useful, like bardic inspiration. But other spellcasters don't have that privilege, or their bonus action abilities are not always advantageous, like wildshaping into a low hp/low ac creature in the middle of combat and losing your ability to cast spells).
My experince is that most tables ignore the Switch weapon cost
I absolutely houserule the ability to convert a bonus action to a action.
Also some bonus action/ reaction spells can be cast regardless if the CX has cast a spell.
I’m old school .
I turn , 1 action
Cantrips don’t take an action.
Under certain circumstances you might get more attacks / round.
Really it doesn’t matter as long as it’s consistent.
One action per turn just seems logical.
Who cares as long as you’re having fun ?
IDEA:
Make Bonus Actions what their name suggests: extra FULL actions that are earned as a bonus by doing certain things, like getting crits or hitting weaknesses (ala Persona's "One More" system) or sacrificing Actions on future turns (ala Bravely Default's "Brave/Default" system).
5e has a clustering problem like this in several spots. For example, the Short Rest does a bunch of things in the system and this sometimes causes issues. Warlock wants to get spells back? Well that's locked into Short Rest and takes an hour that you might not have. You can't rest a shorter time for fewer regained. Want to make resting to heal to take less time to keep the narrative flow? Well no you made Warlock spells faster to recharge too.
PF2e? Ten minute activities that are all separate but can assemble into a "short rest" of customizable length. Rechargeable spells? They are a different kind of spell and balanced for the recharge rate, not full spells like the warlock's. You can also opt to recover only some of them at a time if you have less time to recover.
2e has so much customization you can customize your snack break.
I must ask that you call the new edition of D&D by its actual name. 5e: Tokyo Drift
I'm sorry, I think you mean 2 Dungeons 2 Dragons
At very least, there should be no bonus actions which are used for damage. Period. For anyone in any situation. If there are damage effects which are important for class scaling like Paladin Smites (playtest edition), Monk extra unarmed attacks, or Two Weapon Fighting, they should simply be part of the attack action, and limited to once-per-turn when relevant. That would let every class and build use bonus actions for utility effects, rather than letting classes designed without bonus actions gain a tonne more damage through taking feats and multiclass dips for bonus action attacks. It’d be a lot easier to balance damage as well as encourage weapon variety.
Yeah, that was one of my points in my vids last year. Bonus actions shouldn't be a tax for your DPR
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG So many problems in DD5e keep going back to how Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert are almost always the best damage option. Everyone who can play well with them typically does good damage, and classes and subclasses which can't are at a massive disadvantage.
I played Solasta Crown of the Magister. Which is based on 5e rules. In that game you can switch one whole loadout of weapons in your hands to another with your interaction. So I thought that's how 5e did it and you example was wrong. Now that I've re-read the rulebook I think neither is correct, It seems completely up to interpretation
8:43 Okay, please do not make that one a selling point! Those 3 spells are a mess. A bodge job, on par with Bonus Actions.
Every other spell follows the rule that the casting time is either maximum 3 Actions, or minimum 1 minute. These break a convention that has been in place since CRB 1st printing. Resulting in all kinds of wierd edge cases.
.... Switching weapons counts as interact?
BG3 just tossed the bonus action cantrip spellcasting rule
I can see how PF2 is 'simpler'. I wonder how certain actions will be viewed by players as they take an action, but have much less effect than other actions. I'm also amazed by the spells I've seen so far. I wonder how many players would ever want to cast Healing Word for 1 action, when using a second action just adds 8 points of healing onto the 1d8. Use a stride action and heal 1d8 vs spend 2 actions and heal them for 1d8+8...
I mainly come from 4e, and I like it's action economy. You get a Standard, a Move, and a Minor action on your turn. Standard actions can be used to do a Move action. A Move action can be used to do a Minor action. A charge action includes moving and attacking, so you can move, then charge. You can even move away from the enemy and then charge back at them. I think this helps balance actions, and helps keep the idea you can move and attack in a turn. You have the option of using a standard action to do a minor, but you only need to do so if it's urgent. However it means a healer can cast their main heal ability and do a cool attack. You can have a nice move action that doesn't make you feel like you are giving up an attack to do it.
In PF2, casting a healing spell needs to be as impactful as attacking. Seeing the Healing Word spell, it already feels like healing in PF2 will be as bad as 5E, so actually just attacking and killing something maybe more worth while. And with 3 actions all with equal weight, you have to consider how impactful each one is. The idea of bonus/minor actions is good imo, as it can give nice, useful effects to characters without making the player feel like they are giving up a more meaningful action.
Healing in PF2 is actually really good and encounters in the system are designed to be fought against party's with full or near full health. The spell you are referring to is called Heal and it is really good at outputing large amounts of healing, but it is also good because it is modular in its action cost. Being able to use 1 action to stabilize a dying ally and then cast another spell (if you're adjacent to the ally rather than having to move to them) is such a game changer. And sure, the 2 action mode of Heal is the defacto mode, but that's standard as most spells in PF2 are 2 actions anyways. The best way to view the spell is that the default version is 2 actions, 1d8+8 healing. Everything else on it (1 action, 3 action mode) are just cherries on top.
I come from 3.5 mostly where the action economy can be very muddled. Swift actions and immediate actions being in the same category but also not is confusing. 5-foot steps and all of that are just mechanics that add complexity. You say that 4e's action economy is easy, but your example doesn't help. Charging: does it consume your Standard action? Your Move? Both? Neither?
@@stuartalt7418 Sorry, I should have made it clearer. Charging is a standard action, that lets you move your speed towards a target, and make a melee basic attack against them.
I think the main problem 3.5 had is it was introducing the idea of bonus actions, but didn't have a good framework for how they fit into the game and yeah, it was messy.
4E was much less convoluted. 1 standard, 1 move, 1 minor. And there were many basic things any character could do with a minor, and actions could be exchanged for lesser actions if you so wished.
The 3 action system is a bit more elegant but this does cause some actions to feel a little underwhelming compared to others. Usually characters get access to some compound actions that include these really basic actions so I guess it's not too bad. Just a little quirk.
Honestly I think letting spellcasters take bonus actions is a bit of a mistake. If the bonus action was just for martials it would significantly close the power gap in 5e. I would also make it so you can use your action for bonus actions, but not the other way around. Finally, if you think its too much to deny all spellcasters bonus actions then each subclass gets a list of spells they can cast as bonus actions that expands at later levels similar to expanded spell list. At the very least I think it makes more sense for the bonus action to be an actual bonus, as in a benefit you can get and not just part of the action econ.
Bonus action tbh isn't a bad idea.
It seems quite common to do something like this.
It's named confusingly though.
Also, the whole "swift" thing is misleading.
Also, maybe there should be some universal bonus actions.
Maybe something like "tactical action" would've been better.
Or primary/complimentary actions for action / bonus action.
Pf2e's action economy is interesting and quite good, altho idk if it applies to everything.
It does simplify bonus action / action by making actions into 2-action activities.
(And stuff which grants bonus actions is limited by MAP and allowed activities to be more of a mobility thing ig)
D&D's system is far from perfect but it is pretty simple, and fun. Its all a matter of personal preference, subjectivity really, however having said that, this video is an inaccurate breakdown/representation. In the first example the fighter seems to be holding a reach weapon meaning he could (in D&D) use his 30ft of movement to move toward his foe, and still be able to attack with his weapon because he has the reach property (extending his range by 10ft.), while still having his bonus action available or an action surge or (if 5th level) another attack.
In the second example, say the fighter didn't have a reach weapon but a sword instead, and he needed to attack at range then (in D&D) he could drop his sword (free action), draw his bow (interact with object), then attack (action), and not only does he still have his bonus action available but his movement as well. Furthermore, once again if the fighter is 5 level then he can attack again.
Related to being able to cast leveled spells, then only a cantrip afterwards on the same turn, its been a foundation in D&D for quite some time now, and that's simply how if functions. Reminders or clarifications are needed no matter what TTRPG one is playing.
Spellcasting or specifically spellcasters are weak relative to martials in Pathfinder 2e compared to D&D 5e hence changes coming down the line by Pazio. Conversely, martials in D&D 5e are weak compared to mages hence the changes they are undertaking currently. However, to say that bonus actions need to die seems extreme because they have been a core part of the game for a long time now, and work fine. I could argue that perhaps the 3 action system in Pathfinder 2e needs to go (I find it interesting but very restrictive), being replaced by a 4 action system however that would make it a different game. Take care.
The only thing I still don't like about the three-action economy is that it makes movement feel really weird. I'm not playing Hero Quest, so why can I run 25 ft. then swipe at an enemy, then run another 25 ft but I can't run 10ft, then swipe, then run 40 ft, when both versions involve doing the same thing and running the same distance? I agree that overall, the three-action economy is far better than 5e's WTF action economy but the Hero Quest movement still bugs me.
While 5es action economy is based on 3,5 / PF 1 style action economy, at least those had a bit of interchangability. You could trade your standard action for an additional move action (which could be a few things other than straight movement), and I think you could also trade your move for a swift action, but don't quote me on that.
For those unfamiliar, its like so.
Full round action = Use both your standard and move action to do one powerful thing.
Standard action = action
Move action = movement (most of the time)
Swift action = bonus action.
So its a small downgrade of what was before in terms of flexibility. Thel imited ability to trade up and down made 3,5 / PF 1e action economy interesting at times. 3 action economy from PF2e is better still due to its simple elegance, but I just wanted to mention.
Pathfinder is old chewed up 3rd edition bubble gum stuck to the bottom of a desk that everyone else ignored but that one guy.....
That one guy took the chewed up bubble gum and stuck it in his mouth thinking...
"Theres still flavor in here. Why would anyone abandon this goodness?"
Thats Pathfinder players.😅
Action economy is probably the biggest problem with 5e. There should at the least be standard bonus actions that anyone can use. Also not being able to use an action for a bonus action.
The 5e bonus action is one of the worst parts of the core system. A lot of the problems of the system in terms of balance, game flow, player confusion, etc stem back to the bonus action. The sooner it dies the better and I think WotC has to be looking closely at the PF2e action economy system.
The PF2e system had to rely on a whole system around to hit modifiers decreasing to make their 3 action economy work. While adjusting modifiers works it is also not necessarily all that great either. PF2e also has an in combat skill actions that are a BIG part of the 3 action game system but they don't necessarily have a clear place in the design from the standpoint of the action economy, the new player, or skill choice balance. While I think the skill system in PF2e needs a lot of work it is way ahead of 5e.
The weapon switching rules from DnD 5e (especially RaW) and PF2E are so supremely stupid that either most tables ignore it or the gm wont track it and as a player you can "cheat" switch weapons. GMs also often don't let their Monsters take an action to switch weapons.
Its such a mess, to the point that I do not understand why it still wasnt changed in OneDnD or PF2E
I feel like some of this is exaggerated. DND isn’t a tight system, but y’all can enjoy Pathfinder without taking a dump of DnD just because people like it
I have to sort of disagree with your statement about Healing Word and the swift spells. I am not sure if you ommited it on purpose for the sake of "Pathfinder is the superior system." or if it was an oversight. Not to defend DnD 5e, but in my opinion it would be important to not argue about something in bad faith.
The text states: A spell that has a swift casting time can be cast as your action OR as part of ANOTHER action. Now, I will be honest, I haven't playtested the new stuff as I am not interested in 5.5/6e, but in this case RAW I immediately understand it as giving you an opportunity to either say, hey I want to cast Healing Word (as an example) as my action. So action done and dusted. BUT you could as well say "Ok I do XYZ as my ACTION and AS PART of it, I cast Healing Word as it is a swift spell." So technically it seems to give more utility of swift spells in comparison to bonus actions, as if you did a bonus action (using your example here) like Bardic inspiration, you could not cast Healing Word anymore. But with this wording it at least sounds very clearly to me that you could do bardic inspiration as a swift action while casting Healing Word as your ACTION.
Now I am not saying that I am 100% in the right in this as I might be missing something, but this is how I understand the situation from the presented facts.
I love PF2's 3-action economy in theory. In practice though, I think too many things are discrete actions in PF2, like individual weapon swings and raising your shield, that I prefer D&D's approach instead. I also dislike how most spells in PF2 can't be Readied because you can only Ready one action and most spells require two.
And speaking of spells, I really dislike PF2's Critical Failure mechanic, but that's a rant for a different video.
There are things that I don't like in Pf2e, but overall it fixes so many issues that I have with dnd5e.
Bonus actions never seemed that difficult or confusing to me or my groups? It's like an action takes ~5 seconds, movement takes ~4 seconds and a bonus action takes ~2 seconds and they overlap to fill a 6 second round. You can downgrade an action to a move or a bonus, though maybe I house-ruled that last part, it's just so intuitive. Further, spells are powerful so a creature can only ever cast one spell per turn, though cantrips are like a half-a-spell, so you can cast 1 spell and 1 cantrip if you have the time (like using an action and a bonus action).
I also don't see any issue asking a player if they're done. It takes a half second and honestly gives the next player a trigger to get ready to start their turn. My players are not hardcore gamers. Most have never played before this game, but they all seem to have internalized how things work with maybe a couple "explain it to me again" moments.
Is Pathfinder 2 simpler? Maybe, but it's crazy stretching to say D&D 5e is way more complicated and somehow inferior.
I play AD&D and I avoid all this headache.
I just finished BG3 and there were SO many times where I couldnt make the attacks I wanted because they required a full action and a bonus action.... which means i have to choose betweeen that attack or using potions, which ALSO use bonus actions. Crazytown
I think some of the issues (especially the spell casting) are not so much a matter of the Bonus Action mechanic being a problem, but that they are using the Bonus Action mechanic is a way that is problematic.
Bonus actions should be bonuses.... aka additional tricks that make a given character special. Actions are things that essentially, everyone gets to do. Some classes may favor a given type of action (attacks vs spells etc...) but they essentially all get an action and they all get to move.
Bonus actions are ways to differentiate "You get to do something extra" that most character's can't. And used properly, they make characters feel more special and more differentiated.
Fundamentally, you should not be creating a thing you can do exclusively as a bonus action that you would want to substitute a regular action to do. Bonus actions should either support normal actions, or they should be equal/lesser options than their regular action counterparts.
I don't think bonus actions are necessarily better than standardized actions, but they do create a design space in which you can achieve a player experience that feels different than standardized actions. It lets you make people feel special in different ways which is an important part of class and character design.
Haha, quicken spell go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Amen!
Bonus actions were not even playtested?!
::assumes auto mechanic voice:: "Well there's your problem right there."
The videos are tuning a little weird to me. I wish you the best Rules Lawyer. Great explanations of how to play the game. I really liked your videos explaining how to play in Vtt. I don't have personal beef with D&D and this turned to be into that for quite sometime. Take care.
D&D isn't a horrible game. But it isn't perfect enough to warrant the kind of bandwagon loyalty it holds. Bandwagon loyalty which is a detriment to the TTRPG hobby as a whole. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out how other games do some things better, if just to get people to at least peek outside of their box before WotC walls the whole thing up behind VTTs and monthly subs.
@@RustwraithThe videos on this channel appear to simply attack D&D. Why? Why not extol the virtues of Pathfinder instead?
Just relentlessly piling into 5e is a huge turn off.
To be fair, PF2 has the once-per-round flourish tag, but I would imagine it's quite rare for a PC to actually end up with more than one flourish action (and many are two-action activities that you couldn't repeat, anyway).
Not as rare as you think. Some Flourish actions are situational...Power Attack, Sudden Charge, Knock Down are all Fighter Feats and all have the Flourish Tag. Yet, each action has a purpose. Power Attack, to deal more damage on a hard-to-hit enemy... Sudden Charge, to get into combat quickly, and make a strike (3 actions for the cost of 2)... Knock Down to get an attack and a trip in, but the trip doesn't have the attack penalty applied to.
Of course, there is also Quick Reversal, that's 1 action cost Flourish... it allows you to attack two enemies which are flanking you, for the cost of one action.
I think criticizing D&D for issues that are frequently houseruled is not particularly persuasive. Like, sure, you technically can't sheathe your sword, draw a bow and shoot in one turn, but tell that to most players and they'll just shrug and keep playing their houseruled game
The thing is, the criticism is often lobbed at PF2e that it's so much more complicated, but if that perception is coming from people *ignoring the rules of 5E*, then pointing out what the rules of 5E actually are, and how those rules relate to Pathfinders' is totally fair. Without seeing the full essay, we can't tell whether Ronald leaves it as an exercise for the viewers or not to ultimately point out that you can also ignore Pathfinder rules, too, if you really want to.
@ChanJENI I have seen the full essay, he released it ages ago (pretty sure). All I'm saying is it's unlikely to persuade a 5e fan. 5e is a bit of a mess, but people do make it work for their tables because the core systems are reasonably malleable
If I'm not mistaken, in 5e you can draw a weapon as a part of your movement action. So in your example he could use interact to stow his melee weapon, then draw his bow as a part of his movement action (without actually moving). In the case of PF2E, you've used 2/3 of your actions to stow and then draw the bow. It's still more 'complicated' in 5e because it relies on more mechanical language, but it doesn't have to take your action.
That's not in 5e. I remember that from 3e/PF1 however: if your Base Attack Bonus was +1 or higher, you could draw a weapon as part of moving.
EDIT: The language quoted after me says you can interact with "one" object for free, during "either" your move or your action. So it doesn't allow for interacting with 2 objects unless you Use an Object.
From 5e PHB, Order of Combat
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
And then the Use an Object action from latter says
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
@@CSManiac33 this is correct. However, the way this is worded in 5e creates issues for two-weapon fighting characters, and the rules do not carve out an exception for them, so it causes a problem of its own.
It's an action to stow your weapon in 5e, but a free action to drop it.
@@CSManiac33 "you could draw your weapon as a part of the same action you use to attack"
I think I've always just ruled that this doesn't consume your object interaction and is a component of the attack action, but I see now that isn't what they intended. It's so counter intuitive (as mentioned in the video) to need to use an action to switch weapons that unless you really examine the rules your brain sort of auto corrects it to something that makes more sense.
Never going back :)
Personally, I dislike the Bonus Action for different reasons than the ones you present. Pathfinder 2e three action economy system, appears simple till you realize that it creates the same problem as 5e, but with a different approach. There are to many actions and you need so many codified rules to support both games.
I do not agree with your sentiment. Yes, there's a conflict between the actions you can use in PF2, but that creates choice.
BA in 5e doesn't create a choice, it's another action economy alongside the actions. That's the main problem from my POV.
I'd say PF2 creates brand new problems. Want to Ready a spell? Most of them use two actions, so you're much more limited. Want to break up your move between attacks? You only get one Stride on most characters, so probably not without the right feat coupon. Want to attack three times? MAP means the third one is almost always wasted.
@@PsyrenXYOh no! I have to play this tactical, combat-focused system... tactically!!!
Stop using all of your actions to attack and get rid of the mindset that dealing damage is better than anything else. Shove a creature to a better position, grapple or trip them, demoralize them, do something to help your team for once.
@@PsyrenXYI think the spell readying thing is somewhat warranted but the lack of breaking up movement and the MAP are integral to how PF2 achieves more tactical and active combat. The point of having choices in combat is that those choices have consequences, sacrifices, and rewards that you need to CHOOSE from.
This was one of the first delights I had switching over to pf2e from d&d5e. Everything is just an action. No bonus actions, just actions. It was something that always irked me in 5e, especially to do with spellcasting (which Baldur's Gate 3 fixed). It's so much more fun to just have everything cost the same resource instead of having to juggle 3 (movement, action, bonus action)
i hate bonus actions, the fact that i cant do something thats "swift" when i have my whole normal action left is silly. much prefer the Action point system
This is one of the biggest things that turns me off from playing Baldur's Gate 3. The other being short and long rests. Great game tied to a bad system.
As a 5e fan, I have a few counterpoints for you to consider.
In the scenario where the fighter wants to switch weapons, it's free to drop what you are holding. So typically the solution would be to drop their melee weapon, draw their bow, and fire. We're not worried about the enemy running up and grabbing the warrior's weapon, because if they were close enough to do that without giving up their action, we wouldn't be having this problem to begin with. And if the enemy monster has higher move speed to be concerned about, the warrior can move away before dropping their weapon (since the range of a bow will not be largely inhibited by moving outside the movement distance of your enemy and the number of instances where this even matters is pretty small).
But more crucially, your video has convinced me that (in this particular subject) PF2e is not simpler than 5e. It just lumps the complexity into other parts of the game.
For this specific topic, we see a tradeoff where action economy is simpler in PF2e, but Spells are wildly more complex. Not only do they vary on how many actions they require, but each action cost variant might have different spell components to keep track of as well.
Getting players to read and understand how their spells work is often hard enough when they do just one thing with the potential to upcast to use higher level slots.
You can't really reasonably expect people to memorize their spells when each spell may function more like 3 different spells that each have different rules to how they are cast. At that point, you will have to look up your spells every time you want to cast them.
I don't think any of these are actually counter points.
> In the scenario where the fighter wants to switch weapons, it's free to drop what you are holding.
This is true in Pathfinder, as well. The point being made, I think, is that a lot of people treat stowing as dropping, so that they can swap back again later for free if they really want to. But that's now actually the rule in either game. And, of course, Pathfinder tables are welcome to houserule stowing every bit as much as 5e tables do.
> we see a tradeoff where action economy is simpler in PF2e, but Spells are wildly more complex. Not only do they vary on how many actions they require, but each action cost variant might have different spell components to keep track of as well.
I think it's kind of disingenuous to call spells "wildly more complex". Some spells let you choose to spend a different number of actions. That may be more complex than "I have one action and a spell to use" but not by very much. And it's still actually less complex than keeping straight which spells cost an action and which spells cost a bonus action.
> each action cost variant might have different spell components to keep track of as well.
There's no "might" here. The components are systematic. The number of components a spell has is equal to the number of actions it takes, and the components always increase in complexity, from somatic, to somatic+verbal, to somatic+verbal+material.
> You can't really reasonably expect people to memorize their spells when each spell may function more like 3 different spells
This is literally what character sheets are for.
@@ChanJENI I'm going to have to come back to this later. TH-cam mobile isn't friendly to lengthy discourse.
...Sixth edition? Is that what they're actually calling it now? Seriously? They're calling a romhack of 5E a whole new edition?
5e is ridiculously easy to run and it has nothing to do with me just being familiar with it. When I first tired it I was like "finally they are making the game more approachable." Also, the 3 actions you get in PF2 is a simpler mechanic but it's not better mechanically speaking.
You present a bunch of arguments, but as far as I can tell none of them actually pertain to the argument you're actually trying to make? Yes, in D&D you can't do some things that you can do in Pathfinder. Is that really a good reason to get rid of them though? I could design a system where I could switch my weapon 4 times before making an attack, or dash twice, or whatever, does that mean it's a better idea? I don't think so
Bonus action discussion aside, there is a FAR simpler implementation of the bonus action spell rule that does almost exactly the same thing (there are some edge case differences, nothing gamebreaking): "You can't cast more than one leveled spell on your turn." You can add an exception for reactions if you want people to be able to Shield and Counterspell on their turn.
I'm really not sure why the developers didn't do it like that.
Because it would suck gameplay wise
@@lorddarki9936 it's almost identical to what we have now? The only difference if you allow reaction spells is a two level fighter dip stops being the ideal for casters.
With the rules at the moment, you can cast a regular levelled spell, and then a levelled bonus action spell. You just have to cast the bonus action spell second, which is a weird arbitrary limitation. Technically though your version is more limiting.@@sethb3090
I dislike both systems as both systems suffer from rules fatigue, spell fatigue and choice paralysis. Combat takes way to long with most battles taking well over an hr for scrub mobs and well over 2 hours for BBEG's. Doesn't matter how fluid your group is.
What system do you like?
I can confirm if it is not your jam to get into big long combats it is not worth it.
But as long as fights are engaging and good, it is a fucking blast to me. To each their own!
I disagree on even basic combats taking an hour, my group of 5 fought 8 goblins and a hobgoblin leading them in around 40 minutes and that was a longer fight.
I will say though that both pf2e and 5e are combat focused systems and sounds like something more RP focused would be to your taste
I never understood spell paralisys, barely ever the situation changed so much that I had to on the fly change what spell I wanna use.
5e fights are boring for players who enjoy tactical games and also slow. PF2 is a bit quicker once you have the system down, but mostly it fixes the problem of being boring for tactical players.
If you want combat to be as quick as possible, you want a Powered by the Apocalypse game or something like Lasers and Feelings.