Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Revised Path: What's Your Preferred Action Economy? (Patreon)

Published:
2026-06-01 21:45:29
Imported:
2026-11

Content

A question EXCLUSIVELY for people who'd be interested in buying a ttRPG designed as a Revised Pathfinder First Edition.

What action economy would you prefer?

Just like PF1?

Just like PF2?

Just like 5e?

Something else you can accurately describe?

What's YOUR preference?

Comments

Raphael Bressel

PF2’s action economy is very nice. I would like to see how it works implemented into the PF1 framework. If not that, then like PF1.

DemonMage

Definitely prefer something like PF2E. One of the highlights of the system for me.

Gen Giggles

I like the limited action economy of PF2 but I will always enjoy PF1. Basically something in-between is what I want. Limited actions but certai. Classes get extras of some types.

Ebonbolt

One of my biggest problems with 3e+ was that there was exactly one way to obtain extra swift actions (from a PrC in a subsystem splatbook late in 3.5e). Epic (even 3.5 update stuff) never had any (except Multispell, which only allowed extra spells as part of a single swift action, post-revision), PF1 never had any, even a homebrew "PF1 Epic" document doesn't have any. And almost every subsystem I've seen uses swift actions for their extra things (martial initiators have stances, boosts, & counters; meldshapers/veilshapers allocate essentia/essence; entering styles; any of a dozen other uses, across core, expanded, & 3pp sources). Combine any two, you have problems; add a third, you no longer function at anywhere close to peak efficiency.

Brent A Strom

In PF1, Inquisitors by themselves had problems with the swift action economy, especially if they took something like Divine Interference along the way. You could get 1 extra swift once per day via Corset of Delicate Moves, but that was it. You had to wear it for 24 hours before it attuned, so no swapping clothes to get more per day. I think PF2 made improvements here, but I lack sufficient experience with the system to properly say. That said, I'm (at least for now) out of the buyer's market for TTRPG content so my opinions don't mean much here.

Weston Clowney

All in all, PF1 is my favorite game of those three options, but for action economy specifically, I think PF2 knocked it out of the park. I feel like it's a near-perfect balance of having a variety of kinds of actions you can take vs. the complexity that generally comes with balancing how much you can do in one turn. It is a beautifully simple system that still allows a variety of options of how to spend your turn.

Robert Hudson

I'd like to see how PF2's action economy works with PF1 as well. I've played using it in Starfinder 2 and it's been very nice and straightforward

Ben Trieschmann

Of the 3 listed, PF1. Otherwise something like Starfinder 1st ed would be great! Otherwise like either Shadowrun 5th ed or Mythras Classic Fantasy Imperative but with more refined movement rules for either . For Shadowrun 5th I love the 2 simple or 1 complex action and a free action and the dynamic initiative system that allows hyper initiatives to get multiple actions in the same amount of time as a slower character. Mythras Classic Fantasy Imperative has an action point system, but you can more AP as you level up. But with the rule that you can only take 1 active action a turn segment (this is kinda like Shadowrun's multiple segments per full turn) but can use AP outside of your turn to defend yourself actively or dodge out of the way. Once you are totally out, that is it until next full turn reset. Both of these systems are skill based and opposed rolls, which probably will not work as well with d20 system.

Benjamin Lash

PF2 really relied on action compression class features in order to make cool stuff happen, and when it came up not having quick draw brutal, but then only a couple classes could get quickdraw! Quick leap etc. In PF1, full attacks were king so combat was static or pounce because Vital Strike and Spring Attack were not great. So I think PF2 has the most balance, 5e is actually really nice from simplicity. If I was "revising" PF1 as I do in homebrew, I would try to make fewer bigger attacks, ease mobility restrictions.

Patrick Trapp

I like the PF2e action economy so much, I look at adding it to other games where possible.

Jeremy Forbing

PF2. I think it is the most interesting piece of design in that system and the most interesting action economy between the three listed games.

Daryl

PF1. But it's a weaker preference. The problem with PF1's "action economy" is singularly the "full attack" problem. People overestimate the difficulty of explaining "you get a swift, move, and standard action every round". Explaining decomposition isn't tough, nor the "you get the 5-foot if you don't otherwise move". Only "full round attack" has proven challenging to explain to some players. The problem with PF2's is the full equivalency of "move" and "action" both being 1 pip. And going with 3 they made a whole bunch of stupid stuff like "raise shield" and whatnot to "consume" the 3rd. It looks elegant, but it's really not.