All About Actions

Why does it take 3 actions to accomplish what you could do in 1 in 1E? (Draw weapon, move, leap)

That doesn't sound like "giving me the most out of my time" at all.

Actually, in 1E you were getting in 2 actions as you described: Draw Weapon (a Standard Action), and then Move, Leap (A move action as long as you only moved part of the distance and lept for the second part).

The problem was when you arrived at your destination you were just there and waiting for the next turn, indicating a wasted opportunity. Another possibility was drawing your weapon and waiting for the next turn so that you could move and attack. Sillier, unless a monk or brawler, was to just move and leap to your opponent with no weapon drawn. What you could NOT do, was draw your weapon, full move, and then leap as that was a standard action and two moves, and moves and attacks are subsets of the Standard actions of which you only have two in 1E.

From the description, 2E will allow you to draw your weapon, full move, and leap. You could also Draw Weapon, Move, and attack; draw a weapon, move, and move; Draw weapon, Move, Attack; Drink Potion (as long as it was already in hand), Draw Weapon, Move and any number of other possible combos.

It really means you have more you can do within each turn.

Drawing a weapon is a move action normally, and can be done simultaneously with movement as part of the same move action if you have at least a +1 BAB.

Bruno Mares wrote:

coxey292 wrote:

I am increasingly concerned about the viability of shields in this edition. They already see little play, as getting that extra damage is usually the optimal way to play, but giving up an entire attack just to get a small bonus, especially when you already had to move to keep up with the retreating foe who s still casting at you every round, sounds tedious and like a restriction one martial characters.

I feel the same.

It looks like a martial character need to trade an attack for a simple defense that is "already there". Seems that now they, will be more "stupid" and action limited. An even bigger handcap against spellcasters...

I get the feeling that the draw of shields won't be the shield bonus, but the reaction it grants you. You're not losing much with sacrificing your -10 attack anyway, and the ability to reduce incoming damage by your shield's hardness is going to be very useful (adamantine, anyone?)

One thing that's been mentioned is that your -10 attack will still have a chance of hitting low-threat enemies. This means that a shield-user will have more interesting choices to make, based on the way the combat is going. If you're facing a bunch of mooks, you can lower your shield and make those -10 swings, knowing that your unshielded AC can probably handle their attacks, and your -10 attacks will still have a decent chance of striking. But when you face the more dangerous enemies, you have the option to raise your shield and go on the defensive, sacrificing the attack that is least likely to hit the (probably higher) defenses of the stronger enemy, in return for defending yourself against their (probably stronger) attacks.

This will lead to more dynamic combats, and more interesting choices to make in those combat. This is a good thing.

A basic shield can give you 9DR to an attack and +2AC. The hardness is the amount of DR gained from the shield. You can get now a shield with hardness 20 without magic, 40 with magic. So 20 to 40 damage not being taken is not to bad.

On one of the interviews they said plan on the gap between casters and martial is still going to be there but much smaller. They are going to make it so all of the classes can land a hit later in the game, but the fighter will be better. Sounds like they are moving form a fighter having a 50% chance to hit while non-martials have 25% or 5% to hit, to the fighter having a 75% chance to hit or higher, while the other classes more into the fighters old area of 50% chance to hit.

I could see a fighter getting a critical 50% of the time on the first attack, and hit on anything but a one. 25% chance of a critical on the second attack, with a 75% chance of landing the hit. With a 0% chance of of a critical chance on the third attack, and 50% chance of landing the third attack.

Frankly, unless the action economy takes full consideration of what can be done cuncurrently and what must be done consecutively, thdn you will always find oddities that don't make sense.

I like how it never occurred to some people that maybe they just haven't posted the ability (or feat or extra rule) to draw a weapon easier. The above example was just that an easy example...

Lady Firebird wrote:

Just think about how awesome it will feel if you ever find a self-repairing or even unbreakable magic shield.

I'm really hoping something like this is semi-readily available in the system - treating many (or even most) shields as disposable is one thing, but I'm hoping I can still have an heirloom shield, or find a legendary shield, and not have to treat it like a wand.

Me, too. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't in there somewhere. Unbreakable magic items is kind of a classic thing, really. It'll also mean a high-level Fighter with an unbreakable shield and a lot of defensive talents is going to be an absolute mountain, impassable and unshakeable, standing when all else crumbles around her.

Maybe they're even gonna put in a few shield-throwing talents, too! ;)

Hopefully shield weapons will be possible. Not just combos, like the madu, but also weaponized shields, such as a teardrop shaped shield with a spike for the tip and a sharpened edge on the round side.

Or perhaps to just attack with a shield like Goofy from Kingdom Hearts.

Hyuck.

I always felt war fans should of been like that. should be both offensive and shields.

Discussed this at PFS last night. All the players that just started PF this year and just finished learning the 7 actions are excited for this.

Thinking about the idea of an 'economy of actions' got me wondering about the idea of spending multiple actions against a single check.

For example, to improve your odds of to scale a wall, you could choose to combine all three actions on your turn to perform a single climb attempt by rolling 3d20 and using the highest number as your roll.

More generally, you could do this for all kinds of actions where you can reasonably improve your odds through extra time & effort.

Going the opposite way, I could see spending _fewer_ actions than are required too. Hastily casting a 2 action spell with only 1 action would mean you have to roll 2d20 dice and pick the lowest.

I find that rolling extra dice and ignoring some works better for dice pools. For example, swap the d20 for 3d6. Then it works much better, and is easier to have multiple bonuses and penalties.

D20 by itself is too scattered and such mechanics on just the d20 strangely enhances the feeling of it being finicky.

That's because it is finicky.

I play d20 with 2d10 to introduce a mild bell curve.

Am I the only one who thinks there shouldn't be a penalty to hit for multiple attack actions? It's more than likely the melee characters doing that and they have a hard enough time keeping up with spell-casters in the damage dealing department.

Am I the only one who thinks there shouldn't be a penalty to hit for multiple attack actions? It's more than likely the melee characters doing that and they have a hard enough time keeping up with spell-casters in the damage dealing department.

As a general rule, yes there should be a penalty, but, giving martials the ability to reduce that penalty would make sense.

Making several fast attacks should be harder to with than a single well timed attack. An experienced warrior would have an easier time making faster attacks without resorting to blind strikes.

I would definitely like to see martial oriented classes gaining movement without giving up attacks or bypassing attack penalties on multiple attacks in a round.

It would be entirely reasonable, and not even surprising to me at this point, if Master weapon Proficiency removed the penalty for your second attack in a turn and Legendary Proficiency removed the penalty for your third attack.

The purpose of the iterative attack penalties in the new rules appears to be to provide some incentive to do something other than stand still and repeatedly attack the enemy, so I doubt that they will ever completely eliminate those penalties. Reducing the penalties or providing bonus attacks as part of an action might be possible though.

The purpose of the iterative attack penalties in the new rules appears to be to provide some incentive to do something other than stand still and repeatedly attack the enemy, so I doubt that they will ever completely eliminate those penalties. Reducing the penalties or providing bonus attacks as part of an action might be possible though.

Yes. The second attack at -5 and third at -10 provide a benchmark against which all other actions and feats must compare in order to choose using such a action rather than attacking another time. Without the penalties, the feats would need to be so powerful to compare correctly that we would face power escalation at too fast a pace.

The purpose of the iterative attack penalties in the new rules appears to be to provide some incentive to do something other than stand still and repeatedly attack the enemy, so I doubt that they will ever completely eliminate those penalties. Reducing the penalties or providing bonus attacks as part of an action might be possible though.

What could a fighter-type do that would be more in keeping with their role than another attack? If fighting is what they do, why penalize them for doing it as well as they can.

Hopefully you're right and there's some way to reduce the penalties. But I still think it's a raw deal.

I mean it's possible to cast two spells (as I understand it). Will wizards be at a penalty to hit with the second spell. Will the target(s) get a bonus on their saves for the second spell?

Seems like a really harsh penalty to lay on the melee type characters.

David knott 242 wrote:

The purpose of the iterative attack penalties in the new rules appears to be to provide some incentive to do something other than stand still and repeatedly attack the enemy, so I doubt that they will ever completely eliminate those penalties. Reducing the penalties or providing bonus attacks as part of an action might be possible though.

What could a fighter-type do that would be more in keeping with their role than another attack? If fighting is what they do, why penalize them for doing it as well as they can.

Hopefully you're right and there's some way to reduce the penalties. But I still think it's a raw deal.

I mean it's possible to cast two spells (as I understand it). Will wizards be at a penalty to hit with the second spell. Will the target(s) get a bonus on their saves for the second spell?

Seems like a really harsh penalty to lay on the melee type characters.

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

ChibiNyan wrote:

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

Raising your shield leaps to mind. That gets you +2 AC and one-use DR as a Reaction...but it costs an action. That'd be almost never worth it if it replaced an attack at full bonus, but is usually worth it if replacing a -5 attack, and basically always worth it replacing a -10 one.

That's a neat and tactically interesting option that would descend into obscurity without the penalty.

tuffnoogies wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

Raising your shield leaps to mind. That gets you +2 AC and one-use DR as a Reaction...but it costs an action. That'd be almost never worth it if it replaced an attack at full bonus, but is usually worth it if replacing a -5 attack, and basically always worth it replacing a -10 one.

That's a neat and tactically interesting option that would descend into obscurity without the penalty.

But it also comes at the price of the shield otherwise being rather useless.

Which in turn makes the action a boring requirement, rather than anything cool to use.

"Oh well, I might as well use the Raise Shield action or this thing I spend money on is useless"

Well, I would assume that if you choose to be a sword-&-board fighter in P2e, it's because you think the shield-related feats and abilities are cool and fun, so you'd want to use them.

If you don't want to spend an action raising a shield because you think it's a boring waste of an action, you can use two weapons or a two-handed weapon or something else. No one is going to force you to spend money on a shield just because you're a fighter.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

tuffnoogies wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

Raising your shield leaps to mind. That gets you +2 AC and one-use DR as a Reaction...but it costs an action. That'd be almost never worth it if it replaced an attack at full bonus, but is usually worth it if replacing a -5 attack, and basically always worth it replacing a -10 one.

That's a neat and tactically interesting option that would descend into obscurity without the penalty.

But it also comes at the price of the shield otherwise being rather useless.

Which in turn makes the action a boring requirement, rather than anything cool to use.

"Oh well, I might as well use the Raise Shield action or this thing I spend money on is useless"

It's also a circular argument.

'The later attacks would never be worth Raising a Shield because Raising a Shield does X'

'Raising a Shield only does X because it's just a secondary tactic replacing a penalized attack.'

I would FAR prefer the raised shield to do something similar to the Swashbuckler's Riposte [operating without penalties] than DR or AC.

ChibiNyan wrote:

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

People always say that "tactically, just killing enemy ASAP is the best way to go". But look at wizards, they don't even bother casting blast spells most of the time yet are most useful guys in battle!

So what could a Fighter do? Obviously damage is very good (which is why it's not being buffed from 1e), perhaps with a friendlier system for combat maneuvers a Fighter could do some of the following consistently:

-Trip enemy so other characters can destroy them easily and get AOOs (viable in 1e)

-Throw enemy into hazardous squares, like down stairs, cliffs or into lava and stuff (1e really discouraged this for some reason).

- Inflict some debuff such as fear, which reduces their combat ability. We saw something like this on the preview. (Doable in 1e but a lot of feats). Called shots to blind enemies or cripple their leg could be cool too.

- Use resonance to activate magic items! Supposedly more common active-use ones will now exist, such as the sword that shoots lasers. But there's probably also some self-buffs.

- Break enemy equipment, including their magical staff of epicness and other big items (Jank in 1e).

- Ready an action or something that lets you chase enemies who try to juke you (AKA tanking).

- Shield raise action, which should keep you safe even from big attacks.

- Set down a tower shield to block effect lines and movement.

- Study enemy to find weakspots or Feint to get a better hit next round.

- Prepare to deflect some projectile with your weapon. (Bat a fireball, Smash from the Air style!)

-Inflict Bleeding on a mage so they have to attempt concentration checks.

- Charge or jump through mooks to reach the important enemy right away.

- Cover weak ally to intercept attacks aimed at them.

- Increase AOO range (Super combat patrol!) til next turn.

- Look at Path of War or Weeabo Fightan Magic for sillier examples.

All heroic stuff you might imagine some fantasy fighter to be able to do, but wasn't encouraged in 1e compared to Full Attack.

Granted most of the above probably also incur the iterative penalty, if they're anything like in 1e. It's not like the many of those options were bad ideas narratively before, it's just thay they often required dozens of feats, were heavily restricted and usually sucked.
Shouldn't be looking for new things if we can do the classic ones properly.

tuffnoogies wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

Raising your shield leaps to mind. That gets you +2 AC and one-use DR as a Reaction...but it costs an action. That'd be almost never worth it if it replaced an attack at full bonus, but is usually worth it if replacing a -5 attack, and basically always worth it replacing a -10 one.

That's a neat and tactically interesting option that would descend into obscurity without the penalty.

Hmm. I think it's a stretch to say "raising your shield" is either neat or tactically interesting. If you have a shield and you're not surprised I'd say it's probably a given that it's raised. But I say the same about having your weapon out and ready. At least under normal adventuring conditions.

What if you you're fighting with a 2-handed sword or great axe? What if it's already the second round of combat and you raised it last round. Do you have to raise it every round? That's *definitely* not neat or interesting.

Seriously, if you're already adjacent to your target, what could you spend your actions on that would be more in keeping with your role as fighter than taking another swing at your enemy?

How come only attack actions are penalized for getting used more than once? If you move for all three actions, do you lose distance traveled for each action?

Hmm. I think it's a stretch to say "raising your shield" is either neat or tactically interesting.

It is, for 2 reasons. One, because +2 AC matters more in PF2 than PF1, due to the crit mechanics. There was an example in the Cannon Fodder podcast: The rogue using some Nimble Dodge (or something with a name like that) to get +2 AC, equivalent to using a shield. He still got it, but the +2 spared him from the crit. Also, there's clear indications that crits are going to do interesting things beyond extra damage. This means, as a fighter, that you want to think about avoiding crits. Maybe that's worth forfeiting an attack.

The second reason is that the raised shield action opens the door to yet-to-be-disclosed shield-based feats.

In other words: Defense becomes a valid tactic. That's new. In PF1, you always wanted to attack, and you avoided damage primarily by virtue of having disabled the enemy fast.

If you have a shield and you're not surprised I'd say it's probably a given that it's raised. But I say the same about having your weapon out and ready. At least under normal adventuring conditions.

That's where tactics become interesting. Do I move and power attack (which now is 2 actions)? Or do I move, raise my shield and make a regular attack? Or do I move and make 2 attacks, one at -5? That's 3 possible tactical options right there, even without counting other feats that will come online later. In PF1, you basically had one - move and attack. At most, you got charge, or maybe move and combat maneuver if you had spent the right feats.

How come only attack actions are penalized for getting used more than once? If you move for all three actions, do you lose distance traveled for each action?

Fundamentally, this is in order to get rid of PF1's standardized fighter round, known as "5-ft step and full attack". In PF1 this is superior to all other fighter options in 80%+ of cases. That makes it boring.

How come only attack actions are penalized for getting used more than once? If you move for all three actions, do you lose distance traveled for each action?

There are other factors that give you diminishing returns for repeating other actions.

For spellcasting, most spells require two actions to cast, so one of the spells you cast in a round would have to be one of the relatively rare single action spells.

And movement becomes pointless once you are where you want to be -- and besides, they don't want to discourage using actions to move anyway.

Anyone else notice that versmilitude and narrative milieu are totally absent from the discussion? What use is there for a combat system that eliminates roleplay and consideration of the narrative and world milieu from combat?

Anyone else notice that versmilitude and narrative milieu are totally absent from the discussion? What use is there for a combat system that eliminates roleplay and consideration of the narrative and world milieu from combat?

Uh...standing and making Full Attack actions and doing nothing else doesn't have much interaction with discussions of the narrative milieu either.

I mean, even if there's zero discussion of narrative stuff 'eliminates' would imply there was in PF1. Which, on a mechanical level, there was not.

Now, if we want to talk about narrative and world milieu and combat, I'm super happy to do that. Indeed, I think several aspects of the new system really enable a lot of neat narrative elements of most fights that were absent in PF1...but we were talking mechanics, which is a whole different (though related) topic.

The flexibility of the three action system does open up much more space for action choices driven by character and role playing considerations that don’t feel like wasting a whole turn.

Anyone else notice that versmilitude and narrative milieu are totally absent from the discussion? What use is there for a combat system that eliminates roleplay and consideration of the narrative and world milieu from combat?

I know I'm going to have an easier time describing the narrative under a system that discourages constant full attacking. Adding flavour to combat in PF1E was a chore, because the same thing was happening turn in turn out.

PF1 was actually decent at flavorful combat, but didn't actively encourage it, and didn't make it obvious and apparent to the players. The other weak point which can't be fixed by any system, is the gm.

Real world tactics center around environment, and utilizing the environment makes for the best combat.

The two biggest problems with pf1 is the obscurity of environmental effects and difficulty of motion while fighting, and of course the gm setting the combat arena making it environmentally boring so players have to fall back on environmentally neutral tactics.

PF1 coukd do with a bit more combat movement and easier to look up and apply environmental effects.

But honestly, trying to make tactically interesting combat without involving environment is not just boring, but leads to dissociated and "unrealistic" (aka lack of versmilitude) mechanics which don't feel like part of the setting milieu, and also eliminates the biggest advantage rp combat has over board game combat. (Video games can implement environment though not quite as good but almost, but rarely do so.)

This is what I meant. The combat is not some thing that should be separate from the roleplay. The combat field should not be separate from the narrative world.

An example was one combat I did back in 3.5. We were disabling an enemy tower. I made a huge illusion that made the locals think the tower was on fire. As the tower's patrols arrived, they came to put out the fire, not expecting an enemy. My companions hid in the smoke and around corners. Almost every attack was by surprise (our rogue was very happy).

Now in that case, I made the environmental conditions, but that still was only possible because we were all high level.

The environment should always be a tactical consideration, and that requires two things. First, the system should make it easy to implement environmental modifiers. Second, the gm and module designers need to set combats in places where the environment is interesting and usable.

And it should be noted that usable environment is not just pits, cover, and concealment, but also things like small objects littering the area to be thrown or make moving difficult, and tapestries or umbrellas that can be yanked down on opponents, braziers that can be spilled, railings that break if hit too hard, chandiliers, etc.

These are what makes combat interesting. Without them, combat is boring. Trying to make combat fun without them is like trying to watch a movie on a tiny phone on a train without headphones. Compared to the home theater with big screen, no distractions, and amazing speakers, it is just a pale comparison.

So...this system probably works better for utilizing the environment than PF1, if only because it encourages both moving and doing multiple different things. And they might easily have increased the environmental impact as well.

We're not talking about that because this Blog Post is purely about the action economy, not how environmental effects work.

PF1 was actually decent at flavorful combat, but didn't actively encourage it, and didn't make it obvious and apparent to the players. The other weak point which can't be fixed by any system, is the gm.

Real world tactics center around environment, and utilizing the environment makes for the best combat.

The two biggest problems with pf1 is the obscurity of environmental effects and difficulty of motion while fighting, and of course the gm setting the combat arena making it environmentally boring so players have to fall back on environmentally neutral tactics.

PF1 coukd do with a bit more combat movement and easier to look up and apply environmental effects.

But honestly, trying to make tactically interesting combat without involving environment is not just boring, but leads to dissociated and "unrealistic" (aka lack of versmilitude) mechanics which don't feel like part of the setting milieu, and also eliminates the biggest advantage rp combat has over board game combat. (Video games can implement environment though not quite as good but almost, but rarely do so.)

This is what I meant. The combat is not some thing that should be separate from the roleplay. The combat field should not be separate from the narrative world.

An example was one combat I did back in 3.5. We were disabling an enemy tower. I made a huge illusion that made the locals think the tower was on fire. As the tower's patrols arrived, they came to put out the fire, not expecting an enemy. My companions hid in the smoke and around corners. Almost every attack was by surprise (our rogue was very happy).

Now in that case, I made the environmental conditions, but that still was only possible because we were all high level.

The environment should always be a tactical consideration, and that requires two things. First, the system should make it easy to implement environmental modifiers. Second, the gm and module designers need to set combats in places where the environment is interesting and...

Combat Maneuvers like Bull Rush, Overrun, Sunder and Reposition, should be the most fun ones for doing things with the environment. But for some reason you can't seem do anything with them in PF1. "What do you mean he gets a +4 to not fall into the pit I just cornered him against? It's hard enough to push this Ogre as it is wtf"

Or Reposition being completely unable to drop enemies in dangerous squares...

Or Reposition being completely unable to drop enemies in dangerous squares...

That makes sense for certain types of reposition actions, but not others.

A manipulation should not, because the enemy knows that square is dangerous and will not move there even if not doing so puts them in a bad position tactically. Expecting a manipulation to cause an enemy to jump into lava is basically the same as expecting them to commit suicide.

Forceful moves, like bull rush, should work because those aren't manipulations, they are direct actions.

Another case where the flavor matters more than mechanics.

I always saw reposition as a physical force of its own [plausibly combined with some misdirection to get the target off balance bla bla] otherwise why on earth would it be size limited [a detail I also HATE about Pathfinder Combat Maneuvers.]

Simple, the available tactics for manipulating an equal or smaller/inferior target are extensive, but significantly larger targets are immune to many of them. Though, I'd consider this one case of the real world sensibilities conflicting with the needs of combat altered for improved fun.

We clearly have a very different idea of what a combat maneuver (a Strength- or sometimes Dexterity-based attack roll, for the record) represents.

It's not a polite request to please step into the lava/pit trap/rotating knives. I believe you're thinking of the Diplomacy skill.

Not at all, but making a strike to left will often cause an enemy to step right as the best way to avoid said strike. This is a manipulation, and a series of them can certainly force an enemy where you want them, if the enemy doesn't realize the danger you are setting them up for.

However, if you strike left to get an enemy to dodge right towards a lava pit, then you'll be dissappointed as the enemy will take the extra risk to parry or block your strike rather than jumping into the lava.

Please note, that I distinguished between manipulations and more forceful actions. A bull rush for example is not a manipulation.

Not at all, but making a strike to left will often cause an enemy to step right as the best way to avoid said strike. This is a manipulation, and a series of them can certainly force an enemy where you want them, if the enemy doesn't realize the danger you are setting them up for.

However, if you strike left to get an enemy to dodge right towards a lava pit, then you'll be dissappointed as the enemy will take the extra risk to parry or block your strike rather than jumping into the lava.

Please note, that I distinguished between manipulations and more forceful actions. A bull rush for example is not a manipulation.

Neither are reposition or drag. The fact that both of them have size limits goes against the idea of them being simply some sort of feinting or baiting.

Reposition is forcefully manhandling your enemy into a different square. That it doesn't allow you to force them into an obstacle is dumb. Same with Drag and Bull Rush.

Changing that would greatly help expand options in combat. It would let you slam an enemy into a wall. Or drag an enemy into stakes. Or, yes, force an enemy into a lava pit.

I let my players push and reposition enemies into obstacles and danger zones all the time, and enemies do the same to players... I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time because that's what made sense, haha. I must have completely missed that you're "not allowed to" do this.

Oh well, not changing now~

I let my players push and reposition enemies into obstacles and danger zones all the time, and enemies do the same to players... I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time because that's what made sense, haha. I must have completely missed that you're "not allowed to" do this.

Oh well, not changing now~

Bull Rush, Drag and Reposition all have the caveat:

"You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle."

With Reposition also adding:

"You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire. "

So, you've been doing it wrong. But, so do I, because it's way more fun and engaging. Otherwise people don't bother to even try.

Yeah. For example, if someone shoves an enemy into a wall, they get to inflict their unarmed damage on that enemy and the enemy becomes flat-footed. If they shove as part of a charge, then they also get to inflict falling damage on the enemy based on how far the enemy was moved. Shoving someone off a ledge is a-ok because my world doesn't have invisible walls, it's not a limited scope video game arena. A successful Reposition is physically swinging or yanking someone against their will and can do the same thing.

At least, that's how I've always rolled with it~

Yeah. For example, if someone shoves an enemy into a wall, they get to inflict their unarmed damage on that enemy and the enemy becomes flat-footed. If they shove as part of a charge, then they also get to inflict falling damage on the enemy based on how far the enemy was moved. Shoving someone off a ledge is a-ok because my world doesn't have invisible walls, it's not a limited scope video game arena. A successful Reposition is physically swinging or yanking someone against their will and can do the same thing.

At least, that's how I've always rolled with it~

Bull Rushing or Dragging people into pits (or off the side of a platform, or what have you) is actually fine, per the normal Pathfinder RAW. It's only Reposition that prevents such a thing.

And yes, Repo's size clause implies there's quite a bit of push and pull going on, so it's weird that you can't force someone in the same way.

Hopefully PF2 does away with it. I don't mind if they keep the size restrictions though.

First, if you don't allow reposition as a manipulation (for which I always choose case by case according to narrative myself), then what do you use for manipulations like I described?

Second, inability to occupy an occupied square does not mean you didn't slam them into a wall, it just means you can't make them be inside the wall. Though, doing something to allow them to take damage or go through weak walks (as in busting a hole in the wall) would be a good addition in my opinion.

Third, the size limit actually makes sense and supports the idea of reposition being merely a manipulation, as a significantly larger target does not need to move as much to defend against a much smaller opponants attacks and additionally, such targets are already in larger fighting spaces, and if is recognized that a creature occupied space is a volume with some movement within that volume expected. Thus a larger target does not actually need to move out of their fighting space due to your attempted manipulations.

Fourth, grapple exists for cases in which you are manhandling an enemy. In fact, grabbing and manhandling an enemy is precisely what makes it grappling. Adding a few tidbits there for throwing or shoving grappled enemies would make sense.

Fifth, if reposition was grabbing an enemy, then it would require you to actually grab said enemy, which means unarmed range limit (not weapon range limit), a grab, then a shove/throw/drag.

First, if you don't allow reposition as a manipulation (for which I always choose case by case according to narrative myself), then what do you use for manipulations like I described?

Second, inability to occupy an occupied square does not mean you didn't slam them into a wall, it just means you can't make them be inside the wall. Though, doing something to allow them to take damage or go through weak walks (as in busting a hole in the wall) would be a good addition in my opinion.

Third, the size limit actually makes sense and supports the idea of reposition being merely a manipulation, as a significantly larger target does not need to move as much to defend against a much smaller opponants attacks and additionally, such targets are already in larger fighting spaces, and if is recognized that a creature occupied space is a volume with some movement within that volume expected. Thus a larger target does not actually need to move out of their fighting space due to your attempted manipulations.

Fourth, grapple exists for cases in which you are manhandling an enemy. In fact, grabbing and manhandling an enemy is precisely what makes it grappling. Adding a few tidbits there for throwing or shoving grappled enemies would make sense.

Fifth, if reposition was grabbing an enemy, then it would require you to actually grab said enemy, which means unarmed range limit (not weapon range limit), a grab, then a shove/throw/drag.

1st: I don't use anything. It's unneeded. At best it's just flavor description.

3rd: If your idea of manipulation had any merit, then the cutoff point for the meneuver would not be Size, it would be Intelligence, as it is with Feint (which is what you describe, a manipulation that works if the enemy doesn't realize the danger you are setting them up for.) . A Size cutoff implies you have no physical way to act upon the enemy in a significant way. Much like Drag and Bull Rush.

4th: Grapple is a specific way of manhandling an enemy, just like Trip, Drag, Bull Rush and Reposition. They all do different things.

5th: This is patently false by the simple fact that neither Grapple nor Drag, both maneuvers that require grabbing an enemy, are limited by your normal Unarmed reach. You can attempt them against any enemy you threaten.

I let my players push and reposition enemies into obstacles and danger zones all the time, and enemies do the same to players... I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time because that's what made sense, haha. I must have completely missed that you're "not allowed to" do this.

Oh well, not changing now~

Ignorance is bliss with these games, sometimes... I also ignore those restrictions, though intentionally. PF1 doens't do much to promote anything besides "I FULL ATTACK", specially when your normal attack can just kill the enemy outright and the ones that can survive are too big to use maneuvers on anyways.