| rarebit |
I've tried searching both here on the forum and elsewhere and I couldn't find any discussion about this, though I think it is a pretty obvious problem.
Lets say and you and an opponent are using melee attacks and you're the one higher on the initiative. If you go and do what should be the tactical option which is to move in and attack first you would be in fact screwing yourself.
You are using one to three actions just walking to them. Which leaves you with less actions (or none at all). This means not only less attacks but other actions you can perform like raise shield.
There is a possibility that you could kill an enemy in one/two attacks, but you're not even guaranteed to hit so it is unlikely unless it is a very low level minion.
On the other the opponent is now adjacent to you and has all their actions on their turn. They don't need to waste them in movement so they can fully attack/do usefull things.
So for simplicity lets assume a one-on-one. Depending on the strides needed and the non attack action you have available, in most cases it would be more advantegous to just sit and let the other person approach. Especially if you use your ready an strike for when they are in range plus a defensive action or something.
It is better for both combatants to wait for the other to approach. So it like a game of chicke nwhere one side has to just take the hit and mess up their action economy. Or they can just make ranged attacks instead.
What really ends up happening in practice though is that when a primary melee attack dependand PCs get a high initiative roll, they will do the most obvious thing and go and attack ... and almost every get severly punished for it in the action economy. (In a real battle with multiple eneiems on both sides it might even get worse).
This looks like a pretty big flaw in the system - unless you commit to some galaxy-brain schemes you will be punished for higher initiative and melee users are discourtaged from approaching first. And what's bad is that this is not a niche case but is at the very basis of the system and apply for amost each fight.
IDK why I never seen more discussions about this. I was first made aware from Taking20's follow up video about the illusion of choice in PF2e https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_582tbKz4E0&t=1230s. As you this is very much a real situation here. (in the video he's discussing how disadvantegous it is for a character build for ranged attacks to switch to melee but the point pretty much still stands).
Now I can see people dismissing this because of the diminishing return of the multi attack penalty. But
1. But optimized character especially at higher levels are build around being able to take advantage of their second and third attack.
2. There are almost always actions other that attack you can use. If you ready an attack and the enemy approaches you, you're still ahead action wise and you still get to hit firt. In some situations you could be better delaying until after the enemy's turn. Hell if you move a step back you're forcing close ranged enemeies to waste a stride to match you.
Now this doesn't really apply if either you or the enemy switch to a ranged attack. But appart from having to use propably a worse character option, this is just more hair-brained scheming.
I expect that a lot of people wouldn't have given this a thought or just wouldn't be bothered by it much and would try and play normally. But to me that sounds that players are constantly forced to play suboptimally and not even know it. And that doesn't sound like good design to me.