Monster tactics and 'Attack of Opportunity'

[Claxon]

It depends on what options your class has besides attacking.

I think a big detriment is that at level 1 not ever class has something nice to do with that 3rd action besides make an attack at -10.

Fighters can at least raise a shield.

My barbarian didn't have anything to do, but I did find myself moving a lot to help our rogue flank. Or block the path of creatures where paths were restricted enough (The enemy can't just move through your square).

If anything the answer would be giving people more interesting options that would be more desirable than an attack at a -10.

[FoxofShadows]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Quote:

Also: isn't 'I want to keep enemies focused on me, so the squishies can do their thing' the main reason you'd play a fighter or, especially, paladin?

No. When I play a fighter I want to be really good at killing my enemies. And when I play a paladin I want to be really good at smiting the enemies of my god abd upholding good and justice.

Playing a Fighter (p87) wrote:

During combat, you stand between allies and enemies if you’re a melee fighter. You draw fire and deal out major damage with unmatched accuracy.

Playing a Paladin (p105) wrote:

During combat, you get into the enemy’s face while carefully positioning yourself to protect your allies.

I know these are suggestions, but they're what the classes are built around.

I would love to see more effects that allow them to do so

If I'm understanding this right. A melee fighter stands between enemies and allies, which is accomplished through the Attack of Opportunity reaction which they get at first level, allowing them to gate off a frontal assault on allies. Because they stand as a threatening impediment to attacks made against allies, they draw fire from those enemies. This makes that referenced suggestion logically consistent.

The same is true for the Paladin and denote its difference in approach. The melee fighter runs in, while the paladin can stay near allies and punish any creature that wants to attack them through the Retributive strike reaction. And if that strike is a final blow, the enemy attack is nullified completely. So while I also agree with Claxon's statements, I wanted to point out that playing as suggested is supported by the systems in place should you choose to utilize them in that fashion.

[Knight Magenta]

While playing my gish I would always want to stand still, cast a <>> spell and make an attack at -0. When playing my monk and fighting a bunch of goblins, I didn't want to move to flank since i could only flank one gobbo at a time and I would be one-shoting them so it never seemed worthwhile.

Of the ~5 combats I've played in, I think what I always did was let the enemies come to me and just spend all my actions on non-movement abilities. Incidentally, In p1 there was at least some incentive to engage first because you got a bonus to hit when you charged. Why would you ever want to go first in P2?

[Matthew Downie]

Knight Magenta wrote:

Why would you ever want to go first in P2?

PF1:

PC: Charge, attack once with +2 to hit.
NPC: Full attack with effective +2 to hit because of penalty to AC for charging.
PC: Full attack.

PF2:
PC: Move, attack, attack at -5.
NPC: Attack, attack at -5, attack at -10.
PC: Attack, attack at -5, attack at -10.

The latter situation seems more desirable for the attacker.