Monster tactics and 'Attack of Opportunity'

[CommanderCoyler]

(Not sure if this is where something like this is supposed to go as it includes player options)

What's stopping intelligent monsters from just ignoring the frontline characters and just going after the squishy wizards etc? I can get less intelligent ones not recognising the difference, but a creature with at least average intelligence knowing that someone in heavy armour, carrying a shield is (in theory) a harder target to kill.

With OAs restricted to fighters (and level 6! Paladins), eating the character's reaction for the turn AND having a penalty to hit there seems to be little to no way to tank in this edition. I know this was a problem with D&D 3.5 (and the coat of paint that was pf1) but this just seems to be even worse.

My solution would be:
♦ Make OAs a basic reaction, so everyone has access to it
♦ Remove the -2 penalty to hit with OAs and/or make them a separate (free, but once a turn, not round) action
♦ Replace the 'Attack of Opportunity' feature on fighter with 'Retributive Strike' from Paladin
♦ Replace the 'Attack of Opportunity' level 6 feat on Paladin with 'Improved Retributive Strike', removing the -2 penalty to hit

[Matthew Downie]

Casters seem less squishy in this edition. If monsters don't get OAs either, casters are no longer so badly inconvenienced by having an enemy up in their face.

So is this a problem people have actually experienced?

[Claxon]

Well, with only the fighter, paladin and some monsters having access to AoO I think it's fine.

As Matthew Downie points out, with AoO not being widely available to monster means casters don't get locked down by monster either. It makes mobility much more viable and less punishing being you don't usually get attacked by trying to move to another target or run away from an enemy.

So yeah, smart creatures move to the back line to attack casters (sometimes) but if they do so the caster can just run away. Besides which, casters can have a good AC thanks to getting character level to AC.

[danudet]

And to add to what Claxon said, the monsters running to the back to hit the mages opens flanking on the monsters, especially if there's a thief in the party.

[Warmagon]

The casters are often less squishy, and, since the monsters usually don't have an attacks of opportunity either, don't care as much as before because nothing stops them from casting or shooting while monsters are in their face.

So it kind of works both ways. I'm not sure that it's a positive change, but it does kind of work.

[Claxon]

Yeah, casters are a lot less squishy in PF2 than in PF1. Even at low levels.

The changes to the system really balance out in my opinion, but make the game much more mobile instead of always just locking you into standing still and "full attacking" each round as a martial character.

[thistledown]

On the topic of wizards being less squishy - as far as I can see there's no more Arcane Spell Failure for armor. (Please point it to me if I'm wrong). They don't come trained in armor, but at level 2 you can pick up the fighter archetype and get all the proficiencies you need.

[Rysky]

thistledown wrote:

On the topic of wizards being less squishy - as far as I can see there's no more Arcane Spell Failure for armor. (Please point it to me if I'm wrong). They don't come trained in armor, but at level 2 you can pick up the fighter archetype and get all the proficiencies you need.

You're not wrong, ASF does not exist in the Playtest.

[Claxon]

Yeah, multiclassing into fighter is a great way to make a "gish" character that has all the swords and magic you need.

[Tholomyes]

I'm not against the removal of attacks of opportunity from most classes and monsters (though I think it should maybe be a little more broadly distributed than it is now, but I'm not super strongly opinionated on that), but I do wish that readied actions weren't so weak, maybe 1 action instead of 2, as I think that could solve the tanking problems, so long as you're fine giving up your reaction (and possibly your action if no one triggers your readied condition), and maybe have any attack or spell take an additional penalty to the roll/DC, if you're still concerned with the fact that it is no longer less effective than just acting on your turn.

[sherlock1701]

I really don't like the lack of AoOs in this edition. It shuts down tactics in a big way when you can just prance around willy-nilly with no punishment. I'd like all classes to have them from level 1 and for them to not count as a reaction. Basically 1 AoO per round in addition to the reaction.

I think I'll probably houserule it to something like this if it's not changed in final. I'll give fighters an extra level 1 feat or something to compensate.

[Rysky]

Oh wow, I’m having the exact opposite experience with the new Reaction system. Everyone is trying to new things and being more mobile on the battlefield rather than just staying still.

[Matthew Downie]

sherlock1701 wrote:

I really don't like the lack of AoOs in this edition. It shuts down tactics in a big way when you can just prance around willy-nilly with no punishment.

If everyone stays in one place through the whole battle because they don't want to provoke AoOs, that doesn't create much in the way of tactics either.

[CommanderCoyler]

Matthew Downie wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

I really don't like the lack of AoOs in this edition. It shuts down tactics in a big way when you can just prance around willy-nilly with no punishment.

If everyone stays in one place through the whole battle because they don't want to provoke AoOs, that doesn't create much in the way of tactics either.

That's what the 'step' action is for. You probably didn't pay much attention to its existence due to the lack of OAs

[Long John]

You still 100% pay attention to the Step action. You never know if what you're fighting can make AoOs. Like Dragons. Forget what color, but one of them laugh at your Step not provoking, and tail slam you anyways.

[CommanderCoyler]

Long John wrote:

You still 100% pay attention to the Step action. You never know if what you're fighting can make AoOs. Like Dragons. Forget what color, but one of them laugh at your Step not provoking, and tail slam you anyways.

I would assume most, eating a tail slap for moving around dragons is a staple of D&D

[Long John]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Long John wrote:

You still 100% pay attention to the Step action. You never know if what you're fighting can make AoOs. Like Dragons. Forget what color, but one of them laugh at your Step not provoking, and tail slam you anyways.

I would assume most, eating a tail slap for moving around dragons is a staple of D&D

Green. It was green. Black interrupts attacks and skill checks, Blue uses it's wings as a shield, Red has regular AoOs with his bite, and White sprays freezing blood when injured by piercing or slashing.

[Rysky]

Long John wrote:

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Long John wrote:

You still 100% pay attention to the Step action. You never know if what you're fighting can make AoOs. Like Dragons. Forget what color, but one of them laugh at your Step not provoking, and tail slam you anyways.

I would assume most, eating a tail slap for moving around dragons is a staple of D&D

Green. It was green. Black interrupts attacks and skill checks, Blue uses it's wings as a shield, Red has regular AoOs with his bite, and White sprays freezing blood when injured by piercing or slashing.

I love that Black Dragons can thwap you for sassing them.

[Claxon]

To me the fact that only some PCs and monsters have AoO makes combat more interesting, not less. Because now both monsters and PCs have [s]more incentive[s] are less disincentivized by AoO to only stand in place and make full attacks.

It's still taking some time to get used to that new paradigm, but I like it.

But there is still the possibility of finding a monster can react and take those AoO. Honestly I feel like things flow much more smoothly without having to always worry about AoO.

[Warmagon]

Matthew Downie wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

I really don't like the lack of AoOs in this edition. It shuts down tactics in a big way when you can just prance around willy-nilly with no punishment.

If everyone stays in one place through the whole battle because they don't want to provoke AoOs, that doesn't create much in the way of tactics either.

Which is a problem that pathfinder exacerbated by weakening tumble. 3e started off making maneuver pretty easy for characters not wearing heavy. And other dndish games had maneuver as well. Even people without explicit shift powers could step+charge in 4e some of the time. 13th age allows a 50/50 to escape, and has a number of abilities that let characters pop free from engagement - or pop enemies free so ranged people aren't pressured. Spycraft 2 doesn't have attacks, but it does have a zone of control hindering movement (unless bypassed with skills) and pretty serious penalties for using most ranged weapons while in melee. So it seems to me that there's a pretty large middle ground you are excluding.

Moreover, the other reason for static fights isn't just punishment for trying to move, but also what opportunity cost is. And while PF 2 does make it easier to more and get extra attacks by default, there are still significant costs to moving since it takes the place of some action, instead of characters having an action just for moving. Now even level 1 characters can stand still and make 3 attacks. It takes an action to ready a shield every turn by default, so two attacks and a shield means not moving. Step is an action, so it's actually much more expensive than before. Stances take an action too, instead of being swift or minor. If characters are supposed to move around a lot, maybe they shouldn't have a lots of options for trading their move in exchange for an extra attack or other bonuses.

Finally, IME, the threat of aoo drives as much movement as it can stop. Non melee types moved so melee monsters couldn't get in their face and mess up their turns. In pf2, it doesn't matter as much. Against most enemies, they can stand their and do their thing regardless - and if they move, the monster will be able to chase them down freely even if most melee characters engage them. Just stand there, spend 2 actions to cast and then 1 to attack or use the shield cantrip.

[sherlock1701]

Matthew Downie wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

I really don't like the lack of AoOs in this edition. It shuts down tactics in a big way when you can just prance around willy-nilly with no punishment.

If everyone stays in one place through the whole battle because they don't want to provoke AoOs, that doesn't create much in the way of tactics either.

So are you against barbarians being able to lock someone down and keep them from reaching the archer? Or monks being able to close with a caster and lock them down? Because that's all this system accomplishes. There's no penalty for moving wherever you want, whenever you want, so you just move at will.

With the new economy, you can Step out of reach to avoid AoOs, Stride to your new location, and Strike a target. That seems like plenty to me in terms of being able to reposition on the fly.

[Rysky]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

I really don't like the lack of AoOs in this edition. It shuts down tactics in a big way when you can just prance around willy-nilly with no punishment.

If everyone stays in one place through the whole battle because they don't want to provoke AoOs, that doesn't create much in the way of tactics either.

So are you against barbarians being able to lock someone down and keep them from reaching the archer? Or monks being able to close with a caster and lock them down? Because that's all this system accomplishes. There's no penalty for moving wherever you want, whenever you want, so you just move at will.

With the new economy, you can Step out of reach to avoid AoOs, Stride to your new location, and Strike a target. That seems like plenty to me in terms of being able to reposition on the fly.

Note that that applies against PCs as well, I'm pretty sure casters and ranged characters didn't like being locked down by martial enemies charging them all the time.

The battlefield being a lot more open for all the classes is a good thing.

[Claxon]

Sure, the barbarian can't lockdown the troll who wants to threaten the archer or caster, but they also aren't locked down either. And, even if they are next to the enemy they don't have to worry about ranged attacks provoking. And thanks to new mechanics on hp and armor classes really aren't that squishy anymore. Someone pointed out (in another thread) that caster can pretty safely wear armor since non-proficiency would only reduce your armor bonus by two effectively, and there is on longer arcane spell failure. So casters can load up on heavy armor and be pretty okay.

You don't have to worry about monsters getting to the back lines as much. Sure, those characters aren't as defensive, but it's not like there going to be 10+ point behind in AC.

Also, archers really don't care at all anymore. They don't provoke for shooting, so with a good dex and good armor they're fine being on the front lines.

[CommanderCoyler]

Claxon wrote:

Also, archers really don't care at all anymore. They don't provoke for shooting, so with a good dex and good armor they're fine being on the front lines.

Yea, that shouldn't be a thing. Though that's at least partially a fault of the armour system.

Especially as fixing the OA 'system' and the armour system would allow dex mod damage for ranged (and finesse! along with not nerfing their damage dice too) attacks, something I am very much for

[Claxon]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Yea, that shouldn't be a thing.

Why?

I think it's great. In PF1 it just meant that it was practically mandatory to pickup some method to not provoke. Now we've just dispensed with the whole thing.

I also want to make sure I understand what you're proposing in your next statement. That we need to bring back AoO and make it so caster can't be heavily armored. That way, we can give them dex to damage to compensate them for their frailty and make the martial characters take care of the wimpy friends?

Yeah. No thanks.

[CommanderCoyler]

Claxon wrote:

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Yea, that shouldn't be a thing.

Why?

I think it's great. In PF1 it just meant that it was practically mandatory to pickup some method to not provoke. Now we've just dispensed with the whole thing.

I also want to make sure I understand what you're proposing in your next statement. That we need to bring back AoO and make it so caster can't be heavily armored. That way, we can give them dex to damage to compensate them for their frailty and make the martial characters take care of the wimpy friends?

Yeah. No thanks.

There being no punishment for ranged attacks essentially makes them melee weapons with long reach, that feels boring to me.

What I'm getting at with armour is that there's no real reason to be heavily armoured when you get the same AC and a massive penalty so skills.

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?

[Rysky]

That’s what ranged weapons pretty much have always been though. It comes down to aesthetic basically.

[Claxon]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

There being no punishment for ranged attacks essentially makes them melee weapons with long reach, that feels boring to me.

You're entitle to feel that way, though I don't. They only get half strength to damage, which is pretty substantial penalty by comparison, and with the fighter and barbarian have abilities that allow them to move double and still attack they have a easy time getting into position to make attacks and can still end up with 2 attacks. So it's really not a problem in my view.

Quote:

What I'm getting at with armour is that there's no real reason to be heavily armoured when you get the same AC and a massive penalty so skills.

Only partially true. You want whatever armor you can based on your dex modifier. As your modifier grows, you'll potentially move down the categories. Which is fine with me really. Ultimately, what is needed is for higher levels of proficiency in armor to grant you special abilities like being trained in a skill does, but more expansive (skill abilities also need to be expanded for what you can do based on proficiency).

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.

I never wanted to be "my brother's keeper".

I do think there should be some class that is good at that, but being a tank like in MMOs is dumb and something I don't want to appear in Pathfinder.

[CommanderCoyler]

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

[Captain Morgan]

Aside from what has been said already, this new change means those who have AoO are more likely to get to use it. Enemies are more likely to provoke, where as before something with animal intelligence or greater did not before. I think some people getting to use it very often is preferable to everyone getting to use it but very rarely. Especially with the other perks like added mobility.

Also, casters can still be held down with grappling, which also works alongside AoOs if you got them.

Edit: I mean, consider how easy it was to avoid AoOs with a five foot step before. Now people can, but they won't necessarily think you have it. Also, our alchemist got to walk up and fire their crossbow directly into the head of a goblin, which was cool.

[Claxon]

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

I can understand the argument that Paladins are built around protecting their allies, but fighter's class feats really aren't. They're about damage output. AoO are just a method of doing that.

How they describe the class has very little to how it actually works mechanically. You could have described the PF1 fighter in the same fashion and it would still be wrong.

[CommanderCoyler]

Claxon wrote:

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

I can understand the argument that Paladins are built around protecting their allies, but fighter's class feats really aren't. They're about damage output. AoO are just a method of doing that.

How they describe the class has very little to how it actually works mechanically. You could have described the PF1 fighter in the same fashion and it would still be wrong.

Then that's a failing in the game's design. Giving fighters a method of punishing foes who ignore them a la Paladin's retributive strike, or a method of interposing attacks (i.e. drawing fire) would be a great start. Maybe make classes who are supposed to tank access to some sort of (preferably unified) condition they inflict on enemies whereby if they make an attack that doesn't target them, there's a penalty to said attack. You could even differentiate how the classes put on that condition, and what they can do should the enemy ignore you anyway.

[Claxon]

I think the problem is conceptual.

I don't think of fighters as a class that's supposed to tank.

Actually, because of PF1 I don't think of any class as one that's supposed to tank, because outside of area denial there wasn't really much you could do. And I was pretty okay with that.

I'm also okay with there being options to do what you're saying, inflicting penalties on creatures that don't attack the user.

I guess ultimately what I'm saying is I just disagree that Fighters are supposed to be tanks. I think that's the Paladin's job (in PF2) but it was never how I imagined my fighters or paladins in PF1.

Circling back around to your earlier statement on "that's what the classes are built around" while you did quote part of the description from the fighter, it's not the main blurb.

In context your quote comes from:
"Players of fighter characters might approach game play in the following ways.
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...
During social encounters you can be intimidating...

It's a brief explanation of things you character can be capable of. And honestly, your interpretation of the statements perhaps reads too much into it. A fighter will stand between allies and enemies if they're a melee fighter, but mostly because fights usually start with enemies in front of you and you have to move to attack them. And as for the drawing fire bit...well usually being in someone's face usually draws fire no matter what. But the fighter doesn't really have abilities that force an enemy to focus on them to the exclusion of allies.

What I think of when I think of fighter is more along the main blurb on the first page of the fighter section, which is:

Quote:

Fighting for honor, greed, loyalty, or simply your own uncontrollable bloodlust, you are an undipsuted master or weaponry and combat techniques. You combine your actions through clever combinations of opening moves, finishing strikes, and counterattacks whenever your foes are unwise enough to drop their guard. Whether you are a knight, mercenary, sharpshooter, or blademaster, you hone your martial skills to an art form and perform devastating critical attacks on your enemies."

[CommanderCoyler]

Claxon wrote:

I think the problem is conceptual.

I don't think of fighters as a class that's supposed to tank.

Actually, because of PF1 I don't think of any class as one that's supposed to tank, because outside of area denial there wasn't really much you could do. And I was pretty okay with that.

I'm also okay with there being options to do what you're saying, inflicting penalties on creatures that don't attack the user.

I guess ultimately what I'm saying is I just disagree that Fighters are supposed to be tanks. I think that's the Paladin's job (in PF2) but it was never how I imagined my fighters or paladins in PF1.

Admittedly this is, at least partially, my 4e bias speaking (have I mentioned that 4e is my favourite RPG system of the quite a few I've played) but I very much see fighters as tanks. I also feel that was at least some of the intention in pf2, with restricting access to OAs to fighter (and level 6!, sorry to keep highlighting that just feel 6 is far to high a level to get something like OA as an option, Paladin)

Claxon wrote:

Circling back around to your earlier statement on "that's what the classes are built around" while you did quote part of the description from the fighter, it's not the main blurb.

In context your quote comes from:
"Players of fighter characters might approach game play in the following ways.
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...
During social encounters you can be intimidating...

It's a brief explanation of things you character can be capable of. And honestly, your interpretation of the statements perhaps reads too much into it. A fighter will stand between allies and enemies if they're a melee fighter, but mostly because fights usually start with enemies in front of you and you have to move to attack them. And as for the drawing fire bit...well usually being in someone's face usually draws fire no matter what. But the fighter doesn't really have abilities that force an enemy to focus on them to the exclusion of allies.

What I think of when I think of fighter is more along the main blurb on the first page of the fighter section, which is:

Quote:

Fighting for honor, greed, loyalty, or simply your own uncontrollable bloodlust, you are an undipsuted master or weaponry and combat techniques. You combine your actions through clever combinations of opening moves,...

I didn't directly quote it, no. I did point out that they are suggestions though, as is the main blurb.

[Fumarole]

Why are people saying ranged attacks do not provoke? It is stated in multiple places that they do. Sure, not all monsters have this reaction, but many do.

Bestiary page 121 wrote:

Attack of Opportunity

Trigger
A creature within the monster’s reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.

Rulebook page 306 wrote:

ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY

Trigger
A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature at a –2 penalty. If the attack hits and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to it.

[CommanderCoyler]

Fumarole wrote:

Why are people saying ranged attacks do not provoke? It is stated in multiple places that they do.

Bestiary page 121 wrote:

Attack of Opportunity

Trigger
A creature within the monster’s reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.

Rulebook page 306 wrote:

ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY

Trigger
A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature at a –2 penalty. If the attack hits and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to it.

Its where so few entities have access to OAs that it ranged attacks etc may as well not provoke

[Fumarole]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Its where so few entities have access to OAs that it ranged attacks etc may as well not provoke

Sure, and I acknowledged not all monsters have this reaction in my post. However, at a time when people are learning the rules for this new system it is a bad idea to simply state something as factual when it is not. It's no different than people stating that movement or the manipulate action do not provoke. Propagating incorrect information at this stage will likely have people learning the rules incorrectly and that could have negative long-term effects for our hobby.

[Brother Fen]

Losing AoO is one of the awful decisions in this edition.

[Claxon]

Brother Fen wrote:

Losing AoO is one of the awful decisions in this edition.

Alternatively, it's one of the best decisions.

Personally I think it's great because it makes combat more mobile and it feels faster because people aren't trying to constantly calculate routes of movement that don't provoke. There were plenty of times in PF1 where I had friends counting each square of different routes to see if they could reach their destination without provoking, or what they might do alternatively if they could reach their original goal.

[Claxon]

Fumarole wrote:

Why are people saying ranged attacks do not provoke? It is stated in multiple places that they do. Sure, not all monsters have this reaction, but many do.

Bestiary page 121 wrote:

Attack of Opportunity

Trigger
A creature within the monster’s reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.

Rulebook page 306 wrote:

ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY

Trigger
A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature at a –2 penalty. If the attack hits and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to it.

Sorry, that's my fault I think for incorrectly expressing my sentiment.

What I meant was that because virtually nothing has AoO, they don't need to worry about provoking for making ranged attacks.

I can see where that could potentially confuse people.

[CommanderCoyler]

Claxon wrote:

Brother Fen wrote:

Losing AoO is one of the awful decisions in this edition.

Alternatively, it's one of the best decisions.

Personally I think it's great because it makes combat more mobile and it feels faster because people aren't trying to constantly calculate routes of movement that don't provoke. There were plenty of times in PF1 where I had friends counting each square of different routes to see if they could reach their destination without provoking, or what they might do alternatively if they could reach their original goal.

A lot of people, myself included, really like the tactical side that working around OAs etc brings

[Rysky]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Brother Fen wrote:

Losing AoO is one of the awful decisions in this edition.

Alternatively, it's one of the best decisions.

Personally I think it's great because it makes combat more mobile and it feels faster because people aren't trying to constantly calculate routes of movement that don't provoke. There were plenty of times in PF1 where I had friends counting each square of different routes to see if they could reach their destination without provoking, or what they might do alternatively if they could reach their original goal.

A lot of people, myself included, really like the tactical side that working around OAs etc brings

Really?

In most of my games I’ve played in that basically amounted to “don’t go near the enemy, don’t move when enemies are near”.

[CommanderCoyler]

Rysky wrote:

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Brother Fen wrote:

Losing AoO is one of the awful decisions in this edition.

Alternatively, it's one of the best decisions.

Personally I think it's great because it makes combat more mobile and it feels faster because people aren't trying to constantly calculate routes of movement that don't provoke. There were plenty of times in PF1 where I had friends counting each square of different routes to see if they could reach their destination without provoking, or what they might do alternatively if they could reach their original goal.

A lot of people, myself included, really like the tactical side that working around OAs etc brings

Really?

In most of my games I’ve played in that basically amounted to “don’t go near the enemy, don’t move when enemies are near”.

Yup, mostly coming from 4e though where a step (there called a shift) is a move action. You can also use your standard action to charge (you have to move at least 2 squares, each square you move must take you towards the target) or trade it in for a move action, so it's vaguely similar to how pf2's 3 action system works (more rigid though). Also some classes can shift more than 1 square with powers (mostly rogue, monk and the like).

[Claxon]

Honestly, I find the game to be more tactical now with AoO than when everyone had them.

In my experience, intelligent enemies and players rarely ever provoked. You'd spend a good amount of time planning out movement to that end to make sure you didn't get attacked. Which ultimately only served to make combat take longer and have nothing happen.

Without AoO myself and my fellow players moved around the battlefield a lot more than we normally would. Setting up flanking and that sort of thing.

[Rysky]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Rysky wrote:

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Brother Fen wrote:

Losing AoO is one of the awful decisions in this edition.

Alternatively, it's one of the best decisions.

Personally I think it's great because it makes combat more mobile and it feels faster because people aren't trying to constantly calculate routes of movement that don't provoke. There were plenty of times in PF1 where I had friends counting each square of different routes to see if they could reach their destination without provoking, or what they might do alternatively if they could reach their original goal.

A lot of people, myself included, really like the tactical side that working around OAs etc brings

Really?

In most of my games I’ve played in that basically amounted to “don’t go near the enemy, don’t move when enemies are near”.

Yup, mostly coming from 4e though where a step (there called a shift) is a move action. You can also use your standard action to charge (you have to move at least 2 squares, each square you move must take you towards the target) or trade it in for a move action, so it's vaguely similar to how pf2's 3 action system works (more rigid though). Also some classes can shift more than 1 square with powers (mostly rogue, monk and the like).

Ah, I see. But 1st Edition Pathfinder didn't play like that.

[CommanderCoyler]

Claxon wrote:

Honestly, I find the game to be more tactical now with AoO than when everyone had them.

In my experience, intelligent enemies and players rarely ever provoked. You'd spend a good amount of time planning out movement to that end to make sure you didn't get attacked. Which ultimately only served to make combat take longer and have nothing happen.

Without AoO myself and my fellow players moved around the battlefield a lot more than we normally would. Setting up flanking and that sort of thing.

I get that the way things are currently in pf2, there is a different tactical game to what I'm used to, where everyone is a slippery beggar with little to no reprisal. I just feel there's a balance to be struck between that and 'You're either away from melee, or you're static' of 3.5/pf1. In my opinion, 4e hit that balance perfectly and pf2 has the groundwork to at least be similar.

Rysky wrote:

Ah, I see. But 1st Edition Pathfinder didn't play like that.

This isn't pf1 (and, yes, I see this isn't 4e either) new edition, new rules. I would like to see more lessons learned/adapted from 4e (as I said earlier, it's my favourite RPG system of the ones I've played), especially as there seems to be quite a few already scattered around. I will, however, at least give the game a try and see how it feels in the moment.

[Claxon]

Wait...you haven't actually played the game (PF2) with these rules?

[CommanderCoyler]

Claxon wrote:

Wait...you haven't actually played the game (PF2) with these rules?

I will admit that I have not managed to get a group together, no. I will also say that these, along with some other, concerns have meant that I haven't tried as hard as I could have to do so.

[Warmagon]

I've been playing it some, and I'm in agreement with commandercoyler. When everyone can either move freely or barely care that people are in their face because nothing provokes, positioning loses a lot of meaning imo. It's the presence of good and bad places that makes maneuver relevant. The default set up in pf 2/is pretty much people can run around to flank on their turn without other people being able to do anything about anything about it. That's not really all that different from static mutual flanking. It's kind of like the old crpg Arcanum, where in turn based mode you could just run around behind enemies to backstab them every round.

It is perhaps a step up from first edition. But PF 1 is a step back in combat mobility from base 3.5 because of tumble nerfs. And other dndish games have come up with other ways to make combat less static while still having some kind aoo or zone of control. There were things people could do to be unstuck, but also ways to play around them. And the wizard getting stuck in melee could prompt people to use knockbacks to be themselves, or a buddy out of that situation. There seems to be more room for interaction in that model than having no zoc at all.

Moreover, because PF 2 does not have a "move" action, and instead has 3 actions which can be used for offense and defense, it seems to lead to the same kind of incentives for relatively static 'full attacks' although these may now be non attack actions, as regular pf and 3e. Yeah, you could move without provoking. But the guys you are fighting can move after you without provoking in many situations as well. Not necessarily a net gain. But some one could attack and cast a spell instead, use a shield and double attack, etc. Being able to get two attacks with a move in between is a step up in mobility. But not being able to step while making two attacks and using a shield is a step back. The more a character can get out of three actions, the more they want to stand still.

[MerlinCross]

I see my post was eaten by the maintenance. But it went something like this;

So to people saying about how we have a step up in mobility with no AoO and the 3 actions to run around like it's some big running battle(I mean look at Lord of the Rings fights, other movies), um question?

Does it actually?

I bring this up due to my own few just quick battles, looking over the maps, and part of what Warmagon said(The whole, "The more you can get out of 3 actions, the more you want to hold still").

Yeah without AoO we can move around monsters a whole lot more now, but I question how fluid and mobile battles actually will be. My few test runs weren't as everyone either wanted to make as many swings or spell casts as possible.