Suggestion: Middle ground between "AoO for all" and "AoO for select few"


Running the Game

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Midnightoker wrote:

I think this has happened in a few places in the game in general, but to me combat is less interesting if there are no consequences for actions at all, and generally it's counter to realism in most cases.

I would say in some cases; if you are beating the crap out of a rabbit, if you suddenly stop and flee, I doubt it well get some opportunistic bum-nibble strike as you bail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I think this has happened in a few places in the game in general, but to me combat is less interesting if there are no consequences for actions at all, and generally it's counter to realism in most cases.

I would say in some cases; if you are beating the crap out of a rabbit, if you suddenly stop and flee, I doubt it well get some opportunistic bum-nibble strike as you bail.

Rabbits are tiny creatures that don't threaten the same squares as larger foes.

The rabbit from Monty Pythons holy grail had a huge threat radius.


Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I think this has happened in a few places in the game in general, but to me combat is less interesting if there are no consequences for actions at all, and generally it's counter to realism in most cases.

I would say in some cases; if you are beating the crap out of a rabbit, if you suddenly stop and flee, I doubt it well get some opportunistic bum-nibble strike as you bail.
Rabbits are tiny creatures that don't threaten the same squares as larger foes.

Still, once they are engaged/in it's reach/threatened area. We can apply it to Small monsters. Every organism and its mom being a battle savvy opportunistic warrior, seems odd.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I think this has happened in a few places in the game in general, but to me combat is less interesting if there are no consequences for actions at all, and generally it's counter to realism in most cases.

I would say in some cases; if you are beating the crap out of a rabbit, if you suddenly stop and flee, I doubt it well get some opportunistic bum-nibble strike as you bail.
Rabbits are tiny creatures that don't threaten the same squares as larger foes.
Still, once they are engaged/in it's reach/threatened area. We can apply it to Small monsters. Every organism and its mom being a battle savvy opportunistic warrior, seems odd.

I suppose you could add a requirement to AoO/Disrupt that states "you must be wielding a weapon you are at least Trained in", which would remove simple commoners/rabbits/etc.

That's more or less similar to PF1 anyways.


Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I think this has happened in a few places in the game in general, but to me combat is less interesting if there are no consequences for actions at all, and generally it's counter to realism in most cases.

I would say in some cases; if you are beating the crap out of a rabbit, if you suddenly stop and flee, I doubt it well get some opportunistic bum-nibble strike as you bail.
Rabbits are tiny creatures that don't threaten the same squares as larger foes.
Still, once they are engaged/in it's reach/threatened area. We can apply it to Small monsters. Every organism and its mom being a battle savvy opportunistic warrior, seems odd.

I suppose you could add a requirement to AoO/Disrupt that states "you must be wielding a weapon you are at least Trained in", which would remove simple commoners/rabbits/etc.

That's more or less similar to PF1 anyways.

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.


Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically.

Especially give the context of choosing to use a Reaction now is a meaningful choice to make, where as AoO's were not so much "decisions" as they were free attacks.


Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..

Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..
Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?

I would assume (Because I feel like this), that making it so you have to think about the current positioning before making your decisions adds a layer of depth to the combat tactics. You can't always just spam your "routine" or go to the immediately obvious thing without at least considering what's going on. New advantages and disadvantages can be created by, for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.

So in short: it's rewarding to use smart tactics.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..
Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?

Well it's hard to pinpoint exact metrics without a firm implementation but I think the core one that comes to mind would be the interactions with flanking as of current:

So flanking is now a lot harder to trigger, and a lot less tactically to pursue, since it's quite easy to avoid flanking in the current context.

Also "Step" is a lot less valuable as an action in the context of no AoO, which sort of devalues step vs. a Stride in general.

Outside that, I do think that requiring more choice in the actions taken (drinking a potion, casting a 2+ action spell, general "distracting" actions) adds more thought into how a combat might go.

I will say I am a bit of a stickler for some form of grounded realism, and the cost of choice. To me, the action economy itself supports a lot of that already, so it might not be necessary to remove the AoO (or some such equivalent) entirely.

Example Scenario of choice:

If I'm playing a Rogue and I'm about to get attacked, but I'm also currently flanking another target I have to make a choice.

Do I save my Reaction so I force the target to use step, do I use Nimble Dodge to better my chance of staying unhit.

If I use my Nimble Dodge, then I lose pressure on my flanked enemy, as he can now use Stride instead of Step (at least with respect to me) and he can perform an action that would otherwise be dangerous without me getting any say.

Not using Nimble Dodge can lead to me taking a critical blow, or some other downside specific to the attacker.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..
Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?
I would assume (Because I feel like this), that making it so you have to think about the current positioning before making your decisions adds a layer of depth to the combat tactics. You can't always just spam your "routine" or go to the immediately obvious thing without at least considering what's going on. New advantages and disadvantages can be created by, for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.

I find the opposite, the lack of the threat, at least psychologically, opens up for more dynamism, freedom of movement in combat.

The cheaply counting squares to avoid the dreaded and dastardly "AoO" got old about 18-years ago.


Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..
Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?
Well it's hard to pinpoint exact metrics without a firm implementation but I think the core one that comes to mind would be the interactions with flanking as of current:

That about sums it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.

This is another great example.

If my positioning limits who can hurt my friends, and my choices of reactions decide how much better I can defend my friends, then to me that is an example of "good tactics".


Midnightoker wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.
This is another great example.

Not really, as there is no restriction of movement or forcing enemies to do anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..
Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?
I would assume (Because I feel like this), that making it so you have to think about the current positioning before making your decisions adds a layer of depth to the combat tactics. You can't always just spam your "routine" or go to the immediately obvious thing without at least considering what's going on. New advantages and disadvantages can be created by, for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.

I find the opposite, the lack of the threat, at least psychologically, opens up for more dynamism, freedom of movement in combat.

The cheaply counting squares to avoid the dreaded and dastardly "AoO" got old about 18-years ago.

Wouldn't call moving around to be "dynamism", just more "free". It makes the board seem less static, but it also makes the board kinda meaningless too, so it's not affecting the flow of battle. So yeah, you can move, but it doesn't translate to much since I don't think "which square you are standing on" has any meaningful impact if you weren't blessed with AOO.

EDIT: I would say "dynamic" means that things are always changing from one action to another, affecting everyone's decision-making progress.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..
Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?
I would assume (Because I feel like this), that making it so you have to think about the current positioning before making your decisions adds a layer of depth to the combat tactics. You can't always just spam your "routine" or go to the immediately obvious thing without at least considering what's going on. New advantages and disadvantages can be created by, for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.

I find the opposite, the lack of the threat, at least psychologically, opens up for more dynamism, freedom of movement in combat.

The cheaply counting squares to avoid the dreaded and dastardly "AoO" got old about 18-years ago.
Wouldn't call moving around to be "dynamism", just more "free".

Free is good, not, oh, well, guess I should stay here and full attack, lest I leave and get the dreaded AoO from the ill-tempered hedgehog.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.
This is another great example.
Not really, as there is no restriction of movement or forcing enemies to do anything.

If the proposed threatened area is difficult terrain were employed, it absolutely applies.

Also kinda depends on the strength of the "Disrupt" Reaction in this case, because if it stops the action it is Disrupting (move through threatened area) then once again, it absolutely does.

Again, it depends on the implementation, but that's what everyone is here discussing. How we create these desired outcomes without creating a mess in the rules or "stationary" combat.


ChibiNyan wrote:
EDIT: I would say "dynamic" means that things are always changing from one action to another, affecting everyone's decision-making progress.

Right on, but what you would say about the definition of "dynamic" has no impact on what it actually means or entails in play.


ChibiNyan wrote:
It makes the board seem less static, but it also makes the board kinda meaningless too, so it's not affecting the flow of battle. So yeah, you can move, but it doesn't translate to much since I don't think "which square you are standing on" has any meaningful impact if you weren't blessed with AOO.

Let me re-share an example from one of my sessions.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
What are people doing with their movement? Step, swing, step? Yeah that's moible combat.
An example from a session on Friday: The Barbarian used Sudden Charge to close the distance on an enemy (two actions for double movement/one strike) and then used his last action to Stride around the foe to flank. The Rogue used two actions to Stride into melee and then attacked the flanked foe.

Once varied terrain enters the mix the increased mobility has even greater impact. This isn't necessarily reliant on the GM designing interesting maps either. One of my players is fielding an Alchemist and has been spamming Smokebombs. The result is that players can do something, move into the cloud, and Hide to become Sensed. I've also been letting them Step out of the Smoke, do something, and then Sneak back in (but that may not be RAW).

What does hiding in smoke net the player? Enemy is flat footed and has a 55% miss chance on hitting the player. (Without using Hide or Sneak, the enemy still has a 25% miss change when targeting the player while they're in the smoke.) In that case I think "which square you are standing on" makes a big difference. This is true of any terrain that offers Cover or concealment (including Dim Light and Darkness).


Vic Ferrari wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
EDIT: I would say "dynamic" means that things are always changing from one action to another, affecting everyone's decision-making progress.
Right on, but what you would say about the definition of "dynamic" has no impact on what it actually means or entails in play.

Or anyone elses. But I'm not the one using it to support the argument. It's used as a marketing word to make something sound good without having to fundament it. Nobody is using it literally.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
It makes the board seem less static, but it also makes the board kinda meaningless too, so it's not affecting the flow of battle. So yeah, you can move, but it doesn't translate to much since I don't think "which square you are standing on" has any meaningful impact if you weren't blessed with AOO.

Let me re-share an example from one of my sessions.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
What are people doing with their movement? Step, swing, step? Yeah that's moible combat.
An example from a session on Friday: The Barbarian used Sudden Charge to close the distance on an enemy (two actions for double movement/one strike) and then used his last action to Stride around the foe to flank. The Rogue used two actions to Stride into melee and then attacked the flanked foe.

Once varied terrain enters the mix the increased mobility has even greater impact. This isn't necessarily reliant on the GM designing interesting maps either. One of my players is fielding an Alchemist and has been spamming Smokebombs. The result is that players can do something, move into the cloud, and Hide to become Sensed. I've also been letting them Step out of the Smoke, do something, and then Sneak back in (but that may not be RAW).

What does hiding in smoke net the player? Enemy is flat footed and has a 55% miss chance on hitting the player. (Without using Hide or Sneak, the enemy still has a 25% miss change when targeting the player while they're in the smoke.) In that case I think "which square you are standing on" makes a big difference. This is true of any terrain that offers...

Yes, I guess I was being hyperbolic (is that a thing?) with my point. It does matter in many scenarios including spells with small AOE and splash weapons. I'm just not satisfied with that, I suppose.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
EDIT: I would say "dynamic" means that things are always changing from one action to another, affecting everyone's decision-making progress.
Right on, but what you would say about the definition of "dynamic" has no impact on what it actually means or entails in play.
Or anyone elses. But I'm not the one using it to support the argument. It's used as a marketing word to make something sound good without having to fundament it. Nobody is using it literally.

I guess the same would apply to the fast and loose use of the word "interesting", people throw around in regards to AoO and combat; have yet to get a proper answer.

The words that took a beating and lost all meaning during the initial marketing for 4th Ed were "cool" and "robust".


Midnightoker wrote:

I suppose you could add a requirement to AoO/Disrupt that states "you must be wielding a weapon you are at least Trained in", which would remove simple commoners/rabbits/etc.

That's more or less similar to PF1 anyways.

That's why I tied my complex version of this idea to weapon training.


Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't really want AoO back in its entirety, but I do want everyone to be somewhat able to stop enemies from moving right past them. I'm okay with enemies disengaging, but if I'm playing a buff barbarian I want to be able to stand in front of my wizard buddy and stop enemies from just walking past me to get to him.

So, here's an idea for a reaction that every PC and monster would get:

Hinder Movement
Reaction
Trigger: an enemy tries to move i.e. anything with the Move trait from one space you threaten to another space you threaten.
Effect: unless the enemy spends another action point to keep going, their move stops in the first space. Any other reactions/free actions triggered by the attempted move can still be carried out (for example if it also provoked an Attack of Opportunity reaction from one of your buddies). If the enemy is subjected to multiple Hinder Movement reactions from you and your allies, the enemy needs to pay an action point for each of them to continue their movement.

* It's not absolute enough to grind combat to a halt completely.
* A single defender can slow down an enemy enough that the enemy probably can't use it's best multiple-action attack anymore. But the back ranks don't become completely untouchable either.
* Multiple defenders working together can make it a really strong frontline.
* Multiple attackers can exhaust the front line's reactions and push through.
* Doesn't stop enemies from withdrawing, although with a reach weapon you can slow them down.
* Because everyone would have this reaction, it's a little less of a "gotcha!" moment when enemies take reactions against PC movement. It's a little less necessary for every boss to get AoO as an ability.
* It promotes teamwork to get someone past defensive lines.
* It works just fine with feats like rogue Mobility that prevent reactions if they're moving in the right way. A rogue is your guy behind enemy lines.

This seems really powerful, though. It might work great for a fairly high level feat for a Defender type class given how impactful loosing an action is.

Sovereign Court

LordVanya wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
...
This seems really powerful, though. It might work great for a fairly high level feat for a Defender type class given how impactful loosing an action is.

I don't think it's that powerful, actually. It's mitigated by a couple of things:

1) Everyone would have this ability, so you know they can do it. You're not losing actions because you're surprised they're able to do this.

2) It costs a reaction. So they can't do it twice; if they do it to you they can't stop your buddy anymore. And if they do it they can't also take an attack of opportunity.

3) It only triggers when you from a threatened space to another space threatened by the same defender. So not when first entering someone's "zone of control", but only when trying to move trough it. You can walk up to someone (without reach) and hit them.

Against people with reach, you can still get to them and attack, but you need an extra action. So, people with reach weapons are good at stopping people charging at them all the way from across the room, or people trying to frontally assault them and immediately cut to the super technique. But that's exactly what reach weapons are supposed to do: make it hard to get to people.

4) It only triggers on movement, not for example spellcasting.

5) And Steps don't provoke reactions for in any case so if you really really want to move past someone, you can Step Step Step. And rogues with the Mobility feat also don't provoke reactions for movement if they keep within speed limits. So there's certainly ways around this.


LordVanya wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I suppose you could add a requirement to AoO/Disrupt that states "you must be wielding a weapon you are at least Trained in", which would remove simple commoners/rabbits/etc.

That's more or less similar to PF1 anyways.

That's why I tied my complex version of this idea to weapon training.

Again I don't hate that implementation, but have a base Requirement of "Trained" is rather simple to add to the top.

A more in depth implementation that creates different tiers (akin to a Heightened spell) of TEML for a base action seems a bit much.

That said, I do think creating feats that build on that (I.E. requires Expert Proficiency in a certain weapon type) that increases the base action might be a less rules intensive implementation.

I wasn't saying your idea wasn't good, just that it kinda violates one of the original reasons AoO's got the axe, which was complexity.


I'm intrigued by xzzion's idea: everyone gets AoO but those without class features / feats for it do so at a -6 to hit vs a - 2. Maybe a higher penalty than that? Fighters would be the only ones likely to hit you, but you can't just walk around everybody with no risk. Very simple change too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bah! Offering everyone a chance to have AoO but at penalties steep enough that they're unlikely to hit just slows the game down, often to little effect.

I'm not saying I have a solution, but I don't think giving AoO is the solution.


Hmm, I see your point. I mean, everybody had AoO in 1st edition and I don't know that it slowed things down. I suppose it doesn't get triggered as much because it's strong enough to scare people from triggering it. I honestly don't see a weaker AoO coming up a ton with my playtest players anyway because I don't think they would take the risk often, so I can't see it slowing things down much. I just like the idea of a non fighter characters getting a weaker deterrent of some kind, as others have posted.


As I suggested before I think in the case of flanking you could grant an AoO if they try to move away (which could also be used to hold them in place instead of dealing damage).

This takes away the only real problem I see, which is a person being flanked just easily walking away unless it's fighters flanking them.

The problem with AoO are either:
1) Everyone has them and they're dangerous, so no one does anything to provoke. Everyone stands in place and wails on enemy until they die.
2) (Almost) No one has them so people get annoyed that you can drink a potion or do other things without incurring any attacks, and that offends their sensibilities.

If it's not obvious, I don't really see the second as much of a problem, but we can probably do something to solve it besides give everyone AoO which would put us back at 1.


Claxon wrote:
Bah! Offering everyone a chance to have AoO but at penalties steep enough that they're unlikely to hit just slows the game down, often to little effect.

I agree, and this is why I think the solution is to let people take AoO with a feat, provided they have expert weapon proficiency- to help ensure that some of those AoOs are going to hit. Also, this makes it easier for weapon-wielding classes to get it than spell-casting classes because the former gets expert weapon proficiency through class progression.

So you could make a gnome sorcerer who can AoO, it would just cost 3 feats, come online at level 13, and be restricted to glaives and kukris.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing that I'm personally wondering is: Barbarians get Rage, Paladins get Smite... why can't the Fighter have AoOs as his thing.

I mean, there should be something the class gets for itself, and feats alone don't cut it, as PF1 amply demonstrated.

If anything, if Fighters are the ones that can punish people trying to get past them at the squshies, then they could at least try to be a credible meat-shield.

Barbarians are all about Attack! Hulk smash!, Paladins are about Die Fiend!, and Fighters are like, Where do you think you are going, bro?...

So, Fighters having their own toy they don't have to share is bad how? If you want AoOs, there is Fighter Dedication. So it's not like you can't get it, if you want it so badly. But I do not see why Fighter should have to share this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Lycar wrote:
The thing that I'm personally wondering is: Barbarians get Rage, Paladins get Smite... why can't the Fighter have AoOs as his thing.

I agree that the fighter should have a thing that sets it apart from all the other classes... I just don't think AOO is, in and of itself, an interesting choice for a class to have as its "thing."

The thing that frustrates me the most, is that they already had a fantastic idea in their pocket for what to make as the fighter's "thing" - Combat Stamina from Unchained.

They had the perfect opportunity to include something along those lines as part of the base assumption. Make 'em something like "Martial Spell Points" (Stamina Points even have the same initials as Spell Points, so they can occupy the same space on a character sheet) and let them be spent to dig deep and push one's self beyond the normal limits of martial combat.

Essentially make the Fighter the "Martial Wizard," like the Ranger is the "Martial Druid" and the Paladin is the "Martial Cleric." It practically writes itself.

This is how I've been approaching my alteration to the Fighter for my comprehensive rewrites set of house rules.


I like that suggestion Leedwashere, but it would probably be 'too fiddly' for the playtest or the basic game.

As Jason Buhlman himself said in the thread about getting proficiency levels for spell schools, they did consider it, but found it 'too fiddly' in actual play. I suppose, they want to keep Fighters simple. Oh well, there are always supplements and, eventually, a PF Unchained 2...


Lycar wrote:

The thing that I'm personally wondering is: Barbarians get Rage, Paladins get Smite... why can't the Fighter have AoOs as his thing.

I mean, there should be something the class gets for itself, and feats alone don't cut it, as PF1 amply demonstrated.

If anything, if Fighters are the ones that can punish people trying to get past them at the squshies, then they could at least try to be a credible meat-shield.

Barbarians are all about Attack! Hulk smash!, Paladins are about Die Fiend!, and Fighters are like, Where do you think you are going, bro?...

So, Fighters having their own toy they don't have to share is bad how? If you want AoOs, there is Fighter Dedication. So it's not like you can't get it, if you want it so badly. But I do not see why Fighter should have to share this.

Well for one, Paladins don't get Smite as their thing anymore. They get Retributive Strike, which is a really weird Reaction that only kicks in when your enemies ignore you and attack your ally that you happen to be standing next to, and they get their Ally. Now the weapon branch of the Ally does have something that could almost maybe be compared to Smite if you squint really hard, but given that it's pretty trashy and a feat anyways, even most Weapon Paladins probably won't have that.

Besides that though, there's a couple other things. For one, ignoring the really weird way they went about it, Paladin's theme now seems to be the brick wall, the shield of faith, the tank... in other words, their whole theme now is supposed to be standing in the way of the enemy to protect the weak behind them. But... without AoOs there's actually jack squat they can do to prevent someone just walking by them, outside of standing in a 5-foot wide corridor. Which... is probably why they have AoOs as a feat at level 6. So even right now AoOs aren't strictly the Fighter's thing, they're just... easier for fighters.

And besides that, Fighter has plenty of other stuff going for it. Fighters have the best accuracy in the game through their inherent Proficiency increases, which also gives them the best crits in the game. They have inherently good initiative, with both Master Perception and built in Incredible Initiative. They have a (recently buffed) ability to dang-near No Sell fear. And they have a level of flexibility no other Martial class gets, being able to swap 2 feats daily at higher level and being inherently proficient in (and able to use the crit specializations eventually) of every weapon in the game, of all 3 tiers. And they have the second best AC in the game (at least in non-Light armor) of any base class, losing only to the tanky Paladins. And all of that is without even considering their actual Class Feat options, which (unlike in PF1e) actually are a balancing factor, since it's an actually unique (mostly) list rather than just getting more of something everyone else gets. If nothing else the sheer number of extra Reactions they can get per round from their feats is impressive.

ETA: Also, if the Resonance change as done in the test makes it through, I wouldn't be surprised if Fighters did get Stamina Points-type abilities, given that they have the same (frustratingly limited and Cha-based) pool of Focus as everyone else now.


Well, the thing with Fighter proficiencies is, they don't get more, they get them earlier. So they get to be ahead of others for a few levels, but not all levels.

As for Smite/Retributive Strike, I will have to look at that again, didn't really have much interest in the Paladin so far to be honest.

As for being able to use different kinds of weapons... yeah, the Fighter being the guy who CAN use a 'golfbag of weapons'- A Lich you say? Well, that calls for my warhammer... but those animated plants are resistant to bashing damage... Ah, but of course! My trusty morningstar will vanquish both foes!

Except... yeah... potency runes and all that... also, not being equally proficient in all weapon categories is kind of a drag. That is something where martials are actually worse off nowadays. But yeah, you are supposed to pick one weapon and marry it, so...

As far as Fighter feats go, it is a bit weird. There are many things that do not need to be Fighter exclusive so much, as it should have scaling effects depending on your proficiency. That way, Fighters get ahead in what benefits they receive, but don't gate some basic stuff like Cleave, a.k.a. Swipe behind their class (instead Swipe ought to get better with higher proficiencies).

As much as I personally would like the concept of Fighters being able to utilize multiple weapons and their critical effects to good measure (right tool for the right job etc.), the current rules do not allow for that. So maybe they can find their niche at martial battlefield control. And AoOs are what enables that.

Of course, if one just were to create Fighter exclusive feats that just make Fighters better at using those AoOs, then there would be less harm in opening up AoOs to other classes. Paladins should have the option to be able to protect their allies BEFORE they eat a hit...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Well, the thing with Fighter proficiencies is, they don't get more, they get them earlier. So they get to be ahead of others for a few levels, but not all levels.

As for Smite/Retributive Strike, I will have to look at that again, didn't really have much interest in the Paladin so far to be honest.

As for being able to use different kinds of weapons... yeah, the Fighter being the guy who CAN use a 'golfbag of weapons'- A Lich you say? Well, that calls for my warhammer... but those animated plants are resistant to bashing damage... Ah, but of course! My trusty morningstar will vanquish both foes!

Except... yeah... potency runes and all that... also, not being equally proficient in all weapon categories is kind of a drag. That is something where martials are actually worse off nowadays. But yeah, you are supposed to pick one weapon and marry it, so...

As far as Fighter feats go, it is a bit weird. There are many things that do not need to be Fighter exclusive so much, as it should have scaling effects depending on your proficiency. That way, Fighters get ahead in what benefits they receive, but don't gate some basic stuff like Cleave, a.k.a. Swipe behind their class (instead Swipe ought to get better with higher proficiencies).

As much as I personally would like the concept of Fighters being able to utilize multiple weapons and their critical effects to good measure (right tool for the right job etc.), the current rules do not allow for that. So maybe they can find their niche at martial battlefield control. And AoOs are what enables that.

Of course, if one just were to create Fighter exclusive feats that just make Fighters better at using those AoOs, then there would be less harm in opening up AoOs to other classes. Paladins should have the option to be able to protect their allies BEFORE they eat a hit...)

They actually do get more proficiencies, they are the only ones who can reach Legendary proficiency in weapons period, and the only ones who get proficiency in every weapon.

Speaking of every weapon though, while yes using every weapon at once is not actually viable, I think it's worth the note that they can use any weapon (well... Rarity permitting, but that's its own can of worms.) This includes Exotic weapons, which would take a General feat for Barbarians or Paladins, or two for any other class except Wizard or Monk (which require 3.) And can get them above Trained proficiency at that. And more than that, they can even use more than one Exotic weapon (while using several weapons isn't feasible, having a main and a backup, or a main-hand and off-hand if you're TWFing, should be. They won't both be at optimal Potency level, but downgrading one or both by a single plus one shouldn't be too painful, since you have the added Fighter proficiency mod anyways) which would cost yet another General feat for anyone else. Now granted Exotic doesn't account to a whole lot in the Playtest (where the only Exotic weapons are a few Racial weapons, Sawtooth Sabers, and Shuriken; though Sawtooth Sabers could be quite awesome to main if you can work around that Uncommon tag) but that is very much one of those things where more content will undoubtedly build on how useful and relevant that ability is.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
It makes the board seem less static, but it also makes the board kinda meaningless too, so it's not affecting the flow of battle. So yeah, you can move, but it doesn't translate to much since I don't think "which square you are standing on" has any meaningful impact if you weren't blessed with AOO.

Let me re-share an example from one of my sessions.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
What are people doing with their movement? Step, swing, step? Yeah that's moible combat.
An example from a session on Friday: The Barbarian used Sudden Charge to close the distance on an enemy (two actions for double movement/one strike) and then used his last action to Stride around the foe to flank. The Rogue used two actions to Stride into melee and then attacked the flanked foe.

Once varied terrain enters the mix the increased mobility has even greater impact. This isn't necessarily reliant on the GM designing interesting maps either. One of my players is fielding an Alchemist and has been spamming Smokebombs. The result is that players can do something, move into the cloud, and Hide to become Sensed. I've also been letting them Step out of the Smoke, do something, and then Sneak back in (but that may not be RAW).

What does hiding in smoke net the player? Enemy is flat footed and has a 55% miss chance on hitting the player. (Without using Hide or Sneak, the enemy still has a 25% miss change when targeting the player while they're in the smoke.) In that case I think "which square you are standing on" makes a big difference. This is true of any terrain that offers...

To be clear your players are hiding in smoke, stick there heads out to see if they can attack, then attack if appropriate, then go back to hiding in smoke in a round.

That is a lot of stuff happening in a round.

I know some games where this is not an issue but I know of quite a few more that the GM would not let this happen.
If this is what PF2 wants to allow then IMHO that should be made clear up front so people can make informed decisions as to if they want to play the game.
Why, again I know of quite a few players and GM's that this style of RPG'ing is a no-no at their table.
Yes I do agree that there are a wide variety of play styles, players and GM's and I hope everyone can find a group in which they can have fun with. But as most experienced GM's and players know often there rules/things that are turn off's to game systems.

For example: I know of 3 groups that decided to play StarFinder; all groups reduced opponents to PC levels from the inflated levels in the book, 2 groups stopped playing do to various reasons but a major one was trying to get the extra AC in a round by hiding/obscuring yourself.
(Yes they started calling the game StarHider and it was easier with computer aided support at the table but it became a negative to them after 8 months.
I do agree that this will not be everyone's experience and I do not expect it to be.)

MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really consider being able to use different weapons equally well much of a class feature, as long as the game actively punishes you for trying to make use of that ability.

On the other hand, I was thinking Fighters reach Expert on lv. 3, and had to realize it is Master instead. Well, on the one hand this gives them an early boost, but it also means they no longer improve after lv. 13, whereupon others start catching up to them. That is a bit odd too.

But that leaves the question what the Fighter's hat is supposed to be? 'Hit good' is certainly his core competency, but if that is all, well, if the other martial classes get interesting things to do, what tricky thing does the Fighter get? Bravery is one thing that really helps, and things like Positioning Assault help with the whole battlefield control thing.

I suppose, in the end there needs to be a balance between 'nobody ever uses combat maneuvers because AoOs' and 'martials can't be meat shields because enemies just walk around them'. But at the very least, the ability to perform AoOs ought to be limited to martial classes. I mean, we don't hand out casting to martials either...


I'd go along with both the Difficult Terrain and AOO being a General Feat for all suggestions. I'd like to bring the Difficult Terrain idea back to PF1 even.

Ultimately though, no combination of PF1 or PF2 actually does a good job. AOOs make a lot of sense for somebody trying to do something like drink a potion while standing next to a hostile combatant. All combatants should be able to AOO this stuff.

What classic AOOs don't get quite right is being triggered by movement. Yes, you should AOO a person moving past you who is moving in a manner that doesn't raise a defense, such as running by. The Difficult Terrain idea make a nice signal for this. You could say that if a moving character moves through an unoccupied threatened square and treats it as Difficult Terrain, no AOO is provoked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark me as a fan of Opportunity Attacks being gone or vastly reduced - it and full attack were the top two things that in our games turned combat into almost wargaming set piece battles. The two sides run up to one another, stay in place, and trade shots till one goes down, never maneuvering for better position or performing different tactics besides attacking because it's too costly. That in turn always led to a race for "How could you inflict the most damage to make them go down faster, so you could move on to another opponent?" Makes for fun Napoleonics, I suppose, but it would be a very boring action movie.

With fewer Op Attacks, you're drinking potions, using magic items, casting spells, and encircling; with the removal of restrictions on combat maneuvers, you're also shoving, grappling, tripping, and disarming. In one of our games, when a fighter encountered a bunch of goblins, when they realized what a threat he was, they actually tripped and grappled him to keep him from wrecking their archers. It was something that would have gotten them summarily murdered in PF1 due to their need for improved grapple and improved trip. I don't know about other tables, but I'm seeing a lot more variety in combat because of it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
With fewer Op Attacks, you're drinking potions, using magic items, casting spells, and encircling; with the removal of restrictions on combat maneuvers, you're also shoving, grappling, tripping, and disarming. In one of our games, when a fighter encountered a bunch of goblins, when they realized what a threat he was, they actually tripped and grappled him to keep him from wrecking their archers. It was something that would have gotten them summarily murdered in PF1 due to their need for improved grapple and improved trip. I don't know about other tables, but I'm seeing a lot more variety in combat because of it.

While I agree that being able to do those things should come with less restrictions, the entire removal of the AoO allows the following (which I consider bad/silly):

- A person drinks three potions in front of an enemy with no consequences

- A person can run between two opponents (through both their threatened areas) without so much as a nod

- Flanking is now not maintainable since the flanked person can immediately spend move actions on their turn to completely invalidate it

- Step is not a valuable action anymore, since the main value it held was in regards to avoiding AoO's

- Bows are exactly the same as a sword in melee combat

Do I want AoO's back in the same capacity? definitely not. Combat has opened up.

But my tables are starting to figure out (most of them vet 3.0-Pathfinder) that they can just run around the battle field at a whim with no restrictions. A few have said outright that it feels "wrong" or makes them feel guilty to even do the above things (one ran through two enemy goblins freely and was like "wait really?")


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
LordVanya wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
...
This seems really powerful, though. It might work great for a fairly high level feat for a Defender type class given how impactful loosing an action is.

I don't think it's that powerful, actually. It's mitigated by a couple of things:

1) Everyone would have this ability, so you know they can do it. You're not losing actions because you're surprised they're able to do this.

2) It costs a reaction. So they can't do it twice; if they do it to you they can't stop your buddy anymore. And if they do it they can't also take an attack of opportunity.

3) It only triggers when you from a threatened space to another space threatened by the same defender. So not when first entering someone's "zone of control", but only when trying to move trough it. You can walk up to someone (without reach) and hit them.

Against people with reach, you can still get to them and attack, but you need an extra action. So, people with reach weapons are good at stopping people charging at them all the way from across the room, or people trying to frontally assault them and immediately cut to the super technique. But that's exactly what reach weapons are supposed to do: make it hard to get to people.

4) It only triggers on movement, not for example spellcasting.

5) And Steps don't provoke reactions for in any case so if you really really want to move past someone, you can Step Step Step. And rogues with the Mobility feat also don't provoke reactions for movement if they keep within speed limits. So there's certainly ways around this.

I really like this idea, but I don't think it should be a reaction. I think it should be an action, and that the person/creature using the action is subject to the same attack penalties as successive attacks.

I think of a large creature getting ready to 'hinder' the rush of smaller combatants. It adds yet another tactical element to the tool chest.

It's a very cool idea, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:

Mark me as a fan of Opportunity Attacks being gone or vastly reduced - it and full attack were the top two things that in our games turned combat into almost wargaming set piece battles. The two sides run up to one another, stay in place, and trade shots till one goes down, never maneuvering for better position or performing different tactics besides attacking because it's too costly. That in turn always led to a race for "How could you inflict the most damage to make them go down faster, so you could move on to another opponent?" Makes for fun Napoleonics, I suppose, but it would be a very boring action movie.

With fewer Op Attacks, you're drinking potions, using magic items, casting spells, and encircling; with the removal of restrictions on combat maneuvers, you're also shoving, grappling, tripping, and disarming. In one of our games, when a fighter encountered a bunch of goblins, when they realized what a threat he was, they actually tripped and grappled him to keep him from wrecking their archers. It was something that would have gotten them summarily murdered in PF1 due to their need for improved grapple and improved trip. I don't know about other tables, but I'm seeing a lot more variety in combat because of it.

Most of the groups I know have the opposite opinion of you after their first few years of gaming. Most think that having some restrictions on such things and not allowing dance moves up to and around your opponent are a good thing.

If PF 2 keep this rule, I am very curious how it will be received by the general public.

MDC


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
ENHenry wrote:

Mark me as a fan of Opportunity Attacks being gone or vastly reduced - it and full attack were the top two things that in our games turned combat into almost wargaming set piece battles. The two sides run up to one another, stay in place, and trade shots till one goes down, never maneuvering for better position or performing different tactics besides attacking because it's too costly. That in turn always led to a race for "How could you inflict the most damage to make them go down faster, so you could move on to another opponent?" Makes for fun Napoleonics, I suppose, but it would be a very boring action movie.

With fewer Op Attacks, you're drinking potions, using magic items, casting spells, and encircling; with the removal of restrictions on combat maneuvers, you're also shoving, grappling, tripping, and disarming. In one of our games, when a fighter encountered a bunch of goblins, when they realized what a threat he was, they actually tripped and grappled him to keep him from wrecking their archers. It was something that would have gotten them summarily murdered in PF1 due to their need for improved grapple and improved trip. I don't know about other tables, but I'm seeing a lot more variety in combat because of it.

Most of the groups I know have the opposite opinion of you after their first few years of gaming. Most think that having some restrictions on such things and not allowing dance moves up to and around your opponent are a good thing.

If PF 2 keep this rule, I am very curious how it will be received by the general public.

MDC

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

My group has been playing together for about 10 years. We like the change in AoO, it makes combat more interesting because we actually move around the battlefield. Intelligent enemies might do things that provoke because not everyone has AoO. In PF1 everyone stood still once they got in melee range and never did anything that could provoke. It made combat very boring.

I think that the ratio of people who like ditching AoOs vs those who would prefer a middle ground to what we have in PF2 vs fighters only in PF2...I think most people would probably fall in that middle category.

Dancing around the battlefield is bad.
AoO slowing down the game, and keeping everyone in one spot, and not performing provoking actions is boring and bad.

There has to be a middle ground solution that is better.


Claxon wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
ENHenry wrote:

Mark me as a fan of Opportunity Attacks being gone or vastly reduced - it and full attack were the top two things that in our games turned combat into almost wargaming set piece battles. The two sides run up to one another, stay in place, and trade shots till one goes down, never maneuvering for better position or performing different tactics besides attacking because it's too costly. That in turn always led to a race for "How could you inflict the most damage to make them go down faster, so you could move on to another opponent?" Makes for fun Napoleonics, I suppose, but it would be a very boring action movie.

With fewer Op Attacks, you're drinking potions, using magic items, casting spells, and encircling; with the removal of restrictions on combat maneuvers, you're also shoving, grappling, tripping, and disarming. In one of our games, when a fighter encountered a bunch of goblins, when they realized what a threat he was, they actually tripped and grappled him to keep him from wrecking their archers. It was something that would have gotten them summarily murdered in PF1 due to their need for improved grapple and improved trip. I don't know about other tables, but I'm seeing a lot more variety in combat because of it.

Most of the groups I know have the opposite opinion of you after their first few years of gaming. Most think that having some restrictions on such things and not allowing dance moves up to and around your opponent are a good thing.

If PF 2 keep this rule, I am very curious how it will be received by the general public.

MDC

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

My group has been playing together for about 10 years. We like the change in AoO, it makes combat more interesting because we actually move around the battlefield. Intelligent enemies might do things that provoke because not everyone has AoO. In PF1 everyone stood still once they got in melee range and never did anything that could provoke. It made combat very...

Movement AOOs were very stringent, but the other uses of it made a lot of sense (well, maybe some combat maneuvers didnt deserve it). However, the movement part shouldn't be totally eradicated. Maybe it cna just be made less strict, kinda like 5E ones were you can still move around somewhat without provoking, but not fully ignore defenders. The only "cost" here is complexity of learning a rule that's gonna be all over the place.

The "Step" action was already a step (lol) in the right direction in letting characters disengage, move and still be able to attack with the third action. That already changes the whole dynamic of AOOs in 2E even if they had the same rules as before.


Midnightoker wrote:
LordVanya wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I suppose you could add a requirement to AoO/Disrupt that states "you must be wielding a weapon you are at least Trained in", which would remove simple commoners/rabbits/etc.

That's more or less similar to PF1 anyways.

That's why I tied my complex version of this idea to weapon training.

Again I don't hate that implementation, but have a base Requirement of "Trained" is rather simple to add to the top.

A more in depth implementation that creates different tiers (akin to a Heightened spell) of TEML for a base action seems a bit much.

That said, I do think creating feats that build on that (I.E. requires Expert Proficiency in a certain weapon type) that increases the base action might be a less rules intensive implementation.

I wasn't saying your idea wasn't good, just that it kinda violates one of the original reasons AoO's got the axe, which was complexity.

Ah. Gotcha.

Feats instead of auto-progression? I like. Will use.


Lycar wrote:
Well, on the one hand this gives them an early boost, but it also means they no longer improve after lv. 13, whereupon others start catching up to them. That is a bit odd too.

By level 13 they have surpassed what any other class can do, and they improve again at level 19.

I did a breakdown of all the weapon proficiencies of every class.
No spellcaster class ever gains anything beyond Trained nor does the Rogue.
The Fighter starts off expert in most weapons, and becomes expert in everything by 13.
The Fighter starts to gain mastery at 3, and masters everything by 19.
No martial class except the Fighter can reach Legendary with any weapon.
AFAIK only the Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger gain access to critical specializations.

These are the proficiencies for each class at level 15:

Alchemist - Trained in all simple weapons and alchemical bombs.
Bard - Trained in simple weapons and a small selection of other weapons.
Cleric - Trained in all simple weapons and deity's weapon.
Druid - Trained in all simple weapons and the scimitar.
Sorcerer - Trained in all simple weapons.
Wizard - Trained in a small selection of weapons.

Barbarian - Expert in all simple and martial weapons, and their unarmed attacks.
Can use critical specializations during Rage.
Fighter - Expert in all exotic weapons.
Master in all simple and martial weapons, and all exotic weapons from a single weapon group.
Legendary in all simple and martial weapons from their selected weapon group.
Can use critical specialization of any weapon they have mastered.
Monk - Master in unarmed attacks. If they take the monastic weapon feat, they also have mastery in all monk weapons.
Paladin - Expert in all simple and martial weapons.
Master in all simple and martial weapons in a single weapon group.
Ranger - Expert in all simple and martial weapons.
Master in all simple and martial weapons in a single weapon group.
Can use critical specialization of any weapon they have expertise in.
Rogue - Trained in all simple weapons, and a small selection of other weapons.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
To be clear your players are hiding in smoke, stick there heads out to see if they can attack, then attack if appropriate, then go back to hiding in smoke in a round.

Not quite. I'm letting them start hiding in smoke, walk out of the smoke, attack anything they can see, and then 'sneak' back into the smoke (which hides them). If the foe has made a dramatic movement or hidden, I remove that mini from the map and they have to take an action to locate it. If this slogs down combat too much I'll have an intelligent enemy withdraw to wait them out, go after an objective, or just retreat to bother them in the future (usually at an inopportune time).

Am I missing something where this isn't RAW?

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
I know some games where this is not an issue but I know of quite a few more that the GM would not let this happen.

I remember building a character in D&D 3.5 who had 26 STR and wielded an Adamantine weapon. I tried to sunder a simple nonmagical dagger and the DM ruled that I left a scratch. That was how sundering went for the entire game. The narrative was great and I enjoyed playing my character...but being stuck with useless character options was very frustrating.

If the GM is going to change RAW rules on character options that should be explicit pre-game or they should allow significant rebuilds. If some GMs don't allow stealth tactics at their tables...well, I'm honestly surprised but hopefully they don't surprise their players.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
If this is what PF2 wants to allow then IMHO that should be made clear up front so people can make informed decisions as to if they want to play the game.

In Update 1.0 (maybe it was 1.1), Sneak was rewritten to take this kind of action into account. I didn't see anything else in the Concealed, Sneak, Hide, or Perception rules that conflicts with what they did?

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Why, again I know of quite a few players and GM's that this style of RPG'ing is a no-no at their table.

Is this similar to GMs who won't allow players to use social skills to resolve conflict? I had a GM ignore my stealth* but I've never had one outlaw stealth. I have had GMs who just flat out refused to let social skills work. Again - I wish that the GM had made that explicit from the start. No one would have wasted skill points on Diplomacy.

*Again in 3.5, I had a character with +49 Hide/Move Silent and Hide in Plain Sight who every random NPC somehow still found with Spot/Listen.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Yes I do agree that there are a wide variety of play styles, players and GM's and I hope everyone can find a group in which they can have fun with. But as most experienced GM's and players know often there rules/things that are turn off's to game systems.

It must be the wargamer in me, I didn't realize that using tactics were one of those things. Fortunately the players in my area don't have an issue with this but I'll keep it mind. I have the 'always the GM curse' when it comes to Pathfinder so it hasn't come up for me as a player since the 3.5 days. Definitely hasn't come up in the Fate Core game I'm playing in currently.


LordVanya wrote:

I did a breakdown of all the weapon proficiencies of every class.

No spellcaster class ever gains anything beyond Trained nor does the Rogue.
The Fighter starts off expert in most weapons, and becomes expert in everything by 13.
The Fighter starts to gain mastery at 3, and masters everything by 19.
No martial class except the Fighter can reach Legendary with any weapon.
AFAIK only the Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger gain access to critical specializations.

... I stand corrected.

I was somehow certain the other classes got increased weapon proficiencies too. My best guess is, I mixed that up with the skill progression.

Welp, that makes proficiency unsuited for applying bonus damage. And seeing how the whole critical system works, a +1 or +2 over other martial classes is actually pretty huge.

Welp, right now I'm stumped. I thoroughly dislike the idea of mandatory magic items, but right now I can't think of a good way to bake damage progression into classes, unless you just tie it to levels or something.


LordVanya wrote:
AFAIK only the Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger gain access to critical specializations.

Rogue get them against flat footed targets and certain Ancestries get them as well.

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Running the Game / Suggestion: Middle ground between "AoO for all" and "AoO for select few" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.