|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Unknown monster abilities (such as unique reactions) are good for immersion and atmosphere. You meet a creature and you have no idea what it can do. That's scary. You try to stab it, and it absorbs your sword into its body. Even more scary.
Known monster abilities are good for gameplay - which is to say, you get to make interesting tactical decisions. "If I move around to flank the ogre, I will provoke an attack, but this will mean when the cleric heals the wizard, the wizard can stand up and move to a safe distance without risking provoking. But if I get critted while doing this, the situation will get worse for everyone..."
They're both legitimate preferences.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Meraki wrote: Rysky wrote: Yeah, I like the openness about what Skills are used for each and what all it gives rather than hardcoded "it must be this exact skill and if you succeed you know this monster's entire biology, backstory, capability and motivation".
We just need a little bit of structure at the beginning to navigate things easier.
I feel like you could get the best of both worlds by providing a skill commonly used to identify the monster and adding that other skills could work at the GM's discretion. My main issue has been the DCs rather than the skill used, which I can make a snap judgment on a lot more easily. If there's any guidance given on monster identification DCs, I've managed to completely miss it so far.
In PF1 we always let the PCs ask questions about the monster they identified (resistances, weaknesses, etc.), with one additional question for every 5 they beat the DC by. Don't remember if that was from anywhere official or just a house rule, though. ^*nods*
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
When the swashbuckler—or a series of fighter feats that emulate a swashbuckler—gets added to the game, I expect reactions to reactions to become a thing. The "parry and riposte" combo is textbook fencing activity and thus a hallmark of swashbucklers in literature and film.
Right now the options for the Playtest are limited in number so we could check if the game mechanics worked. The potential design space that the system opens up is quite staggering.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Krysgg wrote: Mathmuse wrote: Punishing a Failure and Got Too Close, in contrast, are what Cyrad meant by item 4, Reactive rather than proactive, in his list. Adding unexpected damage to a failure or routine action does not change character nor monster behavior, because they need to attack to win. It just makes the result bloodier.
Depending on how they work these can actually change up behavior a lot. For example, when my players learned that horned devils could disarm them if they missed they moved into ranged and killed them that way as a means to reduce risk. Additionally, Got Too Close effects are a way for designers to add durability to creatures without just over tuning numbers. Oh goody, a debate.
Except I don't have good counterpoints to support my arguments. The basic question is what kind of tactics do players want in the Pathfinder game? Different preferences lead to different answers.
My own players enjoy puzzles, so they would enjoy figuring out how to battle a creature with a weird counterattack. Cyrad appears to like balanced tactics that give clear risk-vs-reward results.
Krysgg wrote: Mathmuse wrote: Immediate Action and Expensive Free Action are not supposed to be tactical in themselves. They enable abilities with weird timing. Some of them, alas, don't seem they should be reactions. I like that sharks have a Chomp ability, a swim-by bite, but it could have been written as using two actions rather than an action and a reaction. When Pathfinder 2nd Edition creates Ride-by Attack, will it cost a reaction, too? I agree, these really have no right to be reactions, you're not reaction, you're acting! Some like the fighter's desperate finish would almost make more sense to be free actions that come with a condition that prevents you from performing reactions. Costing a reaction is practically the same effect, but says something different about the ability. Perhaps having an exhausting trait to these skills that renders you unable to take reactions. In many cases, if a monster uses a reaction that I cataloged as immediate action, then the player won't even notice that a reaction was used. The banshee's Persistence of Fear reaction lets it attempt to dispell magical protection from fear after it successfully damages a creature. I presume it is made a reaction so that it can do it only once a turn. But it could just be a rider on its melee attack. Currently, its melee attack says, "Melee hand +24 touch, Damage 3d8+7 negative plus terrifying touch, " but it could have been written as, "Melee hand +24 touch, Damage 3d8+7 negative plus persistance of fear and terrifying touch," and Persistence of Fear could gain a once-a-turn or only-on-first-attack limitation. The player won't know the difference.
In other cases, we could use a once-a-round free action instead. The PF2 free actions are not PF1 free actions. PF1 free actions were unlimited, anytime actions. PF2 free actions are costless triggered actions; in contrast to PF2 reactions which are triggered actions that cost spending the reaction for that round. Thus, if we don't care about cost, we can make all these immediate action reactions into PF2 free actions with a once-a-turn limit.
The question is, should Paizo make these changes and remove the immediate action role from reactions?
I think they should, except for Goblin Scuttle and Juke, which are tactical movement. That would emphasize the tactical role of reactions.
The wording on Desperate Finisher (page 94) feels odd, but I do like that it is a free action rather than a reaction.
[[F]] DESPERATE FINISHER FEAT 12
Requirement You have not used a reaction during
your turn, and you are able to use an action with the press trait.
Trigger You complete the last action on your turn.
You throw everything into one last press. You forgo the ability to
use reactions until the start of your next turn and use one action
that you know with the press trait as part of Desperate Finisher.
I feel it would sound better as:
[[F]] DESPERATE FINISHER FEAT 12
Requirement You have an unspent reaction that is not
restricted in its use and you know an action with the press trait.
Trigger You complete the last action on your turn.
You throw everything into one last press. You convert an unspent
unrestricted reaction into an additional action this turn that
can be used only for an action with the press trait.
PossibleCabbage wrote: Brother Fen wrote: Spotted this problem ten thousand miles away before the playtest even started and it's one of the changes that killed this edition for me. Newer gamers want a board game not an immersive RPG. What does that even mean? AD&D didn't have attacks of opportunity, and it's an immersive RPG. Call of Cthulhu doesn't have attacks of opportunity and it's an immersive RPG. If anything "AoOs" *are* the board gamey thing.
I mean theater of the mind style play may not be more immersive than grid-based play (depending on the individual) but it sure is less board-gamey, and the former features almost no AoOs. Non sequitur.
Just because an "immersive" game lacks a mechanic, does not mean that they game could not be more immersive with it's inclusion. I feel like the inclusion of AoOs in 3rd edition (and I think even in a book of optional rules for AD&D) shows that certain people believed their inclusion was more immersive.
Also, last time I checked, CoC wasn't very combat heavy, or at least combat wasn't one of the main focuses of the game.
As far as theater of the mind goes, I guarantee if the DM told me the guy I'm standing next to tries to drink a potion/cast a spell/etc. without moving away, I would ask the GM for an AoO. If the GM says I can't because I lack the training to do so, I'll go grab my feder and ask him to demonstrate what the character is doing.
thflame wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: Brother Fen wrote: Spotted this problem ten thousand miles away before the playtest even started and it's one of the changes that killed this edition for me. Newer gamers want a board game not an immersive RPG. What does that even mean? AD&D didn't have attacks of opportunity, and it's an immersive RPG. Call of Cthulhu doesn't have attacks of opportunity and it's an immersive RPG. If anything "AoOs" *are* the board gamey thing.
I mean theater of the mind style play may not be more immersive than grid-based play (depending on the individual) but it sure is less board-gamey, and the former features almost no AoOs. Non sequitur.
Just because an "immersive" game lacks a mechanic, does not mean that they game could not be more immersive with it's inclusion. I feel like the inclusion of AoOs in 3rd edition (and I think even in a book of optional rules for AD&D) shows that certain people believed their inclusion was more immersive.
Also, last time I checked, CoC wasn't very combat heavy, or at least combat wasn't one of the main focuses of the game.
As far as theater of the mind goes, I guarantee if the DM told me the guy I'm standing next to tries to drink a potion/cast a spell/etc. without moving away, I would ask the GM for an AoO. If the GM says I can't because I lack the training to do so, I'll go grab my feder and ask him to demonstrate what the character is doing. The Internet tells me that a feder is a training sword or a feather.
Reality does not have a turn-based system. Therefore, it does not grant off-turn actions for distractions. Instead, distractions are distracting.
GURPS does not have attacks of opportunity. Instead, drinking a potion would reduce the drinker's defenses against the adjacent opponent's next attack. GURPS has a very short turn, and defense is an off-turn action, so that is how distraction affects the off-turn aspects of GURPS combat.
Turns are a feature of board games, and off-turn actions such as attacks of opportunity are a way to make long turns match reality more. Therefore, I agree with PossibleCabbage. "AoOs" *are* the board gamey thing.
Thus, I share PossibleCabbage's bewilderment over Brother Fen's statement, "Newer gamers want a board game not an immersive RPG." A board-game feature of Pathfinder is reduced, yet he says it is because newer gamers want a board game? I presume that Brother Fen just chose a bad metaphor for an RPG that matches reality less.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thflame wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: Brother Fen wrote: Spotted this problem ten thousand miles away before the playtest even started and it's one of the changes that killed this edition for me. Newer gamers want a board game not an immersive RPG. What does that even mean? AD&D didn't have attacks of opportunity, and it's an immersive RPG. Call of Cthulhu doesn't have attacks of opportunity and it's an immersive RPG. If anything "AoOs" *are* the board gamey thing.
I mean theater of the mind style play may not be more immersive than grid-based play (depending on the individual) but it sure is less board-gamey, and the former features almost no AoOs. Non sequitur.
Just because an "immersive" game lacks a mechanic, does not mean that they game could not be more immersive with it's inclusion. I feel like the inclusion of AoOs in 3rd edition (and I think even in a book of optional rules for AD&D) shows that certain people believed their inclusion was more immersive.
Also, last time I checked, CoC wasn't very combat heavy, or at least combat wasn't one of the main focuses of the game.
As far as theater of the mind goes, I guarantee if the DM told me the guy I'm standing next to tries to drink a potion/cast a spell/etc. without moving away, I would ask the GM for an AoO. If the GM says I can't because I lack the training to do so, I'll go grab my feder and ask him to demonstrate what the character is doing. You're acting like the game works like this narratively:
"I attack guy he blocks"
his turn
"he pulls out potion."
Wait why can't I attack him!?! I'm just staring at him pull out a potion.
When narratively this is what really is happening:
You attack the guy he parries your blow and pulls a potion out and drinks it while you're still reeling back from the parry, you try to use the opening but alas you're not trained to use small gaps in defensives to land killing blows. So he manages to duck away from the attack.
Everything is happening all at the same time in a 6 second gap. You aren't just staring at someone pull out a potion. You were locked in combat with him. And he's dodging weaving. Maybe he shoulders into you while he pulls out a potion and drinks it with his other hand. Maybe he kicks you in the shin and uses that opening to get the potion out.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dire, you play exactly like we do...the round might be broken up as a 6-second span, but it's really just heartbeats between actions that are going on. It's also why I stress, in my games, that players don't try to overthink their actions because I am not going to overthink NPC actions.
Combat is chaos. Mistakes are made. Perception is usually limited to a very narrow, frantic focus. That's roleplaying.
Everyone carefully planning their moves, using precise actions to manipulate the battlefield, moving pieces like a chess board... that can be fun.. and very tactical. But my groups want to roleplay first, so we try to deemphasize the rigid feel that just playing the game like a board game gives.
So I can understand how people dislike losing some of the tactical, board game feel that can be very strong in PF1 - PF2 certainly is starting to move away from that (at least as we've experienced it) - but as a roleplaying experience, we like the easier flow and less restrictive nature that we're experiencing within this playtest.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dire Ursus wrote:
You're acting like the game works like this narratively:
"I attack guy he blocks"
his turn
"he pulls out potion."
Wait why can't I attack him!?! I'm just staring at him pull out a potion.
When narratively this is what really is happening:
You attack the guy he parries your blow and pulls a potion out and drinks it while you're still reeling back from the parry, you try to use the opening but alas you're not trained to use small gaps in defensives to land killing blows. So he manages to duck away from the attack.
Everything is happening all at the same time in a 6 second gap. You aren't just staring at someone pull out a potion. You were locked in combat with him. And he's dodging weaving. Maybe he shoulders into you while he pulls out a potion and drinks it with his other hand. Maybe he kicks you in the shin and uses that opening to get the potion out.
No, THIS is what is happening:
On my "turn", I attack. While I am attacking, he is trying to defend himself from my attacks. He isn't just standing there and letting me hit him. We are both acting at the same time.
The basic PF mechanics don't represent this well, as defenders don't roll dice for their defense, but the ARE still defending themselves. (There is an optional rule in 3.5 that substitutes the base 10 for AC with a d20 roll, such that you are actively rolling for how well you defend yourself. The standard rule is that you take 10 on defense.)
Now on his "turn" we are still in combat. IF he tries to attack me, I have to react by defending myself. I don't get an AoO, because I am busy defending myself from him.
However, instead of trying to attack me, he pulls a potion out of his pocket, uncorks it, and tries to drink it. There is literally nothing (aside from poorly written rules) stopping me from attacking at this point. He is not threatening me to keep me in check. He has left himself wide open. THIS is what an AoO represents: a drop in defenses that allows for an additional attack.
The fact that you have to assume that I am "reeling from the parry" that may have not even happened (if I hit the guy, he didn't parry), shows that your premise is flawed.
It's also dumb to assume that a parry would have me "reeling" for enough time for someone to pull a potion from a pouch and drink it. (It does sound like a cool ability, though. Stunning someone who fails to hit you, such that they can't react to your actions on your turn.)
thflame wrote: Now on his "turn" we are still in combat. IF he tries to attack me, I have to react by defending myself. I don't get an AoO, because I am busy defending myself from him.
However, instead of trying to attack me, he pulls a potion out of his pocket, uncorks it, and tries to drink it. There is literally nothing (aside from poorly written rules) stopping me from attacking at this point. He is not threatening me to keep me in check. He has left himself wide open. THIS is what an AoO represents: a drop in defenses that allows for an additional attack.
Presumably you should also get an AoO if he attacks anyone other than you. He is not threatening you to keep you in check.
(Of course, a rule like that would mean a dragon fighting five warriors would provoke from at least four of them every time it did anything...)
Or what about if someone's paralysed? That ought to provoke AoO constantly.
thflame wrote: As far as theater of the mind goes, I guarantee if the DM told me the guy I'm standing next to tries to drink a potion/cast a spell/etc. without moving away, I would ask the GM for an AoO. If the GM says I can't because I lack the training to do so, I'll go grab my feder and ask him to demonstrate what the character is doing. By that logic, I will argue that, while wielding a polearm, any time someone tries to take a 5-foot step to move towards me so that they can attack, I should be able to take an attack of opportunity. That's something I can demonstrate to my GM if need be.
Is it something I can prove that I can do? Yes. Is that something that should be in the game? Obviously not.
Matthew Downie wrote: thflame wrote: Now on his "turn" we are still in combat. IF he tries to attack me, I have to react by defending myself. I don't get an AoO, because I am busy defending myself from him.
However, instead of trying to attack me, he pulls a potion out of his pocket, uncorks it, and tries to drink it. There is literally nothing (aside from poorly written rules) stopping me from attacking at this point. He is not threatening me to keep me in check. He has left himself wide open. THIS is what an AoO represents: a drop in defenses that allows for an additional attack.
Presumably you should also get an AoO if he attacks anyone other than you. He is not threatening you to keep you in check. 1) Presumably, they are getting a flanking bonus, which represents your difficulty in defending yourself. (I kinda like how in 5e you don't have to be on opposite sides to get the flanking bonus, as per the optional rules.)
2) In proper weapons based martial arts, you don't just swing wildly in combat. Virtually every attack in HEMA (and I would assume most weapons based martial arts) winds up in a guard position. In a theoretical situation where you are outnumbered, you would be using attacks and guards that assault one opponent and cut off lines of attacks from other opponents simultaneously.
3) Even if you outnumber your opponent, any one of their attacks could go for YOU at any moment. A swing of a weapon happens in a fraction of a second, usually with little to no warning. That's much different than drinking a potion or casting a spell (theoretically).
Quote: (Of course, a rule like that would mean a dragon fighting five warriors would provoke from at least four of them every time it did anything...) See above.
Quote: Or what about if someone's paralysed? That ought to provoke AoO constantly. They are immobilized, helpless, and likely prone. Their AC is equal to their flat footed AC -5, they can be coup de grace'd, and you get a +4 bonus if you are standing next to them. I think that more than represents the difficulty in defending yourself while paralyzed.
I mean, literally if you don't have an ally next to your opponent when it's their turn and you are helpless, you are pretty much guaranteed to die.
I could see having a "guard" action that prevents you from provoking at the cost of an action. I think it would even be fair. It would definitely be better than "only fighters get AoOs unless you spend a feat on it".
I could also see certain classes getting abilities/feats that make it such that certain provoking actions no longer provoke for them.
Maybe high level Alchemists can drink a potion in combat without provoking, because the enemy doesn't know if that is a healing potion or a fire bomb until it's too late to react? Or maybe they are literally so fast at quaffing potions that there isn't time to react. It could even be a high level general feat.
High level casters could potentially have learned to mask their somatic components with weapon flourishes causing their spells to not provoke.
Some are really married to the Oprah approach to AoO, aren't they? "You get an AoO! And you get an AoO! …"
I think it's in a good place now. The most disciplined trained warrior (Fighter) has the background to recognize the subtle weaknesses that come with vulnerabilities in combat. I think it might make sense if classes like Paladin and Monk could class feat into the ability, and maybe later in levels, options for Rogues and Rangers perhaps.
I have never bought the idea that a defender would simply stop paying attention to threats to take out something from a belt pouch or that a combatant could have a 360 vision of the battlefield that allowed them to react instantly to everything around them, even 10' away. Or that a Druid was as capable of those reactions as a Fighter or that a ranging Barbarian paused in his fury to recognize the subtle movement of a Wizard casting a cantrip behind him.
All the AoO in PF1 really does bring the game to a halt, though, as every move has to take that into consideration. I was happy, and so were the players, to see that changed allowing for more action and less grid-by-grid tactical play come back into the game.
ShadeRaven wrote: Some are really married to the Oprah approach to AoO, aren't they? "You get an AoO! And you get an AoO! …"
I think it's in a good place now. The most disciplined trained warrior (Fighter) has the background to recognize the subtle weaknesses that come with vulnerabilities in combat. I think it might make sense if classes like Paladin and Monk could class feat into the ability, and maybe later in levels, options for Rogues and Rangers perhaps.
The problem is that these weaknesses aren't subtle. You are literally dong something that doesn't offer you any defense and doesn't force those around you to defend themselves. It makes perfect sense that you would get swung at.
Quote: I have never bought the idea that a defender would simply stop paying attention to threats to take out something from a belt pouch... He wouldn't, because he wouldn't be dumb enough to try it in melee range of an hostile enemy. Heck, it's hard enough to avoid hits when you are focusing entirely on doing so, let alone trying to multi-task fumbling with your belt pouch to pull out a small flask, uncork it with your teeth (presumably you have a weapon in your other hand to hold off your attacker, otherwise you're REALLY screwed) then drink it, all while keeping your eyes on your opponent and trying to dodge/parry their attempts to stop you.
Quote: ...or that a combatant could have a 360 vision of the battlefield that allowed them to react instantly to everything around them, even 10' away. Unless you have Combat Reflexes, you get ONE AoO per turn. That isn't reacting to everything around you. As far as not noticing you cast a spell, there is a feat for that. 3.P is pretty explicit about spells being obvious to those around you, unless you specifically do something to mask it.
Quote: Or that a Druid was as capable of those reactions as a Fighter... The fighter is more capable in PF1 because he has higher BAB. Just because you get the AoO doesn't mean it connects. Although, this does bring up a good counter argument: Why isn't a Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian/Monk just as capable? Especially the Monk. You mean to tell me that a guy who is so in tune with his inner self that he can manifest borderline magic can't notice and react to a guy chugging a potion right next to him?
Quote: ...or that a ranging Barbarian paused in his fury to recognize the subtle movement of a Wizard casting a cantrip behind him. I am likewise trying to imagine a guy with enough INT to become a wizard being stupid enough to risk casting a spell next to a guy who's temper tantrums make trained soldiers cower in fear.
Also, as stated above, "subtle movement" requires a feat, and would theoretically grant you the desired outcome.
Quote: All the AoO in PF1 really does bring the game to a halt, though, as every move has to take that into consideration. I was happy, and so were the players, to see that changed allowing for more action and less grid-by-grid tactical play come back into the game.
And those of us who like AoOs don't have that issue, and/or prefer it to the alternative... people quaffing potions and casting spells in your face like you are stuck in some video game pause screen.
Again you aren't just paused staring at someone pull the potion out. Everything is happening at the same time. This isn't runescape combat where you're just trading attacks back and forth. You're parrying, dodging, locking blades, doing maneuvers. Your "actions" are you going for a decisive attack.
Dire Ursus wrote: Again you aren't just paused staring at someone pull the potion out. Everything is happening at the same time. This isn't runescape combat where you're just trading attacks back and forth. You're parrying, dodging, locking blades, doing maneuvers. Your "actions" are you going for a decisive attack. You do realize that implying that the potion drinker is dodging/parrying attacks while drinking a potion is the same as implying he is being subjected to AoOs. Yes, he can still defend himself while drinking a potion, he just isn't keeping his attacker on their heels like he would be if he were attacking them. Thus, the attacker gets an AoO.
There are more openings to attack when you aren't being attacked in return.
There are two ways to look at this: Either turns happen simultaneously or in sequence.
1) If each of the characters' 3 actions are occurring simultaneously, this means that a wizard who casts a 2 action spell on his turn, but get's hit by the first attack of his enemy's turn, was hit in the middle of spell casting and should have lost the spell or been forced to make some sort of check to not lose the spell. Even worse, if that attack dropped the wizard, he could have never finished the spell in the first place, meaning you have to retcon the wizards spell, or shrug and say "game mechanics".
If you want to say that the 2 action spell goes off before the first attack lands, then replace "2 action spell" with "3 action spell", and you have just claimed that turns happen in sequence. (Or that they happen whenever it fits your argument.)
2) If characters get their turns in sequence, then you have to admit that either characters just stand their and let people hit them until it is their turn, OR that these characters have the wherewithal to utilize their weapon in defense to try to defend themselves from attacks, but lack the ability to attack an opponent during a similar time frame that isn't pressuring them with some form of assault. (In other words, they only don't just stand their when they are being attacked.)
I'm okay with you saying: "I just like limited AoOs better", but don't even try to justify it from an roleplay standpoint. It makes zero sense that you can't attack someone who is leaving themselves open to being attacked.
I'd also ask that your forgive me for wanting mechanics in the game that allow my character to act in a way that he would reasonably act.
I don't really understand why "moving away" or "drinking a potion" or "wiggling your fingers" are necessarily "leaving yourself open to be attacked." For me, this seems like a fundamentally gamist conceit since I can imagine ways to do all of those things without "leaving yourself open."
I figure the only example of AoO I really see as something that should be universal is "you try to move adjacent to a person with a reach weapon, and they get a whack at you first", since that's literally the reason we started putting sharp things on poles in the first place, but people should be able to move away without provoking. Readied actions might be sufficient for "whack anybody who enters whacking range" anyway.
Better yet, let me spell out a particular scenario in gratuitous detail.
Before we start, let me differentiate between little "r" reaction and big "R" Reaction. The former is the common use of the word, while the latter is the game mechanic.
My character, let's say a rogue, in in combat with a cultist. We rolled initiative, and I won.
Assuming turns happen sequentially (don't worry, I'll do it the other way next) this is what happens.
1) I spend my first action to attack. The cultist reacts by attempting to avoid the attack either by parrying or dodging(his success or failure does not matter).
2) I spend my second action to attack. The cultist again reacts by trying to avoid the attack.
3) I spend my last action to attack. The cultist, yet again, reacts by trying to avoid the attack.
Up to this point, the cultist has been able to react to each of my actions. Those reactions are implied and no dice are rolled by the cultist, but they still happened. (And the cultist still has his Reaction available.)
4) The cultist attempts to draw a potion out of his belt pouch. Does my character not have a chance to react? If we had Universal AoOs, I would get to React, by trying to attack the cultist, interrupting the action and causing him to lose the action if successful.
5) The cultist drinks the potion, assuming I either did not get to react or that I failed.
The rest is irrelevant.
Now if the turns are simultaneous....
1) I attempt to attack while the cultist somehow defends himself AND pulls a potion out of his pocket. (By the way, given that he might be trying to drink the potion due to a hit on attack 2 or 3, this implies that he has precognitive abilities.)
2) I attempt to attack while the cultist somehow defends himself AND drinks said potion. (If he was drinking the potion due to a hit from my 3rd attack, he has now consumed a healing item that is going to heal him later.)
3) I attempt to attack while the cultist attacks and we both also defend ourselves simultaneously.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My only response to this is that I know that people who are not trained to pick up on cues from your opponent like body language or weapon position will have a hard time reacting to anything. in truth if you don't know what to look for you'll never be able to read a target. This idea that people who aren't trained in battle don't know how to read their opponent properly to exploit holes is prevalent in PF in the form of the Fighter, the most trained class in the art of battle, is the only class that get's AoO's, i.e. punishing a small opening, for free, the other classes that get it need a feat which symbolizes training, Same deal for other reactions. A Reaction is a read on your target or an action you anticipate needing.
PossibleCabbage wrote: I don't really understand why "moving away" or "drinking a potion" or "wiggling your fingers" are necessarily "leaving yourself open to be attacked." For me, this seems like a fundamentally gamist conceit since I can imagine ways to do all of those things without "leaving yourself open." Care to explain? Keep in mind that keeping your guard up is not the same as not leaving yourself open to attack. If your example assumes that you can still block attacks, it does not prevent someone from attempting an AoO, it just means that you still have an AC for the attack roll to go up against.
In other words, how are you going to drink your potion or cast a spell while keeping an enemy in melee range occupied enough that they don't swing their weapon at you?
Quote: I figure the only example of AoO I really see as something that should be universal is "you try to move adjacent to a person with a reach weapon, and they get a whack at you first", since that's literally the reason we started putting sharp things on poles in the first place, but people should be able to move away without provoking. Readied actions might be sufficient for "whack anybody who enters whacking range" anyway. I agree that moving away should not logically provoke. Realistically, by the time you notice that they are running, they are probably 2 strides away and out of your reach.
My guess is that moving out of range provokes in 3.P to prevent "Wacky Sax" from playing indefinitely.
MER-c wrote: My only response to this is that I know that people who are not trained to pick up on cues from your opponent like body language or weapon position will have a hard time reacting to anything. in truth if you don't know what to look for you'll never be able to read a target. This idea that people who aren't trained in battle don't know how to read their opponent properly to exploit holes is prevalent in PF in the form of the Fighter, the most trained class in the art of battle, is the only class that get's AoO's, i.e. punishing a small opening, for free, the other classes that get it need a feat which symbolizes training, Same deal for other reactions. A Reaction is a read on your target or an action you anticipate needing. Again, drinking a potion or casting a spell is not a SMALL opening. How fast can you draw a flask from your pocket, pull the stopper with your teeth and drink the contents? 2 seconds, if you're quick? That's plenty of time to swing a weapon.
Again, you don't have to be wide open for a hit to provoke an AoO, you just have to not be occupying your attacker with something that commands their attention more that swinging their weapon at you.
Some good arguments for AoO there, so I better understand that viewpoint that some are coming at. Definitely valid points, without a doubt.
I suppose part of the problem for me is that I don't want a Combat Simulator game - we just want to roleplay. Some of the arguments up there are so good, it begs to ask the question why aren't more actions, reactions, defensive positions, countermeasures, etc., all getting included.
It also explains why some will stick with PF1 regardless, unless PF2 becomes a more complex version, though that can certainly be done with a trimlined set of rules that would be better balanced and less exploitable as the current set is.
Unfortunately, for players like the ones I play with and GMs like myself, we aren't really interested in the minutia of combat, and not even completely interested in the logistics of creating a well tuned combat simulator in a fantasy setting.
I won't argue with people who aren't likely to budge from their position that every combatant is prepared to take Attacks of Opportunity at all times, assuming they have the energy to do so.
I will say that PF1 with its tightly controlled combat grid just isn't as fun as 5E or PF2/PT for the people I share the game experience with. It also seems that we aren't the only ones who find this to be true.
If they decide to return to the tactics heavy game that is PF1, I hope PF2 is a tremendous success. I love the Paizo group and their true passion for their games. Unfortunately, it's that particular fact that had us playing 5E over PF1 so from a selfish view, I hope they don't go tactics heavy considering how much we've enjoyed playing the Playtest.
Maybe there is a middle ground, but I just don't see where that is. The limited AoO of PF2 already seems like a middle ground to me over going to the pre-AoO days where we just played combat out in our heads or back to the everything has it of PF1.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
PF1 could definitely be more simple, that's the whole reason why I had high hopes for PF2, but we lost too much in the change and I think it is actually MORE complex, not less.
While I understand not wanting to deal with the complexity of a combat simulator, combat is a large portion of the game (33% to 50% depending on who you ask). Your characters exist both in and out of combat, and limiting combat options also limits character options.
To be honest, I feel like AoO, if worded correctly, could be LESS complex than the current Reaction mechanic.
If we had a "defenseless" tag for actions that determined whether or not they provoked and left AoO open to include any single action, melee range, targeted effect, we could have "Attacks/Thefts/Grapples/Shoves/Trips/etc. of Opportunity, without having a billion different stat blocks for each reaction type.
If you want to add an ability to something that could be done as an AoO, all it would take is a short sentence that says, "your character can use this action as an AoO."
The biggest irks for me is that AoO feels like a feat tax for anyone who isn't a fighter, and wants to appear competent in combat. (It also feels like Paizo took AoOs away from everyone except the fighter because they couldn't think of anything better to give the fighter.)
I loathe the idea that you could be beating down on the BBEG, and he can cast a high level heal spell in your face a laugh at you, or worse, just outright kills you with a death effect. I hate the idea that I can be caught in a situation where my character would totally do XYZ, but he can't because the rules specifically say he can't, even though it makes zero sense.
I look at the removal of universal AoOs as similar to taking away a wizard's ability to cast fireball. It just doesn't feel right.
thflame wrote: Even if you outnumber your opponent, any one of their attacks could go for YOU at any moment. A swing of a weapon happens in a fraction of a second, usually with little to no warning. That's much different than drinking a potion or casting a spell (theoretically).
Quote: Or what about if someone's paralysed? That ought to provoke AoO constantly. They are immobilized, helpless, and likely prone. Their AC is equal to their flat footed AC -5, they can be coup de grace'd, and...
Yes, we can justify these rules, more or less, and they more or less make sense most of the time. But there are plenty of oddities. If I'm fighting three people drinking potions, I can hit more of them per round than if they're asleep. Why are we treating an unarmed civilian the same as a guy with a magic sword? If the swordsman drinks the potion of invisibility he's holding in his off-hand, it provokes because he is distracted and no longer attacking you, even though you're fighting three other people and someone else is firing arrows at you. If the unarmed paladin standing next to you uses 'Lay on Hands', it doesn't create an opportunity attack, even when no-one is attacking you so you ought to have all the opportunities you want.
Some things we deal with through attack bonuses or AC penalties, like flanking. But we could equally say, if you attack someone while flanked, give the flanker an AoO. It's pretty arbitrary.
If we're going for as much realism as possible we ought to say, for example, that someone with a sword has much higher AC against melee attacks than someone without a sword.
If we're going for fun gameplay, we ought to look at it in terms of what we encourage and punish, and then justify it afterwards. Is it more interesting when we can punish people for doing anything but melee attacks, or is it more interesting if we can't?
@thflame: Part of the problem for me, too, is that AoO was an incomplete system. Honestly, it should be done with facing, weapon effectiveness vs AC types, weapon speed, etc. I still struggle to see how characters have 360 degree vision and notice everything around them or how it would be easy to react with a Maul. As far as the removal equating to Fireballs - that has to be more about growing up with 3.5/PF. I started before then and have played many systems without it, so I don't find that mechanic ingrained in D&D.
One thing I do find perplexing is the occasional talk about fighting 4 Goblins taking over an hour. We are having the opposite experience. We average about 3 combats an hour here now that we are used to the system and have a feel for the mechanics. We glide through combats, enjoy the reduction to micromanagement, and seamless transitions from exploration to encounter.
Again, though, the bottom line is the rather nebulous "Fun Factor." PF2, in our groups, has a more narrative feel with less tactical game play than we were experiencing in PF1 which has made advanced it to the top of the RPG list even with all the problems it currently has.
In this area, 5E brought life back to D&D (and RPGs in general). Besides the new players wanting to see what it was about, there was a good portion of returning players who burned out on the weight of Pathfinder. This Playtest has been a success because it's attracting some of the new-to-D&D looking for more complexity while luring all of the PF burnouts interested in giving a new version of Pathfinder one more chance.
@thflame
I still think you aren't understanding how me and plenty of other people visualize combat in our heads. As soon as someone runs up next to someone they aren't just sitting there waiting for their turn. They immediately lock up swords and begin parrying, thrusting, slashing, dodging. Their attack rolls are them going for decisive strikes. So an attack roll missing isn't any kind of special reaction that guy is taking. He's probably already parried, and dodged 5 or so strikes from you before you went for your stab.
It makes totally more sense than the way you are describing it, where they are just taking turns attacking dodging. And then when you're turn is done you're just sitting there waiting to block. Like I compared it to before. Runescape type combat.
I for one like AoO to be more limited. My tables always found it a fiddly rule that folks would forget about, or slow down their play. At least now really player of a couple of classes + the DM need to know it.
My reading of fictional accounts of fencing tells me that combat is about finding or making openings in an opponent's defenses. Of course, as I demonstrated several comments ago, those fictional accounts did not give me the fundamental vocabulary of fencing, so I have to take them with an entire shaker of salt. In a game where a combatant can ordinarily strike three times in six seconds, I don't see time to search for openings. Squeezing in a fourth attack from opportunity looks more like speed than exploiting distraction.
The comments above sound reasonable, but I am so unfamiliar with real combat that someone could say, "It is about eye contact. So long as I maintain eye contact, my opponent is too intimidated to strike," and I would nod and say that that sounds reasonable.
Thus, I looked for outside sources. I found a Wizards of the Coast D&D 3.5 article Attacks of Opportunity (Part One) by Skip Williams (part two is here). It explains:
Skip Williams, Wizards of the Coast wrote: Why Attacks of Opportunity at All?
The D&D game uses its attack of opportunity rules to add some spice to combat. These rules offer characters more options in combat than just standing there and exchanging attacks with foes, while at the same time making sure that characters involved in a fight have a proper appreciation for the dangers they face.
Many rules in the game would be very different (and probably much harder to use) without attacks of opportunity to balance them. The rules for spellcasting, ranged attacks, movement, and special attack actions such as disarming, grappling, and tripping all depend on the existence of attacks of opportunity.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Skip Williams, Wizards of the Coast wrote: Why Attacks of Opportunity at All?
The D&D game uses its attack of opportunity rules to add some spice to combat. These rules offer characters more options in combat than just standing there and exchanging attacks with foes, while at the same time making sure that characters involved in a fight have a proper appreciation for the dangers they face.
Many rules in the game would be very different (and probably much harder to use) without attacks of opportunity to balance them. The rules for spellcasting, ranged attacks, movement, and special attack actions such as disarming, grappling, and tripping all depend on the existence of attacks of opportunity.
And yet it did the opposite. You stand and hit opponents in 3.5/PF1 because moving away has too great an opportunity cost at best or is just tiresome at worst. It removed spice. On the other hand PF2E has done great work in giving actual options outside of Full Attack and locking an enemy in replace requires using of those options so you proactively protect your back line rather than simply parking yourself next to an enemy. I also like as a GM that I've gotten to use the monster special reactions, while AoO never happened unless I was being purposefully mean with tactics.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I honestly feel like "an AC penalty until your next turn"(e.g. the "flat-footed" condition) when you do something like cast a spell or drink a potion when someone is right next to you is better than an attack of opportunity. Being distracted and leaving yourself open should make it more probable to get hit; it shouldn't let other people swing their weapons more often than they would have if you stood there doing nothing.
I mean flat-footed is literally "You’re unable to focus your full attention on defense" so I don't know why someone should be able to attack me an extra time because I can't devote my full attention to defense for some reasons (spellcasting, aiming a ranged attack, drinking a potion, grabbed, etc.) but not for any other reasons (deep in thought, feinted, surprised, etc.)
Matthew Downie wrote: Why are we treating an unarmed civilian the same as a guy with a magic sword? We aren't. Making an unarmed strike without Improved Unarmed Strike Provokes an AoO.
thflame wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Why are we treating an unarmed civilian the same as a guy with a magic sword? We aren't. Making an unarmed strike without Improved Unarmed Strike Provokes an AoO. To be precise, that is a Pathfinder 1st Edition rule. I don't see that rule in Pathfinder 2nd Edition and I like the simplification.
Dire Ursus wrote: @thflame
I still think you aren't understanding how me and plenty of other people visualize combat in our heads. As soon as someone runs up next to someone they aren't just sitting there waiting for their turn. They immediately lock up swords and begin parrying, thrusting, slashing, dodging. Their attack rolls are them going for decisive strikes. So an attack roll missing isn't any kind of special reaction that guy is taking. He's probably already parried, and dodged 5 or so strikes from you before you went for your stab.
It makes totally more sense than the way you are describing it, where they are just taking turns attacking dodging. And then when you're turn is done you're just sitting there waiting to block. Like I compared it to before. Runescape type combat.
I literally ran through the scenario both ways. If turns are occurring simultaneously, then you end up having to explain away weird occurrences of lower initiative characters being able to react to higher initiative character's actions.
If the turns are sequential, then your character is defending themselves when they are being attacked, and just standing there when they aren't.
I think I get what you are saying though. You believe that there are more than just 3 swings per person in combat, but we only roll for the 3 most likely to hit. If that's the case, then you have to explain how some of my 2-3 extra strikes aren't even threatening a guy who is busy drinking a potion or casting a spell. It makes the situation even worse.
It honestly doesn't matter how many swings are actually occurring. The problem is that it takes time to drink a potion or cast a spell, and during that time, your defense is compromised, and any competent person would swing at you during that time.
thflame wrote:
It honestly doesn't matter how many swings are actually occurring. The problem is that it takes time to drink a potion or cast a spell, and during that time, your defense is compromised, and any competent person would swing at you during that time. Any competent fighter would make a spacing swing before taking a risky action. Not one that is meant to land but one to put your opponent away from you while you take a second to bring a bottle to your face.
Mathmuse wrote: thflame wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Why are we treating an unarmed civilian the same as a guy with a magic sword? We aren't. Making an unarmed strike without Improved Unarmed Strike Provokes an AoO. To be precise, that is a Pathfinder 1st Edition rule. I don't see that rule in Pathfinder 2nd Edition and I like the simplification. Well, I am talking about the inclusion of AoO as per previous editions, so the point is valid.
Granted, the PF1 system could use a couple tweaks.
Malk_Content wrote: thflame wrote:
It honestly doesn't matter how many swings are actually occurring. The problem is that it takes time to drink a potion or cast a spell, and during that time, your defense is compromised, and any competent person would swing at you during that time. Any competent fighter would make a spacing swing before taking a risky action. Not one that is meant to land but one to put your opponent away from you while you take a second to bring a bottle to your face. Okay, by that logic, only fighters should be able to drink potions in combat, since they are the only ones that are "competent at combat".
Also, it STILL takes longer to drink a potion than it does to take a step and swing your weapon. Even if you tried to make space, that space would be more than made up for in that same time frame.
Unless you are saying that they are completely moving out of reach, which means they are making a move action and no longer threaten an AoO.
By the way, did I mention that I have experience with HEMA?
thflame wrote: Malk_Content wrote: thflame wrote:
It honestly doesn't matter how many swings are actually occurring. The problem is that it takes time to drink a potion or cast a spell, and during that time, your defense is compromised, and any competent person would swing at you during that time. Any competent fighter would make a spacing swing before taking a risky action. Not one that is meant to land but one to put your opponent away from you while you take a second to bring a bottle to your face. Okay, by that logic, only fighters should be able to drink potions in combat, since they are the only ones that are "competent at combat".
Also, it STILL takes longer to drink a potion than it does to take a step and swing your weapon. Even if you tried to make space, that space would be more than made up for in that same time frame.
Unless you are saying that they are completely moving out of reach, which means they are making a move action and no longer threaten an AoO.
By the way, did I mention that I have experience with HEMA?
The single action to drink a potion implies that a potion is a single swallow (15 ml) rather than the full fluid ounce (30 ml) that I read in PF1 as the standard size of a potion. And the whole issue of uncorking the bottle is neglected.
For simplicity, how about considering another action that provokes an attack of opportunity in Pathfinder 2nd Edition: drawing a weapon? I am rather sure Paizo neglected that Interact actions provoke (they have the manipulate trait) when they said that drawing a weapon is an Interact action, but that is the rule in PF2.
Okay, let's compromise by considering moving past a person 5 feet away. That is the most common event that provokes in combat.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Wow, I didn't realize that AoOs were such a sacred cow to some people. Myself, I like that they're no longer default, as it helps solve issues I had with how static combat in PF1 felt. In PF1, players had a habit of moving into position and then standing still until either them or the enemy was dead. Now, it is a lot easier for both allies and enemies to move around the battlefield and actually simulate a more dynamic battle (as in, how many movies have you seen where everyone is standing still in a fight?) Not to mention that an enemy which pulls out an AoO by surprise now has the ability to instantly force the players to adjust their tactics on the fly, which makes combat much more engaging in my opinion.
Also, in regards to the simultaneous vs. sequential turn argument... The argument for sequential combat only seems to make sense when you limit it to 2 fighters opposing each other. Considering that most parties have about 4 people and the enemy can easily be of similar number, what is everyone else doing during a sequential turn order? Just standing there and watching the 2 who are currently swinging at each other? Unless combat is simultaneous, then you have this weird RPG dynamic were everyone is patiently waiting for the previous half dozen people to finish before taking their actions. Especially considering that not everyone is necessarily engaged in melee or otherwise distracted at the same time.
Not to mention that sequential turns seems like it would mess up with a lot of timing. Since a round as a whole is 6 seconds worth of time, does that mean sequential turns are dividing this up between all participants? In which case, an average turn would be less than a second worth of time, during which even a dwarf can move 60ft or make three attacks...
Alternatively, if turns are now 6 seconds rather than rounds, then the standing around and waiting thing only becomes more ridiculous for people not directly engaged in the melee. An archer who can shoot thrice in six seconds then has to wait half a minute or more before their next set of shots. Not to mention that 1 minute magic durations would pass within 10 turns of combat rather than 10 rounds, which would be less than 2 rounds on average.
Mathmuse wrote: thflame wrote: Malk_Content wrote: thflame wrote:
It honestly doesn't matter how many swings are actually occurring. The problem is that it takes time to drink a potion or cast a spell, and during that time, your defense is compromised, and any competent person would swing at you during that time. Any competent fighter would make a spacing swing before taking a risky action. Not one that is meant to land but one to put your opponent away from you while you take a second to bring a bottle to your face. Okay, by that logic, only fighters should be able to drink potions in combat, since they are the only ones that are "competent at combat".
Also, it STILL takes longer to drink a potion than it does to take a step and swing your weapon. Even if you tried to make space, that space would be more than made up for in that same time frame.
Unless you are saying that they are completely moving out of reach, which means they are making a move action and no longer threaten an AoO.
By the way, did I mention that I have experience with HEMA?
The single action to drink a potion implies that a potion is a single swallow (15 ml) rather than the full fluid ounce (30 ml) that I read in PF1 as the standard size of a potion. And the whole issue of uncorking the bottle is neglected. So a potion is just sitting in your pocket uncorked? That's even less immersive.
Quote: For simplicity, how about considering another action that provokes an attack of opportunity in Pathfinder 2nd Edition: drawing a weapon? I am rather sure Paizo neglected that Interact actions provoke (they have the manipulate trait) when they said that drawing a weapon is an Interact action, but that is the rule in PF2. You definitely aren't defending yourself if your weapon is sheathed, so it makes sense that drawing a weapon provokes. I could also so a feat that makes drawing a weapon not provoke, as Japanese swordsmanship has an entire martial art about drawing the katana quickly and efficiently while attacking.
Quote: Okay, let's compromise by considering moving past a person 5 feet away. That is the most common event that provokes in combat. Depends on the movement, honestly.
If you are stepping out of reach, realistically you probably shouldn't provoke. My guess as to why leaving a threatened square provokes is that it would be to easy for every fight scene to turn into a chase scene. I'd be okay with leaving a threatened square not provoking. This would make players think more about cutting off escape routes when they want to take down the BBEG once and for all, and it makes having a recurring bad guy easier without having to resort to Simulacrum/contingency teleport cheese.
Now, if you are moving through a threatened square, this implies that you are trying to cover ground and not engaging the enemy. It's pretty easy to swing at someone trying to run past you. Not having this rule means that frontline fighters can just charge the squishy backrow without dealing with the enemy's frontline fighters. Unless you have a veritable wall of mooks between the casters and the PCs, the PCs are just going to waltz through the mooks and tear apart the casters.
Charon Onozuka wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that AoOs were such a sacred cow to some people. Myself, I like that they're no longer default, as it helps solve issues I had with how static combat in PF1 felt. In PF1, players had a habit of moving into position and then standing still until either them or the enemy was dead. Now, it is a lot easier for both allies and enemies to move around the battlefield and actually simulate a more dynamic battle (as in, how many movies have you seen where everyone is standing still in a fight?) Slowly circling your opponent during a fight is easily represented by taking 5 foot steps. I do this all the time to set up flanking, make escape harder for my opponent, or easier for me.
Running around the battlefield like D'artagnan in The "Three Musketeers" is not realistic at all. Even so, if you pay attention, you'll notice that he is getting swung at repeatedly and that his opponent doesn't just stand there and let him parkour. (Except at the end, when he does and dies because of it.)
Quote: Not to mention that an enemy which pulls out an AoO by surprise now has the ability to instantly force the players to adjust their tactics on the fly, which makes combat much more engaging in my opinion. For special reactions, I agree. Stuff that is truly unexpected.
For stuff that makes perfect sense, not so much. It hurts from an immersion standpoint that you can't react to something your character normally would be able to.
Then there is the absolute illogical garbage that comes with not having AoOs standard. Like ignoring the boss's mooks that are supposed to be guarding him, because they can't take AoOs. (Except for the rare occasion that they have fighter levels or the feat, then the PCs just feel cheated.)
Quote: Also, in regards to the simultaneous vs. sequential turn argument... The argument for sequential combat only seems to make sense when you limit it to 2 fighters opposing each other. Considering that most parties have about 4 people and the enemy can easily be of similar number, what is everyone else doing during a sequential turn order? Just standing there and watching the 2 who are currently swinging at each other? Unless combat is simultaneous, then you have this weird RPG dynamic were everyone is patiently waiting for the previous half dozen people to finish before taking their actions. Especially considering that not everyone is necessarily engaged in melee or otherwise distracted at the same time. When it's one vs many, yes, it does break down. But if you assume it all happens simultaneously, there is STILL issues. I'd rather have 4v1s not make perfect sense, than have no combat make sense.
Quote: Not to mention that sequential turns seems like it would mess up with a lot of timing. Since a round as a whole is 6 seconds worth of time, does that mean sequential turns are dividing this up between all participants? In which case, an average turn would be less than a second worth of time, during which even a dwarf can move 60ft or make three attacks... If the dwarf in this case is fighting his own enemies or moving 60 ft. away from melee combat, then it doesn't matter. It only breaks down if he is dog piling a boss.
Also notice that stuff that generally takes longer, like casting or using potions, tend to be the things that get interrupted by AoOs?
While yes, your dwarf could run 60 ft in his fraction on of 6 seconds, but if he get's hit he doesn't get that far.
Three attacks in a second is not that unreasonable, to be fair.
Quote: Alternatively, if turns are now 6 seconds rather than rounds, then the standing around and waiting thing only becomes more ridiculous for people not directly engaged in the melee. An archer who can shoot thrice in six seconds then has to wait half a... Obviously I'm not asserting that it works that way.
Charon Onozuka wrote: ... Also, in regards to the simultaneous vs. sequential turn argument... The argument for sequential combat only seems to make sense when you limit it to 2 fighters opposing each other. Considering that most parties have about 4 people and the enemy can easily be of similar number, what is everyone else doing during a sequential turn order? Just standing there and watching the 2 who are currently swinging at each other? Unless combat is simultaneous, then you have this weird RPG dynamic were everyone is patiently waiting for the previous half dozen people to finish before taking their actions. Especially considering that not everyone is necessarily engaged in melee or otherwise distracted at the same time.
Not to mention that sequential turns seems like it would mess up with a lot of timing. Since a round as a whole is 6 seconds worth of time, does that mean sequential turns are dividing this up between all participants? In which case, an average turn would be less than a second worth of time, during which even a dwarf can move 60ft or make three attacks...
Alternatively, if turns are now 6 seconds rather than rounds, then the standing around and waiting thing only becomes more ridiculous for people not directly engaged in the melee. An archer who can shoot thrice in six seconds then has to wait half a minute or more before their next set of shots. Not to mention that 1 minute magic durations would pass within 10 turns of combat rather than 10 rounds, which would be less than 2 rounds on average.
Rich Burlew said it best in the Introduction to The Order of the Stick: Dungeon Crawlin' Fools.
Rich Burlew wrote: (scene: Happy scientist holding up flask of red liquid and happy spellcaster holding up flask of green liquid.)
This world of fantasy operates on three sets of principles. Not only does it obey the familiar laws of physics and the less-familiar-but-requiring-no-less-calculus laws of magic, ...
(scene: Scientist and spellcaster glaring angrily at approaching gamer with D&D rulebook and dice bag.)
... but it also holds adherence to the most capricious form of universal order: the laws of GAMING!
SCIENTIST: Great.
SPELLCASTER: There goes the neighborhood.
GAMER: WOOT!
Pathfinder combat is simultaneous in the game world and sequential at the gaming table. These two modes are incompatible, so we play sequentially and talk about the events in the game world as if they were simultaneous.
Thus, we like game rules that help us pretend that the events in the game world are simultaneous.
Indeed, the *rules* are not about "trying to model simultaneous combat" because that is difficult and the rules don't even attempt to do so (start with something like the Exalted initiative wheel for this in Pathfinder, then give all actions a speed number).
What we do when we *narrate* the results of the game mechanics is describe "what happened" with one of potentially many stories of simultaneous action that explain accurately what the dice dictated. But since we're going to do this anyway, I don't really see the need for rules that do this for us.
I mean, realism is something that can generate as much complexity as you could possibly desire (there's no rule for it being easier to defend yourself with a greatsword than with an huge two handed maul or hammer, but realistically there should be.) So the question is whether a given bit of complexity buys you desirable results. I feel like "turns are sequential except for this list of exceptions" is something I don't need to keep around.
thflame wrote: Mathmuse wrote: The single action to drink a potion implies that a potion is a single swallow (15 ml) rather than the full fluid ounce (30 ml) that I read in PF1 as the standard size of a potion. And the whole issue of uncorking the bottle is neglected. So a potion is just sitting in your pocket uncorked? That's even less immersive. I pretend that the cork is there, but it has a thumb ring so that it can be popped out one-handed in half a second.
thflame wrote: Mathmuse wrote: For simplicity, how about considering another action that provokes an attack of opportunity in Pathfinder 2nd Edition: drawing a weapon? I am rather sure Paizo neglected that Interact actions provoke (they have the manipulate trait) when they said that drawing a weapon is an Interact action, but that is the rule in PF2. You definitely aren't defending yourself if your weapon is sheathed, so it makes sense that drawing a weapon provokes. I could also so a feat that makes drawing a weapon not provoke, as Japanese swordsmanship has an entire martial art about drawing the katana quickly and efficiently while attacking. You definitely are defending yourself by the rules of the game even without a weapon in hand. Not defending yourself is flat-footed or helpless. And this unarmed person is probably armored and might be holding a shield.
As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, I think Attacks of Opportunity should be the risk part of risky actions such as drinking potions and casting spells. I think that defining drawing a weapon as a risky action hurts the game.
thflame wrote: Mathmuse wrote: Okay, let's compromise by considering moving past a person 5 feet away. That is the most common event that provokes in combat. Depends on the movement, honestly.
If you are stepping out of reach, realistically you probably shouldn't provoke. My guess as to why leaving a threatened square provokes is that it would be to easy for every fight scene to turn into a chase scene. I'd be okay with leaving a threatened square not provoking. This would make players think more about cutting off escape routes when they want to take down the BBEG once and for all, and it makes having a recurring bad guy easier without having to resort to Simulacrum/contingency teleport cheese. Apparently, thflame has stopped talking about Pathfinder rules here, neither 1st Edition nor 2nd Edition, and is getting into theory. For me, the theory is zones of control, a wargame mechanic.
thflame wrote: Now, if you are moving through a threatened square, this implies that you are trying to cover ground and not engaging the enemy. It's pretty easy to swing at someone trying to run past you. Not having this rule means that frontline fighters can just charge the squishy backrow without dealing with the enemy's frontline fighters. Unless you have a veritable wall of mooks between the casters and the PCs, the PCs are just going to waltz through the mooks and tear apart the casters. Yes, waltz through the mooks and attack the casters does appear to be the new paradigm for PF2. However, tearing them apart is harder, because the casters' AC is only a little below that of the frontline fighters. And most of the PCs won't receive attacks of opportunity from the enemy casters casting their spells, either.
Mathmuse wrote: I pretend that the cork is there, but it has a thumb ring so that it can be popped out one-handed in half a second. I mean, PF1 has that witch archetype which can reskin potions as candies and baked goods, so it can't take longer to ingest a potion than to consume an amuse bouche. Or at least "trying to figure out how long it takes to drink this, versus eat that, versus eat this other thing, versus drink a fourth thing" is a waste of time and effort. Like it should not matter whether my gingerbread witch is making chocolate truffles or hard candies. In general we should just pick whichever explanation most parsimoniously explains the game mechanics, you could go with "you unhinge your jaw and swallow the entire pie whole", but I will not.
Mathmuse wrote: thflame wrote: Mathmuse wrote: For simplicity, how about considering another action that provokes an attack of opportunity in Pathfinder 2nd Edition: drawing a weapon? I am rather sure Paizo neglected that Interact actions provoke (they have the manipulate trait) when they said that drawing a weapon is an Interact action, but that is the rule in PF2. You definitely aren't defending yourself if your weapon is sheathed, so it makes sense that drawing a weapon provokes. I could also so a feat that makes drawing a weapon not provoke, as Japanese swordsmanship has an entire martial art about drawing the katana quickly and efficiently while attacking. You definitely are defending yourself by the rules of the game even without a weapon in hand. Not defending yourself is flat-footed or helpless. And this unarmed person is probably armored and might be holding a shield.
As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, I think Attacks of Opportunity should be the risk part of risky actions such as drinking potions and casting spells. I think that defining drawing a weapon as a risky action hurts the game.
I should be more clear on what exactly should cause you to provoke an AoO.
If you aren't currently occupying your attacker with something that disincentivises attacking, you should provoke and AoO.
Just having a shield out doesn't stop the opponent from attacking you. You still get to defend yourself (you still have an AC they have to roll against), but they can totally swing at you. You don't have a weapon on line or threatening a swing, so the enemy has no fear to being punished if they swing their sword, and thus, they get an opportunity attack.
I think people are misinterpreting an Attack of Opportunity as a free hit, and not a free swing.
"I could totally hold my staff in front of my face to protect me while I use my other hand to cast my spells!"
"Yes, but you aren't attacking your opponent at that time, so he get's to swing at you, as opposed to just watching you cast."
At a certain point, I could understand being able to simultaneously threaten an attacker while you cast a spell, but that feels firmly in the realm of a feat. (Or Casting Defensively)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thflame wrote: If you aren't currently occupying your attacker with something that disincentivises attacking, you should provoke and AoO. So the empty-handed martial artist who doesn't do anything, they just wait for their opponent to act and dodge out of the way, block, or counterattack is not a valid fantasy to indulge in? I'm not doing anything except watching and waiting, so should that provoke?
Since I've played that character in a lot of games, and I like that fantasy. Should I not be able to narrate my character with a completely reactive combat style?
|
