PossibleCabbage wrote: 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. Does the archetype give you examples of what these potions are reskined into? Because if it does, it is reasonable to assume that what you pick falls in line with the examples.
If the ability gives the example of "pies or cakes" and my player asks for M&Ms or Tic-Tacs so that they can pop them easier, I'm going to say no.
I mean, I'd imagine that acceptable forms of food would fall in line with something that would take a similar amount of time to consume as a 1 ounce potion that must be uncorked. Something like a cookie or a small slice of pie and not a gumdrop or a jellybean.
thflame wrote: 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.) Mooks can still ready actions if they want to stay near the target they're guarding and want to attack things that get too close. Not to mention that PCs shouldn't feel cheated if mooks specifically meant to be guards took options that make them better at guarding... Of course people are going to take options that make them better at their primary purpose.
And honestly... even in PF1 it wasn't that hard to just walk a bit around the mooks to avoid AoOs and then ignore them until the boss was dead. Outside of chokepoint situations, weak guards really had difficulty contributing outside of setting up flanking for the boss just because they had difficulty actually hitting (which will be even more difficult in PF2 due to level adding to AC).
thflame wrote: 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. 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. My issue with that is that Pathfinder is a group game. 1v1s are rather rare as a result, so making a set of rules that encapsulates 1v1 combat at the expense of group immersion seems nonsensical to me.
thflame wrote: 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.
Wait... are you suggesting that spending an action to raise a shield should provoke from every enemy adjacent to you? Or that if I attack only one enemy out of multiple adjacent ones, then all of the rest should get AoOs since I'm not occupying them? And how does that work if my buddy is adjacent to me while multiple enemies surround both of us? Do I still get an AoO on me if my buddy just attacked them? Or do I have to keep track of everyone that every other player attacked in the last round to try to make sure enemies stay 'occupied' to not receive an AoO?
Charon Onozuka wrote: thflame wrote: 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.) Mooks can still ready actions if they want to stay near the target they're guarding and want to attack things that get too close. Yeah, that doesn't work if the mooks lose initiative.
Quote: Not to mention that PCs shouldn't feel cheated if mooks specifically meant to be guards took options that make them better at guarding... Of course people are going to take options that make them better at their primary purpose. No. Players will feel cheated when logic is at the whim of whatever abilities the GM decided to give monsters.
Quote: And honestly... even in PF1 it wasn't that hard to just walk a bit around the mooks to avoid AoOs and then ignore them until the boss was dead. Outside of chokepoint situations, weak guards really had difficulty contributing outside of setting up flanking for the boss just because they had difficulty actually hitting (which will be even more difficult in PF2 due to level adding to AC). Walking around mooks takes up more movement, which means you may not get to attack on your first turn. This happens all the time in my games.
thflame wrote: 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. 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. My issue with that is that Pathfinder is a group game. 1v1s are rather rare as a result, so making a set of rules that encapsulates 1v1 combat at the expense of group immersion seems nonsensical to me. Well, maybe have more groups of enemies to fight? Do yu always have one monster vs a group of PCs? Do you never have minions supporting the boss?
Quote: Quote:
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.
Wait... are you suggesting that spending an action to raise a shield should provoke from every enemy adjacent to you? Or that if I attack only one enemy out of multiple adjacent ones, then all of the rest should get AoOs since I'm not occupying them? And how does that work if my buddy is adjacent to me while multiple enemies surround both of us? Do I still get an AoO on me if my buddy just attacked them? Or do I have to keep track of everyone that every other player attacked in the last round to try to make sure enemies stay 'occupied' to not receive an AoO?
1) Raising a shield should NOT cost an action. That was the first thing Paizo said about PF2 that I was adamant against.
2) As stated in an earlier post, there are many reasons why being ganged up on doesn't provoke AoOs. Mainly that your assailants don't know who you are going to attack until you launch the attack, and the time frame for a single attack is a fraction of a second. Such an attack can also threaten multiple people if done properly.
For example, if I swing in a wide arc in front of me, everyone in front of me needs to avoid my swing. Maybe I'm aiming for the guy in the middle, but my attackers don't know that until the swing is almost over.
There is also the part where there are bonuses for ganging up on a single target that are not AoOs.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Folks,
This thread is going nowhere fast. The various "sides" have said their piece and I think we have a firm grasp of what the issues are.
At this point, AoO's for everyone are not on our list of things to reconsider. We are looking for more ways for characters to get exciting uses out of their reactions, as well as giving characters better ways to anticipate the reactions of others, where appropriate.
Thanks for the feedback. Enjoy your weekend.
This thread is locked.
|
Director of Game Design
