| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it absolutely has to be listed. Most creatures and characters do not have access to AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is correct. It has been one of the absolute best changes to the combat system in practice.
Debatable, for sure it makes combat more dynamic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I hear, the creatures with these kinds are reactions are usually humanoid warriors (so an orc fighter taking the feat normally), higher level giants, some of the beefier humanoid warrior-ish demons, and dragons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have to see this in action but it seems like everyone really likes this.
Its weird for me to think that one of the core mechanics of the warrior protecting the wizard is no longer a main theme. I just imagine both the players and the monsters swarming past their opponents and focusing on the squishy/BBEGs now.
This seems to benefit both martial classes (especially fighters) and casters. It would be nice to hit an enemy with a Shocking Grasp and run away without having to worry about AoO.
if you have to use shocking grasp as a wizard and you are not some kind of gish character you are in the wrong place.
I liked the mechanics where squishy classes get mauled on if they cannot keep distance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still have to see this in action but it seems like everyone really likes this.
Its weird for me to think that one of the core mechanics of the warrior protecting the wizard is no longer a main theme. I just imagine both the players and the monsters swarming past their opponents and focusing on the squishy/BBEGs now.
Well, if you want it, fighters get it out the gate, and champions get an even better reaction to protect the Squishies with. All the other d10 classes can get it or something equivalent by 6.
But beyond that, with combat maneuvers no longer provoking it is much easier to use them to lock down enemies and control the battlefield. It just takes a little more active effort rather than just standing there and letting inertia win out.
|
I still have to see this in action but it seems like everyone really likes this.
Its weird for me to think that one of the core mechanics of the warrior protecting the wizard is no longer a main theme. I just imagine both the players and the monsters swarming past their opponents and focusing on the squishy/BBEGs now.
Well, the warrior protecting the wizard is probably a fighter, maybe a champion; and they get AoO and other reactions to do this.
Barbarians, champions, rangers and monks can all get reactions to keep people from getting past them.
Assurance in Athletics can give you a good enough third attack trip that you can topple any mooks still left in your reach at end of turn.
Scaling AC means wizards aren't actually quite that squishy anymore. There is still a difference in AC between tanky builds and squishy casters, but it's a difference of about 5 AC at most, not 10-30 difference like in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the mechanics where squishy classes get mauled on if they cannot keep distance.
Good look keeping your distance in a 6x6 room. Well, if you manage to hurl your fireball from three rooms back and around two corners you are welcome.
/irony
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assurance in Athletics can give you a good enough third attack trip that you can topple any mooks still left in your reach at end of turn.
Do you all run Monks or 5 to 6 player groups? I have seen this argument come up very often, however when looking in our 4 player group there is exactly 0 persons who can do a regular trip or grab. Not because we are shy of Athletics (3 of 4 chars have it), but because we are shy of hands to actually use the skill.
Sword and board fighter (0 hands free), sword and board warpriest (0 hands free), ranger (either bow 0 hands free or bastard sword 0 hands free) and wizard.
As soon as the fighter uses a block all monsters can swarm past him like no tomorrow and while the ranger could possible have a hand free while he is using his bastard sword one-handed he most often is backline just like the wizard.
And as changing grips actually makes you "lose" actions I see no reason how we will ever use grab or trip in the near future.
Weapons with the trip trait allow you to use them without a free hand. The war flail for instance is pretty deadly.
Weapons with the trip trait allow you to use them without a free hand. The war flail for instance is pretty deadly.
Yes, I can pretty much see that.
However for our first game we decided to go for style and did not do much meta-gaming upfront, so the dwarf fighter chose a battle axe to go with his shield, the Aragorn type ranger chose bastard sword to go with his longbow and my warpriest of Sarenrae is "bound" to scimitar to compliment my shield.
And none of those weapons allow for a "free" trip.
Could we have "build" the group better. Certainly.
Will we do it? Well, if I am lucky I might convince the dwarf player to go for warhammer instead of battle axe in order to at least have a better critical weapon effect (knockdown).
... using a weapon with the Trip Quality in order to trip isn’t metagaming.
Thats true, but using a trip weapon + athletics + assurance in order to circumvent MAP because you know you can auto-beat some monsters Fort DC's kinda is.
No problem if you use your first attack with a regular athletics check in order to trip the stone giant instead of doing a regular attack...
... using a weapon with the Trip Quality in order to trip isn’t metagaming.
Yeah that's a very unusual outlook on what metagaming is.
... using a weapon with the Trip Quality in order to trip isn’t metagaming.Yeah that's a very unusual outlook on what metagaming is.
Abusing a weapon with a trip quality is, however I agree that - having not been part in any playtests - for me it is debatable if trip + assurance is exactly how the developers have designed it to be (i.e. we are all meant to play this way) or if it is just an oversight that might be recitified with future revisions of the rule book.
The simple question being how much influx does assurance have on chosing your weapon and would there be less flail users if any attack would incur MAP regardless if you use assurance or not.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... using a weapon with the Trip Quality in order to trip isn’t metagaming.Thats true, but using a trip weapon + athletics + assurance in order to circumvent MAP because you know you can auto-beat some monsters Fort DC's kinda is.
No problem if you use your first attack with a regular athletics check in order to trip the stone giant instead of doing a regular attack...
... no?
Using the feats and abilities the game provides in the way they’re meant to isn’t metagaming.
|
|
Abusing a weapon with a trip quality is,Using a trip weapon to trip is not.
for me it is debatable if trip + assurance is exactly how the developers have designed it to be (i.e. we are all meant to play this way) or if it is just an oversight that might be recitified with future revisions of the rule book.
This is a legitimate question and concern though (but still not metagaming).
... using a weapon with the Trip Quality in order to trip isn’t metagaming.Thats true, but using a trip weapon + athletics + assurance in order to circumvent MAP because you know you can auto-beat some monsters Fort DC's kinda is.
No problem if you use your first attack with a regular athletics check in order to trip the stone giant instead of doing a regular attack...
... no?
Using the feats and abilities the game provides in the way they’re meant to isn’t metagaming.
Knowing that by using those feats and abilities you can automatically beat the DCs set by many adversaries very often is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing that by using those feats and abilities you can automatically beat the DCs set by many adversaries very often is.... using a weapon with the Trip Quality in order to trip isn’t metagaming.Thats true, but using a trip weapon + athletics + assurance in order to circumvent MAP because you know you can auto-beat some monsters Fort DC's kinda is.
No problem if you use your first attack with a regular athletics check in order to trip the stone giant instead of doing a regular attack...
... no?
Using the feats and abilities the game provides in the way they’re meant to isn’t metagaming.
Thinking they can beat them is an assumption, not metagaming.
Actually having access to the enemies’ statistics and thus knowing what they need to roll is, but that’s a completely different issue.
Thinking they can beat them is an assumption, not metagaming.
Actually having access to the enemies’ statistics and thus knowing what they need to roll is, but that’s a completely different issue.
Well the rules are there and they are not especially obscure or hidden, so you might as well use them, no probs.
Nonetheless I find it a bit cheesy that you can use your 3rd action for an semi-automatic trip (as long as you can figure what enemies are brutes and which ones you can possibly trip easily), while a corresponding attack would be at an -8 to -10 penalty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, this is explicitly metagaming.Well the rules are there and they are not especially obscure or hidden, so you might as well use them, no probs.Thinking they can beat them is an assumption, not metagaming.
Actually having access to the enemies’ statistics and thus knowing what they need to roll is, but that’s a completely different issue.
Nonetheless I find it a bit cheesy that you can use your 3rd action for an semi-automatic trip (as long as you can figure what enemies are brutes and which ones you can possibly trip easily), while a corresponding attack would be at an -8 to -10 penalty.
Difference in tastes I suppose, there’s lot of third Actions you can take instead of an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assurance is kind of a gamey conceit anyway. You have this way of using a skill that ignores all penalties, so if you need to climb a cliff face in an ice storm while covered in grease you have one way you can do it in which the driving winds and slippery ice accumulation is a big pain in the butt, and another way of doing it where it is NBD.
So if you're okay with assurance just in general, you should be fine with it in combat.
But as for the original questions: Monsters and NPCs only have the actions (and reactions) that are listed in their bestiary entry/on their character sheet. You can give them more as the GM, but by default that's all they have.
To answer the original question; yes, if an enemy has attack of opportunity, it will be explicitly listed.
For example: Drow Fighter, and Gnoll Sergeant
---------
As for the metagaming of using trip weapons and taking Assurance(athletics); I don't see it as metagaming any more than taking any other combat feats or assurance for any other skill.
Most of the characters using trip attacks in order to prevent enemies from bypassing the front line to attack the caster/archer are going to be martial characters - who may have had some form of formal training in such tactics.
Drill Sergeant: All right, recruits. When facing intelligent enemies, they often try to take out your allies who aren't wearing much armor or carrying shields. It is your job to prevent that. One good option is to put them on their behinds. If you have your hands full, that is practically impossible to do. Using a whip or a flail can do the job though. So go grab one. Now, remember that the point isn't to do damage here. Swing at the knee so that the end of the weapon wraps around it a bit and then pull back quickly. Good. Now practice this for the next three hours. I want all of you to be able to do this in your sleep.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonetheless I find it a bit cheesy that you can use your 3rd action for an semi-automatic trip (as long as you can figure what enemies are brutes and which ones you can possibly trip easily), while a corresponding attack would be at an -8 to -10 penalty.
This combo was pointed out very early on by Mark Seifter, so it's very much an intended rules interaction. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring MAP via assurance seems a lot less gamey than a lot of other penalties you could ignore with it, since it's basically "I'm going to do this but won't overextend myself."
At least, that makes a lot more sense to me than "I'm going to use assurance to ignore the penalty to my diplomacy check I would get from being dressed inappropriately, being covered in blood, and smelling like a sewer."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trip actually target Reflex saves and not Fortitude, meaning that is better to trip brutes and grapple skirmishes, so most of the people here would target the wrong save.
So if you're okay with assurance just in general, you should be fine with it in combat.
This combo was pointed out very early on by Mark Seifter, so it's very much an intended rules interaction. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Yeah well, not quite at rest with assurance as I think this feat was carried too far. In my opinion (but that is of course just my opinion) the take 10 part is the intended part for a skill feat, so the randomness of the d20 is gone and you can't randomly fail on easy tasks like climbing a simple rope or conducting a really easy medical treatment, e.g by just rolling a natural 1. Its the part of not taking into account any boni or mali that I find a little strange and to be honest also quite broken. If it does not matter if I am in the open, in a strong gale blizzard while simultaneously getting hit by a Richter 8+ earthquake or in a perfectly equipped, clean and warm hospital room while stitching a wound, something is off.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That difference does matter, because a lot of those things (both the gale blizzard and the earthquake, for example) increase difficulty rather than giving the PC a penalty. Assurance helps you use Medicine while you're Sickened or Frightened, or whatever, not while conditions are bad.
The flavor text is thus slightly off, but the mechanics work well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a cool trick.
Suddenly the Farmhand Background is looking a lot better.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth keeping in mind that the players don't know the exact stats of the foes they're facing. Adding Attack of Opportunity to a creature is a great and easy way to model a bodyguard type or defensive type foe, but you don't even have to do that. Since the players don't know the stats, they won't know if something can attack them with an opportunity until they take the risk, and in many cases, players won't risk that.
That difference does matter, because a lot of those things (both the gale blizzard and the earthquake, for example) increase difficulty rather than giving the PC a penalty. Assurance helps you use Medicine while you're Sickened or Frightened, or whatever, not while conditions are bad.
The flavor text is thus slightly off, but the mechanics work well.
Well bad condition can also be bad weather, which indeed gives circumstance penalties to checks (who would be ignored by assurance), however my example was hazards, so you are of course right about the increase in DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth keeping in mind that the players don't know the exact stats of the foes they're facing. Adding Attack of Opportunity to a creature is a great and easy way to model a bodyguard type or defensive type foe, but you don't even have to do that. Since the players don't know the stats, they won't know if something can attack them with an opportunity until they take the risk, and in many cases, players won't risk that.
The difference is that the GM exactly knows which of the characters has Attack of Opportunity, so he can move the monsters at his leisure while players always have to find out the hard way.
And yes I know that a "proper" GM should not play against his group and abuse his knowledge of the player powers but you also know how things go awry from time to time, especially in the heat of battle.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes I know that a "proper" GM should not play against his group and abuse his knowledge of the player powers but you also know how things go awry from time to time, especially in the heat of battle.
I don't think I've ever had an NPC know things about PC capabilities they shouldn't, and don't think I've ever had a GM do that when I was a player either. It doesn't seem an inevitable occurrence to me at all.
I don't think I've ever had an NPC know things about PC capabilities they shouldn't, and don't think I've ever had a GM do that when I was a player either. It doesn't seem an inevitable occurrence to me at all.
It is called "telephatically inherited knowledge", so if you just beat the monsters using a trick or fancy move in one room, the monsters in the next room will not fall for that anymore. :P
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes I know that a "proper" GM should not play against his group and abuse his knowledge of the player powers but you also know how things go awry from time to time, especially in the heat of battle.
There's not much I can do to make antagonistic GMs play fair, unfortunately. Great GMs are super important to the health of any RPG, since it often doesn't matter how much work we put into the adventures or products if the GM is shabby.
Back to the original question:
No, not every player character or monster has attack of opportunity build in as an automatic feature (but fighters do).
However keep in might that AoO is a reaction, which means that unless the player or monster has extra reactions the "only one reaction each round" rule applies. This is especially valid if you have players or monsters who can do more than one reaction, e.g. a fighter or monster having the Shield Block feat in addition to the Attack of Opportunity.
We already had our fighter miss several AoO's in our current game because he blocked with his shield. So it also is a little mind game, e.g. block a sure hit now or do a potential strike later.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM if players are overly relying on knowing the appropriate DC to trip the monster (or whatever) and using Assurance to just barely clear it, I think the solution is to vary your monsters more. There's nothing saying you can't make an ogre who is nimbler than the other ogres, after all.
There's not much I can do to make antagonistic GMs play fair, unfortunately. Great GMs are super important to the health of any RPG, since it often doesn't matter how much work we put into the adventures or products if the GM is shabby.
This is ultimatively true and I therefore kind of admire how much power the new edition hands back to the GM. Unfortunately one inherent flaw of a "in good faith" concept is that the GM might voluntarily or involuntarily abuse this power.
In the old edition it was clear for GM's, players, monsters and characters alike that if you do things in melee that werent actually melee (e.g. moving, casting, firing a ranged weapon) you probably will get attacked at least once. The rule was binding for all parties and generally known which provided a certain transparency to the general procedure.
And while I am not at all suggesting to go back to the old system, it occured to me that while following many of the discussions in the individual threads in the rules section that many players often simply just want this kind of transparency for their game, which however and inevitably clashes with an empowered GM concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having characters be too afraid to move due to other characters isn’t a transparency I’d say. It’s a restraint, one that I’m glad the new system doesn’t have now thats I’ve gotten to play it.
To each his own.
From a boardgame point of view, i.e. when you use the battle map extensively, exerting a zone of control (and AoOs were nothing else than a zone of control) is a nice and solid strategic gameplay element.
Not having a zone of control can help make the game more action orientated and thus potentially also more interesting from a storytelling point of view.
For me it is too early to judge, as our group has not yet left level 1, however from what I have seen I am already asking myself how we are ever to stop enemies simply swarming past our frontline or how we are ever to stop an enemy from casting, apart from applying massive damage that is.