Well, fighters as well as champions, barbarians, and monks (with investment) can exert a zone of control as can monsters for whom that is part of their deal. I don't think we need to give AoOs to wizards, hedgehogs, and owlbears to make combat tactical when it should be.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would bet my life and the life of everyone on this planet that it's happened.
Technically, it has, but only because I forgot to add 'recently' to that statement. I have played with GMs who absolutely did this, and in fact did it specifically to make their NPCs omnicompetent and always win. I don't play with those people any more, and haven't in years (and was thinking about my last five years or so of gaming when I posted previously).
GMs consistently do this without realizing it. It's fundamentally similar to trying to play chess against yourself. No normal human being can compartmentalize information from other parts of their brain.
Sure I can. I don't need to compartmentalize knowledge, I just need to second guess myself a little and think 'Wait, does he have any way to know that?' It's as simple as, when GMing, not getting too far into your NPCs heads while also keeping in mind what they should know.
I once had a major NPC (who was wrecking the party in many ways) die horribly because he, unlike myself, didn't know that a particular character had Combat Reflexes, and had no reason to suspect it.
It is unavoidable because it's the nature of knowledge. You can't unknow something you know.
No, but you can consciously choose to ignore it. All you have to be aware of is what the things you know that the character in question doesn't, and then think 'What should they do given they don't know that?'
Now, maybe it's not perfect (though it's quite close if you do it properly), but it's sure good enough to catch mistakes like NPCs knowing about AoO when they shouldn't.
However, similar to the player build process, GMs are sometimes required and unofficially encouraged to use meta-game knowledge in some circumstances i.e. setting up level appropriate encounters/obstacles. I would also add that GMs who intentionally use meta-game knowledge may be more likely to do it for benefit of the players i.e. attacking a PC they know can take the damage, having an NPC trigger a PC's AoO. So GMs meta-gaming isn't automatically a bad thing depending on one's definition of bad.
Generally speaking, metagaming, as a term, is making IC decisions for OOC reasons or based on OOC information. By that definition, you actually can't metagame in adventure design (despite meta-game knoweldge being essential to the process) because that's not an IC decision. It's creating a framework in which IC decisions will later be made.
You can be unfair or punitive by creating enemies that target areas PCs are weak, but that's different from having a character in-universe who selectively targets such areas without an IC reason. The former is potentially unfair, but not metagaming, the latter is both.
A GM can really only metagame by having NPCs act on knowledge that NPC could not possess in-universe. Whether doing that is bad is a slightly different question and depends on the social contract of the game in question. Personally, I don't generally play with people who do that any more, and don't do it myself, but that's a personal decision partially based on experience with people who did it abusively, not anything wrong with the practice if everyone is on board.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighters in my campaigns get attacks of opportunity all the time because the monsters don't know they have it. I didn't realize I was an exceptional GM for following this basic principle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another thread reminding me that no two people can agree on what meta-gaming is...
| 1 person 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
Close quarters combat was always limiting factor with ranged characters,
but even then if you had 3 or 4 melee characters infront of you, enemy melee had to suck up a few AoO's to get to you, softening them in the proces.
Yet another thread reminding me that no two people can agree on what meta-gaming is...
"The Metagame, or game about the game, is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."
;) :P
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.
I must admit it puzzles me. If I have a fighter, the monster has no reason to know I can make an attack of opportunity. So, every fight, the DM is supposed to move a monster and discover I have it. It's even worse with stupid monster, this monster is supposed to trigger an attack of opportunity at each and every round if its attack sequence uses a move or manipulate action.
So, I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity will generate arguments if a monster makes an action that doesn't trigger one without valid reasons. For example, if a spellcaster makes a 5-foot step before casting a spell. As it is metagaming...In my opinion, there should be a way to know that an enemy has a specific trigger set on a specific action. And enemies should know if a character has a specific trigger on a specific action.
|
| 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.I must admit it puzzles me. If I have a fighter, the monster has no reason to know I can make an attack of opportunity. So, every fight, the DM is supposed to move a monster and discover I have it. It's even worse with stupid monster, this monster is supposed to trigger an attack of opportunity at each and every round if its attack sequence uses a move or manipulate action.
So, I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity will generate arguments if a monster makes an action that doesn't trigger one without valid reasons. For example, if a spellcaster makes a 5-foot step before casting a spell. As it is metagaming...In my opinion, there should be a way to know that an enemy has a specific trigger set on a specific action. And enemies should know if a character has a specific trigger on a specific action.
This situation is the same as it was in 3.5/PF1 with Combat Reflexes - and it wasn't really an issue, same now.
This situation is the same as it was in 3.5/PF1 with Combat Reflexes - and it wasn't really an issue, same now.
I wouldn't call a 0 / 1 and 1 / X situation the same, but I agree that it is probably less of an issue if everybody is playing fair.
This situation is the same as it was in 3.5/PF1 with Combat Reflexes - and it wasn't really an issue, same now.
The difference is occurence. Combat reflexes was rare and the situation where combat reflexes could be trigger even rarer, attacks of opportunity are not.
For example, if I'm next to a monster, I'll 5-foot step before casting a spell. But I'm pretty sure if the DM does that next to our fighter, some players may think the DM is metagaming and not playing the fight as it should be. Same if he doesn't do it next to our rogue. The feeling of fairness is very important (even if we all know the GM can and is certainly cheating, we must think he's not doing it).|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This situation is the same as it was in 3.5/PF1 with Combat Reflexes - and it wasn't really an issue, same now.The difference is occurence. Combat reflexes was rare and the situation where combat reflexes could be trigger even rarer, attacks of opportunity are not.
For example, if I'm next to a monster, I'll 5-foot step before casting a spell. But I'm pretty sure if the DM does that next to our fighter, some players may think the DM is metagaming and not playing the fight as it should be. Same if he doesn't do it next to our rogue. The feeling of fairness is very important (even if we all know the GM can and is certainly cheating, we must think he's not doing it).
AoO in PF2 is about as common as anything having Combat Reflexes/Step Up/Stand Still/Any other AoO-modifing feat in PF1. And the not-problem was the same with how did the DM run monsters around a PC with the above feats or any archetype/item that made changes to AoOs.
It wasn't a problem then and it's not a problem now. Mountains and molehills.
Well, fighters as well as champions, barbarians, and monks (with investment) can exert a zone of control as can monsters for whom that is part of their deal. I don't think we need to give AoOs to wizards, hedgehogs, and owlbears to make combat tactical when it should be.
Maybe owlbears. You can make a good case for most melee-based animals having AoO since a lot of them learn to "fight" by hunting for their dinner. That being said, I think the less AoOs the better. It's a major contributing factor in how slow combat was in 3.5/PF1.
|
|
This situation is the same as it was in 3.5/PF1 with Combat Reflexes - and it wasn't really an issue, same now.The difference is occurence. Combat reflexes was rare and the situation where combat reflexes could be trigger even rarer, attacks of opportunity are not.
No? Combat Reflexes didn’t have special triggers for the extra AoOs it gave you. You just got extra AoOs.
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.I must admit it puzzles me. If I have a fighter, the monster has no reason to know I can make an attack of opportunity. So, every fight, the DM is supposed to move a monster and discover I have it. It's even worse with stupid monster, this monster is supposed to trigger an attack of opportunity at each and every round if its attack sequence uses a move or manipulate action.
So, I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity will generate arguments if a monster makes an action that doesn't trigger one without valid reasons. For example, if a spellcaster makes a 5-foot step before casting a spell. As it is metagaming...In my opinion, there should be a way to know that an enemy has a specific trigger set on a specific action. And enemies should know if a character has a specific trigger on a specific action.
There is a way to Know that for sure.
Take the action and find out :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mE6ba3qj8
No? Combat Reflexes didn’t have special triggers for the extra AoOs it gave you. You just got extra AoOs.
So, the trigger is triggering an AoO from a monster which already did his first AoO. It is quite rare, as we are rarely triggering AoOs for fun.
Now, the trigger is far more frequent: Triggering an AoO.There is a way to Know that for sure.
Take the action and find out :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mE6ba3qj8
Honestly? I think I'll do it a lot. Knowing if an enemy has AoOs or not is so important for a knowledge that I'll certainly send my animal companion next to everyone during first turn to get the info.
You can't unknow something you know.
Disagree with you Yoda does.
Yet another thread reminding me that no two people can agree on what meta-gaming is...
They agree, one side is just meta-gaming the argument to try to achieve an outcome other than what they know to be true.
|
|
No? Combat Reflexes didn’t have special triggers for the extra AoOs it gave you. You just got extra AoOs.So, the trigger is triggering an AoO from a monster which already did his first AoO. It is quite rare, as we are rarely triggering AoOs for fun.
Now, the trigger is far more frequent: Triggering an AoO.
???
Honestly? I think I'll do it a lot. Knowing if an enemy has AoOs or not is so important for a knowledge that I'll certainly send my animal companion next to everyone during first turn to get the info.
Guarded Movement Monk gives +4 AC against reactions while striding...
Monk AoO spotter new meta? Run adjacent to all enemies to know which ones have AoO.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that simple. There are some situations that are more straight-forward than others, but it's one of those things that as humans, we are largely blind to in ourselves.
Sure there are. But, for the most part, the things we are blind to are those we're emotionally invested in. People are very capable of being actually objective about things they have no emotional investment in.
And while I have an emotional investment in my games as a whole, I sure try hard not to in individual NPCs, and certainly don't n the victory of the villains. Frankly, I think having an emotional investment in the villains winning is a legitimately bad trait in a GM.
I'll give you an example:
I was in an adventure where my PC had been attacking an NPC. Another NPC was spamming Confusion. After several rounds, my PC finally succumbed. Amazingly the NPC who had been attacking me, suddenly decided he "didn't want any more of my PC" and 5' stepped pass me to attack someone who was not Confused. lol.
Oh yeah, the GM (who I think was actually one of the better GMs I've had) had convinced himself that the behavior was totally rational and not at all meta-gamed. I'll wager that GM has never used that rationale before or since outside of a possible Confusion situation. In fact, Its' been shown that the more intelligent someone is, the more they can rationalize their behavior.
Sure, but again that's behavior that they have an emotional investment in. And also again, I think you're doing it wrong if you have an emotional investment in the villains winning.
And yet, how do you know the NPC wouldn't have figured it out? Sooner, later? One of the reasons I rarely GM PFS scenarios until I play them is because it prevents me from figuring things out. If I know the answer to the puzzle, or the location of the trap, then it's impossible for me to know whether I might have figured it out myself or anticipated it. The same is true for GMs and NPCs. You can try and convince yourself you'd have done this, but you don't know that 100% of the time.
If there's any doubt, make some sort of appropriate check. That's what I do and it works just fine. That's not metagaming and is relatively objective.
Meta-gaiming is using any "external factors to affect the game". That automatically happens whenever a GM decides what monsters to put in a scenario such that it is an appropriate challenge for the players. That happens in PFS scenarios when the difficulty is adjusted based on the number of PCs. The GM has to meta-game. Ever had a scenario tell you that NPCs do X if their allies get low on health? How does the NPCs know the allies are low on health? How do the NPC Clerics know what level of healing is needed? Do you have NPCs routinely roll Knowledge checks?
Everyone meta-games. The question is whether the meta-gaming is consistent with the "social contract" the players are using.
Well, let's examine how popular discourse defines metagaming, shall we? Per this wikipedia article, it's defined as follows:
"Metagaming is a term used in role-playing games, which describes a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances."
By that definition, which appears to be the most common and generally accepted one, none of what you list is metagaming.
But yes, regardless of definition, whether metagaming is appropriate and to what degree is entirely based on the social contract of the group in question.
Someone using a bow has a hand free to trip. They only need both hands when they shoot.
This is technically correct. However how often do you see somebody with a longbow in melee? And even if the monster gets through, lets look at the following example at its associated action economy.
1) Monster attacks some fronline character twice, then uses his last action to move up to a ranger.
2) The ranger lets go of the bow (free), trips the monster (action), moves back (action), grips his bow again (action).
3) Monster gets up (action), moves up to the ranger (action), attacks (action).
4) see 2)
5) see 3)
Repeat ad infinitum.
If you need to grip your weapon again you will lose 2 actions for every trip you do, which of course is less then ideal. Thats what I meant when I wrote you "lose" actions, when you need to change grips in order to conduct a trip attempt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the reason to use a Bastard Sword instead of a Great Sword is that with the Bastard Sword you can release your grip as a free action in order to do a combat maneuver and still have a useful weapon. It's a d8 instead of d12, but it is still useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no action to re-grip a bow. Bows are not 2-handed weapons, they are 1+.
This is correct and I stand corrected in regard to bows. Thanks.
I'm not against AoO, but in the 3 actions economy and increased speed of play I love the concept of fighters (and heavily martial oriented monsters) being frightening and threatening mongers. It removes some tactics from a boardgame standpoint, but streghtens the concept. :)