I just wanted to clarify something real quick.
You get your actions and reactions back on your turn, but this also means that you have no reaction on the first turn of combat until it is your turn to act, correct?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily.
Your reactions let you respond immediately to what's happening around you. The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many Reactions that only occur before you first act, or even before initiative. They don't make a point of how special they are that I recall.
You aren't flat-footed in PF2 before acting except to Rogues and people who've used Stealth (so essentially you haven't seen even if their figure's on the map), but then flat-footed doesn't rob you of Reactions anymore anyway.
PF2 uses a lot more GM interpretation in areas where context allows for too many variables for a singular ruling. This is such a place. I'd lean toward letting Reactions occur because they're just that, reactions.
Alright, thanks for the clarification.
It could be seen as very strong if you take the example of a Champion being able to react twice on the same turn (Before his turn comes up, then after his turn is done.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, thanks for the clarification.
It could be seen as very strong if you take the example of a Champion being able to react twice on the same turn (Before his turn comes up, then after his turn is done.)
That's true of any round though, provided they didn't use their reaction the previous round.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it from the point of view of the PC. In the situation where there is a Champion with that reaction, and the creature they are fighting used stealth for initiative and the Champion failed to notice them before they acted. It makes sense for the Champion to not have a reaction.
In a different situation, the party comes across a pack of wolves that are feeding on a carcass, the champion doesn't act faster than the wolves but they also weren't using stealth for initiative. In that situation it would make sense for the Champion to have a reaction.
Its all situational. In general I would rule unless someone on either side is trying to be tricky (ie. using stealth or deception for initiative) everyone would have reactions, which is a majority of all fights.
|
If the PC's chosen Exploration Mode Activity narratively aligns with the Reaction when we transition to Encounter Mode, I allow it.
Otherwise no.
If the PC's chosen Exploration Mode Activity narratively aligns with the Reaction when we transition to Encounter Mode, I allow it.
Otherwise no.
That's my general guiding principle as well. Narrative flavor aside, my general thought are:
Someone Defending, shield block is available.
If someone is Scouting, and has stated they have their weapon out, I typically allow AoO, of course most people who often scout don't have AoOs..... (But this has helps discourage the 'I'm not sure what to do, I'll just also Search' mindset where everyone w/o a unique niche to fill just searches.)
Nimble dodge & champions' reaction I tend to also lump under Scouting or Searching (rather than defending), since you need to be on the looking actively looking for threats to the party rather than defending yourself. Though in both cases its only available against enemies/hazards respectively (scouting vs. searching)
I haven't had a player have a good narrative reason for the barbarian's No Escape to be up before combat, but I think I could see someone making a case with Hustle of all things.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm much looser here. You get reactions in my game unless you got ambushed or surprised by the attack.
|
I thought about tying reactions to exploration tactics, but I run up against so many things that I just don't like.
Tying some reactions to scouting? Let's look at that. Say we have a level 7 party, tromping through book two of an AP. They have a fighter in the party and a rogue. The rogue has nimble dodge and the fighter likes his polearm for AoOs. Now you could say, they should scout so they can get their reactions. But if they both do that, then the party is getting a +1 circumstance bonus to initiative twice, which doesn't stack. So if two people want to get reactions they have to waste one person's exploration tactic? That doesn't seem like the best response to "search seems to be more popular". But it gets worse. Because the fighter actually gets a +2 circumstance bonus to initiative as a class feature at level 7, so he doesn't get anything out of scouting anyway. So he would have to do this tactic just to get an AoO? And the rogue who wants to get his reaction, should he avoid his own class feat [url=http://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=505]scout's warning[/i] like the plague?
And are you going to maintain a vast table for every possible reaction for each class, showing what you should be doing to get it? Because then when the party has to pick exploration tactics, they need to research this table and come up with some artificial selection of tactics that has less to do with today's adventure than with what it takes to get their reaction.
---
My own take is that unless something was done to make combat particularly unexpected, like a betrayal using Deception or an ambush with Stealth or invisibility, that reactions should just work.
|
|
Ascalaphus, Thread,
Going to venture a specific, then a general, response. At the end of the day, I see either interpretation as valid. And ultimately, if a little "table variation" has to be offered towards the greater good of "empowering GM via tools", that is a trade-off I am willing to make.
The Polearm Fighter, under my interpretation, has the following options:
1) Use Scout, at the risk of being redundant, to automatically begin combat with a readied Attack of Opportunity reaction
2) Switch weapons and use Defend, to automatically begin combat with a readied Shield Block reaction
3) Use a different Exploration Mode Activity; gamble on rolling a high initiative score to have all of his reactions ready
The Nimble Rogue, under my interpretation, has the following options:
1) Use Scout, at the risk of being redundant, to automatically begin combat with a readied Nimble Dodge reaction
2) Use Search, to automatically begin combat with a readied Nimble Dodge reaction if an Encounter is triggered by a trap's attack
3) Use a different Exploration Mode Activity; gamble on rolling a high initiative score to have all of her reactions ready
...
All this to say that whether or not people feel different about how entitled characters are to their first round reactions, I find that most players are interested to see that their in-game choices have a direct impact on the narrative of the game. That, the choices they make are meaningful. (You could make a similar counterargument about build choices here, but I would argue that those take a backseat to narrative choices, if only slightly).
I might even counter your claim to the contrary that deciding that because the encounter initiates with a Betrayal or Ambush, the GM deciding whether or not reactions are available is arbitrary and disconnected from player choice! In such a situation, my GM brains goes something like "Ok, there is a Betrayal / Ambush coming up; How did my PCs approach this situation, and how can I use the Exploration Mode Activities to transition this into an Encounter based on the decisions they made in their approach?"
If that makes sense.
Enjoying this discussion btw!
I have been wanting to discuss the nitty-gritty of EMAs for some time now...
|
In my home game, I make a distinction between all the exploration activities and defend in order that defend actually means something and so the other actions have consequences. So you only have your weapons drawn if you are defending. My theory is if you are say searching, you need your hands free to move brush, lift rocks, push branches, etc., generally interacting with your environment. Same theory applies to most of the other exploration activities. So if you want to be searching for hazards, or nearly constantly detecting magic, whatever, the “cost” is that you are not prepared for battle. The positive is that it places more emphasis on the alternative skills used for initiative without it feeling ancillary. It also allows me to justify the ones in defend having their reactions before their first turn which helps champions, fighters, and some barbarians. It means most of the rest of the part has to spend an extra action their first turn drawing a weapon, but in the grand scene of things I consider them to be just a bit less combat trained because they’ve had to spend time investing in their other actions. YMMV
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my home game, I make a distinction between all the exploration activities and defend in order that defend actually means something and so the other actions have consequences. So you only have your weapons drawn if you are defending. My theory is if you are say searching, you need your hands free to move brush, lift rocks, push branches, etc., generally interacting with your environment. Same theory applies to most of the other exploration activities. So if you want to be searching for hazards, or nearly constantly detecting magic, whatever, the “cost” is that you are not prepared for battle. The positive is that it places more emphasis on the alternative skills used for initiative without it feeling ancillary. It also allows me to justify the ones in defend having their reactions before their first turn which helps champions, fighters, and some barbarians. It means most of the rest of the part has to spend an extra action their first turn drawing a weapon, but in the grand scene of things I consider them to be just a bit less combat trained because they’ve had to spend time investing in their other actions. YMMV
That seems overly punitive to me, and would simply lead to a mentality of everyone Defending all the time, until we've cleared the dungeon, and then coming back to search once it's safe.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think many of these arguments are backward. If in doubt, the PC can take Reactions by default. It should be the unusual situation where they can't. IMO, it's similar to being flat-footed, in that unlike PF1, PF2 PCs are not automatically flat-footed or otherwise caught off guard.
If a PC is aware of their opponent, they should be able to react to that opponent. And being aware of one's opponent is the standard when there isn't an exception.
|
|
That seems overly punitive to me, and would simply lead to a mentality of everyone Defending all the time, until we've cleared the dungeon, and then coming back to search once it's safe.
Except it doesn’t because you still need someone looking for hazards. And scouting to look for stealthy ambushes and for the initiative bonus. And detecting magic to locate magical hazards, invisible enemies, etc. And searching for secret doors (when inside). And avoid notice so you can start an encounter undetected and to use stealth as your initiative roll. Etc.
It falls to the GM to create circumstances such that there is no one “always best” action to take during standard game time. Two of the core design principles of 2E are “choices matter” and “choices have consequences.”
That seems overly punitive to me, and would simply lead to a mentality of everyone Defending all the time, until we've cleared the dungeon, and then coming back to search once it's safe.Except it doesn’t because you still need someone looking for hazards. And scouting to look for stealthy ambushes and for the initiative bonus. And detecting magic to locate magical hazards, invisible enemies, etc. And searching for secret doors (when inside). And avoid notice so you can start an encounter undetected and to use stealth as your initiative roll. Etc.
It falls to the GM to create circumstances such that there is no one “always best” action to take during standard game time. Two of the core design principles of 2E are “choices matter” and “choices have consequences.”
Yeah, no. None of that justifies essentially imposing Slow 1 on characters who choose an option other than Defend. If I'm in a dangerous area, my weapons are out. A group of PCs is essentially a military squad. Soldiers don't put down their guns to search in a war zone.
|
|
It falls to the GM to create circumstances such that there is no one “always best” action to take during standard game time. Two of the core design principles of 2E are “choices matter” and “choices have consequences.”
This.
I would also add the increased emphasis on Teamwork. Because the RNG plays a greater narrative role, because specialization requires greater investment, because the only way to make optimal choices is through a plurality, Teamwork (or if you will: Strategy and Tactics) is of corresponding greater importance, in my opinion, in this new edition.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think these are house rules to the detriment of the game. And yeah, I'm calling them house rules not "GM interpretation" because you're imposing a systematic rule that to get reaction X, you had to be using tactic Y.
It seems you're doing this because of two things you're not satisfied with in the CRB:
(1) the GM needs something to base a decision on to say whether reactions are available at start of combat, and the book doesn't tell you what that is. You're using exploration tactics to color in the blank.
(2) you're dissatisfied that the exploration tactics aren't being used nearly equally; people seem to be mostly defaulting to Search.
Reason 2 is a bad one I think. Yes, exploration tactics aren't being used evenly - I haven't ever seen any scenario where Investigate would have actually done something. Scout isn't useful for more than one person to do simultaneously. Also, rogues and rangers have a class feat to make the tactic redundant entirely. Fighters no longer gain any benefit from it starting at level 7, but anyone can take Incredible Initiative as a general feat to not need it. Detect Magic is sometimes useful, but mostly to not need a Perception check to spot a treasure bundle. Rogues are strongly pushed to Avoid Notice so they can actually use their class feature Surprise Attack. Defend is only relevant to people with shields. But Search... well traps hit really hard.
I don't know if exploration tactics were even really meant to be equal. Most of them also have a cost in movement speed. Part of the choice seems to be "do we actually all need to have a tactic or would we rather have the slow dwarf just move normally"?
Anyway, I don't think tying reactions to exploration tactics is a good solution for the unevenness of exploration tactics. You're forcing a lot of people to take a not very useful action to avoid losing something entirely different.
I think what TwilightKnight says about Defend is even worse. There is no rule in the book saying you can't walk around in the dungeon with weapons drawn. Defend makes your shield raised, at the cost of moving slower. It's basically saying "I spend an action every round to raise my shield, and that's why I'm not taking as many move actions". But instead of saying that for every 25ft of movement, you just call it an exploration tactic and speed up the game. Meanwhile, drawing a weapon takes only one action. Forcing someone to take a tactic focused on raising a shield just so you can have your two-handed polearm out? That doesn't make sense to me. And the reasons why you need your hands free don't hold up that well if you look at them closely. You don't need hands free to cast detect magic, because you can use somatic components with your hands full. You should be able to search while essentially holding a ten foot pole. The Defend tactic is about repeating an action every round; drawing a weapon takes just one action.
A lot of you bring up "making significant choices", but you're forcing people to use useless tactics to get an entirely different benefit that you house ruled in. You didn't make the choice between the original exploration tactics interesting because half of them are still useless. You're now choosing between "AoO" or "spot traps"; that you happen to be raising a shield that you as a polearm fighter don't even wear - that's not an interesting choice you're making.
|
|
Ascalaphus,
I sense you have a strong opinion here. So strong, you are calling my GM interpretation a "house rule". To that end, I will almost cease to argue that point here, as really, it might reduce to semantics. Almost. My parting comment will be that GM interpretation is somewhat of a repeating theme of 2e. And perhaps our fundamental disagreement is as to the merits of that decision by the designers.
With regards to Society play, having run and played nearly every scenario and quest so far, I generally agree about your point #2. My points of disagreement would refer back to my remarks above.
Where I see "interesting choices" you see "GMs forcing" - what can be said in reconciliation?
Cheers.
|
|
This all boils down to one basic concept. It’s the GM’s campaign and they do whatever they feel is right for their game and the players can chose to participate in it or not. IMO, the collaboration between GM and players is within the scope of the narrative, not the fundamentals of the rules that govern the framework. It’s like a movie where the story (ie the campaign rules) comes from the director (GM) and the actors (players) can bring their talent and experience to create their character within the story and how they react to it, but they don’t control the story or the mechanisms under which it unfolds.
But to be completely honest, I don’t understand why most of the conversation/arguments in the message boards even exist. Every rule published is optional and if the GM has some reason, however good or bad anyone else feels about, to implement it, it is what it is. The campaign belongs to them. It’s their story, their narrative. tl;dr, it’s the classic “rule 0” dynamic. YMMV