| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, I tend to avoid these tactics as they are not funny to face for the players. Roughly, they have one of them going down (and thus stopping to play right away) without much way to avoid it if the encounter is properly built.
Also, it asks for intelligent opponents who coordinate themselves. Players often face unintelligent opponents, or opponents who lack coordination either because they are chaotic, or just not the same species, not used to work together, etc...
I can use such a tactic when I want to enforce the strength of a specific type of opponent.
On the player side, I think it's very important to use such tactics in PF2. The lack of attacks of opportunity makes it far easier to pull out.
Focusing fire and preventing enemies from focusing fire are the two default tactics during PF2 combat, and arguably most battle simulators.
So what concerns you?
That it's too easy to execute, too hard to defend against?
That your players haven't mastered either strategy? Can't?
Is it throwing off predicted monster challenge levels?
There was a lot of leeway in 3.X & PF1 to ignore tactics and barrel through w/ system mastery. Many of the popular tactics in the forums made for terrible advice up to and including ignoring one's AC because monsters will hit you anyway and the gold's better spent on weaponry & magic. So yeah, much of previous strategy dealt with builds & buffs rather than terrain & teamwork, which PF2 emphasizes more.
I definitely like the shift back, though yes, I doubt I'll ever build a normal Wizard or Sorcerer because I too worry about being on the receiving end of an ambush or focused fire (archers!), especially outside. And I'll always aim to have two people in my parties able to cast a max level Heal (or perhaps Soothe/Lay On Hands) so they can cover for each other.
Oh, and being able to Explore w/ a shield out is worthwhile. That first round damage mitigation helps.
Focusing fire and preventing enemies from focusing fire are the two default tactics during PF2 combat, and arguably most battle simulators.
So what concerns you?
That it's too easy to execute, too hard to defend against?
That your players haven't mastered either strategy? Can't?
Is it throwing off predicted monster challenge levels?
As said, that it is too good for both players and enemies.
I made some simulations, ended up to get a kill on both sides, depends on the odds ( with a champion, the odds are in players favor ).
Which can be translated into focusing single targets and hope you will be the one to bring the enemy down. Not so much Funny.
I don't think the tactic can be "too good" since it should be the default tactic that the mechanics assume, therefore account for. Which means perhaps the mechanics are off. But since monster levels can be adjusted to taste or to suit the context of the battle, such a flaw could be overcome. Monsters likely to get an ambush round? Using bows in open terrain? Coming in strong from an unexpected angle?
Then send in weaker monsters.Were the simulations vs. the same number of enemies at Level -2?
That can be a rough battle so maybe move it down to each at -3.
Any higher and the party should likely know it's coming.
It's also notable that single boss monsters focus fire by virtue of being alone (depending on if they have an AoE or not). So the system has to account for that level of focus anyway. (Or should.)
I've seen bosses that drop/nearly drop a PC every round...though they kinda have to because they're on the receiving end of automatic focus fire themselves.
Yeah, play the monsters to what tactics would be appropriate for them. If they are smart enough to focus fire, use focus fire. If they aren't, don't. But if they are going to use focus fire, adjust the encounter difficulty to compensate for it. Goblins probably won't be coordinated enough to do this, but hobgoblins might. So try to make sure your hobgoblins aren't already Severe encounters.
and the enemy lvl doesn't really matter ( lower level means more attacks and more chances to get a hit or crit, while a pain or higher lvl would mean average hit/crit. Outstanding if against caster or not shield users ).
The assumption you're making here is that the total encounter budget remains the same. You can just run a lower difficulty encounter with the same number of weaker enemies or less enemies in the first place. Not every battle needs to be 80-120 XP, despite what some of these early adventures are showing.
Also, having lots of enemies means more chances for some of them to roll low on initiative. It doesn't erase the chance that the PCs all lose initiative, but it does lower it, especially because lower level enemies usually have lower initiative bonuses. Despite that, your players might get unlucky. That's kind of the danger of playing a game with dice.