|
To build a bit on what TwilightKnight said -
Try to achieve something useful every round, and build your character so that you can do that under many different circumstances.
It breaks my heart when you have a character that spends most of a turn moving towards enemies, gets peppered with some ranged attacks, and then enemies move and the character has to spend a lot of actions to move again.
Or when one character wins initiative, charges to the front all on their own, gets hammered, and has to spend the next round retreating.
Sometimes it pays to delay even past enemy turns just so you can run in there as a pair, able to cover each others' backs.
Also, if you have a long-range attack, you can open up with that and spend your last action getting some cover, instead of spending a whole round closing in with enemies. Get the most value out of your actions, force the enemy to spend most of their actions moving instead of you doing it.
And importantly: approach combats with an open mind. Especially combats that look like a clever set piece. If you're dropped on a custom map with enemies positioned just so, and a hazard of some kind, then don't bull-headedly stick to your standard tactics, cuz it's probably going to hurt.
The special case of this is encounters where each PC has to do something hard to even get to the enemy - climb a rope ladder, swim through a tunnel, wade through a deep swamp with megacrocodiles in it etcetera; those have a tendency to separate you from your healer and set you up to get full attacked by enemies that are just waiting for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exploration is a phase that is quite different from 1st edition!
The times we've been tpked or almost tpked generally resulted in us (and the gm) treating exploration as normal sort of combat.
The 'Unique' tag on a named NPC does not increase the DC of Recall Knowledge checks about them.
I saw that mistake in PFS once or twice.
Well, specifically, does not increase the DC to recall knowledge about the type of creature that they're a singular example of. Things that are actually unique to them still belong gated behind a Unique level Dc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great points all.
Just to be clear, I was not saying that it was unrealistic to flank the party or otherwise try and get around a front line. I was stating that it was unrealistic for most (not all) enemies to want to attempt rushing THROUGH an obvious defensive front line. I was advising GMs against doing so if the situation didn't specifically warrant such a tactic. Just because the game mechanics make it technically possible, doesn't mean that a GM should do it regularly.
I'm not trying to be contrary here, but do you normally have enough characters (particularly characters that will form up) to make any kind of a line meaningful? If you've got five characters consisting of a rogue, an archery ranger, a fighter, a paladin and a sorcerer, I'm not expecting anyone but the paladin and the fighter to form any kind of real line; the sorcerer and the ranger will likely hang back and the rogue will most likely keep moving around trying to find a way to either flank or stealth up on someone. So you've got two guys trying to keep people away from another two folks, and one roving threat.
If you routinely have three or four characters forming a real line I can understand your position more.
This is view point as well, I've never really been in a group that's had more than 2 front line melee type characters, even in a groups as large as 6.
Typically there's plenty of room for an enemy to run between the two people in the front.
Only 2-3 combats a day?
That conflicts with my experience, as well as my desired play style.
That said, one does have to discern how one's adventuring day will play out. Outside, there may be one taxing encounter per day, a tower might have several fights, and a keep might have many more (perhaps with multiple incursions).
Only 2-3 combats a day?
That conflicts with my experience, as well as my desired play style.That said, one does have to discern how one's adventuring day will play out. Outside, there may be one taxing encounter per day, a tower might have several fights, and a keep might have many more (perhaps with multiple incursions).
Well, that's typical for scenarios/APs. I think there's been one scenario that had more, but in general, my impression is that the intent is around 3 reasonably trying combats per day.
EDIT: I've played in AP's that have had up to 4, but really never more, and given I've done every AP so far.... unless you're pushing things because you want to, I think 2-3 is expected, 3-4 is on the high end.
My players once finished a 14-room dungeon in an AP module nonstop. 11 of those rooms had threats at moderate or severe level. I suspect that the module writer expected the party to clear the dungeon over 2 separate days. The party's official reasoning was that they did not want to give the enemies time to get organized and put up a resistance together. The player's reasoning was that they wanted an difficult challenge. The party did have the advantage of coming in fully rested with 4 PCs and 4 NPCs.
Even across 2 days, that would have been 5 or 6 significant combat encounters per day.
Exploration is a phase that is quite different from 1st edition!
The times we've been tpked or almost tpked generally resulted in us (and the gm) treating exploration as normal sort of combat.
I wanted to add on to this that so many players that I've encountered seem to forget about Exploration rules.
Have someone Scouting for that +1 to initiative, Defend as a frontliner, rogues especially should be Avoiding Notice, spellcasters should be Detecting Magic or Repeating a Spell like Shield.
Spellcasting edition:
1. Someone mentioned this earlier, but don't conserve your spells to the point of hurting the party. In general, you can expect 2-3 combats if you're playing in a standard scenario over the course of a day. That means you can cast one spell of every level *each* combat.
2. Remember spell attacks can benefit from flanking. It's a risky strategy to use, as casters don't typically want to be close to enemies, but if you're there already, may as well take advantage. EDIT: It might be worth getting a whip if you want to make a lot of spell attack rolls...
3. Don't use lower-level slots for damage spells. Remember to swap them out/memorize different things as you level up. Debuffs and buffs typically perform well at lower levels later in the game, but damage spells need to be higher level to do reasonably (outperform cantrips).
4. Remember damage types! Weaknesses and resistances matter, so spamming electric arc, as good as it is, isn't the thing to do against enemies with fire weakness/cold weakness/electric resist. If you are going the damage dealing route, make sure to have a couple elements available.
5. Remember physical resistances *do* apply to your spells that deal B/S/P damage, and plan accordingly against Golems and the like.
6. Incapacitation is easy to miss, and it matters a lot. Things like Slow, that don't have Incapacitation, are very good spells for bosses. Things with incapacitation can be good, but don't use them in fights with only a couple enemies (as they'll likely be higher level).
So for point 3 is the suggestion that if a sorcerer picks a damage spell then when they gain their next level of spells they should either make it signature (which doesn’t sound worth it by your logic) or retrain it and if they want to keep it learn the higher level version?
Which I suppose leads to a question on sorcerers about when it may be worth learning a higher level version of a lower level spell as opposed to just a higher level spell. For example is it ever worth them learning a 3rd level burning hands (or indeed a wizard preparing it) over learning fireball - this might be a bad example but was the first to come to mind
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasting edition:
1. Someone mentioned this earlier, but don't conserve your spells to the point of hurting the party. In general, you can expect 2-3 combats if you're playing in a standard scenario over the course of a day. That means you can cast one spell of every level *each* combat.
2. Remember spell attacks can benefit from flanking. It's a risky strategy to use, as casters don't typically want to be close to enemies, but if you're there already, may as well take advantage. EDIT: It might be worth getting a whip if you want to make a lot of spell attack rolls...
3. Don't use lower-level slots for damage spells. Remember to swap them out/memorize different things as you level up. Debuffs and buffs typically perform well at lower levels later in the game, but damage spells need to be higher level to do reasonably (outperform cantrips).
4. Remember damage types! Weaknesses and resistances matter, so spamming electric arc, as good as it is, isn't the thing to do against enemies with fire weakness/cold weakness/electric resist. If you are going the damage dealing route, make sure to have a couple elements available.
5. Remember physical resistances *do* apply to your spells that deal B/S/P damage, and plan accordingly against Golems and the like.
6. Incapacitation is easy to miss, and it matters a lot. Things like Slow, that don't have Incapacitation, are very good spells for bosses. Things with incapacitation can be good, but don't use them in fights with only a couple enemies (as they'll likely be higher level).So for point 3 is the suggestion that if a sorcerer picks a damage spell then when they gain their next level of spells they should either make it signature (which doesn’t sound worth it by your logic) or retrain it and if they want to keep it learn the higher level version?
Which I suppose leads to a question on sorcerers about when it may be worth learning a higher level version of a lower level spell as opposed to just a higher level spell....
I suggest a Sorcerer (et al) map out their spell repertoire so they can make the best choices of when and where to change, pick up, or designate as Signature. Unless Retraining is commonplace that is (which depends a lot on timelines). Mapping ahead is messy, but still simpler than a Wizard having to guess/determine their preparations every day. :)
One thing I did was list each spell level's spells I wanted to cast, including the Heightened versions I wanted access to.
Some of the Incapacitation ones stand out as awkward since they can clog up the top levels unless you make them Signature, despite not casting them at low levels much. Can't juggle too many of them or Counteract spells. Have to choose wisely.
Remember that items in your backpack take 2 actions to access (as you have to remove the backpack from your back before you can access items within it) - bandoliers and belt pouches are your friends!
Also, mathematically, it generally is more effective to use one of your three actions to inflict a status effect than to try to attack a third time in your turn - this has the added advantage of giving your fighters turn some variety.
You're quoting a first edition module, which I'll omit due to spoilers.... We're talking second edition here. This doesn't remotely apply. In first edition, a single spell of any level could oftentimes end a fight, that's not true in second edition.My players once finished a 14-room dungeon in an AP module nonstop. ... Even across 2 days, that would have been 5 or 6 significant combat encounters per day.
** spoiler omitted **
We have seen only 2 Adventure Paths, one stand-alone module, a free RPG Day module, and a few PFS society scenarios written for Pathfinder 2nd Edition. The description of the APs I have seen in the forums is that their combat is harsh. I bought Fall of Plaguestone and see a lot of Severe-threat combat encounters. My guess about content written for PF2 is that the players have to limit themselves to two or three encounters a day because those encounters are brutal.
In contrast, I have been converting Ironfang Invasion, a PF1 Adventure Path, to PF2 rules, mostly by replacing creatures from PF1 Bestiaries with the same creatures from the PF2 Bestiaries, though sometimes I have to follow the PF2 Gamemastery Guide in building unique creatures.
I have observed a style change with PF2, which makes this discussion suitable for the theme of this Public Service Announcement thread.
tivadar27 is right that the methods that could quickly end a fight in PF1, such as a failed save against a Save-or-Die spell or the massive damage of a powergamed martial character, are weakened in PF2. Fortunately, my players never cared for the rocket-tag style of play, and their teamwork tactics are just as effective in PF2.
These tactics can be sustained across several successive encounters, as my players had done in the aforementioned PF1 module. I believe that the PF2 developers deliberately made sustainable abilities more common in PF2, in order to eliminate the 15-minute workday of PF1.
I had a startling example of this when my party went off the rails at 4th level and decided to scout out a hobgoblin garrison. I quickly threw together the garrison with 11 1st-level hobgoblin soldiers (12 xp each), 4 2nd-level hobgoblin heavy troopers (16 xp each), 2 4th-level hobgoblin archers (32 xp each), and 1 5th-level spriggan (48 xp). (The xp numbers look odd because the party has 5 members so I multiply the xp by 4/5.) That summed to 308 xp, well beyond extreme threat, so I thought the party would scout and leave. Nope, after scouting they decided to wipe out the garrison.
The party first lured away 4 hobgoblin soldiers and defeated them in isolation. Later they holed up in an abandoned building where the melee martials could control access to the interior while a druid and archer rogue picked off people outside from the 2nd-floor windows. Windows are great for the Take Cover action, though these high-Stealth player characters used the Hide action instead. The fighting continued round after round.
After the 5th-level spriggan commander was killed, the overzealous elf ranger decided to take down the 4th-level hobgoblin archer who took command, and went outside. That was a mistake, since both hobgoblin archers ganged up on him, and dropped the ranger in the two rounds during which the rest of party took down all remaining low-level hobgoblins. The druid use her single Heal spell, the party defeated the hobgoblin archers, the champion Laid on Hands on the ranger, and they all ended with hit points down in the teens or single digits.
PF2 enemies are easier to defeat with tactics that take advantage of terrain or of deficiencies in the enemy build than by raw power. Low-level battlefield-control spells, such as Grease, can be tactically combined with cantrip spellcasting to defeat several low-level enemies. This is better than using 1 low-level spell to defeat 1 low-level enemy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does "Do not fish for 20s and make 3rd Attack MAP Strikes if you have ANY other option" count?
As a GM, thats a big one where I ask, "Are you sure?"
I'm thinking of getting some players out of this habit by throwing a Swashbuckler at 'em. :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have seen only 2 Adventure Paths, one stand-alone module, a free RPG Day module, and a few PFS society scenarios written for Pathfinder 2nd Edition. The description of the APs I have seen in the forums is that their combat is harsh. I bought Fall of Plaguestone and see a lot of Severe-threat combat encounters. My guess about content written for PF2 is that the players have to limit themselves to two or three encounters a day because those encounters are brutal.
Fall of Plaguestone is not representative. I believe even the designers have admitted that it's overtuned and more difficult than modules are usually intended to be.
That's certainly true in comparison to the other published PF2 content thus far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS scenarios are kind of their own thing, if we're looking for encounter/day expectations. Their length is constrained by real world hours, not by adventuring party endurance.
I really don't think that's a sound assumption. Especially since while there is a standard time frame for PFS sessions, there is no standard for the length of home game sessions in general. For that matter, the relationship between days and sescions varies wildly based on the type if adventuring you're doing.
If you're hexcrawling across a vast wilderness, you may have at mist 1-2 encounters per day, but cover a week per session. If you're fighting your way through a fortress-like dungeon, you can expect a lot if encounters to happen, and if you leave partway through to get some sleep, you can expect everything to be heavily fortified against you when you return.
I'm not only talking about my mileage. People I've talked to about their games range from 2 hour sessions on weeknights all the way to 8-12 hour Saturday marathons.
I have no grounds to consider any of them a standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have seen only 2 Adventure Paths, one stand-alone module, a free RPG Day module, and a few PFS society scenarios written for Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
There's been 27 seen PFS scenarios written for Pathfinder 2nd Edition as well as 14 Quests. It doesn't equal the output of the preceding edition's scenario output but that was a decade of scenarios. There will be 2 more available by the end of August bringing the scenario total to almost 30.
But it is more than a few. You shouldn't downplay it. The amount of scenarios written doesn't even appear to be germane to your discussion of converting Ironfang. If you're converting it due to the few scenarios we have seen, good news you can stop because there's more than a few available.
If you're converting it because of the way you feel the Paizo design ethos is towards Pathfinder 2nd Edition there's no need to diminish the amount of scenario output because it is indeed more than a few.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't spam cantrips unless you're sure the fight is already won. Using mid/low level slots is a much better way to conserve spells for later fights.
i kinda disagree, especially at low level. level 1 you only have 2 slots even! by level 8 or so id agree.
Curious as to how you're getting this number. There's some anomalous areas, but... yeah, it seems like "areas" we've been in have assumed 3ish, sometimes 4. I don't recall, outside of early first book, ever really doing 5. On the other end of things, there was the hexploration, where the number was pretty much 1-2 every day... though those were more challenging for balance reasons.
Book 1 I would imagine many people do the first floor and second floor in single days.
Book 2 Mostly hexploration but the final fortress is 5+ encounters back to back.
Book 3 coastal encounters. The game has the party fight up to 7 encounters.
Extinction curse
Book 1 first night is a string of encounters (although many don't have to be combat), then there is the chapter 2 temple where I would imagine many groups would do it in one sitting.
It probably averages out to 2-3 but there are plenty of times where it goes above that in my experience so far.
Starfinder is, obviously, a different systemail than PF2. I will use it as abother example of not having a guaranteed standard of encounters per day or 1 day/session because Starounder Society does give the same kind of steady formula on number of encounters in a day that Pathfinder Society does, for the same reasons.
Outside of society, at the extreme ends I've had a single 5 round running combat last 3 sessions, and had a single adventuring day end up including 17 encounters before there was finally a chance to rest. The assumptions of a 4-5 hour one shot scenario don't at all reach the limits of the system there, either.
...at the extreme ends I've had a single 5 round running combat last 3 sessions...
Jesus, that sounds like a special kind of hell. I get annoyed when combats run much over 30-45minutes as a rule (depending on size).
...at the extreme ends I've had a single 5 round running combat last 3 sessions...Jesus, that sounds like a special kind of hell. I get annoyed when combats run much over 30-45minutes as a rule (depending on size).
its not 2e, but in my groups dnd 5e, multiple encounters last 2-4 hours by themselves, this is partially due to us being overpowered (dm's hosue rules) and using many creatures to combat us across an odd level disparity within the party (dm's decision).
we also have 6 people when everyone shows.
...at the extreme ends I've had a single 5 round running combat last 3 sessions...Jesus, that sounds like a special kind of hell. I get annoyed when combats run much over 30-45minutes as a rule (depending on size).its not 2e, but in my groups dnd 5e, multiple encounters last 2-4 hours by themselves, this is partially due to us being overpowered (dm's hosue rules) and using many creatures to combat us across an odd level disparity within the party (dm's decision).
we also have 6 people when everyone shows.
A couple people in my group used to be in a 9 person 5e game. They were once in a combat that spanned multiple 4 hour sessions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Curious as to how you're getting this number. There's some anomalous areas, but... yeah, it seems like "areas" we've been in have assumed 3ish, sometimes 4. I don't recall, outside of early first book, ever really doing 5. On the other end of things, there was the hexploration, where the number was pretty much 1-2 every day... though those were more challenging for balance reasons.
Book #2 with the Hexploration is indeed a bit of an exception. However, Book #1 has a lot of '5 or so' areas, which I must admit is the one I remembered best and what I was basing that statement on.
Book #3 opens with two shorter sections (of two and three encounters respectively) but then throws you into a plotline that involves stopping something time sensitive and terrible that is seven encounters long (so, basically a forced seven encounter day), there are then several more short ones at two to three encounters each, but the assumption seems to me to be that you might do two in a day, though you certainly don't have to. There is then a nine encounter dungeon, which based on theme is broken into two real sections, so I'd say it is expected to come in at two days.
That's certainly a bit shorter than I was recalling, but not a lot.
Book 4 begins with a single encounter, then a seven encounter dungeon. I don't think PCs are expected to do all that in a day, but I also don't think more than two is to be expected either. Things are then more or less at the PCs pace for a while, then there's a three encounter dungeon, then a 'city' with five street encounters as you go between places (which the campaign expects you to have all of), with a pair of two encounter dungeons and a one big encounter dungeon as well. I don't know how many days that's supposed to be, but you're definitely getting encounters in the streets at least once per dungeon, and more likely twice (coming and going). At a day per dungeon, that's three days for 10 encounters. There is then a final dungeon with 12 encounters, which I'd say is probably three days or so (the last section, which is separate is 4 of those encounters and should probably be done in a day).
Again, that's a bit shorter than I was remembering, but more '4 or so encounters per day' than '2 to 3'.
Book 5 opens with a four encounter dungeon, followed by a two encounter event, followed by some more self directed social stuff for quite a while. Five of these options are single, difficult, encounters, and another is a set of two. All are likely a day a piece given the time frame involved, but like the Hexploration that's due to specific circumstances. There is then a 17 encounter dungeon with an explicit 72 hour time limit, and reinforcements coming after only 24, and loot going down after 48. So...yeah, that's maybe four rest periods? Probably less. So probably two or three rest periods and 18 encounters in three or four 'days' (reinforcements making things harder). You can do it quicker since you're after specific stuff...but 'quicker' is the operative word there.
I think that fits my 'roughly four encounters per day' math pretty well.
Book 6 opens with two waves of five and four encounters respectively (okay, the second is split in two, but only by an hour). It's not even clear to me that the GM is supposed to allow sleep between the two (it just says 'time to recover') though that's a reasonable interpretation. There is then a two encounter dungeon, followed by a single encounter (both of which, I think, are probably supposed to be in one day). From there, things probably become investigative for a bit, followed by a three encounter dungeon, then a single encounter one. There is then a large social encounter, and maybe a fight. This is followed a section of eight or nine encounters, which I'd guess most PCs will take two or three days to do.
This again, mostly hits four or so encounters a day on average, though some days might obviously be less.
Agreed, though, that being able to break whenever makes this harder to measure. Still, this goes back to a discussion of "using your spells". I think it's safe to say using 1 of your highest or second highest spells per combat (minimum 5) is perfectly reasonable, and if you're playing on the lower end of encounters per day, then the rule of one spell per level generally is a good one (particularly for sorcerers and wizards...).
Oh, totally. I definitely think more than 5 encounters in a day is rare, and that tough encounters will decrease that number sometimes, at least potentially. Two or three a day is indeed totally possible, but I don't think it's the default assumption. I'd say the default assumption is more like 4 or so, with anywhere between 2 and 7 possible (one is also possible, but not to be relied on).
There's been 27 seen PFS scenarios written for Pathfinder 2nd Edition as well as 14 Quests. It doesn't equal the output of the preceding edition's scenario output but that was a decade of scenarios. There will be 2 more available by the end of August bringing the scenario total to almost 30.
I agree that this is more than a few. I also agree that PFS scenario design is often different and not necessarily reflective of the design intent of other scenarios.
So, typo above. That was supposed to say a 51 round combat that lasted 3 sessions. Not 5 round. Multiple waves of reinforcements, had to party split to achieve multiple objectives, evacuating injured noncombatants. A whole lot going on.
So, typo above. That was supposed to say a 51 round combat that lasted 3 sessions. Not 5 round. Multiple waves of reinforcements, had to party split to achieve multiple objectives, evacuating injured noncombatants. A whole lot going on.
LOL
That is a bit different!|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS scenarios are kind of their own thing, if we're looking for encounter/day expectations. Their length is constrained by real world hours, not by adventuring party endurance.... I disagree in some ways here. Yeah, these are limited by real-world time, but I also feel like PF2 was designed around feasible real-world time blocks. Assuming PCs can "wrap up" a concrete set of things and have a night's sleep before the next in-person session, even outside of PFS play, is extremely desirable. Half the times as a player by the time we meet for another session, I've forgotten if I've used a particular spell/lost a record of who's been Battle Medicined/... As a GM, this pretty much happens to at least one of my players always. Making an adventurer's day the same length as a player's block of gaming makes a lot of design sense, and I get the impression that's what Paizo was aiming at with PF2. Pacing really does matter.
I agree with this. A lot of imbalance in PF1/3.x was because the gaming style of a lot of groups was "we get together on a Tuesday night for 3 hours of gaming, in which we push the plot, do some RP, and have a fight".
Meanwhile, the balance model for those editions assumed multiple fights over an adventuring day, which gradually wore down PC resources. But the gaming style tends to have one fight every few days instead. And since that fight is the big setpiece of the game session, it's going to be a bit bigger. This is one of the reasons CR+X fights were far more common than "4 CR = APL fights" which was the ostensible model.
Second edition seems to facilitate this playstyle a lot more, by making it pretty easy to reset a lot of power in between encounters. With easy 10 minute healing and refocusing and cantrips, even spellcasters can keep going for many encounters as long as they're separated by breaks, because you're expending a lot of "encounter" resources rather than "daily" resources. The flip side of this is, you can't nova quite as hard, because you only have so much focus points and such, so the system that allows a party to take on multiple Severe encounters over a day, doesn't trivialize days where you have only one Severe encounter.
---
Putting that back together, what does that mean for tactics?
I think casters should weigh when to cast "daily" spells and when to use focus and cantrips. I think some high impact spells from slots as an opener, followed by more sustainable resources later on, is probably optimal for a longer mission.
Compare casting your big spell early in the combat, to doing it late. Let's say fireball.
If you drop your fireball early in an encounter that wasn't hard, you wasted it. Okay, that's a risk. Hopefully you get better at spotting which encounters are gonna be hard.
Now suppose the encounter isn't easy. There's a boss and some mooks. The mooks are close enough to the party's level (say, level -1, pretty normal for mooks) so they have a decent chance of hitting on their own, and they try to set up flanks for the boss.
If you throw your fireball early, you'll probably get a less complicated area of effect because the other PCs aren't in the middle of it yet. Also, you will do some big damage to the mooks, and then your party can quickly focus fire on whichever mooks are most damaged. That quickly takes some of them out of the fight.
Now compare to waiting, because you didn't want to risk throwing your fireball. But finally you decide to do it and instantly kill some of the mooks. Satisfying! But in the couple of rounds that they were there, they did more damage to the party and helped the boss land some sneak attacks or turn some hits into crits.
So my take is, it's a strong move to open up in combat with a big spell that changes the tactical situation. After that you can see how the combat is going and either conserve resources (cantrip, focus spell) or continue firing the big guns.
...
I completely agree. In my opinion, the best way to play a caster is start strong and tune down when you feel that the encounter is solved.
Actually, it's a very binary process. Throw Fireballs (or whatever high level spells) while the outcome of the encounter isn't clear and when you know the PCs have won switch to cantrips. For most encounters you will switch in round 3 and even quite often in round 2.Resource conservation is not very efficient and extremely frustrating (this second point is the more important one, having to tune down your casting always is just an exercise in frustration).
I don't even like the -5 if I have a better option. Rogue with a wizard dedication led to "I sneak attack with the shortbow, and use my remaining 2 actions to cast daze."Does "Do not fish for 20s and make 3rd Attack MAP Strikes if you have ANY other option" count?
As a GM, thats a big one where I ask, "Are you sure?"
Yep, though it depends heavily on your options. A second attack is a good idea if you have a class feature that supports it (even if thats just being "I'm a fighter with a free +2 to hit"), and generally pretty meh if you dont have something to augment it.
In a case like your rogues, I'd likely choose between Daze and a second attack based on whether I think a good roll on the second attack could drop the foe, or if were still just grinding away at the enemies hp bar.
But importantly... think tactically!
i like to second attack if, bare minimum, we have the enemy flat footed somehow. or some other penalty to its ac or bonus to my to hit.
both?
im definitely attacking twice.
only time id attack 3 times is for specific turret style characters like ranger or dual wield fighter. but id rather go two hand fighter or even one hand.
only time id attack 3 times is for specific turret style characters like ranger or dual wield fighter. but id rather go two hand fighter or even one hand.
It is fine if you are ranged and are confident that you won't be in danger the next turn (and there is nothing else helpful for the group that you can do).
only time id attack 3 times is for specific turret style characters like ranger or dual wield fighter. but id rather go two hand fighter or even one hand.It is fine if you are ranged and are confident that you won't be in danger the next turn (and there is nothing else helpful for the group that you can do).
And you don't have an animal companion.