|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: Do notice you never stated the positions of the bandits or players. Yes, I did. The bandits are at their ambush location waiting for someone to enter it, and the players are just outside that ambush zone - because that's where the rules of PF2 dictate the encounter begins, because that's the moment, to quote the first sentence of Encounter Mode "When every individual action counts" because it is those every individual actions that determine the success or failure of this ambush.
Temperans wrote: This is a situation were everyone needs to think carefully about avoiding metagaming No, this is a situation that highlights that meta-gaming is a nonsense concept that tries to force players to not play the game and originates from an attitude of the GM and the players being functionally opponents (and the GM being assumed to be altruistic and good and only interested in everyone having fun, and the players assumed to be constantly and deliberately trying to ruin everything for everyone just to brag about how much they made the GM sad or angry).
The term "meta-gaming", other than the way WotC tried to re-define it as "thinking about the game from a game perspective, such as 'the GM wouldn't put a monster in the adventure that is too high level for us to fight and have a good chance to defeat'" is completely useless. For example, you're probably meaning that in this situation it'd be "meta-gaming" for the players to have their characters do things like draw their weapons or start checking the trees for hidden attackers... but that's not at all out of line. Even if there weren't any bandits present, just a rock slide or a tree blocking a road, a character could take those very same actions for the very same reason (that they are worried this is an ambush).
Temperans wrote: Its perfectly possible for the bandits to be behind as for them to be in front. It's not, because of how PF2's encounter mode of play works. Now, a different scenario - one not a statically located ambush into which the party might walk - could have the bandits behind the PCs. For example, if instead of being ambush-bandits we had some horse-gang bandits that periodically ride at high speed down a road to try and catch travelers off guard, they could be coming down the road from behind the party after having been nowhere near it when the party passed their previous location.
Temperans wrote: Its also a point were VTTs make things easier since you can place enemies in another layer. VTTs are indeed wonderful for this, but the encounter style is still possible on an actual table - both by theater of the mind play (though that makes adjudicating Seek actions a lot less precise), and by only placing what the party has noticed on the map they can see and the GM using an out of player view map to track bandit positions (or just having selected which of the terrain features the party can see on the map each bandit is hidden behind) and only placing the minis in view of the players once they've been noticed.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Meta gaming that there is someone present when you see no one is bad because it breaks verisimilitude. If you dont know if an enemy there is no reason to ready your weapons as if a fight will start.
Meragaming is not a bad concept because it clearly defines when the players or GM is cheating by having the character use knowledge they should never have had.
In the case of the ambush if neither side saw each other then they pass by each other without starting combat. If someone does something to break stealth than yeah the combat would start. This is why secret checks and passive perception are useful things to have.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: Meta gaming that there is someone present when you see no one is bad because it breaks verisimilitude. If you dont know if an enemy there is no reason to ready your weapons as if a fight will start. No one needs to be present in order for a person, and thus a character, to think "I am in danger" and get out a weapon. They could easily be mistaken.
The only knowledge being used in this discussion right now that is genuinely knowledge the character doesn't have is you using the knowledge that the potentially completely basely paranoia happens to be correct.
Temperans wrote: Meragaming is not a bad concept because it clearly defines when the players or GM is cheating by having the character use knowledge they should never have had. It is a bad concept because of exactly what you've just demonstrated; In your effort to stop a player from using their own knowledge, rather than only what their character is experiencing, you actually did exactly what you were trying to avoid - you decided, because the player knows that this is an encounter so danger of some kind definitely is present, the character must act oblivious to the entire idea of an ambush.
That's how absolutely insidious the guy that wrote down the whole "metagaming is using player knowledge when your character doesn't have it, and that's cheating, so it's bad" idea was being - he's tricked tons of people into using player knowledge to make their character look obliviously unintelligent in order to prove they aren't cheating, instead of looking at a situation from the perspective of "could the character do those actions without knowing they are the right actions?" and finding that yes, almost always, what the character does no is sufficient to explain the actions and "that's meta-gaming" is just a smokescreen for a GM to say "No fair!" when a character does anything but suck and die and the whim strikes them.
Temperans wrote: In the case of the ambush if neither side saw each other then they pass by each other without starting combat. In PF2 Encounter does not equal combat. The way that "if neither side saw each other" is determined is via Encounter Mode - each taking turns, each using actions, proceeding on step by step, and if no one ever manages to be Seeking in the right area at the right time and gets a high enough check, and no one manages to become something other than unnoticed or undetected by using actions besides those listed in the Stealth rules or by ending up without any means to not be observed, then they have passed buy each other without combat.
It is not just "you rolled stealth and beat their perception DCs, and they rolled stealth and beat your perception DCs" and then no encounter at all.
Temperans wrote: This is why secret checks and passive perception are useful things to have. The inclusion of secret checks in the PF2 rules is a placation to the crowd that still believes a player will play "wrong" if they have information, not an actually useful tool. Doing away with the secrecy has zero negative impact on the game - especially because secret checks, without a VTT at least, are not as secret as advertised. Sure, the player doesn't know how well the roll went, but they heard the die roll and they have context clues that fill them in just as well on what's going on and how their roll actually went - unless the GM has spent the whole session deliberately rolling dice almost non-stop so that there's no context to any roll and the player then actually might be unaware of the outcome of a secret check.
Secret checks, because of the additional work needed to actually use them and the lack of comparable gain for doing that added work, are a waste of effort.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Gleeful Grognard wrote: Cyder wrote: Depends on the enemy, tactics and the encounter but generally in games I run and play in if there is a smart enemy that has an option to kill the squishy then that is what they will do.
Even predators target the weakest members of the herd.
Also smart enemies are as capable as characters at finding ways to get to the back line or having ambushers circling and coming from behind.
I find the idea that smart enemies focusing on the hard to kill enemies a little abhorrent, games I play NPCS are more than just loot pinatas.
In short yes, in the cast of smart enemies of even pack tactic predators, the backline can and will be attacked.
Smart foes aren't likely to stand and fight to the death and if they are fighting to the death they will prioritize what looks like their best chance at survival / reaching their most important goal.
I find that people who have creatures that primarily focus on optimal tactics ignore the element where these creatures want to survive encounters and don't know exact capabilities of foes.
Agreed but this is why they will generally distract the herd protectors while one or two of their number lie in wait to attack the weaker 'protected' members. The idea being to bring the weakest prey down and then if necessary wait and watch from a distance if they can't scare the herd off and then come back for the kill. I would say predatory instinct would definitely help single out the physically weakest/skinniest/smallest prey, instinctively they know they are the centre of back of the herd. Its not a big leap. Predators engaging in a fight to the death with the herd protectors is unnatural unless it is hit and run to distract. They generally won't attack unless they feel like they have the numbers to take down at least 1 and survive. But generally I can't see (animal) predators attacking a party unless they have numberical superiority and a position where they can come from multiple sides not just face smash the front.
If there is only 1 or two (melee) monsters constrained by a tunnel/doorway then sure they have to go through the front line or just run and kite/get reinforcements. But generally most monsters in my game won't initiate an attack unless they feel they have a good advantage and will generally run if they feel they don't unless they have no other choice. This whole they attack the juggernauts at the front thing as a priority is weird, distract and occupy the harder to kill targets while they got for the squishies in earnest. Everyone here acts light front liners get unlimited reactions per round or monsters/intelligent foes can't use tactics of have means of bypassing the front line (circling around, teleport, tumbling around or just bullrushing in greater numbers).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In my PF2 Ironfang Invasion campaign, the PCs are ranger, champion, thief rogue, scoundrel rogue with sorcerer dedication and Magical Trickster, and druid with cleric dedication. The druid is the most active spellcaster, but he usually keeps his distance from the battlefront, concealed in the forest.
The rogue/sorcerer is the other combat spellcaster, and is often in the front of the party ready to diplomatically glad-hand any encounter. And until recently, he wore durable farm clothes (light armor, +1 to AC) rather than anything that looked like armor. Once he critically hit an enemy with Produce Flame and added sneak attack damage, he would become the enemies' favorite target.
Cyder wrote: Everyone here acts light front liners get unlimited reactions per round or monsters/intelligent foes can't use tactics of have means of bypassing the front line (circling around, teleport, tumbling around or just bullrushing in greater numbers). Nobody has said anything even remotely resembling that stance.
Other than that, all I have to say is that it is very strange to see someone try to advocate for a predator to treat a party as if they are prey animals rather than other predators - and you've confused causality a bit with the "instinctively they know they are the center of the back of the herd" line of thought. The easiest prey ends up at the back of the herd once the heard is startled and begins to flee the predator, it's not deliberately placed there because the other animals think that is a safe spot for it.
And most of the conversation here hasn't been about an animal trying to get a meal and figuring out it's not going to get one - it's about stuff like "I find the idea that smart enemies focusing on the hard to kill enemies a little abhorrent" and how if the goal of the enemies is to actually kill the entire party, they are statistically more likely to succeed by using their most damaging attack options on whatever party member is closest to them at the start of the encounter, not trying to choose an allegedly "easier" target and paying the opportunity costs to engage that party member instead.
What used to be more true (and even back in PF1/3.5/D&D it's more a self-selected thing than an actual reality) that there are hard to kill PCs and easy to kill PCs is now barely true at all - all PF2 PCs, unless deliberately built to be frail (I'm meaning not aiming at optimum Dex score for your armor option, not investing in your HP total, and not utilizing defensive options besides that available to your class) are quite close together in how many actions a monster they'll typically be facing will need to take to put one of them on the floor. So even though the visual cue of not wearing armor might suggest "easier target", it's like saying 12+3 is easier math than 12+10 is; it isn't wrong, but it's not enough of a difference that it actually matters.
Its enought of a difference when combined with the 6 hp/level.
3 points of lower AC is a +15% chance to hit and +15% to crit. Those are huge numbers in this system. Specially when the enemy can group up and get flanking and use their own buffs and debuffs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Temperans wrote: Meta gaming that there is someone present when you see no one is bad because it breaks verisimilitude. If you dont know if an enemy there is no reason to ready your weapons as if a fight will start. No one needs to be present in order for a person, and thus a character, to think "I am in danger" and get out a weapon. They could easily be mistaken.
The only knowledge being used in this discussion right now that is genuinely knowledge the character doesn't have is you using the knowledge that the potentially completely basely paranoia happens to be correct.
Temperans wrote: Meragaming is not a bad concept because it clearly defines when the players or GM is cheating by having the character use knowledge they should never have had. It is a bad concept because of exactly what you've just demonstrated; In your effort to stop a player from using their own knowledge, rather than only what their character is experiencing, you actually did exactly what you were trying to avoid - you decided, because the player knows that this is an encounter so danger of some kind definitely is present, the character must act oblivious to the entire idea of an ambush.
That's how absolutely insidious the guy that wrote down the whole "metagaming is using player knowledge when your character doesn't have it, and that's cheating, so it's bad" idea was being - he's tricked tons of people into using player knowledge to make their character look obliviously unintelligent in order to prove they aren't cheating, instead of looking at a situation from the perspective of "could the character do those actions without knowing they are the right actions?" and finding that yes, almost always, what the character does no is sufficient to explain the actions and "that's meta-gaming" is just a smokescreen for a GM to say "No fair!" when a character does anything but suck and die and the whim strikes them.
Temperans wrote: In the case of the ambush if neither side saw each other then ... Your entire argument about why Metagaming as a concept is bad, is predicated on the GM not just asking "why does your character pull out their weapon?" instead of flat out denying them by stating there's no reason.
When you take action in character, you should be able to justify it based on what your character would do. Your level 1 acolyte cleric probably isn't going to be able to make warfare style strategies for an army just because you IRL know how to do it.
Temperans wrote: 3 points of lower AC My wizard character does not currently have 3 points of lower AC from anyone in the party.
Currently I have 2 less than the highest AC in the party, and that goes down to 1 less on rounds I cast shield, and it's going to stay pretty close along the way through the game with a few levels (11th and 12th) where there is a bigger gap because the fighter's proficiency goes up before my wizard's will, and the fighter will only actually have that 3 point gap and get to keep it once we're 17th level.
And he'll have more HP than me, too, but not by as wide of a margin as he would in other versions (I think at 20th he'll have 308 HP when I'll have 228 HP, so that's basically only like 2-3 attacks worth more HP)
But I will also have a ton of defensive options that can more than make up the difference - starting with the already mentioned shield (which yes, he could start using a shield too if he wanted to not be a two-handed weapon user), and charming words that I can protect myself with, mirror image I'll pick up soon, and other options like fire shield I'll have to dissuade attackers that will more than close the gap between his character "looking harder to kill" and how hard mine is to actually kill in practice.
Temperans wrote: Its enought of a difference when combined with the 6 hp/level. HP between different characters is actually a lot closer in PF2 than it's been in other games/versions. 1st level my wizard had the lowest HP in the party at 15, and the highest in the party was 20 - that's a very small difference in practice. 2nd level I've got 22 and someones got 32, that's still roughly just 1 attack difference. And as my earlier projection shows, even at the most extreme point it's still going to be 228 to 308 because unlike prior versions it's not left up to chance and there's more room for me to "catch up" on Con instead of being stuck with a lower modifier forever because I can't afford to divert an ability point from Intelligence or Dexterity.
So as long as I, through the way I play, can make it cost an enemy more actions to get to me I can remain equally hard to kill with my party's fighter - and since I'm specialized in making enemies waste actions (enchantment) I don't think I'll have much trouble with that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Salamileg wrote: Up until recently, the group I GM for only had one melee character. The party was a barbarian, cloistered cleric, wizard (formerly witch), and a sorcerer. Due to not having a strong front line, the casters got hit very frequently. The cleric in particular established herself as sort of a "middle line" in the party, since she had the highest HP of the casters and could take more hits. Said cleric recently died of old age and her player is playing a champion now, so we'll see how things change.
On the flip side, I'm a player in Extinction Curse. I'm a champion, and we have a monk, druid with animal companion, and a witch. That game has an extremely strong front line comparatively, especially since the monk has Stand Still, so the casters don't get hit often. The witch in particular plays very safe, and often goes entire sessions without getting damaged. Which is probably for the best, since I'm pretty sure he has 10 Con and a strong breeze will knock him down.
A barbarian/champion combination up front is awesome.
If you really have a party with one front line character and 3 rear line characters, talk one of the rear PCs into taking Beastmaster for an extra road block/melee partner.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: Its enought of a difference when combined with the 6 hp/level.
3 points of lower AC is a +15% chance to hit and +15% to crit. Those are huge numbers in this system. Specially when the enemy can group up and get flanking and use their own buffs and debuffs.
If the wizard is getting flanked, then something is wrong. Sure, I can see them chased around by 'an' enemy, or shot by archers. But flanked? That is a sign of one of various things.
If it is on the players, then it is due to bad decisions. The wizard got too close, and got punished. The front line let things through, and then didn't attend to the problem after the wizard started to get attacked by the first half of the enemy sandwich. The party should discuss tactics amongst themselves for how to prevent and/or deal with those scenarios.
If it is the GM, then he overuses ambushes or just has everything make a bee line to the wizard. A discussion needs to be had with the GM.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
ExOichoThrow wrote: Your entire argument about why Metagaming as a concept is bad, is predicated on the GM not just asking "why does your character pull out their weapon?" instead of flat out denying them by stating there's no reason. Uh... yeah? I thought it was obvious that if the GM is only focused on what the character knows that they would either a) not even think something strange is happening because they already see an explanation why the character would do what the player is saying the character does, or b) would ask the player "Why is your character doing that?" and the player would give a reasonable explanation.
To apply these to the example I brought up earlier in the thread, A) the GM just thinks "Blocked road in the woods, ambushes are a thing that exists, so are bandits. Nothing suspicious about a character pulling a weapon just in case." and moves on running the game; or B) the GM asks "why did your character just draw a weapon?" and the player says "because he's worried this is an ambush" and the GM moves on running the game.
But scroll on back through the thread and look at Temperans brought up meta-gaming. No one had said anything about what a character is doing or why the character is doing it, all that has been said is that an abush encounter is on the table, and Temperans is already suspicious that someone's going to meta-game.
Then I say it's got nothing to do with meta-gaming and pick at the concept, and give some example actions that I expect I know are going to be treated as "cheating", and how does Temperans respond?
Temperans wrote: Meta gaming that there is someone present when you see no one is bad because it breaks verisimilitude. If you dont know if an enemy there is no reason to ready your weapons as if a fight will start. That's right, the response was to declare an action that could be entirely reasonable for a character to take as "meta-gaming" just like I expected they would. No asking "why would a character do that?" - just straight up declaring there to be "no reason" even though it's absolute plausible to take the actions described and doesn't require any knowledge the character doesn't have for them to think of doing them.
This is because it is an absolutey mandatory part of the process of taken by folks that, like Temperans, worry that players will "meta-game" to behave as though you must know an action is benefical in order to perform that action.
Literally declared it cheating for a character to ever be cautious in a text-book cliche scenario in which any actual person could be just as cautious.
And here's the real kicker: If the scenario of the obstructed road in the woods were just a little "clear the obstacle of find another route" challenge instead of an ambush, there almost assuredly would not have been any "but that's meta-gaming" if I mentioned characters Drawing weapons and using Seek actions to check the trees for (non-existent) bandits. Because literally every time I've ever had this conversation with someone that thinks meta-gaming is a thing and it's bad/cheating, that's how it goes - it's only when the character's actions are beneficial because they guessed right that "there's no reason to draw a weapon if you don't know anyone is there." type of stuff gets said.
Lemeres wrote: ...or just has everything make a bee line to the wizard. A discussion needs to be had with the GM. I had that kind of GM. In the one campaign we played that lasted about 5-6 months, I ended up having 7 different characters, every last one of which died. And every death followed the same basic structure: Encounter starts, party is doing their thing (tanks tanking, strikers in position to do damage, etc.), my character does anything and I don't roll terribly to mess it up, then every monster in the encounter is doing one of two things: 1) making sure no one can come help my character, or 2) ignoring literally everything except making their best effort at killing my character.
And he just didn't get it when I told him how not entertaining that was. Only reason that nightmare lasted so long is because it was the first time the guy had GMed and I was trying to help him learn how to do it well, but no matter how much advice he asked me for and I gave, the next session would just be more of the same. He just had some kind of "I must win!" spark explode inside his brain every time he was running an encounter and I used my character's abilities well.
I dont care if the players do actions as long as there is an explanation. But stopping randomly and looking for people to fight for no reason in response to getting asked to roll perception I 100% see as metagaming.
If there is an obstruction and they draw their weapons just to make sure, yeah I wouldn't have much problem. But not all Ambushes have an obstacle. Sometimes is literally waiting for someone/something to cross. That might be were we miscommunicated this time. Players randomly drawing swords and searching when there is no obstacle or creature insight to warrant it is what I consider metagaming. Not the act of being on guard when there is an obstacle.
Focusing on a single character for no reason is bad, that sounds like a bad GM. There needs to be a reason why creatures attack, and it sounds like he just had a vendetta against you.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Lemeres wrote: ...or just has everything make a bee line to the wizard. A discussion needs to be had with the GM. I had that kind of GM. In the one campaign we played that lasted about 5-6 months, I ended up having 7 different characters, every last one of which died. And every death followed the same basic structure: Encounter starts, party is doing their thing (tanks tanking, strikers in position to do damage, etc.), my character does anything and I don't roll terribly to mess it up, then every monster in the encounter is doing one of two things: 1) making sure no one can come help my character, or 2) ignoring literally everything except making their best effort at killing my character.
And he just didn't get it when I told him how not entertaining that was. Only reason that nightmare lasted so long is because it was the first time the guy had GMed and I was trying to help him learn how to do it well, but no matter how much advice he asked me for and I gave, the next session would just be more of the same. He just had some kind of "I must win!" spark explode inside his brain every time he was running an encounter and I used my character's abilities well.
On Friday, July 24, 2020, my players conducted an ambush of an enemy patrol at a river ford. This was not in the module; rather, they had altered events and put their enemy at a disadvantage. My players do that. Frequently. Fortunately, I consider this to be fun.
The five PCs, mentioned in my comment above, were 4th level. They had inside information from a rescued slave about the leader of the enemy group, a 5th-level alchemist. What the PCs didn't know is that a 7th-level rogue also traveled with the patrol. The players knew, because the enemy rogue Scarvinious was the final boss and fighting him was part of the story.
The halfling rogue/sorcerer sat out in the open on a 10-foot-tall boulder as bait. The others were out of sight behind smaller rocks. Scarvinious split off from the patrol upon seeing the bait in order to cut off his escape--the party never saw him. The ambush was sprung while the patrol crossed the river, because wading made then flat-footed. Four party members focused at range on the alchemist--the ranger and thief rogue were archers and the druid and rogue/sorcerer used cantrips. The enemy alchemist lasted one round.
Next, Scarvinious closed in on the party ranger. That enemy rogue had given up on Sneaking in order to race toward the ranger. Fortunately, the champion was in position to team up with the ranger against brutal Scarvinious. They managed a soldily defensive fight while the other three party members mopped up the other soldiers of the enemy patrol.
Once the entire party turned their attention toward Scarvinious, the rogue/sorcerer managed a critical hit with Produce Flame. Scarvinious stepped back into the river to assist recovery against the persistent fire damage, took some sneak attack damage because of the flat-footedness from wading (I treat it as balancing), and attacked that annoying rogue/sorcerer who set him on fire. The persistent fire went out at the end of that turn and Scarvinious returned to dry land, but he was killed in two more rounds.
That is my experience with ambushing in PF2. The encounter was rated at 184 xp, beyond extreme threat, so they needed a well-planned ambush to win.
The PCs concentrating their attacks on the alchemist was based on the intelligence they had gained beforehand, the same intelligence that let them set up the ambush. No metagaming there. And that focused fire was deadly to the alchemist.
They would have been metagaming if they had searched for the undetected and unknown enemy rogue. They didn't do that.
Scarvinious's tactics were not to go after the most vulnerable target. No, he wanted the head of the elf ranger as a trophy. He had been removed from his command because of failure to capture the party, and the elf was the most recognizable member of the party. He thought that he would have to flee; however, returning with the head of the elf would have restored his honor. He figured that he could kill the elf quickly. The champion foiled that with her Liberating Step keeping the elf ranger alive. And the elf had a good AC, too.
Temperans wrote: But stopping randomly and looking for people to fight for no reason in response to getting asked to roll perception I 100% see as metagaming. ...and did anyone say anything about doing that in this thread? Not that I saw.
What I saw was me talking about perfectly reasonable actions which you have now claimed you wouldn't have much problem with and you initially responding with "meta-gaming" and "no reason"
Temperans wrote: There needs to be a reason why creatures attack, and it sounds like he just had a vendetta against you. He stated, when asking me for advice between sessions and hearing my feedback, that he believed what he was doing was having a reason why creatures attack. His "reason" was that my character seemed like the biggest threat among all the party members... while over here in reality we were playing D&D 4e at the time so no, we were all basically identical in threat level, and he was having monsters ignore basically Gimli and Sir Galahad that were right in their faces to run off and chase actually just an old man the legitimately needs that staff to walk (though my later characters did look more imposing, but certainly weren't any bigger threat - especially not to a degree to justify such singular focus).
Mathmuse wrote: They would have been metagaming if they had searched for the undetected and unknown enemy rogue. It's not meta-gaming to use a Seek action - doesn't matter if something is, or isn't, actually there.
Now, a player might cross the line into genuine cheating if the way they choose which direction for the cone of their Seek or where to place the burst of their Seek isn't appropriate (such as by skipping over more plausible hiding places to non-randomly select exactly the right hiding place) - but that's different from meta-gaming because it's doing something actually improbable enough to be considered impossible, not just taking an action that is completely plausible that a character take and someone feeling like the motivation for it should be questioned.
thenobledrake wrote: Temperans wrote: But stopping randomly and looking for people to fight for no reason in response to getting asked to roll perception I 100% see as metagaming. ...and did anyone say anything about doing that in this thread? Not that I saw.
What I saw was me talking about perfectly reasonable actions which you have now claimed you wouldn't have much problem with and you initially responding with "meta-gaming" and "no reason"
Temperans wrote: There needs to be a reason why creatures attack, and it sounds like he just had a vendetta against you. He stated, when asking me for advice between sessions and hearing my feedback, that he believed what he was doing was having a reason why creatures attack. His "reason" was that my character seemed like the biggest threat among all the party members... while over here in reality we were playing D&D 4e at the time so no, we were all basically identical in threat level, and he was having monsters ignore basically Gimli and Sir Galahad that were right in their faces to run off and chase actually just an old man the legitimately needs that staff to walk (though my later characters did look more imposing, but certainly weren't any bigger threat - especially not to a degree to justify such singular focus). We talked about an ambush, and then you added an obstacle when originally there was no obstacle.
Also I have never played 4e so I dont know the rules besides the fact they were a heavy inspiration for PF2e from what I remember in the Playtest. In any case that GM seemed to have it out for you if he killed 7 of your characters in 7 months. That is not just attacking the threat, that is gunning for a player.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: ExOichoThrow wrote: Your entire argument about why Metagaming as a concept is bad, is predicated on the GM not just asking "why does your character pull out their weapon?" instead of flat out denying them by stating there's no reason. Uh... yeah? I thought it was obvious that if the GM is only focused on what the character knows that they would either a) not even think something strange is happening because they already see an explanation why the character would do what the player is saying the character does, or b) would ask the player "Why is your character doing that?" and the player would give a reasonable explanation.
To apply these to the example I brought up earlier in the thread, A) the GM just thinks "Blocked road in the woods, ambushes are a thing that exists, so are bandits. Nothing suspicious about a character pulling a weapon just in case." and moves on running the game; or B) the GM asks "why did your character just draw a weapon?" and the player says "because he's worried this is an ambush" and the GM moves on running the game.
But scroll on back through the thread and look at Temperans brought up meta-gaming. No one had said anything about what a character is doing or why the character is doing it, all that has been said is that an abush encounter is on the table, and Temperans is already suspicious that someone's going to meta-game.
Then I say it's got nothing to do with meta-gaming and pick at the concept, and give some example actions that I expect I know are going to be treated as "cheating", and how does Temperans respond?
Temperans wrote: Meta gaming that there is someone present when you see no one is bad because it breaks verisimilitude. If you dont know if an enemy there is no reason to ready your weapons as if a fight will start. That's right, the response was to declare an action that could be entirely reasonable for a character to take as "meta-gaming" just like I expected they would. No asking "why would a character do that?" - just straight up... So... your argument is that meta gaming as a concept is bad when the arbitrator of rules does a bad job of determining metagaming?
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say if that isnt it. You acted strictly opposed to meta gaming as a concept, but then agreed with me when I said that's only predicated on poor enforcement. That would mean practically any rule is a bad rule because there are bad GMs.
I'm getting the feeling you have some sort of emotional bias towards this or maybe theres just a big miscommunication somewhere.
Temperans wrote: We talked about an ambush, and then you added an obstacle when originally there was no obstacle. There entire time I was involved in any discussion of an ambush, there was an obstacle involved. The incredibly vague mentions of nondescript ambush scenarios before that have no bearing at all on anything I said about ambush scenarios because I entered the ambush conversation with a specific example to illustrate how the PF2 rules work.
That ambush scenario was the only one I was talking about - and I still don't see what relevance that has to your pulled-out-of-hat "GM said roll Perception, they drew weapons, that's meta-gaming" comment.
ExOichoThrow wrote: So... your argument is that meta gaming as a concept is bad when the arbitrator of rules does a bad job of determining metagaming? No. My argument is that the very concept of meta-gaming as generally understood (as in, not WotC's attempt at a modern, actually useful definition for the term) makes the GMs that worry about it bad at the job of determining what is meta-gaming..
ExOichoThrow wrote: I'm getting the feeling you have some sort of emotional bias towards this or maybe theres just a big miscommunication somewhere. A lot of column A, and a little of column B.
The miscommunication is that I wasn't agreeing on the poor enforcement point. I was saying that what you presented as good enforcement is actually just not being concerned with meta-gaming in the first place, so that's acceptable play. And what you call poor enforcement is the only kind of enforcement I've ever seen from people that are concerned with meta-gaming.
Now, that's probably also a little lacking in clarity, so I'll add this: In my view, there's meta-gaming which is not a thing (doing that action is fine if the player was thinking the right thought at the time, and is cheating if the player was thinking the wrong thought at the time - i.e. drawing a weapon at a suspected ambush that happens to actually be an ambush, using the right elemental attack to trigger a weakness/bypass a resistance/shut of regeneration on the first guess) and then there's cheating which is a thing (doing an action that is actually impossible for your character to try and do, a character guessing something no one in their same circumstances would guess, reading ahead in the adventure you're actually playing rather than just happening to know parts of the game in general).
The emotional bias, which I admit is severe, is that I've had absolutely horrible experiences at the table over the years while just trying to play my character, not actually doing anything at all nefarious, and not trying to leverage my knowledge gained by GMing a lot for an unfair advantage for my character because of GMs that do like Temperans did in this thread and behave like special knowledge is required when it isn't, call me a cheater, a lie, and even kick me out of the game because they "knew" I was "meta-gaming"
That decided they were correct about what I was thinking, and thus why I had done what I was doing with my character, and no reasonable discourse could be had. Me making any attempt to explain my actions just upset them more because "I catch you cheating, and you're going to lie to my face?" was where their head had gone as a result of meta-gaming concern, and they tossed me from the campaign.
My irredeemable act? Thinking it'd be cool to use the established scene as a role-play aid by whacking a monster attacking my party's camp with a burning log from the fire I'd just established my character was tending getting ready to cook a meal for the party.
I never stated any such thing so dont put words in my mouth.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Mathmuse wrote: They would have been metagaming if they had searched for the undetected and unknown enemy rogue. It's not meta-gaming to use a Seek action - doesn't matter if something is, or isn't, actually there.
Now, a player might cross the line into genuine cheating if the way they choose which direction for the cone of their Seek or where to place the burst of their Seek isn't appropriate (such as by skipping over more plausible hiding places to non-randomly select exactly the right hiding place) - but that's different from meta-gaming because it's doing something actually improbable enough to be considered impossible, not just taking an action that is completely plausible that a character take and someone feeling like the motivation for it should be questioned. Since I switched to playing online with Roll20 in March, I have been experimenting with big maps. My usual playmat is 20 squares by 20 squares, representing 100 feet by 100 feet. My map of the river (link) was 600 feet by 530 feet. Scarvinious had ordered the patrol to wait for one minute before proceeding toward the mysterious halfling on a boulder and swam the river 200 feet south of the ambush site, staying underwater to avoid being spotted. The 15-foot burst of the Seek action is tiny compared to the places he could have been. The druid, hiding on a rocky island, had line of sight on Scarvinious once and spotted him in a free Perception roll as he climbed out of the river, but then Scarvinious disappeared into the concealment of the forest. The druid did not make out the details and did not alert the other party members because he was trying to stay hidden himself.
thenobledrake wrote: Temperans wrote: We talked about an ambush, and then you added an obstacle when originally there was no obstacle. There entire time I was involved in any discussion of an ambush, there was an obstacle involved. The incredibly vague mentions of nondescript ambush scenarios before that have no bearing at all on anything I said about ambush scenarios because I entered the ambush conversation with a specific example to illustrate how the PF2 rules work.
That ambush scenario was the only one I was talking about - and I still don't see what relevance that has to your pulled-out-of-hat "GM said roll Perception, they drew weapons, that's meta-gaming" comment. This is why I prefer using real examples from my games. Hypothetical examples have to argue about what is typical. Ambushes typically have obstacles, such as large rocks, for the ambushers to hide behind. In this case, the hypothetical ambush also had an unnamed obstacle in the road, which is typically a felled tree. Those are great at blocking a road for a carriage or horses, but a party on foot could climb over. Or out of civic duty the party could clear the road. Since climbing and clearing require a free hand, drawing weapons to occupy one's hands is counterproductive unless the party believes the obstacle marks an ambush. Which can easily be confirmed by a single Seek action to see whether the tree fell naturally or was cut.
The original issue was whether opponents could plausibly exploit the tactic of taking out the squishy yet powerful wizard first. I myself have to remember to begin combat with the enemy taking Recall Knowledge actions with a Society check to evaluate the party members. And since the Bestiary creatures are seldom trained in Society, they often fail those rolls. Nevertheless, the wizard will soon identify himself by throwing heavy-duty arcane spells.
Just as the players have the responsibility to justify their characters' actions, the GM has the same responsibility. The module had carefully explained the pressures on Scarvinious, so I knew he was pulled in two directions, to practice cruelty and to seek prestige and honor. That gave me his tactics, which were not optimal.
My effective IQ drops drastically when I have to roleplay several NPCs at once. My attention is too divided to think clearly. That is why I learned to play some NPCs on autopilot by determining their motives and likely actions in advance. Autopilot is especially important when I play NPC allies of the party, since blocking my overall tactical awareness from their more narrow tactical deductions is difficult when my IQ drops. However, my autopilot skills grew out of years of experience as a GM. I wouldn't expect an inexperienced GM to be as clear about NPCs' motives.
Gortle wrote: Salamileg wrote: Up until recently, the group I GM for only had one melee character. The party was a barbarian, cloistered cleric, wizard (formerly witch), and a sorcerer. Due to not having a strong front line, the casters got hit very frequently. The cleric in particular established herself as sort of a "middle line" in the party, since she had the highest HP of the casters and could take more hits. Said cleric recently died of old age and her player is playing a champion now, so we'll see how things change.
On the flip side, I'm a player in Extinction Curse. I'm a champion, and we have a monk, druid with animal companion, and a witch. That game has an extremely strong front line comparatively, especially since the monk has Stand Still, so the casters don't get hit often. The witch in particular plays very safe, and often goes entire sessions without getting damaged. Which is probably for the best, since I'm pretty sure he has 10 Con and a strong breeze will knock him down.
A barbarian/champion combination up front is awesome.
If you really have a party with one front line character and 3 rear line characters, talk one of the rear PCs into taking Beastmaster for an extra road block/melee partner. The Wizard is actually taking Beastmaster next level, because she made friends with a bone devil's pet polar bear (long story). She plans to use it more as a mount, though.
Temperans wrote: Meta gaming that there is someone present when you see no one is bad because it breaks verisimilitude. If you dont know if an enemy there is no reason to ready your weapons as if a fight will start. I forget if this was in the rules, or if a developer said it somewhere, but I swear that I read something that states that characters and NPCs sort of "know" when initiative is rolled, even if they don't know anyone's there. Like, they may not know who, what, or where something is, but it's sort of like they feel like they're in danger. It's totally possible I made that up because I can't find a source atm (I would appreciate it if anyone knows the source), but it's how I've been running it.
Well I agree with that mathmuse.
Even in my young time being a GM thinking ahead of what NPCs would do and acting on auto pilot is incredibly helpful. I have a lot of trouble doing it specially when I get confused on what the book is saying but it speeds up play a lot.
Salamileg wrote: Temperans wrote: Meta gaming that there is someone present when you see no one is bad because it breaks verisimilitude. If you dont know if an enemy there is no reason to ready your weapons as if a fight will start. I forget if this was in the rules, or if a developer said it somewhere, but I swear that I read something that states that characters and NPCs sort of "know" when initiative is rolled, even if they don't know anyone's there. Like, they may not know who, what, or where something is, but it's sort of like they feel like they're in danger. It's totally possible I...
That kind of was a thing in the previous edition with many classes/archetypes having ways to act in the surprise round, having effect when you roll initiative, or having huge bonuses to initiative (ex Divination Wizard).
thenobledrake wrote: I think this is an important time to note that the way an ambush-style encounter works in PF2 according to RAW is different from how many people expect that it would be run. It is certainly different from how would expect it to be run, because it makes no sense.
GM: "Everyone roll initiative. You were (whatever) so you can use (whatever) skill."
Players: *call out various initiative totals*
GM: "OK Alice, you won inititive so it's you turn"
Alice: "Great, so what was I reacting to? What do I see?"
GM: "Oh nothing. Just the tree across the road I already described"
Alice: "So my quick reactions allowed to respond with incredible speed to nothing. But if my reactions had been a bit slower I might actually have been able to respond to the enemy that is presumably around here somewhere? That is really stupid"
GM: "Yes, yes it is".
_
glass.
glass wrote: thenobledrake wrote: I think this is an important time to note that the way an ambush-style encounter works in PF2 according to RAW is different from how many people expect that it would be run. It is certainly different from how would expect it to be run, because it makes no sense.
GM: "Everyone roll initiative. You were (whatever) so you can use (whatever) skill."
Players: *call out various initiative totals*
GM: "OK Alice, you won inititive so it's you turn"
Alice: "Great, so what was I reacting to? What do I see?"
GM: "Oh nothing. Just the tree across the road I already described"
Alice: "So my quick reactions allowed to respond with incredible speed to nothing. But if my reactions had been a bit slower I might actually have been able to respond to the enemy that is presumably around here somewhere? That is really stupid"
GM: "Yes, yes it is".
_
glass. You can just hold your turn until something happens and go immediately after that.
Thats a problem of how your GM described it.
There is no winning initiative. If you had enough perception to notice the enemy you noticed the enemy and move first. If they had better stealth you dont notice them and move after them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In the last three scenarios my players ran:
1. A very difficult scenario consisting largely of mindless undead. Party consisted of 3 frontliner characters, two backline characters. The first scenario (a bunch of level -4 zombies) was defeated through area of effect spells and kiting with little risk. The second encounter consisted of Zombie Hulks (with the barreling charge ability added on), whose ranged attacks significantly hurt the backline. The the players encountered a Bodak with a couple of tag-a-longs. They started the fight by having an Unseen Servant enter the room, and the using Final Sacrifice. The Bodak focused the backline and almost succeeded, forcing the PCs to use a Chekhov's gun. Finally, they assault a group of cultists. The backline couldn't effectively be targeted due to spacing and darkness and ended up stealing the main plot device. The frontliner was captured.
2. Rescuing the frontliner. This ended up being a fight in fairly tight quarters. Against largely melee undead, the backline was able to avoid taking damage as the frontline completely blocked the 10-ft passage to the outside.
3. An ambush encounter consisting of a trap that was intended to embarrass or kill the PCs by having Hellknights come to arrest them in the middle of an easy heist. Through espionage, they learned of the ambush and managed to turn it around on the rival group of thieves after succeeding at difficult Diplomacy rolls to with the Hellknights to direct their arrest at the rivals. The mages were targeted because they ended up giving chase with Dimension Door, but ultimately faced little threat from the thieves (the Hellknights + other ambushers were the real danger).
4. A difficult encounter versus cultists. Another 10-foot hallway that opened into an 8x8 room filled with cultists. The party backline was largely protected in the first stage of fight, as the narrow hallway made it difficult for melee enemies to come into range. There were 2 backline characters and a staggering 5 frontliner characters (2 ACs) here. The magic users had a hard time targeting the backline thanks to a Darkness spell in front of the doorway and the other backliners using Meld Into Stone. The second phase of the fight started when the players entered the 8x8 room. Here, the backline was targeted twice as the frontline surged forward to kill the retreating cultists. A boss demon showed up partway, and between it and the last remaining melee cultist one backline member was dropped, healed, and nearly dropped again. The other was at low health.
Overall, the backline has been pretty safe. Animal companions haven't done a ton of damage, but having another Large body in the way has gone a long way to jamming up the plethora of 10-foot wide hallways we've fought in. Most of the ranged enemies they have faced have been human and the two backliners both have darkvision, a factor consistently exploited to prevent ranged targeting.
Temperans wrote: I never stated any such thing so dont put words in my mouth. I believe you have misread my post if you think I've put any words in your mouth. The only thing I attributed to you in the post before this response was "behave like special knowledge is required when it isn't" (which is what you were doing when you said there was no reason to get weapons out earlier) - the sentence was about GMs I've played with, not you.
glass wrote: It is certainly different from how would expect it to be run, because it makes no sense. You ever hear the phrase "you find what you're looking for"? If you try to make something sound like it doesn't make sense, you're pretty much guaranteed to succeed. If you try to make something make sense, though... often you can make that happen to. Here's a revised version of your little scenario to illustrate:
GM: "Everyone roll initiative. You were (whatever) so you can use (whatever) skill."
Players: *call out various initiative totals*
GM: "OK Alice, you won inititive so it's you turn"
Alice: "Great, so what was I reacting to? What do I see?"
GM: "You're not reacting to anything in particular, that's not what intiative represents in this game. Initiative has been rolled because each action the characters take at the moment matters, that's all, it's a game contrivance to facilitate the flow and structure of the scene as it plays out."
Alice: "Oh, right... I forgot. Still in [other RPG] mindset."
GM: "No problem, it's different so it'll take some time to get used to. As for what you see <describe what the character can see again>. What would you like to do?"
Alice: <starts playing the game, taking actions, and trying to have a good time instead of complaining that a game has different rules than different games do>
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Alice: <starts playing the game, taking actions, and trying to have a good time instead of complaining that a game has different rules than different games do> What player passes up an opportunity to complain?
Kasoh wrote: What player passes up an opportunity to complain? Okay, so yes, I laughed and hit favorite... but also actually more than half of my current play groups.
well, at least if we're only counting complaining about the game, me and the other guy in the group that GMs friendship is basically based on us listening to each other complain about things - we just don't complain about PF2.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
glass wrote: thenobledrake wrote: I think this is an important time to note that the way an ambush-style encounter works in PF2 according to RAW is different from how many people expect that it would be run. It is certainly different from how would expect it to be run, because it makes no sense.
GM: "Everyone roll initiative. You were (whatever) so you can use (whatever) skill."
Players: *call out various initiative totals*
GM: "OK Alice, you won inititive so it's you turn"
Alice: "Great, so what was I reacting to? What do I see?"
GM: "Oh nothing. Just the tree across the road I already described"
Alice: "So my quick reactions allowed to respond with incredible speed to nothing. But if my reactions had been a bit slower I might actually have been able to respond to the enemy that is presumably around here somewhere? That is really stupid"
GM: "Yes, yes it is".
_
glass. My wife defines this as a case of the GM calling for initiative too soon.
My players, including my wife, developed a house rule about an initiating action. When encounter mode is triggered (tempted to say "initiated") by a particular action, such as the fighter opening a door in the dungeon or Duke Redgill stabbing Lady Tarjay at the banquet, then that action occurs outside of initiative order but still in encounter mode. Then the PCs and NPCs roll for initiative and take their turns in the order rolled. This means that the character who took the initiating action has more than one turn of actions during that first round, but that is a minor quibble.
In the case of the party spotting a tree across the road, the initiating action could be one bandit shooting an arrow, or one bandit failing his Stealth check, or a party member making a Seek action and spotting a bandit, or a party member making a Recall Knowledge Nature check and realizing that the tree is too healthy to have fallen naturally. Then the party has something to react to.
GM: As you ride along, you spot a tree across the road.
DRUID: Can I roll Recall Knowledge Nature to see why it fell.
GM: You have to wait until you are only 25 feet away for a clear view.
DRUID: Fine. My roll is 22.
GM: A healthy tree was cut to fall across the road.
DRUID: I tell everyone.
GM: Everyone roll initiative, based on Perception.
PLAYERS: *call out various initiative totals*
GM: "OK Alice, your monk won initiative, so it's you turn"
MONK: "Great, so what was I reacting to? What do I see?"
GM: "Oh nothing new. Do you want to take a Seek action?
MONK: Yeah, I'll start with that. I scan the woods on the left for people in hiding. I roll 26.
GM: You see no-one.
MONK: Hm, I Stride to the tree and use it for Take Cover.
GM: Bob, your druid is next.
DRUID: What side is the stump of the tree?
GM: The right side.
DRUID: I Stride to the stump and check for tracks. Survival roll 19.
GM: You spot footprints of a person wearing armored leather boots.
DRUID: I Sneak along the tracks, 21 for Stealth.
GM: You come across a sleeping warrior. Remember, you are traveling by moonlight using your low-light vision.
MONK: These bandits have no discipline.
etc.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
siegfriedliner wrote: So I was debating with KrispyXIV on the summoner channel and she came out with an interesting view of things that I didn't share.
From her play experience wizard (a generalisatiom for the back row) don't get attacked a significant amount of the time.
My personal experience is that they do.
Combat rararely happen in area that bigger than 60ft squared and whilst the back line don't get attacked all the time or as much as melee guys they do get attacked quite bit.
I was wondering if my games are uniquely short ranged and lacking in tactics compared to everyone else so I was wondering what your experience playing wizard, cloistered clerics, alchemist or sorcerers was do you get attacked frequently or is it only once every other session people come after you?
I have experienced both.
Had one GM who even declared well in advance that I should expect to get attacked more often BECAUSE I was playing a sorcerer.
I was all like "they can tell I have special juju blood?"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ravingdork wrote: I have experienced both.
Had one GM who even declared well in advance that I should expect to get attacked more often BECAUSE I was playing a sorcerer.
I was all like "they can tell I have special juju blood?"
That makes me realize I hadn't brought up that aspect of how when a GM is like "well, obviously a smart enemy will do [insert specific course of action here]" they actually end up with something really strange and contrived as a result.
Such as "go for the mage first." Many mages don't have any visual cues that set them apart from the bulk of the world's population (non-adventurers with no magical ability at all), so when these "smart" enemies are diving straight in to attacking the unarmored and often barely armed folks in a traveling party before any spells have been cast they aren't going for the "mage first", they are going for the noncombatants first - and that's not actually all that "smart" because it means choosing the target that maybe is dangerous despite their looks over targets that actually look dangerous because of the weapons and armor they wear and carry. Plus sometimes a noncombatant is worth more alive than dead, so mage paranoia can prevent these "smart" enemies from making bank on ransom.
I think the cause of this is thinking about the NPCs and PCs as those types of game piece rather than as part of the world around them, so the thought that seeing 4 people traveling and two of them have armor on and weapons carried and the other 2 look like "normal folks" could be any normal people and the bodyguards/guides they hired to travel with doesn't occur - it's just definitely 4 adventurers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My wizard wears hide armor and carries a Maul to use with Hand of the Apprentice. I'm curious if the expectation is still for "smart monsters" to prioritize her over, say, the Monk.
Mostly depends the enemies the party is facing:
- Are they beasts or intelligent creatures?
- Did the enemies do some intelligence work on the players ( for example, a map with X encounters and because so some rests during while the players might be spotted )?
- Any enemy who took part to the fight managed to escape and told the others what happened ( You know, there's a dude who blasts fireballs )?
- Maybe some divination spell or power ( didn't read them, but maybe there's something which could help knowing who's coming after you )?
-Descriptions
For example, before the fight the master describes 4 armored humanoids with lance, greatsword or great axe, and one with woolen clothes, wielding a staff.
Quote: The players can make a guess and suppose different things given a specific description:
- The armored ones must be combatants ( if they rush melee the party won't probably have any doubt left )
- The one wearing the robe and wielding the staff might be a healer, or even a wizard.
- The one without armor might be easier to hit and take down
- The combatants might be more steady and harder to trip
- Etc...
Same goes for the enemies ( given a description of the party )
In our 2 campaigns we just have 1 caster per party.
In one we have a sneaky hag sorcerer goblin, who manage to stay hidden most of the times and then surprise and debuff enemies.
The goblin is really squishy and with low wis, so more vulnerable to will effects.
In the other one, we have a dedicated healer druid who stays in the back ( we also have a bomber alchemist, but he tends to be more close to the frontline than the caster, most of the time ).
We didn't try this out too much since he chanced its character ( they were playing without a healer before, and had hard time dealing with all the encounters, so he swapped from illusionist to leaf druid ). Until now the party stomped anything and managed to keep the healer safe.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Isn't perception to spot an ambush supposed to be a secret roll?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Arachnofiend wrote: My wizard wears hide armor and carries a Maul to use with Hand of the Apprentice. I'm curious if the expectation is still for "smart monsters" to prioritize her over, say, the Monk. Sure, once she starts slinging spells, if that makes her more of a threat than her Monk friend.
If instead she just swings her maul around, she'd should likely be treated like what she presents: a close combatant.
Similarly, Archer's tend to be squishy backline characters, and their weapon of choice tends to make them fairly obvious. If the intelligent styled monsters recognize this, probably due to the strange number of feathers their friends have sprouting from their heads, then it'd be a reasonably good idea to try to counter the ranged threat.
But that is sorta the point, if you are a caster but aren't currently presenting a credible threat greater than the armored meatbags at the front, then you should be relatively safe. I don't know many players who like to play casters that don't cast spells though. Once spells start flying, that paints a big old target on your head.
If I may add to the side discussion about ambushes I think that by RAW and with the absence of surprise rounds real ambushes are kind of gone in PF2 (due to purposeful decision by the design team).
Yes, you can still win initiative and act first, but this is nothing you could not do in a regular battle. The big benefit of an "ambush" in PF2 is that without apparent enemies present your high initiative count opposition might be limited to reconaissance (seek) or defensive actions once their spider senses go off and initiative is rolled. And yes I know that initiative does not automatically equal combat, but come on, once initiative is rolled every player knows that something is up (why does suddenly every action count?) and depending on the situation at hand will often involuntarily act in strange ways.
Depending on GM fiat there will of course be enormous table variance like how to determine the starting distances before rolling initiative or even letting players or NPCs act before initiative is determined (which obviously is a breach of RAW but may be suitable to the situation and story).
To stick to military terms I think what we do have in PF2 is more like meeting engagements than real ambushes as the surprise element and corresponding reaction delay has mostly been taken out of the equation.
More like anyone who hired guards is probably a noble who wouldn't be walking through the woods. And if its farmers than they are really weak and often not worth much.
But I can see what you mean with attacking the one who looks less threating sometimes being the wrong action. Its really hard to tell who is a threat and who is just a normal person.
I personally go with "what does this creature wants to do", "if fight, who would the attack first, and react accordingly". If there is a strategy they have planned I would try to think of it before the game and try to apply it.
The attacking a weak looking person is difficult in a world like Pathfinder because magic is real. Given how magic is weaker, casters might get less targeted in this edition. But characters known to be a healer might 100% be targeted because downing a person only for them to stand up again is an even worse strategy than just attacking the healer first. But like I said thats is the case if intelligent enemies know that there is a healer. If they dont know they might choose to run away seeing people stand back up after getting downed.
There are so many variations that there really is no 1 answer to how to do it. Just a bunch of hypotheticals.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The cloistered cleric and druid in my group has been attacked decently often. As the GM, I make an attempt to target them if there's a decent chance and reason to, but overall I generally attempt to take out the biggest threat. In my group's case, that usually tends to be the Hellknight fighter with the halberd.
That said, there's been occasions where an enemy was unattended enough to move on the casters. The most recent time was when my party was fighting three gylous, and they managed to swallow the two frontliners. Even though they escaped soon enough, that still allowed the gylous to advance on the druid and cleric, doing significant damage before they were taken out.
Usually, my creatures have better things to do with their actions than rush the casters to get themselves in a flanked position, generally being "try to find some way to not die to the incredibly threatening fighter".
That makes a lot of sense for how to play creatures.
No one wants to get surrounded by enemies no reason to put yourself in that position.
gnoams wrote: Isn't perception to spot an ambush supposed to be a secret roll? Not by default. A GM could decide to make it a secret check if they wanted to, but since the initial check to determine if you see your potential ambushers is also used to determine your initiative there's less point to making the check secret because "you're in initiative order now, but you don't know the results of your initiative rolls" is a clear indicator that there's something around for you to perceive that perhaps you didn't roll high enough to perceive.
Ubertron_X wrote: And yes I know that initiative does not automatically equal combat, but come on, once initiative is rolled every player knows that something is up (why does suddenly every action count?) There are numerous reasons why every action could count. It could be because of combat, or just figuring out the order in which the characters can do stuff to smooth out a group of players that are all trying to do something or jumping in with "ooh, can I help with that?", or because there's something time-related going on that doesn't have anything to do with combat or hazards.
And the only way to not have the change from not encounter mode to encounter mode result in players playing as if they are in encounter mode as an immediate result is to either always be in initiative order or to never be in iniative order.
Temperans wrote: The attacking a weak looking person is difficult in a world like Pathfinder because magic is real. Yes, it's real, but it's also not very common. Assuming a weak looking person has magic is, stastically, like assuming a real person has genius-level IQ because they wear glasses.
Temperans wrote: There are so many variations that there really is no 1 answer to how to do it. Precisely. That's why I bring up some of the variations, or the result of ignoring them, whenever someone else says something about what "intelligent monsters will do."
thenobledrake wrote: Ubertron_X wrote: And yes I know that initiative does not automatically equal combat, but come on, once initiative is rolled every player knows that something is up (why does suddenly every action count?) There are numerous reasons why every action could count. It could be because of combat, or just figuring out the order in which the characters can do stuff to smooth out a group of players that are all trying to do something or jumping in with "ooh, can I help with that?", or because there's something time-related going on that doesn't have anything to do with combat or hazards.
And the only way to not have the change from not encounter mode to encounter mode result in players playing as if they are in encounter mode as an immediate result is to either always be in initiative order or to never be in iniative order.
Fully correct, especially the last paragraph. Even if I might not have been especially clear in my wording the "players know that something is up" was not solely related to combat. Its just that when initiative is rolled players usually know that time / timing is relevant and that this is very often (but not exclusively) caused by combat, hazards or time-gated events. As such players will often be on alert much earlier than their characters are.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ubertron_X wrote: Fully correct, especially the last paragraph. Even if I might not have been especially clear in my wording the "players know that something is up" was not solely related to combat. Its just that when initiative is rolled players usually know that time / timing is relevant and that this is very often (but not exclusively) caused by combat, hazards or time-gated events. As such players will often be on alert much earlier than their characters are. I think there's a lot of room for being "on alert" as a player, but the character not "suposed to be on alert yet" to balance out since the player doesn't actually know what to be alert for.
Especially with the way PF2 has actions like Seek work, a player trying to figure out why play switched to Encounter mode can make their character seem like they're just taking in their surrounding a bit as they slowly pass by, rather than like they've actually got spidey-sense.
gnoams wrote: Isn't perception to spot an ambush supposed to be a secret roll? To add to what noble said, there is no perception check to spot an ambush unless you're already in initiative. The ambushers roll to Avoid Notice in exploration mode. This usually doubles as their initiative roll. But a stealthy party that rolls high enough could choose not to attack and just observe, at which point the observed party doesn't bother with initiative and gets no perception roll.
Even the Perception roll for initiative doesn't determine if you actually spot an ambusher. It is just turn order. If the ambushers beat your perception DCs, they are either unobserved or unnoticed.
Noble uses initiative more frequently than I do, so I won't comment there. But most folks tend to reserve it for the moment hostile intent comes into the picture.
The one exception I would probably make is if someone is using the poorly named "Scout" exploration activity, because that represents actively Seeking the areas around you for ambushers. People don't often bother with that activity though.
Captain Morgan wrote: Even the Perception roll for initiative doesn't determine if you actually spot an ambusher. Yeah, that's right. I kinda misstated how it worked in my earlier post.
Captain Morgan wrote: But most folks tend to reserve it for the moment hostile intent comes into the picture. "most folks" have all manner of ways they rule while playing a new game, or new edition of a game, that don't line up with what the rule book actually says because they don't realize what the new rule book says is different from what an old rule book says - or they do realize it but, for a variety of reasons, would rather change the new rules than change how they play.
Captain Morgan wrote: People don't often bother with that activity though. ...do they not? My group pretty much always has someone in the party Search, Scout, and Detect Magic when in exploration mode.
thenobledrake wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote: People don't often bother with that activity though. ...do they not? My group pretty much always has someone in the party Search, Scout, and Detect Magic when in exploration mode.
Depends the party.
Scout is replaced by feats like Improved initiative, whether you roll stealth or perception ( or deception, if you are in a social encounter ).
HumbleGamer wrote: Depends the party. What doesn't?
HumbleGamer wrote: Scout is replaced by feats like Improved initiative, whether you roll stealth or perception ( or deception, if you are in a social encounter ). I've seen about 1 in 10 characters take Incredible Initiative, not entire parties so Scouting is still a favored activity... and also applies to all initiative rolls so I'm confused as to why the words after the first comma are in your sentence.
|
