|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The following is a list of alternative Basic Actions that any Character can take in the appropriate times/situations without needing to select any Feat, Background, Ancestry, or Class. The 3rd Action is REALLY a big game changer once everyone gets used to spending them more efficiently, as you've discovered there are very few situations where making a third or sometimes even second Strike/Attack is a waste of time.
------------------------------------------------------
Stride (To get out of immediate danger/threat)
Aid (This one, in particular, is great if you do not already have other Reactions to use with a Shield or otherwise)
Recall Knowledge
Inventory Management
Point Out (In case one PC sees something the others do not)
Delay (To possibly change where you want to be in turn order)
Seek (To actively search a large area for creatures or a small area for hidden objects/traps/etc)
Sense Motive (To see if an opponent or ally is behaving abnormally or out of character)
Take Cover (If you're near a wall/corner or any obstacle that can protect against attacks)
Use/Activate an Item
Raise a Shield
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of things that might be done with 3rd actions. It's pretty rare for just not taking a 3rd action to actually be a good idea.
Moving (already mentioned) is both obvious and valuable. Standing still is often not beneficial.
Demoralizing, Feinting and Recall Knowledge are things that you'd do before you start attacking.
Create a Diversion isn't something you always do, but is something worth considering.
Defensive actions like raising a shield, casting Shield or using a parry weapon are 1 action
If there are useful things in the combat area, interacting with them may be 2 action.
Assurance with Athletics is popular, to use combat maneuvers as a 3rd action against weaker enemies.
Aid is well worth keeping in mind as a tool.
Some classes obviously bring extra 1 action abilities into play through feats, low cost focus spells, minions to command, preparatory actions like Hunt Prey or other specific abilities like a bard's compositions.
The specific things that make the most sense will vary between characters, and many of the options are situational, not part of a spammable 3 action routine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could raise their shields, if they have them.
They could Step into a better position -- perhaps to grant flanking to an ally, or to force an enemy to waste actions going after them as they move out of reach.
Specific classes or builds might suggest other options.
In addition to the above I would just say that it is fine for players to choose not to do much on their 3rd action.
As situations arise where that 3rd action becomes really valuable, they desire to do something useful on that action will grow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this particular action a lot with players from 3.5/PF1e, and a reminder that a majority of enemies no longer have access to attack of opportunity can open up a world of action economy.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are often better things to do than make a third Strike.
But making a third Strike is still better than nothing. Unless there's some kind of punishment in play, critically failing an attack roll isn't usually any worse than failing. Sure, you'll probably miss, but... so? You aren't any worse off missing than you are doing nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could raise their shields, if they have them.They could Step into a better position -- perhaps to grant flanking to an ally, or to force an enemy to waste actions going after them as they move out of reach.
Specific classes or builds might suggest other options.
I see this particular action a lot with players from 3.5/PF1e, and a reminder that a majority of enemies no longer have access to attack of opportunity can open up a world of action economy.
Yea, this is a pretty common situations specially from players that comes from older game editions.
Many people don't realize that can move without consequences at 3rd action and how effective is can be (usually a player can force a 3 action monster to move too and loose part of their actions too).
So unless the player have AoO or is a Champion* or is flat-footing the enemy or have Flurry and don't have a better non-attack action to do (like rise a shield/parry weapon...) move or take a step can be one of the most interesting things to do, especially against an opponent that could benefits from all 3 actions to attack.
*champion has to keep a closer distance to other melee player to keep their reactions able to work and usually uses shield, so theses class character has to take an additional care before move to not stay away from those who needs to be protected when is not better simply rise the shield.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get absolute rules oversold to you. Most of the time it is true, moving out, raising a shield, recalling knowledge, etc are the better 3rd options, but in others, staying in position or just striking is far better.
Let's say you are a fighter with a Guisarme, you spent your first action tripping and your second action striking. If the trip went through, why would you run here? You have AoO and you are providing flanking to other melee ally. If you have nothing else to do (nothing with a decent chance of success I mean, imagine you invested in athletics, acrobatics and diplomacy, you have no decent combat actions outside of maneuvers) and you suspect the enemy is almost dead maybe fishing for a crazy high roll with a 3rd strike is not that bad. Death is the best crowd control ability of them all.
Also note that some martial classes get press actions that still deal damage on a failure. Also things like Flurry Rangers or Fighters with Agile Grace specialize themselves in reducing their MAP a lot.
Your players will eventually figure out how to push the action economy in their favor. Most of the time, taking defensive actions at the end of the turn ends up better, but others the correct option is to act like a monkey and punch enemies to death with your pointy stick.
I would advice them this though, if they can choose something in character creation that takes only one action and it seems like a good option when they already struck twice and they don't want to move out, it is probably a really strong option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group has semi-recently started pf2, and at least for the first two books of age of ashes in a melee heavy party I can't really agree with this (except for steps, which we do use). Both the DM and I tried to encourage people to move around more when we started the game based on seeing this sentiment frequently online. A few brutal AoOs later and everyone is back to only (potentially) provoking when they deem moving absolutely necessary. I'm not sure if it's confirmation bias, the AP in particular, or something else, but it seems like enough monsters have AoO that you can't just discount it.
AoA AP is really hard to risk attack and move actions because there's many humanoids with melee weapons (as default rule, if the enemy appear to be an humanoid combatant the chance that it can have AoO is higher than a general monsters that don't appear to have any "combat training") so I agree is too risky to test if such kind of opponent will allow you to move freely. But as u say, in these cases u can step, and just use an action to step help's a lot (you can move to flat-foot or to force the opponent to waste an action stepping too).
In fact step could be a better option against most foes that don't have more than 5 feet close range attacks (usually the most medium size creatures) than try to move your total speed.
It also feels to me that an AoO is much more dangerous in pf2 than it was in 3.5. If I remember some random math from other discussions, in pf2 the no MAP attack is ~60% of a monster's expected 3 action damage. Chasing down exact numbers for 3.5 is difficult due to how variable 3.5 monsters and PC stats are, so I could be mistaken here, but I'd guess an AoO represents closer to 1/3 of a monster's potential full attack damage and characters that felt like it could have ACs high enough that actual expected damage as a percentage of their hp was low....
Is more like a sense of feeling because of MAP in PF2 also rules the monsters.
The old 3.5 and PF1 has many monsters with full-round action multiple attacks that don't receive a MAP as the players. Ex.: In 3.5 an Achaierai is a monster that has BAB +6 and make +9 claw attack with standard action or AoO but when using a full-round Action can make 3 atks, and 2 of them with his maximum bonus!
This make the impression that AoO is weaker. While in PF2 even monsters receive MAP. So the AoO is almost always made using their stronger attack without penalty.
But we have other thing too. The PF2 usually is more easier to hit the players than older games:
In PF1/3.5 is easier to a LvL 1 tanker player have 23 AC but a creature with BAB 1 and +4 STR has only +5 to add to attacks giving him only 15% of hit rate against this player.
While in PF2 a player could have at LvL 1 can have up to 21 AC but a trained foe with +4 STR has +7 to hit giving hime at last 30% of hit rate.
So the AoO usually have more chance to hit too in PF2, why they appear to be brutal sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As YuriP stated,
In PF1, one attack was often a minor percent of the monster's total offense and also often missed high AC PCs. It was common to have some players intentionally trigger AoOs for their allies with little risk.
In PF2, as noted, that first Strike is over half their offense (and likely higher than 60%) and even with minions has a good chance of hitting.
I'd be wary of "what % have AoOs?" because that's what's led to people checking the Bestiary into thinking they're rare and giving horrible advice based on that. It's more what % of monsters/NPCs in adventures have AoOs and then numbers ramp up.
Again as noted, humanoids with combat training often do and the same with Giants, perhaps the two most common martial enemies. And if not that, others have tripping or pushing strikes. If the creature seems Fighter-like, they likely have AoOs and if they seem Barbarian-like, they likely do after 6th...just like PCs because monsters in this edition are made ferocious...just like PCs.
Of course, there's Step when they have 5' reach or when you can perhaps block a path to your chewy friends because as we've learned if the enemy can get to your allies for even one Strike, that's most of their offense!
(I love this because it makes battles so dynamic, even if it frightens me to work alongside less tactically inclined players!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with use Recall Knowledge to try know if a monster have AoO is because how much do your GM thinks this is relevant that you could know. Even more, this is not a clear ability of a monster, is hard to GM explain "you, pass, your char know that this monster can make an AoO!" without being a metagame. A weakness, an immunity, an resistance, even what is the most strong or weak save is able to do as a fluffy explanation, but AoO is way harder to do.
Furthermore, it is impossible to use this against humanoids foes that doesn't match in 4 traditions (like bandits, orcs, guards and so on), maybe can Recall Knowledge using society, but still hard to info such reactive ability.
So, is there something my players (and monsters) should be doing with their 3rd action when they aren't moving?
Yes. So far you have gottten quite a good list if you put it together.
My recommendation is to understand Demoralise first.
Its a simple thing, it can be a good prompt for role playing, it lowers bascially every defense, so you can do it first and it helps you and the rest of the party.
Inflcit it on the players, and they will learn fast.
Then move onto all the others.
Casters usually cast the shield cantrip. Maybe a 1 action focus spell.
Champions raise shield and do a couple of attacks or a skill.
Fighters should start to have more two-action attacks like Power Attack or Intimidating Strike, they combine with a second strike or some other action.
Rangers usually use all their actions on various things like marking, attacking, and commanding an animal.
Rogue usually attacks, maybe uses a skill like Deception for feint or Stealth to hide to set up sneak at range.
Barbarian rage, attack, and maybe some other rage power.
Monks get 2 action attacks eventually. But a lot of monk is move, flurry, move. Maybe use a ki power.
Druids are usually spell and attack.
It really depends on your class. Eventually, you should have a lot of options for 3rd actions with most classes. I think wizard is probably the most boring 3rd action class which usually consists of cast shield or some will tell you recall knowledge.
You have to start to understand how things work. If a caster, cast a spell without the attack trait like electric arc and then use a bow or ranged weapon. The damage will add up. For a first attack you can usually land a hit on a lot of monsters. It's little nuances like getting used to casters using weapons that change how you think about action economy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, is there something my players (and monsters) should be doing with their 3rd action when they aren't moving?
Basically, everything listed up thread. When they aren't spending that action on the obvious things like raising their shield, or actions that are not impacted by MAP (like Demoralize), they should move. Making your enemy use an action to move is almost always a good idea. So many monsters have action chains like Strike - Grab - Constrict that tactical movement is not just encouraged, its almost mandatory. Even though PCs generally enjoy an action economy advantage, they should not be giving their enemy the opportunity to maximize its own actions. Movement should not be limited to getting into position, but should be a fluid dynamic that is constantly employed to minimize your enemy's effectiveness. That goes hand-in-hand with maximizing your own effectiveness.
The Recall Knowledge issue is one much deeper than this question and has many of its own threads. Before you can add it to the list, you have to know your group's opinion of its effectiveness and how generous (or stingy) your GM is with the information revealed. Some groups don't use it in combat at all, while others almost require it to be effective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I’m always trying to remind my players of different actions they could be taking over stride, strike, and/or cast spell. We are all used to far less tactical focused systems. I remember how thrilled I was reading through the CRB the first time and seeing that skills actually do something! Normally skills come off as a general concept with a lot of GM fiat. DCs were whatever felt right at the moment and what skill would be used was based on who made the best argument. Due to that, my players don’t really consider other options beyond the standard actions.
To try to change that, I’ve been having the enemies use skills and movement tactics to demonstrate and hopefully inspire the players to experiment. So far, old habits die hard.
In my game this weekend my players made liberal use of the Take Cover action when facing off against several hill giants across a body of water after seeing several rocks thrown on round one find their targets easily. Those that didn't Take Cover to end their round found themselves the target of multiple rocks and suffered greatly from having their AC lower than it could have been.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think spending actions making yourself harder to hit (taking cover, raising shield, stepping away) can be a double-edged sword if it gets monsters to all focus fire on a different PC who didn't manage to do so. Preventing the monsters from focus firing can be pretty important!
I would challenge the players to, now that they've been playing for a bit, take a look at their characters and figure out what new feats, equipment or other build components they could pick up to make sure they have more useful third actions. And sometimes that's a counterintuitive thing - people have mathed out for example that Strike followed by (-5 MAP) Power Attack tends to have a better overall result than Power Attack followed by a (-10 MAP) Strike.
Another way to look at it is to say "you have two attack actions that you're gonna do - what are you going to do BEFORE that?". Change the frame from what to do with a leftover third action, to what you're spending your pre-Strike action on to make the Strike better. Are you moving to set up a flank? Tripping an enemy? Demoralizing? Softening up enemies in another way?
In our AoA party, the monk tends to open up with a Trip, and then goes flurrying and ends up making a regular Strike with his third action. This is pretty good because only the Trip has a critical failure penalty, which is unlikely to happen because he does it when he doesn't have MAP yet. And when enemies go down, which they usually do, the Agile and Flat-Footed make the MAP on his fists pretty mild. Doing the flurry second, not third, is also a good choice because he has Stunning Fist so flurry hits are more valuable than regular punches.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
people have mathed out for example that Strike followed by (-5 MAP) Power Attack tends to have a better overall result than Power Attack followed by a (-10 MAP) Strike
I've followed some of that and while I don't disagree with the math, for me the fundamental flaw is that suite of actions. IMO, you would be better off taking the Power Attack and then not attacking at all with the other action, but use it to counter your enemy's action economy (moving, raise shield, etc.) so they are less effective not only against you, but your allies as well.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damage output is not the end-all, be-all of character effectiveness. You can often be much more effective by reducing your enemy's potential even if that means a reduction in your own DpR. And the problem with analyzing that is unless you know specifically the potential of the enemy, you cannot crunch the math in advance.
Damage output is not the end-all, be-all of character effectiveness. You can often be much more effective by reducing your enemy's potential even if that means a reduction in your own DpR. And the problem with analyzing that is unless you know specifically the potential of the enemy, you cannot crunch the math in advance.
Just because precision is not possible does not mean that the analysis is not possible or productive.
It is possible to make reasonable assumption do the maths, and understanding how the variable affect the result - come up with more efficient strategies.
|
At some point you want to take advantage of all of the status penalties, flat-footed, etc. that have been imposed on the enemy. Fighter is a class that should be thinking about taking a third attack or a high probability second attack with a damage boost once things have been done to reduce an enemy's AC. Just like in 1E, the best debuff remains killing the enemy faster. If you've got a 50% chance to hit on a second attack, you've got a 25% chance to hit on a third attack. If one more solid hit or a solid hit with power attack is going to kill the thing, but you raise a shield instead, you're giving it another round of attacks that it might not otherwise get.
There's no single answer to always do something else or always take a third attack or always power attack. It all depends on the circumstances. Fighters should probably be taking third attacks (or using some two action option) pretty often against creatures that are lower level than them, because chances are they've got a pretty good chance at succeeding, and they do good damage when they hit.
Against bosses, it might make more sense to move away or raise a shield. Unless that boss is flanked and frightened and baned and you know you're hitting it on a low number to begin with.
If you can force an opponent to use two actions by moving away with one action of your own, that's a great situation. If you're just trading your third action for their third action, you're still probably coming out ahead against a single boss due to the party outnumbering them. If it's a group of lower level creatures, though, you'd just be prolonging the combat or risking that they go attack someone who can't take a hit the way a Fighter can.
In my opinion, too many people treat the game like if you don't have a high chance to crit, it's not worth attacking. Or assume that a third attack is always going to only hit on a 20. That is really not the case in a lot of situations, especially not when you're playing the class that is more accurate than almost everything else in the game.
There are often better things to do than make a third Strike.
But making a third Strike is still better than nothing. Unless there's some kind of punishment in play, critically failing an attack roll isn't usually any worse than failing. Sure, you'll probably miss, but... so? You aren't any worse off missing than you are doing nothing.
Signal boosting this because I had the impression the OP might be doing fumbles on a non-nat 1 critical failure, which is not how the rules work and generally a bad idea.