I've tried searching both here on the forum and elsewhere and I couldn't find any discussion about this, though I think it is a pretty obvious problem.
Lets say and you and an opponent are using melee attacks and you're the one higher on the initiative. If you go and do what should be the tactical option which is to move in and attack first you would be in fact screwing yourself.
You are using one to three actions just walking to them. Which leaves you with less actions (or none at all). This means not only less attacks but other actions you can perform like raise shield.
There is a possibility that you could kill an enemy in one/two attacks, but you're not even guaranteed to hit so it is unlikely unless it is a very low level minion.
On the other the opponent is now adjacent to you and has all their actions on their turn. They don't need to waste them in movement so they can fully attack/do usefull things.
So for simplicity lets assume a one-on-one. Depending on the strides needed and the non attack action you have available, in most cases it would be more advantegous to just sit and let the other person approach. Especially if you use your ready an strike for when they are in range plus a defensive action or something.
It is better for both combatants to wait for the other to approach. So it like a game of chicke nwhere one side has to just take the hit and mess up their action economy. Or they can just make ranged attacks instead.
What really ends up happening in practice though is that when a primary melee attack dependand PCs get a high initiative roll, they will do the most obvious thing and go and attack ... and almost every get severly punished for it in the action economy. (In a real battle with multiple eneiems on both sides it might even get worse).
This looks like a pretty big flaw in the system - unless you commit to some galaxy-brain schemes you will be punished for higher initiative and melee users are discourtaged from approaching first. And what's bad is that this is not a niche case but is at the very basis of the system and apply for amost each fight.
IDK why I never seen more discussions about this. I was first made aware from Taking20's follow up video about the illusion of choice in PF2e https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_582tbKz4E0&t=1230s. As you this is very much a real situation here. (in the video he's discussing how disadvantegous it is for a character build for ranged attacks to switch to melee but the point pretty much still stands).
Now I can see people dismissing this because of the diminishing return of the multi attack penalty. But
1. But optimized character especially at higher levels are build around being able to take advantage of their second and third attack.
2. There are almost always actions other that attack you can use. If you ready an attack and the enemy approaches you, you're still ahead action wise and you still get to hit firt. In some situations you could be better delaying until after the enemy's turn. Hell if you move a step back you're forcing close ranged enemeies to waste a stride to match you.
Now this doesn't really apply if either you or the enemy switch to a ranged attack. But appart from having to use propably a worse character option, this is just more hair-brained scheming.
I expect that a lot of people wouldn't have given this a thought or just wouldn't be bothered by it much and would try and play normally. But to me that sounds that players are constantly forced to play suboptimally and not even know it. And that doesn't sound like good design to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stride -> Attack -> Step seems like a good plan if you don't want to end your turn in melee range.
Alternatively if you are multiple melee characters then flanking the enemy is an advantage you can set up over it depending on how the rest of the initiative order looks like.
A game of chicken also only works if there are no other ranged characters in the game. If the opponents are only melee and you have a mix of ranged and melee character it does sound like a wise action to force them to make the first move as they must move in a disadvantaged position (the readied attack) or take ranged attacks without retalliation.
EDIT: The game of chicken dynamic also changes a lot depending on the goals of the battle, if you are to eliminate some guards, they can gladly hold their position as keeping the status quo is a bonus for them but not for the attackers. If you're trying to take out a priority target then taking a disadvantaged position might be worth to keep the pressure up as high as possible. If two sides are just staring at each other then you have to wonder why they're in the position they are in the first place where they want to kill or maim each other.
Having more reach than your opponent also changes this dynamic, if the opponent is a huge creature you need to close in or he'll abuse his advantages over you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's think about your case:
First round, initiative A, opponent A moves twice and makes one Strike. He's one first attack ahead.
First round, initiative B, opponent B makes 3 Strikes (easiest case). As second attack deals 55% of first attack on average and third attack 25%, he's 80% of a first attack ahead.
Second round, initiative A, opponent A makes 3 Strikes. He's one first attack ahead again.
And so on.
So, yes, winning initiative in this situation is not a big advantage, but it's not a disadvantage at all.
If it is you can delay your turn to be exactly where you want it to be in the turn order at the cost of your reaction for the turn.
And this is only true under the assumption that the enemy will rush you w/o ranged options or having better reach than you.
It's also not a bad idea to have access to a ranged attack. Be it bow and arrow a cantrip from your ancestry or an archetype.
Or you could spend your first turn recall knowledge, raise a shield or other helpful actions.
For a spellcaster with AoE attacks it's particularly important to go first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, there isn't much of a disadvantage to advancing first, so long as that advance doesn't eat your whole turn. You will still get your first, and most accurate, attack and possibly a second/some other action. The only situation I can think of where you would honestly lose out on real damage potential is maybe a late game flurry ranger who's MAP is severely low, but even then they have some of the better action economy in the game and can better afford an action to move to engage than anybody but a monk.
If MAP wasn't a thing, then I'd agree. Since MAP is a thing, I'd say getting first blood is far more of an advantage than getting to whiff a third attack at -10, after suffering through your opponents first strike.
Arguably PF1 was far worse about this when looked at in a vacuum. What is better; moving and making a single strike, or waiting and making a full attack for 3 or many more (depending on level and other factors) attacks?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, this situation is actually quite rare. 2 opponents who have:
- no ranged attack
- no spellcasting ability
- no need to enter stances or other preparatory actions
- no Stride + Strike abilities
- similar Reach and Speed
- no agenda
- human intelligence
- a psychology pushing them toward tactical combat
- no ally
It's far from common.
The common case is the case where a melee martial rolls high initiative against a bunch of enemies or a super strong melee boss. In that case, yes, charging in the thick of things is often a very bad idea, especially if the enemies act just after you. But that's quite logical in that case, you wait for your party before charging.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@rarebit:
It's been discussed several times actually. The good news is, other people haven't been forced to play badly all this time and somehow been unable to notice. Quite a few people noticed, then adapted their playstyle. That's actually a big deal in PF2: adapting to the situation. It's much less like PF1 and other games where you fixate on the best-case sitation and optimize for that. In PF2 you very quickly reach the optimal build for best case situations. The real art is in doing well in Plan B situations.
The game goes out of its way to make sure no one single tactic is always the best. Imagine you're playing a barbarian and you run into a big, big bear in the woods. You're primarily a melee combatant, but the bear is a lot higher level than you. You have a bow but you're not great at it. But the bear has no ranged options at all. The optimal thing isn't to use your best attack because you'll take a lot of damage and probably lose. The optimal thing is to kite the bear and whittle it down with the bow.
This "whoever closes in has a disadvantage" theme doesn't play out so strongly in practice because of a lot of reasons:
- One side has better ranged attacks. If both sides wait it out, the side with weaker ranged options will lose.
- Many combats just don't start all that far away. Many combats start because someone openened the door to the next room.
- PCs tend to have a high speed. Speed-boosting options like Fleet, Boots of Bounding and Longstrider are popular. Feats like Sudden Charge also help you cover a lot of ground.
- If you have attacks of opportunity or a similar ability you can quickly limit where enemies can go on the battlefield. You want to pick the dominant spots first. If your fighter can get next to the enemy wizard or archer he can really cramp their style.
- If you do a standoff with the monsters one of them can just leave to get reinforcements. The longer this takes the worse your situation will become. So you need to break the stalemate.
You talk about "playing normally" and it being a hare-brained scheme to switch to a ranged weapon which is a "worse" option. But you're thinking too much in Plan A situations. Your bow is worse than your sword if everything else were equal; but it's not. If using your sword you have to risk ~20 damage to deal 20 damage, and with the bow you risk 0 damage to deal 10 damage, then the bow is better.
Now, where it gets interesting from a "Plan B optimization" viewpoint is figuring out which ranged options go well with which melee style. For example, if you play a sword and shield Double Slice fighter, you don't really want to use a bow as your ranged option because switching stuff from that many hands when enemies come closer isn't great. It might be better to instead of a sword use a light hammer + shield; it's still agile, has a good crit effect, and can be thrown. Put a returning rune on it and you have a ranged plan. Alternatively, use an ancestry feat or dedication to get a spell like Ray of Frost, since somatic components for spells can be performed while you have your hands full. So you can be all ready for melee and still pose a threat at range. My monk went for a cold iron returning javelin because I get a nice chunk of strength on the thrown damage, but since I also use a finesse style it actually works at my best to-hit.
Ignoring abilities and battle field, looking only at action economy as the factor, then yes m, it's kinda a disadvantage.
Now with other factors in the game... it means that you are the most likely target to be attacked, that also means that the backline is the least likely target. Works even better if you have a movement based reaction.
If you have reach and the opponent don't, you break even the action economy part as they need to step to get to you.
Skirmishers classes like Swashbuckler and Monk loves situations like that as they can move in with Tumble Through/Strike, Finisher/Flurry of Blows and then move out.
Metastrikes like Knockdown forcing a condition in the enemy are also better applied before the enemy acts.
And a lot of other things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, this situation is actually quite rare. 2 opponents who have:
- no ranged attack
- no spellcasting ability
- no need to enter stances or other preparatory actions
- no Stride + Strike abilities
- similar Reach and Speed
- no agenda
- human intelligence
- a psychology pushing them toward tactical combat
- no allyIt's far from common.
The common case is the case where a melee martial rolls high initiative against a bunch of enemies or a super strong melee boss. In that case, yes, charging in the thick of things is often a very bad idea, especially if the enemies act just after you. But that's quite logical in that case, you wait for your party before charging.
Yeah, the one on one for simplicity thing frankly makes the whole thought experiment fall apart because one on one never happens. This is a team based game.
It's also seems kind of realistic. When two equal foes who are aware of one another face off from a starting distance, they don't tend to dash at each other full speed. There's a bit of a standoff as they draw closer to one another. You'll even see people standing by goading the other to attack first because of the slight disadvantage moving in first has.
Such a duel might well end up being them shuffling toward each other until they're 5 feet apart, then engaging in a series of "step-strike-step" turns if they want to be careful and "step-strike-strike" if they want to gamble or turn the tide.
In any event, it's an absolute corner case and you shouldn't worry about it, but I like that it has the benefit of potentially organically creating real-world standoffs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that Delay and Readied actions are very much A Thing. My players have made this into quite the strategy when it comes to melee foes by Raising Shields and Readying Trip actions just out of reach of enemies, leaving them to spend their entire turn reaching them only to be knocked prone.
As a fighter, I often lead the party with a javelin or throwing weapon in hand, threw it on the first round of combat then repositioned and drew out my weapon. You can absolutely run in and attack and run out, but positioning is something to consider in a non-white room theorycraft.
Yes, it's often disadvantageous, more so if you have extraordinary speed or move over 30' from your casters.
Rage + Sudden Charge = danger! And the same could be said about Stance/Hunt Prey + move + attack. Now you're susceptible to the other team's best tactics, which may include Knockdown, Grab, and other effects that make it difficult for you to return to your party. Or flanking for Sneak Attack or Pack Attack (or both w/ lions!). Plus there are the most basic of strategies such as there being a trap or ambush.
Readying an action to attack for when they approach or having an opening ranged attack can be valuable, as can having other options like Recall Knowledge or casting a buff. I think this is one area where classes with good one-action attacks can excel, like w/ Skirmish Strike or a type of flurry.
On the flip side, AoEs become somewhat common, so you do want to disperse!
Yet maybe one of y'all has a protective aura or can cover for nearby allies. And so the back and forth of tactics continues, which is why IMO one should build a versatile PC with lots of agency in different types of scenarios. As noted above, being able to operate both at range and in melee seems the most basic to consider (not that it's always basic to achieve, but that it's so common).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that anybody has mentioned the possibility (especially at low levels) that going first eliminates the target. One dead target gets NO attacks.
Yeah, it typically only happens at low levels or against mooks but it DOES happen. Especially if 2 or 3 characters win initiative and all advance and focus fire.
Sometimes advancing is good. Sometimes it is bad. Which means that tactics matter and that is a GOOD thing
I don't think that anybody has mentioned the possibility (especially at low levels) that going first eliminates the target. One dead target gets NO attacks.
Yeah, it typically only happens at low levels or against mooks but it DOES happen. Especially if 2 or 3 characters win initiative and all advance and focus fire.
Sometimes advancing is good. Sometimes it is bad. Which means that tactics matter and that is a GOOD thing
The OP kind of mentioned it, although they dismissed it as unlikely. I think you're right to circle back to it though. It's not at all impossible to end an enemy in one action.
At level 1, you could easily be fighting level -1 enemies. A quick search shows many enemies with HP in the 6 to 8 range. Level 0 enemies are turning up with around 15 HP, which is still in the realm of two attacks or a crit. Even some level 1 enemies have 15 HP.
At higher levels it's less likely to erase enemies in one or two actions, sure, but then we start thinking about your ally's ranged attack finishing it off before it gets its turn.
Definitely not something to dismiss out of hand.
|
|
And at higher levels you start to get things like Rogues opportune backstab coming up. Even at level 12 I've seen an enemy (admittedly a mook) go down to 2 or 3 crits on the first roundAt higher levels it's less likely to erase enemies in one or two actions, sure,
Yes, especially when the party piles on a bit. And it can be a pretty strong move too, because sometimes the mooks are really less there to fight on their own, and more to buff the main bad or debuff the players. Like creaming the apprentice wizard before he casts Haste on the big bad that even hits frequently at max MAP.
---
Another main reason to move first is to take control of key spots on the map. For example a doorway. I've seen a lot of fights where the party gets stuck in a 5ft doorway or hallway that allows only one PC to fight effectively while being targeted by three enemies.
Just because you shouldn't rush heedlessly doesn't mean you should dismiss the option of rushing in heedfully :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
players are constantly forced to play suboptimally and not even know it.
Not meaning any disrespect here. But your entire post was analyzing the scenario and options (correctly, I might add), and figuring out several optimal options.
So no, people are not forced to play suboptimally. It is just that there is enough depth to the game that the 'optimal' play is not always the same. That is what makes the tactics of combat not stagnant and boring.
In fact, what the 'optimal' play is can change from round to round - even for the same characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to jump on the "there's no universal strategy to win fights" train.
The key is to be aware of all the different mismatches, and to take advantage of the ones in your favor. If your speed is greater than theirs, Striding away forces them to spend 2 actions to undo your 1. If their ranged weapons have ranges of 25' and yours has 60', you have a huge advantage at 55-60'. If you have cover and no square in front of you does, make them come to you. If your melee weapons do d12s and theirs do d6s, you'll happily exchange hit for hit. If they have a 3-action special attack, you want to deny them that attack - potentially even if it means giving up your primary attack, because the marginal value of their third action is greater than the marginal value of your first. When playing a champion, I'm frequently delaying my action so that I can put myself in the correct place to cover all my allies with my reaction.
I've played with several groups where players don't really need to see a map. "Oh, there are enemies? I don't care what they are, I don't care what's around us, I Stride twice and Strike. And next turn, regardless of what's happening to me, or my teammates, I'm going to Strike three times." I mean, frankly, some spellcasters do this too, just unloading their top spell slots because they don't know what else to do, or just spamming electric arc because it's the "best" spell instead of pulling out a dagger and taking advantage of its slashing weakness.
|
|
or just spamming electric arc because it's the "best" spell instead of pulling out a dagger and taking advantage of its slashing weakness.
I agree with you, but the pedant in me insists that I point out that for many of my spell casters spamming electric arc is a MUCH better decision than wading into melee with my dagger :-) :-) :-) :-). Regardless of weakness.
Now, spamming electric arc AND providing a flank? That is often very much a winning move :-).
Telekinetic Projectile to hit the slashing weakness, and you can threaten and provide flanking with a reach weapon that you aren't even proficient with if you aren't intending to hit with it.
Tons of options.
Anyone who uses all three actions on attacks is generally wasting the third action, so in reality both sides are getting (roughly) the same amount of attacks unless the one going first has to stride more than once (they usually have some kind of feat like sudden charge however which mitigates this).
The real advantage is if the one going second uses their extra action on something like demoralize which makes the two attacks they get more likely to hit.
But, the one going first gets to create a space for their party to maneuver in, while the one going second is stuck wherever they began initiative (GMs often start players out in a clump on one edge of the map, and all of the enemies getting to the players before the players can spread out can be a real disaster for the squishier members of the party).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's think about your case:
First round, initiative A, opponent A moves twice and makes one Strike. He's one first attack ahead.
First round, initiative B, opponent B makes 3 Strikes (easiest case). As second attack deals 55% of first attack on average and third attack 25%, he's 80% of a first attack ahead.
Second round, initiative A, opponent A makes 3 Strikes. He's one first attack ahead again.
And so on.So, yes, winning initiative in this situation is not a big advantage, but it's not a disadvantage at all.
You get to match round for round. Yeah A got to have 1 action before B but B essensially got to take their second and third action before A.
You don't get to match action for action, so the 1 that A takes before B isn't nessesarily an advangtage
A at the end of each of their turns would have normally taken 3 more actions than B has. But in fact since 2 were wasted it is only 1 useful action that goes otward fighting B. B at the end of each turns would have taken the same number of actions as A, but in fact a whole 2 "useful" actions.
And keep in mind that those actions could be anything useful including defensive action. Also different combos which take multiple actions are more powerfull than separate actions.
It is all abstact and complex but dependant on each separate isntance. It is still an effect which shouldn't be there.
But wait, you can still ready an attack and use 1 action. That way you still attack first and lose only 1 action when the opponent loses at least 1. It is still more advantageous that approaching first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm still not seeing it. If I win initiative, I get to decide on how the fight will go. I can use ranged attacks, move into a choke point, Ready actions, even Stride to cover, Take Cover, and Hide.
In a vacuum of only Striding and Striking, yeah, going first as a melee character with zero other options makes your actions have little weight to them. But positioning isn't something you can easily measure in a white room situation. In a recent game, my players beat out a giant spider on initiative. The monastic archer monk dropped into her stance, flurried out some arrows, and rasied her buckler. The mountain stance monk (my group likes monks) dropped into stance and Readied an action to Grab the spider if it got within range. The warpriest Delayed until after the spider.
Sure enough, the spider's turn comes and it approach into melee (two actions to Stride up), gets Grabbed, and actually managed to Escape! But that was it for it's turn. Just in time for the warpriest to circle around for flanking and land a devastating crit.
I mean, if you really just want to white room the game, you could white room different scenarios that actually happen. Even two melee fighters are going to have more interesting options than "run at opponent and swing." Even a Step back and a Readied action to Trip/Grab/hell, even Strike is going to pay dividends more.
But the point is that just because of an eccentricity of the system you get this counter-narrative flaw where the later acting person gets a boost just because they get to do their "simultanious" action after the state has changed to them being adjancent to a target and it.
If you actually actually want to engage with the system and take the effect into account this could lead you to play in this weird unatural and not for any rational or in-story kind of reason.
It disincentivizes you from ever approaching non-adjacent enemies, especially un-engaged ones, making you favour ones which wont use stride anywaywhich all leads to disincentivizing melles attacks as whole.
You talk about "playing normally" and it being a hare-brained scheme to switch to a ranged weapon which is a "worse" option. But you're thinking too much in Plan A situations. Your bow is worse than your sword if everything else were equal; but it's not. If using your sword you have to risk ~20 damage to deal 20 damage, and with the bow you risk 0 damage to deal 10 damage, then the bow is better.
It is a hare brained scheme since in this case you are switching to ranged not because your skills with the weapon or because the range is more safe or tacticly viable. The enemy can also switch to range or just come next to you. Which is what you would want to bait them to do. No, the reason you would be switching here is only becausd a glitch in the action system.
- Many combats just don't start all that far away. Many combats start because someone openened the door to the next room.
Unless you start from a dialogue or stealth and backstab, you will need at least 1 action to close the distance.
Why should that be the "tactical option"?
Because players usually go and take turn immediately and they use the most apparant option, the weapon they have already drawn, the attack and combo they have build for.
Stride -> Attack -> Step seems like a good plan if you don't want to end your turn in melee range.
Then you give up two actions for movement and your opponent only needs to give up one.
All those decisions about wheather to risk it and go into the enemy frontline alone and take out their wizard or staying and protecting your own backline or even thinking about range penalties - now those are the kind of choices which come organically from the game itself and make the game more interesting. That is why I don't like muddling that with unintended consequences of the action economy
It's been discussed several times actually. The good news is, other people haven't been forced to play badly all this time and somehow been unable to notice. Quite a few people noticed, then adapted their playstyle.
So it sounds to me like everyone just agred that this is how things are and moved on. Even though it is a flaw of the system. In fact maybe because it is so ingrained in the 3 action turn that there is not much you can do as far as houseruling goes which could remove the problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the point is that just because of an eccentricity of the system you get this counter-narrative flaw where the later acting person gets a boost just because they get to do their "simultanious" action after the state has changed to them being adjancent to a target and it.
If you actually actually want to engage with the system and take the effect into account this could lead you to play in this weird unatural and not for any rational or in-story kind of reason.
It disincentivizes you from ever approaching non-adjacent enemies, especially un-engaged ones, making you favour ones which wont use stride anywaywhich all leads to disincentivizing melles attacks as whole
In extremely rare (as in, I've never once seen them in god knows how many games), white-room, purely theoretical situations you can end up with one combatant having a slight advantage by going second. In which case the first actor still has the opportunity to delay their turn if they want.
Such situations are very similar to *actual duels* where it's a mistake to rush in and attack first, and better to slowly approach your enemy and, and potentially goad them into attacking first.
It is a hare brained scheme since in this case you are switching to ranged not because your skills with the weapon or because the range is more safe or tacticly viable. The enemy can also switch to range or just come next to you. Which is what you would want to bait them to do. No, the reason you would be switching here is only becausd a glitch in the action system.
I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling? Anything not perfectly aligned with your white-room, perfectly mirrored, melee-only combatant scenario is hare brained and sub-optimal?
Because players usually go and take turn immediately and they use the most apparant option, the weapon they have already drawn, the attack and combo they have build for.
"Very first thing that comes to mind" does not equal "best tactical option"
Then you give up two actions for movement and your opponent only needs to give up one.
Then the first guy gets all three actions available again. In real world duels (although the system doesn't and shouldn't have a goal of emulating real world duels) result in brief lunges and withdrawals. This is well emulated by each closing distance slowly until they're both within step-strike-step range.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It disincentivizes you from ever approaching non-adjacent enemies, especially un-engaged ones, making you favour ones which wont use stride anywaywhich all leads to disincentivizing melles attacks as whole.
You might think that in theory, but it's not how it tends to play out in practice. I see people wading into melee all the time with good results. When the theory doesn't match the evidence, you need to figure out what's wrong with your assumptions.
Because players usually go and take turn immediately and they use the most apparant option, the weapon they have already drawn, the attack and combo they have build for.
You have a very low opinion of how apparently all other players act.
It's a game that you learn. It's like chess, where the queen is the most powerful piece, and beginners often run around with their queen exposed. That doesn't work well, and eventually they learn better tactics. Doesn't make the queen a weak piece.
In Pathfinder heedlessly running in doesn't work. That doesn't mean you never want to run in at all, just that you need to learn when it's a good idea and how to execute the idea well. And this is why Pathfinder is quite open to changing your build. Try something, think about whether it works well, and then maybe retrain a feat or change weapon. Moving runes is easier than in any previous edition for a reason.
You complain that it's "hare-brained scheming" to use anything other than your best attack, but that's just not true. If my third-best attack results in me winning the fight with 0 damage taken while my primary attack would see me win the fight but at only half HP remaining, then the third-best attack is actually optimal for this situation. Optimality isn't determined during character building, it's determined in the situation.
Becoming good at Pathfinder is a matter of becoming better at reading the situation, seeing what's needed in this particular one. And also about learning from previous situations, so you'll be better prepared for the next time they happen. For example, the first time my party ran into a Vrock it went badly for us. It could fly, had reach and attacks of opportunity. It could just hover menacingly above the cleric, who was the only one with a good attack against it, but would take a painful AoO if he tried. We didn't have a good answer to that. The second time we ran into it, we had reach weapons of our own, could move out of threatened areas without provoking, and had cold iron arrows. And it went down fast. Because we'd analyzed what went badly for us the first time and adapted.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if going second is an advantage, winning initiative is ideal because you can choose to delay if you want. This is a complete non-issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.X/PF1 (and many more RPGs) it was unwise to be the one charging in unless you had Pounce or another unusual ability. You'd be trading a single attack for your opponent's full attack. This was the main thing I'd teach new players by using a Girallon vs. Girallon battle where the 2nd one nearly always won. So I'm not sure why there's finger-pointing at PF2 where the difference is less stark rather than more.
Of course in previous iterations the monsters were less competitive so poor tactics mattered less if one built well. Much of the battle's narrative was predetermined by one's stats and a single-best tactic (or even spell, spammed) rather than the situation & dice. White room analysis was justified by actual play results. I much appreciate the need in PF2, as Ascalaphus pointed out, to survey the living, breathing battlefield for what's currently necessary rather than having one-tactic ponies trotting about. Your warrior charges into a room of adversaries alone, or tries to face the big boss as a solo hero rather than a team, and you're going to get hurt.
Also not sure why people are referencing one-on-one fights vs. a similarly powered enemy when that's so rare. Going first in a team battle does give the best options, yet the go-to is seldom "go stand next to a crowd of enemies who may or may not go before my allies come to help".
I've mentioned this before, but it seems pertinent again. I had a player who'd consistently win initiative while most or all of the team would go after the enemies. This melee character was just as consistent at running into the thick of battle and getting walloped. After appeals to tactics failed, we finally RPed him/his PC into getting a ranged weapon to use in round one and it made a major difference which the player had to shyly admit.
But the point is that just because of an eccentricity of the system you get this counter-narrative flaw where the later acting person gets a boost just because they get to do their "simultanious" action after the state has changed to them being adjancent to a target and it.
I'm not sure I follow in terms of "narrative" especially in regards to what makes sense in reality. Mostly because we don't track initiative and turn orders in reality.
If two guys got into a fight and one ran at the other only to catch a fist to the face as he swung, how does that look for us in PF2? Did the second guy "win initiative and Delay?" Did the first guy miss his attack after spending his actions to run into melee?
Like, none of that actually makes sense trying to map real life combat to game mechanics. Fights are very rarely two guys standing next to each other and punching a lot. Fights are filled with a variety of small subtle things that I can't imagine any system capturing. TTRPGs do a good job with the broad strokes and I genuinely love PF2 for the tactical depth it gives.
I'm not sure what, uhhh, you want out of this discussion? Like I'm not sure that suboptimal is a thing that exists much anymore outside of someone willfully making a poor character or choices ("Combat starts? I spend my turn putting my weapons away and fall prone.") Especially with MAP working the way it does, even "run into melee and end adjacent to an enemy is" bad, but hardly suboptimal. Hell, I had a Giant Barbarian who managed to pull that off for 4 books of AoA before getting TPK'd (and it wasn't at all because of this behavior).
It disincentivizes you from ever approaching non-adjacent enemies, especially un-engaged ones, making you favour ones which wont use stride anywaywhich all leads to disincentivizing melles attacks as whole.
You write that like the game is primarily about melee attacks, so that it's a bad thing that running up and swinging with a melee weapon is disincentivized.
I think the gist of the arguments against you is this: yes, Leeeeeroy Jenkins!ing every fight is discouraged - and that's not always a bad thing.
The reason to do melee attacks is cause they often do a lot of reliable damage and if you're in melee range the squishy spellcasters are less likely to get hit.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking First is Superior Because (AFiSB) you can kill a weak enemy before he even acts
Attacking First is Inferior Because (AFiIB) the BBEG can full attack you and kills you
AFiSB you are a rogue and have your enemy flat footed
AFiIB you are a rogue and get suddenly swarmed by enemies
AFiSB you are a tank and protect your spellcaster
AFiIB you are a glass cannon and taking lots of damage is dangerous
AFiSB you are a spellcaster and attack from a distance
AFiIB you are a spellcaster and the enemy is out of reach for you 15 (30) foot reach spell
AFiSB because you have reach and AoO on your melee weapon
AFiIB because the enemy has reach and AoO on his melee weapon
AFiSB because you fight from range (soften the enemy up)
AFiIB because you fight from range (the enemy has a feat to conceal himself)
AFiSB you have feats that allow you to move and strike
AFiIB you don’t have feats that allow you to move and strike
AFiSB an Area of Effect spell (fireball) hits lots of enemies without endangering you
AFiIB an Area of Effect spell (burning hands) has a very limited reach
AFiSB it allows me to use choke points
AFiIB I’m already at a choke point
AFiSB I’m fast and don’t lose many actions
AFiIB my enemy is slow and loses multiple actions
AFiSB it allows me to kite my enemy
AFiIB there are some traps I might have triggered if I tried to kite him
The beauty of the game is - it depends on your character, the enemy, the composition of the group, the layout of the map and many more factors.
Optimized play means doing the best option given the circumstances. This makes the game (in my view) interesting.