Specifics Needed: Tactics for 2E

[Calybos1]

Our group—fairly experienced tabletop RPG players—is having great difficulty surviving any combats in 2E. We listen to each other, stay out of each other’s way, support each other when possible, etc., but the monsters regularly stomp all over us and the GM has to keep scaling down every encounter just to keep the game alive… and that’s after bumping us up a level above norm. (This is across several games, with several sets of different PCs.) Combats take forever, and no one’s having any fun because most of each session is wasted on boring, endless combats instead of an actual story.

When we look around for suggestions, we keep hearing “2E is a more tactical game.” “You need better tactics.” “Focus on your combat tactics and teamwork instead of just mindlessly pounding away.”

Okay; fine. But WHAT tactics?! We need some specifics here. We don’t want to become combat experts here (far from it--the last thing we want is to spend even more time on combat!), but we’re looking for more than just vague terms like “action denial.”

So let’s set some baseline rules to operate from.

Rule 1: 2E monsters hit much harder and more effectively than the PCs. They have better AC and hit points, too. In the long run, blow for blow, the monsters will win.

Rule 2: Action economy matters. Denying a monster an action is great, unless it costs you the same number of actions (or more, in the case of spellcasters). Losing an attack to deny the monster an attack is a bad bargain because it just prolongs the fight… and in the long run, the monsters will win.

So for a suggested tactic like "Just keep focusing on in-combat healing," we refer back to Rule 1. In the long run, that favors the monsters. And for suggestions like "Cast a spell to Daze somebody," we point to Rule 2; this is a bad tradeoff that just prolongs the fight.

Here are our group’s already known and practiced tactics:

• *Stay out of each other’s AOE spells.
  
• *Provide flanking when possible.
  
• *If someone has a simple or repeatable buff effect (such as Inspire Courage or Bless), cast it.

And our corresponding hard-earned lessons learned:

• *Don’t expect enemies to fail saves.
  
• *Don’t waste time on knowledge, deception, or Seek checks; the DCs are too high.
  
• *Everyone needs the Medicine skill for Battle Medicine.
  
• *Aid Another is a trap.
  
• *Don’t bother with actions like Intimidate; the DCs are too high and they do nothing.

So: Can anyone give examples of specific actions in combat beyond the basic attacks that will help a group survive, and even win occasionally, in a 2E fight? I know it’s easiest to give advice for a specific party composition, but this seems to happen with any party we play, regardless of makeup or level.

[WatersLethe]

Calybos1 wrote:

*Don’t expect enemies to fail saves.
*Don’t waste time on knowledge, deception, or Seek checks; the DCs are too high.
*Everyone needs the Medicine skill for Battle Medicine.
*Aid Another is a trap.
*Don’t bother with actions like Intimidate; the DCs are too high and they do nothing

These are raising a huge red flag for me. Can you give us some more detail about the enemies your GM is having you fight and your levels? It sounds to me like a matter of encounters being overtuned.

Intimidate, for example, is a GREAT tactic and among the ones you'll be recommended. If it literally never lands you're likely not in a well balanced campaign. Many groups get by just fine with one or two people with Medicine, or even none if you have a focus healer. Enemies fail saves often, sometimes even critically! Bosses might succeed more often than not, but those successes also often have some penalties. I have never even heard of people having trouble with knowledge check DCs.

I'd really like to know if there isn't some mechanical disconnect happening, either on the players' end or the GM's. Perhaps you're using the No Level to Proficiency rules by accident?

[Ten10]

Gonna echo what WatersLethe said.

There appears to be something amiss.

[thenobledrake]

There are a lot of moving parts to encounters in PF2, and many points on which "I know what I'm doing because I am very experienced with PF1, D&D 5e, or other similar games" potentially creates a kind of blind spot.

For example, someone very experienced with PF1/D&D 5e might not notice that PF2 refers to any monster the same level as the PCs (or higher) as a "boss" monster and may continue to design encounters that trend towards having higher level monsters in them because those types of encounters are the ones that worked out well in PF1/DD 5e.

And that's where a lot of the "we're playing smart, but it's still not helping" type of things can be breaking down; it's not a tactics problem to have a rough time in boss fight after boss fight, it's an encounter balance, pacing, or expectation-setting problem in that you're looking at "boss rush mode" and thinking you're looking at "standard difficulty mode."

But let me address each of your "hard-learned lessons" too to try and help:

don't expect enemies to fail saves: It's more accurate that you shouldn't be in a mindset that if your opponent successfully saves, then you have "failed" because most effects that call for a saving throw are actually doing something worthwhile to your target unless they critically succeed. Adjusting your expectations to "I had an effect, so I did good." will improve your attitude even without a mechanical change.

don't waste time on knowledge, deception, or seek checks: the DCs are too high: This strongly points at your GM trending to boss monsters in their encoutner design, because the DCs for those things are actually often low enough they are easier to hit than attacks are. Especially as you get to higher levels of play where advanced proficiency, boosted ability scores, and magic items adding bonuses come into play. Oh, and in the the specific case of knowledge your GM may have missed the part where the DC is meant to be tuned based on how prevalent the knowledge is in the world whether by a +/- 2/5/10 to the level-based DC or assigning a simple DC that's reasonable.

Aid is a trap: It isn't, at least not if you are decently good at what you're trying to Aid with. For example, even at 1st level where it is the worst odds that it can be in the game, a character can spend their 3rd action on their turn to set-up Aid for their ally's attack rather than making another attack on their own with a Multi-Attack Penalty. So say you've got a melee cleric with their +5 attack modifier aiding a rogue to help that big sneak attack damage land and maybe crit; you have a 5% chance of giving a +2 bonus, a 25% chance of giving a +1 bonus, a 25% chance of giving a -1 penalty, and a 45% chance of nothing happening - that looks "bad" but the reality is the comparison is to spending that action on a 2nd Strike of your own which, at best, is going to be a +1 attack modifier with an agile weapon so unless your foe has particular low AC you're more likely to wiff that than you are to wiff the Aid (and of course the odds are even more in the favor of Aid if it's actually a 3rd Strike you're giving up, but I assume characters do utility actions like Raise a Shield, Demoralize, and Recall Knowledge or move far more often than they do the maximum number of Strikes they can manage.)

Don't bother with actions like intimidate; the DCs are too high and they do nothing: That's another "my GM is trending to boss fights and doesn't realize it" indicator, because the DC to demoralize a goblin warrior is 13, and a 1st level character gets a +3 modifier just from being trained in Intimidation so it's 55% chance of success or better with minimal investment (now, yes, that is ignoring that maybe your PC doesn't speak goblin so there may be a -4 penalty for language barrier, but it's also ignoring that there's a feat easily gained by your background that negates that, or you could just have a higher intelligence and pick up the language since languages are actually useful despite people often handwaving them away so that common is effectively the only thing that matters - and also isn't factoring in charisma score, which presumably would be a few points higher if the player were hoping to make use of the demoralize action).

[Taja the Barbarian]

One thing to keep in mind is using the right tactics: Don't try to intimidate the high priest (who probably has a really good Will DC), and don't try to trip the 'nimble rogue-like' guy, while the 'big dumb oaf' creature would be probably be a great target for either of these options.

The same rules apply to spell casting: Try to target your foe's weakness (or at least your best guess as to it's weakness).

Action Denial is a great tactic when you outnumber your foe: In a 4 PCs vs. 1 Boss fight, denying the boss actions is generally worth the cost. If you don't outnumber your foe, it's probably a subpar idea unless you can apply it to all your foes at once...

Follow-up questions:

• How many PCs in your group?
• What sort of class lineups are in your parties?
• What levels are you playing at?
• Do your PCs start with 18 in their main stat?
• Are your skill checks being made by characters invested in the actual skill and stat or just by anyone with an action to spare?
• Is your party just incapable of rolling double-digits or your GM incapable of rolling under 15? (we've all had those days)

[Pixel Popper]

My table's experience, coming from nearly 10 years of Pathfinder 1e AP's, has not nearly as punishing with DCs too high to bother with Deception, Intimidation, Recall Knowledge, etc like you describe.

Are you running AP's or Homebrew?

Some things we have discovered:

(a.) Charismatic characters that train diplomacy, and are willing to take the skill feat, should Bon Mot tougher enemies. The debuffs to Will and Perception make a real difference.

(b.) Athletic characters ought to Trip fairly often, even if nobody has Attack of Opportunity. Prone targets are flat-footed and have a circumstance penalty to attack rolls. Fighters with Knockdown can trip after a strike with no multiple attack penalty.

Prone targets either suffer the attack and AC penalties, and face further abuse for being flat-footed, or they burn an action to stand, triggering attacks of opportunity, Disrupt Prey, and Stand Still.

(c.) Find ways to make enemies frightened (e.g. Fighter Intimidating Strike, Dread Ampoule), or sickened.

(d.) Find other ways to make opponents flat-footed. Flanking is great, but not always feasible. If you have other ways to make opponents flat-footed it makes a difference.

(e.) Look for other ways to land circumstance bonuses like Catfolk Dance or Scoundrel Rogue Distracting Feint which both give circumstance penalties to Reflex saves.

(f.) Find ways to deal additional damage doing things your character is already doing. For example, a Tripping Rogue with The Harder They Fall will do additional damage on every Trip.

Bon Mot, frightened, and sickened provide status penalties. Frightened and sickened also apply to AC. Flat-footed, Prone, Catfolk Dance, and Distracting Feint give circumstance penalties that stack with status penalties.

A frightened/sickened 1, prone target has a total of -3 to Strike and -3 AC. A successful catfolk dance/distracting feint against a frightened/sickened 1 opponent (Deception against -1 Perception) gives a total -3 to reflex saves making a trip easier to land.

In the Age of Ashes AP, one of our players is a Hobgoblin Scoundrel Rogue with Remoreseless Lash, Bon Mot, Titan Wrestler, Fighter multi-class, Intimidating Strike, Dread Striker, Distracting Feint, and Knockdown. She uses a Scorpion Whip to trip with reach and uses the Champion as a meat-shield.

She generally leads with Intimidating Strike followed by a Sneak Attack to trigger Remorseless Lash. With will debuffed by frightened, she attempts to Bon Mot to debuff perception and then knockdown. Following turns against the same targets are typically Distracting Feint, to debuff Reflex until the end of her next turn, and knockdown.

With Remorseless Lash, she's good at keeping the target frightened and, thus, flat-footed (Dread Striker). Knockdown provides fairly consistent sneak attack damage (triggering Remorseless Lash) and trips.

[Unicore]

The first thing that jumps out at me is that your party is conflating tactics, and tactical play, and strategies, and strategic play. A strong tactical player is making choices based upon the specific situation of the encounter to maximize advantages and minimize disadvantages. A strong strategic player is maneuvering the situation to create as many advantages and remove disadvantages before tactical decisions even come into play. When people talk about winning on the battlefield as opposed to character building, they are talking about the difference between tactics and strategy, but the difference is bigger than that too. For example, the way you are talking about tactical play, by creating a set of rules that must be followed in every encounter is actually creating a losing strategy for your party (at least, you seem to be identifying that your party is finding encounters too challenging too often and it is ruining peoples fun, which seems like the opposite of your desired goal).

PF2 is tactical because it defies "rules" about how to approach every encounter. Like I can say that the number one rule of good tactical play in PF2 is that exploiting weaknesses is much easier than maximizing your own strengths, and that Doing what you are best at, as often as you can, is a very common strategy for many roleplaying games, but it can be a recipe for disaster in PF2, but even this will fall apart under close scrutiny in some specific situations, because every encounter in PF2 presents its own set of problems to solve that will require different answers to solve them.

Why do I say this?

Because character build options are overwhelming designed to be situational in PF2. Feats like sudden charge, shield block, metamagic feats, various two weapon attack feats, monk stances, and a whole lot more often do not stack on top of each other very well, but they do tend to do very different things and excel in very different situations. Avoiding taking a second monk stance, or a different 2 action activity because "You will never use it" can easily lead you down the path of trying to make every enemy a nail, when some of them are going to be screws. Employing a strategy of building to do one thing best in PF2 can easily cost you the ability to do 3 or 4 things well, and "well vs an enemy weakness" is much better than "Best vs enemy strength."

Which leads to the second big problem I am seeing in your post. How do you know what your enemies weaknesses and strengths are? If you cannot identify what your enemy is trying to do tactically, you are playing roulette with your character's lives. For many parties, recalling knowledge is one way to "figure an enemy out" and learn what strengths the enemy wants to exploit and what weaknesses they are going to be trying to minimize, but there are other tactical ways to draw this information out, such as by paying attention to the environment of the encounter and how the creature interacts with it. There are many very powerful monsters that can be defeated in PF2 simply by controlling the pace and location of the encounter.

You are asking for people to provide you concrete specifics of winning tactics, but the problem with people trying to do that is that if you are trying to turn these examples into a repeatable list of "play the game this way" it is going to work sometimes, and fail miserably sometimes, which is probably the case with the tactics you are already using in combats and you wont feel like you are any better off.

It is also possible that PF2 will just always be a frustrating system for you if part of your fun of playing an RPG is trying to find the winning combo that always breaks the luck in your favor. PF2 is carefully and specifically designed to not have those options in it.

[Calybos1]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Action Denial is a great tactic when you outnumber your foe.....

Okay... but what is it? Please give some specific examples.

"Spend an action to make an enemy lose an action" can't be it; for example, "I spend an action to Trip him" is a bad idea because it's a straight tradeoff. PC spends an action to trip, enemy spends an action to stand up again, no net beneift.

[Elicoor]

Making enemies lose actions is most of the time a good tactical move, even if it costs the group more actions than it makes lose to an enemy : you have to see it as a ratio of action cost to action lost, relative to the total number of actions available to each group.

Making a solo boss enemy lose an action is good : they only have 3 actions a turn to your (standard group considered here) 12 actions. If you lose 2 to cast slow, unless the enemy critical successes, you payed 1/6th of your actions to make the enemy lose at least 1/3 of their actions in a given turn. The real action cost looks bad, the relative is good.

Doing the same to a basic enemy when you have 6 or more of them is a bad move.

Maneuvers are good. Not perfect, not all the time, but overall they are good.

Another very important tactics is the use of Delay. It helps your group setting up things when the initiative is not in your favour. For example, casting Fear/using Intimidate just before the enemy's turn is not very useful, as it only makes them weaker for the duration of their own turn. If you Delay your turn, play after them, you can use your frightening effect for the whole round duration, weakening them against all of your team's moves AND their next turn.

And as Unicore said just before : There's no absolute winning strategy. Have a good score in your main stat, adapt to the fights, check your environment (chances are you're not fighting on your own turf), and don't expect every roll above a 5 to be a success all the time.

[Calybos1]

Unicore wrote:

You are asking for people to provide you concrete specifics of winning tactics, but the problem with people trying to do that is that if you are trying to turn these examples into a repeatable list of "play the game this way" it is going to work sometimes, and fail miserably sometimes, which is probably the case with the tactics you are already using in combats and you wont feel like you are any better off.

It is also possible that PF2 will just always be a frustrating system for you if part of your fun of playing an RPG is trying to find the winning combo that always breaks the luck in your favor. PF2 is carefully and specifically designed to not have those options in it.

We're not trying to "win the game," because combat isn't the game. We're trying to minimize the play time wasted on combat so we can focus on the parts we actually enjoy: interacting with NPCs, negotiating with factions, investigating mysteries, exploring unknown territories, making bad jokes, discovering clues, coming up with clever ideas, and roleplaying. Combat is getting in the way of that, and we want it to stop taking up so much of our game time.

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

[Unicore]

Calybos1 wrote:

Unicore wrote:

You are asking for people to provide you concrete specifics of winning tactics, but the problem with people trying to do that is that if you are trying to turn these examples into a repeatable list of "play the game this way" it is going to work sometimes, and fail miserably sometimes, which is probably the case with the tactics you are already using in combats and you wont feel like you are any better off.

It is also possible that PF2 will just always be a frustrating system for you if part of your fun of playing an RPG is trying to find the winning combo that always breaks the luck in your favor. PF2 is carefully and specifically designed to not have those options in it.

We're not trying to "win the game," because combat isn't the game. We're trying to minimize the play time wasted on combat so we can focus on the parts we actually enjoy: interacting with NPCs, negotiating with factions, investigating mysteries, exploring unknown territories, making bad jokes, discovering clues, coming up with clever ideas, and roleplaying. Combat is getting in the way of that, and we want it to stop taking up so much of our game time.

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

This is best accomplished by talking to the GM about reducing the number of combat encounters and general adventure design. PF2 supports turning combat encounters into social encounters very well too. My PbP table playing Ruins of Gauntlight circumvents combat encounters about 50% of the time by waiting, observing and then sneaking past; talking to sentient adversaries and playing with the internal politics of the dungeon; or creating ruses to draw off/reposition some creatures.

It sounds like your party just doesn't like combat encounters, which are a very common part of published adventures. PF2 combat encounters are not like PF1 combat encounters designed to be solved in the first round of combat, but are designed to take longer and have meaningful choices occur through out them. If you just hate combat, then this is a system that won't appeal to you because it was designed to counter quickly resolved combats that trivialize the importance of dice rolls.

Honestly, it seems like you might be better off as a table using a different, less involved system, at least for combats. My group got tired of combat in PF1 but enjoyed the APs enough just to resolve combats with a single die roll and a more narrative and collaborative approach to describing outcomes, with each character getting to pick 2 outcomes that were either good or bad based upon their die roll. That was a simple system we used to just fly through the combat to explore some stories and spend more time RP but there are lots of other rules light systems that can work just as well with paizo stories if the rules part is uninteresting to you. Just remember that there are narrative limits by level in PF2 as well.

[siegfriedliner]

Calybos1 wrote:

Unicore wrote:

You are asking for people to provide you concrete specifics of winning tactics, but the problem with people trying to do that is that if you are trying to turn these examples into a repeatable list of "play the game this way" it is going to work sometimes, and fail miserably sometimes, which is probably the case with the tactics you are already using in combats and you wont feel like you are any better off.

It is also possible that PF2 will just always be a frustrating system for you if part of your fun of playing an RPG is trying to find the winning combo that always breaks the luck in your favor. PF2 is carefully and specifically designed to not have those options in it.

We're not trying to "win the game," because combat isn't the game. We're trying to minimize the play time wasted on combat so we can focus on the parts we actually enjoy: interacting with NPCs, negotiating with factions, investigating mysteries, exploring unknown territories, making bad jokes, discovering clues, coming up with clever ideas, and roleplaying. Combat is getting in the way of that, and we want it to stop taking up so much of our game time.

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

If your not in to combat I would advise your gm to run less easier combats. But pathfinder 2e seems a pretty combat focused engine so maybe look at another system which focused less of its resources on combat.

[Castilliano]

So despite asking for tactics, you don't want people to suggest tactics?

If your group doesn't want combat, then don't fight. Seriously. The game can do all the stuff you've listed as enjoyable w/o resorting to combat.

If using published adventure, you could narrate results and implications based on the severity of the encounter then move on. Done. Maybe roll some dice to get a random result of how well it went. There are several GMs on these forums that simply ignore side battles* and only run the ones with story significance.

*Those would be ones which seem included for attrition, XP, or such, or could be overcome w/ little loss of resources other than time for Medicine.

And of course if using homebrew stuff, it's even simpler to not include those "extra encounters to begin with.

In other words, talk to your GM so that you're all playing the game the way y'all want to play the game. PF2's flexible enough for that.

Since I like combats yet understand they drain time, I've made a point of rushing battles. A lot. I've found PF2 one of the best systems for speedy battles for what it's worth.

[AlastarOG]

Yeah calybos1 you've posted multiple threads on this and it always boils down to the same thing:

Your GM is not doing a good job.

S/he needs to sit down and read the build am encounter module.

If all you guys fight are level +3/level+4 single ennemies/hazards, the scenarios you have described will happen (although action denial such as slow, stunned, trip and such become more valid if you can land some).

Good encounter building has a few on level or lower level foes with maybe 1 or 2 level +1/2 ennemies.

Single ennemy encounters are not the norm and even then as a DM I use a trick where instead of picking an ennemy 4 levels above I pick one two levels above and run it as a single creature with 2 initiative counts.

As for the AP's I've participated in those threads and your GM is either fibbing stats or encounters or just doing a s+@@ job at reading.

This is clearly an issue that's behind the sheet/screen and not with the system, most players find pf2e challenging but not to the level.you describe.

I personally think it gets too easy past level 13.

[thenobledrake]

Calybos1 wrote:

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

Have your GM start using more of the subsystems in the game besides the combat system?

If the issue is you don't want to be spending that much time in combat, having fewer combat encounters will definitely solve that.

[WatersLethe]

I've been running a VERY fun monster of the week, Ustalav based, scooby-doo-inspired mystery game. Typically each 8 hour session has one major combat encounter and one minor.

The vast majority of game time is spent talking to NPCs, finding clues, doing research, and figuring out whodunnit. Instead of an unmasking, there's typically a fight that, depending on how much info they were able to gather, becomes tougher or easier. This is a pretty big simplifications, but that's more or less what it all boils down to.

I'm able to hit them with one big, bad enemy that they have the opportunity to prep for so I really don't have to pull punches. Never has my party had as much trouble as you describe landing effects, making knowledge rolls, or generally turning the fight into a cakewalk.

To summarize why I'm telling you this:

1. A narrative focused game is entirely possible with minimal combat, and it's loads of fun. Also, properly run combat can be a nice addition to such a game, and not a chore or slog as you describe.

2. Even the biggest, baddest enemies I throw at my party don't give them as much trouble as your party has, which indicates your GM is *probably* doing something wrong.

[Tarondor]

Calybos1 wrote:

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Action Denial is a great tactic when you outnumber your foe.....

Okay... but what is it? Please give some specific examples.

"Spend an action to make an enemy lose an action" can't be it; for example, "I spend an action to Trip him" is a bad idea because it's a straight tradeoff. PC spends an action to trip, enemy spends an action to stand up again, no net beneift.

That's also what I thought at first blush. But there are a few reasons that's wrong.

First, you likely outnumber the enemy. Let's say you have four PCs and two villains in the fight. Your side has twelve actions per turn and they have six. Spending 1/12th of your actions to eliminate 1/6th of theirs is -not- an even trade.

Second, it's not -just- costing them an action. If you trip the enemy, you not only force him to spend an action standing, you make him flatfooted to your entire party, reducing his AC. Easier for the fighter to crit him and easier for the rogue to sneak attack him.

Third, it plays very well with PF2e's 3-Action economy. Say you trip (or slow or stun or whatever) the enemy spellcaster. Now they've got to decide what to do with the 2 actions left. If they cast a spell they can't move away. If they didn't want to move away, they can't sustain a spell, or cast shield or any of the other things they might have done.

Winning the action economy is a huge part of winning any encounter. That's what makes lots of lower-level enemies scary.

[Tarondor]

What I recommend is to try another GM. I don't mean "get rid of your GM", I mean "try a PFS game here on these boards.". They're short and you'll get to see how it's done right... probably. :-)

[Falco271]

I can't help but think that the characters in the party are not optimized to use skills, spells, actions. Did they start with max stats, do you have items consistent with your level, do you use status debuffs on enemies? Even with boss types, our party manages to use skills and spells successfully. Single bosses are actually easier than groups.

[Ascalaphus]

Tarondor wrote:

What I recommend is to try another GM. I don't mean "get rid of your GM", I mean "try a PFS game here on these boards.". They're short and you'll get to see how it's done right... probably. :-)

This is good advice. In general: different groups play the game differently. You get to experience how a different GM does it, you get to see different player builds and tactics in action. All of that can help you get new ideas for your home game.

[Mathmuse]

My players figured out Pathfinder 2nd Edition tactics early because their favorite tactics, teamwork and battlefield control, are just as effective in PF2 as in PF1. They added terrain selection to their battlefield control in our current campaign, due to the party being stealthy enough to ambush their opponents.

Teamwork is using actions to support teammates rather than taking direct action yourself. Flanking is the easiest teamwork; however, the most important teamwork is keeping your teammates on their feet rather than letting them be killed or knocked unconscious. A character does not need to be a healer to manage this. Sometimes defending an injured teammate is as simple as stepping up between the teammate and their foe as the teammate retreats.

A nice example of teamwork was at 3rd level. The 3rd-level 5-member party was fighting a 4th-level xulgath barbarian. The barbarian had Deny Advantage so flanking the barbarian did not provide flat-footedness for the 2 rogues in the party. The ranger tried a Trip, because he wielded a kukri, and succeeded. Deny Advantage does not prevent flat-footedness from being prone, so the rogues could deal their sneak attack damage.

Battlefield control is interfering with the enemy's ability to attack. A simple example is the wizard casting Grease under approaching enemies so that only half of them reach the party the next turn. Thus, the party will take only half the damage. Debuffing the enemy, so that they have lower numbers to attack with, is not battlefield control, but it often serves the same purpose.

My party at 4th level provides an example of battlefield control. They faced the final boss of the module, a 7th-level rogue. And I upped the encounter by giving him some minions, but rewarded the players for good information gathering by letting them know the boss's planned travels. They decided to ambush the enemy entourage at a river ford. The boss was able to cross the river in a single turn, due to his Acrobatics skill giving him good balance, so only the 5 minions, two 1st level, two 2nd level, and one 4th level, were impaired. This ended up with the ranger and the champion fighting the boss by themselves while the other 3 in the party dealt with the minions. Without a flanking buddy, the boss tried Twin Feint against the ranger, two Strikes in two actions and the 2nd Strike catches the target flat-footed. But the liberator champion kept using her Liberating Step to block some damage and let the ranger Step backwards out of reach of the 2nd Strike. Nullifying the 2nd Strike was battlefield control. The champion's AC was high with her raised shield, so the boss would have lost time against the high-damage ranger if he attacked the champion instead. Therefore, the boss took to making regular Strikes against the ranger, losing any opportunity for sneak attack damage.

Unicore wrote:

PF2 is tactical because it defies "rules" about how to approach every encounter. Like I can say that the number one rule of good tactical play in PF2 is that exploiting weaknesses is much easier than maximizing your own strengths, and that Doing what you are best at, as often as you can, is a very common strategy for many roleplaying games, but it can be a recipe for disaster in PF2, ...

I call the tactics of PF2 adaptive tactics. The players have to read the situation and figure out how to nullify the enemies' strengths or exploit the enemy's weakness.

The 7th-level rogue boss was a rogue, and his strength was sneak attack. Therefore, 60% of the party made sure his partners could not flank for him. The boss was prepared with a back-up plan, Twin Feint, to provide sneak attack without a flank. The champion nullified the Twin Feint.

The party exploited a weakness against the xulgaths at 3rd level. They wanted to sneak into the xulgath caves, because stealth was their specialty. But they had learned from an NPC that the xulgath had planted shrieker mushrooms at the entrance as an audible alarm to any entry and exit of the cave. Therefore, the scoundrel rogue, expert in Deception and a former goatherd, went to the cave entrance and made goat sounds. Once of the xulgath sentries decided to go out and hunt the goat. They informed the others in the cave that the alarm going off would be them, not any raiders. That guard went out, the shriekers started their wail, and the party killed the guard without anyone hearing. When the mushrooms quieted, the other guard yelled out what was keeping him? The scoundrel rogue by luck spoke Draconic, just like the xulgath, and fooled the guard by replying in that language, "The goat got stuck up on the rocks. Come out and help me." The party snuck in after killing that 2nd guard and before the shriekers quieted. The weakness in the xulgath's alarm was that they sometimes set it off themselves.

The fastest way to discover the strengths or weaknesses of most creatures is Recall Knowledge. That skill not working for your party is problematic.

[Mathmuse]

Calybos1 wrote:

Unicore wrote:

You are asking for people to provide you concrete specifics of winning tactics, but the problem with people trying to do that is that if you are trying to turn these examples into a repeatable list of "play the game this way" it is going to work sometimes, and fail miserably sometimes, which is probably the case with the tactics you are already using in combats and you wont feel like you are any better off.

It is also possible that PF2 will just always be a frustrating system for you if part of your fun of playing an RPG is trying to find the winning combo that always breaks the luck in your favor. PF2 is carefully and specifically designed to not have those options in it.

We're not trying to "win the game," because combat isn't the game. We're trying to minimize the play time wasted on combat so we can focus on the parts we actually enjoy: interacting with NPCs, negotiating with factions, investigating mysteries, exploring unknown territories, making bad jokes, discovering clues, coming up with clever ideas, and roleplaying. Combat is getting in the way of that, and we want it to stop taking up so much of our game time.

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

Ah, avoiding unnecessary combat is another favorite of my players, though it is a strategy rather than a tactic. They interacting with NPCs, explore unknown enemy territory, and gather information from factions to learn the lay of the land before they approach combat. And often they decide that they can skip that combat. They would be low on experience from skipping so many encounters, except that due to their mastery of tactics I beef up the encounters that they do face, and they earn extra experience from the bigger battles.

Nevertheless, notice in the examples I gave in my previous comment, they knew the path of the 7th-level rogue boss and they knew about the alarm to the xulgath caves. That was from talking with NPCs they rescued.

The 7th-level rogue was the final boss of Trail of the Hunted, the 1st module in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign. The final boss in the 2nd module, Fangs of War, was a well-foreshadowed 10th-level black dragon. Except that in my campaign I used an 11th-level PF2 adult black dragon. On the way to the dragon, the party fought and captured the dragon's pet 8th-level druid. They sent the druid to negotiate a meeting with the dragon. And they negotiated an alliance with the chaotic evil dragon, in which it would break ties with the Ironfang Legion and claim the territory it conquered for itself, with the party helping it negotiate with the local fey.

The module might sets up the encounter as a fight, but the PCs can change that. Glad-Hand is a marvelous feat for someone who would rather talk than fight.

This does require cooperation from the GM. I had to read ahead to the 5th module about the dark fey court to discover what the black dragon in the 2nd module would want (the players foreshadowed that they would try negotiating first). Currently, in the 3rd modules, Assault on Longshadow, the party negotiated with the smugglers of Longshadow (3 PCs had Underworld Lore!) for the smugglers to scout the camps of the Ironfang Legion rather than do it themselves. The smugglers are mentioned only in two paragraphs in the Longshadow gazeteer in the back of the module. They were not intended to be part of the campaign, but Paizo writers add options to their adventure paths for parties that want other encounters than combat. I had to fill out the details of the organization and create a character sheet for their leader.

[Tarondor]

Calybos1 wrote:

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

The following advice is not me being snarky. It's me being respectful and honest.

If you don't like combat, then perhaps D&D/Pathfinder and their ilk aren't the game for you? Seriously, there are many RPG's which focus less on combat and more on roleplaying. Swords and Wizardry for a D&D feel. Amber Diceless Roleplaying (or its IP-free clone Lords of Gossamer and Shadow). Mouseguard. The One Ring.

I ran an 8-year game of Amber Diceless back in the early 2000's and no combat ever took us more than a few minutes of fun description.

Worth a thought if Pathfinder isn't for you, because like it or not, this is a game that has a lot of detailed combat in it.

[Pixel Popper]

Calybos1 wrote:

. . . "I spend an action to Trip him" is a bad idea because it's a straight tradeoff. PC spends an action to trip, enemy spends an action to stand up again, no net beneift.

Incorrect.

Net Benefits: 1.) Until he spends an action to stand up, he has a -2 status penalty to attacks and is flat-footed (-2 status penalty to AC and is vulnerable to sneak attack).

2.) The move action "Stand" triggers Attack of Opportunity, Disrupt Prey, and Stand Still. So, on his turn, one or more of your party can effectively gain a Free Attack (in exchange for a reaction) b/c someone spent an action to Trip.

There's only no net benefit to Trip if no one in the party is taking advantage of the situation. That's on the party; not the system.

[Pixel Popper]

Calybos1 (emphasis added) wrote:

. . . We're trying to minimize the play time wasted on combat so we can focus on the parts we actually enjoy . . .

Calybos1 wrote:

We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.

If you feel like you're wasting time with combat and you just want to make it go away, then try storyboarding the combat encounters.

Otherwise, with your attitude that combat is a waste of time, no advice anyone gives you is going to make a difference...

[Watery Soup]

It's possible the OP enjoys the combats, just not protracted ones. The resolution is pretty simple: apply the Weak template to every boss. You still get the flavor/danger of battle, the DCs are lowered, and their attacks get weakened a little.

---

I think the general, overarching strategy is known as situational awareness. I'm not a military guy (so please don't yell at me if I have the exact wording wrong), but I've heard my friends who served describe it as a circle - you observe / re-evaluate, then you act / adjust, and go back to observation. You do what is best for the situation, not necessarily what is best overall - and not to be confused with doing what you're best at. Ideally, those three have a lot of overlap, but in the real world, those could be three totally separate things.

Aiding is a good example. It doesn't make sense to Aid all the time. Sometimes, Aiding has a higher DC than the actual DC. Sometimes, it's not worth the two actions. But it's more often useful than people give it credit for: let's say you're an archer, and you have a sword-wielding fighter ally. If you're fighting something with piercing resistance, you've got a few options: 1. try to crit it to push through its resistance, 2. curl into the fetal position, bawling and whining about how archers got nerfed in the current game system, or 3. Aid your fighter's attack, boosting the team damage while doing zero of your own. And you might scoff at this admittedly-contrived, rather-narrow example, but the game is filled with these sorts of situational tidbits. In the next combat, when the team faces a flying dragon with a breath weapon, it's the totally useless melee fighter running around to get under the dragon, readying actions so that when the druid casts earthbind and the dragon Succeeds on its save, the fighter will give up his melee attack to Grapple the dragon with another character's Aid on the 1 round it's on the ground. Aiding should still be Uncommon in well-strategized combat, but it shouldn't be Rare.

This next part is a bit metagamey, but it sets the tone: almost every creature is built with a way to easily defeat it. Some have weaknesses, some have low AC, some have low speed, some have low HP, some have weak attacks, some require multiple actions for their favored attack.

Running away from oozes and punching them with a 1d4+0 fist Strike is a winning strategy an awful lot of the time against oozes. Funneling creatures with good weakness into a choke point and splashing them with 1 good damage from holy water is a winning strategy an awful lot of the time against creatures with good weakness. Find an enemy's Achielle's heel, and exploit it.

And there are some don'ts, as well. Don't debuff enemies unless you think someone can exploit it - frightening enemies that won't get attacked or won't attack is pointless, Bon Moting enemies that won't be targeted with a Will save or Perception check (e.g., sneak) is pointless, focus fire on one or two enemies to take them down first.

Tactics may change in the middle of battle - at first, the group is outnumbered, so those 1:1 action trades on Trip are a bad idea; but then after a few enemies go down, suddenly 1:1 action trades are great. Maybe everyone starts off by holding back to make the enemy come closer, and then an enemy caster drops a fireball and everyone realizes that rushing the entrenched enemy is less bad. Construct armor goes to 0 hardness when it takes enough damage - suddenly, "stand and Strike thrice" goes from a suicidal move to a winning strategy.

On that note, there's always plenty of room for "Stride up to your problem and Strike it with a greataxe." That's also a great solution a lot of the time - a plurality for sure, and maybe even a majority. But if it should be used 50% of the time and it's used 90% of the time, it's overused, and people need to think about that 40% of the time that they're taking an inferior action and not taking the superior action.

I think I posted this gripe in another thread, but here goes again: a shocking number of players really don't need to see the map. Regardless of the terrain around them or who's attacking or the circumstances, they Stride towards the nearest enemy and Strike. On their second turn, regardless of what happened to them or their teammates or the enemies, they continue Striking. That's the exact opposite of situational awareness - they may be doing what they're best at doing, but they're not necessarily doing what's best to be done.

[Michael Sayre]

Some general tactical tips-

Chip away at your enemy's action economy. If the enemy doesn't have more reach than you, don't use your third action to attack or even to Raise a Shield; use it to Step back. This has the potential to deny an enemy the use of any three-action abilities they might have and reduce their damage output more than a Shield Block might accomplish.

Remember that every small bonus counts. It's never a bad idea to Demoralize, Raise a Shield, Take Cover, or use spells like fear and inspire courage.

Use the terrain when you can. If an enemy is in the middle of an area with uneven terrain, rooftops, cliff ledges, etc., spread out and fight from the high ground. Obi Wan wasn't wrong about everything and forcing an enemy to use actions that aren't part of its ideal routine is another good way to mitigate damage and increase your longevity in a fight. Luis, Linda, and I once took out a very powerful boss in a heavily tuned encounter by having Linda's barbarian provide us with backup while Luis's fighter fought a slow retreat and my monk moved in and out of combat using his superior speed and the balconies around the room to Leap out of combat and then Flying Kick back into advantageous positions to drop some damage and then spring into position for the maneuver. Watch what your teammates are doing and do things that compliment that.

Check for weaknesses and then hit them. Even a below-level alchemical item can hit like a truck if you strike a target's weakness, and oftentimes it's worth doing the thing you're second or even third best at if that happens to be the thing the opponent is most vulnerable to.

You don't need an in-combat healer, but the more your team is struggling, the more useful having one is. Clerics in particular can drop huge amounts of healing very quickly and completely reverse the flow of a fight that's going poorly.

Carry a diverse array of situational items. Talismans, alchemical items, potions, etc. are easy to overlook but it's always good to have a few on hand for those situations where the thing you're best at is also the least efficient thing you could be doing. My fighters usually have at least one bomb of each damage type on a bandolier and a few healing and condition removal items in easy reach, just in case. It also helps to have at least one good backup weapon, or a basic weapon array that offers some options (like having a longsword as your primary weapon but also having a set of doubling rings and a shield boss so you can deal bludgeoning damage when the longsword's slashing or piercing aren't appropriate.)

[SuperBidi]

My best advice would be: Don't move to the enemy.
You're wasting actions to get to the enemy, actions that the enemy would waste to get to you. So every action you lose is actually one you give to the enemy.
Find something to do when you don't start at melee range if melee is your primary ability, something you can use during the first round.

Of course, this advice is only true against melee enemies, which are the most common ones.

[Ruzza]

You're back! And you're now either trolling or your GM not playing correctly. Remember this chestnut? You then went to make three more threads stirring the pot when everything boiled down to - your GM is cheating/your GM doesn't know the rules.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, looking at what Ruzza just linked to, this really does seem like you've got a bum GM. And I agree with the sentiment that the solution to "we don't want to spend time in combat because we like other things more" isn't to spend time learning how to do combat better. It is to have less combats. The Gamemastery Guide has a lot of content devoted to running fun non-combat challenges, if you want to stick with PF2.

Others have covered tactics pretty thoroughly. Some have you noted you might have problems with your builds, too. If that is the case, you can check the threads I have made for a basic guide to building characters who will perform in line with the game's math.

[AlastarOG]

Ruzza wrote:

You're back! And you're now either trolling or your GM not playing correctly. Remember this chestnut? You then went to make three more threads stirring the pot when everything boiled down to - your GM is cheating/your GM doesn't know the rules.

Just requoting this for emphasis.

But based on past threads OP will simply stop responding.

[Deriven Firelion]

Good catch by Ruzza.

[WatersLethe]

Well, at least there's some good advice in this thread for anyone, even people with inexperienced GMs!

[AlastarOG]

To be fair though, I wish I could get this amount of replies on my 2e conversion of ultimate campaign kingdom rules!

So props to Op for generating replies. I guess the clickbaitbis strong ?

[breithauptclan]

Not sure what the point of gathering replies to threads is though. Some of my best threads that I have started have almost no replies.

But anyway, reading through this made me think of this gem of a gif from a while ago.

What PF2e boss fights should look like

[AlastarOG]

breithauptclan wrote:

Not sure what the point of gathering replies to threads is though. Some of my best threads that I have started have almost no replies.

But anyway, reading through this made me think of this gem of a gif from a while ago.

What PF2e boss fights should look like

That's just a quality gif right there!

[Filthy Lucre]

So, for the OP: I'm DMing a PF2e game right now and I follow the guidelines pretty closely. Typically my 4 PCs, now level 3, fight several creatures that are lower level than them, and one or two that are equal to their level. My exp budgets trend around 80/90 and my tough or boss encounters usually trend around 130/150. I've found my fights to be exceptionally fair but also pleasantly dangerous. I have not, at all, seen any of the frustration you've mentioned coming from my players.

Example 1:

Goblin Warrior x3
Goblin Warchanter x1
Goblin Pyro x1

This one went really well thanks to some great rolls on my fighter's part - she was killing goblin warriors in a single hit.

Example 2:

Orc Warchief x1
River Drake x1
Goblin Warchanter x1

This one was very close and could have gone really poorly for the PCs, but they pulled through.

In both of these scenarios the monster's had favorable terrain or surprise. I feel like your DM is throwing crazy difficult encounters at you. Can you give us an example of the exact monsters you faced in a given situation and what your partys size and level was when you faced that obstacle?

[Filthy Lucre]

Ruzza wrote:

You're back! And you're now either trolling or your GM not playing correctly. Remember this chestnut? You then went to make three more threads stirring the pot when everything boiled down to - your GM is cheating/your GM doesn't know the rules.

I thought this thread seemed weirdly familiar...

[Calybos1]

Ruzza wrote:

You're back! And you're now either trolling or your GM not playing correctly. Remember this chestnut? You then went to make three more threads stirring the pot when everything boiled down to - your GM is cheating/your GM doesn't know the rules.

Because I'm still looking for specifics instead of people just saying "use better tactics." For the record, the GM's using as-published Adventure Paths and we're making characters from the Core Rulebook. And if the GM is getting some things wrong, that still doesn't explain all the trouble we're having with simple same-level fights.

Example: Our Agents of Edgewatch party is at level 12. And the average damage we deal per hit is still around 12-14 hp (18 attack stat, +1 striking weapon). That can't be right, can it? Surely there's some other way to increase your damage output with level. At that level, it takes forever to bring down a level 12 enemy warrior or assassin.

My thanks to the other posters for more constructive suggestions, including moving away from standard APs and into more customized stories.

[Rysky]

Specific tactics require specific situations for them to be deployed. There’s not a “cast haste, martials do stuff here” win combo like in P1.

I’m not entirely familiar with higher level play off the top of my head, but I’ll agree that damage numbers do not sound right for a martial anyway.

[Calybos1]

Mathmuse wrote:

Ah, avoiding unnecessary combat is another favorite of my players, though it is a strategy rather than a tactic. They interacting with NPCs, explore unknown enemy territory, and gather information from factions to learn the lay of the land before they approach combat. And often they decide that they can skip that combat. They would be low on experience from skipping so many encounters, except that due to their mastery of tactics I beef up the encounters that they do face, and they earn extra experience from the bigger battles.

Ahh, that's a good point. Our group is very fond of coming up with creative, offbeat, or (at times) downright crazy ideas for finagling encounters and challenges to bypass combat rather than fight. We love outwitting a situation or trying unexpected approaches. And the GM (not the same as the Age of Ashes GM, by the way) appreciates it... but then he unhappily informs us that, per the box text, our PCs therefore get no XP for the encounter, and certainly no treasure. And worse yet, we often fail to obtain the vital plot point needed to progress to the next stage of the story.

So maybe we need to discuss with him some greater flexibility on 'not sticking with the story sequence as written.'

[Calybos1]

Pixel Popper wrote:

My table's experience, coming from nearly 10 years of Pathfinder 1e AP's, has not nearly as punishing with DCs too high to bother with Deception, Intimidation, Recall Knowledge, etc like you describe.

Are you running AP's or Homebrew?

Some things we have discovered:

(a.) Charismatic characters that train diplomacy, and are willing to take the skill feat, should Bon Mot tougher enemies. The debuffs to Will and Perception make a real difference.

(b.) Athletic characters ought to Trip fairly often, even if nobody has Attack of Opportunity. Prone targets are flat-footed and have a circumstance penalty to attack rolls. Fighters with Knockdown can trip after a strike with no multiple attack penalty.

Prone targets either suffer the attack and AC penalties, and face further abuse for being flat-footed, or they burn an action to stand, triggering attacks of opportunity, Disrupt Prey, and Stand Still.

(c.) Find ways to make enemies frightened (e.g. Fighter Intimidating Strike, Dread Ampoule), or sickened.

(d.) Find other ways to make opponents flat-footed. Flanking is great, but not always feasible. If you have other ways to make opponents flat-footed it makes a difference.

(e.) Look for other ways to land circumstance bonuses like Catfolk...

Excellent suggestions, exactly what I was looking for. Not all are available to us, since we're working from the Core Rulebook only (we're running AP stories), but much appreciated!

[Onkonk]

At level 12, your attacking stat should be 20 for someone who is using it as a primary stat and 18-19 for someone using it as a secondary stat.

+2 weapons are level 10 and greater striking weapons are level 12 weapons. So you should be able to upgrade your weapons as soon as possible.

Property runes such as Flaming, Frost and Shock which adds another d6 to your damage are also available at level 8.

Martial characters should also get weapon specialisation which increases the damage dealt by 2.

So if you have a longsword in one hand at level 12 you are expected to have 3d8 + 7 at least around 20.5 average damage on hit and you could add another 7 with two property runes if you aren't interested in something like shifting and ghost touch.

[Calybos1]

Castilliano wrote:

So despite asking for tactics, you don't want people to suggest tactics?

If your group doesn't want combat, then don't fight. Seriously. The game can do all the stuff you've listed as enjoyable w/o resorting to combat.

If using published adventure, you could narrate results and implications based on the severity of the encounter then move on. Done. Maybe roll some dice to get a random result of how well it went. There are several GMs on these forums that simply ignore side battles* and only run the ones with story significance.

*Those would be ones which seem included for attrition, XP, or such, or could be overcome w/ little loss of resources other than time for Medicine.

And of course if using homebrew stuff, it's even simpler to not include those "extra encounters to begin with.

In other words, talk to your GM so that you're all playing the game the way y'all want to play the game. PF2's flexible enough for that.

Since I like combats yet understand they drain time, I've made a point of rushing battles. A lot. I've found PF2 one of the best systems for speedy battles for what it's worth.

This has promise. Our current GM (for Edgewatch) is a bit more open to skipping over boring content for the sake of group enjoyment.

[Calybos1]

Pixel Popper wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

. . . "I spend an action to Trip him" is a bad idea because it's a straight tradeoff. PC spends an action to trip, enemy spends an action to stand up again, no net beneift.

Incorrect.

Net Benefits: 1.) Until he spends an action to stand up, he has a -2 status penalty to attacks and is flat-footed (-2 status penalty to AC and is vulnerable to sneak attack).

2.) The move action "Stand" triggers Attack of Opportunity, Disrupt Prey, and Stand Still. So, on his turn, one or more of your party can effectively gain a Free Attack (in exchange for a reaction) b/c someone spent an action to Trip.

There's only no net benefit to Trip if no one in the party is taking advantage of the situation. That's on the party; not the system.

That's the point I needed someone to make; thank you. So what we need is for someone to give an enemy a disadvantage, and then someone else to capitalize on it. Which is not something our group has done until now. (In general, everyone faces off with a separate opponent and pursues their own sequence of maneuvers/actions/whatever unless the caster still has an AOE available.) And I can see how it would make a difference.

Now let me go look up what Disrupt Prey and Stand Still might be... I know about Attack of Opportunity, it's something fighters have and we don't have a fighter.... (mumble, mumble)

[Calybos1]

Watery Soup wrote:

On that note, there's always plenty of room for "Stride up to your problem and Strike it with a greataxe." That's also a great solution a lot of the time - a plurality for sure, and maybe even a majority. But if it should be used 50% of the time and it's used 90% of the time, it's overused, and people need to think about that 40% of the time that they're taking an inferior action and not taking the superior action.

I think I posted this gripe in another thread, but here goes again: a shocking number of players really don't need to see the map. Regardless of the terrain around them or who's attacking or the circumstances, they Stride towards the nearest enemy and Strike. On their second turn, regardless of what happened to them or their teammates or the enemies, they continue Striking. That's the exact opposite of situational awareness - they may be doing what they're best at doing, but they're not necessarily doing what's best to be done.

And here you're describing what our group does not just half the time, but ALL the time. What we've always done. (And for the paladin, it works!) We need to find out what other options exist, and in more than just abstract terms.

[Onkonk]

Calybos1 wrote:

Now let me go look up what Disrupt Prey and Stand Still might be... I know about Attack of Opportunity, it's something fighters have and we don't have a fighter.... (mumble, mumble)

Attack of Opportunity: Fighter gets it for free, Barbarians, Champions and Swashbucklers can get it as a feat at level 6 or anyone with the Fighter Archetype at level 4.

Disrupt Prey: Ranger specific Attack of Opportunity at level 4

Stand Still: Monk specific Attack of Opportunity at level 4

[Calybos1]

Michael Sayre wrote:

Some general tactical tips-

Chip away at your enemy's action economy. If the enemy doesn't have more reach than you, don't use your third action to attack or even to Raise a Shield; use it to Step back. This has the potential to deny an enemy the use of any three-action abilities they might have and reduce their damage output more than a Shield Block might accomplish.

Remember that every small bonus counts. It's never a bad idea to Demoralize, Raise a Shield, Take Cover, or use spells like fear and inspire courage.

Use the terrain when you can. If an enemy is in the middle of an area with uneven terrain, rooftops, cliff ledges, etc., spread out and fight from the high ground. Obi Wan wasn't wrong about everything and forcing an enemy to use actions that aren't part of its ideal routine is another good way to mitigate damage and increase your longevity in a fight. Luis, Linda, and I once took out a very powerful boss in a heavily tuned encounter by having Linda's barbarian provide us with backup while Luis's fighter fought a slow retreat and my monk moved in and out of combat using his superior speed and the balconies around the room to Leap out of combat and then Flying Kick back into advantageous positions to drop some damage and then spring into position for the maneuver. Watch what your teammates are doing and do things that compliment that.

Check for weaknesses and then hit them. Even a below-level alchemical item can hit like a truck if you strike a target's weakness, and oftentimes it's worth doing the thing you're second or even third best at if that happens to be the thing the opponent is most vulnerable to.

You don't need an in-combat healer, but the more your team is struggling, the more useful having one is. Clerics in particular can drop huge amounts of healing very quickly and completely reverse the flow of a fight that's going poorly.

Carry a diverse array of situational items. Talismans, alchemical items, potions, etc. are easy to overlook but it's always...

Thank you! These are all good tips.

[Calybos1]

Ruzza wrote:

You're back! And you're now either trolling or your GM not playing correctly. Remember this chestnut? You then went to make three more threads stirring the pot when everything boiled down to - your GM is cheating/your GM doesn't know the rules.

Yes, thanks for your helpful input about our Age of Ashes game. This is about a different AP with a different GM, but many of the exact same problems... which suggests there's more going on than just one GM not knowing all the rules.

[Unicore]

Having everyone square up against their own enemy is a really dangerous approach in PF2. Against a party of 4 NPCs, that pretty much makes the fight a 50/50% chance of TPK. I have seen it too at my tables occasionally and it is rough. Using a spell to action deny 1 enemy while everyone wails on another one ends up working a lot better as the fight quickly becomes much more manageable. Just don't try to focus fire on one enemy in a way that opens up one of your own party members from getting wailed on by 3 of theirs, unless you have really impressive damage mitigation abilities.

This is the whole point of battlefield control.