Is it just me, or is it way too easy to get hit in this edition?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 660 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
graystone wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
In PF2, you can't really avoid/guarantee any result. Full stop.
Well there are feats like Cooperative Soul that do just that: "If you are at least an expert in the skill you are Aiding, you get a success on any outcome rolled to Aid other than a critical success." This means you literally can't fail the roll.
Under a pretty heavy condition though, so not always guaranteed.

Ah... no, it always succeed or crit succeeds. "you can't really avoid/guarantee any result" is incorrect: you CAN do so for some situations. And it's not like the conditions are onerous; 'Aid with a skill you have Expert+ proficiency in' is something any class can do easily. This means you CAN build to succeed 100% with rolls for a particular action: the fact that the action is fairly narrow is besides the point as it only have to be more often than never.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aid is honestly an action people could use more, I think. That said, I was more referring to individual attacks/AC/skill uses, in direct contrast to PF1.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
graystone wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
In PF2, you can't really avoid/guarantee any result. Full stop.
Well there are feats like Cooperative Soul that do just that: "If you are at least an expert in the skill you are Aiding, you get a success on any outcome rolled to Aid other than a critical success." This means you literally can't fail the roll.
Under a pretty heavy condition though, so not always guaranteed.
Ah... no, it always succeed or crit succeeds. "you can't really avoid/guarantee any result" is incorrect: you CAN do so for some situations. And it's not like the conditions are onerous; 'Aid with a skill you have Expert+ proficiency in' is something any class can do easily. This means you CAN build to succeed 100% with rolls for a particular action: the fact that the action is fairly narrow is besides the point as it only have to be more often than never.

That's fair. I took always guaranteed as in while aiding any skill. Whereas most builds will only have 3 skills at Expert.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Aid is honestly an action people could use more, I think. That said, I was more referring to individual attacks/AC/skill uses, in direct contrast to PF1.

You can built around Aid to make an bard-lite character. You can even get it so you don't need to use a reaction for it and/or use a single skill for it. Then top it off with an increased bonus for critting and it can be pretty sweet. I think the reason Aid is overlooked is because you normally have to be pretty good to start off with so you don't crit fail and give out a penalty.

Back to your post: I can see where you where going but IMO PF2 just made it so that the scope that you can make rolls always works was narrowed and attacks/AC was left out all together. I just wanted to point out there there where still cases where you can't fail in PF2.

The Raven Black wrote:
That's fair. I took always guaranteed as in while aiding any skill. Whereas most builds will only have 3 skills at Expert.

I don't think most builds really matter in this context: we're talking about building towards an desired outcome so in this case so you could get 7 expert skills reasonably easily on a rogue or investigator or even more if you focus on feats handing out increased skills like skill mastery. If you want to, you could manage to have expert in every skill except lore [general topics] and you could pick up an expert lore that covers everything.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game...

Not really wanting to get pulled back into this thread, but the idea that PF1 wasn't tactical is demonstrably not true. What may be be true is that certain individuals may have experienced the game in a narrower context, or it could be that people are dismissing facets of tactical combat in PF1.

My goal in this response is not to judge one version vs another, but simply to talk about the games. In that vein, I will say that PF2 has been no more tactical through the same levels, and honestly, feels a lot less tactical with the same results. The victories are the same, the combat success is statistically equivalent.

The fact that essentially all creatures in PF1 had attacks of opportunity and the 5' step was Free, created a tremendous emphasis on position, movement, and timing that is largely absent from PF2, in my experience. Dealing with Reach and AoO of large or huge creatures created all kinds of battlefield/tactical headaches and challenges that, on my end, felt like chess. In PF2, I can move where ever I want unless the NPC has an AoO, which is certainly rare at lower levels.

For reference, 95% of my games have been PFS played via Play-by-post. That may change the dynamic. I do notice that when playing face-to-face, there is less willingness on the part of players to communicate about tactics do to the inherent time constraint of a live game. I've also noticed that there is a large subset of players who do not want to talk tactics OOC because it some how ruins the game for them. When you play PbP, you have much more time to consider the options and, at least in my case, look at everyone else's build for options that can help. As a matter of standard operating procedure, I would review everyone's build in PF1 to make sure I knew what abilities they had so that we I could bring it up in moments of desperation. I haven't had to do that in PF2 at all.

Another example of the tactical diversity of PF1 was in the use of equipment. PF1 has lots of ammunition options: blunt, thistle, smoke, trip, dye, etc. PF2 has none of that. In PF1, you had all kinds of reagents to use with spells to add rider effects. I guess I haven't seen that in PF2. Unchained Rogues and Investigators had abilities to stop AoO attacks and I can't tell you how many times I've used those to great effect to help players reposition or escape. These are available by level 4-5. Is there a comparable way to deny AoO's at low level? I don't know.

There have been PFS games where I literally sat up at night trying to figure out how our party was going to survive the adventure and having to come up with sequenced tactics that proved crucial.

There's been much ado about you can't play PF2 like you play PF1. I haven't found that to be true and as mentioned, with the exception of the adventure Lucy discussed, all my tables have completed all objectives in PF2, just as we did in PF1. The only difference is the experience of whack-a-mole in melee and a slightly higher propensity for players to want to flank. But that is at low levels where you don't have other ways of making targets flat-footed. At higher levels, you actually need less positional flanking.

What some people have countered with is that you win at chargen or that you have one tactic and it trivializes the encounters. Both of those statements are broad generalizations that are false in totality. When you play PFS, you get the full spectrum of players. The vast majority of those low level games do not involve min/max players. As you get higher levels, the players lose interest in their characters and start over. So lower level games are filled with builds that are based on concept and roleplay, not combat.

Yes, at around 7th level, you see some builds that can solo some encounters, but not all. Yes, casters can dominate and if you play with optimized builds, tactics aren't as much of a factor. There's no denying that PF1 had issues at higher level. But from 1-7, tactics have been a huge part of my PFS PF1 experience, for more so than PF2. And I don't see any propensity or penchant of PFS PF2 players to coordinate any more than they did in PF1. Most players have this thing they want to do and they do it.

Conversely, through the first three levels of a PF2 AP I've been playing, the Fighter has totally trivialized half the party. Fighting -1's and -2s, the Fighter kills anything in reach within two rounds and easily could have soloed most of the encounters at this point.. Sure, he's face planted, then he got back up, and went back at it. So from my perspective, this guy won at chargen.

Is PF2 more tactical game then PF1? I think that's the wrong question What matters is whether you enjoy the tactics in PF2 or not. If you look at the game design and the presence of things like Battle Medicine and Continual Recovery, that tells me that the Paizo designers expected a very different combat experience. ThoughI haven't seen a change in player philosophy.

But the idea that PF1 wasn't tactical isn't true from my game experience, at all. And while i haven't gotten as high in PF2 as I did in PF1, I haven't found PF2 to be more tactical than PF1 or requiring the PFS players to exhibit any more tactical acumen for the same level of success.


Malk_Content wrote:

I think the reason I see PF1 as less tactical is because you could build your character such that your one chosen tactic works all the time (or is shut down completely with no middle ground) and thus there isn't a tactical choice being made at the table. I was never making any hard choices DURING an encounter in PF1. It all happened beforehand.

Its like the difference between Warhammer and something like Warmachine to me. In Warhammer you can tweak your army and insane amount (especially when you go into bigger points value armies) and there is quite a bit of strategy in the deployment phase, but once you are playing the game mostly plays itself. In Warmachine your options for army building are more limited, with smaller army numbers and individual units eating up a larger relative portion of your total points value, but during a battle the rules allow for a lot more choice mid game.

EDIT: On Athletics. At level 3 I can be Expert and have Assurance. For a good deal of enemies that means I can auto succeed at either Shove or Trip. If I can't automatically succeed I still have better odds doing one of those than a Strike because one of those saves will be lower than AC.

I have never seen assurance work very well.

I will agree with you that your chosen tactic often worked fairly easily once built up in PF1. The monk in my experience generally used the most tactical options for a martial in my campaigns in PF1. Most other martials did their schtick over and over again. It was a fairly simple schtick that they built around. But the tactical options did exist in PF1, but just weren't often used in lieu of damage except by a class like a monk by a player who wanted to simulate martials arts. His favorite tactic was "Sweep the legs."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

To be fair I dont agree with Deriven at all. If PF2 doesnt give tactical options then I don't know of a game that does.

I'll also note there are several ways to play a 2/3rds caster. Literally any martial with a casting archetype. Or the new casting methods of Magus/Summoner being a different and new take on the idea of restricted casting.

Nowhere did I say PF2 doesn't have tactical options. But it isn't any more tactical than PF1. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game, just not using the short-term buffs and debuffs in PF2.

The idea of this more intensely tactical game than PF1 that people need to learn is a false idea. Both games were tactical. It took time to learn the tactics of both systems.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Malk on this one. While presumably PF1e had tactics (I didn't play it) I can't imagine they were immensely different from D&D3e in that regard, and most of them were largely useless outside of extremely specific builds.

PF2 has similar play in my opinion.

My fighter player uses double slice over and over again. He has built around double slice.

My rogue player uses sneak attack with debilitation mixed with double slice against hard to hit targets with flensing slice which hasn't been usable that often due to missing with an attack or having to move.

Barbarian rages and hammers.

Casters often try to mix up actions. They have different spells for different situations and Charisma casters have some good skill options.

Champions are pretty interesting. They use their reaction for Champion's Reaction, Shield Block, and mix in charisma based skills like Intimidate. Champion encourages pretty tactical play because they are less about damage and more about battlefield control with a martial.

I did make a fighter with Knockdown. It is kind of fun to set the party up with knockdown.

I really haven't found PF2 tactical play to be more complex than PF1, especially when it comes to magic where it is far less tactical. Magic tactics in PF1 took some real system mastery and quick thinking. Magical tactics in PF2 are short-term and similar to martial tactics. Do some damage apply a status penalty or bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I have never seen assurance work very well.

It works out if your fighting #1 lot of mooks or #2 fighting things with a save that is poor: like grappling fey or tripping zombies. In the right game, it works well and in the wrong game it'll never work. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game...

Not really wanting to get pulled back into this thread, but the idea that PF1 wasn't tactical is demonstrably not true. What may be be true is that certain individuals may have experienced the game in a narrower context, or it could be that people are dismissing facets of tactical combat in PF1.

My goal in this response is not to judge one version vs another, but simply to talk about the games. In that vein, I will say that PF2 has been no more tactical through the same levels, and honestly, feels a lot less tactical with the same results. The victories are the same, the combat success is statistically equivalent.

The fact that essentially all creatures in PF1 had attacks of opportunity and the 5' step was Free, created a tremendous emphasis on position, movement, and timing that is largely absent from PF2, in my experience. Dealing with Reach and AoO of large or huge creatures created all kinds of battlefield/tactical headaches and challenges that, on my end, felt like chess. In PF2, I can move where ever I want unless the NPC has an AoO, which is certainly rare at lower levels.

For reference, 95% of my games have been PFS played via Play-by-post. That may change the dynamic. I do notice that when playing face-to-face, there is less willingness on the part of players to communicate about tactics do to the inherent time constraint of a live game. I've also noticed that there is a large subset of players who do not want to talk tactics OOC because it some how ruins the game for them. When you play PbP, you have much more time to consider the options and, at least in my case, look at everyone else's build for options that can help. As a matter of standard operating procedure, I would review everyone's build in PF1 to make sure I knew what abilities they had so that we I could bring it up in moments of desperation. I haven't had to do that in PF2 at all.

Another example of the...

I like both PF1 and PF2. So I don't really pick sides. PF1 was and is a fun game, especially to play as a character.

I know why I chose PF2. It is much easier to DM. I don't have the time or inclination to spend so much time prepping PF1 any longer.

PF2 math holds up better across more levels. It's far easier to run a long-term campaign in PF2. I still find character creation and combat enjoyable in PF2.

But I agree with you that PF1 and PF2 were equally tactical in play. I can understand why some did not engage with 1E tactics as much as they took some time to come online and by that time the high level game was very time consuming to run and some may not have enjoyed the extreme caster-martial disparity at the higher levels.


graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I have never seen assurance work very well.
It works out if your fighting #1 lot of mooks or #2 fighting things with a save that is poor: like grappling fey or tripping zombies. In the right game, it works well and in the wrong game it'll never work. ;)

I guess the way my players think they just like to hammer mooks because they crit more often and kill them fast. Tactics like trip they tend to be use don boss creatures and Assurance doesn't work on them. Against mooks even 3rd attacks often hit a higher level.


Sure you could play PF1 tactically but really the only time it held up was low levels. So yes low level PF1 and PF2 are similar in tactics. The problem is scaling. Once you got your “press 1” combo online tactics went out the window since why coordinate when you could just win? I think someone said it before but PF2 is taking that low level experience of PF1 where things were more deadly and heroic feeling and stretching it over 20 levels and removing the epic part that didn’t work since it was just rocket tag of who could get off their kill shot first.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I have never seen assurance work very well.
It works out if your fighting #1 lot of mooks or #2 fighting things with a save that is poor: like grappling fey or tripping zombies. In the right game, it works well and in the wrong game it'll never work. ;)
I guess the way my players think they just like to hammer mooks because they crit more often and kill them fast. Tactics like trip they tend to be use don boss creatures and Assurance doesn't work on them. Against mooks even 3rd attacks often hit a higher level.

Some mooks are pretty much big bags of hp so it can be nice if one person trips with one of those 3rd attack as that ups everyone else's chances to hit and crit and 1 hit turned into a crit is all it takes for that trip to pay off. It really depends on which mooks they are and now much damage the tripper would have done on that 3rd attack: if you hit the sweet spot it can work great but otherwise it's just for no str character to pass simple athletics DC's.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Sure you could play PF1 tactically but really the only time it held up was low levels. So yes low level PF1 and PF2 are similar in tactics. The problem is scaling. Once you got your “press 1” combo online tactics went out the window since why coordinate when you could just win? I think someone said it before but PF2 is taking that low level experience of PF1 where things were more deadly and heroic feeling and stretching it over 20 levels and removing the epic part that didn’t work since it was just rocket tag of who could get off their kill shot first.

That's why PF1 was so hard to make run well. I put in the work to make the players use tactics. It took enormous work to account for all the player options at high level. But I made sure there was no easy win without extreme luck. It burns you out in the long-term. Each new book seemed to add some nutty option that made the characters even more powerful that had to be accounted for.

I don't have to take the same measures to challenge PCs in PF2. That is probably the main reason I decided to move my group to PF2. I can focus more on story and role-playing rather the hours I spent making NPCs and monsters challenging in PF1. NPC design in PF1 was like building characters and even harder the higher level they got. Very time consuming.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

That's why PF1 was so hard to make run well. I put in the work to make the players use tactics. It took enormous work to account for all the player options at high level. But I made sure there was no easy win without extreme luck. It burns you out in the long-term. Each new book seemed to add some nutty option that made the characters even more powerful that had to be accounted for.

I don't have to take the same measures to challenge PCs in PF2. That is probably the main reason I decided to move my group to PF2. I can focus more on story and role-playing rather the hours I spent making NPCs and monsters challenging in PF1. NPC design in PF1 was like building characters and even harder the higher level they got. Very time consuming.

Using hero lab (the old xml app one not the web app) was an absolute requirement for DMing PF1. I would take some monsters that seemed reasonable and tweak with them adding templates or changing stats to get the enemies to the level I felt they could be a challenge. Even at level 10-11 I had to bump monsters up to level 15-16 level to be a challenge and I wouldn’t even call the group that optimized. They just took mostly good stuff but were decently well rounded. Without hero lab it would have been impossible and even with that it took about an hour to put together a fight.

Another thing on the tactics issue was how well you could do it at low levels depended a lot on your build. Mainly a lot of builds took multiple feats/levels to come together. For example the last game I played my Inquisitor had power attack, combat expertise, pack flanking, outflank, paired opportunist, etc. We switched over at level 8 and I don’t think I had gotten all my feats yet since I didn’t take human. Anyway the long feat chains leading up to your “press 1” combo really didn’t leave any build choices for alternative tactics. If your DM was nice with retraining it could help but otherwise you’re stuck into waiting a long time for your stuff to come on.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

To be fair I dont agree with Deriven at all. If PF2 doesnt give tactical options then I don't know of a game that does.

I'll also note there are several ways to play a 2/3rds caster. Literally any martial with a casting archetype. Or the new casting methods of Magus/Summoner being a different and new take on the idea of restricted casting.

Nowhere did I say PF2 doesn't have tactical options. But it isn't any more tactical than PF1. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game, just not using the short-term buffs and debuffs in PF2.

The idea of this more intensely tactical game than PF1 that people need to learn is a false idea. Both games were tactical. It took time to learn the tactics of both systems.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Malk on this one. While presumably PF1e had tactics (I didn't play it) I can't imagine they were immensely different from D&D3e in that regard, and most of them were largely useless outside of extremely specific builds.

PF2 has similar play in my opinion.

Not in my experience. I've played both a champion/bard hybrid and a sword-and-board fighter, and I found good reasons to change things up with both of them with frequency I _never_ saw in D&D3.


Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

To be fair I dont agree with Deriven at all. If PF2 doesnt give tactical options then I don't know of a game that does.

I'll also note there are several ways to play a 2/3rds caster. Literally any martial with a casting archetype. Or the new casting methods of Magus/Summoner being a different and new take on the idea of restricted casting.

Nowhere did I say PF2 doesn't have tactical options. But it isn't any more tactical than PF1. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game, just not using the short-term buffs and debuffs in PF2.

The idea of this more intensely tactical game than PF1 that people need to learn is a false idea. Both games were tactical. It took time to learn the tactics of both systems.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Malk on this one. While presumably PF1e had tactics (I didn't play it) I can't imagine they were immensely different from D&D3e in that regard, and most of them were largely useless outside of extremely specific builds.

PF2 has similar play in my opinion.

Not in my experience. I've played both a champion/bard hybrid and a sword-and-board fighter, and I found good reasons to change things up with both of them with frequency I _never_ saw in D&D3.

Those are two classes I can agree on. Champion and sword and board fighter much better in PF2 than 3E and PF1.

Paladin in PF1 was simple and powerful to play. Pretty much use Smite Evil on the boss and win.

Sword and board fighter was an ok defensive build, but not as good as PF2 in terms of interesting play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

That's why PF1 was so hard to make run well. I put in the work to make the players use tactics. It took enormous work to account for all the player options at high level. But I made sure there was no easy win without extreme luck. It burns you out in the long-term. Each new book seemed to add some nutty option that made the characters even more powerful that had to be accounted for.

I don't have to take the same measures to challenge PCs in PF2. That is probably the main reason I decided to move my group to PF2. I can focus more on story and role-playing rather the hours I spent making NPCs and monsters challenging in PF1. NPC design in PF1 was like building characters and even harder the higher level they got. Very time consuming.

Using hero lab (the old xml app one not the web app) was an absolute requirement for DMing PF1. I would take some monsters that seemed reasonable and tweak with them adding templates or changing stats to get the enemies to the level I felt they could be a challenge. Even at level 10-11 I had to bump monsters up to level 15-16 level to be a challenge and I wouldn’t even call the group that optimized. They just took mostly good stuff but were decently well rounded. Without hero lab it would have been impossible and even with that it took about an hour to put together a fight.

Another thing on the tactics issue was how well you could do it at low levels depended a lot on your build. Mainly a lot of builds took multiple feats/levels to come together. For example the last game I played my Inquisitor had power attack, combat expertise, pack flanking, outflank, paired opportunist, etc. We switched over at level 8 and I don’t think I had gotten all my feats yet since I didn’t take human. Anyway the long feat chains leading up to your “press 1” combo really didn’t leave any build choices for alternative tactics. If your DM was nice with retraining it could help but otherwise you’re stuck into waiting a long time for your stuff to come on.

Meanwhile here I am about run level 10 characters and they are having trouble with a bunch of Red Caps. The biggest problem was that Polymorph spells are not capped (which I had not realized until now). I have not made any vast changes to the enemy levels, have not added any templates not mentioned by the books, have never used Herolabs ever, etc.

Similarly, I have seen players use tactics and succeed. I have seen monsters do tactics and succeed. Sure they don't do it often without the feats, but you can't say that they are only done at low level. Maybe its the case with super optimized parties that are set on "I will only ever do this one thing". But any other party will try things out if told it might help. Just like in PF2 recalling knowledge might let you know of a weakness (Except you know PF1 is more free about giving information).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

To be fair I dont agree with Deriven at all. If PF2 doesnt give tactical options then I don't know of a game that does.

I'll also note there are several ways to play a 2/3rds caster. Literally any martial with a casting archetype. Or the new casting methods of Magus/Summoner being a different and new take on the idea of restricted casting.

Nowhere did I say PF2 doesn't have tactical options. But it isn't any more tactical than PF1. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game, just not using the short-term buffs and debuffs in PF2.

The idea of this more intensely tactical game than PF1 that people need to learn is a false idea. Both games were tactical. It took time to learn the tactics of both systems.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Malk on this one. While presumably PF1e had tactics (I didn't play it) I can't imagine they were immensely different from D&D3e in that regard, and most of them were largely useless outside of extremely specific builds.

PF2 has similar play in my opinion.

Not in my experience. I've played both a champion/bard hybrid and a sword-and-board fighter, and I found good reasons to change things up with both of them with frequency I _never_ saw in D&D3.

Those are two classes I can agree on. Champion and sword and board fighter much better in PF2 than 3E and PF1.

Paladin in PF1 was simple and powerful to play. Pretty much use Smite Evil on the boss and win.

Sword and board fighter was an ok defensive build, but not as good as PF2 in terms of interesting play.

Yeah early on Fighter and Paladins were very rigid, specially if the player decided to spend every single feat on combat (even though they didn't need to). But that is the same as a PF2 Fighter or Champion going very strictly into only 1 thing.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Similarly, I have seen players use tactics and succeed. I have seen monsters do tactics and succeed. Sure they don't do it often without the feats, but you can't say that they are only done at low level. Maybe its the case with super optimized parties that are set on "I will only ever do this one thing". But any other party will try things out if told it might help. Just like in PF2 recalling knowledge might let you know of a weakness (Except you know PF1 is more free about giving information).

I have the intuition that while you are talking about tactics as ways to handle a given fight (which is completely adequate), others talk about tactics as the set of actions you choose each round.

This might explain the apparent discrepancy between the points of view.


The Raven Black wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Similarly, I have seen players use tactics and succeed. I have seen monsters do tactics and succeed. Sure they don't do it often without the feats, but you can't say that they are only done at low level. Maybe its the case with super optimized parties that are set on "I will only ever do this one thing". But any other party will try things out if told it might help. Just like in PF2 recalling knowledge might let you know of a weakness (Except you know PF1 is more free about giving information).

I have the intuition that while you are talking about tactics as ways to handle a given fight (which is completely adequate), others talk about tactics as the set of actions you choose each round.

This might explain the apparent discrepancy between the points of view.

It probably is the cause.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF1, I've very often been in this situation where the beginner player is looking at the monster and thinks:
"I play a Barbarian, the monster tries to run away, I should grapple it!"
And I'm dying inside as the monster got an attack of opportunity, hit the barbarian easily and the barbarian whole round was gone.
In PF1, outside some casters there was only one thing that you were doing at each and every round because there was nothing else that was functional without the much needed feats.

In PF2, I've often been in this situation where a player is looking at the monster and thinks:
"I play a Barbarian, the squishy monster tries to run away, I should grapple it!
GM: It's super effective!!"
PF2 is a game where you have options. In PF1, the only thing you had to do during combat is managing resources. That was the whole tactics in PF1: Should I smite or should I not? In PF2, you can, as Deriven says, just Double Slice every round. It works, but it's not the only thing that works, it's not the only thing your character can do and it's not always the best thing to do. And very often, the sound decision tactically is the same than the sound decision rolistically, which is also awesome as there's not this big gap between how beginners and how experienced players play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

To be fair I dont agree with Deriven at all. If PF2 doesnt give tactical options then I don't know of a game that does.

I'll also note there are several ways to play a 2/3rds caster. Literally any martial with a casting archetype. Or the new casting methods of Magus/Summoner being a different and new take on the idea of restricted casting.

Nowhere did I say PF2 doesn't have tactical options. But it isn't any more tactical than PF1. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game, just not using the short-term buffs and debuffs in PF2.

The idea of this more intensely tactical game than PF1 that people need to learn is a false idea. Both games were tactical. It took time to learn the tactics of both systems.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Malk on this one. While presumably PF1e had tactics (I didn't play it) I can't imagine they were immensely different from D&D3e in that regard, and most of them were largely useless outside of extremely specific builds.

PF2 has similar play in my opinion.

Not in my experience. I've played both a champion/bard hybrid and a sword-and-board fighter, and I found good reasons to change things up with both of them with frequency I _never_ saw in D&D3.

Those are two classes I can agree on. Champion and sword and board fighter much better in PF2 than 3E and PF1.

Paladin in PF1 was simple and powerful to play. Pretty much use Smite Evil on the boss and win.

Sword and board fighter was an ok defensive build, but not as good as PF2 in terms of interesting play.

Seems to apply to my wife's two-weapon fighter/rogue too; she may do some repeated things, but there seem to be good reasons for her to do other things sometimes too.

That's why I'm kind of with the group that says that at least for martials, there's a much longer list of things that can be at least reasonably worth doing reasonably often that weren't true in PF1e/D&D3. And I'd suggest strongly the fact the three action structure is there has a lot to do with it. My champion/bard does Shield as a third action fairly often, but its in the line of "doesn't have anything better to do". Its not painful or counterproductive to do something else. Same with my wife's use of Twin Parry. Add in the fact that AoOs are not nearly as common (so movement isn't stupid) and there's just a lot more times when standing and slugging away (or doing your One Big Trick) isn't as dominant.


Temperans wrote:

[

Yeah early on Fighter and Paladins were very rigid, specially if the player decided to spend every single feat on combat (even though they didn't need to). But that is the same as a PF2 Fighter or Champion going very strictly into only 1 thing.

Even there, there's still the issue that specialists can still find they have a third action that isn't painful to sacrifice. My wife's aforementioned two-weapon fighter/rogue does have an SOP (Tumble behind, twin-feint) but it isn't a "do this and nothing else".


Thomas5251212 wrote:
Temperans wrote:

[

Yeah early on Fighter and Paladins were very rigid, specially if the player decided to spend every single feat on combat (even though they didn't need to). But that is the same as a PF2 Fighter or Champion going very strictly into only 1 thing.
Even there, there's still the issue that specialists can still find they have a third action that isn't painful to sacrifice. My wife's aforementioned two-weapon fighter/rogue does have an SOP (Tumble behind, twin-feint) but it isn't a "do this and nothing else".

Then yeah, Raven Black was right its entirely a perception problem. What you see as "different tactics", I am seeing as "you did the same tactic just different order".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Similarly, I have seen players use tactics and succeed. I have seen monsters do tactics and succeed. Sure they don't do it often without the feats, but you can't say that they are only done at low level. Maybe its the case with super optimized parties that are set on "I will only ever do this one thing". But any other party will try things out if told it might help. Just like in PF2 recalling knowledge might let you know of a weakness (Except you know PF1 is more free about giving information).

I have the intuition that while you are talking about tactics as ways to handle a given fight (which is completely adequate), others talk about tactics as the set of actions you choose each round.

This might explain the apparent discrepancy between the points of view.

Temperans wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Yeah early on Fighter and Paladins were very rigid, specially if the player decided to spend every single feat on combat (even though they didn't need to). But that is the same as a PF2 Fighter or Champion going very strictly into only 1 thing.
Even there, there's still the issue that specialists can still find they have a third action that isn't painful to sacrifice. My wife's aforementioned two-weapon fighter/rogue does have an SOP (Tumble behind, twin-feint) but it isn't a "do this and nothing else".
Then yeah, Raven Black was right its entirely a perception problem. What you see as "different tactics", I am seeing as "you did the same tactic just different order".

I myself have a bias in interpreting PF2 tactics discussions.

Around a year and a half ago, many people started posting about the difficulty of surviving PF2, such as Zapp asking about time for Treat Wounds between Moderate-threat encounters. While some early PF2 modules piled together too many Severe-threat encounters, we learned another problem is that many players were applying PF1 tactics to PF2 encounters. Two obvious PF1 tactics: attack as often as possible or cast your nastiest spells on your enemies--work poorly in PF2.

I was clueless about this at first, since my players did not use those tactics and did not have any trouble adapting to PF2. The players asking for advice usually did not describe their methods; instead, they would ask, "Why do we need to heal so much?" or "Why do our enemies hit us more often than we hit them?"

Nowadays I lead my replies with describing my players' tactics and asking, "Did you try this?" This thread started out with a lot of advice suggesting tactics that do work in PF2 for most characters, so I did not chime in until comment #360 on Monday.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

To be fair I dont agree with Deriven at all. If PF2 doesnt give tactical options then I don't know of a game that does.

I'll also note there are several ways to play a 2/3rds caster. Literally any martial with a casting archetype. Or the new casting methods of Magus/Summoner being a different and new take on the idea of restricted casting.

Nowhere did I say PF2 doesn't have tactical options. But it isn't any more tactical than PF1. I played PF1 for ages. And it was a highly tactical game, just not using the short-term buffs and debuffs in PF2.

The idea of this more intensely tactical game than PF1 that people need to learn is a false idea. Both games were tactical. It took time to learn the tactics of both systems.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Malk on this one. While presumably PF1e had tactics (I didn't play it) I can't imagine they were immensely different from D&D3e in that regard, and most of them were largely useless outside of extremely specific builds.

PF2 has similar play in my opinion.

Not in my experience. I've played both a champion/bard hybrid and a sword-and-board fighter, and I found good reasons to change things up with both of them with frequency I _never_ saw in D&D3.

Those are two classes I can agree on. Champion and sword and board fighter much better in PF2 than 3E and PF1.

Paladin in PF1 was simple and powerful to play. Pretty much use Smite Evil on the boss and win.

Sword and board fighter was an ok defensive build, but not as good as PF2 in terms of interesting play.

Seems to apply to my wife's two-weapon fighter/rogue too; she may do some repeated things, but there seem to be good reasons for her to do other things sometimes too.

That's why I'm kind of with the group that says that at least for martials, there's a much longer...

You didn't have to raise a shield in PF1. The two weapon parry feats in PF1 were always active as well. Artificially requiring you to spend an action to do something that was automatic in PF1 does not make something more tactical. That's not a great argument.

The double slice equivalents are always active too. It did not require action management. If you got a full attack, you got to go off with both of your weapons.

All the tactical options used in PF2 are the same in PF1. You can grapple, trip, overrun, shove, and the like. It was all possible and often had an even more dramatic affect on battle in PF1.

I had players use these at different points in time during play to great effect, especially trip and grapple.

There really is zero debate that PF2 is more tactical than PF1 unless yo u weren't bothering to use the PF1 tactical options. Saying PF2 players can use Double Slice over and over again but that won't maximize the game can be turned around as PF1 characters who did the same thing over and over again didn't maximize the game.

All the tactical options in PF1 are there in PF2 and vice versa save for a few things like maybe Champion's Reaction or Shield Block, though there might have been a version of Shield Block with a sword and board fighter. No one really played them in my campaigns, so not sure.

Players who say that PF2 is more tactical than PF1 either don't know PF1 very well or didn't use many of the options other than full attack. I do not fall into that category. I saw all types of play in PF1 playing it for all those years. I know with absolute certainty PF1 is as tactical as PF2.

PF1 is different, which is why some people complain. Things that require actions in PF2 were automatic in PF2. Power attack was part of attacking. Two-weapon fighters always got tons of attacks if they could full attack. Shields were always raised if you had one. Tripping or grappling replaced an attack and wasn't some separate number of actions maneuver. Swift Actions and Immediate actions had uses. PF1 had a great deal of tactical play.

Maybe a bunch of you didn't use those tactics, but they existed. Maybe you didn't play PF1 that much, but for those of us that did the tactical play was as fun and interesting as PF2. I don't know why some are trying to sell PF2 as more tactical than PF1 when long-term PF1 players are going to know that isn't true.

You can enjoy both games with giving a false idea of either game. It's a false idea that tactics in PF2 are more important or in greater number than PF1 when the way things work in each game are very different including tactics.

Raising your shield isn't a tactical option in PF1 because the game always considered your shield raised doesn't mean that raising a shield in PF2 is increasing the number of tactical options because it requires an action now. Action management is a different mechanic, but doesn't increase the number of tactical options when those same actions were automatic in PF1.

I doubt we're going to see eye to eye on this. But I know that PF1 was every bit as tactical as PF2 and there is zero proof of otherwise unless you flat out don't know PF1 tactics. I know them well. I can break down the tactical play of both games.

No one here has yet explained the following simple PF2 tactics:

1. Apply flat-footed.

2. Apply a status penalty.

3. Get a status bonus.

4. Manage the 3 action round and your reaction if you have a decent reaction ability.

That is PF2 tactics. That is what you do. Once you have done that, they don't get any more complex. PF2 tactics are simple and straight-forward.


I think you're missing the point: yes, you may not have had to raise a shield in PF1e, but doing the things sacrificing it in 2e does cost you _more_. Usually sacrificing your Full Attack option or at least the third attack (which might actually be useful, as compared to what it is in PF2e, which is normally useless). As such doing things like Move or Trip is a more attractive choice, even if it does cost you _something_. Trying a Trip in D&D3e was most likely worthless unless you were specifically built around it, and often it wasn't that effective anyway given how a lot of 3e monsters were built. All kinds of characters that are not Trip-focused can still pull off a Trip in PF2e and the effect is almost always worthwhile if successful.

And its just one example. Trip-Strike-and-Move Way is another, or just Strike-Strike-Move Away. For most characters in D&D3e those ranged from unlikely to be successful to outright mistakes.

And, again, I don't specifically know PF1e, but I know D&D3 and no one has ever suggested they're radically different.


Thomas5251212 wrote:

I think you're missing the point: yes, you may not have had to raise a shield in PF1e, but doing the things sacrificing it in 2e does cost you _more_. Usually sacrificing your Full Attack option or at least the third attack (which might actually be useful, as compared to what it is in PF2e, which is normally useless). As such doing things like Move or Trip is a more attractive choice, even if it does cost you _something_. Trying a Trip in D&D3e was most likely worthless unless you were specifically built around it, and often it wasn't that effective anyway given how a lot of 3e monsters were built. All kinds of characters that are not Trip-focused can still pull off a Trip in PF2e and the effect is almost always worthwhile if successful.

And its just one example. Trip-Strike-and-Move Way is another, or just Strike-Strike-Move Away. For most characters in D&D3e those ranged from unlikely to be successful to outright mistakes.

And, again, I don't specifically know PF1e, but I know D&D3 and no one has ever suggested they're radically different.

No. In PF1 or 3E, you tripped and stomped the person to death. Trip was one attack, then you could continue to use your full attack routine to continue beating them. Why would you move away? Your AC was high enough to avoid getting torn up. You tripped and took away their full attack unless they wanted to attack while prone. Trip-Strike-Move Away wasn't necessary in PF1. Why use a tactic in a game that wasn't necessary?

I don't have players in PF2 trip, strike, and move away either. Not sure why you would do that unless you were engaging in a kiting strategy.

In PF2 we use trips to set up AoOs or force the use of an action to stand up to reduce attack actions for an opponent. This idea that trips automatically work is not what I have experienced. So all these players moving in, tripping easily, then moving away is not how PF2 works. You might get a trip on a boss monster, but you could just as easily move in, attempt trip and fail, then what? Still strike and move away?

Too many people in these discussions make Trip or Grapple or some tactical option seem automatic. They aren't. They are very hard against bosses.

We've fought creatures with flight. You trip them, they don't care. They fly to attack you if you move away. Tripping a flying creature does nothing to them because they move without having to stand up.

But regardless, we don't move away much. Not sure why you would that, especially if your initiative order doesn't all fall before the monster attacks. If you move away as a Champion, you might move out of range to use your reaction. Or you might leave your fellow party member in line for all attacks. Or your buddy might be held and constricted and you might have to kill that creature as fast as you can to get your party member free.

Most rounds the best option is to try to do hit point damage, especially if one person has already tripped setting off everyone's AOOs when they stand up.

PF2 is pretty straightforward in how you play it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Wait, where did this idea that tripping flying creatures does nothing come from? The only Move actions that a Prone creature can take are Crawl or Stand. Fly is a Move action. If you trip them and move away (sometimes a good option and sometimes not) they need to spend two actions to catch up with you just like a non-flier.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Prone wrote:
If you would be knocked prone while you're Climbing or Flying, you fall (see Falling for the rules on falling).
Prone wrote:
The only move actions you can use while you're prone are Crawl and Stand.

Being knocked prone while flying is pretty devastating. You are knocked to the ground and prone (so melee attackers can now all reach you), you take fall damage and you have to waste an action to stand up before you can fly again.

Also, there is this.

Aerial Combat wrote:
The rules for flight say that a creature might need to attempt an Acrobatics check to Maneuver in Flight to pull off tricky maneuvers. You can generally use the same judgment you would for calling for Acrobatics checks when someone’s moving on the ground. Trying to dive through a narrow space, make a sharp turn, or the like might require checks, usually with a simple DC.

Flying enemies aren't intended to just be able to easily fly wherever they want. They have to pass an acrobatics check to do things like sharp turns or to do stuff like flying in narrow spaces (such as between trees). Some really basic things like flying against the wind or hovering in midair are listed as examples under the expert sample tasks of maneuver in flight - that is a DC 20 Acrobatics check.

A lot of GMs don't run it that way (because they don't necessarily read the aerial combat and maneuver in flight sections and just assume it works like other movement types), but ignoring this stuff isn't RAW or RAI.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:

I think you're missing the point: yes, you may not have had to raise a shield in PF1e, but doing the things sacrificing it in 2e does cost you _more_. Usually sacrificing your Full Attack option or at least the third attack (which might actually be useful, as compared to what it is in PF2e, which is normally useless). As such doing things like Move or Trip is a more attractive choice, even if it does cost you _something_. Trying a Trip in D&D3e was most likely worthless unless you were specifically built around it, and often it wasn't that effective anyway given how a lot of 3e monsters were built. All kinds of characters that are not Trip-focused can still pull off a Trip in PF2e and the effect is almost always worthwhile if successful.

And its just one example. Trip-Strike-and-Move Way is another, or just Strike-Strike-Move Away. For most characters in D&D3e those ranged from unlikely to be successful to outright mistakes.

And, again, I don't specifically know PF1e, but I know D&D3 and no one has ever suggested they're radically different.

No. In PF1 or 3E, you tripped and stomped the person to death. Trip was one attack, then you could continue to use your full attack routine to continue beating them. Why would you move away? Your AC was high enough to avoid getting torn up. You tripped and took away their full attack unless they wanted to attack while prone. Trip-Strike-Move Away wasn't necessary in PF1. Why use a tactic in a game that wasn't necessary?

I don't have players in PF2 trip, strike, and move away either. Not sure why you would do that unless you were engaging in a kiting strategy.

In PF2 we use trips to set up AoOs or force the use of an action to stand up to reduce attack actions for an opponent. This idea that trips automatically work is not what I have experienced. So all these players moving in, tripping easily, then moving away is not how PF2 works. You might get a trip on a boss monster, but you could just as easily move in, attempt...

Sure, you'd trip and stomp to death if you were built specifically to do that. I'm aware this thread is working with somewhat conflicting of tactics, so I'll state from the beginning what I'm meaning: tactical diversity is the diversity of actions you have available to you that you can reasonably be expected to use to aid in winning the conflict. I don't particularly care about the breadth of tactical diversity across an edition if a single character's tactical choices are locked in-place by their build - I want tactical diversity to make me think about what I can do when it's my turn.

So to demonstrate, I'm going to compare a 13th level paladin in PF1 and PF2 versus an on-level threat, a Gelugon (inspired by a recent encounter in my PF1 game). Using an on-level threat is biasing the comparison in favour of PF1, given how an on-level threat is far less challenging in PF1. So, key stats for the tactical diversity are CMD in PF1, and saves in PF2; a gelugon has 36 CMD in PF1, and +24/+24/+26 saves in PF2. Starting off with a paladin that isn't focused on trying to use these maneuvers as part of their build, our PF1 paladin has a CMB of +20 (+13 bab + 7 strength), needing a 16 on the dice to have any effect, and if they try to do any of these maneuvers, they'll get attacked by an Attack of Opportunity. The PF2 paladin isn't focused on maneuvers, just having picked up trained at level 1, having an Athletics modifier of +20 (+13 level + 2 trained + 5 strength), needing a 14 on the dice to successfully trip or grapple. From that I think it's fairly reasonable to conclude that neither of these characters will have a particularly good chance of success.

If we bump the focus of the build up to 'moderately focused on a maneuver', our PF1 Paladin takes Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, something like a +1 competence ioun stone, and gets Enlarge Person cast on themself - giving them a CMB of +25, now needing an 11 on the dice to grapple, or a 13 on the dice and proccing an AoO if they attempt any other maneuver. The PF2 build is an Expert in Athletics with a +1 item bonus giving them a +23 modifier, also needing an 11 on the dice, but this is true for any of the maneuvers, and at significantly less opportunity cost. The PF1 character has had to give up two feats, which is now cutting in significantly to their build elsewhere, and still can't be as flexible with combat maneuvers as the PF2 character.

If we bump the focus up to 'fully invested in a maneuver', the PF1 character will get to some absurd modifier if they're actually fully optimizing - I'm not even going to bother to calculate it, they use an obscure weapon they can grapple with, they boost up their STR, etc, and they'll succeed on a 2. That's how the game works. But you'll not be succeeding on a 2 on any other maneuver, and you'll still be taking an AoO - to this day I don't think I've ever seen someone attempt a maneuver they've not invested build resources in, across 150+ PFS games and several completed APs I've GM'd. The PF2 character becomes a master in Athletics and a +2 item bonus, taking them to a +26 modifier, needing an 8 on the dice for any maneuver, but with far less of their build dedicated to it. They could easily pick up Bon Mot or Intimidate without spending as much of their build resources as the PF1 character has, giving them the ability to target Will saving throws, were those worse. They've not lost anything from their core combat capability, unlike the PF1 paladin who hasn't lost out on feats they otherwise would've taken.

To me, that doesn't show the PF1 character having a comparable amount of tactical options - it shows a PF1 character that's increasingly locked-in to a single combat maneuver as they dedicate increasing amounts of their resources to that maneuver. The PF2 character can flexibly pick when it's appropriate to use the maneuver - because the maths certainly changes with different creatures. If I had used a Shadow Giant, the PF1 character would need three higher on the dice (putting them as functionally useless in the low and medium investment builds), whereas the PF2 character could choose to trip and need four lower on the dice - putting the low investment build as more effective than the medium-investment build in PF1. If we go to an extreme example like a Purple Worm, even heavily invested (albeit not perfectly optimized) characters are going to start to struggle against a CMD of 40 (and tripping is impossible) in PF1, whereas the Ref DC of 31 is very easily accessible in PF2, and something like Demoralizing (also DC 31) is easily accessible too. If what I'm looking for is a diversity of actions that I need to decide between in combat, I think it's very clear that PF2 offers that in ways PF1 simply didn't - for martial characters, at the very least.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with generic tactics in PF1 Deriven is the specialty. Basically if you didn’t take the feats to make those good then they weren’t good. No one tripped in PF1 unless you had the trip feats. So unless you went for that feat line you just didn’t do it. Since most people went for the damage buffing lines it just meant you didn’t trip. PF2 allows characters to do things baseline with no feats at a much higher level than PF1, hence a character with no trip feats can still function at it.

Say look at trip. To do it in PF1 you needed improve trip to not provoke AoO. For that you needed combat expertise. For that you needed 13 int or you needed Dirty Fighting from a random splat book that came out years later. So yeah the 13 int was a hard no as a pre req on martials to a mostly useless feat that was a prereq to actually trip. Grapple the same thing.

It’s kind of a boggle that you’re comparing PF1 to PF2 here. We have a 200 post thread that Magus don’t work because 1/4-1/3 of the time they’ll eat an AoO on spellstrike if they cast. Well guess what in PF1 unless you took points in a mostly worthless stat and took a useless feat prereq then you took an AoO on every combat maneuver. Hence unless you were building for that feat line no one ever tripped or grappled. It goes back to specialization if you didn’t have the feats in PF1 you just weren’t good at things and thus didn’t do it. Maybe a fighter would have feats to burn but at a feat every other level certainly no one else did.


Arakasius wrote:
PF2 allows characters to do things baseline with no feats at a much higher level than PF1, hence a character with no trip feats can still function at it.

This isn't quite true. You don't get very far with Disarm, Grapple, Shove, or Trip unless you pick up Titan Wrestler. Then there are a pile of feats that make maneuvers better, combine it with another maneuver or Strike or leverage a weapon too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
PF2 allows characters to do things baseline with no feats at a much higher level than PF1, hence a character with no trip feats can still function at it.
This isn't quite true. You don't get very far with Disarm, Grapple, Shove, or Trip unless you pick up Titan Wrestler. Then there are a pile of feats that make maneuvers better, combine it with another maneuver or Strike or leverage a weapon too.

While true, you're still good up to Large, or bigger if you have ways to enlarge yourself. You can get up to Huge to target Gargantuan with 4th-level Enlarge if needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
PF2 allows characters to do things baseline with no feats at a much higher level than PF1, hence a character with no trip feats can still function at it.
This isn't quite true. You don't get very far with Disarm, Grapple, Shove, or Trip unless you pick up Titan Wrestler. Then there are a pile of feats that make maneuvers better, combine it with another maneuver or Strike or leverage a weapon too.

Titan wrestler doesn’t give a numeric bonus or change AoO. It just means it can scale to being used on huge characters. If you’re fighting another medium character it doesn’t do anything at all. Most of the monsters in the game are either medium or large so it’s not really necessary.

And even if it becomes so at some point it’s a skill feat which you have more of and won’t conflict with your more powerful class feats. Plus the feats which improve it usually are giving an extra effect or improving action economy not making your accuracy to trip better. Thus they’re more efficient or they get debuffed more but on chances to actually trip you’re still capable.

So yeah there are options to make tactics better in PF1 but they’re pretty much all tied to feat chains. You can specialize in 1-2 things and be almost auto hit on them. PF2 gives a much higher baseline so a player can do things they are not an expert at to a reasonable degree of success. PF1 just didn’t hence it’s not as tactical game because your options are limited. There are just too many feat chains and prerequisites gating common abilities for them to be part of every toolbox. All maneuvers and demoralize were useless without investment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

No. In PF1 or 3E, you tripped and stomped the person to death. Trip was one attack, then you could continue to use your full attack routine to continue beating them. Why would you move away? Your AC was high enough to avoid getting torn up. You tripped and took away their full attack unless they wanted to attack while prone. Trip-Strike-Move Away wasn't necessary in PF1. Why use a tactic in a game that wasn't necessary?

I don't have players in PF2 trip, strike, and move away either. Not sure why you would do that unless you were engaging in a kiting strategy.

In PF2 we use trips to set up AoOs or force the use of an action to stand up to reduce attack actions for an opponent. This idea that trips automatically work is not what I have experienced. So all these players moving in, tripping easily, then moving away is not how PF2 works. You might get a trip on a boss monster, but you could just as easily move in, attempt...

If you put downsides on something that was previously automatic, then yes, it becomes more tactical. Instead of having a character that can trip, and full attack, and still have shield bonuses, having a cost on those forces deeper tactics. You have to consider whether attacking an extra time is worth it, or if you have something better to do instead. You have to consider if you want the shield bonus, or if you want the possible damage from an additional attack or the tactical potential from a move. Since you don't get the same number of attacks, tripping as your first action is now a different cost.

Similarly, if you know the opponent can't respond in a MTG game, the mana cost promotes tactics (or how you spend your resources) versus freely dumping your hand onto the field.

Having to make those mid-turn decisions creates a higher tactical requirement thanks to having limited resources.


Cyouni wrote:
While true, you're still good up to Large, or bigger if you have ways to enlarge yourself.

You can start off as tiny or small, so you might only be good to small or medium. Using a spell works but the feat is still valuable [or possibly required] depending on the level of the spell and the size of your foes. Then there is the fact that you aren't always guaranteed to have the space for the player to increase size enough [or maneuver well] at a size needed. So while the feat isn't technically required, it sure feels that way.

Arakasius wrote:
If you’re fighting another medium character it doesn’t do anything at all.

This here is the mistake you're making: you can start off tiny or small. That and you aren't guaranteed to have spells available to cast enlarge while the feat always works, from level 1 up.

Arakasius wrote:
Most of the monsters in the game are either medium or large so it’s not really necessary.

Now, look at it from starting at tiny or small once: medium or large would be then too big.

As I side note, I don't know that I'd say "Most of the monsters in the game are either medium or large": I've had games where that just isn't true.

Arakasius wrote:
And even if it becomes so at some point it’s a skill feat which you have more of and won’t conflict with your more powerful class feats.

If we compare to PF1, then it's like improve trip being a bonus feat or on the bonus feat lists of various classes/archetypes and sometimes without prerequisites. It didn't have to be as onerous as you made it out to be: Underfoot Adept for instance, give Improved Trip at 1st and every 4 levels after increases the size of creatures you can trip.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think I have vastly different idea of what the concept of tactics even means from Deriven.

If Raising a Shield having an opportunity cost vs it being a passive in PF1 doesn't make the former a greater tactical consideration than the latter I have no idea what he is talking about.


I mean, tactics wise your are using the shield in both situations. The only difference is 1 costs and action and the other just happens. The mechanics of how they work are different, the tactic remains the same: You used a shield.

Also, adding a penalty does not make something more tactical, it just adds a penalty. Tactics are not defined by you taking more penalties, but by the type of options.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
I mean, tactics wise your are using the shield in both situations. The only difference is 1 costs and action and the other just happens. The mechanics of how they work are different, the tactic remains the same: You used a shield.

That's uh, a pretty significant difference though. In one example you're making a round-by-round decision whether or not to use a certain ability for its benefits. In the other you're getting a bonus automatically just for showing up.

... It's okay to like PF1. There's nothing wrong with it. It's a fun game. You don't need to make all these huge leaps to try to justify why it was neat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure you can take an archetype that gives improved trip as a feat but then you’re missing out on archetypes that give far more power. And nothing you said really contradicts the fact that maneuvers took serious character investment to even be viable in PF1. If you didn’t make a character choice to opt in to the maneuver feats than they were unusable and thus not in your tactics toolbox. While a character with decent athletics in PF2 is quite capable of pulling off a trip of a situation comes up.

It’s specialization vs generalization. PF1 required specialization due to the nature of feats and how they have so much numeric bonuses. PF2 feats are lower powered but also more open ended. It’s nice there isn’t a whole thing about the “trip guide” or the “demoralize guide” and so on.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Except not trying to justify anything. The topic was about PF2 and whether you got hit more, the answer was yes. People said, "oh just change the difficulty" which some people said the difficulty itself was not a problem. People then mentioned oh this game has more tactics, while not really mentioning "more tactics", but didn't give any of the good example of those like Deriven did. Instead giving the worst examples (Shields, TWF, and Maneuvers).

I always give my honest response. So when he said ,"oh its more tactical because I take more penalties to use it." I can only think that its not more tactical, its just more punishing to use it. (Like the whole Magus Spellstrike provoking in melee).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Do I flank or do I raise my shield?
That's the kind of simple tactical decisions you will never have to take in PF1.

There are 2 dimensions to "tactics", called, in mathematics, complexity and difficulty.
Difficulty is the amount of information you have to deal with. It's the sum of the game rules, basically. So both PF1 and PF2 are difficult.
Complexity is the thought process that the brain uses to deal with information. It's the time spent on decision making. In PF1, outside casters (and mostly full casters) it was close to 0: You were always doing the same thing. In PF2, it's higher (even if we are far away from chess and go on complexity).

So, depending on what you like in tactics, you can consider that PF1 and PF2 are equivalent or that PF2 is tactical and PF1 isn't (outside full casters).

Personally, I quite like both complexity and difficulty. But that's me, and everyone can have a different point of view.


Had not heard that version before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Sure you can take an archetype that gives improved trip as a feat but then you’re missing out on archetypes that give far more power.

*shrug* Don't know about which options you're thinking about but I find it plenty powerful enough: you can take it with Maneuver Master and you can mix it up with multiple maneuvers. The ability to pass out prone, blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened with your flurry, or as a swift action or multiple maneuvers in a standard action seems plenty powerful.

Arakasius wrote:
And nothing you said really contradicts the fact that maneuvers took serious character investment to even be viable in PF1.

They took as much investment as you wanted to spend: you didn't NEED to enough to be huge dent in your feats. In PF1 you could almost always find a feat to make whatever you focused on better but that didn't mean it was required to focus that much.

Arakasius wrote:
If you didn’t make a character choice to opt in to the maneuver feats than they were unusable and thus not in your tactics toolbox.

Even without the base feat, it's usable. You have reach and ranged weapons with trip on them, so a character with them and no trip feat is fine.

Arakasius wrote:
It’s nice there isn’t a whole thing about the “trip guide” or the “demoralize guide” and so on.

This isn't as good an example as you think as there ARE some pretty required feats and stats for these: for instance, if you plan to demoralize, you'll need a high cha, boost Intimidation proficiency as often as you can and you'll need feats like Intimidating Glare or Intimidating Prowess, Battle Cry and Scare to Death. It's not so different from PF1: you can take multiple feats to improve your favorited moves. IMO, Improved trip from PF1 and Intimidating Glare from PF2 look awfully close as required feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Intimidating Glare is situationally necessary depending on campaign. If your campaign is very Common-centric, then it's not as needed.

That said, anyone who wants to Demoralize in combat definitely wants to pick up Intimidating Glare, probably wants Battle Cry, and likely wants Terrified Retreat. Then again, that's true of any skill you want to focus on.


Temperans wrote:

I mean, tactics wise your are using the shield in both situations. The only difference is 1 costs and action and the other just happens. The mechanics of how they work are different, the tactic remains the same: You used a shield.

Also, adding a penalty does not make something more tactical, it just adds a penalty. Tactics are not defined by you taking more penalties, but by the type of options.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there's two RTSs. One has absolutely no resource use/gathering, and you can build everything at no cost (yes, this isn't really generally considered a RTS anymore, but bear with me). The other is a standard RTS, where you have to choose what you want to build with your limited resources.

Which of these two examples do you think is going to have more tactical gameplay?


Terrified retreat may be a tricky one.

Sometimes it may result into pulling 2/3 more rooms rather than the single one you are fighting in, resulting in an easy TPK.

Intimidating glare is a must imo ( even just considering animals and beasts ), while battlecry is good to have ( doesn't trigger always, but is a pretty solid one ).

I'll add intimidating prowess ( if you are using str ) or versatile performance Acting ( for polymath bards ).

Fun fact, the Laughing Gnoll is the only feat which allows you to use the verbal component to demoralize "any" creature.

I would have preferred something like this rather than intimidating glare ( I mean, screaming at somebody who doesn't understand your language shoudln't take a penalty because reasons... and the alternative shouldn't be looking at him with killing eyes ).


HammerJack wrote:
Wait, where did this idea that tripping flying creatures does nothing come from? The only Move actions that a Prone creature can take are Crawl or Stand. Fly is a Move action. If you trip them and move away (sometimes a good option and sometimes not) they need to spend two actions to catch up with you just like a non-flier.

Why would a wisp whose only speed is fly need to crawl or stand? That makes no sense.

You might make this argument for something like a wveryn or dragon, but some floating creature would not need to stand up.


Arcaian wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:

I think you're missing the point: yes, you may not have had to raise a shield in PF1e, but doing the things sacrificing it in 2e does cost you _more_. Usually sacrificing your Full Attack option or at least the third attack (which might actually be useful, as compared to what it is in PF2e, which is normally useless). As such doing things like Move or Trip is a more attractive choice, even if it does cost you _something_. Trying a Trip in D&D3e was most likely worthless unless you were specifically built around it, and often it wasn't that effective anyway given how a lot of 3e monsters were built. All kinds of characters that are not Trip-focused can still pull off a Trip in PF2e and the effect is almost always worthwhile if successful.

And its just one example. Trip-Strike-and-Move Way is another, or just Strike-Strike-Move Away. For most characters in D&D3e those ranged from unlikely to be successful to outright mistakes.

And, again, I don't specifically know PF1e, but I know D&D3 and no one has ever suggested they're radically different.

No. In PF1 or 3E, you tripped and stomped the person to death. Trip was one attack, then you could continue to use your full attack routine to continue beating them. Why would you move away? Your AC was high enough to avoid getting torn up. You tripped and took away their full attack unless they wanted to attack while prone. Trip-Strike-Move Away wasn't necessary in PF1. Why use a tactic in a game that wasn't necessary?

I don't have players in PF2 trip, strike, and move away either. Not sure why you would do that unless you were engaging in a kiting strategy.

In PF2 we use trips to set up AoOs or force the use of an action to stand up to reduce attack actions for an opponent. This idea that trips automatically work is not what I have experienced. So all these players moving in, tripping easily, then moving away is not how PF2 works. You might get a trip on a boss monster, but you

...

You're cherry picking a particular class whose weakness was a low number of feats and a simple play style. You really didn't need to use maneuvers as a paladin. Everything was built into the class.

A paladin would likely get Weapon Focus, Power Attack, and a bunch of simple feats then his main tactical focus was when to use Divine Smite, Lay on Hands, and the like. Champions in particular are more tactical than PF1.

This would basically be like me using a PF1 wizard to compare tactics to a PF2 wizard. It wouldn't be much of a contest as the PF1 wizard would easily beat any PF2 character for tactical capability at high level.

501 to 550 of 660 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Is it just me, or is it way too easy to get hit in this edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.