Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?

zztong · Jul 15, 2019

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
How does the lack of attacks of opportunity work? While I'm happy to hear people won't be wasting time walking spiral patterns to avoid getting hit extra times, what prevents a monster from just walking past the fighter and hitting the wizard?

Attacks of Opportunity are still there for Fighters and some monsters.

The combats are more fluid. The group I played the PF2 Playtest in was generally okay with this extra fluidity. (I was not.) As the person who generally played a Wizard, your AC stays competitive and with a little multiclassing you can wear full armor. Assuming PF2 doesn't significantly differ from the PF2 Playtest, this is one way the game feels different. You can always house-rule AOO's back into the game without much effort.

Aldarc · Jul 15, 2019

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
How does the lack of attacks of opportunity work? While I'm happy to hear people won't be wasting time walking spiral patterns to avoid getting hit extra times, what prevents a monster from just walking past the fighter and hitting the wizard?

AoOs have been mostly reimagined as reactions that would make sense for each class. So a wizard, for example, could not necessarily perform AoOs as per a fighter given their training, but they would likely know how to counterspell when those situations rise.

CapnZapp · Jul 15, 2019

zztong said:
The combats are more fluid.

Not sure what you mean by "fluid", but if you mean the opposite of "static", that is, that PF2 characters are able to move about the battlefield more, then I'm all for it.

One big drawback of 3.x combat (including games with a similar ection economy, such as WFRP3 and Pathfinder 1) was the way the game made you choose between movement and attacking at full capacity.

Why? Since this led to static combats where once you reached your for, you basically stood still until either combatant had won.

Also the rather primitive notion of "stickiness"; how these games made it comparatively expensive to disengage from your for; also encouraging you to basically stay in place until the duel had been resolved.

While 5E is clearly better in this regard, my general views of 4E cannot prevent me from giving due credit: that edition was the undisputed champion when it comes to making combat movement fun.

(Again, this might not be what you meant. If so, please disregard.)

zztong · Jul 15, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Not sure what you mean by "fluid", but if you mean the opposite of "static", that is, that PF2 characters are able to move about the battlefield more, then I'm all for it.

Yes, static vs fluid was what I was thinking.

I had a longer, more thoughtful lengthy response but manged to wipe it out. If it shows up, you'll know why I have a seemingly duplicate post.

I see three AOO systems: PF2, D&D5, D&D3. I think each caters to different goals. Pick the one you want.

Related to movement: If you want something more cinematic with a focus on a small number of characters then PF2 AOOs are probably best. Duels, 2-on-1, and 2-on-2 combats are more mobile in real life, but that patterns doesn't continue into greater numbers. I like D&D3 AOO better for larger engagements, like clashing warbands and adventures with many characters. The D&D5 approach of AOOs for leaving an opponent's "Zone of Control" (my term) is an interesting compromise.

Related to responding to other kinds of risky activities (drinking potions, reading scrolls, etc.): I think AOOs should be available to all adjacent opponents regardless of training.

Thus, I'm more likely to pick a D&D3 approach over a PF2 approach. I think it fits my stories better.

qstor · Jul 15, 2019

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
How does the lack of attacks of opportunity work? While I'm happy to hear people won't be wasting time walking spiral patterns to avoid getting hit extra times, what prevents a monster from just walking past the fighter and hitting the wizard?

The fighter to my knowledge (and select monsters) are the only ones that get attacks of opportunity as a "feature/ability"

qstor · Jul 15, 2019

zztong said:
Thus, I'm more likely to pick a D&D3 approach over a PF2 approach. I think it fits my stories better.

As a GM I pretty much stick with the RAW. As a player and GM I prefer 3.5/PF 1 so I'm used to the AOOs from both those games. But I can see from a design point of view of getting rid of the number of AOOs in 3.5e/PF1 to make the game simpler like moving towards 5E's approach.

Jer · Jul 15, 2019

qstor said:
The fighter to my knowledge (and select monsters) are the only ones that get attacks of opportunity as a "feature/ability"

As a DM, I like the idea of this (depending on how its implemented in the monster stat block). I like the idea of monsters having particular roles, and the idea that all of the monsters can lock down combatants and keep them from moving is something I'm less and less enthused about as the years go by. I also like the idea that only the PCs who are supposed to be engaged in melee are able to lock down the monsters as well (though that's less of a concern since unless my players get surprised, my monsters rarely can get past the front line anyway).

Do you know if other front line type characters have the option of picking up this ability? I'm thinking mostly of paladins and melee clerics here.

zztong · Jul 15, 2019

Jer said:
Do you know if other front line type characters have the option of picking up this ability? I'm thinking mostly of paladins and melee clerics here.

If you're willing to multi-class, yes. I did it with a Wizard. IIRC (Playtest Rules) you could have 1 AOO per day for 1 Feat and unlimited AOO per day for 2 Feats.

CapnZapp · Jul 15, 2019

"Only fighter" OAs might make sense from a gamist perspective, but how does it stop the monsters from getting to the wizard?

The whole point of OAs is deterrence. As a fighter, you don't actually want to use your opportunity attack; you just want the threat of it to make the monster stay put.

If OAs no longer are a built-in natural ability, won't that mean monsters break-off from fighters to reach the wizards? Sure to their surprise they get whacked, but the OA damage seldom kills.

If monsters and creatures in general don't have OAs how will they know they're fighting something that has 'em?

For this idea to work, PF2 OAs must work differently. Maybe like Sentinel; they stop the monster dead in it's tracks?