Pathfinder 2E Getting rid of opportunity attacks in D&D 5e, need PF2 players' perspective

[Thomas Shey]

When I first ran 5e, I had you roll 1d4 and add it to your attack (like bless). My players aren’t very tactical, so I’m not sure it actually came up in play (and the same goes for the official flank variant). Also, our lack of tactical inclination is probably why PF2 combat was so hard for my group.

Its possible to get by in PF2e with a character who just wants to run up and slug things (or stand there and shoot things/blow things up) but there's no question its sometimes, especially against some types of opponents, going to be a harder task than it needs to be. I think I could run a game for such a group, by going out of my way to make encounters not so much easier but simpler.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We first used flanking as written, giving advantage but that seemed a little too much. Kind of diminished special abilities of characters such as barbarians or samurai that had ways of getting advantage from their abilities.

This kind of underscores the conceptual problem I have with Advantage/Disadvantage as 5e handles it. Its all-or-nothing nature is not anything resembling ideal. Even things like Mythras "take only the best/worst mod" and SotDL's boon/bane system has more nuance.

 

[kenada]

Its possible to get by in PF2e with a character who just wants to run up and slug things (or stand there and shoot things/blow things up) but there's no question its sometimes, especially against some types of opponents, going to be a harder task than it needs to be. I think I could run a game for such a group, by going out of my way to make encounters not so much easier but simpler.

I wouldn’t say they just want to slug it out. One of the players plays very conservatively (e.g., being very stingy with bombs), and the group as a whole tends not to bother trying to maximize synergies. They’re just not very inclined tactically.

That’s all why I rebased the guidelines for encounter building for my group. Using two level−1 creatures as a moderate-threat encounter and adjusting everything else down results in encounters that feel more in line with the system’s expectations.

 

[kenada]

This kind of underscores the conceptual problem I have with Advantage/Disadvantage as 5e handles it. Its all-or-nothing nature is not anything resembling ideal. Even things like Mythras "take only the best/worst mod" and SotDL's boon/bane system has more nuance.

It (Advantage) also doesn’t confer a concrete benefit. A bonus clearly always makes your roll better, and it raises the ceiling on the best result. That can feel more tangible to some players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It (Advantage) also doesn’t confer a concrete benefit. A bonus clearly always makes your roll better, and it raises the ceiling on the best result. That can feel more tangible to some players.

I don't have an intrinsic problem with that, but since the other elements of Advantage/Disadvantage really put me off...

 

[qbalrog]

I do think the overall lack of AOO makes the combat much more fluid, which I think is a good thing. You could argue that thematically it is too rare in 2E but the bane of 3.5 and 1E was the static fight where after level 7 or so, you had to stay put to get full damage, and the painof AOO made it worse.

The PF2E 3 action system and much less AOO makes for much more interesting battles, and as a ref, much more entertaining possibilities with terrain, both for players and for me. I haven't played 5E yet so I can't speak to what it would take to modify that in 5E. You can't use the fun terrain much if players just pick one spot and then don't move