Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="!DWolf" data-source="post: 8154967" data-attributes="member: 7026314">Let me clarify my argument: Suppose that instead of a monster that runs up to melee and attacks it instead flies up, attacks (and gets to move the target on a critical success), and then flys away. And the entire battlefield is difficult terrain with lots of obstacles that block line of effect and it ends each turn behind one. And In that difficult terrain are hidden monsters attached to hazards that won’t attack unless you trigger the hazard (spiders with webs the spiders have greater cover unless they attack). Is the optimal action for the ranger and swashbuckler the same in this situation? Or suppose that a room is filling with water, two portcullis have sealed the exits, and shadows are below the water tearing off the characters shadows to multiply in number. Is the optimal action for the ranger and swashbuckler the same in that situation? Or suppose you are sneaking up on an enemy camp to assassinate the general. You need to take out a series of pickets as sneakily as possible. Are optimal actions for that situation the exact same as in the previous ones or are you tempted to take other actions (such as readying a bow shot or using the sneak action?)Now suppose you got to the general, killed him but alerted the camp. At the beginning of each round the gm rolls a d6 and adds the round number and that’s how many enemy soldiers show up. Are the same optimal actions valid in this case as well?I have hundreds of these scenarios. Is there an optimal turn routine that you can use in literally all of them? The majority of them? Because I haven’t found one. Sure the bow ranger wants to hunt prey and fire their bow, the swashbuckler wants to gain panache and use finishers, the melee fighter wants to make melee attacks, and the sorcerer wants to cast spells. But the repetitive ‘optimal’ techniques are not the product of the classes but of the GM throwing the same situation at the characters over and over and the players adapting their characters and play styles to that. Variety is the spice of life and all that. (Note that I am not arguing with you Kenada this is a wordy restatement of my opinion on ‘optimal’ routines)Now to gush about pf2e:I have found pf2e to be one of the easiest and fastest fantasy systems to construct a wide variety of scenarios in. In pf1 I have to fight the mechanics hard to have both an interesting scenario and something all the players can participate in. I never even tried to gm 5e because after playing it I realized that I would have to do all of the lifting. Eclipse Phase and Mage: the Awakening were fantastic for mysteries but I had to prep ten to twenty hours each session due to the power of the characters (an Eclipse Phase character starts as an immortal SEAL team member who is also an expert racecar driver and free runner with four phds; Mages are basically gods). Shadowrun 2e and 3e were alright but it’s fairly hard to come up with novel runs after a while and the heavy planning emphasis... I’m going to stop before I list out the flaws with shadowrun as much as I still love the older editions. The thing is with pathfinder 2e is the system provides support (as in a mechanical foundation) for a wide variety of challenges. To further my earlier analogy: pf2e lets me easily build a massive toolbox of techniques and scenarios and because there is no ‘optimum’ routine that works for every tool, I can keep my players engaged and interested by switching the tools used to build each encounter. And because of the way builds work in pf2e, with them generally building out instead of up, players get to have characters that can effectively engage in a wide variety of scenarios (a major problem I have with pf1).P.S. I downloaded the audio and listened to it. Don’t. It’s basically him feeling attacked and trying to prove himself right in his opinions by white rooming to show that dnd 5e is objectively the superior game. I basically predicted what he would do exactly: he gives four different monsters in three different environments (a chimera in a mountain pass, mimic in a room, ghouls and ghast somewhere, and some wights that he goes into detail with) and then proceeded to say that the ranger will take the same action in all the situations (maybe with movement) because the system encourages it. But here’s the thing: He hasn’t presented four different scenarios, he’s presented four different variations of one scenario - straight up combat where the monster appears and attacks until dead and hoped that no one noticed this. Now these can be changed to different scenarios. For example: there is high wind in the mountain interfering with ranged attacks, the terrain is difficult so the PCs are slower, and the chimera instead of just attacking performs a fighting retreat after an initial strafe. That is it attacks then uses its superior mobility to retreat to a totally protected location which is over some obstacles and maybe even some hazards like scree or a rickety bridge and it repeats this as necessary until it is sure it can get the kill. But notice that as soon as you actually change the scenario the rangers ‘optimal’ action stops being so optimal (or ‘obvious’ since he’s trying to walk back a little).</blockquote>

Verification