Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9745128" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Except, as I said, that mode of play when used without thought is not optimal.  That's the point.   The "swing, swing, swing" thing may have been the best choice in PF1e.  Its not in 2e, and anyone who's doing it there is not thinking about it, and I don't feel a need to be complimentary to people who don't.And a lot of those were in the same bucket; if you do the same thing round after round, you're not playing optimally, and you probably haven't looked at the game closely.  I've played enough PF2e, with radically different characters that I'm plenty comfortable saying that, thanks.  There may be extremely specific builds where some repetition is common, but they're unlikely to be very good ones, and with anything else while there are some common tactics that pay to use regularly, none of them are things you can just apply via autopilot, and anyone who thinks so does not actually understand the mechanics, or does not care  (like I said, I've heard of people who do the swing-swing-swing thing but its demonstrably a bad idea with one specific exception, and its marginal even there.)My statement wasn't intended to be complimentary, because as I said, at least two of the things Retreater described them doing are either dumb or lazy; and one of them is so well known its probably both.  Edit: To be fair, with a very small number of samples or a GM who's not putting in any effort at their end it could theoretically be because they're basically just fighting the same fight over and over again, but that almost would require deliberate intent its so hard to do.  From his further description, I played a character as my first PF2e character that was at least of a type with the one he played and the pattern he describes while functional was by no means routinely optimal.</blockquote>

Verification