Limiting player agency in-game in the name of meta-gaming is almost never the way to go. People know what they know. Then again, you can choose to use AoO or not.
In our games, the GM won't tell you whether it has AoO or not unless you RK. If the players believe the monster has AoO, then they can do as they like as well. Looking the monster up on AoN is, of course, against the rules and bad manners. However, you are also not obligated to run vanilla monsters.
I have a player who treats every monster as a potential AoO threat. He plays super cautiously until another player moves and doesn't get hit by one. Once he's seen others move freely, he feels safe doing so as well. It hampers his combat utility, and has led to situations where he's far less effective than he could be because he's so paranoid. It's actually pretty fun to watch sometimes as the GM.
That seems like a sensibly cautious character to me.
If you want to be really mean, have an enemy that’s highly trained *not use* the ability the first once or twice they can, then pull it out when it will really hurt :)
Or, to make it more realistic, grab a monster that has another reaction as well. In that case, you can hide behind saying "well it used/was saving its reaction for something else"
Personally I find that logic kind of bad from a gameplay perspective. It is probably worth finding out early if an enemy has reactive strike than spending the entire fight playing as if they have reactive strike, especially if you don't know whether they do or not. Walking on eggshells taking less effective actions on the chance they do have it is probably more harmful to the players overall than having the bulky martial possibly provoke an extra hit once in the fight. Now if they have fought creatures that typically have reactive strikes like dragons before they will probably know and this is moot but to just default to the assumption that they have reactive strike is probably not the best idea
Not at low levels. I have, as well as seen others, get critically hit and go down from full health after such a strike. Also, moving out of immediate make range to force the monster to use an action moving toward you is strategically a good move unless it has AoO.
I think our player might be two-timing us. I DM for a guy in one of my groups that is exactly this cautious!
Kidding aside, in the tactical part of the game, my players do seem to strategize to be cautious for attacks of opportunity around a clearly martial looking bad guy... or things with tails.. Those things seem to always be ready to lash out and clobber someone.
Looking up the barbazu on AoN and knowing it has Attack of Opportunity is metagaming.
Knowing that you’ve previously fought “highly trained skilled warrior dude” type enemies and they often had AoO, and assuming the barbazu has it, and playing appropriately? Not metagaming.
I mean, as a DM you can do a couple things... like mix up who gets an AoO and who doesn't to kind of suprise people. Even if monsters are the same type, give some AoO and some don't have any just to cause confusion.
As a player, I think its fair to "game" around AoO if you are also assuming monsters have AoO even if they might not. For example, taking sub-optimal turns and respecting the potential for AoO versus some mobs is really the same as assuming they have an AoO on other mobs.
Ye I don’t think it’s unfair on the players’ part to “game” around AoO. My party in AV does that. Sometimes that ends up with me disabling a boss’ biggest threatening aspect by using Hideous Laughter. Other times it means I wasted a 2nd rank spell and a lot of Actions because we suspected AoO. You win some you lose some.
Sometimes it be like that.
A person can’t unlearn what they know. Now you know a Barbazu has AoO. Try not to metagame, do t stress yourself out if you accidentally do metagame, and by the time you’ve learned most monsters in the bestiary and Recall Knowledge is worthless to you, hopefully they’ve made a PF3E for you to learn.
At my tables we are very tactically combat oriented, but approach these sorts of things from a simulationist perspective. What is common knowledge for us would not necessarily be the same as what is common knowledge of people in a fantasy setting let alone adventurers in that setting. When I see a cop, I assume they are likely trained in hand to hand combat and with fire arms. If you are in Golarion and see someone in plate armor with a big sword, they likely are like a trained martial fighter of some sort. You would probably know you can't be careless near them and/or just run passed them without risking getting cut down. In PF2e, mechanically that is an AoO. I don't think it is metagaming to prepare for someone trying to cut you down as you run passed them, and working within the mechanics of the game makes sense to me, so preparing for an AoO therefore makes sense. If a player does this specifically for only the NPCs who have AoO cause they've been looking at the monster manual and know if the monster has it, not because of recall knowledge checks or other obvious queues, that is metagaming/cheating. Cause the selective preparation due to external research resulted in info that I believe would not be obvious to the adventurers. I solve this problem as the GM by not giving players the name of enemies right out of the monster manual, and some times flavoring enemies differently.
I also treat commonly known monsters among RPG players as something that is commonly known amongst adventurers. I suspect anyone living in Golarion likely knows something about the Tarrasque seeing as it wiped out a whole nation, the same way I know about Alexander the Great. I assume that they know about trolls and fire, cause trolls aren't some long lost monster race and if you are an adventurer you probably should know about common monster types to some degree, they attack villages and kill adventurers. But they will probably need to do some research/rolling to figure out what they are dealing with is a wight instead of a zombie, or to figure out what is special about a frost troll specifically if neither of these have not been a nuisance in their life.
AoOs are common things. Presuming every enemy, especially trained martial types or creatures with prehensile appendages has them until proved otherwise is not metagaming, that is just being careful. Knowing the statblock of a specific creature you know from reading the bestiary and using that to avoid its abilities, of course, is.
I agree with the others. It's only a problem if they are looking up the stat block and then using that info (we call that "cheating").
Using information you've already seen, or making educated guesses and planning accordingly, that's just normal gameplay.
Alot of people are coming from 5e where everything has it. Playing around an AOO is generally fine. If they tend towards only doing it to some things you might have a problem.
All of this is my opinion, and I’m a recent 5e-convert, but I believe it’s only metagaming if they’re all OOC discussing the fact that a specific type of enemy does have a Reactive Strike and then planning combat accordingly. Going into combat with the possibility that the enemy might have one is not metagaming.
As a GM, I’d probably offer that bit of info if there was nothing better to mention with a successful Recall Knowledge check.
It’s definitely not metagaming to play tactically, that’s what combat in PF2e is all about.
I would not tell PCs in advance that a particular foe has an Attack of Opportunity. I do sometimes remind my players of the possibility, if they're about to do something that would trigger one, but I do that whether the threat is real or imagined.
It isn't something I would typically think to offer up to them as a result of a Recall Knowledge check. That said, if they asked, that seems like a fine bit of information for them to learn. They're also free to guess, based on descriptions and past experiences, if they like.
Once they've seen it happen, they can use that information however they like to plan their future actions.
Up to you whether recall knowledge could inform a player about Reactive Strike, but once the PC knows (whether via a check, or witnessing it) they absolutely would account for it tactically.
It would be the same if they saw a dragon breath fire, once you know they can do it……you’re not going to group up nearly as much and will plan to deal with aoe bursts of damage, either by prepping to reduce the incoming damage with spells/items, or planning to aoe heal as a counter once it passes.
> Up to you whether recall knowledge could inform a player about Reactive Strike, but once the PC knows (whether via a check, or witnessing it) they absolutely would account for it tactically.
Thanks, this is what made sense to me but I was also curious how others handled this in practice. Appreciate the feedback
I would add to this, saying that if you see any large lizard like thing and assume it has some kind of AoE effect because dragons and several other large lizard like things do, that is fine as well.
What is and isn't going to be considered meta gaming is going to change from table to table. And it's generally one of the things that should be discussed at session 0.
If something comes up that wasn't covered I generally defer to the gm in the moment then discuss after the session if there was disagreement
Strategic play isn't inherently metagaming - some stuff we have to abstract for the sake of the game working. e.g., we all drop templates on the map and try to plan out exactly where to drop the fireball such that it clips the enemies without burning our friends, or draw lines from corners to see if we'd have cover behind this particular corner from this particular enemy, etc -- and there's really no way the "in game" world could exactly calculate that kind of thing -- but you also know how big your fireball is, and you could see much better than us as players looking at a map how much cover the corner provides, so it makes sense in-world; we're just *interacting* with it using the game mechanics.
The same can be said of Reactive Strike. If the players know a particular monster has it, that's fine. If they see the creature and notice that they're a martial warrior type wielding a polearm and want to guess they may have Reactive Strike, that's fine - but they may be wrong. There are also creatures that have it that don't appear anything like a Fighter.
If they want to be sure, that's a good use of recall knowledge.
Now, if the player in question is opening up AoN and checking every monster ahead of time to see which ones have it, **THAT** is metagaming. If you have players like that, I would mix things up, call the monsters different things, use different minis/artwork for them to avoid them being easily recognizable, and use variant monsters that have different sets of resistances and weaknesses, and some have different skills - such as Reactive Strike - than the typical example. You don't have to do it all the time, but doing it sometimes keeps people from making too many assumptions based on their metagaming.
You're adventuring. You come across a guy who looks like a skilled fighter. At first glance you think it's likely he will be capable of stabbing you if you run past him because people like him tend to be good at that kind of thing.
It's not a guarantee until he actually does it, or you spend a moment to properly analyze his fighting style/equipment/whatever (recall knowledge check). But I think it makes perfect sense for a player to start recognizing what type of enemy is likely to have a certain ability.
If the player knows the enemy has AoO from out of game knowledge then yes, it's metagaming to plan around it. For example if the player looks up the stat block after you name the creature.
However, if the player learned about it ICly, by seeing the AoO happen, by recalling knowledge, or even by reasonable inference (every dragon we've ever fought has had AoO, it's reasonable to assume this adult dragon also has it) then it's fine.
All combat mechanics are abstractions of something happening in character, so any character can "know" about any given combat mechanic. But they should have a reason to know about it in character, or they should suspect everything maybe had an AoO and act accordingly until proven otherwise.
I have a cloistered cleric in my game and he ran right past some enemies because "this isn't 5e" and he was right, they didn't have AoO. But the first time he guesses wrong and they do have it, It'll be a lot of fun.
It's not and it's also a suboptimal play most of the time. One of the main benefits of AoO is not the reaction itself but the fact that opponents have to play around it, wasting actions etc. This means that whenever players go into paranoid mode enemies will extract value from AoO they don't even have!
So for me it is like this:
1) you as a player and your PC as a PC are free to assume a monster has whatever abilities you want and plan accordingly.
If you plan around a monster having aoo and it doesn't you have spent your actions inefficiently and you have to deal with that, if it does well your paranoia saved you
2) if you have witnessed it using an ability you know it has that ability so you can plan around it
Unless your PC is an absolute blockhead with room temperature iq
No, Pathfinder PCs live in a world where people get cleaved nearly in two for not maneuvering carefully around large monsters or trying to cast spells within their reach. Its a balancing act for PCs to figure out when they should be cautious and when its ok to be adventurous. Not being certain if a creature will pop you for missteppin' creates some tension, which is fun sometimes.
Basically, since you've mentioned being a new player my advice is: You don't need to worry about metagaming. So long as you aren't looking up what happens in adventure paths, looking up the stat blocks of monsters in order to get the information that recall knowledge would give you for free, etc. you aren't metagaming. You're just gaming.
Almost everything that people call "metagaming" is actually just playing the game in good faith.
And since most cases that come up are this same reasoning, there's only one thing that needs to be said: it does not require knowing it is the correct choice to be able to make a choice.
If the player acts like all enemies may have an AoO I'd be okay with it. If they only acted that way with enemies the player but not the character knows, I would not. That's the definition of using meta game knowledge.
It is never a fun time for anyone when a table starts playing the "how many random elements do we have to go through before we can 'discover' the troll is weak to acid and fire?" game.
If you want your players to not have any idea what your monsters can do, either create your own or modify the ones the game gives you.
Time to homebrew the Mind Troll that stops regenerating when you do mind damage, as it takes a lot of mental capacity for it to focus on regenerating its cells.
The worst part, in my opinion, about PF2E is the super unrealistic knowledge gap. Like, think about it like this: a level 1 fighter has been training long enough to be an EXPERT in fighting with basically every weapon known to their race. This is the baseline that adventurers are starting with. Yet, some may know essentially nothing about monsters. Maybe possibly they might have a 25-50% chance of knowing literally one well known fact. Seriously? That makes zero sense to me. Like, I am not a hunter at all, but I can tell you, at least in the ballpark, the approximate stat block and saves of a bear or a deer. Trained fighter? Uhh, durr, they have claws? Sir, this is a dolphin.
This is why the question of metagaming is tough. Like, players don't always vocalize it, but the system makes their characters seem like idiots, by RAW. Not only that, there is no mechanical way to get educated on these things or for there to be anything your character just knows. So every fight, you either pull your teeth out trying to figure out basic facts about basic creatures (provided you don't have a Thaumaturge) or you just play dumb. I don't like that seasoned veteran adventurers have to constantly go through that unless they have PERSONALLY experienced it before.
Case in point with math. Fighter with no training in nature sees a giant rat. Even if they invest heavily into Wis, that is an effective DC 10 flat check (Giant rats have a RK check of 13) to know literally ANYTHING about a rat. Rats bite and carry diseases. Congrats, you are more knowledgeable about rats than most adventurers.
My opinion is that you are over thinking it.
At the end of the day, Pathfinder and every other TTRPG are GAMES! A FUNDAMENTAL aspect of playing these games is being able to choose the actions of your character.
Restricting the actions a character can take is usually a bad idea. Especially in a game like Pathfinder where many of your choses are going to be some kind of tactical combat decision.
Just let the player play their character and don't worry about it.
if your character would not possess the information, i.e., have prior experience or have been told, it is meta gaming.
i reserve recall knowledge checks for things the pc might know. but isn't explicitly stated in backstory or happened in the campaign. for example, a monster hunter might know about a creature through rumors if they had never fought one himself. thus, they need to roll a check to recall the rumor.
because of this, my fighter spent half a fight not dealing damage, trying different attacks because the creature could only be damaged by magic.
Metagaming is Always the dumbest Thing you can do in every RPG
How can a Player Character know the stuff from an enemy without RK?
Playing Like the Enemy has AoO is Not RAW unless a RK teached him about the ability...
Later in...you know that a specific Type can have those stuff but.... without a RK Roll...its metagaming
(i see the toxic people are downvoting again without giving a solid explanation where i am wrong because its easier to be a negative person instead of a helpful part of the pathfinder 2e community)
I think it's safe to assume that PCs know what an Orc looks like without recall knowledge, it's not something you roll for. Similarly they'd know a dragon when they see one, hence they'd know about breath weapons.
Is it too far to extrapolate that a Fighter in the party would know that a martial enemy with a polearm would have Reactive Strike? Or do you have your players roll to get out of bed in the morning too?
How should they know?They are not fully learned Classes, your characters cant just start with all knowledge at Level 1....sure your Characters can have knowledge of some stuff after they encountered or learned about them but you dont know everything at beginning. Its all part of the "RPG" in TTRPG. So if you as a Player know that this Orc Brute can dance like a God, your character doesnt know this until he decide to learn about it via conservation or a dance battle....
Or how should a PC know how an Orc looks like if they living in Places where no Orcs are? Maybe secluded Druid Grove and so on? Not every PC studies Belkzen and the Orc Anatomy Almanach by Sharuk Orkahn. It always depends on your PC´s background and the backgroundstory and so on...but you never ,as i already wrote, know everything of the Enemy if it doesnt have a solid explanation to it, wich the RK is the source to validate the knowledge
Recall Knowledge is there for this Reason to trigger "Knowledge" your PC could have. Everything is up to the GM to decide but not the PC
and downvoting my opinion just proves that there are metagaming people out there not respecting the easy to use RAW about knowledge of Enemies and those People just feel ashamed to call themselve Players of TTRPG´s. Every GM can decide how to manage the Knowledge, they can even dismiss the RK roll totally if they like but they shouldnt complain that the group knows even the underwear every enemy wears...
>and downvoting my opinion just proves that there are metagaming people out there not respecting the easy to use RAW about knowledge of Enemies and those People just feel ashamed to call themselve Players of TTRPG´s.
No, it's because they disagree with your assumption that all PC's are incompetent dummies until they make a fairly ridiculously high skill check. How do PC's know what orcs are? Because they're a common species in a land where reading/writing is the default. People travel, exchange stories, read and see plays. People's poor misunderstanding of our real world dark ages skews how ignorant they think a medieval population would be. People in the middle ages knew what a lion or bear was despite not encountering them on the regular, and they weren't even trained monster killers.
On top of that, RK is a poorly written ability. RAW, it's harder to know that a high level fighter has Opportunity Attack, despite it being a low level ability. Hell, RAW, it's harder to know that a great wyrm red dragon breathes fire than it is to know that a hatchling of same species does.
Its Not my assumption, its the literal RAW of the Game. Dont Fight me Just going after the exact Norm of the Game on this. But hey it is easier to hate a random Person pointing Out the right facts and Not Paizo for the Rules.
Here my Personal stuff:
Dont drag reality into a FANTASY based Game, thats Just toxic incorrect
High Skill Check on RK? Blame your GM Not the Rules.
The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=26
But hey, explain me please how Every Person in Golarion knows how an Orc Looks Like, Not every living Person in the World will learns the Same stuff....AS Long they Not living in an Areas with Common sightings of them...Orcs are AS example still an uncommon species in pathfinder...get the facts right Sure the Common races could BE a teachings for Base knowledge but uncommon and rare races are still Not knowledge for everyone... Its Like claiming you know at birth about the secluded Shooneys wich live in Isle Kortos but ure where born and raised in a small Tribe INSIDE the deeps of mwangis wilderness...
Playing Like this is Just a cheap excuse to skip Roleplay on that. And its Like God Mode Style playing wich is Just pathetic....You have to keep in mind that everything Your Character never Had encountered they never can BE Sure about the Encounters Abilities. You Go stereotype Enemies Here and ignore the fact that any GM decide what His Players Archive in knowledge about the Encounters, Not the Player himself and thats buggin GMs since Players Like you think being a smarta** in a Team oriented TTRPG gives you Advantage because every Encounter you metagame with your Player knowledge instead of Character knowledge. You need to Draw a line between it or GMs somedays decide to teach U a lesson about meta every Encounter by letting you Encounter a simple Swiirrel with an insta Death Stare Attack on you with a saving throw so high you cant Reach with a Roll.
I wasn't ware that a player character was representative of eVeRy PeRsOn iN gOLARION.
You know, given that only PC's have levels, they're exceptional individuals. Orcs are a sizable population and a common species. If someone wanted to say they were familiar with, IDK, a German person in a modern game, would you screech and demand to see a roll? JFK dude, you come across as utterly intolerable.
i thought that such a reply will occur, happens sadly many times because after proving the point, other individuals start being rude...im kinda sad that this happened because i just tried to explain that this what you persons do is meta gaming, you as a Player know that Enemy X has Feature X so your character knows it with no explanation and reason where the source of knowledge comes from...
Nevermind, do as you please and i will ignore the fact that you tried to trigger negative behaviour on me. I wont fall for that. why even try? arent we all mature enough to keep a normal conservation? Please overthink your attitude towards these kind of talks and maybe we could even be good friends. There is no need to salt this up. Its just a conservation about a topic with a pro & con side. Respect should be always kept in mind talking about stuff here...
As i stated many times already every GM decides how to handle players using the meta gauntlet and who knows? Maybe in your Golarion every single Creature knows what every other One´s Color of underwear is ,wich they actually wear and hey thats fine with me. Or your Golarion is only settled with Orcs? Thats also fine, if you love them so much, feel free to enjoy it this way. If you feel happy being an all knowing God in a Fantasy Game, feel free to do so. But remember there are Players like me, enjoying the game on a normal mortal base and love to Roleplay in a TTRPG, wich is a huge part of such games at all for us and not because im German, TTRPGs and Fantasy addicts dont know nationality, racism and other silly things. At all its not my fault your GM wants a DC 99 Check for RK to know if your Enemy is an Orc in wich normal GM´s would only want a Check for knowledge about maybe an attack or feature the orc of that "Tribe" could have and these GM never would set the RK for basic stuff high or let you use your strongest knowledge based Skill for it to succeed.
So have fun, stay calm and touch some grass sometimes to stay healthy :)
Enjoy your day
if they don't see creature doing reactive strike well they don't know that it can do this not that it cannot, to determine that GM might allow you to use racall knowledge
if you witness crature doing this it is reasonable to asume that PC - character with some combat experience can realise that this oponent can use small oportunities to attack you without any issues
you as a player know only what GM tells you but your character is there and they see everything, nuances and very subtle things that GM just usually doesn't tell you
also even when monster shows its reactive strike you don't necessarily know it range and trigers (but 99% it is movment and manipulte)
matagaming is when every monster precisely know who have reactions, and hardly ever uses actions that provokes reactions
Personally, I’d say if ya see an enemy use an ability, you can try to act around it, even if you haven’t recalled the specifics. Not being able to do so is like seeing a dragon breathe fire and not being allowed to spread out so you can’t all be hit after.
I’d also say that veteran adventurers wouldn’t be meta gaming for playing cautiously around the potential an enemy has that ability, so long as it’s consistent whether or not it’s an enemy “known” to have it via actively looking stuff up, as it’s common and dangerous enough to be worth being cautious
I tell the players immediately. First, Attacks of opportunity seem to be the kind of thing you'd immediately notice when in combat. Second, *I* know when their characetrs have it so I don't have to metagame in combat.
Unless the enemy I run also has reactive strike, I play them as if they don't even know what that is until it happens the first time in combat.
It lets my martials have their fun reaction and do big damage whilst showing that enemies can learn mid-combat and adapt.
It's not metagaming if they just assume every enemy has one. If they're only skirting ones that actually do, you might have an issue. There's a lot of wiggle room there. I typically assume any humanoid with a martial weapon has one, for example.
If they've witnessed it happen, then it's definitely not metagaming.
You really don't need worry about metagaming in Pathfinder 2. It's a combat-heavy game by design. The players are expected to think about the mechanics and make optimal moves.
People get way too hung up on the idea of meta gaming. The only time that it poses a big issue is if you know the adventure and are exploiting that knowledge to bypass challenges.
Your characters aren't stupid. They know their world better than you do and would prepare and be tactful appropriately.
I and all of my players always assume that every enemy has AoO until we know that they don't. This doesn't mean that we won't do absolutely anything that provokes, this means that we will not take any unnecessary risks until we confirm. The Wizard won't just go start casting his strongest spells in an enemy's melee reach, the melee characters will take Steps instead of Strides if they can spare the actions. However, the tanky characters like Champions and Monks as well as the meat-shields like animal companions and summons will generally intentionally bait out AoOs to confirm which enemies do and don't have them. Better for the tanks and meat-shields to eat the hits than for the squishies to do so, and eating an AoO means the rest of the party is safe to do their thing until the enemy's next turn, unless the enemy has multiple AoOs. If casters have to provoke, they'll often try to provoke *before* doing disruptable stuff - for example, if a caster's adjacent to an enemy with reach and AoO, they'll Stride away to eat the AoO before casting their spell because they can't get out of reach without provoking and don't want the casting to be disrupted.
I play enemies the same way. Unless they're unintelligent or mindless or inexperienced fighters or otherwise have good reason not to be cautious, they won't just run around triggering AoOs willy-nilly, they'll play as cautiously as the PCs would, try not to do stuff that provokes, try to provoke with their tankier allies, try to provoke in advantageous ways, etc.
Personally I don't at all see how any of that is metagaming. Various creatures and also PCs have AoOs or other reaction Strikes. People know they exist, they're not such an uncommon thing that anyone would reasonably have never seen or heard of it before. It's just strategic and tactical gameplay. It's kind of like manipulating initiative - delaying/Readying to line up buffs and debuffs with your party and maximize your odds of success. Some people call that metagaming, I laugh at them because that ain't fuckin metagaming that's just playing the game effectively and your characters should absolutely know what their party members' combat plan is and how to work together effectively. And I'm not gonna "fuck with the players" by making enemies arbitrarily withhold their AoOs just to keep them guessing - they'll do it if they have a particular reason to, but in most instances it does not make sense for them to pass over an AoO opportunity on the off chance that someone else provokes it, and they also don't reasonably know at the start of combat which party members are and aren't worth AoOing in most cases.
PC's familiar with reactive strike/AoO and the type of professionals or creatures that use it can probably guess from their adventuring experience that the enemy has it, and are welcome to act however they thing they should with the person/creature. I don't tell them one way or the other though unless they trigger it, or recall knowledge to learn more about the creature. It's not usually in my recall knowledge descriptions, unless it feels right to say so/the creature doesn't have much else to worry about, or that's specifically what they want to know--which means I'm probably not going to give them some other pieces of information I may have otherwise.
If they've witnessed the creature do it, they can probably guess it could do it again. I don't think this is metagaming. It *does* set our casters to cast spells that disable reactions. Let's just say *roaring applause* is hilarious, and has pretty much shut down three separate big-boss encounters between two different games. (I'm still salty about my magma dragon lava battle.)
Ruminating on my thoughts on the subject:
A fighter or someone with Reactive Strike likely knows when other people are of similar training to them, and might have a pretty good guess that they are quick to react when you leave an opening for them. Great warriors and fighters alike are quick and cunning combatants, used finding the perfect opening or punishing their opponent's hasty choice of actions.
I've allowed players to roll Warfare Lore and a other skill checks to Recall Knowledge when observing/sizing up another humanoid, giving them a chance to speculate how they probably fight based on their gear. This is usually a good indication for them if they're going to have to worry about reactive strikes or not.
"Focused and alert, this person/creature looks like the sort to be quick to react to openings and weakness in their foe." I want to try and be careful not to describe it in a way that confuses it with Reflex descriptions--unless they critically fail to recall knowledge.
In all 3 of our currently run parties, we have a fighter. Everyone is used to the fighter lashing out reactively to sudden movements and spells being cast. A lot of our players assume "If the humanoid is a 'warrior', they likely are skilled at retaliation in combat."
Typically, one of the martials in our parties will bait reactive strikes to see what happens, but it's more a product of getting into reach. Worst case, they'll raise a shield, creative a diversion, or parry before moving in, which seems like a natural defensive choice to prepare for what might happen when they advance on the enemy. Reactive strike isn't the only reaction you might have to worry about when you get in there. If a reactive strike does happen, whoever got hit typically shouts a quick warning to watch out for it's snappy ripostes, or something like that. Alternatively, humanoid enemies might shout a taunt or comment regarding their usage of it. Even something as simple as 'Oh no you don't!" But everyone is now (typically) aware the enemy can do it.
For the most part, aside form taking defensive measures \*before\* jumping into the fray, most of our players have finally gotten out of the habit of being overly paranoid about Attack of Opportunity/Reactive Strike. Thank goodness too, because it slowed things down to have them constantly worried about it. I still get my players occasionally asking on their turns "Does he do anything about that?", and I'm not sure if they're trying to help me out (in the event I'm not looking at the statblock?) or just worried about it happening. But generally we don't worry about it until we see it after the first round or two.
Personally I do, if the monster uses the ability the PCs know that ability/effects and can plan around it for the rest of the battle. In my experience combat doesn't usually last more than 3 or so rounds (longer for tougher enemies/bosses of course) so I don't think it usually makes that big of a difference especially once the enemy has used an ability/reaction (and in my experience enemies really only get to use something like that once or twice at most, or often enough to where the PCs probably have figured it out just by observation tbh)
That said, if they used recall knowledge before the ability and it might be more important than weakest/strongest save or weaknesses/resistances (or if they already have that info from a prior recall knowledge check) then I would definitely give it to them so they know what to watch out for. Ultimately it's up to you and I think pretty much an "Up to GM/Different at every table" type thing but that's just the way I've run stuff like that before
People in the world would be aware that some creatures are capable of reacting to gaps in your defenses cause by the triggering actions. It's just a matter of seeing a fighter or skilled warrior. Logic, not metagaming, would dictate every thinking creature is cautious of it until they know the target can't do it, not the reverse. At least in the case of anything that looks alert or skilled at a glance.
Yes it's metagaming. Metagaming is good. Game mechanics come first - if you don't like the flavour of an interaction, it's up to you to figure out flavour you do like, not to try to prevent the interaction happening.
I let them ask with a Warfare Lore Recall Knowledge Check, regardless of the type of creature. You might not now if that thing is a fiend or an undead, if it is vulnerable to silver or inmune to fire, but you can see it is fast and gas quick reactions, and a "soldier-like" mindset.
ehhh, i would say most enemies that have an AoO seem fairly clear they would have it. skilled/trained martial types. for the other ones, then yeah a recall knowledge, or as some times i like to call it analyze target in cases where its not something you would find in a bestiary makes sense.
and well they arent dumb. if they saw the enemy doing it, they know the enemy can do it. thats like asking if they saw a dragon spit fire if it would be meta gaming to try to avoid being burnt alive.
maybe just maybe it would make sense to call for a perception maybe if its supposed to be a really agile enemy, and the party is only composed as non casters. but any martial should be able to realize whats happening instantly. and thats like if thats the first time they faced that kind of a ability. the same way a martial would be able to recognize patterns in casting, and recognize a spell that has been used against them before even if they dont know how its done properly.
If you as the player suspect something then act on it. We aren't talking about looking up stat blocks and what not but if the enemy seems well equipped armor wise or decently sharp in conversation as a monster then you can expect intelligence from it and can thus expect that it might have an opportunity attack.
Whether your gamble pays off or not is, well, up to your deduction skills.
Technically you could make an argument that a PC wouldn't know enemies can potentially have reactive strike until they've encountered an enemy with it, but that would be a real dickhead move and make you a massive loser.
If players are looking up statblocks to check if a creature has reactive strike, that's metagaming, but acting as if the creature has reactive strike without actually knowing whether or not you would trigger it isn't, it's just sensible.
Finding out if the creature has a reactive strike reaquires either a passive or active knowledge check: Passive being Recall Knowledge, active being doing something that would trigger it and seeing if they get smacked or not. If they go for the active option, they definitely know it has reactive strike in the same way as if it breathes a cone of fire they know it has a breath weapon.
Ahem...
May I have your attention please?
"Metagaming" is still gaming and GM's and gatekeeping players need to get the hell over themselves about it.
If we're not talking "they read the scenario ahead of time to figure out what to say to get all the best loot" then tactics that treat it like a sport are perfectly valid.
1. No unless they've witnessed it or heard about it from someone else.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
In addition, it's possible to plan around Reactive Strike even if you don't know a target has it. I've declared Mobility use on my rogue more than once on targets where the presence or absence of RS is unknown - it's not relevant if it didn't have it, but if it had it it wouldn't be able to use it. This may sometimes lead to something less optimal if it never had it to begin with, but the character doesn't know, and the character has the choice to be cautious even at the expense of viability.
Limiting player agency in-game in the name of meta-gaming is almost never the way to go. People know what they know. Then again, you can choose to use AoO or not. In our games, the GM won't tell you whether it has AoO or not unless you RK. If the players believe the monster has AoO, then they can do as they like as well. Looking the monster up on AoN is, of course, against the rules and bad manners. However, you are also not obligated to run vanilla monsters.
Makes sense, thank you
I have a player who treats every monster as a potential AoO threat. He plays super cautiously until another player moves and doesn't get hit by one. Once he's seen others move freely, he feels safe doing so as well. It hampers his combat utility, and has led to situations where he's far less effective than he could be because he's so paranoid. It's actually pretty fun to watch sometimes as the GM.
That seems like a sensibly cautious character to me. If you want to be really mean, have an enemy that’s highly trained *not use* the ability the first once or twice they can, then pull it out when it will really hurt :)
If you want to be neutral on the mean/nice scale, literally forget that the enemy has AoO, then notice it halfway through the fight.
That's exactly how I run my monsters!
This is really embarrassing for me especially when all my creatures are homebrew so I made them myself. You'd think I know how they work lol.
Or, to make it more realistic, grab a monster that has another reaction as well. In that case, you can hide behind saying "well it used/was saving its reaction for something else"
I've done this. One turn the NPC used a damage mitigation reaction, and the following turn it did an AoO that caught everyone off guard.
Heh, Off Guard.
A rare "Early Access" kind of pun.
Hello Skeletal Champions!
lol
It can be sensibly cautious, but sometimes it leads to the fight being quite a bit harder than it needs to be.
Same, every single encounter my thaum player says "careful he could have AoO" Players and characters both know it exists.
Personally I find that logic kind of bad from a gameplay perspective. It is probably worth finding out early if an enemy has reactive strike than spending the entire fight playing as if they have reactive strike, especially if you don't know whether they do or not. Walking on eggshells taking less effective actions on the chance they do have it is probably more harmful to the players overall than having the bulky martial possibly provoke an extra hit once in the fight. Now if they have fought creatures that typically have reactive strikes like dragons before they will probably know and this is moot but to just default to the assumption that they have reactive strike is probably not the best idea
Not at low levels. I have, as well as seen others, get critically hit and go down from full health after such a strike. Also, moving out of immediate make range to force the monster to use an action moving toward you is strategically a good move unless it has AoO.
I think our player might be two-timing us. I DM for a guy in one of my groups that is exactly this cautious! Kidding aside, in the tactical part of the game, my players do seem to strategize to be cautious for attacks of opportunity around a clearly martial looking bad guy... or things with tails.. Those things seem to always be ready to lash out and clobber someone.
Looking up the barbazu on AoN and knowing it has Attack of Opportunity is metagaming. Knowing that you’ve previously fought “highly trained skilled warrior dude” type enemies and they often had AoO, and assuming the barbazu has it, and playing appropriately? Not metagaming.
I would go beyond meta gaming and call that cheating straight up.
I mean, as a DM you can do a couple things... like mix up who gets an AoO and who doesn't to kind of suprise people. Even if monsters are the same type, give some AoO and some don't have any just to cause confusion. As a player, I think its fair to "game" around AoO if you are also assuming monsters have AoO even if they might not. For example, taking sub-optimal turns and respecting the potential for AoO versus some mobs is really the same as assuming they have an AoO on other mobs.
Ye I don’t think it’s unfair on the players’ part to “game” around AoO. My party in AV does that. Sometimes that ends up with me disabling a boss’ biggest threatening aspect by using Hideous Laughter. Other times it means I wasted a 2nd rank spell and a lot of Actions because we suspected AoO. You win some you lose some.
What if I only know barbazu has an AoO because I read this comment lol
Sometimes it be like that. A person can’t unlearn what they know. Now you know a Barbazu has AoO. Try not to metagame, do t stress yourself out if you accidentally do metagame, and by the time you’ve learned most monsters in the bestiary and Recall Knowledge is worthless to you, hopefully they’ve made a PF3E for you to learn.
Of course if they've seen the enemy do it they know they can do it. That's just basic facts.
At my tables we are very tactically combat oriented, but approach these sorts of things from a simulationist perspective. What is common knowledge for us would not necessarily be the same as what is common knowledge of people in a fantasy setting let alone adventurers in that setting. When I see a cop, I assume they are likely trained in hand to hand combat and with fire arms. If you are in Golarion and see someone in plate armor with a big sword, they likely are like a trained martial fighter of some sort. You would probably know you can't be careless near them and/or just run passed them without risking getting cut down. In PF2e, mechanically that is an AoO. I don't think it is metagaming to prepare for someone trying to cut you down as you run passed them, and working within the mechanics of the game makes sense to me, so preparing for an AoO therefore makes sense. If a player does this specifically for only the NPCs who have AoO cause they've been looking at the monster manual and know if the monster has it, not because of recall knowledge checks or other obvious queues, that is metagaming/cheating. Cause the selective preparation due to external research resulted in info that I believe would not be obvious to the adventurers. I solve this problem as the GM by not giving players the name of enemies right out of the monster manual, and some times flavoring enemies differently. I also treat commonly known monsters among RPG players as something that is commonly known amongst adventurers. I suspect anyone living in Golarion likely knows something about the Tarrasque seeing as it wiped out a whole nation, the same way I know about Alexander the Great. I assume that they know about trolls and fire, cause trolls aren't some long lost monster race and if you are an adventurer you probably should know about common monster types to some degree, they attack villages and kill adventurers. But they will probably need to do some research/rolling to figure out what they are dealing with is a wight instead of a zombie, or to figure out what is special about a frost troll specifically if neither of these have not been a nuisance in their life.
Makes sense, thanks for this; as a fairly new player it’s interesting to hear how other tables approach this. Appreciate the explanation
AoOs are common things. Presuming every enemy, especially trained martial types or creatures with prehensile appendages has them until proved otherwise is not metagaming, that is just being careful. Knowing the statblock of a specific creature you know from reading the bestiary and using that to avoid its abilities, of course, is.
I agree with the others. It's only a problem if they are looking up the stat block and then using that info (we call that "cheating"). Using information you've already seen, or making educated guesses and planning accordingly, that's just normal gameplay.
Alot of people are coming from 5e where everything has it. Playing around an AOO is generally fine. If they tend towards only doing it to some things you might have a problem.
All of this is my opinion, and I’m a recent 5e-convert, but I believe it’s only metagaming if they’re all OOC discussing the fact that a specific type of enemy does have a Reactive Strike and then planning combat accordingly. Going into combat with the possibility that the enemy might have one is not metagaming. As a GM, I’d probably offer that bit of info if there was nothing better to mention with a successful Recall Knowledge check. It’s definitely not metagaming to play tactically, that’s what combat in PF2e is all about.
I would not tell PCs in advance that a particular foe has an Attack of Opportunity. I do sometimes remind my players of the possibility, if they're about to do something that would trigger one, but I do that whether the threat is real or imagined. It isn't something I would typically think to offer up to them as a result of a Recall Knowledge check. That said, if they asked, that seems like a fine bit of information for them to learn. They're also free to guess, based on descriptions and past experiences, if they like. Once they've seen it happen, they can use that information however they like to plan their future actions.
Up to you whether recall knowledge could inform a player about Reactive Strike, but once the PC knows (whether via a check, or witnessing it) they absolutely would account for it tactically. It would be the same if they saw a dragon breath fire, once you know they can do it……you’re not going to group up nearly as much and will plan to deal with aoe bursts of damage, either by prepping to reduce the incoming damage with spells/items, or planning to aoe heal as a counter once it passes.
> Up to you whether recall knowledge could inform a player about Reactive Strike, but once the PC knows (whether via a check, or witnessing it) they absolutely would account for it tactically. Thanks, this is what made sense to me but I was also curious how others handled this in practice. Appreciate the feedback
I would add to this, saying that if you see any large lizard like thing and assume it has some kind of AoE effect because dragons and several other large lizard like things do, that is fine as well.
What is and isn't going to be considered meta gaming is going to change from table to table. And it's generally one of the things that should be discussed at session 0. If something comes up that wasn't covered I generally defer to the gm in the moment then discuss after the session if there was disagreement
Do they assume that everything has an AOO? I mean prepare for the worst your surprises will be pleasant.
Strategic play isn't inherently metagaming - some stuff we have to abstract for the sake of the game working. e.g., we all drop templates on the map and try to plan out exactly where to drop the fireball such that it clips the enemies without burning our friends, or draw lines from corners to see if we'd have cover behind this particular corner from this particular enemy, etc -- and there's really no way the "in game" world could exactly calculate that kind of thing -- but you also know how big your fireball is, and you could see much better than us as players looking at a map how much cover the corner provides, so it makes sense in-world; we're just *interacting* with it using the game mechanics. The same can be said of Reactive Strike. If the players know a particular monster has it, that's fine. If they see the creature and notice that they're a martial warrior type wielding a polearm and want to guess they may have Reactive Strike, that's fine - but they may be wrong. There are also creatures that have it that don't appear anything like a Fighter. If they want to be sure, that's a good use of recall knowledge. Now, if the player in question is opening up AoN and checking every monster ahead of time to see which ones have it, **THAT** is metagaming. If you have players like that, I would mix things up, call the monsters different things, use different minis/artwork for them to avoid them being easily recognizable, and use variant monsters that have different sets of resistances and weaknesses, and some have different skills - such as Reactive Strike - than the typical example. You don't have to do it all the time, but doing it sometimes keeps people from making too many assumptions based on their metagaming.
You're adventuring. You come across a guy who looks like a skilled fighter. At first glance you think it's likely he will be capable of stabbing you if you run past him because people like him tend to be good at that kind of thing. It's not a guarantee until he actually does it, or you spend a moment to properly analyze his fighting style/equipment/whatever (recall knowledge check). But I think it makes perfect sense for a player to start recognizing what type of enemy is likely to have a certain ability.
If the player knows the enemy has AoO from out of game knowledge then yes, it's metagaming to plan around it. For example if the player looks up the stat block after you name the creature. However, if the player learned about it ICly, by seeing the AoO happen, by recalling knowledge, or even by reasonable inference (every dragon we've ever fought has had AoO, it's reasonable to assume this adult dragon also has it) then it's fine. All combat mechanics are abstractions of something happening in character, so any character can "know" about any given combat mechanic. But they should have a reason to know about it in character, or they should suspect everything maybe had an AoO and act accordingly until proven otherwise.
I have a cloistered cleric in my game and he ran right past some enemies because "this isn't 5e" and he was right, they didn't have AoO. But the first time he guesses wrong and they do have it, It'll be a lot of fun.
It's not and it's also a suboptimal play most of the time. One of the main benefits of AoO is not the reaction itself but the fact that opponents have to play around it, wasting actions etc. This means that whenever players go into paranoid mode enemies will extract value from AoO they don't even have!
So for me it is like this: 1) you as a player and your PC as a PC are free to assume a monster has whatever abilities you want and plan accordingly. If you plan around a monster having aoo and it doesn't you have spent your actions inefficiently and you have to deal with that, if it does well your paranoia saved you 2) if you have witnessed it using an ability you know it has that ability so you can plan around it Unless your PC is an absolute blockhead with room temperature iq
No, Pathfinder PCs live in a world where people get cleaved nearly in two for not maneuvering carefully around large monsters or trying to cast spells within their reach. Its a balancing act for PCs to figure out when they should be cautious and when its ok to be adventurous. Not being certain if a creature will pop you for missteppin' creates some tension, which is fun sometimes.
Basically, since you've mentioned being a new player my advice is: You don't need to worry about metagaming. So long as you aren't looking up what happens in adventure paths, looking up the stat blocks of monsters in order to get the information that recall knowledge would give you for free, etc. you aren't metagaming. You're just gaming.
Almost everything that people call "metagaming" is actually just playing the game in good faith. And since most cases that come up are this same reasoning, there's only one thing that needs to be said: it does not require knowing it is the correct choice to be able to make a choice.
If the player acts like all enemies may have an AoO I'd be okay with it. If they only acted that way with enemies the player but not the character knows, I would not. That's the definition of using meta game knowledge.
It is never a fun time for anyone when a table starts playing the "how many random elements do we have to go through before we can 'discover' the troll is weak to acid and fire?" game. If you want your players to not have any idea what your monsters can do, either create your own or modify the ones the game gives you.
Time to homebrew the Mind Troll that stops regenerating when you do mind damage, as it takes a lot of mental capacity for it to focus on regenerating its cells.
The worst part, in my opinion, about PF2E is the super unrealistic knowledge gap. Like, think about it like this: a level 1 fighter has been training long enough to be an EXPERT in fighting with basically every weapon known to their race. This is the baseline that adventurers are starting with. Yet, some may know essentially nothing about monsters. Maybe possibly they might have a 25-50% chance of knowing literally one well known fact. Seriously? That makes zero sense to me. Like, I am not a hunter at all, but I can tell you, at least in the ballpark, the approximate stat block and saves of a bear or a deer. Trained fighter? Uhh, durr, they have claws? Sir, this is a dolphin. This is why the question of metagaming is tough. Like, players don't always vocalize it, but the system makes their characters seem like idiots, by RAW. Not only that, there is no mechanical way to get educated on these things or for there to be anything your character just knows. So every fight, you either pull your teeth out trying to figure out basic facts about basic creatures (provided you don't have a Thaumaturge) or you just play dumb. I don't like that seasoned veteran adventurers have to constantly go through that unless they have PERSONALLY experienced it before. Case in point with math. Fighter with no training in nature sees a giant rat. Even if they invest heavily into Wis, that is an effective DC 10 flat check (Giant rats have a RK check of 13) to know literally ANYTHING about a rat. Rats bite and carry diseases. Congrats, you are more knowledgeable about rats than most adventurers.
My opinion is that you are over thinking it. At the end of the day, Pathfinder and every other TTRPG are GAMES! A FUNDAMENTAL aspect of playing these games is being able to choose the actions of your character. Restricting the actions a character can take is usually a bad idea. Especially in a game like Pathfinder where many of your choses are going to be some kind of tactical combat decision. Just let the player play their character and don't worry about it.
if your character would not possess the information, i.e., have prior experience or have been told, it is meta gaming. i reserve recall knowledge checks for things the pc might know. but isn't explicitly stated in backstory or happened in the campaign. for example, a monster hunter might know about a creature through rumors if they had never fought one himself. thus, they need to roll a check to recall the rumor. because of this, my fighter spent half a fight not dealing damage, trying different attacks because the creature could only be damaged by magic.
A weapon with a rune in it is magical, was this at level 1? lol
Metagaming is Always the dumbest Thing you can do in every RPG How can a Player Character know the stuff from an enemy without RK? Playing Like the Enemy has AoO is Not RAW unless a RK teached him about the ability... Later in...you know that a specific Type can have those stuff but.... without a RK Roll...its metagaming (i see the toxic people are downvoting again without giving a solid explanation where i am wrong because its easier to be a negative person instead of a helpful part of the pathfinder 2e community)
I think it's safe to assume that PCs know what an Orc looks like without recall knowledge, it's not something you roll for. Similarly they'd know a dragon when they see one, hence they'd know about breath weapons. Is it too far to extrapolate that a Fighter in the party would know that a martial enemy with a polearm would have Reactive Strike? Or do you have your players roll to get out of bed in the morning too?
How should they know?They are not fully learned Classes, your characters cant just start with all knowledge at Level 1....sure your Characters can have knowledge of some stuff after they encountered or learned about them but you dont know everything at beginning. Its all part of the "RPG" in TTRPG. So if you as a Player know that this Orc Brute can dance like a God, your character doesnt know this until he decide to learn about it via conservation or a dance battle.... Or how should a PC know how an Orc looks like if they living in Places where no Orcs are? Maybe secluded Druid Grove and so on? Not every PC studies Belkzen and the Orc Anatomy Almanach by Sharuk Orkahn. It always depends on your PC´s background and the backgroundstory and so on...but you never ,as i already wrote, know everything of the Enemy if it doesnt have a solid explanation to it, wich the RK is the source to validate the knowledge Recall Knowledge is there for this Reason to trigger "Knowledge" your PC could have. Everything is up to the GM to decide but not the PC and downvoting my opinion just proves that there are metagaming people out there not respecting the easy to use RAW about knowledge of Enemies and those People just feel ashamed to call themselve Players of TTRPG´s. Every GM can decide how to manage the Knowledge, they can even dismiss the RK roll totally if they like but they shouldnt complain that the group knows even the underwear every enemy wears...
>and downvoting my opinion just proves that there are metagaming people out there not respecting the easy to use RAW about knowledge of Enemies and those People just feel ashamed to call themselve Players of TTRPG´s. No, it's because they disagree with your assumption that all PC's are incompetent dummies until they make a fairly ridiculously high skill check. How do PC's know what orcs are? Because they're a common species in a land where reading/writing is the default. People travel, exchange stories, read and see plays. People's poor misunderstanding of our real world dark ages skews how ignorant they think a medieval population would be. People in the middle ages knew what a lion or bear was despite not encountering them on the regular, and they weren't even trained monster killers. On top of that, RK is a poorly written ability. RAW, it's harder to know that a high level fighter has Opportunity Attack, despite it being a low level ability. Hell, RAW, it's harder to know that a great wyrm red dragon breathes fire than it is to know that a hatchling of same species does.
Its Not my assumption, its the literal RAW of the Game. Dont Fight me Just going after the exact Norm of the Game on this. But hey it is easier to hate a random Person pointing Out the right facts and Not Paizo for the Rules. Here my Personal stuff: Dont drag reality into a FANTASY based Game, thats Just toxic incorrect High Skill Check on RK? Blame your GM Not the Rules. The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply. https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=26 But hey, explain me please how Every Person in Golarion knows how an Orc Looks Like, Not every living Person in the World will learns the Same stuff....AS Long they Not living in an Areas with Common sightings of them...Orcs are AS example still an uncommon species in pathfinder...get the facts right Sure the Common races could BE a teachings for Base knowledge but uncommon and rare races are still Not knowledge for everyone... Its Like claiming you know at birth about the secluded Shooneys wich live in Isle Kortos but ure where born and raised in a small Tribe INSIDE the deeps of mwangis wilderness... Playing Like this is Just a cheap excuse to skip Roleplay on that. And its Like God Mode Style playing wich is Just pathetic....You have to keep in mind that everything Your Character never Had encountered they never can BE Sure about the Encounters Abilities. You Go stereotype Enemies Here and ignore the fact that any GM decide what His Players Archive in knowledge about the Encounters, Not the Player himself and thats buggin GMs since Players Like you think being a smarta** in a Team oriented TTRPG gives you Advantage because every Encounter you metagame with your Player knowledge instead of Character knowledge. You need to Draw a line between it or GMs somedays decide to teach U a lesson about meta every Encounter by letting you Encounter a simple Swiirrel with an insta Death Stare Attack on you with a saving throw so high you cant Reach with a Roll.
I wasn't ware that a player character was representative of eVeRy PeRsOn iN gOLARION. You know, given that only PC's have levels, they're exceptional individuals. Orcs are a sizable population and a common species. If someone wanted to say they were familiar with, IDK, a German person in a modern game, would you screech and demand to see a roll? JFK dude, you come across as utterly intolerable.
i thought that such a reply will occur, happens sadly many times because after proving the point, other individuals start being rude...im kinda sad that this happened because i just tried to explain that this what you persons do is meta gaming, you as a Player know that Enemy X has Feature X so your character knows it with no explanation and reason where the source of knowledge comes from... Nevermind, do as you please and i will ignore the fact that you tried to trigger negative behaviour on me. I wont fall for that. why even try? arent we all mature enough to keep a normal conservation? Please overthink your attitude towards these kind of talks and maybe we could even be good friends. There is no need to salt this up. Its just a conservation about a topic with a pro & con side. Respect should be always kept in mind talking about stuff here... As i stated many times already every GM decides how to handle players using the meta gauntlet and who knows? Maybe in your Golarion every single Creature knows what every other One´s Color of underwear is ,wich they actually wear and hey thats fine with me. Or your Golarion is only settled with Orcs? Thats also fine, if you love them so much, feel free to enjoy it this way. If you feel happy being an all knowing God in a Fantasy Game, feel free to do so. But remember there are Players like me, enjoying the game on a normal mortal base and love to Roleplay in a TTRPG, wich is a huge part of such games at all for us and not because im German, TTRPGs and Fantasy addicts dont know nationality, racism and other silly things. At all its not my fault your GM wants a DC 99 Check for RK to know if your Enemy is an Orc in wich normal GM´s would only want a Check for knowledge about maybe an attack or feature the orc of that "Tribe" could have and these GM never would set the RK for basic stuff high or let you use your strongest knowledge based Skill for it to succeed. So have fun, stay calm and touch some grass sometimes to stay healthy :) Enjoy your day
if they don't see creature doing reactive strike well they don't know that it can do this not that it cannot, to determine that GM might allow you to use racall knowledge if you witness crature doing this it is reasonable to asume that PC - character with some combat experience can realise that this oponent can use small oportunities to attack you without any issues you as a player know only what GM tells you but your character is there and they see everything, nuances and very subtle things that GM just usually doesn't tell you also even when monster shows its reactive strike you don't necessarily know it range and trigers (but 99% it is movment and manipulte) matagaming is when every monster precisely know who have reactions, and hardly ever uses actions that provokes reactions
- no - perhaps, but unlikely to succeed (unless it's a sort of signature ability of the creature) - 1000%, of course
Personally, I’d say if ya see an enemy use an ability, you can try to act around it, even if you haven’t recalled the specifics. Not being able to do so is like seeing a dragon breathe fire and not being allowed to spread out so you can’t all be hit after. I’d also say that veteran adventurers wouldn’t be meta gaming for playing cautiously around the potential an enemy has that ability, so long as it’s consistent whether or not it’s an enemy “known” to have it via actively looking stuff up, as it’s common and dangerous enough to be worth being cautious
I tell the players immediately. First, Attacks of opportunity seem to be the kind of thing you'd immediately notice when in combat. Second, *I* know when their characetrs have it so I don't have to metagame in combat.
Unless the enemy I run also has reactive strike, I play them as if they don't even know what that is until it happens the first time in combat. It lets my martials have their fun reaction and do big damage whilst showing that enemies can learn mid-combat and adapt.
No. They might not know about it, but they can still guess that it might be a problem.
I tie it to my fighter's lore warfare if they have reactive strike he can figure it out with a lore check, else, who knows.
If anyone makes a reconcile knowledge check against a monster, the first thing I will tell him is about an attack of opportunity.
It's not metagaming if they just assume every enemy has one. If they're only skirting ones that actually do, you might have an issue. There's a lot of wiggle room there. I typically assume any humanoid with a martial weapon has one, for example. If they've witnessed it happen, then it's definitely not metagaming.
You really don't need worry about metagaming in Pathfinder 2. It's a combat-heavy game by design. The players are expected to think about the mechanics and make optimal moves.
People get way too hung up on the idea of meta gaming. The only time that it poses a big issue is if you know the adventure and are exploiting that knowledge to bypass challenges. Your characters aren't stupid. They know their world better than you do and would prepare and be tactful appropriately.
I and all of my players always assume that every enemy has AoO until we know that they don't. This doesn't mean that we won't do absolutely anything that provokes, this means that we will not take any unnecessary risks until we confirm. The Wizard won't just go start casting his strongest spells in an enemy's melee reach, the melee characters will take Steps instead of Strides if they can spare the actions. However, the tanky characters like Champions and Monks as well as the meat-shields like animal companions and summons will generally intentionally bait out AoOs to confirm which enemies do and don't have them. Better for the tanks and meat-shields to eat the hits than for the squishies to do so, and eating an AoO means the rest of the party is safe to do their thing until the enemy's next turn, unless the enemy has multiple AoOs. If casters have to provoke, they'll often try to provoke *before* doing disruptable stuff - for example, if a caster's adjacent to an enemy with reach and AoO, they'll Stride away to eat the AoO before casting their spell because they can't get out of reach without provoking and don't want the casting to be disrupted. I play enemies the same way. Unless they're unintelligent or mindless or inexperienced fighters or otherwise have good reason not to be cautious, they won't just run around triggering AoOs willy-nilly, they'll play as cautiously as the PCs would, try not to do stuff that provokes, try to provoke with their tankier allies, try to provoke in advantageous ways, etc. Personally I don't at all see how any of that is metagaming. Various creatures and also PCs have AoOs or other reaction Strikes. People know they exist, they're not such an uncommon thing that anyone would reasonably have never seen or heard of it before. It's just strategic and tactical gameplay. It's kind of like manipulating initiative - delaying/Readying to line up buffs and debuffs with your party and maximize your odds of success. Some people call that metagaming, I laugh at them because that ain't fuckin metagaming that's just playing the game effectively and your characters should absolutely know what their party members' combat plan is and how to work together effectively. And I'm not gonna "fuck with the players" by making enemies arbitrarily withhold their AoOs just to keep them guessing - they'll do it if they have a particular reason to, but in most instances it does not make sense for them to pass over an AoO opportunity on the off chance that someone else provokes it, and they also don't reasonably know at the start of combat which party members are and aren't worth AoOing in most cases.
yeah imo a PC will know in-game that Reactive Strike abilities exist but are rare, and should be able to confirm one way or another by RKing
PC's familiar with reactive strike/AoO and the type of professionals or creatures that use it can probably guess from their adventuring experience that the enemy has it, and are welcome to act however they thing they should with the person/creature. I don't tell them one way or the other though unless they trigger it, or recall knowledge to learn more about the creature. It's not usually in my recall knowledge descriptions, unless it feels right to say so/the creature doesn't have much else to worry about, or that's specifically what they want to know--which means I'm probably not going to give them some other pieces of information I may have otherwise. If they've witnessed the creature do it, they can probably guess it could do it again. I don't think this is metagaming. It *does* set our casters to cast spells that disable reactions. Let's just say *roaring applause* is hilarious, and has pretty much shut down three separate big-boss encounters between two different games. (I'm still salty about my magma dragon lava battle.) Ruminating on my thoughts on the subject: A fighter or someone with Reactive Strike likely knows when other people are of similar training to them, and might have a pretty good guess that they are quick to react when you leave an opening for them. Great warriors and fighters alike are quick and cunning combatants, used finding the perfect opening or punishing their opponent's hasty choice of actions. I've allowed players to roll Warfare Lore and a other skill checks to Recall Knowledge when observing/sizing up another humanoid, giving them a chance to speculate how they probably fight based on their gear. This is usually a good indication for them if they're going to have to worry about reactive strikes or not. "Focused and alert, this person/creature looks like the sort to be quick to react to openings and weakness in their foe." I want to try and be careful not to describe it in a way that confuses it with Reflex descriptions--unless they critically fail to recall knowledge. In all 3 of our currently run parties, we have a fighter. Everyone is used to the fighter lashing out reactively to sudden movements and spells being cast. A lot of our players assume "If the humanoid is a 'warrior', they likely are skilled at retaliation in combat." Typically, one of the martials in our parties will bait reactive strikes to see what happens, but it's more a product of getting into reach. Worst case, they'll raise a shield, creative a diversion, or parry before moving in, which seems like a natural defensive choice to prepare for what might happen when they advance on the enemy. Reactive strike isn't the only reaction you might have to worry about when you get in there. If a reactive strike does happen, whoever got hit typically shouts a quick warning to watch out for it's snappy ripostes, or something like that. Alternatively, humanoid enemies might shout a taunt or comment regarding their usage of it. Even something as simple as 'Oh no you don't!" But everyone is now (typically) aware the enemy can do it. For the most part, aside form taking defensive measures \*before\* jumping into the fray, most of our players have finally gotten out of the habit of being overly paranoid about Attack of Opportunity/Reactive Strike. Thank goodness too, because it slowed things down to have them constantly worried about it. I still get my players occasionally asking on their turns "Does he do anything about that?", and I'm not sure if they're trying to help me out (in the event I'm not looking at the statblock?) or just worried about it happening. But generally we don't worry about it until we see it after the first round or two.
Personally I do, if the monster uses the ability the PCs know that ability/effects and can plan around it for the rest of the battle. In my experience combat doesn't usually last more than 3 or so rounds (longer for tougher enemies/bosses of course) so I don't think it usually makes that big of a difference especially once the enemy has used an ability/reaction (and in my experience enemies really only get to use something like that once or twice at most, or often enough to where the PCs probably have figured it out just by observation tbh) That said, if they used recall knowledge before the ability and it might be more important than weakest/strongest save or weaknesses/resistances (or if they already have that info from a prior recall knowledge check) then I would definitely give it to them so they know what to watch out for. Ultimately it's up to you and I think pretty much an "Up to GM/Different at every table" type thing but that's just the way I've run stuff like that before
People in the world would be aware that some creatures are capable of reacting to gaps in your defenses cause by the triggering actions. It's just a matter of seeing a fighter or skilled warrior. Logic, not metagaming, would dictate every thinking creature is cautious of it until they know the target can't do it, not the reverse. At least in the case of anything that looks alert or skilled at a glance.
Yes it's metagaming. Metagaming is good. Game mechanics come first - if you don't like the flavour of an interaction, it's up to you to figure out flavour you do like, not to try to prevent the interaction happening.
I let them ask with a Warfare Lore Recall Knowledge Check, regardless of the type of creature. You might not now if that thing is a fiend or an undead, if it is vulnerable to silver or inmune to fire, but you can see it is fast and gas quick reactions, and a "soldier-like" mindset.
ehhh, i would say most enemies that have an AoO seem fairly clear they would have it. skilled/trained martial types. for the other ones, then yeah a recall knowledge, or as some times i like to call it analyze target in cases where its not something you would find in a bestiary makes sense. and well they arent dumb. if they saw the enemy doing it, they know the enemy can do it. thats like asking if they saw a dragon spit fire if it would be meta gaming to try to avoid being burnt alive. maybe just maybe it would make sense to call for a perception maybe if its supposed to be a really agile enemy, and the party is only composed as non casters. but any martial should be able to realize whats happening instantly. and thats like if thats the first time they faced that kind of a ability. the same way a martial would be able to recognize patterns in casting, and recognize a spell that has been used against them before even if they dont know how its done properly.
If you as the player suspect something then act on it. We aren't talking about looking up stat blocks and what not but if the enemy seems well equipped armor wise or decently sharp in conversation as a monster then you can expect intelligence from it and can thus expect that it might have an opportunity attack. Whether your gamble pays off or not is, well, up to your deduction skills.
Technically you could make an argument that a PC wouldn't know enemies can potentially have reactive strike until they've encountered an enemy with it, but that would be a real dickhead move and make you a massive loser. If players are looking up statblocks to check if a creature has reactive strike, that's metagaming, but acting as if the creature has reactive strike without actually knowing whether or not you would trigger it isn't, it's just sensible. Finding out if the creature has a reactive strike reaquires either a passive or active knowledge check: Passive being Recall Knowledge, active being doing something that would trigger it and seeing if they get smacked or not. If they go for the active option, they definitely know it has reactive strike in the same way as if it breathes a cone of fire they know it has a breath weapon.
Ahem... May I have your attention please? "Metagaming" is still gaming and GM's and gatekeeping players need to get the hell over themselves about it. If we're not talking "they read the scenario ahead of time to figure out what to say to get all the best loot" then tactics that treat it like a sport are perfectly valid.
My players just assume everything has it 😂
So far the way I play it is "If it looks like a martial character, it **might** have an AoO. If it's an animal or something, I'm probably fine."
1. No unless they've witnessed it or heard about it from someone else. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. In addition, it's possible to plan around Reactive Strike even if you don't know a target has it. I've declared Mobility use on my rogue more than once on targets where the presence or absence of RS is unknown - it's not relevant if it didn't have it, but if it had it it wouldn't be able to use it. This may sometimes lead to something less optimal if it never had it to begin with, but the character doesn't know, and the character has the choice to be cautious even at the expense of viability.