I'm back to 5e, because the group I was playing PF with is no more.....but I have thought about getting rid of OA in 5e. In fiction, movies, whatever, people are always moving around........it seems odd that movement is so penalized to me.

Well, 5E attacks of opportunity doesn't prevent heroes from maneuvering around monsters. It only triggers when you leave a combatant.

What I'm trying to say is that 5E movement feels pretty fluid as-is, and that the "stickiness" that made 3E combat so very static and boring wasn't a problem when I played 5E.

The 3E problem was attacks of opportunity (or opportunity attacks, forget which edition used what term) in conjunction with "move and you lose your full attack". I would say it is only when you apply both rules combat bogs down to static slugfests.

So yes, being able to move around makes combat feel dynamic and fun. 4E had very fun martial combat, and the way game effects continuously pushed and prodded combatants made it feel very "realistic" in that sense.

Going back to PF2, the main problem (if you can call it that) I would say is heroes are strongly encouraged to play tactically and cautiously, meaning there is little space for the "kicking in the door" and just charging the foes mighty barbarian playstyle. Nothing wrong with tactical and cautious - if I'm playing a SWAT soldier on a drug bust, or any other semi-modern setting. It definitely dampens the larger-than-life fantasy hero vibe, though.

This is partially because movement costs actions, and so it's better that the monsters spend actions on movement than you doing it. But arguably more due to the general lethalness of monsters, and the way the three-action system can result in a single character getting absolutely shredded by lots of non-negligible attacks.

The fact Paizo didn't remove the Delay action (which works with almost boardgame-like exactness) like 5E did results in the heroes acting much more like a coordinated SWAT team that I personally prefer. Delaying actions to minimize the times when a single hero is followed in the initiative list by several monsters; using movement and cover to your advantage, and trying to get the enemy to come to you instead of you going to them.

The game is simply playing on a hard enough difficulty that the players aren't eager to just barge in. And if I as the GM don't play my monsters as bloodthirsty simpletons, you easily end up with stand-offs which kills off much momentum and excitement. While some forumists over at Paizo forums defend this, I myself far prefer 5E's take, that allows the heroes to act truly heroically, being proactive and courageous action-hero style.

(Do note: we're still enjoying PF2. I guess I just wish Paizo had deleted Delay, or at least made it carry an actual action cost. If you want to "wait and see" I believe it would be much better if you were asked to simply do nothing on your turn and act in the next round instead. Since this means losing actual actions, it would likely help spurring heroes into action)

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7prrWqKmlnF6kv6h706GpnpmUqHytsdKsZKiooKS%2FtcHNoquyZZGpwaKvyqxlb29hbYFxew%3D%3D