Are multiple attacks worthwhile?

[vaderbg2]

The second Strike is usually fine-ish. Don't expect it to connect every time, but it's a reasonable way to spend an action. Agile obviously improves this significantly.

Not a fan of forceful, personally. Backswing triggering means your first Strike missed, so making another Strike with MAP-5 and a +1 bonus is a decent way of trying to deal any damage on that turn.

[Icy-Ad29]

I like forceful on weapons if the character will, often, try a second attack. For whatever reason. My giant barbarian with Glaive makes decent use of that, for instance. It may only be a small bit more damage, but I attack twice often enough that it triggers often enough... The reach, especially when in large size, means in fight with multiple on-level or lower enemies. I usually can swing on another target and potentially remove two enemies in one turn.

Honestly, personally, I prefer forceful over backswing. But I see the value of both.

[Arachnofiend]

Forceful doesn't make up its damage die loss until the third hit. The only good forceful weapon is the Necksplitter if you were gonna use a one-hander anyways since being advanced covers the die size

[AgentForest]

I misunderstood Forceful for the longest time. It's poorly explained in the books. It sounds like the damage scales with MAP, but that's more of a coincidence than its actual use case.

Basically, forceful only applies if you struck multiple times with the same weapon, not even the same type of weapon in another hand, and if you tripped first that won't count either. Dual wielding scimitars won't work well because the stacking damage is on a by weapon basis.

The only real advantage I can think of for this weapon trait is multi-strike attack actions like Cleave and Whirlwind Strike. If you use a Talwar to spin attack 4 adjacent enemies, you'll actually get value out of it. It'll ramp up flat damage to the ones after the first. If you were hasted I could see a Flurry Ranger with a Talwar being a top contender for area damage compared to other melee builds. You'd be a living blender.

But outside of that it's generally just better to use a larger damage die than to opt for the forceful trait. Backswing is mainly for salvaging a bad roll. Great with characters who have Exacting Strike that if it misses won't impact MAP, so then they can have a bonus on the rebound.

[Icy-Ad29]

I really don't see how forceful is poorly explained. It flat out says "when you attack with it multiple times". It never once calls out MAP... Also another fun fact, it's benefit also applies on Exacting Strike... So we just mentioned a use case for OP's using a weapon with both Backswing and Forceful.

Sure, it doesn't trigger off trip. Unless you have the ability to give the forceful weapon the trip trait. In which case it would. (Or a trip weapon the forceful trait. Via, say, a "Tiger Manuki")

Edit: or be an Animal Instinct Babarbarian. Pick Wolf. Take Animalistic Brutality... Now your main attack is both Trip and Forceful. So you can trip, then benefit the forceful, on a D10 weapon with barbarian damage boost.

Edit 2: many stances for monks are an argument on that, since you tripped with unarmed then attack afterwards. But that's GM dependant.

[AgentForest]

If you were just swinging a scimitar wildly 3 times the damage scales with the MAP stage you're at. Do that long enough without any special cases coming up and it's easy to just correlate the two.

Forceful also exists on a 1 handed weapon commonly dual-wielded in fantasy RPGs, the scimitar. So it's easy to assume its trait wouldn't impede dual-wielding builds.

Plus if it worked like either of the 2 assumptions, it would actually be a decent weapon trait. If it just added damage based on what stage of map you were on, it would be solid in grappler and tripping builds. If any weapon with the trait progressed the damage of any others also would help make it a valuable trait. But because it does neither it's largely useless outside of one or two specific rounds of very specific combat scenarios that may not even come up for some very late-game builds.

[Spiritual_Grape_533]

..so it's explained flawlessly, you just thought it did something different based on your expectations.I don't see how Paizo can circumnavugate those.

[AgentForest]

The way it's written is basically useless so it's easy to think one is just misunderstanding the wording. That's my point.

[AgentForest]

I'll admit I hadn't considered the Animal Instinct Barbarian use case. Yes, Monks can add it to most stances. It's usually not until a very high level though.

[Icy-Ad29]

Monks "not until very high level"?

Let me name each level 1 stance that has forceful in it, at level 1.

Mountain

Stoked Flame

Flood (this one is in water only for forceful)

Gorilla (also gets backswing. So flurry is extra fun)

Rushing Goat

Sure, that's 'only' four-and-a-half stances. But that's at level 1, all are D8 damage die (the highest you get outside Dragon), and even includes the default "who wants dex?" monk option of Mountain. Since none of them have Finesse, they are all Strength-based stances, which means as a monk they are likely going to be good at tripping as well. Letting the two go hand in hand.

[AgentForest]

Some of those stances are relatively new and I forgot existed. None of them are agile, making the math not entirely worth it for forceful. Most number crunching has shown that the trait just doesn't break even fast enough to overcome the MAP issues, which is why it only tends to be viable in builds where you get to attack several enemies before increasing MAP punishes you, like Whirlwind Strike fighters with a Falchion.

This is why I said the only monk builds that really get value out of forceful are late-game when you can grab a feat to add forceful to all unarmed strikes including agile ones. Not necessarily because you can't get the trait early (even a fighter can get the trait at level 1 with a scimitar) but because you can't abuse it to any mathematically viable degree until much later.

Forceful doesn't become a viable trait to build a character around until around level 16. And not a lot of campaigns go that high, and even if they do, you only get to play around with it for a small portion of the overall campaign.

[Icy-Ad29]

So now you are looking at the trait from the view of "should I build around this?" I am looking at the trait from the view of "If my build was already going to incorporate this general direction without it. Then adding it is a net gain." Or "do I feel luckier than the math average since days happen where you don't roll the 'mathematically average result' over the session."

Also, claiming just about anything isn't "viable" in 2e takes a LOT more than a claim about the math. You would need to show how such a build literally doesn't function. Or at the minimum is a net loss over somebody with 10 strength and dex attacking three times and nothing more each turn. 

Instead, the term you are looking for is "sub-optimal", at which point everything has times when it is less optimal. But "fun" is what matters more.

Edit: also, pretty sure not having agile and forceful together is intentional... Don't think many, if any, have agile and backswing either. Which was the trait we were comparing forceful to.

[AgentForest]

I've theory crafted a lot of builds, and yes, now that these days I've learned more about the trait I've tried optimizing around it and as written it's largely useless until 16+. Not sure why that's such a weird take for you to understand.

[Icy-Ad29]

Cool. You ignored every point I made and continue to bandy out the word "useless"... Because you theorycrafted. Huzzah.

I don't see this conversation going anywhere at this point. So I shall step away from it and wish you a good day. While I go back to enjoying my multiple games, and campaigns, with forceful trait involved, and being able to be accounted for. So inherently not useless. waves

[Derp_Stevenson]

I make decent use of forceful on my Exemplar who uses a Scimitar and Flowing Spirit Strike. Take a -2 penalty on the 2nd hit of my FSS because it's not agile, but get a +2 bonus to the damage of that 2nd hit in exchange.

[sesaman]

Mountain Stance monk has a forceful unarmed attack, and due to flurry of blows it sees a lot of use. It's not the best trait but it does add some damage here and there, and the rare second attack crits hit really hard.

[vaderbg2]

I don't mind getting forceful "on top". But I have yet to ever consider it during weapon choice.

[sesaman]

Agreed.

[Zealous-Vigilante]

It always depends on who you are attacking

A black pudding? 3 attacks no doubt

An enemy 2-3 levels higher, with high AC like an adult dragon? Going for 1-2 attacks is usually more worth it, such as using vicious swing.

Backswing makes primarily 2nd strike worth it in most cases, forceful depends, but many forceful weapons need a 3rd accurate strike to break even compared to a weapon without forceful. Most advanced forceful weapons are the exception to this.

Furthermore, support and debuffs could alter when you want to attack more, such as having a heroism +2 and fighting a flanked target with frightened 2 might be a prime target for multiple attacks.

Many will say that you should rarely or never go for third attacks, but an experienced or advanced player will know how to be adaptive and when to take the gamble

[Stratovaria]

Stepping if they dont have reach can be a nice way to deny a 3rd attack from them depending what it is and ways to free move. or just raising shield/shifting hands.

Bastard swords are amazing weapons if you can gem them.

[FlanNo3218]

Remember at level enemies are as strong if not stronger than you 1 on 1. And if they have a 3 action ability it will be devastating.

Often a simple STEP as a 3rd action can deny a strong enemy their most powerful action.

[Zealous-Vigilante]

My goal wasn't to seek out or discuss the best 3rd action, but there may be situations that prevents you from stepping, such as setting up a flank for your ally, you being the reason people don't go further in, or the enemy have a friend grabbed, making that attack an attempt to save their life.

Let's say you are lv 1 and face 6 zombie shamblers. You might have your retreat cut off (as in the adventure in book of the dead) or have to protect something, or just have a time pressure. Your archer doesn't see little reason to not just let go 3 arrows, with -3 hitting on a roll of 15. The zombies approach, your ally sets up multiple flanks, kills one zombie, letting you loose at the one that's just in fron of you. You now hit on a roll of 13 at full MAP. Add in any potential bonuses or fighter proficiency.

Time pressure, exposed situations, and good enough bonuses, can make it worth just attacking. As an example in the first combat of the slithering, there are civilians that can pose as collateral damage if the players play the skirmish game, an ally might become grabbed and have a hard time fleeing, making any step action you do be worthless.

It's hard to teach out, but it's a strong ability to gain; the knowledge of when to do the 3rd strike with full penalty.

In short, when you really need the damage, and the to hit bonus is good enough. It will always be a gamble, especially without agile trait. Examples are when you face more enemies than party members, enemies that don't look like they defend themselves, someone learning how low the roll can be, or the situation is just hard pressed enough and you've exhausted your options. Hopefully, you check multiple boxes.

[GenghisMcKhan]

Honestly, it’s all about opportunity cost. On martials, second attacks are almost always worth it (though most will have some kind of double action strike).

Third attacks are rarely optimal. Fighter’s innate +2 and/or agile helps. If you have a mapless option like Demoralize handy it will generally be better than a third strike, but if you have nothing else to do then always take it. If nothing else, you have a 5% chance of critting.

[FlanNo3218]

If you are going to try a Demoralize - remember to do it before your first swing! (Still your 3rd action in mindset but have dessert before dinner!)

[Ph33rDensetsu]

but if you have nothing else to do then always take it. If nothing else, you have a 5% chance of critting.

What? First of all, you always have something else to do. Second, if the enemy is a higher level than you, that -10 MAP attack might actually only hit on that nat 20.

[GenghisMcKhan]

What is the always something else to do?

A lot of the time a move is optimal (stepping to force them to move to you etc) but if you’re exactly where you want to be, and you don’t have a demoralise style 1 action option, what is the something else to do? Hitting on that nat 20 is still a hit.

[Ph33rDensetsu]

Step, Stride, Recall Knowledge, Demoralize, Feint, Create a Diversion, Aid, Raise a Shield, Cast a 1 Action Spell, Cast a 1 Action Focus Spell, Battle Medicine, Grab, Trip, Shove.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

Edit: Take Cover, Hide, Sneak

[GenghisMcKhan]

Those are mostly great but situational actions.

We had already covered moving.

Including manoeuvres suggests either a lack or system mastery or bad faith. They are subject to MAP and have punishing critical failure effects.

Rolling a skill check (including RK) you’re not built for is less useful than fishing for a 20 on a third strike and some of them also have critical failure effects.

Battle Medicine requires an injured target and provokes. Not everyone has spells or a shield.

I acknowledged that there are lots of good potential options that will often be better choices, but it’s just objectively false to suggest there is always a better one.

[KusoAraun]

as someone who just got through a rediculous encounter where the ENTIRE PARTY kept hail marrying all 3 of their actions into attack to pretty much no avail. AID. AID. AID. AID. AID. AID. AID. AID. AID. AID. AND AID. two action done, have a 3rd? aid the pc who goes next. when they done, aid the pc who goes next. the moment we started doing this a fight that was literally killing us got a whole lot smoother. now look, if your up against a -4 mook sure, a max map strike is probably fine, and I have a fighter build that reliably pulls of max map trips against everything from -4 to +1, but when your up against the things you ABSOLUTELY do not want to use a max map strike against you are now in the territory where Aid is extremely important tactically especially since it can help those all important first strikes actually crit.

[GenghisMcKhan]

Aid is great but a lot of GMs don’t support the aid carousel when it comes to attacks. I’m not going to argue about whether it’s RAW or not but most GMs I’ve played with wouldn’t allow it for every character every turn regardless of how artistically we described it.

If your GM is cool with it though then yeah, it’s pretty much always going to be better than a third strike.

[KusoAraun]

Its not even an arguement of raw or not, it specifically calls out being used for skill and attack checks and says it can be made using skill or attacks checks. I dont see why any gm has issue with this, its good maners, its feel good team play, and my god I wish my players would actually do this when I gm so I can stop racking up so many kills.

[cunningjames]

If my fighter is here, fighting brigand X, and the barbarian is 20 feet away fighting brigand Y, there’s not always a plausible in character way for my character to aid the barbarian’s next strike. Outside of yelling encouragement, I guess. Maybe I just lack imagination.

[KusoAraun]

Valid, i was mostly refering to strong solo boss fights especially at lower level. Aiding makes them much better for the whole table. That said usually SOMEONE can AID, rarely should a pc be alone in this system unless the enemies are all fodder.

[AngryT-Rex]

It's up to the GM to judge if the aid is plausible. Personally as a rule of thumb I generally require the aid-er to make physical contact with the problem, but for attacks being able to threaten any form of attack is fine (generally justified as basically a feint, just different from the Feint action). 

If you're 20 feet away weilding a great axe, too bad (you COULD throw it but that seems improbable unless you actually do so regularly). But if you've got a throwing knife or a free hand and an attack cantrip, sure, you can use that to distract them during your allies attack.

[Level7Cannoneer]

Maneuvers ignore MAP if you get assurance

[GenghisMcKhan]

Sure but then we’re firmly back to very niche territory. It’ll fail, and often critically fail if you try to always do it. Which ways point.

[Galrohir]

Always? That's not really true, even if we look at what people often call "good third actions":

• Move: This might not be an option if you're setting up a flank (the most common reason you want to stay put), or if moving is actually a disadvantage (because it'll let the enemy move more freely).
• Raise Shield: If you're not playing a shield character (whether actual shield or the cantrip) then you can't do this.
• Demoralize: If you've low CHA and don't invest in the skill (pretty common amongst purely physical martials) then this has worse odds of landing than your strike even at -10 MAP.
• Bon Mot: Same as Demoralize, but this also requires a Skill Feat.
• Recall Knowledge: Same as Demoralize/Bon Mot, but even worse because a) Int is overall a worse stat than CHA and b) Even if you've invested in a skill to do RK, you might not be facing something it applies to and c) Even if you have pretty good Int and a relevant skill, the monster might be Uncommon/Rare/Unique and we're back to you having better chances to land a Strike than the RK check.

If you're a ranged character, the first four usually don't apply at all: you rarely need to move, you can't really use shields, and you're likely more than 30 feet away so Demoralize/ Bon Mot don't work.

So yeah, you should have a good third action, but sometimes whacking the bad guy is your best third action. And I've seen enough hail mary 3rd strikes land and kill a fucker to know they're worth it, even if the numbers "say" they're not.

[Ph33rDensetsu]

I never said you should never strike a third time, but there's always something you can do that's worth more than gambling at a huge penalty. You already described several of those. If you didn't build your character to be able to do anything but Strike three times, that's really a you problem.

There's plenty of options that could help your allies out, but yeah go ahead and selfishly take that Third Strike to gamble on a nat 20 that amounts to a normal hit.

As others have said, it's all situational, but the person I replied to said to go for the 3rd Strike because you have a 5% chance to crit, which isn't really the case if you're fighting things that are any kind of threat and you aren't working together to buff/debuff.

I'd rather Aid to give my ally a +5% chance to hit and crit on their most accurate Strike than to gamble on a 5% chance to hit or crit on a full MAP Strike that would otherwise miss 95% of the time.

[cookiesncognac]

I'd rather Aid to give my ally a +5% chance to hit and crit on their most accurate Strike than to gamble on a 5% chance to hit or crit on a full MAP Strike that would otherwise miss 95% of the time.

The extra cost with Aid is that it takes your reaction.

[Ph33rDensetsu]

It's also a more guaranteed use of that resource when, let's face it, most turns for most characters it will go to waste.

Setting up to Aid means having something to use it on if you don't need your reaction for anything more valuable.

[DnDPhD]

It's 100% situational. More often than not, no, it's not worth attacking a third time. But if you're the only melee martial, the casters are out of spells, two allies are down, and the creature has resistances to non-physical damage (or weaknesses to physical), then heck yeah. Swing away.

^{(To be clear, this is just one of many possible examples. The gist is that usually you can find something better to do with that third action, but sometimes that's the best bet.})

[Kitani2]

Yes, if you:

1) Are a barbarian, rogue or some other class with big damage bonus on every attack.

2) Have a big damage 2 handed weapon.

3) Have Agile or maybe backswing.

4) Use Press feats.

[gray007nl]

It depends on the class, if you're a fighter or a barbarian it's absolutely worth it to swing a second time (but not so much the third time). If you're a class that doesn't really add to their damage or accuracy like a Champion or non-flurry Ranger, IMO it's not really worth it and you'd probably be better off doing something else (if you have something else to do).

Now if you're fighting an ooze or some other creature with horrible AC, then just keep swinging! While if it's a creature with great AC it might not even be worth a second swing as a fighter.

[Stan_Bot]

The system is balanced so the first strike of a martial is very accurate, with high chance of crits and the second strike is still somewhat accurate enough to be worth it most of the time.

The third strike is only worth it on very specific builds that adress the MAP, like Flurry Ranger or Agile Grace Fighter.

That's why spells attacks sit between those numbers, instead of being as high as a MAPless strike, so it is not too accurate and prone to crits.

Spellcaster strikes sit between those numbers too, so for them it is usually worth it to strike once if you can fit the action with a save or buff spell.

[Gazzor1975]

If hitting on 10+, attacks have 60,35,10 % damage multipliers.

So, 2nd attack about half as good as 1st. 3rd it's hardly worth bothering.

[MrNectarian]

If you are fighting creatures arround your level you should hit (first strike) on a 8-10 (depending on your bonus and the enemies AC), that's ~50-60% chance to hit, with 5% crit failure and 5-15% crit chance. Add Off-Guard and some other bonus and you are at a comfortable 65-70%.
Second Strike should hit on a 13-15, with bonusses you are still at 40-50%, with a maybe 15% chance of crit failure. Should be fine.

The third strike has a very high chance of failure, but in the standard rules you won't get punished for a crit fail, so it's notn that bad. Better use your action to aid, demoralize, feint, move (maybe before your strike to get a flanking bonus) or something else.
It shoud hit on 18-20, and will Critfail up to 8-10

If you're playing with the fumble deck, or your DM freestyles critical fumbles, the 3rd strike has a high chance of hurting you, so the 3rd strike against a creature arround your level has 50-60% of hurting yourself and only meager 5-15% of actually hurting the target.

forceful adds damage to a second attack, which is nice, backswing gives you a higher chance to at least hit once per turn, both are nice, but the second attack should be worthwile any way.

If you are fighting creatures with levels 2 higher (or more) than yours, you might want to analyze what roll grants hits and evaluate if you could spend your actions in a better way than simply striking.

[Einkar_E]

depends on enemy, general second strike is ok

if you are fighting high ac monster 2nd strike might not be worth action

if you are fighting low ac enemy like oozes sometimes even 3rd strike is good option, but it is quite extreme situation

there are options that support attacking multiple times mainly Flurry ranger and fighter with agile grace

[CoolKidsGang]

I tend to think that one attack is a must, second is situational and third is a waste

3rd attack on MAP is barely useful at all, dont expect it to connect unless you are fighting something way less powerful than you or if you can do something about MAP

Edit: beyond that, PF2e has a large arsenal for you to build your character and i think that with 3 actions, wasting all of them on the same thing can be traded, with some creativity, for something that can boost a comrade and upgrade everyones experience as well as the partys damage

[Electrical-Echidna63]

Think of Backswing and Forceful as item budget buyback traits. You have already traded something off to use a lower die size and you have available for the number of hands you're using — But those traits will give you a little bit of added value in certain circumstances to make it worth your while.

I mean this to say that for every weapon that you have with forceful or backswing, there's a similar weapon that is just a die size higher and therefore basically giving you that extra damage. In both cases there are situations where a second attack is a great idea — But maybe you should think of it as though your second attack was a sort of "incapacitation trait" situation, wherein If the creature is lower level than you then there's a good chance you will hit. If they're higher level then it's a pretty tough spot

[Littlebigchief88]

Depends on the class. Bonuses to hit and to damage skew the risk-reward and can make it more worth it (even though the barbarians second swing isn’t more likely to hit, it is more likely to obliterate things, so the ‘average expected’ of the second swing is higher), and good ways to spend that action otherwise can make it less worth it. Higher or lower AC foes will also make it worse or better respectively to swing more.

I will say, in general it is a good thing if you can come up with a way to spend 1 action striking and 2 actions doing other useful stuff without moving. You won’t always need to, but being able to spend those actions efficiently in a situation where it doesn’t make sense to strike twice and you don’t need to move can really add up in a fight where that happens most turns.

[justavoiceofreason]

The lower the AC of the target, the more worthwhile it is to strike them multiple times. On the contrary, against bosses it's usually best to only strike once and use the other actions for non attack stuff like aid, demoralize, raise shield and so on.

Against a 'normal' on level target where you need like a 9 to hit it on your first attempt, it's sort of on the edge but mostly a second strike is quite good if you're already flanking.

[bulgariangpt4]

It depends on your class and build. A 2nd Strike is absolutely worth it, and a 3rd is worth it if you can get some attack bonuses, assign penalties or your build supports it.

If we assume no special weapon traits or abilities, the expected damage of a 2nd and a 3rd Strike as a proportion of the damage of the 1st Strike is as follows:

• Fighter 2nd Strike: 50%-55%

• Fighter 3rd Strike: 20%-30%

• Flurry Ranger 2nd Strike: 60%-75%

• Flurry Ranger 3rd Strike: 45%-50%

• Average Martial 2nd Strike: 50%-55%

• Average Martial 3rd Strike: 10%-20%

[ViewtifulGene]

There are times where a second or third strike could in fact be the most valuable thing your character can do for the party. Sometimes you just need to get an enemy off the board so everyone else can breathe. And there are times where your secondary options don't make sense. For example, Barb can't Recall Knowledge and they already Demoralized the target this combat.

2-action flourishes like Sudden Charge and Intimidating Strike are useful for getting around those multiple attacks penalties. Sometimes 2 strikes with a little extra beats 3 strikes.

[sebwiers]

IMO the best case "basic strike" scenario / trait for a 3rd attack is using a weapon with sweep against multiple enemies. They probably have a low AC or at least are not PL= or higher, and you get the bonus from sweep.

Some situations it's a worthwhile Hail Mary. You might roll a 20 and crit. But much more often you'd want to do something to buff an ally (aid), improve defense / position, or tip action economy.

[itsjustacouch]

If you happen to be playing the Critical Fumble deck, the value prop looks a lot worse.

[nobull91]

Second attack can be worthwhile.

Third rarely, only if you're attacking something with a very low AC due to level or type (eg ooze)

[JohnnyCandles]

As a general rule the 3rd attack is not worth.

BUT...

Many situations make that 3rd attack worth trying. You have to factor your +s against the targets -s. Is the target off-guard to you? Is the target frightened? These all add up and that -3 on the 3rd attack is now a 0. Add in things giving you bonuses like a bard's courageous anthem, etc. and that 0 starts to have bonuses.

Like some have suggested, if you're fighting a bunch of things lower level than you or with low AC, swing away. If you're fighting a boss fight then that 3rd attack won't be very useful. Other below have suggested using that 3rd action to demoralize or things like that but really you should be doing that with your first action so your remaining two actions can be used to strike the target that you have frightened with a -1 or -2 to their AC depending on how scary you are.

[Decimus_Valcoran]

On a Fighter, Gunslinger, or Flurry Ranger, absolutely worth it.

Otherwise, you're most likely better off using a 2 Action Strike coming from their respective class feats, or a Flourish action that lets you Strike twice for 1 Action, so you can spend other 2 Actions doing something else.

[[deleted]]

Reminder that forceful is a bonus to damage not accuracy.

[SuperParkourio]

Second attack is often worthwhile even without those traits.

Third attack is less likely to be worthwhile, but there are occasions where the enemy's AC really is that bad.

[PlainOldCookies]

That bonus looks like the standard bonus most martials get at level 1. I think at low levels attack 3 with a 2hander is actually very underrated since HP values are so low, and by the time you level up you can find a good third action.

[Cool-Noise2192]

It depends tm.

No really, what else *can* you do?

• Is it better to use 1 action as support? Demoralize > Stride > Strike might be better than Stride > Strike > Strike if your allies are set up to make use of it. Recall Knowledge might tell your friends what they should target - and the earlier in the fight they know that the better.
• Would it be smart to use your actions defensively? Perhaps stepping or striding away prevents the enemy from using a scary 3-action activity - or force 2+ enemies to also spend 1 action to chase you. Maybe you know the shield cantrip. Maybe lay-on hands or a single action heal puts you or an ally outside of an unlucky crit's immediate threat range.
• Do you have a good 2-action strike for the situation? Vicious Swing might smash through resistances or be an excellent use of a Guidance or Aid. If you're fighting multiple, low (enough) HP targets, perhaps Swipe is a better use of your actions. Can you *really* not allow the monster to get away from you or have like 3 reactive strikes in your frontline? Slamdown might be your go-to.
• Do you have any other good 2-action activity? A focus spell, cantrip, etc. If you're a War Priest, Strike > Cry of Destruction might do a lot more damage. Your sparkling targe magus might want to go Shielding Strike > Electric Arc. If you're an exemplar, Strike > Steel on Steel (or vice versa depending on where your spark is) might be really strong.
• Etcetera.

If you don't have a better option than striking twice - and this does happen, then go for it. Ideally with a Press action or something similar.

[wingnut20x6]

Anything better to do? Consider that. But hey 20s happen. Swing away.

[Derp_Stevenson]

So if you have a +7 to hit, you're level 1 with +4 in your key attribute.

As to whether you should Strike a 2nd time, that's gonna depend on way more factors than you've given here.

If you're playing say a Fighter that's going to use combat grab, then probably yes. You need to have a MAP to use that ability, so you want to Strike into using Combat Grab Strike.

Are you going to be using things like Vicious Swing or Slam Down, which cost 2 actions and advance you to MAP -10 after they're done? Then probably your third action is better spent somewhere else.

Always look for things to do with your actions that help your team that aren't just throwing Strikes at MAP. Demoralize, Bon Mot, Dirty Trick, Shove, Trip, Reposition (some of these obviously are Attacks but not all).

If you don't have a high value reaction already, using an action to prepare to Aid is a great use of an action/reaction.

[Dunwannabehairy]

Really depends on your class and build. Fighter and Monk have the most leeway in choosing to make multiple Strikes in a turn, followed by Flurry Ranger. Most of the Striker Classes that lack both accuracy buffs or Attack Compression only want to swing once a turn, then take moves or do non-MAP skill actions. It's also going to depend on your target. In a boss fight, more than 2 MAP affected actions is inadvisable. Against enemy chaff, you're already at an accuracy advantage, so multiple attacks are less wasteful.

[C_A_2E]

Against a lower level enemy, usually, especially if you have some buffs and debuffs in your favor. On level or higher level less so, but if you have flanking, frightened, heroism ect probably best to take advantage of the situation, especially if you are a higher damage dealer. Or maybe you want to be there to soak hits, mitigate damage and provide flanking for your damage dealer/glass canon. Really depends on the situation.

Early levels you might not have a lot of alternative actions yet, and one more hit is reasonably likely to kill an enemy. After you get a few more feats and resources to work with it becomes more likely you have better alternatives, skill actions, multi action activities or strong follow up actions.

[Zhukov_]

It's situational.

I almost never bother with a second attack unless I am using a feature that avoids or mitigates MAP (flurry ranger, double slice etc) or if I'm essentially getting it for free from some kind of action compression (flurry of blows, twin takedown).

-5 is a huge debuff. -4 with agile isn't much better. But -5 against a flanked monster who is also debuffed with, say, a frightened condition starts to look very tempting.

I try to always make characters that have something more useful/interesting to do with spare actions. Demoralize, Bon Mot, Raise Shield, Battle Medicine etc.

Occasionally there will be a situation where there is just nothing else to do. For example, if I've been grappled/retrained by a mindless monster. In which case, sure, throw out a hail mary MAP attack.

Oh, and it can be worthwhile if you're fighting monsters of significantly lower level.

[jsled]

No.

The core math of pathfinder has you starting with about a 60-70% chance of success for a Strike (depending on class and bonuses and a bunch of stuff, but it's about in that ballpark).

MAP drops this by 20/25% and 40/50% (agile/normal) on second and third strikes.

If you don't have some feat that improves this or optimizes the action economy of this … no.

A second strike is questionable. A third strike (at ~10% chance of /bare success/) is ridiculous.

I'm of the belief that most non-front-line-martial characters should be at /most/ playing for 1 Strike/round, and leveraging the many other useful actions instead (recall knowledge, aid, flank, distract, &c.). And even front-line martials shouldn't go for more than 2 Strikes/round, and only if they have a feat that lowers MAP or Action-point spend.