I do like the thought of 'minimum' defenses, and wish more DPR machines acknowledge (if not followed) them.
I think this is the main sticking point -- people want to hear "offense is the best defense" and think that means you have no other defenses. This is not the case; instead it means you rely on ending things quickly while still having other defenses since no one defense is perfect (which is guaranteed by the critical hit and natural 1 failure rules for attacks and save throws).
I didn't leave my crafting to deal with courtiers either -- he wants his kingdom saved he can keep his people's mouths shut... or he can go battle the dragon by his onsie -- I don't mind.
At the end of the day I didn't come looking for a kingdom to save, they asked for me -- again if they want someone to save them then they should respect their betters instead of their ego.
All and all it still just looks like a GM not liking the fact his GMPC got the snubbing it deserved.
Reach spell -- metamagic look into it.
Tell him what if he's inbred cousin is that upset he can come and I'll teach him a cantrip or two to make it up to him -- that way he can pretend to be all impressive at court and perhaps have a chance with the ladies.
However at what point wasn't I of equal ranking to have been in the place in the first place? The Courtier (still just a cling on the royal butt) didn't know better than to insult me? Apparently I'm saving his kingdom and also have an obviously short temper -- perhaps he should have used those social skills to... I don't know not insult the guy his uncle is hoping will save all their butts?
Great work there Lou good to see that aristocratic education didn't go to waste!
The WES is strong with this one. The reading's off the charts, over 20,000. Even master Malavon doesn't have an entitlement count that high.
Last night as I was drifting off to sleep I got another take on poor old Earl Addlewits and his friend... picture this.
Wizard finishes his tirad against two attentive birds "...Perhaps if you were more learned in interplanar affairs you might have known this -- but being simple (peers of the realm) I kind of doubt it."
as the smug wizard proceeds down the hall the Chamberlain steps from behind the corner where he and few footmen were sheltering. "Boys, gather them up, we'll try to get them fixed again. I think we were able to defuse the Wizards temper again, before he goes in to see his Honor the Grand Duke. Here, let me see the Earl." Looking closely into the eyes of the bird before him. "Sir, on behalf of the Kingdom, I would like to thank you for your bravery in the face of overwhelming odds. I, sir, feel honored to know such a brave volenteer, who would throw himself in front of the bad tempered Tyrant just to appease the temper, nah, the venom of the serpant, and take the attack upon himself. And to do this repeatedly! After being Feebleminded and only just recovered, and still have the ... but words fail me sir." Turning on to the second bird. "Sir Witherspoon, I also wish to thank you on behalf of the Kingdom. You are new to the ranks of the Royal Scapegoats, but you have brought honor to thier ranks thru your un-flinching bravery in the face of obvious personal danger."
Turning to the two footman holding the birds.
"Carry them gently men. You hold in your hands two real heros of the Realm. Get them to recovery - at least they're alive this time."....
Great story. You know, it would actually make sense for a powerful and lawful kingdom to have a group of upstanding people to "test" outsider spellcasters, those wandering through their main cities. Test to see how unhinged they are, how willing they are to use spells on randoms over minor things, whether they throw out necromancy, or whether dangerous transmuters are on the loose. Bump into them, make a joke, ask annoying questions, assume they are your old drunk uncle "Larry! How have you been?", to test their suitability to serve the crown and whether they can be trusted.
This strikes me as (and relevant to the topic) a really solid defensive strategy against rampaging wizards. You lure out their willingness to attack non-combatants with... mundane offensiveness. It is a genius plan. Which reminds me...
On defensive strategy, it doesn't always work but high save characters can be so good at soaking up enemy spells. Stick them out there, have an unexpectedly high couple of saves, take one for the team. A dismounted knight (does this guy have a thing for knights or what? Shut up you!) with a really great will save who looks like a fighter can shut down enemy spellcasters going for the easy will save win against the melee.
And on indispensability, I'm not so sure powerful arrogant wizards are rare or indispensable. I recall three in one game alone. They all kept dying through really bad choices (I was not the DM in this, just playing the dumb melee character, durpidy durr).
"sitting there and taking it or trying to not take it doesn't."
There are a vast range of defensive strategies and builds that can do defence well. The gladiator is one example, the polearm character another, the dual shield wielding character another, the great ac monk another who lures opponents, props up the great ac, and then flurries. A mind locked into viewing offence as the best does not see other options.
From a character in a certain television show. "I'm Tyler. I'm special."
Back on topic, shame on you equalizer! (All arrogant wizards are special) Defence can really make a lot of sense and work, but it can lead to being less-fun, and be at odds with the party if they are rushers and damage-masters.
We saw this recently. The party has some real damage dealers, but the bard and the defensive fighter aren't the most exciting in combat. This defensive fighter was simple, endurance, die-hard, dodge, toughness, high dex, high con, sword and board. Something I noticed though, was a lot of attacks got shut down at low levels, soaked, and she had nice survivability as we got into the mid levels. When others were on to single digits or down, she still had more in the tank.
In fact sometimes such characters get a bit mistreated, because those that hit hard and go down hard, want to take all the healing, leaving the poor defensive fighter with little, as they sit on such low hp after so many hits. It's okay, she has die-hard!
:[
That is what I like about defence, not dying, not making it a high damage and die affair.
...I'm sorry, this thread is just like a perfect microcosm of the internet. The initial topic is rapidly upstaged by a semantic discussion defining the terms of the topic, which devolves into an argument about a hypothetical and entirely unrelated situation, which is really an analogy for subjective etiquette.
My mind is blown.
Actually, the semantic discussion was quite important since we were discussing the terms offense and defense, but each of us had different meanings for them. The semantics discussion was resolved. We never reached an agreement on what constitutes offense and defense, but we at least understand what some of the other people consider offense.
After that resolution, a second discussion arose about the usefullness of offensive abilities outside of combat.
Overall, this thread has been about 10 times more productive than most.
Oh, and on the main topic, DPR-centric melee PCs worry me because they so often end up killing other PCs. Okay, worry may be too strong a word because I'm usually the DM, and like having a new ally, even if he's just confused. :)
In my XP, DPR-centric PCs have taken more than their share in party resources to keep alive/un-confused-charmed-etc. Even if their 'share' is adjusted for DPR, they use more. It's almost as if every Barb needs his own Cleric... (Leadership?)
And they die more frequently when things go awry.
And seem to be one-trick ponies at a loss with new challenges (again, in my XP, it doesn't have to be that way).
Actually, the worst case scenario is a DPR machine with good defenses turning on the party.
or to put it another way, which is worse when they turn on the party?
A killing machine with 100hp, 20 AC, +20 fort, +5 reflex, +5 will
or
A killing machine with 150hp, 40 AC, +15 fort, +15 reflex, +12 will
You have a much better chance of incapicitating the first killing machine before he kills the party.
The problem with high defense killing machines. They are less likely to turn on the party, but if they get turned, they are a lot harder to stop. It is something of a double edge sword.
The problem with a lot of killing machines it that they have pretty good defenses, except for their Will save.
Not sure why people are picking on the wizard. This is a general caster problem. Phenomenal cosmic power leads to big egos and phenomenal cosmic power combined with a big ego means someone to avoid offending when you need some of that phenomenal cosmic power used on your behalf.
Those courtiers are in even more trouble if the offend a similar level druid and even a fairly large nation should hesitate to try to enforce their laws against someone who can turn into an air elemental and may come back as a tiny bird with contagion prepared.
A sorceror, of course, is just as potentially obnoxious as a wizard. Possibly easier to hunt down, but possibly not depending on spell selection.
Clerics tend to be bound by rules and don't have good escapes or the ability to use contagion as a terror weapon as effectively as a druid. High level clerics tend to have influence in the church hierarchy though. At least the druid's baleful polymorph can be fixed if someone buys a ninth level spell on your behalf, clerics can potentially ruin courtiers.
Six level casters probably aren't going to be as ugly. Except the bard. Messing with a bard is as bad as messing with a cleric. Don't attend a party hosted by a rival after pissing off a high level bard, they might cooperate and you might wake up under the effects of a lesser geas you can't remember with a nice hangover to explain the gap in your memory, or perhaps with no memory of the horribly embarrassing and reputation destroying things you did while dominated. Courtiers pretty much by definition have enemies who would love to see them taken down and would be willing to work with vindictive adventurers to see it happen as long as the personal risk is small.
Or perhaps it's a non-martial character problem. A high level face rogue isn't quite as good at destroying reputations as a bard, not having magic, but still makes a very dangerous enemy if you're just an aristocrat. They have higher and more varied social skills and probably also the skills...
Pretty savvy up the top. Knocking off powerful spellcasters ain't so hard though. Players do it all the time. Teams of npc agents can also pull it off (kingdom's anti-spellcaster division--KASD). Standing in a street and blatting some courtiers makes them big shiny targets and bringing them to justice easier, warranted and desired.
"even a fairly large nation should hesitate to try to enforce their laws against someone who can turn into an air elemental and may come back as a tiny bird with contagion prepared."
See that's just it, as a dangerous criminal from my perspective as the DM, the authorities would most certainly want to bring them to justice. An attack against law-abiding citizens demands a harsh response. If outsiders with power are breaking your law, that is bad for the kingdom, for reputations, for law and order, for keeping the peace (since the peace is being broken by someone who hit level 9+ and doesn't feel the laws apply to them anymore).
Bards can be devilishly devious, but one which is a criminal without much reason, is going to have trouble becoming a successful Robin Hood.
Bard performs: "and the courtiers were foul creatures, squaaaaawking, when taaaalking"
Listener: "while that's all well and good, aren't you a wanted brigand?"
Bard: ...
People: "get him!"
"Courtiers pretty much by definition have enemies who would love to see them taken down and would be willing to work with vindictive adventurers to see it happen as long as the personal risk is small.
You've got it; but starting a fight in a street or breaking the law blatantly is not taking the smart option. Courtiers can be brought down, and if a player really wants to pursue a vendetta because their miss-matched socks and lack of aesthetic polish was noted, I suppose they can, but what you describe is an entirely different set of actions. It is using smarts, whereas the polymorph courtiers is using spell power, and a thin self-justification of breaching the peace via spell, because some rich folk said something insulting.
"Overall, this thread has been about 10 times more productive than most."
Agree. I like where it is going. We even have a new very useful abbreviation--WES.
Stands right beside the GMES and GMPC very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and on the main topic, DPR-centric melee PCs worry me because they so often end up killing other PCs. Okay, worry may be too strong a word because I'm usually the DM, and like having a new ally, even if he's just confused. :)
In my XP, DPR-centric PCs have taken more than their share in party resources to keep alive/un-confused-charmed-etc. Even if their 'share' is adjusted for DPR, they use more. It's almost as if every Barb needs his own Cleric... (Leadership?)
And they die more frequently when things go awry.
And seem to be one-trick ponies at a loss with new challenges (again, in my XP, it doesn't have to be that way).Actually, the worst case scenario is a DPR machine with good defenses turning on the party.
or to put it another way, which is worse when they turn on the party?
A killing machine with 100hp, 20 AC, +20 fort, +5 reflex, +5 will
or
A killing machine with 150hp, 40 AC, +15 fort, +15 reflex, +12 will
You have a much better chance of incapicitating the first killing machine before he kills the party.
The problem with high defense killing machines. They are less likely to turn on the party, but if they get turned, they are a lot harder to stop. It is something of a double edge sword.
The problem with a lot of killing machines it that they have pretty good defenses, except for their Will save.
1. PC vs PC
Um...I agree?But of course that's because the stats presented are so enormously different, and don't show the DPR difference that would exist from the selections the 2nd example had to make to outshine the 1st so much. Without seeing the whole, the 2nd example is just better. This implies I should play with worse allies because they're all potential enemies.
Which may be true, as I often ran Baldur's Gate solo to take out those Dire Charm critters. :) (Yes, I'm an uber-nerd that completed it solo in every class, once even without scoring a single kill.)
Yes, it's easier to take out example 1, so yes, it's easier for the opponents too, in the other encounters where he's on my side.
A lot of 'turning' danger can be taken off the table with Pro. Evil or Magic Circle, so let's focus on Confusion.
Odds are a DPR-centric PC will kill a fellow PC every time he 'attacks nearest', including round 1, or at least do enough to disable the full h.p. PC from participating in battle.
Odds are a balanced melee character will only kill/disable somebody who's wounded, or is unbalanced with weak defense/h.p. And he's less likely to get confused in the first place.
After round 1, it gets messy depending on enemies.
Few or none: Scatter from PC, get to bad guys. You can survive/heal until the balanced guy gets his head back on. The DPR machine kills too fast to heal his damage, and this could domino into TPK a lot easier.
Lots: Pull back. DPR machine will likely die, but it'll be glorious. Defensive guy shouldn't, which is sort of glorious in its own way.
'More than few and less than lots' depends too much on monster/caster composition, but I'd bank with NOT having DPR whomping on the party to make a big difference vs. defensive guy doing the whomping.
And of course, you don't really want to attempt to take either out because that just triggers attacks every round.
2. Gambling...it's all about gambling, and where you want to place what risks.
I'd rather my setbacks weren't so critical, so often, as it is with light defense PCs, even if the payoff is much larger much more often.
I don't like to gamble, not when the game's already stacked the PC's way. This doesn't mean I don't NEED to gamble sometimes to pull the party out of a predicament, but I don't want to instigate/exacerbate those predicaments. There are enough already...such is the nature of adventuring.
Okay, admittedly I do cause more trouble than I should...
Had one DPR Barbarian player who switched to casters because he just couldn't trust those d20s. He loved the damage and kill count, of course, but he'd always be the one falling if the party was taxed.
One way I like to look at h.p. is by their worth when AC is factored in.
A rager using Cleave has just devalued his h.p. by -4 AC. If this doubles the chance of being hit, he's made his h.p. worth 1/2 normal, but he does get h.p. from the rage too.
He'd better hit.
And likely will, but the risk is there, comparable to the risk the high AC character takes by letting the enemy live longer. Except when the risk is diluted over several rounds, that lets the others aid him better, or swap places/heal, if things turn sour.
There's a big difference between a crit being stacked on several other hits and a crit being one of the only attacks to hit.
A PC with higher AC, who bumps it even higher, is also bumping up the worth of each h.p. he has. And the offense he gets from being active.
Of course, if the Cleaving Rager's going to get hit ANYWAY, there's no devaluation, his h.p.s are worth crap and he'd better kill fast.
And if he wasn't going to get hit under '20' if he'd just pulled out a shield, he just gave the other side a winning chance.
In summation,
Offense is the best defense when facing great offense.
Defense is the best defense when facing poor offense.
Which I think sums up what most posters have been saying, but with opinions based on different playing XP as to where the "average encounter" lies between great & poor offense.
I say it varies every encounter, and so should your tactics.
Yes, true calculation of h.p. valuation gets much messier...but in context of PCs having better resources/spells than enemies, I dislike devaluing my h.p. for them. "Killing myself"
And hey, maybe there's a mock formula out there we could use to illustrate the need for balance:
DPR X h.p. X (AC + Saves)X maneuverability= PC melee effectiveness.
The only bigger math nerds than me I've met have all been on these boards, so somebody may just fine tune that to match 'normal' play. There'd be caps, as Teleport doesn't = infinity, and '20' and '1' are always in there, but I leave that to any willing to tackle the formula building.
(The HERO System actually had a formula published in one of its magazines which did this. Oddly, DCV, 'not getting hit' (touch AC, with rest of AC represented by DR), was an offensive trait. Defense was about weathering the inevitable hits. At least that's how I remember it from decades ago...)
Anyway, this is fun :)
|
A great offense can win, a perfect defense never will.
Why? Because defense never scores. Only offense puts points on the board.
Battlefield control is nice -- so long as you have someone to actually put the enemy down -- otherwise all you are doing is delaying.
Offense is mandatory. Finishing an enemy means that enemy is no longer apply attacks to you -- if you aren't attacked you don't need defense.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as the 'perfect offense' -- so again while a good offense is an equally good defense, and is often the best defense it is not the perfect defense. Defense should always be layered, with the ability to end the attack first and foremost. After all if you can't actually stop the enemy eventually it will succeed in stopping you.
The difference is proactive versus reactive.
you my friend have never seen a safety in football lol
The problem with a lot of killing machines it that they have pretty good defenses, except for their Will save.
but thats why the party mage holds action to counter spell the enemy caster.
According to the Power Gamers 3.5 Warrior strategy guide by Goodman Games, ”there is no such thing as a perfect warrior”. There are merits to having a two handed weapon , merits to fighting with a weapon in two hands (TWF), and merits to fighting with sword and shield. Interestingly enough on page 19 of the book, it points out that statistically speaking, the monk ends up doing more damage then the fighter. Now I don’t know if this still holds true for Pathfinder, but they did crunch allot of numbers and did the statistical math for 3.5.Generally speaking, if you have your basics covered, in terms of party composition, such...
That book isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
Those supposed Power Gamers can't Power Game.Anytime the Monk in 3.5 turns out best damage dealer means they can't power game.
They think Improved Init sucks, but they admit Power Attack rocks. Yet, they never used it to cross reference the style of fighting... why?
Stuff
My point was more to do with something uneven defenses can be worst than no defense at all.
I had a really fun character concept. I was looking at being able to do 100 DPR to a CR 10 creature at level 10 if I could flank them. The character had a 35AC, +12 fort, +15 reflex. The only problem was that I had a +5 will at level 10 with iron will. That was a walking TPK just waiting to happen.
If the low touch AC barbarian turns on the party, you can toss a tanglefoot bag, and they will be busy for a round or 2 while you take out the wizard that dominated them.
If a PC with better defenses turns on the party, your options are more limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A great offense can win, a perfect defense never will.
Why? Because defense never scores. Only offense puts points on the board.
Battlefield control is nice -- so long as you have someone to actually put the enemy down -- otherwise all you are doing is delaying.
Offense is mandatory. Finishing an enemy means that enemy is no longer apply attacks to you -- if you aren't attacked you don't need defense.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as the 'perfect offense' -- so again while a good offense is an equally good defense, and is often the best defense it is not the perfect defense. Defense should always be layered, with the ability to end the attack first and foremost. After all if you can't actually stop the enemy eventually it will succeed in stopping you.
The difference is proactive versus reactive.
you my friend have never seen a safety in football lol
Read my post again think about what you said, particularly in light of this line:
-- so again while a good offense is an equally good defense, and is often the best defense it is not the perfect defense. Defense should always be layered, with the ability to end the attack first and foremost.
Then facepalm.
Let me go over this again:
Offense wins -- you don't win if you don't score.
Offense isn't the perfect defense.
Defenses should be layered.
Defense will not win by itself.
Defense cannot replace a good offense, and a good offense can remove the need for being defensive.
Using football as an analogy what does every team want? To control the ball -- why? Because they can then score. Scoring is what wins -- you don't win if both teams have no score, you simply tie. Offense alone isn't perfect since you can't always be on the offense -- so you need a good defense -- how do you have a good defense? You layer it -- why? So you have a better chance of recovering the ball and the offensive position -- why? Because the other team has a harder time scoring while you are on the offensive, meaning being on the offensive is a great defense and what you want to do as much as you can.
Anyone that can't understand why offense is the best defense should stay out of wars, politics, science and any field that requires thought.
|
|
Read my post again think about what you said, particularly in light of this line:
-- so again while a good offense is an equally good defense, and is often the best defense it is not the perfect defense. Defense should always be layered, with the ability to end the attack first and foremost.Then facepalm.
Let me go over this again:
Offense wins -- you don't win if you don't score.
Offense isn't the perfect defense.
Defenses should be layered.
Defense will not win by itself.
Defense cannot replace a good offense, and a good offense can remove the need for being defensive.Using football as an analogy what does every team want? To control the ball -- why? Because they can then score. Scoring is what wins -- you don't win if both teams have no score, you simply tie. Offense alone isn't perfect since you can't always be on the offense -- so you need a good defense -- how do you have a good defense? You layer it -- why? So you have a better chance of recovering the ball and the...
thats funny... when a defensive linemen sacs a quarterback in the end zone... he was offensive? it didnt score points? it requires a "perfect defense"?
now go ahead face palm yourself for assuming that
a. i was referring to a ball recovery
b. assuming that you know jack about football.
so if you get your head out of your ass, understand that i was joking, and get off the forums and live a life for a while i think you would be a much better person as a result.
Not at all -- he was defensive -- a failed offense doesnot a defense make -- it just means you sucked at offense and the other guy is lucky.
Sure you know the positions -- the problem is the war theory behind it that seems to lack.
As Robert Heinlein once said, "It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another — but which one? Differences are crucial."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can stop yourself from getting properly hit (say distance or superior tactics, good planning and nice builds) and slowly inflict damage on the enemy, you can win while being defensive. Score slowly while shutting down their scoring.
Now, not copping some damage is quite rare, but if you are playing a defensive game, not taking the offence, but doing relatively more than the offensive player because they are being hindered, then you can win without an offensive strategy (since tactics are being mentioned and bandied about as if we are Sun Tzu here, let's really talk about tactics).
An example from a game comes to mind. Two players, in a small fort with zombies outside. One player left the horse outside, their means of escape. The horse loving player grabs axe and tries to kill the other. Axe attack is far offensively superior, but misses (just). Attacked player slams into the other, with a grapple. Now the axe-wielding pc, cannot axe the defensive grappler because it is not a light weapon and they are in a grapple. Over many rounds, the axe character could not get a clear shot, did break grapple a few times, but was always kept in control (just). The grappler inflicted low amounts of damage on the axe-wielder and eventually won. They won in two ways, winning the combat and not getting hit. This was not offence, but brilliant defence.
Reading what you are typing spalding, you are insisting you must attack and take the offence to win, you must attack that is true, but you have to be careful of over-emphasis. You do not have to pursue an offensive strategy to win.
Spald, some of your sentences are also getting quite hard to read. The grammar seems off, e.g. "the problem is the war theory behind it that seems to lack" "meaning being on the offensive is a great defense and what you want to do as much as you can". Please check what you write, so that we can clearly understand you. We want to exchange and compare thoughts after all.
For D&D there is also another thing to note that came to mind. In high-magic games, players can layer on the protective cake quite easily. The items can compensate for their weaknesses, they can emphasise offence via their character build and hope the rings, cloaks and other enchantments save the day. Now this is not as sure as designing a solid defence character and merging that with the magical defenses, but it allows offence and defence, which is what I think you are proposing--keep the defences as high as possible through stuff, go on the attack.
A few problems here. At low levels or in a low-magic setting there really are less of these protections around. If a character is low in defence, it will show. The hits will come in, it will be very messy. If you are not covered in magical enchantments, as you charge Robin Hood, as he sights you up and if you lose initiative, that charge is going to be a short one. Offence without much defence crucially needs the initiative to force a quick resolution.
Secondly, if it is high-magic or the player has the loot-wagon of protection, and is relying on those items for ac/high saves while pursuing a strategy of attack, this is very vulnerable to being taken away and the weak true defence of the character exploited. Anti-magic, sundering armour or items, that high ac can be dropped real quick. A defensive character with sunder and good mobility can really make that type of character pay. You attack, they wait, they take defences of the offensive character away, you hurt them, they retreat (with speed or magic), both heal, they come back, it becomes an unfavourable situation of attrition. Attrition is a defensive strategy in the face of superior offence. Skirmishers can be very deadly over time.
The great news about builds such as dodge, expertise characters, or toughness, die-hard, or great save build (stack the great fort, will etc) is that in anti-magic zones or separated from their magical defences, they can still keep themselves alive and have a solid defence available, in ac, hp or saves. Their defence comes from themselves, not items. They therefore always have it available.
The one gentleman posting about defensive values:
This is the idea of Defense = Damage Reduction and AC = Miss chance. A lot of people like the 'realism' of armor reducing the power of a hit.
However, in a game, mathematically, there's no difference in the end result if someone hits someone 50% of the time for 10 points, or hits someone with DR 5 100% of the time. They average out to the same damage over time.
If you've ever compared Warhammer to d20, this becomes obvious.
I had a Targeteer with a 95% hit chance with a longbow, but you can only do base str 3 hits with a longbow, so basically I was generally only doing damage on 3-6 on a d6, or higher.
Guys swinging melee weapons were doing Str6 or 7 hits, but they had 50% hit chances.
Because I hit every time, I actually did as much damage per shot as they did, and had better chances of rolling that 6 for an exploding die.
When you start doing that, and going through the math of things, you realize how it all comes together in DoT.
Granted, at high levels, you need large amounts of DR to compensate for the fact you'll get hit more often. It's generally just easier and faster to use AC.
The problem with using AC for and against players in d20 is more a case of stat inflation. With unlimited stats and multiple bonuses, it's easy to game both AC and TH rolls to far higher then intended. One of the reasons for 4E was to get this inflation back under control (they took away most stat boosting, and there's an effective stat cap of 30ish).
==Aelryinth
Back to football:
A defensive blitz is very offensive, and in my play experience found the most aggressive people were usually defenders.
An offensive lineman is very defensive on a pass play.
Some defenders cover back, others charge, and others 'contain' (keep the offense (ball carrier) within a parameter, so that they can't evade defense)(In PF, equate this to debuffing/dimensional anchor/controller).
Sometimes offense has areas to defend (QB pocket, runner, etc.) and will collapse without that defense. (Spellcaster, or runner might be DPR machine who needs protection.)
But some PF players are going for the long bomb every play. Yes, if you can't be taken off the field (unlike football), you'll score lots, but you're also more prone to failure. Or worse, an interception (death/TPK).
But the opponent in PF is also playing offense, and unless you stop them, you'll be scored on, a lot. And that hurts. It makes for a high gamble game (2-minute offense style), which is, in the long run, against a PC's/better team's interests.
Back to real football,
The standby tactics of most teams are either quick strike passes or punishing runs, fairly high percentage, low gain, but enough for those 1st downs. A lot of high-offense powerhouse teams don't make it very far. Some subpar teams have top notch offenses, but not as many have top notch defense. Great defense is considered crucial for playoff-level games, and more teams go further with a high-D, mid-O, than a high-O, mid-D.
And some of the DPR machines don't even have mid-D.
Keep the Will up.
Apologies for quoting myself, but...
In summation,
Offense is the best defense when facing great offense.
Defense is the best defense when facing poor offense.
Which I think sums up what most posters have been saying, but with opinions based on different playing XP as to where the "average encounter" lies between great & poor offense.
I say it varies every encounter, and so should your tactics.
Oh, and let's all be polite. Argue to learn, not to win.
I'd be surprised if some of those posts don't get gninja'ed out.
d, not having magic, but still makes a very dangerous enemy if you're just an aristocrat. They have higher and more varied social skills and probably...
"even a fairly large nation should hesitate to try to enforce their laws against someone who can turn into an air elemental and may come back as a tiny bird with contagion prepared."
See that's just it, as a dangerous criminal from my perspective as the DM, the authorities would most certainly want to bring them to justice. An attack against law-abiding citizens demands a harsh response. If outsiders with power are breaking your law, that is bad for the kingdom, for reputations, for law and order, for keeping the peace (since the peace is being broken by someone who hit level 9+ and doesn't feel the laws apply to them anymore).
Osama Bin Ladin went well over a decade between the Cole bombing and his death. That's a guy with non-casting NPC class levels only but Clinton wasn't willing to deal with him over an act very similar to the one that once triggered the Spanish American War.
High level casters are more like nations in their own right. Justice never came for Josef Stalin or Francisco Franco or Tamerlane. Not in this world. For that matter George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were never hanged in London for treason. Oliver Cromwell was eventually hanged for regicide, but they had to exhume him to do so.
Little nations, but little nations with big threats. Kim Jong Il could get away with what Saddam Hussein couldn't because he had artillery pointing at Seoul. Contagion is like artillery pointing at Seoul.
Can't agree, even powerful wizards do not have the power of significant nations. Spells are all well and good, but have to be on the ground, in the sky, somewhat nearby for so many of them. Getting close to targets makes them vulnerable, while casting, after casting when it is the oppositions initiative, and when they run out of spells to cast. Nations have manpower, a person has themselves. One against many, a wizard, even a powerful one, will run out of spells against numerous spread out, attacking opponents. I've seen significantly powerful spellcasters burn through their best in but a few rounds. Great conjurers eventually run out of things to summon and attack, invokers run out of attack and damage spells, enchanters can make new lackies but can be attacked and driven off. It is a good thing wizards do not have the power of nations, because no character is an army unto themselves. I've seen players think they are tough and can take armies, but it unsurprisingly doesn't go well. They mow down the levies, the poor quality soldiers, but a group of level 4s or 6s (elites) ruins their day.
Osama bin Laden and modern tech are off the table in most games, unless you are playing d20 modern: the bin Laden Chronicles. In using the bin Laden example you've got to acknowledge, he did not appear on the ground at the towers and cast meteor storm. Bin Laden isn't a dnd wizard, he was a bard. :P
Other important points also come into play. Powerful wizards have access to a lot of coin, but so much of their wealth gets spent on personal enhancements, magic items and not on magnifying their power through others. Spellcasters get very selfish and want the bonuses for themselves, not an army of others to take their glory.
A solo wizard starting a fight in a city which gets larger and larger as the crimes pile up, is very close to the action, in range of bows, charging opponents, other skilled individuals. He is surely mighty, but who was mighty in this city when he was learning his first spell? Who is the senior cleric/wizard/fighter/rogue/assassin/barbarian? Are they senior in power to the wizard? What if they are allied against a single foe, what is their power then?
I've seen a high level dread necromancer in one game, try to take on all of Korvosa and prevent his execution (for assassination and conspiracy). The elite ranger guard brought him in alive, when he tried to escape his sentence, just some of the heroes of the city offed him. The protectors of the city took care of it, and they had a lot of powerful individuals in reserve, old guard as it were, along with the troops and members of other factions that could also interfere with the necromancer's plans.
Run by a player, the necromancer with WES vastly over-estimated his offensive prowess and under-estimated how much "soak" a city has. I was playing one of the defenders, Stavrogin the fighter/barb/berserker. I lost a lot of hp, passed some saves, chopped him down.
Yeah I've seen that pobbes. Mr attack facing the big bad, jumps in, they trade blows, pc gets curb-stomped, the rest wrap up. After all, if the CR is around the players level or above, they are fit to fight an entire party of players. One big hitter is just the first meaty entree if the CR is quite high.
Also, going on the attack can be great if you rush in with a crit x3, powerful/spirited charge/pounce, but running up to an enemy allowing them to full round you, can be nasty.
Push your ac high enough, and you can even seriously discourage a DM from attacking your character specifically. Best in parties of four or higher. "Don't look at me, go for him!"
Offence has significant advantages when paired with a great stealth and surprise.
Chattering nobles are a political problem, to be delt wit politicly.
"Your Majesty, Your courtiers were quite rude to me and now Im far to distraught to rescue your daughter."
translation: As part of my payment, punish these people I don't like.
If we are talking a large kingdom or state, yeah, there are powerful characters around. There were people striving, getting better and getting into powerful positions before the young pcs took up their quests. Who do you think raises dead pcs? What of veteran combatants or bounty hunters, that have been in multiple wars, fought many a foe?
If a territory has had a lot of fighting and conflict, and they've been pretty successful, there will be elite combatants around. The larger you are talking, the more members of higher levels you would find. How many powerful individuals are in Korvosa? What about Molthune, Cheliax, Tian?
These mighty individuals will already have commitments, allegiances (that might not be to the king per se, see clergy), jobs putting it simply. But if the city is attacked by a wizard, if everything they have built is threatened with ruin, well the adventurers of yesteryear are going to be pissed. I like adding generations into my games, the players are great, but crucially, they aren't the greatest there ever was, and some of those old greats might still be around.
On kings and adventurers, sometimes it can be just simpler to hire skilled outsiders and pay in coin. Especially if delicate and you don't want to empower factions within the state. That is, as long as these outsiders don't attack your political elites and burn down your city.
Do not attack before knowing who will man the defences.
It's real simple. Don't let yourself get arrested. Contingency gets you out. Once out you use charm monster and the good old fashioned promise of loot to gather a mob. Wall of Stone makes a siege ramp. Wind Wall stops archers on the walls. Trolls with elemental resistance would probably make a good vanguard if any are handy, but plain old hasted bandits will do.
Oh, and take another look at fireball. Flammable things catch fire. Dry grain waiting for harvest is flammable and the fire will spread.
Magic isn't modern technology, but it can still do terrible things, and the victims don't have modern technology either.
It takes a high level caster or high level character specialized in killing casters to put down a high level caster. If the king had high level subjects why would he be calling on outside help in the first place?
I agree with the part on specialized to put down spell casters but the level doesn't have to be high in regards to the spellcaster. Seen a CR 10 fighter who got hit by will save and passed. Walked up to the mage and single handedly killed him. Player was controlling the mage and his character was CR 14. Hard hitter plus mageslayer feat = "don't let him close". Or the abjurer who throws reciprocal gyre on the enemy wizards. Oh, the enemy mage currently has 6 spells currently functioning since he buffed himself before the combat. Make a will save vs 6d12 damage. Then its a fort save vs dazed if you fail. Or it could be a rogue who stealths up to the spellcaster and backstabs him. Initiative starts and if the rogie goes before the caster, its another potential sneak attack. One of the coolest parties I've seen specialised in that. Two rogue knife-fighting grapplers, one monk grappler and one barbarian/swashbuckler grappler. They all had stealth. The rogues grapple and shiv, the monk tries to put in the earth's embrace, The barbarian swashbuckler combines anger and insightful strike in his grapple. They all tailored their characters as a party and not just individually. It worked, to very devastaing effects.
In a contest of offence versus offence, if a high level wizard doesn't have the protections up and a lower level ranger archer shows up and wins initiative, arrows can blossom.
Then there is always the top in PES (Player Entitalment Syndrome).
After the Wiz spells the Twits. Around the corner strolls a female cloaked figure, who pauses to look over the situation. Swirling back her Cloak of Many Enchantments she looks to the Wizard and says. "While that was kind of funny, you are not a nice man. I've taken an intrest in this Kingdom and hearing so much about you I summoned you so that I could see what you were like. Change them back now, and say your sorry and I'll let it pass."
The Wizard, having a bad case of WES (Wizard Ent. Syndrome), let's this lady have it right in the kisser (Best Defense after all is a good Offense - and this is his "Big Gun"), his best one shot kill spell... and there's not even a spark as a result.The lady swings back the cloak, and brushes a lock of hair from her face, revealing a face of stunning beauty, a body found only in daydreams encased in armor studded with saphires, more than a kings ransom in jewels twinkle in a light all their own, and she rests her hand on a sword set with a diamond the size of a hen's egg as the pummel. A soft throuty laugh escapes her, and her smile lights the room. "If you leave now - perhaps I might let you go. I'd rather not get my outfit soiled."
The Wizard blinks and makes the wrong assumption. "What goddess are you?"
The musical laugh would make the heavens catch thier breath.
"Silly man! I'm not just devine! I'm the DM's wife!"
Wait, he used a save or die in this story?
Or was a nuke (save/damage)?Because what wizard thinks he is all that and blasts?
Then there is always the top in PES (Player Entitalment Syndrome).
After the Wiz spells the Twits. Around the corner strolls a female cloaked figure, who pauses to look over the situation. Swirling back her Cloak of Many Enchantments she looks to the Wizard and says. "While that was kind of funny, you are not a nice man. I've taken an intrest in this Kingdom and hearing so much about you I summoned you so that I could see what you were like. Change them back now, and say your sorry and I'll let it pass."
The Wizard, having a bad case of WES (Wizard Ent. Syndrome), let's this lady have it right in the kisser (Best Defense after all is a good Offense - and this is his "Big Gun"), his best one shot kill spell... and there's not even a spark as a result.The lady swings back the cloak, and brushes a lock of hair from her face, revealing a face of stunning beauty, a body found only in daydreams encased in armor studded with saphires, more than a kings ransom in jewels twinkle in a light all their own, and she rests her hand on a sword set with a diamond the size of a hen's egg as the pummel. A soft throuty laugh escapes her, and her smile lights the room. "If you leave now - perhaps I might let you go. I'd rather not get my outfit soiled."
The Wizard blinks and makes the wrong assumption. "What goddess are you?"
The musical laugh would make the heavens catch thier breath.
"Silly man! I'm not just devine! I'm the DM's wife!"
Wait, he used a save or die in this story?
Or was a nuke (save/damage)?Because what wizard thinks he is all that and blasts?
Ha ha, all that blasts, I like that. Mmm, yes offensive invocation heavy wizards can be really shut down by great reflex save rogues ("Why won't you die!!!" "Evasion lol"). And if the wiz is some type of enchanter or polymorph chap, and the rogue draws a potion and goes invisible, well good luck picking the target.
Welcome to Shiveria, it is a delightful kingdom.
|
Things you learn as you studdy tactics.
There is no victory in defending only in attacking.
(You can only win in attacking.)
Attacking with out victory first is defeat.
(Have a clear path to win befor you attack.)
TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS
Security against defeat implies defensive tactics;
ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.
The general who is skilled in defense hides in the
most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in
attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven.
Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves;
on the other, a victory that is complete.
My definitions:
Offense: Anything that causes your enemies to be defeated sooner.
Defense: Anything that helps your party survive the battle longer.
So offense includes inflicting damage, and casting 'Bless'. Defense includes obvious things like healing, but also blinding an enemy (because blinding reduces their chance of hitting you.)
Many actions contribute to both offense and defense; for example, summoning a monster inflicts damage, but also gives your enemies someone else to attack.
Using your resources for offense probably has a tendency to be more effective. A sword-and-shield fighter with massive AC is hard to kill, but often a party is only as tough as its weakest point, whether that's a low-AC wizard or a weak will save. A mid-level party that can inflict 250hp damage in the first round is unlikely to need much defense, and tend to use less spells in a single battle. But there can't be an absolute rule when GM psychology is involved. If you win every battle within two rounds, they may respond by giving your enemies an extra 500hp to keep things interesting. They rarely do this with parties who spend half the battle buffing and healing.
Dear fellow gamers,
I want to discuss a prevalent opinion on these boards that says "Offense is the best defense".
So, does your actual gaming experience back up the assertion that "offense is the best defense"?
Yes offense is indeed the best defense. Look at it this way: If a group of characters faces a final battle with a set of bad guys then the best possible defense is to limit the number of attacks your opponent can make. Every opponent your side drops reduces the number of attacks the enemy can launch. It is in the first casualties of the fight where the whole fight is won or lost. If one side can wipe out the other sides DPSers early then the rest of the fight becomes a cake walk.
PS : Sorry if someone else may have pointed this out already, I am entering the debate late.
Things you learn as you studdy tactics.
There is no victory in defending only in attacking.
(You can only win in attacking.)
Attacking with out victory first is defeat.
(Have a clear path to win befor you attack.)** spoiler omitted **
I am glad Sun Tzu is on the table, but you spelled "study" incorrectly.
I like a great attack, but a defender attacking from a strong defensive position with significant advantages will often claim victory against a strong attacker. Protecting against defeat and striking out, wearing the opponent down because their defensive is weak and they are too offensively focused, is personally what I consider best. Pobbes said something similar. Sun Tzu was a master, all agree, but security against defeat isn't all bad. In dnd, dwarves are quite good at digging in, playing the defensive war game, and their dwarven defenders most certainly can score wins. Focused decent attacks paired with a strong defensive strategy an beat the hefty attacker smashing against shield and ranks, but dying on polearm and axe.
Dnd with its magical healing and rest periods distorts the answer. It is known that dms will often allow spellcasters low on spells to rest, or a situation will temporarily become safe for 8+1 hours of memorisation/praying. If offence is allowed to quickly recover its exhausted strength it will always seem the best. Hit hard, hit hard, rest, repeat. But if a defender sticks round, takes the hits, exhausts the attackers power and capabilities and then follows the withdrawing attackers, this is a very good situation for the defender (now a following defender trying to end it, or going on the attack). Whether it is dwarven infantry following offensive spellcasters out of spells and their injured support, or a high ac mobile attack force, defence that holds and lasts while steadily inflicting some damage and draining resources, wins.
Yeah, strategy discussions are great.
A greataxe swing isn't so great, if you dodge the hit and shut the two-hander down with a grapple. Something I've seen happen in game.
Liking maneuvers how they were, I didn't change that from 3.5 to PF. I didn't want to make them harder, they are definitely a part of defensive play.
E.g. I disarm and intimidate. Or disarm, grab with free hand and run away with weapon (hopefully the party can now ambush that attacker).
Mm, it depends on your definition of offence and defence. Defensive tactics and strategies do include attacking, responding, maneuvering. The dodge, receive charge, go to grapple puts you on the defensive, but on the defensive with a plan to take away the power of the offence.
Defence gets a lot worse that assault, the Parthian shot, riding away from an attack and shooting backwards and into their front (ideally over shield and into face) is a defensive tactic. A shield-wall or pike wall is defence. Holding castle walls is defence--you are the defender.
There are some that think offence is always attacking and defence is never attacking, but it's more complicated than that. Holding actions with a longspear, letting a swordsman close, then taking the attack of opportunity and retreating (to possibly take it again with combat reflexes) is a defensive strategy. They attack, you receive, you attack trying to stop the attack.
Fencing is the art of defence. Against fencers some are more offensive, aggressive, and some let attacks come, step back and stop hit, defend until the opponent is tired and then turn the tables.
Joined at the hip of strategy, the spine of tactics, and at the head to seize the moment.
Useful grapple may be, but I have a hard time considering it defensive.If doing something outside a dojo would get you arrested for assault it's not defensive.
Unless you are in Florida.
If doing something outside a dojo would get you arrested for assault it's not defensive.
Bah, licking someone (deals no damage) is assault (offensive?) (no really it was in paper that a guy arrested for assaulting a girl since he licked her; come on, she wasn't even hurt. I could see harrassment but not assault).
So whether it is a crime doesn't make it offensive/defensive.
If doing something outside a dojo would get you arrested for assault it's not defensive.
Bah, licking someone (deals no damage) is assault (offensive?) (no really it was in paper that a guy arrested for assaulting a girl since he licked her; come on, she wasn't even hurt. I could see harrassment but not assault).
So whether it is a crime doesn't make it offensive/defensive.
That's sexual assault. Don't confuse matters.