Pretty much all of it.I disagree with Zen Archer is "best archer". Best how? Attack roll? Damage? DPR? Defensive? AC? Saves? Out of combat abilities? Etc.Yes, because shooting into melee is such a wonderful idea. (Even if you've got precise shot, you'll still have to overcome cover.)Unless you are a Zen Archer, of course. It's pretty sad that Monks make the best archers, but they do.
Sorry, that’s impossible. 10000 posts can’t be wrong, can they? = “Monks r the suxxors”.
|
I'm thinking it might actually be fun to play in a party where the whole party is committed to a "no melee" tactic. When the party has a lot of tricks to actually make sure the monsters can't get close; everyone knows when to withdraw to a safe distance, so that the entire party becomes one big kite. (Add wall, pit and fog spells as well as summoned monsters, and everyone having good movement rates.)
"Horse Archer" and other extremely high-mobility concepts tend to be lackluster when half the party can't keep up with you, but if everyone can, then it might be a very novel experience.
|
Any thoughts on how to address this stereotype in-game?Just play the game.
Either they learn how to handle combat without one, or their characters die.
Pretty much this. While you're at it, throw in some smart fighters that take advantage of the terrain so they don't allow the party the range they love so much, and chew them up a few times.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which says something about the Monk's design. I don't know if Zen Archers make the best archers, but they're far and away the most effective Monks.
This is how I imagine it. "This is a monk. His gig is mobility, acrobatics, and unarmed strikes." "Great! Which one of those does he doe best?" "Standing still and shooting people with arrows." "..."
I looked over Porpentine's guide. I see a number of assumptions made that add up to a few problems. To avoid de-railing this thread more, I will post my objections there.
Ranger 2 (crossbow): “Hey, me too! Heck, I don’t even OWN a melee weapon.”
That guy won't last long... lol
Having a good amount of ranged attacks is never a bad card to have up your sleeve. However I can easily see that Line of Sight in dungeon corridors or dense forest disrupting some particular tactics for this group.
Not all is lost however. The Rangers can snag animal companions and the spellcasters can snag Summon Monster spells.
Get a shield, a full-plate or a breastplate with some dex and load up on feats like Dazzling Display and the Dirty Trick chain. Use intimidate and dirty trick to seriously debuff enemies. You could even make him a halfling and go for the racial defensive feats and tada, a guy with a ridiculous AC and fun offensive options.
.. or, if you're cool like me, play a hobgoblin and take the +4 intimidate racial trait. There's tons of options to play a front-liner who can do more than just 'I attack' :)
Just play it. See how long they can stay at range. Everyone plays what they want. Character death leads to lessons learned, mostly.
Get a shield, a full-plate or a breastplate with some dex and load up on feats like Dazzling Display and the Dirty Trick chain. Use intimidate and dirty trick to seriously debuff enemies. You could even make him a halfling and go for the racial defensive feats and tada, a guy with a ridiculous AC and fun offensive options.
.. or, if you're cool like me, play a hobgoblin and take the +4 intimidate racial trait. There's tons of options to play a front-liner who can do more than just 'I attack' :)
theres also some great performance combat stuff for intimidation builds as well (such as dramatic display, hero's display, with masterful display to do both at once! pairs quite well with shatter defenses and a cruel/ominous weapon later)--scare the pants off of them, with style!
actually some gladiatorial combat may do this party some good--closed arena with cover, full of spectators who will boo them into submission for constantly running away, against a team of various gladiator fighters.
Over the years, I've seen unbalanced parties that were great fun to play. Their strengths and weaknesses pose a challenge for the players, as they try to reduce the effect of their vulnerabilities while making the most of their strengths.
A party without a meat shield has several options for addressing that weak point that don't force anyone to play characters they aren't in the mood to try. Their rangers can get trained animals to face their foes, casters can enthrall someone with enchantment or summon some creatures, or they can practice throwing down obstacles (fog, smoke, web, grease, caltrops, marbles, old furniture, etc.).
I object to the cliche that fighters aren't good for anything but standing still and swinging their swords. Pathfinder allows fighters so many feats and options that a "one trick pony" fighter really isn't using all the opportunities given him.
The best frontline fighter in our group is a Dwarf Inquisitor. He wears Full Plate. His Melee weapon is a Warhammer. His first ranged weapon was a crossbow. Over a few levels, he has made a couple of guns. The guy frequently buffs his character before combat and can get into combat quickly with Expeditious Retreat. All in all a well built Inquisitor is good for melee and ranged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they really want 'someone else' to play a fighter (and aren't just interested in a different combat methodology), let them hire a fighter. There's got to be a few of those around.
Then, make sure the fighter tells all the pretty girls how he held off all the bad guys and monsters while his wimpy little team-mates cowered in the back and picked them off at a distance.
Chicks dig scars.
To put this another way, if nobody in the party sees any value in being the front-line combatant, maybe you need to make sure that your campaign is rewarding the front line combatant. That reward can be social recognition, party appreciation, or in-game benefits ("Turns out that whoever strikes down the bad guy gets the special magical mark on the bad guy. Hunh.")
I'm not saying that you HAVE to have the meatshield. But if everyone wants somebody else to be the meatshield, then you do have a problem.
Let's call it NIM-HP (Not In My Hit Points).
I object to the idea that the party needs to be punished IC for not having the party balance the GM wants.
If the GM isn't going to be happy without a frontliner, to the point that he'll write encounters specifically to screw an all-range build, then skip it and just say you won't run it until someone changes.
Better that than trying to get cute and having enemies falling out of every tree you walk under.
Its entirely possible to have an effective party of 2 ranged rangers, a sorcerer, and a caster. UNLESS the GM decides to get pissy and design the game to prove a point.
The point he'll end up proving is that the GM can kill any party any time. Which is not really news.
Your job as a gm isnt to help them survive or to kill them off, or to tell them what to play or how to play. Your job is to try and make it fun.
Stick wtih that as best you can. The only way you'll get good at running campaigns for 'wierd parties' is practice. Practice away!
If the players are clever and are up to having things be a bit more of a challenge they should be able to adapt well enough without any front line combatants. Different tactics and such will be more useful and summoning spells from the casters should be a priority. The rogue might feel a bit (more) useless in combat as he will have more trouble getting flanking targets than he would with a real warrior in the group, but otherwise I think they can make it work.
Funnily enough, my current game has 4/6 of the PC's as front liners. We are rocking Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Synthesist/Ranger/Wizard. Things die very fast.
That guy won't last long... lol
Ranger 2 (crossbow): “Hey, me too! Heck, I don’t even OWN a melee weapon.”
Not really. A melee weapon is there if you get grappled and can't escape or you need to cut a rope, but besides that 5 foot step is pretty much all you'll ever need and then not even that once you get Snap Shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its entirely possible to have an effective party of 2 ranged rangers, a sorcerer, and a caster.
I love the fact that the sorcerer isn't considered a caster here. That's... really funny.
Its entirely possible to have an effective party of 2 ranged rangers, a sorcerer, and a caster.I love the fact that the sorcerer isn't considered a caster here. That's... really funny.
Doh! I meant to write cleric, not caster.
As a GM I wouldn't go easy on them, if they are not up to the job or can't adapt then that's thier problem. Real life doesn't take it easy on you if you are inept, I'll adapted, not flexible or under prepared.
As a player I would be hiring retainers or henchmen. Especially if I was the squishy spell caster. It would be good to have a couple of sword swinging brutes on my payroll if there was ever an argument over the division of treasure.
|
Not really. A melee weapon is there if you get grappled and can't escape or you need to cut a rope, but besides that 5 foot step is pretty much all you'll ever need and then not even that once you get Snap Shot.That guy won't last long... lol
Ranger 2 (crossbow): “Hey, me too! Heck, I don’t even OWN a melee weapon.”
Unless your opponent has step up. It also isn't good if they decide to sunder your bow.
1) The party should be looking for tasks/work that they can handle without needing a hulking melee brute. So maybe this particular adventure party would be wise not to explore tiny cramped dungeons.
2) The stereotype of the BSF will not be solved by giving them more skill-points, or picking some archetype. It will be solved when they see people playing fighters as something other than B and S.
3) One fun thing about APs is that they are party neutral. It is a set of predetermined adventures that any party can try to take on. So let the party see if it can deal with a story not made up by a GM who they feel might be trying to punish them for their bad opinions.
|
Speaking as a guy who plays the meat-shield fighter when he plays, I can understand why some people grumble about it.
I've played the tank. Its tough without a pull mechanic. In 3.5 they had the knight class, but he's good at pulling everything but whats actually useful and ironically is bad with dealing with hordes.
You mostly get fun out of watching your character 's AC climb into the stratosphere while still watching enemies whack you since attack bonuses outraces AC in PF and 3.5. On the upside, you also give the strikers the chance to strike, and the mages the chance to mage.
Where it gets tricky is when you're treated as a disposable meat puppet. I've died more times then anyone else in my 3.5 party by simple virtue of the fact I'm the one taking the blows. I'm the one shielding the bard from the dire tiger. I'm the one drawing aggro against the demon. I'm the one they send riding in to fight the iron golem.
Why is it still kind of fulfilling? I'm the brave one.
My Knight's predecessor, a mercenary minded fighter who ended up plane shifted to someplace dodgy was similar. He was the first one in and the last one out, and it took a lot, and I mean a lot of crap to put him down.
Endurance isn't flashy, but its effective.
And even Roy trained in the noble art of Standing In The Way Of Things 101
Doh! I meant to write cleric, not caster.Its entirely possible to have an effective party of 2 ranged rangers, a sorcerer, and a caster.I love the fact that the sorcerer isn't considered a caster here. That's... really funny.
Heh, that's fine. I do stuff like that all the time! But the choice of words leads to funny implications. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For once, FOR ONCE!, you can have an effective infiltration campaign in Pathfinder. All too often only 1 person in the classic four man band is specced for scouting, so they go off and inevitably they fail a check and face a threat designed for the entire party alone for several rounds/minutes. No matter how you build your character, being a scout in Pathfinder is a death sentence. It may take four encounters, it may take 20. My stealthy character's response to my party when they want me to scout is, humorously, "Me not expendable."
Don't make them get a clanky tank. Emphasize that they all have to maximize their strengths. Take stealth and perception, illusions and charms, and silent spell. Enjoy a campaign where the players are cunning and their characters can actually put those plans into action.
You as a DM have to incentivize this behavior. You cannot thwart every infiltration mission simply because it's easier for you to DM a dungeon crawl. You cannot make the "one blown check always has catastrophic consequences" mistake: it's bad storytelling. Given them chances to cover for mistakes... like every heist movie ever made.
You will know your success when one of your players quotes the A-Team: "I love it when a plan comes together."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To quote a wise man about taking risks, "Lady, you're my kind of stupid." I think that's the best way to understand fighters: they ARE the brave ones, the ones who go where angels fear to tread. They do it without divine support, advanced technology, or unknowable arcane power.
Fighters aren't ordinary. They're extraordinary.
The Rogue isn't going to do well without flankers, so could be switched to a Summoner. Have the Eidolon be the front liner.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although it'd be bad form to arbitrarily design encounters to exploit their self-imposed weakness, there's nothing wrong with having the baddies do just that!
If the baddies can see the party coming, or have prior knowledge somehow, then smart baddies will exploit their weaknesses.
Players do it all the time! Just ask yourself what a player party would do if they knew the target group had no melee warriors, and then do that!
This would be a believable and organic response to their foolishness, without being some kind of petty DM punishment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To quote a wise man about taking risks, "Lady, you're my kind of stupid." I think that's the best way to understand fighters: they ARE the brave ones, the ones who go where angels fear to tread. They do it without divine support, advanced technology, or unknowable arcane power.
Fighters aren't ordinary. They're extraordinary.
Fighters also have other advantages.
1.) "These people are opposed to wizards, we have to hide and..."
"I'll just use my sword."
2.) People tend to take people wearing huge suits of armor with big weapons seriously by default. Wizards always need to do something flashy, or have a good reputation.
3.) "Oh my God, we're in an antimagic zone we can't...'
"So my +17 attack bonus is only a +15 now without my weapon enhancements? I can deal."
4.) "We have to be careful. The overlord's guards don't know magic so we have to be careful and disguise ourselves..and their armor will probably interfere with some spellcasting.. Well, except for Throddik, he just has to use a different weapon."
"I've always wanted to try out a halberd."
and the all time favorites...
5.) "RUN! I'll hold them off!"
What’s funny is that you see just as Cleric, Sorc & Monk builds than Fighter builds who have dumped INT. Heck, and Sorc builds with dumped WIS too.
So, maybe it’s just been a couple of builds that went too far. Just don’t allow stat dumping and you’ll be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Build most of your encounters to make a fun fight for the party you have.
Nice, wide open spaces for the Sorcerer and both shooty types.
Make sure there's something fun for the rogue to do - opening locks, sneaking and coming back with information.
Stealth is one of those skills that's always going to be set by the least stealthy person in the group. You have a (potentially) stealthy group. Use it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actual advice from a GM who had this situation pop up a game recently. Despite wanting everyone to make characters together, the party balked and showed up for the adventure with no one knowing what the others made.
We had: a zen archer, a gunslinger, a ninja with a bow, and a cleric with a crossbow. (A magus joined later; imagine his surprise at being the only melee guy).
I did a few things:
1. Warned the party that they were going to half to adjust tactics. Monsters will get in their face, and they should be prepared for that.
2. Ran adventures as is.
It turned into a great learning experience for all of us, and led to the players adjusting tactics to suit what they had. They focussed on being more stealthy and having the ninja scout ahead so they could plan how to deal with an encounter. Usually the cleric buffs everyone prefight, everyone sneaks up to gain surprise, and they concentrate fire to take down nasty melee guys first. They all (well not the monk) began to carry melee weapons just in case. And they discovered the most important tactic that most adventurers never learn: RUN AWAY! Yes they have actually been planning how to escape from combat if things go south, and using said plan if they get in over their head!
With the addition of the magus, the tactics have morphed a bit, with the ninja discovering that he has a sword and sneak attack in melee is easier than ranged sneak attack. Generally now the cleric buffs, the zen archer and gunslinger shoot from a range, the magus closes for melee, and the ninja backstabs the magus' target. Working great so far.
What’s funny is that you see just as Cleric, Sorc & Monk builds than Fighter builds who have dumped INT. Heck, and Sorc builds with dumped WIS too.
So, maybe it’s just been a couple of builds that went too far. Just don’t allow stat dumping and you’ll be fine.
That's pretty unfair to classes that don't need only one stat to function, i.e. pretty much everything that's not a full caster.
Fighters also have other advantages.(...)
and the all time favorites...
5.) "RUN! I'll hold them off!"
Most famous death sentence/obituary EVER.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Followed immediately by, "Do you think they left his stuff there after they killed him?"
I play an BSF here on the PBP boards. He's a blast to play. A BSF doesn't have to grunt, and speak in monosyllables. He can joke, misunderstand things, and cause trouble. If you inject a little personality into them, it can be a lot of fun.