Two Combat situations, PFS GM needing guidance


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

If two PCs are fighting and one is using full defense and the other isn't what kind of knowledge check should the NPC get to recognize the PC's defense situation? Would it be automatic? or perhaps a DC 10 Intelligence check? Rules don't cover this and would like to get some ideas.

Second question.

Creature has a move rate of 20 and moves to attack the PCs who are 15 feet away. On the PCs turn the wizard asks if the creature moves at a rate 30 or faster. (No knowledge check was made BTW.)

It would seem that based on how fast the creature moved up the wizard might have an idea on how fast the creature can move, but I don't want to just give him the 20 move rate. Thoughts here?

Thanks all!

Shadow Lodge

I would not have an NPC with any class levels make a check to determine if an opponent was taking the total defense action.

If there was no knowledge check from the PC then no information would be given. They would have to wait and see.


First question: In a combat situation, I don't think an NPC would be able to figure out if someone is using total defense. After all, that NPC has less than 6 seconds to figure that out. What the NPC would know is which of the PCs attacked him that round.
Also, take a look at the NPC's tactics. Would one of the PCs count as a "primary target" for that NPC? Then attack that PC, whether he is using total defense or not. If there's no such thing as a primary choice of target, I'd say an NPC would attack whoever hurt him most.

Second question: Same opinion as Eric. Without a knowledge check, a PC has no idea of a creature's speed. In real life, it's also difficult to watch someone walk 15 ft. and then know how fast that person could walk a longer distance. And being engaged in combat doesn't make this any easier.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

I suggest looking at it from the player side.

1 - Should your GM tell you when an NPC enters full defense?

2 - Should your GM be told your character has a 35' movement (due to fleet) after you move 30 feet one round?

Depending on how you answer those questions, I think you have the answer to your own questions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would definitely describe it when an NPC goes into a total defense with something like "The warrior adopts a wide defensive stance and is no longer menacing you with her sword". After all, a total defense means they are so focused on defense that they can't even take AoOs. I wouldn't give the meta-game description though.

Grand Lodge

Well, on Wednesday's game I did let the players know the ooze was moving pretty slow, even though they didn't have a knowledge check. This was after they saw it move and attack. I think a 10 move would be picked up on pretty easy. As far as the full defense, I assume as soon at the NPC makes one attack it becomes pretty clear the PC is defending. At that point I could see the NPC move on the other squishier PCs behind the fighter and take no AOO, but even then he would have to notice the difference between partial and full defense.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Drogon wrote:

I suggest looking at it from the player side.

1 - Should your GM tell you when an NPC enters full defense?

2 - Should your GM be told your character has a 35' movement (due to fleet) after you move 30 feet one round?

Depending on how you answer those questions, I think you have the answer to your own questions.

1 - I generally say something like, "the guard moves up and draws his shield into a defensive position." I assume that PCs are aware what a total defense action looks like given that the same options are available to them. It's like an experienced swordsman properly identifying the stance of his opponent.

2 - Players should always tell their GM why they are doing something that's out of the norm, like moving slightly faster.

I don't know where the mentality of "players versus the GM" (not yours Drogon, by any means) seems to come from, but I really dislike it. Pathfinder is a cooperation between the GM and the players, and playing coy about your character's abilities with your GM makes literally no sense to me.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Drogon wrote:

I suggest looking at it from the player side.

1 - Should your GM tell you when an NPC enters full defense?

2 - Should your GM be told your character has a 35' movement (due to fleet) after you move 30 feet one round?

Depending on how you answer those questions, I think you have the answer to your own questions.

1 - I generally say something like, "the guard moves up and draws his shield into a defensive position." I assume that PCs are aware what a total defense action looks like given that the same options are available to them. It's like an experienced swordsman properly identifying the stance of his opponent.

Agreed. And players can offer the same description. Usually they like to do a "gotcha" move as much as any GM may, though. "Hah! Didn't know I had combat reflexes, did you? AoO to the face!"

A wrinkle to throw at you, however: why should the wizard know what an experienced swordsman's stance looks like?

Walter Sheppard wrote:
2 - Players should always tell their GM why they are doing something that's out of the norm, like moving slightly faster.

But moving 30' in a round is NOT out of the norm, so why should they say something? Answer: see point number 1.

Walter Sheppard wrote:
I don't know where the mentality of "players versus the GM" (not yours Drogon, by any means) seems to come from, but I really dislike it. Pathfinder is a cooperation between the GM and the players, and playing coy about your character's abilities with your GM makes literally no sense to me.

Me, too. I miss the days of description and flavor, as that was all you could do to sound cool. Now, "All three attacks hit AC 24 or better. Do I miss with any? No? Great. Take 120 points of damage and I'm smiting, so no DR," is cool enough to hear that description has lost its place in the game. Makes me sad more than upset, though

Liberty's Edge

In the first instance ask yourself if the creature would care. If it is mindless, then randomly choose, if it has intelligence, even animal cunning, then weight the choice towards the one being more threatening. Defensive stances are obviously less threatening than power attacking rage charges. A general rule of thumb is attack the PC who did the most hurt until it stops doing the hurt or until your tactics let you run away.

I had a situation like this a while ago and I told the player that it moves at least 10' per round, based on its last move. They failed their kowledge checks, so no one knew what they were fighting. He wasn't pleased with the answer, but moved 35' away just to be safe. The fighter disengaged for reasons I forget and on the random roll it charged the PC (sorcerer I think). After a few minutes of recriminations, we got on with the game.

Dark Archive

Mark Seifter wrote:
I would definitely describe it when an NPC goes into a total defense with something like "The warrior adopts a wide defensive stance and is no longer menacing you with her sword". After all, a total defense means they are so focused on defense that they can't even take AoOs. I wouldn't give the meta-game description though.

The issue I have with this approach is that a player who knows the combat section back to front instantly knows what that means, and a brand new player has to do the mental gymnastics or open up their rulebook.

If you're willing to hint that an NPC is going full defence, you should also be willing to outright tell a player who might not know what your description means.


My 2 cents:
1) I don't see why the total defense should not be recognizable: after all, in his round he don't attack and is clearly more cautious. So I'd say it without problems.
2) this is a call for a knowledge check.


Mergy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would definitely describe it when an NPC goes into a total defense with something like "The warrior adopts a wide defensive stance and is no longer menacing you with her sword". After all, a total defense means they are so focused on defense that they can't even take AoOs. I wouldn't give the meta-game description though.

The issue I have with this approach is that a player who knows the combat section back to front instantly knows what that means, and a brand new player has to do the mental gymnastics or open up their rulebook.

If you're willing to hint that an NPC is going full defence, you should also be willing to outright tell a player who might not know what your description means.

Well if they might not know what total defense means by its name either, whereas my description tells them the two things they need to know (that it isn't threatening, and that it has upped its defense).


IMO
1- full defense should be easily recognized.
2- an exact number, no. But after it has moved, a general "It seems to be moving slower than you, maybe as fast as a halfling" would be appropriate without a knowledge check. Maybe use a perception check. That is assuming the creature is not trying to fake being slower.


For something like full defense, it is probably (but not always) obvious from the stance.

If the opponent is actively trying to hide their stance, they're attempting a Bluff versus the player's Sense Motive. Knowledge skills don't really cover this sort of thing, but it's part and parcel for Bluff/Sense Motive.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Combat situations, PFS GM needing guidance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.