Which foes are stupid enough to not attack the casters first?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 720 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

The reason I asked my question is because I was trying to help answer the question about whether or not the enemy would attack the caster first. I realized that I was rather vague about the enemy classes (but they really are what I said they are: two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard) also I deliberately left out all the possible variants that can take place in an encounter (eg fighting in a narrow corridor, the fighters wearing magical golden armour, etc) to get you guys thinking. After all, to get the best understanding of this sort of thing, you need to enter 'GM' mode.

Scarab Sages

In GM mode, the first thing I have to take into account is the intelligence and foreknowledge of the NPC's. I also have to take into account how the party is arrayed. Typically, reaching the casters is a suicide mission for most melee NPC's.

Ironically, the NPC's that have the easiest time targeting PC casters are the NPC casters.


Have the casters wear mock armor and give the tanks glamered full plate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Bard wrote:
The reason I asked my question is because I was trying to help answer the question about whether or not the enemy would attack the caster first.

I recognize that -- and your question is helpful, because it's a pretty good demonstration that the premise of the question is value to the point of absurdity and unanswerability.

Quote:
I realized that I was rather vague about the enemy classes (but they really are what I said they are: two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard) also I deliberately left out all the possible variants that can take place in an encounter (eg fighting in a narrow corridor, the fighters wearing magical golden armour, etc) to get you guys thinking. After all, to get the best understanding of this sort of thing, you need to enter 'GM' mode.

Which is ultimately the answer. Smart opponents will do whatever is tactically advisable, and there's not enough information given to know what that is.

As you posed the question, I don't even know what my abilities are. If I'm an archery specialist, I can hit anyone I can see and can call in artillery strikes on the most dangerous opponent without regard to position. If I'm a melee specialist without pounce, it may be better for me to drop the person in front of me and then worry about the situation because everything will change in a round anyway. If I'm a skirmisher or ranged-lockdown expert, I will be more concerned about the chessboard itself and moving to a good tactical position than any specific person.

Similarly, I don't know what my teammates' abilities are; if I can expect the God wizard to summon a wall of meat in front of me, that's different than if I can expect some sort of hentai tentacle scene to erupt, and different yet from what the blaster-sorcerer would do with a dazing fireball.

Of course, it also depends on the tactical situation. If the wizard is invisible and I don't even know where he is, then I can't attack him regardless of how much I would like to. If the bard is floating thirty feet above my head, I'm not going to reach him with my greatsword. And if charging in is going to subject me to Trippy McTripson, Earl of Trippington, Tripshire and his Spear of Dragon Tripping,... perhaps charging is not the best move regardless of who's at the other end of the charge.

Which makes statements like "I attack the bard first" the statement of a fool, as I said. You really want to look at your cards before you decide whether to call, raise, or fold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jurassic Bard wrote:
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?

Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?

Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?

The point, of course, is that if you feel you can provide an answer to any of those questions, you're a fool.

Not really. The scenario in question has many missing details, but the general hierarchy of power for the enemies is well known.

Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dilvias wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?

Richard the third.

Quote:

Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?

I turn into a helicopter and fly to the airport.

Which raises the question... why are you FLYING to airport to go flying?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Dilvias wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?

Richard the third.

Quote:

Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?

I turn into a helicopter and fly to the airport.
Which raises the question... why are you FLYING to airport to go flying?

Who says I want to go to the airport to fly? I'm going there to pick up my friend, Herbert the talking slug.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dilvias wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Dilvias wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?

Richard the third.

Quote:

Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?

I turn into a helicopter and fly to the airport.
Which raises the question... why are you FLYING to airport to go flying?
Who says I want to go to the airport to fly? I'm going there to pick up my friend, Herbert the talking slug.

Oh! Well that is cool :) Did you remember to clean out the salted peanuts from the last flight?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jurassic Bard wrote:
The reason I asked my question is because I was trying to help answer the question about whether or not the enemy would attack the caster first. I realized that I was rather vague about the enemy classes (but they really are what I said they are: two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard) also I deliberately left out all the possible variants that can take place in an encounter ...

Too many variables.

All other things being equal?
If I only had 1 action?
I'd attack all of them with an AoE save or suck (like Mass Hold or Confusion) more likely to take one or more out and skew the action economy in my party's favor.

Sovereign Court

Rerednaw wrote:
Jurassic Bard wrote:
The reason I asked my question is because I was trying to help answer the question about whether or not the enemy would attack the caster first. I realized that I was rather vague about the enemy classes (but they really are what I said they are: two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard) also I deliberately left out all the possible variants that can take place in an encounter ...

Too many variables.

All other things being equal?
If I only had 1 action?
I'd attack all of them with an AoE save or suck (like Mass Hold or Confusion) more likely to take one or more out and skew the action economy in my party's favor.

Exactly! There are too many variables! So while it may be better to go for the soft but dangerous casters first, sometimes you just can't do it and so you need to come up with a new plan on the spot. :-)


DrDeth wrote:
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.

To you maybe, to most of the rest of us it remains laughably untrue to an almost comical degree.

Sovereign Court

chaoseffect wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jurassic Bard wrote:
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?

Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?

Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?

The point, of course, is that if you feel you can provide an answer to any of those questions, you're a fool.

Not really. The scenario in question has many missing details, but the general hierarchy of power for the enemies is well known.

Not just their relative offesive potential is important, but also their relative squishiness. Assuming he doesn't have any defenses up, you've got a pretty good shot of squishing the wizard down to -24hp with a single charge from Thog the Barbarian. The fighers, monk and (depending on build) the bard - not so much.

If he's got max defenses up - not so much.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.
To you maybe, to most of the rest of us it remains laughably untrue to an almost comical degree.

Your use if the word "most" is probably incorrect here.

Possibly "many" might work, but more likely "some" is a more accurate summary of how the real player base views classes in combat.

Don't fall into the misconception that 12 or so very vocal melee haters on these threads represent even a fraction of the player base, or a majority of the view points in this game.

For example, my experience with the hundreds of players I interact with is completely the opposite of what you state.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:


Not just their relative offesive potential is important, but also their relative squishiness. Assuming he doesn't have any defenses up, you've got a pretty good shot of squishing the wizard down to -24hp with a single charge from Thog the Barbarian. The fighers, monk and (depending on build) the bard - not so much.

That's a very important point Basically, what you want to do is to reduce their overall combat effectiveness as quickly as possible.

Taking two rounds to take one person out of the fight is often substantially worse than taking one round to take two people out of the fight. Even if all you can take out on the first round are the rogue and the monk, that means there are two less people in round 2 who can attack you, who can flank, who can block charge lanes, and who can take utility actions. If all you've done in the first round is 70% of the barbarian's hit points, then you've not actually impaired the opponents at all for round 2.

Of course, "reduce their overall combat effectiveness" doesn't come close to meaning "killing them." If I can stun the barbarian instead, that makes round 2 a lot easier even if he's still at full hit points.

Which, again, says that you shouldn't simply attack the caster -- you should attack the easiest target that will affect the opposition the most. Sometimes that's the caster, and sometimes that's the barbarian about to get his rage on.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
I'm sorry but this thread makes about as much sense as the "logic" behind trying to sunder a spellcaster's spellbook... it just reeks of GM meta-gamingand class punishing.

why would you sunder a spellbook, that just means they can't prepare spells tomorrow, now if they didn't take eschew materials, I can see an intelligent enemy (i.e.one who pays attention and knows the wizard has been using them) sundering a spell component pouch. But most enemies would also know that wouldn't stop them since many spells have no material component. Sundering the spell component pouch is something you do if you're trying to hamper the casters options, i.e. I'd expect that more from a rogue or other sneaky type in a group who does it at the start of an encounter and then moves on to other opportunity attacks like flanking etc. Not as a go to move in a combat. I can't think of a reason to ever sunder a spellbook unless you're fighting one of those new arcanists who are using a full round to study a book to change their spells and i would sunder it if I was fighting one because I would be afraid of what is worth taking the time when people are after you with knives to read a damn book.


lastknightleft wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
I'm sorry but this thread makes about as much sense as the "logic" behind trying to sunder a spellcaster's spellbook... it just reeks of GM meta-gamingand class punishing.
why would you sunder a spellbook, that just means they can't prepare spells tomorrow, now if they didn't take eschew materials, I can see an intelligent enemy (i.e.one who pays attention and knows the wizard has been using them) sundering a spell component pouch. But most enemies would also know that wouldn't stop them since many spells have no material component. Sundering the spell component pouch is something you do if you're trying to hamper the casters options, i.e. I'd expect that more from a rogue or other sneaky type in a group who does it at the start of an encounter and then moves on to other opportunity attacks like flanking etc. Not as a go to move in a combat. I can't think of a reason to ever sunder a spellbook unless you're fighting one of those new arcanists who are using a full round to study a book to change their spells and i would sunder it if I was fighting one because I would be afraid of what is worth taking the time when people are after you with knives to read a damn book.

well there are some people who like to use the whole "sunder a spellbook" thing as "balance" for casters...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
andreww wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.
To you maybe, to most of the rest of us it remains laughably untrue to an almost comical degree.

Your use if the word "most" is probably incorrect here.

Possibly "many" might work, but more likely "some" is a more accurate summary of how the real player base views classes in combat.

Don't fall into the misconception that 12 or so very vocal melee haters on these threads represent even a fraction of the player base, or a majority of the view points in this game.

For example, my experience with the hundreds of players I interact with is completely the opposite of what you state.

Mmm. Any character with a low will save is as much a threat to their own party as their enemy or even not at all. Will saves are just too save or TPK.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mortimer Magnus Monteque III wrote:
And yes, if a wizard walks around in a dunce cap with moons and stars on it and has a giant book at his side and 2-4 wands on his belt, assuming he is a wizard or sorcerer is justifiable.

Funnily enough, I'm creating a dwarf arcanist character who is doing just that because in his mind, what's the point of learning to bend the laws of time and space if people don't know you can do it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

lol or he could be a monk with really bad sense of style xD

Sovereign Court

Aratrok wrote:
Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo with Empowered Spell and Admixture is standard for blast wizards.

I've seen lots of blast casters (sorcerer and wizard) and I've never seen that combo in game

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
lol or he could be a monk with really bad sense of style xD

What kind of dwarf prances around without armor just to hit things, If I want to hit things I use my axe like a proper dwarf. But bending reality to my will, that's worth being a bit undwarf-like! Still what's the point if joe farmer just thinks I'm some dwarf who lost his armor in a bet? They've got to know I'm a master of magics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lastknightleft wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
I'm sorry but this thread makes about as much sense as the "logic" behind trying to sunder a spellcaster's spellbook... it just reeks of GM meta-gamingand class punishing.
why would you sunder a spellbook, that just means they can't prepare spells tomorrow, now if they didn't take eschew materials, I can see an intelligent enemy (i.e.one who pays attention and knows the wizard has been using them) sundering a spell component pouch. But most enemies would also know that wouldn't stop them since many spells have no material component. Sundering the spell component pouch is something you do if you're trying to hamper the casters options, i.e. I'd expect that more from a rogue or other sneaky type in a group who does it at the start of an encounter and then moves on to other opportunity attacks like flanking etc. Not as a go to move in a combat. I can't think of a reason to ever sunder a spellbook unless you're fighting one of those new arcanists who are using a full round to study a book to change their spells and i would sunder it if I was fighting one because I would be afraid of what is worth taking the time when people are after you with knives to read a damn book.

You know that takes on a whole new level of scary with the mystic path abilities (assuming your using them). Mystic has a few options for casters to wear armour and an ability that let's you prepare spells from memory with no need for a spellbook. So the the guy in full plate does nothing for a round to rearrange his spell selection from memory.

The Exchange

Scavion wrote:
Wrath wrote:
andreww wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.
To you maybe, to most of the rest of us it remains laughably untrue to an almost comical degree.

Your use if the word "most" is probably incorrect here.

Possibly "many" might work, but more likely "some" is a more accurate summary of how the real player base views classes in combat.

Don't fall into the misconception that 12 or so very vocal melee haters on these threads represent even a fraction of the player base, or a majority of the view points in this game.

For example, my experience with the hundreds of players I interact with is completely the opposite of what you state.

Mmm. Any character with a low will save is as much a threat to their own party as their enemy or even not at all. Will saves are just too save or TPK.

Then learn to protect agains it. It's really easy. Especially in a group.

Way finder and ioun stone combo if your group can't protect you from domination effects.

However, to explore your point of view a different way. Most enemies you fight won't be protected against your party using this tactic against them. But the ones that are capable of targeting the caster first are more than likely going to be protected in this manner. A simple first level spell prevents most will save type spells from causing any TPK scenario your thinking of.

Happy to explore that a bit more though. I'm often enlightened by different tactics in these discussions.

The Exchange

lastknightleft wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
lol or he could be a monk with really bad sense of style xD
What kind of dwarf prances around without armor just to hit things, If I want to hit things I use my axe like a proper dwarf. But bending reality to my will, that's worth being a bit undwarf-like! Still what's the point if joe farmer just thinks I'm some dwarf who lost his armor in a bet? They've got to know I'm a master of magics.

Reminds me of the wizards from discworld. They wear pointy hats to help discharge built up magic too, but mostly it's for effect :)

Sovereign Court

Wrath wrote:
Way finder and ioun stone combo if your group can't protect you from domination effects.

What color? (I'm probably about to feel stupid. :P)


Scavion wrote:
Wrath wrote:
andreww wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.
To you maybe, to most of the rest of us it remains laughably untrue to an almost comical degree.

Your use if the word "most" is probably incorrect here.

Possibly "many" might work, but more likely "some" is a more accurate summary of how the real player base views classes in combat.

Don't fall into the misconception that 12 or so very vocal melee haters on these threads represent even a fraction of the player base, or a majority of the view points in this game.

For example, my experience with the hundreds of players I interact with is completely the opposite of what you state.

Mmm. Any character with a low will save is as much a threat to their own party as their enemy or even not at all. Will saves are just too save or TPK.

Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves. Also, just because they have low will saves does not mean that they are a threat to their party. There are plenty of casters who don't use attacks that prey on low will saves (any GM who's casters only prepare spells that attack low will saves is metagaming worse than the players). There are also PC casters who should be able to deal with such a minor inconvenience if necessary. Remember that you are allowed to cast spells on your own party members if you have to, that includes protection and/or counteracting a spell. You may have to get creative sometimes but it sounds like every caster seems to have whatever spell they need at all times so it shouldn't be a problem.

Sovereign Court

Wrath wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
lol or he could be a monk with really bad sense of style xD
What kind of dwarf prances around without armor just to hit things, If I want to hit things I use my axe like a proper dwarf. But bending reality to my will, that's worth being a bit undwarf-like! Still what's the point if joe farmer just thinks I'm some dwarf who lost his armor in a bet? They've got to know I'm a master of magics.
Reminds me of the wizards from discworld. They wear pointy hats to help discharge built up magic too, but mostly it's for effect :)

Someone knows my inspiration :)


Wrath wrote:
andreww wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.
To you maybe, to most of the rest of us it remains laughably untrue to an almost comical degree.

Your use if the word "most" is probably incorrect here.

Possibly "many" might work, but more likely "some" is a more accurate summary of how the real player base views classes in combat.

Don't fall into the misconception that 12 or so very vocal melee haters on these threads represent even a fraction of the player base, or a majority of the view points in this game.

For example, my experience with the hundreds of players I interact with is completely the opposite of what you state.

Yes, it seems to vary greatly from table to table. At our table, the Fighter is still far and away the most powerful PC, even unto 14th level.

Now yes, I played high level 3.5, and about 17th level, when the spellcasters get 9th level spells- they can certainly marginalize the martials then.


lastknightleft wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo with Empowered Spell and Admixture is standard for blast wizards.
I've seen lots of blast casters (sorcerer and wizard) and I've never seen that combo in game

Same here. We do have a Sorc with Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo in one game, and mine has a Rod of Empower. Very nice that Rod.


The standard blaster I have seen in my groups are the Crossblooded Sorc 1/Admixture Wizard 5 with Magical lineage (fireball) or (magic missle) and a Rod of Empower.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.

Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.


DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.
Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.

Well honestly Paladins tend to be a bit... obvious xD.

Now something like Fighter vs Ranger could be something... :P


PIXIE DUST wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.
Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.

Well honestly Paladins tend to be a bit... obvious xD.

Not really. Heavy armor, weapon, holy symbol- which needs a KS Religion roll, and even so, many Fighters worship a deity, and pretty much all rangers do. Rangers cast divine spells too.


DrDeth wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.
Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.

Well honestly Paladins tend to be a bit... obvious xD.

Not really. Heavy armor, weapon, holy symbol- which needs a KS Religion roll, and even so, many Fighters worship a deity, and pretty much all rangers do. Rangers cast divine spells too.

Pfff, why is people not eating AoO to attack the paladin?, the guy in heavy armor wielding a longsword could be a cleric of Iomedae, a full caster that have to be attacked first, obviously.


DrDeth wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.
Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.

Well honestly Paladins tend to be a bit... obvious xD.

Not really. Heavy armor, weapon, holy symbol- which needs a KS Religion roll, and even so, many Fighters worship a deity, and pretty much all rangers do. Rangers cast divine spells too.

Well Paladins also tend be very Charsimatic, and have certain glowy weapons and tend to scream things like "I SMITE THEE!!!!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The stereotypical 'caster' image is a flimsy guy in cloth robes. That sounds pretty manageable for martials to attack.

Enter pathfinder casters. Compare the idea of attacking them vs the Fighter in Full Plate:
The Behemoth Hippopotamus (Druid)
The Guy in Full Plate who looks just as tanky as the Fighter (Cleric + Heavy Armor Proficiency)
The Flying Invisible Mirror-image Huge Fire Elemental with Contingency (Wizard)

If I was the enemy, I'd go 'screw it' and just attack whoever is within reach. Because all the casters look just as hard, if not harder, to attack than the Fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Yes, it seems to vary greatly from table to table. At our table, the Fighter is still far and away the most powerful PC, even unto 14th level.

Now yes, I played high level 3.5, and about 17th level, when the spellcasters get 9th level spells- they can certainly marginalize the martials then.

I regularly see the fighter marginalised from level 1. By level 12 you need to ask yourself what they're even doing in the party.


voideternal wrote:

The stereotypical 'caster' image is a flimsy guy in cloth robes. That sounds pretty manageable for martials to attack.

Enter pathfinder casters. Compare the idea of attacking them vs the Fighter in Full Plate:
The Behemoth Hippopotamus (Druid)
The Guy in Full Plate who looks just as tanky as the Fighter (Cleric + Heavy Armor Proficiency)
The Flying Invisible Mirror-image Huge Fire Elemental with Contingency (Wizard)

If I was the enemy, I'd go 'screw it' and just attack whoever is within reach. Because all the casters look just as hard, if not harder, to attack than the Fighter.

Kill the hippo... those things are MEAN...


So we are going to assume that characters telegraph who they are? What rule requires paladins or clerics to identify themselves? Holy symbols are inexpensive and they don't do anything when used. They don't glow. They don't whistle. They don't hum. They just exist. Magical weapons and armor don't have to glow either. Just because some do does not mean that all do.


lastknightleft wrote:
]why would you sunder a spellbook, that just means they can't prepare spells tomorrow...

I can think of two situations where it would be a completely reasonable act, but they're both pretty contrived sets of circumstances:

Situation one:
First, the sunderer has to know that magic is bad. But they also have to not really understand how it works. Specifically they have to be ignorant enough to believe that it all works like scrolls, and that that magic book is effectively a big pile of scrolls.
Second, the book has to be in hand. If it's in a bag then the thought is just not going to come to them. But if for some reason a caster has this magic-looking book in hand and is casting magic... well then, you could stop them! Right?
No. But it would be reasonable to believe you could, starting from a position of sufficient ignorance.
Of course, since relatively few caster are going to have book in hand during fight it's more or less just that arcanist thing you mentioned.

Situation two:
The enemy is intelligent and has access to magic themselves. Specifically teleportation. They are planning to port out of this fight, and they don't intend to win right now - they intend to get some of your measure and to f$$~ you up a bit, so they can finish you later.
Maybe that was their plan all along. Or maybe they've realised they aren't winning and are just trying to get something serious in before the inevitable retreat. Either way, they know the limits on the move and they're doing it to f!~~ with you.

So, both really unlikely to come up. Could easily go an entire career without seeing either.

lastknightleft wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo with Empowered Spell and Admixture is standard for blast wizards.
I've seen lots of blast casters (sorcerer and wizard) and I've never seen that combo in game

Really? Wow. I thought that was the standard for blasty wizards. Fireball (or I suppose it could be something else, but it seems to be at a level/range/aoe sweet spot) plus the metamagic reduction trait, plus those feats for the +3CL, plus admixture to get past resists and immunities. Usually on an elf for the extra spell resistance help. And with the option for cheaper lesser rods because hey, level 3.

In fact, didn't someone write a guide for this that was so popular it's not available anymore? Something about becoming the Avatar of Michael Bay? :-)

DrDeth wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Well honestly Paladins tend to be a bit... obvious xD.
Not really. Heavy armor, weapon, holy symbol- which needs a KS Religion roll, and even so, many Fighters worship a deity

My take-away from this is that if I play a low will-save character they should wear a symbol of a lawful good goddess, get a glowing weapon, and try to pretend they're a paladin, just to throw the dominators off. :-)

Actually, the holy symbol might even be a good idea. Every sunder that goes on it is an attack that doesn't hit someone else.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
So we are going to assume that characters telegraph who they are? What rule requires paladins or clerics to identify themselves? ... Magical weapons and armor don't have to glow either. Just because some do does not mean that all do.

Well, specifically on the paladin thing, when they do their bonded weapon malarkey it does actually glow:

Paladin section wrote:
The first type of bond allows the paladin to enhance her weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of a celestial spirit for 1 minute per paladin level. When called, the spirit causes the weapon to shed light as a torch.

So glowing weapon isn't a sure-fire thing, but it's a signifier. Also, that aura of good is a clue if you can see it. I mean, they could be a NG cleric with a glowy weapon, but what are the odds?


Lucy_Valentine wrote:


Paladin section wrote:
The first type of bond allows the paladin to enhance her weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of a celestial spirit for 1 minute per paladin level. When called, the spirit causes the weapon to shed light as a torch.
So glowing weapon isn't a sure-fire thing, but it's a signifier. Also, that aura of good is a clue if you can see it. I mean, they could be a NG cleric with a glowy weapon, but what are the odds?

"Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. "

The Exchange

Imagine fighting a group from an army, where uniforms are being worn. Maybe even a crusade, where some of the crusader have defected and are secretly working for the bad guys.

The point of uniforms is to help each force identify itself, but also to stop the enemy easily working out everyone's exact role.

In this situation you might need a kn history check, or even a profession soldier check before realistically being able to target a specific enemy ( be it rushing casters or targeting someone with specific saves).


Nicos wrote:
"Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. "

I know, thanks. But if you buy your magic weapon rather than finding it, you get to pick that. Which raises the interesting question - how many of us pick glowing? I know I default to not glowing, because stealth is a thing I try to do sometimes.

Of course, this means that my low-will character should take a glowing weapon, to add verisimilitude. :-)


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
So we are going to assume that characters telegraph who they are? What rule requires paladins or clerics to identify themselves? ... Magical weapons and armor don't have to glow either. Just because some do does not mean that all do.

Well, specifically on the paladin thing, when they do their bonded weapon malarkey it does actually glow:

Paladin section wrote:
The first type of bond allows the paladin to enhance her weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of a celestial spirit for 1 minute per paladin level. When called, the spirit causes the weapon to shed light as a torch.
So glowing weapon isn't a sure-fire thing, but it's a signifier. Also, that aura of good is a clue if you can see it. I mean, they could be a NG cleric with a glowy weapon, but what are the odds?

I wasn't singing out the paladin but it is a good thing to remember. Glowing holy weapon still doesn't mean paladin. You also don't automatically detect auras. If you are searching for clues then as the GM I'm willing to work with you. If you're making assumptions don't be surprised if you find the situation more challenging than expected.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo with Empowered Spell and Admixture is standard for blast wizards.
I've seen lots of blast casters (sorcerer and wizard) and I've never seen that combo in game
Really? Wow. I thought that was the standard for blasty wizards.

I don't even know what Varisian Tattoo is. It's not in any of the books I own. A trait? A feat? An item? Although it sounds like it would be banned as cheese in any game I play in so I don't really care.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo with Empowered Spell and Admixture is standard for blast wizards.
I've seen lots of blast casters (sorcerer and wizard) and I've never seen that combo in game
Really? Wow. I thought that was the standard for blasty wizards.
I don't even know what Varisian Tattoo is. It's not in any of the books I own. A trait? A feat? An item? Although it sounds like it would be banned as cheese in any game I play in so I don't really care.

*falls over laughing*

Whoo-boy, that's a good one. Probably don't get much by your group, like cheesy stuff like Stealthy and Run. :P

Varisian Tattoo (on the d20pfsrd.com as "Mage's Tattoo") is from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea World Guide (aka the PF-PF campaign setting). You choose a school of magic and get +1 CL when casting spells of that school and you can cast a cantrip 3/day (dancing lights for evokers btw).

It's far from cheesy. What it does do is generally provide +1d6 of damage and help overcome spell resistance. The admixture evoker school option allows you to 3 + Int mod times per day change the element of a spell you're casting on the fly, which means that your empowered fireball just became an empowered cold-ball when fighting the fire elemental.


Hm. Looking at the context, it appears to be a feat.

The Exchange

The campaign setting books are most likely only used by those running Golarion games Ashiel. Not surprising folks haven't heard of the tattoos.

Also, since the campaign books are GM territory generally, some of those feats may not be considered standard for games.

Me, I tend to let my players run with anything I own from Paizo itself. Still haven't seen varisian tattoos in play.

Cheers


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Blood knight?

combat addicted loon, Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy, Kurgan from Highlander, Taur Urgas from the Belgariad, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight

351 to 400 of 720 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Which foes are stupid enough to not attack the casters first? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.