why is two handing considered so much better than sword and board?


Advice

201 to 228 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
A few weeks ago, one of my player brought in a defense-focused character with really high AC... One of the enemies rolled an 16 and 18 and still couldn't hit him... But he realized the guy with a shield could only cause minor damage, so he moved on and started attacking the other PCs, who were easier to hit and could hit harder.
That's how it should work. (Assuming the enemy was reasonably intelligent.) But for the next combat, the new enemy should take those same couple swings against him.

Well... Depending on how smart the enemy is, how familiar he is with shield tactics, how visibly armored are the other PCs and what resources the enemy has at his hands... It can be reasonable to assume the enemy is smart enough to avoid shield-guy without even trying to take a few swings first.

e.g.: Last weekend, a flying enemy decided to just snatch the soft-looking Bard and leave. It didn't even bother with the 2 armored characters... It did consider taking the Alchemist, instead, but that guy was carrying a Large breastplate and a Large scimitar. :P. Fortunately for the Bard, the other guys managed to deal enough to discourage the creature... So he dropped his intended meal and ran away.

Sovereign Court

Lemmy wrote:


e.g.: Last weekend, a flying enemy decided to just snatch the soft-looking Bard and leave. It didn't even bother with the 2 armored characters... It did consider taking the Alchemist, instead, but that guy was carrying a Large breastplate and a Large scimitar. :P. Fortunately for the Bard, the other guys managed to deal enough to discourage the creature... So he dropped his intended meal and ran away.

Actually - this whole discussion reminds me why I like my high AC bard so much.

It seems like every time I get a new PFS GM and run towards the front, the GM gets a gleam in their eye and has the monsters try to eat me.

Ineffectually.

(And that does again bring up the idea of tanky characters having a pair of Hats of Disguise.)


Just a Guess wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
A few weeks ago, one of my player brought in a defense-focused character with really high AC... One of the enemies rolled an 16 and 18 and still couldn't hit him... But he realized the guy with a shield could only cause minor damage, so he moved on and started attacking the other PCs, who were easier to hit and could hit harder.

That's how it should work. (Assuming the enemy was reasonably intelligent.) But for the next combat, the new enemy should take those same couple swings against him.

Also - one can certainly overdo the defense builds. One's offense should remain respectable.

If my GM did that I'd give my PC shield of swings and start fighting defensively when the enemy focuses me, then call out metagaming if the enemy does not move to the next pc after some attacks.

If a player did that at my table, I'd laugh at his face and still have my NPCs do whatever I think they would do.

If attacking the guy with a shield seems like the best alternative, that's what they will do. If not, they'll choose a different target.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
(And that does again bring up the idea of tanky characters having a pair of Hats of Disguise.)

Oh, yeah. Having a Hat of Disguise or some Glammered armor is a time-honored tradition! Enemies do tend to be surprised when that frail-looking Wizard turns out to be an undercover Barbarian! ^^

Dark Archive

What is a definition of Tank?

It seems to me that AC = Lvl + 20 is not unreasonable for a front line fighter. How much higher does this have to get for it to be classified as "tank"?

Richard


richard develyn wrote:

What is a definition of Tank?

It seems to me that AC = Lvl + 20 is not unreasonable for a front line fighter. How much higher does this have to get for it to be classified as "tank"?

Richard

Well... My definition of what makes a "Tank" character is something along the lines of "Guy who effectively attracts the enemy's attention (and attacks) while still being able to survive it all".

So... Extremely high AC is actually not a very good Tanking strategy, actually... It's better to have a good (but not overwhelming) AC, amazing saves and ability to heal yourself or mitigate damage, while still have enough offensive power (or powerful enough support ability) to make sure the enemy has a reason to attack you.

That's why I think 2-handed Paladins make really awesome Tanks in PF.

Silver Crusade

Lemmy wrote:
richard develyn wrote:

What is a definition of Tank?

It seems to me that AC = Lvl + 20 is not unreasonable for a front line fighter. How much higher does this have to get for it to be classified as "tank"?

Richard

Well... My definition of what makes a "Tank" character is... "Guy who effectively attracts the enemy's attention (and attacks) while still being able to survive it all".

So... Extremely high AC is actually not a very good Tanking strategy, actually... It's better to have a good (but not overwhelming) AC, amazing saves and ability to heal yourself or mitigate damage, while still have enough offensive power (or powerful enough support ability) to make sure the enemy has a reason to attack you.

That's why I think 2-handed Paladins make really awesome Tanks in PF.

sorry, but I still don't see it, sure the TWF hits for a little less when moving, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Besides, I loved it when my GM decided to not bother attacking my "tank" SnB fighter. with his baddies because I wouldn't "do enough" to the back line.

I found the enemy caster, shield bashed him several more feet away from his buddies (about 15ft IIRC) and went to town. next fight I wasn't allowed to get back to the squishers. This was level 8-9 and I was enlarged but eh.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Enemy logic can get supremely complex (overall, not usually for a single enemy). To simplify all enemy logic down to "any intelligent enemy would.." is a disrespect to DM tactics everywhere. Not that most of us don't *deserve* that disrespect in that category (present company included).

I could do an equal disservice to the discussion by claiming "any intelligent party" would ensure that the enemy couldn't effectively reach anyone that isn't tanky.

richard develyn wrote:

What is a definition of Tank?

It seems to me that AC = Lvl + 20 is not unreasonable for a front line fighter. How much higher does this have to get for it to be classified as "tank"?

Richard

For AC: Whatever it takes to not be hit except on a 15+ for most attacks. So like 17-18 AC at first level, 40+ at high level (though it takes a 52 to reach that bar against a great wyrm red dragon). So lvl+20 is close, but a bit high at 1st level and a bit low at 20th. Somethng like 17 + 1.25 * level is closer.

Better: High HP (and/or free self-healing), good AC (within 4 of the above bar), immunities, good saves, and just painful enough to keep the dumber enemies on them. This is why Paladin is considered a good tank as they hit all these points, and they can smite most BBEGs into considering them a major threat.

AC is only part of the equation, and not often the most important one at high level. I once had a near-TPK due to the tank getting hit by hold person and being unable to break it.


It is a shame that the game does not have some sort of counterattack shield style feat chain.

Silver Crusade

Lemmy wrote:
richard develyn wrote:

What is a definition of Tank?

It seems to me that AC = Lvl + 20 is not unreasonable for a front line fighter. How much higher does this have to get for it to be classified as "tank"?

Richard

Well... My definition of what makes a "Tank" character is... "Guy who effectively attracts the enemy's attention (and attacks) while still being able to survive it all".

So... Extremely high AC is actually not a very good Tanking strategy, actually... It's better to have a good (but not overwhelming) AC, amazing saves and ability to heal yourself or mitigate damage, while still have enough offensive power (or powerful enough support ability) to make sure the enemy has a reason to attack you.

That's why I think 2-handed Paladins make really awesome Tanks in PF.

sorry, but I still don't see it, sure the SnB fighter hits for a little less when moving, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Besides, I loved it when my GM decided to not bother attacking my "tank" SnB fighter. with his baddies because I wouldn't "do enough" to the back line.

I found the enemy caster, shield bashed him several more feet away from his buddies (about 15ft IIRC) and went to town. next fight I wasn't allowed to get back to the squishers. This was level 8-9 and I was enlarged but eh.

Silver Crusade

Nicos wrote:
It is a shame that the game does not have some sort of counterattack shield style feat chain.

check out path of war (Iron turtle)


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Enemy logic can get supremely complex (overall, not usually for a single enemy). To simplify all enemy logic down to "any intelligent enemy would.." is a disrespect to DM tactics everywhere.

Very true.


rorek55 wrote:

sorry, but I still don't see it, sure the TWF hits for a little less when moving, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Besides, I loved it when my GM decided to not bother attacking my "tank" SnB fighter. with his baddies because I wouldn't "do enough" to the back line.

I found the enemy caster, shield bashed him several more feet away from his buddies (about 15ft IIRC) and went to town. next fight I wasn't allowed to get back to the squishers. This was level 8-9 and I was enlarged but eh.

Ahem...

Lemmy wrote:
So... Extremely high AC is actually not a very good Tanking strategy, actually... It's better to have a good (but not overwhelming) AC, amazing saves and ability to heal yourself or mitigate damage, while still having enough offensive power (or powerful enough support ability) to make sure the enemy has a reason to attack you.

If your offense is good enough to force enemies to deal with you... That works.

Also, keep in mind that "good defenses" go far, far beyond AC. All the shield bonuses in the world won't help you any against a good ol' Dominate Person... Luckily, the Paladin not only has high saves, but eventually becomes immune to compulsion (and provides a nice bonus to his allies' saves, so that's twice the reason to target him first).

Additionally, if the Paladin rolls a 1 and fails his save... At least he will most likely be unable to use his main offensive ability (Smite Evil) against his own comrades. The Fighter's Weapon training is not so discriminating...

So yeah... IMO, great saves are far more useful than great AC. Specially for "Tanks".


Lemmy wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
A few weeks ago, one of my player brought in a defense-focused character with really high AC... One of the enemies rolled an 16 and 18 and still couldn't hit him... But he realized the guy with a shield could only cause minor damage, so he moved on and started attacking the other PCs, who were easier to hit and could hit harder.
That's how it should work. (Assuming the enemy was reasonably intelligent.) But for the next combat, the new enemy should take those same couple swings against him.

Well... Depending on how smart the enemy is, how familiar he is with shield tactics, how visibly armored are the other PCs and what resources the enemy has at his hands... It can be reasonable to assume the enemy is smart enough to avoid shield-guy without even trying to take a few swings first.

e.g.: Last weekend, a flying enemy decided to just snatch the soft-looking Bard and leave. It didn't even bother with the 2 armored characters... It did consider taking the Alchemist, instead, but that guy was carrying a Large breastplate and a Large scimitar. :P. Fortunately for the Bard, the other guys managed to deal enough to discourage the creature... So he dropped his intended meal and ran away.

Generally speaking going after unarmored guys as opposed to the other one is just good sense. That way when you do get to the armored guy you have a couple of your mates with you to drag him down and take away the advantage that armor gives.


TarkXT wrote:
Generally speaking going after unarmored guys as opposed to the other one is just good sense. That way when you do get to the armored guy you have a couple of your mates with you to drag him down and take away the advantage that armor gives.

Exactly! And that's why all my Monks carry staves and wear blue robes and pointy hats! Heh...

Silver Crusade

TarkXT wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
A few weeks ago, one of my player brought in a defense-focused character with really high AC... One of the enemies rolled an 16 and 18 and still couldn't hit him... But he realized the guy with a shield could only cause minor damage, so he moved on and started attacking the other PCs, who were easier to hit and could hit harder.
That's how it should work. (Assuming the enemy was reasonably intelligent.) But for the next combat, the new enemy should take those same couple swings against him.

Well... Depending on how smart the enemy is, how familiar he is with shield tactics, how visibly armored are the other PCs and what resources the enemy has at his hands... It can be reasonable to assume the enemy is smart enough to avoid shield-guy without even trying to take a few swings first.

e.g.: Last weekend, a flying enemy decided to just snatch the soft-looking Bard and leave. It didn't even bother with the 2 armored characters... It did consider taking the Alchemist, instead, but that guy was carrying a Large breastplate and a Large scimitar. :P. Fortunately for the Bard, the other guys managed to deal enough to discourage the creature... So he dropped his intended meal and ran away.

Generally speaking going after unarmored guys as opposed to the other one is just good sense. That way when you do get to the armored guy you have a couple of your mates with you to drag him down and take away the advantage that armor gives.

or, another line of thought here,

-those armored guys probably can hurt, they have sharp pointy swords, lets make sure they don't get to our caster/archer.

other enemies such as goblins, full melee groups, etc may not have to worry about this though.


rorek55 wrote:


-those armored guys probably can hurt, they have sharp pointy swords, lets make sure they don't get to our caster/archer.

If you want someone to GM like that you will probably have a bad time.

If I can't hurt you it's stupid to engage.

If I can't ignore you long enough or otherwise hamper you somehow it's stupid to engage.

So we don't engage. At least not directly.

Alternatively, you get engagegd in ways that being tanky are actual detriments to. Getting hit with tanglefoot bags, nets, alchemists fire, certain enemies may bait out your AoO so you can be maneuvered to death. These are not special preparations or pushing the CR of an encounter in a different direction, just some not so common used tactics.

The backline themselves will probably have defenses against that as well, better mobility, spells to mess with you, etc.

It's not a videogame, npc's are motivated to survive. Harassing the backline is certainly a viable tactic but mostly for more mobile offensive type characters. Heck, I did it not too long ago with a barbarian. The enemy required 13+ to hit me and I ignored most of their piddy dagger damage. So I walked right through them, sundered a holy symbol and slaughtered their cleric. No shield necessary.

Silver Crusade

another favorite to be used is the stand still feat- once they come to you, they may have a rough time getting away from you.

If I can't hurt you, why wouldn't I keep you from hurting my friend who can? Self preservation can, and often does, include watching out for friends. (to an extent)

sure, use tanglefoot bags, nets, the rest. That still means that the dude that would have been hurting the "softies" are still messing with the frontliners.

of course, you can argue that they would never attack the caster, because he isn't a threat. (until said caster uses magic) so there isn't any reasons they would go for the unarmed/armored guy in the back without prior knowledge.

I have seen people using the THF smack some big CR+2 monster and die from the following full attack, while the SnB fighter would only get slightly hurt. There is quite a benefit from it.

That said, I do often revert to two-handed that standard attack shield bash :3


Very high AC on the "tank" still works if you can demonstrate yourself to be a problem that has to be dealt with right now. (Such as shutting down most of the enemy melee within your reach with combat maneuvers, or just walking right through through the melee line to get at the squishies.)

(Needing high saves comes up once the enemy casters start trying to SoL you instead of your side's ranged or casters, though. If your goal is to draw fire, you damn well better be ready to take it.)

Agreed on the 2-handed paladin tank. (Though mine used UMD and a wand of shield make up part of her AC deficiency.)

Edit: Seems most of what I'm saying got said by others while I typed this! Oh well.

@ TarkXt - Beast totem barbarian with the natural AC bump? Or doing something else to keep your AC up?


Having a shield has its benefits, as has been pointed out with the +50% bonus to AC, the shield bash chain of feats, the throwing shield with distance and returning as well as bashing or a shield as a weapon yada, yada for your Captain America types. DPS output is one way to eliminate your enemies, while battlefield control combined with DPS output combined with high end defense is your best method. That's why combined arms works really well in all combat situations.

As for shield buffs, this is a nice one to use when you hit 7th level as a cleric, magus, etc. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/ward-shield

Sovereign Court

stormcrow27 wrote:
As for shield buffs, this is a nice one to use when you hit 7th level as a cleric, magus, etc. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/ward-shield

And wizard/sorcerors for that matter. All of mine grab a mithril light shield by level 3-4.


Zhangar wrote:


@ TarkXt - Beast totem barbarian with the natural AC bump? Or doing something else to keep your AC up?

Neither. Just really low attacks on the characters in question. I had 17 AC while raging. I simply had so much p, so much dr, and such a big polearm that they didn't have an effective counter with their cult full of robes and daggers.

High AC is actually really easy to get. I think anything higher than a 50% miss chance off AC alone is likely very wasteful and unnecessary.

So to me the real trade off isn't defense. I can get better defenses through layering passive defenses alongside decent positioning and action advantage. You only need a little bit of each o make a very hard nut to crack. High AC characters are just another form of one trick pony for me.

I actually did a thread about building good defensive characters. Ima resurrect it.


BadBird wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Also, if someone is wearing a very good shield all over their body you NEED two hands to pretty much bludgeon their armor into their soft tender flesh
Or to trip/wrestle them down so you can stab through a weak-point or bash their helmet in without them avoiding it...

The problem being that once you're down like that for the stabbing its not that far for someone to do the same to you.

DAVE!


Cultists with daggers and no sneak attack or ability to enhance their damage are redundant after a couple of levels. That's just a chance for the PCs to show off killing mobs in an action sequence. Now if you have cultists like the ones in Rise of the Runelords: The Skinsaw murders, then it gets a bit more dicey since they are all cleric 2/rogue 2 I think. War razors with divine favor, bless and low-level negative channeling, plus sneak attack.


stormcrow27 wrote:
Cultists with daggers and no sneak attack or ability to enhance their damage are redundant after a couple of levels. That's just a chance for the PCs to show off killing mobs in an action sequence. Now if you have cultists like the ones in Rise of the Runelords: The Skinsaw murders, then it gets a bit more dicey since they are all cleric 2/rogue 2 I think. War razors with divine favor, bless and low-level negative channeling, plus sneak attack.

Those guys got wiped out by a combination of glitter dust and grease.

After everyone was tripped and blinded they decided the thing to do was to NOT fight the TWF paladin and Rog/Cav with a great axe.

The end boss however was a different problem...


Quote:
I have seen people using the THF smack some big CR+2 monster and die from the following full attack, while the SnB fighter would only get slightly hurt. There is quite a benefit from it.

Yeah, alright. I've also seen the exact same happen to a S&B fighter because AC doesn't actually mitigate damage if the enemy hits you; it only mitigates damage by providing an avoidance chance.

If you had two THFs and decent tactics you could probably take out the same monsters in a single series of attacks.

One thing my low level illusionist did in a game once was cast Invisibility on the party's two fighty types (wielding two-handed weapons of course), make a bunch of rude gestures at the enemy, then duck for cover. The enemy (being orcs) came charging angrily, and the fighters used AoOs and delayed turns to decimate the uglies who were now in melee range. On my following turn I just Color Sprayed and that was basically a wrap.

Remember, this is a game about teamwork. A S&B fighter can't draw attention away from the rest of the party as well as a guy who actually scares the golden groin liquid out of the enemy, and if one of your fighters is S&B you're lowering your damage-per-turn capacity. You can still make it work (again, certain archetypes like Sacred Shield are amazing at increasing the group's survivability), but the tried-and-true way of dealing with the enemy is killing him first.

Really, a decent AC (50-60% chance for the enemy to miss is usually enough) combined with DR (through barbarian levels or adamantine armor for instance) and some concealment (blur, displacement, etc.) is all you really need. Accelerated Drinker + a potion of about your level to heal doesn't hurt either. Bring potions of barkskin and the like if you feel you must.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
rorek55 wrote:

sorry, but I still don't see it, sure the TWF hits for a little less when moving, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Besides, I loved it when my GM decided to not bother attacking my "tank" SnB fighter. with his baddies because I wouldn't "do enough" to the back line.

I found the enemy caster, shield bashed him several more feet away from his buddies (about 15ft IIRC) and went to town. next fight I wasn't allowed to get back to the squishers. This was level 8-9 and I was enlarged but eh.

Ahem...

Lemmy wrote:
So... Extremely high AC is actually not a very good Tanking strategy, actually... It's better to have a good (but not overwhelming) AC, amazing saves and ability to heal yourself or mitigate damage, while still having enough offensive power (or powerful enough support ability) to make sure the enemy has a reason to attack you.

If your offense is good enough to force enemies to deal with you... That works.

Also, keep in mind that "good defenses" go far, far beyond AC. All the shield bonuses in the world won't help you any against a good ol' Dominate Person... Luckily, the Paladin not only has high saves, but eventually becomes immune to compulsion (and provides a nice bonus to his allies' saves, so that's twice the reason to target him first).

Additionally, if the Paladin rolls a 1 and fails his save... At least he will most likely be unable to use his main offensive ability (Smite Evil) against his own comrades. The Fighter's Weapon training is not so discriminating...

So yeah... IMO, great saves are far more useful than great AC. Specially for "Tanks".

Yeah, the party's Paladin in my current campaign is a source of extreme frustration for the enemies. He uses an enhanced light shield (which leaves him a hand free for holding his weapon while casting or using Lay on Hands) and has specced Charisma hard. He's a terribly difficult nut to crack since most weapon attacks glance off of him and he laughs at most spells (in one encounter, a bunch of 3rd level sorcerers magic-missile spammed the hell out of him and he just healed through it and kept moving, while a Fighter would have been dead in the water twice over). His damage is far from bad and god help you if he starts smiting. He has tanked AND aggro'd major enemies like vampire lords, advanced demons, and worse, and he doesn't even need smite for most of them (just the ones he really wants to make a point with). Thanks to Unsanctioned Knowledge, divine power is a thing that's really solid when he needs a pseudo-smite.

He generally causes a lot of aggro by relentlessly going after VIP targets. In one encounter, there was a VIP who was supported by a group of psychic warriors who were all poised to wreck the faces of the party in a big skirmish. He threw a monkey wrench into their machine by just moving towards the VIP consistently, which forced the dude's bodyguards to try to run interference. They couldn't consistently actually harm the Paladin and he just kept pushing through them, and while their actions were mostly spent on trying to stop him from getting to their boss, the rest of the party went relatively unmolested.


Inlaa wrote:
Quote:
I have seen people using the THF smack some big CR+2 monster and die from the following full attack, while the SnB fighter would only get slightly hurt. There is quite a benefit from it.
Yeah, alright. I've also seen the exact same happen to a S&B fighter because AC doesn't actually mitigate damage if the enemy hits you; it only mitigates damage by providing an avoidance chance.

Not to mention all the times I've seen Sword and Board fighters get taken down by the universal weakness of all fighters: targeting the will save. In my experience Two-hand fighters tend to be much better at those, since needing less dex leaves more points for wisdom, and with how feat-hungry S&B fighting is it's a lot harder to fit in save-boosting feats.

That said, I found Sword and Board to have very respectable offensive potential once it comes online, if you have the right build. The problem (as has been noted previously) is that it takes a long time and a lot of feats for Sword and Board to come online.


Sword and board comes online by.using the shield for defense.

A shield can be jyst a shield.

201 to 228 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / why is two handing considered so much better than sword and board? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice