I've never seen the point in investing in Fortification armor. I've found that usually a Jingasa is plenty enough crit protection.
Then you have my Rise GM who crits on you with giants seemingly multiple times per combat or once per combat. This seems to happen with frequency.
|
I will say - I'm never sure what level to start putting fortification on stuff. My first instinct is to ignore it until the armor/shield is already +5, but that'd probably be after people start to auto-crit. (Or at least get huge bonuses to confirming.)It's not like many enemies tend to be crit fishing with 15-20 weapons, so you're pretty much just watching out for pure dumb bad luck slamming you in the face on a 19 or a 20. A Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier is good enough for me and cheaper than adding Fortification to your tricked out armor too.
For lower-mid levels I agree with you. But the two stack nicely. Besides - NO enemies ever crit-fish? Why not? A white dragon with Keen on his AoMF and Critical Focus is a vicious bastard. :P
I've never seen the point in investing in Fortification armor. I've found that usually a Jingasa is plenty enough crit protection.Then you have my Rise GM who crits on you with giants seemingly multiple times per combat or once per combat. This seems to happen with frequency.
I don't think I've ever actually been struck with a crit more than 2-3 times per session, and usually it's only once.
One of my characters thanks to the Preacher archetype can even save allies from them. =)
Then you have my Rise GM who crits on you with giants seemingly multiple times per combat or once per combat. This seems to happen with frequency.
I think that AP is cursed or something. When I was GMing, I would frequently roll 20's and then confirm crits with crazy dice rolling. If the rolls were not made in the open, my players, (especially the tower shied fighter) would have thought I was cheating for sure.
The nature of dice randomness leads me to question theories that require average dice rolls to be true. The one consistent thing about the dice is that they will do what you don't expect.
I will say - I'm never sure what level to start putting fortification on stuff. My first instinct is to ignore it until the armor/shield is already +5, but that'd probably be after people start to auto-crit. (Or at least get huge bonuses to confirming.)
+5 armor is only 25k. You can have that at 10-12th if you want it, armor being one of the cheaper ways to raise AC.
But, yeah, at lower levels, the Jingasa is the way to go. Monsters often only crit on a 20, so 1 crit/session from bad guys isn't all that unusual.
+2 Medium Fort armor is the same as +5 armor. If you have a decent level caster who can toss GMV on you, it's not a bad tradeoff for auto trashing 50% of all crits.
The other defense is simply to have a lot of hit points so crits don't kill you straight off.
And the third defense is, of course, kill the enemy really fast so they don't crit.
==Aelryinth
|
I think the main problem is finding a good balance between offense and defense, and the benefits those provide.
If you look at combat as a means by which your group's resources are expended, you seek to minimize the expenditure of those resources. The surest way to do so is to ensure that your opponent cannot reduce them, and this typically involves killing them. There are other ways (Enchantment spells & Sleep spells/effects come to mind) to do so, but typically you want your opponents dead, which means you must possess the means by which to kill them.
However, again looking at combat through resource expenditure, your secondary objective should be to ensure your relative safety while you engage your foes. After all, a dead PC deals no damage, drops no debuffs, and casts no spells. To that end, you should endeavor to increase your defenses to a reasonable level whilst still allowing yourself to accomplish your role in the party. A fighter might very well be nigh untouchable, but if he has devoted too many of his resources to this end, he won't be able to contribute to victory conditions. In that same vein, a barbarian may be able to put out a lot of damage, but if he finds himself in an unfavorable situation without a means of changing his tactics, he can suddenly become utterly useless.
The game rewards offense, yes, but in order to remain a viable offensive force, your group must find a balance between defeating enemies and weathering their assault, at least for long enough to accomplish the former goal. In most situations, a high-damage character will be useful for the task at hand. One cannot say the same about a defense-focused character... at least, not always.
TLDR: Too much offense is more forgiving in a group setting than too much defense, but to be an effective character you need to find a reasonable balance given your role in the group.
I've never seen the point in investing in Fortification armor. I've found that usually a Jingasa is plenty enough crit protection.Then you have my Rise GM who crits on you with giants seemingly multiple times per combat or once per combat. This seems to happen with frequency.I don't think I've ever actually been struck with a crit more than 2-3 times per session, and usually it's only once.
One of my characters thanks to the Preacher archetype can even save allies from them. =)
My shiny new paladin in that game took the Divine Interference feat for crit prevention alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The default for Pathfinder is that the GM is supposed to lose almost every battle, and optimization requires that lose to be immediate.
The GM shouldn't be "winning" or "losing" battles. The GM generally isn't running a PC.
The GM shouldn't be "winning" or "losing" battles. The GM generally isn't running a PC.
Unfortunately, many GMs see things that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM shouldn't be "winning" or "losing" battles. The GM generally isn't running a PC.Unfortunately, many GMs see things that way.
I'm not sure I see what you two are getting at. DMs "lose" battles all the time. As DM the expectation IS that your side, the NPCs, lose in fact. If your side wins that usually means a TPK happened. Really you're just there to lose with style and in such a way that the winners, the PCs, have a fun and engaging experience. That's the hard part; it's easy to "win" battles as a DM when you literally have infinite in-game power and make the rules.
I'm not sure I see what you two are getting at. DMs "lose" battles all the time. As DM the expectation IS that your side, the NPCs, lose in fact. If your side wins that usually means a TPK happened. Really you're just there to lose with style and in such a way that the winners, the PCs, have a fun and engaging experience. That's the hard part; it's easy to "win" battles as a DM when you literally have infinite in-game power and make the rules.The GM shouldn't be "winning" or "losing" battles. The GM generally isn't running a PC.Unfortunately, many GMs see things that way.
I know of one particular GM who is actually bored with GMing entirely because of "always losing." I see the attitude in a few others even though they don't use the words. That's what I'm getting at.
High level gameplay tends to reward offense more than earlier levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems odd to me, as I generally feel like I win when my players beat all the monsters/NPCs. My goal is to challenge the players without defeating them. That is how the GM wins.
This is my goal as well. When I'm designing encounters meant to be difficult, my ideal goal is to make the encounter challenging to the point where player tactics are the margin of victory. It's a difficult line to toe because it can mean an unlucky die roll can result in a TPK even if the players had a good plan, but I never stop trying to reach that ideal balance.
Conversely, the only time I get frustrated as a GM is when I feel I've designed a good encounter but it becomes a cakewalk for the players because of horrible luck on my part. It's really frustrating for example to spend a bunch of time building a dangerous close-combat monster only to have it be completely ineffective because I rolled a series of 3's & 4's on its attack rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen the point in investing in Fortification armor. I've found that usually a Jingasa is plenty enough crit protection.Then you have my Rise GM who crits on you with giants seemingly multiple times per combat or once per combat. This seems to happen with frequency.
Whenever I make a character, I always factor in that my GM will pass every save, and crit me with a high degree of frequency. He uses my dice, and sits right next to me. He does not cheat, ever; he is incredibly lucky.
The default for Pathfinder is that the GM is supposed to lose almost every battle, and optimization requires that lose to be immediate.The GM shouldn't be "winning" or "losing" battles. The GM generally isn't running a PC.
In this context I am referring to the players successfully achieving their characters objectives, not "We're playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I'm WINNING!"
As a GM, I present a situation or encounter before the players. Whether it is slaying a dragon, or persuading the king, the outcome is unknown, although the default assumption is that the average task can be successfully accomplished by expending 20% of their daily resources. If the players (Team Good) slay the dragon, or sweat talk the king, they "win". If the dragon slays them, or the kings is unconvinced, the GM (Team Evil) "wins".
In a more broad context, everyone who has fun at the table, "wins", regardless of the outcome of the actions. But what I was referring to was whether the characters or the monsters get what they want out of an encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
or sweat talk the king, they "win"
That sounds gross & tiring.
Conversely, the only time I get frustrated as a GM is when I feel I've designed a good encounter but it becomes a cakewalk for the players because of horrible luck on my part. It's really frustrating for example to spend a bunch of time building a dangerous close-combat monster only to have it be completely ineffective because I rolled a series of 3's & 4's on its attack rolls.
I often find such moments comedic, BBEG gives big speech only to fall onto his face or be turned to stone in the surprise round etc. Much worse is when some fight designed to be a cake walk begins getting serious after multiple crits or some very bad saves.
I understand the point of an offensive oriented game, but it's a shame that it's so skewed that way that trying other things can actively cripple you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last night I saw the virtue of both sides. Firstly defense: 3 kobold warrior 2's built as snipers with crossbows. They were hiding in Cover with an adept 3 behind them providing them with Bless and Guidance spells. They would pop up, attack, then disappear behind the rocks.
Because they kept denying the PCs their Dex bonus and since that's like the primary source of the PCs AC this defensive strategy aided their offense. They didn't do much damage but they hit often, even from 80' firing at the PCs who were themselves under cover in the woods.
However when the PCs finally got there a barbarian finally got to hack at them in melee. Despite having 2 levels of warrior these hapless kobolds were like sheets of paper compared to a raging barbarian half-orc built for offense. Seriously, she hit the adept so hard as he was running away the spellcaster just disintegrated leaving behind his loot and a blood-mist outline on a boulder.
Maybe there IS a balance after all...