I'll start out with my basic premise. The options for temporarily boosting your defense in D&D/PF have never really been all that great.
I'll give an example. I am a level 8 DW rogue with 50 health. I have +2 mithril chain shirt, 22 dex, and +2 ring of protection. That gives me an AC of 24. I find myself in an tough fight against an adult white dragon(CR10). The wizard buffs us with haste, I move into flanking position, eat an AoO, and start attacking. Everything seems ok, until the dragon full attacks me. Long story short, I find myself under 10 hp looking at my options.
If I just stand there and do nothing, the dragon will do an average of 47 damage, more than enough to turn me into rogue hamburger.
1. Run away. With mobility, I would have an AC of 29. The dragon's bite hits on a +20, so I have about a 40% chance of escaping that way.
2. Tumble away, 8 ranks + 6 dex = +14 vs a CMD of 32. I need an 18. If I fail, I am back to number 1. This increases my chance of survival to 50%.
3. Go for broke, I make a full attack 5 attacks against an AC of 27 with a flank. +18/+18/+18/+13/+13 to hit for 1d4 + 4d6 + 3 damage. I can deal an average of 48.75 damage. Maybe that will be enough for the party to drop the dragon before I die.
4. Wait I know, I fight defensively. -4 to hit +2 AC. This reduces the dragons average full attack damage to 37.4 damage and my full attack drops to 29.25. So I lose 40% of my damage to reduce his damage by 21%. Not a great option.
5. All out defense! The dragon full attack drops to 30.7(34% reduction), and my damage drops to 0(100% reduction).
6. But wait, I took combat expertise! -2 to hit for a +2 AC! So the dragon's damage drops to 37.4(21% loss), and my damage only drops to 39(17% loss). Not bad, but I am still going to be rogue hamburger.
7. Force the cleric to eat an AoO to get into melee and heal me. Cure Critical heals 4d8+8 = 26. That gets me up to 30ish health. Even with all out defense, the dragon is probably going to drop me.
8. Drink a potion. Similar to 7, but I eat an AoO that has about a 60% chance to drop me.
9. Cleric channels positive energy and heals me for 4d6 = 14 health. I have enough health that I can probably run away, but if I stay in melee I am rogue paste.
In short, 3 is probably the best option. The dragon has 150ish HP. If I can knock off a good chunk of HP, then the dragon will either die or retreat. 1, 2, and 8 all have a greater than 50% chance to get you killed. 7 and 9 are ok options, but they leave the cleric open to getting pounded by the dragon and if the cleric is unable to get close enough, then your are out of luck. That is all good and well, but my real gripe is that options 4, 5, and 6 are worse options than just standing there and slugging it out.
In short, all out defense, fighting defensively, and combat expertise just plain suck. That is why they rarely ever get used.
So here are my ideas for making them actually viable choices.
All out defense - full round action + swift action, you can move up to your move while using all out defense. You add 3 + half your BAB as a dodge bonus to you AC. You cannot make attacks of opportunity and no longer count for flanking purposes.
Fighting defensively - swift action(allows it to be combined with more things). You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC, and a -2 to hit for the entire round. At +4 BAB and every +4 after than, the bonus to AC increases by 1, and the penalty to hit increase by 2. IE, this is the old combat expertise.
Combat expertise - When fighting defensively or using all out defense, you can add you int as a dodge bonus to your AC, and you half the to hit penalty of fighting defensively.
Now the above rogue with an int of 14, combat expertise who uses all out defense with gains +8 dodge bonus to AC. That would drop the dragons average damage to 17. The rogue will be down, but probably still breathing. More importantly, the rogue can move away while using all out defense(the rogue will have an AC of 37 against AoO causes by movement with mobility) and have about an 80% chance of being able to more out of the dragons reach. This would force the dragon to either move and attack, or ignore him for another target.
Fighting defensively with a full attack + combat expertise drops the rogue's damage to 37(20%) while dropping the dragons damage to 30.7(30%), but you can also fight defensively while drinking a potion or making a withdraw. Fight defensively, move away, and drink a potion is also a viable choice.
Also note, that these option can be used by intelligent villians to escape to fight another day...
You make a good case for "The best defense is a good offense."
First, I don't think that's a bad thing. In games, as offense increases effectiveness, excitement and motion increase; as defense increases in effectiveness, excitement and motion decrease.
Second, solving the problem of defense against a single (especially superior) enemy is an interesting challenge for a party. It can be delt with without changing any rules. Here are some methods you might use:
- UMD and a wand (healing, invisibility, dimension door, etc.)
- Wand in the hands of another character to give you similar benefits
- Ranged healing or aid - not easy to get, but doable
- Someone else comes to take the hit while you withdraw
- Use a spell to temporarily disable or distract enemy
I actually play a rogue similar to the one you have stated. Rogues do not stand and melee a dragon. They nip in and take it down in bite sized chunks. The feat is called spring attack. You move in (no AoO) do one attack and nip out (no AoO). Hopefully you have ran far enough to avoid it's counterattack but if not it only gets one attack anyway. This is a question of tactics.
Fighters stand in melee
Rogues do not
That said, I have always disliked the fact that D&D in all it's variations has never granted an increasing defence by level. Attack goes up, defence does not. I actually built a character once and worked out that at 1st level he needed a 16 to hit himself. By 12th level he needed a 2.
You make a good case for "The best defense is a good offense."
First, I don't think that's a bad thing. In games, as offense increases effectiveness, excitement and motion increase; as defense increases in effectiveness, excitement and motion decrease.
I don't think it is a bad thing, but rather that fighting defensively and all out defense are horrible options. You could remove those rules from the games, and most players wouldn't notice. I can count the number of times I have seen a player use those rules on one hand.
Second, solving the problem of defense against a single (especially superior) enemy is an interesting challenge for a party. It can be delt with without changing any rules. Here are some methods you might use:
- UMD and a wand (healing, invisibility, dimension door, etc.)
- Wand in the hands of another character to give you similar benefits
- Ranged healing or aid - not easy to get, but doable
- Someone else comes to take the hit while you withdraw
- Use a spell to temporarily disable or distract enemy
1. UMD on a wand is better than drinking a potion, but healing or invisibility isn't going to help you much in that situation. Dimension door would save you. A wand of dimension door/cure critical has a cost of 21k gold. A level 8 rogue should have around 33k gold in equipment.
2. All of those spells have a range of touch, so anyone else trying to save you will have to eat AoOs to get to you. Again wands of cure critical or dimension door are very expensive.
3. Ranged healing is not very common and weaker than touch healing. IE channel heals for about half what a touch heal does.
4. With most intelligent creatures, they are likely to finish the badly injured person before going after someone else. With an int 12/wis 15, I would think a white dragon is smart enough to do that. Mindless creatures like golems have a tendancy to keep beating on one target until it drops.
5. The dragon has a SR of 21, for +13, will +10, and is immune to paralyze. Most spells that disable require both a spell resistance check AND a failed save. Not good odds.
I actually play a rogue similar to the one you have stated. Rogues do not stand and melee a dragon. They nip in and take it down in bite sized chunks. The feat is called spring attack. You move in (no AoO) do one attack and nip out (no AoO). Hopefully you have ran far enough to avoid it's counterattack but if not it only gets one attack anyway. This is a question of tactics.
Fighters stand in melee
Rogues do not
That said, I have always disliked the fact that D&D in all it's variations has never granted an increasing defence by level. Attack goes up, defence does not. I actually built a character once and worked out that at 1st level he needed a 16 to hit himself. By 12th level he needed a 2.
Yes, that would the the ideal way for a rogue to work, but it is impossible to get spring attack(requires 3 feats) and improved TWF(requires 2 feats) at level 8 without being human AND giving up other necessary things like weapon focus and the like. Not to mention, if you are using spring attack like that, then your fighter friend isn't getting a flank bonus during his turn, and you damage per round goes way down.
Fighters have enough bonuses already. Rogues need to stay alive. My rogue is actually a scout so I don't need a flanker to get the damage but your point is taken. TWF does not work with this style of rogue anyway.
Besides, the 'fighter' in the party is an archer who does not melee anyway. We once had a situation where a large gnoll leader (the carrion king I think) couldn't hit either of us because we refused to stay in melee range and could run faster than him by virtue of a haste spell!
I didn't get to the point of my last post so here it is. If you can't stand in melee then change tactics. Discuss plans with the other party members so that your tactical plan keeps you alive. Teamwork within a party can easily make up for the weaknesses of individual characters (as we do with our archer/scout combination).
I didn't get to the point of my last post so here it is. If you can't stand in melee then change tactics. Discuss plans with the other party members so that your tactical plan keeps you alive. Teamwork within a party can easily make up for the weaknesses of individual characters (as we do with our archer/scout combination).
And for the most part most of what you said is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You can be a perfect spring attack rogue, and the dragon charges you, and nails you with a lucky crit with a bite attack, and now you are low health with a pissed off dragon standing next to you, and you can't spring attack because the dragon is closer than 10 feet. You better make use of those defensive options.... oh wait, they all suck.
In short, how you end up with low health standing next to a pissed off dragon isn't really the point.
And for the most part most of what you said is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You can be a perfect spring attack rogue, and the dragon charges you, and nails you with a lucky crit with a bite attack, and now you are low health with a pissed off dragon standing next to you, and you can't spring attack because the dragon is closer than 10 feet. You better make use of those defensive options.... oh wait, they all suck.
...
In short, how you end up with low health standing next to a pissed off dragon isn't really the point.
Actually how you ended up next with low health standing next to the pissed off dragon is kinda the point, as you didn't have any "back-up plan." Someone mentioned invisibility and you said it wouldn't help. It actually would, you cannot take an AoO on an invisible target and that would allow you to move away from the "problem" and get to the cleric. I mean you did put in the option that makes another player risk their neck for you... Sorry but in our group the last thing the guy who can heal and raise is going to be doing is taking unnecessary fire. They are going to be the last one standing as if they are alive the rest of use are getting through it too. You seem to have crunched the numbers but not planned for contingencies in case bad things happen, I find that rather odd. You are complaining about the poor defensive options but in truth it could also be called poor planning on your end as you seem familiar with the rules.
That being said, my play style would leave me only option 3. Do as much as I can in whatever time I have left to help the party get it over as soon as possible so they can get me back on my feet as I obviously got myself into a crappy situation. It isn't their fault (as I put myself in the situation), it isn't the rules fault (as I know the rules) and it isn't the fault as the dice (as they are notoriously random), that leaves me by process of elimination.
Why dont you just use a withdraw action, no AoO move double your movement.
Why dont you just use a withdraw action, no AoO move double your movement.
Withdraw only keeps you from provoking on the initial square where you start, after that if the creature has reach they will be able to make the AoO attack upon leaving the next square. Adult Dragon = Large with 10' reach. Could take a full round attack, move 5' away and then withdraw on the following round assuming he/she survives.
Bugger :)
Been doing it wrong all this time (was the same in 3.5)LOL nevermind combat just got more dangerous :)
Been doing it wrong all this time (was the same in 3.5)LOL nevermind combat just got more dangerous :)
As it should be! And all was right with the world.
Actually how you ended up next with low health standing next to the pissed off dragon is kinda the point, as you didn't have any "back-up plan." Someone mentioned invisibility and you said it wouldn't help. It actually would, you cannot take an AoO on an invisible target and that would allow you to move away from the "problem" and get to the cleric. I mean you did put in the option that makes another player risk their neck for you... Sorry but in our group the last thing the guy who can heal and raise is going to be doing is taking unnecessary fire. They are going to be the last one standing as if they are alive the rest of use are getting through it too. You seem to have crunched the numbers but not planned for contingencies in case bad things happen, I find that rather odd. You are complaining about the poor defensive options but in truth it could also be called poor planning on your end as you seem familiar with the rules.
That being said, my play style would leave me only option 3. Do as much as I can in whatever time I have left to help the party get it over as soon as possible so they can get me back on my feet as I obviously got myself into a crappy situation. It isn't their fault (as I put myself in the situation), it isn't the rules fault (as I know the rules) and it isn't the fault as the dice (as they are notoriously random), that leaves me by process of elimination.
While I would agree that in this case poor planning was part of the problem, that is not always the case. I have seen many players with well planed out tactics end up in this situation. My point is that eventually crap happens. A monster gets a string of lucky crits. The party gets surprised from behind and the wizard gets cornered while low on spells. The problem is that if you end up in a situation like that, fighting defensive, all-out defense, and combat expertise are all pretty crappy options.
3 things I would like to see.
1. Players would be able to "fight" defensively while doing things other than attack. I don't see any really good reason why you can't you drink a potion defensively or raise your guard while making a withdraw action?
2. A way for an injured player in a bad situation to "turtle". All out defense really doesn't give enough bang for losing all your actions IMO.
3. Do all this without making it so good that everyone uses it all the time instead of fighting normally.
And for the most part most of what you said is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You can be a perfect spring attack rogue, and the dragon charges you, and nails you with a lucky crit with a bite attack, and now you are low health with a pissed off dragon standing next to you, and you can't spring attack because the dragon is closer than 10 feet. You better make use of those defensive options.... oh wait, they all suck.
...
In short, how you end up with low health standing next to a pissed off dragon isn't really the point.
Not quite, since any changes to these rules will only improve armour class and a lucky crit (needs a 20 remember) will always hit you.
You could house rule the parry rules for the Duelist. I seem to remember the first version of Neverwinter used a Parry skill. You forfeit your attacks and use them to block attacks (one per) by making an opposed Parry roll vs Attack roll. If you roll high enough you get a 'riposte' attack.
|
*snip*
Don't forget...
When you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics:when fighting defensively you get a +3 dodge bonus to AC instead of +2;
and
when going total defense, you get a +6 dodge bonus to AC instead of +4.
It's listed under the special section of the acrobatics skill description.
I know it doesn't do much in the big scheme of things, but just giving you some extra little bonus squeeze for your situation.
*snip*Don't forget...
When you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics:
when fighting defensively you get a +3 dodge bonus to AC instead of +2;
and
when going total defense, you get a +6 dodge bonus to AC instead of +4.It's listed under the special section of the acrobatics skill description.
I know it doesn't do much in the big scheme of things, but just giving you some extra little bonus squeeze for your situation.
Hmm, then maybe just making combat expertise add your int mod to your all out defense(in addition to its normal effect) is all I really need. That would give the rogue a +8 with all out defense.
While I would agree that in this case poor planning was part of the problem, that is not always the case. I have seen many players with well planed out tactics end up in this situation. My point is that eventually crap happens. A monster gets a string of lucky crits. The party gets surprised from behind and the wizard gets cornered while low on spells. The problem is that if you end up in a situation like that, fighting defensive, all-out defense, and combat expertise are all pretty crappy options.
Poor luck isn't something that should be "factored in" to the rules. By virtue of being adventurers you are operating under the assumption of "bad things happen to this person." By definition an adventurer is taking extraordinary risks for great gains. Getting the pulp beat out of you and or dying comes with the territory. I will honestly never understand why people want to remove that part of the game. In essence we are basically gambling when we play (as players in the real life), it just so happens there isn't really much at stake besides an emotional investment we happened to develop for this character or another as time goes on.
I don't actually mean this, but I think it is something that should be said regardless. If you can't handle that bad things happen to a character from time to time, you shouldn't play the game. Again, I don't mean that you shouldn't play it, but the sentiment is still valid.
The rules are already generally stacked in favor of the PC's, saying that because "bad things happened" the mechanics should actually be BETTER for the PC's is just inane.
Given that there are ways to produce what you want with existing spells or abilities (granted ones you don't have) asking for ways to do them without significant investment seems cheesy. I mean, if a melee combatant has a tower shield they can take total cover and get out of dodge (or at least reach). If someone has access to invisibility the same. And these are low level options that while may be not what you want, still are effective and will do what you want if you chose to make use of them. That you chose to use your resources in a another way and not make use of them is still a choice as you were aware you were putting your character in danger and "bad things happen" to those who adventure and stand next to pissed dragons. ESPECIALLY after injuring them. It's like being upset you picked the biggest nastiest guy in the bar, hit him and then got the crap kicked out of you because you either overestimated yourself or underestimated them.
Again, I say take your lumps, learn from it and move on to see how it ends. This is just one of those times when you consider your build and go "...<insert ability/feat/etc> would have been nice."
While I would agree that in this case poor planning was part of the problem, that is not always the case. I have seen many players with well planed out tactics end up in this situation. My point is that eventually crap happens. A monster gets a string of lucky crits. The party gets surprised from behind and the wizard gets cornered while low on spells. The problem is that if you end up in a situation like that, fighting defensive, all-out defense, and combat expertise are all pretty crappy options.
Poor luck isn't something that should be "factored in" to the rules. By virtue of being adventurers you are operating under the assumption of "bad things happen to this person." By definition an adventurer is taking extraordinary risks for great gains. Getting the pulp beat out of you and or dying comes with the territory. I will honestly never understand why people want to remove that part of the game. In essence we are basically gambling when we play (as players in the real life), it just so happens there isn't really much at stake besides an emotional investment we happened to develop for this character or another as time goes on.
I don't actually mean this, but I think it is something that should be said regardless. If you can't handle that bad things happen to a character from time to time, you shouldn't play the game. Again, I don't mean that you shouldn't play it, but the sentiment is still valid.
The rules are already generally stacked in favor of the PC's, saying that because "bad things happened" the mechanics should actually be BETTER for the PC's is just inane.
Given that there are ways to produce what you want with existing spells or abilities (granted ones you don't have) asking for ways to do them without significant investment seems cheesy. I mean, if a melee combatant has a tower shield they can take total cover and get out of dodge (or at least reach). If someone has access to invisibility the same. And these are low level options that...
Ok, if you are done the the lecture I can file under crap I already know would you be so kind as to comment on the balance of the ideas I actually proposed?
Sorry to be snippy, but I really just want feedback on the balance of the abilities, not a lecture on how I am doing it wrong.
Ok, if you are done the the lecture I can file under crap I already know would you be so kind as to comment on the balance of the ideas I actually proposed?
Sorry to be snippy, but I really just want feedback on the balance of the abilities, not a lecture on how I am doing it wrong.
The "balance" of the abilities as they stand are fine, you just happen to get caught with your pants down and are upset that your character is in danger (which is understandable).
House rule for the sake of having bigger bonuses is a bad idea, when the effect can actually be reached in the existing rule set.
The "balance" of the abilities as they stand are fine, you just happen to get caught with your pants down and are upset that your character is in danger (which is understandable).
House rule for the sake of having bigger bonuses is a bad idea, when the effect can actually be reached in the existing rule set.
Since I am the DM, I wouldn't read too much into the hypothetically example.
My real gripe is that fighting defensively, combat expertise, and all out defense are so weak, you could remove them the rules, most people wouldn't care.
I don't consider forcing a character to spend 50-75% of the wealth for a wand that gives them an out to be an acceptable solution.
The "balance" of the abilities as they stand are fine, you just happen to get caught with your pants down and are upset that your character is in danger (which is understandable).
House rule for the sake of having bigger bonuses is a bad idea, when the effect can actually be reached in the existing rule set.
Since I am the DM, I wouldn't read too much into the hypothetically example.
My real gripe is that fighting defensively, combat expertise, and all out defense are so weak, you could remove them the rules, most people wouldn't care.
DM's can get attached to NPC's too ;)
And my counterpoint to that is with so many things that do "scale" having a ton of things that scale and adding them up gets crazy. Maneuvers like the ones you have a problem with are definitely more effective at lower levels where the bonus is relatively higher in comparison the numbers available to the PC. To make up for that as players gain levels they in turn have access to things that aren't just numeric modifiers but effects like total concealment or total cover, or other abilities that grant things that would be helpful in situations like the ones you've given. They serve a purpose, to get bonus, some classes and abilities even go so far as to expand upon those rules (like the duelist I believe). Even if the bonus isn't something that seems like it is worthwhile to you(a point of perspective from person to person) they are still available and when paired with abilities that others may have could actually be useful, even though that isn't the case for you.
As a player I would actually feel cheated if the game starts getting to the point where no one is ever truly at risk. Almost dying is a rush, coming up with a plan of action that gets me out of it with the existing rule set gives me a sense of accomplishment and pride, knowing it could fail makes it that much better. Dying is a part of the game which I have had happen too many times to count. It happens, it is something that I enjoy even in some ways. I don't like when it happens, but I don't get upset when it does, the dice weren't with me or I made a mistake and am paying for it. I'm okay with either of those results as a gamer.
EDIT as you added something about wealth.
I don't see it as an option either, but given the wide array of rules and things they could in fact chose from but didn't, you lucky don't have to force them to do that. A character build has flaws and weakness because of limited resources, it happens. A character cannot have an answer for every situation and sometimes "death" is actually an option, even if it isn't a well liked one.
As a player I would actually feel cheated if the game starts getting to the point where no one is ever truly at risk. Almost dying is a rush, coming up with a plan of action that gets me out of it with the existing rule set gives me a sense of accomplishment and pride, knowing it could fail makes it that much better. Dying is a part of the game which I have had happen too many times to count. It happens, it is something that I enjoy even in some ways. I don't like when it happens, but I don't get upset when it does, the dice weren't with me or I made a mistake and am paying for it. I'm okay with either of those results as a gamer.
It is not like these changes would completely remove risk. If the rogue chooses to stay in and use all out defense, they get a +8 dodge. If the dragon full attacks them they will most likely be down and bleeding out. All it would take is a little luck on the dragon's part for the rogue to be dead instead. Down and bleeding also means there is a chance your friends are unable to stabilize you in time.
Characters have to feel like they are in danger, but at the same time it is not as fun if they feel like they have no control over their destiny. There is a fine line to walk between the two.
If anyone wants free AC, which pretty much everyone does; here's the trick.
Buy any armor that you need, then add armor spikes to it. RAW does not specify any type of armor for these spikes to be added, so all armor works. The armor spikes act as a light weapon as well.
Then make them masterwork or just pay to have them magically enhanced. THE HIGHER THE BETTER, depending on how much money you have!!
Max enhancement you can have on them is +5, then you can add DEFENDING to them because they are considered martial weapons.
DEFENDING states:
"A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that STACKS WITH ALL OTHERS. As a FREE ACTION, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn".
YAY!! FREE AC
It is not like these changes would completely remove risk. If the rogue chooses to stay in and use all out defense, they get a +8 dodge. If the dragon full attacks them they will most likely be down and bleeding out. All it would take is a little luck on the dragon's part for the rogue to be dead instead. Down and bleeding also means there is a chance your friends are unable to stabilize you in time.
.
Characters have to feel like they are in danger, but at the same time it is not as fun if they feel like they have no control over their destiny. There is a fine line to walk between the two.
And if the rogue had other abilities or items they could just as easily gained an equivalent bonus to the one you are trying to house rule in. Something like a buckler could do the exact same thing as giving a bump to the AC and is something readily available.
If the rogue approached the dragon there is an understanding that the creature can focus its full attention on the character. Especially as it is an intelligent creature capable of understanding the threat provided by said tactics. If the dragon full attacks it is most definitely a possibility, however so is the fact that it might chose another character to attack. I personally would say the rogue is going down as it is probably an easier target than a fully armed character but, it depends on how things have gone in the combat. Conversely all it would take is "a little luck" for the rogue to get out of the situation using the skills, abilities and items they can draw from when building their repertoire. Down and bleeding isn't dead and death is a very realistic concern as an adventuring character regardless.
The randomness is part of feeling in danger, jacking up abilities by minor amounts so they stack up to make things "seem" more important just serves to remove the randomness as all the little things add up. Characters don't have any control over their destiny, the DM does, the characters are riding along and hanging their hopes on die rolls that could go "wrong" at any point (assuming the DM is being fair). A string of bad rolls by the character isn't any different than a string of good rolls on the opponents side in the greater scheme of things. At any point one of those rolls could be the difference between life and death. The life of a character can hinge on any one roll and that isn't a bad thing.