I agree with zombie. If someone works to build up their AC, he doesn't get hit much in my games. This strange, antagonistic approach of 'if one player has a really high AC I must throw higher to hits at him' is pretty alien to me. AC is only one defence.
I am NOT talking about PCs versus DM. I am talking about PCs versus the game. You cannot win a AC vs monster to-hit arms race with the game. It is impossible. Unless you are a caster.
If you, as a DM, house rule it differently, great, but that doesn't address, correct, or invalidate what I just said.
EDIT: We are getting away from the fact that Valeros' AC still fracking sucks. My half-assed Ranger has better armor and HP than him and I don't dare go anywhere near the bad guys in RotR at level 8 unless I know I can bring them down hard and fast.
Not getting hit isn't the key, not get hit hard is the key....what? AC has nothing to do with the damage you take. You either get hit or you don't. You don't get hit but only take part of the damage because your AC is 20% above average.
But if your AC is higher, you get hit less often.
And if the enemy see this, could be forced to drop power attack, hence dropping DPR (this i what I meant above, but you ignored it).
And if you go with fighting defensively, and your aim is not to kill, but rather survive the blows until escape is possible, said 8th level character can stack a further +3 on top of the +3 from fighting defensively.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
Apparently I haven't said this enough.
A cold-war of PC armor vs monster to hit will always lead to PC's losing.Unless you are a caster.
Consistently being safe from hits just doesn't happen. But I try to keep my AC as high as I can through items and buffs, to reduce mook-damage and iterative attack damage from bosses. Last session, fighting defensively and such helped me literally keep the monkeys off my back in Serpent Skull.
So when greeted by a troll do you invite it to tea and crumpets? I imagine you must judging by the completely absurd, baseless, and completely inane version of "my game" that you conjured up out of thin air.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
You know what, one day it might well be fun to have a character who does exactly that(a Maelstrom wandering chaos mage inspired by delirium maybe... ). But what with playing a range of concepts from a range of power levels my tactics vary from running battles using flaming arrows and traps to whittle down the troll, as I desperately try to survive a terrible threat on my own, through to actually forging an alliance with the troll and his tribe, using skills and trade goods.
Not getting hit isn't the key, not get hit hard is the key....what? AC has nothing to do with the damage you take. You either get hit or you don't. You don't get hit but only take part of the damage because your AC is 20% above average.But if your AC is higher, you get hit less often.
And if the enemy see this, could be forced to drop power attack, hence dropping DPR (this i what I meant above, but you ignored it).
You are assuming:
1) EVERY enemy has Power Attack2) Power Attack is even remotely as relevant in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5
You know what, one day it might well be fun to have a character who does exactly that(a Maelstrom wandering chaos mage inspired by delirium maybe... ). But what with playing a range of concepts from a range of power levels my tactics vary from running battles using flaming arrows and traps to whittle down the troll, as I desperately try to survive a terrible threat on my own, through to actually forging an alliance with the troll and his tribe, using skills and trade goods.So when greeted by a troll do you invite it to tea and crumpets? I imagine you must judging by the completely absurd, baseless, and completely inane version of "my game" that you conjured up out of thin air.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
Then the troll eats you because trolls kill and eat things and you saw one coming at you and thought "aw, a nice friendly troll to picnic with, perhaps I will chat with this good fellow" and then questioned why he was attempting to rip your entrails out following the encounter.
Not getting hit isn't the key, not get hit hard is the key....what? AC has nothing to do with the damage you take. You either get hit or you don't. You don't get hit but only take part of the damage because your AC is 20% above average.But if your AC is higher, you get hit less often.
And if the enemy see this, could be forced to drop power attack, hence dropping DPR (this i what I meant above, but you ignored it).
You are assuming:
1) EVERY enemy has Power Attack
2) Power Attack is even remotely as relevant in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5
Power Attack is still a must-have for martial characters IMHO. It's like 30-50% of your static damage bonus when you go 2h, depending on class/pointbuy.
But yes, it is severely nerfed, at least from the monster perspective, in pathfinder. In general, physical opposition seems easier to deal with.
Not getting hit isn't the key, not get hit hard is the key....what? AC has nothing to do with the damage you take. You either get hit or you don't. You don't get hit but only take part of the damage because your AC is 20% above average.But if your AC is higher, you get hit less often.
And if the enemy see this, could be forced to drop power attack, hence dropping DPR (this i what I meant above, but you ignored it).
You are assuming:
1) EVERY enemy has Power Attack
2) Power Attack is even remotely as relevant in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5
Power Attack is still a must-have for martial characters IMHO. It's like 30-50% of your static damage bonus when you go 2h, depending on class/pointbuy.
But yes, it is severely nerfed, at least from the monster perspective, in pathfinder. In general, physical opposition seems easier to deal with.
If 2h Power Attack is a 30-50% increase in your static damage for more than the first couple of levels, you probably need to look into having a better strength score.
Power Attack is more powerful now for casual play. You gain more from the same penalty.
Old PA abuse involved shock trooper or touch attacks. In case of the former, there is not direct remedy. In case of the latter, at least combat expertise was something (but generally, not enough). Otherwise, is better the new version, and will be until imilar crap will eventually come up.
Casual monster didn't have touch attacks or similar things, so if players stacked up defensive item and buffs, combat expertise could have been enough to drop the hit chance for relevant Power Attack to "too low".
Then the troll eats you because trolls kill and eat things and you saw one coming at you and thought "aw, a nice friendly troll to picnic with, perhaps I will chat with this good fellow" and then questioned why he was attempting to rip your entrails out following the encounter.You know what, one day it might well be fun to have a character who does exactly that(a Maelstrom wandering chaos mage inspired by delirium maybe... ). But what with playing a range of concepts from a range of power levels my tactics vary from running battles using flaming arrows and traps to whittle down the troll, as I desperately try to survive a terrible threat on my own, through to actually forging an alliance with the troll and his tribe, using skills and trade goods.So when greeted by a troll do you invite it to tea and crumpets? I imagine you must judging by the completely absurd, baseless, and completely inane version of "my game" that you conjured up out of thin air.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
Charm monster b;+@h, now lets get our tea and dialogue on!
Charm monster b;+@h, now lets get our tea and dialogue on!Then the troll eats you because trolls kill and eat things and you saw one coming at you and thought "aw, a nice friendly troll to picnic with, perhaps I will chat with this good fellow" and then questioned why he was attempting to rip your entrails out following the encounter.You know what, one day it might well be fun to have a character who does exactly that(a Maelstrom wandering chaos mage inspired by delirium maybe... ). But what with playing a range of concepts from a range of power levels my tactics vary from running battles using flaming arrows and traps to whittle down the troll, as I desperately try to survive a terrible threat on my own, through to actually forging an alliance with the troll and his tribe, using skills and trade goods.So when greeted by a troll do you invite it to tea and crumpets? I imagine you must judging by the completely absurd, baseless, and completely inane version of "my game" that you conjured up out of thin air.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
You are casting spells on random people walking over hills? That seems offensive!
The basic DPR formula is:
h(d+s)+tchd
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.
Assuming that the monsters don't hit on a 2+ or only hit on a 20, combat expertise for a character with BAB +10 modifies the hit percentage by -3 or 15%.
In most cases that reduction in the hit percentage means that the PC is actually going to take less damage than if doesn't use Expertise. The math changes based on critical percentage but at a minimum it reduces average dpr by 15% (baring the aforementioned edge cases).
This comes at the cost of reducing the BAB of Valeros by 15% which typically results in a reduction of DPR by 15%.
In some cases it's actually worthwhile to sacrifice the damage you are doing in order to reduce the damage you are taking. This is especially the case vs creatures with big attacks that do lots of damage on crits and against a ton of mooks that individually don't hit that hard but collectively can do a ton of damage.
In many other cases offense is the best defense and sacrificing BAB to decrease the DPR taken is a suboptimal option. In these cases it's actually worthwhile to use your regular BAB or even use power attack in order to increase your DPR.
The problem with Pathfinder Expertise is that knowing when to use Expertise requires either a moderately complicated spreadsheet or you simply bet wrong some times.
And if you go with fighting defensively, and your aim is not to kill, but rather survive the blows until escape is possible, said 8th level character can stack a further +3 on top of the +3 from fighting defensively.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
Apparently I haven't said this enough.
A cold-war of PC armor vs monster to hit will always lead to PC's losing.Unless you are a caster.
You only get an arms race if the play style is antagonistic. It is my job as a DM to provide challenges for you to overcome, not win the game. I can set the to hits so that they encourage you to use defensive tactives, rather than setting out to win an arms race.
Non-argument.
So you are going to house-rule monsters away from both their thematical background and how their mechanics are written in order to accommodate PCs who think turtling is an effective strategy to defeating an enemy.
You do that. It doesn't in ANY way invalidate my point.
No, I am going to use monsters and NPCs which are fit for their role in a specific story. Build the story around the PCs playing in it, aim the challenges at them.
If Chris decides that he has an idea for a character built around the concept of being a hard to to kill, immovable champion, I will build challenges that let him take advantage of that. Just like I will provide encounters that work on his weaknesses. I do the same for every character.
The DMs job is to challange not to win. Different characters and different parties find different parties find different things challenging. Your ignoring that fact.
You are casting spells on random people walking over hills? That seems offensive!Charm monster b;+@h, now lets get our tea and dialogue on!Then the troll eats you because trolls kill and eat things and you saw one coming at you and thought "aw, a nice friendly troll to picnic with, perhaps I will chat with this good fellow" and then questioned why he was attempting to rip your entrails out following the encounter.You know what, one day it might well be fun to have a character who does exactly that(a Maelstrom wandering chaos mage inspired by delirium maybe... ). But what with playing a range of concepts from a range of power levels my tactics vary from running battles using flaming arrows and traps to whittle down the troll, as I desperately try to survive a terrible threat on my own, through to actually forging an alliance with the troll and his tribe, using skills and trade goods.So when greeted by a troll do you invite it to tea and crumpets? I imagine you must judging by the completely absurd, baseless, and completely inane version of "my game" that you conjured up out of thin air.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
No, I am pretty sure that was a random troll who'd already started to attack me. Through he might have been trying to hug me, but invasion of personal space much?
No, I am going to use monsters and NPCs which are fit for their role in a specific story. Build the story around the PCs playing in it, aim the challenges at them.
If Chris decides that he has an idea for a character built around the concept of being a hard to to kill, immovable champion, I will build challenges that let him take advantage of that. Just like I will provide encounters that work on his weaknesses. I do the same for every character.
The DMs job is to challange not to win. Different characters and different parties find different parties find different things challenging. Your ignoring that fact.
I suspect this will be a level 3 limited campaign? And that you avoid APs like the plague - you know, since APs just use monsters from the bestiary instead of custom tailoring encounters to avoid trying to kill PCs who built their character around the delusion that they can buff their armor enough to matter past level 5.
If 2h Power Attack is a 30-50% increase in your static damage for more than the first couple of levels, you probably need to look into having a better strength score.
I know. I am playing with a more casual party, and don't want to overshadow the others completely. Was thinking more for the everyman warrior, not the "I am here to murder stuff" dedicated fighter. (And yes, I know, that is the more logical choice in terms of fluff, as the professional monster slayer should be more appealing, but when people multiclass and have Con10 characters, I feel like I should keep it on the down-low)
I suspect this will be a level 3 limited campaign? And that you avoid APs like the plague - you know, since APs just use monsters from the bestiary instead of custom tailoring encounters to avoid trying to kill PCs who built their character around the delusion that they can buff their armor enough to matter past level 5.No, I am going to use monsters and NPCs which are fit for their role in a specific story. Build the story around the PCs playing in it, aim the challenges at them.
If Chris decides that he has an idea for a character built around the concept of being a hard to to kill, immovable champion, I will build challenges that let him take advantage of that. Just like I will provide encounters that work on his weaknesses. I do the same for every character.
The DMs job is to challange not to win. Different characters and different parties find different parties find different things challenging. Your ignoring that fact.
No, not a level 3 limited campaign, though I do have a preference for the level 1-10 range on a slow exp progression, because your playing sword and sorcery heroes, rather than super heroes with swords.
And I am running king maker at the moment, without to much problem. I am adding and changing material to better suit my players, why? Because...
The most important thing to remember when using a published adventure, though, is that the writer of the adventure doesn't know your group...feel free to change published adventures as you see fit, either as you read, or while you play.
Most fights are attack bonus vs AC, and the longer you let the enemy stick around the more likely you are to die. What reason would I have in a typical fight to allow a fight to last longer?
Zombie tried to throw in some RP issue, but that is not the typical fight, and PC's(or at least mine) would switch to a subdueing style in such a fight, but unless a fight is called out as such why even bring that example up.
To stop the goalpost from moving we should assume this is a typical fight.
If 2h Power Attack is a 30-50% increase in your static damage for more than the first couple of levels, you probably need to look into having a better strength score.
It actually does provide a big bonus.
Level 10 fighter
strength 22
2 handed weapon +2 longsword 1d8+18=22
power attacking 1d8+27=31
increase of 9 9/22=41 percent
Charm monster b;+@h, now lets get our tea and dialogue on!Then the troll eats you because trolls kill and eat things and you saw one coming at you and thought "aw, a nice friendly troll to picnic with, perhaps I will chat with this good fellow" and then questioned why he was attempting to rip your entrails out following the encounter.You know what, one day it might well be fun to have a character who does exactly that(a Maelstrom wandering chaos mage inspired by delirium maybe... ). But what with playing a range of concepts from a range of power levels my tactics vary from running battles using flaming arrows and traps to whittle down the troll, as I desperately try to survive a terrible threat on my own, through to actually forging an alliance with the troll and his tribe, using skills and trade goods.So when greeted by a troll do you invite it to tea and crumpets? I imagine you must judging by the completely absurd, baseless, and completely inane version of "my game" that you conjured up out of thin air.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
Casting that spell has nothing to do with RP'ing anything. As a DM you can rule the the troll is your buddy well after the spell wears off, but it won't fly in most games.
I suspect this will be a level 3 limited campaign? And that you avoid APs like the plague - you know, since APs just use monsters from the bestiary instead of custom tailoring encounters to avoid trying to kill PCs who built their character around the delusion that they can buff their armor enough to matter past level 5.No, I am going to use monsters and NPCs which are fit for their role in a specific story. Build the story around the PCs playing in it, aim the challenges at them.
If Chris decides that he has an idea for a character built around the concept of being a hard to to kill, immovable champion, I will build challenges that let him take advantage of that. Just like I will provide encounters that work on his weaknesses. I do the same for every character.
The DMs job is to challange not to win. Different characters and different parties find different parties find different things challenging. Your ignoring that fact.
No, not a level 3 limited campaign, though I do have a preference for the level 1-10 range on a slow exp progression, because your playing sword and sorcery heroes, rather than super heroes with swords.
And I am running king maker at the moment, without to much problem. I am adding and changing material to better suit my players, why? Because...
The most important thing to remember when using a published adventure, though, is that the writer of the adventure doesn't know your group...feel free to change published adventures as you see fit, either as you read, or while you play.
Like I have said, repeatedly, changing stuff to accommodate your turtling group does not invalidate the fact of what I said. You cannot turtle and expect to win against CR appropriate monsters and you most certainly cannot indefinitely. ESPECIALLY not martial characters.
I suspect this will be a level 3 limited campaign? And that you avoid APs like the plague - you know, since APs just use monsters from the bestiary instead of custom tailoring encounters to avoid trying to kill PCs who built their character around the delusion that they can buff their armor enough to matter past level 5.No, I am going to use monsters and NPCs which are fit for their role in a specific story. Build the story around the PCs playing in it, aim the challenges at them.
If Chris decides that he has an idea for a character built around the concept of being a hard to to kill, immovable champion, I will build challenges that let him take advantage of that. Just like I will provide encounters that work on his weaknesses. I do the same for every character.
The DMs job is to challange not to win. Different characters and different parties find different parties find different things challenging. Your ignoring that fact.
No, not a level 3 limited campaign, though I do have a preference for the level 1-10 range on a slow exp progression, because your playing sword and sorcery heroes, rather than super heroes with swords.
And I am running king maker at the moment, without to much problem. I am adding and changing material to better suit my players, why? Because...
The most important thing to remember when using a published adventure, though, is that the writer of the adventure doesn't know your group...feel free to change published adventures as you see fit, either as you read, or while you play.
The discussion was the iconics, and if you have to change the game to make them work then they suck. Any DM can houserule anything. That does not change the original premise.
Like I have said, repeatedly, changing stuff to accommodate your turtling group does not invalidate the fact of what I said. You cannot turtle and expect to win against CR appropriate monsters and you most certainly cannot indefinitely. ESPECIALLY not martial characters.I suspect this will be a level 3 limited campaign? And that you avoid APs like the plague - you know, since APs just use monsters from the bestiary instead of custom tailoring encounters to avoid trying to kill PCs who built their character around the delusion that they can buff their armor enough to matter past level 5.No, I am going to use monsters and NPCs which are fit for their role in a specific story. Build the story around the PCs playing in it, aim the challenges at them.
If Chris decides that he has an idea for a character built around the concept of being a hard to to kill, immovable champion, I will build challenges that let him take advantage of that. Just like I will provide encounters that work on his weaknesses. I do the same for every character.
The DMs job is to challange not to win. Different characters and different parties find different parties find different things challenging. Your ignoring that fact.
No, not a level 3 limited campaign, though I do have a preference for the level 1-10 range on a slow exp progression, because your playing sword and sorcery heroes, rather than super heroes with swords.
And I am running king maker at the moment, without to much problem. I am adding and changing material to better suit my players, why? Because...
The most important thing to remember when using a published adventure, though, is that the writer of the adventure doesn't know your group...feel free to change published adventures as you see fit, either as you read, or while you play.
Yes, because I who is using the game as written and intended am sure invalid in my point.
While you who have accused me of house ruling (as through that was something wrong or distasteful), are now not following what the rulebook says...irony, thy name is Cartigan
Since I am NOT discussing PCs vs DMs, your repeated examples of how you play has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I AM SAYING. I bolded that so you wouldn't miss it in case you missed the caps. The game itself leads to monsters, that exist in the game, to overcoming even the highest AC a martial character can hope to achieve given wealth per level.
Only a caster can win the battle of PC armor vs monster to-hit.
For the sake of argument let's draw up a moderately challenging encounter at 10th level: 4 Stone Giants.
4 Stone Giants is CR 12 so it's a hard encounter.
Valeros has a Base AC of 25 which means that the Stone Giants (attack bonus of +16) will hit him on a 9+ (55%) with their primary attack and 30% with their iterative attack. If they are power attacking they hit on a 12+ (40%, 15%) but their potential damage goes up (High Strength + 2handed weapon + power attack = win).
However if he uses combat expertise their chance to hit goes down to 40% and 15% on the the iterative. If power attacking the to hit percentage goes to 25% and 5%. This is a pretty significant shift in DPR.
I'm not sure what the attack bonus for Valeros is but it's probably +19 (BAB 10 +4 Strength, +2 Weapon training, +2 enhancement, +1 weapon focus) which means even with expertise up and running he's still hitting 70% of the time with his primary attack. Factor in Flanking with Meriesel and that goes up to 80%.
Considering he's likely to be stuck with two Stone Giants in melee I'm not altogether convinced that reducing the DPR of the stone giants is all that bad of a strategy.
Kick that back down some. He is using a Longsword and Shortword. That's dual-wielding, so down a -2, and I'm pretty sure they don't both have the same weapon training bonus. And it goes down if he does use Combat Expertise for the extra 3 armor (that he could get from Full Plate).
It will be a game of attrition that the Stone Giants WILL win.
Kick that back down some. He is using a Longsword and Shortword. That's dual-wielding, so down a -2, and I'm pretty sure they don't both have the same weapon training bonus. And it goes down if he does use Combat Expertise for the extra 3 armor (that he could get from Full Plate).
It will be a game of attrition that the Stone Giants WILL win.
It does not need to be a game of attrition. What the party is doing in the meantime? You could just need to hold them 1 round. The wizard could shut down some, the rouge could have reached position to flank.
You could have hurt them badly and now you are making them wasting most of their retaliation attacks.
You don't need to use CE all the fight. You need it for the moment of the fight you judge it's needed. Is more of a surprise move than a continuous stance.
Kick that back down some. He is using a Longsword and Shortword. That's dual-wielding, so down a -2, and I'm pretty sure they don't both have the same weapon training bonus. And it goes down if he does use Combat Expertise for the extra 3 armor (that he could get from Full Plate).
It will be a game of attrition that the Stone Giants WILL win.
It does not need to be a game of attrition. What the party is doing in the meantime? You could just need to hold them 1 round. The wizard could shut down some, the rouge could have reached position to flank.
You could have hurt them badly and now you are making them wasting most of their retaliation attacks.
You don't need to use CE all the fight. You need it for the moment of the fight you judge it's needed. Is more of a surprise move than a continuous stance.
Instead of wasting a turn (and feat) on Combat Expertise then, he could be doing something that improves his damage or to-hit to lower the time the Stone Giants can beat his face in. And switch to Full Plate.
You don't need to use CE all the fight. You need it for the moment of the fight you judge it's needed. Is more of a surprise move than a continuous stance.
And in that case, he would be better off with points in Acrobatics and then fighting defensively. That IS what fighting defensively is for. Or total defense even.
Instead of wasting a turn (and feat) on Combat Expertise then, he could be doing something that improves his damage or to-hit to lower the time the Stone Giants can beat his face in. And switch to Full Plate.
As I stated, you make stone giants concentrate attacks on you without dealing much damage while the party manages the situation, is quite useful. Other examples exist (as an example, increase the CMD versus a maneuver-focused enemy). If this is not worthy for you, I just have nothing more to say.
I agree on the full plate ;)
And in that case, he would be better off with points in Acrobatics and then fighting defensively. That IS what fighting defensively is for. Or total defense even.
CE stacks with fighting defensively. This is one of my points above - if you manage to stack buffs and defending weapons, your "stance switch" becomes more than relevat. You have just to be clever in the use.
Please note that I do not defend extensive use. In PF "tank" generally "tank" just killing every threat (which is more fun IME) :)
|
Please note that I do not defend extensive use. In PF "tank" generally "tank" just killing every threat (which is more fun IME) :)
That's what a tank is. It's a heavily armored thing that deals lots of damage. Some people I know are under the delusion that a tank does nothing but soak damage, rather than deal it.
That's not a tank. That's an APC.
Some folks in this thread need to take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard. That is all.
As I stated, you make stone giants concentrate attacks on you without dealing much damage while the party manages the situation, is quite useful. Other examples exist (as an example, increase the CMD versus a maneuver-focused enemy). If this is not worthy for you, I just have nothing more to say.
Instead of wasting a turn (and feat) on Combat Expertise then, he could be doing something that improves his damage or to-hit to lower the time the Stone Giants can beat his face in. And switch to Full Plate.
Of course now we get to the point that in 3.x/Pathfinder, forcing an opponent to concentrate its attacks on you is technically impossible.
After reading this thread, I want to play Valeros as written (though maybe with my own choice of equipment, but I just like picking out equipment). I could say why, but even if I had a good reason I'd be derided anyway so I'll just leave it at that.
And, of course, the next section of the AP came out, and let's look at our characters.
And get confused, of course.
Valeros is now at a 28 AC...his armor improved by 2, ring by 1...and dex bonus by 1.
Wth. HE doesn't have a Dex booster...how did he go from 17 to 19 Dex? level 12 only gave him a +1 to stat. His str and con went up by booster, not points!
Well, free build points. That's something.
His primary weapon is now +3 Icy burst, a +5 weapon. His bow and shortsword are now +2. His cloak of resistance is now still +2...his saves net a +2 improvement.
His new feats are Double Slice, Critical Focus and Staggering Critical.
His str, con and dex all improved by 2...dunno how the Dex did it, but ah well. +1 Dex out of thin air, or something.
====
His saves still suck. +5 Will at level 13...riiight.
His TWF style is still gimping him with feats and low AC.
He still is not using +2 of his armor training feat. A simple improvement to Full Plate +4 would net him +3 AC. The skill checks it would affect are climb and swim...wahoo.
...............
Right then.
==============
Someone care to explain to me why the 13th level wizard with a 27 Int has no 7th level spells? I mean, he's a direct damage gimp, but still.
The NPC's inside the module get a lot more room, of course, but even they have spellbooks with supplemental spells.
======
The Rogue got to add Sneak attack+2d6, +1 to Trap stuff, and Spring Attack.
========
The cleric has: The best AC (30) despite her 8 Dex. She has the best saves (total to +40), her 7th level spells, and is a healing, channeling, smiting, undead-killing, direct damage machine.
mage's saves total to 35...owing much of it to his +5 cloak.
theif's saves add to +38. She didn't boost Dex as much as the cleric did Wis.
Valeros? His add to +28. (shakes head).
There's a whole ton of stuff in the AP that can dominate or attack will saves. Valeros needs a 17 to save against most of them.
Sigh.
===Aelryinth
After reading this thread, I want to play Valeros as written (though maybe with my own choice of equipment, but I just like picking out equipment). I could say why, but even if I had a good reason I'd be derided anyway so I'll just leave it at that.
Cool beans. He's is a really cool character, i hope you have a lot of fun with him.
Of course now we get to the point that in 3.x/Pathfinder, forcing an opponent to concentrate its attacks on you is technically impossible.
Not with things like the Compl Adv Goad of the PHII knight challenge (similar things could be interesting options for the future Ultimate Combat, even if maybe not for all tastes).
But this does not mean monsters are "slippery", at least most of them. You can use position or combat patrol or cavalier class features just to say to the enemy (singing) "here I am, stuck in the middle with you...".
After reading this thread, I want to play Valeros as written (though maybe with my own choice of equipment, but I just like picking out equipment). I could say why, but even if I had a good reason I'd be derided anyway so I'll just leave it at that.Cool beans. He's is a really cool character, i hope you have a lot of fun with him.Playing masochists is viable. Though, for the sake of your fellow players, please die fast.
Regards,
Ruemere
DeathQuakers fellow players mights well join them in it.And who knows, perhapes they'll use their brains and a little creativity actually beat the campaign.
|
|
I think you're copnfusing 'iconic' with 'stereotypical'.
Not really. An icon is supposed to be representative of a larger whole.
In order to represent fighters well, I think the iconic fighter ought to be one who takes full advantage of a fighters' abilities, such as heavy armor proficiency.
I think you're copnfusing 'iconic' with 'stereotypical'.Not really. An icon is supposed to be representative of a larger whole.
In order to represent fighters well, I think the iconic fighter ought to be one who takes full advantage of a fighters' abilities, such as heavy armor proficiency.
Meh, maybe if they get Wayne Reynolds to do "High Level" versions of all the characters I would agree but it's pretty clear that the Valeros art represents him at the low levels of his adventuring career.
If you build Valeros with the TWF archetype from the APG, there would be plenty of reasons to stay with a Breastplate.
Keep in mind that Paizo in general does not assume that people have access to anything other than core as a prerequisite for playing in an AP. It wouldn't make sense for Valeros to be stocked up with all sorts of APG feats and options.
The iconics are built to work in a team with each person balancing out the other's weaknesses. In the case of Valeros, it would include using combat expertise to absorb blows long enough for the casters in the group to get some buff spells on him so he can than proceed to beat up the bad guys. Just because a tank can have both offensive and defensive power, doesn't mean that both have to be used in the same round.
As for the AP's, a party of iconics could probably survive, if the players worked together and played smart; they group certain iconics together for a reason, and select specific ones for specific APs, and if those choices are understood and worked with, the party should survive. It may be difficult at times, but the point of the APs is to provide challenges, not speed bumps. An iconic in a party with all the others being built by players is going to have the same problems most pregens would; very few pregens are going to be able to do what even a halfway decently built PC will be able to do.
This is why, in most illustrations, Valeros is being tossed through the air and undergoing other mishaps. Poor Valeros. At least Ravel wrote something nice to remember him by.
While I'm impressed by the amount of effort that went into the initial post on this thread (and many of the responses), I can't help but think this isn't very much in the spirit of the game that I've been playing for 20+ years. The min/maxing is fun to a point, but at the end of the day it's the creativity and camaraderie that go into this experience that defines it, not an insistence that a fighter has an optimized damage output or AC. As I seem to recall, many of the illustrations featuring Valeros have him in various states of trouble after being smacked about by some beast or other - he's certainly living up to that low AC art-wise.
+1 Mairkurion
Maybe is a matter of syle, too. There was already a full plate iconic - the paladin. Valeros had been just made different in the art.
|
|
Maybe Valeros would work better as a ranger? Two-weapon fighting style is definitely iconic of the ranger class, and he eschews heavy armor just like rangers do.
I think he's good enough to get through the AP as he is, though, just not powerful enough to make it a cakewalk. At least, I'm fairly confident that I could do it, as a player. I don't know about all these folks who write him off as dead. So I'm not saying he needs to be more powerful in order to be worth anything. I am saying that he hardly seems representative of fighters - he's more like a ranger in many ways.
Being "hard-pressed to survive" means that they're balanced just right and the module is challenging. That's what an adventure should feel like, that you're getting your success by the skin of your teeth.
What about the fact that the iconics are hard pressed to survive the AP's they are printed in? You can't really upgrade anything if it is dead.
"Ready made" should also mean decent.
I disagree. Being hard-press in a boss fight is one thing. From the way folks have been talking. He may struggle in the typical fights. An adventure should be designed to be a meat-grinder in order to feel like one. AoW and Shackled City come to mine.