Turgan wrote: In the long run, a fighter maxed out for damage will not make his will save in relevant situations. He will probably be gone for the rest of the fight, if he doesn't happen to change sides (just one of thousand examples).
So, does your actual gaming experience back up the assertion that "offense is the best defense"?
Offense is the best defense does not mean ignore defense. It means put more focus on offense.
Jiggy wrote: Okay, people are taking my words and interpreting them as being waaaaaaay more precise and definitive than the casual, general, anecdotal remarks they were intended to be.
I share a story (and identify it as being nothing more), and someone tries to counter it with hyperbole.
I point out the absurd hyperbole, and someone takes one phrase from it and interprets it as a stance on DPR olympics, worthy of a multi-paragraph response.
Geez, people. I just wanted to pop in and say "hey, this thing happened once and it was pretty cool".
For what it's worth i apologize for making you feel attacked i just happen to think you are the only person who has come close to presenting a real case for the idea that defense dosen't have to based around offense. I wanted to see it develop and grow to see if there was some new thinking that could be interjected into the game. Sorry to have made you feel unwelcome or unappreciated was really not my intent.
Abraham spalding wrote: A strong offense is the best defense -- that doesn't mean it's the only defense or that others don't need to be in place for when that defense fails.
This falls into the fallacy of exclusion. Just because something is the best doesn't mean it's the only or that it is infallible.
A certain gun might be the best gun -- that doesn't mean it's the best in every category, simply that when everything is considered it's the best you'll get out of all guns. The others might simply be too specialized in a niche where they will certainly excel, but be next to useless in all other cases.
Yeah. You basically said it better than I could. Bravo.
I also want to say that best, in my mind, means most efficient.
The quickest way to disable the challenge and move past it to new challenges. A defensive game is a long and excruciating one. The faster you can pump out save or loses, do damage, swing your sword, etc., the sooner you will bypass the challenge.
Sorry, Jiggy. I sometimes forget that my usualy sarcasm doesn't always translate well on teh internets.
You example was a good example of when defense > offense, but in my experience, situations like that are pretty rare.
I would offer a counter example that comes up usually 2 or 3 times during a campaign for my group...
You get attacked at night, and all that time and money you have invested in high AC is wasted because your heavy armor is laying on the ground next to your bedroll. Armor takes 5(light)-40(heavy) rounds minutes to don hasitily, so even if you get a round or 2 of warning from a having a spotter on watch, you won't be able to get your armor on. Some classes can get around it, but most classes lose quite a bit of AC in these situations.
The adventuring day is typically conceived of as 4 to 5 fights.
If there is a group a bit more offensive minded that finishes the average round 1 round sooner...
They will miss 5 rounds of the possibility of rolling 1s, and they will also miss 20 rounds of that per level, or in that neighborhood.
Gee, what happens every 1 and 20? A fumble and a critical hit. That is how much exposure finishing 1 round slower leaves a party.
There is a bias in the system, as well. Who cares if the Sahuagin Cleric rolls a 1? If a player rolls a 1 against that Cleric, his character could be dead. Monsters exist to die, for the most part. Characters don't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dragonsong wrote: Jiggy wrote: Okay, people are taking my words and interpreting them as being waaaaaaay more precise and definitive than the casual, general, anecdotal remarks they were intended to be.
I share a story (and identify it as being nothing more), and someone tries to counter it with hyperbole.
I point out the absurd hyperbole, and someone takes one phrase from it and interprets it as a stance on DPR olympics, worthy of a multi-paragraph response.
Geez, people. I just wanted to pop in and say "hey, this thing happened once and it was pretty cool".
For what it's worth i apologize for making you feel attacked i just happen to think you are the only person who has come close to presenting a real case for the idea that defense dosen't have to based around offense. I wanted to see it develop and grow to see if there was some new thinking that could be interjected into the game. Sorry to have made you feel unwelcome or unappreciated was really not my intent. Many of my character concepts deal with maxed out defense, and very little offensive abilities, or low damage dealing abilities. Whenever I post them, they get hammered (and I get "attacked" for suggesting them)... so those of us who run non-offensive characters tend to not post. I play the characters, people like to have them at the table. Often I've heard the comment "wow, we didn't take any damage in that mod... none at all?" at one of my tables. I like to think that when it happens, my character had something to do with it. Esp. when the table beside us, at the same Tier, in the same mod, got hammered.
On a related topic, many posters will explain to that if you play a character with less then a 14 Con you are playing sub par (and question your Int.). I have gotten flamed more than once for pointing out that I prefer a 14 dex over a 14 Con, and that I seldom have characters with greater than a 10 Con. (yes, I have even played a character with a 9 Con - it was in LG and I added a point at 4th level, but he worked and his 18 dex really helped him stay alive).
Players who like Offensive abilities often are very vocal about how much damage their characters can do. I've had one of the Greatsword monsters start hacking one of my defense characters (he missed a will save, and was controled by the BBG) and after she cast Prot. from Evil on him (he missed her 'cause he power attacked, yep, missed by 1), he sounded disappointed when he pointed out that he would have killed her if he hit her and it was a good thing that I had the spell prepared (I refrained from pointing out that I had hit him with a touch attack to cast the spell on him). He even took the time to roll the damage dice to see what he would have done!(the phrase "cut her in half - making half elves!" comes to mind)
Charender wrote: You get attacked at night, and all that time and money you have invested in high AC is wasted because your heavy armor is laying on the ground next to your bedroll. Armor takes 5(light)-40(heavy) rounds minutes to don hasitily, so even if you get a round or 2 of warning from a having a spotter on watch, you won't be able to get your armor on. Some classes can get around it, but most classes lose quite a bit of AC in these situations. Note that this is not a problem for people who are using light armor (or mithral medium armor) since they can sleep in it just fine.
SPCDRI, rolling a 1 is no worse than any other miss unless you house rule it, and rolling a 20 is no better than any other hit unless you are able to confirm the threat. All else being equal, it's the low AC guys who have to worry about crits, because threats are more likely to confirm against them.
nosig wrote:
Many of my character concepts deal with maxed out defense, and very little offensive abilities, or low damage dealing abilities. Whenever I post them, they get hammered (and I get "attacked" for suggesting them)... so those of us who run non-offensive characters tend to not post. I play the characters, people like to have them at the table. Often I've heard the comment "wow, we didn't take any damage in that mod... none at all?" at one of my tables. I like to think that when it happens, my character had something to do with it. Esp. when the table beside us, at the same Tier, in the same mod, got hammered.
OK so what does the rest of the party look like? Because while we are focusing apparently on the singular character the reality is we need to be looking at the group and some folks have alluded to that. If everybody else is big hitters from ranged and you are playing the meat shield (and the situation is allowing for that) and is downing them in 1-2 rounds, my guess is not as much as you think. If you are talking about 0- minimal damage after 4-5+ rounds then yes you are probably on to something and again I would love to see what kinds of characters you are constructing to perform in that fashion.
As I said I want to see a strong argument constructed for this position to really have a comparison versus the other.
Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: You get attacked at night, and all that time and money you have invested in high AC is wasted because your heavy armor is laying on the ground next to your bedroll. Armor takes 5(light)-40(heavy) rounds minutes to don hasitily, so even if you get a round or 2 of warning from a having a spotter on watch, you won't be able to get your armor on. Some classes can get around it, but most classes lose quite a bit of AC in these situations. Note that this is not a problem for people who are using light armor (or mithral medium armor) since they can sleep in it just fine.
SPCDRI, rolling a 1 is no worse than any other miss unless you house rule it, and rolling a 20 is no better than any other hit unless you are able to confirm the threat. All else being equal, it's the low AC guys who have to worry about crits, because threats are more likely to confirm against them.
Caveat, unless that 1 is on a saving throw.
Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: You get attacked at night, and all that time and money you have invested in high AC is wasted because your heavy armor is laying on the ground next to your bedroll. Armor takes 5(light)-40(heavy) rounds minutes to don hasitily, so even if you get a round or 2 of warning from a having a spotter on watch, you won't be able to get your armor on. Some classes can get around it, but most classes lose quite a bit of AC in these situations. Note that this is not a problem for people who are using light armor (or mithral medium armor) since they can sleep in it just fine.
SPCDRI, rolling a 1 is no worse than any other miss unless you house rule it, and rolling a 20 is no better than any other hit unless you are able to confirm the threat. All else being equal, it's the low AC guys who have to worry about crits, because threats are more likely to confirm against them.
Again an example from LG. Party is sleeping in a Barn (at the Last Chance Inn) when we are attacked by a Troll ripping open the only door. As we were APL 3 or 4 this was going to be a very tough fight. My wiz cast Hypnotic Pattern, delaying the fight (Troll missed the save and was "watching the pretty lights"). As the duration of the spell was Concentration +1 round per level, the rest of the party got up and dressed (the full plate Paladin was very happy not to have to fight in her chain shirt jammies) and we walked out of the barn and down the road. Placed caltrops on the road and opened combat with arrows at the troll. (and had other problems from there... sometimes we are not as smart as we think, but that's another story).
If it takes a 20 to hit me, the 18 and 19 possible crits miss, AND you have to roll another 20 to crit me. If it takes a 11 to hit me, that means half the 18, 19 ant 20s crit me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Charender wrote: Caveat, unless that 1 is on a saving throw. True 'dat.
Really, though, isn't this all as simple as this?
Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, and sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense.
In other words, sometimes offense is the best defense, and sometimes it's not. Neglect either offense or defense at your peril.
Dragonsong wrote: nosig wrote:
Many of my character concepts deal with maxed out defense, and very little offensive abilities, or low damage dealing abilities. Whenever I post them, they get hammered (and I get "attacked" for suggesting them)... so those of us who run non-offensive characters tend to not post. I play the characters, people like to have them at the table. Often I've heard the comment "wow, we didn't take any damage in that mod... none at all?" at one of my tables. I like to think that when it happens, my character had something to do with it. Esp. when the table beside us, at the same Tier, in the same mod, got hammered.
OK so what does the rest of the party look like? Because while we are focusing apparently on the singular character the reality is we need to be looking at the group and some folks have alluded to that. If everybody else is big hitters from ranged and you are playing the meat shield (and the situation is allowing for that) and is downing them in 1-2 rounds, my guess is not as much as you think. If you are talking about 0- minimal damage after 4-5+ rounds then yes you are probably on to something and again I would love to see what kinds of characters you are constructing to perform in that fashion.
As I said I want to see a strong argument constructed for this position to really have a comparison versus the other. Sorry Dragonsong, I'm not understanding your question. Are you asking about Defensive concepts? if so here are a half dozen (is this what you are looking for?).
1) At low level +AC is cheaper than +to hit.
2) Anything that gives a miss chance. (a 20% miss means 20% or those 20 attack rolls miss).
3) Mirror Image - also Copy Cat (see miss chance above).
4) Move away from anything that gets 3 or more attacks a round. An AOO and a closing attack are better to suffer than a Claw/Claw/Bite/Rend.
5) At low levels, 5' step away from the combat, friendly shotters may need a clear shot.
6) "Dis-information is better than Dat-information". Unless your DM meta-games, messing with what the bad guys think can buy you (and your big hitters) a round or two. and maybe the combat. Have your wizard carry a short bow and rapier (he looks like a rogue). Hand your Tank a hat of disguise so that he looks like a wiz. Make your Elf wiz look like a human (one of my Elven wizard sucked off two sleep spells, cause she looked like a human rogue with a crossbow).
Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: Caveat, unless that 1 is on a saving throw. True 'dat.
Really, though, isn't this all as simple as this?
Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, and sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense.
In other words, sometimes offense is the best defense, and sometimes it's not. Neglect either offense or defense at your peril. I would rephrase it slightly. "Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Usually that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, but sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense. "
I find it is about a 80/20 rule thing. 80% of the time, good offense/average defense is the best choice.
Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: Caveat, unless that 1 is on a saving throw. True 'dat.
Really, though, isn't this all as simple as this?
Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, and sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense.
In other words, sometimes offense is the best defense, and sometimes it's not. Neglect either offense or defense at your peril. Agreed. and the reason I often play heavy defense, is 'cause I often see heavy offense players already at the table when I sit down. I also have some heavy melee characters - they just don't get used as much.
nosig wrote: Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: You get attacked at night, and all that time and money you have invested in high AC is wasted because your heavy armor is laying on the ground next to your bedroll. Armor takes 5(light)-40(heavy) rounds minutes to don hasitily, so even if you get a round or 2 of warning from a having a spotter on watch, you won't be able to get your armor on. Some classes can get around it, but most classes lose quite a bit of AC in these situations. Note that this is not a problem for people who are using light armor (or mithral medium armor) since they can sleep in it just fine.
SPCDRI, rolling a 1 is no worse than any other miss unless you house rule it, and rolling a 20 is no better than any other hit unless you are able to confirm the threat. All else being equal, it's the low AC guys who have to worry about crits, because threats are more likely to confirm against them.
Again an example from LG. Party is sleeping in a Barn (at the Last Chance Inn) when we are attacked by a Troll ripping open the only door. As we were APL 3 or 4 this was going to be a very tough fight. My wiz cast Hypnotic Pattern, delaying the fight (Troll missed the save and was "watching the pretty lights"). As the duration of the spell was Concentration +1 round per level, the rest of the party got up and dressed (the full plate Paladin was very happy not to have to fight in her chain shirt jammies) and we walked out of the barn and down the road. Placed caltrops on the road and opened combat with arrows at the troll. (and had other problems from there... sometimes we are not as smart as we think, but that's another story).
If it takes a 20 to hit me, the 18 and 19 possible crits miss, AND you have to roll another 20 to crit me. If it takes a 11 to hit me, that means half the 18, 19 ant 20s crit me. Just as a side note. My interpretation of that is that the wizard used an offensive spell to end the combat. The troll was basically dead the moment he failed the will save, the rest of that was details on how exactly he died.
The the wizard had memorized nothing but defensive buffs, how would things have gone?
nosig wrote: Dragonsong wrote: Jiggy wrote: Okay, people are taking my words and interpreting them as being waaaaaaay more precise and definitive than the casual, general, anecdotal remarks they were intended to be.
I share a story (and identify it as being nothing more), and someone tries to counter it with hyperbole.
I point out the absurd hyperbole, and someone takes one phrase from it and interprets it as a stance on DPR olympics, worthy of a multi-paragraph response.
Geez, people. I just wanted to pop in and say "hey, this thing happened once and it was pretty cool".
For what it's worth i apologize for making you feel attacked i just happen to think you are the only person who has come close to presenting a real case for the idea that defense dosen't have to based around offense. I wanted to see it develop and grow to see if there was some new thinking that could be interjected into the game. Sorry to have made you feel unwelcome or unappreciated was really not my intent. Many of my character concepts deal with maxed out defense, and very little offensive abilities, or low damage dealing abilities. Whenever I post them, they get hammered (and I get "attacked" for suggesting them)... so those of us who run non-offensive characters tend to not post. I play the characters, people like to have them at the table. Often I've heard the comment "wow, we didn't take any damage in that mod... none at all?" at one of my tables. I like to think that when it happens, my character had something to do with it. Esp. when the table beside us, at the same Tier, in the same mod, got hammered.
On a related topic, many posters will explain to that if you play a character with less then a 14 Con you are playing sub par (and question your Int.). I have gotten flamed more than once for pointing out that I prefer a 14 dex over a 14 Con, and that I seldom have characters with greater than a 10 Con. (yes, I have even played a character with a 9 Con - it was in LG and I added a point at 4th level, but... I hate to hear of such behavior. Even though I disagree with how you do things I would not flame you for it. I would, at the most, ask questions about your group's playstyle, because I have never seen anyone with a con below 12 not die.
nosig wrote:
Sorry Dragonsong, I'm not understanding your question. Are you asking about Defensive concepts? if so here are a half dozen (is this what you are looking for?).
Sort of. I am actually looking for the specific build you used in the LG scenario you post about a bit upthread where you said you took little to no damage as a group as opposed to the guys beside you getting wrecked.
I though "I want to see the characters you constructed" was pretty clear though.
In regards to your list almost all of those fall into the "super-sensory powers nullify them" category which I addressed as a pit fall in the very first post I made in this thread (1 & 4 and at times 6 as exceptions which I don't think anyone would disagree are all sound tactical decisions) Yet any of the things on that list could be added to a high offense set up as well. Defense does not have the market on them so to speak. This is why I want to see specific builds to see what I am missing that is keeping me from agreeing with your assertion.
Treantmonk wrote: First of all, if that statement becomes a reasoning to go all offense and scrap the defense, then the reasoning is flawed.
That said, offense is a pretty good defense in some situations. I wouldn't put it the best overall though.
Then again, I wouldn't put AC or HP at the top of the list either.
Control is probably the best defense overall. If you can prevent your enemies from getting their full attacks, then you've defended yourself better than the best armor.
Control looks a lot like offense mechanically.
Most of the fog spells have riders that give saving throws based on the same stat as your saving throws would be for SoDs and blasts. The mighty Black Tentacles has a CMB based on that stat too. The pit saving throws are also based on that stat. Walls and illusions when used in ways that give saving throws also use that stat. Unless you're a wis based caster it's not a stat used for defense, but even if you are it's the stat you use for offense. Or would if you were a SoD or blaster build.
Nonmagical control (trip, drag, bull rush, etc.) works off of CMB which uses BAB and Strength unless you spend a feat moving it to Dexterity, which is probably better spent on other things with a strength build instead. Sometimes you add your weapon mods to CMB, another thing also used for more conventional offense.
Charender wrote: Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: Caveat, unless that 1 is on a saving throw. True 'dat.
Really, though, isn't this all as simple as this?
Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, and sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense.
In other words, sometimes offense is the best defense, and sometimes it's not. Neglect either offense or defense at your peril. I would rephrase it slightly. "Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Usually that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, but sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense. "
I find it is about a 80/20 rule thing. 80% of the time, good offense/average defense is the best choice. I would question your % perhaps. But even then, do you spend 1 in 5 feats on defense? or 1/5 of treasure? I like a 50/50 split better, but that is just me, YMMV. I will often sit at the table that is 80%/??% with me to supply the ??%.
Then we might want to factor in the non-combat factors. In PFSOP (unlike LG) an avoided fight is not a loss in loot/XP. The characters start the encounter with a dead body and they are accosted by the locals. Sure we can kill the locals and take their stuff, but maybe we should talk to them? Anyone running a face character? Everyone have a 7 Cha chopper?
nosig wrote:
I would question your % perhaps. But even then, do you spend 1 in 5 feats on defense? or 1/5 of treasure? I like a 50/50 split better, but that is just me, YMMV. I will often sit at the table that is 80%/??% with me to supply the ??%.
Then we might want to factor in the non-combat factors. In PFSOP (unlike LG) an avoided fight is not a loss in loot/XP. The characters start the encounter with a dead body and they are accosted by the locals. Sure we can kill the locals and take their stuff, but maybe we should talk to them? Anyone running a face character? Everyone have a 7 Cha chopper?
It is a little more complicated than that. 80% of the time I need an average defense. Not, 80% of the time I need no defense. I usually spend about twice as much on offense as a spend on defense.
Wraith - in 8 years of LG, with more than a dozen characters (each unique character concepts I like to think), the only character I had die had a 12 Con. Almost all the others had 10 (except for the guy who started with a 9 and ran with that till he made 4th level). If you don't get hit, you don't take damage. If you don't get hit often, you don't take much damage. The only character I had with over a 12 was my Combat Rogue (a chain fighting half-orc thug named Maggot), and he fell down enough in his first 3 levels to earn the nickname Yo-Yo (his record for one mod was 4 times below zero hit point, 3 times in the same combat).
All I can say is, it's my style of play. It works for me. Might not for someone else, but I have fun at it.
Dragonsong wrote: nosig wrote:
Sorry Dragonsong, I'm not understanding your question. Are you asking about Defensive concepts? if so here are a half dozen (is this what you are looking for?).
Sort of. I am actually looking for the specific build you used in the LG scenario you post about a bit upthread where you said you took little to no damage as a group as opposed to the guys beside you getting wrecked.
I though "I want to see the characters you constructed" was pretty clear though.
In regards to your list almost all of those fall into the "super-sensory powers nullify them" category which I addressed as a pit fall in the very first post I made in this thread (1 & 4 and at times 6 as exceptions which I don't think anyone would disagree are all sound tactical decisions) Yet any of the things on that list could be added to a high offense set up as well. Defense does not have the market on them so to speak. This is why I want to see specific builds to see what I am missing that is keeping me from agreeing with your assertion. In LG? Ok, but I'm not sure they would work for PF.
I had a Halfling multi-class (Drd/wiz/sor/cleric) that played 8 years and only ever killed 2 skeletons. I assisted a lot! 33 spells at 4th level and an attack bonus of +0. But players learned to carry missle weapons when I played, entangled enemies are best dispatched from a distance. Darkness in 3.5 gave a mis chance, so if I cast it on a something I had in hand I could move to provide my tank with a 20% miss chance and the enemy didn't get it.
I had an overpowering Bard Diplomat. High Cha, maxed out synergy bonuses to Diplomacy, etc. Would get some players upset when I talked the enemy into not fighting.... she had to start asking the players if it was ok to "turn off the combat before it starts". That sort of thing.
I had a Mind-bender Enchanter/Wizard with prohibited schools Evocation and Nacromancy, so she couldn't throw damage causing spells - at low level she just Sleep them, at high level she would Dominate them (22 Int and +6 headband gives a 28 Int, with Spell focus and greater spell focus would give a surprizing DC on her Dominate Person spells). Many games ended with me argueing with the other players that they could not kill my minions, and the party size had as much as doubled going into the final encounter.
Blast - I need to go, I'll try to post more on this later.
nosig wrote: In LG? Ok, but I'm not sure they would work for PF.
I had a Halfling multi-class (Drd/wiz/sor/cleric) that played 8 years and only ever killed 2 skeletons. I assisted a lot! 33 spells at 4th level and an attack bonus of +0. But players learned to carry missle weapons when I played, entangled enemies are best dispatched from a distance. Darkness in 3.5 gave a mis chance, so if I cast it on a something I had in hand I could move to provide my tank with a 20% miss chance and the enemy didn't get it.
I had an overpowering Bard Diplomat. High Cha, maxed out synergy bonuses to Diplomacy, etc. Would get some players upset when I talked the enemy into not fighting.... she had to start asking the players if it was ok to "turn off the combat before it starts". That sort of thing.
I had a Mind-bender Enchanter/Wizard with prohibited schools Evocation and Nacromancy, so she couldn't throw damage causing spells - at low level she just Sleep them, at...
OK so those that you just described are not defensive characters but controllers. who used various save or die/ save or suck options which most folks would qualify as pretty offensive in nature.
As stated above:
Atarlost wrote: Treantmonk wrote: First of all, if that statement becomes a reasoning to go all offense and scrap the defense, then the reasoning is flawed.
That said, offense is a pretty good defense in some situations. I wouldn't put it the best overall though.
Then again, I wouldn't put AC or HP at the top of the list either.
Control is probably the best defense overall. If you can prevent your enemies from getting their full attacks, then you've defended yourself better than the best armor.
Control looks a lot like offense mechanically.
Most of the fog spells have riders that give saving throws based on the same stat as your saving throws would be for SoDs and blasts. The mighty Black Tentacles has a CMB based on that stat too. The pit saving throws are also based on that stat. Walls and illusions when used in ways that give saving throws also use that stat. Unless you're a wis based caster it's not a stat used for defense, but even if you are it's the stat you use for offense. Or would if you were a SoD or blaster build.
Nonmagical control (trip, drag, bull rush, etc.) works off of CMB which uses BAB and Strength unless you spend a feat moving it to Dexterity, which is probably better spent on other things with a strength build instead. Sometimes you add your weapon mods to CMB, another thing also used for more conventional offense
I think defence matters, but defence matters so much more if you remember to pump to work a little with it.
Lets take the argument before, about having one character with say 16 AC and the other with 26 AC. Hitting for 2d6+16 (avg 23) and 1d8+6 (avg 10.5) respectively. This means that assuming they have the same to hit chance (like pa penalty gets cancelled by feats and a better weapon), that would mean the high AC defensive guy needs to last more than twice as long to dish out the same damage.
At this level in the game, lets say they meet a person/monster with a 5BAB+6str+1focus=+12 to hit bonus (same as bestiary lists for a level 6 monster)
That means that the 2h fighter will get hit by 4+ and the sword and board at a 14+
The 2h fighter would then recieve roughly 93.558 % of the avg damage of the monster per attack, while the sword and board gets about 39.326% damage. That also means that he will last about 2.5 times longer, equalling out to the exact time he needed to deal the same damage.
But if we now allow him to use weapon expertise for another 2 ac, (lets say they both do that), the numbers would be 82.670% and 27.714% meaning the sword and board can now last 3 times as long while still dishing about half the damage.
If we now include fighting defensively and stuff like that, this gets even more in the sword and boards favor. Now im not trying to say that u should build a character that cant damage, just that pure defence AC wise, is actually a viable option. Its not that hard to make a barbarian, that has insane saves, a super high AC, tons of HP immunity to loads of conditions, and pretty much impossible to stop, while still maintaining a decent enough damage, that what ever is at the recieving end still feel u hitting.
But think about AC this way. 1 point isnt just 5% less chance to get hit, if its the point that takes you from getting hit on 19 to 20, then that 1 point of AC more than dubbles the amount of time it takes to take down your character. A fighter that uses wp expertise at level 10, taking him from getting hit on 17 to 20 can now survive 4 times as long. So once you start beefing up the AC, you get to a point where the survivability jumps through the roof.
(for the geeks here, i did calculations through simulation of dice rolls, got the program code stored away if people want it)
forgot to say that the average damage mentioned is just plain weapon + enhancement + str. Crits are already in the formula, which is why the % will add to about 105% if you hit on all but a 1.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's easy to say "offense is the best defense" if you consider stuff that lowers opponent's attacks "offense".
Fog spells, grease and the like are to me clearly defensive spells, that allow you to easier deal damage, just like a high CMD allows you to by not being knocked out.
Hold and Dominate Person are another thing.
Charender wrote: I would rephrase it slightly. "Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Usually that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, but sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense. "
I find it is about a 80/20 rule thing. 80% of the time, good offense/average defense is the best choice.
Fair enough. I'd suggest that the actual proportions depend on party composition, what kind of encounters you run into, how you classify control/save or suck/etc.
That said, to me the big consideration is that I find good offense/average defense vastly more fun to play than vice versa. And actually, as I think about it, I wonder how much this factor might color the discussion?
One of my current Maxed defensive characters - an a bit of the histroy on why he is like he is.
Building a secondary Character to play when my #1 character isn't a good fit at the table. I decide to be a cleric - and discover that they don't get Hvy armor anymore... so I know, I'll pick that as his first feat! yeah! and...mmmm... make him a dwarf 'cause I hate being slowed down. and I'll give him travel domain so he can keep up with the party so let's see about a god. Hay! a god of Beer! what better for a Dwarf! so what other domains.... charm has the sub domain of Love which gives adoration, so a Dwarf Cleric with Travel and Love! I'll name him Giamo Casanunda (Diskworld reference) so let's see his build.
High Wis, Dex of 12 (more is wasted with hvy armor) and as much Cha as I can fit in his 20 points. After one adventure I was able to buy Banded Armor giving him an AC of 20. without spells (Prot Evil, Shield of Faith) which I never seem to get cast before the fight anyway. So first line of defense is his Aduration domain ability, second is an AC of 20. Most 1st lvl clerics have an AC of 18, so I figure a +2 AC just cost 250gp. (And I learn to step out of melee so that the archer player can hit the Skeleton/Zombie/Wolf monster.)
My second adventure was playing up, so I got a bunch of money on that one (1,250 gp), almost 2.5 times what I got for the first one. With selling off the chain shirt and Banded mail I was able to afford to buy the full plate (master work) - cost 1650. And this set up his "gimmick", fixing him in my mind as an armored hockey puck. And now his AC is 22, making him very hard hit. For 1650 he got 2 more on his AC, but looked at it another way, he is 4 points above the AC of an average 1st level guy - for 1650 gp. (and one feat). That comes out to aprox 412.5gp per +1. First level Offense get's +1 (Master work) for 300, but more than that is very costly.
Three mods later (Total 5 mods so he was 2nd level) he pays 1000 to add +1 to his armor (total AC increase is +5 for 2650gp, and one feat). Current AC is 23, but I actually got to cast my shield of faith once and had a 25 for one combat. The Archer with the Long Composite Assult rifle is looking me up to play at my table now.
one mod later (as he levels to 3rd) he sells off his Master work hvy shield to have enough money to buy a a +1 Tower Shield (which is his 3rd level feat), giving him +3 more on his AC for 1180gp and one more feat. Total AC is 26 (besides the Aduration and possible spells), cost is (total AC increase is +8 for 3830gp, and two feats).
at 9 total mods (as he levels to 4th) he buys a Hat of Disguise (see Dis-information above) and begins casting Shield Other, Watchful Eye, and Spiritual Weapon. Also Murderous Command (these last two are not defensive so I guess they are a bit off topic).
At 12 total mods (he just leveled to 5th) he has added Sanctified Shield to his shield, which only buy's him +1 on his AC (until he is hit) but it only cost 100gp. At this point I have to decide what to take as his 5th level feat... and I'm thinking of buying a wand of Shield of Faith or maybe Prot. from Evil...
Dragon Song, does this help? Realize that I expect him to be at a table where at least half the other characters are Max Damage builds - that I will have to expend resorces to heal up when they get hit. So I absorb the attacks, and Shield other the Max Damage guy if he is melee (gives him +1 to his AC) and/or cast Shield of Faith/Prot. Evil to keep him in the fight (as well as healing him). That let's him do what he likes to do - what his character is designed to do, and let's him do it longer and I think better. He enjoys himself, and he enjoys playing with me at his table.
Glendwyr wrote: That said, to me the big consideration is that I find good offense/average defense vastly more fun to play than vice versa. And actually, as I think about it, I wonder how much this factor might color the discussion? Purely my opinion but I think it vastly colors the discussion. I will admit that it has to be part of why I don't understand the opposing side well enough to craft my own argument in favor of good defense/average offense and keep asking folks to provide me with various levels of details.
Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: I would rephrase it slightly. "Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Usually that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, but sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense. "
I find it is about a 80/20 rule thing. 80% of the time, good offense/average defense is the best choice.
Fair enough. I'd suggest that the actual proportions depend on party composition, what kind of encounters you run into, how you classify control/save or suck/etc.
That said, to me the big consideration is that I find good offense/average defense vastly more fun to play than vice versa. And actually, as I think about it, I wonder how much this factor might color the discussion?
Glendwyr - you'd be great to have at a table with one of my "defensive" characters! I'd make you really shine, and you'd get to do what you do best - while I keep you up and maybe keep you alive.
Picture a Bard that can make you invisible to the monster - every round, right after you attack (most of the time). You get +2 to hit their Flatfooted AC and they have a 50% miss chance to hit you on your turn. I just need you to keep the bad guys off my bard while you kill them (Oh, and I gave you +10' of movement before that fight (duration 1 hour))
got a game to go to - I'll be back later tonight and check in again then.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
stringburka wrote: It's easy to say "offense is the best defense" if you consider stuff that lowers opponent's attacks "offense". I think stringburka has a very important point that seems to have been pretty much ignored.
Loosely, I'd say that a sensible definition of offensive spells are spells that help your side end the combat faster, and defensive spells are spells that help keep the other side from ending the combat faster. Haste is primarily an offensive spell; slow is primarily a defensive spell. Blindness is both, because a blind opponent is both easier to hit and has a harder time hitting you. Solid fog is defensive, because putting an enemy in a solid fog doesn't do much to help you kill him, but does a lot to help keep him from killing you.
I have a real hard time seeing how "I keep the troll from attacking the party" is "offensive" in nature. To me, that looks like pure defense. It does no damage, and it neither helps your allies hit more often nor helps them hit harder. But it certainly does keep the troll from hitting you - from scoring, if you will - and preventing your opponents from scoring is the very essence of defense.
If you're going to define a proactive defense as "offense" then of course offense looks more important, but that's just because you've defined defense into irrelevance.
I think the game assumes that more goes into offense than defense. Just looking at the NPC wealth tables shows that there is roughly a 50/50 split until about level 12 or so then it becomes more offense than defense.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/creatingNPCs.html
I believe the old adage actually goes: "The BEST defense is a GOOD offense."
"Best" and "good" are relative.
I suppose that if your offense were especially, really good, then you would always get the first hit in, and it would always be successful, thus eliminating a need for defense.
That's in a perfect world, but many adages assume a perfect world. Or in this case, a perfect offense. The adage is otherwise just meant as advice to take the initiative and act first, so probably not worth too much worry.
How should the monster, which just now met the PCs, see, which one is the squishy and which one not?
I personally have the "problem", that in our group the paladin has both: Good AC and good damage. That could be related to the fact that just about every enemy is evil or a demon (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits). So, my Glabrezu tries to reverse gravity and the paladin stays there. And pummels him to death... And no, the chance for the glabrezu to hit him was not so good.
In the other round our fighter-archer got many enemies down with one or two hits. But he also got only half of his HP left, because he has a low AC. Our Cleric has a high AC and he did acceptable damage (OK, not so high like the fighter).
Hmmm... Maybe we should introduce something like ponucing barbarian or something like that. Maybe as an NPC? ;) But in the moment I have to agree with the OP, a good defence is just that. And a good offense is another thing.
nosig wrote: Dragon Song, does this help? Realize that I expect him to be at a table where at least half the other characters are Max Damage builds - that I will have to expend resorces to heal up when they get hit. So I absorb the attacks, and Shield other the Max Damage guy if he is melee (gives him +1 to his AC) and/or cast Shield of Faith/Prot. Evil to keep him in the fight (as well as healing him). That let's him do what he likes to do - what his character is designed to do, and let's him do it longer and I think better. He enjoys himself, and he enjoys playing with me at his table. Sure and while I might build a similar character I would add divine favor (or a wand of it ) to my spells prepared so that I increase my to hit and damage while standing there next to him. by being slightly more threatening I force more choices on the baddie: a) hit the lightly armored guy who is hitting real hard and let the tin can who is hitting harder than I thought wail on me, b) move away or maneuver one of them away but still have the tin can take half of what I'm dishing out, etc. That character is a brick and uses the best option available to him by sharing damage the big hitters take. So at the character only level of analysis. At the party level it seems like you are in a high offense party so again I am not sure that it isn't offence that is carrying the ball.
You are also of course 2 levels away from Divine Power, granted not as super as it was in 3.5 still increases combat waah of the cleric especially one in heavy armor a good bit if you choose not to use hold person divine favor divine power and the like to take a more buff/ dedicated healer role that's great. I applaud you for as Jess Door says "being optimized to Buff the party" It is a team game to be sure and I see some serious team play mentality there.
Dragonsong wrote: nosig wrote: Dragon Song, does this help? Realize that I expect him to be at a table where at least half the other characters are Max Damage builds - that I will have to expend resorces to heal up when they get hit. So I absorb the attacks, and Shield other the Max Damage guy if he is melee (gives him +1 to his AC) and/or cast Shield of Faith/Prot. Evil to keep him in the fight (as well as healing him). That let's him do what he likes to do - what his character is designed to do, and let's him do it longer and I think better. He enjoys himself, and he enjoys playing with me at his table. Sure and while I might build a similar character I would add divine favor (or a wand of it ) to my spells prepared so that I increase my to hit and damage while standing there next to him. by being slightly more threatening I force more choices on the baddie: a) hit the lightly armored guy who is hitting real hard and let the tin can who is hitting harder than I thought wail on me, b) move away or maneuver one of them away but still have the tin can take half of what I'm dishing out, etc. That character is a brick and uses the best option available to him by sharing damage the big hitters take. So at the character only level of analysis. At the party level it seems like you are in a high offense party so again I am not sure that it isn't offence that is carrying the ball.
You are also of course 2 levels away from Divine Power, granted not as super as it was in 3.5 still increases combat waah of the cleric especially one in heavy armor a good bit if you choose not to use hold person divine favor divine power and the like to take a more buff/ dedicated healer role that's great. I applaud you for as Jess Door says "being optimized to Buff the party" It is a team game to be sure and I see some serious team play mentality there. Different players play the same character differently. It's one of the fun things in the game (until someone wants to flame me for "playing a sub-par character" because I don't build my character or play my character the way they would).
Each time I play my character the party mix is different, sometimes very. So, in a way I am sort of Meta-Gaming with my character, building him knowing I'm going to have a Max Damage character at the table. I often will not have a Rogue there ("Max picks locks and finds traps fine! Boom! Ah, need a little healing here" is only a little better than the 2nd level rogue with no ranks in disable device.). There might not be an Arcane Caster (where have all the wizards gone?). There might not be a "Face" ("Max has In-tim-a-date, works good for finding things out!") - so we get to rely on my Cleric (Dip=+5) to do the gather information rolls. But I always have a Max Damage at the table.
In 12 games there has only been one where I did not have one or more Max Damage characters at the table, and several where there were 4. I alway have to put them back together after the fight (Except for the ranged characters, the archers and such). It is cheaper for me in money and spells to "play the shield" than it is heal 'em up after the fight. I'm not complaining - at least not much. It's what has molded my character so far. And I enjoy him. It's fun to move 40 feet thru the mooks, up a flight of stairs and offer the BBG a beer.
I don't question the guy across the table in normal scale armor and no shield who is saving his money to enchante his off hand weapon (TWF), because his primary is already +1. He had a Wand of CLW, and was surprized that I would cast a spell rather than burn charges on his wand. (I do wonder a little about what kind of clerics he has been playing with.) After the game he commented that it was the first game in a while that he had spent less than 5 charges on(and was on his second wand).
Originally my character was going to be an offensive spell caster - so I maxed out his Wis to give him good DCs. It was as I played him in PFSOP that I found his "Shtick" with how cheap defense is at lower level. Defense is cheap. Perhaps at higher level I'll start taking Hold Person and be more offensive in nature - but I'll be robbing Max of his fun, and I'm kind of enjoying him as he is so far. In the time a character can increase his attack by +3 or +4 I increased my Clerics AC by +8.
So, please understand why it bothers me when people on the boards "explain" how I have a "sub-par character", and then question my honesty and personal INT for playin him this way. He's fun. I injoy him. And he works.
Sometime we'll have to talk about my Bard. A character with weak defenses and almost no attacks (she's almost unarmed... whips are just tools of her trade, the dagger is for eating, and the spiked gauntlet is silver, set with gems and part of her outfit. And she would hate to get blood on her outfit...). ;)
Glendwyr wrote: Charender wrote: I would rephrase it slightly. "Your goal is to defeat the enemy with minimal expenditure of resources. Usually that can best be accomplished by characters with good offense and average defense, but sometimes that can best be accomplished by characters with good defense and average offense. "
I find it is about a 80/20 rule thing. 80% of the time, good offense/average defense is the best choice.
Fair enough. I'd suggest that the actual proportions depend on party composition, what kind of encounters you run into, how you classify control/save or suck/etc.
That said, to me the big consideration is that I find good offense/average defense vastly more fun to play than vice versa. And actually, as I think about it, I wonder how much this factor might color the discussion?
Yeah, I am speaking from a party wide standpoint. 80% of the time, you want your party as a whole to have good offense with average defense. If you have a glass cannon on your team, you probably need someone else to go a little more defensive to compensate.
Glendwyr wrote: stringburka wrote: It's easy to say "offense is the best defense" if you consider stuff that lowers opponent's attacks "offense". I think stringburka has a very important point that seems to have been pretty much ignored.
Loosely, I'd say that a sensible definition of offensive spells are spells that help your side end the combat faster, and defensive spells are spells that help keep the other side from ending the combat faster. Haste is primarily an offensive spell; slow is primarily a defensive spell. Blindness is both, because a blind opponent is both easier to hit and has a harder time hitting you. Solid fog is defensive, because putting an enemy in a solid fog doesn't do much to help you kill him, but does a lot to help keep him from killing you.
I have a real hard time seeing how "I keep the troll from attacking the party" is "offensive" in nature. To me, that looks like pure defense. It does no damage, and it neither helps your allies hit more often nor helps them hit harder. But it certainly does keep the troll from hitting you - from scoring, if you will - and preventing your opponents from scoring is the very essence of defense.
If you're going to define a proactive defense as "offense" then of course offense looks more important, but that's just because you've defined defense into irrelevance. Yeah, there is definately some grey area.
Hypnotic pattern from an earlier post is definately an offense spell. It directly attack someone and take them out of the fight. I would label any form of crowd control(sleep, hold person, etc) as offense. Spells that directly debuff enemies(slow, confusion, etc) are also offense. My reasoning is that these spells operate directly on the enemy, and if you don't have a high DC and spell penetration they are not going to work nearly as well. To get the most out of these kind of spells, you need a character that is built for offense.
Obscuring mist is defensive, but then you move up into spells like cloudkill that can be used like obscuring and deal damage. If you use cloudkill as a barrier to prevent enemies from attacking, is it defensive. If you drop it directly on the enemies, it is offensive. I would still put cloudkill down as a defensive spell because it is still useful, even if the enemy makes their save. The damage and debuff are just a bonus.
Hypnotic pattern (at least in 3.0 when I was using it on the Troll) only worked as along as none of our party attacked the Troll. Once we drew a weapon with the intent of attacking the troll, the fight started again. It was kind of like Calm Emotions. Very defensive to me. Kind of like withdrawing from combat so the monster will not get a full attack on me, or total defense (or fighting defensively) while I'm waiting for Max to get over here and kill this thing.
Or handing the entire party 3.0 Boots of Spider Climb (My crafting wizard in LG made 6 pairs) so that we could dungeon crawl from the ceiling. In a large room we had to wait for the Morlocks Darkness spell to end so we could range attack them. I think this was the same game that the Ranger in the party asked me why I didn't have real Wizard spells, like Bulls Strength and Cat's Grace (after I slept the Ogre and he didn't get to Power attack it).
I guess it is all in how you define Defense. Do you pay for armor? or save for magic weapons? Do you use a shield (a cheap +2 AC) or go TWF? Does the 3rd level Melee guy even own a missile weapon? I once had to teach a 6th level fighter that you could use a missile weapon into a 2nd range increment... he thought the Range was as far as the weapon went.
nosig wrote: Hypnotic pattern (at least in 3.0 when I was using it on the Troll) only worked as along as none of our party attacked the Troll. Once we drew a weapon with the intent of attacking the troll, the fight started again. It was kind of like Calm Emotions. Very defensive to me. Kind of like withdrawing from combat so the monster will not get a full attack on me, or total defense (or fighting defensively) while I'm waiting for Max to get over here and kill this thing.
Or handing the entire party 3.0 Boots of Spider Climb (My crafting wizard in LG made 6 pairs) so that we could dungeon crawl from the ceiling. In a large room we had to wait for the Morlocks Darkness spell to end so we could range attack them. I think this was the same game that the Ranger in the party asked me why I didn't have real Wizard spells, like Bulls Strength and Cat's Grace (after I slept the Ogre and he didn't get to Power attack it).
I guess it is all in how you define Defense. Do you pay for armor? or save for magic weapons? Do you use a shield (a cheap +2 AC) or go TWF? Does the 3rd level Melee guy even own a missile weapon? I once had to teach a 6th level fighter that you could use a missile weapon into a 2nd range increment... he thought the Range was as far as the weapon went.
Ask yourself this. If your party is standing there in a tense standoff with a group of people, and one of them, a mage, casts Hypnotic Pattern on one of your party members, are you just going to stand there and say, it's cool, that is not an attack, leave him alone? Hypnotic Pattern is an offensive action.
Hypnotic Pattern gives a condition now - Fascinated
"Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a
supernaturalor spell effect. The creature stands or sits
quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to
the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes
a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as
Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile
creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new
saving throw against the fascinating effect.
"Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell,
or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature’s ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action."
So if I cast Hypo Patt in combat - it mostly goes fizzz and identifies me as a spell caster. It only really works before combat starts to pause the fight, perhaps to defuse the fight. And ends as soon as the fight starts. In 3.0 the wording was even worse (I seem to recall). The DM pointed out that drawing out a Continual Torch would have been viewed by the Troll as an "obvious threat" and would have broken the spell.
I do not see how this spell, used this way, can be classed in Offensive rather than Defensive catagory...
Unless the best Offense is a good Defense?
Kind of the same spell is Calm Emotions. During one LG mod, a party I was in needed to prevent/stop a fight on a ship. One group of NPCs on one hand, another on the other and the party in the middle. The Cleric in the party cast Calm Emotions on one group and the DM pointed out that the other group were going to fight anyway. At which point the Cleric cast a second Calm Emotions. Only one NPC made his save and still wanted to fight and might have set off the entire thing but our Diplomat (me) pointed out his Lord was not fighting and it would be bad for him if he started the war all by himself (roll a 30+ Dip roll).
Defensive or Offensive?
Spells cast on NPCs... Offensive?
Preventing the fight... Defensive?
shrug... whatever.
nosig wrote:
Stuff
You never answered my question.
I have 2 very simple questions.
If a potentially hostile mage cast Hypnotic Pattern on an ally, would you respond as if they had been attacked?
If you have a mage who is built purely for defense(minimum int, no spell focus feats, etc), will their Hypnotic Pattern be as effective as a mage who is built for offense(max int, spell focus, etc)?
nicklas Læssøe wrote: I think defence matters, but defence matters so much more if you remember to pump to work a little with it.
Lets take the argument before, about having one character with say 16 AC and the other with 26 AC. Hitting for 2d6+16 (avg 23) and 1d8+6 (avg 10.5) respectively. This means that assuming they have the same to hit chance (like pa penalty gets cancelled by feats and a better weapon), that would mean the high AC defensive guy needs to last more than twice as long to dish out the same damage.
At this level in the game, lets say they meet a person/monster with a 5BAB+6str+1focus=+12 to hit bonus (same as bestiary lists for a level 6 monster)
That means that the 2h fighter will get hit by 4+ and the sword and board at a 14+
The 2h fighter would then recieve roughly 93.558 % of the avg damage of the monster per attack, while the sword and board gets about 39.326% damage. That also means that he will last about 2.5 times longer, equalling out to the exact time he needed to deal the same damage.
But if we now allow him to use weapon expertise for another 2 ac, (lets say they both do that), the numbers would be 82.670% and 27.714% meaning the sword and board can now last 3 times as long while still dishing about half the damage.
If we now include fighting defensively and stuff like that, this gets even more in the sword and boards favor. Now im not trying to say that u should build a character that cant damage, just that pure defence AC wise, is actually a viable option. Its not that hard to make a barbarian, that has insane saves, a super high AC, tons of HP immunity to loads of conditions, and pretty much impossible to stop, while still maintaining a decent enough damage, that what ever is at the recieving end still feel u hitting.
But think about AC this way. 1 point isnt just 5% less chance to get hit, if its the point that takes you from getting hit on 19 to 20, then that 1 point of AC more than dubbles the amount of time it takes to take down your character. A fighter that uses wp...
I would site two problems with this comparison. First off, I think the two characters you're comparing are at different levels with the defensive character at a much higher level. Looking at the table here: Table: Monster Statistics by CR
the difference in AC between the offensive and defensive character is about 8 levels. On the other hand, the difference between the average damage dealt between the two characters is 4 levels. So your defensive character gets to have an AC 8 levels better than the offensive character while the offensive character gets an average damage only 4 levels better than the defensive character. In effect, I'd say the defensive character is a couple levels higher than the offensive character while only being slightly more effective in combat.
Also, the defensive character is probably less effective than you present. Against an enemy that's a pure damage dealer, he's going to hold out better as you've shown. But, against an enemy with a supernatural attack that requires a nasty saving throw, both characters will do equally well/poorly.
Granted, you could argue the defensive character could also invest heavily in high saving throws but the offensive character would require a similar boost in his offense to balance the characters out. And, considering that you need to invest in AC, 3 saving throws, SR, etc. to cover all bases, you get a lot more mileage with an offensive character per level than with a defensive one (assuming your offensive character doesn't throw defense to the wayside entirely).
I guess my ultimate point here (and I don't mean to pick on you or your post...just something I've noticed in this discussion in general) is people are being too free with their comparisions and just assuming that their proposed defensive character is equivalent to their proposed offensive character. We're forgetting that there are opportunity costs for "buying" either extra damage or extra AC per level for your character. Given how level progression seems to favor offense over defense and the relatively many areas you have to cover for defense versus offense, "buying" defense is a lot more expensive than buying "offense" and you really get more bang for your buck buying "offense".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Charender wrote: My reasoning is that these spells operate directly on the enemy. Sure. That's a definition you could use. It's not one I would either adopt or accept, but it's one you could use if you choose to.
Surely, however, you see that you're merely defining away defense? Since defense is the antonym of offense, it seems to logically follow that if offense is spells which operate directly on your enemies, then defense is spells which operate directly on your allies. But since that would include haste, divine power, and so on, and no one in his right mind would call these spells defensive spells, you've merely chosen a definition of offense which makes defense irrelevant.
You've also chosen a definition of offense which makes defense no longer its antonym and is hence not a particularly good definition, in my opinion, but that's a discussion for another time.
Charender wrote: If a potentially hostile mage cast Hypnotic Pattern on an ally, would you respond as if they had been attacked? Sure, because the potentially hostile mage has indicated that combat has started. I'd also respond if a potentially hostile caster starts slinging around defensive buffs. What of it?
Essentially, if you want to define yourself into "winning" a discussion, that's your affair, but don't expect other people to be interested in playing that game.
Charender wrote: nosig wrote:
Stuff
You never answered my question.
I have 2 very simple questions.
If a potentially hostile mage cast Hypnotic Pattern on an ally, would you respond as if they had been attacked?
If you have a mage who is built purely for defense(minimum int, no spell focus feats, etc), will their Hypnotic Pattern be as effective as a mage who is built for offense(max int, spell focus, etc)?
sorry, thought I had. But here let me try again...
"Ask yourself this. If your party is standing there in a tense standoff with a group of people, and one of them, a mage, casts Hypnotic Pattern on one of your party members, are you just going to stand there and say, it's cool, that is not an attack, leave him alone? Hypnotic Pattern is an offensive action."
did I miss my save? if I (and my friends if any are there) did, I guess I do. I'm facinated until the end of the spell. While the Wizard and his friends walk on by, I'll watch the pretty light show. Unless there is an "obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature," which "automatically breaks the effect". Or unless I get another save. or the spell ends. or ... other stuff.
If Hypnootic Pattern was an offensive action, would the act of concentration to maintain it breat the effect?
now your new questions.
"If a potentially hostile mage cast Hypnotic Pattern on an ally, would you respond as if they had been attacked?"
that would be a... maybe. Judges call, YMMV. It says "casts a spell", and I had a judge brake one of my Hypo Pats for a Cure Light Wounds from a wand for that. CLW from a wand is a spell.
If you have a mage who is built purely for defense(minimum int, no spell focus feats, etc), will their Hypnotic Pattern be as effective as a mage who is built for offense(max int, spell focus, etc)?
I plainly have a different view of what a defensive mage is than you. It is most likely that we have a difference in the definitions of Offense and Defense.
So, feel free to count the Hypnotic Pattern cast to stop a fight as not Defensive. I do think it is, but ...YMMV?
Happy Gaming!
nosig wrote: sorry, thought I had. But here let me try again...
"Ask yourself this. If your party is standing there in a tense standoff with a group of people, and one of them, a mage, casts Hypnotic Pattern on one of your party members, are you just going to stand there and say, it's cool, that is not an attack, leave him alone? Hypnotic Pattern is an offensive action."
did I miss my save? if I (and my friends if any are there) did, I guess I do. I'm facinated until the end of the spell. While the Wizard and his friends walk on by, I'll watch the pretty light show. Unless there is an "obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature," which "automatically breaks the effect". Or unless I get another save. or the spell ends. or ... other stuff.
If Hypnootic Pattern was an offensive action, would the act of concentration to maintain it breat the effect?
You are making it more complicated than my question is. The mage casts Hypnotic Pattern, you make the save, the rest of your party doesn't. Do you roll initiative and start combat or do you say, "Hey, that's cool, that isn't an attack"?
|
