Let me put this another way.
When you boil it down to its essentials, combat is just a race to a victory condition. Usually, that victory condition is something like "the members of opposing side are dead or have given up." You win the combat if you achieve your victory condition first, and the other side wins if they achieve their victory condition first.
Given that, all meaningful actions in a combat are directed toward one of two goals:
Actions directed toward helping your side achieve its victory condition,
Actions directed toward preventing the other side from achieving its victory condition.
Some actions are directed towards both at the same time, and those actions are generally awesome.The first category, I suggest, is offense, and the second category is defense. This neatly matches the dictionary definition of the terms, and it preserves the fact that the terms "offense" and "defense" are antonyms. I don't insist that this kind of definition is uniquely correct, but I think it's pretty good.
The most important point is that offense and defense have nothing to do with who the action is directed at and everything to do with what the action is intended to accomplish.
By your definition, killing an enemy is both offense and defense, because I am moving us closer to completeing our goal(winning the fight), and hindering them from completing their goals(winning the fight).
That definition also ignores how fights actually play out. The goal is to win the encounter. That usually means taking the enemy out however you can. It doesn't matter if your fighter just straight up massacres them, you hold person then Coup de Grace the enemy, or just put them to sleep where their friend can't wake them up. Out of the fight is out of the fight. Anything that inflicts damage or negative conditions(asleep, unconscious, sickened, shaken, slowed, etc) is offense.
I think this subthread has become essentially unproductive. You insist on defining offense to include preventing the bad guys from attacking us, I insist on defining defense to include preventing the bad guys from attack us. I think my definition is more sensible, and you think your definition is more sensible. Really, is there anything else to say?
ETA: Yes, I'm revising as I go. Whoops!
If you say so. If we use your definitions, then pretty much anything that isn't HP damage is classified as defense. Hell, I can even stretch your definitions so that killing the enemy is a defensive action. If that is the case, the the best defense is defense, because offense doesn't exist.
I prefer to use the idea that offense is anything that would break an invisibility spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Offence IS the best defence.
Of course to just simply take the line all by itself and not understand how it need to fit with the rest of the principles of war is folly.
You can't just look at it in isolation, or it becomes a flippant line that gets you very dead.
The Offence/Defence argument is supposed to be a strategic consideration.
The underlying principle of war is 'offensive action', that is, it is usually better to be taking the offence than the defence and dictate the tempo of the battle.
So the best defence is a good offence is a misunderstood statement as it is usually being employed without understanding where it fits ina broader context.
FWIW, I think it's reasonable to split the "questionable cases" of offense and defense a bit in terms of actions and targetting.
If it takes an action for me to do and targets the enemies, it's offense. If it takes an action for me to do and targets the party, it could be either, rounding in favor of what it helps more with (e.g. haste on a party of fighters is mostly offensive even if it also helps their AC and Reflex a bit.)
I think Shifty is right. That phrase is NOT about AC and BAB. It means that in a battle it's generally better to be proactive than to be reactive. A good character should be, at least, average on both attack and defense even if his specialty is out of battle (the party face, the healer, the skill guy, the utility caster).
For reference,
Selection and Maintenance of the Aim
A single, unambiguous aim is the keystone of successful military operations. Selection and maintenance of the aim is regarded as the master principle of war.
Maintenance of Morale
Morale is a positive state of mind derived from inspired political and military leadership, a shared sense of purpose and values, well-being, perceptions of worth and group cohesion.
Offensive Action
Offensive action is the practical way in which a commander seeks to gain advantage, sustain momentum and seize the initiative.
Security
Security is the provision and maintenance of an operating environment that affords the necessary freedom of action, when and where required, to achieve objectives.
Surprise
Surprise is the consequence of shock and confusion induced by the deliberate or incidental introduction of the unexpected.
Concentration of Force
Concentration of force involves the decisive, synchronized application of superior fighting power (conceptual, physical, and moral) to realize intended effects, when and where required.
Economy of Effort
Economy of effort is the judicious exploitation of manpower, materiel and time in relation to the achievement of objectives.
Flexibility
Flexibility – the ability to change readily to meet new circumstances – comprises agility, responsiveness, resilience, acuity and adaptability.
Cooperation
Cooperation entails the incorporation of teamwork and a sharing of dangers, burdens, risks and opportunities in every aspect of warfare.
Sustainability
To sustain a force is to generate the means by which its fighting power and freedom of action are maintained.
Once we see where the concept of 'a good offence' sits, and the broader framework, we realise what is actually being said.
Shifty, I'd entirely agree that it is better to be proactive than reactive, and I doubt there's much disagreement about that. I'm not sure that's what the thread is about at this point, though.
You'd be right there too.
Unfortunately what this thread is currently about is that one lot has a small handfull of sand (HP/AC/Saves), another lot has a small handfull of sand (BAB/Damage/CM) and both trying to claim they have a whole beach.
I'm pointing out to them that there is more to a beach than their meagre handfull of not much.
Both parties are arguing over a statement, and their arguments only serve to demonstrate they didn't understand what the statement was about in the first place, hence why they will never get anywhere debating as they are off track and think that the offence/defence concepts are exclusionary stances instead of just more sand on the SAME BEACH.
Next weeks dilemna - It is better to give than to receive.
Watch them struggle on that one too.
Pfft. It's obviously better to receive! =)Next weeks dilemna - It is better to give than to receive.
Watch them struggle on that one too.
Hrm... I think I have the answer to OPs question. A good defense is best for those who don't want to be the little spoon. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best defense is a good offense strategy works well 90-95% of the time. Unfortunately, the other 5-10% of the time things go really, really, really bad.
Eventually, a group of glass cannons will lose initiative, get surprised, roll crappy, or get critically hit. When that happens an all offense group usually lacks the versatility to recover. Then you have to deal with a potential TPK.
Balanced groups might be great all the time they don't share the same vulnerabilities either.
A humble thought experiment: A spell which gives my entire party a +1 bonus to AC is, I hope we can all agree, a defensive spell. A spell which gives the opposing side a -1 penalty to hit has exactly the same practical effects. Since the practical consequences are indistinguishable, why should the two spells be categorized differently? It's the intended effect of an action that determines whether the action is offensive or defensive in nature, not who the action targets. Apply to any particular action as you see fit.
Shifty, I'd entirely agree that it is better to be proactive than reactive, and I doubt there's much disagreement about that. I'm not sure that's what the thread is about at this point, though.
The difference is that with the -1 penalty, there is generally a save negates clause attached. That means the DC and thus the offense stats of the character casting the spell matters.
For the record, I don't consider haste to be an offensive spell. Haste in and of itself does nothing to bring your side closer to victory. It is only when someone under the effects of haste makes a full attack that you get closer to victory. It is entirely possible for you to cast haste and have it do nothing to effect the outcome of the fight.
The difference is that with the -1 penalty, there is generally a save negates clause attached. That means the DC and thus the offense stats of the character casting the spell matters.Surely you're not suggesting that the existence or non-existence of a saving throw is the dividing line between defense and offense. Is sanctuary offense? Is my hypothetical "give my enemies a -1 to hit" offense if they get a save and defense if they don't? Is my hypothetical "give my allies a +1 to AC" offense if my enemies can ignore that AC bonus with a saving throw? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but your perspective seems so weird to me that I'm just not getting it at all. To be fair, I suppose you'd say the same!
Let me just say that, supposing that the hypothetical AC boosting spell gives a +1 bonus that stacks with everything and applies to touch and flat-footed AC while the hypothetical attack penalizing spell has no save, an in-universe observer has no way of knowing which one was cast (unless he has spellcraft, detect magic, arcane sight, or some such ability). I suggest that an in-universe observer without these advantages may not even be aware that the two hypothetical spells are different, but if he is aware, he'd classify them together because he can't tell them apart. But, as nosig says, YMMV.
No, I understand your perspective just fine, I just don't agree with it, because as I have pointed out, killing an enemy can be considered a defensive action by your definition(you are preventing that enemy from achieving its victory condition of killing the players). Your method of classifying things would also put an ability like the witch's slumber hex into the defensive category, even though abilities like that are the closest thing to save or die in the game. Against a single enemy, a successful slumber hex is game over.
Basically, to use your definitions
Actions directed toward helping your side achieve its victory condition,Actions directed toward preventing the other side from achieving its victory condition.
Rephrase that as
Offense - Actions that move your side toward its victory conditionDefense - Actions that move your enemy away from its victory condition
The intent doesn't matter, only the results. If the fighter makes a full attack action and completely misses, they have done 0 offense.
Generally speaking, the goal of most encounters is to remove the enemy's ability to fight. Meanwhile, the enemies goal is to do the same. Enemy has no offense = win. Allies have no offense = lose.
So, anything that reduces the enemies offense is offense. Killing the enemy is the most preferred method, but sleep, incapacitate, stunned, held, etc will also take the enemy out of the fight to varying degrees. When you tak an enemy out of the fight completely, you are reducing his offense to 0. Based on this, I would consider a spell like slow or confusion that takes the enemy partially out of the fight to be offense. Lets say you have an enemy that hits you on a 17+. What is the difference between blinding an enemy(50/50 miss chance), and giving that same enemy a -2 to hit. Either way, you are reducing his offensive ability by half. Thus, giving the enemy a -1 to hit, is an offensive manuver since is reduces the enemies ability to fight to a limited degree, but it is probably the weakest offensive manuver out there. At the end of the day, what pratical difference is there between killing your enemy and just making him incapable to dealing any damage?
Using Cure light wounds to revived a fallen ally is the best example of a purely defensive spell. It does not bring my group any closer to defeating my enemies, but it moves the enemy away from winning. Waking an ally who has been put to sleep, freedom of movement on a held ally, breath of life, etc. Anything that gets allies back into the fight is the strongest defense. Pretty much anything that moves your allies health away from 0 is defense and using the theory of effective health(effective health is equal to actual health / enemies hit chance), anything that increases an ally's AC or saves is defense. It increases their effective health, and thus moves the enemy away from their victory conditions. Thus, +1 AC is a defensive manuver, but it is probably one of the weakest.
To put is another way, if you put everything on a scale from -10(defense) to 10(offense). Reviving an ally is a -10. Killing an enemy is a 10. giving an enemy a -1 to hit is a 0.1 and giving an ally a +1 AC is a -1. -1 to hit and +1 to AC are really close together from my viewpoint, they just happen to be on opposite sides of a very fine line that divides offense from defense.
High defence is brilliant against opponents without high to hits. Your damage and their damage always comes into play. If you have a high defensive character that doesn't do much damage, they can lose over time to a foe with the big three, great hp, great to hit, great damage. This enemy only needs decent damage to be a real problem for you, if you are high defence and not high damage.
So at low levels, a great ac character may still get taken down by the ogre, if the ogre rolls a few 18s. Their to hit is good, their damage is nice. How high is your con?
Now what I think is best, are those well made characters that have great ac and good damage. Monks can do this, fighters can do this.
Still, just last session the gnoll barbarian was getting a lot of praise for the power of her offence. Her ac is terrible, her hp is good, her damage is very nice. Each encounter though leads to some damage, something a great ac character can avoid.
Mix both, make and run a good character, keep in mind your strengths and don't let your weaknesses be exploited. Keep the back-up close.
Thanks to all for interesting answers and discussion.
I am sorry for not defining exactly what I mean with "offense" and "defense". But as everyone does that in a different way, it's hard to bring in a valid definition.
nosig already repeated the essential question of the opening post:
"So, does your actual gaming experience back up the assertion that "offense is the best defense"?"
I was interested in real gaming experience, not in theoretical abstraction.
There has been a lot of discussion about AC; from my experience saves have higher priority as means of defense than AC.
Of course, without any decent offensive capabilites your party will be screwed. So, I would'nt play a fighter who is not able to dish out a lot of damage, the question being: what is "a lot of damage"?
I'd just be sure that he gets the highest saves possible.
My characters always try to get the best cloak of resistance affordable.
I never dump (= no negative modifier) Con, Dex or Wis.
I invest a good amount of my wealth in protective items.
I'd rather chose a class with two good save progressions.
Would I play a fighter (now that is theoretical, I concede), he'd get Iron Will, Improved Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes or Great Fortitude during his career.
|
|
I just ran an encounter that really supported this theory. My APL 7 group encountered 4 barbarians using the stats for Ostag the Unslain from the NPC Guide. Ostag is CR 4, meaning this was a CR 8, or challenging, encounter. This challenged the players far more than any other encounter of the same CR all campaign. What made it different is that they hit Ostag's AC 11 about as often as they were hitting most other CR 4 monster's AC 17, which is to say usually. However, +11 to hit and crit threat on a 17+ was beating the PCs down and quick. The loss of defense really made up for the increase in offense.
"So, I would'nt play a fighter who is not able to dish out a lot of damage"
Defensive goading fighters are hiiiilarious. Back em up with warmages or evil clerics/summoners and you are set son.
"My characters always try to get the best cloak of resistance affordable."
I suggest caution, reliance on magic items is a weakness. If you want those saves great you should spend the feats. Great fort doesn't go out of the window in an anti-magic field. Someone can't sunder or steal your iron will away.
Saves can really be overlooked in builds, it is good that you do recognise their merit.
"I never dump (= no negative modifier) Con, Dex or Wis."
So all your characters are similar ability score wise? That seems a bit boring and safe. Try something new, drop the wis and go for it.
I've seen players who never takes these as a dump stat before, characters blend together and seem samey as a result.
"I invest a good amount of my wealth in protective items."
C'mon player, you can do better than shop for upgrades. Buy guards, build things, improve your reputation, honour or status in game. Give to the poor, invest in art and culture, buy bakeries!
Yes to Ryan, pure offensive barbs are scary. It was like the enemies were strategists, trying to kill the enemy as quick as possible.
"So, I would'nt play a fighter who is not able to dish out a lot of damage"
Defensive goading fighters are hiiiilarious. Back em up with warmages or evil clerics/summoners and you are set son.
"My characters always try to get the best cloak of resistance affordable."
I suggest caution, reliance on magic items is a weakness. If you want those saves great you should spend the feats. Great fort doesn't go out of the window in an anti-magic field. Someone can't sunder or steal your iron will away.
Saves can really be overlooked in builds, it is good that you do recognise their merit.
There are dozens upon dozens of better things to use feats on. And on an anti-magic field most of the things saves are good for can't be used (i.e. spells)
"I never dump (= no negative modifier) Con, Dex or Wis."
So all your characters are similar ability score wise? That seems a bit boring and safe. Try something new, drop the wis and go for it.
I've seen players who never takes these as a dump stat before, characters blend together and seem samey as a result.
Try giving backgrounds and stories to your characters. Memorable personalities also help.
"I invest a good amount of my wealth in protective items."
C'mon player, you can do better than shop for upgrades. Buy guards, build things, improve your reputation, honour or status in game. Give to the poor, invest in art and culture, buy bakeries!
Yes to Ryan, pure offensive barbs are scary. It was like the enemies were strategists, trying to kill the enemy as quick as possible.
What do you have against an adventurer being well equipped to do his job?
Honor, status and reputation are roleplay aspects, you shouldn't have to throw money at it. Specially enough money that interferes with your equipment.One gold piece is more than most people will see in their entire lives. There, made a poor man rich and there is still money equipment. Art and bakeries(?) likewise are dirty cheap compared to magic equipment so go ahead, 100 gp should be enough to buy a chain of stores and doesn't really interfere with your purchases.
Why buy guards if, by the time you have enough money for it, you can take down small platoons by yourself? If you really want a comitive to make you look regal, or a bunch of cannon fodder to feed the monsters, see if your DM allows the Leadership feat. It also gives you a REAL bodyguard. That would be too expensive to hire, by the way.
And castles... well that IS a good reason to save some money, but I usually just go and find an evil lord so I can get dirt on him, then get the kings blessing, then murderize him and then taking his castle and lands for myself. Talk with the DM and you can make a whole sidequest out of it. Or get it as part of the main quest.
OT: As a player I rather favor offense over defense, but I always put something on deffense too. I think a balance is better.
My recent barbarian has crappy AC but he has tons of HP (139 at level 8) and some really good saves against magic, his specialty tough is making things die. A rogue can hit him regularly, but his to hit is good enough that he can always hit with his first attack even without rage and since he dishes out lots of damage people usually die before they can hurt him much.
The other char I'm playing is a pally, he focuses more on defense and healing, but between selfbuffing and smiting his offense is pretty great too.
Out of Topic: To the people that like deffense best, would you like to see a class that focuses on defence? I've been working on a homebrew class and I would like some opinions: Poor BAB, low to no magic, focusing on being surviving and resisting eventually becoming invulnerable, immortal or even immune to magic (depending on the path you choose), with utility abilities to help the party, buff allies, draw enemy attention and even some ways to deal extra damage. Do you guys thing there would be interest in a class like that?
"What do you have against an adventurer being well equipped to do his job? "
When that is all that wealth is spent on, over and over, then I have a problem. I've even seen players go for rings of sustenance so they never have to buy meals again. Life without food should drive people a little crazy, to me it always seems so pragmatic but quite inhuman.
"Honor, status and reputation are roleplay aspects, you shouldn't have to throw money at it."
To appear at a serious court, not looking like a hobo is going to require a lot of money thrown into clothing and jewellry. Courtier outfits etc, new ones not to seem pov. Now maybe no one wants to actually talk to the king, duke or duchess, but high society has a cost to enter in all cultures. Was in a museum looking at items from the courts of Java and their focus on jewellry and aesthetics just last week. Look at the costumes of something like the Tudors and imagine how much that costs. Or, noble paintings. Players often don't consider their appearance, but it really should be in play. Appear like a high status person or you shouldn't be treated like one.
Honour: a filthy knight can be laughed at if he wanders amongst clean company, severely damaging his reputation.
You can walk around in your armour, or your plain clothes and items, and some of those items will look flashy, but you WILL just look like a commoner dressed up in magic items. What is your fashion sense? This actually matters in regards to status.
Two courtiers watch an adventurer walk past.
Courtier 1: he must be a damn good swordsman.
Courtier 2: why do you say that?
Courtier 1: because his socks don't match!
Courtiers: bwahahahahaha.
Adventurer: *draws sword, proving he is an uncouth thug*
More later!
"My recent barbarian has crappy AC but he has tons of HP (139 at level 8)"
Just a passing question, did you roll all 12s on d12s? 12s and 11s?
"My recent barbarian has crappy AC but he has tons of HP (139 at level 8)"
Just a passing question, did you roll all 12s on d12s? 12s and 11s?
Mostly. The GM can't even complain, since I roll in front of everybody with the GMs own dice. My barbarian is just lucky that way. I say my barbarian cause my paladin doesn't have the same luck.
I'm going to a game today so I'll answer the other post later tonight.Also, can you give me your opinion: Would a defense oriented class be interesting to play?
I can see certain adventurers turning the court conventions around delibrately.
"If they will not let me in, fine! If the King wants my help he can march down to the inn and ask."
I can see certain adventurers turning the court conventions around delibrately.
"If they will not let me in, fine! If the King wants my help he can march down to the inn and ask."
Now I want to do that...
Noble's Outfit costs 75gp And King type clothes, made of fine silks woven with gold thread and with gems and all the optionals cost 200gp. By the time your adventures are noteworthy enough that nobles want to hire you thats not much money. around 8-10th level that starts to be pocket change.
And magic armor looks flashy and cool and awesome. That is part of being magical. It is certainly fit to use when meeting kings.
And how do you get a filthy knight? You can clean a magical full plate with a rag in five minutes. It is magical you know? That stuff can stay polished for hundreds of years even in a damp cave, you know?
And how do you get a filthy knight? You can clean a magical full plate with a rag in five minutes. It is magical you know? That stuff can stay polished for hundreds of years even in a damp cave, you know?
This is what prestidigitation is for.
Two courtiers watch an adventurer walk past.
Courtier 1: he must be a damn good swordsman.
Courtier 2: why do you say that?
Courtier 1: because his socks don't match!
Courtiers: bwahahahahaha.
Wizard: *turns the chattering magpies into literal magpies*
Now I want to do that...Noble's Outfit costs 75gp And King type clothes, made of fine silks woven with gold thread and with gems and all the optionals cost 200gp.
Just to note:
Clothing, Royal Outfit
This is just the clothing, not the royal scepter, crown, ring, and other accoutrements. Royal clothes are ostentatious, with gems, gold, silk, and fur in abundance.
Clothing, Noble's Outfit
These clothes are designed specifically to be expensive and gaudy. Precious metals and gems are worked into the clothing. A would-be noble also needs a signet ring and jewelry (worth at least 100 gp) to accessorize this outfit.
All characters begin play with one outfit, valued at 10 gp or less. Additional outfits can be purchased normally.
So when you buy those outfits you aren't using up all the optionals as you put it.
However I will agree some decent jewelry doesn't cost that much and anyone that things they might have to rub elbows with the more refined crowds would do well to simply invest in some glamored armor or clothing.
Thanks to all for interesting answers and discussion.
I am sorry for not defining exactly what I mean with "offense" and "defense". But as everyone does that in a different way, it's hard to bring in a valid definition.
nosig already repeated the essential question of the opening post:
"So, does your actual gaming experience back up the assertion that "offense is the best defense"?"
I was interested in real gaming experience, not in theoretical abstraction.
In my practical experience, taking initiative and initiating a good offense is simply the route more likely to lead to victory. I shall give three examples:
Way back when Warcraft was a semi "real-time" strategy game where you built up armies, I tended toward mounting a huge defense against my two pals who were very offensive players. I almost never won.
If you play any tabletop wargames, such as WH40K or Warmachine, then you have likely run into this phenomena first-hand. In particular, Warmachine (whose motto is "Play like you've got a pair," and whose rulebook, page 5, actually instructs you to play offensively), is generally won by the more aggressive player.
Finally, yes, my RPG players are more successful when they take initiative.
But here's the thing: These are all games not so much of attrition as much as they are resource management games. It's not so much how well you've stacked the deck for your offensive prowess or defensive prowess. It's how intelligently you manage the resources you have stacked. If you can manage these as well when the battle turns against you, as you do when you are in control of things, you may very well survive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Managing distance and visibility can be a great way to win, even when you have lost the initiative.
For shooting characters this is very clear, they want to back up or be at a range where they can use their full attack. Scouts may went to fight a running retreat where they can use their skirmish to best effect (that is why I often beef my speed as a scout, so I can move and groove).
Ninjas (talking the 3.5 variety) may want to hold to go invisible when the foe closes and catch the would-be attack with a sneak attack (hold, go swift for invis, standard to sneak attack, move to stealth a few squares away while invisible. You can leave enemies bleeding and swinging at the wrong square when it works).
My favourite example of defence that wins though, is the polearm fighter or polearm scout/ranger. Holding attack, attacks of opportunity, acrobatics. You make them work for those squares. The spiked chain is more familiar for many.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html
Like this, except the charging opponent is usually dead in round 3.
:3
Thanks to all for interesting answers and discussion.
I am sorry for not defining exactly what I mean with "offense" and "defense". But as everyone does that in a different way, it's hard to bring in a valid definition.
nosig already repeated the essential question of the opening post:
"So, does your actual gaming experience back up the assertion that "offense is the best defense"?"
I was interested in real gaming experience, not in theoretical abstraction.
There has been a lot of discussion about AC; from my experience saves have higher priority as means of defense than AC.
Of course, without any decent offensive capabilites your party will be screwed. So, I would'nt play a fighter who is not able to dish out a lot of damage, the question being: what is "a lot of damage"?
I'd just be sure that he gets the highest saves possible.
My characters always try to get the best cloak of resistance affordable.
I never dump (= no negative modifier) Con, Dex or Wis.
I invest a good amount of my wealth in protective items.
I'd rather chose a class with two good save progressions.
Would I play a fighter (now that is theoretical, I concede), he'd get Iron Will, Improved Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes or Great Fortitude during his career.
The DRM Olympics thread had some good ground rules for baseline defense at level 10.
For Melee characters, 24 AC, 80 hp, +8 all savesFor ranged characters, 22 AC, 60 hp, +8 all saves
I use these values I use for my minimum defense value. I shoot for having at least this much defense by level 10. If I can grab a little extra without a huge hit to offense, I will.
I see the logic behind the thesis and there were instances, when this assertion absolutely held true. Yet, in the majority of cases, it was almost the other way round: "Defense saves your life" (or if you want: "defense is the best offense")
My experience is quite similar. Yeah, every character needs to be equipped for both for sure, but in most combat encounters defense is either just as important as offense or more so.
I’ll define offense as ‘killing it’ and defense as ‘not dying’. These definitions while not perfect are at least in my mind pretty clearcut. It does make ‘offense’ quite narrow though, so it makes sense that defense is going to be the main focus in most fights.
In my experience parties only follow the "offense is the best defense" motto when a TPK is looking imminent and the only way out is over a bridge made of their foes’ cold dead bodies. If there looks to be a decent chance of surviving if defense is used, most characters will opt for a better chance of not dying over killing it faster. While it is a good point that it can’t kill you if it is dead, there are a lot of ways to stop it from killing you while it is alive that are less risky.
Looking at it from another even more meta perspective... which is more fun? Defensive tactics tend to be more varied, complex, situational, and inclusive while heavily offensive ones can easily turn into a spamfest and/or sparkle-boy and his 3 sentient buffers. Not only is it generally simpler for GMs to counteract offensive-heavy strategies, they have more incentive to so as it can get very cheesy-repetitive-notfun quickly. Defensive play can fall into that rut too, but because more people seem to understand they need to balance defense out with offense than the other way around it isn’t as prevalent of an issue.
A fight usually ends when one side is unable or unwilling to continue fighting.
By just defending, you are not doing anything to reduce your enemies ability to fight. Instead, you are only slowing down the rate at which your own ability to fight decreases.
The rate at which you weaken your enemy has to be greater than the rate at which your enemy weakens you. Then you win. If it's the other way round, you lose.
You have to make sure that you live long enough to be able to put your offenses into action, for which some degree of protection is vital. But in the end, your ability to deal damage has always to be greater than your ability to avoid damage. You can only win by taking the enemy out, and for that you have to attack.
If you're in a party, you can have some people doing the defensive work and others taking care of the offense, but even as a group, the first task is to take out your enemy. There is nothing that protects you from harm so well like stoping an enemy from doing any further harm.
It was probably some chinese guy, but "even when you defend, you have to attack". Unless the enemy is taken out of the action, you will not win the fight.
"The DRM Olympics thread had some good ground rules for baseline defense at level 10.
For Melee characters, 24 AC, 80 hp, +8 all saves
For ranged characters, 22 AC, 60 hp, +8 all saves
I use these values I use for my minimum defense value. I shoot for having at least this much defense by level 10. If I can grab a little extra without a huge hit to offense, I will."
But if your character has a weakness in con, dex or wisdom, it may be very difficult to get all saves to +8. Do people never take a penalty to any of these for any of their characters? I remember I had a fighter/barb/berserker that at about 12 had a +0 to will saves. Good times.
"Looking at it from another even more meta perspective... which is more fun? Defensive tactics tend to be more varied, complex, situational, and inclusive while heavily offensive ones can easily turn into a spamfest and/or sparkle-boy and his 3 sentient buffers. Not only is it generally simpler for GMs to counteract offensive-heavy strategies, they have more incentive to so as it can get very cheesy-repetitive-notfun quickly. Defensive play can fall into that rut too, but because more people seem to understand they need to balance defense out with offense than the other way around it isn’t as prevalent of an issue."
Melee offence can get so easily hampered by high mobility foes or environment. Steep hills, difficult terrain, they can lessen the amount of offence that can be thrown out, and make a fight more challenging. Ranged often can sit back and blat, but many dms seem to forget about cover and visibility. Seeing through 100ft of dense wood or jungle is impossible on the ground, find some suitable land and try it, but this often gets forgotten, with dms deferring to the archer's 800+ foot range.
i remember my roommate playing a dwarven defender in 3.5. we fought a giant and we got his ac up to the 40's. he blocked up the giant and let us casters blast away without fear of being splattered. sometimes defense is the best defense but also the best offense.
|
BARBARIAN FIND THAT DEFENSE AM GENERALLY WASTE OF TIME. AM ONLY ONE TYPE OF CHARACTER WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% CHANCE OF INSTANT DEATH VERSUS RAGELANCEPOUNCE. CHARACTER AM ARMORED FIGHTY WITH WAAAY TOO MUCH IN ARMOR. BARBARIAN NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT FIGHTY. AM NOT MANUVERABLE ENOUGH TO GET AT BARBARIAN.
FIGHTY ALSO CONSIDER AM BARBARIAN ALLY, IN QUEST TO ERASE CASTYS FROM FACE OF GOLARION. AFTER GETTING RID OF FULL CASTYS, AM CONSIDERING GETTING RID OF LESSER CASTY CLASSES. AM PALADIN ESPECIALLY ANNOYING, AM FAR TOO HOLIER-THAN-THOU. HE AM FIGHTY WANNA-BE.
i remember my roommate playing a dwarven defender in 3.5. we fought a giant and we got his ac up to the 40's. he blocked up the giant and let us casters blast away without fear of being splattered. sometimes defense is the best defense but also the best offense.
Why did the Giant attack the dwarf? Wouldn't attacking the casters be a better choice?
|
|
i remember my roommate playing a dwarven defender in 3.5. we fought a giant and we got his ac up to the 40's. he blocked up the giant and let us casters blast away without fear of being splattered. sometimes defense is the best defense but also the best offense.Why did the Giant attack the dwarf? Wouldn't attacking the casters be a better choice?
ATTACKING A CASTY IS ALWAYS BEST CHOICE!
|
i remember my roommate playing a dwarven defender in 3.5. we fought a giant and we got his ac up to the 40's. he blocked up the giant and let us casters blast away without fear of being splattered. sometimes defense is the best defense but also the best offense.
I remember running a one-shot battle before a game. Handed out pregens to everyone. (I think it was a Delve thing from Wizards.)
One player moved to the right and took up his defensive stance. The dragon looked at him, moved to the left past him, and ate the druid.
(Fun fact, my future wife was playing the druid, and this was our first game together after getting together.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"(Fun fact, my future wife was playing the druid, and this was our first game together after getting together.)"
I guess this wasn't the last time you got to eat your wife. lol.
For defence, got to block them, hem them in, protect the casters.
That is one reason clerics are such interesting spellcasters, they can contribute to melee or hold on a bit longer, go full defence effectively.
At level 10, +8 to all saves isn't great. Alot of feats and good equipment to be put in to raise them that high. DC 20 - 21 or even 22 starts coming into play. You're looking at 45-55% chance of passing each save. Looks well rounded but not a good idea. Better off making two good saves and keeping one low or keeping one low, one about average and beefing the last one significantly.
"My recent barbarian has crappy AC but he has tons of HP (139 at level 8)"
Just a passing question, did you roll all 12s on d12s? 12s and 11s?
Mostly. The GM can't even complain, since I roll in front of everybody with the GMs own dice. My barbarian is just lucky that way. I say my barbarian cause my paladin doesn't have the same luck.
I'm going to a game today so I'll answer the other post later tonight.
Also, can you give me your opinion: Would a defense oriented class be interesting to play?
They can be very fun to play. Actually you can have a defensive character with a barbarian or knight. There is a variant barb in unearthed arcana that takes the con boost and gives it to dex. A barb can take defensive feats, has a nice hit die, heavy armour proficiency and there is even a rage power that boosts ac.
Ye olde knights go to defence easier, what with ac shield bonus and more armour proficiencies. Defenders are good fun when you save someone's bacon, giving them time to cast spells or move around while you soak up the pain. Frustrating foes and the dm is also its own reward, as long as they aren't children. :D
Defensive polearm characters can be sweet to play, if you plan it all out. There is a feat that gives +4 to attacks of opportunity, so if you are already sitting on expertise 4, dodge feats and they provoke, you are at no penalty to make the AOO.
"BigNorseWolf, Monday, 12:52 PM
11550 620 21 Wolf avatar
Wizard: *turns the chattering magpies into literal magpies*"
Stop you have violated the law! Injure, kill or magically attack the elites of a land has got to be the shortest route to being considered a bandit, hunted, arrested, execution. The king won't visit you, the headsman will.
Now maybe a dm will let it slide, let the heroes get away with it. But if you are in real feudalism or something like a samurai-dominated society, magocracy, theocracy, it's going to end in pc tears.
Course a pursuit game because the players killed witty courtiers could be lot of fun, GTA Golarion.
"And how do you get a filthy knight? You can clean a magical full plate with a rag in five minutes. It is magical you know? That stuff can stay polished for hundreds of years even in a damp cave, you know?:
It keeps its enchantment, not sure about the shine. Sir there be spiders and worms in your armour!
Equalizer, I far prefer to have one great save and the others be a bit crap. Character should have some difference, and playing it safe is actually a dangerous game, as you say. If you are melee and there are so many will saves, perhaps let the monk scout and use invis potions a lot to prevent line of sight will save forcing spells. Ambush on spellcasters is great, tactics are better than average saves. Go a naked barb with skill focus stealth and climb. Move into the best position possible before tea-bagging.
Wizard: *turns the chattering magpies into literal magpies*"
Indeed, the DM may let it slide. However, courtiers are not common folk, they are the upper class folk of society. Its even the question of whether anyone else was there. Someone who sees this tells the guard "this fellow was there, he waved his hands and muttered some things and the two well-dressed gentlemen disappeared. In their place were two magpies. He went that way sir." Or if they are courtiers, they haven't been to the courts in a while. Their wives or family or friends start inquiring. Investigation occurs. Yes, polymorphing an elite is frowned upon. Good luck Mr Wizard. Hope you had an early headstart on running for the hills.