Investigation occurs and adventurers are hired.
The best defence is not to take courtiers too seriously and commit crimes against them.
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.
Didn't need one -- Got everything I need right here in the head -- guards aren't a problem, and neither are the nobles. Worse comes to worse I still got teleport/greater teleport/magnificent mansion/whatever.
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 GMs 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 GMs deferring to the archer's 800+ foot range.
Tables vary, but I’ve found that GMs are just as willing to impede ranged as melee. Though the nature of many adventures (urban, dungeons) does it for them. I guess for some people walls are harder to ignore than dense trees?
Back on the Offense v. Defense discussion... I don’t know if it is a roleplaying thing where so many of the people I’ve played with give their characters a healthy survival instinct or maybe just treasure characters and don’t want them to die. Whatever the reasons, players tend to put ‘not dying’ over ‘killing it’. I’ve also found that GMs try to make fights interesting and difficult which necessitates focusing on defense a little more.
Everyone agrees it takes both. Well... if you don’t want character death to be frequent. But when one says ‘the best defense is a good offense’ it comes off like ‘offense is the end-all be-all, defense is a waste of time and resources’. If what people mean is ‘be proactive’, it would be clearer to say that. It is also confusing because ‘being proactive’ as often as not focuses on defense. If what people mean is ‘you can’t win if the enemy isn’t defeated’ then... that is a given. I’m not seeing where the need for a cute little phrase comes in or what new knowledge or perspective they think they are expressing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 savesI use these values I use for my minimum defense value. I shoot for having at least this much defense by level 10.
That's interesting. Was there a similar suggested baseline for offence? If so, I'd like to know it. (I'm thinking of average attack bonus, average melee damage. Not the max damage that the thread actually sought.)
Here is a more holistic picture of who I rate my characters.
For defense @ level 10, these are the minimum I look for in a character.
Ranged: 22 AC, 60hp, +8 to all saves.
Melee: 24 AC, 80hp, +8 to all saves
For offense @ level 10. This is with long term(1 hour or longer) self buffs only.
Primary damage dealer: 50+ damage per round with a full attack
Secondary damage dealer: 35+ damage per round with a full attack
Non-damage negative effects: Better than 65% chance of success, that is DC 23 or CMB +23. Optionally, focus on abilities that don't allow saves.
Utility roles: Buffing(bard song, haste, etc), Face(social skills), Scout(stealth, perception), Healing(Can cast Cure light wounds), Tank(significantly better than minimum defense), Knowledge(skills and divinations)
I generally try to fill at least 3 roles. Primary Healer(Positive energy cleric or oracle) counts as 2 roles. Primary damage dealer counts as 2 roles.
Those are my minimums. If I can't meet those, I would feel like I am not pulling my weight in a group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Courtiers are often high ranking persons in a society. In a RPG they are apt to have character levels themselves, and are likely to have magical protections.
Wizard: tries to turn the chattering magpies into literal magpies, spell rebounds from Ring of Spell Turning and wizard misses his audiance due to ... a missed save, perhaps listed as "intervention by forces beyond his control".
Honestly at the point the GM has npc's with regular rings of spell turning -- always active, it's simply time to remind him of rule -1 with the book to the head.
Charender, when you calculate damage per full attack, do you have a target AC in mind? Do you account for critical hits? Or do you assume that all attacks deliver a normal hit? What about a rogue's sneak attack?
I use the DPR Olympics target of AC 24, which is about average for a CR 10 encounter.
Yes, that accounts for criticals.
For something like sneak attack it depends on party composition. If I have a consistant flanking partner, then I take the average of my flanking and non-flanking damage. If I don't have a consistant source of flanking in the party, then I us my non-flanking damage.
Courtiers are often high ranking persons in a society. In a RPG they are apt to have character levels themselves, and are likely to have magical protections.
No they're not.
A ring of Spell Turning cost a 100.000 gp. Most Kingdoms don't have that. Monst kings can't afford that. Much less simple courtiers.And sure thay have class levels. Probably as aristocrats. Less than 5 levels. But than again farmers have class levels too, so what is your point. According to the Golarion setting:
"Nonetheless, there exist guidelines for how powerful most rulers and heroes and city guards are in the Inner Sea region. The vast majority of humanity are “standard,” ranging in level from 1st to 5th—most with NPC classes like commoner, expert, or warrior (it’s uncommon for a character with only NPC class levels to be above 5th level). A significant number of a nation’s movers and shakers, along with other leaders, heroes, and notables, are “exceptional,” ranging in level from 6th to 10th. “Powerful” characters, ranging in level from 11th to 15th, are quite rare—typically only a handful of such powerful characters should exist in most nations, and they should be leaders or specially trained troops most often designed to serve as allies or enemies for use in an adventure. Finally, “legendary” characters of 16th or higher level should be exceptionally rare, and when they appear should only do so as part of a specific campaign—all legendary characters should be supported with significant histories and flavor."
Characters with more than 10 levels are a handful per kingdom. Most of those are adventurers and bad guys with some in the royalty or its direct inner circle and the occassional retired hero, hermit wise man and researcher wizard. It takes a "mover and shaker" to be more than 10 levels and those guys wouldn't give a damn about your clothes but about your efficiency.
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.
Yes, it is. I have a really cool concept for a Ranger/Alchemist(Vivisectionist) that would have been able to put out 100+ DPS when flanking at level 10, with a 32 AC, +15 reflex save, and +10 fort. My will save would have been +6 WITH iron will and a cloak of resistance +3. I ended up switching the character over to half-elf for the dual-minded alternate racial ability so I could have a +8 will save. I lost out on skill points and a bonus feat, but the trade off was worth it.
"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."
From an alternate roleplaying perspective. Which is more fun, striking down evil creatures or cowering behind your shield? There is a certain amount of fun that come from being the one to deliver the killing blow. I love the god wizard concept(summoner/controller), but I just cannot bring myself to play a character who doesn't bring some amount of consistant damage to the table.
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.
Therein lies the challenge. You talk about offense being one dimensional and boring then you point out the challenging and non-boring aspect of it. Developing stragegies to consistantly deliver you damage is the fun and challenging part of being on offensive character.
Which is more fun, striking down evil creatures or cowering behind your shield?
Striking down evil creatures from behind a shield thus not needing a resurrection to do it again.
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.
But it's still just resource management. In this case, the resources were the characters themselves. If you think of the unit as a whole, the dwarf was your shield and the casters your guns.
I'll say it again because it bears repeating. Pathfinder is a resource management game. You are managing your individual resources as a character, and the group is managing their resources as a whole. The dividing line between defense and offense begins to blur when you put yourself in that state of mind.
Your potions, your spells, even your hit points are all manageable resources. Even your BAB is, if you decide to fight defensively. The game is filled with opportunities to turn defensive tools into offensive ones, and vice-versa.
|
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.
How he did that?
" Reverse Gravity
Saving Throw none; see text; Spell Resistance no
Provided it has something to hold onto, a creature caught in the area can attempt a Reflex save to secure itself when the spell strikes. "
Securing yourself to a fixed item isn't much conductive to combat. He was hanging from a torch sconce with one hand while swinging his weapon with the other?
He would suffer from some serious negative modifier and the glabrezu would have a easy time moving 5' away and using reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nosig, you are a really funny guy. :D
I think a ring of spell turning is really unlikely, but I'll impart the story of a player I ran games with whom always loved to attack non-combatant npcs with spells forcing saves.
As the psion, player loved to throw round the saves, but save forcing spells don't always succeed. This can be greatly frustrating. Psion, level 11 or so, he hits a commoner with a psionic attack, which forces a save. I think it was a waiter. Waiter saves (nat 20), looks a little distracted, walks off. Player fumes.
As a cleric fighter, a lizardman dares to tell him to get out of a kitchen (LG lizardman in city in Mwangi expanse), he causes fear via spell, dish washer flees. What is it with this guy attacking people in the service industry? Also the player was Neutral Good apparently.
If a mighty wizard forces a save on an npc, while the pc is trying to be a dick and abuse their power, and the npc saves, that is utter humiliation. What do you do? Courtiers laugh and call guards as a full round, tell their flunkies to seize you. Then it's teleport or attack. Get in a grapple with doormen, or guards, or retainers and it is going to go south of the desired outcome.
A spellcaster versus a city (or the law, or the guild of magical control) can always go bad. Spellcasters (except warlocks) run out of spells, they need to rest. There is only so much they can cast. A magical man hunt is going to be a great side quest, but the player will lose if the city has a lot of resources at their disposal. Hitting up hamlets is easy, that is why the villains do it.
A friend and I were running through a situation like this. Courtiers piss off wizard, wizard polymorphs them. Well this drinking house caters to similarly elite clientele, and people start standing up. Nan desu kaaaa? The people that just got magically attacked, dm now needs to work out who they were, home important they were, who will die for them. Will the wizard be attacked en masse, are some of those courtiers aristocrats, or other elites not in armour? Elites rub shoulders with elites after all. Melee npcs don't always wear armour all the time (e.g. samurai in their fine clothes, sipping tea or sake).
Say it goes well, say the wiz gets initiative, maximise, enlarge fireballs everybody. Suddenly a house of elites is toast, mass murder, courtiers, knights, samurai, card players, retired bureaucrats, waitresses, some merchants all up in smoke. That should be one of the biggest events on the continent that day. It has to have consequences, alignment change (no no, I am good after wiping out all those people, especially after killing the people defending the courtiers and trying to protect them from a seemingly mad wizard, and the noncombatants as well!).
Now I'm not doing one-upmanship here, I just want to say, I've seen players abuse their power and new levels in games many times before. If they go on the attack against a city, against elites, the response should be very harsh and powerful. If the player or players win, well they should move in and take over then. Their honour and reputation should be impacted though. Maybe it's a ploy, the mad wizard really is backed up by the party and hirelings. Coup time.
On offence and defence, being offensive when it really isn't in your favour is a damn bad idea. Half moving up mountains into arrows is a good way to lose a lot of health. I've found it can be good to find a spot to defend, hold it, use cover and related feats, and hopefully reach and attacks of opportunity.
Cowering behind a shield? Well mighty are the fallen is a great feat I've seen (great bonus against power attack), take that big hit and start shiving the highly aggressive attacker. Or full defence, someone throws a net, rogue backstabs, then everyone turns to offence after receiving the charge and countering. Let them attack, go to grapple etc etc.
Defensive skirmishing can also be solid. Horse archery, flying warlocks, high movement and harpoons, all solid.
"Honestly at the point the GM has npc's with regular rings of spell turning -- always active, it's simply time to remind him of rule -1 with the book to the head."
Now now, you should never attack your dm. Call their game s#$@ and their dming woeful if you must, but making a ranged attack is a bad idea. STOP! You have violated the law.
Yeah honestly for me (as the spell caster in question) it would be, polymorph -- followed by speech: "Now this isn't permanent -- but when you act like swine you must be careful or swine you might become. Now as to my socks: If you look closely you'll notice that I'm actually where two pairs of socks one of each style over the other. I'll have you know that this pair was given to me by a Kaliph of the Efreets and the other was given to me by a Baroness of the Bralani. Now I can't very well annoy such gracious hosts so I wear both as they both support me equally and I hold both in high esteem -- insulting my socks was in fact insulting them, something I will not abide. Perhaps if you were more learned in interplanar affairs you might have known this -- but being simple *insert ranks and social standing of the couriers here because heck I had the skill points to put into knowledge(local) as well as everything* I kind of doubt it."
Heck with the way games go for me it could even be true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry man, a wandering mage has no legal power to polymorph people. You want to try and bully the elites it is going to lead to tears.
Can you imagine how it would go in the court?
Courtier: your honour, my friend the most esteemed Earl Addlewits and I, said a witty jest amongst ourselves. This wizard, this foreigner turned upon us and transformed us with vile spells. While transformed I do remember, this wizard sought to lecture us on proper behaviour, after breaking the laws of the kingdom! (courtier makes oratory check).
Crowd: gasp!
Judge: Hmmmmmmmm :{[ *Looks unfavourably at criminal wizard*
When you act powerful you must be careful you aren't smashed by power. It is not even the, there is always someone bigger, if you attack a whole class and break the laws, you are attacking a whole host of people who are stronger in power as a whole.
"Perhaps if you were more learned in interplanar affairs you might have known this"
Ah the old, you are far inferior and less learned than the wizard. In regards to fashion, taste, aesthetics, a wizard is not going to be able to compete. The wizard will also likely lose in a dance off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQNDZ6vGzrs
In a city it is the elites who give the orders. Dance commander we love you.
"I had the skill points to put into knowledge(local) as well as everything*"
Wizards who do that, take all the knowledge skills, really spread their knowledge out thinly. I've seen them fail checks a lot. There are also others that are not exactly on the standard list, others that you only pick up by having professions and crafts (the knowledge of building something with your hands, knowing the way of the fisherman, the intricacies of being a scholar/merchant/courtier. Also see Hyouge mono for a good take on the life of the courtier and their fashion fixation).
Offence against the authorities as a sole individual is a bad idea. The courtiers on the defence here have the advantage.
Sorry man, a wandering mage has no legal power to polymorph people. You want to try and bully the elites it is going to lead to tears.
Then they can kill their own dragons -- I got my tower I don't need them -- they need me.
As to spreading your ranks out -- how the heck could they not have enough to keep them maxed?
The funny thing is somehow you know my characters and their abilities -- without ever seeing them... so I'll pull the same bs on you and call you out on it pointing out the great charisma score I got -- I mean it's all of a 13... easily equal to most of the npcs considering they got the non-elite stat array going for them -- and that's before I did anything else to it. ::eyeroll::
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maxing all the knowledge means you don't have much for other skills, knowledge skills are not all there is to know in the world. There are other things, like say, laws relating to spellcasting (now probably under local or nobility, but the wizard just made an action without thinking about the consequences or using their knowledge or wisdom, which I've seen a lot of before, sigh).
The point I was making about it not being enough, is I've seen a lot of fails from all max knowledge characters (and they were so confident and cocky). See the problem there was the feats went to spellcasting, not to skill focus: a knowledge, one after the other till they are great. So if a check came up, and the guy rolled low, it was a fail. Our dm was just surprised, but I'd seen it before. You are good at something in dnd when you truly specialise.
A wizard with 13 charisma and most of his skills into knowledge will not beat a courtier, a person whose highest stat is probably going to be charisma, in oratory in a court of law, in their home country with the wizard as a criminally charged foreigner. Whether it is diplomacy against the judge, or perform: to the crowd and all those gathered, the courtier is going to come out on top. A courtier is an expert in the related skills, or an aristocrat. When facing a baleful polymorph assault charge against nobles, you've got to do more than equal to get off. A wizard should stick to the arcana, and not dabble in word-play and debate with courtiers (now if the wiz was an enchanter we may get somewhere, but spells thrown in a court-room is risky).
"easily equal to most of the npcs considering they got the non-elite stat array going for them"
He is an elite of a city (educated, trained, well-fed and well-bred) but he doesn't have an elite stat array? No courtier ever gets to above 13 charisma? You did just attack two courtiers randomly, they could be any level, any charming pair of rascals.
On the topic. In social duels, they are best avoided if a character doesn't have the skills to go on the offence or the defence. It has been joked that wizards out of spells are smart commoners, well a wizard who can't use their spells in a social forum is at a serious disadvantage--unless they are something like a wiz/bard, or a non-knowledge heavy high-charisma wizard (max the bluff, dip, intimidate, oratory, throw some skill focus).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry man, a wandering mage has no legal power to polymorph people. You want to try and bully the elites it is going to lead to tears.
Sorry, but you've run into a disease that has run rampant on this forum...Wizard Entitlement Syndrome. When WES strikes, players don't feel that the laws of the fictional world apply to their characters. And that's only the first stage...this is quickly followed by the player feeling that the game mechanics themselves do not apply to their characters. While it is named Wizard Entitlement Syndrome, this is only because wizard playelrs are the hardest hit. It can, in fact, apply to players with characters of any class...wizard players are only the most succeptable.
Sadly, I've come across this a bit. It is strongest in wizards, but can also afflict other spellcasters easily. Maybe the warhammer setting with its view of magic as inherently corrupting is right?
Clerics and druids with WES forget what their faith stands for, become obsessed with power/magic items, and refuse to acknowledge their actions are ever wrong.
WES... I'm jotting that down.
On the topic question. In our eagerness to be offensively focused, we should always consider our class and build's weaknesses, e.g. low ac barbs can be very vulnerable to longspears/spiked chains and attacks of opportunity while raging.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure I am going to say something that has already been said up thread.
Purely statistically speaking, yes, taking something down as quickly as possible is the most effective means of protection. If something is either dead, incapacitated, or otherwise prevented from attacking you, either via a melee attack, or some other magical assault which requires a saving throw, there now is no chance (roll of the dice) of the creature landing a blow, or you failing a saving throw.
This of course makes sense if you are dealing with a computer game. The computer designers with the “AI” of the monsters in the game often attack by threat priority. Certain actions such as healing, and damage generate “agro” or aggression, and the monster goes after that target. Hence the tank, with its impressive defenses which has a bunch of “abilities”which generate “agro” and causes the Monster “AI” to redirect its attacks on him.
Fortunately in a role playing game, these games are run by people, and there is no such thing as “agro”. The GM directs the combat, and where and what the monsters attack. (admittedly I don’t know much about 4.0 D&D, and I vaguely remember something called “marking” ones opponent) Since the GM is running the show, there is a human element involved in addition to the statistics of the rolling of dice. So I would say allot depends on your GM.
According to the Power Gamers 3.5 Warrior strategy guide by Goodman Games, ”there is no such thing as a perfect warrior”. There are merits to having a two handed weapon , merits to fighting with a weapon in two hands (TWF), and merits to fighting with sword and shield. Interestingly enough on page 19 of the book, it points out that statistically speaking, the monk ends up doing more damage then the fighter. Now I don’t know if this still holds true for Pathfinder, but they did crunch allot of numbers and did the statistical math for 3.5.
Generally speaking, if you have your basics covered, in terms of party composition, such as a fighter to deal damage, and take the hits, a thief to handle the traps and do some “back stabbing”, a mage to “even the odds” by either incapacitating, damaging, or bypassing your foes and obstacles with his magic, and a cleric to help heal, bolster with his bless spells, and deal with demons devils and the undead, your party should be fine. Of course there are numerous variations of this basic party composition.
The key is that every character has a part to play.
So I would say, both offence and defense are important, and you can spread these capacities around a party you will be fine.
.
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 like you.
Sorry man, a wandering mage has no legal power to polymorph people. You want to try and bully the elites it is going to lead to tears.Sorry, but you've run into a disease that has run rampant on this forum...Wizard Entitlement Syndrome. When WES strikes, players don't feel that the laws of the fictional world apply to their characters. And that's only the first stage...this is quickly followed by the player feeling that the game mechanics themselves do not apply to their characters. While it is named Wizard Entitlement Syndrome, this is only because wizard playelrs are the hardest hit. It can, in fact, apply to players with characters of any class...wizard players are only the most succeptable.
That is actually a subset of Player Entitlement Syndrome. This occurs when the players metagame that since they are players they are immune to negative consequences of their actions. It is usually because they have had a DM that is to lenient, and let them get away with things like this to avoid sidetracking the campaign.
Which is more fun, striking down evil creatures or cowering behind your shield?Striking down evil creatures from behind a shield thus not needing a resurrection to do it again.
I have had tons of characters that don't use shields and they all seem to survive the process of smiting their enemies just fine.
If you think the wizard is going to argue his case you obviously haven't met his lawyer -- I present Kay Yoss of the Pit.
This is exactly my point -- it's the GM's version of WES: GMIAR. Your npc that you didn't even have named (and wasn't an elite -- go look at what an actual courier is... here's a clue not much) that you thought you could make a snide comment with -- with no repercussions whatsoever got slapped down -- now you feel like you got to one up the wizard.
Oh look the exact same thing you are accusing the wizard of.
Besides thanks to the fact I used polymorph and not baneful polymorph the couriers have a few more minutes and again -- are fine -- in fact other than the witnesses that saw them be embarrassed: Exactly what they were trying to do to the wizard they are completely unharmed.
If they can't take what they give they get what they deserve. It's not that I'm immune -- but at the same time if I'm exceptional as a character and I'm here to save the kingdom the people best realize that they are opening admitting I'm better than them and keep their mouths shut.
**************************
NOW in a more 'low brow' game that many mistake with more 'gritty' such heavy handedness probably wouldn't be used -- however it all depends on the game: If I'm playing a commoner wizard I probably go with the speech and leave... allowing them to find their friends the succubi in an alley or their bedroom that evening instead. After all more gritty goes all the way around, and I'm certainly not a hero in such games.
According to the Power Gamers 3.5 Warrior strategy guide by Goodman Games, ”there is no such thing as a perfect warrior”. There are merits to having a two handed weapon , merits to fighting with a weapon in two hands (TWF), and merits to fighting with sword and shield. Interestingly enough on page 19 of the book, it points out that statistically speaking, the monk ends up doing more damage then the fighter. Now I don’t know if this still holds true for Pathfinder, but they did crunch allot of numbers and did the statistical math for 3.5.
I am going to have to check this out. I see splat book, and bias written all over this one.
Which is more fun, striking down evil creatures or cowering behind your shield?I have had tons of characters that don't use shields and they all seem to survive the process of smiting their enemies just fine.
Striking down evil creatures from behind a shield thus not needing a resurrection to do it again.
I’m right there with you. I have an unreasonable aversion to my characters utilizing heavy armor or shields. It’s a personal preference that has yet to cause character death at a higher rate than average. In my experience more than half the party isn’t in heavy armor and shield users are rare and we also do just fine.
However we do (generally) manage our risks. Using the shield example you put forward. If the options are:
A) Carelessly smite away.
B) Carefully smite.
C) Cower.
We choose B.
Please excuse my input. I do thou disagree with some of your statements, but wish to avoid the name calling and insults. What level was the wizard that turned two Courtiers into birds in one round? Why was he bothering to answer a summons to see the king? Why would the king take his life in his hands to be in the same room with someone who would change total strangers into birds? Never mind - I have been intimidated now, I'll slink away, back to my small corner. Please don't flame me anymore.Courtiers are often high ranking persons in a society. In a RPG they are apt to have character levels themselves, and are likely to have magical protections.No they're not.
A ring of Spell Turning cost a 100.000 gp. Most Kingdoms don't have that. Monst kings can't afford that. Much less simple courtiers.
And sure thay have class levels. Probably as aristocrats. Less than 5 levels. But than again farmers have class levels too, so what is your point. According to the Golarion setting:
** spoiler omitted **
Characters with more than 10 levels are a handful per kingdom. Most of those are adventurers and bad guys with some in the royalty or its direct inner circle and the occassional retired hero, hermit wise man and researcher wizard. It takes a "mover and shaker" to be more than 10 levels and those guys wouldn't give a damn about your clothes but about your efficiency.
Thank you, since I didn't use neither name-calling nor insults. Nor flaming. In fact, I could be offended that you acuse me of this, but since your argument is so poorly constructed you have to appeal to being 'the victim' to the 'big bad troll' I opt to find it amusing.
As to your questions: The wizard has to be at least level nine to be able to cast either version of Polimorph. Because the king called him, probably. Because someone who can turn strangers into birds is useful against: necromancers, evil cults, dragons, orc hordes, etc. And that's just the cliches.
According to the Power Gamers 3.5 Warrior strategy guide by Goodman Games, ”there is no such thing as a perfect warrior”. There are merits to having a two handed weapon , merits to fighting with a weapon in two hands (TWF), and merits to fighting with sword and shield. Interestingly enough on page 19 of the book, it points out that statistically speaking, the monk ends up doing more damage then the fighter. Now I don’t know if this still holds true for Pathfinder, but they did crunch allot of numbers and did the statistical math for 3.5.I am going to have to check this out. I see splat book, and bias written all over this one.
Power Attack is never accounted for. They actually only account for the weapon focus and weapon spec feats for the fighter. From my reading they also avoided magic weapons with the calculation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think the wizard is going to argue his case you obviously haven't met his lawyer -- I present Kay Yoss of the Pit.
This is exactly my point -- it's the GM's version of WES: GMIAR. Your npc that you didn't even have named (and wasn't an elite -- go look at what an actual courier is... here's a clue not much) that you thought you could make a snide comment with -- with no repercussions whatsoever got slapped down -- now you feel like you got to one up the wizard.
Oh look the exact same thing you are accusing the wizard of.
Besides thanks to the fact I used polymorph and not baneful polymorph the couriers have a few more minutes and again -- are fine -- in fact other than the witnesses that saw them be embarrassed: Exactly what they were trying to do to the wizard they are completely unharmed.
If they can't take what they give they get what they deserve. It's not that I'm immune -- but at the same time if I'm exceptional as a character and I'm here to save the kingdom the people best realize that they are opening admitting I'm better than them and keep their mouths shut.
**************************
NOW in a more 'low brow' game that many mistake with more 'gritty' such heavy handedness probably wouldn't be used -- however it all depends on the game: If I'm playing a commoner wizard I probably go with the speech and leave... allowing them to find their friends the succubi in an alley or their bedroom that evening instead. After all more gritty goes all the way around, and I'm certainly not a hero in such games.
Kay Yoss of the Pit is not a registered lawyer in this demesne.
"the couriers"
Courtier, not courier. Couriers carry documents, and ferry things about, these chaps run and influence kingdoms, from back-room dealings to being the very fabric of high society. They look good in silks, they have a reputation and people/families backing them.
With polymorph don't forget you actually have to touch them both (unlawful assault), and they have to fail what is their best save (if they are aristocrats). Touching up nobles in the street and casting spells is putting you really close to the crime. One guard or bodyguard being innocuous nearby and you could really face a grapple check as you try to touch and transform Addlewits and his esteemed friend.
"Your npc that you didn't even have named (and wasn't an elite -- go look at what an actual courier is... here's a clue not much)"
Every npc has a name, is a person, such things are generated as they become important. Their class and level should be randomised, it is entirely up to chance. If you are attacking random people that say something a little insulting, they could be anybody. They could also be a couple of knights out of their plate and in their nice clothes (because appreciating fine wine and mocking passer-bys is harder behind a full helm). 3.5 knights also have will as their best save son. No guaranteed success, just guaranteed problems.
"Besides thanks to the fact I used polymorph and not baneful polymorph the couriers have a few more minutes and again -- are fine --"
Breaking the law isn't a matter of whether they are eventually fine. If you had physically assaulted them with subdual, they would also have eventually been fine, but it is still a crime. It'll wear off won't impress the guards or judge.
"If they can't take what they give they get what they deserve."
They didn't give out polymorph. They made a totally legal shared-quip. Your wizard broke the law, and it is the job of the law to make sure you get what you deserve. Not a lawful character I take it?
"could make a snide comment with -- with no repercussions whatsoever got slapped down -- now you feel like you got to one up the wizard"
It is the courtiers that will indeed feel the need to even the score and report the crime, then the involved elements of the legal and upper classes will try to address this wrong. This is WES my friend, you think addressing your wounded pride is more important than laws, more important than people not being magically altered. They said something adventurer didn't like, they must be punished! Now you are a brigand if you escape. I've seen players pull this before, I am right, the lawful good country where I broke the laws is wrong.
On the topic: initiating offence against random rich folk is a bad idea. Learn their strengths, learn their weaknesses, learn who they are if the rich must be combated. They could be successful members of melee classes (remember Addlewits, when we killed those orcs and bought those keeps? Har har, good times), pure aristocrats/experts with connections (Crier: foreign mage attacks nobles, legal case pending!), rogues from good backgrounds (why must my father always ask me to poison our rivals?) or even, shock horror, spellcasters (the rich have enough money to pursue magical study and fund magical training).
If a wizard is really there to help a king, he shouldn't magically attack the king's subjects. Especially someone the king really might know or be related to (sorry brah, I attacked your cousin. Yeah, I did turn him into a bird and shame your house).
King's hand is unimpressed.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkhrzs4Gnz1qis07wo1_1280.jpg ?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1318577341&Signature=u wWenf3SNUf4ghq86pXIMgxoM9c%3D
I didn't leave my crafting to deal with courtiers either -- he wants his kingdom saved he can keep his people's mouths shut... or he can go battle the dragon by his onsie -- I don't mind.
At the end of the day I didn't come looking for a kingdom to save, they asked for me -- again if they want someone to save them then they should respect their betters instead of their ego.
All and all it still just looks like a GM not liking the fact his GMPC got the snubbing it deserved.
Reach spell -- metamagic look into it.
Tell him what if he's inbred cousin is that upset he can come and I'll teach him a cantrip or two to make it up to him -- that way he can pretend to be all impressive at court and perhaps have a chance with the ladies.
However at what point wasn't I of equal ranking to have been in the place in the first place? The Courtier (still just a cling on the royal butt) didn't know better than to insult me? Apparently I'm saving his kingdom and also have an obviously short temper -- perhaps he should have used those social skills to... I don't know not insult the guy his uncle is hoping will save all their butts?
Great work there Lou good to see that aristocratic education didn't go to waste!
Baleful polymorph has a range of close, not touch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't leave my crafting to deal with courtiers either -- he wants his kingdom saved he can keep his people's mouths shut... or he can go battle the dragon by his onsie -- I don't mind.
At the end of the day I didn't come looking for a kingdom to save, they asked for me -- again if they want someone to save them then they should respect their betters instead of their ego.
All and all it still just looks like a GM not liking the fact his GMPC got the snubbing it deserved.
Reach spell -- metamagic look into it.
Tell him what if he's inbred cousin is that upset he can come and I'll teach him a cantrip or two to make it up to him -- that way he can pretend to be all impressive at court and perhaps have a chance with the ladies.
However at what point wasn't I of equal ranking to have been in the place in the first place? The Courtier (still just a cling on the royal butt) didn't know better than to insult me? Apparently I'm saving his kingdom and also have an obviously short temper -- perhaps he should have used those social skills to... I don't know not insult the guy his uncle is hoping will save all their butts?
Great work there Lou good to see that aristocratic education didn't go to waste!
Rudeness, arrogance, and impetuousness are spot on in playing that Wizard's Charisma dump stat.
And he wasn't looking for a kingdom to save? But isn't this the heroic/non-gritty version?Wow, I'd hate to DM the anti-hero version.
Could you imagine a high official calling in a top commando and letting that commando kneecap the senators because they made a comment about his cologne?
"Oh, but they'll be able to walk soon enough." He may be the baddest ass around, but that lack of discipline may overshadow his actual ability. (And, yes, the senators would be in the wrong, but it's not the commando's job to mete out justice/retribution in unlawful ways, or upgrade the wrongness.)
Of course, if I were that Wizard, I'd be pissed, and have the same urge. But there are other ways to 'win' this situation without losing in the bigger scheme, even without social skills.
(Bluff is implied with some of these, but you don't need to succeed, and it may be better if you fail and the courtier KNOWS you're toying with him, but have said nothing he can quote against you.)
"Oink, Oink"
"Would you be speaking your native tongue, Wizard?" (laughter)
"I'm trying to recall a spell I know, which might turn that rampaging dragon into a pig. OH! I think the spell's coming back to me! If only I had a loathsome target to practice on before facing that dragon..."
If he responds, i.e. "Are you threatening me!"
(casts flashy blast spell against object near courtier) "Whoops. What were you saying?"
or
Use an illusion to scare the s... out of them. (Fireball/Demon/etc.)
"Oh, I was trying for the REAL one. Dang it. I guess I just overreacted, shouldn't really be casting my dragon-killing magic here anyway. No targets here that I dislike. Yet."
(or "Oh, my, sometimes my magic just seems to attack people who offend me on its own accord. Good thing THAT one was fake."
or
"Are you a dragon?"
"Excuse me? Of course not. Are you daft?"
"Oh, no, regarded as the most intelligent person west of Skerelos actually. But I am trying to gain and give perspective on the situation here. You see, I'm here to kill a dragon. And since you're so far below a dragon, and the elite troops he's killed, I suppose I needn't worry about you, or any of your comments, should I?"
"What? How dare!"
"Dragon!" (points) or "Dragon!" (casts illusion) or
"Like me, the dragon has no rank in court either...I wonder what he'd do with you...I mean, if he got here...say, if your comments insulted me enough to leave you to his claws. Or his fire. Burns right through protections, I heard. Boils the fat right off." or
"Wait! Are you against me being here, or not? I really need to know, and so does the king. You know, the one with the dragon NOBODY ELSE can kill...or maybe you and your troops can do this? I'll need to know if you're anything contending at my caliber, or just...not. You aren't, are you?"
or "Never mind, it's not like you or all you could muster could slow me down on my way to the dragon anyway. Well, maybe a day."
and, because you likely pissed him off, afterward send him a scale of this dragon with a note "Glad to be of help. Was a bit easier than I thought. Regrets you lost so many good, capable men."
Just saying, yes, you can barrel your way through court pissing everybody off who pissed you off, but any obvious instance of illegal action will draw lawful and good people against you too (even if they understand the target was a jerk). Make it so the lawful and good people are on your side, and the snide, rude people look like the 'non-team players' and/or imbeciles that they are.
Use your Int (and Wis).
So neither offense nor static defense, more like a parry or deflection...
All in good fun. :)
The question was if a significantly high level of offensive power could make up for a lack of social skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and on the main topic, DPR-centric melee PCs worry me because they so often end up killing other PCs. Okay, worry may be too strong a word because I'm usually the DM, and like having a new ally, even if he's just confused. :)
In my XP, DPR-centric PCs have taken more than their share in party resources to keep alive/un-confused-charmed-etc. Even if their 'share' is adjusted for DPR, they use more. It's almost as if every Barb needs his own Cleric... (Leadership?)
And they die more frequently when things go awry.
And seem to be one-trick ponies at a loss with new challenges (again, in my XP, it doesn't have to be that way).
I do like the thought of 'minimum' defenses, and wish more DPR machines acknowledge (if not followed) them.
That said, I did have to play with a 3.5 Duelist ally who 'seemed' awesome, but outside of blocking corridors, was near worthless. (Luckily, we did have some nice corridors for her to block.)
People have argued that a defender has so many (too many) things to defend against. True. (Maybe.)
But doesn't a DPR machine have so many types of critters to damage? Ones with different DR, immunities, or other ways to circumvent 'normal' damage? Ones that you can't get to/effect with your main weapon? Grapplers?
(Archers bypass much of this, darn them, but melee types need work to do this.)
Anyway, just pointing out a flaw in that singular aspect of the whole argument.
A somewhat silly argument, IMO, and I have read the whole thread, unswayed toward either extreme. (Yes, I understand nobody's arguing 'pure defense'.)
I find the offense/defense ratio has a lot to do with the campaign's nature. A high DPR PC can die often if swamped by peons in a horde invasion campaign, while a high AC PC will fall to a well-played Dragon if he swaps Full Attacks for more than a few rounds.
A lot also has to do with the type of casters in the party, and their willingness/ability to buff/pre-buff/heal/control/blast/etc.
And lastly...
Why the dichotomy?
It's possible to mix and match. I've had several players who had a 'shield out' mode and a 'reach/THW' mode to switch between. Much like every melee warrior should have a ranged weapon, there's little reason not to have a 'balls out' mode and a 'guard the groin' mode.
You can't optimize both, but you can make both modes worthwhile options, and for little extra investment/thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm sorry, this thread is just like a perfect microcosm of the internet. The initial topic is rapidly upstaged by a semantic discussion defining the terms of the topic, which devolves into an argument about a hypothetical and entirely unrelated situation, which is really an analogy for subjective etiquette.
My mind is blown.
Sorry man, a wandering mage has no legal power to polymorph people. You want to try and bully the elites it is going to lead to tears.Sorry, but you've run into a disease that has run rampant on this forum...Wizard Entitlement Syndrome. When WES strikes, players don't feel that the laws of the fictional world apply to their characters. And that's only the first stage...this is quickly followed by the player feeling that the game mechanics themselves do not apply to their characters. While it is named Wizard Entitlement Syndrome, this is only because wizard playelrs are the hardest hit. It can, in fact, apply to players with characters of any class...wizard players are only the most succeptable.
Lol. Gotta remember that one. WES.
Since when have PCs ever thought the law applied to them? These are the guys who break into people's houses and murder them for their stuff.
Depends alot on the alignment of the party characters and their back stories. Regardless of whether any of them are lawful characters, if there is a high Int or wisdom character in the party they should be able to realise that when doing something outside the law of the land, it has to be handled carefully. Seen so many of them make the worst decisions possible but have an 18-20 wisdom or intelligence. Truly sad to see.
The hell is this? Seriously, what the hell is this argument, and what does it have to do with 'offense being the best defense' being a myth or not?Clearly they are trying to decide if the best defense against verbal attacks is to give offense.
Beat me to it by a couple of hours. There is a reason people resort to offense so quickly -- because it works -- sitting there and taking it or trying to not take it doesn't.