Being a Striker is Risky Business

[cranewings]

When you have your GM hat on, do you find that certain characters in your game tend to get killed more often?

I sure do.

In the last game to 8th level I ran, I think I killed about 6 characters, and all of them had something in common: they had more resources devoted to attack than defense.

The Gunslinger with the low Con and light armor, the monk grappler, the barbarian, the light armored archer, and so on. Meanwhile, the halfling healer with the 32 AC when fighting defensively and the spear wielding, full plate / high dexterity paladin would just wade into the middle of orcs by the dozens, giants, trolls, giant animals, whatever. They took a while to kill what they were fighting, but they always got it.

In the mean time, characters like the barbarian and the monk get swatted off like noisy crickets. Sure, the monk could throw two grapples in a round and tap out clerics 4 levels higher than himself. Sure, the barbarian had the highest melee damage total I'd ever seen, and yeah, the ranged characters tried to keep some distance, but they couldn't rely on their strengths during fights they didn't start and when push came to shove, these low AC, high damage characters got focused down and pushed back hard.

Low damage, high AC characters with a spread of abilities DO GET ignored in my games. The bad guys, seeing what they are, basically have no choice but to neutralize the heavy hitters like the barbarian and the gunslinger right away, because they can't go the distance against someone else while getting hammered - not to mention characters like the barbarian and the monk are easy to take out. Then, once they are gone, the sword and shield fighter, the heavy knight, the defensive and healing cleric, they go the distance and win, usually with little to no damage at the end.

Do we have it wrong?

[pauljathome]

cranewings wrote:

When you have your GM hat on, do you find that certain characters in your game tend to get killed more often?

I sure do.

In the last game to 8th level I ran, I think I killed about 6 characters, and all of them had something in common: they had more resources devoted to attack than defense.

I mostly agree.

To a significant extent, however, it depends on the enemies. Really dumb enemies will tend to concentrate on whomever hit them hardest the last and on those who are closer. Some enemies will tend to concentrate on whomever is annoying them the most (I often allow taunts and the like in combat). Really smart enemies who have trained together will try and optimally take down the PCs.

And I often randomize exactly who an enemy will strike if it seems unclear to me.

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, you have it right. But while if it were real life, I'd definitely rather be the guy getting ignored cause living is awesome... it IS a game. Most people would rather be able to do stuff and influence the outcomes of encounters than "be safe." And really, if we're going to talk realism...no sane person would be an adventurer to begin with.

I'm in a level 17 3E game right now where I'm a wizard, another guy is a cleric w/ ledership feat, another guy is a druid, and another one is a dps archer ranger. And then we have our dwarven defender who maxed his con stat and has over 300 hp, DR, and extremely high AC. He is the most ineffectual character I've ever seen. He does maybe 20-40 damage in an encounter and maybe trips one or two guys. That's it. Because his str is just enough to not fall over in his full plate, he can barely hit just as foes can barely hit him. But he doesn't seem to ever die.

Before when I first joined the group, I was a glass cannon tripper skirmishing Dervish character, the ranger player was our wizard, and the druid player was a monk. But we all contributed (except the monk, man that class sucks) at the expense of being squishier, and thus all died.

I have no idea how that player has fun doing nothing of note in combat every single session, but I guess for some people staying alive is more fun than actively doing things...

Spoiler:

The character does greatly annoy me though, both because he's basically just a paper weight there to suck up party resources and also because before she died, the DM was complaining about my character since she so drastically outshined him in combat, as if it was my fault he chose to make an offensively worthless character. But...enough of that ranting.

[Mort the Cleverly Named]

cranewings wrote:

Do we have it wrong?

You can't be wrong, in that it is an experience you had. Assuming you aren't making things up for no apparent reason, this is how things turned out for you.

However, it is still a single data point. Some people smoke every day and don't get sick, but that doesn't make it good for you. There are many variables besides resources devoted to attack and defense. What were the exact situations and characters? Did you record how much damage each one was doing and taking? How did the dice fall? Luck, specific situations, and confirmation bias can wildly alter how effective characters appear to be.

Mathematically, it is generally better to be more dedicated to attack than defense. Resources spent towards increasing offense tend to end encounters more quickly, preventing more damage overall than equal resources devoted to defense. However, there are obvious boundaries to this idea. If a player goes to extremes, ignoring the standard issue rings of protection and amulets of natural armor in exchange for a (vastly more expensive) extra +1 on their weapon, the benefit is probably not outweighing the cost. The same would be true for a Fighter who took a 7 Wisdom for an extra point of Constitution, or similar situations. The middle road is generally the best, but in the case of Pathfinder, I find that middle road to still favor offense.

But hey, I could be totally wrong. Without more exact information, it is hard to say if this upsets the received wisdom, is a fluke, or the result of overdone and inefficient min/maxing. It would be interesting to hear more specific "after action reports," to integrate into ideas of optimization and whatnot.

[cranewings]

Stream, I suppose there is an extreme when it comes to defense. The paladin for example in my game, was still smiting people with a reach weapon and throwing javelin, even if he did blow a lot of party funds on AC and armor. The Cleric did basically no damage, but he provided a meat shield with high AC for the spear to stand behind, he kept the healing up, and he denied enemy actions like a beast (Invisibility Purge, Dispel Magic, Protection from Evil, Confusion) and so on and on.

My point more was that the Paladin was balanced with defense. The cleric was his shield. There was a wizard in the group with mage armor, a high dex, the toughness feat, and a crap ton of battlefield control. She survived when a Fire Giant overran a mounted knight, charged up to her, and brained her with a flaming axe: that's defense.

It is the two handed sword - hide armor wearing barbarians, two sword rogues with leather armor and high strengths, magi with single moments of AH HA who are vulnerable as new born babes when they get ambushed that bother me.

[Kolokotroni]

Characters who put an emphasis on defense are more survivable...that seems normal to me. If the challenge is enough to kill SOMOENE in the party it is most likely to be the people who get involved in fighting but are not as well defensed. Where as people with either very good defences (the paladin) or people who intentionally try to stay away from the fighting (casters) are more likely to get by without major injury. This just makes sense to me.