Thoughts?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think the octopus would make a strong trading partner in today's social-economic climate, if it wasn't for the fact they only live roughly three years.
Or do you mean on the thread title?
Something can't hurt me if it's unconscious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like " killing them softly with a song"
Strike first and strike hard, that's the way to win in D&D.
Kill first, ask questions later. A dead enemy cannot Critical you, whether the GM was being soft on you or not.
Depends on party composition. If there is a healer (or two??) you should all concentrate on killing the monsters faster. But when no healers exist and surviving becomes more difficult, you should focus on defending and holding out.
Glass Canons - they die...
But if you are focused on defence, with low damage outout and the rest of the party is glass Canons with massive damage outputs - monsters will just ignore you and kill your friends..
It's a balance - keep your damage relevant without being close to death every encounter. Your defences are okay when you can walk into combat and stay there without having to consider runing away.. Damage is relevant if you kan kill things in a round or two.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being fast and hitting hard is good overall, but you still want some defense for those times when you get ambushed or roll low on initiative. Personally, I think buffs are better than nerfing spells (bless vs bane) because buffs increase yours and your allies' performance in battle with no need for a save, while nerfs can do the same amount but with the chance of failure. Both a +4 AC to you and a -4 to an enemy's attack do the same thing (20% less chance of hitting you) but a buff is guaranteed, while a nerf can fail. Especially if the target rolls a nat 20 on their save.
Version of the question while under a Confusion or Insanity spell.
Is it better to focus on killing yourself faster or defending them?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there was some sort of fatigue mechanism built into standard combat, building a defensive character who used 'rope a dope' to outlast a foe could be a viable tactic.
But since there isn't, it's just best to kill 'em fast.
Even in GURPS, which has some pretty buff 'total defense' options, mixing up dodge-and-retreat, parries and shield blocks, trying to outlast a foe in this manner is just begging for that inevitable critical hit that bypasses defenses (or critical failure on a defense roll) that causes you to eat sharp pointy death.
The only situation where I could see a defensive build excelling would be one based around some sort of weapon or property or training that allowed for bleed damage and / or massive Attack of Opportunity potential if attacked while in 'defensive stance.' Even then, it requires a specific set of circumstances (one on one duels, or a bottleneck that prevents the foes from just ignoring your Total Defending / Crane Styling butt and killing all of your allies while you 'turtle' up).
Even then, with all the ducks in a row, it's a better NPC bad-guy tactic than one for a PC. Tactically reactive / defensive tactics like that don't feel heroic or dynamic or dramatic.
I will say this: in the long run, your AC doesn't really matter (trust me, stuff is going to hit you...it's just a matter of time). Therefore, as far as 'defending yourself' is concerned, there really are only a few effective ways of doing this.
Temporary hit points, fast healing, damage reduction.
Those are probably the best ways that you can 'really' defend yourself. Also, while AC isn't all that important, your touch AC can actually be very relevant. Avoiding a caster's touch attacks (usually by rays and such) is normally a very important thing.
Did you just make a reference to an old meme there, TOZ ?
Therefore, as far as 'defending yourself' is concerned, there really are only a few effective ways of doing this.
Temporary hit points, fast healing, damage reduction.
May I throw miss chance into the mix?
Remove the enemy from the equation is superior to mitigating their effectiveness 99% of the time.
This statistic is brought to you by the FuelDrop Statistical Office (inc.)
For the most part you are usually better of killing or disabling your opponents vs. defending. The one area of defense that is important are saves. Reflex saves are not that big of a deal but Will and Fortitude are extremely important. All the HP in the world are not going to do you any good if you are neutralized with a spell. Will is probably the most important save of the game because a lot of spells with Will saves can turn you against the party.
The trick is having enough defenses to survive the encounter so you can be healed up afterwards.
In general attack is stronger than AC.
BUT certain types of defense are more valuable than attack.
Those being a strong DR / resistance package combined with either Fast Heal or Regeneration.
There are plenty that will espouse a good strong offence, but I prefer defence. I was once in love with damage and attack, but now I prefer survivability, great ac, good saves and able to wear opponents down over time or drag a fight out with great tactics and manoeuvres (I still use 3.5 where they work better for longer).
Emphasise offence and you can throw all your magic at saving your hide, but without it you are really in a poor state if you don't get the charge and face multiple attacks in short order. Defence also attracts envy, and you get the added bonus of making enemies and perhaps even bosses look stupid, which is so enjoyable.
PF with the ever-enlarging numbers, does push for quick combats and quick solutions. Fortunately those aren't the only fights I get to play or run.
Defense is better if you're a support character than if you're DD. Obviously a tank wants good defence, and healers need to survive better.
Blackbloodtroll: what about gouda?
A heavy hitter with low defence will feel heroic, until they go down to ten wounds. What feels real to me are the characters with an eye to defence and outlasting. I don't want to die, I wouldn't want to die if I were in a fantasy world, turtle me up till next tuesday. In boxing and more pragmatically oriented martial arts I've been involved in, the best coaches always emphasise a solid defence and the fundamentals of keeping yourself up and protected as much as possible. That seems sound and yeah, I like to play chars with a similar view that it would be great to survive some combat and die old fat, safe and sound. Well, some of my chars are like this. I've had a few builds about a lot of movement and quick overwhelming attack, they were fun also.
As a dm, I throw in some defensive opponents, some with polearms, sometimes sword/mace and board. A great defence I just find charming I suppose.
If there was some sort of fatigue mechanism built into standard combat, building a defensive character who used 'rope a dope' to outlast a foe could be a viable tactic.
But since there isn't, it's just best to kill 'em fast.
Even in GURPS, which has some pretty buff 'total defense' options, mixing up dodge-and-retreat, parries and shield blocks, trying to outlast a foe in this manner is just begging for that inevitable critical hit that bypasses defenses (or critical failure on a defense roll) that causes you to eat sharp pointy death.
The only situation where I could see a defensive build excelling would be one based around some sort of weapon or property or training that allowed for bleed damage and / or massive Attack of Opportunity potential if attacked while in 'defensive stance.' Even then, it requires a specific set of circumstances (one on one duels, or a bottleneck that prevents the foes from just ignoring your Total Defending / Crane Styling butt and killing all of your allies while you 'turtle' up).
Even then, with all the ducks in a row, it's a better NPC bad-guy tactic than one for a PC. Tactically reactive / defensive tactics like that don't feel heroic or dynamic or dramatic.
In the Melbourne groups I've played in, we have long made use of the simple feat dodge. If you check the (3.5) books, it says dodge bonuses stack. Couple this with an interest in defensive mechanics and this has led to creating really good defensive characters, and dodge applies to touch.
sometimes mechanics can make defensive characters hard to pull off, but some dodge and the vow of poverty combo can work.
It's how you up defenses that counts.
AC will eventually fail, so you will need other methods.
A few that get through might not matter, if you avoided ten attacks, and the rest of your party is on it supporting you. Our extended group has seen poor defene melee explode from damage, so yeah, we don't want that lol.
I think it's a balancing act. It is no good to be unittable if you can't hit anything, and it is no better to be an incredible killing machine if you can't last long enough to get your blows in.
Yep, I've been involved in 3.5, beta and homebrew groups.
There is also a lovely old 3.5 feat allowing you, once you have two attacks, to instead make just one on a nicer bonus. Now when I paired that with some defensive options, I made a very effective villain swordsman.
If defence is an option, depending on the rules, it can be so fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my regular allies is a Stalwart Defender, and his abilities have gotten us out of a LOT of crap. Having hit points and AC is not AS important IF you have the diehard feat, and it is also not as important if you are a ranged combatant or a magic user, but saves ARE. I am personally a fan of the monky, because they have a lot of dodge abilities.
Die-hard is enjoyable to use. Whew, still up!
Yeah, enemies will often get first hits in, and even a kobold can roll a 20.
The point of AC is to stop the second,third, and fourth attacks from hitting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a class I made up back when PF first came out to add an interesting defensive class to the game.
Mmmm, when you stop them all for a round though, it feels like you just got a fantastic hand at cards. Nothing can touch me, this round.
Here is a class I made up back when PF first came out to add an interesting defensive class to the game.
Like it, but will may be too high since you are on d12. May want to tone it down or adjust. Make it a little more humble but still sweet.
|
|
Here is a class I made up back when PF first came out to add an interesting defensive class to the game.Like it, but will may be too high since you are on d12. May want to tone it down or adjust. Make it a little more humble but still sweet.
I think the d12 was the thing most people objected to when I first presented the class. If one were to make a change to the class, I would recommend changing that rather (to d10) than Will, since these guys are supposed to be loyal bodyguards and the Toughness feat can make up for the difference in HP. (5.5 vs 6.5 per level)
Of course, it's been almost 3 years since I presented the class and Paizo has printed a few Ultimate books since then, so if I were to revise the class, I would have to take another look at feats, etc. and consider making it a fighter template...(edit: and probably reject that notion XD)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty that will espouse a good strong offence, but I prefer defence. I was once in love with damage and attack, but now I prefer survivability, great ac, good saves and able to wear opponents down over time or drag a fight out with great tactics and manoeuvres
Our 6th level party just wiped this weekend because we couldn't put the damage on our half-dragon foe. We were out-maneuvered and out-gunned, and all our high ACs did was delay the inevitable. (But the catfolk witch not sticking with the party was the biggest factor I think.)