| 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 manoeuvresOur 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.)
Was she distracted by the shinies or laser pointers?
I think most players and GMs enjoy the results of an aggressive playstyle more than a defensive one.
Since when did cats care about safety?
I'm starting to see holes in this story.
(But the catfolk witch not sticking with the party was the biggest factor I think.)
Yeah, my cat does that too. Last night she ran away from a fight with a paper bag.
A for Effort!
But in more seriousness, there's a really good point in that anecdote. Going for defenses will generally draw out encounters. If your group is fine with that, then defense will work fine.
In my main group, we have 10 people, so I generally go for either buffing or offensively capable characters. Because 10 characters is nightmare enough for combat, and doing things to prolong it has a very amplified effect.
I've also found it pretty hard to make a "Glass cannon" build in PF too unless you are consciously attempting to give up defenses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like playing defense oriented characters, mostly because most of the people I game with focus so much on damage. Which is not to say i don't know the satisfaction of one-shotting an enemy!
We're playing through Kingmaker, and it has helped out on several occasions when I can total defense and hold a big bruiser in a doorway while my allies lob attaks at it.
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 manoeuvresOur 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.)
Well if you are getting thrashed but still alive, slowly closing in on death, it is time to flee. No reason to die poorly like so many your pc has defeated before.
I am not sure what you were facing exactly, but if it single handedly thrashed the party and they didn't stand a chance, it is time to talk to the dm with a little encouragement for more level appropriate boss encounters.
Or ask for more iron golems at level six. Game isn't hard enough, lol.
Was she distracted by the shinies or laser pointers?She thought casting from 100ft away was safer.
The half-dragons 120ft charge proved otherwise.
I've seen that! Casters wanting to sit back nice and safe, and not helping the party a great deal by doing so. You also can't protect them from flankers.
I like playing defense oriented characters, mostly because most of the people I game with focus so much on damage. Which is not to say i don't know the satisfaction of one-shotting an enemy!
We're playing through Kingmaker, and it has helped out on several occasions when I can total defense and hold a big bruiser in a doorway while my allies lob attaks at it.
Yeah, that is the way. Great defence paired with strong offence. Now on the boards, I've heard some offence players mock the defence types, defensive monks especially, because they can't keep up with the damage or do their fair share (?). What they often fail to realise, is a blocker is perfect for allowing the offence to shine, and whatever attacks the defenders deflect, whatever spells bounce off them, that is how they shine. Some damage is good, but attack and defend characters together, it is sweet.
Which is why I don't like the push that we should all play offence. Too much sameness. Two-hander power attackers, spell blasters, you play these offence types for years, I found I eventually got bored.
|
Well if you are getting thrashed but still alive, slowly closing in on death, it is time to flee. No reason to die poorly like so many your pc has defeated before.
I am not sure what you were facing exactly, but if it single handedly thrashed the party and they didn't stand a chance, it is time to talk to the dm with a little encouragement for more level appropriate boss encounters.
Not singlehandedly. I'm not sure of the breakdown, but the half-dragon had about 8-10 supporting minions ranging from witches, rogues, clerics, and fighters. We also couldn't retreat because it would have wasted the diversion our patron had set up to allow us to steal the artifact. We've wasted one such opportunity before, we were not about to do so again.
Design Manager
|
Realistically, offense will typically be the more effective way to go since dealing melee damage utilizes fewer resources. Faster fights = smaller resource burn = better efficiency.
A defensive character by his nature is drawing out the fight, thus more rounds of combat and more resource burn.
Of course, in real game play, glass cannons have a tendency to be crushed without a good defensive character running inteference for them. Ultimately, it's like any good football team. You've got have a strong offense and a strong defense to go the distance.
In terms of a high damage output, low defence 'glass cannon' may I present the raging, charging, power attacking, cleaving Barbarian.
Couple of things...
1. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both.
2. The nature of Pathfinder, and most RPG tactical simulations is such that it becomes a hit point damage race. Whoever does the most damage fastest wins. Because of that the tactic to focus on offense is generally speaking a superior tactic.
3. The nature of actual combat in the real world is such that offense typically is more important than defense. Generals from Sun Tzu to Patraeus all preach some version of "get there the firstest with the mostest." Dead enemies can't kill you.
4. In combat (and in life in general) there is a sequence of events leading up to actions which produce results. It is generally recognized that the superior tactic is to be the one forcing the other side to react. This is sometimes called the "OODA Loop". (Observe, orient, decide, act). The superior tactical position is always to be in "act" and force your opponent to be in observe mode. That is hard to do defensively.
However, that is not to say that you can't win with a defensive approach. There are tons of military examples of successfully fighting defensively. There are just many more examples of successfully fighting offensively.
I attack. And then I press the attack. And when that isn't working, I either attack harder, or I run and set up a new attack.
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.
Melbourne, FL or Melbourne, Australia?
I like high defense builds, as generally I play in groups that don't optimize on the same level I do. It's a good way for me to get my optimization kicks without marginalizing the contributions of the rest of the party.
And even in high optimization parties, I still really like being that warrior that stands unharmed in combat, preferably in light or no armor.
That, or a controller/buff caster.
But as the kids say, "dead" is the best crowd control.
I actually think that several classes can specialize in being both offensive and defensive all at the same time. A barbarian and a 'Mr. Hyde' Alchemist are both VERY tanky and can dish out an absurd amount of damage if built correctly.
As far as defense goes, it's important to have high saves so you don't end up getting screwed over by death attacks, stunning, mind-control, etc. However, as far as 'miss chance' is concerned, while I grant you that it is a pretty useful defense, as you progress in level, things such as blur, displacement, and invisibility start to become almost worthless.
True seeing, blindsight, and even basic NPCs can all start countering miss chance pretty easily, which is why I would still encourage high hp and damage reduction for the primary sources of defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smokesticks+Blindfight are fantastic combo. Smokesticks are not magical so can't be dispelled and function in an antimagic field, cant be pierced by see invisibility or true seeing, and most ranged enemies aren't going to be hitting you. Blindfight then reduces the penalties for you... see where I'm coming from here?
Smokesticks+Blindfight are fantastic combo. Smokesticks are not magical so can't be dispelled and function in an antimagic field, cant be pierced by see invisibility or true seeing, and most ranged enemies aren't going to be hitting you. Blindfight then reduces the penalties for you... see where I'm coming from here?
No, the smoke is in the way.....
Sorry, I could not resist.
Carry one.
Smokesticks+Blindfight are fantastic combo. Smokesticks are not magical so can't be dispelled and function in an antimagic field, cant be pierced by see invisibility or true seeing, and most ranged enemies aren't going to be hitting you. Blindfight then reduces the penalties for you... see where I'm coming from here?
Considering things like Blindsight, Tremorsense, Lifesense, Scent, Blindsense, and the obvious answer of simply 'walking out of the smoke'....nope...not really ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody is talking about PF like an video game with fixed enemies, situations etc. What is the best class, what is the best weapon, what is the best way to win the game.
Most of you forget one thing: the gamemaster. A good gamemaster would do everything to make the game challenging! Fewer enemies, stronger enemies, more enemies, weaker enemies .. you never ever can win Pathfinder because you cannot beat the gamemaster.
Play what you want and have fun. That is my advice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the DM lets you win? /joke
You're using the wrong mind-set. You play WITH the DM, not against the DM.
Melbourne, FL or Melbourne, Australia?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.
Saw a kangaroo on a main road in the city the other day.
Mixing it up is supreme. Too many glass cannons, and they break when rocks get thrown back, too much defence and you can at times, not do enough to survive; but a whole mass of enemies not hitting you feels great.
So mix your attackers with your blockers and controllers, with my personal preference being for safety and survival.
A friend told me yesterday of a PF party he had seen a few days before, very powerful individual characters, almost all glass cannons focused on their own glory and power. They were weak, because they broke up in combats and had no teamwork. They could use the latest pathfinder material, they could get as many high stats and items as they wanted. They had too much offence, not enough thinking beyond optimisation and didn't have team members helping others.
A great mixed party can take a small army, but copping 0-2 hits per round is a lot better against many opponents than copping 3-5 hits per round.
Everybody is talking about PF like an video game with fixed enemies, situations etc. What is the best class, what is the best weapon, what is the best way to win the game.
Most of you forget one thing: the gamemaster. A good gamemaster would do everything to make the game challenging! Fewer enemies, stronger enemies, more enemies, weaker enemies .. you never ever can win Pathfinder because you cannot beat the gamemaster.
Play what you want and have fun. That is my advice.
Hush now, you'll spoil it for all the players...
|
I should also mention that the only reason the party was not taken captive and instead left for dead is because after my cleric with his buffed 28 AC finally went down, the cavaliers horse tanked the half-dragon via a 30 AC until it was forced to take the artifact and flee.
What level was this group?
When I am talking defensive builds, those are the numbers I am aiming for by level 4 - 5. My current PFS Kensai self buffs to a 28 AC at level 4 and will self buff to 32AC at level 5. I won't deal the damage a pure dpr build will, but it's not negligible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone should:
Build for Offense.
Position for Defense.
At least one party member should be able to:
Control at the Start.
Heal at the End.
That's my general rule of thumb.
|
|
TOZ - My shop had a kitten once, and we found that if you pushed a styrofoam cup over her head, she would slowly start to back up out of the "tunnel". Might work on catfolk too. :P
Doesn't matter, catfolk is dead. The funny thing about being 100ft away from the main battle is, when you're bleeding out at -7, the cleric can't reach you.
What level was this group?
6th level. None of us were built for defense, unless full plate counts.
It's how you up defenses that counts.
AC will eventually fail, so you will need other methods.
It's not about getting your AC so high the monster needs a 20 to hit you, it's about keeping it high enough that they miss an appreciable amount of the time. Attacks do not equal save or die (unless you're using the massive damage rule).
Focusing on defense on these boards won't get you mocked for cheese, it'll get you mocked for making yourself irrelevant. Monk builds are the standard. But even Fighter builds that go AC over offense can swiftly fall so far behind the damage race that all it does is help them die last.
For the barbarian example, remember that barbs can get Superstitious for insanely high saves, and get some extremely high DR...in addition to having very good offense.
Ex: AM BARBARIAN build. that build rocks not because it has rage and Power attack, but because the defenses are so unbelievably good.
==Aelryinth
Defence does get a lot of mockery when it is the focus. My attack numbers are bigger than yours.
I have heard the "all it does is help them die last" claim. It is not what I've seen, because they are a part of a team. That they will die last allows them to help others for longer if you are using your head in combat. E.g. bard turtles, cleric buffers with an eye to defence, or a defensive char with reach that shuts down a lot of attacks, but throws plenty of attacks of opportunity around (yes, not on the best to hit or damage, but they are a nice protector of archers).
Also, if your build means you will die last, then when all others are dead, flee. Use magic items to aid in this, or if your speed is great (monk), you may not even need magic. Then get help, get your party raised and you have saved them all. It is as if not going pure offence is cowardly or foolish. It is only such if you play it like that.
I am saddened by homogeneity in character builds.
There's no reason you can't build a character that can fight effectively over a large swath of the striker to tank spectrum.
In one of my campaigns I'm playing a samurai (order of the warrior) with several different stages of offensive vs defensive trade-offs depending on what the situation calls for. Here I'll assume that he's fighting on foot with his katana:
All these options are open to any character that fights with a weapon that can be wielded in one or both hands. Fighters will probably want to fight defensively before picking up a shield (since they can get higher bonuses to AT) and cavaliers/samurai will probably pick up a shield first (since they get bonuses to DAM with challenge). Paladins can do whichever when they are smiting but (as always) are lackluster against neutral opponents.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To test out the theory of a party of glass cannons I once played with a group and we all chose rangers and we all optimized our combat as much as possible for offense. As part of that we also optimized for initiative.
In general, unless the GM shamelessly metagamed to defeat us, we tore through encounters like cotton candy. It was so easy it was no fun. We frequently would defeat entire encounters without taking a single hit.
"Shock and awe" is an absolutely viable and effective combat technique. You get four strikers getting initiative and focusing fire on the enemy and things just go down. Fast.
To counter that we built a highly defensive party and after a couple of two hour encounters, we decided that while they would no doubt be nearly unbeatable in combat, we simply didn't have the time to waste in whittling down the enemy.
Those were just experiments though. In general our group tends towards a traditional role-based party and we just use the best tactics we can. Neither the all glass cannon, nor all turtle parties were nearly as much fun as the mixed party.
|
|
The cleric player wants to have fun too, so work on defence if your class gives you automatic offence.
Otherwise your in need of truely maximised one hit death dealing power or if you cannot kill every opponent on the field in one round your eventually a deluded gimp at the whim of DM babying or clerical healing.
You and I have a very different definition of the word gimped if you need to be one shotting ANYTHING the DM sends at you before your not gimped.
To be fair though, a really creative GM will always find ways to challenge a party. I remember watching how one GM killed half the party by using a very creative water trap (basically, 2 of the party members ended up drowning while the rest of the part was forced to engage in a very difficult battle).
In another instance, that same GM ended up separating the party by having the floor collapse (again, just more creative traps), and then nearly overwhelming the party by the sheer weight in numbers.
Other good tricks include poison, diseases, and just using the environment against the party (you'd be surprised at how a effective a well-placed rock-slide or cave-in can be).
To be fair though, a really creative GM will always find ways to challenge a party. I remember watching how one GM killed half the party by using a very creative water trap (basically, 2 of the party members ended up drowning while the rest of the part was forced to engage in a very difficult battle).
In another instance, that same GM ended up separating the party by having the floor collapse (again, just more creative traps), and then nearly overwhelming the party by the sheer weight in numbers.
Other good tricks include poison, diseases, and just using the environment against the party (you'd be surprised at how a effective a well-placed rock-slide or cave-in can be).
Eh, you would actually be surprised that quite a few of these trick of the trade are really caused by boosting the CR of the encounter past what is normal for the APL. Powerful terrain advantages/traps are supposed to enter into the calculations for encounters. A CR 5 pit trap added to a CR5 monster encounter should raise the encounter to 7.
Its still a nice way to get more millage out of less powerful monsters, or monsters that are particularly weak vs the party, and required against optimized for killing parties. If you give them a monster of the same encounter level as the "adjusted" one should be, it becomes dueling with WMDs, and can cause a wipe or be a walk over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This.
Rocket tag parties and defense oriented parties both work at lower levels. However, as time progresses in the game it's more efficient to go the rocket tag route because of how health and defenses don't keep up when it comes to higher levels. Granted, if you go the rocket tag route then you're prone to encounter a DM that will TPK you because he wants to challenge you. So in the end it really depends on your DM and how you want to play.
High levels doesn't have to be, you must do damage quickly or you die. Doesn't have to go that way with the game only becoming that in combat.
If the players have earned their levels, let them fight some things below their CR. Some easy wins, some difficult battles. It doesn't have to go up up up. There is a lot that can be done with terrain, enemy strategy without just jumping into ultra-foes.
Campaigns set in war zones can be like that. At low level, you fight mooks and try to survive, as you level you fight better foes but there are still mooks/levies/ashigaru to deal with. The good news about your levels and kit means you can do more in the great clashes, really shape battles, it doesn't mean you now only fight things CR 1-4 above you. You might hunt enemy parties and they will be gnarly, but that isn't all there is (unless that is how a dm makes the game).
Keep those high CR foes as sub-bosses and bosses. If their teamwork is great they don't need to just be damage fountains.