Emergency Force Sphere, protecting old men from big monsters since 1954.Almost anyway. It wasn't so helpful for that last part with the fire whip. ;-)
Well of course it wasn't. By then the ground had given way and the monster was attacking from underneath the hemisphere.
And a 2h build outdamages a TWF for sure. Preciselly because melees don't get full rounds every round, and in the turn you move, a vital strike of 4d6+15 is much better than 2d8+10
To me this is an analysis of damage per round alone and does not factor in the difference in tactics that come into play when fighting with different types of builds.
Here is my experience with our current THF build compared to the standard sword and board or TWF characters we normally have. It boils down to the action economy.
Our THF definitely does more damage when he hits on a single attack than our "normal" melee characters. But he requires more healing in combat too. So we end up having to actually cast healing spells in combat. That means the dude who is casting a healing spell isn't casting, oh, I dunno, flamestrike for example. So the overall damage we deliver sometimes actually DROPS with the 2HF in melee compared with the sword and board dude who doesn't need healing so our spellcaster can bring the hurt.
Also, there are ways to control the battlefield to allow for full attacks, and once you have your TWF and THF both doing full attacks, the TWF can close that damage gap considerably.
Anyway, I am still working with our barbarian to try to manage our battles more efficiently. I have no doubt that we'll get there and when we do the party will be back to the level of combat efficiency I seek. In the meantime, as we get there, I expect a higher rate of heal, and therefore a lower overall rate of damage dealt by the party, in spite of big hairy 2HF dude banging away with his giant axe.
Well of course it wasn't. By then the ground had given way and the monster was attacking from underneath the hemisphere.Emergency Force Sphere, protecting old men from big monsters since 1954.Almost anyway. It wasn't so helpful for that last part with the fire whip. ;-)
Guess he should have memorized it twice. That or it's not as all powerful as people seem to think it is.
|
I didn't know about Emergency Force Sphere. That's something else, really.
+ Stops attacks cold. Indeed good for ambush situations.
+ Gives you time to either buff up, or teleport away. Note the interesting combo with Conjuration(Teleportation) school's shift ability: throw up the sphere as Immediate, spend two rounds casting a buff and Invisibility, then Shift out but nobody knows where to (or even that you did...)
- EFS inherits Resilient Sphere, which inherits Wall of Force, which blocks line of effect for almost all spells. Which means no summoning monsters from inside EFS, nor any blasting...
All in all, it's something you need to adapt tactics towards, but anything that can save a wizard from melee is important.
Emergency Force Sphere also had a 5-foot radius, meaning it could potentially protect as many as four medium creatures, provided you have a lenient GM.
To me this is an analysis of damage per round alone and does not factor in the difference in tactics that come into play when fighting with different types of builds.
Well, your sentence was:
"But I haven't noticed that he significantly outdamages our TWF builds and he certainly can't keep up with our archers, unless by some miracle he can full attack every round."My point is that it *does* significantly outdamage TWF.
About what you mention of combat healing, well... combat healing is a waste. I'd rather have that cleric casting flamestrike, which, combined with the superior DPR of the 2HF, should make the combat shorter, and thus save damage. A combat that is one round shorter often means you save more damage than you could had healend in a round anyways. The exceptions being Heal, healing a down guy to bring him back to the action economy, and sometimes AOE healing when all the party is damaged.
Where I do see a big point for S&B fighter, is because of overkill. With my 2H fighter-barbarian in kingmaker, I felt I did too much damage, so it was overkill. Nothing survived a full round, ever. I even took down a CR 20 Jabberwock, a CR 20 Linnorm and the BBEG, Nyrissa, in the first full round I could make to them. There aren't a lot of creatures who can survive 300+ damage per round. So yes it was kinda overkill.
However, we also had a different warrior in the group (a dwarven axe+shield focused in defense), and I didn't see any real difference in combat surviablity. VS the real tough fights, his extra AC didn't mean anything (the dragons hit him with 2+, just like they hit me, and touch attack from incorporeal ghosts and advanced will o'wisp damaged both of us, so did the spells and breath weapons). If anything, I had better defense because of 20% miss chance thanks to a minor displacement cloak, and DR 5.
Gustavo, I meant that the overall party damage doesn't seem to increase, I should have been more clear.
Gustavo, I meant that the overall party damage doesn't seem to increase, I should have been more clear.
Fine.
Then I go back to my post:In combat healing is just innefficient. I'd have that cleric casting flamestrike regardless, and combine it with the higher damage from the 2h build. Killing enemies a round faster often save more damage than healing, letting the enemies hit for an extra round.
Then you use CLW wands to go back to adventuring, once the combat is over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, I find it very refreshing to have someone on these boards lecture ME on the benefits of not healing in combat. Heh, I haven't had such a good chuckle in a while.
We'll get there Gustavo, our newly joined raging, charging barbarian still views the game as one where you dive into battle and the healbot keeps you alive. We're making progress, but in the meantime, yeah we have to toss the impulsive low AC 2H axe zealot a heal now and then... We've let him drop a couple of times to help drive home the point, but the goal isn't to ruin his fun, but to teach him our style of play.
The buff spells do not tend to be game wreckingly broken but they are probably overpowered in relation to classes who do not have spells. A simple fix can also be used as you can rule that you cannot stack spells solves a lot of the potential abuse.
You can't stack similar bonuses already. Its part of the rules as is...
The trouble here isn't with broken spells, its with GMs unable/incapable of handling said spells and paradigm shifts. Which is totally fair enough, but don't make out its the spells at issue.
If you don't want to run a game with teleporting wizards in it, fine, stop playing at 8th level...
I know but it s not to hard to find several effects to stack together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to be clear about the spells I listed in my earlier post.
I do feel that any of them are inherently "Broken".
However, I do feel that they all represent points where a paradigm shift can occur as a caster gains access to powers that are able to change the type of encounters that can simply be ignored.
It is my that a GM should be aware of such "Game-Changing" spells and realize that he will no longer be able to use some tropes once these spells become accessible.
I do advocate banning any of the afore mentioned spells as a general rule. Nor do I advocate the deliberate antagonistic nitpicking of said spells so as to inflict pain on a player because of his choices.
I do feel that a good social contract and an environment fostering good communication is vitality important, and will have a much more salubrious effect on the tone and enjoyment inherent in the game than denying a player agency by knee-jerk banning or modifying anything.
TL;DR
Talking about a preferred game style and coming to a compromise that all parties can be happy with will have a much larger effect on controlling "Broken" game aspects than any amount of banning.
Suffocate is one I never hear complained about, but we've got a Void Mage who took it as the subject of Spell Perfection - Quickened, with his ability to floor saving throws as a standard action, its pretty much been a death spell against anything that needs to breathe.
We've also had a Kitsune Sorcerer wield Feeblemind like a mental scythe.
Both of those spells are a little low level for what they do imo - make 'em 6th level at least so they can't be Quickened.
Silent Image is crazy good for a 1st level spell as well - if nothing else the range and the area should probably be reduced.
As someone who plays Paladins, I have to say that Litany of Righteousness can be utterly game-breaking to Smiting Paladin and Oath of Retribution can be as well. One suggestion I've come up with for the latter is to say that as long as it is in effect, that 4th level spell slot is considered being 'in use', meaning that the Paladin can't prepare another spell for it until the Oath of Retribution is resolved or dismissed.
Which means no summoning monsters from inside EFS, nor any blasting...
I am with you about blasting but why can't you summon monsters and have them appear outside the EFS?
I am with you about blasting but why can't you summon monsters and have them appear outside the EFS?Which means no summoning monsters from inside EFS, nor any blasting...
No Line of Effect, I guess.
No Line of Effect, I guess.I am with you about blasting but why can't you summon monsters and have them appear outside the EFS?Which means no summoning monsters from inside EFS, nor any blasting...
I am pretty sure that you only need line of sight in order to summon a monster at a desired spot.
I am pretty sure that you only need line of sight in order to summon a monster at a desired spot.No Line of Effect, I guess.I am with you about blasting but why can't you summon monsters and have them appear outside the EFS?Which means no summoning monsters from inside EFS, nor any blasting...
Nothing in the spell description or the "summoning" description in Magic to replace or contradict...
"Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast."
Suffocate is one I never hear complained about, but we've got a Void Mage who took it as the subject of Spell Perfection - Quickened, with his ability to floor saving throws as a standard action, its pretty much been a death spell against anything that needs to breathe.
We've also had a Kitsune Sorcerer wield Feeblemind like a mental scythe.
Both of those spells are a little low level for what they do imo - make 'em 6th level at least so they can't be Quickened.
Won't change anything. The players will just seek out metamagic rods and/or traits to reduce the metamagic costs.
Feeblemind is just inherently broken, the effects are far too damaging, long term, and hard to reverse.
I try to enter a mutually assured destruction agreement w/ my DMs not to use that spell.
Suffocate is very strong, but it takes a while to actually kill someone. Since there are fort save spells of similar level that will instantly end the threat someone poses (like Baleful Polymorph, right from core) it's simply not big potatoes. In other words, it's very powerful, but because spellcasting in general is insanely brokenly crazy powerful, it just doesn't stand out enough.
Feeblemind is just inherently broken, the effects are far too damaging, long term, and hard to reverse.
I try to enter a mutually assured destruction agreement w/ my DMs not to use that spell.
Suffocate is very strong, but it takes a while to actually kill someone. Since there are fort save spells of similar level that will instantly end the threat someone poses (like Baleful Polymorph, right from core) it's simply not big potatoes. In other words, it's very powerful, but because spellcasting in general is insanely brokenly crazy powerful, it just doesn't stand out enough.
I agree with feeblemind beeing to powerful. If it wouldn't have the -4 vs casters, it will be OK (in line with baleful polymorph for example). But as is, it's way too powerful.
-4 to the saves means you save against it, as if it were a 9th level spell.
The fact it's on the witch spell list so combined with misfortune it's just really unkind.
-4 to the saves means you save against it, as if it were a 9th level spell.
This aspect of the save is no more powerful than if you were attacking the spellcaster's weak save.
The -4 is the only way they could have it be a Will save, and still have a hope of being effective. Without it, it would be a fairly crappy spell.
This is true. My level 9 witch has a base will save of 15. My paladin cohort has a will save of 18.
Gustavo, I meant that the overall party damage doesn't seem to increase, I should have been more clear.Fine.
Then I go back to my post:
In combat healing is just innefficient. I'd have that cleric casting flamestrike regardless, and combine it with the higher damage from the 2h build. Killing enemies a round faster often save more damage than healing, letting the enemies hit for an extra round.
False. This is one of the “urban legends” of PF.
It's had the same decription since 1st ed. It's always been an anti-caster spell.Feeblemind is just inherently broken, the effects are far too damaging, long term, and hard to reverse.
I try to enter a mutually assured destruction agreement w/ my DMs not to use that spell.
Suffocate is very strong, but it takes a while to actually kill someone. Since there are fort save spells of similar level that will instantly end the threat someone poses (like Baleful Polymorph, right from core) it's simply not big potatoes. In other words, it's very powerful, but because spellcasting in general is insanely brokenly crazy powerful, it just doesn't stand out enough.
I agree with feeblemind beeing to powerful. If it wouldn't have the -4 vs casters, it will be OK (in line with baleful polymorph for example). But as is, it's way too powerful.
-4 to the saves means you save against it, as if it were a 9th level spell.
That there has always been in D&D does not mean it is right.
THAC0 was in D&D for a long time too, and it was a great idea to get rid of it.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
-4 to the saves means you save against it, as if it were a 9th level spell.This aspect of the save is no more powerful than if you were attacking the spellcaster's weak save.
The -4 is the only way they could have it be a Will save, and still have a hope of being effective. Without it, it would be a fairly crappy spell.
This. In many years of play since 3.0 originally came out, I have seen feeblemind stick maybe once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
False. This is one of the “urban legends” of PF.
In combat healing is just innefficient. I'd have that cleric casting flamestrike regardless, and combine it with the higher damage from the 2h build. Killing enemies a round faster often save more damage than healing, letting the enemies hit for an extra round.
LOL, your assertion does not make it so Deth.
There is certainly room for differing opinions and there is dispute about the effectiveness of healing in combat.
But to call it an "urban myth" is pretty laughable. The math is pretty clear. Most encounters in PF and other role playing games boil down to attrition of hit points. Whoever can knock their opponents down faster than the other wins.
In general healing spells do not repair damage as efficiently as damage effects erode hit points.
There are times healing is necessary, but the better your tactics, the fewer of those times there should be.
False. This is one of the “urban legends” of PF.Gustavo, I meant that the overall party damage doesn't seem to increase, I should have been more clear.Fine.
Then I go back to my post:
In combat healing is just innefficient. I'd have that cleric casting flamestrike regardless, and combine it with the higher damage from the 2h build. Killing enemies a round faster often save more damage than healing, letting the enemies hit for an extra round.
It is not.
If the amount of healing is less than the amount of damage done by the oponents in a round, it is always better to reduce the length of combat in one round, that healing one round.And, except with Heal, few healers can heal as much damage as done by the whole appropiated CR encounter in a round.
If the dragon does 100 damage per round, unless you can heal 100+ per round, you "heal" more if you reduce the amount of rounds the dragon fights by one.
-4 to the saves means you save against it, as if it were a 9th level spell.This aspect of the save is no more powerful than if you were attacking the spellcaster's weak save.
The -4 is the only way they could have it be a Will save, and still have a hope of being effective. Without it, it would be a fairly crappy spell.
That's not true. Because most the time, those with the -4 (*arcane* casters) don't have huge wisdom bonus. Even the wizards you use as example builds in your thread tend to have more Fortitude than Will.
Those who have really good Will saves (such as clerics or druids) don't get the -4 anyways.
My example wizards have more Fortitude than Will because I like to turn things on their ear. I expect enemies to look at my character and go "wizard" before targeting his "weak" Fortitude saves. They are hardly good examples of your typical arcane casters.
It's had the same decription since 1st ed. It's always been an anti-caster spell.Feeblemind is just inherently broken, the effects are far too damaging, long term, and hard to reverse.
I try to enter a mutually assured destruction agreement w/ my DMs not to use that spell.
Suffocate is very strong, but it takes a while to actually kill someone. Since there are fort save spells of similar level that will instantly end the threat someone poses (like Baleful Polymorph, right from core) it's simply not big potatoes. In other words, it's very powerful, but because spellcasting in general is insanely brokenly crazy powerful, it just doesn't stand out enough.
I agree with feeblemind beeing to powerful. If it wouldn't have the -4 vs casters, it will be OK (in line with baleful polymorph for example). But as is, it's way too powerful.
-4 to the saves means you save against it, as if it were a 9th level spell.
The difference was saving throws worked very differently in pre 3rd ed. Saves were in effect DC20 and you got +2/+4 or so on them at level 1 and +15-19 at higher levels + ring of protection.
I think spell casters have gotten a bit to used to having 50/50 or better chance of success on save or dies/suck spells and things like dominate etc are better than what they were in 2nd ed due to this.
I'm leaning towards bad saves need to be eliminated or spell DCs need to go down (or maybe both). Spell casters would still be the best as they can still teleport/fly/buff etc and damage spells would start looking better if SoD's were not so brutal.
My example wizards have more Fortitude than Will because I like to turn things on their ear. I expect enemies to look at my character and go "wizard" before targeting his "weak" Fortitude saves. They are hardly good examples of your typical arcane casters.
The Necromancer player in the game I'm already GMing has CON 16 and WIS 8 (and a STR of 10, I love when people dump useful stats just because of flavor) And I'm quite sure he'll get +6 CON belt waaaaay before he gets a +6 WIS headband, like most wizards do.
The only reason you have -4 to that roll, is because of legacy. It's a "it has always been so" issue, not because of balance, or Will being the strong save. There was no Will save in AD&D, and the Feeblemind had alrady a -4 save for spellcasters.
Feeblemind is grim - first thing a wizard of 9th level should do, buy a ring of counterspells and fill it with feebleminds.
Pretty much what my Fey bloodline sorcerer did. Funnily enough, last session he got dominated and Feebleminded the party oracle - the one person in the party who could cast Heal.
False. This is one of the “urban legends” of PF.LOL, your assertion does not make it so Deth.
There is certainly room for differing opinions and there is dispute about the effectiveness of healing in combat.
But to call it an "urban myth" is pretty laughable. The math is pretty clear. Most encounters in PF and other role playing games boil down to attrition of hit points. Whoever can knock their opponents down faster than the other wins.
In general healing spells do not repair damage as efficiently as damage effects erode hit points.
That depends if your “PC” is just some numbers on a piece of paper or a “player character”. If you ‘win” the encounter but one of the PC’s dies, that’s a loss.
And in fact, healing, since it is not reduced by Saves, Elemental resistance, Spell resistance or ‘to hit” does keep up with damage. He gives the example of “Flame strike’ which for a 9th level cleric does 9 D6 ( 31 pts) less ½ for saving, ½ for fire resistance (very common) and unknown for Spell resistance.
But a mere 4th level spell heals 29 points, without any saves or resistance. Since a save should be made about half the time, and a 9th level party would likely have Fire 10, that’s 29 vs 12 or 22 even without any fire resistance. That math is even more clear. Yes, there are a few gaps where a cleric doesn’t have a “cure” spell, but in general, healing will keep up with damage- and after Heal it does so with ease.
We all agree that “topping off’ should wait until after the battle, but saving a fellow PC from dying is more important than doing damage- unless you are absolutely positively sure that attack spell will drop the foe before he hits again. Given the nature of the game, that is nearly impossible.
False. This is one of the “urban legends” of PF.Gustavo, I meant that the overall party damage doesn't seem to increase, I should have been more clear.Fine.
Then I go back to my post:
In combat healing is just innefficient. I'd have that cleric casting flamestrike regardless, and combine it with the higher damage from the 2h build. Killing enemies a round faster often save more damage than healing, letting the enemies hit for an extra round.It is not.
If the amount of healing is less than the amount of damage done by the oponents in a round, it is always better to reduce the length of combat in one round, that healing one round.
And, except with Heal, few healers can heal as much damage as done by the whole appropiated CR encounter in a round.If the dragon does 100 damage per round, unless you can heal 100+ per round, you "heal" more if you reduce the amount of rounds the dragon fights by one.
Nope, see my post above. In general, what with incoming damage reduced and healing NOT reduced, healing can keep up with damage.
Scry + Teleport = broken game
We put effective ranges on both.
Nope, see my post above. In general, what with incoming damage reduced and healing NOT reduced, healing can keep up with damage.
But your example is wrong, because you are comparing the amount of healing your cleric does, with the amount of damage your cleric does. That's not my point.
You have to compare the amount of healing your cleric does, with the amount of damage THE ENCOUNTER DOES. The party does not have fire resist or spell resistance that common.
In your example, at 9th level, you have to compare those 27 hp with a "mere 4th level spell" with the damage done by a CR9 creature, not your cleric. A Young Blue Dragon, which is CR 9, does 6d8 in AOE with his breath weapon, or up to 56 damage in full round with his attacks, and that's an easy match (CR=APL). If you are in a tough match, fighting the BBEG, something like APL+2 or so, you are facing for example an Adult Black dragon, which does 12d6 in Area, or up to 78 in a full round. Anything you can do, that reduce the combat 1 single round (or avoid the dragon to attack one round, such as stunning him or whatever), "heal" that amount of damage.
Nope, see my post above. In general, what with incoming damage reduced and healing NOT reduced, healing can keep up with damage.But your example is wrong, because you are comparing the amount of healing your cleric does, with the amount of damage your cleric does. That's not my point.
You have to compare the amount of healing your cleric does, with the amount of damage THE ENCOUNTER DOES. The party does not have fire resist or spell resistance that common.
In your example, at 9th level, you have to compare those 27 hp with a "mere 4th level spell" with the damage done by a CR9 creature, not your cleric. A Young Blue Dragon, which is CR 9, does 6d8 in AOE with his breath weapon, or up to 56 damage in full round with his attacks, and that's an easy match (CR=APL). If you are in a tough match, fighting the BBEG, something like APL+2 or so, you are facing for example an Adult Black dragon, which does 12d6 in Area, or up to 78 in a full round. Anything you can do, that reduce the combat 1 single round (or avoid the dragon to attack one round, such as stunning him or whatever), "heal" that amount of damage.
*YOU* gave as an example a 5th level spell, Flame Strike, which certainly a BBEG can cast. I have shown you that healing can easily keep up with that- to keep someone alive. It’s not at all important to keep everyone topped off until after combat. But now you move the goalposts.
So, to take your example, we have a party of 4: Cleric, Rogue, fighter and cleric. Young blue dragon breathes: Rogue evades, takes no damage. Cleric fails but has resist energy 10, so takes 20 points, Wizard simply is so far back or high up using Fly that he isn’t in the line (it’s really hard to line up 4 guys with a line breath weapon), and fighter saves taking half for 15. Cleric can cast CCW a 4th level spell and cure himself or fighter full . Or he can Channel 5d6, and everyone is healed full. Even if both the fighter and the cleric fails, and NO ONE somehow even has ER 10 , his channel (which can be a Move action) heals 18 points of the 30, which even tops off the rogue which evaded. Or he can just heal the fighter with a 4th level spell to prevtn the fighter from going down. See, you forget that ER, Saves and simply not being in the line of effect can all reduce the damage. Whereas nothing reduces healing.
Yes, it’s true that stunning the dragon for a round reduces the damage to zero. There’s no equivalent spell or ability that does that 100% every time. Spells have saves and Spell resistance, a Monks fist has to hit and the foe fail their save, etc.
So sure, if a cleric had “Stun foe= 4th Save; No, Resistance; no, range short- foe automatically is Stunned no save” then sure, he’d cast that instead of CCW. But there’s no such spell.
If you were one hit from dead, and the cleric could cast Sound burst which MIGHT stun your foe or CMW which would keep you alive, which would you pick?
Taking into account saves, resistances, etc- healing can ALWAYS keep one of your party from dying. Yes, afterwards you will have to ‘top off” a few members that were’t at rsik of dying. That’s what wands are for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all agree that “topping off’ should wait until after the battle, but saving a fellow PC from dying is more important than doing damage- unless you are absolutely positively sure that attack spell will drop the foe before he hits again. Given the nature of the game, that is nearly impossible.
Well, yes Deth, of course. Even if you are one of those who just treats characters as "sheets with numbers" you still don't want your party members to die, because if they're dead they aren't doing any damage to the enemy. And that's a tactical disadvantage you just don't want.
The solution to this is not to let them get beat all to hell in the first place. And the better you are at developing tactics that reduce the damage your characters take, the more you will benefit from having as many characters as possible pouring out damage instead of trickling out healing.
That's the point.
I would love to see these tactics. Unfortunately, any time I see such tactics discussed, they're always common sense tactics my group uses anyway. (They also don't help if the enemy is lucky and gets a crit.)The solution to this is not to let them get beat all to hell in the first place. And the better you are at developing tactics that reduce the damage your characters take, the more you will benefit from having as many characters as possible pouring out damage instead of trickling out healing.
That's the point.
The nature of tactics is that they are tailored to the situation. So it is unfortunately one of those "you have to be there" things to appreciate.
But for example, I will frequently tell people that we scout out ahead and around looking for the enemy. Just about everyone I interact with on this subject says "so do we!" But when I play with new people, they think "scout ahead" means "put the rogue 20 feet ahead of the paladin".
Just for the sake of argument here's an example of a boss level combat we had. We were in an area where we had been warned a rogue evil treant was loose. The treant was a druid and had gone mad. We knew the treant was somewhere in an underground cavern system, but we didn't know where.
So we scouted.
It took us most of a day. But we found him. And his shambling mound buddies as well as his giant wolves or something like that. The scouting involved my druid wildshaping into an earth elemental to travel through rock and wildshaping into a bat to fly around the cavern. It involved using a "wand of invisibility" for the rogue and buff spells to improve his dex to make him stealthier.
Once we had the layout mapped we made our plans, which involved, among other things, summoning two rhinos. As the rhinos began their charge into the treant's lair, we buffed up, including "protection from plants" on my druid with orders to "stay with me!" Our barbarian kicked open the door (which the rogue had previously unlocked) and the rhinos charged in, with us right behind them and before you knew it, we had two rhinos in melee with two treants, most of the party protected from plants and our sorcerer laying waste to the giant wolves and shambling mounds with his fireball spells. To even get to our spellcasters the enemy had to get past two rhinos, a raging barbarian and a battle cleric with an AC of around 35.
The fight did not last long. The barbarian got whacked pretty good, as he always seems to. But we did not need to heal.
We did the rhino thing on a red dragon too. Rhinos rock.
Kimera, the situation was a commercial module, with traps and scouts that we had to deal with. I gave a very high level overview, the details included encounters with guards and patrols and traps that we had to overcome without alerting the boss.
We didn't go through "a ton of spells". The only resource I felt we were pushing was my druid's wildshape. The rogue has a wand of invisibility, and we used a scroll of cat's grace for the scouting. Most of that was after we found the main area and were trying to scout out the actual lair.
Anyway, you can say "my traps would work better than your skills" and I could say the reverse. We played it straight. In retrospect no matter WHAT I describe you can come up with reasons it wouldn't work "in your campaigns".
Fine. Whatever. When we get to play together we'll get to see which tactics succeed. Until then it's only a bunch of talk. On both sides.
My least favorite spell as a DM is Cacophonus Call. 2nd level Bard spell which the party bard throws at every boss fighter type the party encounters. Unlike the spell Hold Person where there is a save every round to recover, this one is save or be nauseated until dead(no attacks, spells, concentration, nothing other than a single move action per round).
Last game session took out a 21 HD leveled giant (50/50 odds with his focused/enhanced DC).
Suggestions which could be commonplace for counters would certainly be welcome. This spell has ruined more well planned and interesting encounters than any other in my campaign.