|
I'll have to post this here since the other thread was locked.
Topic was CoDZilla saying how melee can't really stop opponents from getting next to casters. This is my response.
He's right on this one. 1 AoO attack of a fighter is still not going to be enough to take out whatever that attack a caster.
There's really nothing to stop a higher level opponent from getting in the face of casters. AoOs don't do nearly enough damage.
One of the things I remember that 3.x was possible was using chained spike (for range increment) to do trip attacks on AoO. That was useful. PF doesn't have that except for Stand Still, and it's not as good if I remember correctly.
I hate using the MMO example, but casters draw more aggro. Whether it's casting direct damage, SoDs, buffs, debuffs. Melee needs to really hurt the opponent, or else there's no reason NOT to go after casters first. The weird way of how 3.x and PF has turned out, it's tactically unsound to go after non-casters first unless they are absolute beasts. Even using in game logic, if a fighter can hit me for 20, it hurts, but a wizard can fireball my entire party for 20. Therefore he's more dangerous (just an example, not that fireball is the best move).
If these are suppose to be intelligent opponents players face, they should realize instantly that a non-armored foe is most dangerous. Sure they'll get fooled when the cleric casts hold person, but my point is that arcane spells more easily hurt an opposing party, so it doesn't make sense, both out of game and in game, for opponent target casters first.
In one of my games, it's only because I'm a paladin is why I get targets just as many times as a caster (the whole taking down a paladin thing is significant from a RP point of view). Otherwise, it's always casters first because my DM (with all his faults) plays his NPCs correctly, and they believe that casters are more dangerous. Sure I'm in front with my paladin, but I can't mechanically do anything to prevent moving straight to casters other than an AoO, and that's not enough damage to stop them.
Where's the verdict on this? We know stupid opponents or non-intelligent ones aren't a problem, but what about highly intelligent foes? I don't know much about 4E, but I've heard they have introduced mechanics to pull aggro. I don't like the idea, but I can't think of a way mechanically resolve not attacking a caster everytime other than to force it mechanically. That or nerfing casters (I'm for that as well).
I removed a couple posts. If you've decided someone isn't worth your time, let it go. Is it really that important to get the last word in against someone you've decided isn't worth the effort?
I don't know much about 4E, but I've heard they have introduced mechanics to pull aggro. I don't like the idea, but I can't think of a way mechanically resolve not attacking a caster everytime other than to force it mechanically.
That isn't exactly what 4E did -- they have what are sort of aggro-like mechanics in spirit, but don't deprive the victim of free will as most attempts to implement an aggro mechanic seem to.
Basically, their "tank" classes each have some kind of ability that creates an extra incentive to attack them while still leaving the choice open. For example their paladin has an ability they can use on an enemy where in the enemy takes a little bit of damage each round in which they make an attack that doesn't include the paladin. (With multiple characters not being able to do something like this to the same enemy.) So, for example, if you're a wizard affected by this ability you can throw a fireball and hit a bunch of your enemies, but if it doesn't include the paladin in the AoE you'll take some damage.
Overall I don't think they took a bad approach in this respect although a lot of people still really dislike it.
He's right on this one. 1 AoO attack of a fighter is still not going to be enough to take out whatever that attack a caster.
It would depend entirely on that one attack and the target. Simply tripping can stop the enemy from engaging with the caster. Grappling can as well. Of course the fighter would have to be built with those options in mind, just like the caster would have to be built with certain spells in mind.
There's really nothing to stop a higher level opponent from getting in the face of casters. AoOs don't do nearly enough damage.
They don't have to do a lot of damage. They have to do something though, you are right. If the fighter can keep the enemy nearby, then there can be a real threat. Also remember that the fighter can deal enough damage to make the enemy see the fighter as a real threat as well. Anyone who takes 50% + of their health in damage in a single round should consider that their enemy is dangerous and needs to be deal with.
If these are suppose to be intelligent opponents players face, they should realize instantly that a non-armored foe is most dangerous. Sure they'll get fooled when the cleric casts hold person, but my point is that arcane spells more easily hurt an opposing party, so it doesn't make sense, both out of game and in game, for opponent target casters first.
I don't deny that casters are very dangerous and that intelligent, high level opponents probably can see this quickly. I also think that they should realize that the guy swinging the sword at them reducing their hit points by 250 in a single round should be considered dangerous.
Where's the verdict on this? We know stupid opponents or non-intelligent ones aren't a problem, but what about highly intelligent foes? I don't know much about 4E, but I've heard they have introduced mechanics to pull aggro. I don't like the idea, but I can't think of a way mechanically resolve not attacking a caster everytime other than to force it mechanically. That or nerfing casters (I'm for that as well).
Not all high level foes are intelligent but I do agree that the intelligent ones should use intelligence when they fight. The 4E mechanic for aggro is simply to give the enemy a -2 to hit someone other than the one who has drawn aggro. Fighters also get a free attack against them if they don't attack the fighter. It works ok for low level encounters but as you level, it becomes less and less useful. Hit points and attack bonuses grow rapidly for the monsters. If the aggro problem exists in Pathfinder/DnD 3.5, then it also exists in 4E for the same reasons.
I think he is admitting the wizard would sit this one out(not contribute in certain combats) at low levels sometimes. No class is always effective, but a team of all casters will always be effective. At higher levels the wizard that is correctly built will always have something to do.
That is my interpretation of what he is saying anyway.
PS:I think if he is worried about us pulling up encounters specifically designed to take his party down we can agree to only use AP encounters.
I can't help by feel that those who support the concept that 'melee is Certainly such a party has weaknesses, massive, glaring weaknesses, but unlike say a party of wizards, when faced with enemies designed to force the wasting of PC resources and circumstances that demand continuous engagement to prevent failure, a fighter and rogue party stands a far better chance of success than wizards and druids, or wizards and clerics.
Why? Because harressing creatures get to choose when and where they strick, wittling away at the casters until they are forced to expend resources in responces, and then retreat, attacking again at leasure once injuries and conditions are resolved. Keep up such harressment for long enough and the casters will use up their resources most powerful resources. And thanks to pressing the threat, they cannot easily replenish their resources, without suffering a big picture defeat.
Tell you what:
Outline, roughly, what you have in mind in terms of party level and harassing forces/circumstances, and I'll tell you why it doesn't work.
The game isn't designed arround sending parties geared for a challenge. The game is designed arround creating challenges geared towards a party. Anyone can look at a challenge and then create a group that will crush it. Zombieneighbor's point was that wizards have a hard time dealing with continuous engagements because they must expend resources that are not always easily recoverable. Harrassing the party so they don't get spells back be forcing them to fight every 2-3 hours is really easy at pretty much any level. Any spell that the wizard casts durring the night is a used spell slot for the next day, since when he memorizes anything he cast within 8 hours is not replenished and is a spent slot for the day.
At low levels, you use goblins. Their high stealth makes them difficult to see. They come in, fire a couple arrows, and then retreat before the party can react. A color spray focused wizard is useless against them, since they will be engaging from the limmits of their 60 ft darkvision, preferably with difficult terrain in there. Using stealth, they can maintain a couple of rounds of fire before the players get to them and they need to retreat. If the party pursues them, the goblins can easily have an ambush set up with a couple of low cr traps. The Wizard-Cleric-Druid-Sorc party has a hard time dealing with it without resource drain, since they have no significant long ranged attacks to respond with. This will work through about level 6, since the PCs don't really get much in the way of increased range until 3rd level spells and this encounter is only designed to waste resources, though you may need to beef them up from base goblins so they get more hit or damage.
At mid levels, the party starts to get things like rope trick to guard themselves, but that is just a false sense of security. Dispel magic causes the party to be forcibly ejected, and they have only a small window to tell that they are about to be ambushed. You can use summon monsters and illusions to great effect creating credible threats that get the PCs no XP for but may use significant resources while teleporting your villian away.
These tactics are worse for casters because they rely on their rest to regain their power. Non-casters are hurt by them because they lose caster support. HP becomes more valuable, but there are ways to easily regain it outside of combat for the prepared (my group often drains 1-2 wands a session)
You are being treated the way you treat others (there's that Golden Rule).
Please remain civil even if you don't think others are. The Golden Rule says to treat others the way you would like to be treated. Treating people the way they treat others isn't the Golden Rule, its Eye for an Eye, which, as we all know, makes everyone blind.
|
The dividing line between competent martial characters and incompetent ones is strictly a question of "DPS". Can you one round the enemy? Are you relevant? The answer to these questions is one and the same, as non fatal damage does nothing.
Alright, if your definition of 'protect someone' is 'not allow the enemy any actions to use against that someone' then I concede the fighter cannot protect anyone.
|
|
He's right on this one. 1 AoO attack of a fighter is still not going to be enough to take out whatever that attack a caster.It would depend entirely on that one attack and the target. Simply tripping can stop the enemy from engaging with the caster. Grappling can as well. Of course the fighter would have to be built with those options in mind, just like the caster would have to be built with certain spells in mind.
There's really nothing to stop a higher level opponent from getting in the face of casters. AoOs don't do nearly enough damage.They don't have to do a lot of damage. They have to do something though, you are right. If the fighter can keep the enemy nearby, then there can be a real threat. Also remember that the fighter can deal enough damage to make the enemy see the fighter as a real threat as well. Anyone who takes 50% + of their health in damage in a single round should consider that their enemy is dangerous and needs to be deal with.
If these are suppose to be intelligent opponents players face, they should realize instantly that a non-armored foe is most dangerous. Sure they'll get fooled when the cleric casts hold person, but my point is that arcane spells more easily hurt an opposing party, so it doesn't make sense, both out of game and in game, for opponent target casters first.I don't deny that casters are very dangerous and that intelligent, high level opponents probably can see this quickly. I also think that they should realize that the guy swinging the sword at them reducing their hit points by 250 in a single round should be considered dangerous.
Where's the verdict on this? We know stupid opponents or non-intelligent ones aren't a problem, but what about highly intelligent foes? I don't know much about 4E, but I've heard they have introduced mechanics to pull aggro. I don't like the idea, but I can't think of a way mechanically resolve not attacking a caster everytime other than to force it mechanically. That or...
Unless a character is built for grappling or tripping, the success rate is pretty low on those attemps working. I know they CAN do those things, but it's not really that effective. It's like the counter-argument of what if Color Spray doesn't affect this creature, then the wizard goes into melee. Sure he CAN do it, but it's a piss poor option.
I'm looking for real options. My DM usually assaults us with about 4x more monsters than us. But he uses low threat opponents, and he disguises his waves of attacks. But in the end, if it's going too well, he basically stops doing the optimal thing and ends the combat or they get killed real easy all of a sudden.
Fighters can do 250, but they need a full round to do so. So it sounds like the plan is to stand next to the caster, and then have him take 3-4 hits from several foes since they cannot full attack, and then punish him back. Well, the problem with that is the caster is dead. Not to mention I didn't even use ranged in my example. There's almost no way for any character to do 50% damage of an opponent's HP with 1 attack. It requires full attack to do so. Sure a lot of DMs probably do what mine does, use lesser opponents, but I feel like that's DM fiat than anything I'm doing.
These are the reasons I why I have issues with parts of PF and 3.x. There's no solutions, just ways of hiding the problem. It's like a leak in the basement. Instead of fixing it (which will be costly and difficult), people just drain the water and ignore it until the next time a big storm hits.
Nerf casters, increase melee, and then we don't need a mechanic to handle situations like this. Then the opponents will know that all foes are dangerous, not just casters.
Hit-and-run tactics vs the party really only work at relatively low levels of play in most people's games.
Until rope trick has the duration necessary to protect the group the party will generally retreat into a secure camping spot and spike the doors closed.
Once rope trick is available then the PCs are definitely more secure. Dispel magic is a viable way of ending a rope trick but it's a 3rd level spell which means either an expensive wand or a 5th level caster. Tracking the party back to where the rope trick is setup and then casting dispel is something doable but is pretty uncommon in most games. Your other option is to wait in close proximity to the rope trick an ambush the PCs when the emerge. Also a viable strategy but many groups actively discourage that level of proactive approach on the part of monsters.
Once teleport becomes commonplace the ability to track back to a secure camp site is really difficult to justify for the NPCs. The PCs can bamf in, stage a raid, and bamf out. They might not get a ton done each day but it's a pretty low risk, high reward strategy that favors casters to a huge extent.
|
|
The dividing line between competent martial characters and incompetent ones is strictly a question of "DPS". Can you one round the enemy? Are you relevant? The answer to these questions is one and the same, as non fatal damage does nothing.Alright, if your definition of 'protect someone' is 'not allow the enemy any actions to use against that someone' then I concede the fighter cannot protect anyone.
I don't know if you were being snarky or not, but I feel like this problem has always been there. It's just groups play around it.
The best way is to make sure that all party members are a threat. I feel melee should be more of a threat than just DPS. CMB have improved (at least, I think they were improved), but they still don't work nearly as well as "hitting something until it dies".
These are the reasons I get angry at the game. Warriors can fight. Casters can do everything else, including fight sometimes. Where's the balance in that? Give fighting types nice things.
|
|
I'm looking for real options. My DM usually assaults us with about 4x more monsters than us. But he uses low threat opponents, and he disguises his waves of attacks. But in the end, if it's going too well, he basically stops doing the optimal thing and ends the combat or they get killed real easy all of a sudden.
Sounds like your first problem is your DM. There are likely others, but if he's constantly softballing you in places then there's your first problem.
Secondly you should work on misdirecting the enemy also as they are evidently very much lower level then terrain effects should hamper them more than normal for a given level. Speaking of that what level are you all and what's your party makeup?
-James
The DM has plenty of issues, but tactics is not one of them. He attacks casters because they are dangerous. What's softball about that? He believe numbers is the way to handle the party, and he has his points. Numbers allow him to do multi-front attacks, reinforcements, feints, etc. Our combat regularly goes on for 7-9 rounds because of piss poor caster play (damage is SO good!), and his endless hordes of opponents. As I said, they are numerous but weaker than us. They only attack when the situation is right. We cannot teleport around them because the world does not allow successful teleport most of the time (DM restrictions to balance out casters).
Even if he was softballing us, doesn't that mean melee cannot protect casters? Which is my point. There's not actually a way to do it other take chains of feats so I can take hits instead, or switch places. Meaning I get to not take other feats like Critical Focus.
Our group is all sorts of terrible.
Paladin 12
Sorcerer 12 (only damage spells)
Wizard 11 (conjurer, does a solid job of controlling the battlefield and providing summons).
2 NPCs (DM uses them to fill us out as a group)
Figher...11 I think
homebrew bladesinger I think, 11 or 12
Maybe I'm ranting again, but I don't see a reason that the DM shouldn't focus on casters first, but players can't do much to stop them. Other than to kill them after the caster goes down.
PS: there's a lot of houserules and campaign setting stuff that affects all sorts of things, but I can't possibly list them all.
No, that isn't a reflection of actual play. You will simply cast 'any spell I need to win the argument', and unsurprisingly will.
No, far better that you make say a level 10 party, of any composition you like using only core pathfinder, and then see if it can succeed at dealing with an adventure day that is tailored to them.
It's like this: if it isn't worth your time to write out a paragraph of ambush/harassment conditions, it certainly isn't worth my time to build a full level 10 party. Do you always "win" your arguments by saying, "I won't waste my time on that, why don't you waste 100x as much time?"
Maybe in your games wizards and druids don't always have one or more battlefield control spells at the ready; otherwise I don't know how your argument could even make sense to you.
It has nothing to do with it being a waste of my time. Such a paragraph would be easy enough to write. The problem is that it does not actually demonstrate anything about how you would actually deal with the challanges put forwards by a prolonged adventure day in actual play, it tells us how you would deal with it, given knowledge of what you'd be facing, with oppotunity to tailor your party to said task.
Saying that i think it is a waste of my time to write such a paragraph is frankly silly, when what i am proposing would require me to write up a largest part of an adventure(I.e. a prolonged adventure day likely consisting of four to six encounters.).
Hit-and-run tactics vs the party really only work at relatively low levels of play in most people's games.
Until rope trick has the duration necessary to protect the group the party will generally retreat into a secure camping spot and spike the doors closed.
Once rope trick is available then the PCs are definitely more secure. Dispel magic is a viable way of ending a rope trick but it's a 3rd level spell which means either an expensive wand or a 5th level caster. Tracking the party back to where the rope trick is setup and then casting dispel is something doable but is pretty uncommon in most games. Your other option is to wait in close proximity to the rope trick an ambush the PCs when the emerge. Also a viable strategy but many groups actively discourage that level of proactive approach on the part of monsters.
well, a 5th level caster wont even register on the XP scale of someone using rope trick to spend the night (CR4 vs min level 8). He can pull some nasty things on the party though, so they can't ignore him. Thus, he is doing his job and preventing the casters from recovering. As for monsters not being proactive, now you are just playing your enemies dumb, in a way that favors casters, so of course they will appear more powerful.
Once teleport becomes commonplace the ability to track back to a secure camp site is really difficult to justify for the NPCs. The PCs can bamf in, stage a raid, and bamf out. They might not get a ton done each day but it's a pretty low risk, high reward strategy that favors casters to a huge extent.
That uses a significant ammount of resources to even start doing. 2 5th level spells, so your not even starting this until 9th level, and then you are spending all your highest level spell slots. It doesn't become viable until arround 15th, and opponents at that level have access to just as much spell resources as you, so you need to spend more on anti-scrying. Then, you are assuming you can telleport to a safe place in 100 mile radius, which is not always a safe assumption. Your right, it does become significantly harder to do this to most groups at this point, but as a GM your options are also huge.
well, a 5th level caster wont even register on the XP scale of someone using rope trick to spend the night (CR4 vs min level 8).
Or the Rope Trick caster could be level 4 and have a Lesser Extend rod. (Or one of the casters more likely to buy one early could lend it to him for a use.)
Not that I'd really spend the money on that, but then, I don't put a lot of eggs in the Rope Trick basket either -- if I did it'd probably be worth the investment.
Also note that the range of Teleport is 100 miles per level. (Personally, I think you could fix a lot of its game-breaking aspects by making it something more like 1 mile per level or even 10 miles per level.)
Also also note that teleport isn't the worst spell to scribe ahead of time if you want to throw money at the problem, since it doesn't need to bust SR, force a saving throw, etc. I've never done this but in a campaign in which the GM was trying hard enough to keep us from resting and wasn't going about it the smart ways I might.
I'm not saying that harassing the casters isn't a viable break on caster power but rather that it's a tool that many GMs are reluctant to utilize constantly.
Personally I utilize harassment quite a bit in my games. Humanoids that the PCs have encountered will often follow the PCs back to their camp site and set up ambushes. If they know the PCs include casters they'll even try to disrupt the rest cycles in order to prevent/slow spell recovery.
I moved Rope Trick back down to 2e durations as well so there is less security in camp.
Another strategy that many DMs should use in context of casters is to have the smart monsters immediately stage a fighting retreat if possible. If the NPCs can retreat behind a locked door they can sometimes outlast the party's short-term buffs.
Delaying actions and calling for aid so that the entire complex is up in arms is a very effective way of preventing the PCs from picking off the complex one manageable encounter at a time.
At lot of this becomes moot by the time that teleport magic becomes commonplace. 5th level spells are still relatively cheap to cast and most groups generally have a party share for valuable consumables like scrolls of raise dead and wands of CLW. I don't really think a couple of teleport scrolls is out of bounds. Later on a Wondrous Item with a 3/uses per day teleport effect isn't a bad investment in order to keep the PCs safe from harm.
At lot of this becomes moot by the time that teleport magic becomes commonplace. 5th level spells are still relatively cheap to cast and most groups generally have a party share for valuable consumables like scrolls of raise dead and wands of CLW. I don't really think a couple of teleport scrolls is out of bounds. Later on a Wondrous Item with a 3/uses per day teleport effect isn't a bad investment in order to keep the PCs safe from harm.
It's funny: I would have said the 3/day teleport wondrous item was a bridge too far in order to be able to rest, but that only costs 49k and there's a high probability that someone in the party can craft it for 24.5k. On the other side of the argument you have people saying that having a whole party of noncasters each wearing 90k rings of regeneration is a perfectly reasonable way to get HP back, so... dedicated teleport item for resting purposes seems awfully reasonable in that context.
That uses a significant ammount of resources to even start doing. 2 5th level spells, so your not even starting this until 9th level, and then you are spending all your highest level spell slots. It doesn't become viable until arround 15th, and opponents at that level have access to just as much spell resources as you, so you need to spend more on anti-scrying. Then, you are assuming you can telleport to a safe place in 100 mile radius, which is not always a safe assumption. Your right, it does become significantly harder to do this to most groups at this point, but as a GM your options are also huge.
+1. These statements align with my experience and describe my own solution to the scry-n-die problem.
Even without any suppression by the GM's use of enemy NPCs, it takes a while before teleport becomes a combat spell. Pcs will usually hold things in reserve if they believe there is a significant chance of things going bad. You really need to have at least 6th r 7th level spells before you can start spamming it. Scrolls are an issue, but gold is a finite resource, which a GM should be managing carefully anyhow.
It's funny: I would have said the 3/day teleport wondrous item was a bridge too far in order to be able to rest, but that only costs 49k and there's a high probability that someone in the party can craft it for 24.5k. On the other side of the argument you have people saying that having a whole party of noncasters each wearing 90k rings of regeneration is a perfectly reasonable way to get HP back, so... dedicated teleport item for resting purposes seems awfully reasonable in that context.
24.5k and time is quite expensive at the early teleport levels. Also, that presumes that you have a GM who lets players look at the pricing guidelines and go nuts with whatever item they dream up. In that kind of game, there are about 1000 spell-item combinations that are far more broken.
AFAIC, the magic item pricing table is for GMs. Anything that requires a custom job to create shouldn't be included in any serious analysis., because the GM might (and often should) say "no" to a great number of potential prices from that table.
Also, that presumes that you have a GM who lets players look at the pricing guidelines and go nuts with whatever item they dream up.
Sir, I refer you to the core Wondrous Item, Boots of Teleportation.
Removed a post.
And I thought you were one of the people here that could carry on a reasonable conversation.
Just in case: bear in mind that these boards force us to share avatars, which means that people mistake Brian for me, and vice versa, more often than either of us would like.
At lot of this becomes moot by the time that teleport magic becomes commonplace. 5th level spells are still relatively cheap to cast and most groups generally have a party share for valuable consumables like scrolls of raise dead and wands of CLW. I don't really think a couple of teleport scrolls is out of bounds. Later on a Wondrous Item with a 3/uses per day teleport effect isn't a bad investment in order to keep the PCs safe from harm.It's funny: I would have said the 3/day teleport wondrous item was a bridge too far in order to be able to rest, but that only costs 49k and there's a high probability that someone in the party can craft it for 24.5k. On the other side of the argument you have people saying that having a whole party of noncasters each wearing 90k rings of regeneration is a perfectly reasonable way to get HP back, so... dedicated teleport item for resting purposes seems awfully reasonable in that context.
No, I don't think it is unreasonable at all. But in the end, if they are doing it just for this, they are spending a decent chunk of resources at that level to avoid it, so you should let it (mostly) work and come up with annother way of dealing with it. You will likely need to modify other challenges to deal with the lots of teleport though.
Edit: I did miss that it is 100 miles/lvl. For us it has always been more than we need, so it has never really mattered. I think dropping it down to 10 miles/lvl would go a long way to make it less game breaking for people. Yes, you can teleport from NYC to Boston, but not from NYC to Dallas
Also, that presumes that you have a GM who lets players look at the pricing guidelines and go nuts with whatever item they dream up.Sir, I refer you to the core Wondrous Item, Boots of Teleportation.
*Snicker*
Okay, I was just plain wrong on that one. Entire rant retracted!
And I thought you were one of the people here that could carry on a reasonable conversation.Just in case: bear in mind that these boards force us to share avatars, which means that people mistake Brian for me, and vice versa, more often than either of us would like.
And I thought he had almost given me a backhanded compliment and you have to go rain on my parade. :P
And I thought he had almost given me a backhanded compliment and you have to go rain on my parade. :P
Not necessarily so -- the guy is obviously reasonably intelligent, so checking the name vs. the avatar isn't something I'd automatically assume he missed. Just wanted to be sure, because our cartoon satyr IS rather distinctive amidst the hordes of demons and dragons and such.
I am aware that you two are not the same person.
I figured that was the case, but messageboard communication being what it is, there seemed little harm in confirming. Then again, given the number of people who continued to insist that you were in fact someone else -- even after and despite of your direct (and obvious) assertion to the contrary -- I suppose I oughtn't take anything for granted here.
|
|
Killing them stops them, throwing a save or lose spell stops them. Non lethal damage does not stop them. Spiked chains and Improved Trip were nerfed hard, so that build is out.Having a Fighter there, or not makes no difference to the outcome. You could easily forget you did have one.
Now a good martial character, that's different, but those are banned in PF.
So you are saying to protect someone you must deny the enemy any effective actions. I disagree.
So you are saying to protect someone you must deny the enemy any effective actions. I disagree.
If you have a melee enemy (who can't just summon/spell the guy you're protecting to death), and if you could effectively prevent that enemy from moving past you to get to the target, then you're doing your job. That means:
1. Being able to stop ground movement cold, while making sure that you're between the stopped enemy and the target. To do this, you need extended reach (a la Combat Patrol from the APG) and the ability to actually stop them (by tripping, or by reducing speed to zero, a la Stand Still), and the ability to make sure you end up in between (a la the 5-ft. step options in the Bo9S). Unfortunately, all of those options are so difficult (or impossible) to obtain in Pathfinder, and are at such a high price tag, that you're looking at a very specialized build that can't do much else, and can't even do his specialty very reliably.
2. Being able to stop enemies from just flying over you. In order to do this, you need a means of shooting down fliers, which core Pathfinder doesn't provide.
3. Being able to stop enemies from teleporting past you. Granted, this is a higher-level concern, but most demons have teleport self, so a fighter without an aura of dimensional anchor still has a built-in shelf life.
|
I'll have to post this here since the other thread was locked.
Topic was CoDZilla saying how melee can't really stop opponents from getting next to casters. This is my response.
He's right on this one. 1 AoO attack of a fighter is still not going to be enough to take out whatever that attack a caster.
A few problems with the "They will just go around" logic.
1. A single AoO from a melee class can do a lot of damage, particularly when you consider it likely is the round after they took damage from the initial attack. While you may be able to argue a single attack from a Melee class will not drop most creatures, two of them could. Taking the AoO is functionally giving the Melee two attacks in the same round.
2. Going around would involve avoiding all threatened squares. Get out your game mat, put the creatures down, count the movement required to "go around" and not provoke an AoO.
3. Not all encounters are in wide open spaces without difficult terrain or obstacles. Sometimes you are in a hallway, or a cave, or a normal sized room.
4. Open up your bestiary and pick a monster. Look at that monster making a full round attack. Now look at that monster making a single attack.
Now, if you are a DM, which makes more sense, to risk taking a decent amount of damage to deliver far more than optimal damage, or just to fight what is in front of you?
As I said before, if your DM just takes the AoO to deliver a single attack, thank them. They just threw you a softball.
|
|
I think my disconnect is, why isn't 'take a step and full-round an enemy' considered 'protecting' someone?
So you have average fighter and archer fighter guarding the wizard. There's an enemy attacking from range. Both make their full attacks with bows. By the statements above, if regular fighter cannot take the enemy down in one round, he's not protecting the wizard, while archer fighter is.
Maybe it's that we have different definitions of 'successfully protecting' an ally.
|
|
One of the reasons why you think non-casters are poor choices is because they have no relevance. What does your wizard do when faced with the same situation? What does your wizard do when he is irrelevant? If the only spell you prepare is color spray and you are fighting creatures that are not affected by the spell either because they are immune or they make their saves, what does your wizard do to compensate?I agree that a party of casters is a good choice. I want to know what you do when you have nothing to do.
And now you're trying to compare a situation that is, at best being irrelevant 25% of the time to being irrelevant... all of it. Nevermind that, since you are relevant 75% of the time, that means at any given time you can count on 3 PCs out of 4.And you're having to reach quite a bit to get that far.
We've also already been over it, again.
You always leave out the part where the 25% failure rate is only if your caster is absolutely maximized and casting it's highest level spell while going against the lowest save of a same HD creature.
And you also always leave out the part about immunities, and having to memorize a spell for each save multiple times.
All from a build that is 50/50 to be hit by 1/2 CR archers at 5th level.
If your game is catered to your optimization, you will do fine. But in any of the published adventure path your Wizard is going to have a lot of trouble unless it has a strong support group built to protect it's weaknesses and support it's strengths.
Your build is all win or all fail in each encounter. And if it is protected it's going to be encounter MVP pretty regularly. But if it isn't, it's going to get amusingly dropped by the first volume group you encounter or the first big baddie that makes it save and doesn't have anyone standing between it and you.
By the statements above, if regular fighter cannot take the enemy down in one round, he's not protecting the wizard, while archer fighter is.
Now I'm confused. My definition of "protecting the wizard" would be "can keep the monster from killing the wizard." If the archer can't stop the monster from closing with the wizard and eating him, then the archer isn't protecting the wizard. If the regular fighter can't do it, either, then neither is he.
Now, you've seen how I run games. Not using a mat for a lot of fights frees me up to allow a fighter to simply say "I keep between the monster and the wizard," and that's that. But when you take turns moving "X" spaces on a grid, that sort of freedom disappears unless you institute a lot of houserules like holding movement, etc. (which of course I've also done).
|
|
I think my disconnect is, why isn't 'take a step and full-round an enemy' considered 'protecting' someone?
So you have average fighter and archer fighter guarding the wizard. There's an enemy attacking from range. Both make their full attacks with bows. By the statements above, if regular fighter cannot take the enemy down in one round, he's not protecting the wizard, while archer fighter is.
Maybe it's that we have different definitions of 'successfully protecting' an ally.
I think part of the disconnect is not acknowledging how much damage a full round attack is.
I don't think a lot of the people on the other side play melee themselves to have gone through the thought exercise of designing an effective one, and seeing all the possibilities.
Plus, they seem to play in games with predictable single enemy combat and frequent opportunities to stop for the day and recover spells.
It is a valid style of play, but not one that does much for me personally.
|
|
By the statements above, if regular fighter cannot take the enemy down in one round, he's not protecting the wizard, while archer fighter is.Now I'm confused. My definition of "protecting the wizard" would be "can keep the monster from killing the wizard." If the archer can't stop the monster from closing with the wizard and eating him, then the archer isn't protecting the wizard. If the regular fighter can't do it, either, then neither is he.
Now, you've seen how I run games. Not using a mat for a lot of fights frees me up to allow a fighter to simply say "I keep between the monster and the wizard," and that's that. But when you take turns moving "X" spaces on a grid, that sort of freedom disappears unless you institute a lot of houserules like holding movement, etc. (which of course I've also done).
I find the opposite. We have a good sized battle table (basically a large wooden cover with Gamepaper over a pool table) and using the grids shows how much movement is lost "going around".
One of the big weaknesses of fighters to me is the movement penalty of heavy armor. Mobility on the grid has always been a big part of our games and the functionality of Melee classes.
The build ideal has always been to make your melee able to close as early as possible to threaten as many squares as possible between you and the artillery in the back (casters).
Obviously this changes dramatically at higher levels, because things can go around you at that point. But with a good build, the damage a single attack of opportunity can do combined with the goal of keeping the casters from having to try to soak a full round attack means the build has still been viable, if not critical in our games.
Our SoD wizards run into a lot of immunities at higher levels that are equally as problematic as the issues fighters run into. But what generally happens is by then the group has grown to be adaptable enough to work together to deal with whatever pops up.
As you said, play styles vary. There is no right way to do it.
Forum ate my post, so here is a summary:
The caster doesn't need to be protected at all times by the fighter.
If the monster closes with the caster, the monster often provokes AoO, and gets himself into a poor position.
The caster can have mirror image, displacement, temp hp, DR, a buffed up AC, etc. If the monster actually connects, it probably won't be able to do more then half the casters HP. If the monster has grab, the caster can avoid it with some spells, or d-door away.
On the casters turn, he 5ft steps and throws a wall spell, or full withdraws or polymorphs into something badass, or just moves and casts a spell. Chances are the AoO is not going to drop the caster, if it gets past the defenses at all.
So the monster has maybe beat up a single party member who then escapes, while the rest of the party beats up on the monster. That is a pretty good deal for the party.
Why does melee have to prevent this to be viable?
|
|
I think he is admitting the wizard would sit this one out(not contribute in certain combats) at low levels sometimes. No class is always effective, but a team of all casters will always be effective. At higher levels the wizard that is correctly built will always have something to do.
That is my interpretation of what he is saying anyway.
PS:I think if he is worried about us pulling up encounters specifically designed to take his party down we can agree to only use AP encounters.
I think the best way to do it would be to look at an AP start to finish.
For example Rise of the Runelords
The first encounter is tons of Gobils with three separate sections that allow time to heal, but not recover spells. The SoD wizard would almost certainly run out of spells and be down to cantrips, while being very vulnerable throughout.
But if he does have spells left at the end color spray would be great against the mounted goblin ranger.
Second set of major encounters are in the glassworks, which are just the kind of enclosed hallways and spaces I mentioned being where you can't just "go around", with cramped quarters making color spray problematic (you still only have 1st level spells at this point). The ranged attacks are low, but so is his Wizard's AC. On volume alone he could have problems. And that is before the toughest conflict being against a monk archer with good saves.
If you do the Catacombs next, you may be level 3 at this point, so 2nd level spells. But even more confined spaces, where you can't "go around". The Sinspawn have decent will saves and are immune to mind effects, so that could be a problem. Everyone is equally vulnerable to the Vargouille. The big goblin has a negative will, so the Wizard could shine there, as well as glitterdust being wonderful against the Quasit, although her saves are pretty good.
Last group of battles are thistletop. Again high volume vs low AC isn't good for the wizard, and the Druid has a good will and fort save along with the advantages of being able to move around the difficult terrain and cramped spaces (another example of go around). In thistletop Wizard is going to be very vulnerable to the ranged attacks coming in volume, could be great against Ripnuggets low saves, if not taken out by the volume of things in the room. Assuming they aren't out of spells since you kind of need to do all this in one go.
Probably can rest before going down below, although YMMV. Wizard should do well with the bugbear and Orik. Tentamort could be a problem for everyone. Yeth Hounds have good will and low fort, so it will depend on the knowledge rolls. And considering his low wisdom, he is at as much risk to be panicked as anyone else and more likely to be tripped or bitten. Wizard on Wizard with Lyrie is what it is.
Nualia has good fort and will, in addition to her little dog. The Barghast isn't intended for the level of the party.
So overall in my reading the Wizard is fine, but not overpowered and definatly very vulnerable in spots without a lot of protection from other classes.
Anyone want to take the Skinsaw Murders?
|
|
Forum ate my post, so here is a summary:
The caster doesn't need to be protected by the fighter.
If the monster closes with the caster, he often provokes AoO, and gets himself into a poor position.
The caster can have mirror image, displacement, temp hp, DR, a buffed up AC, etc. If the monster actually connects, it probably won't be able to do more then half the casters HP. If the monster has grab, the caster can avoid it with some spells, or d-door away.
On the wizards turn, he 5ft steps and throws a wall spell, or full withdraws or polymorphs into something badass, or just moves and casts a spell. Chances are the AoO is not going to drop the wizard, if it gets past the mirror image at all.
So the monster has beat up a single party member who then escapes, while the rest of the party beats up on the monster. That is a pretty good deal for the party.
Why does melee have to prevent this to be viable?
And the question is, when does the caster cast these things. On the one hand the argument is fights only last a few rounds, and on the other hand there is time to cast minute or round per level spells.
Not to mention spell slots.
Yes you can buff if you know when and where you are going into combat. But you shouldn't always be able to know, and if you memorize spells for buffing before combat, you are going to run out of spell slots all the faster.
True. When surprised, casters are handicapped. No doubt.
BUT, there are lots of defenses and movement spells that are 10 min/level, if not hours.
There are also several spell like abilities that can be effective - conjuration specialists 8th level ability, I'm looking at you.
5-step and cast, full withdraw, and cast defensively are all very good options, often separating casters from the enemy.
I'm not saying caster don't benefit tremendously from melee companions, they do. But they are often able to take a few attacks without going down, and are not "glass cannons" the way they used to be.
EDIT: Therefor, melee is not required to protect them in that way in order to be "viable". It is every party members responsibility to protect every other party member.
|
|
True, that when surprised, casters are handicapped. No doubt.
BUT, there are lots of defenses and movement spells that are 10 min/level, if not hours.
There are also several spell like abilities that can be effective - conjuration specialists 8th level ability, I'm looking at you.
5-step and cast, full withdraw, and cast defensively are all very good options, often separating casters from the enemy.
I'm not saying caster don't benefit tremendously from melee companions, they do. But they are often able to take a few attacks without going down, and are not "glass cannons" the way they used to be.
I would agree with that, any you are right the D6 does make a difference and Con is your friend.