Good afternoon, Pathfinderdom.
Today's topic is on the perceived fairness of intelligent NPCs focus firing PCs down.
Let us take a hypothetical example of the PCs trying to storm a bridge, or perhaps a gate. Let us also assume the defending NPCs are well-disciplined, intelligent, and have an officer to direct them. Let's say a third of the defending NPCs are archers.
The question is, would it be unfair for the officer to direct the archers to focus fire on the PCs one at a time starting with the most dangerous/most vulnerable one?
Arguments for:
- When you are faced with a small but highly skilled team of transient loot-hungry psychopaths, would it not make the most sense to quickly dispatch them one at a time rather than spread your damage out?
Arguments against:
- This tactic, combined with certain buff spells (Haste, for example), can put a PC down before he/she even gets to act.
_____________________________________________________
Please leave your thoughts below! I am interested in both GM and Player points of view.
Thanks!
It happens. I would think something was up if the situation seemed inescapable or if the enemy showed up out of nowhere, however.
In order for the PC to go down before they can act, they have to move into a position where all the archers can shoot them before the combat has begun, have poor defences against missile fire, seem like the most threatening character to the officer, and then roll badly on initiative.
In general I'd say the tactic is fair - it's what I'd do as a player - but the circumstances as described seem a bit nasty.
If one third of the NPCs are capable of bringing down one character per round, isn't the encounter too hard? What if all the NPCs were archers - would they be able to kill three players per round?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even better, make the officer a "freebooter" ranger... he can have his companions get boosts for focusing fire...
I often make "officer" NPCs freebooters, the buffing always makes the enemy tougher against the PCs.
In your case, it COULD be overkill. Just maybe.
Aegrisomnia -
1) Yes, they absolutely do focus fire.
2) Yes, they coordinate quite effectively
As a player I'm fine with it as long as all of the appropriate factors are taken into account. Depending on the enemy formation things like range, firing into melee, and soft cover can come into effect for some of the archers. I played with one GM who constantly forgot/ignored these things and it was frustrating because those factors can make a difference between 20 arrows hitting and 10 arrows hitting.
That said, as a player and GM, have at it! Everyone should expect enemies to respond with an appropriate level of intelligence and discipline. There's a reason you don't charge the front gate when they know you are coming.
In order for the PC to go down before they can act, they have to move into a position where all the archers can shoot them before the combat has begun, have poor defences against missile fire, seem like the most threatening character to the officer, and then roll badly on initiative.
In general I'd say the tactic is fair - it's what I'd do as a player - but the circumstances as described seem a bit nasty.
If one third of the NPCs are capable of bringing down one character per round, isn't the encounter too hard? What if all the NPCs were archers - would they be able to kill three players per round?
In this example, I think the players decided it was an "appropriate encounter".
A couple of clarifications:
1) As a reference, take 6 level 3 warriors with a starting 15 dex, +2 racial mod to Dex, +weapon focus Longbow. Composite longbow with a +2 STR allowance. You're looking at a +7 to hit. Round 1: Divine NPC drops a bless, Arcane NPC drops a haste. Starting at Round 2, you've got potentially 12 outgoing attacks at a +9, one of which is likely to crit. On a, say, 20 AC archer or caster, this isn't hard to pump out some good damage.
2) In this scenario, the PCs will have a round to set up defenses or to take out some of them. The point still stands though, even if they kill a couple it's still 8 attacks.
So this is theory craft?
Then we need to have more variables filled
Is this a group of cooperative or individualist players?
What is the purpose of this setup?
Cooperative players.
To eliminate the NPCs or otherwise drive them from their fortified position.
As a GM, my players usually focus fire specific enemies. In turn, they find intelligent enemies tend to focus fire on specific PCs. Most often anyone identifiable as a spell caster.
It's not unfair, it's just basic tactical acumen.
That is surprisingly bad tactics on the part of the part.
.
However, given that I would say maybe.
Do the NPC's have reason to know that multiple arrow hits will needed to stop an attacker? (PC's famous, size of a minotaur, obviously magic protections, full plate armor, etc...)
.
If yes, the hella sure they will pound into one of them.
If they didn't focus fire, they wouldn't be terribly "intelligent", would they?
Any organized military unit who knows beans about wizards knows you take those squishies down ASAP, before they fireball your position. If the enemy unit can see the caster (line of sight, appropriate lighting, etc) and make a reasonable guess that, "Hey look, a caster!", then it's totally unbelievable for the archers to *not* focus fire on the caster. (...Except for the ones who are readying actions to disrupt casting.)
Caveat: this is much more likely for Lawfully-aligned types than Chaotically-aligned -- A hobgoblin unit will always focus fire; an orc unit might focus fire the first round, until they decide they each know better than the commander and start picking their own targets.
Is it going to make the game more fun?
If yes, do it.
If not, don't.
Is it going to make the game more fun?
If yes, do it.
If not, don't.
The player of whichever hypothetical PC that dies may not view it as fun.
Doesn't mean you can never kill PCs though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'd like to add (from previous experience).
If the enemy is going to go the focus-fire route, at least have each of them act on their own initiative.
In one particular PFS scenario (details left vague to eliminate spoilers), the group is ambushed by 5-8 hasted archers. Needless to say, lots of arrows VERY quickly.
As a GM, I made the mistake of giving them all the same initiative- -so the fight went something like, PC takes a turn, 5 archers each making three attacks at that one target- -it didn't matter that only half of them hit- -giving the party little chance to adapt whatsoever. It may as well have been Phantasmal Killer or something. Moreover, because they were bunched like that, when someone would run out to heal or Breath of Life or something, they'd be the next to get pin-cushioned.
I think that if the attacks didn't all come in one chunk the party would have been able to make more strategic choices (be it retreating, bolstering, healing, or whatever). As it is, I feel I could have ran that encounter better.
tl;dr: Focused Fire is appropriate, but don't bunch your foes in initiative at the same time.
|
Focus fires serves the PCs right for not taking precautions against archers if storming a fortified position. Non-magical tower shields are dirt cheap and can give total cover. Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud and Wind Wall are also great ways to shut down archery. Not to mention finding the back door instead of storming the front.
Volleys from several archers (read: more than a dozen) hitting a single target from a single command is unrealistic. I wouldn't do it.
Volleys from several archers (read: more than a dozen) hitting a single target from a single command is unrealistic. I wouldn't do it.
It was clarified that there were 6 archers.
I favorited Jayson's post above. If your castor charges a bunch of archers without serious defenses against arrows (prot from arrows, displacement, invisibility, stoneskin, etc (depending on level)) and you don't want to kill him, spread your focused fire over the inititive as above. I think focused fire is fair game for fair targets. I don't think all the archers would focus on a halfling rogue in a full party for example. Mage or cleric, yes.
In the game I play in, the healer is fair game. Often what happens is the MOBS take a wack at the frontline, miss badly, then go for softer targets.
One of the most metagamey things I see happen is that PCs are almost always treated as though they can take multiple hits when your average NPC commoner will fall in one or two tops. Given that, factor in whatever these guys typically fight into their tactics.
One of the most metagamey things I see happen is that PCs are almost always treated as though they can take multiple hits when your average NPC commoner will fall in one or two tops. Given that, factor in whatever these guys typically fight into their tactics.
What if they are famous/infamous?
If the realm knows them to have faced and triumphed over heroic odds, why *wouldn't* you focus fire them?
That's one thing. I'm just throwing out general tips. Only you know the full context of your campaign. I don't/can't know that.
That's one thing. I'm just throwing out general tips. Only you know the full context of your campaign. I don't/can't know that.
Understood!
Thanks for weighing in.
One thing I'd like to add (from previous experience).
If the enemy is going to go the focus-fire route, at least have each of them act on their own initiative.
For fairness and a chance to react I agree.
However a trained and disciplined military unit, firing arrows under a commanders command, they will aim, fire and loose at the same time.
Because like your example...it's more effective.
(EDIT) - however...this will be on the commanders turn, and he will wait for them all to ready to fire. So they may hear the command to ready and see them preparing to pepper the mage, then there is a delay before they loose.
So you could warn them it's about to happen, and if they take not action to defend themselves...it's not really your fault.
One thing I'd like to add (from previous experience).
If the enemy is going to go the focus-fire route, at least have each of them act on their own initiative.
For fairness and a chance to react I agree.
However a trained and disciplined military unit, firing arrows under a commanders command, they will aim, fire and loose at the same time.
Because like your example...it's more effective.
The only way to do that within the Pathfinder rules is for them all to delay to the initiative of the slowest of their number. GMs often just roll 1d20 for all of them for simplicity, but this isn't an option a PC can use.
Good afternoon, Pathfinderdom.
Today's topic is on the perceived fairness of intelligent NPCs focus firing PCs down.
Let us take a hypothetical example of the PCs trying to storm a bridge, or perhaps a gate. Let us also assume the defending NPCs are well-disciplined, intelligent, and have an officer to direct them. Let's say a third of the defending NPCs are archers.
The question is, would it be unfair for the officer to direct the archers to focus fire on the PCs one at a time starting with the most dangerous/most vulnerable one?
Arguments for:
- When you are faced with a small but highly skilled team of transient loot-hungry psychopaths, would it not make the most sense to quickly dispatch them one at a time rather than spread your damage out?
Arguments against:
- This tactic, combined with certain buff spells (Haste, for example), can put a PC down before he/she even gets to act.
_____________________________________________________
Please leave your thoughts below! I am interested in both GM and Player points of view.
Thanks!
There is right or wrong answer, just as there is no right or wrong answer for sundering a PC's equipment or using coup de grace on them.
Personally as a GM and player I think it is fair, but this is also a game, and the players expect to win/be successful so I can see how some will get upset.
I would assess how lethal you and the players want the game to be, and use that to determine how GM the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a frequent victim of such tactics, I adapted my play-style to counter or even abuse! of such delightful tactics.
To counter such would be smart NPC tactics, have the party skill monkey use disguise on your person to make yourself not look like a classical wizard, some low magic solutions include using mock armor (90GP and no spell failure), that "hat of disguise" can make you look like a full plated tank in the distance!
Now next level tactics, have a full plated tank type character, especially melee), wear big cloaks and disguise themselves as a wizard, spell caster type character. I love having my DR reduction barbarian with uncanny dodge and over 29 AC walk around dressed up like a wizards (with the big pointy hat) using the "glamoured" propriety of my mithral full-plate. I also invested quite a few skill points in bluff and perform:acting.
Now, please take a second picturing this scenario: Super Smart military commander MC Smarty pants (TM) see 4 suspicious individual charging the bridge of his keep, he sees one one more suspicious individual dancing and chanting what he believes to be spells staying further away from the 4 charging figures. The commander knows that magic can be devastating, orders his archers to focus fire on the one poor unfortunate magic user. Really fearing for their life the archers swallow their very expensive potions of haste and they take their best arrows (a bunch of +2 arrows) and shoot a phenomenal quantity of arrows at the unfortunate soul. The wizardly dressed barbarian then rolls a perform: acting check to fake being mortally wounded. In reality these +2 arrows where really tinkling him, he lays on the ground and wait for his friends to approach the iron bared gate. Once they are close enough he gets up and charge it. Enraged and furious he pounce the gate with his +2 adamantine great axe, cleverly concealed under his cloak. Where was once an impenetrable gate now lies bits and pieces of or iron on the ground. Congratulation you made most of the archers pre-emptively use more resource to do absolutely nothing while drawing fire for your friends.
Note that this trick works wonder while determining marching order, be the first in line and always appear like you are wearing the most lavish an luxurious clothing, these highroad bandits will have a hard time understanding that their crossbow bolt did not even wound that nobleman who is now cutting their friends head off one by one.
I think it is fair, intelligent NPCs and especially those with military training should act accordingly.
I think it is obvious. To me it is like asking if it is fair for puny kobolds to use tactics that lure PCs into traps...
Both as a player and as a GM, I often see this as out and out metagaming.
By default, NPCs have no knowledge of hit points or other game mechanics, and as such don't know how tough the PCs really are. One or two arrows should be enough against your typical unarmored opponent--why should the intruders they are suddenly encountering be any different? That's common sense. Arrows are deadly. If anything, they should be spreading their fire out to take down as many targets as possible, similar to real life SWAT teams. It's not until the nth arrow fails to take the HERO down, that the NPCs begin to realize what they are dealing with.
Now, if said NPCs had advanced knowledge of the PCs, having fought them before or at least hearing of their past exploits, then by all means, focus fire away.
Both as a player and as a GM, I often see this as metagaming.
By default, the NPCs have no knowledge of hit points, or of how tough the PCs really are. One or two arrows should be enough against an unarmored opponent. That's common sense. If anything, they should be spreading their fire out to take down as many targets as possible, similar to real life SWAT teams.
Now, if said NPCs had advanced knowledg of the PCs, having fought them before or at least hearing of their exploits, then by all means, focus fire away.
In a situation where an insurgent has an rpg that could take the entire building you are using as a fortification, a Marine Corps fire team will lay suppressing fire on said insurgent while also hitting said fellow with a fire for effect M- 203 grenade while the other two members take their aimed shots. The fellows with AK's will wait.
A wizard > an rpg. Kill it first. You trust in your fortification to hold the fools charging the gate and take out the threat that could kill you all in one shot.
Source: being a Corporal in the Marine Corps. Basic common sense and tactics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Source: being a Corporal in the Marine Corps. Basic common sense and tactics.
Thank you for your service.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both as a player and as a GM, I often see this as out and out metagaming.
By default, NPCs have no knowledge of hit points or other game mechanics, and as such don't know how tough the PCs really are. One or two arrows should be enough against your typical unarmored opponent--why should the intruders they are suddenly encountering be any different? That's common sense. Arrows are deadly. If anything, they should be spreading their fire out to take down as many targets as possible, similar to real life SWAT teams. It's not until the nth arrow fails to take the HERO down, that the NPCs begin to realize what they are dealing with.
Now, if said NPCs had advanced knowledge of the PCs, having fought them before or at least hearing of their past exploits, then by all means, focus fire away.
If it was a mob of unarmored peasants, then yeah, one or two arrows would do it and I would agree that they would spread out their shots. But in a world where ogres, giants, wizards, and all sorts of more powerful things exist, and faced with a group of well armed and armored opponents, I would think they would be able to distinguish between peasants and more powerful foes.
The way I would likely play it out is that they would probably spread their shots out the first round and once they saw how ineffectual that was, start to concentrate their fire.
Also, like Rerednaw mentions above, allow pertinent commanders to use their skills to identify how best to deal with the players.
|
Intelligent NPCs focus fire on PCs, what are your thoughts?
... Yes. If the creatures are intelligent and have sufficient means, then by all rights focus fire the PCs into the ground. Extra points if they're also capable of setting up ambushes as to best take advantage of said focus firing, perhaps in thick vegetation or alleyways with a lot of little inlets.
Obviously that's a good counter tactic, but this requires foreknowledge, or at least a willingness to potentially waste a spell slot, for a spell that doesn't last all day. It's certainly useless if the bad guys get the drop on the PCs!
Eh. It's not hard to scout from enough distance to just see if there are bowmen on the walls.
Rather than going thru all the trouble with archers and rolling to hit and all that "stuff' why not just have rocks fall?
Rather than going thru all the trouble with archers and rolling to hit and all that "stuff' why not just have rocks fall?
I see your snark, but choose not to respond in kind.
I am serious. Look, the DM can kill the PC's anytime he wants. Why are you seeking justification for one way to do it?
How does the Officer "direct" them? How does he- as the targets are running towards him at full speed from cover- pick which to concentrate fire on and then communicate that to his troops in time for them to fire?
The fog of war is a very real thing. There's no time for carefully selecting a target, then carefully pointing that target out to each soldier.
IRL about all he has time to do is yell "loose!".
But back to my first point. D&D is a Game. The idea of a Game is to have Fun.
How is "Well Bob, as you break cover the omniscient super archers guided by the super intelligent officer who has cast a dozen buff spells shoot you with exactly as many arrows as you have hit points. You're dead. Next time- bring real Mt Dew, not this diet crud. That'll teach ya. " fun? Well, yes, it could be "fun" for a certain set of DM's I suppose.