Intelligent NPCs focus fire on PCs, what are your thoughts?


Advice

101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

ShadeOfRed wrote:

False.

If that is the case then a Fighter can never ever ever ever hold his action to shoot/strike when spellcasting begins.

That's pretty much the nail in the coffin. Looking in the rules it specifically states: "You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell."

This action does not require any Spellcraft check (or any other skill).

Thus, by RAW, you can simply tell when someone is casting a spell.


Kryptik wrote:
ShadeOfRed wrote:


Again, all has to do with what the PC's could do. Nothing with whether NPC's should focus fire or what their intelligent actions should be.
This is the crux of the issue. You can argue on and on about what the PCs would do, it still doesn't change what the NPCs are trained to do.

There are two issues here.

Firstly, is it realistic that the NPCs would focus fire? Answer: probably, depending on the knowledge available to them, etc.
Secondly, is it fair for the GM to create an encounter like this? Answer: Probably. This depends on what the PCs would reasonably be expected to do in these circumstances - if the wizard has cast Mirror Image or Wind Wall or Obscuring Mist before approaching the dangerous keep then it's not actually that dangerous for him.


Ok lets say the party gets the drop on 4 Drow. One in Plate with a sword and shield, one wearing leather and carrying a rapier and short sword, one in chain with a Holy symbol on her shield and the third carrying a staff and wearing robes.. Are the players going to focus fire On one Drow or are they going to spread their fire out?
So if the Drow got the drop on a party armed as above should they not do the same as the party would?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I wonder how those who are horrified at the idea NPCs might use basic tactics like focusing fire would react to the idea of NPCs using more advanced tactics like having all but one or two bowmen fire at the wizard while the remaining bowmen ready actions to disrupt spellcasting (in order to prevent fireballs or healing), and then when the beatsticks are in position to threaten the foremost archers, having them five foot step back, and tanglefoot bag the beatsticks while the other archers eliminate the spellcasters (with at least one always readying to disrupt casting).

Splendid idea. Well, except that the cost of tanglefoot bags sucks, but garrisons would have some stocked for emergencies and the cost is more reasonable if you only have to replace them like maybe twice a year. Another thing to do is having 1-2 people with slings and thunder-stones target the casters.

Quote:
Another option would be to just have a high level crossblood sorcerer fireball the party for 15d6+30 damage. That would accomplish the same result with significantly less time spent. =P

Nope. 2-3 level ranged speced fighters are common and cheap enough to man a gate. Lvl 15 sorcerers are scarce, expensive and have more important or interesting things to do. Plus it is better to keep them well protected and in reserve instead of where they would make easier targets.

If the PCs are approaching a gate and it is clear they are hostile, have the commander tell his men to start shooting them from afar. Even with range increment penalties, that's a few rounds where they have to run to get closer. Plus it gives the PCs plenty of time to run away, should they so decide. If they persist, close the gate, lower the portcullis, raise the bridge, whatever. Fortifications are built to make it easy for archers to defend and difficult for melee to attack. Finally once the PCs are defeated and the remainder of them runs, have the defenders mock and insult them. Furthermore, as soon as a serious skirmish started, someone would blow a horn to summon more defenders from the barracks not far away, so the defenders should get reinforcements in under 10 minutes.

I think the commander should have some feat that gives a +1 or +2 morale bonus to attack and AC to nearby troops. This at least gives a mechanical reason to target him. I haven't looked into it, but there are some teamwork feats, like bonuses for standing together in a phalnax.

Quote:
in normal logic if its a fort, any siege would require 10-1 odds in the players favor to crack it.

3-1 could work with siege weapons numerous and strong enough to damage the walls and kill some defenders. Or stronger casters. Or air superiority. But if they just charged carrying grappling hooks, ladders and battering rams, it would be a slaughter.

Quote:
Unless the archers are goblins. In that case the commander would be lucky if the archers don't shoot each other.

Lol, the "monstrous humanoids revisited" has a rule that says goblins will sometimes spend their round laughing at another goblin's death, screaming, picking nose or just running around.

It think this should end in One or two volleys, then groups of a few archers firing at will focusing fire separately, but targeting mostly those already wounded or without cover. Oh and if Medieval Total War is any indication, long range volleys are more about hitting anything at all than focus-firing anyone.

I've seen an adventure module where Kobolds had a defensible position in a cave, with several rooms with the only entrance being a stone shelf that was only accessible with a climb check. It was defended by 2 kobolds with slings, but it never made sense to me, why one of them wouldn't run to warn the others. Their combined force and at least 2 good choke points (one being a river ford) would make it almost impossible for PCs to defeat them before access to at least summon monster 2 or fireball. Of course from meta-gaming perspective this only works in campaigns where failure is an option and PCs can count survival by running away a success.

Quote:
"Mr Captain Sir, we killed the one not wearing armor, turns out he was just a traveler that was trying to warn us about the attack, which is why he was waving his arms around".

Lol, this is even funnier than a monk in wizard robes practising confusion-fu. As has been stated in this thread, there are ways the PCs can mislead their enemies, which is what they should do to counter focused-fire. If there are multiple people casting spells, I guess it quickly goes to "fire at will" and "finish off their wounded first". Also "ready your actions and interrupt spell-casters".

Quote:
It takes Spellcraft to identify which spell is being cast. But I can't find any rules that state you need Spellcraft to know that a spell is being cast.

Without at least one of silent or Still spell feats, it is quite obvious at close range. Like DC 5 Perception obvious. Though the noise and distance would make it more difficult further way. But this is about the inability to hide casting a spell, not the difficulty of faking casting a spell. So that monk could train with the wizard to be able to get a +4 circumstance bonus on Perform(acting) check pretending to cast a spell to get targeted by all those arrows. There are no rules for this, but you might adopt the rule from goblins comic, that casting a spell makes a glowing image around the caster.

Quote:
Against newer players, probably not very fair – but it might be a good object lesson if there is a reason for them to survive to be put in jail and then visited so that they realize they aren’t actually in a video game.

Yep, this is a good way to teach your PCs some tactics.

Sppony recorded a funny talk about this topic, BTW. http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-leaping-wizards/


TimD wrote:
(and of course, the guy screaming “Blood and Souls for Arioch” with the screaming black sword gets both the arrows & the movement away from)

Ha! And how!

Anyways!

I'd consider focus fire to be perfectly fine, though I'd probably put half the archers on an unsubtle spellcaster, and half on a more obvious physical threat.

With this subject to radical change based on what happens when initiative actually occurs.

While having each archer full attack the spellcaster in turn and change targets as people go down is mechanically sound, it always feels unnatural, especially within PF's 6-second combat rounds.

Honestly, if the party knows they're about to go across a bridge guarded by a squad of archers and take no precautions, then, well, bad tactics and planning are bad.

Whether I'd spring that sort of encounter on a party without warning would depend a great deal on the party. Though frankly, if the guards of a fortified location are managing to happen to the party without warning, they need better scouting.

Grand Lodge

Answering the OP question.

It depends. Normally an army is drilled to combat against another army, so they train volley attacks, one arrow for one opponent. Castles and keeps had their soldiers trained to protect the fortification against an army attempting an assault or siege, not a bunch of people. So, an officer could be so attached to training that he order the same tactic against a few bunch, or just order to the archers fire at will. The order to focus fire would come just for a particular gifted officer (high intelligence or wisdom, or many ranks in profession (soldier)), or an officer with a particular training (a ex-gladiator/pit-fighter, a spec-ops officer, an adventurer/ex-adventurer, a veteran with past successes/failures in similar situations). That order wouldn't normally come from any officer.

But, yeah, if this order comes out, it surely will be the best way to deal with adventurers.

Note: Even being the best course doesn't mean the adventurers would be just sitting ducks. One day i created an adventure were hobgoblin pirates took control from a island, fortificate it with a wooden keep surrounding cave entrances and, as pirates, were specialized in selective targeting ("kill the captain first!"). But they were humiliated against the party, who easily sunk and destroyed the palisades, and stormed the poor hobgoblins...


Darklord Morius wrote:


It depends. Normally an army is drilled to combat against another army, so they train volley attacks, one arrow for one opponent. Castles and keeps had their soldiers trained to protect the fortification against an army attempting an assault or siege, not a bunch of people. So, an officer could be so attached to training that he order the same tactic against a few bunch, or just order to the archers fire at will. The order to focus fire would come just for a particular gifted officer (high intelligence or wisdom, or many ranks in profession (soldier)), or an officer with a particular training (a ex-gladiator/pit-fighter, a spec-ops officer, an adventurer/ex-adventurer, a veteran with past successes/failures in similar situations). That order wouldn't normally come from any officer.

I'm not sure an order like that would have to come from a gifted officer. In a world in which spellcasters and mercenary adventurer bands are common, tactics and training would adapt to them just like armies have adapted in wartime in our own history. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that an officer would probably be necessary to direct the troops that effectively, but I doubt it would need to be a particularly gifted officer.

This idea of requiring a officer does lend itself to the possibility of crippling an army's adeptness by targeting the officers. And that dovetails with historical tactics (at least in the 20th century) as well.

Grand Lodge

Bill Dunn wrote:
Darklord Morius wrote:


It depends. Normally an army is drilled to combat against another army, so they train volley attacks, one arrow for one opponent. Castles and keeps had their soldiers trained to protect the fortification against an army attempting an assault or siege, not a bunch of people. So, an officer could be so attached to training that he order the same tactic against a few bunch, or just order to the archers fire at will. The order to focus fire would come just for a particular gifted officer (high intelligence or wisdom, or many ranks in profession (soldier)), or an officer with a particular training (a ex-gladiator/pit-fighter, a spec-ops officer, an adventurer/ex-adventurer, a veteran with past successes/failures in similar situations). That order wouldn't normally come from any officer.

I'm not sure an order like that would have to come from a gifted officer. In a world in which spellcasters and mercenary adventurer bands are common, tactics and training would adapt to them just like armies have adapted in wartime in our own history. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that an officer would probably be necessary to direct the troops that effectively, but I doubt it would need to be a particularly gifted officer.

This idea of requiring a officer does lend itself to the possibility of crippling an army's adeptness by targeting the officers. And that dovetails with historical tactics (at least in the 20th century) as well.

Bill Dunn, of course you are right, and i agree with you. But the purpose of my post was to create a reasonable excuse to why an intelligent officer wouldn't order to focus fire the PCS, if the DM thinks it would end bad for his narrative.

As an allusion with real-life warfare, spellcasters could be treated as siege engines. Normally heavy guarded by the attackers, but the defenders always thinking how they could neutralize them.

Even in my post, a exemplified the "kill the officer first!" strategy, but it's not always an option against some armies (like an army with a multiple chain of command, like the Mongol Army or when the officer is too heavily guarded in the heart of the army). Again, that's why adaptviness is an desirable asset in any officer. But, an officer could (and many times, should) be surprised with a small force like adventurers, and fall in the error to order the old drill or just underestimate them (why not?) and just order to fire at will. Again, it's only a possibility that can be exploited by a DM who don't want to kill the PCs and, at the same time, making their npcs acting intelligently.

Dark Archive

It is pretty frigging obvious when somebody goes to cast a spell, particularly considering that they must normally reach into their spell component pouch for materials amid their gesturing and gesticulating. That's a pretty good hint that you may want to lodge arrows in that person.


The Beard wrote:
It is pretty frigging obvious when somebody goes to cast a spell, particularly considering that they must normally reach into their spell component pouch for materials amid their gesturing and gesticulating. That's a pretty good hint that you may want to lodge arrows in that person.

I also think it was brought up that they 'look like a guy speaking and having a conversation, while talking with his hands as well'

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure you must have to do some serious twister level stuff to cast a spell, since if you wear armor and try to do it you can mess it up because it impedes you.

But you can still speak and talk with your hands in full plate if you wish.


You guys do make a point, yes, the rules say "You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell.". But they don’t say how/if you can tell “start casting a spell” from just having a normal animated conversation. It’s unclear. But Ok, let’s take it that you can (assuming no bluff check, stilled spell, other trickery) spot it automatically, making a reasonable perception check. Ok. Given.

Still, the point remains. Only Rincewind walks around with a pointy hat spelling out “Wizzard” (sic). When moving up to attack, there’s no reason to be making yourself a target by casting spells. If you’re gonna cast a Fireball spell, do it from 600’ away. If you’re gonna cast other spells, well do it while invisible etc. If you’re casting, you’re not moving.

So, assuming that the Spellcaster isn’t going to be moving and casting at the same time, and that he’s NOT wearing a pointy hat or a big sign that sez “IMA WIZURD KILL ME!”. He’s wearing normal garb, maybe light armor, maybe a simple disguise spell. Or he’s one of a party of four spellcasters (with the Magus all Spellcaster parties are all the vogue now- in fact there’s only a couple classes that can’t cast spells). Sure, he could be wearing a Robe of the Archmagi, but in that case the normal soldier/archers have another problem entirely, like what kinda terms they are on with their deity.

Thus, there’s simply no way to tell which person is “the Spellcaster” since there’s likely several, and few will be stupid enuf to be an obvious target. Sure, no doubt, some newb player will stop and cast his sole magic Missile ‘against the darkness’ and you can kill him, but to what end?

This tactic simply reeks of DM omniscience. And- what’s the purpose? Kill a PC? Why? Like we said, a DM can do that any time he wants.


I don't think the idea is to kill the party. I think the idea is to use believable tactics. If those tactics would kill the party then it is time to think about the difficulty of the encounter and maybe make some adjustments. One of those adjustments could to be to play the opponents dumber, but that probably isn't the best one.

And it has been asked many times, although maybe a little too indirectly. How would you run the soldiers at a fortified choke point?


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Actually you can decide on the target upon each attack so there is no reason to not keep firing on a particular target. It has nothing to do with knowing the PC's are PC's, but the fact that it makes sense in fantasy land to take down enemies to give you action economy. The same idea works in real life.
That's a fair argument, but how do you rationalize that in games where GMs have their enemy hit squads all acting simultaneously? If nothing else, you'd have to do it volley by volley (not focus firing on at least the first one), else wise it is metagaming.

Personally when I GM, I call the enemies targets, then I roll their attacks so that PCs don't think I'm metagaming exactly like that. "These 5 goblins are going to shoot the wizard, and these other 2 are going to soften up your fighter because he's running right at them." I feel weird about saying that my goblins are going to pump arrows into the wizard until he drops, and then the remaining ones are going to magically know to switch over to the next guy if they're all acting on the same initiative.

I don't feel bad about assigning enough archers to drop the wizard reliably to shooting the wizard though. It gives the cleric something to do.


DrDeth wrote:
Kryptik wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Rashagar has the right of it. Focus fire is fine only if there is an in-game rationale for it.
Which, for a commander, would be to target archers and mages, because you know your melee troops will hold the gate for longer.

Again, there's no way to tell spellcasters apart, not in six seconds. Well, unless they are really, really stupid stereotypical wizards.

Also, when attacked by a Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the mage? All wearing chainshirts , toting weapons and casting spells. Wait- there is that guy in robes- shoot him! yeah, the one time the monk really does well, what with deflect arrows.

If your standing order is "Hold fire and everyone shoot at the spellcaster!" you're gonna have issues.

If the spellcaster is a sorc or wiz but has a disquise or a spell or invisible- again, you're gonna have problems: "But, but- there was no spellcaster, Mr Captain sir!".

Even first level wizards wear "sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), gloves, and a cloak." making them look just like most townsfolk or travelers*. They don't even list "wizards robes" in the standard list of equipment. Making a DM ruling that all guards have some sort of omniscient way of detecting which one is "THE spellcaster" is a bit much. All in six seconds, too.

Mind you, I do have a Sorc who wears the robes with stars, etc. Of course, he's mythic and so powerful that mundane arrows wouldn't even be a distraction. "Huh, is it raining?"

* "Mr Captain Sir, we killed the one not wearing armor, turns out he was just a traveler that was trying to warn us about the attack, which is why he was waving his arms around".

If you are a truly bada** caster, you wear the pointy hat and robes so that they enemies WILL shoot at you. Then you vaporize them after their shots all fail against your ranged defenses.

It sounds presumptuous, but I have definitely enjoyed playing like this. The enemies are so focused on hitting you to avoid your magical armageddon that the rest of the party can pulverize them relatively safely. I recommend hiring minstrels and sending them ahead of your character to sing of their exploits as well.

Actually that gives me an idea for another thread: The bullseye wizard.


bfobar wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Actually you can decide on the target upon each attack so there is no reason to not keep firing on a particular target. It has nothing to do with knowing the PC's are PC's, but the fact that it makes sense in fantasy land to take down enemies to give you action economy. The same idea works in real life.
That's a fair argument, but how do you rationalize that in games where GMs have their enemy hit squads all acting simultaneously? If nothing else, you'd have to do it volley by volley (not focus firing on at least the first one), else wise it is metagaming.

Personally when I GM, I call the enemies targets, then I roll their attacks so that PCs don't think I'm metagaming exactly like that. "These 5 goblins are going to shoot the wizard, and these other 2 are going to soften up your fighter because he's running right at them." I feel weird about saying that my goblins are going to pump arrows into the wizard until he drops, and then the remaining ones are going to magically know to switch over to the next guy if they're all acting on the same initiative.

I don't feel bad about assigning enough archers to drop the wizard reliably to shooting the wizard though. It gives the cleric something to do.

Throw in the fact that the pcs are 'fated' and that's a pretty good description of a DM's dilemma here. And in that respect I would simply fall back on the fact that there is a reciprocity at play here: the level of 'metagameiness' and expertise your players exhibit is to some degree reflected back at them. I DM for experienced players, the gloves are off, period, and the players can take it. Why? Because given a sniff of a chance, they will dish it out too. And when we play there are 5 of them to figure challenges out too.


It is a hard line to walk as a GM: Have challenging enough encounters where your PCs are occasionally in the "dying" status, but somehow manage not to make anybody "dead" status (Unless your PCs like a hardcore game).

Dark Archive

bfobar wrote:

It is a hard line to walk as a GM: Have challenging enough encounters where your PCs are occasionally in the "dying" status, but somehow manage not to make anybody "dead" status (Unless your PCs like a hardcore game).

You will eventually wind up killing one or two of them even if you don't mean to. It's very difficult to account for that "mook" suddenly managing to get off nothing but crits on its full attack with power attack turned on. If your goal is to avoid this, I would recommend providing them access to one or two scrolls of breath of life in their loot during the course of the campaign.


This goes to the "Should DMs pull punches?" and "Should NPCs cous de gras?"

Should (eventually) the PC's have hit squads sent after them?
(Ruthless with sleep hexes and cous de gras)?

My actual opinion, when I dm, would be:

Is the story on tracks where they *have* to front assault the fortress at high noon?
If so, go a tad easy on the focused fire.

Is the mission one where all they have to do is kill the king inside and they *choose* to frontal assault at high noon? Maybe they deserve some negative levels...

Sovereign Court

If you've never used such tactics before, it's fair to warn the players that you've had a change of heart and that NPCs will be using reasonable tactics, smart to the point of matching the NPCs Intelligence scores (dumber critters using dumber tactics).

So the NPCs use reasonable tactics for the situation. Such as all archers taking the Ready Action: Shoot at the target chosen by my commanding officer. The officer selects a target based on his professional insight. If he sees a wizard, that might be the prime target.

As PCs, you can subvert these tactics. Especially if you have intel on these guards and know that they'll be following the officer's commands, if you screw with the officer they've lost a round. Of you can have a monk impersonate the wizard. At which point some Bluff/Sense Motive checks are exchanged to see if you fool the officer.

PF warfare resembles modern warfare a lot, maybe even more than it resembles medieval warfare. Small squads of high-level characters (special forces) play a big role in war. There's various kinds of artillery (wizards), sniping, air support (dragons, wizards, Fly spell).

In a modern war, if you need to storm enemy gunners, you preferably don't do it across open field. Maybe you send in a stealthy guy to sabotage their position, use long-range artillery (Fireball), or create a smoke curtain (Obscuring Mist, Stinking Cloud) in order to advance without getting shot WWI-style.


Ascalaphus wrote:

PF warfare resembles modern warfare a lot, maybe even more than it resembles medieval warfare. Small squads of high-level characters (special forces) play a big role in war. There's various kinds of artillery (wizards), sniping, air support (dragons, wizards, Fly spell).

In a modern war, if you need to storm enemy gunners, you preferably don't do it across open field. Maybe you send in a stealthy guy to sabotage their position, use long-range artillery (Fireball), or create a smoke curtain (Obscuring Mist, Stinking Cloud) in order to advance without getting shot WWI-style.

So ridiculously true it's scary. The only difference is one person can lay down a 'barrage of arrows' or artillery. M-60 SAW is a one man barrage of arrows. M-203 Grenade Launcher, portable artillery. Hell just frags will do the trick usually. And something way out in the open like that? Just asking for air support. Couple Cobra helicopters, or god help them, a Warthog.

All of it translates in my brain fairly easily to Pathfinder.

I don't know that I realized it being that true.

(You ever seen a Warthog? When it fires it's 30mm cannon mounted on the front, (30 mm! That is bigger than an inch in diameter!) it typically has to be in a controlled dive to prevent the plane from stalling out. The recoil actually SLOWS the plane to a point the engines can stall...disgusting. And you don't want to know what it does to the targets it hits. Makes and Elder Ancient Advanced Enlarged Stupid Dragon...look weak. *shiver*)


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
The Beard wrote:
It is pretty frigging obvious when somebody goes to cast a spell, particularly considering that they must normally reach into their spell component pouch for materials amid their gesturing and gesticulating. That's a pretty good hint that you may want to lodge arrows in that person.

Sorcerors.


What caster doesn't take eschew materials? Pffft.

Dark Archive

Redchigh wrote:
What caster doesn't take eschew materials? Pffft.

Most of them. That feat slot is a lot more valuable than the handful of gold for your "set it and forget it" component pouch.

SlimGauge wrote:


Sorcerors.

When did we go from wizards to sorcerers? Anyway, it's still easy to tell even without the pouch. =P


Tangent:
bfobar wrote:

It is a hard line to walk as a GM: Have challenging enough encounters where your PCs are occasionally in the "dying" status, but somehow manage not to make anybody "dead" status (Unless your PCs like a hardcore game).

This is the key here. I'm often impressed by just how hardcore some poster's tables are, with enemy mooks using splash weapons, caltrops, terrain, nets and other such tactics that my table would never dream of seeing from them. Moreover I think there's something to be said for doing the reverse, what I like to call the Burnt Offerings effect, where high CR numbers of goblins are given less than optimal tactics to emphasise their stupidity and let the PCs mow through large numbers of them. I think one of the best skills a GM can have is to be able to step outside of the game and make what adjustments he can to make the encounters more difficult or more forgiving on the fly.

I personally think that this thread should take a step away from the idea that spellcasters are priority target #1 100% of the time. I think there should be more to intelligent tactics than "focus-fire the man in the silly hat". Why this two page discussion of whether casters are instantly recognisable or no? Why the assumption that in every situation, all of the time, taking down the spellcaster is top priority? In the low-mid level range that this encounter is likely taking place at, and even at high levels, I really don't think this is always the case.

It's also making the assumption that the party are standing in a wide-open space, making no use of cover or positioning whatsoever and standing yards away from each other. In most marching orders I've experienced, the heavily armoured guy that's being ignored is positioned in the front, providing soft-cover (+4AC) to the wizard... and if the wizard can't protect himself with defensive magic, a wall spell or fog, surely he has the common sense to duck into cover?

I find that most ranged attacks are dictated by the cramped dungeon conditions, party positioning and precise shot penalties than whoever is the silliest dressed. In this battle situation, if the commander is ordering his archers to fill the wizard full of holes, he's a bloody fool for flying overhead with no cover instead of hiding behind friendly soldiers, a seige tower, summons, or a big-stupid-fighter. Or at least for not casting invisibility and a few fly spells for his party members.

Just my two cents. Interesting thread so far. :)


Oh, one more thing. If the PCs are going to be approaching a fortification in the open, describe it to them and preferably draw a map. This might give them some ideas why just running uphill in the open with their weapons drawn is a bad idea.

If that gate is at least moderately important, it should have an arcane spellcaster with detect magic and 2nd or 3rd level blasts.

> Marching orders.
Yeah, but if they don't spread, realistically arrows would have a bigger chance of hitting somebody. I was playing under a house rule, that if they are clumped and an arrow misses it's primary target, it hits a secondary if he has low AC. And it is always fun to see an arrow hit the wrong goblin in Dwarf Fortress.

> What caster doesn't take eschew materials?
Unrealistically few of them. Materials are generally hand-waved as "just have a component pouch", but if you read the descriptions, having components would actually be quite unwieldy. I mean who *wouldn't* want to avoid being forced to carry hundreds of small vials with things like bat guano (that he has to touch), live spiders (that he has to eat), live crickets (while trying to be stealthy) and so on, just to do their job? When I think about it, Eschew Materials would be one of the first things I'd want to pick as a Wizard. As things are, about the only benefit this feat provides is not having to fiddle with ingredients while grappled.

Better yet, take "false focus", get a symbol of your religion worth 100 gp or more and have most effects of Eschew Materials plus ignore component costs of up to 100 gp (such as animating a few skellies). If you ever loose the symbol, it is easier to just carve a new one (no rules say it can't be crude and worth 5 cp) than it is to replace the weird stuff inside a components pouch. This feat is very climatic if you're going the Mysthic Theurge or Arcane Hierophant route (don't).

> Should (eventually) the PC's have hit squads sent after them? (Ruthless with sleep hexes and cous de gras)?
Probably not, unless they really pissed someone off. Then they get one hit-squad, but not ruthlessly efficient. Maybe just have these guys track them in the wild and approach using potions of invisibility and blue vinnis poison. Horses can scent intruders anyway.

A scry and fry squad should cost at least 10k for the job, so few NPCs would be able to hire one. And at some point the PCs should get a base of operations and think about it's defences, as well as protecting themselves from scrying.


I think focus fire should be allowed. That's one of those encounters that can make high level casters less almighty compare to other classes. Because it will require teamwork. You need monk to catch arrors for the wizard, the fighter or paladin to block arrows with tower shield. Need barbarian to maul them down quickly, need ranger to drop them before they come close. Need a rogue to foresee it, poison some ahead of time, set trap, disguise himself to be one of them, sneak info back to the team and sneak attack their leader. You need cleric to heal the injured one. Druid can control the crowd. Bard and support everyone. When encounters become difficult, it really brings out the teamwork of the team, if the players won't work together, they can't survive.


BTW, I can scarcely believe no one linked Tucker Kobolds yet. http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Tucker%27s_Kobolds

They are normal Kobolds, with maybe up to 6 levels of character classes, but they use tactics. They have traps, throwers with acid and alchemist's fire behind crecelations, set things on fire to smoke the intruders and use all kinds of dirty tricks.

Sovereign Court

Like I said before, if you didn't previously do things like this, you should warn the players OOC that this kind of risk is now on the table. They'll have to be more careful.

Going from not doing this to doing this without any warning would feel like the GM screwing you over.


Imho, the combat system doesn't support this in a very satisfying way. So I wouldn't do it unless my players played at a high level.

Sovereign Court

I rather like the idea of all archers synchronizing their shot when led by an officer, but afterwards, they all stay stuck at the same initiative for the rest of the combat.

Maybe if the officer was "indisposed", the archers would drift apart a bit on the initiative order, splitting into 2-4 groups with initiative about 5 apart from each other.

Focus fire ON THE SAME INITIATIVE COUNT should require active coordination. It's even more powerful than everyone focus firing on different counts, because the target gets no opportunity to react halfway through.

Maybe if focus fire is a thing, all characters should be allowed to drop prone (improving AC against ranged) as an immediate action.


I don't know about the DMs here, but most DMs I know do not roll initiative for every NPC combatant.

It's pretty normal for all the "bandit archers" to go on the same init. In this case the coordination of the archers is a non-issue.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some posts and replies. Personal insults are not OK. Also, let's dial back some of the hostility a bit, it doesn't help any conversation.

Dark Archive

SiuoL wrote:
I think focus fire should be allowed. That's one of those encounters that can make high level casters less almighty compare to other classes. Because it will require teamwork. You need monk to catch arrors for the wizard, the fighter or paladin to block arrows with tower shield. Need barbarian to maul them down quickly, need ranger to drop them before they come close. Need a rogue to foresee it, poison some ahead of time, set trap, disguise himself to be one of them, sneak info back to the team and sneak attack their leader. You need cleric to heal the injured one. Druid can control the crowd. Bard and support everyone. When encounters become difficult, it really brings out the teamwork of the team, if the players won't work together, they can't survive.

Or the spell caster just snaps his fingers and everything within a thirty mile radius gets paralyzed and/or reduced to ash instantly because it failed an impossibly high will save. It is very easy to rig a caster to be able to use magic without obviously using magic, in which case preparing an action against them is far more difficult.


Quote:
Or the spell caster just snaps his fingers and everything within a thirty mile radius gets paralyzed and/or reduced to ash instantly because it failed an impossibly high will save. It is very easy to rig a caster to be able to use magic without obviously using magic, in which case preparing an action against them is far more difficult.

No spell up to level 9 has this kind of power. Unless you are referring to some broken combo, like Locate City Bomb, which sensible GMs will ban anyway. Heck, I haven't seen anything even close to this kind of power in the Epic Level Handbook.

Besides, this is not a topic about the power of spell-casters. You're just trolling by coming up with things that add nothing to the discussion, which I think is against the forum rules. Or should be.

A city gate could have an arcane spell-caster to cast detect magic and collect toll on magical items and to blast if the gate is ever attacked. I'd give him 2nd or up to 3rd lvl spells and some wands and scrolls. In addition one or 2 guards could be adepts with healing.

A more powerful spell-caster could be hired by the city and a few places in the city (including gates) could have magical reusable items / traps with alarm spell. Guards could activate those, alerting him about a problem, so he can scry or teleport and blast or otherwise come to their aid.

Finally, there could be a garrison or several patrols close to the gate, who run towards it when the defenders sound a horn.

So there are several ways to bolster the defences and if the PCs are foolish enough to frontally assault a fortification, they should get a nigh-unwinnable battle. So yes, intelligent and trained defenders should act intelligently.

If you don't like them acting on one initiative, divide them into 2-4 groups with different initiatives and let each group pick their own target. At first they should hold back on using any items worth 5 gp or more, but focus fire is definitely within the realm of what they would do.

101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Intelligent NPCs focus fire on PCs, what are your thoughts? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.