I typically inform my players of the actions my NPCs and creatures do, including using feats and action options, and expect them to do the same to me as a courtesy. I won't necessarily spell it out though - for instance I can say something that adds up to "Valeros readies an action" but I won't necessarily tell them what the trigger for the readied action is. I might allow a Sense Motive check to let them guess the trigger though.
Sometimes that means that the players make decisions based on what some here describe as metagaming: "He's in total defense, so he can't attack, so I can maneuver to get a better position" or "He's started using Combat Expertise - I was having a hard time hitting him earlier so I probably won't be able to hit him at all now", but frankly I'm OK with that - it's sound tactics and I expect the characters to be able to recognize the differences in stance and aggression.
Here's a somewhat related question:
An NPC with (pre-nerf) Crane Wing deflects the successful attack a PC just made. What do you say to the player?
A. He deflected your attack with Crane Wing.
B. He deflected your attack somehow.
C. Your attack missed.
D. Other?
"You were sure you were going to hit him, but at the last moment, he slapped your arm aside with his palm, deviating your strike."
Of course, I have the unfair advantage of doing a martial art that does just that (White Crane, Flying Crane variant... you could say I have "Crane Wing") so I do have the knowledge to describe it...
So option B...?
For the record the options are not meant to be verbatim, but rather the general idea of the information you give the player.
Why run past him at all? It just sets you up to be flanked and surrounded.
At low levels, you wouldn't -- he'll kill you.
At high levels, though, you run past the heavily armored guy because damage is binary -- either you do enough to drop the enemy, or else he's totally unhindered -- and with the way hp outscale damage, it's very difficult for anyone to kill anyone else with a stick in one round. Meanwhile, the unarmored guy behind him can likely lock down your whole party. The key to winning is to take out that squishy guy first and then hope you still have a few hp left so that you can take out his armored friend afterwards.
In a high-level 3.5 game, when up against the possibility of facing intelligent enemies, I always made sure my wizard had leather armor and a rapier, to hopefully shift attacks away from him alive long enough to take an action, in case we lost initiative. (It's always entertaining to put the barbarian in robes behind everyone else, let the enemy charge him, and have him respond with a raging full-attack.)
In a high-level 3.5 game, when up against the possibility of facing intelligent enemies, I always made sure my wizard had leather armor and a rapier, to hopefully shift attacks away from him alive long enough to take an action, in case we lost initiative.
High level and you're depending on leather armor and a rapier, rather than a simple spell?
hat of disguise. Glamored armor. Alert self.
I will make an observation, based on my real life experience for whatever that is worth.
While not a master by any means, I have had some martial arts training. I would say above level 1 monk rough equivalent (maybe even above level 2 depending upon how you judge such things). I have been in a few non-dojo fights (but not all that many).
I can not usually tell just by initial glance at someone if they are looking to knock me out as soon as they get a chance (standard type actions), mostly just blocking while looking for a good opening (fighting defensively), or just trying to keep me from hurting them (total defense). After a few seconds yes, then I can tell. But not immediately.
Total defense is not cowering in the corner behind a shield. That would actually make you very easy to hurt. Defense means concentrating on blocking attacks, dodging attacks, etc... Part of that is making feints back at the other person, changing your stance to look like you are getting ready to throw a powerful hook, pulling up like you are going to launch a kick, etc... If you don't keep the other person on their defensive toes, your defense doesn't work very well. If they would know they don't have to guard against counter blows at all and can concentrate exclusively on offense, it becomes easier to hit you. So a good 'total defense' will not immediately look significantly different from fighting while trying not to get hit.Even then, when I have decided that someone is not seriously trying to hit me. There is no way they are so oblivious that I could just ignore them and walk past without them being able to change their mind and me getting walloped when I try it.
This is only possible due to the turn based approximation of this combat simulation's rules. Anyone taking advantage of an opponent's total defense to know they can waltz by someone without risk, is definitely metagaming.
While this is quite insightful, there's one reason I can see why it might not apply perfectly. Total Defense increases your AC versus all foes, while your fights sound like they're one-on-one. This means that true Total Defense must involve constantly looking around, on the alert for attacks, ready to block shots from all sides. This is much more obvious-looking than someone just staring you down.
Just to be sure: Are you saying that ignoring someone who's fighting defensive is ok but ignoring someone who is in total defence it metagaming?
Or is it just if you do one but not the other?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
High level and you're depending on leather armor and a rapier, rather than a simple spell? Hat of disguise. Glamored armor. Alert self.
Remember, this is a high-level game. Intelligent enemies often had stuff like true seeing and/or arcane sight active. A mundane "disguise" requiring no magic and no effort on my part was about the best I could come up with to fool that kind of stuff.
The best part about being a magician is that everyone thinks you have to use magic for everything.
That's what overrun is for. Can't kill it and have to get through? Just charge and see what happens.
Now, there are exceptions... if you're blocking a doorway with your body and using total defense? They have to fight you, no matter what.
I typically don't do that because, most of the time, they're facing enemies who can't realistically overrun them. Plus, I prefer to encourage my players to try that door blocking strategy... it comes up that, sometimes, they need to hold a horde at bay while backup arrives and total defensing in the only entrance tends to make that easier.
Note that the +6 Total Defense bonus applies to your CMD, though. Overrun is still gonna be tricky.
Also, boar spears can work wonders, if you want to try a more proactive technique. ;D
...While this is quite insightful, there's one reason I can see why it might not apply perfectly. Total Defense increases your AC versus all foes, while your fights sound like they're one-on-one. This means that true Total Defense must involve constantly looking around, on the alert for attacks, ready to block shots from all sides. This is much more obvious-looking than someone just staring you down.
No, it does not apply perfectly. Nothing does. But it is much closer than cowering behind a shield or staring you down. That happens in bad movies, cartoons, and middle school locker rooms.
.There are occasions when you can tell someone is not going to try and hit you. I don't see how multiple opponents is one of those situations. Whether you are attacking, defending, or somewhere in between. You have to have special, positional, movement awareness or you are going down.
.
It is a bit more likely that you could tell someone is going total offense. (Closest PF equivalent would be either power attack or rage depending upon your point of view.)
.
But both a balanced combat and concentrating only on defense look very similar with most people and most styles of combat that I have witnessed.
Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.
Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.
When I used to fight multiple people, aggressiveness worked a lot better than turtling. You'd feint, then charge, break out of the circle, actively chase them into each other. Fun times!
Then again, I've almost never seen anyone "fight defensively" vs. "keep their guard up while fighting offensively," so I'm not really sure that's a separate thing. Maybe when you have a sword and shield things are different than when you're just throwing fists around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules of physics (and fighting) in Pathfinder are not a simulation of our world.
For example, you are flanked if someone on each side is Threatening you. But you are not flanked if either of the opponents does not threaten. Someone can be threatening you even if you aren't aware of them - and even if the person opposite them isn't aware of the other flanker. It's just something that happens 'magically'.
Attacks of Opportunity have many of the same kinds of 'magic' rules. Things behave in certain ways because they just do.
Our characters live (and fight) in this world. They know how it works and react accordingly - just like I know how fast something will fall in earth gravity and can estimate if I have enough time to run under it before it hits me.
Pathfinder characters live in their world and react to its stimuli in a way that is consistent with the rules of that world.
tl;dr: PF characters live in the PF world, so it isn't metagaming for them to act like it.
High level and you're depending on leather armor and a rapier, rather than a simple spell? Hat of disguise. Glamored armor. Alert self.Remember, this is a high-level game. Intelligent enemies often had stuff like true seeing and/or arcane sight active. A mundane "disguise" requiring no magic and no effort on my part was about the best I could come up with to fool that kind of stuff.
The best part about being a magician is that everyone thinks you have to use magic for everything.
Well, to a extent. One things one of my low level sorcs did was wear a heavy chainlink wool sweater which was silver in color. At a distance, this looks just like chain-mail, and is even used as such in film.
But I wouldn't take the 10% spell failure for the leather armor.
Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.
Which is different than someone waiting to be attacked in combat looks- how?
But I wouldn't take the 10% spell failure for the leather armor.
In 3.5 there was some sort of elvencraft or thistleweave nonsense that would take care of that, IIRC. Barring that, you could choke on the arcane armor training feat or its equivalent, I suppose. Painting a sweater silver wasn't something I was going to try to put past someone with a high Spot skill, though.
If you're waiting to be attacked, that's called Delaying. Whole other story.
Readying: Focusing on one thing you're waiting for.
Delaying: Not very easy to represent in-game, honestly.
Total Defense: Focusing on everything that's a possible threat.
Fighting Defensively: Fighting wuss-style.
Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.Which is different than someone waiting to be attacked in combat looks- how?
Because he's obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way.
Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.
That actually sounds more like an active Perception check.
Because he's obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way.Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.Which is different than someone waiting to be attacked in combat looks- how?
Not even close. If you watch fencing masters or SCA heavy weapons or even boxing (and i am fairly decent with two of those), a really good tactic is to go defensive and wait for an opening. If you said "Ah, he's just going total defense" vs Ali with his 'rope-a-dope' tactic, he's gonna knock you out. So "obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way" may just be "waiting for a opening".
Because he's obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way.Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.Which is different than someone waiting to be attacked in combat looks- how?Not even close. If you watch fencing masters or SCA heavy weapons or even boxing (and i am fairly decent with two of those), a really good tactic is to go defensive and wait for an opening. If you said "Ah, he's just going total defense" vs Ali with his 'rope-a-dope' tactic, he's gonna knock you out. So "obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way" may just be "waiting for a opening".
Speaking as someone who actually has been in street fights? Acting like those people do is a really, really good way to get your butt kicked. Professional fights and real fights operate by entirely different sets of rules, and it's not unusual for black belt martial artists to get the hell beaten out of them by street fighters who never had a day of education in a real fighting style.
In a real fight, someone on total defense actually is rather obvious... but only after you've been attacking them for a bit. Because in a real fight, openings actually come surprisingly often, even among professionals who give no openings in professional fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, Pathfinder isn't real life or even a simulation of real life.
Experience fencing, street fighting, SCA bashing, or LARP foam sword swinging have no bearing on how things work in PF.
And a favorite for the person who made the best point!
Because he's obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way.Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.Which is different than someone waiting to be attacked in combat looks- how?Not even close. If you watch fencing masters or SCA heavy weapons or even boxing (and i am fairly decent with two of those), a really good tactic is to go defensive and wait for an opening. If you said "Ah, he's just going total defense" vs Ali with his 'rope-a-dope' tactic, he's gonna knock you out. So "obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way" may just be "waiting for a opening".
'An opening' would be 'provokes an AoO', which the defender cannot take. Therefore, neither of those examples you cite are total defense.
The problem comes from describing the action.
If you don't make the information known, you're kinda an unfair DM. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Fighting Defensively and Total Defense are all different actions. In game, they should appear differently and a character in the world would be able to tell the difference since he lives in that world.
Power Attack: "He attacks you recklessly."
Combat Expertise: "His fighting style and stance affords him slightly more defense."
Fighting Defensively: "He is fighting defensively."
Total Defense: "His stance is no longer threatening you and is focused on protecting himself."
To put this in a more ingame term, when you Total Defense, you no longer threaten. It is my belief a character knows when he isn't threatened.
As a DM I have done the opposite having monsters focus a payer using total defense as he was clearly on his last legs and the enemy would want to take him out, the guy next to him got the added benefit of not getting attacked that round and that extra ac saved the players life. Now if a player at full or near full hp used total def for more then a couple rounds the damage from other players would "aggro" the enemies and then he/she would get ignored because for me the monsters don't know what ac is but they can identify the biggest threat on the battle field and work to take it out
I was going to bring up something similar. If your opponent is hurt and almost out of the fight, and goes on TD, you may take the approach of "He will be harder to hit, but I can take him out."
If a monster gets past the party tank, and attacks the healer, and the healer goes on TD while the tank and others take the monster out, that's a good use of TD. (Assuming the healer has no other option for getting away) If the GM metagames, and has the monster run away from the healer because he is on TD, that's a win situation for the party, I'd say.
If my character has just been tripped by a monster, and I am concerned about taking the AOO, I might go on TD before standing up to negate the prone penalty.
Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.
You're assumed to be doing that anyway though - as in getting your dex bonus to ac/the lack of facing rules.
I think people also forget that you aren't just swinging your sword at the enemy whenever you make an attack roll. You are engaging them and the attack roll only represents a significant exchange.
|
Because he's obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way.Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.Which is different than someone waiting to be attacked in combat looks- how?Not even close. If you watch fencing masters or SCA heavy weapons or even boxing (and i am fairly decent with two of those), a really good tactic is to go defensive and wait for an opening. If you said "Ah, he's just going total defense" vs Ali with his 'rope-a-dope' tactic, he's gonna knock you out. So "obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way" may just be "waiting for a opening".
I don't see why you assume that the guy who is trying to rope-a-dope is best described as using total defense. In most of the boxing or kickboxing matches I've seen, I would describe that tactic as fighting defensively or using combat expertise--or maybe as the real life equivalent of staying ten feet away and readying an action to attack when the foe enters your threatened range. (In order to make sure you don't walk up to the foe and trade your single attack for his full attack). A fighter like Ali who is adept at the rope-a-dope technique might be using a feat like Crane Riposte or a class ability like the Duelist's Riposte which provides an offensive opportunity when the defender is able to parry or block a blow.
I would think that full defense looks more like the fighter who has been dazed by a punch or two and frantically scrambles away from his foe attempting to block or stay out of range of punches but not making any serious attempt at offense. In a one on one fight, the opponent usually follows up aggressively and tries to land the knockout blow, but if they had really been wanting to punch the referee all along, they could do that instead without exposing themselves to counterattack.
Substitute "back line"/"wizard"/"cleric" for referee in the example and I don't think there is any metagaming at all in walking past the guy on total defense and clobbering the back line. It may not always be the best tactic but if it's what the NPC wanted to do and the only reason he wasn't was that he worried about the AoO, the PC on total defense just gave him an opening to do it.
In short, I think the full defense action and its normal in-game mechanics are common, observable knowledge for PCs and NPCs alike and it is not metagaming to act on that. (I'd say the same for the attack action, combat expertise, fighting defensively, using Acrobatics to avoid an AoO). If a PC or NPC has some special ability that triggers on full defense (or fighting defensively or anything else), that will not necessarily be obvious but the game effect will become apparent once the character in question uses it. After that, the foes can make up their own minds about how to react to that information.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, when I GMed Pathfinder I never stated what my creatures did on the initiative turn unless I was resolving a die roll or some such. Never really thought of it as I couldn't see how the characters would see a difference between Total Defense, Readying an Action, Delaying any of that. I played the NPCs not know either.
I wonder what it would be like to have people write their actions down on a piece of paper and only reveal it if it gets triggered. That could be interesting.
'An opening' would be 'provokes an AoO', which the defender cannot take. Therefore, neither of those examples you cite are total defense.Because he's obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way.Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.Which is different than someone waiting to be attacked in combat looks- how?Not even close. If you watch fencing masters or SCA heavy weapons or even boxing (and i am fairly decent with two of those), a really good tactic is to go defensive and wait for an opening. If you said "Ah, he's just going total defense" vs Ali with his 'rope-a-dope' tactic, he's gonna knock you out. So "obviously and blatantly not attacking back in any way" may just be "waiting for a opening".
Umm, no. An opening in those kids of sitreps is just being able to get in a good clean hit. I have actually done both boxing and SCA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are getting a little too into the details of how to describe Total Defense without having to declare it.
A player has to announce that he is using the total defense option. The GM decides how the enemy reacts based on what the player has declared - he has ways to rationalize the enemy ignoring the total defender or attacking him. When the GM has an enemy use total defense, he should declare to the player the enemy is using total defense.
If the GM is really concerned that the player is going to try and run past the enemy, they should not use total defense and just fight defensively instead. And the opposite holds true for the player.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find a lot of value in trying to confuse what the enemies are doing, or "tricking" the player to make a mistake by bluffing them.
Combat in Pathfinder is abstract, so you can describe the tactic however you like.
I think people are getting a little too into the details of how to describe Total Defense without having to declare it.
A player has to announce that he is using the total defense option. The GM decides how the enemy reacts based on what the player has declared - he has ways to rationalize the enemy ignoring the total defender or attacking him. When the GM has an enemy use total defense, he should declare to the player the enemy is using total defense.
If the GM is really concerned that the player is going to try and run past the enemy, they should not use total defense and just fight defensively instead. And the opposite holds true for the player.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find a lot of value in trying to confuse what the enemies are doing, or "tricking" the player to make a mistake by bluffing them.
Combat in Pathfinder is abstract, so you can describe the tactic however you like.
I agree with everything you say. That said, I occasionally use in-game mechanics such as the Bluff skill or Illusions to try and trick the character, not the player.
Another example was the Xanesha fight in RotRL, I borrowed a strategy from Gluttony and had her create an illusion of a Vrock circling the top of the tower. The paladin declared Smite Evil on the Vrock in the first round and spent the rest of the fight taking turns kicking himself for it - ever since that fight he made sure that whatever he was fighting was a genuine threat before he declared Smite Evil.
|
Total defense isn't useless, it has a lot of reasonable applications.
I would consider enemies ignoring the total defender, and running past them maybe a tad metagamey, but I have seen worse. (Had one GM who would make *ALL* enemies automatically focus fire on the PC with the lowest AC. Even 5-foot stepping away from the warriors to try and shoot a spellcaster behind cover, because they somehow know that even with cover, the spellcaster has one less AC than the lowest AC warrior...)
I guess it's that fine line between playing the tactical "game", and trying to be realistic.
It is not hard to guess that the guy in robes has a lower AC than the guy in full plate armor, even if he is partially covered by something. +4 AC for cover is less than +8 AC for a full plate, or +10 Ac if the target has a shield.
For a bow wielding guy stepping 5' away from someone attacking him in melee is only logic. Using a bow provoke an AoO.If you are fighting a group of adventurers the guy in robes generally is a spellcaster and those are at least as dangerous as a melee fighter and generally more squishy, so taking down the spellcaster as soon as possible is a good tactic.
So what for someone is metagaming, for some other people is a simple application of logic.
|
|
I will make an observation, based on my real life experience for whatever that is worth.
While not a master by any means, I have had some martial arts training. I would say above level 1 monk rough equivalent (maybe even above level 2 depending upon how you judge such things). I have been in a few non-dojo fights (but not all that many).
I can not usually tell just by initial glance at someone if they are looking to knock me out as soon as they get a chance (standard type actions), mostly just blocking while looking for a good opening (fighting defensively), or just trying to keep me from hurting them (total defense). After a few seconds yes, then I can tell. But not immediately.
6 second round. I would say it count as "a few seconds". Our characters aren't acting in zip time and then waiting motionless for the rest of the turn, they are acting during the whole turn.
I think people are getting a little too into the details of how to describe Total Defense without having to declare it.
A player has to announce that he is using the total defense option. The GM decides how the enemy reacts based on what the player has declared - he has ways to rationalize the enemy ignoring the total defender or attacking him. When the GM has an enemy use total defense, he should declare to the player the enemy is using total defense.
If the GM is really concerned that the player is going to try and run past the enemy, they should not use total defense and just fight defensively instead. And the opposite holds true for the player.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find a lot of value in trying to confuse what the enemies are doing, or "tricking" the player to make a mistake by bluffing them.
Combat in Pathfinder is abstract, so you can describe the tactic however you like.
I agree with everything you say. That said, I occasionally use in-game mechanics such as the Bluff skill or Illusions to try and trick the character, not the player.
** spoiler omitted **...
Oh yes, we had something similar in our Rise of the Runelords campaign too. But that sounds like you are using the mechanics appropriately. Those spells and skills are actually meant to misdirect and trick the players.
I was talking about things like if I say, "Xanesha moves up to you and attacks with Power Attack" where another GM would think it was metagaming and say "Xanesha swings at you recklessly, trying to put more force into her swing". And then the player is supposed to interpret that as meaning the enemy is using Power Attack. I don't see the need to not tell them she is using Power Attack. I mean, it's not like you are saying "she is getting -2 to hit and +6 damage with her spear for the next round."
Total Defense: "His stance is no longer threatening you and is focused on protecting himself."
To put this in a more ingame term, when you Total Defense, you no longer threaten. It is my belief a character knows when he isn't threatened.
I like your descriptions, but this is inaccurate. With Total Defense you still threaten squares, you simply cannot take Attacks of Opportunity. This means you can still provide flanking.
I do not understand The entire discussion about the 'problems' of total defence. The tactic is pretty straigtforward: You try to avoid being hit at all cost and that includes your offensive capabilities. Fighting defensively does the same, but not at the cost of all offensive capabilities, the offensive capabilities will just be diminished.
You are discussing what you can do if you know what option chracters or monsters are using. So realise that in game terms this means: does my Character realise what combat option my adversary is using?? That is a GM 'problem' in my book. But as a GM I would let a player roll an intelligence check (as a free action) to determine if the character realises what combat option his/he adversary is using (like a spellcraft-check for identifying a spell being cast). It will teach low intelligence fighters not to ignore their mental faculties and reflect that higher intelligence characters are better at using and recognising tactics used against them. I would allow a level factor in the check in order to reflect the experience of higher levels.
Right of the top of my hat I'd say dc15+level intelligence-check, but that's not tested, I just made it up. So any suggestions are welcome.
All colorful descriptions of the actions going down sound like excellent roleplaying to me so I'd suggest to keep using em. And keep having fun ;)