|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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 don't think you threaten if you are using the total defense option.
Threatening is defined as:Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
When using total defense you can't make melee attacks.
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.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 don't think you threaten if you are using the total defense option.
Threatening is defined as:Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.When using total defense you can't make melee attacks.
By this logic, you stop threatening the squares around you once you have made an AOO since you no longer have any AOOs left.
The rule as I read it states that you threaten all squares into you can make an attack. You even threaten them when it is not your turn.
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."
This is precisely what I do in my games. Not to trick the players (I try to describe the action in such a way that they know what mechanic I am referring to) but to keep a more narrative feel to the game. Using just the name of the mechanic, even using the name of the mechanic with describing the action, broke the sense of immersion for us.
@Democratus & Diego
This is an interesting discussion, but the general discussion forum might not be the best place to have it. I made a thread on the topic on the Rules Questions forums, which can be found here.
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 should have explained better: enemies already engaged in melee would 5' step away from their opponent and switch to missile weapon because the GM knew they would have a better chance to hit the guy behind cover.
To me, that is metagaming because he is basing his actions on his calculated odds. If the GM plays the enemies like real people (monsters, whatever), they probably wouldn't ignore the guy trying to kill them with a sword, because they have a 5% better chance of damaging someone else who is further away and hasn't done anything yet. Also, while enemies might gang up on a character or go after weaker seeming targets, ten enemies going after one character and ignoring the other three party members seems unrealistic to me.
|
|
I should have explained better: enemies already engaged in melee would 5' step away from their opponent and switch to missile weapon because the GM knew they would have a better chance to hit the guy behind cover.
To me, that is metagaming because he is basing his actions on his calculated odds. If the GM plays the enemies like real people (monsters, whatever), they probably wouldn't ignore the guy trying to kill them with a sword, because they have a 5% better chance of damaging someone else who is further away and hasn't done anything yet. Also, while enemies might gang up on a character or go after weaker seeming targets, ten enemies going after one character and ignoring the other three party members seems unrealistic to me.
In Real Life (hopefully) the guy 10' away will not whip out a SMG and fire at will, as he would incur the risk of hitting his friend. In the game the guy behind the cover probably is preparing some nasty spell or will start firing enough arrow to put the shame into a MG.
In RL 1 arrow or sword cut will put the target out of combat most of the time. In the game 1 arrow will not even slow the target down unless he is a fist level guy.
In RL focused fire will have you wasting attacks as you need only 1 hit to disable or impair him, in the game you need a lot of hits.
You and your fellows go 1 vs 1 against the enemies or you gang up to kill one of them as fast as possible?
Why the NPC shouldn't do that?
I should have explained better: enemies already engaged in melee would 5' step away from their opponent and switch to missile weapon because the GM knew they would have a better chance to hit the guy behind cover.
To me, that is metagaming because he is basing his actions on his calculated odds. If the GM plays the enemies like real people (monsters, whatever), they probably wouldn't ignore the guy trying to kill them with a sword, because they have a 5% better chance of damaging someone else who is further away and hasn't done anything yet. Also, while enemies might gang up on a character or go after weaker seeming targets, ten enemies going after one character and ignoring the...
Characters in Pathfinder aren't suddenly ripped from the real world and put in Pathfinder to conduct their combats. They live in the PF world full time and thus have learned to fight in the PF world.
This world behaves differently from our own. What is common sense in our world is complete nonsense in Pathfinder.
Characters in combat do the things that work in PF because that is where they are. It isn't metagaming. It's behaving properly for the universe they inhabit.
A few have chimed in with their real world martial arts experiences. It may be helpful to recall that a one-on-one combat such as those examples describe would probably fit better with the Pathfinder dueling rules. I doubt someone in a Pathfinder duel would walk past their full defending opponent to do something else. That is to say, the obviously different tactics only barely apply, not that "real world" experiences are all that useful for discussing game combat mechanics anyway.
The world of Pathfinder is not our world. A mid-level fighter can jump from a 6-story window knowing full well that he won't die from the fall.
A 6th level character is also on the edge of being superhuman. I guess what I mean is Batman and Green Arrow also jump out of windows, knowing it will hurt but not kill them. The fact that leaping out of a window never results in a broken leg is either a law of the universe, or an oversight of the rules, depending on who you ask.
Archers know that firing when next to an enemy somehow magically gives them an extra attack, even though they would otherwise only have 1 per round.
No, archers know that taking the time to aim while next to an armed enemy means they aren't dodging and are easier to hit. Attacks of opportunity model taking advantage of a distracted foe.
Moving 5 feet away from an enemy prevents him from attacking you, but moving 10 feet suddenly enables him to do so.
Perhaps one of these doesn't involve turning your back?
There are lots of strange ways that the PF world works that don't really match our own. PF charcters know this and behave accordingly.
The rules are not a perfect simulator. As I said, it is a matter of opinion if this means they are physics (OotS), or just a flawed abstraction.
It's not metagaming.
Metagaming would be my character acting on knowledge he couldn't possibly have (reading the module ahead, knowing the bestiary entry for a creature, etc.).
My characters have intimate knowledge of how combat is conducted and how to behave in a manner that reflects this.
Some people call it metagaming when the characters know the rules of the game. It is not an inaccurate use of the word. But players are supposed to know the rules of the game. It's perfectly fair that the players know that they are playing a tactical wargame, even if the characters don't. In combat, a character is as much a chess-piece as a personality. And its okay for the player to acknowledge that.
The world of Pathfinder is not our world. A mid-level fighter can jump from a 6-story window knowing full well that he won't die from the fall.A 6th level character is also on the edge of being superhuman. I guess what I mean is Batman and Green Arrow also jump out of windows, knowing it will hurt but not kill them. The fact that leaping out of a window never results in a broken leg is either a law of the universe, or an oversight of the rules, depending on who you ask.
Having been in the rules for decades, I'd lean toward law of the universe. It's had plenty of time to be corrected if it was a bad rule.
Moving 5 feet away from an enemy prevents him from attacking you, but moving 10 feet suddenly enables him to do so.Perhaps one of these doesn't involve turning your back?
This happens even to creatures that have no back (Otyugh). And it even happens to creatures that can never be Flanked because they see in all directions at once (Eye of the Deep).
It's just a property of the Pathfinder world that if you move away from an enemy further than 5', you can be attacked.
There are lots of strange ways that the PF world works that don't really match our own. PF charcters know this and behave accordingly.The rules are not a perfect simulator. As I said, it is a matter of opinion if this means they are physics (OotS), or just a flawed abstraction.
Physics IS flawed abstraction. They are just rules we use to describe the behavior of our universe. But we still interact with the world around us according to the way it responds to us.
Just because I know Newton's laws of motion doesn't mean I'm metagaming when I adjust my rifle's sight up for range. It means I'm doing what is needed for the universe I inhabit.
When I skydive at 12,000 feet it isn't metagaming that I use a chute(and a reserve). Its my knowledge of what will happen when I hit the ground if my speed isn't greatly reduced.
Players do know the rules of the game. And when they move their miniatures on the tactical map they can view it as either playing a wargame or as roleplaying characters who know how their world works and behave accordingly.
It's had plenty of time to be corrected if it was a bad rule.
It's not a bad rule. It's that broken bones and other debilitating injuries add a lot of complication to the game system, in terms of modelling them, in terms of healing them, and in terms of it still being a fun game when you have to deal with them at all. There are things the game doesn't model, or models poorly, because the majority of the time they don't matter.
It's had plenty of time to be corrected if it was a bad rule.It's not a bad rule. It's that broken bones and other debilitating injuries add a lot of complication to the game system, in terms of modelling them, in terms of healing them, and in terms of it still being a fun game when you have to deal with them at all. There are things the game doesn't model, or models poorly, because the majority of the time they don't matter.
Reminds me of that old movie "Last Action Hero", where Arnie is all shot up and dying. But when he crosses back over into MovieWorld it's suddenly just a flesh wound.
Because broken bones and fatal wounds have no place in a cinematic world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly.
And my point was Pathfinder might be MovieWorld, but it's up the the director, writer, and actor how much the characters act like they know they are in MovieWorld.
You are not playing the game wrong by having your fighter leap out a 60-foot high window knowing that they're just hit points. But neither are others playing wrong by having a similar fighter stop before the window, watching the bad guy escape, because leaping out after them will be painful at a minimum and debilitating at worst.
Heck, I'm pretty sure I've seen both of those happen in the same movie.
It's all a matter of taste.
Democratus, I agree that those tactics you described are legal - you can find ways to justify anything. If the enemies are smart, and they see a target that looks easier to hit, ok. If they are a crack squad, and were trained to kill spell casters at all costs, ok.
I understand that PF combat is tactical, which is why I don't think it's a problem to ignore someone on Total Defense.
However, in most games the GM does not let the players look at the stat blocks of the enemies. Players don't get to look at enemies' AC, and calculate their to hit chance. I think that the GM should "play fair", and not use the character's AC as the justification for the attack.
The same GM that I was talking about: next fight, the wizard cranks his AC, and casts Displacement. So the next combat, all the enemies focus on the rogue, instead. Again, I suppose you could justify it as the magic might have visible effects, but that was not discussed. As far as I know, bugbears don't usually have knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft, either. So how do they know they have a better chance of hitting the guy in leather as opposed to the guy in robes?
*EDIT* by crank his AC, I meant that the wizard cast Mage Armor and Shield, and then cast Displacement.
Democratus, I agree that those tactics you described are legal - you can find ways to justify anything. If the enemies are smart, and they see a target that looks easier to hit, ok. If they are a crack squad, and were trained to kill spell casters at all costs, ok.
I understand that PF combat is tactical, which is why I don't think it's a problem to ignore someone on Total Defense.
However, in most games the GM does not let the players look at the stat blocks of the enemies. Players don't get to look at enemies' AC, and calculate their to hit chance. I think that the GM should "play fair", and not use the character's AC as the justification for the attack.
The same GM that I was talking about: next fight, the wizard cranks his AC, and casts Displacement. So the next combat, all the enemies focus on the rogue, instead. Again, I suppose you could justify it as the magic might have visible effects, but that was not discussed. As far as I know, bugbears don't usually have knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft, either. So how do they know they have a better chance of hitting the guy in leather as opposed to the guy in robes?
*EDIT* by crank his AC, I meant that the wizard cast Mage Armor and Shield, and then cast Displacement.
I'm with you on this. It makes sense for enemies to attack someone who appears to have the lowest AC. So if you have a guy in robes I would have archers start to pepper him were I the DM.
If you had spells up that increased the wizard's AC - I would have the archers still try to hit him because he still looks like a guy in robes.
Agreed that it is metagaming if the DM is using values from your character sheet that are impossible for the enemy to know (such as improved AC from invisible spells).
If this happens, thwack your DM on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and say, "Bad DM!" This should get things back on track in due time.
Democratus, I agree that those tactics you described are legal - you can find ways to justify anything. If the enemies are smart, and they see a target that looks easier to hit, ok. If they are a crack squad, and were trained to kill spell casters at all costs, ok.
I understand that PF combat is tactical, which is why I don't think it's a problem to ignore someone on Total Defense.
However, in most games the GM does not let the players look at the stat blocks of the enemies. Players don't get to look at enemies' AC, and calculate their to hit chance. I think that the GM should "play fair", and not use the character's AC as the justification for the attack.
The same GM that I was talking about: next fight, the wizard cranks his AC, and casts Displacement. So the next combat, all the enemies focus on the rogue, instead. Again, I suppose you could justify it as the magic might have visible effects, but that was not discussed. As far as I know, bugbears don't usually have knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft, either. So how do they know they have a better chance of hitting the guy in leather as opposed to the guy in robes?
*EDIT* by crank his AC, I meant that the wizard cast Mage Armor and Shield, and then cast Displacement.
I'm with you on this. It makes sense for enemies to attack someone who appears to have the lowest AC. So if you have a guy in robes I would have archers start to pepper him were I the DM.
If you had spells up that increased the wizard's AC - I would have the archers still try to hit him because he still looks like a guy in robes.
Agreed that it is metagaming if the DM is using values from your character sheet that are impossible for the enemy to know (such as improved AC from invisible spells).
If this happens, thwack your DM on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and say, "Bad DM!" This should get things back on track in due time.
Things can change up a bit with the inclusion of Knowledge skills, Spellcraft, and/or a leader who can call out orders. Like, if the leader of the archers has Detect Magic and Spellcraft ranks he can call out intelligent shots on who's got abjurations & evocations up and who doesn't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a simple solution and it allows the use of an actual skill. Just use a bluff. Have your big front liner "pretend" to use total defense. When everyone runs past him, free AoO's. Bam, combat over. Maybe after this happens the GM will be willing to listen to reason and be more considerate.
There was a comment about five step drops vs. a 10 foot move allowing an AoO and that somehow violating the laws of physics. The second after I read those different rules I visualized a five foot step as a quick jump in one direction, nothing more. That jump can be done while still keeping your weapon up and your eye on the enemies, so no AoO. Taking a move action would mean you actually had to turn and go (or try to weasel past someone), easily explaining why you are now more vulnerable.
By the way, there should be a feat that doubles your 5 foot step, that would be sweet (unless there is and I haven't seen it, I am new).
I have a simple solution and it allows the use of an actual skill. Just use a bluff. Have your big front liner "pretend" to use total defense. When everyone runs past him, free AoO's. Bam, combat over. Maybe after this happens the GM will be willing to listen to reason and be more considerate.
While I like the concept, the problems with it being used in combat are that:
1. Bluff is a Cha based skill, most front line guy players will dump that in favor of any other stat (Paladins being the exception).
2. Most frontline guy players don't dump wisdom because failing a will save is really nasty, normally having a small bonus (+1 or maybe +2).
3. Most frontline guys don't have many skill points to spend, so bluff might be stretching it thin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use a Knowledge (Warfare) skill to identify fighting techniques, stances, and so on; people can try to Bluff (an opposed check), or else not bother (a flat DC). Fighters get 1 rank per class level in Knowledge (Warfare) for free.
|
If he could tell I was in total defense, I didn't care.
And there is the rub. If he could tell you were in total defense, and knew what that meant, he would have been able to walk right past you and attack your friends.
It goes against all common sense for us in the real world, because we don't have turn orders in the real world.
I use a Knowledge (Warfare) skill to identify fighting techniques, stances, and so on; people can try to Bluff (an opposed check), or else not bother (a flat DC). Fighters get 1 rank per class level in Knowledge (Warfare) for free.
I suggested the something similar earlyer on in the thread by allowing players to make a level adjusted intelligence check to see if they are able to identify the tactic used against them.
I suggested a DC of 15 and a roll of d20 +intelligence bonus (positive or negative if appropriate)+level to be able to identify a tactic. Any idea if that DC is reasonable???I later thought of a bluff check that could disguise the tactic but had not mentioned that yet. So a opposed check would be viable and how would you interpret that opposed check as the bluffer clearly has an advantage over the identifyer?
The main reason I used an intelligence check is because this is all very tactical and I believe most low level should barely understand the tactics their opponent is using while older and more seasoned veterans are able to go into the mind of the opponent. And it would also punish people from taking inteligence as a dump stat. Off course experience will teach important lessons to dummies hence the level in the formula.
I did not create a new skill because I believed that might complicate things too much and why should a non fighter not realise the tactics being used if he sees as much combat as his frontline buddies. Or why should a fighter Bow user get the same bonus as his frontline buddy if you seem to think that being a front liner should be different in understanding tactics then a second liner??? Again I really like the idea and I am not trying to put it or you down.
|
|
I have a simple solution and it allows the use of an actual skill. Just use a bluff. Have your big front liner "pretend" to use total defense. When everyone runs past him, free AoO's. Bam, combat over. Maybe after this happens the GM will be willing to listen to reason and be more considerate.While I like the concept, the problems with it being used in combat are that:
1. Bluff is a Cha based skill, most front line guy players will dump that in favor of any other stat (Paladins being the exception).
2. Most frontline guy players don't dump wisdom because failing a will save is really nasty, normally having a small bonus (+1 or maybe +2).
3. Most frontline guys don't have many skill points to spend, so bluff might be stretching it thin
All three points are completely true. However, maybe all it would take to break the gm is one session use a melee controller bard with whips and nets getting tons of AoO's and shutting the enemy down. The goal not being to 'break' the gm but to open up conversation about how they are meta-gaming combat.
I think a professional combatant would be able to tell if someone assumes a stance of maximal defense and no offense and thusly pick out a new target.
So no, I don't consider it metagamey for my professional combatant to fight like a pro.
Can an MMA fighter make assumptions based on stance? Then my superhuman fighter and slayer of a thousand foes can too.
A raging barbarian I wouldnt believe though because how would they have the available mental faculties to tell the difference.
Still don't see how my master of combat wouldnt realize a target has lost its ability to fight and is focusing purely on defence.
Logically it would make sense to ignore that target and find someone with openings.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use a Knowledge (Warfare) skill to identify fighting techniques, stances, and so on; people can try to Bluff (an opposed check), or else not bother (a flat DC). Fighters get 1 rank per class level in Knowledge (Warfare) for free.I suggested the something similar earlyer on in the thread by allowing players to make a level adjusted intelligence check to see if they are able to identify the tactic used against them.
I suggested a DC of 15 and a roll of d20 +intelligence bonus (positive or negative if appropriate)+level to be able to identify a tactic. Any idea if that DC is reasonable???
I later thought of a bluff check that could disguise the tactic but had not mentioned that yet. So a opposed check would be viable and how would you interpret that opposed check as the bluffer clearly has an advantage over the identifyer?
The main reason I used an intelligence check is because this is all very tactical and I believe most low level should barely understand the tactics their opponent is using while older and more seasoned veterans are able to go into the mind of the opponent. And it would also punish people from taking inteligence as a dump stat. Off course experience will teach important lessons to dummies hence the level in the formula.
I did not create a new skill because I believed that might complicate things too much and why should a non fighter not realise the tactics being used if he sees as much combat as his frontline buddies. Or why should a fighter Bow user get the same bonus as his frontline buddy if you seem to think that being a front liner should be different in understanding tactics then a second liner??? Again I really like the idea and I am not trying to put it or you down.
A BAB based check is better that a level based one.
this should be a field where martials excel.|
|
How? Was there other terrain involved turning that corner into a pocket? Or were you Large Sized? Because most corners have 3 avenues of escape, two standard lines and a diagonal.
There was other terrain turning the corner into a pocket. This isn't a great example, but think of it like blocking the path down a 5ft corridor with a tank character up the front and all your buddies behind you fighting more easier-to-deal-with bad guys at the back.
And there is the rub. If he could tell you were in total defense, and knew what that meant, he would have been able to walk right past you and attack your friends.
I think he could've known/guessed since I wasn't attacking, but I don't think his intelligence was especially high and I had him made enough to keep trying to hit me, which was all I needed. He got close to hitting, but with total defense, my AC was just high enough.
I'm not 100% on the rules on whether you can move through enemy squares while they don't threaten adjacent squares; I'd think you still need to tumble but they don't get rewarded with AoO's if you fail to meet the DC.
