|
Not according to James Jacobs, and it's his world.But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?
Pretty much, your party is the ONLY "party of adventurers" in the entire world of Golarion. Thus, no one has ever seen such a thing.PFS says otherwise.
The multitude of heroes in Pathfinder Tales novels alone suggest this is not the case. Not to mention the multiple missions that novice, veteran, and senior members of the pathfinder society regularly engage in based on each season of PFS. And are the heroes of Jade Regent the same ones who were in Carrion Crown and then faced the Wrath of Winter?
You don't get to take 10 on combat use of skills, but sure, you have pretty good odds with your 12 Cha martial (generally the favorite dump stat).
Combat Intimidate is weak compared to smashing. It's like being a growly turtle. If you want to debuff opponents in Pathfinder, be a caster and do it right. When a 4e Fighter marks an opponent, they still hit them for damage. And if the mark is ignored, they hit them again. That's a real disincentive to ignoring them. When you intimidte, you're still the worst target because your AC remains significantly higher than your squishy ally's, and because you don't punish them for ignoring you.
It's possible you play with different power level expectations that makes Dazzling Display seem strong. If that's the case, good for you. It's generally a waste of action when I play.
It's not about "fun" it's about verisimilitude.
Well there's the first major disconnect we have here.
I don't play games for "verisimilitude". I'd go to a Renaissance Faire or something if I wanted that.
Arcane Spellcasters can wreck things more thoroughly and efficiently than anybody else. PCs will attack enemy spellcasters in order to prevent those spellcasters from ruining their day, so there's no reason that intelligent NPCs shouldn't do the same.
To an extent, certainly, but not to the extent showcased in the OP of this thread, where his character (and presumably teh others) are feeling marginalized because the GM has decided every enemy ever is going to attack the Wizard first, and simply ignore the martials.
Plus, I mean from a "fun" perspective this gives the Wizard something to worry about beyond "how do I leverage my awesome cosmic power to most efficiently lay waste to all who stand before me." It's not though Wizards aren't powerful enough in this setting, so being forced to use fight strategically is not the worst thing in the world.
YMMV.
If your player is like me, they probably won't be trying to leverage "ultimate cosmic power" to begin with...unless that starts looking like the only alternative I have to survive in the face of an adversarial GM.
This is why Scry and Fry tactics become common in some people's games.
"Oh the monster is going to attack me first, then? Well, we'd better make sure he never gets a chance to act at all. That should be fun for everyone, right? About as fun as going out of your way to mess with the rest of the party, anyway."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Post a thread saying the Rogue is a worthwhile class?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Post a thread saying the Rogue is a worthwhile class?
Post a thread on paladin alignment. Hold any position.
Post a thread saying the Rogue is a worthwhile class?Post a thread on paladin alignment. Hold any position.
Fighters are OP.
Like a lot of other people have said, the best way to tank in a game such as Pathfinder is to give the gm a reason to hit you. By all means in a fight with lots of opponents kill the weak one first, try and do it in one round to put the fear of the gods in your enemy. Other than that you have to do your best to put yourself between the enemy and the squishy.
Another way that I've found to tank is to have what you might call a nuclear option. Your gm will know about said option and it might take a bit of work to get fully functional. The basics of this option is to have something that your gm doesn't want you to do. "If you ignore me I will huff and I will puff and I will blow your a** up!" That one works pretty well in my experience. A good example of this kind of character is a battle cleric, if you don't make him tank he will start casting buff spells, who's going to have fun in like 2 rounds? The cleric.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Don't all walk in the room. Behind you the squishies launch fiery/arrow death into the room. To stop it, enemies first need to get through you, because you block the doorway.
In general, try to ensure that there's no way people can get around you. If that means waiting for a few rounds while enemies and PCs shoot at each other with you standing in the middle, so be it.
2) Know the cover mechanics. Love the cover mechanics. Ensure enemies never get a clear line of fire on the squishies standing behind them, because you're always in the way.
3) Have a ranged attack that doesn't get in the way of your melee powers. Thrown weapons can be good for this. You can attack people without giving up your good position. This combined well with tanking without a shield.
4) Look vulnerable. Try on the Apprentice's Cheating Gloves for at-will Prestidigitation and get Glamered Armor/Hat of Disguise/Sleeves of Many Garments; don't look like a tank. Try looking like a weird combat style ranger; that's plausible (given the amount of weapons you're juggling) but they're not normally as invulnerable as you.
Conversely: dress the party wizard in fake armor from UE and give him a nerf sword to carry around. Make the squishies look tough and make it look like you're an arcane spellcaster, too.
5) Insult and taunt enemies with RP. Knowledge skills give you the information you need ("goblins hate dogs"). Know a few languages, or at least learn the swear words. It doesn't work on all GMs, but many find it entertaining and will reward it with enemies attacking you.
Having a necklace with severed heads of the race you're currently pursuing may also serve to establish your scary credentials. "Was that your cousin?"
|
you can also hold an action to intercept an enemy who tries to go around you and put yourself in their path. "I hold my action to charge into anyone who tries to pass me and get to my healer or (Wizard/Sorcerer/squishy)Only if you have the feat Rhino Charge as you ordinarily cannot ready a charge since it's a full round action. Otherwise it would be a delay and you'd go after they moved in and possibly attacked said ally.
You could also use Patient Strike.
The "problem" is that the GM is making decisions on who to attack. And herein lies some of the difference between GMs and good GMs. Good GMs will think about what the creatures themselves would do in the situation, e.g. unintelligent beasts biting into the exposed flesh of the unarmored but turning to defend if someone gets into their face, undead attacking the nearest target unless commanded to do otherwise. With a GM who is using this type of philosophy, you can utilize tactics like getting in creature's faces, delaying to be the "last one to hit it" or even stuff like glammered armor/disguise/illusion to make it seem like you're a squishy and that the caster is the tin can.
So according to JJ, To ID that a guy *IS* a spellcaster, instead of just a guy in a robe? ... how would you know? Until someone does something specific to the class, you can't then then a Knowledge check DC 11-15 to identify the class unless there was a Disguise skill involved.
As far are telling that it's spell component pouch apart from a belt pouch from say 40'- would absolutely require a check, as above.
So, no you can't tell a spellcaster until he casts a spell, nor a spell pouch from a distance without a good check.
To OP: If you're not playing in PFS, you could try my rules for antagonizing foes.
So according to JJ, To ID that a guy *IS* a spellcaster, instead of just a guy in a robe? ... how would you know? Until someone does something specific to the class, you can't then then a Knowledge check DC 11-15 to identify the class unless there was a Disguise skill involved.
As far are telling that it's spell component pouch apart from a belt pouch from say 40'- would absolutely require a check, as above.
So, no you can't tell a spellcaster until he casts a spell, nor a spell pouch from a distance without a good check.
It should only require a check in poor lighting or if the person is halfway blind; at forty feet away, I can identify quite a few details of objects... and I have bad eyesight.
But, that's real-world logic, not game logic.
Even within a game... A guy in a robe, minus an obvious weapon, with a pouch on his side, hanging back a bit? Obvious spellcaster. You don't need to see him cast a spell, as long as you're familiar with spellcasters, to reason that such a guy is a spellcaster.
Now, if he turns out to be a kensai and that heavily-armored guy you rushed past is the arcane spellcaster? Well, then life just sucks for you.
It should only require a check in poor lighting or if the person is halfway blind; at forty feet away, I can identify quite a few details of objects... and I have bad eyesight.
But, that's real-world logic, not game logic.
Even within a game... A guy in a robe, minus an obvious weapon, with a pouch on his side, hanging back a bit? Obvious spellcaster. You don't need to see him cast a spell, as long as you're familiar with spellcasters, to reason that such a guy is a spellcaster.
Now, if he turns out to be a kensai and that heavily-armored guy you rushed past is the arcane spellcaster? Well, then life just sucks for you.
...why is he in a robe? Why do wizards have to wear robes? Why doesn't he change to some sensible pants if he expects to go running around the wilderness and climbing down into caves? I would think a robe would get caught on a lot of things, and as such would be impractical.
As I said, if you are not dressed as Gandalf, why would people think you are a spell caster? Why aren't you just some random villager being escorted by some warriors in the eyes of orcs #345-351?
Are they running appraise checks to notice your +6 INT headband.... if so...sure, I could understand that. Very few people other than wizards could either afford or really have too much use for that. I mean, you would still probably start using disguise checks once you realize how blaringly obvious that was, but it would still be a very reasonable explanation.
It should only require a check in poor lighting or if the person is halfway blind; at forty feet away, I can identify quite a few details of objects... and I have bad eyesight.
But, that's real-world logic, not game logic.
Even within a game... A guy in a robe, minus an obvious weapon, with a pouch on his side, hanging back a bit? Obvious spellcaster. You don't need to see him cast a spell, as long as you're familiar with spellcasters, to reason that such a guy is a spellcaster.
Now, if he turns out to be a kensai and that heavily-armored guy you rushed past is the arcane spellcaster? Well, then life just sucks for you.
...why is he in a robe? Why do wizards have to wear robes? Why doesn't he change to some sensible pants if he expects to go running around the wilderness and climbing down into caves? I would think a robe would get caught on a lot of things, and as such would be impractical.
None of my spellcasters wear robes. Well, in 3.5 one has a Robe of the Archmage, yeah, but the rest wear std adventured garb.
None of my spellcasters wear robes. Well, in 3.5 one has a Robe of the Archmage, yeah, but the rest wear std adventured garb.
But from an intelligent (n.b. not every fight needs to be against smart foes) enemy perspective, the guy who is not wearing any visible armor and no weapon has a pretty good chance of being the Wizard. If he's got rippling muscles and moves exceptionally gracefully, and is running straight for you, he's probably the Monk. But either way "shoot your arrows at the guy with no armor" makes a lot of sense.
Front Line martial types shouldn't just run past the front line PCs to get at the sweet tasty back-line characters, but part of preventing that is incumbent on the PCs to make that tactically a bad decision (an AOO character with a reach weapon is going to make life a lot tougher for baddies who want to do that.)
If the PCs deploy tactics to protect their squishiest member, or make "attack the squishiest PC" tactically disadvantageous for the bad guys, then great! The PCs are fighting smart, and as a GM you always want to see that.
It should only require a check in poor lighting or if the person is halfway blind; at forty feet away, I can identify quite a few details of objects... and I have bad eyesight.
But, that's real-world logic, not game logic.
Even within a game... A guy in a robe, minus an obvious weapon, with a pouch on his side, hanging back a bit? Obvious spellcaster. You don't need to see him cast a spell, as long as you're familiar with spellcasters, to reason that such a guy is a spellcaster.
Now, if he turns out to be a kensai and that heavily-armored guy you rushed past is the arcane spellcaster? Well, then life just sucks for you.
...why is he in a robe? Why do wizards have to wear robes? Why doesn't he change to some sensible pants if he expects to go running around the wilderness and climbing down into caves? I would think a robe would get caught on a lot of things, and as such would be impractical.
As I said, if you are not dressed as Gandalf, why would people think you are a spell caster? Why aren't you just some random villager being escorted by some warriors in the eyes of orcs #345-351?
Are they running appraise checks to notice your +6 INT headband.... if so...sure, I could understand that. Very few people other than wizards could either afford or really have too much use for that. I mean, you would still probably start using disguise checks once you realize how blaringly obvious that was, but it would still be a very reasonable explanation.
Robe of the Archmagi. Checking for a headband of intellect is also a good idea.
But, in general, the guy not wearing any form of armor tends to be the easiest to assume to be the arcane caster. Of course, as I pointed out, some arcane casters wear armor... And spells can make it look like you're wearing armor (some people in my group use illusion spells for this).
As for why you're not some random villager: The rest of the group is too heavily armed, so either the unarmored guy is an arcane spellcaster or someone very important. Either way, killing them stands a good chance of lowering the party's capacity to fight either through eliminating arcane firepower or by eliminating morale.
Idea for getting attacked by enemies: Use Perform (dance) to enter a room with enemies in it Gangnam Style. Watch as the GM has your character attacked by everyone out of sheer annoyance.
Robe of the Archmagi. Checking for a headband of intellect is also a good idea.
But, in general, the guy not wearing any form of armor tends to be the easiest to assume to be the arcane caster. Of course, as I pointed out, some arcane casters wear armor... And spells can make it look like you're wearing armor (some people in my group use illusion spells for this).
As for why you're not some random villager: The rest of the group is too heavily armed, so either the unarmored guy is an arcane spellcaster or someone very important. Either way, killing them stands a good chance of lowering the party's capacity to fight either through eliminating arcane firepower or by eliminating morale.
Or they could think he is some noble that would be worth money if they took him ransom. Admittedly, it would still be a good idea to get him into a grapple in that case.
I still like the idea of rolling a few random skills (knowledge local/arcana, appraise, etc; complicated if a disguise check is used) and if they fail those then roll on a nice little 'stupid assumptions' chart would be cool. I bet that occasionally being mistaken for the son of an earl would be quite flattering.... and it could even serve as a quest hook if you get jumped by assassins or something.
|
|
Idea for getting attacked by enemies: Use Perform (dance) to enter a room with enemies in it Gangnam Style. Watch as the GM has your character attacked by everyone out of sheer annoyance.
If you really want to annoy them, do it like a mother father gentleman.
And I'm just sitting here trying to figure out how you're telling the difference between a Headband of Vast Intelligence and a Headband of Inspired Wisdom, or a Headband of Alluring Charisma.
Are they color coded for your convenience?
And I'm just sitting here trying to figure out how you're telling the difference between a Headband of Vast Intelligence and a Headband of Inspired Wisdom, or a Headband of Alluring Charisma.
Are they color coded for your convenience?
I presume that you could roll appraise or the old detect magic/spellcraft combo.
Of course, I will also admit that a lot of this argument goes right out the window as soon as your party starts building up a reputation.
Be it the minions of BBEG #63 who are given a rather thorough description of your appearances and abilities, or be it the drunks who just happened to remember about those guys that captured BBEG #62, you will not be able to keep yourselves quiet for long unless you try REALLY hard at it (disguised all the time, or disguised when you go and do heroic things so they aren't associated with you).
The point is- being able to fry people with a flick of your hands and some terrible latin gives you a reputation
|
|
Of course, I will also admit that a lot of this argument goes right out the window as soon as your party starts building up a reputation.
Be it the minions of BBEG #63 who are given a rather thorough description of your appearances and abilities, or be it the drunks who just happened to remember about those guys that captured BBEG #62, you will not be able to keep yourselves quiet for long unless you try REALLY hard at it (disguised all the time, or disguised when you go and do heroic things so they aren't associated with you)
Just wear glasses when you aren't adventuring. It does wonders.
Rule of thumb: anyone dumping the equivelant wealth of a small castle into a headband that boosts some kind of mental capacity is probably a caster and should be treated as such.And I'm just sitting here trying to figure out how you're telling the difference between a Headband of Vast Intelligence and a Headband of Inspired Wisdom, or a Headband of Alluring Charisma.
Are they color coded for your convenience?
I don't think I've ever played a martial character without a Wis headband, unless it's a class (like the Paladin) that would be better served by a Cha headband.
Every class loves a headband.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I'm willing to bet they'll pay attention to what the buyer was wearing. Armored guy buying a headband? Automatic assumption: Divine caster, watch for smites or divine magic.
Unarmored guy buying a headband? Arcane caster, watch for fireballs, kill first.
I'm of the belief that magic is and has been a thing in this world for so long that people should have at least a basic idea of what wizards are like. Legends, stories, books, experience, training of some kind!
Even the most common of commoners should havea basic idea of what the stereotypical wizard looks like. There is no way in all of history stories have not been made of old folk wiggling their fingers and turning battle fields to ash.
And if the stories say the old unarmored dude with a book a book can do that, who you gonna aim for? The guy with a sword? Or the guy that can incinerate half the city by himself?
....old guy with a book? Librarians and scribes are more common than wizards (although, going back to the dragon example: they are not quite as common in the Land of the Lizard Kings, where man eating croco-turtles lie in their trap doors waiting to snatch up small, tasty humanoids)
So the stereotype might as well be 'old lady with a hatchet'. Sure, the legendary Headtakers of the Shaolin School for Wayward Girls is feared and has a rather distinct dress code, but they are hardly recognizable from someone's grandmother chopping firewood for the stove.
Also, another question: what about sorcerers in all this? Even if wizards are law bound to dress like Gandalf, sorcerers are self taught and follow whatever conventions they want. How do you distinguish a sorcerer in sensible pants from a normal guy?
I am only going to concede on the idea that someone is wearing a ton of glowing, runed jewelry and not wearing armor is obviously a full arcane caster here.
Also, another question: what about sorcerers in all this? Even if wizards are law bound to dress like Gandalf, sorcerers are self taught and follow whatever conventions they want. How do you distinguish a sorcerer in sensible pants from a normal guy?
I'm going to outright say I don't think most people can tell the difference between and sorcerer and a wizard. So, I see no reason why most NPCs should be able to.
It's a funny man with glowing jewelry who ignites the air with strange words and weird gestures. Most people won't see a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few ways to "pull aggro", the old 3.5 Knight was great for it but by and large D&D/Pathfinder Tanking is more a matter of getting in the way of beasties, controlling the area and punishing anything that ignores you. Mobility, Reach, Combat Maneuvers. Some teamwork feats can work really well if you can get the rest of the group to commit to them. Things like Escape Route let the Squishies get away without harm and Outflank makes enemies really self-concious about possitioning.
It makes sense to a trained soldier or someone else with real tactical expertise. I wouldn't expect rational behavior from a pack of goblins but the BBEG's most trusted cohorts would certainly have the knowledge and experience to know which actions are going to be the most beneficial in a fight.
"Tanking doesn't exist in worlds with sentient beings".
Surely you have heard of the Roman legionary? Putting up a shield wall and daring the enemies of Rome to have a go at it. Tanking is old in combat. The Assyrian bow and shield teams did it, which is why they were so effective at sieges. Steadily take the ranged hits with the shield, return fire, soak and slowly choke the enemy as they waste their shots and get picked off. The shield-bearer was all "tank".
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/AssyrianSiege.jpg
Back to the game, there are a lot of ways to do it. It is really easy to do in tight corridors. Clerics and pallies do it the best with great ac and hp (barbs are a different, more offensive type of tank in my mind). Exposing themselves and their hp pool (which they can replenish) so that others are injured less.
And now you're just discussing tactics used by a team like I mentioned. The Testudo formation was a brilliant tactic. Unfortunately it was very slow moving, restricted combat, and was susceptible to skirmishers throwing pilum which weighed down the shields and made them ineffective.
Tanking does not exist in worlds with sentient beings. It's a mechanism of video games where the system doesn't allow free thought. A tank rolling onto a battle field doesn't demand everyone's attention. It's just another threat as capable of killing you as a soldier with a rifle.
Real life tanks also had nothing to do with the term as it's come to be known. Tanks were secretly manufactured during WWI and to avoid being leaked the manufacturers listed plans as water tanks which eventually became shortened or became slang as a tank.
Don't forget the Scythians putting poisoned arrows into the back of their legs!
We need to be clear on definitions. By tanking I mean tactics and armaments utilised via specific troops types and used to draw in and soak damage, lock opponents into wasting their attacks and power against a strong defence that can quite simply, "tank" (take it, soak it, deal with it, respond to all this power coming in). This has occurred in our real world with sentient beings in "play".
If you know tanks then you know how they have been used, yes, sometimes they were there to soak attention and small arms fire that would be less effective upon them, so as to protect other troops. Soldiers in WW1 and WW2 would also move with tanks using it as a resilient means of cover to protect themselves. Of course tanks have come a long way since then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I'm willing to bet they'll pay attention to what the buyer was wearing. Armored guy buying a headband? Automatic assumption: Divine caster, watch for smites or divine magic.
Unarmored guy buying a headband? Arcane caster, watch for fireballs, kill first.
Clearly, the whole party should buy headbands and disguise themselves as wizards.
There are a few ways to "pull aggro", the old 3.5 Knight was great for it but by and large D&D/Pathfinder Tanking is more a matter of getting in the way of beasties, controlling the area and punishing anything that ignores you. Mobility, Reach, Combat Maneuvers. Some teamwork feats can work really well if you can get the rest of the group to commit to them. Things like Escape Route let the Squishies get away without harm and Outflank makes enemies really self-concious about possitioning.
Yes, by Lamashtu the 3.5 knight was good at it. Mmmmmm, terrain altering abilities and challenges.
None of my spellcasters wear robes. Well, in 3.5 one has a Robe of the Archmage, yeah, but the rest wear std adventured garb.But from an intelligent (n.b. not every fight needs to be against smart foes) enemy perspective, the guy who is not wearing any visible armor and no weapon has a pretty good chance of being the Wizard.
But there's no reason to make the assumption there *IS* a wizard, since adventuring parties are very rare, if not unique.
Also, another question: what about sorcerers in all this? Even if wizards are law bound to dress like Gandalf, sorcerers are self taught and follow whatever conventions they want. How do you distinguish a sorcerer in sensible pants from a normal guy?
Per JJ, it's a Ks Arcane check, DC 11-15 to tell them apart. Pretty easy- IF you have a rank in that skill.
But there's no reason to make the assumption there *IS* a wizard, since adventuring parties are very rare, if not unique.None of my spellcasters wear robes. Well, in 3.5 one has a Robe of the Archmage, yeah, but the rest wear std adventured garb.But from an intelligent (n.b. not every fight needs to be against smart foes) enemy perspective, the guy who is not wearing any visible armor and no weapon has a pretty good chance of being the Wizard.
Which also makes it that when one shows up, they're obviously going to stand out, thus negating any reason for people to assume there is no wizard.
Yes, it does make sense. Not killing the guy who paralyzed 4 people is 4 dead vs. the guy with the sword who may kill one person. Even if you're the guy drawing fire from the swordsman it will make sense unless your self preservation is so strong you'd allow everyone to die instead.Do it make sense to go and attack the guy who can paralize 4 of you and ignore the one than can move a sword and kill anyone of you?
If the next guy to be killed by the sword user if you, then it does not make sense.
And That is totally how self preservation works.
The sitaution could make sense from the tactical point of view of group A vs Group B dynamics, but certainly not for the mook who will die by the sword.
Depends on the person and their background. Communal species, such as humans, regularly produce members whose self-preservation extends to the group, not to just themselves, and allows them to sacrifice themselves to preserve the group.
Depends on the person and their background. Communal species, such as humans, regularly produce members whose self-preservation extends to the group, not to just themselves, and allows them to sacrifice themselves to preserve the group.Yes, it does make sense. Not killing the guy who paralyzed 4 people is 4 dead vs. the guy with the sword who may kill one person. Even if you're the guy drawing fire from the swordsman it will make sense unless your self preservation is so strong you'd allow everyone to die instead.Do it make sense to go and atta
ck the guy who can paralize 4 of you and ignore the one than can move a sword and kill anyone of you?If the next guy to be killed by the sword user if you, then it does not make sense.
And That is totally how self preservation works.
The sitaution could make sense from the tactical point of view of group A vs Group B dynamics, but certainly not for the mook who will die by the sword.
True, but highly unlikely in a group of bandits for example. Or goblins, gnolls, orcs, etc.
It can happen, but if it silly that it happen everytime.
It would be silly. Though, it might happen with goblins; they hate magic and think writing is stealing words, so them suicidally attacking a wizard is actually in-character.
Gnolls, it makes much less sense. Orcs are militarized enough it might make sense for them if led by a strong leader. Hobgoblins? It definitely makes sense; they're a pure military culture.
Depends on the person and their background. Communal species, such as humans, regularly produce members whose self-preservation extends to the group, not to just themselves, and allows them to sacrifice themselves to preserve the group.And That is totally how self preservation works.
The sitaution could make sense from the tactical point of view of group A vs Group B dynamics, but certainly not for the mook who will die by the sword.
It must be nice to be a human..... I know that I am way to chicken livered to think like that.
Gnolls, it makes much less sense. Orcs are militarized enough it might make sense for them if led by a strong leader. Hobgoblins? It definitely makes sense; they're a pure military culture.
Like I said- switch up your tactics. Think of who you are using, and the circumstances you are using them in. A nice, wide variety is important.
I could actually see story seeds in your examples. Maybe the orcs are being lead by a half orc shaman (it has enough fluff support, and they would more reasonably have that Knowledge:Arcane rank that would be needed according to JJ). It could work great as a reoccurring villain, or maybe a mook type. After encountering them a few times, YOU could target the spell caster by listening for which one is giving orders. And if you pass your knowledge arcana checks before he can start barking... well, maybe the orcs' tactics should change?
Also- I think goblins would also suicidally attack a librarian too. You know, on principle. So +1 to 'attack the guy with a book first' camp.
Like I said- switch up your tactics. Think of who you are using, and the circumstances you are using them in. A nice, wide variety is important.
I could actually see story seeds in your examples. Maybe the orcs are being lead by a half orc shaman (it has enough fluff support, and they would more reasonably have that Knowledge:Arcane rank that would be needed according to JJ). It could work great as a reoccurring villain, or maybe a mook type. After encountering them a few times, YOU could target the spell caster by listening for which one is giving orders. And if you pass your knowledge arcana checks before he can start barking... well, maybe the orcs' tactics should change?
Also- I think goblins would also suicidally attack a librarian too. You know, on principle. So +1 to 'attack the guy with a book first' camp.
Definitely. Taking the abilities of the monster into consideration are a definite must.
And, I could see a goblins burning down a library and considering it a victory worth celebrating for weeks :P
The kensai is holding a weapon ;)Only if the enemies are intelligent and have no reason to believe the wizard is a wizard. If they're not, then it's metagaming for them not to attack the wizard first.How would even another wizard distinguish between a wizard and a kensai prior to the latter using spell combat?
There are no physical or magical differences prior to that point.
I'm not sure I've ever played any adventurer of any class whatsoever who did not have a weapon.
|
|
Rule of thumb: anyone dumping the equivelant wealth of a small castle into a headband that boosts some kind of mental capacity is probably a caster and should be treated as such.And I'm just sitting here trying to figure out how you're telling the difference between a Headband of Vast Intelligence and a Headband of Inspired Wisdom, or a Headband of Alluring Charisma.
Are they color coded for your convenience?
All of my characters invest in headbands, caster or not.
Better, saves, more skills, better at non-combat tasks, etc. Any adventurer not investing in mental stats is crippling their capabilities.