But makes a 0 lick of sense... especially in an actual combat situation... I mean, really? you hit BETTER with your eyes closed?Honestly this whole "well close your eyes! You will hit better!" thing is really dumb...Dunno, it worked well for Luke Skywalker. And Zatoichi. It's very cinematic to train for the possibility that someone will try to confuse you visually, so you block out the confusion and strike from the heart or some such fortune cookie.
It's dumb for the melees to be able counteract the magic users through feats?
No wonder you're one of the great advocates for the "Martials suck" camp. You have no issue with a caster using spell slots to bend reality, but the moment someone shuts their eyes to counter the illusions, you get bent out of shape.
I didn't expect that from you Kat.
I've actually done training in martial arts for dark conditions. It's all about the style of defenses and the aggressiveness of the attacks. The hardest bit is keeping your opponent within strike range and in correct orientation. Also, it hurts a lot because your basically flailing at each other without the usual controlled attacks. Not something we did a lot of, and we were fully padded up. Still sucked, but can be done.
Except you see, you trained to fight against OTHER FIGHTERS. How well would that training work vs some who is actively avoiding you and stepping away from you and can hurt you without touching you?
How well would closing yoru eyes work vs a guy with a gun (the best modern day example... seeing as I have yet to see a person be able to legitimately throw fireballs)? Your learning positioning and such helps when you know they are coming towards you (since another "martial" needs to swing toward you to attack), but when a person can step back and leave you clueless you look like a moron suddenly (while they still have their gun to shoot you with)
And I am in the "Martials Suck" camp because, in the grand scheme of things, they do. The only reason why Casters can't just do everything themselves at higher levels is effectively "The GM says so" (i.e. a stupid amount of contrivied sceenrios to try and STOP the caster). Like if a sufficiently high enough level caster wanted, he could create his own demi-plane, open a gate to the Elemental Plane of Earth, Planar Bind some Earth Elementals, and just sit around crafting Adamantine Golems all day to create a veritable army of Adamantine Golems, making his fortress/Tower/town impenetrable.... A fighter has NOTHING like that... at all. Heck! If a caster wanted to (and was sufficently focused in Conjuration) he could create a Simulacrum of Cthulhu at level 15 with no problem and have a personal Cthulhu running around.
And if you want to SUPER cheesy, Sno-Cone Wish Factory could make an INFINITE number of these cthulhus... but I would stop that out pretty quick too xD.
Mirror image actually magically shifts you around the five foot square so you never know which one is real. It's like the magic trick with the three cups and the ball.
If you can't trust your eyes, don't use them especially if you've trained for it.
I still can't believe you of all people think this is cheezy Kat. It's a rule as written and is effective at negating niche defensive measures. It requires a feat slot, far more investment than the spell slots spent to get the illusion buffs up. Balances well, and serves to scare the pants off casters suddenly.
For PCs it's a smart investment.
For DM's its good to use occasionally so players stay on their toes.
Well sure it helps balance a little but it is still cheesy...
and here, for reference:
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.
When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created. These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.
It says nothing about being moved around your square. It is literally just a bunch of copies of you moving around. If you were constantly shifitng around magically, then you would start suffering effects to like the Blink spells (were you are constantly fading in and out or constantly blinking in and out of existance) due to the disorientating nature of it.
Funny enough, the best portrails of Mirror Image is typical animes where the BBEG copies himself like 10 times and they are all doing the exact same thing. It confuses the BSF because they are hearing your voice 5 times over in 5 different spots and you are all doing the exact same thing.
Except you see, you trained to fight against OTHER FIGHTERS. How well would that training work vs some who is actively avoiding you and stepping away from you and can hurt you without touching you?
How well would closing yoru eyes work vs a guy with a gun (the best modern day example... seeing as I have yet to see a person be able to legitimately throw fireballs)? Your learning positioning and such helps when you know they are coming towards you (since another "martial" needs to swing toward you to attack), but when a person can step back and leave you clueless you look like a moron suddenly (while they still have their gun to shoot you with)
And I am...
Except you see, you're trained to function well without using your eyes. Against a ranged target you do indeed have troubles. Notice that your defenses are compromised against a foe at range (see Blind-fight feat). Does blind-fight help counter mirror image? You betcha! And it SHOULD, because you're not letting the illusion fool your eyes (though it's still not foolproof 'cause you still have to roll twice vs 50% concealment). However, the caster is still causing some issues if he moves away and decides to pop your butt with scorching ray (just as someone with a gun, as you pointed out would still be treated as invisible vs you when shooting).
Of course the martial could close/open their eyes as a free action I'm sure, so moving up to the mirror'd mage, closing and swinging, then opening them again is A-Ok.
|
Except you see, you trained to fight against OTHER FIGHTERS. How well would that training work vs some who is actively avoiding you and stepping away from you and can hurt you without touching you?
How well would closing yoru eyes work vs a guy with a gun (the best modern day example... seeing as I have yet to see a person be able to legitimately throw fireballs)? Your learning positioning and such helps when you know they are coming towards you (since another "martial" needs to swing toward you to attack), but when a person can step back and leave you clueless you look like a moron suddenly (while they still have their gun to shoot you with)
And I am...
Except you see, you're trained to function well without using your eyes. Against a ranged target you do indeed have troubles. Notice that your defenses are compromised against a foe at range (see Blind-fight feat). Does blind-fight help counter mirror image? You betcha! And it SHOULD, because you're not letting the illusion fool your eyes (though it's still not foolproof 'cause you still have to roll twice vs 50% concealment). However, the caster is still causing some issues if he moves away and decides to pop your butt with scorching ray (just as someone with a gun, as you pointed out would still be treated as invisible vs you when shooting).
Of course the martial could close/open their eyes as a free action I'm sure, so moving up to the mirror'd mage, closing and swinging, then opening them again is A-Ok.
Yep, but it's the open eyes to move, close eyes to attack part that gets people upset.
I remember one of the Paizo people saying that doing so isn't the intent of the feat, yet another one said it was fine.That part definitely puts you into the category of DM discretion.
It's not overly powerful, and it certainly isn't cheesy. It's using one of your ats to counteract magical means of trying to make you miss a target. It's exactly what it's designed to do.
As for targets 5 foot stepping and targeting, we played it so companions would shout directions for us if that happened. If no companion could do so, then we couldn't use step up or similar feats. That's just how we played it at our table though.
Also, for Kitty Kat - remember that if your eyes are closed, you can't make AoOs against casting etc.
This is not an overpowered cheezy move (unlike your snow cone wish machine). This is a deliberate option that someone must sacrifice a Feat to use. They must Train specifically to counter the threat of concealment in combat.
Your argument really comes off as just " Melees can't have nice things".
I'm glad to see Ashiel agrees though, usually he and I are on different sides of most debates in this forum :).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have issues with the open close eyes as free action because while we take turns in real life, in fantasy land things happen all at once. If you close your eyes for a full round attack they stay closed until the beginning of your next turn in my games.
For a single attack I just let it go because making your blind for only using a standard action is more of a penalty than I like to give.
As for closing your eyes and swinging vs keeping them open, I see closing your eyes as you trying to take up as much space as possible with your weapon and hoping you get lucky, as opposed to striking at a specific image. Blind-fight is helping you swing into the corner part of the 5 foot square. It is not different than movies where a blinded fighter has gained the ability to fight without seeing. It is actually a trope. Behold the blind weaponmaster.
Except you see, you trained to fight against OTHER FIGHTERS. How well would that training work vs some who is actively avoiding you and stepping away from you and can hurt you without touching you?
How well would closing yoru eyes work vs a guy with a gun (the best modern day example... seeing as I have yet to see a person be able to legitimately throw fireballs)? Your learning positioning and such helps when you know they are coming towards you (since another "martial" needs to swing toward you to attack), but when a person can step back and leave you clueless you look like a moron suddenly (while they still have their gun to shoot you with)
And I am...
Except you see, you're trained to function well without using your eyes. Against a ranged target you do indeed have troubles. Notice that your defenses are compromised against a foe at range (see Blind-fight feat). Does blind-fight help counter mirror image? You betcha! And it SHOULD, because you're not letting the illusion fool your eyes (though it's still not foolproof 'cause you still have to roll twice vs 50% concealment). However, the caster is still causing some issues if he moves away and decides to pop your butt with scorching ray (just as someone with a gun, as you pointed out would still be treated as invisible vs you when shooting).
Of course the martial could close/open their eyes as a free action I'm sure, so moving up to the mirror'd mage, closing and swinging, then opening them again is A-Ok.
Yep, but it's the open eyes to move, close eyes to attack part that gets people upset.
I remember one of the Paizo people saying that doing so isn't the intent of the feat, yet another one said it was fine.That part definitely puts you into the category of DM discretion.
It's not overly powerful, and it certainly isn't cheesy. It's using one of your ats to counteract magical means of trying to make you miss a target. It's exactly what it's designed to do.
As for...
Oh I acknowledge Sno-Cone Wish Factory is the epitomy of Cheesy nachoes with Jalapenoes on top...
I just find it... weird with the whole being able to open and close your eyes freely. for instance, as you said, if your eyes are closed you cannot take a AoO for spell casting, but that only really applies if the caster is casting emergency force shield because he can close his eyes right before hsi attack and open them back open right at the end, therefore causing no penalty.
This is ESPECIALLY irksome when somehow it applies to invisibility... I don't care how well trained you are, having your eyes open or closed should have NO EFFECT on invisibility.
As for the martial thing, I want them to have cool stuff (like barbarians get cool thigns!!!) I just don't like some things that just make no sense. Like the double barrel pistol gunslinger of death with weapon cords (prior to the weapon cord nerf). Sure, it was RAW, but the image of:
Double Fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
Double fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
Doulbe Fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
Double Fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
Double Fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
Double Fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
Double Fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
Double Fire
free action drop
free action reload barrel
free action reload barrel
free action pick up
In a grand total of 6 seconds got to looking REALLY rediculous...
But awesome! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But awesome! :D
Honestly at that point I would be tempted to rule that you were under the effects of blur because DAYMN! You pretty much are a blur... and thsi is not account for the fact that while you are doing all this you are not just standing still, you are moving around in your square and dodging attacks (otherwise you would be flatfooted xD)
This is ESPECIALLY irksome when somehow it applies to invisibility... I don't care how well trained you are, having your eyes open or closed should have NO EFFECT on invisibility.
and stuff about a lot of free actions.
RAW does not say free actions are unlimited. RAW says they are are decided by the GM, so hopefully most GM use common sense to stop that and things like the commoner railgun trick or whatever it is called.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
As for invis I am lost. Are you saying that invis should have a different affect than someone who cant see someone because their eyes are closed and/or the opponent is attacking from hiding and therefore is not detected?
Why do so many people seem to think you need to give players an AOO to target casters?
Last month my Witch, when the party ran into some Orcs seem two of the Orcs where armed with short composite bows and had built hunters platform in the trees. And once I cast my first spell they then made me their main targetThat is an entirely different scenario than what has been discussed to date. Archers in a fortified and elevated position can attack targets as they present themselves.
It is also not your typical encounter.
A hunters platform does not make a fortified encounter as a Good Hunter can often put one up in Minutes. And its not hard for Archers and Gunslingers on most maps to find a little elevation or be able to go to the flank for a clear shot.
I do have issues with the open close eyes as free action because while we take turns in real life, in fantasy land things happen all at once. If you close your eyes for a full round attack they stay closed until the beginning of your next turn in my games.
For a single attack I just let it go because making your blind for only using a standard action is more of a penalty than I like to give.
As for closing your eyes and swinging vs keeping them open, I see closing your eyes as you trying to take up as much space as possible with your weapon and hoping you get lucky, as opposed to striking at a specific image. Blind-fight is helping you swing into the corner part of the 5 foot square. It is not different than movies where a blinded fighter has gained the ability to fight without seeing. It is actually a trope. Behold the blind weaponmaster.
I would very seriously question the logic that a GM was using if they argued you couldn't close and open your eyes before and after making a full attack when you can also use a swift action between attacks and even move 5 ft. without provoking before or after the attack. >_>
It would do diddly to protect you from sight-based attacks (IE - gaze, etc), but willingly blinding yourself for specific attacks just seems pretty strait forward. o_o
Anybody with any degree of intelligence should default to "kill the most dangerous enemy first," which would be the caster. Also, many creatures would default to "kill the most fragile enemy first," which would be the guy without any armor.
So, with the exception of Int 1-2 creatures that don't know any better, why aren't the casters (especially arcane casters) the very first target? (Note that this doesn't apply when obvious strategic concerns and/or an irrational hatred of some other character or type of hero make them a lower priority).
The question is oversimplified, but a more precise version of the question is worth asking. It is oversimplified because it assumes that "most dangerous" = "caster." This isn't necessarily the case. What if the opponent is physically fragile but has high magic resistance? How does the opponent know that he's not dealing with a high level fighter paired with a low level wizard? As others have pointed out, it's also often not obvious at the start of a fight who the casters are.
A more precise way of phrasing the question would be to ask why an opponent (or group of opponents) wouldn't take reasonable action if they had reason to believe the a group included casters of roughly equivalent power to the non-casters. I would opponents in that situation to take reasonable action, e.g. directing their archers to target the casters or something like that. But a suicidal rush past multiple fighter-types in the hopes of getting to the caster isn't a reasonable action. If it's a small party without a lot of cover for the casters, and they have reason to be concerned that the casters will be rushed, then, as others have pointed out, there are lots of things the party can do to ensure those rush tactics will just be a rush into a trap.
I do have issues with the open close eyes as free action because while we take turns in real life, in fantasy land things happen all at once. If you close your eyes for a full round attack they stay closed until the beginning of your next turn in my games.
For a single attack I just let it go because making your blind for only using a standard action is more of a penalty than I like to give.
As for closing your eyes and swinging vs keeping them open, I see closing your eyes as you trying to take up as much space as possible with your weapon and hoping you get lucky, as opposed to striking at a specific image. Blind-fight is helping you swing into the corner part of the 5 foot square. It is not different than movies where a blinded fighter has gained the ability to fight without seeing. It is actually a trope. Behold the blind weaponmaster.
I would very seriously question the logic that a GM was using if they argued you couldn't close and open your eyes before and after making a full attack when you can also use a swift action between attacks and even move 5 ft. without provoking before or after the attack. >_>
It would do diddly to protect you from sight-based attacks (IE - gaze, etc), but willingly blinding yourself for specific attacks just seems pretty strait forward. o_o
I don't see the correlation because there are no swift actions that take a full round to do unlike having your eyes closed for an entire full round action.
As for gaze it takes place upon the beginning of the round and does not require a set time to work. If it was a sight based attack the required the time equivalent of a move or standard to force a save then I would say that due to the eyes being closed you could avoid the gaze also.
Then again I have never enforced this on a gaze attack. I guess I should avoid injecting realism into the game. Martials have enough problems as is.
I don't see the correlation because there are no swift actions that take a full round to do unlike having your eyes closed for an entire full round action.
I'm saying that closing and opening your eyes would naturally be a free-action. I don't see the rationalization that you cannot close your eyes, swing, and open your eyes, especially when it actually takes less time and/or effort to do so than it would to take a swift action before, during, or after your full-attack and also still move 5 ft. without provoking before or after your full-attack.
It seems like an arbitrary punishment for a full-attack that doesn't serve and purpose or make any sense. I don't understand the reasoning behind it, because it doesn't seem to have a mechanical basis, nor is it inspired by some sort of attempt at realism.
I'm just left wondering why martials would be punished for making use of their feats and full-attacking for something that is clearly more specific and more trivial in terms of effort and/or time consumption than lots of other actions they could take.
I don't see the correlation because there are no swift actions that take a full round to do unlike having your eyes closed for an entire full round action.I'm saying that closing and opening your eyes would naturally be a free-action. I don't see the rationalization that you cannot close your eyes, swing, and open your eyes, especially when it actually takes less time and/or effort to do so than it would to take a swift action before, during, or after your full-attack and also still move 5 ft. without provoking before or after your full-attack.
It seems like an arbitrary punishment for a full-attack that doesn't serve and purpose or make any sense. I don't understand the reasoning behind it, because it doesn't seem to have a mechanical basis, nor is it inspired by some sort of attempt at realism.
I'm just left wondering why martials would be punished for making use of their feats and full-attacking for something that is clearly more specific and more trivial in terms of effort and/or time consumption than lots of other actions they could take.
I thought you saying actually keeping your eyes closed for the entire full attack is the same as swift action. That is why I noticed the time difference, and I was not thinking of blind fight. My statement was assuming no blindfight. If they have blind fight they keep their dex to AC so it would not be a problem even if they did have their eyes closed.
Well the problem lies in that, despite the fact that combat takes places in turns, it is all actually going on at rouchly the same 6 second time span. So, lets say the fighter wins initiative (he rolled a 20 or something) and he does the "closes his eyes and attacks" thing. Despite the fact that everything is kind of happening in roughly the same time span, he some how had his eyes closed, full attacked, and had his eyes open fast enough to still react to everything around him. The fact that he is suffering no penalties at all for effectively being blind for most of that 6 second time span is kind of weird.
I don't see the rationalization that you cannot close your eyes, swing, and open your eyes, especially when it actually takes less time and/or effort to do so than it would to take a swift action before, during, or after your full-attack and also still move 5 ft. without provoking before or after your full-attack.
Whether it is a swift or a free, I don't see how in it would work. In that scenario, you're still aiming at what you saw BEFORE you closed your eyes, which is affected by the illusion, and hoping it didn't move before you swung...but your initial point of reference is what you saw before you shut your eyes. You would have to have no visual frame of reference at all to not be affected by the illusion.
I don't see the rationalization that you cannot close your eyes, swing, and open your eyes, especially when it actually takes less time and/or effort to do so than it would to take a swift action before, during, or after your full-attack and also still move 5 ft. without provoking before or after your full-attack.Whether it is a swift or a free, I don't see how in it would work. In that scenario, you're still aiming at what you saw BEFORE you closed your eyes, which is affected by the illusion, and hoping it didn't move before you swung...but your initial point of reference is what you saw before you shut your eyes. You would have to have no visual frame of reference at all to not be affected by the illusion.
In real life that would be true. In the game it goes by your condition at the time you make the swing. As an example if I fail a save again blindness/deafness due to a readied action, just before I attack I have to roll the d100 dice for 50% miss chance. Mirror image is not a factor in whether or not I hit.
Of course it is possible that someone could attack while your eyes are closed even if you are opening and closing them, but many GM's would not enforce anything like that.
edit: mirror image also assumes you aid for a certain image instead of taking a swing anywhere into the square.
I thought you saying actually keeping your eyes closed for the entire full attack is the same as swift action. That is why I noticed the time difference, and I was not thinking of blind fight. My statement was assuming no blindfight. If they have blind fight they keep their dex to AC so it would not be a problem even if they did have their eyes closed.I don't see the correlation because there are no swift actions that take a full round to do unlike having your eyes closed for an entire full round action.I'm saying that closing and opening your eyes would naturally be a free-action. I don't see the rationalization that you cannot close your eyes, swing, and open your eyes, especially when it actually takes less time and/or effort to do so than it would to take a swift action before, during, or after your full-attack and also still move 5 ft. without provoking before or after your full-attack.
It seems like an arbitrary punishment for a full-attack that doesn't serve and purpose or make any sense. I don't understand the reasoning behind it, because it doesn't seem to have a mechanical basis, nor is it inspired by some sort of attempt at realism.
I'm just left wondering why martials would be punished for making use of their feats and full-attacking for something that is clearly more specific and more trivial in terms of effort and/or time consumption than lots of other actions they could take.
Except vs ranged attackers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the problem lies in that, despite the fact that combat takes places in turns, it is all actually going on at rouchly the same 6 second time span. So, lets say the fighter wins initiative (he rolled a 20 or something) and he does the "closes his eyes and attacks" thing. Despite the fact that everything is kind of happening in roughly the same time span, he some how had his eyes closed, full attacked, and had his eyes open fast enough to still react to everything around him. The fact that he is suffering no penalties at all for effectively being blind for most of that 6 second time span is kind of weird.
Poor Fighters man. All that martial training and they're not even quick enough to open and close their eyes after swinging their sword.
I find the whole "Roughly the same 6 seconds" abstraction to be idiotic. If the caster is technically casting a spell in the same 6 seconds in the round where I just hit him, shouldn't that disrupt his spell? Since combat is just an abstraction and we're all acting at the same time and using up the same 6 seconds of which he spent casting a spell and I spent hitting him.
Even a gamist point of view where everyone pointedly acts one after another is better than that.
Surely if your tactic is always disable the caster first, you would stack up on thunderstones, smoke sticks, ect to blind/deafen/ect the caster at a range to then deal with the marshals, especially since getting hit on purpose (with AoOs) is just as dumbIIRC thunderstone are only a DC 15 fort save. Unless you are a low(1-3) level caster they are not a threat unless you throw a lot of them. Depending on how many minions are around throwing them could be a terrible use of your actions.
If they(PC casters) can't target someone there are always AoO's. In addition many casters cause problems with buffs and summons. Smoke sticks won't normally stop those.
From a PC perspective if the entire party opens up with thunderstones, then it might work, but I think think it is less efficient than trying to use your casters to shut down the other caster if possible, hopefully in conjuction with your meat shield so he takes less damage while getting to the caster.
I think the problem here is that "go after the caster" is being presented as "rush in with no matter what", but I doubt Ashiel or the other posters would do that. More than likely some of the meatbags protecting the NPC caster will be disabled, and the PC meatbag will be buffed, so that his path to the caster is less painful than it would be otherwise.
That should be AoE's not AoO's.
Well the problem lies in that, despite the fact that combat takes places in turns, it is all actually going on at rouchly the same 6 second time span. So, lets say the fighter wins initiative (he rolled a 20 or something) and he does the "closes his eyes and attacks" thing. Despite the fact that everything is kind of happening in roughly the same time span, he some how had his eyes closed, full attacked, and had his eyes open fast enough to still react to everything around him. The fact that he is suffering no penalties at all for effectively being blind for most of that 6 second time span is kind of weird.Poor Fighters man. All that martial training and they're not even quick enough to open and close their eyes after swinging their sword.
I find the whole "Roughly the same 6 seconds" abstraction to be idiotic. If the caster is technically casting a spell in the same 6 seconds in the round where I just hit him, shouldn't that disrupt his spell? Since combat is just an abstraction and we're all acting at the same time and using up the same 6 seconds of which he spent casting a spell and I spent hitting him.
Even a gamist point of view where everyone pointedly acts one after another is better than that.
Yeah that guy totally killed me, but I want to see if I killed him to, since we were swinging at the same time. I mean, let's just roll our full attacks with our eyes taped open, then at the end of the round see who all is dead from the damage!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting that this whole thread went on a tangent after one post of potential caster buffs to try and negate being targeted. We've kind of gone off topic here.
Just to try and get back on track, deliberately threatening the casters is sound tactics. It's forcing them to spend resources that protect themselves rather than resources that destroy you. Forcing something like a caster to go defensive rather then helping the offence is moving any group closer to a win situation.
Many ideas have been suggested on how to do it, the least sensible or effective one I'd just straight up rush mr caster and cop AoOs (although certain classes can do this easily enough).
Most people seem to agree that it's not something that every creature will try, but certainly a valid tactic for smart and or experienced opponents.
I think that sums it up.
The best part I've found is the discussion of different tactics both to hit the caster and to defend against the tactic.
Even better, it's remained civil.
Cheers
|
A hunters platform does not make a fortified encounter as a Good Hunter can often put one up in Minutes. And its not hard for Archers and Gunslingers on most maps to find a little elevation or be able to go to the flank for a clear shot.Why do so many people seem to think you need to give players an AOO to target casters?
Last month my Witch, when the party ran into some Orcs seem two of the Orcs where armed with short composite bows and had built hunters platform in the trees. And once I cast my first spell they then made me their main targetThat is an entirely different scenario than what has been discussed to date. Archers in a fortified and elevated position can attack targets as they present themselves.
It is also not your typical encounter.
And your point is?
Either you have a prepared position, set up in advance, or not. You're not setting it up after combat starts.
Well the problem lies in that, despite the fact that combat takes places in turns, it is all actually going on at rouchly the same 6 second time span. So, lets say the fighter wins initiative (he rolled a 20 or something) and he does the "closes his eyes and attacks" thing. Despite the fact that everything is kind of happening in roughly the same time span, he some how had his eyes closed, full attacked, and had his eyes open fast enough to still react to everything around him. The fact that he is suffering no penalties at all for effectively being blind for most of that 6 second time span is kind of weird.Poor Fighters man. All that martial training and they're not even quick enough to open and close their eyes after swinging their sword.
I find the whole "Roughly the same 6 seconds" abstraction to be idiotic. If the caster is technically casting a spell in the same 6 seconds in the round where I just hit him, shouldn't that disrupt his spell? Since combat is just an abstraction and we're all acting at the same time and using up the same 6 seconds of which he spent casting a spell and I spent hitting him.
Even a gamist point of view where everyone pointedly acts one after another is better than that.
But see, this then creates the feeling that combat is looking like a final fanasty game, everyone just kinda standing aroudn until it is there turn... and that just does not feel right xD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But see, this then creates the feeling that combat is looking like a final fanasty game, everyone just kinda standing aroudn until it is there turn... and that just does not feel right xDWell the problem lies in that, despite the fact that combat takes places in turns, it is all actually going on at rouchly the same 6 second time span. So, lets say the fighter wins initiative (he rolled a 20 or something) and he does the "closes his eyes and attacks" thing. Despite the fact that everything is kind of happening in roughly the same time span, he some how had his eyes closed, full attacked, and had his eyes open fast enough to still react to everything around him. The fact that he is suffering no penalties at all for effectively being blind for most of that 6 second time span is kind of weird.Poor Fighters man. All that martial training and they're not even quick enough to open and close their eyes after swinging their sword.
I find the whole "Roughly the same 6 seconds" abstraction to be idiotic. If the caster is technically casting a spell in the same 6 seconds in the round where I just hit him, shouldn't that disrupt his spell? Since combat is just an abstraction and we're all acting at the same time and using up the same 6 seconds of which he spent casting a spell and I spent hitting him.
Even a gamist point of view where everyone pointedly acts one after another is better than that.
That's why we have readied and immediate actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even better, it's remained civil.
Cheers
What wonders we can accomplish when nobody is trolling anyone. :P
A hunters platform does not make a fortified encounter as a Good Hunter can often put one up in Minutes. And its not hard for Archers and Gunslingers on most maps to find a little elevation or be able to go to the flank for a clear shot.Why do so many people seem to think you need to give players an AOO to target casters?
Last month my Witch, when the party ran into some Orcs seem two of the Orcs where armed with short composite bows and had built hunters platform in the trees. And once I cast my first spell they then made me their main targetThat is an entirely different scenario than what has been discussed to date. Archers in a fortified and elevated position can attack targets as they present themselves.
It is also not your typical encounter.
And your point is?
Either you have a prepared position, set up in advance, or not. You're not setting it up after combat starts.
2 points. First there other ways to get elevation. Large Rocks, being mounted, stairs, Hillside etc. So unless you are fighting in Kansas there a good chance of of a monster finding some way to get height.
And as for being prepared. Most people going to war through out History have prepared the Battlefield in a way they wanted. Go look at the fort the Romans built at the end of a days March. or what about the Stakes the English deployed before battle. And the Scits loved using caltropss Even today I was taught to dig a foxhole at the end of a days march in Basic training years ago. So orcs are not going to try to come up with a few tricks on their chosen Battlefield?.I have one character that has bought some bear traps and set them up every night in case bad guys disturb my sleep I might add.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What wonders we can accomplish when nobody is trolling anyone. :PEven better, it's remained civil.
Cheers
jajajaja cyka noob, burn ur pathfinder books plz noob
...sorry I've been playing too much Dota 2 lately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What wonders we can accomplish when nobody is trolling anyone. :PEven better, it's remained civil.
Cheers
jajajaja cyka noob, burn ur pathfinder books plz noob
...sorry I've been playing too much Dota 2 lately.
feed noop, uninstall
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
feed noop, uninstallWhat wonders we can accomplish when nobody is trolling anyone. :PEven better, it's remained civil.
Cheers
jajajaja cyka noob, burn ur pathfinder books plz noob
...sorry I've been playing too much Dota 2 lately.
PING PING PING PING PING PING PING PING PING PING PING
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LoL>DOTA2 xD.... just saying...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realized that I never really gave my personal answer to the title question. My answer would be anything stupid enough not to know what a caster is, or at the very least, what a caster looks like doing his stuff.
However, I only think this would happen / work until the caster harms the creature in question. Then he makes himself a target, but not much more than say an archer.
So I guess it boils down to things that wouldn't understand what a caster is like most animals (outside of intelligent magical animals) and beings with a low intelligence score (maybe wisdom score).
"Tharg! Why aren't you attacking the caster you oaf?!"
"Man wave hands around and made friends quicker. Tharg smash anyways."
"Tharg! The man waving his hands around is helping the man with the sword."
"BAH HA HA! With what? Dance?! Tharg smash sword person."
Which could potentially work until the caster hits him in the face with a damaging spell.
*Tharg takes a magic missile in the nose.*
"Tharg smash wavy dance man!"
When it comes to average intelligence levels. I think they may recognize the caster and the dangers associated. However, I feel they wouldn't know enough in form of tactics to try to blow past the front liner to stop the man that could turn them into a slug. In fact I think they'd probably try to avoid him if possible. Duck behind a boulder and such. I'm not sure where the above would land on the INT score scale though.
I suppose the thing is, as long as it's not a constant tactic used by the DM, then the NPC can try. Try being the operative word, because there's just as much chance as they'll get killed in the attempt (by either the party or the mage themself.) If it happens almost every battle though, you're running the chance of alienating the players making them not want to play casters. Which may be how you want your game. Problem being, they may have had their heart set on a mage and anything else would just make them unsatisfied to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Third Mind reminds me that I haven't seen many GMs who make hostile animals run away when people are using fire, or make animals less likely to attack someone holding a weapon, etc.
|
|
Third Mind reminds me that I haven't seen many GMs who make hostile animals run away when people are using fire, or make animals less likely to attack someone holding a weapon, etc.
I rarely see players wielding fire against animals. I try to run my animals as realistically as possible, but then some of the "animals" in this game aren't around in our world. Also, wielding the burning brand only holds them back a bit, doesn't stop them trying to attack you. Maybe it buys some time against wolves and such, but against a dinosaur, you got nothing.
As for weapons, animals don't know your wielding weapons. They don't think it's any different than their claws or teeth. If they're attacking you, it's a behavioural thing and your weapons aren't going to stop them trying to kill you.
That's only my reasoning though.
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?
If I somehow know their classes, I am taking out the wizard. The tactics depend on my resources.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?
Probably either wizard or bard depending on who was closer and what defences they have up. And if it's a melee bard. (my bard usually has the highest AC in the party)
Also depends what kind of fighters. Sword & board aren't as devastating as two-handed, and they're harder to take down fast.
Finally - it depends on what I'm playing. If it's my aforementioned high AC bard - I'll wade in against the fighters to get them to swing at me instead of my buddies. (his damage is meh anyway) If it's a classic greatsword wielding barbarian, I'll charge the wizard or bard. If it's my illusionist (technically sorceror), I'll focus on the fighters as they have crappy will saves. (though he could likely hit all of them)
Good, sound tactics simply mean that you attack who needs attacking. Sometimes that means that caster and sometimes it doesn't. There is not a single standard that anyone should rely on unless your GM uses the same tactics against you all the time as well.
I find it a bit annoying as a GM when players target based on metagame knowledge. I don't know about how others do it but none of my NPCs come with labels. Just because someone is called a fighter by his peers does not mean that it translates into the metagame term of "fighter." Just because someone is called a wizard by his peers does not mean that he's 100% wizard. He could easily be multiclassed. He could be a witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?
The bard.
|
|
Good, sound tactics simply mean that you attack who needs attacking. Sometimes that means that caster and sometimes it doesn't. There is not a single standard that anyone should rely on unless your GM uses the same tactics against you all the time as well.
I find it a bit annoying as a GM when players target based on metagame knowledge. I don't know about how others do it but none of my NPCs come with labels. Just because someone is called a fighter by his peers does not mean that it translates into the metagame term of "fighter." Just because someone is called a wizard by his peers does not mean that he's 100% wizard. He could easily be multiclassed. He could be a witch.
My party uses knowledge skills and spell craft to identify casters. Particularly arcane vs divine.
Other than that, they know nothing about the class they're up against except for the general description of what they're wearing and other salient appearances.
Yet, they still manage to be able to target casters pretty fast. The game has skills and features that lets enemies do this without meta gaming.
That's acceptable in my games as well. I think it's acceptable to know that someone is an arcane or divine caster is fine with the skill check. Estimating their level is also fine. Knowing that it's a wizard may not be as simple without more information or at least until they've done something.
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?
Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?
Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?
The point, of course, is that if you feel you can provide an answer to any of those questions, you're a fool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?
If the Bard is playing Kenny G he dies first, even if I have to take an AOO from a T Rex, a Grave Knight ,a Cloud giant and a horde of Orcs.
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?
Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?
The point, of course, is that if you feel you can provide an answer to any of those questions, you're a fool.
Not really. The scenario in question has many missing details, but the general hierarchy of power for the enemies is well known.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
He could easily be multiclassed. He could be a witch.
But it's relatively easy to figure out if someone is a witch. There's a few surefire methods.
1st - She looks like one! (Pointy nose may be provided by you.)
2nd - She turned you into a newt. Don't worry, you'll get better.
3rd - If she weighs the same as a duck, then that means she is made of wood, and therefore,... A WITCH!
He could easily be multiclassed. He could be a witch.But it's relatively easy to figure out if someone is a witch. There's a few surefire methods.
1st - She looks like one! (Pointy nose may be provided by you.)
2nd - She turned you into a newt. Don't worry, you'll get better.
3rd - If she weighs the same as a duck, then that means she is made of wood, and therefore,... A WITCH!
I stand corrected!
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?
Is the wizard standing in a position where he's as easy to attack as anyone else, or hiding at the back with Mirror Image up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?
Richard the third.
Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?
I turn into a helicopter and fly to the airport.