|
Semi-Permanent, as I said. Orc to Elemental lasts a week.Human to Elemental shouldn't be a permanent PAO change, should it? You're not even of the same type.
Just wondering.
==Aelryinth
No - that'd only last 1 hour. It's not the same kingdom/class/size/ or related
The only bonus it'd get is from same or lower intelligence. (And you'd be entirely an elemental - not the boosted stat version like greater polymorph. If you're using it to duplicate greater polymorph it'd have the greater polymorph duration.)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
** spoiler omitted **
Defense hasn't been preferred to offense since WWI (which Archer Jones refers to as the "Apogee of the Defense," in fact). Real world militaries always strive to be on the offensive, have the initiative, get inside the opponent's OODA loop, etc.
|
|
Defense hasn't been preferred to offense since WWI (which Archer Jones refers to as the "Apogee of the Defense," in fact). Real world militaries always strive to be on the offensive, have the initiative, get inside the opponent's OODA loop, etc.
** spoiler omitted **
In terms of armies - no. But modern infantry have body armor and an Abram's armor is thick etc.
As a higher level spell, it should be more effective then a lower level spell, like Elemental Form. But not by too awful much.
Taking Huge Elemental form is Elemen Body IV, level 7, which is 1 minute/level.
Your closest comparison is human to marionette, which is 3 hours. I could maybe see stretching it to 12 hours, but you'd have to be pretty liberal with how you're comparing humans to elementals.
Definitely NOT a week, however.
==Aelryinth
Semi-Permanent, as I said. Orc to Elemental lasts a week.Human to Elemental shouldn't be a permanent PAO change, should it? You're not even of the same type.
Just wondering.
==Aelryinth
No - that'd only last 1 hour. It's not the same kingdom/class/size/ or related
The only bonus it'd get is from same or lower intelligence. (And you'd be entirely an elemental - not the boosted stat version like greater polymorph. If you're using it to duplicate greater polymorph it'd have the greater polymorph duration.)
Same "Kingdom". The options are: Animal, vegetable, mineral (note the lack of an "etc.").
It is definitely not a vegetable.
While it is made of rock, it is also not a "mineral", because it's a living creature.
That leaves Animal.
And yes, you do get the stat bonuses. PAO functions as Greater Polymorph by default.
And that's the conservative interpretation. The lax one would be that it outright transforms you into the creature, with all the base stats and special abilities it normally possesses.
|
|
Your closest comparison is human to marionette, which is 3 hours.
The only reason it's that long is because they're related since the marionette is OF a human. Or perhaps they're the same size. I don't know for sure. :P Either way - it wouldn't apply in this case - and he'd be down to 1 hour.
But besides - either he's transformed ENTIRELY (HD etc) or it's treated exactly like greater polymorph. (including duration)
The advantage here is the versitility of the spell. And Elemental Body isn't comparable because that's personal only - so it's just a beefed up caster. In greater polymorph's case they can do it on someone better suited for combat. (Like the group's barbarian. :P)
Definitely not same kingdom. You're made of earth. That's mineral...you're a living mineral creature. Same as if you were turned into a stone golem. All elementals are technically 'mineral' creatures.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Semi-Permanent, as I said. Orc to Elemental lasts a week.Human to Elemental shouldn't be a permanent PAO change, should it? You're not even of the same type.
Just wondering.
==Aelryinth
No - that'd only last 1 hour. It's not the same kingdom/class/size/ or related
The only bonus it'd get is from same or lower intelligence. (And you'd be entirely an elemental - not the boosted stat version like greater polymorph. If you're using it to duplicate greater polymorph it'd have the greater polymorph duration.)
Same "Kingdom". The options are: Animal, vegetable, mineral (note the lack of an "etc.").
It is definitely not a vegetable.
While it is made of rock, it is also not a "mineral", because it's a living creature.
That leaves Animal.
Even if I give you that (I don't - it's mineral) - you'd get 3 hours
And yes, you do get the stat bonuses. PAO functions as Greater Polymorph by default.
No it doesn't.
This spell can also be used to duplicate the effects of baleful polymorph, greater polymorph, flesh to stone, stone to flesh, transmute mud to rock, transmute metal to wood, or transmute rock to mud.
And that's the conservative interpretation. The lax one would be that it outright transforms you into the creature, with all the base stats and special abilities it normally possesses.
Yes - that's how it would work if you wanted it to last longer than min/level (as greater polymorph). You'd get all their base stats/special abilities. And you'd lose all of your own. (Including HD etc.)
Definitely not same kingdom. You're made of earth. That's mineral...you're a living mineral creature. Same as if you were turned into a stone golem. All elementals are technically 'mineral' creatures.
==Aelryinth
I disagree. Especially since classifying "Air" and "Fire" and "Water" as a mineral seems silly, which is what would be necessary.
[quote-Charon's Little Helper]But besides - either he's transformed ENTIRELY (HD etc) or it's treated exactly like greater polymorph. (including duration)
Regardless of differences in interpretation between the actual duration, it is certainly not 1 min/level as Greater Polymorph.
"This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. You can use this spell to transform all manner of objects and creatures into new forms- you aren't limited to transforming a living creature into another living form. The duration of the spell depends on how radical a change is made from the original state to its transmuted state. The duration is determined by using the following guidelines."
It is "as Greater Polymorph" except "duration is determined by these guidelines".
I'd say given the arguments provided that the GM can rule in favor of either interpretation.
Honestly, the "Animal, Vegetable, Mineral" category isn't anywhere near comprehensive enough to cover everything that can show up in Pathfinder.
I could see a decent case being made for elementals as animal or mineral, really. Rynjin's GM ruled that it's animal, which along with the Intelligence factor means he gets it for one week (+5 for kingdom, +2 for Int).
That matter aside, if the elemental is a no-go there are still plenty of other options that he could use for Polymorph Any Object. The only elemental immunity that really hurts to lose is critical hita/sneak attack, and it's not like protection there are no other way to pick up protection from crits.
|
|
That matter aside, if the elemental is a no-go there are still plenty of other options that he could use for Polymorph Any Object. The only elemental immunity that really hurts to lose is critical hita/sneak attack, and it's not like protection there are no other way to pick up protection from crits.
I'd still argue that using it that way, it'd only last 1 min/level per greater polymorph. (when keeping his own levels etc) But - there's an argument both ways on that front.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dex is 10 because HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE.
Fixed your link. *wink*
That matter aside, if the elemental is a no-go there are still plenty of other options that he could use for Polymorph Any Object. The only elemental immunity that really hurts to lose is critical hita/sneak attack, and it's not like protection there are no other way to pick up protection from crits.I'd still argue that using it that way, it'd only last 1 min/level per greater polymorph. (when keeping his own levels etc) But - there's an argument both ways on that front.
Yeah, I'd have to say that the spell seems open to all kinds of nasty uses if the GM doesn't apply some kind of restrictions to it. Like permanent-duration transformation of a martials into any type of giants. Not at all hard to pull off since both are Animals, and mammals, and giants don't have massive Int.
Considering Giant Form II is an 8th level spell, (and self-only), that seems a bit much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defense hasn't been preferred to offense since WWI (which Archer Jones refers to as the "Apogee of the Defense," in fact). Real world militaries always strive to be on the offensive, have the initiative, get inside the opponent's OODA loop, etc.In terms of armies - no. But modern infantry have body armor and an Abram's armor is thick etc.
I guess my best example would be the Russian/German land battles of WWII. Germany did very well using Blitzkrieg tactics against the poor tactics of the Russians in the early days of the war. By the last couple of years, the Russian used generals who prepared defenses in depth and drew the Germans into attrition warfare rather then battles of maneuver. Although not exactly a victory for the Soviets, Kursk is a good example of a strong offense being beaten by a strong defense.
I think the most simple (and best) insight about offense/defense comes from Sun Tsu. "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak. "
As for Pathfinder, it seems that there is a majority opinion in the forums that offense is better then defense, however almost everyone recommends keeping strong defenses as well. I'm not hearing many people say that defenses are irrelevant.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder rewards good offense.
Pathfinder PUNISHES poor defense.
That's the way the two are looked at.
==Aelryinth
As for Pathfinder, it seems that there is a majority opinion in the forums that offense is better then defense, however almost everyone recommends keeping strong defenses as well. I'm not hearing many people say that defenses are irrelevant.
Oh certainly. Defenses will save your life if for no other reason than the enemy is going to fight back and having your offense stymied because you have a glass jaw is stupid in the extreme.
But you only need so much. In the same way, it can be argued, that if you are doing more damage than an opponents hp in one round you may be wasting resources on that damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's very little point in defense that isn't even. It doesn't matter how much armor you have as a fighter if your wizard or cleric gets attacked. Your wizard tops out at an ablating 12.5% miss chance from mirror image with next to no AC if he can't stay out of reach. Your cleric is in medium armor. Your bard might be okay with light armor, a shield, and mirror image, but if you have a ranger, alchemist, inquisitor, investigator, or heaven forbid a rogue as your skill guy it doesn't look so good. If you go up against anything with true seeing the bard is in trouble and the wizard is in even deeper trouble.
Then there are the fighter's will save and the wizard's and bard's fort saves. The longer the fight takes the more chances people have to fail those.
Then there are spell durations. The heavier your emphasis on offense the shorter your fights and the more rooms you can clear on each casting of your minute/level buffs.
This was all discussed to death in the monk threads. Defense doesn't work because you're in a party with people who can't have adequate defenses against everything. No matter what you do the only way to protect them is to do unto others first.
If you are saying dont bother with defense because there are times it wont work, then I have to strongly disagree. The game is built upon X bypassing Y in some form.
If that is not what you are seeing then I am confused.
Also while there is a gap between the good and bad saves of classes there are ways to shore those up so that you have a better than 50% chance of not failing a save against your weaker save.
|
Atarlost's issue is that if party members don't all invest in defense the enemy is likely to ignore the turtles in favour of the glass cannons.
This is a valid concern. For example, in my last session the party's alchemist was tripped and paralyzed, which shot his usually decent (dex-heavy) AC. As a tempting target he was surrounded and almost killed. On the other hand, because the paladin and my bloodrager/monk had decent defenses we weren't also tripped or paralyzed and were able to move in and help. So it's not like defense was worthless to us just because another party member was less well defended.
It is however worth noting that my monkrager's "defenses" partly consisted of offense - a reach weapon. Being able to make free attacks on incoming mooks cleared the area around me much quicker, preventing damage to me and my other tripped ally.
Not sure how significant this is in the grand scheme of things. I'm just a goblin after all.
I guess my best example would be the Russian/German land battles of WWII. Germany did very well using Blitzkrieg tactics against the poor tactics of the Russians in the early days of the war. By the last couple of years, the Russian used generals who prepared defenses in depth and drew the Germans into attrition warfare rather then battles of maneuver. Although not exactly a victory for the Soviets, Kursk is a good example of a strong offense being beaten by a strong defense.
Yeah, but the Russians suffered the highest casualties of the war. If we're making an analogy to PF characters I guess that's like having high HP, but I wouldn't generally call throwing about 10 million soldiers and 10 million civilians into a meat grinder a strong defense.
Atarlost's issue is that if party members don't all invest in defense the enemy is likely to ignore the turtles in favour of the glass cannons.
Not to mention that there are three different types of AC and three different saves to cover. Even if everyone pays attention to defense, it's going to be pretty rare for all members of the party to be strong in all defenses.
And of course, even one chink in the armor can have nasty consequences for the entire party, such as the domination-based bad guy targeting the PC with the weakest will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well vanilla-wow didn't have "resilience", it was pretty sane in terms of damage output and such for the most part.
I played a mage in vanilla. One-shotting victims in PvP was the order of the day.
On a side note, I consider "Ashiel" its own entry on my list when I'm determining the difficulty of encounters for my group:
Easy
Average
Hard
Ashiel
I'll be looking you up when it comes time to flesh out an encounter I have planned later in the campaign.
Well vanilla-wow didn't have "resilience", it was pretty sane in terms of damage output and such for the most part.I played a mage in vanilla. One-shotting victims in PvP was the order of the day.
On a side note, I consider "Ashiel" its own entry on my list when I'm determining the difficulty of encounters for my group:
Easy
Average
Hard
AshielI'll be looking you up when it comes time to flesh out an encounter I have planned later in the campaign.
I am honored by your kind words. (^///^)
I consider running away a pretty wise defense at high levels.A couple of months ago I designed a CR 16 (or so) encoutner for a party of 4 13th level characters.
While the enemies have respectable offense, the whole point of their tactic was to defend the boss using multiple tactics (specially teleporting minions).
The players hated that encounter.
Well, the dislike of the encounter was less that it was defensively oriented, and more that the bad guy A.) Ran away and B.) Sprang a reactive defense on me that nobody in the party really agreed on how exactly it worked.
Had he turtled up and eventually taken his lumps, that would have been one thing, but he turtled up and then fled once things turned against him. Very unsatisfying, that.
I'll say that at least for me, what made that encouunter annoying is that it was specifically meant to disallow the PCs going nova on the "boss", but didn't really leave us any other option. There were 14 enemies capable of using DD at will in that battle... Either we killed the guy in one round or he would certainly escape (like he did). If we had tried to kill his minions one by one, he would have buffed himself and/or nuked us in the meantime and teleport-escaped anyway once he were running low on minions.
It was an annoying battle not because the enemies used defensive tactics, but because playing catch with 14 teleporting enemies is frustrating. Specially when the party has a single caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahem... Back on topic...
Pathfinder favors offense in 6 ways:
1- While defensive bonus are generally cheaper than offensive ones, your accuracy and number of attacks increases by itself at a minimun of 1/2 your level (multiclass non-withstanding), while your AC remains the same unless you put more gold into it. Given the same attributes, a 20th level Fighter with no armor has the same AC as a 1st level Commoner (which is really stupid, if you ask me).
2- Every resource invested in offense reduces the enemy's chance of hurting your allies, while resources invested on defense reduce the enemy's chance of hurting you alone. This being a team game, your allies (and the resources and actions they bring) are most likely your most valluable asset (or a close second, anyway).
3- Because low HP has no effect on combat effectiveness, killing opponents is pretty much the only way of stopping them from hurting you and your team. A high offense makes killing easier.
4- Resources are limited, but PCs are more often than not expected to go through multiple encounters. NPCs... Not ao much. That means that prolonging battles is almost always favorable to the enemies, who are most likely at full health and with most (if not all) of their resources unspent. Each round of combat the battle goes on is one more round the PCs can roll a 1 vs a SoD effect.
5- Very often a single successful attack can completely remove the target from combar (like a critical hit or one of the all too common SoL effects) and potentially decide the tide of battle. And while there are ways of reducing the chance of being eliminated by such attacks, it's pretty difficult to have 100% immunity to them... Even the mightiest of Paladins can roll a 1 on their Fort save... This brings us back to #3: The only way to be sure the enemy can't kill you is by killing it first.
6- Attacking is a proactive action. Defending is passive. When you attack (or force someone to attack you) you can do it on your terms (e.g.: a Wizard hurling Fireballs from half a mile away, a Barbarian poucing in and then staying adjacent ro his targer, a Rogue striking from the shadows, etc). When you're defending yourself, you are just reacting to the opponent's action, so momentum (and probably Initiative) are against you. That's why ambushes are effective... Because the attackers can make sure combat happena on their terms (even if they use defensive tactics, they will spring the ambush in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of their tactics while minimizing the opponents' options and effectiveness as much as possible).
That said... Precisely because offense is so powerful, not having at least moderately good defenses will get you slaughtered!
Was this some custom monster or 3rd party rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me this is more about defense being boring. Offense allow me to do stuff, Roll dices and it matters. Defense is just some other guy that have to Roll higher to do his stuff to you. Most of my characters have stronger offense because defense is boring in PF.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me this is more about defense being boring. Offense allow me to do stuff, Roll dices and it matters. Defense is just some other guy that have to Roll higher to do his stuff to you. Most of my characters have stronger offense because defense is boring in PF.
I look at defense as a chance to keep playing. If you have no hit points, or if you are paralyzed, then you dont get to do the fun stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Defenses are important, the problem, especially with casters, is covering all the bases. Hit fast, hit hard, and try to avoid a counter.
Take Ksenia, my level 12 winter witch. I have rime metamagic, ice tomb and slumber. And snowball.
So I can entangle with snowball (and maybe stagger, and maybe do sex damage with another hex), targeting touch AC. I can hit at a fortitude save, or a will save with the hexes all three bypass SR, and that is just a fraction of her abilities. So to defend against her, you need three defenses to start. Better to get initiative and pound the hell out of her than play "is she going to hit somewhere I'm weak?"
Well vanilla-wow didn't have "resilience", it was pretty sane in terms of damage output and such for the most part.I played a mage in vanilla. One-shotting victims in PvP was the order of the day.
Back in Wrath of the Lich King, I threw together some armor sets for my Elemental Shaman that did something similar as well. Lava Burst is painful.
Enhancement was pretty nasty too when they could land their Earth Shocks well. Like a Quickened Dispel Magic counterspell that also made them unable to cast for a bit.
But yeah Offense is definitely favored when good Defensive options like Crane Wing get errata'd.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and maybe do sex damage with another hex... Better to get initiative and pound the hell out of her
Quoting for out of context funniness.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say, "optimization rewards offense over defense." Optimization creates a game where PCs are required to one-shot opponents to stay relevant. In this kind of game, initiative and offense is 100%, and defense is irreverent. The GM can easily optimize monsters for similar offensive capability, however, frequently killing characters through rocket-tag is generally considered not fun by players, and is typically very disruptive to a campaign. The default for Pathfinder is that the GM is supposed to lose almost every battle, and optimization requires that lose to be immediate.
Since PCs and monsters have access to most of the same stuff, Pathfinder rules balance offense and defense fairly well, however it is fairly easy to disrupt this balance (within the rules) and encounter design and pacing can have a huge effect. Sadly, even many published adventures feature many single monster encounters or other recipes for disruption.
** spoiler omitted **
Experienced players will optimize the design of their characters to the typical design methodologies of scenario/module writers. In most combat encounters I read, the only creative attack most of the opponents can do is attack AC. Also, the number of opponents in an encounter are frequently less than the number of player characters. In other words, typical combat encounters have opponents who have little action economy and their most lethal attacks are against defenses that Player Characters can easily bolster against. If an opponent attempts to attack something other than AC, players take advantage of their action economy and overwhelm the opponent.
Seriously, when was the last time an experienced player picked the Elf race primarily because the player was afraid of being hit with the Sleep spell in combat?
So long as designers continue with the same combat encounter design methodology they've had for years, the optimization of offense over defense will continue.
For me this is more about defense being boring. Offense allow me to do stuff, Roll dices and it matters. Defense is just some other guy that have to Roll higher to do his stuff to you. Most of my characters have stronger offense because defense is boring in PF.I look at defense as a chance to keep playing. If you have no hit points, or if you are paralyzed, then you dont get to do the fun stuff.
That is true. But offense is the power to change the World around you where defense is the power to not die. In a Real World i would want more defense than offense but in a Interactive story i want to be the active and not the passive. I have several characters with great defenses, a crane style barbarian and a zen archer among others. But they also have offense and the offense is more important to me.
Here's an interesting thought experiment: if offense is the same as defense in this game, try adding class levels to kobolds and making them a viable fight for your PCs.
Kobolds are size Small; this means their damage dice with weapons is lower. Add in that their Str is -4. They can hit accurately with ranged weapons (+2 Dex) but they'll never add tons of Str damage to composite bows, slings or thrown weapons.
Kobolds however have several defensive options. They have kobold only feats to make their Fort save bonus based on Int, Wis or Cha instead of Con which is -2 for them. They have natural armor, high dex, and their Small size gives them +1 AC and a +4 to Stealth. Finally they have an alternate racial trait that gives them sniping (-10 to attack and stealth instead of -20)
So... a kobold can hide well, jump out and attack from range with some accuracy. They can then re-hide if they want or move around counting on a high AC to save them. When attacked with spells they have decent Ref with the possibility for decent Fort and Wil, and then there's buffs, items and so on.
However, when that crossbow bolt hits it deals... 1d6. Maybe they get a few more points from feats; at mid-levels maybe they fire 2 shots and deal a few more static bonus from items/spells/buffs. At high levels they might be vital striking and such, but in the end their damage will always be low while their defenses are easier to bring up.
So a hit-and-run fight with kobolds could last a bunch of rounds due to their AC and saves, but they'd be doing a few points of damage a round, if at all. Meanwhile the PCs only land a blow every FOUR attacks instead of every 2, but that one hit is nearly enough to destroy one of their foes. In the end the PCs win most straight fights with kobolds because they can one-hit the pests and defeat them.
Then you look at tactics, and what do people always say about kobolds? Use traps; use terrain; squeeze and run away and all that. That stuff usually only works if the kobolds know the area and are prepared ahead of time. Also the PCs have to be ill-prepared or have non-optimized tactics of their own. Through all of that, still the kobolds are doing very little damage with their attacks so the PCs may yet prevail just based on HP attrition.
Now if you took orcs with the same tactics and traps and such, they would MURDER the PCs. Their defenses would be a few points behind the kobolds but they have ferocity so they just keep attacking. They also have high Str so if they can go first they can inflict massive wounds, possibly even one-hitting low to mid-level PCs. Why are orcs so deadly? Because they deal damage effectively and aren't naturally built around defense like kobolds are.
Pathfinder favors offense in 6 ways:
1- While defensive bonus are generally cheaper than offensive ones, your accuracy and number of attacks increases by itself at a minimun of 1/2 your level (multiclass non-withstanding), while your AC remains the same unless you put more gold into it. Given the same attributes, a 20th level Fighter with no armor has the same AC as a 1st level Commoner (which is really stupid, if you ask me).
Given that BAB is only a part of offense and saving throws are a part of defense that does increase, I would call that a wash. Characters (and monsters) are not a single aspect that exists in a vacuum, but rather the total of abilities, feats, equipment, spells, etc.
2- Every resource invested in offense reduces the enemy's chance of hurting your allies, while resources invested on defense reduce the enemy's chance of hurting you alone. This being a team game, your allies (and the resources and actions they bring) are most likely your most valluable asset (or a close second, anyway).
That first sentence is just not true unless you are successfully using save-or-suck/die magic or debuffs. If you invested predominately in offense, and are not able to use it in a specific circumstance, you have become a liability. It is also completely dependent on what type of encounter you are facing (hordes or single monster). The second sentence should be repeated by every player at the start of every gaming session, 10 times!
3- Because low HP has no effect on combat effectiveness, killing opponents is pretty much the only way of stopping them from hurting you and your team. A high offense makes killing easier.
I don't think that claim is accurate when talking about intelligent creatures. You have less options if you are at great risk of dying. Dying generally has substantial in and out of game consequences, in terms of play time and diamond dust.
4- Resources are limited, but PCs are more often than not expected to go through multiple encounters. NPCs... Not so much. That means that prolonging battles is almost always favorable to the enemies, who are most likely at full health and with most (if not all) of their resources unspent. Each round of combat the battle goes on is one more round the PCs can roll a 1 vs a SoD effect.
Due to the PCs often having access to excellent healing and status removal spells, much of it from resources that are really not that limited, long battles traditionally heavily favor PCs. Most powerful monster abilities will likely be used early on in the combat. You make an excellent point about SoD effects, however this is a fairly rare type of attack, and one that can be completely negated later in the game.
5- Very often a single successful attack can completely remove the target from combat (like a critical hit or one of the all too common SoL effects) and potentially decide the tide of battle. And while there are ways of reducing the chance of being eliminated by such attacks, it's pretty difficult to have 100% immunity to them... Even the mightiest of Paladins can roll a 1 on their Fort save... This brings us back to #3: The only way to be sure the enemy can't kill you is by killing it first.
I think SoL effects and powerful crits are the best argument for the game favoring offense.
6- Attacking is a proactive action. Defending is passive. When you attack (or force someone to attack you) you can do it on your terms (e.g.: a Wizard hurling Fireballs from half a mile away, a Barbarian poucing in and then staying adjacent ro his targer, a Rogue striking from the shadows, etc). When you're defending yourself, you are just reacting to the opponent's action, so momentum (and probably Initiative) are against you. That's why ambushes are effective... Because the attackers can make sure combat happens on their terms (even if they use defensive tactics, they will spring the ambush in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of their tactics while minimizing the opponents' options and effectiveness as much as possible).
I disagree with the idea that when you attack you choose the circumstances. I would describe that choice as having the initiative (in the tactical sense, not the game term). Wise use of offensive or defense can be used to gain the initiative. When you have the it you can use offense or defense for your maximum benefit. It is often considered wise tactics to allow an enemy to go on the offense, then hit them when they are not set up to defend. Feint weakness at your center, then attack on the flanks is a classic!
That said... Precisely because offense is so powerful, not having at least moderately good defenses will get you slaughtered!
Agreed! I think much of this boils down to fairly minor variation on the offense/defense spectrum. Given the way most gear prices increase exponentially, there is a serious law of diminishing returns for favoring one over the other too much.
Quoting for out of context funniness.
...and maybe do sex damage with another hex... Better to get initiative and pound the hell out of her
Witches man. Witches.
Witches man. Witches.Quoting for out of context funniness.
...and maybe do sex damage with another hex... Better to get initiative and pound the hell out of her
It wouldn't have been so bad, but she just kept cackling the whole time!
Really creeped me out!| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an interesting thought experiment: if offense is the same as defense in this game, try adding class levels to kobolds and making them a viable fight for your PCs.
Uhhh...my PCs are afraid of kobolds. :|
Kobolds are size Small; this means their damage dice with weapons is lower. Add in that their Str is -4. They can hit accurately with ranged weapons (+2 Dex) but they'll never add tons of Str damage to composite bows, slings or thrown weapons.
Kobold warriors are sitting at +3 net AC over a generic human (+1 size, +1 dex, +1 natural), which means a 1st level kobold warrior in chainmail with a heavy shield has an AC of 21 out of the gate. Using a Net (thanks to BAB, size, and dex, it's 1d20-1 vs touch AC) entangles their foes. Touch-attack weapons (like alchemist fire) for short range skirmishes is where their damage is going to come from (kobolds aren't gimped in offense, they're gimped in a specific kind of offense, kind of like how barbarians are gimped at spell offense), and their massive AC and good Reflex saves make it difficult to react at low-levels without luck being on your side (meanwhile you're getting BBQ'd).
If you start adding class levels to them it gets really nasty because they start getting more HD. HP scales faster than weapon damage so if you add +2 warrior HD to them, they jump from 4 HP to 13 HP, going from CR 1/4 to CR 1/2, getting +3 BAB, +1 Fort, +1 Ref, +1 Will. Now they're out of the auto-hit territory (which non-orcs were in as well) and have 2 feats floating.
If you added heroic class levels, it gets worse, fast. A kobold party consisting of a kobold ranger, a kobold bard, a kobold cleric or druid, and a kobold wizard or sorcerer is a frightening thing to behold. The casters are the most frightening early game (because they have that +3 AC and essentially no loss in offense at all since a scorching ray fired by a kobold is actually MORE DANGEROUS than if fired by a human), meanwhile the kobold ranger and bard will do just fine since as heroics the Ranger is looking at a Str of about 12, and the bard's got arcane strike (and they both benefit from inspire courage). >_>
However, when that crossbow bolt hits it deals... 1d6. Maybe they get a few more points from feats; at mid-levels maybe they fire 2 shots and deal a few more static bonus from items/spells/buffs. At high levels they might be vital striking and such, but in the end their damage will always be low while their defenses are easier to bring up.
Kobold size/Strength penalties account for roughly a -3.5 to damage (weapon die drops 1 size, -2 Str). As levels rise this becomes a non-issue for even melee-oriented kobolds as their bonuses will allow them to deal consistent damage. It becomes a non-issue for ranged kobolds much sooner since you don't need a high Strength modifier to pump out some serious pain with ranged weapons (and the +2 to hit with ranged attacks is leaps and bounds more useful than the -3 to damage from Strength).
So a hit-and-run fight with kobolds could last a bunch of rounds due to their AC and saves, but they'd be doing a few points of damage a round, if at all. Meanwhile the PCs only land a blow every FOUR attacks instead of every 2, but that one hit is nearly enough to destroy one of their foes. In the end the PCs win most straight fights with kobolds because they can one-hit the pests and defeat them.
Then you look at tactics, and what do people always say about kobolds? Use traps; use terrain; squeeze and run away and all that. That stuff usually only works if the kobolds know the area and...
The reason people talk about kobold tactics is because at low levels with kobolds, one hit does indeed mean defeat. Of course, it means defeat if you're a human too (anyone with NPC levels in fact). So the object of that game is "don't get hit". Which means maximizing defense so you can keep attacking, because one thing that's more pathetic than that 1d6-1 damage is 0 damage. Kobolds in their natural environment are trivially easy to push into the 95% avoidance range at low levels (if your enemies have to squeeze your AC is effectively +4, and if you have cover that's another +4, and if you're crouching that's another +2 AC).
Four kobold warriors crouching behind barrels with light crossbows are putting out up to 4d6 damage per round but it takes a natural 20 to land a hit on them (and you're not confirming that critical). If you're in a small tunnel and thus squeezing, you're dead meat (-4 AC to you, which means you're a pin cushion).
Naturally the kobolds pick someone and focus fire on that person (generally the guy in front for most accuracy). The traps are defensive as well (because they make getting to the kobolds more difficult as you can't just try to charge in).
If you're dealing with leveled kobolds that can make better use of the options their class levels give them, kobolds can hurt you fast. Their offense really isn't that gimped except in one area (attacks relying on Strength scores). They will wreck faces otherwise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a similar vein, orcs are super hard to fight not because of their Strength modifiers but because of Ferocity. It's an ability that keeps them alive and attacking more, which makes them hellishly hard to fight for their CR because they in fact do not go down with a single hit like most CR 1/3rd enemies (it may take two or three or four).
Thus if we look at the orc - a creature that has a decent offense and a strong defense, we see the real value of defense. PCs are more like orcs. They will naturally have the offense they need, but with a good defense, they are monstrous.
That is true. But offense is the power to change the World around you where defense is the power to not die. In a Real World i would want more defense than offense but in a Interactive story i want to be the active and not the passive. I have several characters with great defenses, a crane style barbarian and a zen archer among others. But they also have offense and the offense is more important to me.For me this is more about defense being boring. Offense allow me to do stuff, Roll dices and it matters. Defense is just some other guy that have to Roll higher to do his stuff to you. Most of my characters have stronger offense because defense is boring in PF.I look at defense as a chance to keep playing. If you have no hit points, or if you are paralyzed, then you dont get to do the fun stuff.
I see what you mean not, but I don't think making defense active will make it more important. It will just make it more interactive. Offense is more important because it is stronger for most people. Even if you Let's say they removed the automatic 10 base AC, and you had to roll a d20. It would be more interactive, but AC would not be any more important. People would just try to raise AC more so that the die roll was less of an influence in case they had a low roll, which what we do with most rolls.
In a similar vein, orcs are super hard to fight not because of their Strength modifiers but because of Ferocity. It's an ability that keeps them alive and attacking more, which makes them hellishly hard to fight for their CR because they in fact do not go down with a single hit like most CR 1/3rd enemies (it may take two or three or four).
Thus if we look at the orc - a creature that has a decent offense and a strong defense, we see the real value of defense. PCs are more like orcs. They will naturally have the offense they need, but with a good defense, they are monstrous.
As a player I hate seeing orcs at low levels. You keep hitting them, but they won't die.
As for kobolds I know they are in the monster codex book , but I have not really taken the time to look at them yet. Maybe if I was not here posting as much...
That is true. But offense is the power to change the World around you where defense is the power to not die. In a Real World i would want more defense than offense but in a Interactive story i want to be the active and not the passive. I have several characters with great defenses, a crane style barbarian and a zen archer among others. But they also have offense and the offense is more important to me.For me this is more about defense being boring. Offense allow me to do stuff, Roll dices and it matters. Defense is just some other guy that have to Roll higher to do his stuff to you. Most of my characters have stronger offense because defense is boring in PF.I look at defense as a chance to keep playing. If you have no hit points, or if you are paralyzed, then you dont get to do the fun stuff.I see what you mean not, but I don't think making defense active will make it more important. It will just make it more interactive. Offense is more important because it is stronger for most people. Even if you Let's say they removed the automatic 10 base AC, and you had to roll a d20. It would be more interactive, but AC would not be any more important. People would just try to raise AC more so that the die roll was less of an influence in case they had a low roll, which what we do with most rolls.
Rolling for AC would not increase what i would Call interactivity it would just make it more random. I dont really Think defense Can be made more a active thing in PF with out re making the system. And th current State with offense being the active and defense the passive is ok with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I hate seeing orcs at low levels. You keep hitting them, but they won't die.In a similar vein, orcs are super hard to fight not because of their Strength modifiers but because of Ferocity. It's an ability that keeps them alive and attacking more, which makes them hellishly hard to fight for their CR because they in fact do not go down with a single hit like most CR 1/3rd enemies (it may take two or three or four).
Thus if we look at the orc - a creature that has a decent offense and a strong defense, we see the real value of defense. PCs are more like orcs. They will naturally have the offense they need, but with a good defense, they are monstrous.
Exactly! Which is why a strong defensive presence is powerful. Low defenses means you get CC'd/Dead quick. The moment that happens, contribution drops to 0%. :P
|
|
5- Very often a single successful attack can completely remove the target from combat (like a critical hit or one of the all too common SoL effects) and potentially decide the tide of battle. And while there are ways of reducing the chance of being eliminated by such attacks, it's pretty difficult to have 100% immunity to them... Even the mightiest of Paladins can roll a 1 on their Fort save... This brings us back to #3: The only way to be sure the enemy can't kill you is by killing it first.I think SoL effects and powerful crits are the best argument for the game favoring offense.
1. Reroll abilities are your friend. (Dwarven Samurai with Steel Soul rock.)
2. At high levels - fortification is your friend. (Though while AC can't stop crit threats - they do make confirmations less likely.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The critical-resistance provided by AC is often overlooked. Yes you can always be hit with a natural 20, but by comparison the hit is going to be a glancing blow, and if you can only be hit on a natural 20, you are virtually immune to being critically hit. By the time auto-crit abilities become common amongst martials (Paladins get auto-crit vs evil at 4th level but everyone else has to wait a lot longer) there's fortification armor. :)
I will say - I'm never sure what level to start putting fortification on stuff. My first instinct is to ignore it until the armor/shield is already +5, but that'd probably be after people start to auto-crit. (Or at least get huge bonuses to confirming.)
It's not like many enemies tend to be crit fishing with 15-20 weapons, so you're pretty much just watching out for pure dumb bad luck slamming you in the face on a 19 or a 20. A Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier is good enough for me and cheaper than adding Fortification to your tricked out armor too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad Ashiel is around to put down my arguments in this thread much more intelligently and eloquently than I can.
I've never seen the point in investing in Fortification armor. I've found that usually a Jingasa is plenty enough crit protection.