Stop moving to cover and then casting the shield spell or using the Raise a Shield action! The bonuses to your AC don't stack! It's one thing if you're just trying to get the damage mitigation, but oftentimes, I find that is not the case.
This is a common mistake I see all the time with defensive characters in games. What are some common mistakes you keep seeing in your games? What "Public Service Announcements" might you like to share with the 2E community?
Also, shout it out, just for fun! :D
* Do not try to step into difficult terrain!
* Do not try to hide while using lesser cover!
* Do not get confused by enemies with reach 10 and their "additional" corner hexes!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does "Do not fish for 20s and make 3rd Attack MAP Strikes if you have ANY other option" count?
As a GM, thats a big one where I ask, "Are you sure?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
* Do not end your turn without expending all three of your actions! In combat, there's almost always something better you can do than nothing!
Does "Do not fish for 20s and make 3rd Attack MAP Strikes if you have ANY other option" count?
As a GM, thats a big one where I ask, "Are you sure?"
LOL. Dude, I ask that as a fellow player whenever someone wants to make a -10 attack.
Stop moving to cover and then casting the shield spell or using the Raise a Shield action! The bonuses to your AC don't stack! It's one thing if you're just trying to get the damage mitigation, but oftentimes, I find that is not the case.A better use for the third action there is actually using the Take Cover action to move your standard cover to greater cover (+4 AC, Reflex, Stealth). You're more likely to mitigate damage and it doesn't need to be maintained each round -- only breaks if you move, attack, or go unconscious.
Just last night I tried that, then realized I had moved into greater cover already, and that there don't appear to be any rules for improving greater cover.
* Do not end your turn without expending all three of your actions! In combat, there's almost always something better you can do than nothing!
This one is conditional. Sometimes there really is nothing and if that last action would require you be somewhere dangerous to do it. It is often better to just accept you didn't use the last one that turn.
Staying in total cover is usually better than staying out to get that last attack if your other actions have been exhausted.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
* Do not end your turn without expending all three of your actions! In combat, there's almost always something better you can do than nothing!This one is conditional. Sometimes there really is nothing and if that last action would require you be somewhere dangerous to do it. It is often better to just accept you didn't use the last one that turn.
Staying in total cover is usually better than staying out to get that last attack if your other actions have been exhausted.
Yes, but only just. Debuff an enemy with Demoralize or a combat maneuver; draw out a backup weapon or a potion, or other useful item (for you or an ally); Stride to a safer place; Recall Knowledge to determine enemy strengths and weaknesses; Take Cover; Aid another; cast a one-action spell; raise shield; Bon Mot; Battle Medicine; Dismiss a Spell; Point Out; Command a companion; Sustain a Spell/Activation; and on and on and on. 99% of the time, there is something worthwhile you can do with that last action.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
* Champions can only use their reactions to protect you if you're within 15 feet (and the opponent is too). If you have a champion in your party, consider that when you move into melee.
In Roll20 it's worth giving the paladin a 15ft aura display in a non-intrusive color just to make it easier for everyone to remember where the habitable zone is.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
*As a frontline combatant, using your turn to Stride and Ready a Trip action is damage mitigation and a good way to "tank."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One lesser known: death effects kill PCs automatically at 0 HP. There are a lot of death spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*If you rely on healing, stay within range of your healer.
Seriously.
In a similar vein:
*Do not stretch out the party to the enemy's benefit...no matter how beautiful your initiative roll was.
*Do not expect an MCD to give you the class abilities that make up the chassis of a class.
Ex. Casters thinking MCD Fighter makes them good at fighting. Level proficiency aside, you'll never gain the proficiency of a 5th level Fighter in their chosen weapon group. Ever.
*Armor does not make your caster-based gish durable.
More durable, yes, but AC's only one of many factors.
*Every bonus or penalty is significant.
We read this on the boards often enough, it's just sometimes hard to intuit that a PC w/ +3 to attack does about 50% more damage per Strike (all other factors being equal and the target being within the normal encounter range). Similarly, a Champion with heavy armor has effectively more h.p. than a raging Barbarian in medium because the Barbarian will lose their h.p. that much faster (not even counting shields, Lay on Hands, and such).
*Sometimes you're the boss, sometimes you're the minion.
Be able to adjust your tactics to suit.
*Every bonus or penalty is significant.
We read this on the boards often enough, it's just sometimes hard to intuit that a PC w/ +3 to attack does about 50% more damage per Strike (all other factors being equal and the target being within the normal encounter range). Similarly, a Champion with heavy armor has effectively more h.p. than a raging Barbarian in medium because the Barbarian will lose their h.p. that much faster (not even counting shields, Lay on Hands, and such).
I'm curious, how does that come out to +50%? Isn't it 10% per +1 (5% from hitting, 5% from critting)?
Edit: Ah, I see, it's because you aren't hitting 15% more with a +3 but with 15% more of the total possible rolls of the d20. i.e, hitting 75% of the time compared to 50% is a 50% swing, not 25%. That is interesting.
I'm curious, how does that come out to +50%? Isn't it 10% per +1 (5% from hitting, 5% from critting)?*Every bonus or penalty is significant.
We read this on the boards often enough, it's just sometimes hard to intuit that a PC w/ +3 to attack does about 50% more damage per Strike (all other factors being equal and the target being within the normal encounter range). Similarly, a Champion with heavy armor has effectively more h.p. than a raging Barbarian in medium because the Barbarian will lose their h.p. that much faster (not even counting shields, Lay on Hands, and such).
That’s the boost to your damage compared to theoretical maximum. The boost compared to what you are actually doing before the improvement is higher.
Similar to the above: It's great if you're an elf with fleet and elven speed, but if you get more than 2 strides away from the party, expect to be dropped, and don't expect the party to run to heal you :-P. Play the game at least somewhat strategically.
I had exactly this happen to me!
I was playing an elf monk with high movement speed, ran ahead, got crit downed by a villain who then carried my body off and fed it to a swarm of spiders while the rest of the party fought against his minions.
The party not only did not come to my immediate aid, they spent 10 minutes healing themselves before searching the nearby cave where my half-chewed corpse was eventually found.
The bad guy didn't kill me (I actually stabilized on my own). The swarm and the lack of party aid is what ultimately did me in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially since not everyone has AoO it's not too hard for an enemy to slip around and attack casters.
Unless you're fighting someplace with natural choke points being behind your allies isn't much defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially since not everyone has AoO it's not too hard for an enemy to slip around and attack casters.
Unless you're fighting someplace with natural choke points being behind your allies isn't much defense.
Does having enemies regularly charge through the front line with impunity strike anyone else as a little gamist, and unrealistic? It totally breaks suspension of disbelief for me.
In our games, whether because we roleplay fights a little more believably or because we still possess a 1E mindset, our enemies rarely charge through the front line unless they're tactically stupid or suicidal.
Remember, the NPCs have no concept of the game rules. They see a line of armed adventurers and probably think something along the lines of "I'll probably get chewed up if I try to slip past that," not "that's a monk, druid, and champion in front, so they don't have any AoOs with which to chew me up as I Stride towards their wizard in back."
This isn't a tactical miniatures war game like Warhammer 40k. (Though there's no problem making it like one if that's your cup of tea--it just doesn't strike me as conceptually believable or immersive.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our games, whether because we roleplay fights a little more believably or because we still possess a 1E mindset, our enemies rarely charge through the front line unless they're tactically stupid or suicidal.
This strikes me as correct by the implications of the actual rules as well.
Remember, most NPC enemies don't have a goal of 'do as much damage as possible before I die' they have a goal of 'survive this fight'. From that perspective charging through the front line gets you surrounded, flanked, and probably killed (since they can almost certainly all get two or three attacks if you got one). Sure, you'll likely do more damage before going down, but that's sort of not the point, y'know?
That's entirely true just because of the way the rules work. Some NPCs making a kamikaze run doing this is pretty reasonable, and some will have tricks to get them out of this predicament, but most foes are gonna think twice about putting themselves in such a bad tactical situation.
Speaking of which, doing this as a PC is also a bad idea absent tricks to get you out of the bad tactical situation you are putting yourself in. Being surrounded is generally bad, don't do it just because you can without provoking AoO.
Depends on the enemy. "Berserker linebreaker" can totally be the appropriate tactics to have a particular enemy follow. It shouldn't be what every single creature does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, the NPCs have no concept of the game rules. They see a line of armed adventurers and probably think something along the lines of "I'll probably get chewed up if I try to slip past that," not "that's a monk, druid, and champion in front, so they don't have any AoOs with which to chew me up as I Stride towards their wizard in back."
Anybody can have AoO through the fighter dedication though.
And even from a purely diagetic perspective "I'm going to ignore the dangerous looking people to attack the old man in robes" doesn't make a ton of sense for an antagonist who wants to repel the adventurers.
Depends on the enemy. "Berserker linebreaker" can totally be the appropriate tactics to have a particular enemy follow. It shouldn't be what every single creature does.
Yep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially since not everyone has AoO it's not too hard for an enemy to slip around and attack casters.
Unless you're fighting someplace with natural choke points being behind your allies isn't much defense.
Does having enemies regularly charge through the front line with impunity strike anyone else as a little gamist, and unrealistic? It totally breaks suspension of disbelief for me.
In our games, whether because we roleplay fights a little more believably or because we still possess a 1E mindset, our enemies rarely charge through the front line unless they're tactically stupid or suicidal.
Remember, the NPCs have no concept of the game rules. They see a line of armed adventurers and probably think something along the lines of "I'll probably get chewed up if I try to slip past that," not "that's a monk, druid, and champion in front, so they don't have any AoOs with which to chew me up as I Stride towards their wizard in back."
This isn't a tactical miniatures war game like Warhammer 40k. (Though there's no problem making it like one if that's your cup of tea--it just doesn't strike me as conceptually believable or immersive.)
Nah, because instead the default assumption is that no one has attacks of opportunity, so you don't worry about it. It's not something things can normally do.
Also, remember your team mates could ready an action, which is more realistic but also means they're less likely to land it (if they've made other attacks) and has more tax on the action economy.
Personally I like this better.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Teamwork and careful planning matter far more than any amount of optimization that you can cram into a single character concept or even buffs that you can load up on yourself.
2) Standing your ground alone versus 3+ opponents that are your -1 level or higher than your PC can and often will result in a quick death if protracted over more than a single round, even for "tanks."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At higher levels, Fear is both the best 1st level spell in the game and the best 3rd level spell in the game. Always worth considering if you can just drop a Fear rather than using a more valuable spell slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't spam cantrips unless you're sure the fight is already won. Using mid/low level slots is a much better way to conserve spells for later fights.
Using mid/low level slots is a much better way to conserve spells for later fights.
Could you please elaborate? How is spending spells a good way to conserve spells?
Is this an oblique reference to ending a fight earlier to save on healing spells and resources?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, the NPCs have no concept of the game rules. They see a line of armed adventurers and probably think something along the lines of "I'll probably get chewed up if I try to slip past that,"
Why would they think that?
If you can run past most creatures in the world without a problem, why would they think they can't run past you?
Excluding them taking a Recall Knowledge check, or after the first guy get's hit.
Using mid/low level slots is a much better way to conserve spells for later fights.Could you please elaborate? How is spending spells a good way to conserve spells?
Is this an oblique reference to ending a fight earlier to save on healing spells and resources?
It's a reference to the fact that you have enough spells, and you should spend them. Every unspent spell slot you end the day with is a wasted spell slot, and one you will never get back. When you feel the need to conserve, do so using lower-level spells, not cantrips.
And yes, playing too cautiously can result in the need to spend more resources, either for your teammates or for you, when you misjudge the difficulty of a combat encounter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Running past front lines
In AD&D, the guidelines clarified that casters were targets and that most enemies (at least if they knew what a caster was) would focus on killing them because they'd fear spells. Intermingling with one's enemies also gets bonus point in fantasy where a Fireball may come any moment. If you're not the one's casting it, you likely don't want discrete grouping.
Advice was to NOT cast Fly for safety since all archers would focus fire. Of course, many Wizard took off their pointy hats because of this, tried to look like scribes or merchants until they needed to unleash.
It did not help that casters were far squishier then, but even now they're squishier than nearly any warrior. Do I attack the guy in bulletproof tactical gear in the front or the guy in civilian clothing in the back carrying grenades (ones with extreme precision)? Heck, it's likely the guy in back that matters more, right? Kill them and these warrior types should scatter with broken morale, right? Which is to say even enemies that haven't faced adventuring groups might still want to target the back row first.
In The Temple of Elemental Evil (DnD 3.X) video game many mobs were programmed to go as deeply into enemy ranks as possible. It seemed insane at first until they wrecked you for leaving the slightest gap between tanks. Even with Combat Reflexes in the mix, those tactics destroyed back rows, and the baddies got around the front to flank too (something PCs also take risks to do). Some current video games have enemies focus far more on casters, especially healers (despite the healers standing back and not interacting with the enemy).
It doesn't need to be gamist for enemies to have tactics that end up being mechanically sound. There are similar real world tactics (much of which were ultimately suicidal!) plus in their "real world", tactics that succeed in game terms would be the one's taught in their Art of War or "Thinks Warlord Grokk Thought". Plus there's arrogance, ignorance, panic, honor, zealotry, and more at play too. That stew should lead to a variety of tactics, hopefully all interesting as well as character-driven.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with bringing up AD&D in this context is that GM attitude assumptions are incompatible - AD&D assumed a higher level of GM-antagonism toward characters, deliberately treating the character as "the enemy" and setting up a goal of attempting to constantly thwart the cool things that a party might otherwise do. So that's why the advice is "kill the casters first if you can because magic is scary" - and even then, that advice only makes sense because what magic could do vs. what else could be done was not even sort of on the same scale.
In more modern games, especially Pathfinder 2nd, monsters trying to ignore any type of character to go after any other particular type of character are opening them selves up for getting deeper into trouble because now it's not just casters that should be feared.
And because there is a much smaller gulf between the offense and defense of different classes in PF2, the "smart tactics" for creatures to use are no longer as cut-and-dried as aiming for a particular garment/armor configuration first - it actually depends on subtleties like whether going for the "squishy" is going to make it easy for you to be flanked by your foes, and whether you have the option to instead flank a "tough" combatant while not being so exposed to your foes.
I disagree with the innate antagonism of AD&D.
The guideline in question was framed as advice to the player as much as anybody, not as a DM's strategy guide, but rather as a natural strategy to be aware of arising out of magic's place in warfare. Magic was special and feared (rightly so!).Then I agree.
With the rise of martials in PF2 (and rise of hit points & Medicine), magic's place in warfare may have changed, yes. But armor is still a visual cue (even if incorrect re: Monks & also PF2's proficiency scaling) about who's harder to kill or not. I'm reluctant to bring up PC classes outside of the Forgotten Realms where adventuring groups are hard-wired into the culture. I expect most veterans have fought mainly warriors, victims, with a smattering of magic support, as opposed to the high magic of most adventuring groups. And the average rank-and-file would (IMO) likely have much less effect on the battle than the casters. So if you see an opportunity to take out one of those casters...
Now if a warrior's swinging a flaming blade after leaping over parapet, that'd factor in in its own way.
Do Golarion's NPCs (outside of intended combat encounters that is) travel around in bands of comparable level allies with a diverse set of PC talents? More likely there's a large mix of levels in any given wagon train, militia, or village. It's even more varied with the new NPC system of "X level in combat, Y level in their field".
Also history shows us many people were willing to obey suicidal orders if they felt it'd bring glory or victory. And many others fled from a dominant position (to get cut down in flight) when they could've won if they'd pressed forward. To say a GM's tactics are "gamist" (as others did) based on effectiveness seems premature. Some enemies will do smart things (that are dumb mechanically) and other will do dumb things (that synergize w/ game mechanics), and so forth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great points all.
Just to be clear, I was not saying that it was unrealistic to flank the party or otherwise try and get around a front line. I was stating that it was unrealistic for most (not all) enemies to want to attempt rushing THROUGH an obvious defensive front line. I was advising GMs against doing so if the situation didn't specifically warrant such a tactic. Just because the game mechanics make it technically possible, doesn't mean that a GM should do it regularly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A vital difference from 1e that my group missed - touch spells don't require an attack roll to touch the target. Many touch spells just automatically target the saves.
You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In our games, whether because we roleplay fights a little more believably or because we still possess a 1E mindset, our enemies rarely charge through the front line unless they're tactically stupid or suicidal.This strikes me as correct by the implications of the actual rules as well.
Remember, most NPC enemies don't have a goal of 'do as much damage as possible before I die' they have a goal of 'survive this fight'.
I might challenge this premise. APs are full of enemies who specifically fight to the death out of loyalty, malice, discipline, fear, zealotry, or just having too much ego to accept they will lose. There are plenty of NPCs who don't have that mindset, but I'm not sure they are a majority. Enemies that specifically flee or surrender feel like the exception, not the rule.
Mindless enemies rarely care about their own survival, but also aren't smart enough to target the casters. Predators usually go for the weakest looking member of the the herd, so a hungry monster opting to ambush the weakest looking party member with the intent to quickly kill them and carry them off to eat is pretty reasonable.
That said, I think there's enough variables in play that do usually mean the backlines are safer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seldom seen the classic front line in the Pathfinder games I played and ran. When my gnome ranger/monk was the party leader in Hook Mountain Massacre, I tried to maintain a front line with my character and the battle oracle to protect the spellcasters, but the wizard and druid kept running ahead, sigh. After I retired my character to become GM and the party composition changed, the standard battle tactic was the two rogues started with high-initiative sneak attacks and then stalled for another round while the battle oracle buffed herself and the arcane casters laid down debuffs. Then the oracle stepped forward as an unstoppable killing machine.
In Jade Regent, the two-handed-weapon fighter was optimized for massive damage by a player who loved fights. The other characters used their spells and skills to herd enemies toward him, where the enemies died quickly. We nicknamed the fighter "the Cuisinart" after a popular food processor.
In Serpent's Skull, my gnome barbarian with Con 23 would run past the enemy to get behind them, deliberately provoking an Attack of Opportunity against her Mobility. That let the other party members close in, with the rogue flanking opposite my barbarian. The abberant-bloodline sorcerer was an armor-wearing melee character attacking with touch spells and a 15-foot reach.
In Iron Gods, the strix skald exploited her flying mobility with the Death from Above feat. The bloodrager would charge and the reach-weapon fighter would step backwards. The gunslinger would be at range. The magus began with a wand attack before sheathing the wand and joining the melee with spellstrike. The party skirmished in constant motion.
Ironfang Invasion is my first Pathfinder 2nd Edition campaign. Forewarned that they would be protecting refugees in a forest, the players made high-Dexterity characters good at Stealth. Two are archers, and two have cantrips, so they prefer attacking from range and from hiding. The fifth is a high-Dexterity liberator champion with a velociraptor animal companion. The champion is defense and the velociraptor is offense.
Stop moving to cover and then casting the shield spell or using the Raise a Shield action! The bonuses to your AC don't stack! It's one thing if you're just trying to get the damage mitigation, but oftentimes, I find that is not the case.
My players prefer to combine Take Cover and Hide. The DC 11 flat check from successful hiding and the AC bonus from greater cover are distinct defenses, so both apply. Use Take Cover first, because the AC bonus from cover also serves as a circumstance bonus to the Stealth check to hide.
Going back to the original topic: Remember that darkvision doesn't have a range in this edition, it's just the ability to see through darkness as far as you can see...
And there's no inherent penalty for Perception rolls at a distance, so you can't count on that group 200' away auto-failing (and thankfully vice-versa) depending on how your GM reads the circumstances.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might challenge this premise. APs are full of enemies who specifically fight to the death out of loyalty, malice, discipline, fear, zealotry, or just having too much ego to accept they will lose. There are plenty of NPCs who don't have that mindset, but I'm not sure they are a majority. Enemies that specifically flee or surrender feel like the exception, not the rule.
There's a difference between fighting to the death and fighting without concern for your own life. The two are very different things and one does not always equate to the other. Preferring death to capture doesn't necessarily mean you don't care if you die, it means you really don't want to be captured.
I'd say most AP foes fall into that category rather than actively caring more about doing damage than surviving.
Mindless enemies rarely care about their own survival, but also aren't smart enough to target the casters.
Yeah, this is true. Creatures defending their territory and probably most stupid humanoids will also likely just attack the first thing they see.
Predators usually go for the weakest looking member of the the herd, so a hungry monster opting to ambush the weakest looking party member with the intent to quickly kill them and carry them off to eat is pretty reasonable.
Absolutely, but they're not gonna charge head-on to do it, they'll come up from behind. My commentary is not about targeting casters in general, it's about a specific tactic being used to do it.
That said, I think there's enough variables in play that do usually mean the backlines are safer.
Agreed. It's not perfect safety by any means, but it's safer than being up front.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can really benefit from looking at your character and deciding, generally speaking, what will you do when you:
Win initiative
Act quicker than the enemy, but slower than your allies
Act slower than the enemy or last
What you do in those circumstances is generally very different, often due to sudden changes in the battlefield environment. Example, you are a cleric, the party's healer. If you win initiative, no one is hurt yet. There is nothing to heal. What do you do? Buff? Ranged attack?
The enemy hasn't acted yet, but one/some/all of your allies already have. Still no one hurt yet, but they may be spread out, reducing the efficiency of your buffs. Do you draw a weapon and join the melee? Do you stay back and ranged attack? Knowing that someone might be injured next turn, do you spend actions moving into position to maximize your healing coverage?
The enemy has taken a turn or you are last. You are probably looking to heal at this point, but maybe no one was hurt, or just minor. Now what?
These are rhetorical questions, so no need to reply in here. Just saying that each player should look at their skill set tactically, understand how your actions interact with the rest of the party and have an idea what you will do given standard occurring situations.
This becomes especially effective when all the players have done this exercise and shared their ideas to design a cohesive battle plan. Sure, lots of things can happen to disrupt your plan, but at least understand what you tend to do and what your allies tend to do. It amazes me how often someone "wins" the initiative race and essentially sits there, mouth agape, because they have no idea what to do under those circumstances.
If you like to buff everyone at the start of the battle but your initiative isn't very good, don't expect Leroy Jenkins to delay every battle to wait on you. He probably has a high initiative modifier for a reason. And unless you metagame, few people want to risk delaying and letting the enemy go first. In a game of race to zero hit points, its better to be bowling than golfing :-D