Do your wizards get attacks?

[siegfriedliner]

So I was debating with KrispyXIV on the summoner channel and she came out with an interesting view of things that I didn't share.

From her play experience wizard (a generalisatiom for the back row) don't get attacked a significant amount of the time.

My personal experience is that they do.

Combat rararely happen in area that bigger than 60ft squared and whilst the back line don't get attacked all the time or as much as melee guys they do get attacked quite bit.

I was wondering if my games are uniquely short ranged and lacking in tactics compared to everyone else so I was wondering what your experience playing wizard, cloistered clerics, alchemist or sorcerers was do you get attacked frequently or is it only once every other session people come after you?

[Salamileg]

Up until recently, the group I GM for only had one melee character. The party was a barbarian, cloistered cleric, wizard (formerly witch), and a sorcerer. Due to not having a strong front line, the casters got hit very frequently. The cleric in particular established herself as sort of a "middle line" in the party, since she had the highest HP of the casters and could take more hits. Said cleric recently died of old age and her player is playing a champion now, so we'll see how things change.

On the flip side, I'm a player in Extinction Curse. I'm a champion, and we have a monk, druid with animal companion, and a witch. That game has an extremely strong front line comparatively, especially since the monk has Stand Still, so the casters don't get hit often. The witch in particular plays very safe, and often goes entire sessions without getting damaged. Which is probably for the best, since I'm pretty sure he has 10 Con and a strong breeze will knock him down.

[thenobledrake]

Through a combination of marching order putting the other party members between most foes and the wizard, and position for ranged attacks, the wizards in the PF2 games I've run so far have had very few attacks target them.

Most foes they face have no reason not to choose the easier to reach targets, and there haven't been any "attacked from the rear" situations as of yet (running published APs) to make the party's formation result in the wizard being a prime target.

This does contrast with the wizard I play in a campaign, though. I am regularly in position to be attacked because I have chosen short-range spells like color spray and shocking grasp, and am willing to gamble on my charming words school spell, mage armor, and toughness to protect me. And even when I goofed and got grabbed by an owlbear, I still haven't hit zero HP. But in this party is also an investigator that uses a crossbow and the only time he's taken damage that I can remember at this point is when nearly the entire party got caught in an area effect, because he does like the wizards I've GMed for do (and my wizard is clearly "tanking" for him).

[Kyrone]

The party that I GM have an Aberrant Sorcerer (lvl 11 now), he is targeted sometimes but not often, the party have a solid frontline with a Champion and Warpriest and a decent middle line with an Archer/Switch Hitter Ranger that can either go to the frontline or fall back.

Against ranged enemies he just move to cover for a decent bonus to AC making a less desirable target, if no cover is available the Ranger is a decent lesser cover and both the Ranger and Sorcerer try to dispose them quickly together.

[siegfriedliner]

What I have got from this is my gms habit of building set piece encounters where if any of us don't feel threatend he feels he hasn't done his job right is not as common as I thought it was.

[Palinurus]

siegfriedliner wrote:

What I have got from this is my gms habit of building set piece encounters where if any of us don't feel threatend he feels he hasn't done his job right is not as common as I thought it was.

I don't think it is that common. My Age of Ashes party has two strong front liners - a fighter and a sword and board war priest with champion dedication. In most fights it is a struggle for enemies to get past the front line (and they usually regret it if they do as the wizard and bard are nearly always within 15' of the cleric). Intelligent opponents usually try and drop the fighter and cleric.

[gnoams]

In my experience with the pfs games I played as a sorceress, I was attacked pretty much every fight. Enemies typically would spread out to engage all the pcs if there was enough of them to do so.

[thenobledrake]

siegfriedliner wrote:

...if any of us don't feel threatend...

If a player has to have their own character's HP total dwindling away to feel threatened, that player seems short-sighted to me.

With my groups the wizard players (besides me) are starting to worry the whole party will end up dead if anyone's character hits the floor or if there are just a lot of HP missing overall - and everyone (besides me) pretty much flies into a panic as soon as the GM I play a wizard with says an enemy is attacking my character because they think "squishy is going to die!" even though I've built the character to not actually be the typical level of squishy they are expecting.

[gnoams]

For what its worth- I think it's far more heroic and cinematic to have combatants spreading out to pair off and fight one on one, versus the usual gamist style of everyone ganging up on one dude at a time.

[Project: J-ko]

My Wizard is very much so built around being far away from people with knives who like to stab, so as long as there's something resembling a front line, I'm not often hit. I'm comfortable staying 50 or so feet behind where the swords are swinging, firing spells and arrows over my friend's heads and into the throngs of bad guys.

When I am hit, though, I crumple like a wet napkin. It's a bad scene.

[mrspaghetti]

I play a wizard in PFS and normally manage pretty easily to avoid being targeted. My last adventure I decided to stay in melee and went down immediately.

[Cintra Bristol]

Given my group's past experience playing ShadowRun, there are plenty of times when the bad guys have a very "Geek the Mage!" focus. Whereas unintelligent (or just non-Strategic) enemies are easily distracted by whoever makes themselves the biggest melee target. So it really depends on the intelligence and goals of the bad guys for us.

On the other hand, at higher levels, the wizard in our Age of Ashes campaign would sometimes throw her tiny-hit-point-total-self into melee range to flank somebody so her boyfriend the Fighter had that extra edge on attacks. So sometimes it depends more on the intelligence and goals of the good guys. :)

[Arachnofiend]

gnoams wrote:

For what its worth- I think it's far more heroic and cinematic to have combatants spreading out to pair off and fight one on one, versus the usual gamist style of everyone ganging up on one dude at a time.

Don't think I'd play ranged characters if I expect to always end up dueling an enemy, personally.

IME the biggest threat to the backline is the enemy's backline. It's not that enemy melee won't try to go for the casters, it's that we try to prevent that from happening.

[RealAlchemy]

Haven't tried pure wizard yet, but I have played a cloistered cleric, which is close to as squishy. I use terrain and movement to my advantage to rarely get targeted, sometimes even being around a corner so I had line of sight to the party to cast heals or buffs but no line of sight to the enemy.

[lemeres]

Pure casters tend to be squishy, and as such, they go down if they are hit with a few attacks.

However, casters are also the least likely character to get a 'few' attacks off on. You position yourself so you are hard to even just walk over to (so only one attack on you in a good situation), and then you scurry away as much as possible so enemies don't nail you down.

So even if more martially focused characters have better defenses, they often are easier to reach and get into a slugfest with. Ideally, it is about the same either way, so might as well get into a fight with the nearest guy. if the wizard decides to get in close for a touch spell... the mental math changes a lot.

Obviously, if the enemy has good ranged attacks, all bets are off. The easy-to-pick-off and has-battle-changing-magic characters are the prime targets. Of course... that is why you have wall spells on your list. Keep a couple in your pocket for when you are in that situation.

[Deriven Firelion]

Depends on group composition. Depends on the intelligence and ability of the creature to get to the wizard.

If there is a raging barbarian in their face, then maybe the wizard is the last thing on their mind. If there is a slow moving champion doing low damage while the wizard is crushing them with magic maybe they move to kill the wizard.

A higher level wizard has the ability to render many fights trivial because he can cast a 4th level invis and move around avoiding combat. Or he can project image and launch spells from his image.

I will say that wizards and casters in general have more means to avoid fights than martials, especially melee martials.

[Cyder]

Depends on the enemy, tactics and the encounter but generally in games I run and play in if there is a smart enemy that has an option to kill the squishy then that is what they will do.

Even predators target the weakest members of the herd.

Also smart enemies are as capable as characters at finding ways to get to the back line or having ambushers circling and coming from behind.

I find the idea that smart enemies focusing on the hard to kill enemies a little abhorrent, games I play NPCS are more than just loot pinatas.

In short yes, in the cast of smart enemies of even pack tactic predators, the backline can and will be attacked.

[Deadmanwalking]

The way I'd put it is as follows:

Backliners can be attacked. This will happen, but probably not every single combat, and melee enemies will have difficulties doing so vs. most PC groups with a solid front line.

Melee combatants will be attacked. Basically every combat, by many opponents.

So...Wizards will get attacked, but I wouldn't expect it to happen as much as, say, a melee Fighter getting attacked.

[Undraxis]

The few times i get to play and not GM, my wizards tend to get into some form of melee danger at least once per fight. But I believe its more to the fact our group doesnt use tactical maps or movement, more abstract. So we tend to ignore situations where AoOpp or reactions would affect mob movement.

[Queaux]

This is advice for a different game, but it still applies to most games: geek the mage.

I generally target casters as both a player and a GM when I'm using intelligent enemies.

[SuperBidi]

I play a Sorcerer in PFS. He's paper made (12 Constitution). I've been threatened quite regularly but in very specific situations:
- Surprise attacks. Not very common. Also, I'm not always attacked as the enemy spread quite randomly.
- AoE attacks. Obviously.
- When I took risks. I've stopped that. If you Sudden Charge to put yourself in flanking, don't expect healing.
- When I attract attention. Certainly the most classical case. I drop a Fireball or a 3-ation Heal against undeads, and next second I'm overwhelmed. But, well, it means I'm useful, so I'm ok with that.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Speaking for the mage in my group, fairly regularly despite a front line made up of two monks, a champion, a ranger, and her hawk companion. This mage is also the single closest any character has come to actual death thanks to being healed to Wounded 3 in a fight with multiple AoEs popping off.

However, it should be noted that this mage (Imperial Sorcerer to be precise) very often makes it a point to be at or near the front of the party going into any area, and routinely is responsible for opening doors (a combination of in- and out-of-character proclivities toward inadvisable enthusiasm and perhaps an unhealthy dose of death wish) if they can beat the champion to the punch.

Speaking for my other group where I am the champion, by far the party's front line takes the majority of the punishment usually simply because we are the closest to the danger and often physically obstructing the path to the back line, excepting when we are attacked from multiple sides (in which case the squishies often get a little more roughhousing before they retreat to safety.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Cyder wrote:

Depends on the enemy, tactics and the encounter but generally in games I run and play in if there is a smart enemy that has an option to kill the squishy then that is what they will do.

Even predators target the weakest members of the herd.

Also smart enemies are as capable as characters at finding ways to get to the back line or having ambushers circling and coming from behind.

I find the idea that smart enemies focusing on the hard to kill enemies a little abhorrent, games I play NPCS are more than just loot pinatas.

In short yes, in the cast of smart enemies of even pack tactic predators, the backline can and will be attacked.

Smart foes aren't likely to stand and fight to the death and if they are fighting to the death they will prioritize what looks like their best chance at survival / reaching their most important goal.

I find that people who have creatures that primarily focus on optimal tactics ignore the element where these creatures want to survive encounters and don't know exact capabilities of foes.

[Samurai]

As the Wizard in my group, I have been attacked (and downed) quite a bit more than the other players. Our GM is used to PF1e, where enemies generally tried to kill the spellcasters first, so he still plays that way in PF2e as well. Technically, given the general weakness of spells, it may not be the optimal path to victory like it used to be, but that remains to be proven...

[SuperBidi]

As a side note, unless you fight humanoids, monsters shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Wizard and a Monk without Recall Knowledge checks. If your DM attacks the squishies at the back with, say, demons, he's giving an undue advantage to them.
Demons, for example, don't have notions of spellcasters and martials. They are all able in both areas. As such, attacking the squishies at the back is a strategy they don't have, they expect the guy launching devastating Chain Lightnings to also be a potent melee fighter.

[thenobledrake]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

I find that people who have creatures that primarily focus on optimal tactics ignore the element where these creatures want to survive encounters and don't know exact capabilities of foes.

I've seen that a lot over the years too; people trying to play up "smart creature" and ending up actually having the creatures do not-so-smart things, or worse actually come off as being omniscient because they are acting on intel that they can't possibly have or even have reasons to believe the opposite of.

[Ascalaphus]

I don't often get attacked when I'm playing a backliner. It happens from time to time, but not much - and this is bundling experiences both from PFS and AP.

A couple of key factors contribute to this:

- An enemy that's already engaged in melee with front row PCs is not likely to spend actions walking away and attacking me instead. It'd often trigger Stand Still / Attack of Opportunity / some Champion reaction because if you're walking around like that, you're definitely in the service zone.

- I'm not in front, so it takes enemies more actions to get to me than to get to the frontliners.

- The "geek the mage first" idea is based a lot on Shadowrun and earlier Pathfinder / D&D editions where casters were more powerful compared to martials, especially at range, but a lot weaker in melee. Now that casters are a lot more in line with other classes for power, it seems a bit old-fashioned to focus on that.

- The "attack the weak member of the herd" thing happens now and then, but much of the time, my casters will have maxed out AC as well and a healthy amount of HP, so what do you mean weak member? Also, all these "natural" predators would in the real natural world only hunt something like a powerful PC party when they're starving and desperate. A typical predator tries to have an entirely unbalanced fight against much weaker prey, like some cute gazelles, not bristling with sharp bits and armor PCs.

- And if you do close in on me while going around the frontline? You've probably spent at least two actions to get there and you're now probably flanked by the frontline you had to go around. I'll do some debuffing on you too. Enjoy getting shanked.

I'm not "the squishy in the back". I'm flank bait for people who have their mind stuck in previous edition tactics.

[Temperans]

Its not a previous edition tactic its how actual fighting works.

When you have a group traveling the ones that get targeted first are those that look weak, not the soldiers in full armor. Attacking the ones in full armor is a waste of time.

An Enemy that has range will attack the enemy that looks weakest and run away. They have no reason to move towards the target and risk getting into melee.

Creatures that are melee wont just stand in clear view, they will set up an ambush and attack from all sides. There is no reason to attack from 1 side.

The weird tactic is that GMs who are sending creatures to attack fully armored PCs. No creature would do that unless they: underestimated the PCs, are starving, or are being commanded by a stronger creature.

[Decimus Drake]

How do you know how actual fighting works?

[SuperBidi]

Temperans wrote:

Its not a previous edition tactic its how actual fighting works.

When you have a group traveling the ones that get targeted first are those that look weak, not the soldiers in full armor. Attacking the ones in full armor is a waste of time.

An Enemy that has range will attack the enemy that looks weakest and run away. They have no reason to move towards the target and risk getting into melee.

Creatures that are melee wont just stand in clear view, they will set up an ambush and attack from all sides. There is no reason to attack from 1 side.

The weird tactic is that GMs who are sending creatures to attack fully armored PCs. No creature would do that unless they: underestimated the PCs, are starving, or are being commanded by a stronger creature.

From my Pathfinder 2 experience, attacking enemies in one front is the most optimized strategy. Focusing on one enemy at a time is definitely the best strategy compared to splitting up your damage.

Also, there are no more squishies. Everyone has nearly the same AC and hp so I will more often target who's easy to target than who's weak. Flanking is also way stronger than it used to be so I'll avoid putting myself in such a situation.

The only guys I'll avoid to attack is the heavy armor ones or the ones having a shield raised. And Barbarians are certainly my first pick if I have to choose as they have subpar AC for heavy damage.

[beowulf99]

Generally speaking I try to run monsters reasonably "in character". Beasts, mindless undead and other "simple minded" creatures will more than likely just go for whatever is closest, or whatever hurts it the most if it has to choose.

Sometimes I'll throw a wrench at the party though. Ambushing gnolls hiding in the woods, an enterprising goblin shaman who doesn't like other magic getting flung around etc... If it makes sense, I'll definitely go for the mage.

Having said that, I'd say the back line probably gets engaged roughly half the time when I GM. When I play, it depends honestly on who is running the game.

[thenobledrake]

Temperans wrote:

The weird tactic is that GMs who are sending creatures to attack fully armored PCs. No creature would do that unless they: underestimated the PCs, are starving, or are being commanded by a stronger creature.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned how people that try to have a creature "play smart" often end up with a different result.

The creature attacking the party likely has choices that fall into roughly three categories: Category 1) close in on armor-wearing enemy and attack with most potent attacks, 2) use less potent attacks against unarmored enemy that has cover, 3) close in on unarmed enemy, giving other enemies your back, to use most potent attacks.

Which one a person labels "smart" shows how well they are actually processing what the creature's goals are and how they are the most likely to achieve them.

Let's illustrate with an example, for funsies with some level 2 stats because they are in my brain right now: Rook is a plate-armored fighter with a two-handed weapon, and Vors wears a nice long coat and wide-brimmed hat and a dagger on his hip. A boggard warrior is hoping to kill both of them, but its true goal is to survive the attempt.

If it goes Category 1) Stride up to Rook, Strike +10 vs. AC 20 (55% chance to hit), Strike +5 vs. AC 20 (30% chance to hit), a hit would deal 1d6+6 (9.025 average damage, which is about 28% of Rook's maximum HP).

If it goes Category 2) Strike +6 vs. AC 19 (thanks to Rook providing cover for Vors; 40% chance to hit), Draw another javelin, Strike +1 vs. AC 19 (15% chance to hit), a hit would deal 1d6+4 (4.875 average damage, which is about 22% of Vors' maximum HP).

If it goes Category 3) Stride up to Rook, Stride to get around Rook to Vors - and take an attack of opportunity for doing it - Strike +10 vs. AC 18 (65% chance to hit), a hit would deal 1d6+6 (7.6 average damage, which is about 34% of Vors' maximum HP)

All of the above assumed the most favorable circumstances for the creature - having the weapon for their preferred tactic at the ready, winning initiative so they are choosing between equally accessible targets instead of "the guy in my face vs. that other guy over there" and also don't have Vors using a defensive spell before being attacked, not having to spend extra actions beyond the minimum to get into position, not having the ranged target outside their first range increment - and yet the way the actual play of the scenario shakes out is that "go for the frailer-looking target" means either being further from taking an opponent out of the fight, or accepting giving your enemy free attacks and an easier time flanking you.

Meaning the overall most likely to work strategy is actually what you, and many others trying to pick the "best" thing, called "the weird tactic."

[Temperans]

You are using a single enemy vs 2 PC in your example. In that case the 2 PC will almost always win unless the creature is stronger or bad luck befalls the PC.

Also there are not 3 options for attacks. There are at least 10:

1) Long range attack from the front on the armored PC.
2) Long range attack from the front on the unarmored PC.
3) Long range attack from the back on the armored PC.
4) Long range attack from the back on the unarmored PC.
5) Striding front first towards the armored PC.
6) Striding front first towards the unarmored PC.
7) Striding from behind towards the armored PC.
8) Striding from behind towards the unarmored PC.
9) Letting the PC approach them and aiming at the armored PC.
10) Letting the PC approach them and aiming at the unarmored PC.

When using long range its generally better to go around the back and shoot the unarmored PC. There is no reason to risk the ally getting in the way.

If you need to get closer the the PCs its generally better to have them waste their actions moving towards you. Instead of you moving towards them.

If you are in a group its generally better to get rid of all the weak characters and then use all your actions on the strong person. That removes the possibility of flanking.

In game terms. NPCs and creatures need to treat PCs as a boss encounter. Just like PCs get punished for bad actions and strategies, NPCs get punished for bad actions and strategies.

[glass]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The way I'd put it is as follows:

Backliners can be attacked. This will happen, but probably not every single combat, and melee enemies will have difficulties doing so vs. most PC groups with a solid front line.

Melee combatants will be attacked. Basically every combat, by many opponents.

So...Wizards will get attacked, but I wouldn't expect it to happen as much as, say, a melee Fighter getting attacked.

Basically this. I play quite a lot of wizards and the like, and they always want to avoid being attacked. Sometime they succeed, sometimes not so much.

_
glass.

[thenobledrake]

Temperans wrote:

You are using a single enemy vs 2 PC in your example.

I am using the equivalent of a typical encounter - not some odd-ball scenario.

And excuse me for simplifying down to the actual measurable moment of a typical encounter and "what does the monster do?" instead of talking pure theory about how, clearly, all the monsters in the world should be not just omniscient enough to know "it's easier to get that adventurer <point at "squishy" character> than the other 3 I see in front of me" but also so omniscient that they get to decide to encounter the party from whichever angle they want.

At most, you pointed out a single practical option I forgot to address: readying or delaying instead of just going first if they have the option. So let me address that really quickly: It's the worst of all options because it trades 2 actions for 1 action to ready so that's just inherently worse than taking the turn normally even if readying manages to avoid their preferred target having cover from the target they'd rather ignore - or it guarantees that one of these 2 characters, which remember the goal here was "survive attempting to kill them both", gets to have a chance at defeating or disabling the creature before they get to do anything.

"go ahead and knock me out if you can" is not a fight-wining strategy unless there's functionally no chance your opponent could pull that off.

Temperans wrote:

If you are in a group its generally better to get rid of all the weak characters and then use all your actions on the strong person.

...I literally just showed that it's actually, statistically, more likely that monsters will defeat the entire party if they focus not on the "weak characters" but on their own strongest attacks being used against whichever targets require the least risk to target. You're talking theory and it's not lining up to practice.

Temperans wrote:

In game terms. NPCs and creatures need to treat PCs as a boss encounter.

Putting aside the foul taste this phrasing has put in my mouth... the way PCs treat a "boss encounter" tends to be focusing on the most imposing-seeming creature involved first because if they are right about it being the "biggest threat" present then it is the hardest part of the encounter and the rest will just be "mopping up" by comparison, and because there is such a thing as lackeys that surrender or flee once their leader is defeated (and it's a lot more common than a "big bad boss monster" that'll give up the fight if it's lackeys are dispatched). Showing that, once again, the real "smart play" is to do whatever folks that are heavily concerned with "smart play" say is "a weird tactic"

[Ubertron_X]

While our group was just 4 players and without having a strong frontline (Bow Ranger, Fighter, Wizard and Warpriest) our Wizard was attacked and downed quite often, especially as our Wizard was using a lot of range 30 spells and our GM has a tendency to always attack "soft targets" first if given the chance and while doing so is not totally unreasonable (like moving twice for just dealing one attack). However I also have to add that the Wizard is a Gnome, i.e. the only small character in our party, so it is kind of understandable that many enemies will go for the smallest enemy first.

Once we added a 5th player (Barbarian) our front line got a lot beefier and especially after the Barbarian took up AoO enemy attacks into our backline became a lot less probable. It usually is the Barbarian that gets clobbered now because of the combination of his high damage output, low defenses (he is the GMs favorite "soft target" now) and the in-your-face playstyle of being a martial.

In principle our GM is playing our enemies reasonable with the one cavetat that our sword & board centric Fighter is seldomly attacked as the knowledge about his superior defenses seem to somehow carry over from enemy to enemy...

[Temperans]

thenobledrake wrote:

Temperans wrote:

You are using a single enemy vs 2 PC in your example.

I am using the equivalent of a typical encounter - not some odd-ball scenario.

And excuse me for simplifying down to the actual measurable moment of a typical encounter and "what does the monster do?" instead of talking pure theory about how, clearly, all the monsters in the world should be not just omniscient enough to know "it's easier to get that adventurer <point at "squishy" character> than the other 3 I see in front of me" but also so omniscient that they get to decide to encounter the party from whichever angle they want.

At most, you pointed out a single practical option I forgot to address: readying or delaying instead of just going first if they have the option. So let me address that really quickly: It's the worst of all options because it trades 2 actions for 1 action to ready so that's just inherently worse than taking the turn normally even if readying manages to avoid their preferred target having cover from the target they'd rather ignore - or it guarantees that one of these 2 characters, which remember the goal here was "survive attempting to kill them both", gets to have a chance at defeating or disabling the creature before they get to do anything.

"go ahead and knock me out if you can" is not a fight-wining strategy unless there's functionally no chance your opponent could pull that off.

Temperans wrote:

If you are in a group its generally better to get rid of all the weak characters and then use all your actions on the strong person.

...I literally just showed that it's actually, statistically, more likely that monsters will defeat the entire party if they focus not on the "weak characters" but on their own strongest attacks being used against whichever targets require the least risk to target. You're talking theory and it's not lining up to practice.

Temperans wrote:

In game terms. NPCs and creatures need to treat PCs as a boss encounter.

Putting aside the foul taste...

Its not omnicient to choose when you fight its being smart. And choosing the angle of attack is something that smart creatures will do, a smart creature wont just attack from the front as that will have the most resistance.

I never mentioned using readied actions I said to let enemies move towards you intead of spending actions towards them. Those two concepts while related are not the same.

Similarly if the goal is surviving enemies wont just join melee and wittle down the PCs via attrition. Which is one of the ways PCs are able to overcome difficult bosses.

And NPCs treating the PCs as boses means that every creature will have a different strategy that to try and overcome them. If the NPCs have enough creatures 1 group will go towards the martial characters and occupy them while another group attacks the backline. That second group downing the backline effectively becomes a pincer attack againt the front line.

Even the idea of a frontline and backlime is weird conaidering that those are military terms. And there are many cases where one army attacks the rear to crush the frontlines.

[lemeres]

Samurai wrote:

As the Wizard in my group, I have been attacked (and downed) quite a bit more than the other players. Our GM is used to PF1e, where enemies generally tried to kill the spellcasters first, so he still plays that way in PF2e as well. Technically, given the general weakness of spells, it may not be the optimal path to victory like it used to be, but that remains to be proven...

Thinking about it, if the party is facing a higher level enemy (BBEG), then, mages might be the least important members of the party to take down.

The incapacitation trait means that there aren't really the same degree of 'I win' buttons anymore when facing a single target. And damage spells are usually great because they hit multiple targets, not because their single target is very good compared to a martial.

Magic using classes have plenty of useful options, even in that situation, but they might be 'support the melee with buffs/debuff the enemy', which would not be the big monster's main concern- it would be the guy that benefits from all that. In fact, the the mage's main contribution might have already happened by the time you notice it is a mage- even if you kill that wizard, the frontline will still be quickened.

[thenobledrake]

Temperans wrote:

Its not omnicient to choose when you fight its being smart

Context.

Look at encounters from any AP or published adventure, or even any campaign you can find a video of online. In the context of when and how the PCs and the creatures in that encounter meet, the creatures are almost never the ones choosing "when you fight"

You keep talking theory that keeps not matching the way the game actually plays.

Temperans wrote:

Even the idea of a frontline and backlime is weird conaidering that those are military terms.

They are also gaming terms. I first picked them up from JRPGs that had the option for a character to be in the "front" to do full damage but take full damage or in the "back" to do reduced damage except with certain attacks (ranged and spells) and take reduced damage.

Oh, and they are also intuitive terms on account of the party of characters being arranged in some fashion and traveling in some direction such that the group has someone who is "in front", possibly even multiple characters and potentially in a "line" (making them "the front-liners") and then the others in the group are behind or "in back" and similarly might be in a line (making them "the back-line")

Temperans wrote:

I never mentioned using readied actions I said to let enemies move towards you intead of spending actions towards them. Those two concepts while related are not the same.

I covered every in-game method of "let enemies move towards you instead of spending actions toward them" - in every case it means "wasted" actions that could have been used towards achieving the goal of the encounter, or giving up just as much if not more than you've gained.

[Temperans]

The original usage of the term comes from the military it comes from how armies are arranged during a fight. The back lines are protected as long as the enemy attacks from the front. If the enemies attack from the back the backline falls apart.

Enemies are able to spend actions just as well as players. If the players can have the strategy to let enemies come to them, then the NPCs can use the same strategy.

AP and published adventures tell you what creatures to use and some info on their locations and/or mentality. They do not tell you how to run the creatures. That is all up to the GM.

[Ascalaphus]

Why are you surprised that a game centered around characters that do a lot of fighting, borrows terminology from warfare?

The term frontline/backline, or forwards and backs if you wanna dip into sports terms, works. Most of the time the party is traveling around with some people walking in front. A lot of this walking around is done in areas with some constraints, such as the walls in a corridor. Most enemies are encountered from the direction the party is traveling in. So they end up facing the forward characters.

Enemies starting behind the party sometimes happens, but mostly in more open areas where enemies can actually set up an ambush to let the party past and then attack from behind or from multiple sides. In most dungeons, the best any ambush can hope for is attacking from say, front-left, which causes the martials to walk left, and then some hidden enemies come out of front-right to attack the backline characters.

---

Circling back to "what enemies would obviously naturally do" - most of the time, realistically, enemies would assess the party, realize they don't have a clear advantage against the PCs that will guarantee victory without casualties, and retreat.

The whole setup of "fair" and "level-appropriate" encounters means that a lot of wild animals are attacking far bigger and more dangerous prey (the PCs) than they would normally do.

[Temperans]

I am not surprised, I am saying there is too much focus on it when the game is a lot more loose than people make it seem.

And that people are too focused on sending the enemy from the front ignoring that they can be sent from any of the other sides.

In dungeons it is very possible for enemies to attack from behind. But it requires that the creatures in the dungeon are not just standing around until the PCs arrive. Things like a group of enemies returning the the dungeon or the dungeon being design to allow enemies to patrol/encircle attackers.

[Charon Onozuka]

Speaking as designated-GM for my group at the moment, I'll have enemies attack backline characters, but it doesn't happen nearly as frequently.

I try to run enemies as "in the moment," especially for less intelligent enemies. So priority targets for getting attacks tend to be whichever PC is currently dishing out the primary damage and/or whoever hit that enemy last. Enemies rarely have advance information regarding the PCs, and choose their tactics based on a quick look at PC appearance (if intelligent enough) & what PCs are seen doing during the fight. Even for intelligent enemies, they'll often need to shout their intentions to coordinate together since I don't run them as a hivemind (i.e. Shouting, "That guy's a healer! Someone take him out!" after seeing a PC use a 3-action heal, and giving the PCs info about what the enemy is about to do.)

Since melee characters tend to rush directly into the enemy's face, they tend to be the first targets unless a backline character does something especially flashy that makes them a new priority target, or the specific enemy has a charge-type ability which requires movement they want to use. Even when a backline character does get targeted, it often turns out to be a rather poor strategy since the enemy is now surrounded by PCs who can easily get flanking and wreck them.

[thenobledrake]

Temperans wrote:

The original usage of the term comes from the military it comes from how armies are arranged during a fight.

The original use is not at all relevant. It's like you're trying to argue that because these terms have gotten where they are by taking a journey from military to war games and then on through table-top role-playing games that this somehow disproves anything I've said while using terms like "front-liner."

Temperans wrote:

If the players can have the strategy to let enemies come to them, then the NPCs can use the same strategy.

Another argument against something I never said. Yes, NPCs and PCs alike can strategize their actions in the same ways - and just like it's not actually the best strategy for the NPCs to try and avoid the party-members-you-apparently-think-me-calling-front-liners-is-a-problem and go after what look like - but in the practical reality of the game probably aren't actually - easier to kill targets, it's not the best strategy for the PCs to take an actually passive stance and wait for their enemies to approach instead of actively attacking whichever enemy they can get in prime range to attack with the most potent form of attack they can muster at that range.

Temperans wrote:

They do not tell you how to run the creatures. That is all up to the GM.

And yet another argument against something I never said.

Yes, the GM decides how to run the creatures. But the GM doesn't, or at least isn't expected to (and for the sake of not coming off as a jerk probably shouldn't) take an encounter from an AP that says something like "there are 4 kobolds in this cave, sitting around a table sharing a meal when the PCs arrive" and go "Actually, the kobolds are fully armed and ready for battle when the PCs arrive and have chosen to attack from the rear of the party."

That's how my practical summary of what the creature's options are was limited to just 3 categories - because it didn't throw how the game actually plays out the window to theorize how creatures that weren't even aware of the PCs existence moments ago could be the ones setting the conditions for engagement with free reign to choose literally anything they wanted to.

Temperans wrote:

...the game is a lot more loose than people make it seem.

It's really ironic that the same person saying rigid as heck things like "When you have a group traveling the ones that get targeted first are those that look weak, not the soldiers in full armor" thinks they are on the side of the argument that the game is actually looser than people make it.

That said, I'm glad you agree with me that the game is loose - not so rigid as to have a "one best strategy" for how to defeat an opponent (whether as a group of NPCs or a group of PCs)

Temperans wrote:

But it requires that the creatures in the dungeon are not just standing around until the PCs arrive.

Just quoting this to point out that, one more time, you're apparently arguing against something no in the thread has said.

In case you were misunderstanding my earlier talk about NPCs and their activities prior to an encounter with PCs; it's not that they are standing around in stasis waiting for the PCs to come along - it's that they are wherever they are for a reason, and that reason very rarely has any direct relationship to the PCs, so what they are doing is almost always not planning how best to engage the PCs once they arrive but rather something related to their goals that don't involve the PCs directly and/or the location they happen to be in.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

<snipped for space>

This person gets it.

[Temperans]

Maybe we were just talking pass each other. Because what I respended with is based on hownI read your comments.

You saying that is not what you were saying clears things up a bit better and I agree creatures are not always llooing at what the PCs are doing. But its often the case that PCs encounter bandits setting up an ambush. Or patrols trying to make sure there are no intruders.

The cases were encounters start and people are unarmored usually means there was a way to roleplay out of the situation without starting a fight. Hence I focused on encounters were both parties knew of each other or were prepared to fight at a moments notice.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, if the enemy are the ones ambushing the PCs, and especially if they have advance information on the PCs capabilities, they will absolutely take advantage of 'soft targets', which will often include the Wizard. That is, indeed, entirely logical and basic tactics.

But how often does that actually happen? In published adventures, the NPCs knowing PC capabilities and coming after them from ambush is almost unheard of. Even in home games, PCs are usually proactive rather than reactive, and being proactive makes this much less likely.

Also, many of the 'smart tactics' discussed involve not being outnumbered. Most encounters involve the PCs outnumbering the NPCs, which drastically limits their tactical options, or involve much weaker NPCs than PCs, which makes the use of many such tactics less effective.

So, I think Temperans is absolutely right about how NPCs are likely to behave when they equal or exceed the PCs in number and have the tactical advantage. Those things are just extraordinarily rare to actually happen in play, particularly with NPCs that are remotely a match for the PCs.

Also, for the record, there is actually a canonical reason for large animals attacking PCs (or other armed humanoids) in Golarion more often than they would in the real world. Lamashtu's dominion over wild beasts, which she ripped from the God Churcanus, has caused them to be significantly more aggressive than they used to be (or are in reality). This is mentioned in at least one of her deity articles, and James Jacobs has confirmed he included it specifically to explain this behavior pattern. Which I always thought was neat.

[thenobledrake]

I think this is an important time to note that the way an ambush-style encounter works in PF2 according to RAW is different from how many people expect that it would be run.

To be specific, I'll use the classic forest road with an innocuous blockage as an example.

According to how PF2 is written, this encounter starts with the bandits in their hiding positions among the foliage alongside the road with their fallen tree or manufactured rock slide already blocking the road - and with the party to be ambushed still on the approach; they can see the blockage ahead, but haven't yet necessarily been spotted by the bandits.

Initiative is rolled - Stealth for the bandits, and what the party rolls being based on their chosen exploration activities up to this point. We'll assume, because it gives us the most illustrative example of how different this kind of encounter is in PF2, that the party is trying to Avoid Notice while traveling this road. We'll say they picked up info in the last town they were at that bandits have been at work in these woods, and they are trying to not get robbed by them. So it's Stealth for the party too.

Now, let's also assume that no one rolls poorly so all of these Stealth-initiative checks beat the other sides' Perception DCs so no one is aware of anyone else at the start of the encounter.

Then, as turns are taken, Seek actions might result in someone realizing the other side of the encounter is present - as would taking actions that draw attention (like making noise) or outright make someone observed (like walking down the middle of the road).

It is not the PF1 or even D&D 5e style "you got ambushed, roll initiative, the enemy is already behind the party and ready to attack" type of arrangement.

[thenobledrake]

Temperans wrote:

The cases were encounters start and people are unarmored usually means there was a way to roleplay out of the situation without starting a fight.

I hadn't realized that being a cloistered cleric, monk, or wizard (or a few others) meant being able to role-play out of more situations than a class that normally wears armor could.

[Temperans]

Do notice you never stated the positions of the bandits or players.

This is a situation were everyone needs to think carefully about avoiding metagaming. Its perfectly possible for the bandits to be behind as for them to be in front.

Its also a point were VTTs make things easier since you can place enemies in another layer.

[Temperans]

thenobledrake wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The cases were encounters start and people are unarmored usually means there was a way to roleplay out of the situation without starting a fight.

I hadn't realized that being a cloistered cleric, monk, or wizard (or a few others) meant being able to role-play out of more situations than a class that normally wears armor could.

If the party encounters a group of creature that are not being hostile and have no weapons on armor on its a lot more likely that they wont juat attack when the party arrives.

Of course this changes for certain classes that can pass for a civilian. But that is a blessing and a curse: They are less threatening at first glance, but they are easier to conceal having a lot of power.