There's this interesting tension between paladin auras (beneficial auras of all kinds really) and the desire to not get clobbered by fireballs. Sticking together in a "standard marching order" is a great way to take advantage of proximity-based buffs, but it's also a great way to get everyone hit by AoEs.
So here's my question for the board: How do you weigh risks and rewards when it comes to tactical positioning? Do you like to space yourselves 15' apart, or is it better to make sure everyone gets that sweet +4 morale bonus vs fear, charm, etc.? I'm sure the answer is "it depends," but what's your personal litmus test? Does it change depending on expected enemy? Cramped dungeons vs. open world terrain?
I think you also need to add the meta-status of Group Type.
I have noticed in Organized Play, people are much more concerned about friendly fire and 'clumping up' than players are in home games. Almost detrimentally so. I'm sure the bulk of that is the whole PuG aspect of playing with people you may or may not know well, compared to a group of regulars at the table. But, it's an interesting social interaction thing I've noticed over the years when playing at OP tables.
It depends on the situation.
In my experience with organized play, what usually happens is that the players whose PCs grant proximity-based buffs (paladin auras, Bodyguard, a Scarab Sage's elemental ward, etc.) will inform the others that those buffs are available at the start of the scenario, then it's up to the other players to decide how much their PCs take advantage of them. Some players will be paranoid about "bunching up," especially if a foe is known to have AoEs. Others may have a schtick that involves a lot of moving about the battlefield to use effectively (charging, Spring Attack, flight, etc.).
The openness of the encounter site definitely plays a part. In a cramped dungeon or structure, moving in tight formation might be the only way for everyone to be able to see and target enemies, so a well-placed AoE is a very real risk. On an open battlefield, it's often a good idea to spread out more--but not so much that the foes can easily move in and cut you off from each other.
Bjørn Røyrvik's solution is one I'm personally very fond of, though it's hard to pull off until higher levels, unless everyone is willing and able to dip rogue or monk. In one of my home games (which is now very high level), our heal-bot oracle has life-link always running on every PC, and shield other on two of our front-liners. (But not the armor master, who is MUCH harder to hit.) However, in one session in the middle levels, too many of us failed the save vs. a nasty AoE, and shunted too much damage to her, and she died. She promptly got raised, and most of us have since bought rings of evasion to help prevent that happening again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not directly relevant, but I've always wanted to play a Half-Elf Paladin with Fearless Aura and Ultimate Resolve, just so a small army could benefit from the auras ...
Half-Elf : Add +1 foot to the size of all the paladin's aura class features. This option has no effect unless the paladin has selected it 5 times (or another increment
Not directly relevant, but I've always wanted to play a Half-Elf Paladin with Fearless Aura and Ultimate Resolve, just so a small army could benefit from the auras ...
Half-Elf : Add +1 foot to the size of all the paladin's aura class features. This option has no effect unless the paladin has selected it 5 times (or another increment
Ha I had a similar aura master paladin build idea. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that so very few things outright kill you immediately or in one hit, the advantages often outwiegh the risks.
I would rather have my party standing atound me, albeit smoking a little bit and a wee bit charred, rather than fleeing in terror or charmed/dominated.
We are all big boys here, we can take a Fireball in the name of teamwork. Hey, at least we all took it together, right? Lol.
Generally, there should be someone on point to identify hazards in advance of the main party. This person should have a high perception and be reasonably stealthy. They should be ahead of the party but only by the closer of vision or one move action. If their stealth is high enough, there may be occasions when the opponent spots the main party before the one on point and gets caught off guard. At the back should be someone with a high AC and HP who can take a surprise hit from an ambush. The wizard should be in the middle.
Of course there are countless circumstances where something different should be done.
I think the lesson is that players will use progressively stronger combat strategy in relation to the PERCEIVED threat of the monster or foe the characters are facing.
That's an astute observation. Particularly because players are prone to missing critical information. If you don't PERCEIVE that you're facing a fear-causing enemy, you won't remember that you've got abilities to combat that. And you certainly won't think to remind the table so that they can adjust tactics accordingly.
Makes me wonder if the "standees with signs describing buffs" method is the ideal here. That way folks have a visual reminder of abilities that otherwise get buried in their buddies' character sheets.
I've never noticed the paladin aura abilities powerful enough to really be worth worrying about. I'm GMing Carrion Crown right now, which has tons of Will/CON saves against the party, and unless someone rolls a one, they pretty much never fail. (The DC's on most of the effects is fairly low to begin with, 15-17)