How is "Well Bob, as you break cover the omniscient super archers guided by the super intelligent officer who has cast a dozen buff spells shoot you with exactly as many arrows as you have hit points. You're dead. Next time- bring real Mt Dew, not this diet crud. That'll teach ya. " fun? Well, yes, it could be "fun" for a certain set of DM's I suppose.
If you think the above situation matches what I initially described, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of "hyperbole."
I am serious. Look, the DM can kill the PC's anytime he wants. Why are you seeking justification for one way to do it?
How does the Officer "direct" them? How does he- as the targets are running towards him at full speed from cover- pick which to concentrate fire on and then communicate that to his troops in time for them to fire?
The fog of war is a very real thing. There's no time for carefully selecting a target, then carefully pointing that target out to each soldier.
IRL about all he has time to do is yell "loose!".
But back to my first point. D&D is a Game. The idea of a Game is to have Fun.
How is "Well Bob, as you break cover the omniscient super archers guided by the super intelligent officer who has cast a dozen buff spells shoot you with exactly as many arrows as you have hit points. You're dead. Next time- bring real Mt Dew, not this diet crud. That'll teach ya. " fun? Well, yes, it could be "fun" for a certain set of DM's I suppose.
Sort of curious what cover you are talking about. They are charging across a bridge. They don't usually have convenient sand bag walls set up every 20 feet.
Also he was asking if it was realistic and if it was wrong.
Since they aren't starting at 30 ft away, unless it is a pretty dang short bridge that has a full thick forest on the other side...they aren't...an experienced commander, (Yes, in the fog of war in fact) would easily be able to organize his men, declare a target, let them sight in the shot and yell loose before the end of round. It's as easy for disciplined troops for him to yell, "CONTACT! End of the bridge! Target the wizard! Ready, Aim, Loose!"
Most people know those stinky wizards don't wear armor. And they are doing the macarena and talking in tongues. Even if a few get confused and think he means the raging screaming Barbarian, disciplined troops would respond approriately and all be straightened out at least by their second shot worse case, though with only 6 archers they can see and hear the commander that is with them. He has stated they are Level 3. That means they are experienced as well and could likely be able to take the initiative and fire on the Wizard that could kill them all anyway.
Seriously. I'm on a wall, there are 3 - 4 guys charging the gate and one guy in a robe standing way back. The gate should hold, you shoot that guy back there because he has an RPG.
|
If the PCs focus fire the enemy should too. (If the PCs don't focus fire when they can, I suspect they haven't been playing long--maybe the enemies should focus fire in order to show the PCs some tactics). If the enemies have abilities that encourage them to focus fire, then they should focus fire.
I wonder how those who are horrified at the idea NPCs might use basic tactics like focusing fire would react to the idea of NPCs using more advanced tactics like having all but one or two bowmen fire at the wizard while the remaining bowmen ready actions to disrupt spellcasting (in order to prevent fireballs or healing), and then when the beatsticks are in position to threaten the foremost archers, having them five foot step back, and tanglefoot bag the beatsticks while the other archers eliminate the spellcasters (with at least one always readying to disrupt casting).
A group of third level soldiers is pretty elite according to the standard level distributions and should not be played like chumps. Save that for ogre barbarians who dumped their int and have never met anything that didn't just make a wet splatter at the end of their raging 28 strength power attacking greatclub.
[
Sort of curious what cover you are talking about. They are charging across a bridge. They don't usually have convenient sand bag walls set up every 20 feet.
Also he was asking if it was realistic and if it was wrong.
Since they aren't starting at 30 ft away, unless it is a pretty dang short bridge that has a full thick forest on the other side...they aren't...an experienced commander, (Yes, in the fog of war in fact) would easily be able to organize his men, declare a target, let them sight in the shot and yell loose before the end of round. It's as easy for disciplined troops for him to yell, "CONTACT! End of the bridge! Target the wizard! Ready, Aim, Loose!"
Most people know those stinky wizards don't wear armor. And they are doing the macarena and talking in tongues. .
There has to be cover somewhere. Or just a simple Obscuring Mist spell. And, there's a dozen spells or even mundane disguises to confuse who is a wizard and who is the tank. We'll start with a simple level 1 Illusion. The fighter could easily have glamered armor or a hat of disguise.
Heck, I had a Sorc who wore a simple chain-knit wool sweater, painted silver. Looks a lot like chainmail. It's been in thousands of movies.
So up to trees. Obscuring mist. Move to edge of mist- then charge out. One round of movement. Or there's this thing called "night"... I heard it gets pretty dark then....
Both as a player and as a GM, I often see this as out and out metagaming.
By default, NPCs have no knowledge of hit points or other game mechanics, and as such don't know how tough the PCs really are. One or two arrows should be enough against your typical unarmored opponent--why should the intruders they are suddenly encountering be any different? That's common sense. Arrows are deadly. If anything, they should be spreading their fire out to take down as many targets as possible, similar to real life SWAT teams. It's not until the nth arrow fails to take the HERO down, that the NPCs begin to realize what they are dealing with.
Now, if said NPCs had advanced knowledge of the PCs, having fought them before or at least hearing of their past exploits, then by all means, focus fire away.
Actually you can decide on the target upon each attack so there is no reason to not keep firing on a particular target. It has nothing to do with knowing the PC's are PC's, but the fact that it makes sense in fantasy land to take down enemies to give you action economy. The same idea works in real life.
I am serious. Look, the DM can kill the PC's anytime he wants. Why are you seeking justification for one way to do it?
How does the Officer "direct" them? How does he- as the targets are running towards him at full speed from cover- pick which to concentrate fire on and then communicate that to his troops in time for them to fire?
The fog of war is a very real thing. There's no time for carefully selecting a target, then carefully pointing that target out to each soldier.
IRL about all he has time to do is yell "loose!".
But back to my first point. D&D is a Game. The idea of a Game is to have Fun.
How is "Well Bob, as you break cover the omniscient super archers guided by the super intelligent officer who has cast a dozen buff spells shoot you with exactly as many arrows as you have hit points. You're dead. Next time- bring real Mt Dew, not this diet crud. That'll teach ya. " fun? Well, yes, it could be "fun" for a certain set of DM's I suppose.
The military does have group commands. "Square fire over there" <while pointing>. And in fantasy land the number or attacks is higher than IRL using the same time period so no reason to not use the fire/attack rate to make sure someone goes down.
It can be okay, but I've seen it turn ugly. A GM was getting frustrated with one of the PCs: a zen archer monk. It got to the point where we got intel on "death squads" who were hunting us. Their priority targets were 1) archers, 2) casters, 3) everyone else. When a PC dropped, they continued to pump arrows into the corpse (until the end of their round). It was both funny and a touch passive-aggressive.
Actually you can decide on the target upon each attack so there is no reason to not keep firing on a particular target. It has nothing to do with knowing the PC's are PC's, but the fact that it makes sense in fantasy land to take down enemies to give you action economy. The same idea works in real life.
That's a fair argument, but how do you rationalize that in games where GMs have their enemy hit squads all acting simultaneously? If nothing else, you'd have to do it volley by volley (not focus firing on at least the first one), else wise it is metagaming.
Actually you can decide on the target upon each attack so there is no reason to not keep firing on a particular target. It has nothing to do with knowing the PC's are PC's, but the fact that it makes sense in fantasy land to take down enemies to give you action economy. The same idea works in real life.That's a fair argument, but how do you rationalize that in games where GMs have their enemy hit squads all acting simultaneously? If nothing else, you'd have to do it volley by volley (not focus firing on at least the first one), else wise it is metagaming.
In this situation, sounds like they are disciplined military grade archers. In real life you would have 6 archers fire on one target that was more dangerous, because in real life, having six arrows flying at you makes it much harder to block them all with a shield or to dodge them by diving out of the way. Military in real life would focus fire like that because they want them to have to take an arrow, and that one arrow would probably put them out of the fight.
That is not the case in Pathfinder as you can dodge a hundred arrows or block them with a shield over and over. There is no bonus for multiple people firing on you and the fact you will have a much harder time blocking all of those at once.
If the intention is to WIN the combat and not get dead, they should focus fire.
1) If you want to do it by delaying to the slowest initiative, do it. Give the PC's warning that this is going to happen, that they are readying bows and aiming at PC X.
2) If you want them to do it on their own initiatives do that as well, this could be more dangerous than 1.
3) Have them spread their fire. This is ineffective, not likely what a disciplined military group would do...(which is shoot the guy with the RPG and then maybe shoot him a couple more times)...and will result in an easy victory (I hesitate to use Challenge instead of vicotry).
4) Have all the Baddies act on the same initiative and really hurt the heroes, one at a time or spread out.
I don't always roll initiative for every BadGuy. I will often roll for different groups or packs of bad guys. Mainly because the players space off if I'm moving 10 guys around and taking their actions, it's better to move 3 - 4 and then move to the next player, 3 -4 more next couple players...so on.
But when I DO roll initiative for every BadGuy, I sit down for 10 minutes with a D20 sometime before we play and roll the initiatives ahead of time. I can have my init list set up already and just insert the PC's there where they go in order. Works pretty good for me, but only in the case I know a particular encounter will happen next session. Which isn't always the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
Sort of curious what cover you are talking about. They are charging across a bridge. They don't usually have convenient sand bag walls set up every 20 feet.
Also he was asking if it was realistic and if it was wrong.
Since they aren't starting at 30 ft away, unless it is a pretty dang short bridge that has a full thick forest on the other side...they aren't...an experienced commander, (Yes, in the fog of war in fact) would easily be able to organize his men, declare a target, let them sight in the shot and yell loose before the end of round. It's as easy for disciplined troops for him to yell, "CONTACT! End of the bridge! Target the wizard! Ready, Aim, Loose!"
Most people know those stinky wizards don't wear armor. And they are doing the macarena and talking in tongues. .
There has to be cover somewhere. Or just a simple Obscuring Mist spell. And, there's a dozen spells or even mundane disguises to confuse who is a wizard and who is the tank. We'll start with a simple level 1 Illusion. The fighter could easily have glamered armor or a hat of disguise.
Heck, I had a Sorc who wore a simple chain-knit wool sweater, painted silver. Looks a lot like chainmail. It's been in thousands of movies.
So up to trees. Obscuring mist. Move to edge of mist- then charge out. One round of movement. Or there's this thing called "night"... I heard it gets pretty dark then....
Using trees, casting Obscuring Mist, disguising who the casters are, these are all wonderful ideas to avoid being focused fired. And if players actually use them, then it's entirely reasonable for the enemies to be hesitant or confused about who they should shoot and not focus fire as a result. After all, that's why the players went to all the effort of avoiding focus fire!
However, if the party did not take any precautions and just ran across a bunch of open ground, with no cover, with undisguised wizard who never learned any defensive spells glowing bright purple, under the assumption that all NPCs are about as bright as a newborn hampster and thus would never coordinate enough to focus fire a caster down, then I'd say it's entirely reasonable for a commander on the walls to say 'Kill the one in a dress,' and turn the wizard into a porcupine.
Unless the archers are goblins. In that case the commander would be lucky if the archers don't shoot each other.
[
Sort of curious what cover you are talking about. They are charging across a bridge. They don't usually have convenient sand bag walls set up every 20 feet.
Also he was asking if it was realistic and if it was wrong.
Since they aren't starting at 30 ft away, unless it is a pretty dang short bridge that has a full thick forest on the other side...they aren't...an experienced commander, (Yes, in the fog of war in fact) would easily be able to organize his men, declare a target, let them sight in the shot and yell loose before the end of round. It's as easy for disciplined troops for him to yell, "CONTACT! End of the bridge! Target the wizard! Ready, Aim, Loose!"
Most people know those stinky wizards don't wear armor. And they are doing the macarena and talking in tongues. .
There has to be cover somewhere. Or just a simple Obscuring Mist spell. And, there's a dozen spells or even mundane disguises to confuse who is a wizard and who is the tank. We'll start with a simple level 1 Illusion. The fighter could easily have glamered armor or a hat of disguise.
Heck, I had a Sorc who wore a simple chain-knit wool sweater, painted silver. Looks a lot like chainmail. It's been in thousands of movies.
So up to trees. Obscuring mist. Move to edge of mist- then charge out. One round of movement. Or there's this thing called "night"... I heard it gets pretty dark then....
Also the question wasn't about what the characters would do to mitigate it, it was should the NPC's focus fire.
Those are all good examples of ways for them to avoid it being turned to mince meat, but don't really have any bearing on what the NPC's should be trained to do/should do if they don't.
Actually you can decide on the target upon each attack so there is no reason to not keep firing on a particular target. It has nothing to do with knowing the PC's are PC's, but the fact that it makes sense in fantasy land to take down enemies to give you action economy. The same idea works in real life.That's a fair argument, but how do you rationalize that in games where GMs have their enemy hit squads all acting simultaneously? If nothing else, you'd have to do it volley by volley (not focus firing on at least the first one), else wise it is metagaming.
In real life it might be a volley. In the game it would not be. They just happen to be firing at the same time. Personally if a GM does this I would give each archer his own initiative to increase the player's chance of survival. I still don't see it as metagaming, but I do see it as a bad idea to have all of the archers share init for something like this, but I would say the same thing if it were melee attacks. Having 4 barbarians pounce at one guy on the same init will also end badly most of the time.<--Yeah I did this, which is why I would not do it again.
Rashagar has the right of it. Focus fire is fine only if there is an in-game rationale for it.
Rashagar has the right of it. Focus fire is fine only if there is an in-game rationale for it.
Which, for a commander, would be to target archers and mages, because you know your melee troops will hold the gate for longer.
Rashagar has the right of it. Focus fire is fine only if there is an in-game rationale for it.Which, for a commander, would be to target archers and mages, because you know your melee troops will hold the gate for longer.
Again, there's no way to tell spellcasters apart, not in six seconds. Well, unless they are really, really stupid stereotypical wizards.
Also, when attacked by a Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the mage? All wearing chainshirts , toting weapons and casting spells. Wait- there is that guy in robes- shoot him! yeah, the one time the monk really does well, what with deflect arrows.
If your standing order is "Hold fire and everyone shoot at the spellcaster!" you're gonna have issues.
If the spellcaster is a sorc or wiz but has a disquise or a spell or invisible- again, you're gonna have problems: "But, but- there was no spellcaster, Mr Captain sir!".
Even first level wizards wear "sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), gloves, and a cloak." making them look just like most townsfolk or travelers*. They don't even list "wizards robes" in the standard list of equipment. Making a DM ruling that all guards have some sort of omniscient way of detecting which one is "THE spellcaster" is a bit much. All in six seconds, too.
Mind you, I do have a Sorc who wears the robes with stars, etc. Of course, he's mythic and so powerful that mundane arrows wouldn't even be a distraction. "Huh, is it raining?"
* "Mr Captain Sir, we killed the one not wearing armor, turns out he was just a traveler that was trying to warn us about the attack, which is why he was waving his arms around".
What the npc commander definitely wouldn't do at the start is assume that he only has 2 rounds of actions left in his life before he dies and vow to use them to dish out the most damage possible.
Everything you said up to the above paragraph I agree with.
I would argue, that if he was a commander he has battle experience most likely. (if he is the son of some guy who wanted his son to have a cushy position in the military, forget everything I am saying) The archers are 3rd level, they have seen some combat or some really intense training.
To me one of the first things a soldier would learn, after how to march, shoot a bow and that the pointy end goes in the other guy, is that mages and clerics are a larger threat in almost every case, than a man with a bow, who in turn is a larger threat than a man with a sword, at least at range.
Is it really unreasonable to believe that professional soldiers wouldn't be aware the guy in robes is the biggest threat right away? And even if the barbarian is beating on the gates, that guy in the robes is the one who can end us all with a gesture?
I guess I'm just equating it to the real world. The guy with the RPG is > the guy with rifle and scope > the guy with the AK-47. The wizard is > the archer > the guy with the battleaxe. Priority would be in that manner in almost any engagement where they are not actively in melee. And even then the commander would probably try to get some troops disengaged to take shots at the wizard, knowing that the battle could be over very quickly, and with them losing if he does not.
You are right with everything else you are saying. If you are an experienced officer, you know two things, one after first contact people will target the officer first, second a battle is typically won or lost in the first few moments. The only real game changer is some sort of reinforcements that could change the tide.
So yeah, I'd say he probably knows if he messes up he only has a few moments left in his life.
Again, there's no way to tell spellcasters apart, not in six seconds. Well, unless they are really, really stupid wizards.Rashagar has the right of it. Focus fire is fine only if there is an in-game rationale for it.Which, for a commander, would be to target archers and mages, because you know your melee troops will hold the gate for longer.
Debatable. There a good chance it's the guy without armor, the guy with the staff, the guy with the familiar, and especially the guy who doesn't seem keen to enter melee with the others. The commander could also have casters of his own under his command, in which case he'd be pretty good at spotting them.
If, for some reason, all of these reasons fail, all doubt is removed once the first spell is cast.
I am serious. Look, the DM can kill the PC's anytime he wants. Why are you seeking justification for one way to do it?
I think the rest of your post explains exactly why you need to seek appropriate justification for the way you do it. Capricious methods of killing the PCs put a damper on the fun of the game - so you seek something that is appropriate for the game's frame of reference. If you focus on immersion, focused fire without the archers or their officer having justification other than massive hit points for the target (something the DM knows but the NPCs don't) wouldn't be much fun. But that might be exactly what a more game rule strategy/tactical action focused group might prefer.
In short, if the pcs use those qualifiers to identify npc casters, then it is fair game. And I think we all know they do.
To me one of the first things a soldier would learn, after how to march, shoot a bow and that the pointy end goes in the other guy, is that mages and clerics are a larger threat in almost every case, than a man with a bow, who in turn is a larger threat than a man with a sword, at least at range.
Is it really unreasonable to believe that professional soldiers wouldn't be aware the guy in robes is the biggest threat right away? And even if the barbarian is beating on the gates, that guy in the robes is the one who can end us all with a gesture?
The only guy in robes is the monk, and he's the very least of your worries.
The only guy in robes is the monk, and he's the very least of your worries.To me one of the first things a soldier would learn, after how to march, shoot a bow and that the pointy end goes in the other guy, is that mages and clerics are a larger threat in almost every case, than a man with a bow, who in turn is a larger threat than a man with a sword, at least at range.
Is it really unreasonable to believe that professional soldiers wouldn't be aware the guy in robes is the biggest threat right away? And even if the barbarian is beating on the gates, that guy in the robes is the one who can end us all with a gesture?
You are right...but he will be running beside the barb charging the gate. (The others wouldn't be able to keep up.
Debatable. There a good chance it's the guy without armor, the guy with the staff, the guy with the familiar, and especially the guy who doesn't seem keen to enter melee with the others. The commander could also have casters of his own under his command, in which case he'd be pretty good at spotting them.
If, for some reason, all of these reasons fail, all doubt is removed once the first spell is cast.
Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the mage? All wearing chainshirts , toting weapons and casting spells.
Guy without armor= Monk. Guy wearing full plate- sorc with disguise spell.
Guy with familiar= darn, spotting that rat in the pocket takes a REALLY good check. "Mr Captain sir, we withheld fire until we could see the animal you said the wizard be carrying, but turns out we killed Bob the pigherd. The we all died. Sorry sir."
"especially the guy who doesn't seem keen to enter melee with the others"- you mean like the magus? Or the battle oracle? And, by the time the foes are within melee range of the archers- IT'S TOO LATE.
Sure he could have casters of his own: there are well over a dozen spellcasters. Does he have all of them? He's most likely to have an Adept. Does he really have ranks in Spellcraft? Appropriate Ks?
Once the first spell is cast? Umm, they dont cast while moving. Not usually. And again, in a party of four: Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the 'spellcaster"?
"We ready an action to shoot the first (second, third...) guy who starts casting a spell."
A trained guard squad will be able to do things like that.
In short, if the pcs use those qualifiers to identify npc casters, then it is fair game. And I think we all know they do.
Sure. "Kill the guy who just cast fireball!" is legit. No one but the monk wears robes. No one is easily identifiable as being a dangerous spellcaster until they cast a dangerous spell. And, the PC's have Spellcraft- well at least one of them- and maxed out, too.
But if there's four foes running towards the party, the party of PC's can't know which is the dangerous spellcaster any more than the archers on the wall can know.
Now sure- if the wizard stops there in short range, and casts fireball while the rest run at the gate, the archers certainly would concentrate fire on him. Those that are still alive, that is. But if the wizard is gonna act as artillery, why be there in plain sight at close range? That's a 600' spell, you know. 5 or so range increments, and a very difficult perception check, even if all he has is a bush.
"We ready an action to shoot the first (second, third...) guy who starts casting a spell."
A trained guard squad will be able to do things like that.
"But Mr Captain sir, they just ran in and started killing us, no one cast a spell that we could see. We waited and waited. "
And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.
You can generally tell when someone is spellcasting. Spellcraft is used to determine WHAT they are casting, not IF they are casting.
Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the mage? All wearing chainshirts , toting weapons and casting spells.
The ranger is likely the one with the bow. The magus is engaging in melee. The oracle may or may not be engaging in melee. If not, smoke 'im.
Guy without armor= Monk. Guy wearing full plate- sorc with disguise spell.
The monk will be running to engage in melee unless he's a zen archer, in which case, smoke 'im. As far as the sorc, if the guy in fullplate isn't running to engage in melee, he's probably going to appear like the leader of the assault. Smoke 'im.
Guy with familiar= darn, spotting that rat in the pocket takes a REALLY good check. "Mr Captain sir, we withheld fire until we could see the animal you said the wizard be carrying, but turns out we killed Bob the pigherd. The we all died. Sorry sir."
Not all familiars are put into pockets. The rest of the paragraph is hyperbole/appeal to ridicule.
"especially the guy who doesn't seem keen to enter melee with the others"- you mean like the magus? Or the battle oracle? And, by the time the foes are within melee range of the archers- IT'S TOO LATE.
Why aren't the magus and the battle oracle moving into melee? That's what they do. If they aren't, they're likely casting buff spells. The archers, who at this level may or may not have Precise Shot, are likely going to be targeting them anyway if they're not in melee. Smoke 'em.
Sure he could have casters of his own: there are well over a dozen spellcasters. Does he have all of them? He's most likely to have an Adept. Does he really have ranks in Spellcraft? Appropriate Ks?
What self-respecting spellcaster doesn't have at least one rank in SC? Also, you don't need any knowledges to identify spells.
Once the first spell is cast? Umm, they dont cast while moving. Not usually. And again, in a party of four: Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the 'spellcaster"?
Without expressly knowing which is which, it's probably the one hanging out in the back.
And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.
It takes Spellcraft to identify which spell is being cast. But I can't find any rules that state you need Spellcraft to know that a spell is being cast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of the variables on this one, especially in the tone of the game that is being played and the experience level of the GM & players.
Against newer players, probably not very fair – but it might be a good object lesson if there is a reason for them to survive to be put in jail and then visited so that they realize they aren’t actually in a video game.
Against experienced players who utilize analyze their components for the basic checklist of:
Armor: Y/N – type?
Weapon(s): Y/N – type? / Shield: Y/N – type?
Obvious Magics: Y/N – type? (ie fire shields, spinning IOUN stones, glowing sigils from active Eidolon, etc.)
“Pets” behaving in a non-wild manner: Y/N – type & location? (druid/eidolon/wizard familiar check)
Speed / Distance: (and “is it a dragon/ quickling?!”)
Visible Religious Symbols: Y/N – type (& know:religion, if applicable)
Appear to be a threat / aggressive: Y/N/Unknown
… then use a similar checklist for intelligent, tactically/strategically-proficient NPC “bosses” & those trained by them.
Also, though I saw some back and forth assumptions about how much prep time both the PCs & the defenders had, your initial post didn’t actually advise some basic common queries I would have as a PC in the situation (or an NPC assessing the danger level of the PCs). Especially in how long the defenders have to decide if the PCs are a threat and assess them for the proper response. Arrows are cheap for PCs, but if the guards on a wall slaughter everyone who comes nearby by raining dozens of arrows on them they are both probably going to be out of a job and rapidly out of arrows to use on legitimate threats.
Bonus things to consider –
NPC - Who can actually hurt me? If there is a dude with an axe and no missile weapons or a guy gesticulating that may be a caster and they have to try to get through a draw bridge, double portcullis, and 40-ft tall tower which has been stone shaped not to have any hand holds, then I’m going to focus on the guy that might be a credible threat (the caster). Similarly if someone is shooting arrows at me, I’m going to try to shoot them right back. If, on the other hand, they can easily get to me in only a few seconds if they run, then I’m going to consider the guy with the most armor &/or biggest weapons my priority unless I’m told otherwise. (and of course, the guy screaming “Blood and Souls for Arioch” with the screaming black sword gets both the arrows & the movement away from)
GM – Perception checks for distance & individual initiative or “ready action” for actual focused fire (which gives a chance for the fireball to take out the whole group if they actually do wait). “Fire on my target” is a pretty valid command if the commander is also engaging PCs, though “fire at will” is generally more likely if the PCs don’t actually look like people who regularly mug dragons for their hoard and spend the money on firepower enough to lay waste to entire armies as an afterthought.
PCs – What do we have that will be effective against the obstacle / defenders? If the PCs are a group of 2nd level characters and rushing a fortified positions screaming “no quarter” … well, there is occasionally some Darwinism in gaming…
TL;DR – depends on the group, the tone, & the purpose of the encounter.
-TimD
Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the mage? All wearing chainshirts , toting weapons and casting spells.
The ranger is likely the one with the bow. The magus is engaging in melee. The oracle may or may not be engaging in melee. If not, smoke 'im.
Guy without armor= Monk. Guy wearing full plate- sorc with disguise spell.
The monk will be running to engage in melee unless he's a zen archer, in which case, smoke 'im. As far as the sorc, if the guy in fullplate isn't running to engage in melee, he's probably going to appear like the leader of the assault. Smoke 'im.
Guy with familiar= darn, spotting that rat in the pocket takes a REALLY good check.
Not all familiars are put into pockets.
"especially the guy who doesn't seem keen to enter melee with the others"- you mean like the magus? Or the battle oracle? And, by the time the foes are within melee range of the archers- IT'S TOO LATE.Why aren't the magus and the battle oracle moving into melee? That's what they do. If they aren't, they're likely casting buff spells. The archers, who at this level may or may not have Precise Shot, are likely going to be targeting them anyway if they're not in melee. Smoke 'em.
Sure he could have casters of his own: there are well over a dozen spellcasters. Does he have all of them? He's most likely to have an Adept. Does he really have ranks in Spellcraft? Appropriate Ks?What self-respecting spellcaster doesn't have at least one rank in SC? Also, you don't need any knowledges to identify spells.
...
Once the first spell is cast? Umm, they dont cast while moving. Not usually. And
Unless he's a two-weapon ranger, or natural weapon, or two-handed weapon or weapon and shield.....
Or the monk is smart enough to act as decoy...
Not, not all are put into pockets. But they are all tiny, mundane looking creatures. Are you really going to try to spot a toad? How do you tell a familiar from a mundane pet?
They all cast spells before combat, no one hangs back, they all move up and attacks. or if you do have an artillery spellcaster, he's 600' back, hiding.
Sure, IF your players are idiots, and IF they all dress in a comic-book stereotypical way, and IF one hangs back in short range and casts a spell while the rest run up... then he deserves to die. Darwin would approve.
Why is your captain now a spellcaster?
And yeah- look how many times you said "Smoke 'em' - basically everyone is now a target.
And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.It takes Spellcraft to identify which spell is being cast. But I can't find any rules that state you need Spellcraft to know that a spell is being cast.
A guy moves his hands and speaks. Spellcaster or not? You can tell when a spell has been cast. Show me where (without spellcraft) you can tell a spell is being cast.
A guy moves his hands and speaks. Spellcaster or not? You can tell when a spell has been cast. Show me where (without spellcraft) you can tell a spell is being cast.And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.It takes Spellcraft to identify which spell is being cast. But I can't find any rules that state you need Spellcraft to know that a spell is being cast.
*Being* cast? You don't know for sure without SC, but odds are if they are doing it the commander is going to want to shoot them anyway just in case. Remember, the commander is not going to wait for a blood sample to come back to confirm he's a mage. If it looks like a mage, speaks like a mage, and acts like a mage, feather him.
Once a spell *has* been cast, it's really easy to tell. "Oh gee, the guy in the back waved his hands and spoke Draconic, now there's a fireball coming from his location. I wonder what he is..."
A guy moves his hands and speaks. Spellcaster or not? You can tell when a spell has been cast. Show me where (without spellcraft) you can tell a spell is being cast.And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.It takes Spellcraft to identify which spell is being cast. But I can't find any rules that state you need Spellcraft to know that a spell is being cast.
Where in the rules does it say taht you can tell when a crossbow is being fired?
All I was saying is that - by RAW - the Spellcraft skill does not say that it lets you know when someone is casting a spell. It only lets you identify the spell.
There is no mechanic I can find for being able to that a spell is being cast. Just like there is no mechanic for telling when a spear is being thrown by an enemy combatant.
Though I'd allow a perception check (easy) to be done for either one.
*Being* cast? You don't know for sure without SC, but odds are if they are doing it the commander is going to want to shoot them anyway just in case. Remember, the commander is not going to wait for a blood sample to come back to confirm he's a mage. If it looks like a mage, speaks like a mage, and acts like a mage, feather him.
Once a spell *has* been cast, it's really easy to tell. "Oh gee, the guy in the back waved his hands and spoke Draconic, now there's a fireball coming from his location. I wonder what he is..."
"Mr Captain Sir, that guy, you know who wore the funny clothes and started waving his hands around and talking in a loud voice? That was a herald from the King. Since we killed him on your orders, sir, the King has requested you report to his torturer, sir. "
You can't just order your men to fire on any one who waves his hands and talks. And like I said a Mage wears ordinary adventuring garb, not robes. They don't even have wizards robes listed.
"Oh gee, the guy in the back waved his hands and spoke Draconic, now there's a fireball coming from his location. I wonder what he is.." "Oh we're dead now. I always wondered what death was like.... "
A guy moves his hands and speaks. Spellcaster or not? You can tell when a spell has been cast. Show me where (without spellcraft) you can tell a spell is being cast.And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.It takes Spellcraft to identify which spell is being cast. But I can't find any rules that state you need Spellcraft to know that a spell is being cast.Where in the rules does it say taht you can tell when a crossbow is being fired?
All I was saying is that - by RAW - the Spellcraft skill does not say that it lets you know when someone is casting a spell. It only lets you identify the spell.
There is no mechanic I can find for being able to that a spell is being cast. Just like there is no mechanic for telling when a spear is being thrown by an enemy combatant.
Though I'd allow a perception check (easy) to be done for either one.
Well, in the case of a crossbow you see.... A Crossbow!!!
In the case of a spell being cast you see.... A guy talking and waving his hands. Which normal people do. Geez, you'd have murdered every Italian on the peninsula... ;-)
A guy moves his hands and speaks. Spellcaster or not? You can tell when a spell has been cast. Show me where (without spellcraft) you can tell a spell is being cast.And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.It takes Spellcraft to identify which spell is being cast. But I can't find any rules that state you need Spellcraft to know that a spell is being cast.Where in the rules does it say taht you can tell when a crossbow is being fired?
All I was saying is that - by RAW - the Spellcraft skill does not say that it lets you know when someone is casting a spell. It only lets you identify the spell.
There is no mechanic I can find for being able to that a spell is being cast. Just like there is no mechanic for telling when a spear is being thrown by an enemy combatant.
Though I'd allow a perception check (easy) to be done for either one.
Well, in the case of a crossbow you see.... A Crossbow!!!
In the case of a spell being cast you see.... A guy talking and waving his hands. Which normal people do. Geez, you'd have murdered every Italian on the peninsula... ;-)
And in the case of spellcasting you see... Spellcasting!!!
Trying to see where, in the rules, it states that spell casting is "a guy talking and waving his hands". But I can't find it.
Spellcasting is deliberate. It happens quite often in the magical world of Pathfinder. Barring special circumstances, people have seen spells being cast. Repeatedly.
I don't speak Portuguese. But I can identify it when it's happening in my proximity. I'm not versed in sign language - but I know when it's being used.
Recognizing something you can't do yourself isn't a genius activity.
Debatable. There a good chance it's the guy without armor, the guy with the staff, the guy with the familiar, and especially the guy who doesn't seem keen to enter melee with the others. The commander could also have casters of his own under his command, in which case he'd be pretty good at spotting them.
If, for some reason, all of these reasons fail, all doubt is removed once the first spell is cast.
Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the mage? All wearing chainshirts , toting weapons and casting spells.
Guy without armor= Monk. Guy wearing full plate- sorc with disguise spell.
Guy with familiar= darn, spotting that rat in the pocket takes a REALLY good check. "Mr Captain sir, we withheld fire until we could see the animal you said the wizard be carrying, but turns out we killed Bob the pigherd. The we all died. Sorry sir."
"especially the guy who doesn't seem keen to enter melee with the others"- you mean like the magus? Or the battle oracle? And, by the time the foes are within melee range of the archers- IT'S TOO LATE.
Sure he could have casters of his own: there are well over a dozen spellcasters. Does he have all of them? He's most likely to have an Adept. Does he really have ranks in Spellcraft? Appropriate Ks?
Once the first spell is cast? Umm, they dont cast while moving. Not usually. And again, in a party of four: Magus, a Bard, a oracle and a ranger- which is the 'spellcaster"?
Again, all good tactics for the PC's to avoid a wipe. Nothing at all to do with what the NPC's will try.
I agree if they take these steps and they are ignored by the GM...you are right...that is stupid. If they don't take those steps and the GM ignores that...that is stupid.
The question posed by OP is about the NPC's. Not about what the PC's can do to plan around that.
Still don't know what your rants mean in that context.
Unless he's a two-weapon ranger, or natural weapon, or two-handed weapon or weapon and shield.....
In which case it is obvious they are melee, and will be closing to melee, and are therefore no longer a priority target.
Or the monk is smart enough to act as decoy...
That is fair. If the actual mage disguises themselves as melee and runs up with melee to get in melee range, and the monk hangs behind and speaks in strange languages and waves his hands around, then kudos to the group. The commander will totally target them because they are acting like the mage. I will give you that.
Not, not all are put into pockets. But they are all tiny, mundane looking creatures. Are you really going to try to spot a toad? How do you tell a familiar from a mundane pet?
You are assuming a standard familiar (not Improved Familiar). Ok let's take that. Mundane pets are usually cats and dogs. They are also usually not brought into battle. Having a familiar is one of the identifying traits of (most) wizards. They could have a bonded object. They could be smart enough to deposit their familiar somewhere safe within a mile radius. But, if they did bring it with them, a commander of a mixed army has to be pretty stupid not to recognize that. Regardless, that was the one point of mine that was less plausible. Moving on to the other points...
They all cast spells before combat, no one hangs back, they all move up and attacks. or if you do have an artillery spellcaster, he's 600' back, hiding.
Ok. Unless the mage is disguised, he is still going to look like a mage and will probably still draw fire, because the commander knows that even if he is running up with the others he likely has more spells up his baggy sleeves.
If he's hiding, well...that sort of makes the whole point moot doesn't it?
Sure, IF your players are idiots, and IF they all dress in a comic-book stereotypical way, and IF one hangs back in short range and casts a spell while the rest run up... then he deserves to die. Darwin would approve.
No argument there.
Why is your captain now a spellcaster?
Where was this claimed?
And yeah- look how many times you said "Smoke 'em' - basically everyone is now a target.
Those who were most likely construed as being "mage-y" or archers were targets. Those were based off your examples, and I pointed out the situations in which they would be construed as threats. Nothing inconsistent there. Also, mages/ranged support =/= everyone.
"We ready an action to shoot the first (second, third...) guy who starts casting a spell."
A trained guard squad will be able to do things like that.
"But Mr Captain sir, they just ran in and started killing us, no one cast a spell that we could see. We waited and waited. "
And "starts" casting a spell? That takes Spellcraft. They don't got none.
False.
If that is the case then a Fighter can never ever ever ever hold his action to shoot/strike when spellcasting begins.
You don't need Spellcraft to tell when someone starts casting. Just to tell what they are casting.
And Profession:Acting would probably allow you to fake them out if you pretended you were casting.
Again, all has to do with what the PC's could do. Nothing with whether NPC's should focus fire or what their intelligent actions should be.
"Mr Captain Sir, that guy, you know who wore the funny clothes and started waving his hands around and talking in a loud voice? That was a herald from the King. Since we killed him on your orders, sir, the King has requested you report to his torturer, sir. "
Yep. Because allied heralds totally run in with invading forces. Non-sequitur.
You can't just order your men to fire on any one who waves his hands and talks. And like I said a Mage wears ordinary adventuring garb, not robes. They don't even have wizards robes listed.
If they are part of invading force, then yes, he can.
Wizards can wear whatever they like, it still doesn't change the fact that they typically don't wear armor.
"Oh gee, the guy in the back waved his hands and spoke Draconic, now there's a fireball coming from his location. I wonder what he is.." "Oh we're dead now. I always wondered what death was like.... "
Please point me to where it says Fireballs always kill their opponents. Especially ones that are commanders, and likely to be higher level.
Again, all has to do with what the PC's could do. Nothing with whether NPC's should focus fire or what their intelligent actions should be.
This is the crux of the issue. You can argue on and on about what the PCs would do, it still doesn't change what the NPCs are trained to do.
Well, in the case of a crossbow you see.... A Crossbow!!!
In the case of a spell being cast you see.... A guy talking and waving his hands. Which normal people do. Geez, you'd have murdered every Italian on the peninsula... ;-)
Yeah...normal people don't attack a fortified position.
A guy moves his hands and speaks. Spellcaster or not? You can tell when a spell has been cast. Show me where (without spellcraft) you can tell a spell is being cast.
Going by Golarion standards most people have seen someone cast a spell. It doesn't give them understanding of magic, but it's generally a recognizable thing to see.