D&D General Reducing incoming damage: +1 =/= +5%

[Staffan]

IMO, archery only comes across as the best style because Sharpshooter exists.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure the reason Archery gives +2 to hit is that there's an assumption that the target will often have +2 AC from limited cover, that cover being your buddy who's in their face. But Sharpshooter negates that cover bonus, which makes Archery stronger.

 

[Argyle King]

Neither can dead PC's


And here is where we get into all kinds of assumptions. Whether you realize it or not, you are presuming distances favorable to the ranged party.


Not many direct ones anyways. But as noted, there is the indirect disadvantage of having damage focused on fewer PC's due to the archer staying away from the enemies.


The worst case is that you are incentivizing the enemies to focus fire the melee allies - which is likely much more detrimental to them than for the enemies you are focus firing with your ranged attacks (PC lives matter, their enemies are intended to die).

Any distance greater than melee range -even if that's just 1 square- is a net benefit if the enemy cannot strike back.

I posit that I'm making less assumptions about positioning than the assumption that somehow the terrain will automatically favor one PC being swarmed by attacks.

In turn, that would also assume a PC who is focused on melee while simultaneously being incapable of filling that role. In a case in which a PC cannot fulfill that role effectively, I agree that tactic wouldn't work.

 

[clearstream]

Not many direct ones anyways. But as noted, there is the indirect disadvantage of having damage focused on fewer PC's due to the archer staying away from the enemies.

To my reading, this feels contradictory. Concern was previously expressed that a PC who optimised defenses couldn't rely on being the one who damage was focused on. Here the concern seems to be that damage will be focused on one PC. If that is the case, then it might seem that what is being said is that in a party that mixes archers with a defender, the defender will be the one that damage is focused on. Making their choice of defense well justified.

 

[clearstream]

Sure, if you use certain abilities you can have enemies attack you more often. All of those abilities are investments, most have a chance of failing, most only effect a single enemy while also only lasting a single round even when they do work. While they can cause you to be attacked a bit more, i'm not seeing how they cause you to be attacked substantially more? Maybe you can elaborate on your planned method for that?

Generally the methods come down to tempo, and pay off over the combat as a whole. It's not a case of preventing any attacks at all, but rather of gaining a few additional attacks, and denying a few possible attacks in return.

Take the case of a party of archers, albeit I will use a tier 2 warlock with agonizing repelling eldritch blast and PAM paladin. The paladin positions forward and due to PAM will gain an attack on one foe that crosses the 25' line they control (reach, PAM AoO). The warlock positions sufficiently far back that a creature hoping to engage them will lose one round of attacks. The warlock can play it in a few ways, but options I would highlight are - a) ready EB to cast at the first foe that gets past the paladin, b) cast EB to push multiple foes back, so that they cannot reach you with one round of movement unless they dash. An alternative is lance of lethargy, but I think repelling is generally better.

Say there is also a bard in the party? When a foe finally dashes past the paladin and reaches the casters - unable to attack this round - the bard casts dissonant whispers. On a failed save, the foe must use their reaction to run back the other way. A wizard might choose to use cause fear - a 1st level spell that does no damage - to have a foe unable to close on them. Ray of frost is another efficient option. A cleric may use spirit guardians which will make an area of difficult terrain (halved move) that is undesirable to be within (AoE damage). Difficult terrain makes the repelling blast twice as effective.

The party won't stop attacks altogether, or ensure that they only get focused on the paladin. Rather they will gain tempo - more effective actions for themselves, fewer effective actions for their foes. That is the trade-off I think parties best offer to their foes. It's not a case of - focus the tank or the tank will pin you down somehow. Rather - focus the tank or give our side an additional attack and lose one attack on your side.

 

[Shiroiken]

It highly depends on the situation. Dodging against unengaged enemies that can freely ignore your dodging and attack a more aggressive ally isn't a great tactic. Dodging against enemies when you are the only target in range is much better than throwing javelins though.

Part of that has to do with party tactics. If one player goes Leroy Jenkins, that idiot is going to take all the attacks anyway, so throwing a weapon is better. If everyone moving into melee dodges, the enemy is going to have a round of poor melee attack options. The usefulness against ranged attackers depends on the DM, as some will always have enemies ignore dodging characters (dodging in those games is pointless anyway).

 

[Tonguez]

It is - that's what I meant. If you want to use a Great-weapon I think Defence style is the better choice.

f

 

[FrogReaver]

To my reading, this feels contradictory. Concern was previously expressed that a PC who optimised defenses couldn't rely on being the one who damage was focused on. Here the concern seems to be that damage will be focused on one PC. If that is the case, then it might seem that what is being said is that in a party that mixes archers with a defender, the defender will be the one that damage is focused on. Making their choice of defense well justified.

The enemies can do what is most beneficial for them unless you force them not to. If you have a pc built with really high defenses they can ignore him. If you have a ox with slightly above average defenses they can swarm him.

 

[FrogReaver]

Any distance greater than melee range -even if that's just 1 square- is a net benefit if the enemy cannot strike back.

Enemies have movement they can spend before attacking. 1 square is not enough to keep them from attack you this turn. So your assumption isn't about being more than 1 square away, it's about all ranged PC's being more squares away than their movement distance when it's their turn. That's a big assumption.

I posit that I'm making less assumptions about positioning than the assumption that somehow the terrain will automatically favor one PC being swarmed by attacks.

In turn, that would also assume a PC who is focused on melee while simultaneously being incapable of filling that role. In a case in which a PC cannot fulfill that role effectively, I agree that tactic wouldn't work

This is no different than saying it works when it works or doesn't work when it doesn't work...

 

[FrogReaver]

Part of that has to do with party tactics. If one player goes Leroy Jenkins, that idiot is going to take all the attacks anyway, so throwing a weapon is better. If everyone moving into melee dodges, the enemy is going to have a round of poor melee attack options. The usefulness against ranged attackers depends on the DM, as some will always have enemies ignore dodging characters (dodging in those games is pointless anyway).

Sorry, but throwing a weapon instead of dodging isn't a leroy jenkins move. It may not be the best move but it's not leroy jenkins.

And your still agreeing with me that for dodging to work, other PCs have to do fairly specific things on the turn you dodge.

 

[FrogReaver]

Generally the methods come down to tempo, and pay off over the combat as a whole. It's not a case of preventing any attacks at all, but rather of gaining a few additional attacks, and denying a few possible attacks in return.

This wasn't about directly preventing attacks. It was about getting enemies to attack a high AC target so that the AC could prevent more attacks. The problem is you can only force/incentivize a fairly limited number of attacks your way and even when you do there's only a smallish chance the higher AC makes a difference in outcome. As in you probably need to direct at least 4 if not 10 attacks to you before your AC prevents 1 additional attack. Spending those same resources on offense has a good chance of causing that 1 attack reduction by killing at least 1 enemy a round earlier.

Take the case of a party of archers, albeit I will use a tier 2 warlock with agonizing repelling eldritch blast and PAM paladin. The paladin positions forward and due to PAM will gain an attack on one foe that crosses the 25' line they control (reach, PAM AoO). The warlock positions sufficiently far back that a creature hoping to engage them will lose one round of attacks. The warlock can play it in a few ways, but options I would highlight are - a) ready EB to cast at the first foe that gets past the paladin, b) cast EB to push multiple foes back, so that they cannot reach you with one round of movement unless they dash. An alternative is lance of lethargy, but I think repelling is generally better.

Now you are making very specific assumptions.

Say there is also a bard in the party? When a foe finally dashes past the paladin and reaches the casters - unable to attack this round - the bard casts dissonant whispers. On a failed save, the foe must use their reaction to run back the other way. A wizard might choose to use cause fear - a 1st level spell that does no damage - to have a foe unable to close on them. Ray of frost is another efficient option. A cleric may use spirit guardians which will make an area of difficult terrain (halved move) that is undesirable to be within (AoE damage). Difficult terrain makes the repelling blast twice as effective.

IMO clerics make one of the best tanks. High AC. Spirit Guardians does a great job of helping keep potentially multiple enemies from allies. Also, it gives a strong incentive for clerics to be attacked (to end spirit guardian concentration). Plenty of resources to spend on negating attacks via healing.

The party won't stop attacks altogether, or ensure that they only get focused on the paladin. Rather they will gain tempo - more effective actions for themselves, fewer effective actions for their foes. That is the trade-off I think parties best offer to their foes. It's not a case of - focus the tank or the tank will pin you down somehow. Rather - focus the tank or give our side an additional attack and lose one attack on your side.

I'd posit that it's usually control spells are what's really doing this, not the tank.