The Cascading Attack Against Large Creatures

Felnar said:

i wonder how it would work on a hex-grid

Click to expand...

A fair degree less silly at least

We've used this and other tactical tricks for quite a while. I don't think it's silly at all ... it's just good, tactical play, which is what 3.5 encourages. It's not cinematic, but it's not silly, and it's easy enough to envision if you imagine D&D combatants to be savvy combatants. I might not have orcs behave this way (depending), but I'd do it for hobgoblins, who are much more militaristic.

frankthedm said:

A fair degree less silly at least

Click to expand...

what corner of the ogres hex's has a straight line to all of b's corners?

oh well

KarinsDad said:

Besides, for real cheese, try the following to your DM when fighting a large (or larger) creature with reach:

1) Situation: you need to heal a fallen comrade, but both he and you are in reach of the creature.

2) Start moving away. Most DMs who do not know this trick will have the creature take an Attack of Opportunity against you.

3) Change direction and move back to the fallen comrade.

4) Heal him. Most creatures are not capable of Combat Reflexes or Grapples or Trips (and even if capable of grapples or trips, the first gut reaction of most DMs is to do damage), hence, the character might take damage, but he has a good chance of auto-succeeding on his cure spell (against most creatures and most DMs).

Click to expand...

How is that cheesy? Conceptually you are waiting for the opponent to overextend so you can get to the ally and heal him. Rules-wise, you would be much better off rolling the almost certain concentration check to cast on the defensive. If you are such a low level that the concentration check is a problem, taking a hit from a creature with reach could also be a problem.

And of course there is the chance of combat reflexes, improved grab, improved trip, or just a plain old critical with a large great axe, and these things will ruin your day.

I see this as no more cheesy than the spellcaster delaying while others charge in or run away from the reach opponent to use up the AoO. I've seen that done may times, and never thought it cheesy. I've also seen it fail when a Stone Giant with Combat Reflexes rules the party.

maggot said:

How is that cheesy? Conceptually you are waiting for the opponent to overextend so you can get to the ally and heal him. Rules-wise, you would be much better off rolling the almost certain concentration check to cast on the defensive. If you are such a low level that the concentration check is a problem, taking a hit from a creature with reach could also be a problem.

And of course there is the chance of combat reflexes, improved grab, improved trip, or just a plain old critical with a large great axe, and these things will ruin your day.

I see this as no more cheesy than the spellcaster delaying while others charge in or run away from the reach opponent to use up the AoO. I've seen that done may times, and never thought it cheesy. I've also seen it fail when a Stone Giant with Combat Reflexes rules the party.

Click to expand...

It's cheesy because you are dropping your guard twice.

Dropping it once to heal an ally is bad enough, but dropping it twice would never happen in "real combat".

Also, you do not run away from an ally in order to get closer to an ally. You run closer to the ally.


It is a decision based totally on game mechanics, not based at all on common sense. That's total cheese.


A decision based on common sense is to cast defensively.


And, it is similar to your AoO example. It is just worse in that in the AoO case, you can somewhat justifly it that the opponent is focusing on the first character to take an AoO.

In the healing versus large creature case, the opponent is focusing on you the entire time. But because of game mechanics, you can ensure that you make your cast defensively roll because you are not making the roll in the first place. Granted, the large creature might take you out completely, but due to DND hit points, that will rarely be the case unless the large creature has an incapacitating feat (e.g. Improved Grab, Improved Trip, etc.) or some other special ability.


As for why you would do it this way, consider the case when the downed ally is at -9 hit points (even though the PC healer should not actually know this, info like this does slip out in games). If you do not make your cast defensive roll (which are even moderate levels, there's a fair chance of failure) and you are the only healer in reach, that character is dead (assuming he does not make his 10% stabilization chance). So, the game mechanics reasons for doing this can be very valid (a near 100% chance of success versus a 25% to 75% chance of success at low to moderate levels).

Which would you do in order to save the life of a fellow PC?

KarinsDad said:

It is a decision based totally on game mechanics, not based at all on common sense. That's total cheese.

A decision based on common sense is to cast defensively.

Click to expand...

But since the mechanics define how the game world works, common sense in the game world requires following the most sensible path as determined by the mechanics.

Common sense therefore, for a D&D character, dictates provoking the first AoO, rather than casting defensively. Common sense only favours casting defensively if the mechanics of the game world support that.

It's like a barbarian standing on the edge of a cliff, faced with a high DC Will-save-or-die effect next round.

He has a 5% chance of making the save - a natural 20.

Now, real world common sense says that 5% is better odds of survival than stepping off a cliff. But the barbarian can take the falling damage in his sleep. In the D&D world, common sense tells him to step off the cliff, because the mechanics grant him a better chance of survival.

That's not cheese; it's observing the natural laws of one's universe, and acting accordingly.

-Hyp.

Hypersmurf said:

But since the mechanics define how the game world works, common sense in the game world requires following the most sensible path as determined by the mechanics.

Common sense therefore, for a D&D character, dictates provoking the first AoO, rather than casting defensively. Common sense only favours casting defensively if the mechanics of the game world support that.

It's like a barbarian standing on the edge of a cliff, faced with a high DC Will-save-or-die effect next round.

He has a 5% chance of making the save - a natural 20.

Now, real world common sense says that 5% is better odds of survival than stepping off a cliff. But the barbarian can take the falling damage in his sleep. In the D&D world, common sense tells him to step off the cliff, because the mechanics grant him a better chance of survival.

That's not cheese; it's observing the natural laws of one's universe, and acting accordingly.

-Hyp.

Click to expand...

I agree to a point. Although D&D is a magical game, certain elements such as physics, how combat works and so forth simulate our universe so when comparing them to what you would do normally, it is cheese.

Markn said:

I agree to a point. Although D&D is a magical game, certain elements such as physics, how combat works and so forth simulate our universe so when comparing them to what you would do normally, it is cheese.

Click to expand...

Except, of course, where they don't.

Patryn of Elvenshae said:

Except, of course, where they don't.

Click to expand...

Of course.

Markn said:

I agree to a point. Although D&D is a magical game, certain elements such as physics, how combat works and so forth simulate our universe so when comparing them to what you would do normally, it is cheese.

Click to expand...

The unarmed, naked man starts waving his arms and fiddling with some bat guano.

Is ducking behind something that gives cover cheese? It's not what I'd do normally, but it makes sense given the D&D mechanics.

If the rules and our universe don't gel, following our universe's version of common sense is silly. If a hundred high-level barbarians step off a cliff, and five of them die (failing the massive damage save on a natural 1), then high-level barbarians know from the empirical evidence that they have a 95% chance of surviving the fall. Should they, then, be afraid of cliffs because people die more often in our universe?

Isn't that using out-of-character knowledge, and therefore even more cheesy?

-Hyp.