NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6068311" data-attributes="member: 6696971">The difficulty with the portion of the discussion that attempts to evaluate the Pathfinder Defender line of feats versus the Fighter's standard issue Defender toolkit (and then acquisition of Exploits and Feats to further customize) is this; The action economy of melee combatants to deliver their payload is completely different and completely dictates gameplay.3.x and Pathfinder have 2 "typical" ways for a melee combatant to deliver their maximum damage potential:1) Full Attack (which means free 5 ft step and thats it). or 2) Standard Action + Full Power Attack (coupled with something like a True Strike effect).Most monsters and melee combatants do not have access to a True Strike effect (even if they have Power Attack) and they usually have a multi-attack.  Therefore, the BEST way to be a Defender in 3.x/PF is to be out of melee reach such that enemies must spend a move action to reach you, thus adversely affecting their damage output or rendering it impotent.  This is, of course, why the Reach weapon, Trip build is so successful.  It crushes action economy and therefore, potential damage output, while dictating target acquisition by proxy.  For the same reasons, this is why Combat Patrol can be an effective way of play a Defender.  However, the feat lines for protecting adjacent allies is "ok" but not great (likely not worth the investment) because, in most cases, they're either going to be out of melee or flanking and not adjacent.  The Repositioning line (Slide in 4e) would be good but it crushes your own action economy and isn't even worth using except for in the most extreme corner cases (and therefore not a good investment).  Stand Still is marginal for all of the reasons Neonchameleon mentioned but, just as much, for the action economy issues in 3.x/PF.  Why is that monster spending a move action (thus losing most of its damage potential) to get one swing in at a secondary target, in the first place?  This is especially true when its life expectancy is 2-3 rounds (at most).  Forget about the Fighter punishing it.  Its punishing itself just by doing that and potentially absorbing an AoO from all engaged melee opponents...horrible, horrible loss in the action economy game.  He might as well ask the group to help him seppuku.  And to head this one off at the pass before it gets legs, if we're working off the premise of "game engine as world physics", then he should absolutely know this.  That isn't metagaming.  That's him understanding the "game engine as world physics", using causal logic and through cost-benefit-analysis he SHOULD marginalize that idea into non-existence...unless he is suicidal.  Even the most marginally intelligent creatures function at this primal level (its called Natural Selection).  They develop behaviors to maximize their likelihood of survival based on sensory input from their environment and trial and error.That is the issue with playing a Defender in 3.x/PF.  The system does it for you as the action economy of melee characters being contingent upon not moving.  Any denial of a full attack routine, self-imposed or imposed by enemies, is the best way to play a Defender.  It is also the primary reason for stagnant, immobile, stand there and slug it out combat.  If you unify the action economy and turn full attacks into standard actions (as spells are...even as they scale they don't become action-economy-inhibited) and then you make Repositioning a Move or Swift Action (or a potential rider on melee attacks)...then things would change dramatically from multiple vectors (including the Active Defender one).</blockquote>

Verification