Two questions about Spirit Companions

[DracoSuave]

Sorry, but that is possibly your least helpful reply I've seen, DracoSuave.

If you wanted to simply say you don't know, that would be okay. But now you're saying "don't bother".

For most cases it's not important.

How does that help me run an encounter with a Dragon? It wants to make a tactical retreat by flying away; the Shaman puts his spirit into the face of the airborne express train.

In 3d movement that will mean -at most- that the dragon is denied either a point of height or a point of distance. However, what the dragon gets to choose which. The dragon will provoke a single opportunity attack from the Spirit (if the spirit is within 20 squares of the shaman) and the dragon will still get to cover the same distance away from the party.

And this is -only- if the spirit is conjured at a diagonal from the dragon. If the spirit is conjured non-diagonal, the dragon can just fly up or across as it would normally without being denied that one square of movement.

So, a spirit is not an effective blocker using the 3d rules, so there's nothing to be gained by using the 3d rules to adjudicate a flying dragon in this instance. Just block a square, give the shaman his OAction, and move along with your game.

So yeah. Don't bother.

And I don't even understand your reply on 3D movement, much as I don't understand the DMG advice on how aerial combat really works out.

1. Can the spirit companion be conjured into thin air; yes or no?
2. Once there, can it move (without falling to the ground)?
3. If yes, can it move in all three dimensions or is it confined to its current altitude?

If you are using aerial combat, and all combatants are flying, then you can Call a Spirit Companion into thin air. Once there it can be moved within that space as any other moveable conjuration.

This should only be used during aerial combat, however. 3d space should not be used for a ground fight.

And that goes for flying monsters as well. They should not be using aerial combat rules in a ground fight either. So it sort of balances out. As for why not? Well, if the flying monster wants to run away, it should, but if it wants to fight, it should fight.

And if it wants to blast ranged attacks at the party from out of reach then you should, as a DM, provide the party the terrain needed to make the fight fair.

Simple huh?

Yep!

Finally, regarding your reply on when to attack the SC. Obviously you are right in that it is a tactical advantage if the DMG never would attack the spirit. But I would have thought it obvious that I wasn't discussing such a rigid approach.

Obviously, if the SC blocks a one-square wide passage-way, monsters are going to attack it (or at least bull rush it out of the way).

But let me rephrase my question: "Do you as the DM ever have a monster choose to attack the SC even when there is an option to attack someone else in the party, even if that is less convenient".

And for that, my answer is 'Depends on the monsters involved.'

A more exact answer would be:

A raiding party of goblins who are aware of how spirit companions work might attack the spirit companion when they cannot get directly to the healing shaman. They would do so because their melee attack force can damage the shaman indirectly this way. However, given a choice, they would probably rather just attack the shaman directly.

That said, they may wish to avoid triggering OAs from the spirit in situations it is to their disadvantage.

So, intellegent monsters would not attack a spirit companion when it was not advantageous to do so.

A pack of zombies might ignore the spirit companion -even if- it is in their advantage to attack it. The reason for this is because the spirit companion is not a living thing. If they have but one motivation: snuff out life, then a spell effect hardly registers on their hitlist so to speak. They'll probably provoke OActions from it as well, because they do not have the intellegence to assess the situation beyond an instinctual soulless level.

A pack of natural spirit ghost things, however, might -prefer- to attack the spirit companion, seeing as that it -is- an effect that exists on their level and plane of existance.

So, yeah. Depends on the monster is about as good an answer as you'll get.
But this is the same with any tactical consideration and is part and parcel of playing monsters to their strengths and weaknesses.

That is, do you have your critters go out of the way of not wasting attacks on the SC (only attacking the SC when there are no feasible alternatives)? Don't you feel this nerfs the Shaman, who then loses out on his damage reducing ability (where 30, say, points of damage on the SC is reduced to merely 5 + half level).

Again, see above. I don't feel it nerfs the shaman because of the massive amount of damage or healing they get from it otherwise. The spirit companion's damage-soaking ability isn't even the primary feature of the class. It's like a ranger claiming that he's being nerfed because melee monsters often end up in melee so he can't Prime Shot.

But again, see above how different monsters react to the situation. Some monsters will attack, some won't, and I should figure this out in advance of the battle.

Please note I'm not intending this to be a private conversation between me and DracosSuave. Feel free to chip in with how you are reacting to your party's Shaman SC!

Oh by all means. Of course, the above is just my take on things. Others have different opinions (DMing is an art, not a science) and it -is- interesting to see how others run things.

Believe it or not, I actually -do- change my mind every so often based on that.

 

[CapnZapp]

In 3d movement that will mean -at most- that the dragon is denied either a point of height or a point of distance.

So, a spirit is not an effective blocker using the 3d rules, so there's nothing to be gained by using the 3d rules to adjudicate a flying dragon in this instance. Just block a square, give the shaman his OAction, and move along with your game.

Well, we seem to be on the same page (in that the Dragon can't avoid an OA; but the Shaman can't have his SC actually stop the fleeing monster - regardless of its movement mode, unless it gets stuck in something like a 5 foot narrow corridor of course)

So we agree the SC can be conjured in the path of even a flying monster then.

If you are using aerial combat, and all combatants are flying, then you can Call a Spirit Companion into thin air. Once there it can be moved within that space as any other moveable conjuration.

This should only be used during aerial combat, however. 3d space should not be used for a ground fight.

And that goes for flying monsters as well. They should not be using aerial combat rules in a ground fight either.

And if it wants to blast ranged attacks at the party from out of reach then you should, as a DM, provide the party the terrain needed to make the fight fair.

Now I'm completely perplexed. I guess you're talking about "a fight against a flying monster" separately from the actual advice on aerial combat here?

Because I can't imagine you're telling me a Dragon isn't supposed to fly around?

The Tactics section of Dragons explicitly say they start by softening up ground foes with fly-by attacks and dragon breath.

I am a strong believe in how a completely melee-based party SHOULD be hosed when they encounter a flying monster.



Regardless of this; getting simple answers to really basic questions like "can my SC move upwards its speed, or do I need to *plop*plop* it using two minor actions" would still be nice.

I'm the DM and I got questions like this straight away. Perhaps you haven't had a Shaman player yet?

Answers like "yes, go ahead" and "no, you can't do that" are both perfectly acceptable.

Surely you see why an answer like "don't bother; that's not important" doesn't fly when a player asks his DM?

And for that, my answer is 'Depends on the monsters involved.'

We must have misunderstood each other. You're basically saying "I'm a DM who sometimes lets the monsters attack the SC" which is a perfectly fine answer. I do that too!

I was just fishing for a discussion on why it seems like the book should tell you this, because it feels like a SC that never gets "needlessly" attacked is a SC not used to its full potential. Sure its fine to have the Shaman work for it; but if the monsters *never* go for the "bait" (the SC) - only attacking when they absolutely must - it seems a part of the class build gets lost, making the class less appealing to play...

Sorry if this is repetition to you - I must then have missed the spot where you acknowledged this specific concern.

Thx,
CZ

 

[DracoSuave]

Now I'm completely perplexed. I guess you're talking about "a fight against a flying monster" separately from the actual advice on aerial combat here?

Yep. While the monster doesn't spend the fight grounded, you're not supposed to be using the three-dimensional fight rules, as the ground keeps things in that plane for the most part.

Because I can't imagine you're telling me a Dragon isn't supposed to fly around?

The Tactics section of Dragons explicitly say they start by softening up ground foes with fly-by attacks and dragon breath.

I am a strong believe in how a completely melee-based party SHOULD be hosed when they encounter a flying monster.

The DM is responsible for all encounters. If you have a melee party and you make the choice to have a flying, ranged attacking monster, and no terrain to help make the battle less than one-sided, then that is a decision you made.

Regardless of this; getting simple answers to really basic questions like "can my SC move upwards its speed, or do I need to *plop*plop* it using two minor actions" would still be nice.

I'm the DM and I got questions like this straight away. Perhaps you haven't had a Shaman player yet?

I don't do tons of aerial combat, so not really.

Answers like "yes, go ahead" and "no, you can't do that" are both perfectly acceptable.

Surely you see why an answer like "don't bother; that's not important" doesn't fly when a player asks his DM?

Aeriel combat rules are a headache. Don't run them if they're a headache for ya.

But if it comes up, just say 'sure, whatever' and go with it.

We must have misunderstood each other. You're basically saying "I'm a DM who sometimes lets the monsters attack the SC" which is a perfectly fine answer. I do that too!

I was just fishing for a discussion on why it seems like the book should tell you this, because it feels like a SC that never gets "needlessly" attacked is a SC not used to its full potential. Sure its fine to have the Shaman work for it; but if the monsters *never* go for the "bait" (the SC) - only attacking when they absolutely must - it seems a part of the class build gets lost, making the class less appealing to play...

See, I see it as different. It's obvious to most monsters that the shaman is making the attacks, because -the shaman is the one making the attacks.- Without some form of deception on behalf of the shaman, the monster should treat a Spirit Companion no different than a Flaming Sphere or any other such conjuration... with the exception that the Spirit Conjuration can be attacked.

Given that shamans have effects that radiate from the spirit, that the spirit conjuration holds areas and is a walking center point for most of the leader's shtick, I see the attackability of the spirit as a weakness, not a strength.

You use your daily to give a damage bonus to everyone around your spirit, that means your daily can be turned off with a successful attack. It means that your OActs are now defunct. It means that your buffs go away, and perhaps permanently.

That is -NOT- an advantage. The Shaman is the -only- class who can have his buffs turned off by rolling d20 to hit the Shaman.

Sorry if this is repetition to you - I must then have missed the spot where you acknowledged this specific concern.

Thx,
CZ

 

[CapnZapp]

The DM is responsible for all encounters. If you have a melee party and you make the choice to have a flying, ranged attacking monster, and no terrain to help make the battle less than one-sided, then that is a decision you made.

If you're saying "sending the players into a death trap is wrong" then you're right of course.

However, if you're saying its the DMs fault that party has a rough time against opponents they otherwisewould beat roundly, then that's way too much of this pesky player entitlement philosophy, and you're simply wrong!

If the players manage to flee an encounter they can't beat because they forgot to cover all their bases, I expect the players to give thanks to their DM he let them escape.

Then they shoul go back to town to buy some crossbows!

(And potentially hiring a Ranger or Wizard to the group).

A melee party that can't do ranged is the players' problem. Not the DM's. Saying the players have a right to expect to get away with such minmaxing is just nonsense.

Regards,