Going back to the original question about roles -- they are not as hard coded in Pathfinder as they are in D&D 4E. Pathfinder has no reliable defenders in 4E terms.
What Pathfinder does have are many character types who can stand on the front line of combat, deal out a reasonable amount of damage, and avoid or take a lot of damage. Mechanically, these goals are most obviously accomplished by having BAB = level, high AC, plenty of hit points, and a high strength (to boost attack bonus as well as damage dealt).
As useful as such characters are, they are not strictly necessary for party success. They can no longer "tank" effectively if they are low on hit points and the party healer can no longer heal them, and it is all too easy for enemies to bypass a single "tank" to get to the "squishies".
Hmmm.... maybe we should add high movement speed to that list, even though few classic "tanks" can manage to move all that fast. But if we through that item in, the best "tank" I have ever seen would be a dog mounted halfling paladin.
|
Without getting too deep into the greater discussion of whether roles are appropriate for pathfinder and all that goodness, I suggest that if a *tank* build is what you want, go for an Invulnerable Rager Barbarian using the Come and Get Me Build with Dazing Assault.
Since RPG games don't have an aggro mechanic, all you have to worry about is survivability.
This includes both avoiding hits and mitigating damage.
Typically, your most common way to avoid a hit is to have a high AC. If you get your AC high enough, then the monster only has a 5% chance to hit you.
There are other ways to avoid attacks, such as snatching arrows and crane wing, but overall I am not a huge fan of this aspect of tanking. It's definitely important, but reaching the AC cap as you level becomes increasingly more difficult and expensive.
Mitigation involves taking hits but reducing the damage you take from them, which I like. You achieve this through things like DR, Energy Resistance, and spells like shield other. You can also get greater mitigation simply by having a larger health pool (Hence Barbarian).
Mitigation also includes things like Invulnerability on armor to reduce crits.
Please, everyone: Not not bag on my GM. Or insult him.
You can call him on any of his rulings. You can completely disagree with him. But, take each part by itself.
Like each player has his strengths AND weaknesses. So does any GM. I am a frikking rules lawyer, who cannot write a story. Does that automatically make me a bad player for just those faults? I have many more, too.
But, please, do not call him any type of a negative GM.
Critiques are welcome. Insults or disrespectful comments, not so much.
(sorry, touchy about these things)
|
|
Paul on a technical aspect as much as you love technical and wording... what about ability damage?
Also, my creature HAS damage reduction. can you drain over 5 points of ability? If so, EVERY frikkin' player is screwed!
Wow wow, wait, both of you.
First, when "damage suffered from ability damage" is concerned by the effects of a spell, it is ALWAYS stated out in the spell's description. It is that specific. If "ability damage" is not mentioned in any fashion, then we are only talking about Hit Point damage. The spell to summon his own eidolon basically allows you to summon back your tank with half full HP in the same state you left it.Second, Damage Reduction only reduces physical hit point damage, either lethal or non-lethal. It does NOT reduce damage from spells or ability damage. But it effectively means that if you have an enemy attacking twice per round with 1d8+10 damage, if it hits twice it would deal 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 damage. Thus from a tank perspective, the eidolon basically possesses a +5 HP equivalent per attack, not even accounting the summoner's HP as potential HP bonus.
My best advice would be to drop the party roles and stick to the core rules for the time ; so much books are hard to digest when you just enter the game, and they are not intended for "advanced players" without reason.
Allow additional content on a case-by-case basis : most martial feats from later books and archetypes are perfectly balanced and just allow a specific character concept not to suck (like the whip mastery feats).
Wow wow, wait, both of you.
First, when "damage suffered from ability damage" is concerned by the effects of a spell, it is ALWAYS stated out in the spell's description. It is that specific. If "ability damage" is not mentioned in any fashion, then we are only talking about Hit Point damage. The spell to summon his own eidolon basically allows you to summon back your tank with half full HP in the same state you left it.Second, Damage Reduction only reduces physical hit point damage, either lethal or non-lethal. It does NOT reduce damage from spells or ability damage. But it effectively means that if you have an enemy attacking twice per round with 1d8+10 damage, if it hits twice it would deal 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 damage. Thus from a tank perspective, the eidolon basically possesses a +5 HP equivalent per attack, not even accounting the summoner's HP as potential HP bonus.
My best advice would be to drop the party roles and stick to the core rules for the time ; so much books are hard to digest when you just enter the game, and they are not intended for "advanced players" without reason.
Allow additional content on a case-by-case basis : most martial feats from later books and archetypes are perfectly balanced and just allow a specific character concept not to suck (like the whip mastery feats).
For the first part:
Sorry, for my part in that. But, the basis of my standpoint was the given concept, that what he said was right.
My take on the spell, was this:
The ONLY way to send an eidolon back to its home plane (with the restriction being limited to "damage") was death. So, the spel Summon Eidolon, WILL bring it back (albeit, for a limited duration).
I was being passive-aggressive again. Sorry.
---
For the second part:
I will not say anything, I would just be passive-aggressive again...
|
|
Like each player has his strengths AND weaknesses. So does any GM. I am a frikking rules lawyer, who cannot write a story. Does that automatically make me a bad player for just those faults? I have many more, too.
Being a rules lawyer is not a fault if the group itself is not picky and you only share your knowledge for the sake of everyone's fun, not just for the sake of arguing. This is even a boon in a group that does not know the rules much, especially when it comes to building PCs that meet their expectations and allow them to have the most fun out of their concept.
Heck, I'm so much of a rules lawyer in my own game that I introduce every new book to my DM (who possesses only an experimented knowledge of the system), that he sometimes asks me to build a NPC or two for him (often letting me wild to go for some crazy concepts/combinations with class levels, just for the fun of seeing everyone's face), and that I am allowed to suggest anything to the group I myself would greenlight (whether it is official Paizo, 3PP, or homebrew content I write myself when all else fails and there is a gap in the rules).
That's in a group where the DM didn't want anything other than Core when we started playing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the first part:
Sorry, for my part in that. But, the basis of my standpoint was the given concept, that what he said was right.
My take on the spell, was this:
The ONLY way to send an eidolon back to its home plane (with the restriction being limited to "damage") was death. So, the spel Summon Eidolon, WILL bring it back (albeit, for a limited duration).I was being passive-aggressive again. Sorry.
---
For the second part:
I will not say anything, I would just be passive-aggressive again...
The passive-agressive tone is not needed, we are trying to make the rules clearer and more enjoyable for both of you. You both seem to have issues with the rules, and different expectations out of the system (the idea that a Sword and Board fighter better being better at being a tank protecting allies than an eidolon, for example, as it is totally wrong) and we can help with that.
While rules-lawyering to death and contesting DM fiat when a decision has been made is annoying, so is using his own DM role to justify any bad decision just because you misinterpret the rules. DM fiat and houserules are only good if you yourself understand what you are changing/banning and why it's a good idea (banning the summoner class for imbalance and slowing the game is a good reason for most DMs) ; and sometimes even the rules lawyer must accept some changes and decisions for the sake of everyone's fun.
Truthfully, i would prefer a GM fiat. God says "This spell does not exist" I am okay with that.
But him and I are arguing about the wording of the spell.
|
"Hey man, I've been thinking this over. You agreed on melee\tank with group, could you at least stick with it. If the eidolon dies you lose the tank for 24Hr." (my response: " And what if I played the tank and I die?"
I'll remember that one:!)
I do like the Idea of Eidolon tanks. I have a level 1Barbarian/1Summoner(Fav) gnome whose scarecrowesque Eidolon charges off into combat. It gets hit a lot, but Tweenie, has a lot of hp to suck up so it works pretty well.
I had an idea for a Marsupial-styled Eidolon and an Agrophoric Gnome which I just posted in this thread:
forums/dmtz6m5d?Idea-for-an-Agoraphobic-Gnome-Summoners-EidolonPaizo Publishing
|
|
And like a lot of people said, there is no argument to have about this spell : you are right. The spell does allow you to summon your eidolon back from the dead from it's home plane (as both are the consequence of too much HP damage).
In case of doubt when dealing with the rules of a game you are not used to, always trust the 100% confident guys with some thousand posts on the official game's messageboards.
And like a lot of people said, there is no argument to have about this spell : you are right. The spell does allow you to summon your eidolon back from the dead from it's home plane (as both are the consequence of too much HP damage).
In case of doubt when dealing with the rules of a game you are not used to, always trust the 100% confident guys with some thousand posts on the official game's messageboards.
... so tempting to tie politics into this...
But, on a serious note, i have yet to find anything online that disagrees with us. It is his interpretation. I wish he would he either, accept the fact that this is the way it works, or just drop the ban hammer.
Accept the rulings, house-rule others, or bring the boom.
Easy, simple.
Countries and politics are no games despite what some Throne may say in fiction, anyone treating them as such by seeing only the columns and losses/profits curves would make for a terrible real-life master. ;)
Maxximilius, yeah, i agree.
The spell wording is correct. I apparantly read it wrong.That's pretty clear, for the ritual. The spell Summon Eidolon doesn't seem to have that problem though, as far as I can tell.Paul, from what you posted.
If the eidolon is sent back to its home plane due to death, it cannot be summoned again until the following day.How much clearer does it get?
He already admitted he was wrong.
I normally don't find occassion to use phrases about dead-horses and straw-men but Jesus Christ.
I normally don't find occassion to use phrases about dead-horses and straw-men but Jesus Christ.
I apologize, i guess i was lost in the reply of the reply of the reply.
I was wrong for beating a dead horse.
I apologize to Dave, my kick-ass GM.
I apologize to everyone else, for wasting their time (as well as thanking you all for your support).
Now, how can i railroad this to a kick-ass conversation about the best character to keep the crunchy casters from getting harmed.
Tactics are key (obviously)
But, as a general rule. A class build that can keep harm from them. From specific fighter builds (still working on mine), to weird class jumping, standard builds, ooh neet-o factors and anything else.
Thank you all
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The kid made a good tank, just like he promised. Maybe you guys just didn't know a summoner could tank so well because he did more research then you. Unless there's something you haven't told us, he did nothing wrong that I can see.
Your really long post didn't supply one single clue to help me understand what you or the DM got upset about.
He did mention a few times that he tends to get passive aggressive, so maybe that just annoyed you? Who knows, I wasn't there.
You could always try using his rules lawyering to help you guys out while you learn the game. Look at it as a resource instead of a challenge.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I don't even understand why the advanced races guide is allowed if you can take no racial-based mechanics, or even any archetype at all for the matter. What's left to use in it ?
7) The class of Summoner was never disallowed. It clearly did not fit what was promised by the player. When someone says they do not want to play a caster and do not want to play ranged then build a ranged caster with a pet, something is clearly wrong. Someone had either gotten their lines mixed up when they chose their role, or decided to play whatever they wanted instead of what they chose, regardless of what everyone else is expecting.
Yet it's been proven that this character is -exactly- what you expected from your party's tank. It's one of the few classes able to "aggro" in a game that does not feature this kind of gameplay (except for some bad feats and some spells), since the only way to "attract attention and attacks" in this game is to be perceived as a threat. To do this, you must either be a caster (and suck the inability to survive in melee), or deal enough damage, something usually not compatible with having the means to reach high AC since you will wield no shield.
I honestly think you should just stick to core-only rules until you have a good enough grasp of the system and you better understand the differences between a MMO and a paper RPG - notably, that there is no need to stick with party roles. I played a 1-20th level campaign lasting two years with no real spellcaster, we just had an alchemist NPC hanging around to provide some emergency healing and still had an awesome time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah it's really not supposed to be this painful. Just roll up some characters and play.
Sooo, what role is the Monk doing? <.<
What was the role of the 'Shaman' custom class?
I assume the Oracle is is Healing/Buffing?
That being said, a Summoner can be a "Tank". Perhaps he changed his mind about what type of character he would play, but still able to "Tank". It looks like he did it.
You said you were upset because he wasn't taking his role 'seriously'. It seems like he is. To be honest, I think you had a knee jerk reaction to his decision and it doesn't sound like you had tried to discuss it with him. I could be wrong, I wasn't there.
Dave the DM, thank you for popping into this thread and admitting when you are wrong.
I'll agree with Maxx about the party roles thing and add, most importantly. is that the "Roles" can assumed by a pretty nice number if characters. Some Roles might be harder to fill than others, but still doable.
EDIT: Saw Maxx's post, not Grimmy's. Doh.
Jeebus, what a long post!
2) Everyone sat at a table and discussed the roles they would fill within the party.
Player A: Monk
Player B: Oracle
Paul the dork: Specifically stated he did not want to play a ranged character nor a caster. He also stated he wanted to play melee class and a tank.
Nighttrain: Playing a custom class for the first time with a backup character made in case the custom class does not work out (too overpowered, broken abilities etc.)This was cleared with the DM at the time we were deciding on which role we would be fulfilling. The DM also had a custom class he offered to the party as well as 2 custom races.
My first idea was to play a druid (focus on wildshape). I found out in the Pathfinder system, that it was severely nerfed, compared to 3.5.
I was busy trying to figure out how to do the role. I was going through the main book, trying to figure it out. It was not until the next day, that I finally found the Summoner (i forgot to check the advanced players options for classes.)
Also, I said that i would prefer not to play a caster. Not, that I would not. Not to mention, that a caster was not one of the 4 roles (Ranged DPS, Melee DPS, Healer, Tank), a caster could fulfill any of those role, if build right. There was no restriction on how you would fulfill your roles, so long as you could do it well.
3) ALL of the rules and expectations were given out BEFORE character creation had started. Everyone talked about the role they were playing and what the other players expected out of each other. There were no exceptions. Everyone was at the same table and everyone was communicating on their class, potential builds, limitations, gear etc., except Paul the dork.
I was running through class after class, trying to wrap my head around a class that could do what was expected of me. I even asked at the table what did people recommend to "Tank".
4) The role of “tank” was clearly explained at the same time. What the expectations were for both the player and the class. Please understand, none of this should have been a surprise to anyone about the role they were to fulfill since the players selected their roles.
I knew I was to be in the tank role. I did not know that I would be restricted on how I did it.
5) Once I heard about the “Tank” I was frustrated and decided the game was no longer worth my time if no one else was going to take their role seriously (as seriously as you can in a game of imagination). I want to have fun. I want to chuck dice. I want to make smartass comments when someone does something silly, even at me if I do something silly. I want to play a game and at least be somewhat successful at the same time. So I decided it would be best for me to leave the game since I would not be comfortable with the given situation. Since then, Dave the DM had to go and find another person to fulfill the role of the front-liner.
You leave (as the ranged dps) so the GM had go and find front-liner?
6) ...If a player says they are going to play a role, I expect them to go through with it...
"Summoners cannot fulfill the role of tank"?
7) The class of Summoner was never disallowed. It clearly did not fit what was promised by the player. When someone says they do not want to play a caster and do not want to play ranged then build a ranged caster with a pet, something is clearly wrong. Someone had either gotten their lines mixed up when they chose their role, or decided to play whatever they wanted instead of what they chose, regardless of what everyone else is expecting.
Caster was not a role. As stated above, a properly built caster can do any role.
Shaman?
sounds like an attempt at a spontaneous druid to me.
|
That was a major read lol but to answer your orriginal question the following is what i would do for a "tank" build:
Human
Fighter with the Armor Master Archetype
Stats (25 point build)
Str 14
Dex 16 +2 from racial
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 10
Feats
01 Shield Focus, Dodge, Combat Expertise
02 Combat Reflexes
03 Stand Still
04 Missile Shield
05 Step Up
06 Improved Trip
07 Greater Trip
08 Greater Shield Focus
09 Disruptive
10 Spellbreaker
11 Pin Down
btw the key to tanking is to make use of defensive fighting and total defense when you feel it is needed.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/combat-feats-filter
^feat descriptions^
Sooo, what role is the Monk doing? <.<
Melee DPS, a pretty kick a** one, too.
What was the role of the 'Shaman' custom class?
I think it is/was Ranged DPS
I assume the Oracle is is Healing/Buffing?
Correct
Dave the DM, thank you for popping into this thread and admitting when you are wrong.
Like i have said, i love my GM, he is a good guy
I'll agree with Maxx about the party roles thing and add, most importantly. is that the "Roles" can assumed by a pretty nice number if characters. Some Roles might be harder to fill than others, but still doable.
EDIT: Saw Maxx's post, not Grimmy's. Doh.
It was hard even trying to get the right build of the creature. Just as I would have had trouble If I made a straight up fighter. A Barbarian would have been tough (trying to NOT take the place of the Melee DPS), but doable. It was a hard role to nail down.
That was a major read lol but to answer your orriginal question the following is what i would do for a "tank" build:
Human
Fighter with the Armor Master Archetype
No archetypes allowed.
I love your feat choices, though.
|
|
The following is a level 20 build for summoner that can literally fight butt naked with out any items and makes a great tank.
Race: Half Elf
Class: Summoner (Synthesist Archetype)
Stats: Str = 10
Dex = 10
Con = 17 with racial modifier
Int = 13
Wis = 14
Cha = 14
when leveling add 3 to con and 2 to cha
take the Half Elf Favored Class Option for Summoner
Eidolon's base form Aquatic
Powers obtained via Eidolon = -Fast Healing x4
-Natural Armor x5
-Limbs x3
-Claws x3
-All 5 immunities
Feats = -Extra Evolution x5
-Toughness
-Dodge
-Combat Expertise
-Combat Reflexes
-Resilient Eidolon
this build with no items magical or other wise gives the following statistics at lv 20 when infused with your Eidolon:
Heath = 320 with out Eidolon and 485 when fused with it
Immunity to all damage excluding force, physical, positive and negative
Fast Healing 4
7 attacks a round at full bab each (15)
AC = 51 with out Combat Expertise and 56 with Combat Expertise
Self Healing via Class spell list
|
|
That was a major read lol but to answer your orriginal question the following is what i would do for a "tank" build:
This may look awesome, until you realize Stand Still is a combat maneuver check for wich you have BAB(11) + Str(2), against foes who usually will have a huge CMD equal to 10 + BAB + Str + Dex + Size bonus.
<.< >.> Monk as the DPS class? Ehhh. I'm not going to turn this into a monk thread as I generally stay away from those.
Dave, I understand that the Shaman was open to be changed.
Now, for some examples (Any other Vets of PF want to fix, change or add on, please do so)
Ranged DPS: Archer Fighter (Ranger, Paladin, yada yada). Specialist Wizard. Blasting Sorcerer. I'm sure others could give examples.
Melee DPS: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Inquisitor (Not sure if this was available) Magus (Same as Inquis) Barbarian. Druid.
Healer/Buffer: Bard. Druid. Cleric. Wizard (??) Oracle.
Tank: Fighter Paladin. Barbarian. Summoner. Summoning Wizard. Cleric. Druid.
I'll point out that not all casters fall into the Ranged DPS role. Neither do all martial.
I applaud you on coming to a solution, but was this talked about at the table before they left?
In any case, sounds like a bit of miscommunication on both sides and maybe misunderstanding.
EDIT: CURSES NINJA'D again!! *shakes fist at Nighttrain*
The DM can say no. He can also be wrong. You might be THE knowledge of the game, and yet I still say you are wrong.
Whether it is good or not does mean if it will work or not. A Summoner can, and does, work as a Tank. It can clog lanes of fighting, and can distract enemies, and it can take hits. Even without the Eidolon, the Summoner can still summon.
If the DPS guys are doing what they are supposed to be, the enemy shouldn't survive pass three or four rounds, most of the time. The Healer/Buffer can Heal/Buff anything summoned by the Summoner.
DPS is meant to kill the enemey fast. Tanks are meant to hold off said enemies until they die. Healers/Buffers are to heal up wounds on the other roles and buff them when it has a chance.
High AC is not nearly that great of a feature. Enemies should ignore the guy who can't hurt them and they can't hit. If the Tank has no way to harass the enemy (Prevent them from passing, Hurt them enough question passing him, etc)
|
|
I can see where you came up with the idea that 'm more inclined to MMO's rather than RPG's. I played a MMO for about 3 years and RPG's for over 30 years. The only reason I even mentioned the Shaman was because I wanted to see if it could be done. I am literally THE source for information in this group whether it's 2nd Ed, 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder.
... which raises another issue then : why stick to the sheer idea of "party roles" ?
Right now, your melee DPS option is a monk. I can't stress enough how much it is a bad idea both for the group's DPS and "the tank". The monk will be the first target right after an eventual spellcaster, and while UC and UM did a lot to improve the poor monk, a non-qinggong monk is terribly squishy. Why attack the tin box dealing crap damage when there is Bruce Lee breaking bones and begging to die from the sword ?
And no offense meant to Dave the DM, but he may very well say the summoner isn't gonna do the trick, it still does exactly what you seemed to expect out of "the tank". Say it will slow the game, or say it is too complicated for a newbie (which it is), but it's like saying to a druid that he will not fit for the hippie-spellcaster-with-a-bear slot.
I guess another option would be a ranger sword-and-board, who will both deal solid damage and have huge AC (especially with Favored Defense, the Instant Enemy and Barkskin spells) ; but it still won't have any means to "aggro", only some movement/attack impeding spells. There comes the wolf animal companion with teamwork feats once he reaches 3 Intelligence, so you can Trip/AoO your foe into oblivion as a tandem. See STR Ranger's guide about this combo.
|
|
<.< >.> Monk as the DPS class? Ehhh. I'm not going to turn this into a monk thread as I generally stay away from those.
Dave, I understand that the Shaman was open to be changed.
Now, for some examples (Any other Vets of PF want to fix, change or add on, please do so)
Ranged DPS: Archer Fighter (Ranger, Paladin, yada yada). Specialist Wizard. Blasting Sorcerer. I'm sure others could give examples.
Melee DPS: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Inquisitor (Not sure if this was available) Magus (Same as Inquis) Barbarian. Druid.
Healer/Buffer: Bard. Druid. Cleric. Wizard (??) Oracle.
Tank: Fighter Paladin. Barbarian. Summoner. Summoning Wizard. Cleric. Druid.
Staying out of archetypes, I'll add the Gunslinger, Inquisitor and Bard as ranged DPS classes.
Ahh. You are right, Maxx. I forgot about the GS. And true, an Archer Bard can be pretty nasty too.
Another player is reading this thread, and asks a line of questions to Nighttrain:
Okay, we get that you have a big problem with the summoner class as a Tank. But, what is the specific problem that you have with it? Can you give examples?
You keep saying, "It cannot work", "it does not work", "it is not a tank"
Why is this an unacceptable thing?
We have a 100+ posts saying the opposite, in this thread alone.
What is wrong with this build? It is not your sterotypical tank that people think of. But, it does not stop it from doing its job.
How does it not fulfill the roll, that we are not seeing?
/other player quote
Paul on a technical aspect as much as you love technical and wording... what about ability damage? If its returned home with Con Damage, does it mean, in case of summon eidolon spell, that its dead upon summons or a wasted spell?
I'm just putting it out there as a serious question since I'm apparantly reading it wrong.
The spell says:
"This spell allows you to summon your eidolon even if it has been returned to its home plane due to damage"
If you are saying Attribute damage counts, then players have a lot less to fear from Undead.
Ability drain = damage, thus Damage reduction gets a THOUSAND times better.
Also, my creature HAS damage reduction. can you drain over 5 points of ability? If so, EVERY frikkin' player is screwed!
I am ready for your next Scenario.
EDIT: Also, Con damage is against Max HP, not current. Your scenario to work, you have to drop a character to 0Con. Which is basically: "what happens if drop any creature to 0 Con?"
It dies (unless it is undead. but it is still technically (un)dead)
Con affects current and max health. As an example look at the barbarian's rage, but the eidolon should have a high fort save, and at your level a wand of lesser restoration is not bad to have around.
|
|
@Paul the Dork
To be the Devil's advocate on the whole summoner not being a visable tank is that it alone is weak. The amount of needed feats and being a half-elf in order to give it the needed evolution points seriously cuts in2 what u can do by ur self. Plus a simple spell can get rid of the poor thing for a while. It has its good points and its bad points and a major bad point with the summoner class is that the pet requires to be specialized in in order to make it powerful and stand on par with say the fighter tank. Also the priest will not b able to heal it only u will be able to. Another thing to consider is that u can either have the pet out or the summon monsters out not both at the same time.
Another player is reading this thread, and asks a line of questions to Nighttrain:
Okay, we get that you have a big problem with the summoner class as a Tank. But, what is the specific problem that you have with it? Can you give examples?
You keep saying, "It cannot work", "it does not work", "it is not a tank"
Why is this an unacceptable thing?
We have a 100+ posts saying the opposite, in this thread alone.
What is wrong with this build? It is not your sterotypical tank that people think of. But, it does not stop it from doing its job.
How does it not fulfill the roll, that we are not seeing?
/other player quote
The summoner works. I have had them in games. If they mean summoners won't work in Dave's games they need to explain why.
@Paul the Dork
To be the Devil's advocate on the whole summoner not being a visable tank is that it alone is weak. The amount of needed feats and being a half-elf in order to give it the needed evolution points seriously cuts in2 what u can do by ur self. Plus a simple spell can get rid of the poor thing for a while. It has its good points and its bad points and a major bad point with the summoner class is that the pet requires to be specialized in in order to make it powerful and stand on par with say the fighter tank. Also the priest will not b able to heal it only u will be able to. Another thing to consider is that u can either have the pet out or the summon monsters out not both at the same time.
Why can't the priest heal the eidolon?
The synthesist archetype has the eidolon with temporary hit points. The normal eidolon does not have that restriction.
@ Psion-Psycho
Thank you, Psion-Psycho, good overall points.
I am playing a Human though (for extra HP).
As far as my eidolon "the pet requires to be specialized in in order to make it powerful and stand on par with say the fighter tank." Well, what is the fighter but a whole bunch of specializations? You build a fighter tank in a specific way you think will help out. But, it still cannot be the best Tank in all situations.
Cure spells work on the creature. And the healer player took the feat to allow his channel energy to effect my eidolon.
|
|
true i do admit that the fighter is a specialist of sorts but it has a larger amount of feats to play with and there are multiple ways to tank, some better than others and with the amount of feats a fighter gets he / she can maximize its style to the best a tank a character can be with the limitations of the campaign. I play with a close nit of friends that have games that exceed far beyond lv 20 with limitations set from old rules of 1e, 2e, and 3.5 which is very great, fun, and best of all playable with the set rules that in tale. Even in those games though fighter is the class I always lean towards when making my tank characters.
btw a few ways ive learned to tank is utilizing the trip feats. after all if it takes them a move action to get up then they cant run from u and they only get 1 attack off. Also utilizing total defense to act as a barrier between allies and enemies is a key strategy if u can bottle-neck combat in a small hall way. It does not mater how many are thrown at u when only 1 or 2 can actually attack u.