Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Question about "Tanking"


Advice

251 to 297 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Psion-Psycho wrote:
The Eidolon is considered an Outsider and if u read the healing spells and channel energy carefuly u cant heal outsiders with out a certain feat.

That is not true at all. Outsiders are living creatures and are affected by positive and negative energy normally. The channel feat you are speaking of allows you to heal or harm them just like you can undead using your channel ability. There is no ruling saying outsider are not healed by positive energy.

edit:In short it just expands your options.


Paul the Dork wrote:

@ 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.

That feat is not needed. If you are speaking of channel alignment it would not affect the eidolon anyway because the eidolon does not have an alignment subtype. Like I said though positive energy affects all living creatures so the feat is not needed.


@ Psion-Psycho

My backup build is a Whip and Shield (that i have only started making).

Not great on the damage, but able to control a lot of space, as well as shielding allies.

Conversely, the eidolon can also trip, it has more attacks, good ac, and higher strength. It also has the bonus of being able to be resummoned, if it gets killed, plane shifted, banished, etc.


Paul if you take augment summoning then your summoned eidolon will have extra hit points, and be better in combat. That feat also helps with your summoned creatures.

Lantern Lodge

Eidolon does have an alignment which is the exact same as the 1 that summoned it.


concerro wrote:
That feat is not needed. If you are speaking of channel alignment it would not affect the eidolon anyway because the eidolon does not have an alignment subtype. Like I said though positive energy affects all living creatures so the feat is not needed.

I was just going off of what the Healer told me, I did not look into it.

concerro wrote:
Paul if you take augment summoning then your summoned eidolon will have extra hit points, and be better in combat. That feat also helps with your summoned creatures.

*evil grin* I know, +4 Str & Con.


Psion-Psycho wrote:
Eidolon does have an alignment which is the exact same as the 1 that summoned it.

I said it does not have an alignment subtype. That is not the same as having an alignment. All creatures have alignments, but not all creatures have alignment subtypes.

Examples:

Quote:

Demon, Balor

This winged fiend's horned head and fanged visage present the perfection of the demonic form, fire spurting from its flesh.
Balor CR 20

XP 307,200
CE Large outsider (chaotic, demon, evil, extraplanar)

The subtypes are in parenthesis.

Quote:
Subtypes add additional abilities and qualities to a creature.

As another example a red dragon has the fire subtype, and earth elementals have the earth subtype. Neither of these two have alignment subtypes however.


Paul the Dork wrote:
concerro wrote:
That feat is not needed. If you are speaking of channel alignment it would not affect the eidolon anyway because the eidolon does not have an alignment subtype. Like I said though positive energy affects all living creatures so the feat is not needed.

I was just going off of what the Healer told me, I did not look into it.

concerro wrote:
Paul if you take augment summoning then your summoned eidolon will have extra hit points, and be better in combat. That feat also helps with your summoned creatures.
*evil grin* I know, +4 Str & Con.

You can save him a feat by letting him no there is no rule that says outsiders can't be healed by positive energy. I can say this confidently because I know that no such rule exist.

Here is what the rules do say.

cure light wounds wrote:


A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures.
Quote:
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

We also know that outsiders are living since they are not undead, nor are they constructs.

In short there is no reason to take the feat, since even if the eidolon could not be healed normally the feat would not help per my previous posts.


Yes, just talked to him. He wanted to take the feat Alignment Channel. Looks like a pretty crappy feat to me, especially when compared to the Selective Channeling feat.


It is crappy, unless he has something planned....

Lantern Lodge

Bk i was getting food but ya Whip Mastery and Improved Whip Mastery are essentials if ur gona use a whip and if u want to be a sneaky rat get the lunge feat and the whirlwind attack feat and its prerequisites to do a 20ft aoe attack against all enemies.


Psion-Psycho wrote:
Bk i was getting food but ya Whip Mastery and Improved Whip Mastery are essentials if ur gona use a whip and if u want to be a sneaky rat get the lunge feat and the whirlwind attack feat and its prerequisites to do a 20ft aoe attack against all enemies.

Oh goddess! That is disgusting. It rocks!

Lantern Lodge

@Paul the Dork
btw the a dw whip fighter with a splash of rogue has been 1 of my favorite and most powerful characters. Reasoning being the normal staple points of any whip character being Whip Mastery and Improved Whip Mastery combined with the two-weapon fighting feats, the trip feats and a 3 feat combo that makes me wet my self with the idea. Intimidating Prowess, Shatter Defenses, and Dazzling Display = 30ft intimidate that makes all enemies flat footed to u for x amount of rounds is rape with a lunge whirlwind attack or against foes u tripped and attacked through attacks of opportunity.


Paul the Dork wrote:
Yes, just talked to him. He wanted to take the feat Alignment Channel. Looks like a pretty crappy feat to me, especially when compared to the Selective Channeling feat.

The eidolon is a living creature and can be healed normally. Alignment channel is entirely unnecessary.


Psion-Psycho wrote:

@Paul the Dork

btw the a dw whip fighter with a splash of rogue has been 1 of my favorite and most powerful characters. Reasoning being the normal staple points of any whip character being Whip Mastery and Improved Whip Mastery combined with the two-weapon fighting feats, the trip feats and a 3 feat combo that makes me wet my self with the idea. Intimidating Prowess, Shatter Defenses, and Dazzling Display = 30ft intimidate that makes all enemies flat footed to u for x amount of rounds is rape with a lunge whirlwind attack or against foes u tripped and attacked through attacks of opportunity.

I like the way you think.


Paul the Dork wrote:

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

To the other player, assuming I know which one it is: I'm done doing this on a public forum to stroke Pauls ego. Call me or what not. Done period, end of story. So frustrating answering the same questions.


Paul the Dork wrote:

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

First: I did not say it cannot work. I said the GM said it cannot work. I don't care one way or another other than the fact that this is not what you said you would play, the GM was counting on you playing a melee class not a class with a pet (regardless how awesome that pet is) and the mechanics as I understand from the initial meeting requires a specific type of tank and that was explained at the beginning. Either way you don't have to worry about it since another player has stepped up to fulfill the role. This is not a by-the-book pathfinder game and you know this. There are many things that have been modified from the core rulebook and this was also explained.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Dude.

I can't believe what I've been reading. This group reads like a budget committee planning session.

If it works for you all, fine, but holy cow, it must be dry as Hades.

I'd have found a new group so fast your head would spin. Just make characters and play for Desna's sake!

And if I stayed, I'd find a way to optimize a Bard into a tank just to spite the group, then consider it an honor to be asked to leave.

In short, you cannot calculate, spreadsheet, ratify or shoehorn your way to fun and enjoyment, which by the way, is the purpose of playing.

I wonder if this is how the Borg would play an RPG?


What I don't understand, and I am assuming Paul does not either is why does it matter if he does the job by using a summoner instead of "traditional" full BAB character?

If I use the bard archaeologist instead of the rogue to find and disable traps, while being the party face does it really matter that I did not play a rogue.

It is not that we are trying to be judgemental. We just don't understand why it matters that Paul is using a summoner. There was a mention of certain mechanics requiring a specific type of tank. Is that due to house rules or an understanding of the game that has not been presented.

Paul did you intentionally mispresent Nighttrain or were you paraphrasing what you thought he meant? I only ask because you have admitted to being passive-aggressive at times.


RipfangOmen wrote:

<.< >.> 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)

Rip I had to read this very carefully so I don't do or say something that could be found umm "off color". I will say this, almost any class can find a way to absorb damage and allow others to kill a creature or creatures. I will also say that when the DM places specific guidelines and explains that it is for a "reason" while not willing to actually give up the details for fear of ruining the game is acceptable. I am not (and there is no inflection here) the knowledge of the game although I do own all of the books and have read many of them. Reading, constructing, finding combinations that work well together take time and patience. I have the patience but not the time to go over all of the rules to figure out details.

I follow what is instructed by the GM unless it's entirely silly, which in this case it appears to be more critical to have a tin can up from then a Barney. I know the summoner can tank, druid, ranger, fighter, pally, cleric, summoner wizard etc. The DM has obviously considered what is planned and realizes this particular style will not work. I will say that when the rules were explained this was emphasized and then ignored or did not completely register. When it was further pushed and shot down again that should be the clue to figure out a different path.

No one here is saying the summoner can't tank, I personally don't care, if asked to build a cork I will build a pally cork or a cleric cork, but when the idea is brought up and shot down by the GM it typically is for a reason. To then beat it into the ground after being told it will not work ( for whatever reason the GM has) is ludicrous. To have the rules explained then build something that goes against the rules then complain because it is still not being allowed is just juvenile. I have three classes made now if the home brew does not work or seems unbalanced but all fit within the guidelines specified at the beginning.

If the monk is the main source of melee and it wasn't going to work the GM would have said so and the player would have build something else. If the healer needed some specific feats or spells to help the party he would have picked them, if the cork needed to be a metal cork it goes on a random forum and 6 pages come out of it.

Pretty simple for me honestly. Without giving away the game there are certain limitations places within the game and players may or may not get an explanation until later in the game or it may just come to realization for the player once they see how the game is going.


wraithstrike wrote:

What I don't understand, and I am assuming Paul does not either is why does it matter if he does the job by using a summoner instead of "traditional" full BAB character?

If I use the bard archaeologist instead of the rogue to find and disable traps, while being the party face does it really matter that I did not play a rogue.

It is not that we are trying to be judgemental. We just don't understand why it matters that Paul is using a summoner. There was a mention of certain mechanics requiring a specific type of tank. Is that due to house rules or an understanding of the game that has not been presented.

Paul did you intentionally mispresent Nighttrain or were you paraphrasing what you thought he meant? I only ask because you have admitted to being passive-aggressive at times.

I had explained this before. My views led me to believe that the summoner was not up to par. I admitted fault in the wording of a spell. I'm giving it a chance, but having a back up just in case. I don't go fully by the book, I don't give all the details to my players for story sake, pathfinder and D&D are too limiting for my creative purposes. My players all know this. Every game I run is to purely be fun, except this one which I have with held information and given answers to questions in yes or no fashion because I don't want to give anything away. So yea I said the summoner didn't fit, but I didn't say he couldn't use it. I gave suggestions instead. I've even listed suggestions to help. The sad thing of it all is I asked for the players as a team to talk things out to come to decisions. I know for a fact there has been more talk on this forum between two of the players then in any other fashion. Yes I'm new to pathfinder, yes As every other DM out there I add a personal touch.


Me guessing-->So the GM said you will need A, B, C, and D. Paul says I will use ____ to do D. The GM did not want ___ to do D because he did not feel like it would fit. Paul trying to do use _____ to do D is the source of the problem.

Is that correct?

edit:I am reading Dave the GM's post so this post may not have any merit.

edit 2: It seems there has been some miscommunication, and hotheadedness. Paul for some reason saw your suggestions as "no". Nighttrain seems to have gotten upset when Paul opted for the summoner.

Somewhat off-topic:I would suggest you as a GM learn the rules for the summoner completely. That class can give GM's fits due to all of its rules exceptions.

That is all I have on the topic. Happy Gaming fellas.

edit 3: Now I see why Nighttrain was upset after reading the following post.


wraithstrike wrote:

Me guessing-->So the GM said you will need A, B, C, and D. Paul says I will use ____ to do D. The GM did not want ___ to do D because he did not felt like it would fit. Paul trying to do use _____ to do D is the source of the problem.

Is that correct?

edit:I am reading Dave the GM's post so this post may not have any merit.

Your absolutely right. That was in my thought process. But as I said... I didn't tell him no... I suggested other classes. So with his technicality and wording of unchallengable lengths... he fails to understand he can use the Summoner, a back up is in place just in case.


Aeris Fallstar wrote:

Dude.

I can't believe what I've been reading. This group reads like a budget committee planning session.

If it works for you all, fine, but holy cow, it must be dry as Hades.

I'd have found a new group so fast your head would spin. Just make characters and play for Desna's sake!

And if I stayed, I'd find a way to optimize a Bard into a tank just to spite the group, then consider it an honor to be asked to leave.

In short, you cannot calculate, spreadsheet, ratify or shoehorn your way to fun and enjoyment, which by the way, is the purpose of playing.

I wonder if this is how the Borg would play an RPG?

That typically is why any specific rules are discussed at the beginning of the game. In the end it is the players choice to play or not play.The game will happen with or without a regular player. There are homebrews, house rules, custom feats, complete SRD's full of rules and mods and mechanics that don't necessarily comply with the given book.

Take a look at it in another light;
4 people are going to participate in a race. All racers are given specific instructions on how to build their car. Three of the four racers read the rules and accept them at face value and build accordingly. The fourth racer reads the rules, agrees then decides to go against them. What would happen?

This is the same thing. At the beginning everything was explained and questions were answered. At that point the individual can either sign on or say no. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and making them play. If they choose to play though, there are guidelines that were set out from the start and accepted by all of the players, now they are being ignored, argued, and thrust into everyone else' face. That is not fair for the other 3 people that read, asked, listened and agreed. Why should one person fight so vehemently to go against the rules he agreed to in the first place? If you were to do this in any other environment you would most likely be booted, fired, arrested etc (not you specifically, you as a generalization). Why is it so important for one person to go against what they agreed to? What is gained? Why agree in the first place?


wraithstrike wrote:

Me guessing-->So the GM said you will need A, B, C, and D. Paul says I will use ____ to do D. The GM did not want ___ to do D because he did not felt like it would fit. Paul trying to do use _____ to do D is the source of the problem.

Is that correct?

edit:I am reading Dave the GM's post so this post may not have any merit.

Pretty much Wraith, pretty much.


Ahhh. Alright, so the DM specifically wanted a Melee Tank. As long as this was discussed ahead of time, that's fine. Saying that, and restating what Wraith said, it seems like some miscommunication was had and perhaps some hot heads flared up. Personally, I don't think anybody did anything wrong or that you guys are having badwrongfun.

Paul, my suggestion is if the DM is allowing the Summoner, go for it. No need to further this along if it's been rectified.

Dave, I say good for you for allowing it in this situation. It's not always bad having some overlap in skill, though I understand this may not be so in your game. I say this because someone's going to roll a critical one these times. :P

Nighttrain, I don't think you said anything 'off color'. Thanks for being as polite as you could.

Now, for the group invovled I think you guys need to sit down, have another discussion, and I hope you can work this out.

Lantern Lodge

If the group is in need of a tank btw i dont mind filling in the role i have played more than my fare share and can make 1 as according to the set guide lines.


wraithstrike wrote:

What I don't understand, and I am assuming Paul does not either is why does it matter if he does the job by using a summoner instead of "traditional" full BAB character?

If I use the bard archaeologist instead of the rogue to find and disable traps, while being the party face does it really matter that I did not play a rogue.

It is not that we are trying to be judgemental. We just don't understand why it matters that Paul is using a summoner. There was a mention of certain mechanics requiring a specific type of tank. Is that due to house rules or an understanding of the game that has not been presented.

Paul did you intentionally mispresent Nighttrain or were you paraphrasing what you thought he meant? I only ask because you have admitted to being passive-aggressive at times.

I am on the same boat as you.

To which paraphrasing are you talking about, wraitstrike (i have paraphrased a lot)?


Hello everyone.

I just wanted everyone to know, that Dave the DM never said to me:
"You cannot play the summoner"

Despite what Nighttrain says.

The closest he ever said was
"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."

Dave, if this is wrong in any way, please let me know. I have complete text logs, and if I missed something, please let me know.

Lantern Lodge

well i dont know about u all but i dont think there is much more to talk about on this thread that has not already been said.


Nighttrain wrote:
Paul the Dork wrote:

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

First: I did not say it cannot work. I said the GM said it cannot work. I don't care one way or another other than the fact that this is not what you said you would play, the GM was counting on you playing a melee class not a class with a pet (regardless how awesome that pet is) and the mechanics as I understand from the initial meeting requires a specific type of tank and that was explained at the beginning. Either way you don't have to worry about it since another player has stepped up to fulfill the role. This is not a by-the-book pathfinder game and you know this. There are many things that have been modified from the core rulebook and this was also explained.

Okay, let us take this piece by piece:

Nighttrain wrote:
First: I did not say it cannot work.

Everyone, Nighttrain is completely correct.

Here are 3 things he did say (With links to the posts, just so everyone knows they are not out of context)

Snip: from: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6lz9&page=5?Question-about-Tanking#219

"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."

also:

"7) The class of Summoner was never disallowed. It clearly did not fit what was promised by the player..."

Snip: from: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6lz9&page=5?Question-about-Tanking#234

"The question isn't whether he made a good tank or not, the question is will it work and the DM said no. No offense meant, when a DM says it wont work that pretty much leads me to believe it wont work"

Nighttrain wrote:
I said the GM said it cannot work.

It is not on this thread. And he has been here.


Nighttrain wrote:


FROM ANOTHER POST OF NIGHTTRAIN'S

Take a look at it in another light;
4 people are going to participate in a race. All racers are given specific instructions on how to build their car. Three of the four racers read the rules and accept them at face value and build accordingly. The fourth racer reads the rules, agrees then decides to go against them. What would happen?

Rules: make a tank

I ask for advice, to GM: "How would you recommend doing this?" response: "However you feel would be best" me: "suggestions?" GM: "just do the best we can"

The problem arose when I (finally) stated what I chose, then there were rules arguments, which lead to these postings.

I like the anology:

GM: You and 3 others are in a race, build a car.
me: okay, i would like to build one with X engine (or speed, or whatever the anology is supposed to be about)
GM: okay
me: can you give me any pointers? suggestions.
GM: do whatever.
me: okay

later:

me: here is my car boat that can do everything you asked of me
GM: huh
other player: I quit
me and GM: huh?


Paul, just a clarification.
Yes I have been on here for like 3 pages now. Not once had I written that it was something that "cannot work", but I have stated it verbally in the presence of Nighttrain.

To be clear:
You opened a thread to get advice/rulings/venting. You asked me to take a look at it. I came on an learned/explained/advised/apologuised. Nighttrain came on here and was defending me/explaining things. No rights, no wrongs, just learning and hopefully moving on to having a great game for everyone.

This is not a matter of taking sides, but rather an explanation that should have you on the same page of understanding. You both should be on the same page now. There are no issues on you playing the summoner, everything is worked out.

Internal squabbling back and forth between players and DM before a game has even began just makes things less and less fun all around for everyone. The whole point of this is to have fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

With everything said on this 6 pages of thread, things are getting fixed. Hopefully everyone will be happy and have a great game.

I would like to thank everyone who took part in this thread to help give me some perspective. I'm sorry that this turned into a semi drama display, but being an optimist, things will be fine.

With the advice given I am seriously thinking of just letting the players play what they want, maybe limit the books a bit more for personal growth and experience until I get comfortable enough, but still keep the story as it was. My players are basically family and this is a game about fun. If it works out, it works out. If it falls flat it doesn't mean giving up on it.

You all have a great night, thank you again for 6 pages of perspective.

Happy Gaming!!


OP here: This drama is getting pretty tired. I originally came here for your favorite "Tank" builds, then things became out of hand.

So, please, someone post another Tank build. Preferably not anything that has been dramatized so far.


Dave the DM. Excellent conclusion. You have the right attitude I'm sure everything will work out fine.

Lantern Lodge

Well what kind of tank build are u looking for? I posted 1 early being a fighter that was more orientated towards controlling enemies around it so they dont move away from u to the best i could do on that front.

Andoran

Psion-Psycho wrote:
The Eidolon is considered an Outsider and if u read the healing spells and channel energy carefuly u cant heal outsiders with out a certain feat.

Yeah, REALY ODD one that...

An Angel or Djinn with 'healing' can heal it/them-selves and or you/party-members, but since they are 'out-siders' you can't heal them...

Sounds like a very bad mechanic.

Just my 2 cents :D

Andoran

Would channelling positive energy heal outsiders from 'positive-planes' ?

Would it heal EiDolons?


This would work better with a phallanx fighter, but:

Str 15 Dex 14 Con 13 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8

1: Swift Aid, Lunge
2: Power Attack
(3rd): Weapon Focus
4th: Weapon Specialization
5th Iron Will
6th:Combat Reflexes
7th: Saving Shield
8th: Greater Weapon Focus
9th: Combat Reflexes
10: Combat Patrol

Stick next to the person you are protecting. You start out being able to increase their AC by 2 and make an attack of opportunity against anyone who gets close. If you are using a weapon with reach, that attack happens before they even get to your friend. At 7th level, once per round, you can either grant the same ally an additional +2 (for a +4 to AC) or another ally a +2. By 10th level, you can use a standard action to threaten anyone who comes within 20 feet of you (25 with a reach weapon) and grant that saving shield bonus to the ally they are trying to get to.

Silver Crusade

Standard barbarian, dwarf

con>str>dex>>wis>int>cha

Weapon of choice: glaive-guisarme
Armor of choice: spiked mithral breastplate

Feats: power attack, raging vitality, improved initiative, combat reflexes, shield of swings
Rage Powers: lesser beast totem, quick reflexes, beast totem, increased damage reduction, greater beast totem
Skills: acrobatics, preception, survival (or whatever you want, they really don't matter other than a minimum 3 ranks of acrobatics)

Open with rage, charge (at reach), power attack, shield of swings. Take 5' steps to keep reach, and take AoO on anyone who tries to move past. Use armor spikes to attack adjacent foes if you can't 5' step away (or for AoO). You want Dex at 12 minimum (to get 3 AoOs), so that may change your stat priorities depending on how high you roll. You can use your ability increases from 4th and 8th level to get it there from a 10, however. You are relying on high HP, DR, and a moderate AC to take hits. You're using damage and reach-AoOs to hold aggro.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Ah. WoW with dice.

Pathfinder does not work like that.

I don't see why not. Pathfinder is a D20 system. The Warcraft RPG is a D20 system. You may have to import some special abilities, but the two systems are compatible.

Silver Crusade

To Dave The DM : if you are ready to allow some additional 3PP content and your group is still ok with someone being the group's protector, Super Genius Games wrote the Armiger, which is pretty much exactly what you would want out of a tank. The class is a living set or armor with huge hit points, able to provide cover to adjacent allies and withstand huge blows and still get out of trouble with a cool, cocky smile* (*cigars are in option).
SGG enjoys a great reputation as one of the best 3rd party publisher, and their people have been/are freelancers for Paizo who wrote rules for the exact same official Pathfinder books you already allowed.
If everyone is cool with it in your group, Paul may want to take a look at it. :)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
John-Andre wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Ah. WoW with dice.

Pathfinder does not work like that.

I don't see why not. Pathfinder is a D20 system. The Warcraft RPG is a D20 system. You may have to import some special abilities, but the two systems are compatible.

A D20 system is not a MMORPG. They don't play out the same.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
John-Andre wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Ah. WoW with dice.

Pathfinder does not work like that.

I don't see why not. Pathfinder is a D20 system. The Warcraft RPG is a D20 system. You may have to import some special abilities, but the two systems are compatible.
A D20 system is not a MMORPG. They don't play out the same.

Also the Warcraft RPG is written for the DnD 3.5 system by our very own James Jacobs and since it's 3.5 it uses the 3.5 paradigm more or less which in turn isn't all that different from the pathfinder paradigm, so no even in the WoW tabletop RPG you can't have the roles of a MMORPG.

251 to 297 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Question about "Tanking" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.