Ok, so I have 2 character concepts for an upcoming game. One is a high dex/AC character that uses the Standstill feat to prevent opponents from moving past him to the squishy druid and ranger behind him. The other is a high Str/Damage character that power attacks enemies into submission. Both use reach weapons, the first one using a gnomish flickhammer to take advantage of a shield as well. The first character has some offensive weaknesses, namely that it has to use Combat maneuvers for opportunity attacks. It has superior fort and ref saves, and a full 11 AC more than the second build though. The second build has a bit more hp, and deals enormous damage for our level, but I seriously worry about its survivability. My DM's campaign is deadly, this will be my 4th character, mostly because I always play the front line melee guy (we have another fighter but he's a spring attacker who can't take more than a hit or 2). So should I play the build that lacks offense but has excellent defense, or the build with killer offense but lackluster defense?
However you build your defence, there is always a way around it. You may have a massive AC, but what about your touch AC? What about saves vs Will or Reflex? There are those that argue it is more beneficial to take down the enemy before they have the chance to hurt you rather than remain unhurt.
I would examine your party strategy if you keep dying - what are the rest of the party doing to help you survive if your character is being their shield? If the answer is 'nothing' then there is your problem: they need to be buffing you, striking at the enemy etc.
How much HP do you expect your opponents to have? I have seen many a high damage dealer so twinked he overkills monsters. I vote the high defense route, or a split between the 2.
However you build your defence, there is always a way around it. You may have a massive AC, but what about your touch AC? What about saves vs Will or Reflex? There are those that argue it is more beneficial to take down the enemy before they have the chance to hurt you rather than remain unhurt.
I would examine your party strategy if you keep dying - what are the rest of the party doing to help you survive if your character is being their shield? If the answer is 'nothing' then there is your problem: they need to be buffing you, striking at the enemy etc.
My touch AC is actually pretty damn good. It's not a monk's touch AC but still, a good deal of my AC comes from Dex. Will is going to suck in both builds, so maybe that's a point for the offensive one. Reflex is close to as high as I can make it at this level. Mostly, the rest of the party is striking or sometimes healing (it's a druid, a fighter, and a ranger, so support isn't exactly what they do XP).
|
I feel your pain on this Jiraiya22! I'm playing a high Defense character in a 3.5 campaign (currently on hiatus) w/ a pair of tough encounter DM's. Forget CR/EL's they threw those books out the window at 1st level.
My Trip build Psychic Warrior can easily have while large sized an; (AC 43, t 31, ff 30), 50% miss chance, 30 resist to all energy forms, DR 5/-, and saves in the +20's @ level 16! The downside is he only has 120 hp, compared to our barbarians 300.
However I have only died 2 times and each time was squarely due to bad luck. 20, 20, decapitation from a Razor Boar & a Nat 1 vs. Finger of Death from a Beholder.
Defense can play a vital role in a party dynamic if you have others contributing to the other niches. If you can keep your arcanists alive for them to bring the thunder then you're doing your job. Stand Still & Trip are very effective ways to gum up the battlefield. From low to mid levels I controlled the board quite well. But in the higher levels I've gone over to trying to dish lots of damage. You must be flexible and dynamic. Cover your bases.
|
However I have only died 2 times and each time was squarely due to bad luck. 20, 20, decapitation from a Razor Boar & a Nat 1 vs. Finger of Death from a Beholder.
Advice since you're in 3.5:
1. Heavy fortification. Negate crits, sneak attacks and vorpals.
2. I think that there was a feat that helped against nat 1s on fort saves in 3.5. Baring that PF has the reroll feat if I recall.
-James
The feat you're thinking of in point 2 was in PHB II, IIRC. I'm pretty sure it also let you add your con bonus to you will saves instead of your wisdom bonus.
As for heavy fort.. I'm glad it was removed as a blanket immunity (down to 75%) as that means only those who are naturally immune or can shapeshift into a form that is naturally immune can be sure to negate sneak attack.
As for the OP's attack versus defense dilemma: I would build a character that doesn't give the opponent the chance to hit them back. This could mean fighting indirectly (a wizard with lots of utility spells or a skill monkey and lots of creativity), grappling then pinning on turn 1 (greater grapple), or just killing it faster than it can kill you.
If you go for option one, I recommend making a small character as they have better defenses without sacrificing their ability to apply skills or spells.
Anything to help you act first (Reactionary, Improved Initiative, Lookout, Diviner's Grace) is a huge plus.
My touch AC is actually pretty damn good. It's not a monk's touch AC but still, a good deal of my AC comes from Dex. Will is going to suck in both builds, so maybe that's a point for the offensive one. Reflex is close to as high as I can make it at this level. Mostly, the rest of the party is striking or sometimes healing (it's a druid, a fighter, and a ranger, so support isn't exactly what they do XP).However you build your defence, there is always a way around it. You may have a massive AC, but what about your touch AC? What about saves vs Will or Reflex? There are those that argue it is more beneficial to take down the enemy before they have the chance to hurt you rather than remain unhurt.
I would examine your party strategy if you keep dying - what are the rest of the party doing to help you survive if your character is being their shield? If the answer is 'nothing' then there is your problem: they need to be buffing you, striking at the enemy etc.
Then I think you are looking at the wrong class. A druid, fighter and ranger should be fairly tough on their own - if nothing else the druid can be summoning creatures to put between the party and the foe. What your party actually needs is an arcane caster or a cleric, otherwise you will continue to have problems.
Then I think you are looking at the wrong class. A druid, fighter and ranger should be fairly tough on their own - ... What your party actually needs is an arcane caster or a cleric, otherwise you will continue to have problems.
Go high speed cleric. Keep the same AC setup as your high AC build but on a cleric. That way you have decent AC, good boost ability should you need to melee and healing. The rest will keep YOU alive so you can keep THEM alive.
|
|
As noted above, Adventuring is a TEAM sport. So work with your party and fill the gaps as you level. Play what you feel is the most fun or challenging for you currently.
However I have only died 2 times and each time was squarely due to bad luck. 20, 20, decapitation from a Razor Boar & a Nat 1 vs. Finger of Death from a Beholder.
Advice since you're in 3.5:
1. Heavy fortification. Negate crits, sneak attacks and vorpals.
2. I think that there was a feat that helped against nat 1s on fort saves in 3.5. Baring that PF has the reroll feat if I recall.
-James
Well this was over my entire adventuring career... I do now have Light Fort on my Buckler and unfortunately my feat plan hasn't included the Steadfast Determination feat (our Bbn has it though). I'm not worried about it though my character was built for dragon slaying and we've slayed at least 2 of them already. At each level I've had to adapt to a new strategy thrown at us by the DMs and they've had to adjust to mine! So it's been fairly even so far (barring the DM's just outright murdering me, but that's in the purview of any DM).
One is a high dex/AC character that uses the Standstill feat to prevent opponents from moving past him to the squishy druid and ranger behind him. Both use reach weapons, the first one using a gnomish flickhammer to take advantage of a shield as well. The first character has some offensive weaknesses, namely that it has to use Combat maneuvers for opportunity attacks.
I don't know what a flickhammer is, but note that Stand Still requires the person you stop to be moving adjacent to you for you to stop them. It doesn't function with reach-- which is to say, the monster could walk right through your threatened squares and provoke, but you wouldn't be able to use Stand Still to stop him if he didn't walk adjacent to you.
In addition, it's my opinion that Stand Still is a trap feat. It requires a completely unmodified CMB check versus a monster's likely-modified CMD. You don't add bonuses to attack rolls to this check, so a monster who is prone and crawling through flank doesn't give you any bonuses to this CMB roll-- while something like trip with a flail or heavy flail would.
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
I don't know what a flickhammer is, but note that Stand Still requires the person you stop to be moving adjacent to you for you to stop them. It doesn't function with reach-- which is to say, the monster could walk right through your threatened squares and provoke, but you wouldn't be able to use Stand Still to stop him if he didn't walk adjacent to you.In addition, it's my opinion that Stand Still is a trap feat. It requires a completely unmodified CMB check versus a monster's likely-modified CMD. You don't add bonuses to attack rolls to this check, so a monster who is prone and crawling through flank doesn't give you any bonuses to this CMB roll-- while something like trip with a flail or heavy flail would.
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
You add bonuses to attack rolls to CMB checks, including bonuses from weapon enhancements and weapon focus. You seem to be right about standstill though, which is why I'm glad I went with a modified striker build. Now I just wonder if I should keep leveling as an alchemist or take more levels of barbarian...