You have a druid and a wizard in the party. By the time a "tank" is required...they can summon a small army to do the "tanking". Build your character the way you want and don't worry to much about not having a tank...especially with 2.75 skimishers (you, ranger, bardbarian) and an artillery (archer).
You have a druid and a wizard in the party. By the time a "tank" is required...they can summon a small army to do the "tanking". Build your character the way you want and don't worry to much about not having a tank...especially with 2.75 skimishers (you, ranger, bardbarian) and an artillery (archer).
+1
Dont let the choices of others bully you (even passive agressively) into playing a character you dont want to play, thats the quickest route to not having fun.
It is possible though. Depending on your stats, you can focus on Con to get a large pool of HP going. You can focus on Dex, get yourself a chain shirt < eventually Mithril > and Buckler < has to be Mithril from the start > Or go full on strength and get to full plate as fast as you can. Shield is not the end all and be all of being a proper front line defender. Sure it is a great tool and with certain feats is the superior way to go in a purely defensive role, but there is something to be said for killing your foes before they can do too much damage as well. The are also subtle ways to take attacks off of your party. Have you considered Dodge and Mobility to wade into combat and soak up some AOO's? or some combination of Improved trip/ Disarm/ Sunder..because after all an enemy with no weapons or laying on their back cant do nearly as much harm?
As a side note to the previous responses, if you are being pressured to do the tanking...reminding the Druid, as the only real healer, that it will be his job to keep you standing might be a good place to start.
Adjust group tactics.
You are in a team with two of the most powerful control-based classes of the game. have them use summons, walls, companions, entagle and so on to keep enemies at bay.
Then, all together in happily and friendly choose a target AND MAKE IT ESPLODE BY RAW DAMAGE. Don't be engaged for more than one round. Choose second target, rinse, repeat.
At that point, you going on the 2H route to optimize damage will be needed for the tactic. Choose self-buffs accordingly.
Use spells wisely. An Improved invisibility, as an example, is good because both allows you to be in the right place before battle starts, and makes you less likely to be hit by several kind of enemies.
Druid as healer.... but i do not know any Healing spells. They are against my player concept :P
|
You have a druid and a wizard in the party. By the time a "tank" is required...they can summon a small army to do the "tanking". Build your character the way you want and don't worry to much about not having a tank...especially with 2.75 skimishers (you, ranger, bardbarian) and an artillery (archer).+1
Dont let the choices of others bully you (even passive agressively) into playing a character you dont want to play, thats the quickest route to not having fun.
Which then pigeon-holes the wizard into a summoner, not letting them play the character they want.
But, FWIW, I have never found a "tank" to be necessary in D&D. There is no MMO-style mechanic to generate "aggro." A high AC character does nothing for the rest of the party because the DM can freely choose who to attack.
But, FWIW, I have never found a "tank" to be necessary in D&D. There is no MMO-style mechanic to generate "aggro." A high AC character does nothing for the rest of the party because the DM can freely choose who to attack.
Not really pigeon-holes, the wizard gets many more spells than the inquistor gets feats, and the druid can sacrifice any spell to summon some friends. So, it is not "forcing" them to the same degree as it would be "forcing" the melee character.
And even though a "tank" is not needed...an alpha absorber is. You need someone/something to run in and take the first series of hits. The casters need to decide if they want to use their spells to heal/buff the front-liner...or create a small army. For my money, it takes less spells to make an army than it does to heal/buff the party...so I say "Pikachu, I choose you!!!"
|
|
But, FWIW, I have never found a "tank" to be necessary in D&D. There is no MMO-style mechanic to generate "aggro." A high AC character does nothing for the rest of the party because the DM can freely choose who to attack.Not really pigeon-holes, the wizard gets many more spells than the inquistor gets feats, and the druid can sacrifice any spell to summon some friends. So, it is not "forcing" them to the same degree as it would be "forcing" the melee character.
And even though a "tank" is not needed...an alpha absorber is. You need someone/something to run in and take the first series of hits. The casters need to decide if they want to use their spells to heal/buff the front-liner...or create a small army. For my money, it takes less spells to make an army than it does to heal/buff the party...so I say "Pikachu, I choose you!!!"
Sorry Charlie, but speaking from a player who HAS been in the situation where the party dictates the spell selection, it is completely unfun for the wizard.
To the OP, play the character you want, but don't bully the casters to compensate. The optimal solution is talk to the DM and work to make a game that is challenging to all parties without penalizing people for the classes they want to play.
But isn't that the point of playing God (aka Wizard)? You take the spells needed for the situation, which is dictated by party composition, environment and adversary. So, I am going to have to politely disagree with your assassment/experience with the class. The wizard is a reed in the wind, he bends to accomidate the weather. The fighter is a iron rod in a field...he takes everything in the face and is broken when something greater than he comes along.
But yes, the OP should create whatever he wants...and so should the GM, I don't know why everyone always places the responsibility on the GM for making sure no one is penalized...the GM's job is to present a reasonable puzzle for the characters to solve, whether it is a combat scenario, trap, riddle, social interaction, etc etc. How the PCs decide to solve that puzzle, is up to them (I had a bard PC punch my diplomat in the face...not the solution I had in mind...but oh well). The GM has plenty of work crafting the adventure, don't make him/her do more work, otherwise the adventure suffers.
Make whatever kind of inquisitor you want to play. You're group is not short on party members who can stand in the front row! In fact, you'll probably want to take melee related teamwork feats, since you'll have at least 3 party members in melee all the time. 4 if the druid builds for melee, 5 if he has an animal companion . . .
.
- Wants to be in the front:
Bard-barian - Medium armor - d8/d12 HP - martial weapons
Ranger (melee) - Medium armor - d10 HP - martial weapons
Inquisitor - Medium armor - d8 HP - simple weapons
Frequently wants to be in the front:
Druid - Medium armor - d8 HP - simple-ish weapons
Wants to stand back, but can move up front very effectively:
Ranger (archery) - Medium armor - d10 HP - martial weapons + shapechange
Never wants to be in the front:
Wizard - stands back
|
|
But isn't that the point of playing God (aka Wizard)? You take the spells needed for the situation, which is dictated by party composition, environment and adversary. So, I am going to have to politely disagree with your assassment/experience with the class. The wizard is a reed in the wind, he bends to accomidate the weather. The fighter is a iron rod in a field...he takes everything in the face and is broken when something greater than he comes along.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't play to "win" at PF or any RPG. I play to have fun and therefore do not prescribe to the battlefield control playstyle which dominates these discussion boards.