It depends on how your GM runs things. If those that kill get the most attention then that might work. This also assumes he uses a lot of one hit killable monsters.
In my games if you had a super high AC I would save you for last and kill everyone else first. Surrounding you after seeing great cleave in action would not happen either. I would pepper you with ranged weapons, assuming the monster is intelligent enough, and it has ranged weapons.
I would also use my fighter bonus feat to take great cleave so you can trade it out later if you go that route.
If you are going sword and board then you might as well go with the heavy shield, IMO.
If you WANT to "tank" then you must first figure out how your GM plays his monsters/NPCs.
My generic advice would be to focus solely on your threatened area and attacks of opportunity. My reasoning is that if you are supposed to be protecting other members of the group then you have to be able to stop enemies from hurting them and forcing them to focus on you by being a threat. Combat reflexes, bodyguard, combat patrol, stand still - good feats for such a tank. Also, this build would benefit from having the cleric stay adjacent to him for quick healing and to benefit from the bodyguard feat.
A reach weapon and spiked armor is a good way to go for a "protection tank" but your build sounds like a "solo-monster tank." Your character's MO should be to find the biggest, meanest one on the field and keep his attention while the party cleans up the riff-raff. This is viable too, but I recommend focusing solely on your own AC, CMB/D, and your grid placement. Step up, imp. step up, and step up and strike are excellent solo-tank feats, and I imagine the side step tree could be useful as well, though to a lesser extent than other feats you could fill those slots with.
To answer your question more directly, cleave is not a bad feat to have, but there are more immediately useful feats you can use to strengthen your build. I would take them later, even avoiding power attack early on in favor of more defensive feats.
Pathfinder isn't World of Warcraft, there really isn't any easy way to force a mob to attack you. Who the enemy attacks is GM discretion (but it's usually the closest PC).
In Pathfinder, Fighters are usually the main DPS.
Having said that, you might want to look at feats in the Advanced Players Guide, that prevent enemies from moving, give AC bonuses to other characters, etc.
If you're looking to be a tank in the sense of high AC, there aren't that many feats that raise AC, but the prestige class Stalwart Defender would help. Also, there is probably a good archetype within the APG to do what you want to do.
Pathfinder isn't World of Warcraft, there really isn't any easy way to force a mob to attack you. Who the enemy attacks is GM discretion (but it's usually the closest PC).
In Pathfinder, Fighters are usually the main DPR.
Fix't. ;D But I disagree on a couple of points... While enemies attack at GM discretion, they should begin with the largest perceived threat and work their way down, assuming they are intelligent enough to do so. The trick is to make yourself into something your enemies cannot afford to ignore, via high damage, attacks of opportunity, a larger threatened area, and other such things. In doing this however, you want to have a high AC and/or hit points because you will be drawing attention from those enemies, particularly the ranged weapon users and possibly casters (if your own caster isn't occupying them).
Fighters IMO are still the "tank" class of Pathfinder, though you are right in that it doesn't work exactly in that way. No other class gains feats fast enough to build defenses like the fighter, however. A barbarian could tank, but nowhere near as effectively as a fighter. A ranger could theoretically "kite" enemies as a form of crowd control, but if he gets cornered or surrounded, he's going to be in big trouble.
While there may not be "aggro" in Pathfinder, any DM worth his (or her!) salt is going to run monsters in a way that not only is logical, but also allows his (or her!) players to enjoy the roles they have taken upon themselves.
As others have said, how you tank depends on how your GM runs encounters. Especially if he/she tends to use the same tactics regardless of NPC or monster intelligence.
If you have a GM that really tries to play encounters according to the intelligence of the enemy, tanking can be the most challenging role to play, especially if you have really squishy party members.
I don't like playing tanks for a lot of reasons, but when I do play the tank, I do my best to make my tank be the party member the enemy cannot ignore. My last tank was specialized for reach, trip and attacks of opportunity because the rest of the party was very squishy and I needed to be able to put enemy combatants down on the ground to allow my squishy buddies to stay out of their range.
If you have a spellcaster who is good at controlling the battlefield then you can focus on AC and damage and depend on the controller to keep the enemy from engaging the more squishy members. But that takes some coordination with your caster(s).
When I GM if I have NPCs or monsters with any intelligence whatsoever, and encounter a tank with an unhittable AC my first reaction is to simply ignore that target and focus first on the targets I can hit. In that case a tank optimized for AC can actually be a threat to the rest of the party. It is sometimes better to be easier to hit and have more hit points so that the enemy continues to attack you.
|
Most MMO tanks I've seen are not really tanks - they're APC's.
An APC is an armored personnel carrier - it usually has a little machine gun, but its real contribution to battle is transporting infantry while (hopefully) keeping them safe.
Pathfinder fighters are tanks. Real tanks.
A tank is a huge gun that's surrounded by armor, and unlike an APC it can actually 'move mud' in battle. The fighter does not exist to keep the other guys from getting hit. That's not possible when a human controls the monsters. If your AC is 6 over everyone else's, my first instinct is to tell you that your tank does not need more armor - it needs more guns.
Go ahead and take cleave. Cleave is a good feat.
In Pathfinder, Fighters are usually the main DPR.
I used the term DPS so I could explain myself to him. Besides, DPS is now a universal term, meaning damage output, I don't think it matters which game we're talking about these days, people know what it is. I can change DPR into DPS as well, so yeah, same thing.
If I was a DM playing an intelligent enemy (the key word is intelligent), you wouldn't (do a physical attack) against the guy in full plate with the shield. That's retarded. His damage is low and he has a strong physical defense. You start with the squishies, if you can identify them. I guess it depends on what your GM finds "intelligent"?
The trick is to make yourself into something your enemies cannot afford to ignore, via high damage, attacks of opportunity, a larger threatened area, and other such things.
Well, if the trick is high damage, he'd go with a 2H weapon, not sword and board. AoO you get regardless of weapon selection. Threat area helps, however most mooks will target the guy in the front (because of AoO, confined spaces, intelligence, mob mentality, flanking, perception, etc) so it's not "must have".
Anyway, like I said, it's GM discretion on who a mob attacks, and sometimes it's not going to be "the tank". I agree with the other when they say adding some damage is not a bad thing.
Use the Antagonise feat
(Runs away from the can of worms).
I'd actually suggest going up the shield spec path, but it wouldn't pay off until higher levels. When you have a guy shield bashing as often as you would be, and getting a free bull rush at a pretty decent bonus.. then you start to become more of a headache. As far as Cleave.. eh.. it's a useful feat, but I think you would be better off upping Bull Rush and charging to the "vital" opponents. Their shaman, leader, cleric, mage, whatever. Weak points that people would want to protect. Also, if holding the attention of the enemies is a concern of yours, ask your DM if he would be willing to work out some mechanic with you that would under most circumstances work for you.. such as a use of the intimidate skill in a manner that gets their attention. If he allows that you may want to look at possibly getting skill focus. :D
Easiest way to protect a rogue is to tell him to quit playing rogue.
I agree with what others have said, it is truly impossible to "tank" in the traditional MMO style manner inside of a Pencil and Paper RPG.
Just try to keep on the BAB curve and spend other available resources on damage potential. Make yourself a high AC threat that cannot be ignored.
And, on a related note, I firmly believe no publisher of any product should ever, ever try to implement "MMO style tanking" in a P&P RPG again. I think 4th Edition D&D was beyond conclusive in demonstrating exactly how arbitrary and artificial of a feeling this brings to the game with the "marking" systems employed in that game.
I agree with what others have said, it is truly impossible to "tank" in the traditional MMO style manner inside of a Pencil and Paper RPG.
Just try to keep on the BAB curve and spend other available resources on damage potential. Make yourself a high AC threat that cannot be ignored.
And, on a related note, I firmly believe no publisher of any product should ever, ever try to implement "MMO style tanking" in a P&P RPG again. I think 4th Edition D&D was beyond conclusive in demonstrating exactly how arbitrary and artificial of a feeling this brings to the game with the "marking" systems employed in that game.
Agree completely. In the 4e games I've played when my ranger is dealing massive damage and the marked enemies decide to attack the tank because he "marked" them, I just have to shake my head. First of all, our tank has at least four more AC than my ranger, and the penalty for attacking another target is just a -2, so not only do they STILL have a better chance to hit my ranger, my ranger would go down much faster if they did attack him. But if they are "marked" they attack the tank.
When I GM 4e I pretty much totally ignore marking. Sometimes a tank might ask why, and if they do I tell them that even with the -2, it's still a superior tactical decision to go after the squishy, low-AC "strikers" and ignore the tank.
|
Yes... so much depends on play style here.
Bad guys played intelligently may 'go after the squishies', but it should depend on what they know (or think) those squishies can do. If one guy's up front in full plate, with a sword and shield, smart monsters aren't going to ignore him to attack the guys in robes behind him... unless and until they figure out that the guys in robes can fry them all with a word and a gesture... So, yeah, threat and perceived threat are (or should be) important.
So, to be a good 'tank' you need a solid combination of:
Defense - you're no good to anyone if you're down, or just soaking up healing resources.
Attack - if you're not doing anything to the bad guys, then why can't they just ignore you?
Mobility - if the bad guys can run circles around you they'll happily do it; you can't protect others if you can't get to the battle.
Threat - unless the bad guys see you as a threat, they'll just ignore you.
The armoured sword-n-board Fighter should be pretty good at all of these: Armour and shield to up his AC; a decent damage-output one-hander - and the skill to use it - for attack; Armour Training and good use of charging for mobility; a few ranks in Intimidate and maybe the related Feats to make sure you're seen as a threat.
As for the Dwarven Fighter presented by the OP, he looks to mostly fall down on the mobility part (being all stumpy and slow), but should be okay as long as the DM is sticking to relatively small 'interior' maps for most combats. With 15 Dex and Shield Focus in the bag I'd think about taking the Missile Shield Feat from the APG - the ability to ignore one attack a round can't be underestimated... although again, it all depends on the types of encounters you're finding yourself up against. Improved and Greater Overrun may also be worth a look, for improved mobility (and generally taking charge of the battlefield). Then there's Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display to really make yourself the focus of the bad guys' attention!
If I was a DM playing an intelligent enemy (the key word is intelligent), you wouldn't (do a physical attack) against the guy in full plate with the shield. That's retarded. His damage is low and he has a strong physical defense. You start with the squishies, if you can identify them. I guess it depends on what your GM finds "intelligent"?
...
Well, if the trick is high damage, he'd go with a 2H weapon, not sword and board. AoO you get regardless of weapon selection. Threat area helps, however most mooks will target the guy in the front (because of AoO, confined spaces, intelligence, mob mentality, flanking, perception, etc) so it's not "must have".
Depends on the actual Int score of the enemy. The key word in my phrasing was "perceived." If you walk into an orc, hobgoblin, or bugbear camp in a suit of +2 full plate with a flaming greataxe resting across your shoulder, the horde will charge you and think little of attacking your band of squishies, because you look like the leader and you, being the biggest dude, are probably what they would consider a challenge. Now a hobgoblin warlord might look at you walking into his camp and call for his soldiers to hold, giving some silent signal for them to flank you. Those guys may go straight for the 'clothies' in the back.
I suggested a reach weapon and spiked armor, at any rate, which is two-handed.
Combat is stressful on the mind. You have a lot of information to take in all at once, and you must react immediately. Ask any soldier who has been in a firefight, or a SWAT member, even. Intelligence has a large role here, but so do reflexes and willingness to act. These things are glossed over in the rules as written, but GMs should at least consider such things in passing when running NPCs. If your NPC villains charge a group of adventurers in a dungeon room, you roll initiative. Your NPCs have ~6 seconds on charging into that room to decide who the biggest threat is. If the fighter is doing his job and is in the front, he will be the first threat they encounter and will immediately look like someone that will hurt them. If he's got combat reflexes and he's packing a heavy weapon, God help the poor idiot who tries to run past him to get the cleric.
|
|
That's why one of my 3.5 clerics wore full plate and shield. His AC (around 12th level) was the worst in the party (even behind the wizard) but the bad guys would go for the 'squishy' wizard.Perception is a great deal in a tactical situation, and I mean far more than just the skill!
-James
I'm interested to know if they've ever seen players purposely skew enemies' expectations by having their arcane striker in the back look like a distressed commoner, then grimly step out at the right moment to rain fire and destruction. Sounds like a fun scenario. Anybody? :)
Maybe wizards shouldn't be walking around with giant fearsome-looking staves then, heh.
|
|
Different system, but I recall a wizard PC in a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game I ran (back when it first came out... around the stone age or whatever... I'm old...) who seemed to spend most of his time collecting crossbows off the dead bodies of enemies in order to sell them. Even the other PCs assumed he was playing a crossbow salesman... Until one time he actually, finally, cast a spell and incinerated all the bad guys in one shot... The looks on the faces of the rest of the players was priceless: 'You could do that? All this time? What th'..?'
Turned out the player hadn't realised that magic points regenerated every day - he was 'hording' them because he assumed they were one-shot and that was that...
We were in high school at the time... ;)
...
If you're looking to be a tank in the sense of high AC, there aren't that many feats that raise AC, but the prestige class Stalwart Defender would help. Also, there is probably a good archetype within the APG to do what you want to do.
Not a fan of the Stalwart Defender because 1) you loose your Favored Class bonuses when you take a Prestige class; and 2) you loose your mobility.
When you go into the mid to high game you'll find yourself having to deal with flying creatures. Spells like Air Walk are great if your casters spend their power on you so you can get into the face of your opponent (or even just up to them).
You'll find yourself having to go to your tertiary weapon...the Mighty Composite Longbow, but a simple Wind Wall will counter that.
Consider your touch AC when increasing your AC...not something to ignore especially when you have really bad touch spells to defend against with a low Will Save.
The last time I played a tank, I carried two kinds of armor. I carried a breastplate for those situations where I could bottle up the enemy (in a corridor or dungeon, for example) and carried studded leather armor for those situations where I needed mobility and speed. In general I found myself in the leather armor more often than the plate armor. And, in fact, in the most important battle of the game, I was actually not wearing armor at all.
What I decided during that campaign was that situational AC bonuses were more important than clanking around like a walking blacksmith trash heap. In many cases I could get my AC in the same range as with the best armor but without the movement or armor class penalties. In the end I was generally more effective at protecting my squishier party members with the lighter armor simply because I could move farther. And I was much less likely to get nailed by touch attacks since my touch AC was much closer to my normal AC.
I agree with what others have said, it is truly impossible to "tank" in the traditional MMO style manner inside of a Pencil and Paper RPG.
Just try to keep on the BAB curve and spend other available resources on damage potential. Make yourself a high AC threat that cannot be ignored.
And, on a related note, I firmly believe no publisher of any product should ever, ever try to implement "MMO style tanking" in a P&P RPG again. I think 4th Edition D&D was beyond conclusive in demonstrating exactly how arbitrary and artificial of a feeling this brings to the game with the "marking" systems employed in that game.
Agree completely. In the 4e games I've played when my ranger is dealing massive damage and the marked enemies decide to attack the tank because he "marked" them, I just have to shake my head. First of all, our tank has at least four more AC than my ranger, and the penalty for attacking another target is just a -2, so not only do they STILL have a better chance to hit my ranger, my ranger would go down much faster if they did attack him. But if they are "marked" they attack the tank.
When I GM 4e I pretty much totally ignore marking. Sometimes a tank might ask why, and if they do I tell them that even with the -2, it's still a superior tactical decision to go after the squishy, low-AC "strikers" and ignore the tank.
I play both PF and 4E with 2 separate groups, and while they are very different systems, I feel that both systems tried to do something to address the severe shortcomings the Fighter had in 2E and 3E. Namely, they didn't do enuff damage to matter, and their AC was high enuff that nobody bothered attacking them.
4E made Fighters matter with the marking mechanic, and also by giving them some really good powers. PF addressed the problem by making Fighters pretty much DPR machines if built well. Both ways work for me, and I play a Fighter in both systems currently.
I like the marking mechanic in 4E because I lived through the days of my 2E Fighter never really mattering or making a consistent contribution in a fight, and I'm glad to see those days are behind me in 4E. That being said, I like the offense heavy PF version of Fighter as well, again, my character is relevant. Thank you Paizo and WOTC!
I have to weigh in and say I can't stand the GMs who metagame and constantly find ways to ignore the Fighter or get around him to stomp on the squishies.
They always have the same excuse: "The Wizard is more dangerous". That may be true, but every enemy knows that right at the beginning of an encounter? I call BS. If a group walked into my camp, and one guy was in full plate mail with a shield and warhammer, and the other guy was an old man in a dress, I know who I would consider more dangerous!
Also, it is not the mark of a good GM to find ways to neuter the Fighter and take out the rest of the group. TPKs are the mark of a bad GM in many cases, not a good one. The object of the game is not to slaughter the PCs, it is to tell a good story.
In combat, encounters should be balanced so that every PC is able to contribute. Encounters should not be built around making the Fighter useless and stomping the life out of the Wizard and Cleric. It's too easy to do that and really isn't any fun.
I have to weigh in and say I can't stand the GMs who metagame and constantly find ways to ignore the Fighter or get around him to stomp on the squishies.
They always have the same excuse: "The Wizard is more dangerous". That may be true, but every enemy knows that right at the beginning of an encounter? I call BS. If a group walked into my camp, and one guy was in full plate mail with a shield and warhammer, and the other guy was an old man in a dress, I know who I would consider more dangerous!
Also, it is not the mark of a good GM to find ways to neuter the Fighter and take out the rest of the group. TPKs are the mark of a bad GM in many cases, not a good one. The object of the game is not to slaughter the PCs, it is to tell a good story.
In combat, encounters should be balanced so that every PC is able to contribute. Encounters should not be built around making the Fighter useless and stomping the life out of the Wizard and Cleric. It's too easy to do that and really isn't any fun.
In a world of magic I think it is perfectly plausible to be more afraid of the man with magic than the one with the sharp metal object.
The other side of this is that you can dress so that the bad guy might not know who is who. Having a fighter put glamer on his armor is a good way to deceive someone as an example.
Perhaps I've been blessed with a lot of great fighter players (and DM's), but the fighters in my gaming history have rarely been useless.
I think a lot of this is just paper theory. In an actual games most GM's don't have trouble until somewhere between 13th and 17th level.
I actually had a psion once that used this kind of bluffing to hide her presence in a fight until it was time to act. She carried a pole-arm and wore full-plate (picked up off a badguy) and suffered all the penalties to attack rolls for doing so (it was like -10 to hit, IIRC) but she looked like a warrior. So she'd march around in the party, looking like just another warrior. Most enemies were hesitant to run into her because she looked like some warrior with a reach weapon.
She actually began to function kind of like the party's tank (she used powers to buff her temporary HP up, take half damage, and absorb damage for her allies) while enemies were more or less ignoring her. She'd also suddenly charm or drop a energy wall across the battlefield to split enemies up and such. She was a blast to play.
Deception can be half the battle. ^.^
EDIT: That being said, most enemies are pretty good can-openers if they think there's a squishy wizard-like person inside of it giving them a hard time. Not being able to fight worth a crap and taking a -6 penalty to your Combat Maneuver Defense meant that the party had to save that psion once or twice from something that was insistent on peeling off that shiny exterior. :P
EDIT 2: 'Cause quite honestly, it's amazingly easy for people to grapple you down when you're a squishy low-BAB character with a low-ish strength, in an armor that gives you a -6 penalty to Attack-roll type things. It also gets kind of difficult to get the concentration required to manifest your cool psionic "GTF-Off me powers" when you've got an ogre crushing you. Good thing for Vigor and Share Pain. XD
I actually had a psion once that used this kind of bluffing to hide her presence in a fight until it was time to act. She carried a pole-arm and wore full-plate (picked up off a badguy) and suffered all the penalties to attack rolls for doing so (it was like -10 to hit, IIRC) but she looked like a warrior. So she'd march around in the party, looking like just another warrior. Most enemies were hesitant to run into her because she looked like some warrior with a reach weapon.
She actually began to function kind of like the party's tank (she used powers to buff her temporary HP up, take half damage, and absorb damage for her allies) while enemies were more or less ignoring her. She'd also suddenly charm or drop a energy wall across the battlefield to split enemies up and such. She was a blast to play.
Deception can be half the battle. ^.^
EDIT: That being said, most enemies are pretty good can-openers if they think there's a squishy wizard-like person inside of it giving them a hard time. Not being able to fight worth a crap and taking a -6 penalty to your Combat Maneuver Defense meant that the party had to save that psion once or twice from something that was insistent on peeling off that shiny exterior. :P
I love this sort of thing, but my experience has been that to do this requires a very good GM. Many GMs play their NPCs as if they have instant and total knowledge of every PC's abilities and class.
As far as the idea that in a world crawling with wizards, sorcerers, witches and other deadly spellcasters that a group of bandits or marauders would see "an old man in a dress" that is laughably absurd. In such a world if a heavily armored man and an old crone in a burlap sack came into the camp, it would be much more natural to assume the old crone was the bigger threat since old crones casting powerful spells are at least as common as meaty guys in shining armor, plus they are a whole lot easier to hit.
"Kill the caster first" is the closest thing to a universal rallying call in every campaign I have ever run or participated in for the last 30 years. It's probably the simplest, most basic and most universal combat rule in the entire genre. In fact, in most battles the entire tactical battlefield is devoted to each side doing their best to engage their casters without getting them killed immediately.
I dunno, I still call metagaming on alot of these kinds of "kill the caster first" shenanigans. I've played in many campaigns in the past where every bad guy would immediately make a b-line past the heavily armed, hulking fighter to the old man with the stick in the back. Now, if that old man had gotten initiative and blasted a bunch of the mobs into ash, that would justify a response like that from the villains. But, when the old man loses initiative, hasn't done anything to show that he isn't just an old man, and every monster on the board charges him to pound him into jelly. I call BS on that.
I've played with a number of GMs in the past who have pulled that trick over and over again, ad nauseum, and that's why I'm not down on the marking mechanic in 4E. It helps to keep GMs honest, which is good cause I've played with alot of dishonest ones over the years.
As for the thought that every old man with a stick must be a magic user, I find that to be straining the boundaries of credibility. After all, in any fantasy campaign, what percentage of elderly people are actually magic users? Less than 1% I would imagine. So the thought that every bandit, undead, ooze, construct, and Orc has an instantaneous ability to detect Wizards so they can pound them into oblivion seems ridiculous. Magic and magic users should be a rare and mysterious thing, every idiot in the world shouldn't be able to detect magic. Most old men with sticks should be assumed to be old men with walking sticks until they show differently. Unless of course, the enemy is intelligent and has previous experience with magic users.
|
|
Try to strike a balance between offense and defense.
If you go all out on offense and tank your AC/saves/health you are just as soft a target as the wizard/rogue and you're not doing anyone a favor by 'tanking'.
If you max out your defense and make yourself nigh invulnerable nothing will want to fight you and you'll find yourself ignored or disabled and marginalized whenever possible.
Dwarf Fighter
level 230hp (racial, 16con)
22ac (heavy shield, shield focus, 15dex, +1 RoP)any of you other fighters who's the "TANK" since the next highest armor person is the rogue with 16ac, would you guys take CLEAVE / great cleave, as a way "AGRO" more targets and lose 2 AC
OR
Get a light shield and shield bash feats.
Just looking for some insight on how other fighter build up their characters.
It's cheaper to buy a +1 armor and a +1 shield first compared to getting a RoP. The deflection bonus is nice for touch AC and vs. incorporeal creatures, but it's not worth 100% more in price versus the other two bonuses first. . .
...
If you're looking to be a tank in the sense of high AC, there aren't that many feats that raise AC, but the prestige class Stalwart Defender would help. Also, there is probably a good archetype within the APG to do what you want to do.
Not a fan of the Stalwart Defender because 1) you loose your Favored Class bonuses when you take a Prestige class; and 2) you loose your mobility.
When you go into the mid to high game you'll find yourself having to deal with flying creatures. Spells like Air Walk are great if your casters spend their power on you so you can get into the face of your opponent (or even just up to them).
You'll find yourself having to go to your tertiary weapon...the Mighty Composite Longbow, but a simple Wind Wall will counter that.
Consider your touch AC when increasing your AC...not something to ignore especially when you have really bad touch spells to defend against with a low Will Save.
Stalwart defender gives a d12 so you aren't losing much HP wise if you go into it from fighter -- you also get a free dodge bonus as well which helps with that touch AC.
Maybe something along the following lines:
Halfling Shielded Fighter/ Stalwart Defender
Point Blank, Precise, Rapid, Improved Shield bash, TwF, Imp TwF, Shield Slam, Deadly aim, power attack, Shield mastery, EWP(madu), Combat Expertise
Trait: Offensive Defender
Now getting all of that is going to take time -- this is a slower build... but when you get to the end you are tough to hit, can hit well yourself at all ranges, and get one heck of a dodge bonus out of combat expertise.
If I see a seemingly harmless old man who is obviously part of a group where all the other members appear to be powerful seasoned warriors, I assume him to be awfully dangerous.
Same if it was a seemingly harmless kid.
LOL, good argument. Kinda like "What did that old man do to fit in with a buncha hard killers like them?".
Even worse if it's a kid, then you REALLY gotta worry.
I have to weigh in and say I can't stand the GMs who metagame and constantly find ways to ignore the Fighter or get around him to stomp on the squishies.
They always have the same excuse: "The Wizard is more dangerous". That may be true, but every enemy knows that right at the beginning of an encounter? I call BS. If a group walked into my camp, and one guy was in full plate mail with a shield and warhammer, and the other guy was an old man in a dress, I know who I would consider more dangerous!
Also, it is not the mark of a good GM to find ways to neuter the Fighter and take out the rest of the group. TPKs are the mark of a bad GM in many cases, not a good one. The object of the game is not to slaughter the PCs, it is to tell a good story.
In combat, encounters should be balanced so that every PC is able to contribute. Encounters should not be built around making the Fighter useless and stomping the life out of the Wizard and Cleric. It's too easy to do that and really isn't any fun.
Well said I could not agree more. I never understood the mindset of GM's that keep the tally of their TPK's as some sort of badge of honor. I think it should be the opposite.
1) I don't like Monks. Just not D&D.
2) The last Monk I actually played (just to show how broken they are...) collected Wizardly trinkets (Campaign device, all arcane casters carried fetishes, etc. as opposed to components.), giving him the 'illusion' of being a Wizard. I even learned Bluff in order to fake folks out. Got an idea how much hurt a L9 Monk with Combat Reflexes and a 21 Dex can do to charging foes? Our REAL Wiz had a Ring of Imaginary Armour that made her look like a chainmail with plate additions Fighter.
|
22AC is more than high enough for level 2: start focusing your feats and equipment on your damage output.
I'm not a huge fan of fighters with shields: they improve your AC, but at the cost of doing damage. Fighters that do a lot of damage and AREN'T extremely difficult to hit (ie their AC isn't outrageous) will draw a lot more enemy attention (and attacks) than a high-AC turtle that does 1d10+4 damage.
Don't make yourself impossible to hit, or your enemies (and/or your DM ;) will get frustrated and take his anger out on your squishy friends.
Having said all that, if you use a one-handed weapon like a dwarven waraxe, bastard sword or falcata AND use a shield, you can look for an ANIMATED shield around level 7 or 8 that will allow you to utilize the shield's AC bonus for most of the fight (~4 rounds) while you are using your weapon two-handed, gaining the extra STR and Power Attack bonuses to damage for using wielding your weapon with two hands.
Feat advice? Cleave is OK, but I like Furious Focus better for most situations -- and especially after you hit level 6 and get multiple attacks/round. Almost always hitting with your primary attack (no power attack penalty) -- AND doing a boat-load of damage when you hit with that attack -- WILL get your enemies' attention.
Great Cleave is much more situational than Cleave -- and therefore a very low priority for most fighters.
I would rate Toughness, Iron Will and Improved Iron Will as higher priorities than Cleave (much less Great Cleave). As you level up your Achilles heel will likely prove to be your weak Will saves. And Toughness? Who doesn't love more hit points??
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of fighters with shields: they improve your AC, but at the cost of doing damage...
Ultimately an enchanted shield can get you an extra 6 (light or buckler), 7 (heavy) or 9 (tower) AC.
Two-handing increases your flat damage output by half your Strength modifier, and half your Power Attack damage bonus, per swing.
A full Shield Master + Greater Two-Weapon Fighting build can gain you the AC bonus as well as 3 free shield bash attacks each turn, at no penalties, each including your full Strength modifier damage bonus as well if you've got the Double-Slice Feat, not to mention the shield's shield bonus as an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls... You end up with both a greater AC and a greater damage output, but it's a pretty darn dedicated build (and MAD too, since you'll need both Dexterity and Strength to pull it off well).
It always comes down to play-style in the end, but the sword-n-board Fighter, ultimately, can have his cake and eat it too! :)
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of fighters with shields: they improve your AC, but at the cost of doing damage...Ultimately an enchanted shield can get you an extra 6 (light or buckler), 7 (heavy) or 9 (tower) AC.
Two-handing increases your flat damage output by half your Strength modifier, and half your Power Attack damage bonus, per swing.
A full Shield Master + Greater Two-Weapon Fighting build can gain you the AC bonus as well as 3 free shield bash attacks each turn, at no penalties, each including your full Strength modifier damage bonus as well if you've got the Double-Slice Feat, not to mention the shield's shield bonus as an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls... You end up with both a greater AC and a greater damage output, but it's a pretty darn dedicated build (and MAD too, since you'll need both Dexterity and Strength to pull it off well).
It always comes down to play-style in the end, but the sword-n-board Fighter, ultimately, can have his cake and eat it too! :)
I will respectfully disagree: I haven't seen damage calcs that show a sword and board fighter ahead of a two handed weapon fighter. Better AC and decent offense, yeah -- but not better damage. the requirement of a 19 DEX for Greater TWF really jacks up your STR -- and therefore your attack bonuses. I am biased towards the lower experience levels (<13), since I play PFS. I could see some pretty nice sword and board fighter builds as you approach the level 20 range, but my guess is that you'd still be behind a two handed weapon fighter on damage output, especially the Two Handed Weapon fighter goes the path of Cornugon Smash/Dazzling Display/Shatter Defenses.