Yes, I have played MMOs (probably far too much) but I fancy trying to build a tank (by which I really mean high AC, high HP) in order to command the battlefield somewhat.
Has anyone tried a build with this feat before?
I'm currently leaning towards Angel-Blooded Aasimar Cavalier, Order of the Blue Rose.
|
Yes, I have played MMOs (probably far too much) but I fancy trying to build a tank (by which I really mean high AC, high HP) in order to command the battlefield somewhat.
Has anyone tried a build with this feat before?
I'm currently leaning towards Angel-Blooded Cavalier, Order to be determined.
In order to tank effectively with the Antagonize feat, you need some good saves as well (so you can draw your spellcasting opponent's deadliest spells to you, and have them wasted so they don't hurt your allies).
For this reason, I suggest you play a paladin rather than a cavalier. Half-Orc seems appropriate with the Charisma bonus and the racial Intimidate bonus, but in that respect a half-elf would be even better (Racial Charisma and Skill Focus (Intimidate) as a free feat). So it's up to you really.
Here are the magic items a tank really needs:
Minor Cloak of Displacement and Resistance +5 (20% miss chance, concealment which means immunity to Sneak Attack, and +5 bonus on all saving throws)
Belt of Mighty Constitution +6
+5 adamantine full plate armor and a +5 heavy/tower shield
As for feats, the Improved Iron Will feat is really good. You get to reroll a Will save once per day after you've seen the result. It can really help when you expect to be targeted by casters a lot.
That does sound far better. And a good point about the saves. Okay, I'll look at Paladin and see what kind of build I can come up with for critique. And of course, Elven Immunities helps that cause greatly too.
How hard this kind of build is to pull off depends heavily on how your GM handles certain things.
At least when facing intelligent enemies, expect them to ignore you and focus on your squishier friends once they figure out they can't hit/hurt you anyway. If there's more than one opponent, you just don't have enough standard actions - if all you do is making one target attack you again and again, you're not dealing damage or really contributing to the fight anymore.
If your GM is supid/bad, he might metagame and have everyone, including mindless things like oozes ignore you even without even trying to hit you, and then there really isn't much you can do in terms of "gaining aggro".
If your GM is nice, he gives you enemies who can understand you, so that you can use the antagonize feat.
If your GM is really nice, he just let's you roleplay "taunting" enemies to make them focus you without having to use the feat and waste std actions.
But if your GM isn't, it gets difficult.
One way to be a "tank" in PF is focusing on your damage output. If you deal enough damage to be a real threat, your opponents might be more eager to take care of you instead of someone else.
The other way is using superior reach and combat maneuvers like trip to improve battlefield control, and just stop opponent from getting to your friends - but be warned that there are many creatures that you can't trip or that just fly once you level up, so make sure you can also fly, and bring backup ranged weapons.
Both ways work better if you are decently easy to hit.
All that said, if you want to focus on the antagonize feat, you could make an Inquisitor. That gives you some bonuses to the required skills, use wis instead of cha, have a good will save, good melee or ranged damage output, and enough spells to help out wherever you need.
I would likely only be playing online so I'd have a GM who likes the character style. Also, while I primarily want to use the 'taunt' effect, I'm also more than willing to use the Diplomacy effect and act as the party face as well.
I deliberately haven't mandated a class in order to look at all viable builds. However, that doesn't mean I want to be too low on DPR. I'm just not looking at DPR being the be all and end all.
I'm aware of the action issue, and have already reasoned that Antagonize will be used to deals with the biggest threat on the field and then hope the rest follow.
Unless I'm mistaken, non-sentient things like ooze and vermin can't be antagonized in the first place, so saying a GM is bad for having them ignore the guy in armor is kind of weak. An ooze is more likely to go for the perceived meat on the stick (wizard) over the spam in a can (Full Plate Mail fighter) simply because it is mindless and of the two the wizard looks more like food and less like a statue.
not if hes a monk. then they are both wearing pajamas! :)
also, oozes are mindless, so basically they are going to anything that steps on them... and that is the limit of their tactics.
Mindless does not mean stupid. Centipedes are mindless per the rules, they don't attack every rock and dandylion they come across. They attack things that look like prey, and run from things that look like predators. Mindless, within the rules, simply means there's no higher-cognitive functions, the creatures lives off pure hard-wired instinct. Any predator has an instinct to go after the weakest looking target, not the strongest target. And anything that's hurting it more than it's hurting the thing is something to run from.
Note, the above applies to mindless creatures that are not hive-mind types, so ants and bees and wasps tend to attack with little regard for self, and attack whatever is closest (that seems like a threat) when alarmed. But in this case, it's a hive association, which means the queen is the only real important critter in the area. And she doesn't go out attacking intruders.
I didn't like Antagonize at first, but it has been heavilly nerfed. Spending a standard action to make sure an enemy attacks you however he sees fit once a day is not that great, actually.
The pre-errata version was pretty broken, as the enemy had to make a melee attack against you. So you could make pretty much anyone, (including the old frail squishy wizards) come running at you, take dozens of attacks of opportunity and try and use their half BAB to attack you.
I actually like the Diplomacy option. And would in fact, make it spend only a move action. Or even a swift action if it also gave the enemy a bonus to attacks made against you, although that would probably be too good.
Yeah, I'd rule that only the first (or the last) Antagonize in the round counts.