|
Paul, I don't mean to be additional disruptive to this group, but problem with entire concept is that you don't need at all tank, healer and dps. You just don't need that concept.
If there is anything I hate, it's when you get softly forced to play something you don't want, but it's your decision completely considering he is your friend.
If you decide to pick default tank, take for example human fighter.
STR 16, DEX 14, CON 16, INT 10, WIS 12, CHA 8. Feats can be any you want. This is just example.
blackbloodtroll> No clue.
Grimmy> I like your idea. Maybe i will just ask him to assign me what he thinks is right, with the exception of "No Paladins".
Paul, I don't mean to be additional disruptive to this group, but problem with entire concept is that you don't need at all tank, healer and dps. You just don't need that concept.
If there is anything I hate, it's when you get softly forced to play something you don't want, but it's your decision completely considering he is your friend.
If you decide to pick default tank, take for example human fighter.
STR 16, DEX 14, CON 16, INT 10, WIS 12, CHA 8. Feats can be any you want. This is just example.
I do not mind being told to play X race, or Y class.
It is the problem of being given a role, and not fulfilling it to a certain set of specs that i do not know about. And that are not elaborated on.
I do not mind being told to play a trapfinder. Cool, i just have to find a class with the trapfinding ability. I get told to play an archer, i have a million options. A healer, i still have options.
Here is a text i sent my GM, when he told me me to play a tank:
"What is your opinion on how to "get aggro" in this game. Look the most threatening? Be the most threatening? Taunting feats? It is that "aggro" does not convert well in d&d"
His response:
"No in dnd it doesn't convert well." Then started many sentences on Hero Points, and how to spend them.
Because my table was angered glares, rolling dice and a DM calling out an action that is in no way fair, followed by the Player objecting to this bullying and then the players telling the DM to knock it off. It's basically how my table had been after that initial mess. Anyway, I'd think that as long as these guys are having fun (which is doubtful considering the domineering DM), things would be more or less okay. Better a slightly tight atmosphere than every other move potentially drawing the ire of a wronged player or an entitled DM.
No clue.
|
So, you must play a single role, but he has yet to define the details of the role, and if you do not do exactly what is expected of this undefined role, people will be mad, and some will quit?
Am I right so far?
What about the having fun part?
That is the entire point of the game.
How will the DM, or other players react if you tell them this assigned role is not fun to play?
|
|
@BB
Even if Paul agrees with you, nothing changes. The GM in question likes things old-fashioned. Forcing a conflict also might be a bad option.
@Paul
Maybe you could ask someone else to GM instead. He doesn't seem to be very experienced and your group seems to be having first try with pathfinder.
I also recommend going to maybe some local PFS convention if you are in larger city. You can meet nice people there and see how others GM and play.
It's my last advice, I hope your group goes well.
So, you must play a single role, but he has yet to define the details of the role, and if you do not do exactly what is expected of this undefined role, people will be mad, and some will quit?
Am I right so far?
What about the having fun part?
That is the entire point of the game.
How will the DM, or other players react if you tell them this assigned role is not fun to play?
Am I right so far?
>>>Mostly right, people might not get mad, they are just mad at me.What about the having fun part?
>>>Fun is being in a group. Pissy-ness come with being around people like me.
...because...
Hi. My name is Paul, and i am a Rules Lawyer. I always try to play by what is written, and will call out ANY discrepancies. Whether by PC or GM, for good or for ill, I prefer to go by what is written. It sucks, but it is who I am.
@MALAG
He is very experience, and can roll with the punches better than most GMs I have seen. He is not without flaws though.
I live in San Jose, CA (1 hr from San Fransisco). And, I will see about finding a convention around.
|
|
Wait, what does being a rules lawyer have anything to do with the odd restrictions?
How do these restrictions, and forced WoW like tactics equal being "old fashioned"?
Being around a fun group, not just a group, is fun.
I really am very curious why this assigned role is being done, and why it is important to this group.
Seriously, what's up with the assigned roles?
|
Three ideas:
1) Don't play if you think being forced to play something other than what you want doesn't sound fun.
2) Tell him to make the character for you if he's being so picky (eidolon is totally legit tank!)
3) Make a barbarian, use a falchion, max str and con, deal immense amounts of damage AND be durable. Though I have a feeling this will be shut down too (due to lack of a shield). Paladin would work if I wasn't getting the feeling this GM will give you a horrible time dealing with the paladin code.
I would tell you to make a brawler fighter (gets stand still for free, 5-foot stepping away and withdrawing provoke), but the ban on archetypes really limits what you can do, especially combined with him shutting down more creative tank ideas.
Honestly it sounds like he wants you to play a standard barbarian, fighter, paladin, or cavalier, and whichever you play it must use a shield. I'll bet you'll even be forced to use the shield in the off-hand with a one-handed weapon in your main hand, so no 2-hand shield or dual wield shields or anything else that makes shield fighting not bad. I wouldn't play in this game, but I think the best route is the barbarian to try to sneak in a high damage character under the guise of a tank.
Wait, what does being a rules lawyer have anything to do with the odd restrictions?
How do these restrictions, and forced WoW like tactics equal being "old fashioned"?
Being around a fun group, not just a group, is fun.
I really am very curious why this assigned role is being done, and why it is important to this group.
Seriously, what's up with the assigned roles?
Being a rules lawyer changes the way fellow players, or GMs see you. The ones who want to get creative with the rules (both GMs and PCs). I am starting to think from their interactions, that i am the problem.
I love to game, I just want a supportive group...
No offense to anyone, but please stop ripping on my gaming friends and GM.
This was supposed to be a thread on "Tank builds" but has degraded. I am sorry guys.
I didn't go about bashing him.
I bashed my own DM more, and he deserved it.
Icyshadow:
I know, i just was trying to cut the bashing down.
He tore apart my idea, and another player threatened to leave the game.
I wanted to play a summoner.
This is probably the solution to the problem. By that, I mean find a different GM. One that will let you play the character you want. I have no problem with a GM putting restrictions on character building but I don't put restrictions on what characters each player is allowed to play.
Ah. WoW with dice.
Pathfinder does not work like that.
No dude, it totally does! I just hit my Taunt button, hit pestilence and/or Blood Boil and I totally get aggro. Works every time.
Srsly though, I like the idea of the cavalier. Sounds interesting.
The GM made a game for 4 players:
he wanted each to decide their roles, Ranged DPS, Melee DPS, Healer, and Tank.
He gave us no other details.
When I asked for suggestions, he gave me nothing besides "Do what you want".
(i gave an full character idea later, and told me that it was wrong for what he wanted)
WOW.. Any other GM's in your area? This is pure @$$
I thought the OP asked for the bashing to stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In an attempt to be helpful :) i've been messing about with alternative tanking ideas this is one i came up with.
Angel Blooded Aasimar Dirty Fighter 10
22 Str 10 points +2 race +1 lvl 4,8 +2 belt
16 Dex 5 points +2 belt
16 Con 5 points +2 belt
13 Int 3 points
11 Wis 1 points
09 Cha -4 points +2 race
Scion of Humanity Alternate Feature
Alter self can be used as a +2 str buff 10 mins per day.
HP 100 (10d10 +30 con +10 favored)
Ac 32 (+11 armor + 4 shield +3 dex +2 deflection +1 nat +1 dodge)
Fort +12
Ref +8
Wil +7
1 Racial Heritage Orc, Power Attack
2 Combat Reflexes
3 Iron Will
4 Combat Expertese
5 Dodge
6 Mobility
7 Combat Patrol
8 Improved Dirty Trick
9 Greater Dirty Trick
10 Stand Still
+2 Full Plate 05650
+2 Heavy Shield 04170
+3 Adamantite Scimitar 21315
+2 Belt of Phy Perfect 16000
+2 Cloak of Resistance 04000
+2 Ring of Prot 08000
+1 Amulet Nat Arm 02000
The basic idea is a Dirty fighter of level 9 can use dirty tricks as normal attacks and therfore AoOs, so you set up a combat patrol and blind anything that tries to get past you for 1d4 rounds + 1/5 you beat their CMD by. Stand still also stops them cold so the rest of the party should be able to deal with them.
This would possibly be a lot stronger as a dex build but from what i gather reading the thread your dm may ot see a dex build fighter as a real tank.
As a recovering rules lawyer I can certainly remember occasions where I argued rulings with other players and GMs, so can personally relate to the disruption it can cause. Notice I say "recoverING" because the urge is never truly gone........
How optimized is the rest of the party going to be in their roles? Easiest way to go for you might be a plain vanilla human sword and board fighter in the heaviest armor you can afford.
Have fun with the group and the adventure, with the only rule or ability you need to worry about being "I attack it". Stick with the basics of Cleave, Cornugon Smash, Vital Strike, etc. Running into the front and laying about with your sword might be enough aggro for his vision of the character (and it IS fun to just plow thru enemies with huge amounts of attacks and damage).
If the fun is hanging out with these people and playing a game then maybe you dont worry about the 'build' and just worry about the 'character'? Even starting at 10th level, with a great backstory and an interesting character you might be able to sway the GM into evolving beyond his view of 'tank' along the way. Maybe he's superstitous and after some near-death experiences you can talk to the DM about multiclassing into a level or 2 of a Luck cleric? Maybe after an epic battle with a dragon he becomes obsessed with them and starts down the Ranger path to hunt them out wherever they are?
Unless of course the other players are optimized, in which case ignore this post completely.
Dwarven druid. 18str 16 con starting. Dump cha totally and int some. Heavy armor feat and stone plate. This is a greaat tank from level 1 on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... just have him make the character for you. ...
I'm seconding (thirding, fourthing? something like that) this notion. The DM knows what he wants you to play, and is apparently touchy about you "doing it wrong." Ask him to build you a character. You can work out the fluff on your own after he's handed you some numbers.
Alternately, suggest board games.
I don't think you're listening. The DM has told his players to fulfill those four roles. How they do it is up to them. I can't think of a character class that does not fill at least one of them. It sounds like the GM is trying to make sure that the group is balanced. And that may be important in the campaign he has in mind.
The problem, as I've read it, is that the GM doesn't want creative applications of various classes here. He wants a Melee character with a sword and board. He wants a Warrior, or maybe a Paladin.
Cestus and Shield Brawler Archetype. MH the Large Shield, off-hand the cestus. You'll get battlefield control through bull rushes, effective AC to your allies through menacing stance, and eventually choke point capability through Stand Still (and Brawler's bonus to the check).
Alternatively he'll have to make the character.
If you're interested in the build I'll post the full level breakdown I have.
|
|
Cestus and Shield Brawler Archetype. MH the Large Shield, off-hand the cestus. You'll get battlefield control through bull rushes, effective AC to your allies through menacing stance, and eventually choke point capability through Stand Still (and Brawler's bonus to the check).
Alternatively he'll have to make the character.
If you're interested in the build I'll post the full level breakdown I have.
I believe it was stated that class archetypes weren't allowed, or I would have suggested the same thing (replacing cestus with light shield as you know ;P).
I believe it was stated that class archetypes weren't allowed, or I would have suggested the same thing (replacing cestus with light shield as you know ;P).Cestus and Shield Brawler Archetype. MH the Large Shield, off-hand the cestus. You'll get battlefield control through bull rushes, effective AC to your allies through menacing stance, and eventually choke point capability through Stand Still (and Brawler's bonus to the check).
Alternatively he'll have to make the character.
If you're interested in the build I'll post the full level breakdown I have.
I missed that archetype ban since I only really read the first page of posts. Lame face.
It seems to me that the only problem the DM has so far is one of communication.
How many DMs don't allow Summoners? Judging by what I have read on these boards, quite a few. Also, don't allow traits, archetypes, alternate racials... All of these are not uncommon things to remove. Aren't they optional rules anyway? He is allowing more source books than I do in my game. The only problem is that he didn't mention it up front.
Personally I have no problem making a character to fit a role. I am the type of guy that says, "Hey, what is not covered in our party? Whatever it is, I'll play that." However, I understand that other people do not want others to have any influence on what they make, so I would respect that.
There are many ways that a tank can be made. Already I am trying to think of a way to make a Stalwart Defender viable. It seems to me they are pretty cool, but the lack of movement when using their signature feature is pretty hard to deal with. I would consider that a challenge! :)
So what does the DM consider a reasonable tank?
To Furious Kender and LazarX: the GM has apparently shot down using an eidolon as a tank, despite all evidence that it can tank. I don't think anything but a barbarian, fighter, paladin, or cavalier with a shield will satisfy his image of a "tank".
Well, if you want to play a summoner style character that has good hp and AC on their own, then a dwarven druid in stone plate is how you do it.
Should be looking at 22ac at level 2, and 20 hp compared to a level 2 fighter's 22ac and 23hp. Saves should be respectable as well, as you have strong fort and will, and decent con and wisdom. Add on spells and a big cat or dinosaur animal companion, and it is powerhouse that is better than sword and board fighter.
If the DM is going to go all crazy over 3hp difference at level 2, and 12hp difference at level 10, then I don't know what to say. Especially considering that you get an animal companion that is vicious AND are a full spellcaster. Honestly, the druid's AC is going to be better than the fighter's and the druid will be tougher because of the spells he can cast.
If a fighter can trip or grapple things that a stegasaurus or tiger could not, I would argue for the fighter. However, by mid levels the druid is superior in virtually every way.
|
|
To Furious Kender and LazarX: the GM has apparently shot down using an eidolon as a tank, despite all evidence that it can tank. I don't think anything but a barbarian, fighter, paladin, or cavalier with a shield will satisfy his image of a "tank".Well, if you want to play a summoner style character that has good hp and AC on their own, then a dwarven druid in stone plate is how you do it.
Should be looking at 22ac at level 2, and 20 hp compared to a level 2 fighter's 22ac and 23hp. Saves should be respectable as well, as you have strong fort and will, and decent con and wisdom. Add on spells and a big cat or dinosaur animal companion, and it is powerhouse that is better than sword and board fighter.
If the DM is going to go all crazy over 3hp difference at level 2, and 12hp difference at level 10, then I don't know what to say. Especially considering that you get an animal companion that is vicious AND are a full spellcaster. Honestly, the druid's AC is going to be better than the fighter's and the druid will be tougher because of the spells he can cast.
If a fighter can trip or grapple things that a stegasaurus or tiger could not, I would argue for the fighter. However, by mid levels the druid is superior in virtually every way.
It's not a matter of mechanics, it's a matter of imagery. A druid casts divine spells at full progression, and the GM (from what I can tell) will stuff the whole class into the healer/caster role, disqualifying it from being a tank. In the GM's mind, if it casts spells at level one, doesn't wear heavy armor and use a shield, or doesn't have at least a d10 HD, it isn't a "tank".
Sorry for not being here, fell asleep. I will start responding to your posts
The best solution I am seeing right now: is to have the GM build the PC he thinks I should play. It solves the problem, as well as, gives me a chance to improve my role-playing ability.
@ FallofCamelot
I agree, that tactics and strategy are the most important abilities to have, when playing a tank/meat-stick/shield/fighter.
|
|
Sorry for not being here, fell asleep. I will start responding to your posts
The best solution I am seeing right now: is to have the GM build the PC he thinks I should play. It solves the problem, as well as, gives me a chance to improve my role-playing ability.
@ FallofCamelot
I agree, that tactics and strategy are the most important abilities to have, when playing a tank/meat-stick/shield/fighter.
How I see this going:
You: "You seem to have a specific idea of the character I should play. It would be alot easier if you would just make that character for me."
GM: "I want you to make your character. I'm not playing it so you should make it how you want."
You: "I made what I wanted. It was a summoner with an eidolon that would have done fine tanking."
GM: "A summoner isn't a tank, he's a caster. I told you to make a tank."
You: "But my eidolon would be the tank."
GM: "But you're not an eidolon, you're a summoner."
You: "So what do you want me to make?"
GM: "I don't care, just make a tank."
You: "But..."
I don't see a smooth solution to this unless you just make a standard fighter and give him a longsword, a shield, and heavy armor. You'll just have to role-play to make it interesting, because it certainly isn't interesting from a mechanics standpoint.
The role of "Tank" in a Pathfinder party isn't identical to what you may have seen in an MMO. Instead of drawing "aggro", you need to balance out the ability to dish out damage (so foes see you as a primary threat), absorb damage (so they don't actually kill you), and obstruct enemy movement (so they can't reach the "squishies" behind you). Your role will be complemented by having a "controller" in the party, generally a caster whose spells block off terrain or screw up enemy movement. (The controller's favorite spells and items include grease, web, summon monster, and entangle.)
For your "tank" build, you may want a dwarf. They are harder to knock about with combat maneuvers and have a bonus to Constitution, so they do well on the front lines.
A sample (20 point) Dwarven Cleric/Fighter build:
S 16 D 14 C 16 I 8 W 14 Ch 10
1st: Fighter 1
Feats: Antagonize, Combat Reflexes
Traits: Adopted (Teifling trait: Suicidal), Birthmark
Skill: Intimidate +4
- Fights with a guisarme polearm when practical.
- Dreams of the day when he'll have a shield.
- Spends his time using the ready action, then tripping foes who pass through his threatened squares.
- If someone actually gets to attack an adjacent ally, he uses Suicidal to take the hit.
- Antagonizes enemies to draw their ire.
- after his first adventure, he buys a dwarven waraxe for those times when the polearm is impractical.
2nd: adds Cleric 1 (Strength Domain, with Smoke or Trickery as a second)
- Favorite spells include enlarge person, compel hostility, and watchful eye.
- buys some full plate.
- uses smoke to obstruct foes' view of allies when such is helpful. If trickery was chosen, uses
3rd: Cleric 2
Feat: Stand Still
- buys a tower shield and a weapon cord for the axe. Pawns the polearm.
5th: Feat: Power Attack
7th: Feat: Improved Overrun
- if anyone gets past, he knocks them on their butt and puts himself into the way again.
Sorry for not being here, fell asleep. I will start responding to your posts
The best solution I am seeing right now: is to have the GM build the PC he thinks I should play. It solves the problem, as well as, gives me a chance to improve my role-playing ability.
@ FallofCamelot
I agree, that tactics and strategy are the most important abilities to have, when playing a tank/meat-stick/shield/fighter.
How I see this going:
You: "You seem to have a specific idea of the character I should play. It would be alot easier if you would just make that character for me."
GM: "I want you to make your character. I'm not playing it so you should make it how you want."
You: "I made what I wanted. It was a summoner with an eidolon that would have done fine tanking."
GM: "A summoner isn't a tank, he's a caster. I told you to make a tank."
You: "But my eidolon would be the tank."
GM: "But you're not an eidolon, you're a summoner."
You: "So what do you want me to make?"
GM: "I don't care, just make a tank."
You: "But..."I don't see a smooth solution to this unless you just make a standard fighter and give him a longsword, a shield, and heavy armor. You'll just have to role-play to make it interesting, because it certainly isn't interesting from a mechanics standpoint.
LOL !!!
Hmmm... I should have read the thread more closely before posting. I see that the Suicidal trait is out, since the book it's in isn't allowed by the DM.
Make him a dwarf Ftr 5 (Tower shield specialist) / Cleric 5. That will give enough feats for him to have Bodyguard and In Harm's Way.
Is the DM restraining you because you tend to make very effective characters compared to the rest of the group? Are you very clever at subverting encounter design in a way that either steals spotlight or doesn't fit with his vision of what a fantsasy game should be about? Is it a (ham-handed) means of trying to address a power discrepancy and spotlight time? That would make sense.
I'd try to get at what his deal is. I like to presume peolpe aren't just off their rockers. Maybe he has a legit concern and is this is his lame way of trying to address it. Perhaps you two and work together to address whatever his actual sub rosa deal is.
Hmmm... I should have read the thread more closely before posting. I see that the Suicidal trait is out, since the book it's in isn't allowed by the DM.
Make him a dwarf Ftr 5 (Tower shield specialist) / Cleric 5. That will give enough feats for him to have Bodyguard and In Harm's Way.
Ooh, i like that. 3 feats is nothing to a Fighter.
About the GM's behavior, I agree with Riuken. No offense to your friends, but I'd sure not be able to play under this GM.
Usually I'd suggest a Paladin, wielding a reach weapon and armor spikes (so you get to threaten adjacent foes too!). Great saves, great damage, great AC, great reach. Amazing against evil opponents, great against everything else!
BUT! If your GM is that restrictive and annoying with class choices, then you can be sure he'll remove your Paladin's power ASAP.
So, a Barbarian, maybe? They can be qute fun to play, especially with Spell Sunder.