The concealment from the spells also provides protection from any sneak attack damage.I'm not sure what SA has to do with being hit. Unless you mean flatfooted AC
From Sneak Attack:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Being a tank is a strange concept in pathfinder, it's more being able to stand in the way of your enemies and forcing them to not attack you allies.
You main role would be to block the way of any upcoming enemy going for your allies and if possible provide cover for ranged attack. 50% of your tanking will come from tactical awareness at the table knowing where to move and stand with your character. The main issue is that full plate and most heavy armor will slow you down, so you need a class that can:
A) Move alot and fast
B) Can stop enemies from coming in a area
C) Provide cover if possible from ranged attacks
D) Can survive a long time in a fight
Cleric with the Travel domain and the Weather domain is wonderful for that.
Travel domain let you move fast even in medium and heavy armor, weather domain can debuff most enemies and give them a -2 to attack rolls. You get also access to some of the best spell to shut down completely ranged attackers: Obscuring mist and fog cloud. Grab a good 2 handed weapon with reach like a long spear and force people to back away from your ranged and squishy teammate while providing flanking to your other front liners. You can also move + channel energy and still be of use.
The other less versatile but still very good option would be in my opinion would be a lore warden fighter. A build with good STR and DEX equiped with a Horsechopper or any other reach weapon with the trip special ability. Invest in feats like: improved tripping, weapon focus (the weapon you are tripping with), combat reflexes. Already at level 2 you should be able to trip most people trying to approach your teamates. You should take tiefling as a race with the Qlippoth-Spawn Heritage and the Prehensile Tail alternate racial feature. Buy a lot of oils of obscuring mist and use your tail to grab them as a swift action in combat and then next turn chuck them away to create cover to your teammates.
|
The concealment from the spells also provides protection from any sneak attack damage.I'm not sure what SA has to do with being hit. Unless you mean flatfooted ACFrom Sneak Attack:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Fair enough - but it doesn't apply to Urogue - and I've yet to meet a character with significant SA past level 3-5 that doesn't have Shadow Strike. (besides U-rogues, for whom it'd be redundant)
A) Move alot and fast
B) Can stop enemies from coming in a area
C) Provide cover if possible from ranged attacks
D) Can survive a long time in a fight
A) Bloodrager
B) Reaching Shield Slam BloodragerC) Anyone could take Covering Defense, but I don't think it's necessary.
D) Bloodrager
That's fine in theory, but in practice damage doesn't always come in straight hits. The concealment from the spells also provides protection from any sneak attack damage. It also helps neutralize damage from touch attacks which might have much more easily bypassed your stellar AC under normal circumstances. Those aren't uncommon things to face and so if you have to choose between moderately high AC + concealment chance vs. slightly higher AC you're almost always mechanically better off taking the former to protect against a wider range of attack types for virtually the same level of protection against a single direct attack.
I wasn't trying to say that AC is better than concealment, just that in my experience people often tend to underestimate or even severely underestimate the AC difference it would take to achieve the same effect on hit reduction.
Now Mirror Image - that's a completely different situation altogether.
I've been playing since 3.5 DnD.
There's your problem mate. Like I said, it stopped being a grand idea a while back. If you wanna go back in time a small ways it's called out and talked about in Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards. The terminology is different, but the core ideas are exactly what WoW was based on. I do video game design work, I know more about the trinity than anyone ever should. XD
Minor nitpick, but the trinity in MMOs predated WoW by quite a bit. I really don't think WoW even contributed to the design concept in any meaningful way.
He only gave WoW credit for standardizing it.
That was my quibble. It was standardized well before WoW. WoW really had nothing to do with its history. Other than being one in a long line of users of it.
sole purpose to tank for the guild....
edit: I forgot HOW not safe for work that song is.
He only gave WoW credit for standardizing it.That was my quibble. It was standardized well before WoW. WoW really had nothing to do with its history. Other than being one in a long line of users of it.
You are absolutely correct. I merely meant that WoW's success cemented it, which is obviously a somewhat subjective statement but generally one I have found agreed upon.
|
|
He only gave WoW credit for standardizing it.That was my quibble. It was standardized well before WoW. WoW really had nothing to do with its history. Other than being one in a long line of users of it.
I'd have to disagree.
In MMOs before WoW, the various roles tended to be considerably more fluid in many games, with many classes on the cusp between the roles. WoW was the first major game to make sure that every class was solidly in one of the standard roles.
Since then most MMOs have followed suit and made the bulk, if not all, of their classes fit solidly in one of the camps.
I'm not saying that WoW was the first to make all classes solidly in one of the camps, but its success has made nearly every MMO since follow suit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a world of difference between a division of roles and the utterly braindead grind-fest that comes from someone having the airtight role of 'guy who gets hit'.
One of the best things about the original Guild Wars MMO was that anyone trying to stroll around with a build and/or mindset that involved no survival strategy (often former WoW players trying to go 'pure DPS') sooner than later got murdered, and then got turfed out of the party while whining that nobody saved them.
The pure, obvious MMO aggro mechanic is the product of a conspiracy of lazyness between designers who don't want to work nearly as hard on balance and tactical complexity, and players who want the most streamlined button-mashing experience. To be fair, design lazyness = cost reduction, and player lazyness... well, to each his own.
In MMOs before WoW, the various roles tended to be considerably more fluid in many games, with many classes on the cusp between the roles. WoW was the first major game to make sure that every class was solidly in one of the standard roles.
There are lots of earlier examples, but City of Heroes came out months before WoW and already the trinity system was so ingrained that one of the classes was named the "Tanker".
|
|
In MMOs before WoW, the various roles tended to be considerably more fluid in many games, with many classes on the cusp between the roles. WoW was the first major game to make sure that every class was solidly in one of the standard roles.There are lots of earlier examples, but City of Heroes came out months before WoW and already the trinity system was so ingrained that one of the classes was named the "Tanker".
Note - I said "EVERY class". I remember City of Heroes. I played a scrapper - a class which straddled the line between tank & dps.
I also went on to say that WoW wasn't the first - but you can't say that MMOs since have been copying City of Heroes.
|
There's your problem mate. Like I said, it stopped being a grand idea a while back. If you wanna go back in time a small ways it's called out and talked about in Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards. The terminology is different, but the core ideas are exactly what WoW was based on. I do video game design work, I know more about the trinity than anyone ever should. XD
What exactly is My problem mate?
I in no way have viewed Pathfinder with such a view as the "trinity". I like some of Treantmonk's guides as they set a standard for Pathfinder guides with color Coding and Format.
I have moved beyond the basic Fighter, Cleric, rogue, wizard core group make up since I started pathfinder.
I've been arguing against the Idea of "Tank" role in Pathfinder this entire thread. So how is it my problem?
That was my quibble. It was standardized well before WoW. WoW really had nothing to do with its history. Other than being one in a long line of users of it
This statement is correct. It is just World Of Warcrafts popularity and the fact most MMO gamers always compare every new MMO to WoW as a Benchmark.
Today's reviewers give lines such as: "Better than world of Warcraft." "will de-throne WoW." "The next big thing in the MMO world since WoW." Yet WoW keeps on kicking. It was a good game but what the MMO world is getting wrong is trying to compete with a titan and by doing so end up having a heavy feel of WoW instead of branching out and doing something new. So players go back to WoW.I was just using WoW as an example as that was what the OP was comparing Tanking to and I was telling him it is a bad Idea to play Pathfinder like WoW. Its a completely different game.
Yes DnD has been a inspiration for MANY modern Video games even outside the MMO world. But DnD was inspired by another game. It is just the most popular game tends to be a benchmark that people try to compete with instead of Creating something new to surpass it.
But IMHO WoW has failed Since Burning Crusade. Everything since then has become Easier, Grindy, and Less skill intensive. I miss the old days where progression was freaking hard and everyone had to be on point. It made the game fun. Now the game is designed for bad players to coast by.
Note - I said "EVERY class". I remember City of Heroes. I played a scrapper - a class which straddled the line between tank & dps.In MMOs before WoW, the various roles tended to be considerably more fluid in many games, with many classes on the cusp between the roles. WoW was the first major game to make sure that every class was solidly in one of the standard roles.There are lots of earlier examples, but City of Heroes came out months before WoW and already the trinity system was so ingrained that one of the classes was named the "Tanker".
When WoW launched many of the classes didn't fall into a single category. The paladin and druid come to mind. The fact remains that there were plenty of MMOs before WoW where you'd hear calls of "looking for DPS/Heals/Tank". The history of a class being able to do one or more roles still has nothing to do with WoW.
But DnD was inspired by another game.
I know DnD was mostly taken from the rules for Chainmail. I'm not sure what Chainmail borrowed from.
There's your problem mate. Like I said, it stopped being a grand idea a while back. If you wanna go back in time a small ways it's called out and talked about in Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards. The terminology is different, but the core ideas are exactly what WoW was based on. I do video game design work, I know more about the trinity than anyone ever should. XDWhat exactly is My problem mate?
I in no way have viewed Pathfinder with such a view as the "trinity". I like some of Treantmonk's guides as they set a standard for Pathfinder guides with color Coding and Format.
I have moved beyond the basic Fighter, Cleric, rogue, wizard core group make up since I started pathfinder.
I've been arguing against the Idea of "Tank" role in Pathfinder this entire thread. So how is it my problem?
The point I was making is that Tanking comes from DnD. Pathfinder is very much a child of the mechanics that gaming adopted to lead to the Trinity. Even though the philosophy is no longer meta doesn't mean it can't still be done and be fun. While I personally hate the rigid adherence to the Trinity, if you are going to put thought into it and enjoy a certain playstyle cheers on ya mate.
The flaw with going pure AC is unless you go for broke with optimization, you're never going to beat out monster attack rolls. Attack bonus increases far faster than you can gain AC unless you're doing crazy stuff.
That's not really true, if you invest resources at it.
Another bit of PFS specific advice...
In general, its good to have a backup schtick in case your original plan doesn't work.
In PFS, this goes double.
For a tank, in pfs, it goes tripple. You may have to play up, and face opponents WAY out of your league. If you're a bard standing in the back going tra lalalalalal that works great. If your entire character concept requires you to be swung at your character is going to be reduced to chunky salsa when when you're level 1 fighting a CR 7 badguy.
My last char is a Half Orc Goliath Druid. 20 Point Buy. STR 16, DEX 14, CON 14, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 10, not even dumping stats.
By level 12, if you are willing to invest in AC, and using 220.000gp as the WBL suggest, you could have:
Full Plate +4 (16.000gp), Shield +4 (16.000gp), Ring +3 (18.000gp), +8 Nat Armor (+4 from wildshape, +4 from Favored class), +2 luck from jingasa and fate favored (5.000gp), + 1 insight from Dusty Rose Ioun Stone (4.000gp), +5 from barkskin (with a very cheap lesser rod of extend, you can cast 3 barkskin that last 12 hours in total for just 3000gp), +1 DEX, -1 size.
You could add Shield Focus and/or Dodge for extra +1/+2 AC.
Total cost 62.000gp, or 28% of your WBL.
Total AC= 48, 50 if you want to invest feats.
Average to hit with the strong attack of a CR12 monster, according to the table: +21. Average to hit for a CR17 (APL +5) monster, according to the table, +27. You could even drop the shield, get a reach weapon (double reach as you are large), and still be hit by your APL average encounter only with 20s, which is not bad. A small investment (like 1 level dip in bloodrager for wands of shields), will let you have AC 46, wielding a reach weapon, and being hit by APL+5 average monsters with a 19+
You can have a very strong AC, if you want to. But you have to try, what you can't expect is to spend all your gold and resources in DPR, and have good defenses just because you spent there what you had left after you pumped your damage through the roof.
You could get the same, or smilar, with monks, barbarians, fighters, etc. But to get it, you have to try.
A 12th level fighter, willing to invest in AC:
Starting stats 16, 16, 14, 10, 10, 10
Full plate +4 (16k), Shield +4 (16k), Ring +2 (8k), +2 luck (jingasa and Fate Favored) (5k), +1 defender of the society, +1 dodge, +1 shield focus, +1 greater shield focus, +4 Amulet of Nat Armor (16k), +3 DEX (with armor training), +1 insight (dusty rose, 4k)
Total cost 65k.
Total AC: 45.
|
|
You can have a very strong AC, if you want to. But you have to try, what you can't expect is to spend all your gold and resources in DPR, and have good defenses just because you spent there what you had left after you pumped your damage through the roof.
I agree - but I'll also point out - in general wealth is more efficiently spent on defenses, while character resources should generally be focused upon offense. Not that you shouldn't spend both on both, but you much more quickly reach diminishing returns for wealth on offense, and classes/stats usually benefit more from an offensive leaning.
In MMOs before WoW, the various roles tended to be considerably more fluid in many games, with many classes on the cusp between the roles. WoW was the first major game to make sure that every class was solidly in one of the standard roles.There are lots of earlier examples, but City of Heroes came out months before WoW and already the trinity system was so ingrained that one of the classes was named the "Tanker".
I know nobody remember it now, but EverQuest was once the most played MMO, many years before WOW, and it had the concept of Tank, DPS and Healer totally ingrained in the system.
You can have a very strong AC, if you want to. But you have to try, what you can't expect is to spend all your gold and resources in DPR, and have good defenses just because you spent there what you had left after you pumped your damage through the roof.
1. Your WBL is WAAAAY off. WBL for lvl 12 is 108,000, not 220,000. Thus that's over half your WBL burned through. A lot of your prices are wrong also, like +4 Full Plate being 16k, when it's actually 17.6k, and your Amulet of Natural Armor is actually 32k, a bit higher than your projected 16k.
2. Your Druid is illegal since he can't wear full plate.As said, yes, you can beat the curve, but you're jumping through hoops and as mentioned, burning a heavy chunk of your WBL to do so when in reality, just killing the damn thing is the better course of action.
Dragonhide full plate and a feat and you're good to go.
|
|
As said, yes, you can beat the curve, but you're jumping through hoops and as mentioned, burning a heavy chunk of your WBL to do so when in reality, just killing the damn thing is the better course of action.
It depends upon your group. If the entire group has solid defenses - you're better off going defense. Sure - fights take an extra round or two - but it's not hard to survive those rounds vs being a group of glass cannons.
It's when at least one of the group insists upon being a glass cannon that it forces everyone else to shift. Since there's no aggro mechanic, everyone needs to kill them before the guy who insists upon ignoring defense dies horribly.
And frankly - you should spend well over 1/2 your wealth on defense. As I said above - wealth is more efficient defensively, and class abilities are more efficient offensively.
Therefore most wealth should be spent defensively, and most abilities spent offensively. (admittedly - gustavo spent a bit too much on just AC - as you also need to cover saves, and fighters should probably grab a clear spindle ioun in a wayfinder by 12 etc - and he probably shouldn't have burned so many feats on the fighter build - but a 40+ AC by 12 isn't very hard)
1. Your WBL is WAAAAY off. WBL for lvl 12 is 108,000, not 220,000. Thus that's over half your WBL burned through. A lot of your prices are wrong also, like +4 Full Plate being 16k, when it's actually 17.6k, and your Amulet of Natural Armor is actually 32k, a bit higher than your projected 16k.
2. Your Druid is illegal since he can't wear full plate.As said, yes, you can beat the curve, but you're jumping through hoops and as mentioned, burning a heavy chunk of your WBL to do so when in reality, just killing the damn thing is the better course of action.
Ah, yes, sorry, made the numbers from the top of my head, without rechecking, because I have a real PC around that level with around that gear. Craft Woundreous Items is a great feat to deal with the price of things like Amulets of Natural Armor, I reccommend it. Beyond that, a +3 amulet cost 18.000, instead of 32.000, and that gives the example PC mentioned above 44 AC instead of 45, still more than you need to be hit by 20s by CR=APL monsters, which is roughly my definition of "enough AC". In fact, as CR 12 has, per the guide, about +21 to hit in the strong attack, you still have a few extra points that you could shave if you wanted to save them. And that's not counting buffs, like the party's wizard casting Haste.
My Druid is wearing a dragon hide full plate since he got lvl 3, heavy armor proficiency, and ~4000gp.
"Killing the monster" is better, if you can kill all of them, or they aren't a threat to begin with. On the other hand, assuming you win, the real thing that matter here is flavor. In my opinion, "enter in a room full of giants, kill all of them by yourself, and survive unscratched", is much more epic than "enter in a castle full of giants, completely obliterate giant number 1 doing him twice the damage needed to kill him, and then go down when the other giants full round you, and burn a CLW wand after the combat". That's why I like unkillable characters more than I like glass cannons. YMMV, of course, and you are free to preffer the other route. But "investing in AC is not worth it because you are behind the curve" is not true. It's only true, if you don't invest in AC because you preffer DPR.
Therefore most wealth should be spent defensively, and most abilities spent offensively. (admittedly - gustavo spent a bit too much on just AC - as you also need to cover saves, and fighters should probably grab a clear spindle ioun in a wayfinder by 12 etc - and he probably shouldn't have burned so many feats on the fighter build - but a 40+ AC by 12 isn't very hard)
As you said, 41 is easier, and that's not a complete build. I don't think I have made a fighter in a long time, though, and I don't think I will in the near future, because of the lack of good saves, among other things. That was just a quick example from the top of my head.
The other example, however, the druid, which is a real build, has very decent saves, with the +2 luck bonus from half-orc and the trait, good fortitude and will, high wisdom, high Con in giant form, and not so terrible reflex because of a lvl 1 dip into Ranger, to get shapeshifter hunter and full favored enemy Giant (as he's playing in Giantslayer). At 12, you can add regeneration to the mix, and/or resistance 20 to several elements, not counting other defensive bufffs. It also has good CMD, for a well rounded defense, while still being able to dish good damage, either with a 20' reach polearm, or 4 natural attacks (for being a 2 headed troll). It *could* dish more damage, if I spent more gold there, with things like deliquescent gloves, helm of the mamoth lord, but I don't think it's needed, and I feel that the rest of the players feel more uncomfortable with chars that deal too much damage and clean the board before they act.
Also a thing that matters for the importance of AC and other defenses, is party compossition. We play a group of 3, that means that:
A) you get attacked more per combat, as there are less targets to split the damage.
B) overwhelming victory in the first round is less likely, as you have less actions as a group.
On the other hand, groups with 6+ make glass cannons better:
A) you are more likely to "hide" yourself. Probably will be attacked less.
B) because of A), resources spent defending are more likely to be wasted. Having good AC when you are attacked is nice, having AC when you are NOT attacked is pointless.
C) you have much more damage outpout as a group, so "first strike win" is more likely. Making class cannons better, as they don't get attacked that much.
