[3.PF] Stalwart Defender: What would be a good build?

[Mr. Zolrane]

So the Stalwart Defender is definitely an improvement over the Dwarven Defender from 3.5 (the fact that you don't have to be a dwarf is a contributing factor), but I'm still having trouble seeing the case for prestiging into it, or rather what class it would synergize with well: Barbs are out, because you can't rage and d-stance at the same time. Rangers are out because they need they style feats. Monks are out because they can't wear armor without losing everything that makes him a monk (which in PF, is actually kind of a loss). Paladins are out because, well, the PF paladin is so good, you're going to have to give me something better than Stalwart Defender to convince me to prestige out of pally. The only class I can kinda see it working for is Fighter, and even then, they're deprived of their bonus feats. Cavaliers encounter the same difficulty, albeit to a lesser degree, not to mention their challenge progression is lost.

My question to you guys is this: is it ever a good idea to take Stalwart Defender?

Personally I think this highlights a problem that PF failed to fix from 3.5: spellcasters get to keep all or most of their basic progression, and trade in their bells and whistles for prestige features, while melee nearly always loses out on such things.

[jmelesky]

I could see an Inquisitor making the jump. Really, though, you're kind of running afoul of the fact that PF discourages prestige classes -- most base class features progress against class level, so it's always painful to move away. Also worth noting: lots of meaty stuff in the most recent sourcebook (Ultimate Magic), but no prestige classes at all.

The more i think about it, the more i think the Polearm Master archetype would be the best bet. You get the Pole Fighting feature (reduce your reach as an immediate action, for an attack penalty), and the Flexible Flanker feature is a godsend for the immobile.

You do run into some feat starvation. You have the three prereqs (Endurance is the real tough one there). You probably want Combat Reflexes, possibly Stand Still (only possibly since it's based on adjacency rather than threat). Combat Patrol is out, since it requires movement to take advantage of, but Bodyguard and In Harm's Way both look quite useful.

Still, Polearm Master 10/Stalwart Defender 10 only really loses 5 feats. The higher-level PM features aren't great: bull rush or trip with any polearm? Meh; Step Aside breaks Defender, so it's not useful; Polearm Parry could be useful, but you do get the Defender's DR and the Intercept power, so it's no big loss; and i doubt you'll miss Weapon Mastery too much.

So, yeah, that seems like a pretty solid concept.

As long as you remember to get your mage to Enlarge you. Obviously. :smallsmile:

edit: After losing the 5 feats, you still have 16 available (17 if Human). That's almost as many as a 3.5 Fighter. Granted, there's been some feat split, but 16's still plenty to go around.

[Wagadodo]

Plus if you use the Feat Antongize as written you can folks to come to you. And you get Intimidate as a class skill. So that would take some of the problems of non mobility down by bring the bad guys to you.

[jmelesky]

Plus if you use the Feat Antongize as written you can folks to come to you. And you get Intimidate as a class skill. So that would take some of the problems of non mobility down by bring the bad guys to you.

Has there been an errata to that, yet?

[Mr. Zolrane]

Really, though, you're kind of running afoul of the fact that PF discourages prestige classes -- most base class features progress against class level, so it's always painful to move away. Also worth noting: lots of meaty stuff in the most recent sourcebook (Ultimate Magic), but no prestige classes at all.

I dunno, I wouldn't say that PF discourages it completely. Duelist, for example is actually great now with the right feats (read Dervish Dance), and PF provides an excellent way to prestige into it: Free-Hand Fighter. That's just an example mind you.

[MeeposFire]

But duelist isn't that good. YOu might as well stay fighter or find something better.

[Mr. Zolrane]

But duelist isn't that good. YOu might as well stay fighter or find something better.

Duelist is pretty nice. The flavor is amazing, and if used correctly I think it could be better than a pure FH Fighter.

[Seerow]

But duelist isn't that good. YOu might as well stay fighter or find something better.

Yeah even in pathfinder duelist is pretty bad. I just went and checked the free-hand fighter, and it's not much better, unless there's more feats besides dex to damage with a scimitar I'm not aware of. Because here's what I'm seeing:

From feats:
-Dex to hit
-Dex to damage

From Fighter 10:
-+3 to bluff and feint
-+3 to AC
-+1 to hit and damage
-Move action to negate shield to AC for 1 attack (not even a real disarm, seriously)

From Duelist 10:
-+int to AC (restricted to light armor)
-+10 damage (lost to crit immunity)
-The ability to trade an offensive attack to try to parry an attack. btw you take penalties for the enemy being bigger than you on this. Holy crap this ability is legitimately terrible.
-Acrobatic Charge
-A slightly better fight defensively
-Crippling Critical


Basically crippling critical is the only decent ability you got out of 20 levels. Everything else? Attempting to get your AC, Attack, and Damage, back up to par with where you would have been if you just used your weapon in two hands and power attacked like a normal person. I'm not even sure it actually succeeded there. You literally sacrifice all of your class abilities and levels to be able to use a bad fighting style to the same effect as someone else gains from investing a single feat into a good one, while getting real class features from a class that isn't focused on a bad fighting style.

Duelist may be better than a pure FH fighter, but you'd definitely be better off as a Mobility fighter, or just going for another class.

[jmelesky]

-The ability to trade an offensive attack to try to parry an attack. btw you take penalties for the enemy being bigger than you on this. Holy crap this ability is legitimately terrible.


It's not as terrible once you get Riposte. Then you can Parry and immediately counterattack as an AoO. So you aren't trading an attack to give someone a miss chance, you're trading it for that miss chance plus that same attack if the parry succeeds.

Not at all sure why it's limited to a single attack, though. And Parry's still not great, just not as terrible as it looks in isolation.

There are also a couple random bonuses (initiative, Reflex, mobility AC), and Deflect Arrows (which is cool and flavorful, and at least you're not spending a feat on it).


-Crippling Critical

That's the thing, though. You get that, at the end of the 10 levels (as a 17th level character if you prestiged as soon as you could from Fighter). In the meantime, as a Fighter, you could have picked up actual Critical feats.

Crippling Critical can:


Reduce speed by 10 ft (compare Crippling Critical (the feat), which halves speeds, but gives a save)
d4 damage to Str or Dex (compare Tiring Critical, which imposes -2 penalty on Str and Dex)
-4 to saves (compare to Sickening Critical, which imposes -2 on saves, attacks, damage rolls, skill and ability checks)
-4 to AC (this seems unique)
2d6 bleed (compare to Bleeding Critical)


So, if you wait until 17th level, you can pick up some Critical feat effects for free. But you give up Critical Mastery, as well as choosing your own Critical feats, or getting them starting at 11th level when they become available. And you still probably need Critical Focus, which you don't get for free.

Overall, i'd say the duelist doesn't compare to single-class Fighter.