How to build a low-level dwarf tank!

[Max Caysey]

So I want to make a tank, and while I understand that its not a thing like in wow, I still think the concept can be fun!

Now I'm choosing dwarf because I think they are cool and my wow-tank is dwarf. I'm however only going to be making it as a level 8.

So, what is a good number to reach in terms of AC? I'm hoping to reach about 40, but I'm uncertain if that is doable.

ny suggestions in terms of classes/PrC or feats will be most welcome...


Cheers!

[Darg]

So I want to make a tank, and while I understand that its not a thing like in wow, I still think the concept can be fun!

Now I'm choosing dwarf because I think they are cool and my wow-tank is dwarf. I'm however only going to be making it as a level 8.

So, what is a good number to reach in terms of AC? I'm hoping to reach about 40, but I'm uncertain if that is doable.

Any suggestions in terms of classes/PrC or feats will be most welcome. Also, if anyone knows or has suggestions in terms of what number I should reach, it will be most welcome!


Cheers!

High AC isn't really hard to get, just expensive. As you are a dwarf, I'd recommend at least a 2 level dip into deepwarden to exchange your dex to ac into con to ac. This way dex becomes a dump stat and the max dex modifier armors have becomes a non-issue. Standstill is a fantastic feat to keep things around you, well, around you instead of your allies. Improved trip and knockdown are nice to have too.

[Twurps]

There's a nice Dwarf tankish build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620266-Optimization-Showcase-in-the-Playground-Dahlver-Nah-Bro) showcase right here on the forum.
The second level of deepwarden comes in at lvl9, so that's a bit unfortunate for you. It's a good read for inspiration though.

[Gnaeus]

Some good advice above.

Here’s some negative advice. Do not take Dwarven Defender. It’s a core PRC that sounds exactly like what you want but is in fact crippling. Deepwarden is better in every way.

Also be careful about Knight. It also is designed for what you want but is tricky to make work well (Cha requirements, bogus code, some class features that point you in suboptimal directions, challenge often fails to do what you want in terns of aggro).

Do take Tome of Battle classes if allowed in your game.

[Nifft]

Seconding ToB: a Crusader can tank heckin' good, and that includes both being very tough and also being enough of a threat to justify attacking him instead of the squishy robed person in back.

It's not WoW in terms of aggro mechanics, but you can fake it pretty well.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Seconding ToB: a Crusader can tank heckin' good, and that includes both being very tough and also being enough of a threat to justify attacking him instead of the squishy robed person in back.

It's not WoW in terms of aggro mechanics, but you can fake it pretty well.ToB is also best if some multiclass dipping is used. Some crusader for healing, some swordsage for mobility (teleports) and utility, and some warblade to round everything else out.

Swordsage is especially important for a dwarf, since dwarves are very slow and have difficulty interposing themselves between enemies and allies due to this fact.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The problem with tanking in D&D is that there's no viable taunt or threat mechanics. Your character needs to pose a threat, and you need to prevent enemies from running past you to attack softer teammates.

Earth Dwarf (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/elementalRacialVariants.htm#racesOfEarth) gets +2 Str and Con.
Add on Dragonborn of Bahamut (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b&page=1) with the heart aspect to get a breath weapon.
Add on the Mineral Warrior (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031003e) template after Dragonborn, and buy off the level adjustment (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm).
You'll start out 3,000 xp behind everyone else, but you'll still have 8th level gear, and you'll gain more experience per encounter until you catch up.

Go Crusader 5/ Binder 1/ Hellreaver 5/ Crusader 9 in that order. Feats should be Entangling Exhalation in RotD, Stone Power, and Extra Granted Maneuver.
Take the quick trait (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#quick) and detatched trait if possible.
Take two flaws (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm) (more here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?258440-The-quot-Best-quot-Flaws#30)) if possible to get two extra feats. In that case also get Shield Specialization and Shield Ward in PH2.

Always bind Naberius for fast ability healing. Keep an odd-numbered ability score in Constitution. When you hit Hellreaver 5, Heroic Sacrifice deals 2 Con damage and you'll heal one point that same turn, then the next point on the following turn. With an odd-numbered Con score your modifier won't change and there won't be any math to do. So in a few levels you can spam your Hellreaver abilities and just recover the holy fury to keep it up with no actual drawbacks besides action economy.

Use your entangling breath attack as often as you can to keep as many opponents debuffed as possible. They'll be hindered from running past you to attack your allies, plus taking damage from you every turn, and be more likely to view you as a threat. On the turns you can't use that, you can full attack or use a stone dragon maneuver with stone power, or use a devoted spirit maneuver to heal someone, or use a high damage maneuver with furious strike. Whenever you gain an even-numbered Crusader level you can swap out a lower level maneuver for a higher level one. Stances known starting out should be iron guard's glare and either martial spirit or bolstering voice. Maneuvers known starting out should be revitalizing strike, battle leader's charge, mountain hammer, crusader's strike, vanguard strike, leading the attack, and charging minotaur.

8th level wealth is 27k gp:
+1 Full Plate (2,650 gp), Masterwork Armor Spikes (350 gp), Least Crystal of Adaptation (500 gp)
+1 Heavy Darkwood Shield (1,257 gp), Lesser Crystal of Arrow Deflection (2,500 gp)
+1 Dragonfang one-handed weapon (2,600 gp plus the base weapon price) (Dragonfang is in Draconomicon p117)
Anklet of Translocation (1,400 gp)
Necklace of Adaptation (9,000 gp)
Third Eye: Clarity (3,000 gp)
Scout's Headband (3,400 gp)
Ranged weapon, backup melee weapons.

[Akal Saris]

I would also recommend using a class from Tome of Battle - all 3 classes in it are a lot of fun to play. For a dwarf tank, there's a prestige class in the book, 'Deepstone Sentinel', which is designed for dwarf tanks. It requires a whopping 10 BAB though, so it's something to plan for the character's future.

For a non-ToB tank, generally you'd want some mix of fighter, barbarian, and whatever prestige class looks fun to you. Some fun options I'd suggest looking at:
- "Dungeoncrasher" fighter variant in Dungeonscape: this trades your level 2/6 bonus feat from fighter for the option to bullrush people into walls for damage
- this guide's "feat combos" section could have some good ideas for fun combat tactics. For a tank, a combination of attack-of-opportunity feats, tripping, and reach weapons is usually very good. See: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Fighters%27_Handbook_By_Dictum_Mortuum_(3.5e_Optim ized_Character_Build)

[Maat Mons]

Well, I do have a dwarven BFC idea that's I've never fully fleshed out.

Lesser Gray Dwarf (Player's Guide to Faerun, page 190): This is a +0 LA race that gives you Enlarge Person (self-only) as a SLA 1/day. At 8th level, your caster level is 16, for a duration of 16 minutes per casting.

Magic in the Blood (Player's Guide to Faerun, page 40): This is a feat available to gray dwarves from the Darklands. It ups their Enlarge Person spell-like ability to 3/day.

Quicken Spell-Like Ability (Monster Manual, page 304): This is a feat that allows you to use your Enlarge Person spell-like ability as a swift action. At least, it does when you get your caster level up to 10. But that happens at level 5, so you can grab this feat at 6th level.

Sundark Goggles (Races of the Dragon, page 123): These glorified sun glasses are goggles with tinted lenses that allow creatures with Light Sensitivity to suffer no penalties from it. Gray dwarves have Light Sensitivity, so you'll want to spend the 10 gp.

I figured it would be nice to have Large size without needing to be a caster, relying on magic items, relying on a friendly caster, or being stuck at Large size 24/7.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Six levels of Improved Trip dungeon crasher fighter would be great for battlefield control and would add some decent damage. It synergizes fairly well with a few dips in the three ToB classes, as well.

[Rebel7284]

Dragonborn Mongrelfolk
Full BAB X 2
Stoneblessed[Dwarf] 3
Fist of the Forest 1
Deepwarden 2

You don't start off as a Dwarf, but you become one.

Some fun features:
Mongrelfolks +4 Con
Dragonborn +2 Con
Stoneblessed +2 Con

2x Con to AC

Most of your feats are spend of qualifying for your prestige classes and you're real good at not being hit without needing to resort to any armor. Power attack does mean that you can contribute to hitting things with a big stick too, even if you are one BAB behind.

[Elves]

Tanking in 3e is usually done through attacks of opportunity "lockdown", rather than threat.

The easiest way to tank is with Iron Guard's Glare stance from Tome of Battle, which is one of the few tanky abilities in the game. You can get it with 1 level of crusader. All enemies you threaten have -4 on attacks against people besides you. Add a reach weapon and the enlarge person spell and you have a pretty wide lockdown radius.

AoO builds are a natural marriage to tripper builds, so in addition to Combat Reflexes, you want Improved Trip, and if possible, Exotic Weapon Proficiency for spiked chain or meteor hammer -- otherwise, use a guisarme. Another important lockdown feat is Mage Slayer, which means casters you threaten always provoke by casting a spell.

Because Combat Reflexes requires Dex, the deepwarden dip isn't useful to you if you go this route. Basically, choose whether tank to you means going the lockdown route or just maxing your AC.

Alternately, there are some Pathfinder classes with a more traditional taunt mechanic. If that's the kind of character you want to play, there's no reason that mechanic couldn't exist in the 3e system.

[Anthrowhale]

An unconventional approach is to rely on Allied Defense + touch attacks.

Allied Defense (+ Combat Expertise + Improved Combat Expertise) allows you to generate a defense zone for all adjacent allies.

In terms of touch attacks, you could make trip attacks to knock enemies down, use Deep Impact to generate hits, and throw splash weapons like a mad grenadier.

As a stub, something like:

Psionic Lesser Duergar (requires DM to look at psionic races and player's guide to faerun) Fighter 8
Feats:
1: Psionic Weapon
Fighter 1: Combat Expertise
Fighter 2: Allied Defense
3. Improved Trip
Fighter 4: ?Combat Reflexes?
6. Deep Impact
Fighter 6: Improved combat Expertise
Fighter 8: Quickdraw
9. Psionic Meditation

[Max Caysey]

Thanks a lot for all the great comments...

I am definitely looking at crusader and deepwarden... I was also considering fighter for some extra feats like shield specialization and shield ward. I am wondering tho, how many levels of each I should have. Deepwarden seem to be a two level dip, but what about crusader? I'm a little unsure of Hellreaver, but I will be looking into that...

So my plan was go traditional and opt for high AC... but I defiantly see why lockdown is important!

My plan was to dump charisma, so knight is out the window. While I like the class as a concept, it just seems really poorly build, and while über power is not sole goal of this build it still has to work and be a viable option. Knight seems detrimental to that. Initially I was looking at dwarven defender too... but it would seem, in the words of General Ackbar that: "ITS A TRAP!"

For armor I was thinking of going Reinforced, segmented, lightweight, oerthblooded, pure ore, mithral battleplate... most likely a warhammer and a tower shield... I haven't actually calculated the price yet, so I'm actually not sure I can afford it, but that was the initial plan.

Please keep the ideas coming, its great stuff!

Cheers!

[Elves]

So my plan was go traditional and opt for high AC...
I think that's cool. All the tripper builds get samey. Making the best of an old fashioned high AC dwarf warrior is simple and fun. Deepwarden justifies being a dwarf as well as why you're not going Combat Reflexes (don't need Dex).

Skeptical of Hellreaver being worth it. The bonuses are minor and they're sucking up all your swift actions.

Of course you do want some sort of swift action functionality. On that note, warblade dip at 9th for both WRT and IHS is something few martial builds can go wrong with.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So my plan was go traditional and opt for high AC... but I defiantly see why lockdown is important!
Of course you want some AC, but focusing on it is kind of a losing battle, since it gets so insanely expensive so quickly, and it tends heavily towards being easily negated and obviated for lots of reasons. Some tricks to get miss chances and (effective) invisibility so the enemy can't target you to start with would be preferable. For instance, take a race with darkvision (Hey! Dwarf!), invest in a cheap ring of the darkhidden, from the MIC, and find a way to cast the no light cantrip. Now the area will be flooded in darkness, you can't be targeted by anything without darkvision, and to anything with darkvision, you'll be invisible. Just gotta make sure the rest of the party has darkvision, as well. I'd suggest a level in cleric so you can get no light as an orison (and can thus cast it from scrolls and wands), and you'll get enlarge person, as well, which is a great boon to any melee character (especially a tripper).

If you want a decent AC for cheap, a fistful of +1 defending/morphing shurikens can be bought for cheap, they can be morphed into poison rings (from Dragon Compendium), and all those +1s can be converted into +1s to AC that stack with each other. Invest in a tooth of Leraje (ToM) to turn those +1 defending rings into +5 defending rings later on.

[ShurikVch]

You need a dwarven tank?
OK!
Craft (technological device) 25, creator must be a Tinker, price 1500 gp

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/wowpedia/images/7/7e/Siegeengine.gif/revision/latest?cb=20060724181421&format=original

Huge vehicle (14' x 25' x 12') 4500 lbs.
AC 20, hardness 10, 50 hp
Speed 350' (40 mph), poor maneuverability
Cargo 1200 lbs.
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 gunner, 1 passenger
Cannon: Exotic weapon, rate of fire 1/round, 5d6 bludgeoning, range 200'
Malfunction Rating: 3 for engine itself, 1 - for cannon

[Psyren]

If your GM doesn't like ToB or you want another option, consider Psychic Warrior, they make great tanks (using moreso the "area denial + survivability" meaning of the term that works better in D&D, than the "draws and holds aggro" from MMOs.)

If Psionics are off the table too, it gets harder, though I would then see if you can get Pathfinder classes like Warpriest or Inquisitor approved.

If all else fails you can't go wrong with Druid, or Cleric with the right PrCs.

[gijoemike]

Thanks a lot for all the great comments...

I am definitely looking at crusader and deepwarden... I was also considering fighter for some extra feats like shield specialization and shield ward. I am wondering tho, how many levels of each I should have. Deepwarden seem to be a two level dip, but what about crusader? I'm a little unsure of Hellreaver, but I will be looking into that...

So my plan was go traditional and opt for high AC... but I defiantly see why lockdown is important!

My plan was to dump charisma, so knight is out the window. While I like the class as a concept, it just seems really poorly build, and while über power is not sole goal of this build it still has to work and be a viable option. Knight seems detrimental to that. Initially I was looking at dwarven defender too... but it would seem, in the words of General Ackbar that: "ITS A TRAP!"

For armor I was thinking of going Reinforced, segmented, lightweight, oerthblooded, pure ore, mithral battleplate... most likely a warhammer and a tower shield... I haven't actually calculated the price yet, so I'm actually not sure I can afford it, but that was the initial plan.

Please keep the ideas coming, its great stuff!

Cheers!

Tower shield is more trouble than it is worth. Also, just understand this. 2 handed weapons are clearly superior to sword and shield. But the image of a tank is one with a shield - Instead go for heavy steel shield.

If you have feats to spare anywhere take these 3
Improved Shield Bash - you can attack with a shield and keep the AC bonus. Sadly not useful unless you are attacking with the shield often.

Shield Charge - use your shield to attack at the end of a charge. Free trip attack that ignores the return trip and AOO.
Shield Slam - when you hit with a shield at the end of a charge. Enemy makes fort save 10+1/2 lvl + str) DC or is Dazed.

Dazed = unable to take an action.


If you go with Shield Spec you can also go with Agile Shield Fighter from PHII. You can now use your shield as an extra attack with a full attack action and all attacks only get a -2.

Granted that is lots of feats.

[Max Caysey]

You need a dwarven tank?
OK!
Craft (technological device) 25, creator must be a Tinker, price 1500 gp

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/wowpedia/images/7/7e/Siegeengine.gif/revision/latest?cb=20060724181421&format=original

Huge vehicle (14' x 25' x 12') 4500 lbs.
AC 20, hardness 10, 50 hp
Speed 350' (40 mph), poor maneuverability
Cargo 1200 lbs.
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 gunner, 1 passenger
Cannon: Exotic weapon, rate of fire 1/round, 5d6 bludgeoning, range 200'
Malfunction Rating: 3 for engine itself, 1 - for cannon

I gotta know, is this actually doable? Like, are there rules for building this kind of thig in 3.5? Because that would be awesome!


Tower shield is more trouble than it is worth. Also, just understand this. 2 handed weapons are clearly superior to sword and shield. But the image of a tank is one with a shield - Instead go for heavy steel shield.


Yes, my idea is very much using a shield, and either a warhammer or dwarven waraxe... But more importantly, why are tower shield a bad choice? Its heavy, but made from mithral its not that bad... as were the idea...

[RNightstalker]

Yes, my idea is very much using a shield, and either a warhammer or dwarven waraxe.

Dwarves treat the Dwarven Urgosh as a martial weapon and it can be wielded one handed as a piercing or slashing weapon.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Also, just understand this. 2 handed weapons are clearly superior to sword and shield. But the image of a tank is one with a shield - Instead go for heavy steel shield.

One of the things I really appreciate about Crusader (and I will add my voice to the multitudes recommending that class for tanking) is that it gives you some real mechanical benefits for using a shield. Most of that is their counters, Shield Block and Shield Counter, but they're also proficient in "all shields", opening up the exotic shields you find in Races of Stone. The extreme shield, for instance, gives a +3, but doesn't have the penalties associated with tower shields (though IIRC you still can't shield bash with it).

[Elves]

And fighter can trade tower shield prof for extreme shield prof via an ACF I believe, if bashing isn't what you want to do. But the reason you might want to incorporate shield bashing is if you want the visual of the character holding the shield, since otherwise you will just want to get an animated shield and wield a 2h weapon.

[Maat Mons]

If you go Crusader, You'll want to take your 2nd level of it at level 8. That will let you pick up a 3rd-level stance. Which, for a tank character, should probably be Thicket of Blades.



Arguably, the best armor is thaalud stone armor (Anauroch: The Empire of Shade, page 108). It comes in at a hefty +12 armor bonus. But the maximum Dexterity bonus is +0, and it might not be possible to make it out of special materials.

A tower shield provides a +4 shield bonus to armor class, sure. But it also provides -2 penalty to attack rolls. Remember that you can't just turtle-up in this game. You don't have an agro system or much by way of taunts to force enemies to focus on you. If you obtain invulnerability at the cost of ceasing to be a threat, enemies will just ignore you and focus on your allies.

So an extreme shield would be more reasonable, since you wouldn't making any sacrifice to offense... above and beyond what's intrinsic to using any kind of shield. If you can get an ally to cast Magic Vestment on that and your thaalud stone armor, you're up to 29 AC. You could reasonably afford a Ring of Protection +1 and an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 on 8th-level wealth, but any more than that seems like too big a bite out of your 28,000-gp budget. With Reinforced, that's 32 AC.

There are lots of potential add-ons for armor. But you're already far over budget just on the Oerth blood (30,000 gp). Realistically, you're going to have to drop mithril (9,000 gp) and pure ore (7,000 gp) too. Some reasonably priced options to throw on include dwarvencraft and one of those armor or shield templates from Dungeonmaster's Guide II. I suggest soulforged, for +2 to resist bull rush and trip. Though I'm not sure if the bonus from soulforged armor stacks with the bonus from a soulforged shield.



Since you're going Deepwarden, you may as well take the Steadfast Determination feat as well.

My suggestion for overall build is... hmm... either Earth Dwarf Ranger 1 / Fighter 2 / Ranger +1 (strongarm combat style) / Crusader 1 / Deepwarden 2 / Crusader +1... or Gold Dwarf Ranger 1 / Paladin 2 / Ranger +1 (strongarm combat style) / Crusader 1 / Deepwarden 2 / Crusader +1.

[Anthrowhale]

Remember that you can't just turtle-up in this game. You don't have an agro system or much by way of taunts to force enemies to focus on you. If you obtain invulnerability at the cost of ceasing to be a threat, enemies will just ignore you and focus on your allies.

Allied Defense could change the 'who to attack?' equation at least against AC-attacking opponents, since enemies that don't attack you face substantially higher ACs against your allies.

[ShurikVch]

I gotta know, is this actually doable? Like, are there rules for building this kind of thig in 3.5? Because that would be awesome!
The info was taken from Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game (Tinker class, RAW for Creating Technological Devices) and Magic & Mayhem (the tank itself is on the pg. 189 as "Siege Engine")
If DM is OK with a tank in their game, and allow Warcraft stuff - then yes, this is actually doable

[Fouredged Sword]

I am going to suggest a slightly different thing.

Incarnum.

Ironsoul Forgemaster is a pretty cool class, especially as a one level dip. You don't want to enter via pure meldshaper, but

Incarnate 2 / (Fighter/warblade/crusader) 4 / Ironsoul Forgemaster 1 / X is a fun dip for a build that is mostly a melee fighter.

I prefer entry using Crusader for even more tankyness.

Ironsoul Forgemaster 1 grants one class feature - the ability to invest essence into your shield to get resistance to the 5 most common energy types 5/point. You should easily be able to invest 2-3 points into it on short order and resistance 15 all day every day makes you a LOT more resistant to damage.

Ironsoul Forgemaster is viable as a non-dip as well, but mostly if you want to play late game as the weapon bond adds a daze effect to all of your weapon attacks, including choosing to make non-damaging touch attacks with your weapon. Very few things are immune to daze. The save isn't that high, but you can make things take that save repeatedly. You are going to want to stack con for HP anyway.

If you are playing the 1-6 levels and have flaws as a rule, then I am going to suggest stacking the feat "roll with it". Roll with It is a feat you can take multiple times and grants DR 2/- that stacks with everything. It requires con 20 and the toughness feat. That means that flaws are useful to get the ball rolling early, but other options exist.

Monk 2 / Fighter 4 is a viable. ToB is likely better, but ToB is not always on the table. What you are looking to do is take decisive strike as an ACF in place of flurry and the Undying Way alternate monk feat set to pick up toughness as a bonus feat allowing you to take Roll with It at first level.

Decisive Strike is a good way to deal damage at low levels. Being able to take a full round action to deal double damage is a good deal before iterative attacks are even a thing. Wield a quarterstaff as a two handed weapon. Take power attack at 3rd level.

You start with DR 2/- and this solves a NUMBER of first level problems. This advances to DR 4/- at 3rd level and 6/- at 6th level. You get evasion at 2nd level so can avoid AOO's with irritating regularity.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Oh, I forgot to mention Devoted Defender. This is a fantastic little prestige class that gives you three great tanking options in the first three levels: the ability to swap places with an ally, taking the attack instead of them, the ability to retaliate against foes attacking an ally with an AoO, and the ability to parry attacks on an ally.

[liquidformat]

High AC isn't really hard to get, just expensive. As you are a dwarf, I'd recommend at least a 2 level dip into deepwarden to exchange your dex to ac into con to ac. This way dex becomes a dump stat and the max dex modifier armors have becomes a non-issue. Standstill is a fantastic feat to keep things around you, well, around you instead of your allies. Improved trip and knockdown are nice to have too.

standstill is strictly worse than the combination of Improved trip and knockdown, but in either case you would want combat reflexes. The downside to trying a tripper build with a crusader dwarf is you are normally dumping dex to be a dwarven crusader which is the opposite of what makes a good tripper.

There are actually a couple different ways you could go with this the classic and easiest way is going tripper build in which case something like this is a great choice:
Dwarf Barbarian 2/Crusader 2/Psychic Warrior 2/Crusader 3-4
Wolf Totem is a must lion spirit totem is nice but not mandatory, similarly frenzy is a good choice for the bonus dex but not mandatory. For Psychic Warrior you could possibly take Mantled Warrior ACF but the bonus feat is also quite nice, your first power should be Expansion second is debatable vigor Defensive Precognition are probably the best options though Biofeedback and Thicken Skin aren't horrible.
I would suggest taking your first level of barbarian at first so you can take wolf berserker feat for an added bonus to tripping at level 1 and Knockdown at level 3. If you are playing with Flaws then take Combat Reflexes as a flaw, otherwise take it at level 5 as your Psychic Warrior 1 feat. Beyond that Stone Power is decent if you are not going above level 8 otherwise I would pass on it. Besides that there are a number of good Devotion feats and as said above Shape Soulmeld is a great idea or a level of Binder. Psychic Renewal is also very powerful.

Another Idea is going with two shields and Fighter 2-4/Crusader 4-6 and focusing on fighting with a shield in both hands it is a comically fun idea but I have not taken the time to flesh out the whole build concept.

[Gruftzwerg]

I gotta know, is this actually doable? Like, are there rules for building this kind of thig in 3.5? Because that would be awesome!


There are multiple ways to do this.

1. craft construct
2. Animate Objects spell + permanency
3. Be a Warforged with access to Alter Self and shape into Animated Object form
4. Have access to 16 lvls of Urban Wild Shape (ACF Druid / Urban Druid) to shape into Animated Objects

As Animated Object you can look however you want, be it a giant tank or giant gundam/super robot/mecha. Give it wheels for extra speed and if you want sheetlike wings to have the option to fly.

The rules for exotic mounts covers the rest. You need to become Huge sized to carry 4 medium sized characters.

There is a build in the recent Iron Chef competition (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24938996&postcount=113)for the 3rd option. Maybe what you are looking for? A warforged tattooed monk that can Alter Self for hours/class lvl.

[Darg]

standstill is strictly worse than the combination of Improved trip and knockdown

Not true. Stand still is usable against larger enemies, you aren't disadvantaged against creatures with more limbs/larger size, and you don't increase the ranged ac of the target, and prone targets can still crawl (even if it is only 5 ft per move).

It also isn't that difficult to improve your dex bonus later on. If dex isn't completely dumped, cat's grace gives +4 to dex. With a base 10 dex, you get 3 AoOs with combat reflexes.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Not true. Stand still is usable against larger enemies, you aren't disadvantaged against creatures with more limbs/larger size, and you don't increase the ranged ac of the target, and prone targets can still crawl (even if it is only 5 ft per move).


Plus, higher level enemies have a nasty tendency to have magical flight, which makes them completely immune to being tripped. Freedom of movement would likewise probably kill Stand Still, but I imagine it's less common than flight in enemies.

[Nifft]

Plus, higher level enemies have a nasty tendency to have magical flight, which makes them completely immune to being tripped. Freedom of movement would likewise probably kill Stand Still, but I imagine it's less common than flight in enemies.

I don't think Freedom of Movement can protect against Stand Still (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill).

Here's the relevant wording:



If you hit your foe, he must succeed on a Reflex save against a DC of 10 + your damage roll (the opponent does not actually take damage), or immediately halt as if he had used up his move actions for the round.


Freedom of Movement shouldn't protect you from using up your move actions for the round.

[Fouredged Sword]

I don't think Freedom of Movement can protect against Stand Still (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill).

Here's the relevant wording:



Freedom of Movement shouldn't protect you from using up your move actions for the round.

Depends how the DM rules it. Can you normally move after something makes you act as if your move actions are expended, or is normal the state of not having your move actions expended unless you actually move?

Under the first you stop, under the second you don't.

[liquidformat]

Not true. Stand still is usable against larger enemies, you aren't disadvantaged against creatures with more limbs/larger size, and you don't increase the ranged ac of the target, and prone targets can still crawl (even if it is only 5 ft per move).

It also isn't that difficult to improve your dex bonus later on. If dex isn't completely dumped, cat's grace gives +4 to dex. With a base 10 dex, you get 3 AoOs with combat reflexes.

Crawling also triggers an AOO so its the same as trying to stand up, but point taken.


Plus, higher level enemies have a nasty tendency to have magical flight, which makes them completely immune to being tripped. Freedom of movement would likewise probably kill Stand Still, but I imagine it's less common than flight in enemies.

I thought you strictly could tripper fliers and it makes them fall a certain distance but AFB so not sure if that is just something our table does... We also play with FoM doesn't prevent you from being tripped since tripping isn't expressly called out in the spell.

[loky1109]

As you are a dwarf, I'd recommend at least a 2 level dip into deepwarden to exchange your dex to ac into con to ac. This way dex becomes a dump stat and the max dex modifier armors have becomes a non-issue.
You are not fully right. Max Dex is limit for Con to AC from deepwarden, too. I saw it in some FAQ.

[Fouredged Sword]

You are not fully right. Max Dex is limit for Con to AC from deepwarden, too. I saw it in some FAQ.

I am also unsure of the wisdom of a multi-level dip for something you could get for gold. AC bonuses are not hard to come by.

[Aleolus]

If your DM allows third-party sources, there is a book published by AEG called Feats which has three feats that would be right up your alley.

First off is Armor Focus. Pick a type of armor (probably heavy in your case), and you get a +1 competence bonus to your AC while wearing that armor, and your ACP goes down by 1.
Then you have Armor Specialization. Pick a type of armor you have Armor Focus for, and gain an additional +2 Competence bonus to AC while wearing that armor, and your ACP goes down by another 2.
Finally, Armor Mastery. Same as the other two, but your competence bonus to AC goes up by another 3 and ACP goes down by another 3.

So three feats (all of which can be taken as Fighter Bonus Feats, so you could have them all at Fighter level 2), and you get a +6 to your AC and a 6 point reduction to your ACP. Get a suit of Full Plate, and you have and AC of 24 before you add anything else, as well as an ACP of only -1

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I thought you strictly could tripper fliers and it makes them fall a certain distance but AFB so not sure if that is just something our table does... We also play with FoM doesn't prevent you from being tripped since tripping isn't expressly called out in the spell.

Anything that uses wings to fly follows those rules, yes. Anything that flies without wings can't be tripped, period.

[Remuko]

You are not fully right. Max Dex is limit for Con to AC from deepwarden, too. I saw it in some FAQ.

Hmm I don't think that's right


Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. In such a situation, the deepwarden would still be considered flat-footed.

The latter part is talking about being flat footed, nothing in the feat suggests con should abide by max dex, and honestly, given the context of the class, it also doesnt make sense, imo.

[loky1109]

Hmm I don't think that's right
The latter part is talking about being flat footed, nothing in the feat suggests con should abide by max dex, and honestly, given the context of the class, it also doesnt make sense, imo.


Does the deepwarden’s Stone Warden ability (RS 105) still have a maximum Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class, and does that maximum still apply to his Constitution?
The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were playing a deepwarden wearing full plate, you would only add 1 to your Armor Class from your Constitution.

As I said - FAQ.

[Elves]

FAQ has no rules weight, though in this case the comparisons to Dexterity make it a reasonable ruling. But it's not a good ruling IMO. AC maxing is already underpowered and hardy dwarf tank is a classic concept.

[loky1109]

FAQ has no rules weight, though in this case the comparisons to Dexterity make it a reasonable ruling. But it's not a good ruling IMO. AC maxing is already underpowered and hardy dwarf tank is a classic concept.

Yes, you are right in all, but this is still ambiguous.

[Nifft]

Depends how the DM rules it. Can you normally move after something makes you act as if your move actions are expended, or is normal the state of not having your move actions expended unless you actually move?

You can move if you use a different action type.

Your movement isn't hindered by Stand Still.

Just some of your actions are removed.

[Darg]

You can move if you use a different action type.

Your movement isn't hindered by Stand Still.

Just some of your actions are removed.

I have to agree with this. If a wall suddenly appeared in front of you in the middle of your move, freedom of movement wouldn't simply let you walk through the wall as if it weren't there.

[liquidformat]

Anything that uses wings to fly follows those rules, yes. Anything that flies without wings can't be tripped, period.

My normal table apparently just expanded it to all flight, not just winged. Where is it stated that magical flight can't be tripped?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

My normal table apparently just expanded it to all flight, not just winged. Where is it stated that magical flight can't be tripped?

Ah, here we are, from the Rules Compendium:


You can’t trip a burrowing creature, an
incorporeal creature, a swimming creature, or a creature that
doesn’t rely on limbs for locomotion.

...

Tripping a Flying Defender
A winged creature can be tripped, and if it is, it falls as
if it didn’t maintain its minimum forward speed. See Fly,
page 92.

Looks like I was misremembering slightly; I thought it explicitly called out magical flight. There's an argument to be made that since humanoids do rely on legs for locomotion they can still be tripped while using a fly spell or something, but I think that they call out specifically winged creatures in the subsection on tripping flying opponents suggests that it's RAI you can only trip something that's actively flying using its wings/maybe other flying limbs.

[Gruftzwerg]

As I said - FAQ.
I'll support the FAQ's view on the Deepwarden. The ability gives you only the permission to treat you CON bonus as DEX bonus. It never touched the max DEX rule of armor. This ain't monks WIS to armor ability. It targets DEX bonus to armor and only allows you use another value instead. Since max DEX rule wasn't touched it has to deal with it normally.




Ah, here we are, from the Rules Compendium:



Looks like I was misremembering slightly; I thought it explicitly called out magical flight. There's an argument to be made that since humanoids do rely on legs for locomotion they can still be tripped while using a fly spell or something, but I think that they call out specifically winged creatures in the subsection on tripping flying opponents suggests that it's RAI you can only trip something that's actively flying using its wings/maybe other flying limbs.

Interesting. Lets sum this up quickly:

1) Only winged flying creatures can be tripped
2) If the tripped (winged) flying creature can't hover (good/perfect maneuverability or Hover feat), it falls since it counts as "not maintaining minimum forward speed".

[Darg]

I'll support the FAQ's view on the Deepwarden. The ability gives you only the permission to treat you CON bonus as DEX bonus. It never touched the max DEX rule of armor.

I would disagree. It says you use your Con bonus instead of your Dex bonus. It never says you treat the Con bonus as the Dex bonus. The only time the Con bonus is lost is when your Dex bonus would be denied. It says nothing about it being reduced when your dex bonus is reduced or limited. Another example of this is the helpless condition. A deepwarden would not suffer the dexterity loss to AC as a result of the condition and keep the Con bonus to AC.

[Gruftzwerg]

I would disagree. It says you use your Con bonus instead of your Dex bonus. It never says you treat the Con bonus as the Dex bonus. The only time the Con bonus is lost is when your Dex bonus would be denied. It says nothing about it being reduced when your dex bonus is reduced or limited. Another example of this is the helpless condition. A deepwarden would not suffer the dexterity loss to AC as a result of the condition and keep the Con bonus to AC.

We seem to have different points of view here.

Imho the ability targets the general Armor Class (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#armorClass)rule:

Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:

10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier

Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.

Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)
If you use CON instead of DEX you also have to do it for the armor DEX limit part of the "Armor Class" rule. You can't stop midway in the Armor Class rule with the "instead". If you use the Stone Warden ability you also use your CON instead of your DEX to determine the armor bonus limit.

[Max Caysey]

We seem to have different points of view here.

Imho the ability targets the general Armor Class (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#armorClass)rule:

If you use CON instead of DEX you also have to do it for the armor DEX limit part of the "Armor Class" rule. You can't stop midway in the Armor Class rule with the "instead". If you use the Stone Warden ability you also use your CON instead of your DEX to determine the armor bonus limit.

So, I knew the FAQ said that, however, since I feel it defeated the purpose of the stonewarded ability, I have always considered one of the times the FAQ-master simply made a mistake. Sure you could have negative modifier, but its not too difficult to get >+10 to con, and then still be limited to + 1 by full plate seems counter intuitive. Especially since AC basically is a loosing game... I know you could use mithril, segmented, nimble, etc... that would give a full plate +5 dex, but its still not the +10 which a dwarf that focuses on that could have... If the FAQ is included, deepwarden is not worth a 2 level dip... and since its the only thing the class has going for it, I would say that the FAQ writer basically is destroying the class by the veery call... Natually thats just my opinion, which probably differs from a lot of others...

I don't know how my DM would rule tho... Right now, the character is still in the building phase...

[Gruftzwerg]

So, I knew the FAQ said that, however, since I feel it defeated the purpose of the stonewarded ability, I have always considered one of the times the FAQ-master simply made a mistake. Sure you could have negative modifier, but its not too difficult to get >+10 to con, and then still be limited to + 1 by full plate seems counter intuitive. Especially since AC basically is a loosing game... I know you could use mithril, segmented, nimble, etc... that would give a full plate +5 dex, but its still not the +10 which a dwarf that focuses on that could have... If the FAQ is included, deepwarden is not worth a 2 level dip... and since its the only thing the class has going for it, I would say that the FAQ writer basically is destroying the class by the veery call... Natually thats just my opinion, which probably differs from a lot of others...

I don't know how my DM would rule tho... Right now, the character is still in the building phase...

The problem I see is, that it was never intended to improve your ability to use armor. The sole purpose (by rule text) is to exchange the ability modifiers in the AC rule.

And IIRC there are more options to raise max dex to armor.
Further, there is the option to go for Bracers of Armor (or one of those unique robes that give AC). They are there for a reason. If you boost your CON modifier into nirvana, you should have enough guts to run around like Conan and just rely on bracers (or armor) ;)

Your DM might still be fine to houserule it. It's not that I would strictly advice against it. It's just that if you dig enough, there are still options to make it worth.

[Elves]

Also, from a fluff perspective, doesn't make a lot of sense that heavy armor restricts how tough you are.

I think from the wording it's pretty clear that the Con bonus is meant to function as the Dex bonus, but it's one of those things I'd houserule.

[Nifft]

From the looks of the prereqs and skills, Deepwarden seems to have been intended for use by Dwarf Rangers.

That's a class which tends to favor light armor, so perhaps the designer who wrote that ability didn't intend the class to be used by heavy-armor wearers?

But then the proficiencies give access to all heavy armor, so *shrug* who knows.

On the subject of giving heavy armor proficiency, Deepwarden is compatible with Dragonscale Husk (from Dragon Magic). So it's got that going for it, which is nice.

[Max Caysey]

The problem I see is, that it was never intended to improve your ability to use armor. The sole purpose (by rule text) is to exchange the ability modifiers in the AC rule.

And IIRC there are more options to raise max dex to armor.
Further, there is the option to go for Bracers of Armor (or one of those unique robes that give AC). They are there for a reason. If you boost your CON modifier into nirvana, you should have enough guts to run around like Conan and just rely on bracers (or armor) ;)

Your DM might still be fine to houserule it. It's not that I would strictly advice against it. It's just that if you dig enough, there are still options to make it worth.

Sure, but that would defeat the concept of a tank IMO. At least the concept of a tank I'm going for. I fully understand that AC is not only a poor stat to optimize and armor generally isn't worth it, but the point of the excercise was to make a dwarf fully encassed in armor at least battleplate that tanks all the blows... Even though I know its inferior to miss chance or going unarmored...

[Elves]

Yeah just say screw the world and let it stack OP.

[Darg]

If you use CON instead of DEX you also have to do it for the armor DEX limit part of the "Armor Class" rule. You can't stop midway in the Armor Class rule with the "instead". If you use the Stone Warden ability you also use your CON instead of your DEX to determine the armor bonus limit.

You are right. I think "limits dexterity bonus" means to limit the dexterity bonus. It does not replace your dex bonus, it simply overlaps it. So while your dex bonus is still limited by the armor, your con bonus is not.

The rules tell you what you can and can't do. It does not say that it replaces your dex to AC; it says you add your con instead if the bonus is higher. The only time you lose this bonus is when you would be denied your dex bonus such as being flat footed. Another situation that specifically only applies to dex besides the armor dex limit is being attacked by an invisible foe. You don't lose your con bonus as it only ignores your dex bonus and it is not denied. You wouldn't make this dex only scenario apply to the deepwarden ability too, would you?

[Gruftzwerg]

You are right. I think "limits dexterity bonus" means to limit the dexterity bonus. It does not replace your dex bonus, it simply overlaps it. So while your dex bonus is still limited by the armor, your con bonus is not.

The rules tell you what you can and can't do. It does not say that it replaces your dex to AC; it says you add your con instead if the bonus is higher. The only time you lose this bonus is when you would be denied your dex bonus such as being flat footed. Another situation that specifically only applies to dex besides the armor dex limit is being attacked by an invisible foe. You don't lose your con bonus as it only ignores your dex bonus and it is not denied. You wouldn't make this dex only scenario apply to the deepwarden ability too, would you?

You may not like my answer, but...
Primary Source Rule.. (PSR)

1. The PSR dictates that all rules in the PHB are primary source and thus general rules.
2. Stone Warden targets and alters the general Armor Class rule.
3. As such, you have the option to use your CON modifier instead of DEX modifier for the entire Armor Class rule. This also exchanges "max DEX bonus" into "max CON bonus". You can't stop halfway with the "instead", it targets the entire Armor Class section. The max DEX bonus is not excluded by the Stone Warden ability in any way, if you use it.

4. Since the general rule for AC get altered here, all other rules that make use of the general Armor Class rule also get altered.
5. The flat footed part is just a "friendly reminder". It didn't change anything the the previous sentences already did. It just reminds you and shows how the rules from the previous sentences are applied.
6. You have to apply the DEX to CON exchange for all AC related rules/abilities. This also extend to things like "an invisible attacker" since it also targets the general AC rule and thus also has to face the same changes.

[ShurikVch]

The essential part of any successful "tank" is to attract enemies to you
Thus, one of the best solutions is the Weresheep flaw for Commoners (Dragon #330): when you take your hybrid form, "all monsters attack you if able" and you would get bonus to you Dex, Con, Wis, DR/silver and pair of claws...

[Nifft]

The essential part of any successful "tank" is to attract enemies to you
Thus, one of the best solutions is the Weresheep flaw for Commoners (Dragon #330): when you take your hybrid form, "all monsters attack you if able" and you would get bonus to you Dex, Con, Wis, DR/silver and pair of claws...

Commoners are so video-gamey.

[Darg]

You may not like my answer, but...
Primary Source Rule.. (PSR)

1. The PSR dictates that all rules in the PHB are primary source and thus general rules.
2. Stone Warden targets and alters the general Armor Class rule.
3. As such, you have the option to use your CON modifier instead of DEX modifier for the entire Armor Class rule. This also exchanges "max DEX bonus" into "max CON bonus". You can't stop halfway with the "instead", it targets the entire Armor Class section. The max DEX bonus is not excluded by the Stone Warden ability in any way, if you use it.

4. Since the general rule for AC get altered here, all other rules that make use of the general Armor Class rule also get altered.
5. The flat footed part is just a "friendly reminder". It didn't change anything the the previous sentences already did. It just reminds you and shows how the rules from the previous sentences are applied.
6. You have to apply the DEX to CON exchange for all AC related rules/abilities. This also extend to things like "an invisible attacker" since it also targets the general AC rule and thus also has to face the same changes.

The primary source rule is not a catch all enforcement of your view of the rules. The primary source for con as ac is the deepwarden's ability. The primary source of the armor dex limit is the phb. It only mentions dex. Primary source doesn't even apply in this situation anyways as the deepwarden's ability doesn't state that it is replacing the dex quality of applying its bonus to ac. It is written the way it is so that you don't add the con bonus ontop of the dex bonus. They overlap, do not stack, and one does not replace the other.

[Gruftzwerg]

The primary source rule is not a catch all enforcement of your view of the rules. The primary source for con as ac is the deepwarden's ability. The primary source of the armor dex limit is the phb. It only mentions dex. Primary source doesn't even apply in this situation anyways as the deepwarden's ability doesn't state that it is replacing the dex quality of applying its bonus to ac. It is written the way it is so that you don't add the con bonus ontop of the dex bonus. They overlap, do not stack, and one does not replace the other.



The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions.

1. The PHB sets the general rules to play the game. All other sources can only make specific exceptions for their niche.

2. Stone Warden alters the "Armor Class (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#armorClass)" rule by exchanging DEX modifier to CON modifier. And when it does that, it exchanged all instances, not only those parts that appeal your argumentation. As such, the "max DEX modifier" gets exchanged into " max CON modifier".

3. Since Armor's "max DEX modifier" stat refers to the more general "Armor Class" rule (which is higher in the hierarchy since "max DEX modifier" is just a part of it). As such, all armor that you wear while using Stone Warden has a max CON bonus until you disable the ability.

[liquidformat]

1. The PHB sets the general rules to play the game. All other sources can only make specific exceptions for their niche.

2. Stone Warden alters the "Armor Class (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#armorClass)" rule by exchanging DEX modifier to CON modifier. And when it does that, it exchanged all instances, not only those parts that appeal your argumentation. As such, the "max DEX modifier" gets exchanged into " max CON modifier".

3. Since Armor's "max DEX modifier" stat refers to the more general "Armor Class" rule (which is higher in the hierarchy since "max DEX modifier" is just a part of it). As such, all armor that you wear while using Stone Warden has a max CON bonus until you disable the ability.

From a RAW point of view I would agree with you, from a RAI I don't. Thematically, a 'toughness' AC bonus based on Con score doesn't seem like it should be limited by max dex since one is how well and you move and react in armor and the other is how well can you take a hit without being damaged by it.

[Gruftzwerg]

From a RAW point of view I would agree with you, from a RAI I don't. Thematically, a 'toughness' AC bonus based on Con score doesn't seem like it should be limited by max dex since one is how well and you move and react in armor and the other is how well can you take a hit without being damaged by it.

as said, I don't wanna imply that you should forcefully follow it at your table. The world won't break apart if you don't^^
It just that I feel that there are still options to bypass this slight issue (invest into a bit more expensive Bracers of Armor). Because, the word won't break apart either, just because your need to pay a bit more for your armor replacement.

On the other hand, if a player wants to play a heavy armored Deepwarden for fluff reasons, I would be the last one at the table to have a problem to houserule it away. ;)

RAW is RAW
RAI is RAI
and how we play is how we play:smallbiggrin:

[Darg]

2. Stone Warden alters the "Armor Class (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#armorClass)" rule by exchanging DEX modifier to CON modifier. And when it does that, it exchanged all instances, not only those parts that appeal your argumentation. As such, the "max DEX modifier" gets exchanged into " max CON modifier".

This is where I have to disagree. No where does it say that you are exchanging one bonus for another. They are separate bonuses. You are conflating using one bonus instead of another for exchanging or replacement. Something that affects your dexterity will not affect your Con. As I mentioned before, invisible creatures ignore your dex bonus, but cannot ignore your con bonus.

As you can't say it functions as dex in all scenarios, it cannot apply to armor's maximum dex bonus quality. To say it does is simply house ruling a nerf to something that doesn't need it.

[Gruftzwerg]

This is where I have to disagree. No where does it say that you are exchanging one bonus for another. They are separate bonuses. You are conflating using one bonus instead of another for exchanging or replacement. Something that affects your dexterity will not affect your Con. As I mentioned before, invisible creatures ignore your dex bonus, but cannot ignore your con bonus.

As you can't say it functions as dex in all scenarios, it cannot apply to armor's maximum dex bonus quality. To say it does is simply house ruling a nerf to something that doesn't need it.

Primary Source Rule strikes back again ;)

PSR never stops to annoy us all (believe me, I had a headache for years because of it. and I like to share a bit of that pain^^).

What does the "max DEX modifier" target?
Correct, the "DEX bonus to AC" sentence.

As such, the "max DEX modifier" rule is more specific subrule of "DEX bonus to AC". If you make any exceptional changes to the general rule, that affects all related subrules.

E.g. There are several options can affect/target "charge". They also indirectly affect any charge subcategories like Dive attacks (flying charge).

We have here the same situation. When you exchange the DEX modifier to CON modifier, you do it also for all related subcategories. And "max DEX bonus to AC" is one of em.

[Darg]

When you exchange the DEX modifier to CON modifier, you do it also for all related subcategories.

The problem with your argument is that you have no proof or evidence to back this up. Show me the rule that says that when something calls a specific source of a bonus out it affects all other sources of that bonus.

There is no rule that says an invisible creature ignores a con bonus to AC.
There is no rule that says that a maximum Dexterity bonus applies to a con bonus.

Extrapolate all you want, but the text does not say your con bonus functions as your dex bonus. To say it does is simply house rule territory.

[Twurps]

Would this (or a couple of posts back actually, but better late than never,) be a good time to stick to the topic and either start a seperate thread for the whole con to AC thing, or just let it rest?

[rrwoods]

Would this (or a couple of posts back actually, but better late than never,) be a good time to stick to the topic and either start a seperate thread for the whole con to AC thing, or just let it rest?
As always!

[loky1109]

From a RAW point of view I would agree with you, from a RAI I don't. Thematically, a 'toughness' AC bonus based on Con score doesn't seem like it should be limited by max dex since one is how well and you move and react in armor and the other is how well can you take a hit without being damaged by it.

Sounds like DR, not AC.
I thick Stone Warden is not at all about breakin' bricks about a head. It is still about movement, but different movement.

[Gruftzwerg]

The problem with your argument is that you have no proof or evidence to back this up. Show me the rule that says that when something calls a specific source of a bonus out it affects all other sources of that bonus.

There is no rule that says an invisible creature ignores a con bonus to AC.
There is no rule that says that a maximum Dexterity bonus applies to a con bonus.

Extrapolate all you want, but the text does not say your con bonus functions as your dex bonus. To say it does is simply house rule territory.

It's the basic way to combine related effects. (Primary Source Rule)

See charge and the subcategories dive and mounted charge. Under your ruling anything charge related would need to call out dive and mounted charge too to affect them, but that is not the chase. You can freely combine all charge related affect with all forms of charge (including its subcategories).

Invisible creature rule refers to the general Armor Class rule. As such it is affected by the Stone Warden ability of a target enemy.

When I'm invisible and attack you, "I" ignore your "DEX bonus to AC". As such, "you" can't respond by exchanging that value anymore, since it target has become invalid/unavailable. Remember that Attack bonus and AC and fix values and are constantly altered by any situational modifiers/changes. This is one of em. A hard denial of "DEX bonus to AC" any any related ability.
e.g If someone uses Sanctuary (spell) you can't attack him. You can't bypass it just because you use Power Attack, Grapple , Sneak Attack or any other subcategory of attack. Because the general change carries over to all subcategories.


@Twurps
Sorry if we derailed the thread a bit. It's just that it always feels to me that the next argument should settle the dispute and it feels unnecessary/stupid to open an entire thread just for that..
It's sometimes hard to predict when it is needed and when not.. and the intention here is IIRC not to make a separate thread for each and every mini dispute that maybe can handled in 1-3posts. Most of the time a single friendly reminder post is enough to point out the logical error or the rule ignored. We all make mistakes and misremember things.
But thx for pointing it out. If we can't agree, we'll move the discussion out.