3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

[SpicyBoi_Nezu]

I'm playing in a campaign with my friend and his family, run by his dad. There are 6 players, but only my friend and I had played dnd before this. Our DM specifically prohibited us from trying to make "Optimized" or "Overpowered" characters, so that the other 4 have a more fun time (Although so far, they'd be having more fun if we didn't have to struggle through combat, carrying them on our backs).

As such, this campaign is run with only the races, classes, feats, and spells listed in the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook - Core Rulebook I v3.5. I'm planning on changing my character from the heavily nerfed wizard (Fireball and Haste were not allowed, amongst other spells) to the party Tank after the most recent encounter where both I and the former tank got killed.

We will be playing at level 7, and build under the assumption that this will be a "low magic" campaign. Of our party of 6, there were only 2 spellcasters, and we each had multiple prohibited spells, being the Healer-Cleric and Buffer-Wizard, now we only have the Cleric. Most magic items at least twice the base prices, or not available at all, so this will be optimized with as little magic as possible.

I was thinking fighter, using a reach weapon, wearing full plate and saving for an Animated Shield. Feats will consist mostly of Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, and Improved trip. With the optional power attack and Weapon Focus/Specialization line. If I can get my healer to stick close and pair up with teammates to flank, then this should be sufficient, considering the last tank had lower AC than the healer, and acted more as a melee dps with 26 AC.

****UPDATE****

This last session we had a few days ago, the DM sat down with us and explained his plans for the future. Which goes as follows.

1. We are all going to make new characters, and start over at level 1. These characters will play in the exact same world (One of them is related to a member of the original party), with mostly the same npcs, cities, and using the same map.

2. We will play our current characters (going back to before the last mission) through the end of the year, and possibly a little into the New Year.

3. We had a lengthy discussion about things we can change about the world, access to items, towns, cities, overall worldbuilding, and possibly opening up a larger world, considering this Campaign had spend 3 out of game years adventuring between and around less than 5 cities with a max distance of 4 weeks travel across. He also plans to have planned out different item and service pricings determined by the size of the city/town. As well as preemptively drawing up a top down map of each city with organized npcs, buildings, temples, inns, etc. so we can save time when entering each city.

4. Starting with our new characters, we planned out a party composition which goes as follows. Fights are probably going to be more drawn out, but we can play safer.
-Elf Paladin
-Non-Human Rogue (He hasn't decided a race)
-Dwarf Cleric (Strength and War Domains) [Main Tank]
-Halfling Bard
-Human Wizard (My friend)
-Human Ranger/Fighter [Horizon Tripper Build] (Me)

5. We planned out connections between a few of our characters, because moving on, the DM wants to adjust this campaign to remain focused on having fun roleplaying, and not focusing too heavily on the combat.

6. We started putting the characters together, my friend and I worked with the other players to aid in the construction of their characters.

7. After the session the DM, my friend, and I had a lengthy discussion about what went wrong, and whether the right choice was to restart entirely. My friend advocated that it sent the wrong message, but we agreed that it gave the newer players more of a chance to learn the game and work slowly up to a higher level with more challenges. We explained that both of the characters we had been playing had been built for low stress situations, and focused on roleplay, and they couldn't adapt to the change in pace, since we had limited them. Moving on, we will not be as limited, but any questionable character choices must be approved by the DM.

**DISCLAIMER**

This is the first proper campaign that this DM has run, he has run multiple small scale ones, but none of this magnitude. I have heard recommendations that I or my friend run a campaign, but I have very little experience with DM-ing large scale campaigns, and my friend has one campaign that he has run multiple times with different parties, but it's meant for more experience players. Both my friend and I had worked throughout the campaign acting as the rules lawyers and dictionaries for the rules, because we are more well versed in the ins and outs of d&d 3.5e.

[Doctor Despair]

For the archetype, I think the Horizon Tripper was core-only and somewhat in the realm of what you want. Just double-check it's not too powerful for your group.

[Particle_Man]

Would a prestige class from the dmg be allowed? Because Horizon Tripper (a core horizon walker trip build) could be a lot of fun.

[Telonius]

Yeah, it's a bit hard to judge what your DM thinks is overpowered, if he's banned both Haste (a pretty useful but hardly game-breaking spell) and Fireball (something that almost nobody on the boards thinks is overpowered). This is a case where I'd recommend talking it out with him, to see what he's expecting. Low magic and core-only, I get; but banning both of those has me kind of baffled.

[Elves]

I feel like if a DM is modifying and restricting things this heavily they have a very specific idea of what they want and succeeding in any way they don't expect will make them unhappy and cause more bans. It sounds like you're basically along for the ride and just have to go with it so long as there's enough fun to keep playing.

[Fizban]

Our DM specifically prohibited us from trying to make "Optimized" or "Overpowered" characters, so that the other 4 have a more fun time (Although so far, they'd be having more fun if we didn't have to struggle through combat, carrying them on our backs).
This is annoying, because that's not any information, and the fact that they didn't specify useful limits implies they don't know as much as they think they do. Regardless, the only response is to just build a character and check with the DM before the session starts. If you want more specific suggestions from the forum, you'll need to get the builds for the rest of the party.


As such, this campaign is run with only the races, classes, feats, and spells listed in the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook - Core Rulebook I v3.5. I'm planning on changing my character from the heavily nerfed wizard (Fireball and Haste were not allowed, amongst other spells) to the party Tank after the most recent encounter where both I and the former tank got killed.
A core-only game where 100% expected core standard spells are banned? Yeah that's gonna be a problem. I expect the "tanks" will die frequently, since they'll be missing expected buffs and forced to fight swarms of enemies that are supposed to be dealt with via AoE magic.


I was thinking fighter, using a reach weapon, wearing full plate and saving for an Animated Shield. Feats will consist mostly of Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, and Improved trip. With the optional power attack and Weapon Focus/Specialization line. If I can get my healer to stick close and pair up with teammates to flank, then this should be sufficient, considering the last tank had lower AC than the healer, and acted more as a melee dps with 26 AC.
Honestly, if they're banning Fireball and Haste and actually recognize what most of that is, I expect you'll not be allowed that character either. And if they don't recognize it, you'll still catch hell the second you actually trip-stall something. Normally I'm on the side of the DM taking some control and responsibility, but from what you've said this is the clear opposite problem of a DM that either thinks they know more than they do, or is trying to force the game to be something it's not designed for.

[Maat Mons]

You're level 7, so you can have Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain), and Improved Trip as a Human of any class. Cleric would be a good choice, giving you heavy armor proficiency and, if you choose the Strength domain, the ability to cast Enlarge Person up to 3 times per day by devoting your higher-level domain slots to it. Druid would suffer a little bit on the Armor Class front, but your Animal Companion could help protect you.

I guess you could take a couple Fighter levels to squeeze in Improved Initiative and Power Attack, but if you do, I don't know what worthwhile feat you'd take at 9th level. Instead of Human, you could be a Dwarf or Half-Orc and either get by on one fewer feat, or use a Fighter level to make it up. I guess you don't really need Exotic Weapon Proficiency if you use a class that gets proficiency with all Martial weapons, since you could do the Guisarme+Gauntlet combo.

The thing that gives me pause here is ability scores. A tripper build needs good Strength, to trip reliably, decent Dexterity, to make multiple attacks of opportunity, decent Constitution, to not die, and 13 Intelligence, for feat qualification. You're not expecting to be given much by way of stat-boosting items, so if you don't roll well on ability scores, you might be screwed.

[King of Nowhere]

a tripping build works well enough against medium sized opponents, perhaps large sized. anything bigger, and you're ineffective.

the main problem i see is armor class; without magic items, you have no way of buffing it. so maybe a simple barbarian, to be a meat wall? a dwarf barbarian, with the thoughness feat. make it a gnome, so you also get the +1 size to ac :smallbiggrin: [just joking, in case the written text does not convey it]

the big question is, what kind of opponents are you going to face?
tied to it, is your dm aware that by removing magic items and nerfing everything magic, he must also reduce the level of the challenges? was two deaths in an encounter a freak accident of bad luck and terrible tactical decisions, or a consequence of the dm gimping your power and expecting you to face the same foes?

[Xervous]

What exactly ended up causing those two deaths? I feel like this might shed some more light on what exactly is going on here.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Sounds like a killer DM who doesn't want pesky players thwarting his plans by surviving. In which case, advice point #1 figure out whether a player rebellion is preferable and feasible (perhaps not, given the structure of your game). Advice point #2 is don't get too invested in any one character. Some people enjoy CoC-type "your character is probably going to die" games, so just go with anything that sounds fun and roll with it.

In straight-up PHB-only, even Horizon Tripper is off the table. One thing you could do is just make a Horizon Tripper without the actual Horizon part by continuing in Ranger (that being your favored class as a human). That lets you switch-hit with a bow, have good skills and a couple useful spells and a meh animal companion, but your stats and feats are stretched out quite a bit, and you have less HP and hitting power than you could otherwise.

Instead, I would do a more one-note variation of the Horizon Tripper focused on tankiness and area denial over skills/utility, since combat is where you're getting munched up anyway. Something like a Dwarf Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Barbarian X in breast plate (later, mithral full plate) wielding a spiked chain (I don't like to rely on armor spikes for inner-ring attacks). Main feats are Combat Reflexes, EWP Spiked Chain, and Power Attack; after that, it's season to taste. You could dabble in mounted combat, or take defensive feats like Iron Will. I would actually get Cleave in a PHB-only game, especially given the DM banned Fireball, which suggests he wants hordes of lesser enemies to be scary. Make sure you have good DEX and CON, non-negative WIS, and then pump the rest into STR (for 28 PB, something like 16/16/14/8/10/8). Like the Horizon Tripper, you'll buy Enlarge Person potions and focus on threatening a big range with deadly hits, but instead of relying on the tripping mechanic (which works really well when it works) you just hit hard and hope they die. Be a bit stingy with raging; it's more useful against big opponents where you need the extra attack and damage. Don't forget your racial bonuses against poison, spells, orcs, and giant-types.

By my count, with a +1 weapon you'd attack at about +11/+6 for 2d4+7, 2d6+8 enlarged (full 20' reach), and +13/+8 for 2d6+11 enlarged and raging, power attacking when appropriate. AC is a weak point, but area denial and high HP make up for it.

A more traditional dwarf tank goes full fighter and wears full plate + shield + dwarven war axe, with more points towards STR and more feats to play around with. Better AC (~23 versus ~19, -2 rage, -2 enlarge), more HP given more points for CON, and hits decently well (with 16 base STR and WF/Spec in D. war axe, around +12/+7 for 1d10+7), but the AoOs are more important. The best defense is killing the enemy before they attack.

[SpicyBoi_Nezu]

What exactly ended up causing those two deaths? I feel like this might shed some more light on what exactly is going on here.

We had spent the past few months preparing and slowly progressing through a Quest that was clearly way too difficult for the player skill level of our group. We were to rescue a kidnapped ally from the depths of an enemy's underground fortress, we had been informed that these enemies had wiped out multiple level 8 paladins just to capture this hostage, and have access to anti-scrying magic strong enough that a level 20 wizard (our contractor) wasn't able to give us any information on these enemies, or the locations of their base. My friend and I had discussed between us that this was a stealth and infiltration mission that would take a while, and that this was nowhere suited for a 6 person party, especially when 4 of the 6 party members really didn't comprehend the danger of this mission. The DM also made it very apparent that they are thoroughly equipped with divination magic themselves, because we were spotted less than half way through our journey, and we knew they would be expecting us, 75% of the way there we encountered 2 level 10 enemy fighters that almost killed our party.

The actual encounter occurred when one of our party members tripped an alarm spell while invisible, and we were confronted in a 10 ft. wide corridor by a level 15 wizard with two level 10 fighter bodyguards, each equipped with a tower shield and fullplate. Round two the wizard cast silence on our backline, disabling both casters, round 3 he shot a fireball that 1-shot me (28 hp Divination Specialist wizard) with a failed save taking 40 damage. We later realized that round 1 he has cast Stone Body on himself. A few rounds later, he hit our main tank with a permanent blindness, 2 rounds later our tank died because he refused to run (Player Flaw, he thought that suicide was "In-Character").

Our DM claims that we knew this was supposed to be a stealth mission, and that there would be ramifications for trying to fight upfront. My friend and I tried to explain that the rest of the group didn't know what they were getting themselves into, and that he literally made a proper stealth mission almost impossible for a party this low-level. My friend and I knew that if it were just the two of us (Divination Wizard & Luck/Trickery Domain Cleric) we could have cleared this without much difficulty, but not while carrying 4 new players on our back.


It's a standard case of the DM overestimating the competency of the party, and forgetting that he heavily nerfed the only two competent players, while adding a level of difficulty unbefitting of a level 7 party.

[Seerow]

Wait I thought fireball was banned. How did your character get nuked by one?

[Techwarrior]

Your DM either is completely clueless or is just a jerk. Either way, the solution isn't going to be a build because whatever the build is it'll likely just be banned as soon as you reveal what it does. This sounds to me like the real answer is to just not sit down with this person dm'ing until after a change of heart from them.

A level 15 Wizard with 2 level 10 Fighters is absolutely not an appropriate encounter for a level 7 party under any reasonable circumstances. Your DM just deus ex'd in order to kill you. Not only that, but they used a spell that they have banned for your own use to kill you.

They could've just as easily said "rocks fall, you two die," but they went out of their way to use their uber NPC's instead and then gaslight you because you 'tried to do the encounter wrong.'

[SpicyBoi_Nezu]

Your DM either is completely clueless or is just a jerk. Either way, the solution isn't going to be a build because whatever the build is it'll likely just be banned as soon as you reveal what it does. This sounds to me like the real answer is to just not sit down with this person dm'ing until after a change of heart from them.

What ended up happening at the end of that session was the DM telling us that he's going to Ret-con the last quest, and throw us back to before we had accepted the quest. I personally disagreed with that decision, but it's what's best for the mentality of the other players since they've never had a character die, so I'm going to go through with it. The player who played the tank got very upset after the encounter ended, and the rumor is from his younger brother that he might not continue playing with us, so in that case I was planning on discussing with the DM about switching into the tank position since my Wizard wasn't really needed that much.

My friend and I planned on discussing with the DM about what happened, and what we can do differently moving on, my assumption is that the DM is going to tone down the difficulty and readjust the encounters. He probably got a little too far ahead of himself with the planning and overstepped the difficulty. I know that he's probably not going to loosen the restrictions on my friend and I all that much, but we planned on stopping the self limiting and pushing for the right to optimize our characters under his restrictions. That's why I was looking for assistance with an optimized build, I can break a tank with some of the source books, but I wanted to optimize to the best of my ability with what I had.

I know that he really just wants to play out an epic story with us, and give some new players a chance to have fun, and he knows the tendencies of my friend and I, and wants to restrict us so that he has an easier time balancing the encounters. If both my friend and I had been playing our normal style, we could have easily circumvented that encounter and completed the mission with just the two of us, but that wouldn't be as fun for the other players.

[Particle_Man]

Perhaps you could offer to take over as DM?

[Fizban]

We had spent the past few months preparing and slowly progressing through a Quest that was clearly way too difficult for the player skill level of our group.
Oh good. :smallsigh:

We were to rescue a kidnapped ally from the depths of an enemy's underground fortress,
Difficulty wildly variable based on group.

we had been informed that these enemies had wiped out multiple level 8 paladins just to capture this hostage,
Not particularly difficult, level 8 with no special survival means they could be killed by any number of traps or hazards or massed troops. They're only as effective as the DM thinks they are, after all.

and have access to anti-scrying magic strong enough that a level 20 wizard (our contractor) wasn't able to give us any information on these enemies, or the locations of their base.
[scrying] magic is blocked by basic building materials, lead-lining that should be standard in any fortress, and M's Private sanctum is only a 5th level spell, maintainable by a single 9th level wizard.

My friend and I had discussed between us that this was a stealth and infiltration mission that would take a while, and that this was nowhere suited for a 6 person party, especially when 4 of the 6 party members really didn't comprehend the danger of this mission. The DM also made it very apparent that they are thoroughly equipped with divination magic themselves, because we were spotted less than half way through our journey, and we knew they would be expecting us, 75% of the way there we encountered 2 level 10 enemy fighters that almost killed our party.
You don't need much in the way of divination magic to see an adventuring party coming- and indeed, basic clerical Divination is actually the strongest one by far and essentially unblockable (it requires the DM to tell you things though, so it won't work). The funny part here is that your DM is apparently all on board the high level PC-classed humanoid train, which is not what the game is designed for, and when you read the city generation rules you'll find that this "enemy fortress" has the high level population of an entire city specifically pointed at you, apparently.


The actual encounter occurred when one of our party members tripped an alarm spell while invisible, and we were confronted in a 10 ft. wide corridor by a level 15 wizard with two level 10 fighter bodyguards, each equipped with a tower shield and fullplate. Round two the wizard cast silence on our backline, disabling both casters, round 3 he shot a fireball that 1-shot me (28 hp Divination Specialist wizard) with a failed save taking 40 damage. We later realized that round 1 he has cast Stone Body on himself. A few rounds later, he hit our main tank with a permanent blindness, 2 rounds later our tank died because he refused to run (Player Flaw, he thought that suicide was "In-Character").
Ah yes, the DM gets to use banned spells, and an entire city's worth of high level NPCs ambushing you in their own fortress, but you're not allowed to "optimize."

Also, Silence is not a Wizard spell (nor is Stone Body, but I expect you mean either Stoneskin or Iron Body). Permanent Blindness is a bog-standard 2nd level spell, but it uses a fort save so if they weren't 8 levels higher than you the odds should have been fine (it's also remove with a 2nd level Cleric spell).


Our DM claims that we knew this was supposed to be a stealth mission, and that there would be ramifications for trying to fight upfront. My friend and I tried to explain that the rest of the group didn't know what they were getting themselves into, and that he literally made a proper stealth mission almost impossible for a party this low-level. My friend and I knew that if it were just the two of us (Divination Wizard & Luck/Trickery Domain Cleric) we could have cleared this without much difficulty, but not while carrying 4 new players on our back.
Bull.

There are no stealth missions in DnD. You can't have a stealth mission unless every character in the party can stealth, and the standard party has two non-stealth characters, let alone your oversized party. Unless you just so happen to have Invisibility Sphere to go with your own Silence, this was never going to be possible.
You were given away by an Alarm spell, which doesn't even count as a detectable magic trap and can't be avoided by "stealth"- the only way you could have avoided it was holding Detect Magic up the entire time and then Dispelling it. Which at cl 15 vs your 7, would have required a roll of 19+. And since you'd need Silence for the non-stealth characters, you wouldn't be able to use Dispel (or Stone Shape to go around) anyway.
You were told to "infiltrate" the base of a 15th level Wizard who has actively scouted and prepared for you as well as maintaining anti-divination magic and apparently Alarm spells. I would bet this Wizard has Permanency in their spellbook, and the DM has designed a whole impregnable fortress that's totally legit for their +8 level antagonist to have built with as much free Permanency xp as they want-
I would be surprised if they even had an idea of how you were "supposed" to get in, or if they did, it was so incredibly specific there was no way you'd ever actually figure it out.

In short, blaming the players for this is inexcusable. By what you've told us, this DM is full of it. I would suggest you tell them to kick rocks and run your own game.

The only possible excuse I could accept is that they have both A: Informed and gained the consent of the entire playgroup to run a "status quo only" game where all enemies and locations are pre-specified and all risk is up to the players, and B: They somehow were so innocent that they really seriously honestly didn't believe the group would possibly decide to go rescue a hostage like they're some sort of heroes. Which I'll bet was someone the party cared about, and who being protected by Paladins was almost certainly innocent themselves. But I seriously doubt A is true, and pulling B in such a game is the sort of reason people wouldn't agree to A.


It's a standard case of the DM overestimating the competency of the party, and forgetting that he heavily nerfed the only two competent players, while adding a level of difficulty unbefitting of a level 7 party.
No, this isn't standard. A standard DM overestimating a 7th level party would have say a 9th level Wizard and a couple monsters as a boss fight at the end of a dungeon, or maybe an 11th level Lich with some undead. This is a 15th level Wizard with a doom fortress and arbitrary off-screen spell use, extra PC classed goons higher level than the party, and also the DM banned spells that their own NPC is using, and apparently gave their guy a spell that's not even on the Wizard list (though that last could be a Mystic Theurge, which would explain why they're 8 levels higher than you, so they can still be 5 levels higher in wizard casting). This is in fact textbook overpowered, literally the DMG says EL+5 or more should be extremely rare and this was more like EL +9. The xp tables won't even give a 7th level character xp for a 15th level one because that's obviously bogus. And they can't whine about it being an infiltration mission that "you" failed when they're the one that set up that "adventure." If the goal is getting past X, you get xp for X, and in this case X was a +8 level Wizard that the game expects it to be literally impossible for you to overcome.

So yeah. Confront them, with the rest of the group. Demand to know just what you were "supposed" to do. How many permanent spells the enemy had laying around there. Why the DM is expecting you to enter the territory of foes 8 levels higher and succeed. Why they get to use banned spells and you don't. How exactly you tripped an Alarm and the Wizard and their goons just showed up without warning (I'll bet they didn't roll any Move Silently or Teleport error chance- bonus points if they decided that teleporting in gives the teleporter a surprise round when the rules in fact do the opposite and make teleporting in an immediate roll for initiative on both sides. Hell, make the tripper build and when the DM whines about you tripping one of their PC-classed NPCs, point out that they could be using CR 7 monsters that are less trip-able and hey at least you didn't bring a 15th level Wizard with banned spells.



I know that he really just wants to play out an epic story with us, and give some new players a chance to have fun, and he knows the tendencies of my friend and I, and wants to restrict us so that he has an easier time balancing the encounters. If both my friend and I had been playing our normal style, we could have easily circumvented that encounter and completed the mission with just the two of us, but that wouldn't be as fun for the other players.
Can you give some examples of other encounters? 'Cause right now I'm just a liiittle bit skeptical of this DM's ability to balance encounters. Someone who wants to balance encounters doesn't write this "encounter."

To clarify- deciding to ret-con this is good. But unless it comes with a full acknowledgment of just how badly they screwed up and in what ways, I see no reason to expect change.

[King of Nowhere]

Did you players choose that quest freely, while being told that it was very dangerous? Or were you mostly pushed into it?
I did have a similar outmatched encounter a while ago, but it happened because the players decided to intentionally seek and engage an established boss, after being advised to stay away from her.
This scenario, with your party intentionally and knowingly chasing higher level fors, is the only one that would absolve your dm.

Since you were hired by your contractor for this mission, this is not the case. I am not as fast as fizban to draw unflattering conclusions on your dm, but in the best case he did screw up big time. The combination of nerfing the party and giving them a suicide mission is astonishing. Particularly galling is that his npc can do stuff that's banned for you.
No need for preemptive aggressivity, but do ask him how he expects you to face those odds when he won't even let you have resources.

[SpicyBoi_Nezu]

Can you give some examples of other encounters? 'Cause right now I'm just a liiittle bit skeptical of this DM's ability to balance encounters. Someone who wants to balance encounters doesn't write this "encounter."

To clarify- deciding to ret-con this is good. But unless it comes with a full acknowledgment of just how badly they screwed up and in what ways, I see no reason to expect change.

To be honest, I have only been playing with this group for around a year, and they were originally a party of 3 that started at level 1, and I joined at level 5. But from what I've heard, the encounters before I joined were most definitely on par with the party, and by no means difficult, as long as they weren't constantly rolling nat 1s. But miraculously after I and two others joined, the quests got much more tedious and difficult, even though the party didn't actually get much more powerful.

We have ventured into the countryside where Cattle had been seen dismembered, and tracked the rotting stench to an abandoned church with a level 8 necromancer hiding in the basement. Fought some ghouls and such, but with a cleric on our side, we were able to corral them into a corner and pick them off one by one, the necromnancer (Level 8 drow cleric) wasn't too difficult, especially when we flanked her on a set of stairs and slowly chipped away at her, preventing her from casting. (Party of 4 level 5 adventurers)

Traveled to an abandoned cave system which have previously been inhabited by Duergar, to investigate the broken seal on the entrance. Fought a Dire Bear in a narrow corridor, and nearly lost our cleric, fought a giant Demon spider in a locked off room and almost lost our ranger, but both of those encounters were because we got overzealous and didn't peak into the room before entering (The spider literally landed on our ranger), the encounters weren't difficult once we got our bearings. (6 level 6 adventurers)

We were tasked with following the tracks of a party of Dwarven Miners that headed into the mountains, but after encountering a few camps of Orcs, which we promptly lured out and ambushed, as well as a swarm of goblins where my Wizard nearly died (Goblins never touched him, rogue had a poorly aimed lightning bolt wand mishap), we found their bones near the footprints of a few ogres, which we avoided. (4 level 6 adventurers)

Escorted a train of ponies carrying goods between two towns, item got stolen while watering them, had to hunt down the two level 6 sorcerers that took it, they ambushed us, but we got the upper hand and killed one, captured the other (4 level 5 adventurers)

Tasked to aid in the raid of a massive Orc stronghold, our job was to create a distraction at the south side and lure as many enemies out as possible so the main force could launch a pincer attack at the north and clear everything else out. Because we had practically 3 days outside the fortress to set up an ambush, the only thing that threatened us was a presumably high level Ogre Sorcerer that had two invisible tower shield wielding orcs protecting it from ranged attacks. Tank almost died because he was too stubbord to fall back when he was surrounded by orcs, but he barely made it out safely (6 level 6 adventurers)

Not in that order obviously, but I just recalled what I could remember.

[SpicyBoi_Nezu]

Did you players choose that quest freely, while being told that it was very dangerous?

Against my friend and I's better interest, we accepted the quest since our Benefactor made it appear that it was not only extremely urgent, but that we were the only people he could find that were deemed capable. Which was BS, but my friend and I hoped we could pull it off, which we couldn't.

[Darg]

Let's put it this way: a party of 4 player characters with level 7 characters should be facing a "challenging" encounter with a encounter level of 7. To put that in perspective it equals the challenge a single level 7 wizard can muster with appropriate level 7 loot. Very difficult encounters should only be 1-4 levels above your average party level This makes it a single level 11 wizard at most. This difficulty describes itself as "one PC might very well die."

1 level 15 wizard and 2 level 10 fighters is an overpowering encounter to a party of level 7s. The DMG describes the encounter as the PCs should simply run because they have almost 0 chance of winning. That said, there are factors that can reduce the encounter level of the encounter such as a magic lever that drops a bucket of automatic dispelling and stunning water on all their heads.

I wouldn't say your DM is a jerk because I don't know the particulars or if they gave warnings to encourage running/not taking the quest or they had mechanisms in place to reduce the difficulty and your party didn't search/find them. Since the DM is allowing a do-over, ask them if running away would be detrimental to their running of the game. If they give the go ahead, work that tactic into how you deal with the encounter.


There are no stealth missions in DnD. You can't have a stealth mission unless every character in the party can stealth, and the standard party has two non-stealth characters, let alone your oversized party. Unless you just so happen to have Invisibility Sphere to go with your own Silence, this was never going to be possible.

What do you mean there are no stealth missions in D&D? I must be playing wrong considering you can take 10 on move silently and hide rolls and the stealthier characters can easily aid another the full plate wearer. Take 10 -6 ACP + dex modifier + 1 masterwork +2 aid another +5 distracted (not actively listening) +1 per 10 feat of distance. Silent moves and shadow special qualities are options that don't take up your enhancement bonus. I'm not going to argue the rest of it, but stealth is perfectly possible depending on the nature of the action and the environment you are in even without skill ranks.

[gijoemike]

Let's put it this way: a party of 4 player characters with level 7 characters should be facing a "challenging" encounter with a encounter level of 7. To put that in perspective it equals the challenge a single level 7 wizard can muster with appropriate level 7 loot. Very difficult encounters should only be 1-4 levels above your average party level This makes it a single level 11 wizard at most. This difficulty describes itself as "one PC might very well die."

1 level 15 wizard and 2 level 10 fighters is an overpowering encounter to a party of level 7s. The DMG describes the encounter as the PCs should simply run because they have almost 0 chance of winning. That said, there are factors that can reduce the encounter level of the encounter such as a magic lever that drops a bucket of automatic dispelling and stunning water on all their heads.

I wouldn't say your DM is a jerk because I don't know the particulars or if they gave warnings to encourage running/not taking the quest or they had mechanisms in place to reduce the difficulty and your party didn't search/find them. Since the DM is allowing a do-over, ask them if running away would be detrimental to their running of the game. If they give the go ahead, work that tactic into how you deal with the encounter.



What do you mean there are no stealth missions in D&D? I must be playing wrong considering you can take 10 on move silently and hide rolls and the stealthier characters can easily aid another the full plate wearer. Take 10 -6 ACP + dex modifier + 1 masterwork +2 aid another +5 distracted (not actively listening) +1 per 10 feat of distance. Silent moves and shadow special qualities are options that don't take up your enhancement bonus. I'm not going to argue the rest of it, but stealth is perfectly possible depending on the nature of the action and the environment you are in even without skill ranks.


Being distracted can be from -2 to -5 on their perception/spot roll. dding it to your own roll for this example makes sense.
And one can only hide if there is a physical object to hide behind. It doesn't matter if you have + 1 million to hide, if that guard comes around that corner and you are in the hallway you are seen.

But a Lets follow this math against a patrolling guard but there is something to hide behind. So there isn't any distraction bonus. hide vs Spot/listen vs move silently. On in pathfinder stealth vs perception

10-6(ACP)+2(dex of plate wearer)+2(aid)+6(60 ft away) +2 (shadow/movesilently) = 16

If we allow the hider to take 10 on an opposed roll check then the spotter can too. A given npc patroller will have ranks in the skill or perhaps a racial modifier to help spot easier. Lets say it is a lvl 6 NPC

10 + 1(wis) + 6 ranks ( not even maxed ) = 17.

That is a 100% failure rate of all stealth missions. IF we roll the spotter has advantage. And this was at 60" out. The plate wearer cannot even charge that distance. And this requires the actual stealthy character to aid another on each action.


Let's level up a few levels so everything is level 9.

10 - 3 ( MFP ACP) + 3 ( buffed dex) + 2 (aid) +8 (80 ft) + 2 (shadow/silent) + 5 ( magic item) + 2( partially distracted guard) = 29.

vs a distracted elven ranger of appropriate level lets just say 9th level

10 + 2 ( unbuffed wisdom) + 2 (aid another/racial/magic item) + 2 alertness + 2 favored enemy bonus + 11 ( still not max rank but actually cares about the skill) = 29


WAIT, WHAT!? As a PC one has invested MULTIPLE special quality/material items, magic items, the party is aiding, and we do this at a HUGE distance for a tactical game, and best we can do is just MATCH the unbuffed distracted ranger that isn't stack magic, racial, or aid. Granted if the ranger wasn't distracted and also didn't have the favored enemy align at all it would be the same. The chances of this working is extremely slim.

Now if we begin to stack spells like invisibility and silence it can be done. But if inv+silence exists that means that there are alarm spells, see invisibility, guard animals with scent, closed doors, and magic detectors somewhere in the fort.



All of that to say this....
Fizban is 100% right. Group Stealth mission in bog standard D&D will fail. Unless every single person is rocking as much magic/skill/special items to pump stealth or your gm has every guard be a 10 wisdom human that has 0 ranks in spot and is wary of all magic (but that isn't D&D and is specifically not the scenario presented).

I suppose if only generic guards from the MM were used they are so poorly built that it could be done. That is my theory as I have never seen that happen. There is always a captain of the guard or named NPC that is better.

Group skill challenges are another way but that removes the NPC. Say 2 of 5 people need to make a static stealth roll or something.

[Fizban]

[encounter examples]
Yeah, most of those seem reasonable, but with the emphasis on PC classed humanoids that I expected.

Ogre Sorcerer that had two invisible tower shield wielding orcs protecting it from ranged attacks.
I'm almost positive that cannot work whatever way they think it does. And I also feel like I'm seeing a pattern of high level spellcasters backed by extra bruisers doing "cute" little tricks that only the DM could set up and the player has no reason to expect in the slightest.


What do you mean there are no stealth missions in D&D? I must be playing wrong considering you can take 10 on move silently and hide rolls and the stealthier characters can easily aid another the full plate wearer. Take 10 -6 ACP + dex modifier + 1 masterwork +2 aid another +5 distracted (not actively listening) +1 per 10 feat of distance. Silent moves and shadow special qualities are options that don't take up your enhancement bonus. I'm not going to argue the rest of it, but stealth is perfectly possible depending on the nature of the action and the environment you are in even without skill ranks.
You can't take 10 on Hide/Move Silently, they're opposed checks, which means you need +19 to exceed the 20 vs 1 roll, and being two skills there are two roll-offs every time, and an active spotter can roll an extra 1-2 every round with actions (the DM is allowed to use 10 or 11+mod for "passive" values to reduce rolling, but that's at the DM's option, and as you note rather completely changes the situation- but even if they're not opposed, they have a definite danger in failure and thus still cannot take 10, so if the DM is using passive for you they must be rolling the foes). The standard melee character won't have high dex, so that bonus is moot. You can't aid another on stealth checks without a special ability that allows you to do so (you can only aid on checks the DM determines are reasonable, and the existence of those abilities clearly shows the writers do not find it reasonable without a special ability). The distraction penalty only applies if they're distracted: guards who are playing cards instead of guarding would take it, but not actual guards that are guarding. Suggesting that characters not already designed for it should have or pay for two specific and expensive magic item abilities for a non-standard mission type rings pretty hollow.

Still, you have brought up all the reasons why the fine details of the Hide/Move Silently rules and NPC statistics and use can be put together by the DM to make it possible for non-stealth characters to attempt a "stealth" mission, particularly when they have professional or heroic levels and gp in resources vs relatively normal people (and how a player can figure out the thresholds they need to reliably do so and in what situations to paint their character without just maxing it out), if the players similarly know how the rules work.

Usually the players of non-stealth characters don't know how the rules work. Often the stealth players don't actually know how the rules work. Often the DM doesn't even know how the rules work. And if the DM doesn't design a "camp" or other location so that it works with the given party's ability, it's probably not going to work when they do apply the rules, if they even apply them correctly. Entering an enemy fortress means you don't get to hide behind distance penalties unless the guards have been deliberately placed in useless positions, or even roll hide checks. No amount of Hide check at all will hide the fact that that a door is opening, and indeed this party was once again given away by an Alarm spell, which nothing short of active magical detection could have warned them about.

But above all, the game does not require it. DnD 3.x is about dungeoneering combat, fighting monsters in relatively small rooms and buildings (and maybe rough outdoor terrain) with doorways and halls and occasional traps. It has an excellent skill system that allows for many things including some (or even all) characters to be stealthy (and plenty of non-attack magic, etc), but the only required skills are for dealing with potential auto-kill room traps that the party can't magic their way out of, evidenced only by the existence of those as standard traps (much like standard monsters). Expecting the party to do a "stealth" mission is like expecting them all to be able to disable traps, or make spellcraft checks, or roll their own diplomacy, or build their own soap box cars for a race. Even if you can set up opponents and situations where a non-specialized character could succeed, they will never do so against a level-appropriate opposition the way they are expected to be able to in a combat setting.

It is possible that the DM expected them to succeed via magic (Invis Sphere and Silence), buying in town any spells or scrolls they didn't have and perfectly countering a series of obstacles that they thought would be surmountable. But even if they did, they set up one of those obstacles with an instant-fail impossible encounter. Which is not how you design a "stealth mission" for a game, unless it's a game with auto-saves where you reload after a failure.



As for replacement characters- I would not recommend shorting the party on magic. If you're not allowed to actually be the Arcanist, see if Druid spells have been nerfed, or bring a second Cleric. You've mentioned a Ranger and a Rogue, there's a Cleric, what else? This might be a party where a Bard is good, if standard Arcanist spells are banned but there's lots of bodies to Inspire Courage on.

A major problem with oversized parties, or even normal parties of certain characters, is overcrowding the front line: if you make a combat chassis, I would say you should make sure you're a switch-hitter. I like shortspear spec, but without Weapon Mastery your damage would be terrible, and you can't do anything about shooting through soft-cover until Improved Precise Shot at 11th, which requires dex 19. Maybe Fighter 4/Barb 3 to double-dip, assuming that isn't banned. Focus, Spec, PBS, Precise Shot, Quick Draw, and Combat Expertise. Expertise to tank when you're in a tanking position, rage to boost damage when you need damage, throwing weapons so you can throw without missing full attacks.

If this is a "low magic" game where items cost double, what do new characters start with?

[Eladrinblade]

Here (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=666431)'s my own core fighter build that I think will suit you well.

[mabriss lethe]

This is the "perfect" time to play a core only monk. Nothing you do will be overpowered. Just throw yourself at every problem you can manage. I actually made a dumb core only monk build guide a while back. They do, in fact, suck just as much as you'd think, but it's been pretty fun to play as a low/no expectations character. https://forums.giantitp.com/archive/index.php/t-619654.html

[King of Nowhere]

if we're looking at sillyness, a low magic campaign with most stuff banned may be the perfect time to use...
the vow of poverty!!!!!!!


I'm sure your dm would ban that for being too powerful[citation needed]

[Seward]

A properly geared and balanced L8 party with full spell support and a magic-mart to buy whatever they want and every splatbook in existance is going to come up short against a 15th level wizard in his lair.

Your party level should be closer to 12, maybe with 6 PCs you could do level 10, but only if they had usual expected party mix and wealth and items for D&D.

What you are playing is a group of NPCs, effective level probably about 6 due to undergearing and most spell support being not allowed (spellcasting is the usual remedy for stingy GMs, along with a 5 minute adventure day fighting only when buffs are active if possible)

You can not succeed without GM fiat in D&D 3.x with the campaign situation you are in.

If you are all friends, my best suggestion is to pick a more forgiving game system. Fate or Apocolypse world or Hero System or something anything where a character's ability to act isn't dependent on what gear the GM allows and where a standard adventurer or party might get the drop on an experienced wizard if enough story elements come into play. D&D is unforgiving in a way that a lot of other systems are not.

======
Stealth missions at party lvl 8 usually mean one of two things.

Circle of invisibility+silence spell

Optimized scout with spell support infiltrates to get coordinates or layout needed to allow party to enter in nonstandard fashion (teleportation type stuff, or tunneling or some other thing that works a lot better if you have scouted physical and creature based conventional defenses, and can then get a caster with detection spells closer to check for things like alarm spells or glyphs of warding or dimensional locks or whatever)

Sometimes you kinda mix that strat up, scout goes ahead, signals that party can move forward even at their worst stealth roll and then progresses further. Or just the plan is "dim door party onto scout's head when it is obvious he got noticed".

Anything else is more properly described as "sneak in until we are spotted then charge". Which is often a worthwhile approach. But not against an el+8 opposition, +9 if you count the bodyguards, each of which would be a dangerous encounter alone for your party and together without the wizard would be a solid battle at your party level, especially given l3 gear and half-power spellcasting.


This is the "perfect" time to play a core only monk. Nothing you do will be overpowered. Just throw yourself at every problem you can manage. I actually made a dumb core only monk build guide a while back. They do, in fact, suck just as much as you'd think, but it's been pretty fun to play as a low/no expectations character. https://forums.giantitp.com/archive/index.php/t-619654.html

Monks aren't so bad if you avoid the tempation to build a martial without a high strength score.

They're solid light infantry with actually dangerous full attacks if they can survive baby levels and you don't fall into various build-traps that the class is riddled with. If you can hit your enemies and penetrate DR it is fine. It will just be faster than his buddies, but lower AC. Kinda like a barbarian. Build your monk like a barbarian and not like a bard and you'll do better. (str and con first, dex wis 2nd, int and cha dumped)

At least you could outrun the other 5 party members when the L15 wizard shows up. All joking aside, one of the miniscule chances a party like this might have is if that L15 wizard so disrespected the party he got in range of a stunning fist and actually had it stick. If the party reacted fast it might turn into just an encounter vs bodyguards. Although given the time to kill even a stunned, arrogant, unprepared L15 wizard those two L10 bodyguards will be ripping chunks out of the PCs while they frantically try to keep the wizard from getting another action.

[mabriss lethe]

if we're looking at sillyness, a low magic campaign with most stuff banned may be the perfect time to use...
the vow of poverty!!!!!!!


I'm sure your dm would ban that for being too powerful[citation needed]

The problem is, OP is limited to PHB only from the sound of it.
And, half jokingly, why I suggested scrapping the idea of playing a Tank and instead playing as a Monk. If I were in the OPs shoes and still wanted to play, I would stop trying to fill party roles or carry the rest of the players. They'll figure out what to do. I would just pull out some no frills, no expectation PC that I could just throw into the blender. Monk is pretty good at that. It has a broad, but admittedly shallow, toolkit, no real defined role and is fairly resilient.

If the entire game experience is this Humanoid-centric, a monk can do OK. Stun a few mooks or just swat their weapons out of their hands with a quarter staff and let the other party members engage them while you move on to tank some AoOs. Take dumb, fun risks and see how long ot takes your monk to go out in a blaze of glory.

[King of Nowhere]

If the entire game experience is this Humanoid-centric, a monk can do OK. Stun a few mooks or just swat their weapons out of their hands with a quarter staff and let the other party members engage them while you move on to tank some AoOs. Take dumb, fun risks and see how long ot takes your monk to go out in a blaze of glory.

i agree on that, monk is fine if you don't expect it to go toe-to-toe against a big dumb brute.
in fact, if your dm is fond of throwing wizards at you, monk is the best option (short of another, better optimized caster, of course). High saving throws give you an edge to survive whatever the wizard will throw at you, tumble will get you past the bodyguard with tower shields, and a stunning kick may well work, given the wizard bad fort save. provided you can actually hit, of course. but at the optimization level of the table (15th level wizard casting fireball, few protective items) it should be feasible.

against other opponents, i suggest a tripping build.
Jump in the middle of the scene and be as defensive as you can. if the enemies try to move past you to get your teammates, you get attacks of opportunity to trip them. if they attack you, you are tanking. monk is actually pretty effective against pc type opponents.
the main problem is, you need money to raise your AC to decent levels, and in your campaign you have no money.
that said, even a fighter with 2 monk levels (gives up 1 BAB for saving throw boost and some feats) could be a decent tank in your situation.

[Darg]

Being distracted can be from -2 to -5 on their perception/spot roll. dding it to your own roll for this example makes sense.
And one can only hide if there is a physical object to hide behind. It doesn't matter if you have + 1 million to hide, if that guard comes around that corner and you are in the hallway you are seen.

But a Lets follow this math against a patrolling guard but there is something to hide behind. So there isn't any distraction bonus. hide vs Spot/listen vs move silently. On in pathfinder stealth vs perception

10-6(ACP)+2(dex of plate wearer)+2(aid)+6(60 ft away) +2 (shadow/movesilently) = 16

If we allow the hider to take 10 on an opposed roll check then the spotter can too. A given npc patroller will have ranks in the skill or perhaps a racial modifier to help spot easier. Lets say it is a lvl 6 NPC

10 + 1(wis) + 6 ranks ( not even maxed ) = 17.

That is a 100% failure rate of all stealth missions. IF we roll the spotter has advantage. And this was at 60" out. The plate wearer cannot even charge that distance. And this requires the actual stealthy character to aid another on each action.


Let's level up a few levels so everything is level 9.

10 - 3 ( MFP ACP) + 3 ( buffed dex) + 2 (aid) +8 (80 ft) + 2 (shadow/silent) + 5 ( magic item) + 2( partially distracted guard) = 29.

vs a distracted elven ranger of appropriate level lets just say 9th level

10 + 2 ( unbuffed wisdom) + 2 (aid another/racial/magic item) + 2 alertness + 2 favored enemy bonus + 11 ( still not max rank but actually cares about the skill) = 29


WAIT, WHAT!? As a PC one has invested MULTIPLE special quality/material items, magic items, the party is aiding, and we do this at a HUGE distance for a tactical game, and best we can do is just MATCH the unbuffed distracted ranger that isn't stack magic, racial, or aid. Granted if the ranger wasn't distracted and also didn't have the favored enemy align at all it would be the same. The chances of this working is extremely slim.

Now if we begin to stack spells like invisibility and silence it can be done. But if inv+silence exists that means that there are alarm spells, see invisibility, guard animals with scent, closed doors, and magic detectors somewhere in the fort.

All of that to say this....
Fizban is 100% right. Group Stealth mission in bog standard D&D will fail. Unless every single person is rocking as much magic/skill/special items to pump stealth or your gm has every guard be a 10 wisdom human that has 0 ranks in spot and is wary of all magic (but that isn't D&D and is specifically not the scenario presented).

I suppose if only generic guards from the MM were used they are so poorly built that it could be done. That is my theory as I have never seen that happen. There is always a captain of the guard or named NPC that is better.

Group skill challenges are another way but that removes the NPC. Say 2 of 5 people need to make a static stealth roll or something.

That's a lot of data to try and refute. If you design a stealth style mission you design it so that it can be successfully done. Alarm is easily countered with a silence spell. Nondetection gives some protection against see invisibility. Magic detector? I guess? But if those are used, it's quite obvious that the DM doesn't want the party to use magic. When you design a standard stealth mission, the party isn't usually going to be facing anything with too good spot skills. The stealthy characters are going to be able to go pretty much anywhere fairly easily. Scent has a 30ft range if you aren't upwind. Basically, you don't design the stealth as the encounter unless your group is specialized in it like a band of thieves or assassins. Most castle guards are only going to have 1-3 HD for example, but if spotted call for reinforcements. If your party of level 9s are trying to stealth past a single level 9 elven ranger in the dark, you aren't going to be just relying on your stealth skills. It's also likely the single creature of the EL appropriate encounter so there isn't much reason to stealth except to maybe murderhobo easier. Of course, if the entire 100-1000 manned fortress is full of level 9 rangers....


You can't take 10 on Hide/Move Silently, they're opposed checks, which means you need +19 to exceed the 20 vs 1 roll, and being two skills there are two roll-offs every time, and an active spotter can roll an extra 1-2 every round with actions (the DM is allowed to use 10 or 11+mod for "passive" values to reduce rolling, but that's at the DM's option, and as you note rather completely changes the situation- but even if they're not opposed, they have a definite danger in failure and thus still cannot take 10, so if the DM is using passive for you they must be rolling the foes). The standard melee character won't have high dex, so that bonus is moot. You can't aid another on stealth checks without a special ability that allows you to do so (you can only aid on checks the DM determines are reasonable, and the existence of those abilities clearly shows the writers do not find it reasonable without a special ability). The distraction penalty only applies if they're distracted: guards who are playing cards instead of guarding would take it, but not actual guards that are guarding. Suggesting that characters not already designed for it should have or pay for two specific and expensive magic item abilities for a non-standard mission type rings pretty hollow.

Where does it say you can't take 10 just because it is an opposed roll. The only exceptions I can find are specific skills that say the character can't take 10 or if the character is distracted or threatened (combat). Move Silently and Hide do not have any rule against it themselves. You don't need a hide check if you aren't in sight in the first place. Listen checks are opposed by the DC table or the average result of creature's move silently check (treat the dice roll as a 10). A player gets the choice of risking rolling or taking 10. Don't forget walls and doors increase the DC by +15 and +5 respectively. One thing to keep in mind is that you don't need a move silently check if you aren't actually moving.

If they aren't actively listening, doing something that occupies their attention at all, they suffer the distraction penalty. Listen rerolls really only happen in combat or if you go out of your way to make more noise. Walking through a hallway generally gets you a +15 against anything on the other side of a wall or +5 with a door. Your specialized stealthy allies tell you to keep your distance as needed to improve your chances.


i agree on that, monk is fine if you don't expect it to go toe-to-toe against a big dumb brute.
in fact, if your dm is fond of throwing wizards at you, monk is the best option (short of another, better optimized caster, of course). High saving throws give you an edge to survive whatever the wizard will throw at you, tumble will get you past the bodyguard with tower shields, and a stunning kick may well work, given the wizard bad fort save. provided you can actually hit, of course. but at the optimization level of the table (15th level wizard casting fireball, few protective items) it should be feasible.

against other opponents, i suggest a tripping build.
Jump in the middle of the scene and be as defensive as you can. if the enemies try to move past you to get your teammates, you get attacks of opportunity to trip them. if they attack you, you are tanking. monk is actually pretty effective against pc type opponents.
the main problem is, you need money to raise your AC to decent levels, and in your campaign you have no money.
that said, even a fighter with 2 monk levels (gives up 1 BAB for saving throw boost and some feats) could be a decent tank in your situation.

Wizards also tend to be fairly easy grapple targets for a quick disabling of their casting while getting your unarmed damage out and denying them their dex bonus. If you remain grappled, then dealing damage becomes a cakewalk as you can bypass miss chance, AB penalties don't matter for grapple checks (flurry + TWF), and you do pretty significant unarmed damage while pinning them.

[Seward]

Where does it say you can't take 10 just because it is an opposed roll.


It does not say that. Take 10 is a measure of stress, not of opposition. (take 20 only works if no consequences for failure, which is different and often gets confused).

from SRD


Taking 10

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10.


GM decides what that means. It can range from "needs to be threatened in melee or something that makes a concentration check required as in spellcasting" to "your character would be stressed out, so you are distracted".

Most games I played used a basic approach to PC skills vs NPCs prior to combat in scouting role.

Guards normally take 10 on stealth, doing their routine rounds but unless very confident in their spot/listen always roll perception checks, hoping to get lucky. PCs can choose to take 10 or not, and most will take 10 on stealth to avoid disastrous noise (they are moving carefully but predictably), but again only optimized scouts will take 10 on their perception skills, which means they'll never miss a normal guard but might lose their chance at spotting their opposite number on the other side, or a still invisible guy getting+40 or whatever.

This approach also allows party members to hang back from primary scout based on how noisy they are. Sorceror can stay within 50' since her high dex and no armor does ok, and for the occasion she cast a spell or two to kick her into "ok scout" stealth. Fullplate Towershield Guy was told to sling his tower shield and hang WAY back, or alternately the cleric cast silence on both of them so they can stay closeish to the scout as long as they don't get into LOS.

It is a tradeoff between risking scout being too far ahead and risking discovery. No tactic is perfect, the "take 10 with distance to help noisy folks" breaks down if the guards have a patol out that wanders into your flank and sees or hears your clumsy, ordinary, non-scout-optimized party members.

[Jay R]

I don't believe it making unproven guesses about the DM'smotives. I do, however, believe in testing hypotheses.


Our DM specifically prohibited us from trying to make "Optimized" or "Overpowered" characters, so that the other 4 have a more fun time ...

... both I and the former tank got killed.

I suggest you ask the DM if you can build a good character for the other player -- or even for all four of the other players. If his real concern is fear of overshadowing the others, then the solution is to give them good builds too. He should at least consider this proposed solution.

[If he just wants a powerless party, he will turn this offer down immediately, without stopping to think, and you will have some important information.]

If he is unwilling for the newer players to have a strong build either, then consider the possibility of leaving the game. You have far more information than we do about the game, the DM, the other players, and everything else, so I will not recommend which way to decide. But I do recommend considering the question.

[Seward]

I suggest you ask the DM if you can build a good character for the other player -- or even for all four of the other players. If his real concern is fear of overshadowing the others, then the solution is to give them good builds too. He should at least consider this proposed solution.

I would approach that slightly differently. "Can I help them make their characters do in the game system what they imagine them able to do".

Two benefits -

1. you will actually hopefully listen to your fellow players and help them do the parts that make it fun for them + they are far more likely to use any new capabilities you help them develop

2. The GM is far less likely to see you as trying to remote-control the other players, both prior to the process and in-game when you don't have to help your teammates remember how to do something their build should do.

[Darg]

It does not say that. Take 10 is a measure of stress, not of opposition. (take 20 only works if no consequences for failure, which is different and often gets confused).

from SRD


GM decides what that means. It can range from "needs to be threatened in melee or something that makes a concentration check required as in spellcasting" to "your character would be stressed out, so you are distracted".

Most games I played used a basic approach to PC skills vs NPCs prior to combat in scouting role.

Guards normally take 10 on stealth, doing their routine rounds but unless very confident in their spot/listen always roll perception checks, hoping to get lucky. PCs can choose to take 10 or not, and most will take 10 on stealth to avoid disastrous noise (they are moving carefully but predictably), but again only optimized scouts will take 10 on their perception skills, which means they'll never miss a normal guard but might lose their chance at spotting their opposite number on the other side, or a still invisible guy getting+40 or whatever.

This approach also allows party members to hang back from primary scout based on how noisy they are. Sorceror can stay within 50' since her high dex and no armor does ok, and for the occasion she cast a spell or two to kick her into "ok scout" stealth. Fullplate Towershield Guy was told to sling his tower shield and hang WAY back, or alternately the cleric cast silence on both of them so they can stay closeish to the scout as long as they don't get into LOS.

It is a tradeoff between risking scout being too far ahead and risking discovery. No tactic is perfect, the "take 10 with distance to help noisy folks" breaks down if the guards have a patol out that wanders into your flank and sees or hears your clumsy, ordinary, non-scout-optimized party members.


Checks without Rolls
A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions
and eliminate the luck factor.
Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many
routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help (such as using Climb to ascend a knotted rope, or using Heal to give a wounded PC long-term care).
For example, Krusk the barbarian has a Climb skill modifier of +6 (4 ranks, +3 Strength modifier, –1 penalty for wearing studded leather armor). The steep, rocky slope he’s climbing has a Climb DC of 10. With a little care, he can take 10 and succeed automatically. But partway up the slope, a goblin scout begins pelting him with sling stones. Krusk needs to make a Climb check to get up to the goblin, and this time he can’t simply take 10. If his player rolls 4 or higher on 1d20, he succeeds.

Take the SRD with many grains of salt. A lot of the clarifying text is removed. The severity should be about the level of combat as exampled twice in the quote above to prevent the use of taking 10.

The use of a full party using stealth skills to accomplish difficult stealth infiltration/exfiltration should be relegated to the first few levels or specialists. A party of rogue dippers can keep up quite handily. I never said that a full plate wearer without ranks would be any good at it. Just that it's completely possible to work against normal lookouts that won't be using the elite array or necessarily possessing skill focus or ranks. You are equating a single lookout that is a level appropriate encounter themself as the bar that must be crossed when that isn't the style of play the group is building for. This is inflating the difficulty from where it should be. You should also be accounting for the environment. Foliage can provide total concealment, tree trunks, boulders, and walls can provide total cover. If there is a patrol, it's the players' fault for not doing reconnaissance before moving forward with any plan considering they have less stealthy members. Surprises have nothing to do with a failure in the system and is everything to do with design and player action. Then again, the patrol should have been using torches which only provide light to 40ft but would be extremely easy to spot from a long distance away at night. If the party was trying to stealth during the day, I have to wonder how low their intelligence scores must have been.

[Seward]

While I agree in general with your analysis of typical stealth challenges, this is the lair of a L15 wizard.

The thing that nailed them (an alarm spell) is something that lasts 30 hours with a single L1 spell slot, and if a mental alarm, silence won't help.

You can't sneak up on it like you would a random baron's castle. Such wizards are also not unlikely to have other defenses once you pass the everyday area that has to not be super locked down to do normal business (supplies, meals, locations to meet clients with requests for crafting or maybe trade spells that you don't want in more secure areas) you would expect arcane locked doors at least, probably more alarm spells and some kind of guardian that you don't have to pay or feed to watch 24x7. L15 is into phase door, mordeinkeinen's mansion and guards-and-wards territory if the wizard isn't completely arrogant or did something like ban transmutation and abjuration, which could make it absolutely impossible for a L8 party to penetrate.

All of that could be there, but the first alarm spell stopped them. Which means they weren't really prepared to storm the HQ of a wizard half that level. Frankly the GM gave a mission that was set up to fail, and a more experienced group of players would recognize that and refuse if such a thing was possible. Or at least....

if the objective was in the public areas of the stronghold, maybe watch until the wizard isn't in residence or perhaps tied up with crafting (social skills with commoners who supply the castle or other visitors would be fairly safe to try for a L8 party as curiousity about such an important wizard would be expected). Without the wizard, and without trying to penetrate to treasury or spellbook or bedchamber, the rest of the stronghold, and cohorts/followers of said wizard might be a possible challenge.

[rel]

The game works better if you work with your GM. Run your build by them, explain how you expect it to play and see if they think it's appropriate. If not, change things up.

The strongest 'tanks' in PHB only are the cleric and druid, but they are also optimised by default. I think the posters upthread have the right idea; roll a monk and go bully the enemy back line.

[Seward]

The strongest 'tanks' in PHB only are the cleric and druid, but they are also optimised by default. I think the posters upthread have the right idea; roll a monk and go bully the enemy back line.

Depends how you define it. Both classes have lots of roles they can fill but it takes a fair bit of system mastery to do it consistently. The problem with CoD is that you need to know things. Their huge spell list. Summon monster lists for Druid and some clerics. What to do with animal companion, what to do with turning undead. A martial tank might need more help at build time, but at the table it's more straightforward.

Also the GM dislikes casters and the party has a cleric in medic/support role already. But in any event the problems here are more a negotiation between players and GM about campaign style and what is an appropriate mission for characters of their level playing under those setting-based limitations. When all are on the same page there, OP might roll a tank or do something else entirely. (one reason monk comes up is they had 2 deaths in a failed scout extraction and you can build it as a decent scout and a decent melee and a good "tank" in terms of everything except physical threats, where AC and HP tend to be a bit low in the lvl 8 range compared to a more typical heavy infantry type in that role. Ranger chasse could also work well.)

[Doctor Despair]

A martial tank might need more help at build time, but at the table it's more straightforward.


If you're at the optimization level that you don't know what's on your summon table, I'd argue that the blanket buffs given to Animal Companion with even random spells selected at each level of the Druid spell list would probably be better at meatshielding/tanking than a generic fighter.


If the party was trying to stealth during the day, I have to wonder how low their intelligence scores must have been.

Hey now, don't talk about the players' stats that way. :smalltongue:

[Seward]

If you're at the optimization level that you don't know what's on your summon table, I'd argue that the blanket buffs given to Animal Companion with even random spells selected at each level of the Druid spell list would probably be better at meatshielding/tanking than a generic fighter.

I maintain optimization at the table is orthoganal to optimization at level up time.

If you take a newbie and give them a fighter or sorcerer and work with them to get them mechanically strong feats or spells for the vision they have of their character they never need to read a book, they only have to know what their character can actually do. When time comes to take an action they know what to do and don't slow the game down pondering 1000 options or give up and do the equivalent of "my druid watches while my riding dog attacks, at L12 just like at L1".

But the point is the help they need is away from game time and the learning curve isn't nearly as steep, not as much to know.

A druid or cleric (and to some extent wizard if his spellbook is broad from NPC choices - found scrolls and spellboks, rather than a campaign where mostly their spellbook has spells they took at lvl up or purchased by choice) has the advantage that no choice you make at level up is actually bad. Prep spellcasting with a big list is powerful enough if used well to overcome any bad feat or stat choices, beyond tanking con or their primary casting stat.

Where these characters fail at the table are the fact that you need to know what the entire spell list does, and for anybody who summons, also what each summonable creature night do and make good choices every night when you rest and choose best from whatever you chose in each fight, which might be a totally different list today than yesterday even though the fight is the same.

It is a lot, and most newbies who end up with a tier 1 class play them with even less variation and flexibility than a typical barbarian or blaster sorcerer. They pick a few spells or class features they actually understand and just forget to use or don't consider the rest. Which can lead to constant coaching from more experienced players during game-time which is rarely appreciated or can lead to perceptions that the experienced player is trying to remote-control the other person's character.

But...you can't screw a tier 1 character up so badly you have to start over, short of the player giving up in frustration over the complexity. You can botch a character whose level-up choices are critically important in a way that can't be fixed without retraining or a rewrite.