New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SpicyBoi_Nezu View Post
    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.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post

    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.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

    Quote Originally Posted by Seward View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by PHB
    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.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

    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.
    Last edited by Seward; 2021-12-09 at 01:34 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UNKNOWN

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

    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.
    I am rel.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

    Quote Originally Posted by rel View Post

    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.)

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Sub-Prime Material Plane
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

    Quote Originally Posted by Seward View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Doctor Despair; 2021-12-09 at 09:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by eggynack View Post
    What I care about here, though, is that the highest standard of pedantry is upheld.
    Know-It-All
    Long Arm of the Law
    Phantom of the Opera
    Arthropods, the Bane of Giants
    Horselord
    Mother Cyst of Invention
    Rule #15: a hero is only as good as his weapon!
    Master of Disguise

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Despair View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Seward; 2021-12-10 at 12:02 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •