Results 31 to 38 of 38
Thread: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build
-
2021-12-08, 10:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
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.
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.
-
2021-12-08, 10:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build
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.
-
2021-12-08, 11:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build
Originally Posted by PHB
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.
-
2021-12-09, 01:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
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.
-
2021-12-09, 02:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- UNKNOWN
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.
-
2021-12-09, 08:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build
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.)
-
2021-12-09, 09:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Location
- Sub-Prime Material Plane
- Gender
Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build
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.
Hey now, don't talk about the players' stats that way.Last edited by Doctor Despair; 2021-12-09 at 09:25 PM.
-
2021-12-09, 11:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
Re: 3.5e Core Only Tanks Build
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.