Tempest Fighter makes me happy.

[Sitara]

You do realize the reason for this option (i.e. tempest fighter) is called Artemis Entreri, don't you?

 

[Selllout23]

If You Choose the Double Sword which is a Heavy Blade, Light Blade, 2H Weapon, Off-Hand and +1 AC Weapon. You really get the best of all 3 builds for just the cost of 1 feat. If your serious about the Tempest Fighter you almost have to pick this weapon. I wont even talk about how awsome this build is with Rogue Multi-classing

You do realize the reason for this option (i.e. tempest fighter) is called Artemis Entreri, don't you?

Spot on friend, Spot On!!!!

 

[C_M2008]

You do realize the reason for this option (i.e. tempest fighter) is called Artemis Entreri, don't you?

A thousand curses on RA Salvatore and his poor quality fantasy novels.

 

[That One Guy]

If You Choose the Double Sword which is a Heavy Blade, Light Blade, 2H Weapon, Off-Hand and +1 AC Weapon. You really get the best of all 3 builds for just the cost of 1 feat. If your serious about the Tempest Fighter you almost have to pick this weapon. I wont even talk about how awsome this build is with Rogue Multi-classing

Spot on friend, Spot On!!!!

I believe the Off-Hand property only is used with the shortsword side. Seeing as I always roll low on damage, I think I'll just stick with a pair of short swords. And yeah, MCing rogue from tempest is fantastic.

I've never read the FR books.

 

[Bond James Bond]

"
At the moment, anyone who takes a 2H weapon fighter over a 1H weapon fighter as the sole defender in the group, is doing the group a disservice. The tiny amount of extra damage he dishes out is off-set by the resources he's going to eat up being kept up because of his lower AC and Reflex defences.

I respectfully disagree.

"Tanking" in D&D doesnt work like in the average MMO, where the Tank has to have the highest AC to function properly.

In Fact, at a certain point, maxing your defenses as the "tank" can be quite bad for your party. The reason is that - unlike in an MMO - even with fighter marks an the like, the enemy still in general can choose freely who he want`s to attack. He just has to be willing to live with the consequences if he is going to ignore the tank (e.g. getting a -2 penalty on attacks and an extra attack of the fighter)

Now, if the fighter has a very high ac and little damage output like you suggest, why shouldn`t the enemy try ignore him an go directly for the striker or healer? Even with -2 on his attacks, he`ll still be hitting the striker more often than the high ac tank. And the little extra damage from the fighters extra attacks doesn`t offset the advantage of getting rid of the striker/healer sooner (or letting the party waste ressources to save them).

That said, I`d say the "ideal" Tank in most situations should have defenses about on the same level as the party average, he shoud deal decent damage and have lot`ts of hp and healing surges in order to be able to get healed very efficiently. Being able to selfheal helps as well.

p.s. Just to make it clear, I don`t think that anyone should "force" another player into a certain role. Luckily, this isnt a MMO, where encounters are fixed, and certain playstyles are "required" by the game. As a DM, I am always planning my encounters according to my gaming groups composition.

 

[Cactot]

I respectfully disagree.

"Tanking" in D&D doesnt work like in the average MMO, where the Tank has to have the highest AC to function properly.

In Fact, at a certain point, maxing your defenses as the "tank" can be quite bad for your party. The reason is that - unlike in an MMO - even with fighter marks an the like, the enemy still in general can choose freely who he want`s to attack. He just has to be willing to live with the consequences if he is going to ignore the tank (e.g. getting a -2 penalty on attacks and an extra attack of the fighter)

Now, if the fighter has a very high ac and little damage output like you suggest, why shouldn`t the enemy try ignore him an go directly for the striker or healer? Even with -2 on his attacks, he`ll still be hitting the striker more often than the high ac tank. And the little extra damage from the fighters extra attacks doesn`t offset the advantage of getting rid of the striker/healer sooner (or letting the party waste ressources to save them).

That said, I`d say the "ideal" Tank in most situations should have defenses about on the same level as the party average, he shoud deal decent damage and have lot`ts of hp and healing surges in order to be able to get healed very efficiently. Being able to selfheal helps as well.

p.s. Just to make it clear, I don`t think that anyone should "force" another player into a certain role. Luckily, this isnt a MMO, where encounters are fixed, and certain playstyles are "required" by the game. As a DM, I am always planning my encounters according to my gaming groups composition.

I was rather confused by his response as well, at first i thought he was mistakenly referring to two weapon fighting as 2HF. The 1h->2h damage difference is pretty significant (especially when with your stance you do 1(w) to every foe in range), and in addition to that, i would say that scale holds itself pretty well against plate. So I would seriously question your assertion that both shields and plate armor are necessary for each fighter. The lack of need for uber AC becomes more pronounced if you have a more flexible group makeup.