Armor Class

[Jadeite]

They got worse because now the NPCs have no brain, all they do is process game mechanics, like "must hit fighter because he just taunted me, must ignore rogue who did 60 damage that round and hit the guy with shiny armour, because bbzzt bzzt robot brain says so".

I kinda assume if you want a complex fighting system then it should have tactics in it. Taking cover, blocking opponents, covering your friends - thats surely what fighting scenes are all about. It's not about it being wargamey, its' about it not being massively contrived, like the Antagonise feat is. You use it on a mage and he then has to run up to you and melee you? Please.

But that's not how it works (aside from Antagonize). And in my opinion, most enemies would be pretty stupid to attack a highly armored fighter while a bunch of guys behind the fighter attack him.
If PCs can use tactics, NPCs can, too. They don't attack the fighter because he taunted them, they attack him because he's extremely unpleasant when ignored.
And it seems we misunderstood each other. In my opinion, denying access is a viable way of protecting your allies, although it doesn't work in all situations.
The problem I have is that many people seem to believe that it's sufficient for a character to have high AC to compel the enemies to attack only him for no apparent reason.

 

[EUBanana]

But that's not how it works (aside from Antagonize).

Well, Antagonise is a particularly stupid brute force approach one, but there are various lures and goads and the like, penalties if you attack someone other than the fighter, that sort of thing. It adds up to the same philosophy, various encouragements to hit the defensive guy even though he doesn't actually do the most damage.

There's actually a fair few abilities like that scattered through the paladins spell list in Pathfinder as well, so you do have that stuff too, just in spell form. Spells like Challenge Evil and Knight's Challenge. I guess I don't mind them so much if they are in spell form, magical compulsions don't put my nose out of joint quite so much. Though I have to say, I personally have never used them, they've never really been necessary.

The problem I have is that many people seem to believe that it's sufficient for a character to have high AC to compel the enemies to attack only him for no apparent reason.

Oh, I agree with that entirely.

But the OP was just looking for advice on getting someone defensive, surely a paladin is pretty damn good at that with all those self heals, auras and Divine Grace. Though a fighter would be more likely to have things like antagonise and trip and the feats that grant AC bonuses to people next to you and that sort of thing.

What you do with your meat shield after you've created him, well, thats the interesting bit for me. Stand in doorways and rush to get in the way all the time a lot, presumably.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm sick of the over-reliance on dungeons and cramped quarters to justify a tank who is able to "do his job" simply by standing somewhere. It's idiotic and extremely narrow in application, and the idea of it being closer to wargaming is a total joke. Actual battles are fought in open areas, or open areas with dense terrain, like forests. Why in the blue hell would you want to put your army in quarters so tight that if the tide turned against you, retreat would be nigh impossible?

I swear, the mystical ability to stand in a doorway seems to be like some sort of unwritten class feature to a significant number of old-school gamers, and not being one myself, it always seemed so silly. If I don't use dungeons much in my games, or if I do but include sizeable passageways to justify how the heck the large/huge brutes were able to get in there in the first place, am I somehow depriving the fighter of his tanking ability? As a side rant, there was once a massive thread on here of people trying to claim tumble was broken and that being able to safely bypass an enemy's square was akin to mortally wounding him. Like, tumbling through his square defeated his whole purpose of existence. Like it completely shook and destroyed the basic fundamentals of balance in the game. At the time, I was just confused and wondered what the heck was wrong with these people. Later on I realized that their problem was that tumble was killing their sacred cow that "tanking" meant the power to be a living jersey barrier.

Frankly, I think the extension and questioning of what it means to be a tank, leading to mechanics such as forcing enemies to attack you, interrupting attacks on adjacent allies, doing so much damage that you cannot be ignored, and battlefield control to trip them and/or cease their movement in their tracks has been one of the absolute greatest things modern gaming has done with D&D.

 

[EUBanana]

I'm sick of the over-reliance on dungeons and cramped quarters to justify a tank who is able to "do his job" simply by standing somewhere. It's idiotic and extremely narrow in application, and the idea of it being closer to wargaming is a total joke. Actual battles are fought in open areas, or open areas with dense terrain, like forests. Why in the blue hell would you want to put your army in quarters so tight that if the tide turned against you, retreat would be nigh impossible?

I never said that. If there's an open field then you can't properly tank, and neither should you be able to. If you're in an open field your tactics are going to have to change. We have had fights in open fields, fights in forests, all sorts, and they are of a different character completely to fights in built up areas or dungeons. If every fight was the same old in the same circumstances it would get boring very fast. If you actually had tanking mechanics to allow you tank in open fields then that would be even sillier.


As for wargames, different scale but same principles. In an American civil war game as a random example, you got cavalry to harass, infantry to hold ground, and artillery to kill. If you have artillery on its own it gets overrun, and there's not usually a mechanic to force you to ignore it and go for something else, you have to actually protect it, with things in the way usually. Positioning is what the whole game is about.

Likewise, if you have a mage on their own they get chased down and squished. I think my ideal is just characters, not tanks, not DPS, or other artificial roles, just characters, with different abilities, and you use them as you will, with minimum coercion.

Frankly, I think the extension and questioning of what it means to be a tank, leading to mechanics such as forcing enemies to attack you, doing so much damage that you cannot be ignored, and battlefield control to trip them and/or cease their movement in their tracks has been one of the absolute greatest things modern gaming has done with D&D.

Well, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I do not share it. I'm just glad there's an alternative to 4E.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I never said that. If there's an open field then you can't properly tank, and neither should you be able to. If you're in an open field your tactics are going to have to change. We have had fights in open fields, fights in forests, all sorts, and they are of a different character completely to fights in built up areas or dungeons. If every fight was the same old in the same circumstances it would get boring very fast. If you actually had tanking mechanics to allow you tank in open fields then that would be even sillier.

A tank that is only a tank when he can completely occupy the only passage between the enemy and his allies is not a tank. He's a giant sack of hit points in metal casing. An easily replacable sack of hit points, too. Six seconds and any old thing off the summon monset list does his job without any thinking even required.

Controlling a wide area with tripping and Stand Still isn't silly. Actively stopping attacks from hitting allies within your reach protection isn't silly. Using jedi mind tricks to make someone attack you isn't silly in a game with magic. Doing such high damage or having the ability to take advantage of a foe's distraction when he attacks someone else to whomp him yourself with an AoO and force him to pay attention to you lest he die isn't silly.

Positioning is what the whole game is about.

Tactical short range teleportation makes positioning much less relevant at mid and high levels. Indeed, I play a 14th level battlefield control mage right now that's all about positioning. I spend a lot of time worrying about laying down dimensional anchors just so enemies can't laugh at me and teleport somewhere less advantageous.

Likewise, if you have a mage on their own they get chased down and squished.

Many would disagree with you, especially if the mage has a few levels.

I think my ideal is just characters, not tanks, not DPS, or other artificial roles, just characters, with different abilities, and you use them as you will, with minimum coercion.

What does this even mean? That you feel trapped filling a specific role for the group? You're not restricted to one role, my characters can always do several things well. My tank might also be the party diplomat, tactician, tracker, or other things. If you just want a party of characters that do their own thing and don't try to specialize in anything whatsoever, don't try to cover each others' weaknesses, and don't harmonize as a TEAM... I enjoy playing a much different game than you, is all I can say...

Well, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I do not share it. I'm just glad there's an alternative to 4E.

Hey, I hate 4E also. At least in 3E, you'll concede, when a character gets a "you must attack me" ability it's justifed in the mechanics. A Knight's challenge is a mind-affecting ability that gives a will save. The Iron Guard's Glare stance of the Crusader (-4 to hit anyone but you IF you are threatening the person in melee) is because you're using your weapon to harass and disrupt the enemy's attacks on allies. And so forth. 4E has crap like the Fighter black hole ("Come and Get Me" power) which just makes the target come attack you, and isn't mind-affecting. I'll never tolerate stuff like that.

 

[EUBanana]

Controlling a wide area with tripping and Stand Still isn't silly. Actively stopping attacks from hitting allies within your reach protection isn't silly. Using jedi mind tricks to make someone attack you isn't silly in a game with magic. Doing such high damage or having the ability to take advantage of a foe's distraction when he attacks someone else to whomp him yourself with an AoO and force him to pay attention to you lest he die isn't silly.

I don't have any issues with any of that. Thats kinda neutral. Thats the infantry going in front of the artillery. I just don't like it when a fighter is modelled as a tank, specifically. Especially a WoW tank no less, low damage high resistance, as if we had to deal with WoW damage per round simplicity and that sort of thing. We don't, we got a GM, we got intelligent tactics, not aggro mechanics.

Many would disagree with you, especially if the mage has a few levels.

I'm not even opening that can of worms. I know in our party we just have a sorceror, not a wizard, and if he's in melee he gets eaten horribly.

What does this even mean? That you feel trapped filling a specific role for the group?

No, I'm very simulationist. A fighter should be a fighter, modelled as a fighter, some dude with armour on good with a sword. A fighter should not be a tank, that is contrivance. Why should he do little damage ( a key aspect of the concept of a tank IMHO) ? Thats just weird. There's so much 4E stuff which is frankly bizarre - specially if you compare the rogue and the fighter, where the contrast is so obvious, and only is that way because rogues are deemed to be 'Strikers' and fighters are 'Tanks'.

Hey, I hate 4E also. At least in 3E, you'll concede, when a character gets a "you must attack me" ability it's justifed in the mechanics. A Knight's challenge is a mind-affecting ability that gives a will save. The Iron Guard's Glare stance of the Crusader (-4 to hit anyone but you IF you are threatening the person in melee) is because you're using your weapon to harass and disrupt the enemy's attacks on allies. And so forth. 4E has crap like the Fighter black hole ("Come and Get Me" power) which just makes the target come attack you, and isn't mind-affecting. I'll never tolerate stuff like that.

Oh, I agree, and the crap you speak of is precisely why when I see all these binding abilities I get a bit leery. I mean, Antagonise is just stupid. Improved Trip or Stand Still, or Paladins Sacrifice or Fire of Entanglement, thats fine by me. I dont think Improved Trip is there because a fighter is a "tank", its there because fighters are good at melee -> good at melee means knocking people over, among other things.

I guess it's a subtle distinction. But the game design mechanic of tank/dps/healer really doesn't appeal to me. I prefer fighters, clerics, wizards etc without preconceived notions of what they should do, and damage per round calculations versus toughness, that sort of thing. Certainly in 4E it seems to pervade everything, it is after all explained right at the beginning so I assume the whole system is designed around this stuff in a way Pathfinder is not.

And certainly positioning matters a lot, and is fun when it does. If you got Mr Teleport or Mr Fly-at-will then the reason you are powerful is precisely because you can position so very well.

 

[Hitman187]

No, I'm very simulationist. A fighter should be a fighter, modelled as a fighter, some dude with armour on good with a sword. A fighter should not be a tank, that is contrivance. Why should he do little damage ( a key aspect of the concept of a tank IMHO) ? Thats just weird.

Ummm when did a DnD tank mean low damage output? I am pretty sure a tank is something along the lines of "Can absorb more damage than squishier members of the party and in some way can prevent squishier members from taking as much damage (via positioning, damage output, disables like trip or other methods)"

I honestly enjoy roleplay tanking, like in lower level games spitting in the face of a humanoid enemy really gets their attention, or calling a dwarfs mother a so and so

 

[Herobizkit]

Back story: I am in a group with a magus, a monk, a bard, a rouge a (now dead) witch and an inquisitor(me)

as you can see, we have lots of combat support, secondary fighters and such but no true tank.

you can also see, we have lost 1 member already. We are 5th level

the encounter that prompted this was, a surprise attack by a dire tiger, everyone dropped to 0 or lower and the witch died.

which got me wondering, we all have ac of 20 or less, we need a tank. Thus, I need to find as much AC as possible and have turned here for help.

how high can you get an AC. problem: no magic items, spells are fine, but wands, potions, enhancement to armor and weapons, those are hard to swing. basicaly, if you want it, take the feat for it and maybe you can have the item. Also, rare materials are a no (mithral is right out, adamantime is around x3 the listed cost). I rolled stats and have 18, 18, 18, 17, 14, 14 before racial

Stats: S18 D18 C18
Breastplate (+6 AC) + Dex (+3 - max for breastplate) + Large Shield (+2) = 21 AC.

Heck, even with Heavy Armor Proficiency, Full Plate (+9) and Dex (+1 - max for FP) only nets you 20 without magic or shield bonuses.

You'd best get your Magus to start Crafting weapons and armor.

And just to echo what others have said, Battlefield Control is what you need if you don't have high armor classes. Special maneuvers (Trip, Disarm) may help.

Or you could multi- into Cleric/Oracle for some buff spells.