Tank Theory

[Cadfan]

Proposed: That the tank is an impossibly paradoxical role.

The simplest statement of the problem:

The tank will never tank (that is, take a hit) when it is in the best interest of the party to have a hit land on the tank.

The problem:

Taking into account the reduction in damage output in taking out a striker, it is in the best interest of a monster to attack a striker rather than the tank.

The Rules' proposed solution:

Increase incentive to attack the tank by disincentivizing attacks on the striker. This is done by reducing the damage on the striker (via the marked condition, which causes a 10% reduction in hit chance). This is combined with damage caused by the tank -- an increase based on divine challenge or combat challenge.

In short, monsters are incentivized to attack the tank because they do less damage to the striker, and take increased damage in return.

The problem with the Rules' proposed solution:

At the point where the combined reduction in damage to the striker combined with the increased damage from both the striker and tank (example: Divine Challenge + Hellish Rebuke) combine to cause the monster to switch from the striker to the tank *it is, by definition, in the best interests of the party to have the blow land on the striker, not the tank.*

That is, party goals and monster target are never going to align. The tank will only ever take a hit when it is worse for the party for him to do so.

Comments?

best,

Carpe

Your sylogism is flawed.

You've really only proved your own hidden premise.

Hidden premise: the monster will take the action that's worst for the party, and best for the monster.

At this point, you talked a lot about how the party can influence what actions are best or worst for the monster and the party.

Then you concluded that the monster will do one thing when its best for it and worst for the party, and another when conditions favor that action instead.

Of course you reached that conclusion, it was your premise to begin with.

What your sylogism should have addressed is the ways that marking and retaliatory powers shift the incentives the monster faces so that different, "less bad for the party" decisions will be favored, in comparison to what the monster would have chosen without the marking effect.

To put it in analogous terms, imagine that I'm in the civil war. I want to charge an enemy brigade. Iwill choose to charge the brigade which is the least well defended. At first I intend to pick Brigade A. But then I find out that Brigade A has artillery support that I didn't know about. So Ipick Brigade B instead.

Your reasoning would be that the artillery support failed to help, because I only chose to attack Brigade B because it was the weakest target. Your reasoning says that its actually impossible for the artillery support to help, because whether its there or not, I will charge the weakest target. The flaw is that now that the artillery support is there, the weakest target is one which is less weak than before.

 

[77IM]

The conclusion, "The tank will only ever take a hit when it is worse for the party for him to do so," is very much correct. But, the logical leap to "the tank is an impossibly paradoxical role" overlooks the fact that the overall situation is better for the party. In fact, it's really excellent tactics to "trick" a desperate and foolish monster into attacking the rogue while marked by the fighter, precisely as your conclusion predicts!


Here is a matrix display of all possible monster-defender-striker interactions:

MARK STATUS + MONSTER ACTION = OUTCOME

A1) No mark + monster attacks defender = defender takes regular monster damage
A2) No mark + monster attacks striker = striker takes regular monster damage
B1) Monster marked + monster attacks defender = defender takes regular monster damage
B2) Monster marked + monster attacks striker = striker takes reduced monster damage and monster takes some defender damage

A perfectly rational monster regards A2 as strictly better than A1, because the striker deals more damage and drops faster, so we can eliminate A1 as a possibility (the perfectly rational monster won't ever take it). But marking takes away both choices. The OP claims that there is an equilibrium between B1 and B2; the rational monster can calculate whether the extra damage he suffers in B2 is worth getting a penalized hit on the striker, versus choosing B1 and just whittling down the defender. I agree with this claim.

But the further claim -- the fact that the monster can choose between B1 and B2 makes the defender role impossibly paradoxical -- I disagree with. I assert that both B1 and B2 are better than A2, the choice the monster would have made if he were not marked.

The role system is intended to let each role contribute to the fight equally, but differently. The defender's way of being different is that he can contribute by deliberately soaking hits. Therefore, the defender role is functioning as intended: he will take some hits (when the monster decides B1 is better) and mangle some monsters (when the monster decides B2 is better), and overall improve the party's odds in a way that is different from other roles.

The point of the role system is to increase tactical options. If the monster was facing, say, two identical strikers, it wouldn't matter which one he attacked (as long as he stuck to the same one). The presence of the tank forces the monster to weigh his tactical options (attack the fighter and accomplish little, or attack the dangerous striker and possibly get whacked myself...).


-- 77IM

 

[Tony Vargas]

The correct comparison isn't between having a tank and not having a tank, but between having a tank and having another, for example, striker.

Well, or an extra leader or controller. Yes.

If the monster is not incented to attack the tank, then the tank becomes a sub-par striker. That is, by the way, generally what happens (although I do agree that halting movement and movement / terrain escapes do alter this significantly).

If you ignore a defender you either take auto-damage (paladin) or a basic attack (fighter). The ranger's ability to make two attacks (without a stat bonus to damage, + a die of HQ) is striker-level damage, in fact, Twin Strike is often considered the Ranger's best at-will. Given that, isn't being able to make two basic attack per round (which include a stat bonus to damage) also striker-level damage?

So, in the two-striker scenario, the monster is taking striker damage x2, and going down fast, but, he can concentrate damage on one of the strikers, taking him down fast (or, at least, chewing through some healing surges, with which strikers are not abundantly endowed). A few encounters of this scenario, and either both strikers are running out of surges (if they've been good about splitting damage between the two of them somehow), or one is dead. For instance, if you have a TWF ranger and a rogue flanking and killing monsters, the best target is generally the ranger, since killing him ends his damage and reduces the rogues be eliminating the flank. The adventuring day will thus end when the ranger runs out of surges, which'll probably be in the 2nd encounter.

In the Striker & Defender scenario, the monster can either attack the fighter, who is higher AC and doing less damage, in which case he'll do take longer to eliminate him than he would the striker, or attack the striker and take striker x2 damage, /and/ hit the striker less often. In either case, the monster inflicts less total damage on the party. It probably inflicts more damage if it chooses the fighter, since it'll last a little longer taking striker + defender damage than striker x2 damage. But, the fighter doesn't just have more hps, he has more surges, as well, so he can soak it up, both in that encounter, and over the course of the day.

Now, from the monster's pov, being more likely to hit, and likely to take less damage is better; from the party's point of view, it might be better, in terms of eliminating that one monster, if the monster attacked the striker. I think that's as far as you got in your analysis. The monster attacks the defender, because it's the best thing for him to do, and the worst for the party. But, it's /not/ the worst for the party, because the defender has more surges and more hps than the striker. Over the course of the adventuring day (which the monster couldn't care less about, since, in the long run, it's dead), the party is better off if the monster lives a litttle longer and inflicts a little more damage on the defender than it would have on the striker, because the defender has the surges to recover from that beating and keep going for 3 or 4 or more encounters, while the striker would be lucky to survive two such encounters in a row, at all.

So, the 'best' decision for the monster can also be the better one for the party, because monsters have 1 surge and no particular interest in what happens after it's dead, while the party has a lot of healing surges, and has to worry about future encounters.

When the defender performs her role, the rational response of everyone in the party ought to be "darn, I wish that hadn't happened." That is not the case with a well-placed fireball, a knife in the back, an arrow to the head, a healing spell, or any other core class function.

PCs are going to get hit 4e, it's better that the guy with 60 hps and 12 healing surges (204 hps of daily resilience) gets hit than the one with 44 hps and 7 surges (121 hps for the day).

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

I usually wear the DM hat at our table, but I've recently gotten the chance to sit on the other side of the screen. The party I was joining needed a Defender, so that's what I played. Let me preface that by saying I have striker instincts.

I had a very hard time adjusting to the defender paradigm. As the defender I saw it as a lose-lose situation: If I do my job poorly my friend gets stabbed in the face, and if I do my job well I get stabbed in the face.

Intellectually I knew that my character had more HP and could better take the hit, but on some gut check level I couldn't get over the hurdle to believe that getting stabbed in the face was a reward for a job well done. It still doesn't sit right with me. I still do stupid things and employ subpar defender tactics, like hit and run, or mark and avoid, intentionally making it hard for my target to attack me. All because I can't wrap my head around the idea that getting attacked is a good thing. Now as a shielding swordmage that works out ok, I'm still protecting my party by mitigating damage, but were I playing any other defender this wouldn't fly.

I suspect that the OP may have some similar mental blocks in instinctively supporting the defender role, getting attacked is bad, either the monster attacks the defender or his ally, either way someone got attacked, something bad happened, defender was ineffective.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

Note: They are defenders, not tanks.

Tanks are a concept from MMORPGs and they are dependant upon creatures that blindly follow "aggro".

Although the role is very different, they are not the same.

The essential difference is that a "Tank" (i.e. the MMORPG version) has one goal - to increase his AC (or to increase his ability to take the hits in any other way allowed by the game system). [OK, two goals - to increase AC and to increase Aggro.] If he could have infinite AC, he would do it because the creatures do not act intelligently, they act according to an Aggro formula.

In D&D, the better the defender's AC is (compared to his companions) the less effective is his mark (which is why they also have other abilities beyond the basic mark effects).

More explicitely - If a Fighter has an AC that is 6 points better than anyone else in the party, the -2 penalty for attacking anyone else is no longer a consideration: Even with that -2 penalty, it is far easier to hit the striker than it is to hit the Fighter.

Again - Defenders are not Tanks.

And calling them a "Tank", imho, tends to make people play them like tanks and think of them as tanks.


So yes, you are better off with a Defender than without a Defender (as Drakona has demonstrated).

But you can't simply pump up your Defender's defenses and count on the creatures blindly attacking them regardless.

Carl

I'd just like to say - even though the DM has control over the monsters, the game has gone wrong somewhere if a monster just happens to know the ACs of all the targets. Monsters, and characters for that matter, should be judging likelyhood of a hit from trial and error - not because everyone knows the numbers. And even though the DM knows all the numbers involved, they shouldn't be played like that.

I read someone being annoyed that his DM played some alligators as if they were tactical geniuses. Alligators would just run forward and attack the nearest thing. When they get damaged too much they would run away. If an alligator is biting the nippy striker because the defender right next to him has higher numbers then the game has definitely hit an all time low.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, most strikers should be as difficult (if not more so) to hit than the defender if the mark penalty is taken into account.
If a striker is squishy due to being poorly built, then they probably deserve to get stacked on ...
Marks should generally not get ignored, but it doesn't take a genius to notice a very low AC.

 

[Syrsuro]

I'd just like to say - even though the DM has control over the monsters, the game has gone wrong somewhere if a monster just happens to know the ACs of all the targets. Monsters, and characters for that matter, should be judging likelyhood of a hit from trial and error - not because everyone knows the numbers. And even though the DM knows all the numbers involved, they shouldn't be played like that.

I read someone being annoyed that his DM played some alligators as if they were tactical geniuses. Alligators would just run forward and attack the nearest thing. When they get damaged too much they would run away. If an alligator is biting the nippy striker because the defender right next to him has higher numbers then the game has definitely hit an all time low.

I agree. But only to a point.

I tend to play creature according to their intelligence.

So we can dispense with the obvious strawman by sticking to relatively intelligent opponents.

And any creature with a decent amount of intelligence is capable of making the observation that they can't hit a target and choosing to hit a different target.

To put it another way - if the character are capable of making the observation that they are missing their target on a roll of 18, why shouldn't equally intelligent creatures be capable of making - and acting on - the equivalent observation.

You don't have to give the creatures godlike intelligence for my earlier point (that it is counterproductive for a defender to increase his AC too much over that of the strikers he is trying to defend) to hold.

Carl

 

[On Puget Sound]

My monsters start each fight respecting the defenders' marks, but the intelligent monsters reassess based on their experience. If a fighter misses a monster with his first two swings, the monster decides he can ignore the mark and goes for a striker or wizard. Note that the monsters don't know the die roll, just the result. So was the defender a competent hitter who got unlucky, or a STR 12/ CON 20 dwarf whom it is usually safe to go past? Monster finds this out the hard way.
Paladin marks are a bit different,since the damage there is automatic.

 

[Krensus]

In my opinion, it's important for a defender to dabble in several different areas to be viable. The only one I've played so far is the Fighter, which is arguably the best of the available options, so that's what I'll focus on.

A fighter has to hit his mark to actually deal damage, so he does need a good Strength. In order for the mark to have any bite, he has to deal a significant amount of damage or there has to be a severe deterrant to provoking. In my case, I took Dwarven Weapon Training to use a better melee weapon and Shield Push to interrupt an attack that doesn't target me. In this way, I deal near-striker damage, or better than striker damage given the nature of Sneak Attack, Curse, etc., if they provoke from me. Or I negate their standard action by pushing them away. In this way, the defender does tank when it is in the best benefit of the party by overbearing the negative effect side of the equation.

It seems to me that a defender also needs to invest in powers with a Controller's theme. By manipulating the battlefield with powers that push, slide, or knock prone enemies, the defender is able to insulate his allies and herd enemies to farther range. Forcing an enemy to take a walk rather than shift to reach an ally essentially eats their turn, leaving the only option left after the fighter's successful OA to charge the ally with a basic attack or to attack the fighter. The enemy can either eat 1d10+10 and get to make a basic attack against a squishy or he can take no damage and face the fighter. By negating the ability to move more than one square and still make a non-basic melee attack, the fighter limits the options of the enemies around him.

It is through this elimination of options that the defender, or at least the fighter, contributes to the group. He decides where the fight will occur, blockades passage to the weak, and punishes those who want to break the rules he's dictated.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

I agree. But only to a point.

I tend to play creature according to their intelligence.

So we can dispense with the obvious strawman by sticking to relatively intelligent opponents.

And any creature with a decent amount of intelligence is capable of making the observation that they can't hit a target and choosing to hit a different target.

To put it another way - if the character are capable of making the observation that they are missing their target on a roll of 18, why shouldn't equally intelligent creatures be capable of making - and acting on - the equivalent observation.

You don't have to give the creatures godlike intelligence for my earlier point (that it is counterproductive for a defender to increase his AC too much over that of the strikers he is trying to defend) to hold.

Carl

I have no problem with an average or greater intelligent creature making rough guesses as to who will be easiest to hit. Armour would be the biggest observation to sway the decision. I only really have a problem with using exact numbers. The DM shouldn't be going through all the characters ACs and Defence numbers, and then going through their monster's powers trying to find the killer blow.

The characters can't do that (or at least they shouldn't be allowed) so the DM should be a little more flippant when using tactics. That is not to say they should kamikazee their monsters all over the place.

EDIT: Just thought I'd add: I've been in lots of group fights as I grew up in a bad area in England. (Not by choice.) Trust me - even with a group of average IQs people tend to just go for whatever is next to them.

I have a friend that 6'5" and built like a tank (from the age of 12 that I know of). You'd think they would avoid him and go for my 5'6" friend, but they don't. Fighters like to go for prestige targets even if it is likely to end badly. My point is - IQ or common sense are not the only things deciding how a fighter behaves tactically. Most of the time people just get on with it and don't sit around thinking about pros and cons. In a fight you haven't really got the time. If you are thinking about stuff like that then you are probably lying on your back with someone stamping on your head and it is all moot.