Tank Theory

[Leatherhead]

You're gonna have to work very, very hard to prove that statement.

I can claim with confidence that a football team works better with 10 receiver, one QB and no tackle, that doesn't make it true.

No, I'm not actually, the reasoning is ludicrously simple.

Not getting hit is better than getting hit. One of the best ways to avoid getting hit is to have as much distance between you and the guy who is trying to kill you as possible. In an MMORPG (forgive me for invoking this), this concept is most commonly known as "kiting." Another similar concept, the "stun-lock" hinges on using various forms of control to beat the enemy senseless while denying their ability to act at all. Nether method requires any kind of tank.

The ranged group works by keeping enemies out of melee range, using the mobility of strikers to play keep away, and the condition inducing powers of controllers to lock down those enemies with ranged attacks or superior mobility of their own. Naturally this isn't an infallible strategy, sometimes an enemy is going to get by or ambush the party, but neither is using a defender when the enemy starts flying or has ranged units of their own.

Defenders require groups to support their style of gameplay, which in turn makes people believe that everyone else is supposed to fit in around a defender, causing them to select powers and adapt strategies based on having a defender in the party. When everyone is fitted around a defender it does seem like the defender is a necessity, however it is quite possible to get along without a defender entirely, if you remove them in the beginning and have everyone work from there.

When your party has a defender in it, the defender has to get into the "High Danger Zone" right next to most monsters and NPCs. This is fine when you have other melee melee strikers to take a few hits and use combat advantage to ramp up all the damage for those people in melee.

In contrast, the defender in a ranged group isn't granting or receiving combat advantage as much, lowering the defenders damage, and even sometimes getting in the way of Area Powers, lowering the damage or increasing the risk of using the powers for the other classes. More importantly, the defender in a ranged group is forced to use more healing surges than their counterpart in a more melee-focused group, which cuts down on the amount of combats a party can do before it must rest. And for a minor annoyance, the ranged group is now tethered around the defender so that the defender can do their job, cutting down on their mobility a bit, but most encounters have some kind of range limit anyway, so this only applies in a few situations.

For an anecdote on the extreme side, I can recall when a Fighter in one of my games managed to place himself in a doorway between the monsters and the rest of the PCs. The Fighter ended up doing his job a little too well, having to spend over 10 healing surges that fight.

And to be quite frank, combat isn't like football, combat doesn't have as many limitations.

 

[Herschel]

True, but with Int adding to AC for light armour a wizard in leather or cloth isn't that much easier to hit than the fighter in plate (especially without a shield)

It depends on the defender. Maxing AC as far as you can is part of the derived point in this thread. My Swordmage w/ Longsword and +2 Magic Leather Armor is sitting at a 23 AC at level 3 sure, but that Ranger with the 17 AC is easier to hit than the Paladin in Plate & Shield. Sometimes I do have the monsters attacks the squishier looking target until they learn otherwise, depending on a number of factors.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

No, I'm not actually, the reasoning is ludicrously simple.

Not getting hit is better than getting hit. One of the best ways to avoid getting hit is to have as much distance between you and the guy who is trying to kill you as possible.

That's why wizards and warlocks hiding behind a defender don't get hit much.

But without a defender, the ranged attacker can't avoid getting in melee.

Absolutely no PC in D&D is mobile enough to stay out of reach indefinetely if there is no interference unless he is facing a horde of zombies. None. Not even rangers and rogues. If you attack, you only have a move left. Those who attacks can make a move and a charge. At that rate, even a dwarf catch up with an elf.

If you have 4 mobile ranged PCs scuttling around, backing from the enemy, here is what is going to happen: Me, as a DM, will send EVERY MONSTERS after the softer PC and tear him apart. He won't be able to stay out of reach for long. In a typical dungeon, he won't even be able to do it for one round. And since he isn't a defender, he'll die very fast.

Only the archer ranger has massive range and it only matters on huge open maps. Most classes have an optimum range of 10 square and it's nowhere enough to buffer you from enemies without defenders. The ranged cleric only has an optimum range of 5! Are you gonna play without cleric, warlock and wizards? What do you propose? A team of 5 rangers and a DM kind enough to always attack you in the open, starting at 40 squares?

In a tough level +3 encounter, set in typical indoor environment, an all ranged team is a party wipeout. But for a balanced party, it's just a challenging fight.

And if you don't believe it, I'll prove it to you anytime in a PbP test.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem with one trick ponies like groups that fight entirely at range and hope to bring their enemies down before they engage in melee is that eventually they will encounter an enemy on whom this trick does not work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fighting retreat party could also end up with simple problems, like retreating far enough that the enemy just slams a door in thier collective face and calls it a day. Maintining range like that surrenders the initiative, the monsters are left with the power to decide whether to continue the encounter or break contact. Since a standard challenge favors the party, that's not such a great thing.

That said, there could be encounters where even a party with modest ranged ability might want to keep away - even the defender - vs a stupid brute with low movement and a nasty aura, for instance.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The str-paladin can still play their defender role reasonably well at range. Throwing javelins use str and this qualifies for applying divine challenge. Furthermore, they can position themselves to grant their allies cover if need be. That's +2 AC to an ally, plus -2 hit and 3+ auto-damage to a foe. The cha-paladin has shorter range but better encounter/daily ranged powers.

Given the tightly controlled numbers of 4E, a well placed +2 AC/-2 hit can significantly affect a battle.

This all aside. I agree that one trick pony parties fare poorly when presented with a range of varied encounters. They may cream many, but it only takes one TPK...

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

Because your assessment that fighters and wizards fulfill the same role is just plain wrong.

I disagree, I've long fealt that he controller and the defender fill the same role in the party, forcing your opponents to use their actions inefficiently.

Attacking the defender is an inefficient use of the monster's actions compared to the other potential options. The defender is by the litteral definition of the word *controlling* the monster by incentivising the monster to attack himself as opposed to some other PC. Likewise a Wizard who dazes his enemy is forcing his enemy to use his actions less efficiently, by taking only one action of his choice as opposed to the usual one standard, one move, one minor actions. At this core level the two of them are doing the same thing, doing it differently but still doing the same thing.

 

[Leatherhead]

And if you don't believe it, I'll prove it to you anytime in a PbP test.

You seem to be under the false impression that I haven't tried this type of group setup before. It worked far better than I originally thought it would, mostly due to the fact that the players started thinking about how they are going to not get pummeled to death, instead of just hiding behind a meat shield unloading heavy fire. I am not claiming the setup infallible, I am merely stating that it is a fun and working alternative to using a defender.

This may seem strange, but people are beginning to sound a bit too attached to using a "tank and spank" strategy. Claiming alternatives to be a one trick pony, when the game is supposed to allow you to play without any given role. Saying that not using a defender won't work in every situation, even though defenders themselves do not work in every situation.

The key isn't to simply do maximum damage per round, the key is control. I may have oversimplified the idea, but really just take a look at the other class powers. They have pushing, powers to get out of melee range, daze, stun, slow, and do all kinds of crazy things like put up walls. Nearly every class has abilities that let it cover or do without some role, even fighters have healing powers for when you know the party is going to be short on leaders. Just try and think outside of the standard party box, you have the tools to do so.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You seem to be under the false impression that I haven't tried this type of group setup before. It worked far better than I originally thought it would, mostly due to the fact that the players started thinking about how they are going to not get pummeled to death, instead of just hiding behind a meat shield unloading heavy fire.

Or maybe because the DM set up soft encounters in friendly terrain and where he spread damage around without being forced to.

A 100% ranged party isn't nearly as strong as a balanced one and needs to be cuddled which as a DM I hate and never do.

We just cleared a dungeon in tonight's session and an all ranged party would have been smeared all over the floor. A very tough fight in cramped quarters with monsters who often immobilized us comes to mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's kinda funny that the 3e fighter caught a lot of flack for not having aggro like an MMO type, and, now that the fighter is good and sticky, people are still criticizing the whole idea of the hero who puts his life on the line to protect his friends.

I wonder if soldiers get the same kind of grief from thier controllers & skirmishers?