Killing two birds with one tank

[Fanaelialae]

Imagine you're the DM and a combat begins. You're running a bunch of bandits who, although they aren't the brightest sparks, have decent tactics and have ambushed more than a few travellers in their time.

A cleric in the PC's party immediately hails his god and calls forth divine powers to bolster the party. You think, "Ahah! Target priority number one!" And then this douchebag in heavy plate trips your bandit up and kicks him in the face whilst he's down. Another one of your bandits goes for the cleric only to have his shield sundered in half by this increasingly annoying plate-wearer, who then carves a big chunk out of the bandit to add injury to insult. And then the final straw, your BBEG goes to carve the cleric in two only to have his sword flung fifteen feet away by that darn plate wearer, and then be smashed in the face by a gauntleted fist.

Who is now the priority number one target on the battlefield?

You said that these bandits aren't complete idiots when it comes to battle, so why don't they just walk around the fighter (outside his reach)? After the first bandit sees how effective the fighter is, they ought to be scrambling to find themselves an easier target.

It seems to me that the best way to handle your proposed fighter is to never get into melee with him. After all, despite his effectiveness which might make him a priority, his armor will still make him an undesirable target (because he's harder to hit than the wizard). Thus, the best approach is to simply limit his control by giving him only one target to control.

 

[renau1g]

You said that these bandits aren't complete idiots when it comes to battle, so why don't they just walk around the fighter (outside his reach)? After the first bandit sees how effective the fighter is, they ought to be scrambling to find themselves an easier target.

It seems to me that the best way to handle your proposed fighter is to never get into melee with him. After all, despite his effectiveness which might make him a priority, his armor will still make him an undesirable target (because he's harder to hit than the wizard). Thus, the best approach is to simply limit his control by giving him only one target to control.

I can just picture if too.

Bandit Leader: "Hey! Red Shirt, you want to earn your stripes, go distract that big sword wielding armored dude while we go backstab the wizard"

Red shirt goes off and dies at the end of the fighter's blade while the rest of the bandits run around the far side and stab the wizard (or cleric).

 

[Fanaelialae]

As I sort of came up with on another thread..

If armor makes you *easier* to hit, but reduces the damage you take, then heavily armored characters would be the right targets for enemies - they definitely deal some damage rather than maybe dealing more damage.

What if the fighter decides not to wear armor?

In a system where armor is pure advantage (or near enough), such as every version of D&D, it's reasonable to assume that PCs will wear armor.

If the system has armor as both an advantage and a disadvantage (as you propose) then it's far less cut and dry. After all, not being hit often confers advantages that DR does not (such as not having to make poison saves against a poisoned weapon).

I know this firsthand since a friend of mine tried something like this in a homebrewed system. After weighing my decision, I decided to go without armor, and I didn't regret it. Neither did the guy who did wear armor. However, it felt like more of a stylistic choice at that point.

Admittedly though, I've never been a fan of armor as DR.

 

[Rhenny]

There are some terrific ideas in this thread.

I am intrigued by the idea that heavy armor would make a target easier to hit, but I'm not sure that fits with the classic D&D concept.

I like the ideas that have to do with adding combat maneuvers on top of attacks (either once per round or limited per day), and I like the idea about adding a combat maneuver of choice when a PC scores a critical hit. In fact, I do that in my 4e game now. On a crit, the PC can either add more damage (1d10 with exploding 10), knock the foe prone, or push the foe 2 squares with option to remain engaged with foe or stand ground without moving. My players love the choices (even though it only comes up about 1 time per game), and most of the times I have the monsters just add damage with a crit.

 

[Kzach]

What if the fighter decides not to wear armor?

Then, as mentioned, he's harder to hit, but hits do more damage.

I'm a big fan of this concept but unfortunately there are so many people against the idea of DR that I don't think it'll ever become a core part of D&D rules.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Then, as mentioned, he's harder to hit, but hits do more damage.

I'm a big fan of this concept but unfortunately there are so many people against the idea of DR that I don't think it'll ever become a core part of D&D rules.

It was a rhetorical question in response to [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] 's idea (that wearing armor could make one a priority target, and thus "tanking" could be achieved by those means).

Based on my experience with such a system, it wouldn't work.

There are two possibilities:
1. The DR from armor outweighs the AC reduction.
2. The DR from armor does not outweigh the AC reduction. (In other words, it is less than or equivalent to the AC reduction.)

In the first case, armor is certainly worth wearing, but it won't make the fighter a priority target (because the DR is so high that it's better to simply attack an unarmored opponent). You do get some wonkyness, however, in that armor somehow makes a fighter more vulnerable to attack riders (like poisons, or pushes).

In the second case, armor isn't worth wearing, and becomes a stylistic choice (at best). After all, it's silly to wear armor that doesn't make you less vulnerable. Any player who can do the math simply won't wear armor, while those who can't figure it out fall into the design trap. Because even if it breaks even on paper, AC protects you from effects that DR doesn't (such as poison).


That isn't to say that it's a bad idea (at least in the first case), but rather that it won't help a fighter be a "tank".

In order to be a "tank", the fighter needs specialized "tanking" mechanics. As an example, marking, which exists specifically for the purpose of allowing defenders to "tank". I realize that not everyone likes marking, but it's just an existent example. You could just as easily create a mechanic that allows fighters to intercept blows intended for their allies.

Heck, offer the fighter a dozen different "tanking" feats to pick from, so that he can choose whether he's the type of fighter who stops foes in their tracks, leaps in front of allies to intercept blows, or isn't interested in protecting anyone at all.

I don't believe that there's a roundabout path to achieving the goal of a fighter who can "tank". IMO, the issue needs to be addressed directly, using mechanics specifically for that purpose. I believe that anything less will inevitably fall short and leave players who want to play a defending fighter unsatisfied.