Killing two birds with one tank

[Kzach]

I've solved the aggro issue! And everyone will love my ideas and praise me as a god amongst gods! Because I am awesome. And handsome.

I wanted to start another thread for this because I felt it deserved it's own discussion rather than intermingling with the arguments in the "Aggro" thread which, ironically enough, aggravated me

The idea is fairly simple and isn't really anything new, it's more of a new way of THINKING and PERCEIVING how threat and the tank's role work in an RPG. And even then, it's probably not new, just me thinking it's new because I have a very high opinion of myself and my brilliance.

Annnnnyway, the idea came from what some people said in the other thread about how the tank's ability shouldn't require an artificial threat mechanic and instead should have the abilities required to do their role as tank, without forcing an artificial decision on the DM. A tank can't just be threatening in terms of damage since that would negate the need for strikers and a tank can't be unhittable because that would make them the worst target, not the best target. But they also can't have low AC or low damage as that means they're ineffective in their role and we have wizards for meat-puppets that fall under the burden of a light breeze anyway.

Essentially, the answer, I believe, is still within the mechanics but it should be within the role of the tank class as well. I've discussed before about expanding the role of basic attacks and I think this is where two birds could be killed with one tank.

If we make Trip, Disarm, Push, Pull, Slide, Attack, Defend, all 'basic' actions, balanced within themselves to make none more superior than the other (so that even a basic basic attack is still an option worthy of using in amongst all the others), this gives everyone in the group a bunch of interesting options for melee combat regardless of their class or role.

But if the tank classes are more effective at these actions, through basic class abilities rather than as extra powers, then they also gain the ability to defend their charges more effectively and become tanks through their actions rather than through some artificial 'marking' mechanic or vanilla damage increases.

This also makes tanks (aka fighters) the most effective... fighters. In essence, a fighter should be a melee controller. Just with better damage and defences. After all, that's what their role is really about. It's about controlling enemies so that they have difficulty in going for the squishies and are forced into attacking the heavily defended, high hit point character instead. Leave damage to the strikers.

That's my (brilliant) opinion, anyway.

 

[Gold Roger]

This is a suggestion I can get behind, regardless of any supposed "roles" (which I hope to see pushed back out of design priorities).

Maneuvering and controlling the flow of battle should be a big part of the fighter and properly implemented keep relevance into the high level range.

Wether this works out completely depends on the implementation of maneuvers. In theory everyone was able to trip, bullrush, disarm and sunder in 3.X, with fighter superior thanks to bonus feats. But the praxis sadly didn't work out that well.

 

[n00bdragon]

As long as there's a reason to make a character who does these things I'm all for it. Why bother tripping people if it's more expedient to get them stuck in solid fog or some nonsense? These special attacks have to be just as cool as the spells the user isn't getting.

 

[rkwoodard]

Brillant

I've solved the aggro issue! And everyone will love my ideas and praise me as a god amongst gods! Because I am awesome. And handsome.

I wanted to start another thread for this because I felt it deserved it's own discussion rather than intermingling with the arguments in the "Aggro" thread which, ironically enough, aggravated me

The idea is fairly simple and isn't really anything new, it's more of a new way of THINKING and PERCEIVING how threat and the tank's role work in an RPG. And even then, it's probably not new, just me thinking it's new because I have a very high opinion of myself and my brilliance.

Annnnnyway, the idea came from what some people said in the other thread about how the tank's ability shouldn't require an artificial threat mechanic and instead should have the abilities required to do their role as tank, without forcing an artificial decision on the DM. A tank can't just be threatening in terms of damage since that would negate the need for strikers and a tank can't be unhittable because that would make them the worst target, not the best target. But they also can't have low AC or low damage as that means they're ineffective in their role and we have wizards for meat-puppets that fall under the burden of a light breeze anyway.

Essentially, the answer, I believe, is still within the mechanics but it should be within the role of the tank class as well. I've discussed before about expanding the role of basic attacks and I think this is where two birds could be killed with one tank.

If we make Trip, Disarm, Push, Pull, Slide, Attack, Defend, all 'basic' actions, balanced within themselves to make none more superior than the other (so that even a basic basic attack is still an option worthy of using in amongst all the others), this gives everyone in the group a bunch of interesting options for melee combat regardless of their class or role.

But if the tank classes are more effective at these actions, through basic class abilities rather than as extra powers, then they also gain the ability to defend their charges more effectively and become tanks through their actions rather than through some artificial 'marking' mechanic or vanilla damage increases.

This also makes tanks (aka fighters) the most effective... fighters. In essence, a fighter should be a melee controller. Just with better damage and defences. After all, that's what their role is really about. It's about controlling enemies so that they have difficulty in going for the squishies and are forced into attacking the heavily defended, high hit point character instead. Leave damage to the strikers.

That's my (brilliant) opinion, anyway.

This is one of my house rules in C&C. When you attack with melee weapon, it is the same regular standard To Hit roll, but you can chose (before you roll) to make it a Damage attack, a disarm, a bull rush or a trip.

Unfortunately, I never get to play, so while I have thought of doing this, I have no actual play experience.

RK

 

[MortalPlague]

As long as there's a reason to make a character who does these things I'm all for it. Why bother tripping people if it's more expedient to get them stuck in solid fog or some nonsense? These special attacks have to be just as cool as the spells the user isn't getting.

This.

Also, on a related note, why trip someone when it's better to do damage? When you can deal some damage or trip someone, 9 times out of 10, you'll opt for damage. Wizards had better come up with something to incentivize these moves; maybe tripping someone also causes damage? Maybe it allows the fighter to use special maneuvers to keep them down?

 

[Kzach]

This.

Also, on a related note, why trip someone when it's better to do damage? When you can deal some damage or trip someone, 9 times out of 10, you'll opt for damage. Wizards had better come up with something to incentivize these moves; maybe tripping someone also causes damage? Maybe it allows the fighter to use special maneuvers to keep them down?

It's certainly an idea that would need balancing and tweaking. All I'm really doing is presenting the concept as a workable entity that could solve some of the issues people have with threat and class roles.

I leave all the heavy lifting up to Mearls & Co.

 

[Rhenny]

This.

Also, on a related note, why trip someone when it's better to do damage? When you can deal some damage or trip someone, 9 times out of 10, you'll opt for damage. Wizards had better come up with something to incentivize these moves; maybe tripping someone also causes damage? Maybe it allows the fighter to use special maneuvers to keep them down?

I agree with the incentive part, especially for a PC trained in melee combat (fighter). Perhaps the attack is just 1d4 plus strength bonus for any combat maneuver (with extra damage for monks or PCs trained in weaponless combat, and other bonuses from special weapons that are made for specific attacks like a garrotte, whip, net, etc.).

As for the solid fog, or spell that does the same effect, those won't be a problem because spells will be limited resources while basic attacks or combat maneuvers could be limitless.

 

[KidSnide]

If we make Trip, Disarm, Push, Pull, Slide, Attack, Defend, all 'basic' actions, balanced within themselves to make none more superior than the other (so that even a basic basic attack is still an option worthy of using in amongst all the others), this gives everyone in the group a bunch of interesting options for melee combat regardless of their class or role.

I agree with your analysis, but not with the result. I never found that my 3.x games were made better by all these maneuvers. Sure, it was nice to have a bull rush when there's interesting terrain where a target can be pushed, and it's good to have trip if an enemy is trying to escape. But I never found that I wanted more of these in my basic combat.

One of the advantages to the 4e approach is that you tend to see special effects (tripping, pushing, etc.) (1) moderately often and (2) in addition to damage. If this abilities are worse than damage outside of special circumstances (the correct situation, IMO), then it doesn't solve your tank problem because folks will mostly just swing their swords. But if these maneuvers are at-will and better-than-damage, then you will get ridiculous slapstick clown combat, where everyone is knocking each other down, but nobody takes any damage.

Personally, I think that the 4e system was right, in the sense that melee combat is more tactical and more fun if there are a series of special maneuvers that are (1) strictly better than a typical attack and (2) not usable every turn. Where the problem came in was that encounter and daily powers were never an especially good fit for martial characters.

Here's my random thought of the day...

I suspect that a better tactical combat option would come closer to the Iron Heroes approach. Different classes/builds/options could have a variety of ways of building up maneuver points (advantage points?) against a given opponent (or group of opponents?), by fighting them, observing them or taking special actions to set them up. With enough maneuver points, the martial characters can pull off the special exploit. Many characters will want exploits that do extra damage, but more defender-like characters will have controller-like effects that limit the opponent's ability. Likewise, defender-like characters can build up maneuver points, for example, when targets ignore their challenge or attack adjacent opponents.

And, of course, defender zones (where enemies in the zone take are at a penalty to hit the defender's allies) are the less complicated alternative for folks who don't want to track building up maneuver points.

-KS

 

[Grimmjow]

Just remember that DDN is trying to dissolve roles so it will be more like tanking themes

but good ideas all the same

 

[Morrus]

Perhaps the fighter gets a free trip, push, disarm, attempt etc. with each basic attack? Then you don't need to incentivise him because he's not sacrificing anything for it. He's just doing that stuff all the time pretty much as part of his fighting style.

Would need tweaking of course. Maybe limited to one per round. Other classes can use the manoeuvres, but don't get 'em as freebies. So the fighter is definitely the best at fighting.