Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Bad Axe Games Hosted Forum
Modifying the Trailblazer Fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ragnar_Deerslayer" data-source="post: 5125705" data-attributes="member: 11990"><p>Thank you for your (very helpful) feedback!</p><p></p><p>Okay, let me clarify my experiences and how I understand "tank." A "tank" is a guard or bodyguard, someone who protects a weaker person by physically intervening between them and a threat.</p><p></p><p>Another definition of "tank," I guess, is "tough damage-dealer." This is a role the 3e fighter fills pretty well. When the wizard is out of spells and the rogue is lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood, the fighter is still standing toe-to-toe with Mr. Ugly. Rock on, fighter!</p><p></p><p>However, as the party advances in levels, the offensive power of the wiz/sorc increases rapidly, while their hit points increase much less rapidly. That makes <em>taking down the wiz/sorc</em> the #1 priority of intelligent opponents. The standard battle tactic we use in 3e to stop this is <em>fix the line and concentrate fire</em>. I always felt this tactic should work better than it actually did. Unless the combat takes place in a 10' wide corridor, there's very little way for the tougher PCs to really "fix the line" against a half-dozen opponents.</p><p></p><p>So an enemy takes an AoO of 1d10+5 damage while running past the fighter. That's, what, 10.5 average damage? Versus a 5d6 fireball (17.5 avg dam, over an area) the Wizard will throw next turn if they don't engage with him? If the bad guy has the hit points, he'll take the AoO. The 3e fighter cannot say "Over my dead body." He cannot physically interpose himself the way real guards, or, heck, football linemen do.</p><p></p><p>WoW deals with this (iirc) by having the computer AI keep track of how much damage a mob has received from each opponent, and having the mob attack the opponent that has done the most total damage. Tanks make the mobs <em>think</em> they have taken more damage from them (even if they haven't), drawing their attacks away from the weaker party members.</p><p></p><p>Fourth Ed took care of this by having the defenders threaten damage if they aren't engaged. The Paladin's Divine Challenge and Fighter's Combat Challenge also imposes a negative to-hit modifier if he isn't engaged. While I ultimately found 4e unsatisfying, I really did like these mechanics. I didn't like the "marks" - I understand they're there to prevent the "hammer-and-anvil" effect of two defenders using Challenge on the same target, but it was just one more thing to keep track of. That being said, let's take Interrupting Strike off the table for now and focus on Stop-Hit, since after defining "tank," I realize that this is the more important idea to the concept.</p><p></p><p>The idea about allowing a Combat Maneuver as an AoO is great. But I really don't need to give access to all the maneuvers . . . just one to keep the guy from getting away.</p><p></p><p>* * *</p><p><strong>Blocking Move</strong>: If an AoO is provoked by an enemy leaving a fighter's threatened area, the fighter can attempt a bull rush (instead of a standard attack) to push/pull the enemy back into that square, ending that move action.</p><p>* * *</p><p></p><p>This revises the Stop-Hit. It still requires a roll, but a Combat Maneuver roll instead of an attack roll, and it does no damage, giving the fighter an interesting tactical decision. It would still receive the +4 to AoO that Punishing Strike gives, and would receive another +4 if the fighter had Improved Bull Rush.</p><p></p><p>Blocking Move is more flexible than Bull Rush, in that the fighter can <em>pull</em> as well as push, but that's a necessity since "threatened square" has been changed to "threatened area." You wouldn't want to push the guy <em>closer</em> to the wizard! (Maybe I should replace "to push/pull the enemy" with "to manhandle the enemy?")</p><p></p><p>It's powerful in that a Combat Reaction is used to cancel a movement action. At this point, if the movement action was the first action, the enemy could simply attack the fighter, which is what the fighter was probably hoping for, then take a withdraw action next round. Or, he could take a second movement action.</p><p></p><p>At any rate, a single fighter with Combat Reflexes and a +6 BAB should be able to hold a 15' wide corridor against three opponents *by himself*. Under 3.5 rules, a single fighter with Combat Reflexes and 14 Dex could only smack the little critters as they ran by to dog-pile the Wizard.</p><p></p><p>What would be a good level to put it at? Three? Five? Maybe make it a fighter-only bonus feat? Requiring Power Attack?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ragnar_Deerslayer, post: 5125705, member: 11990"] Thank you for your (very helpful) feedback! Okay, let me clarify my experiences and how I understand "tank." A "tank" is a guard or bodyguard, someone who protects a weaker person by physically intervening between them and a threat. Another definition of "tank," I guess, is "tough damage-dealer." This is a role the 3e fighter fills pretty well. When the wizard is out of spells and the rogue is lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood, the fighter is still standing toe-to-toe with Mr. Ugly. Rock on, fighter! However, as the party advances in levels, the offensive power of the wiz/sorc increases rapidly, while their hit points increase much less rapidly. That makes [I]taking down the wiz/sorc[/I] the #1 priority of intelligent opponents. The standard battle tactic we use in 3e to stop this is [I]fix the line and concentrate fire[/I]. I always felt this tactic should work better than it actually did. Unless the combat takes place in a 10' wide corridor, there's very little way for the tougher PCs to really "fix the line" against a half-dozen opponents. So an enemy takes an AoO of 1d10+5 damage while running past the fighter. That's, what, 10.5 average damage? Versus a 5d6 fireball (17.5 avg dam, over an area) the Wizard will throw next turn if they don't engage with him? If the bad guy has the hit points, he'll take the AoO. The 3e fighter cannot say "Over my dead body." He cannot physically interpose himself the way real guards, or, heck, football linemen do. WoW deals with this (iirc) by having the computer AI keep track of how much damage a mob has received from each opponent, and having the mob attack the opponent that has done the most total damage. Tanks make the mobs [I]think[/I] they have taken more damage from them (even if they haven't), drawing their attacks away from the weaker party members. Fourth Ed took care of this by having the defenders threaten damage if they aren't engaged. The Paladin's Divine Challenge and Fighter's Combat Challenge also imposes a negative to-hit modifier if he isn't engaged. While I ultimately found 4e unsatisfying, I really did like these mechanics. I didn't like the "marks" - I understand they're there to prevent the "hammer-and-anvil" effect of two defenders using Challenge on the same target, but it was just one more thing to keep track of. That being said, let's take Interrupting Strike off the table for now and focus on Stop-Hit, since after defining "tank," I realize that this is the more important idea to the concept. The idea about allowing a Combat Maneuver as an AoO is great. But I really don't need to give access to all the maneuvers . . . just one to keep the guy from getting away. * * * [B]Blocking Move[/B]: If an AoO is provoked by an enemy leaving a fighter's threatened area, the fighter can attempt a bull rush (instead of a standard attack) to push/pull the enemy back into that square, ending that move action. * * * This revises the Stop-Hit. It still requires a roll, but a Combat Maneuver roll instead of an attack roll, and it does no damage, giving the fighter an interesting tactical decision. It would still receive the +4 to AoO that Punishing Strike gives, and would receive another +4 if the fighter had Improved Bull Rush. Blocking Move is more flexible than Bull Rush, in that the fighter can [I]pull[/I] as well as push, but that's a necessity since "threatened square" has been changed to "threatened area." You wouldn't want to push the guy [I]closer[/I] to the wizard! (Maybe I should replace "to push/pull the enemy" with "to manhandle the enemy?") It's powerful in that a Combat Reaction is used to cancel a movement action. At this point, if the movement action was the first action, the enemy could simply attack the fighter, which is what the fighter was probably hoping for, then take a withdraw action next round. Or, he could take a second movement action. At any rate, a single fighter with Combat Reflexes and a +6 BAB should be able to hold a 15' wide corridor against three opponents *by himself*. Under 3.5 rules, a single fighter with Combat Reflexes and 14 Dex could only smack the little critters as they ran by to dog-pile the Wizard. What would be a good level to put it at? Three? Five? Maybe make it a fighter-only bonus feat? Requiring Power Attack? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Bad Axe Games Hosted Forum
Modifying the Trailblazer Fighter
Top