Tank Theory

[Carpe DM]

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

 

[Kordeth]

The key point you're overlooking is that the defender can take a heck of a lot more hits than the striker. It's pretty much always beneficial for a blow to land on the tank (barring extreme cases like a completely-uninjured striker and a tank down to 5 hp and no healing surges) because the hit is going to put a much bigger dent in the striker's resources than in the defender's.

It's also likely that the defender's AC is higher than the striker's, meaning it's still more desirable for the monster to attack the tank by simple virtue of the fact that the tank is less likely to actually suffer the ill effects of the hit.

 

[DracoSuave]

Incentives exist for the striker to get away from being hit over the defender--concealment, immediate reactions to being attacked, positioning, marking, defensive abilities.

The trick is actually using them. A defender with more AC than jesus-in-a-tank is not a better target than a striker. A defender is a better target than a striker who damages you if you approach him, has an interrupt that'll shift you away from him, and who has a buddy that hits you for massive damage if you attack. Oh and the attack has a penalty.

It's about setting up the context and using terrain effectively.

 

[Carpe DM]

No, I was calculating the higher value of a striker as monster target due to the lower number of blows.

At the point where the increased damage due to a hit on a striker overtakes the benefit in dropping a striker fact, the monster is then incented to target the tank. At which point the party would rather have the blow land on the striker, since, by definition, the damage output increase outbalances the fact that some of the striker's fewer hitpoints are getting burned through.

I may be wrong (I don't think I am), but I did think of it!

best,

Carpe

 

[Kzach]

Simple answer.

You can't have your cake and eat it too

 

[Moon-Lancer]

my opinion is that while the rogue does do the most damage, he makes the better target in melee. a ranged ranger and warlock are better strikers in my opinion because they can fight without being on the front line, allowing defenders to act more like defenders.

powers that let the melee ranger and rogue move about combat help this somewhat.

 

[FireLance]

Since combat is usually a zero-sum game, the monsters will almost always want to do whatever the party does not want. What the defender can do is to offer the monsters a tactical advantage to do something that is in the party's strategic interest.

In most combats, it is usually in the party's strategic interest for the monsters to attack the defender because he has more healing surges and more hit points, so that he heals more per healing surge. By marking the monsters, a defender gives them a tactical advantage for attacking him instead of another party member which the monsters may otherwise focus on. Unless the monsters are also thinking strategically (which is seldom the case if the party is fighting a series of battles against enemies that are not allied with each other), there is no reason for them not to take the tactically advantageous action of attacking the defender, thus giving a longer-term strategic advantage to the party.

I submit that this ability to trade off a tactical disadvantage for a strategic advantage is the key role of the defender.

 

[the Jester]

If the party tank is taking the hits, the monsters aren't likely to switch targets because the striker is unwounded.

You're overlooking context in your analysis, I think. Strikers deal more damage, but defenders are in yer face and you can't get away without letting him give you a smack in the face.

Besides, monsters aren't acting in the party's interest.

I guess I'm not really certain what your point is.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The paradox arises because of two assumptions:
(1) Combatants can accurately assess who is the optimal target.
(2) Combatants are likely to have the opportunity to choose to attack the optimal target.

If true, these assumptions imply two things:
(A) Avoid being predictable and boring. Ideally it should be difficult to determine the optimal tactics until a ways into the fight.
(B) Do not have mechanically passive tanks. Rather than apply a straight penalty (damage, negative mod), tanks should prevent movement towards preferred targets or otherwise outright disrupt the attack.

 

[Drakona]

What? No, no, no. The tank's role isn't self-defeating. You're including the tank's effect at the wrong point in your analysis. You're trying to see how effective a tank is at its job, but you're doing so by comparing two options the monster has in the presence of the tank. You *should* be comparing the options the monster has with the tank versus those without the tank.

Here are the options:

A. (No tank) Attack the striker
B. (Tank) Attack the striker at a penalty and take some damage
C. (Tank) Attack the tank

The monster usually has option (A). The presence of a tank takes (A) off the table and gives it the choice of (B) or (C). You're comparing (B) to (C), but you should be comparing (B) *and* (C) to (A). The point is not that the monster will pick the worse of (B) and (C). Of course it will. It's a monster. The point is that (B) and (C) are both better than (A).

The traditional job of the tank is to transfer attacks from the striker to the tank. It happens when (C) is better for the monster than (B), and when that is the case, the tank has succeeded in this role.

Perhaps an extreme example will illustrate more clearly.

Let's think about two fighters. I'll call one of them Charmy and one of them Smitey. Charmey is the perfect tank: when he activates his mark, the monster is forced to attack him--it's a charm effect, and it literally cannot do anything else. Charmey is clearly an effective tank. Smitey is not so capable, but has a very powerful mark: when he activates it, a monster takes -20 to attack anybody else, and takes 400 damage in the process. When Smitey activates his mark, the party would really, really, like to see the monster take option (B) and try to attack someone else, because it would probably fail or die. But of course, the monster never does that because the cost is so high. It just attacks Smitey.

Is Smitey effective as a tank? Absolutely! He's exactly as effective as Charmey is -- the monster goes for him every time, which is what he wants! It doesn't matter that (C) is worse for the party than (B). (B) is just a threat to make it go for (C), because (C) is way better than (A), and that was the point all along.

Normal fighters are like Smitey, except not quite so powerful. Their marks don't always succeed at transferring attacks, but they do always cost the monsters something. But the same rule applies -- it's not like the tank has failed when the monster picks (C) just because we would have liked it to pick (B). (B) isn't the baseline. (A) is. (B) was always just a threat to make (C) attractive.

Bottom line - The goal of the tank is to take pressure off the striker by transferring hits to himself. The tank does not succeed by making the monster act against its self-interest. No monster ever does that. The tank succeeds by manipulating the monster's self interest so that it does what the tank wants.