Ridley's Cohort
First Post
I am impressed, Drakona.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Tank Theory
- Thread starter Carpe DM
- Start date
DracoSuave
First Post
Drakona: Good job! That's a really good analysis!
But as well... this is not an MMO. The Defender isn't -the- tank. He should take the brunt of damage in proportion to his additional hit points. The Striker should still be hit every so often.
But as well... this is not an MMO. The Defender isn't -the- tank. He should take the brunt of damage in proportion to his additional hit points. The Striker should still be hit every so often.
Note: They are defenders, not tanks.
Tanks are a concept from MMORPGs and they are dependant upon creatures that blindly follow "aggro".
Although the role is very different, they are not the same.
The essential difference is that a "Tank" (i.e. the MMORPG version) has one goal - to increase his AC (or to increase his ability to take the hits in any other way allowed by the game system). [OK, two goals - to increase AC and to increase Aggro.] If he could have infinite AC, he would do it because the creatures do not act intelligently, they act according to an Aggro formula.
In D&D, the better the defender's AC is (compared to his companions) the less effective is his mark (which is why they also have other abilities beyond the basic mark effects).
More explicitely - If a Fighter has an AC that is 6 points better than anyone else in the party, the -2 penalty for attacking anyone else is no longer a consideration: Even with that -2 penalty, it is far easier to hit the striker than it is to hit the Fighter.
Again - Defenders are not Tanks.
And calling them a "Tank", imho, tends to make people play them like tanks and think of them as tanks.
So yes, you are better off with a Defender than without a Defender (as Drakona has demonstrated).
But you can't simply pump up your Defender's defenses and count on the creatures blindly attacking them regardless.
Carl
Tanks are a concept from MMORPGs and they are dependant upon creatures that blindly follow "aggro".
Although the role is very different, they are not the same.
The essential difference is that a "Tank" (i.e. the MMORPG version) has one goal - to increase his AC (or to increase his ability to take the hits in any other way allowed by the game system). [OK, two goals - to increase AC and to increase Aggro.] If he could have infinite AC, he would do it because the creatures do not act intelligently, they act according to an Aggro formula.
In D&D, the better the defender's AC is (compared to his companions) the less effective is his mark (which is why they also have other abilities beyond the basic mark effects).
More explicitely - If a Fighter has an AC that is 6 points better than anyone else in the party, the -2 penalty for attacking anyone else is no longer a consideration: Even with that -2 penalty, it is far easier to hit the striker than it is to hit the Fighter.
Again - Defenders are not Tanks.
And calling them a "Tank", imho, tends to make people play them like tanks and think of them as tanks.
So yes, you are better off with a Defender than without a Defender (as Drakona has demonstrated).
But you can't simply pump up your Defender's defenses and count on the creatures blindly attacking them regardless.
Carl
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
I love using the threat of my fighter's mordenkrad to place difficult tactical decisions in the DM's lap. Either I dissuade monsters from taking opportunity attacks on our rogues as they move gleefully into a flank, or they take a heavy stick in the face. Win-win for me!
-blarg
-blarg
I really like both Firelance's and Drakona's analysis.
I disagree with Drakona, still, although I think it's a very smart response. Any party would be less well off without a marginal member.
The correct comparison isn't between having a tank and not having a tank, but between having a tank and having another, for example, striker. If the monster is not incented to attack the tank, then the tank becomes a sub-par striker. That is, by the way, generally what happens (although I do agree that halting movement and movement / terrain escapes do alter this significantly).
Attacking the tank is a one-way trip to losing for the monster -- as any party knows. Gonna attack the brute, the soldier, the leader, or the controller? You know what you'll do.
Drakona's point about raising the incentives sufficiently is well-taken: that is, perhaps this is solely a point about insufficient incentives to attack the tank. And I think that I could leave it at that point, agreeing with Drakona, if it weren't for the underlying logical problem that I initially discussed: the defender role relies on a less-than-marginal contribution to the party.
When the defender performs her role, the rational response of everyone in the party ought to be "darn, I wish that hadn't happened." That is not the case with a well-placed fireball, a knife in the back, an arrow to the head, a healing spell, or any other core class function.
best,
Carpe
I disagree with Drakona, still, although I think it's a very smart response. Any party would be less well off without a marginal member.
The correct comparison isn't between having a tank and not having a tank, but between having a tank and having another, for example, striker. If the monster is not incented to attack the tank, then the tank becomes a sub-par striker. That is, by the way, generally what happens (although I do agree that halting movement and movement / terrain escapes do alter this significantly).
Attacking the tank is a one-way trip to losing for the monster -- as any party knows. Gonna attack the brute, the soldier, the leader, or the controller? You know what you'll do.
Drakona's point about raising the incentives sufficiently is well-taken: that is, perhaps this is solely a point about insufficient incentives to attack the tank. And I think that I could leave it at that point, agreeing with Drakona, if it weren't for the underlying logical problem that I initially discussed: the defender role relies on a less-than-marginal contribution to the party.
When the defender performs her role, the rational response of everyone in the party ought to be "darn, I wish that hadn't happened." That is not the case with a well-placed fireball, a knife in the back, an arrow to the head, a healing spell, or any other core class function.
best,
Carpe
Carpe, I think you are drastically under-valuing the other penalty to the monster for ignoring a mark:
The free attack.
Now, maybe I'm just an unlucky DM, but I'm telling you, nearly every single time I have a marked monster attack someone other than the defender, the monster gets smacked upside the head. My party's defender almost never misses with those attacks. Add in that he's wielding a war-axe (d12) and it's pretty much never in the monster's interest to ignore the mark, because doing so just means it's going to die that much faster.
In fact, if monsters completely ignored Combat Challenge, I can guarantee that the Fighter would outdamage the striker!
The free attack.
Now, maybe I'm just an unlucky DM, but I'm telling you, nearly every single time I have a marked monster attack someone other than the defender, the monster gets smacked upside the head. My party's defender almost never misses with those attacks. Add in that he's wielding a war-axe (d12) and it's pretty much never in the monster's interest to ignore the mark, because doing so just means it's going to die that much faster.
In fact, if monsters completely ignored Combat Challenge, I can guarantee that the Fighter would outdamage the striker!
Orcus Porkus
First Post
Given the fact that monsters act out of self-interest (1st: Survival, 2nd: Destruction of the enemy), why would they continue attacking a fighter whose AC is so high that even a 20 wouldn't hit? Many here seem to ignore the despair factor. A monster who knows he is going to die trying to kill the defender will rather attack a weaker target if he has to go down anyway - or he will just flee.
I think a defender who is near impossible to hit is not doing a great service to his group. He might be a "tank", but more in a literal sense: Think of World War II battles where infantry would either avoid the tanks or attack them only with tricks, or trap them.
In addition, a defender is always also a striker of sorts, because he can deal decent damage. Thus, comparing them is like comparing two aspects of oneself, only that one aspect is stronger than the other.
Similarly, most strikers (and other roles) are always also defenders, not through game mechanics like marking, but because they are hated by the monsters and thus draw attention.
I think a defender who is near impossible to hit is not doing a great service to his group. He might be a "tank", but more in a literal sense: Think of World War II battles where infantry would either avoid the tanks or attack them only with tricks, or trap them.
In addition, a defender is always also a striker of sorts, because he can deal decent damage. Thus, comparing them is like comparing two aspects of oneself, only that one aspect is stronger than the other.
Similarly, most strikers (and other roles) are always also defenders, not through game mechanics like marking, but because they are hated by the monsters and thus draw attention.
Last edited:
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
In the context of this discussion, if there is no Defender then the combatant presumably should attack the Striker, if possible. This would hold true regardless of what we substituted. Having a second of something else instead of a Defender in the party leads us in the same direction. Therefore, Drakona's analysis is correct.
My takeaway from this discussion is that a Tank can make for a mediocre Defender. That is simply a subtlety of the nature of the Defender role.
This same issue existed in previous editions (e.g. is a monk with a sky high AC but weak attack a useful party member?).
Last edited:
In our party (the game I'm playing), if the defenders miss a step, the rogue goes down like a sack of potatoes. I think the marks are definitely doing their job. Our fighter is a battlerager with scale and heavy shield. He is difficult to take down, but monsters rarely ignore him since he is the first line of defense. Monsters would have to provoke opportunity attacks from him, and he can stop their movement. Our paladin is wearing scale and light shield, and is the second line of defense, so it's usually not beneficial for monsters to ignore his mark either.
For the game I'm running, the defenders are very difficult to hit and take down, and the rest of the party is just the opposite. So monsters frequently ignore the defenders. This is sometimes taxing for the rest of the party as they end up having to spend more healing surges, but due to combat challenge attacks and divine challenge damage, the fights tend to go faster. And once the monsters are bloodied, they have a more difficult time ignoring the marks.
For the game I'm running, the defenders are very difficult to hit and take down, and the rest of the party is just the opposite. So monsters frequently ignore the defenders. This is sometimes taxing for the rest of the party as they end up having to spend more healing surges, but due to combat challenge attacks and divine challenge damage, the fights tend to go faster. And once the monsters are bloodied, they have a more difficult time ignoring the marks.
Similar Threads
