Tank Theory

[brendan candries]

Nice thread btw.

I happen to agree with dracona's remark though.

4e defenders are challenged by walking the fine line between underperforming and overperforming in their role as "tank".

As a defender you can:

1. Pump your defence at the cost of offfence: this will make you a less likely target and you will actually not profit 100% from your defence increase. Your damage will get an increase due to challenges on the other hand.

2. Pump your offence at the cost of defence: considering you become a more likely target, you will 'personally' start to cost the party more resources and your challenges will trigger less often. But you are more 'defending' your allies from taking hits.

Who's the best defender? I don't know. Can you go wrong?

It's hard to quantify the impact of marks/challenges since they have positive and negative results both for being ignored and not being ignored.

What I did learn though through a few testgames and some reflection (we're finishing our last 3.5 campaign right now):

A dwarven fighter with high str/con using a 2-handed axe (instead of a shield) and the potent challenge feat for good measure is a good defender! MMORPG would say: "Damage spec! Bad tank!" But the Combat Challenge class feature acts like the equalizer here.

 

[cmbarona]

I've never bought the AC argument. It strikes me as just plain metagaming on the part of the DM. Monsters don't know the AC of the party, just as the party doesn't know the AC of the monsters. I will DM my first 4e game tomorrow, and if the Paladin marks something, I intend that something to attack him, except for extreme circumstances (most of which fall under the "flee" category rather than the "attack something else" category). That's the point of a mark: one way or another, the monster's intentions are changed from, "kill the higher damage source" to "attack the enemy who just marked me." Monsters shouldn't be able to do statistical cost-benefit analyses on the fly in the middle of battle. It's the job of defenders to judiciously apply those marks in order to protect their weaker allies. Why should I not reward my player for doing just that?

 

[DracoSuave]

Defenders aren't about automaticly making things attack them, and if someone else gets hit once in a while, they can survive it nicely. It's not like MMOs where losing threat can mean total party wipeout.

A defender doesn't need to stop -all- attacks, and in fact, does not want to. You -want- some of those hits to go in other directions; the staff wizard, the ranger, the warlord, etc, can all suck a hit or two now and then.

The defender only needs to suck up enough hits that when others are at half hitpoints, he's at half hitpoints. And -positioning- and ability use by both the defender and the striker key into that. It's as much the striker's role to avoid hits as it is for the defender to encourage attacks. If the striker's not avoiding hits (one way or another), he's doin' it wrong.

 

[Mengu]

Monsters shouldn't be able to do statistical cost-benefit analyses on the fly in the middle of battle.

I agree with this. But if monsters always attack the marker, then half the mark abilities don't come into play like the -2 to hit other targets, the combat challenge attack, and the divine challenge damage.

When playing monsters, I have them assess their threats. If they have just been blasted to smithereens by an action point happy wizard who went AoE nova, a few of the monsters may decide to ignore the fighter who has been missing them, and change their target to the wizard.

This won't happen all the time, but it should happen from time to time. Not because it's statistically better for the monster, but because it's tactically better for the monster.

 

[cmbarona]

Fair enough. I should have qualified my statement a little better. And I should consider that defenders' penalties (MBA or radiant damage) should come up now and then. Action points and such may be some of those judicious circumstances I have to consider. But those are the exceptions to the rule. And I still stand by my basic rule: mark = attack the marker.

 

[Giryan]

Opportunity attacks are a huge advantage of Defenders, and source of damage that tbh threatens to eclipse strikers when they're not rolling well.

If our most recent session, with a depleted party of only Fighter, Warlock, and Wizard, there were multiple occasions where a the 'lock and Wiz provoked a monster into attacking them, after all who can resist the 14AC squishy target who's adjacent to you and has started ignoring you and waving his hands in an odd arcane fashion? Naturally at that point they take a crazy amount of damage from a Maul upside the head.
Playing the warlock I see it as part of my role to set up stuff like that, and will happily come into the melee to set up flanking and provoke AoO etc...
I can take a mild amount of damage, and can increase the DPR of the party by a not inconsiderable amount.

 

[Bumamgar]

In my opinion, the real takeaway for Fighter players from this thread is this:

a) If your DM plays monsters in such a way that they nearly always attack the character which marked them, you should focus your build on defense almost exclusively.

b) If your DM plays monsters in such a way that they nearly always ignore the character which marked them, you should focus your build on offense almost exclusively.

c) If your DM uses a mixed strategy, with monsters ignoring marks some of the time, and attacking the marker some of the time, you should focus on a balanced build.

In any scenario, a defender is a value add, however. In scenario (a), the rest of the party can focus on offense, knowing that they will rarely be attacked directly as long as the defender is around. In scenario (b), a properly built offensive Fighter will outdamage the strikers due to getting to make so many extra attacks, and in scenario (c) everyone has to balance offense vs. defense in their build, which provides oportunities for everyone to shine from time to time.

The real catch is that the player needs to figure out what his DM's playstyle is like, and then build the appropriate type of character. Of course, to a certain extent this is true of every class, but with the Fighter it can lead to some really sub-optimal situations if you don't build correctly compared to your DMs handling of the marking power. An offensive focused fighter with a category (a) DM is going to take a lot of damage and be a drain on the party's healing resources. A defensive focused fighter with a category (b) DM isn't ever going to get hit, and won't out damage the strikers, so probably should re-roll as a striker himself

 

[Carpe DM]

I agree, Bumamgar.

Thoughts built on your take-aways:

1. Prioritize the ability to switch from sword-and-board to two-hander and vice versa. It's possible you can do a bait-and-switch once the mob has wasted a swing or two on your two-handing self.

This makes Quick Draw and the like a priority.

2. Perhaps definitively consider a fighter over a paladin for the defender role. The incentives to attack the defender will scale much faster for a fighter, since weapon modifications AND stat bonuses add to the base melee attack given by Combat Challenge, whereas only ability score increases affect Divine Challenge.

best,

Carpe

 

[Dr_Sage]

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.

Well,

I see your point here, but to be blunt its assuming lots of knowloge and strategy that many creatures simple does not possess.

We discussed this in the battlertager tread and I will give here the same example I gave there:

"Lets do an experiment:

Lets enter a Hungry Lion´s cage with this party configuration:

- A heavy armored guy going on front and challenging the lion.
- A light armored sneaky guy walking behind the cage´s corners approaching the lion step by step.
- A guy (probably me) with an assaut rifle (I can´t imagine a bigger treat than that) ready to shoot, but from a safe distance.

Wanna bet the "plate guy" will die first?

This would work the same with aligators, Big snakes... Certaly would work for a bull... same for a Shark...

So lets be a bit "realistic", for low-inteligent AND for low experienced creatures: the primary target will be aways the guy in the front."

***************************

And secondly leaving roleplay issues asside its the Striker´s role to take care as well, using movement and position, interrupt powers etc.

At least its my opinion: DMs have to be fair here... battle is chaotic, full of split-second decisions and we all have the tendency of attacking whoever is closest to us.

 

[DracoSuave]

Exactly. If the Striker does not do his job of disincentiving hits, then the defender's not the one failing his job.

As an example, if a Warlock is attacking a foe that could give reprisal, he should be using Eyebite/Dire Radiance/Hellish Rebuke instead of Eldritch Blast, so that the monster cannot see him/has less incentive to approach/has less incentive to damage.

Each Striker has -some way- to make hitting them a bad idea (except apparently Barbarians who have a different method of mitigation) and that is as important to their job as the marks are to the defender.