Tank Theory

[FireLance]

And, of course, given that Combat Challenge scales with ability (str.) AND weapon bonuses, whereas Divine Challenge scales only with ability (cha.), and given that only Cha. based paladins can scale their primary stat along with divine challenge, I suspect the problem gets a lot worse at higher levels, not better.

Well, technically, Divine Challenge scales with ability and tier: it does get a small damage bump at 11th and 21st level. However, it is true that there are more ways to improve Combat Challenge than Divine Challenge at the moment. Perhaps something to look forward to in Divine Power?

 

[Drakona]

Hmm. The paragon paths do seem to help. I can't really comment on how the game plays at paragon level because I haven't actually . . . played it much. My first 4E campaign still has all the characters at level 8, so I don't know how the classes compare as tanks once all the paragon paths, new powers, feats, items, etc. are taken into account. Still, those paragon path fixes strike me as too little, too late.

I can comment from experience on the heroic level, and I know that there, fighters are better tanks. Their main edges seem to come from Combat Superiority, their ability to mark many foes at once, and the fact that even shifting monsters can't get away cleanly. Well, and their mark damage is simply better. Paladins get, like, 7 or 8 for damage. Fighters get 1[W] + STR + Weapon Enhancement + Bonus for it being a Tuesday + any 'on a hit, you're hosed' item/weapon powers the fighter feels like activating. (Mind you, monsters avoiding damage is a losing game for them, but still. It's a difference.) Fighters even get powers like 'Come and Get It' which pretty much force a lot of monsters to go after them. Paladins don't get anything like that, that I know of.

I'm not saying that's a problem from a balance perspective or that fighters are better as defenders (though I think they are)--I'm simply noting that the difference in effectiveness as tanks is counterintuitive. From an RP perspective, I would expect all of the fighter's abilities to push people around and generally micromanage the battle line. What I wouldn't expect is that monsters were always hitting the fighter and ignoring the paladin.

I mean, paladins are supposed to be martyrs, right? "No, hit me!" is supposed to be their battle cry.

The insight I gained from this conversation is that mark effectiveness translates, not to defender effectiveness, but to tank effectiveness. If I wanted to make paladins all tankish and super-martyry, all I have to do is give them a better mark.

I mean, a much better mark.

Something like this:

----------------

Single Combat Dare
Encounter - Divine - Implement - Charm; Paladin Attack 7
Minor action; Ranged 5
Target: One or more Creatures
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: Until the end of the encounter or the incapacitation of either the targets or the paladin, both parties are Locked In Combat.

Locked in Combat: The Locked in Combat condition applies to a group of creatures, the combatants. While Locked in Combat, a combatant who attacks any other target is Dazed (save ends) at the start of his next turn.

Furthermore, outside interference invites divine retribution; anyone who attacks either combatant and deals damage or inflicts a condition causes himself and the other combatants (any he did not affect) to automatically take identical damage and suffer an identical effect.

You cannot challenge someone to single combat who is already participating in one.

The Locked in Combat condition ends when either party is incapacitated, or when side has completely escaped--defined as being out of line of sight for five minutes.

---------------

That would be a paladin's mark with teeth.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think WOTC created marks specifically to stop the self defeating principal of the tank. You have awesome defense, but without some method to get people to attack you, that defense is wasted.

I think you are touching the heart of the problem here. The special mark abilities are means to allow a Tank to help the party in ways that do not necessarily involve being attacked. These are necessary because being Tank is not always useful to the party.

 

[Leatherhead]

You really need to try playing a World of Warcraft fighter.

The reward for a job well done isn't the stabs to the faces, its when the fight's over and you look behind you and you see your party members are still standing...

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with your playstyle nor is there anything wrong with the defender role. Only thing's wrong here is your choice of character!

Don't play a character whose role you don't enjoy... and yes, accept that there are different roles to begin with - that any individual aren't likely to enjoy all sorts of characters equally.

I have, and I must concede the idea of a guy who goes out there to purposely get stabbed in the face is silly. But onward to my real point.

I think you are touching the heart of the problem here. The special mark abilities are means to allow a Tank to help the party in ways that do not necessarily involve being attacked. These are necessary because being Tank is not always useful to the party.

I always liked the idea of a "tank" being a type of "controller." Someone actually impairing the abilities of the monster; wrestling it to the ground, forcing its jaws shut, that kind of deal. It just sounded far more heroic and made a bit more sense than having a guy covered in metal tickle the dragon into repeatedly biting at his face while the dragon ignores the guy in the dress that is actually hurting it for no real reason.

 

[FrozenChrono]

In response the the OP:

Most of the time it's already in the best interest of the party for the marked enemy to attack someone other than the fighter. So your proposed solution isn't necessary and so we can go strait to the paradox. (I'll discuss Paladin specifics below)

The paradox you bring up is basically the same as hedging your bets, or diversifying investments. Investing your powers/actions into making any decision the enemy makes benefit you as much as possible so that your powers are as effective as possible.

Alternately the enemy doesn't know everything about the results of his actions. The fighters attack could miss, which would make it totally worth it to charge the wizard, but if he hits you're stopped and you've wasted your action. Sometimes it's worth the risk. He also doesn't know exactly how many hp someone has left. If he sees a warlock who's blooded and taken a few hits he'd probably think "one more hit could take him down" but you're warlock would know he only has 2 hp and one more hit will take him down, so marking the bad guy, and dropping a dire radiance on him helps the party either way. If the bad guy stays with the fighter your warlock can keep pounding him, if not he has to deal with taking a bunch of extra damage which could get him killed before his buddies arrive to help.

It would be great if we could just make the enemy choose to jump off a cliff with there actions every time, but that's not gonna happen. Limited control is better than no control over an enemy's actions.


Paladins:

A few things haven't been taken into account in the paladins favor. At least not adequately.

-The ability to effectively give your healing surges to your allies has the same effect as taking the damage yourself in the first place. (so the enemies might as well attack you and not bother with the automatic 3+ damage)

-Abilities like Martyrs Blessing, and Divine Bodyguard have the same end effect as Lay On Hands. Your hp get taken no matter who gets attacked.

-Paladins are more effective against the enemy they've marked. You can either do extra damage or give them an additional -2 to hit anyone including you with your at wills. (or -4 to hit anyone that's not the Paladin)

-Paladins have several other powers, even at heroic levels that make allies harder to hit, or heal them.

-Divine Power has not been released yet so factoring in fighter powers from Martial Power is not taking the whole picture into account.

I would say Paladins are about as effective at tanking as fighters. They just do it in a very Leadery way, Fighters do it in a strikery way, and Swordmages do it in a controlery way.

I do agree this doesn't exactly match the image of a shining champion hit me instead type Paladin many of us may think of, but with the proper flavoring you could do a lot to get to that. You can also multiclass between them to get the perfect mix that you're looking for. (or just make a fighter and call him a paladin)

 

[nittanytbone]

In general I agree with most of the posters in this thread, especially Drakona's analysis.

However, I'd like to point out that its possible for a defender to force the monster into a very difficult situation.

For example, take a CHA-adin with a Warlock Multiclass using Eyebite. If he hits the monster with Eyebite and marks it with DC, the monster can (A) ignore the mark, attack a striker at -2, and take damage or (B) attack the paladin at -5 (if it can even find the paladin) which pretty much is a waste of a turn.

Or, the paladin could mark a target at range and force the monster to provoke OA from another ally in order to munch on him, or trigger the mark. Or, instead of an OA, you could interpose dangerous terrain between you and the monster.

In these sorts of situations, the defender has the capability to force monsters into no-win situations where they either waste their turn by doing nothing (you might as well have Stunned them!) or take damage in exchange for a weakened attack (might as well have given them Ongoing Damage and a penalty to attack to boot).

Smart defender tactics allow the defender to significantly up their DPR.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, a paladin is technically "engaging" their challengee by being adjacent ... even if they're using their standard action every turn to say .. sustain invisibility.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

1 - If the defender's role was self defeating, you could do without one easily.

This isn't the case. IMO, the defender is the most sorely missed role in a 4 man team if he is absent. He is the lynchpin of the team. He is like the offensive line on the football field; not the most glamorous role but without a good one the QB can't do squat and the team loses every game. The line buy the QB time so he can make his play.

Same with the defender. His role isn't specifically taking a hit for the team though it's part of his arsenal. His role is defending. The defender, obviously enough, increases the team's defense. Whether he does it by taking a hit himself or by making a hit on other PCs harder and more onerous, it's the same result. The defense of the team has improved. The softer PCs don't go down nearly as fast with the defender in front of them and they have time to do their schtick.

That's what the defender role really does, mathematically; He allows other PCs more actions before they are shut down, just like the offensive line buys the QB seconds before he is sacked.

2 - Absent a defender, monsters wouldn't automatically focus on the striker. In large melees, they focus on the controller (wizard) who often does more total damage than the striker in these situations. It's my experience, anyway. With 4+ enemies on the field, my combat mage is attacked every time the DM can manage it and he's the one who sticks to the defender like glue, not the rogue. But obviously the rogue is also a prime target, especially agains big boss like Dragons. And so is the leader in any circumstances. In truth, in a balanced 4 team group, shutting down any of the 4 PCs is very bad and is likely to be followed by a rout.

That's why it's actually in the team's interest that the monsters succeed in attacking other PCs on a regular basis. If you ever reach the last fight of the day and the defender get dropped with no more HS but the wizard still has 6, you have failed to distribute hits efficiently. Oh, you are about to get your ass kicked, too.

The football metaphor ends here; the defender shouldn't aim to take all hits and stop all hits against others even if he could. He must simply grant the team a solid discount on their expenditure of HP, so to speak. Simply put, it should take more attack rolls to bring down a team with a defender than one without. If we were able to measure how many more rolls are required, that would be the exact game value of the defender.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

A different conceptual framework...

I think that one could argue that at an abstract level Defender and Controller serve the same purpose: an Anti-Leader that prevents the other team from utilizing their optimal tactics.

So there are three fundamental roles:
Striker -- Focused on dishing out damage.
Leader -- Optimize my team.
Anti-Leader -- Run interference with the other team.

Tank or Spellcaster are only particular tactical paths that could potentially be used to achieve the strategic goal of being an Anti-Leader.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Tank or Spellcaster are only particular tactical paths that could potentially be used to achieve the strategic goal of being an Anti-Leader.

If that were true, you could swap a fighter for a wizard with no impact on your overall performance...

Not quite.