Tank Theory

[Leatherhead]

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.

I would have to disagree, it is actually easier (and surprisingly more fun) to play a ranged group without a defender, than it is to play such a group with one. Granted that is a non-standard group, but a controller is far more useful than a defender in those situations.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Not quite.

But not as far from true as one might think. A controller optimized to keep the enemy out of contact with his party could play a somewhat defenderish role in a party that was mostly oriented towards ranged combat. It'd be a very strange party, and a very brittle form of 'defendering' (when it fails, it'd likely fail catestrophically), but it could work.

 

[Herschel]

Monsters don't know the AC of the party, just as the party doesn't know the AC of the monsters.

But even the most primative of monster can tell the difference between Full-body Plate and Leather/Cloth/Hide.

 

[Mad Hamish]

But even the most primative of monster can tell the difference between Full-body Plate and Leather/Cloth/Hide.

True, but with Int adding to AC for light armour a wizard in leather or cloth isn't that much easier to hit than the fighter in plate (especially without a shield)

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I would have to disagree, it is actually easier (and surprisingly more fun) to play a ranged group without a defender, than it is to play such a group with one.

You're gonna have to work very, very hard to prove that statement.

I can claim with confidence that a football team works better with 10 receiver, one QB and no tackle, that doesn't make it true.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

1 - If the defender's role was self defeating, you could do without one easily. ... If we were able to measure how many more rolls are required, that would be exact game value of the defender.

I think this is a very good post filled with valid points.

Any "tank theory" needs to correspond to the commonly held game experience, (however difficult it is to define that).

Building on Mal Malenkirk's last point there is a laborious way to measure the tank. Build an iconic 4 man party (noting that 4E is built around a 5 person party) and run it again set encounters, recording combat developments, and then swap out the defender for another role and do it all over again. Off hand, I suggest we would at least want to know the win/loss ratio, measured length of combat, expenditure of healing surges, and distribution thereof.

Really, if you want to get a robust theory there's no alternative to spending a lot time to do the work.

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

Monsters don't know the AC of the party, just as the party doesn't know the AC of the monsters.

Yeah, but my party has always either identified the monsters AC or narrowed it to a much smaller range by the end of the first round. The know what they're rolling, they know their attack bonuses, and they can do arithmatic. The AC of a monster may be an unknown quantity at first but that goes away pretty darn quickly.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

Not quite.

You may be right, but then the interesting question is why...

Is it because none of the existing classes develop the Anti-Leader concept enough to stand on its own, i.e. two Wizards is just doubling down on an unfocused & mediocre tactic?

Is it because the Defender is truly a distinct role?

Is it because as a practical matter the role of Tank is actually really important? Is that logically required, or an artifact of the other classes being offense heavy? How well does a two-Leader-no-Defender party work out?

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You may be right, but then the interesting question is why...

Because your assessment that fighters and wizards fulfill the same role is just plain wrong.

Is it because the Defender is truly a distinct role?

Yep, there it is.

 

[Stalker0]

I would have to disagree, it is actually easier (and surprisingly more fun) to play a ranged group without a defender, than it is to play such a group with one. Granted that is a non-standard group, but a controller is far more useful than a defender in those situations.

I have found there is a bit of truth to this statement, sometimes defenders and controllers work against each other.

If I slow or immobilize the guys coming, yeah for the team. But if the fighter rushes in to melee with them, my control is wasted. If the fighter doesn't rush in, he doesn't get to attack the guys in melee, his turn is wasted.

Not saying a defender isn't very useful, but there is a bit of conflict that can arise there.