Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Tank Theory
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Carpe DM" data-source="post: 4629052" data-attributes="member: 677"><p>Proposed: That the tank is an impossibly paradoxical role.</p><p></p><p>The simplest statement of the problem:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The problem:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The Rules' proposed solution:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>In short, monsters are incentivized to attack the tank because they do less damage to the striker, and take increased damage in return.</p><p></p><p>The problem with the Rules' proposed solution:</p><p></p><p>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.*</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Comments?</p><p></p><p>best,</p><p></p><p>Carpe</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Carpe DM, post: 4629052, member: 677"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Tank Theory
Top