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="Drakona" data-source="post: 4629327" data-attributes="member: 69620"><p>What? No, no, no. The tank's role isn't self-defeating. You're including the tank's effect at the wrong point in your analysis. You're trying to see how effective a tank is at its job, but you're doing so by comparing two options the monster has in the presence of the tank. You *should* be comparing the options the monster has with the tank versus those without the tank. </p><p></p><p>Here are the options: </p><p></p><p>A. (No tank) Attack the striker</p><p>B. (Tank) Attack the striker at a penalty and take some damage</p><p>C. (Tank) Attack the tank</p><p></p><p>The monster usually has option (A). The presence of a tank takes (A) off the table and gives it the choice of (B) or (C). You're comparing (B) to (C), but you should be comparing (B) *and* (C) to (A). The point is not that the monster will pick the worse of (B) and (C). Of course it will. It's a monster. The point is that (B) and (C) are both better than (A). </p><p></p><p>The traditional job of the tank is to transfer attacks from the striker to the tank. It happens when (C) is better for the monster than (B), and when that is the case, <em>the tank has succeeded in this role</em>. </p><p></p><p>Perhaps an extreme example will illustrate more clearly. </p><p></p><p>Let's think about two fighters. I'll call one of them Charmy and one of them Smitey. Charmey is the perfect tank: when he activates his mark, the monster is <em>forced</em> to attack him--it's a charm effect, and it literally cannot do anything else. Charmey is clearly an effective tank. Smitey is not so capable, but has a very powerful mark: when he activates it, a monster takes -20 to attack anybody else, and takes 400 damage in the process. When Smitey activates his mark, the party would really, really, like to see the monster take option (B) and try to attack someone else, because it would probably fail or die. But of course, the monster never does that because the cost is so high. It just attacks Smitey. </p><p></p><p>Is Smitey effective as a tank? Absolutely! He's exactly as effective as Charmey is -- the monster goes for him every time, which is what he wants! It doesn't matter that (C) is worse for the party than (B). (B) is just a threat to make it go for (C), because (C) is way better than (A), and that was the point all along. </p><p></p><p>Normal fighters are like Smitey, except not quite so powerful. Their marks don't always succeed at transferring attacks, but they do always cost the monsters something. But the same rule applies -- it's not like the tank has failed when the monster picks (C) just because we would have liked it to pick (B). (B) isn't the baseline. (A) is. (B) was always just a threat to make (C) attractive. </p><p></p><p>Bottom line - The goal of the tank is to take pressure off the striker by transferring hits to himself. The tank does not succeed by making the monster act against its self-interest. No monster ever does that. The tank succeeds by manipulating the monster's self interest so that it does what the tank wants.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Drakona, post: 4629327, member: 69620"] What? No, no, no. The tank's role isn't self-defeating. You're including the tank's effect at the wrong point in your analysis. You're trying to see how effective a tank is at its job, but you're doing so by comparing two options the monster has in the presence of the tank. You *should* be comparing the options the monster has with the tank versus those without the tank. Here are the options: A. (No tank) Attack the striker B. (Tank) Attack the striker at a penalty and take some damage C. (Tank) Attack the tank The monster usually has option (A). The presence of a tank takes (A) off the table and gives it the choice of (B) or (C). You're comparing (B) to (C), but you should be comparing (B) *and* (C) to (A). The point is not that the monster will pick the worse of (B) and (C). Of course it will. It's a monster. The point is that (B) and (C) are both better than (A). The traditional job of the tank is to transfer attacks from the striker to the tank. It happens when (C) is better for the monster than (B), and when that is the case, [i]the tank has succeeded in this role[/i]. Perhaps an extreme example will illustrate more clearly. Let's think about two fighters. I'll call one of them Charmy and one of them Smitey. Charmey is the perfect tank: when he activates his mark, the monster is [i]forced[/i] to attack him--it's a charm effect, and it literally cannot do anything else. Charmey is clearly an effective tank. Smitey is not so capable, but has a very powerful mark: when he activates it, a monster takes -20 to attack anybody else, and takes 400 damage in the process. When Smitey activates his mark, the party would really, really, like to see the monster take option (B) and try to attack someone else, because it would probably fail or die. But of course, the monster never does that because the cost is so high. It just attacks Smitey. Is Smitey effective as a tank? Absolutely! He's exactly as effective as Charmey is -- the monster goes for him every time, which is what he wants! It doesn't matter that (C) is worse for the party than (B). (B) is just a threat to make it go for (C), because (C) is way better than (A), and that was the point all along. Normal fighters are like Smitey, except not quite so powerful. Their marks don't always succeed at transferring attacks, but they do always cost the monsters something. But the same rule applies -- it's not like the tank has failed when the monster picks (C) just because we would have liked it to pick (B). (B) isn't the baseline. (A) is. (B) was always just a threat to make (C) attractive. Bottom line - The goal of the tank is to take pressure off the striker by transferring hits to himself. The tank does not succeed by making the monster act against its self-interest. No monster ever does that. The tank succeeds by manipulating the monster's self interest so that it does what the tank wants. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Tank Theory
Top