The defender's masochism

[Skyscraper]

4E (and MMOs and other RPGs before 4E) has brought the concept of the defender (tank) wanting to attract opponents to attack him. This basic concept if fully comprenhensible when you think about the mechanical stats of the game: the fighter has a high AC and plenty of hit points. In 4E the game gave him abilities to encourage enemies to attack him. Plenty of sense, mechanically.

But wait. Did I just say: abilities to encourage enemies to attack him?

What melee "fighter" in any army that has existed in the history of mankind, has actually wanted to have more than one enemy around him at any given time, to fight? Who uses abilities to have swordsman swing at them, and dragons try to crush them? It's one think to heroically move to the front lie. Or even goad one particular enemy to attack you in 1v1. It's another to actually step in-between troops of enemies and encourage them all to attack you, no? Isn't it a bit of a leap into the metagame: "don't worry, I have plenty of hit points and healing surges, they can swing their swords at me as much as they want. Whereas our rogue here is pretty weak..."

The defender aura/marking has become accepted in 4E without question. Don't you find it weird that all fighters and all paladins have powers to encourage enemies to attack them?

I think that a fighter goading an enemy into attacking him or a paladin challenging an enemy in the name of his deity should be role-played. Or, if you're not into role-playing, it should be a skill that allows it (e.g. the classic barbarian "taunt"), usable by any class, and with an option to have a class bonus because some classes lean towards that. I don't think that fighters and paladins should all have self-destructive powers that encourage enemies to attack them.

 

[TwinBahamut]

4E (and MMOs and other RPGs before 4E) has brought the concept of the defender (tank) wanting to attract opponents to attack him. This basic concept if fully comprenhensible when you think about the mechanical stats of the game: the fighter has a high AC and plenty of hit points. In 4E the game gave him abilities to encourage enemies to attack him. Plenty of sense, mechanically.

You make a key mistake here...

Sure, in many MMOs tank characters are characters who exist to anger enemies and spur them on to attack them. That is not how Defenders in 4E work in the least. It is better to say that Defenders in 4E work by punishing any enemy who does not attack them.

Actually, Defender classes in 4E are a lot more fun to play and much more powerful if enemies ignore them, rather than focus upon them. If an enemy ignores a Defender and attacks an ally, Defenders get to do fun things like interrupt the attack, deal bonus damage, move their foes around, inflict conditions, and generally feel effective and helpful. Their mark effect also reduce the chance their allies will be hurt. If the enemy attacks the Defender, he just takes the damage and hopes a Leader can patch him up.

Basically, a 4E Defender's attitude is more like "come on, I dare you to ignore me and attack the Wizard", rather than "come and attack me!"

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is to some an extent of the lack of lethality of D&D and the relative ineptitude of enemies.

But you're right, even given those things, it really doesn't make any sense for a character to be built around being attacked or to have mechanical abilities intended to cause enemies to attack you (or have mechanical abilities based on other people being attacked). That is fine for DA:O, but a rather ridiculous metagame diversion for an actual roleplaying game (CRPG is somewhat of a misnomer).

Combat is generally about defeating the enemy before he defeats you, not stalling and not "tanking".

 

[keterys]

The idea of more heavily armored / defended forces protecting less armored but more destructive ones is pretty ancient (pikemen and shield walls, archers behind footmen, catapults behind everything, etc)

That said, it's worth note that even in 4E... the goal is almost always to spread damage around, you just want a bigger helping to go to that defender. So a defender stepping up to take all the damage is going to be in a heap of trouble. (If not, they probably shouldn't be rolling out the encounter - if every monster can't attack one character and drop them, it's too easy

 

[Sunseeker]

This is the issue of "smart AI", which sounds cool in theory, but generally sucks in actual execution.

Basically, the AI is smart enough to know that the meat-shield is exactly that, a meat-shield, so they ignore them and go straight for the squishies(casters, healers, rogues), and then deal with the heavily-armored, low-damage guy shouting obscenities last.

So "marking" was invented to provide an incentive for the mobs to handle the "tank" first. -2 to hit anything other than the tank, and free attacks when they don't. Sure, you could role-play this, but the DM is free to ignore you, and a player whose role-playing gets ignored eventually stops.

 

[Kingreaper]

But wait. Did I just say: abilities to encourage enemies to attack him?

Yep. And that's your error.

You see, you can look through every fighter ability ever printed, and you won't find a single one that encourages an enemy to attack him.

There are lots of abilities that discourage attacking his allies. Which is something many historical warriors have done, and mythical warriors often do.

The fact that the enemies end up attacking the fighter is a by-product. The fighter would be happiest if the enemies weren't attacking ANYONE. But if they have to attack someone, it's best that it be them.

 

[KidSnide]

The defender's mission isn't to make enemies attack them. It's to prevent enemies from attacking the defender's allies.

Being attacked themselves is the side effect of the marking mechanic. I tend to think that a better defender mechanic would have been a straight debuff aura (e.g. "enemies have a -2 to hit while in aura") along with a strong punishment attack if the enemy opens themselves up by attacking a defended ally. It would have been easier to understand and less "game-y" in application.

From a mission-only perspective, a defender is just the melee alternative to a controller, although -- obviously -- they play very differently.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

TwinBahamut nailed it in one (must spread XP).

You don't even need direct combat analogies to understand this. Never stood between a bully and his prey on the playground? You aren't asking the bully to hit you. You are stating that if the bully wants to go after the little kid, he'll have to come through you first, and he'd better think twice. "Make my day."

When the "kid" can toss fireballs or turn the bully into a toad, it does change the equation a little, granted. But the basic principle is the same.

 

[Skyscraper]

That is not how Defenders in 4E work in the least. It is better to say that Defenders in 4E work by punishing any enemy who does not attack them.

This is like saying: I'm not rich, it's the others that are poor.

This is also related to the illusion that not giving ability score penalties, and only bonuses, changes anything.

Being rich only exists as a relative comparison of wealth, it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Ability score penalties and bonuses are the same thing, it's the relative ability score adjustments between PCs that makes one better than the other.

If enemies are punished when attacking other PCs than the fighter, they are, in fact, encouraged to attack the fighter.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Being attacked themselves is the side effect of the marking mechanic. I tend to think that a better defender mechanic would have been a straight debuff aura (e.g. "enemies have a -2 to hit while in aura") along with a strong punishment attack if the enemy opens themselves up by attacking a defended ally. It would have been easier to understand and less "game-y" in application.

That's actually how the Knight version of the Fighter works in D&D Essentials. No marking, but a Defender Aura around the Knight that works just like it. There is a little bit of rules confusion because it needs to avoid stacking with marking or other defender auras, but otherwise it works fine.