"Tanking" in 3.5

[Diarmuid]

Are the Knight's ability and the Goad feat the only way to try and actually "Tank" in D&D?

Are there any ways to optimize them without crazy cheese other than just pumping Charisma?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Apostle of Peace.

A better "tank", however, would be any spell that incorporates battlefield control, ever, because there is no "tanking algorithm" in D&D; you're fighting monsters that are supposed to be able to reason what the biggest threat is if by nothing better than survival instincts, controlled by a DM who is able to reason what the biggest threat is.

[Divide by Zero]

The most efficient way to "tank," I think, would be something like a trip fighter. Make it so they're physically incapable of getting away from you, so they can't attack anything else.

[Big Fau]

Are the Knight's ability and the Goad feat the only way to try and actually "Tank" in D&D?

Are there any ways to optimize them without crazy cheese other than just pumping Charisma?

Crusader has a handful of abilities (notably one that makes them provoke an AoO from you for attacking anyone but you).


And that really isn't Tanking, it's Drawing Aggro. Tanking means hitting hard and taking harder hits like a man. This remains true in DnD: The harder you hit it, the more likely it is to consider you a threat (which is why damage multipliers are so important for melee noncasters).

There are other reasons for that too, but that's the big one.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The most efficient way to "tank," I think, would be something like a trip fighter. Make it so they're physically incapable of getting away from you, so they can't attack anything else.

Notable: this is a battlefield control method.

Knight is interesting conceptually, and I always wanted to try an Apostle of Peace/Knight build (like Person Man's Saint Bertold), but "compelling your opponent to attack you" just isn't as surefire as "make sure your opponent can't attack anything else" because of the role the "free will" element plays.

[HunterOfJello]

Tripping fighters work pretty well at stopping attacks.

Crusaders can work extremely well at tanking as far as taking damage and reducing the threat of melee opponents goes. They also have lots of stances and maneuvers that work well on restricting opponents to attacking only the tank.


As far as agro generation goes, only the Knight seems to have an actual ability to attract enemies to attack him. Most characters just use their free actions to insult enemies or try to get their attention.

[NNescio]

Are the Knight's ability and the Goad feat the only way to try and actually "Tank" in D&D?

Are there any ways to optimize them without crazy cheese other than just pumping Charisma?

If by "tank" you mean "mentally compel enemies to attack you AKA 'draw aggro" then yes (casters have better things to do).

A better way to go about it is to use a melee lockdown build. Ideally, you want to pin down your opponents and then present a lose-lose situation to them so they're forced to attack you or waste their action. This is usually done through AoOs and combat actions like tripping. Combat Reflexes is a must, and a reach weapon (guirsame or spiked chain) is recommended as well. Stand Still helps you stop enemies that are hard to trip, and having the Thicket of Blades stance active will make 5-foot steps provoke as well.

This can be improved further with

[Big Fau]

This can be improved further with

I hate cliffhangers.

Stupid Candle Jack, ruining a perf

[marcielle]

There is a feat called 'Stand Stil' in Expanded Psionics(DO NOT USE THE OTHER VERSION, fortitude saves suck) that stops your opponent dead cold in place of an AoO. Combine with reach weapon enchanted with extra reach on a Crusader. Range attackers go right through this however. If your enemy is only semi intelligent, you can argue that a good enough intimidate check makes you look scarier than the squishies behind you. More believable if you are something like a Goliath or Half-giant(both passable races for Crusader). Any meelee class can do this but Crusaders are near unkillable through direct hp damage. Look out for dex and mental ability damage though. YOU WILL SINK LIKE A ROCK so stay the hell away from water. That's about all you need to be a successful tank. If you can be bothered to build one, a weapon of legacy is priceless because you can get a good deflection bonus on wepons(therefore negating a lot of armor penalty) AND blur. Note that so long as the cost is feasible(no losing caster levels and spell slots as a meelee class), a legacy weapons cost IS COMPLETELY UP TO THE PLAYER. Basically anything you can convince your DM to let you get away with.

[McStabbington]

Short answer: not really. All tanking in D&D is dps tanking.

Longer answer: The important thing to remember here is that you're not working with a computer algorithm here that sorts on the basis of something as arbitrary as "threat". You're dealing with a flesh-and-blood person, but one who is usually trying to balance making a compelling story with making a difficult challenge. So if tanking is what you want, then you have to play into that concept.

For example, we once played an evil campaign, where I was playing a LE knight/fighter that was basically our groups tank. We had managed to sneak undetected into the lair of a wyrm black dragon and were debating what to do. So I took the lead by simply walking out in front of the (gaping) dragon and told him that I was here to kill him for getting my goat pregnant. He was somewhat unsurprisingly otherwise occupied when our necromancer hit him with a pair of ennervates, one quickened, one maximized.

[Hiro Protagonest]

To truly tank in 3.5 without being a knight, you have to be a crusader. Thicket of blades is the only way for a tripper build to work against a DM who pits you against assassins, rogues, and scouts.

[kharmakazy]

I quickdraw harpoons and pincushion foes while having mountain stance cast on me, sometimes at the center of a blacklight spell, and I have immovable rods attached to my armor.:smallbiggrin:

[TOZ]

Hope that your DM plays his monsters according to their intelligence, so that stupid monsters don't think to go after the easier targets and smarter monsters without movement abilities don't metagame the fact that one AoO will not kill them.

[holywhippet]

The shield other spell sort of helps tanking - half of the damage your ally would take is taken by you instead. Of course, all attacks are against their AC not yours.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Dip Dragonfire Adept or use the Dragonborn of Bahamut template with the Heart aspect to gain a breath weapon. Take the feat Entangling Exhalation in Races of the Dragon. Use your breath attack to keep as many opponents as possible entangled for the entire fight. They'll take penalties to attacks and AC, move at half speed, and suffer some damage over several rounds, and thus are extremely likely to single out your character as a greater threat. This is easy to tack onto just about any character, and it's super effective. Add it onto a chain tripper Fighter via Dragonborn and they're stuck moving at half speed through your threatened area just to reach anyone else. Put it on a Crusader and use the entangling breath attack on rounds that you don't get any maneuvers you want to use.

[Midnight_v]

Are the Knight's ability and the Goad feat the only way to try and actually "Tank" in D&D?

Are there any ways to optimize them without crazy cheese other than just pumping Charisma?

The true "tank" in 3.5 is the crusader. Its a tank in a can.
Fighters such as "The Gatling Chain Tripper (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870774/Fighter-20:_The_34;Gatling_Chain_Gun34;_Tripper?sdb=1&pg=last#501699969)" and "A little Lock build for you (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you...)" have managed to tank to take some crusader stances along with many feats that do not allow opponents to move nor attack as they wish.

Knights actually tend to be pretty bad at tanking and as mentioned before there is not "You must attack me" meter in D&D so you have to look for what actually makes monsters attack you, as well as survivability.

Psywars lend themselvs to tanking in the same way as crusaders, in that they have selfhealing, but they can also change size and have access to psion powers that might allow for very useful stuns, and other incapacitating effects. Lastly the fact that they get access to sychronicity means they stand with a chance to interupt the actions of oppoents if used correctly (as opposed to incorrectly, which results in potentially game breaking things but honestly the psiwar doesn't have enough pp to do most of those things so ymmv)
Further, along the lines of interupting actions, I came up with a fearbased barbarian, that uses imperious command and Intimidating rage (along with ferocity or instantaneous rage) a while back that lets you play at battlefield control, by making various opponents cower, but it doens't have a way to self heal from its class levels, Duskblades (often called the arcane barbarian) have the awesome "Channel Spell" which at somepoint lets them do things like Wirlwind attack and affect all stuck enimies with various incapacitating effects, Tasha's hideous laughter, and otto's irresitable dance, being notable funny ones I've seen but they DO have the power to self heal. and can channel vampiric touch as well.
Lastly, The hexblade, there are hexblade builds that drop opponents saves by -10 to -16 I think is the most i've seen, could be more if people kept pushing it. I don't know how many resources they put into that likely all but Dropping someones saves, and other defenses by -6 to -8 would be enough to get someones attention, and those builds before with the heavy save drop tend to run something that makes them threatning as well "Fear, stuns, daze, etc..."

Here is the link to the Crusaders Handbook:
Crusaders Handbook "Tips for playing the ultimate tank" (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4227.0)

I hope this give you enough info to make an informed decision.

[LordBlades]

Hope that your DM plays his monsters according to their intelligence, so that stupid monsters don't think to go after the easier targets and smarter monsters without movement abilities don't metagame the fact that one AoO will not kill them.

There are plenty of reasons why a stupid but non-mindless monster would go for the squishy dude that probably dies fast and definitely looks edible rather than for the suit of full plate that's standing in the front that they don't even know what it is and if they can eat it after they kill it.

Smart monsters can realize that they will get an AOO if they move past the frontline (that might be a hit or a miss). They can judge whether getting to the squishy dude in the back is worth the risk of opening themselves to a free attack or not.

What you're suggesting is not 'playing the monsters to their intelligence' but rather 'holding the player's hand in regards to tanking'.

[TOZ]

What you're suggesting is not 'playing the monsters to their intelligence' but rather 'holding the player's hand in regards to tanking'.

No, what I'm saying is that getting stabbed bloody hurts and a living breathing creature is not going to just rush past the 'tank' because it is 'only one AoO'.

[nyarlathotep]

Hope that your DM plays his monsters according to their intelligence, so that stupid monsters don't think to go after the easier targets and smarter monsters without movement abilities don't metagame the fact that one AoO will not kill them.

How is the second one metagaming. If you're an experienced combatant and you have whethered similar attacks before then you would as long as doing so presented a decisive tactical advantage. I.E. if the wizard has one shot one of your buddies you'll take your chances with the fighter's sword to try to kill the caster.

For example take the real life trench charges in WW1 they took numerous AoOs in order to get to a vulnerable target (machine gunner).

[LordBlades]

No, what I'm saying is that getting stabbed bloody hurts and a living breathing creature is not going to just rush past the 'tank' because it is 'only one AoO'.

That's true, but intelligent things might realize that in some circumstances it might hurt more in the long run to allow the squishies unopposed attacks while you pound on the .tank'.

[TOZ]

Which doesn't contradict my statement that it takes more reasons than just 'I will only get one AoO' to make an enemy open himself to attack.



For example take the real life trench charges in WW1 they took numerous AoOs in order to get to a vulnerable target (machine gunner).

And none of them did that because "They'll only get one chance to hit me and I'll be past", they did it because "That nest needs to be taken out and sitting here won't accomplish that".

It's metagaming because the characters don't know that they are in a turn-based combat, and that the 'tank' can't step into their path. The 'tank' SHOULD be moving to block their path, but the mechanics don't represent that well. Their thoughts should be "I can try to circle him to get the wizard, but he'll probably move to block, so I need something else to let me slip past unharmed", not "He can't stop me from moving past him on my turn, and all I will take is 2d6 damage if he manages to hit my AC".

[Midnight_v]

Seems like the response would depend on the monster.

Mindless monsters aren't going to do that. Pretty much period.
It is annoying but, its also a fact that many intelligent creatures are going to play the "Which one is the wizard" game. Its sad and metagamey sometimes, but sentient creatures KNOW the difference.

I don't think people are discussing "mindless" creatures though, meaning like Zombies, Skele's, certain constructs, certain Oozes, certain plants.

I suspect people are trying to justify a dire tiger trying to pounce the wizard in the first round.

Keep in mind then what I suggested then.
The most important basic tools for "tanking" in D&D for melee types is CombatReflexes, Standstill, and Thicket of Blades. Note those are the "basic" tools and you'll really need to extrapolate the build much further than those but you kinda need them.
You maybe be able to get around them by duskblading, or fear juggling but they are immense help.
The TANK may be basically called the "Sticky-knight" in D&D.
Idea being that you cut off movement to your casters. Though the more damage you can deal makes you matter as well, as in the case of the ShockTrooper builds (don't confuse anyone with shock trooper with the actualuberchargers please.).
If your warrior rushes forth and deals half the monsters hp, then it may drop the idea of trying break away for the easy kill.
Also, standstill will stop it from moving out of range et, all (assuming they fail the reflex save)

[nyarlathotep]

Which doesn't contradict my statement that it takes more reasons than just 'I will only get one AoO' to make an enemy open himself to attack.



And none of them did that because "They'll only get one chance to hit me and I'll be past", they did it because "That nest needs to be taken out and sitting here won't accomplish that".

It's metagaming because the characters don't know that they are in a turn-based combat, and that the 'tank' can't step into their path. The 'tank' SHOULD be moving to block their path, but the mechanics don't represent that well. Their thoughts should be "I can try to circle him to get the wizard, but he'll probably move to block, so I need something else to let me slip past unharmed", not "He can't stop me from moving past him on my turn, and all I will take is 2d6 damage if he manages to hit my AC".

No they charge past the tank because the spellcaster is capable of killing groups of them in an instant, so they are willing to take risks to hit them just like military units will take losses to take out artillery. If the character is intelligent and discipled there is absolutely not reason they wouldn't charge past the guy with the sword for the guy who can rip out their soul.

If you were playing and rts would you purposely fighting melee unit while artillery hit you from afar? No of course not you only fight the melee units before artillery if positioning prevents you from getting past them.

[TOZ]

Which is my point, the fighters positioning combined with the enemies aversity to being stabbed should dissuade the enemy from just running by the fighter. Only when you metagame that "he can't interrupt my turn" and "it is only one AoO" that you get the problem of "I can't tank in D&D".

An intelligent and disciplined character will get another character to occupy the fighter to provide an opportunity to slip by unharmed. Not just charge past with the trust that his HP will save him. Swords hurt, and characters shouldn't be blase about someone swinging at them.

[Midnight_v]

No, Toz, he's right.
Its not metagaming for people in a magical world to be like "Kill the mage" because of EXACTLY what Nyarlhotep says.
Swords don't hurt enough to deal compare with the threat of That guy can turn my eyes into carnivorous pac-man's and have them eat into my skull.
(then animate me to attack my friends).
You have to do some incredible damage to keep intelligent foes focused on you vs the potential of a horrible end.
Further... you realize that they have casters also? So they should know the proper attack order just from personal experience with thier own people.

So lets stop this metagaming talk, its just arguing for the sake of arguing. Each dm is going to play that differently. . . Regardless of what we say.

Thats why its important to get down the tacks of what actually facilitates the ability to "tank" but honestly... Casters in D&D DON'T need you to protect them.

[LordBlades]

An intelligent and disciplined character will get another character to occupy the fighter to provide an opportunity to slip by unharmed. Not just charge past with the trust that his HP will save him. Swords hurt, and characters shouldn't be blase about someone swinging at them.

Actually, most characters would charge past and hope they are agile enough to avoid the strike. HP are more than your ability to sustain wounds.

Not to mention that, as others have said, most characters in a heavily magical world would know that a spell hurts way more than a sword swing.

[Tr011]

I think drawing Aggro is not necessary since a good "tank" can just stack 'Auras' like the Crusader effect to give allies +AC. Stacking effects to your allies actually lets either you draw aggro or your helps your allies to stay alive. That's a way in many games to tank and I think it's a good one in DnD, too.

[excruciarch]

Casters in D&D DON'T need you to protect them.
As a matter of fact sooner or later casters begin to PROTECT MELEES from being fried by opposing casters.
Let's take the forcecage spell for instance. Anyone who can't cast disintegrate is done for. It blocks ethereal, and for those who can astral travel we have dimensional anchor.
Full casters kick ass from the very first level:
1. Charm Person (Hey, try to outroll my DC), on 3rd- Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray, Invisibility, for crying out loud.
2. Sanctuary (lol, will to hit, better than 50% concealment), on 3rd - Hold Person.
Entangle (lulz, the entire party tries to escape its grasp for like 5-6 rounds), on 3rd - Flaming Sphere, Heat metal.
PS
Time Stop, 2-3 polar rays, PWK. Any DM won't hesitate to take your so called tank out this way.

[Gnaeus]

Hope that your DM plays his monsters according to their intelligence, so that stupid monsters don't think to go after the easier targets and smarter monsters without movement abilities don't metagame the fact that one AoO will not kill them.

I second what Lord Blades, Nyarlathotep and Midnight said, with the addition that level increases hurt tanks disproportionally.

At low (maybe 1-7) levels, there are a lot of animals and animal intelligence monsters who will happily fight the target in front of them. This is tankland.

By high (13+ levels) almost all monsters are intelligent. Most monsters can recognize a mage. Most monsters have spells or movement tricks that let them bypass a defender completely, or rocket-tag style ranged attacks. At this level, tanks are useless, trippers are greatly weakened, and only high damage builds are competitive in any way if enemies are played to their intelligence.

[faceroll]

For example take the real life trench charges in WW1 they took numerous AoOs in order to get to a vulnerable target (machine gunner).

I've read that being the guy with the flamethrower was a bum job, because you'd draw fire like a mofo. Nobody wants to burn to death.


I second what Lord Blades, Nyarlathotep and Midnight said, with the addition that level increases hurt tanks disproportionally.

At low (maybe 1-7) levels, there are a lot of animals and animal intelligence monsters who will happily fight the target in front of them. This is tankland.

By high (13+ levels) almost all monsters are intelligent. Most monsters can recognize a mage. Most monsters have spells or movement tricks that let them bypass a defender completely, or rocket-tag style ranged attacks. At this level, tanks are useless, trippers are greatly weakened, and only high damage builds are competitive in any way if enemies are played to their intelligence.

The wizard is only a legitimate target beyond melee because his abilities are far more devastating than your average melee fool. But if you're full out power attacking with two full attacks/round as touch attacks, you may just draw some attention.

[Saph]

Longer answer: The important thing to remember here is that you're not working with a computer algorithm here that sorts on the basis of something as arbitrary as "threat". You're dealing with a flesh-and-blood person, but one who is usually trying to balance making a compelling story with making a difficult challenge. So if tanking is what you want, then you have to play into that concept.

This.

3.5 isn't WoW. There's no 'aggro' mechanic. There are no predefined sets of actions that will guarantee a certain response from a target.

In general, the most effective way of drawing 'aggro' in 3.5, and most other tabletop RPGs for that matter, is to be a threat. If you're obviously dangerous and present yourself as a clear target, you'll rarely have much trouble drawing fire.

The previous posts recommending Crusaders or battlefield control or trip builds aren't wrong, but they're kind of missing the point. Tanking in 3.5 isn't about your build - you just have to THINK. Figure out what is most likely to make the monster attack you, and do that. For mindless creatures like vermin, that just means being the nearest target. For animals, that means looking like easy prey. For humanoid enemies, drawing a lot of attention to yourself usually works. For highly intelligent, alien creatures like dragons or mind flayers . . . well, that's where you have to work at it. But if you could reliably make them do whatever you wanted, they wouldn't be much of a threat, would they?

[Gnaeus]

At this level, tanks are useless, trippers are greatly weakened, and only high damage builds are competitive in any way if enemies are played to their intelligence.



The wizard is only a legitimate target beyond melee because his abilities are far more devastating than your average melee fool. But if you're full out power attacking with two full attacks/round as touch attacks, you may just draw some attention.

I'm sorry faceroll. Are you trying to clarify what I said, or to disagree? It seems to me like I said "High damage builds are the only melee that remain competitive" and you responded "But here is a high damage build that is competitive".

[faceroll]

I'm sorry faceroll. Are you trying to clarify what I said, or to disagree? It seems to me like I said "High damage builds are the only melee that remain competitive" and you responded "But here is a high damage build that is competitive".

I fail at reading. :smallfrown:

[SITB]

This.

3.5 isn't WoW. There's no 'aggro' mechanic. There are no predefined sets of actions that will guarantee a certain response from a target.

In general, the most effective way of drawing 'aggro' in 3.5, and most other tabletop RPGs for that matter, is to be a threat. If you're obviously dangerous and present yourself as a clear target, you'll rarely have much trouble drawing fire.

The previous posts recommending Crusaders or battlefield control or trip builds aren't wrong, but they're kind of missing the point. Tanking in 3.5 isn't about your build - you just have to THINK. Figure out what is most likely to make the monster attack you, and do that. For mindless creatures like vermin, that just means being the nearest target. For animals, that means looking like easy prey. For humanoid enemies, drawing a lot of attention to yourself usually works. For highly intelligent, alien creatures like dragons or mind flayers . . . well, that's where you have to work at it. But if you could reliably make them do whatever you wanted, they wouldn't be much of a threat, would they?

I dunno, isn't one of Shadowrun unspoken rules "Geek the mage"? Why shouldn't it be applied to D&D?

[Gnorman]

I dunno, isn't one of Shadowrun unspoken rules "Geek the mage"? Why shouldn't it be applied to D&D?

Rule, yes. Unspoken, hardly. It's practically the Official Runners' Manifesto. And they're dealing with ridiculously high-caliber machine guns, monomolecular katanas, and the kinds of explosives that would make most terrorist cells soil their pants with unabashed glee (as opposed to, say, rusty swords and pointy sticks), and "geek the mage" is STILL Standard Operating Procedure #1, I think D&D should snap up that principle in a heartbeat.

[The Gilded Duke]

In most of the games I've played the tank ends up being the caster.
I've seen two really effective methods of battlefield control which lock down the enemy.

Illusions. Illusions cover a wide area, and require actions to even save against, almost no enemies have true seeing even at higher levels. True seeing also has its limits. Also mindless creatures can't attempt to disbelieve, making it perfect at shutting down undead, oozes, plants, vermin etc.

Summons. Throwing out big summoned monsters, especially when you can summon multiple at a time blocks up space in the battlefield, restricts movement and prevents charges. Also helps with flanking, and if you are lucky the monsters might actually grapple or kill something.

Why take actual damage when you can have summons take the damage, or illusions which don't really exist take the damage.

[Midnight_v]

Tanking in 3.5 isn't about your build - you just have to THINK. Figure out what is most likely to make the monster attack you, and do that.
Ha HA HA HA HA! Let me show everyone why this is so funny (and wrong) you want to know what makes most monster attack you?
...
...
Wear heavy robes, and a Pointy hat.
Best aggro "build" ever by that very metagamey suggestion. Only because there are two answers here.
1. You can try to creat a melee "build" that allows you to be a little spot of battlefield control.
2. You can be a full caster and thus "God" in the Treantmonk Lv.20 sense
"Treantmonks guide to being God (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0)". So battlefield control is really your thing.

Still, however much being a robe-wearing (hidden kusari-gama) wielding fighter will get you attack one sight (or any other metagame tactic you want to use). Further, however much, playing "God" style battlefield controllers will keep monsters separated and get you the fame and members of the opposite sex....
People are still going to want to be the bsf becuse its the heroic role they've chosen to play. Its not going to be easy but if you can think of no examples of useful-ish melee contibuitions at high level, not one that stands out as being a living bfc spell for many levels, the fault is your own, many people have done a lot of work to make the concept work because its challenging and desired by quite a few other player out ther.

Anyone who tried to tell your "build" isn't important in 3.5 either miscommunicating, or uninformed.
Cause if your build is C.o.Dzilla or Wiz/Sor based you can hold aggro all day long based on your build. Not to say you can't "play smart" but resist the urge to game the system, if you're playing a class that actually HAS no knowledge skills concerning the monster you're fighting. Its just good form.

[ericgrau]

The spell shield other also works for getting damage to you and tripping keeps people from going past you.

Though in general the martial classes are the main damage dealers and the reason you get defense is to protect yourself. Even after pumping defense you'll still be the main damage dealer. So what's that guy behind you doing? He's a wizard. Or he's a cleric and he's not even behind you, his defenses are just as high. Or he's a rogue and he tumbled away again. Or with D&D the average combat only lasts 5 rounds, and arguably the last round or two may be cleanup. Heck most foes drop in 2-3. If a foe spends a turn of his short life simply walking past you, and perhaps gives you another action via an attack of opportunity, he has already paid dearly to reach the back line.

There are ways to tank even more, but generally standing in front and protecting yourself is enough. It's almost always pretty dumb and costly to move past the front line and ignore him regardless of how high his defense is. And your party members can often protect themselves too.

[Saph]

I dunno, isn't one of Shadowrun unspoken rules "Geek the mage"? Why shouldn't it be applied to D&D?

It's not about mages or fighters. The first part of tanking is getting the monster to attack you. Most of the time, this can be done whatever your class.

The problem is that people think of it in MMORPG terms, where you have the tough tank class who taunts the monster and holds aggro, while the squishy DPS class blasts it. That works in MMORPGs because most mobs use very basic AI programs that can be easily manipulated. It doesn't work in D&D because the monster's being played by an actual thinking person.

If you're going up against an intelligent opponent, they'll often attack whoever they see as the greatest threat. So generally, the easiest way to get aggro is to BE the greatest threat. It's true that some classes like Crusaders have mechanics that help them draw fire, but you can usually get the same result by figuring out whatever's most likely to get the monster's attention and doing it.

[SITB]

It's not about mages or fighters. The first part of tanking is getting the monster to attack you. Most of the time, this can be done whatever your class.

The problem is that people think of it in MMORPG terms, where you have the tough tank class who taunts the monster and holds aggro, while the squishy DPS class blasts it. That works in MMORPGs because most mobs use very basic AI programs that can be easily manipulated. It doesn't work in D&D because the monster's being played by an actual thinking person.

If you're going up against an intelligent opponent, they'll often attack whoever they see as the greatest threat. So generally, the easiest way to get aggro is to BE the greatest threat. It's true that some classes like Crusaders have mechanics that help them draw fire, but you can usually get the same result by figuring out whatever's most likely to get the monster's attention and doing it.

But my point was that mages often seem as the greatest threat, so most intelligent opponents would simply go and beat them up rather than the Fighter/Bard/Rogue/Whatever. Unless they make themselves a big enough threat, which means that the enemy will still take down the most dangerous opponent.

EDIT: I have expressed myself poorly. I am not convinced that tanking is viable in D&D (Tanking as I understand it, means that you take the hits rather than someone else). It seems to me that mages are often seemed as the greatest threat to intelligent opponents and thus IO would go after the mage rather than the Fighter; especially since Fighters have limited ways to stop them (Trip and what else?). If you are the greatest threat then it behooves you not to get hit because you are the MVP in the battle. So even if the IO attack you instead of the other PCs how do you exactly tank? Protecting the squishes is well and all, but if you are the greatest threat the best outcome is that you are untouched and the IO attack someone else.

[Saph]

But my point was that mages often seem as the greatest threat, so most intelligent opponents would simply go and beat them up rather than the Fighter/Bard/Rogue/Whatever. Unless they make themselves a big enough threat, which means that the enemy will still take down the most dangerous opponent.

I'm not sure how this is a problem, though. If the monsters ALWAYS attack the mage, then they're easy to beat. Have the mage use defensive spells and readied actions to avoid attacks while everyone else kills the monster.

If the monsters are being sensible and attacking the most dangerous opponent first, then you've got an actual fight on your hands. Still, though, the OP was asking about tanking and getting monsters to attack you, and if the monsters are attacking the greatest threat, then that part's easy. Just be the greatest threat.


EDIT: I have expressed myself poorly. I am not convinced that tanking is viable in D&D (Tanking as I understand it, means that you take the hits rather than someone else). It seems to me that mages are often seemed as the greatest threat to intelligent opponents and thus IO would go after the mage rather than the Fighter; especially since Fighters have limited ways to stop them (Trip and what else?). If you are the greatest threat then it behooves you not to get hit because you are the MVP in the battle. So even if the IO attack you instead of the other PCs how do you exactly tank? Protecting the squishes is well and all, but if you are the greatest threat the best outcome is that you are untouched and the IO attack someone else.

Edit: Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at.

Well, the short answer is: why does the Fighter have to be the tank and the Wizard have to be the squishy target? If the enemies always target the wizard first, then the best solution is to switch roles. Wizards have defensive spells too. Have the Wizard use them to dodge attacks, while the Fighter goes on the offence.

You don't have to be a Fighter to be a tank. In fact, basic fighter-types in 3.5 are generally poor choices for a 'tank' class because their defences aren't great - sure, they have lots of HP, but they don't actually have much else. The most effective melee builds usually focus on DPS rather than tanking.

[Midnight_v]

Pardon me, but what is "dps"?

[Saph]

DPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_per_second)

The more accurate term for D&D would be DPR (damage per round) but DPS is more well known.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Every Wizard should wear a Monk's Outfit and take Invisible Spell, then by Midnight_v's reasoning they would never get attacked because everyone knows that Monks are at the bottom of the visible threat scale, especially a Monk who isn't even attacking anything. If his somatic and verbal components are designed to look like martial arts gestures and noises, and the opponent doesn't have any Spellcraft ranks (and thus cannot even use it untrained), they won't have any idea where the spell effects are coming from or that they're even there.

Realistically, you have to look at what type of monster it is to determine what it would consider the greatest threat. A strong melee monster would come from a clan ruled by the physically strongest individual, and throughout its life it would have been conditioned to consider melee prowess the best form of combat. Therefore, it would more likely consider the biggest, physically strongest opponent to be the greatest threat, not the skinny guy in the back who's not even strong enough to lift anything but a little stick. Such opponents who would have the knowledge and experience to know that the Wizard is the greatest threat would not have survived the experience that gave them that knowledge.

[Midnight_v]

Every Wizard should wear a Monk's Outfit and take Invisible Spell, then by Midnight_v's reasoning
:frown:

Good sir, while agree with your acessment, please realize that I was using that as a paradigm to NOT do things like that.

It is the essence of the metagame (though always attacking the wizard first is right there with it.)
...
though I have to say... damn thats funny!

[NNescio]

Anyone knows what do truenamers like to wear?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Also keep in mind that there are no 'boss' mobs in D&D. You don't have situation in which you need an entire raid to take down the mob, while loosing aggro for even a moment can wipe your 'clothies'. Monsters in D&D 3.5 are much more evenly scaled in terms of HP. You don't have to deal with mobs with around 100 hps, then suddenly deal with a boss that has 10,000 hps. The 'boss' might have a couple of class levels, so might have as much as 130 hps.

So the best way to 'tank' is to have a wide area you can attack in, provoke AoO's in, and enough damage to drop anything dangerous to the rest of your party.

[Andorax]

It looks to me like we're having two different conversations here.


Tanking (trying to do what MMORPGs do) by "forcing things to attack me".
Yes, there's a serious limit to how many different things do this (Knight ability, Goad, etc.). A lot of the reason behind this is the very reason why you're playing D&D and not just getting online...because there's a living, breathing, thinking human being making tactical decisions for the monsters.

An entire "goad" feat tree could be developed to increase this aspect of the game, but you'll find very few DMs that would accept it, as it takes choice and control out of their hands...a very frustrating prospect. What DM likes to be a slow, manual computer AI for serving out monster encounters and nothing more?

So your best bet here is going to be a combination of knowledge, RP, and reading your DM. Find out what makes each different type of monster tick, and then be the threat. Sometimes, it's by being in proximity and dishing out the most damage (certainly, low-intelligence foes operate this way more). Sometimes, it's by trading shields with the party's cleric before going into the vampire's lair so he'll go after "the guy with the glowy holy symbol first".

Some DMs might even allow knowledge checks to give you a hint as to what would attract, and hold, the creature's attention. Sometimes, there's no help for it...even the densest foes are going to catch on that the guy lobbing fireballs is a more important target to take down.

To extent the metaphor, you also need your healer and DPSers to use "threat reducing" abilities. If they can draw LESS attention to themselves, it's more likely that you, with the better AC and more hit points, will be the subject of the attack...but again, it's not a matter of a specific feat or skill, it's all about finding out how your DM works.

Tanking (the D&D philosophy) by battlefield control, movement management, etc.

The other end of the spectrum is what's always been a part of D&D...good old "Meat Shield 101", or the art of being in between the toothy, clawy things and the squishy wizard in back.

I can't really contribute much advice beyond what's already been said here...many good suggestions for how to use physical lockdown means (trips, standing in the way, etc.) instead of psychological tricks to prevent the foes from hitting your more fragile allies.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that beyond low levels, traditional tanks (Fighter, Barbarian, Knight, Crusader, etc) are actually WORSE at defense then many glass cannons (Wizard, Rogue, Psion, etc) who make any sort of effort at optimization. So there's really not that much of a reason you would want your melee build to attract more attacks unless you're playing in a low level or low optimization game, or have some sort of Karmic damage combo (King of Smack, Saint Bertold, Fine But Deadly).

[JaronK]

Crusaders are tanks in that they can take a lot of damage and if you don't kill them they just heal their allies endlessly. Also, the Crusader based shield build I made in the thread "Optimized Shield Use" over at BG is a strong tank... it raises the AC of nearby allies while healing then, and chain stuns enemies. This means people have to attack him or they'll be denied actions and have their damage undone.

JaronK

[ericgrau]

There's a recent example relevant to the discussion. A BBEG beasty with DR and high AC was facing off mainly against a fighter-type (don't remember the actual class) with reasonably good AC and a wizard. The fighter hit it, missed on a secondary attack and did a little damage, the wizard zapped it for more only because his attack ignores DR and hit touch AC (otherwise it'd be less). Thus the pissed BBEG went after the wizard. That provoked from the fighter who hit. The wizard zapped and moved further back. The BBEG approached the wizard and got dangerously close this time, next turn was it. The fighter caught up and swung at it, the wizard moved back and zapped again. Either that turn or the next turn the BBEG dropped, don't remember if he got a swing off or not but it wouldn't be enough anyway. The fighter forgot to use her ability to prevent movement, but it didn't matter. The BBEG might have at least dropped the fighter if he stayed still and full attacked. Or maybe not. Ignoring the fighter and going after the back line was break even at best, without any related special ability at all.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Also, since nothing summons you, and not many opponents have teleportation as a move action, you can kite things all day long.

[Gnaeus]

There's a recent example relevant to the discussion. A BBEG beasty with DR and high AC was facing off mainly against a fighter-type (don't remember the actual class) with reasonably good AC and a wizard. The fighter hit it, missed on a secondary attack and did a little damage, the wizard zapped it for more only because his attack ignores DR and hit touch AC (otherwise it'd be less). Thus the pissed BBEG went after the wizard. That provoked from the fighter who hit. The wizard zapped and moved further back. The BBEG approached the wizard and got dangerously close this time, next turn was it. The fighter caught up and swung at it, the wizard moved back and zapped again. Either that turn or the next turn the BBEG dropped, don't remember if he got a swing off or not but it wouldn't be enough anyway. The fighter forgot to use her ability to prevent movement, but it didn't matter. The BBEG might have at least dropped the fighter if he stayed still and full attacked. Or maybe not. Ignoring the fighter and going after the back line was break even at best, without any related special ability at all.

In your example, it was only a bad decision because BBEG can't actually reach the wizard. Sure, allowing yourself to be kited all over the battlefield is stupid. On the other hand, unless the BBEG is suicidal or fanatical, going toe to toe with a guy who can barely hit you and can barely penetrate your DR while his buddy scorches you every round ignoring your armor and DR is even worse. And the higher level you get, the better the chances that the enemy can just pop over to the wizard, or fly there in a single move action, or blast him back from where he stands.

[Starbuck_II]

Are the Knight's ability and the Goad feat the only way to try and actually "Tank" in D&D?

Are there any ways to optimize them without crazy cheese other than just pumping Charisma?

Be a Gish and cast Mindless Rage: acts like Goad (but they have to melee you), boost DC, and hope they aren't immune to mind affecting.

[ericgrau]

In your example, it was only a bad decision because BBEG can't actually reach the wizard. Sure, allowing yourself to be kited all over the battlefield is stupid. On the other hand, unless the BBEG is suicidal or fanatical, going toe to toe with a guy who can barely hit you and can barely penetrate your DR while his buddy scorches you every round ignoring your armor and DR is even worse. And the higher level you get, the better the chances that the enemy can just pop over to the wizard, or fly there in a single move action, or blast him back from where he stands.

That was the point. Most classes can take care of themself. The fighter still both did significant damage and took significant damage. Only Sith think in absolutes :smalltongue:; reality rarely works that way. As said sticking with the fighter and possibly taking him out probably would have been better, or at worst equal. Popping or flying to a wizard who can do the same isn't any better. As it happens they were both flying, but it was indoors as dungeons tend to be.