so... why no tanking.

[JennTora]

Maybe it's seen as warcrafty or something, but in a lot of multiplayer video games you see this. Most famously mmos but it didn't start out there. Usually melee classes have abilities to draw "aggro" as wow players call it away from the more frail characters. It makes strategic sense to me to have such abilities if your adventuring party/ army has squishy wizards to protect while they blow things up, so why don't you really see it in d&d except in a couple of sub-par feats in pathfinder. It honestly seems like it would make melee a more helpful option. Though the hit dice and ac might need to be higher

[Ashdate]

They added it in 4e with the concept of "defenders".

The concept is sort of there pre-4e with Attacks of Opportunity; adding the idea of "marking" opponents (-2 to attack a target other than the mark-er) was a good idea that 4e probably borrowed from MMORPGs.

Hopefully, some form of it will carry over into 5e.

[NikitaDarkstar]

You do. Fighters, barbarians, paladins, druids and clerics can all tanks. And that's just the PBH of 3.5. But no, it doesn't spell it out, but they're suited for it. You can use skill checks to draw attention (aggro) to yourself, and if you look much bigger and scarier and are in the enemies face they'll most likely be attacking you anyway, but it depends on your DM. There are feats to make things easier, there are splat-books that gives you many more choices for tanking.

And 4e does spell it out with what classes are suited for what roles and what roles are expected to perform what functions. I don't know about 5th ed. yet though.

[Jack of Spades]

The reason it doesn't exist (very much) is because in a world where the enemies are governed by an actual brain instead of a AI with programmed-in aggro thresholds it becomes very hard to justify why the guy doing all the damage and casting all of the flashy spells is getting ignored in favor of a guy with a sword and nigh-impenetrable armor who is yelling a lot but generally doing less actual damage.

Most monsters in DnD and related systems will generally either be smart enough to avoid the guy who looks hard to kill until everything else is down, or dumb enough that they're going to be pretty much equal opportunity combatants and attack whoever's closest. There are, of course, exceptions to be made for societies/groups/races who equate biggest/toughest to hurtiest, but that's a pretty small group of enemy archetypes.

The point I'm trying to make is this: in the more-realistic world of an RPG, the only way to "tank" is to be standing between your guys and their guys, then hope their guys either suck at throwing ranged attacks over your head or can't get around you. That can work-- to a degree. But never as well as tanking works in a Holy Trinity MMORPG, because tanking in games is a simple matter of "I need to generate a higher number than the other guys, luckily I have half a dozen abilities whose sole purpose is to raise that number," whereas tanking on tabletop is a matter of tactics: getting in the way and hoping that you being in the way is relevant.

EDIT TO AVERT FUTURE DISAGREEMENT: Nothing above is meant as law. It's just an explanation. I'm sure there are ways to do it, but I'm just pointing out the problems with the concept of the classical MMORPG "tank" working in a real-ish simulated world.

[Mando Knight]

In 3.5, there's the Cleric/Paladin spell Shield Other (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOther.htm), which helps for battles where the enemy is focused on dealing HP damage. In Pathfinder, the Paladin also gets Compel Hostility (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/compel-hostility), which allows the Paladin to redirect melee attacks toward himself when possible.
whereas tanking on tabletop is a matter of tactics: getting in the way and hoping that you being in the way is relevant.
"Getting in the way" is a little simplistic. Tanking in general means that you reduce the effectiveness or ability for the enemy to damage your allies: counter-threats if the enemy attacks someone else, reducing or redirecting damage taken by allies, increasing your physical presence on the field (i.e. make it obvious that you will take out an opponent if you're not dealt with first) so forth would all fall under tanking.

[JennTora]

Still, I've never seen them being able to draw multiple opponents. Then again, now that I think about it, not one person in my group has played a pure melee class for more than a couple of sessions, so that's probably why.

And I guess I didn't know about the 4e ones because I don't really play 4e.

What skill would those be because I don't remember a taunt skill, and none of bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy really fit well.

[DeltaEmil]

In D&D 4th edition, the defender classes (those meant to tanks) have a mechanic that applies a special debuff on enemies (marking), which applies a penalty to hit and possibly leads to the defenders making a special Attack of Opportunity (or Opportunity Attack) against the target enemy, should it not attack the defender.

It's actually a quite ingenious idea how to emulate aggro into pen&paper without having actual MMO aggro-mechanics in the game.

[Ashdate]

Still, I've never seen them being able to draw multiple opponents. Then again, now that I think about it, not one person in my group has played a pure melee class for more than a couple of sessions, so that's probably why.

Try importing 4e's concept into your 3.5/pathfinder game. Fighters and Paladins are considered generally underpowered, so it shouldn't break anything.

Whenever a fighter or paladin attack an enemy, that enemy takes a -2 penalty to any attack that does not include the "Tank" until the end of the "Tank"'s next turn. For the fighter, if the enemy tries to move away, they get a free AOO, stopping the monster's move action entirely on a hit. For the Paladin, if they attack someone other than them, the enemy takes the Paladin's level + Charisma score in radiant damage.

[JennTora]

The reason it doesn't exist (very much) is because in a world where the enemies are governed by an actual brain instead of a AI with programmed-in aggro thresholds it becomes very hard to justify why the guy doing all the damage and casting all of the flashy spells is getting ignored in favor of a guy with a sword and nigh-impenetrable armor who is yelling a lot but generally doing less actual damage.

Most monsters in DnD and related systems will generally either be smart enough to avoid the guy who looks hard to kill until everything else is down, or dumb enough that they're going to be pretty much equal opportunity combatants and attack whoever's closest. There are, of course, exceptions to be made for societies/groups/races who equate biggest/toughest to hurtiest, but that's a pretty small group of enemy archetypes.

The point I'm trying to make is this: in the more-realistic world of an RPG, the only way to "tank" is to be standing between your guys and their guys, then hope their guys either suck at throwing ranged attacks over your head or can't get around you. That can work-- to a degree. But never as well as tanking works in a Holy Trinity MMORPG, because tanking in games is a simple matter of "I need to generate a higher number than the other guys, luckily I have half a dozen abilities whose sole purpose is to raise that number," whereas tanking on tabletop is a matter of tactics: getting in the way and hoping that you being in the way is relevant.

EDIT TO AVERT FUTURE DISAGREEMENT: Nothing above is meant as law. It's just an explanation. I'm sure there are ways to do it, but I'm just pointing out the problems with the concept of the classical MMORPG "tank" working in a real-ish simulated world.

Actually, if you're bashing on their head with an axe, it's going to be quite difficult for them to throw a ranged weapon over yours. And the problem with all that is it assumes the enemies you fight to be completely logical. You can be smart and still get pissed off and want to kill the guy who just called you a wuss instead of the squishy wizard. Another way it can be done is to stand in front of the wizard while he buffs you up and screws with the enemy's head, assuming your wizard is of the rare non-boomstick persuasion.

[JennTora]

Try importing 4e's concept into your 3.5/pathfinder game. Fighters and Paladins are considered generally underpowered, so it shouldn't break anything.

Whenever a fighter or paladin attack an enemy, that enemy takes a -2 penalty to any attack that does not include the "Tank" until the end of the "Tank"'s next turn. For the fighter, if the enemy tries to move away, they get a free AOO, stopping the monster's move action entirely on a hit. For the Paladin, if they attack someone other than them, the enemy takes the Paladin's level + Charisma score in radiant damage.

That actually sounds like a great idea, and it might get more people playing melee classes. I know a couple of people have wanted to go melee but stopped when they felt like they couldn't actually do anything. It also effectively adds the aforementioned axe bashing ranged difficulty into the equation.

[TheOOB]

The D&D design team actually talked about tanking in a panel at PAX today. They said one of the problems with a taunt or marking mechanic, apart from it being off mechanically, is that D&D(and other RPG's) also tell a story. Sometimes when a tanky character marks or provokes an enemy, and can be difficult to describe exactly what is happening in the game world. When you use an ability that forced someone to walk up and attack you, past their minions and through a wall of fire, what is happening there.

They said for the next edition they want to focus on more sensible abilities, like using a shield to reduce the chance of enemies hitting allies near you.

[Rallicus]

Sometimes when a tanky character marks or provokes an enemy, and can be difficult to describe exactly what is happening in the game world. When you use an ability that forced someone to walk up and attack you, past their minions and through a wall of fire, what is happening there.

What a weird statement from them, considering the fact that D&D is so heavily mechanics-based.

You could argue a lot of the mechanics in the D&D don't really make sense. Five foot steps in combat? How do you explain a wizard hopping back a foot (or five), waving his arms around and casting a spell while the enemy stands there looking dumbfounded?

[tyckspoon]

What skill would those be because I don't remember a taunt skill, and none of bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy really fit well.

I suppose you could do a rushed Diplomacy check to *worsen* an NPC's attitude instead of improve it.. although if you assume anybody in direct combat with you is probably already Hostile, this would require the invention of a negative category equivalent to Fanatic ('will focus on harming you above all else, even if such requires obviously self-harming choices' could be its description.)

[JennTora]

The D&D design team actually talked about tanking in a panel at PAX today. They said one of the problems with a taunt or marking mechanic, apart from it being off mechanically, is that D&D(and other RPG's) also tell a story. Sometimes when a tanky character marks or provokes an enemy, and can be difficult to describe exactly what is happening in the game world. When you use an ability that forced someone to walk up and attack you, past their minions and through a wall of fire, what is happening there.

They said for the next edition they want to focus on more sensible abilities, like using a shield to reduce the chance of enemies hitting allies near you.

And it has already been established that tanking doesn't just mean "forcing someone to walk and attack you through a wall of fire"... :smallfrown: and for that example all you really have to do is write in the rules "this ability will not cause someone to do something blatantly suicidal."

[TheOOB]

What a weird statement from them, considering the fact that D&D is so heavily mechanics-based.

You could argue a lot of the mechanics in the D&D don't really make sense. Five foot steps in combat? How do you explain a wizard hopping back a foot (or five), waving his arms around and casting a spell while the enemy stands there looking dumbfounded?

Well, they said they were trying to get away from such weirdness.


And it has already been established that tanking doesn't just mean "forcing someone to walk and attack you through a wall of fire"... :smallfrown: and for that example all you really have to do is write in the rules "this ability will not cause someone to do something blatantly suicidal."

If the DM has to make up or change a rule on the fly, the rules failed. Also. when a player has an ability, an ability they choose and selected for their character, it needs to work as it says it works. You can't just say "no you can't do that" when they think of a clever way to use a power.

[Reluctance]

It's really only a problem in 3.5. Games without a minis combat angle, all you have to do is be in a roughly advantageous place and say that you're going to intercept any oncoming enemies. 4e has specific abilities that encourage enemies to smack you instead of your allies. 3.5 has only a few very vaguely worded abilities, like most of the Knight's class features.

I also don't see the problem with abilities that apply a penalty to enemies who attack people other than you. The 4e fighter throws a spear at the big bad, and essentially gives him a -2 to hit. The 4e paladin marks the baddie and keeps chucking spears at it, and gives him a -2 to hit and some amount of damage. Neither forces him to make tactically stupid moves. They just change the payoff calculation.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The other problem with tanking, aside from it not making much sense, is that D&D already rewards focus firing (attacking one dude till he's dead, then on to the next) so very very much, thanks to critical existence failure (until a creature is dead/unconscious/etc..., it is just as much a threat at 1 hp as it is at 300 hp; heck, some foes get STRONGER when near death) that's caked into the "heroic fantasy" rules. No matter how much hp and defenses a tank has, he won't be able to actually endure the brunt of team monster's attacks much longer than anyone else, unless his defenses are so out of whack that he's nearly unkillable, which would also lead to imbalance.

And yes, I know that drawing aggro is only one aspect of "tanking." I just think it's a really stupid aspect. I much prefer "battlefield control" / "lockdown" like the 3E Stand Still feat. Problem there is, even more so than "bludgeoning things to death w/ hp damage," it's something mages just plain do better than martials. And most people want the martial dude to be the tank. Being able to shut enemies down from range and safety will pwn melee battlefield control. Every day of the week. Then add in that the magic user can also throw up walls and clouds to foil ranged attacks, ranged Su abilities, etc... and the martial is mostly stuck on the "you shall not pass!" schtick (great for stopping melee brutes, not so much for the dragon's breath weapon), and...it looks pretty bad for the "melee controller."

[Redshiftblue]

Just to add to a topic I feel strongly about;

Tanking in MMOs works because the computer is not a brain, and it's NPCs don't have brains either. AI has 3 states; idle, attacking, dead. AI can't be simultaneously clever and processor lite, so the only possibility is stupid and lite.

Consider the following.
In any encounter, a person/character must decide who to attack/what to do. With a human brain, we can calculate which targets are viable and which targets are not viable.
Being a cloth wearing civilian, we would cower behind cover while the professional soldiers/warriors fight it out. We would do this because the enemy would skewer us in no time flat, and we would have a negligible contribution on the outcome even if they didn't.
As a soldier with a spear, you might try to stab the guy in baggy robes chanting at you with an expression that indicates he would like to do you harm. Easy choice you might say. There are 3 guys now, 1 chanting, 1 in full plate, and 1 trying to run away from you. Your spear will most likely not harm the full plate guy, since you can't penetrate full plate easily and he would be swinging with his hammer/sword at you at the same time. Risk v Reward: low
Maybe the guy running away? Sure thing, but the full plate monster will also swing at you, and the chanter is also doing something. Risk v Reward: also low.
Maybe the chanter then? Spear vs robes; easy math. Unarmed; also easy math. Sure, the full plate monster is also swinging at you, but who says you can't get the chanter between you and the monster guy?
Experience changes the equations slightly, if you have fought guys in full plate before or know what the chanter is doing. Full plate is slow, cumbersome, and easy to outwit. You can try get behind the guy, and cut the straps, or push him over, or stab his less protected knee. If the chanter is chanting 'teleport', you can expect him to disappear shortly, or punch him in the face to make him lose concentration.
AI of this level would take a lot of programming to let it decide what the best choice is. More choice options, much slower decision making, slowing all other AI subroutines, slowing the machine, and the game.

Since RPG games in general are all about options, and doing things that are not just from a list of 'item, attack, run, magic' we can see how complicated AI would have to become. How many solutions could you come up with to get an apple off a tree? 10? 20? WE can generalize them down to 'climbing the tree', or 'jumping and snatching the apple', or 'getting a chair and standing on it so we can reach' but a computer cannot. It must be programmed with specific solutions.

A wizard in 3.5/PF can teleport, summon, conjure, evocate, divine or transmute the tree or apple. As a person/character, you can imagine many ways to do it, and the GM would then rule a target to roll for, or explain how it went.
The trinity exists because a computer cannot. It also exists because designers are lazy and designing all these options is like programming a physics engine down to objects of millimeter size. The amount of time required to do this is extreme and the complexity almost unimaginable. It's currently impossible to allow so many options in a game, while in reality we have brains that will either calculate, simulate or hand-wave the correct result.

It's why dwarf fortress is incredibly complex but relatively primitive by today's graphical and gameplay standards(It is a great game, don't misunderstand). The trinity is a shortcut to playability, prioritizing combat functionality instead of options like caving in the ceiling above the boss monster.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The other problem with tanking, aside from it not making much sense, is that D&D already rewards focus firing (attacking one dude till he's dead, then on to the next) so very very much, thanks to critical existence failure (until a creature is dead/unconscious/etc..., it is just as much a threat at 1 hp as it is at 300 hp; heck, some foes get STRONGER when near death) that's caked into the "heroic fantasy" rules. No matter how much hp and defenses a tank has, he won't be able to actually endure the brunt of team monster's attacks much longer than anyone else, unless his defenses are so out of whack that he's nearly unkillable, which would also lead to imbalance.

You could always do what actual MMO's do: Make it so the tank can't possibly survive the onslaught for more than a few seconds unless they have a priest heal-spamming them.

...Something that D&D is ALSO fundamentally incapable of supporting due to touch-range healing and vancian stupidity.

[LibraryOgre]

You could always do what actual MMO's do: Make it so the tank can't possibly survive the onslaught for more than a few seconds unless they have a priest heal-spamming them.

...Something that D&D is ALSO fundamentally incapable of supporting due to touch-range healing and vancian stupidity.

Ah, yes. Because failure to anticipate something that would become common 30 years after creation is "stupidity". It certainly has nothing to do with 30 years of development in a genre, or changing tastes in literature. It's not the least bit connected to simplifying the underlying metaphysics until the original reason for design choices become meaningless. It is "stupidity" to think that someone might have to prepare to alter the fundamental nature of the universe by harvesting a quasi-living extradimensional energy source and forcing it to obey their will.

Boy, if only those dumb old designers had looked into the future, maybe they wouldn't have chosen a simple-to-ajudicate method based on a popular fiction series.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Boy, if only those dumb old designers had looked into the future, maybe they wouldn't have chosen a simple-to-ajudicate method based on a popular fiction series.

My problem is that vancian magic (and daily resources in general) have been kept for 30 years, in spite of changing customer taste and the evolution of game design, solely for the sake of maintaining tradition.

[valadil]

Aggro is one of those things that I have a hard time buying in an RPG. What are you going to do, insult that orc's mother so bad that he charges you instead of the guy he was fighting? 95% of the time, that just doesn't make sense to me. The times when it does make sense are going to be personal. I feel like in those cases the players can just make the personal insult and not worry about rolling a check to do so.

But just because there's no aggro doesn't mean there can't be tanking in the obstacle sense. It works best in a corridor. Put the mages in back and the fighters in front of them. You don't need mechanics to keep the bad guys stuck to the fighters if the fighters are the only valid targets.

[Madeiner]

On a tangent note, someone talked about how in d&d it is always better to jump and kill a single target.

I have tried in the past to change this, but failed.

I devoloped a "lockdown" system where everybody does double or triple damage to non-locked down targets.
Locking down a target was simply a matter of attacking it, and the two units would become "interlocked".

Now, the double damage rule started on round 2, so round 1 was basically positioning. If you left an enemy "unlocked", he was free to go around and do double damage to people.

However, the system didnt' work due to complexity, and impossibility to be used with bosses (always double damage from PCs) and minions (too many of them means they can't all be locked down).


I have then thought of a system if you attack an enemy at least once in a round, he loses one iterative attack next round. So spreading attacks around was a good way to prevent damage. However, it was hard to remember who was attacked, and also there were problems with area spells etc.

Has anyone ever found a way so that attacking one enemy until dead ISN'T always the best solution(but sometimes is)?

[wumpus]

What a weird statement from them, considering the fact that D&D is so heavily mechanics-based.


Note that AD&D, 0e, and the various basic-expert-...-god editions were never heavy mechanics based. If 5e wants to have an option anything like old school gaming they will need the ability to ditch such rules.

The DM is perfectly capable of letting the fighter take the role of the meat shield (you really should let players have *something* to do...). Certainly any monster that could remotely claim the "evil" sub-type could be effectively tanked by a paladin and similar cleric types regardless of rules.

A better question is what happens when the players ignore the enemy wizard's ogre bodyguard? My "fix" would be to allow anyone "sneak attack like powers" if they are being purposefully ignored during combat. Turn your back on the barbarian? Lose all dex/shield/feat AC (lose some more to pretend that type of thing matters), then watch while the barbarian full round full power attacks while using untrained pounce (at -4, and can't use it against a foe who isn't ignoring him). Note that this doesn't work if the enemies aren't ignoring the tank: they presumably notice in the last second and at least can put up some resistance. It is only when they force themselves to ignore the attack so they can concentrate on the wizard/codzilla/DMPC.

[Jack of Spades]

"Getting in the way" is a little simplistic. Tanking in general means that you reduce the effectiveness or ability for the enemy to damage your allies: counter-threats if the enemy attacks someone else, reducing or redirecting damage taken by allies, increasing your physical presence on the field (i.e. make it obvious that you will take out an opponent if you're not dealt with first) so forth would all fall under tanking.
Well, I meant "getting in the way" in the broadest possible sense, which is to say I feel that all of those things you listed simplify to "getting in the way." :smallbiggrin:


Actually, if you're bashing on their head with an axe, it's going to be quite difficult for them to throw a ranged weapon over yours. And the problem with all that is it assumes the enemies you fight to be completely logical. You can be smart and still get pissed off and want to kill the guy who just called you a wuss instead of the squishy wizard. Another way it can be done is to stand in front of the wizard while he buffs you up and screws with the enemy's head, assuming your wizard is of the rare non-boomstick persuasion.

Five-foot step out of threat, shoot. You're no longer swinging that axe at me right now.

Also, I mentioned that dumb enemies (below human, above animal) are probably among the few who can be provoked-- but that will work as an excuse for what, the first 5 levels?

As for the "Oh don't bother with me I'm just a buffer" path: in TF2, everyone knows to shoot the medic before the heavy. In a world with enough magic, everyone knows that mages exist to make life a lot more difficult than a martial hero ever could.

[Andrewmoreton]

Because it makes no sense at all in anything resembling a reasonable simulation of the world.
Any RPG I buy which has aggro rules in it will be the first book I ever burn.
(4th ed D+D came close but I Settled for dumping it on a charity shop)

[Razgriez]

Well there are indeed classes designed just for this.

Class wise, there's also the Knight class from PHB II (3.5 DnD) which had crowd control in mind for it's design. It works by expending it's Knight Challenge points, to issue various Challenges to enemies which causes foes to be shaken, or focus on targeting the Knight, and various buffs to allies or themselves.

two PrCs also provide tanking:

Devoted Defender, and Dwarven Defender: They tank, but in two different ways.

Devoted Defender works, as a Meat Shield. They declare who they are protecting, and as long as they stay within about 5 to 10 feet of their protectee, they can jump in the way, and take some or all of the damage, or even prevent it entirely.

a Dwarven Defender works more as an Area Control or "Tar Pit" tank. They lock down the area around them, making it harder for foes to move through the Dwarven defenders threat area, slowing down their progress.

There's also a number of feats dedicated to getting the foes attention, like Goad from Races of Stone.

[JennTora]

Well, I meant "getting in the way" in the broadest possible sense, which is to say I feel that all of those things you listed simplify to "getting in the way." :smallbiggrin:



Five-foot step out of threat, shoot. You're no longer swinging that axe at me right now.

Also, I mentioned that dumb enemies (below human, above animal) are probably among the few who can be provoked-- but that will work as an excuse for what, the first 5 levels?

As for the "Oh don't bother with me I'm just a buffer" path: in TF2, everyone knows to shoot the medic before the heavy. In a world with enough magic, everyone knows that mages exist to make life a lot more difficult than a martial hero ever could.

As a dm I would have that provoke an aoo. I mean which makes less sense here:

1.Being able to step back 5 feet while the axe wielder stands there like an idiot.

2.Saying "hey big fat ugly guy with the big fat ugly sword, you and your mom are big and fat and ugly and your dad is a bedwetter" and having him get angry and attack you instead of the mage.

And come on even someone with 18 or higher intelligence can be provoked into making stupid decisions. Look at vaarsuvius.

And unless the enemy can fly or jump over you they should not be able to attack the party mage when you are standing directly in front of them between them and the enemy. Even less so if you have the beefier party members surrounding the mage. I am not saying this is viable in all or even most situations, but it's one way tanking can work.

[Augmental]

2.Saying "hey big fat ugly guy with the big fat ugly sword, you and your mom are big and fat and ugly and your dad is a bedwetter" and having him get angry and attack you instead of the mage.

Or he'll insult you back by attacking the mage, since that would basically be saying "You're not worth my time, wimp."

[The Glyphstone]

As a dm I would have that provoke an aoo. I mean which makes less sense here:

1.Being able to step back 5 feet while the axe wielder stands there like an idiot.

2.Saying "hey big fat ugly guy with the big fat ugly sword, you and your mom are big and fat and ugly and your dad is a bedwetter" and having him get angry and attack you instead of the mage.

And come on even someone with 18 or higher intelligence can be provoked into making stupid decisions. Look at vaarsuvius.

And unless the enemy can fly or jump over you they should not be able to attack the party mage when you are standing directly in front of them between them and the enemy. Even less so if you have the beefier party members surrounding the mage. I am not saying this is viable in all or even most situations, but it's one way tanking can work.

Yeah, because V's Wisdom is awful. Intelligence is learned book-smarts and education, Wisdom is common sense and street-smarts. A high-Int, low-Wis person might be able to be provoked by taunts, but even a decent to above average Wisdom will tell you that the guy with the switchblade, as loud and mean as he might be, isn't as big a threat as the currently defenseless guy who is shoving ammo down the barrel of his rocket launcher.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Corwin, that's because your DM is not a computer, and neither are his npc's. And really, in D&D you DO NOT WANT to get the attention of more than one enemy at a time, unless you're a rogue with improved evasion who generally couldn't care less about flanking.

Now a raging barbarian who's charging headfirst in with a battleaxe will probably get some attention if he acts before the spell-casters, but the moment that Fireball lands any enemy with half a brain will realize they have a fairly squishy but extremely lethal enemy to deal with, your job is to try and keep them from being able to do it, but "holding aggro" wont' work. Try things like tripping, bullrushing, knockdowns, reach weapons and anything else you can think of, but remember this game will never work the same way as a computer game.

[JennTora]

Yeah okay.

I just think melee needs some improvements to how it handles its niche. Being able to get in there and be all "rawr attack mee, nawt the maaaaage!" Seemed like a good way of doing that.

[JennTora]

Yeah, because V's Wisdom is awful. Intelligence is learned book-smarts and education, Wisdom is common sense and street-smarts. A high-Int, low-Wis person might be able to be provoked by taunts, but even a decent to above average Wisdom will tell you that the guy with the switchblade, as loud and mean as he might be, isn't as big a threat as the currently defenseless guy who is shoving ammo down the barrel of his rocket launcher.

Even a character with high wisdom can have a lapse in judgment, though. And really it's more like a guy with a rifle vs. A guy with a super duper automatic weapon with a cdrom drive and a big old hard drive and a bass guitar amp and a great big rocket launcher and a rock it launcher from fallout 3 and a donut maker and a little like thing that would nerf rockets from here to china and poke you in the eye because it would have automatic finger poking in the eye things. You can that the guy with the second is a huge threat, but the guy with the rifle is also worth killing, especially if he's standing between you and mr. Big ridiculous gun.

[Urpriest]

The problem with the whole "tanking via insults" concept is that it implies a very naive, shounen/superhero comics/80's fantasy set of genre conventions. It requires a) that people have understandable conversation in a combat composed of short rounds of intense activity, b) that the combatants have a sense of pride and decorum similar to that of a fourteen year old child, and c) that most combats take place between people who either know eachother or act like they do. These genre conventions are great if you want to impart a moral about high school social politics, and that's largely why they were and are used. But today even young teens prefer darker, grittier fiction (see Hunger Games for the shallow end of that pool, and Bartimaeus/Sabriel for deeper), and most tabletop RPGs (especially out of print ones like D&D 3.5) are played by people with more sophisticated tastes in fiction. In most such games, insulting an orc's mother would be bizarre: you don't know the orc in question so you have no reason to speak to them, you're not going to be heard even if you do say something due to combat, and even if you're heard the orc isn't going to feel insulted by a childish taunt from a complete stranger.

[NichG]

The other problem with tanking that forces targeting decisions or actions (as opposed to changing the tactical evaluation) is that having such things used against you (a PC) would quickly get frustrating since you don't get to actually play your character.

Consider how unpopular a very common minor no-save Dominate effect would be. Thats basically WoW-style tanking.

A better approach is to make space mean something by constraining movement and targeting more. 2D battlefields reduce tanking viability, whereas battlefields with 1D segments make it possible to hold bottlenecks and the like. Make it so you can't 'fire over someones head' - a person provides cover against line of effect - and you can literally stand in the gap and be the only viable target. You can go further - have abilities that increase a person's effective battlefield footprint. An ability that lets a medium creature 'act' as a large or huge creature as far as blocking squares would be a reasonable thing that would improve the ability to protect allies.

A less grid-based solution is to have a number of abilities that let you 'take a blow' for someone else. Something that lets you jump in the way of any attack directed at your defendee would be a basic level ability. A higher-power ability would expand this to anyone within a certain distance of you, all attacks from a single enemy, or even all allies.

IMO, the 'heal spam the tank' mechanic is a bad model for tabletop combat. It means that to be a serious threat to the party, enemies have to be able to one-shot characters (because healing has to be powerful enough to be able to heal the cumulative efforts of multiple enemies if tanking is to be effective, it means you're either fully healthy or dead/KO with nothing in between). It might be better to do something like the Crusader's deferred damage. Perhaps a tank gets an ability to defer all damage for 1 round, 2 rounds, etc. If the healer gets to them in time they're fine, but if they aren't careful they'll have a bad day after the fight. This becomes more viable if you also expand the line between unconscious and dead.

[The Glyphstone]

Even a character with high wisdom can have a lapse in judgment, though. And really it's more like a guy with a rifle vs. A guy with a super duper automatic weapon with a cdrom drive and a big old hard drive and a bass guitar amp and a great big rocket launcher and a rock it launcher from fallout 3 and a donut maker and a little like thing that would nerf rockets from here to china and poke you in the eye because it would have automatic finger poking in the eye things. You can that the guy with the second is a huge threat, but the guy with the rifle is also worth killing, especially if he's standing between you and mr. Big ridiculous gun.

That wouldn't be a tank vs. a wizard though, that would be an angry barbarian with a greataxe (rifle) against a wizard ( tricked-out rocket launcher of doom). The way D&D's math for attack/defense works, especially as it relates to WBL, means getting a sufficiently high defensive ability to effectively 'tank' anything will also 'tank' your damage output. The rifleman is a threat because he's capable of doing damage to you, and he's closer - the guy in full riot armor, a riot shield, and a dull butterknife is the 'tank', and his threat level is so much lower than either rifleman or rocket launcher dude that you can safely ignore him while paying attention to real dangers.

[Zeful]

Yeah okay.

I just think melee needs some improvements to how it handles its niche. Being able to get in there and be all "rawr attack mee, nawt the maaaaage!" Seemed like a good way of doing that.

Except, once you step away from mechanics it immediately stops making any kind of sense.

If you want melee character to be a barrier, you have to make them control their surrounding space. The 3 by 3 square of their reach should be where a melee character is the most effective, both in terms of defense and offense. Give them abilities to step in the way of enemies at any time, let them interfere with the normal operation of spells and other ranged attacks, let their combat talents make passing them in a tight corridor a difficult proposition because he's striking at legs. Each one of my examples use exiting mechanics to make a melee combatant actually something that must be considered by enemies rather than a poorly implemented meatshield, give him an immediate action movement ability so he can step in the way of an enemy's line of effect, taking the blow; let him attack spells passing through his reach and throw them off course or reflect them back toward the caster or a shield user to protect other squares from AoE effects; make the fighter's reach difficult terrain so charging past him just isn't possible.

[toapat]

The D&D design team actually talked about tanking in a panel at PAX today. They said one of the problems with a taunt or marking mechanic, apart from it being off mechanically, is that D&D(and other RPG's) also tell a story. Sometimes when a tanky character marks or provokes an enemy, and can be difficult to describe exactly what is happening in the game world. When you use an ability that forced someone to walk up and attack you, past their minions and through a wall of fire, what is happening there.

They said for the next edition they want to focus on more sensible abilities, like using a shield to reduce the chance of enemies hitting allies near you.

no, it isnt.

"Taunting" an opponent is basically 3 things:

Verbal Harrasment. Tell someone you banged their mom enough and they will get pissed off

Visible Obstruction: You use methods to make yourself seem more imposing against the Aggroee.

"Wounding": Magic works differently then melee. If you stab someone, they are going to bleed. If you explode someone, they are going to be disoriented, burned, but not actually register the person who exploded them as a threat. By killing the target softly, you make them percieve that you are a more significant threat then the guy who can shut off your heart with a few words, because you are dealing what looks like actual damage.

in a way, you could add threat like this:

Threat [General][Fighter]
You excel at distracting your enemy.
Prerequisites: Intimidate, 5 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you deal damage to an enemy, you add your Intimidate modifier as non-lethal damage to each attack you make. You may choose to not add this damage to your attack.

[leafman]

For drawing aggro you could use a modified/homebrewed version of intimidate. I know in Dungeons and Dragons Online they did it, though I don't know all the complexities of their version.

Basically, while in combat a player can use the intimidate skill to get an enemy's attention. Make a standard intimidate check opposed by the enemy's modified level check (1d20+character level/HD+wis bonus+saves vs. fear), if successful by 5 or less the enemy is shaken for 1 round, if successful by 6 or more the enemy feels compelled to attack the player until death or until another player has dealt damage equal to the intimidate check result.

Ex: A fighter uses intimidate (makes a rude gesture) on an ogre. The fighter gets a 20 on his check, the ogre gets a 10 and is compelled to attack the fighter. The ogre will continue to attack the fighter until a)it dies, b)the fighter dies or c) someone else does 20 points of damage to the ogre. If option c, the ogre is free to decide if it wants to continue attacking the fighter or go after the other player.

That could probably use more refining like adding a once per round save to break free of the initimidate, but that's all I've got right now.

[toapat]

For drawing aggro you could use a modified/homebrewed version of intimidate. I know in Dungeons and Dragons Online they did it, though I don't know all the complexities of their version.

Look up one post.

Anyway, what you are talking about doesnt work in PnP. Threat systems typically have to be incredibly complex to actually work in MMOs, and you arent actually thinking of how they did it right either: In DDO, Intimidate applies a buff that makes enemies treat you as though you had dealt twice the damage you are (Defensive stance boosts boosts that upto 275%, then there are items that let you push past that, and the Paladin and Fighter epic pristeges go upto 150% )

[leafman]

Look up one post.

Anyway, what you are talking about doesnt work in PnP. Threat systems typically have to be incredibly complex to actually work in MMOs, and you arent actually thinking of how they did it right either: In DDO, Intimidate applies a buff that makes enemies treat you as though you had dealt twice the damage you are (Defensive stance boosts boosts that upto 275%, then there are items that let you push past that, and the Paladin and Fighter epic pristeges go upto 150% )

You posted while I was working out my post.

They've changed how it works since I last played (I stopped playing before they raised the level cap from 16), so I'm not up to date on how it works now.

[toapat]

raised the level cap from 16

the level cap has been 10, 20, and is currently 25, meaning you probably stopped during the early F2Pay time

[Vitruviansquid]

I actually like DnD's lack of a true aggro mechanic better than what MMO's have because it makes battles more chaotic and exciting.

When you assume that multiple characters should take damage and you don't give one character the means to hold all the 'aggro,' the party has to manage damage (and enemies' aggro mechanics) over everyone, rather than just with the tank and healer.

[toapat]

I actually like DnD's lack of a true aggro mechanic better than what MMO's have because it makes battles more chaotic and exciting.

When you assume that multiple characters should take damage and you don't give one character the means to hold all the 'aggro,' the party has to manage damage (and enemies' aggro mechanics) over everyone, rather than just with the tank and healer.

well, the game isnt really in favor of how tanking works. it goes against the fact that Prevention is vastly superior to repairing damage, that healing is more resource intensive then preventing it from being dealt.

[NoldorForce]

Because it makes no sense at all in anything resembling a reasonable simulation of the world.
Any RPG I buy which has aggro rules in it will be the first book I ever burn.
(4th ed D+D came close but I Settled for dumping it on a charity shop)Doubtless you wouldn't want to burn your D&D books all the way back to 2E, and yet aggro rules have existed since then. 2E allowed kender some sort of taunt, 3E had the Knight, and Pathfinder has a feat that lets you MMO-taunt (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/antagonize). Compared to those I'd consider 4E's marking system to be rather elegant in that it's not a command so much as a Morton's Fork.

[Knaight]

The problem with the whole "tanking via insults" concept is that it implies a very naive, shounen/superhero comics/80's fantasy set of genre conventions. It requires a) that people have understandable conversation in a combat composed of short rounds of intense activity, b) that the combatants have a sense of pride and decorum similar to that of a fourteen year old child, and c) that most combats take place between people who either know eachother or act like they do.
Go ahead and try to use taunts when sparring with a group of fourteen year olds, to protect an archer in the back who is susceptible to being killed in melee but is extremely dangerous until that happens. I guarantee that it will fail miserably, and they will attack the archer - your method for making that not happen isn't a taunt, but staying close to the archer and getting into combat range with anyone who goes for them. For that matter, try the same thing with a bunch of nine year olds, and it will still fail miserably. Taunts are ineffective.

Incidentally, that archer is probably a more effective tank as well. They've got the range to cover a decent area and make it very dangerous for everyone without shields to enter, which can almost force movement, as long as just rushing in and killing them is difficult.

[Urpriest]

Go ahead and try to use taunts when sparring with a group of fourteen year olds, to protect an archer in the back who is susceptible to being killed in melee but is extremely dangerous until that happens. I guarantee that it will fail miserably, and they will attack the archer - your method for making that not happen isn't a taunt, but staying close to the archer and getting into combat range with anyone who goes for them. For that matter, try the same thing with a bunch of nine year olds, and it will still fail miserably. Taunts are ineffective.

Incidentally, that archer is probably a more effective tank as well. They've got the range to cover a decent area and make it very dangerous for everyone without shields to enter, which can almost force movement, as long as just rushing in and killing them is difficult.

It won't work while sparring with fourteen year olds, but it probably would work while being a fourteen year old bullying/making friends/navigating social politics with other fourteen year olds. Which is why it's included in shounen/other genres aimed at that demographic. Taunting isn't about simulating fourteen year old combat, but about simulating fourteen year old social interaction, since most people can't identify with being a combatant.

[Crow]

Maybe it's seen as warcrafty or something, but in a lot of multiplayer video games you see this. Most famously mmos but it didn't start out there. Usually melee classes have abilities to draw "aggro" as wow players call it away from the more frail characters. It makes strategic sense to me to have such abilities if your adventuring party/ army has squishy wizards to protect while they blow things up, so why don't you really see it in d&d except in a couple of sub-par feats in pathfinder. It honestly seems like it would make melee a more helpful option. Though the hit dice and ac might need to be higher

Let's put it this way: What real-life military units exist only to take hits?

[Agent_0042]

Has anyone ever found a way so that attacking one enemy until dead ISN'T always the best solution(but sometimes is)?Basically, wound penalties. If your enemies become less effective the more you hit them, then your party focuses fire at the expense of taking full damage from everyone else.

[Wardog]

Let's put it this way: What real-life military units exist only to take hits?

Armoured Fighting Vehicles get used to shield infantry from small-arms fire. (Not so much use if the enemy has RPGs or anti-armour weapons).

If they do, then Main Battle Tanks may still be able to "tank" for the AFVs.


But yeah, that's not their sole or even main purpose (and they can only do it in certain circumstances).



I agree with what seems to be the general consensus that MMO-style tanking:
a) doesn't really make sense
b) comes across as a particularly "gamey" concept or mechanism
c) would be really difficult to implement in PnP.

Furthermore, while (depending on the implementation) I find tanking - and spamming heals for the tank - can be quite good fun on a computer, it doesn't seem that it would be such good fun (and IMO would feel a bit silly) in a tabletop game. Especially one that was trying to represent storytelling in a heroic-fantasy genera.

[toapat]

Go ahead and try to use taunts when sparring with a group of fourteen year olds.

You are taking a narrow understanding of provocation as proof that you cant use frustration as a combat technique. Verbal is only one way of pissing someone off at that.

Taunting someone doesnt have to be names, hell, you can taunt someone by ignoring them. In a party where there are 3 tanks and 22 heavy DPS, if you start pounding on the one non-tank who can actually survive the damage you can deal, then you are going to frustrate those three meatshields enough that they start getting sloppy. Outside of an Evil campaign, you are not going to see alot of Professional Soldiers as enemies, you are facing rogues, bandits, and non-preferables.

then, there is the fact that you make yourself seem more threatening then you are, again, you do this by diversion and Physical response. a stinging wound you cant see is going to seem less threatening in combat then a dude who on every hit is making you bleed.

[Jack of Spades]

You are taking a narrow understanding of provocation as proof that you cant use frustration as a combat technique. Verbal is only one way of pissing someone off at that.

Taunting someone doesnt have to be names, hell, you can taunt someone by ignoring them. In a party where there are 3 tanks and 22 heavy DPS, if you start pounding on the one non-tank who can actually survive the damage you can deal, then you are going to frustrate those three meatshields enough that they start getting sloppy. Outside of an Evil campaign, you are not going to see alot of Professional Soldiers as enemies, you are facing rogues, bandits, and non-preferables.

then, there is the fact that you make yourself seem more threatening then you are, again, you do this by diversion and Physical response. a stinging wound you cant see is going to seem less threatening in combat then a dude who on every hit is making you bleed.

Which seems more threatening:

That dud just hit me with a sword and now I'm bleeding, wow that stings.

HOLY S**T THAT DUDE JUST LOOKED AT STEVE AND HE EXPLODED!

Yeah, fighters aren't going to be able to do much in the way of intimidation-tanking if your damaging spells actually look like damaging spells. While "Magic Missile" may seem like, "A bolt of magic hits you, and you feel pain" it's actually more like "The mage mutters and points, and a flurry of near-invisible darts tear at your flesh."

Saying it's more intimidating to have a bleeding cut than to be hit by supernatural forces coming from nowhere only works if your magic is rated G while swordplay is rated PG13. Which is definitely the wrong way to go about describing damaging spells. Hell, a level-0 spell literally splashes someone with acid. As a rule, chemical burn pain trumps cut pain in both lingering annoyance and holy crap factor.

[Gray Mage]

D&D 3.5 has some kind of tanking (or at least aggro) with the Iron Guard's Glare stance from ToB. It doesn't make enemies target you, but the enemies that you threaten have a -4 attack roll penalty if they target someone else. The crusader class also gain some other tanking/lockdown goodies.

[VeliciaL]

Which seems more threatening:

That dud just hit me with a sword and now I'm bleeding, wow that stings.

HOLY S**T THAT DUDE JUST LOOKED AT STEVE AND HE EXPLODED!

Yeah, fighters aren't going to be able to do much in the way of intimidation-tanking if your damaging spells actually look like damaging spells. While "Magic Missile" may seem like, "A bolt of magic hits you, and you feel pain" it's actually more like "The mage mutters and points, and a flurry of near-invisible darts tear at your flesh."

Saying it's more intimidating to have a bleeding cut than to be hit by supernatural forces coming from nowhere only works if your magic is rated G while swordplay is rated PG13. Which is definitely the wrong way to go about describing damaging spells. Hell, a level-0 spell literally splashes someone with acid. As a rule, chemical burn pain trumps cut pain in both lingering annoyance and holy crap factor.

Doesn't D&D go in the opposite direction though? That's one of the main problems with "tanking" in 3.5 is that it's very rare that the warrior will be more dangerous than the wizard. To use your analogy, it's got PG-13 level magic, while swordplay is pretty G-rated.

In any case, isn't this something that would vary by setting? I could very much envision a low-powered magic system where more attention is focused on the fighting man because he can impale you with his sword or split your head open with his axe. Frankly, I think this would be a strength of the tabletop, the DM can rule that this group of mobs goes after the fighter first because they don't know much about wizards, while the opposite might be true for another group.

[Crow]

Some Shadowrun groups go the other way. Occasionally, 'Geek the mage first' becomes 'Geek the mage, then get annihilated by the samurai that goes 8 times this round.'

[BootStrapTommy]

The 3.5 Knight.

Certainly not designed to do tons of damage. Its designed to walk around in plate with a d12 hit die. By epic level, with Loyal Beyond Death, it can take damage until its body is falling apart and the fight is over.

[VeliciaL]

Some Shadowrun groups go the other way. Occasionally, 'Geek the mage first' becomes 'Geek the mage, then get annihilated by the samurai that goes 8 times this round.'

See that's what I mean xD Some settings might have "DUDE LOOK AT THE GUY THAT JUST CLEAVED STEVE'S HEAD IN HALF WITH AN AXE!"

[DeltaEmil]

See that's what I mean xD Some settings might have "DUDE LOOK AT THE GUY THAT JUST CLEAVED STEVE'S HEAD IN HALF WITH AN AXE!"That's only because the rules are not favoring the manabolt-using mage, akin to the fireball-using wizard of D&D.
The "unleashes a dozen bound elemental spirits upon the enemy" mage on the other hand is quite like the god-wizard of D&D. Never there to be fragged, can only be killed or found by another awakened, blasts the action economy with powerful spirits that are each as though and still far more versatile than the street sam, while costing a pitance for their service.

[Crow]

That's only because the rules are not favoring the manabolt-using mage, akin to the fireball-using wizard of D&D.
The "unleashes a dozen bound elemental spirits upon the enemy" mage on the other hand is quite like the god-wizard of D&D. Never there to be fragged, can only be killed or found by another awakened, blasts the action economy with powerful spirits that are each as though and still far more versatile than the street sam, while costing a pitance for their service.

Sounds like 4th Edition SR to me.

[Nu]

Aggro mechanics are a tricky beast, because some people are unwilling to look past the most basic understanding of them--that they represent only taunts, or an inexplicable desire to attack a less-threatening individual. As you have no doubt seen in this thread, many people find the very idea of them appalling, and a simulationist approach generally nerfs them so bad they are never useful in an attempt to appease these people.

Now, personally, I think the 4E marking mechanic works well, in that it generally represents something other than a taunt or changing the monster's "AI." The fighter's mark represents their ability to threaten enemies in close combat, above and beyond the generic "opportunity attack." An enemy that attacks something other than the fighter is naturally shifting its attention away from the fighter, and the fighter takes advantage of that opening. The "mark" represents the imposing presence of the fighter, allowing its superior focus and training to punish shifting and causing an enemy to be at a disadvantage when attacking others. Then you take the paladin for example, who literally has a divine magical effect it places on the enemy, effectively a brand that sears the target with radiant energy if it violates the sanction. That's extremely easy to explain and SHOULD be easy to accept as well, because it's magic. There are far weirder things the game does with magic.

There are, of course, some problems. Using 4E powers like "Come and Get It" to, say, slide enemies into a wall of fire, are somewhat immersion-breaking. Thankfully, such powers are rare. If you want a tanking/aggro mechanic, I do recommend at least looking at 4E's approach to it, because despite some criticism, it can be made to make sense without too much effort.

[Medic!]

It's already been touched on, but "tanking" seems to be what the Crusader from Tome of Battle was built specifically for.

It has a good hit die and heavy armor proficiency.

The Delayed Damage Pool and Furious Counterstrike help both his survivability AND his ability to become an increased threat while taking damage at the same time.

Most of the Devoted Spirit discipline is focused on attacking while healing either yourself or an ally (or in some cases, both!) at the same time, or giving your enemies incentives to attack you over your companions (Iron Guard's Glare, Thicket of Blades, Defensive Rebuke, etc,) and sheer survivability (Immortal Fortitude!)

When combined with a lock-down build, say a Spiked Chain wielder with Stand Still, etc, you can quickly become a pretty large portion of the battle-grid that is a no-monster's land.

The end result of a lock-down crusader is "If you want to accomplish anything at all, you have to go through me first, and baby is it gonna hurt when you try."

When you add everything up, facing down a 3.5 crusader means an enemy who ignores him either won't be able to move, will take penalties trying to attack someone else, or will be faced with someone providing their party with a near-unlimited ability to repair the damage he does while still wailing on him.

Personally I love the whole idea of "Ohhhhh I'm gonna go get that wizard!" being refuted by "Nope nope nope!"

EDIT: The Knight from PHB2 was a fair shot at attempting the same thing, but IMO fell a little short of the mark due to the constraints on his abilities related to the saving throws allowed and the CR requirements to effect an opponent. Most of the knight's abilities are either not reliable or wholly innefective in too many situations.

[Jack of Spades]

Doesn't D&D go in the opposite direction though? That's one of the main problems with "tanking" in 3.5 is that it's very rare that the warrior will be more dangerous than the wizard. To use your analogy, it's got PG-13 level magic, while swordplay is pretty G-rated.

In any case, isn't this something that would vary by setting? I could very much envision a low-powered magic system where more attention is focused on the fighting man because he can impale you with his sword or split your head open with his axe. Frankly, I think this would be a strength of the tabletop, the DM can rule that this group of mobs goes after the fighter first because they don't know much about wizards, while the opposite might be true for another group.

I was simply arguing that, actual damage or power aside, a big problem with the idea of tanking via psychology in DnD is that physical attacks, in addition to almost anything else a martial character could do, will almost never have priority over the guy who appears to be summoning death with almost no effort.

Hell, we're actually agreeing. The post I quoted was stating that swordplay creates more intimidating/annoying wounds than magic. I was pointing out that damaging spells are doing damage, not just causing general pain.

[Saph]

I've always thought that "tanking" was a pretty stupid concept. It's fine for MMOs because in MMOs you're fighting against opponents who are designed to be stupid, but it makes no sense against opponents of human-level intelligence and up.

You'll notice that in real-life armies, there are no units whose sole purpose is take hits. This is because if you equip a unit with a ton of armour and no weapons, then any enemy with a functioning brain will just ignore it. Which, funnily enough, is exactly what happens when you do the same thing in most tabletop RPGs (which is one of the reasons tabletop RPG battles are generally much more interesting than MMO ones).

Note that real-life modern armies have actual tanks. Know what real tanks have? They have a bloody great cannon mounted on the turret. Real-life tanks get paid attention to because they're incredibly dangerous, not because of an "aggro mechanic". Which honestly seems like a much better way to do things to me.

[Killer Angel]

I was simply arguing that, actual damage or power aside, a big problem with the idea of tanking via psychology in DnD is that physical attacks, in addition to almost anything else a martial character could do, will almost never have priority over the guy who appears to be summoning death with almost no effort.

It depends.
A dedicated ubercharger, is not a thing you can dismiss to concentrate on the "dangerous casters", 'cause you risk to pay a high price. A dedicated ubercharger left free to act, is dangerous.

Oh, look:


Real-life tanks get paid attention to because they're incredibly dangerous, not because of an "aggro mechanic".


edit: of course, this could very well fall in the "almost never have priority" case...

[toapat]

*snip*

1: It is a mark of a low quality MMO when the raidboss lacks mechanics to deal with stuff like that. The problem you seem to have with Aggro is when you are facing a group of enemies and you just shout in the air at them, and they come and dogpile you, yes, that is rediculous. Typically a tank is going to be doing a significant ammount of area damage against these dudes and be the only guy noticed for half a minute by enemies. In WoW, the Enemy AI is actually programmed to go after Holy/Discipline Priests, Resto Druids and Shamans, and Holy paladins first, they treat healing as threat, and really, are some of the most intelligent AI in RPGs, despite being older then WoW's contemptable Vocal MINORity.

3: The tank is essentially a gigantic, vehicular sniper rifle. You pay attention to it, get out of it's line of fire, and get things that can disable it aimed at it, because for all intents and purposes, against anything older then the Abrams, an Abrams is invincible.

2: of course that isnt a viable tactic. I can name one class in major MMOs who relies on the Ablation tree of Mitigation, WoW's Protection Warrior. You know what they can do? Deal significant damage.

[Ashdate]

Note that real-life modern armies have actual tanks. Know what real tanks have? They have a bloody great cannon mounted on the turret. Real-life tanks get paid attention to because they're incredibly dangerous, not because of an "aggro mechanic". Which honestly seems like a much better way to do things to me.

It should probably be self-evident then, that the problem with "tanking" in 3.5 (and not tanking in say, 4e) is that the classes you would be expecting to "tank" (Fighters and Paladins) aren't incredibly dangerous compared to some of the other classes.

To me, that speaks less about "aggro" (which should we can hopefully agree shouldn't be a "major" part of tanking), and more about class (or in 4e's case, role) balance; if you want to have a Fighter "tank" an enemy, you need to give the enemy some compelling reasons to attack the fighter over ignoring them. This doesn't necessarily need to be "raw damage"; as an example, the 4e Fighter's ability to stop movement cold on an attack of opportunity is a great way of saying "don't ignore me"! The -2 penalty to hit someone else and the potential damage are just gravy.

Compare that to the 4e Paladin, which until it got some splatbook support was considered a "weak" defender; the penalty for ignoring one wasn't very punishing (-2 to hit, and some minor damage), and it didn't have the ability to "mark" more than one enemy at a time.

[Saph]

To me, that speaks less about "aggro" (which should we can hopefully agree shouldn't be a "major" part of tanking), and more about class (or in 4e's case, role) balance; if you want to have a Fighter "tank" an enemy, you need to give the enemy some compelling reasons to attack the fighter over ignoring them.

But why should it be a necessary requirement that a party must have a "tank" whose role is to soak up damage? It's a pretty weird concept if you think about it. Soldiers in real life don't say "Yeah, I'm the tank in my platoon, I stand in the open away from cover and bare my chest to all the bad guys so they'll shoot me first".

"Tanking" is mostly a PvE concept. It assumes you'll be fighting primitive AIs who don't have the capacity for intelligent target selection. If you're fighting opponents with equal-level intelligence then the focus of the battle shifts away from "how can we tank their damage" and more to "how can we outmaneuver/outnumber/outsmart them".

I think I have a different perspective on this because the MMORPG I'm most familiar with is EVE Online. In EVE, there's a sharp distinction between PvE combat (Player vs Environment, where you fight AI pirates, or "rats") and PvP. In PvE, "tanking" AI aggression is a standard strategy, and once you've mastered it it's trivial to neutralise an enemy fleet's damage output, meaning that killing rats is just a matter of time. Try the same tactic in PvP and your fleet will get blown to pieces, because the enemy players are just as smart as you and are going to be focus-firing the ships that are actually dangerous. So in EVE fleet battles everyone has to tank to some degree, because a ship that's all offence and no defence might as well have a giant flashing sign on it saying "SHOOT ME FIRST".

I think "everyone has to tank, because the enemy isn't stupid" is a much better approach than the "we must have one tank, one DPS, one healer, and one mezzer" model.

[Urpriest]

I don't think tanking is originally an AI-based concept, though. Tanks in MMOs exist because of Fighters and Paladins in D&D, not the other way around. And Fighters and Paladins in D&D exist because narrative conventions assume that there are people out there who are heavily armored and protect their more lightly armored allies. So the question is not how in reality people tank, because clearly they don't: it's about how people tank in fiction, where they clearly do.

[Ashdate]

But why should it be a necessary requirement that a party must have a "tank" whose role is to soak up damage? It's a pretty weird concept if you think about it. Soldiers in real life don't say "Yeah, I'm the tank in my platoon, I stand in the open away from cover and bare my chest to all the bad guys so they'll shoot me first".

Soldier in real life now-a-days also don't tend to engage each other in close quarters combat either! But I think you're getting too caught up in the idea that a "tank" somehow gives the enemy the ol' stink-eye, and that compels them to ignore every other hostile target. Certainly, 4e doesn't act this way (nor is there any requirement that a party have one)!

Defending/Tanking should be about discouraging opponents from attacking someone else. And certainly, we can see examples of this in media and in real life. How many times have you been watching a TV show or a movie where the characters are in a gun fight behind cover, and one protagonist says to the other "cover me!" Sports are an even better example; consider defensemen in hockey, whose purpose is to cut down angles against an attacking player (there is probably a good football analogy too, but I'm not as familiar with the sport).

[toapat]

But why should it be a necessary requirement that a party must have a "tank" whose role is to soak up damage? It's a pretty weird concept if you think about it. Soldiers in real life don't say "Yeah, I'm the tank in my platoon, I stand in the open away from cover and bare my chest to all the bad guys so they'll shoot me first".

because it isnt just an RPG trope, it is actually how real life Warfare works, with the only real difference between the RPG and RL version of tank being damage output, ie, that an RPG tank isnt going to be able to dish it out, where as RL tanks are so rediculously powerful they prefer to take down entire buildings then to fight infantry.

Tanks provide the biggest, most threatening targets, are near invincible, and can dish it back.

Infantry are like rogues, Light, high damage, but not able to take the damage

Artillery are like Archers and Nukers. They sit several Miles back, raining fire and metal on the opponents.


It ISNT an AI based thing either, It really is based off of real life concepts. on the other hand, what breaks it down is imagining that a Taunt is a Verbal only thing. Verbal Taunting is the least effective way to provoke someone. Making yourself seem Invincible while delivering clear, obvious damage to your opponent is going to piss them off if they dont have incredible wisdom. Most people dont have that kind of common sense while enraged.

[The Glyphstone]

because it isnt just an RPG trope, it is actually how real life Warfare works, with the only real difference between the RPG and RL version of tank being damage output, ie, that an RPG tank isnt going to be able to dish it out, where as RL tanks are so rediculously powerful they prefer to take down entire buildings then to fight infantry.


Which is why tanking as it's understood in RPG terms is an RPG trope. The concept of a 'tank' in the sense of a low-damage, high-survivability unit whose sole purpose is to draw and absorb attacks that would harm less well-protected allies is nonsense in RL terms. Even modern battle tanks don't serve that role - unless your enemy is utterly brain-dead, they won't be trying to bring down your tank with rifles and machine guns no matter how invincible it seems, they'll be trying to bring it down with rockets and other tanks because it's immune to anything less.

[Morty]

I agree that tanking is a really stupid concept outside of MMOs and other video games - and I'm not too fond of it even there. Attacks of opportunity, putting yourself in front of the more vulnerable companions and other such tactics are all well and good, but as soon as you start somehow forcing the enemies to attack you instead of the archer or the wizard or whoever, suspension of disbelief is broken. Mind you, the futher you get away from generic heroic fantasy, the less sense it makes.
Now, in Dungeons & Dragons it does have some place, because of the overall style of the game, but everywhere else? No, thanks.

[Reluctance]

RL military technology doesn't match up to game design well. RL technology in any area is exciting because of power creep, but that's considered bad design in a game where you want PC choices to be balanced.

Also, while you don't have low damage units that are expected to take hits in real-world militaries, you have plenty of soldiers intended to take hits first. They're called the front lines, and a large part of their purpose is to keep enemies from getting to units that can cause lots of damage but that are easily taken down if an enemy can get into melee range. This is what tanking rules were designed to emulate, even if what the game mechanics reward fails to match.

[Saph]

Defending/Tanking should be about discouraging opponents from attacking someone else. And certainly, we can see examples of this in media and in real life. How many times have you been watching a TV show or a movie where the characters are in a gun fight behind cover, and one protagonist says to the other "cover me!" Sports are an even better example; consider defensemen in hockey, whose purpose is to cut down angles against an attacking player (there is probably a good football analogy too, but I'm not as familiar with the sport).

Yes, but in most of those cases, the "tanking" is done via positioning. The defenders place themselves in a location where their enemies have to physically go through them to get to the people they're protecting. This kind of "tanking" makes complete sense, because it's the kind that gets used in real life – this is what bodyguards and infantry screens do. Thing is, you don't really need any special mechanics to do this in a game – all you have to do is position the party so that enemies can't get to your back lines without exposing themselves to the guys at the front.

[Raimun]

Perhaps there's no clear way of tanking because RPGs can offer more interesting tactical options than the cookie cutter MMO-tactics, repeated ad nauseam?

[Aquillion]

Basically, because the concept postdates D&D. 3e came out in 2000, when MMoRPGs were still very young (Everquest had only been released the previous year and was still small; World of Warcraft wouldn't be released for four years.) And 3e tried to maintain the feel of older editions, which went back to way before computer RPGs.

The idea of modern striker / tank / support hadn't really been established, and in general gaming just wasn't as big of a science as it is now -- designers did things because it seemed cool, without thoroughly considering how it would play out.

Sometimes this made for fun and interesting stuff that you wouldn't see in a more 'science-of-RPGs' driven game like 4e; on the other hand, sometimes it resulted in fighters being given lots of HP and armor based on the understanding that, well, fighters are tough, right -- without giving them the kind of mechanical support they'd actually need to use those things to help their party.

[Crow]

Yes, but in most of those cases, the "tanking" is done via positioning. The defenders place themselves in a location where their enemies have to physically go through them to get to the people they're protecting. This kind of "tanking" makes complete sense, because it's the kind that gets used in real life – this is what bodyguards and infantry screens do. Thing is, you don't really need any special mechanics to do this in a game – all you have to do is position the party so that enemies can't get to your back lines without exposing themselves to the guys at the front.

I don't understand how people have so much trouble with this. It's pretty much second nature in our group. It's even easier if you're playing a fantasy game where players can quite literally control the battlefield and terrain.

[The Glyphstone]

Basically, because the concept postdates D&D. 3e came out in 2000, when MMoRPGs were still very young (Everquest had only been released the previous year and was still small; World of Warcraft wouldn't be released for four years.) And 3e tried to maintain the feel of older editions, which went back to way before computer RPGs.

The idea of modern striker / tank / support hadn't really been established, and in general gaming just wasn't as big of a science as it is now -- designers did things because it seemed cool, without thoroughly considering how it would play out.

Sometimes this made for fun and interesting stuff that you wouldn't see in a more 'science-of-RPGs' driven game like 4e; on the other hand, sometimes it resulted in fighters being given lots of HP and armor based on the understanding that, well, fighters are tough, right -- without giving them the kind of mechanical support they'd actually need to use those things to help their party.

And when it was introduced in 1e and 2e, it was more possible because the game was less grid and map-dependent. The fighter could just say ' I put myself between the goblins and the wizard to block their path', and do it.

[Reluctance]

I don't understand how people have so much trouble with this. It's pretty much second nature in our group. It's even easier if you're playing a fantasy game where players can quite literally control the battlefield and terrain.

Except that if you can fill N-1 squares with walls or minions to give the blocker his chokepoints, it's usually trivial to add that one more and make them entirely redundant.

I agree that MMO-ish aggro mechanics compelling an enemy to attack you are silly. I just wonder what mechanical support you'd suggest, given the grid-based and turn-based nature of D&D, to allow the tough guy and the glass cannon to exist in the same party without making "walk around the former to get to the latter" a no-brainer.

[Aquillion]

Except that if you can fill N-1 squares with walls or minions to give the blocker his chokepoints, it's usually trivial to add that one more and make them entirely redundant.

I agree that MMO-ish aggro mechanics compelling an enemy to attack you are silly. I just wonder what mechanical support you'd suggest, given the grid-based and turn-based nature of D&D, to allow the tough guy and the glass cannon to exist in the same party without making "walk around the former to get to the latter" a no-brainer.There's a lot of ways you can do it.

Zone-of-control mechanics are one option (making it flat-out impossible to walk between two squares in reach of a hostile character without incapacitating them first, say.) Or a "defend other" mechanic which allows you to interpose yourself between attacks made against someone within a certain distance.

Or 'engagement' mechanics that make it hard or impossible to push past someone -- once you're "engaged in combat" with someone, you have to take a full-round disengage action before you can move away, and if they hit you your disengage attempt fails and you can't move away from them (perhaps aside from five-foot steps.)

[Talakeal]

Personally I think tanking has a place in the game, but there are limits. It is definitely something which exists in fantasy fiction, look for example at Lord of the Rings, how many times does someone distract an enemy, possibly getting themselves killed or captured, so that Frodo can escape or so that an enemy doesn't finish off a wounded ally?

In real life it is a bit more questionable, but I can say that it is suicide to ignore an armed combatant who is in your face to go chasing after someone else. Of course, we don't have mages or tons of HP irl.

The player of the "defender" character in my group complained that "tanking" was impossible in a table top, so I implemented a few rules to allow it. AOOs are a lot deadlier and harder to avoid, a character can make a charisma test* to force an enemy to target or ignore them on its next turn (and there is a feat which allows this to be performed along with an attack), and enemies need to make an intelligence test to switch targets.

I like this as it gives fighters and other melee characters a little more use, and it makes intelligence and charisma attributes something other than dump stats for a lot of characters.

Of course, even with all of this the player of the "tank" still insists that he can't tank and in a table top game RPGs tanking doesn't exist. When I ask him of what his conception of "tanking existing is" he tells me that he wants it to be like a TBC era WoW protection paladin.

He stands in the front and opens with an "aoe taunt". Then he does nothing but perform the defend action while the enemies run up and beat on him. Then he gets buffs and items that hurt the enemies who attack him (for example fire shield) and that make him immune (or close to it) to whatever form of attack the enemies are using. So basically the enemies are just rolling attacks against him and killing themselves quicker than they kill the tank, leaving the rest of the party to do whatever they like to speed up the process.

So if your definition of "tanking" is the same as my player's I agree, it has no place in a table top RPG (or even a video game for that matter).

*Not neccesarily a "taunt", it could be a formal challenge, making onesself appear to be the most obvious threat, throwing rocks to get their attention, attacking to inflict pain or humiliation rather than to kill, or anything else you can imagine.

[Zeful]

There's a lot of ways you can do it.

Zone-of-control mechanics are one option (making it flat-out impossible to walk between two squares in reach of a hostile character without incapacitating them first, say.) Or a "defend other" mechanic which allows you to interpose yourself between attacks made against someone within a certain distance.

Or 'engagement' mechanics that make it hard or impossible to push past someone -- once you're "engaged in combat" with someone, you have to take a full-round disengage action before you can move away, and if they hit you your disengage attempt fails and you can't move away from them (perhaps aside from five-foot steps.)

It doesn't need to be outright impossible, just harder than engaging the character's zone you've entered. An ability that makes certain kinds of attacks end movement on hit, or another that makes the area around the character count as rough terrain or abilities that push the target around.

If establishing a Zone of control, you really just need to add modifiers to normal attacks (either through feats or a Tome Of Battle maneuver system) that mess with the normal order of movement.

[Ashdate]

Yes, but in most of those cases, the "tanking" is done via positioning. The defenders place themselves in a location where their enemies have to physically go through them to get to the people they're protecting. This kind of "tanking" makes complete sense, because it's the kind that gets used in real life – this is what bodyguards and infantry screens do. Thing is, you don't really need any special mechanics to do this in a game – all you have to do is position the party so that enemies can't get to your back lines without exposing themselves to the guys at the front.

I agree, but the problem with a game like D&D 3.5 is that "positioning" is often times a matter of terrain. That's fine, except that it devalues the role of the "defender" if all they are is a body between A and B. If an enemy wishes to, they will have as hard/easy a time at maneuvering around a fighter as they would a rogue (or a bard, or a sorcerer, or...). If the only difference between moving past a burly dwarf fighter and a human commoner is that the burly fighter has a better AoO, then I'm not convinced that the fighter is being that great a defender.

If the fighter actively impedes enemies that try and rush past him (a la 4e)? Now we're talking! And I think such impediment can come from something other than a dirty look without breaking what scant realism there is in D&D.

[Saph]

I agree, but the problem with a game like D&D 3.5 is that "positioning" is often times a matter of terrain. That's fine, except that it devalues the role of the "defender" if all they are is a body between A and B. If an enemy wishes to, they will have as hard/easy a time at maneuvering around a fighter as they would a rogue (or a bard, or a sorcerer, or...). If the only difference between moving past a burly dwarf fighter and a human commoner is that the burly fighter has a better AoO, then I'm not convinced that the fighter is being that great a defender.

If the fighter actively impedes enemies that try and rush past him (a la 4e)? Now we're talking! And I think such impediment can come from something other than a dirty look without breaking what scant realism there is in D&D.

Meh. I'm not really interested in getting into another 3.5/4e argument.

I'm also still not sure why "tanking mechanics" are so important for a game. You can play just fine without them, and in my opinion combats where both sides are free to target whoever they like tend to be much more exciting than ones where only one or two members on each team are getting damaged.

[Talakeal]

...in my opinion combats where both sides are free to target whoever they like tend to be much more exciting than ones where only one or two members on each team are getting damaged.

In my experience these two things are not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary actually. Without any sort of "tanking" mechanics everyone will simply gang up on the enemy with the least defense / most offense and ignore everyone else until their focus is dead, then move onto the single enemy with the next lowest defense / highest offense.

[Saph]

In my experience these two things are not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary actually. Without any sort of "tanking" mechanics everyone will simply gang up on the enemy with the least defense / most offense and ignore everyone else until their focus is dead, then move onto the single enemy with the next lowest defense / highest offense.

If everyone's on a featureless plane with infinite-range weapons, sure. Once you add terrain, positioning, and limited range into the mix, it changes things up a bit. I mean, the players in our group regularly cover and defend each other in battles without relying on special tanking mechanics, so it's obviously not impossible.

[Ashdate]

Meh. I'm not really interested in getting into another 3.5/4e argument.

I'm also still not sure why "tanking mechanics" are so important for a game. You can play just fine without them, and in my opinion combats where both sides are free to target whoever they like tend to be much more exciting than ones where only one or two members on each team are getting damaged.

I understand, I'm not trying to start a 3.5 v 4e debate, and certainly you don't need someone to be a Defender to "properly" play 4e. I'm simply saying that (while not perfect) 4e's shown how defenders can be "sticky" without any measure of "aggro" to deal with, in a context that generally makes sense. And honestly, I think it adds an interesting new role to the game, and what's wrong with that?

[Crow]

I agree that MMO-ish aggro mechanics compelling an enemy to attack you are silly. I just wonder what mechanical support you'd suggest, given the grid-based and turn-based nature of D&D, to allow the tough guy and the glass cannon to exist in the same party without making "walk around the former to get to the latter" a no-brainer.

Personally, I think mechanics are the problem, not the solution.

Probably why our group is more inclined to playing older (1e, 2e) editions nowadays if we are playing D/D.

[Bucky]

Tanking ingredients:
1)Grappling. Once you start grappling an enemy they generally can't attack anyone else.
2)Attacks of Opportunity. Enemies near you get punished for trying to attack someone else. If your DM lets you trip or grapple from an Attack of Opportunity, you might even be able to outright prevent them from attacking anyone else.
3)Readied Actions for movement. These let you put enemies inside your threatened area whenever they try to attack your teammates, or intercept charges. This may net you an immediate Attack of Opportunity (into a trip attempt, grapple etc.) and, since your opponent has already committed to burning an action, you probably get to grapple them next turn.

Am I missing anything?

[Knaight]

I agree that MMO-ish aggro mechanics compelling an enemy to attack you are silly. I just wonder what mechanical support you'd suggest, given the grid-based and turn-based nature of D&D, to allow the tough guy and the glass cannon to exist in the same party without making "walk around the former to get to the latter" a no-brainer.
I'd consider loosening the grid based and turn-based nature. As is, someone can't even cover a 20 foot wide area from one person with a sword (without Enlarge Person). Intercepting one person going through a 20 foot wide area you are in is generally not all that difficult. If you increase spaces where people are generally fighting, allow spatial overlap, and have opportunity attacks also include just generally being in the way and forcing some sort of check to get around you, it would work.

[LibraryOgre]

Personally, I think mechanics are the problem, not the solution.

Probably why our group is more inclined to playing older (1e, 2e) editions nowadays if we are playing D/D.

I'll keep flogging for them... Castles and Crusades. If you're familiar with earlier editions enough to be considering them, pick up Castles and Crusades.

I'm also a big Hackmaster fan, but the game is more complex. In many ways better, but more complex and not as directly compatible.

[Doug Lampert]

I'd consider loosening the grid based and turn-based nature. As is, someone can't even cover a 20 foot wide area from one person with a sword (without Enlarge Person). Intercepting one person going through a 20 foot wide area you are in is generally not all that difficult. If you increase spaces where people are generally fighting, allow spatial overlap, and have opportunity attacks also include just generally being in the way and forcing some sort of check to get around you, it would work.

You can always use a spiked chain. There's a "realistic" :smallsmile: way to cover a 20' wide passage.

Or you could do something like what Legend does where reach increases with level.

Consider: a routine lunge/recover move can EASILY hit someone 10' away and end up where you started in far less than the 3 seconds or so needed for a standard action. Given 6 seconds you could throw in 30 feet of movement and still make that lunge and recover.

This isn't a level 6 fighter ability, this is a hobbyist with a few WEEKS of casual lessons. He's still mostly practicing advance/retreat because his footwork is hopeless. But he can hit someone 10' away and recover to his starting point in one move. That's not a feat or a special ability. It's a basic part of being even minimally proficient with a fairly simple melee weapon.

With third eds limits on attacks of opportunity (1 per 6 seconds unless you have a feat and high dexterity) there's simply no real excuse for not giving all medium sized armed melee characters a 10' threatened zone, and that zone should increase with level. BAB of +5 is probably about as good as anyone in the real world, longer effective reach than a complete novice is not inappropriate by that level.

You also need to nerf tumble and probably nerf tactical fly and teleport abilities. Flight means that effectively all battles ARE fought on a featureless open plain where anyone can concentrate on anyone. Tumble does the same thing. Both KILL any tactical interest and also KILL most tanking.

[Knaight]

With third eds limits on attacks of opportunity (1 per 6 seconds unless you have a feat and high dexterity) there's simply no real excuse for not giving all medium sized armed melee characters a 10' threatened zone, and that zone should increase with level. BAB of +5 is probably about as good as anyone in the real world, longer effective reach than a complete novice is not inappropriate by that level.

Keep in mind that there are also 6 seconds in which to move around, and various small movements are a part of this. It isn't just what you can accomplish in one lunge, you have footwork involved, and as such a 10' threatened zone makes perfect sense on the low end - I'd have a 10' threatened zone and a 10' by 10' space be assumed, with spaces having options for overlap. Reach weapons would still have an increase as well, as you can threaten a pretty wide area with them using the magic of being able to move when your opponents do.

[VanBuren]

It seems to me that tanking shouldn't be about overriding the intelligence of your enemy to make him attack you instead of wisely attacking your mage. Instead, it should be about providing a compelling reason to go after you instead of the mage.

In other words, you have to create incentives for your enemy to deal with you first. Whether that's making it harder for him to get to your allies, or whether it means that getting to your allies puts in him in a significant amount of danger, the point is that you have to be realistically threatening. Although, you don't have to be the biggest threat in the battle, so long as you manage to seem like the most immediate one.

[NichG]

Here's a suggested rule that might help. This is something I had in a 7th Sea campaign, but it could be adapted.

Characters have a pool of special actions called 'Interrupts'. An Interrupt can be used whenever an Immediate action could be used, but is limited to certain specific things. A character's Interrupt pool refreshes fully between encounters (5 minute rest). By spending a Swift action, the pool can be refreshed by 1 Interrupt. By spending a Full Round Action, the pool can be refreshed by 2 Interrupts (so 3 total if you do nothing but refresh).

Things an interrupt can be used for:

- Move 5ft, drawing AoOs as normal. This does not interrupt targeting (so it does not auto-dodge attacks unless you can use it to move out of range and they cannot spend to follow). This can be used to follow a fleeing enemy just as well as it can be used to flee.

- Make an additional AoO beyond your normal per-round limit (as if you had Combat Reflexes/higher Dex).

- Attempt to take a blow for an adjacent creature. Roll a Reflex save vs the to-hit roll of the attack. Gain a +5 bonus for each extra Interrupt you spend.

- Shove an adjacent ally 5ft. Willing/cooperative target only.

- Drop prone. If a ledge is nearby, this can be used to drop off the ledge.

- Change the trigger condition on a readied action.

- Alter your targeting decisions in response to an Immediate action or Interrupt taken by someone else (e.g. retarget following an Abrupt Jaunt).

Full BAB classes gain 1/3 of an Interrupt per levels. 3/4 BAB classes gain 1/5 of an Interrupt per level. 1/2 BAB classes gain 1/10 of an Interrupt per level. All characters start with 1 Interrupt, so a Fighter would have 2 Interrupts at Lv3 and a Wizard would have 2 Interrupts at Lv10. You can gain an extra interrupt at the cost of a feat.

[Stubbazubba]

It seems to me that tanking shouldn't be about overriding the intelligence of your enemy to make him attack you instead of wisely attacking your mage. Instead, it should be about providing a compelling reason to go after you instead of the mage.

Applying a penalty to enemy attacks when they are made against anyone but you does do this, mathematically. It's not about over-riding his intelligence, it's about actually making you the best choice of target for them that round, because even though you have 18 AC and everyone else has 15, with the -4 penalty to attack, everyone else's AC is now effectively 19.


In other words, you have to create incentives for your enemy to deal with you first. Whether that's making it harder for him to get to your allies, or whether it means that getting to your allies puts in him in a significant amount of danger, the point is that you have to be realistically threatening. Although, you don't have to be the biggest threat in the battle, so long as you manage to seem like the most immediate one.

Since people still find the above distasteful and game-y, though (and not without justification), I agree that they could get more creative in the ways you tank; the obvious one is to foil or stop an enemy action when you hit on an Opportunity Attack. Others include increasing nearby allies' AC (you're helping them fend off the attacks), taking an attack instead of an ally (you intercede completely), and getting an OA on any foe who attacks an adjacent ally, which combined with the foil effect above would be very powerful and really create the image of a valiant [insert class here] protecting his allies with everything he's got.

[Agent_0042]

It seems to me that tanking shouldn't be about overriding the intelligence of your enemy to make him attack you instead of wisely attacking your mage. Instead, it should be about providing a compelling reason to go after you instead of the mage.

In other words, you have to create incentives for your enemy to deal with you first. Whether that's making it harder for him to get to your allies, or whether it means that getting to your allies puts in him in a significant amount of danger, the point is that you have to be realistically threatening. Although, you don't have to be the biggest threat in the battle, so long as you manage to seem like the most immediate one.

This.

This is why I am a fan of the Tome Knight (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Knight,_Tome_%283.5e_Class%29).

[VanBuren]

Applying a penalty to enemy attacks when they are made against anyone but you does do this, mathematically. It's not about over-riding his intelligence, it's about actually making you the best choice of target for them that round, because even though you have 18 AC and everyone else has 15, with the -4 penalty to attack, everyone else's AC is now effectively 19.



Since people still find the above distasteful and game-y, though (and not without justification), I agree that they could get more creative in the ways you tank; the obvious one is to foil or stop an enemy action when you hit on an Opportunity Attack. Others include increasing nearby allies' AC (you're helping them fend off the attacks), taking an attack instead of an ally (you intercede completely), and getting an OA on any foe who attacks an adjacent ally, which combined with the foil effect above would be very powerful and really create the image of a valiant [insert class here] protecting his allies with everything he's got.

The nice thing too is that it doesn't guarantee that you draw the enemies attention. For whatever reason they can still decided to go for broke and go for your Glass Cannon despite the penalties.

[Jerthanis]

I think the reason is that D&D is too complicated in terms of its qualities of attack vs defenses both on the PC side and the enemy side. In MMOs, tanks are attacked in a very straightforward way and one classification of characters have the very highest defenses against all possible attacks. It's a type of game about holding a bucket with a hole in the bottom and trying to keep it from running out of water. D&D is more like a series of shell games where if you pick the right shell, you win instantly, or if you pick the wrong one, you lose instantly.

In D&D, you have miss chance, illusory duplicates, AC, saving throws, CMD/whatever, DR, HP, and attacks which target or deal better or worse which each possible defense.

Each class specializes in particular defenses and making specific types of attack. So asking for the fighter (whose saves, illusory duplicates, miss chances and sometimes even AC are inferior to many spellcasters) to tank all of it isn't going to work. Having diverse defenses to increase the likleyhood of damage and effects being spread around, and making focus firing less attractive is how damage is mitigated in a world where getting healed or relieved of conditions is an action-negative in a cutthroat economy. I know I've had battles where my contribution was getting trapped by the Resilient Sphere so the other guy wouldn't be.

If you have a monster without miss chance, good saves, medium/high HP, medium AC, high attack bonus, true seeing, and who attacks only by approaching physically and swinging with an ability to turn Ethereal to escape webs or whatever, that monster should be 'tanked' by engaging it with the Fighter, who will take it apart. If you have a flying, invisible monster casting Hold Person spells, it should be 'tanked' by the wizard who will Glittercheese it out of the air and disable it.

[Ashdate]

In D&D, you have miss chance, illusory duplicates, AC, saving throws, CMD/whatever, DR, HP, and attacks which target or deal better or worse which each possible defense.

This is true, but that's an issue with a particular system (3.5) rather than Dungeons and Dragons as a whole (I think tanking would be easier pre 3e since miniatures were less prevalent, and spellcasters like wizards had less spells). Still, while I haven't tested it since I don't play 3.5 anymore, I'm fairly confident you can take most of 4e's "tanking" bits and insert them into the system, and still have it be relatively meaningful. Even something as simple as applying a -2 penalty to attack rolls against creatures other than the "tank-er" would be prevalent, given that nearly every monster in the book has the ability to attack AC.

And I think that conceptualizing "tanking" as everyone's responsibility (situation depending) is pretty arbitrary; in 3.5, all characters to have "skills", but we still allow "skill monkey" type characters. We allow all characters to have some measure of battlefield control (even if it only through Improved Trip), but we still have characters who do it for a living (i.e. wizards). We even allow all characters to deal damage to enemies, but the system still allows particular characters to "focus" on dealing grievous amounts of damage. Why can't the system also accommodate characters who "tank" enemies without bending over backwards (or being shoehorned into a particular class)?

Essentially, "tanking" in D&D (or particularly, 3.5/Pathfinder) should be a technical problem, not a systematic one.

[Jerthanis]

This is true, but that's an issue with a particular system (3.5) rather than Dungeons and Dragons as a whole (I think tanking would be easier pre 3e since miniatures were less prevalent, and spellcasters like wizards had less spells). Still, while I haven't tested it since I don't play 3.5 anymore, I'm fairly confident you can take most of 4e's "tanking" bits and insert them into the system, and still have it be relatively meaningful. Even something as simple as applying a -2 penalty to attack rolls against creatures other than the "tank-er" would be prevalent, given that nearly every monster in the book has the ability to attack AC.

Actually, the only defense I listed specific to 3.5/Pathfinder was CMD and the only reason I specified this way was because I don't remember any way to give a shorthand for the way grappling/tripping/ect was handled in non 3.5 since I think many of them were mostly unique (eg, a Roper would hold you still differently than a Mimic would, and both differently than how a Dragon would swallow you) but I could be wrong about this. I mean, maybe there was an earlier version of D&D without mirror image or %miss chance or whatever, but I'm not familiar with it. (Obviously I'm not talking about 4e, since this is a topic about lack of tanking in D&D and there exists a healthy tanking role in that game)

[Eldariel]

Pre-3e, with the more abstract combat, it was easier to just say "I engage this guy" which kinda involved blocking him from moving; same with multiple smaller opponents. You could kinda just say "I'll be in their way" and they couldn't really bypass you.

3e's grid combat makes this a tad more difficult and attacks of opportunity are a poor replacement due to the amount of movement the enemies can do while you're stationary (outside reach weapons). Basically, instead of being able to just be there blocking the enemies, you now can only be at one spot and hope enemies don't choose to move around you.


Tome of Battle "Devoted Spirit"-school has some tools that make attacking your allies harder when you're nearby. It's a good way to go about it, really, though being able to just block movement would of course still be a nice touch. But "tanking" as it works in the MMOs just plain doesn't work in "real" combat on which D&D for example is based ("real" with magic and all; but basically, creatures still operate with real intelligence and real basic physics still apply barring magic).

Goad-style effects are the best you can do, really, and they're horribly limited since it requires for the enemy to be dumb or honorable enough to face the guy challenging him instead of going for the most dangerous target.

[Ashdate]

Actually, the only defense I listed specific to 3.5/Pathfinder was CMD and the only reason I specified this way was because I don't remember any way to give a shorthand for the way grappling/tripping/ect was handled in non 3.5 since I think many of them were mostly unique (eg, a Roper would hold you still differently than a Mimic would, and both differently than how a Dragon would swallow you) but I could be wrong about this. I mean, maybe there was an earlier version of D&D without mirror image or %miss chance or whatever, but I'm not familiar with it. (Obviously I'm not talking about 4e, since this is a topic about lack of tanking in D&D and there exists a healthy tanking role in that game)

Sorry, I did misunderstand you (I thought you referring to the Wizard hiding behind ten different layers of spell protection).

Regardless, nearly all of those attributes (hit points, DR, etc.) exist in 4e too, so if we're talking about anything, it's the additional "defenses" that particular spells (such as mirror image and blur). Still, those are really edge cases, as relatively few monsters would be able to cast them that would "invalidate" the existence of a class(es) designed to, well, tank. Their existence shouldn't invalidate the entire concept.

I guess what I'm saying, is that the lack of "tanking" is probably more of a design oversight than purposefully not including it (something that other people have brought up in the thread, and almost certainly inspired by MMOs). They seem to want to get away from the "marking" mechanic in 5e (which I think is a shame), but they are looking into putting in mechanics that functionally discourage enemies from attacking an opponent (such as the "Defender" specialty), which I think is a positive addition to the game.

[Mando Knight]

A comment on those thinking that tanking is an innately flawed and unrealistic concept:

In today's military world, it is. However, D&D is not the modern military. A Fighter can take several hits before going down, and is generally wearing significantly more armor than a Wizard. Functionally, a party tank should be a bodyguard. A bodyguard, in a defensive position, needs to be able to counter enemy attack on his charge, possibly at the expense of his own health. However, the rules as they are can prevent the Fighter from effectively covering the Wizard while in combat, even when in real life the Fighter should be able to more effectively interpose himself. 4e example: when the Fighter has Marked his target, he focuses his attention on the enemy such that the opponent takes a penalty for trying to attack anyone else, and if that attack is successful, the opponent has opened itself to a counterattack from the Fighter.

The flip side is that not all heavily armored characters need to be bodyguards, and being a bodyguard is not a tank's only job, either. The other is as an assault troop: either creating or taking advantage of a breach in the enemy defense so as to engage them in such a manner that either they break against the initial strike or cannot disengage to deal with those that take advantage of the disruption such as skirmishers.

[Eldariel]

A comment on those thinking that tanking is an innately flawed and unrealistic concept:

In today's military world, it is. However, D&D is not the modern military. A Fighter can take several hits before going down, and is generally wearing significantly more armor than a Wizard. Functionally, a party tank should be a bodyguard. A bodyguard, in a defensive position, needs to be able to counter enemy attack on his charge, possibly at the expense of his own health. However, the rules as they are can prevent the Fighter from effectively covering the Wizard while in combat, even when in real life the Fighter should be able to more effectively interpose himself. 4e example: when the Fighter has Marked his target, he focuses his attention on the enemy such that the opponent takes a penalty for trying to attack anyone else, and if that attack is successful, the opponent has opened itself to a counterattack from the Fighter.

The flip side is that not all heavily armored characters need to be bodyguards, and being a bodyguard is not a tank's only job, either. The other is as an assault troop: either creating or taking advantage of a breach in the enemy defense so as to engage them in such a manner that either they break against the initial strike or cannot disengage to deal with those that take advantage of the disruption such as skirmishers.

That's not really MMO-style tanking though. MMO-style tanking is hitting a creatures to convince them to hit you instead of anybody else. The tanking you should be able to do in D&D is more along the "I'm standing in front of you so you got to get past me to hit the squishies"-kind; that is, you block enemies by just simply standing in front of 'em and physically preventing them from passing. While hacking away of course.

[huttj509]

Pre-3e, with the more abstract combat, it was easier to just say "I engage this guy" which kinda involved blocking him from moving; same with multiple smaller opponents. You could kinda just say "I'll be in their way" and they couldn't really bypass you.

3e's grid combat makes this a tad more difficult and attacks of opportunity are a poor replacement due to the amount of movement the enemies can do while you're stationary (outside reach weapons). Basically, instead of being able to just be there blocking the enemies, you now can only be at one spot and hope enemies don't choose to move around you.


ADnD 1e DMG, page 10: Use of miniature figures with the game.

Page 11 even suggests using a (gasp!) gridded surface.

[Eldariel]

ADnD 1e DMG, page 10: Use of miniature figures with the game.

Page 11 even suggests using a (gasp!) gridded surface.

Okay, yes, but my point was that 3e focused on defining things you can do on said grid to such extent that simple "I block this guy and hack at him" was no longer possible. Things like full-round actions, standard actions, swift actions and move actions didn't exist until 3e.

[NichG]

Tanking and aggro mechanics are not the same thing. There have been several suggestions on this thread for viable tanking-enabling abilities that don't include any form of aggro mechanic.

Most of the objections on this thread have been to the idea of an aggro mechanic, but several have referred to themselves as objections to the idea of tanking.

I think to figure out a viable and fun means of including tanking in D&D, one is going to have to move past aggro mechanics. There are lots of other options, so why get stuck on how MMOs do it?

[Stubbazubba]

MMO-style tanking is hitting a creatures to convince them to hit you instead of anybody else.

Though, there is some truth in the idea that when you're being attacked by someone in front of you at melee range, it's much easier to fight back against them than trying to disengage and attack some other target, even if that target is also adjacent to you. It absolutely makes sense for a tank to hit someone and thereby make it harder for that enemy to hit anyone else, either through penalties to attack or by opening them up to be hit by the tank again, or both.

Even forcing an NPC to attack you next is just a social result; you successfully convinced him that you're the one he most wants to get rid of, either because of your apparent tactical importance or because you just made him really, really mad. He failed his saving throw, after all, and that's what's supposed to indicate his ability to stay on task, isn't it?

[mcv]

A comment on those thinking that tanking is an innately flawed and unrealistic concept:

In today's military world, it is. However, D&D is not the modern military. A Fighter can take several hits before going down, and is generally wearing significantly more armor than a Wizard. Functionally, a party tank should be a bodyguard. A bodyguard, in a defensive position, needs to be able to counter enemy attack on his charge, possibly at the expense of his own health. However, the rules as they are can prevent the Fighter from effectively covering the Wizard while in combat, even when in real life the Fighter should be able to more effectively interpose himself. 4e example: when the Fighter has Marked his target, he focuses his attention on the enemy such that the opponent takes a penalty for trying to attack anyone else, and if that attack is successful, the opponent has opened itself to a counterattack from the Fighter.

This is already a lot more tactical than simply: "I draw their aggro so they attack me instead of whoever they should be attacking."

I'm not sure how well suited D&D is for your bodyguard scenario, but there are definitely mechanics that support it. The fighter can delay his action until an enemy gets close to the squishy and then intercept him. He can engage him so he gets attacks of opportunity when the enemy disengages. With trip specialisation, he can very effectively block their movement.

In D&D Next there's a feat that makes it harder for enemies to hit people next to the fighter. (Not sure if 3.5 has something like that.)

There's lots of stuff you can do, but you've got to work at it. It's not an automatic shortcut as it is in MMORPGs.

[toapat]

Tanking and aggro mechanics are not the same thing. There have been several suggestions on this thread for viable tanking-enabling abilities that don't include any form of aggro mechanic.

Most of the objections on this thread have been to the idea of an aggro mechanic, but several have referred to themselves as objections to the idea of tanking.

I think to figure out a viable and fun means of including tanking in D&D, one is going to have to move past aggro mechanics. There are lots of other options, so why get stuck on how MMOs do it?

except that taking the view that aggro is stupid, is stupid. it means you are simply looking at it in terms of how the taunts in WoW work (which they dont actually work for more then 4 seconds- the equivalent time in wow to half a standard action). Half the proposals sound even less believable then getting someone into tunnel vision via pissing them off

[NichG]

except that taking the view that aggro is stupid, is stupid. it means you are simply looking at it in terms of how the taunts in WoW work (which they dont actually work for more then 4 seconds- the equivalent time in wow to half a standard action). Half the proposals sound even less believable then getting someone into tunnel vision via pissing them off

There are many arguments for why an aggro mechanic is bad in a tabletop game beyond 'I don't believe in it'. The thread has mostly become a back and forth about these. Clearly its contentious.

So why insist on aggro as the only way to implement tanking when instead you can explore the huge design space of 'not-aggro-tanking'?

How is it less believable to say, for instance, that a warrior could threaten any square next to one they've moved through in the last round rather than just where they're standing at the arbitrarily asynchronously defined point when their round ends? Or to say that they could make a save to jump in front of a blow from someone else and thus take the hit? Or to say that someone could lay down suppressing fire or the melee equivalent to discourage activity in a certain area? These are all non-aggro ideas that lend themselves to tanking.

[Urpriest]

except that taking the view that aggro is stupid, is stupid. it means you are simply looking at it in terms of how the taunts in WoW work (which they dont actually work for more then 4 seconds- the equivalent time in wow to half a standard action). Half the proposals sound even less believable then getting someone into tunnel vision via pissing them off

You're limiting the aggro objection to taunts, which is silly. Taunts are dumb, yes, but so is the fact that WoW's tank classes can generate higher threat without dealing correspondingly higher damage. If they're objectively less of a threat, why should their attacks have higher threat?

More interpositional forms of tanking work in plenty of systems. They just happen to be much harder to implement in turn-based SWAT-team-style combat.

[toapat]

There are many arguments for why an aggro mechanic is bad in a tabletop game beyond 'I don't believe in it'. The thread has mostly become a back and forth about these. Clearly its contentious.

So why insist on aggro as the only way to implement tanking when instead you can explore the huge design space of 'not-aggro-tanking'?

How is it less believable to say, for instance, that a warrior could threaten any square next to one they've moved through in the last round rather than just where they're standing at the arbitrarily asynchronously defined point when their round ends? Or to say that they could make a save to jump in front of a blow from someone else and thus take the hit? Or to say that someone could lay down suppressing fire or the melee equivalent to discourage activity in a certain area? These are all non-aggro ideas that lend themselves to tanking.

Because that isnt the most common suggestion so far.

Aggro makes sense, has an opposed attribute in game, and doesnt rely on impossible physics to prevent a dude in your threatened area, but also behind you, from being more effective.


You're limiting the aggro objection to taunts, which is silly. Taunts are dumb, yes, but so is the fact that WoW's tank classes can generate higher threat without dealing correspondingly higher damage. If they're objectively less of a threat, why should their attacks have higher threat?

More interpositional forms of tanking work in plenty of systems. They just happen to be much harder to implement in turn-based SWAT-team-style combat.

Actually, WoW's tanks do generate huge ammounts of damage (Enough so that one of the Bosses in Grim Batol is the Tanks Spanking the boss). Blizzard decided that "Generates More Threat" is less fun then "Invincible Rape Train." two expansions ago, and they largely did that.

More to the point, Aggro is semi-nonsensical but also based on real world psychology. Half the Interpositional Sugestions make no sense. You fight less effectively because i decided to spend a round glaring angrily at you? how the hell does that work, ever.

[NichG]

Because that isnt the most common suggestion so far.

Aggro makes sense, has an opposed attribute in game, and doesnt rely on impossible physics to prevent a dude in your threatened area, but also behind you, from being more effective.


All of the other suggestions I listed would not require impossible physics. Furthermore, its clear that there's enough design space to find tanking mechanics that don't suffer from any of these problems, something that is not getting done so long as people are fixated on aggro as the sole way that tanking can be done ever - on both sides of the debate.



More to the point, Aggro is semi-nonsensical but also based on real world psychology. Half the Interpositional Sugestions make no sense. You fight less effectively because i decided to spend a round glaring angrily at you? how the hell does that work, ever.

You're letting a few bad existing design choices bias against an entire set of possible design choices. If 'sense' or 'realism' is the primary design goal aside from enabling tanking, I would suggest instead something like this, in the form of a ToB stance though you could do it as a power or whatever:

Suppressive Stance (Stance)

By moving chaotically within a region, you interpose yourself and interfere with actions that would take place in this zone. To use this stance you must take a move action on your turn that encloses a region of the field. Only regions that are fully enclosed by your move count as being affected by this maneuver. You threaten any square within these affected regions and can take AoOs as if you were adjacent to a creature acting in that threatened area (you must choose the square you are attacking 'from' in this case).


How does it work? It basically just relaxes the strict ordering of actions within a round. If you assume that a round takes place synchronously rather than asynchronously, its 'impossible physics' to not have this rule in effect (what, I can only take an action at precise 6 second intervals?)

Here's another one that doesn't require 'impossible physics':

Chaperone of Blades (Strike)

Activation: Move action

By spending a move action you dedicate a certain amount of time and mobility to follow and harry a particular enemy. You must be adjacent to this enemy at the time when you initiate this maneuver. For the next round, you follow the enemy's movements automatically (up to your move speed, and subject to mobility limitations due to terrain/etc). This target enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from you during this time if they attempt to attack any target other than you, as they must turn their back to you to make their attack.


Here's one for tanking ranged attacks:

Interposing Leap (Counter)

Activation: Immediate action

When you activate this maneuver, you jump in front of a ranged attack whose path passes within 10ft of you. You must make a Reflex save opposing their attack roll. If this is successful, the ranged attack hits you instead of them. When determining the effect of this impact, you are considered flatfooted against the attack but retain any other sources of AC (if it misses you its because it didn't penetrate armor or was deflected, not because you dodged it). You may combine this with Deflect/Catch Arrows, Infinite Deflection, etc.

After using this maneuver, you are in the square through which the ranged attack passed.


Again, no impossible physics - its just jumping in front of an arrow or bullet.

Lots of AoOs here, so lets consider a penalty one, this time for a ranged character.

Suppressive Fire (Strike)

Activation: Full round action

You shoot/throw a large number of projectiles, creating a zone which is hazardous to act through. Choose a firing direction - all squares along this direction up to your maximum range or until something ends line of effect of your projectiles are considered suppressed for one round. Attacks passing through this suppressed zone, either ranged or melee, suffer a -4 penalty just as if there were a source of cover. Creatures moving through the suppressed zone are subject to an attack from the ranged weapon you used, up to a total number of separate creatures equal to your normal full attack sequence (can't hit more things than you fired shots).


So far I've only even considered 'mundane' tanking. If we put magic into the mix, really the sky is the limit.

[Zeful]

Because that isnt the most common suggestion so far.

Aggro makes sense, has an opposed attribute in game, and doesnt rely on impossible physics to prevent a dude in your threatened area, but also behind you, from being more effective.Aggro also only works efficiently on a computer. Putting into a tabletop game? I can't see any reason why the DM would bother to track any number of aggro values.

And D&D doesn't have any facing. No-one's ever really "behind" you.

[hobo386]

I didn't read the full thread, but this is how I'd say it...

In 3.5, tanking is a lot more like in League of Legends than it is in WoW. They hit you because they can't run past you, AoO, distance, disabling attacks, or bad judgement.

[toapat]

Aggro also only works efficiently on a computer. Putting into a tabletop game? I can't see any reason why the DM would bother to track any number of aggro values.

And D&D doesn't have any facing. No-one's ever really "behind" you.

and yes, i will agree that tanking works most effectively in ARPGs, but then again, almost everything in combat of DnD works more effectively in ARPGs, because actions are performed Concurrently, not sequentially.

NichG: The stance you built doesnt work at all (You get AoO against anything inside the box you build in a single move action. Problem is, most people are not descended from the Loins of Chuck. On the other hand, Chuck can still pitch anyone into high orbit with that.) And the point was not that your suggestion was intrinsically bound into Impossible physics and Nonseniluem, but that everything that wasnt already a Taunt suggestion relied on such.

[Suichimo]

Snip.

And this is why, in my opinion, 4e did defense so well. Your Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages, etc. all had abilities that made it more detrimental to attack one of your allies than attacking you. Fighters could completely stop an enemy in its tracks, with no special training to actually make it work. Swordmages could negate a large portion, if not all, of the damage an enemy might put out.

Too many people are hung up on the idea that a tank needs to soak damage. What a tank really needs to do is negate damage. The choice between a well armored Fighter and the mage blowing your friends up is a tough one in 4e.

[NichG]

NichG: The stance you built doesnt work at all (You get AoO against anything inside the box you build in a single move action. Problem is, most people are not descended from the Loins of Chuck. On the other hand, Chuck can still pitch anyone into high orbit with that.) And the point was not that your suggestion was intrinsically bound into Impossible physics and Nonseniluem, but that everything that wasnt already a Taunt suggestion relied on such.

Hm, yeah, doing the math on a 30ft movement speed shows that this just expands your threatened area from 15x15 to 25x15, not a huge change in exchange for your move action. I guess if it was just 'anything along your move' it might be more reasonable.

I don't think I'm correctly parsing your last sentence though. Are you saying that 'nothing that isn't a taunt must rely on nonsense physics, but your suggestions don't?' (since my suggestions aren't taunts, how does that work?)

[LibraryOgre]

In LOTRO, the drivers of aggro are, generally, Damage and Healing. If you do a lot of damage, you draw a lot of aggro. If you heal a lot of damage, you heal a lot of aggro. Certain classes have abilities to increase or decrease the aggro you draw, and certain items help, too. Using a Halberd increases your threat, many improved instruments decrease it (useful to Minstrels, who are heal-machines).

When talking threat in 3.x and derivatives, you run into a problem: By and large, it is not fighters. They don't deal the damage necessary for people to be worried about them, especially since they run into DR issues at higher levels ("Caddy, I believe this is a demon... my cold iron 9 iron, please"). Since movement procedes in turns, they also lack the ability to effectively impose themselves in anything but a narrow corridor. It's not like earlier editions that included "movement over time", or Hackmaster where movement is processed second by second. If you're not in place, the bad guys can conga line through the gap in your defenses, and ignore you in favor of chowing on the wizard.

In Hackmaster, for example, everyone starts moving. Once they engage with the fighter, dancing around him reduces their effectiveness... ignoring him to go to another target lets him either keep up or smack them. The way to get around the fighter is to outthink him or out speed him... and a fighter like Roy would not be a joke in HM. His dumpiest stat is his Dex? And that's not low? He's going to be pretty damn awesome.

[toapat]

Hm, yeah, doing the math on a 30ft movement speed shows that this just expands your threatened area from 15x15 to 25x15, not a huge change in exchange for your move action. I guess if it was just 'anything along your move' it might be more reasonable.

I don't think I'm correctly parsing your last sentence though. Are you saying that 'nothing that isn't a taunt must rely on nonsense physics, but your suggestions don't?' (since my suggestions aren't taunts, how does that work?)

Actually, what you are Suggestion is the RAI, which yes, would be nice, but you worded it so that RAW, you have to draw a box which contains at least 1 square, and anyone within that box will auto-provoke an AoO. thing is, you can only move 1/2 your movement rate in a single move action. You need a base speed of 60 feet to complete a border. That is why I refferenced Chuck, the Ruby Knight Windicator.


*a good post for content*

Yes, those work, and in justification, but the real problem overall with threat is 3fold:

People dont see Tanks as threats*
The Math is not nice for a table top game
Sequential Combat as compared to Concurrent combat.**

*The tanks in WoW are only 15% behind Mage types for raw damage output, enough to not make them solo viable, but enough that if they really have to, they can take down bosses.
**Yes, All combat is Sequential, but the difference is, where as in ARPGs, Concurrent combat is a given, It is nigh-impossible to actually pull off in PnP because of how complex the rules would have to be, and how long it would take to get a single action off.

[LibraryOgre]

**Yes, All combat is Sequential, but the difference is, where as in ARPGs, Concurrent combat is a given, It is nigh-impossible to actually pull off in PnP because of how complex the rules would have to be, and how long it would take to get a single action off.

Actually, the new Hackmaster has second-by-second combat and movement. You get to attack every X number of seconds (based on your weapon, your skill with it, and how you are attacking), mages take n seconds to cast a spell, and then are disabled for n+5 seconds, and you can move so many feet per second (based on race, type of movement, and encumbrance).

I've found it to be fast and easy, taking only a couple combats to get used to it.

[darkdragoon]

Aura of Menace says hi. Of course, dirty heathen melee characters are deemed unworthy of such abilities. Instead you have a smattering of PRCs with extremely limited abilities like say, Defensive Stance, or Harm's Way.

Most characters end up going the AoO "Death Blossom" route, which is still a very short range even with reach weapons and size alteration. Same with Cleave shenanigans--you basically say "Stand right here dearies so that I may kill you somewhat faster."


4e marking is derived from Battle Strike.