Can't handle a PC

[Felvion]

So, here's the deal: I'm DM in a campain designed to start at lvl 4 with absolute havoc (world war etc). Instead of going straight to lvl 4 I started the party at lvl 1 (a tradition among the party members) in order to bond the characters in advance and prepare them for the main story. So far so good. Note that the campain is supposed to be very challenging and thats why the PCs have really high stats.
The party composed of a halfling bard, a barbarian, a ranger (elf,archer) and a sorcerer. Once they hit lvl4 two new members came in and since it is their first dnd experience they took rogue and druid. In my mind everything was running smoothly up to that point. The "newbies" played better than expected and everyone had their role.
One day the guy playing the barbarian decides he doesn't like his character anymore. There goes the meatshield... I know he can be very stubborn and i really want my players to enjoy who they play.So he picked a drow "fighter". He traded d10HD to d8 for skill points and there he goes. I have a melle frontliner with 18hp which is the best he could roll (Con12). I wouldn't care much in any other case but i really needed some kind of meatshield up front. How should i treat them now? Most of the party doesnt really plan their characters, they just go for flavor.
Logic says the druid could tank, both her and her companion but i'm not sure i can convince an elegant elf to wildshape into a bear and even then i don't know whether it could really work since she's new t the game. Any advice?
PS: Just keep in mind that i'm kinda new to DMing and i have no experience handling the players in real life (the only Tier1 is my gf, shame on me). Also its my very first post here so hello everyone!

[EugeneVoid]

Tanks don't work in D&D anyway, unless you're focusing on AoO tripping or stand still.
Alternatively have all the players maximize their HD and have enemies max HD too, that'll give'em more hp.

[TaiLiu]

If his amount of hit points is the only problem, allow for a re-roll.

[Totema]

Dude, druids are supposed to wild shape into bears and wade deep into melee. :smallsmile:

[Lightlawbliss]

Welcome to GitP.

I find the best way to handle this sort of situation is to not change the fights because of it, at least not initially. See how the players react to the change.

A nice general rule of thumb I have found is not to make the fights with the strengths and weaknesses of the party in mind. Party of warforged? Poison is still a viable encounter. Party is only distance combatants? Give them encounters you would give a normal party of their size. The players will surprise you sometimes with how they react, and this also generates a more believable campaign.

[Slipperychicken]

Dude, druids are supposed to wild shape into bears and wade deep into melee. :smallsmile:

Exactly. As for convincing the elf to go bear-mode, assuming she's aware of the option, bringing the melee to her might do it.

[roguemetal]

Easy enough, simply pose the question of who's walking in front. When the drow fighter gets hit with the first attack and lose half their health, they'll likely think twice about standing in front again. First games are for learning after all.

Since nobody has too much health in general, it may also be a good idea to throw less damage dealing enemies at the party, and more debuff casters, status effects, traps, and races against time. It will keep encounters going longer, and still manages to be a sufficient threat against a bunch of glass cannons.

[Averis Vol]

In all reality, this is a problem for the players, not you. as long as the encounters are on CR (I know it's a poor guide, but it's the best to use for a new group) or CR+1 you are doing your job just fine as far as combat goes. Maybe send them a message to get together early/that you're starting a little bit later so they can come up with a strategy on how to deal with combat.

When your entire group is squishy, they need to really emphasise their strengths; use stealth and divination as best as possible to make sure they get the jump on the enemy, make sure they prioritise the enemies correctly and such and things along that line. If they have to get into close combat, they need to make sure they can minimise their losses with crowd control.

[Spore]

I hate to break it to you but the meatshield effect was only secondary anyway. The primary reason to play barbarian is to smash things quickly into tiny pieces. But if you're not doing that already I suggest detailing the battle map with good obstacles and environmental dangers is important.

You don't change your encounters but if they see the map better they may adapt to it. And I have had great and fun battles while incorporating the environment. It's way more fun to grant loss of dexterity on a mob if the rogue swings by a chandelier to the mob than a bland "barbarian stands in front of x and power attacks it" battles. No matter where or how short you fight, mark obstacles and other things on the battle map for your heroes. (This also helps the hurting dexterity melee characters in getting something out of their tumble checks, their mobility and so on).

Also deaths happen. Adventuring is dangerous and so SHOULD be your fights. If people see that dumb decisions can risk their beloved characters they will think twice. Also it adds to a richer experience when plot armor is not an issue. (See Game of Thrones for that: the fact that ANY hero could die easily makes for very engaging stories)

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

In my group we usually max players hp but still keep average for monsters. At the end of the day they will use the same healing, but the possibility of unexpected death in game reduces.

[Yuric the Bold]

Never penalize a player for wanting to play something different.

Penalize a group for being complete idiots.

Groups who realize their folly and rally together to overcome the challenges you set before them often have far more fun and the group is far more cohesive than just by catering to their demands.

Throwing a group of six against a battalion of orc warriors might be a bit more than challenging. If they are stupid enough to wade in instead of finding a place to hide and wait it out... well you know.

[Felvion]

Thank you people for your replies, didn't expect so many!
My problem is that most of the party don't plan ahead either because they don't want or because they can't. I mean the rogue and the druid are there just for fun of the game. Since they're new to any rpg i don't expect them to employ any great battle strategy/mechanics at all. At least they take every piece of my advice very seriously and they learn quickly.
On the other hand, refering to the experienced guys , they used to have a tactic and now it's broken. The barbarian would draw attention (smashing them into pieces ofc), the bard would offer precious melle help after buffing and the rest (ranger, sorcerer) would hit from distance in safety. It's not anything complex but it worked and everyone was happy.
Now that the barbarian is gone just assume 5 goblins appear (minor encouter). 4/6 PCs will attemt to hide in order to snipe/flank/cast etc, the brave halfling will stand up to protect the lady-elf and before anyone acts she will scorch them because all they needed was a minor aoe.Maybe it's just me but i feel it's rediculus not having just one guy willing to risk taking some damage.



As for the rolls that someone mentioned, I wouldnt give anyone a re-roll. Thats why i gave them really high stats, I also mentioned several times that it will be tough. What did my guys do? Average party CON is 11 while they have almost +9 average modifiers in stats.

[eggynack]

Dude, druids are supposed to wild shape into bears and wade deep into melee. :smallsmile:
Eh, I rather disagree. I mean, it's viable, but it's a bit of a waste compared to just casting more spells, preferably as a bat. I would only really do it when running low on spells, as a last resort. An animal companion should be pretty much sufficient for any "tanking" purposes. In any case, if your players want to do a thing in a certain way, just let them do it in that way. If their plans are actually not viable, then they will be crushed under the weight of reasonably difficult encounters. If they are viable, then you'll probably have to revise the way you think about how the tactics of the game work. And you probably do, because if they're still pretty much killing everything, what does it matter if they have something like a meat shield?

[Melcar]

Tanks don't work in D&D anyway, unless you're focusing on AoO tripping or stand still.
Alternatively have all the players maximize their HD and have enemies max HD too, that'll give'em more hp.

I have made a tank that had AC 101... albeit at level 30 but still. Had 9 fast healing and DR 25. He was pretty damn hard to get down.

Anyways...

[eggynack]

I have made a tank that had AC 101... albeit at level 30 but still. Had 9 fast healing and DR 25. He was pretty damn hard to get down.
But, y'know, anything. Like, forcecage, or solid fog. The defenses you've listed do zero things against those things. That's one of the several biggest issues with tanking, that the statistics that usually protect against most things only defend against a narrow swath of attacks in 3.5. Also, nothing you've listed stops an enemy from just kinda walking around you, or flying above you, or teleporting past you, or whatever. Who needs to get you down when they can just target the actual threat? It's highly probable that you have other stuff beyond what you've listed, but it's important to note how little these things do, and many of the best defenses at level 30 aren't accessible at low levels.

[Segev]

Yeah, just make sure your players all know their options. So if the druid knows she CAN turn into a bear, she is armed with the knowledge and can use it however she likes.

Keep the encounters at the same "level" as before and see what the party does. At 4th level, your sorcerer could in theory have False Life, which is a cushion of almost half-again the drow's hit points that can be re-applied as needed.

But in general, just see what happens. Don't ramp things up more than you already planned to, but don't pull your punches more than normal, either. If somebody dies, they might make a replacement character to shore up the weak spot(s). And if they pull through, they'll feel all the more accomplished.

[Slipperychicken]

But, y'know, anything. Like, forcecage, or solid fog. The defenses you've listed do zero things against those things. That's one of the several biggest issues with tanking, that the statistics that usually protect against most things only defend against a narrow swath of attacks in 3.5. Also, nothing you've listed stops an enemy from just kinda walking around you, or flying above you, or teleporting past you, or whatever. Who needs to get you down when they can just target the actual threat? It's highly probable that you have other stuff beyond what you've listed, but it's important to note how little these things do, and many of the best defenses at level 30 aren't accessible at low levels.

I maintain the belief that most groups which actually play at epic levels play extremely low-op, neglecting even basic things like flight and immunities.

[Red Fel]

As others above have mentioned: They had a tactic once. It was based on having a beefstick. They have lost the beef. They have to change the tactic.

It's a lesson many players have to learn eventually. Tactics > stats. Learn what the PCs can do, how best they can do it, and plan around that. Environments change, enemies change, tactics have to evolve.

If your PCs are too squishy to stay in melee, let them try to stay out of melee. Obviously, this will be a challenge, but let them try. Let them build tactics around being mobile and fighting from afar. If it works, great. If not, they'll either try something new or another will ask for a new character. It is what it is. I've seen parties that lack melee; it's not ridiculous, it's just a different kind of challenge. I've seen parties that lack spellcasters; it's not a challenge, it's just a different kind of ridiculous.

The thing to remember is that it's your world, but their characters. You can't try to dictate how they should be handling combat. If the entire party wanted to play Awakened Bunny Truenamers, you should warn them that you won't go easy on them just because they're cutting off their arms and legs, but you should let them do it.

Your players built their characters for flavor, not mechanics. Fine. They didn't choose the most horribly broken classes; it's not like they're doomed. Let them figure out new ways to integrate the new character into their fight plan. They'll get there.

Or they'll die horribly.

[NotScaryBats]

Um, guys? OP said the group is level 4, so the Druid doesn't have Wild Shape yet.

To the OP, you may not be used to combat like this, but it can work. Test it out with a few of the normal sort of encounters you would build anyway. Play around with the after-combat spoils if you notice specific weaknesses.

Is everyone down to half HP? Maybe drop a wand of cure light wounds. Do they all want to hide and snipe? Maybe take them to a place with tricky terrain and allow them to set up ambushes. The barbarian rerolled to get more skill points, it sounds like, so if that's the case -- give her some encounters to utilize those shiny new skills she has.

Have them rewarded with magic armor and protective items, perhaps, to make them slightly less squishy.

[Melcar]

But, y'know, anything. Like, forcecage, or solid fog. The defenses you've listed do zero things against those things. That's one of the several biggest issues with tanking, that the statistics that usually protect against most things only defend against a narrow swath of attacks in 3.5. Also, nothing you've listed stops an enemy from just kinda walking around you, or flying above you, or teleporting past you, or whatever. Who needs to get you down when they can just target the actual threat? It's highly probable that you have other stuff beyond what you've listed, but it's important to note how little these things do, and many of the best defenses at level 30 aren't accessible at low levels.

Indeed I totally agree with you, my point was just to say that tanks can be build. But you need some support casters to rid you of dubuffs and what not for it to become a viable play.

[KorbeltheReader]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking about D&D like an MMO. There's no such thing as threat levels so tanks don't make sense, and it's difficult or impossible to heal your way through damage.

I wouldn't recommend changing your encounters. Players can and should adapt to new challenges. It's fun to adapt and see positive results! If they aren't adapting at first, give them time; they may need a level or two to pick up class abilities/feats/items to compensate.

Seriously though, I don't see any reason why a bard, ranger, sorcerer, druid, fighter, and rogue can't handle appropriate CR encounters.

[infomatic]

Echoing that. Tanks are not explicitly needed in D&D as they are in Warcraft.

DPS, on the other hand, is needed — and if a martial PC isn't providing it they should at least be doing battlefield control (keeping monsters away or prone). What are the Drow Fighter's feats?

The ideas of tweaking encounters is also good, though it requires more effort on your part. What sort of encounters are you planning on throwing at them?

[Togo]

I've played meatshields up to 17th level. They work fine.

Having very slightly (1pt per level on average) fewer hp isn't really a problem. If the drow has enough AC, then he can still fill his old role even without lots of hp. If he doesn't, he may have had problems at the higher level in any case. Either way, bump up the healing available, make sure he has a decent AC, and the problem may not reoccur

Otherwise, the players will ultimately need to change their tactics. Switching to hit-and-run tactics, and/or lots of use of stealth, may help. Alternatively simply rotating who is in the front line can work too.

[Bigbeefie]

The fighter has to look for other options besides HP and AC to make him an effective tank. Darkness, Deeper Darkness, Fog Clouds, Obscuring Mists....all work....Mirror image, Displacement, Blur work as well....

Remind him potions are cheap and effective...

after the "fair" warning....if he dies he dies and knows not to roll crap again.

[eggynack]

After the "fair" warning....if he dies he dies and knows not to roll crap again.
Indeed. If there is any advantage to a high lethality campaign, aside from all the other potential advantages, it's that non-casters get to engage in the same form of iterative problem solving that casters get access to on a daily basis.

[Bigbeefie]

Indeed. If there is any advantage to a high lethality campaign, aside from all the other potential advantages, it's that non-casters get to engage in the same form of iterative problem solving that casters get access to on a daily basis.

Indeed. Whole point of a fighter to solve problems with fighting. Its in the name fighter.

[Averis Vol]

Indeed I totally agree with you, my point was just to say that tanks can be build. But you need some support casters to rid you of dubuffs and what not for it to become a viable play.

No one's disputing that you can make a highly defensive character, what they are saying is that the MMO definition of "tank" is not a viable one in dungeons and dragons, mainly due to the fact that you really have no way to stop people from ignoring you. Let's say you are the guy upfront with the 101 AC, quickly the enemy is going to learn that they can't hit you, and unless you are doing considerable damage back to them, you aren't going to be a hinderance when they all gang up on the 35 AC barbarian doing 2k damage a round*. It's a common thing on these forums to say that the best defense is offense, which is why people put so little stock in AC and killing people before they can kill you then healing up afterwards. While it may not be true for your group and certainly isn't for my group, this is the general consensus on optimisation boards.

[Spore]

Let them try and find solutions on their own. Continue as planned. If people die, they die. Keep an eye on the entertainment your players have. I think you're a bit too quick to presume that this group could NEVER work.

He had a group with an Thief, an Wizard and an ranged Archer and it worked. I was mainly because the Thief dropped some very creative and distracting tactics while the Wizard brought the battlefield under his control (e.g. Spider Web, Grease). The Archer just had to snipe the enemies one by one.

Teach the druid to use his spells properly and you won't have any problems. Archer sniping into Entangle? No problem. Fighter and Rogue flanking to get good results. No problem. (You could allow flanking to grant sneak attacks, like in PF to pull those T5 classes a bit higher.) Have the Sorcerer ... do her thing.

If you really want, offer the bard a cohort female barbarian that only wants her little man. Or someone. Just DO NOT DM PC!

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/8/0/5/4/3/7/Doesnt-matter-had-snu-snu-95153495382.jpeg

[Maginomicon]

The official Injury variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm) and the official Death & Dying variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/deathAndDying.htm) systems may be of use to you (they're not compatible with eachother, but one or the other may accomplish what you want).

Also, the DMG has a variant rule for assuming all HP rolls get the average result (monster HP is calculated this way).

[DrDeth]

No one's disputing that you can make a highly defensive character, what they are saying is that the MMO definition of "tank" is not a viable one in dungeons and dragons, mainly due to the fact that you really have no way to stop people from ignoring you. Let's say you are the guy upfront with the 101 AC, quickly the enemy is going to learn that they can't hit you, and unless you are doing considerable damage back to them, you aren't going to be a hinderance when they all gang up on the 35 AC barbarian doing 2k damage a round*. It's a common thing on these forums to say that the best defense is offense, which is why people put so little stock in AC and killing people before they can kill you then healing up afterwards. While it may not be true for your group and certainly isn't for my group, this is the general consensus on optimisation boards.

Sounds good except for a few things:

1. Many monsters aren't that smart

2. Even if they are it's going to take them at least 2 rounds to figure out that they can't hit you, maybe three.

3. When they do decide to move on, that means you get a AoO, and they lose a FAO.

4. The Char-op boards are often wrong IRL. Like you said "certainly isn't for my group" and not for mine. And likely not for theirs either. Theorycrafting is all well and good, but it rarely works in IRL gaming.

Back to the OP- just let them do it, and either pay or benefit from their choices. A small OOC warning comment might not hurt.

[eggynack]

1. Many monsters aren't that smart
I don't know how true that is. Even animals are going to hesitate to approach the guy coated in metal compared to the less armored fellow behind him. Reasonably, any somewhat intelligent enemy is going to go after the caster with high priority. Casters are simultaneously apparently low in defense, and obviously incredibly high in offense. That's who you target if you have a choice, and you usually have a choice. Also, an enemy that can't identify who they should target is usually going to be a far smaller threat than an enemy that can.


2. Even if they are it's going to take them at least 2 rounds to figure out that they can't hit you, maybe three.
Not necessarily. As long as you can identify someone as a caster, that's all it takes to determine targeting.


3. When they do decide to move on, that means you get a AoO, and they lose a FAO.
This is true, and it means that AoO's and tripping, far more than a high AC, is how you "tank" in 3.5.

[Averis Vol]

Sounds good except for a few things:

1. Many monsters aren't that smart

2. Even if they are it's going to take them at least 2 rounds to figure out that they can't hit you, maybe three.

3. When they do decide to move on, that means you get a AoO, and they lose a FAO.

4. The Char-op boards are often wrong IRL. Like you said "certainly isn't for my group" and not for mine. And likely not for theirs either. Theorycrafting is all well and good, but it rarely works in IRL gaming.


All good points, and while I disagree that monsters aren't that smart, I essentially agree with all of your other points, though two rounds seems like a bit much if there are more then one enemy, two attacks seems more reasonable; because if a group of guys gang up on one and he fails to really hurt them and they fail to hurt him, they are going to take out the dude that just wasted multiple opponents.

3 and 4 though are definitely correct, except in a few instances for 3 (Creatures with some form of pounce, archers or casters really).

[Red Fel]

All good points, and while I disagree that monsters aren't that smart, I essentially agree with all of your other points, though two rounds seems like a bit much if there are more then one enemy, two attacks seems more reasonable; because if a group of guys gang up on one and he fails to really hurt them and they fail to hurt him, they are going to take out the dude that just wasted multiple opponents.

3 and 4 though are definitely correct, except in a few instances for 3 (Creatures with some form of pounce, archers or casters really).

I respectfully disagree.

1. Lower-level monsters may not be that smart, but higher-level ones (dragons, Outsiders, intelligent undead) certainly are. Almost by definition. And they will definitely prioritize the reality-warping spellcaster over the mook who wants to smack things with a pointed stick.

2. It's not hard to identify a caster. It doesn't take several rounds. Which of the following three looks like a good target to you: The scowling, muscled, greatsword-wielding knight in shining armor; the skulking, scarred, leather-clad sneak with a pair of daggers; or the nervous-looking, pale, emaciated fellow leaning on a gnarled wooden cane and protected only by a paper-thin robe? Even if I don't know he's a caster, I know he's an easy-looking target. Give me the easy target every time.

3. That's assuming they approached the meatshield in the first place, instead of flying over, tumbling past, or teleporting. And that's also assuming they care about that AoO by the melee. Unless he has a feat like Stand Still, it's just a tiny plink against a more dangerous opponent.

4. A smart opponent isn't going to go for the meatshield first unless (a) there is a specific compulsion, such as a personal vendetta or a mechanical effect like the Knight's Challenge, or (b) the DM is throwing you a bone. That's not theorycrafting; it's common sense. If I stand in the middle of a battlefield, looking like I can handle myself in a fight, and hope really hard that someone comes to fight me, do you think they will? Or do you think they'll go after the puny guy behind me, trying to be invisible?

It ultimately boils down to how a DM plays monsters. If he plays them as lining up to be slaughtered, then yes, tanking works. If he plays them with even a modicum of tactics or sense, tanking is almost entirely ineffectual, barring a few mechanics.

[Averis Vol]

I respectfully disagree.

1. Lower-level monsters may not be that smart, but higher-level ones (dragons, Outsiders, intelligent undead) certainly are. Almost by definition. And they will definitely prioritize the reality-warping spellcaster over the mook who wants to smack things with a pointed stick.

2. It's not hard to identify a caster. It doesn't take several rounds. Which of the following three looks like a good target to you: The scowling, muscled, greatsword-wielding knight in shining armor; the skulking, scarred, leather-clad sneak with a pair of daggers; or the nervous-looking, pale, emaciated fellow leaning on a gnarled wooden cane and protected only by a paper-thin robe? Even if I don't know he's a caster, I know he's an easy-looking target. Give me the easy target every time.

3. That's assuming they approached the meatshield in the first place, instead of flying over, tumbling past, or teleporting. And that's also assuming they care about that AoO by the melee. Unless he has a feat like Stand Still, it's just a tiny plink against a more dangerous opponent.

4. A smart opponent isn't going to go for the meatshield first unless (a) there is a specific compulsion, such as a personal vendetta or a mechanical effect like the Knight's Challenge, or (b) the DM is throwing you a bone. That's not theorycrafting; it's common sense. If I stand in the middle of a battlefield, looking like I can handle myself in a fight, and hope really hard that someone comes to fight me, do you think they will? Or do you think they'll go after the puny guy behind me, trying to be invisible?

It ultimately boils down to how a DM plays monsters. If he plays them as lining up to be slaughtered, then yes, tanking works. If he plays them with even a modicum of tactics or sense, tanking is almost entirely ineffectual, barring a few mechanics.

Uhhh, I never disagreed with any of this besides maybe the "how it works at my table" part, this comes off a little antagonistic.

1. like I said, I never disagreed with this. Normally though, the meat shield will be the first one into a fight, so if he turns the corner first, he's probably gonna eat the first few attacks before the rest of the party arrives, simple enough.

2. no it isn't, and I guarantee the enemies are going to try and go hard on the caster, and he probably hopes the bruisers archers and rogues wont tear him up for doing so. At higher levels combat devolves a bit into rocket tag, so that makes it a bit more.....precarious, but it doesn't really change much.

3. if they have those means of movement, yea it can be a problem if they are in the open in flyings case. Teleporting (most likely via outsider SLA) is equally problematic if the mage doesn't anchor the foe.

4. If you play a warrior that stands there and waits for an opponent to come to him, you are doing it wrong. Protecting the caster is an active effort, and just having damage isn't normally going to cut it. You need to have some way to keep em in place if you're caster can't hold his own against an approaching enemy.

Also, the puny guy isn't going be trying to be invisible, he is going to be invisible :smalltongue:

You gotta also remember, I never said tanking works, I said building a high defense character can work, that's two totally different things.

[Red Fel]

You gotta also remember, I never said tanking works, I said building a high defense character can work, that's two totally different things.

Point. And apologies if I came across as antagonistic.

Mostly I was disagreeing with DrDeth; I quoted your post half by mistake.

[danzibr]

Waaaait a minute. So this dude is one of the meatshields and *his* Con is 12? With an *average* modifier of +9, why the heck is his Con 12?

Quick and easy fix: there's a thread regarding Toughness going around right now. I would suggest letting Toughness treat all rolls to gain hp upon leveling as max. Benefit is retroactive, of course. That way he doesn't get a free reroll, only uses a feat to become a better meatshield.

Anyway. If the campaign is supposed to be tough, don't feel bad about offing your players for being stupid. Entire party with nobody who can take damage... either they play smartly, or there are some deaths.

[DrDeth]

I respectfully disagree.

1. Lower-level monsters may not be that smart, but higher-level ones (dragons, Outsiders, intelligent undead) certainly are. Almost by definition. And they will definitely prioritize the reality-warping spellcaster over the mook who wants to smack things with a pointed stick.

2. It's not hard to identify a caster. It doesn't take several rounds. Which of the following three looks like a good target to you: The scowling, muscled, greatsword-wielding knight in shining armor; the skulking, scarred, leather-clad sneak with a pair of daggers; or the nervous-looking, pale, emaciated fellow leaning on a gnarled wooden cane and protected only by a paper-thin robe? Even if I don't know he's a caster, I know he's an easy-looking target. Give me the easy target every time.

3. That's assuming they approached the meatshield in the first place, instead of flying over, tumbling past, or teleporting. And that's also assuming they care about that AoO by the melee. Unless he has a feat like Stand Still, it's just a tiny plink against a more dangerous opponent.

4. A smart opponent isn't going to go for the meatshield first unless (a) there is a specific compulsion, such as a personal vendetta or a mechanical effect like the Knight's Challenge, or (b) the DM is throwing you a bone. That's not theorycrafting; it's common sense. If I stand in the middle of a battlefield, looking like I can handle myself in a fight, and hope really hard that someone comes to fight me, do you think they will? Or do you think they'll go after the puny guy behind me, trying to be invisible?

It ultimately boils down to how a DM plays monsters. If he plays them as lining up to be slaughtered, then yes, tanking works. If he plays them with even a modicum of tactics or sense, tanking is almost entirely ineffectual, barring a few mechanics.


Well, if my DM played ALL the monsters like that, gee, I'd just do something crazy like make the mage look like he's wearing armour and the fighter look like he's not. Pretty easy. And, not every party is made up of stereotypes. And you know the "nervous-looking, pale, emaciated fellow leaning on a gnarled wooden cane and protected only by a paper-thin robe" can make himself invisible or have a glamor and the "skulking, scarred, leather-clad sneak with a pair of daggers" is indeed skulking and sneaking. So they can only see one target.

Unless the foes have Spellcraft or KS, they can't recognize much, in any case.

Next, if there's a doorway, a corridor or that "nervous-looking, pale, emaciated fellow leaning on a gnarled wooden cane and protected only by a paper-thin robe" does something silly :smallwink: like cast battle-field control spells (which is many times the best way to go) the attacks are funneled. Thus if the players have even a modicum of tactics or sense, tanking is almost always a great tactic.

[eggynack]

Well, if my DM played ALL the monsters like that, gee, I'd just do something crazy like make the mage look like he's wearing armour and the fighter look like he's not. Pretty easy. And, not every party is made up of stereotypes. And you know the "nervous-looking, pale, emaciated fellow leaning on a gnarled wooden cane and protected only by a paper-thin robe" can make himself invisible or have a glamor and the "skulking, scarred, leather-clad sneak with a pair of daggers" is indeed skulking and sneaking. So they can only see one target.

Unless the foes have Spellcraft or KS, they can't recognize much, in any case.

Unless you're actively hiding the fact, it's pretty easy to tell that someone is a spellcaster when they, y'know, cast a spell. Sure, some lower tier classes have casting too, but it's not that hard to give preferential treatment towards higher power spells.


Next, if there's a doorway, a corridor or that "nervous-looking, pale, emaciated fellow leaning on a gnarled wooden cane and protected only by a paper-thin robe" does something silly :smallwink: like cast battle-field control spells (which is many times the best way to go) the attacks are funneled. Thus if the players have even a modicum of tactics or sense, tanking is almost always a great tactic.
I don't really count "This is good in a doorway or corridor" as "almost always a great tactic if you have any brains at all." It reads a lot more like, "Good in a really narrow set of circumstances, and it's rather difficult to control those circumstances in many cases, especially if you're the aggressor." It's also ignoring the fact that some enemies don't have to stand next to a wizard to hit them, so against anything but a melee fellow you're not funneling much of anything. The value added by a fighter to any given BFC plan is also a thing in question, especially if he's meant to basically be a brick wall attached to a sword. There are reasonable "tanking" plans in D&D, but they are all about personally controlling the direction of engagement with AoO's and tripping, instead of just upping your defensive stats to ridiculous levels. The latter is a pretty meaningless thing.

[Red Fel]

There are reasonable "tanking" plans in D&D, but they are all about personally controlling the direction of engagement with AoO's and tripping, instead of just upping your defensive stats to ridiculous levels. The latter is a pretty meaningless thing.

This, I think, is the key point.

You can spec for AC and HP out the wazoo. You will be ignored at the earliest convenience in favor of whomever throws the biggest fireball.

There are certain mechanics, such as the Knight's Challenge, Thicket of Blades, Stand Still, and similar, which "force" - although they can be overcome - an enemy to prioritize your "tank" character. You'll note, however, that the characters cited by the OP - a Barb and a Fighter - do not inherently get access to these abilities. In other words, their ability to tank is limited to speccing for AC and HP, and hoping very hard that the enemy doesn't ignore them.

In any tactical situation short of bodily blocking a doorway or other bottleneck - which, as Eggy notes, is a very narrow band of possibilities - they simply aren't going to hold "aggro" (to use the terminology) for very long, if at all. Further, blocking the bottleneck has the added negative of rendering the other party members useless - it blocks line of sight and line of effect, making it extremely difficult to harm the opponent the meatshield is blocking. It's counterproductive.

Even in the few instances where tanking, as you describe it, is a good tactic, there is always a better one - killing or disabling the enemy before they can land a hit. It is always better, without exception, to stop the enemy from landing a single blow than it is to take a hit in place of a party member. Better that nobody should be injured at all than that the meatshield be taking the hits for the party. That's just good combat strategy. And a character who spends his turns and his build taking hits, rather than focusing on dealing them, is wasting the action economy.

And as an additional aside: Using disguises, glamers, and similar tactics and trickery is "something crazy?"

[eggynack]

And as an additional aside: Using disguises, glamers, and similar tactics and trickery is "something crazy?"
I believe he was using sarcasm as a mode of rhetoric, implying that these tactics would be both common and effective. Without specific spell examples, it's difficult to assert how common or effective a given plan would be. Translocation trick (SpC, 222) would make for a decent method along these lines, but you would need some alternate method to hide casting, and in all cases it may be vaguely suspicious when the wizard runs to the front lines brandishing his staff, while the fighter runs to the back and mutters menacingly. It's a cool spell though.

[zephyrkinetic]

Only real problem I'm seeing is someone assuming elves have to be all willowy and whatever. Introduce some variants to the race; big, badass elves who live outside of the deep woods, for example. If they're still convinced they have to play a stringbean, offer "woodsy" options for buffing (like, think tree. They're pretty tough). Oh, and animal companions - always remember animal companions.

[Felvion]

Let me sort some things out and give an update.
First and foremost i admit i'm a bad writer and maybe didn't focus to my main concern.
The guy used to be a lvl4 human barbarian. Now he is a drow (thus lvl2) fighter.
His hitpoints are 16 cause his Con is finally 10. That's because he decreased his HD to d8 in exchange for more class skills and skillpoints. He rolled 8, the maximum he could get.
I agree no meatshield/tank/whatever is necessary in any party and even though i have an opinion about that i'm not going to discuss whether it is viable/usefull fun because thats not he point.
The party is going to have a hard time because their strategy depended on a meatshield
making noise and damage upfront. Now they have to adjust to a new battle strategy which is not easy considering there are some new to dnd (and rpg at all) members.
Note here that as a DM i made it clear that the forecoming story would be really hard in encouters etc but i have to change that in order to give them some time to figure how they'll battle. It seems the best to do but i had to change my plans and i really didn't want to.
As for the fighter, i had a private conversation with him. I explained him that such a character will have a really hard time even to survive when the combats i have in mind will occur. He said he has no problem and accepted he should try to be carefull so that no action of his would come with cost to the rest of the party. I told him it would be pointless for the others to always have in mind if the drow is gonna make it through, after all he's a figher.
In conclusion, i'm giving him and the party some time but not much. I'll throw a few easy encounters so everyone can test their role with some safety. After them he may prove himself not viable but that's up to him to handle.

Anyway thanks everyone for the replies, some were very helpful. Even those that seemed kind of irrelevent to my concerns made the a nice conversation.
PS:For those who enjoyed the idea of killing him, i promise i will post it in case he dies.

[nedz]

A Hat of Disguise is Cheap — the Wizard is now wearing Plate.
Glamoured Armour likewise — the Fighter is wearing a Tutu (whatever).
Still Spell Deceptive Spell to make it look like the Fighter cast the 1st big spell.
Voila a Tank.

This all falls apart with True Seeing, but that has a range of 120' and a short duration so (probably) has to be cast.

[Oko and Qailee]

Never penalize a player for wanting to play something different.

Penalize a group for being complete idiots.


This is some of the best advice I have ever read ever. Seconded.

[DrDeth]

I believe he was using sarcasm as a mode of rhetoric, implying that these tactics would be both common and effective. .

Yes, exactly. :smallcool:

[DrDeth]

A Hat of Disguise is Cheap — the Wizard is now wearing Plate.
Glamoured Armour likewise — the Fighter is wearing a Tutu (whatever).
Still Spell Deceptive Spell to make it look like the Fighter cast the 1st big spell.
Voila a Tank.

This all falls apart with True Seeing, but that has a range of 120' and a short duration so (probably) has to be cast.

Yes, and we have used both of those. I also had my Sorc who put a rank in disguise (plus high CHA, natch!) wear a heavy wool tunic with metallic thread, which looks a great deal like chainmail- so much so, it's pretty commonly used in film.

He also has a buckler and a weapon.

Viola- a fighter. :smalltongue: Sure, he casts spells, but you need Spellcraft to ID that, in many cases. How many Monsters have Spellcraft?

[DMJeff]

After years of playing we had found a way to curve that. Hey I just made a back up character and really want to play him so Ill die heroically with the one I have. We Impose a -1 level to the new character. So if a character die's and they bring in a new one. Sound's harsh but player's strive hard to keep there existing character's going unless they really want to play there back up character. A part of the game is the rp getting along and the introduction of new charterer's. So it's safe to assume new character's can be both good and stalling.

[Löwenohr]

He should really be playing a Crusader instead of a Fighter for a tank, anyway.

[DrDeth]

After years of playing we had found a way to curve that. Hey I just made a back up character and really want to play him so Ill die heroically with the one I have. We Impose a -1 level to the new character. So if a character die's and they bring in a new one. Sound's harsh but player's strive hard to keep there existing character's going unless they really want to play there back up character. A part of the game is the rp getting along and the introduction of new charterer's. So it's safe to assume new character's can be both good and stalling.

We give each player one "gimmee" on this.

[Felvion]

After years of playing we had found a way to curve that. Hey I just made a back up character and really want to play him so Ill die heroically with the one I have. We Impose a -1 level to the new character. So if a character die's and they bring in a new one. Sound's harsh but player's strive hard to keep there existing character's going unless they really want to play there back up character. A part of the game is the rp getting along and the introduction of new charterer's. So it's safe to assume new character's can be both good and stalling.

It crossed my mind too. The fact that the new character would be a drow made that pointless. I could just forbid it rather than make him play lvl1 in a lvl4 party. Additionally, in my world, drows are almost extinct and none likes them so i didn't want to make it harder than it is.
As for the rp part i was very disappointed because the old character had created special personal relations with several NPCs. For example, at the very first session he decapitated a guy, unarmed, just ripped his head off with his bare hands! (He already had him pinned and rolled 2 straight 20s while the poor guy's fort was a 1). So the dead man got reanimated in somekind of living undead and now seeks the man who killed him (and stole his "legendary" sword) for revenge while he leads a part of the troops that attemt to take over the world. In my eyes this would be a hell of a motive to keep this character, while lots of other similar things are not worth to mention.

[Metahuman1]

(See Game of Thrones for that: the fact that ANY hero could die easily makes for very engaging stories)

Until the reader becomes apathetic cause the blood bath got too out of hand so in order to not feel pain they refused to invest in characters. Happens. Just ask anyone who read marvel comics Ultimatum.

[FabulousFizban]

Dude, druids are supposed to wild shape into bears and wade deep into melee. :smallsmile:

exactly, why is your druid not a bear who rides a bear and summons bears?

[FabulousFizban]

Until the reader becomes apathetic cause the blood bath got too out of hand so in order to not feel pain they refused to invest in characters. Happens. Just ask anyone who read marvel comics Ultimatum.

SPOILERS*** All Game of Thrones characters are irrelevant, as Aria is going to return as a face changer and murder everyone. E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E.

[DMJeff]

It crossed my mind too. The fact that the new character would be a drow made that pointless. I could just forbid it rather than make him play lvl1 in a lvl4 party. Additionally, in my world, drows are almost extinct and none likes them so i didn't want to make it harder than it is.
As for the rp part i was very disappointed because the old character had created special personal relations with several NPCs. For example, at the very first session he decapitated a guy, unarmed, just ripped his head off with his bare hands! (He already had him pinned and rolled 2 straight 20s while the poor guy's fort was a 1). So the dead man got reanimated in some kind of living undead and now seeks the man who killed him (and stole his "legendary" sword) for revenge while he leads a part of the troops that attemt to take over the world. In my eyes this would be a hell of a motive to keep this character, while lots of other similar things are not worth to mention.

It does put a crimp in plans when a DM takes time to draw up story plot's and recurring villain's. But a retired character is in the hand's of the DM. Can still have a use although it was originally character created. Also as a new DM be prepared for the plot twist's the character's have. A many brilliant plot's have been abondened due to player action's. But at least there there in you DM arsenal for future campaign's. Which as years go on DMing wil become easier Villians will already be made up including their lair's and henchmen all due to your player's going left instead of right. If ever you get tired of this the good old fashion end of the world campaign's can force your character's in a campaign. Especially if there is pre set option's for them to take in the future. Scrap the whole Idea of Adventure hook's. I meen put them out there but don't plan on your player's agreeing. And again when the spark hit's and pages get drawn up plans made villians named. At the very least they still exsist somewhere for a another day !

@ The one Gimmie. That sounds like an even better Idea sometime's you have plans for the character that you create and it simply dosent work out or go as planed. That's also a fine Idea!

[Scorponok]

The quickest fix I can think of is to have them find a piece of armor (the type that just so happens to be the type the tank usually wears) that gives the PC temporary HP. Then the armor can be fixed for a cost by a local blacksmith when it runs out.

It gives the tank more survivability and gives the party an excuse to come back into town where you can throw more story hooks at them.

[iceman10058]

give them situations where they can approach it tactically and well within their abilities. either they will figure it out or they will lose people and fill those lost roles with what they need.

[russdm]

Until the reader becomes apathetic cause the blood bath got too out of hand so in order to not feel pain they refused to invest in characters. Happens. Just ask anyone who read marvel comics Ultimatum.

It's GRR martin. Its grimdark fantasy and you can except only a couple of characters to survive while everyone in the entire series dies. It is rather crappy way to write though because it makes more people want to just throw the books away.

Besides, you would toss the book away as soon as Eddard Stark died, the only actual decent person in the entire saga so far. Everyone else needs to or deserves to die besides Sandor or Brienne. Few of the surviving characters beyond them and Jon snow are even tolerable anymore.


SPOILERS*** All Game of Thrones characters are irrelevant, as Aria is going to return as a face changer and murder everyone. E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E.

Yep, then Jon Snow (Being the illegitmate son of Lyrana stark, ned's sister, and prince rhaeger marries Queen with 3 dragons) and everyone, except for all the chars who need to be offed live happily ever after until the next bit of trouble comes.

Frankly, the story has become more intolerable with only a few characters making me even want to stick with it instead of just waiting for it to come out then check out Wikipedia's entry on the next/last books and read all of the spoilers.