The Tanking Paradox: Why It Doesn't Work The Way You Think

[Vhaidara]

So, we often see requests on these forums to help people build a tank. They are thinking in terms of MMOs, where the tank is a big guy who stands on the front lines and gets the crap kicked out of him while the DPS (or DPR, as it is in turn based) destroy the enemy. Now, those of us who have tried understand why it doesn't work, but I wanted to get a summary of all the reasons why it falls flat on its face with almost every iteration.

1. The Aggro Problem
In MMOs, there is always a system for this. It might be Aggro, or Hate, or Enmity, but it does the same thing: Enemies will attack you over everyone else. This is usually based off of how much you are damaging/healing. Tanks usually get multipliers to their Aggro, which allows them to hold it while doing a fraction of the damage of the DPS.
There is NO such system in DnD. The enemy, unless they are stupid, will go for the squishiest target that deals the most damage. Consider the following
Character A accounts for 75% of the durability, and deals 25% of the damage
Character B accounts for 25% of the durability, and deals 75% of the damage
Who do you kill first? When the enemies are not programmed to do so, they will naturally go for the squishy guy doing a lot more damage

2. The Healing Disparity
I have played every role in an MMO. And I can say, without a doubt, that even the best of tanks can't really do anything without a Healer to back them up. This is fine in games where healing can actually keep up with damage.
3.PF is not such a game. Combat healing SUCKS. You will be lucky if you manage to heal for half of what a single enemy can dish out, and meanwhile, that enemy is becoming no more dead. This means that tanks are essentially left to fend for themselves on hit points, which are a truly precious resource.

3. The Paradox of Being Tanky
This connects to the first issue. Tanks traditionally need to have very high defenses. However, the higher your defenses, the less attractive you are as a target. Further, the more resources you invest in defenses, the fewer you invest in dealing damage (the only way to properly draw aggro in 3.PF).
I'm going to use the Pathfinder Paladin for this example, since Paladin is a class commonly viewed as a good Tank class by new players. It makes sense, Paladins are usually tanks in MMOs, you get heavy armor, amazing saves, a big HD, and shield proficiency. You have your emergency heal (Lay on Hands), and then the big draw: Smite Evil. This sounds like a big aggro draw button, doesn't it? Now this guy is hitting you like a truck.
Now, let's set up a scenario. You've got your paladin, and your buddy the Barbarian is right there beside you. You're fighting the boss of the campaign, so lets put you guys at level 4. You built to tank, he built for pure deeps. So, it looks something like these two
Phil the Pally (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=218235) is currently only under threat from his Smite target, so those bonuses are included, as are the effects of Combat Expertise
Bob the Barbie (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=218236) is currently going nuts on the boss, using Rage, Reckless Abandon, and Power Attack.
As a note, I picked feats for both of them based off what I would have picked about 8 years ago when I first started playing: Basic numbers feats.
Now, compare the two of them. Phil has amazing defenses, the perfect tank. His AC is 17 higher than Bob's (that is an 85% accuracy difference).
Meanwhile, on the average damage front, Phil does about 11 damage per hit, with okay accuracy. Bob, meanwhile, is 15% more accurate and deals an average of 23 damage per hit with his axe. Then, if the bite lands as well, gets another 7, for almost triple Phil's damage.
Basically, by building defenses, Bob has actually made himself WORSE at tanking.


So, these are the reasons why tanking doesn't work: No Aggro mechanic, Healers are in a worse place than tanks, and building defenses makes you WORSE at tanking. What are some of the solutions?

You need to be able to give the enemy reasons to attack you over your allies. The usual method of this is lockdown builds, using trip to disable anyone who tries to move. Other methods include debuffs, such of Armiger's Mark from Dreamscarred Press' Warder (mark an enemy you have damaged and they take a -4 to hit anyone but you) or some of their maneuvers from the Iron Tortoise discipline (Angering Smash is Armiger's as a maneuver, and they stack for a -8). There is also the Shield Other method, allowing you to take the damage for your allies. This is employed by the DSP Zealot to great effectiveness.

I'm running out of steam here, and might return to expand on this further, but I want to see if the Playground has comments to add.

[Darkweave31]

I'm torn on whether "tanking" should really be a role in D&D/PF. There are ways to make melee characters that effectively control the battlefield and keep enemies off of your allies, but that requires knowledge of various combinations, somewhat different and nowhere near as accessible as they made the defender and marking mechanics in 4e (for better or worse). D&D is a very different monster than most MMOs. As you said, a character can't just stand around expecting opponents to hit them instead of their allies and then have the healer erase the damage as it comes. Damage mitigation is best accomplished by denying opponents the opportunity to damage your team through battlefield control and alpha striking. If someone prefers an RPG that plays more like an MMO they should try 4e, which seems to have been designed with that play-style in mind.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Who do you kill first? When the enemies are not programmed to do so, they will naturally go for the squishy guy doing a lot more damage
But not always, because, as you said, they're not programmed. An equally logical response would be to refuse to stand and fight the murder machine and try to go after a less dangerous target. (After perhaps hitting the scary guy with a tanglefoot bag or something). Or they might go after [specific race/class/nationality/whatever] first because of personal prejudices. Or maybe the high-damage character is an archer or caster and is hidden behind a couple dudes in platemail. Or maybe they don't concentrate their fire on one target at a time because of numbers/poor tactics/whatever. The point is that damage shouldn't be D&D's form of an aggro mechanic.

[Elricaltovilla]

Y'know, I was planning on doing a tanking guide at some point... Looks like you beat me to it.:smallsmile:

Positioning and Terrain are huge in D&D tanking. The game is designed around the party exploring narrow passageways, small rooms and caves. It's called Dungeons & Dragons for a reason. Tanking requires a good bit of situational awareness, and the ability to position yourself in such a way that you're between the enemy and your allies. This is a lot easier if your party is exploring narrow dungeon hallways and small rooms, but it's basically impossible if you're in the middle of a wide open field. If your DM has one of those 25" x 30" mats (or heaven forbid, the 54" x 102" (http://www.chessex.com/mats/Battlemats_MegamatsReversible.htm)) mats and just plops your party down in the middle of it with no cover, barriers, walls or chokepoints, you can kiss your tanking ability goodbye, even if you can pull enough shenanigans to get a 40 ft. radius threatened area.

I like to look at tanking in a few different categories:

1. Hard Tanking
This is where the enemy only has the option of attacking you. This can most easily be achieved by use of positioning, terrain or debuffs like Immobilization. If you're the only legal target the enemy has available, then you've done your job as a tank as best as possible. Unfortunately, outside of a few spells (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/compel-hostility) and some luck with terrain, there's no way to make this happen.

2. Soft Tanking
This is where the enemy's best option is to attack you. Stuff like Armiger's Mark, Island of Blades, huge threatened areas and lots of trip attacks can all make you so annoying that you become a priority target, even over the crazy guy spitting flaming loogies (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fire-sneeze). This is where you have the most control, but it does require some specific works to function. Just getting bigger isn't always enough, tripping doesn't work against everything, and sometimes they'll still ignore your mark because they can. One of the biggest downsides is that Combat Reflexes is almost mandatory, which means that you can't dump dexterity, which makes the Big Scary Guy in Full Plate one of the worst tanks (unless you're a Warder). It seems really counterintuitive.

3. Mitigation Tanking
This is where even if the enemy attacks someone else they're still attacking you. The Oradin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?257365-PF-Oradin-Mini-Guide-Or-How-to-be-a-Healbot-minus-the-bot), Vitalist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/vitalist), Knight Disciple Paladins, and anyone with Shield Other (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shield-other) can get in on this game. The idea is that instead of trying to control enemy actions, you are instead soaking their damage and protecting allies that way. Upside is that it's an easy control to have, it doesn't require much extra from you. The downsides are that sometimes you just can't pull together enough protection to save an ally, or worse, you take so much damage that you die and are then useless.

4. Battlefield Control
If the enemy can't get to you at all, then they can't hurt anyone. Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics etc. are generally best at this because if nothing else, black tentacles (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/black-tentacles) is a thing. There are ways to make battlefield control a martial trick as well, tripping, bullrushing and stand still are all potential options with the right build, but they don't have the range or generalization that spells have. And with terrain being so important to being a tank in D&D, the ability to change the terrain to suit your needs is the most powerful tanking ability you can have.

[Mehangel]

I find this thread particularly useful as I for one asked about tanking in the past. One thing that just entered my mind is that with the four forms of tanking that Elricaltovilla gave, I am sure there is enough content to possibly make a Path of War discipline which would specialize in all four forms of tanking and progressively getting better as you level.

[Vhaidara]

Eh, PoW really only covers 2 and 3.

Hard Tanking pretty much requires magic to create choke points, while BFC (different from the Soft Tanking) is almost by definition the realm of magic

[Mehangel]

Eh, PoW really only covers 2 and 3.

Hard Tanking pretty much requires magic to create choke points, while BFC (different from the Soft Tanking) is almost by definition the realm of magic

I was actually suggesting that a NEW discipline be made that focused on the four forms. Naturally it would have to come out after Path of War: Expanded.

EDIT: to explain,

For Hard Tanking: one could make maneuvers (multiple spread through the levels). A level one strike would effectively state that the striker would become the only legal target for attacks or spells for one round. This could eventually expand into a boost that would be done as a swift action that would force all enemies within a 400ft burst to make their only legal target for attacks or spells to be you for one round.

For Battlefield Control, one could make boosts that cause various conditions to effect those around them. For example a boost that could entangle, daze, stun, or confuse enemies within 20ft of yourself, such enemies wouldnt need to be via terrain as it could be fluffed as a moral effect without actually being a moral effect.

[Necroticplague]

Most tanking in DnD from what I've seen isn't so much about taking the hits, but locking down the battlefield. Sure, they don't have to attack you, but they can't move past you without eating an AoO, being tripped, then pushed back. Of course, it means you're useless against ranged enemies, but highly effective against melee of all stripes.

[Elricaltovilla]

Most tanking in DnD from what I've seen isn't so much about taking the hits, but locking down the battlefield. Sure, they don't have to attack you, but they can't move past you without eating an AoO, being tripped, then pushed back. Of course, it means you're useless against ranged enemies, but highly effective against melee of all stripes.

Yep. Battlefield Control is the big one because it doesn't require anything from your DM or even other players to set up, and there are a lot of ways to pull it off. It's also better than Hard Control because it doesn't usually put you at risk of injury.

[Story]

Most tanking in DnD from what I've seen isn't so much about taking the hits, but locking down the battlefield. Sure, they don't have to attack you, but they can't move past you without eating an AoO, being tripped, then pushed back. Of course, it means you're useless against ranged enemies, but highly effective against melee of all stripes.

You just have to hope that you never fight flying or incorporeal or tunneling enemies.

[OldTrees1]

Personally I prefer to think of the Defender archetype. "Tank" makes me think of the vehicle where all the focus is on augmenting the tank. In contrast, "Defender" implies the goal of the role. That goal being to defend their charges.

1) Boost the charges' defenses
2) Decrease the enemies' offense
3) Help the charges recover
4) Maintenance of the above

The tanking paradox is resolved when you prioritize boosting your charges' safety over boosting your own.

[Elricaltovilla]

Personally I prefer to think of the Defender archetype. "Tank" makes me think of the vehicle where all the focus is on augmenting the tank. In contrast, "Defender" implies the goal of the role. That goal being to defend their charges.

1) Boost the charges' defenses
2) Decrease the enemies' offense
3) Help the charges recover
4) Maintenance of the above

The tanking paradox is resolved when you prioritize boosting your charges' safety over boosting your own.



What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


You can call it a Tank, or a Defender, or a popsicle for all the difference it makes to the mechanics. And what you're describing are all facets of what I referred to as Mitigation Tanking above. The real concern is how you go about applying each of those four tasks. What D&D or PF mechanics are you using to boost your allies' defences, decrease your enemies' offenses and helping your allies recover?

[OldTrees1]

You can call it a Tank, or a Defender, or a popsicle for all the difference it makes to the mechanics. And what you're describing are all facets of what I referred to as Mitigation Tanking above. The real concern is how you go about applying each of those four tasks. What D&D or PF mechanics are you using to boost your allies' defences, decrease your enemies' offenses and helping your allies recover?

1) If that were true, then you need to explain yourself better. Your mitigation section's text defined itself by "Shield Other" and "Soaking damage" which is only a small portion of my first and second sections and touches none of the other two.

2) My main point was that by changing the name it highlights a non paradoxical ordering of goals that I felt improved upon your segmentation.

One mechanic that is frequently overlooked is investing in gear that others wear/use. Combined with buffing allies and nerfing enemies you have a basic defender.

[Vhaidara]

1) If that were true, then you need to explain yourself better. Your mitigation section's text defined itself by "Shield Other" and "Soaking damage" which is only a small portion of my first and second sections and touches none of the other two.

Because when people want to build a tank (and yes, that is the applicable term to this discussion, as it is the frame of reference that people coming from a number of other games have), they are looking to have high defenses that actually come into play. You third and fourth points are under the role of Healer


One mechanic that is frequently overlooked is investing in gear that others wear/use.

Yes, because handing your WBL over to other players is so much fun, and every GM will totally be cool with that

[Story]

What D&D or PF mechanics are you using to boost your allies' defences, decrease your enemies' offenses and helping your allies recover?

Tier 1 spellcasting?

I mean that's practically what Clerics are made for. Until they get bored of buffing the party and just smash everything themselves anyway.

[Elricaltovilla]

1) If that were true, then you need to explain yourself better. Your mitigation section's text defined itself by "Shield Other" and "Soaking damage" which is only a small portion of my first and second sections and touches none of the other two.

Actually, shield other works to mitigate damage. It reduces the amount of damage enemies do to your allies and helps focus healing onto more efficient healers, that's the basis of the Oradin build I linked. This is the functional equivalent of Reducing Enemy Damage and Increasing Ally Defense. Shield Other was a small part of my section on mitigation tanking, and was highlighted because it's an iconic low level spell that epitomizes the idea of mitigation and is available to many different classes.

The Vitalist can redirect damage taken to other allies who have more HP, heal at a distance and apply Damage Reduction and Energy Resistance to allies, while also having access to powers that reduce enemy offense.

The Knight Disciple is a Paladin Archetype with multiple shield effects, the ability to negate status conditions on allies, and access to multiple powerful heals that can be used throughout the day. Reduces enemy damage, restores ally hit points, shields allies from damage, prevents status effects.

The main difference between your Defender goals and my mitigation tank is the level of granularity. To me there's little functional difference between reducing an enemy's damage by 5, providing an ally 5 temporary hit points, redirecting 5 damage to a different ally, granting an ally DR 5, or healing an ally 5 damage after an attack lands. They all serve the same purpose of mitigating (reducing) the effective damage dealt by the enemy. There may be times where one method is slightly more effective than another, but ultimately your ally's hit points will be 5 higher than they would have been otherwise. That's the essence of mitigation tanking.


2) My main point was that by changing the name it highlights a non paradoxical ordering of goals that I felt improved upon your segmentation.

I've heard this argument from others on the board with regards to the PF paladin's smite evil. You can call it what you want, but tanking is the common colloquialism for a character that acts to redirect enemy attacks is "tank." The name doesn't matter, and there's nothing paradoxical about calling someone that commands attention and weathers many attacks a tank. If you see a guy with a rocket launcher and an actual tank both running towards you, which one is likely to get you more worried? The guy with the rocket launcher might indeed be more dangerous, but the tank is faster, bigger and more intimidating. Thus it's more likely to pull focus. It also happens to be harder to kill, which is another important factor in being a tank, or defender, or popsicle.


One mechanic that is frequently overlooked is investing in gear that others wear/use. Combined with buffing allies and nerfing enemies you have a basic defender.

That's because it's a waste of resources. Spending your money on making your allies harder to kill doesn't make you better at commanding attention, it only makes you less likely to survive the attacks made against you.

There's an argument to be made for a tank not having the highest AC in the party, (certainly you want it to be high but if you're too hard to hit enemies might ignore you in favor of an easier target) but that argument only has traction so long as you have other ways of reducing the amount of damage you take, since by making yourself easier to hit, you'll be taking more damage. If you have the DR, ER, Temporary Hit Points or Self Healing to afford to take more blows, then yes, you can reduce your AC or other defenses... but that still begs the question about why you're spending your money on your allies. It'd be more efficient to spend that money to boost your offense, or to invest in new ways to attract enemy attention. After all, if you're a bigger threat, you're a better target and the faster your enemies die, the more of them you can fight off in a given day.

EDIT:


Tier 1 spellcasting?

I mean that's practically what Clerics are made for. Until they get bored of buffing the party and just smash everything themselves anyway.

The question, which was directed at OldTrees1, was asked because he laid out a set of goals, but did nothing to illustrate how to accomplish those goals. He answered the what, but not the how.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A lot of MMOs have pvp (all the good ones, at least, I'd say). In pvp, tanking doesn't work in the traditional sense, but you do see that certain roles are being attacked first. Mostly healers and buffers, with the traditional tanks last (because they're impossible to kill with healers up). As a response, those roles bulk up and improve on their tankiness, and you effectively integrate the tank role with the healer/buffer role (or debuffer, if you're trading actions at a good rate), with the pvm tanks becoming dps or debuff/cc. In D&D, you're effectively always running pvp, in the sense that the DM is a person, so this transition is always in effect.

The D&D classes which resemble traditional tanks - the fighter, warblade, crusader - move to dps and debuff/crowd control (BFC in D&D terms). Überchargers and (spiked chain) lockdown builds are pretty much the strongest ways to build these classes, so there you go.

The D&D classes which are healers and buffers - bards, A-game paladins, clerics, god wizards too (depending on OP level, they may be way beyond 'party roles', of course) - become prime targets for round 1 kills, at least, if the DM is playing smart enemies and isn't avoiding a TPK. Of course, in D&D, almost all the good buff classes are also carrying nukes, so that's making it doubly good to take them out in the first round.

The A-game paladin is as close to a traditional tank you're going to get - he's got some health and heals to survive, and the enemy attacks him because he's granting +10 to hit and damage to allies who can hear him inspire.

[Elricaltovilla]

And that really is a major issue. There's no consistency when a person is running the game instead of a computer. Even if you always play with the same DM, they may make different priorities based on their understanding of the encounter. It takes a lot of tricks to be able to cover all the potential issues that an unpredictable DM might come up with, and lots of tricks almost invariably means spellcasters.

[Karl Aegis]

This thread reminds me of Order of the Stick #215. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html)

Three out of the four categories of tanking are achieved in this strip:

1. Hard Tanking: Miko Miyazaki is the only target the ogres can attack without turning around and squeezing past each other.

2. Soft Tanking: The Ogre Chieftain is the best possible target for Miko to butcher because, presumably, he was the only one capable of surviving the incoming spells.

4. Battlefield Control: Durkon and the elf inflict the "dead" condition on the remaining ogres, removing them from combat.

Yet, none of those in the strip qualify as a tank because none of them are big guys who get the crap kicked out of them while the damage per round dudes destroy the enemy. The damage per round guys didn't even engage the enemy at all and while the big guys got the crap kicked out of them. The person engaging in hard tanking was completely unscathed, the battlefield controllers were unscathed, and the ogre engaging in soft tanking did not have the damage per round guys destroy the enemy.

All in all, the definition of what a tank is needs to be defined better. Not even the weapons platform that could wipe out an entire battalion by itself if left unchecked fits the definition of a tank despite actually being called a tank.

[Elricaltovilla]

Yet, none of those in the strip because none of them are big guys who get the crap kicked out of them while the damage per round dudes destroy the enemy.

I think you a word.

[eggynack]

I'm inclined to think that the difficulties intrinsic to defending against everything, largely related to the nature of magic, are worthy of note. For the sake of example, let's assume that the game does include some hard aggro mechanic that forces all foes to target you until you're dead or otherwise disabled. So, you stand in the middle of the battlefield, and call out for all to challenge the might of your massive AC and HP. And then a caster uses dominate person on you, because you have a low will save. So, you get some form of mental protection, spending a lot of gold on it, and you get slapped in the face with a huge orb of fire. So you boost your touch AC or fire resistance, and then get solid fogged. And it just goes on like that. Actually defending against everything, especially as a mundane class, is just about impossible.

[StreamOfTheSky]

One thing missing in the OP that the "Healing" problem only tangentially touches upon is the...

Focus Fire Problem: Say, despite all the reasons tanking can't work in D&D are somehow addressed, and you're doing your job! Everyone's attacking you, and you alone! ....Then the hard reality sets in. If the encounter is a fair difficulty or higher, no one person....not even the most defensively optimized tank (who somehow did this optimization w/o skimping on offense to the point that he's a winded turtle poking out of its shell with dulled teeth) can withstand the ensuing beat down. If one character can actually take everything all the enemies have to dish out for an extended period of time, it wasn't actually a challenging encounter for an entire party (another MMO disconnect; D&D assumes far less "encounters" between resting, generally, but they're much more genuinely dangerous and lethal).
The painful truth is, thanks to Critical Existence Failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure), dealing hp damage is meaningless until you kill someone. So the optimal way to inflict it is already....by picking one poor sap and unloading as much as you can on him/her. The classic depiction of the tank plays right into the optimal strategy of the enemy! You're actually better off trying to split damage as evenly amongst the party (proportionally...someone w/ 1.5x as much hp as the wizard can take 1.5x as much hp damage) as possible. This maximizes the amount of rounds you can bring your full force to bear upon the foe.

So tanking, on its very first principle, already fails at being viable in D&D.

Your best options are lockdown, where you're not actually taking notably greater damage (but are basically just a more limited, shorter ranged, more suicidal version of a battlefield control mage), or doing the exact opposite of a typical tank (staying away from trouble) and utilizing an ability to shield other / share allies' pain, basically becoming an hp bank for the party.

[SinsI]

The answer to 1 and 3 is Grappling. It reduces amount of damage enemy can dish out while also preventing him from switching to attacking your allies. If you are a Crusader you can use some Strikes like Revitalizing Strike and Crusader's Strike with your light weapon while grappling to also heal you (if you are not pinned).

[Vhaidara]

The answer to 1 and 3 is Grappling. It reduces amount of damage enemy can dish out while also preventing him from switching to attacking your allies. If you are a Crusader you can use some Strikes like Revitalizing Strike and Crusader's Strike with your light weapon while grappling to also heal you (if you are not pinned).

And then the other guys just walk past and murder your friends.

I'm sorry, but Grappling has got to be the worst answer to this ever. It may work against single targets, but it fails on every other front, including what is probably the most important to new players: the cinematic angle. When I describe a tanky character, I'm generally going to go towards knights, heavy armor, sword and board, that kind of stuff.

When you start talking grappling, it all turns into wrestlers. Which is a SERIOUS disconnect

[Elricaltovilla]

One thing missing in the OP that the "Healing" problem only tangentially touches upon is the...

Focus Fire Problem: Say, despite all the reasons tanking can't work in D&D are somehow addressed, and you're doing your job! Everyone's attacking you, and you alone! ....Then the hard reality sets in. If the encounter is a fair difficulty or higher, no one person....not even the most defensively optimized tank (who somehow did this optimization w/o skimping on offense to the point that he's a winded turtle poking out of its shell with dulled teeth) can withstand the ensuing beat down. If one character can actually take everything all the enemies have to dish out for an extended period of time, it wasn't actually a challenging encounter for an entire party (another MMO disconnect; D&D assumes far less "encounters" between resting, generally, but they're much more genuinely dangerous and lethal).
The painful truth is, thanks to Critical Existence Failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure), dealing hp damage is meaningless until you kill someone. So the optimal way to inflict it is already....by picking one poor sap and unloading as much as you can on him/her. The classic depiction of the tank plays right into the optimal strategy of the enemy! You're actually better off trying to split damage as evenly amongst the party (proportionally...someone w/ 1.5x as much hp as the wizard can take 1.5x as much hp damage) as possible. This maximizes the amount of rounds you can bring your full force to bear upon the foe.

So tanking, on its very first principle, already fails at being viable in D&D.

I didn't put them as part of the original post I made about tanking styles, because I don't consider them to be tanking abilities (they don't draw aggro) are survival abilities. Things like Mirror Image, Miss Chance, DR, Energy Immunity, attack negation, etc.

Being a tank in D&D involves a lot more than just having more HP and AC. There are many different defenses that need to be covered, and you need active and passive ways of providing these defenses. Expecting a tank to stand there and soak all the damage isn't realistic. Ideally most of those attacks would still miss the tank.


Your best options are lockdown, where you're not actually taking notably greater damage (but are basically just a more limited, shorter ranged, more suicidal version of a battlefield control mage), or doing the exact opposite of a typical tank (staying away from trouble) and utilizing an ability to shield other / share allies' pain, basically becoming an hp bank for the party.

Lockdown would fall under BFC and Soft Tanking. And Shield other was already mentioned under Mitigation Tanking.:smallsmile:

[Vhaidara]

Elric, I'm the OP, not you. That was directed at my points :smalltongue:

[Elricaltovilla]

Elric, I'm the OP, not you. That was directed at my points :smalltongue:

My bad. Answer away.

[Vhaidara]

Oh, I acknowledge that that is something I missed. People go pop in this game way too fast.

[Hrugner]

Something like the unchained rogue seems to be a better tank than most heavy classes. The ability to drop AC and to hit by 8, focus completely on dex for better AC and more combat reflexes. Couple that with the monkey shine+mouser:swashbuckler trick and you have a monster hitting at -12, provoking if they try to move out of your square, providing you cover against all other enemies and giving you an additional +12 to hit them. All that while still being a squishy and delicious target. You won't last forever like that, but you should be able to last long enough for your casters to get things sorted.

The question is though, are there other easy, stackable, -to hit abilities with no save out there?

[Threadnaught]

It does kinda work, depending on what Classes are doing the Tanking.

A Crusader? Hell yeah, that thing can Tank all day, drawing aggro, mezzing enemies who attack allies and healing.
A Knight? They can Tank well enough by drawing aggro.
A Wizard? It's a Tier 1 Class.
A Cleric? It's a Tier 1 Class.
A Druid? It's a Tier 1 Class.
An Artificer? It's a Tier 1 Class.
An Archivist? It's a Tier 1 Class.
A Tier 1 Class? How does the power to break the game and the versatility to break it in every possible way, even make this a question?
A Fighter? Not a chance in Baator without a focused build.
A Monk? Hey, Monks are better at something than Fighters, even without a focused build they get a lot of nice bonuses that allow them to harass enemies and become a target, while having better durability than others. Take that, people who hate everything about Monk. :smalltongue:
Yes, I realize 'm a hypocrite for hating Fighter the same way. At least Monk gets Class Features.
Barbarian? It's better with an ACF or two, but otherwise it's mostly a missile.
Rogue? Yeah, this thing can Tank better than Fighter. Look at that Hit Die, now look at the Fighter Hit Die. Rogue is a better Tank than Fighter. :smallbiggrin:


And that is before we get into the actual builds for Tanking.

[SinsI]

And then the other guys just walk past and murder your friends.
The goal of Tank is to lock down the strongest enemy melee combatant (a.k.a. The Boss) that deals too much DPR to less protected party members and is too sturdy to be killed in one round.
If there are "other guys" they, by definition, are NOT The Boss and thus other party members should be able to handle them on their own.

[Elricaltovilla]

The goal of Tank is to lock down the strongest enemy melee combatant (a.k.a. The Boss) that deals too much DPR to less protected party members and is too sturdy to be killed in one round.
If there are "other guys" they, by definition, are NOT The Boss and thus other party members should be able to handle them on their own.

Yes and no. If you can tank more than one enemy you should. And grappling is just as bad for you as it is for the boss, the grappled (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Grappled) condition applies to anyone in a grapple and it makes you a nice easy target for those mooks you thought you could ignore.

[Karl Aegis]

And then the other guys just walk past and murder your friends.

The point of a guardian is to deal enough damage to guys getting past you that your friends can mop them up. I guess tanking is different than that. Less useful overall.

[Elricaltovilla]

The point of a guardian is to deal enough damage to guys getting past you that your friends can mop them up. I guess tanking is different than that. Less useful overall.

I think we could all do with settling some semantics here. Best I can tell, everyone has slightly different ideas about what "the guy what stops other guys you don't like from hurting the guys you do like" should be called, and also apparently how said guy goes about doing that.

So I'm curious, since I don't think you've mentioned the term before, what does a Guardian do? How is that different from what a Tank does?

To me, a Tank is (at it's most basic) "the guy what stops other guys you don't like from hurting the guys you do like." There's a lot of different ways to go about that, and some are more effective than others depending on the situation.

[eggynack]

The goal of Tank is to lock down the strongest enemy melee combatant (a.k.a. The Boss) that deals too much DPR to less protected party members and is too sturdy to be killed in one round.
If there are "other guys" they, by definition, are NOT The Boss and thus other party members should be able to handle them on their own.
A big issue with that plan, in addition to the already mentioned parity having nature of it, is that grapple defenses are plentiful, and a boss is most likely to have them. If the boss is a melee character, as you say, then they're likely high in strength, and while you're also likely high in strength, they also have a good shot at being bigger than you. If they're a monster, then they also likely have natural weapons, and might actually come out ahead in the exchange. If the most threatening target is a caster, then the array of perfect or nigh on perfect defenses is vast, and they thus stand a good chance at negating your strategy entirely. There are certainly situations where an enemy can be grappled to some degree of advantage, but at this point you're devoting build resources to a plan with only limited scope, and if you're not devoting build resources, then the chance of an opposing melee character just being better at grappling than you is high.

[frost890]

I want to start by saying find a pdf called power games guide to fighters. It willcover how to build a 3.5 bad@$$. It just covers things in the core books and does not add any new rules or mechanics. But it breaks down the different kinds of roles you can build for. I have played fighters/rangers/ barbarians that ran around acting like a rouge. You also need to look at items. A fighter can limit how they can approach with tanglefoot bags and other items. Light the room on fire with alchemist fire and ask the GM to roll will checks for them to cross it. Pelt them with arrows if they can't make it across and use quickdraw if they get through.

[Threadnaught]

The goal of Tank is to lock down the strongest enemy melee combatant (a.k.a. The Boss) that deals too much DPR to less protected party members and is too sturdy to be killed in one round.
If there are "other guys" they, by definition, are NOT The Boss and thus other party members should be able to handle them on their own.

The goal of a Tank is to redirect the majority of damage away from the squishier members of the party.

Whether that be by taking the damage or preventing the damage from happening is irrelevant. Either, or a combination of both, (in most cases) would be Tanking.

[Darkweave31]

Well drawing aggro is pretty easy with the right roleplay. Wear a pointy hat and yell gibberish while waving your hands frantically, that should get their attention.

[ryu]

Well drawing aggro is pretty easy with the right roleplay. Wear a pointy hat and yell gibberish while waving your hands frantically, that should get their attention.

Decent chance of working too if your enemy has no spellcraft. That is trained only right? Please tell me that's trained only. I don't actually know because I've never had a character without it.

[Karl Aegis]

Decent chance of working too if your enemy has no spellcraft. That is trained only right? Please tell me that's trained only. I don't actually know because I've never had a character without it.

It is trained only and every single commoner is assumed to have max ranks and possibly skill focus in it to identify when someone is terrorizing them with fireballs.

[Hiro Quester]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Knight (that's 3.5, and I don't know pathfinder to know how it translates). The Knight's Test of Mettle challenge solves the aggro problem, and so avoids the paradox, quite well, by forcing enemies that fail a will save to attack him.

In my current group we have a knight with off-the-charts AC (esp with extra buffs from my druid, and a potion of blur for miss chances, and a shield other from the party cleric). He issues this challenge, and everyone else (of CR greater than 2 less than his Character Level) who has failed a will save is forced to attack him.

I (buffed in wildshape) and my also buffed Animal Companion and (Augmented) Summoned Nature's Allies can then deal the damage, focussing on one target at a time, while the party ranger and sorcerer do the same from a safe distance. The party cleric self-heals her share of the damage the gets through the knight's defenses.

[True believer]

I have seen a lot of tanks in my campaigns and some of them were ridiculously OP , but in the end they had 50% chance to not get hit by the opposing main melee guy.

My opinion is that armor doesn't really works in DnD. There is always a guy that has allocate all of his focus in his attacks that gives him a fair chance to hit you back even if you have a big AC.

As i wizazrd the only protective spell i use is displacement. And the percentage of me not being hit by attacks matches the one of the tank guy almost any fight.

[Banjoman42]

Does anyone have any ideas to fix the problem that dealing hp damage doesn't weaken the enemy? I've tried a few rules, but usually they just hurt attack rolls (screwing martial characters more).

Honestly, you can't build a decent tank like you should be able to without major changes

I actually have a few feats I made that help a little bit in the department of defending allies, I'll see if I can find them.

[squiggit]

Does anyone have any ideas to fix the problem that dealing hp doesn't weaken the enemy? I've tried a few rules, but usually they just hurt attack rolls (screwing martial characters more).

Well that'd probably just make tanking harder, since it makes soaking riskier. So I'm not sure I'd call it a problem.

[Banjoman42]

Well that'd probably just make tanking harder, since it makes soaking riskier. So I'm not sure I'd call it a problem.
Meh. Not entirely concerned with tanking as much as buffing classes that can't throw out Save-or-dies. In my opinion though, it could make having a tank more necessary (if well designed) in that a squishy caster couldn't afford to take damage. Most likely, it would have thresholds (at half max HP, one third, etc.) for when certain effects take place, and since your allies might have lower max hp, the same amount of hp damage would mean more to them than you. Of course, this just makes the enemies want to hit you less.

[Karl Aegis]

Why would anyone want enemies to hit them? When has this become an acceptable mindset? If I recall correctly, being attacked is never a good thing and should be avoided.

[squiggit]

Why would anyone want enemies to hit them? When has this become an acceptable mindset? If I recall correctly, being attacked is never a good thing and should be avoided.

Because if you're getting attacked that means your ally with a half your AC and health isn't. Stopping an enemy from acting at all is preferable, but that's not really guaranteed... and when it isn't happening you'd rather not have them charge the guy they can one shot.

[ryu]

Honestly I'm of the opinion that the standard aggro systems in place in most MMOs are hilariously poor design built to serve fantasy archetypes that just weren't very well thought out. I mean really any plan that requires your enemy to attack exactly who you want them to attack without any sort of physical or mental impediments would be preemptively vetoed in any sane world. As would most other plans that require any sort of cooperation on the part of the enemy. A good plan should account for the enemy trying literally anything you know they're capable of plus more. It should also have backup plans, escape routes, fail safes, and all manner of other such things you'd rather have and not need than need and not have.

Incidentally that last point is what people who know what they're talking about mean when they praise humility. This is in stark contrast to simply admitting you could be wrong and then proceeding not to have such backups. That's just boasting modesty.

[Hrugner]

Does anyone have any ideas to fix the problem that dealing hp damage doesn't weaken the enemy? I've tried a few rules, but usually they just hurt attack rolls (screwing martial characters more).

Honestly, you can't build a decent tank like you should be able to without major changes

I actually have a few feats I made that help a little bit in the department of defending allies, I'll see if I can find them.

Try reducing natural armor and size advantage based on percentage of health remaining. So an ancient red dragon goes from AC 38 reach of 20 to an AC 23 with a reach of 10 at 50%.

[Banjoman42]

Try reducing natural armor and size advantage based on percentage of health remaining. So an ancient red dragon goes from AC 38 reach of 20 to an AC 23 with a reach of 10 at 50%.
See, that works fine with monsters, but it doesn't really help a person trying to play a tanky fighter actually be useful.
I think I'm going to take this to a different thread so I don't dera this one anymore.

[atemu1234]

Can we call the barbarian in the OP Ken instead of Bob?

[Curmudgeon]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Knight (that's 3.5, and I don't know pathfinder to know how it translates). The Knight's Test of Mettle challenge solves the aggro problem, and so avoids the paradox, quite well, by forcing enemies that fail a will save to attack him.
Are you sure Test of Mettle solves the problem? After all, they can just hit you (the Knight) with ranged area attacks which also affect your allies, and if any of your friends come into that affected enemy's threatened area they can ignore you and attack your friends in melee instead.

[Hiro Quester]

Are you sure Test of Mettle solves the problem? After all, they can just hit you (the Knight) with ranged area attacks which also affect your allies, and if any of your friends come into that affected enemy's threatened area they can ignore you and attack your friends in melee instead.

Yes, but it does at least have the aggro affect for those enemies built for melee damage, who attack the tank instead igpf the squishier party members. And single target ranged attacks are also directed at the Tank. The ones with AoE ranged attacks probably have the ability to beat the will save anyway.

Affected enemies only attack party members who move into squares they threaten, or who attack them. So if we other party members coordinate our attacks on one enemy at at time, often the others will attack the tank, who has the AC to only get hit on a natural 20 for some enemies, and who has a 20% miss chance even then.

[T.G. Oskar]

I like to look at tanking in a few different categories:

[snip]

3. Mitigation Tanking
This is where even if the enemy attacks someone else they're still attacking you. The Oradin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?257365-PF-Oradin-Mini-Guide-Or-How-to-be-a-Healbot-minus-the-bot), Vitalist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/vitalist), Knight Disciple Paladins, and anyone with Shield Other (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shield-other) can get in on this game. The idea is that instead of trying to control enemy actions, you are instead soaking their damage and protecting allies that way. Upside is that it's an easy control to have, it doesn't require much extra from you. The downsides are that sometimes you just can't pull together enough protection to save an ally, or worse, you take so much damage that you die and are then useless.

I...have an issue to call this "mitigation", since it means a lot more. I often call it "Damage Redirection" as it explains exactly what it means; mitigation covers a whole lot more. See: Iron Guard's Glare IS Mitigation, since it reduces the enemy's chances of hitting unless it hits you, thus it is mitigating the potential damage an ally can take and actually goad the enemy into attacking you. Shield Other, Share Pain, Forced Share Pain, Empathic Transfer and Hostile Empathic Transfer are examples of Damage Redirection, since it's purely mechanical - you are moving the damage from one side to the other. However, there's a clear distinction - you don't mitigate enemy damage via Forced Share Pain or Hostile Empathic Transfer. What happens if you can cast it on an ally? Well, the enemy suddenly realizes that attacking that ally is bad, because while it takes a good amount of damage, it gets equally hurt, and probably softened enough for a death-blow. You are not mitigating the damage at all, but the damage still moves back towards the opponent. Any kind of tanking or protective technique that enables in returning damage back to the opponent is a form of damage redirection, whether the damage that the ally takes is mitigated or not; it ONLY becomes Lockdown when the attack happens to disable the opponent (which, BTW, is what I feel IS Battlefield Control for "tanks").


Actually, shield other works to mitigate damage. It reduces the amount of damage enemies do to your allies and helps focus healing onto more efficient healers, that's the basis of the Oradin build I linked. This is the functional equivalent of Reducing Enemy Damage and Increasing Ally Defense. Shield Other was a small part of my section on mitigation tanking, and was highlighted because it's an iconic low level spell that epitomizes the idea of mitigation and is available to many different classes.

The Vitalist can redirect damage taken to other allies who have more HP, heal at a distance and apply Damage Reduction and Energy Resistance to allies, while also having access to powers that reduce enemy offense.

The Knight Disciple is a Paladin Archetype with multiple shield effects, the ability to negate status conditions on allies, and access to multiple powerful heals that can be used throughout the day. Reduces enemy damage, restores ally hit points, shields allies from damage, prevents status effects.

The main difference between your Defender goals and my mitigation tank is the level of granularity. To me there's little functional difference between reducing an enemy's damage by 5, providing an ally 5 temporary hit points, redirecting 5 damage to a different ally, granting an ally DR 5, or healing an ally 5 damage after an attack lands. They all serve the same purpose of mitigating (reducing) the effective damage dealt by the enemy. There may be times where one method is slightly more effective than another, but ultimately your ally's hit points will be 5 higher than they would have been otherwise. That's the essence of mitigation tanking.

Interesting way to pre-empt the answer, but...there's a difference WHEN you redirect 5 points of damage from an ally to an enemy, or when you take those 5 points, heal them, THEN send them back to the enemy. I.E. - what about Steely Resolve? The way Steely Resolve/Furious Counterstrike works is by seeking ways to take damage, in order to delay the damage taken and thus return that damage, in a way, through melee attacks, maneuvers or AoOs.

The idea behind mitigation is to reduce the damage taken, but damage redirection happens to overlap - once the damage from an ally moves from one side to the other, then it counts. The first example can be mitigation, damage redirection or buffing; the second IS buffing, no questions asked (and thus, falls into the idea of the Leader/buffer, not necessarily the tank); the third is the clearest example of damage redirection, while the last is essentially combat healing.

That...brings an interesting question. To what extent the roles of tank and healer overlap, so that they're really the same role? When a Cleric heals via Cure Light Wounds after an ally takes damage, does that count as mitigation, or as healing? That's the same idea I have behind damage redirection, since it overlaps with healing AND damage-dealing, even if it's otherwise non-existent beyond Psionics.


I've heard this argument from others on the board with regards to the PF paladin's smite evil.

You rang?


One thing missing in the OP that the "Healing" problem only tangentially touches upon is the...

Focus Fire Problem: Say, despite all the reasons tanking can't work in D&D are somehow addressed, and you're doing your job! Everyone's attacking you, and you alone! ....Then the hard reality sets in. If the encounter is a fair difficulty or higher, no one person....not even the most defensively optimized tank (who somehow did this optimization w/o skimping on offense to the point that he's a winded turtle poking out of its shell with dulled teeth) can withstand the ensuing beat down. If one character can actually take everything all the enemies have to dish out for an extended period of time, it wasn't actually a challenging encounter for an entire party (another MMO disconnect; D&D assumes far less "encounters" between resting, generally, but they're much more genuinely dangerous and lethal).
The painful truth is, thanks to Critical Existence Failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure), dealing hp damage is meaningless until you kill someone. So the optimal way to inflict it is already....by picking one poor sap and unloading as much as you can on him/her. The classic depiction of the tank plays right into the optimal strategy of the enemy! You're actually better off trying to split damage as evenly amongst the party (proportionally...someone w/ 1.5x as much hp as the wizard can take 1.5x as much hp damage) as possible. This maximizes the amount of rounds you can bring your full force to bear upon the foe.

So tanking, on its very first principle, already fails at being viable in D&D.

Your best options are lockdown, where you're not actually taking notably greater damage (but are basically just a more limited, shorter ranged, more suicidal version of a battlefield control mage), or doing the exact opposite of a typical tank (staying away from trouble) and utilizing an ability to shield other / share allies' pain, basically becoming an hp bank for the party.

In essence, Lockdown or Damage Redirection (both underlined). Or Mitigation, w/e; the idea is that it's either you prevent the enemy from dealing damage, or you become a HP reservoir, though the way Damage Redirection exists in D&D it's basically an afterthought that could be complimentary to Lockdown or damage-dealing (or healing, or Battlefield Control...)


I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Knight (that's 3.5, and I don't know pathfinder to know how it translates). The Knight's Test of Mettle challenge solves the aggro problem, and so avoids the paradox, quite well, by forcing enemies that fail a will save to attack him.

Or the Goad feat from Miniatures' Handbook/Complete Adventurer. The feat is worse than Test of Mettle, though.


Are you sure Test of Mettle solves the problem? After all, they can just hit you (the Knight) with ranged area attacks which also affect your allies, and if any of your friends come into that affected enemy's threatened area they can ignore you and attack your friends in melee instead.

I know there's an answer later, but it does imply something - a minor form of Lockdown, if you think. The idea is, if the enemy can hit with AoE attacks, then the very notion of a tank is pointless just because the character will rely on AoEs rather than singling out. If the AoEs are more limited, though, then they have to make the decision of attacking you directly or essentially do nothing. 3.5 is just too bland on going direct Aggro, so Goad and Test of Mettle are too weak because of the multiple obstacles behind the action.

[Karl Aegis]

Yes, but it does at least have the aggro affect for those enemies built for melee damage, who attack the tank instead igpf the squishier party members. And single target ranged attacks are also directed at the Tank. The ones with AoE ranged attacks probably have the ability to beat the will save anyway.

Affected enemies only attack party members who move into squares they threaten, or who attack them. So if we other party members coordinate our attacks on one enemy at at time, often the others will attack the tank, who has the AC to only get hit on a natural 20 for some enemies, and who has a 20% miss chance even then.

Most enemies that only hit on a natural 20 will be immune to test of mettle. Most enemies that you don't want attacking (at all) will be able to pass the will save. Test of Mettle does nothing unless enemies are specifically tailored to be vulnerable to test of mettle.

[Firechanter]

I just skimmed the thread, now to add a few lines about the OP. Basically it's all very well known and sound points. But you're not doing yourself a favour with these sample builds, they are just too loaded to be taken seriously.
Though I have to say, in my previous PF group we did have a Paladin player who was almost exactly like that (sans Combat Expertise). He tried to "tank" with sword and shield and Anatagonize, and that did not work at all.

In PF, a Paladin can make an excellent tank, as far as the game goes, simply by posing a threat you can't ignore combined with the ability to take insane amounts of damage. The mistake you make with your sample build is to optimize for AC.
(Also, "boss of the campaign, level 4"?)

Look at this level 4 Paladin instead:
Human, Str 19, MW Greatsword, Cha 14-16 (PB allowing)
Feats: Power Attack Fey Foundling, Greater Mercy

Attack +9, or +7 with Power Attack
Damage: 2d6+6, or 2d6+12 with Power Attack
plus Smite and/or Spell Buff when necessary
AC 21 (+1 Full Plate)

Lay On Hands: 4-5 times per day, 3d6+6 per use (Fey Foundling + Greater Mercy)
It's usable on self as Swift Action, so you can both hit your enemies AND heal yourself and not lose a thing!
That gives you a reserve HP pool of about 80 points per day. At level 4, that is damn near immortal; nothing any module will reasonably throw at you at that level will be able to do that amount of damage.

This very simple recipe does exactly what Tanking is supposed to do: leave your enemy with no good options. They can attack you and watch their damage disappear harmlessly. They can try to ignore you and eat a world of hurt from your Greatsword.

Of course, it's still not as good as a 3.5 Lockdown Crusader, but well.

[Vhaidara]

Fire, I meant the boss of the segment. Level 4 is actually quite reasonable (for example, the boss of Burnt Offerings, part 1 of Rise of the Runelords, is meant to be fought around level 4)

Also, notice the title of the thread: "Why It Doesn't Work the Way You Think". Most people, when they think of the Tank/Defender role, are going to instinctively invest in defenses. Heavy Armor, Shields, Combat Expertise, and the like, as opposed to damage output. The entire point of this is that DnD doesn't work like that

Also, like I said, the choice I made in those sample builds were not meant to be optimal. They were meant to simulate someone new to the game. I actually looked at some of my old 3.5 character sheets from when I first started playing. These are not really unrealistic for someone making one of their first couple of characters, especially if they're just doing it solo.

[Threadnaught]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Knight

Excuse me?

Knight was the second Class in my list, after Crusader and before any Tier 1s.

What did I write about it? Really good at drawing aggro.


You'll probably ignore this post as well though. :smallfrown:

[Elricaltovilla]

I...have an issue to call this "mitigation", since it means a lot more. I often call it "Damage Redirection" as it explains exactly what it means; mitigation covers a whole lot more. See: Iron Guard's Glare IS Mitigation, since it reduces the enemy's chances of hitting unless it hits you, thus it is mitigating the potential damage an ally can take and actually goad the enemy into attacking you. Shield Other, Share Pain, Forced Share Pain, Empathic Transfer and Hostile Empathic Transfer are examples of Damage Redirection, since it's purely mechanical - you are moving the damage from one side to the other. However, there's a clear distinction - you don't mitigate enemy damage via Forced Share Pain or Hostile Empathic Transfer. What happens if you can cast it on an ally? Well, the enemy suddenly realizes that attacking that ally is bad, because while it takes a good amount of damage, it gets equally hurt, and probably softened enough for a death-blow. You are not mitigating the damage at all, but the damage still moves back towards the opponent. Any kind of tanking or protective technique that enables in returning damage back to the opponent is a form of damage redirection, whether the damage that the ally takes is mitigated or not; it ONLY becomes Lockdown when the attack happens to disable the opponent (which, BTW, is what I feel IS Battlefield Control for "tanks").

We're back to shakespeare's rose. My mitigation list isn't complete, nor does every ability fall neatly into one category. I already answered why I refer to it as mitigation, which you noted below.


Interesting way to pre-empt the answer, but...there's a difference WHEN you redirect 5 points of damage from an ally to an enemy, or when you take those 5 points, heal them, THEN send them back to the enemy. I.E. - what about Steely Resolve? The way Steely Resolve/Furious Counterstrike works is by seeking ways to take damage, in order to delay the damage taken and thus return that damage, in a way, through melee attacks, maneuvers or AoOs.

The idea behind mitigation is to reduce the damage taken, but damage redirection happens to overlap - once the damage from an ally moves from one side to the other, then it counts. The first example can be mitigation, damage redirection or buffing; the second IS buffing, no questions asked (and thus, falls into the idea of the Leader/buffer, not necessarily the tank); the third is the clearest example of damage redirection, while the last is essentially combat healing.

That...brings an interesting question. To what extent the roles of tank and healer overlap, so that they're really the same role? When a Cleric heals via Cure Light Wounds after an ally takes damage, does that count as mitigation, or as healing? That's the same idea I have behind damage redirection, since it overlaps with healing AND damage-dealing, even if it's otherwise non-existent beyond Psionics.

Damage Redirection would be something I'd consider a subset of Damage Mitigation. Since damage has to be dealt for it to be redirected, and the end result is still that your ally has more hit points than it would have had otherwise, the damage the enemy deals is mitigated by your ability.

Again, I'm only really concerned with the end result. Specifically that your ally has more hit points, etc. at the end of the round than they would have had without your abilities.

I agree that there's overlap between healing and tanking. From the perspective of the topic of the thread, and from my own way of categorizing things, in combat healing is a form of Mitigation Tanking. This is especially true, I think, for maneuvers of the Devoted Spirit and Silver Crane disciplines (depending on whether you play PF or 3.5) and certain styles of Vitalist.


You rang?

Yes, I used your argument as an example of semantics. But this isn't the place to bring that up. I actually agree with your conclusion, my disagreement is with your utilization of the conclusion you reach.


In essence, Lockdown or Damage Redirection (both underlined). Or Mitigation, w/e; the idea is that it's either you prevent the enemy from dealing damage, or you become a HP reservoir, though the way Damage Redirection exists in D&D it's basically an afterthought that could be complimentary to Lockdown or damage-dealing (or healing, or Battlefield Control...)


Maybe I didn't properly express this, but I'd never advocate focusing solely on one kind of tanking style. You need multiple tools in your arsenal and to pick the best one depending on the situation

[Hiro Quester]

Excuse me?

Knight was the second Class in my list, after Crusader and before any Tier 1s.

What did I write about it? Really good at drawing aggro.


You'll probably ignore this post as well though. :smallfrown:

Apologies. I did see your post, but didn't notice Knight, there. I guess I was distracted by the other classes on the list.

[Yahzi]

Because it's not supposed to work.

The power of magic was supposed to be balanced by the lack of survivablity of magic users. The Fighter has AC to keep himself alive, not to keep some squish alive. Those HPs are his class feature, not a resource for some poncy wizard to utilize!

Wizards are over-powered enough as it is. If you let them ignore defenses they are only going to be worse. On the other hand, you know that as a DM you are doing it right when the wizard is afraid to cast a spell because it will reveal him as the caster and thus get him insta-gibbed. Wizards are supposed to be circumspect. They are not supposed to stand on hill throwing fireballs like a god. If you don't want tot play a character who risks his life every time he acts, don't play a wizard.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Because it's not supposed to work.

The power of magic was supposed to be balanced by the lack of survivablity of magic users. The Fighter has AC to keep himself alive, not to keep some squish alive. Those HPs are his class feature, not a resource for some poncy wizard to utilize!

Wizards are over-powered enough as it is. If you let them ignore defenses they are only going to be worse. On the other hand, you know that as a DM you are doing it right when the wizard is afraid to cast a spell because it will reveal him as the caster and thus get him insta-gibbed. Wizards are supposed to be circumspect. They are not supposed to stand on hill throwing fireballs like a god. If you don't want tot play a character who risks his life every time he acts, don't play a wizard.

Are you sure you're playing 3.5 D&D? Because wizards (and casters in general) are by far the least squishy classes. That dubious honor falls on the rogue.
Even fighters are generally squishier because they lack the innate ability to toughen themselves up with magic and need to buy items for that.

The basic divine casters get better saves and only marginally less base HP without any tricks, so i can't really see where that balancing squishyness is supposed to come from.

[Elricaltovilla]

Because it's not supposed to work.

The power of magic was supposed to be balanced by the lack of survivablity of magic users. The Fighter has AC to keep himself alive, not to keep some squish alive. Those HPs are his class feature, not a resource for some poncy wizard to utilize!

Wizards are over-powered enough as it is. If you let them ignore defenses they are only going to be worse. On the other hand, you know that as a DM you are doing it right when the wizard is afraid to cast a spell because it will reveal him as the caster and thus get him insta-gibbed. Wizards are supposed to be circumspect. They are not supposed to stand on hill throwing fireballs like a god. If you don't want tot play a character who risks his life every time he acts, don't play a wizard.

How things are supposed to work, and how they actually work are very different. The game is supposed to work by having a sword and board fighter, a blaster wizard, a healer cleric and a rogue who invests in things like "Skill Focus." But those particular builds are almost always incredibly subpar. Instead, the most efficient use of resources is to have something like an Ubercharger or Chain Tripper fighter, A God Wizard to lay down the BFC and Buffs, a CODzilla and to swap the rogue out for literally anything else (except a monk).

Wizards spells are so useful, and so potent that they can shape the way the game is played. That's why the 15 minute adventuring day happens. Because going forward without the wizard or the cleric is suicide. The ability to reshape reality is too potent for anyone with a survival instinct to do without.

So it's better to reshape your role to fit the party in question and play to the strengths you can leverage, instead of the ones you're supposed to leverage, that often make your character worse rather than better.

Moreover, the bodyguard is a perfectly viable roleplay archetype that many people want to fulfill. The ability to mechanically fulfill that role deserves as much attention as any other, and focusing on tanking abilities is a good way for someone who wants to play a bodyguard to do so and be effective in the game without relying on the DM being nice enough to you to let you fulfill that role.

[Red Fel]

I think a good point was made - and somewhat glossed over - on the subject of semantics and the definition of a tank. When discussing the definition of tanking, and the role of a tank, this comment came up:


The goal of a Tank is to redirect the majority of damage away from the squishier members of the party.

Whether that be by taking the damage or preventing the damage from happening is irrelevant. Either, or a combination of both, (in most cases) would be Tanking.

I want to take a moment to focus on it, because it makes two points, although not necessarily intentionally.

First: This is a nontraditional definition of a tank. Let me explain: The traditional view of the tank, at least in the MMO sense, is one who prevents the damage primarily by receiving it to the face. I happen to think that this view, as I describe it, is both profoundly stupid mechanically, and an absurd life choice for the tank in question; I'm a bigger fan of the definition posed by Threadnaught, which broadens tanking up to include methods that do not require a profound degree of masochism.

Second: By this definition of a tank, casters make better tanks than non-casters. Now, to say that a caster, particularly a primary or Tier 1-2 caster, can do anything better than anyone else is simply a truism. But the fact is that when it comes to preventing damage to a target, you have three options. In order of priority, they are: Make the attacker dead, thus preventing him from dealing damage. Lock the attacker down, thus preventing him from dealing damage. Tank with your face, thus preventing the attacker from dealing damage to the intended target.Casters can do all of these better than non-casters, full stop. Save or die spells? That's tanking. Save or suck spells? Also tanking. Grease? Tanking. Benign Transposition? Tanking.

So, if we define tanking as simply face-tanking or pulling aggro, it is a broken system, difficult to accomplish, and one which casters can do somewhat better than non-casters. If we define it as doing what is necessary to prevent damage to the attacker's intended target, the definition becomes much broader and there is much more we can do to build a tank... but casters become even more effective at it than non-tanks, and at a broader range of levels.

The question is this: Which makes for the better definition?

EDIT: Alternatively, what if we used a modification of that definition? Say, a tank is a non-caster (or non-primary caster) whose goal is to reduce damage to the squishies by means other than direct damage? This distinguishes the tank from casters, as well as from nuke-melees like the Ubercharger.

[Firechanter]

Fire, I meant the boss of the segment. Level 4 is actually quite reasonable (for example, the boss of Burnt Offerings, part 1 of Rise of the Runelords, is meant to be fought around level 4)

Also, notice the title of the thread: "Why It Doesn't Work the Way You Think". Most people, when they think of the Tank/Defender role, are going to instinctively invest in defenses. Heavy Armor, Shields, Combat Expertise, and the like, as opposed to damage output. The entire point of this is that DnD doesn't work like that

Ah right. Yeah I missed that bit -- but of course you are perfectly right in that; might call it The Tanking Fallacy or something.

Talking about the definition of Tanking, I think it is best summed up by: the ability to prevent enemies from hurting your vulnerable allies. In my opinion, that's the long and short of it. Whether you do it by eating their damage, or by hurting them so hard they can't even think about attacking someone else, or by nailing their feet to the ground, or whatever other means available, doesn't matter at all. The irony is just that the archetype most commonly associated with a Tank -- dude in heavy armour that's very difficult to hurt -- is arguably the worst kind of tank in 3/PF.

[Deadline]

I'm not Pathfinder expert, so maybe there are more viable tanking options there, but there are very few viable options in D&D 3.5. Some of these have been mentioned already, but I'll put in my list of known tanking options:

1. Be a Tier 1 caster. There are tons of options available to make your allies harder to hit, deny the enemy access to them, mitigate damage, and make yourself a ridiculously hard target, all while retaining the capability to drop serious harm. The only thing they are kind of missing is that short of mind control, they don't have any real way of forcing attacks on themselves. They do that by making themselves a priority target due to damage output or battlefield hindrance.

2. Be a class with a Tanking mechanic. This is pretty much limited to Crusader and Knight (the latter of which isn't very good at it). There is a 3.0 prestige class called "Devoted Defender" that can kind of do this for a single ally.

3. Feat support. There are ... two feats that mimic the Devoted Defender prestige class. They're located in a drow book, either Underdark, or Drow of the Underdark. And the Goad feat from Complete Adventurer sort of mimics the Knight's tanking mechanic. And there's also the option of using Martial Study and Martial Stance to pick up Crusader maneuvers.

Does Pathfinder add a bunch of new options?

[Vhaidara]

In first party, not really. But third party adds in DSP's Warder and Zealot, both of which do good work.

Also, remember, the discussion here isn't how to tank. Its about the fact that the traditional image of a tank (heavy armor sword and board) is generally one of the least effective ways to do it.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Then there's the idea of the guy in heavy armor whatnot that just really doesn't want to get hit.

[Deadline]

Also, remember, the discussion here isn't how to tank. Its about the fact that the traditional image of a tank (heavy armor sword and board) is generally one of the least effective ways to do it.

True, but both Crusader and Knight are the typical ways to put that exact concept (sword and board tank) into play and have it work ok.

[Karl Aegis]

In first party, not really. But third party adds in DSP's Warder and Zealot, both of which do good work.

Also, remember, the discussion here isn't how to tank. Its about the fact that the traditional image of a tank (heavy armor sword and board) is generally one of the least effective ways to do it.

Since you mentioned MMOs, I have to ask, which MMOs have this guy as the traditional image of a "tank"? This guy seems to be some sort of outlier that I have rarely seen in my MMO experience.

[Elricaltovilla]

Since you mentioned MMOs, I have to ask, which MMOs have this guy as the traditional image of a "tank"? This guy seems to be some sort of outlier that I have rarely seen in my MMO experience.

World (http://wowwiki.wikia.com/Warrior) Of (http://wowwiki.wikia.com/Death_Knight) Warcraft (http://wowwiki.wikia.com/Paladin), Wild (http://wildstaronline.wikia.com/wiki/Warrior)Star (http://wildstaronline.wikia.com/wiki/Engineer), Star Wars: (http://swtor.wikia.com/wiki/Trooper) The Old (http://swtor.wikia.com/wiki/Sith_Warrior) Republic (http://swtor.wikia.com/wiki/Bounty_Hunter). I can keep going if you like.

[Vhaidara]

Sword and board? Just to name the ones I've played (WoW and FFXIV), WoW has Protection Warrior and Paladin, while FF has Paladin.

Wow's other tanks are guardian druid (raw HP soak), brewmaster monk (dodge tank, plus a steely resolve kind of mechanic), and blood death knight (life steal tank). FF's other tank is Warrior, which is also an HP soak, mixed with life steal.

[squiggit]

I'm sort of wondering which MMO Karl is referring to.

Since the only MMOs off the top of my head that don't have heavily armored tanks are MMOs that don't have tanks at all.. but even those often have sword and board/heavily armored/defensive options.

[Seerow]

I'm sort of wondering which MMO Karl is referring to.

Since the only MMOs off the top of my head that don't have heavily armored tanks are MMOs that don't have tanks at all.. but even those often have sword and board/heavily armored/defensive options.

He could be making the argument that not all MMO tanks are required to be heavily armored, which is true. Just looking at WoW 2 of the 5 tanks wear leather, and 3 of them don't use shields. While I would argue that Warrior/Paladin are the iconic tanks (both in the game and the genre), MMO Tanks are not limited to that image by any means.



By the way Oskar, if you're still keeping up with this thread, I had an idea for a new Paladin class mechanic, I was wondering if you would mind me running it by you in PM.

[RolkFlameraven]

Well there ARE tanks in MMO's that don't sword and board, but use a BFS/BFG though those are normally more of an off-tank then a tank-tank.

I would like to say that it IS possible to play the normal roles, and it works quite well, but at lower levels of OP from both players and DMs. The better you get at the game the less likely those kinds will work as they do in a MMO, though DSP does help in making a Tank like you normally think of one with the Warder.

I'm tanking it up in my game as a Warder right now, but I'm also the healer and one of two primary DPR. This has much more to do with the level of my table then anything else.

[Troacctid]

League of Legends uses the term to refer to characters with strong defenses. "Peeling," the ability to keep the enemy away from your squishy teammates, is considered something that tanks do, not something tanks are--non-tanks can do it too, typically via lockdown or knockback. "Tanking" is also used as a verb to describe the act of taking attacks and trusting in your defenses to protect you.

[ekarney]

Also, remember, the discussion here isn't how to tank. Its about the fact that the traditional image of a tank (heavy armor sword and board) is generally one of the least effective ways to do it.

I'm going to have to disagree here on the grounds that the definition of tanking, and the concept of the 4 person party has been misused.

See, most people view the traditional four person party as a one team of four. Comprised of a defender, striker, BFC and support. Whereas, it is in fact, four teams of two, yes I know what I said there and I still am referring to four people. The teams are as follows:
Team 1: Striker and Defender, their job is to work together to protect their squishies.
Team 2: BFC and support, who's job is to stay out of harms way so they can literally, work their magic.
Team 3: BFC and Striker. The BFC acts as overwatch for the Striker, who in turn helps herd enemies into position for AOE's from the BFC.
Team 4: Defender and Support. Depending on whether support is a cleric or a rogue, they serve different functions, but generally between the two of them, they like to fill situational roles that pop up and tend to be more generalized than the specialized team 3.

Now, into the breakdown of the roles and as to why tanks are relevant.
Team 1 is in fact, the "tank" of the party not just the defender.
The Defender: This specific role is usually filled by a paladin, or dwarven defender, or a knight. This character is supposed to be self sufficient on the battlefield, he can usually heal or buff himself and has a nice AC to keep him soft and cozy. Aside from that, he's also required to have a decent reach and outside of Dungeon situations, patrol a 10' x 40' rectangle (Scale dimensions to an appropriate looking area in front of the casters). He follows this up by tripping, grappling, flinging the occasional spell, or flask of alchemists fire and generally being as annoying as humanly possible! He should have a swim speed of at least 20' so that he can move through that pile of enemies trying to jump on him. :P

The Striker: Generally, this role is filled by a Barbarian (Optimally, a thrown build), some sort of mounted halfling or goblin, maybe even a mounted dwarf. Either way your job is to remain mobile and circle the battlefield like a hungry, vulture. You want to be able to access as much of the battlefield as possible, using a combination of charging, thrown weapons and masculinity you'll want to bring pain, suffering and fear to everything in sight. You want the enemy to try and steer clear of you, and see the defender as the easier target, since he's not moving much and isn't dealing much damage, as opposed to the guy who just ran up behind you and threw sixteen javelins in the back of your head when you tried to attack his wizard friend. Hulking Hurlers are great at this, because wit the right feats, they can throw people. He also helps take the heat off the tank, and helps group enemies together for wizard artillery.


Those two roles COMBINED creates the tank, the defender is the chassis and body armour, the striker is the turret loaded with 120mm rounds and the mounted machine gun. It's just that in D&D these are two independent parts. as opposed to one vehicle.


Here we have 4 adventurers, Sir Thombas the Paladin/Defender. Gurgag the Barbarian/Striker. Pastor Johnson the Cleric/Support and Archmage Elthuridan the Wizard/BFC (And blaster, multitasking helps)

They're in an open field, with the Cleric and Wizard standing on some crates on the Northern side for vision, the Barbarian and Paladin are to the south of them, awaiting the goblin horde, that includes archers, casters and warriors.

Upon seeing the horde, Sir Thombas rushes forward, tripping everything within reach, his armour protecting him against the goblin warriors and archers, however, he's suffering from the casters, who are out of range for Elthuridan and Johnson, however Gurgag with his 45' speed, quickly gets behind the casters, the casters being terrified of a Barbarian move forward into range of Elthuridan who hits them with sleeps, fogs and fireballs. Johnson, being a Cleric and part of team 3, steps in as situational support to help protect Elthuridan, meanwhile, the goblins have figured out, that Gurgag is a bad target, due to his fondness for throwing spears and eating spines, he's beeing siphoning goblins away from Team 2, and onto Sir Thombas, whos happy as larry, and snug as a bug in his armour. From there, Johnson can buff and help heal Thombas, whilst Elthuridan incapacitates and debuffs the goblins, and Gurgag is acting as a stern warning to any Goblins that get too close to Team 2, whilst he himself deals enough damage to make the goblins stay away. Even if the Goblins prioritize Gurgag as a higher target than Thombas, his speed and mobility mean he can evade them, and lead them into whatever nasty surprises the party deems necessary all while, peppering them throwing axes and spears.

[Elricaltovilla]

Anybody else notice how everyone seems to be describing very similar characters and playstyles but in slightly different ways?

[Red Fel]

Those two roles COMBINED creates the tank, the defender is the chassis and body armour, the striker is the turret loaded with 120mm rounds and the mounted machine gun. It's just that in D&D these are two independent parts. as opposed to one vehicle.

I have never heard the Tank referred to in that way. You're describing him as a sort of physical paragon; high defenses and high offenses. In my experience, the term "Tank" refers to the former, but at the expense of the latter, not in addition to it, which is part of what makes the traditional model so ineffectual.

Not that I disagree with you. A heavily armored beatstick is a highly effective tank; dangerous enough to keep the enemy's attention but tough enough to withstand it. The problem is that, at high enough levels of offense, the defensive ability becomes negligible.

Or, to put it differently, if you end the fight with one punch, what difference does it make how much armor you're wearing?

Again, that doesn't mean the high-offense model is a bad tank. If we define tank as "preventing damage to the intended target," killing the attacker prevents damage. It's the ultimate preventive measure. Your enemy can't (generally) hurt his target when it requires an electron microscope to locate what's left of him.

But I think you're starting from a rather unusual or uncommon perspective; it's not one with which I'm familiar.


Anybody else notice how everyone seems to be describing very similar characters and playstyles but in slightly different ways?

Hence why we really, really need to come up with our common definition of "tank" before this conversation can proceed substantially beyond the current cycle.

[Elricaltovilla]

Hence why we really, really need to come up with our common definition of "tank" before this conversation can proceed substantially beyond the current cycle.

I offered one but I don't think anyone took it seriously: "Guy what keeps guys you don't like from hurting guys you do like."

[Segev]

The Tome of Battle in 3.5, and (believe it or not) 4e D&D actually had good approaches to designing "tanks." They worked by giving the "tanking" PC abilities which punished enemies for attacking anybody other than the tank. Whether it was a maneuver that let you get a free attack on anybody who struck one of your allies (but not if they hit you), or a power that let you give your allies boosts to AC while you took a penalty, or the ability to deal extra damage to your chosen foe if he attacks anybody but you... these things make the tank scarier.

In designing MMO agro, I would honestly want to design tanks around these philosophies, because they work in PvP and PvE as well as in PnP. Why do you beat on the tank? Because if you don't, he beats on you even harder than the squishy guy. Add in abilities to control the battlefield, yourself (chain trippers are almost iconic for this), and you can ensure that not only are you the more attractive target, but you're the only one available until they deal with you. Even an ability to give temporary hit points to your allies, possibly on a round-by-round basis, would not be remiss. Now you're literally ablating some of the enemies' damage potential before they can even start to hurt your allies.

That is, of course, for traditional tanks. The broader definition allows for any number of mitigating strategies. Wizards use misdirection and befuddlement as much as anything else to reduce the foes' damage output. Druids might have mass Vigor spells up to keep the party recovering hp in an effort to reduce overall damage done per round. But the traditional tank CAN work with the right design.

[Red Fel]

I offered one but I don't think anyone took it seriously: "Guy what keeps guys you don't like from hurting guys you do like."

One, it sounds more like Buffy-speak or something you'd hear on the Sopranos. Two, the problem is that a definition that is too permissive - such as that one - basically cedes the entire category to the casters.

By including that clause, but narrowing the overall definition, we can achieve a fair method that excludes casters. For instance, my suggestion was "A non-caster (or non-primary caster) who, through means other than solely direct damage, prevents harm to his allies." That excludes the Tier 1 casters and the damage-spiking non-casters, and focuses the definition on non-casters who use various methods, including face-tanking, creating miss-chances, lock-downs via trips and other controls, various BFC tricks, and grappling, among others.

I happen to like it. It adequately describes a dedicated combat role. But until we have a consensus on the definition, I don't see the conversation going past "Well, here's what I think it means."

[Elricaltovilla]

One, it sounds more like Buffy-speak or something you'd hear on the Sopranos. Two, the problem is that a definition that is too permissive - such as that one - basically cedes the entire category to the casters.

By including that clause, but narrowing the overall definition, we can achieve a fair method that excludes casters. For instance, my suggestion was "A non-caster (or non-primary caster) who, through means other than solely direct damage, prevents harm to his allies." That excludes the Tier 1 casters and the damage-spiking non-casters, and focuses the definition on non-casters who use various methods, including face-tanking, creating miss-chances, lock-downs via trips and other controls, various BFC tricks, and grappling, among others.

I happen to like it. It adequately describes a dedicated combat role. But until we have a consensus on the definition, I don't see the conversation going past "Well, here's what I think it means."

Anything in existence is automatically ceded to casters because they're the only ones with enough variety of abilities to do anything. Trying to exclude casters from the mix is poor form because then you also have to define what casters are, and you still have to contend with the "role" being useless in comparison to what a caster does. I don't think that a class should be excluded from fulfilling a roles simply because it uses a vancian or other magic system to perform the role. As long as said class can fill the role, it's a legitimate choice for a character build focusing on said role.

[OldTrees1]

Two, the problem is that a definition that is too permissive - such as that one - basically cedes the entire category to the casters.

The ceding the category to the casters (if it does so) is more a fault of 3.5 than of Elricaltovilla's definition.

In literature the Knight in Shining Armor was able to
1) Boost the defenses of their charge
2) Block weapons(including ranged)/breath weapons/AoEs with their body/shield
3) and some other stuff that D&D does have viable mechanics for


That reminds me, in literature the "Tank" is usually much more concerned with the defenses of their charges than their own.

[Red Fel]

Anything in existence is automatically ceded to casters because they're the only ones with enough variety of abilities to do anything. Trying to exclude casters from the mix is poor form because then you also have to define what casters are, and you still have to contend with the "role" being useless in comparison to what a caster does. I don't think that a class should be excluded from fulfilling a roles simply because it uses a vancian or other magic system to perform the role. As long as said class can fill the role, it's a legitimate choice for a character build focusing on said role.

If we defined the role broadly, you'd be correct. Generally, I agree with everything you've said - casters do everything better, and as long as they can do X effectively and it helps the party, we can let them do X.

The thing is, when most people describe a "tank," they generally aren't describing the Druid turned into a bear, or the Wizard who turns the ground into quicksand and laughs as arrows fall harmlessly away from a barrier made out of air. They're talking about some kind of beefy dude, usually in armor, frequently with a shield, commonly seen in the company of scars and dedication. I'm not excluding casters from the definition in order to be spiteful; I'm excluding casters from the definition because casters generally aren't seen as tanks, despite the fact that they have the ability to fill the role. So I create a definition that describes that perception.

Let's face it, if someone comes into the forums and says, "Please help me build a tank," the common advice of "Build a Wizard/Cleric/Druid" might be technically accurate, but it's also utterly unhelpful, generally speaking. People using the term don't generally want a caster, so let's exclude casters from the term. That's all.

[Elricaltovilla]

The ceding the category to the casters (if it does so) is more a fault of 3.5 than of Elricaltovilla's definition.

In literature the Knight in Shining Armor was able to
1) Boost the defenses of their charge
2) Block weapons(including ranged)/breath weapons/AoEs with their body/shield
3) and some other stuff that D&D does have viable mechanics for


That reminds me, in literature the "Tank" is usually much more concerned with the defenses of their charges than their own.

Thanks for the support, unfortunately, now I have to disagree with you again.:smalltongue:

In the literature I've read, the K.S.A. didn't boost allies defenses, he used his much higher defenses to take the place of allies. There wasn't any buffing going on, the Knight just ran in front of the attack and deflected it. While he was more concerned with keeping others alive, he did it by 1) being way tougher to hurt than his friends and 2) Being the one who got hit instead of his friends.

[OldTrees1]

If we defined the role broadly, you'd be correct. Generally, I agree with everything you've said - casters do everything better, and as long as they can do X effectively and it helps the party, we can let them do X.

The thing is, when most people describe a "tank," they generally aren't describing the Druid turned into a bear, or the Wizard who turns the ground into quicksand and laughs as arrows fall harmlessly away from a barrier made out of air. They're talking about some kind of beefy dude, usually in armor, frequently with a shield, commonly seen in the company of scars and dedication. I'm not excluding casters from the definition in order to be spiteful; I'm excluding casters from the definition because casters generally aren't seen as tanks, despite the fact that they have the ability to fill the role. So I create a definition that describes that perception.

Let's face it, if someone comes into the forums and says, "Please help me build a tank," the common advice of "Build a Wizard/Cleric/Druid" might be technically accurate, but it's also utterly unhelpful, generally speaking. People using the term don't generally want a caster, so let's exclude casters from the term. That's all.

You appear confused. You are talking about 3+ different things
1) The definition of "Tank"
2) The mechanics WotC put in the game that fit the definition of "Tank"
3) The proper etiquette for replying to "Help me build a ___" threads.

#1 does not depend on #2 or #3. Nor is #3 defined solely by #2.

[Segev]

Thanks for the support, unfortunately, now I have to disagree with you again.:smalltongue:

In the literature I've read, the K.S.A. didn't boost allies defenses, he used his much higher defenses to take the place of allies. There wasn't any buffing going on, the Knight just ran in front of the attack and deflected it. While he was more concerned with keeping others alive, he did it by 1) being way tougher to hurt than his friends and 2) Being the one who got hit instead of his friends.To be fair, "I substitute my AC and hp for yours" could be modeled as a buff on allies in a game mechanical sense. It isn't my favorite way to model the action in question, but it is one way to do it.


Toying with the idea that hp are not purely "how much damage you can take," but are, instead, representing your luck, stamina, and ability to turn potentially-fatal blows into glancing wounds and light scratches and near misses, a tank class which substituted their AC and hp for their ward's could have an interesting rule that, even if the blow exhausts the tank's hp, it doesn't send him into negatives. Instead, overage applies to the target, as the tank's ability to intercede is exhausted.

[Elricaltovilla]

Toying with the idea that hp are not purely "how much damage you can take," but are, instead, representing your luck, stamina, and ability to turn potentially-fatal blows into glancing wounds and light scratches and near misses, a tank class which substituted their AC and hp for their ward's could have an interesting rule that, even if the blow exhausts the tank's hp, it doesn't send him into negatives. Instead, overage applies to the target, as the tank's ability to intercede is exhausted.

I could see something like that working. It'd be an interesting idea.

[OldTrees1]

Thanks for the support, unfortunately, now I have to disagree with you again.:smalltongue:

In the literature I've read, the K.S.A. didn't boost allies defenses, he used his much higher defenses to take the place of allies. There wasn't any buffing going on, the Knight just ran in front of the attack and deflected it. While he was more concerned with keeping others alive, he did it by 1) being way tougher to hurt than his friends and 2) Being the one who got hit instead of his friends.

I don't see the disagreement. Your anecdote is a subset of tanks in literature and yet it demonstrates boosting defenses(deflecting attacks aimed at the charge with the knight's shield is like the Knight's shield bonus applied to the charge's AC or maybe it is a Parry check) and imposition("the one who got hit instead of his friends"). His enemies had 2 options. Either attack the Knight, or attack the Charge. If they attacked the Charge they would either miss due to the Knight's interference or they would hit the Knight instead. The problem with 3.5 is that it lacks enough viable mechanics for the first(boosted defenses).

Edit:
As a side note. I am currently playtesting one of my PCs having a feat that grants their Shield bonus to all allies within 10ft. So far it seems to be working and balanced.

[lsfreak]

I think we're running into a little bit of a problem comparing MMO tanks in that there's armor and there's armor. There's armor, as in what class/material the armor they're wearing belongs to, and there's armor, the in-game statistic representing one part of mitigation alongside dodge, parry, and other stats. In WoW for example, monks and druids lack plate armor (they both wear leather), but all five tanks have the latter (monks and druids get large passive bonuses to their armor when they're specced for tanking). There is such a thing as dodge-tanking in some MMOs, where I believe you genuinely do lack armor of the second kind and simply have so much dodge you actually can't be hit, but not in WoW (though as a gimmick rogues could pull it off against a few bosses in the past).

I'll also throw my weight behind traditional tanking not being high-damage. High-dps tanks are rare exceptions, not something I'd include in the definition of a "tank" as it's used in any game I play except maybe D&D.

EDIT: It appears the thread moved quickly away from where I would have been relevant in the 45 minutes since I opened this tab. Oh well.

[Seerow]

On the subject of boosting allies defenses, there is the one feat that lets you share your dodge bonus to AC from fighting defensively (and maybe combat expertise?) with adjacent allies. I made a built once that utilized that and boosting fighting defensively, basically jumping his ally's AC by 7 or 8 points by mid levels. Not really the most effective tactic, but building stuff like that into the system available at a lower level or with less resource investment could be pretty neat.

[Red Fel]

You appear confused.

I'm not, and I don't appreciate that suggestion.


You are talking about 3+ different things
1) The definition of "Tank"
2) The mechanics WotC put in the game that fit the definition of "Tank"
3) The proper etiquette for replying to "Help me build a ___" threads.

That's fair, because I am talking about these three things.


#1 does not depend on #2 or #3. Nor is #3 defined solely by #2.

#1 does not depend upon #2 or #3. However, it does depend upon how the word is presently treated.

To put it differently, if I presented the word smeerp as a subject of conversation, we would need to reach consensus as to what it means. One way to do so would be to observe how smeerp had previously been used, and create a definition that encompasses such usage.

Thus, while #1 does not depend upon #3, #3 is a reasonable indicator of what people perceive #1 to be; that is, when someone says "Help me build a tank" and they mean tank to include X, that tells us what people believe the definition of tank to include.

As to #2, I'm using mechanics to illustrate the fact while there are many ways to perform the act of tanking, as defined as "preventing allies from taking a hit," there are only so many ways that do so within the framework of a beefstick. The fact is, if we choose to ignore #2, the entire conversation is moot; this topic began, in part, with an explanation of how the mechanics that WotC put in to perform the act of "tanking" don't actually do the job.

While #1 is not dependent upon #2, therefore, it is a pointless topic unless we acknowledge the existence of #2; that is to say, it's pointless to define a tank without defining the mechanical considerations for a tank.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not, and I don't appreciate that suggestion.
I apologize. I misread your posts as trying to use 1 definition for all 3 things.


That's fair, because I am talking about these three things.

#1 does not depend upon #2 or #3. However, it does depend upon how the word is presently treated.

To put it differently, if I presented the word smeerp as a subject of conversation, we would need to reach consensus as to what it means. One way to do so would be to observe how smeerp had previously been used, and create a definition that encompasses such usage.

Thus, while #1 does not depend upon #3, #3 is a reasonable indicator of what people perceive #1 to be; that is, when someone says "Help me build a tank" and they mean tank to include X, that tells us what people believe the definition of tank to include.

As to #2, I'm using mechanics to illustrate the fact while there are many ways to perform the act of tanking, as defined as "preventing allies from taking a hit," there are only so many ways that do so within the framework of a beefstick. The fact is, if we choose to ignore #2, the entire conversation is moot; this topic began, in part, with an explanation of how the mechanics that WotC put in to perform the act of "tanking" don't actually do the job.

While #1 is not dependent upon #2, therefore, it is a pointless topic unless we acknowledge the existence of #2; that is to say, it's pointless to define a tank without defining the mechanical considerations for a tank.

Case in point. There will not be a working single definition for all 3 things. If we have a working definition of #1 and try to modify it to match #2 we will have to twist and mangle the working definition. Likewise it is impolite to answer in #3 solely from #2 without the additional context unique to #3 and not to #2. Furthermore what people consider a tank(#1) is not bound by the limited options available and relevant to a build help request(#3). For example that AoE shield bonus to allies homebrew I mentioned is not in #2 nor in #3(usually) but is in #1.

[Elricaltovilla]

Still, Red. To exclude Spellcasters from the definition of "Tank" means potentially excluding classics like the Paladin, functional equivalents like the Warpriest, more exotic builds for classes like the Magus, and even entirely suboptimal things like a Wizard who takes Heavy Armor Proficiency as a feat and runs around in Mithral Full Plate.

[Hiro Quester]

Let's face it, if someone comes into the forums and says, "Please help me build a tank," the common advice of "Build a Wizard/Cleric/Druid" might be technically accurate, but it's also utterly unhelpful, generally speaking. People using the term don't generally want a caster, so let's exclude casters from the term. That's all.

Seconding the exclusion of casters, for this reason. Many styes of players can fill lots of roles. Cleric and druid and wizard can become something that fills the role (or summon creatures to do so) of drawing hits that would otherwise go to his allies.

But a PC dedicated to filling that role, and specializing in doing so, isn't a caster.

However, simply "preventing hits to his allies" still seems too broad. That applies to buffers who pump up allies' AC, and a BFCer who prevents the bad guys from getting to his allies.

I'd prefer the definition of "a non-caster who draws potential damage away from his allies towards himself (believing he is better able to avoid or survive that damage)".

The role of the tank is to help the allies' defense, so they can concentrate on offense. He helps not by decreasing the chance they will be hit (e.g. casting barkskin on them), but by a particular method of doing so: ensuring that the enemies attacks are directed at him, who has a better chance of avoiding or surviving them.

Ideally he's doing some damage too, enough to be perceived as a threat. But even more ideally, he enables his allies to dish out the damage, because they have to worry less about their own defense. The squishy sorcerer doesn't have to waste a round casting greater blink on himself, because most attacks are going to his friend in the big tin suit. He can just get straight on with the job of blasting the party's enemies into dust.

Edit:
To clarify, the above definition also applies to the "tank" who blocks the corridor so melee attackers have to go through him to get to his allies. He's preventing the bad guys from getting to his allies, by making them attack him first.

[Hiro Quester]

Still, Red. To exclude Spellcasters from the definition of "Tank" means potentially excluding classics like the Paladin, functional equivalents like the Warpriest, more exotic builds for classes like the Magus, and even entirely suboptimal things like a Wizard who takes Heavy Armor Proficiency as a feat and runs around in Mithral Full Plate.

Oh. Paladins. maybe it should say "not primarily a caster"? OR maybe the phrase is unnecessary.

But the idea that a sorcerer who casts "mindless rage" (CA) at the enemy wizard, such that the wizard is compelled to attack him only using non-magical attacks is "tanking" is sort of undermining the idea of a build that specializes in tanking.

[Elricaltovilla]

Oh. Paladins. maybe it should say "not primarily a caster"? OR maybe the phrase is unnecessary.

But the idea that a sorcerer who casts "mindless rage" (CA) at the enemy wizard, such that the wizard is compelled to attack him only using non-magical attacks is "tanking" is sort of undermining the idea of a build that specializes in tanking.

What about Warpriests then, or Magus? Or Psywars? And what if I'm a fighter/sorcerer eldritch knight with mindless rage? Where exactly do you draw the line on what is, or is not a caster?

[OldTrees1]

Oh. Paladins. maybe it should say "not primarily a caster"? OR maybe the phrase is unnecessary.

But the idea that a sorcerer who casts "mindless rage" (CA) at the enemy wizard, such that the wizard is compelled to attack him only using non-magical attacks is "tanking" is sort of undermining the idea of a build that specializes in tanking.

I am not sure you need to exclude casters(or full casters) at the definition level. I think that is better solved at the build help etiquette level. Aka "Casters in D&D are technically versatile enough to do anything, but we should assume that people are not asking for full casters in Tank build threads since most people want martial solutions in those threads."

[T.G. Oskar]

We're back to shakespeare's rose. My mitigation list isn't complete, nor does every ability fall neatly into one category. I already answered why I refer to it as mitigation, which you noted below.

Damage Redirection would be something I'd consider a subset of Damage Mitigation. Since damage has to be dealt for it to be redirected, and the end result is still that your ally has more hit points than it would have had otherwise, the damage the enemy deals is mitigated by your ability.

Again, I'm only really concerned with the end result. Specifically that your ally has more hit points, etc. at the end of the round than they would have had without your abilities.

To what extent does grouping Damage Redirection into Mitigation serves only to reinforce your definition only so that it may exist? That's part of the war of semantics: in the end, the winning definition is the one that stands. The reason is because, in the quest to define what "tanking" is, and how to neatly separate it, we're looking at overlaps much like Venn diagrams. Allow me to explain.

First, mitigation via healing - that's partly tanking, and partly healing. You claim that as mitigation, I claim that as healing. However, to what extent is healing, and to what extent that moment of healing (brief or otherwise) ends up becoming tanking? When you observe it as a Venn diagram (the hypothetical definition of tanking, and the definition of healing, and the overlaps between the two), you might notice that what you consider as mitigation is really a subset of different aspects applied towards the other tasks in combat in an attempt to fit a definition. Second, mitigation through temporary HP - that's mostly buffing instead of tanking, since you're not, by any definition, granting the benefit; the buffer/leader is (unless you minor in buffing, like the Paladin). Mitigation via damage redirection is, IMO, the only true form of tanking as you're literally moving damage from one way to the other, and it fits your definition of "having your ally end up with more HP than it would have, had it taken the same amount of damage".

By definition, as mentioned by one of the posters, the true form of tanking is directly taking damage for others, as it doesn't overlap with healing (heal the damage recently taken), buffing (temporary Hit Points or boosting allies' defenses over yours to make yourself a tastier target) or crowd control (Lockdown, plain and simple). Mitigation tanking relies, IMO, on too many overlaps; unless you go for Damage Redirection (which THEN can overlap, but its core concept relies on mechanically moving damage away from the ally; the overlap itself is WHERE does the damage move, in which case, it overlaps with damage dealing when it moves towards the enemy), you're really doing healing OR buffing on a specific application, something that would rather be left to the healer/buffer than to the tank. It's a good reason why I don't consider Martial Spirit, Crusader's Strike or any of the "whack-a-heal" maneuvers from Devoted Spirit as a form of tanking (rather, as an efficient form of in-combat healing, which fits with the idea of Devoted Spirit as an efficient form of combat healing compared to what the Cleric tends to have). By that perception, Iron Guard's Glare isn't really tanking, but the mechanic behind it (luring your enemy towards hitting you instead of your allies because it's harder for them to do so) blurs the line. It's not a pure debuff because otherwise you'd also benefit from the trait, and when it applies correctly, it fits the idea of tanking (when it doesn't, then it fails to do what it's supposed to do).


I agree that there's overlap between healing and tanking. From the perspective of the topic of the thread, and from my own way of categorizing things, in combat healing is a form of Mitigation Tanking. This is especially true, I think, for maneuvers of the Devoted Spirit and Silver Crane disciplines (depending on whether you play PF or 3.5) and certain styles of Vitalist.

Here is where I have to counter that. I consider in-combat healing as...healing, and thus I don't add it to a tanking discussion. It's an overlap, but since in-combat healing is only accessible through specific ways (mostly getting certain Devoted Spirit maneuvers/stances), I don't treat it as a form of tanking as I'd do Aggro or Lockdown.

Which leads to Lockdown. At its core, it's a near-perfect overlap of Tanking and Crowd Control: you force enemies towards specific actions (CC), those actions being "hit me" or "do nothing" (tanking, then CC). However, what's traditionally considered Lockdown requires some dedication to martial training: making an AoO Trip build, a (in PF) Stand Still build, or even a rare Disarm or Grapple build requires focusing on martial classes rather than full spellcasting, and their scope is limited compared to true CC such as Charm Person/Monster, Dominate, Web/Entangle/Black Tentacles, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud/Solid Fog or Hold Person/Monster. Those forms of Crowd Control don't lead the target towards "hit me", but towards "hit my enemies", "hit my enemies", "do nothing, period", debuffing, "do nothing/can't move" and "do nothing". Lockdown often leaves the target the ability to make an action, but it restricts that action. You can consider Aggro tanking in MMOs to be a form of crowd control by the same means.


Yes, I used your argument as an example of semantics. But this isn't the place to bring that up. I actually agree with your conclusion, my disagreement is with your utilization of the conclusion you reach.

Well, that's just me being passionate with my opinions. I really can't consider PF's mark as a form of smite, but I used semantics for it. However, mechanically, it's still viable - it works as a mark rather than as an attack. It's when you associate "Smite" with an attack rather than a mark when the conclusion holds true; otherwise, the conclusion turns false.


Maybe I didn't properly express this, but I'd never advocate focusing solely on one kind of tanking style. You need multiple tools in your arsenal and to pick the best one depending on the situation

Lockdown requires a good deal of your focus in order to be effective, so you don't have many tools left. Damage Redirection, on the other hand, often ends up being so simple that you can focus on other things easily, such as survival or dealing more damage. But that's more class design than something else.


By the way Oskar, if you're still keeping up with this thread, I had an idea for a new Paladin class mechanic, I was wondering if you would mind me running it by you in PM.

Sure.

[Elricaltovilla]

I mean it's all a matter of perspective and semantics anyway T.G. I define mitigation as an ability that leaves your ally with more HP than they would have had otherwise at the end of the round. So based on that definition, yes Healing is a form of mitigation.

It operates under the assumption that the ally would be losing HP (or something else) during the round, and then your action acts to reduce or otherwise alleviate the negative effect on your ally. In a round where an ally isn't in danger, then healing wouldn't be a form of tanking to me.

Some tanking styles require more investment than others, but that doesn't mean that the right classes can't invest in multiple forms of tanking.

[Seerow]

So I'm going to throw out my set of definitions, just because why not:

Tanking-Tanking has two components. Encouraging enemies to attack you, and surviving the attacks once they are focus firing on you. These are both important components of tanking, but the first is much harder to achieve in game.

Mitigation-Mitigation refers to the reduction of incoming damage. This would include things like Damage Reduction, Miss Chance, AC, basically anything you can gain that reduces the DPR of your opponent. All tanks will have at least some personal mitigation to survive, a valid tanking strategy is providing all of your allies additional mitigation, making yourself a more attractive target (since even if you are tougher than they are with your buffs, taking you down ends those mitigation bonuses letting the rest of the party go down easier).

Healing-Restoring damage after it has been dealt. A healer restores damage and removes status afflictions. This is pretty much unaffiliated with Tanking, though Tanks can have a healing secondary which will help them remain alive. Temp HP is a subset of healing, but is kind of on the grey line betwee Mitigation and Healing.

Damage Redirection-I actually agree with Oskar that Damage Redirection deserves its own category. It isn't healing, because it doesn't restore any HP, it just redistributes it (Hostile Empathic Transfer is an exception and lives in a grey area). Damage Redirection is similarly not Mitigation, because it doesn't reduce the damage taken, it just adjusts who it is applied to. Though in the event damage redirection allows you to apply your mitigation, the two can synergize quite well (though most damage redirection does not allow for that). This works as a style of tanking by effectively forcing all attacks to use you as a target of the attack; and possibly encourages enemies to just attack you directly, since that is the only way to successfully focus fire while damage redirection is being used.

Peeling-Somebody up thread mentioned this, and I think this is a good term to adopt for the control style of tanking. Peeling originates in PVP focused games where aggro isn't a thing. A character is capable of peeling when they can force an opponent to focus on them instead of their original objective (whether that is capturing a flag or hurting their teammate). That coercion is usually caused by a combination of CC/Debufs, movement restriction, and forced movement. Basically this is what the Lockdown Tripper, the Knight, and other similar builds are doing. Either outright forcing enemies to attack them, or preventing enemies from attacking anybody else through lockdown tactics.

[Karl Aegis]

Are we going with "someone who doesn't trust their party members to invest adequate resources into defense and tries to compensate for their party members by investing more into defenses"?

That doesn't cover many CRPGs like the MMOs mentioned, but it does seem to cover what is being talked about.

[Vhaidara]

No, we're discussing someone who chooses to invest more heavily in defense so that their allies aren't forced to. This is a discussion about people who WANT to play a tank role.

[Red Fel]

Still, Red. To exclude Spellcasters from the definition of "Tank" means potentially excluding classics like the Paladin, functional equivalents like the Warpriest, more exotic builds for classes like the Magus, and even entirely suboptimal things like a Wizard who takes Heavy Armor Proficiency as a feat and runs around in Mithral Full Plate.

Oh. Paladins. maybe it should say "not primarily a caster"?

What about Warpriests then, or Magus? Or Psywars? And what if I'm a fighter/sorcerer eldritch knight with mindless rage? Where exactly do you draw the line on what is, or is not a caster?

Actually, in my definition, I said:


For instance, my suggestion was "A non-caster (or non-primary caster) who, through means other than solely direct damage, prevents harm to his allies." That excludes the Tier 1 casters and the damage-spiking non-casters, and focuses the definition on non-casters who use various methods, including face-tanking, creating miss-chances, lock-downs via trips and other controls, various BFC tricks, and grappling, among others.

I clarified that, by non-caster, I meant non-primary caster; that is, not a Tier 1 class, or a casting class for which casting is its primary resource (such as Sorcerers). I was deliberately intending to include partial casting classes, such as the Paladin. Other partial-progression casters, such as the Magus or Warpriest, would similarly enjoy recognition as tanks.

Basically, my mentality is this. If you "tank," (the action) whatever we take that to mean, by casting a spell that solves the whole problem, you're not a traditional-style "tank" (the role). If, however, you have spells which supplement your more traditional-style tanking (the action), you are a traditional-style tank (the role). Thus, a Bloodrager, or a Fighter/etc/EK who uses spells to buff before going all melee up in here, could tank (the action), and be considered a tank (the role), by this definition.

Are you hip to my jive?

[Troacctid]

But until we have a consensus on the definition, I don't see the conversation going past "Well, here's what I think it means."

Oh, that's definitely not going to happen, trust me. I remember the Trope Repair Shop threads for this stuff. There's never a consensus. Different gaming communities use the term in slightly different ways. The expectation is always going to vary depending on who you're talking to and what game you're talking about.

Trying to hash out a definition is, frankly, kind of pointless, since a. it's not like it's going to be authoritative in any way and b. 4th edition already gave us "Defender" as a perfectly serviceable, unambiguous, canonically-sanctioned term.

[Hiro Quester]

Are you hip to my jive?

Red Fel is a hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is. :smallwink:

But yeah, the playground is unlikely to come to a consensus. But something like Red Fel's definition seems reasonable to many people, me included.

It seems to me that the playground discussions are very useful for clarifying good reasons and arguments for each possible interpretation of a rule or role. But coming to a consensus about How Things Are rarely happens here.

[ryu]

Red Fel is a hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is. :smallwink:

But yeah, the playground is unlikely to come to a consensus. But something like Red Fel's definition seems reasonable to many people, me included.

It seems to me that the playground discussions are very useful for clarifying good reasons and arguments for each possible interpretation of a rule or role. But coming to a consensus about How Things Are rarely happens here.

Well this is excepting the various famous constants we've gone so far as to name days of the week after. Those are pretty common consensus points.

[jiriku]

The traditional view of the tank... is both profoundly stupid mechanically, and an absurd life choice for the tank in question.

By [a more functional] definition of a tank, casters make better tanks than non-casters.

I think you make a very cogent point here. D&D and Pathfinder players are often startled when I tell them that my preferred class for tanking is wizard, and that wizards tank extremely well. A 3.5 wizard can, for example, use celerity + dimension step to move the entire party out of the AoE of a fireball, mitigating 100% of the damage that would have been taken. Melee classes do not have abilities that duplicate this.

Tanking occurs most effectively when the tank is a specialist at damage mitigation, rather than damage absorption. My wizard has the highest AC, hp, and DR in the party, but that's not why monsters attack him. Monsters attack him because while he's alive it is next to impossible to sustain or focus fire against the other party members.

To tank well, you need the following strategies:

Placement: This is often called battlefield control, but I want to emphasize the role that mass teleportation has. You want to position friendlies and enemies such that each enemy can attack (best case) no one, (second best) only PCs who are well equipped to defend, or (third best) only you. You want to do this in a way that does not reduce the ability of friendies to attack and concentrate fire. Walls and clouds are useful for this, as is the ability to force involuntary movement, but teleportations are also terribly helpful.

Denial: Here you manipulate the action ratio between opposing forces in your side's favor. Miss chances, confusion-type spells that eat enemy actions, and save-or-lose type spells are useful here. I'd also include spells that grant your allies bonus actions -- giving everyone on your team an extra turn is functionally identical to making everyone on the opposing team skip a turn.

Soak: The "classic" tanking strategy, this is really a third-tier technique. The traditional tank fails simply because he starts with soak and then proceeds to denial and placement as second and third suits. This is exactly backwards of what one must do in 3.PF. If you excel at placement and denial, it is fairly easy to route most incoming damage to yourself. Enemies will perceive that you are the one controlling the flow of battle and will naturally attack you no matter how difficult you are to injure. An effective tank optimizes defense, not because he wants to encourage attack but because he recognizes that his dominance in the placement and denial arenas will compel enemies to attack him as their only rational strategy. If you are extremely effective, you do not even need to be an obvious tank -- if you are invisible but your placement and denial are strong enough, enemies will waste actions hunting for you even when other targets are visible simply because you are such a high-value target that it is worth the extra difficulty to find and attack you -- and note how forcing them to search for you leeches yet more actions from them!

[Segev]

Incidentally, many of the feats in this document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWI2n1Xg1okUhHNABnXN0yShhgRmRYp4vaUq2SI1Hp4/edit?usp=sharing) are things I've designed to help make "tanking" a viable and interesting aspect of a non-mage build.

[Threadnaught]

my suggestion was "A non-caster (or non-primary caster) who, through means other than solely direct damage, prevents harm to his allies." That excludes the Tier 1 casters and the damage-spiking non-casters, and focuses the definition on non-casters who use various methods, including face-tanking, creating miss-chances, lock-downs via trips and other controls, various BFC tricks, and grappling, among others.

Seems about right. It looks odd, but I wanted to give my approval of your definition, before expanding on what I had previously posted.


I think a good point was made - and somewhat glossed over - on the subject of semantics and the definition of a tank. When discussing the definition of tanking, and the role of a tank, this comment came up:

Did I just affect a redefinition of a term? *dances*


First: This is a nontraditional definition of a tank. Let me explain: The traditional view of the tank, at least in the MMO sense, is one who prevents the damage primarily by receiving it to the face. I happen to think that this view, as I describe it, is both profoundly stupid mechanically, and an absurd life choice for the tank in question;

Not really a non-traditional way of Tanking. Tanks in MMORPGs are either those who annoy their enemies and take the damage (like in WoW), or those who annoy their enemies and avoid the barrage of damage aimed at them (like Blink Tanks in Final Fantasy XI). Either way, the damage is redirected away from squishier team mates. One method has the damage directed at the Tank, the other has the damage directed into the aether.


By this definition of a tank, casters make better tanks than non-casters.

Yes, I may not have linked it, but I had considered what I'd already mentioned about Tier 1 Classes in a previous post, while typing out that one. First are the two best Tanking Classes, then there's the best Tanking Classes, followed by some Classes which may be good at Tanking, or deceptively bad.

To be honest though, I had the Horizon Tripper build in mind when I mentioned preventing damage.


Anybody else notice how everyone seems to be describing very similar characters and playstyles but in slightly different ways?

Because we all know how Tanking works in 3.X and have different ways of expressing ourselves holmes.

[ekarney]

I have never heard the Tank referred to in that way. You're describing him as a sort of physical paragon; high defenses and high offenses. In my experience, the term "Tank" refers to the former, but at the expense of the latter, not in addition to it, which is part of what makes the traditional model so ineffectual.

Not that I disagree with you. A heavily armored beatstick is a highly effective tank; dangerous enough to keep the enemy's attention but tough enough to withstand it. The problem is that, at high enough levels of offense, the defensive ability becomes negligible.

Or, to put it differently, if you end the fight with one punch, what difference does it make how much armor you're wearing?

Again, that doesn't mean the high-offense model is a bad tank. If we define tank as "preventing damage to the intended target," killing the attacker prevents damage. It's the ultimate preventive measure. Your enemy can't (generally) hurt his target when it requires an electron microscope to locate what's left of him.

But I think you're starting from a rather unusual or uncommon perspective; it's not one with which I'm familiar.



Hence why we really, really need to come up with our common definition of "tank" before this conversation can proceed substantially beyond the current cycle.

I probably explained this wrong since I wrote that at 4am, but what I was getting at is, is that the tank isn't one players, it's two of them.

I think we all need to look at the tank from a standardized point of view, with each point of view, we get a different definition.
From the fluff and MMO view: The tank is a solitary bastion of defense, to which enemies long to engage in for various reasons.
From the high-op view: The tank ceases to become a person and it's just battlefield control spells.
Now from the tactical view (also my view): the tank is a tactical maneuver that is to lure, or otherwise redirect attention from a position, or person/people,

Now to get into the meta of my first post I guess.
I outlined two different roles that are critical to tanking the person acting as the damage taker, and the sheepdog.
Now whilst the defender is generally considered the tank, think about how effective he is without his barbarian/rogue friend?
That's what I was referring to with the defender/striker combo.
But what we don't seem to realise, is that yes the tank is a strong plate armour person, but also, due to the tactics involved in tanking when paired with a DPR character both of them become the only tank of the party.

[Azoth]

I kind of feel that in Pathfinder a Warder focusing on Silver Crane (gained through tradition) and Eternal Guardian (gained through trait) focusing on a lockdown build and utilizing the Silver Crane style feats is a fairly decent Tank in a traditional sense. It requires Bruising Intellect trait to pull off well, but should work.

The Warder's Armiger's Mark works as a hard aggro mechanic. You tag someone and give them -4 to -10 to hit and 10-20% spell failure and they are going to want you dead.

Aegis and Silver Crane Style give a stacking bonus to ally AC (morale and untyped), as well as bonuses to Will and Reflex Saves. The style feat lowers your AC and Saves making you seem an easier target despite a lot of defensive boosts.

The later Silver Crane Style feats allow you to just take hits for allies including ability damage, so redirecting damage to you when you can take it in better stride.

Silver Crane strikes give you self and ally healing that increases damage to acceptable levels even with devoting more resources to defense. Silver Crane Counters can give save rerolls and even DR when you fail to vounter. Eternal Guardian gives you enemy debuffs, teleportation effects, and the ability to throw up shield other style effects.

Then you get down to being a Trip build that can shut down large areas of the battlefield by being zone control. If you need to absolutely hold a point and keep enemies locked down you don't even have to trip them, just hit them and use the Defensive Web feat. Anyone with your Armiger's Mark is trapped in you Defensive Focus zone and can't leave by any means.

So to recap this build boosts ally saves/AC, can self heal/heal the party, debuff the enemy and teleport around the battlefield, redirect damage to himself, and lockdown the enemies so they can't get to allies all while dropping a hard aggro mechanic on enemies. I believe it is a tank good sir.

[Elricaltovilla]

Defensive Web does not exist anymore. It got pulled shortly after the Warder PDF with it was released.

[Extra Anchovies]

The Warder's Armiger's Mark works as a hard aggro mechanic. You tag someone and give them -4 to -10 to hit and 10-20% spell failure and they are going to want you dead.

I agree with you on all points, but a nitpick: isn't Armiger's Mark a form of soft aggro, i.e. that which encourages enemies to attack you but does not force them to? Things like the 3.5 Knight's Test of Mettle and PoW's Enraging Strike (Iron Tortoise 2) are hard aggro, in that they require the affected enemies to target you.

Either that or I have my terms mixed up.

[Azoth]

Defensive Web does not exist anymore. It got pulled shortly after the Warder PDF with it was released.

Darn, I remember it from an old Warder build I made. I hadn't realized it had been pulled. The thing was a work of beauty for lockdown builds.

[Troacctid]

Test of Mettle isn't really hard aggro either, is it? It has an X% chance of failing and doing nothing against a given target, and a huge swath of enemies are immune to it anyway, and the effect ends as soon as anyone other than you attacks them. And if they're in melee range of someone else, they can attack that person instead of you.

[Extra Anchovies]

Test of Mettle isn't really hard aggro either, is it? It has an X% chance of failing and doing nothing against a given target, and a huge swath of enemies are immune to it anyway, and the effect ends as soon as anyone other than you attacks them. And if they're in melee range of someone else, they can attack that person instead of you.

Those are conditions that affect when it applies, but that doesn't change the fact that when it works, the enemy can't not attack the Knight if they want to attack somebody, which is the essence of what hard aggro is. It's situational and easily broken hard aggro, but while it's active it is hard aggro all the same.

[Talakeal]

I'm sort of wondering which MMO Karl is referring to.

Since the only MMOs off the top of my head that don't have heavily armored tanks are MMOs that don't have tanks at all.. but even those often have sword and board/heavily armored/defensive options.

Back when I played Everquest all the tanks used two handed weapons because that was the only way to generate enoug threat to keep up with the rest of the party.

[Plaguemask]

I fell into the trap and made a Paladin 'tank'.
The reason people would want to attack her is because of Dazzling Display, taunting (And I mean in the literal sense - "Hey! You! Orc-for-brains, why don't you come over here and try not to get y'er guts ripped out!"), the fact that she blatantly shows off what Religion she belongs to (Iomdae.), and of course, with her Saving Shield ability, It's simply [I]easier[I] to try and kill her than her Adjacent Rogue/Samurai allies (With some racial bonuses for the terrain and such, the Samurai had 21 AC due to him ninjaing the bigger full-plate, and our Rogue had 26.) meanwhile, I had 19 AC (Breastplate, Shield Focus, etc.)
So in the end, you either don't attack my Paladin, and usually gets Dazzling Displayed followed by being unable to hit the people around her, or you try to hit her.
Then she died because our DM can't make boss encounters for our appropiate ECL.

[Andion Isurand]

A while back I made a tanking class, which emphasized staying mobile without getting bogged down or pushed around by enemies. It allows for multiple readied actions to be used to move towards enemies throughout the course of a round, so those enemies suffer penalties for being threatened by the character and they provoke more attacks of opportunity that the character can use to disrupt their actions and halt them in their tracks.

It borrowed a little from crusader and knight, however this way, it works with any alignment or gear set up. It also remains completely non-magical with its abilities.

As it is now, it lacks growth flexibility and is a bit wordy, especially with regards to the modified readied actions.

Defiant Defender PrC (http://magerune.blogspot.com/2012/11/defiant-defender-prc.html)

It may or may not be useful for those trying to devise their own tanking class now or in the future.

[Azoth]

OK so instead of Defensive Web, you can use Take the Blow feat. Expend a mark as an immediate action and force a marked target you threaten to attack you instead of an ally. No save against it. You just need to have hit them first or had them fail a will save. Not unreasonable on the above mentioned trip focus Warder.

If Guard's Glare wasn't mind affecting I would recommend it beyond the low levels, but if retraining is on the table...have fun.

[Sacrieur]

If I may use this opportunity to shamelessly promote the prestige class in my signature. Ahem...

[Talakeal]

So a while ago I added some maneuvers in my home brew system which have a chance to get enemies to focus on or ignore you in combat. I felt that it catered to the tanking play style as well as giving some incentive for warrior type characters to invest in charisma.

The system has several situational modifiers to prevent stupid situations, one of which is that you suffer a huge penalty to your "aggro" if it is dangerous for the enemy to attack you.

The player who was playing a tank said that this alone ruined the ability to tank. In, say World of Warcraft, effects such as thorns or retribution aura that damage someone for hitting the tank only give the tank more agro and encourage the monster to keep hitting them in an endless cycle.

To this player that was the core element of tanking, to get someone to attack you when doing so would harm them, then watch them get madder and madder as they beat themselves to death wailing away on the tank. Any system that did not emphasize this style of tanking did not have "real tanking" in it.

I don't agree with him in any way, that seems really silly to me, but it is an opinion and might be worth noting on your quest to define what tanking truly is.