D&D: The "Tank" HELP ME

[Alistaroc]

I have a player insisting that a Flesh Golem (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=15809.msg278510#msg278510) Monk with Vow of Peace and Vow of Poverty, and having taken the Human Harvest and Meat Fodder abilities makes a very good character because his AC in the 50s and HP from Meat Fodder will let him tank! Tank. In D&D. And no matter how much I try to explain that there is no real, "tank" in D&D because of the lack of aggro, he refuses to play anything but. He refuses to take Crusader, or any of the Attack of Opportunity feats like Karmic Strike, and will be a very big sack of meat with no relevance whatsoever. Chances are he'll die in the first session. What can I do? He's creating a character that is simply going to weigh the party down, but insists on playing a nonexistent archetype even more suboptimal that I thought possible. I hate to be the railroad-DM, but it doesn't fit at all into the game.

Is there some sort of Tank character? The closest I can think of is an Iron Golem (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1500.0) 13/Monk 1/Psychic Warrior 6 that uses slam attacks to shove enemies away from the allies he's protecting with his AMF. The Goad feat then provides the "aggro" aspect.

And seriously, how do I deal with a player refusing to play on the level of the party?

[ericgrau]

Players should play what they want. You can't play the game for them. If he's less experienced than the rest of the party then you can offer to make a couple pre-generated characters to choose from, or a character you make that's in the general direction he specifies (both in goal and the style to get there). Or if he wants certain abilities so he can make his own character tell him what book each ability is in.

But you can't tell him he must play an X to do Y. At most you can give him the option to play a pre-gen X or give him a list of feats related to X out of which he may or may not pick some.

If he's stubborn then let him learn on his own. If you think he'll die in the first session then great, that'll give him a chance to learn what killed him and make something else. But don't pick on him specifically and try to kill him off. That'll only antagonize him and make him want to blame you not his character and quit, or try to "beat" you. Simply let whatever happens happen. What would be worse is if he was unstoppable by every means with high AC, HP, saves, mobility to escape from most BFC, counters to most attacks, etc. but no way to protect his allies. Then you'd have to give him the option to remake without dying. But even then you could let him watch his allies die, learn and say oh ok I'll do this part different next time. Instead of spoon feeding him.

[Rubik]

Have NPC enemies do what they would normally do when confronted with a turtle: walk around it. Just play the encounters straight, and have intelligent enemies use strategy. Wizards can hit him with Grease spells to make him useless, non-casters can walk around or fly over, and if he refuses to learn, that's his fault. If he complains, tell him, "If you were confronted with someone who turtles menacingly at you, what would YOU do?"

Add an encounter where the PCs have to defend a fortification against a small army, where everyone in the party can have a role. Give the "tank" the option to do what his build actually would be good at, or he can choose to take the tank role to protect various areas against aggression and draw aggro to himself, which will, of course, fail spectacularly. The player will, of course, choose the latter, especially if he thinks it'll be less boring than the former option. Make sure he has the option to take the former, and hint that he should take the former so he can't say you didn't warn him.

Or you could give him several options and let him choose for himself how he wants to go about defending the place, with no input from you. Let him fail on his own.

Then shortly thereafter, stage a raid against the aggressors where the PCs get a horde of allies they can command against the enemy's fortification, with a martial BFC build that is doing what the player did but is actually effective in the ways that the PC "tank" wasn't.

Let the effectiveness of the tactics speak for themselves.

[Hiro Quester]

The best Tank I know of is a knight (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2).

They DO have a good source of "aggro": the "Test of Mettle" knight's challenge (though some enemies are immune). Also lots of ways to shield allies, BFC, etc.

A knight/crusader is potentially an awesome combination, depending on the level of the campaign, the other party members, etc.

Person Man has a good handbook here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?109429-3-5-Person-Man-s-Knight-Handbook). Show the player the handbook and see if he is tempted.

But like EricGrau says, he might have to learn the hard way. If you think he will die too easily, then perhaps that will be the lesson that's needed here. You can lead a horse to water....

But if you think he's going to make the game not fun for the other players, because he's going to be less able to contribute to encounters, then the best you can do is clearly explain that, lay out your concerns, and let him make a decision.

Perhaps he sees something in his character design that you don't. Maybe letting him show you what he can do with the character will be worth the playtest.

[Misery Esquire]

=
Add an encounter where the PCs have to defend a fortification against a small army, where everyone in the party can have a role. Give the "tank" the option to do what his build actually would be good at, or he can choose to take the tank role to protect various areas against aggression and draw aggro to himself, which will, of course, fail spectacularly. The player will, of course, choose the latter, especially if he thinks it'll be less boring than the former option. Make sure he has the option to take the former, and hint that he should take the former so he can't say you didn't warn him.

With his build, depending on what the enemy army consists of, he may actually be able to play his intended role as is. Simply by diving into them when they approach and continuing to walk forward one enemy (or one Bullrush) at a time, he would "tank" as they would pause to remove him and he's a sink of HP and AC.

This is irrelevant, of course, if the enemy is sane and brought a mix of things other than pure martial mooks for him to tackle.

Get him to spend a level in that one prestige class that has Taunt? Otherwise, it is merely a matter of whether he will change his mind after suffering through scenarios that he can't do anything in. (Most of them?)


Edit :: Missed that he's taking Vow Of Peace. Uh. He does nothing. He... Can't do anything. :smallconfused:

[SangoProduction]

I have a player insisting that a Flesh Golem (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=15809.msg278510#msg278510) Monk with Vow of Peace and Vow of Poverty, and having taken the Human Harvest and Meat Fodder abilities makes a very good character because his AC in the 50s and HP from Meat Fodder will let him tank! Tank. In D&D. And no matter how much I try to explain that there is no real, "tank" in D&D because of the lack of aggro, he refuses to play anything but. He refuses to take Crusader, or any of the Attack of Opportunity feats like Karmic Strike, and will be a very big sack of meat with no relevance whatsoever. Chances are he'll die in the first session. What can I do? He's creating a character that is simply going to weigh the party down, but insists on playing a nonexistent archetype even more suboptimal that I thought possible. I hate to be the railroad-DM, but it doesn't fit at all into the game.

Is there some sort of Tank character? The closest I can think of is an Iron Golem (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1500.0) 13/Monk 1/Psychic Warrior 6 that uses slam attacks to shove enemies away from the allies he's protecting with his AMF. The Goad feat then provides the "aggro" aspect.

And seriously, how do I deal with a player refusing to play on the level of the party?

This is a little less than correct. You become a tank in D&D by physically blocking enemies from attacking your allies. Not to mention in ...Complete Scoundrel(?), there's a feat called Goad, which lets them force an enemy to attack you, and then there's the Kender, which lets you force another one to attack you. And that's just 2 examples. Other people have already suggested more.

All before WoW even made tanking a thing.

[Rubik]

With his build, depending on what the enemy army consists of, he may actually be able to play his intended role as is. Simply by diving into them when they approach and continuing to walk forward one enemy (or one Bullrush) at a time, they would pause to remove him and he's a sink of HP and AC.

This is irrelevant, of course, if the enemy is sane and brought a mix of things other than pure martial mooks for him to tackle.

Get him to spend a level in that one prestige class that has Taunt? Otherwise, it is merely a matter of whether he will change his mind after suffering through scenarios that he can't do anything in. (Most of them?)Why wouldn't a decent tactician bring along numerous ways to deal with problems? So long as they aren't all morons, they should at least have a way to deal with a single strong individual. It's not like those aren't rampant in any given D&D campaign, or anything. The golem can only use Goad or bull rush on one enemy at a time (unless he took Knockback, which could easily save his tactics if he can build on it properly), and all anyone has to do to avoid the effects of Goad is to do something other than a melee attack. Give all the grunts bows or throwing axes. Or just have everyone focus-fire past the golem from a distance.

[OldTrees1]

Knight 4 (AoE Taunt called test of mettle), Crusader 1(close allies get +4 AC), and Devoted Defender 1-2(enemies attack you instead of a particular ally) are all decent ways of tanking(drawing aggro/defending allies).

[Misery Esquire]

Why wouldn't a decent tactician bring along numerous ways to deal with problems? So long as they aren't all morons, they should at least have a way to deal with a single strong individual. It's not like those aren't rampant in any given D&D campaign, or anything. The golem can only use Goad or bull rush on one enemy at a time (unless he took Knockback, which could easily save his tactics if he can build on it properly), and all anyone has to do to avoid the effects of Goad is to do something other than a melee attack. Give all the grunts bows or throwing axes. Or just have everyone focus-fire past the golem from a distance.

Well, my stipulation on that plan was that any sane commander would bring options. So, I agree.

Although, strong individual creatures are what PCs run into. Therefore it seems like PCs are the solution that kingdoms use against strong individuals (See ; most plotlines), or that, at least, PCs are the first choice for saying "Go kill that orc chieftain in the middle of his horde for me" to.

[ILM]

The best direct aggro mechanic in 3.5 actually belongs to the Divine Prankster, who at level 5 can enrage enemies: as a bardic music-like effect, the character can cause up to 3 creatures within 90 feet to become enraged, which means that they can only make melee attacks against him, close towards him, or if they can't, "stand in place, screaming in futile anger". The DC is the result of the character's perform check, which is easily boosted to levels where it's basically an automatic fail for each target. It lasts as long as the character continues to perform and concentrate (if you can get your DM to consider it a bardic music effect, a Harmonizing weapon takes care of that for you - and I love the image of a sword screaming insults and burns at your enemies while you cut them up), but ends for a target if anyone hits it. It doesn't require a common language. Basically, its only weakness is that it's a mind-affecting charm ability, which is one that all other Goad-like abilities share.

Divine Prankster is also a full casting PrC (requires 2nd level divine spells to enter, but advances any casting), so it shouldn't be too hard to cook up a kind of gishy tank. Hell, if you could waive the mutually exclusive patron deity requirements, a Cleric 4/ Crusader 1/ Divine Prankster 5/ RKV 10 would be rather scary: 16 BAB, 17th level divine casting, initiator level 15 - and tanks like a boss.

[Platymus Pus]

Have NPC enemies do what they would normally do when confronted with a turtle: walk around it. Just play the encounters straight, and have intelligent enemies use strategy. Wizards can hit him with Grease spells to make him useless, non-casters can walk around or fly over, and if he refuses to learn, that's his fault. If he complains, tell him, "If you were confronted with someone who turtles menacingly at you, what would YOU do?"


I don't know if I'd call the most mobile martial class a turtle, flying doesn't really work either if they picked the right things.
Don't see how a grease spell would ever effect a monk that much even level one.
The vows really make him useless altogether, get him to take them off and he'll be fine.

[Rubik]

I don't know if I'd call the most mobile martial class a turtle, flying doesn't really work either if they picked the right things.
Don't see how a grease spell would ever effect a monk that much even level one.
The vows really make him useless altogether, get him to take them off and he'll be fine.Monks have to stay in place to use what tanking ability they've got. Moving around doesn't do squat if you can't do anything when you move to where you're going. Unless highly optimized, monks can't do jack-all, except for not dying to saving throw-related things, and that ain't a proper party role.

So unless the player the OP's talking about is exceptionally well optimized, he might as well just be a mobile chunk of rock sitting there, doing not much of anything.

Plus, his hp suck. He gets 5.5 per level, with no Con score and only a few bonus hp for being a Large construct. And I can't imagine his ability scores (Strength aside) are enough to cover what he needs them to function properly. The Strength helps, but he really needs a lot more hp to be survivable.

That, and the Vows really do screw him over horribly.

[Platymus Pus]

Monks have to stay in place to use what tanking ability they've got. Moving around doesn't do squat if you can't do anything when you move to where you're going. Unless highly optimized, monks can't do jack-all, except for not dying to saving throw-related things, and that ain't a proper party role.

So unless the player the OP's talking about is exceptionally well optimized, he might as well just be a mobile chunk of rock sitting there, doing not much of anything.

Plus, his hp suck. He gets 5.5 per level, with no Con score and only a few bonus hp for being a Large construct. And I can't imagine his ability scores (Strength aside) are enough to cover what he needs them to function properly. The Strength helps, but he really needs a lot more hp to be survivable.

That, and the Vows really do screw him over horribly.
No, I mean there are items that just make that idea laughable. Belt of battle for instance free movements x3 a day. There is an item that increases movement by x2 regardless of what it is. A monk's land speed can easily be his fly speed at will with something like unbound steps or the spell Air Walk. Flying items where land speed = fly speed.
When the wizard casts grease he'd just find himself being grappled right away. Wizards don't deal with that well if ill prepared, some basically die. (for example if you prepared component only spells...)

His character is immune to most things as a construct, tanking isn't a role you'd want with something like that considering most things aren't going to stop you and you don't have that many ways to heal...
As for his choice of character (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#TOC-Construct)... well he should go for undead instead, it's a bit better and he still gets an hp bonus along with the ability to charm anything. Not much difference look wise. Can synergize with abilities and items a lot more.


That, and the Vows really do screw him over horribly.
I don't even know how vow of peace can work with harvest human and that sort of stuff.

[Fizban]

Vow of Peace does still allow non-lethal attacks, the bigger problem is that if he lets any other player kill someone he's helped knock out, boom, instant loss of Vow. So in addition to being mostly useless, he's got to carry a long string of every living creature the party fights and thus has taken prisoner. But yeah, it's really all too hilarious not to allow. By all means make yourself invincible. Eventually and in short order one of your foes will make the save against your aura of Calm Emotions (or attack from outside it's 20' radius), completely ignoring you and killing all your friends. And then they will laugh. (And no, he can't stop them because they're allowed to fly and he's not thanks to Magic Immunity).

[Curmudgeon]

Don't try to play your players' characters. This character might end up working OK. If it doesn't, you can make some suggestions regarding the replacement PC.

[ericgrau]

Have NPC enemies do what they would normally do when confronted with a turtle: walk around it. Just play the encounters straight, and have intelligent enemies use strategy. Wizards can hit him with Grease spells to make him useless, non-casters can walk around or fly over, and if he refuses to learn, that's his fault. If he complains, tell him, "If you were confronted with someone who turtles menacingly at you, what would YOU do?"

Add an encounter where the PCs have to defend a fortification against a small army, where everyone in the party can have a role. Give the "tank" the option to do what his build actually would be good at, or he can choose to take the tank role to protect various areas against aggression and draw aggro to himself, which will, of course, fail spectacularly. The player will, of course, choose the latter, especially if he thinks it'll be less boring than the former option. Make sure he has the option to take the former, and hint that he should take the former so he can't say you didn't warn him.

Or you could give him several options and let him choose for himself how he wants to go about defending the place, with no input from you. Let him fail on his own.

Then shortly thereafter, stage a raid against the aggressors where the PCs get a horde of allies they can command against the enemy's fortification, with a martial BFC build that is doing what the player did but is actually effective in the ways that the PC "tank" wasn't.

Let the effectiveness of the tactics speak for themselves.
Yes and no to foes going around him. Maybe after round 1 when the party has attacked. During an ambush foes attack at random, neither favoring him over his allies nor avoiding him. Except to go after those who appear armorless if they are physical attackers. It is very important not to use DM knowledge here, or besides being unfair you'll look like you're picking on him and make it look like your fault. Whatever you do if talking to him in person failed, forcing it on him in game will be 10 times worse. Just let the cards fall where they may and that's how he'll best see what to do.

Also DMPCs are always bad, and making one to overshadow a PC is intentionally diving right in to why they're bad. Even under the control of the PC it could be bad. If you go down this risky path at least make it low enough level to be weak, so he can see if he has fun with it or maybe for it to be strong for its level. Not to make a character that's stronger than his and then hand it to him or another PC in a way where he has no choice but to use your pre-gen. Or make a set of foes with a crusader or etc. in it. PCs still crush them all, but he gets to watch one in action.

Not only that, he may find something similar to play that works well but better fits his style. Keeping what works in his build and exchanging what doesn't. Rather than playing what you want to play, which is the worst.


Don't try to play your players' characters. This character might end up working OK. If it doesn't, you can make some suggestions regarding the replacement PC.
Basically this. Don't play his PC, nor find other ways to do things similar to playing his PC. Don't pick on his PC with foes or NPCs because he plays a way you don't like. Just don't. Let him play. Make info available to him if he wants it, foes can react appropriately to his actions within the limits of their own knowledge and regular builds, etc. but just let him play.

[Rubik]

Yes and no to foes going around him. Maybe after round 1 when the party has attacked. During an ambush foes attack at random, neither favoring him over his allies nor avoiding him. Except to go after those who appear armorless if they are physical attackers. It is very important not to use DM knowledge here, or besides being unfair you'll look like you're picking on him and make it look like your fault. Whatever you do if talking to him in person failed, forcing it on him in game will be 10 times worse. Just let the cards fall where they may and that's how he'll best see what to do.True on all counts.


Also DMPCs are always bad, and making one to overshadow a PC is intentionally diving right in to why they're bad. Even under the control of the PC it could be bad. If you go down this risky path at least make it low enough level to be weak, so he can see if he has fun with it or maybe for it to be strong for its level. Not to make a character that's stronger than his and then hand it to him or another PC in a way where he has no choice but to use your pre-gen. Or make a set of foes with a crusader or etc. in it. PCs still crush them all, but he gets to watch one in action.I didn't mean a DMPC. I meant on the enemy side, fighting against the PCs and their army. Make a crusader/warblade or a tripomancer or an AoO Knockback specialist that does what he did in the other battle, so he can see what he could have been doing. Bonus points if he gets a good view of the fight against his troops for a few rounds on his approach.

[ericgrau]

I meant on the enemy side
That is a lot better. Need to be careful that the fight isn't too much mooks against mooks though. It could just be a regular encounter of group of foes vs group of PCs. The PCs still win as always, but he sees them in action. Still barely wreaks of tailoring foes to his build, but is much less heavy handed than a lot of other ways.

[Murk]

I actually find this a very interesting concept.

Sure, you can be mean about it and try to make the game as funless for him as possible to "teach him a lesson", or you can actually allow him a chance to prove himself.

I mean, there's plenty of cases in which a big lump of meat can be helphul. If he can stack his HP and AC up the whazoo, there's plenty of creative options. Use him as a literal meatshield: hide behind him while crossing traps. Put him in a doorway while ranged party members pick on enemies. Use him as trebuchet ammunition. Cut pieces off of him when you're hungry (never need rations again). Roll him downhill while he screams menacingly. Use him as a boat/floating device. You'll never need a kitchen stool again.

If that's the kind of role he'd like - being a big lump of flesh that can take lots of damage - eh, so be it. Try to have fun with it. One of the awesome challenges of the game is to turn seemingly useless variables to your advantage. It can be interesting, it can be challenging, it could even be hilarious.

If that isn't what he wants to play, then he'll find out soon enough if you put him in a normal game and he'll come with suggestions to improve his build himself. But don't make that decision for him.

[Fizban]

Yes and no to foes going around him. Maybe after round 1 when the party has attacked. During an ambush foes attack at random, neither favoring him over his allies nor avoiding him. Except to go after those who appear armorless if they are physical attackers. It is very important not to use DM knowledge here, or besides being unfair you'll look like you're picking on him and make it look like your fault. Whatever you do if talking to him in person failed, forcing it on him in game will be 10 times worse. Just let the cards fall where they may and that's how he'll best see what to do.
While the spirit behind this advice is fine, I honestly don't see how it's very practicable. Choosing targets at random is possibly the least believable of all methods, the only way to enforce it on yourself is to roll dice, and it just gets extremely tiresome having the phantom "rule" that because someone has a non-standard build every single enemy that hasn't scouted them has to fall for it (at least they get a will save vs Calm Emotions). During an ambush foes will concentrate fire on the single most important target. If they know anything about the mechanics of their world (and since they're planning an ambush I would assume they know some), they will know that the super tough looking guy is much less likely to die in the first round than anyone else and they should pick any other target. Unless an 8 foot tall creature cobbled together out of borrowed body parts looks like the best easy to kill/high priority ratio, it's just not gonna happen. Then when he busts out the unarmed flurry attacks for non-lethal damage they'll either pull back out of full attack range (possibly into the air where he's useless), or ignore him because he's not dealing lethal damage (bonus: healing spells are effectively doubled when you have both lethal and non-lethal damage, if they happen to have healing).

So what you really get is the DM knows this is a terrible idea, but is forced to abandon basic tactics in order to avoid appearing biased, which is just not fun on the DM side, at all. I've rolled a few dice to pick between targets before and even when things were even it tasted bad. Much more awesome having the wizard ring the dinner bell and pull aggro by being worth attacking. The DM gets a free shot at the guy who normally avoids any threat, the party get better control of where their damage goes, and no one has to play dumb. Or having a tank character that knows the enemy is going to try avoiding them and is ready for it.

There could also be a breakdown of communication: when he says tank he might not mean anything to do with aggro. Could just be the pile of hit points and door filling, which works perfectly fine in a dungeon, see game title.

[ericgrau]

Random as in not picking on him or avoiding attacking him specifically. Nothing else.

[Red Fel]

Random as in not picking on him or avoiding attacking him specifically. Nothing else.

But the fact is, if an enemy gets a good look at the party, and they have more than a bit of experience fighting, they notice certain things. See that guy with a bow and arrow? I bet he's used to using that. Let's not give him a chance.
See that guy wearing robes when his buddies are wearing armor? There's probably a reason for that. He might be dangerous. Even if he's not, he's an easy target.
See that guy wearing massive plate armor, vaguely resembling a carriage? I bet he can't move for crap.
See that guy built like a mountain, complete with trees growing out of his back? I'd like to avoid him if possible.
These require no knowledge checks to make. They require no familiarity with the characters themselves. Whether bandits, orcs, demons, or what-have-you, any opponent facing the party who has even a modicum of sense will likely reach these conclusions in short order.

This guy is a massive, horrifying monstrosity made of stitched-together flesh. He bulges with muscle and shambles with rigor. He wears no armor, so you can see him in his glorious, gory detail. Your average attacker would take one look at that, "Nope" loudly, and go straight for the squishy targets. He would engage Sir What-The-Hell-Is-That from a distance, cautiously, after other threats have been addressed, because seriously, what the hell is that?

If he cries foul that enemies don't instantly engage with him first and exclusively, point out that he is freaking terrifying. Advise him that a "tank" uses its mechanics to "force" an enemy to engage with it. Ask him to use his mechanics to do that.

Then wait for him to realize that he has none.

[Deadline]

There are remarkably few "tanking" abilities in the game:


The Knight's "Test of Mettle" (only useful if you take lots of Knight levels)
The Constant Guardian and Dutiful Guardian feats from Drow of the Underdark.
The Crusader (several of his maneuvers and stances work).
The Goad Feat.
The Shield Other spell.
DM agreement to target you over other allies.


That's ... pretty much it. If you don't have a way to draw attacks to you, all the AC and HP in the world means squat.

[SangoProduction]

But the fact is, if an enemy gets a good look at the party, and they have more than a bit of experience fighting, they notice certain things. See that guy with a bow and arrow? I bet he's used to using that. Let's not give him a chance.
See that guy wearing robes when his buddies are wearing armor? There's probably a reason for that. He might be dangerous. Even if he's not, he's an easy target.
See that guy wearing massive plate armor, vaguely resembling a carriage? I bet he can't move for crap.
See that guy built like a mountain, complete with trees growing out of his back? I'd like to avoid him if possible.
These require no knowledge checks to make. They require no familiarity with the characters themselves. Whether bandits, orcs, demons, or what-have-you, any opponent facing the party who has even a modicum of sense will likely reach these conclusions in short order.

This guy is a massive, horrifying monstrosity made of stitched-together flesh. He bulges with muscle and shambles with rigor. He wears no armor, so you can see him in his glorious, gory detail. Your average attacker would take one look at that, "Nope" loudly, and go straight for the squishy targets. He would engage Sir What-The-Hell-Is-That from a distance, cautiously, after other threats have been addressed, because seriously, what the hell is that?

If he cries foul that enemies don't instantly engage with him first and exclusively, point out that he is freaking terrifying. Advise him that a "tank" uses its mechanics to "force" an enemy to engage with it. Ask him to use his mechanics to do that.

Then wait for him to realize that he has none.

"That thing's terrifying. Let's walk past him and attack those guys that are seemingly controlling it, putting him at our backs while we are wailing away at them."

Then again, most combat in this game is complete nonsense...especially as most people seem to think that people fight to the death all the time. Usually pick pockets will run as soon as noticed, not fight to the death...but that's off topic I guess.


There are remarkably few "tanking" abilities in the game:


The Knight's "Test of Mettle" (only useful if you take lots of Knight levels)
The Constant Guardian and Dutiful Guardian feats from Drow of the Underdark.
The Crusader (several of his maneuvers and stances work).
The Goad Feat.
The Shield Other spell.
DM agreement to target you over other allies.


That's ... pretty much it. If you don't have a way to draw attacks to you, all the AC and HP in the world means squat.

Well...there's the whole actually providing literal cover, and standing in the way of enemies. And being a Kender. Even what you provide (other than DM agreement) is 6 different ways to taunt. Most tanks in MMOs only have at most 2.

[Deadline]

Well...there's the whole actually providing literal cover, and standing in the way of enemies. And being a Kender. Even what you provide (other than DM agreement) is 6 different ways to taunt. Most tanks in MMOs only have at most 2.

The problem being that the MMO methods are solid and consistently effective. Pretty much none of my suggestions do that (Shield Other and the Guardian feats work, but only for a single target). We are missing a class or mechanic that boosts the party defenses. The bard does it offensively, but short of the War Weaver (which can get several buff spells off on multiple targets at once), that niche isn't really filled. The Crusader can kind of do it with Iron Guard's Glare, but that's not much.

[Murk]

But the fact is, if an enemy gets a good look at the party, and they have more than a bit of experience fighting, they notice certain things. See that guy with a bow and arrow? I bet he's used to using that. Let's not give him a chance.
See that guy wearing robes when his buddies are wearing armor? There's probably a reason for that. He might be dangerous. Even if he's not, he's an easy target.
See that guy wearing massive plate armor, vaguely resembling a carriage? I bet he can't move for crap.
See that guy built like a mountain, complete with trees growing out of his back? I'd like to avoid him if possible.
These require no knowledge checks to make. They require no familiarity with the characters themselves. Whether bandits, orcs, demons, or what-have-you, any opponent facing the party who has even a modicum of sense will likely reach these conclusions in short order.

Short order might still last a little too long, though. If the bad guys ambush you, or had any time to think, yeah, you're absolutely right.
However, I think if the party crashes into a room where a couple of orcs is just chilling and playing cards, time suddenly flies. These orcs barely have enough time to grab their weapons and start slashing, let alone scanning the party and looking who is actually attacking them.
I think, simply because instinct and reflexes take over, it wouldn't be unfair for them to attack those closest to them for, say, the first two rounds. If this mountain of flesh crashes through the door and starts whacking, eh, maybe let them focus on him for a few seconds.

If the player is satisfied with that, I don't see any problem.

[Urpriest]

Don't try to play your players' characters. This character might end up working OK. If it doesn't, you can make some suggestions regarding the replacement PC.

Why do you expect there to be a replacement PC? This character may be bad at actually having any impact on combat, but it seems like it's designed to be resilient. Presumably it won't die, while the other PCs do, so it will continue to stick around. Since being told that his character will be ineffective didn't deter this player, I have difficulty believing that actually observing the character be ineffective will have any other effect.

[Alistaroc]

Wow, thanks for the overwhelming response:smallbiggrin:

A few things:
1) This actually is a replacement character. Sorta. I basically told him I found the Golems, and I had a build in mind he could use if he wanted to, over his current Warforged Crusader/Devoted Defender. But once I got down to writing it all down, as I listed some of the abilities, he insisted on taking the useless ones. So I guess in a way it was half pre-built.
Should I have put my foot down and said the prebuilt is a prebuilt? Told him he could make his own, but this was prebuilt?

2) How strict should I be with Vow of Peace? By my reading, if he helps kill someone, he loses it. Which means it'll take about 5 minutes to lose it.

3) He seems to always insist on playing tanks, but refuses to use anything that might make him more than a moving rock. Any ideas on what might catch his attention, make him want to try something else?

[Red Fel]

Wow, thanks for the overwhelming response:smallbiggrin:

A few things:
1) This actually is a replacement character. Sorta. I basically told him I found the Golems, and I had a build in mind he could use if he wanted to, over his current Warforged Crusader/Devoted Defender. But once I got down to writing it all down, as I listed some of the abilities, he insisted on taking the useless ones. So I guess in a way it was half pre-built.
Should I have put my foot down and said the prebuilt is a prebuilt? Told him he could make his own, but this was prebuilt?

Learning experience time. Never make things available to your players if you think they might use them in a way that frustrates you as a DM. Better to never put the cheese on the table than to have to complain about somebody lactose intolerant eating it.

Next time, if you decide the PCs "find" something, figure out what it is. If they want it, fine, if not, fine. Saying, "If you don't like it, you can build your own," will likely lead to another event like this. And if one of your players wants a pre-built character, give him a pre-built character; otherwise, let him build his own.


2) How strict should I be with Vow of Peace? By my reading, if he helps kill someone, he loses it. Which means it'll take about 5 minutes to lose it.

Very. Exalted feats require a tremendous investment of alignment on behalf of the character, and RP on behalf of the player. Although they aren't all powerful, some are quite potent, and their use should be vigorously monitored if they are permitted. If he doesn't like losing them, he shouldn't ask for feats he can't RP.


3) He seems to always insist on playing tanks, but refuses to use anything that might make him more than a moving rock. Any ideas on what might catch his attention, make him want to try something else?

Give him exactly what he wants. Have enemies attack him for a round or two, then get bored and move away. If he complains, point out that everybody else uses mechanics to get their characters to work - the TWFer takes TWF feats and uses sneak attack, the archer uses Point Blank Shot, the Wizard uses spells. Tell him to use his mechanics to make the tank work. When he points out that he has no mechanics to do that, then and only then can you offer him alternatives. Until he realizes that he cannot accomplish what he wants, offering him a better way to do it will be futile.

[Platymus Pus]

How strict should I be with Vow of Peace? By my reading, if he helps kill someone, he loses it. Which means it'll take about 5 minutes to lose it.
more strict than paladin



3) He seems to always insist on playing tanks, but refuses to use anything that might make him more than a moving rock. Any ideas on what might catch his attention, make him want to try something else?

Ways to get actions for free, extended AoO.Overkill? (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=146.0)

[Curmudgeon]

Why do you expect there to be a replacement PC?
I have no expectations; that's why the statement was conditional.

[Tvtyrant]

He can always do the ring of sharing damage thing so that he takes half the damage off another character.


Personally I would simply treat him as not there for encounter calcuations, and then ignore him unless the situation calls for attacking him.

[Rubik]

There are remarkably few "tanking" abilities in the game:


The Knight's "Test of Mettle" (only useful if you take lots of Knight levels)
The Constant Guardian and Dutiful Guardian feats from Drow of the Underdark.
The Crusader (several of his maneuvers and stances work).
The Goad Feat.
The Shield Other spell.
DM agreement to target you over other allies.


That's ... pretty much it. If you don't have a way to draw attacks to you, all the AC and HP in the world means squat.Those are for drawing aggro, mainly, but that's not the only way to tank as a martial combatant. That also includes enough battlefield control to prevent enemies from engaging anyone but you. Large reach, attacks of opportunity, and Improved Trip/Knockback/Knock Down/Stand Still/AoE Fear Stacking works very well for that purpose. It might not be the typical MMO style tanking, but it serves the same purpose and actually does work.

Unfortunately, the player in question has none of those.

And the Goad feat is just awful.

[Hiro Quester]

The. Vow of peace component is adding an interesting BFC effect: the aura of calm emotions a peaceful character emanates. That's not nothing in a battle, to make others incapable of violent actions.

And there can be creative uses of that aura and its placement. Sneaking around him to get to the casters may have demotivating effects on those attackers.

The DC is based on his CHA modifier, though.

And hitting him with a weapon may break the weapon. The DC for that is based on his CON score, which he doesn't have. So that won't be a huge factor.

[Rubik]

Calm Emotions just means you don't feel high emotions. A true psychopath is utterly cold and can kill and torture while calmly eating dessert after a satisfying meal.

[Alistaroc]

Update:
He has decided to go Human Vow of Poverty Monk.

EDIT:
Named Boris Badenov

EDIT:
And has named his fists biff! and Kapow!

EDIT:
And his legs are Zlop! and ThaWK!


This isn't a comedy campaign.
How do I tell him this???

[Rubik]

Update:
He has decided to go Human Vow of Poverty Monk.

EDIT:
Named Boris Badenov

EDIT:
And has named his fists biff! and Kapow!

EDIT:
And his legs are Zlop! and ThaWK!


This isn't a comedy campaign.
How do I tell him this???"Be serious, dude. This isn't a comedy campaign."

Done.

[Hiro Quester]

Even in a serious campaign, a bit f silliness can lighten morale.

Plus if D&D is collective storytelling, then the amount of comedy isn't only up to the DM. The players' actions and choices also help determine whether a comedic element is part of the story.

Edit:

Calm Emotions just means you don't feel high emotions. A true psychopath is utterly cold and can kill and torture while calmly eating dessert after a satisfying meal.

Not that it's all that relevant now he's changed the build, but the calm emotions effect would also deal with a psychopath who failed his save:


Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive.

[Alistaroc]

Even in a serious campaign, a bit f silliness can lighten morale.

Plus if D&D is collective storytelling, then the amount of comedy isn't only up to the DM. The players' actions and choices also help determine whether a comedic element is part of the story.
We have quite a bit of comedic relief, but it's in the form in in-player actions, rather than character creation designed to create a goofy character.

[ericgrau]

Tell him to change his name or at least make it his self-assigned nickname and have a real name that is something else. Did his parents really name him that? Did he really get it legally changed to that? Let him call his fists and kicks whatever he wants. If the party like it it will stick, if crickets chirp you'll find that he doesn't bring up these names anymore.

[SangoProduction]

Tell him to change his name or at least make it his self-assigned nickname and have a real name that is something else. Did his parents really name him that? Did he really get it legally changed to that? Let him call his fists and kicks whatever he wants. If the party like it it will stick, if crickets chirp you'll find that he doesn't bring up these names anymore.

Since when did you need to legally change your name in order to change it in D&D? More seriously...you have an out of game problem. It demands an out of game solution (being either you fixing your issue with that name, or just saying "you can't play with that name for [reasons]").

Don't beat around the bush and simply make him feel unwelcome for not reading your mind that you don't want any comedy (even...name...comedy(?)). I'd like to know the harm in him having those names (just to help understand the situation). It seems like he really doesn't mind being ineffective, so, him playing a "tank" however they are named, isn't affecting anyone either.

[glitterbaby]

Update:
He has decided to go Human Vow of Poverty Monk.

EDIT:
Named Boris Badenov

EDIT:
And has named his fists biff! and Kapow!

EDIT:
And his legs are Zlop! and ThaWK!


This isn't a comedy campaign.
How do I tell him this???


"Be serious, dude. This isn't a comedy campaign."

Done.

This.

I'm seeing a lot of debate over the character's uselessness and some suggestions on how to make the build better but I really don't see how any of it is relevant. You have to be straight up with this guy. Tell him it isn't a comedy campaign. Tell him you'd like to see him play in the campaign but if he can't come up with a character that fits into the setting in-game and the feel you're going for out of game, then he's out. My RL group recently started up a low-magic game. One of our newer players was really excited to play an artificer. In the campaign setting magic items are extremely rare, with any item over CL 6 being considered an "artifact." The class was outright banned. Don't be afraid to take control of your game.

[Dusk Raven]

"That thing's terrifying. Let's walk past him and attack those guys that are seemingly controlling it, putting him at our backs while we are wailing away at them."

Not that it's really relevant anymore, but I have to agree with this. The fact that he's a giant walking flesh golem is the reason he'd be targeted. At least from range. Melee combatants would probably keep their distance, but he'd be a prime target for ranged attacks. At least, as long as said attacks appear to be having an effect. Otherwise, they'll switch to something they can actually destroy.


Since when did you need to legally change your name in order to change it in D&D? More seriously...you have an out of game problem. It demands an out of game solution (being either you fixing your issue with that name, or just saying "you can't play with that name for [reasons]").

Um. Everything he was saying was in-game, nothing concerning out-of-game stuff at all.

As for the names... well, I was about to say I didn't find it too silly, that was before I finally got the reference...

[SangoProduction]

Um. Everything he was saying was in-game, nothing concerning out-of-game stuff at all.

I was talking in game as well. "OK. Yeah, Magical Medieval Naming Legislature, here's my application for a new name. I mean, I could easily just tell others that my name is something else, and in most settings they have absolutely no way of knowing, but here's the papers anyway."

[Dusk Raven]

I was talking in game as well. "OK. Yeah, Magical Medieval Naming Legislature, here's my application for a new name. I mean, I could easily just tell others that my name is something else, and in most settings they have absolutely no way of knowing, but here's the papers anyway."

That method does kinda fall under the term "changing one's name" though. The question of whether that was his birth name remains. It may well be if it fits within naming conventions of the area, of course.

[endur]

Tank. In D&D. And no matter how much I try to explain that there is no real, "tank" in D&D because of the lack of aggro, he refuses to play anything but. He refuses to take Crusader, or any of the Attack of Opportunity feats like Karmic Strike, and will be a very big sack of meat with no relevance whatsoever. Chances are he'll die in the first session. What can I do? He's creating a character that is simply going to weigh the party down, but insists on playing a nonexistent archetype even more suboptimal that I thought possible. I hate to be the railroad-DM, but it doesn't fit at all into the game.

And seriously, how do I deal with a player refusing to play on the level of the party?

D&D is a game. Let the player play the game the way he wants to. Imagine this is monopoly. Some of the players may purchase monopolies and build houses. Another player may just hoard his cash and not buy anything. Let the players play.

Now, "refusing to play on the level of the party?" What does that mean? Everyone else is a wizard with wish and he is a fighter with no wish? Or everyone else is level 25 and he is level 20? Or everyone else is Tier 1 and he is Tier 5?

So long as the levels and wealth are equivalent, I'm cool with players creating characters of different tiers (some with Wish and some with a sword).

If a player decides their character isn't a fit, let them create a new character when they decide they want a new character. Don't force them into a new character.

And, for the record, I've never needed Taunt or AOOs or funky abilities to tank in D&D. All I've ever needed is a melee weapon and the muscles to swing it.

[endur]

There are remarkably few "tanking" abilities in the game:


The Knight's "Test of Mettle" (only useful if you take lots of Knight levels)
The Constant Guardian and Dutiful Guardian feats from Drow of the Underdark.
The Crusader (several of his maneuvers and stances work).
The Goad Feat.
The Shield Other spell.
DM agreement to target you over other allies.


That's ... pretty much it. If you don't have a way to draw attacks to you, all the AC and HP in the world means squat.

Luckily, you don't need any of those abilities to tank.

I've been tanking since AD&D for years with many, many GMs in many different adventures with no problems what so ever.

You do have to realize that its not like WoW, in that you don't mind control the mobs into attacking you ... The GMs control the mobs. You are still the tank however. You control where you place your character. You are the fulcrum point, you are the point of the wedge that shatters the foe.

[JNAProductions]

And, for the record, I've never needed Taunt or AOOs or funky abilities to tank in D&D. All I've ever needed is a melee weapon and the muscles to swing it.

He's got Vow of Peace.

The issue here is, I think, that in order to make this player happy, the enemy has to be really, really dumb.

[wannabedm]

I wouldn't mess with the name but I would insist he talk with an accent that fits his name, it doesn't even sound like an unrealistic name tbh. I think he would have fun with the character, you would all get a few laughs and some people prefer humor irl to seriousness. My brother's and sister were laughing at various points during my mother's funeral, its just the way some people deal with emotions. Besides, something I think everyone gets wrong from time to time, the DM is NOT a storyteller they are a story-guider. We guide the heroes, as they experience our world, and through collaboration a story unfolds.

[endur]

He's got Vow of Peace.

Oops, he should be in the D&D cartoon.

[Deadline]

You do have to realize that its not like WoW, in that you don't mind control the mobs into attacking you ... The GMs control the mobs. You are still the tank however. You control where you place your character. You are the fulcrum point, you are the point of the wedge that shatters the foe.

This sounds great, but isn't so great in practice. Without GM agreement to target your character, you control a very small area around you. Some foes will get right up in your face, and many GMs will just default to having the big monsters go after the tank, but very little of that has to do with anything your character does. The best you can try to do is put yourself in a spot where a foe has to either engage you, or spend time moving around you (if they are melee). Ranged foes, however, are under no obligation to target you, and will often pick off easier targets first (likely while you, the "tank", engage in combat with their designated "tanks"). And the thing is, this is a default behavior for a lot of us. So the traditional tank role in D&D is powered mostly by habit and default behavior, not by anything the tank does or is capable of (aside from being able to take a beating).

The trick is, that habit, while comfortably familiar, is not always (I'd even go so far as to say rarely) the best way to engage your foe. When you change-up the paradigm and focus fire targets that aren't "tanks" first, it often becomes far easier to win a fight with less resources than before. And when that shift happens, the traditional D&D tank is left very much wanting. Hence the mechanics to try and ensure that they still stay relevant in their role.

For me, when I'm running a game, I generally follow an implicit GM agreement to make the tank relevant in each fight, because I know that D&D doesn't support the role well with useful mechanics. I only really change that up in some "boss" fights against intelligent foes. And if the party can't compensate, those fights become much harder than they should be.

[dascarletm]

As a DM, what makes the game more fun for the players?

1. You intentionally ignore the guy who wants to "tank." Making him useless, while killing (or seriously maiming) the other players.

2. Throw him a bone and have enemies target him first. He is now useful.

You may cry foul and claim that it wouldn't make in game sense, but that's your choice of how the campaign narrative works. You are deciding that characters in game are aware of all these factors we know.

It is your campaign so play it how you want. If you want to invalidate the players character because he's not built to your liking that is your prerogative. However, since we are asking for opinions, mine is that doing so is poor DMing.