Would this ability be worthwhile for a tank?

[Talakeal]

So during my last session I was tinkering around with some homebrew and came up with the following ability intended to help melee characters fulfill more of the tank / meat shield role.

Guardian:
At the start of each of your characters turns you may declare something to be your ward as a free action. This ward something can be a creature, unattended object, or area. The ward receives a +2 bonus to AC. This ability lasts until the start of your next turn, at which point you can declare whether or not you wish to continue guarding the same ward, choose a new ward, or stop using the ability.
If anything attempts to interact with your ward (attacks them, casts a spell on them, attempts to pick them up, etc.) you may immediately attack them with any weapon you possess, including ranged or natural weapons. This works much like an attack of opportunity except that there is no limit to how often it can be used. If multiple creatures attempt to interact with your ward you may attack each of them once, one after the other, and if the same enemy attempts to interact with the ward multiple times (for example with a full attack) you may attack them once each time they attempt to interact with the ward. There is no limit to how many total attacks you can make.
If you have unused movement left over from your previous turn you can use it to get into position before making your attack.
If you choose an area to be your ward it can be no larger than 25' on a side and must lie within a single arc of vision. You may take a single bonus attack on any creature that enters into the guarded area. Those that are already inside the area can leave freely.
A character cannot use this ability if they are already someone else's ward.


I tried giving this ability to the melee characters in my last game to help them serve better in the defender role, but the parties meat-shield, a monk, refused to use it, saying that it was an absolutely garbage ability. That is was only worthwhile if the terrain leant itself to a natural chokepoint, and even then the effect was negligible as the enemy would simply stand just outside or the guardian's range and pepper them with ranged attacks.

I personally feel that it is a pretty darned good ability, but I might very well be missing something.

Anyone have any ideas on how this ability would impact the game, either as a feat or given as baseline to the "martial" classes (fighter, monk, knight, ranger, paladin, barbarian, rogue)?

[DeTess]

If the relevant character has a ranged weapon, and there's a second character capable of taking hits and focussing attention to be the ward, it seems pretty good, as it increases the damage output significantly. It's not nearly as good for a melee character (but +2 ac to an ally of choice is still not bad as an at-will ability).

This does depend on a dm not giving his monsters automatic knowledge if this ability, as it requires the monsters to attack the ward in the first place.

[OldTrees1]

There once was a prestige class called the Devoted Defender. I played one once to test the mechanics. I found that being limited to only 1 ward was excessively limiting.


At worst this means every time your charge is attacked you will shoot an arrow at the offender. Sure the offender could stand outside of the guardian's range but then neither side is able to attack. Alternatively the offender can attack the guardian instead. Which is the POINT! Or maybe the offender hit the ward from outside the guardian's melee range and the guardian does not feel like using a ranged weapon. That starts being hard to do when the guardian has a 10ft range and the ability allows them to bank movement.


Sure this is not ideal vs Wizards hurling medium ranged spells at your ward. But at least you get to shoot them each time they do so.

[Celestia]

I think it would be better if you could make any number of targets your "wards." Also, what would be nice, is if it offered more direct protection in addition to the free attacks. Whenever a creature targets one of your wards, they must make a will save. If they fail, they cannot attack that ward for the rest of the round. You need some way to directly pull aggro. Otherwise, your squishy wizards will just die, anyways. After all, in most cases, it's probably still safer to take that automatic attack if it means I can take out the spellcaster. That's a more than fair trade.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Party meat-shield is a monk, and thinks this is a garbage ability? Ignore them. It's unlimited extra attacks, come on...

Thing is, though, this is primarily a way to get extra damage. In any four-man party, three characters can use the Guardian ability on the fourth, who uses a tanky build and generally gets in the way of enemies. The other three characters get the tasty free attacks whenever enemies attack the tank.


I'd use something like Iron Guard's Glare, perhaps with a little Pearl of Black Doubt thrown in. That is, a stance which imposes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made to hit allies within 30'-60', and the penalty increases by 2 for each missed attack (track separately for each attacker). Hitting the source of the effect resets the penalty (for that attacker) to -4.

[Talakeal]

You know, its funny, how some people see it as a defensive ability an others an offensive one.

Reminds me of when I tried playing 5E and the DM forbid my fighter from taking the "Sentinel" feat because the rogue already had it and in his mind it was clearly a feat meant for the damage dealer rather than the meat shield because it gave bonus attacks.


I think it would be better if you could make any number of targets your "wards." Also, what would be nice, is if it offered more direct protection in addition to the free attacks. Whenever a creature targets one of your wards, they must make a will save. If they fail, they cannot attack that ward for the rest of the round. You need some way to directly pull aggro. Otherwise, your squishy wizards will just die, anyways. After all, in most cases, it's probably still safer to take that automatic attack if it means I can take out the spellcaster. That's a more than fair trade.

Being able to guard the entire party would, imo, be a little too nice. Does that mean you think it is underpowered as is?



If the relevant character has a ranged weapon, and there's a second character capable of taking hits and focussing attention to be the ward, it seems pretty good, as it increases the damage output significantly. It's not nearly as good for a melee character (but +2 ac to an ally of choice is still not bad as an at-will ability).

This does depend on a dm not giving his monsters automatic knowledge if this ability, as it requires the monsters to attack the ward in the first place.

That's an interesting idea, have everyone guard the "tank" as a DPS boost. Of course, depending on what other abilities he had to "hold agro," this might simply mean that he is being ignored even more than usual.

The idea is that it is obvious what something is guarding as it is primarily used to dissuade the enemy from attacking the ward.

[Jormengand]

You might take some inspiration from the guard ability of the honour guard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529264-The-Honour-Guard-Take-3) as well.

[OldTrees1]

You know, its funny, how some people see it as a defensive ability an others an offensive one.

Being able to guard the entire party would, imo, be a little too nice. Does that mean you think it is underpowered as is?


There is a balance to be struck between how well you protect each ward and how many wards you can protect.


Let's say the Guardian is in a party of 4 and occasionally there might be 1-2 npcs of interest to protect.
They could protect 1 ward and grant them total cover, evasion, mettle, and can move them 5ft 3 times per round.
They could protect 2 wards by granting them +4 AC, +2 Saves, attacks against them provoke a retaliatory attack, and can move them both 5ft as a immediate action.

[Karl Aegis]

I think the question that needs to be asked is....


Why do you have a melee character in your back line?


I would think a melee character would be more useful in the front line, but there has been one notable exception: The Protector class from the Etrian Odyssey games. But, those games didn't have anywhere close to the mechanics of any d20 game I've seen. So, why?

[Talakeal]

I think the question that needs to be asked is....


Why do you have a melee character in your back line?


I would think a melee character would be more useful in the front line, but there has been one notable exception: The Protector class from the Etrian Odyssey games. But, those games didn't have anywhere close to the mechanics of any d20 game I've seen. So, why?

Well, if you are my players you clump all the PCs into as tight a ball as possible for some reason that I have never fully grasped.


Under ordinary circumstances though, you wouldn't. This ability would probably be used to guard the rogue or other melee striker when everything is going well, only used to guard the casters or non-combatants when the party is ambushed in tight quarters or forced to fall back into a corner.

[Kayblis]

The ability seems way more of a DPS-focused one than actual tanky one. You're basically giving free attacks while the "warded" creature pretty much still takes a beating. Any archer would love this feat and the squishy party members would still go down like flies. It looks like a great feat, but not for tanking.

I believe you could follow OldTrees1's approach, giving defensive bonuses to your warded friend, instead of giving yourself more attacks.
Or, you could go full-on "don't touch the princess" and give that attack with the restriction that it be a combat maneuver that prevents said attack(like disarm, trip or sunder), with a +4 bonus to the opposed check. That way you'll have a character that's probably already focused on BC getting a nice bonus to his shtick.

[Talakeal]

The ability seems way more of a DPS-focused one than actual tanky one. You're basically giving free attacks while the "warded" creature pretty much still takes a beating. Any archer would love this feat and the squishy party members would still go down like flies. It looks like a great feat, but not for tanking.

I believe you could follow OldTrees1's approach, giving defensive bonuses to your warded friend, instead of giving yourself more attacks.
Or, you could go full-on "don't touch the princess" and give that attack with the restriction that it be a combat maneuver that prevents said attack(like disarm, trip or sunder), with a +4 bonus to the opposed check. That way you'll have a character that's probably already focused on BC getting a nice bonus to his shtick.

That's up to the DM.

Like I said above, it is supposed to be obvious who is guarding what, so that you would only get this scenario if people are simply ignoring the guardian in favor of attacking their ward.

Which is not a bad idea, I kind of like the idea of a mountain of dead people lying in front of the McGuffin because they were so obsessed with getting to it that they forgot to look after their own safety, but it is highly dependent on the situation.

[Zombulian]

The ability seems way more of a DPS-focused one than actual tanky one. You're basically giving free attacks while the "warded" creature pretty much still takes a beating. Any archer would love this feat and the squishy party members would still go down like flies. It looks like a great feat, but not for tanking.

I believe you could follow OldTrees1's approach, giving defensive bonuses to your warded friend, instead of giving yourself more attacks.
Or, you could go full-on "don't touch the princess" and give that attack with the restriction that it be a combat maneuver that prevents said attack(like disarm, trip or sunder), with a +4 bonus to the opposed check. That way you'll have a character that's probably already focused on BC getting a nice bonus to his shtick.

Well I kinda disagree. Tanking in 3.5 is often difficult because there's no "aggro" system per se. The best approximation you can get is the Knight's Test of Mettle or the Goad feat, and those are hard to make work since they have saves as well as minimum Int required of the enemies. This tactic is essentially entirely self-preservation causing the enemy to want to put their focus on you, since if they attack your friend (who you've already made harder to hit) you get tons of damage on them, as well as the ability to shift your location out-of-turn. That's some nice action economy control right there imo.
Even if the enemy decides to keep trying to smack your friend, you get to punish them for it, and if they don't want to deal with the heat, great. You did your job.

I honestly can't believe the monk referred to it as "garbage." It's a reactionary action-granting mechanic. That's awesome.

[Kayblis]

That's up to the DM.

Like I said above, it is supposed to be obvious who is guarding what, so that you would only get this scenario if people are simply ignoring the guardian in favor of attacking their ward.

Which is not a bad idea, I kind of like the idea of a mountain of dead people lying in front of the McGuffin because they were so obsessed with getting to it that they forgot to look after their own safety, but it is highly dependent on the situation.

I get what you're saying and it looks cool. The thing is, an archer protecting his ward from 40ft away isn't going to reduce the chance of his ward dying by much unless he can one-shot his enemies, at which point the feat itself isn't for tanking - "dead people can't hurt me" is a DPS approach to his problems. Unless you're specifically using this attack as a maneuver, you're just upping your damage by attacking more. It's kinda the same as saying Power Attack is a tanking feat because more damage makes people focus you more - it's a consequence, not the ability itself. Again, the feat is really cool, it's just not for tanks.

EDIT: Also, the best use I can imagine of the feat is two frontliners with at least 10ft reach choosing each other as their protected ones. This means they get an attack whenever anything attacks them, effectively giving them as many attacks as their enemies plus their full-attacks. It's an awesome feat for a melee duo to fight a horde of weaker enemies, and is a damage boost against any enemy. Again, a great DPS tactic.

[Celestia]

Being able to guard the entire party would, imo, be a little too nice. Does that mean you think it is underpowered as is?
So, the wizard can cast one spell that incapacitates the entire enemy force, but the fighter isn't allowed to even do his job as meat shield? Why can't mundanes have nice things?

[arkangel111]

Personally I think its broken. I chose an object, my armor. Now everytime I get attacked I get to make an attack. Stack some AC boosters and run in circles around the battlefield provoking AoOs then stand in the middle of a group going full defensive. definitely not how it was intended to work but the image of someone doing it is to good to pass up.
Don't get me wrong tanks need some love in dnd but I think that sounds more like a capstone ability rather than an at will low level toy.

[Talakeal]

Personally I think its broken. I chose an object, my armor. Now everytime I get attacked I get to make an attack. Stack some AC boosters and run in circles around the battlefield provoking AoOs then stand in the middle of a group going full defensive. definitely not how it was intended to work but the image of someone doing it is to good to pass up.
Don't get me wrong tanks need some love in dnd but I think that sounds more like a capstone ability rather than an at will low level toy.

Hence the "unnattended" qualifier for objects.

[Celestia]

Personally I think its broken. I chose an object, my armor. Now everytime I get attacked I get to make an attack. Stack some AC boosters and run in circles around the battlefield provoking AoOs then stand in the middle of a group going full defensive. definitely not how it was intended to work but the image of someone doing it is to good to pass up.
Don't get me wrong tanks need some love in dnd but I think that sounds more like a capstone ability rather than an at will low level toy.
You'll note that the wording specifically says "unattended object." Your armor is attended.

Edit: Ninja'd

[arkangel111]

missed that part... still works if you choose yourself as the ward. The statement at the end actually implies it can be used that way.

[Talakeal]

missed that part... still works if you choose yourself as the ward. The statement at the end actually implies it can be used that way.

That is true, although it is only an issue with the summary I posted here, the actual write-up has tighter language to make it clear that a character cannot be both a guardian and a ward at the same time.

Either way though, I don't really think the ability to twist the wording to gain an obviously unintended advantage has much bearing on the general usefulness of the ability.

[arkangel111]

Yea but it also doesn't force anyone to attack your tank. And as you can see from most forumites this ability is clearly better as any offensive option.
What's wrong with the classic taunt? Dc based on level and con, probably will save otherwise they attack your tank. I'd only base it on con because tank will need high hp and maybe some dr as well.
Granted your monk is wrong about why this ability doesn't work and that's probably why he plays a monk.
Also there is some abilities in path of war/ tome of battle that help cover that role as well. As the gm for my noob players I usually have the enemies attack whoever is closest (and arrange most fights so that is their tank).

[Talakeal]

Yea but it also doesn't force anyone to attack your tank. And as you can see from most forumites this ability is clearly better as any offensive option.
What's wrong with the classic taunt? Dc based on level and con, probably will save otherwise they attack your tank. I'd only base it on con because tank will need high hp and maybe some dr as well.
Granted your monk is wrong about why this ability doesn't work and that's probably why he plays a monk.
Also there is some abilities in path of war/ tome of battle that help cover that role as well. As the gm for my noob players I usually have the enemies attack whoever is closest (and arrange most fights so that is their tank).

Would said taunt be an AOE ability that covers the entire battlefield?

[Kayblis]

Would said taunt be an AOE ability that covers the entire battlefield?

Well, that's an MMORPG, it's what we have 4e for. I'd say it would be better as a swift action so it doesn't disrupt your entire turn for something that has a minor effect even when not resisted. Maybe give it a nice range and/or number of targets equal to the PC's CON modifier. That way you can force your opponents to act a certain way while not turning every fight into a DPS rush with no risks for non-tanks like your usual MMO.

[Godskook]

So during my last session I was tinkering around with some homebrew and came up with the following ability intended to help melee characters fulfill more of the tank / meat shield role.

OP lacks the exact *cost* for this ability. That's useful for evaluations.


Guardian:
At the start of each of your characters turns you may declare something to be your ward as a free action. This ward something can be a creature, unattended object, or area. The ward receives a +2 bonus to AC. This ability lasts until the start of your next turn, at which point you can declare whether or not you wish to continue guarding the same ward, choose a new ward, or stop using the ability.

This alone is worth >x2 Dodge. +2 AC, to someone else, is....maybe worth a feat? Probably slightly less? Hard to say.


If anything attempts to interact with your ward (attacks them, casts a spell on them, attempts to pick them up, etc.) you may immediately attack them with any weapon you possess, including ranged or natural weapons. This works much like an attack of opportunity except that there is no limit to how often it can be used. If multiple creatures attempt to interact with your ward you may attack each of them once, one after the other, and if the same enemy attempts to interact with the ward multiple times (for example with a full attack) you may attack them once each time they attempt to interact with the ward. There is no limit to how many total attacks you can make.

Ok, this alone is brokenly good. On archers. On melee, its hard to evaluate depending on how melee-centric your world is. Against melee enemies, this is pretty baller. Against ranged enemies, not so much.


If you have unused movement left over from your previous turn you can use it to get into position before making your attack.

"Unused" is a *VERY* real limitation, but basically says "that guy, that guy dies" *IF* your melee has sufficient "unused movement".


If you choose an area to be your ward it can be no larger than 25' on a side and must lie within a single arc of vision. You may take a single bonus attack on any creature that enters into the guarded area. Those that are already inside the area can leave freely.

Ok, at this point, you're *REALLY* stepping on the toes of "threatened space" and AoO builds.


A character cannot use this ability if they are already someone else's ward.

Well...goodd job eliminating the x4 Swift Hunters party who just murders *EVERYONE*.


I tried giving this ability to the melee characters in my last game to help them serve better in the defender role, but the parties meat-shield, a monk, refused to use it, saying that it was an absolutely garbage ability. That is was only worthwhile if the terrain leant itself to a natural chokepoint, and even then the effect was negligible as the enemy would simply stand just outside or the guardian's range and pepper them with ranged attacks.

Did you try giving it to them for free? Cause anyone who refuses free power is, objectively, incapable of judging power. Its really hard to appreciate his decision without knowing how much this ability cost.

------------------

Overall, I'd say its a powerful ability for a character built to use it, but falls oddly weak/broken* on normal people.

*+2 AC is still notable enough to justify a feat, but since that's not the primary benefit of the ability, its hard to say

All in all, I'd say this is too finicky to be a singular feat or rule-swap, and steps on a lot of toes that shouldn't be stepped on(tripper builds).

[ExLibrisMortis]

What's wrong with the classic taunt?
I find force-attacks that are not [mind-affecting]/[language-dependent] to be quite immersion-breaking. I mean, how's a human going to taunt a gibbering mouther? I prefer Iron Guard's Glare-type effects, or the knight's Bulwark of Defence, where the effect is much less drastic, so it's easier to justify in-universe.

(that's partway to "guy at the gym" fallacy I suppose, but then I'm a proponent of a mild implementation of that principle)

[Zanos]

You pick an ally at the start of every round, give them +2 untyped bonus to AC, and every time they get attacked you get to make a reactionary attack with no limit on the number of attacks per round?

That's a pretty damn good ability. Hell, you can even move into range to make the attacks if you have extra movement, or use ranged attack?

Someone complaining about this ability is a massive whiner.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You pick an ally at the start of every round, give them +2 untyped bonus to AC, and every time they get attacked you get to make a reactionary attack with no limit on the number of attacks per round?

That's a pretty damn good ability. Hell, you can even move into range to make the attacks if you have extra movement, or use ranged attack?

Someone complaining about this ability is a massive whiner.
Yeah, it's an incredible offensive boost. Not to mention that it means you're starting your turn next to an enemy-- hello, full attack!

[Zanos]

Yeah, it's an incredible offensive boost. Not to mention that it means you're starting your turn next to an enemy-- hello, full attack!
I'd characterize it as a defensive ability myself, it's basically a huge incentive for enemies to not attack the ward, if they're made aware of it. Most of the "tank" abilities like Iron Guard's Glare specified that enemies were aware of the effect.

So as opposed to taunts which are "you must attack me", it's "you don't have to attack me, but you probably should." Most MMOs handle taunts in PvP a similar way. They don't force you to attack the taunter, but you do reduced damage to everyone except them for the duration.

[fire_insideout]

I like it and I'd gladly use it on my melee characters. It's like a offensive version of the 'Hero's X' abilities from Grod's Paladin fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?221312-A-hero-is-a-man-too-stubborn-to-die-a-3-5-Paladin-fix-(PEACH)&p=12150015#post12150015), so check it out and see if you find some inspiration there for more things :smallsmile:

[Talakeal]

Is it really that hard to force a full attack?

I actually haven't played with full attacks in years now, either because I was playing a low level game or one that house ruled them out, but I would think it would be so hard to pull off that the ability to move out of the turn sequence is so incredibly deadly.

[Kayblis]

Is it really that hard to force a full attack?

I actually haven't played with full attacks in years now, either because I was playing a low level game or one that house ruled them out, but I would think it would be so hard to pull off that the ability to move out of the turn sequence is so incredibly deadly.

Full Attacks are an integral part of the game. Most people invest in at least one way to use it effectively, be it Pounce, reach or swift teleportation. It's not "hard" to pull it off. Now, instant out-of-turn movement and a free whack to the face of anyone that does "arbitrary action X" which doesn't even target you? It's like martial christmas. Hell, you could even use the area effect and kill an entire army as they try to cross it, and not even on your turn! Every fortress could have like 10 archers defending its main entrance and kill 1000 warriors trying to invade each turn! The possibilities are endless with unlimited attacks.

[martixy]

Full Attacks are an integral part of the game. Most people invest in at least one way to use it effectively, be it Pounce, reach or swift teleportation. It's not "hard" to pull it off. Now, instant out-of-turn movement and a free whack to the face of anyone that does "arbitrary action X" which doesn't even target you? It's like martial christmas. Hell, you could even use the area effect and kill an entire army as they try to cross it, and not even on your turn! Every fortress could have like 10 archers defending its main entrance and kill 1000 warriors trying to invade each turn! The possibilities are endless with unlimited attacks.

I.e. it turns tactics to mathematics.

[Zanos]

I.e. it turns tactics to mathematics.
Tactics always are mathematics.

[Zombulian]

Is it really that hard to force a full attack?

I actually haven't played with full attacks in years now, either because I was playing a low level game or one that house ruled them out, but I would think it would be so hard to pull off that the ability to move out of the turn sequence is so incredibly deadly.

Wait, you don't play in games with Full Attacks and the monk STILL called free movement and attacks garbage?
Who is this guy...