Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Tank is such an MMO term.

Leaving aside cases in which the party has to protect something other than themselves, it's all about threat, both from the party's point of view and the enemies'. Normally, and I'm not talking about any single system in particular, you'd have members who deal more or less damage. Also normally, the largest damage dealers compensate with poor defense, which makes them the target of most any intelligent adversary. Therefore, to keep them safe, the most resistant member(s) of the group will have to intercept and engage the attackers who would take them out.

It's the same for either side. The tanks aren't tanks because they are the most attractive/dangerous target, but rather because they put themselves between the attackers and the real target. They're defenders which shield the damage dealers so that they can keep hammering away at the opponents.

Now, if there's godly damage dealers with godly defense who can take on any attacker single-handedly and they aren't exceptions to the norm, then all that breaks down and there's something wrong with the system.

That "defender" thing stops working out at level when other team starts to have shit like "flight" and "teleport at will"

The way to make tanks work at this point without stupid mechanics like "taunting" or "marking" is by giving them interruptible charge moves. Like "Imma charging my heroic strike that will hit that dude that I don't like for a ton of damage in the next round (more than what a dedicated damage dealer would do in two rounds!) if you don't deal more than X damage (or inflict some bad status effects) to me in this round".

You simultaneously make it so that other people will attack tank first, and that the tank would be the most armored person in the group (because if he gets his charge move out, he makes a lot of damage).

Of course there would be some need to balance this system so that a team full of tanks is not overpowering a team full of damage dealers in every way possible (probably by giving damage dealers some area-of-effect moves that will when sufficiently massed be able to interrupt most of the killer moves on the Team Tank).

[Flying Dice]

You already made a solution in your description: tank damage is interruptable. As long as the threshold is right or they're vulnerable to Silence or a similar sort of CC, they won't get their burst off if you attack them. DPS does their damage regardless of what happens to them, short of hard CC (stuns, knockdowns, &c.)

[Greenbane]

That "defender" thing stops working out at level when other team starts to have shit like "flight" and "teleport at will"

The way to make tanks work at this point without stupid mechanics like "taunting" or "marking" is by giving them interruptible charge moves. Like "Imma charging my heroic strike that will hit that dude that I don't like for a ton of damage in the next round (more than what a dedicated damage dealer would do in two rounds!) if you don't deal more than X damage (or inflict some bad status effects) to me in this round".

You simultaneously make it so that other people will attack tank first, and that the tank would be the most armored person in the group (because if he gets his charge move out, he makes a lot of damage).

Of course there would be some need to balance this system so that a team full of tanks is not overpowering a team full of damage dealers in every way possible (probably by giving damage dealers some area-of-effect moves that will when sufficiently massed be able to interrupt most of the killer moves on the Team Tank).

Thing is, conceptually, the tank is a character which can soak up a lot of damage but doesn't particularly dish out much compared to the party's dedicated attackers. As I said earlier, the tank is not supposed to be a threat, but rather the obstacle which puts itself in the way if you attempt to attack the real threat. The moment you make it a big damage dealer, you break the concept and put into question the whole idea of what's an attacker as well. Why be anything but this super not-tank, who's great at defending and can occasionally launch a devastating attack?

Of course, that mechanic arises from the systemic problem you described earlier: a system which eventually grants damage dealers the ability to move around the battlefield with impunity, picking any target they choose. Unless heavily restricted, that's a major system flaw which creates a necessity to come up with increasingly convoluted, gamey ways to make a tank work in such a chaotic environment.

[Sergarr]

That "defender" thing stops working out at level when other team starts to have shit like "flight" and "teleport at will"

The way to make tanks work at this point without stupid mechanics like "taunting" or "marking" is by giving them interruptible charge moves. Like "Imma charging my heroic strike that will hit that dude that I don't like for a ton of damage in the next round (more than what a dedicated damage dealer would do in two rounds!) if you don't deal more than X damage (or inflict some bad status effects) to me in this round".

You simultaneously make it so that other people will attack tank first, and that the tank would be the most armored person in the group (because if he gets his charge move out, he makes a lot of damage).

Of course there would be some need to balance this system so that a team full of tanks is not overpowering a team full of damage dealers in every way possible (probably by giving damage dealers some area-of-effect moves that will when sufficiently massed be able to interrupt most of the killer moves on the Team Tank).

Thing is, conceptually, the tank is a character which can soak up a lot of damage but doesn't particularly dish out much compared to the party's dedicated attackers. As I said earlier, the tank is not supposed to be a threat, but rather the obstacle which puts itself in the way if you attempt to attack the real threat. The moment you make it a big damage dealer, you break the concept and put into question the whole idea of what's an attacker as well. Why be anything but this super not-tank, who's great at defending and can occasionally launch a devastating attack?

Not really. Tanks are supposed to be threatening to the other people. That's why they're getting attacked first, despite them being armored. Just go back to the origin of the word - tanks. They sure are well armored, but they also pack a serious-business 125 mm cannon that will fuck everyone's day as long as the tank can get its shot off. It can't always do that, because other people can hide and use terrain and shit to evade being cannon-ed, but the threat of the tank makes other people attack it the first, even despite it being the most well-armored thing on the battlefield.

Original tanks (Fighters and Barbarians), if we see D&D, are also at early levels the best attackers out of all classes. That evolution of the "tank" term of MMORPGs is just a result of not being willing to properly implement the mob AI and going in with a surrogate solution ("threat value") and just keeping it afterwards due to "why change it if it works".

Why do you think they would name it "the threat value" if tanks weren't supposed to be threatening, anyway?

Of course, that mechanic arises from the systemic problem you described earlier: a system which eventually grants damage dealers the ability to move around the battlefield with impunity, picking any target they choose. Unless heavily restricted, that's a major system flaw which creates a necessity to come up with increasingly convoluted, gamey ways to make a tank work in such a chaotic environment.

Giving players more actual movement freedom at higher levels is now a "major system flaw"?

Yeah, not agreeing with that one at all.

[Greenbane]

Not really. Tanks are supposed to be threatening to the other people. That's why they're getting attacked first, despite them being armored. Just go back to the origin of the word - tanks. They sure are well armored, but they also pack a serious-business 125 mm cannon that will fuck everyone's day as long as the tank can get its shot off. It can't always do that, because other people can hide and use terrain and shit to evade being cannon-ed, but the threat of the tank makes other people attack it the first, even despite it being the most well-armored thing on the battlefield.

Original tanks (Fighters and Barbarians), if we see D&D, are also at early levels the best attackers out of all classes. That evolution of the "tank" term of MMORPGs is just a result of not being willing to properly implement the mob AI and going in with a surrogate solution ("threat value") and just keeping it afterwards due to "why change it if it works".

Why do you think they would name it "the threat value" if tanks weren't supposed to be threatening, anyway?

Uhh, where to begin...

Any system which grants tanks skills like taunt and other artificial means to get them attacked implicitly acknowledges they're not naturally threatening. At least not more so than the far more killable, fireball-slinging mage that any intelligent foe would strike first if given the chance.

The comparison with an actual modern tank can't really be taken too literally. A real tank will go down instantly when exposed to an anti-tank weapon or two. And if the opposing force doesn't have anti-tank weapons, they'll scarcely try to engage it. Certainly nowhere close to the point of ignoring supporting units they can kill. So an actual main battle tank will either be destroyed quickly or avoided for the most part. You're never trading blows with a tank for more than a few moments.

The kind of naturally most threatening "tank" you describe is a super attacker which puts into question the role of any other attacker in the party. It's a "boss" character which is good at both offense and defense.

The concept of a tank I describe ends up being attacked because enemies have to go through them to tackle the actual threat. Of course, logic dictates one such character can't really keep its charge safe from a large number of enemies. And that's fine.

Giving players more actual movement freedom at higher levels is now a "major system flaw"?

Yeah, not agreeing with that one at all.

Sorry, I'm used to less magic-intensive systems with more symmetric rules/opposition. I'm not talking about players but any character. If there comes a point everyone (including adversaries) can move anywhere and attack anything, most strategy is out of the window and I can't see the situation being enjoyable.

[Sergarr]

Uhh, where to begin...

Any system which grants tanks skills like taunt and other artificial means to get them attacked implicitly acknowledges they're not naturally threatening. At least not more so than the far more killable, fireball-slinging mage that any intelligent foe would strike first if given the chance.

1) Look up AD&D. D&D 3rd edition, too. Specifically, look up Fighters and Barbarians.

You may notice that they don't have artificial means to get people to attack them.

The comparison with an actual modern tank can't really be taken too literally. A real tank will go down instantly when exposed to an anti-tank weapon or two. And if the opposing force doesn't have anti-tank weapons, they'll scarcely try to engage it. Certainly nowhere close to the point of ignoring supporting units they can kill. So an actual main battle tank will either be destroyed quickly or avoided for the most part. You're never trading blows with a tank for more than a few moments.

2) But I'm not talking about real modern tanks, I'm talking more about a popular image of tanks, as they were in WW2. And tanks in WW2 could not have been easily killed by infantry unless in extremely close range.

The kind of naturally most threatening "tank" you describe is a super attacker which puts into question the role of any other attacker in the party. It's a "boss" character which is good at both offense and defense.

I have a hunch that you haven't actually fully read my post. Here, I'll repeat it for you:

The way to make tanks work at this point without stupid mechanics like "taunting" or "marking" is by giving them interruptible charge moves. Like "Imma charging my heroic strike that will hit that dude that I don't like for a ton of damage in the next round (more than what a dedicated damage dealer would do in two rounds!) if you don't deal more than X damage (or inflict some bad status effects) to me in this round".

Notice the bolded part. The bolded part is important because it makes tank actually deal zero (zero) damage if they're attacked by a decent damage-dealer. This character is not "good at both defence and offence", unless grossly overleveled compared to the enemies or using some CharOp stuff to up your AC into the heavens. In the current system you just use some CharOp stuff to up your attack power into the heavens to result in the same "good at both defence and offence" thing because you essentially kill everybody before they can do anything.

Giving players more actual movement freedom at higher levels is now a "major system flaw"?

Yeah, not agreeing with that one at all.

Sorry, I'm used to less magic-intensive systems with more symmetric rules/opposition. I'm not talking about players but any character. If there comes a point everyone (including adversaries) can move anywhere and attack anything, most strategy is out of the window and I can't see the situation being enjoyable.

Higher movement freedom (and in general, freedom of action) is pretty much the only thing that makes high-level game fundamentally different from low-levels. It's also where the players get the most enjoyment from being high-level, from their ability to just go anywhere they want.

And that's the whole point of having levels in the first place - the game must be fundamentally evolving when you go from low-levels to high-levels.

Low-level strategy for tanking is to stay between you and the opponent. High-level strategy for tanking is to hit them superhard if they don't attack you.
Low-level strategy for damage-dealing is to swing sharp metal around. High-level strategy for damage-dealing is to use terrific spells that rend space apart.
Low-level strategy for investigation is to go around and ask people. High-level strategy for investigation is to summon a local spirit or deity and ask him questions.
Low-level strategy for going across a mountain range is to use mountaineer gear or to ask people around for the safe pass. High-level strategy for going across a mountain range is to fly.

And so on. The high-level stuff is not "less enjoyable", but it's different and many people seem to dislike that for some reason.

[PrimusRibbus]

A good DM gives players opportunities to exploit their characters' strengths in combat. Taunting could be a valid tactic, but not some sort of automated ability like in MMOs. A DM could allow a character to yell actual insults at enemies, perhaps using knowledge that the character obtained prior to combat to rattle or infuriate an enemy.

Tanks, in the sense of a big dude in heavy armor, have always had a place in D&D. Choke-points, terrain, and formations allowed saavy players to keep enemies locked down in as harmless a scenario as they could. Tanks should not be able to keep 20 enemies occupied or a group of people in an open field from getting past them. That's the type of encounter where a tactical retreat might be in order.

In my mind, WoW style taunting and tanking are crutches for bad DMs. There's already a million tools available, going all the way back to 1st Edition, that have allowed "tank" characters to work in D&D.

[Flying Dice]

I don't know about "taunting" not being a natural part of D&D. What do you think masochist builds do? They're HP tanks who deliberately make themselves vulnerable to draw attention, and their form of tanking allows them to do substantial DPS if they're successful. AoO lockdown builds force enemies to either deal with them or waste time disengaging. Hell, that's explicitly how the Knight works.

Funny that people forget about it, actually, 3.5e's Knight is pretty much exactly like an MMO tank class, given that they're all about walking about in full plate forcing strong enemies to duel you and weak enemies to run away, gain myriad bonuses against your target, move at full speed in heavy armor, prevent foes from moving past you, and directly absorb damage directed at other party members.

[Sergarr]

I don't know about "taunting" not being a natural part of D&D. What do you think masochist builds do? They're HP tanks who deliberately make themselves vulnerable to draw attention, and their form of tanking allows them to do substantial DPS if they're successful. AoO lockdown builds force enemies to either deal with them or waste time disengaging. Hell, that's explicitly how the Knight works.

AoO and builds for martial classes were only introduced in 3rd edition, and Fighters/Barbarians were tanking before that without them. Well, in a sense that DMs usually sent their monsters to attack mostly them and not the squishy mage, but still, they actually did some good damage per-round, and weren't limited by spell slots, too, which oftentimes made them the lead damage dealer as well.

Funny that people forget about it, actually, 3.5e's Knight is pretty much exactly like an MMO tank class, given that they're all about walking about in full plate forcing strong enemies to duel you and weak enemies to run away, gain myriad bonuses against your target, move at full speed in heavy armor, prevent foes from moving past you, and directly absorb damage directed at other party members.

Probably because it's a supplementary-book class that I've literally haven't heard about before that people used very rarely (I've heard about many other supplementary-book classes, but not about this one). I think that's because the concept of MMO tanking proved to be unpopular for TTRPG players.

[Greenbane]

2) But I'm not talking about real modern tanks, I'm talking more about a popular image of tanks, as they were in WW2. And tanks in WW2 could not have been easily killed by infantry unless in extremely close range.

My statement on tanks barely changes in a WW2 context. Now, as for a "popular image", who knows? Does anyone really believe a tank will explode if you shoot at it with a "machinegun" long enough, like an RPG tank would go down after enough sword blows?

On the other hand, and perhaps most importantly, an actual tank IS the primary threat and "damage dealer", unlike the RPG tank, who in theory exists mainly to divert damage from the group's main attackers.

The comparison is unsustainable on any but the most superficial level.

And no, I don't know about the earlier versions of D&D, but you just said Fighters and Barbarians were "tanking" while admitting that was only so because the DM willfully steered opposition away from the squishy mages. That's not particularly good DMing.

Notice the bolded part. The bolded part is important because it makes tank actually deal zero (zero) damage if they're attacked by a decent damage-dealer.

I got what you said. I just think the concept's twisted if you're treating the tank as an attacker which has to be stopped rather than a defender which protects the real attackers. And it still feels like a contrived mechanism to artificially inflate the threat a less threatening character poses.

From a purely logical standpoint, the most threatening character is the best damage dealer. Dumb enemies might believe a more imposing warrior is the real threat and go for them first. But it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see past that.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Arguably, from the logical standpoint, the most threatening enemy is the healer, but that's a whole different argument.

[Greenbane]

Arguably, from the logical standpoint, the most threatening enemy is the healer, but that's a whole different argument.

In an entirely different way, yes. Could also be a different caster/commander who's constantly buffing or debuffing, otherwise making the battle impossible. Though on that level we're talking about tactical importance more than direct "threat".

Ultimately, unless the tank physically gets in the way, it's the last character an intelligent foe would attack, if all they have is a bunch of armour to their name. Give them more than that, however, and you risk imbalancing the whole system. The key to keeping tanks useful lies not in the class itself, but rather in the DM's portrayal of the situations, as PrimusRibbus stated earlier.

[Neonivek]

One of my favorite Tanks in 4e which is actually called a "Brute" (Enemies don't get defenders) actually worked excellently in the role of Tank.

Basically whenever you attacked near him or at him you had to make a will save and if you fail it you instead hit nothing or another team mate with your attack.

He would certainly be a viable obstacle that could interrupt the PCs flow.

As for Tanks being able to deal damage or not...

It isn't that they can't deal damage. It is that for a Tank that is their secondary purpose. A Golem as I said earlier makes a great tank and they hit like a truck.

[sambojin]

Wizards revoked the full OGL

lolwut

u srs bruh

They can revoke the OGL for certain sites, it is a part of the OGL. If you infringe on their copyright (incl 5e) they can revoke the entire OGL despire 5e not being covered under the OGL.

I'm going to have to ask for a big old [CITATION NEEDED] for this, because as far as I'm aware, the OGL cannot be revoked. What it sounds more like is that these websites violated the terms of the license, or they were hit by the DMCA, which is a big old sledgehammer of a law that tends to smash apart perfectly legal things in the process of taking down copyright infringement.

The sites in question were in the wrong, several of them made fan made 5e Character Generators, which they did not take money for. However 5e is NOT covered under the OGL, so they did not have the right to do so.

****Lots of OGL stuff removed for brevity*****

It seems like they've pulled a few backflips on this one. Pathguy's got taken down, but there were saved copies floating around, as well as the Wayback Machine's repository.

So in the end they must have said, "Screw it, you can have a license. But not Everyone gets one." It's in a cut-down format, but it works for all freely available stuff.

Weird policy, but where community support lays, WotC lawyers fear to tread.

tldr; Pathguy's character creator is back up!

http://www.pathguy.com/ddnext.htm

Incidentally, I've still got the full site saved in Opera Mobile format, but before EE, if anyone wants it (just PM me).

[Jiokuy]

Re: Pathguy, Awesomeness!!

Since I know PF best, I'll be mentioning tank archetype's I've seen my players use in that system:

Low AC, High HP Barbarian, Easy to hit, and a general lack of mobility tends to make this character a popular target for swarms of weaker enemies who might not have the mobility to reach the damage dealers. In addition his very high single target damage, and high accuracy, while not as good as a true DPS (mostly due to the logistics of melee), still makes him a threat to larger enemies.

Zone of Control Fighter, using a reach weapon, and likely enlarge person, this tank specializes in using AOO's to trip enemies. "Oh, you wanted to charge the mage?" "Well too bad you're on the floor, better luck next time." They have high armor, and ok damage, but a very high accuracy to ensure even larger creatures are vulnerable to their maneuvers.

The Crane Style Monk, what they lack in control or damage, they make up for in sheer defense and mobility. The most effective way to play these guys involves throwing yourself in the enemies face. If there is a large enemy, force them to go around you as much as possible, while beating on them. Against squishier enemies, jump in their face and force them to retreat instead of attacking. Thankfully you have decent damage, if not so great accuracy. If the enemy is particularly determined, a grapple will surely slow them down.

I've also already mentioned the Witch Doctor in a previous post.

The Paladin, High Armor Class, Ok Damage, Can heal Self very easily, Brutally, Utterly damaging against single targets of certain types.

The Cavraleer (Mounted), High armor class, High mobility, med-high base HP, cannot heal, but Brutally, Utterly damaging with charges that deal a ton of damage in one hit. a high priority to limit their mobility fast as that limits their damage.

The Cavraleer (No Horse), High Armor class, Low Mobility, High damage vs single targets, usually has a few extra tricks to make up for a lack of the Mobility and Charge damage. Usually Very high dps, if left alone to full attack, but vulnerable enough that it doesn't feel like boring a hole in a wall with a spoon.


In League of Legends there are tanks. They contribute to a team with crowd control and utility, their tankyness allowed them greater freedom in positioning. However the strategy does not translate well to tabletop, as CC and overly high defenses are actually rather unfun when turns can take 15 minues (half of a league game).

I have found many of the successful tanks in Tabletop take after Bruisers in league. They use their defense to allow them to

Poop, S.O. is back for the first time in forever, sorry I have to cut this short. Many apologies!