As I recall there is at least one feat that gives the character some boost when an opponent doesn't attack, but for the life of me I can't remember exactly what it was. I think the part was that if the character has been adjacent to the enemy for 1 round without being attacked, on the second round of not getting attacked the character gets an AoO or something.
Along the tanking notes, the Mindless Rage (http://dndtools.eu/spells/complete-adventurer--54/mindless-rage--394/) spell is perhaps one of the more effective ways of getting aggro, but it definitely has its shortcoming.
Problem with Tanking, that is real tanking and not playing a Wizard with Greater Mirror Image prepped, is it requires unselfish build choices.I, honestly, don't care about glory >w<"
No one wants to play a role that doesn't shine with awesome moments of glory several times per table top session.
As I recall there is at least one feat that gives the character some boost when an opponent doesn't attack, but for the life of me I can't remember exactly what it was. I think the part was that if the character has been adjacent to the enemy for 1 round without being attacked, on the second round of not getting attacked the character gets an AoO or something.
Along the tanking notes, the Mindless Rage (http://dndtools.eu/spells/complete-adventurer--54/mindless-rage--394/) spell is perhaps one of the more effective ways of getting aggro, but it definitely has its shortcoming.
http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-handbook-ii--80/defensive-sweep--557/ ?
Problem with Tanking, that is real tanking and not playing a Wizard with Greater Mirror Image prepped, is it requires unselfish build choices.
No one wants to play a role that doesn't shine with awesome moments of glory several times per table top session.
And based on how often healbots (or buffers/debuffers, controllers, etc) do end up getting used, I'd say there are some people who aren't bothered when they don't have "awesome moments of glory" since they're enabling the whole party to be awesome (or at least suck less, as that's what happened the last time I played a cleric). Bards come to mind for that.
I remember a line of feats in Drow of the Underdark that enabled you to protect a teammate from an attack as an immediate action - sacrificing yourself for a party member would be quite the dramatic scene. Too bad that feat is so trashy :pNo kidding, two Feats, -2 AC, and you have to remain within 10ft of them just so *you* take someone else's damage?
I dunno this seems like a deliberate use of the skill for the opposite of what its usually used for. But it still seems like it should be something you could roll for.Well, I'd think of it as changing their attitude... you're just making it worse instead of better?
I dunno this seems like a deliberate use of the skill for the opposite of what its usually used for. But it still seems like it should be something you could roll for.Well, I'd think of it as changing their attitude... you're just making it worse instead of better?
Well, if looking to a 3.5e based game for inspiration is okay, then DDO uses the intimidate skill for taunting. Diplomacy there is for aggro removal.
At high levels: Build a tank for your wizard.
Permancy on Animated Object (Some rollers and a framework chassis on top of that), then cover this with a body of several inches of Adamantine so no LoE to the animated object remains. Put a little tower like thing on top to fight from or simply make some openings to be able to shoot or cast spells from total cover. Since there is a wizard inside it will be able to deal with various threats. Bonus points if you can somehow build a gun for the tank.
At high levels: Build a tank for your wizard.
Permancy on Animated Object (Some rollers and a framework chassis on top of that), then cover this with a body of several inches of Adamantine so no LoE to the animated object remains. Put a little tower like thing on top to fight from or simply make some openings to be able to shoot or cast spells from total cover. Since there is a wizard inside it will be able to deal with various threats. Bonus points if you can somehow build a gun for the tank.
Well... a mounted Ballista would be hilarious...
Little port holes you can open and close as a free action, have them built with least crystals of returning? 300g for a free action port might be reasonable? :P Then you can cast spells from total cover.
Although I imagine a lot of Shape Spells, heat or chill metal and similar might upset the tank crew.
So you're claiming that a Wizard nuking the holy hell out of someone with Fireball is "tanking", because dead people don't attack.Well, see... he's still sort of right, but only half: Because the guy who is drawing the aggro by being too bloody dangerous to ignore is actually best at protecting his party. HOWEVER, there needs to be a point to drawing the aggro, because if enemies always have to fear being one-shotted, then they will stay the hell away and - if they are smart - just pack up and run, or go looking for some ranged attack power.
Normally when someone says something like that they say it with a smile and everyone polity laughs afterwards.
But all I hear is crickets.
My position is this: there's no 'tank' archetype, just because, all members of the party must do everything in their power in order to improve their defenses, i.e. be 'tanks'. This is the reason why constitution is so important and some people despise races that lose con, such as most elves. Having a single party member with awesome AC & hit points, doesn't mean that all other members are covered.Disagree. And, this seems to be based on a fallacy -- that people have to do everything in their power to improve their defenses.
...
It would be nice if this actually worked, but in practical play I believe it doesn't, unless the GM accommodates you. If you build up your defenses and simply stand in front of people who are actually more dangerous, then this won't protect them on the long run. D&D has a few mechanics to defend others, but not really very many. If you focus on those and then are still mobile enough to defend one or ideally more team mates, then you are a tank. For the rest of the game drawing aggro works better.
That's the core feature, metagame speaking, of the Tank. She stacks defensive abilities and resources, somehow, freeing up the Hood or the Striker or the Glass Cannon to allocate their resources somewhere else. Now, clearly the extremes are bad: Captain Invincible but Utterly useless is bad, as is Major 10,000 Damage But Made Out of Paper-Mache. But, that's the basic idea. A Tank's role is to mitigate, prevent, etc. harm to herself and the rest of the party. With savvy players, this frees them up to expend their resources elsewhere, whether it be character build resources or in-combat tactical ones.
I had a hard time figuring out what this post meant. Is it based on reading a Tank character as "Tank to the exclusion of doing everything else?" That's just another version of the all-or-nothing fallacy I was taking issue with. Maybe this is an MMO thing -- which is why it utterly confuses me as I've never played one -- but I cannot imagine suggesting a character focus entirely on defense uber alles. I feel like that should have been pretty clear from my first post, which was focused on the defining characteristic of the Tank archetype. D&D characters should be fairly well-rounded, for a host of reasons.It would be nice if this actually worked, but in practical play I believe it doesn't, unless the GM accommodates you. If you build up your defenses and simply stand in front of people who are actually more dangerous, then this won't protect them on the long run. D&D has a few mechanics to defend others, but not really very many. If you focus on those and then are still mobile enough to defend one or ideally more team mates, then you are a tank. For the rest of the game drawing aggro works better.
That's the core feature, metagame speaking, of the Tank. She stacks defensive abilities and resources, somehow, freeing up the Hood or the Striker or the Glass Cannon to allocate their resources somewhere else. Now, clearly the extremes are bad: Captain Invincible but Utterly useless is bad, as is Major 10,000 Damage But Made Out of Paper-Mache. But, that's the basic idea. A Tank's role is to mitigate, prevent, etc. harm to herself and the rest of the party. With savvy players, this frees them up to expend their resources elsewhere, whether it be character build resources or in-combat tactical ones.
Of course I know the games where the GM was too frustrated with the weak defenses on half the party that he was actually making most enemies attack the tank, even against all logic. But that's objectively bad GMing and bad character building. I'm not saying it can't be fun in campaigns where even mechanically weak characters survive past infancy - but as an optimisation excercise a purely for fun game is a pointless example.
All monsters attack you if able, regardless of their attitude toward the rest of your party. In addition, you go down smooth. When subjected to a swallow whole special attack, you are treated as two size categories smaller than you actually are.
I don't believe that's objectively BAD DM'ing, per se. The DM can't be a tyrant that causes TPK just to make his players learn. Throwing the weaker characters into the negatives a couple of times for a scare, see if they learn, if they don't, play around their strong points to avoid TPK's is not actually a bad idea to keep the game fun. Yes, the DM can coach characters during character creation to avoid having dysfunctional parties, but if the players won't listen, what can he do? Cancel the adventure? Sometimes the DM has to concede, and dumb monsters that only attack the stronger character is a trope of many a movie and animated series, and doesn't break immersion that much.I concede that point because of course you are right - it should be fun for everyone. And if that means breaking logic a bit then so be it. However, this is an optimisation forum, which means that building for the GM to accommodate you should not be done. Strategies discussed here should be designed to work in the harshest campaigns (because after all, if you've gone to all that trouble, it would be boring otherwise).
We were discussing, I believe, ways to be this kind of tank - the one that draws attention, or agression, to himself. (The "aggro", which I believe IS an MMO or hack&slash game term, but I've also never really played any other than Diablo2).Yes it's called Aggro. And when you get into MMos the Tank role is extremely easy to see, but people still bitch about how ambiguous it is.
Back on the D&D side that last section there is what you see in D&D. Everyone fails at the tanking role so we find our selves having to compensate for it by picking up defensive boosts. Which treks back no one wanting to play a weaker, team oriented, Class. The only real differences is in DDO you have set and easily seen aggro mechanics to take advantage of and the large player base let's you hook up with those rare players that choose to play that role. On the table top, between four people, with less than defined mechanics, not so much.Huh? "Everyone fails at the tanking role." So, your position is that it's patently impossible to build a character that (a) funnels attacks towards himself, and (b) can manage those attacks well. Seriously?
There are no Stand Still Crusaders with massive healing and AC? No Ubermounts with stratospheric numbers (mine had 450 hp, 47 AC, and ridiculous saves at 13thish level, though we do use some house rules) who can control the front line? No Abjurant Champions with greater mirror image and luminous armor and so forth? No Psions who can take hits like champs and invest those 2 bodyguard feats from DotU?
Or, y'know, he could devote 2 feats to trading his defense for an ally's. Like you noted. Your argument is undermined in your own post. Or he could also take Stand Still, or use any other kinds of nifty battlefield control to funnel attacks to himself.There are no Stand Still Crusaders with massive healing and AC? No Ubermounts with stratospheric numbers (mine had 450 hp, 47 AC, and ridiculous saves at 13thish level, though we do use some house rules) who can control the front line? No Abjurant Champions with greater mirror image and luminous armor and so forth? No Psions who can take hits like champs and invest those 2 bodyguard feats from DotU?
Stand Still Crusaders are the only Tank-Like build you suggested (the psion isn't a build, it's two feats mentioning a class). Ubermounts are nothing more than a high HP creature you're trying to benefit Soft Cover from, in fact you are the guy Tanking for your Mount. Because if you sit on it, your Ride Check replaces it's AC. Your build, your choices, and your effort totally negates the need for for your ubermount to wear armor.
An Abjurant Champion with Greater Mirror Image is literately the Optimized role I pointed out. He has massively augmented his defense without trading away anything on his offensive side. He "helps" the party by being an Arcane Spellcaster providing death and Crowd-Limited effects. But if an ally of his gets attacked, the best thing he can to is attack his alley's opponent in some manner like a Raging Barbarian.
there's no argument.Obviously.
By the way, I see standstill mentioned a lot. I am currently away from books, but from what I can recall, I can't see how standstill helps you tank. Sure, you can probably use it to stop melee attackers with no range, but it doesn't stop spellcasters, ranged and throwing weapons.
By the way, I see standstill mentioned a lot. I am currently away from books, but from what I can recall, I can't see how standstill helps you tank. Sure, you can probably use it to stop melee attackers with no range, but it doesn't stop spellcasters, ranged and throwing weapons.
It's part of the larger kit for keeping enemies on you. I find Stand Still to be more reliable for keeping enemies from escaping than Improved Trip because the Reflex save has a DC = 10+Damage, which should be next to impossible.
Dragon Magazine 330 is famous mostly for Chicken Infested shenanigans. I think another flaw from DM 330 is relevant here:Quote from: DeliciousAll monsters attack you if able, regardless of their attitude toward the rest of your party. In addition, you go down smooth. When subjected to a swallow whole special attack, you are treated as two size categories smaller than you actually are.
Commoner 1 solves all of your tanking needs.
Aye, stopping casters is the hardest part. Melee is easy, ranged a tad hard but they still provoke an AoO every time they attack. But casters demand, at minimum, Mage Killer and a weapon with Binding (or similar) just to keep them from ignoring you outright.
Against mages, I think it's a losing battle to try and limit their actions. I'd rather force them to target the tank by minimizing the impact the mage can have. If you Damp Power all of his spells, or share your Divine Grace bonus with his targets, etc. he can't just ignore you. He's forced to remove you or be ineffectual.
Battlemagic Perception makes it kind of worthwhile. I mean you can counterspell without even using a swift action. All you have to do is reserve some spell slots just for dispel magic.Aye, stopping casters is the hardest part. Melee is easy, ranged a tad hard but they still provoke an AoO every time they attack. But casters demand, at minimum, Mage Killer and a weapon with Binding (or similar) just to keep them from ignoring you outright.
Against mages, I think it's a losing battle to try and limit their actions. I'd rather force them to target the tank by minimizing the impact the mage can have. If you Damp Power all of his spells, or share your Divine Grace bonus with his targets, etc. he can't just ignore you. He's forced to remove you or be ineffectual.
If counterspelling was actually useful I imagine it would figure heavily into tanking against casters.
Battlemagic Perception makes it kind of worthwhile. I mean you can counterspell without even using a swift action. All you have to do is reserve some spell slots just for dispel magic.Aye, stopping casters is the hardest part. Melee is easy, ranged a tad hard but they still provoke an AoO every time they attack. But casters demand, at minimum, Mage Killer and a weapon with Binding (or similar) just to keep them from ignoring you outright.
Against mages, I think it's a losing battle to try and limit their actions. I'd rather force them to target the tank by minimizing the impact the mage can have. If you Damp Power all of his spells, or share your Divine Grace bonus with his targets, etc. he can't just ignore you. He's forced to remove you or be ineffectual.
If counterspelling was actually useful I imagine it would figure heavily into tanking against casters.
What if you had Silence cast on the tank? That'd complicate spellcasting and sort of make him a big target. And if that's true, some sort of item that lets you cast silence on yourself, like, 3x a day, would make you a walking magebane unless they're prepared for casting under the effects.
What if you had Silence cast on the tank? That'd complicate spellcasting and sort of make him a big target. And if that's true, some sort of item that lets you cast silence on yourself, like, 3x a day, would make you a walking magebane unless they're prepared for casting under the effects.
AMF I'd get as a limited toggle effect. If you turn an AMF on before you're on top of the caster, you just disabled all of your own equipment and did nothing to them, after all.Extraordinary Spell Aim (http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-adventurer--54/extraordinary-spell-aim--1057/) allows you to be immune to your own AMF. Technically you are specifically outside the area of the Spell it's self but not your square. It's to say it someone Grappled you (thus in the same 5x5 square) they would still be affected as ESA only modding things for one creature to be ignored. It seriously cripples anyone standing near you, form nerfing the Fighter's gear to turning the 20th level Wizard into a Commoner with less-than Simply Weapons Proficiency.
AMF I'd get as a limited toggle effect. If you turn an AMF on before you're on top of the caster, you just disabled all of your own equipment and did nothing to them, after all.Extraordinary Spell Aim (http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-adventurer--54/extraordinary-spell-aim--1057/) allows you to be immune to your own AMF. Technically you are specifically outside the area of the Spell it's self but not your square. It's to say it someone Grappled you (thus in the same 5x5 square) they would still be affected as ESA only modding things for one creature to be ignored. It seriously cripples anyone standing near you, form nerfing the Fighter's gear to turning the 20th level Wizard into a Commoner with less-than Simply Weapons Proficiency.
Of course, AMFs don't block LOS nor are you inside the AMF, Target/Area Spells still hit you. So it's not the best defense in the book, but still pretty awesome.
Sweet, so I went and googled a bunch of things at dndtools.
(edit/reorder)
call it the "He Hate Me" strategy :
Diplomacy --- flub the check
Intimidate --- succeed check, will lower Attitude after some time.
Wanderer's Diplomacy feat --- can use Bluff as a substitute Diplo check and flub that, and later it lowers Attitude.
Enthrall spell 2 --- Friendly , Indifferent , Unfriendly , Hostile ; and it's complicated. But gives a little time, d3 rounds.
Ronin PrC 1 --- Infamy limited , induce a Knowledge(Nobility) DC 10 check in an "Authority" (not otherwise much defined)
** Night Mask Deathbringer PrC 1 --- Creature of Darkness most every Animal , but it's toward Wild Empathy.
** dip a Wild Empathy class 1 --- flub the check
Mark of Sin spell Cleric 5 --- one time "buff" , Attitude one step worse, and -10 on Diplo checks.
Vigilant Sentinel of Aerenal PrC 3 --- Thought Theft (su) fail Sense Motive check by 5+ Attitude becomes Unfriendly or Hostile depending.
dip Commoner 1 with the Flaw --- takes 1 flaw slot and Swallow weakness , AUTO-Success !!
(too far off)
Aggravate Dracorage spell C/W 4 --- dracorage mythal has to be in effect = Hostile
Diabolus race --- fluff text vs. Humans + Humanoids
While I do like the idea of using this with the Silver Tongue feat, I don't think it works for tanking. While they do want to hurt you, they won't do it blindly. Not to mention it's useless on already hostile enemies. Sadly there isn't a negative counterpart to the Fanatic attitude :(.What if we make them Fanatic about someone else, and then loudly insult that person?