How to be a tank in D&D?

[ariasderros]

For the record: I do not believe in "invisible sky faeries", by my thinking, the only viable "tank" is a god wizard, another caster using similar methods, or a rare few special builds (i.e. the aforementioned locke-down).

Which is too squishy to take hits, so no.

Has the ability to mitigate hits. I don't mean "tank" like many people here do, that's what I was clarifying.

The class with the most defensive class features is the monk. Who's next to useless.

The class with the next most is the barbarian. Who can be made useful, as an uber-charger that can hit for hundreds of damage. But never as a "tank".

Wait, what?

I was clarifying the line above it wherein those classes are Ivory Tower traps. It was aimed at darqueseid's comment about "what is the point of classes that're designed for tanking." In other words, I was responding "What about those useless idjits."

(click to show/hide)

The main problem with the idea of a tank in D&D is, as BB keeps saying, that being the focus of the enemies attention is bad. Only CO characters even have a chance of being ready for everything, and only TO characters are. The main ways of mitigating what is flying at your group in D&D is what Final Fantasy Tactics established as the Black Mage's vow: "I will protect my charges by destroying first those who seek to do them harm."

(click to show/hide)

No, that isn't what I'm saying. Being the focus of the enemies attention is bad. The problem is that if you don't have viable defenses you can't stand up to having that attention at all. Even if you do you can't stand up to always having it... you want the enemy to focus fire on you in one fight, and then another PC in the next fight and so forth... which requires everyone be offensive and defensive threats as there's no way of making them attack a specific person barring only having one person worth attacking, and if they are always attacking the same person you'll run out of defense and die. This is because nearly all means of viable defenses are consumable or ablative. You can only take physical hits as long as you have Mirror Images. You can make more but then you lose momentum and eventually run out of Mirror Image castings. The ones that aren't consumable or ablative end up being that way anyways, as you can get yourself solid saves against spells and be well protected... until those spells are from the Dispel family, at which point you lose relevant protections.

Kill it before it moves is great when it works but it isn't reliable because you won't always go first and OHKO, and if it gets to hit you back...

Sorry, that was bad editing on my part. The first sentence was it's own concept. Everything else was new argument.
As far as what I said and your counter-argument: "Kill it before it moves" isn't quite what I meant to say, rather "kill it quickly enough that your defenses aren't depleted".
I like your idea of rotating who is trying to take the hits, except that only would really work in theory, because: A) you wouldn't be able to get 99% of most gaming groups to set themselves up in a way that that's possible; B) you can't usually control or predict whom the enemy is targeting to a sufficiently reliable extent for this.
Unless you were merely stating that you shouldn't be trying for this at all, and just let it happen naturally, then I agree with you 100% instead of just 95%.

As far as at level 1:

(click to show/hide)

Wiz: Obscuring mist. Summon Monster 1 a spider for it's web. Grease. Sleep. Hypnotism. Color Spray. Cause Fear.
Dru: Animal companion (at lv1, the bear is a lv3 fighter), Entangle (maybe), Obscuring Mist.
Cler: Cause Fear, Command, Obscuring Mist, SM1.
This is core. Out of core, or with being even a little more clever, casters own all. The concept that they don't at any level is a fallacy that has been dis-proven here many times.

Only ones of those that are viable are Color Spray, Entangle, and the animal companion and possibly command. 1 round summons with a 1 round casting time just say kill me now, I'm too dumb to live. Same for any other 1 round casting times. 1 round greases are only marginally more intelligent.

I was merely giving more substance to the argument that casters are the ones with nice things at every level. Some of those require being a little clever, some are situational. Point is darqueseid responded to you about the specialist conjurer, and you stated that a level 1 wizard is still better that the mundane alternatives. I felt the fact that that is a fallacy which has been dis-proven many times here needed to be brought up.

[Basket Burner]

Has the ability to mitigate hits. I don't mean "tank" like many people here do, that's what I was clarifying.

I know that. But then you listed one that didn't have that.

I was clarifying the line above it wherein those classes are Ivory Tower traps. It was aimed at darqueseid's comment about "what is the point of classes that're designed for tanking." In other words, I was responding "What about those useless idjits."

You said that they had defensive abilities though.

I like your idea of rotating who is trying to take the hits, except that only would really work in theory, because: A) you wouldn't be able to get 99% of most gaming groups to set themselves up in a way that that's possible; B) you can't usually control or predict whom the enemy is targeting to a sufficiently reliable extent for this.
Unless you were merely stating that you shouldn't be trying for this at all, and just let it happen naturally, then I agree with you 100% instead of just 95%.

What I was saying is that if everyone is a relevant offensive threat, and also has relevant defenses, enemies attacking the greatest threat is going to come down to who acts first, or some other such factor that doesn't yield the same results each and every time. So in one fight you go first and everyone gangs up on you, and then in another fight the Druid goes first and he gets to deal with the entire offensive output of the encounter and so forth. In the party the game assumes, all pressure is being put on only half the party because the other half is just kind of there. In a noob party all pressure is being put on a single character, either because there's only one good character, they've fallen into the foolish tank mentality, or both. Two good characters might be able to drag the party through but one cannot. Especially if you've fallen into the foolish tank mentality, meaning that you've started making all manner of mistakes.

But if everyone is capable and competent, then everyone is threatening enough to need to be taken down, and everyone has the defenses so that doesn't actually work.

I was merely giving more substance to the argument that casters are the ones with nice things at every level. Some of those require being a little clever, some are situational. Point is darqueseid responded to you about the specialist conjurer, and you stated that a level 1 wizard is still better that the mundane alternatives. I felt the fact that that is a fallacy which has been dis-proven many times here needed to be brought up.

True, but stick to the spells that actually are good.

[ariasderros]

I was clarifying the line above it wherein those classes are Ivory Tower traps. It was aimed at darqueseid's comment about "what is the point of classes that're designed for tanking." In other words, I was responding "What about those useless idjits."

You said that they had defensive abilities though.

On this, Monk has all good saves, it's Wis + Dex to AC, Still Mind, Evasion, and a few other things. This makes people think that a monk has survivability, because it has defensive class features, so it must be a good defensive class, right? 

Same thing with Barbie. DR, Uncanny Dodge, the Con boost from Rage.

@ Everything else: I agree with you enough that any further conversing about it would just be circle-jerking.

[Basket Burner]

"They seem to have defensive features" makes a lot more sense than claiming they actually do.

[Unbeliever]

I find it odd to see "it cannot be done!" so loudly trumpeted on a charopp board.  What was the whole point of charopp again if not to make exotic or not well-supported character archetypes work? 

Tanking can be done in D&D.  But, like many things, the designers have lied to us about who does it or how easy it is to do.  I'm playing in a party with 2ish tanks -- one primary and one off-tank -- and we manage to do it just fine.  We could do it better, largely with those bodyguard feats from Drow of the Underdark, but we've opted not to out of restraint.

I think the biggest problem with "tanking" in D&D is not taking hits.  There are myriad abilities to mitigate damage, gain immunities or the equivalent to various effects, and so on.  The Magic Item Compendium is a wealth of such resources:  the Talisman of Undying Fortitude is a handy example, though it'd be better if it were an immediate action.  Even the lowly Paladin's Divine Grace can be a huge boon by insuring that you hardly ever have to worry about Save-or-blank spells.  If you're committed to shouldering the burden for the party, then you just commit more resources to hardening yourself against such assaults. 

I find the hardest problem is how to do the equivalent of "draw aggro."  Goad is kind of a terrible feat, and it's hard to get the save DC up high enough to really matter.  That leaves you with lockdown type tactics, which, as I think we all know, can be quite effective.  The other options are (a) rely on your allies to help funnel enemies to you, or failing that get the hell out of the way leaving you as the tastiest target, (b) do enough damage that the enemies have no choice but to focus on you, (c) some sort of equivalent role-play type of engagement where you look like the biggest scariest thing around.

[ariasderros]

(click to show/hide)

I find it odd to see "it cannot be done!" so loudly trumpeted on a charopp board.  What was the whole point of charopp again if not to make exotic or not well-supported character archetypes work? 

Tanking can be done in D&D.  But, like many things, the designers have lied to us about who does it or how easy it is to do.  I'm playing in a party with 2ish tanks -- one primary and one off-tank -- and we manage to do it just fine.  We could do it better, largely with those bodyguard feats from Drow of the Underdark, but we've opted not to out of restraint.

I think the biggest problem with "tanking" in D&D is not taking hits.  There are myriad abilities to mitigate damage, gain immunities or the equivalent to various effects, and so on.  The Magic Item Compendium is a wealth of such resources:  the Talisman of Undying Fortitude is a handy example, though it'd be better if it were an immediate action.  Even the lowly Paladin's Divine Grace can be a huge boon by insuring that you hardly ever have to worry about Save-or-blank spells.  If you're committed to shouldering the burden for the party, then you just commit more resources to hardening yourself against such assaults. 

I find the hardest problem is how to do the equivalent of "draw aggro."  Goad is kind of a terrible feat, and it's hard to get the save DC up high enough to really matter.  That leaves you with lockdown type tactics, which, as I think we all know, can be quite effective.  The other options are (a) rely on your allies to help funnel enemies to you, or failing that get the hell out of the way leaving you as the tastiest target, (b) do enough damage that the enemies have no choice but to focus on you, (c) some sort of equivalent role-play type of engagement where you look like the biggest scariest thing around.

You left out interposing yourself into the attack. Crusaders are great at that.

And I never said it cannot be done. I agreed that it should not be done.

(click to show/hide)

From Veekie on the old boards "How to explain in layman's terms why some classes are weaker then other?" thread. (Caution TL)

(click to show/hide)

You can try working out example encounters. Assuming 8 situations a day, 5 of which are combat.

Fight vs a SLA using demon and its minions, e.g. Succubus and 2 pet Vrocks.
Fight vs a large meaty hambeast like a giant or an elephant.
Fight vs a dragon using battlefield control spells.
Fight vs a horde of weak creatures.
Fight vs an ambush by bandits with a mage/cleric laying down the battlefield control.
Intrigue at court, where they need to find the stolen Treasury key.
Dungeon crossing, where, pursued by a horde of kobolds minutes behind, they must cross a large moat filled with piranha.
Trapped hallway, where they have under an hour to cross while the kobolds behind get rafts and bridges. Hallway begins and ends with a locked door.

Ask how each character could help the party in the situation, emphasize helping the party resolve it instead of solo-solve.
In the first fight, a trio of flying opponents, one which uses a charm SLA, is going to be difficult for any melee based character to combat. Worse, they're probably going to get charmed. The spellcasters can boost the melee guy to fight in the air, or directly assault them magically, or summon X to deal with it for them. Damage reduction makes it worse if they aren't prepared.
In the second fight, a large meaty creature, would seem ideal for a fighty type to take on, so they charge it....and if it survives to the next round, with a full attack most of their hp is gone. Spells instead stall the creature so it can be plinked to death with impunity. Rinse, repeat.
The third fight is just to illustrate how screwed the party can be. With the casters probably already out of half or more of their highest level spells, the dragon delivers a fear aura, then drops a large Fog spell to cut off vision(but ahh, the dragon has blindsense!) and then blasts with breath and closes to claw. Even the casters are going to be busy just negating what the dragon is doing. What do you do with a creature superior to you in melee, hiding behind invisibility or a smokescreen?
The horde? The fighter is going to cheese them so hard they will reek of cheddar in their next life....or you could drop a Wall of Fire/Black Tentacles or a pair of Fireballs to clear them out. But its best to let the fighter have his fun for a while.
By the 5th fight, the fighter's been out of hp for 2 fights prior sans healing, the skillmonkey is likely wounded as well, the casters are....down maybe their highest level of spells and half the level below. They still have enough slots to push their way through the 5th encounter, or heal the fighter and skillmonkey so they are fresh enough to do the same.

And then you get to the meat of the matter, intrigue. You can have the social master rogue sweet talking everyone. The mage waits for the rogue to identify who likely has the info but won't talk, and then uses Divinations, Charms, magical spies or Speak with Dead to get it out of them. The fighter and the monk sits it out. They have neither the skills nor the stats to do more than make things worse.

The moat now, the rogue might climb the walls along the side and tow a rope. The casters might conjure a temporary bridge, improvise a Cold spell to freeze the water and run across, deploy levitate, or teleport even. Or they could dump a Wall of Stone behind them and buy some time while their pursuers go get some picks. The fighter types...they sit it out, or go make a Last Stand

The traps now, is where the rogue shines, while the casters can detect or remove them, it takes resources per shot, so assuming the rogue knows what hes doing, the party can get past at no cost but some time. The door can be forced or bypassed or whatever.

The combination as a whole should be demonstrative. The casters never need to sit out a situation, and for wizards and clerics, if they find themselves inadequate, they can rearrange their loadout. Rogues generally can contribute, but at the cost of some investment.

And anyone using the magic item argument is answered with, "but the guy who can do it by himself can do it better with the item, or spend the money on some other item"

Now ask yourself "what can the tank actually do?"
You mention spending resources in order to do the job better, but wouldn't those resources be better spent elsewhere? Think of the opportunity cost of optimizing just this.
The whole concept is the same as trying to optimize a heal-bot cleric, except that doesn't require anywhere near as much work, and still ends up being semi-useful most of the time.

Basically, everyone in the party needs to look at their defenses as at least a tertiary point, but ideally a secondary point. If they do, then you don't need any kind of a tank, and if someone tries to be one, they end up as a lump. If the party does not look at their defenses and each take both personal and social responsibility, then in most circumstances, even an optimized "Tank" wouldn't help in 9/10 of the situations.

The exception is, as I've said, god wizards and the like when played to potential. These types of characters can compensate any time the rest of the party is made of fail. But then you have other issues, like the power gap in the party, and the social issues that brings forth.

[Basket Burner]

I find it odd to see "it cannot be done!" so loudly trumpeted on a charopp board.  What was the whole point of charopp again if not to make exotic or not well-supported character archetypes work? 

A common mistake among the less experienced is to think better = good. It doesn't work that way. There is also a difference between not well supported and entirely unsupported. And then there is another difference between entirely unsupported and anti supported. That's where "tanking" is. It exists only to sucker punch you for trying it. Unlike say... unarmed combat where Monks are terrible at it, but Clerics aren't.

Tanking can be done in D&D.  But, like many things, the designers have lied to us about who does it or how easy it is to do.  I'm playing in a party with 2ish tanks -- one primary and one off-tank -- and we manage to do it just fine.  We could do it better, largely with those bodyguard feats from Drow of the Underdark, but we've opted not to out of restraint.

Anything that only works if the enemy nicely allows it to work is not viable.

I think the biggest problem with "tanking" in D&D is not taking hits.  There are myriad abilities to mitigate damage, gain immunities or the equivalent to various effects, and so on.  The Magic Item Compendium is a wealth of such resources:  the Talisman of Undying Fortitude is a handy example, though it'd be better if it were an immediate action.  Even the lowly Paladin's Divine Grace can be a huge boon by insuring that you hardly ever have to worry about Save-or-blank spells.  If you're committed to shouldering the burden for the party, then you just commit more resources to hardening yourself against such assaults. 

You don't have enough. Remember, you are literally the entire party. Not only do you have to withstand all attacks for everything, but you must be throwing out all the offense as well - otherwise someone else gets called the greatest threat and they get focused on instead. Lack offense and they just kill you last. Run out of defense and you WILL run out of defense, you die, everyone else dies.

I find the hardest problem is how to do the equivalent of "draw aggro."  Goad is kind of a terrible feat, and it's hard to get the save DC up high enough to really matter.  That leaves you with lockdown type tactics, which, as I think we all know, can be quite effective.  The other options are (a) rely on your allies to help funnel enemies to you, or failing that get the hell out of the way leaving you as the tastiest target, (b) do enough damage that the enemies have no choice but to focus on you, (c) some sort of equivalent role-play type of engagement where you look like the biggest scariest thing around.

Lockdown is far too shaky to be of any real use, Goad is beyond laughable, and anything else is just setting the entire party up to die.

Also, Crusaders are still too squishy. Anyone that's AC and HP only is because AC is meaningless. and HP are gone in 1-2 rounds.

[ImperatorK]

You mention spending resources in order to do the job better, but wouldn't those resources be better spent elsewhere? Think of the opportunity cost of optimizing just this.

Why people still play mundanes, when casters are better at everything? Preference. Need of variety. That stuff.

Basically, everyone in the party needs to look at their defenses as at least a tertiary point, but ideally a secondary point. If they do, then you don't need any kind of a tank, and if someone tries to be one, they end up as a lump. If the party does not look at their defenses and each take both personal and social responsibility, then in most circumstances, even an optimized "Tank" wouldn't help in 9/10 of the situations.

Not everyone wants/cares/can make his character so self-reliant. In groups that don't optimize the shit out of their characters and/or don't have a competitive mindset, a Tank can be useful. When your buddy got your back, you can invest those resources that you would've invest into defense elsewhere.

[Unbeliever]

@Arias Derros

This is going to be a consistent point of disagreement for us, it seems.  When I sit down at the table for character creation I ask someone, or myself, "what do I want to play?" Then, I get the answer and figure out how to build that to the level of firepower/optimization desired for the campaign.  Which, for the record, is generally in my gaming groups quite high, but not super exploitative.  For example, DMM(persist) has never been a problem for us, and is always been available in any of our campaigns.

If the goal is, instead, "make the most efficient and lethal party available" then my characters would look different.  But, hell, I don't even play computer/video games that way, let alone an RPG. 

You and I are just playing different games. 


P.S.:  let's try not to read "tank" as "fighter 20 built by an 8 year old with brain damage" please.  Could we do that?  The tanks I was alluding to are an Ardent with the Confound the Big Folk chain and a Dragon-based Supermount using Cleric/Prestige Paladin as a base.  The Big Guy is With Me builds could also be very tanky.  And, sure, yeah, those are all crappy builds.  Terrible.[/sarcasm]  Let's try not to pretend like games are at the point where staples of the CO boards are not up to snuff.

P.P.S.:  +1 ImperatorK.  Some builds/classes/people around the table may be more efficient at investing in defenses than others.  Doing so allows them to free up those resources to invest them elsewhere.  That may be better objectively, or more fun. 

[ImperatorK]

We need to come up with a different name for D&D "Tank", because that term is confusing for some people. They apparently think about WoW Tanks. I propose "Not WoW Tank".

[Basket Burner]

Doesn't matter. If it only has AC and HP, it's squishy as hell. It doesn't want aggro at all, and if you try and make it get aggro you'll either fail, or succeed in leeching off the party and therefore fail.

Do you want to help your party or hinder it? Remember your enemies are over there and you fight them with your group, you do not work against your group.

[Unbeliever]

If someone is actually curious about AC numbers, rather than just making them up, the Trailblazer book (a nice buy for $5) has a statistical analysis of such things.  It's confined to the SRD, so maybe later (and quite good) monster books throw it off a bit (like MM3 or FC1 and 2), but it's nice that someone else has compiled it.

Their methodology is to adjust dragons' CR upward a bit b/c they were systematically undervalued, throw out the highest and lowest values of a given CR, and take the average of the remaining values.  Pretty straightforward stuff. 

For CR 10, the average attack bonus is 17.  For CR 15, the average attack bonus is 23.  And, for CR 19, the average attack bonus is 29. 

It is left as an exercise for the reader to imagine if they can make 10th, 15th, and 19th level characters whose ACs can matter, on average, against those attack rolls.  Please also recall that in MM1, and in the SRD I believe, no monsters have power attack prefigured into their attack rolls. 

[Basket Burner]

If someone is actually curious about AC numbers, rather than just making them up, the Trailblazer book (a nice buy for $5) has a statistical analysis of such things.  It's confined to the SRD, so maybe later (and quite good) monster books throw it off a bit (like MM3 or FC1 and 2), but it's nice that someone else has compiled it.

Ah yes, because bringing in the second least credible source (after the PF bestiary, which does not accurately describe the enemies within the exact same book) is a great way of attacking the credibility of others.

Their methodology is to adjust dragons' CR upward a bit b/c they were systematically undervalued, throw out the highest and lowest values of a given CR, and take the average of the remaining values.  Pretty straightforward stuff. 

This strongly indicates this... after all, the averages are dragged down by things that will never actually attack, meaning if you prepare based on the averages you are underprepared and even squishier than you'd otherwise be.

For CR 10, the average attack bonus is 17.  For CR 15, the average attack bonus is 23.  And, for CR 19, the average attack bonus is 29. 

And this proves it. Those numbers are way too low to be meaningful as the actual things that will be hitting you have much better numbers.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to imagine if they can make 10th, 15th, and 19th level characters whose ACs can matter, on average, against those attack rolls.  Please also recall that in MM1, and in the SRD I believe, no monsters have power attack prefigured into their attack rolls.

And if you actually made characters under the assumption that was all the AC you needed, when you actually fight something that of course has much better numbers they hit you on a 2, with PA on.

[Unbeliever]

So it is good and truly impossible to make a character with sufficient AC that monsters of CR 18 or below have a hard time hitting it? That's the argument here.

See I know that's not true because I see 2 of them at work every couple of weeks. But really? We are willing to take on assumption that Charopp is not up to that task?

This seems absurd on its face. But in order to prevent anyone being confused a Pit Fiend is CR 20 and has a +30 with all it's attacks (thereabouts +28 with the secondaries). Cornugons are at +25 and so on. Again I somehow think people can make 15th level characters with ACs of 45.

[InnaBinder]

So it is good and truly impossible to make a character with sufficient AC that monsters of CR 18 or below have a hard time hitting it? That's the argument here.

See I know that's not true because I see 2 of them at work every couple of weeks. But really? We are willing to take on assumption that Charopp is not up to that task?

This seems absurd on its face. But in order to prevent anyone being confused a Pit Fiend is CR 20 and has a +30 with all it's attacks (thereabouts +28 with the secondaries). Cornugons are at +25 and so on. Again I somehow think people can make 15th level characters with ACs of 45.

I'm wondering if an unmodified Pit Fiend is considered sub-par in some groups; it may be, leading to the assertion that the numbers above are not representative of "appropriate baseline".

[darqueseid]

I think you can actually get higher than 45 ac at 15th level, without really trying... there's a 54 ac fighter in my group at 16th...

[ImperatorK]

10 + 8 armor + 5 armor enhancement + 4 tower shield + 4 shield enhancement + 5 natural + 5 protection + 5 Combat Expertise (up to 20 with Improved Combat Expertise) + 4 defending weapon = 50-65
With more optimization it becomes higher.
+ Con from Deepwarden.
Potions with AC boosting effects.
Buffs from allies.
Using cover.
Fighting defensibly.

[Basket Burner]

So it is good and truly impossible to make a character with sufficient AC that monsters of CR 18 or below have a hard time hitting it? That's the argument here.

Let's see... to hits of that level are mid 50s, and they have to miss at least 75% of the time to make AC matter. So that's AC 70 while still having relevant offenses just to take on stock enemies that are not being optimized. Given that you literally can't get over high 40s before running out of bonuses without either nullifying yourself as a threat, running out of bonuses or both you not only can't do that, but you are an entire number range off the mark.

See I know that's not true because I see 2 of them at work every couple of weeks. But really? We are willing to take on assumption that Charopp is not up to that task?

Even if it weren't the sort of things that stat caps get in the way of, we're talking about a forum in which most people don't realize the tank mentality is foolish, don't realize low tier characters are objectively useless... in other words, they lack skill, so even if it were possible it's the wrong place to ask.

This seems absurd on its face. But in order to prevent anyone being confused a Pit Fiend is CR 20 and has a +30 with all it's attacks (thereabouts +28 with the secondaries). Cornugons are at +25 and so on. Again I somehow think people can make 15th level characters with ACs of 45.

Ah yes, because casters love swinging their weapons around, and getting your stats up so that a caster can't affect you often with the actions they won't take regardless means you're fine right?

Next you'll say you'll have good saves because Ranger spells don't stick that often.

[zugschef]

10 + 8 armor + 5 armor enhancement + 4 tower shield + 5 shield enhancement + 5 natural + 5 protection + 5 Combat Expertise (up to 20 with Improved Combat Expertise) = 47-62
With more optimization it becomes higher.
+ Con from Deepwarden.
Potions with AC boosting effects.
Buffs from allies.
Using cover.
Fighting defensibly.

ok... and which monster's gonna be that dumb to attack this guy first?

[veekie]

The one that doesn't have a choice in the matter due to lockdown or control strategies, naturally.