This has been around since 1st edition and the tactic is basically called "mages in the back."
Dumb monsters and tanks will generally go after the fighter as he's in front leading the charge, but the smart ones will try to go for the mages in the back if they find that they're dealing particularly nasty ranged damage.
This is actually more realistic because many creatures are not all that interested in going hand-to-hand with a walking tank.
Creative Director
|
In a tabletop RPG, there's not really as much a need for taunting/agro control, since there's no "AI" consideration (agro being one of several ways that a computer game programmer models how monsters and bad guys react to the players). A proper GM will play monsters according to their personality, and in most cases that means that the monsters will focus their attention on the players that are the most threatening; since the GM is (in theory) better at running a creature's reactions to player input than most computer AI programs, that element is in the GM's hands.
In our adventures, we typically list for each monster what their tactics are, and this includes what sorts of targets and battle tactics they go for.
So in the end, the "tank" character holds a monster's attention simply by attacking them and getting in their way or positioning himself to defend the less armored party members. It's more of a tactical element than a race to trigger class abilities, basically. And it breaks down if your GM is a jerk who doesn't realize that monsters shouldn't all be masterminds, but that's sort of analogous to when, in a computer game, a programming bug makes a monster behave weirdly.
Tanking in pathfinder relies on other methods to hold "aggro". PS I have tanked a lot in WoW, yes it is very different.
Attacks of Opportunity(AoO) are your primary means of keeping enemies attacking you. If someone does something that lowers their guard, they will potentiall get smacked upside the head by an AoO. Because of this, intelligent enemies will try not to provoke AoOs. You can use this to make it in their best interest to keep attacking you. Combat reflexes is a good feat for a tank to take as well since it gives you more AoOs.
1. Blocking. You threaten an area in pathfinder. Creatures trying to move past you will take AoO. If you block a choke point, nothing can get past you without tumbling or provoking. If you have a good CMD then the tumbling check will likely fail.
2. To hold threat you have to be a threat. Creatures in PF are intelligent and played by an actual person, so things are more like PvP. If you are poking then with a toothpick while a ranger is pegging them with arrows, they will go after the ranger. But if they are going to get smacked with big sword for going after the ranger, they will think twice about switching targets. For this reason, any tank in PF needs to be able to deal enough damage to make enemies think twice doing things that provoke AoOs.
3. This is not a MMO. The other members of your party are not as fragile as DPSers and healers in MMOs. They can take a few hits. As long as you can keep a significant number of the enemy of off the other members of the party you are doing your job. They can usually handle one or two peons.
How can a tank hold the attention of a monster so that he/she can tank effectively? A shield weilding defensive fighter isnt going to be putting out anywhere near enough damage to "tank" the creature using damage to get its attenmtion, even if you Shield Bash.
Short answer: It can't. Tanking doesn't work at all in the same way in PFRPG as in a computer game, because the enemies are free-willed (unless magically constrained). In an open area, the opponent can usually move around or fly over the front-liner to just eat the mage. Due to this, try not to fight in open spaces.
If you want to effectively tank in spaces that are at least a little confined, this is what I suggest:
- Skip the shield. Shields aren't bad, but they are for being in the face of evil, bashing away. You want to be able to threaten the enemies, so get a weapon with reach, such as a ranseur or longspear, instead.
- Get armor spikes or a natural attack (if halforc, for example). That way, you can threaten adjacent enemies with the spikes, and enemies further away with your ranseur.
- Get Combat Reflexes and at least 14 dex. This will allow you 3 attacks of opportunity per turn.
- Get Lunge. It's a smart little feat that lets you increase your reach by 5ft. at a penalty of -2 to AC (IIRC).
There, you now threaten 15 ft. Most enemies will have a hard time passing you without provoking, opening up for combat maneouvers and damage. It's a good idea to get improved combat maneouvers feats, so you're good at tripping and the like.
Your mage should do the primary battlefield control. A few fogs, walls and the like can do a great job at forcing your enemies to pass you.
Also, it's not really worth having a "healer" as a standing role in the group, because damage usually outpaces healing. It's good to have someone who can heal a little now and then, but in-combat heals are often not the best you could do with your actions and spells.
The thing is that the roles are kind of reversed in D&D from in many MMOs. I haven't played that much MMOs, so this is just my experience. In MMOs, you have:
Healer - Priest
Damage dealer - rogue-like guy, mage
Battlefield control - Fighter guy ("tank")
In PFRPG, the roles are kind of this:
Healer - Not a primary role, cleric.
Damage dealer - Fighter guy, to some extent rogue
Battlefield control - Mage, to some extent cleric
What they said.
Plus, 2 feats my friend.
Step Up and Stand Still.
Learn em, love em, live em.
|
I have a Dwarf Cavalier (Order of the Shield) in my game. He wanted to be a Tank, protecting the other PCs wherever possible. He usually challenges the biggest meanest looking baddies he can, and then proceeds to talk smack. He's very creative.
It usually draws the attention of whatever he pleases (sometimes he draws TOO much attention - once getting shot at by an entire camp of 12 bandits). His response to that was: "So they didn't attack the rest of the party?"
Me: "No."
Him: "Jobs done." :)
So if you want to be a TANK talk to your GM about letting you fulfil the role, because on some level it requires an element of GM co-operation.
If you are looking for an enforced "Aggro" or Taunt mechanic please check 4e. The system designed with MMO gamers in mind.
In all other cases the above posters have rather succinctly explained how things work in a paper and pencil game.
If you are looking for an enforced "Aggro" or Taunt mechanic please check 4e. The system designed with MMO gamers in mind.
In all other cases the above posters have rather succinctly explained how things work in a paper and pencil game.
I'm no big fan of 4e, but your tone was uncalled for, even if unintentional. If you like, I can mail you a footstool, so you can get off your high horse. As a Pathfinder player and an MMO player, the implication that you can't be both is grating, and about as welcome as a shrieking mother insisting that D&D is Satanic. Maybe I'm being thin skinned today. Maybe I'm not. I don't care. The Paizo boards are better than this.
In regards to the OP, an interesting thing to consider in WoW regardint the tank/heal/dps relationship is that it really only comes into serious play in Heroic or Raid content. Prior to that, most dungeons (which are very different from overworld anyhow) can be done by a variety of groups (assuming people know how to play their classes) and few explicitly need a designated tank, much less a specialized tank.
But not consider Raid content. The assumption is that a group of 10, 25, or even 40 people are banding together to take down a threat that 5 certainly could not. In D&D, how would that work? That would be something like 20 PC type characters banding together to down a great wyrm dragon. But for the dragon to be a challenge for 20 PCs, what level are they? Likely 8 or even 10 levels below the dragon's CR. But that also means that two or three hits from the dragon, or being in the breath weapon without protection, will kill you. If we look at the Onyxia fight, thats exactly right. Hence the need for a designated tank, and a designated healer
How would I play that scenario out in D&D? The "tank" would be doing vital strikes as standard actions, and bluff/intimidating the dragon as move actions (either as a feat specilization, or while taking an appropriate penalty). A designated healer would be within casting range (via reach spell or channel energy or whatever). Everyone else is pounding on the dragon in hopes that it dies before it realizes whats going on.
Yeah, WoW doesn't mix 100% with D&D, but it mixes a lot better than most give either system credit for. Another good example is fights. The average boss fight in WoW can last a minute to two, that would be 10-20 rounds in D&D, where the normal boss fight time seems to be 4-6 rounds.
An understanding of both the rules and what the rules are attempting to represent allows a DM to, with some imagination and description, replicate the "aggro" concept fairly well. And before anyone says "what about vermin/mindless undead/constructs, you can't intimidate them!" I say to you "plenty of WoW critters don't have an Aggro table either. Part of the game."
One thought I had for Attacks of Opp to generate a bit of a tanking feel was to have them be accompanied by an extra d6 of damage, or even extra d6 of damage per 5 points of base attack. It is a moment of vunerability after all.
Might do wonders for the "aggro" concept. Would you really try to run past the guy who can clothsline you with a greatsword just to get at the squishy mage in the back? Deal with Captain Chopchop first, then go after the mage.
Would also make players a little less cavalier about Attacks of Opp as well.
"I'll just get up and move away, two attacks is better than six from the dragon's full attack" might become "Thanks, I'll just lay here and try to quietly drink this cure potion while I bluff being unconcious. Draw it away from me so I can get up, if you don't mind?"
Could be interesting, already a precedent for it with Pathfinder blindness. Could either/also do the same with flanking. Much like my dog that is protective of my daughter, don't get between the fighter and the people he's protecting. Bad news.
If you are looking for an enforced "Aggro" or Taunt mechanic please check 4e. The system designed with MMO gamers in mind.
In all other cases the above posters have rather succinctly explained how things work in a paper and pencil game.
You don't have to go to 4e to find a "taunt" mechanic.
If you check the 3.5 Player's Handbook II, you'll find the Knight, which is a base class that has the "Knight's Challenge" ability which is a taunting mechanic with a different name.
Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5, so you should be able to play a Knight if that's the specific ability you want.
|
As stated before (By JJ no less! ^_^), the GM is your aggro table. This is how I usually arbitrate it:
Mindless creatures (Int -) attack the closest target and never switch targets until that one ceases to be a viable option. Always.
Animals (Int 1-2) usually attack the closest target until it takes a significant amount of damage from another target, as even animals feel and react to pain. Come to think of it, animals act like they have an aggro table, except healing doesn't generate any aggro.
Dumb creatures (Int 3-9) attack what they perceive as the biggest threat, though they may not be able to connect the ball of fire that just hit them with the scrawny guy in the back making awkward gestures, or they may keep swinging at the heavily armored fighter, even though they continually miss.
Average creatures (Int 10-11) act like normal people. When something proves to be too hard, they try something else. Can't hit the "tank"? Attack the caster.
Smart creatures (Int 12+) are capable of advanced tactics. The first time they see a heal or fireball go off, they have a new target. They just have to figure out how to get over there first.
Being a tank in D&D/PF is a bit awkward if you're used to WoW. Usually, if things go south in WoW, the tank is one of the first to die. In D&D/PF, they're usually one of the last. Just think about it in as realistic and tactical a manner as possible. 5 foot corridors are great ways to save your friends, especially if the healer stands right behind you and pokes you every couple rounds. ^_^
~Crusader Mauritius, 80 Blood Elf Protection Paladin, Arthas
Dumb creatures (Int 3-9) attack what they perceive as the biggest threat, though they may not be able to connect the ball of fire that just hit them with the scrawny guy in the back making awkward gestures, or they may keep swinging at the heavily armored fighter, even though they continually miss.
Note that 9 isn't "dumb" really. In PFRPG, about 1/3 humans have an intelligence of 9 or less due to NPCs using a standardized array instead of rolling. In D&D 3.5, it was almost 2/5 people that had an intelligence of 9 or less. The dumbest 16% (that's still a few in every school class) had an intelligence of 7 or less.
So someone with an intelligence of 7, at least in 3.5, wasn't so stupid he couldn't take care of himself - he wasn't good at math and probably seemed a bit slow, but not so that he'd need an aid in daily life.I'm playing it at about the same distinctions that you do, though my groups are more like dumb (int 3-5), average/slow (6-8), smart 9+. I see most regular people as quite smart fighters and would think most will attack the guy who seems like either the biggest threat or the easiest target.
|
I have a Dwarf Cavalier (Order of the Shield) in my game. He wanted to be a Tank, protecting the other PCs wherever possible....
"So they didn't attack the rest of the party?"
Me: "No."
Him: "Jobs done." :)So if you want to be a TANK talk to your GM about letting you fulfil the role, because on some level it requires an element of GM co-operation.
It may be that some GMs are actually wary of throwing everything they have at one PC, thinking that will provoke accusations of bias against that player. Some players can be very vocal about such things ("There are 4 of us, and I calculate I have attracted 26.7% of enemy attacks. What are you going to DO about it?").
They might think that spreading the pain around is their way of proving they're being fair.
"OK, twelve archers and six PCs...so that's two shots at each of you.."
"Whoah, I said I was running across the open ground while the others creep to the side entrance."
"So, you WANT to get shot at by everyone on the ramparts?"
"Yes, that's the idea."
"Oh. Err,... well fair enough."
- Get Lunge. It's a smart little feat that lets you increase your reach by 5ft. at a penalty of -2 to AC (IIRC).
There, you now threaten 15 ft.
Lunge (Combat)
You can strike foes that would normally be out of reach.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.Benefit: You can increase the reach of your melee attacks by 5 feet until the end of your turn by taking a –2 penalty to your AC until your next turn. You must decide to use this ability before any attacks are made.
You don't threaten any further because the reach effect is only during your turn. (The AC penalty sticks around, though) I agree with everything else you said.
|
|
Someone beat me to suggesting the Knight from PHB2.
But yes, D&D4e does take a few pointers from MMO, but it incorporates it into an RPG, so people like yourself can enjoy the stuff they like from MMOs but tailored to an RPG.
Basically WotC just chose to incorporate ideas and take inspirations from another source, just like RPGs have always done taking inspiration and deriving rules from Miniature Wargaming, fantasy fiction, anime, board games, comics, collectable card games, TV shows and movies.
D&D 4e does not however feel like an MMO in play though (at least to me it doesn't) - I am sitting round a table with a bunch of friends, speaking in character and rolling dice, just like Pathfinder or D&D3.5 or Savage Worlds or FATE.
If you like MMOs and would like to see some of the ideas in a fantasy RPG you might want to check out 4e, if nothing else it might give you ideas for some houserules for your Pathfinder game.
|
|
If you're surrounding a foe another way to use "aggro" in the game is to use a free action to warn the monster that you will attack him if he turns his back on you (meaning attack an ally of yours on the other side of the foe) and then Ready an action to attack should he do so.
This does mean you give up your attack each round if the foe doesn't attack an ally of yours (and attacks you!), but it does give the foe an incentive in game (and the GM an incentive out of game) to attack your character and not the others.
|
|
In my experience, people claim they want an aggro mechanic in D&D/PF, but they don't.
They want a mechanic that looks like aggro, but affects everyone but them.
What would actually happen if they announced their actions, and were told "You can't"?
And then had to watch as the GM took control of their actions to fit his idea of what the 'proper' reaction would be?
"That wizard is frying us! But I can charge him from here."
"No, you're not. You're going over there to get your face caved in by the troll in fullplate."
"£$%^&*()!!!!"
You'd pitch a purple-faced fit, and flip the table over.
|
They want a mechanic that looks like aggro, but affects everyone but them...
"That wizard is frying us! But I can charge him from here."
"No, you're not. You're going over there to get your face caved in by the troll in fullplate."
"£$%^&*()!!!!"You'd pitch a purple-faced fit, and flip the table over.
I just giggled at work over this.
|
|
You'd pitch a purple-faced fit, and flip the table over.
Do your players do that when they fail a Will Save against a Cause Fear spell and must flee when actually they wanted to attack the wizard? Not much difference other than with the aggro, at least you're fighting something and contributing.
But even taking that into account, you can still adapt aggro to RPGs just as 4e has done - if you're marked you take a -2 penalty to attack anyone but the person who marked you; and some classes have features that compound that by allowing them to attack you as well, or causing divine damage to you if you ignore their challenge.
So basically you leave the choice of action in the hands of the players, but you give a disincentive to attack someone other than the person "pulling aggro". Of course you're still free to not attack others but do something else instead.
So, I think it depends on whether you take someone's request for an "aggro mechanic" at face value and assume they want it to act exactly like in the MMO, or whether you consider they want something like aggro but adapted for RPGs.
You'd pitch a purple-faced fit, and flip the table over.Do your players do that when they fail a Will Save against a Cause Fear spell and must flee when actually they wanted to attack the wizard? Not much difference other than with the aggro, at least you're fighting something and contributing.
But even taking that into account, you can still adapt aggro to RPGs just as 4e has done - if you're marked you take a -2 penalty to attack anyone but the person who marked you; and some classes have features that compound that by allowing them to attack you as well, or causing divine damage to you if you ignore their challenge.
So basically you leave the choice of action in the hands of the players, but you give a disincentive to attack someone other than the person "pulling aggro". Of course you're still free to not attack others but do something else instead.
So, I think it depends on whether you take someone's request for an "aggro mechanic" at face value and assume they want it to act exactly like in the MMO, or whether you consider they want something like aggro but adapted for RPGs.
That is not too different from what a proper AoO tank build does in PF. They can attack you, or they can move away and try to hit the mage. If they do the latter, they get smacked with an AoO.
I do like the idea of giving extra damage on AoO. Sounds like a homebrew feat chain to me.
4e owns, Pathfinder owns, 420 play D&D every day.
Anyways, 4e Marking works like this - when you mark an enemy, they don't need to attack you. In fact, you can mark them, and then they just proceed to ignore you and charge the invoker or cleric in the back. What it does do is punish them for not attacking you. Marking alone gives a small attack penalty against anyone other then whoever marked you, but the defender classes - the ones that mark - have another extra "bit" that happens. So a paladin would shout a divine challenge at a foe to face him, the goblin ignores that and runs up to stab the rogue, and the paladin calls down righteous power to deal damage to the goblin for ignoring the challenge (attack someone else, you get dealt some radiant damage :p).
4e owns, Pathfinder owns, 420 play D&D every day.
Anyways, 4e Marking works like this - when you mark an enemy, they don't need to attack you. In fact, you can mark them, and then they just proceed to ignore you and charge the invoker or cleric in the back. What it does do is punish them for not attacking you. Marking alone gives a small attack penalty against anyone other then whoever marked you, but the defender classes - the ones that mark - have another extra "bit" that happens. So a paladin would shout a divine challenge at a foe to face him, the goblin ignores that and runs up to stab the rogue, and the paladin calls down righteous power to deal damage to the goblin for ignoring the challenge (attack someone else, you get dealt some radiant damage :p).
What if they ignore the challenge to do something other than attack, like healing themselves or buffing an ally or just holding their action until someone else gacks the paladin for them?
|
|
I have a Dwarf Cavalier (Order of the Shield) in my game. He wanted to be a Tank, protecting the other PCs wherever possible....
"So they didn't attack the rest of the party?"
Me: "No."
Him: "Jobs done." :)So if you want to be a TANK talk to your GM about letting you fulfil the role, because on some level it requires an element of GM co-operation.
It may be that some GMs are actually wary of throwing everything they have at one PC, thinking that will provoke accusations of bias against that player. Some players can be very vocal about such things ("There are 4 of us, and I calculate I have attracted 26.7% of enemy attacks. What are you going to DO about it?").
They might think that spreading the pain around is their way of proving they're being fair.
"OK, twelve archers and six PCs...so that's two shots at each of you.."
"Whoah, I said I was running across the open ground while the others creep to the side entrance."
"So, you WANT to get shot at by everyone on the ramparts?"
"Yes, that's the idea."
"Oh. Err,... well fair enough."
That's why it's about talking to the GM and getting their co-operation. If he didn't want to play a TANK roll then I'd probably spread my damage more evenly among the party in the early rounds. He enjoys talking smack to the bad guys and drawing attention so the other players can get their cool class abilities off. In my campaign he's been unconscious more times than the rest of the party combined, and he loves it (especially now that he has Diehard).
Everybody is playing a character with some premise, the stealthy rogue who sneak attacks his opponents isn't useful in a dungeon without a lot of cover to hide behind. The GM only needs to add some furniture to let the rogue get his stealth on. Since NPCs are GM controlled the GM chooses whether or not the NPCs are going to react to the PC's taunts/threats etc.
What if they ignore the challenge to do something other than attack, like healing themselves or buffing an ally or just holding their action until someone else gacks the paladin for them?4e owns, Pathfinder owns, 420 play D&D every day.
Anyways, 4e Marking works like this - when you mark an enemy, they don't need to attack you. In fact, you can mark them, and then they just proceed to ignore you and charge the invoker or cleric in the back. What it does do is punish them for not attacking you. Marking alone gives a small attack penalty against anyone other then whoever marked you, but the defender classes - the ones that mark - have another extra "bit" that happens. So a paladin would shout a divine challenge at a foe to face him, the goblin ignores that and runs up to stab the rogue, and the paladin calls down righteous power to deal damage to the goblin for ignoring the challenge (attack someone else, you get dealt some radiant damage :p).
Then the mark doesn't do much - but then again, most if not all in-combat abilities are attacks of some sort :B
Then the mark doesn't do much - but then again, most if not all in-combat abilities are attacks of some sort :BWhat if they ignore the challenge to do something other than attack, like healing themselves or buffing an ally or just holding their action until someone else gacks the paladin for them?4e owns, Pathfinder owns, 420 play D&D every day.
Anyways, 4e Marking works like this - when you mark an enemy, they don't need to attack you. In fact, you can mark them, and then they just proceed to ignore you and charge the invoker or cleric in the back. What it does do is punish them for not attacking you. Marking alone gives a small attack penalty against anyone other then whoever marked you, but the defender classes - the ones that mark - have another extra "bit" that happens. So a paladin would shout a divine challenge at a foe to face him, the goblin ignores that and runs up to stab the rogue, and the paladin calls down righteous power to deal damage to the goblin for ignoring the challenge (attack someone else, you get dealt some radiant damage :p).
So the paladin's marky mark aura smacks the wizard if he casts Magic Missile at someone other than the paladin, but the wizard is good if he throws an area of affect spell like fireball that gets both the paladin and the other people he's more interested in?
I'm thinking at this point disbelief has not only been hung by the neck until dead but the ravens are beginning to peck the eyeballs out of the corpse.
Then the mark doesn't do much - but then again, most if not all in-combat abilities are attacks of some sort :BWhat if they ignore the challenge to do something other than attack, like healing themselves or buffing an ally or just holding their action until someone else gacks the paladin for them?4e owns, Pathfinder owns, 420 play D&D every day.
Anyways, 4e Marking works like this - when you mark an enemy, they don't need to attack you. In fact, you can mark them, and then they just proceed to ignore you and charge the invoker or cleric in the back. What it does do is punish them for not attacking you. Marking alone gives a small attack penalty against anyone other then whoever marked you, but the defender classes - the ones that mark - have another extra "bit" that happens. So a paladin would shout a divine challenge at a foe to face him, the goblin ignores that and runs up to stab the rogue, and the paladin calls down righteous power to deal damage to the goblin for ignoring the challenge (attack someone else, you get dealt some radiant damage :p).
So the paladin's marky mark aura smacks the wizard if he casts Magic Missile at someone other than the paladin, but the wizard is good if he throws an area of affect spell like fireball that gets both the paladin and the other people he's more interested in?
I'm thinking at this point disbelief has not only been hung by the neck until dead but the ravens are beginning to peck the eyeballs out of the corpse.
I admittingly have no idea offhand how marks work with AoE attacks. I tend to be a Leader :B
I don't really see how the disbelief is dead though. Oh no, the paladin is invoking the wrath of divine energy against those who would ignore his challenge. Like...like some kinda of...smite, perhaps.
Or ... more like some arbitrary game mechanic, maybe?
Smite is nice and personal - even if used w/a bow at a range. You're still actively trying to smack people around. Aura-type damage thing you have going on there? Just ... weird. (ie: breaks the suspension of disbelief).
Just sayin' ... there's a LOT of things that just grate me beyond measure every time I look at the 4e engine. Junk like that is one of them - way, WAY too much of a "game" feel for me to buy into it. I imagine Kevin has a similar problem.
:shrugs:
Thread Relevant Stuff now:
You can absolutely "tank" in this game as it's been a term used since ... well, back in AD&D, no? (any other old timers want to input there?) In my own groups the "tank" was the guy with the most HP's and that tried to protect the more "squishy" party members.
AD&D-wise, the tanks were always of the "warrior" sub-type - best HP's and Con Bonuses, plus the most available attacks *to* try and mess things up that were trying to get past them, or around them. The rest were pretty much "squishy" except for clerics ... they were just a weird middle-man type. They could cast, could use good armor and weapons (mostly), and they had ok HP. Once they got high enough in levels, they could cast a few spells to let them attack and such like fighters/warriors/whatever, so they were good like secondary attackers. Thieves were WAY squishy, but they were good at ranged attacks and/or creeping up to get into a "back" facing of the enemy to get that backstab damage on (which was SICK back in the day - even if highly restricted). They really were NOT good tanks ... or damage dealers. They were always about keeping at range or sneaking to strike for the backstab and get away ASAP because they didn't really take hits well ... at all. Mages, of course, were the ultimate squish. Hit 'em = lose spell, no hp's, no armor, no weapons of note ... they're playing the game on "hard" setting really - totally needed all the protection they could get.
PF-specific the best way to tank is to be able to control the movement of things that want to get past you, AND to pick up any abilities that allow you to extend your threatened area and/or range of influence. A few specifics in this regard:
1) Combat Reflexes - as stated, this is your best friend if you *really* want to be a threatening type of person and have control options. Keep an 'ok' Dex bonus (+2 is a good minimum in general ==> 3 AoO's), too.
2) Use a Reach weapon with Trip as an enhancement/option. Alternatively Disarm is good, too, as if you take the weapon away, chances are the enemy isn't anywhere *near* as much of a threat without the weapon.
3) 3.5 had the feat of "Short Haft" [PHBII] that allowed you to use a reach weapon at a 5' range vs. 10'. Essentially, it became a choice for you as to how you wanted to use the weapon at the time. Someone far - use the 10'. Someone closes, shift to a 5'. Point being, you're still a threat at *any* range with the feat for your melee weapon. PF has a feat called "Catch Off Guard" that one GM I had used to fully replace the "short haft" feat. Honestly, it fits like a glove to specifically address the "change grip" nature of the feat, and it's available at level 1 for the reach-weapon user. It's just a great way to apply that feat, IMO. Another rout = Improved Unarmed Strike. Wear some gauntlets and you're golden there. You can fight melee just fine and deal some "ok" damage while maintaining your "threat" area.
4) Improved Trip/Disarm - invest heavily in at least one of these, if not both. The trip option WILL stop an advancing/moving target period. If you continue the chain - you also pick up an AoO for doing it (remember the importance of Cmb. Ref as #1?). So with this you can take a weapon, AND neutralize the movement/progress of the target. If *tanking* and protection is you thing, it doesn't get any better than that. You've effectively intercepted an attacker, dropped them, AND wounded them at the same time. With the Disarm rout, you take the primary weapon away from the enemy - possibly in a direction that will force it to suffer another AoO from you if attempting to retrieve it (back to that Cmb. Ref. importance again, eh?) Both also force actions that, in melee, provoke AoO's as well, and take up "action economy" on the part of the target. If they have to constantly spend *move* actions just to stand or retrieve a weapon, and they keep getting whomped by it - you're doing a perfect job as a tank. You're occupying an enemy *maybe several* and preventing their actions and damage to be applied to other party members.
5) Positioning and movement will be key to you, SO ... you're all about standard action attacks. Vital Strike line of feats is your very best friend at this point. [next to Combat Reflexes, of course ;-) ] Ok, why? Because it's all about setting up your own threat-area in order to best protect your friends and allies, etc. Stand Still - another great feat to use. It's not better than Trip, though, since trip will grant you an AoO eventually. Still, if you can't quite trip the thing (for whatever reason) it's great for simply limiting actions on the target you use it on (ie: prevent it from moving at all - it can still attack, though, but it can't move). In a similarly situational manner, Nimble Moves and Acrobatic Steps may be worth while. Both allow you to move while ignoring a distance of "difficult" terrain. Again - if positioning is key (and it *always* is with such a concept), then this is a worth while investment. Another one is Step Up - always keeping people in your range, they move away, or start to - re-trip 'em for the AoO, and more lack of actions from them.
6) Best way to protect your allies is to keep 'em safe. To that end, the APG has some NICE feats for this as well. Feats that, IMO, are about due to have seen some print and official support. I've been looking for such things since I played the Final Fantasy II game and saw my paladin for the first time use his "cover" ability. Totally jumped in the way to save his friend - THAT'S tanking right there, man! So .... Bodyguard (note: prereq is ... Cmb Ref! lol!!) is perfect. Use an AoO to grant a +2 bonus to your adjacent Ally's AC ... awesome! Stepping it up once you have Bodyguard down, there is In Harm's Way - now ... you're just Cecil outright. Not only are you using the Bodyguard to grant a +2 to the AC of your ally, you can also just take the hit IF that still manages to land a blow on your ally. THAT is tanking in the extreme!!
7) Increase your threatened area is key! The APG helps this tremendously with Combat Patrol feat (needs Mobility and ... Cmb. Ref!)! This is pretty amazing, actually. You increase your "threat" area by 5' for every 5 points of BAB you have. Think about that for a second ... impressed yet? Now, think on this - not only do you threaten this area, you can move as part of your AoO as long as the total movement used doesn't exceed your move speed. You also do provoke AoO's of your own, too while doing this movement, so keep that in mind. Again, for the defensively minded and focused - this is GOLD!! {keep in mind this is fueled by AoO's, so the Dex mod becomes increasingly important to such a build}
8) APG again gives some awesome sauce to even shield-types that want to tank. Covering Defense is a feat that lets you give the cover (ie: AC bonus) of your shield to an ally as well as yourself. The only restriction is that you need to go Full Defense (good thing you're built around AoO's, though, right?)
9) Following Strike and Step up and Strike - more APG feats that increase the "I chase you if you try to leave" nature of defense.
10) Classes Built for it: Knight from 3.5 will work wonders with his challenge. Likewise, the Cavalier is just about crafted for exactly this.
11) Feats from CW that work for defensive builds:
*Defensive Throw - make a trip attack against an enemy that misses you. Counts at an AoO.
*Hold the Line - AoO against a charging opponent that enters an area you threaten (hello Combat Patrol much?). AoO is resolved before the charge (ie: trip and charge is OVER).
*Karmic Strike - Take a -4 to your own AC to make AoO's against anyone that *does* hit you.
*Phalanx Fighting - Hvy shield + light wpn = +1 ac. If an adjacent ally has a shield, you get a +3 to AC (both) and a +1 on Ref saves. Good for say, protecting the cleric and such (likely to have a shield).
12) Robilar's Gambit [PHB II] - opponents get a +4 to hit and damage against you, BUT every attempted attack they make on you grants you an AoO against them. (remember that AoO's are the highest "to hit" #'s in your arsenal ...)
13) Last but not least - since this is movement/location based as the premise for being in a position *to* tank in the first place, look at the APG's Fighter archetype of the Mobile Fighter.
*bonus on saves vs. paralysis, slow, and entangled - this is great and works to keep the character constantly mobile.
*+1 to hit and damage when moving at least 5' in any given round (following Step, step up and strike much? IE: even if you *were* standing still, you can move during AoO's to get this bonus w/those feats in play)
*Rapid Attack - make a full attack as a standard action!!! (or just after a single move action anyway)
Yeah ...
You can Tank in Pathfinder.
You can Tank DAMN good in Pathfinder, man.
;-D
|
|
There's a HUGE difference between getting a save and not, first of all.
Who is to say the RPG aggro mechanic wouldn't allow a save? The Knight's Challenge from PHB2 does.
Second of all, almost every save-or-fail effect has stuff baked into the system to counter it. Any attempt to add aggro to the table suffers from a "designed-last" symptom and never ever does. Paladins and warriors both offer great defenses against fear. Would elves be immune to being taunted? Would rogues? Etc. etc.
I can sort of agree with this part, but then that is more of a problem of any new spell or special ability that does something completely different than anything that exists. For aggro, you could say that it is an Enchantment, Mind Affecting extraordinary ability and that immunities and resistances apply.
I agree that mechanics to punish enemies for ignoring you can be done well, and they contribute to a "turn and face me, knave!" feel of things. However....
Aggro is a horrible mechanic.
I think we have a disconnect on the term "Aggro" here, I just take it to mean a mechanic that encourages enemies to target you rather than anyone else - that is all. And you seem to agree that such mechanics can be done well.
I have never played WoW, so maybe its specific implementation of Aggro is what you are objecting to?
|
|
In PFRPG, the roles are kind of this:
Healer - Not a primary role, cleric.
Damage dealer - Fighter guy, to some extent rogue
Battlefield control - Mage, to some extent cleric
I've never played WoW but this is very true - and the comparison perhaps explains why 'tank' seems like a new concept to me.
The reason why fighters have lots of hit points and wear all that armour in PathfinderRPG is so that they can keep on hitting the enemy over and over again without being dropped by immediately.It's not so that they can draw attacks or control the enemies' behaviour, the wizard does that.
|
|
Term's been around since the days of the first MMORG which was Ultima, I think. as nothing stops creatures from walking through each other the aggro mechanic is the dominant force on who the mobs choose to hit.
I've never played WoW but this is very true - and the comparison perhaps explains why 'tank' seems like a new concept to me.
I suppose it may have been in use but I didn't hear it until 4 or 5 years ago. It took me a while to understand the meaning people were attaching to it as well - for a long time I just thought it meant heavily armoured characters.
Or ... more like some arbitrary game mechanic, maybe?
Smite is nice and personal - even if used w/a bow at a range. You're still actively trying to smack people around. Aura-type damage thing you have going on there? Just ... weird. (ie: breaks the suspension of disbelief).
Just sayin' ... there's a LOT of things that just grate me beyond measure every time I look at the 4e engine. Junk like that is one of them - way, WAY too much of a "game" feel for me to buy into it. I imagine Kevin has a similar problem.
Agreed.
It breaks too much of the fourth wall for me to have a divine power that somehow can differentiate between a wizard throwing a magic missile and a wizard throwing a fireball. The only metaphysical explanation I can come up with for the sort of aura of divine wrath that differentiates between different types of damages and actions and targeted spells and area of effect spells ends up with cherubim peeking down through the clouds armed with opera glasses, an abacus, and some divine crib sheet that lists what actions they're allowed to divinely smite on behalf of the paladin and what ones they have to let go.
Of course, IMHO, Smite already has enough of a problem in that it causes the same sort of problem because it's the acid test of whether someone's really evil or not. You're worried that the ambassador is actually evil and all the goodness and whatnot your mages and clerics are sensing is just the product of misdirection spells? Just have the paladin throw a smite at him. If it works, then he's evil. If not, he's not.