I don't want anything, here, I'm just curious what people mean by "tank".
Decent Defenses, strong melee attacks, and can define an area where the enemy doesn't want to be.
In essence a mobile fort, which is the original theory behind tank iirc.
You don't need the brainless computer 'aggro', rather melee presence so as to reduce and/or severely punish free enemy movement.
-James
I don't think melee is 'needed' -- after all if you are outputting significant damage with a bow things are going to close on you. If you are away from the rest of the part a bit (say 20~50 feet) you've bought them at least two rounds (one as the monster closes on you one has it leaves your position) -- and that's if all you do is die on the second round.
Now Archers can have very strong defenses too of course (which is needed for a real tank as much as damage is) which means they are also hard to take out as well.
This game simulates a magical reality. There's no such thing as a "tank", and I would be sad if there was.
How about the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O? Or the Apparatus of Kwalish?
|
I think it is a major trap in the game to think that triping or hindering an opponent with stand still and the like is a valid contribution for a combat character (or tank). You aren't doing your job, and you are not providing a target, just an obstacle. The enemy is going to try and go around you not target you. After all you go around obstacles, you dont try and kill them.
You also bring the enemy no closer to defeat, and for the most part you have to spend constant focus (actions) to keep up your hinderence. You also get increasingly diminishing returns as you go up in level and it is harder and harder to do these things to enemies. As much fun as it is to trip or hinder your enemy as a melee character, if you arent also able to do significant damage, you are not a tank, you are a 5th party member.
Emphatically agreed. -- At Dwarven-U Smashmouth Academy, we are taught that if you are not laying down your opponent with big, bloody red "X"s in their eyes, you're not doing your job.
|
The tank's responsibility is to keep the squishies from dying. Accomplishing that goal, however requires a bit of forethought and teamwork. Aside from "Antagonize," there's not much Big Joe Fighter can do to force a moderately intelligent enemy to engage him. Coupled with some creative maneuvering by the rogue or one of the other secondary combatants, and augmented by good battlefield control magic, the "tank" role can be fulfilled; just by the whole party, not one lone guy in adamantine full plate.
I don't quite agree.
There is value to denying the enemy freedom of choice in this.
An archer doesn't hold ground the way that a melee fighter can. They can deal reliable full attacks for middle range damage, but they don't hold ground well.
If the archer is 20-50 feet away, then great he gets his full attacks while the monster chews his way through the rest of the party.
Meanwhile a melee fighter is going to deal decent damage on the AOO, and a full attack after that against such an opponent not dealing with him. As the melee fighter's full attacks outshine the archer the enemy is going to drop that much sooner.
Whatever pressure the archer's damage could deliver to the enemy the melee fighter delivers greater incentive to remove him.
-James
I've not seen a melee fighter that will regularly out damage an archer by enough to really matter. Also the archer can now take AoO's with his ranged weapon due to the new feats in UC and combine all his damage before taking out DR meaning he's going to pass the meleer on anything with DR. The fact he doesn't have to do anything but shoot helps him too since he'll be more consistently be taking full attacks.
Tanking in PF isnt generally done by being unhittable in most cases that in itself is a bit redundant if you can not deliver the pain.
You have to be able to hit hard enough or otherwise be considered a threat to get attention, if a fighter is hitting the BBEG for a third of his hitpoints he is not going to ignore that, forcing the BBEG to fight defensively, avoid attacks of oppurtunity and otherwise neutralize this threat by sacrificing full-on offensive potential on the rest of the party, even if that is done by trying to pummel this fighter into a bloody pulp before he does the same to the BBEG, being able to switch from offensive to a more defensive mode can be key to having foes waste valuable rounds.
If you are just going to dance around the BBEG and pin-pricking it with your rapier you are not going to provoke any reaction even if you are hittable only on a 19 or 20.
|
I'm curious how people have made tanks to work and under what circumstances, or, failing that, how they wished tanks could work after some hypothetical character options/rules changes are added/made.
I have seen tanks work only in tight quarter situations, where enemies do not have superior mobility capabilites. The example being 5ft. wide passages, against enemies without extra-dimensional modes of movement, or occupied square bypass abilities.
The result of this ended up being a protracted battle in which only two characters could effectively assail each other, while the rest of the group lobbed ranged attacks or twiddled their thumbs. It was rather frustrating to DM.
Tanking in PF isnt generally done by being unhittable in most cases that in itself is a bit redundant if you can not deliver the pain.
You have to be able to hit hard enough or otherwise be considered a threat to get attention, if a fighter is hitting the BBEG for a third of his hitpoints he is not going to ignore that, forcing the BBEG to fight defensively, avoid attacks of oppurtunity and otherwise neutralize this threat by sacrificing full-on offensive potential on the rest of the party, even if that is done by trying to pummel this fighter into a bloody pulp before he does the same to the BBEG, being able to switch from offensive to a more defensive mode can be key to having foes waste valuable rounds.Why would the BBEG stand and fight the fighter who's hitting him for 30%, when there are party members who can hit him for >30% of his ability to fight? Especially if the fighter is harder to harm than the party members who are greater threats?
This seems to confuse "posing the biggest threat" with "getting in the BBEG's face", which is only useful if you can somehow stay in the BBEG's face.
Well ofcourse if the BBEG knows exactly what he is up against he will probably not choose to fight at all because the odds are always stacked against him in the typical AP. Typically he shouldn't know he is fighting a battle with a 90% chance to lose, what he does know is that he got hit hard by this fighter, there is an elf magic user that probably cast a defensive spell and a haste, an odd halfling bard that encourages the fighter to kick his butt, and possibly a shady fellow that hides close to the magic user.
The fighter demonstrated to be a very real threat, the halfling demonstrated to be annoying, the magic user has not demonstrated much yet, but might well be dangerous. Doesn't seem like a clear cut case in which the BBEG ignores the fighter.
Too hard to 'Tank' in PF. At least as far as aggro mechanics are concerned.
Mostly because pinning down an opponent usually does no damage.
Order of the shield cavaliers can do it better than others via stem the tide(They can prevent Movt by using an AOO the enemy provokes that still does full damage, stepup takes care of 5ft steps), they can also later interrupt enemy moves via protect the meek.
Fighters can do it via Pin down which as I understand also pins via an AOO (but is worse because the attack does no damage)
Chars can also use standstill. Problem with these things is (besides cavalier) you wasted an action to do 0 damage.
Better to Make a Archer or Pouncing Barb, or Dawnflower Dervish or Switch Hitter and just full attack every round to drop foes faster.
I haven't yet seen anyone successfully tank in a 3e/PF game, and it's sort of a cultural thing with the groups I've played with that you're responsible for your own defense.
You've never ever had a case in a 3E/PF game where a more heavily armored guy with more hit points and a melee weapon stood at the front of the party while a more lightly armored spellcaster with fewer hit points stood behind him? Because that's the ur-tank situation.
If you want to play a true tank, 4e would probably be better for that. The marking mechanic works very well to keep a monster engaged.
If you want to be sticky in Pathfinder, you'll have to build specifically towards that goal.
I've not seen a melee fighter that will regularly out damage an archer by enough to really matter. Also the archer can now take AoO's with his ranged weapon due to the new feats in UC and combine all his damage before taking out DR meaning he's going to pass the meleer on anything with DR. The fact he doesn't have to do anything but shoot helps him too since he'll be more consistently be taking full attacks.Certainly the archer is getting more full attacks without support. However those full attacks are not as much as say a twohander's full attacks, right?
Pick a level or a set of a few levels and build out both an archer and a two-handed melee fighter. Compare their damage both on a full attack and on an AOO.
A decently done out melee is going to be worthwhile if the party plays that way. Which brings me to the OP:
So lets do it for level 17:
Two handed has his +5 weapon five attacks with haste strength and a half bonus and +3 from power attack:
Strength of... well lets say he went hog heaven all in at level 1 and beyond: 20+4+6+2(inherent) means 32
To hit:
+17 BAB
+11 STR
+ 6 Weapon training (gloves of dueling on)
+ 2 greater weapon specialization
+ 5 enhancement
- 5 power attack
+ 1 haste
+36/+36/+31/+26/+21
Damage:
+16 STR
+ 6 weapon training
+ 4 greater weapon specialization
+ 5 Enhancement
+15 power attack
+46 damage per hit
5 hits at +46 damage.
Archer has to balance more and did 16 and 18 to start with and then stays half and half while leveling = +26 and +26 (inherent bonus to balance)
He has:
+17 BAB
+ 8 DEX
+ 6 weapon training
+ 1 Point blank
+ 2 greater weapon focus
+ 5 weapon enhancement
- 2 rapid shot
- 5 deadly aim
+ 1 haste
+32(x2)/+32/+32/+27/+22/+17
Damage
+8 strength
+6 weapon training
+1 point blank
+4 greater weapon specialization
+5 weapon enhancement
+10 Deadly aim
+34 damage
7 hits at +34 damage.
Melee 5x46= 230 (DR counts each time)
Archery 7x34= 238 (cluster shot for DR only counting once)
Now both people can of course do more to get more bonuses to hit in without any trouble.
But we see a simple truth that always shows itself in these threads -- the archers ability to get more shots out increases his multiplier on his damage per hit much more than the two handers more limited full attacks -- this happens with two weapon builds too -- two handers can't honestly keep up since they have so many less attacks.
With cluster shot they aren't even that amazing any more when it comes to dealing with DR.
Two things here.
First, with a +5 weapon.. so what DR are we talking about here?
Second, people tend to give 'high level' builds but don't flesh them out to any real degree. This distorts things greatly. Not picking on you, but it's just the nature that such builds take a lot of work.
Let's take what you put forth as a baseline.
Now at 17th level, let's have poly any object available. Thus the fighter's STR increases. Likewise his weapon criticals more often, and does more base damage. Let's go with a large falcata dealing 2d6 17-20x3 crit. Let's make the weapon furious and him raging via a rage spell (on an item).
He will get another +5 to hit over the archer and +8 to damage.
First off I don't take offense -- I do want you to know that -- I understand the hows and whys of what you are saying -- I still stand by my stats as given, yes I could have fully fleshed out but honestly they are going to come out the same beyond those many stats a possibly difference of a +1 in a third rank stat isn't going to change over all performance.
Also as soon as you apply PAO to the two handed fighter you must do it to the archery fighter as well -- after all they both can benefit from it (going elemental probably for the archer). So it's a non-starter to really apply such effects without offering them at to both characters. The archer is going to greatly benefit from the air elemental for example.
Please show your liberties and be sure you applied them equally -- not that I disagree with applying them (especially since they are going to help the archer more than the two handed fighter after they get pass the two hander's 'auto hit' bonuses), just that I want to know exactly what you have going on (just to follow the math easier).
I propose we have prayer, an Ioun stone (pale green prism), and heroism up.
This will provide both a +4 to hit and +1 to damage.
The best polymorph option for the archer is elemental shape 4 for the air elemental providing +4 strength and +6 dex.
I would suggest giant form 2 for the two hander for +8 to strength and -2 to Dex +6 to Con.
This will make both fighter Huge as well.
Finally I would suggest we use the Bestiary average AC for a CR 17 monster which is 32. The average for a CR 20 AC is 36 -- with average HP being 270 for CR 17 and 370 for CR 20.
That way we are using actual numbers.
What does "tank" mean to you, in Pathfinder?
Nothing, unless it's a modern/super science campaign where armoured vehicles with heavy weaponry exist, or there is a large container for fluids.
I generally don't hold with MMO terms.
I know what a tank does in an MMO, but Pathfinder doesn't (IMO effectively) allow that
I think the purely defensive warrior can be done. However, I don't think it is necessary. In Pathfinder, warriors can be great defensively and offensively. At once. You can have a character that can avoid or withstand a lot of punishment and still lay entire armies to waste. I personally think a character whose only task is to be beaten by enemies while his friends actually defeat them is even more boring than playing a cleric who does nothing but healing his friends.
If you are dead set on a fighter who does no (or next to no) damage, but gets in the enemy's face while the rest attacks, that is possible.
One problem for an MMO-style tank is that there is no "aggro" system in an RPG. The GM decides how the enemies work. No amount of rules-lawyering can force the GM to attack the character you want. So a lot of a "PFRPG tank"'s effectiveness depends on how the GM runs things.
If the GM runs everything as stupid machines that attack the first thing they see, you're fine. You just have to go front.
If the GM runs everything like tactical geniuses who use the best possible strategy, you're screwed.
Usually, it's somewhere in between, with some enemies attacking whatever is right next to them, some being tactical geniuses, some being somewhere in between, and some having completely different agendas (like an enemy who hates dwarves and will always attack them first).
The basic "tank" who just stands there and eats up attacks, is quite easy to manage: Max out con, have a decent dex score, too. Dwarves are good for this role. Get toughness, and the heaviest armour you can find, and a tower shield to boot, and basically choose all sorts of feats, class abilities and items that increase your HP and AC (and saves, which can't be completely ignored), even if you have to give up attack power for it (like combat expertise).
If you expect a more difficult job (like creatures that might simply ignore the tough but weak enemy and focus on the dangerous but squishy ones), the focus will shift a bit. You'll still increase AC and HP, but you'll also learn how to trip and/or grapple, and select equipment that will make you better at that, like polearms or one of the new-fangled grappling weapons. Combine with combat reflexes (and decent dex) so you get many AoOs, and you control quite a bit of space around you, and getting past you to the gooey wizard goodness behind you will become a lot more difficult.
That kind of warrior - the warrior who has good defences and good control of his surroundings with combat manoeuvres - might be what in PFRPG counts as a "tank".
Tanking defined: preventing any enemies from hitting anyone in the party but you.
This is only possible in Pathfinder with spells like entangle. It isn't possible for any melee of any build to perform. Hence why MiB has never seen it done successfully. Short of having the tank yell bonzai! and charge in to solo the room for a round, or using the tank as a sharp metal door in a 5' hallway, you will never have a situation where the enemies ignore the rest of the party and focus on the tank.
The ur-tank scenario that uses the tin can as an obstacle only works if:
1) the monsters die before they can run past the tank
2) the monsters aren't intent on engaging the caster but will settle for whatever engages first
3) there isn't room to run past the tank
If none of these things occur, then the tank has only bought the caster one round of safety. Even if the tank has antagonize, he can only occupy one monster with it, and the diplomacy version of antagonize will only generate threat if the GM is metagaming.
(Antagonize really is the worst feat I've ever seen, because it robs players of the ability to do what my group has always done--roleplay or make diplomacy checks to "taunt" an enemy.)
Generally, a tank's actions are better spent trying to kill the enemy than trying to prevent it from attacking someone else.
I'm glad this is the case. I don't feel tanks need threat mechanics, because I agree that everyone is responsible for their own defense. Everyone's defenses are adequate, and in a certain sense, equal (although against different kinds of attacks). The MMO model is dissociated to a silly degree, and eliminates any sort of strategy beyond keeping the tank alive and dancing around the gimmics of the fight. Not that I don't enjoy it, but I think I would enjoy RPGs less if they behaved the same way, and I might even enjoy WoW more if it behaved more like an RPG.
I can't think of a single method of tracking threat that wouldn't both make the GM's job harder and be totally dissociated. Hitting or critting are as likely to break morale as generate threat. Getting hit might be interesting as a threat generator, but why would something continue to attack the tank if Sneaky Pete is sticking sharp things in its back?
stuffs
Actually counting all archery feats and the weapon spec tree the archer is still going to have a couple of feats left over:
Point blank shot, Rapid shot, multi shot, precise shot, imprved precise shot, deadly aim = 6 feats
Weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization = 4 feats
Snap shot, Improved Snap Shot, Greater Snap Shot = 3 feats
Combat Reflexes, Iron Will, Cluster Shots, toughness = 4 feats
So we have 17 feats counting iron will, combat reflexes and toughness.
Got one to spare for a human. I'm partial to point blank mastery myself -- how about you?
Using actual numbers is going to be at best problematic since anyone can present evidence for their side being right -- using the average in the back is actually par for course and gives a 'level' playing field. Also if you actually add up all the ACs and Divide by the number of monsters present for the CR you'll find the average is actually only 1 over on average (I did this for each CR when the bestiary came out for a thread similar to this one just to prove the numbers were in fact near correct).
Finally I agree with level 11 -- I'll look into posting an archery build tonight and you put up the melee build (please don't feel constrained to two handed if you don't want to be -- melee alone is fine as it helps stretch the whole thing out and provide a bigger picture).
The ur-tank scenario that uses the tin can as an obstacle only works if:
1) the monsters die before they can run past the tank
2) the monsters aren't intent on engaging the caster but will settle for whatever engages first
3) there isn't room to run past the tank
Note that I have made no claims as to its effectiveness; I'm just saying that the idea that (ceteris paribus) the heavy melee guy goes in front and the light ranged guy goes in back is very, very common.
What does "tank" mean to you, in Pathfinder?In pen-n-paper RPG, not Pathfinder limited...
A "tank" is someone who others can hide behind in combat. The tank positions itself between danger and the rest of the party.
Preferrably, the tank should be good at wholly resisting damage and effects, and at a minimum the tank can absorb a lot of damage or effects, while expending the least resources.
Provoking attacks of opportunity so others can act and move more freely is one of a tank's tactical means of drawing "aggro" from a danger.
And to soothe my old gamer's hackles, as well as for sake of historical accuracy, it might be worth pointing out that the term "tank" for a tabletop game did not come from any MMO. I remember hearing it first in the 'eighties, a time wherein you would be hard pressed to find a Massively Multiplayer Online game of any kind.
It probably pre-dates my gaming days (which began in 1981). But being somewhat of an ignorameous back then, I can't be sure. I just know I first heard it when I was still a teenager.
It may be that the traditional eigenparty only has one squishy and three characters that are expected to go into melee. One fighter can't protect a wizard in an open room unless he's some sort of large reach AoO build, but a fighter and a cleric can cover a wizard pretty well. I'm not quite sure what the flank dependent, light armor rogue contributes to the tanking role though unless it's to fill in for the cleric when she needs to cast something.The tank's responsibility is to keep the squishies from dying. Accomplishing that goal, however requires a bit of forethought and teamwork. Aside from "Antagonize," there's not much Big Joe Fighter can do to force a moderately intelligent enemy to engage him. Coupled with some creative maneuvering by the rogue or one of the other secondary combatants, and augmented by good battlefield control magic, the "tank" role can be fulfilled; just by the whole party, not one lone guy in adamantine full plate.So you're saying that it's the rest of the party's job to funnel enemies to the tank, rather than the tank's responsibility to draw enemies to him?
Is this a realpolitik view of the game as it is, or a statement of what tanks should be able to do?
pop my curve blade wielding Elf rogue/fighter2 into that "not sure" role, great dex, reasonable int/cha/str (damage & skills, dodge/mobility/spring attack, power attack, cleave, lunge, vital strike, agile manuversrogue talents, etc in the build... reasonable AC, the ability to acrobatics through opponents as needed by group makeup, good single target (even with higher ac tsrgets thanks to VS) or adjacent multitarget damage (cleave), extreme battlefield mobility & the ability to pretty much ignore mlots of difficult terrain (high acrobatics) while still contributing to typical rogue stuff outside of combat. It probably be possible to make something similar with the UC ninja too
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From an MMO perspective the only way to 'hold aggro' right now is Antagonize. However, when you look at what the tank is effectively doing, it is that he is preventing other party members from getting hit.
In my view there are several ways to do this, some of which have been discussed previously.
One that hasn't been mentioned is thru the mechanics of either reducing the enemies chances of hitting or improving fellow PCs AC bonuses. Or even doing both together (although the number of feats to do that gets large).
For example: Dazzling Display, with a successful intimidate check you can make all enemies within 30' shaken (-2 to attack rolls, saves & ability checks).
Or Combat Reflexes & Bodyguard to increase an adjacent ally's AC by +2.
Saving Shield also lets you make an immediate action to grant a +2 shield bonus.
So he might be able to affect a 6 point swing on an enemy (-2 to attacks, +4 to AC). All without impacting his own AC.
Just my 2 cents.
edit'd for typos
pop my curve blade wielding Elf rogue/fighter2 into that "not sure" role, great dex, reasonable int/cha/str (damage & skills, dodge/mobility/spring attack, power attack, cleave, lunge, vital strike, agile manuversrogue talents, etc in the build... reasonable AC, the ability to acrobatics through opponents as needed by group makeup, good single target (even with higher ac tsrgets thanks to VS) or adjacent multitarget damage (cleave), extreme battlefield mobility & the ability to pretty much ignore mlots of difficult terrain (high acrobatics) while still contributing to typical rogue stuff outside of combat. It probably be possible to make something similar with the UC ninja tooThat sounds like a skirmisher. You're doing damage, but you're not really making it harder for the enemies to reach the wizard. It's not an unimportant role, but it's not part of tanking as the term seems to be used in gaming.
between the various rogue talents, decent social skills (intimidate/etc), agile maneuvers (use dex for CMD/finnesse for trip/grapple/etc), simple application of damage, reach afforded by lunge, and reasonable AC It's able to work great with one or more additional melee character to cut off the enemy's ability to reach that wizard ;)
|
|
between the various rogue talents, decent social skills (intimidate/etc), agile maneuvers (use dex for CMD/finnesse for trip/grapple/etc), simple application of damage, reach afforded by lunge, and reasonable AC It's able to work great with one or more additional melee character to cut off the enemy's ability to reach that wizard ;)
Lunge only works during your turn, so you don't threaten any additional squares.
Without reading the thread past the OP I shall endeavor to add my 2cp.
I've used the term tank in my gaming groups since before the days of MMOs. Perhaps it was a MUD term, though I never played MUDs. To us it was just someone heavily armored (like, ya know, a tank) who was the first person through a door with his sword out and thus the obvious target.
There is no aggro mechanic, and it's better that way, but you can play a "tank" in our old terminology by just being Falchion Fred with full plate and maybe Improved Initiative. Do a lot of damage, be able to take as good as you give, and that's about it.
This is all of course at low to moderate levels (<~9). C-MD, etc, blah blah blah.
I imagine the closest you'll get to a tank in Pathfinder (in most games) would be a front-line warrior who focuses on defense or survivability more than a normal warrior might. Done, I guess, through heavy armor or DR, using the various antagonistic abilities (I think barbarians just got one). I think my definition of it could or should be, armor's there and it's not supposed to be an afterthought behind your magical killing implement. Yeah I guess a cleric and other spellcasters would have better ability to do it at high levels, and fighters or the other warrior types would be awesome at it.
No, not at all. I don't really think it should. The role of tank developed in MMOs as, essentially, AI was crap. In MUDs, whoever attacked the mob first was the tank. So you just had the biggest HP guy initiate combat and everyone smash at the target while occasionally throwing heals at at the tank to keep them from dying.
And of course in response to this certain scripts were added, and a mob could do something to screw up this routine. They could cast fear, and the tank could flee, letting the much weaker damage dealers get slaughtered.
With graphics and more of an investment in making it interesting, you just amp up the scripting. Add threat and so forth.
I think in RPGs, there's no reason to play mobs off of such basic ideas. Most creatures shouldn't be played as 'monster goes up to the fighter and full attacks until everyone kills it.' As intelligence goes up among antagonists, they should reason their opponents out. Even an animal might be more tempted to go and chomp on the soft, squishy wizard rather than the tin can with sharp points.
That said, yeah I do think it would be nice for there to be more of a reason to emphasize defense. Even an adventurer would want to avoid getting stabbed, bitten, and stung, it's just natural to want to avoid pain. But when all you have to do is drink a potion or whistle at the healer you don't have the same aversion to injury as a real person.
Too late to edit my post, but after thinking, use of yourself to block movement and taking advantage of trying to get past you would be a tankish thing as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/warder
I get to be one of those people that responds to a necroed thread (ya).
We had a tank inquisitor in our last game. The character was a Dwarf and he had heavy armor proficiency. We picked up Hellknght armor at some point so he was using that. Though he only had 20ft of movement, he would cast Expedious Retreat. There was a situation where he got completely surrounded but the monsters never hit him. I think he had certain Inquisitor buffs up at the time before he rushed into battle. He was always quite a sight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is a tank to me? It is a supplementary role, much like 'skill monkey'. Without one in the party, things get hairy, but it is not your primary role.
The point of a tank to me is in the phrase "I am a tank AND...". Being able to survive is fine, but if it is all you can do, there is not much you are adding to the fight.
So maybe you are like a barbarian, who does high DPR. Maybe you are a heavy armored, shield using cleric blinged out with a ton of long term buffs and spamming spells such as summoning. Maybe you are something tactical, such as a reach character or a maneuver user (bit harder to pull that one off as a primary, but I can imagine that a brawler with mithral breastplate could do fairly well)
In the end, being a tank is supposed to help your primary role- you survive to do your job. AC helps you last longer while getting in things' faces when you hit them or try to do a maneuver. And if no one can make the save of some AoE condition effect, then the whole party is in for pain. Just like how it is bad if absolutely no one has knowledge skills (particularly the big 4) when it comes to skill monkeys.
But just like how the role of the skill monkey can be strategically divided among the party, tanki-ness can be somewhat divided as well (different types of defenses- AC, touch AC, will saves, fort saves, reflex saves, etc.). Of course, it is not bad to have both a specialist while having everyone try to add a bit as well.