Tanking doesn't exist in worlds with sentient beings. The video game concept of tanking is based on enmity generation and a class capable of over riding the enmity of others. Antagonize completely does do this, but for a single attempt and then you cannot use it on a creature again that day.
You can say a barbarian tanks by being a threat through things like pounce, but this is still not true as much as a turret archer or a spell caster is a tank. A creature is free to do as it likes. If anything the reverse is true in a table top RPG setting as it attempts to mimic life through role playing. A creature that is overly threatening will be avoided as instinct would cater to survival unless there's a method of dealing with it. Using a run action to steer clear of a barbarian or even just a withdraw if your movement is greater is a more likely course of action than telling yourself the barbarian is THE threat that must be dealt with in a manner that removes it from it's threatening position.
Creatures that think for themselves are smart enough to know when they're losing or their lives are in jeopardy and wouldn't stand around to fight. They'd carry tools to aid in escape measures like smoke sticks
Your best choice at a defensive character build is to talk with your group and play tactics. It can be hard as most groups, my own included, like to be the solo hero. Charging off alone to wreak havoc and hoping others will be there to help when things go wrong. An armored melee that hangs back with the archer firing volleys or the wizard casting is truly how an adventuring party would work IMO. Have a ranged weapon to hang back and when monsters close in quick draw your melee and get in the way of the advancing creatures. Provided your team focus fires down some creatures and the group maneuvers with you to force creatures to provoke AoOs, you should be able to get in the way of the bulk of the attacks.
Actually, tanking DOES exist outside of video games, but you have to have explicit mechanics for it. 4e has the 'defender' role, which fits the definition of a tank to the tee. It's just that pathfinder doesn't really do that role.
Actually, tanking DOES exist outside of video games, but you have to have explicit mechanics for it. 4e has the 'defender' role, which fits the definition of a tank to the tee. It's just that pathfinder doesn't really do that role.
Never played 4e or a variety of the plethora of table tops so I can't speak for all of them. Did any of the classes that took the defender role have "a way to taunt or provoke enemies into attacking me?" Or is it just more battlefield control abilities. I'm not seeing anything that says a sentient creature isn't allowed to attack anyone it wants.
Tactics used by a team to ensure more vulnerable members of the team are not exposed to the enemy's attacks.Sounds like what people refer to when they discuss tanking.
OP asked for an ability to taunt or provoke. Many others mentioned classes that become a tank due to damage output. Many others are suggestions of classes using spells or other feats to accomplish short term solutions. Neither of those are tactics used by a team.
Sounds like people talk about a variety of things when they refer to tanking.
@Martial Madness: 4e Defenders get to challenge their opponent with a Mark, which gives the marked creature -2 to hit anyone besides the Defender. Different defenders also have different unique ways to punish those that ignore the mark to attack one of their allies, whether getting an extra attack against them, reducing the damage of their attack, or something else.
There's little in the way of such mechanics in Pathfinder (Blundering Defense is cool but the range makes it impractical for buffing squishy allies, plus you get more AC than they do so it fails to even the odds for monsters), and no revenge abilities as far as I know.
Actually, 'tanking' originated from MUDs in the 90's, and jumped across to DnD later after it had become a popular videogame term. So... I guess you're technically right on the WoW count, which I didn't even mention? And wrong otherwise.
"Tanking" was a D&D term long before it was a WoW term, so yes, you could always be a "tank" in D&D.
No, we were calling heavy armored Fighters "tanks" back in the late 70's long before there were any "MUDs' and twenty years before the 90's.
I have been playing & DMing and even writing for D&D since 1974.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
Tanking does not exist in worlds with sentient beings. It's a mechanism of video games where the system doesn't allow free thought.
Publius Horatius Cocles would disagree. So would Leonidas.
The Viking who held Stamford Bridge would disagree.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/stamfordbridge.html
Look, all you have to do when "tanking" in D&D is force the enemy to come thru *YOU* *IF* they want to attack.
Yes, I know the MUD mechanism where a "tank" actually makes all the foes come to him doesn't exist much in D&D.
So? The term "tanking" existed long before there were any MUD's. It's been used since OD&D. You put a heavy armored fighting man in a narrow corridor and the foe has to get past him in order to get to the wizard who is laying down the hurt. No narrow corridor? The wizard uses battlefield control spells so there IS a choke point. See "The God Wizard"
So yeah "MUD Tanking" doesn't work in D&D much. Nor does Panzer tanking like in WWII.
But D&D tanking works just fine, and since we're playing D&D, not Panzers or MUD's, that's what we're talking about.
Broken Wing is a better way to draw attacks, but it requires some investment from your allies (and works better when your partners are also meleers). Also excellent with Paired Opportunists.
Actually, 'tanking' originated from MUDs in the 90's, and jumped across to DnD later after it had become a popular videogame term. So... I guess you're technically right on the WoW count, which I didn't even mention? And wrong otherwise.
"Tanking" was a D&D term long before it was a WoW term, so yes, you could always be a "tank" in D&D.
No, we were calling heavy armored Fighters "tanks" back in the late 70's long before there were any "MUDs' and twenty years before the 90's.
I have been playing & DMing and even writing for D&D since 1974.
The first MUD was written in 1975.
|
AntagonizeThis is EXACTLY what I was looking for, but I can't find it in any of the books... What book is this in?
All SRD pages have a copyright notice at the bottom, which includes the book(s) that the information on that page comes from.
As to the original topic, I notice nobody has mentioned the Prankster bard archetype (in the Gnome section of the Advanced Race Guide), which has an ability to "mock" enemies, debuffing them until they attack you.
Tanking does not exist in worlds with sentient beings. It's a mechanism of video games where the system doesn't allow free thought. A tank rolling onto a battle field doesn't demand everyone's attention. It's just another threat as capable of killing you as a soldier with a rifle.
And 'everyone gang up on the wizard first' does not exist without a GM's metaknowledge unless the guy is literally dress up like Gandolf with the hat, staff, and maybe a spellbook in obvious sight. I mean, have any of you ever had an experience where every enemy assumes that people in plain clothing are wizards rather than just normal people that hired bodyguards? This is particularly a problem when, by sheer variety if not actual demographics, most spellcaster classes can wear armor now- every divine caster can have armor, and there are bards and magi for arcane classes.
And even if you say they 'target the weak ones first'...well, would you really target an unarmed, unarmored level 1 commoner before facing off against a heavy armor wearing, greatsword swinging warrior? Which seems like a higher priority? And how are enemies telling the difference besides such glaringly obvious details like this?
Now, I will entirely acknowledge targeting archers. Bows are fairly conspicuous, and taking out ranged opponents is a smart idea. And once the wizard starts throwing around haste spells or fireballs, I can acknowledge that they are obvious threats.
But beyond that? How are you justifying the enemies' actions as 'sentient beings' rather than as 'game pieces used by the GM'? This is a careful balancing act that everyone needs to deal with-making sound tactical decisions, and making sound roleplaying decisions. Stepping outside of yourself is one of the hardest and most important tasks in games such as these. And sometimes, sentient being make frightfully poor tactical decisions (ie- orc barbarians deciding to charge the heavy armored, long spear wielding fighter...."FOR GLORY!")
|
And 'everyone gang up on the wizard first' does not exist without a GM's metaknowledge unless the guy is literally dress up like Gandolf with the hat, staff, and maybe a spellbook in obvious sight. I mean, have any of you ever had an experience where every enemy assumes that people in plain clothing are wizards rather than just normal people that hired bodyguards? This is particularly a problem when, by sheer variety if not actual demographics, most spellcaster classes can wear armor now- every divine caster can have armor, and there are bards and magi for arcane classes.
True meta-gaming: when everyone attacks the wizard in normal clothing, ignoring my kensai who does wear robes.
And 'everyone gang up on the wizard first' does not exist without a GM's metaknowledge unless the guy is literally dress up like Gandolf with the hat, staff, and maybe a spellbook in obvious sight. I mean, have any of you ever had an experience where every enemy assumes that people in plain clothing are wizards rather than just normal people that hired bodyguards? This is particularly a problem when, by sheer variety if not actual demographics, most spellcaster classes can wear armor now- every divine caster can have armor, and there are bards and magi for arcane classes.
And even if you say they 'target the weak ones first'...well, would you really target an unarmed, unarmored level 1 commoner before facing off against a heavy armor wearing, greatsword swinging warrior? Which seems like a higher priority? And how are enemies telling the difference besides such glaringly obvious details like this?
Now, I will entirely acknowledge targeting archers. Bows are fairly conspicuous, and taking out ranged opponents is a smart idea. And once the wizard starts throwing around haste spells or fireballs, I can acknowledge that they are obvious threats.
But beyond that? How are you justifying the enemies' actions as 'sentient beings' rather than as 'game pieces used by the GM'? This is a careful balancing act that everyone needs to deal with-making sound tactical decisions, and making sound roleplaying decisions. Stepping outside of yourself is one of the hardest and most important tasks in games such as these. And sometimes, sentient being make frightfully poor tactical decisions (ie- orc barbarians deciding to charge the heavy armored, long spear wielding fighter...."FOR GLORY!")
You have a very valid point, but as a counter point, and in a world where magic is real and common place, if you encounter an archer, a heavily armed guy, and an unarmored guy it is very reasonable to guess that the unarmored guy might have magic. And that he might be the most dangerous of them all.
Maybe for very low int characters that have literally no understanding of magic might not understand this, but otherwise it's hedging your bets that the most dangerous guy is the one who doesn't have any visible weapons and has a valid point. Now, a clever party might use this to convince you to attack the monk, or any other unarmed or unarmored person in the party. But to say that there is no validity to "kill the wizard first" is to ignore some key features of the setting.
And 'everyone gang up on the wizard first' does not exist without a GM's metaknowledge unless the guy is literally dress up like Gandolf with the hat, staff, and maybe a spellbook in obvious sight. I mean, have any of you ever had an experience where every enemy assumes that people in plain clothing are wizards rather than just normal people that hired bodyguards? This is particularly a problem when, by sheer variety if not actual demographics, most spellcaster classes can wear armor now- every divine caster can have armor, and there are bards and magi for arcane classes.True meta-gaming: when everyone attacks the wizard in normal clothing, ignoring my kensai who does wear robes.
Only if the enemies are intelligent and have no reason to believe the wizard is a wizard. If they're not, then it's metagaming for them not to attack the wizard first.
Why is it metagaming? Animals in real life tend to attack the weakest person present first, and even most animals recognize the difference between steel and flesh. Ones in a DnD-style setting would be even more aware of the differences.
Now, the moment the wizard casts a spell, everyone intelligent on the wizard first is not metagaming; that's tactics. If they're familiar enough with magic, they know to attack the unarmored person first because the unarmored person is often a wizard (again, tactics). Of course, a wise GM allows the party a chance to learn the enemy has this kind of tactical knowledge before encountering them...
Typically, a Kensai is going to have obvious-enough musculature. Contrary to popular opinion, robes don't hide that very well. Even more so since the wizard tends to have a spell component pouch the Kensai doesn't, which would be obvious at a glance. But if the wizard took Eschew Materials, wears a robe, does not cast a spell yet, and still gets attacked while the Kensai is ignored by random intelligent enemies? Yes, metagaming.
There is only one term that is tanking. It's origins are based in MUDs and is supported by searching the etymology. If it existed before this the etymology would say as much.
A tank is someone who uses their ability to direct attacks towards themselves to ensure that a single person is taking the brunt of damage. Ie tanking the damage. PF has the antagonize feat and a few spells that support this mechanic. Anything that forces a penalty for not attacking someone is merely a debuff where a sentient being is free to attack anyone they want and the sole person is not tanking damage.
@Martial Madness: 4e Defenders get to challenge their opponent with a Mark, which gives the marked creature -2 to hit anyone besides the Defender. Different defenders also have different unique ways to punish those that ignore the mark to attack one of their allies, whether getting an extra attack against them, reducing the damage of their attack, or something else.
Dazzling display does this except they even have a -2 to hit the person that used it and also suffer a penalty to skills, ability checks, and saves. It is a debuff with no mechanic forcing anyone to attack a single target. Combat reflexes, body guard, in harm's way and having players maneuver tactically to ensure more AoOs get provoked does the rest. It's still limited in use for a representation of a tank.
Publius Horatius Cocles would disagree. So would Leonidas.
The Viking who held Stamford Bridge would disagree.
Publius Horatius Cocles held a bridge shoulder to shoulder with 2 other soldiers. Only 3 people were present and all three were being assaulted. Publius did not tank the damage while his allies freely assaulted the enemy.
Leonidas fought with Spartan tactics locking shields and fighting as a defensive unit. He did not tank all the attacks while his allies freely slaughtered Persians.
Your Viking was a lone man blocking a bridge. With no one else to attack all attacks will be directed at the lone figure. This is not a tank. This is a lone person holding their ground using a tactical advantage. An archer could hold a narrow passageway. This doesn't make the archer a tank under the definition of the word.
Many words
I'm not saying anyone singles anyone out. I'm saying a sentient creature has the choice to attack anyone they want and PF lacks the mechanics to play a tank effectively as the term is traditionally used. Even animals that work on instinct will avoid the guy in armor to attack the guy wearing clothes. It's why survival of the fittest is a real thing.
A person knows it's easier to kill a man wearing basic clothes than to kill a man wearing full plate. Tactically it would make more sense to kill off the easy targets so you can gang up on the harder foe. It's easier to kill the mooks before the BBEG than to rush the BBEG while the mooks beat on you.
The problem will arise in the thoughts of your stats actually affecting your appearance, ability, and understanding. An 18 strength should be a hulking mass where the 7 or even 10 strength is just a skinny or lean looking individual. So a person should be able to make a quick visual inspection of the threats and decide that they want to thin the ranks which provides a tactical man advantage. Why spend 3 arrows to take down the guy in heavy armor if 3 arrows can kill 3 lightly armored people. Surely you can move faster than the guy in full plate to keep enough distance while killing his allies. Same thing with melee attacks. Unless a creature has no choice, but to go through the heavy armor combatant then they're just as easily avoided and a being that thinks for itself can come to this conclusion as easily as you or I.
|
|
Only if the enemies are intelligent and have no reason to believe the wizard is a wizard. If they're not, then it's metagaming for them not to attack the wizard first.
How would even another wizard distinguish between a wizard and a kensai prior to the latter using spell combat?
There are no physical or magical differences prior to that point.
Carrying a weapon that wizards don't traditionally use, conditioning of the body, stance, gait, a plethora of physical attributes that are present due to training. Unless of course you are perpetually bluffing the world and your 7 strength wizards walk around flexing and you just describe them as hulking behemoths.
You're comparing a librarian who spent their life pouring over tomes to the librarian that spent time training with weaponry. They definitely will not be similar in appearance.
Only if the enemies are intelligent and have no reason to believe the wizard is a wizard. If they're not, then it's metagaming for them not to attack the wizard first.How would even another wizard distinguish between a wizard and a kensai prior to the latter using spell combat?
There are no physical or magical differences prior to that point.
The kensai is holding a weapon ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a very valid point, but as a counter point, and in a world where magic is real and common place, if you encounter an archer, a heavily armed guy, and an unarmored guy it is very reasonable to guess that the unarmored guy might have magic. And that he might be the most dangerous of them all.
Maybe for very low int characters that have literally no understanding of magic might not understand this, but otherwise it's hedging your bets that the most dangerous guy is the one who doesn't have any visible weapons and has a valid point. Now, a clever party might use this to convince you to attack the monk, or any other unarmed or unarmored person in the party. But to say that there is no validity to "kill the wizard first" is to ignore some key features of the setting.
But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?
I mean, those orc war bands have to have at least a bit of luck if they try to make a living off of raiding caravans (since they usually get slaughtered when it ACTUALLY IS an adventuring party) And from that, they start to form (typically correct) expectations. Now, whether these expectations end up being correct that 'one time' Scooby and the gang show up....well, can you really build up expectations until something like that happens?
Now, if you believed that the guy in normal clothes is just going to sit in a corner crying and wetting himself...well, wouldn't you want to deal with the people who are 'actual threats'? If I am expecting martial threats only, I think the guy with the shiniest, most expensive looking equipment is the most dangerous (hey, mercs have to buy their own stuff usually; wealth=success=cutting down fools in this business).
Of course, I must also acknowledge your rebuttal, Martial Madness
Many words
And yes, that is a perfectly valid train of thought. All I am saying is this: there are a lot of different ways to approach this, all with their own valid points, and maybe you should mix things up. I mean, why are those 1 hd orc raiders and the level 15 imperial guards headed by the greatest (and most treacherous) general in the kingdom working with the same assumptions and tactics? (well, besides the fact that the general sent his stooges to head up the orc raiders, playing up their threat so that he might make a play for more power; but that is an in story thing).
Using a variety of motivations and sets of tactics is important to keeping up the whole illusion of verisimilitude. Sometimes they focus on the heavily armored fighter, sometimes they think 'let's just be sure' and take a pot shot at the guy that might either be an archmage in disguise or a level 1 commoner that would die from the one hit. If you are unsure (and have no better ideas), just keep a small check list ("have they seen any spell used?" "Does anyone look particularly tasty?") and maybe just a table that you randomly roll their assumptions and general tactics.
Dazzling Display takes up your Standard action, Marks are generally applied by attacks or swift action. The fact that they don't take -2 to hit you is a feature as well, it evens out the party's AC relative to yours.
Dazzling Display takes up your Standard action, Marks are generally applied by attacks or swift action. The fact that they don't take -2 to hit you is a feature as well, it evens out the party's AC relative to yours.
-2 to hit you AND a -2 on saves, skill checks, ability checks. The mark made it harder to hit your allies where dazzling display made it harder to hit everyone AND allowed the casters to more effectively use spells, allowed the grappling monk to succeed more often, the sneak attacking rogue to apply hamstring strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is only one term that is tanking. It's origins are based in MUDs and is supported by searching the etymology. If it existed before this the etymology would say as much.
Umm, no. Like I said, I was around back then, and heavily armored fighters were called tanks back in OD&D days, I even remember one named Sherman.
Only if the enemies are intelligent and have no reason to believe the wizard is a wizard. If they're not, then it's metagaming for them not to attack the wizard first.How would even another wizard distinguish between a wizard and a kensai prior to the latter using spell combat?
There are no physical or magical differences prior to that point.
Next time, read my entire post instead of just replying to the first sentence. Because it is very obvious you did not do that, or you would realize I already answered this question. But, to summarize...
Physical differences:
1) Type of weapon held (as brought up by Claxon).
2) Physical build of Kensai and Wizard will likely differ.
3) Presence or absence of spell component pouch.
But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?I mean, those orc war bands have to have at least a bit of luck if they try to make a living off of raiding caravans (since they usually get slaughtered when it ACTUALLY IS an adventuring party) And from that, they start to form (typically correct) expectations. Now, whether these expectations end up being correct that 'one time' Scooby and the gang show up....well, can you really build up expectations until something like that happens?
Now, if you believed that the guy in normal clothes is just going to sit in a corner crying and wetting himself...well, wouldn't you want to deal with the people who are 'actual threats'? If I am expecting martial threats only, I think the guy with the shiniest, most expensive looking equipment is the most dangerous (hey, mercs have to buy their own stuff usually; wealth=success=cutting down fools in this business).
That is a valid way to look at as well. I think the situation is highly dependent. And has a lot of valid ways to look at it.
For your specific example, I would base part of whether the plain clothes guy is a threat (wizard) or not would probably depend on how he responds when he realizes there are Orcs. A non-combatant without armor, or weapons, who runs away or tries to hide or screams and panics is likely someone you could ignore. If instead, he positions himself to provide intervening barriers while looking like he is preparing to be attacked and to counter attack you can probably realize something is up.
And just to clarify I'm merely playing devils advocate here. It's a complex issue trying to avoid metagaming tactics while still using intelligent tactics for appropriately intelligent creatures and enemies. In a world full of magic and knowing the dangers of magic it is a solid tactical choice to try to eliminate such a threat as soon as possible. There is no way to simply boil this down to a yes/no as there are too many intricacies to be discussed.
Well, assuming you succeeded on the intimidate check, then it lasts for 1 round (maybe more if you rolled very well), and you've failed to present yourself as a threat at all because you didn't even touch them.
Then they smash your amazing grappling rogue.
But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?
Pretty much, your party is the ONLY "party of adventurers" in the entire world of Golarion. Thus, no one has ever seen such a thing.
There is only one term that is tanking. It's origins are based in MUDs and is supported by searching the etymology. If it existed before this the etymology would say as much.
Umm, no. Like I said, I was around back then, and heavily armored fighters were called tanks back in OD&D days, I even remember one named Sherman.
1) Type of weapon held (as brought up by Claxon).
2) Physical build of Kensai and Wizard will likely differ.
3) Presence or absence of spell component pouch.
My Sorc carries a large sword.
Under robes?
How do you tell one from a regular belt pouch?
|
|
Carrying a weapon that wizards don't traditionally use, conditioning of the body, stance, gait, a plethora of physical attributes that are present due to training. Unless of course you are perpetually bluffing the world and your 7 strength wizards walk around flexing and you just describe them as hulking behemoths.
You're comparing a librarian who spent their life pouring over tomes to the librarian that spent time training with weaponry. They definitely will not be similar in appearance.
Don't even try to argue stat array as a means of identifying class. My wizard, Voldard, has a higher strength than my magus, Dariamus.
Gear? Both wear explorers outfits: the magus is the one with the most scrolls and wands. Both carry spell component pouches.
So what exactly is my magus bluffing anyways? That he does not wear armor?, is a prepared arcane caster capable of casting 3rd level spells? (the same as my wizard), that he has extensive knowledge of the arcane and spellcasting? Not that you would have time to ascertain any of this prior to initiating combat in most encounters.
Or are you proposing you can tell the difference in profession between two men of similar dress and build at a glance just because? Which skill is that defined under?
Your Viking was a lone man blocking a bridge. With no one else to attack all attacks will be directed at the lone figure. This is not a tank. This is a lone person holding their ground using a tactical advantage.
My Fighter is a guy blocking a dungeon corridor. This defines "tank".
But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?Pretty much, your party is the ONLY "party of adventurers" in the entire world of Golarion. Thus, no one has ever seen such a thing.
I'm not sure thats true Dr. Deth. At least for the PFS setting of Golarion it seems certainly not true.
1) Type of weapon held (as brought up by Claxon).
2) Physical build of Kensai and Wizard will likely differ.
3) Presence or absence of spell component pouch.
My Sorc carries a large sword.
Under robes?
How do you tell one from a regular belt pouch?
1) If they carry a weapon that would eliminate an obvious difference, then that difference does not count. Go back and read the post Artanthos replied to; I did account for lack of obvious differences in it.
2) I answered that in this post.
3) Easily; since 3.0, a belt pouch and a spell component pouch have always been depicted in artwork with very obvious differences from each other. This leads to the logic that they would actually look vastly different, no matter the style. And I've already discussed Eschew Materials.
But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?Pretty much, your party is the ONLY "party of adventurers" in the entire world of Golarion. Thus, no one has ever seen such a thing.
Now, now, no need to get snippy. I just mean that mages seem like something that would be more attached to a large unit, rather than just some tiny little ragtag band.
Still, I think orc raiders tend to face adventuring paries less often than, lets say a dragon.
Now, If I was a dragon, and some tiny little humans come barging into my lair, and one of them was randomly unarmored....then yeah, I would totally target him first. I mean, what humans come into a dragon's lair unless they were prepared for a major battle? The only excuse I could think of is "he has something as good as armor, and armor would mess that up". That would be a major tip off that they are a wizard/sorcerer. Turning that off as soon as possible seems like a priority (my pride might tell me that they are little threat, but I would rather not have a fireball or bolt of lightning up my nose. That junk stings)
But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?Pretty much, your party is the ONLY "party of adventurers" in the entire world of Golarion. Thus, no one has ever seen such a thing.
PFS says otherwise.
Your Viking was a lone man blocking a bridge. With no one else to attack all attacks will be directed at the lone figure. This is not a tank. This is a lone person holding their ground using a tactical advantage.My Fighter is a guy blocking a dungeon corridor. This defines "tank".
Wrong. I could stand back and fire volleys into the wizard behind you. You've done nothing, but become a pawn on a chess board. If there is no one behind you and you stand alone like the Viking then you're not tanking as the term refers to a role played in a group of people. Under your assumption a wizard standing in the corridor or a wall with an arrow slit is a tank.
Well, assuming you succeeded on the intimidate check, then it lasts for 1 round (maybe more if you rolled very well), and you've failed to present yourself as a threat at all because you didn't even touch them.
If you're making an intimidate build this isn't a problem and is a pointless argument. This is akin to assuming your fighter even hits to apply the mark.
Intimidate is 10+HD+WIS. +3 class, +1 rank, +1 stat, take 10 is a roll of 15 which beats pretty much every CR 1 if not all of them. Not sure if any CR 1 creatures have a 22 wisdom or a 20 with 2 HD.
Dazzling display also applies to ALL creatures in a 30 foot radius where you just said marks apply to a creature you hit. Seems like dazzling display is only getting better. So you've made one foe know that you can swing a sword where I've scared everyone in the room with my presence, but I'm somehow not threatening?
Then they smash your amazing grappling rogue.
Sorry, was meant to be a monk. I'm still not sure how the creature is smashing anyone though. They have a -2 from shaken and a -2 from grapple along with a -4 dex which could result in another -2 attack.
2) Physical build of Kensai and Wizard will likely differ.Yes.
My wizard is beefier.
Hahahahaha! I give you that one. And in that case, if I were the GM, I'd have the intelligent enemies mistake the Kensai for a wizard ;)
Hahahahaha! I give you that one. And in that case, if I were the GM, I'd have the intelligent enemies mistake the Kensai for a wizard ;)2) Physical build of Kensai and Wizard will likely differ.Yes.
My wizard is beefier.
"That wizard has a sword? It must be his arcane bond, smash it!"
SO? it is not liek the party fighter could not buy a spell component pouch. Would that mislead his enemies into beliving he is a heavy armored magus?
3) Easily; since 3.0, a belt pouch and a spell component pouch have always been depicted in artwork with very obvious differences from each other. This leads to the logic that they would actually look vastly different, no matter the style. And I've already discussed Eschew Materials.
What is the difference between a spell pouch and a bag of delicious candy?
I mean, at a distance. Since both would just be bags tied to your side. What visually tips you off that it is a spell pouch (I would give creatures with scent a write off though since those things smell of brimstone and eye of newt)
And what is stopping me from filling a spell pouch with candy? Heck, since I presume that mages are a bit rare outside of certain areas, what stops spell pouches from being the primary form of pouch for people who want to put cake into a bag (I presume it is supposed to be extra tough and nonleaking to stop the eye of newt from leaking, if there is any kind of really obvious difference)
Usually, for intelligent NPCs I would just rule that in the first round of combat, melee combatants charge at whoever is closest, archers target whoever is wearing the least visible armor, AoE ranged combatants target clusters, single target ranged magical attacks are held in reserve until the NPCs can figure out who is the most dangerous.
It's only after the guy starts shooting fire from his hands that the NPCs should know where the squishy wizard is. That is, unless one of the PCs actually wants to dress up like Gandalf. I think "everybody gangs up on the wizard at the start of combat" is not appropriate GMing; everybody only gangs up on the Wizard once they figure out who the Wizard is.
SO? it is not liek the party fighter could not buy a spell component pouch. Would that mislead his enemies into beliving he is a heavy armored magus?
3) Easily; since 3.0, a belt pouch and a spell component pouch have always been depicted in artwork with very obvious differences from each other. This leads to the logic that they would actually look vastly different, no matter the style. And I've already discussed Eschew Materials.
What is the difference between a spell pouch and a bag of delicious candy?
I mean, at a distance. Since both would just be bags tied to your side. What visually tips you off that it is a spell pouch (I would give creatures with scent a write off though since those things smell of brimstone and eye of newt)
And what is stopping me from filling a spell pouch with candy? Heck, since I presume that mages are a bit rare outside of certain areas, what stops spell pouches from being the primary form of pouch for people who want to put cake into a bag (I presume it is supposed to be extra tough and nonleaking to stop the eye of newt from leaking, if there is any kind of really obvious difference)
And those are all good ways to trick an enemy into attacking the wrong character. In fact, they're methods my group uses; it's fun for, sometimes, the entire party to have spell component pouches.
It's only after the guy starts shooting fire from his hands that the NPCs should know where the squishy wizard is. That is, unless one of the PCs actually wants to dress up like Gandalf. I think "everybody gangs up on the wizard at the start of combat" is not appropriate GMing; everybody only gangs up on the Wizard once they figure out who the Wizard is.
Even when it's blindingly obvious who the wizard is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, who is it FUN for when the GM attacks the Wizard all the time?
Your Wizard feels like the GM is out to get him, and the Fighter feels useless because the GM is always ignoring him and never letting him have a fight with anything.
I guess it's fun for the adversarial GM who gets of on killing his player characters, but that doesn't really make it sound like a good thing here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, who is it FUN for when the GM attacks the Wizard all the time?
Your Wizard feels like the GM is out to get him, and the Fighter feels useless because the GM is always ignoring him and never letting him have a fight with anything.
I guess it's fun for the adversarial GM who gets of on killing his player characters, but that doesn't really make it sound like a good thing here.
I don't think it's about being adversarial or attacking the Wizard "all the time". If you're being attacked by a group of fantasy-themed adventurers, who would you take out first? The person with a sword, or the person that's throwing giant balls of fire and calling down bolts of lightning on you? Whenever I pose that hypothetical question to the janky wizard player that complains about being attacked, they change their battle tactics.
Spellcasters should think tactically on how much attention they draw to themselves. Casting a smaller, less-damaging spell might be better than your flashiest, deadliest spell unless you're confident that you can kill the opponent before it turns its attention to you and attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, who is it FUN for when the GM attacks the Wizard all the time?
Your Wizard feels like the GM is out to get him, and the Fighter feels useless because the GM is always ignoring him and never letting him have a fight with anything.
I guess it's fun for the adversarial GM who gets of on killing his player characters, but that doesn't really make it sound like a good thing here.
It's not about "fun" it's about verisimilitude. Arcane Spellcasters can wreck things more thoroughly and efficiently than anybody else. PCs will attack enemy spellcasters in order to prevent those spellcasters from ruining their day, so there's no reason that intelligent NPCs shouldn't do the same.
NPCs intelligent enough to use tactics should deploy those tactics in the manner that maximizes their odds of surviving the encounter. If there's one PC who can take you out one at a time, and another PC who can take out or neutralize multiple combatants at once, you're going to try to get rid of the opponent who is most dangerous first.
Plus, I mean from a "fun" perspective this gives the Wizard something to worry about beyond "how do I leverage my awesome cosmic power to most efficiently lay waste to all who stand before me." It's not though Wizards aren't powerful enough in this setting, so being forced to use fight strategically is not the worst thing in the world.
Honestly though, NPCs should follow the lead of the PCs here. If the PCs regularly target spellcasters first, then NPCs should be able to do the same. If they don't, then NPCs likewise should not.
But how common is the 'standard adventuring party'? And how much more common is "a rich merchant with some body guards, some of which have bows"?Pretty much, your party is the ONLY "party of adventurers" in the entire world of Golarion. Thus, no one has ever seen such a thing.PFS says otherwise.
Wrong. I could stand back and fire volleys into the wizard behind you. You've done nothing, but become a pawn on a chess board. If there is no one behind you and you stand alone like the Viking then you're not tanking as the term refers to a role played in a group of people.Your Viking was a lone man blocking a bridge. With no one else to attack all attacks will be directed at the lone figure. This is not a tank. This is a lone person holding their ground using a tactical advantage.My Fighter is a guy blocking a dungeon corridor. This defines "tank".
Not according to James Jacobs, and it's his world.
Then my fighter advances and finishes off the badly burnt fireballed archers, since the arrows all missed due to magic. Not to mention it's hard to "fire volleys" down a 5' wide 10' high corridor, what with a 6' tall wall of steel standing in the way.
The term applies to a heavily armored or defended PC, often a martial, who can block a dungeon corridor and take a lot of hits due to high defenses, HP, etc. The "defender" in 4th ed parlance.
The Video game term does not relate much to the D&D term. "Tanking" in WoW has little to do with a "tank" in D&D, and we're playing D&D here, not WoW. Please keep your gaming terminology straight.