Author Topic: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank  (Read 27271 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #40 on: October 06, 2011, 02:38:09 PM »
Thats just patently untrue. Thats a holdover, and a holdover from Gygaxian times when dwarves couldn't use magic because "gimli wasn't a mage" and what have you.

um. sorry, but back in the "gygaxian times" dwarves and elves were the only semi spell casters. sometimes only elves....
Well thats an aside, but, okay, in what book do dwarves get magic, in D&D?
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Mooncrow

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2011, 02:52:10 PM »
Thats just patently untrue. Thats a holdover, and a holdover from Gygaxian times when dwarves couldn't use magic because "gimli wasn't a mage" and what have you.

um. sorry, but back in the "gygaxian times" dwarves and elves were the only semi spell casters. sometimes only elves....
Well thats an aside, but, okay, in what book do dwarves get magic, in D&D?

Hmm, I know for certain they could be clerics by the time Unearthed Arcana rolled out for 1e; not sure if they got it before then.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2011, 03:35:38 PM »
Thats just patently untrue. Thats a holdover, and a holdover from Gygaxian times when dwarves couldn't use magic because "gimli wasn't a mage" and what have you.

um. sorry, but back in the "gygaxian times" dwarves and elves were the only semi spell casters. sometimes only elves....
Well thats an aside, but, okay, in what book do dwarves get magic, in D&D?

Hmm, I know for certain they could be clerics by the time Unearthed Arcana rolled out for 1e; not sure if they got it before then.
Interesting. . . I have the D&D basic paperback, from back then along with palace of the silver princess and the sinister secret of salt marsh, so I'm talking probably before that book. Gygaxian days may have been too big a reign.
I guess I should say "In the first books" then. Though honestly I meant "Arcane Magic" giving no thought to divine magic at all.
So when was the first time you had a dwarf wizard?
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

CantripN

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating
    • Cantrip, Gestalt Gish
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2011, 05:04:47 PM »
Thats just patently untrue. Thats a holdover, and a holdover from Gygaxian times when dwarves couldn't use magic because "gimli wasn't a mage" and what have you.

um. sorry, but back in the "gygaxian times" dwarves and elves were the only semi spell casters. sometimes only elves....
Well thats an aside, but, okay, in what book do dwarves get magic, in D&D?

Hmm, I know for certain they could be clerics by the time Unearthed Arcana rolled out for 1e; not sure if they got it before then.
Interesting. . . I have the D&D basic paperback, from back then along with palace of the silver princess and the sinister secret of salt marsh, so I'm talking probably before that book. Gygaxian days may have been too big a reign.
I guess I should say "In the first books" then. Though honestly I meant "Arcane Magic" giving no thought to divine magic at all.
So when was the first time you had a dwarf wizard?
Small exceptions aside, 3e was it, far as I know.
Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2011, 08:20:54 PM »
3.x, from what I've found, isn't like WoW.  In 3.x, your side attacks them and hopes to take 'em out before they can act, because if their stuff lands, you're in big trouble.  In WoW, there's the padded sumo or punching bag effect.  Each side beats on the other and wears the other side down bit by bit.  (This assumes healers and tanks work well in raids.  Otherwise, Team Monstar wins.)

The closest 3.x has to this is the 'Whiff Fest,' especially at low levels.  When a "Fighter" has about a 50% chance to hit any armored foe, and foes have about the same chance to hit the "Fighter," things can take a long while.  Sure, grease and such can help, but there's no guarantees to even get a 70% hit chance then.
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

Mooncrow

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #45 on: October 06, 2011, 08:24:19 PM »
Thats just patently untrue. Thats a holdover, and a holdover from Gygaxian times when dwarves couldn't use magic because "gimli wasn't a mage" and what have you.

um. sorry, but back in the "gygaxian times" dwarves and elves were the only semi spell casters. sometimes only elves....
Well thats an aside, but, okay, in what book do dwarves get magic, in D&D?

Hmm, I know for certain they could be clerics by the time Unearthed Arcana rolled out for 1e; not sure if they got it before then.
Interesting. . . I have the D&D basic paperback, from back then along with palace of the silver princess and the sinister secret of salt marsh, so I'm talking probably before that book. Gygaxian days may have been too big a reign.
I guess I should say "In the first books" then. Though honestly I meant "Arcane Magic" giving no thought to divine magic at all.
So when was the first time you had a dwarf wizard?


Yeah, I'm pretty sure 3.0 was the first time dwarves got to be arcane casters; up until then they were pretty much limited to Fighter, Thief, or (later) Cleric
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 08:08:03 PM by Mooncrow »

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2011, 07:48:09 PM »
Moral of this story is that tanking in 3.5 is not possible. Either you can't do it in any meaningful way, so you fail; or you can, but if you can you have the ability at your command to solo every encounter and would thus be better off trying to do just about anything other than tanking.

CantripN

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating
    • Cantrip, Gestalt Gish
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2011, 07:53:21 PM »
Moral of this story is that tanking in 3.5 is not possible. Either you can't do it in any meaningful way, so you fail; or you can, but if you can you have the ability at your command to solo every encounter and would thus be better off trying to do just about anything other than tanking.

Ah. No. There's just too many abilities to account for. It's quite possible to be effective, without killing EVERYONE and preventing EVERYTHING.
Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2011, 07:59:33 PM »
Moral of this story is that tanking in 3.5 is not possible. Either you can't do it in any meaningful way, so you fail; or you can, but if you can you have the ability at your command to solo every encounter and would thus be better off trying to do just about anything other than tanking.

Ah. No. There's just too many abilities to account for. It's quite possible to be effective, without killing EVERYONE and preventing EVERYTHING.

That's not what Midnight_v, Nachofan99, or Weenog seem to believe. I recall saying that it's okay for characters to fail sometimes and being shouted down like an idiot. I would be led to believe that if you can't kill everything all the time you're a bad tank.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2011, 08:14:55 PM »
Consider this for a minute. Let's say you've got an ubercharging teleport multipouncer type... Say, combining Battlejump with Dungeoncrashing Fighter for good measure.

Realistically speaking, this guy isn't a threat until what, the early teens? People are already flying by level 8. Now, when he DOES get to shine, he has at best three targets before running out of steam (assuming each pounce kills one and he doesn't get more actions). Even so, a natural one is a miss, so 5% of the time for EVERY ATTACK HE MAKES, there's a chance for his foes to survive. Unless he spends some more levels getting class features to alleviate that, we're talking about a real problem.

In the early levels, he's a target because he can deal a lot of damage, thus diverting attacks from his partymates - mission accomplished. After that, he's a regular party member for a while, then BAM! He becomes a threat again. This is particularly true if you can slap Delay Death and Beastland Ferocity on the sucker - then not only does he have to be disabled, he has to be disabled by means other than damage, which is something not every monster can do. If he can pump his Will save high enough (Moment of Perfect Mind anyone?), then even dominating him will cease as a viable tactic, but the enemy won't know that until it tries.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2011, 08:44:36 PM »
@ Bk
[spoiler]
Moral of this story is that tanking in 3.5 is not possible. Either you can't do it in any meaningful way, so you fail; or you can, but if you can you have the ability at your command to solo every encounter and would thus be better off trying to do just about anything other than tanking.

Ah. No. There's just too many abilities to account for. It's quite possible to be effective, without killing EVERYONE and preventing EVERYTHING.

That's not what Midnight_v, Nachofan99, or Weenog seem to believe. I recall saying that it's okay for characters to fail sometimes and being shouted down like an idiot. I would be led to believe that if you can't kill everything all the time you're a bad tank.
[/spoiler]Come on Bkdubs123 "shouted down like an idiot" = needless hyperbole, and frankly as one of the people on this board who I think I share a mutual respect with, I'd like to think we should be above it.
   I heard what you were saying and you never got back to me.

Quote
A middle ground? Is there? Is there really?

Okay there might be a middle ground but THIS game doesn't support that.
That middle ground is illustrated in my mind by World of Warcraft I played it for a year or so till cataclysm came out, and no one can do important dungeons by themselves.
I'm not sure that I want to play that as a TTRPG.

  That middle ground is a in my head very hard to broach right now in the 3.5 ruleset because of the way mosters interact and moreso because there are already characters via spell mostly that totally Do win encounters by themselves All(or at least a vast majority( of the time).

The concept of th tank just doesn't matter unless someone needs protecting.


Thats my initial thought on the matter, but lets entertain the idea shall we? Yes.
Tanking, 2 things
1. Aggro
2. Not dying.


So how do we get aggro in D&D.
Taunts:
Something lke the GOAD feat, (essentially a taunt, move action etc. will save or attack me.)
You can do that, its not horrible, however, people tend to be adverse to it.
It doesn't have to be a move action either, it can be a free action triggered by initiative or whatever but if this is the way you want to go with getting monster to attack you, I'd like to see it defined in a way that doesn't suck and mechnically it might need to be something that even dragons care about, so it requireing a saving throw might not be the best idea have fun figuring out what mechanic to use for that.
Be a threat:
There are a couple ways of doing this, but you have to DO something to be a threat.
Why? The default position of any reasonably intelligent creatures in D&D is kill the caster first if at all possible.
Theortically, a caster is easier to kill, they're dressed in cloth (not clerics) and they aren't giant bags of hp.
Realistically we know that isn't true but in someways its supposed to be. 
So you if you want to convince someone to NOT target your mages first have to be able to convice the opponent that you are as a credible threat as the guy over there chanting...
"...blackness without begining or end! One-eyed God imprisoned there.."
BE StiCKY!
This is the way tanking is usually done in D&D. You get all up in the opponents face and vigrously apply Attack of Oppurtunity based beating. Cutting off any action that provokes an AoO and then sometimes getting an AoO if they DO NOTHING. There are weaknesses to this approach too. Supernatural abilities normally Don't provoke (feat for that);
quickend spells dont' provoke (and there isn't a feat that stops that).
 This method does have some traction and works somewhat in D&D, though... you don't stop line of sight to the party though, but realistically as I stated at the begining.
Sticky is the art of attemping to turn yourself into a living battlefield control spellWhich in someways begs the question... why not have someone that casts BFC spells instead? They tend to call that guy "God", and Midnight_v doens't have a good answer for that at this moment, though maybe its the idea that someday once a campaign or so someone will hit you with antimagic field oblivion!(tm) though this might screw the tank as well depending on how much he's utilizing magic to stay strong.

Just my humle opinions. I'll dig up some working example of each.
I don't know of a build that uses Goad.
The frank and K Knight does the "I'm a threat" thing as a punisher mechanic.
Many Many sticky knights are floating around. Maybe a lil lock build is the best one, I prefer the black octopus... but that has a "main gun".
So thats how I see it. For aggro. I'll think up the "Office of not dying" in a sec. . .


\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2011, 08:45:22 PM »
Are you trying to make some point? If so, it escapes me.

EDIT: Sorry, Midnight_v, talking to Kuroi. I'll get back to you.

That ubercharging teleport multipouncer is NOT tank. Further, all it does is illustrate my point. From what I can tell the people in the "nuclear deterrent" school of tanking aim for roughly a 95% chance to kill one creature per round via hit point damage. If you have less than a 95% chance, then you're a bad "tank." So you have countermeasures for flying, invisible, incorporeal opponents with mindrape (somehow you have the resources for all of this) and if you don't, then you're a bad "tank." So either you can kill everything all the time, which makes you a "good tank," or you don't which means you fail.

Can someone explain what I'm missing here? Preferably without being an asshole?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 08:48:00 PM by bkdubs123 »

CantripN

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating
    • Cantrip, Gestalt Gish
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2011, 08:50:39 PM »
I'm with you, 123. Tanking is not about Aggro and surviving it. It's about controlling the battlefield, and not letting enemies do anything. The surviving it aspect is no different than any other PC's, and you have an easier time of it, what with all the control you have.

No, it's not perfect, but neither is a Wizard without the perfect spell for the job. Is it useless? Far from it.
Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2011, 09:05:45 PM »
@Midnight: Maybe I got a bit more pissed off than I should have. I took a lot of what people were saying as pretty hostile and dismissive toward me when perhaps it wasn't meant to be.

The fact still remains that if there is no middle ground, then when I say tanking is impossible in D&D it must be true.

Moral of this story is that tanking in 3.5 is not possible. Either you can't do it in any meaningful way, so you fail; or you can, but if you can you have the ability at your command to solo every encounter and would thus be better off trying to do just about anything other than tanking.

If there's no middle ground this must be true. If there is a middle ground, then let's talk about what that is instead of telling me that I'm wrong.

For example, a lockdown tripper can make a good tank. But he can't automatically foil all actions all the time. He'll need assistance from his Wizard so he can see invisible dudes or whatever. The point is, he doesn't win encounters all by himself, and he's still a good tank. He protects his buddies because he actually needs their help as much as they need his protection. That's middle ground.

The fact still remains that D&D was designed for a 4 member party. This is not some arbitrary number. This is not bullshit I'm making up. This is not a holdover from when Gimli couldn't cast spells. This is a fact. Yes, it's true, the math that went hand in hand with the game design of a 4 member party was horrifically flawed, and the creative design that was built up around that flawed math was inherently unbalanced and absolutely biased. None of this changes that the game, and thus every published adventure, expects a party of 4 characters overcoming the challenges they face.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #54 on: October 07, 2011, 09:51:42 PM »
Quote
The fact still remains that D&D was designed for a 4 member party.

No.
No I'm never going to agree to that, because 4 was the number when the game was still emulating lord of the rings. 4 was always the number, its not iconic because of "the math" its iconic because someone long ago had a party with those people in it and it stuck.
I don't think its "bullshit you're making" up, I don't think you're lying for the hell of it, I just think you're wrong about that, but so be it, we're totally allowed to disagree. No hard feelings, there. The math being bad is a symptom of the disease. The disease being inherent limits of flesh vs magic. Though that a talk for another time. So I'm walking away from what D&D is "supposed to be" ...
Quote
If there's no middle ground this must be true. If there is a middle ground, then let's talk about what that is instead of telling me that I'm wrong.
I alredy started that from the begining.

Quote
That middle ground is a in my head very hard to broach right now in the 3.5 ruleset because of the way mosters interact and moreso because there are already characters via spell mostly that totally Do win encounters by themselves All(or at least a vast majority( of the time).

The concept of the tank just doesn't matter unless someone needs protecting.   

Quote
For example, a lockdown tripper can make a good tank. But he can't automatically foil all actions all the time. He'll need assistance from his Wizard so he can see invisible dudes or whatever. The point is, he doesn't win encounters all by himself, and he's still a good tank. He protects his buddies because he actually needs their help as much as they need his protection. That's middle ground.
  Again, they don't need his protection. . . and that maybe the problem really. We KNOW they dont' really need his protection. At level 1 its ND tanking, because the fighter kiills everything in 1 hit with a greatsword, beyond that GOD is the tank, and if its as CatnipN suggests "It's about control" then Conjuration contains the tanking billet in the party. 
This broaches the question in my mind; must the tank be That guy in full plate or is it "the guy who controls the battlefield" if you look at my previous post I touched on that. The art of becoming a bfc spelll. Which generally speaking actually do they're job ALL the time with few excetpions.

The Moral of the story that you put forth seem off is all, Tanking is not possible in 3.5 is not possible... for a variety of reasons, but mostly because of varied threats, and the fact that the people who don't need protecting can solo encounters all by themselves...
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #55 on: October 07, 2011, 10:02:44 PM »
So I'm walking away from what D&D is "supposed to be" ...

If we're walking away from what D&D is "supposed to be," then we're walking into house rules at best and magical tea party at worst. The game design is flawed, but if you ignore it entirely we're not even talking about D&D anymore.

Quote
The Moral of the story that you put forth seem off is all, Tanking is not possible in 3.5 is not possible... for a variety of reasons, but mostly because of varied threats, and the fact that the people who don't need protecting can solo encounters all by themselves...

Maybe a good tank class design is one that is able to, as an extraordinary ability, literally embody some of the best battlefield control there is... I'll try and look into this.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #56 on: October 07, 2011, 11:08:54 PM »
Quote
Maybe a good tank class design is one that is able to, as an extraordinary ability, literally embody some of the best battlefield control there is... I'll try and look into this.
:twitch
Don't rage... 9..8..7..3...2...1.

Rage: :shakefist
I'm so sick of that! Why the heck does it matter if its ex, sp, or su?  Is it so important that you work in an anitmagic field? That's all that qualifier means, mechanically, but socially, it's some kind of mote in God's(tm) eye, so if you're whole thing is "well this lets our Tank do his thing even when God(tm) is stuck in anti-magic". Though, consider how often people actually do that and note the only people who CAN do that are other casters, who normally aren't going to do that, and really won't let you do that to them. So why ex this at all? So as to maintain that the "tank" is the guy in fullplate with a greatsword? I don't find that to be a lofty goal at all Really.
Quote
Maybe a good tank class design is one that is able to, as an extraordinary ability, literally embody some of the best battlefield control there is... I'll try and look into this.
You are one of the HOMEBREW MASTERS BK, even the things I dont' particuly care for that you make are well made however...
To do the bolded section would mean then Bk that you've done exactly what you initially started arguing against, created a tank that works "all the time", having little or NO chance to fail, because thats what you're describing here.


\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Nachofan99

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #57 on: October 08, 2011, 01:10:31 AM »
Moral of this story is that tanking in 3.5 is not possible. Either you can't do it in any meaningful way, so you fail; or you can, but if you can you have the ability at your command to solo every encounter and would thus be better off trying to do just about anything other than tanking.

Ah. No. There's just too many abilities to account for. It's quite possible to be effective, without killing EVERYONE and preventing EVERYTHING.

That's not what Midnight_v, Nachofan99, or Weenog seem to believe. I recall saying that it's okay for characters to fail sometimes and being shouted down like an idiot. I would be led to believe that if you can't kill everything all the time you're a bad tank.

Pardon me but, I included OBVIOUS flaws for said "Tank concept." 2.5 of them being 1) Bad AC  2) Possibly terrible Will Save 2.5) Not having Displacement/Mirror Image/Fly up and running, i.e. being able to actually be attacked. 

However, if you can't "kill everything all the time..." and you're not a caster, you ARE BAD; yes,  I will make that statement now. 

If you're a non-caster you have a limited use in D&D 3.5, period.  About the only "useful" thing that non-casters can do is hit things...hard.  If you're not hitting things hard, then you're probably a waste of space.    It doesn't matter if it's AoO's, TWF, Sneak Attack, Charging or Splitting Bow abuse - if you're a non-caster you need to be useful in combat somehow and the *easiest* most straight forward way is pure, raw, unadulterated damage.  There are lots of different ways to hit things hard.

There are only a small handful of specific things non-casters can do better than casters out of combat, and usually, spells eventually make casters able to do those things as well and better.  And yes, casters *can* do buckloads of damage, but BFC tends to be overall better; so let the mundanes finish people off and save spell slots.

As other people have said, logic dictates you geek the mage first (yeah Shadowrun we went there).  There has to be a pretty high incentive to NOT at least try to kill the guy that's about to blind you or summon a horde of probing black tentacles to slowly murder you - that incentive has to be something like a huge freakin' guy with a greatsword screaming at the top of his lungs heading straight for you; my suggestion is also that that huge freakin' guy is also wearing a loincloth so it looks like he SHOULD be easy to kill...but isn't.

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2011, 01:51:59 AM »
Really ... is this another magic v. mundanes thread, now? 

Several posts up Midnight_V described, I think, the heart of a "tank."  You (1) deny the bad guys the opportunity to attack/harm/annoy your fellows, and (2) can survive the assaults of the bad guys yourself.  Whether that is done magically (greater mirror image, solid fog, etc.) or "mundanely" (insane AC and hp for level, thicket of blades + stand still, etc.) is of little consequence.  Without (1) you're just a BFC guy and not a tank, though there's some room for overlap. 

How many builds would it take, mundane or magical, to convince people this is a viable concept?  I think we can all whip up several that fulfill the criterion that Midnight_V set out.  The hardest, least well-supported option out there is the drawing aggro one, since Goad isn't great (though I can probably imagine a build that makes decent use of it).  Hell, I might let a creative Bluff or Intimidate check pull off something like that, depending on the circumstances.  If the goal was how to build the "iconic" tank -- the one that we probably all have in our head replete with full plate mail -- that might be another thread.  Although Cleric/Bone Knight is a tempting place to start.

Now, no one is contending that Tank is "the path to real ultimate powah"(tm).  Or, at least no one should be.  That wasn't what the OP was asking for, nor is it important.  I know I don't necessarily sit down to create the most powerful character I can for every game I play. 

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: Optimizing a Character Concept: The Tank
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2011, 02:47:00 AM »
Quote
Maybe a good tank class design is one that is able to, as an extraordinary ability, literally embody some of the best battlefield control there is... I'll try and look into this.
:twitch
Don't rage... 9..8..7..3...2...1.

Rage: :shakefist
I'm so sick of that!

Don't rage! :(

Anyway, you're right, it hardly matters whether it's extraordinary or supernatural. Spell-like however brings a lot of baggage that the role probably doesn't need, but even still, having some spell-like capability on an otherwise supernatural class would also be just fine. So, I'll give you that argument.

Quote
You are one of the HOMEBREW MASTERS BK

Probably one of the nicest things anyone's ever said about my work, thank you very much. :blush

Quote
To do the bolded section would mean then Bk that you've done exactly what you initially started arguing against, created a tank that works "all the time", having little or NO chance to fail, because thats what you're describing here.

However, this is certainly not the case. At least not how I'm envisioning it. Like I said, I'll look into it, and I've thought of a few ways to try and make it work, and at low levels it seems to be good. My idea would basically be to give the class "stance-like" abilities to switch between different types of battlefield control and give them extra control kickers in addition that would give their attacks more of a hard edge. So, starting at 1st level, something like... everyone within 10ft moves at 1/2 speed and anyone in that area that's hit by one of the character's attacks must make a Balance check or fall down. And that would maybe just be a couple options among many for 1st level and as the class gains levels it gets more options and more powerful control? That was just my first thought anyway.