Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

There are pseudo-"tanking" mechanics in a lot of systems that don't involve aggro, but rather damage redirection away from the intended party and onto another party. The equivalent of blocking the stab to your buddy's torso with your own torso.
 
All this discussion about potential damage or damage curves is what led us to the MMO-style of thinking.

In-universe, the heavily armored warrior gets to keep enemies' attention because he's aggressive and in their face. Even intelligent creatures will focus on someone trying to hack them to pieces before going for the skinny guy in the back, unless said skinny guy gives them a very good reason for it. And unless you live in Forgotten Realms x10, where in every group of 5 people you'll statistically have two spellcasters and said spellcasters will be wearing pointy hats and World of Warcraft clown-suits, most living (and unliving) beings will go into a fight hitting whatever is closest to them. They may maneuver to attack an enemy that's unengaged but unless they know who the party are ahead of time (usually by scouting them ahead of time, or being contracted to stage an ambush), all the people in travel cloaks and adventuring gear are going to look more or less the same.

The ranged members of your average monster/NPC party should absolutely be pelting the unengaged casters and ranged martials, though. That's just good common sense.
Sure but that only works out if we're talking about some random highwaymen, and even then the moment the caster does anything other than stand there(nevermind that while they'd be one of a few not heavily armored party members in their adveturing gear, they'd also likely not have much in the way of armament once the party is actively engaging them but they still haven't had their turn yet). And at that point, unless you're still level 1 or 2, do you really need a "tank" to deal with some bandits on the road? No.

There are pseudo-"tanking" mechanics in a lot of systems that don't involve aggro, but rather damage redirection away from the intended party and onto another party. The equivalent of blocking the stab to your buddy's torso with your own torso.
I'd lump that in with "aggro/threat" mechanics as tools a tank could use, and I've seen them in other systems as well but they're pretty rare in D&D and its clones.

I think that's really getting to the meat of the issue. A "fighter" just doesn't have much variety of shit to do in combat, and even less out of combat(thanks previously discussed skill systems), casters get absurd(thanks previously discussed vancian magic system), and a non insignificant number of players(not necessarily those in this thread) want to be able to do things that the only system they're willing to touch(5e) doesn't actually accomplish.
 
Sure but that only works out if we're talking about some random highwaymen, and even then the moment the caster does anything other than stand there(nevermind that while they'd be one of a few not heavily armored party members in their adveturing gear, they'd also likely not have much in the way of armament once the party is actively engaging them but they still haven't had their turn yet). And at that point, unless you're still level 1 or 2, do you really need a "tank" to deal with some bandits on the road? No.
I'm not sure what your point is. What you described is a situation where there's variety in encounters. Some are gonna be "melee up front, ranged trading shots over their heads". Others are gonna be "every man for himself" with enemies coming from multiple directions, and the squishies will either need a hand disengaging without the foe simply following them (by having one of the martials come over and start hitting that enemy themselves).

It's not about needing a tank, nobody is going to die against a pack of highwaymen at level 5. It's about the party lasting longer in an hostile situation. The more attacks are directed towards the high-AC guy who can actually absorb them without taking damage, the fewer attacks are directed at the people who are easier to hit. Which means less healing and resting required after any given encounter. Unfortunately most GMs give the players far too much time to rest and recover, so that is understandably not a huge priority for most groups. But if the GM is using slow healing or other "gritty" optional rules, those 1d6+2 attacks glancing off the Paladin's shield add up to a lot less stress on the party's resources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Judge Dredd
I'm not sure what your point is. What you described is a situation where there's variety in encounters. Some are gonna be "melee up front, ranged trading shots over their heads". Others are gonna be "every man for himself" with enemies coming from multiple directions, and the squishies will either need a hand disengaging without the foe simply following them (by having one of the martials come over and start hitting that enemy themselves).

It's not about needing a tank, nobody is going to die against a pack of highwaymen at level 5. It's about the party lasting longer in an hostile situation. The more attacks are directed towards the high-AC guy who can actually absorb them without taking damage, the fewer attacks are directed at the people who are easier to hit. Which means less healing and resting required after any given encounter. Unfortunately most GMs give the players far too much time to rest and recover, so that is understandably not a huge priority for most groups. But if the GM is using slow healing or other "gritty" optional rules, those 1d6+2 attacks glancing off the Paladin's shield add up to a lot less stress on the party's resources.
Yes, the party doesn't need a tank vs a bunch of highwaymen. But the problem is most stuff that can actually pose a threat to a party isn't going to allow a "tank" to work just because they're in the front and ignore the caster in the back that can cause far more problems than a fighter swinging their sword. That's my point. The "tank" concept doesn't work in D&D and clones unless the DM just plays the NPCs off as all being too stupid to do otherwise. If your tank cannot "tank" during an encounter with a big bad evil guy or whatever, then your tank isn't doing anything, and most of the suggestions for the tank to do something are done better by other classes or rely on boring encounters in corridors or against things that aren't much of a threat to begin with.

edit: And even a single target fight against an adult or ancient dragon, those are still intelligrent creatures at what, int 16 and 18 that definitely know what a spellcaster is, but you're probably only going to be facing one at an even higher level than where most campaigns end anyway, which makes the caster even more of a threat than a fighter at 5 or 11. And if not a dragon, most non humanoid opponents will also be intelligent by then(I can't think of any that wouldn't be).
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Rick Nekieta
If you can not compel aggro, high defense at the absolute expense of offense is a bad build. Trading some offense to be a bit more defensibly oriented is fine, but tanky above all without regard to offensive ability has the same properties as a statue if you can not compel aggro. There ARE uses for the defensively oriented in regards to first round distractions or baiting ambushes or reorganizing the position of enemy ranks but these rely on the other party being unaware of how many allies the "tank" has. If the party is invading enemy territory and the tank can successfully get them to react as if he is the only person behind enemy lines, this can allow the heavy hitters some pretty awesome opportunities in round 2, if the tank successfully obscures their presence. This can only be exercised once and it is spotty in it's ability to function effectively, kind of a mixed bag. There are ways to utilize a defense heavy character within the team dynamic that do not constitute tanking in the MMO sense, but 5e is ridiculously favorable to glass cannons.
 
If you can not compel aggro, high defense at the absolute expense of offense is a bad build. Trading some offense to be a bit more defensibly oriented is fine, but tanky above all without regard to offensive ability has the same properties as a statue if you can not compel aggro. There ARE uses for the defensively oriented in regards to first round distractions or baiting ambushes or reorganizing the position of enemy ranks but these rely on the other party being unaware of how many allies the "tank" has. If the party is invading enemy territory and the tank can successfully get them to react as if he is the only person behind enemy lines, this can allow the heavy hitters some pretty awesome opportunities in round 2, if the tank successfully obscures their presence. This can only be exercised once and it is spotty in it's ability to function effectively, kind of a mixed bag. There are ways to utilize a defense heavy character within the team dynamic that do not constitute tanking in the MMO sense, but 5e is ridiculously favorable to glass cannons.
Even that isn't going to be reliable enough against opponents that have a decent enough perception(or other means) to work often either(I guess that might be what you were referring to it being spotty in it's ability to function effectively).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Nekieta
If you can not compel aggro, high defense at the absolute expense of offense is a bad build. Trading some offense to be a bit more defensibly oriented is fine, but tanky above all without regard to offensive ability has the same properties as a statue if you can not compel aggro. There ARE uses for the defensively oriented in regards to first round distractions or baiting ambushes or reorganizing the position of enemy ranks but these rely on the other party being unaware of how many allies the "tank" has. If the party is invading enemy territory and the tank can successfully get them to react as if he is the only person behind enemy lines, this can allow the heavy hitters some pretty awesome opportunities in round 2, if the tank successfully obscures their presence. This can only be exercised once and it is spotty in it's ability to function effectively, kind of a mixed bag. There are ways to utilize a defense heavy character within the team dynamic that do not constitute tanking in the MMO sense, but 5e is ridiculously favorable to glass cannons.
I've fallen into that trap before. Tower shields seemed so cool in 3.0 D&D. -2 to hit +4 to AC, what's not to love?

I played a fighter that I had rolled almost all 14s for and just threw on full plate, lugged around a tower shield and took weapon expertise. I never died or did anything of note.
 
There's no taunting here. There are some spells like "Compelled Duel." But those are not only extremely rare, they aren't guaranteed to even work.
For things like taunting, I prefer the character to actually taunt. Come up with a line. If I like it maybe it works. I don't think that's the kind of thing that's fun if it isn't in character.
 
For things like taunting, I prefer the character to actually taunt. Come up with a line. If I like it maybe it works. I don't think that's the kind of thing that's fun if it isn't in character.
I like the idea that if you get under the skin of your opponent in the parlay, they are thrown off their game and suffer either -1 or -2 to attack and defense rolls. Informing the bandit leader that his favorite concubine/lieutenant died at your hands just hours ago might get him to fight sloppily and recklessly. No skill, just RP. One point for the message (even if clumsily delivered) and an additional point if delivered well.
 
If you can not compel aggro, high defense at the absolute expense of offense is a bad build.
Thing is, you don't have to specialize. Not in most d20-style games, anyway. In 5e, your basic bitch Fighter in Plate armor is gonna have AC 18 right out of the gate. 19 if he picks Defense as his fighting style. After that, magical armor and/or a Cloak of Protection has all your defensive needs covered. There's really no need to specialize, just put on the heaviest armor available, pick up a big honking two-hander, accessorize with magical items and buffs as you go, and charge into the biggest pack of foes you can see. Be the big steel-clad nuisance you were always meant to be. Sure, you could squeeze more defensive potential but you hit diminishing returns very quickly.

In the end, I always walk away from these discussions with the feeling way too many people play RPGs like CRPGs. Every enemy fights to the death, and optimizing outgoing damage vs. incoming damage is the only thing that matters in the end. Both my GMs hate that sort of approach, so their games are deliberately designed for parties that aren't fully optimized. The encounters are still difficult because we rarely get into a fight without some sort of complication (either in the enemy party composition/numbers, terrain, time constraints or a combination of these), and even in those most enemies either surrender or try to flee after it becomes clear things are not going their way. In fact, undead become a lot more dangerous with that style of game because they don't break.

For things like taunting, I prefer the character to actually taunt. Come up with a line. If I like it maybe it works. I don't think that's the kind of thing that's fun if it isn't in character.
This is the kind of stuff we do a fair amount of. Unless you're fighting against truly mindless creatures, there should be a social aspect to a fight. Either trying to scare, taunt, distract or otherwise hinder the enemy psychologically. Without that, enemies are just piles of numbers, and after 20+ years in this hobby I'm bored of those.
 
No, I didn't. I pointed out that the fighter has their action surge in addition to their normal attacks, and the wizard has their spells in addition to their cantrips. You simply chose to ignore that I was including the options the fighter and wizard both have.

I didn't ignore anything. I calculated correct damage numbers across the wizard's typical battery of spells and proved that no, the Wizard does not, as a general rule, out-damage the Fighter.

The idea that a fighter is "tanking" anything relies entirely on the DM allowing the fighter to do so, because the opponent for some reason cannot observe or realize any other threats exist,

No, the idea is that the monsters will see the guy who just killed one of their buddies and seriously wounded a second as a more severe threat than the guy who just threw some fairy sparkles at them that lightly singed the leader.

A DM's job is to run an intelligible, engaging world, not act like a chess grandmaster who is trying to defeat the players. A monster's goal is not to achieve the Pareto Optimal Damage Per Round at the cost of his own life. It's to survive. So even an intelligent monster is not going to sit there with character sheets and say, "Ah, assuming no more than four combat encounters in the adventuring day, and assuming the Wizard catches at least five monsters in each Fireball, let me see here...runs multiple anydice scripts...yes, he will emit 14% more damage than the Fighter. Thus, I will reduce the total amount of damage the party does across the day and slightly increase the chance one of them dies by the fourth combat if I sacrifice myself to get a hit on the Wizard."

If you run monsters like they aren't living creatures with a self-preservation instinct, just cogs in a DPS machine, you're running D&D wrong.

and I guess is only ever a single opponent, and likely in a 5-10 foot wide corridor

You've never played this game if you genuinely think it's impossible for a 4-man party to keep a wizard out of trouble unless you're in a corridor.
 
I didn't ignore anything. I calculated correct damage numbers across the wizard's typical battery of spells and proved that no, the Wizard does not, as a general rule, out-damage the Fighter.
No you didn't. You used firebolt and scorching ray. A lvl 5 or even 11 wizard doesn't have more spells than that?
No, the idea is that the monsters will see the guy who just killed one of their buddies and seriously wounded a second as a more severe threat than the guy who just threw some fairy sparkles at them that lightly singed the leader.
Yes, unintelligent monsters. Not intelligent creatures that can recognize what the squishy guy in the back is doing wiggling his fingers. I've said this multiple times.
You've never played this game if you genuinely think it's impossible for a 4-man party to keep a wizard out of trouble unless you're in a corridor.
That wasn't even the entire sentence. Ignoring a couple of words is one thing, but clipping a small part of a much longer statement out of context is bullshit. The scenarios you and other people have described either sound like the most basic fucking terrain imaginable at all times if this fighter is "tanking" regularly, or the encounter is so non-threatening that the fighter "tanking" didn't amount to much, or the opponents are dead fucking stupid at all times and act like random animals rather than the more dangerous foes a party should be encountering once they get up to level 5 and beyond.

You've never played this game if you genuinely think it's impossible for a 4-man party to keep a wizard out of trouble unless you're in a corridor.
I never said it was. But it sure hell may need more than just a guy in plate standing farther forward. and if there is more complex terrain or movement abilities involved wtf is the fighter going to do about it? Nothing. You guys keep describing the most simplistic scenarios where a wizard is just not casting anything out of their spellbook(and no other class exists I guess) or the combats are bland and boring as an excuse for this fighter to work as a "tank".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rick Nekieta
In the end, I always walk away from these discussions with the feeling way too many people play RPGs like CRPGs. Every enemy fights to the death, and optimizing outgoing damage vs. incoming damage is the only thing that matters in the end.
This is almost specifically an AD&D/hack and slash thing, but that really is the way to approach combat in most of these HP-based systems. I think almost everyone started out RPGs like this, like you were 12 and got the red box basic D&D set and did standard dungeon crawls with orcs and gobbos and the like.

Eventually just combat got boring and turned into dice-rolling sessions, so you'd introduce more complex things, start having encounters where actual combat would be suicidal for both sides, and get more into the actual roleplaying side of things.

In more realistic settings, you'd be less likely to go straight to attacking, like the Chaosium systems, since even your heavily armed gangster with a tommy gun and a flak jacket could take a stray .22 to the temple and it's lights out for good. In that kind of setting, seeking any kind of resolution that doesn't involve actually fighting is imperative.

Still, D&D systems almost force a certain kind of gameplay, and even if you focus away from combat, when combat happens, it's going to be by D&D rules. So even in more sophisticated D&D games you usually do end up with at least some of the generic "orcs/gobbos/ontological baddies" you can just slaughter conscience-free.
 
No, the idea is that the monsters will see the guy who just killed one of their buddies and seriously wounded a second as a more severe threat than the guy who just threw some fairy sparkles at them that lightly singed the leader.
That was actually a running gag during our last campaign. Every time the Warlock got a crit with his Eldritch Blast, every single enemy with a ranged attack and enough morale left to stay in the fight turned him into a pincushion.

Half-disintegrating someone with a beam of transdimensional energy is a great way to get their buddies to pay attention to you.

This is almost specifically an AD&D/hack and slash thing, but that really is the way to approach combat in most of these HP-based systems. I think almost everyone started out RPGs like this, like you were 12 and got the red box basic D&D set and did standard dungeon crawls with orcs and gobbos and the like.

Eventually just combat got boring and turned into dice-rolling sessions, so you'd introduce more complex things, start having encounters where actual combat would be suicidal for both sides, and get more into the actual roleplaying side of things.
That's very much how it usually goes, yeah.

In more realistic settings, you'd be less likely to go straight to attacking, like the Chaosium systems, since even your heavily armed gangster with a tommy gun and a flak jacket could take a stray .22 to the temple and it's lights out for good. In that kind of setting, seeking any kind of resolution that doesn't involve actually fighting is imperative.

Still, D&D systems almost force a certain kind of gameplay, and even if you focus away from combat, when combat happens, it's going to be by D&D rules. So even in more sophisticated D&D games you usually do end up with at least some of the generic "orcs/gobbos/ontological baddies" you can just slaughter conscience-free.
Even in D&D-style systems, you can usually bake some caution into players' mindsets. It's hard these days because a lot of people already come in with the feeling their characters are not supposed to die or actually get hurt, but once you sprinkle in some incapacitations, poisons, saves vs. death, and low healing options (making natural healing only available when in a comfortable setting, and CON mod/day in non-ideal settings, is a great house rule for example) people shape up pretty quick. I admit, it's not what everybody wants out of a game like D&D, not by a long shot, but it's been fun enough for us we ended up switching to BFRP for more of it.
 
Last edited:
This is almost specifically an AD&D/hack and slash thing, but that really is the way to approach combat in most of these HP-based systems. I think almost everyone started out RPGs like this, like you were 12 and got the red box basic D&D set and did standard dungeon crawls with orcs and gobbos and the like.

Eventually just combat got boring and turned into dice-rolling sessions, so you'd introduce more complex things, start having encounters where actual combat would be suicidal for both sides, and get more into the actual roleplaying side of things.

In more realistic settings, you'd be less likely to go straight to attacking, like the Chaosium systems, since even your heavily armed gangster with a tommy gun and a flak jacket could take a stray .22 to the temple and it's lights out for good. In that kind of setting, seeking any kind of resolution that doesn't involve actually fighting is imperative.

Still, D&D systems almost force a certain kind of gameplay, and even if you focus away from combat, when combat happens, it's going to be by D&D rules. So even in more sophisticated D&D games you usually do end up with at least some of the generic "orcs/gobbos/ontological baddies" you can just slaughter conscience-free.
Even the simple dynamic of "Please, turn around, I don't want to have to kill you." "Walk away, I'd prefer to spare your life. But I can't abandon my mission" "I can't let you through." "You can always walk away, but I am getting in one way or the other." "Game on, then" humanizes the antagonist's mooks and cronies. Either someone must break an unbreakable vow or someone must die. At the end of the day, someone has to die. This is a lot more compelling than just "roll initiative" When the unstoppable force meets the immovable object, either the force gets stopped or the object gets moved, robbing one of the two of its distinction.
 
I think @Ghostse has written before a decent little multiple choice puzzle/problem solution thing that I can't remember/dig up but I liked. Everyone gets a chance to feel special and players don't end up stuck in one place because BLEEP BLOOP ERROR, INPUT NOT RECOGNISED.

Was it this one?

I'll give you another example of the three-level solution.

Party was in a crypt
there had been an orcus cult near a High-elf city area a few millenia before. The cult had started turning a partly-completed crypt into an Orcus temple, but had been stopped before they got too, too far. (Cult started by taking advantage of a local leader's grief over death of their lover) To hide this shame, the local elves turned the orcus temple back into a crypt and sentenced the ringleaders to having their spirits be crypt guardians - being removed from the cycle of death/rebirth being the worst punishment possible.
The ring leader was left to starve in the inner crypt, but became an undead and had over millenia both gone completely insane and managed to tune his powers enough he could psychically contact a tribe of goblins who were doing his bidding.
The party's mission was to enter the crypt and stop this undead asshole; the party had already done the leg work to find out where the tomb was, that the undead asshole from long ago was likely behind everything, and he and his goblins were acting in the aid of an even Bigger big-bad and so he had to be stopped.

To justify the puzzle, the story was that the Elves confined the spirits to their coffins, but had to keep them sealed to complete construction work. There was also some hallowed dead in side crypts that they couldn't move, so they needed to have a mechanism to allow the spirits to be sealed so veneration rituals for the hallowed dead could be performed.

The spirits were also supposed discourage grave robbers and explorers - not to be immediately leathal face eaters.
The puzzle:
The party needed to solve an intentionally disabled teleportation circle. There were 6 missing runes in the teleportation circle.

There were 6 sarcophagi near by. Each houses a mummy that acts as a quasi-phalactery.
Once a living creature entered the chamber, after 1d4+4 turns and every 1d4 turns after, one of the mummies at random would spawn a Ghost (This was 4e so they were minions. Basically anything that'd go down quickly). If that mummy had spawned a ghost that was still active, or the mummy's ability to spawn ghosts was disabled, nothing would happen. I.e. the more of the puzzle the party solved, the easier it got to solve the rest.

The sarcophagi were in little mini-chapels detailing their lives via bas relief murals. There was a trader, an architect, a warrior, etc. There was also an inscription which was a riddle with solutions like a lantern, a coin, a knife, etc. The inscriptions could be detected to give off arcane and divine energies. There was also an indentation on the slab with the inscription (noticed with a low DC perception, or auto-noticed by anyone trained in perception who looked at the inscription).
If an item that the riddle indicated was placed in the indentation, the sarcophagi would stop spawning ghosts and an arcane specter would appear of the missing rune that needed to be carried to the teleportation circle.


The solution:
Correct solution: Solve the riddles, place the items on the coffins to stop ghosts from spawning. 3 of the items were in the room, 1 of them was a gold coin which the party had plenty of. One of the items (a quartz crystal) could be obtained by the party before entering the crypt, and there was a ' back up' copy in one of the adjacent rooms with the hallowed dead, but it was hidden behind another, more abstract riddle (the answer was "silence" - they had to do that and figure out it wanted them stop a fountain from flowing in a magically silenced room). 6th item was in the other room of Hallowed dead and was just there to grab.

The items also weren't random assignment: The trader's solution was a gold coin. The Warrior's was a blade. etc.

Lesser solutions:
The party could roll for INT checks to get hints on the riddles; only check per riddle per character, but there were three levels depending on how good they rolled.
Easy & medium, get a vague or a decent hint. Very hard, you just get the solution.

They could also channel divine energy with a medium difficulty to offline a coffin's ability to spawn more ghosts for a while. No penalty for failure. (The party never did this, and I didn't have a solid disable timer worked out, just a vague "should be turned off as long as they keep making process. Turn back on if they stall out or try to edge-case the puzzle" in my notes)

They could also do a very hard channeling of Arcane energy to try to make the ensorcellment on the inscription act as though the riddle had been solved. Failure causes an arcane backlash for damage and that coffin (or another coffin) to immediately spawn a ghost.

Brute Force/Mulligan:
The party, with a medium and then a very difficult Arcane check, could fudge one of the missing runes, potentially reducing the number of puzzles needing solved from 6 to 4 (or mummies being fought). None of the riddles were exactly brain boilers, but the idea is if the party has one riddle they are just not getting, they have a bypass.

The party could also smash open the sarcophagi - this would free the mummy which would then fight the party; defeating the mummy also released the rune. Mummies were difficult opponents than the ghosts (and could inflict mummyrot). This would make the Raven Queen and the Nature Gods a little miffed, as well really reduce the warm fuzzies the elves felt for the party.
But if you were stuck, its a way to proceed.

As a final back up, there was a returning goblin patrol that party could fight that had a scroll that would complete the circle. But unlike fixing the circle that would give them the option to come and go as they desired, using the scroll would be a one-way ticket. Better hope the boss has a way out and you can take him on.


Wrap up:
The party had the option of releasing the imprisoned cult leaders' souls (to face judgement in the afterlife), or leaving them to their fate. Releasing the souls got them points with the naturey gods for restoring them to the cycle. Keeping them imprisoned go you points with the more justicey gods for uploading the law. To make the choice harder, freeing them required depowering a unique magic weapon (and yes, coming back later was an option). I was a little surprised when they opted to free them.
Really it was more about seeing how their characters would respond (i.e. trolley problem) than anything mechanical.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Brain Problems
What's the worst Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting and why is it Strixhaven?
Because they had this fantastic, high magic, mind-bending setting that they made when WotC could still be said to at least make some things that people actually liked and wanted and all they could think to do with it was a coffee-shop cringe adventure and gay prom. This was also right around the time that we got Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel that was "What if DnD was gay space communism where everyone got along."
 
There are certain things in life that are so hard that doing them is mostly luck, like hitting a target at 20 yards with a handgun while galloping on a horse. Those are Extreme difficulty in Cthulhu. Such a concept is basically nonexistent in D&D. You don't have the tools.
A good train marksman can hit a target of 20 yards on a galloping hoist that was pretty easy back in the 1800s as well as in the sport of Cowboy mounted shooting

A difficult shaunt is hitting a dime size target from 5000 yards away
 
Back