Tanks need some kind of overhaul.

[Judicator]

 

I'm using the IE games as an example because PoE is supposed to be a successor to those games. And in those games warriors could hold the fronlines and deal damage at the same time. Other classes could outperform them, sure, but they never felt like they weren't contributing. I think part of the problem is the way armor works. The penalty to recovery time is just so massive. Combined with an average or slow weapon and low dex a fighter makes one attack while other characters do two or three.

 

You have a crappy fighter on your party and you're wishing it wasn't so useless. Well, you're right. The only mistake is equating your crappy fighter with the crappiness of fighters for everyone. There are many testaments - and builds - that show fighters don't have to just sit there and be a sponge.

 

Nah, my fighters are fine, they walk out of fights on PotD with barely a scratch on them, they're just boring.

[Guest]

People do this to this to themselves with this crazy "plate or nothing" mentality. Of course your fighter is going to be slow; you put him in heavy armor! Want him to be faster? Put him in something lighter. There's a difference between DR and Deflection (and Fortitude/Reflex/Will).

[gkathellar]

Why do people like to pigeonhole all their characters into MMO roles like 'tank'?

 

There are two reasons. The first is that these are terms people are familiar with, sometimes even from MMOs (weird, I know). The second is that when you optimize a party in PoE, you get a

natural drift towards those roles. This is arguably a weakness of the system.

 

I don't even know what 'tank' is. Is a tank defined by its ability to absorb damage? If so, POE fighters are far too good at it.

 

That depends. On Normal, and even on Hard, they're about as good at it as they need to be even without optimization for tanking. On the PotD, they're about as good as they need to be so long as they're built specifically as tanks. When you start to build them for tanking at lower difficulties, though ... then you start to run into issues.

 

Are you saying tanks should also be good at dealing damage? I thought that was what you people call DPS. Are you saying a fighter should be good at DPS and good at tank? Then what is it meant to be bad at?

 

Balanced characters are ass in this game though. They're just inferior to pure damage dealers or pure tanks.

 

So you want a tank class that tanks on equal level to pure tanks while at the same time does damage at equal level to pure damage dealers.

 

That's not actually what the OP said. What I think is intended (and correct me if I'm wrong, OP) is that he would like melee characters to be designed such that they do not naturally drift towards these roles (DPS vs. tank) when optimized. Given the mention of the IE games, presumably the OP would like melee characters to play more as they did in those games - generally good endurance coupled with steady offense, with a few exceptions where DPS-esque kits like the kensai were concerned.

 

You can create balanced fighters in POE, and have Eder or any other fighter do at least middle-grade damage relative to everyone else in your party while also soaking up damage better than most.

 

This is absolutely true, but your party will underperform compared to a party that specializes in tanking and DPS roles. Since the IE games didn't have those roles, this can become a little bit grating.

 

IE fighters were also not as good as Archers, Assassins, Mages, etc. at dealing damage in many cases. 

 

No, but the warrior classes in IE were very capable of holding their own, and their damage output was a lot steadier than that of others. The heavy-hitting classes would usually a few really solid hits per fight, and some could go nova, but none could keep dishing it out in the way a warrior could.

 

 

Balanced characters are ass in this game though. They're just inferior to pure damage dealers or pure tanks.

 

Don't blame the game for your choices. Fighters and monks can do okay by focusing on disabling effects. You can disable enemies and continue to deal damage.

 

They can do okay, sure. It's not optimal. If that's not something you care about, that's fine, but it's also not something you can credibly dispute.

 

People do this to this to themselves with this crazy "plate or nothing" mentality. Of course your fighter is going to be slow; you put him in heavy armor! Want him to be faster? Put him in something lighter. There's a difference between DR and Deflection (and Fortitude/Reflex/Will).

 

Sure, there's a difference, but because of the Miss/Graze/Hit/Crit system, you can't get much mileage out of one without the other. For enemies to reliably miss, your Defenses need to be absurdly, ridiculously far above the curve. Good defenses mean that enemies will graze, and if you don't have DR, that graze can still hit like a truck.

[Judicator]

 

Why do people like to pigeonhole all their characters into MMO roles like 'tank'?

 

There are two reasons. The first is that these are terms people are familiar with, sometimes even from MMOs (weird, I know). The second is that when you optimize a party in PoE, you get a

natural drift towards those roles. This is arguably a weakness of the system.

 

I don't even know what 'tank' is. Is a tank defined by its ability to absorb damage? If so, POE fighters are far too good at it.

 

That depends. On Normal, and even on Hard, they're about as good at it as they need to be even without optimization for tanking. On the PotD, they're about as good as they need to be so long as they're built specifically as tanks. When you start to build them for tanking at lower difficulties, though ... then you start to run into issues.

 

Are you saying tanks should also be good at dealing damage? I thought that was what you people call DPS. Are you saying a fighter should be good at DPS and good at tank? Then what is it meant to be bad at?

 

Balanced characters are ass in this game though. They're just inferior to pure damage dealers or pure tanks.

 

So you want a tank class that tanks on equal level to pure tanks while at the same time does damage at equal level to pure damage dealers.

 

That's not actually what the OP said. What I think is intended (and correct me if I'm wrong, OP) is that he would like melee characters to be designed such that they do not naturally drift towards these roles (DPS vs. tank) when optimized. Given the mention of the IE games, presumably the OP would like melee characters to play more as they did in those games - generally good endurance coupled with steady offense, with a few exceptions where DPS-esque kits like the kensai were concerned.

 

You got it right.

[Antless]

People do this to this to themselves with this crazy "plate or nothing" mentality. Of course your fighter is going to be slow; you put him in heavy armor! Want him to be faster? Put him in something lighter. There's a difference between DR and Deflection (and Fortitude/Reflex/Will).

 

Both DR and Deflection heavily favor an all-or-nothing approach as both run into the problem that as DR/deflection increase, every additional point reduces overall damage taken more then the one before. For example, if an attack deals 30 damage and your DR is 10, one additional point of DR decreases damage from 20 to 19 by 5%. However, if your DR is 20, one additional point results in a damage reduction from 10 to 9, or 10%.

 

Now, this is true in DnD, but there the classes generally seen as "tanks" did suffer almost no penalty for "optimizing" for tanking compared to classes in PoE, who sacrifice massive amounts of stats, talents, damage, accuracy and attack speed just to be decent at not dying. As a result, for many the best cause of action is simply to make the MMO-tanks or to abuse supporters such as chanters and even priests to suffer as "hindrance" for the active party members to stand behind.

[Guest]

And if your deflection is 100+ the blow never lands and DR is a non-factor.

 

Defender, Wary Defender, Weapon and Shield Style. Never get hit again.

 

Armored Grace and Weapon Focus/Specialization/Mastery. Hit often and do fairly consistent damage.

[Antless]

And if your deflection is 100+ the blow never lands and DR is a non-factor.

 

Defender, Wary Defender, Weapon and Shield Style. Never get hit again.

 

Armored Grace and Weapon Focus/Specialization/Mastery. Hit often and do fairly consistent damage.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from. I myself finished the game on hard with only Pallegina in plate with a Estoc in the front line and my current PotD game has a front line of Pallegina, Kana (both plate/2h) and Itumak. But just because your "tanks" can tingle the enemy slightly ever so often doesn't bring them anywhere near one of their counterparts in DnD.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Antless

[gkathellar]

And if your deflection is 100+ the blow never lands and DR is a non-factor.

 

Defender, Wary Defender, Weapon and Shield Style. Never get hit again.

 

Armored Grace and Weapon Focus/Specialization/Mastery. Hit often and do fairly consistent damage.

Point the first: not all attacks target deflection. If you are right in the center of the field, those attacks will target you.

 

Point the second: With 100 Deflection (and yes, I am aware that it can get much higher, I'm using the baseline you set down), a generic Xaurip grazes you 15% of the time (25% in PotD).

 

A xaurip.

 

I am not saying off-tanks don't work. I'm sure they can even be made to work in cloth. But you don't get nearly as much offense back out as you sacrifice in defense. It's suboptimal.

 

Do you need to be perfectly optimized to complete the game? No (and if that's all you care about, more power to you). But the difference between an optimized build and a non-optimized build is way, way bigger than I think is desirable - especially since the optimal builds for many classes are really, really boring.

[Sanctuary]

 

The way tanks work in this game saddens me. Gone are the good old days of BG and IWD where Fighters could give as good as they got.

 

Offtank Eder endgame snapshot:

 

 

 

Eddie da real MVP.

 

The only thing I can see from your picture, is that it looks like you have a low damaging group.  Which is going to inflate whatever Eder contributed.

Oh, and that you like R.A. Salvatore.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Sanctuary

[Enexemander]

Building a super tank is kind of the novice's approach to the game. Which is fine and all, but when you understand the game and the systems behind it? You don't need to build a super tank. You'd do better making the character you want and then use other available means to control encounters besides having a super tank. There are many, and several of them are more effective.

Now put down the shield and get to cutting folk up.

[Schyzm]

Building a super tank is kind of the novice's approach to the game. Which is fine and all, but when you understand the game and the systems behind it? You don't need to build a super tank. You'd do better making the character you want and then use other available means to control encounters besides having a super tank. There are many, and several of them are more effective.

 

Now put down the shield and get to cutting folk up.

 

 

no, building a super tank is the optimal method, you can get most enemies in most encounters to hit ur tank and ur tank takes probably 5% or less of the damage of your other characters, so it is by a large margin the optimal solution to normal group fights.

 

which is really the problem w/ the tank or with the AI depending on how you look at it. you can build a character that does .8 dmg a hit but takes nearly zero damage and then get the enemy team to attack that character exclusively.

[Enexemander]

 

Building a super tank is kind of the novice's approach to the game. Which is fine and all, but when you understand the game and the systems behind it? You don't need to build a super tank. You'd do better making the character you want and then use other available means to control encounters besides having a super tank. There are many, and several of them are more effective.

 

Now put down the shield and get to cutting folk up.

 

 

no, building a super tank is the optimal method, you can get most enemies in most encounters to hit ur tank and ur tank takes probably 5% or less of the damage of your other characters, so it is by a large margin the optimal solution to normal group fights.

 

which is really the problem w/ the tank or with the AI depending on how you look at it. you can build a character that does .8 dmg a hit but takes nearly zero damage and then get the enemy team to attack that character exclusively.

 

 

Scenario A) Your tank takes most of the damage for the group. The group does 5x damage (missing the tank, for all intents and purposes)

 

Scenario B) You control your enemies to mitigate damage your group might otherwise take. The group does 6x damage (the "tank" is a healthy contributor to combat)

 

Both are valid. B), in my opinion, is the superior option because it's generally faster and more fun.

[Schyzm]

 

 

Building a super tank is kind of the novice's approach to the game. Which is fine and all, but when you understand the game and the systems behind it? You don't need to build a super tank. You'd do better making the character you want and then use other available means to control encounters besides having a super tank. There are many, and several of them are more effective.

 

Now put down the shield and get to cutting folk up.

 

 

no, building a super tank is the optimal method, you can get most enemies in most encounters to hit ur tank and ur tank takes probably 5% or less of the damage of your other characters, so it is by a large margin the optimal solution to normal group fights.

 

which is really the problem w/ the tank or with the AI depending on how you look at it. you can build a character that does .8 dmg a hit but takes nearly zero damage and then get the enemy team to attack that character exclusively.

 

 

Scenario A) Your tank takes most of the damage for the group. The group does 5x damage (missing the tank, for all intents and purposes)

 

Scenario B) You control your enemies to mitigate damage your group might otherwise take. The group does 6x damage (the "tank" is a healthy contributor to combat)

 

Both are valid. B), in my opinion, is the superior option because it's generally faster and more fun.

 

 

B is not the superior option because its massively less reliable and doing 20% more damage is basically never more desirable than a simple way to reduce the enemies damage by...lets say 95%, though honestly it might be higher.  it should be noted also that you don't even do 20% more damage, since you have to spend resources doing the controlling, but wutever, you can have the 20%.

 

if you have more fun doing things your way then don't let me stop you, but building super tanks is optimal. they are that good.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Schyzm

[Exoduss]

These problems occur just because in general combat is way to easy , enemy has no AI , and enemy doesnt try to kill your group they are there just to be killed by you , hey POTD Endless Paths must be hard because there are so many mobs there that usually they just get stuck between each other and stop existing right there . 

[Guest]

But just because your "tanks" can tingle the enemy slightly ever so often doesn't bring them anywhere near one of their counterparts in DnD.

And I get where you're coming from too. But this isn't D&D. We weren't promised D&D. Why are people upset that this isn't D&D?

[Exoduss]

D&D was something , and this ... this is NOTHING , RPG system that doesnt punish you for mistakes is soooooooooo 2015... fck this 

[Guest]

That's good. That means you won't be around for Pillars 2. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[mazeltov]

The only thing I can see from your picture, is that it looks like you have a low damaging group.  Which is going to inflate whatever Eder contributed.

Oh, and that you like R.A. Salvatore.

 

True enough as far as it goes. None of the story companions I recruited are optimized for damage, and my dialogue-y tank/support Paladin main certainly wasn't.

 

What the picture does is put the lie to the main contention of the original post, that "Gone are the good old days of BG and IWD where Fighters could give as good as they got. Now tanks just sit on the front line tieing up the enemies while the other classes have all the fine." Eder tanked more enemies, and simultaneously did more damage than (giving 300+% better than he got), any other member of my party, a party that probably resembles the parties of lots of other people who just picked up the game and played through it without being in thrall to an optimization fetish.

 

Eder also had lots of fine fun while on his tear of tanky, protective destruction.

[KDubya]

 

The only thing I can see from your picture, is that it looks like you have a low damaging group.  Which is going to inflate whatever Eder contributed.

Oh, and that you like R.A. Salvatore.

 

True enough as far as it goes. None of the story companions I recruited are optimized for damage, and my dialogue-y tank/support Paladin main certainly wasn't.

 

What the picture does is put the lie to the main contention of the original post, that "Gone are the good old days of BG and IWD where Fighters could give as good as they got. Now tanks just sit on the front line tieing up the enemies while the other classes have all the fine." Eder tanked more enemies, and simultaneously did more damage than (giving 300+% better than he got), any other member of my party, a party that probably resembles the parties of lots of other people who just picked up the game and played through it without being in thrall to an optimization fetish.

 

Eder also had lots of fine fun while on his tear of tanky, protective destruction.

 

 

The problem is with your PC Paladin. They can stand in front as a punching bag but can't do much else.

 

Fighters, on the other hand, can make ass kicking durable frontline warriors.

 

Follow these simple steps for ass kicking front liners who can tank "good enough for long enough"

 

1.) Max might - more damage and more passive endurance regen

 

2.)Dump intellect - you only have to have one duration based ability, knockdown and at 3 intellect 3.3 seconds is as good as 5 seconds when it gets you 7 stat points.

 

3.) Place at least as many points you dumped from intellect here to balance out your will. Also gets you concentration, deflection and dialogue options.

 

4.) Set Con to 8 or leave at 10.

 

5.)Split remaining points between dex and per. I prefer to max dex for more actions.

 

6.) Defender and Wary defender are your ticket to durability. +15 deflection and +10 all saves is great.

 

7.) Use a shield until you get defender, then choose two handed or dual wield.

 

8.)Pick a weapon group and stick to it. the three talents get you +6 accuracy, +25% damage with the whole group. You can swap to weapon and shield if you really need deflection, you get a good ranged weapon in the group for the first shot, most groups have a two hander in case you need the increased damage per hit for DR. This gives you strategic flexibility. If you get too wounded you can stay in the rear and fire ranged support instead of forcing a team rest.

 

9.)Start all combat with a ranged volley, swap to melee weapon as horde approaches.

 

10.) Wear the heaviest armor you can get, DR is what keeps you alive.

 

11.) Take armored grace for -16% armor reduction. Faster attacks are better

 

12.) Critical Defense will change crits to hits and hits to graze. Your deflection will be somewhere 80-110 so you will get hit, this will help a lot.

 

13.) Take the self rez ability at level 11

 

14.) (should have been #1) Have at least two frontliners to contain the horde, I like three on PotD. These can be chanter, paladin, monk, anyone who can wear heavy armor and take some hits. Three guys can form a wall and keep your backline safe.

 

 

With this approach fights will last longer than a one agro-magnet and five nuker approach but  will not have the catastrophic team wipe capacity that a glass cannon approach is susceptible to. The longer fights allow for better use of passive regen from fighters and chanters, and also makes good use of chanter abilities that take time to ramp up.

[Luckmann]

Oh thank god Gkathellar came into the thread and steamrolled the stupid. I was afraid I'd have to be productive today.

[rheingold]

Come on guys, there was no balance whatsoever in the old games... Just nonsense to suggest otherwise. You can build a perfectly good all round fighter in this game. People are just upset that they can't build a kensai/mage who could do everything.

[petrivanzyl]

It be cool if classes other than fighter could take defender. Then your priest/paladin could be the tank and your fighter more attacking if you like

[Razorchain]

It be cool if classes other than fighter could take defender. Then your priest/paladin could be the tank and your fighter more attacking if you like

 

You have a talent called cautious attacker or somesuch which gives +10 deflection and -20% speed.  It's modal like wary defender, then you can grab superior deflection for extra +5.  Won't help with Fort/Ref/Will though.  Or you could bring a chanter singing a defensive chant all day long....or you could take a paladin with shielding flames for a +10 deflection for short periods.  There are myriad ways to keep your Deflection up.

 

Paladin is actually the best tank in the game in the respect to get highest Deflection, Fort/Ref/Will if you have him/her as your PC.  With right dialogue choices you and one talent you can get a +13def and 26 to Fort/Ref/Will

[gkathellar]

 

It be cool if classes other than fighter could take defender. Then your priest/paladin could be the tank and your fighter more attacking if you like

 

You have a talent called cautious attacker or somesuch which gives +10 deflection and -20% speed.  It's modal like wary defender, then you can grab superior deflection for extra +5.  Won't help with Fort/Ref/Will though.  Or you could bring a chanter singing a defensive chant all day long....or you could take a paladin with shielding flames for a +10 deflection for short periods.  There are myriad ways to keep your Deflection up.

 

Paladin is actually the best tank in the game in the respect to get highest Deflection, Fort/Ref/Will if you have him/her as your PC.  With right dialogue choices you and one talent you can get a +13def and 26 to Fort/Ref/Will

 

 

13/27/27/27, actually.

 

It bears noting that for a fighter who doesn't dump Int, Vigorous Defense + Wary Defender will raise your defenses above what a paladin can get with F&C + Cautious Attack. Paladin wins out in longer fights, which means it becomes hands-down better for solo play once it hits its stride. In party play, where fights rarely last the full duration of Vigorous Defense, a fighter has the edge.

[Luckmann]

Come on guys, there was no balance whatsoever in the old games... Just nonsense to suggest otherwise. You can build a perfectly good all round fighter in this game. People are just upset that they can't build a kensai/mage who could do everything.

 

No. It has nothing to do with building kensai/mages or whatever, or even really increasing the capacity of tanks doing damage. The issue is really that specialization is too rewarding. There is no diminishing returns on anything, and a lot of game mechanics favour over-specialization. If you want to be a good tank, you stack Deflection upon Deflection, you take the Heaviest armour, and you max Perception and Resolve.

 

Like I said on pg. 1, there's a lot of good mechanics that ties together into not-so-good results. The primarily offenders in this case - imho - is, very, very simply put:

• Dichotomous Armour System; go big, or go home. If you need armour, you need lots of it, or you likely need none at all. There is no easy fix for this, but there are concrete suggestions in the threads that examine the issue.

   

• The War on Movement; everything in the game dissuades you from moving, or taking tactical decisions in combat that involves movement. Once in Engagement, you do not want to break Engagement, and the lack of a Hold Position command makes sure that once engaged, you stay engaged, promoting super-tanks.

   

  Since Engagement is apparently non-negotiable, the best band-aid would be to introduce a 5ft-step mechanic that lets you move around the enemies you have engaged, add a Hold Position command, and drop the movement recovery penalties. Cleaning up world collision would also help a little.

   

• Lopsided Attribute Bonuses; the attributes are incredibly clear in what you want to invest in by role, not even by class, and it promotes only two roles; Tank vs. DPS, and it promotes and rewards min/max-ing.

   

  Again, there are many possible solutions to this that have been discussed in the past, but Obsidian does not seem to want to change the Attribute bonuses anymore, to the point where they'd rather compromise the CNPC attributes because they know that the Attribute Bonuses are broken.

   

• Accuracy vs. Deflection, nothing in-between; Gkthellar covered this pretty well earlier.

Tanks do not need an overhaul. The underlying systems that results in the heavy reliance on dedicated tanks does.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Luckmann