The question was simple, can a Kensai tank? Yes it can.
If it's the best choice has no bearing on the question "Can the Kensai tank?"
If it's the worst choice again has no bearing on the question "Can the Kensai tank?"
How ridiculous it is again has no bearing on the question "Can the Kensai tank?"
Again the question is "Can the Kensai tank" not "Why should the Kensai tank?"
It would be much better if the discussion was productive and didn't consist of "When you want to" phrases.
This discussion sprouted from a single comment that a Kensai couldn't tank with -10AC. Not why a Kensai shouldn't tank even with -10 AC. If people want to talk about why a Kensai should tank then new topic or rephrase the topic title. But again, the only question I'm concerned with is if a Kensai can tank.
The goal of the debate is to win, not achieve enlightenment.
The goal my initial comment was to say the Kensai can tank. I'm not going to go off topic on the notion of why anyone would want a Kensai to tank in the first place. In a discussion of the capability of a Kensai to tank, it's already assumed that someone wants the Kensai to tank.
If you're debating to win, I gotta wonder why you're debating. You're not a politician running for office. Debating is constructive when it teaches either the debaters or the observers. That has everything to do with stating your points clearly and carefully considering your opponent's points, and precious little to do with actually winning, whatever that even means in this context.
I *also* think answering "yes it's possible" without any consideration to its relative effectiveness is pointlessly uninformative. If teaching is the goal, we really need to cover things like "why?" and "why not?" When we ask questions, the mathematician's answer rarely gives us all the relevant information to actually make a decision. We are not computers. Boolean function returns are almost never the goal of human communication. When asked a question, infer the area of interest around the question and answer that too. That's called good communication.
Now, as to the actual point under debate, I would argue that the kensai can absolutely tank, but it requires more maintenance (in the form of buff spells/potions) than other classes require. That's a lot of extra effort, and frankly you could almost certainly do better overall by running a berserker and memorizing another Emotion spell or two. But absolutely you can do it.
in IWD at least you can get signifcant damage resistance on a kensai (ring of greater resistance + 2x defender weapons). teamed up with another frontliner (paladin with lay on hads for example), he can hold the line.
I feel like at this point we are just being trolled.
Yes, kensei can tank, just like any other character in IWD, BG or wow. However, it's ridiculous and literally any other character is going to be more effective at it.
Sure, you can come up with ideal item combinations to max out AC and physical resistance however: - you detract from the primary purpose of the kensei (DPS) - other characters can make better use of the items - still vulnerable to dispel magic - still vulnerable to critical hits
The end result is always going to be a net loss in efficiency and enjoyment on any quantifiable scale.
tanking in bg is understood as being in the front line and facing enemies' melee attacks
explain to me how a kensai with the best possible protection would do worse than, say, a thief? a thief can't deal damage in that role, he'll just sit there and maybe slow things down, but in both BG and IWD you absolutely need the frontliner to kill enemies and kensai can deliver that and survive. sounds like a reasonable choice.
don't insinuate that the other side is trolling without good reason in the future. that's offensive.
explain to me how a kensai with the best possible protection would do worse than, say, a thief?
It's funny how you picked the arguably worst two examples to compare. How about you compare a Kensai to an actually "tanky" character instead? Then it becomes fairly obvious how a Kensai will do worse in terms of taking damage.
That of course does not say anything about whether a Kensai CAN tank; just that other classes are better at it. Which I'm sure no one will argue, and is quite frankly making this entire discussion pretty pointless.
If you define a tank as "everything" then the set of things that are "not a tank" is empty, then a kensai is a tank.
Of course, such a definition is meaningless, and should be discarded.
A better definition is needed. I would suggest "can survive enemy attacks longer than other party members". In which case a kensai is only a tank in an all-kensai party.
explain to me how a kensai with the best possible protection would do worse than, say, a thief?
It's funny how you picked the arguably worst two examples to compare. How about you compare a Kensai to an actually "tanky" character instead? Then it becomes fairly obvious how a Kensai will do worse in terms of taking damage.
That of course does not say anything about whether a Kensai CAN tank; just that other classes are better at it. Which I'm sure no one will argue, and is quite frankly making this entire discussion pretty pointless.
i didn't coose this path of reduction to the absurd, the other poster did and i'm just criticizing it. the discussion is what it is (i certainly didn't start it), i'm just giving my five cents. can the kensai tank? yes. end of story as far as i'm concerned (everyone's free to disagree). of course he's suboptimal, but can be adequate in certain party and gear setups at some relatively late-game scenarios (when AC seems to play a lesser role anyway).
If you define a tank as "everything" then the set of things that are "not a tank" is empty, then a kensai is a tank.
Of course, such a definition is meaningless, and should be discarded.
A better definition is needed. I would suggest "can survive enemy attacks longer than other party members". In which case a kensai is only a tank in an all-kensai party.
not true because he survives by killing enemy melee threats too and simply making combat last less rounds. there aren't true tanks in 2E anyway (ones that sacrifice melee power for defense).
@bob_veng I've stated in this thread previously that the only class that is worse at tanking than kensei is thief. I just didn't want to repeat myself.
The conversation is absurd. One group of posters is saying "kensei can tank" and the other group is saying "yes, the kensei can tank, but ...".
It's even been acknowledged by both sides that using a kensei as a tank is ridiculous.
If this conversation is to continue it really needs to be allowed to assess whether a kensei should tank, rather than if it can (which has been answered a dozen times already at least ).
@bob_veng I've stated in this thread previously that the only class that is worse at tanking than kensei is thief. I just didn't want to repeat myself.
ah okay, i went by what you said later forgetting that you singled the thief out before.
The conversation is absurd. One group of posters is saying "kensei can tank" and the other group is saying "yes, the kensei can tank, but ...".
everyone repeating on a thread how absurd it is certainly won't make it any better
It's even been acknowledged by both sides that using a kensei as a tank is ridiculous.
i wouldn't know about those sides, because i've used a kensai in a general frontliner role in BG2 and haven't had much difficulty (but he wasn't the only meleer i had, there were two)
If this conversation is to continue it really needs to be allowed to assess whether a kensei should tank, rather than if it can (which has been answered a dozen times already at least ).
This thread shouldn't even be a thing, it's completely fruitless. "In a game where everyone can tank, can a Kensai tank?" Shocking surprises revealed within! You'll never guess the answer!
Perhaps it should be changed to "How can I make my Kensai into a passable tank?" or something, just to give it a direction that is at least in SOME way useful to people.
explain to me how a kensai with the best possible protection would do worse than, say, a thief?
It's funny how you picked the arguably worst two examples to compare. How about you compare a Kensai to an actually "tanky" character instead? Then it becomes fairly obvious how a Kensai will do worse in terms of taking damage.
That of course does not say anything about whether a Kensai CAN tank; just that other classes are better at it. Which I'm sure no one will argue, and is quite frankly making this entire discussion pretty pointless.
i didn't coose this path of reduction to the absurd, the other poster did and i'm just criticizing it. the discussion is what it is (i certainly didn't start it), i'm just giving my five cents. can the kensai tank? yes. end of story as far as i'm concerned (everyone's free to disagree). of course he's suboptimal, but can be adequate in certain party and gear setups at some relatively late-game scenarios (when AC seems to play a lesser role anyway).
If you define a tank as "everything" then the set of things that are "not a tank" is empty, then a kensai is a tank.
Of course, such a definition is meaningless, and should be discarded.
A better definition is needed. I would suggest "can survive enemy attacks longer than other party members". In which case a kensai is only a tank in an all-kensai party.
not true because he survives by killing enemy melee threats too and simply making combat last less rounds. there aren't true tanks in 2E anyway (ones that sacrifice melee power for defense).
"Killing faster" is not tanking. A tank takes the hits whilst the DPS does the killing. One has to suppose an unlimited number of mobs when comparing tanks, so how quickly the mobs die is irrelevant.
Dwarven Defenders, clerics and paladins sacrifice melee power for defense.
This thread shouldn't even be a thing, it's completely fruitless. "In a game where everyone can tank, can a Kensai tank?" Shocking surprises revealed within! You'll never guess the answer!
Perhaps it should be changed to "How can I make my Kensai into a passable tank?" or something, just to give it a direction that is at least in SOME way useful to people.
As I've said before, unless you have an all-kensai party, there is no reason why anyone would want to turn the kensai into "a passible tank". You can't say "role playing" because tanking isn't a roleplaying concept, it's purely game mechanics.
Dwarven Defenders, clerics and paladins sacrifice melee power for defense.
only dwarven defender does but negligibly. clerics can't stand in the front because their spells will be interrupted and paladins hit very hard with duhm.
Tanking is a roleplay concept. It's the guy who stands between enemies and spellcasters and archers. Just because IWD (and IE games in general) has terrible AI doesn't negate the concept of tanking in a roleplay aspect.
Also again this topic sprouted from someone saying a Kensai can't tank.
So as far as that's concerned it doesn't matter why anyone would want a Kensai to tank. It has no relevance on the issue.
i will concede this - talking about tanking is pointless in general
to have a real tank there would have to be mechanics that support it, mainly these three: 1. aggro mechanic (not present) 2. sacrificing melee power for defense (effectively not present; only in minute quantities) 3. vulnerability of non-melee characters (somewhat present, but not enough: mages defend themselves all too well, clerics are pretty resilient and shooters on average are only slightly less protected)
so let's not talk about tanking at all.
if the question should be formed this way: is the kensai so vulnerable in a general "frontlining" role to the point of being inadequate for it (or is he only good for hit-and-run)? the answer is - generally, no (early levels and stages in the games yes, but for the majority of time he's *not inadequate*)
if followed up with: is he on par with other classes? the answer should probably be - generally not, but meeting certain conditions, YES
The context for tanking in the original discussion was that the Kensai would be the character players send in for all enemies to target.
And an aggro mechanic is present in the game (though a poorly designed one) Enemies target the first target they see and will almost always stick with that target. The actual lack of an aggro mechanic would mean enemies would be randomly (with no bias, other than maybe range, and even that can be considered aggro) choosing their targets every time.
with a six member party it's unlikely to have all the enemies (when encountering a bigger group) concentrate on one character (but i usually play with scs so i might have forgotten the feel of the original ai). you'd need more melee characters than one to control the flow of the battle anyway.
so real, independent and reliable tanking falls off.
Tanking is a roleplay concept. It's the guy who stands between enemies and spellcasters and archers. Just because IWD (and IE games in general) has terrible AI doesn't negate the concept of tanking in a roleplay aspect.
Also again this topic sprouted from someone saying a Kensai can't tank.
So as far as that's concerned it doesn't matter why anyone would want a Kensai to tank. It has no relevance on the issue.
In a game where spellcasters can render themselves immune to attacks, the unarmoured person who stands in front of them is a moron, not a tank.
with a six member party it's unlikely to have all the enemies (when encountering a bigger group) concentrate on one character (but i usually play with scs so i might have forgotten the feel of the original ai). you'd need more melee characters than one to control the flow of the battle anyway.
so real, independent and reliable tanking falls off.
This discussion started on the IWD forum, where it is extremly easy to have all enemies concentrate on one character.
Of course, if the AI where better, we would also consider ability to hold aggro as a requirement for a tank.
Dwarven Defenders, clerics and paladins sacrifice melee power for defense.
only dwarven defender does but negligibly. clerics can't stand in the front because their spells will be interrupted and paladins hit very hard with duhm.
Even buffed with duhm, paladins sacrifice damage in comparison to a kensai, or even a vanilla fighter (this is an IWD discussion, so GM is better than in BG). Archer seems to be the class with the highest DPS in IWD.
Clerics usually cast before and after the battle, and have some of the best survivability in the game, I frequently use them in a tanking role.
Dwarven Defenders, clerics and paladins sacrifice melee power for defense.
only dwarven defender does but negligibly. clerics can't stand in the front because their spells will be interrupted and paladins hit very hard with duhm.
Even buffed with duhm, paladins sacrifice damage in comparison to a kensai, or even a vanilla fighter (this is an IWD discussion, so GM is better than in BG). Archer seems to be the class with the highest DPS in IWD.
Clerics usually cast before and after the battle, and have some of the best survivability in the game, I frequently use them in a tanking role.
Archers definitely don't have the best DPS due to the severe shortage of magical ammunition and lack of strength modifier to their weapon.
Assuming party buffs are available the DPS order goes something like: 1. Mislead and x5 or greater backstab multiplier (FMT, MT and various duals) 2. BBoD and a max damage ability (Kai or Righteous Magic) 3. Fighter kit dualed to cleric 4. Other dual wielding warriors with max APR 5. Archer
Currently I'm doing a two character run of HoF from level 1 and I fully expect the FMT and FMC duo to put out more damage together than most 6 man parties, even minmaxed to a comparable degree (though with a comparable amount of xp).
On the other hand, an Archer is insanely useful as there's no positioning issues and he will be kicking butt from level 1 and will remain strong throughout the game despite ammo management issues.
I don't play HoF abomination, and in my playthroughs my Archer has the highest DPS.
The important part of that sentence is NOT "Archer has the highest DPS", it's "my playthroughs" and "my Archer". Just because you happen to have configured things in one certain way does not mean there aren't other possibilities that work differently.
If you deconstruct the problem down to its core constituents, it's exactly as @Wowo said: Archers deal less damage per hit because of lack of good ammo and no STR modifier, but they do deal decent damage from the very beginning and with very little downtime/positioning. Personally I find that enough of a reason to include an Archer in my party (there are other reasons, too) but that will NOT magically make it deal more damage than other class combinations.
I don't play HoF abomination, and in my playthroughs my Archer has the highest DPS.
Is that because the rest of your characters suck?
No, It's because I don't play on give-me-ridiculous-amounts-of-xp mode that makes it possible to reach the levels that enable you to combine Black Blade of Disaster with abilities it was never intended to combine with.
Archer kicks butt from level one to level 16. I neither know nor care what happens at higher levels.
I don't play HoF abomination, and in my playthroughs my Archer has the highest DPS.
Is that because the rest of your characters suck?
No, It's because I don't play on give-me-ridiculous-amounts-of-xp mode that makes it possible to reach the levels that enable you to combine Black Blade of Disaster with abilities it was never intended to combine with.
Archer kicks butt from level one to level 16. I neither know nor care what happens at higher levels.
That only discounts one of the 4 superior options that I offered.
Remember that even at level 1 a dual wielding barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, multiclass fighter of multiclass ranger can do more damage per hit than an archer with the same amount of attacks.
This never changes for most of the superior options though once the archer has GM the non-GM options may lag behind until/unless they can make up the deficit via DUHM, Tensers or various gear.
Mislead backstabs doesn't need HoF but then non-hof doesn't need mislead backstabs but it still stands out as the number one damage per round option, only constrained by a characters ability to deliver the damage.
Interestingly, it's my understanding that mislead combined with Mordenkainens sword would be the number ranged damage option vastly out shining an archer at his own game and actually having a chance at approaching his theoretical damage output via not losing damage output due to movement (between the chunks of flying meat).
Again, archer is never top DPS but archer is always incredibly useful and powerful due to the ranged nature of his damage despite ammo and strength constraints.
However, grab Flail: Hammer +2 and Fast Flail from Dragons Eye on a fighter/cleric multi or dual and you'll see a character with better DPS and more impact on the fights very quickly.
Of course Kensai/Mage can be a tank. My kensai/mage is the only melee fighter while the rest are acting as spellcasters and archers.
My kensai/mage can handle pretty much anything all by himself. From lich to Iron golem.
You don't "need" super high AC, when your tank can cast Stoneskin, Blur and Mirror image as well as Spirit Armor. Enemy fighter need to go through all the stoneskins and mirror image before they can hurt you. By that time the fight usually already over, in your favor!
Comments
The question was simple, can a Kensai tank? Yes it can.
If it's the best choice has no bearing on the question "Can the Kensai tank?"
If it's the worst choice again has no bearing on the question "Can the Kensai tank?"
How ridiculous it is again has no bearing on the question "Can the Kensai tank?"
Again the question is "Can the Kensai tank" not "Why should the Kensai tank?" This discussion sprouted from a single comment that a Kensai couldn't tank with -10AC. Not why a Kensai shouldn't tank even with -10 AC. If people want to talk about why a Kensai should tank then new topic or rephrase the topic title. But again, the only question I'm concerned with is if a Kensai can tank. The goal my initial comment was to say the Kensai can tank. I'm not going to go off topic on the notion of why anyone would want a Kensai to tank in the first place. In a discussion of the capability of a Kensai to tank, it's already assumed that someone wants the Kensai to tank.
I *also* think answering "yes it's possible" without any consideration to its relative effectiveness is pointlessly uninformative. If teaching is the goal, we really need to cover things like "why?" and "why not?" When we ask questions, the mathematician's answer rarely gives us all the relevant information to actually make a decision. We are not computers. Boolean function returns are almost never the goal of human communication. When asked a question, infer the area of interest around the question and answer that too. That's called good communication.
Now, as to the actual point under debate, I would argue that the kensai can absolutely tank, but it requires more maintenance (in the form of buff spells/potions) than other classes require. That's a lot of extra effort, and frankly you could almost certainly do better overall by running a berserker and memorizing another Emotion spell or two. But absolutely you can do it.
explain to me how a kensai with the best possible protection would do worse than, say, a thief? a thief can't deal damage in that role, he'll just sit there and maybe slow things down, but in both BG and IWD you absolutely need the frontliner to kill enemies and kensai can deliver that and survive. sounds like a reasonable choice.
don't insinuate that the other side is trolling without good reason in the future. that's offensive.
That of course does not say anything about whether a Kensai CAN tank; just that other classes are better at it. Which I'm sure no one will argue, and is quite frankly making this entire discussion pretty pointless.
Of course, such a definition is meaningless, and should be discarded.
A better definition is needed. I would suggest "can survive enemy attacks longer than other party members". In which case a kensai is only a tank in an all-kensai party.
The conversation is absurd. One group of posters is saying "kensei can tank" and the other group is saying "yes, the kensei can tank, but ...".
It's even been acknowledged by both sides that using a kensei as a tank is ridiculous.
If this conversation is to continue it really needs to be allowed to assess whether a kensei should tank, rather than if it can (which has been answered a dozen times already at least ).
Perhaps it should be changed to "How can I make my Kensai into a passable tank?" or something, just to give it a direction that is at least in SOME way useful to people.
Dwarven Defenders, clerics and paladins sacrifice melee power for defense.
Also again this topic sprouted from someone saying a Kensai can't tank.
So as far as that's concerned it doesn't matter why anyone would want a Kensai to tank. It has no relevance on the issue.
to have a real tank there would have to be mechanics that support it, mainly these three:
1. aggro mechanic (not present)
2. sacrificing melee power for defense (effectively not present; only in minute quantities)
3. vulnerability of non-melee characters (somewhat present, but not enough: mages defend themselves all too well, clerics are pretty resilient and shooters on average are only slightly less protected)
so let's not talk about tanking at all.
if the question should be formed this way: is the kensai so vulnerable in a general "frontlining" role to the point of being inadequate for it (or is he only good for hit-and-run)?
the answer is - generally, no (early levels and stages in the games yes, but for the majority of time he's *not inadequate*)
if followed up with: is he on par with other classes?
the answer should probably be - generally not, but meeting certain conditions, YES
And an aggro mechanic is present in the game (though a poorly designed one) Enemies target the first target they see and will almost always stick with that target. The actual lack of an aggro mechanic would mean enemies would be randomly (with no bias, other than maybe range, and even that can be considered aggro) choosing their targets every time.
so real, independent and reliable tanking falls off.
Of course, if the AI where better, we would also consider ability to hold aggro as a requirement for a tank.
The discussion started because someone said a Kensai can't tank.
Clerics usually cast before and after the battle, and have some of the best survivability in the game, I frequently use them in a tanking role.
Assuming party buffs are available the DPS order goes something like:
1. Mislead and x5 or greater backstab multiplier (FMT, MT and various duals)
2. BBoD and a max damage ability (Kai or Righteous Magic)
3. Fighter kit dualed to cleric
4. Other dual wielding warriors with max APR
5. Archer
Currently I'm doing a two character run of HoF from level 1 and I fully expect the FMT and FMC duo to put out more damage together than most 6 man parties, even minmaxed to a comparable degree (though with a comparable amount of xp).
On the other hand, an Archer is insanely useful as there's no positioning issues and he will be kicking butt from level 1 and will remain strong throughout the game despite ammo management issues.
If you deconstruct the problem down to its core constituents, it's exactly as @Wowo said: Archers deal less damage per hit because of lack of good ammo and no STR modifier, but they do deal decent damage from the very beginning and with very little downtime/positioning. Personally I find that enough of a reason to include an Archer in my party (there are other reasons, too) but that will NOT magically make it deal more damage than other class combinations.
Archer kicks butt from level one to level 16. I neither know nor care what happens at higher levels.
Remember that even at level 1 a dual wielding barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, multiclass fighter of multiclass ranger can do more damage per hit than an archer with the same amount of attacks.
This never changes for most of the superior options though once the archer has GM the non-GM options may lag behind until/unless they can make up the deficit via DUHM, Tensers or various gear.
Mislead backstabs doesn't need HoF but then non-hof doesn't need mislead backstabs but it still stands out as the number one damage per round option, only constrained by a characters ability to deliver the damage.
Interestingly, it's my understanding that mislead combined with Mordenkainens sword would be the number ranged damage option vastly out shining an archer at his own game and actually having a chance at approaching his theoretical damage output via not losing damage output due to movement (between the chunks of flying meat).
Again, archer is never top DPS but archer is always incredibly useful and powerful due to the ranged nature of his damage despite ammo and strength constraints.
However, grab Flail: Hammer +2 and Fast Flail from Dragons Eye on a fighter/cleric multi or dual and you'll see a character with better DPS and more impact on the fights very quickly.
My kensai/mage can handle pretty much anything all by himself. From lich to Iron golem.
You don't "need" super high AC, when your tank can cast Stoneskin, Blur and Mirror image as well as Spirit Armor. Enemy fighter need to go through all the stoneskins and mirror image before they can hurt you. By that time the fight usually already over, in your favor!