Khalid vs Minsc as a Tank
Heindrich
Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
This discussion was created from comments split from: Dualing Imoen.
1
Comments
Jaheira will be even better with spells like Iron Skinds. While I'm not overly fond of Jaheira in BG1, she really comes into her own in the sequel.
Jaheira, though, is legitimately one of the best tanks in BG2, imo, second only to Haer'Dalis.
Fighters are definitely better at dealing more damage than Rangers in most circumstances, especially a late game hypothetical Khalid to Minsc comparison but that has nothing to do with tanking damage.
The point I was trying to make was that later on Minsc will be more useful as a Ranger than he is now. I wasn't trying to drag Khalid's name through the mud (this time), I was using him as a comparison between the two classes since @FrdNwsm was familiar with that character but stated he hadn't played BG2 yet. The basic point is, Minsc is a more useful party member later on in the series (he gains more abilities AND better stats in BG2) so don't judge him solely on his performance in the first game.
By your definition, however, have you looked at how good a Shapeshifter is as a purely-defensive tank? In Greater Werewolf form and with good equipment, a Shapeshifter can get AC so good that it's still actually useful in ToB - not even the end-of-game enemies have enough THAC0 to hit him reliably, and he's got decent defensive buffs on top of that. Most other classes can't get AC that good, and perhaps this makes a Shapeshifter technically even better in your definition of tanking than a Mage or Sorcerer. Being able to stop the enemy from damaging you sooner (usually by killing him) seems pretty relevant to me. However, I don't think we're disagreeing on the facts, we're just using slightly different definitions for the word. Agreed.
Incidentally @Gallowglass the definition of a tank that @GoodSteve is referring to originated from MMORPGs, most famously World of Warcraft, where character roles like DPS, Healer and Tank are clearly defined, and the purpose of a "tank" is just to be able to keep enemies busy so that other team mates can perform their roles without being forced to avoid enemy attacks. In fact tanks often have skills (taunts) that specifically attract enemy attention, and obviously they require considerable survivability to deal with all that heat.
As people like @atcDave (if I remember correctly) pointed out, the naming of this role is a little unfortunate, since really, in real life, tanks are an offensive weapon that combine firepower, mobility and survivability, rather than a simple anvil upon which enemies smash themselves. But in the context of modern RPG games, thanks to the popularity of MMOs, the term "tank" has basically come to mean "drawing enemy attention and surviving it."
In BG, that does mean it's actually a mage (well, ideally a Fighter/Mage of some type), with a nice health pool and lots of damage mitigation spells.
Once you get Khalid to level 3 and give him a third point in long swords, he easily becomes one of the very best tanks in the game.
Even if we say that a tank is "a simple anvil upon which enemies smash themselves", then it's still the case that it's a better tank if it's an anvil on which enemies smash themselves more quickly than on other anvils.
So if I were to refine that definition, a tank is somebody who draws enemy hostility, puts himself in harms' way (normally by engaging in melee combat), and is well suited to surviving resultant enemy action. Crowd control (incapacitating abilities like stuns) or killing enemies quickly (thereby removing their threat) does not technically fall under the tank's duties.
I never played WoW myself, but as I understand it, that game and other older MMOs modeled after it really encouraged role-specialization, especially if you play in a competitive or challenging scenarios. That's why the definition of tank, dps and healer are so specific, and it has kinda migrated into non-MMOs too in terms of game design.
The whole point of my argument is that if you're measuring how "well suited to surviving resultant enemy action" a character may be, then being able to end the fight before the enemy has a chance to do you much damage obviously makes you better at that survival, and is therefore part of being a better tank, even according to your revised definition. That's certainly how BG mechanics work - it's meaningless to blank out offensive capability from the effectiveness of a warrior in BG mechanics, and you'd be playing extraordinarily inefficiently if you ordered your BG warriors to "just stand there and take the hits without fighting back". That'd be just daft!
I'll take your (implied) word for it that WoW mechanics are so radically different that this isn't true in WoW (although I'm rather surprised), but if it's true that a WoW tank isn't expected to fight back, then that just means that WoW-style role-definitions are neither appropriate nor relevant in BG discussions.
The additional HP, AC and Longsword proficiency create an excellent front line combatant that can be perfectly backed up by archers or reach weapons.
The only caveat on this is the morale issue which can be overcome I think almost entirely by having a charismatic character leading the party.
That "kill rate" between the two has a very minimal impact as it's the whole parties damage output that matters in this context and having your tank (one out of six characters) killing slightly faster isn't going to make a large difference when the other five characters are attacking as well. On the other hand, a nigh untouchable fighter (which Khalid can more easily become than Minsc) helps to minimise resource use.
Additionally, there are plenty of sources of bonus strength that Khalid can make good use of for important fights. Conversely, the use of items to make a better tank can be given to tertiary tanks for the important fights as there is often multiple threats in such a conflict.
khalid is better used with bows : they are not impacted by his low strength and benefit greatly from having 3 pips.
Minsc is better used as a dps frontliner thanks to his great strength.
He's a great tank with decent HP, armor shield and sword.
He can switch to longbow since he has good Dex.
If you put a STR item on him, he can use composite longbows and then switch to sword and shield for damaging tanking.
He also levels up faster and has a few more points he can put in his proficiencies.
On my canon playthrough, I used him as the primary archer and he did great.
As for Khalid vs Minsc, Minsc's Berserk makes him very durable, but everyone else needs to stick strictly to ranged combat if using that. Without berserk, which definately not everyone uses, Khalid is sturdier and better at being the guy on point, but Minsc is good enough at it, so its a bit moot.
If you want to talk about melee damage output potential in BG1, Minsc beats Khalid because he can achieve 3 pips in two-weapon style and 2 pips in maces. Khalid can achieve 3 pips in two-weapon style and 2 pips in longswords. Minsc has a higher natural strength, but both can use the big fisted belt. Minsc has Berserk, and Khalid has nothing that can compare to this. So, a Berseking Minsc is better at melee damage than Khalid in BG1.
So maybe not the 'better' tank...but certainly the more fun one.