I was thinking of Juyo with talents like frenzied attack (for sabers) and some dual wielding talents.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree. Given that it's a "lightsaber" spec, the Armorer, in particular, is designed to be a serious bruiser and can, with its Armor Master talent suite (including the Improved and Supreme versions), can take as much damage, (or more) than it can dish out. It's about as "tank" as you can get. I'd call it the very definition of a "tank" character for Force users.

Having a pc armorer in my current game, I can attest to this. Especially after he picked up the protector tree. He has custom made armor which, with these talents gives him a soak of 9. With 2 ranks parry, 4 ranks reflect and cortosis weave armor he is very damage resistant. Then, if he does take a critical, he has a -90 on the roll.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree. Given that it's a "lightsaber" spec, the Armorer, in particular, is designed to be a serious bruiser and can, with its Armor Master talent suite (including the Improved and Supreme versions), can take as much damage, (or more) than it can dish out. It's about as "tank" as you can get. I'd call it the very definition of a "tank" character for Force users.

I was thinking more a Tank that likes to take damage to deal more damage because he/she has taken damage, maybe even dealing more the closer they are to death, even making them attract oppenents to hit them instead of getting directly in the way. The blood knight (warrior) vs the knight in shining armor (guardian).

A "Channel Rage" Conflict talent which is maybe analogous to the Mystic's Channel Agony talent, perhaps? Something like, when hit by an attack, suffer a number of strain up to twice ranks in Channel Rage, and upgrade your next attack a number of times equal to half the strain suffered? Alternatively you could key it off additional wounds, but I would hope they would do 1:1 when taking extra wounds from a hit...

Actually I guess this talent idea would be some strange combo of Channel Agony and Mind Bleed.

2 hours ago, Shlambate said:

I was thinking more a Tank that likes to take damage to deal more damage because he/she has taken damage, maybe even dealing more the closer they are to death, even making them attract oppenents to hit them instead of getting directly in the way. The blood knight (warrior) vs the knight in shining armor (guardian).

Yeah, but in RPG terms, a " Tank " is typically someone who can soak up a lot of damage because of his heavy armor (and/or High damage threshold) in order to protect others. They make themselves walking targets to draw fire away from their allies.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yeah, but in RPG terms, a " Tank " is typically someone who can soak up a lot of damage because of his heavy armor (and/or High damage threshold) in order to protect others. They make themselves walking targets to draw fire away from their allies.

Yes exactly which is why D&D has the fighter and the paladin and the Barbarian which can all Tank and can all do damage so there is no reason why the Warrior can't be the Barbarian to the Guardian's Paladin.

7 minutes ago, Shlambate said:

Yes exactly which is why D&D has the fighter and the paladin and the Barbarian which can all Tank and can all do damage so there is no reason why the Warrior can't be the Barbarian to the Guardian's Paladin.

I think the difference is that "Tanks", as a rule, aren't about dealing damage, so much as in being about to soak it up without being severely hurt. The Barbarian or Berserker you mentioned were more about dealing damage, not taking it. Those aren't "Tanks". (Taken from RPG Character types ). So, what you're talking about is someone with a "Critical Status Buff" . However, we already have that in this game in the form of the Wookiee .

23 minutes ago, Shlambate said:

Yes exactly which is why D&D has the fighter and the paladin and the Barbarian which can all Tank and can all do damage so there is no reason why the Warrior can't be the Barbarian to the Guardian's Paladin.

I'd say Warrior is more the Fighter analogue, the generic 'I just want to kill things' Career. Seeker is more like the Barbarian, especially given Executioner's potential for almighty destruction.

Ok, off-topic aside over, normal service can now resume...

52 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yeah, but in RPG terms, a " Tank " is typically someone who can soak up a lot of damage because of his heavy armor (and/or High damage threshold) in order to protect others. They make themselves walking targets to draw fire away from their allies.

That's more in MMORPG terms. RPG tanks can take a lot of damage but they also dish out a lot of stable damage output. They make themselves a walking target because the enemy has to focus them or die.

17 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I think the difference is that "Tanks", as a rule, aren't about dealing damage, so much as in being about to soak it up without being severely hurt. The Barbarian or Berserker you mentioned were more about dealing damage, not taking it. Those aren't "Tanks". (Taken from RPG Character types ). So, what you're talking about is someone with a "Critical Status Buff" . However, we already have that in this game in the form of the Wookiee .

5E barbarians can go into rage taking half damage, and even make it more difficult for you to hit targets other than themselves that's a different way of tanking than just armor.

15 minutes ago, ColonelCommissar said:

I'd say Warrior is more the Fighter analogue, the generic 'I just want to kill things' Career. Seeker is more like the Barbarian, especially given Executioner's potential for almighty destruction.

Ok, off-topic aside over, normal service can now resume...

5E fighter is more a Tank than you think the Paladin is the highest damage class.

2 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

That's more in MMORPG terms. RPG tanks can take a lot of damage but they also dish out a lot of stable damage output. They make themselves a walking target because the enemy has to focus them or die.

It's also Table-top games and fiction.

1 minute ago, Shlambate said:

5E barbarians can go into rage taking half damage, and even make it more difficult for you to hit targets other than themselves that's a different way of tanking than just armor.

5E fighter is more a Tank than you think the Paladin is the highest damage class.

The difference is that they aren't "absorbing" the damage without being hurt . Instead, they get severely injured but use that damage to fuel their strength. That's not being a "tank". A Tank can take hits without suffering damage . In FFG terms, they're the guys with really high Soak values from having a high Brawn and from heavy Armor, or high Defense. A "Barbarian"/"Berserker" type gets hit and loses wounds relatively quickly because of their lack of armor, but in doing so, gets boosts to his attacks or damage (depending on the system). This we have with the Wookiee species' Wookiee Rage ability.

My point is that what you're talking about isn't an archetype "Tank", It's a Berserker, which is a completely different archetype.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's also Table-top games and fiction.

The difference is that they aren't "absorbing" the damage without being hurt . Instead, they get severely injured but use that damage to fuel their strength. That's not being a "tank". A Tank can take hits without suffering damage . In FFG terms, they're the guys with really high Soak values from having a high Brawn and from heavy Armor, or high Defense. A "Barbarian"/"Berserker" type gets hit and loses wounds relatively quickly because of their lack of armor, but in doing so, gets boosts to his attacks or damage (depending on the system). This we have with the Wookiee species' Wookiee Rage ability.

My point is that what you're talking about isn't an archetype "Tank", It's a Berserker, which is a completely different archetype.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone who takes the damage without being hurt and then brings the pain to the enemies. Which is more part of the Warrior archetype if you wanna go with DnD. While the Guardians fit in more with a Paladin.

So no, I'm not talking about Wookiees or their rage ability. While that makes for a great berserker, it doesn't make for a great juggernaut.

19 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone who takes the damage without being hurt and then brings the pain to the enemies. Which is more part of the Warrior archetype if you wanna go with DnD. While the Guardians fit in more with a Paladin.

So no, I'm not talking about Wookiees or their rage ability. While that makes for a great berserker, it doesn't make for a great juggernaut.

Yeah, I get that. My point is that you’re using the wrong terminology. Besides, the Warrior career pretty much already does have that “damage dealer” spec already in the Agreesor. Aggressors are Full on damage-dealing juggernauts that ignore even critical injuries ( Heroic Fortitude talent), and dish out crippling injuries left and right.

30 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yeah, I get that. My point is that you’re using the wrong terminology. Besides, the Warrior career pretty much already does have that “damage dealer” spec already in the Agreesor. Aggressors are Full on damage-dealing juggernauts that ignore even critical injuries ( Heroic Fortitude talent), and dish out crippling injuries left and right.

See I would consider the aggressor as more of a control class. Yes, they have some extra damage but they mostly use disorient and fear to weaken their opponent.

Yes, but they’re also loaded with talents such as Crippling Blow and Prey on the Weak, which specifically either add more damage per attack or inflict strain on top of the wounds the enemy suffers per attack. Add in Heroic Fortitude which allows you to ignore the effects of a critical injury, and Against All Odds, which allows you to take an action to heal wounds even when incapacitated, and you have a archetypal “berserker” combat monster.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, but they’re also loaded with talents such as Crippling Blow and Prey on the Weak, which specifically either add more damage per attack or inflict strain on top of the wounds the enemy suffers per attack. Add in Heroic Fortitude which allows you to ignore the effects of a critical injury, and Against All Odds, which allows you to take an action to heal wounds even when incapacitated, and you have a archetypal “berserker” combat monster.

Which is not a juggernaut style tank. Since that would mean a lot of armour, to soak damage, and a lot of damage output.

8 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Which is not a juggernaut style tank. Since that would mean a lot of armour, to soak damage, and a lot of damage output.

That’s just it, the “tank” and the “juggernaut” are two completely different archetypes . A “Tank” is a defender, pure and simple. A “juggernaut” is an attacker. One is the immovable object, the other is the irresistible force. They’re not the same thing. The Aggressor definitely fits the category of Juggernaut. As stated in the opening passage for the Aggressor:

Quote

The Aggressor relies on fear to intimidate his opposition into surrender or retreat. Aggressors tend to be tough and dangerous combatants, able to dish out brutal damage to anyone who fights them while surviving the same.

That certainly sounds like a Juggernaut to me.

An immovable object = Unstoppable force

thus Tank = Juggernaut

Q.E.D.

10 minutes ago, Shlambate said:

An immovable object = Unstoppable force

thus Tank = Juggernaut

Q.E.D.

Nope. They’re not the same. They are diametrically opposed entities; the “Yin” and “Yang” of combatants. The Juggernaut is an unstoppable force smashing into and demolishing foes. The Tank is the immovable object soaking up everything thrown at it without suffering damage, thereby protecting those in his charge. It’s like matter and antimatter. When they collide, they annihilate each other.

Put a Juggernaut and a Tank together as a team and they’re practically unstoppable.

Quote

"There was a man in Chu who sold shields and halberds. Praising them he said: "My shields are so strong that nothing can pierce them." And praising the halberds he said: "My halberds are so strong that there is nothing that they cannot pierce." A person asked: "What if someone pierces your shields with your halberds?" He could not respond."

The unstoppable force is the halberd, the immovable object is the shield.

1 minute ago, Swordbreaker said:

The unstoppable force is the halberd, the immovable object is the shield.

Exactly. The Juggernaut is the “halberd” of that parable, while the “Tank” is the shield.

Tramp according to physics the immovable object = the unstoppable force. Because its an object that cannot have its acceleration changed. It's just describing the same thing either stationary or in motion.

So using those terms you have told me that Juggernaut = Tank.

1 minute ago, Shlambate said:

Tramp according to physics the immovable object = the unstoppable force. Because its an object that cannot have its acceleration changed. It's just describing the same thing either stationary or in motion.

So using those terms you have told me that Juggernaut = Tank.

He was actually referencing the paradox . It's a bit off-base (as it has nothing to do with the paradox itself), but the juggernaut represents the spear while the tank represents the shield.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yeah  , but in RPG terms, a " Tank " is typically someone who can soak up a lot of damage because of his heavy armor (and/or High damage threshold) in order to protect others. They make themselves walki   ng targets to draw fire away from their allies.

Tramp, you were great with this. I think as the thread "progressed," though, you've been getting more and more narrow in your definition of exactly what a tank is/isn't. Problem is, since no game is 100% alike, there's not going to be a consensus of what a "tank" looks like in non-game-mechanics terms, let alone across different games with varied mechanics. It's more just a concept—and IMO you nailed it with that quoted post there.

6 minutes ago, Shlambate said:

Tramp according to physics the immovable object = the unstoppable force. Because its an object that cannot have its acceleration changed. It's just describing the same thing either stationary or in motion.

So using those terms you have told me that Juggernaut = Tank.

1 minute ago, Swordbreaker said:

He was actually referencing the paradox . It's a bit off-base (as it has nothing to do with the paradox itself), but the juggernaut represents the spear while the tank represents the shield.

Exactly. The Tank is a defender, immovable and unwavering in his defense, absorbing all blows that come his way in order to protect those behind him, whereas the Juggernaut is an attacker, an irresistible battering ram, smashing all opposition in his path. They’re not the same thing.