Muon_Neutrino

Oops. I don't know what I was thinking here, somehow I saw 'willpower' and thought 'invul'. Regardless, you still have some S/L/E/N def to start with in heightened senses, so stacking on top of that is a good idea.

As for what to aim for, I find that about 20-25% is where it starts to make a real difference when layered on top of other mitigation. You should be able to get there between smashing haymakers (like kinetic combat but doesn't cost a bazillion inf), reactive armors, weave, and a steadfast 3%.

Well, it is true that with enough time and money invested a brute's tanking ability can be near that of an actual tank's. However, no amount of investment (assuming equal investment on the part of the tank) will allow the brute to erase the tank's HP advantage, or change the fact that the tank will have 45% S/L resistance compared to the brute's 33%. And no investment of influence can give the brute the tank's inherent splashing taunt on melee attacks. So no matter what, the tank will have more HP, more resistance, and better taunting abilities - just as a tank isn't going to match a brute's damage (though it can try), the brute won't match the tank's resilience (though again, it can try).

And while at the very top end of IO builds the differences narrow, getting there is a prospect whose cost shouldn't be overlooked. A tank only needs about 10% extra defense to hit 50% (leaving a healthy 5% buffer against debuffs), while a brute needs 20%, and the cost of IO builds is most emphatically *not* linear. Getting 20% defense is going to be much more than twice as expensive as getting 10%, because you start having to slot more and more expensive sets when you run out of 'cheap' options.

For example, my shield/mace gets her extra 10% defense from four sources. The first is a steadfast 3% defense in true grit, which, while not peanuts, isn't *that* expensive (and can be gotten for only 75 merits, to boot). Next, she has the dirt cheap multistrike set in all 4 AoEs, for an extra (1.875% * 4) = 7.5% defense to melee and AoE attacks. In weave and battle agility I have full sets of red fortune, which were also reasonably cheap and give me 5% ranged defense. Finally, I have 3 pieces of reactive armor in deflection, tough, and one with the shield for (.625 * 3) = 1.875% more ranged defense, leaving me near 50% to all three positions.

This represents a total investment of perhaps 10 million influence, because I was able to fulfill my needs with the low-hanging fruit of reasonably cheap sets (and I was patient enough to avoid the 'buy-it-nao' tax). At this point, though, I've more or less exhausted the possibilities for defense bonuses that are both cheap and still give good enhancement values. If I wanted 20% defense instead, I'd have to either start slotting sets where some of the individual pieces can cost as much as my entire outlay so far, slot some powers with sets that would be more or less useless for their actual purpose, or both. If I wanted 20% defense, I'd guess that I'd spend more than 100 million if I also wanted to actually enhance my powers well.

Finally, keep in mind the particular sets you're using. Shields and super strength both rely heavily on damage buffs, which are in general more noticeable on a tank - they multiply a slightly larger base number, and they're not diluted by the effects of fury. Also, shield charge is better for tanks than for brutes. A shield/SS tank may still be inferior offensively to a SS/shield brute, but the tank is no slouch.

This I could get behind. As it is, godmodes just make it tedious - if they're pushed to the point where they had to use the godmode, you were probably winning already, so the godmode is just gonna drag things out. But if they were weaker defensively, didn't last as long, but buffed their offense, it'd actually be interesting.