Misused (new crowner 12/2/13): Necessary Drawback

I'll add that "Weakling" is a poor choice for the title as it connotes frailty.

Upvoted Durable Weakling. Weakling by itself has connotations of frailty, yes, but when it's specifically described as "durable" I don't think that's an issue. On the other hand, I'm downvoting anything that uses "tank", "guardian", "defender", etc, since those are jobs, not character descriptions. Not all every tank is a Stone Wall, and not every Stone Wall is a tank, so using that terminology in the the title is just inviting misuse.

But... by your own logic, wouldn't a Toothless/Harmless/descriptor implying it can't do damage Tank be fitting?

I don't see how that works. I can't recall seeing "weakling" used in that sense before. I don't think any other page on the wiki uses it that way either. I think it's just literally not what the word means.

I mean, actual dictionary definition:

Stone Walls are definitely not liable to yield or break under pressure, it's pretty rare for them to lack health and vigor, and efficacy doesn't matter—they can be effective or ineffective and still qualify. That rules out 1, 2, and 4; 3 and 5 are inapplicable.

As far as I can tell Durable Weakling is more of an oxymoron than a clarification. Sounds more like a Not So Weak thing where Muscles Are Meaningless. Or maybe a subset of this trope for when it leads to Crippling Overspecialization. Is there something I'm missing where it could possibly describe this trope?

edited 22nd Oct '13 7:10:32 PM by troacctid

A couple more name suggestions:

Sturdy Scratcher, All Block No Bite

edited 22nd Oct '13 3:16:56 PM by MrL1193

Check your definition again:

Weak adjective, weak·er, weak·est. not strong; liable to yield, break, or collapse under pressure or strain; fragile; frail: a weak fortress; a weak spot in armor. lacking in bodily strength or healthy vigor, as from age or sickness; feeble; infirm: a weak old man; weak eyes. not having much political strength, governing power, or authority: a weak nation; a weak ruler. lacking in force, potency, or efficacy; impotent, ineffectual, or inadequate: weak sunlight; a weak wind. lacking in rhetorical or creative force or effectiveness: a weak reply to the charges; one of the author's weakest novels.

So "weakling" can mean "not much strength, power, or efficacy" or it can mean "not much durability," or both. The adjective "durable" makes it obvious that the latter does not apply, Ipso facto, bing bang boom, durability without strength.

@Larkmarn:

The objection to "tank" isn't that it implies offense. It's that it's a physical object that calls up literal interpretations of the name that we want to avoid. And also that, as a gaming term, it describes a role, not the attributes of the character performing that role. And that role also typically involves 1.) a team setting and 2.) some ability to draw aggro, neither of which are part of this trope.

Any way you look at it, "Tank" brings baggage we don't need.

edited 22nd Oct '13 4:50:27 PM by hbi2k

All Block No Bite is catchy. Could be awkward that it doesn't sound like a character type, though, so I'm hesitant. Should we be worried about that? (Snap-redirected, btw.)

edited 22nd Oct '13 7:20:48 PM by troacctid

I've WikiWorded all the name suggestions.

All Block No Bite is clear and descriptive, I'll give it that. I think ideally we want something that works as a noun, though. All of the other tropes in the family can be easily used in a sentence. "That Fragile Speedster better dodge like crazy or else the Glass Cannon will take him down in one shot." You can't do that with All Block No Bite. "That All Block No Bite will take forever to take down the Mighty Glacier." Doesn't work, at least not without awkward constructions like "That All Block No Bite guy...."

There are worse choices, but I still prefer Durable Weakling.

I'm getting all up in my thesaurus trying to find a synonym for "weakling" that doesn't denote fragility in any context (still think that objection is overblown, but whatever). Not finding much in the way of nouns.

The alternative is to find a noun that denotes durability and an adjective that denotes lack of power. The problem with that is that most adjectives that denote lack of power also carry a connotation of being generally ineffectual, so something like "Powerless Defender" doesn't work because it makes it sound like a character that sucks at defense, the opposite of this trope.

Something like "Impotent Iron" maybe? Adding that one to the crowner. Other suggestions along those lines welcome.

edited 23rd Oct '13 8:44:08 AM by hbi2k

A wick check or example list somewhere should have been on page one or at least before the first four pages. Secondly, every example on Pokemon's generation three family page still has more defense than offense. That one is especially glaring because most of the examples are somewhat in depth in explanation yet still got put under "high defense only".

If I cannot steer anyone away from the rename then I can at least suggest to simply go with damage sponge, because that is the real life term and its imagery is pretty easy grasp. There is also nothing wrong with just calling it Stronger Defenses Than Offenses if the names is supposedly giving misconceptions. The whole competitive balance index-Speed Over Defense, Defense Over Speed. Offenses Stronger Than Defenses, Balanced Stats All Around, High Stats All Around, why not keep it simple?

All Block No Bite may not be all that good as a noun, but it's really catchy, and it shouldn't take that much creativity to word a description to use it properly.

No title should be too hard to write a description for, no matter how big or wordy it is.

The only concerns over a trope name are accuracy, understandability and likely hood to show up on search engines.

edited 23rd Oct '13 10:37:30 AM by Cider

I mis-spoke; I meant in use in a sentence referring to the trope, not the actual trope description.

Hmm, Sturdy Scratcher might work. Scratch Damage has always been pretty intuitive, so it couldn't be too unclear. Not very searchable, but we have redirects.

Two problems with Sturdy Scratcher: the "scratcher" part really only makes sense in reference to the term Scratch Damage. Someone unfamiliar with that term (or who just doesn't realize that that term is being referenced) might imagine some kind of cat, or an adamantium backscratcher or something. And second, even when interpreted correctly, it implies that it CAN do damage, it's just that the damage is negligible, and at least some examples have no offense whatsoever (like Wall creatures in Magic: The Gathering).

edited 23rd Oct '13 4:22:00 PM by hbi2k

I don't like All Block And No Bite because I view "blocking" and "durability" as two different things.

How about Forceless Armor and Toothless Armor to replace the two proposed "Defender" names? Could "Ironclad" work?

edited 23rd Oct '13 5:30:08 PM by shiro_okami

The metonymy in "armor" seems easy to confuse for actual armor, since we have tropes for that too. (Power Armor, Instant Armor, Armor of Invincibility, etc.)

edited 23rd Oct '13 5:30:33 PM by troacctid

OK, I see your point. How about Forceless Ironclad or Toothless Ironclad?

edited 23rd Oct '13 5:31:46 PM by shiro_okami

I think that "Ironclad" has most of the same problems as "Armor"; the "-clad" suffix makes it sound like something the character is wearing, which may or may not be the case. Or alternately, it could bring up associations with an ironclad warship, which is as likely to be a Mighty Glacier or Lightning Bruiser as this trope.

What about just Toothless Iron? Brings up associations with Made of Iron but doesn't preclude the possibility that the iron may be worn. It's obviously non-literal like Glass Cannon is, so we don't have to worry about tropers forming an inaccurate mental image.

edited 24th Oct '13 10:21:40 AM by hbi2k

To be honest, I really did associate that literally when I first read it. "Iron" on its own sounds to me more like a thing than a character, be it some strange raw material or a device used to get the wrinkles out of clothes. I do agree with the point about "Ironclad," though.

Also, I'm not sure I like the adjective "Toothless," because to me, it's more indicative of something that appears intimidating but is actually powerless (like a toothless tiger), as opposed to simply having poor offensive power.

edited 24th Oct '13 1:44:31 PM by MrL1193

Does it need a two part "good defense" "poor offense" name or could it just be purely about defense like Great Shield or Guarded Warrior or Dentless Defender such that there's so much emphasis on defense it naturally implies that offenses aren't important.

edited 26th Oct '13 6:29:52 PM by acrobox

I think Toothless Iron or Forceless Iron actually might work.

A two part name makes the Necessary Drawback part of the trope name, and it is consistent since Glass Cannon is also like that.

edited 26th Oct '13 6:34:44 PM by shiro_okami

Swordless Shielder

@471 — No, but it is preferred. A name should not get voted down because it doesn't fit the existing pattern, only if the name doesn't help the visitor to understand the trope.

The problem I'm seeing with Toothless Iron is that iron, as a metal, needs to be qualified with a quantitative noun. (For instance, a chunk of iron, or a scrap of iron.) If you try to use it without a quantitative noun ("That Toothless Iron will take forever to take down the Mighty Glacier"), the only natural association is that device that commonly goes with an ironing board, which is entirely the wrong idea. Using the adjective "Forceless" would just make it even more awkward.