D&D 5E What class fills the tank role best? Fighter, Barbarian, Cleric or Paladin?

[Pickles III]

I hate to say it, but there isn't a "tanking" capability in 5e. In MMO's, where the real 'concept' of tanking really originated, can have a "tank" because of the mechanics of the computer programming. It's based on "x damage, y defense, z proximity"; all purely numbers based. Intelligent decisions for monsters aren't made...they are simply evaluations of these three (or more) factors, the numbers crunched, and the creatures target selected. There is simply no such thing in an actual table-top RPG like 5e. You can have a uber-tough (high AC, high HP, high Damage) PC and it will not make a lick of difference in a lot of fights (at least as far as "aggro"...drawing off attacks from others) because monsters react in a more "human" way becuase the DM is playing them as he would expect them to act. No computer script compairing numbers to decide. TTRPG's don't generally work that
way.

It's always existed in D&D as the guys who stand at the front & get hit. You always had to use positioning & terrain to cover the lack of mechanical tools but you were still tanking.

You need survivability & the ability to get in the way. Barbarians & Paladins seem most survivable, Barbarians due to the damage mitigation, Paladins due to high AC & healing. Fighters get slightly better "control" if they are battlemasters & more feats as these are where other control abilities come in but they b put a large demand on your reactions.

5e seems worse for this than any earlier editions as your free strikes on people running past you are reactions so you only get one.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

It's always existed in D&D as the guys who stand at the front & get hit. You always had to use positioning & terrain to cover the lack of mechanical tools but you were still tanking.

You need survivability & the ability to get in the way. Barbarians & Paladins seem most survivable, Barbarians due to the damage mitigation, Paladins due to high AC & healing. Fighters get slightly better "control" if they are battlemasters & more feats as these are where other control abilities come in but they b put a large demand on your reactions.

5e seems worse for this than any earlier editions as your free strikes on people running past you are reactions so you only get one.

I'd beg to differ. Defending your party and playing into your classes strengths has always been there. That is, IMHO, completely different than the modern idea of a "tank" class in a TTRPG. Having a good AC and decent HP's is an aspect of the game; some classes have better chances to have higher scores in those...but no class allows for one to consistently and reliably "force others to attack them over some other target". Which is the definition of "tank" that I'm used to. In MMORPG's, being a good "tank" means being able to get and hold aggro. In TTRPG's, you have no way to get and hold aggro (probably because there is no such thing as "aggro"). Ergo, you can't "tank" in 5e.

I can see where you are coming from, however, I just disagree with the interpretation of "tank" a bit.

5e may be seen as worse for this idea from you stand point...and I can see why you may come to that conclusion (more 'lack' of abilities and tactics that force mechanical results "automatically/always"). I see 5e as more like BECMI; being able to "tank" (re: "get/hold aggro") is dependent almost entirely on the player and DM accepting that it can be done by way of "common sense RP'ing". In other words, "You are heavily armored and more threatening than the guy in leather armor next to you, so yeah, it will attack you over him"; no mechanics, no numbers, no rolls... just RP'ing in the common imagination of the groups game.

Taking my last paragraph as a base is why I said to "go with Paladin". The OP mentioned Rage of Demons. Demons hate paladins, one would imagine, so any demon or demonic underling (followers, slaves, etc...not necessarily demons) would likely target the Paladin if at all possible. In the OP's situation, "tanking" would be best accomplished by making a character that demons want to kill over everything else. Paladins.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[cmad1977]

Wizard

 

[Mephista]

Well, I think we should safely avoid the whole argument over what is, or isn't, a tank. That's just a semantics argument - people going to disagree over the definition. Some say that its someone that redirects attacks to themselves, necessitating heavy armor and high HP. Others say its the opposite of a glass cannon or skirmisher style - front line heavy weapon hitter. Given that our OP is talking about the barbarian, I highly suspect that she's talking about the latter definition than the former.

In which case, I think the Bear Barbarian or Berzerker Barbarian are probably the best (honestly I think that Bear is highly overrated). I find that the Barbarian's damage potential is higher than the Battlemaster's and Avenger's. That said, Battlemaster and the pally have far more utility advantages and tricks in combat.

 

[Minsc]

Hiya!

I hate to say it, but there isn't a "tanking" capability in 5e. In MMO's, where the real 'concept' of tanking really originated, can have a "tank" because of the mechanics of the computer programming. It's based on "x damage, y defense, z proximity"; all purely numbers based. Intelligent decisions for monsters aren't made...they are simply evaluations of these three (or more) factors, the numbers crunched, and the creatures target selected. There is simply no such thing in an actual table-top RPG like 5e. You can have a uber-tough (high AC, high HP, high Damage) PC and it will not make a lick of difference in a lot of fights (at least as far as "aggro"...drawing off attacks from others) because monsters react in a more "human" way becuase the DM is playing them as he would expect them to act. No computer script compairing numbers to decide. TTRPG's don't generally work that way.

That said...if you are interested in "protecting others", you're probably good choosing a Paladin or a defensive styled Battlemaster Fighter. As someone mentioned above, a defensive Battlemaster with a shield has the best "defend others" type of abilities. That said, there is still NOTHING stopping the troll from trying to eat the wizards head, even if you are standing next to it. So...you would simply be another target for it to consider, as opposed to you being able to somehow "tank" the troll into attacking you over the wizard.

If I was you, I'd go with Paladin. I mean, fighting demons in the underdark? How can you not want to play a paladin?! Sword, shield, the whole "shining knight" thing. Mmmmm.... Make yourself a desirable target to demons; I mean, any demon worth his salt would love to sink his claws/teeth/whatever into a paladin over pretty much anything else other than a pious cleric...maybe. A DM looking at the situation, say a Defensive Battlemaster or the Wizard ... or ... a Paladin or the Wizard? No contest. Paladin, every time.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I don't think the "tank" concept came from MMO's. I remember saying it when we were playing 2e AD&D and that was before there was an Internet as we know it.

 

[MostlyDm]

Wizard

Some people may assume this is a joke, but it's really not. If you're interested, I've had good luck with a cleric 1/ abjurer X hill dwarf. Heavy armor, shield, shield spell, extra ward HP, damage-on-hit abilities like fire shield all added up to some serious survivability. And warcaster lets you hit people trying to move past you with Hold Person or similar.

Also, my DM was offering a custom cleric domain that included Armor of Agathys, which I've found to be hugely helpful... A high level Agathys with abjurer ward HP as a buffer has been outstanding. Without that I'd probably consider swapping the one level of cleric for a level of warlock... You'll take an AC hit though. May not be worth it in the log run. Not sure which is actually preferable, since it's not a choice I had to make. You could get spammable mage armor via warlock though, which is great for the ward.

Anyway, a wizard tank is an odd beast, but it's been a lot of fun. Hard to disagree with the standbys of battle master, paladin, and barbarian though.

 

[Minsc]

Shoot, sorry for my earlier response. I didn't realize there was a second page and essentially my response had already been posted.

Ooops!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hiya!

I hate to say it, but there isn't a "tanking" capability in 5e. In MMO's, where the real 'concept' of tanking really originated, can have a "tank" because of the mechanics of the computer programming. It's based on "x damage, y defense, z proximity"; all purely numbers based. Intelligent decisions for monsters aren't made...they are simply evaluations of these three (or more) factors, the numbers crunched, and the creatures target selected. There is simply no such thing in an actual table-top RPG like 5e.

Really, the aggro thing was just an implementation of how many old-school DMs tended to run things. It was very common to have a fight in a corridor or small room where the fighters in the party formed a de-facto front line or 'wall' or to have monsters attack the 'biggest' or 'most dangerous looking' (ignoring the threat of spellcasting entirely) PC. It was one of those conventions that defied logic, but kept the game playable and more fun than it might otherwise have been. Translating D&D style combats got us aggro formulas for 'AI's.

So, yeah, 'tank' or 'meat shield' or whatever was a D&D thing long before MMOs. In 5e, as in classic D&D, the primary implementer of it is not the player choosing to 'tank,' but the DM. That's just how 5e works down to it's most basic resolution. The players decide what to do, the DM decides how it works out for them. So, if you want to 'Tank' and aggressively engage enemies and protect allies, you just do. You shout challenges, charge (move/attack) melee types, position yourself between enemies and allies and generally declare Tanking actions. The DM, if he's a good sport, will have the monsters attack you more often than not.

The mechanical support for that is just strong melee offense & conventional defense. High DPR, high AC, high hps. Barbarians work fine, Fighters of any stripe, and Paladins (who can also heal allies, which is a plus). You can get fancy with a Battlemaster fighter (and find yourself wishing you had more Reactions), but it's still up to your DM whether those tricks deliver any real 'aggro.' It's not like 4e where you have strong Role support for Defenders, since 5e eschews the concept of roles, and it's not like 3.5 where you could apply system mastery to create a complicated, but effective, battlefield-control build. This ball is mostly going to be in the DM's court.

If I was you, I'd go with Paladin. I mean, fighting demons in the underdark? How can you not want to play a paladin?! Sword, shield, the whole "shining knight" thing. Mmmmm.... Make yourself a desirable target to demons; I mean, any demon worth his salt would love to sink his claws/teeth/whatever into a paladin over pretty much anything else other than a pious cleric...maybe. A DM looking at the situation, say a Defensive Battlemaster or the Wizard ... or ... a Paladin or the Wizard? No contest. Paladin, every time.

Heh, prettymuch, yeah. Depends on the DM, but let's pick on the Paladin is not uncommon.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm going to be starting an Out of the Abyss campaign next week, and this group plays by the books.

27 point buy, starting at level 1.

I want to build a tank, somebody who can both dish out damage and draw the attacks away from the other PCs, who are much squishier than I plan on being.

Which class works best?

At level 1?

Any class with heavy armor + be a human + take the Sentinel feat.

Had a fighter with that in my LMoP campaign who was amazingly effective at drawing attacks. The enemies would at first trigger his OA's by attacking squishier party members within his reach. Once one of 'em was punished for it, they'd try to take him out first...but thanks to his high AC, they weren't greatly effective at that approach. The only way they could avoid his vortex of destruction was by massive numbers (which was more about sacrificing one of the mooks) and going at range (which he could typically close pretty quickly).

He tanked a group of about 4 ghouls because even after he was paralyzed, his AC was so high they had trouble hitting him with Advantage.

 

[Lidgar]

Chalk me up for Barbarian. Especially after 3rd level, they have incredible staying power. Really hard to bring down, assuming you are not encountering too many magical/energy attacks.