Can you get by without a TANK? Or who us gonna fill in?

[djreynolds]

Is rouge shifty enough to keep the BBG busy?
How long can the wizard hold out?

Your tank is dead and you said forget the cleric we don't need him. Just for fun

[Giant2005]

Rogues are as tanky as the best of them. If he is still going, then there shouldn't be much of an issue. Also, kiting is a valid albeit boring strategy that works just fine.

[ProphetSword]

My group has a cleric, wizard, warlock and bard. The closest they have to a tank is the cleric. They do fine without a real tank.

[djreynolds]

My group has a cleric, wizard, warlock and bard. The closest they have to a tank is the cleric. They do fine without a real tank.

That's a cool lineup. Must be fun combination.

[Ashrym]

It kind of depends on how a person defines a tank.

Light armor and high DEX gets to a decent AC and uncanny dodge mitigate damage but rogues can really make kiting or hit-and-run tactics work well.

Any class that has medium armor and shield with a +2 DEX bonus hits almost the same DC so there are several options. Just filling in can be done by a monk spending ki on dodge as a bonus action. Just playing a party of mountain dwarves and picking up heavy armor at 4th level gives a group of tin cans.

I believe no particular class or role is required, so what did you specifically have in mind.

[Suichimo]

There isn't really tanking in D&D outside of 4e. All we've really got are health sponges. But to answee the question, yeah you can do just fine.

[Naanomi]

The game seems to work if you throw together almost any four characters that are well build on their own; I'm hard pressed to think of a party of four individually effective characters that wouldn't function at least passably in most adventures... A team of berserkers who all dumped every mental stat might be tough I guess

[ImSAMazing]

Is rouge shifty enough to keep the BBG busy?
How long can the wizard hold out?

Your tank is dead and you said forget the cleric we don't need him. Just for fun

Well, a Rogue is most of the time next to the BBG. A wizard will never stand next to the BBG, and with the Rogue's halve damage, a Rogue can be a good tank.

[Slipperychicken]

My group has a cleric, wizard, warlock and bard. The closest they have to a tank is the cleric. They do fine without a real tank.

I think Clerics are real tanks. They can get their AC up just like a frontliner, and a d8 HD gives them plenty of health. Not to mention they can use their healing on themselves too. Valor bards can be about as tanky as clerics, as can warlocks who take moderately armored.

[TrollCapAmerica]

There isn't really tanking in D&D outside of 4e. All we've really got are health sponges. But to answee the question, yeah you can do just fine.

This

D&D isnt a MMORP you dont have tanks strikers supports etc.

You can do just fine without hitting a taunt button every 8 seconds

[Slipperychicken]

This

D&D isnt a MMORP you dont have tanks strikers supports etc.

You can do just fine without hitting a taunt button every 8 seconds

Isn't that what melee attacks are?

[ThermalSlapShot]

There isn't really tanking in D&D outside of 4e. All we've really got are health sponges. But to answee the question, yeah you can do just fine.

Tell that to my Crusader, Knight, or Marshal from 3.5.

[darkscizor]

My group has a cleric, wizard, warlock and bard. The closest they have to a tank is the cleric. They do fine without a real tank.

One antimagic field and your group is helpless. How has your DM not killed you all by now?

[Ashrym]

One antimagic field and your group is helpless. How has your DM not killed you all by now?

Probably because it's an interactive game and not a DM vs Players issue.

I also suspect they haven't fought many 15th+ level wizards/clerics or 18th+ level bards yet.

Antimagic field is only possible with 3 classes, at very high levels, has 10 ft radius centered on the caster and moves with him, and prevents the spell caster from casting any spells. It's a defensive and situational choice that restricts the person using it more than the enemies it's protecting against because they can cast spells on themselves simply by being more than 10 feet away from the spell caster who made the field.

The other options like antimagic zones and beholders, but zones are rare (usually plot devices too) and beholders prevent their own other eyes by using the central eye. Often it's a case of moving out of the cone to cast.

I would also point out that bards and clerics have some combat ability without spells, more with a melee domain or valor bard, and the warlock could be a blade pact warlock working on a melee build too. Antimagic could be less effective depending on the party.

Am I just reading your comment as more serious than intended?

[Swordprince]

I'm a level 4 Human Paladin currently, and have an AC of 22 with Shield of Faith, full plate and a shield. I kind of act as the "tank" for the group since the DM seems to roll pretty lucky on monster attacks. Despite an AC of 22 and Max HP of 40 at level 4 (26 HP at level 3 - 14 CON atm with the Resilient feat for CON, my CON was at 13 at level 3), my DM still manages to get me close to death with just 2 crits.

At level 2, with an AC of 20 (Chain Mail, shield, Shield of Faith) and 20 points of Max HP, a Mimic dealt 19 points of damage on a critical hit, leaving me with just 1 HP, and thus almost kills me.

At level 3, fighting against group CR 1 scouts, with a Max Hp of 26 and an AC of 22 (Plate Mail, shield, Shield of Faith), I was dealt 2 critical hits in a row, and was brought from 26 Max HP to only 3 HP.

At level 4, with a Max HP of 40 (increased my CON from 13 to 14 with the Resilient Feat, and rolled maximum HP on my d10) and an AC of 22 (again Plate Mail, shield, Shield of Faith active), the DM rolls 2 critical hits in a row once more, and brings me from 40 Max HP to only 4 HP, again almost killing me.

The point is, maybe you need a tank, and maybe you don't :P It really depends on your DM as well. Just for the sake of comparison, if any of my other team members had taken this kind of damage instead of me, 80% of the time, someone would be at 0 HP. We have an Orc Fighter/Rogue in our group, and he was already forced to use his racial ability (the one that allows him to remain at 1 HP if an attack would otherwise reduce him to 0 HP) at least three times during the campaign. Our Warlock found himself at the brink of death at least once if I remember well.

Also for the sake of comparison, my Max HP is above average. A Paladin with a 14 CON, at level 4, would have an average Max HP of 36. In other words, the Troll I talked about earlier would have killed me in one round despite a high Max HP and 22 AC. At level 2, with my 13 CON, my average Max HP would be 18 - in the fight against the Mimic, which we had at level 2, the Mimic would have killed me in one hit despite a high average Max HP and an AC of 22. The point is, my Max HP is above average for every level, and my AC is through the roof, and I still find myself on the brink of death in pretty much every fight so far xD I'm not complaining though, the campaign is really fun because of it, but my point is, I'm glad to be playing a Paladin xD I envisioned using my Lay on Hands to help people and heal them during combat, but for now it seems I'm only using it on myself. Still, better me than the rest of the group.

Keep in mind that a couple of lucky critical hits can either bring your HP dangerously low, or even outright kill you if your HP is below average. From my experience, my AC of 22 does not seem to matter much in fights - a 20 always hits, and deals very high damage, so in such cases, AC is not a factor. It's the crits that you're gonna be feeling most of the time, not the hits that deal regular damage. Keep in mind that the group has designated me as the main front liner, which is also why I am the one taking most of the hits (or misses, if you will). Most of the attacks are directed at me, so statistically speaking, if 5 out of 10 attacks are directed at me (and the other 5 directed and divided among the other 3 group members) , it does make sense that I find myself at low HP very often - it's not that 40 Max HP and 22 AC is useless, it's just that most attacks are directed at you, so you have to take a lot of damage one way or the other. Any other group member subjected to this kind of treatment would die very easily.

Anyway, that's my experience as far as being a "tank" :)

[PoeticDwarf]

Tio give simple answer. Yes, you can. In this case a rogue is tanky enough and the wizard can with a high stealth join de rogue and sneak around with (greater) invis.

[-Jynx-]

You can do just fine without hitting a taunt button every 8 seconds

Swashbuckler disagrees with you, and uses Panache. Make a Wisdom [insight] check.

[KorvinStarmast]

experience, my AC of 22 does not seem to matter much in fights - a 20 always hits, and deals very high damage, so in such cases, AC is not a factor. It's the crits that you're gonna be feeling most of the time, not the hits that deal regular damageThe Crit mechanic is one of the things that makes melee combat swingy. Finding ways to get the other side to attack at disadvantage is the key to keeping crits to a minimum.

[Gwendol]

Monks: hit like a brick, kite like no-one else, and good abilities to deny enemy actions.

[Auramis]

Tell that to my Crusader, Knight, or Marshal from 3.5.

All fantastic classes in my opinion (even if Knight and Marshal weren't the best classes), if my signature didn't make it obvious.

That said, "tanking" in D&D is more about battlefield and enemy control than tanking in the "taunting/aggro" sense. With that in mind and with the lack of those dedicated tank classes* in 5e, anything could be a tank. Those classes just fit it better because of their health pools and armor class. A wizard could have fulfilled a similar job if he's left alone, especially if he's able to shield himself. It's no where near the same flavor, but it can get the job done.

While I'd love to see a dedicated knight or crusader come back as a fighter archtype, I think, for the most part, those classes were rolled into the plate wearers of 5e. Paladins are aura carriers now, Battlemasters have maneuvers that allow them to tank, feats can pick up the remaining pieces that are missing. Homebrew can fix whatever's missing, I think.

*I wouldn't call the Marshal a tank. It has a load of auras of which he/she can only have 2 active at a time (3 with Draconic Aura, I think) and the ability to allow allies to move out of turn. The D8 HD and the Medium Armor isn't that bad, but it needs more than just those few features. It's a cool idea, but it's not really a tank because it offers no real enemy/field control. Feel free to message me if you wanna talk about them, though (to avoid derailing the thread)! I love those 3.5 classes.

[Swordprince]

The Crit mechanic is one of the things that makes melee combat swingy. Finding ways to get the other side to attack at disadvantage is the key to keeping crits to a minimum.

Yeah, I could use something like that it seems haha xD

[SharkForce]

Yeah, I could use something like that it seems haha xD

alternately adamantine armour.

[KorvinStarmast]

alternately adamantine armour. Amazon seems to respond with "it's on backorder." :smalltongue:

[ThermalSlapShot]

All fantastic classes in my opinion (even if Knight and Marshal weren't the best classes), if my signature didn't make it obvious.

That said, "tanking" in D&D is more about battlefield and enemy control than tanking in the "taunting/aggro" sense. With that in mind and with the lack of those dedicated tank classes* in 5e, anything could be a tank. Those classes just fit it better because of their health pools and armor class. A wizard could have fulfilled a similar job if he's left alone, especially if he's able to shield himself. It's no where near the same flavor, but it can get the job done.

While I'd love to see a dedicated knight or crusader come back as a fighter archtype, I think, for the most part, those classes were rolled into the plate wearers of 5e. Paladins are aura carriers now, Battlemasters have maneuvers that allow them to tank, feats can pick up the remaining pieces that are missing. Homebrew can fix whatever's missing, I think.

*I wouldn't call the Marshal a tank. It has a load of auras of which he/she can only have 2 active at a time (3 with Draconic Aura, I think) and the ability to allow allies to move out of turn. The D8 HD and the Medium Armor isn't that bad, but it needs more than just those few features. It's a cool idea, but it's not really a tank because it offers no real enemy/field control. Feel free to message me if you wanna talk about them, though (to avoid derailing the thread)! I love those 3.5 classes.

The marshal was in a lot of MC tank and Intimidate-Tank builds that I saw back when my area played a lot of 3e.

It was weird when I first saw it, but after playing one, it worked great (relatively speaking of course, tier 4 or tier 3 depending on the build).

Anyways, the idea that 4e had the only tanks in wotc D&D is absurd.

One of the things I would really like to see is more martial controllers in 5e. The three types of class should really be Leader, Controller, and Striker as defending can be placed in one of the other class types.

[Person_Man]

Spellcasters can Animate or Conjure things to stand between you and enemies.

Ambushes can be extremely deadly, and quickly end combat.

Scouts can ambush and then run away, sometimes kiting enemies, sometimes leading enemies through traps, and/or to a rally point ambush set up by your allies.

Lots of classes have retreat buttons. Invisibility, teleportation, Cunning Action, etc. If you're losing, leave and fight another day. The enemy isn't going to "respawn." D&D isn't a video game, and players shouldn't treat combat like it is.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Spellcasters can Animate or Conjure things to stand between you and enemies.

Ambushes can be extremely deadly, and quickly end combat.

Scouts can ambush and then run away, sometimes kiting enemies, sometimes leading enemies through traps, and/or to a rally point ambush set up by your allies.

Lots of classes have retreat buttons. Invisibility, teleportation, Cunning Action, etc. If you're losing, leave and fight another day. The enemy isn't going to "respawn." D&D isn't a video game, and players shouldn't treat combat like it is.

The problem comes with the idea that the only way to progress the story is by winning the fight straight up and that there is always a way to win.

People are almost trained to think that way due to a lot of table top rpgs, videos games, and movies.

The biggest part of this is movies, not because it would make for bad plot, but becuase people.won't want to watch the same thing three times in one sitting. Like in the Two Towers movie, could you imagine if the invading forces said "oh crap we aren't winning, pull back and we will try again in a few hours when the humans are a bit more tired". People would freak out lol.

We (genral populace) have been raised on action movies and videogames and in action movies there is only the straight line. Even in splinter cell games, you may be able to do your mission three ways, but you are always doing it along the same path.

I think it is less about the worry of " respawning" and more about the mental conditioning of "CHAAAAARGE".

[Person_Man]

The problem comes with the idea that the only way to progress the story is by winning the fight straight up and that there is always a way to win.

People are almost trained to think that way due to a lot of table top rpgs, videos games, and movies.

The biggest part of this is movies, not because it would make for bad plot, but becuase people.won't want to watch the same thing three times in one sitting. Like in the Two Towers movie, could you imagine if the invading forces said "oh crap we aren't winning, pull back and we will try again in a few hours when the humans are a bit more tired". People would freak out lol.

We (genral populace) have been raised on action movies and videogames and in action movies there is only the straight line. Even in splinter cell games, you may be able to do your mission three ways, but you are always doing it along the same path.

I think it is less about the worry of " respawning" and more about the mental conditioning of "CHAAAAARGE".

I think your observations are correct, but unfortunate. But I specifically address this issue when I DM by telling PCs that I will not railroad them into any specific situation or outcome, not all enemies are beatable, and that its up to them to assess the situation and choose how to react. Rarely it does lead to TPK. But overall it leads to a much more organic and enjoyable game experience that you can't duplicate by playing a video game or reading a book or watching a movie.

[Gwendol]

I think your observations are correct, but unfortunate. But I specifically address this issue when I DM by telling PCs that I will not railroad them into any specific situation or outcome, not all enemies are beatable, and that its up to them to assess the situation and choose how to react. Rarely it does lead to TPK. But overall it leads to a much more organic and enjoyable game experience that you can't duplicate by playing a video game or reading a book or watching a movie.

So very true. I have adopted a similar approach.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think your observations are correct, but unfortunate. But I specifically address this issue when I DM by telling PCs that I will not railroad them into any specific situation or outcome, not all enemies are beatable, and that its up to them to assess the situation and choose how to react. Rarely it does lead to TPK. But overall it leads to a much more organic and enjoyable game experience that you can't duplicate by playing a video game or reading a book or watching a movie.

Very unfortunate.

I also fix this issue when I DM or at the very least attempt to fix it.

Player death usually comes from the players doing something incredibly stupid/ignorant where there is no other option than to have their PC die.

[Auramis]

The marshal was in a lot of MC tank and Intimidate-Tank builds that I saw back when my area played a lot of 3e.

It was weird when I first saw it, but after playing one, it worked great (relatively speaking of course, tier 4 or tier 3 depending on the build).

Anyways, the idea that 4e had the only tanks in wotc D&D is absurd.

One of the things I would really like to see is more martial controllers in 5e. The three types of class should really be Leader, Controller, and Striker as defending can be placed in one of the other class types.

I was speaking only from a 3.5 and 5e perspective. I hope I didn't give the impression of agreeing 4e was the only D&D to have tanks. I agree that the Crusader and Knight were, indeed, very much tanks. My input was just that the tools to be a tank are shared across more than just what people would expect to be a tank in a party.

Would you like to see feats for those roles to customize classes like the fighter (Battlemaster mostly, I'd think) or the paladin, or do you want another class entirely?

[ThermalSlapShot]

I was speaking only from a 3.5 and 5e perspective. I hope I didn't give the impression of agreeing 4e was the only D&D to have tanks. I agree taht the Crusader and Knight were, indeed, very much tanks. My input was just that the tools to be a tank are shared across more than just what people would expect to be a tank in a party.

Would you like to see feats for those roles to customize classes like the fighter (Battlemaster mostly, I'd think) or the paladin, or do you want another class entirely?

The Crusader, Knight, and Marshal could be martial archetypes but the Fighter is built so wonky compared to other martials that it would be a shame to continue on with the class.

In all honesty I would like to see the Fighter redesigned to work more like others. Extra attack once and then give them a way to boost their damage, maybe call it power attack, and then class features within their class and not just their archetypes. Perhaps have their extra damage work off from a mechanic like 13th Age or like the Rogue.

At-will but with conditions. I'm working on a 13th Age Fighter that uses escalation die to use their abilities.

So with what we have now I would say to just make a new class called "The Soldier" with class features that push the PC into being a tank. Then make archetypes like the Crusader (spell-less paladin Striker), Knight (spell less paladin Leader), Marshall (rogue like controller), and Warden (druid/barbatian like controller).

[djreynolds]

Perfect posts. I just use your ideas and then look awesome. No just kidding. My comrades forget about "attrition", just wearing out the BBG and then attacking. They forget teamwork. A wizard can tank as well as anybody. My guys forget that. Thanks