Is the Bear barb the only tank?

[poolio]

No anyone who's played even a few games can tell you just how good of a damage sponge the Barbarian is, especially with the bear totem, but after playing an Eldritch knight for a couple games i got curious,

Now when i first started to build my EK i was expecting something a little more blasty stabby, but i quickly learned that his best feature is that he can cast shield, boosting an already pretty good ac, and as a front line guy that's been really useful,

So i started to wonder just how long he could stand shoulder to shoulder with a Bear-barian, on the front soaking up attacks?

I figured I'd probably give him Heavy armor master asap, not nearly as good as resistance from raging but it's something :smalltongue: lol

So I'm just wondering if any of you fine folks could help me expand on this type of build? Maybe some life claric levels to help replenish lost health, something the barb can't do, not without dipping a few levels himself at least,

So, any ideas? :smallsmile:

[PeteNutButter]

Lots of classes can make very effective tanks. The barbarian is an obvious choice. Anything with shield spell and a decent AC, can tank as long as they have slots. Plate and a shield and warcaster with shield spell is 25 AC, 26 with fighting style. This is part of what makes paladin/sorcerer so successful. It isn't squishy.

HAM might not be the best choice, as if you get your AC so high, a good percentage of hits that land will be crits, meaning -3 damage on a crit isn't helping as much. Otherwise you'll lose most hit points on dex save effects, and other AoE. In many ways its not requiring healing, makes it a better tank than the barb.

Best thing to do would be to multiclass into a full caster after probably level 6, so you have enough slots to keep casting shield. Sorcerer is an obvious choice for it's ability to quicken, but a life cleric's healing words are good. You are on the right track.

[JumboWheat01]

I like to think of the Oath of the Crown paladin as the tank, because it has agro managing abilities that make something more likely to focus its attention on it. All the durability in the world doesn't really mean much if the enemies ignore you and go after something else.

As for the Eldritch Knight, well, your spell list has a requirement to focus primarily on Abjuration and Evocation spells, just ditch the Evocation part for the most part and focus on Abjurations. Maybe consider taking a few levels in Wizard and snag that Abjurer archetype, get yourself some free damage reducing shields.

[Ruslan]

Paladin 6/Sorcerer 14 is my favourite.
Enough spell slots to both Smite to your heart's content and spam Shield, excellent saves, and heavy armor (with HAM optional).

[CaptainSarathai]

Warlock. The answer to any "should I multiclass" question is always Warlock. Their best stuff is all front-loaded.

You're already kinda MAD with an EK, so MCing anything will be tough. But if you wanna tank:
2-4 levels of Fiend Patron Warlock

2 levels would get you:
2+Cha temp HP on each kill
Invocation for At Will False Life
Invocation for At Will Mage Armor
2, 1st level slots per Short Rest to cast:
Armor of Agathys for TempHP and Damage
Hex, for more damage per hit

Going to 3rd improves your slots to 2nd level and gives your Pact. I'd go Tome.
That's 3 cantrips from any list. With an Invocation you pick up Ritual Casting and learn two 1st level rituals. Want a familiar like a "real wizard"?
4th keeps your ASIs on track, another Cantrips, and another spell.

[Malifice]

I second Warlock. Fiendlock is a very underrated tank build.

Also; Moon Druid. Its the core schtick of the class. Even better than Barbarian, and can do it all day long (2/ short rest instead of 3-4/ long rest).

Dip Barb for the win.

[Tanarii]

Tanking is about two things: keeping enemies focused on you instead of your allies, and being able to survive that focus. If you concentrate solely on survival, enemies will just go for your weaker allies, unless you give them good reason not too. That's why Barbarians are good at it. Reckless makes them juicy targets, but Rage resistance and high HPs mean they can take more of a beating.

For a Fighter, you usually either need to make yourself really dangerous, or focus on some control. Or get your allies to back you up with their tactics when it comes to control.

Do you have access to feats? Sentinel and Sheild master (if you use S&B) are good tank feats in terms of control.

What fighting style? It's generally considered sub-par, but Protection is the 'keep enemies off your allies' fighting style.

For spells:
booming blade makes it harder for enemies to get away from you. It also synergies well with War Magic.
shocking grasp lets your allies escape an enemy that's adjacent to them.
Blade ward gives you resistance in sticky situations, and you can still attack once when you get war magic.
Ray of frost slows enemies.
Thunderwave shoves enemies away from your allies.
Fog cloud protects from missile fire.
Grease creates difficult terrain and knocks enemies prone.
Gust of Wind shoves enemies away from allies and possibly keeps them away.

[ruy343]

I have seen a number of successful tank builds, but one that stands out in my mind from recent DMing is the cleric of Thor who took on Strahd. He was able to cast Protection from Good and Evil and run around with an AC of 18 (Chainmail + Shield - we don't give out a lot of magic items at my table). Not only was he a good meat shield for the party, but he could also dish out the pain with Guardian Spirits, which made engaging him in combat particularly painful, while he just sat there and took the hits.

[RickAllison]

Can't go much better for a tank than Long Death Monk, especially at higher levels. Matches Barb for AC, has crowd control to block masses of enemies out, can get more HP from downing people, and eventually simply shuts down attacks. Once you hit eleven, the monk can completely no-sell HP-based assaults sibling as he has ki. At fourteen, saving throw assaults become ineffective (and also keeping him away from death).

With Stunning Strike to shut down boss enemies and the CC fear and THP for small fry, these monks not only can match up with the Barbs for survival but are far more effective at the aspect of defending others!

[Cl0001]

The best tank I've ever made was a half giant, bear totem barbarian.
He got to level 20, and his stats were 24,20,24,8,6,10. Then he had tough, shield master, pole arm master as feats. And the best part is, my dm said I could use a pike with one hand because I was 13' tall. He was basically unstoppable with a health pool of ~350 and an AC in the high 20s. With resistance to basically all damage this guy would never fall in combat. Getting people to focus on me wasn't hard either. Who's not going to focus attacks on the 13' tall guy screaming?

[Dalebert]

Shield is great but don't forget Absorb Elements for halving that AoE dmg. That would nearly make up for bear totem's dmg halving for the really big dmg. Fiend lock temp hp works best if you have a reall high damage build. Might pair well with GWF or such.

[Kane0]

Lets see...
Barb can tank
Bard cant really tank, but multiclasses well
Cleric can tank
Druid (Moon) can tank
Fighter can tank
Monk (Death) can tank
Pally can tank
Ranger cant really tank
Rogue can tank (Evasion + Uncanny dodge)
Sorc cant really tank, but multiclasses well
Lock (Foend) can tank
Wiz (Abjurer) can tank

So almost anybody can tank, its just a matter of taste.

[Citan]

No anyone who's played even a few games can tell you just how good of a damage sponge the Barbarian is, especially with the bear totem, but after playing an Eldritch knight for a couple games i got curious,

Now when i first started to build my EK i was expecting something a little more blasty stabby, but i quickly learned that his best feature is that he can cast shield, boosting an already pretty good ac, and as a front line guy that's been really useful,

So i started to wonder just how long he could stand shoulder to shoulder with a Bear-barian, on the front soaking up attacks?

I figured I'd probably give him Heavy armor master asap, not nearly as good as resistance from raging but it's something :smalltongue: lol

So I'm just wondering if any of you fine folks could help me expand on this type of build? Maybe some life claric levels to help replenish lost health, something the barb can't do, not without dipping a few levels himself at least,

So, any ideas? :smallsmile:
In the self-resilience aspect, actually several classes are as good as Bear barbarian, although in a different way:
- Paladin gets as good armor for most of his career, along with aura making him less susceptible to damaging effects. Ancients Paladin trumps Barbarian because he also gets magic resistance. At highest level, he gets Circle of Power, so an Ancient Paladin lvl 20 (thanks to the capstone) is probably the best tank ever, only trumped by a Moon Druid 20.
- Monk is often overlooked because of starting MADness but can end with respectable AC and gets several great defensive features against melee and ranged attack, and later proficiency in all saves. Long Death is way ahead of others thanks to THP on kill and 1 Ki for extra saving throw when hitting 0 HP.
- Casters are lesser because their tankiness require learning of spells and use of slots, but they can trump martial in specific situations. At high level, an Abjurer Wizard, Bladesinger Wizard or Chain Warlock can be pretty beastly.

In the "make monsters stick to me" aspect...
- any build that can grab Sentinel and get a pretty decent to hit is nice.
- specific spells such as Crown of Madness, Command or Compulsion are great to force monsters into a specific course, as effects that don't directly order them but still hamper their ability to hurt any other than you.
In that, the best is obviously Paladin because he gets Command, Compelled Duel, Banishment and as a martial, he can easily build a Sentinel + Polearm Master build.
Next comes Long Death Monk: at-will fear as an action may seem a though sell, but can be invaluable to protect others. At the same level, Bard, between control spells (Dissonant Whispers, Compulsion) in his list, Magic Secrets, and Bardic Inspiration to help others.

In the end, Crown Paladin, Ancients Paladin and Long Death Monk are imo the best "tanks" as single-class.

But if you widen the idea beyond tailored control spells, all classes get a way to bring control: creating difficult terrain, putting creatures prone or grappling them works well too.
So while some classes shine more than others, any can get some controlish abilities. And if you start multiclassing, there are many great things to do. :=)

[Laserlight]

I built a Gnome Frenzy Barb for RP reasons, but he has Advantage on saves vs STR (while raging), DEX (vs threats he can see), INT WIS CHA (all the time, because gome), and resists slash/pierce/bludgeon whether magic or nonmagic. Frenzy path gives him immunity (while raging) to Frighten and Charm, which IMO are more annoying than damage.

[Reosoul]

If we're talking purely about drawing and surviving a lot of enemy attention, I really don't think anything is better at that from level 1 to 20 than a barbarian.

Other classes can come close, but barbarian has effectively double HP with Rage going, and also has the highest HP gain thanks to that d12 hit die. Also, the barbarian doesn't even need armor, just tanks with his bare chest.

That said, the other classes are serviceable with some multi-classing or picking specific features/spells. Might not have the same "all day, every day" endurance of a Barbarian, but can still be very fun and flavorful. It's very easy to play a tanky character in 5E.

[beargryllz]

Fighter might be the best tank. There are a lot of great builds though

[RickAllison]

If we're talking purely about drawing and surviving a lot of enemy attention, I really don't think anything is better at that from level 1 to 20 than a barbarian.

Other classes can come close, but barbarian has effectively double HP with Rage going, and also has the highest HP gain thanks to that d12 hit die. Also, the barbarian doesn't even need armor, just tanks with his bare chest.

That said, the other classes are serviceable with some multi-classing or picking specific features/spells. Might not have the same "all day, every day" endurance of a Barbarian, but can still be very fun and flavorful. It's very easy to play a tanky character in 5E.

The problem I see with barbarians as a tank is that the best way to defeat them IS to ignore them! While they deal out damage well, the enemies are better off taking down the people he is protecting and/or just staying out of his reach so his Rage dies. His main recourse in trapping an enemy is through grappling, which is not exactly reliable and the melee Fighter can do almost as well while having more tricks.

Long Death Monks (and to a lesser extent other monks), if left alone, drop horrible status ailments; ignore the Barb and take a little damage, ignore the monk and you take almost as much damage while also risking being stunned. Paladins can use spells and class features to make allies more powerful, heal, and do great damage. Battlemaster fighters can do some fairly awful things to enemies while contending for damage and being able to be a shield since they don't lose their power when they are not attacked. Heck, a Swashbuckler rogue punishes people who try to attack anyone but him once he gets Panache while leveraging their damage mitigation to stay alive.

Bearbarians are survivors, the ones who don't need as much support because they can do their own thing while rarely being in real danger. They don't have the aggro-focusing necessary to be a tank in the conventional sense. Rather than redirecting fire from the squishies, barbarians just soak up the fire that non-intelligent NPCs send their way.

TL;DR: Barbarians are awful "tanks", they are just fantastic survivors.

[Shining Wrath]

A ranger can tank - not so well, but

Hunter is situational - Multiattack Defense can make one effective against hydras and the like. Stand against the Tide can help you hold off hordes of mooks.
Beastmaster can use the companion as a sponge, although in general they won't last as long as you'd want.


I don't think a Rogue makes a very good tank as in general they try to avoid being targeted by melee attacks, which is pretty critical for the tank role. Being able to get out the way of AoE spells and dragon breath is nice, but when I think "tank" I think "stands right there trading blows with the biggest ugliest thing you've ever seen".

I notice almost no one considers the size of hit die rolled. I think that's mostly a low-level thing - at higher levels it's more important to avoid being damaged (AC) or have damage resistance or a renewable source of temporary HP.

[JellyPooga]

I don't think a Rogue makes a very good tank as in general they try to avoid being targeted by melee attacks, which is pretty critical for the tank role. Being able to get out the way of AoE spells and dragon breath is nice, but when I think "tank" I think "stands right there trading blows with the biggest ugliest thing you've ever seen".

I disagree. Rogues can make fantastic Tanks. Whilst, yes, the typical Rogue adopts a skirmisher role, Uncanny Dodge is functionally Resistance to all damage (to a lesser extent), so a VHuman, Dwarf or Multiclass Rogue with Medium Armour prof. can wear breastplate and shield for frontline AC, add in spells from Arcane Trickster and you've got EK Fighter level AC. On top of that, you've got the mobility to be in the most threatening place, with a devastating attack, which should draw some attention. You've got the defenses and the offensive potential to fulfill both functions of a Tank.

[Specter]

I'm an EK and I play with a Bearbarian and I outlast him every time. He has 20 more HP than me and takes half, but all attacks hit him. Me, otoh, can be surrounded by 8 dudes and still not get hit. EKs also get Absorb Elements which is dandy against death by Fireball.

[Reosoul]

The problem I see with barbarians as a tank is that the best way to defeat them IS to ignore them! While they deal out damage well, the enemies are better off taking down the people he is protecting and/or just staying out of his reach so his Rage dies. His main recourse in trapping an enemy is through grappling, which is not exactly reliable and the melee Fighter can do almost as well while having more tricks.

This is true of any tank. But then this would be going into the territory of whether your Tank can Catch-22 them or not. A barbarian isn't going to lose rage so long as it can make an attack, which is almost always, even if it's a ranged attack at disadvantage. All tanks get ignored if they can't demand attention.


Long Death Monks (and to a lesser extent other monks), if left alone, drop horrible status ailments; ignore the Barb and take a little damage, ignore the monk and you take almost as much damage while also risking being stunned. Paladins can use spells and class features to make allies more powerful, heal, and do great damage. Battlemaster fighters can do some fairly awful things to enemies while contending for damage and being able to be a shield since they don't lose their power when they are not attacked. Heck, a Swashbuckler rogue punishes people who try to attack anyone but him once he gets Panache while leveraging their damage mitigation to stay alive.

I think you're low-selling some of the damage a barbarian can pump out, but okay.


Monks can stun, which is nice, but that's more about controlling than tanking, and isn't going to stop the enemy from ignoring the monk and pounding on the God-Wizard. Have to manage Ki.
Paladins are good burst, but have problems with stamina. You can't be powerful damage, healing, and buffing every single encounter. Your spell slots will be gone quickly. Requires armor, so susceptible to night attacks.
Battlemaster Fighter is good with stuff like goading and trip attacks, but you can get the same end-effects out of something like a Wolf Totem Barbarian. Also requires armor.
Swashbuckler Rogue may be good with some multi-classing, but stand-alone, it is hardly a tanking class. You can only dodge one attack per round and that eats up your reaction. But with feats/multiclassing, could be a punishing tank.


It says something good to 5E's design that all these classes and emulate the effects of others while being flavorful and keeping their own identity.

I will allow that Barbarians are weak at range, can run out of resources during very long days, and have generally less tactical options. They are very much a giant brick.


Bearbarians are survivors, the ones who don't need as much support because they can do their own thing while rarely being in real danger. They don't have the aggro-focusing necessary to be a tank in the conventional sense. Rather than redirecting fire from the squishies, barbarians just soak up the fire that non-intelligent NPCs send their way.

TL;DR: Barbarians are awful "tanks", they are just fantastic survivors.

The words are well and good, but I've literally never seen it play out like that at any D&D table. I don't think most DM's are going to have their front-line sprint past the loud target offering advantage on attacks. Maybe one skirmisher or caster will do this, but outside of a Palasorc alphaing them with Hold Person, they're probably going to get away from any front-liner.

I'd say the best place to test this would be either Adventure league or just any level-headed DM who isn't out to strategically murder the party. Barbarians are wonderful tanks(and in my opinion, the best at it.)

[MaxWilson]

Lore Bard 6 (Aura of Vitality)/Life Cleric 1 (heavy armor, Disciple of Life)/Sorc 3 (Extended Spell) has heavy armor proficiency and 2000+ extra HP per long rest. That much healing turns EVERYBODY into tanks.

[Naanomi]

'Holding Aggro', that is to say making enemies attack you, is challenging. Swashbuckler and Crown Paladin both have mechanics to lock down an opponent, and there is a Paladin list spell to do so... and anyone with the Sentinel feat (especially with the Polearm Master feat) can lock someone down... but in general it is tough to keep more than a very small number of opponents focused on you if they don't want to be.

I am starting a new Hilldwarf Battlerager with the intent on having the maximum number of possible HP and the ever-renewing pool of temporary HP as a buffer; but I won't really have an Aggro mechanism so my plan is just to charge into the middle of everything and hope that enemies will attack me because they can't reach my team who are mostly skirmishing/ranged types holding back

[RickAllison]

This is true of any tank. But then this would be going into the territory of whether your Tank can Catch-22 them or not. A barbarian isn't going to lose rage so long as it can make an attack, which is almost always, even if it's a ranged attack at disadvantage. All tanks get ignored if they can't demand attention.

Yes. The problem is Barbarians are fairly awful at demanding attention. They can invite attacks using the advantage, but they still have the same problem where the only thing they are threatening with is damage. Lo and behold, that wizard back there is capable of dealing great damage as well, but he looks like he will go down in a quick burst rather than the slog of this tough-guy.


I think you're low-selling some of the damage a barbarian can pump out, but okay.


Monks can stun, which is nice, but that's more about controlling than tanking, and isn't going to stop the enemy from ignoring the monk and pounding on the God-Wizard. Have to manage Ki.
Paladins are good burst, but have problems with stamina. You can't be powerful damage, healing, and buffing every single encounter. Your spell slots will be gone quickly. Requires armor, so susceptible to night attacks.
Battlemaster Fighter is good with stuff like goading and trip attacks, but you can get the same end-effects out of something like a Wolf Totem Barbarian. Also requires armor.
Swashbuckler Rogue may be good with some multi-classing, but stand-alone, it is hardly a tanking class. You can only dodge one attack per round and that eats up your reaction. But with feats/multiclassing, could be a punishing tank.


For monks, it is about the stunning threat. If they focus on the monk, they can force him on the defensive and partially remove that threat while making headway towards putting it out entirely for the combat. With the brawny barbarian, his defenses are entirely passive and so he is dealing as much damage when you focus on him as when he is left alone. Monks are an attractive target that have to rely on more active threat-dismissal, so focusing on them actually has an advantage.

I don't care about wearing armor. For the vast majority of encounters, it will not be an issue. Paladins emit a constant buffing aura and have the ability to bring up any allies who are downed through healing. So long as a paladin is standing, all his nearby allies are more resistant to saving throw assaults. At the cost of an action per use, the paladin can use Lay on hands to bring up allies 5Xpaladin level times. Until the paladin is taken down, his allies can be brought immediately back into action. Due to these abilities, he is an attractive target. He combines a good portion of the heartiness of a barbarian with the best revival capabilities in the game. Cast Aura of Healing and the paladin has to be chosen over the squishies because he constantly brings them back anyway!

Fighters do have less to work with, but they at least have more reliable damage and more feat capabilities than the barbarian. Sentinel+Polearm master, Shield Master, any number of feat combos are simply better for use by the fighter. Your complaint about the armor applies to non-Unarmored Defense barbarians just as well as fighters, but UD barbarians simply can't use those combos because they have to devote every ASI to their stats (need both Con and Dex for AC, then need Strength if they want to use the barb's damage bonus). Fighters can be as good as the barbs as tanks, while also being more versatile and reliable.

Because Swashbucklers can command the field passively once Panache is established, the only thing they need is shield proficiency (level of Fighter to grab Defense for +1 AC as well, combine with Shield Master for reliable advantage) and they can Dodge if they aren't in too much danger. Less damage than a barb, but present much more of an obstacle when attacking allies.


It says something good to 5E's design that all these classes and emulate the effects of others while being flavorful and keeping their own identity.

I will allow that Barbarians are weak at range, can run out of resources during very long days, and have generally less tactical options. They are very much a giant brick.

Yes, they are a brick. They can deal great damage and soak a bunch of it. That doesn't make a tank. A tank has to defend others, not just themselves.


The words are well and good, but I've literally never seen it play out like that at any D&D table. I don't think most DM's are going to have their front-line sprint past the loud target offering advantage on attacks. Maybe one skirmisher or caster will do this, but outside of a Palasorc alphaing them with Hold Person, they're probably going to get away from any front-liner.

I'd say the best place to test this would be either Adventure league or just any level-headed DM who isn't out to strategically murder the party. Barbarians are wonderful tanks(and in my opinion, the best at it.)

I don't really get what you are saying here. Why wouldn't many enemies just sprint past the big guy, especially at higher levels when the party is actually known? Someone who opens himself up like that to others probably has a good reason to do so, while the squishy guy at the back is locking down the archers and looks like he doesn't want to get hit. Things get weirder when the monsters are at the speed of the squishies or slower, in which case they will just be dividing and conquering anyway.

EDIT: Naanomi, that is part of my entire argument! Barbs are terrible as tanks because they can't hold aggro since they give so little reason to attack them over those they are supposed to protect. Abjurationists, Bladesingers, Fiendlocks, monks, rogues, paladins, certain sorcerer builds, clerics, bards, druids, all of them possess abilities that not only make them able to weather enemy attacks, but to also make them more attractive targets. Anyone that appears to be an attractive target, buffs or heals others, creates strangleholds on enemy forces, or otherwise gives a reason to prefer them over another PC can be great at tanking. I feel like barbarians have the endurance of a tank, just not the ability to make the enemy care.

[MeeposFire]

Bear gets a mechanic for that later by penalizing attacks that do not target them. Put on top of that good damage, reckless attack, and perhaps the sentinel feat and you can make enemies want to target you fairly well.

[Reosoul]

I disagree. Rogues can make fantastic Tanks. Whilst, yes, the typical Rogue adopts a skirmisher role, Uncanny Dodge is functionally Resistance to all damage (to a lesser extent), so a VHuman, Dwarf or Multiclass Rogue with Medium Armour prof. can wear breastplate and shield for frontline AC, add in spells from Arcane Trickster and you've got EK Fighter level AC. On top of that, you've got the mobility to be in the most threatening place, with a devastating attack, which should draw some attention. You've got the defenses and the offensive potential to fulfill both functions of a Tank.

Uncanny dodge is only for one attack, once per round. If a Rogue gets swamped by enemy, they're going to need more than the rogue chassis has to offer.

They're good, but for a long day of getting targeted with multiple attacks every single turn, I don't think Rogue has the tools to deal with it. They're good supplements for certain builds, amazing for multiclassing with a tank, but I don't think there's any strong pure-Rogue tanks.

[Reosoul]

not only make them able to weather enemy attacks, but to also make them more attractive targets.

This is literally what Rage, Reckless attack, Wolf/Bear totem does. One is constantly granting Advantage to melee attacks on everything around it. The other is imposing penalties for not attacking it.

This is without feats, multiclassing, and some of it is only at the cost of 3 levels. And they become even more insane when you give them more options. Barbarians are amazing tanks and require very little management to function as such.

[JumboWheat01]

If you have a bunch of front-line melee, you kind of ruing the point of a tank, as things can be quite easily smacked.

I'm away from my book right now, but doesn't the final Bear upgrade only work on things within five-feet of the Barbarian? If so, that makes it fairly worthless against anything with greater reach than that.

[RickAllison]

This is literally what Rage, Reckless attack, Wolf/Bear totem does. One is constantly granting Advantage to melee attacks on everything around it. The other is imposing penalties for not attacking it.

This is without feats, multiclassing, and some of it is only at the cost of 3 levels. And they become even more insane when you give them more options. Barbarians are amazing tanks and require very little management to function as such.

Reckless Attack doesn't really give any reason to attack him if the enemy doesn't think he will go down easier than the squishy, especially for a bear. For a wolf, it does provide a good reason to take him on as dealing with him also weakens everyone he is buffing. Really, it is Bear (the one mentioned in the OP) that is the worst at tanking. Other totems get mobility and other bonuses that let them remain a threat no matter what.

[Reosoul]

Reckless Attack doesn't really give any reason to attack him if the enemy doesn't think he will go down easier than the squishy, especially for a bear. For a wolf, it does provide a good reason to take him on as dealing with him also weakens everyone he is buffing. Really, it is Bear (the one mentioned in the OP) that is the worst at tanking. Other totems get mobility and other bonuses that let them remain a threat no matter what.

I think calling ANY archetype of Barbarian 'the worst tank' is an indicator of a very low understanding of the class and how to use it. But, you're mostly talking in circles at this point, so I'll leave you to think whatever you like.

[Ruslan]

Yes, bear is bad at tanking because he's just TOO good at soaking damage and thus encourages attacking someone else. The irony...

[Naanomi]

Battle Rager actively *discourages* people from attacking you...

[Temperjoke]

It depends on what you mean by tank. If you mean someone who can hold up to lots of damage, and keep coming back for more, then there are lots of tank options, the success of which all depends on the circumstances of the battle. If you mean someone who can manage aggro and control a battle, then there are very few tanks, as most classes don't have a lot of options for controlling enemy reactions.

[MaxWilson]

It depends on what you mean by tank. If you mean someone who can hold up to lots of damage, and keep coming back for more, then there are lots of tank options, the success of which all depends on the circumstances of the battle. If you mean someone who can manage aggro and control a battle, then there are very few tanks, as most classes don't have a lot of options for controlling enemy reactions.

Surely the Rage bonus to Athletics checks (grapple) is useful to a tank.

[Temperjoke]

Surely the Rage bonus to Athletics checks (grapple) is useful to a tank.

Not if they keep at ranged and pick off your other party members while you attempt to close and grapple. It's all circumstantial, but there aren't a lot of options to force an enemy to fight a particular PC before attacking others.

[Citan]

I think calling ANY archetype of Barbarian 'the worst tank' is an indicator of a very low understanding of the class and how to use it. But, you're mostly talking in circles at this point, so I'll leave you to think whatever you like.
I'm sorry but I would rather say you are the one having a rather low comprehension of what a tank should be.

"Giving" advantage to enemies is worth nothing if the enemies realize that even with it, they have very little chance to significantly hurt you.

"Imposing disadvantage" on creatures within 5 feet to any other target than you is good in theory, but it comes late, and if you don't go out of your way to immobilize it in any way (either Sentinel it when it moves away, or just outright kill it with a powerful blow) it's worth nothing because the creature just has to move away before attacking others. It also does not affect ranged attackers and spells.

Tank is about protecting others, as often as possible by taking hits in their place, otherwise in indirect ways through buffs.
Barbarian has nearly nothing "exclusive" to do that. Since Sentinel+Polearm Master combo is accessible to many builds (with Fighter being the easiest access due to extra feats).

Compared to Long Death Monk (at-will fear to all creatures within 30 feet, at level 6) or Paladin (Command, Compelled Duel, Crown Oath features and Protection Fighting Style), or Bard (Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Compulsion, Crown of Madness) or Cleric (Warding Bond, Spirit Guardians, Sanctuary, Nature or Light Cleric feature) it's risible.

Basically the only true way a Barbarian can "tank" is by killing enemies as fast as possible. And he is very good as that.

But once an enemy realizes that Barbarian is out of his league, either defensively ("he will kill me if I go into his reach") or offensively ("I cannot deal significant damage to him"), you have very little way to prevent him to attack others. Only way is kill him or grapple him, in any case you can secure at most 3-4 creatures.

That's why a Barbarian, especially a Bear, is very bad at tanking, except against mindless, instinctless swarms of creatures (zombies and skeletons apply I guess?).

[Asmotherion]

No anyone who's played even a few games can tell you just how good of a damage sponge the Barbarian is, especially with the bear totem, but after playing an Eldritch knight for a couple games i got curious,

Now when i first started to build my EK i was expecting something a little more blasty stabby, but i quickly learned that his best feature is that he can cast shield, boosting an already pretty good ac, and as a front line guy that's been really useful,

So i started to wonder just how long he could stand shoulder to shoulder with a Bear-barian, on the front soaking up attacks?

I figured I'd probably give him Heavy armor master asap, not nearly as good as resistance from raging but it's something :smalltongue: lol

So I'm just wondering if any of you fine folks could help me expand on this type of build? Maybe some life claric levels to help replenish lost health, something the barb can't do, not without dipping a few levels himself at least,

So, any ideas? :smallsmile:

The tankiest tank of 'em all is the Moon Cyrcle Druid. You have to effectively kill him 3 times; 2 in a wild shape that has a CR equal to 1/3 of his druid level, and once in his normal form. The form can be that of a beast or even an elemental. And if he eventually gets to 20th level, he can effectivelly wildshape at will, providing a never ending source of new HP, that can be renewed once per round. Just a note, some wildshapes can have up to 120 HP. Oh, and he can use a spell slot (even wile wildshaped) to regain 1d6 HP per spell level.

The barbarian, with his massive HP, massive AC and almost-universal damage resistance still has to be killed only once. He definitelly is second best however.

A honorary mention is the Monk, who can counter a lot of damage, and is almost imune to ranged dammage.

Now, an interesting tanky build I've talked about a lot in this forum, and I really love is:

The Punisher (or as I like to call him, the Eldritch Wizard): This Warlock 2, Abjuration Wizard X build comes online at level 4, and only gets better as you level up.
Downsides: Very Mad, as you'll need a high Cha, Int, Dex and Con. However, if you want to focus on the Tanky aspect, you may choose to dump either Cha or Int, in favor of a higher Dex and Con. I'd suggest Int (you still have to get it as high as 13, unless you take your first level as a wizard). The idea is that the Wizard has some VERY good spells that allow no save/attack roll, and for constant dammage you can relly on Hex+Eldritch Blast+Agonising Blast. Even if you don't intend to tank a lot, this combo is still usefull, since you won't be as frail as your other wizard collegues, and you get a better constant dammage source. Woops, I ended up desctibing a benefit after all XD . You can also have a middle high Dex, as you actually want to be hit in melee, to get your punisher combo to work... however don't dump it, since you don't want your Temporary HP to go down too fast. If your campain won't hit level 20, invest in either 1 level of sorcerer or barbarian for more AC.

Benefits:All the above, +the fact you get a massive HP rivalling the Barbarian, and a [spellslot used to cast Armor of agathis X 5]+2d6 fire dammage (from fire shield) to anyone hitting you in melee. If you are willing to sacrifice Hex (downing your at will-single target dammage) in favor of a more whole protection, there are consentration spells that give you protection (in the form of disadvantage) from ranged attacks as well, or even imunity (with wind wall... or any wall spell really). Finally, you have a handy Counterspell always prepared for enemy casters, and, with the Repelling blast invocation, you can almost always choose who is comming in melee or not with you. So, overall, you can be virtually immune to ranged dammage, and choose who is comming in melee with you, only to punish them for making that mistake. :)

[JellyPooga]

Uncanny dodge is only for one attack, once per round. If a Rogue gets swamped by enemy, they're going to need more than the rogue chassis has to offer.

They're good, but for a long day of getting targeted with multiple attacks every single turn, I don't think Rogue has the tools to deal with it. They're good supplements for certain builds, amazing for multiclassing with a tank, but I don't think there's any strong pure-Rogue tanks.

An Arcane Trickster with medium armour prof (sources vary) is easily as good a tank as any Eldritch Knight, with the added bonus of having Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. D8 HD instead of D10 is on average only -1HP per level, otherwise they have fairly comparable AC and offensive capability.

A V.Human or Dwarf pure Arcane Trickster Rogue with Sentinel is downright terrifying when it comes to locking down opponents, as it's a solid method of generating more than one Sneak Attack per round on top of the usual benefits. Uncanny Dodge might only be 1/round, but it's something the EK simply doesn't have. Being able to tank and take a fireball to the face without even flinching is also a point in favour of the Rogue tank.

If the Eldritch Knight is a solid tank, the Arcane Trickster is a better one IMO. It's a pretty specific build and it's not your typical "Rogue" style, compared to the variety of builds and themes that EK offers, but it is more than capable of performing the same job, but with added extras.

[INDYSTAR188]

An Arcane Trickster with medium armour prof (sources vary) is easily as good a tank as any Eldritch Knight, with the added bonus of having Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. D8 HD instead of D10 is on average only -1HP per level, otherwise they have fairly comparable AC and offensive capability.

A V.Human or Dwarf pure Arcane Trickster Rogue with Sentinel is downright terrifying when it comes to locking down opponents, as it's a solid method of generating more than one Sneak Attack per round on top of the usual benefits. Uncanny Dodge might only be 1/round, but it's something the EK simply doesn't have. Being able to tank and take a fireball to the face without even flinching is also a point in favour of the Rogue tank.

If the Eldritch Knight is a solid tank, the Arcane Trickster is a better one IMO. It's a pretty specific build and it's not your typical "Rogue" style, compared to the variety of builds and themes that EK offers, but it is more than capable of performing the same job, but with added extras.

Does Medium armor get a rogues AC higher than Studded Leather + 20 DEX?

[JellyPooga]

Does Medium armor get a rogues AC higher than Studded Leather + 20 DEX?

Studded Leather (12) + 20 Dex (+5) = 17

Half-Plate (15) + 14 Dex (+2) = 17

The difference is in the shield, which the Rogue is not proficient in without grabbing Med Arm Prof. Generally speaking, you can get medium armour online faster than 20 Dex too.

[smcmike]

Or, you know, add 1 to 5 levels of Barbarian. Barbarian tankiness and Rogue tankiness stack very nicely.

As for drawing aggro, that really seems like an overblown concern. The battlefield can contribute considerably to enemy target selection, as can initiative order and enemy intelligence. My barbarogue is usually the first one in the room, and therefore soaks the first round of combat. After that, the squishes can handle themselves.

Also, sentinel and shield master both increase stickiness and work well with the build.

[JellyPooga]

Or, you know, add 1 to 5 levels of Barbarian. Barbarian tankiness and Rogue tankiness stack very nicely.

That they do! A pure Rogue still makes for a remarkably good tank, though, even without the medium armour. A little multiclassing only improves a solid baseline. Barbarian, Cleric, Druid and Warlock dips can all add solid tanking boons to a primarily Rogue chassis and other classes can too (to a lesser extent IMO).

[RickAllison]

Or, you know, add 1 to 5 levels of Barbarian. Barbarian tankiness and Rogue tankiness stack very nicely.

As for drawing aggro, that really seems like an overblown concern. The battlefield can contribute considerably to enemy target selection, as can initiative order and enemy intelligence. My barbarogue is usually the first one in the room, and therefore soaks the first round of combat. After that, the squishes can handle themselves.

Also, sentinel and shield master both increase stickiness and work well with the build.

Barbarogues are awesome tanks. Heck, a lot of builds become much more resilient tanks when they combine the damage reduction of a barb with the blocking and other advantages of the other classes.

For Druids, don't forget that they supplement their toughness with a great degree of controlling the field. Certain forms have the size to be much more effective at blocking movement (Huge forms can consume all of slower creatures' movement, keeping them out of the squishies' faces), extra capabilities that boost allies and/or stop enemies (the auto-grapple and restraining, rendering prone, etc.), and then they have all the spells which lock down the field and are dangerous enough to risk focusing on the big scorpion.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry but I would rather say you are the one having a rather low comprehension of what a tank should be.

"Giving" advantage to enemies is worth nothing if the enemies realize that even with it, they have very little chance to significantly hurt you.That's a complete load. Granting advantage is one of the best tanking features of any class, especially when combined with a Barbarians typically low AC. It's a huge 'ATTACK ME' flashing sign above your head, especially when combined with the huge damage output a Barbarian has. Barbarians have the perfect combination of tanking features: making themselves a more attractive target than their allies, having threatening damage output, and having the resilience to survive attacks despite being attractive targets. Before Feats come into play, they're one of, if not the, best tanks. Adding appropriate feats on top just makes them that much better tanks.

[odigity]

I'd suggest Int (you still have to get it as high as 13, unless you take your first level as a wizard).

You actually need a min 13 regardless of which order you take the classes in. Multiclassing rules state you need to meet the requirements of both the class you've already taken and the class you want to take next.

[Citan]

That's a complete load. Granting advantage is one of the best tanking features of any class, especially when combined with a Barbarians typically low AC. It's a huge 'ATTACK ME' flashing sign above your head, especially when combined with the huge damage output a Barbarian has. Barbarians have the perfect combination of tanking features: making themselves a more attractive target than their allies, having threatening damage output, and having the resilience to survive attacks despite being attractive targets. Before Feats come into play, they're one of, if not the, best tanks. Adding appropriate feats on top just makes them that much better tanks.
I'm sorry but, again, you are most definitely wrong in saying they are the best tanks.

Because they put a "ATTACK ME" flash head does not mean the enemies will actually follow it.
Barbarian can easily start with 15/16 AC without shield whatever starting build is, between unarmored, race and armor proficiencies.
He also transpires the "I'm dangerous and sturdy" feeling, branding the muscles and waving a big weapon around. Why would a melee creature prefer attacking him, especially once it has realized it soaks damage, if it could instead reach a seemingly squishy caster behind?
In the first case, it knows at the very least that the Barb makes dangerous weapon attacks, and probably has a good lot of HP. If at least one round passed, it probably also realized the Barb halves damage. Why put oneself in danger just to inflict half-damage (because of opportunity attack at least, and maybe being the target of the Barb next turn)?
In the other case, it gets a lesser chance to hit but will probably inflict full damage, for lesser risk, at least in apparence: unless this caster is actually one of those with decent weapon attacks, or melee cantrips. But unless metagame/special investigation/caster demonstrated already, the creature has no way of actually knowing how risky it is to attack it.

So, unless a) the creature considers it still has a good chance of disabling the Barb through damage or special feature b) the creature is actually in a whole group of 4+, and the whole group can surround/snipe the Barbarian to try and gangbang him...
It's of better interest for it to get a chance at killing or severely damaging another enemy that seems easier to put out of the fight.

In other occasions, depending on the kind of enemies and encounter level, you may face an actually organized and strategic force, such as minions led by a Wizard who may actually prioritize concentration-breaking strategies to counter your caster pals while he uses his own spells to disable the Barbarian.
Or other situations like that. ;)

Barb has no way to actually force enemies to attack him. He makes the "attack Barb" action more appealing than it should normally, but that's it. In the numerous cases where targeting someone else is still the best option for a creature, he can do nothing about it.

Compare to Paladin who can make a creature (or several) waste actions, or force one into sticking with him, and is usually a high-priority target just because of the Auras benefitting allies...
Or a Long Death Monk who can, for an action, make any attack related option bad (because of frightened) including attacking others, for any enemy within 30 feet...
Or casters who can influence the course of action of creatures, as well as being surprisingly sturdy thanks to magic buffs and reactions...
It's weaker.

It's great because it's always active (you're supposed to be raging), and it requires no management, but in actual play it's not the best feature a tank may have in D&d 5e, by far. And it's nearly the only one Barb can get as class feature...

That's why Paladin, Long Death Monk or casters/multiclass characters built specifically to tank easily trump Barbarians.

[RickAllison]

Keep in mind, Citan, that only applies to tactical enemies. Not necessarily intelligent (a wolf pack would see through it, while another barbarian who believes his strength will overcome anything would fall for it, as would a wizard who in a chess match sees a good move rather than what is a good strategy), but those who don't think through a battle.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry but, again, you are most definitely wrong in saying they are the best tanks.

Because they put a "ATTACK ME" flash head does not mean the enemies will actually follow it.Then your DM is metagaming.

[MaxWilson]

An Arcane Trickster with medium armour prof (sources vary) is easily as good a tank as any Eldritch Knight, with the added bonus of having Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. D8 HD instead of D10 is on average only -1HP per level, otherwise they have fairly comparable AC and offensive capability.

A V.Human or Dwarf pure Arcane Trickster Rogue with Sentinel is downright terrifying when it comes to locking down opponents, as it's a solid method of generating more than one Sneak Attack per round on top of the usual benefits. Uncanny Dodge might only be 1/round, but it's something the EK simply doesn't have. Being able to tank and take a fireball to the face without even flinching is also a point in favour of the Rogue tank.

What are you getting out of Dwarf? The only part of medium armor proficiency Rogues care about is the shield, and dwarves don't get shield proficiency.



Or a Long Death Monk who can, for an action, make any attack related option bad (because of frightened) including attacking others, for any enemy within 30 feet...


Nitpick: for any creature within 30 feet, including friendlies.


Then your DM is metagaming.

If Reckless Attack is a great big "Attack Me" sign, then Rage is a great big "Don't Attack Me" sign. They tend to cancel out.

Also, Fireball is a great big "Run For Your Lives!" sign.

[JellyPooga]

What are you getting out of Dwarf? The only part of medium armor proficiency Rogues care about is the shield, and dwarves don't get shield proficiency.

Oops, yeah my bad. I don't play Dwarves often and mistakenly assumed they got shield prof too. Still, they do get increased Con, which is by no means a bad thing for any Tank build.

[Specter]

About the metagaming comment, that's absurd. If your enemies are all being an equal threat to you (Barbarian and Wizard, for example), you would be stupid not to target the one with the frailest constitution, unless we're talking about animals or something.

There's even a construct in the Monster Manual, regarded as intelligent, which specifically targets weaker foes and spellcasters first. A construct. Meditate on that.

[Tanarii]

If Reckless Attack is a great big "Attack Me" sign, then Rage is a great big "Don't Attack Me" sign. They tend to cancel out.Rage is either "Run for your lives" or "Kill me quickly since I'm the most dangerous".


Also, Fireball is a great big "Run For Your Lives!" sign.Fireball tends to be an encounter ender, at least early on. But so is a Raging Barbarian. But yes, dropping big-ole damaging spells attracts attention to squishy party members, the same way going to town with a Rage&GWM-backed Greataxe does.

Honestly, in 5e D&D it's basically impossible to "hold aggro" off an obviously glass-cannon wizard. If the enemy can bypass easily bypass your front line, they will. If that's the argument being made, then there ARE no 5e tanks. If the enemy has an option to attack back-line characters, they absolutely will, and no tank can stop them.

Tanks are tanks in comparison to other front-line characters. You're trying to make yourself a more tempting target than the rogue/range/monk/bladelock skirmishing in and out of combat, or the cleric. Or the non-tank Fighter/Pally builds. And Barbarians are absolutely fantastic at that.

[RickAllison]

About the metagaming comment, that's absurd. If your enemies are all being an equal threat to you (Barbarian and Wizard, for example), you would be stupid not to target the one with the frailest constitution, unless we're talking about animals or something.

There's even a construct in the Monster Manual, regarded as intelligent, which specifically targets weaker foes and spellcasters first. A construct. Meditate on that.

Actually, predatory animals naturally single out the weaker members of a herd. Wolves seek out and try to down the weak members so that they can feast on the carcass once the rest of the herd moves away from it. Same with big cats over the world. The only creatures you are likely to find who don't do it are those who are defending something. Herding animals will, when unable to simply flee, face directly against the threat to protect the young.

So it is only really metagaming if the creature is protecting something. Otherwise, attacking the brazen warrior who is obviously strong and is foaming at the mouth is one of the least-likely reactions for a creature.

[Naanomi]

A tank can somewhat reliably stop one character from going to the back lines, but two or more doesn't happen (without two or more tanks)

[Dr.Samurai]

You guys are funny. It's as if the monsters are fighting the barbarian each with an edition of the player's handbook in hand:

"He looks angry, maybe even more than a normal person might be after they get ambushed by goblins. He's probably raging. Looks like a bear Totem guy because he's a bit hairy. That means he's taking half damage. Better to go around him and attack someone else, I don't have any way to bypass his resistance with psychic damage. Oh look, he's being reckless. But even if I hit him with advantage, the resistance will eat into my damage. Statistically, it's better for me to risk a blow from this barbarian's raging reckless two handed attack, so I can go attack someone else that doesn't have resistance. It's important that my action have the maximum impact possible every time. Yes, this is the logical, mathematically sound choice to make."

Lol. To each their own, but what horse****!

[Ruslan]

Bottom line, there's difference between "survivor" and "tank". The former just takes damage and survives. The latter, also has a mechanical ability that punishes foes for attacking anyone but him, or mechanically doesn't allow foes to attack anyone but him. Of course, a tank has to also be a survivor, but not every survivor is a tank.

- The Wolf Totem ability is a tank ability. You give bonus to everyone but yourself, thus mechanically encouraging foes to specifically target you.
- Having the Sentinel feat is a tank ability.
- Having the Compelled Duel spell on your spell list is a tank ability.
- Taking half-damage is not a tank ability. It's a survivor ability.

[Specter]

You guys are funny. It's as if the monsters are fighting the barbarian each with an edition of the player's handbook in hand:

"He looks angry, maybe even more than a normal person might be after they get ambushed by goblins. He's probably raging. Looks like a bear Totem guy because he's a bit hairy. That means he's taking half damage. Better to go around him and attack someone else, I don't have any way to bypass his resistance with psychic damage. Oh look, he's being reckless. But even if I hit him with advantage, the resistance will eat into my damage. Statistically, it's better for me to risk a blow from this barbarian's raging reckless two handed attack, so I can go attack someone else that doesn't have resistance. It's important that my action have the maximum impact possible every time. Yes, this is the logical, mathematically sound choice to make."

Lol. To each their own, but what horse****!

Or you know, "that skinny guy with the Fireballs is much more dangerous to our group than this buffed SOB getting in the way, kill him'.

[MaxWilson]

Actually, predatory animals naturally single out the weaker members of a herd. Wolves seek out and try to down the weak members so that they can feast on the carcass once the rest of the herd moves away from it. Same with big cats over the world. The only creatures you are likely to find who don't do it are those who are defending something. Herding animals will, when unable to simply flee, face directly against the threat to protect the young.

So it is only really metagaming if the creature is protecting something. Otherwise, attacking the brazen warrior who is obviously strong and is foaming at the mouth is one of the least-likely reactions for a creature.

However, "weaker members of the herd" generally won't include armed and dangerous adventurers. A DM who plays his monsters and NPCs strictly in accordance with real-world animal behavior will probably have a game that mostly involves monsters attacking NPC children and old people while the adventurers try to get there in time to intervene. :-)

You can't play D&D too realistically or you won't have a game. It's the DM's job to contrive reasons for the monsters to come into conflict with the PCs.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I read the thread lol. It just doesn't make sense.

The skinny guy with fireball does not negate the barbarian threat. It doesn't mean the barbarian can't actually seriously harm or kill the enemy. It doesn't make sense in the narrative for enemies to completely ignore a giant raging guy swinging a two handed sword at them. Realistically, they'd like to get past him of course, but it's not as simple as pretending he isn't there.

If the enemies are secure in knowing that a single hit from this guy's maul or great sword won't kill them, and so they can just move around and target who they please at their leisure, I call BS.

You're free to play your game as you wish of course, and run your potential dm moves through an algorithm before moving your enemy pieces. But the tone that this is the obvious way things should play out is ridiculous. D&D is as much about storytelling as the rules used to play the game. And I don't read a lot of stories where enemies are completely indifferent to the warrior front lines lol.

[Dr.Samurai]

However, "weaker members of the herd" generally won't include armed and dangerous adventurers. A DM who plays his monsters and NPCs strictly in accordance with real-world animal behavior will probably have a game that mostly involves monsters attacking NPC children and old people while the adventurers try to get there in time to intervene. :-)

You can't play D&D too realistically or you won't have a game. It's the DM's job to contrive reasons for the monsters to come into conflict with the PCs.^ This guy here? This guy makes sense.

[smcmike]

Also, "the guy that is throwing fire out of his friggin fingertips" doesn't sound like a "weaker member of the herd" to me.

[Addaran]

While the caster doesn't sound like the weaker member of the party, he is the most accessible. The guy in robe could be killed with one good dagger stab, especially if he doesn't even have a weapon to block attacks (very important in real fights). On the other hand, there's a crazy guy in chain shirt, with a big axe and a shield, you will need more hits to 1) not be blocked by the weapon or shield 2) do good damage through the chain shirt

If they are both as dangerous, you'll target the one who looks quicker to go down, then you'll be able to gank the other with superior number.



Not every monster will target the caster first, but some intelligent or quirky enemies will.

Hobgoblins are very tactical and smart, they know a good caster is a great force multiplier and unable new tactics.
An orc could decide to kill the "cheating" wizard first, so he could have a real manly one-on-one combat with the fighter.
Weak coward enemies like goblin and kobold could jump on the wizard first cause they are more scared of him then the fighter. They are used to being beat up by the strongest of the tribe or orcs, but magic, that's something scary and hard to understand. Just being stabbed and dying like half your familly is better then having your soul ripped away by a crazy necromancer.


And it's rarely "i can survive that one hit, so i'll ignore him". Lots of monsters have better movement or bonus disengage/dash actions. They can easily go around the tank or no take an attack. Or two goblins charge for the mage, one left and one right. The fighter will only be able to block one of the two. The blocked one can flee last second, while the other slip pass.



Unless the map is favorable, with choke points, difficult terrain, etc it's hard to tank in D&D. There's no aggro like in MMO and if the enemy is smart, he won't just trade blow without moving with the "tank" who gets healed every turn while receiving arrows from being.

[Tanarii]

Oh look, he's being reckless. ive always assumed, as has every DM I've played with, that reckless granting advantage to other enemies is somehow known (due to some visible sign) to the other enemies prior to them making an attack. In other words, they can make a decision to attack you based on knowing you are massively vulnerable.

That's usually NOT the case with Rage resist. That's usually an after the attack learned knowledge.


Or you know, "that skinny guy with the Fireballs is much more dangerous to our group than this buffed SOB getting in the way, kill him'.


While the caster doesn't sound like the weaker member of the party, he is the most accessible. The guy in robe could be killed with one good dagger stab, especially if he doesn't even have a weapon to block attacks (very important in real fights). On the other hand, there's a crazy guy in chain shirt, with a big axe and a shield, you will need more hits to 1) not be blocked by the weapon or shield 2) do good damage through the chain shirtAgreed. Unarmored and obviously 'vulnerable' targets, that also appear very dangerous, will be most likely to be targeted first, provided they can reached.

Which is why:
1) there is nothing any tank can do if many enemies can get to higher priority targets. If you haven't set up lines of combat, and aren't using terrain and other zones of control to prevent enemies from circumventing them, they will target 'squishes'. (Edit: in other words, this has nothing to do with tanking, and everything to do with party tactics.)
2) Barbarians, who are often unarmored, and almost always appear vulnerable due to reckless attack, are most likely front line members to be targeted.

[Ruslan]

If one guy is wearing Kevlar armor, is extremely buff, and is swinging a baseball bat, and another guy is skinny, wearing plain clothes, and is brandishing a flamethrower, I would try to kill the second guy first.

Actually, who am I kidding. *I* would turn and run away, or whimper and beg for mercy. Gruk-Gruk the Orc Chieftain, however, would instructs his minions to try to kill the second guy first.

[Citan]

Keep in mind, Citan, that only applies to tactical enemies. Not necessarily intelligent (a wolf pack would see through it, while another barbarian who believes his strength will overcome anything would fall for it, as would a wizard who in a chess match sees a good move rather than what is a good strategy), but those who don't think through a battle.
Yeah, sure, and that's what I said in fact in the previous post. ;) An army of skeletons without any master for example would indeed attack Barb without any doubt. But if someone controls them, it's another story entirely.


Then your DM is metagaming.
Nop, just playing rightly.
Any beast that feels a prey is too risky will rather avoid, maybe even flee, unless it is desperate or under control of another creature.
Same with any enemy with decent intelligence, such as a Chief of any band of humanoid creatures, which can then order them once he realizes that the (wo)man with bare breast is actually a hard and spiky nut to crack.

At most, you will get 2 rounds before the Barb aggro start losing potency because enemies adapt their tactics, unless you are fighting a bunch of unorganized creatures who are either mindless or have too low intelligence/self-preservation to adapt.
And depending on campaign/encounter, it could be lesser, because your party is already known to the enemy so they have an idea of what you are capable of, because of scouts/spy/past encounters.

Once you put a few enemies with a tactical mind in play, the game changes greatly.

[Vogonjeltz]

I second Warlock. Fiendlock is a very underrated tank build.

Also; Moon Druid. Its the core schtick of the class. Even better than Barbarian, and can do it all day long (2/ short rest instead of 3-4/ long rest).

Dip Barb for the win.

Light armor and a d8 that gets a tiny hp buffer after killing an enemy and only has access to resistance against a single pre-chosen damage type?

That's feeble for something that's supposed to be a tank.

[Citan]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I read the thread lol. It just doesn't make sense.

The skinny guy with fireball does not negate the barbarian threat. It doesn't mean the barbarian can't actually seriously harm or kill the enemy. It doesn't make sense in the narrative for enemies to completely ignore a giant raging guy swinging a two handed sword at them. Realistically, they'd like to get past him of course, but it's not as simple as pretending he isn't there.

enemies are completely indifferent to the warrior front lines lol.
Nobody ever said that. If you actually paid attention and tried to understand what others said instead of just reducing everything as "irrelevant in essence", you would have realized it all by yourself.

Nobody said a raging Barbarian is not a threat. People (including me) said that...
1. It's not the worst threat to enemy in any situation just because he is a raging Barbarian (as others said before, a caster that demonstrated he knows AOE or other nasty spells becomes a target of choice, especially because it's difficult to know what he will actually do next, while the Barbarian is more predictible).
2. He's not automatically the most attractive target just because he would offer advantage on attacks against him.
3. Unless he can use an environment to good use, there is little a Barbarian can do by himself to block the way between enemy attacks and back line and force them to attack him (they can make a detour or use ranged attacks).

Hence making him far from the best tank possible in 5e, compared to others classes who can actually force enemies to act against their best interest at a moment of choice, or provide direct protection to allies, or both.

I second Warlock. Fiendlock is a very underrated tank build.

Also; Moon Druid. Its the core schtick of the class. Even better than Barbarian, and can do it all day long (2/ short rest instead of 3-4/ long rest).

Dip Barb for the win.



Light armor and a d8 that gets a tiny hp buffer after killing an enemy and only has access to resistance against a single pre-chosen damage type?

That's feeble for something that's supposed to be a tank.
Missed that on first read but I'm wondering as Vogonjeltz.
I guess it's a combination of Darkness+Darkvision, STR build with GWM feat and Armor of Agathys cast when the encounter starts...
But it comes online much later than others as far as resilience goes and comes with drawbacks (notably the hindrance the Darkness could create for pals, and the fact that for the first half of career you only have two slots max to start a fight at any given time).

Also on the Druid case, dip Barbarian? Sorry if I'm vexing, but that is probably one of the worst advices I ever read (unless very specific niche build -read Raging Earth Elemental- or builds capping at 10-12 character level).
- 3 levels later getting important forms and spells.
- permanently lose the chance to be the single hardest to kill creature through unlimited Wild Shape.
- either be a dual-headed guy (part of the day raging, part of the day casting) meaning complex resource management, or shoehorn into using spell slots only for regen.
- multiclass requirement on physical stat limiting your starting mental stats, although a Druid does not usually care about physical stats because of Wild Shape.

Too much of a niche to recommend "in general"...

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not the one being reductive in this thread Citan.

I don't require warriors to have actual features and powers in-game to force enemies to fight them. I understand that it doesn't make sense in the narrative for goblin warriors and orc savages and kobold fighters to think they can just move around a hulking guy with a greatsword to attack the wizard.

I get that this is different from the conversation about "best tank", but it is still relevant to the assumed stance throughout this thread that warriors can and should be ignored for the "easier" (lol) target in the back.

This is pure DM preference, and that's really the point I'd like to make, however small. This is a style of DMing, but it is far from granted that this should be the standard "tactic".

[Fable Wright]

If one guy is wearing Kevlar armor, is extremely buff, and is swinging a baseball bat, and another guy is skinny, wearing plain clothes, and is brandishing a flamethrower, I would try to kill the second guy first.

Actually, who am I kidding. *I* would turn and run away, or whimper and beg for mercy. Gruk-Gruk the Orc Chieftain, however, would instructs his minions to try to kill the second guy first.

You know, you're missing a step here.

If I were Gruk-Gruk's minions, I would balk at this order, because you're just leaving the baseball bat guy to smash my head in from behind, where I can't possibly see it coming. You send a few guys to deal with the baseball man to keep the heat off your teammates, then bumrush the Wizard.

That's more or less my main complaint here. Why are so many posters assuming that even the tactical people are deliberately turning their back to the strongest melee enemy?! If my players completely ignored a few Umber Hulks to engage the Neogi spellcaster behind them, I'd at the very least be giving those Umber Hulks advantage on attack rolls, if not damage rolls, due to the fact that they're attacking a character who isn't bothering to even glance at them. Same principle with goblins and other enemies: No matter how tactically advantageous it is to completely turn your back to the enemy, you don't do it. You've got a survival instinct screaming at you the entire time you consider it. Mindless creatures with no vulnerable anatomy, like constructs and undead? Sure, they can try bum-rushing the Wizard. Actual thinking people have too much to live for.

[Dr.Samurai]

You know, you're missing a step here.

If I were Gruk-Gruk's minions, I would balk at this order, because you're just leaving the baseball bat guy to smash my head in from behind, where I can't possibly see it coming. You send a few guys to deal with the baseball man to keep the heat off your teammates, then bumrush the Wizard.

That's more or less my main complaint here. Why are so many posters assuming that even the tactical people are deliberately turning their back to the strongest melee enemy?! If my players completely ignored a few Umber Hulks to engage the Neogi spellcaster behind them, I'd at the very least be giving those Umber Hulks advantage on attack rolls, if not damage rolls, due to the fact that they're attacking a character who isn't bothering to even glance at them. Same principle with goblins and other enemies: No matter how tactically advantageous it is to completely turn your back to the enemy, you don't do it. You've got a survival instinct screaming at you the entire time you consider it. Mindless creatures with no vulnerable anatomy, like constructs and undead? Sure, they can try bum-rushing the Wizard. Actual thinking people have too much to live for.
Exactly. It doesn't make narrative sense. It may make sense mathematically, but it is difficult to justify in the story that thinking creatures that want to live will just turn their back on an armored warrior trying to kill them.

Further, I'm not sure why the enemies are so knowledgeable and dismissive of the barbarian, but not of the wizard. All they know about the wizard is that he can cast fireball and is easy to kill? I guess they have never seen a wizard eat an enemy attack with Shield? Or hop away from the battlefield with Misty Step? Or cast Mirror Image so now there are six targets instead of one? Or Blur? Enemies just *KNOW* that the wizard will be an easy take down and the barbarian can be safely ignored?

Not to sound like a broken record but... it just doesn't make sense.

[khachaturian]

I have seen a number of successful tank builds, but one that stands out in my mind from recent DMing is the cleric of Thor who took on Strahd. He was able to cast Protection from Good and Evil and run around with an AC of 18 (Chainmail + Shield - we don't give out a lot of magic items at my table). Not only was he a good meat shield for the party, but he could also dish out the pain with Guardian Spirits, which made engaging him in combat particularly painful, while he just sat there and took the hits.

protection from evil and spirit guardians are both concentration spells

[Ruslan]

You know, you're missing a step here.

If I were Gruk-Gruk's minions, I would balk at this order, If you were Gruk-Gruk minion, and would dare to balk at this order, the armored warrior would be the least of your trouble. Gruk-Gruk would bash in your skull deeper than any baseball bat could. Or at least so he would have you convinced. Any other way of thinking seems to misunderstand what "minion" is. Or what "Gruk-Gruk" is, for that matter.


If my players completely ignored a few Umber Hulks to engage the Neogi spellcaster behind them, I'd at the very least be giving those Umber Hulks advantage on attack rolls, if not damage rolls, due to the fact that they're attacking a character who isn't bothering to even glance at them.We sure like breaking the rules in the name of faux realism, do we? Well, well.

[Addaran]

You know, you're missing a step here.

If I were Gruk-Gruk's minions, I would balk at this order, because you're just leaving the baseball bat guy to smash my head in from behind, where I can't possibly see it coming. You send a few guys to deal with the baseball man to keep the heat off your teammates, then bumrush the Wizard.

That's more or less my main complaint here. Why are so many posters assuming that even the tactical people are deliberately turning their back to the strongest melee enemy?! If my players completely ignored a few Umber Hulks to engage the Neogi spellcaster behind them, I'd at the very least be giving those Umber Hulks advantage on attack rolls, if not damage rolls, due to the fact that they're attacking a character who isn't bothering to even glance at them. Same principle with goblins and other enemies: No matter how tactically advantageous it is to completely turn your back to the enemy, you don't do it. You've got a survival instinct screaming at you the entire time you consider it. Mindless creatures with no vulnerable anatomy, like constructs and undead? Sure, they can try bum-rushing the Wizard. Actual thinking people have too much to live for.

I doubt many people are actually saying that the 10 goblins should all walk pass the barbarian, not caring for AoO, then all attack the wizard without ever looking back to see if the barbarian is about to attack them.

It does make sense that they try to all rush at once, knowing there's only 10% he'll even try to hit him. Or that they put two goblins(the most courageous ones or the ones that are the most scared of Gruk-G on barbarian duty while the 8 others gank the wizard.

It sure as hell doesn't make sense that the 10 goblins jump on the scariest looking guy, that they might not even be able to kill, while totally ignoring the other enemies. Ganking the wizard, then running away while having only lost one goblin, that's a better strategy. Gotta milk those surprise run and maybe even catch the adventurers when they are sleeping.

[smcmike]

I think the basic point is that simply being a damage soak is very often useful for keeping the party alive, even without any mechanical aggro-control abilities. Are there sitiuations where this isn't true? Sure. But in many encounters a barbarian that refuses to die is awfully useful for keeping everyone else standing.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ganking the wizard, then running away while having only lost one goblin, that's a better strategy.
Yes, and to gank that wizard, people are saying the goblins would ignore the barbarian and walk right past him. The barbarian needs actual class features or feats that force monsters to not move or target him, to not be ignored by enemies. Without those, the DM has no justification for an enemy to target the barbarian in the presence of a fearsome and deadly spellcaster. That is the argument being made. That simply being tough is not enough to be a tank because enemies have no reason to target him, even when he is granting them Advantage and threatening them with an Opportunity Attack for walking by him. It is still a better option to target the spellcaster.

I'm not saying it. Read the thread. That's what others are saying.

[Fable Wright]

We sure like breaking the rules in the name of faux realism, do we? Well, well.

You realize, of course, that facing rules are a thing in the DMG, and this is the edition that encourages the DM to ad-lib advantages and disadvantages outside the ones listed in the book? Passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks are not called for.


I doubt many people are actually saying that the 10 goblins should all walk pass the barbarian, not caring for AoO, then all attack the wizard without ever looking back to see if the barbarian is about to attack them.

That is what it has been sounding like to me, though.


It does make sense that they try to all rush at once, knowing there's only 10% he'll even try to hit him. Or that they put two goblins(the most courageous ones or the ones that are the most scared of Gruk-G on barbarian duty while the 8 others gank the wizard.

Question for you. Why do you need 10 goblins to gank one skinny little guy in robes? These are Gruk-Gruk's personal guard. If they could not easily kill an unarmed civilian on their own, they would not be with Gruk-Gruk. And big guy is strong-looking; it'll probably take more that just Kurg-Kurg and Urgk-Urgk to take him down, while those two could probably dispatch the noncombatant quickly.


It sure as hell doesn't make sense that the 10 goblins jump on the scariest looking guy, that they might not even be able to kill, while totally ignoring the other enemies. Ganking the wizard, then running away while having only lost one goblin, that's a better strategy. Gotta milk those surprise run and maybe even catch the adventurers when they are sleeping.

Sure, they're absolutely not going to be sending everyone at the barbarian. But he'll probably get a fair bit of attention, because he's the strongest. If the goblins weren't afraid of getting murdered by the strongest, they would have left Gruk-Gruk long ago. The distribution would probably be closer to 3 on the Cleric, 2 on the Wizard, 2 on the Rogue, and 3 plus Gruk Gruk and his Worg on the Barbarian, to prove that Gruk-Gruk is the strongest. Gruk-Gruk's goblins, plus himself and his worg, outnumber these puny humans 3-to-1. Why should they assume they're going to lose and go for guerilla tactics?

[INDYSTAR188]

Sure, they're absolutely not going to be sending everyone at the barbarian. But he'll probably get a fair bit of attention, because he's the strongest. If the goblins weren't afraid of getting murdered by the strongest, they would have left Gruk-Gruk long ago. The distribution would probably be closer to 3 on the Cleric, 2 on the Wizard, 2 on the Rogue, and 3 plus Gruk Gruk and his Worg on the Barbarian, to prove that Gruk-Gruk is the strongest. Gruk-Gruk's goblins, plus himself and his worg, outnumber these puny humans 4-to-1. Why should they assume they're going to lose and go for guerilla tactics?

This is essentially how I think about the situation too. But decision making is one of the most subjective things in cognitive psych. Who knows exactly what the best thing to do is? We would need more specifics to come to an agreement I'm sure.

In a vacuum I believe conventional wisdom says take out the spellcaster (really good arguments for why this is true all over this thread), but as above I think it would depend on the situation. Also it's hard to believe the massive, half-naked, more savage than the goblins, great weapon wielding avatar of rage is of small consequence to Gruk Gruk - especially since he rules through intimidation and strength.

Could Gruk Gruk know about the danger of spellcasters and recognize them? I think it depends. Maybe he uses shamans and has some sense of magic potential. Maybe he's overcome with battlelust at the site of a worthy opponent and doesn't direct his minions at all ("get them!").

It's possible they have a roadside ambush in a mountain pass or whatever and don't get to plan their targets because they can't see them until it's time to attack.

I don't know the answer but it's an interesting discussion. I do think if you're playing a barbarian you're probably wanting that tank role. If I'm you're DM, I will serve you up plenty of baddies because it's awesome to watch a pc barbarian go crazy and shrug off damage, that's what he signed up for.

[Foxhound438]

If one guy is wearing Kevlar armor, is extremely buff, and is swinging a baseball bat, and another guy is skinny, wearing plain clothes, and is brandishing a flamethrower, I would try to kill the second guy first.

Actually, who am I kidding. *I* would turn and run away, or whimper and beg for mercy. Gruk-Gruk the Orc Chieftain, however, would instructs his minions to try to kill the second guy first.

surprising fact for you, Kevlar itself isn't that great against things like knife attacks. A kevlar helmet will sure stop a knife, but that's in large part due to the glue that holds it together. A soft vest, on the other hand, is more adept at stopping shrapnel and hollow point bullets.

Not at all relevant to the discussion* going on here, but it's a neat fact.

[Ruslan]

I think the basic point is that simply being a damage soak is very often useful for keeping the party alive, even without any mechanical aggro-control abilities. Are there sitiuations where this isn't true? Sure.
Especially when you run into Gruk-Gruk and his tactical genions!

[Ruslan]

You realize, of course, that facing rules are a thing in the DMG
Then you should have just said "I play with facing rules". What you actually said just sounded like you're ad-libbing things to punish the PCs for not playing the way you want them to. Hence my faux realism comment.

[CaptainSarathai]

Light armor and a d8 that gets a tiny hp buffer after killing an enemy and only has access to resistance against a single pre-chosen damage type?

That's feeble for something that's supposed to be a tank.

Light Armor? At-Will Mage Armor for 13+Dex. AC18 on a Lock, with 1 Ability. Same as a Barbarian, unless they're naked and using Dex+Con. They can both dip for better AC.

D8 hit die is 2hp/level behind what the Barb gets.

Tiny HP buffer? PrimaryStat + Level per kill

Now, the Resistance I will grant you, but Warlocks do also have access to Blade Ward. Granted, it's an action, and only lasts a turn. But they can get it, in a pinch.

Remember that Warlocks can throw False Life around like it's candy. Doesn't even use a spell slot. Temp HP doesn't stack, but by the time AoA wears off, you're about ready to snag a kill. If not, False Life.

Most of what Barbs get is dependent on a limited number of Rages per day, which can be ended if you arent hit/hitting.
Warlocks get all of that with maybe some spell slots (AoA or Blade Ward) that renew every Short Rest.

We also start the game with armor, you poor, uncivilized savages ;-)

Talking damage?
Warlocks can keep up with a Barbarian at range, with a Cantrip across most levels, on average. Crossbow Expert means he does it point-blank, too. And push enemies off them.

Any Lock gets access to Booming Blade, and Warcaster, to deal far more damage on OAs and be stickier than a Barbarian.

BladeLock has access to the same weapons as the Barbarian, same feat combos, etc. and can go Str if desired, without being much more MAD than the Barbarian. Multi-classing does make this better though.

D8+Dex+Cha+Hex is still not terribly far behind Barbs in melee, and interestingly, you can take a level dip in Monk and snag PAM to do this with a Staff.

Hurl Through Hell is a thing that exists.

If a Warlock wants Advantage, he throws Darkness with Devil's Sight, and everything has disadvantage to hit him. Granted, it does take a resource and the party might hate you for the rest of the encounter.

Keep in mind that Warlocks stand to gain far more by Multi-classing, because they can MC into any Melee class a Barb can, plus MC into caster classes and benefit from the spells during all of the above. SorcLocks post some of the silliest damage numbers in the game with Quickened EBs for 8d10+8d6(and/or 8d8 with Curse)+40, and including an 80' push effect.
A FiendLock can still do that while having all of AC and tempHP listed above. And can still go Blade and have everything except maybe the +Cha to damage.
--

Dont think that just because most people play Warlocks with Tome or Chain, and hang back Blasting, that Warlocks aren't capable of stepping into the front of the fighting and pulling their weight. BlastLocks just do the most damage for the least effort and don't need to get their robes all bloody. Personally, I like the bloodstains - makes me feel alive.

[Citan]

I'm not the one being reductive in this thread Citan.


I get that this is different from the conversation about "best tank", but it is still relevant to the assumed stance throughout this thread that warriors can and should be ignored for the "easier" (lol) target in the back.

Yes you are, confer the bolded part: you are putting this like people say it as a general truth.

When they just say "it always depends on the situation", in answer to guys saying "barb is always the best tank".

Here also

Yes, and to gank that wizard, people are saying the goblins would ignore the barbarian and walk right past him.

I'm not saying it. Read the thread. That's what others are saying.
Are you unaware that melee attack is not the only way of making an attack? If an enemy chief orders some goons to drop arrows at a caster visibly casting/sustaining a spell because it deems it more dangerous than another turn of Barbarian's attacks, the latter can do nothing about it.

[Tanarii]

Nobody said a raging Barbarian is not a threat. People (including me) said that...
1. It's not the worst threat to enemy in any situation just because he is a raging Barbarian (as others said before, a caster that demonstrated he knows AOE or other nasty spells becomes a target of choice, especially because it's difficult to know what he will actually do next, while the Barbarian is more predictible).
2. He's not automatically the most attractive target just because he would offer advantage on attacks against him.
3. Unless he can use an environment to good use, there is little a Barbarian can do by himself to block the way between enemy attacks and back line and force them to attack him (they can make a detour or use ranged attacks).

Hence making him far from the best tank possible in 5e, compared to others classes who can actually force enemies to act against their best interest at a moment of choice, or provide direct protection to allies, or both.None of these make the Barbarian a bad tank. If you're using them to define what is a good tank and bad tank, there are no tanks in 5e. What you're talking about is either poor tactical play on the parties part (not creating tactical front lines to defend the squishes), poor class balance in the PC party (not enough front liners to create a front line in the given environment), or an open white room where it's impossible to play tactically.

What Tanks do is be the most effective front liner at drawing attention, or preventing other from liners from getting attention, and survive that attention. Barbarians are one of the best at that. Protection fighters can kinda do it to if the ranks are tight, although the one/round thing hurts them. Sentinel fighters too, but again one/round.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes you are, confer the bolded part: you are putting this like people say it as a general truth.

When they just say "it always depends on the situation", in answer to guys saying "barb is always the best tank".
No Citan. "It always depends on the situation" is a *perfectly* reasonable response to the question about enemy tactics.

Please stop trying to rewrite the thread. Please stop pretending that my comments only apply to what you have said and no one else.


Here also

Are you unaware that melee attack is not the only way of making an attack? If an enemy chief orders some goons to drop arrows at a caster visibly casting/sustaining a spell because it deems it more dangerous than another turn of Barbarian's attacks, the latter can do nothing about it.
Citan, please. So the guys in melee will ignore the barbarian and move around him to attack the wizard *and* the guys in back with bows and arrows will ignore the barbarian and attack the wizard?

Or is it that the guys in melee don't have to move around the barbarian because they can lob ranged attacks? So he grants them advantage, they have disadvantage to make a ranged attack while next to him, he is trying to kill them immediately, and they are still going after the wizard?

Does the enemy chief not need a frontline as well that he can direct his goons to leave the barbarian alone and target the PCs in back? Lol, two groups come together and the first thing everyone does is run right past each other to target the backlines.

Sure, ok. As I said, this is DM preference. You think it makes sense for enemies to act this way in your game world. I don't.

[Citan]

None of these make the Barbarian a bad tank.

What Tanks do is be the most effective front liner at drawing attention, or preventing other from liners from getting attention, and survive that attention.
Geesh, I don't understand why you get so emotional at this that you totally deform what people say.
Nobody told that Barbarians were bad tank. People just say that it is not the best tank, because it's plain true.
And it's no use trying to restrict the word tank to what suits your opinion.
Barbarian just cannot hold aggro on his own, unless he takes feats that any martial build can take. That's it. No need to whine about it, it is not making him useless or bad or whatever. It's just a fact. :)



Does the enemy chief not need a frontline as well that he can direct his goons to leave the barbarian alone and target the PCs in back? Lol, two groups come together and the first thing everyone does is run right past each other to target the backlines.

Aaand, for the third time, you are reducing and deforming what others say by reducing it to the first round of an encounter, when the discussion happens to include the whole encounter, so including what happens after the first round, where each group has more idea of what everyone is capable of. :)

Also, in my example, I think a situation where a chief has the choice between losing two guys in melee that stand up to the Barbarian while ranged attackers try to down a caster before a nasty spell comes down on them is a very reasonable decision, rather than try to kill the Barbarian and maybe in turn suffer an AOE offensive/debuff spell or other thing.
Because so many things can happen in a fight, a Barbarian may or may not be good at aggroing. It's as situational as some spells for casters may be once you get actually playing.
The difference is that Reckless Attack is the only way a Barbarian can incite creatures to focus on him, whereas other classes have passive features or spells that make them higher priority targets whatever happens. So they have a much wider set of situations where they can reliably keep attention.

But anyways. Don't worry, I won't press, it's no use discussing with someone who deforms sayings to make it easier for him.

[Tanarii]

Nobody told that Barbarians were bad tank.I suggest you reread the thread.

Edit: OTOH, if you feel all you are doing is countering the argument being made that "Barbarians are the best tanks", I can see why we'd end up at loggerheads. Because I feel like I'm just countering the argument being made that "Barbarians are bad tanks." :smallbiggrin:

Edit2: Also, if you think "holding aggro" is a thing in 5e D&D, then you've either been playing too much WoW or too much 4e.

[RickAllison]

I suggest you reread the thread.

Edit: OTOH, if you feel all you are doing is countering the argument being made that "Barbarians are the best tanks", I can see why we'd end up at loggerheads. Because I feel like I'm just countering the argument being made that "Barbarians are bad tanks." :smallbiggrin:

Edit2: Also, if you think "holding aggro" is a thing in 5e D&D, then you've either been playing too much WoW or too much 4e.

Your definition of being a tank talked about how they are about drawing attention from other PCs. That is literally what "aggro" means, just in the form of one word instead of five or more. So let me ask again, why would any tactically-minded enemy focus on the crazy guy tanking hits without flinching and swinging a giant axe around when it is the squishy guy in robes behind him throwing out Fireballs and other spells that is causing more chaos.

Of course, this assumes more traditionally garbed characters. The wizard looks like a squishy artillery piece, the barbarian looks like Conan while foaming at the mouth. In an actual game, this may not be the case. If you tried to attack the "squishy" person in robes in the game I am in, you would find yourself attacking the monk. If you decide to forgo attacking the 7+ foot tall, super-buff Minotaur in armor and a shield, you just passed up the chance to attack the primary caster. As well, defensive spells like Sanctuary can make it very unattractive for mooks to focus on the wizard, in which case the advantage-giving is much more tempting.

We don't always consider these things because they are reliant on more complex mechanisms. I would say the Barb is an off-tank. While he normally doesn't have the ability to funnel much attention from others like the Bless-ing paladin or the fear-mongering monk, he becomes a much more attractive target when a caster goes defensive.

[Tanarii]

Your definition of being a tank talked about how they are about drawing attention from other PCs.Other front line PCs. If your party tactics make it possible for enemies (that outnumber you) to bypass your front line and attack PCs in the back line, then realistically there is nothing any tank can do about that.

Which is why 5e 'squishies' have so many defensive and escape options. Because if you're playing a 4v4 combat-as-war area arena style game, they need them. No tank can 'pull aggro' video game style and keep all four enemies on them. Even in 4e it wasn't possible, and that was a game that had aggro management built into it.

[RickAllison]

Other front line PCs. If your party tactics make it possible for enemies (that outnumber you) to bypass your front line and attack PCs in the back line, then realistically there is nothing any tank can do about that.

Which is why 5e 'squishies' have so many defensive and escape options. Because if you're playing a 4v4 combat-as-war area arena style game, they need them. No tank can 'pull aggro' video game style and keep all four enemies on them. Even in 4e it wasn't possible, and that was a game that had aggro management built into it.

And yet this thread has lists of various PC builds that all do manage to provide such protection through various means. Paladins, monks, even rogues all have ways to make targeting someone other than them much less attractive while being resilient. "Aggro management" doesn't have defined rules, but that doesn't stop it from existing. Instead, it is based on tactical analysis that renders focusing on the squishy undesirable.

[MaxWilson]

Hobgoblins are very tactical and smart, they know a good caster is a great force multiplier and unable new tactics.

If they know this, they also know that dispersal and range are the best weapons against a wizard. Instead of fighting the barbarian at all, they should get back on their horses and engage the party from 300' to 600' with their longbows. The wizard will die quickly and the barbarian will follow soon thereafter. If they are forced by circumstances or terrain to engage the party more closely, they should do it while distributed over a 60' x 60' square or so, allowing them to maintain full mutual support while only letting the wizard hit a third of the hobgoblins with his Fireball.

In short, if you assume enemies who have experience against spellcasters, you should expect to see many changes in doctrine, and most of them will be far more impactful than "bypass the tank." They might make the game less fun though.

Yet another case where a DM has to think carefully before making the game too realistic.


Unless the map is favorable, with choke points, difficult terrain, etc it's hard to tank in D&D. There's no aggro like in MMO and if the enemy is smart, he won't just trade blow without moving with the "tank" who gets healed every turn while receiving arrows from being.

A map which disallows tanking generally enables kiting. It's pretty hard to get into a situation where neither works. If your tank has some way to kite (e.g. Mounted Combatant feat) and other PCs have good mobility too (one or more of Mobile feat, Expeditious Retreat, Longstrider, Cunning Action, or Phantom Steed) then tanking becomes very relevant because all the fights in open terrain are either archery duels or turkey shoots. And turkey shoots are boring, not worth playing out in detail. A DM is within his rights to say, "Okay, now that you've reached your horses, you've reduced these orcs to a previously-solved problem. Five minutes later, you have shattered the main body and the survivors are fleeing in confusion in several directions. Do you pursue, or examine the loot?"


Of course, this assumes more traditionally garbed characters. The wizard looks like a squishy artillery piece, the barbarian looks like Conan while foaming at the mouth. In an actual game, this may not be the case. If you tried to attack the "squishy" person in robes in the game I am in, you would find yourself attacking the monk. If you decide to forgo attacking the 7+ foot tall, super-buff Minotaur in armor and a shield, you just passed up the chance to attack the primary caster. As well, defensive spells like Sanctuary can make it very unattractive for mooks to focus on the wizard, in which case the advantage-giving is much more tempting.

[nods in agreement] If monsters genuinely do anticipate the possibility of "skinny guys in robes = wizards whom you must kill at all costs", then Seeming becomes an extremely valuable spell. You can make all your barbarians look like skinny wizards, and all of your skinny wizards look like hulking plate-armored minotaurs. :-)

As an aside, since Rick mentions Sanctuary: a wizard with Sanctuary is probably a Life Cleric 1/Wizard X, so in addition to Sanctuary he's also got heavy armor. Not a soft target at all; in fact one of the hardest.

[smcmike]

If they know this, they also know that dispersal and range are the best weapons against a wizard. Instead of fighting the barbarian at all, they should get back on their horses and engage the party from 300' to 600' with their longbows. The wizard will die quickly and the barbarian will follow soon thereafter. If they are forced by circumstances or terrain to engage the party more closely, they should do it while distributed over a 60' x 60' square or so, allowing them to maintain full mutual support while only letting the wizard hit a third of the hobgoblins with his Fireball.

In short, if you assume enemies who have experience against spellcasters, you should expect to see many changes in doctrine, and most of them will be far more impactful than "bypass the tank." They might make the game less fun though.

Yet another case where a DM has to think carefully before making the game too realistic.

Yeah, if the party is hiking on foot across a featureless plain habituated by hordes of wild horse-archers, they deserve what they get.

Seriously, I consider the idea of a featureless plain to be a very specific circumstance/challenge. Saying that a barbarian isn't good at tanking in such a circumstance is similar to saying that a rogue isn't good at hiding in such a circumstance.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, if the party is hiking on foot across a featureless plain habituated by hordes of wild horse-archers, they deserve what they get.

Seriously, I consider the idea of a featureless plain to be a very specific circumstance/challenge. Saying that a barbarian isn't good at tanking in such a circumstance is similar to saying that a rogue isn't good at hiding in such a circumstance.

Every time I see someone on these forums equate (occasional) "visibility out to 300' to 600'" with "featureless plain" it makes me wonder if they live in a shoebox.

Also, I didn't say a thing about the barbarian. Don't know where you came up with that part.

[smcmike]

Every time I see someone on these forums equate (occasional) "visibility out to 300' to 600'" with "featureless plain" it makes me wonder if they live in a shoebox.

Also, I didn't say a thing about the barbarian. Don't know where you came up with that part.

I was building off what you said, not really contradicting you, so the barbarian came in as the topic of the thread we are discussing.

I live on the east coast of the United States. Most natural areas here are fairly heavily wooded, and do not offer 300' of visibility.

The reason it sounded like you were talking about a featureless plain, though, is that if there are features on the plain, the party can simple get behind those features when the hobgoblins ride off to a 600' range.

[Ruslan]

Sure, they're absolutely not going to be sending everyone at the barbarian. But he'll probably get a fair bit of attention, because he's the strongest. If the goblins weren't afraid of getting murdered by the strongest, they would have left Gruk-Gruk long ago. The distribution would probably be closer to 3 on the Cleric, 2 on the Wizard, 2 on the Rogue, and 3 plus Gruk Gruk and his Worg on the Barbarian, to prove that Gruk-Gruk is the strongest. Gruk-Gruk's goblins, plus himself and his worg, outnumber these puny humans 3-to-1. Why should they assume they're going to lose and go for guerilla tactics?
Many letters, many numbers, meesa no understand. Meesa only know Gruk-Gruk said kill wizard.

[RickAllison]

Many letters, many numbers, meesa no understand. Meesa only know Gruk-Gruk said kill wizard.

Must. Murder. Jar-Jar!!!

Just kidding, I love Jar-Jar, and my Star Wars players were convinced I would eventually bring him in as the BBEG Sith...

[odigity]

I haven't read the whole thread (made it to the end of page 2), but I will say that the factors that may determine which PC an enemy will go for is a large and interesting enough topic to warrant it's own thread. If I were responsible, I'd consider:

* how the PCs look (size, gender, race, armor, weapons)
* how the PCs are positioned
* how the PCs are behaving
* knowledge of the PCs from previous rounds of combat or prior observation
* the enemy's intelligence
* the enemy's prior experience in general
* the enemy's personality
* the enemy's goals / priorities
* for an intelligent participant in a group attack, the enemy's assigned combat role within the group (usually by a commander, unless you're facing the Evil Adventuring Party)

[Dr.Samurai]

Citan, Citan, Citan... you know the posts don't disappear after we read them right?


Geesh, I don't understand why you get so emotional at this that you totally deform what people say.
Nobody told that Barbarians were bad tank.

TL;DR: Barbarians are awful "tanks"

The problem is Barbarians are fairly awful at demanding attention.

Barbs are terrible as tanks because they can't hold aggro since they give so little reason to attack them over those they are supposed to protect.

Really, it is Bear (the one mentioned in the OP) that is the worst at tanking.

That's why a Barbarian, especially a Bear, is very bad at tanking
Those are simply the direct contradictions to your ridiculous assertion, and do not include all of the implications made in this thread and the inferences that can be drawn. I think it's funny that the last one is a direct quote from you.



I'm not the one being reductive in this thread Citan.

I get that this is different from the conversation about "best tank", but it is still relevant to the assumed stance throughout this thread that warriors can and should be ignored for the "easier" (lol) target in the back.
Yes you are, confer the bolded part: you are putting this like people say it as a general truth.

When they just say "it always depends on the situation", in answer to guys saying "barb is always the best tank".


The problem I see with barbarians as a tank is that the best way to defeat them IS to ignore them!

...ignore the Barb and take a little damage, ignore the monk and you take almost as much damage while also risking being stunned.

Why wouldn't many enemies just sprint past the big guy, especially at higher levels when the party is actually known?

The problem is Barbarians are fairly awful at demanding attention.

Barbs are terrible as tanks because they can't hold aggro since they give so little reason to attack them over those they are supposed to protect.

Barb has no way to actually force enemies to attack him.

Otherwise, attacking the brazen warrior who is obviously strong and is foaming at the mouth is one of the least-likely reactions for a creature.

If one guy is wearing Kevlar armor, is extremely buff, and is swinging a baseball bat, and another guy is skinny, wearing plain clothes, and is brandishing a flamethrower, I would try to kill the second guy first.


As I said before Citan, please stop trying to rewrite history here. Everyone participating can read, so pretending that people aren't saying things that they are saying is just confusing the conversation and wasting time and energy.

The funny thing is, I actually agree with you in your first (I think) post. Barbarians aren't necessarily the best at tanking and some others can maybe do it better. I don't think there's anything controversial about that.

But I can't get behind this idea that enemies are just going to "sprint" past the big guy. Some might, of course. Especially the lurkers and skirmishers, and ranged attackers might target the casters for sure. But warriors are there to ensure that it isn't the *entire* enemy force bearing down on the frail party members, and I don't think it is automatic or should be assumed that, if there isn't a special Marking mechanic or Aggro feature, enemies will realistically walk by and give their back to a giant armed warrior that has the intent to kill them. Not necessarily, as is being portrayed in this thread. It is way more complex than that. There is this notion behind some of the points being made that enemies will be tactical, and it almost seems like the adventurers are not meant to be tactical themselves. Wizards are simply super easy to kill. Even when people mention higher levels and that enemies will "know the party" and it might not even take a round to figure out the barbarian is taking half damage, somehow these higher level enemies that know the party don't know that the wizard won't go down in one attack, or even a few. That the wizard can buff himself, or escape. Somehow these tactical and savvy threats with intel on the party only know that the wizard can be killed with a dagger strike and it's just a matter of running up to him and taking a swing.

I also think the term "tank" is being conflated with "control", and so people are calling stun-locks and enchantments "tanking" when it isn't tanking at all. Tanking is about taking hits. It conveys the armor and invulnerability of a tank. Control has the effect of reducing damage to the party because it is controlling the actions of the enemy, but that is not a tank. A tank has lots of hit points, damage mitigation, or high AC, but the point is that he can take hits better than the other party members. I'm not arguing that some of the comparisons made earlier between classes don't hold true. But it's a bit disingenuous to call anyone that can stun or put soft control on a target a "tank". A tank is the guy that plugs up the hallway or the doorway. A tank is the guy you position your battlefield control around to funnel the enemies through. A tank is the guy you maneuver around because if the enemies have to get close to anyone you want it to be him. A tank doesn't need aggro features because it is assumed that some enemies will fight him. The Uruks didn't calmly walk past Boromir at Amon Hen and simply snatch up the frail unarmored hobbits. If any did, he would very obviously turn around, run at them and stab them in the backs. Someone has to fight Boromir, because he is a soldier with a sword and the intent to kill the orcs. They can't just all walk around him no matter how vulnerable the hobbits look. Some of them have to occupy him while they try to get the prized hobbits that Saruman wants so badly. It just strikes me as silly that the story some of you are telling as DM is that your player's barbarian is busy in combat trying to herd cats lol, because he is so clearly a relatively minor threat to his enemies.

This is all decided on a spectrum. You as the DM will determine how your monster and enemies act, what they know, and what risks they are willing to take. If the extent of your enemy's knowledge is "the barbarian will be hard to take down and won't kill me if I go around him, while the wizard will be easy to take down and is extremely lethal" then yes, have at it. Ignore your frontline to your heart's content. But I don't agree that is the expected norm.

[RickAllison]

Dr. Samurai, remember that a big part of the debate is over "aggro" not existing in the traditional sense in 5e. In response to this, we have some who choose to neglect that criteria (in which case Barb is great) and those who take the most appropriate substitutions (in which case the Barb fares less well). Complicating the matter is that the tank role is often improperly compared to the tanky descriptor, or a corruption of the verb "tank" as in tank a hit.

Traditionally, tanking is not withstanding damage (there are plenty of primary-damage people who can do that perfectly well), but taking the damage so others don't have to. The most appropriate concepts in 5e involve control-y concepts because that is one of the few ways to accomplish this in the system.

[Dr.Samurai]

Traditionally, tanking is not withstanding damage (there are plenty of primary-damage people who can do that perfectly well), but taking the damage so others don't have to.
Sure, but if you do not have a way to mitigate the attack (turn it into a miss with high AC, mostly ignore it with loads of HPs or DR) then you'll just die. You're simply substituting your death for another player's. The idea is that you take the damage so others don't have to, and then also you take that damage *better* than others would have taken it so you can keep protecting them.

Whether you need an aggro mechanic or not to pull that off is the issue, as you mentioned.

[RickAllison]

Sure, but if you do not have a way to mitigate the attack (turn it into a miss with high AC, mostly ignore it with loads of HPs or DR) then you'll just die. You're simply substituting your death for another player's. The idea is that you take the damage so others don't have to, and then also you take that damage *better* than others would have taken it so you can keep protecting them.

Whether you need an aggro mechanic or not to pull that off is the issue, as you mentioned.

Exactly, and that is why from those who do consider the damage management issue think less well of barbarian. Rogues, Paladins, monks, they all have ways to both mitigate personal damage, but to also manage where the damage is going. Barbarians excel in taking the damage, while other candidates trade some of that to then absorb damage from others. Add in things like Sentinel or magic items to allow the Barb to manage damage and he rapidly becomes a better tank.

[djreynolds]

Of single class combos...

I prefer a paladin, he has better saves where it counts... wisdom and charisma and aura of protection.

I will just banish a barbarian... no more tank.

Being a tank is being something that is a continual PIA on the battlefield, I prefer the term "stickiness"

Yes 90% of the time a bear totem barbarian is the best tank versus damage, but their Achilles heal is their saves that take them out of combat and that can be annoying.

You must include other party members in the conversation. Is their a bard or cleric adding their buffs to this? Is their an archer is the back row unleashing arrow after arrow? Is their a paladin close by? Did the rogue just clean out someone with a devastating sneak attack?

[Tanarii]

I haven't read the whole thread (made it to the end of page 2), but I will say that the factors that may determine which PC an enemy will go for is a large and interesting enough topic to warrant it's own thread. If I were responsible, I'd consider:

* how the PCs look (size, gender, race, armor, weapons)
* how the PCs are positioned
* how the PCs are behaving
* knowledge of the PCs from previous rounds of combat or prior observation
* the enemy's intelligence
* the enemy's prior experience in general
* the enemy's personality
* the enemy's goals / priorities
* for an intelligent participant in a group attack, the enemy's assigned combat role within the group (usually by a commander, unless you're facing the Evil Adventuring Party)Good post. I like it. Also:
* Available terrain
* Available attack options at the enemy's disposal
* Enemy's state of mind at time of encounter (variation on personality & goals/priorities)
* Enemy's emotional response to combat events so far (variation on knowledge of PCs from previous rounds)

Also a big one:
Is the table, ie DM and players, approaching D&D combat as a tactical combat simulator? Is the goal is to play combat in the most tactically efficient way? Or is the goal for the players and DM to roleplay, make in-character decisions for PCs and NPCs? Somewhere in the middle?

(I'm trying really not to cast judgement on either style with this question. I've played, and enjoyed, plenty of both, as long as lots of somewhere in between.)

[smcmike]

Also a big one:
Is the table, ie DM and players, approaching D&D combat as a tactical combat simulator? Is the goal is to play combat in the most tactically efficient way? Or is the goal for the players and DM to roleplay, make in-character decisions for PCs and NPCs? Somewhere in the middle?

(I'm trying really not to cast judgement on either style with this question. I've played, and enjoyed, plenty of both, as long as lots of somewhere in between.)

It seems to me that there are at least three potential goals for the DM during combat.

1. Win the encounter.

2. Simulate the NPC actions realistically.

3. Make the encounter interesting for the players.

For example, let's say the DM is deciding to target the Barb or the Wiz with his gobbos. DM1 says "I know Bill has fireball, these gobs will focus fire on him first, and only attack Will after he's down." DM2 says "Grug doesn't know about magic, but he knows about swords, he'll target Will. Grig is actually a coward, he'll make a run for it. Grag is pretty smart, she'll target Bill and yell at the others to do the same." DM3 says "if I focus fire on Bill, this encounter might be a TPK, and I don't want that. If I focus on Will, it's probably too easy, though. Maybe I'll have one of them try to sneak up behind and surprise Bill after Will is engaged, that should give them some interesting choices."

For what it's worth, I think a balance of all three is best.