Tank Paladin Fighting Style - Defense or Protection

[Baldin]

Hi there,

So I'm a long time 3,5 player and my party picked up 5e. We have played 2 sessions and will become level 2 soon. My character is a Gold Dragonborn Paladin of Bahamut and will focus on protecting himself and others. I'll be using a shield and want to get the feat Sentinal. Now my question is, is it worth it to take the Fighting Style Protection over Defense? Giving disadvantage is realy nice, however if it takes away my reaction (which is needed for Sentinal) will I actually hamstring myself?

Let me know your thoughts!
Cheers
Baldin

[NiklasWB]

Overall I'd say Protection is a fairly bad pick for a fighting style in general.

It eats up your reaction, and a lot of things have to mesh for you to even be able to use it. The benefit isn't even that good if you do manage to use it.

It becomes even worse if you pick Sentinel, since you really want to keep your reaction free to hit things.

I'd say go Defense or Dueling instead. Dueling works with shield, just fyi.

[SMac8988]

I would say, since defense wastes your reaction compared to sentinel, I would go protection and if you plan to use a shield pick up the shield master feat. Knocking prone on a bonus action, then moving to block someone else could be pretty defensive of the squishy.

[Baldin]

Thanks for the input, I was already leaning to Defense indeed.

Dueling is nice, though in th elong run the +2 damage has less of an impact overal than the +1 armor will have due to the few ways to increase armor. I'll go for defense I think.
(@SMac8988 I think you confuse protection and defense in your statement, however what you say makes much sense!)

Thanks guys!

[Arkhios]

I disagree with the notion that protection style was bad. It makes using a shield much more interactive, and since the game mechanics are made so that you can have only one reaction per turn, using that reaction to defend an ally is well spent reaction. Even if it was only one attack. One attack with disadvantage is likely a one attack less that might drop an ally. Compared to flat +1 to your own AC, it's really good. Having a top notch AC is nice and all, but if your foes find your AC impossible to penetrate, how long do you suppose they'll try to attack you instead of your more squishy and less defended allies? Not for long, that's for sure. being able to use that reaction every round makes a strong incentive to attack you instead.

[Specter]

I find it best to stay in front of the squishies holding the line (Sentinel + Polearm Master) than to just give disadvantage to one attack.

[Arkhios]

I find it best to stay in front of the squishies holding the line (Sentinel + Polearm Master) than to just give disadvantage to one attack.

That's a matter of preference. Some people like to use a shield. Some, likewise, prefer a polearm. To each his own. (And don't get started with polearm mastery + quarterstaff and shield. That's absurdly stupid).

[Rysto]

The Protection fighting style strikes me as being at odds with being a tank. If you use it, you forfeit any chance at an attack-of-opportunity for the round, and are giving free reign to whatever you're fighting to push right past you and get into the back line.

[Dudu]

I disagree with the notion that protection style was bad. It makes using a shield much more interactive, and since the game mechanics are made so that you can have only one reaction per turn, using that reaction to defend an ally is well spent reaction. Even if it was only one attack. One attack with disadvantage is likely a one attack less that might drop an ally. Compared to flat +1 to your own AC, it's really good. Having a top notch AC is nice and all, but if your foes find your AC impossible to penetrate, how long do you suppose they'll try to attack you instead of your more squishy and less defended allies? Not for long, that's for sure. being able to use that reaction every round makes a strong incentive to attack you instead.
Enter Sentinel.

You have only one reaction per round. Sentinel allows you to 1. hit someone with it and 2. Protect your squishy allies even better, because if protection will give disadvantage for the assailants, sentinel won't even allow them to reach your friends.

[Arkhios]

Enter Sentinel.

You have only one reaction per round. Sentinel allows you to 1. hit someone with it and 2. Protect your squishy allies even better, because if protection will give disadvantage for the assailants, sentinel won't even allow them to reach your friends.

Enter no feats, no multiclass game. End of story.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Enter no feats, no multiclass game. End of story.

My character is a Gold Dragonborn Paladin of Bahamut and will focus on protecting himself and others. I'll be using a shield and want to get the feat Sentinal.
Exit no feats game, pursued by a Baldin. The story continues.

[Biggstick]

Enter no feats, no multiclass game. End of story.

I think a no feat/no multiclass game is way more rare then a game that allows both.

No reason to be rude with the "End of story" quip at the end either.

[Arkhios]

Exit no feats game, pursued by a Baldin. The story continues.

Oops, didn't register reading that. My bad.


I think a no feat/no multiclass game is way more rare then a game that allows both.

No reason to be rude with the "End of story" quip at the end either.

True. I overreacted a little.

[Specter]

That's a matter of preference. Some people like to use a shield. Some, likewise, prefer a polearm. To each his own. (And don't get started with polearm mastery + quarterstaff and shield. That's absurdly stupid).

Haha, don't worry, I never would.


I agree, it's generally a good idea to form a line if possible, unless you know you're facing Area attacks. But one person isn't a line. And if there is a Line and you're S&B (the style under discussion), you can use Protection to assist the other less AC-focused members of the line.

Of course, the combination of S&B Protection/Shield Master is especially awesome when the adjacent member of the Line is 2H Sentinel & Polearm master. :smallwink:

One person with Sentinel is effectively a line against one person. One person with Protection can shield one person. Difference is, with Sentinel you can avoid any attack your enemy makes, instead of giving disadvantage to one, and still deal damage.

[T.G. Oskar]

Not to jump the gun, but...are there more options available? Say, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, or Unearthed Arcana options?

IMO, it depends on your actual focus. You mention you want Sentinel, so you're at least set for Lockdown tanking (i.e., stop the enemy dead on its tracks before it reaches your allies). IMO, Tunnel Fighting is somewhat better in that regard, as it doesn't make you lose your reaction and allows additional opportunity attacks, but it eats your bonus action. Tunnel Fighter is on one of the Unearthed Arcana releases, so it's semi-official (it's not in a book yet). As a tank, I feel Order of the Crown (from the SCAG) is dead-on, as it offers a good set of tanking options (Champion's Challenge keeps enemies close, Warding Bond allows you to protect an ally, plus you get solid physical defenses).

However, if you're mostly limited to the Big 3...well, I'd say it depends. As a Paladin, you're innately capable of using your reaction to make Opportunity Attacks; Protection makes you use your reaction to provide a chance to NOT hit an ally. If you have another way to provide disadvantage, then Protection won't do anything; this can be achieved by simply knocking the enemy prone, which can be done by using Shield Master in the first place (the bonus action shield bash). Sentinel already provides yet another way to use your reaction, which is to make a melee weapon attack against a creature that attacked an ally of yours - that's three ways to use your reaction, two of them being attacks and one of them being a chance to aid an ally avoid an attack, but only for one attack (any creature with Multiattack screws you on that).

With that said - IF you have no other way to provide disadvantage, AND the enemy doesn't have Multiattack, AND it's about to die, Protection is excellent. Otherwise, you're better with another Fighting Style, and Defense is always useful to keep you standing by increasing the AC. Now, this brings another problem, which is "stickiness" - if your Paladin isn't dishing enough damage or has a way to keep enemies close, then high AC may make smarter opponents completely avoid you (maybe not Orcs or Ogres, but Assassins do). Sentinel, again, helps a lot (murdering their speed is one great way to keep the enemy close, and they can't do Disengage which is better), but it won't help if they go all the way to make an arc around you, thus forcing you to move. You're also still limited to one OA, which means you need to be pretty careful who you'll halt. In that case, if the enemy moves closer to an ally, chances are Protection may be more useful as it has a chance to avoid an attack altogether. But, that's a corner-case scenario anyways. Tunnel Fighter, however, does allow additional attacks of opportunity as it doesn't make you consume your reaction, which is perfect for Sentinel as it makes the halting trait far, far more useful (plus, the enemy can't Disengage, so if you hit, the enemy's stuck to you, and you can just use Tunnel Fighter's defensive stance over and over and over again.

TL;DR - go Tunnel Fighter, but if you must, go Defense (or Duelist!).

[MeeposFire]

I disagree with the notion that protection style was bad. It makes using a shield much more interactive, and since the game mechanics are made so that you can have only one reaction per turn, using that reaction to defend an ally is well spent reaction. Even if it was only one attack. One attack with disadvantage is likely a one attack less that might drop an ally. Compared to flat +1 to your own AC, it's really good. Having a top notch AC is nice and all, but if your foes find your AC impossible to penetrate, how long do you suppose they'll try to attack you instead of your more squishy and less defended allies? Not for long, that's for sure. being able to use that reaction every round makes a strong incentive to attack you instead.

I would agree with you if protection did not have so many caveats that it makes it really annoying as you go through the game. It becomes less effective generally as the game continues (most enemies get more than one attack but you only can affect one). That combined with range issues (are you next to the right target?), only one reaction that you my want for other things, and other things that seem to conspire to keep making you unable to use it or have it be far too ineffective for my tastes. The ability needs to remove one or two caveats so that it can really compete with the other options.


As for dueling I do like that style though I prefer it on a class that gets more attacks. It is ok on a paladin but not great. Defense can be better but you probably won't notice it as much.

[JumboWheat01]

I'd generally go for more AC myself. Disadvantage is nice and all, but it doesn't actually stop the target from spanking whatever it wants to spank, only makes it more difficult. Plus if you're going to go Oath of the Crown found in SCAG, you'd want more AC to survive any attacks your sticky "taunts" will cause.

[Baldin]

Thanks for all the replies and discussions. It´s our first game in 5e, so atm we mostly stick to the main book. I choose to go devotion paladin because its fits my character the most.
I'll go for defense for now and sentinal later. Hoping that my smite and spells will be enough damage to keep the enemy on me. Also one reason why I rather use the sentinal OA over the protection style is due to the fact that I rather protect my backline (wizard and archer) than to "block" and attack for our barbarian, shapeshift druid or cleric (who are more durable). With sentinal I could engage an enemy and keep it from going for our squishy.

Anyway. Thanks for all input, definetly very usefull!

[djreynolds]

It is party dependent, and players dependent.

Your party must be disciplined. This is how we fight. This is what we do it. Me and the rogue always buddy up.... it doesn't always happen.

Defensive and duelist are always on, 100% of the time. They always happen.

Protection is powerful, it can turn a critical into a miss... but how often. Once a short rest.... maybe, and only maybe if your team all ways is able to set up and fight in a certain manner.

This is why the lucky feat is so powerful, tell your buddy to take this feat and you will take defensive style instead.

[SMac8988]

Thanks for the input, I was already leaning to Defense indeed.

Dueling is nice, though in th elong run the +2 damage has less of an impact overal than the +1 armor will have due to the few ways to increase armor. I'll go for defense I think.
(@SMac8988 I think you confuse protection and defense in your statement, however what you say makes much sense!)

Thanks guys!

Lol my bad, I was at work and got then confused. Glad I helped, somewhat lol