Which is better, Barbarian or Fighter?

[Expected]

Between Barbarian and Fighter, which is the best class for tanking? What about dealing damage? Barbarian has resistance to damage while raging and Fighter usually has high AC due to heavy armor proficiency. Including subclass features, Barbarians have Reckless Attack and Brutal Criticals and Fighters have Extra Attacks and many ASI's/feats. Does AC scale well into late game, or do enemies have too high of attack bonuses for AC to really make a difference and resistance is better as a result? What are your thoughts?

[CTurbo]

Barbarians make better tanks hands down. The damage is debatable. For pure builds, Fighters are probably a little better since they can afford extra feats while still maxing out their main stats.

[MrStabby]

I would say fighter is a bit better at tanking if feats are allowed. The ability to get resilient wisdom is great for keeping them in the front lines and dodging spells like hold person. Lower HP and no damage absorption means they are less good against enemies that do nothing but damage though.

[hymer]

Does AC scale well into late game, or do enemies have too high of attack bonuses for AC to really make a difference and resistance is better as a result?
This heavly depends on the kinds of magical protection your group gets hold of. Between cloak of protection, ring of protection, and magical shields and armour, you can easily see a 5-8 point difference between what two different campaigns expect of frontline AC. But that said, AC doesn't stop being relevant. A CR 24 ancient red dragon has +17 to hit. In other words, starting at AC 19, AC remains relevant. You should be able to attain an AC over 20 without any magic help. On the other hand, dragon breath ignores most barbarians' damage resistance from rage.

All that to illustrate that it depends on the kind of foes and tactics the DM uses, and the kinds of items made available. But unless your DM does something to favour one class over the other (intentionally or otherwise), you can do well enough as either class, both in tanking and damage dealing.

[Arkhios]

Between Barbarian and Fighter, which is the best class for tanking? What about dealing damage? Barbarian has resistance to damage while raging and Fighter usually has high AC due to heavy armor proficiency. Including subclass features, Barbarians have Reckless Attack and Brutal Criticals and Fighters have Extra Attacks and many ASI's/feats. Does AC scale well into late game, or do enemies have too high of attack bonuses for AC to really make a difference and resistance is better as a result? What are your thoughts?

Personally, I think that:

Fighter is slightly better in the long run, because what barbarian lacks is consistency. Sure, barbarian has rage. But you can rage only so many times a day, while fighter can keep on going all day every day.

Rage does seem like a good addition to tanking due to its ability to halve the most common damage types, and sure enough, it also adds a reasonable damage, but all that comes in bursts. It doesn't last indefinitely (until very high levels), and once you're out of "fuel", you're holding on your, actually quite small, advantage over fighter in base hit points (difference between d10 and d12 is only ~1 point on average after all).

Then there's the question regarding AC. Barbarians do have Unarmored Defense, but it relies on two ability scores, one of which isn't really a key ability score for the rest of the barbarian's goodies: Dexterity. While it's true that a barbarian can get AC as high as 24 bare naked with a shield, if you're depending on point-buy you'll have to invest the majority of your Ability Score Increases to Dexterity and Constitution to reach that, and even then you'll need to wait 20 levels. It's the stuff of legends, not something you have for the whole career of yours. Fortunately, in the long run, barbarian can also wear medium armor to reach an AC of as high as 19 (half-plate: 15, dexterity max +2, shield +2). Now, compared to a bog-standard fighter, using heavy armor, shield, and the defense fighting style, that's equivalent to chainmail and shield. A fighter can get as high as 21 with plate armor, with 1500 gold pieces being the only obstacle.
Now, before you say anything about a 20th level barbarian beating that AC 21 by 3 points, here's one thing to consider: Unarmored Defense doesn't come with +1/+2/+3 enhancements, so a fighter can also reach AC 24 if they have a magical plate armor, and at 20th level, where this would actually even matter, fighter and barbarian are at equal footing. Both could also grab a +3 Shield, to get their AC to 27. That's quite something right there. However, it's quite possible that the fighter had AC 27 long before barbarian did, because magic items don't ask your character or class levels.

TL;DR, Fighters get higher AC much more consistently and/or earlier than barbarians.

Regarding damage dealing. Barbarians do get a respectable bonus to their damage rolls by default with rage. But barbarians can only ever have 2 attacks with one Attack Action. Fighters can get as many as 4 with one Attack Action. That's a heavy difference. Note that I didn't say anything about attacks with Bonus Actions, but that's because Attack Action =/= Bonus Action.

[ad_hoc]

Ancestral Guardian Barbarians are pretty good for tanking. Battle Masters have abilities that can be chosen, each one requiring a superiority die. Eldritch Knights have some spells that will probably help but those are even more limited.

And then of course the Sentinel feat.

That's about it for your options. Most characters don't have a way to stop enemies from simply walking past them.

[Sigreid]

Depends a lot on the DM to. What I mean is that it's not hard to end a barbarian's rage if you want to. You just have to deny them the ability to attack or be attacked for a short time and they calm down.

[Unoriginal]

Depends which kind of tanking you're talking about.

For exemple, a Cavalier Fighter is probably much better at "drawing aggro" from the enemies and so protect the squishy party members than the Barbarian. But on the other hand, Barbarians can probably take more punishment.



That's about it for your options. Most characters don't have a way to stop enemies from simply walking past them.

Cavaliers can, though.

Man I wish there was a modern reboot of the old D&D cartoon.

[ad_hoc]

Depends which kind of tanking you're talking about.

For exemple, a Cavalier Fighter is probably much better at "drawing aggro" from the enemies and so protect the squishy party members than the Barbarian. But on the other hand, Barbarians can probably take more punishment.



Cavaliers can, though.

Man I wish there was a modern reboot of the old D&D cartoon.

Missed that one. The mount thing requires a special campaign to see much use so I don't think about it.

Still, the mark is for 1 round only and is limited by str/long rest. Fewer uses than the Ancestral Guardian.

[Arkhios]

Missed that one. The mount thing requires a special campaign to see much use so I don't think about it.

Still, the mark is for 1 round only and is limited by str/long rest. Fewer uses than the Ancestral Guardian.

Just occurred to me that a cavalier would absolutely love to get their hands upon that str... 29? 31? Belt of Giant strength :o

[MaxWilson]

Still, the mark is for 1 round only and is limited by str/long rest. Fewer uses than the Ancestral Guardian.

Marking is unlimited. Only the special bonus attack is long rest-limited.

[ad_hoc]

Marking is unlimited. Only the special bonus attack is long rest-limited.

Oh that's pretty good then.

Probably makes that the best tank. A bit silly to be dungeon delving with a Cavalier though.

[Arkhios]

A bit silly to be dungeon delving with a Cavalier though.

Meh, it's just a name. Just call it a knight and you're fine.

[rbstr]

Yeah, it's not a mount based class really at all.

I'd have a hard time choosing the "best" between Cavalier or Ancestral Guardian:
Cavalier's mark is only disadvantage and the limited bonus attack but can work on more targets. Ancestor's is one mark, has to be when raging but gives resistance to damage.
Warding Maneuver works on you, stacks with disadvantage but only con mod a day and only on this w/in 5 ft of you. Spirit Shield works on top of the resistance, unlimited usage and can be w/in 30ft but doesn't work on yourself and has to be while raging eventually does pretty decent damage to enemies.
Cavalier has built in stickiness.

In all I think Guardian...guards better, particularly if you don't keep your party members right next to yourself. Cavalier can probably lay the hurt on a bit more and isn't totally out of gas once their resources are spent.

[Unoriginal]

Missed that one. The mount thing requires a special campaign to see much use so I don't think about it.

The Cavalier does not require a mount. At all.

Seriously, it's a pretty great subclass.


Yeah, it's not a mount based class really at all.

The mount just give them additional perks on top of the rest.

[Shining Wrath]

It's really a "what level, in what sort of campaign" question. Low magic favors barbarians, who use less equipment. Foes that attack saving throws rather than HP with damage favor the fighter, who can take Resilient and rely less on damage resistance and more on fighting styles and boosting AC.

At higher levels almost all the foes attack saving throws at least once in a while and the chances of having come across magic items goes up; both of these argue for the fighter being superior once you're in the teens.

[MaxWilson]

Oh that's pretty good then.

Probably makes that the best tank. A bit silly to be dungeon delving with a Cavalier though.

"Marking" (silly name, I'd prefer to call it "distraction" instead) goes really, really well with wizard levels. Cavalier 5/Diviner 3 with Defensive Duelist and Blur/Shield/Absorb Elements would be amazingly fun to play. (And it's a rare case where dual-wielding might be worthwhile frequently, even though the Two Weapon Fighting Style would not be, because you're not dual-wielding for damage.) It's the rare case of a high-AC character who really can protect other characters at the same time even in close quarters where grappling is ineffective. Adding in Portent is just icing on the cake.

I don't think it's silly to be dungeon delving with a Cavalier at all. Not all dungeons are literally underground dungeons; most 5E adventures have very large corridors for some reason (5' wide is the "standard" minimum, which is wide enough to get a horse through per PHB rules on Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces); and the tactical advantages of having a mount are enormous. Best of all, Cavaliers can use mounts effectively without requiring any feat investment (because they can easily roll off the horse and cover the last 25' on foot, leaving the horse at a safe-ish distance) but they're also not in any way tied to a mount.

My mental image of the Cavalier is one of Belisarius' Roman cataphract bodyguards (specifically Valentinian) from David Drake/Eric Flint's Belisarius series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius_series). Trained horsemen, deadly with blade or with bow, but outside of military campaigns they spend as much time in urban settings being bodyguards as they do on horseback. They're not just excellent cavalry, they're everything.

Anyway, the point is that the Cavalier ability to mount/dismount at a low movement cost is nice but secondary. It's better than Samurai etiquette (+Wisdom to Charisma (Persuasion) checks) but you could still ignore it completely and have a good character.


Yeah, it's not a mount based class really at all.

I'd have a hard time choosing the "best" between Cavalier or Ancestral Guardian:
Cavalier's mark is only disadvantage and the limited bonus attack but can work on more targets. Ancestor's is one mark, has to be when raging but gives resistance to damage.
Warding Maneuver works on you, stacks with disadvantage but only con mod a day and only on this w/in 5 ft of you. Spirit Shield works on top of the resistance, unlimited usage and can be w/in 30ft but doesn't work on yourself and has to be while raging eventually does pretty decent damage to enemies.
Cavalier has built in stickiness.

In all I think Guardian...guards better, particularly if you don't keep your party members right next to yourself. Cavalier can probably lay the hurt on a bit more and isn't totally out of gas once their resources are spent.

IMO the biggest differences between them are (1) the target limitation you already mentioned (cavalier = more targets allowed); (2) that the Cavalier can cast spells and keep concentration while still marking, and the Ancestral Guardian cannot because it only works while raging. So the Cavalier has many, many more tactical options available and is probably harder to kill (especially for high-level monsters that inflict lots of elemental/necrotic/poison/etc. damage).

Note further BTW that the Cavalier may want to dual wield occasionally (TWF style not necessary because you're not dual-wielding for damage). Getting three chances per round at 5th level (five times when Action Surging) to impose disadvantage on enemies who attack other PCs is definitely something worth considering, especially if you have some way (like Blur or Greater Invisibility) to give them disadvantage against the Cavalier as well.

[Willie the Duck]

Depends which kind of tanking you're talking about.
For exemple, a Cavalier Fighter is probably much better at "drawing aggro" from the enemies and so protect the squishy party members than the Barbarian. But on the other hand, Barbarians can probably take more punishment.
Cavaliers can, though.


And then of course the Sentinel feat.
That's about it for your options. Most characters don't have a way to stop enemies from simply walking past them.

5e has some, but not a lot, of actual battlefield control (people coming from 4e undoubtedly scoff at it, people coming from TSR-era probably consider it unnecessary). Suffice to say, it will depend on DM playstyle how important it is. Obviously if the enemies just walk past the high-AC/HP warrior-types and chew on the squishies, you are going to really kick yourself for not going sentinel/cavalier/etc., OTOH if your DM does not, then you are probably wasting your build a bit. And let's be clear, regardless of the rules structure, lots of people play such that the baddies run up and tussle with the front line, so ignoring that playstyle is at-the-detriment of providing useful answers to a big part of the potential audience.

Assuming for the moment that your DM doesn't rush past (or your group is really good about controlling the environment, with 2-3 heavy troops guarding conveniently narrow dungeon corridors, etc.), then the situation becomes more of an open question. A barbarian has a class feature that is pretty darn awesome... when you use it, can keep it up, and when melee attack and durability vs. melee/ranged attacks and enemy durability is the major factors in the encounter. That happens most of the time... with enough exceptions that you can't bank on it. It does not take a lot of failing to keep your rage up, or not having one available in a crunch situation, or a failed Wis save that the fighter with an extra ASI to spend on resilient (or just plain having a higher Wis, because they need one combat stat instead of both Dex and Str), or any other unforeseen circumstance, to make the fighter better at tanking. So it is really going to come down to playstyle, and how often the combats shape up to favor what the barbarian does well.

[MaxWilson]

Assuming for the moment that your DM doesn't rush past (or your group is really good about controlling the environment, with 2-3 heavy troops guarding conveniently narrow dungeon corridors, etc.)

Remark: any campaign which does not often feature "conveniently narrow dungeon corridors" is a great place to use mounts. And even if corridors are largish (20' wide or so) a Mounted Combatant on a Large mount like a warhorse can place himself to block Large monsters from getting past, even before you take stuff like Sentinel into account.

Cavaliers are good in both wide open terrain and "conveniently narrow dungeon corridors."

[Derpaligtr]

Between Barbarian and Fighter, which is the best class for tanking? What about dealing damage? Barbarian has resistance to damage while raging and Fighter usually has high AC due to heavy armor proficiency. Including subclass features, Barbarians have Reckless Attack and Brutal Criticals and Fighters have Extra Attacks and many ASI's/feats. Does AC scale well into late game, or do enemies have too high of attack bonuses for AC to really make a difference and resistance is better as a result? What are your thoughts?


Barbarian.

Both can deal damage. Both can take damage. However, thr barbarian is the only class out of yhe two that has enough options to make enemies want to target the barbarian over another PC.

Wolf Totem Barbarian can be made as a viable tank.

See, a tank doesn't just kill things... Glass canons kill things too. A tank takes away enemy fire and they **must** target thr tank first or else it will run them over.

This isn't a video game where you can aggro your enemies and without extra damage, opportunity attacks suck after the first few levels. Unless you take a feat, creatures will walk right by... And even if you take a feat, only one enemy is stopped.

Wolf Totem grants allies advantage on attacks against the crearure that said barbarian is going to be up next to. Advantage is a powerful tool when given so freely.

You can go sword n board barbarian, BFW barbarian, or facehugger barbarian (small creature using climb onto bigger creature rules). Unless you're dealt with, the creature is going to be hit a lot.

Fighter has some good options for dealing damage, but, there's not a lot of reason to target the fighter before the other PCs.

You can only use the cavilier ability str mod times per day. The wolf totem works on any creature within 5' of you. Sentinel + Wolf or facehugger can be a great combo. If more creatures show up to attack you, you will be granting your allies more advantage.

A good tank doesn't just make him or herself better, a good tank makes the party better.

Note: I like the cavalier, should have worked off a short rest (samurai too).

[MaxWilson]

See, a tank doesn't just kill things... Glass canons kill things too. A tank takes away enemy fire and they **must** target thr tank first or else it will run them over.

Er... in this bold part, you've just described EXACTLY what makes a glass cannon what it is. The enemy wants to kill the glass cannon first because it has such a high offense-to-defense ratio.

Any definition of "tank" which makes glass cannons better tanks than tanks are is missing something.

A better definition of tank, IMO, is not about making enemies attack you--ideally, it's about soft or hard counters preventing them from attacking anyone else while also staying alive yourself. In 5E that could be as simple as standing in front of the squishy wizard to give him a +2 partial cover bonus against ranged fire, or it could mean physically standing in the way of things that would want to attack him, or stopping enemies with Sentinel, or grappling enemies to prevent them from closing with the wizard. It could also take softer and more RP-ish forms, like using illusion magic (Disguise Self) to trick enemies into thinking that you're a squishy wizard and the wizard is a beefy fire-breathing ogre.

You can be a terrific tank even if you never do a single HP of damage in combat. Tanking is not about damage, it's about obviating enemy options.

[Banana3lf]

You could do both for a crit fishing build. I personally prefer fighter over barbarian. But 3 levels of either can really round out the build.

[Sigreid]

Tanking is mainly a meta problem. What I mean is running past the fighter to get to the wizard is a great idea, until you think of the immediate threat of a sword wielding psychopath bearing down on you. Even if its logical to ignore the closer fighter it would be hard to do when you're there.

[MaxWilson]

Tanking is mainly a meta problem. What I mean is running past the fighter to get to the wizard is a great idea, until you think of the immediate threat of a sword wielding psychopath bearing down on you. Even if its logical to ignore the closer fighter it would be hard to do when you're there.

Note further that the rational response to a sword-wielding psychopath is generally going to be to run away, even if that means eating an opportunity attack. Trying to rip the sword-wielding psychopath's face off is contraindicated, especially if you are outnumbered or you've already been wounded. Go find your meal and/or treasure elsewhere by killing peasants, not sword-wielding psychopaths. Continuing to attack the psychopath makes rational sense only if you think he's about to die and you're going to get to loot/eat his body, or if you're one opportunity attack away from death anyway and for some reason you cannot Disengage so you might as well go kamikaze.

But the game is more fun if monsters have an irrational bloodlust instead of always just running away to get reinforcements.

[Willie the Duck]

Tanking is mainly a meta problem. What I mean is running past the fighter to get to the wizard is a great idea, until you think of the immediate threat of a sword wielding psychopath bearing down on you. Even if its logical to ignore the closer fighter it would be hard to do when you're there.

There will never be anything approaching agreement on whether the rules ability to emulate this is a big problem or not. Since they've backtracked from 4e's level of battlefield control rules, it seems... at least plausible that most games don't need rules to enforce this (or that WotC considers it an acceptable sacrifice). But again, it is going to depend on how your DM plays your opposition.

[rbstr]

Barbarian.

Both can deal damage. Both can take damage. However, thr barbarian is the only class out of yhe two that has enough options to make enemies want to target the barbarian over another PC.

Wolf Totem Barbarian can be made as a viable tank.

See, a tank doesn't just kill things... Glass canons kill things too. A tank takes away enemy fire and they **must** target thr tank first or else it will run them over.

This isn't a video game where you can aggro your enemies and without extra damage, opportunity attacks suck after the first few levels. Unless you take a feat, creatures will walk right by... And even if you take a feat, only one enemy is stopped.

Wolf Totem grants allies advantage on attacks against the crearure that said barbarian is going to be up next to. Advantage is a powerful tool when given so freely.

You can go sword n board barbarian, BFW barbarian, or facehugger barbarian (small creature using climb onto bigger creature rules). Unless you're dealt with, the creature is going to be hit a lot.

Fighter has some good options for dealing damage, but, there's not a lot of reason to target the fighter before the other PCs.

You can only use the cavilier ability str mod times per day. The wolf totem works on any creature within 5' of you. Sentinel + Wolf or facehugger can be a great combo. If more creatures show up to attack you, you will be granting your allies more advantage.

A good tank doesn't just make him or herself better, a good tank makes the party better.

I'm really unconvinced of this argument. If anything, the fact that being near you puts enemies in more peril is all the more reason to run around you and go for the squishies. Particularly since you have little way of keeping enemies in place. That's not really much different from the Cavalier since it does have a similar requirement of needing to be w/in 5ft of the enemy for the Mark to give disadvantage...But the Cavalier's higher level features work to fix that.

Also, I'd really hesitate to focus on the cavalier's special attack limitation when the Wolf totem is still limited by rage usage. The Cavalier's Mark itself works on any enemy you attack the whole day.

Wolf totem is certainly a force multiplier and good in its own right but it's certainly not superior to a Cavalier (or Ancestral Guardian for that matter) for "tanking" in the "draws fire to protect allies" sense.

[Sigreid]

Note further that the rational response to a sword-wielding psychopath is generally going to be to run away, even if that means eating an opportunity attack. Trying to rip the sword-wielding psychopath's face off is contraindicated, especially if you are outnumbered or you've already been wounded. Go find your meal and/or treasure elsewhere by killing peasants, not sword-wielding psychopaths. Continuing to attack the psychopath makes rational sense only if you think he's about to die and you're going to get to loot/eat his body, or if you're one opportunity attack away from death anyway and for some reason you cannot Disengage so you might as well go kamikaze.

But the game is more fun if monsters have an irrational bloodlust instead of always just running away to get reinforcements.

Running away is a great option if you aren't desperate and think you actually can.

Social pressure has managed to keep people in unwinnable fights for millennia though.

[MaxWilson]

Social pressure has managed to keep people in unwinnable fights for millennia though.

I think that mostly only applies if you've got your whole peer group engaged in the fight with you, which isn't typical for D&D/5E. If you're a hobgoblin in a fight with PCs and the other 99 hobgoblins are there too, sure, maybe social pressure will act to keep you fighting even when 49 other hobgoblins have been burned to ash or decapitated by sword-wielding psychopaths. But if you're in a fight with PCs and 2 of the other 5 hobgoblins in your security detachment are already down, I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be natural to run for help from your other 94 hobgoblin buddies. (To an extent it depends on how strong your social bonds are with the whole company vs. just your squad, but since hobgoblins are rational and well-trained let's say they have a strong unit identity at both levels.)

But I think that is not a common way to play the game. I mean, it's how I tend to run my hobgoblins/humanoids[1], but forum comments on various threads lead me to think other DMs do not, and that designing "level-appropriate encounters" that are guaranteed not to TPK the PCs no matter what they do is a common goal among 5E DMs.

[1] And it's also why I tend to use unintelligent, fairly bestial monsters for hack-and-slash adventures more often than humanoid opponents, because fighting hobgoblins is a stressful activity that will kill you if you slip up, and players don't always want that kind of challenge. Plus I don't want to glorify murder.

[GlenSmash!]

I think in most definitions of better Fighter comes out on top. It's more versatile and doesn't conflict with spellcasting.

However, if you are as crazy as I am and dislike spellcasting, Barbarians are flat out loads of fun.

When you're a level 14+ Zealot down to 0 HP with 3 death saves, but still Recklessly Attacking away, or you're a Bear Totem Barbarian that just took a fireball to the face, but had damage reduced by half by making the save with Danger sense, and half again from Bear Totem resistance, it really feels like something special.

As great as the Fighter Archetypes are I think they feel a little less special.

Ultimately I like both, and I love a Fighter/Barb mullticlass. Either 5+Fighter/2+Barb or 5+Barb/2+Fighter is pretty much my favorite character.

[Expected]

It would be painful to give up that 4th attack if the campaign reaches level 20, though. As for Unarmored Defense, it is not really viable without a heavy investment in Dex and that leaves you vulnerable to effects causing Wis saves. It is amazing if you get the Barbarian capstone, however.

[Derpaligtr]

I'm really unconvinced of this argument. If anything, the fact that being near you puts enemies in more peril is all the more reason to run around you and go for the squishies. Particularly since you have little way of keeping enemies in place. That's not really much different from the Cavalier since it does have a similar requirement of needing to be w/in 5ft of the enemy for the Mark to give disadvantage...But the Cavalier's higher level features work to fix that.

Also, I'd really hesitate to focus on the cavalier's special attack limitation when the Wolf totem is still limited by rage usage. The Cavalier's Mark itself works on any enemy you attack the whole day.

Wolf totem is certainly a force multiplier and good in its own right but it's certainly not superior to a Cavalier (or Ancestral Guardian for that matter) for "tanking" in the "draws fire to protect allies" sense.

Barbarians grapple/facehug, can't run away from them. Especially with V Human Prodigy expertise Athletics.

Also, you give advantage on melee attacks, you won't be the only one next to those creatures. Taking an OA from one PC is fine, taking it from 3? Not so fine, especially aince everyone will have increase chance to hit/crit thanks to advantage.

Also, the free advantage means things like being blinded, or other sources of disadvantage, are neutralized.

The fighter makes himself better, the barbarian makes the fighter (and others) better... Which is why the barbarian will be a target. All while still being a great physical threat in their own right.

[rbstr]

Like I said, the Wolf totem barb is not ineffective...it's just not tanking. It does not discourage the enemy from hitting the guy next to the Barbarian.
You can say "They're gonna hit the barb because he buffs" all you want...but it's simply not logical to bang your head into the biggest thing with the most HP and resistance to damage because it buffs. It's still smarter to hit the, presumably less resilient, dude next to that barbarian. The Wolf totem doesn't change that - the enemy is eating those advantaged attacks until the barb or the ally is dead...and the ally is easier to kill.

You put a Cavalier or Guardian in that same situation and it is actively discouraging the enemy from attacking their allies or lessening the damage the ally takes through marking and other features.

[ad_hoc]

5e has some, but not a lot, of actual battlefield control (people coming from 4e undoubtedly scoff at it, people coming from TSR-era probably consider it unnecessary). Suffice to say, it will depend on DM playstyle how important it is. Obviously if the enemies just walk past the high-AC/HP warrior-types and chew on the squishies, you are going to really kick yourself for not going sentinel/cavalier/etc., OTOH if your DM does not, then you are probably wasting your build a bit. And let's be clear, regardless of the rules structure, lots of people play such that the baddies run up and tussle with the front line, so ignoring that playstyle is at-the-detriment of providing useful answers to a big part of the potential audience.


The way I look at it is that if creatures are all played like zombies then the game is on easy mode so it doesn't really matter what is chosen. The party will be destroying the encounters with ease.

On the other hand, not defending the more fragile party members is a TPK waiting to happen if monsters actually attack them.


Tanking is mainly a meta problem. What I mean is running past the fighter to get to the wizard is a great idea, until you think of the immediate threat of a sword wielding psychopath bearing down on you. Even if its logical to ignore the closer fighter it would be hard to do when you're there.

Only the sword wielder is not much of a threat and very hard to actually hurt. Flip it around, are the players going to attack the very well armoured creature in the middle of the battlefield, or attack the creatures they can actually hurt?

And if the sword wielder is an immediate threat to the enemy creature, then the fight is trivial and it doesn't matter. Monsters are either not going to be afraid or if they are afraid, they're running away instead of fighting.

The creatures are big enough or there are enough of them that the OA doesn't matter. Orcs get a bonus action to dash to a hostile creature, not the closest hostile creature, for a reason. That is what makes them dangerous.

[ad_hoc]

Oh, one thing I forgot, Fighters also get the Protection fighting style. A very underrated fighting style.

[Angelalex242]

I'd argue the best tank isn't either one, but that's neither here nor there.

Bearbarian is the best over all tank.

[Xetheral]

Barbarian has the advantage of appearing to be squishier than they actually are. The Fighter's higher AC makes it more likely that repeated misses will incentivize the enemy to shift fire to more vulnerable targets. By contrast, the Barbarian is easy to hit when it's using Reckless Attack AND is hitting enemies more consistently than the fighter AND pretty quickly will have multiple arrows sticking out of her and other visible wounds, all encouraging the enemy to keep shooting to try to finish her off.

Tanking (which I'm defining as drawing fire from more vulnerable targets) is largely a game of psychology. You want the enemy to (mistakenly) believe that targeting you is the best choice. You want non-obvious survivability, and the lightly-armored, reckless, damage-resistant Barbarian is better at that than a fighter clad head to toe in metal plate.

[Nifft]

Barbarian has the advantage of appearing to be squishier than they actually are. The Fighter's higher AC makes it more likely that repeated misses will incentivize the enemy to shift fire to more vulnerable targets. By contrast, the Barbarian is easy to hit when it's using Reckless Attack AND is hitting enemies more consistently than the fighter AND pretty quickly will have multiple arrows sticking out of her and other visible wounds, all encouraging the enemy to keep shooting to try to finish her off.

Tanking (which I'm defining as drawing fire from more vulnerable targets) is largely a game of psychology. You want the enemy to (mistakenly) believe that targeting you is the best choice. You want non-obvious survivability, and the lightly-armored, reckless, damage-resistant Barbarian is better at that than a fighter clad head to toe in metal plate.

Hmm.

So the ideal weapon for a tank-bearian would be a battle-axe with an invisible blade, so it looks like a quarterstaff. Then decorate the "quarterstaff" with glowing runes and crystals or whatever.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, one thing I forgot, Fighters also get the Protection fighting style. A very underrated fighting style.

In the past I've found that those who were impressed by Protection were not running it by PHB rules. It gives disadvantage on one attack for one creature while costing your reaction (therefore no opportunity attacks). It's very likely to do nothing significant especially against anything with multiattack. Might reduce incoming damage by three points per turn.

You could houserule it (I've done this before) to apply after an attack roll and force a reroll, like retroactive disadvantage. It's still not overpowered but it's useful. The PHB version is basically useless.

[MaxWilson]

Hmm.

So the ideal weapon for a tank-bearian would be a battle-axe with an invisible blade, so it looks like a quarterstaff. Then decorate the "quarterstaff" with glowing runes and crystals or whatever.

Or just have the party wizard cast Seeming on everybody to scramble everyone's appearance and make the squishies look tanky and the tanks look squishy. If your DM genuinely roleplays monster targeting, Seeming will be a lot of fun.

Especially if you make the tanks look like Medusas so that "smart" enemies blind themselves to avoid petrification. Free advantage/disadvantage!

[Xetheral]

Or just have the party wizard cast Seeming on everybody to scramble everyone's appearance and make the squishies look tanky and the tanks look squishy. If your DM genuinely roleplays monster targeting, Seeming will be a lot of fun.

That is a good point. At a table where roleplaying stops when initiative is rolled, tanking ceases to be about psychology and starts being strictly about game mechanics. (I suppose there is a still an element of psychology if you can trick the DM into making non-optimal targeting choices, but that's very different.)

I haven't seen Seeming used at the tactical level like this--usually it's used at the strategic level to obviate encounters entirely. But you're right, it could be a ton of fun. That something fishy is going on will likely be revealed pretty quickly based on the characters' actions not matching their appearances, but the confusion is likely to be almost as valuable as the deception.


Especially if you make the tanks look like Medusas so that "smart" enemies blind themselves to avoid petrification. Free advantage/disadvantage!

I mean, they'd have to be smart enough to recognize Medusas (and the implications thereof), but dumb enough to realize that closing their eyes after having already seen the Medusas (and not having had to fight off being turned to stone) is rather silly. Against enemies like that, using Actor to shout (in the enemy's voice) "Medusas! Close your e-" (maybe with Minor Illusion for some stone-cracking noises) would probably give similar effects without the high-level spell.

[ad_hoc]

In the past I've found that those who were impressed by Protection were not running it by PHB rules. It gives disadvantage on one attack for one creature while costing your reaction (therefore no opportunity attacks). It's very likely to do nothing significant especially against anything with multiattack. Might reduce incoming damage by three points per turn.

You could houserule it (I've done this before) to apply after an attack roll and force a reroll, like retroactive disadvantage. It's still not overpowered but it's useful. The PHB version is basically useless.

People overvalue OAs.

If you want to defend your vulnerable allies you should be next to them anyway trying to cut off lines of attack. Then you won't be getting an OA anyway. Or to put it another way, if you're out in front and you're getting an OA as the enemies run past you to kill your caster friend, then your caster friend still dies and all you got was an attack.

It isn't great (though still useful) against creatures with many small attacks, but it is very good against creatures with big attacks. There are plenty of monsters who have 1 or 2 big attacks. It also isn't just damage to be worried about, avoiding Concentration Saving Throws is important too.

Compare it to the other fighting styles too. It is definitely better than Defense as you're going to have the best defense in the party anyway. So that leaves +2 dmg which I will agree is the default choice. I think it is a matter of preference as I would rather help people stay alive and their spells going.

[Willie the Duck]

So the ideal weapon for a tank-bearian would be a battle-axe with an invisible blade, so it looks like a quarterstaff. Then decorate the "quarterstaff" with glowing runes and crystals or whatever.

The Shillelagh, BB/GFB, Thorn Whip, Spirit Guardians, quarterstaff+shield (maybe replaced by monk dip to make the 'mage' look more profound) Arcana Cleric build everyone whiteroomed when SCAG came out sounds like a good idea too. Anything that is defensive and dangerous, but instead looks squishy.


I mean, they'd have to be smart enough to recognize Medusas (and the implications thereof), but dumb enough to realize that closing their eyes after having already seen the Medusas (and not having had to fight off being turned to stone) is rather silly. Against enemies like that, using Actor to shout (in the enemy's voice) "Medusas! Close your e-" (maybe with Minor Illusion for some stone-cracking noises) would probably give similar effects without the high-level spell.

Probably depends on how the DM/group interprets making a save vs. something. Can you be conned into thinking you 'succeeded a save' (obviously a player can't, because you notice the lack of rolling of dice, but can a character/monster?), and for that matter, does a creature who hasn't been stoned by a medusa before know what the effect of dodging being stoned feel like?

[MaxWilson]

I mean, they'd have to be smart enough to recognize Medusas (and the implications thereof), but dumb enough to realize that closing their eyes after having already seen the Medusas (and not having had to fight off being turned to stone) is rather silly.

It's not silly under 5e rules. Medusas within 30' can petrify you *unless* you avert your gaze at the start of your turn (not an option if surprised), rendering you blind w/rt that Medusa until your next turn. Apparently it takes a measurable fraction of a second to begin to petrify you or something. The point is, rational behavior against a Medusa is a huge tactical disadvantage if there's no real Medusa there, and you want to trigger them into the anti-Medusa behavior if possible.

Manipulating enemy threat assessments is a primary use of illusions in 5E. If you can get the enemy archmage to blow his Forcecage + first round against a silver dragon that isn't even there (Major Image or Programmed Illusion) you're coming out ahead. And yep, evil DMs can do this to players too, although you have to figure out how you will describe hits and misses against illusions with ranged weapons/spells. It's most fair IMO to count any interaction with an illusion as an attempt to investigate it (i.e. Int (Investigate) vs. Spell DC to penetrate, and on a failure just say "you missed" or "it seems unaffected"). In melee you can just say "it appears insubstantial--you feel nothing."

[Xetheral]

It's not silly under 5e rules. Medusas within 30' can petrify you *unless* you avert your gaze at the start of your turn (not an option if surprised), rendering you blind w/rt that Medusa until your next turn. Apparently it takes a measurable fraction of a second to begin to petrify you or something.

Good point. I was thinking about classical Medusas and apparently hadn't realized how much 5e Medusas diverge. Admittedly, except against expert monster-hunters or loremasters (or Medusa survivors), the NPCs probably aren't going to know the nuances of the mechanics either. :)


The point is, rational behavior against a Medusa is a huge tactical disadvantage against anyone else, and you want to trigger them into the anti-Medusa behavior if possible.

I agree entirely. My point was that making the enemy see a creature that is dangerous to look at is probably less effective than making them think the enemy is there via other means, lest they wonder (rightly or wrongly) about the apparent lack of danger.


Manipulating enemy threat assessments is a primary use of illusions in 5E. If you can get the enemy archmage to blow his Forcecage + first round against a silver dragon that isn't even there (Major Image or Programmed Illusion) you're coming out ahead. And yep, evil DMs can do this to players too, although you have to figure out how you will describe hits and misses against illusions with ranged weapons/spells. It's most fair IMO to count any interaction with an illusion as an attempt to investigate it (i.e. Int (Investigate) vs. Spell DC to penetrate, and on a failure just say "you missed" or "it seems unaffected"). In melee you can just say "it appears insubstantial--you feel nothing."

I agree entirely.

[mephnick]

Does AC scale well into late game, or do enemies have too high of attack bonuses for AC to really make a difference and resistance is better as a result?

In my experience, AC stops existing at high levels. HP and damage resistance are king for mundane characters.

Also, Barbarian AC is pointless at all levels if you're playing it right, don't @ me.

[MaxWilson]

I agree entirely. My point was that making the enemy see a creature that is dangerous to look at is probably less effective than making them think the enemy is there via other means, lest they wonder (rightly or wrongly) about the apparent lack of danger.

In 5E it shouldn't be an issue. It should be well-known by "smart" enemies that being far away is pretty good protection against almost any magical threat, so the apparent lack of danger at a hundred paces is expected, but the enemy will close his eyes before entering melee, or will avoid entering melee at all until the Medusa can be brought down by missile fire... which means the tank "Medusa" is doing his job. Superbly.

But we agree on the basic point: at a table where role-playing doesn't end when combat starts, tactical deception would be a lot of fun!

[Man_Over_Game]

Lots of good comments in this thread. There's a few specific things that should be expanded on.


Barbarians are good against bosses (who always hit). Fighters are good against mooks (due to having multiple attacks and mooks having low accuracy).
Barbarians are simple and strong. Fighters are versatile and can cover multiple angles.
Barbarians are good in bursts, Fighters have more sustainability.




There are exceptions to this, like how Samurai utilize burst mechanics, having them play not unlike a Barbarian in combat, and the Storm Barbarian is good against crowds of enemies, but for the most part the two classes follow the above trends.


I personally try to make sure there's one of each. Have the Barbarian take on the boss and hold him back as the Fighter protects the squishies and mops up the mooks. With sufficient healing, a raging Barbarian can hold off almost anything.

[MaxWilson]

In my experience, AC stops existing at high levels. HP and damage resistance are king for mundane characters.

Only if your AC is low compared to the enemy attack bonus. AC 21 + 5-6 (Shield or Defensive Duelist) + disadvantage to attackers (Blur/Greater Invis/Protection From Evil/Holy Aura/Foresight) is easily achievable even without magic items, and will prevent an adult red dragon (+14 to hit) from hitting over 75% of the time. Would stop an ancient red about 64% of the time. It's possible to go even higher.

In my experience the most relevant AC is the lowest AC in the party. If everyone has Fighter or Cleric levels and plate armor and some form of reactive parry/shield, fights look drastically different than if the wizards are walking around in bathrobes and AC 14. E.g. tanks have to be much more proactive about taking out a giant throwing boulders before it can hit the AC 14 wizard and blow his concentration on Animate Objects. The AC 21+5 wizard would just go prone or Dodge and basically ignore the giant's boulders (4% chance of hitting per round). High party AC lets you retain the initiative: respond, not react.

This pattern holds for other forms of defense too. A party where everyone has Mobile plays completely differently (and mostly better) than a party where half of the PCs have Mobile and the other half have Heavy Armor Master. No weak links.

[sambojin]

As a tank, I'm just going to say, a non-Vanilla Totem Barb can probably more vaguely outdo a Fighter. Bear/whatever/Bear, or even a mix of Wolf in on it is amazeballs good, if played well.

But then again, they can't prone stuff out of the sky like a vanilla Battle Master can with a bow. And did he do tanking doing that, or glass cannon? I doubt he's glass, yet I know he can do melee.... Difficult question on encounters, etc. Barbs aren't *that* good at removing HP damage from the party so easily, other than by taking it themselves (even half-wise). Tank, or stank on that?

Damage Dealings? Yep. Even on the same thing. Most parties can utilize advantage under initiative order easily enough. So strangely enough, a raging barbarian is a greater damage causer than a fighter. Sometimes.

Such. A. Loaded. Question.
No clean room to do it in.
Overall, Fighter wins due to changeable stat dependencies and armour. Level 11, 3 attacks, gubbins from class, gubbins from system. But, barb wins, specifically, every time. Unless you they don't.

Short rest resources vs long rest resources. Non-stat based resources vs stat-based resources. Not very powerful but abundant resources vs few powerful ones. It's probably a wash. But I like to choose my big red buttons to push. So in my opinion, probably quite wrong, Fighters win.
In both the short and long-run.

[GlenSmash!]

It would be painful to give up that 4th attack if the campaign reaches level 20, though. As for Unarmored Defense, it is not really viable without a heavy investment in Dex and that leaves you vulnerable to effects causing Wis saves. It is amazing if you get the Barbarian capstone, however.

I used to theory craft to 20. It turns out I'm very unlikely to ever play at that level.

I'm reasonably certain my current game will get to 10 though.

Good points about unarmored defense. It's great if you got the rolls for it, but I find 14 dex and medium armor are good enough. Also good point about wisdom save. Lucky can go a long way to help. I went with with 14 wisdom including Resilient Wisdom on my current Barbarian to shore up those Wisdom saves.

[Rerem115]

The whole debate is pretty much impossible to resolve, since it's all so dependent on context. It's like comparing oranges and kiwis; while both are citrus fruits (or martial classes) that are jam packed with Vitamin C (or the Attack action), they have different flavors and one is usually hairier than the other.

Because of their simple but effective chassis and a staggering number of feats, you can tailor a Fighter to do pretty much anything you want, and it'll be an effective build.

On the other hand, Barbarians are a lot more focused with their chassis. They are strictly better at dealing more damage per strike with melee Strength based attacks, dealing more damage from criticals, and taking more physical punishment, but in exchange that's more or less all they're good at.

Whether or not this makes one a "better DPS" or a "better tank" than the other is only decided in the moment. You DPS depends a lot on your rolls; because Fighters have more chances at higher levels, they tend to have a more even curve, while the swinginess of Barbarian criticals makes big spikes in damage, and the two of them could still just have terrible luck and miss entirely. Also, a lot of tanking is entirely DM dependent anyway, since most of the time (moreso with groups), the foe(s) can simply walk past the dedicated tank and crack open the vulnerable members of the party.

[Expected]

I agree--it is difficult, if not impossible, to answer these questions without context. I was just interested in the opinions of the GIITP community as I have learned a lot about 5e from lurking here.

Fighters do get more attacks, but aren't they more likely to miss compared to a Recklessly Attacking Barbarian unless they somehow get advantage?

[MaxWilson]

I agree--it is difficult, if not impossible, to answer these questions without context. I was just interested in the opinions of the GIITP community as I have learned a lot about 5e from lurking here.

Fighters do get more attacks, but aren't they more likely to miss compared to a Recklessly Attacking Barbarian unless they somehow get advantage?

Yes, they are. But Reckless Barbarians are squishy, and there are other ways to gain advantage, e.g. Mounted Combatant, the wizard's owl familiar, Faerie Fire from the druid, Web spells, grapple/proning, etc.

Barbarians possibly do have an edge at very low levels (1-4) but after level 5 barbarians pretty much stop progressing, and by level 11 fighters pull way ahead, IMO. Arguably fighters are already ahead by level 7.