Should Tanks have low AC?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I made a Moon Knight build in honor the show coming out and it made me think of something.

Tanks should have low AC

One of the issues with tanks in D&D, especially 5e, is that there's no reason to attack the tank instead of the easier target. In many games, like say Final Fantasy XIII, the tank has a way to force enemies to attack them. 5e D&D has very limited ways to force an enemy to target your high AC/high HP tank instead od the scary, but squishy, mage.

So, why not give creatures an incentive? Make your tank with low AC and high HP so that you the tank will be the target of attacks. Barbarians already do something like this with reckless attack, advantage is usually worth +3 ish attack points after all.

Barbarians even gain the other core feature of a tank, easy to hit, hard to damage... At least when they rage.

Qualities of a tank

Easy to hit (low AC)

Can take the hit (high HP)

Can shrug off some damage (resistance)

Can dish out damage (at-will or NOVA)

So, the next time you make a tank, think about making your AC low so that enemies will target you without having to act dumb.

[False God]

Doesn't it present the same problem? Yes they can hit you...but the enemy is still going to recognize that you're not dying from those hits. Ultimately to me that reads as the same thing: they're trying to kill you and it's not working and there are much more killable targets in range.

As much as D&D has traditionally promoted the "holy trinity" only 4E ever made it functional beyond requiring a healer. Even in MMOs, the "hard to hit and hard to kill" portion of tanking only really functions against heavy-hitting "bosses". For crowd-control, almost all the classes have AOE and group-management abilities. After the "failure" of 4E, you've never going to get true "tanking" mechanics in D&D.

Rather than attempting to build a low-AC, high-HP, damage-reducing, self-healing "tank", it'd be simpler to include "zone control" feats or class features. A "Combat Reflexes, but for tanks" ability that increases the number of AOOs you get, or a "taunt" mechanic that punishes enemies for attacking enemies other than the tank would be simpler to achieve the end goal of an MMO-style "tank".

Quite frankly, D&D enemies aren't dumb-ai controlled morons either. Even relatively stupid creatures can figure out that their attacks aren't having an effect on a given target.

On another note, 5E runs on something of an "arrow to the knee" function. Players tend to be hard to hit, but have low HP. Monsters are the opposite, with high HP and low AC. This is also a rewarding mechanic that lets players feel "successful" (by killing monsters and not dying). A low levels, high AC is all a "tank" really has to protect themselves from the natural randomness of the game.

TLDR: Enemies don't target you because you're easy to hit. They target you because you're easy to kill. Hitting a target is meaningless if it isn't dying. "Tanks" in D&D need better crowd control, plain and simple. From Warlord-esque "shouts" or magical auras to compel enemies to attack them, to straight-up "taunt" effects, magical or otherwise.

[bid]

So, the next time you make a tank, think about making your AC low so that enemies will target you without having to act dumb.
Even if you are AC15 like that wizard, you're still harder to bring down. You need more than that to be targeted first.

[LudicSavant]

The thing that makes people not want to hit turtles is that their durability is high, but their threat is low. Whether that durability is high because of HP or AC is rather irrelevant.

People don't empty pistols into actual tanks just because they're easy to hit in the real world. People don't assume that the Hulk is gonna be squishier than Iron Man just because he's not wearing a shirt in a world of heroes.

Likewise, people don't assume that bears are easy to kill just because they have a low AC.

[Sidson]

Great tanks in 5e do have mechanic(s) that make them worth attacking or make their allies less worth.
Some of them (Totem Barbarian, Cavalier Fighter) have means to impose disadvantage on attacking their allies or advantage on attacking the tank (or both).
Some of them (like feat Sentinel or Cavalier Fighter) have ways to stop the move of the enemy who wants to pass them to reach more squishy allies.
Some of them have ways to counter when ally in their vincinity is attacked (like Cavalier Fighter).
Some of them can shield their allies or take damage of them (like Abjurer Wizard! Also a tank!).
There are more examples, just these four came to my mind first.
Most of tanks have also high AC and/or HP to be able to be attacked more times. It's not a bug, it's a feature... when there is a mechanic to 'aggro' enemies or shield them in other way.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

When I play a tank I play a Sorcadin (Hexsorcadin most of the time).

I walk straight into the enemies smiting and if I can with spirit guardians/Bless and far step.

I chase the enemy casters and make sure it will be hard for them to cast.

Most of the time I get 8-12 enemies on me(trying to save the leader/caster).

As a paladin it is hard to fail saves and I have a lot of HP(upcast Aid).
Most of my characters look for a clock of displacement and +x shield/armor/weapon (I like warhammers).

Nobody ignore the block of metal if he is at range and killing you friends while cursing your god.

[Sidson]

Nobody ignore the block of metal if he is at range and killing you friends while cursing your god.
Yeah. The mechanic "I wreck havoc AND I have high survivability" is also good to make enemies attack you. :D

[pragma]

I maintain that wizards are the real tanks of D&D 5e: wide area debuffs that can be turned off by breaking concentration ought to draw a lot of fire from intelligent enemies.

[Fable Wright]

The best tank in 5e is probably Forge Cleric.

1. High defenses.
2. Very relevant resistances and immunities.
3. Spirit Guardians, making it difficult to slip past even if you wanted to, and forcing enemy aggro on yourself.

Granted, Tunnel Fighter Polearm Master Sentinel fighter or paladin or barbarian? They're arguably better, but rely on Unearthed Arcana.

Druids are kinda good at tanking by means of summons. Wall of Stench Kow, for example, repositions to entirely block the backline, has relevant damage and threatening opportunity attacks, but that's not really traditional 'tanking'.

[Atalas]

The key to D&D tanking is, depending on the DM, making yourself as obnoxious to the enemies as you can be. The goal isn't to have ALL of the enemies focusing on you, like in an MMO, but to have as many as possible focusing on you. This can be done by being a big threat with huge damage like paladin smites, verbally taunting the enemy (with or without checks), or just doing something to seem like you're more of a threat than you really are.

in one game I'm in, the party's 'tank' is a paladin. 24 AC, 25 using a reaction. We are at level 20 now. When she hits things, they feel it. And she is very good at interposing herself between the enemy of the squishy casters. Party is Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, and Sorcerer. Wizard has a Robe of the Archmage so disadvantage on attacks until hit, plus free Shield, so incredibly hard to hit. Sorc is the easiest to hit but he just shrugs things off so easily due to various resistances. Sorc rarely actively participates in battle battle though. The standard strategy is Rogue hits hard then goes back to the shadows, casters disrupt or buff, and the paladin is large and in the enemies faces. Well, as large as a five foot, 110 lbs soaking wet elfess can be.

In another game our wizard (level 7) tanked the blue dragon. How? Absorb Elements and a literal death wish (for the character). And yet the old man was still tougher than old boot leather and kept surviving. The dragon wasted a full breath weapon on just him, blasting him into the floor, because he taunted the dragon about breaking one of his treasures. if the dice had rolled 2 higher, he'd have been completely, instantly dead, even with Absorb Elements.

[LudicSavant]

"That triceratops has only 13 AC. We'd better take care of it before that Fireball-slinging mage!"
- No PC ever.

When you don't know how to play an effective tank, what you often get is a turtle. Whether the turtle's shell is made out of HP or AC makes little difference.

The difference between a tank and a turtle is that a tank does not rely on enemies making a major tactical error to do their job. A turtle says "gee, I hope the enemy decides to attack me." A tank says "If you ignore me, you will lose."

[RickAllison]

Tank: Bear Totem 14+, Ancestral Guardians, a lot of Paladins
Turtle (with razor blades on the shell that spins): Bear Totem before 14, Zealot, Battlerager, a lot of Clerics
Soft Tank: Swashbuckler 9+, Long Death Monk 6+

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I maintain that wizards are the real tanks of D&D 5e: wide area debuffs that can be turned off by breaking concentration ought to draw a lot of fire from intelligent enemies.

That called BFC(Battlefield Control).
This is a different roll.

If my wizard is casting an important concentration spell you will never see him after the cast.
He will hide in a hole(preference to the shadow monk portable hole).

Unless he his abguration(I always confused when I write it) wizard.
My deep gnome wizard dropped grease, dragon breath and hide under the paladin, sanding his staff between the Paladin legs to cast firebolt or using non detection to cheese the ward.



Tank: Bear Totem 14+, Ancestral Guardians, a lot of Paladins
Turtle (with razor blades on the shell that spins): Bear Totem before 14, Zealot, Battlerager, a lot of Clerics
Soft Tank: Swashbuckler 9+, Long Death Monk 6+

You get +1 internet win

[HappyDaze]

"That triceratops has only 13 AC. We'd better take care of it before that Fireball-slinging mage!"
- No PC ever.

When you don't know how to play an effective tank, what you often get is a turtle. Whether the turtle's shell is made out of HP or AC makes little difference.

The difference between a tank and a turtle is that a tank does not rely on enemies making a major tactical error to do their job. A turtle says "gee, I hope the enemy decides to attack me." A tank says "If you ignore me, you will lose."

Reminds me of the 3.5 monk with some vow of non-violence or something. He thought he could go defensive and attract enemy attacks with his silly-high AC, but they just ignored him and walked by. If he attacked them, lots of his abilities collapsed, so he just danced around doing nothing while everyone else got killed.

[hamishspence]

"Vow of nonviolence" doesn't stop characters from attacking for nonlethal damage.

[RickAllison]

Reminds me of the 3.5 monk with some vow of non-violence or something. He thought he could go defensive and attract enemy attacks with his silly-high AC, but they just ignored him and walked by. If he attacked them, lots of his abilities collapsed, so he just danced around doing nothing while everyone else got killed.

If I wanted to do that in 5e, I'd go Long Death. "Fear. Fear. Fear. Still want to keep going?"

[BloodSnake'sCha]

"Vow of nonviolence" doesn't stop characters from attacking for nonlethal damage.

Maybe it was a vow of peace?


If I wanted to do that in 5e, I'd go Long Death. "Fear. Fear. Fear. Still want to keep going?"

The paladin, cleric with spells and a lot of fear immune monsters will just walk around you unfortunately.

In 3.5e you had ways to ignore those restrictions and immunities. 5e don't have the rules for it as it built differently from 3.5e(there is no real need for them in 5e).

[hamishspence]

Maybe it was a vow of peace?


Same limitations - only nonlethal violence is allowed - but it is allowed.

[HappyDaze]

Same limitations - only nonlethal violence is allowed - but it is allowed.

Don't recall exactly what it was > 10 years ago now, but we all made new characters including that player since we told him no one would adventure with a character like that again. Yep, the rest of the group voted him out. The DM just shrugged and went with it.

[Sception]

You have two jobs as a tank: control space, and manage the party's HP reserves. to do these things you need to be hard to hurt and harder to ignore. Low AC to temp enemies to attack you can contribute to this, but high hp isn't enough to offset that. For that strategy to work out you'll also need ways to reduce the incoming damage, like damage reduction (barbarian) or self-replenishing temp hp (fiendlock) or the like. Without something like that, easy to hit with lots of hp is just a drain on the healer's spell slots, which unlike in an mmo are limited per day.


But yeah, you do need something extra beyond being hard to bring down to make you difficult to ignore in order to be a tank and not a turtle. Lots of options out there, whether through spells, feats, or class features.


My favorite tank in 5e is conquest paladin, and their main thing is to inflict frighten on one or more foes with Wrathful Smite, Conquering Presence, or Fear, then move to bring enemies that fail their saves within range of Aura of Conquest. Such enemies now have disadvantage in attacks & checks, speed zero, and take damage every turn. Melee enemies can't move to target your allies at all, Ranged attackers can do so, but suffer disadvantage, and are generally desperate to deal with you first regardless.

You won't be able to lock down every enemy this way, but even just 1 to 3 will often be half or more of an encounter's fighting strength, breaking up the overall encounter into chunks that are easy for the rest of the party to chew on one at a time.

And if the entire enemy group is immune to frighten or passes their saves, the conqueror can still fall back on the standard paladin tanking kit - Bless (a major buff that enemies are often eager to bring down), Compelled Duel, powerful opportunity attacks (enhanced by Divine Smite, Sentinel Feat, or maybe Warcaster/Booming Blade if you multiclassed warlock or sorcerer), or just high smite damage targeted at the enemy leader. Your ability to play secondary healer outside of combat also helps mitigate hp reserves.


My second favorite 5e tank is Battlemaster with sentinel, polearm master, & tunnel fighter. Other fighter subclasses also work but note that cavalier specifically suffers some bad antisynergy here due to reach issues & bonus action economy. The combo also works for paladins in theory, but the dual feat combo is very taxing given the heavy pressure on paladin ability scores & asi's due to Madness & lacking the fighters bonus ASIs. Vumans can make it work, but it's still taxing.

The combo requires UA, & extremely old & deprecated UA content at that, so most DMs won't (& really shouldn't) allow it, but if yours does then unlimited, movement-cancelling opportunity attacks against enemies crossing the perimeter of a 25' diameter control zone in either direction is pretty amazing.

[Mitsu]

When I play a tank I play a Sorcadin (Hexsorcadin most of the time).

I walk straight into the enemies smiting and if I can with spirit guardians/Bless and far step.

I chase the enemy casters and make sure it will be hard for them to cast.

Most of the time I get 8-12 enemies on me(trying to save the leader/caster).

As a paladin it is hard to fail saves and I have a lot of HP(upcast Aid).
Most of my characters look for a clock of displacement and +x shield/armor/weapon (I like warhammers).

Nobody ignore the block of metal if he is at range and killing you friends while cursing your god.

I agree with that. Being tank in DnD 5e is not being a spoonge that deals no damage and pose no threat. Enemies will simply ignore you. However if you are high AC, high HP block of metal that start it's turn with fireball into enemies, only to rush their leader and 2-shot him with smites - then suddenly you are the target number 1 of enemies. You don't want threat like that to repeat it's havoc next turn.

Hence why I also agree that Srocadins are probably best tanks. You can't ignore a guy with +5 to saves, huge AC, huge burst damage who can also hypnotic pattern/fireball your guys or walk in the middle of you with Spirit Guardians up. Ignore a guy like that and fight is over sooner or later.

So long story short- if you want to be a tank - pose a threat that will make enemies want to kill you first.

So best tanks for me are:
- Redemption Paladin with Spirit Guardians/1 hexblade level for Shield spell
- Sorcadins with Divine Soul and spirit guardians (also shield spell)
- EK/wizards with their huge DPR (also shield spell)
- Arcana, Tempest and Froge Clerics
- Zealot Barbarians with GWM and Champion 3 levels.

You want to be a tank- make enemies regret ignoring you.

[stoutstien]

The most important factor in playing a character that draws the majority of the enemies' ire is DM meta. No amount of features a player can pick can prevent a DM from circumventing them if they wish.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm going to agree with many of the posters here. As a martial it's sometimes very difficult to tank.

Not because of your durability, you're a walking ball of muscle and grit. Not because of your AC, you're a walking suit of armor with a bit extra layered on top for good measure. No, the issue is that there isn't often an effective way to generate more threat than your casters.

You can be the biggest beef cake of a Bearbarian but if you haven't invested in tools to stop the enemies from focusing your Wizard (who likely has half or even a third of your hit points, ignoring your effective HP as a Raging Bear Totem) then you're likely to survive the encounter down one spellcaster. This is why I maintain that Paladin (in one of its many forms but most notably Conquest or Sorcadin) is the most generally effective tank you can be, as it allows you to generate that threat against intelligent enemies without compromising your ability to also prevent them from reaching your backline.

That's not to say that Bearbarian isn't still king in the mitigation tanking front, it's just that if you don't build them with tools to prevent enemies from leaving your range and ignoring you(sentinel, grappling, dipping battlemaster for tripping/disarming attack) then you can only be so much of a threat before they realize that robed man behind you has cast a buffing spell on you and killing him first will likely make you easier to deal with by proxy.


The most important factor in playing a character that draws the majority of the enemies' ire is DM meta. No amount of features a player can pick can prevent a DM from circumventing them if they wish.
Yep, this about sums up my point. Paladin offers more tools in general than a Barbarian does in discouraging the DM from picking on your casters but it really boils down into how intent your DM is on picking on them. If your caster has painted a large enough target on their backs the DM will find a way. Then you just break out the Redemption/Crown Paladin and casually take all of the damage that would have been done to your caster as a support character.

I also think Glamour Bard makes a decent tank. If there was ever a way to paint a huge target on your back it would be adopting a supernaturally beautiful form and ordering all enemies to spit shine your boots. They either fall for the command or hate your guts (your face is too beautiful to hate) for trying it on them. The only issue with Glamour Bard is surviving the hits after you draw so much attention.

[Nidgit]

Tanks don't have to be a direct "threat" to function effectively, they just need to impede attacks against the rest of the party enough to make themselves a priority for the enemy. A Cleric often isn't the biggest offensive threat but its bevy of support spells can make it a major nuisance to enemies. Combine with good AC and most Clerics make excellent tanks.

Likewise, a Champion and a Paladin can both have a high damage output and high AC, but the Paladin's Auras and support spells protect the rest of the party better and therefore generally make it the superior tank.

The two basic components for a tank are establishing themselves as a priority target for enemies and then mitigating the consequential damage. There are multiple ways to accomplish each of those two goals.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I also think Glamour Bard makes a decent tank. If there was ever a way to paint a huge target on your back it would be adopting a supernaturally beautiful form and ordering all enemies to spit shine your boots. They either fall for the command or hate your guts (your face is too beautiful to hate) for trying it on them. The only issue with Glamour Bard is surviving the hits after you draw so much attention.

I have to say that my Lore bard is great at drawing attacks.

I use the ready action to lunch spells in the right time and a lot of concentration battlefield control spells.
(We are level 6, just got there so the example is from level 5)

Our berbarian with blackrazor jumped into the enemies big guns after I timed a nice faire fire on them.
The enemy heavy armor dude attacked me with a level 4 spell.
I lost concentration and moved back(he made hard terrain that saved me from his goblins) and readied a dissonant whispers for the time he act(he used shield on his turn and I wanted to burn his reaction and make him proc an AOO from the BB roguadin and barbarian that was near him.
His goblins dropped the swords in order to attack me with bows to stop me from casting.

He killed himself with a fireball aimed on everyone but me(I ran away from the enemies before reading the spell).

He didn't wanted to be a living prisoner (we were hunting information).


My bard have 12 con and 16 AC(got hand on a +1 studded leather with disguise self as a free action, some Homebrew stuff. The enemies are also Homebrew and a lot stronger deadlier from normal. We are playing with combat as war but with rare combats and a lot of RP).

[Gignere]

Tanking in 5e / D&D in general is a group effort. Squishies need to learn how to position. Always find cover when you’re done casting, stand in a position that requires enemies to wade through multiple OAs to get to you. Wear a disguise, like a hat of disguise make it look like you’re a full plate wearing tank.

My elven wizard found a set of elven chain and a +1 long sword no one wanted. I held (note held not don) a shield and looked as martial and tanky as anyone. Remember wizards don’t need a pointy hat or a robe to use his spells.

Played correctly a wizard should be the hardest if not impossible target to be hit everytime the DM’s turn comes up. In fact the best played wizard can basically ignore hp or even AC stats because not allowing for an attack roll is better than having high hp or AC.

This forces the enemies to only attack the targets that are around and generally those are the tanks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My elven wizard found a set of elven chain and a +1 long sword no one wanted. I held (note held not don) a shield and looked as martial and tanky as anyone. Remember wizards don’t need a pointy hat or a robe to use his spells.

Saying you're holding a shield in a manner that is convincing enemies that you're able to use it and not actually being considered to be "wielding" it is incredibly gamey, I certainly wouldn't approve of such a thing.

That aside, I agree with your sentiments. I actually designed my Paladin initially to appear as a more appealing target. He became pretty feeble looking due to a botched resurrection but he's as hardy as he ever has been.

When he came in, I introduced him as a feeble looking old man dressed in simple robes with a crystal walking cane. His shield is battered and wrapped in cloth. What wasn't apparent was that he was wielding a staff of defense and the shield was perfectly usable, even magical. With all of his extra AC bits he was sitting comfortable at a 20 AC even though he appeared almost completely unarmored.

[RickAllison]

Maybe it was a vow of peace?



The paladin, cleric with spells and a lot of fear immune monsters will just walk around you unfortunately.

In 3.5e you had ways to ignore those restrictions and immunities. 5e don't have the rules for it as it built differently from 3.5e(there is no real need for them in 5e).

I didn't say it would be a good option :P Playing a fully pacifist character is hard, playing a fully pacifist tank even moreso. If it's level 9, you could go Swashbuckler instead; it doesn't let you do much in a solo boss fight, but it can hold back a troublesome enemy while the party clears out the mooks, plus the skill use of a Rogue means you can hopefully find alternative ways to spend your turn than attacking.

Another option could be a Mastermind Rogue, especially with the UA Historian feat. Just spend your turns Helping two allies at once. I am especially fond of phrases like, "Follow the example of Kush-lan, the Eviscerator of the Third Century! Kick him in the crotch and run!"

[stoutstien]

I didn't say it would be a good option :P Playing a fully pacifist character is hard, playing a fully pacifist tank even moreso. If it's level 9, you could go Swashbuckler instead; it doesn't let you do much in a solo boss fight, but it can hold back a troublesome enemy while the party clears out the mooks, plus the skill use of a Rogue means you can hopefully find alternative ways to spend your turn than attacking.

Another option could be a Mastermind Rogue, especially with the UA Historian feat. Just spend your turns Helping two allies at once. I am especially fond of phrases like, "Follow the example of Kush-lan, the Eviscerator of the Third Century! Kick him in the crotch and run!"

Masterminds is proof that if you have flavor that's good enough people will play it regardless of how powerful it is. 😀

[RickAllison]

Masterminds is proof that if you have flavor that's good enough people will play it regardless of how powerful it is. 😀

Every time I see it, I ask myself why I keep forgetting to play one even though I love it so much. I get super distracted when it comes to concepts, but I love the Mastermind so much.

[stoutstien]

Every time I see it, I ask myself why I keep forgetting to play one even though I love it so much. I get super distracted when it comes to concepts, but I love the Mastermind so much.

I currently has a DMPC that is halfling Mastermind with boundiful luck that just helps the party calling openings while tossing dart at enemies' knees occasionally. He isn't a coward just to smart to get that close to something that can cleave him in half.

[LudicSavant]

Tanks should have low AC

This won't solve your problem. Enemies don't avoid turtles because they're hard to hit, they avoid them because they're hard to kill and because other things are a higher priority.

There's no IC reason to just assume that you're squishy because you polymorphed into a low AC tyrannosaurus. Same goes if you're a naked screaming musclebound giant with an axe. Barbarians have existed for the entire history of warfare in the D&D world, people have a general idea what's going on.


One of the issues with tanks in D&D, especially 5e, is that there's no reason to attack the tank instead of the easier target.

This isn't an issue with tanks, it's an issue with turtles, which is basically a kind of failed attempt to tank.


In many games, like say Final Fantasy XIII, the tank has a way to force enemies to attack them. Human vs AI games often have this. However, Human vs Human games with tank roles tend not to. If you want to understand how to tank in D&D, you would be better off looking at PvP games for examples. Less FFXIII, more Overwatch, League of Legends, Atlas Reactor, etc.

You'll notice that in said games, people don't really talk about "aggro." They talk about an entirely different set of concepts, like "peel," "pressure," and "punishes."

This is the key misunderstanding: Your goal isn't to get hit, it's to throw a monkey wrench into the enemy's strategy. Your durability is a tool to help you do that. Let me try to show you what I mean.

Let's say you have a big beefy Sorcadin with Warcaster. They walk up to a foe, hit them hard with attacks + quickening Booming Blade. The foe is now not only wounded, but under a whole lot of option pressure. Why? Well, let's look at our hypothetical baddie's decision tree.

Option A) They attack you. This is bad, because you're very hard to kill.

Option B) They try to move past you to attack the back line. This is bad, because they'll not only trigger the Booming Blade rider, but they'll then provoke an opportunity attack which will give them another fat Booming Blade smite to the face. And then another Booming Blade rider on top of that if they continue to move. This is bad, because it will reduce the number of turns that they live and therefore offset the offensive benefit of attacking a squishier target. It might even outright kill them, given how much damage you've already done to them.

Option C) They stay still, and use a ranged attack. This is bad, because they'll have Disadvantage on the ranged attack from being in melee with you.

Option D) They stay still, and use a breath weapon cone. This is bad, because they can't freely position to maximize how many people are in the AoE, or change up their angle to get around allies taking advantage of cover, and because allies in the tank's aura will have a huge bonus to saving throws.

Option E) They cast a spell. You or someone in your party casts Counterspell. And a lot of the stuff from option D might apply, too.

See what's going on here? The effective tank isn't just going "gee, I super hope the DM decides to pick option A, otherwise I'll be useless." They're making all 5 options less attractive. That's a tank.

Getting hit more often is not the goal itself, but a side effect of doing this effectively; enemies will try to deal with you because you have rendered other options less tenable. For a very direct example, an Ancestral Guardian barbarian will often get hit because they can actually make their allies more durable than a Bear-barian (at least, against Attacks from their marked target). Nobody wants to have Disadvantage to hit, Resistance, damage reduction, and damage retribution answering their attack, all at the same time.

But that doesn't mean that the Ancestral Guardian's goal was actually "get hit." It was creating that "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in the first place. The Ancestral Guardian is perfectly happy if the enemy makes the error of targeting a protected ally and triggering Spirit Vengeance and the like.

[Rerem115]

In the one campaign I was in that went from start to level 20, it was the S&B Champion Fighter that was the only tank we had, or frankly needed. I think he spent every ASI on ability scores and Tough. We didn't gain another frontliner until the bard learned True Polymorph.

For context, the party was the Fighter, a Lore Bard, a Ranger, and a homebrewed Cleric. Thanks to us being a bunch of support casters and some...interesting ability scores on the Ranger's part, the Fighter was both our nova and our consistent DPS. Our tactics rapidly evolved into "drop the Fighter (from 100 feet up, if need be) into the middle of the fray, and then hinder, delay, and disable anyone that tried to stop his damage output or close with us."

From that campaign, I learned that it's party positioning, DM fiat, and necessity that creates a tank more than anything else.

[Protolisk]

This isn't an issue with tanks, it's an issue with turtles, which is basically a kind of failed attempt to tank.

As an addendum to this, imagine the biggest, beefiest Totem Bear Barbarian. Fat stacked Con and Str, reasonable Dex. Near maxed HP, fairly high AC, the works. If he went in and attacked, trying to "tank", what does BBEG have to do now?

Well, option A still sucks, more so because trying to cut through that much health and AC stacked with resistances is nearly useless. You'll be annoying to it.

But options B, C, D, and E are much more reasonable options because what the worst that you as the Bearbarian can do, attack for 1d12+STR+rage bonus? That's it? It's a small price to pay to freely move and catch all the back-liners in one big dragon's breath.

But imagine even the simplest addition of the the Sentinel feat. Sure, the barbarian may not have as much AC or HP depending on how he spent his ASIs, which makes Option A a little more reasonable, but it also means that if the BBEG tries to move, he's possibly stuck back at option A and sucky choices of options B-E because suddenly his movement is zero. Now he has to weigh his options more carefully. Now the absolute unit of a turtle that is the Bearbarian now is acting like a tank, by limiting options in another "damned if you do, [maybe] damned if you don't". It's not perfect (the BBEG needs to attempt to move and you might miss the attack) but it was better than without it.

Change that Bearbarian to an Ancestral Guardian, and suddenly this turtle is the king of option limitations. If you want to get to his friends, you basically have to somehow get away from him or straight up deal with him, and he's a real big hugger that won't let go.

[bloodshed343]

The best way to fulfill the "tank" role that I've found is to use a Warforged Cleric (Nature) 1/Wizard (Abjurer) X with Shillelagh, Sentinel, and Warcaster. This gives you the ability to effectively control enemy movement while standing on the front lines.

Also, if an enemy wastes all of its attacks on illusions, it's not hitting your friends.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The best way to fulfill the "tank" role that I've found is to use a Warforged Cleric (Nature) 1/Wizard (Abjurer) X with Shillelagh, Sentinel, and Warcaster. This gives you the ability to effectively control enemy movement while standing on the front lines.

Also, if an enemy wastes all of its attacks on illusions, it's not hitting your friends.

Illusions are a tough sell because from DM to DM the efficacy of using them can be drastically different. It can range from a DM who would allow Minor Illusion to hamper an unintelligent enemy for a turn to a DM who has even the thickest most dense meathead enemy attempt to walk straight through the newly spawned dragon (major image), realize it's an illusion, and continue forward unimpeded.

Illusory Dragon, however, is a fantastic way for your Wizard to contribute to the party. Even if your DM is a party pooper who doesn't expect for their NPC to fall for an illusion they still have to respect the fact that the dragon is a huge and surprisingly solid obstacle. Knowing that it's an illusion only makes it marginally less deadly.

[pragma]

But imagine even the simplest addition of the the Sentinel feat. Sure, the barbarian may not have as much AC or HP depending on how he spent his ASIs, which makes Option A a little more reasonable, but it also means that if the BBEG tries to move, he's possibly stuck back at option A and sucky choices of options B-E because suddenly his movement is zero. Now he has to weigh his options more carefully. Now the absolute unit of a turtle that is the Bearbarian now is acting like a tank, by limiting options in another "damned if you do, [maybe] damned if you don't". It's not perfect (the BBEG needs to attempt to move and you might miss the attack) but it was better than without it.
I think that fighters, barbarians and paladins (maybe just everyone) should have sentinel baked in for this reason. It makes the tactical positioning minigame in 5e more interesting.

[Yakmala]

Being a good tank is a combination of factors:


Durability
Tempting Target
Dangerous to Ignore



My personal favorite formula for this, that can be achieved as early as Level 4 [with a Variant Human] is a Barbarian with GWM and Sentinel.


Reckless Attack: "Hey, this guy is really easy to hit. I like when my attacks hit!"
Great Weapon Master: "Hey, this guy's attacks really hurt! I want that to stop!"
Sentinel: "Every time I try to move away from this guy or attack his ally instead, I get hurt. I might as well just attack him instead."

[bloodshed343]

Illusions are a tough sell because from DM to DM the efficacy of using them can be drastically different. It can range from a DM who would allow Minor Illusion to hamper an unintelligent enemy for a turn to a DM who has even the thickest most dense meathead enemy attempt to walk straight through the newly spawned dragon (major image), realize it's an illusion, and continue forward unimpeded.

Illusory Dragon, however, is a fantastic way for your Wizard to contribute to the party. Even if your DM is a party pooper who doesn't expect for their NPC to fall for an illusion they still have to respect the fact that the dragon is a huge and surprisingly solid obstacle. Knowing that it's an illusion only makes it marginally less deadly.

Even with the strictest DM interpretation, illusions still block line of sight until you attack through or dispel them, so it's a reliable way to cover an ally from range. Then you have things like Wall of Force to stop enemies from moving. If you have a bat familiar, you can use Darkness or Fog Cloud and then use the bat's blindsight to see enemies, so you're invisible to them but they can't leave without provoking an OA from you, which ends their movement thanks to the Sentinel feat.

Basically, you're the most strategically important target because you're the wizard casting battlefield control spells and countering all the casters, but you're also the most difficult target to hit because of warforged heavy armor + shield + shield of faith + shield spell + mirror image.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Even with the strictest DM interpretation, illusions still block line of sight until you attack through or dispel them, so it's a reliable way to cover an ally from range. Then you have things like Wall of Force to stop enemies from moving. If you have a bat familiar, you can use Darkness or Fog Cloud and then use the bat's blindsight to see enemies, so you're invisible to them but they can't leave without provoking an OA from you, which ends their movement thanks to the Sentinel feat.

Basically, you're the most strategically important target because you're the wizard casting battlefield control spells and countering all the casters, but you're also the most difficult target to hit because of warforged heavy armor + shield + shield of faith + shield spell + mirror image.
I understand that most illusions block line of sight, but most illusions also have a clause that physical interaction causes them to be revealed as illusions to you, walking through them is a way to do that without making an investigation check and is often the go to strategy for a DM who really doesn't want to deal with the illusion.

When you said illusion, I was under the impression that you were talking about the Illusion school and not obscurement in general. Minor nitpicks but you're also not going to be casting Fog Cloud or Darkness in the same turn as you would use your Familiar's sight because it takes an action to do so. It doesn't seem like a very effective use of your time to cast and concentrate on one spell and then use all subsequent actions to use your familiars sight. You're also not going to have Shield of Faith up at the same time as those obscuring effects as they both take concentration.

You can either be the big brutish wizard with but a single reaction if you maintain concentration on Shield of Faith or risk having them run directly past you on the turn where you can only set up the obscurement spell before you're able to see through it using your familiar.

I think skipping Cleric altogether, instead starting with a level in Fighter and taking Booming Blade for War Caster would be more effective. Since you're only relying on obscurement spells and illusions (that are usually only tricking an enemy for a turn or two at best) then you can be a Juggernaut with just the 13 int requirement to multiclass, your ward scales much better with your Wizard level than it does intelligence anyway. This opens up grappling as an option since your strength score is good.

I can't deny that if you manage to get all of that properly set up it would be effective (although I personally think you're overselling it just a bit) but it sounds complicated and it uses up several spells to do something not all that impressive in my opinion.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I understand that most illusions block line of sight, but most illusions also have a clause that physical interaction causes them to be revealed as illusions to you, walking through them is a way to do that without making an investigation check and is often the go to strategy for a DM who really doesn't want to deal with the illusion.

When you said illusion, I was under the impression that you were talking about the Illusion school and not obscurement in general. Minor nitpicks but you're also not going to be casting Fog Cloud or Darkness in the same turn as you would use your Familiar's sight because it takes an action to do so. It doesn't seem like a very effective use of your time to cast and concentrate on one spell and then use all subsequent actions to use your familiars sight. You're also not going to have Shield of Faith up at the same time as those obscuring effects as they both take concentration.

You can either be the big brutish wizard with but a single reaction if you maintain concentration on Shield of Faith or risk having them run directly past you on the turn where you can only set up the obscurement spell before you're able to see through it using your familiar.

I think skipping Cleric altogether, instead starting with a level in Fighter and taking Booming Blade for War Caster would be more effective. Since you're only relying on obscurement spells and illusions (that are usually only tricking an enemy for a turn or two at best) then you can be a Juggernaut with just the 13 int requirement to multiclass, your ward scales much better with your Wizard level than it does intelligence anyway. This opens up grappling as an option since your strength score is good.

I can't deny that if you manage to get all of that properly set up it would be effective (although I personally think you're overselling it just a bit) but it sounds complicated and it uses up several spells to do something not all that impressive in my opinion.

Mirror Image still work, it is a non concentration spell.
My tank Sorcerer have it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Mirror Image still work, it is a non concentration spell.
My tank Sorcerer have it.

I didn't say it wouldn't. Casting Mirror Image doesn't automatically make you a tank.

[HappyDaze]

Regarding the titular question: No. Nobody is better off being weaker, and a PC group doesn't gain overall strength by having someone be more vulnerable.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I didn't say it wouldn't. Casting Mirror Image doesn't automatically make you a tank.

It helps, I added it as an option for an illusion that will work as you were arguing about illusions.

A single spell don't make you a tank, DPR and an important concentration spell make you a great target.

AC and defensive spells make you survive.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It helps, I added it as an option for an illusion that will work as you were arguing about illusions.

A single spell don't make you a tank, DPR and an important concentration spell make you a great target.

AC and defensive spells make you survive.

I was clear that I was talking about illusions that have the caveat "physical interaction with them reveals it to be an illusion" which are most of the placed illusions like Minor Illusion, Major Image and Silent Image.

But my logic that illusions are only as effective as your DM allows them to be still applies to Mirror Image. If you don't have the right tools to make an enemy regret ignoring you the DM is just going to have those orcs run right past you. "3 spinny meat man make Thokk head hurt, go attack squishy magic lady in back instead".

This isn't to say that it's a bad spell, just that in my experience Illusions often leave too much room for interpretation. In the case of players arguing that they should be more effective than they are (someone convinced that a Minor Illusion can make a completely accurate intricately detailed image of a 5ft or under humanoid) or DM's who might be poor sports and have his creatures metagame their way past an illusory wall by simply walking through it, somehow knowing it wasn't real from the start, as it makes no logical sense for someone to be walking face first into walls regularly.

Your mileage may vary but I don't think Illusions are usually a good way to approach tanking. I will say, however, that an Illusionist Wizard who reaches 14th level can do pretty well, Illusory Reality allows them to change the terrain in a meaningful way. You can cage people on the spot for as low as a 1st level spell (silent image), which is an incredibly low cost. You're also effectively able to move any creature you capture using Silent Image, it's like having Resilient Sphere and Telekinesis packed into one 1st level spell with no saves.

[Spacehamster]

First of all tanking working or not completely is DM dependent, some DM’s are kind of playing it like all monsters know exactly how much threat all pc’s pose damage and control wise, thus not letting the “tank” do the role he designed his toon to do, like the monster knows that “if I walk past the armored guy up front I might take 13 damage which is fine cause I got 88 hp and this lets me get to the high threat wizard in the back.

This ofc ignores the fact that most thinking creatures don’t want to get attacked from two directions. But yeah if your tank has both low ac and high damage the dm might be more keen to let his monsters attack you.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I was clear that I was talking about illusions that have the caveat "physical interaction with them reveals it to be an illusion" which are most of the placed illusions like Minor Illusion, Major Image and Silent Image.

But my logic that illusions are only as effective as your DM allows them to be still applies to Mirror Image. If you don't have the right tools to make an enemy regret ignoring you the DM is just going to have those orcs run right past you. "3 spinny meat man make Thokk head hurt, go attack squishy magic lady in back instead".

This isn't to say that it's a bad spell, just that in my experience Illusions often leave too much room for interpretation. In the case of players arguing that they should be more effective than they are (someone convinced that a Minor Illusion can make a completely accurate intricately detailed image of a 5ft or under humanoid) or DM's who might be poor sports and have his creatures metagame their way past an illusory wall by simply walking through it, somehow knowing it wasn't real from the start, as it makes no logical sense for someone to be walking face first into walls regularly.

Your mileage may vary but I don't think Illusions are usually a good way to approach tanking. I will say, however, that an Illusionist Wizard who reaches 14th level can do pretty well, Illusory Reality allows them to change the terrain in a meaningful way. You can cage people on the spot for as low as a 1st level spell (silent image), which is an incredibly low cost. You're also effectively able to move any creature you capture using Silent Image, it's like having Resilient Sphere and Telekinesis packed into one 1st level spell with no saves.

I may have missed some of the stuff.

I was clear that I was talking about illusions that have the caveat "physical interaction with them reveals it to be an illusion" which are most of the placed illusions like Minor Illusion, Major Image and Silent Image.


Then I agree that if the DM will want the illusions not to work they will not work.

I never played in a table like this but I know it is possible.

My bad for missing this part.



First of all tanking working or not completely is DM dependent, some DM’s are kind of playing it like all monsters know exactly how much threat all pc’s pose damage and control wise, thus not letting the “tank” do the role he designed his toon to do, like the monster knows that “if I walk past the armored guy up front I might take 13 damage which is fine cause I got 88 hp and this lets me get to the high threat wizard in the back.

This ofc ignores the fact that most thinking creatures don’t want to get attacked from two directions. But yeah if your tank has both low ac and high damage the dm might be more keen to let his monsters attack you.

That reminds me a game I had. We all played Sorcadins.

And the tank that do 13 damage is what everyone until now sayed is the wrong way to tank.

There are always the tank that can stop the orc in place, that will make difficult terrain and that will just do so much damage that the 88hp monster will have the ability to die from walking past him.

It is like the wizard that stand surrounded by zombies and cast spells on the necromancer, the zombies can't do much to the wizard so he can just ignore them.
The low AC tank is like the zombie.
The tank don't need to lose armor in order to be dangerous, the armor just means he will probably be bad at stealth.
The tank need to get stuff that will make the enemy suffer.
It can be smite, Sentinel, BB+War Caster, Spirit Guardians, conquest fear lock and more.
The AC is not a big factor, the big factor is threat and the guy that lock you down and hit you time after time when you can't hit him is a big threat.
Same as the guy who target your high value allies and have the ability to hurt them.

High damage or disablers are what your tank need.

Unless the shaman told the orcs that the first one to kill a metal block will be the leader of the tribe they have no reason to pay attention or to to flank the low damage high AC tank.

The low AC high damage is the glass cannon, not a tank. But why build a glass cannon when you can build a steel cannon?

[Magikeeper]

Lot's of good advice in this thread, and no low AC isn't going to help.

Something I don't think has been brought up is deception, rumors etc. For an example, a monk can make themselves look like a mage and vice-versa fairly easily. This will only effect the first round of combat but if your enemies are sharing information you can just keep swapping disguises you can at least weaken surprise attacks. As for rumors, one of my most tank-ish experiences was in a game where, due to various reasons, the main enemies were convinced my character could flip out and become a relentless, unstoppable killing machine after a couple rounds. She.. couldn't do that at all, but the enemy never stuck around long enough to confirm anything besides the fact they couldn't seriously injure her. Since they didn't want to die when this neigh-invulnerable entity flipped out, of course.

More generally, you need enemies to think you're the biggest threat*. Actually being the biggest threat helps, but anything that makes you look more deadly or everyone else look weaker could be of use. Or anything that makes it look like you're the real source of whatever the rest of the party is doing.

*Or create situations where they don't have the option of attacking the actual biggest threat.

[Justin Sane]

This isn't an issue with tanks, it's an issue with turtles, which is basically a kind of failed attempt to tank.

Human vs AI games often have this. However, Human vs Human games with tank roles tend not to. If you want to understand how to tank in D&D, you would be better off looking at PvP games for examples. Less FFXIII, more Overwatch, League of Legends, Atlas Reactor, etc.

You'll notice that in said games, people don't really talk about "aggro." They talk about an entirely different set of concepts, like "peel," "pressure," and "punishes."

This is the key misunderstanding: Your goal isn't to get hit, it's to throw a monkey wrench into the enemy's strategy. Your durability is a tool to help you do that. Let me try to show you what I mean.

Let's say you have a big beefy Sorcadin with Warcaster. They walk up to a foe, hit them hard with attacks + quickening Booming Blade. The foe is now not only wounded, but under a whole lot of option pressure. Why? Well, let's look at our hypothetical baddie's decision tree.

Option A) They attack you. This is bad, because you're very hard to kill.

Option B) They try to move past you to attack the back line. This is bad, because they'll not only trigger the Booming Blade rider, but they'll then provoke an opportunity attack which will give them another fat Booming Blade smite to the face. And then another Booming Blade rider on top of that if they continue to move. This is bad, because it will reduce the number of turns that they live and therefore offset the offensive benefit of attacking a squishier target. It might even outright kill them, given how much damage you've already done to them.

Option C) They stay still, and use a ranged attack. This is bad, because they'll have Disadvantage on the ranged attack from being in melee with you.

Option D) They stay still, and use a breath weapon cone. This is bad, because they can't freely position to maximize how many people are in the AoE, or change up their angle to get around allies taking advantage of cover, and because allies in the tank's aura will have a huge bonus to saving throws.

Option E) They cast a spell. You or someone in your party casts Counterspell. And a lot of the stuff from option D might apply, too.

See what's going on here? The effective tank isn't just going "gee, I super hope the DM decides to pick option A, otherwise I'll be useless." They're making all 5 options less attractive. That's a tank.

Getting hit more often is not the goal itself, but a side effect of doing this effectively; enemies will try to deal with you because you have rendered other options less tenable. For a very direct example, an Ancestral Guardian barbarian will often get hit because they can actually make their allies more durable than a Bear-barian (at least, against Attacks from their marked target). Nobody wants to have Disadvantage to hit, Resistance, damage reduction, and damage retribution answering their attack, all at the same time.

But that doesn't mean that the Ancestral Guardian's goal was actually "get hit." It was creating that "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in the first place. The Ancestral Guardian is perfectly happy if the enemy makes the error of targeting a protected ally and triggering Spirit Vengeance and the like.This. All of this.

Tanks in DnD don't really work like the tanks in a MMO, for several reasons. A better genre to pull inspiration from is MOBAs - even if they don't explicitily have a "tank" role, you'll often need a mix of durability and control options to effectively tank in those games, just line in DnD.

[Xetheral]

As others have said, effective tanking revolves around making the enemy choose between bad options. Ideally, it will be a hard choice, so that different enemies (or the same enemy on different rounds) will choose different strategies (and different targets) at different times. This spreads the damage around the party, making it less likely that anyone drops from focused fire.

This is where the AC of the tank comes in. If it's too low, the enemy will have more incentive to focus fire on the tank. In certain situations this may be useful, but in general just reduces the tank's survivability. Conversely, if the tank's AC is too high, the enemy may choose to target the tank less often than the party would prefer, preventing any of the tank's durability features from coming into play, and risking other characters receiving focused fire.

This is one of the reasons that Barbarians make such effective tanks: their ability to choose from round-to-round whether or not to grant enemies advantage to hit them lets them vary their attractiveness as a target. For example, in rounds where other PCs have full cover, the Barbarian is already a very attractive target, and may wish to avoid recklessly attacking (or even dodging, although this risks losing Rage) to reduce incoming focused fire. By contrast, if another PC is caught in the open with low HP, the Barbarian can increase their attractiveness as a target with a reckless attack, hopefully drawing fire from at least some of the enemies.

In general, I would say that low AC doesn't help a tank, but you also don't want a tank's AC to be significantly higher than the rest of the party--it will make it more challenging to become an attractive target on those rounds where you want to be. This will be campaign-dependent of course: having a 22 AC is likely a huge advantage in a Combat-as-War game if the party can frequently choose the terrain for their battles. By contrast, a 22 AC may be a liability in a party of AC 15 spellcasters in a Combat-as-Sport game if the DM tends to design battles that lack options for cover.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

As others have said, effective tanking revolves around making the enemy choose between bad options. Ideally, it will be a hard choice, so that different enemies (or the same enemy on different rounds) will choose different strategies (and different targets) at different times. This spreads the damage around the party, making it less likely that anyone drops from focused fire.

This is where the AC of the tank comes in. If it's too low, the enemy will have more incentive to focus fire on the tank. In certain situations this may be useful, but in general just reduces the tank's survivability. Conversely, if the tank's AC is too high, the enemy may choose to target the tank less often than the party would prefer, preventing any of the tank's durability features from coming into play, and risking other characters receiving focused fire.

This is one of the reasons that Barbarians make such effective tanks: their ability to choose from round-to-round whether or not to grant enemies advantage to hit them lets them vary their attractiveness as a target. For example, in rounds where other PCs have full cover, the Barbarian is already a very attractive target, and may wish to avoid recklessly attacking (or even dodging, although this risks losing Rage) to reduce incoming focused fire. By contrast, if another PC is caught in the open with low HP, the Barbarian can increase their attractiveness as a target with a reckless attack, hopefully drawing fire from at least some of the enemies.

In general, I would say that low AC doesn't help a tank, but you also don't want a tank's AC to be significantly higher than the rest of the party--it will make it more challenging to become an attractive target on those rounds where you want to be. This will be campaign-dependent of course: having a 22 AC is likely a huge advantage in a Combat-as-War game if the party can frequently choose the terrain for their battles. By contrast, a 22 AC may be a liability in a party of AC 15 spellcasters in a Combat-as-Sport game if the DM tends to design battles that lack options for cover.

I was going to say I disagree but then I read the last sentence.
So I agree.

[Nagog]

The only real solution I can think of is Sentinel as far as tanking support abilities, and that is a really powerful feat (perhaps due to it's great effect of making the tank function as a tank?) Functionally I agree "Tank" classes really need more tanking abilities, something like Mass Compelled Duel, with the DC set by Con? Or Str or Dex depending on your class. Still possible to ignore, but it's something to help Tanks be useful against groups.

[stoutstien]

One thing that is something to think about is AC in itself is abstract. A fighter in plate and shield and a monk can have near equal AC but may manifest in very different ways.
I'm a firm believer that players' description of actions should play a big roll in how NPCs react.

[Demonslayer666]

No, tanks should not have low AC. High AC also represents hits that do no damage. They aren't really a miss, but a hit that doesn't get through.

Moving by threats on the battlefield is penalized, so should not happen unless there is a very strong reason to take that chance. That's why tanks stand in front. It's not that they are a desired target, it's that they are in the way.

As DM, most of my encounters follow the simple rule that they attack whatever is closest. Advanced tactics, like going after the "mage", don't happen unless they are facing smart adversaries.

[RickAllison]

Tactics for my NPCs very much depends on the specific enemies. Enter a bear’s cave and it will attack whoever is the most immediate threat, trying to push them out. A wolf pack is more likely to try to evade the tank and try to take down the weaker members. A rust monster would flock to an armored tank while avoiding an Ancient unarmored barbarian.

[HappyDaze]

Advanced tactics, like going after the "mage", don't happen unless they are facing smart adversaries.
Don't be too harsh on GMs running "dumb" enemies using effective tactics, after all many Int 8 PCs use brutally efficient team tactics.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Don't be too harsh on GMs running "dumb" enemies using effective tactics, after all many Int 8 PCs use brutally efficient team tactics.

Aren't tactics under wisdom?

Knowing tactics is intelligent, understanding and creating them is wisdom.

[Doug Lampert]

Don't be too harsh on GMs running "dumb" enemies using effective tactics, after all many Int 8 PCs use brutally efficient team tactics.

In my experience, groups of PCs are effectively NEVER as good at tactics as a real world wolf-pack.

Wolves trip, they attack from behind, they have one wolf distract you while another moves in for the kill, they go for the weakest member of a group, they will use one group to run you into an ambush by another group, they will deliberately relay you to exhaustion by alternating who chases, they use long distance signaling quite effectively to coordinate over long distances, they will disengage if over-matched or they will fight to the death to protect the rest of their group if that is more appropriate.

Wolves aren't all that smart. But there aren't any tactics any martial or non-spellcasting monster is using in D&D land that are all that much more complicated than what a wolf can manage.

Crows also aren't all that smart, but they can recognize a rifle, and within limits can count how many people have gone into a hunting blind and how many have left and keep track of whether or not anyone is in there. I have no trouble with the idea that a crow in D&D land would be smart enough to recognize when someone is casting a spell.

The fact of the matter is, almost everything in D&D land is smart enough to employ decent tactics.

[stoutstien]

In my experience, groups of PCs are effectively NEVER as good at tactics as a real world wolf-pack.

Wolves trip, they attack from behind, they have one wolf distract you while another moves in for the kill, they go for the weakest member of a group, they will use one group to run you into an ambush by another group, they will deliberately relay you to exhaustion by alternating who chases, they use long distance signaling quite effectively to coordinate over long distances, they will disengage if over-matched or they will fight to the death to protect the rest of their group if that is more appropriate.

Wolves aren't all that smart. But there aren't any tactics any martial or non-spellcasting monster is using in D&D land that are all that much more complicated than what a wolf can manage.

Crows also aren't all that smart, but they can recognize a rifle, and within limits can count how many people have gone into a hunting blind and how many have left and keep track of whether or not anyone is in there. I have no trouble with the idea that a crow in D&D land would be smart enough to recognize when someone is casting a spell.

The fact of the matter is, almost everything in D&D land is smart enough to employ decent tactics.

I think the distinction is they use decent tactics but not the best tactics and may take a while to recognise that there primary tactics aren't working.

[LudicSavant]

Even wolves don't have hunting strategies that reduce to "attack nearest thing."

That orc with 7 Int? They possess instincts honed by a lifetime of warfare, and were trained as a soldier in a battle-hardened warrior society, taught tried and true strategies developed over generations of trial and error in battle. They know what a spellcaster is and why it matters as surely as any modern soldier can recognize a tank, sniper, grenade, or artillery emplacement and has at least some idea of the correct way to respond.

A low intelligence score is not a good excuse to play creatures like badly programmed videogame zombies.

[Dudu]

When I play a tank I play a Sorcadin (Hexsorcadin most of the time).

I walk straight into the enemies smiting and if I can with spirit guardians/Bless and far step.

I chase the enemy casters and make sure it will be hard for them to cast.

Most of the time I get 8-12 enemies on me(trying to save the leader/caster).

As a paladin it is hard to fail saves and I have a lot of HP(upcast Aid).
Most of my characters look for a clock of displacement and +x shield/armor/weapon (I like warhammers).

Nobody ignore the block of metal if he is at range and killing you friends while cursing your god.
Precisely what I'm playing right now. A sorcadin.

Like you, instead of making your AC low, make yourself a threat.
Also like you, I love warhammers, although I dropped mine in favor of a Staff of Power, because that staff is insane.

Plus, if you get really close to them, it's hard to simply bypass you and reach your allies. They can't just ignore that AoO, much less when you have Warcaster and can booming blade their ass. (I also dropped Booming Blade in favor of Greenflame Blade once I got Sentinel feat)

One more thing, positioning. If you position yourself in a way the enemies have to pass through you to get to the squishier targets, you also won't need low AC to make enemies want to hit you.

And lastly, your party members who can't tank thenselves should devise a way to make reaching them more troublesome. The rogue should be hiding, the bow user should be far away, maybe over a hill even, casters have plenty of spells to make them hard to reach if they have the concentration to spare, and even if they don't (Mirror Image, for example).

[djreynolds]

Being a good tank is a combination of factors:


Durability
Tempting Target
Dangerous to Ignore



My personal favorite formula for this, that can be achieved as early as Level 4 [with a Variant Human] is a Barbarian with GWM and Sentinel.


Reckless Attack: "Hey, this guy is really easy to hit. I like when my attacks hit!"
Great Weapon Master: "Hey, this guy's attacks really hurt! I want that to stop!"
Sentinel: "Every time I try to move away from this guy or attack his ally instead, I get hurt. I might as well just attack him instead."



This is the definition of a tank. You have to deal with it, its easy to hit, and all the weapon damage is halved. And the enemy casters must now deal with this tank with magical means.

And now the rogue can sneak attack with impunity, the paladin can dump shield of faith and concentrate on a smite spell, the party caster can forgo a defensive spell in favor of offense.

The barbarian is very tough to take out and tough to ignore

[Demonslayer666]

Don't be too harsh on GMs running "dumb" enemies using effective tactics, after all many Int 8 PCs use brutally efficient team tactics.
Certainly not doing that. Just stating what I do with things that cannot identify a mage or cleric.


...
The fact of the matter is, almost everything in D&D land is smart enough to employ decent tactics.
I strongly disagree. Most things cannot identify a mage/cleric in the party and know that they should be the primary target.


Even wolves don't have hunting strategies that reduce to "attack nearest thing."

That orc with 7 Int? They possess instincts honed by a lifetime of warfare, and were trained as a soldier in a battle-hardened warrior society, taught tried and true strategies developed over generations of trial and error in battle. They know what a spellcaster is and why it matters as surely as any modern soldier can recognize a tank, sniper, grenade, or artillery emplacement and has at least some idea of the correct way to respond.

A low intelligence score is not a good excuse to play creatures like badly programmed videogame zombies.
Wolves cannot identify a mage and single them out as the most dangerous, targeting them first. That's not something wolves do in the slightest.

You and I disagree on the amount of training an orc has. Orcs are certainly not seasoned veterans of war. They only have 2 HD.

[LudicSavant]

Wolves cannot identify a mage and single them out as the most dangerous, targeting them first. That's not something wolves do in the slightest.

As Doug Lampert pointed out upthread, some wild animals can recognize human weaponry (or even just "types of humans resembling other humans who are dangerous kinds of human") and will change their behavior towards those humans accordingly. Additionally, avoiding stronger members of the herd and going for a target that looks like it'll go down more easily first is a common tactic of many predator species. They certainly can tell a difference between big musclebound screaming axe man and skinny robe man, even if you assume that they'd have no concept of magical threats despite undergoing natural selection in a world lousy with the stuff.

Also, dogs who have never seen a gun have been known to react to people wielding one. It's not a simple matter of knowing how a gun operates, but being able to sense something's wrong by other means.


You and I disagree on the amount of training an orc has. Orcs are certainly not seasoned veterans of war. They only have 2 HD.

Irrelevant to the point. A soldier doesn't need to be a "seasoned veteran" to do any of the things listed. Simply being a member of the culture is sufficient. You cannot have a surviving warrior culture that does not have a basic awareness of the key elements of war.

This is less of an "advanced tactic" than learning proper edge alignment for swinging a blade.

[Quietus]

Wolves cannot identify a mage and single them out as the most dangerous, targeting them first. That's not something wolves do in the slightest.

You and I disagree on the amount of training an orc has. Orcs are certainly not seasoned veterans of war. They only have 2 HD.

Wolves can tell who is not wearing armor, and among that group who seems the least physically capable of defending themselves, though. I would forgive them for going after a monk over a wizard, but a large enough group might have two of their pack engage the barbarian, possibly even being wary about it (dodging), while the rest circle around to go after the weakest member.

[Demonslayer666]

Irrelevant to the point. A soldier doesn't need to be a "seasoned veteran" to do any of the things listed. Simply being a member of the culture is sufficient. You cannot have a surviving warrior culture that does not have a basic awareness of the key elements of war.

This is less of an "advanced tactic" than learning proper edge alignment for swinging a blade.

So you disagree that HD can represent experience? I do, and I think that's very relevant.

Well, at least we agree they are not trained now. :smallsmile:



Wolves can tell who is not wearing armor, and among that group who seems the least physically capable of defending themselves, though. I would forgive them for going after a monk over a wizard, but a large enough group might have two of their pack engage the barbarian, possibly even being wary about it (dodging), while the rest circle around to go after the weakest member.

No, wolves have absolutely no concept of wearing armor. They can identify the weak and the slow, and the big and strong.
Mages don't gave to be small, and barbarians don't have to be big.

[LudicSavant]

So you disagree that HD can represent experience? What?

I made no comment about HD, and the question of whether they're a "seasoned veteran" or not is irrelevant, because we're not talking about an advanced tactic. I would expect any member of a warrior class to have at least some idea of how to assess threats, just as surely as I would expect them to have some idea how to swing a sword. If they've got martial weapon proficiency, I would expect them to have some idea of what warfare is.

A soldier in Eberron or Forgotten Realms or the like not knowing what magic is would be like a soldier in the real world having no concept of what a vehicle is.

[stoutstien]

Not to interrupt the age old argument of the paradox of DM meta of tactical options available to NPCs but I think the most important factor is that a DM is fairly consistent in how they deal with it.
If orcs know that wizards are bad and tend to focus on them so the party starts to use that as a way to position the orcs to be flanked and over extended but suddenly other autonomous groups of orcs shift to different tactics is where I'd take issue.

[Protolisk]

Not to interrupt the age old argument of the paradox of DM meta of tactical options available to NPCs but I think the most important factor is that a DM is fairly consistent in how they deal with it.
If orcs know that wizards are bad and tend to focus on them so the party starts to use that as a way to position the orcs to be flanked and over extended but suddenly other autonomous groups of orcs shift to different tactics is where I'd take issue.

I personally make enemy tactics similar to the general tactics of TheMonstersKnow, such that the higher the general Int and Wis a particular creature has, the more they can discern between "big = bad target, small = good target" to more reactionary ones like "thing with stick thing make big boom, now it dangerous", while smarter beings begin to understand "That man holding a wand is definitely a wizard, kill him before he casts Fireball." However, that man holding a wand may have been a Goliath, so where the basic instinct enemies would have avoided him in the first example, now is being targeted by the strategists. Further, a leader can guide his dumber minions, which compounds the danger the leader represents on the battlefield. Additionally, enemies that have faced the party before know their general tactics, but of course if the next interaction happens after a few levels then the party may have switched it up since last encounter.

But yes, a group of orcs that had no previous interaction with the party, should behave just as similarly as another group of orcs that had no previous interaction with the party. However, if one survivor of the first group met up with the second, he might have stories to tell...

[Demonslayer666]

I feel like you're putting words in my mouth. I made no comment about HD, and the question of whether they're a "seasoned veteran" or not is irrelevant, because we're not talking about an advanced tactic. I would expect any member of a warrior class to have at least some idea of how to assess threats, just as surely as I would expect them to have some idea how to swing a sword. If they've got martial weapon proficiency, I would expect them to have some idea of what warfare is.

A soldier in Eberron or Forgotten Realms or the like not knowing what magic is would be like a soldier in the real world having no concept of what a vehicle is.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. You said irrelevant without addressing it specifically. I assumed you meant me pointing out that they had low HD because that was the last thing I mentioned.

Orcs experience with fighting adventurers should be extremely limited, but maybe that's just how I run my games. Heroes are rare, and orcs are off on their own. Mages are not anywhere near common. A common orc's experience with any other races should be limited to raids on undefended villages on the outskirts of civilization. The common orc is not one that has survived multiple engagements with the other races. And even if by chance they had survived one or two, it would not be against mages, only common foot soldiers. I can't justify a common orc being tactical at all against specific character classes. I feel like they would seriously underestimate a mage's ability, and then overreact once they saw it.

But like I said, that's my take on how orcs operate.

[Stone-Ears]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. You said irrelevant without addressing it specifically. I assumed you meant me pointing out that they had low HD because that was the last thing I mentioned.

Orcs experience with fighting adventurers should be extremely limited, but maybe that's just how I run my games. Heroes are rare, and orcs are off on their own. Mages are not anywhere near common. A common orc's experience with any other races should be limited to raids on undefended villages on the outskirts of civilization. The common orc is not one that has survived multiple engagements with the other races. And even if by chance they had survived one or two, it would not be against mages, only common foot soldiers. I can't justify a common orc being tactical at all against specific character classes. I feel like they would seriously underestimate a mage's ability, and then overreact once they saw it.

But like I said, that's my take on how orcs operate.

Sounds more campaign/world specific as far as how your orcs operate. Some worlds has magic as being so common that even the village idiot could identify a mage and mages are as common as foot soldiers.

Other worlds like yours would have mages be so rare that just seeing one would be straight up mystical.

[LudicSavant]

Sounds more campaign/world specific as far as how your orcs operate. Some worlds has magic as being so common that even the village idiot could identify a mage and mages are as common as foot soldiers.

Other worlds like yours would have mages be so rare that just seeing one would be straight up mystical.

Agreed.

I'd also add that magic being common would not be required in order for it to be well-known. It would just have to be important to the outcome of historical wars.

Heck, even if a PC's magic is entirely unique, PCs will have to be wary of enemies adapting to their tactics as they gain notoriety, or if they face the same faction more than once, or the like.

But let's get back to the main topic of the thread. Ultimately if your character relies on enemies being uninformed, unintelligent, or otherwise making a major tactical error, they are not an especially effective character overall.

This is the primary difference between a tank and a turtle. A tank actively pressures foes and punishes them for their choices, regardless of who they choose to target. A turtle withdraws into their shell and prays for the "DM meta" to choose to target them.

If you're not a mere turtle, you can play confidently at any table, regardless of the DM's targeting tendencies or the rarity of magic in the setting.

More elaboration on this here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24109520&postcount=49).

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. You said irrelevant without addressing it specifically. I assumed you meant me pointing out that they had low HD because that was the last thing I mentioned.

Orcs experience with fighting adventurers should be extremely limited, but maybe that's just how I run my games. Heroes are rare, and orcs are off on their own. Mages are not anywhere near common. A common orc's experience with any other races should be limited to raids on undefended villages on the outskirts of civilization. The common orc is not one that has survived multiple engagements with the other races. And even if by chance they had survived one or two, it would not be against mages, only common foot soldiers. I can't justify a common orc being tactical at all against specific character classes. I feel like they would seriously underestimate a mage's ability, and then overreact once they saw it.

But like I said, that's my take on how orcs operate.

Orc's are known for marauding and in settings like the Forgotten Realms are known to overtake populated settlements if proper defense isn't established. They are portrayed as formidable enemies despite their mechanical statistics. They're actually portrayed as fairly intelligent, known for scouting ahead of their raids and even in some rare cases, subterfuge.

You might have heard of a fairly famous incident where Orc's overran Citadel Felbarr and drove the Dwarves who lived there out for over 250 years. Some Dwarves lived through that entire time, but for the Orc's it would mean that there could have been as few as 6 generations (and as many as 10 if we assume their average lifespan) born in that time. Orc's are incredibly short lived. I'd be shocked if in the 250 years that they held Citadel Felbarr that they never once saw a spellcaster to develop a strategy against. After the first time any sort of spellcaster, you can bet your booty that they taught every whelp from then on how to spot and deal with them.

They learn quick (or die), they're ruthless and they're intelligent enough to avoid blatantly obvious losing battles. That is unless Elves are involved, apparently they have such a deep seeded and intrinsic hate for them that the little reason and self preservation instincts that they have is thrown out the window.

tl;dr - The way you run Orc's is not wrong but assuming that it's the standard or telling someone that they "should" always act unintelligent is. Always remember that in a game where you shape the world you run that you're bound to run into some differences.

[Theodoxus]

When talking tanks, I like to use the World of Warcraft meta for them, and let the listener decide for themselves what they want to actually accomplish.

WoW has three tanking subclasses. Armor - classic paladin or fighter in plate, simply not being hit. Avoidance - either through magical trickery (Mirror Image, Blur/Displacement) or dodging (Dodge, High Dex). And Mitigation, think Barbarian damage reduction, Temp Hit Points, Lay on Hands, etc.

Basically, the more of each you have, the better you'll survive the encounter. And that's classically what tanking in an RPG means. Now, with the advent of MMOs, especially group friendly ones, tanking has also taken on a role of party support, trying to grab aggro and keep things from beating on your teammates. Which, a lot of this thread has covered.

I've re-incorporated Marking into my game. The Cavalier is the only class that has the mechanic, though Recklessly Attacking is basically 'reverse marking'. But I give Marking to Fighters and Paladins at 1st level, just so they can taunt enemies into attacking them.

My players haven't really taken to using it, though... I think they just forget, and focus fire their opponents down anyway. I need to start having fights where the enemy is using Marking, so they can see how devastating it can be, when suddenly they're having Disadvantage on trying to hit squishies.

[bloodshed343]

1.) I understand that most illusions block line of sight, but most illusions also have a clause that physical interaction causes them to be revealed as illusions to you, walking through them is a way to do that without making an investigation check and is often the go to strategy for a DM who really doesn't want to deal with the illusion.

2.) Minor nitpicks but you're also not going to be casting Fog Cloud or Darkness in the same turn as you would use your Familiar's sight because it takes an action to do so. It doesn't seem like a very effective use of your time to cast and concentrate on one spell and then use all subsequent actions to use your familiars sight...


3.)I think skipping Cleric altogether, instead starting with a level in Fighter and taking Booming Blade for War Caster would be more effective. Since you're only relying on obscurement spells and illusions (that are usually only tricking an enemy for a turn or two at best) then you can be a Juggernaut with just the 13 int requirement to multiclass, your ward scales much better with your Wizard level than it does intelligence anyway. This opens up grappling as an option since your strength score is good.

I can't deny that if you manage to get all of that properly set up it would be effective (although I personally think you're overselling it just a bit) but it sounds complicated and it uses up several spells to do something not all that impressive in my opinion.

I apologize for bad mobile formatting in advance.

As for 1: with minor illusion you can create the illusion of a solid object that surrounds a square occupied by an ally (or some openings such as bars/windows/murderholes). In this case, the enemy can't move through the illusion because the space is occupied and must either investigate or try to attack through it without being able to see, thus incurring disadvantage. It also completely stops some spells and abilities that target "one creature you can see" (beholders eye rays for instance), so an enemy using those abilities must choose a different target or spend their action doing something that interacts with the illusion.

2.) I was going to point out that familiar's sight last until you end it, but when I reread the card I noticed that is in fact only one turn. So while I did use this in conjunction with a hex blade who had devil's sight to completely trivialize an encounter, I was also apparently cheating.

3.) I would definitely choose taking Int to 20 just because Wizard spells are so good. You can still do fine with shillelagh and booming blade or even a rapier if you went dexterity. You probably aren't spending your actions on melee past 6th level very often, anyway. Personally, I just prefer wisdom as a secondary for flavor reasons and because wisdom saving throw effects are more debilitating.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I apologize for bad mobile formatting in advance.

As for 1: with minor illusion you can create the illusion of a solid object that surrounds a square occupied by an ally (or some openings such as bars/windows/murderholes). In this case, the enemy can't move through the illusion because the space is occupied and must either investigate or try to attack through it without being able to see, thus incurring disadvantage. It also completely stops some spells and abilities that target "one creature you can see" (beholders eye rays for instance), so an enemy using those abilities must choose a different target or spend their action doing something that interacts with the illusion.

2.) I was going to point out that familiar's sight last until you end it, but when I reread the card I noticed that is in fact only one turn. So while I did use this in conjunction with a hex blade who had devil's sight to completely trivialize an encounter, I was also apparently cheating.

3.) I would definitely choose taking Int to 20 just because Wizard spells are so good. You can still do fine with shillelagh and booming blade or even a rapier if you went dexterity. You probably aren't spending your actions on melee past 6th level very often, anyway. Personally, I just prefer wisdom as a secondary for flavor reasons and because wisdom saving throw effects are more debilitating.

1) I think it's a pretty gamey conclusion to say that they simply "aren't allowed" to move into the square because it's occupied. From a purely rules standpoint, this is technically true, but from a game realism standpoint the enemy (a) has no idea that the box is definitely occupied and (b) that since it is they're unable to even attempt walking through it. Attempting to advance into that square and meeting resistance would also fulfill the requirement of physically interacting with the illusion.

I understand that this form of interacting with illusions could be considered metagaming on the DM's side but that's my point in this, that illusions run into several issues with how effective they are from table to table. Neither point of view is definitively wrong, it just depends on what type of table you're at.

Minor nitpick, bringing up something I said before, creating cover with minor illusion is certainly an option but remember that just because medium creatures occupy a 5ft space on a grid doesn't mean they are all 5ft and under. In many cases, creating that 5ft cube to hide an ally in will result in their head poking out of whatever object you created to obscure them unless they've dropped prone inside of it. This is one of those cases where the "apparently throwaway" part of character creation in choosing your height has a meaningful impact on the mechanics.

2) Yes, it's an often overlooked aspect of the spell that I myself am guilty of overlooking. Many DM's (in my experience) are more than willing to ignore the time limit since in most cases it doesn't end up being an issue. At my own table I don't bother so much with the time limit during exploration but I also don't really allow the players to make use of their familiars sight effectively in combat. They suffer penalties when doing so as fighting in a battle while also having a quite literal out of body experience makes it difficult to fight normally.

3)If your plan is to take primarily Wizard levels, absolutely I would recommend maxing intelligence. If you're only using utility Wizard spells that don't involve a save (abjuration spells like shield for example) then only having just enough to multiclass into and out of Wizard is probably fine.

I recall a rather well put together Orc Diviner Wizard build that circulates around here pretty often that focuses on control and utility type spells with a negative (or only as high as 13) intelligence modifier. 5E has made the idiot savant wizard a viable build.

[PeteNutButter]

What if you turtle but are so tanky that the DM is forced to pit against the party monsters of too high CR just to hurt you, which ultimately down the rest of the party leaving you to 1v1 the monster kill it yourself?

I mean... you won, right? ...I'm asking for a friend.

[Gignere]

What if you turtle but are so tanky that the DM is forced to pit against the party monsters of too high CR just to hurt you, which ultimately down the rest of the party leaving you to 1v1 the monster kill it yourself?

I mean... you won, right? ...I'm asking for a friend.

That’s just bad DM plenty of stuff that doesn’t target AC and can wreck your day. Still CR appropriate. Send some intellect devourer and a mindflayer or two and watch that super tank cower behind the flimsy wizard and use him/her as the tank.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That’s just bad DM plenty of stuff that doesn’t target AC and can wreck your day. Still CR appropriate. Send some intellect devourer and a mindflayer or two and watch that super tank cower behind the flimsy wizard and use him/her as the tank.

Or just have my luck, every 3 hits on me in a 70 hours dungeon crawl was a crit.

When I got cloak of displacement it was 1 in 6 hits.

(I tried to crit fish with EA and vengeance Paladin channel divinity and hexblade curse. I also had 2 monks that stuned everything, I had 3 crits in the same 70 hours).

It is still a joke, Dirk the paladin is the unkilable unlucky tank.

[PeteNutButter]

That’s just bad DM plenty of stuff that doesn’t target AC and can wreck your day. Still CR appropriate. Send some intellect devourer and a mindflayer or two and watch that super tank cower behind the flimsy wizard and use him/her as the tank.

I mean it was blue text sarcasm... But I've seen this thing happening a lot with Paladins(hexadins/sorcadins) with max cha and silly saves all around, especially in AL where you can pretty easily pick up a cloak & ring of protection to boot. I've seen plenty of characters that are insanely hard to kill from all dimensions. If a character turtles on defense, the gap between their survivability and the rest of the party gets larger and larger over the course of levels to the point where by tier 3 they are nearly unkillable by anything that wouldn't destroy the rest of he party.

I'm not recommending it. I'm just saying it can happen, and sometimes DMs overcompensate... but most of the time the turtle just does less.

[Warlush]

Okay I'll go ahead and be "that guy". I like tanking with a warlock. Armor of Ag might be my favorite spell in the game. At lvl 5 you get 15 thp that equal 15 points of damage to your mele foes with no save. You're hit die is okay, you've got the same AC opportunities as a rogue, and if you go Fiend Pact there's even more defensive boons and spells. Also most DMs hate warlocks and want to prove that they suck, so you're getting targeted.

[stoutstien]

Okay I'll go ahead and be "that guy". I like tanking with a warlock. Armor of Ag might be my favorite spell in the game. At lvl 5 you get 15 thp that equal 15 points of damage to your mele foes with no save. You're hit die is okay, you've got the same AC opportunities as a rogue, and if you go Fiend Pact there's even more defensive boons and spells. Also most DMs hate warlocks and want to prove that they suck, so you're getting targeted.

Depending on the party makeup And DM meta any class can play the role of the front liner trying to draw as much fire as possible.
What you're describing is what I like to call them masochist tank. I wish there were more spells that caused reactionary damage. Fire shield is great but it's a tad high for most players to ever get long term

[Nhorianscum]

Man, I just thought barbs tanked by grabbing people and everyone else did it by magically grabbing people.

Seems a lot simpler than running into more dudes than you can grab and exploding