Quote Originally Posted by Schwann145 View Post
Sorry, I know this is a couple pages back (I'm just getting caught up), but this jumped out at me a bit for a couple reasons:
•Would the Barbarian in question have survived without the DR from Rage? If not, that means no one else would have either, regardless of their "tanking" capability (such as a Fighter or Paladin or such).
•Everyone always seems to forget that part of Cunning Action is the ability to bonus action Dodge. I'd think a Moderately Armored Rogue who can Dodge every round without giving up their offense is in a better tanking position than their more traditional tanking contemporaries.

Edit: Well... dang. One day I'll learn not to post in the middle of the night while tired. Not today though. Thanks for the catch, Kane0.
Yes, it was due to his damage resistance; actual damage taken was 92. But - he's a barb with 17 AC. Because his AC was only 17, he took A LOT of hits that, say, 23 AC would've deflected.

I obviously don't have a list of all of the attacks that hit him and can't say for sure what the minimum AC would be to reduce the raw damage from 184 to something a 10th level fighter or paladin could survive. But to your point, that particular situation was pretty barb-specific. Like, I'm quite certain that a more pedestrian 20ish AC would still have led to 100+ damage, and it would take pretty special AC to AC-tank their way through that.

I'm not saying "rogue isn't as tough as barbarian, there for rogue sucks." My point was that tanking isn't about being able to mitigate errant hits. To sell me on rogue being able to tank, they'd need to be able to survive some level of focused fire, multiple attacks for at least a few rounds against notable threats. I think it plainly obvious that rogue can't do that.