D&D 5E What class fills the tank role best? Fighter, Barbarian, Cleric or Paladin?

[Azzy]

Hiya!



No problem...just bring him on over into our campaign and we can...oh, hold on. No MC and mo Feats in our campaign. So...yeah...

I suppose I should have said "No tanking in the core/base game". That said, does that combo force the opponent to attack you? If so...congrats on creating a 'tank' in 5e+. If not, then it's still not 'tanking', at least as far as I know it. In MMO's, "tanking" does mean having a large hp/damage reduction/armor, but also abilities that "aggro" the MOB's who then attack the 'tank'.

But yeah, I guess with those options of your PC, it's probably the closest thing to a "tank" we're gonna see in 5e.

The term "tank" predates MMOs and such.

 

[CapnZapp]

I want to build a tank, somebody who can both dish out damage and draw the attacks away from the other PCs, who are much squishier than I plan on being.

Which class works best?

The traditional strength of a "tank" is to soak damage, and there the Barbarian is unparallelled. (Choose Bear Totem for your subclass).

It is also top notch in the dishing out damage department, especially if your campaign uses feats.

The main draw is that this tankiness comes online already at level 1. Already from the start, you have effectively twice the hit points of anyone else, let alone the squishies.

 

[Oofta]

For fighters and paladins, you have the option of the protection style (disadvantage to hit adjacent ally as a reaction). Give the bad guys disadvantage to hit your adjacent ally and sooner or later they start targeting you. Go figure. Add in shield bash feat to knock enemies away from your allies (or prone) and then get between them.

If you go the feat route with polearm master + sentinel feats you can smack people as they come close and stop them from advancing on your allies. Particularly useful if you do a lot of dungeon crawls. Fighters will get there quicker because they get a few more feats.

If you go barbarian/totem warrior with the bear totem you effectively double your HP, but it's not until 14th level that you get truly defender-style abilities when enemies have disadvantage to hit anyone but you if they're within 5 feet.

Paladin has some spells like Compelled Duel that forces the enemy to attack you if they fail their save. Or use thunderous smite to knock them away from your allies, etc.

Personally? I'd play any one of the 3 if I had a tank type person in mind, although it would probably lean towards fighter or paladin. There isn't really any one build that is going to stand out so play what will be fun for you or that you think will be more interesting.

 

[FrogReaver]

If a tank means a damage sponge then a barbarian. If a tank means drawing enemies to attack you while being able to survive those hits then I vote life cleric.

Life clerics give lots of reasons for enemies to want to attack them.
1. Enemies often find a need to disable efficient in combat healers as such attacking the healer becomes a priority. By having really good healing he draws agro.
2. Clerics can dish out a lot of damage when desired. Spiritual weapon, spirit guardians etc. Being one of the biggest threats to enemies is an easy way to draw agro.
3. They can take the heavy armor master feat fairly early making them be able to soak up a lot of damage.
4. They can use their great healing on themselves giving themselves a lot of effective hp whenever needed.

In some DM's campaigns being a damage sponge is really all that you need in order to be a tank as the DM naturally has monsters agro you. So it depends a bit on your DM what makes the best tank. If you are going into a campaign blind I would go toward a melee life cleric. If you know the DM is going to have enemies primarily hit the characters that run up into melee then the Barbarian is probably better.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The term "tank" predates MMOs and such.

Does it? Huh. First time I heard about it was probably playing Everquest or maybe Ultima Online. Then again, I never really got into any of the MUD's (where it seems to have started...if my searching is to be believed). So I guess it technically didn't start with MMO's as we know them today (earliest I found reference to was 1992 on a Wiki).

Anyway, my point being that as per core 5e, there isn't any real 'tank' class. There are just a couple classes that can take a beating (as expected).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[jaelis]

To me, nothing fills the tank better than a goodberry spell. Tasty, healthy, and keeps you going all day.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't know if the word "tank" was used, but it certainly was a concept before MMOs - even in our early D&D games back in the 2nd ed era, and before the internet became a thing, we would have "front line specialists" who would get between the casters and the monsters.

 

[Azzy]

When I played a Eldritch Knight, I found it to be a great tank—with great hit points (as you'd expect of a fighter), plate armor + shield spell (I all eventually got an animated shield FTW), and being able to dish out quite a bit of damage (making me a priority target).

 

[Savage Wombat]

OK, you Tank-as-aggro-holder people, game experience question:

Do you find (from play experience) that the presence of a 4e-style Defender mechanic (such as damaging foes that don't attack the tank) actually works as intended? Does the average DM, attempting to play the monster as tactically as possible, actually feel that the rules make attacking the tank to be the most advantageous choice? Or does it just mean that the monster dies faster because the defender is getting free hits in?

Since I didn't play 4e, it looks to me like this system still requires the DM to "buy in" to the idea that the monsters should attack the tank.

This is relevant to me as I'm going to have an Ancestral Guardian barbarian in my next campaign.

 

[schnee]

The only way to find out if your DM is an antagonistic meta-gaming jerk is to try it.