-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E What class fills the tank role best? Fighter, Barbarian, Cleric or Paladin?
- Thread starter Minsc
- Start date
The Hierophant
Explorer
Correct. I played in a 1st edition game where the paladin in plate with a two handed sword was referred to as 'the Tank'.
Last edited:
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
You can tell this is a thread about tanks, since it refuses to stay down.
Yeah, the idea that a pen and paper RPG has to 100% replicate an MMO aggro mechanic to use the term is kind of silly.
We had 'Meat shield walls' in the 80's. They prevented the magic users and thieves from being mashed, and gave monsters something to bang on. I never got into the level of mechanical meta-analysis that is common today, but it was obvious: Fighters had high AC and high hit points, so they were the ones who took the brunt of melee or missile fire while the more subtle classes did their thing from a protected space.
We often ran 2 characters each to make for a huge party to make literal shield walls in open spaces, and every table house-ruled AD&D heavily back then - and I've seen everything from weapon speed and range-based initiative to the equivalent of 'attacks of opportunity' when creatures tried running by fighters.
--
I'm sure everyone's exhausted the list of great tanks, but I'm about to run a Defense style, Pole-arm using Battlemaster. I'll be half about being 'tanky', half about controlling a ton of space to foil our enemies' actions.
Feats are (1) Heavy Armor Master, (4) Resilient Wisdom, (6) Pole Arm Master and (12) Sentinel. Balanced between defense and offense.
Trip, Menacing Attack, Maneuvering Attack, Goading Attack, and Disarming Attack will combine to reduce the pressure on the rest of the party.
We'll see how it works out.
We had 'Meat shield walls' in the 80's. They prevented the magic users and thieves from being mashed, and gave monsters something to bang on. I never got into the level of mechanical meta-analysis that is common today, but it was obvious: Fighters had high AC and high hit points, so they were the ones who took the brunt of melee or missile fire while the more subtle classes did their thing from a protected space.
We often ran 2 characters each to make for a huge party to make literal shield walls in open spaces, and every table house-ruled AD&D heavily back then - and I've seen everything from weapon speed and range-based initiative to the equivalent of 'attacks of opportunity' when creatures tried running by fighters.
--
I'm sure everyone's exhausted the list of great tanks, but I'm about to run a Defense style, Pole-arm using Battlemaster. I'll be half about being 'tanky', half about controlling a ton of space to foil our enemies' actions.
Feats are (1) Heavy Armor Master, (4) Resilient Wisdom, (6) Pole Arm Master and (12) Sentinel. Balanced between defense and offense.
Trip, Menacing Attack, Maneuvering Attack, Goading Attack, and Disarming Attack will combine to reduce the pressure on the rest of the party.
We'll see how it works out.
Last edited:
Sleepy Walker
First Post
*might as well keep it going*
Ranger: Just as tough as a fighter in heavy armor, but has a game breaking 7th level ability, multiattack defense. That is AC 18+1+2=21 (plate, defender, shield), +4 for any opponent dangerous enough to attack more than one time = 25. Multiclass into some other class like bear totem barbarian, eldritch knight, or monk for additional tanking, damaging, or mobility options. (I've found ranger monk to be especially deadly, what with hunters mark and flurry of blows)
The ability to cast fog and silence is a great boon against spellcasters. Taking goodberry is a great way to use any extra spell slots every day into after combat healing. Can take absorb elements to reduce elemental damage (option for reactionary defense). Hunter's mark is a good way to boost damage. Can really multiclass into just about anything and still benefit a great deal.
*edit. Honestly, I've started trying to think of classes to play without a solid dip from ranger. Quite the turn around from the time I just ignored it. I prefer the UA ranger, but the level 3 and level 7 ranger abilities can really be leveraged and their spell selection can be very practical in a fight. Hunter ranger or Xanathar ranger. I'm not sure about the beastmaster.
Ranger: Just as tough as a fighter in heavy armor, but has a game breaking 7th level ability, multiattack defense. That is AC 18+1+2=21 (plate, defender, shield), +4 for any opponent dangerous enough to attack more than one time = 25. Multiclass into some other class like bear totem barbarian, eldritch knight, or monk for additional tanking, damaging, or mobility options. (I've found ranger monk to be especially deadly, what with hunters mark and flurry of blows)
The ability to cast fog and silence is a great boon against spellcasters. Taking goodberry is a great way to use any extra spell slots every day into after combat healing. Can take absorb elements to reduce elemental damage (option for reactionary defense). Hunter's mark is a good way to boost damage. Can really multiclass into just about anything and still benefit a great deal.
*edit. Honestly, I've started trying to think of classes to play without a solid dip from ranger. Quite the turn around from the time I just ignored it. I prefer the UA ranger, but the level 3 and level 7 ranger abilities can really be leveraged and their spell selection can be very practical in a fight. Hunter ranger or Xanathar ranger. I'm not sure about the beastmaster.
Last edited:
My Polearm Mastery/Sentinel hexblade would beg to differ.
Once I get up next to you, you ain't going anywhere. But feel free to try. My pact weapon likes it when you try.
Yep bear totem hands down biggest baddest meat shield and if you want to give up damage add a shield instead of two handed weapon for more ac
Second I would say fighter EK's using shield, absorb elements spells and later blur I find them to me more tanky than Battlemaster and I like battle master fighter class
Depending on how high of levels you are planning you could go Fighter/ wiz or Socr either works that way battle master you can get goading attack and menace to control and get spell slots from the other classes for shield and absorb elements and you only need 13 in the casting stat
Second I would say fighter EK's using shield, absorb elements spells and later blur I find them to me more tanky than Battlemaster and I like battle master fighter class
Depending on how high of levels you are planning you could go Fighter/ wiz or Socr either works that way battle master you can get goading attack and menace to control and get spell slots from the other classes for shield and absorb elements and you only need 13 in the casting stat
Last edited:
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
It is worth to necro this thread just to mention the excellent tanking potential of the Cavalier (a fighter subclass in Xanathar's guide). I haven't tried it in play, but on paper it seems to be designed as a tank. Sure it has a few horse-related thing, but it's 75% about tanking. He can force people to attack him (or else have disadvantage), can give someone a burst of AC as a reaction, at level 10 can stop people from moving.... it's the real deal!
Even if you never got to ride a mount *once* in a campaign, this subclass is worth it - if you want to focus on defense that is.
Even if you never got to ride a mount *once* in a campaign, this subclass is worth it - if you want to focus on defense that is.
pming
Legend
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.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
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.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Similar Threads
