D&D 5E Help creating a tough defender

[Sacrosanct]

Except in this case, the entire purpose of this thread was to make character that used martial abilities to protect the party without concern for the ability to inflict damage.

I think it's perfectly valid to expand upon the initial idea set forth. Maybe the op doesn't realize that barbarians can be more than the stereotypical goon with a great axe, Or that defenders don't always need a shield.

If someone wants to play a character they envision, awesome they can go right ahead and do so. If someone asks for help creating a character that is good at something, like defending, then they have many different options because d&d is a flexible system.

That's why I said I would like the OP to clarify. I can only speak for myself, naturally, but I can't tell you how irritating it is to say, "here's the concept I want" and to have people tell me, "Don't bother with that, do this instead." My first really bad experience with this was when I wanted to play an arcane archer in 3e and was inundated with people saying how that was a horrible choice, how it was worthless, etc etc. One of the things that turned me off of the game completely. Just look at this thread. OP said he/she wanted to play a sword and board, and people said, "no, play a polearm instead." The "entire purpose of this thread" was to give advice on how he/she could play a sword&board defender. *Not* "Let's do this other thing instead because it's better optimized" A barbarian might not be just a stereotypical "goon with a great ax", but they do have a strong theme and background do them. A theme that might not be anything like what the OP wants to play. E.g., if I say I want to play a cavalier type character, don't tell me to dip into barbarian levels for metagaming reasons, because the last thing my PC is, is barbaric.

Not everyone views the game through an optimized lens, so I wish people would stop assuming that that is the norm, and ask for clarification first.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's why I said I would like the OP to clarify. I can only speak for myself, naturally, but I can't tell you how irritating it is to say, "here's the concept I want" and to have people tell me, "Don't bother with that, do this instead."
...
Not everyone views the game through an optimized lens, so I wish people would stop assuming that that is the norm, and ask for clarification first.

Even (heck, especially) optimizers should understand the idea of a built-to-concept. If S&B is a hard parameter, optimize within it. It's not wrong to point out that concept might not be viable, either, though.

But a concept like 'defender' (a formal role from a past edition, disfavored in the current one) calls for metagame optimization because it is a metagame concept to begin with, and because creating a viable one will require optimization.

The defender role is almost antithetical to 5e's fast-combat mandate, as a defender sacrifices offense (lack of offense slows combat) for defense (which slows combat) and tries to trap enemies into making less-effective attacks (which slows combat). All-in DPR builds, OTOH, speed combat up. So it's hardly surprising that classes that have been tanks or defenders in the past are, in 5e, hardwired for DPR and make poor defenders without optimization and/or tweaking, nor that good metagame defender options can be a tad counter-intuitive.

 

[Kithas]

Having a more fleshed-out idea for what is wanted from the beginning would be helpful. My suggestion was trying to keep in the sword and board martial idea while giving options to defend teammates with Oath of the crown and Warding bond was my attempt to get to the idea of actually protecting teammates.

 

[Braxwulf]

Thanks for all the replies.. Many great ideas here. I should start by saying that I'm primarily a GURPS player and if I were using that system I would probably go with a medium shield and a style similar to hoplomachia. My vision is a character that doesn't need to rely on Magic (actually something I don't love about D&D)... I.e. I just want someone who relies only on brawn and skill to keep as many enemies at bay as possible. Seems like a Fighter or Barbarian is the way to go... Though I don't want to be outclassed by other players with magic. I doubt I'll multiclass either... Another thing I don't love about D&D.

 

[hejtmane]

Thanks for all the replies.. Many great ideas here. I should start by saying that I'm primarily a GURPS player and if I were using that system I would probably go with a medium shield and a style similar to hoplomachia. My vision is a character that doesn't need to rely on Magic (actually something I don't love about D&D)... I.e. I just want someone who relies only on brawn and skill to keep as many enemies at bay as possible. Seems like a Fighter or Barbarian is the way to go... Though I don't want to be outclassed by other players with magic. I doubt I'll multiclass either... Another thing I don't love about D&D.

Fighters and barbs are not outclassed by magic in 5E (this is not previous versions)so do not worry about that one bit. Then on multi-class it is not required in this version of D&D either in fact multi-class in 5E is a tradeoff you get some versatility and give up something to get that versatility.Straight Barbarian or Fighter will do just freaking find the mutliclass where just option presented to be more versatile in the role of tough tanking build that protects people and maybe be closer to your concept. Yet pick what you like in the end.

 

[RayJ]

It is worth mentioning the mark action from the dmg, as well as the oath of the crown paladin from scag. Those work together to make a very 4e like defender.

 

[Horwath]

On the other side, make the character with most DPR possible.

That would be the best defender.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seems like a Fighter or Barbarian is the way to go... Though I don't want to be outclassed by other players with magic.

You're going to be out-classed by other players with magic, when they choose to devote a magical resource to a challenge and you don't choose to do so. That holds whether you chose not to use magic by choosing a class with no magic, or by choosing one with magical resources, but not using them in a given instance.

I doubt I'll multiclass either... Another thing I don't love about D&D.

You don't have to multi-class to play a fighter or barbarian with magic, the EK and Totem archetypes can give you that.

 

[Dersu]

The other meta game aspect of a defender style character is the terrain on which the combat for the campaign is taking place.

If you are fighting in freshly hayed fields, then having a tank is less important than having good mobility and range attacks.

The more confined the play space, the more important it becomes to control who the enemy can choose as a target.

Taking the alert feat might be a good option. As it allows you a much greater chance to get in and lock some hostiles down before they have a chance to move.

Now any interesting campaign will have a variety of environments, but it is something to consider.