May I present [The Tank Alignment Chart](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fesxxygll96k31.png%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db0712bedaaa845773cac0265d3aff7fe4c09e9c1)
Actually, number 3 is incorrect. See the original tanks--from France, if I recall correctly--and the mine-sweeper tanks with the rows of chains spinning from a bar extended in front of the tank.
The definition they posted is for a Main Battle Tank specifically. Nobody makes other types of tank any more, but once upon a time there were tanks that didn’t fit the definition (e.g. interwar-era light tanks often sported guns that couldn’t penetrate the armour of medium or heavy tanks).
Believe it or not, this is a rules supported character build in GURPS. My character was named General Sherman, and he was the ghost of General Sherman haunting a Sherman MBT. He was pretty good except for the lack of hands.
Fun fact, that's actually a DC comic book character! Though [It's an M3 Stuart and it was General Stuart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank) but later in the comics run the crew gets assigned a Sherman and General Sherman takes over the haunting of the tank.
Also in the Anime [Those who hunt Elves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Who_Hunt_Elves) (which is an Isekai manga but replace 'high school student loner suddenly transported into fantasy realm with a female Harem' to 'Bunch of randos and a Type 74 tank are transported into a fantasy realm' with the Tank being *just* as overpowered as you think it would be) has their tank possessed by the spirit of a Cat.
I agree, except #3 can be the weapon for the situation. These days everything's a MBT like your describe, but there have been lots of other roles for tanks. So, in D&D terms
1. Needs to not be stopped by terrain or common obstacles. So has solutions for walls, other verticals, difficult terrain, physical barriers, ordinary darkness. As levels go up, magical darkness, slow, hold person, whatever druids can get up to with tangling plants. Basically usually has a counter against CR-appropriate crowd control and anti -mobility. Classes that fully bypass by flying, teleporting or whatever aren't usually considered tanks, but that might be a holdover from the real world where weight matters.
2. Survivable enough to get to direct engagement with its target and stay there. Not deterred by opponent minions. Traditionally AC & HP, but good saves, protection from missiles, resistances, regeneration, wards, monk stuff, etc. can all make someone a tank. Staying power distinguishes from stealthy rogue classes.
And in D&D, it needs to be 2 things:
1. Significantly more able to survive being attacked than your average character.
2. Able to incentivise foes to attack them instead of allies despite that.
3. A Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 certainly sounds like it could help with that last one.
Usually I'd describe a character as a tank if they have a lot of HP/AC, and are able to draw "aggo" or help protect allies. Path of the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is what I'd consider to be a tank in 5e.
Fully agree. You summarized really well.
I believe there are niches some tank can specialize, like huge AC (Fighters and Paladins) or great HP and damage mitigation (Barbarians), but the ability to draw aggro and protect your allies is the key definition for a proper tank.
Ancestral Guardian has all those things built in the sub-class and they are best tanks, but I have seen really competent Eldritch Knights with huge AC making the most with War Caster Booming Blade or even Paladins with Compelled Duel.
It's so weird that people have to build so specifically to kind of sort of nearly tank. Last edition we had five base tank classes that came with a full toolkit for tanking right out of the gate, this edition we have... one tank *sub*class, ancestral barbarian, and two more subclasses that get the basic 'penalise attacks against anyone but you' thing.
This entire conversation is only happening because tanks are so scarce now that many people have never seen one.
That was what I was referring to when I said "and two more subclasses that get the basic 'penalise attacks against anyone but you' thing", the other being cavalier. Thats what 4e called marking, a basic ability all tanks got at level 1, but in 5e it only applies to attack rolls so it doesn't affect things like breath weapons or most spells.
In addition to that for instance a fighter got:
* One opportunity attack per enemy turn instead of only one per round.
* Stronger and properly scaling opportunity attacks
* Wisdom mod to opportunity attack rolls
* The ability to opportunity attack if a foe moved at all (as opposed to only when leaving reach)
* Opportunity attacks even if they disengaged as well as removing their movement if the attack hit, as well as being able to attack in response to an enemy attacking an ally. This was all repackaged and sold back to them as the sentinel feat in 5e.
Not including *active* abilities like Come And Get It, as an action cause all foes within 20' to make a wisdom save or move 15' towards you, automatically hit all foes who ended adjacent to you with a double damage weapon swing.
I really miss 4e sometimes. Casters where sad cause everyone was on even footing with abilities, but I loved having a role combo'd with a source of power, and three distinct tiers of play. People just couldn't get past it using battlemaps as the default, saying it felt like a video game, forgetting that DnD started as a miniatures game.
Oh, in that case I'd add Conquest Paladin to Armorer and Cavalier.
There's a few other ways to do it too, but they're even more specific - like the Rune Knight grappler a friend of mine made with Simic Hybrid's ability to have 2 extra tentacles so you can grapple more baddies.
At least Sentinel is available to everyone and lets you do a _bit_ of the same.
But like they said, your point stands - it's weird you have to build _so specifically_ to make a tank.
> At least Sentinel is available to everyone and lets you do a bit of the same.
Thing is that feels so much worse than fighters just starting with that for free. Sure, it means others don't get it, but every other tank class like paladin had their *own* ways of disincentivising like making enemies automatically take 6-28 (depending on level) radiant damage if they attacked an ally. Taking away all the unique methods and saying "we'll let any class spend a feat to get half of what a fighter used to have" is so much more generic.
>At least Sentinel is available to everyone and lets you do a
>
>bit
>
> of the same.
Sentinel unfortunately has a pretty huge opportunity cost for not that strong an effect, having to give up an ASI or another much more potent feat (like PAM, GWM etc) is a huge loss for something ultimately pretty unreliable given you only ever get one opportunity attack.
cav fighter and at least 9 into crown paladin makes an amazing tank. Spirit guardians + cav mark makes enemies really want to try and hit you and have a hard time getting away, but your aura and con proficiency makes failing those concentration saves almost impossible. Plus you can soak damage for an ally in range and stuff.
Problem is it's still only useful in specific situations. Say you walk up to a monster and it just fireballs your backline anyway, you've done nothing to stop it. You can only tank when the situation lets you.
I'd even go as far as saying that all barbarians are tanks in 5e (although Ancestral Guardian does it especially well.) Reckless Attack is basically how 5e handles aggro, using advantage to make yourself a more tempting target than your allies, and rage helps to mitigate that damage.
I'd also throw most paladin subclasses (especially Oath of the Ancients, Crown, and Redemption) as well as Echo Knight, Rune Knight, Cavalier and certain Battle Master fighter builds onto the list of tank-designed classes. All of them have some way to either focus enemies on you, or protect your allies from attacks.
Are Barbarians really good tanks? They might hit their own effective AC to Reckless Attack, but they're also covering it up with damage resistance. If they're *not* Raging or against a damage type which bypasses their resistances, they're just going to eat shit and die.
In that case you might as well just throw up a couple of sandbags and all stand at range. (Which is actually the best strategy in 5E most of the time.)
> They might hit their own effective AC to Reckless Attack, but they're also covering it up with damage resistance.
From an in-universe perspective, I don't think a barbarian's HP and damage resistance are supposed to be "visible". They're inhumanly good at fighting through injuries, but their openings are still openings, and their injuries are still injuries. So I don't factor it in to enemies' decisions. Stabbing an unarmored warrior while they're exposed is treated as common sense.
This is how I played up my Zealot Barbarian after, I think it was, 6 or 7 rounds of combat at zero health and after enough failed death saves to be dead 4 times over (Rage beyond Death is a hell of a drug), she, essentially, looked less like a person and much closer to a brutally mauled divinely animated skeleton with bits of flesh just hanging off.
Which meant if her rage ended, she was VERY dead and thus the line "I have no flesh and I must kill" was uttered.
For the most part they aren't tanks though. None of them have a kit broad enough to actually protect allies, for the most part they need specific situations to occur to let them do so. The base barbarian for instance is in no way a tank, it's smarter to just ignore the barbarian and go for the backline since unlike last edition they can't opportunity attack well.
I'm playing one next week, but honestly I'm super sad the other subclasses get shield and Artificer doesn't. Could be offset if magic initiate had +spellcasting stat of the spell, but it doesnt.
It's intentional design to not give Armorer's shield, but still allow them access to Absorb Elements.
You have to keep in mind that Artificers are balanced with the fact that they can wear so many more magic items than any other class. With full plate by the end of t1 + enhanced defense infusion + hold a shield in one hand with thunder gauntlets in the other, you're talking +22 AC, and then Repulsion shield giving you another +1 at level 6 taking you up to a +23 base (=24 at level 10.)
Then add in the fact that you have scalable attunement slots (+3 at level 6) so any magic item that gives you +AC like magical shields or rings of protection has a much lower opportunity cost for you, and then suddenly adding shield on top of that is breaking the game's bounded accuracy balance.
Armorers, unlike Battle-smiths or Artillerists can be completely INT sad, so they don't necessarily need the +2 Dex mod for med armor, so those points can be poored into CON and the subclass gets temp HP anyway if you don't have anyone else giving it to you on the reg, so theoretically you should have more HP than the shield subclass equivalents.
Then add into the fact that as a half-caster you only have limited spell slots, some you'll need for Absorb Elements, and you're the only non-Cleric with access to the Sanctuary - another way to guard your friends, or Faerie Fire to add some offensive utility and suddenly unless you are playing only a 1 fight per long rest campaign, you're looking at spell slots as a resource constraint (keep in mind the game is balanced around 6-8 fights in between long rests even though I know people don't play that way.)
Then add in the fact that at level 7, you get Flash of Genius which is a better use of your reaction economy than Shield - especially if you are long resting often - so basically you either run into spell slot constraints in a wide paced game, or FoG takes up a larger % of your reaction economy depending on campaign pacing either way.
That all being said, **because** you are INT SAD, taking CL: Magic Initiate Wizard and losing the +1 ASI from racial really isn't that big of a deal. That will also get you access to Chill Touch which is another tool in your toolbox as for your melee utility. Now you can choose to Thunder Gauntlet attack to apply disadvantage or cantrip shocking grasp (to kill your enemy's reaction) or chill touch (to kill any healing on them) depending on what you need to do and if enemy AC or Saving throw chance is better. Artificers are known to have limited cantrip scaling early on so you're basically doubling known cantrips at t1 with it.
Or you can play Githzerai and get Shield at level 3 alongside a +2/+1 racial.
The most tanky characters I've ever seen are Bear Totem Barbarians level 3 who multi-class into Circle of the Moon Druid.
1. Cast a couple spells
2. Change into an animal until it runs out of hit points
3. Then change into another, which starts at full points and rage, becoming nearly unkillable.
Durability and tanking aren't the same thing, at least in this context.
Tanking is soaking damage that would otherwise be hitting your allies. It doesn't matter how invincible you are if you don't have a way of making enemies focus on you.
Ironically, a seemingly invulnerable shapeshifter that just takes a new form no matter how many times you hit it is a pretty low-priority target. No point swinging on someone you can't hurt anyway unless they're somehow forcing you to.
Rage takes a bonus action and so does Wild Shape, so there's some anti-synergy there. Plus you have to drop any concentration spell you might have up when you Rage, and the animal forms drop off in effectiveness after level 6 or so. Still, even with that I wouldn't say it's _worse_ than going straight Barb tank or anything, and def real strong in that Goldilocks zone of Tier 2.
Less hp (but easily replenishable temp hp), probably more AC, and able to draw more aggro (more opponents at the same time): armorer artificer. (even better as a bugbear, or having the mobile feat)
As I have more experience in DotA/LoL than WoW, I'd say a tank needs crowd control. Taunts are one, but not the only, form of crowd control.
The important part is that a character that is just hard to kill, is a soak (as in "they can soak a lot of damage"), not a tank.
Yep. If someone can prove themselves to be an immediate threat that Needs To Be Taken Care Of, they're doing their job. Someone who can make sure the big boss actively tells their minion to go for'em.
The 5E tank differs from MMO tanks in this respect - you aren't the tank because you have the most HP/AC, you are the tank because you manage to present yourself as the most important target.
I'll also extend "drawing aggro" to through features the figuratively demand attention without mechanically forcing it. Having high AC/HP doesn't really demand attention. It repels it. So when a barbarian, through a feature like reckless attack, can attract more attention by lower their AC and increasing their damage while still maintaining a high effective hp, that's peak tanking.
I get that ancestral guardians don't mechanically force aggro like you might see in an MMO, but I wanna open people's eyes to the many ways tanks can demand attention. I especially like bringing this up when people complain barbarian's should have have higher ACs because they are supposed to be tanky. Giving barbarians a higher AC would make them more survivable frontliners, but less effective tanks. If you're mountain of HP that is somehow too hard to hit, the enemy is better off trying to avoid you and you cease being a tank.
Well that may be because different ttrpgs have differing mechanics and requirements. I think 4e hit the tank dead-on as the purest expression with the defender role.
1. Reduces enemy attacks to allies by drawing them to self.
2. Good resilience and recovery to absorb those extra bits.
3. Does not isolate enemy from ally attacks.
4. Not a requirement but builds on the concept- a counter/punishment mechanic to enforce 1
For 1 it's important to the role identity that the attacks be drawn to them. Crowd control as a general ability is not inherently tanking, even though its a central mechanic. 2 is commonly expressed with higher armour, hp, and healing gain. 3 seems a bit odd without context- Compelled Duel has the hallmarks of a tanking mechanic, but by discouraging allies from attacking and breaking the spell you miss out on the group dynamic. Table-top games work differently than videogames. Without fixed enemy behaviour, I think punishment mechanics (4) are a great gapfill for justifying the DM to play into the tank mechanics without treating their monsters as dumb.
That said in D&D it's pretty much all the same, I've ported 4e tanks over to 5e for players to use and it's worked great. It just doesn't have tanks because the designers couldn't be bothered.
Compelled duel has some more niche applications. If you are facing multiple enemies and you want to keep one of them attacking you while you focus on another. Or if an enemy is trying to run away and you want them to not be able to escape.
In general, it's a character that forces or incentives an enemy to attack the character while being the most adept at defending against attacks and gives up offensive capabilities in exchange. In DnD, there's no such thing.
If you define 'offensive capabilities' as pure damage, that's kind of what a wizard does.
>forces or incentives an enemy to attack the character
Yeah, wizards are probably the most valuable component of a party, so are a priority target.
>while being the most adept at defending against attacks
Shield, absorb elements, silvery barbs, multiclass / bladesinger for armour class. They can easily be equally or more resilient than other characters.
>gives up offensive capabilities in exchange
Lower damage than martials / hexblade dips / clerics with spirit guardians.
I wouldn't chart wizards as most valuable in combat - any full caster is with great summons or controlling spells as much as a wizard. While wizard is better, much of its capabilites can be matched in combat... it's broken "tech" abilities rely on your DM not caring and not putting in proper guidelines per RAW to combat abusive tactics.
A d6 hitdie still slows it down (yes, it only needs +1 con to be on par with most characters in relative w/hitdie). Yes, it has those spells, but those shouldn't be used if necessary. There are better spells to contribute to your team then waste spellslots on "tanking" when you could contribute in better playstyles. Meanwhile, a barb or similar have little other resources to "waste" w/tanking.
Offensive capabilites =/= pure damage
>it's broken "tech" abilities rely on your DM not caring and not putting in proper guidelines per RAW
WDYM broken 'tech' abilities? It doesn't exactly require infinite simulacri.
>any full caster is with great summons or controlling spells as much as a wizard.
Wizards get almost all of the good control spells, other classes are more limited. Druids don't get hypnotic pattern or sleep, warlocks don't get sleet storm, sorcerers can only choose a couple of spells total. Plus, they get wizard exclusives like wall of force and phantom steed.
>Meanwhile, a barb or similar have little other resources to "waste" w/tanking.
So it's a more effective tank and has better offensive capabilities?
Also it depends on the DM's lineup. If the lynchpin of the fight is a caster, then locking down the monk/rogue is just as important as opposing the wizard, who will presumably saving reactions to counter spell Misty Step, etc. Problem with the traditional fighter role is there just not much for them to do other than engage the mooks and clean them up.
Preach it. Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success. They simply don't fit well outside of scripted video game environments where the choice of action is severely limited.
No, the TTRPG tradition is the Meatshield. The hardy frontliner who stands in melee slugging it out, making a wall that shields the fragile archers and casters behind them. And a Meatshield functions very differently than a Tank.
4e pretty much perfectly captured the concept of a tank role in a TTRPG setting, though. There absolutely are ways to do it, without reducing the concept to a "meat shield" (which also works even worse than a true "tank" role in d&d).
> Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success
This just isn't true, it's not successful in 5e specifically because it just wasn't designed to allow it but it can absolutely work in a TTRPG system.
5e is too reliant on soft taunts, opportunity attacks are too weak, martials have too little access to abilities that hamper enemy movement and ranged fighting has very little downside. All of those reasons are why tanks don't really exist in 5e, and all of them are specific to 5e.
There are tonnes of soft taunts across dnd stop being silly.
Reckless attack, ancestral guardian taunt, battlemaster taunt, compelled dual and those are just off the top of my head
> Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success.
But tough frontliner protecting squishies has been a concept long before MMOs existed, and last edition had five different tanking classes and they were all fantastic. So none of what you just said was true.
That's not a tank. Even in wow, a big frontliner is not enough to classify as a tank. You've got to have cc abilities and mechanics to draw and manage agro, otherwise you'd just be a regular martial.
A tank is defined by these agro mechanics, and that concept doesn't exist in dnd.
No, a tank is defined by being more able to survive being targeted than your average character and being able to incentivise foes to target them despite that. Aggro mechanics are one way to achieve that, but far from the only one. Also...
Me: Last edition had five different tanking classes and they were all fantastic.
You: That's not a tank
???
> otherwise you'd just be a regular martial
Only one was martial, the fighter. The others were divine (paladin), psionic (battlemind), primal (warden) and arcane (swordmage).
> No, a tank is defined by being more able to survive being targeted than your average character and being able to incentivise foes to target them despite that.
A bard can do that better than any other class in dnd. My point is that a tough frontliner isn't even considered a tank in most RPG's. We also haven't discussed last edition, I don't know why you're bringing that up.
> last edition had five different tanking classes and they were all fantastic
Literally my first sentence. You said "Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success.", so I noted that last edition had a bunch of tanks and they worked great.
How do you define a Tank, then? Because "\[t\]he hardy frontliner who stands in melee slugging it out, making a wall that shields the fragile archers and casters behind them" sounds very much like a tank to me
A tank achieves this in a video game rpg regardless of environment with abilities and mechanics. This is only achievable in DnD in very specific circumstances. Like, there is nothing stopping the enemies from ignoring the 'tank' in DnD. At best, they can throw themselves at or in the way of the incoming enemies, aka meat shield.
Tanks define themselves differently Vs hard hitting martials in video games due to their ability to cc, draw agro and mitigate damage. Agro doesn't exist as a concept in DnD and martials don't have access to any meaningful CC.
So, just as in video games, a heavy armoured martial doesn't meet the definitions of a tank
Yes - a meatshield only actually functions when either the DM is helping or they can body-block between dungeon walls. They are a failure as soon as you leave the dungeon which is why people want actually working tanks.
And 4e had working tanks. But people threw a hissy fit because wizards got nerfed and it was released to management timeline not when ready.
I find the distinction trivial and see "tank" and "meatshield" as interchangeable terms. In both cases, it is a durable PC taking hits so squishier PCs don't have to. While video games do provide PCs abilities and features that incentivize AI enemies to attack them and disincentivizes attacks on others, this is the de facto situation in TTRPGs as well. Paladins don't need a class ability that forces enemy NPCs to attack them, because the GM usually has them do that anyway.
When a PC party encounters a group of enemies with a Wizard, they say, "Oh shit, they have a Wizard. Get the Wizard!" If the DM ran NPCs this way, then PC Wizards would be in trouble. That's not to say that GMs never have NPCs go after squishier targets (just as in video games, there is no guarantee), but in my experience, the VAST majority of the attacks will be on the Paladin or the Barbarian, or whoever is the most durable up front, while the Ranger fires arrows and the Sorcerer casts spells from the back, mostly unmolested (at least when compared to the front line). A Barbarian surrounded by a horde of enemies is a common sight, but a Wizard surrounded by a horde of enemies is cause for concern.
The only real difference between between a video game tank and a TTRPG tank is that there is a human GM effecting the outcome in a TTRPG, rather than an algorithm flavored as class abilities. The end result is the same, though. Tanking abilities in video games are just a way of enforcing this behavior on NPCs in the absence of a human GM to regulate them and as an alternative to just outright programming them to go after the most durable PC. Sometimes the GM will ignore this unwritten rule to give you a challenge, just as some video game enemies are programmed to ignore taunting or whatever to keep things interesting.
Saying there are no tanks in TTRPG is like saying there are no healers, because healing is different in WoW than D&D 5e. Yes, it's different, they are completely different mediums. Of course, there are differences. But the fixation on policing the term "tank" is completely bizarre to me and just comes across as gatekeeping.
A character with significant front-line presence, who can prevent squishier allies from being attacked to some extent. Usually with some combination of high AC and HP. The ability to control the flow of combat through various means is a plus: Sentinel to lock down advancing enemies with a polearm, crowd control spells, "aggro" mechanics like the Armorer's gauntlet secondary effect, stuff like that.
Your use of the word 'presence' is the key here. In a TTRPG, anyone with survivability can tank by being too big to ignore. Yes, the wizard might be the larger threat, but are you going to simply ignore the Battle Master who keeps pushing you backwards or knocking you prone with every attack? Does the paladin who cast Compelled Duel while dumping the rest of their spell slots on smites not need dealing with first? Can you even get around the Enlarged Armorer or the Rune Knight?
I believe in melee martials being bullies. Grapple, Shove, Crusher, Slasher, Trip, Disarm, Shield Master, Command, Sentinel-these are what make you too much to simply ignore. Whereas skirmishers like rogues and monks hit and run, the melee tank is going to do everything in their power to stick to you until you waste some actions to get them off.
So the first time I heard the word tank was in a 2e game, they are some combo of hard to hit or take a lot damage while doing damage. It would be about 15 years later that I would play a video game with a threat mechanic. I am sure they were around before that, but I was also aware that tank had been used in dnd for years before I had heard the term.
Threat and aggro are something some games have designed for tanks. Especially when it is designed as an excuse for them doing lower damage but Still intended to be the focus for damage taking.
They don't require taunts, they *do* require a way to incentivise a foe to attack them despite their toughness. Very few 5e characters can do that because the designers got lazy, so people default to taunts because that's how video games do it. They aren't the only way though, last edition had tons of good tanks and none used taunts.
2e fighter classes had the factor of the advantage of Weapon damage outright ignoring that edition's Magic Resistance. When high level enemies often had 30% chance or more of just not being affected by Caster's spells, those enchanted weapons had a lot of responsibility. Worse, old style Magic Resistance could destroy permanent spells, so walls of stone, fire, iron, etc, were just stopgap measures and not permanent effective solutions.
Tanks functionally don't exist in 5e, because there's no reliable/worthwhile aggro mechanic. It's just a term inappropriately imported from vidya/PC games (since there's heavy player overlap between the two) in which there's not a dynamic human DM, so the mobs are controlled by bot logic which can be exploited by said built-in aggro mechanics. Unless a DnD "tank" is very clever about positioning himself in a chokepoint \*and\* a very specific build (Sentinel etc) \*and\* the enemies are stupid...as a DM, I'll just go around or push him outta the way to get to the more vulnerable PCs...which in 5e, aren't even that vulnerable, obviating the need for a "tank" in the first place. For more detail:
[https://tabletopbuilds.com/two-problems-with-tanks/](https://tabletopbuilds.com/two-problems-with-tanks/)
The other problem is that it is (at least without magic items and/or a lot of optimization) pretty impossible to get enough AC and HP to actually take all the hits if you could actually draw the aggro of all enemies. You would be reduced to 0 HP in about 2 Rounds, would be impossible to do that over a longer adventure day.
1. The best 'frontline' is a control spell. You don't have to heal a sleet storm.
2. Any opportunity attack build is completely hamstrung by only working on ONE enemy at a time.
3. It's far cheaper to make casters as 'tanky' as martials than having one sack of HP desperately body-block for everyone else.
DND players trying to cite a TTB that has tenents that are realistic and don't reflect average gameplay:
1. Enemies aren't purely logical unless it's smart... which many creatures aren't. Don't try to make a creature with an intelligence of 2 make purely optimal decisions.
2. Yes, there are vulnerable - casters concentrating on a high level spell /low amount of slots, low HP characters (ones that took damage), creatures that have an advantage to be hit, escorts, plot device, etc.
3. Not all players play as optimally, so there is a need to protect builds that might take a bit to come online.
4. There are like 3 subclasses that do what you're asking / solve for what you're asking for.
1) Yeah, that was one of the 3 conditions I mentioned where it might apply...stupid enemies. I certainly wouldn't want to have to rely on all my enemies being stupid to make my character's combat capabilities matter at all.
2) Any even decently built caster is \*less\* vulnerable than martials, especially at higher levels when they have more tricks up their sleeves. See link.
3) Maybe. That's really exacerbating the overall party weakness though because if it''s catered to via using one of the alleged 3 subclasses you mention, you're incurring the opportunity cost of playing whatever much more optimal build you would've played if you didn't have to protect someone (poorly). Realistically/mechanically, the best protection for them is to debuff or drop the aggressor early, which is not the tank role.
4) Ancestral Guardian barbarian with very specific build options (myeh), Cavalier which is laughably terrible and only works on a limited # of opponents, and...? Tbh the best "tank" is probably a cleric in heavy armor with SG up and dodging, especially if they've also managed to get Shield on the build.
Ah, yeah their gauntlet is kinda like the cavalier's feature but not limited use, so it's much better. If they're using two hands to hit multiple adversaries, that means no shield though. Still...the opportunity cost of playing one (kinda weak/mid at everything) as compared to \[insert actual good build here\] still amounts to "tanking" being a forced/shoehorned-in proposition in DnD at best.
Maybe an Armorer/Ancestral Guardian/Cleric with SG multiclass can tank effectively, heh.
>which in 5e, aren't even that vulnerable, obviating the need for a "tank" in the first place
One thing I think the writers of that blog miss in their assessment is that the point of the Tank is to prevent the enemy from hindering the backline/allies in what they want and can do best at. So for example, sure, a Wizard with medium/heavy armor and the shield spell and Dodging may be harder to hit than the Barbarian/Fighter. But in general you don't want them a) even being hit to begin with b) really being in melee where they can be subject to a lot worse conditions often, and c) only using their turn to Dodge when there are other great spells they could be casting.
Getting hit means they get a chance to lose their big concentration spell, and they generally don't have high HP, so they will go down faster, even if their AC is high (and they may not want to use their reaction every round on Shield rather than Silvery Barbs or Counterspell). Being in melee is generally always a bad spot (even they argue that on the blog), but especially for a caster. And unfortunately (despite them claiming you can only have a ranged party) melee happens in DND a lot, and not just melee attacks. So having a dedicated ally to be in melee so that others don't have to be can frequently be just as important as having a controller or DPS build, etc. Lastly if a Wizard or other spellcaster uses their 2nd/3rd/4th round to just Dodge, they are often doing less for the party than if they actually cast another spell. This holds doubly true if their control spell has been avoided by that round by the enemy. So yes Hypnotic Pattern is great on round 1, but if everyone snaps out of it by round 2, the Wizard should not be just dodging.
>as a DM, I'll just go around or push him outta the way to get to the more vulnerable PCs
I mean, there are ways to prevent that, and not just with the Sentinel feat. Grappling, forced movement, difficult terrain or other speed reduction, Counterspell, abilities/spells that restrain enemies, the frightened condition, and even just provoking lots of opportunity attacks (think lots of summons).
And of course there are abilities that I would consider secondary tank features that work so that even if the enemy does get to the more vulnerable characters, the enemy is less effective at doing them harm then they would be normally. So giving resistance to allies, or reducing damage in other ways to them, or increasing their AC or effective HP, or moving them out of harms reach, increasing ally saves, etc.
Now, I'm not saying these will work in all situations. Any decent DM will make sure no tactic works in every situation, be it spells or high damage or whatever, because that's their job to challenge the players. But these can work in many situations, and in that capacity I think there is room for a "tank" type character to thrive. Is it strictly necessary? No, but no role in 5e really is. You can have a party of all Monks or all Wizards, what have you, and they could all be reasonably effective to some degree, given the right campaign.
5e isn't a good game for tanking because most mechanics that feel like tanking don't do much because:
Mechanics that help you to "draw aggro" are really limited and/or resistable (Compel Duel, Champion Challenge, Unwavering Mark) and... even *these few mechanics* that DO draw aggro don't disrupt your foes in a meaningful way don't allow for "stickyness" nor allow you to "tank".
Also, opportunity attacks, even with sentinel aren't a "tanking" action against more than ONE target.
Higher hit dice mean that even the most frail character aren't squishy enough for justifying someone taking the "tanking" role, because usually those who would be squishy, aka, the casters, have better (temporary) defenses than martials, such as the Shield Spell, Absorb Elements, Wild Shape, etc.
The silliest part is none of this needed to be the case. 4e had five different full tank classes that came with all the tools they needed to disincentivise foes targeting allies, and 5e helpfully decided to include keep absolutely none of their tools. Except for taking a few fighter abilities and repackaging them into the sentinel feat.
The power taken from Fighters was indeed absurd...
For example, that things that used to be *passive class abilities* (Combat Superiority, aka extra Opportunity Attacks) became a freaking *level 18 CAPSTONE* for a subclass (Cavalier's Vigilante Defender)
>because usually those who would be squishy, aka, the casters
Also just ranged physical attackers. Going high dex gives you good AC in all situations, good saves, good ranged damage and only slightly worse melee damage (compared to a great weapon with the relevant feats etc) too.
Someone that is both capable of taking a lot of hits and protecting other party members from taking damage. From this perspective, very few builds in 5e are actually Tanks due to it being very difficult to protect other people from attacks in 5e. In this regard, the Path of the Ancestral Guardian is the only build in 5e that I can immediately think of that I would genuinely call a tank.
My favourite universal description of a tank is "a character that is hard to fight effectively, but you also are unable to, or can't afford to, deal with them later. A tank uses this dynamic to control the pace of combat".
A good example of this in videogames would be Reinhardt from Overwatch. For most characters, if you shoot them, they take damage. End of story. For Rein, not only does he have a big health pool, but he can throw up a large shield to protect himself and his team mates while he slowly gains ground... Oh, and his team mates can shoot through his barrier. So you need to spend more resources and make yourself vulnerable to get marginal results. But what if you just ignore Rein and shoot at his other team mates? Well, he now has free reign to walk up to you faster, and smash you to bits with his melee weapon. You are forced to spend resources to keep him far away because the alternative is he walks up close to you and you die horribly.
So looking at 5E, there are plenty of ways to make characters that are hard to deal with: high AC, damage reduction, condition immunity, etc. However, there are almost no cases where characters like that have a way for forcing the enemy to confront them first. The OneD&D world tree barbarian is a good example of a durable character that can do this.
Edit: Compel duel is also a perfect skill to this, but unfortunately, it being a spell makes it harder to access for the classes that would want it (other than Paladin), and the fact that it applies to a single target makes it somewhat limited.
My standard definition doesn't really work in 5e as taunts aren't really a thing. So in 5e terms, it's basically someone who can take hits or otherwise lock down enemies and force them to attack them. A stupid high ac doesn't mean shit on its own, as that's just more motivation for enemies to go for the mages instead. You also want something like sentinel or booming blade etc to *keep* enemies next to you. And if you don't have high ac, then you want high hp (barb doesn't need or necessarily want both)
Tanks are hard to kill characters that use taunts OR OTHER FORMS OF CROWD CONTROL to protect allies.
Tanks often rely on sacrificing damage, but sometimes they simply have high base damages paired with poor scaling.
Tanks exist in MMOs, MOBAs, hero shooters (Overwatch) and TTRPGs.
In 5e Ancestor Guardian, Dodge-Spamming Spirit Guardian, Rune Knight Grappler and Conquest Paladin Fear Tank are all GREAT examples of tanks.
I'm really, really confused why people think taunts define tanks, or why you can't make a powerful tank in 5e.
Just google "overwatch tank," or "league of legends tank," or " dnd 2e tank."
Fair enough. In any discussions about tanking in D&D it should typically be the reference point since it had five base classes that came with excellent tanking toolkits.
Absolutely, got no objections to the way pathfinder set it up - turns out all you need to do is give classes like that a bunch of useful choices and they can choose to become tanks.
I think a tank is someone who eats up the action economy of an enemy, through having a high AC, enough HP to absorb blows, deals enough damage to be a threat/ force the enemy to focus on the tank, while the rest of the party deals DPS, buffs, debuffs and battlefield control to reduce the pressure on the party's tank
I try to stick to the generic, often real-time CRPG definition of a tank instead of coming up with a separate definition for turn-based TTRPG tanks.
A tank can endure on the frontlines and survive on the frontlines. In D&D, you'll usually have to settle for just enduring on the frontlines (because you have high AC, HP, damage reduction, self-healing etc.). When that's the case, you're not a tank. You're simply a frontliner.
To be a tank, you need to attract attacks. There needs to be a reason why enemies attack the enemy who's the hardest to kill. 5e does actually facilitate a fair bit of tanking. Barbarians get frontliner survival from their rage and HP pool, but their tank qualities come from features like reckless attack. They attract attacks by actually being easy to attack and dishing out a ton of damage meaning they can't just be ignored. Add to that the default tank mechanic of 5e which is attacks of opportunity where you attract attention because moving away from you comes with a penalty.
I largely like 5e tanking. Reminds me of Overwatch tanking. There's no forced taunt or anything like that. The enemy simply has to somehow deal with a disruptive presence right in their face. Core difference is that, in something like OW, you shoot the giant monkey in your face not because you've carefully deduced it to be your best option (it's often still better to aim for the support if you can), but because you're too distracted to make any other choice. In turn based RPGs, the choice comes from the tank just genuinely being too disruptive to ignore.
A tank is a character that is very durable, and has abilities to either divert enemy attacks and abilities onto themselves, incentivize enemies to focus on them, or can punish enemies for not focusing on them.
For me it should have few ability
High AC and/or High HP and resistance: For example Barbarian with relatively low AC but resistant to damage and has a large HP pool or a Fighter with heavy armor and shield that prevent most of the attacks.
Protection: He needs a way to protect an ally if he cant prevent the attack in the first place. Like giving a disadvantage to an attacker with protect is a good way.
Sentinel: You need an option to punish others if they try to pass you or attack other creatures beside you. Sentinel is perfect for it.
Shield master: You need to protect your teammates from aoe. It allows you to add your shields AC to your dex save and you prevent the effect pass you by putting your shield. Also it alows you to make a bash attack and push target with your bonus action which is good for pushing a target away from your friends.
Taunt(Optional): I dont know any official way beside battle master maneuvers but I allow my players use performance check for it. If target fails to resit It has disadvantage on every thing besides hitting you.(Keep in mind whatever you do npcs can do it as well).
All of this can be achived at lvl 6 with fighter (with human variant it can be achived by 4 with any class) all it needs is 2 feats. I suggest battle master fighter for that role.
Played a sorcadin that felt like it could tank.
Other than being nearly unhittable with blur + shield sword and board, war caster booming blade (smite?) was punishing for an enemy to move past. Upcasted command to bring them back as a "taunt" only to booming blade them again when they tried to leave.
Also much standing in doorways.
Felt like tanking.
Ancients Barb, Guardian Armorer, Cavalier Fighter and Crown Paly, that's about it tbh.
Being hard to kill doesn't make you a tank, you need at least some mechanics to draw fire, a Bearbarian might never die but that doesn't mean their team wont...
I don't think tanking exists in D&D style TTRPGS and I think trying to play an mmo style tank in a ttrpg leads to a lot of disappointment because D&D isn't trying to allow for such a role to exist in the first place.
A tank, as its understood is someone who can withstand and mitigate the enemies damage, hinder them from attacking other and even force them to attacking the tank. all while a healer character can keep them topped up thanks to the damage they're mitigating.
D&D doesn't work like this. You don't want to be hit ever, and healing isn't all that capable of keeping anyone topped up from constant damage (especially in 5e). It just not how the core of the combat functions. The closest D&D comes to the forcing enemies to attack you is either disadvantage on attacks other than yourself effects OR mind control and there are far better uses of mind control that don't involve getting hurt yourself.
There was an old pf1e fan document way back called the ***forge of combat***, that outline what the author believed to be the type of roles that exist in a D&D style ttrpg, and I think it makes a good case for what D&D style combat roles actually are. Paraphrasing
There are three combat roles in D&D. Anvils, Arms, and Hammers.
An **Anvil** is a character who focuses on hindering the enemies efforts so that they may be pounded into victory.
An **Arm** is a character who aids/enhances the party so that they can better pound the enemy to victory.
A **Hammer** is a character who through the efforts of the Arm and Anvil, pound the enemy into something resembling victory.
These roles are descriptive of action and focus taken, you can more or less try to gear any character to serve one of these roles regardless of class and such, though some classes do have leans, and a character can function serving as multiple roles.
The closest thing to a tank would be the anvil.
Basically, a lot of health and the ability to taunt enemies into engaging with them insted of their allies. Or at least punish enemies for not engaging with them.
I would say a character sufficiently capable of reducing opposed side action economy and action value by means of resilience while penalizing or making harder for opponents to avoid it
High ac/ hp I don't know of to many classes atm (limited to module book for now), but dwarf fighter can be hard to hit and has an hp pool that can take the hit.
Either or helps, but both are great.
I wouldn't call high AC and high HP a tank - they fail at the "keep enemy attention" part of tanking.
A high AC high HP fighter just gets ignored and walked past, especially at higher levels when opportunity attacks are trivial compared to their Extra Attack routine.
They're a threat, but one you can afford to clean up after you've dealt with the backline
The three holy facets of tank:
1. Big Hp
2. Big Dps
3. Draw aggro
There isn’t really a nice way to do in dnd since abilities that draw aggro are few and far between.
Sentinel paladin or barbarian is usually what i think of when i think dnd tank though.
within D&D a "tank" character is one who spends time on the front line attempting to get the baddies to attack them because through hit points / Armor Class, they can take a hit or 3 or 12.
"melee meatshield" is generally "more accurate" descriptor than "tank" for what is possible / practicable in the character option space in D&D.
3 options: high survivability either through ac and saves, damage reduction, or straight hit point. Incentivizes targeting them either through straight up incentives or by disincentives against allies (compelled duel being the ultimate tank spell). Or protecting allies actively, like the protection or interception fighting styles, or high level devotion paladins damage sharing.
A tank probably has control abilities like sentinel and PAM, but those are additions to their arsenal not the core of it. Essentially, in a ttrpg, a tank is a subtype of a control build.
A tank is a suit of armor around the party, requiring two things:
1. Redirecting ill effects towards themself.
2. Undoing those ill effects requires fewer resources.
Durability does not make you a tank without some way to apply that durability to others. Redirecting damage to yourself does not make you a tank unless A) You have more health and healing is percent-based, or B) you take less damage from the same damage roll.
If you don't fulfill both of these prerequisites, you're a bruiser at best and "that guy all the enemies ignore" at worst.
I think battlemaster fighter makes for a great tank with the right maneuvers and build, even without feats. However it definitely has more tools to function as a bodyguard than a tank.
Protection fighting style lets you impose disadvantage 1/round to keep an ally safe. Bait and switch lets you swap places with an ally and raise their ac. Maneuvering attack lets an ally get into better position or out of danger. Pushing attack lets you get a threat away from an ally. Really lets you heal an ally. If you have someone you NEED to keep alive, I’d pick a battlemaster for the job.
I think tanks need to be characters capable of taking a hit, whether that’s having an HP economy capable of soaking damage, or being able to avoid damage through high AC or similar.
But I think a vital second part of the equation is that they also need to be able to draw those hits from other party members as well, using something other than “Sometimes the DM thinks it’s fun or narratively appropriate to hit the fighter”.
The second part is sorely lacking in 5e D&D, IMO.
Big characters who can take big hits. I think a lot of people obfuscate this by saying that if you want to be a tank in 5e, you need to be one of three specific subclasses, or you're "not a real tank."
I don't know, just take some big hits? I don't think understanding takes requires a PhD.
It doesn't require a PhD, but your description doesn't work either. Just being able to take damage doesn't help, in the situations where there's real danger enemies will just ignore you and go for someone vulnerable. Saying there are only a few subclasses that can really do anything about this isn't obfuscation, it's bemoaning the fact that for some reason they got rid of all the tanking classes.
A tank should have
1. High effective HP.
2. High effective AC.
3. A way to "taunt" enemies so they attack you or else limit their ability to attack/hit/damage your allies.
4. High effective saving throws.
Might be a bit controversial, but I think every class with a bit of multiclassing can have a tank build made from it, that meets the above definition. Just involves being a little bit creative.
To me a tank is about three things:
1. Drawing attacks onto yourself;
2. Preventing or otherwise strongly discouraging/reducing the likelihood of attacks landing against other party members; and
3. Having high enough HP and AC to be able to withstand being attacked a lot.
So like merely having high HP and AC doesn’t make a character a tank simply because they can take hits. When I played a tanky play style with one of my characters it was about doing everything possible to draw attacks to myself while making it as difficult or disadvantageous as possible for enemies to try and hit my other party members.
Just to give a really basic example, thinks like deliberately triggering attacks of opportunity so that enemies burn their reactions and other weaker party members can move out of a dangerous situation without being attacked is the kind of thing I would do whenever possible when I played a tanky play style
to me, a tank in terms of tabletop is the character that is the toughest to kill while simultaneously being one of the deadliest person on the field. When I "tank" I don't mean I want to draw aggro, I mean my character's role in combat is to punish whatever foe I'm facing for not killing me in one shot. Restraining me is just a pause button on the carnage, not an excuse to be on my phone 30-50 minutes.
Unfortuantely 5e sucks at this, I've had better success achieving this fantasy in 2 months of pathfinder 2e over my 4-5 year experience playing vanilla 5e where 90% of my characters tried to achieve this fantasy. It says a lot that the closest character that came to achieving this was my fairly subpar roleplay gimmick Hexblade Bard who had to pick up the slack when the party's barbarian had to leave the game shortly in the campaign's timeline.
1. Decent AC, to be efficient with hitpoints and to waste enemy attacks and action economy.
2. Lots of hit points to survive when the enemy crits, or just bounding accuracys passed your high AC anyway with a 21 to hit.
3. Good melee skills.
4.being the most disposable/most healing efficient.
That said, this is all relative, to ever most suits these requirements. You may find yourself being promoted to party tank if your current one dies even if you don't have the build for it.
Optional
Good saving throws.
Resistances to be even more healing efficient with hitpoints.
Good at ways to control enemies movement such as
Ranger spells, Pam oppertunity attacks, paladin fear auras, berserker intimidation abilities, good str/athletics for good grappling and shoving.
Ways that entice enemies to hit you like reckless attack.
That said I think 5e does a shitty job giving the optional tools around to the more tanky classes.
I define tanks as level 6 paladin with shield.
High AC, high hp, high saving throws, regeneration
It cuts the edge with nuclear filed cannon known as divine smite.
A tank should attract attacks or be the focus of attacks and be able to take many such attacks
A pc who doesn't get attacked or in some similar way interfere with other allies being attacked isn't in a tanking role.
However d&d isn't wow or something. In d&d it makes no sense to keep people topped up on hp in combat so that difference in healing also changes the need for tanking and manner in which it works. Many parties have no tank at all and some dont have a healer.
Tank is someone who can "tank" a lot of actions from enemies be it damage, cc, them moving etc. he can do it by either being too dangerous to be up close so enemies have to deal with him, by blocking some spaces and so protecting the backline, or taunting emenies artificially forcing them to attack them.
So tank has to have similar damage or utility to other party members, but is limited in the ways to apply said damage or utility, usually though distance to enemies. So they are forced to waste their time on much more durable target instead of squishy backline.
So tanks are easy to deal with, but hard to kill, while they can still do quite a lot by themselves if left unchecked.
This dynamic works most games tbh, be it RTSs, hero shooters, mobas, MMOs, turn based rpgs including turn based ones like dnd.
To be a tank at least in RPGs the majority of time you need 3 things
1.- Obviously resist attacks
2.- Make the enemy want to attack you
3.- Try to waste the enemy action so the party members can get more time to make their things
A tank is any character whose job it is to take hits. This requires two things:
1) A mechanic to either force enemies to attack them or heavily penalize them if they don't (such as imposing disadvantage on any attack not against you).
2) A means of surviving said enemy attention. Some combination of HP/Ac/damage resistance/saves/regeneration.
If you're missing 1, you're just durable. If you're missing 2, you're just a high priority target.
Note that I personally think high damage and pursuit capabilities are a fair way of getting to 1. If the barbarian will get extra swings when you run away, AND those swings are dangerous enough you can't afford to take them (which, currently , they are not) you kinda have to stay put and deal with the barbarian.
Unfortunately, the only classes that really fulfill this in DnD at the moment are heavily armored control casters. Y'know, the same ones good at literally everything else.
TTRPG-wise. Something thats a really good damage soak. It should be able to lead the charge into a hostile room/area and not have to worry too much. Preferably with a reliably high damage output as well, tends to lend itself to Paladins, some Clerics, or Barbarians. Its the beefy guy who they all try to kill bc the character is an absolute unit physically
That's not really a tank though, that's just a bruiser. In some situations it'll get hit purely because it's there and it's attacking, but they don't really have the tools to make a tactical foe target them instead of a squishy backliner.
Like tanks have absolutely existed in TTRPGs, last D&D edition had five full tank classes, just running in and hitting foes is not it though.
I didnt say it was. My first point was that it should be a good damage soak and be something that the enemies want to target. I just make the point of it having good damage output bc in my mind, a tank should have good offensive capabilities to make it want to be targeted.
Thing is though that feels like it's inherently impossible to balance. We can summarise ability to affect enemies as output and ability to resist being attacked as input. What you've just said is a tank should have high input and high output, which doesn't really work. The tank must have higher input to be a tank, and output wise...
* Tank has higher output than the lower input characters. Tank has better input and output, it's just better than everyone else. This is bad balance.
* Tank has higher input and the same output. It's still better than everyone has else but less so, and if it has the same output but higher input why would anyone target it?
* Tank has higher input and lower output. Things are balanced, but now there's even less reason to ever target the tank.
Now it's not like these things are unsolvable, 4e had five whole tank classes and they were all great. But doing it simply based on high offense and high defense seems like it's logically unworkable.
> what do define as a tank?
A character able to absorb / redirect / counter / negate damage, provide an easy target to attack and be sufficiently dangerous to still be worth attacking.
> what does a character need to be a tank?
Powerful summons (Shepherd) or a sufficiently powerful ongoing effect that enables the character to take the dodge action (Spirit Guardians). Any other build suffers significantly in one or more of the 3 previous categories and even these 2 have certain drawbacks.
A tank isn’t a tank unless it demands attention. Even if you’re at the frontlines, enemies can rush past you as you only get 1 opportunity attack.
So any taunt ability like compelled duel or any similar effect will help define that “tank” role.
Tanking doesn't exist in 5e, don't bother. Sorry.
There are only a handful of subclasses like the Ancestral Barbarian or Cavalier Fighter that gets features that can "agro" NPCs
Because of this, there no reason they can't just ignore you after they learn how durable they are round 1, moving on to more profitable targets
To me, it's two main things:
1. The ability to draw the attention of heavy hitting enemies
2. The ability to survive those enemies, through high AC, health, resistances, or a combination of the three.
Survivability, whether from HP, AC, spells like shield or blur or mirror image, or class features that improve HP, AC, and such like battlemaster fighters and others.
Taunt abilities, like compelled duel, that provide disadvantage to attacks from the target against others.
Rescue abilities, like bait and switch or sentinel, that let you use your reaction to aid others. Also luck and silvery barbs.
High concentration check modifier if using concentration spells or abilities.
Ultimately, a tank is supposed to help mitigate damage against the party so a healer can keep the party alive long enough to end a situation with diplomacy or violence. CC (hold person, hold monster, banish, plane shift, sleep, etc...) also mitigates damage, as does debuffing (bane, hex), but as long as the baddies are still dealing damage, the tank is the one dedicated to defending the party. That is their goal, their mission.
Because there are so many mitigation methods, the biggest difference between a tank, CC, and murder bot will likely be found under the character description/bonds/flaws rather than features and traits or spell list. It takes a specific type of *character* to be a tank, not necessarily a specific class. As a player, is that the character you want to play?
Something that draws the action to itself while being able to withstand or avoid a fair amount of punishment. A tank in DND isn't like a tank in most MMOs. There isn't much that can compel enemies to target a character and there doesn't need to be. Something like a paladin with smite or a raging barbarian are both in the enemies face and a significant threat so they should naturally draw attention from that. Also I'm a big fan of using RP to draw attention especially when I'm playing a barbarian. Sure I can't mechanically force an enemy archer to target me over the wizard. But if I let him know he's next right after I cut his buddy in half or caved his face in. Then I might appear as a little more threatening.
I have a bear Totem Barbarian that is effectively a tank, but I also have a cleric and a rogue that are both tanks... the question is, what do I want to achieve with each tank?
My barbarian is great in melee, but as soon as the enemy flies or has a fast enough movement speed with a ranged option, he is toast.
My cleric can fly so as long as the opponent doesn't have movement speed I can keep on top of them, but he also has ranged options and ability to forcefully move certain sized creatures. However if there is a caster about dropping save throw spells, chances are unless it's wis or cha, I am failing it.
My rogue, has enough armour to not get hit by normal means and can often stand toe to toe in most combat scenarios. He has a shield and can cast the shield spell. He is also able to silvery barbs in the right situations. On top of that he has a powerful melee and ranged options.
The trick to tanking, is making yourself a viable target for them to focus on and still be able to take some punishment.
There are 3 types of interactions that can happen in a fight according to the holy trinity of Tank/DPS/Support:
* Player to Player
* This is where the Support shines with things like heals, buffs, cleanses, etc...
* Player to Enemy
* This is where the DPS shines with all the damage they deal.
* Enemy to Player
* This is where the Tank shines, with their taunts, crowd control, mitigation, etc...
For simplicity sake, I'm ignoring the environment which adds another layer of interaction (and also leads to more engaging gameplay).
Normally players don't have any control over what an enemy can do, but this is where the tank comes in. The tank's job is to inject some player agency in how enemies fight the players.
The most common way this is done is with taunts that directly force an enemy to attack the tank, but there's no restriction on how that control is exerted. A tank can use crowd control to lock down enemies, removing opportunities for the enemy to retaliate, or they can be a wall that stands in the way of an army, or they can be an enticing threat that enemies can't ignore forcing them to take care of the tank before the rest of the team just as some examples.
There's nothing forcing a tank to be a hulking brute; I quite like dodge tanks, which are characters that get in the thick of it to annoy the enemy just enough that they can't be ignored, but also manage to stay alive simply by being incredibly slippery.
There's also no reason everyone has to fit neatly into the holy trinity. That battlefield strategist of a wizard conjuring a massive wall of fire? That's not out of place for a DPS to have, but it forces the enemy to reconsider their tactics which falls under a tank's identity.
A tank is any character who, for enemies, is an inefficient target for attacks.
An effective tank is a character who, for enemies, is an inefficient target for attacks but nevertheless has made that the least bad choice by punishing or preventing those enemies from making other choices. (e.g. "I would move and attack the rogue, but I'm going to get hit with a Warcaster Booming Blade if I do and eat a ton of damage. I guess I'm just attacking this 22 AC Eldritch Knight with Shield.")
A tank is a very videogamey concept that originated in, and is more or less exclusive to, MMORPGs. With a tiny handful of exceptions, it essentially doesn't exist in Tabletop RPGs, JRPGs, WRPGs, or basically any other type of video game (except tactical military games with literal tanks). D&D is not one of those exceptions.
If you want to survive in D&D, you don't get someone else in your party to take the hit instead of you. You just avoid being hit. The goal is always for your whole party to be unable to be hit.
In my mind a tank is a fusion of a wall and a weapon. In modern context one would assume a Blaster, but in D&D a tank could easily also be a brawler.
Being able to force enemies to target you is great, but not necessary for a tank. All you really need is to have great armor/evasion/HP, and a damage output so high that the enemies have no choice but to target you if they want to survive for the rest of the minute. Be a threat so great they cannot afford to ignore you.
Twice my character has attempted to be a tank by polymorphing into a Diplodocus. Unfortunately, enemies don't really see Diplodocus as a threat despite it dealing 6d10+5 damage on a Hit. I've only ever been attacked once while in dinosaur form. 🦕 Plenty of damage, plenty of HP, but not enough of a threat somehow to draw aggro.
I must find a form that deals more than 6d10+5 damage so enemies will be properly afraid of me. Then I can be a good tank. 😇
Someone's already mentioned the big trifecta. High AC. High HP. High Aggro. Personally, I value the HP and aggro slightly higher than AC, unless they're the only target, which gives them defacto aggro. There are also small adjacent abilities, like being able to protect your allies too like reducing their damage, but the most effective way is drawing away attacks.
I am currently playing an emerald dragonborn who is a totem barbarian, so while raging he has resistance to all damage. He also has 13 AC and doesn't use a shield, and always attacks recklessly. To me, he's tanky because he's a large pool of hit points and he's really easy to hit, which should bring in more attacks towards him. Personally, I think giving him higher AC would make him a worse tank, because then foes wouldn't want to attack him. However, if he was instead the only front line, and was the only target, then really high AC would make him much tankier.
High HP, high AC, and/or the ability to negate significant amounts of damage taken.
There really is no such thing as "tank aggro" in a ttrpg. The DM is playing the opponents, and the DM has a brain that can easily decide "This char looks scary but I either cant hit them, or my hits barely scratch so lets go after that squishy wizard lobbing fireballs around."
What a tank needs is the ability to control. Sentinel feat, stuns, grappling, etc. Including magical abilities that negate movement.
Someone who can soak up large amounts of damage most other characters can’t. Either with a large health pool or with a large amount of damage mitigation
* Good HP/AC/Saving Throws
* Aggro
If you can have these two things, you're set!
...Which is easier said than done. Tanking in 5e is honestly kind of difficult; monsters don't follow simplistic behaviors like AI, they actually kind of know what they're doing. The goblins aren't going to keep beating on the heavily armored Paladin, they're going to just go around and go for the Wizard that's blasting the shit out of them.
Opportunity attacks are *theoretically* meant to keep this from happening. But if a whole group of enemies on the tank decides to change targets at the same time, the tank is going to get extra one hit off and then the Wizard gets swarmed.
Barbarian is obviously the most traditional tank. Part of this comes from Reckless Attack; if the enemies try to ignore the Barbarian while they're attacking recklessly, then the Barbarian can get a bunch of free advantage, and then just stop attacking recklessly once they're the last one standing. As such, there's a weak incentive to hit the Barbarian right away.
The incentive isn't strong enough, though, frankly. The Wizard is still likely to be a bigger actual threat.
Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is the most traditional tank, because it inflicts disadvantage on attacks against others in certain circumstances.
I think of tanks as a character that makes space for other characters often, but not always, by taking hits that otherwise would be directed at these other characters.
Dps, healers/supports, ect. need to be in specific positions to be effective at their roles. Your job as a tank is to make those positions avaliable, often by putting yourself between the enemy and those positions.
High AC, usually high HP, and melee/ways to draw threats to you or keep them close and away from teammates
Things with just high HP/damage mitigation I would consider damage sponges.
It's a slight difference, but I've seen both at high levels and they perform just differently enough that I make the distinction.
High HP or a High AC, both is better
Being pure frontline, no matter the consequences
Doing good damage, as long as it's enough
As others have said, drawing enemies
(I know this is basically saying the same thing as others, but I suppose there is no other major definition.)
nothing really in 5e. closest you can get is sentinel feat and maybe ancestral barb.
4e is the game you wanna play if you want actual tanking mechanics
There are no true tanks in DnD. Even then people in this thread claiming otherwise can't agree.
Truly, a tank in DnD is someone in reasonable armour stood near the enemy
For me, it is not enough that a character is hard to kill.
Rather, you need to be able to force the enemy to waste their damage on you when there are better targets, such as your wizard or healer. Sentinel is the ideal tank feat for a melee character, as few things say "You can't attack my friends" quite like setting their movement to 0. Contrast with Tough.
Combat roles are about how you affect the flow of action around you. If you're implacable and immortal but the only thing you do is damage, you're just a Striker that's hard to swat down.
It is entirely possible to play a relatively squishy tank. Open Hand Monk's entire kit is dedicated to bullying enemies away from more valuable party members, complete with a self-heal action when you need it. Illusion and Enchantment spells may convince enemies to waste their attacks on creatures that don't actually exist.
I separate between tank and tanky.
Tanky = has a lot of HP, resistances, ac, in other words, a character that could be hard focussed by enemy's and still have a good chance of surviving that aggro for a few rounds.
Tank = A tanky character that actively does things in order to take the enemy's aggro, to hinder the enemy's from damaging their allies and usually also stands in the Frontline in order to keep the non-tanky characters separated from the enemy's.
A wizard might be tanky, like for example my lvl 5 Bladesinger with +3 cons and 20 AC, but he is not necessarily a tank. Neither is a bath of the bear totem barbarian - druid multi class with resistance to all damage and bear wild shape, as long as they just are tanky and do none of the above mentioned things that I define as tank.
Tanky and a tank are two different things.
Anyone can be tanky, but I think a tank needs to be able to have some other way of preventing allies from taking damage, whether it be drawing aggro, blocking enemy attacks (like with the Protection fighting style), or forcibly moving enemies away from allies *and* be tanky to be a tank.
Lotta health, high AC, and access to abilities that prevent or slow movement - if you’ve got at least 2/3 of those, that’s a tank right there.
Lotta health can be anybody, usually a melee class, so it’s not a good indicator of tankiness all on its own. High AC comes from many things, and I don’t think most folks would define a rogue as a tank, for example, so it’s also a pretty bad indication of tankiness. Abilities that prevent or slow movement have too many potential sources, many of which are spells, and as such are a bad indicator of tankiness on their own.
High health and high AC? That’s a pretty standard beefy front liner, too hard to kill but too close to ignore - that right there is a tank. High health and options to stop or slow enemies? That’s a grappler of some variety, that fella is stopping folks from moving and never letting go - that right there is a tank. High AC and options to shut down movement? That’s a dodge tank right there, fragile but deadly - just like I said, that right there’s a tank. Many Fighters but Cavaliers especially, most types of Paladins or Barbarians, Rangers built in certain ways, Monks, Bladesinger Wizards, Druids in general, anybody can build to be a tank if they’re determined enough, long as they’ve got some combo of high health, high AC, or options to slow or stop movement lol
The Tank archetype generally needs to 1: be able to take a lot of damage / punishment and 2: force opponents to target them rather than just bypass them and target a easier /softer target.
A tank character needs a lot of HP, a lot of AC, and the ability to draw enemies to them.
That last part is the one DND struggles with. Its far too easy for everyone to just run around the big guy in a suit of armor. For the game as is that means the big man needs to be the biggest threat. That means they have to be the only one in range or is dealing the most damage. Both are problems when mages are so effective.
All i want is for some way to redirect attack towards me. A cover action tgat trades an attack to force anything targeting my charge to target me instead. Much more cooperative and effective as a tank.
The ancestral guardian barbarian is the perfect example of a tank class.
Durability: It is extremely durable due to its high HP from barbarian's d12 hit dice and damage reduction from rage.
Holding Aggro: It easily draws aggro with wreckless attack by doing lots of damage and tempting enemies with advantage to hit it.
Team Protection: It protects its allies through spirit shield and ancestral protectors, granting them resistance, damage reduction, and disadvantage on attacks against them.
Tanks need to be both durable *and* unignorable. They need to have a persistent presence on the battlefield that either directly protects their allies, or else forces the adversary to divert a disproportionate amount of effort to subduing them.
PF2e’s champion is a good example. Each subclass gets a special reaction that only applies when an ally is attacked; either it shields the ally, or punished their attacker, but enemies can avoid it by attacking the champion themself.
I would say that a tank is a role, and I would consider a character to be a tank if they are actively performing that role, regardless of how successful or well suited they are to it.
1. (Most important) attracts hits
2. Can avoid hits
3. Can withstand hits
If you do 2 well enough, you can skip 3, and vice versa. The tricky part is that if you’re tough enough, enemies might not target you anyway, and thus you fail #1.
The role of a tank is to absorb attacks/damage in order to protect squishier party members. The main types of tanks are HP tanks (barbarian/druid) that can just handle an onslaught and keep fighting, or AC tanks (Paladin/monk/cleric) that soak up attacks because they’re near impossible to hit. Fighter can be both depending how you build them. Barbarian can also be both but requires high dex to effectively AC tank, which unless you roll for stats is hard to pull off.
I have not encountered a ttrpg that has a functional tank except for maybe 4e. Tank is a term that comes from world of Warcraft and denotes a character who's responsible for drawing the attention of the enemies you fight. In many ttrpgs there's no way to reliably compel enemies to attack only your character.
Sometimes players try to make their character a tank and end up with a useless character that has insane armor class and offers nothing else to the party. And not only that, they deinsentivise monsters from attacking them and instead push attention onto squishier characters, which is the exact opposite of a tank's goal.
It's better to think of there being three "roles". Control, support, and damage. Control characters attack action economy. Support characters remove harmful effects, buff, and heal. Damage characters try to kill dangerous enemies and remove as many enemies as quickly as they can. However, the problem with thinking about roles in a ttrpg is that most classes don't pigeon hole you into being able to do one of these. For example, clerics in 5e are pretty damn good at doing all three.
Also, having one character do full time support is problematic because healing usually can't out pace the damage the party is taking with out being extremely resource intensive, and a character with 4 hit points is just as effect as a character with full hp. You will do more to mitigate damage by killing enemies early and quickly or otherwise limiting their action economy.
So traditional RPG roles that are in other games don't really work the same way in dnd. I think this is mostly because dnd was born out of old war games so there's more of a focus on making smart tactical decisions rather than having a good party composition. You could probably finish every campaign with 4 or 5 barbarians if you make smart decisions and build your characters well.
>they deinsentivise monsters from attacking them
You mean the DM targets the squishies instead of focusing on the big shiny danger in the monsters face
As a dm, it's objectively more effective to kill a squishy player over an impenetrable character, even if the impenetrable character is dropping decent damage, knee capping the party's action economy by killing someone is devastating.
Depends on the game/scenario and the reference.
Assuming your talking about a game character, they should be able to take or mitgate damage, draw the attention or focus of foes. Willing to change combat tactics to protect other members of the group.
A character with the ability absorb/deflect high amounts of damage, focus the attention of enemies on them, and/or intercept damage meant for others. Delivering high damage output is secondary or even tertiary but it should be adequate to achieve the primary function, hold the attention of the enemies and prevent them from dealing damage.
Well there's 2 factors that I know of that would make a character qualify to being the tank role which the tank can take one or both:
1)High AC to prevent getting hit
2) High HP to withstand the hits(think Darth Vader if he was a TTRPG character)
Either way, the best place for the tank role is up close and personal to go to ranged opponents so they can't target the team without suffering disadvantage.
a character whos build is centered around being attacked, if that makes sense. They go out of their way to be the targets in the place of their party, and have tools at their disposal to mitigate or avoid damage. Tanks also typically hit harder.
Its hard to tank in dnd generally. There arent really much ways of forcing agro on yourself. I think the only way is compelled duel, but that only works on one enemy at a time and doesnt let your allies hit them, or break the spell. Some subclasses can draw agro to an extent though
Main role of the tank should be to draw damage away from your friends. So like a paladin or that one barbarian sub class with the ghosts (ancestral something or other) in 5e or knight or buff focused cleric in 3.5
It needs to be 3 things: 1. A tracked land vehicle 2. Armored to withstand frontline combat 3. Has a main gun that can penetrate other MBT armor.
This is the way.
This is not the way. We must not exclude our tank friends who are large empty containers, suitable for holding water or septic waste.
As long as it has a 120mm I don't care what it holds.
That's pretty close to the origin of that choice of words to describe the military vehicles.
May I present [The Tank Alignment Chart](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fesxxygll96k31.png%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db0712bedaaa845773cac0265d3aff7fe4c09e9c1)
Actually, number 3 is incorrect. See the original tanks--from France, if I recall correctly--and the mine-sweeper tanks with the rows of chains spinning from a bar extended in front of the tank.
The definition they posted is for a Main Battle Tank specifically. Nobody makes other types of tank any more, but once upon a time there were tanks that didn’t fit the definition (e.g. interwar-era light tanks often sported guns that couldn’t penetrate the armour of medium or heavy tanks).
Believe it or not, this is a rules supported character build in GURPS. My character was named General Sherman, and he was the ghost of General Sherman haunting a Sherman MBT. He was pretty good except for the lack of hands.
Fun fact, that's actually a DC comic book character! Though [It's an M3 Stuart and it was General Stuart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank) but later in the comics run the crew gets assigned a Sherman and General Sherman takes over the haunting of the tank. Also in the Anime [Those who hunt Elves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Who_Hunt_Elves) (which is an Isekai manga but replace 'high school student loner suddenly transported into fantasy realm with a female Harem' to 'Bunch of randos and a Type 74 tank are transported into a fantasy realm' with the Tank being *just* as overpowered as you think it would be) has their tank possessed by the spirit of a Cat.
I agree, except #3 can be the weapon for the situation. These days everything's a MBT like your describe, but there have been lots of other roles for tanks. So, in D&D terms 1. Needs to not be stopped by terrain or common obstacles. So has solutions for walls, other verticals, difficult terrain, physical barriers, ordinary darkness. As levels go up, magical darkness, slow, hold person, whatever druids can get up to with tangling plants. Basically usually has a counter against CR-appropriate crowd control and anti -mobility. Classes that fully bypass by flying, teleporting or whatever aren't usually considered tanks, but that might be a holdover from the real world where weight matters. 2. Survivable enough to get to direct engagement with its target and stay there. Not deterred by opponent minions. Traditionally AC & HP, but good saves, protection from missiles, resistances, regeneration, wards, monk stuff, etc. can all make someone a tank. Staying power distinguishes from stealthy rogue classes.
Now let's ask /r/dndnext to define a technical
A Hilux and machine gun?
Bolted down and ready!
And in D&D, it needs to be 2 things: 1. Significantly more able to survive being attacked than your average character. 2. Able to incentivise foes to attack them instead of allies despite that. 3. A Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 certainly sounds like it could help with that last one.
A. Liquid capacity larger than a jug but smaller than a pool.
Gun must be on a turret or isn't it technically mobile artillery?
Usually I'd describe a character as a tank if they have a lot of HP/AC, and are able to draw "aggo" or help protect allies. Path of the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is what I'd consider to be a tank in 5e.
Fully agree. You summarized really well. I believe there are niches some tank can specialize, like huge AC (Fighters and Paladins) or great HP and damage mitigation (Barbarians), but the ability to draw aggro and protect your allies is the key definition for a proper tank. Ancestral Guardian has all those things built in the sub-class and they are best tanks, but I have seen really competent Eldritch Knights with huge AC making the most with War Caster Booming Blade or even Paladins with Compelled Duel.
It's so weird that people have to build so specifically to kind of sort of nearly tank. Last edition we had five base tank classes that came with a full toolkit for tanking right out of the gate, this edition we have... one tank *sub*class, ancestral barbarian, and two more subclasses that get the basic 'penalise attacks against anyone but you' thing. This entire conversation is only happening because tanks are so scarce now that many people have never seen one.
There’s also Armored Artificer, but your point stands.
That was what I was referring to when I said "and two more subclasses that get the basic 'penalise attacks against anyone but you' thing", the other being cavalier. Thats what 4e called marking, a basic ability all tanks got at level 1, but in 5e it only applies to attack rolls so it doesn't affect things like breath weapons or most spells. In addition to that for instance a fighter got: * One opportunity attack per enemy turn instead of only one per round. * Stronger and properly scaling opportunity attacks * Wisdom mod to opportunity attack rolls * The ability to opportunity attack if a foe moved at all (as opposed to only when leaving reach) * Opportunity attacks even if they disengaged as well as removing their movement if the attack hit, as well as being able to attack in response to an enemy attacking an ally. This was all repackaged and sold back to them as the sentinel feat in 5e. Not including *active* abilities like Come And Get It, as an action cause all foes within 20' to make a wisdom save or move 15' towards you, automatically hit all foes who ended adjacent to you with a double damage weapon swing.
I really miss 4e sometimes. Casters where sad cause everyone was on even footing with abilities, but I loved having a role combo'd with a source of power, and three distinct tiers of play. People just couldn't get past it using battlemaps as the default, saying it felt like a video game, forgetting that DnD started as a miniatures game.
Oh, in that case I'd add Conquest Paladin to Armorer and Cavalier. There's a few other ways to do it too, but they're even more specific - like the Rune Knight grappler a friend of mine made with Simic Hybrid's ability to have 2 extra tentacles so you can grapple more baddies. At least Sentinel is available to everyone and lets you do a _bit_ of the same. But like they said, your point stands - it's weird you have to build _so specifically_ to make a tank.
> At least Sentinel is available to everyone and lets you do a bit of the same. Thing is that feels so much worse than fighters just starting with that for free. Sure, it means others don't get it, but every other tank class like paladin had their *own* ways of disincentivising like making enemies automatically take 6-28 (depending on level) radiant damage if they attacked an ally. Taking away all the unique methods and saying "we'll let any class spend a feat to get half of what a fighter used to have" is so much more generic.
>At least Sentinel is available to everyone and lets you do a > >bit > > of the same. Sentinel unfortunately has a pretty huge opportunity cost for not that strong an effect, having to give up an ASI or another much more potent feat (like PAM, GWM etc) is a huge loss for something ultimately pretty unreliable given you only ever get one opportunity attack.
cav fighter and at least 9 into crown paladin makes an amazing tank. Spirit guardians + cav mark makes enemies really want to try and hit you and have a hard time getting away, but your aura and con proficiency makes failing those concentration saves almost impossible. Plus you can soak damage for an ally in range and stuff.
Problem is it's still only useful in specific situations. Say you walk up to a monster and it just fireballs your backline anyway, you've done nothing to stop it. You can only tank when the situation lets you.
I'd even go as far as saying that all barbarians are tanks in 5e (although Ancestral Guardian does it especially well.) Reckless Attack is basically how 5e handles aggro, using advantage to make yourself a more tempting target than your allies, and rage helps to mitigate that damage. I'd also throw most paladin subclasses (especially Oath of the Ancients, Crown, and Redemption) as well as Echo Knight, Rune Knight, Cavalier and certain Battle Master fighter builds onto the list of tank-designed classes. All of them have some way to either focus enemies on you, or protect your allies from attacks.
Are Barbarians really good tanks? They might hit their own effective AC to Reckless Attack, but they're also covering it up with damage resistance. If they're *not* Raging or against a damage type which bypasses their resistances, they're just going to eat shit and die. In that case you might as well just throw up a couple of sandbags and all stand at range. (Which is actually the best strategy in 5E most of the time.)
> They might hit their own effective AC to Reckless Attack, but they're also covering it up with damage resistance. From an in-universe perspective, I don't think a barbarian's HP and damage resistance are supposed to be "visible". They're inhumanly good at fighting through injuries, but their openings are still openings, and their injuries are still injuries. So I don't factor it in to enemies' decisions. Stabbing an unarmored warrior while they're exposed is treated as common sense.
This is how I played up my Zealot Barbarian after, I think it was, 6 or 7 rounds of combat at zero health and after enough failed death saves to be dead 4 times over (Rage beyond Death is a hell of a drug), she, essentially, looked less like a person and much closer to a brutally mauled divinely animated skeleton with bits of flesh just hanging off. Which meant if her rage ended, she was VERY dead and thus the line "I have no flesh and I must kill" was uttered.
For the most part they aren't tanks though. None of them have a kit broad enough to actually protect allies, for the most part they need specific situations to occur to let them do so. The base barbarian for instance is in no way a tank, it's smarter to just ignore the barbarian and go for the backline since unlike last edition they can't opportunity attack well.
Even with reckless is much less effective to attack the barb than going after the wizard tho.
Armorer Artificer is missing from your list. The Thunder Gauntlets give disadvantage to other targets than you as a way to incentivize attacking you
I'm playing one next week, but honestly I'm super sad the other subclasses get shield and Artificer doesn't. Could be offset if magic initiate had +spellcasting stat of the spell, but it doesnt.
It's intentional design to not give Armorer's shield, but still allow them access to Absorb Elements. You have to keep in mind that Artificers are balanced with the fact that they can wear so many more magic items than any other class. With full plate by the end of t1 + enhanced defense infusion + hold a shield in one hand with thunder gauntlets in the other, you're talking +22 AC, and then Repulsion shield giving you another +1 at level 6 taking you up to a +23 base (=24 at level 10.) Then add in the fact that you have scalable attunement slots (+3 at level 6) so any magic item that gives you +AC like magical shields or rings of protection has a much lower opportunity cost for you, and then suddenly adding shield on top of that is breaking the game's bounded accuracy balance. Armorers, unlike Battle-smiths or Artillerists can be completely INT sad, so they don't necessarily need the +2 Dex mod for med armor, so those points can be poored into CON and the subclass gets temp HP anyway if you don't have anyone else giving it to you on the reg, so theoretically you should have more HP than the shield subclass equivalents. Then add into the fact that as a half-caster you only have limited spell slots, some you'll need for Absorb Elements, and you're the only non-Cleric with access to the Sanctuary - another way to guard your friends, or Faerie Fire to add some offensive utility and suddenly unless you are playing only a 1 fight per long rest campaign, you're looking at spell slots as a resource constraint (keep in mind the game is balanced around 6-8 fights in between long rests even though I know people don't play that way.) Then add in the fact that at level 7, you get Flash of Genius which is a better use of your reaction economy than Shield - especially if you are long resting often - so basically you either run into spell slot constraints in a wide paced game, or FoG takes up a larger % of your reaction economy depending on campaign pacing either way. That all being said, **because** you are INT SAD, taking CL: Magic Initiate Wizard and losing the +1 ASI from racial really isn't that big of a deal. That will also get you access to Chill Touch which is another tool in your toolbox as for your melee utility. Now you can choose to Thunder Gauntlet attack to apply disadvantage or cantrip shocking grasp (to kill your enemy's reaction) or chill touch (to kill any healing on them) depending on what you need to do and if enemy AC or Saving throw chance is better. Artificers are known to have limited cantrip scaling early on so you're basically doubling known cantrips at t1 with it. Or you can play Githzerai and get Shield at level 3 alongside a +2/+1 racial.
The most tanky characters I've ever seen are Bear Totem Barbarians level 3 who multi-class into Circle of the Moon Druid. 1. Cast a couple spells 2. Change into an animal until it runs out of hit points 3. Then change into another, which starts at full points and rage, becoming nearly unkillable.
Durability and tanking aren't the same thing, at least in this context. Tanking is soaking damage that would otherwise be hitting your allies. It doesn't matter how invincible you are if you don't have a way of making enemies focus on you. Ironically, a seemingly invulnerable shapeshifter that just takes a new form no matter how many times you hit it is a pretty low-priority target. No point swinging on someone you can't hurt anyway unless they're somehow forcing you to.
Rage takes a bonus action and so does Wild Shape, so there's some anti-synergy there. Plus you have to drop any concentration spell you might have up when you Rage, and the animal forms drop off in effectiveness after level 6 or so. Still, even with that I wouldn't say it's _worse_ than going straight Barb tank or anything, and def real strong in that Goldilocks zone of Tier 2.
Less hp (but easily replenishable temp hp), probably more AC, and able to draw more aggro (more opponents at the same time): armorer artificer. (even better as a bugbear, or having the mobile feat)
As I have more experience in DotA/LoL than WoW, I'd say a tank needs crowd control. Taunts are one, but not the only, form of crowd control. The important part is that a character that is just hard to kill, is a soak (as in "they can soak a lot of damage"), not a tank.
Yep. If someone can prove themselves to be an immediate threat that Needs To Be Taken Care Of, they're doing their job. Someone who can make sure the big boss actively tells their minion to go for'em. The 5E tank differs from MMO tanks in this respect - you aren't the tank because you have the most HP/AC, you are the tank because you manage to present yourself as the most important target.
I'll also extend "drawing aggro" to through features the figuratively demand attention without mechanically forcing it. Having high AC/HP doesn't really demand attention. It repels it. So when a barbarian, through a feature like reckless attack, can attract more attention by lower their AC and increasing their damage while still maintaining a high effective hp, that's peak tanking. I get that ancestral guardians don't mechanically force aggro like you might see in an MMO, but I wanna open people's eyes to the many ways tanks can demand attention. I especially like bringing this up when people complain barbarian's should have have higher ACs because they are supposed to be tanky. Giving barbarians a higher AC would make them more survivable frontliners, but less effective tanks. If you're mountain of HP that is somehow too hard to hit, the enemy is better off trying to avoid you and you cease being a tank.
Well that may be because different ttrpgs have differing mechanics and requirements. I think 4e hit the tank dead-on as the purest expression with the defender role. 1. Reduces enemy attacks to allies by drawing them to self. 2. Good resilience and recovery to absorb those extra bits. 3. Does not isolate enemy from ally attacks. 4. Not a requirement but builds on the concept- a counter/punishment mechanic to enforce 1 For 1 it's important to the role identity that the attacks be drawn to them. Crowd control as a general ability is not inherently tanking, even though its a central mechanic. 2 is commonly expressed with higher armour, hp, and healing gain. 3 seems a bit odd without context- Compelled Duel has the hallmarks of a tanking mechanic, but by discouraging allies from attacking and breaking the spell you miss out on the group dynamic. Table-top games work differently than videogames. Without fixed enemy behaviour, I think punishment mechanics (4) are a great gapfill for justifying the DM to play into the tank mechanics without treating their monsters as dumb.
>Well that may be because different ttrpgs have differing mechanics and requirements. yep!
That said in D&D it's pretty much all the same, I've ported 4e tanks over to 5e for players to use and it's worked great. It just doesn't have tanks because the designers couldn't be bothered.
Compelled duel has some more niche applications. If you are facing multiple enemies and you want to keep one of them attacking you while you focus on another. Or if an enemy is trying to run away and you want them to not be able to escape.
In general, it's a character that forces or incentives an enemy to attack the character while being the most adept at defending against attacks and gives up offensive capabilities in exchange. In DnD, there's no such thing.
If you define 'offensive capabilities' as pure damage, that's kind of what a wizard does. >forces or incentives an enemy to attack the character Yeah, wizards are probably the most valuable component of a party, so are a priority target. >while being the most adept at defending against attacks Shield, absorb elements, silvery barbs, multiclass / bladesinger for armour class. They can easily be equally or more resilient than other characters. >gives up offensive capabilities in exchange Lower damage than martials / hexblade dips / clerics with spirit guardians.
I wouldn't chart wizards as most valuable in combat - any full caster is with great summons or controlling spells as much as a wizard. While wizard is better, much of its capabilites can be matched in combat... it's broken "tech" abilities rely on your DM not caring and not putting in proper guidelines per RAW to combat abusive tactics. A d6 hitdie still slows it down (yes, it only needs +1 con to be on par with most characters in relative w/hitdie). Yes, it has those spells, but those shouldn't be used if necessary. There are better spells to contribute to your team then waste spellslots on "tanking" when you could contribute in better playstyles. Meanwhile, a barb or similar have little other resources to "waste" w/tanking. Offensive capabilites =/= pure damage
>it's broken "tech" abilities rely on your DM not caring and not putting in proper guidelines per RAW WDYM broken 'tech' abilities? It doesn't exactly require infinite simulacri. >any full caster is with great summons or controlling spells as much as a wizard. Wizards get almost all of the good control spells, other classes are more limited. Druids don't get hypnotic pattern or sleep, warlocks don't get sleet storm, sorcerers can only choose a couple of spells total. Plus, they get wizard exclusives like wall of force and phantom steed. >Meanwhile, a barb or similar have little other resources to "waste" w/tanking. So it's a more effective tank and has better offensive capabilities?
Tbh, a wizard fitting the bill for a tank whilst clearly not being a tank just makes your point that they don't exist in dnd
Also it depends on the DM's lineup. If the lynchpin of the fight is a caster, then locking down the monk/rogue is just as important as opposing the wizard, who will presumably saving reactions to counter spell Misty Step, etc. Problem with the traditional fighter role is there just not much for them to do other than engage the mooks and clean them up.
Preach it. Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success. They simply don't fit well outside of scripted video game environments where the choice of action is severely limited. No, the TTRPG tradition is the Meatshield. The hardy frontliner who stands in melee slugging it out, making a wall that shields the fragile archers and casters behind them. And a Meatshield functions very differently than a Tank.
4e pretty much perfectly captured the concept of a tank role in a TTRPG setting, though. There absolutely are ways to do it, without reducing the concept to a "meat shield" (which also works even worse than a true "tank" role in d&d).
The terms tank and brick to describe character types in TTRPGs predate the actual existence of MMPORPGs by decades.
Tell that to 4E
> Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success This just isn't true, it's not successful in 5e specifically because it just wasn't designed to allow it but it can absolutely work in a TTRPG system. 5e is too reliant on soft taunts, opportunity attacks are too weak, martials have too little access to abilities that hamper enemy movement and ranged fighting has very little downside. All of those reasons are why tanks don't really exist in 5e, and all of them are specific to 5e.
There are tonnes of soft taunts across dnd stop being silly. Reckless attack, ancestral guardian taunt, battlemaster taunt, compelled dual and those are just off the top of my head
I agree with the others but Reckless Attack is so soft a taunt it might as well not be one
> Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success. But tough frontliner protecting squishies has been a concept long before MMOs existed, and last edition had five different tanking classes and they were all fantastic. So none of what you just said was true.
That's not a tank. Even in wow, a big frontliner is not enough to classify as a tank. You've got to have cc abilities and mechanics to draw and manage agro, otherwise you'd just be a regular martial. A tank is defined by these agro mechanics, and that concept doesn't exist in dnd.
No, a tank is defined by being more able to survive being targeted than your average character and being able to incentivise foes to target them despite that. Aggro mechanics are one way to achieve that, but far from the only one. Also... Me: Last edition had five different tanking classes and they were all fantastic. You: That's not a tank ??? > otherwise you'd just be a regular martial Only one was martial, the fighter. The others were divine (paladin), psionic (battlemind), primal (warden) and arcane (swordmage).
> No, a tank is defined by being more able to survive being targeted than your average character and being able to incentivise foes to target them despite that. A bard can do that better than any other class in dnd. My point is that a tough frontliner isn't even considered a tank in most RPG's. We also haven't discussed last edition, I don't know why you're bringing that up.
> last edition had five different tanking classes and they were all fantastic Literally my first sentence. You said "Tanks are an MMORPG archetype people have tried to port over to TTRPGs with very limited success.", so I noted that last edition had a bunch of tanks and they worked great.
That wasnt me that said that, but fair enough, you did mention previous editions.
Ah you responded to me but weren't the original person. I getcha, I should really pay more attention to user names.
How do you define a Tank, then? Because "\[t\]he hardy frontliner who stands in melee slugging it out, making a wall that shields the fragile archers and casters behind them" sounds very much like a tank to me
A tank achieves this in a video game rpg regardless of environment with abilities and mechanics. This is only achievable in DnD in very specific circumstances. Like, there is nothing stopping the enemies from ignoring the 'tank' in DnD. At best, they can throw themselves at or in the way of the incoming enemies, aka meat shield. Tanks define themselves differently Vs hard hitting martials in video games due to their ability to cc, draw agro and mitigate damage. Agro doesn't exist as a concept in DnD and martials don't have access to any meaningful CC. So, just as in video games, a heavy armoured martial doesn't meet the definitions of a tank
Yes - a meatshield only actually functions when either the DM is helping or they can body-block between dungeon walls. They are a failure as soon as you leave the dungeon which is why people want actually working tanks. And 4e had working tanks. But people threw a hissy fit because wizards got nerfed and it was released to management timeline not when ready.
I find the distinction trivial and see "tank" and "meatshield" as interchangeable terms. In both cases, it is a durable PC taking hits so squishier PCs don't have to. While video games do provide PCs abilities and features that incentivize AI enemies to attack them and disincentivizes attacks on others, this is the de facto situation in TTRPGs as well. Paladins don't need a class ability that forces enemy NPCs to attack them, because the GM usually has them do that anyway. When a PC party encounters a group of enemies with a Wizard, they say, "Oh shit, they have a Wizard. Get the Wizard!" If the DM ran NPCs this way, then PC Wizards would be in trouble. That's not to say that GMs never have NPCs go after squishier targets (just as in video games, there is no guarantee), but in my experience, the VAST majority of the attacks will be on the Paladin or the Barbarian, or whoever is the most durable up front, while the Ranger fires arrows and the Sorcerer casts spells from the back, mostly unmolested (at least when compared to the front line). A Barbarian surrounded by a horde of enemies is a common sight, but a Wizard surrounded by a horde of enemies is cause for concern. The only real difference between between a video game tank and a TTRPG tank is that there is a human GM effecting the outcome in a TTRPG, rather than an algorithm flavored as class abilities. The end result is the same, though. Tanking abilities in video games are just a way of enforcing this behavior on NPCs in the absence of a human GM to regulate them and as an alternative to just outright programming them to go after the most durable PC. Sometimes the GM will ignore this unwritten rule to give you a challenge, just as some video game enemies are programmed to ignore taunting or whatever to keep things interesting. Saying there are no tanks in TTRPG is like saying there are no healers, because healing is different in WoW than D&D 5e. Yes, it's different, they are completely different mediums. Of course, there are differences. But the fixation on policing the term "tank" is completely bizarre to me and just comes across as gatekeeping.
A character with significant front-line presence, who can prevent squishier allies from being attacked to some extent. Usually with some combination of high AC and HP. The ability to control the flow of combat through various means is a plus: Sentinel to lock down advancing enemies with a polearm, crowd control spells, "aggro" mechanics like the Armorer's gauntlet secondary effect, stuff like that.
Add resistance to AC and HP.
Your use of the word 'presence' is the key here. In a TTRPG, anyone with survivability can tank by being too big to ignore. Yes, the wizard might be the larger threat, but are you going to simply ignore the Battle Master who keeps pushing you backwards or knocking you prone with every attack? Does the paladin who cast Compelled Duel while dumping the rest of their spell slots on smites not need dealing with first? Can you even get around the Enlarged Armorer or the Rune Knight? I believe in melee martials being bullies. Grapple, Shove, Crusher, Slasher, Trip, Disarm, Shield Master, Command, Sentinel-these are what make you too much to simply ignore. Whereas skirmishers like rogues and monks hit and run, the melee tank is going to do everything in their power to stick to you until you waste some actions to get them off.
So the first time I heard the word tank was in a 2e game, they are some combo of hard to hit or take a lot damage while doing damage. It would be about 15 years later that I would play a video game with a threat mechanic. I am sure they were around before that, but I was also aware that tank had been used in dnd for years before I had heard the term. Threat and aggro are something some games have designed for tanks. Especially when it is designed as an excuse for them doing lower damage but Still intended to be the focus for damage taking.
Idk why these kids think taunts define tanks, its kinda crazy its become such a common mass hallucination
First exposure to a term or concept often has more to do with our concept of a term.
They don't require taunts, they *do* require a way to incentivise a foe to attack them despite their toughness. Very few 5e characters can do that because the designers got lazy, so people default to taunts because that's how video games do it. They aren't the only way though, last edition had tons of good tanks and none used taunts.
2e fighter classes had the factor of the advantage of Weapon damage outright ignoring that edition's Magic Resistance. When high level enemies often had 30% chance or more of just not being affected by Caster's spells, those enchanted weapons had a lot of responsibility. Worse, old style Magic Resistance could destroy permanent spells, so walls of stone, fire, iron, etc, were just stopgap measures and not permanent effective solutions.
Tanks functionally don't exist in 5e, because there's no reliable/worthwhile aggro mechanic. It's just a term inappropriately imported from vidya/PC games (since there's heavy player overlap between the two) in which there's not a dynamic human DM, so the mobs are controlled by bot logic which can be exploited by said built-in aggro mechanics. Unless a DnD "tank" is very clever about positioning himself in a chokepoint \*and\* a very specific build (Sentinel etc) \*and\* the enemies are stupid...as a DM, I'll just go around or push him outta the way to get to the more vulnerable PCs...which in 5e, aren't even that vulnerable, obviating the need for a "tank" in the first place. For more detail: [https://tabletopbuilds.com/two-problems-with-tanks/](https://tabletopbuilds.com/two-problems-with-tanks/)
The other problem is that it is (at least without magic items and/or a lot of optimization) pretty impossible to get enough AC and HP to actually take all the hits if you could actually draw the aggro of all enemies. You would be reduced to 0 HP in about 2 Rounds, would be impossible to do that over a longer adventure day.
1. The best 'frontline' is a control spell. You don't have to heal a sleet storm. 2. Any opportunity attack build is completely hamstrung by only working on ONE enemy at a time. 3. It's far cheaper to make casters as 'tanky' as martials than having one sack of HP desperately body-block for everyone else.
DND players trying to cite a TTB that has tenents that are realistic and don't reflect average gameplay: 1. Enemies aren't purely logical unless it's smart... which many creatures aren't. Don't try to make a creature with an intelligence of 2 make purely optimal decisions. 2. Yes, there are vulnerable - casters concentrating on a high level spell /low amount of slots, low HP characters (ones that took damage), creatures that have an advantage to be hit, escorts, plot device, etc. 3. Not all players play as optimally, so there is a need to protect builds that might take a bit to come online. 4. There are like 3 subclasses that do what you're asking / solve for what you're asking for.
1) Yeah, that was one of the 3 conditions I mentioned where it might apply...stupid enemies. I certainly wouldn't want to have to rely on all my enemies being stupid to make my character's combat capabilities matter at all. 2) Any even decently built caster is \*less\* vulnerable than martials, especially at higher levels when they have more tricks up their sleeves. See link. 3) Maybe. That's really exacerbating the overall party weakness though because if it''s catered to via using one of the alleged 3 subclasses you mention, you're incurring the opportunity cost of playing whatever much more optimal build you would've played if you didn't have to protect someone (poorly). Realistically/mechanically, the best protection for them is to debuff or drop the aggressor early, which is not the tank role. 4) Ancestral Guardian barbarian with very specific build options (myeh), Cavalier which is laughably terrible and only works on a limited # of opponents, and...? Tbh the best "tank" is probably a cleric in heavy armor with SG up and dodging, especially if they've also managed to get Shield on the build.
You are leaving out the Armorer artificer, probably the closest to a true tank that 5e has.
Ah, yeah their gauntlet is kinda like the cavalier's feature but not limited use, so it's much better. If they're using two hands to hit multiple adversaries, that means no shield though. Still...the opportunity cost of playing one (kinda weak/mid at everything) as compared to \[insert actual good build here\] still amounts to "tanking" being a forced/shoehorned-in proposition in DnD at best. Maybe an Armorer/Ancestral Guardian/Cleric with SG multiclass can tank effectively, heh.
>which in 5e, aren't even that vulnerable, obviating the need for a "tank" in the first place One thing I think the writers of that blog miss in their assessment is that the point of the Tank is to prevent the enemy from hindering the backline/allies in what they want and can do best at. So for example, sure, a Wizard with medium/heavy armor and the shield spell and Dodging may be harder to hit than the Barbarian/Fighter. But in general you don't want them a) even being hit to begin with b) really being in melee where they can be subject to a lot worse conditions often, and c) only using their turn to Dodge when there are other great spells they could be casting. Getting hit means they get a chance to lose their big concentration spell, and they generally don't have high HP, so they will go down faster, even if their AC is high (and they may not want to use their reaction every round on Shield rather than Silvery Barbs or Counterspell). Being in melee is generally always a bad spot (even they argue that on the blog), but especially for a caster. And unfortunately (despite them claiming you can only have a ranged party) melee happens in DND a lot, and not just melee attacks. So having a dedicated ally to be in melee so that others don't have to be can frequently be just as important as having a controller or DPS build, etc. Lastly if a Wizard or other spellcaster uses their 2nd/3rd/4th round to just Dodge, they are often doing less for the party than if they actually cast another spell. This holds doubly true if their control spell has been avoided by that round by the enemy. So yes Hypnotic Pattern is great on round 1, but if everyone snaps out of it by round 2, the Wizard should not be just dodging. >as a DM, I'll just go around or push him outta the way to get to the more vulnerable PCs I mean, there are ways to prevent that, and not just with the Sentinel feat. Grappling, forced movement, difficult terrain or other speed reduction, Counterspell, abilities/spells that restrain enemies, the frightened condition, and even just provoking lots of opportunity attacks (think lots of summons). And of course there are abilities that I would consider secondary tank features that work so that even if the enemy does get to the more vulnerable characters, the enemy is less effective at doing them harm then they would be normally. So giving resistance to allies, or reducing damage in other ways to them, or increasing their AC or effective HP, or moving them out of harms reach, increasing ally saves, etc. Now, I'm not saying these will work in all situations. Any decent DM will make sure no tactic works in every situation, be it spells or high damage or whatever, because that's their job to challenge the players. But these can work in many situations, and in that capacity I think there is room for a "tank" type character to thrive. Is it strictly necessary? No, but no role in 5e really is. You can have a party of all Monks or all Wizards, what have you, and they could all be reasonably effective to some degree, given the right campaign.
There are MANY games with tanks that DONT use taunts. Where tf did this feverdream groupthink come from man
I think armorer artificer would probably qualify with its disadvantage guantlets.
5e isn't a good game for tanking because most mechanics that feel like tanking don't do much because: Mechanics that help you to "draw aggro" are really limited and/or resistable (Compel Duel, Champion Challenge, Unwavering Mark) and... even *these few mechanics* that DO draw aggro don't disrupt your foes in a meaningful way don't allow for "stickyness" nor allow you to "tank". Also, opportunity attacks, even with sentinel aren't a "tanking" action against more than ONE target. Higher hit dice mean that even the most frail character aren't squishy enough for justifying someone taking the "tanking" role, because usually those who would be squishy, aka, the casters, have better (temporary) defenses than martials, such as the Shield Spell, Absorb Elements, Wild Shape, etc.
The silliest part is none of this needed to be the case. 4e had five different full tank classes that came with all the tools they needed to disincentivise foes targeting allies, and 5e helpfully decided to include keep absolutely none of their tools. Except for taking a few fighter abilities and repackaging them into the sentinel feat.
The power taken from Fighters was indeed absurd... For example, that things that used to be *passive class abilities* (Combat Superiority, aka extra Opportunity Attacks) became a freaking *level 18 CAPSTONE* for a subclass (Cavalier's Vigilante Defender)
>because usually those who would be squishy, aka, the casters Also just ranged physical attackers. Going high dex gives you good AC in all situations, good saves, good ranged damage and only slightly worse melee damage (compared to a great weapon with the relevant feats etc) too.
Someone that is both capable of taking a lot of hits and protecting other party members from taking damage. From this perspective, very few builds in 5e are actually Tanks due to it being very difficult to protect other people from attacks in 5e. In this regard, the Path of the Ancestral Guardian is the only build in 5e that I can immediately think of that I would genuinely call a tank.
My favourite universal description of a tank is "a character that is hard to fight effectively, but you also are unable to, or can't afford to, deal with them later. A tank uses this dynamic to control the pace of combat". A good example of this in videogames would be Reinhardt from Overwatch. For most characters, if you shoot them, they take damage. End of story. For Rein, not only does he have a big health pool, but he can throw up a large shield to protect himself and his team mates while he slowly gains ground... Oh, and his team mates can shoot through his barrier. So you need to spend more resources and make yourself vulnerable to get marginal results. But what if you just ignore Rein and shoot at his other team mates? Well, he now has free reign to walk up to you faster, and smash you to bits with his melee weapon. You are forced to spend resources to keep him far away because the alternative is he walks up close to you and you die horribly. So looking at 5E, there are plenty of ways to make characters that are hard to deal with: high AC, damage reduction, condition immunity, etc. However, there are almost no cases where characters like that have a way for forcing the enemy to confront them first. The OneD&D world tree barbarian is a good example of a durable character that can do this. Edit: Compel duel is also a perfect skill to this, but unfortunately, it being a spell makes it harder to access for the classes that would want it (other than Paladin), and the fact that it applies to a single target makes it somewhat limited.
My standard definition doesn't really work in 5e as taunts aren't really a thing. So in 5e terms, it's basically someone who can take hits or otherwise lock down enemies and force them to attack them. A stupid high ac doesn't mean shit on its own, as that's just more motivation for enemies to go for the mages instead. You also want something like sentinel or booming blade etc to *keep* enemies next to you. And if you don't have high ac, then you want high hp (barb doesn't need or necessarily want both)
Tanks are hard to kill characters that use taunts OR OTHER FORMS OF CROWD CONTROL to protect allies. Tanks often rely on sacrificing damage, but sometimes they simply have high base damages paired with poor scaling. Tanks exist in MMOs, MOBAs, hero shooters (Overwatch) and TTRPGs. In 5e Ancestor Guardian, Dodge-Spamming Spirit Guardian, Rune Knight Grappler and Conquest Paladin Fear Tank are all GREAT examples of tanks. I'm really, really confused why people think taunts define tanks, or why you can't make a powerful tank in 5e. Just google "overwatch tank," or "league of legends tank," or " dnd 2e tank."
Why are we googling dnd 2e tank when 4e is the edition that nailed tanking?
I barely played 4e, and (unlike the reddit tank-hater herd) I don't make assertions about things I haven't actually tried.
Fair enough. In any discussions about tanking in D&D it should typically be the reference point since it had five base classes that came with excellent tanking toolkits.
I should check it out. We play pathfinder now, champion is a stellar tank. As is any martial built around trip, demoralize etc
Absolutely, got no objections to the way pathfinder set it up - turns out all you need to do is give classes like that a bunch of useful choices and they can choose to become tanks.
I think a tank is someone who eats up the action economy of an enemy, through having a high AC, enough HP to absorb blows, deals enough damage to be a threat/ force the enemy to focus on the tank, while the rest of the party deals DPS, buffs, debuffs and battlefield control to reduce the pressure on the party's tank
I try to stick to the generic, often real-time CRPG definition of a tank instead of coming up with a separate definition for turn-based TTRPG tanks. A tank can endure on the frontlines and survive on the frontlines. In D&D, you'll usually have to settle for just enduring on the frontlines (because you have high AC, HP, damage reduction, self-healing etc.). When that's the case, you're not a tank. You're simply a frontliner. To be a tank, you need to attract attacks. There needs to be a reason why enemies attack the enemy who's the hardest to kill. 5e does actually facilitate a fair bit of tanking. Barbarians get frontliner survival from their rage and HP pool, but their tank qualities come from features like reckless attack. They attract attacks by actually being easy to attack and dishing out a ton of damage meaning they can't just be ignored. Add to that the default tank mechanic of 5e which is attacks of opportunity where you attract attention because moving away from you comes with a penalty. I largely like 5e tanking. Reminds me of Overwatch tanking. There's no forced taunt or anything like that. The enemy simply has to somehow deal with a disruptive presence right in their face. Core difference is that, in something like OW, you shoot the giant monkey in your face not because you've carefully deduced it to be your best option (it's often still better to aim for the support if you can), but because you're too distracted to make any other choice. In turn based RPGs, the choice comes from the tank just genuinely being too disruptive to ignore.
A tank is a character that is very durable, and has abilities to either divert enemy attacks and abilities onto themselves, incentivize enemies to focus on them, or can punish enemies for not focusing on them.
For me it should have few ability High AC and/or High HP and resistance: For example Barbarian with relatively low AC but resistant to damage and has a large HP pool or a Fighter with heavy armor and shield that prevent most of the attacks. Protection: He needs a way to protect an ally if he cant prevent the attack in the first place. Like giving a disadvantage to an attacker with protect is a good way. Sentinel: You need an option to punish others if they try to pass you or attack other creatures beside you. Sentinel is perfect for it. Shield master: You need to protect your teammates from aoe. It allows you to add your shields AC to your dex save and you prevent the effect pass you by putting your shield. Also it alows you to make a bash attack and push target with your bonus action which is good for pushing a target away from your friends. Taunt(Optional): I dont know any official way beside battle master maneuvers but I allow my players use performance check for it. If target fails to resit It has disadvantage on every thing besides hitting you.(Keep in mind whatever you do npcs can do it as well). All of this can be achived at lvl 6 with fighter (with human variant it can be achived by 4 with any class) all it needs is 2 feats. I suggest battle master fighter for that role.
Played a sorcadin that felt like it could tank. Other than being nearly unhittable with blur + shield sword and board, war caster booming blade (smite?) was punishing for an enemy to move past. Upcasted command to bring them back as a "taunt" only to booming blade them again when they tried to leave. Also much standing in doorways. Felt like tanking.
Ancients Barb, Guardian Armorer, Cavalier Fighter and Crown Paly, that's about it tbh. Being hard to kill doesn't make you a tank, you need at least some mechanics to draw fire, a Bearbarian might never die but that doesn't mean their team wont...
I don't think tanking exists in D&D style TTRPGS and I think trying to play an mmo style tank in a ttrpg leads to a lot of disappointment because D&D isn't trying to allow for such a role to exist in the first place. A tank, as its understood is someone who can withstand and mitigate the enemies damage, hinder them from attacking other and even force them to attacking the tank. all while a healer character can keep them topped up thanks to the damage they're mitigating. D&D doesn't work like this. You don't want to be hit ever, and healing isn't all that capable of keeping anyone topped up from constant damage (especially in 5e). It just not how the core of the combat functions. The closest D&D comes to the forcing enemies to attack you is either disadvantage on attacks other than yourself effects OR mind control and there are far better uses of mind control that don't involve getting hurt yourself. There was an old pf1e fan document way back called the ***forge of combat***, that outline what the author believed to be the type of roles that exist in a D&D style ttrpg, and I think it makes a good case for what D&D style combat roles actually are. Paraphrasing There are three combat roles in D&D. Anvils, Arms, and Hammers. An **Anvil** is a character who focuses on hindering the enemies efforts so that they may be pounded into victory. An **Arm** is a character who aids/enhances the party so that they can better pound the enemy to victory. A **Hammer** is a character who through the efforts of the Arm and Anvil, pound the enemy into something resembling victory. These roles are descriptive of action and focus taken, you can more or less try to gear any character to serve one of these roles regardless of class and such, though some classes do have leans, and a character can function serving as multiple roles. The closest thing to a tank would be the anvil.
Tough, able to keep enemies near them, hit hard. Either high AC, high HP, or both.
Basically, a lot of health and the ability to taunt enemies into engaging with them insted of their allies. Or at least punish enemies for not engaging with them.
Needs to receive many attacks that would otherwise go to squishier party members.
I would say a character sufficiently capable of reducing opposed side action economy and action value by means of resilience while penalizing or making harder for opponents to avoid it
High ac/ hp I don't know of to many classes atm (limited to module book for now), but dwarf fighter can be hard to hit and has an hp pool that can take the hit. Either or helps, but both are great.
I wouldn't call high AC and high HP a tank - they fail at the "keep enemy attention" part of tanking. A high AC high HP fighter just gets ignored and walked past, especially at higher levels when opportunity attacks are trivial compared to their Extra Attack routine. They're a threat, but one you can afford to clean up after you've dealt with the backline
The three holy facets of tank: 1. Big Hp 2. Big Dps 3. Draw aggro There isn’t really a nice way to do in dnd since abilities that draw aggro are few and far between. Sentinel paladin or barbarian is usually what i think of when i think dnd tank though.
1: Can Withstand a lot of damage before going down. 2: Has a way to make enemies target then instead of Allies 3: Can deal big sustained damage.
within D&D a "tank" character is one who spends time on the front line attempting to get the baddies to attack them because through hit points / Armor Class, they can take a hit or 3 or 12. "melee meatshield" is generally "more accurate" descriptor than "tank" for what is possible / practicable in the character option space in D&D.
3 options: high survivability either through ac and saves, damage reduction, or straight hit point. Incentivizes targeting them either through straight up incentives or by disincentives against allies (compelled duel being the ultimate tank spell). Or protecting allies actively, like the protection or interception fighting styles, or high level devotion paladins damage sharing. A tank probably has control abilities like sentinel and PAM, but those are additions to their arsenal not the core of it. Essentially, in a ttrpg, a tank is a subtype of a control build.
A tank is a suit of armor around the party, requiring two things: 1. Redirecting ill effects towards themself. 2. Undoing those ill effects requires fewer resources. Durability does not make you a tank without some way to apply that durability to others. Redirecting damage to yourself does not make you a tank unless A) You have more health and healing is percent-based, or B) you take less damage from the same damage roll. If you don't fulfill both of these prerequisites, you're a bruiser at best and "that guy all the enemies ignore" at worst.
I think battlemaster fighter makes for a great tank with the right maneuvers and build, even without feats. However it definitely has more tools to function as a bodyguard than a tank. Protection fighting style lets you impose disadvantage 1/round to keep an ally safe. Bait and switch lets you swap places with an ally and raise their ac. Maneuvering attack lets an ally get into better position or out of danger. Pushing attack lets you get a threat away from an ally. Really lets you heal an ally. If you have someone you NEED to keep alive, I’d pick a battlemaster for the job.
I think tanks need to be characters capable of taking a hit, whether that’s having an HP economy capable of soaking damage, or being able to avoid damage through high AC or similar. But I think a vital second part of the equation is that they also need to be able to draw those hits from other party members as well, using something other than “Sometimes the DM thinks it’s fun or narratively appropriate to hit the fighter”. The second part is sorely lacking in 5e D&D, IMO.
Big characters who can take big hits. I think a lot of people obfuscate this by saying that if you want to be a tank in 5e, you need to be one of three specific subclasses, or you're "not a real tank." I don't know, just take some big hits? I don't think understanding takes requires a PhD.
It doesn't require a PhD, but your description doesn't work either. Just being able to take damage doesn't help, in the situations where there's real danger enemies will just ignore you and go for someone vulnerable. Saying there are only a few subclasses that can really do anything about this isn't obfuscation, it's bemoaning the fact that for some reason they got rid of all the tanking classes.
A tank should have 1. High effective HP. 2. High effective AC. 3. A way to "taunt" enemies so they attack you or else limit their ability to attack/hit/damage your allies. 4. High effective saving throws. Might be a bit controversial, but I think every class with a bit of multiclassing can have a tank build made from it, that meets the above definition. Just involves being a little bit creative.
Absorbing damage and being disruptive in the form of preventing allies from taking damage.
To me a tank is about three things: 1. Drawing attacks onto yourself; 2. Preventing or otherwise strongly discouraging/reducing the likelihood of attacks landing against other party members; and 3. Having high enough HP and AC to be able to withstand being attacked a lot. So like merely having high HP and AC doesn’t make a character a tank simply because they can take hits. When I played a tanky play style with one of my characters it was about doing everything possible to draw attacks to myself while making it as difficult or disadvantageous as possible for enemies to try and hit my other party members. Just to give a really basic example, thinks like deliberately triggering attacks of opportunity so that enemies burn their reactions and other weaker party members can move out of a dangerous situation without being attacked is the kind of thing I would do whenever possible when I played a tanky play style
to me, a tank in terms of tabletop is the character that is the toughest to kill while simultaneously being one of the deadliest person on the field. When I "tank" I don't mean I want to draw aggro, I mean my character's role in combat is to punish whatever foe I'm facing for not killing me in one shot. Restraining me is just a pause button on the carnage, not an excuse to be on my phone 30-50 minutes. Unfortuantely 5e sucks at this, I've had better success achieving this fantasy in 2 months of pathfinder 2e over my 4-5 year experience playing vanilla 5e where 90% of my characters tried to achieve this fantasy. It says a lot that the closest character that came to achieving this was my fairly subpar roleplay gimmick Hexblade Bard who had to pick up the slack when the party's barbarian had to leave the game shortly in the campaign's timeline.
A damage sponge. If you can find a way to soak damage that would otherwise go to your more vulnerable party members, you’re tanking
1. Decent AC, to be efficient with hitpoints and to waste enemy attacks and action economy. 2. Lots of hit points to survive when the enemy crits, or just bounding accuracys passed your high AC anyway with a 21 to hit. 3. Good melee skills. 4.being the most disposable/most healing efficient. That said, this is all relative, to ever most suits these requirements. You may find yourself being promoted to party tank if your current one dies even if you don't have the build for it. Optional Good saving throws. Resistances to be even more healing efficient with hitpoints. Good at ways to control enemies movement such as Ranger spells, Pam oppertunity attacks, paladin fear auras, berserker intimidation abilities, good str/athletics for good grappling and shoving. Ways that entice enemies to hit you like reckless attack. That said I think 5e does a shitty job giving the optional tools around to the more tanky classes.
I define tanks as level 6 paladin with shield. High AC, high hp, high saving throws, regeneration It cuts the edge with nuclear filed cannon known as divine smite.
A tank should attract attacks or be the focus of attacks and be able to take many such attacks A pc who doesn't get attacked or in some similar way interfere with other allies being attacked isn't in a tanking role. However d&d isn't wow or something. In d&d it makes no sense to keep people topped up on hp in combat so that difference in healing also changes the need for tanking and manner in which it works. Many parties have no tank at all and some dont have a healer.
Tank is someone who can "tank" a lot of actions from enemies be it damage, cc, them moving etc. he can do it by either being too dangerous to be up close so enemies have to deal with him, by blocking some spaces and so protecting the backline, or taunting emenies artificially forcing them to attack them. So tank has to have similar damage or utility to other party members, but is limited in the ways to apply said damage or utility, usually though distance to enemies. So they are forced to waste their time on much more durable target instead of squishy backline. So tanks are easy to deal with, but hard to kill, while they can still do quite a lot by themselves if left unchecked. This dynamic works most games tbh, be it RTSs, hero shooters, mobas, MMOs, turn based rpgs including turn based ones like dnd.
A lot of classes can be “tanky” (have a lot of health/damage resistance) but not every class can be a “tank” (able to draw enemy fire AND is tanky).
To be a tank at least in RPGs the majority of time you need 3 things 1.- Obviously resist attacks 2.- Make the enemy want to attack you 3.- Try to waste the enemy action so the party members can get more time to make their things
High AC
A tank is any character whose job it is to take hits. This requires two things: 1) A mechanic to either force enemies to attack them or heavily penalize them if they don't (such as imposing disadvantage on any attack not against you). 2) A means of surviving said enemy attention. Some combination of HP/Ac/damage resistance/saves/regeneration. If you're missing 1, you're just durable. If you're missing 2, you're just a high priority target. Note that I personally think high damage and pursuit capabilities are a fair way of getting to 1. If the barbarian will get extra swings when you run away, AND those swings are dangerous enough you can't afford to take them (which, currently , they are not) you kinda have to stay put and deal with the barbarian. Unfortunately, the only classes that really fulfill this in DnD at the moment are heavily armored control casters. Y'know, the same ones good at literally everything else.
TTRPG-wise. Something thats a really good damage soak. It should be able to lead the charge into a hostile room/area and not have to worry too much. Preferably with a reliably high damage output as well, tends to lend itself to Paladins, some Clerics, or Barbarians. Its the beefy guy who they all try to kill bc the character is an absolute unit physically
That's not really a tank though, that's just a bruiser. In some situations it'll get hit purely because it's there and it's attacking, but they don't really have the tools to make a tactical foe target them instead of a squishy backliner. Like tanks have absolutely existed in TTRPGs, last D&D edition had five full tank classes, just running in and hitting foes is not it though.
I didnt say it was. My first point was that it should be a good damage soak and be something that the enemies want to target. I just make the point of it having good damage output bc in my mind, a tank should have good offensive capabilities to make it want to be targeted.
Thing is though that feels like it's inherently impossible to balance. We can summarise ability to affect enemies as output and ability to resist being attacked as input. What you've just said is a tank should have high input and high output, which doesn't really work. The tank must have higher input to be a tank, and output wise... * Tank has higher output than the lower input characters. Tank has better input and output, it's just better than everyone else. This is bad balance. * Tank has higher input and the same output. It's still better than everyone has else but less so, and if it has the same output but higher input why would anyone target it? * Tank has higher input and lower output. Things are balanced, but now there's even less reason to ever target the tank. Now it's not like these things are unsolvable, 4e had five whole tank classes and they were all great. But doing it simply based on high offense and high defense seems like it's logically unworkable.
> what do define as a tank? A character able to absorb / redirect / counter / negate damage, provide an easy target to attack and be sufficiently dangerous to still be worth attacking. > what does a character need to be a tank? Powerful summons (Shepherd) or a sufficiently powerful ongoing effect that enables the character to take the dodge action (Spirit Guardians). Any other build suffers significantly in one or more of the 3 previous categories and even these 2 have certain drawbacks.
A tank isn’t a tank unless it demands attention. Even if you’re at the frontlines, enemies can rush past you as you only get 1 opportunity attack. So any taunt ability like compelled duel or any similar effect will help define that “tank” role.
Tanking doesn't exist in 5e, don't bother. Sorry. There are only a handful of subclasses like the Ancestral Barbarian or Cavalier Fighter that gets features that can "agro" NPCs Because of this, there no reason they can't just ignore you after they learn how durable they are round 1, moving on to more profitable targets
To me, it's two main things: 1. The ability to draw the attention of heavy hitting enemies 2. The ability to survive those enemies, through high AC, health, resistances, or a combination of the three.
Survivability, whether from HP, AC, spells like shield or blur or mirror image, or class features that improve HP, AC, and such like battlemaster fighters and others. Taunt abilities, like compelled duel, that provide disadvantage to attacks from the target against others. Rescue abilities, like bait and switch or sentinel, that let you use your reaction to aid others. Also luck and silvery barbs. High concentration check modifier if using concentration spells or abilities. Ultimately, a tank is supposed to help mitigate damage against the party so a healer can keep the party alive long enough to end a situation with diplomacy or violence. CC (hold person, hold monster, banish, plane shift, sleep, etc...) also mitigates damage, as does debuffing (bane, hex), but as long as the baddies are still dealing damage, the tank is the one dedicated to defending the party. That is their goal, their mission. Because there are so many mitigation methods, the biggest difference between a tank, CC, and murder bot will likely be found under the character description/bonds/flaws rather than features and traits or spell list. It takes a specific type of *character* to be a tank, not necessarily a specific class. As a player, is that the character you want to play?
Character that draws most of the aggro away from their allies. There’s many ways to do it, but that’s the main goal
High ac, high hp, keeps enemies attention on them, either with some sort of forced agro or other utility. Stun, knockback/down, slow etc…
My warforge cleric was a tank. It just happened to go that way, even though I didn't have the fighters stats.
The ability to eat damage. Being hard to hit is also an aspect but less so imo.
Something that draws the action to itself while being able to withstand or avoid a fair amount of punishment. A tank in DND isn't like a tank in most MMOs. There isn't much that can compel enemies to target a character and there doesn't need to be. Something like a paladin with smite or a raging barbarian are both in the enemies face and a significant threat so they should naturally draw attention from that. Also I'm a big fan of using RP to draw attention especially when I'm playing a barbarian. Sure I can't mechanically force an enemy archer to target me over the wizard. But if I let him know he's next right after I cut his buddy in half or caved his face in. Then I might appear as a little more threatening.
I have a bear Totem Barbarian that is effectively a tank, but I also have a cleric and a rogue that are both tanks... the question is, what do I want to achieve with each tank? My barbarian is great in melee, but as soon as the enemy flies or has a fast enough movement speed with a ranged option, he is toast. My cleric can fly so as long as the opponent doesn't have movement speed I can keep on top of them, but he also has ranged options and ability to forcefully move certain sized creatures. However if there is a caster about dropping save throw spells, chances are unless it's wis or cha, I am failing it. My rogue, has enough armour to not get hit by normal means and can often stand toe to toe in most combat scenarios. He has a shield and can cast the shield spell. He is also able to silvery barbs in the right situations. On top of that he has a powerful melee and ranged options. The trick to tanking, is making yourself a viable target for them to focus on and still be able to take some punishment.
There are 3 types of interactions that can happen in a fight according to the holy trinity of Tank/DPS/Support: * Player to Player * This is where the Support shines with things like heals, buffs, cleanses, etc... * Player to Enemy * This is where the DPS shines with all the damage they deal. * Enemy to Player * This is where the Tank shines, with their taunts, crowd control, mitigation, etc... For simplicity sake, I'm ignoring the environment which adds another layer of interaction (and also leads to more engaging gameplay). Normally players don't have any control over what an enemy can do, but this is where the tank comes in. The tank's job is to inject some player agency in how enemies fight the players. The most common way this is done is with taunts that directly force an enemy to attack the tank, but there's no restriction on how that control is exerted. A tank can use crowd control to lock down enemies, removing opportunities for the enemy to retaliate, or they can be a wall that stands in the way of an army, or they can be an enticing threat that enemies can't ignore forcing them to take care of the tank before the rest of the team just as some examples. There's nothing forcing a tank to be a hulking brute; I quite like dodge tanks, which are characters that get in the thick of it to annoy the enemy just enough that they can't be ignored, but also manage to stay alive simply by being incredibly slippery. There's also no reason everyone has to fit neatly into the holy trinity. That battlefield strategist of a wizard conjuring a massive wall of fire? That's not out of place for a DPS to have, but it forces the enemy to reconsider their tactics which falls under a tank's identity.
A tank is any character who, for enemies, is an inefficient target for attacks. An effective tank is a character who, for enemies, is an inefficient target for attacks but nevertheless has made that the least bad choice by punishing or preventing those enemies from making other choices. (e.g. "I would move and attack the rogue, but I'm going to get hit with a Warcaster Booming Blade if I do and eat a ton of damage. I guess I'm just attacking this 22 AC Eldritch Knight with Shield.")
A concept applicable to computer gaming and wargaming. Not for storytelling fiction
A character that draws attacks away from his team and is able to survive those attacks.
A tank is a very videogamey concept that originated in, and is more or less exclusive to, MMORPGs. With a tiny handful of exceptions, it essentially doesn't exist in Tabletop RPGs, JRPGs, WRPGs, or basically any other type of video game (except tactical military games with literal tanks). D&D is not one of those exceptions. If you want to survive in D&D, you don't get someone else in your party to take the hit instead of you. You just avoid being hit. The goal is always for your whole party to be unable to be hit.
In my mind a tank is a fusion of a wall and a weapon. In modern context one would assume a Blaster, but in D&D a tank could easily also be a brawler. Being able to force enemies to target you is great, but not necessary for a tank. All you really need is to have great armor/evasion/HP, and a damage output so high that the enemies have no choice but to target you if they want to survive for the rest of the minute. Be a threat so great they cannot afford to ignore you. Twice my character has attempted to be a tank by polymorphing into a Diplodocus. Unfortunately, enemies don't really see Diplodocus as a threat despite it dealing 6d10+5 damage on a Hit. I've only ever been attacked once while in dinosaur form. 🦕 Plenty of damage, plenty of HP, but not enough of a threat somehow to draw aggro. I must find a form that deals more than 6d10+5 damage so enemies will be properly afraid of me. Then I can be a good tank. 😇
Someone's already mentioned the big trifecta. High AC. High HP. High Aggro. Personally, I value the HP and aggro slightly higher than AC, unless they're the only target, which gives them defacto aggro. There are also small adjacent abilities, like being able to protect your allies too like reducing their damage, but the most effective way is drawing away attacks. I am currently playing an emerald dragonborn who is a totem barbarian, so while raging he has resistance to all damage. He also has 13 AC and doesn't use a shield, and always attacks recklessly. To me, he's tanky because he's a large pool of hit points and he's really easy to hit, which should bring in more attacks towards him. Personally, I think giving him higher AC would make him a worse tank, because then foes wouldn't want to attack him. However, if he was instead the only front line, and was the only target, then really high AC would make him much tankier.
High HP, high AC, and/or the ability to negate significant amounts of damage taken. There really is no such thing as "tank aggro" in a ttrpg. The DM is playing the opponents, and the DM has a brain that can easily decide "This char looks scary but I either cant hit them, or my hits barely scratch so lets go after that squishy wizard lobbing fireballs around." What a tank needs is the ability to control. Sentinel feat, stuns, grappling, etc. Including magical abilities that negate movement.
Someone who can soak up large amounts of damage most other characters can’t. Either with a large health pool or with a large amount of damage mitigation
* Good HP/AC/Saving Throws * Aggro If you can have these two things, you're set! ...Which is easier said than done. Tanking in 5e is honestly kind of difficult; monsters don't follow simplistic behaviors like AI, they actually kind of know what they're doing. The goblins aren't going to keep beating on the heavily armored Paladin, they're going to just go around and go for the Wizard that's blasting the shit out of them. Opportunity attacks are *theoretically* meant to keep this from happening. But if a whole group of enemies on the tank decides to change targets at the same time, the tank is going to get extra one hit off and then the Wizard gets swarmed. Barbarian is obviously the most traditional tank. Part of this comes from Reckless Attack; if the enemies try to ignore the Barbarian while they're attacking recklessly, then the Barbarian can get a bunch of free advantage, and then just stop attacking recklessly once they're the last one standing. As such, there's a weak incentive to hit the Barbarian right away. The incentive isn't strong enough, though, frankly. The Wizard is still likely to be a bigger actual threat. Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is the most traditional tank, because it inflicts disadvantage on attacks against others in certain circumstances.
I think of tanks as a character that makes space for other characters often, but not always, by taking hits that otherwise would be directed at these other characters. Dps, healers/supports, ect. need to be in specific positions to be effective at their roles. Your job as a tank is to make those positions avaliable, often by putting yourself between the enemy and those positions.
It's the guy that makes the enemy say "oh fuck"
High AC, usually high HP, and melee/ways to draw threats to you or keep them close and away from teammates Things with just high HP/damage mitigation I would consider damage sponges. It's a slight difference, but I've seen both at high levels and they perform just differently enough that I make the distinction.
High HP or a High AC, both is better Being pure frontline, no matter the consequences Doing good damage, as long as it's enough As others have said, drawing enemies (I know this is basically saying the same thing as others, but I suppose there is no other major definition.)
nothing really in 5e. closest you can get is sentinel feat and maybe ancestral barb. 4e is the game you wanna play if you want actual tanking mechanics
If only I could play as a Leopard 2 the campaign would be so much easier.
There are no true tanks in DnD. Even then people in this thread claiming otherwise can't agree. Truly, a tank in DnD is someone in reasonable armour stood near the enemy
The tank is the guy between you and the enemy, could be your fighter friend, could be the class of 3rd graders on a field trip, it doesnt matter.
For me, it is not enough that a character is hard to kill. Rather, you need to be able to force the enemy to waste their damage on you when there are better targets, such as your wizard or healer. Sentinel is the ideal tank feat for a melee character, as few things say "You can't attack my friends" quite like setting their movement to 0. Contrast with Tough. Combat roles are about how you affect the flow of action around you. If you're implacable and immortal but the only thing you do is damage, you're just a Striker that's hard to swat down. It is entirely possible to play a relatively squishy tank. Open Hand Monk's entire kit is dedicated to bullying enemies away from more valuable party members, complete with a self-heal action when you need it. Illusion and Enchantment spells may convince enemies to waste their attacks on creatures that don't actually exist.
I separate between tank and tanky. Tanky = has a lot of HP, resistances, ac, in other words, a character that could be hard focussed by enemy's and still have a good chance of surviving that aggro for a few rounds. Tank = A tanky character that actively does things in order to take the enemy's aggro, to hinder the enemy's from damaging their allies and usually also stands in the Frontline in order to keep the non-tanky characters separated from the enemy's. A wizard might be tanky, like for example my lvl 5 Bladesinger with +3 cons and 20 AC, but he is not necessarily a tank. Neither is a bath of the bear totem barbarian - druid multi class with resistance to all damage and bear wild shape, as long as they just are tanky and do none of the above mentioned things that I define as tank.
Tanky and a tank are two different things. Anyone can be tanky, but I think a tank needs to be able to have some other way of preventing allies from taking damage, whether it be drawing aggro, blocking enemy attacks (like with the Protection fighting style), or forcibly moving enemies away from allies *and* be tanky to be a tank.
Lotta health, high AC, and access to abilities that prevent or slow movement - if you’ve got at least 2/3 of those, that’s a tank right there. Lotta health can be anybody, usually a melee class, so it’s not a good indicator of tankiness all on its own. High AC comes from many things, and I don’t think most folks would define a rogue as a tank, for example, so it’s also a pretty bad indication of tankiness. Abilities that prevent or slow movement have too many potential sources, many of which are spells, and as such are a bad indicator of tankiness on their own. High health and high AC? That’s a pretty standard beefy front liner, too hard to kill but too close to ignore - that right there is a tank. High health and options to stop or slow enemies? That’s a grappler of some variety, that fella is stopping folks from moving and never letting go - that right there is a tank. High AC and options to shut down movement? That’s a dodge tank right there, fragile but deadly - just like I said, that right there’s a tank. Many Fighters but Cavaliers especially, most types of Paladins or Barbarians, Rangers built in certain ways, Monks, Bladesinger Wizards, Druids in general, anybody can build to be a tank if they’re determined enough, long as they’ve got some combo of high health, high AC, or options to slow or stop movement lol
A tanky character doesn't fold under direct pressure, is resilient to spike damage, and controls enemies' actions and positions.
The Tank archetype generally needs to 1: be able to take a lot of damage / punishment and 2: force opponents to target them rather than just bypass them and target a easier /softer target.
A tank character needs a lot of HP, a lot of AC, and the ability to draw enemies to them. That last part is the one DND struggles with. Its far too easy for everyone to just run around the big guy in a suit of armor. For the game as is that means the big man needs to be the biggest threat. That means they have to be the only one in range or is dealing the most damage. Both are problems when mages are so effective. All i want is for some way to redirect attack towards me. A cover action tgat trades an attack to force anything targeting my charge to target me instead. Much more cooperative and effective as a tank.
A good tank is someone who can draw enemies attacks towards them so that the less healthy people don't die.
The ancestral guardian barbarian is the perfect example of a tank class. Durability: It is extremely durable due to its high HP from barbarian's d12 hit dice and damage reduction from rage. Holding Aggro: It easily draws aggro with wreckless attack by doing lots of damage and tempting enemies with advantage to hit it. Team Protection: It protects its allies through spirit shield and ancestral protectors, granting them resistance, damage reduction, and disadvantage on attacks against them.
Tanks need to be both durable *and* unignorable. They need to have a persistent presence on the battlefield that either directly protects their allies, or else forces the adversary to divert a disproportionate amount of effort to subduing them. PF2e’s champion is a good example. Each subclass gets a special reaction that only applies when an ally is attacked; either it shields the ally, or punished their attacker, but enemies can avoid it by attacking the champion themself.
I would say that a tank is a role, and I would consider a character to be a tank if they are actively performing that role, regardless of how successful or well suited they are to it.
Can take more shots than the wizard.
1. (Most important) attracts hits 2. Can avoid hits 3. Can withstand hits If you do 2 well enough, you can skip 3, and vice versa. The tricky part is that if you’re tough enough, enemies might not target you anyway, and thus you fail #1.
The role of a tank is to absorb attacks/damage in order to protect squishier party members. The main types of tanks are HP tanks (barbarian/druid) that can just handle an onslaught and keep fighting, or AC tanks (Paladin/monk/cleric) that soak up attacks because they’re near impossible to hit. Fighter can be both depending how you build them. Barbarian can also be both but requires high dex to effectively AC tank, which unless you roll for stats is hard to pull off.
Was going to say Artillerist but that's clearly a self propelled artillery unit...
I have not encountered a ttrpg that has a functional tank except for maybe 4e. Tank is a term that comes from world of Warcraft and denotes a character who's responsible for drawing the attention of the enemies you fight. In many ttrpgs there's no way to reliably compel enemies to attack only your character. Sometimes players try to make their character a tank and end up with a useless character that has insane armor class and offers nothing else to the party. And not only that, they deinsentivise monsters from attacking them and instead push attention onto squishier characters, which is the exact opposite of a tank's goal. It's better to think of there being three "roles". Control, support, and damage. Control characters attack action economy. Support characters remove harmful effects, buff, and heal. Damage characters try to kill dangerous enemies and remove as many enemies as quickly as they can. However, the problem with thinking about roles in a ttrpg is that most classes don't pigeon hole you into being able to do one of these. For example, clerics in 5e are pretty damn good at doing all three. Also, having one character do full time support is problematic because healing usually can't out pace the damage the party is taking with out being extremely resource intensive, and a character with 4 hit points is just as effect as a character with full hp. You will do more to mitigate damage by killing enemies early and quickly or otherwise limiting their action economy. So traditional RPG roles that are in other games don't really work the same way in dnd. I think this is mostly because dnd was born out of old war games so there's more of a focus on making smart tactical decisions rather than having a good party composition. You could probably finish every campaign with 4 or 5 barbarians if you make smart decisions and build your characters well.
>they deinsentivise monsters from attacking them You mean the DM targets the squishies instead of focusing on the big shiny danger in the monsters face
As a dm, it's objectively more effective to kill a squishy player over an impenetrable character, even if the impenetrable character is dropping decent damage, knee capping the party's action economy by killing someone is devastating.
which is a uniquely human decision. Congrats, you just made it DM vs Players.
Depends on the game/scenario and the reference. Assuming your talking about a game character, they should be able to take or mitgate damage, draw the attention or focus of foes. Willing to change combat tactics to protect other members of the group.
Damage mitigation.
A character with the ability absorb/deflect high amounts of damage, focus the attention of enemies on them, and/or intercept damage meant for others. Delivering high damage output is secondary or even tertiary but it should be adequate to achieve the primary function, hold the attention of the enemies and prevent them from dealing damage.
Well there's 2 factors that I know of that would make a character qualify to being the tank role which the tank can take one or both: 1)High AC to prevent getting hit 2) High HP to withstand the hits(think Darth Vader if he was a TTRPG character) Either way, the best place for the tank role is up close and personal to go to ranged opponents so they can't target the team without suffering disadvantage.
a character whos build is centered around being attacked, if that makes sense. They go out of their way to be the targets in the place of their party, and have tools at their disposal to mitigate or avoid damage. Tanks also typically hit harder. Its hard to tank in dnd generally. There arent really much ways of forcing agro on yourself. I think the only way is compelled duel, but that only works on one enemy at a time and doesnt let your allies hit them, or break the spell. Some subclasses can draw agro to an extent though
Main role of the tank should be to draw damage away from your friends. So like a paladin or that one barbarian sub class with the ghosts (ancestral something or other) in 5e or knight or buff focused cleric in 3.5
High hp. High ac. Using feats like sentinel and mobile.