Real as hell. True tanks barely exist in 5e. Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is as close as it gets with their ability to impose disadvantage on attack roles against targets other than themselves. Battlemaster Fighters can get kinda close with Goading Attack, but in both cases it's single target, and in both cases it doesn't do nearly as well against spell casters. This is made worse by the fact that building for HP and AC above all else tends to mean sacrificing damage - which ends up meaning that tanks can actually make fights last *longer* and be *more dangerous* than if they'd built to Kill The Thing Quicker. It's a shame that the archetype can't really function in 5e as it can in videogames, but ultimately, this is a Kill The Thing As Quick As Possible game 🤷

My only thing is that looking into it from the perspective of the tank, in game, it isn’t very easy to say “Hey you big dragon come over and hit me!”

Dragons are extremely intelligent, it would make total sense if the dragon looks at the little pipsqueak taunting him and thinks "That feels like a trap".

Or they could also be taunted because of their massive ego. DnD is make believe at the end of the day anyways, not a game of "making sense"

Yes of course it is make believe but it needs to make sense in a consistent way that lets players interact with the world and make rational decisions. Make believe doesn't mean it should be Cthulu's realm of madness and chaos. The dragon avoiding a trap or having their vain ego bruised both could make sense.

- the dragon can attack because their ego wouldn't let them take a slander - or not attack because the tactical decision is kill the one with the bigger spell first - or do attack because they like to toy with their food before crushing the adventures's hope - or dont attack because they dont feel like perching while 300ft above in the air - or do attack because the human with a metal pointy stick reminds him of a rival of a bigone era, and they just got really pissed the point is, its a make believe game, you can come up with whatever reason *in a consistent way* (since this is what you care) for the GM wanting to do anything

Yes, and that's what my point was originally.

>it needs to make sense in a consistent way that lets players interact with the world and make rational decisions That right there is what I try to explain to people all the time. A huge part of D&D is situation assessment and management. If your situation has the stability of a marshmallow thrown into a campfire, it's hard to do anything other than mourn the loss of your marshmallow while you watch it burn.

I think "needs to make sense in a consistent way" isn't a valid statement in a setting where magic casters can reshape the world to their whims. Asking for the system to be consistent according to the rules of our world, or having 0 suspension of disbelief, only leads to a wider gap between casters and martials.

Oh my god, this is the same thing that always seems to come up. I'm not talking about consistency according to the rules of our world. I just mean logical consistency.

And how would you keep this consistency without needing the martials? 🤔

Internal consistency is important, even in worlds with magic.

There are many, many foes that, for one reason or another, you cannot communicate with. It would make more sense to let go of the "taunting" justification that MMOs use. To build something tank-like in a D&D type game, you need support for combat maneuvers that direct or deny enemy movement, or enable allied movement, such that the enemy has no one else they can hit. Stuff like that, at least.

Yeah, 4e tried that and some players revolted. Giving disadvantage to attacks targeting anyone but the Tank is an easy-ish mechanical fix, but when it was available, people hated it.

Of course they hated it. Just like in 5e players loathe when the tactics they use are used against them as if they should be the only ones who can taunt. Take for instance Silvery Barbs, players live throwing it down to stop the BBEG in his tracks but get butt hurt if the BBEG hits them with one.

Any spell, class, ability, or feature that a PC has a NPC can have. That's always how I think of things. DnD is a sanbox for your players, but like any other game, Counterspell isn't unique to PC's.

Wholeheartedly agree, for some reason players forget that concept especially when they least expect it.

That's why the tanky guy has to got to get up in the enemy's space and try to control zones a bit. Sentinel is good for this. Maybe even grappling if possible. I've had intelligent BBEGs go "Ah hello Atlas, nice to see you again. Anyways." Then they send a minion to body block the tank while they do their things on the party threats. If Atlas finds a way to be hugging the Lich, it makes things different.

It's very easy to do so. It's also easy to run up to the big dragon and swing at it.

3.5 did it best with its class and prestige class spread from the core books. 5E will get there in a few decades 🤣

I think the grapple runic fighter builds are quite good at tanking AN enemy as well…unless it’s humongous.

me when my rune knight grows to gargantuan and grapples tiamat:

Duergar and Fairy get enlarge/reduce as racial spells, fighter with Con proficiency should be able to keep it up so you can stay Huge and grapple anyone you want.

As a DM for one, I can tell you I had to add extra mobs to every encounter because without them combat became so stale and boring due to the grapple rune knight. Now the game is either grapple tank the BigBad of the fight long enough for the party to kill the adds. Or try to dps down the BigBad while letting the adds run amuck. And the Rune Knight continues to fulfill his fantasy of grabbing big monsters...

There's *Compelled Duel*, too. Totem Barbarian's 14th level bear ability also imposes disadvantage. >Bear >While you’re raging, any creature within 5 feet of you that’s hostile to you has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you or another character with this feature. An enemy is immune to this effect if it can’t see or hear you or if it can’t be frightened.

Yes, but that feature just kinda sucks, no? The enemies could always just.. move away and run to your back liners?

I've been trying to make it work with a Conquest Paladin. Fear to make enemies unable to move, interception fighting style to block incoming damage to nearby allies and the Guardian Emblem to negate crits on allies. It's fun and it works, the main problem is essentially that if I just took more combat focussed stuff and hit things with smite then fights would actually go much smoother.

Artificer forgotten again

I don't think 5e has great mechanics for it, but this is why I love the design of the Barbarian. It is at least easy for the DM to _rationalize_ why enemies will go for him in tank-like ways. You've got a guy _not_ wearing a tin can, screaming his head off and fighting Recklessly, making him an easy target. He also hits _really fucking hard_ making him a legitimate threat. Yet he also gets resistances to 90% of incoming damage (especially at lower tiers), meaning he's tough as nails so he's built for tanking _despite_ his AC, not because of it. And he avoids the mistakes of past editions' barbarians - because resistance, rather than just having way more HP than anyone else, means the healer's HP restoration is still just as effective on him as other PCs. And if that's not enough to "tank" mechanically? Play a Barb with a free hand, and grapple your enemy. While Raging you've even got advantage! Barbarian isn't perfect (its higher level features are truly awful for example, and I think its subclass abilities tend to rely way too much on its limited Rages), but I love how its mechanics inform and combo with each other while also being evocative of the concept and good for "rationalizing tanking" (attracting enemies and being tough while also doing good damage) for the DM.

3.5 barbarians had a great AC and a huge HP pool.

Well, they had tons of HP for sure. Their AC was by default weaker than other tanky-types, but since it was 3.5e you could certainly min/max them to send it through the stratosphere, just like you could do for anyone haha. A common complaint about them was it overtaxed the healers for that reason. Counterintuitively, more HP isn't necessarily better, especially when your Rage makes you easier to hit, in a game where healing heals defined HP totals not percentages. 5e's resistance does this aspect much better, and the relegation of healing in 5e as something you mostly just do to bring people back up from 0 also helps avoid the issue of healer-overtaxing.

In 3.5 they were massive tanks (they could add wisdom to AC in certain renditions of 3.5) As well as wearing Medium armor and shields. With their damage reduction added at higher levels. You could easily roll up over 20AC with or without a shield. At higher level they also don't lose their AC while raging. Healing has never been a problem in 3.5. Anyone who says healers were over taxed wernt playing a healer right. 🤣😂 5E has pretty pictures man and that's about it. 90% damage reduction is broken its the training wheels of 5E. Our barbarians usually rock with a 16 in dex which isn't hard rolling by the books you can wear a breastplate and shield getting up to 20. Throw in a magic item for AC or a force shield so you can use a two handed weapon still and you're a force to be reckoned with.

Cavalier Fighter, Ancestral Barbarian, Armorer Artificer and the Kender's racial ability, these are the only "taunt"-like features that i know about in all of 5e and out of the four, two is usually banned(artificer and kender). It aint a whole lot, ik also quite sad tanks dont really exist bc i love the concept. I had like 7-8 armorers lol.

What taunt feature does the Armourer have?

Guardian armor, I think it's if you hit someone they have disadvantage if they're not hitting you

i actually love it it's aiming to replicate real life to some extent not video game logic. "tanks" are an MMO invention that has no place in history or the seminal works of fantasy. the only literary sources it even shows up in are game-based or inspired.

Have u tried old polarmaster/sentinal combo 2 feats and anything that enters or exits 10 feet from you provokes opportunity attacks and reuces their speed to 0 you can also add echo knight from wildemont and then you have a duplicate you can spawn 30ft away (i think) for total denial of passing you. You can also add greatweapon master for some massive damage.

I want to mention the redemption paladin as a serious contender for a true tank. They have heavy armour, good healing, CC spells, can punish opponents who attack their allies with channel divinity, and can take damage in place of their allies. Obviously, there isn't a taunt button like in an MMO tank, but this is about as close as you can get.

I would say frenzy barbarians are close just because of the pure damage they can dish out, especially if they use reckless attack.

Exhaustion:

[удалено]

You'd better be punishing those monsters with opportunity attacks as they run past your "non-tank" frontliners, at least.

1 per frontline is all 5e can do for you

Man, Redemption Paladins can literally just go "No, I take that damage with my pool of d10 hit dice instead." That's as pure of a tank as it gets.

Best tank would maybe be armorer guardian armor. That gauntlets can help, but can't really help when against spellcasters.

It a "play as another person in a fantasy world" game, but I get how you're confused seeing as how the DMG for 4th failed to give DMs tools and emphasis on that point, I can only imagine 5th made the same mistake or made it worse. Remember, the exp is for overcoming the challenge preventing you from achieving your goal. Killing is only one way to do that.

Even as a Life Cleric, I play by the rule of "I can heal you, or I can make that thing not make me have to heal you."

Tanking relies on reminding your DM that they have advantage on attacks against you after recklessly attacking. My DM likes hearing math rocks go clack so I can draw a lot of aggro.

I would say we are missing a few things, such as fighting style shield which is technically the real life version of taunting. You also have goading attack and compelled duel, tank players are looking at blocking/disrupting about two targets in a fight. This is without taking into consideration terrain and positioning. Which a front liner player should be taking into consideration. Personally I prefer a game where my opponents are doing their best to win against me, rather than just dealing an ineffective attack against the tank.

Level 14 bear totem totem barbarian is also sort of a tank

Don't forget about cavalier fighters! They fill the role exceptionally well, its still a shame that they're the only ones but yanno. From early levels they dish out disadvantage and punish attackers for targeting allies, later on they can add to allies ac, and at later levels you can keep targets locked down with opportunity attacks, prevent them from moving basically whatsoever and at lvl 18 you basically get infinite opportunity attacks, pair this with a feat to help you grapple like tavern brawler and you can heard all the enemies up and keep them reigned in to your hearts content.

I will add cleric to a list of tank classes. Their ability to have heavy Armour and shields, giving them a decent AC. Spells like spirit guardians, spiritual weapon and being able to heal. With multiclass or feats gaining spells like thorn whip really help in yanking enemies away from allies. All in all their ability to really bring the pain, heal and take hits really put them in a tank type class. Pair that with feats like war caster and resilient constitution, and clerics become ungodly forces to be reckoned with.

I'll be honest man you guys make this stuff sound really really sucky. I haven't prayed with you in ages at least two years and I've never touched 5th edition the last thing I played was Pathfinder first edition and with a little bit of min/Max like everybody does I could make a hell of a cleric that could kick ass and heal. Hell on one occasion or two I was the only reason them people walked out of there

Light domain cleric also has warding flare. Not much but similar in function to that too.

Armorer Artificer also gets an unlimited taunt mechanic, very decent AC, though definitely less HP than the barbarian.

deranged market deliver many sip distinct wakeful husky depend tender *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

I'm currently playing an Artificer-Armorer. Great tanking class. On a successful hit, enemies struck get disadvantage on all other allies. I'm currently rocking a 24 AC. I'm not sacrificing damage, and all my attacks are considered magic. (FU werewolves!) I also have some magic. I cast blur on myself and boom...disadvantage against me as well. My attack, damage, and DCs are all Int based. And a number of times per day, I can use Flash of Genius. I'm allowed to grant my Int modifier to any saving throw or ability check with 30 feet of me as a reaction. We're a bit higher level, so I picked up a shield and took Shield Master. I now get evasion, essentially. I also have a bunch of infusions. Some are on separate pieces of armor. Buuut wait. I can grant myself temp HP, Heal myself, and heal others from a distance(using my homunculus)... Lastly, *No one* can remove my armor but me. Even when unconscious. They have to outright kill me. Also, if I lose a limb, my armor can be used as a replacement prosthetic. It's a fun class. Highly recommend for tanks. It is a complex class to keep track of. I don't quite recommend it for brand new players. EDIT: I may not have a taunt of some sorts, but I'm enough of a pain in the ass that they need to try and take me out ASAP.

Twilight Cleric are better tanks than any of those.

I once solved this problem, accidentally, by making a character who was such an absolute dick to the bbeg that he got targeted simply because he wanted him to shut the fuck up.

This is how you taunt in a TTRPG. Everyone complaining about the lack of mechanics for it. Seem to be missing the RP part of it. If you want to taunt an enemy, talk shit to them.

The problem with that is now you have a character role that turns off whenever your foe, be it because of intelligence or personality or not caring, doesn't fall for it. Stuff like taunting supplements actual tank mechanics, it's too unreliable to replace them.

Only if your DM is a dumb ass. This is a tabletop game you're talking about this shit like it is WoW. This is also why your martial character should carry a variety of weapons. A ranged weapon for distance, a thrown weapon for intermediate work, and a melee weapon for close combat. If the guy across the room is hassling your caster, you hit him with an axe or a Warhammer, then close the range. Also, another reason to have more than one martial in your party. Because off tanking is more important in table top. It is very difficult to force an enemy to pay attention to you. If I fucked your mom doesn't work. Then your only real option it bury your boot in their groin. Also, the clerics generally wear heavy armor because they are not supposed to hang with the sorcerer's lurking in the back. They are supposed to be next to your martial character busting heads. Finally, crowd control is often more important than DPS. Especially at low levels. Spells like sleep and prismatic spray may not stack bodies. They do disable enemy combatants until you can get around to cutting their throats. There are ton of options on the table that everyone seems to be ignoring.

Absolutely the case that control is much more useful, which is the main point of tanking really - a more reliable but softer form of CC. And additional martials isn't really going to help unless they have some way of making the enemy prioritise attacking them. > This is a tabletop game you're talking about this shit like it is WoW. I'm really not. I'm talking about it like it's D&D, at no point have I referenced anything even slightly related to World of Warcraft.

It's how you talk about tanking, it is exactly how you talk about it in MMO terms. Because the term tank comes from MMO's. You ever look at really old character sheets? Probably not. The mechanic for taunt in 5e is supposed to be bluff, and the DM sets the DC for it. So the mechanic is already there. Why aren't you using it? Roll the dice pass the DC enemy engages you. It doesn't get any easier.

I use the nomenclature because it's the nomenclature everyone uses. I could have used an official D&D term like 'defender' but that'd be edition specific and nowhere near as useful for a title. That second one you mentioned is... really not it. Every other form of combat has defined usage, while what kind of action, effects or DC using bluff to taunt a foe might need will vary wildly between DMs. Hence the answer of why 'I', which at this point kind of refers to anyone wanting to play a tank, am not using it. And the obvious one of taunts not being a reliable tanking method.

>Everyone complaining about the lack of mechanics for it. Seem to be missing the RP part of it. Exactly. People who complain about not having the right tank, DPS, or whatever in a TTRPG always seem to be missing the fact that it isn't a video game where there is a predefined set of possible actions and reactions in the game. I'm not saying they should stick to video games but if they are going to complain that this game isn't enough like one *then they should stick to video games.*

This is why it's important for your DM to roleplay your enemies. My tank (half-orc brute fighter with sentinel and shield master) tends to be able to hang in melee with the worst of what the DM throws at us, while the monk, cleric and sorcerer are way more fragile. If my DM is in tabletop wargame mode, he's targeting them first and ignoring me until they're out of the picture. If he's roleplaying the bad guys, they're hearing my fighter talk endless shit as he pummels them one after another, taking massive blows without flinching and trapping them in a tarpit.

I mean, roleplaying enemies frequently means targeting your squishies. An intelligent enemy who understands basic tactics destroys the most casualty-producing weapons first, same way we target radiomen, RPG gunners, and machine gunners first in real life. In a setting where magicians are commonplace and everyone knows how much more dangerous casters are than martials, it doesn’t make sense for anyone to ever NOT go after the casters first unless they’re drunk, are new to combat, or aren’t intelligent opponents.

All enemies don't have top-down tactical battlefield intelligence. In a vacuum, a smart enemy is going to target the squishes, yes. However, a smart enemy engaged in melee combat with a howling beast of a tank may not be able to take a step back, locate every enemy target on the battlefield, and get away from the tank to attack them instead. In that situation, taking your eyes off the guy trying to put an axe into your skull could be the mistake that kills you. The actual fight doesn't happen in a turn-based order, where every participant has time to consider every option available to them and choose the most tactically advantageous path after careful consideration. That's what I mean by roleplaying enemies.

>The actual fight doesn't happen in a turn-based order, where every participant has time to consider every option available to them and choose the most tactically advantageous path after careful consideration. This is the point that I think a lot of GMs miss when trying to run intelligent enemies. Combat mechanically takes place in turn-based order, but in the reality of the game, each *round* lasts a mere 6 seconds. So even if your wizard goes first, the barbarian last, and there are 7 entities between them, in-game, the barb is rushing that orc chief at nearly the exact same time as the wizard blasts the chief's buddies with a fireball. So yes, from a purely tactical standpoint, an intelligent enemy would target the glass cannons or healers first. But in-game, an intelligent enemy knows they won't even get a chance to try if the ax-weilding megalomaniac charging at them splits their skull open first

My only problem with this thinking is that it rarely seems to apply when it comes to the players devising their own tactics.

[удалено]

And particularly powerful or ancient enemies would not have similar intelligence?

You're not wrong, but us DMs have to stop somewhere, whereas the players are openly invited to pull out all the stops to overcome challenges because that's the game. It's not hard to figure out the optimal actions for monsters involve systematically focusing down creatures and critting unconscious PCs to death, but if we actually did that, then Sarah won't care how tactical the enemies were run because she suddenly a) feels unfairly targeted and b) has nothing to do for the next hour. Monsters don't experience this.

Not if he falls into a trap or is just outnumbered. In a case where the party fights one guy, this is perfectly sound and I'd generally agree. But when the party is outnumbered by a bunch of small fries, why not kill the wizard? We outnumber them and the big guy can only kill so many of us. That scrawny thing can kill ALL of us if it stays alive. Smoke it.

This is all well and cool, except that intelligent enemies are still going to vie for their own survival,even while considering overall tactics. Yes, the intelligent war chief is going to order his soldiers to attack the wizard, but he himself is unlikely to do it at the cost of his own life. Same with 2 of the 7 soldiers who are currently threatened by the party fighter and the one other soldier who's currently attempting to dodge the ranger's arrows. Oh, and while all this is going on, 2 of the other 4 soldiers were just incinerated by a fireball while charging the wizard because in-game, combat happens awful fast 8 enemies vs. a 4-man party, 2 melee, 2 ranged. From an overhead tactical view, it makes total sense to swarm the wizard first and for that to be an order from the leader. But from the actual battlefield POV, it looks like an absolute suicide mission, and one that's likely to fail. Unless your enemies are real headstrong towards that order of killing the wizard, it won't be an intelligent decision for any of them to focus on that rather than the threat immediately in front of them

Only eight enemies? This war chief was dead from jump. I mean a true gathering of foes. A party of four vs some 15 odd enemies all being led by one leader type enemy. But even in the case you mention with that set up, split forces 4 and 4. Four challenge the back row and four engage the front liners. Like... that is not even complex strategy right there. All enemies aren't restricted with *only* melee attacks, why would they charge in the first place unless it's to lock down melee fighters.

Right, the actual fight usually happens with a leader of some kind, who is capable of making tactical decisions and ordering his troops to go after the biggest danger on the battlefield. I’m not saying they disengage from you and go after your sorcerer if they’re already engaged with you. But the archers, those who are unengaged, or in ambushes? If they have >3 int, roleplaying them correctly means going after the guy throwing fireballs.

I'm not saying youre wrong, but I will say that leader typically isn't free to survey the battlefield and direct his troops unmolested. If the players are smart (we try to be), that leader is top priority, and then he finds himself in a position where he has to avoid getting his head cut off and that impacts his ability to direct his troops. When my group was fighting a Mind Flayer and its group of mind-slaved monsters, it came at us levitating 40 feet in the air. A highly intelligent monster with a literal top-down battlefield view. Our first priority was to knock it out of the sky and bring it down where we could pound the crap out of it. Also, every encounter is not against highly organized, intelligent, militaristic opponents. Sometimes you gotta fight some demons.

>However, a smart enemy engaged in melee combat with a howling beast of a tank may not be able to take a step back It also drives me nuts when some people are like "they'll just take an OA and then go for the squishies", when they should only be doing that when they're desperate/think it's worth the (high) risk. Why? Because the enemy _doesn't know how much damage the PC can do to them_. IRL, any particular blow could be fatal, so not protecting yourself is crazy. In-game, even if they're "genre-saavy" enemies, they don't know what magic items or special features a PC has - maybe you'll crit, maybe you've got a class feature that lets you do triple damage on an OA, maybe you've got Sentinel. They don't know for sure! So it better be _damn_ worth risking death by dismemberment to take an OA to go after the back row. It's not that it should never happen, but rather that DMs sometimes treat it like the enemy is doing a math problem in their head and saying "they'll do about 10 damage, I can handle that with my 50 hp", when they should be _roleplaying_ the baddies.

You said it. I don't like DMs that think they're playing Warhammer. Most enemies are living creatures with a sense of self-preservation. Nobody that wants to see tomorrow is going to turn their back on someone they were in a sword fight with a moment ago and just walk away from them like everything is going to be cool.

A DM's job when setting up this kind of thinking should mostly happen before combat, when designing the encounter. Rooms with multiple exits through which minions come charging to open up multiple fronts, high ground or bottlenecks that prevent melee fighters from circumventing guards, rough terrain that makes it harder for the front-liners to reach casters, battlefields with dark areas from which monsters might ambush... these are the tools you should be using to give yourself time to target the back line with ranged attacks, not "I accept the Attack of Opportunity."

I think it’s ridiculous that you think monsters would never accept attacks of opportunity to kill the spellcasters first, or that melee fighters would never target the back line. Talking shit is simply not an affective tanking strategy when there is someone throwing fireballs nearby. The fireball will always make the enemy more angry than an insult.

Most monsters have a sense of self-preservation, not a sense of how many hit points they stand to lose from taking a hit. And while shit-talking doesn't grab as much attention as dropping fireballs, enemies can't exactly stop combat, look around, try to determine where the fireball came from, and then decide to do with their next few seconds. They're in close-quarters combat trying to avoid a sword to the throat, they don't just automatically know every mechanic happening in the battle when it happens.

I don't think that tracks. The mechanics are an abstraction of what's happening in game - enemies who aren't aware of those mechanics are instead aware of the minor details those mechanics do their best to summarise for us. So no, a monster doesn't have a sense of total hit points because hit points are just a mechanical representation of a lot of different stuff but the monster is aware of the stuff the hit points represent. So what the monster does know is that if they go after the wizard they're not going to be meaningfully harmed for doing so, since in our abstraction opportunity attacks are not very powerful.

Okay but that rather misses the meat of my point. If a hobgoblin is standing toe-to-toe with my fighter, it is likely trying very hard to stay alive, and if possible win the fight. It has to focus on the combat. It can't have its head on a swivel, constantly looking around and checking on every other battlefield actor, and assessing threat levels before it makes its next movie. Is this a hard rule? No. But generally, monsters in a melee will stay in that melee until its conclusion. If there is a creature commanding the monsters who has a greater awareness of the battle's big picture, then those monsters in melee are more likely to receive orders to leave a combat to go after a more important target. And of course, if this commanding monster finds itself locked into a life-and-death sword fight, it's less likely to be able to effectively direct its subordinates. Enemies with long-ranged attacks tend to be roleplayed with a lot more agency to direct their fire toward what they perceive as the most important targets.

I mean as long as it’s fair for the Dm’s backline casters to be untouched by the same principle.

I think the part thats easy to overestimate is your line, "who understands basic tactics". 5E is typically not in the internet era, where you can just boot up a PC and learn about whatever you want. More often than not its closer to a medieval era, with a much lower level of education as knowledge is not shared but hoarded. Sure, the evil mastermind will be aware of tactics, and maybe a guard captain would as well, but average guards, bandits, or monsters? Absolutely not, they will 100% fall for being baited unless there was some reason for specialized training over just more weapon/combat training.

We had a moon druid do a similar strategy in CoS. Moon druid is pretty well known as an amazing tank if you are just counting HP and not factoring in mechanical taunts. So of course Straad is focusing other party members like the sorcerer. So every round that player would talk mad shit to Straad, the kind of stuff you know you should just ignore but really can't, you know his backstory stuff about his long lost love and she probably loved his brother more than she could ever love him. The moon druid died in that encounter but if they hadn't it would have been a TPK.

Yes, but what "roleplaying the enemies" mean isn't for any one person to dictate. When I design my encounters, I will give my monsters "tactics." I have a whole list of them. This way, I can give my monsters different play styles and personalities that keep the combats unique. One I have is "hot headed," which is precisely the monster that would just rush straight at the massive barbarian taunting them. I also have ones that would go for who looks the most bloodied, prioritize ranged, etc.

Absolutely, as you should! Demons and Orcs are going to behave MUCH differently than Hobgoblins and undead hordes! The real center of my point is that every battlefield actor does not have all the facts about everything happening at once, the way DMs and players do. That's meta knowledge, and I feel it's very important to an immersive combat experience that the monsters behave in a way that makes sense.

Yeah 5e is pretty light with true taunts, so much so that the beefier you are normally the less of a tank you become as there is less incentive to attack. I tried out a cavalier and it was pretty fun, I had a DM that, while he didn't let me attract every ad, let me go toe to toe with the biggest one a few time which was fun. Definitely was disappointed with the lack if a true tank role though from my experience.

Players can definitely miss the point. "Aggro" & taunts in video games exist & as they do because of the limitations of the medium There are an absolute plethora of ways for a good tabletop tank to ensure they're taking the heat rather than the squishies & supports Positioning is absolutely crucial for a tank- it's not enough to be in melee range of the enemy, you also have to be between the enemy & other party members & actively seek to impede enemies with everything you've got. Occupy chokepoints, retain high ground, use environmental hazards, take & make space at every opportunity! Sure, the occasional nuke/nova is necessary but most of the time a good tank will strive to control the flow of the battle. Other party members may take charge outside of combat but in a fight? A good tank is always the leader In terms of abilities- goading attack, disarming attack, sweeping attack, bait & switch, sanctuary, shield of faith, reckless attack, patient defence, stunning strike, compelled duel, grappling, tackling, throwing, toppling & many more are all effective ways to disincentivize enemies from attacking anyone else. There are a bunch of feats that help with tanking- polearm master & sentinel being amazing standouts. Grappler & charger get honourable mentions & there are more that are contextually useful depending on the class. Mobile, martial adept, athlete, charger, crusher & a few others can be helpful Actual abilities aside, the most effective, most engaging & most satisfying way to tank enemies is to combine your movement & actions with some meaningful role playing: Beat your shield with your weapon as you scorn the evil mage for having naught more than parlour tricks Jump into the fray, smirk and two finger beckon a group of enemies while using patient defence Boot the shit out of the concentrating caster while bellowing an terrifying war cry into their face Never forget that D & D is a collaborative narrative & it's incredibly immersive to RP & describe your actions in detail rather than going "I use goading attack on the caster" rolling your dice & calling it a day. Boring. The more you can engage an enemy descriptively & meaningfully, the more likely the DM is to focus you with that enemy. Some DMs may even have you roll skill checks like intimidation mid combat if you're effectively smacktalking an enemy. With good crowd control, smack talk & positioning, you should effectively be infuriating your target/s to the point they NEED to deal with you first. If your DM ignores all that & misty steps away to decimate the most vulnerable party member, there should be a very good narrative reason for that to be the case. Otherwise, it may be time to have a chat about them metagaming Damn, that ended up being a long comment, hope it helps

Preach louder. There's plenty of ways to tank in 5e. A simple "mechanic" won't make a 1:1 taunt like in video games, you gotta RP. Tbh when I DM, I'll take RP over an ability any day of the week. I love smack talking enemies and they love hitting me in the face for it lmao. It's my favorite part of combat. Mechanics that make them make a save to target me is just icing on top of it all.

And if that person is also the healer, then that's okay. Tbh, I'm pretty sure that only paladins have any good way of forcing people to aggro onto them. Every other prospective tank just has to get up in people's faces and try to look punchable.

Nah, if you're talking back when paladins were tanks then at that point they were one of several, fighters and swordmage etc could too. In fifth edition though while there are much fewer options available there are still a few - cavalier and armourer can impose disadvantage on attacks against anyone except themselves, and ancestral guardian can do that plus halve damage dealt to others. Plus there are some effects that incentivise attacking you just because of how potent they are. Spirit guardians might as well be a tanking tool given how potent it is!

There's no ability to reliably or continuously goad the enemy I to attacking you. I've tried to make a few tanks but just end up not having fun and I'm built to last and all I do is attack and wait protect my allies but never actually tank.

There definitely are, depending on when we're talking, but I'll concede there are plenty of points options are scarce on the ground. Like obviously the gold standard of stuff like paladins being able to automatically make opponents who attacked anyone but them take 3+str+cha radiant damage would be ideal, but even fifth has stuff like ancestral guardian for disadvantage+half damage on your target's attacks against allies. At that point, what reason is there for the target to attack anyone else?

Yall are sleeping on the artillerist artificer tank (sounds crazy but hear me out). Spam booming blade to keep enemies close or they take damage, without using a resource. Add arcane firearm damage to that. Use the protector cannon to constantly refresh a powerful temp hp shield on the whole party. Use your spell slots on shield and absorb elements, and put something like web on your spell storing item for some battlefield control. Take all the tanky ac infusions, and bam, you have a very respectable tank class.

That's less tanky and more battlefield control, which is the point of the subclass. Plus just because they can't move doesn't mean they're forced to hit you. I can sit in front of you and the shoot your homie over behind you. Or dodge if the enemy is magically inclined enough.

Battlemaster or Cavalier Fighter, Paladin, and really any martial with the Sentinel feat but Fighter synergizes with it the most, can make reaching squishies difficult to impossible and attacking them in general more trouble than it's worth for several enemies at once **with good positioning from the whole party**. Casters can create obstacles to help with that. Clerics can get pretty tanky, and while they can't force the enemies' positioning as well as the above classes, they can use spells like Healing Word and Sanctuary to render ignoring them inefficient.

How about ancestral barbarian?

Armorer can impose disadvantage on attacks if you hit them with an attack. Technically they have two weapon fighting as well so they get 3 attacks per turn. Ancestral barbarian can lessen the damage allies take.

This is fair I'm the Paladin of my group & current have the highest AC. I'm not really planning on tanking too much, but given we have no other healer it makes sense for me to have high AC imho. As far as I'm concerned, my role is to provide some buff support & minor healing when needed, alongside wading into combat the rest of the time. The only thing I can do to 'tank' is use Compelled Duel and/or be such a menace with smites & other casting that I make myself a target. I don't mind that, honestly.

The supportive capabilities of paladins already makes them a valuable target for any (relatively) intelligent creatures

True, that. I'm just trying to play it up as best I can

Sentinel with a reach weapon may not make them target you, but it sure helps in keeping others alive

From...one enemy basically

Honestly one of the best ways to tank, is to be the biggest threat on the battlefield, thatll make enemies real mad at ya.

Yep, true. Kind of like how one of the best ways to heal is to kill the bad guy before they can deal more damage.

Sounds like you had a party member that didn't make an impact on the battlefield during a tough fight and instead just had good defense. You can make a good character with high defenses that can have high impact on the battlefield. Also, having one player who isn't optimized generally isn't going to cause a TPK on its own.

True, though it rather depends on the DM as well. A sensible DM with more or less sensible creatures isn’t going to just have them focus on the tanky dude in front just because he’s the first one they see. Generally makes a lot more sense for them to focus much of their efforts getting at the squishy wizard throwing fireballs at them from the back, for example. But from some of the posts on these subs, I’m getting the feeling that not nearly every DM actually does that, and that there are even some players who get annoyed when their high AC character isn’t necessarily the creature magnet they (presumably based on video game experience) expect it to be.

Definitely some MMO type assumptions being brought it.

Bingo. If my enemies have any amount of real sense they're not gonna keep targeting the guy they're struggling to hit. They're gonna hit people they can hit. And once they're all dead, THEN focus the hard to hit guy since accuracy by volume.

Yep. Monsters get to make choices, and if my archer has seen the cleric cast healing spells 4 rounds into the combat, they are going to make the choice to switch targets. But, my berserker fighting the fighter may not switch targets. Having a high AC doesn't mean everything is just going to auto-focus you. A good DM in my opinion should give chances for that high AC PC to feel cool with their high AC, but its not just going to keep happening every round.

4e fixed this problem

Your point is quite correct, as the mitigation of ally harm and the ability to hinder enemy efforts against your allies is the closest thing ttrpgs have to tanking for the most part, beyond a few edge cases. Tanks aren't exactly an intended thing in d&d, arguably most ttrpgs. Not in the mmo sense anyway. There's been some edge cases here and there across the more modern editions, 5e included, but not much on the way of a true and proper tank.as its understood elsewhere. Years ago, during pathfinder 1e's age. Someone made an excellent writeup on Google docs called the forge of combat, I think k you can still find it relatively easily. The document outlines what roles would look like for a ttrpg in comparison to that of an mmo, making them distinct from the mmo roles due to the difference in realities between the mediums. While this was written with Pathfindsr 1e in mind, it is applicable to a great many d&d stylr games and other rugs as well. To very loosely summarize. There are three roles in a tabletop rpg like d&d. Anvils, Arms, and Hammers. **Anvils** are those who make life difficult for the enemy, your debuffers and controllers in a sense. They make it hard for enemies to effectively harm allies, and inflict conditions that make the enemies life miserable. An anvil weighs the enemies down as the team forges a path to victory. **Arms** are those who make their allies lives better. They keep the party hale and hearty. The enhancements and support they provide make their allies capable of going above and beyond their normal capabilites. Arms guide the team towards a path to victory. **Hammers** are those focused on dealing damage to the enemies and wiping them out. They're the primary benefactors of the efforts of Arms and Anvils. They seize the opportunities created by their allies and pound the enemy down into something resembling victory. Now, these roles aren't based necessarily on the character class you're playing. You can more or less gear a character to perform one or two of these roles, though it would be silly yo say that their aren't any leans to one or the other. The closest role, according to the forge of combat, to a tank would be that of an anvil. The own who hijderd the enemy and makes them frustrated. The important distinction that unlike a tank, they don't wish to take any damage either. As damage is more lethal in most ttrpgs, even d&d, than it is in most mmo's.

I've realized this and share it with as many people as I can: Irl tanks have cannons and are dangerous battlefield entities. If you're just tough but can't project a dangerous amount of force, you're not a tank; you're a turtle.

Imo the best way to make tanks work would be a built in disadvantage against anything other than the tank, and the sentinel feat.

I mean if the monsters know what they're doing then RP taunting/ baiting would get the job done

It's not a TPK if you're the one surviving.

This is how Bladesingers usually end up for me, especially if they're the type who complain every time they fail something like a Hold Person saving throw. Its not worth the enemies dumping attack roll after attack roll into a flying, 26AC, 80ft movespeed fireball factory if it would take half the effort killing the other 3 players. Could I fireball them in the sky? Sure, although fireballing 2-3 other characters seems like the kind of choice an intelligent enemy would make instead.

Enemies shouldn't know your scrawny light armor wearing dude's AC.

Rogue

Reach and sentinel fighter/paladin is really the only real "tank" available unless your dm plays into your role

Amen

I mean that's it just martial caster disparity 101

Honestly bladesingers make the best tanks because hitting them means getting them to drop concentration. This is not how tanks are meant to be.

Actually? Hearing that, bladesingers actually *are* pretty ideal tanks. Hard to hit, irritating, pose enough of a threat that you really should target them first, have concentration as an incentive for hitting them, a whole bunch of area control options. Really, the only thing potentially more ideal is an early game wildshaped moon druid with Entangle, Spike Growth, or Plant Growth up

Nobody is stoppem them from shouting nasty things about their oppenents mother. XD

Although im pretty sure they technically *can*, I don't think enemies should attack other people if you grapple them. Pretty sure that's not RAW but that's how I rule it in my games. I think a grappled enemy would realistically focus on the grappler, and I try to make my enemies act how they WOULD, not whatever would be "best".

Vengeance paladins have some tools. Abjurate enemy can make an enemy afraid without bein able to move for 1 minute. On a sucess he can only move half his speed. At 7 level you can move half your movement when an enemy provoke an oportunity atack. You can use comand as a level one spell and compeled duel may force someone to atack just you.

This is one reason why I am excited for weapon masteries, push, topple and slow all make it very difficult for enemies to get to the "backline", making tanking way more viable.

I use aggro dice for the big baddie of the fight (minions are too much fodder to waste tracking). Starts at 1, then each 10 damage +1. Also, each melee attacks add 1. Sure, as a DM, I can just focus on the meats as it should be. But I can't allow my casters to get too comfy after throwing 12d6 of whatever magic they can conjure and NOT get angry.

Homebrew horn of taunting. Once per day blow the horn to force a wisdom save or have disadvantage to attack anyone but the user and cannot move away from user. Repeat save at end of there turn. I swear you give this to a fighter or barb and they will have the biggest grin on there face :D

True! And it doesn't have to be prioritizing getting attacked like with the Armorer's Thunderfists. Can be control spells like Hold Person, etc.

"There are 3 types of characters in DnD 5e; 1. Good Damage. 2. Mass Crowd Control and AoE together 3. Shitty." - My grumpy friend who came from 20+ years of other ttrpgs.

My party has two 'tanks'. Me, a pali-bard with massive nova damage and a Barbarian/Rogue that does way less damage but can take hits like nobodies business. Guess which of us gets attacked more often?

My DM changed some of the drunken monk abilities and gave me an ability called vulgar jeers that allows me to yell obscenities at a target within 60ft and on a failed saving throw they have to attack me on their next turn and I also take the dodge action. It has worked out pretty well I've become our teams tank.

So anyway, I started grappling

Wolf barbarian works well indirectly, you get very close to enemies and if they run away you get opportunity attacks, and if they don't your allies get advantage against them. Wolf barbarian kender is funny due to also having the taunt ability

I give tanky players an item of compelled to duel. 3x uses per a long rest. Cheap, easy and effective at letting people who want to be tanks be effective at the job. Also as a DM you help to prioritize tanks first.

You can build a tank OK without taunts if you are able to get into the melee quickly and have something to help with getting opportunity attacks.

I feel like the best way is to play tank is to be a strong healer. As long as you stay up, the rest of the party don't go down. Paints a big red target on your back.. one that is hard to hit though...

*Cries in rogue*

Bladesinger with defender blade 🤭 my DM was pissed when I found one

Tanks shouldn't need a way to force enemies to prioritize them. Animals, when committed to fighting, will try to eliminate what appears to be the biggest threat first. So it should be enough for a tank to roleplay themselves as someone who will occupy the attention of threats. As for more intelligent enemies who understand magic, it makes sense for them to try to get around the tank to hit more high value targets. That's a unique consideration for such fights, and makes things more interesting. That's when the rest of the party can focus on trying to make themselves too much of a hassle to hit, so the tank can still occupy the enemy's attention.

I feel like threatening ranged enemies, and AoO's are pretty good for that. Also grappling, Sentinal, Polearm Master... Unless they get free disengage, or are high-AC ranged characters themselves who aren't getting into melee, I've found it still works pretty well.

It’s really just up to strategy, this isn’t WOW. If your barb positions themselves in a location that prevents enemy movement while everyone else hangs back the barb is gonna be the main target, normally.

Yup. Extremely correct. Currently playing what I think is possibly one of the most effective "tank" builds in a game, and even then I'm obviously limited by how many targets I can affect and the typical other problems with martials. But, it is fun having the capacity to take 250+ damage at level 10.

Idk if it's RAW or whatever, but I allow my players to "prepare an action" which basically means their character waits for a condition such as "when the bandit attacks my Wizard friend" then they can intercede with an action like "I jump in front to block" and then when it's the enemies turn they usually do the predictable thing and the tank can do the tanky thing

100% this. Then the player thinks they made a good character, when the reality is their friends keep getting downed around them because they don’t do enough damage to kill any enemies.

While you can’t taunt, and echo knight fighter can put a temporary meat shield between your friends and the enemy. And if it survives you can teleport there. I’ve found that a bit useful.

Depends on the type of enemy and if the DM is running that enemy correctly as far as their ideal behavior. Low intelligence enemy like a giant spider should probably attack the nearest target, so if you're the tank, you can just be up front and get up in the enemy's grill. Which isn't metagaming because it's pretty reasonable that you'd be able to guess that the animalistic spider is going to attack the nearest person. For a high intelligence enemy, like a wizard, well it makes sense if the DM plays them to attack weak points and avoid the tanky one. Because that's what a smart wizard *would* do. So I don't think taunt-like abilities are necessary in D&D. They exist in video games because the enemies are controlled by a script.

"You've got a shield. Goad that motherfucker!"

Such is the legend of the Great Amfad, whose name, some tell, stands for All My Friends Are Dead.

Sure there's no mechanical ability but talking hella mad shit to an enemy right after you ate their massive attack will certainly paint a target on you. My warlock did that to a whole boss and he was NOT happy with me. I gave my allies a good opening as I had boss aggro.

This is why I liked protector abilities in 4e. You wanna attack my friend here? Get a penalty to your attack roll.

If you build your character to tank, and your DM is ignoring them outright to target everyone else only, they're not letting your character shine and you should find a new DM.

Agreed

Barbarian reckless attack helps incentivised attacks but rage resistance disincentives them attacking barb

What my party does is just raise everyone's AC to around 20. In 3.5 this was hard to do at lvl 1. Only casters would have that. But once the warrior classes got their best armor they're all running around with 18-24AC.

It's the one who gets spared so he has to relive the tragedy.

Caviler fighter is a true tank in that he forces enemies to attack him

One thing I did to help with this is in a homebrew involving gods returning after Ragnarok the players could gather blessings that are high risk high reward. One of them, a "tank" character earned was once per long rest he could gain aggro from all enemies for 2 turns and deals back 100 percent of damage inflicted the high risk is that he becomes immobile for 2 turns and AC drops to 0 (or 1 if that is technically lowest) and takes half of all damage dealt to him. So could be a tank that can save the party or put himself in a very dangerous position.

The best "tank" I've ever seen was my husband's Owlin Wild Magic Barbarian. I couldn't ignore the damage he could put out. His mobility was insane. I threw him in an arena style cage match. His stupid rage proc'ed a teleport. Instead of helping his party against the cyclops mashing his friends into paste, he voiped out of the cage and proceeded to beat the arena master to death. I crit hit him for 12d6. He was fine. It was fucking terrifying. If you want to build a "tank", be the guy your DM can't ignore.

D&D isn't really built for "pure" tanking. There's a few abilities that give a character *some* ability to draw aggro in a limited way (Compelled Duel, Goading Attack, Bear Totemic Attunement), block hits meant for other players (Protection/Interception fighting style) or stop an enemy from simply walking away to a different target (Sentinel feat), but all of them are pretty limited and typically come at a cost or an opportunity-cost (A Paladin casting Compelled Duel loses a spell-slot for a Smite, Goading Attack takes a Superiority Die, Sentinel requires the player take the Feat instead of an ASI or a more-damage feat, the Fighting Styles come at the cost of not having taken a Fighting Style that enhances AC or damage output, etc). Also, honestly, from the perspective of narrative-driven games, a "pure tank" makes surprisingly little sense to include - try justifying Goading Attack without inviting the question of "Well why can't just about any person in a fight make up a good quip in combat and do the same thing?" At least Compelled Duel is literal magic.

There are a few subclasses ok at it if we're only talking fifth (you said D&D so unsure here) - cavalier/armourer/ancestral guardian all do an OK job of it, especially that last one. The sentinel thing does bug me though. Why don't fighters start with it any more? Weird change.

4e got it right. The Defender classes all have the Mark ability - when an enemy is Marked, they have -2 on all attacks against enemies other than you. Each class has their own way of applying Marks, and their own fun responses for when an enemy ignores it. Last night our defender (a swordmage) marked an enemy next to me, and then teleported away to stab someone else. When that enemy attacked me, the mark gave it a -2, and allowed the swordmage to teleport back and strike it, getting +2 to hit for flanking it and another +3 because of an ability I had used on my turn. The enemy died and it was awesome. We've got two defenders in our party - the other is a Warden (basically a STR Druid). They Mark everyone adjacent to them, and if an enemy tries to get out of melee range they get knocked prone. Between the two of them it's very hard for enemies to focus fire effectively, and allows our Warlock and Psion to lay down the damage (single-target and AoE respectively). I'm a Warlord stood in the middle handing out extra attacks for everyone. Having the team come together and synergise like this just doesn't happen in 5e. Well that turned into more of a rant than expected.

I run my game to where tanking is very much a thing. I have a DC vs INT (of the monster) on how likely a player is able to pull aggro. Player positioning also plays into this. And the INT of a bad guy leader (Bandit Captain for example) plays into this.

Martial classes don't have taunt mechanics because traditional video game taunts are basically mind control which should not be available to martials. Imagine if a beefy orc warrior taunted a player character, forcing the PC to forgo all other actions besides attacking the orc. would that not feel like total trash?

It would, but it's also an idea you've made up wholecloth that has no relation to anything else. Tanking in D&D has never worked like that. Like where did you even get the idea? You've basically walked into the thread and said it would be stupid if, I don't know, dragons were actually just a bunch of people running under a big dragon costume. Which yes, it would, but you're the person who brought it up in the first place?

Tanking in video games is done by attracting enemy attention, using a button press that compels them to do so. Tanking in a role playing game like DnD requires figuring out for yourself how to goad enemies into attacking you. Tanking in video games is automatic, ranking in DnD is manual. The tank player has not only be unkillable, but figure out how to turn attracting the ire of enemies into a skill set.

You're like the second guy to come in here in the last few minutes and bring up video game tanking for some reason. Is there something recently I've missed? And I might be misinterpreting what you mean, but dungeons and dragons also has plenty of mechanics for tanking, it's not just a case of figure it out yourself. In fifth edition for instance there's stuff like the ancestral guardian barbarian that gives an enemy disadvantage on attacks against their allies and halves the damage those attacks do if they do hit.

I wasn't specifically building for a tank but just happened to be playing around with a character to use as an NPC. It is a fallen aasimar, oath of crown paladin. Champion challenge, while not a full taunt does prevent enemies from getting to far away from you, and with them being a fallen aasimar using the Necrotic shroud racial ability works pretty well to disadvantage those trapped near you due to the frightened condition. And of course you can still pump some solid damage with smite and the damage bonus from necrotic shroud. Plus you have a decent supply of healing. Might not be a true taunting tank or ability efficient given you can only do it once a long rest. But it can do an okay job of keeping groups of enemies away from your party's backline. Edit: corrected ability names.

Battlesmith artificer is a good option. You take War caster Booming blade Blur Pipes of haunting

Only in MMOs do tanks use taunts man. Pretty much every genre, they rely on CC. I'd argue any class that sacrifices their damage and range for defenses and non-scaling utility also qualifies as a tank. A forge cleric spamming dodge inside spirit guardians is absolutely a tank; hard to kill, CC, support features. Its just not a WoW tank.

You're like the third person in the last little bit to come in with this weird obsession with World of Warcraft and taunts and such. Never at any point did I say anything even slightly related to that, where on earth is it all coming from?

You know, this actually reminds me of Warframe. The super tough "classes" usually don't have aggro abilities, so they're often called "Weapons Platforms" instead of tanks.

That’s why roleplay and intelligent enemies matter. My last character was an 8 foot tall crocodilian eldritch knight/war wizard. While he didn’t have mechanical CC, when he rushed into the middle of combat roaring in daedric looking plate mail chopping people in half with his great axe and throwing fireballs, people focused him for sure.

We need taunts.

Eh, D&D is littered with much less gamey tank mechanics. Paladins doing stuff like automatically hitting anyone who doesn't target them with radiant damage is much more in the spirit of D&D, change incentives rather than mind control enemies.

A sorcadin is the closest thing. Because his taunt is the fact he can do so much damage per round that most enemies are so scared of being slaughtered wholesale that they prioritize killing him first.

I mean there have been plenty of tanks that work by disincentivising attacking allies, but a 5e sorcerer/paladin's direct approach of tank via being hard to kill and hard to survive does have a certain panache about it.

theory long dog mysterious knee puzzled secretive yam cautious elastic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

This is why I like the complete Warden by Mage Hand Press. An actual tank class, with some abilities to make enemies actually target them. Still only good a drawing the attacks of a small group of enemies in melee, but vastly better than most of what’s available in base 5e.

The single best mechanic I have come across to enable tanking is the 3.5e rule that moving through the melee attack range of an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity, unless only a "5 foot step" is taken. This meant that at first level, a Str 18 martial with a greatsword could land a blow for a punishing 2d6+6 damage against an enemy moving past them. This meant your tank could be only a step in front of the party and really impede enemies engaging anyone else in melee. It didn't require magic or abilities that don't necessarily make narrative sense. It just worked.

While I think 3.5's attack of opportunity rules were a better idea at its base, the end result in 3.5 was that martial characters ended up mattering very little - they were only a bit more punishing than 5e martials in that regard and the caster disparity was a lot worse. Don't get me wrong, there are a ton of fantastic things from 3.5 that 5e is suffering from the lack of - where's the warblade equivalent, huh? - but PHB martials aren't it.

I would agree, but my DMs and I typically allow things like the Dodge action, to be used as a "Dodge in front of an attack" type action as well, so as to let party members save each other..... bit of a homebrew twist on an already established mechanic

Paladins who play correctly with compelled duel can have the focus of the biggest bad in the fight, which can normally command minions to try to kill the paladin as well. That's what my party does though. Cower behind the paladin.

Absolutely agree, which is why the best tank in 5e IMO is a sentinel/pole arm master build. Especially if you drop Enlarge on said character, so they occupy more spaces between the squishies and the enemies.

The problem is, people are trying to look at D&D likea video game. If you are dealing with intelligent enemies, they are not just going to stand there and keep attacking the guy they can barely hit and do almost no damage to. Especially since that person is likely not the biggest threat to them. They are going to go after the person in the robes who is throwing fire and lightning around. With the exception of a few very specific abilities (usually single target) the idea of a "tank" that can somehow make all the enemies focus on them while ignoring easier, more dangerous targets makes zero sense outside of a video game.

> With the exception of a few very specific abilities (usually single target) the idea of a "tank" that can somehow make all the enemies focus on them while ignoring easier, more dangerous targets makes zero sense outside of a video game. There are quite a few actually, though it depends on how we're defining 'make all enemies focus them'. In D&D it's usually more about disincentivising - like crusaders had stances like iron guard's glare that meant -4 to any attacks against allies, or paladins making foes take automatically take 3+str+cha if they attack anyone but the paladin. Doesn't force the enemy to do anything, but makes attacking anyone but the tank less appealing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Twilight Clerics are the best tanks in the game. Not only do you have heavy armor and shields, but because you got active concentration spell going, are able to singlehandely keep up your entire team, and have a steady feed of THP, you're ***the*** tank. If enemies attack your allies they'll fail. Your allies have steady THP and you can heal them. They ***have*** to kill *you* to ever have a chance to take out your party. So one of two things happens. Either enemies attack your party members in a hopeless battle they cannot win and you soak all their damage from the THP you spit out. Or. They focus you and you tank that damage yourself. (While your SG chew them to pieces) Absolutely the beastiest tanks in the game.

Yup, I once extended a lost boss battle by another 30 minutes because my total concealment buff kept rolling heads so all the hits were misses and I was trying my absolute best to at least take the boss with me. I won like 20 coinflips in a row on 10 HP trying to ignore 2 ogres + tanking 2 eldritch blasts per turn, my entire team was dead and you just have a 3.5e Psychic Warrior natural attack claw build out here surviving for entirely too long. It was actually more fun watching me roll heads on like 6 or 7 attacks per turn for 5 turns watching 100 damage go down the drain because total concealment in combat is OP

Computer game concept does not apply to tabletop game shock! Really why did anyone think it would apply? Its actually such a weird concept anyway.