Ashton is the first real tank in Dnd 5e - Critical Role character analysis

Ashton face by Robin
Link to discord, patreon and twitter:
www.patreon.co....
/ discord
/ pack_tacticss
my-store-c2bae...
Tabletop builds, Squidhead's article:
tabletopbuilds...
Artists who have helped me with making videos:
/ drakeven1
www.youtube.co....

[@eddiewalter6003]

"Laudna absolutely can do damage if she wants to" Ah, I see you haven't met Marisha's dice

[@Lucarioguild7]

"DONT FUCK ME GILL!"

[@yuvalsela4482]

Don't fuck me on this, Gil!

[@LocalMaple]

She borrowed them from Will Wheaton.

[@jarridb91]

Hahaha

[@GramGramAnimations]

Hot take: Concentration spells are a pseudo taunt

[@naturalkind5591]

Especially fear

[@wastedspam385]

More so towards the DM, than the enemies lol

[@emilymitchell6823]

Finally someone said it! If you really wanna fuck with your DM in a friendly way, be an armourer artificer/bladesinger wizard. Taunt them by giving enemies disadvantage on attacks against everyone except you every single turn, cast Haste on yourself, have an extra attack that can be a cantrip (Booming Blade), and still have 4 autosuccesses WHILST adding your INT to every concentration check lol

[@shenronsgoldfish]

Only against intelligent creatures no animal knows what the magic does

[@naturalkind5591]

@@shenronsgoldfish honestly, similar to how creatures know to run if you aim a gun at them, I'm pretty sure enemies would know that magic = bad

[@ArrogantDan]

"I'm Lawful Evil, have you seen the way I run this channel?" Perfect. And also, nice hook for the CR fans who are bound to discover your other vids from this one ;)

[@master11211]

This is me, I have now found this channel and will proceed to watch everything

[@robinthegeminigoblinbard8964]

@@master11211 As you should!

[@probablythedm1669]

That's implying I haven't seen every video already... which I have. Then again, I'm just on episode 3 of Exandria Unlimited, so I do not know much about campaign 3 yet. 😅

[@JefCollier]

I didn't scroll down to the comments until Kobold stated that line. I was not surprised to find this at the top!

[@rachdarastrix5251]

I don't want to admit that I don't get the joke, it hurts my pride. I'm only mentioning this after 4 days of getting over it. Regardless, I don't care if they say it is something a good DM would do. If you are going to throw your life away making a stupid tactical decision, you don't deserve to be called a dragon. Cunning, adaptability, natural armor, speed, maneuverability, greater strength and tactics, with a superior intellect behind it, is what separates dragons from humanoids. Anyway while it is true that a dragon isn't good at tanking while on the ground against an entire party taking their turns fact is dragons still have an AC and HP high enough that a friendly NPC dragon can still be better at tanking against other NPCs than a player with some health potions and healing spells to amplify it. Some dragons are actually better built for ground fighting than others who are better built for flying.

[@darylchambers9138]

In a very recent episode on Critical Role, Ashton was able to summon a portal that allowed his Hammer to appear next to a flying creature and hit it. Very cool subclass that allows the character to feel effective in multiple scenarios. I’m looking forward to how it develops as it gets higher in level.

[@AllegoryGar]

In a recent talk, maybe it’s called 4 sided die? He talked about the different options

[@chechema1010]

no more waiting for the dragon to quit flying, lol (looking at Grog)

[@TraceC616]

No way it’s already been a year since that happened! Where did the time go! I feel like the campaign just started!

[@kaibabcock6348]

Ashton doesn't get both the aggro and the slow+no reactions. He rolls a d4 when he rages and gets and effect based on this (similar to wild magic barb). They are gravity, time, space, and possibility. Gravity is the pull+aggro, time is the slow+no reactions, possibility is (I think) a d4 added to attack rolls, and we haven't seen space in action yet. This subclass is based on the fundamental forces of the universe and especially chaos itself. He can tank very well or deal better damage, but both are based on which rage they get

[@jaimeruiz7837]

Space probably gives him a spell to throw rocks or some random shit so he can have range.

[@Drekromancer]

@@jaimeruiz7837 Bro, what if it causes his strikes to ripple through the fabric of space, so he can make his hammerblows travel across the battlefield as ranged attacks? That'd be tight as *fuck.*

[@christineboari131]

@@Drekromancer I was thinking something like The Hand from JoJo, essentially having the ability to rend/erase space and effectively cutting the distance between the target and the user.

[@Unbid581]

They*

[@rubyscorpion5213]

@@Unbid581 they use he/they pronouns actually op was correct

[@tibot4228]

Fully agree with the video. It's been weird to talk to people about this subclass because you're not saying "It's not better than other barb subclasses", the whole point is that it *is* better than other barb subclasses, and that is what makes it balanced relative to casters. Really wasn't expecting what so far seems to be a balance-solving subclass from the author of the Chronurgist :-P

[@josephdouglas5242]

Matt hasn't had a great track record of making balanced subclasses so far.

[@DraconicHero]

@@josephdouglas5242 to be fair, the original intent for his homebrews were for his players' overall experiences in the game, not for official game use. he kinda just released these brews when people kept asking him for the homebrews so they can play with it.

[@josephdouglas5242]

@@DraconicHero Fair enough, other than Chronurgy wizard. Seriously, that really should have hit unearnthed arcana first so people could have pointed out the issues with it.

[@ramnsesallen4375]

The thing is that he does have a good track record with making martials worth playing

[@tibot4228]

@@ramnsesallen4375 I agree, I was just being flippant. While I'm not a fan of the Chronurgist due to its abuse cases, his other classes and subclasses are not overpowered (and even then the Chronurgist is about as bad as the Tasha clerics and the PHB Moon druid).

[@aquabard6095]

I also want to point out how this campaign they actually have some party synergy. the fighter can use goating attack and ashton can use the gravity build and if they're fighting a boss this gives them permanent disadvantage

[@mordsythe]

GoaDing attack. goad verb 1. provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction.

[@ands1983]

Ok, someone else noticed this also. Cool combo.

[@theuncalledfor]

@@mordsythe to goat verb 1. To cover someone or something in live goats. 2. To throw a goat at someone or something.

[@mordsythe]

@@theuncalledfor lawl!

[@nicka3697]

I think Ashton went for ASI rather than great weapon master because no one on critical roles has ever been able to defeat doors reliably before. It's to lift portcullises and batter down blockades 😃

[@jeffersonian000]

We have the same issue, and have been referring to doors as being made from Doortanium.

[@NightWing1800]

I think part of it is also that he had 2 scores get raised. Yeah, he gets a lot of DPS out of GWF compared to +1 to hit and damage, but if he's going to be filling a tank role, that +1 to dex also helps out because of AC and saving throws. Plus they're 1 level away from 3rd level spells so Imogen, Laudna, Fearne and FCG all get some big offensive and controlling options. He doesn't really need to min max his own damage at this point, and the +1 str +dex is a nice midground for better survivability too. Honestly, at 8th level I think it'd be better for him to take Resilient for 14 wisdom and proficiency in Wisdom saving throws so he can't be Feared or Charmed as easily.

[@Veelofar]

@@NightWing1800 they*

[@NightWing1800]

@@Veelofar He/They*, but yes. Im still getting used to Tali and Sam being Enbys.

[@Michael-bn1oi]

@@Veelofar he/they, so he is appropriate. Don't correct people for nothing.

[@haku8135]

"Laudna absolutely can do damage if she wants to" Marisha's Dice-You overestimate my power!

[@OffbeatOutlaw]

Excellent analysis as always homie! God I wish that agro mechanic existed

[@HPkobold]

Holy crap it offbeat

[@davidbeppler3032]

Disagree. His analysis is based on a DM vs players dynamic. The DM always wins.

[@veemie8148]

@@davidbeppler3032 How so? He's talking about playing intelligent monsters realistically. That has nothing to do with DM vs Players.

[@davidbeppler3032]

@@veemie8148 No. Go listen to it again. He is saying things like the dragon landing. Why would it? Ever? It would identify you, then send assassins to kill you in the inn room while you are asleep.

[@veemie8148]

@@davidbeppler3032 how is that less fun? If the party is hunting a dragon then they should be fully up for the task and approach it with caution. Dragons are not omniscient. Their minions are not unbeatable or undetectable. Some players actually enjoy challenging games where you have to use your brain.

[@robinthegeminigoblinbard8964]

Love seeing the Ashton pog up there!

[@federicoxausa2790]

Conquest paladin has sort of "reverse aggro mechanic" you fear the enemies so it's harder for them to hurt both you and the party, but apart from this yeah you are right. There Is no proper "aggro" mechanic in the game however there are features like "Twilight refugee", "Heroism" or bear totem from sheperd druid which helps mitigating damage (to me even these are good mechanics for a tank). On the other hand I think D&D Is designed so that you don't need the "tank,DPS,healer" holy trinity so that everyone can play what they want

[@tntcerveris]

with right positioning frightened enemies cant go closer to your party and you mop the rest with sentinel. be the shining beacon of plate and wall of fear rocking AC of 23+

[@NightWing1800]

I think there's funny roleplay opportunities to be had in being a tank though. Like in World of Warcraft, I like the fantasy of being the person who charges in, and keeps standing while everything is wailing on them. In 3.5 there was also a Jester class that had one of the only tank mechanics in that edition in the form of a literal taunt. You could force a creature in range to make a will save, and if it failed it had to attempt to move towards and attack you on it's next turn. But Jester, thematically isn't a heavy armour. They're light armour. They were an evasion tank, and that's super cool! So I'd love to see there kinds of mechanic implemented in future books or in the next edition of D&D.

[@mixplit9071]

Yea, and aside from the mechanical benefits of fear & the conquest aura. I have found playing a Conquest pally to Hexblade 1, Paladin 14 that you can also build towards what I call DM aggro with it. Where you just mess with what the DM wants the monsters to do so much the DM targets you out of frustration.

[@MajkaSrajka]

Tanking is about aggro - its about taking damage off friendly targets, not reducing damage taken.

[@QuestionQuestionMark]

I think the game is better without a holy trinity, because holy trinities just bog people down into rolls when the game itself is much more complex then that.

[@JonathanMandrake]

I hope the Subclass gets published sometime this year

[@dumberdummer]

I've been so curious about it every episode, I always want to see him fight the most

[@theprinceofawesomeness]

Reckless Attack is the closest to a Aoe Taunt ability

[@nerfherder5211]

Reckless attack with gwm will make ashtons damage shoot through the roof. Esp with a +2 weapon. Sounds like a great taunt already. But enforcing it without even picking sentinel is incredibly powerful. This is easily the most powerful barbarian subclass and will be banned in AL play etc.

[@JudgeMagisterSnow]

Reckless Attack is also the easiest way to get yourself killed instead of serving as a proper tank. RA is a bad option, as you only get advantage on *one* attack, but *all* attacks have advantage against you. This subclass makes it unnecessary and gives you better alternative options, something that the Barbarian *sorely* lacks. Especially when the Barbarian is supposed to be a low AC, high HP tank. Ashton's subclass honestly is the most interesting one around. Yeah, Totem of the Bear exists to give you all kinds of resistance, but it doesn't add anything to make Barbarian really stick out among the lot. Also, I was under the impression that AL only allowed first party content.

[@firstnamelastname7298]

@@JudgeMagisterSnow honestly it fiits the barbarian, trading everything for damage. I mean it lets them continue raging, gives advantage for brutal critical and lets them act as a taunt.

[@JudgeMagisterSnow]

@@firstnamelastname7298 Yes. It does. But if anything, it should give disadvantage on attacks made against anyone else but you, not advantage. I'm not going down because of some asshat with a longsword in low levels. Reckless Attack is a terrible feature. It's not designed to let you tank, it's designed to let you die.

[@frostbound]

@@JudgeMagisterSnow RA gives you advantage on all of your Strength-based melee attacks in a turn. You just have to choose to do it on your First attack or not at all.

[@Django_Untrained]

Oath of Crown has the best AOE Agro feature! "When you take this oath at 3rd level, you gain the following two Channel Divinity options. Champion Challenge. As a bonus action, you issue a challenge that compels other creatures to do battle with you. Each creature of your choice that you can see within 30 feet of you must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can't willingly move more than 30 feet away from you. This effect ends on the creature if you are incapacitated or die or if the creature is more than 30 feet away from you."

[@superkami8618]

Generally, Matt has been good about giving player's items that make up for character build weaknesses. Just from Campaign 1, he gave Grog an item that allowed him to actually attack at range and Vax a way to make use of throwing daggers. My bet is that he'll wait until they get really comfortable with their character builds then start giving items to compliment those builds.

[@faselfasel2864]

I've thought about this approach too as a dm, but my take on it is slightly different. I dont try to cover up player weaknesses when i hand out items, but rather facilitate them. Im more than willing to double down on their strenghts though.

[@shanedsouza189]

@@faselfasel2864 the thing is that sometimes a weakness is anti-fun. Part of the reason he gave grog javelins/chain of returning was because of the sheer number of flying enemies that were always out of melee. Being shut down is the worst feeling. And the fact is, for all the "creative solutions" people can come up with to circumvent their problems, the DM can easily create a scenario where one person is just playing with their dick cut off.

[@greyscaleadaven]

@@shanedsouza189 I will say that as a DM that currently has all my players at 8 strength somehow because spellcasters and players swapping in and out of my campaign until the core group formed, it is equally funny for all of us when they fail incredulously at anything athletic. It also forces them to be more inventive with their skills, like using magic to augment their fall or teleportation to get up cliffs that they probably had no chance of climbing in the first place. Or, y'know actually using wild shape to augment that disparity in strength. They have these resources at their disposal for a reason after all. I think giving players moments to shine and fail simultaneously is a good balance to keep. But that's just me. It's also fun to give them scenarios that reward their skills, ability scores, or languages they know, but at the same time the world is full of success and failure, and it's important that players know what each ability score allows them to do in order to facilitate that creativity. Giving a martial class a weapon that suits them with some range as a bonus is good when balanced though, not gonna say that's not a smart idea or anything either.

[@antongrigoryev6381]

5:40 Bear Totem Barbarian technically has an AoE aggro. But it's only 5 ft and is available on lvl 14, which is super late. It's basically the same feature but several times worse. And it's not the only 1st lvl feature of Ashton's subclass. Dunno, on one hand, I don't approve of such a dramatic power creep, but maybe it's something actually needed?

[@Valthoron]

Power Creep is super hard to avoid in general, and the way 5e is set up, casters auto power-up through spell choice as time goes on. Meanwhile, martials have to hope for good subclasses. Unfortunately, it is very much needed.

[@johngleeman8347]

Seeing as Barb is one of the bottom-five classes in the game, you're not going to break a game by making them a bit better.

[@schizoproductions5612]

i think because of how many people play at lower levels they're gonna keep making classes with strong early level abilities

[@BeaglzRok1]

This is why I switch Bear Totem's lvl 3 and lvl 14 features. You get an actual playstyle at lvl 3 and then get resistance to damn near everything as a subclass capstone. As opposed to a ton of effective HP and no way to force enemies to use it outside of grappling, which is suboptimal on a Barbarian's DPR because then you can't use a shield or a two-handed weapon.

[@natashasurvivallady8021]

@@BeaglzRok1 This is the first time that I've seen this, and I think I like it. The bear totem DOES feel more like a capstone than an entry-level ability, and the Totemic Attunement DOES lend itself to a specific playstyle that could be useful the whole game. I might try flipping it as well to see how it plays out.

[@acetiger10]

This is a really interesting discussion on the character

[@loganswalk8621]

The Gravity build feature could be converted into a magic item such as a shield so that any frontline martial class can effectively tank.

[@abcrasshadow9341]

We would want it to be a feature of some kind, items are a bit iffy since not everyone can expect items making general builds tough.

[@SomeBody08150]

Very good and very beginner friendly Pack tactics, an easy recommend of a Video.

[@PackTactics]

I wouldn't recommend this to beginners. I also dont really like the idea of beginners having the same ideas as I do.

[@SomeBody08150]

@@PackTactics let me rephrase then, it's very approachable for people not already in the optimisation Community. Example using Lunada instead of just saying warlock baseline as a point of comparison.

[@SomeBody08150]

@@sohkaswifteagle2604 I don't understand on what you mean with Tank being wrong in the video, unless you are even more strict with the definition of a Tank as "Someone that reduces incoming damage for the entrie team" even more so then "Get hit so your friends don't get hit" with beginner friendly i should maybe have sad beginner friendly to the optimisation sphere.

[@coolnamebro7363]

Even with the thought that 'common' monsters or animals will attack the tanks is flawed, wolves and other pack creatures pick the smallest weakest members of a herd to separate them they don't attack the biggest and strongest.

[@davidbeppler3032]

Common monsters or animals will not attack if the players have fire. Wolves and other pack creatures withdrawal after any injury. The pack withdrawals after 25% are injured. Dragon will never land. This analysis is based on DM vs players. The DM always wins.

[@coolnamebro7363]

@@davidbeppler3032 If the wolves and monsters leave then that's a win for the players since they're trying not to die, if the dragon doesn't land you go into the cave where it's hoard is and rob it forcing it to land or risk damaging the treasure with it's breath. The definition of 'winning' changes with every engagement.

[@veemie8148]

@@coolnamebro7363 Sounds like the DM and players are both winning here with how they get more satisfying and rewarding encounters.

[@Drekromancer]

@@coolnamebro7363 Excellent take. Way to lean into the flexibility of tabletop roleplaying. 🙂

[@BeaglzRok1]

This reminds me of when I was trawling D&D Next playtest materials for ideas on how to buff martials, specifically in regards to how Expertise Dice worked so that feats (a variant rule) like GWM aren't borderline required to keep up with ranged cantrips. Everyone loved Expertise Dice Fighter and Rogue, it was basically a weaker Battlemaster as a core mechanic that recharged every turn. They added Barbarian and gave them something like 6d4 Weapon Damage Expertise Dice, and a Rage Bonus starting at +5 IIRC, which made the Melee Fighter so obsolete that they got rid of the Expertise Dice idea entirely. I'm working on a patch that brings those back in some kind of moderation, while also giving some to casters specifically for INT rolls in things their class should be good at, like Cleric's Religion skill rarely breaking a +6 modifier. I also made a homebrew Barbarian subclass. While not a dedicated anti-flight subclass, it does have a feature where simple ranged weapons and thrown weapons can benefit from Reckless Attack and Rage bonus, so you can attack at long range without disadvantage via Reckless, and don't HAVE TO dip into my homebrew Thrown Weapon Fighting buff that gives it Sharpshooter for thrown weapons. There's definitely the material to make aggro a thing, my personal favorite homebrew is an Intimidation check to convince enemies that you are the bigger threat, and not the guy only armed with a stick. On the note of smart dragons vs DM having to compensate for party members, this is why I had my dragon fights take place in enclosed spaces. Not debilitatingly enclosed, the Green Wyrmling was small enough to fly through most of the forest's trees (which the Martial could climb and I was reminded the Wizard could Web), and the Black Dragon specifically chose a flooded lair so it could abuse its swim speed to kite the party, but either case was designed to more or less prevented the option of one-turn "he Dashes up" escape.

[@jlokison]

Ashton was great locking up crowds of baddies in a recent fight, especially when the casters started dropping AOEs as well. However, when focused on a single target he and Orym forced Matt to think outside the box in a fight, and I'm not sure Matt had thought through how both causing disadvantage if they aren't the target could effect a single foe.

[@jgalt99]

This is probably your best video ever, Kobold. Not just a discussion/explanation of mechanics but also philosophy of use and a commentary on the game in general.

[@invaderzam]

Laudna's role is more of an archer-type character. With spell sniper, her eldritch blasts have a range of 240 feet and with quickened spell, she can cast it twice in one round. Now whether she hits something, will be another story. She is like Vegeta who is spamming energy blasts to little effect.

[@jaimeruiz7837]

Just gotta wait for an eventual Snuper battle where they’re going through an underpass or in the middle of some mountains and get shot at by a snuper and Laudna lands a double nat 20s for both special beam canons to one shot him.

[@Shivermist110]

I hope she takes the invocation that increases the range of eldritch blast to 300', spell sniper and eldritch spear for 600' range is one of my favorite simple combos.

[@jasonreed7522]

@@Shivermist110 you can litterally shoot someone from put side of dimension door range, impressive. Also 200yrds is impressive for even modern bullet weapons (the bullet will make it but accuracy is very questionable for low training individuals)

[@xxomega702buzzalini8]

Laudna is more powerful if she used bane more frequently having a - 1-4 on rolls hurts, Also as history shows the cast of CR have a problem remembering the effect hex has on monsters.

[@dracmeister]

I like this channel a lot because, eventhough I don't frequent 5e(more of a PF guy), this just shows to me how some are just uptight about "muh game balance." I like how this channel likes to point out flaws in the system and sometimes maybe even suggest ways to make everyone MECHANICALLY involved rather than doing it flavor-wise or doing it so that you include everyone (nothing wrong with these approaches mind you, just more options really). I play PF and I like my rocket tag so bite me.

[@Wyrmshield]

Barbarians are great for tanking in 5e. I've used reckless attack to purposely set up "reverse aggro" situations for my DM, where the monsters could go after anyone in the party, but if they go after me they get advantage. Not nearly as good as the abilities that cause "disadvantage if they attack anyone but me" effects, but you can do it infinitely with no saves apart from the DM's irl Wis save to not fall for it xD

[@stevenyoung9738]

Thats your dm being nice, not barb being good at tanking

[@jeffersonian000]

I tank for my group on a Sorcerer specialized in Inflict Wounds, because it’s ballsy and it works.

[@newguy8288]

Yeah, there just should be more mechanics for full-martials to mechanically aggro monsters. Oath of the crown paladin has a mechanic that kinda does this, but it’s channel divinity + it’s a half caster, really need an option for barbs

[@DDCRExposed]

Excellent video as always! I really enjoy the number breakdowns and comparisons. I have seen a bit of this "overpowered" discussion but haven't put much energy into understanding why they believe so.

[@cogsworther1639]

Your point about flying enemies is well made. There's a reason I take "Tripping Attack," on every Battlemaster Also Opportunity Attacks used to be a much bigger deal with Combat Reflexes and stricter movement in rules 3.5. Playing as a halberd wielding fighter was a lot of fun in that system.

[@Jabberwokee]

It’s amazing how many good ideas from 4e have not been transferred or mimicked in 5e 4e have multiple types of ways that different tanks could make use of Marks and mitigate damage

[@josephpotter5766]

Pretty much. The hate for 4e was so intense that they literally threw out every improvement that 4e added, which were, in fact, vast. Class to class balance, actual purpose to martial classes, positional strategy. Basically, the devs of 4e figured out that D&D is basically a combat system with almost no actual rules for roleplaying, so they leaned into creating the most intricate, balanced and tactically interesting combat system they could. They did a great job, as a tactical skirmish 'hero wargame' 4e is unsurpassed. But it turns out that a significant amount of the player base LIKED the stripped down lack of complexity of earlier systems, they also seem to have not cared about the massive power imbalances and general jank. So they threw out all the improvements, returned to a system with huge flaws (linear / quadratic has never been worse IMO) in the name of nostalgia, and implemented basically NO new systems to shore up the elements of the game that 4e neglected. D&D is still basically a stand alone combat system, with no detailed rules for social conflict resolution or exploration. In fact, by ditching 4e's Skill Challenge system, its objectively WORSE than 4e at those things. 5e is a perfectly acceptable game, with a very low skill floor, and that's the real win. It's super easy to get into. 4e was a lot more demanding. But on the other hand, that low skill floor, while great for getting people into the hobby, just means that there's now a huge influx of people who don't realise how much was sacrificed in the bonfiring of 4e. Which is why we see, almost a decade later, the first HINTS of someone reinventing the wheel when it comes to these mechanics. Because Ashton is literally just a 4e Warden with this build.

[@khajiitinskyrim8874]

I think the closest thing to an ‘anti-flight’ martial would be Battlemaster Fighter with Trip Attack, since knocking an airborne target prone causes them to fall. Not saying that this is good enough, but I would like to see more versatility with characters.

[@Zombiewithabowtie]

See, the anti flying for Martial classes argument is why I take Earthbind practically every time I play a class that has access to it. There's certainly more powerful spells to spend concentration on, but for creatures that rely wholly on their flying speed for locomotion, it's a severe handicap, and it's why parties need to make sure they have a good mix of martial, damage casters and support casters.

[@chrisperry4014]

11:17 Laudna actually can’t cast mage armor bc she’s wearing leather armor. So her best bet is shield. I’d bet $100 she does this bc mage armor takes up a dedicated spell from her sorcerer spell list (she only has 4 known spells), and it is only available to warlocks through the armor of shadows invocation. Instead of dedicating a spell slot or half her invocations to mage armor, she glass cannons it with leather armor and possibly shield. She also has great control with fear effect from her form of dread and unsettling presence. On top of that she has a relatively high constitution and gains temporary HP from her form of dread. Overall she has a very cool build going on. If anything she could go for studded leather for an ac of 14.

[@MurtODwyer]

Really enjoyed the video and agreed with it! An AOE taunt feature would be such a big QOL buff to melee classes. The only thing I would add is I would consider the Ancestral Guardian a tank due to it's damage reduction abilities for other party members and imposing disadvantage on the enemy attacks forcing the barbarian to draw fire. Got my sub anyway, great video!

[@Stone_Orchids]

Love your channel, officially my favorite 5e channel ever

[@patrickdaly1088]

Nice video, I really appreciated the mention of "If everybody's a tank, do you really need a tank?" I've played a lot of EVE online over the years, and while some ships are higher priority targets and therefore get tanked more, every ship that wants to stay on field, has to have tank. There are some paper ship roles, but if we lose one we don't actually care, unlike D&D. So I would have to say that this mechanic works, the "squishies" just having enough tank to not immediately get stomped, and the "tanks" taking more of the damage(but not all) by being the easiest target. I love the taunt concept, as I used to play a tank in WoW once upon a time, and I don't actually play D&D so I don't know for sure, but all of the videos I've seen of campaigns by groups like d20, the lack of these taunt mechanics didn't seem to adversely affect the party too badly. The DM made things interesting specifically by having a lack of a taunt mechanic in d20, the players had to actively protect their squishy friends rather than a more passive taunt mechanic. That being said, the way the mechanic was rolled, seems to be a very balanced soft taunt, if NPC's can get advantage, then the taunt cancels and the NPC can effectively target squishies again.

[@davidpritchett855]

"Marissa can deal equivalent damage with a level 1 skill and cantrip". Yeah that's true if she would average higher than an 8 or 9 on her attack rolls. I definitely agree with you on your analysis. What you say about tanking is also true with Liam's battle master, he throws out goading attacks and bait and switch left and right and really isn't doing much to tank/draw aggro, he still does pretty decent damage so it's not that big of a deal but it does show that dnd really doesn't allow true tanking. A mage with wall spells and thunder wave does a better job of keeping enemies off a squishy character than any melee class.

[@Zebulization]

I thought the point of a tank was to take damage instead of allowing squishy folk to take that damage. The threat mechanics in video games were always unrealistic to me. "No, I am not going after the screaming buff dude, I am going after either the one throwing fireballs or the one erasing damage."

[@predwin1998]

​@@Zebulization It becomes a lot more realistic, at least for foes not too much bigger than a human, when you consider how dangerous it would realistically be to turn your back to a skilled swordsman. Sure that wizard can cast some dangerous spells if left alone, but this swordsman is hitting me *right now*, that's the more immediate concern. And while it's rarely represented in any game due to how hp and damage tend to work, a single well-placed sword blow could easily put you out of comission, and that sword usually swings faster than the wizard can cast his spells. Realistically the only thing that makes a wizard more dangerous than a fighter to a single individual is that at least you can defend yourself against the fighters attacks. If you don't defend yourself because you wanted to rush the wizard instead, that sword will kill you just as surely as any spell would have. Of course in many video games the tank is keeping aggro on overwhelming forces that wouldn't share this concern; most bosses are tough enough to survive a sword blow even if we look at realistic damage, and if it's not a boss the foes are often in large enough numbers that only 2-4 would be locked down by the tank while the rest could circumvent him. But the main point is that an ignored tank could (realistically) probably kill most people just as well as an ignored wizard or archer.

[@newguy8288]

@@Zebulization I think the main realism of tanks and their abilities are tied down to intimidation of “Turning your back” against a martial class. You *could*, reasonably, just pass by and kill the healer to get maximum efficiency, but the tank is in the middle of anything as a threat. That’s why stuff like taunts in homebrew and on actual mechanics (see oath of the crown paladin) work on things like Wis Saves; the creature SHOULD target the squishes first and then go for the tank if it wants max efficiency and it’s smart, but the equation changes when you alter the psychology of the monster toward “this big dude is in the way, and he would probably (mechanically) hamper me into going against his smaller friends” Of course there’s arguments to be on whether or not that’s actual classical “true” tank, if it’s actually just martial control, and questions of how actually effective it would be if anything. Still, in a word of magic and dragons, I wouldn’t really question on the legitimacy of a full martial class being able to “pull aggro” even if it’s more of a video game term rather than a ttrpg

[@VeteranVandal]

I agree. I liked Ashton conceptually, but now that he gained a few levels, I love his subclass. It's great. It does things no other subclass does. Hopefully they'll release it without any nerfs.

[@jacobwiren8142]

I usually have my enemies attack based on how smart they are or how wise they are, or how reckless they are. One of my players was playing a funeral shaman (necromancer but not evil), and almost got killed because a cultist deliberately decided to ignore the bodyguards and suicide charged him. Knowing when to have reckless enemies and when to have predictable enemies is a skill that new DMs don't have. Aggro mechanics would be very helpful for them.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

Necromancers aren't inherently evil.

[@jacobwiren8142]

@@renatocorvaro6924 It depends on the setting. In my setting the title of "necromancer" refers to someone who enslaves the dead i.e. EVIL. If you want to have an undead army but not be evil, you have to become a funeral shaman and perform these elaborate rituals to ASK PERMISSION. The downside is that it is very expensive. The benefit is that the dead serve willingly and offer their full power. Quality over quantity.

[@NightWing1800]

@@renatocorvaro6924 In the forgotten realms, necromancy, shadow magic, and undead tends to involve using negative energy, which is pretty innately evil and corrupting. This is why Liches, any many undead in general, are evil aligned. They're intelligent creatures, and there's motivations for lichdom that aren't evil, but being a lich pumps you full of negative energy and you get that alignment shift. Where as Elves have a version of ascending to lichdom that doesn't involve using negative energy and so you can get these undead elves that act as guardians and living resources of wisdom and guidance. But on the other hand, older editions let necomancy school be manipulating the forces of life and death. Positive AND negative energy. As such, cure wounds and similar spells belonged to the necromancy school. Briefly in 3.0/3.5 they were considered conjuration, weirdly, and now in 5e they're evocation. And for a homebrew setting, I agree! Necromancy isn't an inherently evil act. I think there's plenty of room from a roleplaying and storytelling perspective for a caster's or a culture's relationship with the dead to be good or evil, like how Jacob is saying his player respects the dead and has to ask permission.

[@Michael-bn1oi]

@@renatocorvaro6924 depends on the setting. Negative magic? Evil

[@TheArQu]

@@NightWing1800 wait, so that's where pathfider 2e's healing in necromancy school came from?

[@qsviewsrpgs4571]

Such a thoroughly enjoyable video and you make all the sense in the 5e world. Good stuff!

[@reidmoore8754]

This is why when I played 4E classes like the warden were cool since they were legit tanks. For context their gimmick was they could mark enemies like a ranger or something and if the target attacks an ally that is not the warden they must swing with disadvantage. So having tanks like that forces the enemy to swing at you constantly or take the disadvantage. I was really hoping that we would get a class like that at some point but currently all we got for new classes is Artificer.

[@viktorbartosik3234]

Lol, you are literally describing the battlemaster's Gauding attack maneuver.

[@reidmoore8754]

@@viktorbartosik3234 The difference is that is one little thing, while classes like the Warden could do that all the time. They had different ways and different punishments to give the enemies if they didn't attack them like the ally getting a free counterattack if they or hit for example.

[@hornettecco7499]

I went into this not sure what to expect. Like many I've heard a good deal of controversy over the subject matter and I was curious what this video would bring to the table. I must say though that I'm very impressed with the thought provoking points brought up here, and I really like how its all been formatted. You have earned a new subscriber today, excellent work.

[@philipmrkeberg7985]

A taunt isn't even necessary for a tank to work. Look at Mobas, for example. All you have to do is give the enemies a reason to attack the tank, instead. Like AoE buffs, powerful crowd control or other ways to prevent or dissuade enemies from attacking your allies. Slow, but powerful damage is useful, too. Making a field that does a stupid amount of damage to something standing in it after a turn or so encourages enemies to leave that area quite well. The closest thing martials have right now is Sentinel, which really only helps your ranged squishies, and Paladin Auras. All other abilities that would make you an effective tank are pretty much exclusive to casters, ironically. This makes it even harder to make a tank work, because if he has Sleep or slow, so does the Wizard - and the wizard dies faster, so it makes more sense to attack him. I really do like the Path of Primordial Chaos, however, because it does accomplish this decently. Not just because of the AoE taunt - but the slow helps your squishies stay out of range even if the enemy decides to go for then anyway, and the loss of reactions helps your melee dps stay out of range, too.

[@AGrumpyPanda]

Another example of non-taunting tanks, also from mobas, is the bruiser- you're basically saying to the enemy 'If you choose to ignore me because I don't do as much damage, you're giving me *time* to do the damage I deal. If you attack me because you know I'll deal that damage, it'll take long enough for you to kill me that my teammates can kill you. Choose."

[@themineshack9711]

This was an awesome video :3

[@Skrighk]

Theres one martial with an Aoe Aggro: Oath of the Crown. "Champion Challenge. As a bonus action, you issue a challenge that compels other creatures to do battle with you. Each creature of your choice that you can see within 30 feet of you must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can't willingly move more than 30 feet away from you. This effect ends on the creature if you are incapacitated or die or if the creature is more than 30 feet away from you." No time limit, no saves at the end of the turn. They can not leave until one of you are dead. But still, barbarians need something like this. "Call to combat" "Roar of Challenge" "Earthshaker stomp" something for fuck sakes.

[@ihave2cows]

okay but it's a pretty awful taunt, it does nothing to hinder anyone for going for an ally within 30 feet of you, which they often will be. And if they weren't they probably weren't in any danger already.

[@Skrighk]

@@ihave2cows Especially since the other divine option is so good. Can get multiple party members back on their feet

[@thatguynamedgabestyfy8348]

Well barbs do but it is only available for bear totem and at a high level

[@newguy8288]

@@ihave2cows it feels more like a taunt you use at the beginning of combat rather than a reaction to save someone. The 30ft range makes it feel like it’s intended for the ranged pc’s of the party to already be in formation before the Crown paladin uses the taunt to attract and limit as many enemies as possible for the casters and ranged dealers to do their work

[@newguy8288]

Yeah I agree, Paladins are half-casters though. We need more options for full-martial characters, specially the barbarian that has the most hp to attract enemy agro mechanically

[@MrReset94]

Thank you Kobold! I feel validated now, I reworked the Berserker and wanted so bad to put an aggro feature in it, making it pull attackers toward the Barb and attack it, but I was told that compelled attack is a nono, and bad. Now I feel good about doing it anyway.

[@robotdude2206]

These features would make Tulok's Shield Hero build go from a charming idea to actually viable.

[@Flailmorpho]

"stereotypical kobold who is also lawful evil" in my experience the kobolds alignment is Chaotic Adorable

[@essui]

Skillful D&D analysis aside, I appreciate you actually honoring the "they" part of Ashton's "he/they." It's much more rare than you'd think, so I thank you for being mindful of it!

[@Jonathan-xs4xp]

For what exactly?

[@newguy8288]

@@Jonathan-xs4xp Nothing, it’s just their pronoun in that sense. Though I’m not very researched, it isn’t as common for people to refer to a he/they as a they and instead use a him. Got no horse in the race, but it seems to make people happy when they get it correctly so whatever

[@stranger6822]

Just want to note that there are a few ways to build an anti-flight martial. One simple way is to make a battlemaster fighter with Trip Attack. You can trip a target with a ranged attack, and if they fail their save then they're knocked prone. Prone states that they fall to the ground. And this can be setup with a held action to attack the target when they're in range.

[@ssjmatt8424]

This is interesting, I was looking at things and the closest is oath of the crown with its challenge ability, though it only single targets. I think having a taunt bonus action would be an interesting addition to the game. The other thing I guess is tunnel fighter polearm and sentinel. It's the closest to it really.

[@swashbucklerblue]

Since this seems to be playing with gravity, maybe a feature like: "The Enemy Is Down": As a bonus action, leap towards a single target within 60". For the next X rounds, they become your new "down" and you immediately fall towards them. They must make an Athletics check or You and your target take falling damage. You may still benefit from resistance, but any effect that prevents falling damage (like feather fall) eliminates damage for the target as well. They can still move freely but you can use a bonus action on your turn to fall towards them again. Not a complete idea but I love the concept of a gravity-powered barbarian using themselves as a projectile to take down flying or ranged foes.

[@GhizTheKobold]

Barbarian: Path of the Ancestral Guardian is an "altruistic" subclass ... that is, it invites the enemy to strike at itself, making a good tank! Cleric: Peace Domain and Twilight Domain, also make excellent tanks!

[@coranbaker6401]

Ehh, Ancestral guardian can only really do that to a single creature, just like he just pointed out.

[@CanadianCrits]

@@coranbaker6401 I think it's as many creatures as they can hit, actually...

[@coranbaker6401]

@@CanadianCrits Nope. It specifies the first creature you hit on your turn.

[@CanadianCrits]

@@coranbaker6401 Ah, your right, my bad.

[@newguy8288]

As other commenters have said; the biggest drawback of the Ancestral Guardian Barb is that it only really targets a single creature to aggro at a time, while it’s other abilities do reduce damage to others it isn’t really a “true” tank by the fact of attracting as much enemy aggro as possible. Same issue with Peace cleric, since his guardian ability is a reaction, and Twilights biggest tank ability comes at level 17th (Other abilities like gaining armor proficiency and twilight sanctuary don’t make you be the center of taking damage and more so support people)

[@DvirPick]

Let's talk about flyers. Melee flyers are interesting even if you give them flyby. It leads to creative solutions from the players, and even the barbarian can contribute using ready action. And that is without teamwork. Ranged flyers suck the fun out of the game. The one interesting thing about ranged combat is the positioning using the cover mechanic and ranged flyers both don't use it and pretty much nullify it. It's relatively easy to find something to take cover behind against grounded ranged enemies, like a rock. It's much harder to find something to hide UNDER against ranged flyers. Ranged flyers require teamwork, not to eliminate, but for the melee characters to have fun by being able to use their abilities. But in reality the ranged characters could take care of them on their own. Dragons are a special case not just because they are intelligent, but because they have high strength and most effects that knock prone use a Strength Save. Other flyers have low strength so they can be dropped. Even melee characters like a battlemaster can trip attack with a javelin throw to knock ranged flyers prone, but not dragons. Paladins can Command flyers to Grovel/Approach. Yes, these have limited range (just enough to ready them for when a young dragon gets in range for a breath attack), which just goes to show how much ranged combat is busted when you introduce flyers with huge range on their attacks. The one thing even barbarians can do is retreat to a chokepoint (where is would be easier to deal with the flyers), but even that is difficult with how fast flyers are, and for barbarians it also requires them to lose their rage if they don't take damage.

[@dwreanchinotan]

on the other hand, having easy access to mass creep control incentivizes a sort of meta where full casters and dps don't look at self preservation options and would chastise characters with the tank option not taking the tank option. essentially it's the cleric is main healer all over again. really it's up to the DM to create encounters that emphasize the parties strengths and weaknesses and the party to act upon them.

[@jeffersonian000]

I still don’t get why healers are considered important in 5e, given how easy it is to recover hit points without resorting to spells. I literally tank for my group on a melee Sorcerer that rarely gets hit and can self heal so the others can focus on damage/control.

[@NightWing1800]

@@jeffersonian000 Because it's good to have someone whose focus is on protecting spells, who can get you back in the fight when you hit 0, and who can get things back on track when things don't go according to plan or an unlucky crit happens. Healing is powerful.

[@jeffersonian000]

@@NightWing1800 If you intentionally nerf yourself so you need someone healing you, I guess you would need a healer. But why not build to sustain without needing to be healed? That’s what my groups does, and we have 100% of our up-time dedicated to winning a fight instead of only 75-80%. Aasimars, Paladins, Celestial Patron, Divine origin, using hit dice, healing kits, etc. No one actually needs to be a Healer supporting 3 DPS and a Tank.

[@NightWing1800]

​@@jeffersonian000 Because you need to use an action to heal yourself in combat. So if you have a guy whose job it is to cast healing spells, defensive spells like deathward, and control spells like web, then the guy whose job it is to deal big damage can be optimized for damage. Here's an example 5th level gloomstalker ranger human varient to get sharpshooter and crossbow expertise. That ranger COULD heal themselves, but by healing themselves they forgo a very high amount of DPR, especially if they're utilizing gloomstalker's free advantage in the dark. Alternatively an Evocation Wizard wants to be casting magic missile every turn because each missile adds their Intelligence modifier. The Aasimar wizard doesn't want to use his action to restore 10 hit points or to drink a potion. He wants to spend a 3rd level magic missile to deal a guaranteed 5d4 + 30 force damage. It's not even nerfing yourself; Optimizing damage means that you aren't healing yourself and might not even have the option to do so with items. It's a team game, everyone serves a role. If everyone can do everything, then they're mediocre at everything and specialized in nothing. On the other hand, Life Cleric 1 Druid 4 with 18 wisdom can burn all of their spell slots on goodberry before a long rest and give everybody a goodberry that would heal for 5 which is about a healing potion. So each fight you go in fully topped off on HP. If you weren't wiped on spell slots the day before, you're going to have more berries than you need. But then in the event that two people go down, that druid can feed a berry to a downed ally as an action and turn around to use healing word on another ally to get two people back into the fight. They might not even miss a turn depending on iniative count. They'd also be opening the fight with entangle for control or fog cloud if the party needs to flee or reposition from a ranged ambush. At second level spell slots they get pass without a trace for out of combat and hold person for in combat. At third level they conjure animals. At 4th level it's Polymorph. Notice how all the best things a druid can do aren't actually related to single target or AoE damage and don't even actually scale with any damage dealing features like ranger, fighter and wizard? They're related to casting controlling spells that prevent your enemies from being effective, but they don't need to prepare that many to do that. So they can afford to prepare healing spells and then patch up the people more effective at dealing damage, so that they don't have to spend actions healing themselves. In between casting control spells. Sure, if everyone is healthy and they've already got a lot of enemies entangled or something then they can do damage, but they probably want to use a cantrip to conserve resource and that's not competing with the gloomstalker built to do damage. A dedicate healer doesn't have to heal each turn. They probably won't even have the opportunity if the party isn't reckless. But control spells are really powerful, and after you use one or two, you might not need to anymore. But you might need to heal the party after an AoE spell or breath weapon in case another AoE spell or breath weapon is coming, so that they can survive the second one. Would you rather one guy heal and do it better than the self healing features or the whole party take a turn to patch themselves up?

[@jeffersonian000]

@@NightWing1800 An entire party optimized for damage/control take so little damage themselves due to the encounter ending early. I’ll take a couple hits to make sure the target is downed in 3 turns instead of 6. We will use less resources, will take advantage of short rests to recover, and be ready for another encounter, and another, and another. If we dedicate one of us to tanking, one to healing, and the rest to damage, the fight takes longer, we would use more resources, require a long rest instead a short rest before the next encounter. Building for self efficiency across the board makes for more efficient encounters. Yes, it’s a different way of approaching the problem, but it not only works, it works very well. I don’t need to waste an action to heal, I use my action to prevent the boss from hurting anyone.

[@jamesjuld]

Fun Fact there is an anti flying subclass playstyle for the fighter(some other Important info: Flying Creatures with speed 0 fall down(unless they hover like air elementals). This means prone, grapple, paralyze, stun, restrain all work. Now there are two subclasses I remember who can do this, one doesn't work well(Arcane Archer, more of an anti caste, can't use its feature enough to force a landing), the other oh, Battle Master has a maneuver for knocking enemies prone against a save(Trip Attack). It is not melee restricted, so long bow sharp shooter and get it down(or just throw a javelin or something else at it if you're a strength/melee fighter). So if you ever wanna screw your DM(warning: DMs might use this against you too after you start, so use at your own peril) or just show off how to destroy flying creatures? There is also no good spell against flying creatures that knock them prone(most are spell level 5+)

[@theenduriangamer5509]

Also there exists 2 real ways of "Tanking" in d&d. Spirit Guardian Barbarian has some ability to draw aggro, usually just by saying "the enemy have disadvantage on people not me", and one subclass of paladin has a feature where they can take damage instead of an ally. But both are kind-of lack-luster attempts.

[@jaimeruiz7837]

My issue with that is the DM obviously knows that his monster will have disadvantage … but should the enemies know? Would they be able to tell? Imagine if pack of Gobi boys runs up and all try and focus fire to kill one guy. They all mostly miss, will they keep swarming that person or say fuck it and run to someone else?

[@newguy8288]

@@jaimeruiz7837 Probably? Other effects that give disadvantage are noticeable mechanically. Exhaustion, falling prone, being frightened, etc. Bing disadvantaged on attacking another creature by a taunt could be seen as a loss of vision toward any target other than the taunt-er, like a form of tunnel vision. It could also be seen like an illusion distracting a target, except the illusion is a real beefy boy that’s scary to pass by

[@inuendo6365]

Baldur's Gate 3 demonstrates well how tanks don't exists. Enemies ruthlessly destroy the weakest member first, even if that means moving past the front liners. It's easy enough to use terrain to help the squishies but it still shows why real tanks would be fun to have rather than relying on the map

[@rafis117]

"Nobody takes the other aggro features" Allow me to introduce you to the fighter Orym, from the *same party*, who uses Goading Attack all the friggen time. In fact, so far Orym has been a better tank as a Dex Battle Master Fighter than Ashton as a homebrew Barbarian. Orym has (as of ep 17) tanked 300 damage to Ashton's 200, and has been knocked out twice to Ashton's once. Ashton has twice as many kills and HDYWTDTs as Orym, and has done 25% more damage (500 versus 400). (Source: crit role stats) Despite any appearances, Orym is the party tank and Ashton is the bruiser.

[@rafis117]

And 60ish of the 200ish damage Ashton has taken was in a single, solo fight. With that subtracted, Ashton has tanked less than half as much damage as Orym while only dealing 25% more damage. It's hard to argue he's underperforming Laudna because their roles are different, but he's definitely underperforming Orym.

[@Typher_]

yeah only watched a few episodes but he seems stupidly OP compared to any vanilla class, dk why this video compares him to a warlock who can't take one shot. Compare him to any other melee class and you will see why.

[@newguy8288]

Tbh Oryms mechanics are the closest thing to a tank you can have in usual Dnd, but it isn’t an actual “true” tank. Like the video says the mechanics of Ashton make him *feel* more like a tank because of his pulling mechanics, the battle masters goading attacks and other maneuvers are limited and feel less like a role of a tank because of it. So while mathematically Orym is taking more damage, it doesn’t mechanically or in a sense aesthetically a better tank. I mean, you’ve said it yourself, Orym has gone down *twice* in comparison to Ashton’s once, so Ashton FEELS like the better tank. I do believe, as the campaign goes longer and Ashton unlocks more mechanics, that even the numbers will look a lot more differently aswell just because of the long-term limitations that maneuvers have on pulling aggro.

[@The_mekboy_you_deserve]

I agree with this subclass being the first proper tank that feels like it, in a certain sense other Barbarian subclasses wanted to do a similar thing, like the Ancestral Guardian path, giving disadvantage to attacking others... But only for one enemy.If you're up against a horde enemy you end up just as a Barbarian who doesn't have a feature, the other Barbarian subclasses focus more on being more durable when taking the hits, like bear totem Barbarian and zealot in a certain sense (IF you reach 15th level you are basically an instoppable bulwark that's not dead until the healer of the party is dead). Others focus on reaching the enemy first or helping allies to be more murderous, like the other totems or the beast path barbarians. Then there's the Juggernaut, still released from Matt Mercer, which focuses strangely on ground control and avoiding to be unable to reach your enemies. And in the end we have some who do not have a specific role, like the wild magic Barbarian, who can be as good as a damage dealer as other Barbarians and maybe from level 6 hits more often (a d3 to all attack rolls for 10 minutes ain't that bad), or the storm Barbarian who... Does almost nothing until level 14. And then there's those who wanted originally to be good but failed to do so in the long run (the Berserker and the battlerager)

[@logancuster8035]

Except that Ashton has to roll to determine which of his rage features he gets to activate

[@talleywa5772]

>A bard spell with a 60 ft radius that forces a number of creatures equal to your charisma modifier to roll a charisma or wisdom saving throw and on failure they must spend their next turns doing everything in their power to punch/bludgeon/bite your face off. More creatures can be targeted with higher levels. Dodge tanking is a thing too. Plus this means a skillful bard can maneuver entire groups of enemies into poor positions as long as they survive the Benny Hill shenanigans. Repeating the save at the end of each turn and the spell ends when they successfully land a melee attack or succeed. >A channel divinity that forces creatures to target you and somehow nerfs ranged damage by reducing hit chance/damage or giving advantage on saves. Forcing them into melee. >A feat requiring at least 16 CON in which you gain more benefits the more enemies are within 5ft of you. >A barbarian feature in which you can expand one use of your rage to force a creature that can hear you into a rage. Giving them the same benefits as you, but they can only target you. Their rage is the same duration as yours, and can end under the same circumstances. With the exception of voluntarily ending it unless the creature is already capable of voluntarily enraging.

[@primeemperor9196]

"There is no rules that say the dragon has to land." Unless a paladin or eldritch knight casts Command on it so the barbarian and fighter can get some free swings on it.

[@Keyce0013]

If the dragon in question has any Legendary Resistances left, that doesn't work.

[@nigeltucker4202]

Earthbind- descends 60' per round at 300' range. Can take up to 5 rounds to land. Doesn't state the dragon has to descend straight down. Can move full movement away, dash and only drop 60'. Or breathweapon the caster to break the spell at 60' then fly away. Command- Doesn't have to follow the command until its next turn, again can double move away and land 160' then fly away next round. Domination- Yup, nothing to counter. Compel Duel- Doesn't have to land or descend. Can make a save to move away. Breathweapon care about Disadvantage, con save to break spell also. Grasp of Hadar- 4 EB (at 17th level) and its 40' closer. Doesn't make it land.60' range on BW means its now 20' above. Thorn Whip- 30' range, pulls 10'. Doesn't work on creatures above the Large size catagory. Your short list is viable. Only problem is staying on the dragon once you are there. fly 80' up, spins to throw you off. Without Fly or a flying mount (or poly) its a one round trip.

[@Reapor234]

@@nigeltucker4202 while you're right in most of what you wrote, here's an exert from Earthbind: "The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw or its flying speed (if any) is reduced to 0 feet for the spell’s duration." So it's still the best non dominate spell to get a flying creature down to you. The main downside is it's a Strength save, which dragons are not bad at. Like at all.

[@JoelDowdell]

Lawful Evil is best alignment. (Most fun alignment to roleplay, not the best friend)

[@NoctisAutumnali]

And this is why I have a "Taunt" mechanic as a default bonus action in my games any player can use. But you can't target specific enemies; all enemies that are aware of you will focus on you if they weren't already focusing on something else (if they were running to alert a guard or grappling your ally for instance) And some enemies have additional effects when Taunted, like a horse that ignores its rider's commands and just runs toward you to kick you Only problem is all 3 of my players chose to be ranged non-tanks, lmao

[@slydoorkeeper4783]

>Play scout rogue with level 3 >Play variant human for Mobile feat >Taunt enemy >Move 20ft away as reaction >Move 30ft on my turn and attack >Laugh at frustrated enemy to keep the taunt going.

[@jeffersonian000]

Why force them to waste a bonus action on taunting? Or are your players not able to place their characters so that one is a better target than others? I’d go with taunting as free action, simply to not rob my players of better use of their action economy.

[@veemie8148]

@@jeffersonian000 I'd make it a free action with a performance check. Different DC for different NPCs/monsters.

[@kevingriffith6011]

Odd thought, but what's your opinion on self-damage mechanics? I'm working on a barbarian subclass (Path of the Hellion) and some of it's features cause the barbarian self-damage to gain interesting features (Like flame jet wings for one turn, or a burning whip that they can pull themselves or pull enemies with). I know it's an apples-to-oranges trade, not something you can just math out, but I figure an optimizing community probably has some words about mechanics like that.

[@PackTactics]

Self-damage mechanics to do more damage kind of mechanics are very hard to balance. I don't really have an opinion on mechanics like that besides from what I've seen so far they've all failed in homebrew.

[@kevingriffith6011]

@@PackTactics Yeah, I'm thinking that if you're going to do self-damage, it should be for utility and mobility, not damage (or, if it does damage, it does so to offset having done a utility action like shove or grapple). If your optimal damage every round involves self-damaging then the cons are going to quickly outweigh the pros, especially when your casters have to start spending spell slots to bring your health back up. Taking a little damage at the start of your turn to gain a 50 foot flight speed until the end of your turn sounds like a good trade, assuming the damage you take isn't completely negligible. Dragon flying over your party and doing smart dragon things? Kick on the jets, fly up to the damn thing and grab on to it. There aren't mechanics for clinging to monsters but I don't think it's unreasonable to make that an extension of grappling somehow.

[@TheOliverz121]

5:18 path of the Zelot has something like chaos Horst though.

[@makaramuss]

path of the zealot is stupidly broken... unless enemy npc has a way to end the rage he is literally immortal until he kills you and then he dies if he is the last person standing UNLESS he has a potion of healing(wich is easy.... they cost like 50 gp lol :D )

[@ROYaaaal789]

@@makaramuss sleep spell

[@NightWing1800]

@@makaramuss Charm. Fear. Flying.

[@tibot4228]

@@makaramuss It's pretty decent for solo combat, but if you want to keep your party alive, which is what your tank should do, it's not really that great, just like most other barbarians. I mean, the extra damage helps settle fights quicker, but that's not what a barbarian is supposed to be for. Much like the Long Death monk, there's not much benefit to surviving if your party is wiped out, because, in most cases, it doesn't feel like a win.

[@TheOliverz121]

@@makaramuss power word kill, sleep, pretty much any low level CC or insta kill spells stop that, but yea its a really fun combo to play :D

[@AaronBeSpeedy]

I think the Aggro(esque) features are very good for the earlier levels of an adventuring party. He's still a Barbarian, and at later levels he's gonna get the "Grog vs Any caster/boss" treatment. Combat in the early levels of a Dnd Campaign can be extremely difficult to navigate for both DM and Players. The health pools are extremely small, which can lead to ONE additional combatant KO'ing squishy party members. Now imagine navigating that as a new DM or as a new Player. Having some safety measures feels pretty good and useful imo 😊

[@aquamarinerose5405]

Granted, I definitely fall into the "There shouldn't be a NEED for a dedicated tank" Though I DO think that there could be some better tanking features. Spheres of Might for Pathfinder (And 5e though IDK how 5pheres works) gives the Guardian Sphere, which gives 2 different methods of tanking. 1: Challenge. Challenge is a single-target effect that you can spend a second talent to make into a Mass effect (Not an AOE, but we'll get to that) that lets a player give an enemy a -2 (but then scales over time because pathfinder numbers are different) to attacking anyone that isn't them, but also effectively gives them a +2 to hit the user. Mass Challenge lets you apply that to multiple creatures that you just pick how many instead of an AOE or single target. 2: Patrol The user spends their action to greatly increase their threatened range, and can invest to make this bad-touch zone better and effectively become their own doorway to dodge in.

[@newguy8288]

It feels like DnD doesn’t fall for the “holy trinity” aspect of Dps, Healers and Tanks but gives support to Dps and Healing more so than tanks. I think this is a design decision more than anything, since it’s easier to convince a player that healing (which keeps the party alive) is more important rather than trying to convince someone to do a tank role (which keeps the party alive, but on paper it’s mechanically more boring because most classical tanks don’t do damage/have many if any spells)

[@lordvess6214]

4th edition had some interesting tanking abilities. Fighters and what not could mark enemies making. Allowing them to get an attack if they didn't attack the fighter. The warlord could use an ability that granted the enemy a free attack on themselves which in turn allowed another party member to get an attack. Mind you this wasn't forced at all, there was nothing in the rules that forced the enemy to hit the fighter or warlord. But it heavily encouraged the enemy to do so. It could punish them in some way or allow a glass cannon to get a big hit in on the enemy if he fell for the bait.

[@kevingriffith6011]

I don't *fully* agree with the notion that there is no way to tank in 5e without taunt mechanics. It's an encounter design issue, not a mechanical one: Mechanically there is no way to tank for an encounter with, say, 8 wolves, because no enemy in that encounter is more precious than any other... but if the enemy has a backline that they rely on for doing damage and the barbarian charges into their backline, well some of the front line is going to have to peel off to try to help stop the barbarian from destroying their backline. I generally don't like aggro mechanics from a pure RP perspective: they tend to ignore the idea that these are (usually) living creatures that (usually) have brains. A martial character needs to be threatening for a different reason. One of the notions that I've been toying with is the idea that Martials can get extra reactions as they gain levels in the same way they get extra attacks, and possibly the "attack anyone who doesn't attack you" function from the sentinel feat, and I think you've got a more RP friendly version of tanking... and it makes sense, if someone is attacking someone else near you then they aren't defending themselves, so of course a skilled fighter could capitalize on that.

[@12halo3]

The dragon example is just the players choosing to fight the dam thing in the worst scenario possible. They should be ambushing the dam thing in its lair and cutting off its escape not fighting it in an open field. Maybe have the party make a makeshift net that can be fired from a ballista, cast hold monster, etc. They should not be surprised that the melee classes can't fight a flying creature.

[@jeffersonian000]

There’s no need for a taunt mechanic unless the DM is incompetent.

[@panpiper]

I've been playing the sole 'tank' in a campaign for the last three years. We also have a high AC life cleric. In 90% of our fights, I have been able to set things up to doorway block. That may however be deliberate on the part of the GM when setting up scenarios to give me sufficient terrain options to be able to set that up.

[@nerfherder5211]

Critrole subclasses are designed to sell. Thus they outperform the other options frequently. Extra attacks for fighters on the echo knight, a better wizard than divination wizard and a better barbarian than bear totem. They are smart. Power sells and they perform so well in the streamed series. Critrole subclasses dont go through unearthed arcana and is designed to be on par or better than the best S tier subclasses in general. I enjoy this. Some dont like it. Imo this barbarian subclass is a bit overtuned, but I still like it core concept. Pure martials are really boring to play anyway so I welcome some nice shit.

[@slydoorkeeper4783]

As a Pathfinder 1e main, the fact that they locked combat maneuvers basically to one class is a huge nerf to martial classes. I get PF 1e wasn't perfect with them itself, but being this bad really limits the potential martial classes could have in combat. I'll admit, in some ways I don't like 3rd party content like what Critrole has done because most of the time it does seem to be way better, but I do understand wanting it to be like that to actually get people to buy into your product. But I mainly just want consistency with balance. Because if you make everything overtuned, now you have to balance the encounters so it feels fun to play the class instead of absolutely stopping everything and not enjoying the game.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

A better Wizard than Divination Wizard? So... most of them?

[@bbittercoffee]

Like, we don't need tanks because nobody is truly squishy or whatever, but imagine the possibilites if the wizard didn't HAVE to pick mage armor, shield and whatever else? MORE DAMAGE, DIVERSITY OF DAMAGE! That's why you specialize, you become much better at what you wanna do and leaves everybody else to be better at what they do too! It's weird how there really isn't any form of real tanking, when like, so many other games have some sort of taunt that forces the enemies to attack a specific person.

[@danteberrios2808]

Just one thing to add to why dragons lands, remember they are inteligent creatures, they have personality traits too, and any intelligent creature can think that they are too powerful for inferior races, the same way clever People make dumb desitions, i think that this is more accurate to why they land

[@curnott6051]

I always rationalized them landing because the constant bombardment of spells, arrows, javelins, ect. knocked them off balance and forced them to the ground. I challenge anyone to keep up a respectable running speed after being constantly pelted by various heavy blunt and sharp objects for more then a few seconds.

[@chaoticnote]

@@curnott6051 fall damage is a bitch in the end

[@davidbeppler3032]

Dragons don't land. They fly away and send assassins to kill you when you are asleep at the inn.

[@curnott6051]

@@chaoticnote This wouldn't be the same as getting poked or smacked. I'm more equating it to being straight up decked in the face. That happens, you're not immediately going to start sprinting away, you're going to be dazed for a bit.

[@danteberrios2808]

I miss the days of 3.5 where dragon have spells and really REALLY have options and are more magical, instead of being Just another flying dumb lizard

[@Edwin-tk5kv]

The one exception is the frightened condition which can be applied aoe and prevent melee enemies from getting past you to your allies. Conquest paladin is a great example with the Fear spell and its channel divinity.

[@occultnightingale1106]

I don't think it's a good thing to say "Smart Dragons Don't Land," in the same breath as "Good DMs land the dragon so all of the players can feel useful." This is tantamount to saying "The Dragon is required to be dumb in order for the game to work," which is something I disagree with heavily. There are a) narrative reasons why a Dragon may land, such as weaponry the Dragon is aware of which is good at shooting dragons in-flight, but not as good at hitting a target on solid ground, b) environmental reasons why a Dragon may land, such as foliage, crags, buildings, or caves which make it difficult to hit a target mid-flight, or c) player-dictated reasons why a Dragon may land, such as a baited trap that would allure Dragons, or a method, either magical or mundane, which takes flight away from the Dragon, such as a large, weighted net to tangle a Dragon's wings, a spell to ground them, or an attack which is designed to disable a Dragon's wings. These things can exist, and a good DM does not simply wave their hands and drop the Dragon's intelligence just to give a balanced fight to the players. A Great DM will open up these aforementioned options up to their players *before* the fight with the Dragon starts, either through NPCs who are able to assist with these anti-Dragon combat options, or by warning the players well beforehand of the Dragon's presence in whatever area they've entered or to which they are planning to go. In fact, Critical Role actually included several of these options in Campaign 1, with a baited trap to lure in both the Black Dragon Umbrasyl and the White Dragon Vorugal; one with treasure to exploit his greed, and the other with a strong foe that could be killed for sport. There's no need to sacrifice worldbuilding or storytelling for the sake of balance, as doing so could very well compromise the stakes of the battle, and without stakes, investment soon disappears. Encourage creativity in dealing with Dragons, because creativity would absolutely be necessary in dealing with Dragons if they were a real threat.

[@Morganwrath]

Oath of the crown palladin channel divinity is kind of an aoe aggro pull as it prevents enemies moving away from you. Also Armourer artificer taunt attack is not single target, its as many people as you can hit. I built my armorer in the avernus game i play to taunt as many targets as possible and have high speed to taunt them all and run away. took durl wielding to make 3 attacks, mcd into hunter ranger for a possible 4th attack on an adjacent target, will get haste later on for a 5th attack. Im aware that at very high lvls monsters attack bonuses may overcome disadvantage but i know we aren't playing until that late a level. Its just fun running at super speed around the battlefield not provoking aoos and taunting all the devils and demons. But i totally agree that this aoe taunt feature is interesting and needs to be implemented in the base game if only to have more playstyles. Its very upsetting that ancestor barb can only taunt one target while Armourer artificer can taunt as many targets as it hits.

[@Cl0ne66]

Of course AoE Aggro is in the game. It’s called; being a wizard or control bard.

[@avakio19]

Ancestral Barbarian, the Cavalier, the Armorer all have the disadvantage mechanic but I’ve never found that ability to be enough to draw aggro *AWAY* from other creatures. Its honestly ridiculous, and just means you you gotta take the runescape approach to pvm: “just dps lol”.

[@raymondsandalphonrahon6124]

For the dragon topic, this is a copy paste from Crazyscarecrow's comment on Monkey DM's "D&D: You are using dragons WRONG" shorts. "This heavily depends on type of dragon and location. Blue Dragons fight exactly like this, but Green dragons prefer to use trickery and turn parties against each other rather than do the dirty work themselves. White Dragons are actually less intelligent than the average person and act more bestially than other dragons, Black dragons would go for the weakest first but they’re sadistic and wouldn’t want to leave the fight until they’re in danger of losing. Red dragons are the most arrogant and would fight the frontline of the party head on to show that they’re better than you." The part on Black Dragon is, they are sadistic enough to give the party hope but in reality, the dragon is just toying with them until it is badly wounded (around 30%) White dragons have a -1 int mod which would mean "roleplay it as a flying barbarian with ice breath" and for the Red Dragons, they are so dumb that even White dragons call them dumb lol. Just imagine an arrogant wizard being called by the barbarian as dumb.

[@naturalkind5591]

Honestly, I would expect even white dragons to be able to do this much. These aren't super complex tactics, just like wolves which can pull off much more complicated tactics besides having much lower intelligence. It's litterally just using their wings.

[@PackTactics]

Roleplay and mechanics are 2 different things. I can roleplay my white dragons being smart enough to understand landing is a bad idea because it hurts to be hit by metal sticks. They understand what pain is don't they? Blue dragons even though they might be bad at flying can still keep themselves in the sky for more than 5 minutes. Thats 50 rounds for you. Like this isn't a good mechanical argument.

[@raymondsandalphonrahon6124]

@@PackTactics Oh, I'm not arguing about the mechanics, I just pasted it here because of the statement "a smart dragon would never land". Yeah they would never land but... Most of the fantasy depiction of fighting dragons is fighting them in their lair which is crowded and not enough room to use skirmishing tactics which is dumb on the surface level because players would have an easier time killing them. For ages, dragons' only predator is other dragons. I think it is also the reason why dragons have their eyes on the sides of the face which is typically for prey, not for predator. Due to this need for security, they hole themselves up. Except for red dragons, their lairs are big and have enough room to fly, they just want a "fair fight". If the party is trying to kill the dragon and the dragon doesn't know/ doesn't care, they would highly likely fight it on their lair but if the party is being hunted, the party would likely to hole themselves up because a dragon has advantages like skirmishing tactics if fought on the surface and if the hole is big enough, some dragons would follow them. Worst case scenario is if the party is being hunted by a dragon and the dragon is taking a city hostage. Though chromatic dragons are evil, they won't take a city as a hostage just for the sake because they know it's too dangerous. So if it reaches this point, the party really fucked *bard ahem* something really bad.

[@marcosdosdiaz8147]

I gave one of my players (a Bear Totem Barbarian), an ax that allows her to use her reaction to give creatures within 30 ft. Disadvantage on all attacks against all creatures except her. (I should mention this ability forces the Barbs attacks to become reckless until the end of their next turn as a trade off). This has allowed me to justify creatures targeting her! Just a cool item I came up with!

[@nnickplays9713]

What about Ancestral Barb and Cavalier fighter? Don't they have skills that in essence "pull agro"?

[@TJDieter2191]

Those are only single target. That's the biggest problem.

[@tibot4228]

They do, and I suspect Kobold cut them for time, because they suffer from the issues he raises in the video: both subclasses still require the enemies to be within your reach (10 feet at best). The Ancestral Barb only gives disadvantage on attacks to 1 creature at low levels, so, since you have resistance, it might still be worth attacking your allies. Also, it does nothing to stop aoes or enemies that force saves. In other words, you can pull only 1 creature's aggro, and you're not guaranteed to succeed. The Cavalier is also limited to 1 reaction (read : 1 creature within reach) per round until 18th level.

[@watcher1269]

The problem is that it only effects 1 creature. Big whoop. Ashton's barbarian subclass abilities can effect more than one, and that's far more impactful.

[@TJDieter2191]

@@tibot4228 he mentioned them enough to say that all the aggro class abilities in the game suck because they're single target. You raise even more issues with them. But yeah, they're unfortunately just not good enough.

[@naturalkind5591]

Single target, and not hard enough. Therefore not a real tank.

[@jman667755]

I would argue that while there isn't a lot of hard agro effects in 5e, actually the only one I can think of is compelled duel, there is a large amount of soft agro effects. These are mostly abilities that limit the movement of enemies so they are forced into dealing with the "tank" as opposed to the rest of the party. However, the only effects I can think of that a tanking class would get is Oath of Crown's Champion challenge, and a Moon Druid making a thunderdome with Wall of Stone. Also fun aside, a great way to deal with the dragon that will not land is to dimensional door the martial onto the dragon's back. Did this for our Paladin when a dragon was attacking a city and the table was busting up laughing as we tired to ground this thing.

[@kilenima177]

"AOE Aggro doesn't exist in dnd5e!" Level 14 bear totem Barbarian: "I guess I don't exist..."

[@acetraker1988]

Level 14 doesn't exist. Everyone knows 1-12 is the best you can get.

[@kilenima177]

@@acetraker1988 I can understand the appeal from an optimisation standpoint, getting an upgraded level 14 feature at level 3. However, new content should not just be upgraded versions of old content. Especially low level features overshadowing much later ones. I also think forced AOE aggro is lazy. The other subclasses give the Barbarian features that entice the NPC's to attack them, this one simply forces it on all creatures within 15 feet. That's almost the size of a fireball.

[@flavorgod]

Saw your comment on the "Should D&D have Rules" video I was wondering how you feel about the OSR and FKR RPG philosophes.

[@DasGreenCow]

As someone who played a Redemption Paladin, I would argue that there are no real tanks in 5e. I sunk all my ASI and feats into building up my con. And once per turn you can take all the damage one of your allies take on a single hit

[@off1314]

can you tell what feets you took today please ?

[@TheProteanGeek]

On the point of going for the polearm master over the points in strength. It makes sense for optimisation for combat perhaps, but we see in Matt's game that combat while it is frequent enough is not a majority of the game. They do a lot of interactions and encounters without combat, sometimes entire episodes that don't rely on damage output at all. As for the flying creatures being a problem for martial classes, isn't that part of the whole teamwork thing though. The other classes use their features to drop the dragon from the sky or to get the martial class into the sky to fight the dragon.

[@Specter053]

"The roll of a tank is to get hit so your friends don't" At best, this is a simplification that removes a lot of what a tank is. At worst, it's flat out wrong, coming from misconceptions from MMORPGs where, from an outsider's view, a tank is just absorbing damage from around him. A tank's job is to prevent damage to be taken, either by aggro or controlling, while posing on the front end of a group. A good tank rarely, if ever, gets hit because of the synergy between them and the rest of the group, but they need to pose a threat to the enemy group. This is something Barbarians, on a more optimized table, don't do too well, since they mostly gain advantage on attacks and their bonuses come from critical hits, which are unreliable. However, certain classes in 5e, such as the Paladin, the Battlemaster Fighter, the frontline Clerics and certain Rangers depending of the spells and the weapons you grab can do this very well by increasing their damage die, creating disruption or even both in the case of certain Paladins, like Crown. Position also counts for this disruption. Sure, you with Sentinel can only stop one foe from getting into your squshy wizard, but if your group positioned itself well, you only need to stop *that* one enemy from getting in, since the rest wouldn't be able to reach without sacrificing actions. If the situation calls for, it's much better for the "tank" to be at the face of the enemy caster and wallop him with attacks rather than play defensively and protect the caster because "casters are better than martials in everything" As for the dragon example, on this one, I can see where it is to blame on 5e. There is little to no mechanical reason as why a Dragon would land to face its foes. But like many people pointed out in the last time you said that, there are plenty of reasons as why a Dragon would land, it's just that they are on the lore of the enemies rather than on their stat sheet. Red Dragons are arrogant, Green Dragons aren't good flyers and prefer to hunt at land, Black Dragons like to toy with their prey and White Dragons are ferocious to the point on almost animistic. The description you gave would only fit a Blue Dragon, and even them would start their fights on the ground, either by sneaking around or creating disruption with illusions. While it would be interesting to see an aggro-drawing mechanic in 5e, I don't think it's necessary for the health of the game right now. Not even PF2e, a system I say made martials very powerful and put casters on the side, have very little things to do an AoE Aggro drawing ability, something to force the enemy to hit you or make hitting you preferable. But they tank very well since, well, most of the time they either are the damage dealers or, in the case of Champion and certain Monks, have a lot of disruptive tools that stop enemies on track. What gives the impression of martials needing that is that, except the Paladin and maybe the Ranger, all of casters can do what martials do and even better if you optimize well enough. Now, this isn't a problem on most tables, since they don't optimize to the core to the point of grabbing a dip in Artificer or Wizard so that you get Medium Armor or grab 2 levels in Paladin on Sorcerers to start with Heavy Armor and smites, but on the ones who optimize, things can get a bit problematic. And with that in mind that I say the new Barbarian feels a bit overtuned for the general usage, but fine for heavily optimizers. With it, the Barbarian forces the attention to be drawn upon himself, and while we did have a mechanic like this in another Barbarian subclass (Ancestral Guardians with the disadvantage on hit and Spirit Shield), nothing to the point of being AoE and giving so many drawbacks to the foes (decreased speed, no reactions and disadvantage). And while for an optimized table it would fair well, on a game where people are just playing for funsies and throwing dice because it's fun, it would be as overtuned as Peace Cleric or Silvery Barbs. It is nice to see something of that nature going for a martial for once, but it would be unhealthy for the overall state of the game.

[@naturalkind5591]

So is an 8 con wizard casting web a tank?

[@Specter053]

@@naturalkind5591 Did you read the post or you just want to be funny?

[@naturalkind5591]

@@Specter053 it rarely if ever gets hit and it prevents damage

[@Specter053]

@@naturalkind5591 Read again, the whole thing.

[@robertbromley5230]

These problems span editions. Briefly, 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 had better answers to creating a tank (often through feats and interesting class features) but optimization was if anything more optimal reducing the need for tanks. 4th gave class features to fighters and paladins intended to enable tanking but often our DM would ignore the fighter or paladin, even if they had marked the big bad monster because the ranger, the rogue, and/or wizard were simply more dangerous and any intelligent foe figured that out quick. AD&D probably did it best rules as written (casters needed their meat shields due to very low hip and any damage spoiling casting). In all editions, dragons played as one would expect should never land. In 5th, it seems to be the role of casters to find ways to enact conditions to force flying creatures to land, leaving the melee builds as secondary to casters and ranged builds.

[@chainclaw07]

I feel that a tanking subclass kr fighting style should have a feature of either Ashtons type of agro or simply a type of command where you expend a limited resource to taunt, idk a d6 of enemies which have disadvantage on any attack or action unless they target you. That leaving your reach triggers a wisdom save (unrelated to reaction) where they get frightened of you if they fail it. Meaning they're too scared to focus on the other party members and are fleeing from you.

[@DoomsdayR3sistance]

I think I like the idea of a Barbarian subclass who's rage is also an AoE aggro ability. I think I'd write up their level 3 class feature as such. Avatar of Fury While Raging, any hostile creature that starts it's turn within 10 foot of the barbarian or enters that range on their turn, must make a wisdom or intelligence saving throw, the creature decides which. The DC of the save is equal to 8+Barbarian's proficiency+Barbarian's strength, a creature which fails it's save is forced to make it's first attack for the turn against the barbarian. A creature who has taken damage from any source within the past minute automatically succeeds the saving throw. If a creature is unable to make it's first attack against the barbarian that round then it forfeits all attacks. A creature maintaining concentration on a spell that has failed it's saving throw to this ability must additionally make a DC 10 concentration saving throw to maintain the spell, additionally if a creature is affected by this ability and attempts to cast-a-spell it must also make a DC 10 concentration saving throw else the spell fails and fizzles out automatically. Master of Fury At 14th level the range of Avatar of Fury increase to 25 foot and the Barbarian can optionally choose to let certain hostile creatures within range automatically pass the check on their turns. As a reaction, the barbarian can make a creature who has passed it's saving throw for the turn re-roll it's save; Creatures which automatically passed their saves are also forced to re-roll.

[@123r97]

Funnily a lot of tabletop games don't get this weakness and the concept of 'tanking' is usually left to the narrative and GM's discretion. In pathfinder 2e the champion and swashbuckler are the best martial 'tanks' I know of. The champion has damage reduction as a reaction to an ally within 15ft and some sort of effect of a buff, debuff, or melee attack on one enemy. It's useful and they have an amount of healing that gives a temporary AC boost but can't do anything against ranged attacks. Swashbucklers can be great at manuvers so they can 'tank' that way. In one of my games I am the 'tank' of the party. I went all in on 'leaping' as a gimmick so I can reach flying units and grapple, that's about the only way for melee units to draw agro in the game at the moment. Even then Swashbucklers have abilities that whenever someone critically misses them you get a free attack. Which means eventually enemies are less inclined to attack you as a tank. Whcih is a bit counterintuitive. The best 'tank' I've seen in tabletop RPG's recently is the vanguard from starfinder. They can take damage for allies and have class abilities that make them have damage reduction against allies attacks or even boost ally attacks if they are in the middle of the area of effect. Their resource pool is based on how much they move, combat manuvers and taking damage so their abilities all work together nicely to make what is commonly referred to as a 'tank'. But every unit in the game has some form of ranged attack so even though it's built nicely around defending allies including from a flying unit they aren't essential because everyone has a gun.

[@fadeleaf845]

I once ran a math spreadsheet on a basic assumption that you tank four enemies whose CR is half your level who have one attack equalling the Monster Manual's expected DPR. The Barbarian has a 2-3 round survivability which is slightly below what a Fighter with a Shield + Defense FS can do (and nothing is even in the same ballpark as a dodging cleric as disadvantage is immense for durability, making even monks hard to kill) - but that tankiness of a Barbarian is heavily dependent on raging. Without it, they fall short of even Rogues and only at Level 20 do they overtake 17 AC Fighters - Reckless Attack really puts a damper on how much a Barb can take. And at Level 11+ nothing can really hold out tanking without employing a source of disadvantage to attacks (even the lauded 24 AC Peacechrons struggle here) so you'll need a big boost in durability to keep up. By the way, my math says that a dodging Cleric at Level 5 can hold out for 14 turns on average

[@woomod2445]

This is such a common misconception. Durability != Tankiness. The two main considerations for default tankiness is how LOW your durability is, and how HIGH your impact is. Ie kill the fucking wizard. The tank abilities alter this consideration by saying "No, attacking the wizard isn't an option."

[@paulfeeder4262]

alternatively to such a feature the dm could give terrain which enables the meles(especially tanks) to play around it and shut doors, grappel foes or just not be entirely countered by ranged flight. this could of course at some point become annoying/hard for the dm as there are only so many novel terrain concepts they can come up with, so i entirely understand that there shoud be a mecanical solution to this issue.

[@a_guy_in_orange7230]

Can we talk about how this one ability is better than like the entirety of the UA "Protection Domain" Cleric? that name, on what IMO should be the go to Tank class gets the ability to burn a reaction to impose disadvantage. . . 5 feet away, and then some abilities that don't actually protect but instead give fancy thorns effects. Honestly if I wanted to play a character that prevents damage from happening to other people I feel inclined to go Abjuration Wizard as they at least have a shield they can share with people as well as the support mains wet dream of a wall/control spell list. I feel what would be a good add if WOTC don't want to add specific tank class features would be a taunt action, something like dodge or dash where everyone can do it and its not tied to one specific class, but then add some subclass feature that makes it better

[@freddyaxebear7547]

I gave a paladin a homebrew ability. Basically 30ft effect that lasted 1 minute, the paladin glows with sunlight and enemies need to save each turn, fails cause blind for a turn. Undead get disadvantage, and its an undead campaign with 80% of enemies being undead. He was so unused to this kind of ability he overlooked it from level 3 to level 6. Took a near TPK for him to finally risk using it.

[@nonenone-hv5iq]

"Champion Challenge. As a bonus action, you issue a challenge that compels other creatures to do battle with you. Each creature of your choice that you can see within 30 feet of you must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can't willingly move more than 30 feet away from you. This effect ends on the creature if you are incapacitated or die or if the creature is more than 30 feet away from you." Not the first, just the first barbarian one. If you taunt a bunch of melee creatures as a crown paladin or sorcadin(since they have better ac) makes for a pretty decent tank as well.

[@evansiegel5660]

Not sure if it was mentioned but Ashton rolls to see which of his subclass features activates (gravity build, temporal morass, decay, etc) so he doesn’t get to pick which of his rage features he uses which makes his tanking ability less reliable

[@Rannulfus]

Quick note about mage armor, Laudna would not be able to wear her leather armor and use mage armor. Mage armor's effect can only be utilized by or cast on characters who are not using any form of armor otherwise. This only being RAW of course. If a dm wants to make their casters even stronger, then by all means.