if NPCs view the barbarian as a low priority they don't have anyway to change that past RA which isn't that big of a lure.
They have plenty of options:
First of all battlefield layout matters a lot; Barbarians gain improved speed and advantage on Initiative which means they have a solid ability to choose where fights occur, which should be somewhere between where your enemies start and where they're trying to get to, ideally a choke point so it's hard for them to get past.
Second Rage grants advantage on grappling an enemy; they can't waltz past you if they move. Sometimes literally pinning an enemy down is the best way to pin an enemy down 😝
Third they have Reckless Attack; you can be dismissive of it all you want, but if you've got a whirling Barbarian making no effort to protect themselves while also posing a significant threat then they should be an obvious target for at least some of the enemies, not just logically but mechanically as well, as they're just plain easier to hit. If your DM runs their monsters such that they prefer to miss than hit, then you've got a problem with your DM.
Fourth, they combine really well with a bunch of feats, but for tanking Sentinel is an ideal one. Sure, other classes can take that to, but none is as innately durable and tanky as the Barbarian already is (you're amplifying the tankiness you already have).
Fifth, they don't need to be tanking every enemy to be doing a good job; it's okay for a team mate to help force enemies to fight the Barbarian, buff/heal etc., because no class in D&D is supposed to work alone except when forced to.
You've also claimed twice now that Barbarian is the worst tanking class, yet haven't offered a single alternative class, but I'll cover a few:
Artificers have a couple good options for some tanking in the Armorer and Battle Smith, both of whom, like the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, can impose different amounts of disadvantage for targeting others, but it's only usually one or two in practice (three at most if an Armorer can reliable get a reaction or Haste attack). However, their durability mostly comes from a high AC (or Mirror Image or Shield), all of which are actively detterents to attacking them.
Fighters are great frontline combatants with high damage and solid durability, but not a lot of aggro type abilities; Battle Master has a couple of manoeuvres that are handy for, but these use a finite resource and aside from specific higher level builds are really just one or two targets for a turn or two at most. Cavalier has a kind of aggro ability (nasty bonus attack if a marked enemy attacks someone other than you) but it's not that major.
Paladins have a lot of great abilities for spike damage and party buffs, but their main aggro is really just trying to eliminate their aura, but that's quite situational (most auras are more beneficial against certain types of enemies).
So I think Barbarians (literally the tanking class of the game) being the worst tanking class is a very, very tough sell.
Grappling is a wash. Any PC with expanded attack action can be good at it with minimal effort. The barbarian has adv when they rage sure and later on a very high floor for str checks but anyone can grab expertise if they want the option. Grappling is a good option but it breaks easily and eats your own damage output. Barbarians are good at it but not great
Sentinel is a hard sell on barbarians because they have one of the weaker AOs. They also have the innate MaD issue so feats have a higher opportunity cost for them. If they need high damage(GWM) to be a valid target and high stats to make up for the increased incoming damage(RA) and then an additional feat for limited stickyness at what point is it just the feats pulling the weight?
Reckless attack is a strong ability no doubt but it doesn't actually force the enemies to focus on you. You say they are a significant threat but they isn't much proof that is the case. Hit/miss is secondary to being able to target who you want. It's also cheap for anyone to dip and grab if they want it. 2-3 levels to grab 70% of the barbarian tool kit.
Barbarians need the increased speed and initiative because other than the AG they have little to no impact anywhere other than the front lines and going even a single round without getting rage up can dig them a hole they might not get out of the rest of the encounter.
I stick by my claim the barbarian is the weakest tank. I'm willing to to take any class and produce a PC that can either match the barbarian in this aspect while providing additional resources or just out preform them flat out. I didn't think it was necessary because IMO the flaws of the class as they advance is glaring.
Sheer damage mitigation alone makes them better than the worst....
The best damage mitigation builds all use 3 levels of Barb.
Having effective double hit points and the highest hit die makes them super beefy.
You wont be able to rage every fight and even worse if you are dropped out of rage due to poor mental saves then you are mostly out of luck for the entire day. Since most features key off of rage too you basically do not get a subclass in a lot of cases. Not always of course and there are good exceptions but a LOT of your kit is tied to a long rest ability that can be cancelled.
You get your 4th Rage use by level 6, so even if you're playing with the recommended 6-8 encounters you can use Rage in at least half of those, and with that kind of quantity of encounters a few of them should be pretty obviously not worth wasting a Rage use on.
Those four uses of Rage continue to level 11, so if you want to be really ungenerous and compare with a full caster at that level (rather than at 6th) they will have 16 spell slots; that's two or three spells per encounter, maybe a little more depending upon what recovery options they have (Arcane Recovery, Font of Magic etc.); while you can spread it thinner than rage it's actually still pretty comparable before you hit five rages, especially if that caster is using reaction spells like Shield, those spell slots can run down faster than you think. And once a caster runs out of spells, they're entirely reliant on cantrips (decent-ish damage but not much in the way of protection) whereas a Barbarian that isn't using rage is still a solid martial character who can still tank reasonably well while giving themselves advantage whenever they want, meanwhile when they are raging they've got a tonne of bonuses that it would take a caster several duration spells to replicate (some of which would be concentration, which can be broken much like a Barbarian's Rage can).
So I don't think weakest class is a good claim either, except in the general meta of the game favouring casters; they might have some exploitable weaknesses that they themselves can't easily defend against (poor mental saves), but that's why you don't adventure in a party of one.
Though I'm also of a mind to reject the premise entirely; when was the last time you spoke to someone actively playing Barbarian who wasn't actually having a good time (and no, venting threads on here don't count)? Even people playing Battlerager or Berserker (which according to people online are the equivalent of committing sepukku in your first turn of every combat) seem to have a great time unless their DM goes out of their way to punish them for choosing those sub-classes.
It's just an easy-going, fun class to play that has a surprising amount strategy to it once you've mastered the basics.
I agree it's not the worse in most cases as I don't see a lot of tables do the 6-8 anyway
I just wanted to show a situation where the odds might be stacked against the class due to some design choices.
I like Barb a lot just for the simple gameplay if I'm in a RP heavy mindset.
Grappling is a wash. Any PC with expanded attack action can be good at it with minimal effort. The barbarian has adv when they rage sure and later on a very high floor for str checks but anyone can grab expertise if they want the option. Grappling is a good option but it breaks easily and eats your own damage output. Barbarians are good at it but not great
Advantage on all grappling related checks mean you can not only grab with a high chance of success (higher than a non-free dip to grab expertise), it also means you can keep a target grappled when you go back to delivering your full attacks against them, as maintaining the grapple costs you nothing (except one hand).
You also seem overly focused on damage output, but you're supposed to be arguing they're the worst tank, please pick one, as grappling costs one attack to keep an enemy from going where you don't want them to; and once you've grabbed them you can damage them all you like safe in the knowledge they won't be wandering off.
Sentinel is a hard sell on barbarians because they have one of the weaker AOs. They also have the innate MaD issue so feats have a higher opportunity cost for them. If they need high damage(GWM) to be a valid target and high stats to make up for the increased incoming damage(RA) and then an additional feat for limited stickyness at what point is it just the feats pulling the weight?
If your main argument against tankiness is damage output, then you're not arguing tankiness. And adding Sentinel makes them more tanky, not less, whereas adding it to another class only helps them catch up.
Reckless attack is a strong ability no doubt but it doesn't actually force the enemies to focus on you. You say they are a significant threat but they isn't much proof that is the case.
A Barbarian greatly increasing their chance to hit (and crit) isn't threatening now? You're the one who wants to build for damage, but then you pivot to not caring about damage five seconds later. 🤔
Reckless Attack both makes the Barbarian a more threatening target, and a more inviting one; if your DM isn't considering that then you've got yourself a bad DM, which is a separate issue entirely.
dip and grab if they want it. 2-3 levels to grab 70% of the barbarian tool kit.
"Barbarian is the worst class for tanking." "Take levels in Barbarian."
🤔
I stick by my claim the barbarian is the weakest tank. I'm willing to to take any class and produce a PC that can either match the barbarian in this aspect while providing additional resources or just out preform them flat out. I didn't think it was necessary because IMO the flaws of the class as they advance is glaring.
Please do, at least then you'd actually be trying to prove your point, as you still haven't mentioned a single other class yet. But to be clear; what you'll need to be building here is a single-class build that's objectively better at tanking than a good Barbarian build at the same level.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Grappling is a wash. Any PC with expanded attack action can be good at it with minimal effort. The barbarian has adv when they rage sure and later on a very high floor for str checks but anyone can grab expertise if they want the option. Grappling is a good option but it breaks easily and eats your own damage output. Barbarians are good at it but not great
Advantage on all grappling related checks mean you can not only grab with a high chance of success (higher than a non-free dip to grab expertise), it also means you can keep a target grappled when you go back to delivering your full attacks against them, as maintaining the grapple costs you nothing (except one hand).
This comparison is level-dependent. From level 9 onward, expertise is better than advantage, if you have to choose between them. Advantage is worth between +3 and +4 on directly contested checks, like a grapple is. Naturally, you want as many buffs as possible, which is why the tippety top of grappling involves spellcasting - Hex (Strength) on your target will do absolute wonders for grappling, and so will a nearby Lore Bard debuffing the target's check.
You also seem overly focused on damage output, but you're supposed to be arguing they're the worst tank, please pick one, as grappling costs one attack to keep an enemy from going where you don't want them to; and once you've grabbed them you can damage them all you like safe in the knowledge they won't be wandering off.
Absolutely not. Pro move is grapple+shove, so your target can't stop being prone until they break the grapple.
Reckless Attack both makes the Barbarian a more threatening target, and a more inviting one; if your DM isn't considering that then you've got yourself a bad DM, which is a separate issue entirely.
Counterpoint: You have a bad DM if Reckless Attack telegraphs the fact that enemies have advantage against you. Nothing in their rules indicates that should happen, so enemies should have to attack you to find out.
I stick by my claim the barbarian is the weakest tank. I'm willing to to take any class and produce a PC that can either match the barbarian in this aspect while providing additional resources or just out preform them flat out. I didn't think it was necessary because IMO the flaws of the class as they advance is glaring.
Please do, at least then you'd actually be trying to prove your point, as you still haven't mentioned a single other class yet. But to be clear; what you'll need to be building here is a single-class build that's objectively better at tanking than a good Barbarian build at the same level.
Wizards make some pretty good tanks. The hardest one to compete with is Abjurer. But the higher the level you pick, the weirder this contest will get - all spellcasters get a lot better very quickly at high levels, while Barbarians take a nose-dive in utility.
Naturally, you want as many buffs as possible, which is why the tippety top of grappling involves spellcasting - Hex (Strength) on your target will do absolute wonders for grappling, and so will a nearby Lore Bard debuffing the target's check.
You still actually need someone to do the grappling.
Absolutely not. Pro move is grapple+shove, so your target can't stop being prone until they break the grapple.
I was responsing to the insistince that grappling cripples damage output.
Counterpoint: You have a bad DM if Reckless Attack telegraphs the fact that enemies have advantage against you. Nothing in their rules indicates that should happen, so enemies should have to attack you to find out.
The word "reckless" is literally in the name of the feature. It's not carefully aiming a stab at just the right moment, it's swing an axe around like a maniac with no regard for your own safety; it is going to be absolutely bleedingly obvious that this barbarian is doing nothing to shield themselves from harm.
Wizards make some pretty good tanks. The hardest one to compete with is Abjurer. But the higher the level you pick, the weirder this contest will get - all spellcasters get a lot better very quickly at high levels, while Barbarians take a nose-dive in utility.
Can't help but notice a distinct lack of concrete examples here.
Wizards being better tanks is a strange argument to make; they can tank but they have half the HP, no built in durability or damage mitigation, no physical saves, and they need to burn a lot of spells to replicate what a Barbarian can do, and it's arguably easier to interrupt those (as anything concentration based can be interrupted by damaging the wizard, whereas a Barbarian's rage brings up multiple effects at once as a bonus action, and is up to the barbarian to maintain, not the enemy to interrupt). A lot of the damage mitigation that wizards do have access to actually runs counter to tanking, as being harder to hit (e.g- Shield, Mirror Image) will actually discourage enemies from attacking them, and these are also harder to maintain.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Naturally, you want as many buffs as possible, which is why the tippety top of grappling involves spellcasting - Hex (Strength) on your target will do absolute wonders for grappling, and so will a nearby Lore Bard debuffing the target's check.
You still actually need someone to do the grappling.
Absolutely not. Pro move is grapple+shove, so your target can't stop being prone until they break the grapple.
I was responsing to your insistince that grappling cripples your damage output; FFS, please make up your mind which position you're arguing instead of bouncing between them as it suits you.
Counterpoint: You have a bad DM if Reckless Attack telegraphs the fact that enemies have advantage against you. Nothing in their rules indicates that should happen, so enemies should have to attack you to find out.
The word "reckless" is literally in the name of the feature. It's not carefully aiming a stab at just the right moment, it's swing an axe around like a maniac with no regard for your own safety; it is going to be absolutely bleedingly obvious that this barbarian is doing nothing to shield themselves from harm.
Wizards make some pretty good tanks. The hardest one to compete with is Abjurer. But the higher the level you pick, the weirder this contest will get - all spellcasters get a lot better very quickly at high levels, while Barbarians take a nose-dive in utility.
Can't help but notice a distinct lack of concrete examples here; for someone who keeps insisting that Barbarians are the worst class for tanking, you're remarkably unwilling to actually make any arguments to support your ridiculous claim; all you've done so far is try to weakly snipe at features you seem determined to pick apart in the wierdest ways.
Most campaigns never make it past level 10, and general utility isn't the argument you've made; you said Barbarians are the worst tanks yet you've done literally nothing to back up your argument.
Thus far you've proposed wizards as better tanks; a class that has half the hit points, no physical saves or natural defensive features and which need to burn a bunch of spell slots to compete with a Barbarian's damage mitigation. Even when you layer on spells for defense, most of the options actually make enemies less likely to want to attack you, which is the opposite of tanking.
I think ya might be a bit confused with who is calling the barb the weakest tank... I believe it was Stoutstein who stated that not quindraco.
1. Someone really durable and resistant, despiste the chosen method of being tough. Whether through high AC or savings (like Paladins), through magic (Abjurer?), mobility (Rogues) or huge pool of HP (Barbarian)
2. Then what is expected from a Tank, probably the most hard to kill mofo in the party, is simple: draw attention. Why having all these defenses if the monsters are ignoring you and attacking your squishy allies? You need to do something about it! There are several ways to draw aggro into yourself. Most basic one is right positioning. But for sure Reckless Attack is a good way to open your defenses and show up as a better target.
To the topic: Are Barbarians good tanks? Yes, for sure. Ancestral Guardians are top-tier.
1. Someone really durable and resistant, despiste the chosen method of being tough. Whether through high AC or savings (like Paladins), through magic (Abjurer?), mobility (Rogues) or huge pool of HP (Barbarian)
2. Then what is expected from a Tank, probably the most hard to kill mofo in the party, is simple: draw attention. Why having all these defenses if the monsters are ignoring you and attacking your squishy allies? You need to do something about it! There are several ways to draw aggro into yourself. Most basic one is right positioning. But for sure Reckless Attack is a good way to open your defenses and show up as a better target.
To the topic: Are Barbarians good tanks? Yes, for sure. Ancestral Guardians are top-tier.
Having seen an Ancestral Barb in action for 15 or so sessions I would agree. The DIS to hit others paired with the ADV to hit them made them extremely good tank....even if you hit someone else they would use their reaction to reduce the damage.
Also for the AC thing...people seem to forget that barbs can use medium armor and shields. The barb in our group used half-plate and a shield for 19 AC....which is pretty good.
The issue with AG is its good in spite of being a barbarian option rather than because of it. They can freely disregard most of the class features and use the debuff with a ranged/throw weapon and probably fair better than acting like the class suggests at face value.
Several things are wrong with this assumption:
1. They need to be within 30ft for both the tossing of a javelin or Spirit Shield.....and if you are going to be that close anyway why not put yourself between the attacker and the person you want to protect? It doesn't make much sense to stand in the back. If the thing gets in close to the squishy thing you are protecting you have failed as a tank....even with resistance that wizard is going to die pretty fast if you just ignore the problem and stand in the back.
2. Throwing things is a terrible damage option for a barbarian. You generally will forgo at least one attack at some point with object interaction rulings and you do not get to use reckless attack on the throw....and the best damage you are looking at is d6 which is terrible. If you wanted to play this style you would be better off playing a caster or a ranged martial and be better off.
3. Base barbarian features are immensely strong for tanking as B/P/S damage makes up the vast majority of damage types across all creatures. Halving damage from that on top of a d12 hit die is immensely powerful for absorbing damage. The fact you can get ADV against yourself and DIS to attack others is icing on the cake.
I’m playing a level 8 Dwarf Ancestral Guardian and yesterday I experienced some gaps over attacking at range. I missed twice in a row (just +7 to hit) and failed to protect my allies. Honestly, I don’t mind to use d6 throwing weapons or something, I just need to hit my enemies — main focus of my character is not damage, it is protection and damage mitigation.
My character is constantly using two handaxes, throwing them a lot when needed and then grappling another foe. When I really want to proc Ancestral Protectors and I don’t want to risk with not reliable ranged attack, I’m more than happy to eat some OAs, move next to the strongest enemy and Reckless attack without thinking twice.
The issue with AG is its good in spite of being a barbarian option rather than because of it. They can freely disregard most of the class features and use the debuff with a ranged/throw weapon and probably fair better than acting like the class suggests at face value.
Several things are wrong with this assumption:
1. They need to be within 30ft for both the tossing of a javelin or Spirit Shield.....and if you are going to be that close anyway why not put yourself between the attacker and the person you want to protect? It doesn't make much sense to stand in the back. If the thing gets in close to the squishy thing you are protecting you have failed as a tank....even with resistance that wizard is going to die pretty fast if you just ignore the problem and stand in the back.
2. Throwing things is a terrible damage option for a barbarian. You generally will forgo at least one attack at some point with object interaction rulings and you do not get to use reckless attack on the throw....and the best damage you are looking at is d6 which is terrible. If you wanted to play this style you would be better off playing a caster or a ranged martial and be better off.
3. Base barbarian features are immensely strong for tanking as B/P/S damage makes up the vast majority of damage types across all creatures. Halving damage from that on top of a d12 hit die is immensely powerful for absorbing damage. The fact you can get ADV against yourself and DIS to attack others is icing on the cake.
You'd be surprised. If you take a standard lv 6 party with a rouge, wizard, cleric, and the AG barbarian facing off against a stone giant, the barbarian would take the most damage from it even before factoring in spirit shield, uncanny dodge, and such. The gap is larger than the HD size difference and that's assuming the party did the bare minimum as far as planning and working together. A few good choices here and there and you could probably handle 3 giants with the same resources spent.
The AG tagging and moving to a place that would force the giant to take AOs to follow or toss a rock at disadvantage at the AG, who is hopefully behind some form of cover, or do something else like attempt to grapple someone or something else. Most likely retreating or parlay if they have any self preservation.
So assuming that the entire party is not within range of melee for the giant at all? or that there is cover?
Your one very specific scenario does not a bad tank make....
The rogue and cleric would mostly likely be up front which would provide at least half cover for the barbarian and wizard. This would be the most basic strategy to deal the most damage and mitigate the largest amount of incoming damage at the lowest resource assuming combat is unavoidable.
This would be the perfect type of encounter for the AG to shine acting in the traditional barbarian fashion and still better off being outside melee range.
The AG is a good tank in this type of encounter just not in the sense of directly eating attacks.
So they are a good tank in several scenarios then? Seems to be a good choice of tank then all around.
Sheer damage mitigation alone makes them better than the worst....
The best damage mitigation builds all use 3 levels of Barb.
Having effective double hit points and the highest hit die makes them super beefy.
I agree it's not the worse in most cases as I don't see a lot of tables do the 6-8 anyway
I just wanted to show a situation where the odds might be stacked against the class due to some design choices.
I like Barb a lot just for the simple gameplay if I'm in a RP heavy mindset.
If your main argument against tankiness is damage output, then you're not arguing tankiness. And adding Sentinel makes them more tanky, not less, whereas adding it to another class only helps them catch up.
A Barbarian greatly increasing their chance to hit (and crit) isn't threatening now? You're the one who wants to build for damage, but then you pivot to not caring about damage five seconds later. 🤔
Reckless Attack both makes the Barbarian a more threatening target, and a more inviting one; if your DM isn't considering that then you've got yourself a bad DM, which is a separate issue entirely.
"Barbarian is the worst class for tanking."
"Take levels in Barbarian."
🤔
Please do, at least then you'd actually be trying to prove your point, as you still haven't mentioned a single other class yet. But to be clear; what you'll need to be building here is a single-class build that's objectively better at tanking than a good Barbarian build at the same level.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Counterpoint: You have a bad DM if Reckless Attack telegraphs the fact that enemies have advantage against you. Nothing in their rules indicates that should happen, so enemies should have to attack you to find out.
Wizards make some pretty good tanks. The hardest one to compete with is Abjurer. But the higher the level you pick, the weirder this contest will get - all spellcasters get a lot better very quickly at high levels, while Barbarians take a nose-dive in utility.
Can't help but notice a distinct lack of concrete examples here.
Wizards being better tanks is a strange argument to make; they can tank but they have half the HP, no built in durability or damage mitigation, no physical saves, and they need to burn a lot of spells to replicate what a Barbarian can do, and it's arguably easier to interrupt those (as anything concentration based can be interrupted by damaging the wizard, whereas a Barbarian's rage brings up multiple effects at once as a bonus action, and is up to the barbarian to maintain, not the enemy to interrupt). A lot of the damage mitigation that wizards do have access to actually runs counter to tanking, as being harder to hit (e.g- Shield, Mirror Image) will actually discourage enemies from attacking them, and these are also harder to maintain.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think ya might be a bit confused with who is calling the barb the weakest tank...
I believe it was Stoutstein who stated that not quindraco.
No worries! Gets confusing with no avatar pics I've done the same thing.
Tank is a word that can represent several things.
1. Someone really durable and resistant, despiste the chosen method of being tough. Whether through high AC or savings (like Paladins), through magic (Abjurer?), mobility (Rogues) or huge pool of HP (Barbarian)
2. Then what is expected from a Tank, probably the most hard to kill mofo in the party, is simple: draw attention. Why having all these defenses if the monsters are ignoring you and attacking your squishy allies? You need to do something about it! There are several ways to draw aggro into yourself. Most basic one is right positioning. But for sure Reckless Attack is a good way to open your defenses and show up as a better target.
To the topic: Are Barbarians good tanks? Yes, for sure. Ancestral Guardians are top-tier.
Having seen an Ancestral Barb in action for 15 or so sessions I would agree. The DIS to hit others paired with the ADV to hit them made them extremely good tank....even if you hit someone else they would use their reaction to reduce the damage.
Also for the AC thing...people seem to forget that barbs can use medium armor and shields. The barb in our group used half-plate and a shield for 19 AC....which is pretty good.
It is a crazy good tank option.
Several things are wrong with this assumption:
1. They need to be within 30ft for both the tossing of a javelin or Spirit Shield.....and if you are going to be that close anyway why not put yourself between the attacker and the person you want to protect? It doesn't make much sense to stand in the back. If the thing gets in close to the squishy thing you are protecting you have failed as a tank....even with resistance that wizard is going to die pretty fast if you just ignore the problem and stand in the back.
2. Throwing things is a terrible damage option for a barbarian. You generally will forgo at least one attack at some point with object interaction rulings and you do not get to use reckless attack on the throw....and the best damage you are looking at is d6 which is terrible. If you wanted to play this style you would be better off playing a caster or a ranged martial and be better off.
3. Base barbarian features are immensely strong for tanking as B/P/S damage makes up the vast majority of damage types across all creatures. Halving damage from that on top of a d12 hit die is immensely powerful for absorbing damage. The fact you can get ADV against yourself and DIS to attack others is icing on the cake.
I’m playing a level 8 Dwarf Ancestral Guardian and yesterday I experienced some gaps over attacking at range. I missed twice in a row (just +7 to hit) and failed to protect my allies. Honestly, I don’t mind to use d6 throwing weapons or something, I just need to hit my enemies — main focus of my character is not damage, it is protection and damage mitigation.
My character is constantly using two handaxes, throwing them a lot when needed and then grappling another foe. When I really want to proc Ancestral Protectors and I don’t want to risk with not reliable ranged attack, I’m more than happy to eat some OAs, move next to the strongest enemy and Reckless attack without thinking twice.
I’m a hell of a tank.
So assuming that the entire party is not within range of melee for the giant at all? or that there is cover?
Your one very specific scenario does not a bad tank make....
Cover is the best tank ever.
So they are a good tank in several scenarios then? Seems to be a good choice of tank then all around.