I agree with those who say 1. there's no such thing as a "best" tank. and 2. D&D doesn't work if you try to shoehorn it into in MMO terms.
As an example, cavalier fighter is about the only class I can think of that actually draws aggro, or has taunts. I guess some spells, and probably there's other things I'm forgetting, but let's go with this. At least in a video game sense, cavaliers have powers where you are kind of forced to attack it, and where it doesn't allow enemies to just ignore it and walk past. Beyond that, any character that takes the sentinel feat can do some similar stuff. Take a cavalier fighter with sentinel and a reach weapon, and it can lock down a pretty big area. But that doesn't mean they are the best. It means they are good at that one thing. And if an enemy pull out a bow or casts a spell, cavaliers suddenly stop being nearly as good at that one thing anymore.
As others have said, you can't say something is a "best" in D&D. In a video game, everyone will be playing the exact same dungeon at pretty much the same level and with very similar gear. In that situation, there are going to be objectively better classes and class combinations and best in slot gear. But that's because you've removed the variable of the enemies from the equation. Everyone will fight the same enemies, with the same strengths and weaknesses in the same order, so its easy to tell who and what you should bring. In D&D, that's impossible. If you make a character who's really good at fighting demons for DiA, they will find a lot of their stuff isn't so useful if you drop them into Strixhaven. So, while you might be able to say a character is better suited to one published adventure or another, you can't say one is objectively better than another. And that goes double for homebrew, where DMs will throw anything and everything at you.
I dun' wanna. These questions bother the hell out of me, because it's always somebody fishing for an excuse to dismiss everything that isn't ZA BESTO.
<snip>
You're ascribing intent where it doesn't exist. The remainder of this post rests on that foundation. The rest of your comments about the variety of classes and roles that can emulate the result of tanking are helpful.
To try and loop it back around to actually answering the question, here's my response to OP:
I would say either the paladin or fighter. Barbarian has great damage and can soak a lot of it, but the relatively low AC is a knock against it in my opinion. The fighter has more attacks, so they make more steady damage and they can wear heavy armor so they are fairly sturdy when combined with their d10 hit die. With the more attacks of their's they have more chances to grapple, disarm, shove, etc and their extra ASIs mean they can get more of those combat feats like sentinel, slasher, etc. Paladins have bigger "burst damage" because of their smites and have the versatility that comes with access to spellcasting. They have heavy armor, d10 hit die, and at 6th level get to add their CHA mod to all their saves, so they have a great amount of survivability just like the fighter.
I picked paladin just because that's what my first thought was, but it could be either one of those.
The bloodhunter isn't a good tank. They're a striker. They are honestly a better archer than melee class. Generally speaking if the class doesn't get access to the defense fighting style then they aren't really in the running for tanking contest. Barbarians gets in because of rage resistances.
Few things to note, entirely ignoring the drama queens who insist that any discussion is going to result in some kind of "WORD OF GOD" and ruin the game for everyone. Most folks have a mind and are able to read information and discern whether it's applicable, relevant and accurate. A lengthy debate and discussion on which class (and subclass, because that makes a WORLD of difference) can and should generate a fair bit of useful discussion. Sadly, it often devolves into what we have thus far, some kind of rampage about MMO mentality destroying D&D as we know it. On to my opinion:
The "best" tank is going to depend on your group makeup, the DM running the game and the specifics within the build. To me, Sentinel is a MUST for a good tank, to help keep the baddie locked right where he/she/it is. Grappling builds are also helpful, anything that can contribute to making an enemy STAY! Any builds that have mechanics that either lock down a foe or impose penalties for attacking someone other than you is great as well. I have seen disadvantage being dismissed because of the nasty monster's big to hit bonus. Well, our squishy Wizard, with his 13 AC actually has 18 AC when under assault, as he/she likely has Shield, so the glorious +10, who some seem to feel can NEVAR MISSSSS suddenly finds he needs to roll an 8 or better, instead of a 3 or better to land the blow. Not an insignificant jump, but I will let some numbers monkey do the maths to see what the chances run to.
Enemies will just ignore the beefsteak and attack the casters? Well, if they are doing so on the initial engagement, I'm sorry you have a shitty DM. Logical, sensible playing of the enemies would have them face the FIRST threat first, and sure, after a couple rounds of not accomplishing much on the hulking, angry brute, seek to move on and find something squishier. Of course, this means a couple rounds of combat have taken place, so the enemies have likely taken some decent damage and the party, well, mostly the "tank" types rushed up, so they are the ones eating most of it. Then, when the enemy does give up and head for the squishies, if the tank(s) have grabbed Sentinel, there's a solid chance that the big bad isn't going anywhere. See, there is an inherent difference in having an intelligent, human mind behind the monsters and having a meta-mind running the enemies. If the beefy or heavily armored party members are summarily ignored at the beginning, the DM is applying some meta knowledge and that makes for a shitty game if players or DMs do it.
So far as which class? Ugh, flat out, I prefer a totem Barbarian for the mass of flesh and excellent damage resistance. Second for me would be a Fighter, and I am fond of the Champion subclass, but Eldritch Knight gets some nice perks and spells to help and Battlemaster can also do some pretty cool stuff too. These are the AC tanks, decked out in plate and while not able to absorb like the Barbarian, they avoid enough to hold par. Paladin is on par with the Fighters to me, with a plethora of things they can bring to not only mess with foes, but bolster their allies, so depending on the scenario, might be among the best, my opinion falling to pieces, lol.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that D&D tanks will NOT operate like an MMO tank at any point. As a few have pointed out, you'll need to contend with dynamic, human intelligence, not a series of "if-then" algorithms that can easily be exploited.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Enemies will just ignore the beefsteak and attack the casters? Well, if they are doing so on the initial engagement, I'm sorry you have a shitty DM. Logical, sensible playing of the enemies would have them face the FIRST threat first, and sure, after a couple rounds of not accomplishing much on the hulking, angry brute, seek to move on and find something squishier.
A large number of monsters are going to prioritize based on "looks easy to kill" rather than "looks like a threat". The monsters that don't are generally more tactical and will prioritize the same way as PCs would: if there's a big hulk of meat in the front and a guy in robes in the back, they kill the guy in robes.
Enemies will just ignore the beefsteak and attack the casters? Well, if they are doing so on the initial engagement, I'm sorry you have a shitty DM. Logical, sensible playing of the enemies would have them face the FIRST threat first, and sure, after a couple rounds of not accomplishing much on the hulking, angry brute, seek to move on and find something squishier.
A large number of monsters are going to prioritize based on "looks easy to kill" rather than "looks like a threat". The monsters that don't are generally more tactical and will prioritize the same way as PCs would: if there's a big hulk of meat in the front and a guy in robes in the back, they kill the guy in robes.
This.👆
If they target prioritize like most animals, “easy to kill” will be first, and that’s the weenie in robes. If they prioritize like a PC, then “squishy spellcaster” (aka “guy in robes”) will be first. Either way, the caster is a priority. It’s only the mindless enemies like mook undead that will focus on the closest enemy first.
As others have said, there is no such thing as a best tank, since there are quite a large variety of tanks. My personal favorite though is cavalier fighter with blind fighting.
Top feats of choice would be Polearm Master and Sentinel. Other strong contenders for consideration would be Crusher, Martial Adept (Precision Attack, Goading Attack), Fighting Initiate (Disarming Attack), Eldritch Initiate (Devil Sight), and Lucky, and these all help increase the odds of landing a hit. I also like Alert, Athelete, Charger, Chef, Dungeon Delver, Healer, Inspiring Leader, Keen Mind, Mobile, Mounted Combatant, Observant, Ritual Caster, and Skulker for more niche builds and to inject more flavor and personality. For a more magical leaning tank, I would grab Warcaster, maybe Metamagic Adept, maybe Elemental Adept, and one or more of the following: Aberrant Dragonmark, Artificer Initiate, Elemental Adept, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched, Spellsniper, Strixhaven Initiate, Strixhaven Mascot, Telekinetic, Telepathic.
Boon of Combat Prowess, Fate, Luck, and Truesight would be my top Epic Boons. Boon of Speed, Spell Mastery, and Spell Recall would also be nice.
Favorite magic item to have would be Shield of Missile Attraction for the beneficial curse. Halberd and Pike of Warning would also be nice.
Enemies will just ignore the beefsteak and attack the casters? Well, if they are doing so on the initial engagement, I'm sorry you have a shitty DM. Logical, sensible playing of the enemies would have them face the FIRST threat first, and sure, after a couple rounds of not accomplishing much on the hulking, angry brute, seek to move on and find something squishier.
A large number of monsters are going to prioritize based on "looks easy to kill" rather than "looks like a threat". The monsters that don't are generally more tactical and will prioritize the same way as PCs would: if there's a big hulk of meat in the front and a guy in robes in the back, they kill the guy in robes.
This.👆
If they target prioritize like most animals, “easy to kill” will be first, and that’s the weenie in robes. If they prioritize like a PC, then “squishy spellcaster” (aka “guy in robes”) will be first. Either way, the caster is a priority. It’s only the mindless enemies like mook undead that will focus on the closest enemy first.
Of course, monks make decent decoys, at least until someone casts fireball.
Enemies will just ignore the beefsteak and attack the casters? Well, if they are doing so on the initial engagement, I'm sorry you have a shitty DM. Logical, sensible playing of the enemies would have them face the FIRST threat first, and sure, after a couple rounds of not accomplishing much on the hulking, angry brute, seek to move on and find something squishier.
A large number of monsters are going to prioritize based on "looks easy to kill" rather than "looks like a threat". The monsters that don't are generally more tactical and will prioritize the same way as PCs would: if there's a big hulk of meat in the front and a guy in robes in the back, they kill the guy in robes.
This.👆
If they target prioritize like most animals, “easy to kill” will be first, and that’s the weenie in robes. If they prioritize like a PC, then “squishy spellcaster” (aka “guy in robes”) will be first. Either way, the caster is a priority. It’s only the mindless enemies like mook undead that will focus on the closest enemy first.
Of course, monks make decent decoys, at least until someone casts fireball.
The monk keeps themselves as a priority target by blowing past the front line to target the person maintaining your Bless or you Fly. That way you have to choose. See, tanking in D&D isn't like in WOW at all, it's much more nuanced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You left off Druid. Once you get Wildshape, Druid gets a ton of extra HP via Wildshape, can get grappling abilities from Wildshape, and can get spells similar to a control Wizard.
In my opinion, a Druid focused on Tanking makes the best Tank.
P.S. War Mages and Transmutation mages are not the best 'tank' wizards. Their abilities are too focused on Utility and Offense. Abjuration Wizard, Chrono, Gravity, Divination, and Necro all have abilities better than the Trans. or War mages when it comes to tanking. Abjuration gives the ward that you can use on other people. Chrono and Divination can force someone to fail a save, Gravity moves people, and Necro creates stronger minions to tank for you.
As you say, Druids early game are beasts of tanking, if we are looking for HP and we're not looking for prevention-of-movement (depends on DM and enemy). Later, Moon is all sorts of crazy.
Our party-mate just mutliclassed his Barbarian (of the Bear) into Moon Druid. That thing is going to be stupidly hard to kill as it gets levels. Thank god we've never seen a dinosaur.
As you say, Druids early game are beasts of tanking, if we are looking for HP and we're not looking for prevention-of-movement
They're pretty good at movement prevention as well, being Large or Huge is convenient for body-blocking and there's a fair number of monsters with knock prone or grapple on hit.
Moon druids can soak up a ridiculous amount of damage, but don't have the same tools for holding an enemy's attention as a fighter or paladin. Druids in general do a good job of controlling the battlefield though, so still a solid option.
I vote paladin. They tend to have as good or better AC and HP as the other options (factoring lay on hands as HP) and have auras and spell options to bolster and protect the party. Not to mention a nova damage output that puts further incentive on enemies to deal with them first.
Barbarians are great walls of angry hit points, but don't have much in the way of protecting the party or holding the enemy in place (besides grapple, but the other options do that just as well).
Paladins have no bad saves, can wear any armor in the game, can cast spells while wielding a shield, and have some natural condition immunity built in.
Enemies will just ignore the beefsteak and attack the casters? Well, if they are doing so on the initial engagement, I'm sorry you have a shitty DM. Logical, sensible playing of the enemies would have them face the FIRST threat first, and sure, after a couple rounds of not accomplishing much on the hulking, angry brute, seek to move on and find something squishier.
A large number of monsters are going to prioritize based on "looks easy to kill" rather than "looks like a threat". The monsters that don't are generally more tactical and will prioritize the same way as PCs would: if there's a big hulk of meat in the front and a guy in robes in the back, they kill the guy in robes.
This.👆
If they target prioritize like most animals, “easy to kill” will be first, and that’s the weenie in robes. If they prioritize like a PC, then “squishy spellcaster” (aka “guy in robes”) will be first. Either way, the caster is a priority. It’s only the mindless enemies like mook undead that will focus on the closest enemy first.
As Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. It's easy to say you're going to stab that squishy wizard before dealing with the raging barbarian, but when said barbarian is trying to shove a great axe through your spleen you are likely to realize that you can't just ignore them. It's true that 5E doesn't have a lot mechanical options for locking down enemies, but being dangerous and in someone's face really is a means of attracting attention to yourself unless the GM is playing everything like a fanatical assassin with no sense of self-preservation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. It's easy to say you're going to stab that squishy wizard before dealing with the raging barbarian, but when said barbarian is trying to shove a great axe through your spleen you are likely to realize that you can't just ignore them.
Sure you can. The combination of "not very dangerous" and "inordinately hard to kill" screams "ignore until later". Or engage it with your own low damage meatshield while the dps deal with higher priority targets.
As Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. It's easy to say you're going to stab that squishy wizard before dealing with the raging barbarian, but when said barbarian is trying to shove a great axe through your spleen you are likely to realize that you can't just ignore them.
Sure you can. The combination of "not very dangerous" and "inordinately hard to kill" screams "ignore until later". Or engage it with your own low damage meatshield while the dps deal with higher priority targets.
Whereas the combination of "very dangerous" and "makes everything else harder to kill" like Smitey McAuraface screams "this needs to be dealt with."
Thus paladin > barbarian. Things like protector fighting style and compelled duel are the epitome of a "tank" role.
I ran a paladin for two years, from 1st level all the way up to 16th. I never really found Compelled Duel to be all that necessary, but they do make excellent tanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. It's easy to say you're going to stab that squishy wizard before dealing with the raging barbarian, but when said barbarian is trying to shove a great axe through your spleen you are likely to realize that you can't just ignore them.
Sure you can. The combination of "not very dangerous" and "inordinately hard to kill" screams "ignore until later". Or engage it with your own low damage meatshield while the dps deal with higher priority targets.
Whereas the combination of "very dangerous" and "makes everything else harder to kill" like Smitey McAuraface screams "this needs to be dealt with."
Thus paladin > barbarian. Things like protector fighting style and compelled duel are the epitome of a "tank" role.
Paladins are kind of like clerics -- should be high priority, but not all that obvious. However, compelled duel is just kinda terrible, it's only marginally effective at preventing monsters from beating on the rest of the party but it does mean the rest of the party can't beat on the monster.
I ran a paladin for two years, from 1st level all the way up to 16th. I never really found Compelled Duel to be all that necessary, but they do make excellent tanks.
Paladins are kind of like clerics -- should be high priority, but not all that obvious. However, compelled duel is just kinda terrible, it's only marginally effective at preventing monsters from beating on the rest of the party but it does mean the rest of the party can't beat on the monster.
And the protection fighting style is mediocre too.
My point was: it has way more party protection options than barbarians, bloodhunters, and most fighters. Paladins give (at least to me) the impression that they were designed to fill a typical mmo tank role more so than other classes.
And the protection fighting style is mediocre too.
Tanking options in the PHB, with the weird exception of sentinel mastery, seem like "tanking powers as designed by someone who hates tanks". Fighter has two tanking abilities (protection fighting style, battlemaster goading attack), both are terrible. Paladins also have two tanking abilities (protection fighting style, compelled duel), and again, both are terrible. Paladin auras aren't tanking abilities, they're defensive buffs -- they work just as well even if the paladin is in the back rank.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with those who say 1. there's no such thing as a "best" tank. and 2. D&D doesn't work if you try to shoehorn it into in MMO terms.
As an example, cavalier fighter is about the only class I can think of that actually draws aggro, or has taunts. I guess some spells, and probably there's other things I'm forgetting, but let's go with this. At least in a video game sense, cavaliers have powers where you are kind of forced to attack it, and where it doesn't allow enemies to just ignore it and walk past. Beyond that, any character that takes the sentinel feat can do some similar stuff. Take a cavalier fighter with sentinel and a reach weapon, and it can lock down a pretty big area. But that doesn't mean they are the best. It means they are good at that one thing. And if an enemy pull out a bow or casts a spell, cavaliers suddenly stop being nearly as good at that one thing anymore.
As others have said, you can't say something is a "best" in D&D. In a video game, everyone will be playing the exact same dungeon at pretty much the same level and with very similar gear. In that situation, there are going to be objectively better classes and class combinations and best in slot gear. But that's because you've removed the variable of the enemies from the equation. Everyone will fight the same enemies, with the same strengths and weaknesses in the same order, so its easy to tell who and what you should bring. In D&D, that's impossible. If you make a character who's really good at fighting demons for DiA, they will find a lot of their stuff isn't so useful if you drop them into Strixhaven. So, while you might be able to say a character is better suited to one published adventure or another, you can't say one is objectively better than another. And that goes double for homebrew, where DMs will throw anything and everything at you.
You're ascribing intent where it doesn't exist. The remainder of this post rests on that foundation. The rest of your comments about the variety of classes and roles that can emulate the result of tanking are helpful.
To try and loop it back around to actually answering the question, here's my response to OP:
I would say either the paladin or fighter. Barbarian has great damage and can soak a lot of it, but the relatively low AC is a knock against it in my opinion. The fighter has more attacks, so they make more steady damage and they can wear heavy armor so they are fairly sturdy when combined with their d10 hit die. With the more attacks of their's they have more chances to grapple, disarm, shove, etc and their extra ASIs mean they can get more of those combat feats like sentinel, slasher, etc. Paladins have bigger "burst damage" because of their smites and have the versatility that comes with access to spellcasting. They have heavy armor, d10 hit die, and at 6th level get to add their CHA mod to all their saves, so they have a great amount of survivability just like the fighter.
I picked paladin just because that's what my first thought was, but it could be either one of those.
The bloodhunter isn't a good tank. They're a striker. They are honestly a better archer than melee class. Generally speaking if the class doesn't get access to the defense fighting style then they aren't really in the running for tanking contest. Barbarians gets in because of rage resistances.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU









Few things to note, entirely ignoring the drama queens who insist that any discussion is going to result in some kind of "WORD OF GOD" and ruin the game for everyone. Most folks have a mind and are able to read information and discern whether it's applicable, relevant and accurate. A lengthy debate and discussion on which class (and subclass, because that makes a WORLD of difference) can and should generate a fair bit of useful discussion. Sadly, it often devolves into what we have thus far, some kind of rampage about MMO mentality destroying D&D as we know it. On to my opinion:
The "best" tank is going to depend on your group makeup, the DM running the game and the specifics within the build. To me, Sentinel is a MUST for a good tank, to help keep the baddie locked right where he/she/it is. Grappling builds are also helpful, anything that can contribute to making an enemy STAY! Any builds that have mechanics that either lock down a foe or impose penalties for attacking someone other than you is great as well. I have seen disadvantage being dismissed because of the nasty monster's big to hit bonus. Well, our squishy Wizard, with his 13 AC actually has 18 AC when under assault, as he/she likely has Shield, so the glorious +10, who some seem to feel can NEVAR MISSSSS suddenly finds he needs to roll an 8 or better, instead of a 3 or better to land the blow. Not an insignificant jump, but I will let some numbers monkey do the maths to see what the chances run to.
Enemies will just ignore the beefsteak and attack the casters? Well, if they are doing so on the initial engagement, I'm sorry you have a shitty DM. Logical, sensible playing of the enemies would have them face the FIRST threat first, and sure, after a couple rounds of not accomplishing much on the hulking, angry brute, seek to move on and find something squishier. Of course, this means a couple rounds of combat have taken place, so the enemies have likely taken some decent damage and the party, well, mostly the "tank" types rushed up, so they are the ones eating most of it. Then, when the enemy does give up and head for the squishies, if the tank(s) have grabbed Sentinel, there's a solid chance that the big bad isn't going anywhere. See, there is an inherent difference in having an intelligent, human mind behind the monsters and having a meta-mind running the enemies. If the beefy or heavily armored party members are summarily ignored at the beginning, the DM is applying some meta knowledge and that makes for a shitty game if players or DMs do it.
So far as which class? Ugh, flat out, I prefer a totem Barbarian for the mass of flesh and excellent damage resistance. Second for me would be a Fighter, and I am fond of the Champion subclass, but Eldritch Knight gets some nice perks and spells to help and Battlemaster can also do some pretty cool stuff too. These are the AC tanks, decked out in plate and while not able to absorb like the Barbarian, they avoid enough to hold par. Paladin is on par with the Fighters to me, with a plethora of things they can bring to not only mess with foes, but bolster their allies, so depending on the scenario, might be among the best, my opinion falling to pieces, lol.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that D&D tanks will NOT operate like an MMO tank at any point. As a few have pointed out, you'll need to contend with dynamic, human intelligence, not a series of "if-then" algorithms that can easily be exploited.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
A large number of monsters are going to prioritize based on "looks easy to kill" rather than "looks like a threat". The monsters that don't are generally more tactical and will prioritize the same way as PCs would: if there's a big hulk of meat in the front and a guy in robes in the back, they kill the guy in robes.
This.👆
If they target prioritize like most animals, “easy to kill” will be first, and that’s the weenie in robes. If they prioritize like a PC, then “squishy spellcaster” (aka “guy in robes”) will be first. Either way, the caster is a priority. It’s only the mindless enemies like mook undead that will focus on the closest enemy first.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As others have said, there is no such thing as a best tank, since there are quite a large variety of tanks. My personal favorite though is cavalier fighter with blind fighting.
Top feats of choice would be Polearm Master and Sentinel. Other strong contenders for consideration would be Crusher, Martial Adept (Precision Attack, Goading Attack), Fighting Initiate (Disarming Attack), Eldritch Initiate (Devil Sight), and Lucky, and these all help increase the odds of landing a hit. I also like Alert, Athelete, Charger, Chef, Dungeon Delver, Healer, Inspiring Leader, Keen Mind, Mobile, Mounted Combatant, Observant, Ritual Caster, and Skulker for more niche builds and to inject more flavor and personality. For a more magical leaning tank, I would grab Warcaster, maybe Metamagic Adept, maybe Elemental Adept, and one or more of the following: Aberrant Dragonmark, Artificer Initiate, Elemental Adept, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched, Spellsniper, Strixhaven Initiate, Strixhaven Mascot, Telekinetic, Telepathic.
Boon of Combat Prowess, Fate, Luck, and Truesight would be my top Epic Boons. Boon of Speed, Spell Mastery, and Spell Recall would also be nice.
Favorite magic item to have would be Shield of Missile Attraction for the beneficial curse. Halberd and Pike of Warning would also be nice.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Of course, monks make decent decoys, at least until someone casts fireball.
The monk keeps themselves as a priority target by blowing past the front line to target the person maintaining your Bless or you Fly. That way you have to choose. See, tanking in D&D isn't like in WOW at all, it's much more nuanced.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
As you say, Druids early game are beasts of tanking, if we are looking for HP and we're not looking for prevention-of-movement (depends on DM and enemy). Later, Moon is all sorts of crazy.
Our party-mate just mutliclassed his Barbarian (of the Bear) into Moon Druid. That thing is going to be stupidly hard to kill as it gets levels. Thank god we've never seen a dinosaur.
They're pretty good at movement prevention as well, being Large or Huge is convenient for body-blocking and there's a fair number of monsters with knock prone or grapple on hit.
Moon druids can soak up a ridiculous amount of damage, but don't have the same tools for holding an enemy's attention as a fighter or paladin. Druids in general do a good job of controlling the battlefield though, so still a solid option.
I vote paladin. They tend to have as good or better AC and HP as the other options (factoring lay on hands as HP) and have auras and spell options to bolster and protect the party. Not to mention a nova damage output that puts further incentive on enemies to deal with them first.
Barbarians are great walls of angry hit points, but don't have much in the way of protecting the party or holding the enemy in place (besides grapple, but the other options do that just as well).
Paladins have no bad saves, can wear any armor in the game, can cast spells while wielding a shield, and have some natural condition immunity built in.
As Mike Tyson once said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. It's easy to say you're going to stab that squishy wizard before dealing with the raging barbarian, but when said barbarian is trying to shove a great axe through your spleen you are likely to realize that you can't just ignore them. It's true that 5E doesn't have a lot mechanical options for locking down enemies, but being dangerous and in someone's face really is a means of attracting attention to yourself unless the GM is playing everything like a fanatical assassin with no sense of self-preservation.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sure you can. The combination of "not very dangerous" and "inordinately hard to kill" screams "ignore until later". Or engage it with your own low damage meatshield while the dps deal with higher priority targets.
Whereas the combination of "very dangerous" and "makes everything else harder to kill" like Smitey McAuraface screams "this needs to be dealt with."
Thus paladin > barbarian. Things like protector fighting style and compelled duel are the epitome of a "tank" role.
I ran a paladin for two years, from 1st level all the way up to 16th. I never really found Compelled Duel to be all that necessary, but they do make excellent tanks.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Paladins are kind of like clerics -- should be high priority, but not all that obvious. However, compelled duel is just kinda terrible, it's only marginally effective at preventing monsters from beating on the rest of the party but it does mean the rest of the party can't beat on the monster.
And the protection fighting style is mediocre too.
My point was: it has way more party protection options than barbarians, bloodhunters, and most fighters. Paladins give (at least to me) the impression that they were designed to fill a typical mmo tank role more so than other classes.
Tanking options in the PHB, with the weird exception of sentinel mastery, seem like "tanking powers as designed by someone who hates tanks". Fighter has two tanking abilities (protection fighting style, battlemaster goading attack), both are terrible. Paladins also have two tanking abilities (protection fighting style, compelled duel), and again, both are terrible. Paladin auras aren't tanking abilities, they're defensive buffs -- they work just as well even if the paladin is in the back rank.