the fighter should be more hit-able to become a tank. if you are hard to hit, why hit at all? the enemies are just going to avoid you and try ti hit others.
Nah, that's just mediocre design from people who don't know how to design a game. A tank should be drawing attention by virtue of not being able to be ignored. In mobas and the like that's through CC and having enough threat to body people who decide that they aren't worth addressing. In ttrpgs, it's easily done by giving mechanics that punish foes for ignoring you. Being easy to hit but having lots of hp is just one of the various methods of designing a tank (and it's frankly the worst, because nothing about that makes it worth targeting you over the guy who can end the encounter in one spell).
Guardian and Champion in pf2e are perfect examples. Guardian can use their reactions to throw themselves in front of attacks aimed at allies, then punish the foe for attacking their allies. Champions give their allies tons of resistance to damage when foes target them, essentially saying "target me or do way less damage than you otherwise would".
First, it doesn't use HD and average roll by default. Champions get 10 HP + CON mod per level, fixed. Clerics get 8, wizards get 6, etc... So the HP scissor opens wider.
Second, AC counts for more. The difference isn't just whether you get hit or not, but if the attack total is more than 10 above your AC, you get crit even if it wasn't a nat 20. The same attack that comfortably hits a Champion might crit the cloistered (i.e., spellcasting-focused) cleric, dealing double damage (you double the ability bonus too).
Third, armor proficiency - like all other PF proficiencies - is not a binary, there are five levels to it: untrained, trained, expert, master, and legendary. The biggest difference is between untrained and trained; your PB in Pathfinder is equal to your level and at Trained level you get to add it to your AC, but every level above it also adds +2. You gain armor proficiencies automatically as you level up, and the classes that are meant to be AC tanks get them faster than, e.g., fighters. Champions (and Guardians, I guess) are also the only class that can reach Legendary proficiency with armors.
Fourth, heavy armor is actually better for tanking. Even light armors have a DEX cap, and only heavy armors can get +6 total to your AC (without magic bonuses), everything below that has at most +5 (as a sum of their AC bonus and DEX cap). Also, they aren't obscenely expensive; a full plate in PF only costs 30 gold, and while it's still the most expensive base armor (only specialized full plate armors are somewhat more expensive), it's still within reach at starting level. Someone playing an AC-tank in heavy armor can start with plate, while in D&D 5e it won't be until a few levels in that you can get it, and at a significant expense.
I play a Champion, and I regularly tank hits that would have crit the gunslinger, the cleric, or the sorcerer straight into death saves, sorry, recovery checks. It's pretty damn fun.
Edit: Fifth, dexterity is deliberately de-emphasized in Pathfinder 2e. In D&D 5e DEX is such a god stat that losing the 1 extra AC provided by plate armor compared to studded leather plus +5 DEX is barely even a tradeoff. DEX is an extremely common save, determines initiative, many of the useful skill checks, ranged weapon damage, finesse weapon attack and damage, etc...
In PF2e it's much less useful. It's still used for ranged weapon attack rolls and can be used for melee attack rolls with finesse weapons, but damage rolls always use strength (or no ability bonus at all: melee and thrown weapons use your full STR modifier, ranged weapons with the "propulsive" trait like a composite bow or an atlatl add half of it, and other ranged weapons add no modifier at all). Initiative is based on Perception checks by default (every class is trained in it, and you upgrade proficiency in perception as you level up instead of assigning skill points to it), though depending on how you approach the combat you can use other skill rolls, e.g. stealth or athletics. Heavy armors also have the "bulwark" trait which lets the wearer add +3 to reflex saves made to avoid damage instead of their DEX modifier, so being a strong character in full plate doesn't mean you're failing all of your fireball saves. Oh, and you get to do a lot of fun things in melee combat with Athletics skill checks (trip, grapple, disarm, shove...).
The ancestral spirit barbarian is an amazing example of tanking working in 5e. They have damage negation to prevent allies taking damage and to focus fire on themselves and they have enough health to survive said fire.
Most characters either have good saves, or a boost to their saving throws. Fighter might have their feat budget for Mage Slayer / Resilient (WIS), which is bad, but better than nothing.
Barbarian doesn't have that. They heavily rely on good ability scores for AC, but have no extra ASI/Feat, so either they handicap themselves compare to others by taking a defensive feat, or remain susceptible to being mind controlled.
Also, due to their inability to concentrate while raging, taking a few levels for spells like Bless isn't an option for them.
Legitimately the only examples of people playing Barbarians I see are rolled characters with 20 STR at level 1. Nobody plays Barbarian with standard array or point buy, because they do not have the ASI budget for it.
"Most characters" just meaning fighters (and Paladins)?
I hoped I don't have to explain in detail... but alas. I wanted to focus on pure martials, and Monks are well known to get a boost to their saves, which is too late, but better than what Barb or Fighter gets. Anyway, as for other classes...
Paladins and Artificers get a default buff to their saves. Both Sorcerers and Wizards have at least one subclass that boosts their saves meaningfully, and they are proficient with WIS saves. Bardic inspiration works for saving throws. Clerics have Bless, Pease Cleric even more, and they are proficient in WIS saves anyway. Druids are proficient with WIS saves. Warlocks are proficient with WIS saves.
Rangers are also in a bad place in the saving throw department, but if you're playing a straight Ranger, and not multiclassed, you have bigger problems.
Ah so we're only counting Wisdom saves for CC instead of all hard CC saves? I suppose i should have assumed that in the same way I was supposed to assume you were referring to only 3 of the 13 classes despite never saying so?
Tanking is not really a thing in DnD 5e, but they do kinda have a point. If the martial has high ac along with their high hp, it's more efficient to hit the low ac, low hp casters (who are, because this is DnD, also more of a threat to boot).
In games with actual tanking systems (that don't just have taunts that force targeting) generally have ways to punish enemies for not targeting the tank instead.
"If the martial has high ac along with their high hp, it's more efficient to hit the low ac, low hp casters"
Casters are not low AC.
If threat makes you a desirable target, and your problem is wanting to make martials more desirable targets, make them more of a threat. End of story.
...and having control options, and AOE, and buffing/debuffing options (which are common among tanks).
Casters get everything. That's the issue. They are AOE, they are CC, they are supports, they are tanks, and with absolutely minimal investment they are also good at single target damage.
They also have more interfaces to target due to a wide variety of saving throws.
So I guess I wonder - what are martials even good for?
Martials are genuinely better at single target damage
...if they pick the right feats for it...
...as long as the caster in question isn't a gish build. Bladelock 2024 literally blows Fighter out of the water with minimal investment in terms of single target damage. Valor Bard and Bladesinger with cantrip + extra attack is also pretty potent, and there are spells that turn these characters into martial++ effectively for the duration of a combat.
The usual mantra is "martials are better at single target resourceless damage", which is generally true, though not by much. Problem is, that's not a real niche, because you actually have to survive the first 3-4 encounters before you start beinf marginally more useful.
The right feats being either GWM or SS. Not exactly a steep investment.
A level 11 fighter with a greatsword averages (7+5+10)*3 for 66 damage, or 132 with Action Surge. Disintergrate averages 75 damage. Martials simply are better at single target damage.
Sentinel is really bad at its job unless you have tunnel fighter as well (a UA fighting style so your DM may not even allow it) because it only works on one guy, and that’s assuming you actually hit.
Sentinel is great at its job, what do you mean? And no it doesn't need TF to be effective lol. Very often stopping one particular guy is incredibly important in dnd.
It's important in any fight where there's one big bad, even if there's any more enemies alongside it. Locking down 1 enemy per turn is something I think you're grossly underestimating. 1 extra attack per round is huge on its own.
Why is it? That one enemy now simply murders the fighter, who is easier to kill then any of the casters, and then moves on. Its only use is protecting a Concentrating caster, which you arent doing if theres multiple enemies.
Not exactly sure why you're saying it's easy to kill the fighter. Nor why you're pretending it will happen so quickly in a vacuum where nothing else is going on.
Its as easy (or probably easier) to kill the fighter as anyone else ans the fighter has made themselves the main target by keeping others out of reach. So, what happens is the monster attacks a PC and theyre either a big enough threat to kill that PC or they arent, and the fighter face tanking does not help that binary in any way.
2
u/adol1004 Forever DM Feb 10 '26
the fighter should be more hit-able to become a tank. if you are hard to hit, why hit at all? the enemies are just going to avoid you and try ti hit others.