Raging is more accurate?

DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.


I think, more than anything, it's a symptom of "Strength = Chance to Hit (With Melee)".

It makes sense in an "Attack vs. AC, for HP damage" situation, because everything is so abstracted, with armor being AC and physical contact not necessarily meaning "a hit".


D&D is just weird (but it's not alone).  Things that aren't "attacks in combat in an effort to wound another combatant" often don't really make sense with the attack rules.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Now I don't have before me the new rules but it was odd even to me the Reckless Attack.
The idea is good (made the barbarian reckless even out of Rage), but the mechanic was... uhm... nonsensical at best.
If I remember it right you grant advantage to hit when using reckless attacks, while when in Rage you don't by default. Uhuhm... Aren't the barbarian reckless when "raging"? What kind of controlled rage is that?
Well, here is the thing, in D&D, and especially in 5e, your attack roll has nothing to do with accuracy. Nope. Amazed aren't ya? No, instead your damage roll determines how accurate you are. Crazy eh?

Well we are all aboard the bounded crazy train, and it looks like it is here to stay. 
Attack rolls have never really been about accuracy. They're hit or not hit. Damage is how good of a hit. The combination of the two could be viewed as a measure of accuracy.
I do dig the idea of making an attack roll be accuracy, but I don't know what it would do to BA (which, in light of this discussion, is a very ironic phrase).
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
It's always been more accurate. You didn't get attack bonuses prior, but bonuses to Strength did the same thing. This replicates the effect without changing Strength numbers. 
It's odd but narratively, you're hitting so much harder even if you miss vulnerable areas you punch through armour.  

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.


How is this functionally different from the 3e barbarian getting a +4 to Strength when raging?  Wouldn't the barbarian in this situation also be more accurate in batting away the poison about to enter the maiden's open mouth?  (Assuming he's making a melee attack?)
DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.


How is this functionally different from the 3e barbarian getting a +4 to Strength when raging?  Wouldn't the barbarian in this situation also be more accurate in batting away the poison about to enter the maiden's open mouth?  (Assuming he's making a melee attack?)



I never said it was different, I'm not defending 3e.     I'm just saying that idea that a blind rage can in some way help in this situation is rather odd.      The issue I have is how the system defines accuracy.  

I could see an archer with Precise Shot knocking that vial away, but Precise Shot in 5e doesn't even give you more accuracy without cover.     The barbarian however can rage with a ranged weapon (rage doesn't say he must use a melee weapon) and gain more accuracy than the specialist archer fighter.  

It would be nice if the system was a little more intuitive, but I guess this is what happens when the designers get lost in the mechanics.   

oh well.   I know it's a playtest.


DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"



What you've done there is to contrive a very specific scenario in which you're using the normal Attack roll to model a more complicated and delicate scenario than it was ever intended to.

The attack roll in melee combat is Strength-based, so it's less about accuracy and more about battering past an opponent's defenses. Using that same roll to represent a situation in which pinpoint accuracy is required and the consequences for too solid a hit are almost as bad as those for a miss is bound to result in some discrepancies. 
DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"



What you've done there is to contrive a very specific scenario in which you're using the normal Attack roll to model a more complicated and delicate scenario than it was ever intended to.

The attack roll in melee combat is Strength-based, so it's less about accuracy and more about battering past an opponent's defenses. Using that same roll to represent a situation in which pinpoint accuracy is required and the consequences for too solid a hit are almost as bad as those for a miss is bound to result in some discrepancies. 




Yes, it's a contrived scenario, but one that could happen for any number of reasons.   For example, hostage situations are in the same boat.   

Is the attack roll in combat always strength based?   What about DEX based attacks?  What about INT based attacks?    

 


DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

This is not an attack roll at all, let alone a Str-based one.  It's a Dex check.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

This is not an attack roll at all, let alone a Str-based one.  It's a Dex check.



You're right it just might be a dex check.    

Still lets change it up a bit.    Lets say the maiden has a large rot grub on her chest and it's about to burrow into her heart.   Is it a dex check to attack it?   


You are trying to use the rules to do something those rules are not meant to do.

You should stop that.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

This is not an attack roll at all, let alone a Str-based one.  It's a Dex check.



You're right it just might be a dex check.    

Still lets change it up a bit.    Lets say the maiden has a large rot grub on her chest and it's about to burrow into her heart.   Is it a dex check to attack it?   


Con check cause you stick your arm in the way and it burrows into your arm instead. 

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
You are trying to use the rules to do something those rules are not meant to do.

You should stop that.



So as the DM you would tell the barbarian player the same thing?  He can't use his rage or reckless attack for the advantage mechanic in that situation?    

That's fine.  I'd most likely do the same and/or create a few simple house rules to make the game more intuitive for the players.    



DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

This is not an attack roll at all, let alone a Str-based one.  It's a Dex check.



You're right it just might be a dex check.    

Still lets change it up a bit.    Lets say the maiden has a large rot grub on her chest and it's about to burrow into her heart.   Is it a dex check to attack it?   

Int or Wis check to see if you're bone-headed enough to swing a weapon at her. 

Seriously, though?  Disadvantage for attacking into a grapple; at least a 50% chance to hit the maiden instead of the grub -- probably higher, because it's a smaller target than she is.

Or simply, "You swing recklessly at the grub on the maiden's chest?  Okay.  Your axe buries itself in her sternum.  She's dead, Jim."

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

So as the DM you would tell the barbarian player the same thing?  He can't use his rage or reckless attack for the advantage mechanic in that situation?

As the DM, I wouldn't set my players up for failure on something important like that. I'd rather set up a situation that encourages more failing forward than failing. I'd probably set it up so that the princess will drink the poison, and then open the table up for what the players do. Overall, I'd rather have an extended series of "oh god what do we do how do we fix this" than a single moment of maybe-awesome-but-just-as-likely-oh-crap. I think it brings more tension and excitement to the table.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

This is not an attack roll at all, let alone a Str-based one.  It's a Dex check.



You're right it just might be a dex check.    

Still lets change it up a bit.    Lets say the maiden has a large rot grub on her chest and it's about to burrow into her heart.   Is it a dex check to attack it?   

Int or Wis check to see if you're bone-headed enough to swing a weapon at her. 

Seriously, though?  Disadvantage for attacking into a grapple; at least a 50% chance to hit the maiden instead of the grub -- probably higher, because it's a smaller target than she is.

Or simply, "You swing recklessly at the grub on the maiden's chest?  Okay.  Your axe buries itself in her sternum.  She's dead, Jim."



LOL

Sadly, I know players who will roll that die on their own.  They would kill her inadvertently and claim they were role playing their character's INT or WIS as per the roll.   


DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

This is not an attack roll at all, let alone a Str-based one.  It's a Dex check.



You're right it just might be a dex check.    

Still lets change it up a bit.    Lets say the maiden has a large rot grub on her chest and it's about to burrow into her heart.   Is it a dex check to attack it?   


The point is that D&D's attack roll is a very general-purpose, simple mechanic, which is a good thing if you don't want to get your game bogged down in interminable rules minutea.

BUT it also means that you are always going to be able to find specific, outlier cases where it works counter-intuitively. That's inevitable. The important thing is not to fixate upon such outlier cases and then say "well, the mechanic doesn't seem to make sense in this particular case, therefore it is a broken game-mechanic." It's not broken, it simply isn't infinitely adaptable.
DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

This is not an attack roll at all, let alone a Str-based one.  It's a Dex check.

You're right it just might be a dex check.    

Still lets change it up a bit.    Lets say the maiden has a large rot grub on her chest and it's about to burrow into her heart.   Is it a dex check to attack it?   

Int or Wis check to see if you're bone-headed enough to swing a weapon at her. 

Seriously, though?  Disadvantage for attacking into a grapple; at least a 50% chance to hit the maiden instead of the grub -- probably higher, because it's a smaller target than she is.

Or simply, "You swing recklessly at the grub on the maiden's chest?  Okay.  Your axe buries itself in her sternum.  She's dead, Jim."

LOL

Sadly, I know players who will roll that die on their own.  They would kill her inadvertently and claim they were role playing their character's INT or WIS as per the roll.   

Nothing wrong with that.  Now you have an even more interesting situation to deal with: dead maiden!

Barbarian: "Oops.  I hope she wasn't important?"
Players: *Gold medal in synchronized facepalm*
DM: MWAHAHAHA!

Seriously though, as a DM you should not only be prepared for that kind of complication -- you should relish it. 

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Personally I'm with whoever said that the original was a Dex check.

For the grub rage makes you stronger, which means you're more likekly to kill the grub before it burrows into her chest. So rage would help in that situation.
Besides

Reckless Attacks are usually more accurate in melee. You tend to connect (with something) more often when you throw caution to the wind and swing madly with heavy lunges and suicidal attacks...
It's just that most people have enough sense to NOT rush the bladed enemies like lunatics.

Ever see angry people who can't fight fight? They land a lot of blows and take just as many.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Should they have penalties (disadvantage) on actions which require care or precision (while raging)?

Perhaps advantage on Strength attacks and checks, but disadvantage on Dexterity attacks and checks.

Carl
Besides

Reckless Attacks are usually more accurate in melee. You tend to connect (with something) more often when you throw caution to the wind and swing madly with heavy lunges and suicidal attacks...
It's just that most people have enough sense to NOT rush the bladed enemies like lunatics.

Ever see angry people who can't fight fight? They land a lot of blows and take just as many.

I have seen angry people who can't fight fight. They don't land many blows, even when their opponents are laughing at their futile swings. They frequently can't even gauge distance when they aren't thinking straight. They are also susceptible to falling after only a few well placed blows to their person. Glass jaw strikes and liver kicks come to mind as examples.
Who says that it has to be a blind rage? My Barbarian would enter a state of calm fury; he doesn't scream and froth at the mouth, he glares at you, says nothing, and cuts you the frick in half.

A list of CharOp Handbooks I'm currently updating:

Heart of the Dragon: A Dragonborn's Handbook

Infernal Wrath: A Tiefling's Handbook

You are trying to use the rules to do something those rules are not meant to do.

You should stop that.



People still do that to previous editions. Best to do it now while its in test

I think we are missing the main point. The real flaw in this scenario isnt str increasing accuracy. Many fighters are conditioned so their muscle offers coordination that can make them more accurate. The real issue is that a player can so arbitrarily turn rage on and off even in situations where there is nothing to rage about. What if the character doesn’t care about the maiden and simply wants to save her for small reward? Maybe an alternative rule that limits rage to DM fiat, physical threats and alignment based scenarios.
The real issue is that a player can so arbitrarily turn rage on and off even in situations where there is nothing to rage about.

Theres some truth to that. Theres an account of Norse Berserkar who bit on their shields to self-induce the rage-trance.

Who says that it has to be a blind rage? My Barbarian would enter a state of calm fury; he doesn't scream and froth at the mouth, he glares at you, says nothing, and cuts you the frick in half.


I don't see how this kind of barbarian can give a feeling of being "barbaric". It isn't even funny for me. No offense intended saying this, I just think it's funnier playing a barbarian as a wild and beastly type.
Your idea of calm fury makes me think of something like an elven avenger, or a monk.
But that's just my thinking
Barbarian=/=Beserker. Gah.

The real issue is that a player can so arbitrarily turn rage on and off even in situations where there is nothing to rage about.

Theres some truth to that. Theres an account of Norse Berserkar who bit on their shields to self-induce the rage-trance.

I remember the 2e viking handbook has a whole thing about what berzerkers did to get into the groove and such. I only have vague memories - I'll have to go read it again - but I'm pretty sure they had to spend a bit of time to work themselves into it.

@jonathan_sicari And I could see the barbarian's ability set easily being a berserker. It's certainly the first class I'd look to if I were to make one. If you wanted to do armour for the historical thing, all you have to do is make a fighter and take a berserker fighting style that grants rage - oh wait.

Barbarian=/=Beserker. Gah.

Yeah I was hoping in the barbarian just being a reckless warrior and the rage being an option (maybe berserker rage should be an option even for fighters since the concept is popular)

Barbarian=/=Beserker. Gah.

Yeah I was hoping in the barbarian just being a reckless warrior and the rage being an option (maybe berserker rage should be an option even for fighters since the concept is popular)

They did say in no uncertain terms that they were going to supply it as is and then roll out options after they got the initial reaction. It's also the format they've given us every other class in the playtest so it's not that much of a leap.

Barbarian=/=Beserker. Gah.

Yeah I was hoping in the barbarian just being a reckless warrior and the rage being an option (maybe berserker rage should be an option even for fighters since the concept is popular)

They did say in no uncertain terms that they were going to supply it as is and then roll out options after they got the initial reaction. It's also the format they've given us every other class in the playtest so it's not that much of a leap.



I'm expecting good

@jonathan_sicari And I could see the barbarian's ability set easily being a berserker. It's certainly the first class I'd look to if I were to make one. If you wanted to do armour for the historical thing, all you have to do is make a fighter and take a berserker fighting style that grants rage - oh wait.




Barbarians are proficient in light and medium armor already.  No need to make it mechanically a fighter at all.
Who says that it has to be a blind rage? My Barbarian would enter a state of calm fury; he doesn't scream and froth at the mouth, he glares at you, says nothing, and cuts you the frick in half.


I don't see how this kind of barbarian can give a feeling of being "barbaric". It isn't even funny for me. No offense intended saying this, I just think it's funnier playing a barbarian as a wild and beastly type.
Your idea of calm fury makes me think of something like an elven avenger, or a monk.
But that's just my thinking



I'm of the opposite opinion. Those people who can't control their fury? They're villains, or tragic heroes at best, whose unchecked rage will be their undoing.

A list of CharOp Handbooks I'm currently updating:

Heart of the Dragon: A Dragonborn's Handbook

Infernal Wrath: A Tiefling's Handbook

DM:  "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"

Barbarian: "No problem.  I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"

 
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.

The complaint is valid even if the exact scenario doesn't perfectly protray it.  Advantage is a somewhat odd mechanic, so it has somewhat odd consequences.  Getting advantage doesn't really suit rage to begin with.

Instead of a frothing at the mouth slab of beef hammering away with a greataxe the current rules turn the barbarian into a precise two-weapon duelist.  Very strange.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

Barbarian=/=Beserker. Gah.

Yeah I was hoping in the barbarian just being a reckless warrior and the rage being an option (maybe berserker rage should be an option even for fighters since the concept is popular)

They did say in no uncertain terms that they were going to supply it as is and then roll out options after they got the initial reaction. It's also the format they've given us every other class in the playtest so it's not that much of a leap.




Much like the cleric and how its diety can give the class more proficiencies and such, or how a rogue scheme gives certain skills, talents, etc.?  I kinda like the idea of, say, the Warrior class, with Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and maybe Paladin being subsets.
 The complaint is valid even if the exact scenario doesn't perfectly protray it.  Advantage is a somewhat odd mechanic, so it has somewhat odd consequences.  Getting advantage doesn't really suit rage to begin with.

Instead of a frothing at the mouth slab of beef hammering away with a greataxe the current rules turn the barbarian into a precise two-weapon duelist.  Very strange.


How is this functionally different from the 3e barbarian getting a +4 to Strength when raging?  Wouldn't the barbarian in this situation also be more accurate?  (Assuming he's making a melee attack?)
 The complaint is valid even if the exact scenario doesn't perfectly protray it.  Advantage is a somewhat odd mechanic, so it has somewhat odd consequences.  Getting advantage doesn't really suit rage to begin with.

Instead of a frothing at the mouth slab of beef hammering away with a greataxe the current rules turn the barbarian into a precise two-weapon duelist.  Very strange.


How is this functionally different from the 3e barbarian getting a +4 to Strength when raging?  Wouldn't the barbarian in this situation also be more accurate?  (Assuming he's making a melee attack?)



Yes.  But the fact that this is how it worked in 3E does not mean we can't do better.


The 3.x barbarian also had a penalty to AC and it was specified that the barbarian could not use any Charisma, Dexterity or Intelligence based skills or any abilities that required patience or concentration while raging, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word.  He also could not use Combat Expertise.


No restrictions like this apply to the 5E barbarian.

We can do better than that as well.

In the case of the barbarian in 5E - the issue is that they didn't make him stronger.  They specifically made him more accurate.  This doesn't make sense to many (myself included).  I would like to see him do more damage not be more accurate (even if - at some levels of analysis - the two have a very similar outcome).

Personally - I would prefer to see them simply use the next die step of weapon when they rage.  Especially if they go with [W] for the MDD, this will give them a nice damage boost - and it won't make them more accurate.

I'd also like to see them have disadantage on any dexterity or mental attacks or checks they make.  Unlike 3.x, I don't want to say 'you can't do that' (bad design, imho).  But I don't object to a rule that says 'you have advantage on this, and disavantage on that.'


Carl
Yes.  But the fact that this is how it worked in 3E does not mean we can't do better.


I agree.  But people seem to be comaring this rule disfavorably to how it had been done before and that didn't make sense to me.

The 3.x barbarian also had a penalty to AC and it was specified that the barbarian could not use any Charisma, Dexterity or Intelligence based skills or any abilities that required patience or concentration while raging, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word.  He also could not use Combat Expertise.



Okay.  Let's see what the rules say:
















3ePlaytest
Advantages:


  • +4 bonus to Strength

  • +4 bonus to Constitution

  • +2 morale bonus on Will saves







Advantages:


  • advantage on Strength-­based attack rolls, checks, and saving throws

  • +2 bonus to melee damage rolls

  • resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage


Disadvantages:


  • cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride)

  • cannot use Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration

  • cannot cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll)

  • cannot use Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats

  • After rage, becomes fatigued


Disadvantages:


  • Cannot take reactions

  • Must attack on your turn











A lot of 3e's "disadvantages" are very fiddly.  Is it really that important that a barbarian cannot use scrolls or magic items or item creation feats?  In the playtest, this is generally wrapped up into the fact that you have to use your actiont to attack.

But in essence, most of these have analogs.  3e's +4 to Strength becomes advantage on melee attacks and +2 to damage.  3e's +4 to Con becomes resistance to weapon attacks. 

3e's loss of concentration becomes an inability to use reactions.  The inability to cast spells ad use specific feats becomes the requirement that you use your turn to attack.

What the playtest lacks is the +2 bonus to Will-based saving throws (is that even necessary), the post-rage fatigue, and the inability to make Charisma, Dexterity, and Intelligence based checks (with some major exceptions).

Really, I have no problem with the advantage on melee attacks.  If I had to tweak the barbarian, I'd make the following:


  • During the rage, you gain a +2 bonus to melee and thrown weapon damage rolls.

  • During the rage, you have advantage on all Strength and Constitution based attack rolls, ability checks and saving throws.

  • During the rage, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.

  • During the rage, you cannot take reactions.

  • During the rage, you have disadvantage on all Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma -based attack rolls, ability checks and saving throws checks, except for checks related to initimidation or riding

  • During the rage, you must attack with a weapon (or unarmed attack) with your action or the rage ends.

  • After the rage ends, you have disadvantage on all attacks and ability checks until after a short rest.


I would like to see him do more damage not be more accurate (even if - at some levels of analysis - the two have a very similar outcome).


He already gets a +2 bonus to damage rolls.

Personally - I would prefer to see them simply use the next die step of weapon when they rage.


That's just a +1 to damage.  The current barbarian gets a +2.

I'd also like to see them have disadantage on any dexterity or mental attacks or checks they make.


Agreed.
Personally - I would prefer to see them simply use the next die step of weapon when they rage.


That's just a +1 to damage.  The current barbarian gets a +2.





And it is nearly universally agreed that barbarians do too much damage....


Carl