D&D Next: Level Up Classes [The Barbarian Test]

The Barbarians as they have currently been released are pretty awesome. I am slightly concerned that the game developers might tone down the Barbarians due to their stating that it has become obvious that they are currently better than Fighters. I hope this does not happen, with a few tweaks I think the Barbarian class could become the litmus test for every other class (i.e. Is this other class as cool as Barbarian... No? Then improve it).

I see what is nearly a perfect template for Class Features at each level in the Barbarian Class. A class feature, feat, maneuver, or spell should be gained by every class at every level. Look at the Barbarian chart... perfect up to level 13 in this regard (Except that in character creation it has feats no longer gained after level 9...lame, feats should be gained at 1st and every 3rd level up through level 18).

Below is how I think Barbarians should be laid out for class features:
1   Combat Expertise, Iron Hide, Rage, Reckless Attack
2   Fast Movement
3   -
4   Feral Instinct
5   Fearless Rage
6   -
7   Feral Presence (See below)
8   Relentless Rage
9   -
10 Feral Reflexes
11 Regenerative Rage
12 -
13 Channel Fury
14 Feral Senses
15 -
16 Incite Rage
17 Unchecked Fury
18 -
19 Primal Might
20 Endless Rage

Level 5: Feral Presence
The wild nature in you is cleary visible and imposing to your enemies.
  Benefit: If not already possessed, you gain the intimidate skill. Second, you have advantage on checks to intimidate. Additionally, while raging, enemies that are within your reach and are of 3 Hit Dice less or lower must make a Fear Save or become frightened
- They must roll a d20 and add their Wisdom Modifier against a DC 10 + (Barbarians Strength or Constitution Modifier, whichever is higher). This roll needs to be made only once per encounter. If the enemy rolls a natural 1 on this check they are terrified and treated as stunned for a number of rounds equal to the Barbarians Strength or Constitution Modifier, whichever is higher.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Fighters need to be improved. They pale in comparison to Barbarians right now. I don't know if the additional features that I have listed are enough to make Fighters as attractive as Barbarians... but I think it's an improvement.

Fighter's Class Features
1   Combat Expertise, Fighting Style, Maneuver, Parry
2   Maneuver
3   -
4   Maneuver
5   Armored Reflexes (Medium)
6   -
7   Armored Step (Medium)
8   Maneuver
9   -
10 Focused Attack
11 Combat Surge 1/day
12 -
13 Maneuver
14 Combat Surge 2/day
15 -
16 Armored Reflexes (Heavy)
17 Combat Surge 3/day
18 -
19 Armored Step (Heavy)
20 Combat Surge 4/day

Level 5: Armored Reflexes (Medium)
You are not hindered in the normal manner by the armor you wear.
Benefit: 
The Max Dex Bonus to AC while wearing medium armor increases by 2.

Level 7: Armored Step (Medium)
You are not hindered in the normal manner by the armor you wear.
Benefit: 
Ignore the stealth disadvantage normally imposed by Scale Mail and Dragon Scale.

Level 10: Focused Attack
You can sacrifice damage for a sure hit.
Benefit: Once per encounter you can spend a martial damage die to gain advantage on your next attack. Additionally, any Martial Damage Die you spend beyond the first is rolled with the total being added to your attack score as determined by the higher of your two d20 rolls.

Level 16: Armored Reflexes (Heavy)
Benefit: You can add, Max 2, your Dex Bonus to AC while wearing heavy armor.

Level 19: Armored Step (Heavy)
Benefit: 
Ignore the stealth disadvantage normally imposed by Heavy Armor. Additionally, your speed is not penalized for wearing heavy armor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that, in general, all of the classes should follow a similar layout in regards to... Alright, I get a feat every 3rd level but I should be getting something cool, something worth Leveling Up for each level.

Shouldn't Clerics, at least "Priest" Clerics, have the heal skill?

Death and Dying: An optional mechanism to death saving throws could be that if you roll a natural 1... you die. Additionally, you have the option to not make a death saving throw on your turn but instead take 3 damage.

I'm excited to see Druids become available for the general playtest population (As we heard that they are currently testing them out internally and with a select few external groups).

List of Classes that should make the final version:
Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Rogue
Wizard
> Bard (I know it's a duh...)
> Paladin
> Ranger
> ~Warlock/Sorcerer (This Class, if included, should have subdivision based on the origin of their spellcasting power... Dragon, Demon, Devil, Planes, etc... the origin should manifest itself over the span of leveling up... similar to a mechanic that was in 3.5 for the dragon based class... The Dragon origin would end up manifesting as leathery wings, a tale, breath weapon, unarmed claw attack, etc... The Demon/Devil origin could manifest as horns, levitation, cold skin, a split tongue, increased charisma... The planes origin could manifest itself as feathered wings, a cone weapon x/day from hand(s), etc...

Ranger: In talking to a friend, we discussed Rangers from v3.5. I have always disliked Rangers in playing 3.5 because it felt like how good they were was far too dependent on the enemies being faced. If they weren't going up against a favored enemy they were kind of lame. The first few levels, half of what they got were feats that anyone else could get.
   It was a little sad to me because I always thought that the Ranger archetype character in stories was pretty cool. But in playing 3.5 if I had a desire to play that archetype of character I would just use the fighter class to make them. It seems like favored enemy should not be a core mechanic of the Ranger. Something closer to the shape they took on in 4th edition would be better. Have them dominate in their environment, whether it be woodlands, swamps, deserts, etc. Rangers have the potential to be awesome if done well.

Well I think that's enough for now.
I would like to hear other peoples thoughts. I'm curious if most people got a glance at the Barbarian Class after seeing the other classes and thought, "Holy Crap, Barbarians look fun!"... When reading through the class features I had images of Wolverine, Vikings, and the like filling my head. This class, to me, has a clear and potent identity where I feel some of the other classes could use a little spark.

Other points of view? 
There have been a few concepts for the ranger that have helped to make them more versatile.  

One variant rule was that they could "expose weakness" a certain number of times per day, which gave them the same sort of bonuses as favored enemy.

There can always be a "quarry" ability for marking targets in that same manner.

The favored environment thing can also be generalized.  Tracking and survival bonuses etc.

 I think the big division will be animal companion or no animal companion.  Personally I think that it should stay, but could be calmed down from a combat perspective and used more for exploration.  A hawk, a horse or a dog could be a wonderful hunting companion.  The hawk could help scout things out... the dog's senses would help keep the ranger alert, and the horse would help him travel...  

 

One variant rule was that they could "expose weakness" a certain number of times per day, which gave them the same sort of bonuses as favored enemy.


    I like the "expose weakness" more than favored enemy.


The favored environment thing can also be generalized.  Tracking and survival bonuses etc.


    They should obviously get the Tracking and survival bonuses


 I think the big division will be animal companion or no animal companion.  Personally I think that it should stay, but could be calmed down from a combat perspective and used more for exploration.  A hawk, a horse or a dog could be a wonderful hunting companion.  The hawk could help scout things out... the dog's senses would help keep the ranger alert, and the horse would help him travel...


    This is an interesting point. I don't see the animal companion as a necessary trait but in either case I do agree that if it is in it should be calmed for combat... actually, thinking about it further I do like them having the animal companion and having it function more along the lines of the familiar for sorcerer's in v3.5 (Especially if Sorcerer's in their 3.5 form were left out).
Like you said... with some additions
> Hawk: Help Scout + Advantage on Survival & Spot
> Dog: Help Track + Advantage on Track & Listen
> Horse: Help Travel + Advantage on Ride & Drive
> Monkey: Help Steal + Advantage on Sleight of Hand & Climb
> Snake: Help Poison + Advantage on Sneak & Intimidate
> Rat: Help Escape + Advantage on Escape Artist & Use Rope
> Weasel: Help Gather Info + Advantage on Search & Gather Rumors
> Raven: Help Communicate + Advantage on Handle Animal + Bluff
Yeah, the combat end of things is really hard to balance out, and if you have a powerful companion, you have to have a less powerful ranger.
I'm not sure it needs to be a required component of the class either, it could easily be an option.  Its an option in PF right now, but not really.  The animal companions in PF are pretty boss... the other options are terrible (for druids and rangers) which means that if you don't want a companion (urban ranger etc.) you are just gimped.

I wouldn't mind seeing a combat heavy companion either, but there should be drawbacks for the ranger if he goes this route.  Alternatively you could just have a second "beastmaster" class that focuses on this aspect.

I don't want Ranger to just be a fighter variant though, and I think that the animal companion helps to characterize the class. 
Another item that hasn't been addressed in the Playtest packet yet is Armor Class bonuses and negatives based on size category.

People I am playing with have had a lot of gripes about how few things provoke opportunity attacks (e.g. moving through, casting a spell in, and making a ranged attack in "threatened" squares) . A major one for one of the players was that standing up in a threatened square doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
> I'm curious what other peoples opinions are on this matter... (personally I'm indifferent to this topic and will except the rules in either case)

We, however, have all agreed that we do prefer the "Breaking up a Move" addition (effectively giving everyone "Spring Attack" from 3.5).

Also, huge fans of the advantage/disadvantage (better/worse of 2d20 rolls) addition. Heard that it's been in other games but this is my first time seeing it.
I would prefer a bonus to AC for the fighter and get rid of parry for damage mitigation, as it is simpler overall. But I would make the bonus to AC based on the fighters strength modifier. As to the complexity of AOO, the baseline rules should be simple and then WOTC can add on any triggers they want via a module or optional rule to make it more complex, e.g. standing up from prone.
So, like the Barbarian can use CON Mod, and the Monk can use WIS Mod for AC Bonus you would like to see the fighter use their STR Mod. Interesting, I will have to think about that a bit more before I have a solid opinion.

I do agree that, in general, it makes more sense to me to see the fighter have a higher AC as opposed to Damage Mitigation...but essentially they give the same result... I'll have to see how parry works at higher levels. If anyone is going to have parry, it should be a fighter. Also, it seems to me that often Fighters will have higher AC in general do to the rule setup at present. Many barbarians are probably going to forgo wearing armor since they get to add their CON Mod if doing so and Fighters obviously have immediate access to the most options for Armor with the greatest benefit.

I have no problem with AOO being kept simple. I think the group I game with is just so used to v3.5 that almost every deviation from it is seen by them as blasphemy.

Interesting thing with Wizards (If I didn't overlook anything)... they can wear armor, if proficient with it, and cast at no penalty the way the rules are currently setup. Not sure I like that...

Then don't look at a dwarven wizard because they get the armor proficiency for free, but that is one of the reasons I feel martial characters should get an additional bonus from a stat for AC, since caster get their ability bonus to apply to saves for difficulty checks.
Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.
Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.


No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk
Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.

 
No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk



I also commented on this, in the "High Elf and Mage Armor" Forum that was recently started...

It does seem like an example scenario being given to clarify would not hurt. But the in the very definition you gave:

Mage Armor Effect:  You surround yourself with invisible, tangible force that lasts for 1 hour, and your AC becomes 12 + your Dexterity modifier. You can dismiss the force at any time.

 

It states, "...your AC becomes 12 + your Dexterity modifier." not "...your AC becomes 12 + DEX + CON/WIS (If you're a Barbarian or Monk)." or "...your AC becomes 12 + DEX + Any additional special bonuses."

If I'm the DM, I rule that if you use the stated spell for AC then your AC is 12 + your Dexterity Modifier (Nothing else can be added unless the effect specifically states that it stacks with Mage Armor).

A side note that may or may not need to be considered: In the 'color' description of "Mage Armor" it says, "...before the armor fades to invisibility." and the Barbarian benefit says, "While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals..." and the Monk benefit says, "While you are wearing no armor and are not using a shield your Armor Class equals..."

So, really I think it's pretty clear  that there's only one way to read it (RAI or RAW) as it concerns the Barbarian and Monk Class Features. IMHO.

No offense, but I feel your suggestions would be a negative for the Fighter Class

I dont want to be penalized for not taking DEX (and yes, not receiving a bonus is the same as being penalized), Fighters are the class that doesnt need to be all nimbly bimbly like, and this is FORCING them to take at least some DEX

Also since when are Fighters known for the prowess in Sneaking, the benefit almost sounds like it would belong in Rogue or Hunter (tho I wouldn't reject the no speed penalty)

Finally there are already 2 Fighter Exclusive Manuevers that are intended on fixing your Advantage/Accuracy called Glancing Blow and Composed Attack, I dont see the point in giving Fighter Focused Attack

When I read Fighter and Barbarian, I didn't feel Fighter was lackluster
Actually Talamare, almost all fighters at some point outside of roleplaying games utilize stealth (sneaking) in all forms of history, literature, movies...

*edit* some even do it in heavy armor. 
No offense, but I feel your suggestions would be a negative for the Fighter Class



No offense taken. Like I said, I don't know if what I presented for fighter was worth while or not. But is there any input on organizing the classes such that it works the way I desribed as far as getting a class feature at each level that you don't otherwise get a feat? I mean, they are almost there with Barbarian anyways...


I dont want to be penalized for not taking DEX (and yes, not receiving a bonus is the same as being penalized), Fighters are the class that doesnt need to be all nimbly bimbly like, and this is FORCING them to take at least some DEX



They were just some ideas off the top of my head. However, fighters may often utilize DEX to a great deal aside from AC Bonus... Light Weapons (Two-Weapon Fighting), Thrown Weapons, Ranged Weapons...


Finally there are already 2 Fighter Exclusive Manuevers that are intended on fixing your Advantage/Accuracy called Glancing Blow and Composed Attack, I dont see the point in giving Fighter Focused Attack



Composed attack can eliminate disadvantage but not grant advantage. Glancing Blow doesn't grant advantage either. So, unless there is another one that I've overlooked then this hasn't been covered.


When I read Fighter and Barbarian, I didn't feel Fighter was lackluster



There was an article in the Playtest section of www.Wizards.com where the author, a employee of wizards, indicated that they are aware that Barbarian is higher powered than Fighter at present. Largely I was trying to present things which did not swing things to much in the other direction and also for the purpose of generally giving an example of the Class Features per levels that I was trying to indicate.

Good counterpoints though. Thoughts on the Class Features at every level where a Feat is not otherwise gaines?...
One more obvious answer to additional features for fighters would be to give them more maneuvers and maybe some bonus feats.
A friend just suggested giving fighter an additional reaction at some point... too much?...thoughts?
Bonus Feats I would love, bringing back what the fighter was known for in 3.5

Extra reaction doesn't seem necessary because of the Combat Reflex feat that already provides this
Yeah, I'd be good with that as well.

Forgot about that feats benefit... What about an "Improved Combat Reflexes" which would remove the restriction on the extra reaction only being able to be used for an opportunity attack. 
Yeah, I'd be good with that as well.

Forgot about that feats benefit... What about an "Improved Combat Reflexes" which would remove the restriction on the extra reaction only being able to be used for an opportunity attack. 



Until we see where MDD (or WDD) go, we can't play around with reactions much.  Currently they are ultra powerful.  If you work with a teamate you can invoke an AoO for each other once per round easily which doubles the damage output of a martial class.  This is because MDD refresh on each turn.  Combat Reflexes, in the current playtest is probably the best feat for martial classes.  (whether or not people realize this yet)

Reactions are walking a fine line right now.  So we have to hold off on tipping that scale until we see what happens to MDD. 
Anyone:

There is currently no effect from flanking yet in the Playtest right?... I've made a house rule that characters flanking an enemy have advantage on their attacks against that enemy.
...Opinions?


There is also currently no combat effects in the playtest for the attacker/target in regards to different size categories right? (I mean anything of similar effect to v3.5 giving a +2 to AC for being smaller size categories.)

Also, unless our group missed something. Have others realized that a Halfling combatent that starts combat behind a wall of his allies and enemies and closed in on both sides... can simply move through his allies space, move through his enemies space, and as long as he doesn't move out of an enemies reach, end up on the other side adjacent to enemy with no penalties, no tests, no saves... nothing, they can just do it...? It threw me off at first that it was that way but I haven't found anything to indicate this is not the case (This is all assuming the enemies are medium size or larger - based on the Halfling Racial Trait: Halfling Nimbleness).

 
Anyone:
There is currently no effect from flanking yet in the Playtest right?... I've made a house rule that characters flanking an enemy have advantage on their attacks against that enemy.
...Opinions? 


Answer from Forums is that there is no effect from flanking yet...


There is also currently no combat effects in the playtest for the attacker/target in regards to different size categories right? (I mean anything of similar effect to v3.5 giving a +2 to AC for being smaller size categories.)


Answer from Forums is that there is no effect from size, aside from specific cases like push, yet...


Also, unless our group missed something. Have others realized that a Halfling combatent that starts combat behind a wall of his allies and enemies and closed in on both sides... can simply move through his allies space, move through his enemies space, and as long as he doesn't move out of an enemies reach, end up on the other side adjacent to enemy with no penalties, no tests, no saves... nothing, they can just do it...? It threw me off at first that it was that way but I haven't found anything to indicate this is not the case (This is all assuming the enemies are medium size or larger - based on the Halfling Racial Trait: Halfling Nimbleness).

 


Answer from Forums is that this interpretation seems to be correct...

Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.


No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk

that's why barbarians and monks use bracers of armor (or whatever theyre called), because those things aren't armor.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.


No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk

that's why barbarians and monks use bracers of armor (or whatever theyre called), because those things aren't armor.



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"




This, exactly.  Get used to having less than 20 AC until much higher levels.  They're balancing out with HP and to-hit, so even though your AC looks lower, monsters will still have trouble hitting you.

Regarding the Halfling Nimbleness - I'd say yes, it looks like they can do exactly that.  With a total movement speed of 25 feet, though, in the above diagram, the Halfling would not be able to make it back behind the wall of allies in the same turn - leaving them at the mercy of three attackers.
  I like it, though.  Attacks of opportunity were a great way to instill respect for the combat system in previous editions - but I've found that many players simply don't do anything interesting, because they're afraid to provoke attacks all the time; and, though it's sad to share such a fact, some players, in my experience, simply are not 'swift' enough to grasp how attacks of opportunity (or the threat of such) can be used to their benefit without me explicitly suggesting courses of action to them.

  Having said that - I do miss the AoO, and I plan to incorporate them more into D&DNext; as a benefit for winning ability contests prompted by creative player actions, for example, or a penalty for losing such ability contests.  I hope the final rules can include a clause of some kind supporting the use of opportunity attacks as being possible outcomes to Improvising an Action (How to Play, 14).  Not as a general or even common outcome, but as a possible outcome, certainly.
Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.


No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk

that's why barbarians and monks use bracers of armor (or whatever theyre called), because those things aren't armor.



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"


12+DEX
Regarding the Halfling Nimbleness - I'd say yes, it looks like they can do exactly that.  With a total movement speed of 25 feet, though, in the above diagram, the Halfling would not be able to make it back behind the wall of allies in the same turn - leaving them at the mercy of three attackers.
  I like it, though.  Attacks of opportunity were a great way to instill respect for the combat system in previous editions - but I've found that many players simply don't do anything interesting, because they're afraid to provoke attacks all the time; and, though it's sad to share such a fact, some players, in my experience, simply are not 'swift' enough to grasp how attacks of opportunity (or the threat of such) can be used to their benefit without me explicitly suggesting courses of action to them.

  Having said that - I do miss the AoO, and I plan to incorporate them more into D&DNext; as a benefit for winning ability contests prompted by creative player actions, for example, or a penalty for losing such ability contests.  I hope the final rules can include a clause of some kind supporting the use of opportunity attacks as being possible outcomes to Improvising an Action (How to Play, 14).  Not as a general or even common outcome, but as a possible outcome, certainly.

If it's a Level 2 Barbarian Halfling then their speed is 35 feet in light/no armor.

... or if they take the Feat "Fast Movement" then they can move up to 35 feet.

... or if they take the Fighter Maneuver "Spring Attack", I believe they could accomplish the same thing.

I like it as well though, like I previously said, it really just struck me as odd when it was first realized.

I know when we played v3.5 that AoO were something that you constantly thought about avoiding/exploiting... The 5 foot step free action was used ALOT.

Your last paragraph made me think of the following house rule addition.

When you roll a natural 1 on an attack: The attacked creature is granted an Opportunity Attack if they have the necessary Reaction available and if you are within their reach.

I know it's simple but... thoughts?

Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.


No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk

that's why barbarians and monks use bracers of armor (or whatever theyre called), because those things aren't armor.



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"


doesn't matter, class feature sets ac value to (unarmored value) + dex mod + con mod, normally unarmored value = 10, but bracers of armor AREN'T ACTUALLY ARMOR (they leave the user's body completely exposed
13 + dex mod + con mod (or wis mod for monks) balances out fairly well (based on what said characters would likely have as ability scores) with what a fighter could get from armor and shields and whatnot.  Now if a barbarian had 20 strength, dex, and con, it could get ridiculous, but this system seems set up to avoid that sort of thing.


that said, they really should change the class feature to allow you to use your con mod in place of your dex mod when you do wear armor

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"




This, exactly.  Get used to having less than 20 AC until much higher levels.  They're balancing out with HP and to-hit, so even though your AC looks lower, monsters will still have trouble hitting you.


or i could play a dwarf:
18 (plate) + 1 (shield) + 1 (racial) = 20

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.


No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk

that's why barbarians and monks use bracers of armor (or whatever theyre called), because those things aren't armor.



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"


doesn't matter, class feature sets ac value to (unarmored value) + dex mod + con mod, normally unarmored value = 10, but bracers of armor AREN'T ACTUALLY ARMOR (they leave the user's body completely exposed
13 + dex mod + con mod (or wis mod for monks) balances out fairly well (based on what said characters would likely have as ability scores) with what a fighter could get from armor and shields and whatnot.  Now if a barbarian had 20 strength, dex, and con, it could get ridiculous, but this system seems set up to avoid that sort of thing.


that said, they really should change the class feature to allow you to use your con mod in place of your dex mod when you do wear armor



Personally, I think it should be that the Barbarian can chose either CON or DEX mod for AC, as long as they are unarmored or wearing light or medium armor.
Monks and barbarians who pick up the mage armor cantrip via arcane dabbler feat can push their armor class to heights that fighters can only dream of.


No they cant

Mage Armor specifically sets your Armor to "13+Dex"
Which would be less than "10+Con+Dex" for Barb or "10+Wis+Dex" for Monk

that's why barbarians and monks use bracers of armor (or whatever theyre called), because those things aren't armor.



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"


doesn't matter, class feature sets ac value to (unarmored value) + dex mod + con mod, normally unarmored value = 10, but bracers of armor AREN'T ACTUALLY ARMOR (they leave the user's body completely exposed
13 + dex mod + con mod (or wis mod for monks) balances out fairly well (based on what said characters would likely have as ability scores) with what a fighter could get from armor and shields and whatnot.  Now if a barbarian had 20 strength, dex, and con, it could get ridiculous, but this system seems set up to avoid that sort of thing.


that said, they really should change the class feature to allow you to use your con mod in place of your dex mod when you do wear armor


Again

It doesnt matter if its armor, or a flower

Your AC value will be either "13+DEX" OR "10+DEX+WIS/CON"
You may NOT combine the 2

Also with the current (3d6) dice roll system for determining ability scores, you can reach 20 DEX+WIS/CON at level 1

Further more, Barbs already have broken levels of AC, being capable of reaching around 25 AC with 20 DEX+CON + Defender + the two Cleric "+1 AC Spells", Dragons only have a +8 Attack Bonus. Meaning they need 17s to hit this guy

If we implement your version, Dragons would need 20's
For martial characters they should be able to add con bonus to light armor, dex to medium, and str to heavy. Then give the armor other features that affect move, skills, etc. So in theory you can have a fighter using cloth and a monk using plate.
It is my opinion that some of the classes need some beefing up in terms of meaningful options and abilities. In that regard I've been working on a homebrew of a class that follows a similar process of leveling up as the monk and barbarian, getting a greater number of class features over the 20 levels of play.

Would something like that be nice for the fighter? Definitely. The fighter is probably, alongside the wizard, one of the classes that need some creative development love at this point. I've read about the alterations to the MDD mechanic and changing it to WDD, but this still isn't enough. They need something to put them on level ground with other classes. Chucking out lots of damage by swinging a sword/firing an arrow is all well and good, but it gets boring fast if that's all you're doing each round because it's the best option.

To that end, I think that fighters not only need more maneuvers, that are as interesting as a wizard/cleric's spells, but that more can and should be done with fighting styles. At current, a fighting style is nothing more than a cluster of suggestions for choosing maneuvers, background, specialty and equipment. It fits in the same design space as the rogue scheme, the tradition of wizardry, and the cleric's deity, but has none of the fluff or mechanical benefit the others grant.

Choosing a tradition of wizardry, rogue scheme, or deity grants the character extras on top of giving suggestions as to what spells/tricks/background/feats/equipment would in general help you realize the flavor of character concept you want. A fighting style does not.

That fact is sad and is something that needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, "Are you really sure?"

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/13.jpg)



Doesnt matter, it still SETS YOUR AC to "13+DEX"




This, exactly.  Get used to having less than 20 AC until much higher levels.  They're balancing out with HP and to-hit, so even though your AC looks lower, monsters will still have trouble hitting you.


or i could play a dwarf:
18 (plate) + 1 (shield) + 1 (racial) = 20


Bring on the spellcasting enemy...

Want to understand D&D 5e monsters?  ♦  @surfarcher  ♦  +Surf Archer  ♦  /u/surfarcher

I would like to hear other peoples thoughts. I'm curious if most people got a glance at the Barbarian Class after seeing the other classes and thought, "Holy Crap, Barbarians look fun!"... When reading through the class features I had images of Wolverine, Vikings, and the like filling my head. This class, to me, has a clear and potent identity where I feel some of the other classes could use a little spark.

Other points of view? 



I couldn't agree more! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE BARBARIAN!

(Well, I suppose a few features could be tinkered with, but I am terrified that the next packet will introduce a totally neutered Barbarian).

Also, I think the Barbarian class makes the perfect litmus test. 
Level 5: Feral Presence
The wild nature in you is cleary visible and imposing to your enemies.
  Benefit: If not already possessed, you gain the intimidate skill. Second, you have advantage on checks to intimidate. Additionally, while raging, enemies that are within your reach and are of 3 Hit Dice less or lower must make a Fear Save or become frightened 
- They must roll a d20 and add their Wisdom Modifier against a DC 10 + (Barbarians Strength or Constitution Modifier, whichever is higher). This roll needs to be made only once per encounter. If the enemy rolls a natural 1 on this check they are terrified and treated as stunned for a number of rounds equal to the Barbarians Strength or Constitution Modifier, whichever is higher.



I'm not sure how I feel about this exact implementation, but I do like the idea of a class feature that represents the frightening Barbarian. Maybe an action, (or martial swift action, a contest in addition to attack), that lets you attempt to frighten an enemy, rather than a passive ability that references HD.

Oh, and only if it doesn't push Channel Fury back in the progression, because I really want Channel Fury to move FORWARD to level 10. 
I couldn't agree more! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE BARBARIAN!

(Well, I suppose a few features could be tinkered with, but I am terrified that the next packet will introduce a totally neutered Barbarian).

Also, I think the Barbarian class makes the perfect litmus test. 

A thread I did awhile back on tinkering with Barbarians:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I couldn't agree more! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE BARBARIAN!

(Well, I suppose a few features could be tinkered with, but I am terrified that the next packet will introduce a totally neutered Barbarian).

Also, I think the Barbarian class makes the perfect litmus test. 

A thread I did awhile back on tinkering with Barbarians:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...



Wow, I missed that thread but I like it.
I couldn't agree more! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE BARBARIAN!

(Well, I suppose a few features could be tinkered with, but I am terrified that the next packet will introduce a totally neutered Barbarian).

Also, I think the Barbarian class makes the perfect litmus test. 

A thread I did awhile back on tinkering with Barbarians:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...



I was lurking in that thread -- you made some very good points there too. I would be satisfied with the Barbarian progression you layed out there, but I think the one in the current packet is close enough to perfect that no change is necessary. Like you said, I don't know enough about balance to judge Channel Fury, but the stun does seem harsh at first glance.
Sign In to post comments