I can't help but notice that every barbarian has the same features with no in class decision points. I mean Ok yeah they just intro'd the class, but I think some level of variation between barbarians should be possible.
I can't help but notice that every barbarian has the same features with no in class decision points. I mean Ok yeah they just intro'd the class, but I think some level of variation between barbarians should be possible.
They think so too; they wanted to put out what they had for public testing, and this is what they had. We'll see variations on the barbarian sometime down the line. The Monk was treated the same way.
They think so too; they wanted to put out what they had for public testing, and this is what they had. We'll see variations on the barbarian sometime down the line. The Monk was treated the same way.
War-cries with mechanical impact, whirling, reaving, all that awesome stuff they could do in 4e, plus maybe some stuff that offers actual protection from magic.
War-cries with mechanical impact, whirling, reaving, all that awesome stuff they could do in 4e, plus maybe some stuff that offers actual protection from magic.
War-cries with mechanical impact, whirling, reaving, all that awesome stuff they could do in 4e, plus maybe some stuff that offers actual protection from magic.
Skinwalking, punching people through planar boundaries, turning into a rage-beast of murder...
Skinwalking, punching people through planar boundaries, turning into a rage-beast of murder...
They think so too; they wanted to put out what they had for public testing, and this is what they had. We'll see variations on the barbarian sometime down the line. The Monk was treated the same way.
This. When we got the playtest for the 4E barbarian in Dragon, it was similar in that it had very few options. By the time it was fully released, there were plenty of options.
This.When we got the playtest for the 4E barbarian in Dragon, it was similar in that it had very few options. By the time it was fully released, there were plenty of options.
Pretty sure its something they are aware of since they announced it would be basically a premade... horses mouth so to speak.
Ofcourse they said the gish sorceror build was just one of the possibilities and they had plans for others but that didnt stop the whining.
Pretty sure its something they are aware of since they announced it would be basically a premade... horses mouth so to speak.Ofcourse they said the gish sorceror build was just one of the possibilities and they had plans for others but that didnt st
They should really make a sticky or something that announces that the barbarian in this packet is only one possible build and that the full class will include other options. :P
They should really make a sticky or something that announces that the barbarian in this packet is only one possible build and that the full class will include other options. :P
Ok as long as there are plans to work some options in there, I'm mostly happy.
Now if only we could switch out all the stuff that belongs to the fighter and trade it in for other stuff.
Ok as long as there are plans to work some options in there, I'm mostly happy.Now if only we could switch out all the stuff that belongs to the fighter and trade it in for other stuff.
Giving the fighter's abilities to every other class in the game isn't multi-classing, it's 3e all over again.
To me acknowledging the fighter is the super class and these others are its children could help the whole thing.
Make multiclassing in to them cheap as dirt for instance.
To me acknowledging the fighter is the super class and these others are its children could help the whole thing.Make multiclassing in to them cheap as dirt for instance.
Giving the fighter's abilities to every other class in the game isn't multi-classing, it's 3e all over again.
To me acknowledging the fighter is the super class and these others are its children could help the whole thing.
Make multiclassing in to them cheap as dirt for instance.
To me acknowledging the fighter is the super class and these others are its children could help the whole thing.Make multiclassing in to them cheap as dirt for instance.
Fighting is fighting. You're gonna overlap because you can't have everyone attacking and doing damage in different mechanical ways. It'd be a mess.
The issue is not that the barbarian is too much of a fighter, it's that the fighter is too indistinct. I'd make 'em about weapon mastery and have all their abilities come from specialisation, personally. That's usually how I see a barbarian vs a fighter.
Fighting is fighting. You're gonna overlap because you can't have everyone attacking and doing damage in different mechanical ways. It'd be a mess.The issue is not that the barbarian is too much of a fighter, it's that the fighter is too indistinct.
To a degree certainly, but for example why not have the barbarian's base weapon attack bonus based on level be lower, but offer a higher damage boost?
Something to take all combat classes out of this lock step they seem to be in with the fighter.
To a degree certainly, but for example why not have the barbarian's base weapon attack bonus based on level be lower, but offer a higher damage boost?Something to take all combat classes out of this lock step they seem to be in with the fighter.
I'd even go so far as to make their bonus outside of a rage just enough to do a couple of maneuvers and avoid being killed, but the actual damage only really happens in a rage.
I'd even go so far as to make their bonus outside of a rage just enough to do a couple of maneuvers and avoid being killed, but the actual damage only really happens in a rage.
Or maybe take him off the dice entirely, the barbarian was always the better candidate for the Basic attack spam, extra attacks for barbarians!
I do wish they'd grow a pair and let extra attacks happen. As long as the base assumption is 1 attack/round and everyone remembers that I really don't see the worry.
Plus, as you say, not allowing them is denying yourself a game design tool.
I do wish they'd grow a pair and let extra attacks happen. As long as the base assumption is 1 attack/round and everyone remembers that I really don't see the worry.Plus, as you say, not allowing them is denying yourself a game design tool.
I could see their rage work a bit like the sent of blood stance in the tome of battle as well, where each successive crit grants a stacking bonus until the end of the encounter.
You could do something like each time they take damage they gain a bonus to their attack and damage rolls.
I could see their rage work a bit like the sent of blood stance in the tome of battle as well, where each successive crit grants a stacking bonus until the end of the encounter.You could do something like each time they take damage they gain a bonus
Stop it with the to-hit and damage boosts, I thought bounded accuracy was gonna shift the focus to tactical movement and control vs. huge accuracy and damage numbers.
Think about it, a barbarian is supposed to be all that feral muscle and quickness a fighter just doesn't have, so a barbarian should make wild arcing swings or unleash steel hurricanes that chew up multiple enemies, a barbarian doesn't fight his enemies, he wades through them.
Stop it with the to-hit and damage boosts, I thought bounded accuracy was gonna shift the focus to tactical movement and control vs. huge accuracy and damage numbers.Think about it, a barbarian is supposed to be all that feral muscle and quickness a
Bounded accuracy when used to stifle options is dull. If they really want it to be fun, they'd make accuracy an actual question rather than the 75% chance to hit they've aimed for (I smell a new tagline for WOTC: there's a dial for that). Tactical combat in the battle mat sense is a niche that we all ready know won't be part of the standard game. Since the barbarian's in the standard game (so far as we understand), that means it needs to function off the battle mat without feeling like it's missing something and that means a focus on tactical movement is inappropriate. I'm sure there will be tactical movement options, but it'll be part of a module and the class design will be able to do without it.
I like the image of a character that gets more and more dangerous the more damage it's taken. The more they get hurt, the harder they swing, the more they batter through defenses and generally dismember people. That's an image of a barbarian wading into guys and showering blood everywhere.
Bounded accuracy when used to stifle options is dull. If they really want it to be fun, they'd make accuracy an actual question rather than the 75% chance to hit they've aimed for (I smell a new tagline for WOTC: there's a dial for that). Tactical co
Only he's not, even if he's got +100 damage and +55 accuracy he's still just horribly murdering one goblin a round.
To wade through people properly you gotta be killing/knocking down/back at least two people a round.
Only he's not, even if he's got +100 damage and +55 accuracy he's still just horribly murdering one goblin a round.To wade through people properly you gotta be killing/knocking down/back at least two people a round.
I like what I see of the class so far, especially that they don't need to wear armour (love the con as AC bonus). It's all good, it just needs to be added to, which I'm sure is on the way. I like the idea of being able to wade through hordes of monsters, knocking them over and such. That needs to happen.
I like what I see of the class so far, especially that they don't need to wear armour (love the con as AC bonus). It's all good, it just needs to be added to, which I'm sure is on the way. I like the idea of being able to wade through hordes of monst
Only he's not, even if he's got +100 damage and +55 accuracy he's still just horribly murdering one goblin a round.
To wade through people properly you gotta be killing/knocking down/back at least two people a round.
multiple attacks yes, tactical movement no.
A counterattack maneuver would be neat. Remember karmic strike? That'd be an interesting thing to play with.
multiple attacks yes, tactical movement no.A counterattack maneuver would be neat. Remember karmic strike? That'd be an interesting thing to play with.
Or maybe take him off the dice entirely, the barbarian was always the better candidate for the Basic attack spam, extra attacks for barbarians!
I do wish they'd grow a pair and let extra attacks happen. As long as the base assumption is 1 attack/round and everyone remembers that I really don't see the worry.
Plus, as you say, not allowing them is denying yourself a game design tool.
In the last google+ hangout they discussed the possibility of allowing extra attacks. The suggestion was to a) change Martial Damage Dice; rather than a pool of dice you add to the attack, the weapon does 1W, 2W, 3W, etc. depending upon your level and then b) if you have multiple [W], you can split them into multiple attacks - but you can only make one attack per target. I.e. if your level gives you 2W damage on your attack, you can attack one target for 2W or two targets for 1W each.
When or If this shows up in a packet remains to be seen.
Carl
I do wish they'd grow a pair and let extra attacks happen. As long as the base assumption is 1 attack/round and everyone remembers that I really don't see the worry.Plus, as you say, not allowing them is denying yourself a game design tool.[/quote]In
In the last google+ hangout they discussed the possibility of allowing extra attacks. The suggestion was to a) change Martial Damage Dice; rather than a pool of dice you add to the attack, the weapon does 1W, 2W, 3W, etc. depending upon your level and then b) if you have multiple [W], you can split them into multiple attacks - but you can only make one attack per target. I.e. if your level gives you 2W damage on your attack, you can attack one target for 2W or two targets for 1W each.
When or If this shows up in a packet remains to be seen.
Carl
Yeah I guess but that just kind of feels like half-assed bonus attacks that aren't really attacks, especially if they try to place all the bonuses on the first target again. If we're gonna have an extra attack then it needs to be an actual proper attack that we roll proper damage for and mod it like we would any other normal attack.
I think it's wise for them to be cautious about that sort of thing, but I think they're being timid.
That's one major bugbear I've got with DDN and if the half-baked extra attack thing is in 5e then I'll either change it or go elsewhere if it's too hard to change without wreaking havoc on the rules.
Yeah I guess but that just kind of feels like half-assed bonus attacks that aren't really attacks, especially if they try to place all the bonuses on the first target again. If we're gonna have an extra attack then it needs to be an actual proper att
In the last google+ hangout they discussed the possibility of allowing extra attacks. The suggestion was to a) change Martial Damage Dice; rather than a pool of dice you add to the attack, the weapon does 1W, 2W, 3W, etc. depending upon your level and then b) if you have multiple [W], you can split them into multiple attacks - but you can only make one attack per target. I.e. if your level gives you 2W damage on your attack, you can attack one target for 2W or two targets for 1W each.
When or If this shows up in a packet remains to be seen.
Carl
Yeah I guess but that just kind of feels like half-assed bonus attacks that aren't really attacks, especially if they try to place all the bonuses on the first target again. If we're gonna have an extra attack then it needs to be an actual proper attack that we roll proper damage for and mod it like we would any other normal attack.
I think any multi attack scenario should involve splitting your mods between the attacks.. it doesnt make any sense to get all your strength on every attack.
Yeah I guess but that just kind of feels like half-assed bonus attacks that aren't really attacks, especially if they try to place all the bonuses on the first target again. If we're gonna have an extra attack then it needs to be an actual proper att
I think any multi attack scenario should involve splitting your mods between the attacks.. it doesnt make any sense to get all your strength on every attack.
I wasn't a fan of 3e's iterative attack rolls but I'm finding the damage hit even less appealing. I hate it in 4e, this is a little better for the most part but I still don't like it.
I think I just want my attacks to be weapon based, so I want my longsword to do longsword damage all the time and if my strength bonus wanes 'cause I'm spreading my personal energy across more things then fine.
It's just what makes sense to my brain. I hate to think of anything as a deal breaker but the way they've been handling extra attacks is starting to feel that way - provided I can't easily mod around it.
edit: Starting to derail... sorry, I'll shut up
I wasn't a fan of 3e's iterative attack rolls but I'm finding the damage hit even less appealing. I hate it in 4e, this is a little better for the most part but I still don't like it.I think I just want my attacks to be weapon based, so I want my lon
At the moment I think the 5e barbarian is missing nature based powers. He is more like a fighter with a breserker theme. I agree with others here, at the very least he needs some default survival based skills.
btw, does anyone remember the Viking Breserker subclass from 2e? At 4th he could shapchange into a wolf, at 7th into a cave bear, and at 12th he can shape-travel into a spirit animal.
At the moment I think the 5e barbarian is missing nature based powers. He is more like a fighter with a breserker theme. I agree with others here, at the very least he needs some default survival based skills. btw, does anyone remember the Viki
I can't help but notice that every barbarian has the same features with no in class decision points. I mean Ok yeah they just intro'd the class, but I think some level of variation between barbarians should be possible.
They told you, clearly, and directly, that the first introduction of the barbarian wouldn't have any options, but that a later packet will add more.
Seriously, do you people not pay attention?
They told you, clearly, and directly, that the first introduction of the barbarian wouldn't have any options, but that a later packet will add more.Seriously, do you people not pay attention?
Early in the playtest process they talked of classes fiting into 3 groups common, uncommon, rare, often refered to as simple advanced and expert.
the barbarian to me looks like a very nice class for the simple group, something a new player can pick up quickly. Both in generating the character and when it comes to choices in game.
Early in the playtest process they talked of classes fiting into 3 groups common, uncommon, rare, often refered to as simple advanced and expert.the barbarian to me looks like a very nice class for the simple group, something a new player can pick up
Early in the playtest process they talked of classes fiting into 3 groups common, uncommon, rare, often refered to as simple advanced and expert.
the barbarian to me looks like a very nice class for the simple group, something a new player can pick up quickly. Both in generating the character and when it comes to choices in game.
Except that what we have now isn't even remotely close to representing the final product.
Except that what we have now isn't even remotely close to representing the final product.
Early in the playtest process they talked of classes fiting into 3 groups common, uncommon, rare, often refered to as simple advanced and expert.
the barbarian to me looks like a very nice class for the simple group, something a new player can pick up quickly. Both in generating the character and when it comes to choices in game.
Except that what we have now isn't even remotely close to representing the final product.
wat i was trying to say is that even in the finished books we might see some characters that might seem kind of bland to players already experiances in other editions. but are there just so you have a easy to play character you can let a person trying to game for the first time play he joins a group of players that are more experianced.
Except that what we have now isn't even remotely close to representing the final product.[/quote]wat i was trying to say is that even in the finished books we might see some characters that might seem kind of bland to players already experiances in o
I think any multi attack scenario should involve splitting your mods between the attacks.. it doesnt make any sense to get all your strength on every attack.
I wasn't a fan of 3e's iterative attack rolls but I'm finding the damage hit even less appealing. I hate it in 4e, this is a little better for the most part but I still don't like it.
I think I just want my attacks to be weapon based, so I want my longsword to do longsword damage all the time and if my strength bonus wanes 'cause I'm spreading my personal energy across more things then fine.
It's just what makes sense to my brain. I hate to think of anything as a deal breaker but the way they've been handling extra attacks is starting to feel that way - provided I can't easily mod around it.
edit: Starting to derail... sorry, I'll shut up
Sorry it makes more sense to me that the damage variation be mostly based on the users ability a person can be killed with from 5lbs (in 6 exposed placed) to 10lbs pressure (in probably a dozen).
Once something is a deadly weapon? Most of the variation is just in how well you can use it... and its style of uses.
So to me what might feel right would be every weapon doing exactly the same damage like it did in 0e.
Number obcession arent we funny... what is longsword damage.
I wasn't a fan of 3e's iterative attack rolls but I'm finding the damage hit even less appealing. I hate it in 4e, this is a little better for the most part but I still don't like it.I think I just want my attacks to be weapon based, so I want my lon
