It's hard to be enthusiastic about this packet when the major flaws of the previous weren't addressed at all. We are given Barbarian and what it does is point out, even more dramatically, what is cause for concern: Barbarian is just another step in the Martial Dominance direction.
Let's look at an average human barbarian at a few points along the way: Stats: STR - 18 (15+2+1), CON - 16 (15+1), DEX - 14(13+1), WIS - 12(11+1), INT - 10 (9+1), CHA - 9 (8+1)
Attack Roll: +5 (+4 +1) plus Reckless Attack (Get ADV, grant ADV) plus Rage (Get ADV, no reactions) Damage: 1d12+4 (MDD: +1d6) (Rage: +2)
AC: 15, HPs: 15, Resist: Bludgeon, Piercing, Slashing (in Rage)
On average, the barbarian will be hitting probably 70% (or 91%) of the time for 14* damage. Toss in Rage, and the hit sits at 91% and the damage goes up to 16* per. (*not counting critical hits). A limited use Magic Missile (2d4+4 for 9) that doesn't miss will not average as much damage as the average attack of a barbarian, much less a raging barbarian. Since Rage will basically last an entire encounter, even at first level, they'll be hitting 91% for 16 each through many attacks possibly. Half damage from every normal source will mean that the Barbarian's 15 HPs essentially doubles in that time.
By level 5, it'll be:
Attack: +6 with ADV Damage: 1d10+5+3d6+4
AC: 15, HPs: 55, Resist: B/P/S (3x/day), 70% chance to avoid death blow Advantage on Init +10 to Movement Speed
Picking up an improvised chair leg, a level 5 Barbarian could go into a rage and have advantage on attacks doing 1d3+3d6+8 damage.
Keep in mind I didn't even bother with Feats which would improve the class even more. But that holds true for every class.
Yes, the Barbarian is a very cool class. In fact, it'll expect to see quite a few requests in my playtest campaigns to use one. I suppose the only way to playtest it, though, is to compare it's relative power and enjoyability against the other Martial Classes because the spellcasting classes simply are far behind in comparison.
In fact, I could make a DEX based Barbarian as a ranged/finesse attacker.
DEX: 18, CON: 16... whatever on the rest.
(1st level) Ranged Attack: +5, Damage: 1d8+1d6+4 (ADV with Reckless) Melee: +5 (finesse), 1d8+1d6+4 (+2 rage) (ADV only with Reckless) Dual Melee: +3/+3 (finesse), 1d8+4/1d6+0 (+1d6) (+2/+2 in rage) (ADV with Reckless)
AC: 18/17 (DEX+CON+TWD in melee), HPs: 15 (Resist: P/S/B in Rage)
Not bad. Reckless from range wouldn't be all that bad (range would allow fewer return strikes), so those longbow shots at advantage would tear through a lot. Two-Weapon Defense boosts that Dual Wielding format to an AC of 18, couple that with 15 HPs, and they are better defensively than the Fighter in melee. Still better at range, really, because AC 17 and 15 HPs is an improvement.
Or maybe they pick up Rapid Shot and use Reckless for two attacks with advantage doing 1d8+4 each while Reckless.
At any rate, compared to the limited use Wizard, the Ranged Barbarian would still be a much more dangerous foe. A couple of times a day of 1d4+2 (x2) attacks versus non-stop use of 1d8+4 (x2) that probably hits 91% of the time. Even single target, 2d4+4 (100%) isn't better than 1d8+1d6+4 (91%). Disadvantage you say? AC 17 being attacked at Disadvantage vs +5 Attack gets hit about 70%. The Wizard gets hit 30% (AC 15, with Mage Armor). Pretty significant, yes, but the Wizard probably had 8 HPs, the Barbarian has 15 and will be taking half damage in any two battles they feel threatened in. My money would be on the barbarian surviving better. If the Barbarian plays it safe (no Reckless), they hit 70% for 1d8+1d6+4 which is still better, on average, than two no-miss magic missile - a limited resource.
Anyway, Barbarian looks very cool... but in the greater picture, I can't really give any true account of how it plays because I see Martial Classes as all being too good at the moment.
Reckless Attack can only be used with melee attacks.
Good to know. Not that it really makes a significant difference, but at least we know we won't have Barbarian Archers that dominate play.
Even without Reckless, though, a Barbarian is still a better ranged option than the Wizard. Much better Defenses, Hit Points, and more consistant damage that hits harder.
Honestly, I think MDD should go back to being 1d4 and be a part of some sort of Weapon Training system where you choose a type you can use it with. So you might have Martial Training in Light Blades or Polearms, Bows or Thrown, and then they can use their MDD and Maneuvers while employing those weapons.
In a recent test, we literally had characters picking up rocks and hitting for 20+ damage.
I also think Skill Dice should be removed from Parry so that the Fighter has a real decision to make when it comes to using their MDD if they need to consider defenses in a combat scenario. Barbarian should have some sort of mechanic, too, that makes use of their MDD one of a choice between options. Reckless Attack, Rage, etc., come only with the use of their MDD and so forth.
I love maneuvers and the intention behind Expertise Dice/Martial Damage Dice, but I currently do not like the application of the rules. We could significantly boost the spellcasting classes, yes, but then it just adds to the arms race that is currently occuring where DMs would be forced to throw larger and larger numbers of creatures at parties or be forced to use creatures that aren't normally suitable for the party's level just to provide a challenge.
For instance, in one recent test, a mid-level group consisting entirely of Martial Characters encountered a creature that they were supposed to have to retreat from and avoid. A beast of legend and significant power. Played, as is, from the Bestiary and using the 12/17/12 packet rules for the characters, they managed to down it (granted, with a little luck) in 2 rounds. Better Initiative, a critical hit charged up, and a lot of MDD (3d6) and modest boosts resulted in the terrifying beast of high level with 136 HPs into a pulp. The value of the creature (XPs) was enough to level the entire group from the start of their current level to the next.
A group of Clerics and Wizards wouldn't had any chance (as was expected) against the same creature, much less been able to bring it down so swiftly. Yes, we could make it so that Wizards could have the options to augment Magic Missile... say with a similar mechanic... so they could deliver 2d4+4+3d6 damage on a MM at level 5, for instance. And let Ray of Frost go for 1d10 + 3d6 and it would look more balanced.. but to my thinking, ugh... they'd need to rewrite the entire bestiary to balance creatures against the upscaling of damage output. Might as well play 4E where they did a wonderful job of giving us higher combat damages and tougher characters and creatures. Instead of making 5E, why not just continue to evolve 4E along the Essentials line, allowing for more streamlined combat, more improvisational rules, and support that product instead?
I am sure players enjoy the big splashes involved with huge hits that do 5x more damage than necessary for a particular encounter. And I know, as a DM, I am enjoying less cumbersome rules and more streamlined combat. There is a need for balance, though, both between character classes and between characters and monsters.
5E has the potential to be a fast paced, roleplaying oriented, fun system with enough options to satisfy player need for creative license but with an elegance of simplicity to keep DMs sane. Right now, though, it's a ho-hum martial dominated product that will quickly bore the unchallenged player or frustrate the DM who's forced to scale every encounter against the dominance of the MDD classes.
Yes, I realize this is BETA, but are we going to seriously go months before they make changes to balance out a significant flaw? It's nearly unplayable as it exists RAW and has been for a long time now.
I think it is important to note that the recent playtest notes indicate that a KNOWN ISSUE is that certain player characters do too much damage. Weren't MDD just added in December? Haven't we haerd that the NEXT rules won't be released until at least 2014? There is a long time to iron out potential problems. I'd bet that we will see a MDD re-vamp in combination with an update to the monster math in the Bestiary in a playtest soon.
Well, Expertise Dice were added to Rogue and Monk well before that. Wizard spells, etc., were also retooled, too, so that magic missile was no longer a cantrip, etc.
If the Core Rules (as MM states) is nearly complete, does it seems unrealistic to expect some movement in the near future towards addressing the imbalances?
In fact, if they are addressing it, why wasn't the Barbarian released with this in mind? Couldn't they have simply applied what changes are in the work to this class so that we have a preview of what's to be expected? In that case, then I think it's safe to say that Barbarian proves that MDD is working as expected, it's just that Wizard and Cleric are needing improvements to their damage output. This, unfortunately, points to a movement towards power inflation, which again, says to me that we'll have to see the same inflation given to the Bestiary. I am sure there are many who are wholeheartedly endorsing that movement, but it's not what I was hoping for out of 5E.
I agree with ShadeRaven, and I'm sure that they will address the damage glut.
The entire idea of bounded accuracy should also keep control over damage glut. If PC hit points increase, and they gain more HD of healing, and they gain more interesting maneuvers and options and skill tricks, and spells, there will be no need to scale damage so much. Damage should scale enough so that higher level PCs do more damage than lower level ones, but the power creep needs to be contained. 1 or 2 round fights should not happen when a party of 4 attacks a major demon or devil or other horrible creature (even if they are equivalent level). The battle should last at least 3 or 4 rounds.
I like what Mearls was mentioning in the Google Hangouts Session about shifting damage increase to weapon modifiers at specific levels. If they divide the 20 levels into 4 tiers, they can make x1, x2, x3, x4 damage with weapons and then they don't have to worry about adding MDD to damage. (Although doing 1d12 with the greataxe might be out of control when it gets x4 damage). If MDD is based solely on level and weapon choice, players can make choices based on the maneuvers/tricks/feats their PCs have learned either using them for action or reaction in a single round.
Another part of MDD that we found terrible and overpowered was the idea that fighters could use all of the MDD for attack damage and then if they were attacked in the same round, they could use all of the MDD for parry too. That has to go. At least the Barbarian won't parry.
I'm optimisitc that changes will be made and eventually the math will work better. Like ShadeRaven, and others, I just wish we get a chance to play the playtest with damage under control as soon as possible.
In a recent test, we literally had characters picking up rocks and hitting for 20+ damage.
I also think Skill Dice should be removed from Parry so that the Fighter has a real decision to make when it comes to using their MDD if they need to consider defenses in a combat scenario.
A quick note: the rock would be considered an improvised weapon, and therefore, RAW, they wouldn't be proficient with it. Attack bonus and MDD can only be considered when using weapons with which the character is proficient.
Also, right now, fighters don't have to consider anything for MDD for defense. They get their MDD refreshed during their turn, and during the turn of the enemy that tries to hit them (even in the same round). So, they can use them in full on an enemy during their turn, and when that enemy feels that turn about is fair play, the fighter can use them (again) in full to parry before his next turn even comes up. Removing skill dice would have no impact on this ability except to reduce the amount they can parry as a reaction.
Edit: Sorry - didn't see that someone had already mentioned this. Still there it is.
Still, I can't deny that martial characters are pretty powerful atm. I'm not sure if they need to be toned down, or the other classes brought up. I suppose it depends on how powerful people want their characters.
It's hard to be enthusiastic about this packet when the major flaws of the previous weren't addressed at all. We are given Barbarian and what it does is point out, even more dramatically, what is cause for concern: Barbarian is just another step in the Martial Dominance direction.
Let's look at an average human barbarian at a few points along the way: Stats: STR - 18 (15+2+1), CON - 16 (15+1), DEX - 14(13+1), WIS - 12(11+1), INT - 10 (9+1), CHA - 9 (8+1)
Attack Roll: +5 (+4 +1) plus Reckless Attack (Get ADV, grant ADV) plus Rage (Get ADV, no reactions) Damage: 1d12+4 (MDD: +1d6) (Rage: +2)
AC: 15, HPs: 15, Resist: Bludgeon, Piercing, Slashing (in Rage)
On average, the barbarian will be hitting probably 70% (or 91%) of the time for 14* damage. Toss in Rage, and the hit sits at 91% and the damage goes up to 16* per. (*not counting critical hits). A limited use Magic Missile (2d4+4 for 9) that doesn't miss will not average as much damage as the average attack of a barbarian, much less a raging barbarian. Since Rage will basically last an entire encounter, even at first level, they'll be hitting 91% for 16 each through many attacks possibly. Half damage from every normal source will mean that the Barbarian's 15 HPs essentially doubles in that time.
By level 5, it'll be:
Attack: +6 with ADV Damage: 1d10+5+3d6+4
AC: 15, HPs: 55, Resist: B/P/S (3x/day), 70% chance to avoid death blow Advantage on Init +10 to Movement Speed
Picking up an improvised chair leg, a level 5 Barbarian could go into a rage and have advantage on attacks doing 1d3+3d6+8 damage.
Keep in mind I didn't even bother with Feats which would improve the class even more. But that holds true for every class.
Yes, the Barbarian is a very cool class. In fact, it'll expect to see quite a few requests in my playtest campaigns to use one. I suppose the only way to playtest it, though, is to compare it's relative power and enjoyability against the other Martial Classes because the spellcasting classes simply are far behind in comparison.
In fact, I could make a DEX based Barbarian as a ranged/finesse attacker.
DEX: 18, CON: 16... whatever on the rest.
(1st level) Ranged Attack: +5, Damage: 1d8+1d6+4 (ADV with Reckless) Melee: +5 (finesse), 1d8+1d6+4 (+2 rage) (ADV only with Reckless) Dual Melee: +3/+3 (finesse), 1d8+4/1d6+0 (+1d6) (+2/+2 in rage) (ADV with Reckless)
AC: 18/17 (DEX+CON+TWD in melee), HPs: 15 (Resist: P/S/B in Rage)
Not bad. Reckless from range wouldn't be all that bad (range would allow fewer return strikes), so those longbow shots at advantage would tear through a lot. Two-Weapon Defense boosts that Dual Wielding format to an AC of 18, couple that with 15 HPs, and they are better defensively than the Fighter in melee. Still better at range, really, because AC 17 and 15 HPs is an improvement.
Or maybe they pick up Rapid Shot and use Reckless for two attacks with advantage doing 1d8+4 each while Reckless.
At any rate, compared to the limited use Wizard, the Ranged Barbarian would still be a much more dangerous foe. A couple of times a day of 1d4+2 (x2) attacks versus non-stop use of 1d8+4 (x2) that probably hits 91% of the time. Even single target, 2d4+4 (100%) isn't better than 1d8+1d6+4 (91%). Disadvantage you say? AC 17 being attacked at Disadvantage vs +5 Attack gets hit about 70%. The Wizard gets hit 30% (AC 15, with Mage Armor). Pretty significant, yes, but the Wizard probably had 8 HPs, the Barbarian has 15 and will be taking half damage in any two battles they feel threatened in. My money would be on the barbarian surviving better. If the Barbarian plays it safe (no Reckless), they hit 70% for 1d8+1d6+4 which is still better, on average, than two no-miss magic missile - a limited resource.
Anyway, Barbarian looks very cool... but in the greater picture, I can't really give any true account of how it plays because I see Martial Classes as all being too good at the moment.
Yes, the Martial Damage add in is appalling as is continued inclusion of of the expertise dice escaltion. The idea of the expertise dice is excellent, it just escaltes out of control and makes the weapon used in a combat irrelvant. mabe they could try d6, d8, d10, d12, 2d6, d6d8, d6d10 up to d6d12. That's more than enough.
I also note that a Barbarian, like a Monk, can have a better AC buck naked than an armored knight.. and they move faster and can use both hands. Add in bracer of defense and an amulet and who wants to wear armor?
Barbars also ignore surpirse at certain levels - ruling out an entire suite of abilities and character choices for other players. Being hard to suprise - sure? But impossible? Same with being able to attack invisble creatures as if they are visible - these type of rules also attack other character groups abilities and negate them, not a great approach in game design.
The idea that the BArbar can't die, even at negative 5000 as long as he rages is also silly - and what half-smart barbar won't have a contigency heal etc on hand when he stops raging and will then go stright back to 1hp?
The flip side of all this damage escaltion is a party is toast if surprised (except the barbar - he can't be), so a clever party can't strategise their way out of a bad encounter - they die too fast.
Signs of 3.5 d100 damage creeping in guys... dial it back!
I think when we look at just numbers we miss a lot of details. Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians do substantially more damage than clerics and wizards, but only under ideal circumstances where you have lazy encounters of monsters standing in doorways. But this isn't 4ed anymore. There are a multitude of challenges that are better handled by a wizard or a cleric.
Every class has areas they shine. It is up to the DM to make a more dynamic adventure that can be approached in multiple ways, where charging each conveniently balanced room is not always the best way.
I forsaw a problem when I saw the sentence "rage will basically last an entire encounter." Rage ends when the barb does not attack. If your DM read that sentence and his head didn't start turning on how to exploit that, you have a terrible DM.
