Community

Feb 9, 2013 -- 6:28PM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:49PM, dmgorgon wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 2:15PM, wrecan wrote:

In context,we were discussing only the barbarian rage power.  But to clarify, since you were apparently confused, this discussion has been only about the barbarian rage power.  Personally, I do think the Reckless Attack should only grant advantage on Strength-based attacks.

I did not know that you had redefined the context of the thread.  

I didn't.  See the thread title: "Raging is more accurate?"  The thread was always about raging, not the other barbarian features the class gets (such as Reckless Attack).

That's funny considering I'm the OP and the first post included Reckless Attack in the example.   I guess you're the one that is confused.  

Feb 9, 2013 -- 6:28PM, wrecan wrote:

How can you use a Stength-based attack for something that requies Dex?!  If it "requires" Dex, you have to use Dex.

In my games a player can always try anything.   If the barbarian wants to play William Tell with his Maul and use his Reckless attack or Rage, I'm not going to stop him.   He'll either knock the apple or the poor lads head to the moon, but I'm not going to grant him advantage on the roll.  As the DM I'll have to cancel that advantage out with disadvantage for trying to use his strength based attack on something that requires dex.    In 3e I'd simply revoke his str bonus from the roll, but in 5e I have to revoke advantage with disadvantage.

Feb 9, 2013 -- 7:57PM, wrecan wrote:

Ah.  So you're tempering one house rule with another house rule.  Got it.  Carry on.

Well I can't stop the Barbarian from using his rage.    What if that rage ability comes into play at the end of the round when the big fat ogre walks in?   Fact is he should still be raging after knocking the boy's head off on round 1.    I'm not going to shut down the barbarian's rage ability and say NO to the player.  If he wants to try something crazy that's his choice.      

IMO, saying NO to the player is just the wrong way to play.  I also don't see how allowing the barbarian to rage on the apple is a house rule either.   

Feb 7, 2013 -- 6:13AM, CarlT wrote:

Feb 7, 2013 -- 6:04AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 6, 2013 -- 4:58PM, FFSAA wrote:

 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

Ah, but in 5e, damage is accuracy.  When you do a lot of damage in 5e, it's not because you hit harder (beyond your STR mod, which is a tiny fraction of your overall damage).  It's because you hit someplace more vital or less armored.  That's what wouldn't make sense for the barbarian.  While increasing his probability of scoring a hit does not mean precision, it means powering through parries and armor.  Now I'm not especially happy with damage as accuracy, or with the rage mechanic generally, or frankly with 5e generally, but once you really look at it through 5e's lens advantage actually makes a lot of sense.  

1) "to hit" is measuring power more than precision, so it's apt

2) "Damage" is measuring precision more than power, so it isn't

3) advantage is not stacking, so a raging barbarian won't be looking around for tactical advantage, as he shouldn't.
 

(This post contains D&D heresy, you were warned)

I think the fundamental problem that this discussion highlights is that D&D uses the Strength score to measure accuracy.  The important mechanical funtions are destributed unevenly over the Ability scores.  If I were designing a D&D reboot I would attempt to even out the funtionality of the Ability Scores and then keep the functions of the Ability scores universal for each class.  (In other words, for example, no class or feat would allow a character to use their superior Charisma to aim a sword better.)  

I would use Wisdom for Aim, since its the only score that touces on Perception.  Then I would tone down the idea of the Wisdom stat as a measure of virtuousness or intune with a the gods-ness.  These are things to be role played, not measured by an ability score.  A high Wisdom charcter is perceptive, insightfull, and has good hand-eye coordination.  All characters would add their Wisdom modifier to all Aim.  

Then I would add Strength requirements to weapons  You would have to meet the Strength requirement to wield a weapon or suffer disadvantage/an appropriate penalty.  Basically this would require higher Strength scores to access higher damage die sizes.  Strength 11 to access d6 weapons, Strength 13 to access d8 weapons, and so on up to Strength 17 to wield a big old d12 battleaxe or greatsword.  At higher levels you would gain additional weapon dice, multiplying this built in Strength dependance on damage. 
     (I agree with getting rid of a blanket Strenght bonus to weapon damage, since in practice it's just a lot of little math, that becomes completely irrelevant as characters progress.  I would maybe give Strength bonus to weapon damage to just one class, probably Fighters, as a small bonus that makes them better at lower levels with weapons than other classes.)

In this way if you want to be a powerful AND accurate warrior you need to be strong AND wise.  This also allows builds that focus more on power or accuracy at the expense of the other, which is more interesting than dumping everything in the prescribed "correct stat" to dump points in for each class.

Since I just did 2 out of 6, anyway:

Constitution would stay the HP stat.  I would give characters HP equal to their starting Constitution, or at least based on, and I would make sure that HP by level would tie directly to Constituiton.
    If the game ends up using health dice I suggest:  Whenever you roll your health die, you may use your Constitution modifier in place of the result.

Dexterity would be more focused as solely the AC stat.  For the most part I would make sure Dexterity could not be used offensively.  Remember in this system aim is based on your perception and therefore your Wisdom score. 

Intelligence would be the magic stat but I would also return to the idea that at first level you learn 1 skill or language for each point of Intelligence modifier you have.  Smart people know more stuff.

Charisma would stay the social stat.  I would also make Charisma the stat that limits magic item use.  I think this makes sense in terms of traditional mythology.  Great weapons only come to be wielded by great legendary champions.  (In a system where Ability scores are more rigidly and universally used by each class in the same way, there is an interesting mechanical possibility to Charisma limiting power and number of magic items your character can use.  If a +3 sword requires a Charisma 15 to wield, You have to put points into Charisma to be able to use that, but you need points in Wisdom to be naturally accurate.  If you focus just on Wisdom and Charisma, you won't have as high a Strength and therefore be unable to access higher damage weapons.)

...ANYWAY...   Other than D&D tradition, it doesn't make a lot of sense that a Barbarian, or anybody else, hits more accurately because they are Strong. . . enraged or not.