Blood, Death, Vengeance! Barbarian Preview

[SpawnOfMorbo]

http://www.dungeonbastard.com/?p=836#more-836

:D

I wished and I received!

[Lycoris]

Looks like a fairly reasonable martial class. A few things I found worth noting:

-Between "danger sense", path features, and "feral instinct", I feel like the Barbarian might get an additional save proficiency, or close to one.
-I wonder how/if unarmored defense progresses. Not having played any of the playtests, I assume it'll be ala the Monk (who I also don't know).
-Extra critical damage is always fun, especially if one of the Primal Paths can increase critical range.
-Does reckless attack = power attack? If so... :smallcool:
-Just reading "Unlimited Rage" fills me with glee. :smallbiggrin:

[hawklost]

I am not sure that the the AC will scale really with any classes now, but thats because AC is already pretty much bound to 20.

Different ways of doing AC

10 + Dex + (Secondary Stat) would max out at 20
X + Dex (where X is higher than 10) would max out at probably 18 or so (X being around 13 would be my guess)
10 + Armor + Dex (if not heavy)

I do not think that WoTC should allow Any body to be able to get an AC above 20 without using Magical items (which are supposedly rare to begin with). That means I am hoping the Barbarian using Medium Armor + high dex + Class Feature for Armor ('unarmored defense') + Random Feat here still cannot add up to more than AC 20.

[Lokiare]

Looks like a fairly reasonable martial class. A few things I found worth noting:

-Between "danger sense", path features, and "feral instinct", I feel like the Barbarian might get an additional save proficiency, or close to one.
-I wonder how/if unarmored defense progresses. Not having played any of the playtests, I assume it'll be ala the Monk (who I also don't know).
-Extra critical damage is always fun, especially if one of the Primal Paths can increase critical range.
-Does reckless attack = power attack? If so... :smallcool:
-Just reading "Unlimited Rage" fills me with glee. :smallbiggrin:

Its totally everything you want and more. WotC can never make a mistake or make a bad class.

[Human Paragon 3]

Its totally everything you want and more. WotC can never make a mistake or make a bad class.

I can't tell if you're being sincere and laying it on thick, or if you're just mocking him for having a positive opinion of the preview.

[hawklost]

I can't tell if you're being sincere and laying it on thick, or if you're just mocking him for having a positive opinion of the preview.

Considering who it is and his opinion of 5e and how much WoTC screwed it up I would have to say he is mocking people. Look through his previous posts if you don't believe me.

[Lokiare]

I can't tell if you're being sincere and laying it on thick, or if you're just mocking him for having a positive opinion of the preview.


Considering who it is and his opinion of 5e and how much WoTC screwed it up I would have to say he is mocking people. Look through his previous posts if you don't believe me.

I'm trying to be positive to new people so that I can gauge their reaction later when they see the full thing.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm trying to be positive to new people so that I can gauge their reaction later when they see the full thing.

You might want to re-work your style. You come off as a combination of dopey and mean spirited. Try making posts of substance. Like instead of what you posted, something like "Is that really all you wanted out of the class? I was hoping for X, Y, and Z." People might actually want to engage with that.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Looking at the Barbarian and thinking about the new combat rules... I'm really really liking this.

The barbarian may get to be super mobile pin ball raging death incarnate.

I really want to see a Paladin/Barbarian hybrid class so I'm going to work on that sometime.

[Human Paragon 3]

You might not need to if the multi-class rules are good. That's kind of what they're made for!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You might not need to if the multi-class rules are good. That's kind of what they're made for!

If they are 3.X style them I'll just pass on the MC rules and hammer ban it in my games.

But LoH as a bonus action and raging... Unstoppable mwuahaha.

[Lycoris]

Its totally everything you want and more. WotC can never make a mistake or make a bad class.

WotC has made many a mistake in the past (*cough*Affinity*cough*Cawblade Standard*cough*), I just take the positive bits that they do and carry on with my hobbies. I'm liking what I see for many of the classes so far as my experience with D&D as a whole is still limited (and admittedly skewed towards 3.5), and 5e currently reads as a streamlined, modern 3.5 to me; which is appealing when compared to what I've seen of other systems. Wish Sorcerer had a few more spells known in this version though...

Heading back to the topic of Barbarian, I'm wondering if a DEX based Barbarian will be viable as well. Rage Rapier, Rage Longbow, Rage Blowgun <_< (that last one is probably too much of a reach...)

[hawklost]

WotC has made many a mistake in the past (*cough*Affinity*cough*Cawblade Standard*cough*), I just take the positive bits that they do and carry on with my hobbies. I'm liking what I see for many of the classes so far as my experience with D&D as a whole is still limited (and admittedly skewed towards 3.5), and 5e currently reads as a streamlined, modern 3.5 to me; which is appealing when compared to what I've seen of other systems. Wish Sorcerer had a few more spells known in this version though...

Heading back to the topic of Barbarian, I'm wondering if a DEX based Barbarian will be viable as well. Rage Rapier, Rage Longbow, Rage Blowgun <_< (that last one is probably too much of a reach...)

LOL, I really want to see a Barbarian Raging and using a Blowgun now!

Rawr! *pew pew* AARRRRRRGGGHGHHHH *pew pew* :smallbiggrin:

[Mando Knight]

That is by far the best-dressed Barbarian I ever remember seeing. Like he'd bash a dozen giants' skulls in, then go to the lodge and sit down and help the village skald compose his epic.

[Human Paragon 3]

That is by far the best-dressed Barbarian I ever remember seeing. Like he'd bash a dozen giants' skulls in, then go to the lodge and sit down and help the village skald compose his epic.

That sounds like a guy I want to hang with.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So would the dwarf (+2 con/+2 Str) race combo be a bit much for the barbarian?

I might have him wear a viking helmet, monocle, and have the sage background.

Yeah I'm an 8 bit theater fan...

[The J Pizzel]

Aside from the class features looking great, that is one of the best visual representations of a Barbarian I've ever seen Wizards put out. At least as to what I think of when I imagine them. And yeah, the class looks great. I've been playing since 2E and this is the first time I've ever been interested in playing barbarian.

[BigONotation]

The art looks a lot like Unearthed Arcana's barbarian from AD&D 1e.

That said, like someone said before me, pally/barb immediately comes to mind.

[Graustein]

The art looks a lot like Unearthed Arcana's barbarian from AD&D 1e.

That said, like someone said before me, pally/barb immediately comes to mind.

I really hope there's a barbarian subclass that calls back to the UA Barbarian. In fact 5e may not be too bad a system for that kind of character given the reduced magic item dependency and reigning in of total caster dominance.

I mean hopefully it'd be less restrictions-based than the UA Barbarian, but I think it would be really fun to play

[eastmabl]

Looks like a fairly reasonable martial class. A few things I found worth noting:

-I wonder how/if unarmored defense progresses. Not having played any of the playtests, I assume it'll be ala the Monk (who I also don't know).

In the playtest, the unarmored defense (albeit by another name) allowed the barbarian to add his constitution bonus to AC when he was unarmored. Admittedly, this might have changed in some way from the playtest.

I thought it was one of the coolest concepts in the playtest, as it allowed for the shirtless barbarian archetype to be played.

[Tholomyes]

In the playtest, the unarmored defense (albeit by another name) allowed the barbarian to add his constitution bonus to AC when he was unarmored. Admittedly, this might have changed in some way from the playtest.

I thought it was one of the coolest concepts in the playtest, as it allowed for the shirtless barbarian archetype to be played.Truth be told, I think there are a lot of classes that could do with a similar treatment. I've always wanted an option for a more priestly cleric, so Unarmored Defense would make sense as an option. They'd never do it, because they want to keep the squishy wizard (especially at low levels), but I could see Mage Armor easily being a class feature, rather than a spell. I can see why they wouldn't do it, though. Armor still has it's place, and making it incredibly optional would just be a tad too much.

[Human Paragon 3]

What was the 1e barbarian like? They hated magic or something, right?

[Merc_Kilsek]

What was the 1e barbarian like? They hated magic or something, right?

Been a lot of years so going by pure memory. I recall them having limited or no access to magical item use and magic resistance (when it was just a % number). The MR could get crazy good at higher levels iirc.

Edit: Dug my book out from the car garage. My memory is crap. Or at least my 1st edition Unearth Arcana is showing me that I am wrong. They do have Detect magic and illusions thou. . .

They do have issues with magic items and arcane uses:

"Barbarians in general detest magic and those who use it. They will, at low levels of experience, refuse to employ any sort of magic item if they recognize it as such. They will often seek to destroy magic items, and if successful they receive an experience-point award as if they possessed the destroyed items. While magic-users will be shunned initially, and always viewed with suspicion, clerical spells of the type used by shamans and witch doctors are not so viewed, though highlevel clerical spells are suspect."

[eastmabl]

Truth be told, I think there are a lot of classes that could do with a similar treatment. I've always wanted an option for a more priestly cleric, so Unarmored Defense would make sense as an option. They'd never do it, because they want to keep the squishy wizard (especially at low levels), but I could see Mage Armor easily being a class feature, rather than a spell. I can see why they wouldn't do it, though. Armor still has it's place, and making it incredibly optional would just be a tad too much.

Agreed on both parts. Although once we see how multiclassing works, you might be able to achieve the priestlier cleric with a multiclassed cleric/monk.

[Graustein]

What was the 1e barbarian like? They hated magic or something, right?

The 1e Barbarian was a lot more "noble savage"-y than the 3e Barbarian. It was defined by a culture that was very superstitious and opposed to magic (arcane magic in particular). Lower-level Barbarians couldn't use magic weapons at all and would refuse to associate with magic-users; they got over this as they levelled. This was the same edition where you had to be specific races and alignments to play certain characters, and where Paladins were not allowed to ever adventure with Evil characters.

They were also generally very self-sufficient. In 1e it was common for more powerful monsters to be completely invulnerable to attacks that weren't from magic or magic weapons; as the Barbarian levelled it gained the ability to hit those creatures with mundane weapons anyway. In exchange for their no-magic restrictions they were very self-sufficient and got a bunch of (mostly numerical) benefits.

They did and could rage, but from memory it was much more frenzied and chaotic than the 3e one? More like the Frenzied Berserker type of rage where you couldn't necessarily stop or control it as easily. It was also not the Barbarian's defining attribute, just one of the things they could do. It was the kind of class where, just by having one in your party, the game changes because of that class's restrictions, like the Paladin but even more extreme than just limiting everyone else's alignment.

[da_chicken]

The 1e Barbarian was a lot more "noble savage"-y than the 3e Barbarian. It was defined by a culture that was very superstitious and opposed to magic (arcane magic in particular). Lower-level Barbarians couldn't use magic weapons at all and would refuse to associate with magic-users; they got over this as they levelled. This was the same edition where you had to be specific races and alignments to play certain characters, and where Paladins were not allowed to ever adventure with Evil characters.

They were also generally very self-sufficient. In 1e it was common for more powerful monsters to be completely invulnerable to attacks that weren't from magic or magic weapons; as the Barbarian levelled it gained the ability to hit those creatures with mundane weapons anyway. In exchange for their no-magic restrictions they were very self-sufficient and got a bunch of (mostly numerical) benefits.

They did and could rage, but from memory it was much more frenzied and chaotic than the 3e one? More like the Frenzied Berserker type of rage where you couldn't necessarily stop or control it as easily. It was also not the Barbarian's defining attribute, just one of the things they could do. It was the kind of class where, just by having one in your party, the game changes because of that class's restrictions, like the Paladin but even more extreme than just limiting everyone else's alignment.

This matches my memory as well. The UA classes, Cavalier and Barbarian, are two of the most party-unfriendly classes I've ever seen. You think a Paladin is bad? You don't know the half of it. Add to that the fact that Cavalier and Barbarian are both significantly more powerful than any of the PHB classes in damage output, and you can understand why most tables (IMX) banned them. Also, the Bee cantrip was usually banned because you could break spellcasting with it, as well as Chromatic Orb, a 1st level spell that at high level caused paralysis (7th), petrification (8th), or death (9th). The only limiting factor was that it cost a 50gp diamond to cast. UA was a bit stupidly put together with power creep that wouldn't be seen again until 2e Complete splat.

Edit:

Here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/ua_barbarian.pdf)'s the 1e Barb from one of WotC premium reprint articles. Not linking the article because of WotC's stupid site redesign breaking everything older than a week.

[Sartharina]

In the playtest, the unarmored defense (albeit by another name) allowed the barbarian to add his constitution bonus to AC when he was unarmored. Admittedly, this might have changed in some way from the playtest.

I thought it was one of the coolest concepts in the playtest, as it allowed for the shirtless barbarian archetype to be played.I hope they allow shields and Unarmored Defense this time, unlike a playtest packet that came out after my favored June Packet.

My barbarians weren't just shirtless, though :smalltongue:

[1337 b4k4]

I hope they allow shields and Unarmored Defense this time, unlike a playtest packet that came out after my favored June Packet.

My barbarians weren't just shirtless, though :smalltongue:

Barbarians without socks? How delightfully naughty.

[Sartharina]

Actually, they did wear sandals. And only sandals. Because sandals are needed to avoid Ouchy Feet.

[ImperiousLeader]

And even barbarians know not to wear socks with sandals.

[Human Paragon 3]

Where's today's preview? I want to see Ranger, damnit!

[hawklost]

And even barbarians know not to wear socks with sandals.

But wouldn't that be a good way to tell if they are a barbarian? I mean, what kind of civilized person would ever wear socks with sandals?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Where's today's preview? I want to see Ranger, damnit!

I'm thinking that the Druid will be next, but who knows.

But I have to say, each class up to the barbarian looks fun to play.