Barbarian gripes

[Sartharina]

Bleh... I am annoyed at a lot of the stuff with the barbarians, and feel like ranting.

Why can't Barbarians apply their rage and reckless attack bonuses to Strength-based Ranged Attacks? (And on that note, why can't Longbows have a quality like Finesse that lets people use STR instead of DEX for attacking with them? I want to play Jack Churchill, dammit!).

What is with the Shut-off on Rage? It's completely cut off an entire leg of the game by preventing Barbarians from taking advantage of the Rage to explore. Why does it have both, a time limit AND require being in combat? It really pisses me off that I can't go on a rampage through underbrush, climb up waterfalls, etc...

[Scirocco]

Strength wouldn't work with longbows, as long as you have enough to draw it that's all you need. Dex is what you need to aim properly.

[Know(Nothing)]

Yeah, doesn't look like Barbarians got a whole lot of love in this edition. Usually they get some fun options after a few more books come out, but that won't necessarily happen this time around. We'll see, I guess.

Personally I still love Barbs, and a lack of brokenness won't stop me from crushing my enemies like terrified grapes.

[1of3]

You can probably crawl ragingly through underbrush, assuming it's really thorny and you scratch yourself every turn. ;)

[Strill]

Yeah, doesn't look like Barbarians got a whole lot of love in this edition. Usually they get some fun options after a few more books come out, but that won't necessarily happen this time around. We'll see, I guess.

Personally I still love Barbs, and a lack of brokenness won't stop me from crushing my enemies like terrified grapes.

I think you're vastly underestimating them. Wolf-totem Barbarian, for example, just straight-up gives all nearby allies advantage. It's an unbelievably powerful ability.

[Inevitability]

At times like this I feel sad for not having a weekday that starts with the letter B.

[INDYSTAR188]

Bleh... I am annoyed at a lot of the stuff with the barbarians, and feel like ranting.

Why can't Barbarians apply their rage and reckless attack bonuses to Strength-based Ranged Attacks? (And on that note, why can't Longbows have a quality like Finesse that lets people use STR instead of DEX for attacking with them?.

I realize that this post is for discussion purposes, but what is there preventing you from house ruling this stuff? I also don't get a mental picture of a spear-throwing barbarian when I think of reckless attack or rage. I think 'up in the enemies face'. Still tho I see your point and think its a valid question.

[mr_odd]

I have yet to play as or dm for a bar bar, but from what I've read, they seem pretty cool. They look like they have plenty of options, and have unique abilities.

[Knaight]

I realize that this post is for discussion purposes, but what is there preventing you from house ruling this stuff? I also don't get a mental picture of a spear-throwing barbarian when I think of reckless attack or rage. I think 'up in the enemies face'. Still tho I see your point and think its a valid question.

Lobbing a weapon at someone pre-charge is a pretty iconic image though, and it does suit them well.

[INDYSTAR188]

Lobbing a weapon at someone pre-charge is a pretty iconic image though, and it does suit them well.

I got the impression she was saying she wanted to build a character around that concept. I think I'd let a Barbarian use their Rage bonus with a heavy thrown weapon.

[warty goblin]

I realize that this post is for discussion purposes, but what is there preventing you from house ruling this stuff? I also don't get a mental picture of a spear-throwing barbarian when I think of reckless attack or rage. I think 'up in the enemies face'. Still tho I see your point and think its a valid question.

Funnily enough, I do. The first thought that pops into my head when somebody brings a warrior who gains extraordinary combat prowess through uncontrollable fury is Achilles, who definitely threw spears. And often missed. But spears were thrown, and Achilles' spear in particularly is highlighted as being unusual on account of its great size and made from Pelian ash. It even has its own epithet, 'to be the death of heroes,' which is the only weapon to be described as such in the Iliad.

The second would be Cu Chulainn, who was both literally physically transfigured into something no longer even really human by battlerage, and who's most effective weapon was a vaguely supernatural thrown spear. Although since he used his foot, maybe that would be a Strength (Athletics) check.

While I don't think there's any particular association between Thor and rage in traditional sources, it's worth noting that the hammer Mjollnir's distinguishing characteristic is to return to the hand after being thrown. Obviously this is not particularly interesting unless one intends to throw the thing in the first place. Odin's spear, Gungnir, never missed it's mark, which is again a rather throwing-related attribute.

[Ralanr]

Funnily enough, I do. The first thought that pops into my head when somebody brings a warrior who gains extraordinary combat prowess through uncontrollable fury is Achilles, who definitely threw spears. And often missed. But spears were thrown, and Achilles' spear in particularly is highlighted as being unusual on account of its great size and made from Pelian ash. It even has its own epithet, 'to be the death of heroes,' which is the only weapon to be described as such in the Iliad.

The second would be Cu Chulainn, who was both literally physically transfigured into something no longer even really human by battlerage, and who's most effective weapon was a vaguely supernatural thrown spear. Although since he used his foot, maybe that would be a Strength (Athletics) check.

While I don't think there's any particular association between Thor and rage in traditional sources, it's worth noting that the hammer Mjollnir's distinguishing characteristic is to return to the hand after being thrown. Obviously this is not particularly interesting unless one intends to throw the thing in the first place. Odin's spear, Gungnir, never missed it's mark, which is again a rather throwing-related attribute.


There's also Herakles. Then again a lot of classical heroes had a rage moment.

[Slipperychicken]

What is with the Shut-off on Rage? It's completely cut off an entire leg of the game by preventing Barbarians from taking advantage of the Rage to explore. Why does it have both, a time limit AND require being in combat? It really pisses me off that I can't go on a rampage through underbrush, climb up waterfalls, etc...

As long as you can deal at least 1 point of damage to yourself per round, you can keep a rage up to the time limit. Like maybe you could light yourself on fire or wear a crown of thorns or something.

[Sartharina]

As long as you can deal at least 1 point of damage to yourself per round, you can keep a rage up to the time limit. Like maybe you could light yourself on fire or wear a crown of thorns or something.

I also find it stupid that you lose your rage if you manage to deflect all attacks for one round in a heavy combat, while on your turn you did something like rush over to help get giant rocks off an ally they fell on.

[mr_odd]

I also find it stupid that you lose your rage if you manage to deflect all attacks for one round in a heavy combat, while on your turn you did something like rush over to help get giant rocks off an ally they fell on.

But that's the point of raging, you aren't thinking about the rocks that feel on your ally, you are only preoccupied with bloodlust.

[Ralanr]

I also find it stupid that you lose your rage if you manage to deflect all attacks for one round in a heavy combat, while on your turn you did something like rush over to help get giant rocks off an ally they fell on.

I think the action of being attacked keeps you in rage whether or not you take the damage. Also wouldn't it seem odd for the berserker to suddenly run back to an ally and help them get up? Isn't the concept of rage how you are not thinking clearly? Granted it probably seems more odd for frenzy berserker path than totem warrior.

[Greylind]

While I don't think there's any particular association between Thor and rage in traditional sources.

Well, except when that chip of granite in his head moved, causing him terrible headaches, and his rage would be felt on Midgard as thunderstorms.

[Sartharina]

... I noticed the Half-orc ALSO has the 'melee only' restriction. STOP HATING ON RANGED CHARACTERS, WOTC!

[D-naras]

... I noticed the Half-orc ALSO has the 'melee only' restriction. STOP HATING ON RANGED CHARACTERS, WOTC!

... But... Dex to ranged damage by default....... Ranged....never....better..... (granted, that's for Dex builds only.)

[Ralanr]

Would strength based range use a hand held ballista?

[Slipperychicken]

... I noticed the Half-orc ALSO has the 'melee only' restriction. STOP HATING ON RANGED CHARACTERS, WOTC!

They did give us ranged power attack (from Sharpshooter), automatic dex-to-damage, and class features to support ranged weapon use. Many of the Fighter(Battlemaster)'s manuevers work with ranged weapons, as do many Ranger class features.


An orc battlemaster archer very nearly wrecked my party last session because of that. He didn't even have a really advantageous position or distance; the only thing that stood between him and us were about 6 goblins (also our ranger being bad at positioning his thorn-AoE spell). He dealt enough damage to convince me that WotC doesn't hate archers as much as they used to.

[Sartharina]

But they hate them more than they should!

[Dienekes]

Would strength based range use a hand held ballista?

Honestly, if anything it should be the longbow. The sheer strength needed to line up the shots caused English archers skeletons to become disfigured. I never really saw how manual dexterity was involved with archery. If anything it should be Strength to damage (with caps for different weights of the bow) and Wisdom for accuracy since that's supposed to be your perception on things.

But then, the ability scores in D&D never did make any sense.

[Cybren]

Strength wouldn't work with longbows, as long as you have enough to draw it that's all you need. Dex is what you need to aim properly.

If we're going down this road, no, bows are strength based weapons. They're muscle powered.

[Eslin]

It does seem a little harsh that paladins, barbarians and warlocks all got locked into melee only. My elf paladin had ranged smite in 3.5, why can't an elf oath of the ancients paladin use a bow?

[Kyutaru]

The subclasses and subraces in the book are just samples to draw from. Make your own specializations if you want a ranged Paladin. Something like the Van Helsing oath.

[Eslin]

The subclasses and subraces in the book are just samples to draw from. Make your own specializations if you want a ranged Paladin. Something like the Van Helsing oath.

Why not just take the melee requirement out?

[Kyutaru]

Why not just take the melee requirement out?

That's what I did! My group's paladin is smiting evil with a crossbow.

[Scirocco]

If we're going down this road, no, bows are strength based weapons. They're muscle powered.

They're not strength based; strength just determines what bow you can draw. Hence English longbows, which were bloody huge and also what makes 3.x's +Str composite bows so stupid (that and ignoring what actual composite bows are)

[Xetheral]

Yeah, doesn't look like Barbarians got a whole lot of love in this edition.

I totally disagree. Barbarians get DR vs weapons (and magic weapons!) at 1st, at-will advantage on attacks at 2nd, and either DR vs spells or advantage to allies at 3rd. For any melee character not planning to cast spells (or concentrate on them) in combat, Barbarian is an amazing class.

[toapat]

They're not strength based; strength just determines what bow you can draw. Hence English longbows, which were bloody huge and also what makes 3.x's +Str composite bows so stupid (that and ignoring what actual composite bows are)

you do know the yew-wood typically used for English Longbows is a naturally occuring composite, right? its not the remote kind of strength we can get with modern bows (also the glories of Engineering) but its better then most options.

I do feel that barbs should be allowed to use thrown weapons while raging and paladins should be able to smite with everything. Having 2 classes be locked into melee by their features seems odd when no one else is inherently locked into ranged combat. The only non-competitive combat style this edition is dual wield, and thats because Bonus actions are worth way more then +1 hit if you are not a rogue

[Demonicattorney]

Ranged has a built in advantage. If all class abilities worked exactly as well at range, why would a character ever be melee only? You would be ranged until you are forced not to be. Trade-offs are part of the game, they make things interesting, range is clearly a valuable ability so it makes sense that some other abilities are melee only to compensate.

[Sartharina]

I don't mind the Barbarian required using thrown weapons, since thrown weapons require closer combat than bows.
People want to use melee weapons because they either allow for shields, and/or have greater damage. And shut down people who try using range.

As for Longbows being STR-based - Strength determines draw power, which determines flight velocity and armor penetration.

[toapat]

Ranged has a built in advantage.

it also has an equal number of disadvantages (more, technically if we count all range options). The Combat Techniques we currently have for classes already provide enough benefit to prevent everyone from just using Bows/Javelin+shield. Giving Everyone access to some variety of ranged or melee choice is fair, the character has other incentives. For a paladins and barbarians this would be that no one gets a ranged combat style, for rangers they have spells to interact with archery. I cant imagine someone taking Great Weapon Master and sharpshooter on the same build. Ranged weapons deal less damage then similarly costed melee weapons

[Ralanr]

it also has an equal number of disadvantages (more, technically if we count all range options). The Combat Techniques we currently have for classes already provide enough benefit to prevent everyone from just using Bows/Javelin+shield. Giving Everyone access to some variety of ranged or melee choice is fair, the character has other incentives. For a paladins and barbarians this would be that no one gets a ranged combat style, for rangers they have spells to interact with archery. I cant imagine someone taking Great Weapon Master and sharpshooter on the same build. Ranged weapons deal less damage then similarly costed melee weapons

Forgive me if I misread you, but barbarians don't get combat styles.

[Demonic Spoon]

I think there should be a distinction between thrown weapons and 'true' ranged weapons. I think it's fine if barbarian class features don't work 100% with someone firing a longbow, but tossing a throwing axe into some poor schmuck's face is one of the most Barbarian-y things you can do.

[Gurka]

While I definitely agree that Paladins should be able to smite with any weapon, and that Barbarian rage should apply to thrown weapons, I don't mind that in it's default form, it's strictly strength based.

I certainly hope they'll include some alternate forms of rage in the DMG or later supplements, and even if they don't, I'll homebrew some. Things like the Battle Trance instead of rage... It'd function identically except that it increases damage from DEX based attacks, and offers advantage to DEX rolls etc. Or the PH2 version that has no duration or daily uses, but instead kicks in when you're low on health. There are tons of cool versions of rage, and I hope they put some of them in the books. Even if they don't, it's no reason not to use them anyway.

[Cybren]

They're not strength based; strength just determines what bow you can draw. Hence English longbows, which were bloody huge and also what makes 3.x's +Str composite bows so stupid (that and ignoring what actual composite bows are)

This makes no sense. Your muscles are supplying the energy for the bow. If you aren't strong enough to draw the bow you won't be able to penetrate armor. This is the exactly same interplay between strength and armor class that non finesse melee weapons have. To top it off, actual english bowmen fired in volleys, they weren't aiming for anything in particular besides a mass.

Ranged weapons using dex is a nice shorthand since most archetypical ranged D&D characters are sneaky dex types, but not all of them. There should be an inverse of finesse for heavy bows.

[Ralanr]

This makes no sense. Your muscles are supplying the energy for the bow. If you aren't strong enough to draw the bow you won't be able to penetrate armor. This is the exactly same interplay between strength and armor class that non finesse melee weapons have. To top it off, actual english bowmen fired in volleys, they weren't aiming for anything in particular besides a mass.

Ranged weapons using dex is a nice shorthand since most archetypical ranged D&D characters are sneaky dex types, but not all of them. There should be an inverse of finesse for heavy bows.

To be perfectly honest, a lot things don't actually make sense if you look at the rules within the game (I can't think of any at the moment, it's not all fresh in my mind). I'm not against the concept of same ranged weapons being strength based (would make Dex less of a god stat), but the sense argument is not always the best one.

[toapat]

Forgive me if I misread you, but barbarians don't get combat styles.

the only classes ive personally read through entirely are paladin and rogue, while for barbarian it seems wierd that they would be dicided to not get the GWF Fighting Style. either way they wouldnt have any good options for thrown weapons over staying with melee other then possibly the javelin but they are basically designed around melee. Paladins on the other just dont care about possitioning as much this edition

[Knaight]

This makes no sense. Your muscles are supplying the energy for the bow. If you aren't strong enough to draw the bow you won't be able to penetrate armor. This is the exactly same interplay between strength and armor class that non finesse melee weapons have. To top it off, actual english bowmen fired in volleys, they weren't aiming for anything in particular besides a mass.

It's not the same interplay. With a melee weapon, strength lets you move faster, helps your parrying, helps you push past defenses, so on and so forth. It's really useful for hitting unarmored spots, not just hacking through armor (which is pretty much not happening anywhere near reliably with anything metal, barring mounted lance charges and similar). That function would be more to do with aim with a ranged weapon. Moreover, volley fire only really makes sense in the context of firing at very large targets (e.g. large groups of soldiers), not in the sort of skirmishes that make up most of D&D.

There's still some iffiness here - gross and fine motor skills using the same stat is just weird, being stronger can help one hold a bow drawn longer for aiming, so on and so forth. Still, it's a different dynamic. Plus, the poundage of the bow is pretty much set anyways, once you're above that the advantage of strength gets really incremental; below that it's effectively unusable.

[Ralanr]

the only classes ive personally read through entirely are paladin and rogue, while for barbarian it seems wierd that they would be dicided to not get the GWF Fighting Style. either way they wouldnt have any good options for thrown weapons over staying with melee other then possibly the javelin but they are basically designed around melee. Paladins on the other just dont care about possitioning as much this edition

I'm honestly confused why they don't get it. Maybe it's suppose to showcase that barbarians don't have proper combat training or something?

[MustacheFart]

I believe it's important to note that apparently during the playtest Eagle Totem for Barbarian allowed a barbarian to use his dex rather than strength. Sadly, it didn't make it through. So if that is true then I think the reason the barbarian class doesn't have any ranged support isn't because of being uncontrollable during a rage or to represent a lack of training, etc. etc. It's because people complained too much and WOTC decided they didn't want barbarians to have that ability.

It's a real shame because I had picked the Eagle Totem Barbarian as my class in order to play a Dexarian long before I had the phb. Once I got my phb and saw the option was removed I was more than a little disappointed.

As for Barbarians having a lot of options, let me say just one thing: They do not! I have been playing a half-orc barbarian (Bear Totem to be specific) in an on-going HOTDQ campaign. What I have found is that my character has options because I as the PLAYER, have chosen to play in a way that allows for some options but my class however does not. In other words, my class certainly doesn't make it very easy to choose anything other than running in and whacking your enemy. Other classes offer actual options and facilitate the concept of choosing a course of action for any given scenario by doing so. However, the Barbarian was apparently passed over when it came to such. Sad really.

What I would've liked to see was a third path: The Shaman. It would've been very easy to fit it in thematically with the Barbarian. Plus, it would give the player the option of playing a more unique barbarian character with some tribal healing rather than just brute strength. Also additional healing support certainly never hurts a party. There is so much that could've been done here to make a very interesting path that doesn't step on any toes.


Oh well.. I still enjoy my barbarian. I've also realized his true strength. It's either taking damage or knocking down bad guys. It's not dealing damage. I typically don't use my rages for offense anymore (not that I ever did this edition). I use them when I believe an encounter may be overly damaging so I can stay up and minimize the healing I need from the healers. Also having advantage on knocking down enemies is huge. In it's simplest form it's schoolyard bullying, knocking someone down so your buddies can wail on him. In it's more advanced form it is knocking an enemy off of a cliff or ripping the head off a fallen foe in combat to demoralize remaining enemies.


Still can't believe I agree completely with Sartharina for once.

[MaxWilson]

Oh well.. I still enjoy my barbarian. I've also realized his true strength. It's either taking damage or knocking down bad guys. It's not dealing damage. I typically don't use my rages for offense anymore (not that I ever did this edition). I use them when I believe an encounter may be overly damaging so I can stay up and minimize the healing I need from the healers.

This. The offensive power of the Barbarian comes primarily from Reckless Attack, it doesn't even require you to be enraged. Rages are mostly about damage resistance and only secondarily about the +2/etc. to STR-based damage.

I do find amusing the idea of a barbarian cutting on himself while charging to maintain the rage. It's even thematic.

[MustacheFart]

I do find amusing the idea of a barbarian cutting on himself while charging to maintain the rage. It's even thematic.

Why take the damage when instead you could carry a sack full of kittens to slaughter one by one as you move across the battlefield?

[MustacheFart]

I think you're vastly underestimating them. Wolf-totem Barbarian, for example, just straight-up gives all nearby allies advantage. It's an unbelievably powerful ability.

This isn't entirely correct. Wolf Totem only grants advantage to allies on enemy within 5' of the barbarian and only while the barbarian is raging.

[Person_Man]

I agree with Sartharina. My guess is that the unintuitive Barbarian class abilities are a result of playtesting and/or the desire for balance and/or niche protection between the non-caster classes, especially at low levels. WotC decided that the Barbarian's niche was melee combat, and they tried to make it good at that thing, while still leaving room for other classes to be better at ranged combat, exploration, etc. In particular, I'd guess that once they settled on the (mediocre) class abilities and spells for the Ranger, the Barbarian and Fighter ended up getting nerfed so that they wouldn't outshine it too much.

[Kyutaru]

Why take the damage when instead you could carry a sack full of kittens to slaughter one by one as you move across the battlefield?

I approve kitten murder approaches!

[Person_Man]

I approve kitten murder approaches!

Cthulhu for President 2016! Why vote for a lesser Evil?

[toapat]

While I definitely agree that Paladins should be able to smite with any weapon, and that Barbarian rage should apply to thrown weapons, I don't mind that in it's default form, it's strictly strength based.

thats why i said rage should be restricted to thrown ranged options. Remember, thrown weapons use the higher of Str/Dex, same as how finess weapons do

[Demonic Spoon]

thats why i said rage should be restricted to thrown ranged options. Remember, thrown weapons use the higher of Str/Dex, same as how finess weapons do


No they don't. Weapons use the same modifier whether thrown or used in melee. Only finesse thrown weapons can be used with dex.

[Forum Explorer]

Why take the damage when instead you could carry a sack full of kittens to slaughter one by one as you move across the battlefield?

Why is kitten cruelty the solution to everything in this edition?

Want to block the Sleep spell? surround yourself by kittens.

Need a magic item? True Polymorph a kitten

Need to explore fast as a barbarian? Kill a kitten to keep your rage going.

What's next? Defeating the Tarrasque via some sort of kitten based artillery? :smallbiggrin:

[Ralanr]

No they don't. Weapons use the same modifier whether thrown or used in melee. Only finesse thrown weapons can be used with dex.

So...you can make a ranged barbarian, but with throwing weapons. Looks like I should take a bunch of throwing axes for my barbarian.

[Eslin]

Why is kitten cruelty the solution to everything in this edition?

Want to block the Sleep spell? surround yourself by kittens.

Need a magic item? True Polymorph a kitten

Need to explore fast as a barbarian? Kill a kitten to keep your rage going.

What's next? Defeating the Tarrasque via some sort of kitten based artillery? :smallbiggrin:

Move the earth so that you have a bluff parallel to the ground, cast arcane gate with two portals, one above the other. Pour a large sack of kittens in, wait 'til they hit terminal velocity (20d6 damage each!) and then alter the facing of the portals so they face the Tarrasque.

[toapat]

So...you can make a ranged barbarian, but with throwing weapons. Looks like I should take a bunch of throwing axes for my barbarian.

Javelins actually, and you cant benefit from the rage damage increase.

[Sartharina]

So...you can make a ranged barbarian, but with throwing weapons. Looks like I should take a bunch of throwing axes for my barbarian.

But the damage bonus and Reckless attack only apply to Melee attacks. The barbarian is the most restrictive in its options, which I really don't think makes sense.

I do not mind that they're STR Mandatory/Monk MAD, though (needing STR, DEX, CON, and WIS)... though I do wish their Unarmored Defense was STR instead of CON based, reducing that MAD.

[Kyutaru]

Move the earth so that you have a bluff parallel to the ground, cast arcane gate with two portals, one above the other. Pour a large sack of kittens in, wait 'til they hit terminal velocity (20d6 damage each!) and then alter the facing of the portals so they face the Tarrasque.

Wow! Now you're thinking with Portals! The Catapult is already taken, so what can we name this technique?

Another fabulous use of kittens is tying explosives to them! It doesn't improve your accuracy, timing, or anything else mechanically, but its easier to punt a kitten if you can't get enough of a throwing arc in a low ceiling dungeon!

[Slipperychicken]

Wow! Now you're thinking with Portals! The Catapult is already taken, so what can we name this technique?


Cataportal.

[silveralen]

But the damage bonus and Reckless attack only apply to Melee attacks. The barbarian is the most restrictive in its options, which I really don't think makes sense.

I do not mind that they're STR Mandatory/Monk MAD, though (needing STR, DEX, CON, and WIS)... though I do wish their Unarmored Defense was STR instead of CON based, reducing that MAD.

Why do barbarians need wisdom?

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm about to argue something crazy, which may or may not have been intended by the designers.

The Thrown property:


If a weapon has the thrown property, you
can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the
weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability
modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you
would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For
example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength,
but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your
Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the
finesse property

A thrown dagger or handaxe still counts as a melee weapon, even if it's thrown.

The Barbarian features specify a "melee weapon attack". This can be read in two ways - as a weapon attack made in melee, or an attack with a melee weapon.

A weapon with the "thrown" property is still a melee weapon. If you read this with the latter interpretation, anything that requires a "melee weapon attack" works with thrown weapons.

Personally, I like this interpretation (whether or not intended by designers) because:

-Tossing an axe in someone's face is very fluffy for a barbarian

-It gives a unique perk to thrown weapons that doesn't really exist otherwise

-Thrown weapons have low enough range that this isn't likely to be exploitable.

[silveralen]

RAW that kinda works, if we assume melee weapon attack and melee attack are two distinct things, the same holding true for ranged weapon and ranged attack. So throwing an axe is a melee weapon attack and a ranged attack, but not a ranged weapon attack or melee attack. That's a fun reading which I'm sure would ahve weird effects down the line.

To be fair, this is the sort of thing I doubt any reasonable DM will draw issue with in moderation. If you have your abrbarian stand back constantly chucking things at the enemy and never trying to hit them... well you don't feel very rage driven to me, but that's an opinion.

[Demonic Spoon]

That's a fun reading which I'm sure would ahve weird effects down the line.


A barbarian beating stuff down in melee with a shortbow doesn't get his barbarian bonuses, since it's a melee attack made with a ranged weapon.

...Or would it be improvised then?

[archaeo]

But the damage bonus and Reckless attack only apply to Melee attacks. The barbarian is the most restrictive in its options, which I really don't think makes sense.

I do not mind that they're STR Mandatory/Monk MAD, though (needing STR, DEX, CON, and WIS)... though I do wish their Unarmored Defense was STR instead of CON based, reducing that MAD.

This seems like a pretty easy house rule though, Sarth. Like, something that I wouldn't be surprised to see in the DMG, even, under "changing key statistics" or something.

The melee-only thing seems like a niche that 5e really should be filling anyway, given how flexible the other martials are. Barbarian seems like as good a place for it as any?

[Demonic Spoon]

The melee-only thing seems like a niche that 5e really should be filling anyway, given how flexible the other martials are. Barbarian seems like as good a place for it as any?


"Melee only" isn't a niche, it's an unnecessary limitation. It's not like other classes are limited to using ranged attacks.

[Kyutaru]

RAW that kinda works, if we assume melee weapon attack and melee attack are two distinct things, the same holding true for ranged weapon and ranged attack. So throwing an axe is a melee weapon attack and a ranged attack, but not a ranged weapon attack or melee attack. That's a fun reading which I'm sure would ahve weird effects down the line.

To be fair, this is the sort of thing I doubt any reasonable DM will draw issue with in moderation. If you have your abrbarian stand back constantly chucking things at the enemy and never trying to hit them... well you don't feel very rage driven to me, but that's an opinion.

The raging barbarian smashes his way through the field, slicing enemy after enemy with his mighty greatsword until... he fall just 10 feet short of the final victim! Curses! Foiled by not being a monk! But he doesn't despair. Instead he just calmly begins to rotate and with a mighty fling chucks his greatsword at the enemy. With bonus damage and a great attack chance. It's technically a melee weapon attack.

[archaeo]

"Melee only" isn't a niche, it's an unnecessary limitation. It's not like other classes are limited to using ranged attacks.

With all due respect, "melee only" is indeed a design niche. Maybe consider it "melee specialization" instead? However you want to characterize it, in a class-based system like D&D, a class that is purposefully designed to focus exclusively on melee combat is a niche that needs to be filled, and Barbarian is a good choice for filling it. Then, you have a "ranged specialist" class (probably Ranger, eh?), and let the other martial classes fit in between, giving them more flexibility in exchange for fewer focused class features.

We can feel free to disagree about this -- one guy's "important niche" is another guy's "unnecessary limitation," I guess -- but I do think that making Barbarians the melee specialists is a pretty reasonable design decision in such a strongly class-centric game.

[Demonic Spoon]

That implies that the barbarian is better than other classes at melee combat, which is false. A melee-focused fighter is just as good, but could also choose to specialize in ranged combat. Rangers can specialize in melee. Paladins can specialize in melee (can they even do ranged very well?).

That said, I have no burning desire to see barbarians with longbows - it probably wouldn't fit the class very well; barbarians are meant to be in the front. That's their niche. But being near the forefront of combat doesn't preclude tossing a throwing axe now and then, especially since throwing weapon range is definitely within the bounds of "near the forefront of combat".

[MustacheFart]

That implies that the barbarian is better than other classes at melee combat, which is false. A melee-focused fighter is just as good, but could also choose to specialize in ranged combat. Rangers can specialize in melee. Paladins can specialize in melee (can they even do ranged very well?).

That said, I have no burning desire to see barbarians with longbows - it probably wouldn't fit the class very well; barbarians are meant to be in the front. That's their niche. But being near the forefront of combat doesn't preclude tossing a throwing axe now and then, especially since throwing weapon range is definitely within the bounds of "near the forefront of combat".

There are multiple ways that they could've given barbarians some Ranged love without taking away from their specialty being "the forefront of combat." (not that I agree with that specialty but I disagree with the use of barbarian as a term. A whole other matter.) Perhaps, ranged demoralization effects or better yet, how about the ability to use/throw improvised weapons at no penalty. Want to carry the fluff even further? How about the ability to throw an enemy (ie. perform a shove to toss enemy 15 ft in a chosen direction) with bonus damage for hitting another enemy with the thrown enemy. Can't get more barbaric than using another person as a ranged weapon.

[Ralanr]

There are multiple ways that they could've given barbarians some Ranged love without taking away from their specialty being "the forefront of combat." (not that I agree with that specialty but I disagree with the use of barbarian as a term. A whole other matter.) Perhaps, ranged demoralization effects or better yet, how about the ability to use/throw improvised weapons at no penalty. Want to carry the fluff even further? How about the ability to throw an enemy (ie. perform a shove to toss enemy 15 ft in a chosen direction) with bonus damage for hitting another enemy with the thrown enemy. Can't get more barbaric than using another person as a ranged weapon.

The tenth level for the Path of the Berserker has that ability.

I would love to be able to just throw people at people, but couldn't grappling rules work into that rather than just a class ability? Though I like your idea better. Goblin wrecking balls!

[toapat]

With all due respect, "melee only" is indeed a design niche.

this is mistaking bad design for good design. You dont need to make a class incompetent at ranged combat in favor of melee. The options should promote melee over ranged, for instance, a barb could get triple crit damage in melee but only double at ranged, or how the barb gets damage resistance, which is less useful at ranged then it would be in melee.

As has said, no one else is barred from ranged other then the paladin by their class features. The fullcasters get a number of melee buffs they can use to enhance their effectiveness,


That implies that the barbarian is better than other classes at melee combat, which is false. A melee-focused fighter is just as good, but could also choose to specialize in ranged combat. Rangers can specialize in melee. Paladins can specialize in melee (can they even do ranged very well?).

That said, I have no burning desire to see barbarians with longbows - it probably wouldn't fit the class very well; barbarians are meant to be in the front. That's their niche. But being near the forefront of combat doesn't preclude tossing a throwing axe now and then, especially since throwing weapon range is definitely within the bounds of "near the forefront of combat".

Paladins can only smite with melee attacks, with their few ranged options being either part of their oaths (turning, a few marks) or Destructive wave (which is a 30' emanation of damage). As i said, barbs should at least be able to use thrown weapons with their classfeatures.

[Hytheter]

this is mistaking bad design for good design. You dont need to make a class incompetent at ranged combat in favor of melee.

The Barbarian isn't incompetent at ranged attacks. They're proficient in all weapons, which includes bows and whatnot, and they are perfectly capable of throwing their weapons.

Sure they don't get the Archery Fighting Style and some of their class features don't benefit ranged attacks. But that doesn't make them incompetent and it doesn't prevent them using ranged weapons. It just means you'll be a little better in Melee.

[archaeo]

this is mistaking bad design for good design. You dont need to make a class incompetent at ranged combat in favor of melee. The options should promote melee over ranged, for instance, a barb could get triple crit damage in melee but only double at ranged, or how the barb gets damage resistance, which is less useful at ranged then it would be in melee.

I'm quite sure I'm not mistaking myself. In a strongly class-based game, it's hardly some great sin of game design to have a focused class. "Promoting" rather than "forbidding," in this case, would just water down a flavorful class and eliminate part of what differentiates it from the other classes. The class features are supposed to encourage a specific style of play, and Barbarian leaves a ton of room for how you want to approach that style, just like the other classes. But I guess I just don't really get the desire for a ranged rager. Even if you houseruled out "melee" from the Barbarian class features, I would still probably rather be a Battle Master, Hunter, or Assassin if I was going to specialize in martial ranged damage.

It seems like good game design to me to nudge players away from making choices that dilute flavor for no mechanical benefit, and I think the melee-only restriction on Barbarian accomplishes that. YMMV, apparently.

[Xetheral]

The class features are supposed to encourage a specific style of play...

Sadly, it seems that this is indeed the case. In my mind, the most well-designed class features are those that facilitate the widest range of possible play styles. To me, classes (and their features) are building blocks to help a player match their character concept to the mechanical model that is the game system. There may be good reasons (e.g. balance) to design a limited feature, but imposing a limitation in order to more strongly associate a class with a particular play style sabotages the system's ability to model a wide range of character concepts.

[Kyutaru]

Sadly, it seems that this is indeed the case. In my mind, the most well-designed class features are those that facilitate the widest range of possible play styles. To me, classes (and their features) are building blocks to help a player match their character concept to the mechanical model that is the game system. There may be good reasons (e.g. balance) to design a limited feature, but imposing a limitation in order to more strongly associate a class with a particular play style sabotages the system's ability to model a wide range of character concepts.

You're absolutely right. My wizard should be able to run around in armor hacking things to death with his spell-conjured forceblade. I mean why even have all these buffs if I'm not meant to cast them on myself?

[archaeo]

Sadly, it seems that this is indeed the case. In my mind, the most well-designed class features are those that facilitate the widest range of possible play styles. To me, classes (and their features) are building blocks to help a player match their character concept to the mechanical model that is the game system. There may be good reasons (e.g. balance) to design a limited feature, but imposing a limitation in order to more strongly associate a class with a particular play style sabotages the system's ability to model a wide range of character concepts.

Including purposefully focused classes alongside more broad classes hardly "sabotages the system's ability to model a wide range of character concepts." I'd much rather have a class that has some sensible mechanical limitations in exchange for excellent flavor, and Barbarian more or less delivers for me, especially since I find the idea of Raging while doing something as dextrous as shooting an arrow to be kind of ridiculous.

I'm also not sure how this extends to a "character concept." What character concept is getting foreclosed upon here, beyond the silly ranged rager?

[Xetheral]

Including purposefully focused classes alongside more broad classes hardly "sabotages the system's ability to model a wide range of character concepts." I'd much rather have a class that has some sensible mechanical limitations in exchange for excellent flavor, and Barbarian more or less delivers for me, especially since I find the idea of Raging while doing something as dextrous as shooting an arrow to be kind of ridiculous.

I'm also not sure how this extends to a "character concept." What character concept is getting foreclosed upon here, beyond the silly ranged rager?

I was narrowly disagreeing with your statement that "class features are supposed to encourage a specific style of play." What I feel sabotages the system is limiting a class for the sake of encouraging a particular style of play. You had seemed to be citing the 'need' to purposefully limit barbarian playstyles as a justification for the barbarian's lack of class features that can be used at range.

[MustacheFart]

I don't understand the argument that the barbarian being melee focused is defending and maintaining the flavor.

I don't think neither melee or ranged alone are required to maintain that flavor. I can think of plenty that could've been added to maintain that flavor without pidgeonhole'ing the player into just melee.

To the people that say they just can't see a "Ranged Barbarian" I ask you to open your minds to this scenario. You're standing steadfast on the battlefield when suddenly you hear screams. You see your comrades toppling over like dominoes. Suddenly out of the fog charges a menacing Orc Barbarian holding a boulder over his shoulder. With a loud roar that deafens all present he hurls the boulder your direction.

Don't tell me that's not a barbarian.



Honestly, I'd much rather not define ANY class as either Ranged or Melee. I think classes should be classes that offer a wide range of play-styles. Then it's up to the player to decide when and where he will fight in "melee" or "ranged". It also allows the party to come up with unique strategies that don't simply involve "Oh you're a ranger? You still in the back and go pew pew."

For every bit of "lore" people want to drum up that says "Barbarians are melee" I can also bring forth equal amounts that say that's not the case.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

no you cant. :p

barbarians are cunning, and will often use ranged weapons. but the iconic nature of barbarians is in the thick of combat, it is their element. It was where their speed, battle experience, and incredible strength pays off. What does that orc barbarian do next? Cuz it isn't run away and get more boulders.

just because you arn't getting rage bonuses to it doesn't mean you cant use a bow or other ranged weapon when the situation warrants it!

[toapat]

just because you arn't getting rage bonuses to it doesn't mean you cant use a bow or other ranged weapon when the situation warrants it!

except that when (very badass examples of) barbarians in lore throw a weapon, it does carry their fury. Anyone can throw a javelin, a Barbarian can throw it so hard that it impales 4 foes at once, while the barbarian is cleaving a 5th in a casual swing of their greatsword which carries a shockwave of doom.

Again, completely locking a class out of a combat style is bad design. For all intents and purposes, Non-inclusive is part of that. The only non-ranged classes are paladin and Barbarian, who although they do gain proficiency with ranged weapons doesnt make such useful to them because Proficiency is not synonymous with competent in an edition where both the proficiency Bonus and class damage bonuses are relevant, unlike in 3rd where competence came down to number of spellslots and effect for investment

[Ralanr]

So why not add the rage damage bonus to throwing weapons? Are we trying to fix it or just argue about how bad the rules seem to be?

[toapat]

So why not add the rage damage bonus to throwing weapons? Are we trying to fix it or just argue about how bad the rules seem to be?

the argument is based on a less well informed person's opinion of how game design should be (Wholly Subtractive) against more well informed people. The general consensus of this thread so far is Yes, Barbarians should be able to use thrown weapons effectively in combat.

For instance, this is the first edition where Javelins are a reasonable option. Why cant paladins, among all the weapons they can use, Not smite with them at range? Zues' Lightning bolts are the quintessential incarnation of "Divine Smiting" and are thrown like javelins. and Odin has the same deal. but in this edition, like most others, paladins can only drop the hammer, not throw lightning. Its not like in 3rd paladins couldnt smite at range either, It shows up in no less then 7 books

[Sartharina]

I see Barbarians as needing to protect the Strength stat, not 'melee'. Melee does not need protection, because:
1. It's the absolute worst place to be.
2. Monsters will tend to be better at it.
3. It is inevitable.
4. It is not always possible.

A barbarian becomes pretty much useless the moment it finds something that can move faster than it, fly, or is scarier than it in melee combat.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Giving mechanical bonuses to ranged attacks encourages people to play ranged build barbarians rather than regarding ranged attacks as a lesser option to a barbarians true competency.

That is to say, a class designed around beating things in the face should be encouraged to do so.


Again, completely locking a class out of a combat style is bad design.

'Completely locked out?' Barbarians are not as good at ranged combat as other classes but they are not locked out. Barbarians synergize very well with high dex and they have the relevant proficiencies.


A barbarian becomes pretty much useless the moment it finds something that can move faster than it, fly, or is scarier than it in melee combat.

That is crazy talk, especially in a party based game. A game where the very tank Barbarian gets Fast Movement.

[silveralen]

I'm going to be honest, even by RAW you can make the case thrown weapons are melee weapon attacks, as it is a melee weapon and you are attacking with it. It doesn't specify melee attack, but melee weapon attack. Given that barbarian and paladin are the only cases where this language is used over the basic melee attack wording... yeah I think it is fully intended for those benefits to apply to thrown weapons, but not bows, slings, crossbows etc.

Given that this is also completely reasonable thematically and doesn't overpower barbarian (at least, not that I can see), I don't think anyone would rule against it.

[Person_Man]

I see Barbarians as needing to protect the Strength stat, not 'melee'.

I agree with this.

In addition to allowing the Barbarian's class abilities to apply to all Strength based attacks, you could also make their Unarmored Defense = Strength + Constitution, instead of Dexterity + Con.

The reliance on Str (heavy melee) + Dex (AC) + Con (AC/hit points) makes them MAD, and more so then the Monk (Dex/Con/Wis) who at least gets the best ability score distribution for common Saving Throws. (Though its worth noting that the Barbarian is arguably less MAD then the Str/Con/Cha based Paladin, because Cha is mostly useless in combat outside of the spells and class abilities tied to it).

It's not an issue if players happen to roll really well on 4 ability scores. But for a point buy or mediocre rolls, MAD can be crippling.

[Demonic Spoon]

Giving mechanical bonuses to ranged attacks encourages people to play ranged build barbarians rather than regarding ranged attacks as a lesser option to a barbarians true competency.

That is to say, a class designed around beating things in the face should be encouraged to do so.

Thrown weapons have a range of 20 - that's not quite in your face, but it's very, very close. Thrown weapons do less damage than other martial weapons - thrown weapons top out at a d6, whereas longbows have a d8 and a ton more range, and a greataxe is a d12. Finally, continuously drawing thrown weapons uses up your object interaction every round, making you considerably less flexible.

The only thing that makes thrown weapons good is that you can use Strength for them...and the only reason you would want to be able to use strength for your ranged attacks is that you also want to use the high-damage melee weapons that rely on strength.

If you wanted to build a ranged character, a throwing axe barbarian isn't a great way to do it. At best it would be a passable build, something someone might do for kicks, but certainly wouldn't be good enough to become the standard.

[Sartharina]

Thrown weapons have a range of 20 - that's not quite in your face, but it's very, very close. Thrown weapons do less damage than other martial weapons - thrown weapons top out at a d6, whereas longbows have a d8 and a ton more range, and a greataxe is a d12. Finally, continuously drawing thrown weapons uses up your object interaction every round, making you considerably less flexible.

The only thing that makes thrown weapons good is that you can use Strength for them...and the only reason you would want to be able to use strength for your ranged attacks is that you also want to use the high-damage melee weapons that rely on strength.

If you wanted to build a ranged character, a throwing axe barbarian isn't a great way to do it. At best it would be a passable build, something someone might do for kicks, but certainly wouldn't be good enough to become the standard.

Throwing weapons are compatible with Shields. They trade offensive power for flexibility and defense.

Of course... the Trident really should be a d8/d10 weapon.

[Demonic Spoon]

Throwing weapons are compatible with Shields. They trade offensive power for flexibility and defense.


Sort of? The flexibility of being able to attack in melee is a poor trade off given that you only really need it due to the very short range. Shields are cool, but I don't think that by itself is enough.


Of course... the Trident really should be a d8/d10 weapon.


Possibly, but if it were, it would render my suggestion a terrible idea

[archaeo]

I was narrowly disagreeing with your statement that "class features are supposed to encourage a specific style of play." What I feel sabotages the system is limiting a class for the sake of encouraging a particular style of play. You had seemed to be citing the 'need' to purposefully limit barbarian playstyles as a justification for the barbarian's lack of class features that can be used at range.

I mean, I think that there's a place for a class that is designed entirely around melee combat. I think Barbarian is a good class for that niche. That's basically the entirety of my point re: design, though I may have come off as intemperate before.

[toapat]

I'm going to be honest, even by RAW you can make the case thrown weapons are melee weapon attacks, as it is a melee weapon and you are attacking with it. It doesn't specify melee attack, but melee weapon attack. Given that barbarian and paladin are the only cases where this language is used over the basic melee attack wording... yeah I think it is fully intended for those benefits to apply to thrown weapons, but not bows, slings, crossbows etc.

Given that this is also completely reasonable thematically and doesn't overpower barbarian (at least, not that I can see), I don't think anyone would rule against it.

You are believing wild claims over the facts. Melee Weapon attack specifies that its a melee attack (an attack within your reach against a target) with a Weapon (as opposed to a touch-range spell)


The reliance on Str (heavy melee) + Dex (AC) + Con (AC/hit points) makes them MAD, and more so then the Monk (Dex/Con/Wis) who at least gets the best ability score distribution for common Saving Throws. (Though its worth noting that the Barbarian is arguably less MAD then the Str/Con/Cha based Paladin, because Cha is mostly useless in combat outside of the spells and class abilities tied to it).

Paladin is (Str/Dex)/Con/Cha, and they manage to actually make Cha useful in combat thanks to uber-divine grace. they also need decent Cha for any of the smite spells as opposed to just smiting.


I mean, I think that there's a place for a class that is designed entirely around melee combat. I think Barbarian is a good class for that niche. That's basically the entirety of my point re: design, though I may have come off as intemperate before.

no, there isnt. One of the Major design decisions of the system is that everyone should be able to participate in some way for the majority of the game, and by definition a Melee focused class cant do that, because as soon as flight comes into the equation they dont matter anymore, and they matter for even fewer skill/toolchecks if they are built around melee.

[Theodoxus]

You are believing wild claims over the facts. Melee Weapon attack specifies that its a melee attack (an attack within your reach against a target) with a Weapon (as opposed to a touch-range spell)

Me and my PHB are going to vehemently disagree here.

Melee Weapon Attack is specific to these places:

Half-Orc Race:
Savage Attacks (pg 41)

Barbarian Class:
Rage (pg 48)
Reckless Attack (pg 48)
Frenzy (pg 49)
Retaliation (pg 50)

Fighter Class:
Lunging Attack (pg 74)
Riposte (pg 74)

Paladin Class:
Soul of Vengeance (pg 88)

Feats:
Great Weapon Master (pg 167)
Mage Slayer (pg 168)
Sentinel (pg 169 (170 for the relevant part)

Rules:
Attack Rolls (Ability Modifier) (pg 194)
Underwater Combat (pg 198)

Spells:
Searing Smite (pg 274)
Staggering Smite (pg 278)
Thunderous Smite (pg 282)


Melee Attack is specific to these places:

Barbarian Class:
Brutal Critical (pg 49)
Totem Spirit [Wolf] (pg 50)

Fighter Class:
Parry (pg 74)
Riposte (pg 74)

Monk Class:
Shadow Step (pg 80)
Opportunist (pg 80)

Ranger Class:
Multiattack (pg 93)
Stand Against the Tide (pg 93)

Weapon Properties:
Ammunition (pg 147)
Thrown (pg 147)
Versatile (pg 147)

Rules:
Improvised Weapons (pg 147 & 148)
Attack Rolls and Damage (pg 176)
Melee Attacks (pg 195)
Opportunity Attacks (pg 195)
Two-Weapon Fighting (pg 195)
Grappling (pg 195)
Shoving a Creature (pg 195)
Knocking a Creature Out (pg 198)

Items:
Torch (pg 153)

Feats:
Charger (pg 164)
Defensive Duelist (pg 164)
Great Weapon Master (pg 167)
Mobile (pg 168)
Mounted Combatant (pg 168)
Polearm Master (pg 168)

Spells:
Animate Object (pg 213)
Armor of Agathys (pg 215)
Confusion (pg 225)
... (really, too many to list)

So, in conclusion, if you look at the differences between what a Melee Weapon Attack is and what a Melee Attack is, it's blatantly obvious that they aren't interchangeable and that yes, as described above this post, you can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon that is a melee weapon attack. It's not a melee attack, it's a ranged attack, but it's not a ranged weapon attack, it's a melee weapon attack.

I can understand the confusion, and it would have been amazeballs if WotC had simply defined Melee Attack, Melee Weapon Attack, Ranged Attack and Ranged Weapon Attack - but they didn't... either they figured it was obvious - or they had defined the terms in house and forgot that we weren't privy to their discussions. At any rate, I'm sure it will be FAQ'd or Errata'd eventually if it really is that important.

[toapat]

I can understand the confusion, and it would have been amazeballs if WotC had simply defined Melee Attack, Melee Weapon Attack, Ranged Attack and Ranged Weapon Attack - but they didn't... either they figured it was obvious - or they had defined the terms in house and forgot that we weren't privy to their discussions. At any rate, I'm sure it will be FAQ'd or Errata'd eventually if it really is that important.

its the same definitions as in previous editions, Melee specifies a range (I forget how you define the hard limits of that range but it is intrinsically tied with your reach) while weapon defines what you make it with, typicallly in 3rd this was called melee attack/ranged attack/touch spells but in 5th touch spells, while existant, are so rare offensively that defining such as an entire category of spell doesnt make sense this time.

Litterally, the direct counter example to your argument that is the Coup-de-gras of the argument is Inflict Wounds, It says right there, Melee Spell Attack.

[Demonic Spoon]

Unfortunately, it's still ambiguous.
Specifically, reading "Ability modifier" under Attack Rolls on pg 194, seems to contradict that, even if otherwise it seems solid:

"The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or Thrown property break this rule"

[Theodoxus]

Litterally, the direct counter example to your argument that is the Coup-de-gras of the argument is Inflict Wounds, It says right there, Melee Spell Attack.

You're going to have to substantiate this opinion. Lots of spells have Melee Spell Attack, that simply means it's a spell, not a weapon. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[Theodoxus]

Unfortunately, it's still ambiguous.
Specifically, reading "Ability modifier" under Attack Rolls on pg 194, seems to contradict that, even if otherwise it seems solid:

"The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or Thrown property break this rule"

What rule do you suppose they mean is broken? All I can think of is, a ranged attack using a melee weapon uses strength (breaking the normal ranged weapon using dex rule) and a melee attack using a finesse weapon uses dex (breaking the normal melee weapon using strength rule).

This substantiates my point. Unless you were agreeing with me... in which case, thanks!

[Demonic Spoon]

The rule being broken is that "Strength is used for melee weapon attacks" and "Dexterity is used for ranged weapon attacks". If the latter rule is broken by the "Thrown" property, it could mean that certain thrown weapons count as ranged weapon attacks despite using Strength.

I very much want to agree with you - and either way, I think I'll use it as a houserule in my games - but that text very much implies that thrown weapons could count as ranged weapon attacks.

That said, it still doesn't explain the difference in wording everywhere. I suppose it could just come down to natural language.

[toapat]

You're going to have to substantiate this opinion. Lots of spells have Melee Spell Attack, that simply means it's a spell, not a weapon. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Descriptors of attacks define the parameters that the attack is made with, not whether it is made by say, whacking a kobold with a bow. Melee and Ranged are arbitrarily defined unless we define them as such that a Melee attack is an attack where you retain control of the method of attack, such as while holding a weapon or making contact, vs a ranged attack where you release some sort of projectile

[Theodoxus]

Let me break it down more succinctly, using my original points.




Melee Weapon Attack is specific to these places:

Half-Orc Race:
Savage Attacks (pg 41) - HOrcs can't use ranged weapons to gain Savage Attacks. They can throw a spear and crit with it, gaining an extra die.

Barbarian Class:
Rage (pg 48) - Specifying Strength nullifies the use of dex with finesse weapons (note, you can still use strength with a finesse weapon.) A Barbarian can use a rapier and gain the rage damage bonus, if he uses strength with it. Likewise, a barbarian throwing a handaxe gets his strength bonus from rage as well.
Reckless Attack (pg 48) - As per the general Rage noted above.
Frenzy (pg 49) - Specifically denotes melee weapon attack to nullify the use of ranged weapons. Feel free to throw two handaxes a round.
Retaliation (pg 50) - Since the attack has to originate from within 5', the use of Melee Weapon Attack is superfluous, but not damning.

Fighter Class:
Lunging Attack (pg 74) - You can throw a melee weapon and gain 5' of reach range. Makes sense, you're adding momentum to your throw.
Riposte (pg 74) - Much like Retaliation above; interestingly though, it doesn't include a range requirement. Something with a 10' reach could provoke the fighter into a Reaction attack with a thrown melee weapon.

Paladin Class:
Soul of Vengeance (pg 88) - Within RANGE Not Reach, but Range. That's telling - and damning on the counter-arguments part.

Feats:
Great Weapon Master (pg 167) - Here's the first time both phrases are used. Melee attack, score a crit, get a melee weapon attack as a bonus action. Interestingly, this portion of the feat can be used with any weapon. Crit with a spear, chuck it at the guy to your left...
Mage Slayer (pg 168) - Akin to Retaliation.
Sentinel (pg 169 (170 for the relevant part) - Also akin to Retaliation.

Rules:
Attack Rolls (Ability Modifier) (pg 194) - Discussed above.
Underwater Combat (pg 198) - The weapons listed can all be thrown underwater - some better than others, but for simplicity sake (the name of the game) it's consistent.

Spells:
Searing Smite (pg 274) - The spell doesn't target a specific weapon, any weapon you hold is affected by it. Thrown weapons make as much sense as any other.
Staggering Smite (pg 278) - Same as Searing Smite
Thunderous Smite (pg 282) - Only the first hit is affected by the spell - it's even more reasonable to open up with a thrown weapon.


Melee Attack is specific to these places:

Barbarian Class:
Brutal Critical (pg 49) - Unlike the HOrc ability, Brutal Critical specifies a melee attack. No thrown attacks here; the differentiation is specific and necessary.
Totem Spirit [Wolf] (pg 50) - You're a leader of hunters, not bow using assassins. You can't direct Advantage to people at range. It makes sense that it's melee attacks only.

Fighter Class:
Parry (pg 74) - You can't parry ranged attacks (even made with melee weapons). Makes sense.
Riposte (pg 74) - As per parry.

Monk Class:
Shadow Step (pg 80) - Gotta punch a dude in the face, not throw a dart at him.
Opportunist (pg 80) - This is probably what Retaliation et al should have stated.

Ranger Class:
Multiattack (pg 93) - Again, what Retaliation should have stated.

Weapon Properties:
Ammunition (pg 147) - You can make a melee attack with a ranged weapon, it becomes an improvised weapon.
Versatile (pg 147) - Throwing a versatile weapon does not keep the two-handed damage.

Rules:
Improvised Weapons (pg 147 & 148) - You can make a ranged attack with a melee (non-Thrown) weapon, it becomes an improvised weapon.
Attack Rolls and Damage (pg 176) -
Melee Attacks (pg 195)
Opportunity Attacks (pg 195)
Two-Weapon Fighting (pg 195)
Grappling (pg 195)
Shoving a Creature (pg 195)
Knocking a Creature Out (pg 198)

Items:
Torch (pg 153) - Throwing a torch... improvised weapon for 1d4 or no damage because it's not a melee attack?

Feats:
Charger (pg 164) - Can't run up and throw a dagger a dude 20' away and gain the advantages of the feat.
Defensive Duelist (pg 164) - Another Retaliation
Great Weapon Master (pg 167) - Can't use the new Power Attack by throwing you Maul at a dude.
Mobile (pg 168) - Can't throw your handaxe at a dude to make him unable to take OAs
Mounted Combatant (pg 168) - Don't gain advantage at throwing darts at unmounted creatures.
Polearm Master (pg 168) - Can't throw your quarterstaff at a dude as a bonus action.


Melee attacks are very restrictive in what they allow. Melee weapon attacks simply define a weapon type, not the attack type.

[Theodoxus]

That said, it still doesn't explain the difference in wording everywhere. I suppose it could just come down to natural language.

Well, I wouldn't say 'everywhere', but it is annoyingly used in a few places that it doesn't need to. Basically, any place it a rule denotes 'used in melee' or 'within 5 feet of you', it should follow that it's a melee attack. A few places it uses melee weapon attack. Could be natural language, could be editor error, could be copy/paste inconsistencies. I do think that reading too much into it isn't beneficial.

[Demonic Spoon]

Well, I wouldn't say 'everywhere', but it is annoyingly used in a few places that it doesn't need to. Basically, any place it a rule denotes 'used in melee' or 'within 5 feet of you', it should follow that it's a melee attack. A few places it uses melee weapon attack. Could be natural language, could be editor error, could be copy/paste inconsistencies. I do think that reading too much into it isn't beneficial.


You can make a ranged attack in melee, you just take disadvantage.


Obviously there's only one way to settle this - someone with a twitter account, tweet Mearls!

[Theodoxus]

Descriptors of attacks define the parameters that the attack is made with, not whether it is made by say, whacking a kobold with a bow. Melee and Ranged are arbitrarily defined unless we define them as such that a Melee attack is an attack where you retain control of the method of attack, such as while holding a weapon or making contact, vs a ranged attack where you release some sort of projectile

Melee Attack and Ranged Attack are fully defined within the rules. It's the Melee Weapon Attack and Ranged Weapon Attack that are much more fluid.

One damning article to my argument is actually the Deflect Missiles ability of monks.
Starting at 3rd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level. If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as a monk weapon for the attack.

I would be hard pressed as a DM to not allow monks to catch/deflect a thrown melee weapon - even though I categorically deny that throwing daggers is a ranged weapon attack. As such, my houserule would be to remove weapon from the phrase and make it simply 'ranged attack' - which would be either thrown or ranged weapons.

[Theodoxus]

You can make a ranged attack in melee, you just take disadvantage.


Obviously there's only one way to settle this - someone with a twitter account, tweet Mearls!

I meant, like with Mage Slayer, for instance, "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack." I'm just saying, the weapon part is superfluous. The sentence doesn't bring any more clarity than if it read 'use your reaction to make a melee attack.' In fact, by denoting it as a melee weapon attack, it's stating that an archer can't try to disrupt the mages spell with his bow used in an improvised weapon melee attack. Does that make any sense? Changing it to 'melee attack' would allow the bow user to whack the mage with his longbow.

I don't have twitter, else I'd hit up Monsieur Mearls.

[Kyutaru]

Me and my PHB are going to vehemently disagree here.

Melee Weapon Attack is specific to these places:

Half-Orc Race:
Savage Attacks (pg 41)

Barbarian Class:
Rage (pg 48)
Reckless Attack (pg 48)
Frenzy (pg 49)
Retaliation (pg 50)

Fighter Class:
Lunging Attack (pg 74)
Riposte (pg 74)

Paladin Class:
Soul of Vengeance (pg 88)

Feats:
Great Weapon Master (pg 167)
Mage Slayer (pg 168)
Sentinel (pg 169 (170 for the relevant part)

Rules:
Attack Rolls (Ability Modifier) (pg 194)
Underwater Combat (pg 198)

Spells:
Searing Smite (pg 274)
Staggering Smite (pg 278)
Thunderous Smite (pg 282)


Melee Attack is specific to these places:

Barbarian Class:
Brutal Critical (pg 49)
Totem Spirit [Wolf] (pg 50)

Fighter Class:
Parry (pg 74)
Riposte (pg 74)

Monk Class:
Shadow Step (pg 80)
Opportunist (pg 80)

Ranger Class:
Multiattack (pg 93)
Stand Against the Tide (pg 93)

Weapon Properties:
Ammunition (pg 147)
Thrown (pg 147)
Versatile (pg 147)

Rules:
Improvised Weapons (pg 147 & 148)
Attack Rolls and Damage (pg 176)
Melee Attacks (pg 195)
Opportunity Attacks (pg 195)
Two-Weapon Fighting (pg 195)
Grappling (pg 195)
Shoving a Creature (pg 195)
Knocking a Creature Out (pg 198)

Items:
Torch (pg 153)

Feats:
Charger (pg 164)
Defensive Duelist (pg 164)
Great Weapon Master (pg 167)
Mobile (pg 168)
Mounted Combatant (pg 168)
Polearm Master (pg 168)

Spells:
Animate Object (pg 213)
Armor of Agathys (pg 215)
Confusion (pg 225)
... (really, too many to list)

So, in conclusion, if you look at the differences between what a Melee Weapon Attack is and what a Melee Attack is, it's blatantly obvious that they aren't interchangeable and that yes, as described above this post, you can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon that is a melee weapon attack. It's not a melee attack, it's a ranged attack, but it's not a ranged weapon attack, it's a melee weapon attack.

I can understand the confusion, and it would have been amazeballs if WotC had simply defined Melee Attack, Melee Weapon Attack, Ranged Attack and Ranged Weapon Attack - but they didn't... either they figured it was obvious - or they had defined the terms in house and forgot that we weren't privy to their discussions. At any rate, I'm sure it will be FAQ'd or Errata'd eventually if it really is that important.

Me and logic are going to have disagree here in turn. The purpose of defining Weapon attacks is that all of those moves cannot be done without a weapon. Let's not forget that Unarmed Strikes count as melee attacks. The distinction simply means you may not punch enemies using those abilities. Let's look at some examples...

Lunging Attack -- One cannot lunge with his fists, he requires the weapon to grant him that extra reach. If you could hit with your fists, you are already in melee range. A lunge allows one to extend his arm and weapon straight forward for maximum distance, represented by the extra reach.
Great Weapon Master -- As the name of the feat implies, you need a weapon to actually benefit as a great weapon expert. One cannot clasp both hands together to make a double-handed swing and call that a great weapon attack.
Underwater Combat -- Making unarmed strikes can be very different from attempting to swing a weapon underwater. This rule benefits the monk when in subaquatic combat.
Attack Rolls -- You require proficiency in the weapon you are swinging to benefit from bonuses to attack rolls.
Smites -- A paladin cannot smite with his fists. He must imbue a weapon with his holy power before plunging it into evil.

And what about the non-weapon ones?

Parry -- Apparently a fighter can parry unarmed. Is that shocking?
Monk powers -- They do everything unarmed, again not a shock here.
Multiattack -- Beasts tend to count as using unarmed attacks when using their natural weapons.
Rules -- Almost all of these rules are capable of applying to unarmed strikes. The Monk loves these.
Grappling -- You can definitely punch someone while grappling. A weapon is not required.
Shove -- You can definitely use unarmed attacks when shoving is involved. Weapons not required.

I think while you have made a great case for it that may be accepted by some DMs, there's plenty of evidence that can be interpreted to meaning Weapon is just a qualifier for the type of attack that must be used with that ability.

[Sartharina]

I very much want to agree with you - and either way, I think I'll use it as a houserule in my games - but that text very much implies that thrown weapons could count as ranged weapon attacks.
Mike Mearls also tweeted that thrown weapons count as ranged weapon attacks, when dealing with Sneak Attack.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

yes, they are melee weapons being used in a ranged attack.

in 5e the simple way to think about it is that it is the attack type that is important moreso than the weapon type. after all literally any weapon can be thrown and any ranged weapon can be used in melee.

whereas in 3.5 i always thought of all attacks being the same, melee weapons just had a range of 5'.

[toapat]

Me and logic are going to have disagree here in turn. The purpose of defining Weapon attacks is that all of those moves cannot be done without a weapon. Let's not forget that Unarmed Strikes count as melee attacks. The distinction simply means you may not punch enemies using those abilities. Let's look at some examples...

you are over-analyzing the terminology, it really does come down to Melee, Ranged, Weapon, and spell are descriptors of the Attack Roll's prerequisites, Melee and ranged are undefined (unfortunately) but typically mean whether you retain or release control of what is applying the effect, while Weapon and Spell are what type of attack it is. Note one of the counter arguments uses Thrown weapons, not Throwing weapons, note the past tense verb as opposed to the present verb/adjective. The weapon doesnt make Melee+Ranged attacks, it can be used to make a melee attack or a ranged attack, and all attacks made with it are weapon attacks.

[archaeo]

no, there isnt. One of the Major design decisions of the system is that everyone should be able to participate in some way for the majority of the game, and by definition a Melee focused class cant do that, because as soon as flight comes into the equation they dont matter anymore, and they matter for even fewer skill/toolchecks if they are built around melee.

Everyone can participate for the majority of the game. Flight is not such a scarce resource that Barbarians can't be expected to find a solution, and no DM is going to just say, "Oh, well, you're a land-bound idiot, so I guess the campaign is going to continue without you...?" Between potions and rings and, I don't know, magical cloaks of flying, it's not going to be hard to keep the Barbarian fighting with the party in the air.

And, of course, Barbarians can still used ranged weapons, so it's not like they're hopeless if they're stuck on the ground, etc., etc.


Unfortunately, it's still ambiguous.

Could be the tagline for 5e's rules. :smallbiggrin:

[Demonic Spoon]

Flight is not such a scarce resource that Barbarians can't be expected to find a solution,


yes it is. Flight is a concentration resource, and you might not have a party wizard, or your party wizard might not have it prepared, or your party wizard might not have the spell at all...and it's not like flight-granting magic items will be dropping from the sky.

[Ralanr]

yes it is. Flight is a concentration resource, and you might not have a party wizard, or your party wizard might not have it prepared, or your party wizard might not have the spell at all...and it's not like flight-granting magic items will be dropping from the sky.

Well...there is the third eagle barb ability. But that's probably not useful outside of combat...I can't say in combat cause I haven't played 5e yet (Mostly looking over rules)

[archaeo]

yes it is. Flight is a concentration resource, and you might not have a party wizard, or your party wizard might not have it prepared, or your party wizard might not have the spell at all...and it's not like flight-granting magic items will be dropping from the sky.

So you expect DMs to routinely tell their Barbarians, "Well, if you haven't found any magic items to fly and the entire rest of the party is flying, I guess you can go home this week"?

If a DM and the players want a campaign where there's a lot of in-flight action and combat, the system offers tons of ways to do that for every class. Barbarians even have a subclass where limited flight is an option, which is more than can be said for Paladin and Ranger. But the system is pretty up-front about the fact that magical flight is limited and not an expected part of every group's arsenal.

[MustacheFart]

So you expect DMs to routinely tell their Barbarians, "Well, if you haven't found any magic items to fly and the entire rest of the party is flying, I guess you can go home this week"?

If a DM and the players want a campaign where there's a lot of in-flight action and combat, the system offers tons of ways to do that for every class. Barbarians even have a subclass where limited flight is an option, which is more than can be said for Paladin and Ranger. But the system is pretty up-front about the fact that magical flight is limited and not an expected part of every group's arsenal.

You're missing what he is saying. He's talking about if you're fighting enemies with flight while the party lacks it. The wizard and other characters have ranged attacks so they're not at a loss. That barbarian is lacking there.

[Shining Wrath]

There's a difference between being a Barbarian and being enraged.

In D&D terms, barbarians are tough people usually from primitive regions.

Rage, though, has always meant something akin to a shark in a feeding frenzy, again speaking in D&D terms. You close with your enemies and hack at them with your weapon, over and over. You do not think. You do not plan. You do not aim. HULK SMASH!

So while I think it's perfectly reasonable for Barbarians to use bows and / or thrown weapons, what D&D has usually meant by Rage doesn't seem (to me) compatible with anything other than hacking your enemies into pieces at close range.

If WoTC had "barbarian" as an archtype of Ranger, and refluffed Barbarian as a Berserker, they'd probably be on stronger ground semantically & historically. Not that our magic elf game needs to have strong groundings in any sort of reality, but it might be easier for people to grasp.

[Fwiffo86]

I miss the 1e barbarian ability to summon a barbarian horde.

It was great for that "need it done today" dungeon crawl.

[MustacheFart]

no you cant. :p

barbarians are cunning, and will often use ranged weapons. but the iconic nature of barbarians is in the thick of combat, it is their element. It was where their speed, battle experience, and incredible strength pays off. What does that orc barbarian do next? Cuz it isn't run away and get more boulders.

just because you arn't getting rage bonuses to it doesn't mean you cant use a bow or other ranged weapon when the situation warrants it!

This isn't even a valid argument as it provide any reason to discount ranged attacks from the Barbarians nature.

That's my entire point. Ranged attacks fit perfectly well with the barbarian's nature and should benefit from that nature to at least a limited degree such as Rage bonuses with Thrown Weapons.

Now, with some cheese you can already get Rage bonuses to thrown weapons. You don't even have to abuse that whole ambiguity between thrown weapons counting as melee weapons. What's the difference between a melee weapon and a ranged weapon? One stays in your possession the entire time. So here's what you do:

Step 1) Tie a 20'-30' rope around the end of a Throwing Axe, Dagger, etc. etc.

Step 2) Since your weapon is improvised pick up Tavern Brawler feat to have proficiency with it.

Step 3) Swing/whip/sling your Throwing Axe, Dagger, etc. etc. at your enemy at range.

The weapon never left your hands so it's essentially an improvised whip which is a melee weapon. Thus, by rules you just performed a melee attack and receive Rage bonuses. Now the damage would depend on the DM. At the least it is 1d4 but if the DM is lenient than it can be as much as the damage of the base weapon tied to the rope.

[MustacheFart]

Rage, though, has always meant something akin to a shark in a feeding frenzy, again speaking in D&D terms. You close with your enemies and hack at them with your weapon, over and over. You do not think. You do not plan. You do not aim. HULK SMASH!

You're own argument fails you. How many times has the Hulk tossed something while the Hulk? Pretty sure he doesn't become Bruce Banner the minute he throws a car.

There's no reason enraged or rage or whatever you want to call it means ONLY melee. It's a mental state in which aggressive actions become prominent. Throwing something is just as easy to do in a rage as swinging a sword or punching. Hell, even infants when they're in an equivalent rage sure don't have any problem throwing things. Why should a barbarian?

[Fwiffo86]

You're own argument fails you. How many times has the Hulk tossed something while the Hulk? Pretty sure he doesn't become Bruce Banner the minute he throws a car.

There's no reason enraged or rage or whatever you want to call it means ONLY melee. It's a mental state which aggressive actions become prominent. Throwing something is just as easy to do in a rage as swinging a sword or punching. Hell, even infants when their in an equivalent rage sure don't have any problem throwing things. Why should a barbarian?

How often have you seen the Hulk actually "AIM" at a target before throwing the largest object he has at hand? He doesn't.

[archaeo]

You're missing what he is saying. He's talking about if you're fighting enemies with flight while the party lacks it. The wizard and other characters have ranged attacks so they're not at a loss. That barbarian is lacking there.

The Barbarian can still do ranged attacks. They can add their proficiency bonus and do it twice after level 5, and they have enormous piles of hit dice to keep them from dying to flyby tactics. I still don't see an enormous disparity here that cries out for change. Sure, the Barbarian is at some disadvantage versus flying enemies, but I find that's pretty balanced out by what incredible bruisers they are in melee.

[MustacheFart]

How often have you seen the Hulk actually "AIM" at a target before throwing the largest object he has at hand? He doesn't.

Well, Marvel would disagree with you. I have seen him thrown cars at Helicopters, tanks at bad guys, etc etc. He sure as hell AIMS each and every one of those. I'm glad you used the example of The Hulk because I think many people envision him when they think Barbarian but given the context it's a very poor example from your standpoint and a great one from mine. It supports that Barbarians should receive rage damage to Thrown weapon attacks.

[MustacheFart]

The Barbarian can still do ranged attacks. They can add their proficiency bonus and do it twice after level 5, and they have enormous piles of hit dice to keep them from dying to flyby tactics. I still don't see an enormous disparity here that cries out for change. Sure, the Barbarian is at some disadvantage versus flying enemies, but I find that's pretty balanced out by what incredible bruisers they are in melee.

Have you ever played a 5th ed Barbarian? Have half of the people arguing in this thread ever played a 5th ed barbarian?

Let me clear one thing up to people who have not, which I am betting make up the majority of the posters in this thread. Barbarians are not the bruisers they once were. They are now more tanky than they once were but that's it. A fighter of comparable level can drop just as much melee damage. They're not the supreme ruler of melee damage. In fact several other builds can be just as deadly in melee and just as easily.

Given the above your last sentence doesn't hold much weight as I wouldn't argue that they're incredible bruisers. I'd argue they're incredible tanks but that seems to be more apples to oranges when comparing to Ranged attacking.

[Shining Wrath]

You're own argument fails you. How many times has the Hulk tossed something while the Hulk? Pretty sure he doesn't become Bruce Banner the minute he throws a car.

There's no reason enraged or rage or whatever you want to call it means ONLY melee. It's a mental state in which aggressive actions become prominent. Throwing something is just as easy to do in a rage as swinging a sword or punching. Hell, even infants when they're in an equivalent rage sure don't have any problem throwing things. Why should a barbarian?

"HULK SMASH!" was a joke appended to the argument. The argument is that by D&D tradition, which has nothing to do with Marvel nor historical barbarian tribesmen nor Norse beserkers, "rage" implies closing with your enemies and hacking them to pieces with melee weapons, often a battle axe.

The epitome of this was the Frenzied Berserker from Complete Warrior, who kept right on attacking even after all the foes were dead. Even the classic barbarian rage was described thus in SRD:


A barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy a certain number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian gains phenomenal strength and durability but becomes reckless and less able to defend himself. ... SNIP ... While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats.

I therefore submit that the raging Barbarian is less capable of thought and planning than the angry Hulk. By traditional D&D fluff, he uses melee weapons.

[Demonic Spoon]

I therefore submit that the raging Barbarian is less capable of thought and planning than the angry Hulk. By traditional D&D fluff, he uses melee weapons.


Since when has throwing stuff been incompatible with lack of thought/planning and rage?

[Forum Explorer]

You're missing what he is saying. He's talking about if you're fighting enemies with flight while the party lacks it. The wizard and other characters have ranged attacks so they're not at a loss. That barbarian is lacking there.

So he pulls out a bow and shoots for a fight, just not bothering to use Rage for a single encounter. To my understanding, you aren't expected to use rage in every single fight anyways.

[Gurka]

Just watch any 3 year old. They get mad, they throw things.

I'm an adult, and sometimes I want to throw things when I'm pissed, too. I have the restraint not to... Usually... But that's not the point!

[Ralanr]

So he pulls out a bow and shoots for a fight, just not bothering to use Rage for a single encounter. To my understanding, you aren't expected to use rage in every single fight anyways.

Considering the limit to how many rages you have per day, it'd be stupid to use it in every encounter. Though I'll be honest, I can't really see a guy in screaming rage use a bow. Of course I can be wrong.

[Sartharina]

Considering the limit to how many rages you have per day, it'd be stupid to use it in every encounter. Though I'll be honest, I can't really see a guy in screaming rage use a bow. Of course I can be wrong.

Think Arnold Schwartzeneggar with a gun in Commando. Rage is not a 'screaming rage'.


"HULK SMASH!" was a joke appended to the argument. The argument is that by D&D tradition, which has nothing to do with Marvel nor historical barbarian tribesmen nor Norse beserkers, "rage" implies closing with your enemies and hacking them to pieces with melee weapons, often a battle axe.Rage has everything to do with Norse beserkers and historical tribesmen.


The epitome of this was the Frenzied Berserker from Complete Warrior, who kept right on attacking even after all the foes were dead. Even the classic barbarian rage was described thus in SRD:Frenzy isn't strictly a rage, and nor is it incompatible with throwing things at people.


I therefore submit that the raging Barbarian is less capable of thought and planning than the angry Hulk. By traditional D&D fluff, he uses melee weapons.He can also throw things, as anyone can. I loved my javelin-throwing barbarians in 3.P.

[Fwiffo86]

Think Arnold Schwartzeneggar with a gun in Commando. Rage is not a 'screaming rage'.

Ordinarily I would agree with this, but Rage is described as needing to make an attack roll every round or it peters itself out. That doesn't say Focused angry rage to me. That says he lost it, and is just attacking.

[Sartharina]

Ordinarily I would agree with this, but Rage is described as needing to make an attack roll every round or it peters itself out. That doesn't say Focused angry rage to me. That says he lost it, and is just attacking.Still doesn't require melee.

[Ralanr]

Think Arnold Schwartzeneggar with a gun in Commando. Rage is not a 'screaming rage'.




1. Pulling a trigger is easier than pulling back the string of a bow.

2. A variant of rage in the form of Tranquil Fury, for as far as I know, has not been established. I believe that the people developing this edition had the screaming rage barbarian in their heads when designing this.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranquilFury

3. If tranquil fury was what indeed they had in mind, then (in my opinion) barbarians should be allowed to cast spells even when in rage (if they had spells anyway).

Edit: Also, to further point out the differences in rages, 4e did have a variant of tranquil fury. Which lead me to believe that if a barbarian didn't have that paragon path, he was the screaming/not calm form of rage.

[Slipperychicken]

2. A variant of rage in the form of Tranquil Fury, for as far as I know, has not been established. I believe that the people developing this edition had the screaming rage barbarian in their heads when designing this.


They had it in mind in 3.5 too. The words "screaming blood frenzy" give it away.

[Shining Wrath]

Think Arnold Schwartzeneggar with a gun in Commando. Rage is not a 'screaming rage'.

Rage has everything to do with Norse beserkers and historical tribesmen.

Frenzy isn't strictly a rage, and nor is it incompatible with throwing things at people.

He can also throw things, as anyone can. I loved my javelin-throwing barbarians in 3.P.

I notice that you glossed right over all that SRD quote where it describes the various ways a raging barbarian is mentally impaired. Let me enumerate

All Intelligence based skills
All Dexterity based skills (Except Balance, Escape Artist, and Ride)
All Charisma based skills (Except Intimidate)
The Concentration skill
Any abilities that require patience or concentration
Spell casting
Activate a magic item that requires a command word, a spell trigger, or spell completion
The Combat Expertise feat
Item creation feats
Metamagic feats


So, can he throw something? Sure. I never said he couldn't.
Is, per TSR / WotC tradition, hurling spears part of how a barbarian rages? No.
Is TSR / WotC tradition binding upon every DM everywhere? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm explaining *why* things are the way they are, not arguing that it would be Bad Wrong Fun to do it differently.

[toapat]

The Barbarian can still do ranged attacks. They can add their proficiency bonus and do it twice after level 5, and they have enormous piles of hit dice to keep them from dying to flyby tactics. I still don't see an enormous disparity here that cries out for change. Sure, the Barbarian is at some disadvantage versus flying enemies, but I find that's pretty balanced out by what incredible bruisers they are in melee.

except you are assuming Proficiency = Perfect competence. In fact there are points in this edition where Proficiency is significantly less important then the things being added over what is already there. Paladins dont need proficiency in all saves because their Cha-Mod goes to all their saves, proficiency is just an extra bonus on top of that. With no benefits to ranged combat, barbarians are Incompetent with any ranged options if they are not explicitly grabbing a cantrip to compete, same with paladins


I notice that you glossed right over all that SRD quote where it describes the various ways a raging barbarian is mentally impaired. Let me enumerate

because the SRD isnt relevant to 5th ed.

[Demonic Spoon]

His point is that it is the way it is because tradition; I don't think he's necessarily defending the decision.

[Shining Wrath]

His point is that it is the way it is because tradition; I don't think he's necessarily defending the decision.

In fact, I'm explicitly saying I don't care if you follow the tradition or not. Everyone have fun by the light that is in you.

[Sartharina]

I notice that you glossed right over all that SRD quote where it describes the various ways a raging barbarian is mentally impaired. Let me enumerate

All Intelligence based skills
All Dexterity based skills (Except Balance, Escape Artist, and Ride)
All Charisma based skills (Except Intimidate)
The Concentration skill
Any abilities that require patience or concentration
Spell casting
Activate a magic item that requires a command word, a spell trigger, or spell completion
The Combat Expertise feat
Item creation feats
Metamagic feats


So, can he throw something? Sure. I never said he couldn't.
Is, per TSR / WotC tradition, hurling spears part of how a barbarian rages? No.
Is TSR / WotC tradition binding upon every DM everywhere? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm explaining *why* things are the way they are, not arguing that it would be Bad Wrong Fun to do it differently.Throwing spears doesn't have anything to do with any of the 'banned' options. It's a full, reckless offensive manuever, disarming yourself for the sole sake of hurting your enemies even more when they try to go further than you can. Throwing a spear is the most iconic act of rage.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

except you are assuming Proficiency = Perfect competence. In fact there are points in this edition where Proficiency is significantly less important then the things being added over what is already there. Paladins dont need proficiency in all saves because their Cha-Mod goes to all their saves, proficiency is just an extra bonus on top of that. With no benefits to ranged combat, barbarians are Incompetent with any ranged options if they are not explicitly grabbing a cantrip to compete, same with paladins

uh, no. they can use bows (or anything else), they have good dex, they're fine. Incidentally- IMO ranged weapons are better than cantrips in general for fighting fliers because of cantrip range limitations.


Throwing spears doesn't have anything to do with any of the 'banned' options. It's a full, reckless offensive manuever, disarming yourself for the sole sake of hurting your enemies even more when they try to go further than you can. Throwing a spear is the most iconic act of rage.
sure. and your dm can allow that and give bonuses. (I've been thinking one way to boost throwing damage is to allow collapsing extra attacks into the main attack for the purposes of throwing.)

But straight mechanical boost to ranged/throw damage doesnt encourage reckless offensive maneuvers, it encourages barbarians to sit back and toss javelins.

[Ralanr]

Isn't the only reason that Rangers and Fighters are better with bow like range weapons because they have access to the archery fighting style?

[Demonic Spoon]

Isn't the only reason that Rangers and Fighters are better with bow like range weapons because they have access to the archery fighting style?

It's more that rangers and fighters don't have core class features that only work in melee, thus discouraging them from using ranged weapons.

[MustacheFart]

Since when has throwing stuff been incompatible with lack of thought/planning and rage?

Agreed. Especially considering one of the earliest activities taught to small children is how to throw a ball. Not much thought is required.


Just watch any 3 year old. They get mad, they throw things.

I'm an adult, and sometimes I want to throw things when I'm pissed, too. I have the restraint not to... Usually... But that's not the point!

I made that same point earlier but it fell on deaf ears.



Is, per TSR / WotC tradition, hurling spears part of how a barbarian rages? No.


That is entirely your interpretation. There is nothing that says it isn't. At best you've drawn a conclusion from your interpretation of a pretty loose set of guidelines about the Barbarian's rage. Thrown weapons use strength and have always used strength (as far as I know); therefore, they're not an invalid action per the rules for the Barbarian's rage that you linked.

In fact, I have played many barbarians before and have played with many barbarians before. Some optimizers some not. Almost all of them have carried javelins that they've hurled during rages when they can't reach an enemy. At no point did anyone cry party foul or did it seem at all out of the ordinary.

People want to bring up 3.5 PrC's like the Frenzied Berserker. Well then it's equally fair to mention all of the other rage-involved PrCs that go outside the supposed "melee only" idea of rage. For Ex. Rage Mage. One could argue that the designers were not so hardset on the idea of "melee only" rage that they designed alternate rules to expand what is allowed in a rage.


Throwing spears doesn't have anything to do with any of the 'banned' options. It's a full, reckless offensive manuever, disarming yourself for the sole sake of hurting your enemies even more when they try to go further than you can. Throwing a spear is the most iconic act of rage.

Not only is it a reckless offensive move, it can also be an irrational, fury-filled maneuver much like bringing that Great Axe screaming down with all of your anger. If you've ever been truly pissed off to the point of rage you can understand how EASY it is to throw something at a target when that target is out of your grasp.

We're not talking, knocking an arrow or loading a crossbow. We're talking chucking an axe, throwing a spear, hurling a boulder, etc.

[Ralanr]

It's more that rangers and fighters don't have core class features that only work in melee, thus discouraging them from using ranged weapons.

Ahh. Right.

Perhaps in the future they'll release a path that focuses on distance combat. Course just focusing on that wouldn't be the best answer.

Probably.

[MustacheFart]

I think the general concern is that had they gave the barbarians any ranged support then you'd see all of these ranged barbarians. That there would be little reason for a barbarian to enter combat...EXCEPT FOR SMASHING YOUR ENEMIES FACE IN! (caps'd for dramatic barbaric effect). I mean is this even a valid concern? In 3.5 you could make a ranged barbarian but I don't believe I ever really encountered one. Even if such ranged support resulted in a few ranged builds I hardly think it would upset the balance or anything.

I would've simply given them two things: 1) Rage damage bonus works with thrown weapons. 2) They gain the equivalent of the 3.5 Throw Anything Feat. Basically, they can throw anything as though it were a Thrown Weapon they were proficient with out to the standard 20' for Thrown Weapons.

I would also make a distinction under Reckless Attack that says it does NOT work with Thrown weapons. That I would keep melee only.

The above would still keep the flair, fluff, etc and not really upset the balance. You're not going to really have a barbarian doing nothing but throwing javelins in the above case because he won't be able to carry enough or it's not realistic to do so. He'll otherwise have to retrieve them from melee. Unless of course he wants to carry around a cart full of javelins.

[JoeJ]

I think the general concern is that had they gave the barbarians any ranged support then you'd see all of these ranged barbarians. That there would be little reason for a barbarian to enter combat...EXCEPT FOR SMASHING YOUR ENEMIES FACE IN! (caps'd for dramatic barbaric effect). I mean is this even a valid concern? In 3.5 you could make a ranged barbarian but I don't believe I ever really encountered one. Even if such ranged support resulted in a few ranged builds I hardly think it would upset the balance or anything.

I would've simply given them two things: 1) Rage damage bonus works with thrown weapons. 2) They gain the equivalent of the 3.5 Throw Anything Feat. Basically, they can throw anything as though it were a Thrown Weapon they were proficient with out to the standard 20' for Thrown Weapons.

I would also make a distinction under Reckless Attack that says it does NOT work with Thrown weapons. That I would keep melee only.

The above would still keep the flair, fluff, etc and not really upset the balance. You're not going to really have a barbarian doing nothing but throwing javelins in the above case because he won't be able to carry enough or it's not realistic to do so. He'll otherwise have to retrieve them from melee. Unless of course he wants to carry around a cart full of javelins.

I agree with that, and if a player did try carrying around 100 javelins in a Bag of Holding I think it's entirely reasonable for a DM to rule that deliberately holding back from melee when there are enemies close enough to run up and hit ends the rage.

[Sartharina]

I agree with that, and if a player did try carrying around 100 javelins in a Bag of Holding I think it's entirely reasonable for a DM to rule that deliberately holding back from melee when there are enemies close enough to run up and hit ends the rage.

Or maybe this barbarian's so skilled at throwing, but inept in melee, that he still has all the rage to throw his javelins at foes while staying out of harm's reach himself because he's more conditioned for throwing things - throwing is more natural to him than melee.

[Ralanr]

Or maybe this barbarian's so skilled at throwing, but inept in melee, that he still has all the rage to throw his javelins at foes while staying out of harm's reach himself because he's more conditioned for throwing things - throwing is more natural to him than melee.

Guess the barbarian would have to start budgeting for throwing weapons. I can't imagine you'd be able to get all your javelins/throwing axes back all the time.

[silveralen]

Or maybe this barbarian's so skilled at throwing, but inept in melee, that he still has all the rage to throw his javelins at foes while staying out of harm's reach himself because he's more conditioned for throwing things - throwing is more natural to him than melee.

The moment we start talking about staying out of harm's reach and a raging barbarian, I think we have an issue. I think it's reasonable to have a barbarian who uses thrown weapons when he cannot reach melee, or uses them as an opening attack, or stands his ground and chucks spears while the enemy charges. But deliberately keeping the enemy at range is one of those things which just feels way too tactical for someone in the midst of an angry rage.

To cite your earlier example, I have no problem with someone is a rage mowing down enemies with a machine gun. I do have issue with someone in a rage sniping people with a rifle and repositioning between shots.

[MustacheFart]

The moment we start talking about staying out of harm's reach and a raging barbarian, I think we have an issue. I think it's reasonable to have a barbarian who uses thrown weapons when he cannot reach melee, or uses them as an opening attack, or stands his ground and chucks spears while the enemy charges. But deliberately keeping the enemy at range is one of those things which just feels way too tactical for someone in the midst of an angry rage.

To cite your earlier example, I have no problem with someone is a rage mowing down enemies with a machine gun. I do have issue with someone in a rage sniping people with a rifle and repositioning between shots.

I agree with the above. In the case of the Barbarian, ranged attacks should be utilized for offense in order to extend the reach of his wrath and not for defense.

[Ralanr]

The moment we start talking about staying out of harm's reach and a raging barbarian, I think we have an issue. I think it's reasonable to have a barbarian who uses thrown weapons when he cannot reach melee, or uses them as an opening attack, or stands his ground and chucks spears while the enemy charges. But deliberately keeping the enemy at range is one of those things which just feels way too tactical for someone in the midst of an angry rage.

To cite your earlier example, I have no problem with someone is a rage mowing down enemies with a machine gun. I do have issue with someone in a rage sniping people with a rifle and repositioning between shots.


I agree with the above. In the case of the Barbarian, ranged attacks should be utilized for offense in order to extend the reach of his wrath and not for defense.

Second. It makes sense to see a barbarian use a throwing weapon to help him engage into a fight, not keep him a good distance away.

[MustacheFart]

Second. It makes sense to see a barbarian use a throwing weapon to help him engage into a fight, not keep him a good distance away.

Though, I have seen the "tactical" smart barbarian before, aiming rifles until he engaged in melee. I am referring to a scene with Mel Gibson from The Patriot. Though that is more my definition of "the Barbarian" I accept that it is not D&D's definition of the barbarian.

[Sartharina]

Staying out of harms way is pretty important for even a raging barbarian, especially if it's the way they're conditioned to fight.

[Ralanr]

Though, I have seen the "tactical" smart barbarian before, aiming rifles until he engaged in melee. I am referring to a scene with Mel Gibson from The Patriot. Though that is more my definition of "the Barbarian" I accept that it is not D&D's definition of the barbarian.

Just because you're in rage doesn't mean you can't be tactical. I see engaging from a distance before up close is tactical.


Staying out of harms way is pretty important for even a raging barbarian, especially if it's the way they're conditioned to fight.

Yes, even though they have an ability that puts them in harms way, and the highest hit dice. Optional use of it or not, all classes are in harms way at some point.

[Kyutaru]

Barbarian: "I have Resistance to all damage and tons of hitpoints! I am invincible!!!"
Tiamat: "I swing and hit you for 160 damage."
Barbarian: "Haha! And half of that is... oh, right... I see your point."

[Ralanr]

Barbarian: "I have Resistance to all damage and tons of hitpoints! I am invincible!!!"
Tiamat: "I swing and hit you for 160 damage."
Barbarian: "Haha! And half of that is... oh, right... I see your point."


Wouldn't a fighter have a problem in that encounter? Or a melee focused ranger? Or a paladin? If the barbarian couldn't take that, I doubt they could.

[MustacheFart]

Just because you're in rage doesn't mean you can't be tactical. I see engaging from a distance before up close is tactical.

So...in a rage it is acceptable to use tactics but not bows? I thought the consensus was that rages were uncontrollable and without planning so how could one have the presence of mind to initiate tactics but not fire a bow? Seems illogical to me.

[Ralanr]

So...in a rage it is acceptable to use tactics but not bows? I thought the consensus was that rages were uncontrollable and without planning so how could one have the presence of mind to initiate tactics but not fire a bow? Seems illogical to me.

Where's the logic in getting more damage from a bow when in rage? You can only pull a bow string back so far before it breaks.

Course I might be not thinking clearly. Looking at the frenzi berserker path, it seems that's the kind of rage where you're fighting on instinct (cause you can't be charmed by level ten). So I'm imagining rage like you are using the anger to fuel your actions and let go of a few inhibitions.

I will accept bull if presented. You're all the experts here, I'm just reading over it. Still waiting on playing the class.

[silveralen]

Staying out of harms way is pretty important for even a raging barbarian, especially if it's the way they're conditioned to fight.

Staying out of harm's way is not how any barbarian is conditioned to fight when raging. I don't recall a raging Achilles kiting enemies. You aren't talking about a barbarian, at least a raging one, anymore.

[MustacheFart]

Where's the logic in getting more damage from a bow when in rage? You can only pull a bow string back so far before it breaks.

Especially, since 5th ed doesn't include the Composite bow of varying strength mods like 3.5. Though, I'm not an archer but I would think with a standard longbow that you could potentially pull it back a bit harder then others for a little more velocity.

Ideally, I think of rage not as some type of fit you enter like a psychopath at a insane asylum but a heightened level of adreneline in which you're focusing only on the battle. As such, any training that you did over years FOR BATTLE would persist as it coincides with the prevalent and remaining concern on the barbarian's mind. It is possible to train to the point that you don't need to think very much to execute moves in combat both in melee or ranged. I would argue that those who say otherwise have zero experience with any martial arts.

There's also nothing that says a barbarian doesn't train or lacks any training. They might not have formalized regimented training like some militant fighter but training to use a bow isn't out of the question.

Really I envision rage as something like this:

"5 enemies on the battlefield! No, 6! One out of bushes." *grabs axe off belt* "Hurgh!" *Throw Axe* "Back to 5! Time to charge forth!" *pull out spear* "AHHHH!!!" *charge forward and impale one enemy* "4! Here comes sword of enemy! Drop shoulder! Roll into it!" *Struck in the shoulder* "Blow minimized! Damage trivial! Must free weapon!" *Kick corpse of enemy off spear* "Weapon free! Drive spear into gut of enemy off guard by his resisted attack" *Lunge with spear* "3! Remaining enemies fleeing! No, running to back up! More Enemies behind trees! Out of range! Must engage!" *stab spear into dirt and retrieve bow* "Drop my guard to lure out ranged enemy! Here come the shots!" *nailed by some arrows* "Urgh, fire back NOW!" *shoots bow* "One of treeline enemies dead! Reload! Fire again!" *fire bow* "Enemy ducking behind tree. Ignore for now!" *Drop bow and pick up spear* "HUYAH!!!" *chuck spear at one of 3 fleeing* "2 enemies left fleeing! Charge after! AHHH!" *grab spear from back of dead enemy* "Slash legs of one enemy!" *shove an enemy down* "He's stop for now! Stab remaining enemy!" *plunge spear through back of neck* "Enemy dead! Treeline enemy fleeing! No time to dislodge spear! Drive through enemy on ground while still in enemy!" *Plunge spear alread impaled through enemies neck into enemy on ground* "YEAHH!! Last guy! Chase after!" "COME BACK HERE!!!" *enemy traverses down small cliff just beyond trees* "Enemy can't get away! Enemy path unstable! Use that!" *retrieve sizeable boulder* "DIE!! HURGH!!!" *throw boulder down at enemy striking him* "Enemy tumbling down ground! Now's chance!" *leap down onto enemy* "AAAH!! Must roll after hitting enemy!" *lands on enemy, smash him, and rolls to reduce damage* "All enemies gone!"

Sorry for that long exchange but that's just how I see a rage. I think it means entirely focused on the battle. I don't think you can hold a conversation with a raging barbarian but I also do not believe standard combat actions are out of line for him either. To argue otherwise would only minimize the distinction between rage and the frenzy offered by the berserker path to the point that it's trivial and that cannibalizes a lot of flair for that path.

[Ralanr]

Especially, since 5th ed doesn't include the Composite bow of varying strength mods like 3.5. Though, I'm not an archer but I would think with a standard longbow that you could potentially pull it back a bit harder then others for a little more velocity.

Ideally, I think of rage not as some type of fit you enter like a psychopath at a insane asylum but a heightened level of adreneline in which you're focusing only on the battle. As such, any training that you did over years FOR BATTLE would persist as it coincides with the prevalent and remaining concern on the barbarian's mind. It is possible to train to the point that you don't need to think very much to execute moves in combat both in melee or ranged. I would argue that those who say otherwise have zero experience with any martial arts.

There's also nothing that says a barbarian doesn't train or lacks any training. They might not have formalized regimented training like some militant fighter but training to use a bow isn't out of the question.

Really I envision rage as something like this:

"5 enemies on the battlefield! No, 6! One out of bushes." *grabs axe off belt* "Hurgh!" *Throw Axe* "Back to 5! Time to charge forth!" *pull out spear* "AHHHH!!!" *charge forward and impale one enemy* "4! Here comes sword of enemy! Drop shoulder! Roll into it!" *Struck in the shoulder* "Blow minimized! Damage trivial! Must free weapon!" *Kick corpse of enemy off spear* "Weapon free! Drive spear into gut of enemy off guard by his resisted attack" *Lunge with spear* "3! Remaining enemies fleeing! No, running to back up! More Enemies behind trees! Out of range! Must engage!" *stab spear into dirt and retrieve bow* "Drop my guard to lure out ranged enemy! Here come the shots!" *nailed by some arrows* "Urgh, fire back NOW!" *shoots bow* "One of treeline enemies dead! Reload! Fire again!" *fire bow* "Enemy ducking behind tree. Ignore for now!" *Drop bow and pick up spear* "HUYAH!!!" *chuck spear at one of 3 fleeing* "2 enemies left fleeing! Charge after! AHHH!" *grab spear from back of dead enemy* "Slash legs of one enemy!" *shove an enemy down* "He's stop for now! Stab remaining enemy!" *plunge spear through back of neck* "Enemy dead! Treeline enemy fleeing! No time to dislodge spear! Drive through enemy on ground while still in enemy!" *Plunge spear alread impaled through enemies neck into enemy on ground* "YEAHH!! Last guy! Chase after!" "COME BACK HERE!!!" *enemy traverses down small cliff just beyond trees* "Enemy can't get away! Enemy path unstable! Use that!" *retrieve sizeable boulder* "DIE!! HURGH!!!" *throw boulder down at enemy striking him* "Enemy tumbling down ground! Now's chance!" *leap down onto enemy* "AAAH!! Must roll after hitting enemy!" *lands on enemy, smash him, and rolls to reduce damage* "All enemies gone!"

Sorry for that long exchange but that's just how I see a rage. I think it means entirely focused on the battle. I don't think you can hold a conversation with a raging barbarian but I also do not believe standard combat actions are out of line for him either. To argue otherwise would only minimize the distinction between rage and the frenzy offered by the berserker path to the point that it's trivial and that cannibalizes a lot of flair for that path.


Sorry to ask, but what is the difference in that example between a fighter in combat and a barbarian in combat besides the screaming?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Sorry for that long exchange but that's just how I see a rage. I think it means entirely focused on the battle. I don't think you can hold a conversation with a raging barbarian but I also do not believe standard combat actions are out of line for him either. To argue otherwise would only minimize the distinction between rage and the frenzy offered by the berserker path to the point that it's trivial and that cannibalizes a lot of flair for that path.

your example is fine, but it doesnt include a barbarian standing back and shooting rage arrows the whole combat.

[Shining Wrath]

Especially, since 5th ed doesn't include the Composite bow of varying strength mods like 3.5. Though, I'm not an archer but I would think with a standard longbow that you could potentially pull it back a bit harder then others for a little more velocity.

... SNIP ...

Sorry for that long exchange but that's just how I see a rage. I think it means entirely focused on the battle. I don't think you can hold a conversation with a raging barbarian but I also do not believe standard combat actions are out of line for him either. To argue otherwise would only minimize the distinction between rage and the frenzy offered by the berserker path to the point that it's trivial and that cannibalizes a lot of flair for that path.

Some of the people at my D&D table actually are archers who engage in archery competitions, and a bow is a very person specific thing, where people of different heights have difficulty properly using each other's bows. A bow is designed to fire arrows of a certain length - the famous clothyard shaft - and a raging barbarian pulling the bow back two more inches pulls the arrow head past the rest on the bow, and can no longer aim. You want your arrows to be a little longer than the distance from your thumb of the hand that holds the bow to your chin.

Bows can be designed for different pull weights, though, which is where the composite bow comes in; it takes more force to pull the arrow back to its full draw, which is transmitted to the arrow when released. A barbarian archer would need two longbows, once for normal use, and another requiring greater strength to draw for use while raging. Nothing in RAW forbids that; it does seem a little odd, sort of "You fool! Now you see my final form, er, bow!".

As for the idea of a raging barbarian throwing a weapon as he charges toward a foe, that seems consistent with the tradition to me. But hanging back and throwing multiple weapons while not charging does not. YMMV. The remaining question is whether game mechanics should give him a bonus for throwing a weapon while charging into melee, and I dunno.

[Ralanr]

As for the idea of a raging barbarian throwing a weapon as he charges toward a foe, that seems consistent with the tradition to me. But hanging back and throwing multiple weapons while not charging does not. YMMV. The remaining question is whether game mechanics should give him a bonus for throwing a weapon while charging into melee, and I dunno.

I don't see why not. You'd be putting more force into the throw, so why not more damage?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The Charger feat lets you do a +5 damage bonus action melee attack or +5ft shove if you Dash. Unfortunately not compatible with a lot of things, or with any of the bonus action dashes, or with throwing things.

The houserule I was pondering was when throwing a weapon with the Attack action, you can choose to sacrifice one of your Extra Attacks to gain double damage dice, double proficiency mod, and double ability mod. All other modifiers are as normal.

I believe there will be rules for combining extra attacks into a single attack in the DMG.

[Sartharina]

No double proficiency mod.

[Ralanr]

No double proficiency mod.


I'm sorry, but do you mean double the mod over adding rage damage, or do not double the proficiency mod?

[MustacheFart]

Sorry to ask, but what is the difference in that example between a fighter in combat and a barbarian in combat besides the screaming?

That's a very valid point. What is the difference between a barbarian and a fighter other than screaming?

[MustacheFart]

Some of the people at my D&D table actually are archers who engage in archery competitions, and a bow is a very person specific thing, where people of different heights have difficulty properly using each other's bows. A bow is designed to fire arrows of a certain length - the famous clothyard shaft - and a raging barbarian pulling the bow back two more inches pulls the arrow head past the rest on the bow, and can no longer aim. You want your arrows to be a little longer than the distance from your thumb of the hand that holds the bow to your chin.

Bows can be designed for different pull weights, though, which is where the composite bow comes in; it takes more force to pull the arrow back to its full draw, which is transmitted to the arrow when released. A barbarian archer would need two longbows, once for normal use, and another requiring greater strength to draw for use while raging. Nothing in RAW forbids that; it does seem a little odd, sort of "You fool! Now you see my final form, er, bow!".

As for the idea of a raging barbarian throwing a weapon as he charges toward a foe, that seems consistent with the tradition to me. But hanging back and throwing multiple weapons while not charging does not. YMMV. The remaining question is whether game mechanics should give him a bonus for throwing a weapon while charging into melee, and I dunno.

Agreed. I was operating under the assumption that the bow wouldn't normally be pulled back to its full draw. Also carrying two bows around was standard practice for optimizers in 3.5. One for in rage and one for not in rage.

[Sartharina]

I'm sorry, but do you mean double the mod over adding rage damage, or do not double the proficiency mod?Doubling proficiency mod breaks the game's accuracy.

[Theodoxus]

Doubling proficiency mod breaks the game's accuracy.

I was under the impression he was talking strictly damage... but maybe it was to hit. Damage, I'm ok with - to hit, I agree with Sartharina

[Kyutaru]

Wouldn't a fighter have a problem in that encounter? Or a melee focused ranger? Or a paladin? If the barbarian couldn't take that, I doubt they could.

Fighters and Paladins have better damage avoidance. They could avoid taking the damage altogether while the barbarian effectively only has double his base hp. Avoiding taking serious critical hits can also prevent more damage than the barbarian's resistance, it's just one of those classic RPG cases of Dodge vs Mitigation.

[toapat]

That's a very valid point. What is the difference between a barbarian and a fighter other than screaming?

one of them doesnt become permanently incompetent as soon as enemies get the option to fly. the same problem is with paladins who also cant compete with cantrips once flight becomes needed unless they diplomance the DM about getting something more competent then a warhorse from find steed

[Ralanr]

one of them doesnt become permanently incompetent as soon as enemies get the option to fly. the same problem is with paladins who also cant compete with cantrips once flight becomes needed unless they diplomance the DM about getting something more competent then a warhorse from find steed

Couldn't a fighter who decides to mainly use melee weapons have that same problem? Or if a fighter didn't take the archery fighting style?

Edit: Nope, nope. Can't remember the fighter rules so I'm not even sure what I'm saying.

[Sartharina]

A fighter always has his martial competence and training with him. A barbarian's brain shuts down and goes strictly into 'combat-only' mode.

[Jon D]

Bleh... I am annoyed at a lot of the stuff with the barbarians, and feel like ranting.

Why can't Barbarians apply their rage and reckless attack bonuses to Strength-based Ranged Attacks? (And on that note, why can't Longbows have a quality like Finesse that lets people use STR instead of DEX for attacking with them? I want to play Jack Churchill, dammit!).

What is with the Shut-off on Rage? It's completely cut off an entire leg of the game by preventing Barbarians from taking advantage of the Rage to explore. Why does it have both, a time limit AND require being in combat? It really pisses me off that I can't go on a rampage through underbrush, climb up waterfalls, etc...

Jack Churchill went into battle with a sword, longbow and bagpipes, in addition to his rifle.

Jack was a Bard.

[toapat]

Couldn't a fighter who decides to mainly use melee weapons have that same problem? Or if a fighter didn't take the archery fighting style?

Edit: Nope, nope. Can't remember the fighter rules so I'm not even sure what I'm saying.

fighters can be better with a specific type of weapon, but they dont shut down once flight becomes a reasonable to assume enemy tactic even if they arent EK fighters. Barbarians cant hit anything over 50/90' away without throwing weapons or cross/bows or cantrips, none of which they can use any of their classfeatures with. I assume that flight like in 3.5 has Half climb/double dive speed, which means that a barb can only climb 40 feet during rage and then cant attack without charger.

[IAmTehDave]

fighters can be better with a specific type of weapon, but they dont shut down once flight becomes a reasonable to assume enemy tactic even if they arent EK fighters. Barbarians cant hit anything over 60' away without throwing weapons or cross/bows or cantrips, none of which they can use any of their classfeatures with. I assume that flight like in 3.5 has Half climb/double dive speed, which means that a barb can only climb 40 feet during rage and then cant attack without charger.

What can a melee-STR focused fighter do to a flying enemy that a Barbarian can't?

[toapat]

What can a melee-STR focused fighter do to a flying enemy that a Barbarian can't?

use their class features with javelins, cast the fly spell on themselves.

barbarians dont even get to end squares in flight with eagle totem, they have to begin and end on the ground.

[Sartharina]

Jack Churchill went into battle with a sword, longbow and bagpipes, in addition to his rifle.

Jack was a Bard.

No, he was a Barbarian, or at least Fighter. Bards largely suck at combat. Jack Churchill did not. He simply happened to have Bagpipe proficiency as well.

[Ralanr]

use their class features with javelins, cast the fly spell on themselves.

barbarians dont even get to end squares in flight with eagle totem, they have to begin and end on the ground.

Ok, how about a melee-STR focused fighter that doesn't choose the Eldritch knight path. They'd still have to carry those javelins with them. How many should they carry? Cause 2lb's stack.

[Sartharina]

Ok, how about a melee-STR focused fighter that doesn't choose the Eldritch knight path. They'd still have to carry those javelins with them. How many should they carry? Cause 2lb's stack.

They should carry a few. Battlemasters still can apply their battle mastery to Javelin attacks. Champions still benefit from their improved criticals on javelin attacks.

[toapat]

Ok, how about a melee-STR focused fighter that doesn't choose the Eldritch knight path. They'd still have to carry those javelins with them. How many should they carry? Cause 2lb's stack.

i dont think you understand how fighter works. Fighters dont inherently lock themselves into melee or ranged combat, they promote either through certain choices which they take, but never bar themselves from actually participating. Barbarians only get 1 extra attack, so 2d6+ (-8 - +14) doesnt compete with a fighter's native 4d6 + (-16 - +20) at 20

[Ralanr]

i dont think you understand how fighter works. Fighters dont inherently lock themselves into melee or ranged combat, they promote either through certain choices which they take, but never bar themselves from actually participating. Barbarians only get 1 extra attack, so 2d6+ (-8 - +14) doesnt compete with a fighter's native 4d6 + (-16 - +20) at 20

Ok. And that also allows them to cast flight on themselves?

[Sartharina]

Ok. And that also allows them to cast flight on themselves?

Eldritch knights can. Otherwise, even champions and battlemasters can grab a bow and, while not as strong as in their element, still bring all their class features to bear against a foe. The equivalent situation would be if a Fighter could only use Action Surge to take an extra Attack action with Melee Strength Attacks, and only expand crit range on Melee Strength Attacks, and only use maneuvers on Melee Strength Attacks, and only make third and fourth attacks with Melee Strength Attacks.

[Forum Explorer]

fighters can be better with a specific type of weapon, but they dont shut down once flight becomes a reasonable to assume enemy tactic even if they arent EK fighters. Barbarians cant hit anything over 50/90' away without throwing weapons or cross/bows or cantrips, none of which they can use any of their classfeatures with. I assume that flight like in 3.5 has Half climb/double dive speed, which means that a barb can only climb 40 feet during rage and then cant attack without charger.

I seriously think you are exaggerating how bad a level 20 barbarian with a bow is. It's not unreasonable for a Barbarian to have a Dex score of 14-16, particularly by level 20. And they have full proficiency. So they won't suffer a massive loss in accuracy.

Are they worse at range? Sure, no one is arguing that. But it's a far cry from being 'shut down'. Particularly since it's only a single fight.

[toapat]

Are they worse at range? Sure, no one is arguing that. But it's a far cry from being 'shut down'. Particularly since it's only a single fight.

"a single fight"

There is a single fight AT 20th level where the barbarian is competent. all other fights designed for that level involve permanent flight, The only other class denied flight is paladin, and that is only on no-budge DMs who dont let you improved the summons of Find Steed as the mounts get outdated (we dont have the math for that specifically yet but i assume Gryphons by 10th). Add on to this that all other classes except paladin are dealing 4dX damage at range, and barbarians with no-classfeatures javelins dont matter.

[Sartharina]

"a single fight"

There is a single fight AT 20th level where the barbarian is competent. all other fights designed for that level involve permanent flight, The only other class denied flight is paladin, and that is only on no-budge DMs who dont let you improved the summons of Find Steed as the mounts get outdated (we dont have the math for that specifically yet but i assume Gryphons by 10th). Add on to this that all other classes except paladin are dealing 4dX damage at range, and barbarians with no-classfeatures javelins dont matter.There are no combats that require permanent flight. But that aside - Barbarians aren't even great against the one level 20+ monster that doesn't fly, because it's bigger and bruisier than the barbarian.

[Forum Explorer]

"a single fight"

There is a single fight AT 20th level where the barbarian is competent. all other fights designed for that level involve permanent flight, The only other class denied flight is paladin, and that is only on no-budge DMs who dont let you improved the summons of Find Steed as the mounts get outdated (we dont have the math for that specifically yet but i assume Gryphons by 10th). Add on to this that all other classes except paladin are dealing 4dX damage at range, and barbarians with no-classfeatures javelins dont matter.

By 'all other fights' do you mean dragons and solars? Because those are the only two who can fly and have decent ranged attacks. Balors and Pit Fiends can also fly but they lose most of their damage since they do much more damage in close range.


There are no combats that require permanent flight. But that aside - Barbarians aren't even great against the one level 20+ monster that doesn't fly, because it's bigger and bruisier than the barbarian.

As the should be. If they weren't they'd just instantly die. You can't really have 'glass cannon' monsters at the really high levels.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

sorry, double damage dice, ability mod, and proficiency mod were purely to damage. it was basically collapsing two attack rolls into one, so any modifiers to attack should be identical and flat.

[toapat]

sorry, double damage dice, ability mod, and proficiency mod were purely to damage. it was basically collapsing two attack rolls into one, so any modifiers to attack should be identical and flat.

Proficiency is only to attack rolls and DCs. barbarians dont do double damage dice with range, and best case they deal (1d6+7)x2 (average: 21) with javelins where "1/6" paladins will be dealing (1d8+1d6+5)x2 (average: 26) at a much greater range.

"1/6": assuming all options in the book are equally likely for a given character to have in their progression of a single class, paladins have 2 major decisions: Str vs Dex, and which oath, assuming respectively 50/50 and 33/33/33 for each, and 1/6 paladins will have Oath of Vengeance for Hunter's Mark and Dex over Str. Comparatively, every barbarian can be assumed to have 24 str at lvl 20, and neither Path of the Berserker or Path of the Totem warrior grant ranged options.

[Giant2005]

What exactly is the issue? Is it just the 2-4 bonus damage per attack while raging? If so it is pretty inconsequential and I am having trouble relating to this "issue"
As for whether or not a ranged Barbarian is viable, they most certainly are. By going ranged a Barb can focus more on Dex and get himself a very impressive 22 AC. A Fighter would only get himself 20 AC but with an extra +2 to hit due to the Archery specialization. Fighters would also inflict double the Barb's damage by having double the attacks but a Barb would be receiving half the damage due to his rage.
+2 to hit vs -2 to be hit, double damage vs halved incoming damage. They are literally as balanced as they could possibly be without being entirely identical.

[Sartharina]

2-4 damage per attack when raging is roughly a 30% increase in damage per attack - 3.5 for Javelin, 3-5 for Ability modifier.

[Ralanr]

Can we possibly get a recap on the pros and cons of barbarians? So far the biggest con seems to be their lack of ranged abilities.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

sorry, double damage dice, ability mod, and proficiency mod were purely to damage. it was basically collapsing two attack rolls into one, so any modifiers to attack should be identical and flat.
Proficiency is only to attack rolls and DCs. barbarians dont do double damage dice with range, and best case they deal (1d6+7)x2 (average: 21) with javelins where "1/6" paladins will be dealing (1d8+1d6+5)x2 (average: 26) at a much greater range.

dur, correct. i even didn't add in the proficiency dice when i was mathing it out. I don't know why I put it in the post.

that's fine, the main point was to make melee thrown weapons more viable - spears, boulders, hand axes, and the like. Currently they suffer because the damage from one thrown attack isn't really worth losing the weapon in hand, and it's hard to do a thematic 'thrown kill'.

[Forum Explorer]

2-4 damage per attack when raging is roughly a 30% increase in damage per attack - 3.5 for Javelin, 3-5 for Ability modifier.

Sure, because they certainly want you to go melee with Barbarian, and thus melee focused abilities. Going pure ranged Barbarian is sub-optimal, but not useless weak. Going melee and just occasionally using a bow seems to do perfectly fine.

Overall this really does seem like complaining that you can't use a Barbarian's absolute peak of power in whatever way you'd like. And from what I recall, it's not even a nerf to how it used to be, but an improvement (admittedly I never played 4th, so maybe it has Rage how you like it)

I do agree that short ranged thrown weapons like Javelins and Axes should get the bonus, and I think most DMs would agree to that.

[Shining Wrath]

Jack Churchill went into battle with a sword, longbow and bagpipes, in addition to his rifle.

Jack was a Bard.

Jack Churchill is not yet playable in 5e, because he was Epic, and we don't have rule past level 20 yet :smallbiggrin:

[toapat]

By going ranged a Barb can focus more on Dex

no they cant, besides only one classfeature applying to ranged combat, barbarians have to be using str to gain rage benefits.

Also, remember, barbarians with Javelins best case hit a ceiling of 21 damage/round with ranged and only at lvl 20 if they already had a 20 str, when most cantrips are at 22 damage/round from lvl 16. For most of the barbarian's career their javelin damage will have been 17/round

[silveralen]

Can we possibly get a recap on the pros and cons of barbarians? So far the biggest con seems to be their lack of ranged abilities.

Pros: high HP
Easiest access to damage resistance
Flat scaling damage bonus
Easiest source of advantage in the game
Painful criticals
Master of athletics
Higher than average mobility

Cons: Middling AC
Has the most difficulty generating extra attacks of all the martial classes
Lacks ranged options
A decent portion of his damage comes in random uncontrolled spikes
Reckless attack makes him even easier to hit
Long rest dependent

[Hytheter]

Is their AC really middling? It doesn't seem like it'd be much worse than Fighters and Paladins, and can potentially be higher if I'm not mistaken.

[toapat]

Is their AC really middling? It doesn't seem like it'd be much worse than Fighters and Paladins, and can potentially be higher if I'm not mistaken.

theoretical highest potential AC in the game without multiclass, if you can find some access to mage armor such as through Magic Innitiate it gets to 25 AC, Barbarian/Monk have the maximum possible of 28 in mage armor

thing is though, its not worth the effort needed to jump through hoops to get there.

[Hytheter]

theoretical highest potential AC in the game, if you can find some access to mage armor such as through Magic Innitiate

...I'm pretty sure Mage Armour doesn't stack with Unarmored Defense. But even without it, I don't see how anyone else can get to the Barbarians max AC, with 24 Con, 20 Dex and a Shield. Unless I'm missing something.

(Not that I'd actually max dex, personally)

[toapat]

...I'm pretty sure Mage Armour doesn't stack with Unarmored Defense.

it may not intentionally stack with unarmored defense but they dont exclude eachother.

so the max for barb is 27 dex while max with barbarian/monk is 28.

[Ralanr]

it may not intentionally stack with unarmored defense but they dont exclude eachother.

so the max for barb is 27 dex while max with barbarian/monk is 28.

Are you sure? I thought it was just whichever ability gives the higher AC is the AC you use.

[silveralen]

Is their AC really middling? It doesn't seem like it'd be much worse than Fighters and Paladins, and can potentially be higher if I'm not mistaken.

Middling might be overstating it a bit, but it typically lags 1-2 points behind.

It is going to be 15-17 for most of the game, as barbarian really needs to be str based over dex based and con isn't going to be more than +4-+5 until level 20. Assuming he just goes with scale mail or half plate until he can boost con, he will only be only slightly behind if he puts a few points towards dex.

At level 20 he can beat full plate with max con and a 14 dex though, so it does switch around at level 20.


it may not intentionally stack with unarmored defense but they dont exclude eachother.

so the max for barb is 27 dex while max with barbarian/monk is 28.

Changing your armor class to 13+dex and changing it 10+con+dex do not stack. Mage armor doesn't give you a bonus to AC, it gives you a new way to calculate AC when unarmored, same as the class ability. That's why the are phrased as "your armor class is 13+dex modifier" not "add +3 to AC when unarmored". They are specifically designed to not stack.

[Hytheter]

it may not intentionally stack with unarmored defense but they dont exclude eachother.

They don't just give an AC bonus though, both Mage Armor and Unarmoured Defense give you a formula for AC. You can't just combine two formulas.

[Giant2005]

no they cant, besides only one classfeature applying to ranged combat, barbarians have to be using str to gain rage benefits.


There are three things that focusing on Str over Dex gives a bard: +2-4 damage while raging, Brutal Critical, and an extra +4 to their primary stat.
The Dex guy gets +2-3 more AC, initiative, and dex saves. Also, the magic items currently existing in 5e suit a Dex based fighter far more than a Str based one (And a low Str can be compensated for via magic items or Lycanthropy - a low Dex currently cannot be altered by any means). I'd be willing to bet that a level 20 Barb that was focused on Str wouldn't stand a chance against a level 20 Barb that was focused on Dex if they had each amassed as many currently available magic items as they can carry.

[toapat]

There are three things that focusing on Str over Dex gives a bard: +2-4 damage while raging, Brutal Critical, and an extra +4 to their primary stat.
The Dex guy gets +2-3 more AC, initiative, and dex saves. Also, the magic items currently existing in 5e suit a Dex based fighter far more than a Str based one (And a low Str can be compensated for via magic items or Lycanthropy - a low Dex currently cannot be altered by any means). I'd be willing to bet that a level 20 Barb that was focused on Str wouldn't stand a chance against a level 20 Barb that was focused on Dex if they had each amassed as many currently available magic items as they can carry.

when it comes down to it, the dex-barian is only gaining the advantage of better AC and better ranged options, while exchanging out their ability to be incredibly powerful in melee. Barbarians do not have Acrobatics as part of their skill proficiencies, but do have Athletics, combined with a maximum of 24 str and Great Weapon Master, the Str-barian is in a much more advantageous position because of grapple + shove with a greatsword at +8/2d6+21 x2