Reckless Attack and Why It's Great

[Easy_Lee]

The barbarian has two roles in the party: deliver and receive damage. That's why well-built barbarians consistently top the damage charts, or come in second at least. That's also why the class has the most HP.

However, it's hard to get mobs to attack you. Abilities which force mobs to do something are few and far between, usually requiring concentration. If you want a monster to attack the large, hard to kill barbarian instead of the squishy wizard, the monster needs incentive.

Enter reckless attack. In exchange for increasing your own damage output, you decrease your defense and thus increase the likelihood that a mob will attack you. This is just plain great. A mob with a barbarian in his face now has three reasons to attack the barbarian: he's close, he's an immediate and major threat, and he's easier to hit. That means the barbarian is getting hit instead of the squishy wizard, which means that the barbarian is doing his job. After all, the mob had to attack somebody.

Just thought I'd share that insight. A lot of people view disadvantage from reckless attack as a bad thing for the barbarian. But, in my opinion, it's actually good in a party setting. Otherwise, why would anyone bother attacking the hulking barbarian?

[MeeposFire]

Gets along well with the bear ability that makes enemies want to target you as well.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I wouldn't say the advantage granted to attackers is a good thing by itself - otherwise you'd have front liners deliberately decreasing their AC. I would agree, however, that the downside of Reckless Attack is heavily mitigated for the reasons you state... so long as Mr. Barbarian can stay in the fight.

[MaxWilson]

Eh. Proper wizards in 5E aren't that squishy.

Besides, by the same token, Rage is bad, because it makes the Barbarian a less-attractive target for monsters. I don't buy that argument.

Reckless Attack is fine, but so is any other source of advantage: Devil's Sight + Darkness, Mounted Combatant, Faerie Fire, prone enemies, etc. Some are better than others.

[Alejandro]

Eh. Proper wizards in 5E aren't that squishy.

Besides, by the same token, Rage is bad, because it makes the Barbarian a less-attractive target for monsters. I don't buy that argument.

Reckless Attack is fine, but so is any other source of advantage: Devil's Sight + Darkness, Mounted Combatant, Faerie Fire, prone enemies, etc. Some are better than others.

You're definitely right there. Our party wizard (level 13) is almost as durable as I am (fighter/paladin.) :D

[krugaan]

Eh. Proper wizards in 5E aren't that squishy.

Besides, by the same token, Rage is bad, because it makes the Barbarian a less-attractive target for monsters. I don't buy that argument.

Reckless Attack is fine, but so is any other source of advantage: Devil's Sight + Darkness, Mounted Combatant, Faerie Fire, prone enemies, etc. Some are better than others.

imagine this fun metagame scenario...

Fred the Fighter: "Why are you wearing leather armor, Bob? I thought barbarians get unarmored defense."

Bob the Barbarian: "well, because I'm a sort of tank, and wearing leather lowers my AC, thus making me a more effective target and helping me fulfill my role."

Fred: "but, wouldn't the presence of armor make it less likely that the target would attack you? I mean, I would think that a naked person is easier to hurt than one with armor on."

Bob: "that's why all those female barbarians wear skimpy armor. That whole bikini-armor-providing-equivalent-ac is a myth perpetuated by us. Unintelligent monsters don't know about the myth, see? They just see a soft skinned humanoid for chomping, and thus they attack us. Intelligent monsters think the myth is true, but they know that we actually get a HIGHER AC for being UNARMORED, and the bikini armor thing nullifies our unarmored bonus, so they attack us too. See? More skin is win."

Fred: "that's ... that's genius! It's like plots within plots."

Bob: "Skinception."

Dave the DM: "From this point forward, I'm ruling that your bikini briefs count as clothing and not AC 10 armor."

Bob: "Fine, I'll take that +5 bonus to my AC. Skinception!"

Fred: (rips of clothes and armor) "SKINCEPTION!"

Willy the Wizard: "SKINCEPTION!"

Dave: "oh holy hell."

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I've learned to not use reckless attack when I'm surrounded by enemies. Giving advantage to 3 enemies with multi-attack all wailing on me is a recipe for disaster, even when raging. I only use reckless attack when I'm adjacent to one enemy.

[Safety Sword]

Otherwise, why would anyone bother attacking the hulking barbarian?

Higher meat per kill ratio?

[MaxWilson]

Higher meat per kill ratio?

Mmmm. Did this just become the "Edible Player Characters" thread?

[Specter]

I've learned to not use reckless attack when I'm surrounded by enemies. Giving advantage to 3 enemies with multi-attack all wailing on me is a recipe for disaster, even when raging. I only use reckless attack when I'm adjacent to one enemy.

True story. It's great if you're focusing one guy who already has great chances at hitting you, but against hordes who otherwise would have a hard time hitting you it's a death trap.

[MrStabby]

I've learned to not use reckless attack when I'm surrounded by enemies. Giving advantage to 3 enemies with multi-attack all wailing on me is a recipe for disaster, even when raging. I only use reckless attack when I'm adjacent to one enemy.

I used to think like this, and you do have to be careful but the more reckless I became with reckless attack the better it became. You go reckless... you kill one on your turn, your team mates help you out with another and then of the proposed 3 you are down to just the one. Its certainly risky to invoke it vs multiple opponents, but i don't think its always wrong.

[Safety Sword]

Mmmm. Did this just because the "Edible Player Characters" thread?

Barbarian. The other other other white meat.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I used to think like this, and you do have to be careful but the more reckless I became with reckless attack the better it became. You go reckless... you kill one on your turn, your team mates help you out with another and then of the proposed 3 you are down to just the one. Its certainly risky to invoke it vs multiple opponents, but i don't think its always wrong.

Don't think it's always wrong, certainly if you are up against some really weak enemies. But I was up against enemies that had multiple attacks that are not going down with one hit. That's a bad situation for reckless attack.

[R.Shackleford]

The barbarian has two roles in the party: deliver and receive damage. That's why well-built barbarians consistently top the damage charts, or come in second at least. That's also why the class has the most HP.

However, it's hard to get mobs to attack you. Abilities which force mobs to do something are few and far between, usually requiring concentration. If you want a monster to attack the large, hard to kill barbarian instead of the squishy wizard, the monster needs incentive.

Enter reckless attack. In exchange for increasing your own damage output, you decrease your defense and thus increase the likelihood that a mob will attack you. This is just plain great. A mob with a barbarian in his face now has three reasons to attack the barbarian: he's close, he's an immediate and major threat, and he's easier to hit. That means the barbarian is getting hit instead of the squishy wizard, which means that the barbarian is doing his job. After all, the mob had to attack somebody.

Just thought I'd share that insight. A lot of people view disadvantage from reckless attack as a bad thing for the barbarian. But, in my opinion, it's actually good in a party setting. Otherwise, why would anyone bother attacking the hulking barbarian?

Well, barbarians have a third option. The Barbtroller.

Due to Bear and Wolf totem, the Barbarian can forgo damage and focus on keeping an enemy or two away from allies.

Reckless Attack is great for Barbtrollers who want to keep enemies near by or focused on them. It is a very subtle aggro feature, one that doesn't force an enemy to attack you but they really really really want to.

Grapple or Climb onto a creature as a wolf totem and keep attacking the creature to keep your rage going? Yes. Not only will you be annoying as hell but the creature will gain advantage (unless you restrain it, then neutral) on attacks? Why wouldn't it attack you. You also give allies advantage while you are attached to the creature.

Same deal for the most part on the Bear Totem barbarian. Except their ability to kill you isn't as effective.

Reckless Attack is a great direct damage feature, but it also helps with other aspects of combat.

[JakOfAllTirades]

True story. It's great if you're focusing one guy who already has great chances at hitting you, but against hordes who otherwise would have a hard time hitting you it's a death trap.

This is my favorite thing about Reckless Attack; the ability to decide whether to use it on each turn, based on the state of play. And unlike so many other class features, I never have to worry about running out of them.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

This is my favorite thing about Reckless Attack; the ability to decide whether to use it on each turn, based on the state of play. And unlike so many other class features, I never have to worry about running out of them.

Word......

[Giant2005]

Protecting a squishy by becoming even squishier than that squishy isn't really a good idea. It doesn't decrease the chances of a member of your team being dropped in a fight; it increases it.
It would only be a good idea if you thought that squishy staying on his feet would be much more useful to the team than you staying on your feet.

[Arial Black]

What if your multiclass Barbarian/Warlock has armour of agathys, and enemies actually hurt themselves when they hit you, and the THPs granted by the spell last twice as long because you only take half damage while raging?

[Giant2005]

What if your multiclass Barbarian/Warlock has armour of agathys, and enemies actually hurt themselves when they hit you, and the THPs granted by the spell last twice as long because you only take half damage while raging?

The problem is that you can only cast it once per battle due to Rage preventing you from casting more spells. You are better off using Stoneskin or Investiture of Stone for your Resistance needs if you want to maximize AoA (they also have the benefit of stacking with Heavy Armor Mastery too, which is something that can't be done with Rage).

[Tenmujiin]

What if your multiclass Barbarian/Warlock has armour of agathys, and enemies actually hurt themselves when they hit you, and the THPs granted by the spell last twice as long because you only take half damage while raging?

iirc you can't concentrate while raging.

[Arial Black]

Armour of agathys doesn't require concentration (so Rage won't end it), lasts one hour (so can be cast well before combat starts), lasts twice as long (because of Damage Resistance), and when it is gone you can start to use the THPs you earn from your Fiend Pact.

[Easy_Lee]

Armour of agathys doesn't require concentration (so Rage won't end it), lasts one hour (so can be cast well before combat starts), lasts twice as long (because of Damage Resistance), and when it is gone you can start to use the THPs you earn from your Fiend Pact.

Silly as it is, I believe Crawford or someone has stated that temporary hp is supposed to apply before resistances. From the chapter on combat: "Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage."

I believe temporary HP were ruled to count as a magical aura. But this is just one more area where the rules of 5e are unclear, as just what the hell counts as a magical aura? Not all sources of temporary HP are magical.

Anyway, pardon the aside. Just wanted to say that it's debatable.

[Giant2005]

Silly as it is, I believe Crawford or someone has stated that temporary hp is supposed to apply before resistances. From the chapter on combat: "Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage."

I believe temporary HP were ruled to count as a magical aura. But this is just one more area where the rules of 5e are unclear, as just what the hell counts as a magical aura? Not all sources of temporary HP are magical.

Anyway, pardon the aside. Just wanted to say that it's debatable.

Are you sure you aren't getting confused with Arcane Ward?
I know he ruled that way regarding Arcane Ward, but I have never heard of him ruling that way with Temporary Hit Points.

[Easy_Lee]

Are you sure you aren't getting confused with Arcane Ward?
I know he ruled that way regarding Arcane Ward, but I have never heard of him ruling that way with Temporary Hit Points.

The original discussion was with arcane ward. However, I'm unsure if that applies doubly to other sorts of magical damage absorption. If only arcane ward, that seems like an arbitrary nerf to abjurer wizards. If all temporary hit points, it's a nerf to what otherwise would be an intelligent combo.

Regardless, I think it's dumb and I don't rule that way. Consider a creature with AC from scales, which also provide resistance to fire. Arcane ward would somehow be above the scales for fire resistance, but also below them when it came to regular attacks (deflected by AC).

[Giant2005]

The original discussion was with arcane ward. However, I'm unsure if that applies doubly to other sorts of magical damage absorption. If only arcane ward, that seems like an arbitrary nerf to abjurer wizards. If all temporary hit points, it's a nerf to what otherwise would be an intelligent combo.

Regardless, I think it's dumb and I don't rule that way. Consider a creature with AC from scales, which also provide resistance to fire. Arcane ward would somehow be above the scales for fire resistance, but also below them when it came to regular attacks (deflected by AC).

I actually considered a buff to Arcane Ward, but that is mainly because I have no real interest in Arcane Ward other than in niche builds which the ruling enables. That niche build basically being Arcane Ward + Armor of Agathys as just another means of making AoA last longer. That wouldn't work if Arcane Ward didn't come first in the order of operations.

[MaxWilson]

The original discussion was with arcane ward. However, I'm unsure if that applies doubly to other sorts of magical damage absorption. If only arcane ward, that seems like an arbitrary nerf to abjurer wizards. If all temporary hit points, it's a nerf to what otherwise would be an intelligent combo.

Regardless, I think it's dumb and I don't rule that way. Consider a creature with AC from scales, which also provide resistance to fire. Arcane ward would somehow be above the scales for fire resistance, but also below them when it came to regular attacks (deflected by AC).

Arcane Ward is explicitly written to be different than HP or THP. When something hits an Arcane Ward, it isn't hitting a character. E.g. there is no concentration check required for spells if an Arcane Ward absorbs all the damage.

THP are the other way around. You do get hit and take damage and have to make a concentration check; but the damage comes out of your THP first.

[R.Shackleford]

Arcane Ward is explicitly written to be different than HP or THP. When something hits an Arcane Ward, it isn't hitting a character. E.g. there is no concentration check required for spells if an Arcane Ward absorbs all the damage.

THP are the other way around. You do get hit and take damage and have to make a concentration check; but the damage comes out of your THP first.

Technically when something is hitting HP or THP it isn't hitting the character... Well, at least it doesn't have to mean that.

Yay HP rules!

[Cybren]

Technically when something is hitting HP or THP it isn't hitting the character... Well, at least it doesn't have to mean that.

Yay HP rules!

The point









Your post

[Theodoxus]

Higher meat per kill ratio?

Jesse: "I told you to serve God"
Odin: "I am, I'm serving the God of Meat!"

God I love Preacher.

[Tanarii]

Yup. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you are a Barbarian and you're not using Reckless Attack because it's "disadvantage when you're outnumbered is too dangerous", you're doing it wrong. There are some niche cases, like almost being dead anyway, or having all 3 of the encounter's high relative CR monstrosities with multiattack on you alone. But they're not common. Except of course when they are. Damn DM-specific variabilities. :smallamused:

[RulesJD]

Arcane Ward is explicitly written to be different than HP or THP. When something hits an Arcane Ward, it isn't hitting a character. E.g. there is no concentration check required for spells if an Arcane Ward absorbs all the damage.

THP are the other way around. You do get hit and take damage and have to make a concentration check; but the damage comes out of your THP first.

That's not true. The difference is between being "hit" and "damage".

ARCANE WARD
Starting at 2nd level, you can weave magic around yourself for protection. When you cast an abjuration spell of 1st level or higher, you can simultaneously use a strand of the spell's magic to create a magical ward on yourself that lasts until you finish a long rest.... Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead. lf this damage reduces the ward to 0 hit points, you take any remaining damage.

Armor of Agathys
If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage.

So yes, you're still getting "hit" which is extremely important because it means you can Shield and avoid all of the damage.

[MaxWilson]

That's not true. The difference is between being "hit" and "damage".

ARCANE WARD
Starting at 2nd level, you can weave magic around yourself for protection. When you cast an abjuration spell of 1st level or higher, you can simultaneously use a strand of the spell's magic to create a magical ward on yourself that lasts until you finish a long rest.... Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead. lf this damage reduces the ward to 0 hit points, you take any remaining damage.

Armor of Agathys
If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage.

So yes, you're still getting "hit" which is extremely important because it means you can Shield and avoid all of the damage.

Point taken. You know what I meant, but thanks for correcting the record.

[R.Shackleford]

Point taken. You know what I meant, but thanks for correcting the record.

The pun is a nice touch.

[DracoKnight]

The pun is a nice touch.

It reminds me of a blacksmith barbarian character I once saw: every point he made only showed off his sharp wit.