What kinds of encounters would favor Fighter, Ranger, and Barbarian PCs?

[Yora]

From what people are saying about them, fighter and ranger appear to be considered weak classes. But in my experience with RPGs most characters are better than others in something and it's usually possible to set up situations where a usually weak class is at a big advantage.

In what kind of situations would fighters, rangers, and barbarians (and rogues?) be most effective and have an edge over wizards and the like?

[Ninja_Prawn]

In what kind of situations would fighters, rangers, and barbarians (and rogues?) be most effective and have an edge over wizards and the like?

Fighters and rogues are at their best on long days with lots of encounters. They have a lot of consistent, passive abilities that don't need to be recharged via resting. Both of them are also pretty good at HP damage, which means they fall short in less-direct (and often more efficient) ways of ending encounters.

Barbarians are the best tanks in the game. I haven't heard many people say it is a "weak class," to be honest. I guess if you're playing a game that doesn't feature much physical danger (including traps, drowning chambers and falls from height, which barbarians should also be well-placed to handle), they won't have much chance to shine.

Rangers have been improved a lot by the UA changes. They're flexible, durable and particularly good against hordes of monsters. To some extent, the ranger's 'time to shine' will be determined by what other classes are being played; I'm playing in a game with a ranger and he's our second-best archer (behind the warlock), our second-best tank (behind the fighter) and our second-best healer (behind the cleric). So he fills in wherever we need the most back-up in any given encounter. Definitely earns his keep.

[Senjou]

I would say the encounter that favours the fighter and the barbarian, and to a certain extent ranger, I believe is a strong single non flying monster, maybe with wis save proficiency. They sport higher dpr compared to most magic classes as long as they can focus on something

[djreynolds]

From what people are saying about them, fighter and ranger appear to be considered weak classes. But in my experience with RPGs most characters are better than others in something and it's usually possible to set up situations where a usually weak class is at a big advantage.

In what kind of situations would fighters, rangers, and barbarians (and rogues?) be most effective and have an edge over wizards and the like?

That's the issue with the fighter, the barbarian has much of what I want out of a fighter right there. And I often multiclass fighter and rogue.

You would have to construct a scenario where you just cannot long rest and are hounded. Being pursued perhaps by an army where the fighter and rogue and barbarian and ranger have to set up ambushes of there own and break contact.

Another idea, is to have everyone begin as a fighter so they all of have some short rest abilities. I often see the fighter as the base class, and then you would gravitate to the other classes.

[Tanarii]

fighter and barbarians excel at two things: top tier damage; damage not being (too much) on a limited resource.

Unless your DM is not going out of his way to present you with a nova-friendly 5e D&D day, ie 3 Deadly Encounters instead of 5-6 Medium/Hard encounters, then they're plenty balanced. Against even longer adventuring days they generally have staying (offensive) power due to less resources.

Also these two classes, along with Paladins, usually act as a HP 'soak'. They take more of the total HP dished out to the party than others. If that's not the case, then they also have more defensive staying power for longer adventuring days, in that they'll still have HPs while others are running out.

Rangers are a different beast entirely. They are skirmishers, like Rogue and Monks. But with a touch of the warrior in them: more HPs, multiple attacks, all weapons, medium armor. And like Monks and Rogues, they excel when their skills/features come into play (typically out of combat), and in combat when they can easily apply their chosen skirmishing tactic (ie single target damage, mob damage, zone control).

Edit: really what it boils down to is: How frequent are rests? If they're under player control or frequent, any class that recharges lots of resources on a rest becomes more valuable. Especially if they're under player control, you'll see a tendency for long rest casters to nova, and to want to rest when they run low on resources. If they're forced to push on, they learn to pace themselves better, and these classes become more balanced with them. (At least, at lower levels.)

[MrStabby]

Have encounters in unusual places. Environment makes a huge difference.

If progress in a dungeon needs spider climb or fly OR great jumping distance then you are eating caster's spell slots and their concentration.

If you put it in a place where their concentration will be tested regularly (PHB suggests a wave breaking over a character will force a concentration save so on the deck of a ship is a good one) then you push casters towards a narrower spell selection.

Illusions are a great tool for bringing out the most in non-resource using classes - triggering spell use for nothing.

Bad Things attracted by noise are also a nice tool that favours non casters and martial classes not packed in plate mail.

[Malifice]

You would have to construct a scenario where you just cannot long rest and are hounded.

Something every DM should turn his mind to during the week when prepping for the session. 'What time constraints are there to the current mission?'

9/10 there should be something like 'If the PCs dont rescue the princess by midnight/ recover the macguffin/ stop the BBEG or whatever [bad thing happens/ good thing doesnt happen/ they fail] hanging over the PCs heads.

From there, enforcing the 6-8 encounter adventuring day, with enough time for 2-3 short rests before the clock hits midnight and everyone turns into pumpkins is a piece of cake.

I still, to this day, see so many DMs that dont do this and get frustrated when their campaigns turn into boring games of rocket tag and quit.

[LordVonDerp]

Something every DM should turn his mind to during the week when prepping for the session. 'What time constraints are there to the current mission?'
Yeah, though obviously for most situations that won't make sense.



9/10 there should be something like 'If the PCs dont rescue the princess by midnight/ recover the macguffin/ stop the BBEG or whatever [bad thing happens/ good thing doesnt happen/ they fail] hanging over the PCs heads.
Time pressures like that only really make sense on a scale of multiple days to weeks.



From there, enforcing the 6-8 encounter adventuring day, with enough time for 2-3 short rests before the clock hits midnight and everyone turns into pumpkins is a piece of cake.
6-8 encounters per day is still a lot, and doesn't leave much time for other stuff.



I still, to this day, see so many DMs that dont do this and get frustrated when their campaigns turn into boring games of rocket tag and quit.

That's a different issue.

[Malifice]

Yeah, though obviously for most situations that won't make sense.

Yes they do.

Examples (here are 10 you can use, and variations of the first three can be re-used over and over again):

1) NPC has been captured by lizard folk. Needs to be saved by dawn or she get eaten/ sacrificed
2) NPC needs PCs to recover macguffin so he can present it to the King on his inauguration at midday tomorrow.
3) BBEG intends to use macguffin to summon powerful demon, destroying the PCs home. Needs to be stopped by midnight or else everyone dies.
4) Rival group of NPC adventurers are after the same macguffin as the PCs. If they get it first, the PCs dont get paid
5) PCs are trapped in a dungeon on a desert island. They know their ship will leave in 3 days time. If they cant escape by then and get to the ship, they'll be marooned.
6) A plague is sweeping the town. The PCs are hired to find a cure before it wipes out the town, recovering 3 ingredients from Darkwood forest.
7) A flying castle of the Dragon lords has appeared out of town. The local mayor hires the PCs to inflitrate it before it flies off and learn its secrets
8) The PCs find themselves in a siege, working through the night to save the keep (HoTDQ anyone?)
9) The PCs are captured and must find the escape before their guards are alerted to their presence.
10) The evil artifact the PCs have found must be destroyed before [time] by throwing it in the fires of the volcano from where it was forged. In addition, servants of its creator are hunting the party making rest difficult.

Want 10 more?


Time pressures like that only really make sense on a scale of multiple days to weeks.

No they dont. See above. Or watch almost any action movie ever. Arnie had 24 hours to save his daughter from the evil dictator in Commando. Luke didnt have a chance for a long rest while infiltrating the Death star, rescuing Leia, surviving the trash compactor, several combat encounters with storm troopers on the detention block and elsewhere, a space battle with Tie Fighters, getting the data on the Death Star back to the Rebels, and blowing up the thing just before it destroyed Yavin.

I mean, he probably got a short rest in there once he got back to Yavin during the briefing. That was about it.

Action movies are almost always framed as a race against time, with the heroes prevailing at the 11th hour against all odds. Because not doing so is boring as bat ****.

Why should your campaign and adventures be any different?


That's a different issue.

No its not. Encounter frequency and rest pacing is directly tied into class and encounter balance. Failing to police the adventuring day via time constraints (and environmental constraints) in a game based on resource management (which differs from class to class) like DnD is the DM throwing those concepts out the window and permitting rocket tag and class imbalance.

The 5 minute AD isnt ever the players fault. Its the DMs.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, though obviously for most situations that won't make sense.They do in dungeons. At least for smallish ones.

Not always so much in wilderness adventures. Which is why, generally speaking, until you get close to the dungeon you can just skip the wilderness encounters. Unless they're potentially lethal by themselves. And when you get close, you can either go straight to the dungeon, run the outside encounters first as a sub-set of the 6 encounters, or have the outside encounters be their own adventuring day. Now change 'dungeon' to 'adventure site' and 'outside' to 'nearby' and it makes perfect sense for most D&D adventures.

Now if you're running an a-typical game of D&D that doesn't have these kinds of adventures, you'll need to modify your rest system to match your adventuring day requirements. Which is why the DMG has two rest variants : one for significantly less encounters per actual in-game day, and one for more.

Edit: And of course, if these don't work for you either, modify them further. Or just go full abstract and automatically trigger a mechanical rest (with or without 8 hr time) whenever the group has encounter XP = adventuring day limit.

[gfishfunk]

6-8 encounters per day is still a lot, and doesn't leave much time for other stuff.

I disagree: it is a lot for a session, but not a lot for an adventuring day. 1 in-game day does not need to be a single session. My players are currently on session 3 of a single day where a lot is going on mechanically, battle-wise and rp-wise.

[Malifice]

They do in dungeons. At least for smallish ones.

Not always so much in wilderness adventures. Which is why, generally speaking, until you get close to the dungeon you can just skip the wilderness encounters. Unless they're potentially lethal by themselves. And when you get close, you can either go straight to the dungeon, run the outside encounters first as a sub-set of the 6 encounters, or have the outside encounters be their own adventuring day. Now change 'dungeon' to 'adventure site' and 'outside' to 'nearby' and it makes perfect sense for most D&D adventures.

Now if you're running an a-typical game of D&D that doesn't have these kinds of adventures, you'll need to modify your rest system to match your adventuring day requirements. Which is why the DMG has two rest variants : one for significantly less encounters per actual in-game day, and one for more.

Edit: And of course, if these don't work for you either, modify them further. Or just go full abstract and automatically trigger a mechanical rest (with or without 8 hr time) whenever the group has encounter XP = adventuring day limit.

Heck there is nothing wrong with a single encounter adventuring day from time to time in any event. You can even dial up the difficulty knowing the party will be hitting it at full strength.

Most encounters are anticipated to happen in a structured adventuring locale, featuring something resembling a dungeon with a half dozen or more combat encounters and a few traps scattered about... and more often than not, a monologing BBEG smoking a rather long cigarette and twirling his mustache while belittling the PCs at the end. Or Orcus, whomever floats your boat.

Thats kind of the default assumption and the usual structure of most adventures ever published to date.

I mean you can run DnD as a game of social intrigue and throw this assumption the game pivots around out the window, but dont complain when it all goes out of kilter a bit (or falls flat) mechanically.

[Malifice]

I disagree: it is a lot for a session, but not a lot for an adventuring day. 1 in-game day does not need to be a single session. My players are currently on session 3 of a single day where a lot is going on mechanically, battle-wise and rp-wise.

And OTOH, sometimes weeks or months pass during a single session.

It boils down to DMs finding tracking resources from session to session annoying, and find it easier to just long rest everyone at the conclusion of the session.

[Waffle_Iron]

Heck there is nothing wrong with a single encounter adventuring day from time to time in any event. You can even dial up the difficulty knowing the party will be hitting it at full strength.

Most encounters are anticipated to happen in a structured adventuring locale, featuring something resembling a dungeon with a half dozen or more combat encounters and a few traps scattered about... and more often than not, a monologing BBEG smoking a rather long cigarette and twirling his mustache while belittling the PCs at the end. Or Orcus, whomever floats your boat.

Thats kind of the default assumption and the usual structure of most adventures ever published to date.

I mean you can run DnD as a game of social intrigue and throw this assumption the game pivots around out the window, but dont complain when it all goes out of kilter a bit (or falls flat) mechanically.

Yep, Malifice has the right of it.

Another option we've used is that overland travel makes short rest = 8 hours and long rest = 1 week, but during dungeons it's the normal SR = 1 hour, LR = 8 hours. It's not simulation focused, it's gamey as heck, but it can keep the tension in the game that keeps it interesting.

[Yora]

I like the idea of allowing Long Rests only in the safety and comfort of taverns and towns. (While spending your loot,if you want a Sword & Sorcery touch.) But I think for that you'd have to give all spellcasters the ability of wizards and druids of the land to regain some spells once per day on a short rest.
Even with only one or two encounters per day, spellcasters would still have to show restrain or they'll quickly find themselves with only two or three spells per day on longer expeditions.

In earlier editions the main time pressure was wandering monsters. Which could get very hard but would gain the party only very small amounts of XP because they carry almost no treasure on themselves on their patrols or prowls. Every wandering monster would only drain resources for negligible return.
Doesn't really work when fighting is the main source of XP (or the random encounters are all easy enough to be no actual threat to not threaten the scripted plot).

[Malifice]

Yep, Malifice has the right of it.

Another option we've used is that overland travel makes short rest = 8 hours and long rest = 1 week, but during dungeons it's the normal SR = 1 hour, LR = 8 hours. It's not simulation focused, it's gamey as heck, but it can keep the tension in the game that keeps it interesting.

I often hand-wave short rests (the party have just dealt with 2 or 3 encounters and are looking pretty sick) down to a quick map check, binding of wounds, sip of water and re-breather for a few minutes.

I considered using the 'gritty realism' variant on my current campaign (but having exhaustion be recovered on a short rest overnight). Its perfect for hex crawls, but as this was a more episodic linear campaign (Im running Age of Worms) it wasnt needed.

On that note, its shocking how easy it has been in AoW to enforce the 6-8 adventuring day paradigm. I also ran the party through AD+D modules White plume mountain, and the Lost island of castanamir and they were both dead easy to police as well (white plume mountain they had 4 hours till dawn when Keraptis would return, to loot the dungeon and retrieve the three weapons, and for Lost Island they got stuck in the dungeon and had three days to find their way out before getting marooned on the island. With the latter I statted up 18 encounters and let them wander around the teleportation maze, resting as much as they wanted... throwing the odd random encounter at them if they short rested too much. From there, it was up to them how much they pushed themselves to locate the exit and escape).

[Zman]

The best way is the grind. Either multiple encounters, or multi-part encounters. Basically, you need to make sure the casters have expended their spell slots and the passive abilities and outright toughness wins the day.

Alternatively using a rest variant that makes long rests harder to come buy will naturally do this for you. Is the Casters need to conserve spell slots then the Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers really start to shine. As do short rest dependent Warlocks.

[Malifice]

I like the idea of allowing Long Rests only in the safety and comfort of taverns and towns. (While spending your loot,if you want a Sword & Sorcery touch.) But I think for that you'd have to give all spellcasters the ability of wizards and druids of the land to regain some spells once per day on a short rest.
Even with only one or two encounters per day, spellcasters would still have to show restrain or they'll quickly find themselves with only two or three spells per day on longer expeditions.

In earlier editions the main time pressure was wandering monsters. Which could get very hard but would gain the party only very small amounts of XP because they carry almost no treasure on themselves on their patrols or prowls. Every wandering monster would only drain resources for negligible return.
Doesn't really work when fighting is the main source of XP (or the random encounters are all easy enough to be no actual threat to not threaten the scripted plot).

My 'random' monsters are either 1) pre planned encounters, or 2) used to keep the pacing going, to either stop them resting too much, or to push them onwards.

I pretty much roll a dice behind the screen, ignore the result and pretend to look something up... and then either shake my head, look concerned for the players, and just throw whatever encounter I planned at them as a 'random' encounter, or sigh and mention they were lucky... this time.

They still haven't cottoned on, and its working a charm.

Its an oft forgotten part of being a DM. The showmanship.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Even with only one or two encounters per day, spellcasters would still have to show restrain or they'll quickly find themselves with only two or three spells per day on longer expeditions.

Counterpoint: cantrips actually do something now. And all the full casters that aren't wizards have at least one other interesting thing they can do.

[Malifice]

Counterpoint: cantrips actually do something now. And all the full casters that aren't wizards have at least one other interesting thing they can do.

Scrolls certainly move from 'trash' to 'treasure' when they turn up in hoards as well.

[Vogonjeltz]

From what people are saying about them, fighter and ranger appear to be considered weak classes. But in my experience with RPGs most characters are better than others in something and it's usually possible to set up situations where a usually weak class is at a big advantage.

In what kind of situations would fighters, rangers, and barbarians (and rogues?) be most effective and have an edge over wizards and the like?

Don't let "people" fool you. Fighters are the single strongest combat class in the game. Rangers are no slouches either. The complaints have nothing at all to do with their ability to easily win combats, they're all about the "feel" of the subclass. Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians all have very strong combat abilities and they are the toughest classes within the game.


That's the issue with the fighter, the barbarian has much of what I want out of a fighter right there. And I often multiclass fighter and rogue.

Barbarians don't have much in the way of ranged ability, and Rage is suspectible to Crowd control. Fighter has better all-rounder tools.


6-8 encounters per day is still a lot, and doesn't leave much time for other stuff.

That's maybe 6-16 minutes of a day. Unless your encounters are lasting drastically more than 10 rounds each? For perspective, if you had 8 encounters and each one lasted 50 rounds, the entire combat for the day wouldn't even take an hour.

[Sigreid]

Encounters with lots of low level mobs favor the fighter as their extra attacks make it easier for them to spread the love easier than barbarians and rangers that get modifiers to their lower number of attacks. This only comes in to play at relatively high level though.

[MeeposFire]

Encounters with lots of low level mobs favor the fighter as their extra attacks make it easier for them to spread the love easier than barbarians and rangers that get modifiers to their lower number of attacks. This only comes in to play at relatively high level though.

Actually I find rangers to be more suited for mook control. They get a number of abilities in multiple sub classes that allow them to be pretty good at hurting a group. Fighters have to wait to level 20 to get more than the ranger does in that regard (assuming the ranger has built himself at all to do this) when just attacking and rangers have other things like spells which can boost affecting many targets.

I find that fighters are better concentrating on one target. They are better at multiple targets offensively than the paladin and barbarian though in the cases of the barb they are not as good defensively in most cases (most of the time I think the resistance from barb helps more against a large group of enemies than a probably slightly better AC).

[djreynolds]

Is this related to your Conan thread, because I like it.

[Sigreid]

Actually I find rangers to be more suited for mook control. They get a number of abilities in multiple sub classes that allow them to be pretty good at hurting a group. Fighters have to wait to level 20 to get more than the ranger does in that regard (assuming the ranger has built himself at all to do this) when just attacking and rangers have other things like spells which can boost affecting many targets.

I find that fighters are better concentrating on one target. They are better at multiple targets offensively than the paladin and barbarian though in the cases of the barb they are not as good defensively in most cases (most of the time I think the resistance from barb helps more against a large group of enemies than a probably slightly better AC).

Fair enough on the ranger comment. I haven't played one yet. As far as barb resistance, with mooks, I think at higher level less overkill means fewer mobs faster which probably balances the resistance out pretty well. This discounts the Champion survivor ability because as a really (I think excessively) high level of the ability and the general attitude that Champions are "boring" makes it a one off.

[BW022]

In what kind of situations would fighters, rangers, and barbarians (and rogues?) be most effective and have an edge over wizards and the like?

Repeated Encounters Per Day Waves of creatures, dungeons where you can't rest, etc. Basically run them out of spell slots.

Trickery/Unexpected Encounters Illusions, traps, fake enemies, etc. designed to cause casters to blow high-level spell slots.

Counterspelling, Anti-magic, Immunity Creatures who can counterspells, fight in anti-magic zones, or who have immunity to a lots of types of damage. A wizard could easily go through multiple spells before finding something to damage them. Silence zones. etc.

Social or Legal Restrictions Cities which ban or limit magic, fights in crowds, fights with prisoners around the enemies, etc. Fights where you are trying to subdue the person -- say a dominated noble, etc. Forests where the treants attack anyone using fire spells or damaging the vegetation. Fighting in cavern full of poisonous spore plants which react to any area spells, etc.

Stealth Missions involving stealth. Spell casting with verbal components give away the show as might flashy spells which are visible in the distance.

Unusual Terrain Fighting while mounted, windstorms, fog, darkness, while running across small boats, underwater, etc. These may limit casting or ability to target creatures.

Duels Duels, challenges, etc. which have rules such as no spells.

[MaxWilson]

From what people are saying about them, fighter and ranger appear to be considered weak classes. But in my experience with RPGs most characters are better than others in something and it's usually possible to set up situations where a usually weak class is at a big advantage.

In what kind of situations would fighters, rangers, and barbarians (and rogues?) be most effective and have an edge over wizards and the like?

Large numbers of widely-dispersed foes at range. E.g. sixty hobgoblin archers mounted on horses.

Magic tends to be extremely short-ranged (120' or less, 150' for a Fireball, and the very occasional long-range spell like Meteor Swarm) and inefficient unless an AoE. If the hobgoblins keep their distance from each other (50'-100' between horses, like cars on a freeway) the fighters will end up killing easily three or four times as many enemies as the wizards do.


Barbarians are the best tanks in the game. I haven't heard many people say it is a "weak class," to be honest. I guess if you're playing a game that doesn't feature much physical danger (including traps, drowning chambers and falls from height, which barbarians should also be well-placed to handle), they won't have much chance to shine.

Pure Barbarians are a weak and front-loaded class. Pretty much all of their good stuff happens by level 5. A Barbearian 3/Fiend Bladelock X winds up being about as good of a Barbarian as a Barbarian is, and an infinitely better warlock to boot.

[djreynolds]

Barbarians may have a decent dex score, maybe 14 or 16. I mean they can use a bow effectively.

Yes they are better with thrown weapons, but its not crazy to have a bow and some arrows handy.

Are barbarians the best tank? Resistance is very good.

Uncanny dodge is only once a reaction and defensive duelist is one melee attack only. And the shield spell, thought awesome, is still a resource.

But they are vulnerable to spells such as fear, charm, psychic, and banishment.

I think its the combination of reckless attack and rage, that makes a barbarian draw agro. You are forced to deal with this raging madman clobbering you.

But this barbarian, because he is recklessly attacking, opens him up for attacks by his enemies with advantage. And the enemy is drawn and almost suckered in by this, and they hit and he takes half damage.

The paladin who just landed a big smite on someone... you might run away from him.

The first time an EK throws up the shield spell, I may not attack him now. Or I might just pelt him from afar and eat away his spell slots.

The rogue was just there, killed my buddy and is gone.

The barbarian is still in your face, and because you now have advantage to hit him, looks like something you want to hit.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Pretty much all of their good stuff happens by level 5.

Fair comment. I would argue that this isn't necessarily a problem, because it doesn't stop people from taking barbarian levels, and a lot of campaigns never get to really high levels anyway. Especially in Yora's case, since they favour level caps anyway.

[Herobizkit]

I would suggest looking back to 4e's "battlegrounds as encounters" style of making fights. If you're gonna have one big fight a day (or, you know, 3-6 skirmishes spaced over a small area), make the area memorable. Put in lots of obstacles for cover and to limit/direct movement, have some fun interactive set pieces that can change the "arena" (like sticky tar, or a river, or bones that are difficult terrain) or make for some swashbucker-esque shenanigans (like, say, cutting the rope on a makeshift catapult, or a bannister someone can 'grind' for some extra jump movement).

[Tanarii]

Pure Barbarians are a weak and front-loaded class. Pretty much all of their good stuff happens by level 5. A Barbearian 3/Fiend Bladelock X winds up being about as good of a Barbarian as a Barbarian is, and an infinitely better warlock to boot.
Barbarian side:
Requires Cha (very MAD, since you already want Max Str/Con and 14 dex)
-2 HP / level
3 level delay in Extra Attack
No level 6+ path features
-1 or more rages per day starting @ 6th
No Feral Instinct @ 7th
No Relentless Rage @ 11th
No persistent rage @ 15th
3 level delay in ASI, -1 across career

Warlock side
Can't use concentration spells or spell cast in 3 battles / day
3 level delay in extra attack equivalent
3 level delay in new spell slot level
3 level delay in invocations
3 level delay in ASI, -1 across career

So no, this build is neither about as good as a barbarian nor better than a warlock. It can do a bit of both, but it's not better than either.

[MaxWilson]

Barbarian side:
Requires Cha (very MAD, since you already want Max Str/Con and 14 dex)
-2 HP / level
3 level delay in Extra Attack
No level 6+ path features
-1 or more rages per day starting @ 6th
No Feral Instinct @ 7th
No Relentless Rage @ 11th
No persistent rage @ 15th
3 level delay in ASI, -1 across career

Warlock side
Can't use concentration spells or spell cast in 3 battles / day
3 level delay in extra attack equivalent
3 level delay in new spell slot level
3 level delay in invocations
3 level delay in ASI, -1 across career

So no, this build is neither about as good as a barbarian nor better than a warlock. It can do a bit of both, but it's not better than either.

Analyzing a tradeoff by listing only cons and ignoring pros strikes me as not very intellectually honest.

You've already listed all the cons, so here are the offsetting pros: +22 temp HP per kill plus Armor of Agathys V up to four times per short rest (25 temp HP, inflicts 25 HP on enemies per hit) more than makes up for the difference in HP and the loss of Relentless Rage. You also get resistance to one element (e.g. Force, to cover the Barbearian gap, or you could just pick something normal like Slashing damage to conserve Rages and/or let you cast spells instead of Raging) and a 1/short rest +d10 to saves and ability checks, usable after you see the roll.

Yes, you're more MAD. But you wind up being about as good of a Barbarian. You have 3 rages per day, Reckless Attack, Extra Attack, and lots of HP to go with your damage resistance.

BTW, you're wrong about the delay in Extra Attack. Typically you'd wind up delaying Extra Attack by one level, because it goes Barbarian 1 - Warlock 5 - Barbarian 2 - Warlock whatever, with Barbearian 3 slotted in wherever it makes sense based on how often you are seeing elemental damage types. The Barbarian 3 level isn't ultimately very important, it's just better than Warlock 18.

Final comment: you don't have to be a better warlock than a pure warlock to be infinitely better at warlocking than a barbarian.

[Tanarii]

Analyzing a tradeoff by listing only cons and ignoring pros strikes me as not very intellectually honest.Yeah, I realized I fell into the trap of assuming both sides get the pros for a multiclass character. I was doing some weird comparison of what the multiclass character would have gotten compared to himself, and thus only thinking in terms of what he lost on each side, and writing off what he gained as stuff he was getting anyway.

I don't know what I was thinking there. OTOH now I'm not sure what you're trying to claim makes a Barbarian a Barbarian, and why this build is better at it. (Edit: and why if it does, a warlock isn't already better at Barbarianing than a Barbarian.)


BTW, you're wrong about the delay in Extra Attack. Typically you'd wind up delaying Extra Attack by one level, because it goes Barbarian 1 - Warlock 5 - Barbarian 2 - Warlock whatever, with Barbearian 3 slotted in wherever it makes sense based on how often you are seeing elemental damage types. The Barbarian 3 level isn't ultimately very important, it's just better than Warlock 18.When I read Class1 # / Class2 X, I always read it as meaning taking the first class to #, then continuing to wherever in the second. My mistake.


Final comment: you don't have to be a better warlock than a pure warlock to be infinitely better at warlocking than a barbarian.Ha! :smallamused: