Melee vs ranged party proportion [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Jaryn

2019-05-15, 02:37 PM

nickl_2000

2019-05-15, 02:47 PM

So, if you have a preference on which would sound more fun you should go with that one.

If you don't, well an EK would be a nice fit into the party. A wizard bladesinger/Rogue Arcane Trickster would actually be a huge boon to the party. Then you can handle up close combat, you can blast, and you are a skill monkey (High Elf, Booming Blade as the High Elf Cantrip, level 1-2 Rogue for armor, skills, and expertise; 3-7 Bladesinger Wizard for Fireball, Bladesong and other goodies, then choose whatever you like from there).

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-15, 02:47 PM

It won't be a problem with some good understanding.

I'd say the perfect ratio of Melee:Ranged units should be around 3:2. And if you have less than that (with yours expected to be 1:2), then you might have to adapt a bit. With such a weak melee line, pick your poison. Do you:

Plan around enemies attacking you. (No longer ranged characters, risks losing Concentration)
Plan around making the Paladin take 100% of all the damage of the fight. (Risks death every fight)

Because those are your options. So come up with some solutions that'd work for what you're looking for. Maybe that means the Paladin picks up Tough, or maybe he picks a subclass that's designed to never die (Ancients). Maybe the Druid focuses on healing, and the Ranger occasionally does Two Weapon Fighting for when ranged combat isn't a valid strategy. So figure out what your teammates' plans are, and try to address this issue directly.

Jaryn

2019-05-15, 05:02 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-15, 05:08 PM

Jaryn

2019-05-15, 05:10 PM

nickl_2000

2019-05-15, 05:13 PM

Thank you both, that's pretty helpful. I think I shall lean towards melee - it just makes the party feel a little more balanced.

An Arcane Trickster / Bladesinger sounds very interesting, but a tad on the fragile side. I did actually contemplate the Bladesinger, but from what people were saying they sound much more caster than fighter. Can they hold up on the front line?

Yes, they can be fragile due to lower HP, but your AC can get pretty silly high when you are in bladesong. In bladesong
13 (mage armor) + Dex + Int. So, this is going to be around 18 or so. Then, you also get the shield spell, which can add an additional 5 to AC with a first level spell slot when needed. 23 AC is nothing to scoff at, plus your movement is increased to 40 ft. You can do some pretty solid hit and run tactics while in blade song. Add onto that the ability to disengage as a bonus action (or mobile) and you can really hit and run.

Now, this isn't a character that is going to hold the line with the Paladin, but you can do some solid melee damage and add some battlefield control with Booming Blade, blasting with Wizard spells, and utility with Wizard Spellbook ritual casting.

A full class Bladesinger is more of a caster than a melee fighter. At lower levels they are perfectly fine as a melee fighter though, or if you combine with with Rogue abilities they will do perfectly fine in combat.

The other option, from reading various threads on here, could be to go full on deception/sneak (rather than smart) and be a Hexblade Warlock. What are they like as front line fighters? As a class, Warlocks are probably the one I am least familiar with...

Hexblade certainly can stand up in combat with shields and medium armor. Another possible option to consider would be a melee cleric (Forge, Tempest, War, and to a lesser extent Order and Light). Clerics aren't hey healbots that they were in old editions. Between Spiritual Weapon, Spiritual Guardians, and Shield of Faith they can hold a line very effectively and still be full casters.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-15, 05:20 PM

The other option, from reading various threads on here, could be to go full on deception/sneak (rather than smart) and be a Hexblade Warlock. What are they like as front line fighters? As a class, Warlocks are probably the one I am least familiar with...

Front line Warlocks are kinda about hitting hard and fast. They deal tons of damage in a short amount of time, and they have to rely on tricks to survive in melee combat for extended periods of time. Things like Darkness + Devil's Sight, or Tomb of Levistus, are the kinds of things Warlocks use to survive in melee combat. They have more melee support than something like a Bladesinger, and have more consistent defenses.

You could say that a Warlock is a better frontliner, but a Bladesinger is a better controller.

Jaryn

2019-05-15, 05:21 PM

23 AC is nothing to scoff at, plus your movement is increased to 40 ft. You can do some pretty solid hit and run tactics while in blade song. Add onto that the ability to disengage as a bonus action (or mobile) and you can really hit and run.

Now, this isn't a character that is going to hold the line with the Paladin, but you can do some solid melee damage and add some battlefield control with Booming Blade, blasting with Wizard spells, and utility with Wizard Spellbook ritual casting.

A full class Bladesinger is more of a caster than a melee fighter. At lower levels they are perfectly fine as a melee fighter though, or if you combine with with Rogue abilities they will do perfectly fine in combat.

That does sound pretty interesting! I think if I go down this route, then it would definitely be the Rogue/Bladesinger multi-class rather than the straight Bladesinger. Might have a ponder over backstory. It does sound incredibly versatile.

nickl_2000

2019-05-15, 05:48 PM

That does sound pretty interesting! I think if I go down this route, then it would definitely be the Rogue/Bladesinger multi-class rather than the straight Bladesinger. Might have a ponder over backstory. It does sound incredibly versatile.

After I finish Dragon heist that will be my next character. Although I will only be doing 2 levels blade singer.

Also is you didn't see in my above post when I edited, check out the Cleric options.

Kyutaru

2019-05-15, 06:02 PM

From playing lots of tactics games, I would not recommend more than two melee that depend on 5-ft range. The movement and interference becomes extremely taxing in larger groups. Two melee are all you need to defend a hallway or support each other and can easily move around each other without provoking many attacks of opportunity.

However, you CAN have more melee in the party. Reach weapons are a thing. I usually want at least 1 reach weapon user accompanying my tanks and it's usually the squishy barbarian. The rest of the party kind of needs to be ranged just because they're the spell buffers and supporters. They don't wear armor.

Galithar

2019-05-15, 07:02 PM

... it's usually the squishy barbarian. ...

I'm having trouble with this. How are your party Barbarians built that they are squishy?

Do you just mean they don't have a 20+ AC as being squishy?

Potato_Priest

2019-05-15, 07:34 PM

I'm having trouble with this. How are your party Barbarians built that they are squishy?

Do you just mean they don't have a 20+ AC as being squishy?

Maybe in comparison to the other 2 frontline barbarians, you have 2 sturdy ones and one squishy one? Perhaps two moon Druid/barbarian multiclass characters?

In my experience, damage resistance is definitely more significant than even 5 or 6 points of AC once you get to level 5, making the barbarian decidedly less squishy than just about anything else.

Zuras

2019-05-15, 07:39 PM

In my experience, when you have only one melee combatant and a bunch of ranged attackers, your biggest problem is that the heavy armor Paladin is always clanking around making it impossible to surprise anything.

How many total party members will you have?

BW022

2019-05-15, 11:56 PM

...
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

You'd have to start by looking at your group. Do you use battle maps? Where is the setting? and Are you using store modules?

Realistically, if you are using "normal" modules and a battle map... nearly all encounters are at extremely short distances -- dungeons, caves, buildings, etc. Even "large" outdoor encounters are typically rarely more than 20x20 squares and most indoor encounters typically less than 8x8 squares. Most creatures can close within one or two rounds. Even in home campaigns, as a DM, I have to work to make an encounter even for ranged folks -- PCs are in a tower, fighting flying creatures, firing across a chasm, sea/ship encounters, outdoor plains, etc. Given this...

Indoors, often its fine having a single melee person to block if the combat area has a doorway, narrow passage, etc. However, in most encounters... it's actually pretty easy for enemies to simply walk around your 'tank' and end up forcing you in melee. Even in dungeons, they can be attacking from the rear, dropping, your front-line person can get incapacitated, etc. I'll also point out that even in narrow passages and doorways, you can end up with your ranged folks in the rear unable to hit anything because they can't see targets, are around corners, or end up firing into cover. The group might be forced to move forward anyway. Finally, I've seen things like darkness, fog, etc. wreak havoc on ranged heavy parties. All this then brings up the issue of how 'nerfed' your party is if they end up forced into a chaotic melee. A ranged rogue with disengage might be able to easily get back behind a fighter, a warlock might have a misty step spell, etc.

Personally, I've found that a party kind of needs a minimum of two melee folks to serve as 'blockers' in most situations. One might be enough if you are indoors a lot, good with scouting, and can plan where you are fighting... that might be fine, but in most cases you aren't so lucky and I've seen parties easily get ambushed and locked into positions where the 'tank' can't block everyone.

My advice... play what you want but... if you are ranged person in a group with limited number of melee folks... you need to be able to either get yourself out of melee and/or accept that you might be forced into melee and are able to deal with it yourself. Have your own healing, have some serious defensive spells, be willing/able to fight in melee, be willing to use stall/delaying tactics (like going defensive or disengaging, etc.), etc. and be don't complain that your aren't the massive damaging machine you planned in many combats. If a group looks light in melee, you might consider playing an off-tank type character -- an abjuration wizard, a bladelock, a mountain dwarf bard, etc. Such builds can often make you flexible in the offensive roll also -- i.e. teleport/move behind enemy lines and force their ranged folks into melee. However, if you are short melees... do lots of scouting and try your best to attack from areas where your melee character can block and take as many area control spells as you can.

DarkKnightJin

2019-05-16, 12:03 AM

Another possible option to consider would be a melee cleric (Forge, Tempest, War, and to a lesser extent Order and Light). Clerics aren't hey healbots that they were in old editions. Between Spiritual Weapon, Spiritual Guardians, and Shield of Faith they can hold a line very effectively and still be full casters.

I can confirm that Clerics, especially with access to heavy armor (From domain or starting Fighter as I did with mine) can serve as a tank/frontliner quite effectively.

We've played for 4 levels by now (started 3, hit 7th at the end of last session, w/ Milestone Leveling) and I can't recall if I've ever been the one to drop to 0hp in a fight. I've come close a few times, but I don't think I've ever had to make death saves with him yet.
Though I tend to forget about the "movespeed of affected creatures is halved" part of Spirit Guardians half the time. Or rather, forget to remind the DM about it. Which is a big part of how he can serve as a frontliner to keep the Warlock from eating dirt every other fight, allow the Monk to dart in and out without too much fear of retaliation, and the Ranger to plink away at his targets with relative impunity.

It's quite a lot of fun to play him.

A bit more on topic, I suppose: I can vouch for Eldritch Knight being a tanky MF as well. Of course, mine lucked into getting his mitts on some +1 Mithral Plate armor at 5th level, just before hitting 6th. That upped his AC to 20. 22 with a shield, and 27 with the Shield Spell.. He was a pain to hit.
But pretty intelligent, and a good frontliner.

MaxWilson

2019-05-16, 12:21 AM

I'm having trouble with this. How are your party Barbarians built that they are squishy?

Do you just mean they don't have a 20+ AC as being squishy?

IME, Barbarians are squishy inasmuch as they:

(1) Rely on Reckless Attack and two-handed weapons to deal damage, which offsets Rage resistance; and
(2) Are not Bear Totem, so against poison/psychic/fire/necrotic/etc. they are even squishier than a fighter thanks to no resistance + point #1; and
(3) Lose Rage when incapacitated; and especially
(4) Act recklessly, expecting to be invulnerable despite points #1-3.

Hobgoblins shooting arrows? Barbarian slowly evaporates (while doing pretty good damage at the same time).

Barbarian gets paralyzed by Hold Person, loses Rage, and still gets shot at by hobgoblin arrows? Barbarian implodes.

Galithar

2019-05-16, 12:35 AM

IME, Barbarians are squishy inasmuch as they:

(1) Rely on Reckless Attack and two-handed weapons to deal damage, which offsets Rage resistance; and
(2) Are not Bear Totem, so against poison/psychic/fire/necrotic/etc. they are even squishier than a fighter thanks to no resistance + point #1; and
(3) Lose Rage when incapacitated; and especially
(4) Act recklessly, expecting to be invulnerable despite points #1-3.

Hobgoblins shooting arrows? Barbarian slowly evaporates (while doing pretty good damage at the same time).

Barbarian gets paralyzed by Hold Person, loses Rage, and still gets shot at by hobgoblin arrows? Barbarian implodes.

So, yes, you mean they have a lower AC then a full plate S&B. The only thing that you said in 3 of your points is that when the things they have to make them tankier then a fighter are negated they have a lower AC. Though they do still have a slightly higher health pool. Reckless attack is a good ability but if you're using it when the advantage is far more valuable to the enemy then yourself it's the player that's squishy, not the Barbarian.

So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's a subjective experience due to how Barbarians at your tables have played. A GWM Barbarian that only uses reckless when the benefit is greater then the cost won't appear squishy. They can still GWM just as well as a fighter without it.

Jaryn

2019-05-16, 01:45 AM

How many total party members will you have?

We're going to be a party of 4, and yes a lot of the encounters may well be short range.

A cleric would likely be a very strong option - if I were to do that then I'd likely go Tempest as it looks fun and definitely capable of mixing it up - but I'm definitely feeling more of a calling towards the arcane for this character.

Kyutaru

2019-05-16, 01:52 AM

I'm having trouble with this. How are your party Barbarians built that they are squishy?

Do you just mean they don't have a 20+ AC as being squishy?

Per mention, I play a lot of tactics games. One of note is Low Magic Age which mimics the 5th edition rules. At the higher levels, AC is the determining factor for whether you're even allowed in melee range. The reason for this is enemies hit for 20+ dmg per successful hit and that Barbarian isn't going to survive very long when he's getting hit by every - single - attack. Even in straight 5th edition the highest enemies have attack bonuses around +17 which dwarfs the Barbarian's AC. So he's still going to take 20 dmg per hit, cut in half by Resistance, which is still going to add up over time especially when enemies get multiple attacks and legendary actions. Meanwhile, Sir Fights-a-lot is taking zero damage most turns because he's hiding behind a wall of steel. Elemental damage cones and bursts are irrelevant to the whole melee range discussion because they can hit you basically anywhere. Magic/ranged has that effect.

So yeah, from my personal experience in gaming both on and off the table, Barbarians are just an HP buffer that whittles down rapidly while actual heavily armored tanks have an Effective Health Pool significantly higher purely due to how much less likely they are to get hit. I personally don't like needing to heal the bugger every - single - turn and the encounters we face tend to be of the true to book kind -- meaning the DM will occasionally throw something much higher than your CR and facing ten enemies at once is fairly normal. It honestly feels like too many DMs undershoot combat difficulty and make things far too easy for the party.

Zuras

2019-05-16, 08:30 AM

Per mention, I play a lot of tactics games. One of note is Low Magic Age which mimics the 5th edition rules. At the higher levels, AC is the determining factor for whether you're even allowed in melee range. The reason for this is enemies hit for 20+ dmg per successful hit and that Barbarian isn't going to survive very long when he's getting hit by every - single - attack. Even in straight 5th edition the highest enemies have attack bonuses around +17 which dwarfs the Barbarian's AC. So he's still going to take 20 dmg per hit, cut in half by Resistance, which is still going to add up over time especially when enemies get multiple attacks and legendary actions. Meanwhile, Sir Fights-a-lot is taking zero damage most turns because he's hiding behind a wall of steel. Elemental damage cones and bursts are irrelevant to the whole melee range discussion because they can hit you basically anywhere. Magic/ranged has that effect.

So yeah, from my personal experience in gaming both on and off the table, Barbarians are just an HP buffer that whittles down rapidly while actual heavily armored tanks have an Effective Health Pool significantly higher purely due to how much less likely they are to get hit. I personally don't like needing to heal the bugger every - single - turn and the encounters we face tend to be of the true to book kind -- meaning the DM will occasionally throw something much higher than your CR and facing ten enemies at once is fairly normal. It honestly feels like too many DMs undershoot combat difficulty and make things far too easy for the party.

Um, what sort of ACs are your fighters packing that a +17 attack roll has issues with hitting it? I think the normal assumption is that against an AC tank, appropriate CR creatures should hit 1/3 of the time, while swarm creatures hit 1/4 or less of the time. Against a lower AC barbarian, that shifts to 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, so at my tables Barbarians are even against mid-Tier opponents, better against bosses (who almost always hit you anyway) and weaker against swarms.

In my games, an AC of above 23 is very difficult to achieve without burning resources (e.g. Shield spells). It sounds like your DM is letting Fighters break bounded accuracy with magic items. That’s fine, but it seems like the barbarian should be able to keep up if they are getting the same quality of magic item drops.

The difference between max Barbarian AC and max Fighter AC is only 2-Half Plate is 1 worse than Plate and Barbarians can’t get the Defense fighting style.

Guy Lombard-O

2019-05-16, 12:19 PM

MaxWilson

2019-05-16, 12:26 PM

So we're rolling up a party for a new campaign, and so far we have:

Dwarf paladin
Wood elf druid
Forest gnome ranger

We're well covered for exploration, and the paladin is reasonably competent at social things. I'm planning to take a character who is bright and slightly sneaky.

The question I have is this. Is it helpful to have a couple of characters who focus on melee in a party? In my previous campaign we were relatively well equipped in this area, but here the druid and the ranger are both planning on staying at range.

If a couple of characters are handy to get in the way of attackers, I'll probably lean towards a fighter (heading towards Eldritch Knight); if we can get by with one running interference I would contemplate a wizard (likely specialising in Abjuration).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

Your party already has plenty of melee capability. You've got a druid and a paladin already.

Druids are relatively poor at range but they are great summoners post-5th level. Make a ranged specialist who can do melee in pinch (e.g. Hexblade Sorlock with half-plate and shield) and have the druid summon animal meatshields when needed.

The ranger can do this too actually, at 9th level. And he's decent in melee also.

========================

So, yes, you mean they have a lower AC then a full plate S&B. The only thing that you said in 3 of your points is that when the things they have to make them tankier then a fighter are negated they have a lower AC. Though they do still have a slightly higher health pool. Reckless attack is a good ability but if you're using it when the advantage is far more valuable to the enemy then yourself it's the player that's squishy, not the Barbarian.

So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's a subjective experience due to how Barbarians at your tables have played. A GWM Barbarian that only uses reckless when the benefit is greater then the cost won't appear squishy.

Absolutely. I said this before, but point #4 (playstyle, expecting to be invulnerable) is the single biggest factor I think in why Barbarians are squishy IME. There's no inherent reason why a Barbarian couldn't be cunning and try to optimize both survivability and damage at the same time, but since fighters do that better I think players in the mood for that tend to play fighters instead. I imagine there are tables where that doesn't happen and where barbarians are played differently and are less squishy.

They can still GWM just as well as a fighter without it.

Well, almost as well. The Fighter will have an extra feat or higher Str (better to-hit), and Action Surge, and later on he's got an Extra Attack.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-16, 12:36 PM

Um, what sort of ACs are your fighters packing that a +17 attack roll has issues with hitting it? I think the normal assumption is that against an AC tank, appropriate CR creatures should hit 1/3 of the time, while swarm creatures hit 1/4 or less of the time. Against a lower AC barbarian, that shifts to 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, so at my tables Barbarians are even against mid-Tier opponents, better against bosses (who almost always hit you anyway) and weaker against swarms.

In my games, an AC of above 23 is very difficult to achieve without burning resources (e.g. Shield spells). It sounds like your DM is letting Fighters break bounded accuracy with magic items. That’s fine, but it seems like the barbarian should be able to keep up if they are getting the same quality of magic item drops.

The difference between max Barbarian AC and max Fighter AC is only 2-Half Plate is 1 worse than Plate and Barbarians can’t get the Defense fighting style.

This is my exact stance, too.

Due to the fact that the Barbarian cuts weapon damage in half, the Barbarian is balanced against a Fighter who is twice as hard to hit as the Barbarian.

So if the Barbarian has an 80% chance to be hit, the Fighter is just as tanky if the Fighter is hit with a 40% chance. If the Barbarian is hit 30% of the time, the Fighter should be hit 15% of the time.

Note that AC accounts for 5% increments. So assuming the Fighter has +4 more AC than the Barbarian (or is roughly a flat 20% less likely to be hit), this means that a Fighter is tankier than a Barbarian if the enemy has a >40% chance to hit the Barbarian.

So if the Barbarian in question is being hit 80% of the time, and has an AC of 15 (half plate, no modifier), a Fighter would need +8 more AC in order to be just as tanky against the creature in question. That's 23 AC.

A 23 AC Fighter, and a 15 AC Barbarian, are roughly the same tankiness against a creature that hits the Barbarian 80% of the time (and hits the Fighter 40% of the time). The difference is, I don't know too many parties where a Fighter has impossible levels of AC and the Barbarian is limited to standard equipment.

Ironically, the Barbarian is weakest against creatures that have a hard time hitting him. A creature that has a 50% chance to hit the 15 AC Barbarian would only have a 10% chance to hit the 23 AC Fighter. Even after the Barbarian Rages to halve the effectiveness of those hit attacks (50% effectiveness down to 25%), that's still 2.5x easier to kill than the Fighter (25% effectiveness against the Barbarian vs. 10% effectiveness against the Fighter).

MaxWilson

2019-05-16, 12:43 PM

Um, what sort of ACs are your fighters packing that a +17 attack roll has issues with hitting it?

Sounds like e.g. plate armor +2 + Defense Style + Shield Spell (AC 21 (26)) plus a source of disadvantage, like Protection From Evil or Holy Aura or an enemy restrained by a spell like Telekinesis. +17 will hit AC 26 with disadvantage just over 1/3 of the time, which is enough to make the fighter feel more durable even though he's burning Shield slots like crazy.

With nonmagical plate armor, +17 with disadvantage hits 49% of the time, which makes you feel significantly more fragile.

Tanarii

2019-05-16, 09:56 PM

I generally find that the fewest melee are needed in particular open environments, when ranged dominates, and particular tightly packed environments, when only so many melee get around an enemy, and few can form a line of combat.

Other than that a relatively even balance for longer lines, but actually being able to anchor them, seems to work best.

In a four person party you probably want 2 and use corridors and tight spaces a lot. Don't forget allies provide cover though, both to your squishes and to the enemies they're firing at.

Due to the fact that the Barbarian cuts weapon damage in half, the Barbarian is balanced against a Fighter who is twice as hard to hit as the Barbarian.
... provided it's a Bear Barbarian that never drops out of Rage.
An important qualifier.

Zuras

2019-05-16, 11:32 PM

We're going to be a party of 4, and yes a lot of the encounters may well be short range.

A cleric would likely be a very strong option - if I were to do that then I'd likely go Tempest as it looks fun and definitely capable of mixing it up - but I'm definitely feeling more of a calling towards the arcane for this character.

How much summoning is your Druid planning on doing? I ran through Storm King’s Thunder with a no-melee party (Bard, Rogue, Druid, Ranger and Archer Battle Master), using stealth to ambush and conjured animals to tank when we had to fight a standard battle. It worked pretty well.

I agree that a Cleric can do very well in melee, especially if using Spirit Guardians to slow enemies down and keep them from the back lines, but that doesn’t work so well if the Druid is summoning monsters in the middle of the fight, since you can only exclude targets when you cast it, not later.

If you want an arcane caster that can hang out with the Paladin, what about a Mountain Dwarf Abjurer? You can get medium armor or take a level in Fighter to get Heavy armor, then either hang out with the Paladin in front or support him from the middle/back depending on how squishy you feel at the time. With warcaster and Booming Blade, you have a decent way to keep them from rushing past you.

MaxWilson

2019-05-17, 10:34 PM

... provided it's a Bear Barbarian that never drops out of Rage.
An important qualifier.

Or loses initiative, or faces psychic damage (Shadow Demons, Githyanki, Star Spawn Seers, Soul Mongers). Not that that alters Man_Over_Game's basic point, but your point is good too and contributes to Barbarians' squishiness IME.

Galithar

2019-05-18, 12:40 AM

Or loses initiative, or faces psychic damage (Shadow Demons, Githyanki, Star Spawn Seers, Soul Mongers). Not that that alters Man_Over_Game's basic point, but your point is good too and contributes to Barbarians' squishiness IME.

I feel the problem is people are using the term 'squishy' differently. If the Barbarian keeps up with the fighter so long as his main class feature is not nullified or a specific damage type comes out he's not squishy in my book. He just may not be as good a tank as the Fighter.

So in my eyes the Fighter is tankier then the Barbarian in a number of situations. Not the Barbarian is squishy. Same thing different terms, but I definitely see where the 'squishy' Barbarian is coming from now.

MaxWilson

2019-05-19, 03:53 AM

I feel the problem is people are using the term 'squishy' differently. If the Barbarian keeps up with the fighter so long as his main class feature is not nullified or a specific damage type comes out he's not squishy in my book. He just may not be as good a tank as the Fighter.

IME he doesn't really "keep up with" the fighter in terms of durability, even when his Rage bonuses apply. Barbarians tend to die quite easily. Fundamentally the issue is that resistance per se isn't really that good. 50% of lots of damage = still lots of damage. This is compounded by playstyle issues when players act as though resistance really is good. The concept of "invulnerable raging warrior" makes promises that the game mechanics can't keep.

Zealot fixes that issue though, because Rage Beyond Death + Fanatical Focus = "invulnerable raging warrior" pretty well. I haven't seen any high-level Zealots in play but based on what I've seen with other barbarians, Zealots are the only type of Barbarian potentially worth taking all the way to 14th level, at which point you might as well go to 20th level I guess. (My house rules on negative HP would hurt Zealots a little bit, because you can't just heal 1 HP of damage and be fine when your Rage ends--if you're at -1000 HP when your Rage ends, you will die. But because Zealots are so easy to Revivify, even that probably wouldn't be a real problem.)

Tanarii

2019-05-19, 11:02 AM

50% of lots of damage = still lots of damage.
Yes, but the point people are making is 50% of twice as much damage is about the same damage.

This is of course highly variable depending on Barb AC vs Fighter AC and enemy hit attack bonus. Since we want to compare apples to apples though, medium armor Barb AC is probably only a point or two lower than than shield less heavy armor Fighter AC. It's granting advantage that makes the difference. If the enemy has 45% hit against the non-shield fighter, then that's say 75% by the barbarian, or under twice as much damage. If we compare to a shield fighter it's over 2.1, but when we normalize for d12+2 HD vs d10+2 HD, it's under 2 again.

If I'm looking at this right (and I can't be sure without some spreadsheets and graphs :smallamused:), it's not until low chances to get hit on the fighter side, typically comparing to a S&B fighter with a reckless Barbarian, and accounting for the larger HD, that the fighter pulls ahead.

Other than that it's all down to how much you're getting attacked relative to everyone else in the party.

MaxWilson

2019-05-19, 11:32 AM

Yes, but the point people are making is 50% of twice as much damage is about the same damage.

This is of course highly variable depending on Barb AC vs Fighter AC and enemy hit attack bonus. Since we want to compare apples to apples though, medium armor Barb AC is probably only a point or two lower than than shield less heavy armor Fighter AC. It's granting advantage that makes the difference. If the enemy has 45% hit against the non-shield fighter, then that's say 75% by the barbarian, or under twice as much damage. If we compare to a shield fighter it's over 2.1, but when we normalize for d12+2 HD vs d10+2 HD, it's under 2 again.

Sure, I agree. Barbarians that play cautiously can be about as durable as plate-armored Champion fighters, moreso against some foes.

But if I were designing a Barbarian to fulfill the fantasy concept of "rawr, I'll never die as long as I'm angry!" I'd give it increasing levels of damage resistance at higher levels. E.g. at 10th level, take 1/4 damage from normal weapons, 1/3 damage from magic weapons. At 20th level, 1/10 and 1/5. Etc. along those lines. That rewards continued investment in Barbarian, makes staying angry a major tactical consideration, and fulfills the fantasy concept that Barbarian players always seem to be looking for without actually making the barbarian literally invulnerable.

But 5e only has 50% resistance and immunity, nothing in between.

Tanarii

2019-05-19, 12:10 PM

Sure, I agree. Barbarians that play cautiously can be about as durable as plate-armored Champion fighters, moreso against some foes.
But the point is 50% resistance to weapons appears to be as good as Plate and Shield ... while the Barb is reckless attacking. If they stop doing that in a dangerous situation, it's significantly better.

If they aren't Raging, even if they stop recklessly attacking, then they're obviously worse off.

Edits: updated quote to show part that triggered my comment.
In a nutshell, I don't think Barbs need any improvement to resistance. Otoh I haven't exactly run much T3, and exactly zero T4.

MaxWilson

2019-05-19, 02:55 PM

But the point is 50% resistance to weapons appears to be as good as Plate and Shield ... while the Barb is reckless attacking.

It's not about as good--usually it's much worse. See LudicSavant's post upthread for one example. Edit: oh, sorry, that was in the other barbarian thread. It's post #45, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23919520&postcount=45).

If you DON'T Reckless Attack and you use a shield then it's maybe about as good, against many foes, but then your offense stinks compared to a fighter, especially in T3.

If you use good feats and tactics you can have good offense and defense even as a barb, but those same tactics work even better for fighters so why not play one? And not everyone knows those tactics anyway.

I would have designed barbs differently to make rage resistance scale better, so that T3 non-Zealot barbs don't get disappointed by the gap between promise and game-mechanical reality.

GrumpyHobbit

2019-05-19, 03:02 PM

well ime barbarians Always outlived the fighters because of resistance + better dex

now i'm playing in a grp with a half-orc zealot. were at lvl 3 now - only time he got knocked the **** out was due to a bad roll against paralysis from ghuls. and he will Keep becoming a better sponge with higher lvls.

a Point everyone seems to dismiss is - barbs are not supposed cancel out dmg, but beeing able to just take more than the enemy can...

Tanarii

2019-05-19, 10:26 PM

It's not about as good--usually it's much worse. See LudicSavant's post upthread for one example. Edit: oh, sorry, that was in the other barbarian thread. It's post #45, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23919520&postcount=45).
Yeah ... there's some unrealistic assumptions and mighty specific defensive builds going on there.

I said Barb vs Plate and Shield. That's AC 17 vs AC 20. If you compare offense to offense, you're talking AC 17 vs AC 18.

GrumpyHobbit

2019-05-20, 04:28 PM

Yeah ... there's some unrealistic assumptions and mighty specific defensive builds going on there.

...this…

i think its rather unfair to compare an pure offense build to a "oho i got the best AC ever" deff build.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-20, 04:49 PM

You don't even need to compare "offense to offense".

Just comparing 15 AC to 20 AC means that the Barbarian is just as tanky as the Fighter when fighting creatures that hits the (non-reckless) Barbarian 50% of the time. Assuming the enemy hits the Barbarian more than that (55% or higher), the Barbarian would actually be tankier than the Fighter (as long as you don't consider temporary buffs like Shield or Blur).

MaxWilson

2019-05-20, 05:12 PM

...this…

i think its rather unfair to compare an pure offense build to a "oho i got the best AC ever" deff build.

That's not a pure defense build.

But fine, how about comparing offense to offense?

How about comparing a level 9 Barbarian to the defense of a level 9 Sharpshooter EK when he's forced into melee? AC 20 + Shield/Absorb Elements still makes the Reckless barbarian look squishy, both against weapons and against elemental threats, and that's compared to a non-melee-specialized EK! If the EK has Alert feat on top of that (from his 6th level ASI) he cleans the Barbarian's clock, relatively speaking. Alert has both offensive and defensive benefits, is a plausible choice.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-20, 06:19 PM

That's not a pure defense build.

But fine, how about comparing offense to offense?

How about comparing a level 9 Barbarian to the defense of a level 9 Sharpshooter EK when he's forced into melee? AC 20 + Shield/Absorb Elements still makes the Reckless barbarian look squishy, both against weapons and against elemental threats, and that's compared to a non-melee-specialized EK! If the EK has Alert feat on top of that (from his 6th level ASI) he cleans the Barbarian's clock, relatively speaking. Alert has both offensive and defensive benefits, is a plausible choice.

I think using the EK for comparisons isn't exactly "fair". The Eldritch Knight might be able to do a lot of things (enhance mobility, increase defense, cast evocation spells), but the fact is that the most effective thing that they do, vs. any other fighter (hell, any other build), is increase their defenses.

To the point where, if you compared an Ancients Paladin or an Eldritch Knight, I'm not even sure which is tankier, yet people only pick the Ancients Paladin for one reason.

This is tacked onto the fact that a melee-specialized EK is likely not using a shield (to continue being able to cast Shield) and so probably isn't much tankier than a Dexterity EK. Comparing the generic Barbarian to the specialist Eldritch Knight is like comparing the generic Fighter to the specialist Bear Barbarian.

--------------

I think a more fair comparison might be to compare against any of the Rangers, Champion or Battlemaster Fighters, or any of the Monks. While many of these are MAD builds, so is the Barbarian (if he decides to care about AC).

LudicSavant

2019-05-20, 06:25 PM

EKs having access to Shield, at least one defensive buff, or the Defense style is fairly standard. I gave numbers for all three possibilities. I would not even consider it an unusually defense-focused build, as I could push that defense much higher if I wanted to (as MaxWilson correctly recognized).

That's not a pure defense build.

Indeed.

i think its rather unfair to compare an pure offense build to a "oho i got the best AC ever" deff build.

You seem to be assuming that the Reckless GWM Bar-bear-ian has a notable offensive advantage here. I would not be so sure of that.

https://anydice.com/program/15c3d

Additionally, I should note that in the post Max referenced, I was responding to someone else bringing up the case of EK vs Barb.

MaxWilson

2019-05-20, 07:46 PM

This is tacked onto the fact that a melee-specialized EK is likely not using a shield (to continue being able to cast Shield) and so probably isn't much tankier than a Dexterity EK.

I don't understand the point you're making. When I gave you a non-melee-specialized EK, why bring up melee-specialized EK? (And why do you think an EK couldn't use a shield and cast Shield, anyway? Not like he can't just sheathe his sword at the end of his turn, if he expects to need to cast Shield. You can't use your reaction for opportunity attacks and Shield simultaneously anyway. Then he can summon his sword with his bonus action, make some attacks, and sheathe it again with his object interaction.)

Would you mind restating your objection in different words?

I think using the EK for comparisons isn't exactly "fair". The Eldritch Knight might be able to do a lot of things (enhance mobility, increase defense, cast evocation spells), but the fact is that the most effective thing that they do, vs. any other fighter (hell, any other build), is increase their defenses.

If you're saying the EK is the tankiest Fighter, well, I agree. He's also the best at consistent DPR due to native access to Magic Weapon spell (Arcane Archer can bypass weapon resistance but doesn't get +1 to hit/damage), and this particular EK is Sharpshooter-specialized, so it's still a pretty fair comparison IMO. You can pick the tankiest Barbarian type (Bear?) if you like, but it's still going to be squishier than the EK and often either squishier or lower-damage or both than other fighter specialties like Battlemasters, Samurais, and Cavaliers.

If you want to say that a Barbarian can be about as durable as a Purple Dragon Knight, well, I won't argue with you. That seems possible, at least in Tier 1-2. ;-)

You don't even need to compare "offense to offense".

Just comparing 15 AC to 20 AC means that the Barbarian is just as tanky as the Fighter when fighting creatures that hits the (non-reckless) Barbarian 50% of the time. Assuming the enemy hits the Barbarian more than that (55% or higher), the Barbarian would actually be tankier than the Fighter (as long as you don't consider temporary buffs like Shield or Blur).

But Rage is also a temporary buff! (And a relatively easy one to lose--one round of Command (Flee) or Hold Person will do it.)

How do you justify neglecting the EK's limited-use temporary buffs but not the Barbarian's? Especially when the EK has more spells than the Barbarian has Rages.

Again, this isn't even a defense-oriented EK, it's an offensively-oriented Sharpshooter who just happens to have been forced into melee for a sewer-crawl or an underwater adventure or something.