Are barbarians boring in combat?

[Rfkannen]

So my last couple characters have all been casters or half casters, but I have a character idea in my head that would definitely be a barbarian, but I am worried that it will be boring. I have grown very used to having choices during combat, what spell to cast, weather to cast a spell, ect. But barbarians don't really have choices, your main choice is weather or not to use reckless attack, and I feel the answer to that is usually yes.

What do you think? Are barbarians fun in combat even without many different options? Do they have more options than I think?

[NecessaryWeevil]

I'd suggest that as powerful melee combatants, barbarians have some choices (where to stand, who to attack, whether to grapple/push or do something else or attack), but whether those are *meaningful* choices depends more on the DM to create tactical complexity, whereas casters can perhaps create that themselves.

[LudicSavant]

So my last couple characters have all been casters or half casters, but I have a character idea in my head that would definitely be a barbarian, but I am worried that it will be boring. I have grown very used to having choices during combat, what spell to cast, weather to cast a spell, ect. But barbarians don't really have choices, your main choice is weather or not to use reckless attack, and I feel the answer to that is usually yes.

What do you think? Are barbarians fun in combat even without many different options? Do they have more options than I think?

My personal opinion is that classes with more options tend to be more fun.

This is of course entirely subjective. It depends on what kinds of fun (https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/) you like.

[Zhorn]

I don't think it's a case of different classes being more or less fun that other classes, just the fun to be had is found in different styles of play.

If you don't like asking about the details of the room, piecing together the narrative description of a dungeon environment, and solving puzzles; then a non-combat focused dungeon won't be fun for you. It doesn't mean the dungeon itself is unfun.
Same with social encounters. Bargaining, persuading, fishing for insight, turning phrases, etc. If you only like to roll dice, then RP encounters are not for you. Again, not unfun, just a different type of fun that you don't like.

Dice based game play vs non-dice based gameplay.

Comparing a barbarian to a wizard in combat is like that. The attitude you bring in and what YOU can pullout out of the class is where the enjoyment is.
Barbarian aren't about complex problem solving, but direct problem solving.

And when in doubt about what options you have, just remember D&D is a a lot more free-form in what you can do compared to a programmed computer game. Getting creative with a limited toolset can be just as fun as creativity with an expansive toolset.

[Merudo]

Ancestral Guardian Barbarian with either reach weapons or the mobile feat leads to some strategic combat: you'll want to "tag" the biggest enemy in the room with your power while staying out of their own reach.

[AttilatheYeon]

Ancestral Guardian Barbarian with either reach weapons or the mobile feat leads to some strategic combat: you'll want to "tag" the biggest enemy in the room with your power while staying out of their own reach.

Or a thrown weapon, like a dwarven thrower.

[Pex]

I suggest you play a bear totem (3rd level choice) or zealot. This gives the freedom of not caring about being attacked. With bear totem you take half-damage from everything except psychic damage, effectively doubling your hit points. You are very hard to be put down. With zealot you can be revivified and later raised from the dead for free. Therefore it doesn't matter if you die. It's barely an inconvenience. Either way it's a stress reliever in play allowing you to get into the bad guys' faces and pummel them. You're hacking and slashing about the battlefield. You can wear medium armor or go the (nearly) naked route if you'd like the laugh. However, you don't have to play as a dumb, stupid barbarian. Your character may be ignorant of knowing things for lack of education, but he knows battle tactics as well as don't need to attack every life form you see. You don't attack when the party is negotiating.

[Contrast]

With zealot you can be revivified and later raised from the dead for free. Therefore it doesn't matter if you die. It's barely an inconvenience.

Note: You will be putting a lot of strain on the parties healing resources if you do this.

I agree with the general point that martials are a much more relaxing playstyle though. Playing a caster optimally is hard. Playing a martial optimally is pretty easy.


My experience is that you need to find an other way of enjoying the game that isn't the tactical spell selection of playing a caster. I have enjoyed playing a barbarian by taking a few extra seconds to describe the physicality of how I'm doing what I'm doing. Take the time you would otherwise have taken to thumb through your spell choices/descriptions to instead describe how you stand there booming in laughter as you overpower the enemy and break through their flimsy parry.

I think I generally enjoy playing casters more but if I had to tell someone a story about a cool thing a character of mine had done I would definately describe the time my barbarian had leaped on a flying skeletal roc as it swooped down at us, rode it up high in the air while whaling on it, killing it mid-flight, falling, slamming into the ground, standing right back up and then doing it again to another other, falling, slamming into the ground and standing up and dusting myself off and still having more than half my HP.

[Chaosity]

Depents a bit on the dm tbh
If the dm puts in lot of enviromental stuff like fighting on rooftops or fires and stuff like that it can be fun and creative to use those enviromental hazards as weapons with grapples and shoves

If you constantly fight in a "white square room" then i find most martial classes pretty dull as well

[Morty]

Having played alongside a barbarian before, I'm inclined to say yes, they are. You can take hits and deal hits like a pro, but that's all you're ever going to do. Your choices mostly boil down to which enemy you're going to get close to in order to beat them up.

[Spiritchaser]

I’m going to put in another vote for ancestral guardian combined with some way to be distant from whatever you hit. There are a bunch of ways to do this, with 3 levels of echo knight being by far my favourite.

Take sentinel

Maybe even pick a race with a fear power (leonine or Dragonborn with feat) full disclosure, I’ve never tried this but it looks like an interesting idea!)

If you make your barb into a debuffer/controller, it’s going to be plenty interesting.

[LudicSavant]

I’m going to put in another vote for ancestral guardian combined with some way to be distant from whatever you hit. There are a bunch of ways to do this, with 3 levels of echo knight being by far my favourite.

Take sentinel

Maybe even pick a race with a fear power (leonine or Dragonborn with feat) full disclosure, I’ve never tried this but it looks like an interesting idea!)

If you make your barb into a debuffer/controller, it’s going to be plenty interesting.

I've got an Ancestral Echo build in my sig thread =)

[Unoriginal]

I don't think they're boring, but kind of fun one get from playing a physical powerhouse, where the tension is mostly on if your swing will land and how many enemy moves you can take, is very different from the kind of fun you get from selecting a specific spell to use and seeing if the effects work.

Not everyone finds fun in the same things.

[Spiritchaser]

I've got an Ancestral Echo build in my sig thread =)

I’ve read it, it’s a very solid baseline. I personally would pick a race with Darkvision for a character like this but that does delay sentinel.

I submitted a build for throwdown 4 back in... June? based loosely on a character in a campaign I’m running.

They are probably the most consistently tactically interesting fighter/barbarian character type I’ve seen, and in fights with one foe that is much more of a powerhouse than the others, they can make a huge difference.

[zinycor]

Fun is a subjective thing, so it utterly depends on you.

I can say they are pretty strong in combat, and that can be fun.

My actual advice is: Try it but tell your GM you are unsure about it, and ask him to allow you to change characters midgame if you end up getting bored.

[da newt]

Barbarians are as boring to RP as you want them to be. I had a blast playing a Bear Totem Battle Master Bugbear w/ shield and spear PAM. I tried to look for every opportunity to creatively take advantage of 7.5' tall with 10' reach, the ability to decide to jump off the 400' tall floating city and survive the landing, and do as much silly 'monk ****' as I could think of. Tanking well is all about positioning and can be very tactically interesting (the BM MC did give me more choices too). He was also very fun to RP because he was such a protector - a big teddy bear until combat started and then look out. He wasn't optimized by any stretch, but I really liked him.

But I've also had very boring Barbs at my table - same thing all the time, no depth of character. It's all about what you do with it.

You could always create a unique barbarian too - Ancestral Guardian Goblin who fights at range ... Aarocokra Zealot with PAM for so many flyby attacks ... Reckless Elvin Accuracy GWM Berserker ...

[heavyfuel]

Be ready for a lot of "I attack".

Yeah, you can - technically - grapple, shove, help, disarm, etc. But at least 90% of the time, attacking is just the most effective thing you can do.

And saying "effective" is pretty generous, as your DPR is pretty low. Most of the time you're going to be hitting for something like 1d10+Str+Rage, which in low levels means 1d10+5. By Tier 3, you're dealing 1d10+8. That's ridiculously low. Pretty much any other class is going to out-DPR you. You can use GWM more effectively tan other classes, but the change in DPR isn't actually that big.

Also, Barbarians (much like Fighters) are pretty useless out of combat. You may have Survival and Intimidate as skills, which can be valuable, but that's about it.

People like to crap on the Fighter for being boring, but at least they have some non-boring sub classes like BM and Echo Knight. Barbarians, however, are the cream of the boring crop.

[AttilatheYeon]

Be ready for a lot of "I attack".

Yeah, you can - technically - grapple, shove, help, disarm, etc. But at least 90% of the time, attacking is just the most effective thing you can do.

And saying "effective" is pretty generous, as your DPR is pretty low. Most of the time you're going to be hitting for something like 1d10+Str+Rage, which in low levels means 1d10+5. By Tier 3, you're dealing 1d10+8. That's ridiculously low. Pretty much any other class is going to out-DPR you. You can use GWM more effectively tan other classes, but the change in DPR isn't actually that big.

Also, Barbarians (much like Fighters) are pretty useless out of combat. You may have Survival and Intimidate as skills, which can be valuable, but that's about it.

People like to crap on the Fighter for being boring, but at least they have some non-boring sub classes like BM and Echo Knight. Barbarians, however, are the cream of the boring crop.

Idk about that. I played a barbarian at a table that was generally more useful out of combat then everyone but the rogue. Survival is good for exploration and never underestimate the usefulness of being the bungling oaf ooc. It can set up group members to be "in the right place" to get information or sneak into places while the guards are eyeing the uncouth barb making a pass at the governors daughter.

[heavyfuel]

Idk about that. I played a barbarian at a table that was generally more useful out of combat then everyone but the rogue. Survival is good for exploration and never underestimate the usefulness of being the bungling oaf ooc. It can set up group members to be "in the right place" to get information or sneak into places while the guards are eyeing the uncouth barb making a pass at the governors daughter.

Sure, but none of these things are exclusive to Barbarians. I agree that Survival is pretty great, but anyone who wants it can get from Background. Also, anyone can be uncouth and make a pass at the governor's daughter.

[Dienekes]

If you find fun in having a lot of buttons to push in combat, then yeah. The Barbarian will probably not be fun for you. That’s not to say there’s no depth to them. There is. But even the best Barbarian builds tend to have one primary combat strategy and keep trying to do that as much as they can. By level 6, you’ve probably seen all the Barbarian is going to do. The rest is just improvements to it.

That said, there are plenty of people who find fun in getting those big crits. And RPing the rage beast. It can be fun for them. And perhaps you’ll find yourself enjoying it more than you think. But if not, it’s a game. Ditch ‘em.

[Frogreaver]

So my last couple characters have all been casters or half casters, but I have a character idea in my head that would definitely be a barbarian, but I am worried that it will be boring. I have grown very used to having choices during combat, what spell to cast, weather to cast a spell, ect. But barbarians don't really have choices, your main choice is weather or not to use reckless attack, and I feel the answer to that is usually yes.

What do you think? Are barbarians fun in combat even without many different options? Do they have more options than I think?

My Barbarian upon seeing the goblin wizard deflect the stone golems attacks with the shield spell he picks up our goblin wizard - calling him "blocks rocks" and attempts to use him as a defacto shield the rest of the encounter. Perhaps not the most optimal strategy, but it was one of the most memorable and the goblin wizard didn't end up getting hit once (using shield as needed) so it worked out spectacularly well.

My Barbarian was dumb as bricks and that made him that much more fun for me and the party. There are some keys to not being an annoying butthole to your group when playing a dumb character though. Playing a dumb character is not about doing optimally bad stuff, it's about having fantastically terrible reasoning for why they are doing something, whether good or bad. Your character needs to firmly believe in his reasoning even to the point of arguing that he's right using his flawed reasoning and not seeing anything wrong with it. It's okay for your dumb character to take the optimal course of action for very bad reasons. It's okay for your dumb character to want to pursue an suboptimal course of action but the party must be able to typically sway him into more optimal courses of action (you don't have to make that easy though).

The point is that my Dumb Barbarian was one of the most fun characters I've ever played. He's top 3 all time for me and the group absolutely loved him.

**I guess I should note that he was actually a Barbarian/Rogue but being a solo class Barbarian wouldn't have changed anything.

***In terms of reckless attack tactics, unless you are using say GWM then I wouldn't always be using reckless attack. I would wait to see if the enemies are interested in heavily focusing on me. If they do then I don't reckless. If they don't then I start reckless attacking.

[Frogreaver]

I think it's also worth noting that freeing up your mental capacity from having to keep all your spell options in the forefront of your mind and needing to review their precise effects at times gives you much more time and mental capacity to come up with fun in character comments. For many people this adds much more to their game experience than they imagine it will.

[Neoh]

For Barbarians, I like to either play them as a Half-Orc crit fishing machine with a Greataxe. Taking 3 levels of Champion Fighter, getting those big crits is really satisfying. Not much to do other than attack though on this one. But still definitely satisfying to pull off those numbers.

The other kind of Barbarian I like is actually more Rogue than Barbarian in terms of level. Playing with a Shortsword for Sneak Attack, leaving one hand empty for grappling small, medium and large enemies with your 20 Str advantage expertise Athletics. I also really enjoy climbing on monsters in a Shadow of the Colossus manner.
Rogue also gives you bonus action Dash, and taking Swashbuckler makes you super mobile.
With your physical abilities, you can almost jump on top of the head of an Ogre for example (your DM could let you make an Athletic check to let you jump a bit higher to actually do it).
You're not as tanky as a normal Barbarian, but you're probably still more tanky than a Fighter so good enough. Plus you can alternate the way you play : inyourface raging Barbarian or trytocatch me Swashbuckler Rogue. Allows you to save your rages too since you only have 3.
I like to take Mage Slayer as a Feat with so much mobility and your pool of HP allows you to actually traverse a battlefield without too much risk.

Or you could try to play a flying race and powerbomb your enemies to the ground after taking them for a flight. I don't like flying races so I didn't ever try it, not sure how your DM would rule it either.

As a Barbarian, and no-magic guys in general, you have to get creative in the ways you fight. For sure, if you just do it like "I go to the Goblin and hit him" you're for sure going to be veeeeery bored, veeeeeery quickly.

[NorthernPhoenix]

It honestly depends on the DM. If the DM goes out of his way to "gatcha" you, it will be very boring. If the DM accommodates the Barbarian fantasy, it's an incredible amount of fun.

[J-H]

Damage output is no worse than a Fighter - Barbarians actually have a higher base damage, but fewer APR at high level, and fewer fighting styles. They can also be more likely to hit thanks to Reckless Attack.

Totem barbarians get some nice Commune with Nature type stuff to help with the Exploration/scouting role.
You don't HAVE to dump all the mental stats, so you may end up being the pre-battle tactician/shot-caller.

A Totem barbarian can grant adjacent allies advantage (great for everyone else landing hits), spot things at a mile (or have more skills), and at level 14, can fly his speed every round, leaping across the battlefield with almost as much mobility as a monk.

With PAM you get 3 melee attacks per round, plus a reaction if an enemy comes into your range... potentially 4 attacks in one round as early as level 5 - although a Fighter can do this also. You can pair this with a shield for a reasonably good AC.

I'm looking forward to running a Barbarian next time a new game starts up.

[firelistener]

Personally, I think barbarians are way more fun to play than casters because you never have to worry about whether or not to get involved in a fight or keep your distance. As a barbarian, you are basically obligated to throw yourself headlong into the fray. It makes every combat encounter exciting because you get to contribute more consistently.

[HappyDaze]

5e is all about playing fantasy superheroes, not heroic fantasy characters. Sadly, in this edition, characters without spellcasting don't tend to give enough of that feel IME. If I'm playing the 2d20 Conan game, I'd love to play a barbarian, but in 5e, put me down for some type of full caster 75% of the time (and a half caster for the other 25% of the time when I'm intentionally limiting myself). That's pretty much what everyone I've played with has gone with too (4-person groups typically with 3 full casters and 1 half caster).

[Frogreaver]

5e is all about playing fantasy superheroes, not heroic fantasy characters. Sadly, in this edition, characters without spellcasting don't tend to give enough of that feel IME. If I'm playing the 2d20 Conan game, I'd love to play a barbarian, but in 5e, put me down for some type of full caster 75% of the time (and a half caster for the other 25% of the time when I'm intentionally limiting myself). That's pretty much what everyone I've played with has gone with too (4-person groups typically with 3 full casters and 1 half caster).

For most people adventure day pacing of their DM is a big factor there. There's a large number of tables that don't have enough encounters and/or enough short rests in an adventuring day. Spells are the quintessential long rest recharge resource and so it's not surprising to see classes with that resource played more often just because of this. Even when the adventuring day has enough encounters and short rests it's not like the short rest classes are actually better than the long rest ones - they are just then on equal footing.

But aside from the encounter and rest issues, I have no doubt that spell casters are typically better, even if the non-spell casters can typically do a bit more damage. Versatility and the ability to have large AOE effects are very strong features.

All that said, the game isn't necessarily about optimal characters playing optimally. Afterall, the difficulty in D&D tends to rise up to be as difficult or easy as the players want it to be. The more important factor is - are you having fun with your character. If that's happening then the rest will fall in place.

[Reynaert]

For me, and (how I read it) for the OP, a lot of the fun comes from Interesting Choices(tm).

I think that's a lot more concrtete of a question to answer: Does playing a barbarian present Interesting Choices, when compared to playing a wizard, and how can you tweak that?

[Rfkannen]

For me, and (how I read it) for the OP, a lot of the fun comes from Interesting Choices(tm).

I think that's a lot more concrtete of a question to answer: Does playing a barbarian present Interesting Choices, when compared to playing a wizard, and how can you tweak that?

That is a much better way to phrase the question, thank you!

[Segev]

The half-orc Zealot in my game has a lot of fun positioning herself to tank hits and dish out damage. She gets frustrated when she has to throw things because she likes melee.

Being a half-orc, she’s very hard to put down. They’ve not had reason to lament (nor test) the campaign specific restriction on raising the dead against the Zealot’s ribbon feature. I have only gotten her to zero hit points once or twice in 8 levels!

She picked up Sentinel, and really likes it. It seems to give her all the interesting choices and options she wants, making battle position very important. She loves the mobility of fast movement coupled with this play style.

[Waazraath]

That is a much better way to phrase the question, thank you!

I think this has been answerd by some posters so far... it really depends for a large part on what and how many encounters you have. The way I see it, there's at least mechanically:
- the choice to rage or not
- the choice to use reckless attack or not
- the choice to either attack, or shove or grapple, or try to disarm or trip or something.

The first point is not meaningful if you only have 2-3 encounters/day max. The second really depends on the type of enemies you face. The last one depends on if the DM has interesting terrain features (shove somebody off the cliff; type of enemy you can/want to grapple; anything worth disarming and using those optional rules...

Tactical, there are always choices to make as well (often regarding positioning):
- run towards the enemy at full speed or stay with the party;
- which enemy to focus on when several are there;
- bother to stabelize a fallen enemy quickly try to finish the fight (less a thing when you have casters that can heal, especially healing word)
- any choke points you can block

etc. Here, it also depends on what kind of encounters you typically have. And on party tactics.

Of course, in addition to the stuff I mentinoned above, you also have subclass features, which often give more options (I'd skip sub classes like zealot or bear totem, since these are passives, while several subclasses give you active choices.

Maybe for inspiration: the firs build here is a bbn skirmish/grapple build - should offer more meaningful choices than the average bear totem or zealot with GWF and PAM. https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591621-Waazraath-5e-build-compendium&p=24014752#post24014752

The bbn's I played with were happy with the number of choices they had - one of them a berserker, which gets another piece of resource management to play with (and one with a pretty hefty drawback as well).

[GlenSmash!]

I've played a lot of barbarian's and I enjoyed combats a lot. Having only a few options really focused my mind on how to use them most tactfully. like if facing a horde of low HP creatures, using reckless attack and GWM to try to put them down asap and even the odds, but against's a high AC boss that also had a high attack bonus I would not want to use GWM but still reckless attack since I want to land consistent damage, and if they are likely to hit me anyway giving them advantage is no big deal. When to grapple and shove can be a fun decision too. I once grappled a boss of an encounter and shoved him off the edge of the cloud castle we were fighting on. It's still one of my favorite Barbarian moments. Overall I think the Barbarian is fun since it has a very high chance to be successful at the basic stuff of combat. Deal damage, take beatings, especially against hard hitting and hard to hit bosses, lock down and maneuver a target.

Other classes can be great at all that stuff too, but I find that if I have a spell sheet I tend to look for answers to all my problems with spells. The Barbarian makes my look outside of magic for my answers and then gives me a great chance at succeeding in what I try.

All that being said. If you have the Wisdom for it multiclassing 3 levels of Gloomstalker gives a Barbarian utility spells for outside of combat and make you a real monster in every combat's first round. My Zealot 5/Gloomstalker 3 has 50ft of movement speed in the first round to close the distance, then can dish it out with 3 Reckless Attacks with GWM damage.

[Yakmala]

I've played multiple Barbarians and all of them played differently.

My Variant Human Bear Totem with Prodigy for Athletics Expertise was a grappler that loved locking down the biggest, baddest enemy on the map.

My Ancestral Guardian Polearm Master Bugbear played hit and run, making life very difficult for bosses that couldn't catch up to him.

My Variant Human Wolf Totem Spear and Shield Barbarian was part of a party that was almost all melee. He always positioned himself to be adjacent to as many enemies as possible. He never used Reckless. Everyone loved the melee advantage he provided.

My Warforged Zealot Barbarian with an Acolyte background had literally no fear of death and would throw himself into combat with reckless abandon. When things started going sideways, he'd hold the line with Sentinel and tell the rest of the party to run.

Each of these characters was fun to play and each approached the combat tactics differently. None of them felt boring.

[Dienekes]

I've played multiple Barbarians and all of them played differently.

My Variant Human Bear Totem with Prodigy for Athletics Expertise was a grappler that loved locking down the biggest, baddest enemy on the map.

My Ancestral Guardian Polearm Master Bugbear played hit and run, making life very difficult for bosses that couldn't catch up to him.

My Variant Human Wolf Totem Spear and Shield Barbarian was part of a party that was almost all melee. He always positioned himself to be adjacent to as many enemies as possible. He never used Reckless. Everyone loved the melee advantage he provided.

My Warforged Zealot Barbarian with an Acolyte background had literally no fear of death and would throw himself into combat with reckless abandon. When things started going sideways, he'd hold the line with Sentinel and tell the rest of the party to run.

Each of these characters was fun to play and each approached the combat tactics differently. None of them felt boring.

But did each one play differently from one encounter to the other, or did they rely on roughly the same tactic for 90% of encounters?

That’s where I personally felt playing martials was boring in this game. I very quickly built my character into doing one thing incredibly well. Then I did that one thing over, and over, and over. I got bored.

But on the other side of things. I have a player whose currently playing a Barbarian focused on just hitting things as hard as he can. And he loves it. Different strokes for different folks, I reckon.

[Starbaker]

Well, I would say that it depends on you and your table.

Certain players (or tables) would rather do the most logical and optimal actions and complain in case someone decides to dare to be stupid.

In the other hand, some players (or tables) are so wacky that the characters are completely not what you would expect from reading the player's handbook.

The point is: If you're the serious rigid type, you will enjoy only what you already percieve as fun. But you will enjoy it A LOT!

If you're in the "dare to be stupid" squad, any type of character could be a blast, but it will be hard to have a favorite.

Regardless of your type: Why don't you propose a one shot advanture befofre the campain and try the barbarian and see what you think?

[Spore]

My GREATEST issue with barbarians is not combat options, but "RPing" combat options, and giving a strong character sensible choices out of the rulesbook, because they suffer the most from "guy at the gym" fallacy. When I play a barbarian I want to be a big strong dude who smashes faces, smashes doors and smashes walls. And occasionally smashes sexually too.

The usual routine goes like this for me with my older DMs.

Player: I want to smash the door in.
DM: Give me a DC 15 Athletics check.
P: I rolled a 13.
DM: You punch the door, breaking your fist *rolls* taking 3 damage.
P: I never said I use my fist. I use my weapon.
DM: Fine, roll to hit AC 10, then roll damage.
P: I deal 9 damage.
DM: Great, the door is made from solid oak, three to four more hits like that and you are through the door.

And then I never try that again because busting through that door, I used 3 HP, and four turns of combat, loosing the surprise element I hoped for. I do not advocate for allowing the barbarian to smash through EVERYTHING, but at least telegraph the quality of stuff somewhat. When your "rundown" and "ancient" tomb suddenly consists of well-maintained doors, with only undead and kobolds around I kinda want to see at least a carpenter 'bold or draugr.

[Tanarii]

My GREATEST issue with barbarians is not combat options, but "RPing" combat options, and giving a strong character sensible choices out of the rulesbook, because they suffer the most from "guy at the gym" fallacy. When I play a barbarian I want to be a big strong dude who smashes faces, smashes doors and smashes walls. And occasionally smashes sexually too.How do casters smash doors?

Seriously though, I find that arcane nuke casters biggest problem is they are like barely mobile turrets. Strength based (and to a lesser degree Dex based) martials have it a lot better. Of course, I like to call for Strength Athletics DC 5 checks a fair amount.

Actually I just generally like DC 5 checks, they make people who invested a little feel really good because they almost never fail or have a tiny chance of failure. Whereas they make people that dumped stats pretty nervous, because 30% chance of failure. I think the DMG advice to skip them is very misguided.

Whereas defaulting to DC 15 definitely quickly result in guy at the gym feeling for all martials.

[Waazraath]

My GREATEST issue with barbarians is not combat options, but "RPing" combat options, and giving a strong character sensible choices out of the rulesbook, because they suffer the most from "guy at the gym" fallacy. When I play a barbarian I want to be a big strong dude who smashes faces, smashes doors and smashes walls. And occasionally smashes sexually too.

The usual routine goes like this for me with my older DMs.

Player: I want to smash the door in.
DM: Give me a DC 15 Athletics check.
P: I rolled a 13.
DM: You punch the door, breaking your fist *rolls* taking 3 damage.
P: I never said I use my fist. I use my weapon.
DM: Fine, roll to hit AC 10, then roll damage.
P: I deal 9 damage.
DM: Great, the door is made from solid oak, three to four more hits like that and you are through the door.

And then I never try that again because busting through that door, I used 3 HP, and four turns of combat, loosing the surprise element I hoped for. I do not advocate for allowing the barbarian to smash through EVERYTHING, but at least telegraph the quality of stuff somewhat. When your "rundown" and "ancient" tomb suddenly consists of well-maintained doors, with only undead and kobolds around I kinda want to see at least a carpenter 'bold or draugr.

Lol, I feel your pain. In defense of strong doors in old rundown dungeons: a lot of dungeons I know with goblins and orcs and kobolds and the like are actually old overrun dwarven strongholds, who were expertly build in older days (when everything was better than now). If I had a DM like this, I'd take some more time: first study a door before I declare to have my bbn kick it in, ask if it is old and unhinged or looking really, really solid, ask the party caster to bless me beforehand (guidence), or maybe (if I want to be the dumb mindless non-preparing maniac) go into rage first for advantage (only if the DM allows kicking in the door to function as an attack though - and I'm certain the room is filled with enemies).

[Jerrykhor]

The problem with Barbarians is not that they are boring in combat. Far from it, actually. Advantage on all attacks? Sweet. Advantage on Dex saves? Nice. Rage? Awesome.

Their main problem is that they don't get any more interesting than that as they level up. Notice how all of them are passive boosts. They get advantage on a lot of rolls: Attacks, initiative, Dex saves etc.

The problem is that Brutal Critical is not interesting nor powerful enough to deter multi-classing. The other high level features are mostly passive boosts to Rage, which are also not exciting.

I currently play a Barbarian, and if not for my DM giving me a magic weapon with the Champion's 19-20 increase crit range, I would not have crit so often, and would not have as much fun. When i don't crit, nothing happens and i deal regular 1d20+modifiers. But when i crit, i can pile on the pain like nobody's business. Brutal Critical is a poor design because besides advantage on attack rolls, they don't get anything to increase their crit chance.

If the Barbarian don't take interesting feats, or have interesting magic items, I agree its pretty boring.

[Tanarii]

Brutal Critical is a poor design because besides advantage on attack rolls, they don't get anything to increase their crit chance.
That works out roughly equal to 19-20. With two attacks they're getting a critical every third round. Almost every other round if they get a third attack somehow.

Edit: derp math is derp. It's 1/5rnds and 1/4rnds

[Segev]

Barbarian does seem to have a lot of its interesting features rest in its subclasses. And those are a mixed bag.

I actually think totem warrior has some of the most interesting options. It’s also one of very few subclasses that gets options of its own to pick and choose as you level through it, and thus which can be expanded without inventing a whole new subclass.

Alternate subclass features might be an interesting design space for 5e, come to think of it.

[Unoriginal]

My GREATEST issue with barbarians is not combat options, but "RPing" combat options, and giving a strong character sensible choices out of the rulesbook, because they suffer the most from "guy at the gym" fallacy. When I play a barbarian I want to be a big strong dude who smashes faces, smashes doors and smashes walls. And occasionally smashes sexually too.

The usual routine goes like this for me with my older DMs.

Player: I want to smash the door in.
DM: Give me a DC 15 Athletics check.
P: I rolled a 13.
DM: You punch the door, breaking your fist *rolls* taking 3 damage.
P: I never said I use my fist. I use my weapon.
DM: Fine, roll to hit AC 10, then roll damage.
P: I deal 9 damage.
DM: Great, the door is made from solid oak, three to four more hits like that and you are through the door.

And then I never try that again because busting through that door, I used 3 HP, and four turns of combat, loosing the surprise element I hoped for. I do not advocate for allowing the barbarian to smash through EVERYTHING, but at least telegraph the quality of stuff somewhat. When your "rundown" and "ancient" tomb suddenly consists of well-maintained doors, with only undead and kobolds around I kinda want to see at least a carpenter 'bold or draugr.

Barbarians aren't very fun when the DM is hooked on Guy at the Gym.

[Keltest]

Barbarians aren't very fun when the DM is hooked on Guy at the Gym.

While i generally agree with this statement, i dont think "You lose the advantage of surprise if you violently and loudly chop down the door with your axe" really falls in that category. They made a choice to enter in a loud and attention grabbing way that let people know exactly where they were. Thats a consequence of using a very un-subtle tool when you want subtlety, not of being the Guy at the Gym.

[heavyfuel]

Actually I just generally like DC 5 checks, they make people who invested a little feel really good because they almost never fail or have a tiny chance of failure. Whereas they make people that dumped stats pretty nervous, because 30% chance of failure. I think the DMG advice to skip them is very misguided.

And when I say 5e needed a "take 10" mechanic, some people say they're not needed. Oh well... :smallsigh:

[Pex]

While i generally agree with this statement, i dont think "You lose the advantage of surprise if you violently and loudly chop down the door with your axe" really falls in that category. They made a choice to enter in a loud and attention grabbing way that let people know exactly where they were. Thats a consequence of using a very un-subtle tool when you want subtlety, not of being the Guy at the Gym.

I think it's more about needing to roll to smash down the door and taking damage because the player didn't roll high enough. Even being made from solid oak a more cinematic barbarian than Guy At The Gym should have been able to punch his way through. At worst the roll should only have been to determine how long it took, failing the roll allowing for those on the other side to be alerted but never having taken damage as it takes two rounds to do it since he only failed by a small amount.

[cutlery]

For me, and (how I read it) for the OP, a lot of the fun comes from Interesting Choices(tm).

I think that's a lot more concrtete of a question to answer: Does playing a barbarian present Interesting Choices, when compared to playing a wizard, and how can you tweak that?

There are a lot of other classes that fall down with respect to choices relative to a wizard (champion fighter, non-swashbuckler non-at rogue, some barbarians, many warlocks, etc).

Assuming full long rest resources available, of course - as resourses are depleted most of the high-choice classes run out of those choices - with weird exceptions like the echo knight.

[Asisreo1]

My GREATEST issue with barbarians is not combat options, but "RPing" combat options, and giving a strong character sensible choices out of the rulesbook, because they suffer the most from "guy at the gym" fallacy. When I play a barbarian I want to be a big strong dude who smashes faces, smashes doors and smashes walls. And occasionally smashes sexually too.

The usual routine goes like this for me with my older DMs.

Player: I want to smash the door in.
DM: Give me a DC 15 Athletics check.
P: I rolled a 13.
DM: You punch the door, breaking your fist *rolls* taking 3 damage.
P: I never said I use my fist. I use my weapon.
DM: Fine, roll to hit AC 10, then roll damage.
P: I deal 9 damage.
DM: Great, the door is made from solid oak, three to four more hits like that and you are through the door.

And then I never try that again because busting through that door, I used 3 HP, and four turns of combat, loosing the surprise element I hoped for. I do not advocate for allowing the barbarian to smash through EVERYTHING, but at least telegraph the quality of stuff somewhat. When your "rundown" and "ancient" tomb suddenly consists of well-maintained doors, with only undead and kobolds around I kinda want to see at least a carpenter 'bold or draugr.
Oh hells no.

That's just a piss-poor DM, honestly.

Unless the door's fighting back or there's something round-sensitive happening, he shouldn't even have you roll. The fact they made you keep the damage even though you clearly tried to communicate your intentions that they misunderstood would have me get up and leave the game permanently.

[zinycor]

As a GM I often ask for inconsecuential rolls just to buy me some time while am polishing on what will happen next.

[cutlery]

As a GM I often ask for inconsecuential rolls just to buy me some time while am polishing on what will happen next.

Occasionally using initiative order and rolls as a red herring makes it less metagamey about when real combat starts, too.

Taking hit point damage in that example is stupid, though.

[heavyfuel]

That's just a piss-poor DM, honestly.

No, it isn't. Everybody knows that if the average person tries to break a door a couple of times they die. It's just basic common sense. S A R C A S M

[Keltest]

No, it isn't. Everybody knows that if the average person tries to break a door a couple of times they die. It's just basic common sense. S A R C A S M

Lets be fair here, only their hand would die. Its the only part of him that lost HP. People punch their hands to death all the time, right?

[HappyDaze]

Lets be fair here, only their hand would die. Its the only part of him that lost HP. People punch their hands to death all the time, right?

As someone that works in an orthopedic practice, the answer is, unfortunately, YES.

[cutlery]

As someone that works in an orthopedic practice, the answer is, unfortunately, YES.

Part of the fantasy of dungeons and dragons is being able to punch a wall without needing a brace or a cast for a couple months, right?

[HappyDaze]

Part of the fantasy of dungeons and dragons is being able to punch a wall without needing a brace or a cast for a couple months, right?

Sure, it fits into the same fantasy that says that non-magical weapons, armors, and (especially) shields can stand up to ludicrous levels of battlefield use without ever showing any signs of wear & tear. It's part of the fantasy that I accept in D&D and fight hard to dispense with when playing WFRP or other grim & gritty settings.

[cutlery]

Sure, it fits into the same fantasy that says that non-magical weapons, armors, and (especially) shields can stand up to ludicrous levels of battlefield use without ever showing any signs of wear & tear. It's part of the fantasy that I accept in D&D and fight hard to dispense with when playing WFRP or other grim & gritty settings.

Which just made me think of a feat/class feature:


Suburban Brawler:

You've punched a few walls in your time. You instinctively know where wall studs and other braces and supports are, and can strike walls, doors, and similar objects at their weakest point - or the point least likely to damage your hand. You've also learned not to make a fist with your thumb under your fingers, even if it looks nerdy, and sustain little to no damage striking enemies in the face with a balled fist.

[Dienekes]

Sure, it fits into the same fantasy that says that non-magical weapons, armors, and (especially) shields can stand up to ludicrous levels of battlefield use without ever showing any signs of wear & tear. It's part of the fantasy that I accept in D&D and fight hard to dispense with when playing WFRP or other grim & gritty settings.

Just gonna point out. Sure punching a door is probably not a great idea (though people can do it). But there are other ways to bust open a door with little chance of hurting yourself. Breaching a door with a kick roughly in the center-leaning toward the side with the lock is possible, far easier, and relatively painless.

It’s weird that the GM immediately too “bash down the door” to mean “attempt to break the thing in the dumbest way possible.”

[HappyDaze]

Just gonna point out. Sure punching a door is probably not a great idea (though people can do it). But there are other ways to bust open a door with little chance of hurting yourself. Breaching a door with a kick roughly in the center-leaning toward the side with the lock is possible, far easier, and relatively painless.

It’s weird that the GM immediately too “bash down the door” to mean “attempt to break the thing in the dumbest way possible.”

We've had fools in our practice that have tried to open locked doors with kicks and shoulders and ended up with fractures. Reality is often a lot more painful than many believe.

[NorthernPhoenix]

We've had fools in our practice that have tried to open locked doors with kicks and shoulders and ended up with fractures. Reality is often a lot more painful than many believe.

Are you really doing "guy at the gym" here? Anyone who'd actually fracture their shoulder against a door is going to instantly die from... anything a level 5 character has to deal with on the regular.

[da newt]

I don't have a whole bunch of experience breaching doors, but I can report with 100% honesty that a JV Offensive Lineman who weighs 240 lbs can easily bust through a deadbolted metal dorm room door blowing out the jam on both the knob side and hinge side with no damage to him by leading with the shoulder while wearing no armor of any kind ...

[Dienekes]

We've had fools in our practice that have tried to open locked doors with kicks and shoulders and ended up with fractures. Reality is often a lot more painful than many believe.

No doubt. But there is a difference between a random moron doing moron stuff. And assuming that the player’s character is going to act like a moron.

For one. Don’t open locked doors with your shoulder. That’s what a moron does. If it doesn’t break alL that force goes right into the joint. And don’t kick the door like a soccer ball. That’s sure to hurt yourself. But just a flat kick done correctly? Maybe a 1 in a million shot. Everything’s possible. But missing the roll by 2 that wasn’t a nat 1 should not be it.

[HappyDaze]

No doubt. But there is a difference between a random moron doing moron stuff. And assuming that the player’s character is going to act like a moron.


Well, in all fairness, Intelligence is an often dumped ability score. Combine that with the stupid stuff that many players explicitly declare that they are doing, and it's not much of a stretch to assume that many PCs will commonly act like a moron unless they make deliberate declarations to the contrary.

[Unoriginal]

We've had fools in our practice that have tried to open locked doors with kicks and shoulders and ended up with fractures. Reality is often a lot more painful than many believe.

D&D doesn't obey reality's facts, though.

[HappyDaze]

D&D doesn't obey reality's facts, though.

No kidding? Wow. Thank you for that. You should write a book filled with such wisdom.

[zinycor]

No kidding? Wow. Thank you for that. You should write a book filled with such wisdom.

Captain sarcasm!!! Is that you??!!

[NorthernPhoenix]

No kidding? Wow. Thank you for that. You should write a book filled with such wisdom.

Even reality, ignores "reality". People have survived falling out of planes and being at the epicenter of nuclear blasts before. The idea that a fantasy hero is not only not better, but actually worse and weaker than that, is not a very productive take.

[Reynaert]

Well, in all fairness, Intelligence is an often dumped ability score. Combine that with the stupid stuff that many players explicitly declare that they are doing, and it's not much of a stretch to assume that many PCs will commonly act like a moron unless they make deliberate declarations to the contrary.

PCs will have a lot more experience with violently interacting with objects than their players. So if they player declares they want to kick down a door, it should be assumed that that PC knows how to effectively do that, and also to assess reliably how sturdy a given door is.

(As opposed to modern people who have little or no physical training, but have seen something in a movie and think they can replicate it. So there goes all those anecdotes)

[jaappleton]

Played a Barbarian for over a year. Totem Warrior (Bear), Half Orc, with a Greataxe and Greatweapon Master. You know, the tropes.

Combat was definitely more bland as far as my options went. However, there were also plenty of things that only I could do.

Example: Fighting in an old castle, there was a flesh golem we were battling. Nobody had magical weapons. This was an issue. The area was described as having a roaring fireplace and a heavy, 14’ long solid wood table, described as easily six inches thick and nearly seven feet wide. That’s a damn big table. Huge, massive, cumbersome.

So, I used my turn to flip the table (With 20 STR and Bear Totem, while Raging, this was zero issue) and ram it into the golem, knocking it into and pinning it into the roaring fireplace.

And that was that. That was the encounter, that’s what it took to eliminate what the DM has thought would totally drain our resources and really be a tough fight. :smallbiggrin:

A Barbarian is as boring as you make it. Lean into its strengths (pardon the pun). Utilize everything it has in its arsenal, because it’s much more than just swinging around a big weapon.

[Unoriginal]

No kidding? Wow. Thank you for that. You should write a book filled with such wisdom.


Even reality, ignores "reality". People have survived falling out of planes and being at the epicenter of nuclear blasts before. The idea that a fantasy hero is not only not better, but actually worse and weaker than that, is not a very productive take.

Pretty sure HappyDaze said they stopped playing 5e several weeks ago due to hating the system, so I don't think productivity is researched

[HappyDaze]

Pretty sure HappyDaze said they stopped playing 5e several weeks ago due to hating the system, so I don't think productivity is researched

Yep, I did quit 5e. That doesn't mean I don't speak from experience when I say that non-spellcasters might as well be NPCs in 5e. The game is for superhero PCs, so make characters with powers or be content to play a sidekick. There's no shame in that so long as you're aware of it going in.

[Dienekes]

Well, in all fairness, Intelligence is an often dumped ability score. Combine that with the stupid stuff that many players explicitly declare that they are doing, and it's not much of a stretch to assume that many PCs will commonly act like a moron unless they make deliberate declarations to the contrary.

If you don’t see the the difference in having a player tell you they’re doing something stupid by their own volition and assuming they’re doing something stupid without them telling you first, I just think I would not enjoy your DMing style.

Now it’d be different if perhaps you asked “How are you gonna do that?” First, see if they’re actually being stupid and then make them suffer the consequences of their actions. But just to take over and then punish them for what you had them do?

I’d probably walk out of your group.

[HappyDaze]

I’d probably walk out of your group.

And I'd be happy to see you go, so it's a win-win!

[Sindal]

Bear totem firbolg barbarjan here.

In combat? Nah not really. Not to me anyway.

My barbarian has been surrounded by players that are made of paper and has had to double as full tank almost each time because low level wizards can get knocked over faster than I can spit.

I've had to change weapons, grab and move people out of the way, hold aggro. Smash things alot with my Maul. Dodge or prioritize other issues. Shove a dude onto his back and step on him. Deciding if reckless attack is worth it based on much much treat is around.

Combat doesn't feel boring because I know that without me finding ways to just be a threat that has to be dealt with (a big stomps man taking half damage and hitting like a truck will get to you eventually)

Working as a team with thr party is just inherently fun for me too. It doesn't matter that dudes abilities aren't mine, they're on my team and my combat tactic changes with them added in. So take my pov with that in mind.

[KorvinStarmast]

I say that non-spellcasters might as well be NPCs in 5e. My 14th level Fighter Champion finds your lack of faith disturbing. :smallcool:

Bear totem firbolg barbarjan here. In combat? Nah not really. Not to me anyway. Nice, post, thanks.

Anecdote: the party of level I DM for recenlty fought some hell hounds when they were level 3. (Three of them!) The bard dropped during breath number one. The barbarian's second level skill was remarkably handy. He made all of the saves, and didn't take much damage thanks to raging and that skill. He got right into it with two of the hounds.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Barbarians often make fewer decisions per round but can make more decisions per minute because fewer of those decisions require lots of rolls, modifiers, and looking things up. However, this is less true the more spellcasters there are in your party.

This, like most things for a barb, is made even better by multiclassing.

[Unoriginal]

Yep, I did quit 5e. That doesn't mean I don't speak from experience when I say that non-spellcasters might as well be NPCs in 5e. The game is for superhero PCs, so make characters with powers or be content to play a sidekick. There's no shame in that so long as you're aware of it going in.

You were the DM, and you are the one telling that "someone hitting a door bare-handed deals 3 damages to themselves" is reasonable because real life injuries, which is pretty clearly the Guy at the Gym fallacy at work.

Sure, martials being sidekicks/might as well be NPCs was your experience. Because you tailored it that way, as the DM and believer in the principle that martials shouldn't bother.

Personally, if we're on the topic of superhero PCs, I'm more than happy with letting Barbarians being the Hulk.

[HappyDaze]

You were the DM, and you are the one telling that "someone hitting a door bare-handed deals 3 damages to themselves" is reasonable because real life injuries, which is pretty clearly the Guy at the Gym fallacy at work.

Sure, martials being sidekicks/might as well be NPCs was your experience. Because you tailored it that way, as the DM and believer in the principle that martials shouldn't bother.

Personally, if we're on the topic of superhero PCs, I'm more than happy with letting Barbarians being the Hulk.

Nope. I didn't say that.

I said that I've seen lots of people that bust themselves up trying to bash doors IRL. I didn't say this was what I expect in the game.

I also said that players do stupid crap all the time, so it's not hard to imagine that they do something the dumbest way possible when they're got a track record showing that's their SOP.

[Unoriginal]

Nope. I didn't say that.

I said that I've seen lots of people that bust themselves up trying to bash doors IRL. I didn't say this was what I expect in the game.

I also said that players do stupid crap all the time, so it's not hard to imagine that they do something the dumbest way possible when they're got a track record showing that's their SOP.

Fair. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Just so I'm clear, do you expect Barbarians to be able to bash doors?

[HappyDaze]

Fair. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Just so I'm clear, do you expect Barbarians to be able to bash doors?

Sure. They've been doing so since D&D began. However, there's almost always been a non-zero chance of failure in bashing open said doors. Can't say I recall ever having that cause an injury (except indirectly, when a foot went through a rotting door and rot grubs got down into the boot...).