Should Barbarians get Fighting Style and Extra Attack (x2)

[Mastikator]

YES /thread over

Kidding, I want to write down when and what also...

People sometimes complain that barbarians are very front loaded (at least, people should complain), because they are. And it's not that barbarians get too little early levels, but that they seem to get very little high levels. So I propose that barbarians should get Extra Attack (x2) on level 13. This is 2 levels after the fighter gets it, paladins and rangers are getting 4th level spells on 13 while barbarians are getting a pittance (brutal critical x2, lol).

Doing 3 attacks from level 13 and onwards will hugely help barbarians feel fun and cool and powerful IMO. This is a big power boost, and being 2 levels after the fighter I think helps the fighter not feel like the barbarian is stepping on his toes. The fighter also uniquely keeps Extra Attack (x3)

FIGHTING STYLES, fighters, rangers and paladins get it. Why not barbarians? I think they should get them at level 3, with some extra options depending on their Primal Path


Blind Fighting
Defense
Two Weapon Fighting
Thrown Weapon Fighting
Great Weapon Fighting



Ancestral Guardian

Druidic Warrior (use constitution as spell casting ability)
Protection
Interception


Battlerager

Superior Technique
Protection
Interception
Unarmed Fighting


Beast

Two Weapon Fighting (requires no shield, may use natural weapon as bonus action attack))
Druidic Warrior
Dueling
Protection (requires shield)
Interception (requires shield)
Unarmed Fighting


Storm Herald

Protection
Interception
Arcane Warrior, pick 2 cantrips from the sorcerer list, you can cast these using your constitution as your spellcasting ability
Unarmed Fighting


Zealot

Blessed Warrior (use constitution as spellcasting ability)


Wild Magic

Arcane Warrior pick 2 cantrips from the sorcerer list, you can cast these using your constitution as your spellcasting ability
Superior Technique


Totem Warrior

Druidic Warrior (use constitution as spell casting ability)
Interception
Protection



Berserker skip, use Zealot instead I guess

Fighting Style on level 3 from your Primal Path. Many of these offer cantrips, battlerager is the only one that doesn't get either blessed, druidic or the new arcane warrior. The point of the cantrips is to give the barbarian something to do while not raging, perhaps something out of combat. But you don't have to choose that, perhaps you just want Great Weapon Fighting on your always Reckless Attacking Great Weapon Master barbarian, or defense on your bear totem shield wearing barbarian. It gives a little boost.

Note: Why use sorcerer and not wizard cantrip list? Because Wild Magic is associated with Sorcerers not Wizards

[stoutstien]

Sounds like making the barbarian a fighter subclass with extra steps.

Probably better off with a top to bottom redesign.

[Amnestic]

So I don't necessarily disagree with making changes to barbarian. I don't, however, think they should get a FS or EAx2.

Reasons in no particular order:-
A) Fighting Style, thematically to me, feels too "controlled" for the rage-fighting of a barbarian. Obviously that's not the case for all barbarian characters, especially when you refluff, but regardless that's my vibe. Fighting Style is 'trained', and barbarian fighting often comes across as 'untrained raw power' style.
B) Fighter getting EAx2+x3 at 11th+20th makes them unique as their "special boons" (for however much it's worth). With so few campaigns getting to 20th, Barb getting EAx2 would be stepping on the fighter's toes, even at 2 levels later.
C) I think Barb buffs should be unique/different (and perhaps oriented directly to 'Rage Powers') rather than something casually taken from other existing classes.

That said, doing what you've said wouldn't break anything, and might even help barbs, but it doesn't scream barbarian. While Brutal Critical is not great, my preference isn't "they hit more" but "they hit harder". Mechanically akin to sneak attack, but obviously themed different and likely oriented more around "strength" weapons than "dex" weapons.

Ideas off top of my head, maybe don't do all of these: Expanded crit range, in addition to brutal critical (yeah Champion can get that too, but that's *only* Champion, one subclass of fighter - adding it to barb baseline works), up the scaling of rage damage and let it apply even when you don't beat an enemy's AC, additional weapon damage dice on each hit (which also makes your brutal critical better), Cleave feature (partial damage to nearby creatures if you hit one of them)?

[Mastikator]

So I don't necessarily disagree with making changes to barbarian. I don't, however, think they should get a FS or EAx2.

Reasons in no particular order:-
A) Fighting Style, thematically to me, feels too "controlled" for the rage-fighting of a barbarian. Obviously that's not the case for all barbarian characters, especially when you refluff, but regardless that's my vibe. Fighting Style is 'trained', and barbarian fighting often comes across as 'untrained raw power' style.
B) Fighter getting EAx2+x3 at 11th+20th makes them unique as their "special boons" (for however much it's worth). With so few campaigns getting to 20th, Barb getting EAx2 would be stepping on the fighter's toes, even at 2 levels later.
C) I think Barb buffs should be unique/different (and perhaps oriented directly to 'Rage Powers') rather than something casually taken from other existing classes.

That said, doing what you've said wouldn't break anything, and might even help barbs, but it doesn't scream barbarian. While Brutal Critical is not great, my preference isn't "they hit more" but "they hit harder". Mechanically akin to sneak attack, but obviously themed different and likely oriented more around "strength" weapons than "dex" weapons.

The goal here is to give them stuff that doesn't depend on rage. If "Rage" is all a barbarian is then barbarian isn't enough to warrant being a class. And like @stoutstien said, should be a fighter subclass. I think he's wrong of course, Barbarian should be a class, and they should do stuff and function as a party member while not raging too. IMO it's a big problem that barbarians only exist to rage, it makes them one dimensional. That's the point of offering cantrips, because they literally can't be used with rage and some are only useful out of combat. Lightning Lure on a Storm Herald just feels right IMO for example. When the Wild Magic Barbarian is in control he can hurl Firebolts, but then he loses control and enters a magical rage causing magic to fire off randomly. I think that's thematic and cool.

And the problem with Brutal Critical is that they don't hit harder, crit fishing is bad you can go a whole session without ever critting once. It's a ribbon feature, not the bread and butter of a class. I don't want to take it away, I want to give extra stuff since Brutal Critical is so forgettable. A third attack at level 13 feels like a real thing. Level 13 (and 9 for that matter) is basically a dead level for barbarians. At least on level 9 the barbarian rage bonus increases by 1.

[Amnestic]

If "Rage" is all a barbarian is then barbarian isn't enough to warrant being a class.

Right, I'm not saying Rage should be all a Barbarian has - I'm saying that your suggestions take away from a barbarian being a barbarian. As a class, thematically, it is centred around rage (just as wizards are centred around spells). In my eyes changes to barb should support rage, not spread them away from it - otherwise, as noted, it moves towards making them "Fighter-Lite".

[Ir0ns0ul]

I don’t think Barbarians should get a fighting style because the main appeal of the class is the natural born warrior who trusts in his instincts and the power of fury in battle.

They didn’t receive a “formal training” (whether military if you are a Fighter or Paladin, or self-developed by living in the wilderness hunting monsters like a Ranger) that could represent some sort of specialization in combat.

Multiclass and feats are there exactly to accommodate this situation. If a Barbarian has trained and sharpened his fighting skills through dedicated practice, this could indicate a single dip in Fighter or the feat Fighting Initiate, or even Martial Adept.

[Mastikator]

Right, I'm not saying Rage should be all a Barbarian has - I'm saying that your suggestions take away from a barbarian being a barbarian. As a class, thematically, it is centred around rage (just as wizards are centred around spells). In my eyes changes to barb should support rage, not spread them away from it - otherwise, as noted, it moves towards making them "Fighter-Lite".

Which is why I want the fighting style to come at the same time as their primal path does, the subclass rage things is what happens when they're raging as a result of that path. The fighting style is what happens when they're NOT raging as a part of that path.

And don't tell me they're entirely focused on rage.
Totem Warriors get 2 ritual spells at level 3 and one more at level 10.
Storm heralds get permanent resistance at level 6
Battleragers get armor proficiency from level 3.
Wild Magic can restore other PCs spell slots at level 6.

It's clearly intended that barbarians get stuff either a) while not raging or b) doesn't depend on rage. I want more of that. And I absolutely think that rangers reason for getting a fighting style is the same reason that barbarians get one. The point here is to lean into the flavor of the subclasses to give them stuff to do and that stuff shouldn't depend on rage. And "stuff to do" must include out of combat options.

[Dienekes]

Thematically, probably not. The flavor of the Barbarian is that they are less rigorously trained and rely more on brutality and ferocity as their means of combat. And, while I personally think Fighting Style is actually a terrible means of implementing this, the flavor of it is supposed to be this is what advanced training looks like.

That said, I get the issue. It’s my personal belief that Barbarians have some issues as a class. If all their abilities and powers are rolled into Rage, then one of two things need to happen:

1) By about level 5 they should be expected to Rage every encounter.
Or
2) They need to get cool things to do in combat that isn’t Rage.

The issue here is, Fighting Styles and Extra Attack aren’t really cool things to do. They’re kinda just doing the same thing you’ve been doing but slightly better. With a few exceptions, admittedly.

Also on a personal note, I kinda like creating a differentiation between Barbarians getting big hits and Fighters getting more hits. I’m not saying Extra Attack won’t work or is bad. But honestly I’d probably be more inclined to give all Barbarians an extra damage die per attack instead. Or downright steal expanded critical from Champion so that Brutal Crits isn’t essentially pointless.

[Bobthewizard]

I just changed rage to a short rest resource. It's not quite at-will but they can use it pretty much every encounter, and losing your rage because the enemy stepped out of range for a round isn't so devastating. I think at-will rage would be fine but the above is my compromise.

If you still think barbarians need more damage, I'd increase their rage bonus damage. No need to steal things from the fighter and make them more alike.

I agree with Amnestic that you should try to enhance the theme rather than making them more like fighters. However you want to do that is fine.

[Amnestic]

1) By about level 5 they should be expected to Rage every encounter.

PB/SR rages would probably help with that*, maybe up it to unlimited at 9th or 13th (since as noted they're not great levels to begin with) instead of at 20th.

*other idea: let them regain a rage usage for every X damage they take? Might be too much bookkeeping/not 5e streamlined though.

[Potato_Priest]

I don’t think Barbarians should get a fighting style because the main appeal of the class is the natural born warrior who trusts in his instincts and the power of fury in battle.


An excellent point. Part of being a barbarian is that you're not trained, you're just ANGRY. Also, adding a fighting style at level 3 only makes the frontloading worse, since 3 is a very potent level where you access (usually fantastic) subclass abilities.

I think that while a third attack at level 13 wouldn't be amiss, perhaps if we want to undo some of the barbarian frontloading then we can move some features to higher levels rather than just adding stuff. In particular, danger sense strikes me as not needing to come as early as it does.

[Ralanr]

I just changed rage to a short rest resource. It's not quite at-will but they can use it pretty much every encounter, and losing your rage because the enemy stepped out of range for a round isn't so devastating. I think at-will rage would be fine but the above is my compromise.

If you still think barbarians need more damage, I'd increase their rage bonus damage. No need to steal things from the fighter and make them more alike.

I agree with Amnestic that you should try to enhance the theme rather than making them more like fighters. However you want to do that is fine.

I like turning it into a short rest resource, but they'd probably have to reduce the number of rages a barbarian has to compensate.

[Mitchellnotes]

I'd say yes to fighting styles if for no other reason to give an opporfunity to pick up unarmed fighting style. Its odd that the arguably most thematic class for it doesn't get it.

I'd rather see a better designed rage feature (removing the limited uses per day). Maybe make it trigger on attack through the next round and shift the DR to a higher level to make it less dip abusable if that is a concern

[Mastikator]

An excellent point. Part of being a barbarian is that you're not trained, you're just ANGRY. Also, adding a fighting style at level 3 only makes the frontloading worse, since 3 is a very potent level where you access (usually fantastic) subclass abilities.

I think that while a third attack at level 13 wouldn't be amiss, perhaps if we want to undo some of the barbarian frontloading then we can move some features to higher levels rather than just adding stuff. In particular, danger sense strikes me as not needing to come as early as it does.

Or perhaps add one cantrip at level 9, zealots get one from the cleric list, storm heralds and wild magic get one from the sorcerer list and the rest get one from the druid list. The wild/nature/divine magic that fuels your rage now is constantly available while not raging, or perhaps a special effect that the cantrip learned through your level 9 barbarian feature can be cast while raging.

[Zhorn]

Sounds like making the barbarian a fighter subclass with extra steps.
Or just play a Fighter with a Barbarian dip

[BerzerkerUnit]

I’ve seen it said that Barbarians should be a “mystical warrior” class instead, empowered by something other than spells. Honestly, a “mystical warrior” that folded monk and Barbarian in together and provided some alacarte options would be interesting. The Monk as it was originally conceived was based on Kuai Chang Kane from Kung Fu, itself a somewhat racist artifact of a less enlightened era, rife with stereotypes, so seeing it get mashed out of its Asian cookie cutter shape might be welcome to some.

I would pull from the concepts established in Kenichi, the mightiest disciple where the “fighting spirit is honed to focus on instantaneous flip from rest to explosive power OR on practiced serenity.”

From there make the “rage side” a stockpile and unleash practice with subclasses that use it and “serenity side” like monk with a slow burn.

Maybe have Ki, but rage requires you to spend all your Ki and you regain Ki on a hit, with subclass features having Ki costs but enhanced effect in the rage state.

Thank you to the OP and others for the ideas I’ve cooked up here.

Long and short, the Barbarian concept is probably racists or classist or ableist. Just looking at one of the discussion points above “a fighting style is too controlled...”

How? It boils down to a Barbarian being incapable of regulating their emotions long enough to diligently practice fighting a certain way? Too poor to have come from a background where a disciplined approach was available? Or from a culture too backward to have developed sophisticated martial practices. And actual warriors drill maneuvers so they can be performed a s reflex, meaning they can and will execute sophisticated takedowns, killing blows, and submission holds while “paralyzed with fear, blinded by rage, or black out drunk.”

Making war has been one of the most fundamental aspects of human existence since we came down from the trees and every culture has some martial discipline meaning anyone they rely on to fight their battles, whether they are part of the military, or a hunter, or someone they think is blessed or possessed to make war will have training (even if it’s self taught) or reliable practice in putting the hurt on.

Barbarians should have a fighting style (every martial should, monks included).

My vote for Barbarians would be Dueling, Two Weapon, thrown, great weapon and unarmed.

They should also get improved critical the same time they get brutal crit.

A 3rd attack would be good, but I think you could get away with granting the benefits of crusher/piercer/slasher minus the stat boosts. Or just the same extra ASI fighters get since Barbarians are so MAD.

[Valmark]

I think the idea that barbarians aren't trained doesn't hold well when you consider that they have a proficiency like eveybody else and get Extra Attack as well- unless you can say that fighters/monks/paladins/some rangers/bladesingers/whatever else I forgot aren't trained you can't say barbarians aren't.

That said... If I were to boost the barbarian I'd probably give them a fighting style but not extra attack x2. Instead I'd lift from the Brute UA- probably not the free additional damage die, but the +d6 on saves or the regeneration could be cool. I'd give them some utility but everything that comes to mind is largely redundant.

[DarknessEternal]

Sounds like making the barbarian a fighter subclass with extra steps.

Probably better off with a top to bottom redesign.

This is the correct thing to do.

[stoutstien]

Only problem I have with just shifting rage over to SR based recovery is it makes them stronger as a dip which means to are even less likely to stick it out once they stop really progressing.
Some features Ive added to the class at different points to help them feel better.
- expanded crit range. Very small damage boost but it feels good.
- rage damage on missed weapon attacks when reckless attacking
-allow rage damage on thrown melee weapons.
-can rage as reaction after being critically hot without expending normal uses or are out.

Generall rules changes that help out
- can grapple/trip as AO
- big weapon/defensive feats integrated into weapon table. Makes them less and/or for ASI progression.
-unarmed strikes are D2s.

[Segev]

Only problem I have with just shifting rage over to SR based recovery is it makes them stronger as a dip which means to are even less likely to stick it out once they stop really progressing.

Maybe Barbarian 4 or 6 could recover a single rage every short rest?

[Ralanr]

Maybe Barbarian 4 or 6 could recover a single rage every short rest?

Maybe 7 since that’s when the core class feature pops up if I remember.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I’ve seen it said that Barbarians should be a “mystical warrior” class instead, empowered by something other than spells.

I created a Barbarian Thread not too long ago...now my point in that thread was not that the 5e Barbarian class should be a "Mystical Warrior"; instead my point was the 5e Barbarian class already is a "Mystical Warrior" class.

The 3PP Odyssey of the Dragonlords Setting/Adventure has a Herculean Path that enhances a Barbarian's ability to grapple, to use Heavy Weapons, and to use Strength for Ranged Attacks, as well as increasing the time one can use Rage as well as the Rage damage bonus.

If a player wants to play an overwhelming martial warrior Barbarian it is my opinion, the best subclass to select.

WotC, for whatever reason, has not offered any subclasses based around that theme, outside of the Frenzy Barb. The rest of the Barbarian subclasses are explicitly mystical...from Dr.Doolittle Barb to the Wild Magic Barb.

One not so mystical focused Barbarian Subclass out of a total seven subclasses, means only roughly 15% of current Barbarian subclasses conform to the idea of a non mystical Barbarian.

The reality of the Barbarian class doesn't seem to match the ideal that people hold in their head of what a Barbarian should be.

[Ralanr]

I created a Barbarian Thread not too long ago...now my point in that thread was not that the 5e Barbarian class should be a "Mystical Warrior"; instead my point was the 5e Barbarian class already is a "Mystical Warrior" class.

The 3PP Odyssey of the Dragonlords Setting/Adventure has a Herculean Path that enhances a Barbarian's ability to grapple, to use Heavy Weapons, and to use Strength for Ranged Attacks, as well as increasing the time one can use Rage as well as the Rage damage bonus.

If a player wants to play an overwhelming martial warrior Barbarian it is my opinion, the best subclass to select.

WotC, for whatever reason, has not offered any subclasses based around that theme, outside of the Frenzy Barb. The rest of the Barbarian subclasses are explicitly mystical...from Dr.Doolittle Barb to the Wild Magic Barb.

One not so mystical focused Barbarian Subclass out of a total seven subclasses, means only roughly 1.5% of current Barbarian subclasses conform to the idea of a non mystical Barbarian.

The reality of the Barbarian class doesn't seem to match the ideal that people hold in their head of what a Barbarian should be.

I honestly think WOTC has difficulties assigning mechanics without supernatural flavor.

And yet there are enough fighter and rogue subclasses to prove me wrong. It might be a problem with designing abilities for the barbarian because Rage (and the base class chassis) is kind of good?

[Valmark]

I created a Barbarian Thread not too long ago...now my point in that thread was not that the 5e Barbarian class should be a "Mystical Warrior"; instead my point was the 5e Barbarian class already is a "Mystical Warrior" class.

The 3PP Odyssey of the Dragonlords Setting/Adventure has a Herculean Path that enhances a Barbarian's ability to grapple, to use Heavy Weapons, and to use Strength for Ranged Attacks, as well as increasing the time one can use Rage as well as the Rage damage bonus.

If a player wants to play an overwhelming martial warrior Barbarian it is my opinion, the best subclass to select.

WotC, for whatever reason, has not offered any subclasses based around that theme, outside of the Frenzy Barb. The rest of the Barbarian subclasses are explicitly mystical...from Dr.Doolittle Barb to the Wild Magic Barb.

One not so mystical focused Barbarian Subclass out of a total seven subclasses, means only roughly 1.5% of current Barbarian subclasses conform to the idea of a non mystical Barbarian.

The reality of the Barbarian class doesn't seem to match the ideal that people hold in their head of what a Barbarian should be.

Fully agreed with this- I wish there were at least double the non-magical subclasses.

For what's worth there's the Battlerager in SCAG- it's... One of the worst subclasses ever seen, but it's there.

[Dienekes]

Long and short, the Barbarian concept is probably racists or classist or ableist. Just looking at one of the discussion points above “a fighting style is too controlled...”

How? It boils down to a Barbarian being incapable of regulating their emotions long enough to diligently practice fighting a certain way? Too poor to have come from a background where a disciplined approach was available? Or from a culture too backward to have developed sophisticated martial practices. And actual warriors drill maneuvers so they can be performed a s reflex, meaning they can and will execute sophisticated takedowns, killing blows, and submission holds while “paralyzed with fear, blinded by rage, or black out drunk.”

Making war has been one of the most fundamental aspects of human existence since we came down from the trees and every culture has some martial discipline meaning anyone they rely on to fight their battles, whether they are part of the military, or a hunter, or someone they think is blessed or possessed to make war will have training (even if it’s self taught) or reliable practice in putting the hurt on.


Just gonna leave this here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0973H6N13/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

[OvisCaedo]

I feel confused by the apparently common opinion that the "fighting style" feature is supposed to represent some kind of formal or rigorous training. The description doesn't really imply much of anything, and a bunch of the melee ones are essentially just "hit harder". Obviously not every fighting style would seem mechanically or thematically appropriate for the Barbarian, but that's why most classes don't get access to every fighting style to begin with.

[Pex]

I don't object to buffing barbarians, but not this way. Let this be a Fighter thing. I know Ranger and Paladin get a style from a smaller list, but fluff wise this tells me a fighting style is a formal training. Barbarian fluff they fight on instinct. This is admittedly nothing to do with balance. It's aesthetics. However, I don't vehemently oppose it.

[Dienekes]

I feel confused by the apparently common opinion that the "fighting style" feature is supposed to represent some kind of formal or rigorous training. The description doesn't really imply much of anything, and a bunch of the melee ones are essentially just "hit harder". Obviously not every fighting style would seem mechanically or thematically appropriate for the Barbarian, but that's why most classes don't get access to every fighting style to begin with.

It comes from Jeremy Crawford saying that's what it's supposed to represent. Followed by a description how the Fighter getting it at level 1 is supposed to show that they're the most well trained of the well trained combatants.

Personally, I have stated multiple times, I think Fighting Style does a horrible job of portraying formal training. But that goes along with D&D combat doing a horrible job of portraying martial combat in general. So, par for the course really.

[Amechra]

Quite frankly, this wouldn't solve one of the biggest problems that the Barbarian has — namely, it's a Strength-based melee class that locks you out of heavy armor. When you aren't raging, you're actually more fragile than a Fighter with the same Strength and Constitution, despite having a bigger hit-die.

[Ralanr]

Quite frankly, this wouldn't solve one of the biggest problems that the Barbarian has — namely, it's a Strength-based melee class that locks you out of heavy armor. When you aren't raging, you're actually more fragile than a Fighter with the same Strength and Constitution, despite having a bigger hit-die.

Yeah, when not raging the barbarian is just a worst fighter. Which is arguably the point, for them to revolve around rage being their main strength. But with so few rages early on, and the encounter model presented, it tells me designers had intended for barbarians to enter some fights without rage.

Which both does and doesn't make sense to me.

I've played in three modules give or take (as a player and running one as a DM) and I didn't play a barbarian in those. But because I love the class I found myself thinking about the encounters. Some were too small or quick that I found raging would have been a waste to do so. But without rage, you'd just a bigger pile of hitpoints, and hitpoints go down fast. Especially when you can be hurt easier (I'm not against Barbarians having unarmored defense, but its certainly a trap unless you roll well).

It is still bonkers to me that the barbarian gets no class features back on a short rest. Rage is apparently the martial equivalent to spellcasting in terms of power in the designers eyes. And yeah, it's strong, but strong enough to force barbarians to ask for long rests just as much as the non-warlock casters?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I created a Barbarian Thread not too long ago...now my point in that thread was not that the 5e Barbarian class should be a "Mystical Warrior"; instead my point was the 5e Barbarian class already is a "Mystical Warrior" class.

The 3PP Odyssey of the Dragonlords Setting/Adventure has a Herculean Path that enhances a Barbarian's ability to grapple, to use Heavy Weapons, and to use Strength for Ranged Attacks, as well as increasing the time one can use Rage as well as the Rage damage bonus.

If a player wants to play an overwhelming martial warrior Barbarian it is my opinion, the best subclass to select.

WotC, for whatever reason, has not offered any subclasses based around that theme, outside of the Frenzy Barb. The rest of the Barbarian subclasses are explicitly mystical...from Dr.Doolittle Barb to the Wild Magic Barb.

One not so mystical focused Barbarian Subclass out of a total seven subclasses, means only roughly 15% of current Barbarian subclasses conform to the idea of a non mystical Barbarian.

The reality of the Barbarian class doesn't seem to match the ideal that people hold in their head of what a Barbarian should be.

And even the Beserker isn't exactly normal. The class flat out says that rage gives you superhuman abilities. Rage (the feature) isn't just "I get really angry". Rage is about drawing fantastic (ie above what is normal for the setting and above what is possible on earth) power from somewhere. Spirits of the wild, spirits of the ancestors, elemental forces, devotion, what have you. Emotions are just the channel and trigger, and anger is an easy trigger. The berserkers are the "sorcerers" of the barbarian world--their power comes from within. That's "anime fighting spirit" in a nutshell.

[GooeyChewie]

I'd be okay with WotC giving Barbarians fighting styles in '24, so long as they get their own list of styles. Some of those styles could overlap with Fighter (Great Weapon Fighting and Unarmed Fighting make sense, for example), but they should have some unique options of their own as well. And some of the existing ones which run counter to Barbarian themes, such as Defense and Dueling, should not be on the Barbarian list.

[Dienekes]

And even the Beserker isn't exactly normal. The class flat out says that rage gives you superhuman abilities. Rage (the feature) isn't just "I get really angry". Rage is about drawing fantastic (ie above what is normal for the setting and above what is possible on earth) power from somewhere. Spirits of the wild, spirits of the ancestors, elemental forces, devotion, what have you. Emotions are just the channel and trigger, and anger is an easy trigger. The berserkers are the "sorcerers" of the barbarian world--their power comes from within. That's "anime fighting spirit" in a nutshell.

Pretty sure the description just says that Rage can be whatever. The fluff even says it can be from an internal reservoir of anger. The description of their abilities as uncanny is used to describe completely mundane things all the time.

Point being, Barbarian's Rage can be whatever. It's still the best implementation of a ber-serkr from accounts of the Norse. It can just also be being possessed by spirits or channeling into some divine magic or whatever.

[Sorinth]

Even if you give Barbarians a fighting style it wouldn't change the perception that Barbarians have little to look forward to in later levels.

It's pretty clear that Brutal Critical doesn't really hit the mark for most people as the high level Barbarian damage feature so altering it in some way probably makes the most sense. If instead of limiting BC damage to crits if it happened whenever you exceeded the targets AC by 5 or more it would probably get people more interested in it as a feature.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pretty sure the description just says that Rage can be whatever. The fluff even says it can be from an internal reservoir of anger. The description of their abilities as uncanny is used to describe completely mundane things all the time.

Point being, Barbarian's Rage can be whatever. It's still the best implementation of a ber-serkr from accounts of the Norse. It can just also be being possessed by spirits or channeling into some divine magic or whatever.

It says that



More than a mere emotion, their anger is the ferocity of a cornered predator, the unrelenting assault of a storm, the churning turmoil of the sea.

For some, their rage springs from a communion with fierce animal spirits. Others draw from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain. For every barbarian, rage is a power that fuels not just a battle frenzy but also uncanny reflexes, resilience, and feats of strength.
...
They can enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience.


It's more than just "I'm angry". It's something so powerful that it
a) fuels ... uncanny reflexes, resilience, and feats of strength (uncanny being a close synonym for "supernatural" in the fantastic sense)
b) gives them superhuman strength and resilience. Key word: superhuman.

Barbarians aren't just angry people. They're tapping into something beyond just emotion. Whatever that is (selected by subclass), it gives them "mystical" (ie fantastic, not available to people who don't have it) powers.

That was all I was going for. I prefer the model where barbarians are the full-martial equivalent of rangers and druids--drawing on the primal forces of the material world, whether those be spirits (nature or ancestors), elements, or just a pocket of primal emotion. But I don't think that model is strictly required by the text.

[Dienekes]

It says that



It's more than just "I'm angry". It's something so powerful that it
a) fuels ... uncanny reflexes, resilience, and feats of strength (uncanny being a close synonym for "supernatural" in the fantastic sense)
b) gives them superhuman strength and resilience. Key word: superhuman.

Barbarians aren't just angry people. They're tapping into something beyond just emotion. Whatever that is (selected by subclass), it gives them "mystical" (ie fantastic, not available to people who don't have it) powers.

And that is how I would describe the stories of mothers lifting cars to save their children. Or people who have been shot twenty times and still charge into battle despite pretty much being dead. Especially if we're limited to the vernacular of a fantasy setting and I can't talk about adrenaline and endorphins.

I see you have your preference. I prefer the exact opposite, really. The human body is already wondrous in how it can push people to do incredible feats. History and real life is full of examples of people doing things that others would find impossible. And truth be told, the norse ber-sekr is cooler than pretty much any fantasy archetype of a berserker I've ever read, with the possible exception of Logan Ninefingers. And that's cutting it close.

I'd much rather see things getting presented in a mundane or even maybe magical maybe mundane way (which was how the Norse described ber-sekrs). Rather than just taking something that is totally possible in real life, and saying to do it you must use magic. Which is a whole other argument I have that mostly revolves around the Ranger class to be honest.

[arnin77]

What about giving Barbarians +1 to hit while raging with a melee weapon at 5,11 and 17?

[GreyBlack]

Other questions to ask:
"Should wizards get metamagic?"
"Should druids get Channel Divinity?"
"Should Fighters get Smite?"

The extra fighting styles and attacks are big reasons why the Fighter class is so unique. Sure, other classes get extra attack and fighting style, but no other class gets multiples of those features. So, should we change a core component of that class? No, I don't think so.

Now, should the barbarian be folded into the fighter, giving it access to those things? That, I think, might be a better discussion. Turning the barbarian into a fighter subclass that gives the fighter Rage and Unarmored Defense at level 3, Reckless Attack at level 7, Relentless Rage at level 10, and Persistent Rage at 17? That might make the Barbarian into a better option than it currently is.

[Ganryu]

How about every time they get a critical hit as an attack action, they get an extra attack? It feels incredible for players, but at the same time, mathmatically, isn't that big of a deal.

The angrier you are, the more wildly you are flailing.

As far as those other brutal criticals, I say instead of that, replace them with expanded criticals, making it 19, then 20.

[Amnestic]

Other questions to ask:
"Should wizards get metamagic?"
"Should druids get Channel Divinity?"
"Should Fighters get Smite?"

I do think that we're still missing some cross-class feats for sure. Don't know how to balance them, but ideally we'd see at least one for each class.

I guess wizards don't really have an identity worthy of one outside of "spellbook", they're kinda covered by the general Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate feats already, but feat for rage, feat for wild shape, feat for smite, feat for sneak attack, feat for getting dunked on something Favored Foe or Favored Enemy, feat for Bardic Inspiration...yeah, why not.

[Ralanr]

How about every time they get a critical hit as an attack action, they get an extra attack? It feels incredible for players, but at the same time, mathmatically, isn't that big of a deal.

The angrier you are, the more wildly you are flailing.

As far as those other brutal criticals, I say instead of that, replace them with expanded criticals, making it 19, then 20.

I really hate making Barbarians reliant on crits. If anyone asked me what barbarian feature was the worst, I'd rank brutal critical above Frenzy's exhaustion.

But making increasing their crit range works? Idk. I've always figure increasing crit range was a sign of weapon mastery, not hitting harder.

[GreyBlack]

I do think that we're still missing some cross-class feats for sure. Don't know how to balance them, but ideally we'd see at least one for each class.

I guess wizards don't really have an identity worthy of one outside of "spellbook", they're kinda covered by the general Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate feats already, but feat for rage, feat for wild shape, feat for smite, feat for sneak attack, feat for getting dunked on something Favored Foe or Favored Enemy, feat for Bardic Inspiration...yeah, why not.

Oh, I mean, in my ideal world, there would only be 4 classes (Fighter, Magic User, Rogue, and Priest), a subclass for each of the "classes" (so Barbarian would be a subclass of fighter, Ranger would be a subclass of Rogue, Warlock would be a subclass of Magic User, etc.), sub-subclasses for the subclasses (what, in 5e, is the subclass), and then the option for cross class feats, but that would be super noodly and no one would like it.

[Ralanr]

Oh, I mean, in my ideal world, there would only be 4 classes (Fighter, Magic User, Rogue, and Priest), a subclass for each of the "classes" (so Barbarian would be a subclass of fighter, Ranger would be a subclass of Rogue, Warlock would be a subclass of Magic User, etc.), sub-subclasses for the subclasses (what, in 5e, is the subclass), and then the option for cross class feats, but that would be super noodly and no one would like it.

So tabletop Path of Exile?

[GreyBlack]

So tabletop Path of Exile?

Never played Path of Exile, but I was thinking more of a hybrid between 2nd edition AD&D's traditional 3/4 class structure (Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-User, and Rogue) and the modern 5e system.

[Amechra]

I really hate making Barbarians reliant on crits. If anyone asked me what barbarian feature was the worst, I'd rank brutal critical above Frenzy's exhaustion.

But making increasing their crit range works? Idk. I've always figure increasing crit range was a sign of weapon mastery, not hitting harder.

Honestly, giving Barbarians alternate ways to trigger critical hits could be fun. Heck, I want to see more mechanics like Fell Handed, where you get to do something cool if both of your advantage dice hit.

[Dienekes]

Now, should the barbarian be folded into the fighter, giving it access to those things? That, I think, might be a better discussion. Turning the barbarian into a fighter subclass that gives the fighter Rage and Unarmored Defense at level 3, Reckless Attack at level 7, Relentless Rage at level 10, and Persistent Rage at 17? That might make the Barbarian into a better option than it currently is.

Personal opinion. A concept in 5e should become a class, when it has a consistent narrative fantasy that can be displayed mechanically, and that mechanic can be narrowed to encompass multiple variations of that fantasy that each can be easily recognized as distinct from each other.

Barbarian actually I think has more stake with being a class on its own than something like Sorcerer, in my opinion. Guy who enters state of “fury” when they fight is definitely a distinct narrative fantasy. There’s a lot of characters in fiction, legends, and history who go into some kind of heightened focus or battle rage. So the fantasy is there.

Can this fantasy be displayed mechanically? Yes. Rage is a very distinct ability that makes their playstyle different from other warriors. The limit that it must be attacked or attacking is vital here to make it more than just a simple encounter long buff. It’s actually pretty well realized.

Can this fantasy be divided into sub-fantasies that all have distinct mechanical niches? Again, in my opinion, yeah. Off the top of my head, the core Rage mechanic can be used to show a few distinct mundane fighting styles in the ber-sekr’s power based combat, or the whirling dervish type of combatant, or some Warchief like figure that works themselves and those around them into a battle rage. It can also be used to include a lot of fantastic archetypes, such as lycanthropy, growing like a Hulk, demonic possession/split personalities, and probably quite a few more that I could come up with given the time.

All that to say, I do think the Barbarian has a place as a class. That doesn’t mean I think this iteration is in any way perfect. But I think there’s enough there to build off of.


I really hate making Barbarians reliant on crits. If anyone asked me what barbarian feature was the worst, I'd rank brutal critical above Frenzy's exhaustion.

But making increasing their crit range works? Idk. I've always figure increasing crit range was a sign of weapon mastery, not hitting harder.

Personal opinion, I kinda like it. The randomness I feel fits well with the wild nature the mechanics are supposed to be showing.

Now that said, I wish mathematically the abilities did more. But that’s how it is, I guess.

[GreyBlack]

Personal opinion. A concept in 5e should become a class, when it has a consistent narrative fantasy that can be displayed mechanically, and that mechanic can be narrowed to encompass multiple variations of that fantasy that each can be easily recognized as distinct from each other.

Barbarian actually I think has more stake with being a class on its own than something like Sorcerer, in my opinion. Guy who enters state of “fury” when they fight is definitely a distinct narrative fantasy. There’s a lot of characters in fiction, legends, and history who go into some kind of heightened focus or battle rage. So the fantasy is there.

Can this fantasy be displayed mechanically? Yes. Rage is a very distinct ability that makes their playstyle different from other warriors. The limit that it must be attacked or attacking is vital here to make it more than just a simple encounter long buff. It’s actually pretty well realized.

Can this fantasy be divided into sub-fantasies that all have distinct mechanical niches? Again, in my opinion, yeah. Off the top of my head, the core Rage mechanic can be used to show a few distinct mundane fighting styles in the ber-sekr’s power based combat, or the whirling dervish type of combatant, or some Warchief like figure that works themselves and those around them into a battle rage. It can also be used to include a lot of fantastic archetypes, such as lycanthropy, growing like a Hulk, demonic possession/split personalities, and probably quite a few more that I could come up with given the time.

All that to say, I do think the Barbarian has a place as a class. That doesn’t mean I think this iteration is in any way perfect. But I think there’s enough there to build off of.


Entirely fair. I was kinda gesturing towards that kind of thing in my comment (namely that there are thematic parts of the various classes that shouldn't be taken by other classes, and I think the second extra attack and fighting style fit this), so I think we agree. That said, it was an interesting thought experiment.

[Ralanr]

Snip

Looks like you're quoting the wrong person up first.

[ChaosStar]

I'm going to repost something I did as to how I think the Barbarian should be.


Outer Spiritual: This is the Barbarian. Barbarians are about Channeling the Power of their Ancestors or Spirit Animals. Their Mechanics are Ancestral Totems, Spirit Animals, and Rage.
Ancestral Totems: Gains a Totem that gives various Spell-Like Abilities. More abilities gained with higher Barbarian Levels.
Spirit Animals: Gains a Spirit Animal that gives an extra Skill Proficiency and Bonuses.
Rage: When below half health can enter a rage that gives extra Strength, AC, Damage Reduction, and doesn't become unconscious at 0 HP.