Barbarians should receive their subclass at level 1

[Blatant Beast]

The source or the form that a Barbarian’s mystical powers arise from, seems as thematically relevant as a Cleric’s choice of Domain, or the origins of a Sorcerer’s power.

Barbarian as a class is, quite front loaded as is. This may mean that the first initial taste of a particular Barbarian subclass should not be too powerful of an ability.

The Barbarian class needs to be re-envisioned, for the future.
I hope it does, join the classes that select their subclass at level 1.

[Spacehamster]

The source or the form that a Barbarian’s mystical powers arise from, seems as thematically relevant as a Cleric’s choice of Domain, or the origins of a Sorcerer’s power.

Barbarian as a class is, quite front loaded as is. This may mean that the first initial taste of a particular Barbarian subclass should not be too powerful of an ability.

The Barbarian class needs to be re-envisioned, for the future.
I hope it does, join the classes that select their subclass at level 1.

Tbh all classes should pick subclass at 1 if nothing else for consistency’s sake. :)

[Blatant Beast]

Complete uniformity eliminates some potential for fun.

Wizards, Druids, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, and Bards, acquire their subclass powers on a level schedule, that feels fine, to me.

Artificers, would be improved by moving their subclass acquisition to 2nd level.

Rogue subclass abilities, seem poorly spaced out. Some reconfiguration is needed. I’ve read multiple complaints about T2 Rogues on the Inter-nyet.

[stoutstien]

Maybe not a full path at 1 bit some sort of choice would be nice. Maybe slight variations on rage for some more flexibility in the way it manifests.

[Nefariis]

Tbh all classes should pick subclass at 1 if nothing else for consistency’s sake. :)

See i would go the other way with this - I think all sub classes should be taken at level 3 to avoid cheesy 1 level dips.

I think it would feel more like the Prestige Classes of 3.5, which I loved.

[clash]

Right now I find classes fall into two categories: origin or style. I argue that instead all classes should be defined by both and should have symmetric design. Something like:

1. Origin and scaling feature(spellcasting, rage, sneak attack etc)
2. Key class feature
3. Style

That way two fighters have different stories at level 1 but really differentiate the way they fight by level 3. Warlock already uses a similar paradigm to this with patron and boon.

If we did this for barbarian it might be
1. Rage and source of rage (divine fury, transformation magic etc)
2. Reckless attack
3. Subclass abilities that support a style of fighting

[Amnestic]

See i would go the other way with this - I think all sub classes should be taken at level 3 to avoid cheesy 1 level dips.

I think it would feel more like the Prestige Classes of 3.5, which I loved.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense narratively for warlock patrons or sorcerer bloodlines though.

Then again it doesn't make much narrative sense that a Paladin, who gets their powers from their Oath, doesn't actually pledge to an oath until 3rd level.

[Nefariis]

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense narratively for warlock patrons or sorcerer bloodlines though.

Then again it doesn't make much narrative sense that a Paladin, who gets their powers from their Oath, doesn't actually pledge to an oath until 3rd level.

Yeah, I think you could lean into the "Acolyte" term a little bit - you have a few powers, but you are not really blessed until level 3.

[Dienekes]

Maybe not a full path at 1 bit some sort of choice would be nice. Maybe slight variations on rage for some more flexibility in the way it manifests.

Could be a nice excuse to make Whilrling Dervish a thing again.

Level 1: Ya playing a Dex Barbarian or a Str Barbarian? Whichever you choose effects your Rage benefits.

[Polyphemus]

Rogue subclass abilities, seem poorly spaced out. Some reconfiguration is needed. I’ve read multiple complaints about T2 Rogues on the Inter-nyet.

I gotta second this, and drill down on it; I haven't played a lot of Rogues, so when I was considering one for a recent one-shot I was gobsmacked that there's a huge, six level gap between your first subclass feature, and your second one.

Bard, Barbarian, and Monk have a 3 level gap between their first two subclass features, Cleric technically only has one, if you're counting the subclass-specific Channel Divinity, otherwise it's four levels, Druid's also a 4 level gap, same with Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Wizard; Sorcerer has a 5 level gap, as does Warlock. So Rogue has the largest level gap between their first subclass feature, and their second subclass feature.

I suppose to its credit it gets more subclass features at higher levels, like for comparison the Bard only gets three levels where it gets subclass features, total, so maybe that's where the balance comes in?

But considering most tables don't get up that high a level, it's a little crazy to me that Rogue, of all classes, has the largest gap in subclass features, big enough that while many of the classes will get a second subclass feature in the sweet spot of the common gameplay levels, Rogue's right at the upper edge of that at level 9.

[strangebloke]

I'd be down except for the fact that they're hilariously overtuned at level 1 as it is. I would normally say that you should move rage to level 2, but subclasses don't do anything without rage.

[diplomancer]

Just start your games at level 3. Problem solved, without having to worry about overpowered dips.

[Skrum]

Ehhh I don't know about this. Frontloading classes even more...not my favorite. There's virtually no reason to beyond barb 5 with the current rules. Subclass at level 1, and there's (almost) no reason to go beyond barb 1. Barb 1 Fighter 5 is vastly better than Barb 6.

Barbs need help. I don't think giving them their few good features even earlier is the way to help them. It just makes them a 1 level class. At that point, make them a fighter subclass*

*which might not be a terrible idea, honestly.

[JLandan]

Perhaps, if you feel all classes should evolve exactly the same, you should re-visit 4th edition.

[Hytheter]

Regarding front loading: A hypothetical redesign that puts more or all subclasses at level 1 could presumably also include new and more even spacing for subclass abilities.

[CTurbo]

In general, I'd like to see all classes have the subclass chosen at level 1, but I think level 3 should be when the good features hit to avoid the cheesy dips. I'd also like to see subclass features drop in more often instead of just 3 times between 1-20.

To be specific, yes it makes more sense for the Barb to choose it's subclass path from the start. I also wish they would figure out how to make martials more interesting at higher levels. The Barb, along with the Ranger, are probably the worst.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd be down except for the fact that they're hilariously overtuned at level 1 as it is. I would normally say that you should move rage to level 2, but subclasses don't do anything without rage.

But they would get almost nothing at 1st level then. Outside of very good rolls, UD isn't very useful at level 1.

[stoutstien]

Multiclassing is inherently flawed and wasn't included with much regard to balance so it's probably a bad idea to factor it in of you are looking to adjust a class in and of itself.

[Skrum]

Multiclassing is inherently flawed and wasn't included with much regard to balance so it's probably a bad idea to factor it in of you are looking to adjust a class in and of itself.

Frankly, that's exactly how we ended up with weird multiclass imbalances. If multiclassing is allowed, it needs to be considered.

Barbarians in particular suffer from very few notable features after level 5, so multiclassing is especially important to consider for them

[Catullus64]

The source or the form that a Barbarian’s mystical powers arise from, seems as thematically relevant as a Cleric’s choice of Domain, or the origins of a Sorcerer’s power.

Barbarian as a class is, quite front loaded as is. This may mean that the first initial taste of a particular Barbarian subclass should not be too powerful of an ability.

The Barbarian class needs to be re-envisioned, for the future.
I hope it does, join the classes that select their subclass at level 1.

*exaggerated sighing*

It doesn't necessarily detract from your point, Blatant Beast, and I'm not blaming you for this fact, but the over-magification of the Barbarian class has never been so evident as in a statement comparing them to Clerics and Sorcerers, and assuming that mystical powers are core to their identity. The central theme of the class was (if the descriptive text in the PHB is to be believed) 'primal, uncivilized warrior', which has somehow morphed into 'magical anger powers', which I think is comparatively dull. It seems like most of the development of Barbarian subclasses has been asking the question 'how do we iterate on supernatural rage' rather than 'how do we iterate on the barbarian hero archetype'.

(This as someone who likes the Barbarian's core kit; I think that many of the complaints over their mechanical performance is so much tempest in teacups.)

The future re-envisioning of the class should involve, I think, a de-centering of Rage and a greater emphasis on speed, aggression, cunning, and raw physicality. In other words, I think this class is at its best as a Conan clone (Clonan?)

[kazaryu]

Yeah, I think you could lean into the "Acolyte" term a little bit - you have a few powers, but you are not really blessed until level 3.

the problem is that paladin in 5e aren't meant to (need to) be tied to a church, or even a deity. their source of power, while technically external, is driven entirely by their oath. it makes no sense for them to have that power before the oath is actually made. you can force it to make sense for specific brands of paladins, like those belonging to religious orders, saying that for the first to levels they're empowered similarly to clerics. but that doesn't hold for an agnostic paladin (which are explicitly meant to be a thing in 5e). its just..an oddity. it would make far more sense for clerics to follow paladin progression and vice versa.

[stoutstien]

Frankly, that's exactly how we ended up with weird multiclass imbalances. If multiclassing is allowed, it needs to be considered.

Barbarians in particular suffer from very few notable features after level 5, so multiclassing is especially important to consider for them

I mean if the point of the thought exercise is to make sure the class doesn't promote obligatory multi-classing if that option is available then you don't need to consider it at all until you infact have a class that functions without said optional options.

We ended up with weird multi-class interactions because the designers didn't attempt to balance it. Period.

[diplomancer]

I mean if the point of the thought exercise is to make sure the class doesn't promote obligatory multi-classing if that option is available then you don't need to consider it at all until you infact have a class that functions without said optional options.

We ended up with weird multi-class interactions because the designers didn't attempt to balance it. Period.

There are many possible criticisms to the Barbarian class. Getting too little at level 1 isn't one of them.

[stoutstien]

There are many possible criticisms to the Barbarian class. Getting too little at level 1 isn't one of them.

I disagree. They get one thing and while it's a very nice thing it's still singular and limited as far as how it impacts play, duration, and availability. Well I agree moving the subclass on level one is probably too much there's definitely space there for some additional features.
I can't even figure out the logic behind why they only get two skills. Why are they less skillful than their other martial counterparts?

[Amnestic]

Why are they less skillful than their other martial counterparts?

"Barbarians dumb, not skilled!", I expect.

Though they're not less skilled than their martial counterparts; fighters and monks both also get two. If I recall correctly everyone does except ranger (3 from a list), rogue (4 from a list) and bard (any 3 - on a fullcaster!).

[stoutstien]

"Barbarians dumb, not skilled!", I expect.

Though they're not less skilled than their martial counterparts; fighters and monks both also get two. If I recall correctly everyone does except ranger (3 from a list), rogue (4 from a list) and bard (any 3 - on a fullcaster!).

At first this is true but both fighters and monks have plenty of subclass options that gain additional skills where the barbarian just for some reason avoids that. I realize it's a tad off tangent but it bugs me **primal knowledge is a good step in the right direction**

[diplomancer]

I disagree. They get one thing and while it's a very nice thing it's still singular and limited as far as how it impacts play, duration, and availability. Well I agree moving the subclass on level one is probably too much there's definitely space there for some additional features.
I can't even figure out the logic behind why they only get two skills. Why are they less skillful than their other martial counterparts?

Barbarians get two things actually, (and one of those things is probably the most powerful level 1 feature); as do several other classes (not to mention good weapon/armor proficiencies and the best hit points of all).

As to "less skills than their other martial counterparts": Two skills is the baseline; all classes get it, apart from Rogues and Rangers (on the Martial side) and Bards (on the caster side).

Sure, maybe some subclasses could add some skill... still, that has nothing to do with frontloading Barbarians even more by putting their current subclasses at level 1.

[stoutstien]

Barbarians get two things actually, (and one of those things is probably the most powerful level 1 feature); as do several other classes (not to mention good weapon/armor proficiencies and the best hit points of all).

As to "less skills than their other martial counterparts": Two skills is the baseline; all classes get it, apart from Rogues and Rangers (on the Martial side) and Bards (on the caster side).

They get the Prof for armor and weapons but don't actually get them as standard gear. RaW they don't get any armor. As for HP the difference between them and the D10 options is large enough to be called a feature especially when thanks to the lack of gear they actually have less EHP even with rage.

[diplomancer]

They get the Prof for armor and weapons but don't actually get them as standard gear. RaW they don't get any armor. As for HP the difference between them and the D10 options is large enough to be called a feature especially when thanks to the lack of gear they actually have less EHP even with rage.

I'd have to see that math to believe it. 1 less AC vs 2 more hit points at least (they do get a shield, after all, I suggest they use it, at least at 1st level), AND Rage on top of that.

If you're comparing specifically with Fighter, who gets Second Wind, yes, if you have enough Short Rests on that first session. But he still got more survivability than anyone else.

But I'll repeat my original argument. Of all the criticisms of the Barbarian class I've heard so far, "they should be more front-loaded" is a novel one.

And even if you DO think that's a problem, the best solution is what I've suggested, at least for games where multiclassing is an option. Start at level 3. You can even allow them to buy some scale armor by then if you think starting with 1 AC less is too brutal.

[stoutstien]

I'd have to see that math to believe it. 1 less AC vs 2 more hit points at least (they do get a shield, after all, I suggest they use it, at least at 1st level), AND Rage on top of that.

If you're comparing specifically with Fighter, who gets Second Wind, yes, if you have enough Short Rests on that first session. But he still got more survivability than anyone else.

But I'll repeat my original argument. Of all the criticisms of the Barbarian class I've heard so far, "they should be more front-loaded" is a novel one.

And even if you DO think that's a problem, the best solution is what I've suggested, at least for games where multiclassing is an option. Start at level 3. You can even allow them to buy some scale armor by then if you think starting with 1 AC less is too brutal.

They don't get a shield either without purchasing one which means best case they can get 16 AC if they max both con and dex which few do. adding armor and/or a shield to one of the load out options is a good example of a low key feature you could add in with little grief and the players probably wouldn't notice but it's a small quality of play upgrade. Like why even say a greataxe OR any martial weapon...

[diplomancer]

They don't get a shield either without purchasing one which means best case they can get 16 AC if they max both con and dex which few do. adding armor and/or a shield to one of the load out options is a good example of a low key feature you could add in with little grief and the players probably wouldn't notice but it's a small quality of play upgrade. Like why even say a greataxe OR any martial weapon...

My bad, I misremembered it. Yes, Barbarians should get the option of a shield as starting equipment. And giving them scale mail wouldn't break anything either...

For that matter, why oh why are Dex Rangers and Fighters stuck with Leather Armor, specially since Scale Mail costs more than Studded Leather? That's like giving Ring Mail to the Str martials!

[MadMusketeer]

For that matter, why oh why are Dex Rangers and Fighters stuck with Leather Armor, specially since Scale Mail costs more than Studded Leather? That's like giving Ring Mail to the Str martials!
I think the idea is that part of the appeal of playing a Dex martial is being able to have a decent stealth score, and Scale Mail gives you disadvantage on stealth, so it wouldn't make sense as the default Dex Fighter or Ranger option.

[diplomancer]

I think the idea is that part of the appeal of playing a Dex martial is being able to have a decent stealth score, and Scale Mail gives you disadvantage on stealth, so it wouldn't make sense as the default Dex Fighter or Ranger option.

What I meant is, why not just give them Studded Leather instead of Leather? They're still one AC point behind Heavy Armor (at least when playing with Standard Array or point-buy). They bought the Scale Mail; they had the money for it. Why didn't they buy Studded Leather instead?

[Hytheter]

For that matter, why oh why are Dex Rangers and Fighters stuck with Leather Armor, specially since Scale Mail costs more than Studded Leather? That's like giving Ring Mail to the Str martials!

This bothers me as well. I have to assume the logic was something along the lines of 'well, nobody gets the best armour of their preferred kind' but like, you can literally sell scale mail off for enough cash to buy studded leather plus change.

[Dr.Samurai]

The source or the form that a Barbarian’s mystical powers arise from, seems as thematically relevant as a Cleric’s choice of Domain, or the origins of a Sorcerer’s power.
*cries in Where is my Mundane Strong Man?!*

The Barbarian class needs to be re-envisioned, for the future.

The future re-envisioning of the class should involve, I think, a de-centering of Rage and a greater emphasis on speed, aggression, cunning, and raw physicality. In other words, I think this class is at its best as a Conan clone (Clonan?)
I would be happy with something like this, depending on the implementation of course.

The barbarian should get in fast and hit hard, and take hits well.

I hope it does, join the classes that select their subclass at level 1.
Sure, and I hope those subclasses include non-magical ones. It's a travesty that the only non-magical subclass has an Exhaustion rider attached to it's 3rd level feature.


I would normally say that you should move rage to level 2, but subclasses don't do anything without rage.
*brandishes holy symbol and sprinkles holy water* Back! Back you fiend!


I would suggest for the OP that the barbarian's power is innate. They can enter into a frenzy that is somewhat superhuman but it is still natural to them. Those that advance further can augment that rage with some other power, or gain more out of it than other barbarians. But you don't need it to be a barbarian. Hence 3rd level subclass.

[Blatant Beast]

I would suggest for the OP that the barbarian's power is innate. They can enter into a frenzy that is somewhat superhuman but it is still natural to them. Those that advance further can augment that rage with some other power, or gain more out of it than other barbarians. But you don't need it to be a barbarian. Hence 3rd level subclass.

That doesn’t seem a satisfactory answer.

From a characterization standpoint, it means one starts as a generalized Barbarian, with a universally expressed form in Rage and Reckless attack, despite there being no Barbarian Union, and later one can elect to go to Barbarian Finishing school and get a subclass.

Do people not know what subclass they want to play, when starting a 1st level Barbarian?

Do Barbarian PCs start off as Mad Martigan from Willow, only to advance and wind up as the Lizard, from Spider-Man, because the player selected Path of the Beast?

I tend to suspect, people have a Barbarian subclass in mind, right from level one.

[diplomancer]

That doesn’t seem a satisfactory answer.

From a characterization standpoint, it means one starts as a generalized Barbarian, with a universally expressed form in Rage and Reckless attack, despite there being no Barbarian Union, and later one can elect to go to Barbarian Finishing school and get a subclass.

Do people not know what subclass they want to play, when starting a 1st level Barbarian?

Do Barbarian PCs start off as Mad Martigan from Willow, only to advance and wind up as the Lizard, from Spider-Man, because the player selected Path of the Beast?

I tend to suspect, people have a Barbarian subclass in mind, right from level one.

I'd think that the truth of that last sentence depends a lot on the player's experience. And when it IS true, it also applies to ALL classes. So, if your players are even somewhat experienced, start from level 3.

[Dr.Samurai]

That doesn’t seem a satisfactory answer.
I find it quite satisfactory :smallamused:

From a characterization standpoint, it means one starts as a generalized Barbarian, with a universally expressed form in Rage and Reckless attack, despite there being no Barbarian Union, and later one can elect to go to Barbarian Finishing school and get a subclass.
I don't think that Rage and Reckless Attack require a formal school. I think it's reasonable to expect these types of abilities to be found across different cultures and locations without having to explain how they all do the same thing. It's primal, after all, so it's something innate in all of us that barbarian's can bring forth and use in combat.

Do people not know what subclass they want to play, when starting a 1st level Barbarian?

Do Barbarian PCs start off as Mad Martigan from Willow, only to advance and wind up as the Lizard, from Spider-Man, because the player selected Path of the Beast?

I tend to suspect, people have a Barbarian subclass in mind, right from level one.
*shrugs* Who knows? I don't think it matters much. You can play a beast barbarian right at level 1 by simply describing it as the source of your power and as a feral/bestial shift. Then at level 3 it becomes more pronounced when you get your natural attacks.

Or, you can just be a barbarian, and at level 3 your abilities unlock some latent werewolf heritage you never knew you had.