10 minute barbarian rage is completely incoherent

[Skrum]

Yes, I know this was a popular change in One, and it's easy to see why on a mechanical level. Barbs drop rage too easily and too randomly and the class *is* the amount of time spent in rage, so it's given a much longer duration and the ability to prolong it even out of combat.

But I hate this. Up to 10 minutes in a rage, when not even fighting?? What the heck is this ability? How am I supposed to imagine what this looks like? Imagine a party climbs a wall (str), sneaks passed some guards (dex), gets made by a guard and bribes him (cha), and then finally the barb lifts a heavy gate (str). That whole time, the barb is just stewing in the back, grinding their teeth for 10 minutes, maximizing the rage duration and hoping for another str roll.

If the ability isn't RAGE then don't call it RAGE.

Now I know this is a little out of the box, but just a thought, just a little spitballing, what if
- rage last for 1 minute
- rage doesn't end unless the barb starts a turn at 0 (or they end it voluntarily)
- BARB GETS SOME DARN ABILITIES THAT AREN'T BASED ON RAGE

Ok I'm raging about this. But it wasn't for 10 minutes; that would be crazy.

[Kane0]

- BARB GETS SOME DARN ABILITIES THAT AREN'T BASED ON RAGE

Ok I'm raging about this. But it wasn't for 10 minutes; that would be crazy.

This is madness!

[Theodoxus]

I just wish they'd gone back to rounds for Rage. Multiply their current rage by 10, that's how many rounds a LR you have. Initiate a Rage with a BA, it goes as long as you need (3 or 4 rounds I guess is typical) and then it stops. No wasting 6 or 7 rounds on one of your precious 2 Rages for nothing. No need to constantly seethe for 10 minutes.

If you have 20 rounds of Rage, its less concerning blowing 1 of them to Rage, lift a gate with advantage and the immediately calm down.

You can spring traps with your face. You can dwarf toss your friends across the 20' chasm (is that racist? I think it's racist...) Also removes the weird skill beats that were used to justify the 10 minutes.

IDK what WotC was thinking, but they went in the complete opposite direction of what the class needed.

[Arkhios]

This is madness!

"Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!"

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)


I just wish they'd gone back to rounds for Rage. Multiply their current rage by 10, that's how many rounds a LR you have. Initiate a Rage with a BA, it goes as long as you need (3 or 4 rounds I guess is typical) and then it stops. No wasting 6 or 7 rounds on one of your precious 2 Rages for nothing. No need to constantly seethe for 10 minutes.

If you have 20 rounds of Rage, its less concerning blowing 1 of them to Rage, lift a gate with advantage and the immediately calm down.

You can spring traps with your face. You can dwarf toss your friends across the 20' chasm (is that racist? I think it's racist...) Also removes the weird skill beats that were used to justify the 10 minutes.

IDK what WotC was thinking, but they went in the complete opposite direction of what the class needed.

Too much of micromanagement. Just make one use of Rage last until the end of the encounter, as in 4th edition.

The 3.0/3.5 way to calculate rage rounds was too damn fiddly. I mean, you could rage a number of times per DAY and each time you did, it would last 4 rounds + your newly modifier constitution modifier (let's say from 14 to 18, so a "whopping" 8 rounds in total (12 seconds short of 1 minute), and after that you took a nasty penalty to your strength and dexterity until the end of the whole encounter. At some point it's really possible that you run out of rage and the fight still rages on (been there, done that, several times; never fun)

[Beelzebub1111]

You can spring traps with your face. You can dwarf toss your friends across the 20' chasm (is that racist? I think it's racist...)

It's alright as long as you don't tell the elf.

[Theodoxus]

Too much of micromanagement. Just make one use of Rage last until the end of the encounter, as in 4th edition.

How does that change anything though? That's just rolling Persistent Rage into the base mechanic.

[Arkhios]

How does that change anything though? That's just rolling Persistent Rage into the base mechanic.

It removes the need to do micromanagement (as in, keeping track of rounds/minutes/hourglass turns/whatever you do to keep track of rage, until your rage ends). If your rage simply ends when the fight is over, I'd say that's a positive change.

Also, yes. And that wouldn't break anything. Persistent Rage is a boring improvement on rage to be honest.

I do agree, that Rage should be combat feature alone. Barbarians should get more non-rage related features that are usable outside combat.

[Theodoxus]

I don't disagree that Barbs need more OOC stuff. But I do think they also need more Rage.

How's this: Give Barbarians a choice at first level.

Rage of the Seas: Your Rage is mercurial and comes and goes like the tide. You get a number of rounds to Rage equal to 10 times your proficiency bonus. These rounds don't need to be consecutive, but it does require a Bonus Action to initiate, but not maintain. The rounds of Rage refreshes on a Long Rest.

Rage of the Beasts: Your Rage is slow burning and on a hair trigger. You get a number of Rages equal to your proficiency bonus. Each Rage requires a Bonus Action to activate, and lasts for a maximum of one minute, though may be canceled at any time. Your Rages refresh on a Short or Long Rest.

Best of both worlds, granting a specific player the way they'd prefer.

[titi]

How is someone being angry for a long time impossible?

[stoutstien]

IMO any player option who's core identity is directly tied to a set duration is going to be a mess. DND hasn't handled time well since 2e.

You could probably map 90% of the issues with 5e back to this.

[Mastikator]

Rages based on proficiency bonus would make dipping barbarian basically always better than just being a barbarian... which it already is but fanning those flames should not be desirable.

I do think that barbarians should get non-combat non-rage features, but at the same time, that's a different discussion. Barbarians also need combat features both that depend on rage and those that don't. And I don't mind allowing rage to be used out of combat for non-combat but still thematically appropriate things. But then it should be thematically appropriate for their subclass. I can easily see a beast or totem barbarian benefiting from rage when using the survival skill for example. (I'm not convinced granting them a blanket switch to strength is the right answer, maybe just the rage damage bonus on the skill check?)

However, on topic. Rage that lasts 10 minutes. 10 minutes is pretty long, for a level 1 barbarian. A level 20 barbarian? They can rage all day if they want IMO. I don't think that persistent rage is a decent feature though, instead I'd set it to level x minutes. At level 1 you can keep your rage up for 1 minute, at level 5 you can keep it going for 5 minutes and so on. What I think persistent rage should do is that it doesn't end when you're incapacitated, rather when you're dead. IE if you sleep a high level barbarian they maintain rage at sleep. They're just that angry. Does it make sense? No if you think a barbarian is just an angry guy at the gym. But I think a barbarian is essentially a super hero.

I don't think rage should end just because the encounter ends either, if you have two encounters close to each other it would feel bad to use another rage. Or maybe barbarians should just get more rages? I like the idea of recovering one on a short rest.

[Aimeryan]

This is one of those cases that it really should be 'DM decides when Rage ends. A couple of minutes of unbroken peace is usually necessary for a Barbarian to calm down.'

We argue about skill DCs being DM fiat, combined with the overreaching randomness of a d20, yet for something that actually would be quite varied and prone to chaos IT is given hard codified rules.

[Witty Username]

I mean, it just feels like Hulk rage to me, which is what I think is what the changes are going for.

The barbarian hits the anger point, and they become more animal and primal, as well as angry. Stalking through the woods, see that guard on the edge of town, but they aren't the one you want to sink that hate into, so you clamber over the wall like a big ass cat and go to sniff out that villain that has been buggin you for the last week it seems.

I don't know about you, but 10 minutes feels pretty short for how long a person can be and stay angry.

[LibraryOgre]

Ten minutes of rage seems very reasonable to me... but I've also worked public service, and have had toddlers. :smallbiggrin:

[Witty Username]

Ten minutes of rage seems very reasonable to me... but I've also worked public service, and have had toddlers. :smallbiggrin:

I was remembering junior high, but that works too.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes, I know this was a popular change in One, and it's easy to see why on a mechanical level. Barbs drop rage too easily and too randomly and the class *is* the amount of time spent in rage, so it's given a much longer duration and the ability to prolong it even out of combat.

But I hate this. Up to 10 minutes in a rage, when not even fighting?? What the heck is this ability? How am I supposed to imagine what this looks like? Imagine a party climbs a wall (str), sneaks passed some guards (dex), gets made by a guard and bribes him (cha), and then finally the barb lifts a heavy gate (str). That whole time, the barb is just stewing in the back, grinding their teeth for 10 minutes, maximizing the rage duration and hoping for another str roll.

If the ability isn't RAGE then don't call it RAGE.

Now I know this is a little out of the box, but just a thought, just a little spitballing, what if
- rage last for 1 minute
- rage doesn't end unless the barb starts a turn at 0 (or they end it voluntarily)
- BARB GETS SOME DARN ABILITIES THAT AREN'T BASED ON RAGE

Ok I'm raging about this. But it wasn't for 10 minutes; that would be crazy.
Completely agreed. It's super goofy.

I think over time it simply won't be Rage anymore, and this is the first step in that direction.

[Theodoxus]

I don't picture it like a seething rage, more like an adrenaline induced destructive anger. And that's something that is pretty hard to maintain - and especially hard on your body to keep running. (Though yes, I recognize the super-human aspect of the Barbarian class - so I'm ok with looking at the whole differently.)

[Sorinth]

In 2e when they introduced the Berserker kit the rules for going berserk were that they had to spend 10 rounds trying to psych themselves up and during that time "the character is growling, moaning, uttering imprecations". If no enemies were in sight they could then hold the berserk for a time. So oddly enough stewing in the back for 10min is actually going back to it's roots.


My preference for allowing rage out of combat is to allow a Barbarian to enter a rage as a reaction when there's a strength check similar to how the new reaction guidance spell.

[Darth Credence]

"That's my secret, Cap. I'm always angry."

Banner doesn't seem angry most of the time, but he says he is, so he has that rage going non-stop. And back during that time, he would turn back to Banner if he tamped it down enough, but he spent substantially longer than 10 minutes in Hulk form in Avengers. And he wasn't constantly fighting - there would have been more than enough time to fall out if he had to be fighting when he found Loki and called him a puny god.

I just don't see a 10-minute rage as being unlikely or unprecedented, in real life or fictional characters.

[Blatant Beast]

Ten minutes of rage seems very reasonable to me... but I've also worked public service, and have had toddlers. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, Talk Radio and 4Chan have conclusively demonstrated that it is quite possible to be angry, and inspire anger in others, for a much greater duration than a mere 10 minutes.

If one trains to perfect anger, one can reach Olympian-like levels in terms of getting and maintaining a chip on one’s shoulder….see Darth Vader, (it’s always Obi-Wan fault, or The Emperor’s fault, or Yoda’s..etc, etc

Mechanically, the change is a huge quality of life adjustment for the Barbarian class.

[Dr.Samurai]

The new Champion fighter gets Advantage on Strength checks as a passive feature.

Seems weird to be missing on the barbarian and the barbarian has to use a resource to gain it.

[LibraryOgre]

The new Champion fighter gets Advantage on Strength checks as a passive feature.

Seems weird to be missing on the barbarian and the barbarian has to use a resource to gain it.

See, I'd just make rage a feature of a fighter subclass, rather than the center of a whole class.

[Blatant Beast]

The new Champion fighter gets Advantage on Strength checks as a passive feature.

Seems weird to be missing on the barbarian and the barbarian has to use a resource to gain it.

Captain America vs the Hulk.

Logen Ninefingers, is a great example of a literary Beserker. Logen is a strong, and a cunning tactician and strategist in everyday life.. Logen, then becomes a nigh mindless, engine of destruction when he channels the Bloody Nine.

If you want to play a Power Lifter, play a Champion. If you want to play a Hell’s Angels Biker from Altamonte Speedway, (aka a scarily dangerous dude),…go with the Barb. When push comes to shove, Advantage is there for the taking for either class.

This seems fine to me.

[Dr.Samurai]

But I think to the OP's point though... what is Rage supposed to look like? Because Vader's anger is purely rhetorical. We're just told that his power is fueled by anger, but he's actually quite calm and collected throughout the original trilogy. He doesn't portray "anger" or "rage" at all.

(Okay, I'm at work and my posts are going through a bit weird. Sorry, I should start quoting people because I'm coming in out of order lol.)

[Blatant Beast]

That seems a question for the player to answer.
It is a great starting point, however, what does burning rage look like?
An actor would start there, when finding a performance.

The answers, of course, will differ based off the player.

Honestly, a person that appear calm on the outside, but is seething with rage and the desire to inflict pain for perceived slights..is scary…especially when the full depths of their hatred and power comes to the fore.

Force Choking you wife, slicing up Trade Representatives for your yellow eye, Shabiri grape fix, and taking your son’s hand for talking back to you all seem to be questionable, rage motivated actions that would not fly in most jurisdictions, (might be ok in Mississippi). 😇

[Dr.Samurai]

"taking your son's hand for talking back to you" might be the funniest description of that scene I've ever read lol.

[Darth Credence]

But I think to the OP's point though... what is Rage supposed to look like? Because Vader's anger is purely rhetorical. We're just told that his power is fueled by anger, but he's actually quite calm and collected throughout the original trilogy. He doesn't portray "anger" or "rage" at all.

(Okay, I'm at work and my posts are going through a bit weird. Sorry, I should start quoting people because I'm coming in out of order lol.)

Rage can look like a lot of different things to different people. It can be the rage of the driver who thinks getting cut off on the freeway is the worst thing ever, and he keeps it boiling as he screams curses and drives like a maniac to catch up and repay them. It can be the seething rage of the woman who found out about her spouse cheating, and she quietly seethes as she waits for him to drink the coffee she poisoned. It can be the chronic rage of the person who thinks that the Jedi screwed him over, and who channels that to fuel his mystical power that relies on strong emotions. It can be the short fuse rage of a furry puppet that boils over when he decides it's his time for a drum solo.

In game terms, I let the players determine what rage looks like. I've had a player turn ice cold when they rage - normally a gregarious, fun character, when the rage sets in they have a laser focus on their target and no time for jokes. They are not the shouting, over-the-top rage that is more stereotypical, but it is clearly rage.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think once you describe it as seething or something else, it's not Rage. Rage is violent uncontrollable anger. I think that's the disconnect. We just have to accept that it's a game term. You're seething on the way to Rage, then you Rage.

But in game terms, it's just a mechanic called Rage. As an example, most of my barbarians are not tapping into some violent anger when they rage.

[Easy e]

The way I see most people play it, is it is just pressing a button.

"I am going to rage," the player says with a completely straight face and no emotion behind it.

It is a in game choice, so hit the Triangle button that activates the game benefits now.




At least that is how I see most people play it.

[Darth Credence]

That's fine if that's how you interpret rage, but it isn't how everyone does. A search for "seething rage" got me 2.5 million results. These included therapists' blogs and Reddit questions about how to deal with seething rage, t-shirts with cats and the sarcastic line "seething with rage", references to RPGs and video games with spells or abilities called seething rage, a few bands and songs called a variation of the phrase, lists of examples of how the term is used, poetry and art titled seething rage, an excerpt from Prometheus Bound that has been translated as "hot-seething rage", crossword puzzles with "seething rage" as a clue, and so on.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's less my interpretation and more how rage is actually defined, so it's an explanation for the disconnect that has prompted this entire thread.

I understand your point, but I take that to mean that people simply use "rage" to mean "anger". One effect of the internet is the spread of exaggerated language. This would be an example of that. "My boss yelled at me today" is another, where what the person means to say is "My boss reprimanded me today".

Anyways, I agree with Easy E's take on this and reiterate that my "raging" barbarians are usually not even angry lol.

[Darth Credence]

Language changes and evolves, and if there are 2.5 million hits for seething rage, then seething rage is a thing no matter how much one wants to cling to a dictionary definition.

There is little difference between this and complaining that "ain't" or "irregardless" isn't a word.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think that anyone is being petty or pedantic here.

Unless your point is that Rage *can't* mean uncontrollable fits of extreme anger and/or violence, then someone might still be confused about how a 10 minute long Rage is supposed to work in the context of D&D (sitting through social interactions, sneaking through dungeons, etc.).

So I agree that you can play it the way you're saying, and I have also added that I don't even describe it as a rage at all when I play it. But the fact remains that there is a definition that is not out of use, and that might cause some confusion.

[Psyren]

That whole time, the barb is just stewing in the back, grinding their teeth for 10 minutes, maximizing the rage duration and hoping for another str roll.

If the ability isn't RAGE then don't call it RAGE.

It's up to you if you want to limit the flavor that way, but the Barbarian entry explicitly tells you not to:


Far more than a mere emotion, and not limited to anger or fury, a Barbarian’s Rage is an incarnation of a predator’s ferocity, a storm’s unrelenting assault, and the churning turmoil of the sea.

Some Barbarians personify their Rage as a fierce spirit or revered forebear. Others see it as a connection to the pain and anguish of the world, as an impersonal tangle of wild magic, or as an expression of their own deepest self. For every Barbarian, their Rage is a power that fuels not just battle prowess but also uncanny reflexes and heightened senses.


"That's my secret, Cap. I'm always angry."

Banner doesn't seem angry most of the time, but he says he is, so he has that rage going non-stop. And back during that time, he would turn back to Banner if he tamped it down enough, but he spent substantially longer than 10 minutes in Hulk form in Avengers. And he wasn't constantly fighting - there would have been more than enough time to fall out if he had to be fighting when he found Loki and called him a puny god.

I just don't see a 10-minute rage as being unlikely or unprecedented, in real life or fictional characters.

Banner is indeed angry all the time. Nobody loathes Banner's existence more than Banner himself does; remember, Hulk doesn't even let him unalive himself, and he's tried.

With that said - Barbarian Rage in D&D is, as mentioned above, more than just anger (seething or otherwise.)

[Schwann145]

The Rage description reads to me like:

"Even we can't be bothered to actually define this feature we designed, so just push your benefit button and justify it however you want."

Understandable, but from the developer, disappointing.

[Joshthemanwich]

I have seen family get pretty darn angry at people, even at points letting it consume them. The "Rage" may only last a moment, but then it can temper into a focused hate. I tend to see the Barbarian's Rage through a similar lens, it begins with the rage and ends as a focused anger. That why the Barbarian remains in control, they are focused on the fight not blundering there way through.

[Dr.Samurai]

The Rage description reads to me like:

"Even we can't be bothered to actually define this feature we designed, so just push your benefit button and justify it however you want."

Understandable, but from the developer, disappointing.
Yeah. I also take it to mean it's not just anger and fury because it will make you fly and grow a tail and shoot lightning bolts.

As opposed to "it can literally be anything".

[Skrum]

I'm playing a "barb" right now who is a chef and most of his barb and rogue abilities (wild magic rage, bolstering magic, psionic power) have been reflavored to be a kind of subtle, food-based magic. I'm far from unfamiliar with taking liberties in describing a character's powers.

My point with this thread though is the printed class itself is all but abandoning coherence. Like, "rage" is now (well, going to be) something that the barb just taps into, whether they're in combat or not, in order to fuel their class powers. Not only is this extremely poor design (considering the uses/day and other vagaries of how rage can be lost), but it just make me scratch my head over what this ability even is. It's still called rage! It still has some vague connection to an actual berserker, along the lines of The Northman's Alexander Skarsgard hallucinating, howling like an animal, and throwing himself heedlessly into battle. But it's also...just loosely the power behind the entire class, and is being used as a catch-all for anything the barb might want to do. There's no reason the barb class needs to be structured this way. Rage can be exactly that; RAGE, some kind of power the class taps into in a fight specifically. Why are they shoehorning an entire suite of abilities through this one little doorway.

[DarknessEternal]

The name of a mechanic has no impact on the flavor of a mechanic. The latter is up to the players.

[Psyren]

The Rage description reads to me like:

"Even we can't be bothered to actually define this feature we designed, so just push your benefit button and justify it however you want."

Understandable, but from the developer, disappointing.

They did define it, just not as narrowly as you seem to want. (For which I'm glad.)



My point with this thread though is the printed class itself is all but abandoning coherence. Like, "rage" is now (well, going to be) something that the barb just taps into, whether they're in combat or not, in order to fuel their class powers. Not only is this extremely poor design (considering the uses/day and other vagaries of how rage can be lost), but it just make me scratch my head over what this ability even is. It's still called rage! It still has some vague connection to an actual berserker, along the lines of The Northman's Alexander Skarsgard hallucinating, howling like an animal, and throwing himself heedlessly into battle. But it's also...just loosely the power behind the entire class, and is being used as a catch-all for anything the barb might want to do. There's no reason the barb class needs to be structured this way. Rage can be exactly that; RAGE, some kind of power the class taps into in a fight specifically. Why are they shoehorning an entire suite of abilities through this one little doorway.

I'd rather just rename it (if the name bothered me, that is) than redesign the entire class to have multiple power sources. Barbarians are supposed to be straightforward.

Regarding the bold - the fact that it lasts 10 minutes per use and you recover a use on a SR means you'll have to really try hard to run out of rage now I'd say. And it's not like you needed it in every combat to begin with.

[Skrum]

The name of a mechanic has no impact on the flavor of a mechanic. The latter is up to the players.

While I do play this way, I don't entirely buy this. The classes are presented with (what should be) a usable narrative. The classes have names, the abilities granted have names, there's narrative explanation for what the ability looks like or does. Every ability starts with at least a sentence describing what the ability is. It's not just mechanics.

[Skrum]

Regarding the bold - the fact that it lasts 10 minutes per use and you recover a use on a SR means you'll have to really try hard to run out of rage now I'd say.

Can it still be ended if you're incapacitated, or otherwise prevented from taking actions? Does it end if you hit zero?



And it's not like you needed it in every combat to begin with.

I'm really beginning to wonder if your table ever faces anything more threatening than CR 2's

[Psyren]

I'm really beginning to wonder if your table ever faces anything more threatening than CR 2's

And I'm wondering if yours ever does anything less than Deadly :smallconfused:


Can it still be ended if you're incapacitated, or otherwise prevented from taking actions? Does it end if you hit zero?

It ends if you're incapacitated. It also lasts until the end of your next turn each time you extend it (by attacking, causing an enemy to make a saving throw, or taking a bonus action), so if you're prevented from taking actions on a given round, you or your allies have 1 round to get rid of whatever is impeding you.

[Kane0]

I lean into the primal flavor rather than the emotional state. Rage is just a convenient label for channeling primal power. The term 'rage' just superficially conveys how it appears to others or the process the user goes through in order to tap into that primal 'state'

[Skrum]

And I'm wondering if yours ever does anything less than Deadly :smallconfused:

No, probably not. There's some other factors involved (like game scheduling leading to frequent "long rests," or time between games). Lots of quite good magic items. In general though it takes a "deadly" encounter to even ruffle the PC's feathers. Medium or hard encounter, why did we even roll initiative.




It ends if you're incapacitated. It also lasts until the end of your next turn each time you extend it (by attacking, causing an enemy to make a saving throw, or taking a bonus action), so if you're prevented from taking actions on a given round, you or your allies have 1 round to get rid of whatever is impeding you.

Rage is def going to be much less likely to randomly lose, that's good.

[Psyren]

No, probably not. There's some other factors involved (like game scheduling leading to frequent "long rests," or time between games). Lots of quite good magic items. In general though it takes a "deadly" encounter to even ruffle the PC's feathers. Medium or hard encounter, why did we even roll initiative.

Noted, and unsurprised. But as I've said in other threads, that makes your table an outlier, especially by the designers' printed expectations.

I have to ask though - how do current Barbarians work at your table? Rage only lasts a minute and you don't recover any on a short rest - if you need it for every fight and it drops regularly, do you even get to use it outside of combat then?

[Skrum]

I have to ask though - how do current Barbarians work at your table? Rage only lasts a minute and you don't recover any on a short rest - if you need it for every fight and it drops regularly, do you even get to use it outside of combat then?

They work alright. I mean, by level 6 a barb has 4 uses of rage - the vast majority of the time, that's absolutely plenty of uses to rage in every combat. IMO, barbs work well (i.e., as advertised) as long as nearly all the damage they take is a type they're resistant to, and they don't have to make mental saves.

It's not like rage gets dropped ALL THE TIME either - it's relatively rare. But, that doesn't mean it isn't a fragile thing. For instance, we will occasionally have locked, multipart games that function much more similarly to a "traditional" game. There might be 3, 4, even 5 notable combats without a long rest. That's were using rage gets tough. The player knows they're gonna have to be strategic, but it's sometimes hard to tell when a combat starts if this is rage-worthy or not. Or maybe a tough combat starts, the barb rages, and then gets hit with hyponotic pattern. Rage drops, and they have to spend another use when the spell is broken.

All these factors add up to what I think the final word on barbs is: they're fragile. Not in the hit point sense, but in that they are quite reliant on enemies playing directly into their strengths (attacking with b, p, s damage, not hitting them with mental saves, not beating their initiative and taking half their hit points before the barb can act, not flying....). When the barb is working, they're trucks. But things go a little wrong and they're suddenly low AC damage magnets with no tools.

Using rage outside of combat, never. Ever ever lol. Part of it is skills aren't all that impactful, part of it no barb player would risk spending a rage like that.

[Kane0]

Homebrew on the table?


Rage (1st)
As a Bonus Action, you can imbue yourself with primal power for ten minutes. While active, your Rage has the following effects:
- Damage Reduction: Each time you take Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage you reduce the amount taken by an amount equal to your rage bonus, to a minimum of 0.
- Strength rolls: You add your Rage bonus to any Strength Attacks, Saving Throws and damage rolls
- No Concentration or Spells: You cannot maintain Concentration and you cannot cast spells
You can choose to end your Rage as a bonus action, and your Rage ends early if you are Incapacitated.
You can enter your Rage twice between rests, and beginning at 15th level you can enter it three times between rests. You regain your expended uses when you finish a short or long rest.

Rage Bonus
1st: +2
6th: +3
11th: +4
16th: +5

Danger Sense (1st)
You can add your Rage bonus to your Dexterity saving throws and Unarmored AC. You lose this bonus if you are Blinded, Deafened or Incapacitated.

Reckless Attack (2nd)
When you make your first attack roll on your turn, you can choose to gain Advantage on Strength attacks until the start of your next turn, but attack rolls against you have Advantage during that time.

Primal Knowledge (3rd)
Choose two skills from the list of skills available to Barbarians at level 1. You add your Rage bonus to checks you make using those skills.

Instinctive Pounce (7th)
You add your Rage bonus to Initiative checks, and when you enter Rage you can also move up to half your speed as part of the same Bonus Action

Brutal Strikes (11th)
Once per turn, when you have advantage on a strength attack and both rolls would hit you can add extra damage to the attack equal to your Barbarian level

Relentless Rage (13th)
Your Rage no longer ends early if you are incapacitated, and while Raging you can add your Rage bonus to all saving throws instead of just Strength and Dexterity.

Peak Physique (17th)
When you roll a Strength, Dexterity or Constitution check and the result is lower than your Barbarian level, you can use your Barbarian level as the result instead.


Could probably still use some more out of combat stuff, but at least Rage is more usable and you arent useless when not raging.

[Psyren]

Using rage outside of combat, never. Ever ever lol. Part of it is skills aren't all that impactful, part of it no barb player would risk spending a rage like that.

Their goal seems to be to change that calculus.


Homebrew on the table?


Rage (1st)
As a Bonus Action, you can imbue yourself with primal power for ten minutes. While active, your Rage has the following effects:
- Damage Reduction: Each time you take Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage you reduce the amount taken by an amount equal to your rage bonus, to a minimum of 0.
- Strength rolls: You add your Rage bonus to any Strength Attacks, Saving Throws and damage rolls
- No Concentration or Spells: You cannot maintain Concentration and you cannot cast spells
You can choose to end your Rage as a bonus action, and your Rage ends early if you are Incapacitated.
You can enter your Rage twice between rests, and beginning at 15th level you can enter it three times between rests. You regain your expended uses when you finish a short or long rest.

Rage Bonus
1st: +2
6th: +3
11th: +4
16th: +5

Danger Sense (1st)
You can add your Rage bonus to your Dexterity saving throws and Unarmored AC. You lose this bonus if you are Blinded, Deafened or Incapacitated.

Reckless Attack (2nd)
When you make your first attack roll on your turn, you can choose to gain Advantage on Strength attacks until the start of your next turn, but attack rolls against you have Advantage during that time.

Primal Knowledge (3rd)
Choose two skills from the list of skills available to Barbarians at level 1. You add your Rage bonus to checks you make using those skills.

Instinctive Pounce (7th)
You add your Rage bonus to Initiative checks, and when you enter Rage you can also move up to half your speed as part of the same Bonus Action

Brutal Strikes (11th)
Once per turn, when you have advantage on a strength attack and both rolls would hit you can add extra damage to the attack equal to your Barbarian level

Relentless Rage (13th)
Your Rage no longer ends early if you are incapacitated, and while Raging you can add your Rage bonus to all saving throws instead of just Strength and Dexterity.

Peak Physique (17th)
When you roll a Strength, Dexterity or Constitution check and the result is lower than your Barbarian level, you can use your Barbarian level as the result instead.


Could probably still use some more out of combat stuff, but at least Rage is more usable and you arent useless when not raging.

Er... "more usable?" You take between -2 to -5 less damage per hit over your entire career, as well as losing your damage bonus, but still suffer advantage to all incoming attacks? And did you mean to remove Unarmored Defense in favor of the tiny AC bonus while unarmored?

[Snails]

IMO any player option who's core identity is directly tied to a set duration is going to be a mess. DND hasn't handled time well since 2e.

You could probably map 90% of the issues with 5e back to this.

I did not think about it that way, but I have been edging to your conclusion. I want to revamp the Barbarian and emphasize Reckless Attack as their core ability, and have improvements at higher levels.
Rage becomes something more varying and tied to subclass. In a similar vein, I was also thinking that the Ranger's core ability is Hunter's Mark and should not even require a spell slot.

[Kane0]

Er... "more usable?" You take between -2 to -5 less damage per hit over your entire career, as well as losing your damage bonus, but still suffer advantage to all incoming attacks? And did you mean to remove Unarmored Defense in favor of the tiny AC bonus while unarmored?

Yes, more usable. Instead of twice per long rest, its twice per short rest (more later) and only ends early if you are incapacitated or choose to. The price paid for this is downgrading the resistance to a HAM style of damage reduction, however this flat bonus stacks with other sources of resistance, advantage, etc, and applies to the damage if all strength-based attacks melee or ranged.
As you level you can apply your rage bonus to more and more things, often not even needing you to be raging to get (like two skills and initiative).

The Rage bonus to unarmored AC still applies if you have a shield, but otherwise replaces your need to invest in both Dex + Con in order to benefit from, and in fact still adds to your AC if you get unarmored AC from monk.

[Schwann145]

I mean, if we're just gonna be honest about it, Rage doesn't make sense as a "rest" mechanic anyway.

A temporary burst of "primal whatever" (that comes along with all the baggage of anger... such as no concentration or ability to cast spells), but you can only do it twice(+) per day?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: PF2 did Rage so much better.

[Ignimortis]

Of course it's incoherent. It's called Rage, not Mild Annoyance. Frothing at the mouth and stuff.

On a more serious note, I think 5e's obsession with making everything rest-based is weird. Rage is that thing where it makes no goshdarned sense to use that. You can Rage for X rounds up to a maximum of your CON score (not mod, score), then you're fatigued for, say, X*2 rounds, then you can Rage again. Simple, elegant, makes the most amount of sense to me.

[Mastikator]

Homebrew on the table?


Rage (1st)
As a Bonus Action, you can imbue yourself with primal power for ten minutes. While active, your Rage has the following effects:
- Damage Reduction: Each time you take Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage you reduce the amount taken by an amount equal to your rage bonus, to a minimum of 0.
- Strength rolls: You add your Rage bonus to any Strength Attacks, Saving Throws and damage rolls
- No Concentration or Spells: You cannot maintain Concentration and you cannot cast spells
You can choose to end your Rage as a bonus action, and your Rage ends early if you are Incapacitated.
You can enter your Rage twice between rests, and beginning at 15th level you can enter it three times between rests. You regain your expended uses when you finish a short or long rest.

Rage Bonus
1st: +2
6th: +3
11th: +4
16th: +5

Danger Sense (1st)
You can add your Rage bonus to your Dexterity saving throws and Unarmored AC. You lose this bonus if you are Blinded, Deafened or Incapacitated.

Reckless Attack (2nd)
When you make your first attack roll on your turn, you can choose to gain Advantage on Strength attacks until the start of your next turn, but attack rolls against you have Advantage during that time.

Primal Knowledge (3rd)
Choose two skills from the list of skills available to Barbarians at level 1. You add your Rage bonus to checks you make using those skills.

Instinctive Pounce (7th)
You add your Rage bonus to Initiative checks, and when you enter Rage you can also move up to half your speed as part of the same Bonus Action

Brutal Strikes (11th)
Once per turn, when you have advantage on a strength attack and both rolls would hit you can add extra damage to the attack equal to your Barbarian level

Relentless Rage (13th)
Your Rage no longer ends early if you are incapacitated, and while Raging you can add your Rage bonus to all saving throws instead of just Strength and Dexterity.

Peak Physique (17th)
When you roll a Strength, Dexterity or Constitution check and the result is lower than your Barbarian level, you can use your Barbarian level as the result instead.


Could probably still use some more out of combat stuff, but at least Rage is more usable and you arent useless when not raging.

I really like everything I'm seeing, except for the lack of resistance, it's easier and better. Also 9th and and 18th levels are dead levels in this version. (I assume primal champion still gives +4 strength/con and unlimited rages?)

Unstoppable (9th)
If you are reduced to 0 HP but don't outright die you regain hit points equal to barbarian + constitution score. Once you used this feature you must complete a long rest to use it again.

Seething intensity (9th)
Choose one skill that you are not adding your rage bonus to, you add your rage bonus to that skill.

Indomitable might (18th)
When you enter rage choose one damage type that you get resistance to from rage, you now gain immunity to that damage type instead. Once per round when you damage a creature you can add your rage bonus, the damage is the same as the one you are immune to from this feature.

[Psyren]

Yes, more usable. Instead of twice per long rest, its twice per short rest (more later) and only ends early if you are incapacitated or choose to. The price paid for this is downgrading the resistance to a HAM style of damage reduction, however this flat bonus stacks with other sources of resistance, advantage, etc, and applies to the damage if all strength-based attacks melee or ranged.
As you level you can apply your rage bonus to more and more things, often not even needing you to be raging to get (like two skills and initiative).

The Rage bonus to unarmored AC still applies if you have a shield, but otherwise replaces your need to invest in both Dex + Con in order to benefit from, and in fact still adds to your AC if you get unarmored AC from monk.

2-5 damage per hit over 16 levels is not nearly enough of a reduction, especially when you're regularly giving enemies advantage to hit you. At CR 9 when you're knocking off 3 points of damage for example, a single Treant is hitting your barbarian for 10 more damage every round than a standard one not counting any reactions, and a Glabrezu is hitting you even harder than that. Two levels later when you're reducing by 4, a Roc is hitting you for an extra 20 damage per round. "Other sources of resistance" like what exactly? BPS are the most common damage types in the game, and barbarians aren't exactly spoiled for choice.

Reckless Attack is the only source of advantage on their attacks that they need. And your version of Brutal Strikes is a "win-more" feature - the only enemies it will trigger reliably against are the ones where you probably didn't need the damage boost anyway.

[Skrum]

I agree; reducing damage by 2-5 is nothing.

Reduce ALL damage taken by 2x rage bonus, along with an uncanny dodge type reaction (starting at 6 maybe), now we might be talking

[Kane0]

I really like everything I'm seeing, except for the lack of resistance, it's easier and better.


2-5 damage per hit over 16 levels is not nearly enough of a reduction, especially when you're regularly giving enemies advantage to hit you.

I agree; reducing damage by 2-5 is nothing.

Noted. Something that can be tackled with the subclasses methinks.



Also 9th and and 18th levels are dead levels in this version. (I assume primal champion still gives +4 strength/con and unlimited rages?)

Unstoppable (9th)
If you are reduced to 0 HP but don't outright die you regain hit points equal to barbarian + constitution score. Once you used this feature you must complete a long rest to use it again.

Seething intensity (9th)
Choose one skill that you are not adding your rage bonus to, you add your rage bonus to that skill.

Indomitable might (18th)
When you enter rage choose one damage type that you get resistance to from rage, you now gain immunity to that damage type instead. Once per round when you damage a creature you can add your rage bonus, the damage is the same as the one you are immune to from this feature.

Theres other stuff I didnt mention because I thought it wasnt important in relation to rage, but if theres interest ill post it. Neat ideas though, they might well be incorporated down the line.

[Damon_Tor]

Call it "adrenaline rush" and be done with it.

[Potato_Priest]

I think the barbarian's identity is really weird already, especially when you consider their role in comparison to the fighter or the paladin.

You have two characters, one a frothing, next-to-naked beserker with a greataxe (barbarian), the other a knight clad in gleaming plate armor (paladin or fighter).

Which one do you expect to be doing more damage? Probably the beserker.
Which one can actually do more damage? Probably the knight.

Which one do you expect to be able to take more hits? Probably the plate armor guy.
Which one can actually take more hits? Almost certainly the naked beserker.

[Slipjig]

It ends if you're incapacitated. It also lasts until the end of your next turn each time you extend it (by attacking, causing an enemy to make a saving throw, or taking a bonus action), so if you're prevented from taking actions on a given round, you or your allies have 1 round to get rid of whatever is impeding you.

I add a houserule that, "if a Barb spends their turn attempting to close with an enemy in a vigorous physical activity, their Rage does not end". So Dashing toward an enemy or lifting a gate your enemy is behind would let you extend, but attempting to Hide generally would not.

I understand anger comes in many different flavors, but the definition of the word "Rage" is "violent, uncontrollable anger". The spouse waiting for her husband to drink the poisoned coffee may be incredibly angry, but she isn't raging.

Also "seething" means "filled with intense but unexpressed anger". You can seethe, or you can rage, but "seething rage" is an oxymoron.

[Psyren]

Call it "adrenaline rush" and be done with it.

My guess is that would just prompt a new round of threads complaining about Warforged, Autognomes, Reborn etc having adrenaline. (Besides, Orcs beat them to it.)


I add a houserule that, "if a Barb spends their turn attempting to close with an enemy in a vigorous physical activity, their Rage does not end". So Dashing toward an enemy or lifting a gate your enemy is behind would let you extend, but attempting to Hide generally would not.

I understand anger comes in many different flavors, but the definition of the word "Rage" is "violent, uncontrollable anger". The spouse waiting for her husband to drink the poisoned coffee may be incredibly angry, but she isn't raging.

Also "seething" means "filled with intense but unexpressed anger". You can seethe, or you can rage, but "seething rage" is an oxymoron.

I'm not the one who was advocating for seething rage, FYI (but I take Darth Credence's side of that particular argument.)

Personally I like the "spend a bonus action to maintain or make an attack" because that covers nearly everything the barbarian would be doing in combat anyway. If you need to Dash or Dodge, pick the first one; if you need to do something else and you're out of reach, toss a javelin. Heck, javelins get the Reckless Attack bonus now, so you have a pretty good chance of hitting most enemies, and if they're at long range you can even cancel out any penalties. Stowing and retrieving your melee weapon to produce a javelin is going to be easier than ever too.

[Dr.Samurai]

Also "seething" means "filled with intense but unexpressed anger". You can seethe, or you can rage, but "seething rage" is an oxymoron.
https://allears.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/get-this-man-a-shield-gif.gif

To qualify the comment about the identity crisis of the barbarian's rage, we're saying that it's a seething rage, so the barbarian can sneak around a dungeon or engage in a social encounter.

But then we're also saying the barbarian is the Incredible Hulk, accounting for Advantage on Strength checks as a limited resource.

So the D&D barbarian is the Incredible Seething Hulk, a hulking monster of intense repressed anger and bottled emotions ready to burst at any moment but never doing so.

[Schwann145]

https://allears.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/get-this-man-a-shield-gif.gif

To qualify the comment about the identity crisis of the barbarian's rage, we're saying that it's a seething rage, so the barbarian can sneak around a dungeon or engage in a social encounter.

But then we're also saying the barbarian is the Incredible Hulk, accounting for Advantage on Strength checks as a limited resource.

So the D&D barbarian is the Incredible Seething Hulk, a hulking monster of intense repressed anger and bottled emotions ready to burst at any moment but never doing so.

In other words... The Barbarian is Bruce Banner
https://allears.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/hulk-always-angry-avengers.gif

[Kane0]

Personally I like the "spend a bonus action to maintain or make an attack" because that covers nearly everything the barbarian would be doing in combat anyway.

The Search and Help actions I find criminally underutilized, and I don't think the Barbarian should be locked into certain action choices more than any other class.
Secondarily, i'm also in the pro- heavy armor barb camp, much like metal armor druids and armored monks. If they get the proficiencies from somewhere there's no reason they shouldn't be usable.

[Psyren]

The Search and Help actions I find criminally underutilized, and I don't think the Barbarian should be locked into certain action choices more than any other class.

...That's literally my point, they're not. Since you can maintain rage with a bonus action now, your action can be spent doing literally anything, in or out of combat, for as many rounds/minutes in a row as you like (up to the duration).


Secondarily, i'm also in the pro- heavy armor barb camp, much like metal armor druids and armored monks. If they get the proficiencies from somewhere there's no reason they shouldn't be usable.

I mean, monks (both versions) do lose access to multiple features in armor, proficient or not. The druid thing I agree with, but that's because the metal armor thing was never properly explained or designed for. It's not like Barbarians - or Monks for that matter - have no good options without plate.

But one feature Barbarians get to keep in heavy armor is Reckless Attack, so you could build a heavy-armor barbarian around that. They'll probably be mostly Fighter, or Paladin, but still.

[Kane0]

...That's literally my point, they're not. Since you can maintain rage with a bonus action now, your action can be spent doing literally anything, in or out of combat, for as many rounds/minutes in a row as you like (up to the duration).

Now imagine of your bonus action were freed up in the same way. Well once you spend that first turn starting rage.



I mean, monks (both versions) do lose access to multiple features in armor, proficient or not. The druid thing I agree with, but that's because the metal armor thing was never properly explained or designed for. It's not like Barbarians - or Monks for that matter - have no good options without plate.

But one feature Barbarians get to keep in heavy armor is Reckless Attack, so you could build a heavy-armor barbarian around that. They'll probably be mostly Fighter, or Paladin, but still.

Like I said, im in favor of simply removing those restrictions. I'd be interested in seeing for example a dwarf monk that can use all their monk abilities armored and unhindered. Same for a juggernaut style, plated up barbarian.

[Mastikator]

The Search and Help actions I find criminally underutilized, and I don't think the Barbarian should be locked into certain action choices more than any other class.
Secondarily, i'm also in the pro- heavy armor barb camp, much like metal armor druids and armored monks. If they get the proficiencies from somewhere there's no reason they shouldn't be usable.

With all due respect, can't the barbarian use an action to search or help then bonus action to maintain rage? Maintaining rage with Attack Action™ or bonus action does not lock the class into actions. (I do agree with the armor though, if wizards can cast in plate then barbarians can rage in plate, provided they are proficient. It should be all, or nothing)

[Schwann145]

"Theme" remains an important feature for class-based design in 5e D&D, and simply removing all restrictions basically eliminates any sense of theme.

It doesn't make much sense that armor would require "training" in the first place.
Wizards struggling to cast in armor falls apart the moment you start examining the "whys" of that decision, yet they remain unable to do so (albeit, it's easier than ever to overcome this obstacle).
Monks are expected to be kung-fu-based martial artists first and foremost, and those styles don't work well in restrictive outfits.
Barbarians are rugged nature-goers as much as they are hardened warriors, and they're also poor, from backwoods communities that can't forge/afford full plate.
Etc.

You get your exceptions from Subclasses, obviously, but D&D will never be the sort of game to break away from enforced themes, regardless of how well (or poorly) they fit.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't disagree that Barbs need more OOC stuff. But I do think they also need more Rage.

How's this: Give Barbarians a choice at first level.

Rage of the Seas: Your Rage is mercurial and comes and goes like the tide. You get a number of rounds to Rage equal to 10 times your proficiency bonus. These rounds don't need to be consecutive, but it does require a Bonus Action to initiate, but not maintain. The rounds of Rage refreshes on a Long Rest.

Rage of the Beasts: Your Rage is slow burning and on a hair trigger. You get a number of Rages equal to your proficiency bonus. Each Rage requires a Bonus Action to activate, and lasts for a maximum of one minute, though may be canceled at any time. Your Rages refresh on a Short or Long Rest. Interesting idea.

I don't picture it like a seething rage, more like an adrenaline induced destructive anger. It's an adrenaline shot.

At least that is how I see most people play it. I've seen this, and more narrative approaches.

I lean into the primal flavor rather than the emotional state. Yep.

Call it "adrenaline rush" and be done with it.
Yes. Kind of like a linebacker on a blitz...

[Psyren]

Now imagine of your bonus action were freed up in the same way. Well once you spend that first turn starting rage.

It is. All you need to do is attack instead, or do something that forces an enemy to make a saving throw.

In short: when you need your bonus action free, attack. When you need your action free for something else, use your BA. And if you need both... chances are you're attacking (e.g. PAM or TWF).



Like I said, im in favor of simply removing those restrictions. I'd be interested in seeing for example a dwarf monk that can use all their monk abilities armored and unhindered. Same for a juggernaut style, plated up barbarian.

You can be a plated barbarian, you just can't rage while you have it on. That still leaves Reckless Attack during combat and rage outside it (you were probably stowing your plate for the stealth section anyway.)

I'd be fine with a plated rager subclass, as well as a raging caster subclass.

[Blatant Beast]

You can be a plated barbarian, you just can't rage while you have it on. That still leaves Reckless Attack during combat and rage outside it (you were probably stowing your plate for the stealth section anyway.)

The AC Advantage of Plate Mail over Medium armor is generally not enough to counteract the Advantage to Foe’s attacks that the Reckless Attack option grants. The higher one boosts their AC, also increases the effective numerical plus, (within limits, of course), that Advantage grants to attack rolls.

A plate wearing barbarian is not a great path to walk in 5e, but perhaps it will be a more attractive option in 1D&D. Taking 10 minutes to don your Plate Mail, and then 5 minutes to doff it, strikes me as a hassle, and may not be something that will always be possible.


I'd be fine with a plated rager subclass, as well as a raging caster subclass.

I am fine with the former, less fine for the later.

If 5e had decided to not use Subclasses, and instead folded the power budget allocated to Subclasses to creating narrowly themed base classes…then I think a spell rager might be viable.

I liked the Barbarian Cleric ‘NPC Class’ published in Dragon Magazine during the 1e Age, when TSR was the Elden Lord of D&D. It was a nice flavor add: the light or no armor wearing tribal religious leader, that is not a Wildshape using Druid.

3e’s spell rager, I did not find particularly cool.

[Psyren]

The AC Advantage of Plate Mail over Medium armor is generally not enough to counteract the Advantage to Foe’s attacks that the Reckless Attack option grants. The higher one boosts their AC, also increases the effective numerical plus, (within limits, of course), that Advantage grants to attack rolls.

I don't disagree, but presumably a platebarian is dipping for RA and has other defenses or techniques at their disposal from their main class that compensate from the loss of DR from Rage. For example, a Barbarian 2 / Paladin X using RA against some fiends or undead could throw on Pro:Evil and cancel out the penalty completely, leaving themselves with Plate, a shield, and perma-advantage from RA boosting their Smite crits.


A plate wearing barbarian is not a great path to walk in 5e, but perhaps it will be a more attractive option in 1D&D. Taking 10 minutes to don your Plate Mail, and then 5 minutes to doff it, strikes me as a hassle, and may not be something that will always be possible.

One key change in 1DnD is that RA applies to thrown attacks. So you can wear plate, activate RA, but then stay at range - which will also mitigate the incoming advantage to hit you if you're sticking to cover etc.



I am fine with the former, less fine for the later.

If 5e had decided to not use Subclasses, and instead folded the power budget allocated to Subclasses to creating narrowly themed base classes…then I think a spell rager might be viable.

I liked the Barbarian Cleric ‘NPC Class’ published in Dragon Magazine during the 1e Age, when TSR was the Elden Lord of D&D. It was a nice flavor add: the light or no armor wearing tribal religious leader, that is not a Wildshape using Druid.

3e’s spell rager, I did not find particularly cool.

I agree 3e Rage Mage sucked ass, and PF's Rage Prophet was considerably better but still not quite good enough. But the concept itself is salvageable, especially in 5e which takes a subclass approach. A 5e "Rage Mage" would be a 1/3 caster that has some kind of synergy between rage and casting, likely in exchange for some kind of limitation that even the Eldritch Knight doesn't possess.

[Ignimortis]

I agree 3e Rage Mage sucked ass, and PF's Rage Prophet was considerably better but still not quite good enough. But the concept itself is salvageable, especially in 5e which takes a subclass approach. A 5e "Rage Mage" would be a 1/3 caster that has some kind of synergy between rage and casting, likely in exchange for some kind of limitation that even the Eldritch Knight doesn't possess.

Runescarred Berserker and Bloodrager for 3.5 and PF1 respectively are far better versions of what you're describing. A 5e "Rage Mage" could be limited to magic self-buffs only, i.e. only effects with a range of Touch or Personal that they can target themselves with.

[Psyren]

Fair point on Bloodrager. I could see that either being a base class (similar to an arcane paladin) or a Barbarian subclass with sorcerer themes. Or even a sorcerer subclass that leans more towards martial prowess, Ao knows we could use one.

[Witty Username]

Like I said, im in favor of simply removing those restrictions. I'd be interested in seeing for example a dwarf monk that can use all their monk abilities armored and unhindered. Same for a juggernaut style, plated up barbarian.

If rogues get the same courtesy with sneak attack weapons I am on board.

I also have notes on smites with ranged weapons being on the table, but I understand that makes people nervous.

[Dr.Samurai]

There should be some trade off for going ranged. Damage potential should be limited, or Cover should be adhered to and not so easy to mitigate with Archery fighting style and/or Sharpshooter.

[Psyren]

I also have notes on smites with ranged weapons being on the table, but I understand that makes people nervous.


There should be some trade off for going ranged. Damage potential should be limited, or Cover should be adhered to and not so easy to mitigate with Archery fighting style and/or Sharpshooter.

Yeah, they axed their Ranged Smites idea for this reason. (Thrown Smites are still a thing, but you can't combine those with Archery style or Sharpshooter; as mentioned though, you CAN combine them with Reckless Attack.)

[Kane0]

If rogues get the same courtesy with sneak attack weapons I am on board.

I also have notes on smites with ranged weapons being on the table, but I understand that makes people nervous.

For the former, sure. Sledgehammer sneak attacks would be great fun

For the latter my first inclination is to allow at a reduced die size, say d6s instead of d8s. So everything works just the same but you lose a bit of effectiveness by benefitting from being at range.

[Witty Username]

There should be some trade off for going ranged. Damage potential should be limited, or Cover should be adhered to and not so easy to mitigate with Archery fighting style and/or Sharpshooter.


Yeah, they axed their Ranged Smites idea for this reason. (Thrown Smites are still a thing, but you can't combine those with Archery style or Sharpshooter; as mentioned though, you CAN combine them with Reckless Attack.)

Yep yep, my frustration isn't that the restriction doesn't have a reason, just that it is obviously balance and not narrative or thematic.

Sneak attack is the more fortified hill, since it is there for narrative/thematic reasons that make no damm sense, and balance is alot harder to argue since it has limitations and knock on effects.
Things like greatsword or halberd doesn't change the need for advantage or positioning, for example and allows greater range for bandits, thugs and ruffians.

[Gurgeh]

Yeah, they axed their Ranged Smites idea for this reason. (Thrown Smites are still a thing, but you can't combine those with Archery style or Sharpshooter; as mentioned though, you CAN combine them with Reckless Attack.)
quibble: you can combine them with sharpshooter since the only one of its bullet points that requires a ranged weapon is the damage-for-accuracy trade (and you're already getting a damage boost by smiting so it's less valuable than it would otherwise be). Ignoring cover and the long-range disadvantage are still very big things, especially for thrown weapons which have all of nothing for their short range bracket.

[Nagog]

- BARB GETS SOME DARN ABILITIES THAT AREN'T BASED ON RAGE

Ok I'm raging about this. But it wasn't for 10 minutes; that would be crazy.

This is exactly it. Frankly, Combat isn't my favorite aspect of play (despite it being the crunchiest), so Barbarians have almost no appeal to me. They usually have like one subclass ability that isn't strictly combat focused, and other than that you don't really have much to do until initiative is rolled.

[NeptunianOM]

I just wish they'd gone back to rounds for Rage. Multiply their current rage by 10, that's how many rounds a LR you have. Initiate a Rage with a BA, it goes as long as you need (3 or 4 rounds I guess is typical) and then it stops. No wasting 6 or 7 rounds on one of your precious 2 Rages for nothing. No need to constantly seethe for 10 minutes.

If you have 20 rounds of Rage, its less concerning blowing 1 of them to Rage, lift a gate with advantage and the immediately calm down.

You can spring traps with your face. You can dwarf toss your friends across the 20' chasm (is that racist? I think it's racist...) Also removes the weird skill beats that were used to justify the 10 minutes.

IDK what WotC was thinking, but they went in the complete opposite direction of what the class needed.

I generally agree with this.

I wonder if the reason they did not want to go this route is that it is more difficult to track? It is not that much more difficult but it could lead to situations where players kept bad notes and use additional turns of rage or cheat themselves with fewer.

[Psyren]

quibble: you can combine them with sharpshooter since the only one of its bullet points that requires a ranged weapon is the damage-for-accuracy trade (and you're already getting a damage boost by smiting so it's less valuable than it would otherwise be). Ignoring cover and the long-range disadvantage are still very big things, especially for thrown weapons which have all of nothing for their short range bracket.

I mean sure, SS isn't useless without the damage boost, but I don't know that it would be worth a precious feat either. Throwing is more of a side-gig for Str-based classes, and they have plenty of others they need on top of the ASIs to hit 20 at a reasonable time. A Str-based Fighter can afford to blow an ASI on ignoring cover but I don't know that a Paladin or Barbarian could, especially when the latter can just ignore long-range penalties without it anyway.


Yep yep, my frustration isn't that the restriction doesn't have a reason, just that it is obviously balance and not narrative or thematic.

Sneak attack is the more fortified hill, since it is there for narrative/thematic reasons that make no damm sense, and balance is alot harder to argue since it has limitations and knock on effects.
Things like greatsword or halberd doesn't change the need for advantage or positioning, for example and allows greater range for bandits, thugs and ruffians.

Narrative and thematic reasoning are easy though. You can smite with melee and thrown but not projectile weapons because you need direct physical contact with the delivery vector while attacking to charge the energy into it; bows, crossbows, and slings don't work for that. You can RA with Str-based attacks but not Dex-based ones because you're swinging with wild abandon and brute force rather than precision. Those took me a few seconds for even me to come up with, so it's no wonder they didn't spend much time on it either.

Sneak Attack makes plenty of sense as well; you're landing precision hits against foes who are distracted by allies and/or otherwise especially vulnerable to attack.


I generally agree with this.

I wonder if the reason they did not want to go this route is that it is more difficult to track? It is not that much more difficult but it could lead to situations where players kept bad notes and use additional turns of rage or cheat themselves with fewer.

They don't want DMs to be forced to track rounds outside of combat unless they want to. But making rage a rounds-based ability would pretty much force them to do that. Out of combat, for most characters there is very little difference between taking 30 seconds or 1 minute to bend some bars or pry off a grate, but when one of those characters is using a resource measured in rounds then those two become very different.

[Witty Username]

Sneak Attack makes plenty of sense as well; you're landing precision hits against foes who are distracted by allies and/or otherwise especially vulnerable to attack.


But that is a methodology of combat, not a trait of a subset of weapons, a blackjack to the back of the head is as effective anything else applied with savage cunnin.

Sure there are reasonings that you can't apply unwieldy things to sneak attacks, but there is equally good reasoning that unwieldy things are ineffective weapons.

A mace applied to stress points of armor, a spear at the knee of a distracted enemy, half swording to get the point of a claymore through gap near the neck are things accomplished by relatively mundane combat training at least in the eras we draw inspiration from

And all of this would be easier than say a longbow at 600 ft away, which a rogue can accomplish without specific training (SS and proficiency make it easier but are not strictly necessary). Or whatever you do to make a whip work as a weapon.

With this in mind, rogue being able to use sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient with would make alot more sense, than finesse and ranged weapons only.

Like, why is it physically impossible to aim for the head with a hammer? Does everyone have head mounted deflector shields that don't work on daggers?

The psudo flanking and advantage are sufficient limitations. Its the tactics that make the sneak attack not the loadout.

[Slipjig]

In other words... The Barbarian is Bruce Banner
https://allears.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/hulk-always-angry-avengers.gif

Exactly: he's always angry, but he's NOT always raging.

Bruce Banner seethes. The Hulk rages.

[Theodoxus]

But that is a methodology of combat, not a trait of a subset of weapons, a blackjack to the back of the head is as effective anything else applied with savage cunnin.

Sure there are reasonings that you can't apply unwieldy things to sneak attacks, but there is equally good reasoning that unwieldy things are ineffective weapons.

A mace applied to stress points of armor, a spear at the knee of a distracted enemy, half swording to get the point of a claymore through gap near the neck are things accomplished by relatively mundane combat training at least in the eras we draw inspiration from

And all of this would be easier than say a longbow at 600 ft away, which a rogue can accomplish without specific training (SS and proficiency make it easier but are not strictly necessary). Or whatever you do to make a whip work as a weapon.

With this in mind, rogue being able to use sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient with would make alot more sense, than finesse and ranged weapons only.

Like, why is it physically impossible to aim for the head with a hammer? Does everyone have head mounted deflector shields that don't work on daggers?

The pseudo flanking and advantage are sufficient limitations. Its the tactics that make the sneak attack not the loadout.

I guess I'm a bit of a grognard in this respect. I can totally get behind sneak attack with any weapon you're proficient with (why do Rogues get Longswords?!?) as long as you have advantage. But I wouldn't grant it to any other condition (melee partner, 1v1 as a swashbuckler, etc.) with non-finesse weapons.

Probably makes Rogue/Barbarian multiclasses quite strong.

[Psyren]

But that is a methodology of combat, not a trait of a subset of weapons, a blackjack to the back of the head is as effective anything else applied with savage cunnin.

I'd be totally okay if they added a blackjack or sap to the game as a Finesse bludgeoning weapon, presumably weaker in some way than a club. But the issue there isn't the system - it's the missing weapon.



And all of this would be easier than say a longbow at 600 ft away, which a rogue can accomplish without specific training (SS and proficiency make it easier but are not strictly necessary). Or whatever you do to make a whip work as a weapon.

Your chances of landing an effective longbow hit without proficiency are pretty slim (you start off with a 40% deficiency and it only gets wider from there), so yes, they do need training.


Like, why is it physically impossible to aim for the head with a hammer? Does everyone have head mounted deflector shields that don't work on daggers?

A hammer isn't a finesse weapon. You can "aim for the head" (insomuch as D&D's abstracted combat lets you 'aim' for anything) but you don't get the same benefits as a finesse weapon would. There's multiple ways to justify this, such as "the head" still being too broad of a target to realize the benefits of sneak attack.

Again, the issue here seems to be more with your ability to come up with narrative justifications than with the game.


The psudo flanking and advantage are sufficient limitations. Its the tactics that make the sneak attack not the loadout.

It's both. The loadout is a component of the tactics, or at least works in tandem with them.

[Witty Username]

Narrative and thematic reasoning are easy though. You can smite with melee and thrown but not projectile weapons because you need direct physical contact with the delivery vector while attacking to charge the energy into it; bows, crossbows, and slings don't work for that. You can RA with Str-based attacks but not Dex-based ones because you're swinging with wild abandon and brute force rather than precision. Those took me a few seconds for even me to come up with, so it's no wonder they didn't spend much time on it either.


A brief reminder that smites don't work on throwing attacks. Which actually makes this reasoning more accurate, since you lose contact with the weapon when throwing. And physical contact with arrows seemed like a fact of life back when I did Archery, even if it wasn't a lot to be nice to the poor fingers.

And there are plenty of examples, 5e and otherwise of smite like affects being applied at range, from banishing smite, to eldritch smite, to ensaring strike. You even have effects like Lightning arrows with fits the themes of smite very well and it is required to be a ranged attack.


Reckless Attack is mostly fine, I think there is some design space on the table for a whirling frenzy style barbarian but that would require modifications on the rage side to implement so would probably fit a subclass modification more neatly.

[Psyren]

A brief reminder that smites don't work on throwing attacks.

They will in 5.5e, and given that this thread is complaining about the upcoming 10-minute rage, it's a 5.5e thread.


Reckless Attack is mostly fine, I think there is some design space on the table for a whirling frenzy style barbarian but that would require modifications on the rage side to implement so would probably fit a subclass modification more neatly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "whirling frenzy style barbarian." Can't they already be that?

[Kane0]

I'm not sure what you mean by "whirling frenzy style barbarian." Can't they already be that?
A TWF barb i suppose, with Rage getting in the way of your offhand attack and lack of access to the fighting style.

[Witty Username]

They will in 5.5e, and given that this thread is complaining about the upcoming 10-minute rage, it's a 5.5e thread.

Ok, yeah fair.



I'm not sure what you mean by "whirling frenzy style barbarian." Can't they already be that?
Whirling frenzy is a variant rage back in 3.5, its closest alegory in 5e is the berkserker's frenzy but even that is kinda a weird fit.

In short how it worked was it was rage as ferocity rather than brute strength, although that was still a factor. It gives AC bonuses and additional attacks instead of the Con bonus.

I personally think how it would work translated literally into 5e style thinking is a mix of berkserker's frenzy and cloak of displacement instead of rages normal damage resistance.

Like I said this is more an idea for a subclass, Reckless attack's only factor here is it makes assumptions on how barbarians behave in defense terms, but not every feature needs to be entirely open ended, its not how features work.

[Arkhios]

They will in 5.5e, and given that this thread is complaining about the upcoming 10-minute rage, it's a 5.5e thread.


What is this 5.5e you keep talking about? :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

What is this 5.5e you keep talking about? :smalltongue:

I'm willing it into the universe, don't @ me :smallbiggrin:


A TWF barb i suppose, with Rage getting in the way of your offhand attack and lack of access to the fighting style.

Nick Scimitars solve the former. For the latter there's Fighting Initiate, though personally I'd probably prefer a Fighter dip or multiclass.

[Kane0]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?

[Arkhios]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?

But they do, kind of. Rage gives them bonus to damage rolls, much like Dueling Fighting Style does, except it scales bigger over time. Rage is as much a fighting style as it is primal fury or representation of Barbarian's anger.

[Psyren]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?

As noted they don't need one. As for why, I'm guessing it's because in the fiction, they're positioned as the ferocity/'brute strength' martial as opposed to using techniques.

But Tasha's is explicitly compatible so Fighting Initiate is still an option for straight-classed Barbs.

[Dr.Samurai]

Wait why is it that Barbs dont get a fighting style again?
Because 5E lacks a certain imagination, in order to improve simplicity and streamline the play experience.

Even the fact that "+2 damage" is considered a Fighting Style is silly. Or "+2 attack" or "+1 AC". These are boring simple stat boosts that you can label as anything.

If Dueling actually changed the way you fight with a one-handed weapon, that'd be a Fighting Style.

Oh well.

[Kane0]

Eh, another thing my version is addressing at any rate

[Blatant Beast]

Because 5E lacks a certain imagination, in order to improve simplicity and streamline the play experience.

Even the fact that "+2 damage" is considered a Fighting Style is silly. Or "+2 attack" or "+1 AC". These are boring simple stat boosts that you can label as anything.

If Dueling actually changed the way you fight with a one-handed weapon, that'd be a Fighting Style.

Oh well.

I will point out, that in a rolled stats game, those type of simple stat boosts are golden, because one is not guaranteed the same Ability Score Expressions that a point buy game has.

Many evaluative regimes would rank those simple bonuses highly, because they are static bonuses and not as susceptible as other types of abilities of being negated due to circumstances or game theme.

On common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.

[Kane0]

One common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.

Which can be less charitably expressed as they are bandaid patches.

[NeptunianOM]

They don't want DMs to be forced to track rounds outside of combat unless they want to. But making rage a rounds-based ability would pretty much force them to do that. Out of combat, for most characters there is very little difference between taking 30 seconds or 1 minute to bend some bars or pry off a grate, but when one of those characters is using a resource measured in rounds then those two become very different.

I definitely agree with that assessment for how WotC's design team was envisioning the problem. I would counter that I played, & DMed for, many Barbarians in Pathfinder 1E and I never found it to be that big of a hassle to track rage rounds used. It is more bookwork (kind of) but I would argue the "feels bad" of raging for a fight that ends in a round is worse than making a tally mark each round you rage. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Because 5E lacks a certain imagination, in order to improve simplicity and streamline the play experience.

Even the fact that "+2 damage" is considered a Fighting Style is silly. Or "+2 attack" or "+1 AC". These are boring simple stat boosts that you can label as anything.

If Dueling actually changed the way you fight with a one-handed weapon, that'd be a Fighting Style.

Oh well.


I will point out, that in a rolled stats game, those type of simple stat boosts are golden, because one is not guaranteed the same Ability Score Expressions that a point buy game has.

Many evaluative regimes would rank those simple bonuses highly, because they are static bonuses and not as susceptible as other types of abilities of being negated due to circumstances or game theme.

On common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.

I think both simple-number "fighting styles" and full-on-maneuver "fighting styles" have a place in the game. I can understand why they stuck with the former for the game's base however; we can get maneuver-styles later, or they can be used by third parties to get their name out there.


I definitely agree with that assessment for how WotC's design team was envisioning the problem. I would counter that I played, & DMed for, many Barbarians in Pathfinder 1E and I never found it to be that big of a hassle to track rage rounds used. It is more bookwork (kind of) but I would argue the "feels bad" of raging for a fight that ends in a round is worse than making a tally mark each round you rage. :smallsmile:

I played a ton of PF1e too; I'm not saying tracking rage rounds is insurmountable or anything. But the pillars in 5e are indeed designed around different timescales; given that the goal is for Barbarians to rage outside of combat more often, upgrading it to the next higher timescale makes sense. DMs who want to track rage round-by-round can still do so, just have the most interesting stuff happen within the last couple minutes of the barb's rage and they will need to weigh the cost of another precious usage or SR, vs the benefits (and drawbacks) of hurrying.

[Blatant Beast]

I think both simple-number "fighting styles" and full-on-maneuver "fighting styles" have a place in the game. I can understand why they stuck with the former for the game's base however; we can get maneuver-styles later, or they can be used by third parties to get their name out there.

¿Por Qué No Los Dos?

Why not have Fighting Styles that give both a single Maneuvers and Static Modifiers?
Seems cool to me.

I do think the Druidic and Holy Warrior Fighting Styles for Rangers and Paladins are nice as well.

Rangers have a difficult choice, do you go for the sweet +2 attack bonus from the Archery Style, or Conjure Bonfire from Druidic Warrior?

[Psyren]

¿Por Qué No Los Dos?

Why not have Fighting Styles that give both a single Maneuvers and Static Modifiers?
Seems cool to me.

Sure I'm down... after core.


I do think the Druidic and Holy Warrior Fighting Styles for Rangers and Paladins are nice as well.

Rangers have a difficult choice, do you go for the sweet +2 attack bonus from the Archery Style, or Conjure Bonfire from Druidic Warrior?

Fey Wanderers get a decent amount of mileage out of Shillelagh I'd say.

[Schwann145]

If the goal is to push Rage into being more usable out of combat, that dream will never be realized as long as it remains a low quantity LR resource. :/

[Psyren]

If the goal is to push Rage into being more usable out of combat, that dream will never be realized as long as it remains a low quantity LR resource. :/

It's a LR resource but its also going to be recoverable on a SR now. Between that and the 10-minute duration I expect it to be able to get quite a bit more out of combat use than it did in 5.0.

[Schwann145]

It's a LR resource but its also going to be recoverable on a SR now. Between that and the 10-minute duration I expect it to be able to get quite a bit more out of combat use than it did in 5.0.

Only once though, IIRC?
Also, I think people tend to seriously overestimate how much they'll get out of 10 minutes. If it's chain back-to-back combats, sure, great. But any interruption? Puzzle? Room search? Your 10 minutes is up in a snap.

[Psyren]

Only once though, IIRC?

Once per SR, so if you're getting 2 of those per day you're already at double the amount of rages per LR as a 2014 Barbarian starting out, each of which lasts 10x as long (potentially across multiple encounters or encounter types if they're close enough to one another.) That should be enough to cover at least one non-combat scene if not more.



Also, I think people tend to seriously overestimate how much they'll get out of 10 minutes. If it's chain back-to-back combats, sure, great. But any interruption? Puzzle? Room search? Your 10 minutes is up in a snap.

"Search the area after a fight" and "the tracks you're following lead into the cave with growling sounds emanating from it" and "the fight starts as soon as you climb over that wall" are all reasonably common I'd say.

[Dr.Samurai]

I will point out, that in a rolled stats game, those type of simple stat boosts are golden, because one is not guaranteed the same Ability Score Expressions that a point buy game has.

Many evaluative regimes would rank those simple bonuses highly, because they are static bonuses and not as susceptible as other types of abilities of being negated due to circumstances or game theme.
I'm not saying the bonuses aren't impactful. Just boring and unimaginative, and not really deserving of the label "Fighting Style".

On common complaint about the Unarmed Fighting Style or Throwing Fighting style from Tasha's was those options were to enable niche builds, but lacked the RAW applicability of the Duelist Fighting Style.
The thing about complaints is that anyone is free to make them. I mean, I suspect I'm missing the point because... if you don't want to fight unarmed or with throwing weapons... don't grab those fighting styles. But improving your damage die from 1 single point to 1d6/1d8 is quite the jump in damage, greater than Dueling even. Throwing Style gets you the +2 damage from Dueling and also patches your Action Economy.

IMO, a "Fighting Style" should be more like a feat like Shield Master or Sentinel or Grappler (but improved). Something that changes what you can do with the fighting style you choose.

[Kane0]

I think the label might be the main reason barbarians don't get it. 'fighting style' implies things like training, specialisation, focus, practice, discipline. The sorts of things not commonly associated with the default barbarian imagery.
Which i think is dumb, but its a theory.

[Sindeloke]

IMO, a "Fighting Style" should be more like a feat like Shield Master or Sentinel or Grappler (but improved). Something that changes what you can do with the fighting style you choose.

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear. Not Shield Master "you personally just get this benefit when you wear a shield," but rather "Protector Style: you can choose to fail a dexterity saving throw. If you do, all allies in a 15-foot cone behind you automatically succeed. If you have a shield, you don't have to fail the save to trigger this." Now you're encouraged to stand between the dragon and your friends; it actually changes the way you fight.

Or "Aggressive Style: Each time you make a successful attack, you gain a cumulative +1 to damage [capped at a scaling x or w/e]. This bonus falls off if you end your turn without attacking." Now you're encouraged to attack as much as humanly possible. Greatsword, mace, doesn't matter, you have declared that no matter what you're holding or who you're facing, your fighting style is "I hit things until they fall over."

Or "Control Style: If you successfully force a target to move, lose movement, or go prone, they take prof bonus bludgeoning damage, and the next attack against them has advantage." Now you're rewarded for spending your actions on CC, and for doing so by whatever means is available, the way a character interested in CC really would; you can shove/grapple/sentinel feat/throw a grease bottle/set up a pit trap, the method is irrelevant and improvisation is rewarded.

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment." Fighting style is minor here compared to feats (and class features like smite/rage), but it contributes. And two... this is kind of hard to articulate, but if Alhandra hangs behind her shield, carefully side-steps, waits for the perfect moment, and strikes hard, Jane at the table rolls a d20. If Alhandra presses her enemy furiously with a cascade of heavy blows until one gets through... Jane rolls a d20. Whether Alhandra has Duelist or Great Weapon, carries a shield or two-hands a longsword, wears scale or plate, it doesn't matter to how it actually feels to play Alhandra at the table. If you want fighting style to make characters feel different, which I think is the intent of the choice, it needs to affect Jane's decisions, not Alhandra's. Where do you stand, what do you do on your turn, should you heal or attack or shove or use an item.

[Kane0]

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear.

Yeah, seconded.

[Dr.Samurai]

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear. Not Shield Master "you personally just get this benefit when you wear a shield," but rather "Protector Style: you can choose to fail a dexterity saving throw. If you do, all allies in a 15-foot cone behind you automatically succeed. If you have a shield, you don't have to fail the save to trigger this." Now you're encouraged to stand between the dragon and your friends; it actually changes the way you fight.

Or "Aggressive Style: Each time you make a successful attack, you gain a cumulative +1 to damage [capped at a scaling x or w/e]. This bonus falls off if you end your turn without attacking." Now you're encouraged to attack as much as humanly possible. Greatsword, mace, doesn't matter, you have declared that no matter what you're holding or who you're facing, your fighting style is "I hit things until they fall over."

Or "Control Style: If you successfully force a target to move, lose movement, or go prone, they take prof bonus bludgeoning damage, and the next attack against them has advantage." Now you're rewarded for spending your actions on CC, and for doing so by whatever means is available, the way a character interested in CC really would; you can shove/grapple/sentinel feat/throw a grease bottle/set up a pit trap, the method is irrelevant and improvisation is rewarded.
I generally agree but also disagree. I agree that it should change the way you're able to fight. But I disagree that it should be totally divorced from gear. I appreciate the Protector Style example that you give and would probably support this type of "Fighting Style" first because it grants an ability that is simply improved depending on gear selection. I think that's best of both worlds and I like it.

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment." Fighting style is minor here compared to feats (and class features like smite/rage), but it contributes.
I disagree. I like for there to be meaningful choices between gear selection. I think the issue is that those choices have to be mostly equal to each other so there isn't a sense that one style if vastly superior to another. That's easier said than done. But there should be differences between heavy and light armors, and reach weapons and light weapons and shields etc.

[Psyren]

Personally, I think Fighting Style should center on behavior, not gear. Not Shield Master "you personally just get this benefit when you wear a shield," but rather "Protector Style: you can choose to fail a dexterity saving throw. If you do, all allies in a 15-foot cone behind you automatically succeed. If you have a shield, you don't have to fail the save to trigger this." Now you're encouraged to stand between the dragon and your friends; it actually changes the way you fight.

Or "Aggressive Style: Each time you make a successful attack, you gain a cumulative +1 to damage [capped at a scaling x or w/e]. This bonus falls off if you end your turn without attacking." Now you're encouraged to attack as much as humanly possible. Greatsword, mace, doesn't matter, you have declared that no matter what you're holding or who you're facing, your fighting style is "I hit things until they fall over."

Or "Control Style: If you successfully force a target to move, lose movement, or go prone, they take prof bonus bludgeoning damage, and the next attack against them has advantage." Now you're rewarded for spending your actions on CC, and for doing so by whatever means is available, the way a character interested in CC really would; you can shove/grapple/sentinel feat/throw a grease bottle/set up a pit trap, the method is irrelevant and improvisation is rewarded.

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment." Fighting style is minor here compared to feats (and class features like smite/rage), but it contributes. And two... this is kind of hard to articulate, but if Alhandra hangs behind her shield, carefully side-steps, waits for the perfect moment, and strikes hard, Jane at the table rolls a d20. If Alhandra presses her enemy furiously with a cascade of heavy blows until one gets through... Jane rolls a d20. Whether Alhandra has Duelist or Great Weapon, carries a shield or two-hands a longsword, wears scale or plate, it doesn't matter to how it actually feels to play Alhandra at the table. If you want fighting style to make characters feel different, which I think is the intent of the choice, it needs to affect Jane's decisions, not Alhandra's. Where do you stand, what do you do on your turn, should you heal or attack or shove or use an item.


I generally agree but also disagree. I agree that it should change the way you're able to fight. But I disagree that it should be totally divorced from gear. I appreciate the Protector Style example that you give and would probably support this type of "Fighting Style" first because it grants an ability that is simply improved depending on gear selection. I think that's best of both worlds and I like it.

+1; I like Protector Style as it combines the technique and equipment layers. Accounting for both of these layers is important, for both ludic and narrative reasons; "Aggressive Style" is a great example of what happens when you neglect to do this.

On the surface, it seems to fictionally encourage and mechanically reward a more reckless behavior in combat. But because it works with any weapon type, it's going to be a must-pick for archers, who can reap the benefits of being "aggressive" quite easily as they can constantly attack even if they don't put themselves in harm's way. An archer can benefit from "aggressive style" while cautiously kiting and taking potshots from cover exactly like they would without it - getting the reward without any change in behavior. Hell, you didn't even restrict it to weapon attacks, so a warlock spamming Eldritch Blast - again, like they would be on most rounds anyway - could technically benefit too.


I disagree. I like for there to be meaningful choices between gear selection. I think the issue is that those choices have to be mostly equal to each other so there isn't a sense that one style if vastly superior to another. That's easier said than done. But there should be differences between heavy and light armors, and reach weapons and light weapons and shields etc.

+1 to this as well.

Regarding armor, my only real issue is that (a) there is no Light armor that is as good as Mage Armor or Natural Armor, (b) Hide Armor is basically useless unless you're really strapped for cash (and even if you are, Leather often beats it anyway), and (c) Ring Mail should be base 15 rather than 14. It would also be nice if we could have Bucklers as a light shield category that only granted +1 but left your hand free for certain purposes as well.

[Kane0]

Archery: You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons
Blind Fighting: You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet
Cleaving: When you hit with a melee weapon attack, you can apply the same attack to another creature adjacent to the target that is also within your reach that deals half damage
Crippling: When you hit with a weapon attack you also reduce the target’s movement speed by 10 feet until the end of your next turn
Defence: You gain a +1 bonus to AC
Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon
Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands you can reroll the die once, adding the new roll to the result.
Interception: When a creature you can see hits a target other than you, within your reach with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage the target takes by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0 damage). You must be wielding a shield or a melee weapon to use this reaction.
Dabbler: You gain two cantrips of your choice, choosing Int, Wis or Cha as your casting stat. If you choose a spell that deals damage, you add your casting stat to the damage roll
Guardian: When wielding a melee weapon hostile creatures treat your reach as difficult terrain
Harrier: You gain +5’ to your movement speed, and once per turn a creature you hit with a melee attack cannot take reactions until the start of its next turn
Quickdraw: You gain a +2 bonus to Initiative
Scathing: When you miss with a melee weapon attack, your target still takes damage equal to the minimum possible damage your attack would have dealt.
Unarmed Fighting: Your unarmed strikes deal two damage dice (default being 1d4, so 2d4 unless you're a monk). Moreover, when you make an opportunity attack with a free hand you can choose to instead make a grapple or shove attempt

[Sindeloke]

I disagree. I like for there to be meaningful choices between gear selection. I think the issue is that those choices have to be mostly equal to each other so there isn't a sense that one style if vastly superior to another. That's easier said than done. But there should be differences between heavy and light armors, and reach weapons and light weapons and shields etc.

It's not about equality between gear. It's about all of your mechanical capability being tied to one item. If you did the absolute impossible thing of making "shield style + shield feat" and "polearm style + polearm feat" mechanically distinct and yet also perfectly balanced, that still doesn't change the fact that, when your sword and board dwarf fighter discovers the legendary Greathammer of Moradin which is the only thing that can break the Golem of Laudeguer and free his people from the Lost Dwarf's tyranny, you now have a choice between "undermine this awesome story beat" and "lose half of your build resources and have the combat effectiveness of a character an entire tier lower."

The kind of fiction that inspires D&D has a lot of characters who are associated strongly with one weapon, and do most of their fighting with it. Xena has her chakram, Cap has his shield, Legolas has his bow, Heracles has his fists. But when Callisto takes Xena's chakram, she fights just as well with her sword. When Cap throws his shield and lodges it in something, he fights just as well with his fists. When Legolas gets chased into a tunnel, he does "knife-work" and still increases his kill count. When Heracles goes up against an invulnerable lion, he fletches a bow and shoots it in the mouth. A D&D character needs to be able to, equally, say "I love my sword, it is my best friend and I will always favor it, but for this specific vampire, the rogue and I will split the two Daggers of Vampire-Killing between us and I will still get to feel like a badass." If his styles and feats are all tied to an item, though, he might as well keep using the sword, because he's doing half as much damage with the dagger anyway so what does he care about it breaking resistance that his sword can't?

I certainly agree that weapons and armor should feel different from each other, but that should be in the weapons and armor themselves. It shouldn't cost build resources, because then you're locking yourself into the same schema for every fight for the rest of the game.

[Skrum]

It's not about equality between gear. It's about all of your mechanical capability being tied to one item. If you did the absolute impossible thing of making "shield style + shield feat" and "polearm style + polearm feat" mechanically distinct and yet also perfectly balanced, that still doesn't change the fact that, when your sword and board dwarf fighter discovers the legendary Greathammer of Moradin which is the only thing that can break the Golem of Laudeguer and free his people from the Lost Dwarf's tyranny, you now have a choice between "undermine this awesome story beat" and "lose half of your build resources and have the combat effectiveness of a character an entire tier lower."

The kind of fiction that inspires D&D has a lot of characters who are associated strongly with one weapon, and do most of their fighting with it. Xena has her chakram, Cap has his shield, Legolas has his bow, Heracles has his fists. But when Callisto takes Xena's chakram, she fights just as well with her sword. When Cap throws his shield and lodges it in something, he fights just as well with his fists. When Legolas gets chased into a tunnel, he does "knife-work" and still increases his kill count. When Heracles goes up against an invulnerable lion, he fletches a bow and shoots it in the mouth. A D&D character needs to be able to, equally, say "I love my sword, it is my best friend and I will always favor it, but for this specific vampire, the rogue and I will split the two Daggers of Vampire-Killing between us and I will still get to feel like a badass." If his styles and feats are all tied to an item, though, he might as well keep using the sword, because he's doing half as much damage with the dagger anyway so what does he care about it breaking resistance that his sword can't?

I certainly agree that weapons and armor should feel different from each other, but that should be in the weapons and armor themselves. It shouldn't cost build resources, because then you're locking yourself into the same schema for every fight for the rest of the game.

Love your ideas for fighting styles; they are way more interesting and impactful than the boring +1 and +2's that the current ones are.

But I gotta ask - does 5e actually lock characters into a specific weapon/weapon type? I generally say no it doesn't. My longest played character (RIP) was a fighter/warlock who used a morningstar for backstory reasons, but over his career he went from a morningstar to morningstar + shield to longsword + shield to morningstar + shield to dagger + shield and then finally spear + shield. He had the Piercer feat, so morningstars, spears, and daggers all worked just fine for it. But it wasn't like he'd go from attacking at +10 with a morningstar to +6 with anything else.

GWM and PAM do this the most, but even then there's options. They work with categories of weapons, and that makes sense for what the feat is.

[Rukelnikov]

My feeling is twofold; one, just in general, I don't think players should have to choose between "piece of gear that all of my numbers are mechanically attached to" and "cool story-relevant item that would be fun to use in this moment."

That's a problem inherent to level based character growth. If you take Polearm Master and end up with the Sword of a Thousand Truths you have to either accept you have a useless feat or a useless legendary item. In a buy points or similar, you could have leveled polearms, and now that you have TSoaTT start leveling swords, sure you won't be making use of the XP you put into polearms earlier but the opportunity cost is incredibly smaller in any of the buy point systems I played compared to that of a feat in DnD.

The only solution for this I've seen in DnD since feats have been introduced are retrain mechanics.

[Witty Username]

The only solution for this I've seen in DnD since feats have been introduced are retrain mechanics.

You can have feat designs that don't lock this in though.

I think 3.5 was better at this, PAM and GWM are more specific than say power attack and shock trooper. But you do still have things like sentinel which is good for more or less any melee build.

You can also get feats like gunner, which has some benefits specific to guns (proficiency and the loading property removal) and non-specific (attacking in melee and +1 dex).

[Rukelnikov]

You can have feat designs that don't lock this in though.

I think 3.5 was better at this, PAM and GWM are more specific than say power attack and shock trooper. But you do still have things like sentinel which is good for more or less any melee build.

You can also get feats like gunner, which has some benefits specific to guns (proficiency and the loading property removal) and non-specific (attacking in melee and +1 dex).

3.5 also had Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, and a bunch of other weapon specific feats, and as a Ftr lvl 1 Weapon Focus was a great feat. They added "Melee Weapon Mastery" in PHB2, which gave boni with all piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning weapons (depending on which you chose), but you still nedeed WF and WS to get it, so while nice in giving boni to a whole school of weapons, you were still incentivized to stick with whatever you took WF and WS to begin with.

Phase 2 3.5 (3.75?) when PHB2 and Tome of Battle came along, tried to remedy this by giving rules for retraining and giving the Warblade basically a built in 1 hour retrain for all those styles of feats. I'm not saying one edition is better or worse than the other at this, I just think its a problem inherent of the growth style of leveling.

[LibraryOgre]

And while it is sometimes used for cheese, I've also really liked BG3's "cheap and easy" retraining. I wouldn't go QUITE that easy or quick in table top, but it has been great in the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not about equality between gear. It's about all of your mechanical capability being tied to one item. If you did the absolute impossible thing of making "shield style + shield feat" and "polearm style + polearm feat" mechanically distinct and yet also perfectly balanced, that still doesn't change the fact that, when your sword and board dwarf fighter discovers the legendary Greathammer of Moradin which is the only thing that can break the Golem of Laudeguer and free his people from the Lost Dwarf's tyranny, you now have a choice between "undermine this awesome story beat" and "lose half of your build resources and have the combat effectiveness of a character an entire tier lower."
A feat is one part of a character though. It's a big part, but it doesn't mean you're not effective with other weapons. That dwarf fighter still has Action Surge with the hammer, additional Extra Attacks, and any subclass features like Maneuvers. A barbarian can Reckless Attack with any melee weapon. Paladins can still smite, etc.

This occurred to me in DiA. I had Polearm Master. My character wound up attuning to the mcguffin, which was a longsword. I used the longsword because it was ridiculously powerful. The dwarf fighter in your example would likely use the Greathammer of Moradin for similar reasons AND is probably the only one in the party even trained to use a maul.

One of the perks (and in my experience it's a big one) of playing Strength warriors is that you basically have your pick of the magic weapons that you find, because usually no one else can use them.

The kind of fiction that inspires D&D has a lot of characters who are associated strongly with one weapon, and do most of their fighting with it. Xena has her chakram, Cap has his shield, Legolas has his bow, Heracles has his fists. But when Callisto takes Xena's chakram, she fights just as well with her sword. When Cap throws his shield and lodges it in something, he fights just as well with his fists. When Legolas gets chased into a tunnel, he does "knife-work" and still increases his kill count. When Heracles goes up against an invulnerable lion, he fletches a bow and shoots it in the mouth. A D&D character needs to be able to, equally, say "I love my sword, it is my best friend and I will always favor it, but for this specific vampire, the rogue and I will split the two Daggers of Vampire-Killing between us and I will still get to feel like a badass." If his styles and feats are all tied to an item, though, he might as well keep using the sword, because he's doing half as much damage with the dagger anyway so what does he care about it breaking resistance that his sword can't?
I think characters can still do this. Your class and subclass features still work with other weapons.

I certainly agree that weapons and armor should feel different from each other, but that should be in the weapons and armor themselves. It shouldn't cost build resources, because then you're locking yourself into the same schema for every fight for the rest of the game.
Sure. But this to me is a symptom of having a set of combat rules that fit on a notepad sticky.

[Theodoxus]

You can have feat designs that don't lock this in though.


3.5 also had Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, and a bunch of other weapon specific feats, and as a Ftr lvl 1 Weapon Focus was a great feat. They added "Melee Weapon Mastery" in PHB2, which gave boni with all piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning weapons (depending on which you chose), but you still nedeed WF and WS to get it, so while nice in giving boni to a whole school of weapons, you were still incentivized to stick with whatever you took WF and WS to begin with.

Phase 2 3.5 (3.75?) when PHB2 and Tome of Battle came along, tried to remedy this by giving rules for retraining and giving the Warblade basically a built in 1 hour retrain for all those styles of feats. I'm not saying one edition is better or worse than the other at this, I just think its a problem inherent of the growth style of leveling.

I'd probably do something like feat groups, and allow for interchange between different feats in the same group, and then provide options on how often a feat can be changed. Highly heroic games might allow a feat to be changed during a rest. More traditional might allow a feat to change at level up. The most strict simply wouldn't allow it - and that decision is made in session zero.

The groups themselves would be things like 'Combat' with GWM, PAM, SS, Dueling, etc. 'Social' with Actor, Inspiring Leader, etc. 'Exploration' with Alert, Athlete, Dungeon Delver, etc.

[Witty Username]

Phase 2 3.5 (3.75?) when PHB2 and Tome of Battle came along, tried to remedy this by giving rules for retraining and giving the Warblade basically a built in 1 hour retrain for all those styles of feats. I'm not saying one edition is better or worse than the other at this, I just think its a problem inherent of the growth style of leveling.
Fair enough,
3.5 personally reads a better, but I tended to avoid the entire focus + specialization lines because I am of the mind they are just bad (outside of paying taxes). But I was more searching for design examples anyway.

I like retraining being available, but I think feats can also be better designed to smooth over these problems.
Like say feats promoting tactics rather than loadout or giving multiple benefits to cover a greater build range.

Less weapon focus, more combat Expertise for 3.5 ways
Less PAM more Sentinel for 5e ways

Retraining more as an eject seat or emergency stop, good to have, but not intended for everyday use.

[Skrum]

Fair enough,


Retraining more as an eject seat or emergency stop, good to have, but not intended for everyday use.

I've always like retraining in video games. Considerably more leery of it in TTRPG's. The narrative around gaining (and more specifically, losing) abilities is very clunky. Like, time skip, sure! But if characters are unlearning things in anything less than several months, there's just no possible explanation for that. "Nothing to see here, move along."

[Rukelnikov]

I've always like retraining in video games. Considerably more leery of it in TTRPG's. The narrative around gaining (and more specifically, losing) abilities is very clunky. Like, time skip, sure! But if characters are unlearning things in anything less than several months, there's just no possible explanation for that. "Nothing to see here, move along."

I'm of the same mind, in the case of the warblade though my interpretation was "I'm good with weapons in general, so gimme an hour to acclimate with this one in particular and I'm groovy"

[Sindeloke]

But I gotta ask - does 5e actually lock characters into a specific weapon/weapon type? I generally say no it doesn't.

I think "generally no" is fair? It's only two builds that are a problem, and only because of the four usual suspect feats that are always causing problems; Glaive Guy who took PAM/GWM and Madame Quickshot who took XBE/SS should basically never touch a different weapon, but anyone else can swap around fairly freely. It's just that, part of the reason that anyone else can swap around fairly freely is that (other than Archery) fighting styles are really trivial. But if you're going to make fighting styles more interesting and impactful, the choices they key off become more impactful as well. So my concern is more preemptive. I want to divorce weapon styles from weapon types before buffing them, so that weapon limits due to build investment aren't inadvertently exacerbated as a consequence.


Sure. But [weapons themselves not having distinctions] to me is a symptom of having a set of combat rules that fit on a notepad sticky.

What kills me is, a lot of the rules are already there, they're just there as atomized exceptions. What if you didn't have to take Crusher? What if mauls and hammers just automatically Did That already? What if, instead of Spear Mastery existing, polearms themselves just came with the inherent property that you get an opportunity attack when something enters your reach? What if hooks or chains or axes let you try a trip as a bonus action if you hit, instead of Battlemaster being the only person in the history of war smart enough to figure out that you can use weapons for this stuff just as easily as your fists? What if all weapons let you trade -prof hit for +prof damage, and 2-hand weapons inherently let you double the damage bonus? 5e combat for martials does have some complexity, it's just hidden, opt-in complexity that you don't see until you start digging through class features and splats. You could just put it all in the PHB weapon section instead of scattering it across a dozen feats and it would leave the combat section just as clean and exactly as simple as it actually is now.


I've always like retraining in video games. Considerably more leery of it in TTRPG's. The narrative around gaining (and more specifically, losing) abilities is very clunky. Like, time skip, sure! But if characters are unlearning things in anything less than several months, there's just no possible explanation for that. "Nothing to see here, move along."

It's a lot more necessary in video games. Mechanics are less forgiving, the presets and auto-leveling stats are far more likely to be deeply stupid, and the game will frequently give you items that trivialize your build choices, turn out to never actually have the challenges that you designed your build to handle, suddenly require a specific spell that you don't have, or have patches/DLC/class reworks that invalidate your combos or break your builds. I don't oppose retraining in tabletop, I think it's a useful tool, but I also think that if you pick a lot of face spells because you want to be the party face, you're probably going to prefer to ask the DM to run more social encounters over picking new spells, and in tabletop games that's always an option.

[Theodoxus]

What kills me is, a lot of the rules are already there, they're just there as atomized exceptions. What if you didn't have to take Crusher? What if mauls and hammers just automatically Did That already? What if, instead of Spear Mastery existing, polearms themselves just came with the inherent property that you get an opportunity attack when something enters your reach? What if hooks or chains or axes let you try a trip as a bonus action if you hit, instead of Battlemaster being the only person in the history of war smart enough to figure out that you can use weapons for this stuff just as easily as your fists? What if all weapons let you trade -prof hit for +prof damage, and 2-hand weapons inherently let you double the damage bonus? 5e combat for martials does have some complexity, it's just hidden, opt-in complexity that you don't see until you start digging through class features and splats. You could just put it all in the PHB weapon section instead of scattering it across a dozen feats and it would leave the combat section just as clean and exactly as simple as it actually is now.

You see weapon properties being native the weapon, and I grok where you're coming from. But I don't think Joe Schmo the farming farmer should be able to get OAs when using a pitch fork against a raging boar just because he picked it up. Now, I can totally get behind removing those features from feats, but I think they fit exactly in the fighting style zeitgeist. And since fighting styles are available via feat, anyone who wants to use them, can.

Remove the piddly +x to hit or damage (so Archery doesn't end up top dog, as accuracy > damage every time) and make FS weapon group specific that grant nifty riders ala the weapon feats we currently see.

I would also grant all fighters an extra FS at 10th (with Champions getting a 3rd at that level too).

I do think that sacrificing accuracy for power (-hit, +dam) should probably be baseline though. How many times have we seen regular dudes go roid-ragey swinging as hard as they can with very little accuracy. Heck, if I was going for a more realistic combat scenario, the rule would be unless you're a martial class, you HAVE to trade your PB to hit for damage (1:1 for non-martials); where martials can opt to, and get x2 PB to damage in the process!

[LibraryOgre]

I think "generally no" is fair? It's only two builds that are a problem, and only because of the four usual suspect feats that are always causing problems; Glaive Guy who took PAM/GWM and Madame Quickshot who took XBE/SS should basically never touch a different weapon, but anyone else can swap around fairly freely. It's just that, part of the reason that anyone else can swap around fairly freely is that (other than Archery) fighting styles are really trivial. But if you're going to make fighting styles more interesting and impactful, the choices they key off become more impactful as well. So my concern is more preemptive. I want to divorce weapon styles from weapon types before buffing them, so that weapon limits due to build investment aren't inadvertently exacerbated as a consequence.


I'd add a couple more.

1) Monks. Will elven monks (who aren't kensai) be using their longsword proficiency? Probably not often, since it messes up their monk abilities.
2) Thieves Rogues. Again, you're gonna see very few dwarven rogues using their battle-axe proficiency, because their fighting style (sneak attack) precludes the use of battle axes.

[Rukelnikov]

You see weapon properties being native the weapon, and I grok where you're coming from. But I don't think Joe Schmo the farming farmer should be able to get OAs when using a pitch fork against a raging boar just because he picked it up. Now, I can totally get behind removing those features from feats, but I think they fit exactly in the fighting style zeitgeist. And since fighting styles are available via feat, anyone who wants to use them, can.

Remove the piddly +x to hit or damage (so Archery doesn't end up top dog, as accuracy > damage every time) and make FS weapon group specific that grant nifty riders ala the weapon feats we currently see.

I would also grant all fighters an extra FS at 10th (with Champions getting a 3rd at that level too).

I do think that sacrificing accuracy for power (-hit, +dam) should probably be baseline though. How many times have we seen regular dudes go roid-ragey swinging as hard as they can with very little accuracy. Heck, if I was going for a more realistic combat scenario, the rule would be unless you're a martial class, you HAVE to trade your PB to hit for damage (1:1 for non-martials); where martials can opt to, and get x2 PB to damage in the process!

I say Nay!

That's a point where I think 5.5 is taking a step in the right direction in the form of weapon masteries. Now I think it's pretty far from perfect, and I wouldn't even call it good, but its still a step in the right direction.

You can now be unproficient with a weapon, which means you make a regular attack with the weapons damage die and damage type, you can be proficient with a weapon, adding your proficiency to your attacks with it, and you can take it one step further and be a master of it, accessing weapons special "moves" so to say, my problems with the system are that getting proficient in every weapon should be as cheap as it currently is, and masteries should be more inspired and sometimes intrinsic so to say of a weapon, like whips could have something more unique to them than slowing your target, tripping or disarming would be more fitting IMO, but still they design I feel is better.

[Psyren]

1) Monks. Will elven monks (who aren't kensai) be using their longsword proficiency? Probably not often, since it messes up their monk abilities.

Actually, you don't need to be a kensei to use a longsword as a monk - the Dedicated Weapon optional feature lets them treat longswords as monk weapons regardless of subclass! That actually makes the elf proficiency useful as it lets you qualify for the DW feature even if you're using a subclass like Shadow or Long Death that doesn't grant said proficiency itself.


2) Thieves Rogues. Again, you're gonna see very few dwarven rogues using their battle-axe proficiency, because their fighting style (sneak attack) precludes the use of battle axes.

My guess is this is one reason they're removing that proficiency from Dwarves in 5.5e as it's a bit redundant. Every class or build that would benefit from using axes already gets it, while the ones that don't typically don't care to use it, rendering the racial proficiency pointless.

[Sindeloke]

You see weapon properties being native the weapon, and I grok where you're coming from. But I don't think Joe Schmo the farming farmer should be able to get OAs when using a pitch fork against a raging boar just because he picked it up.

IMO that's the point of proficiency, which I'd basically define as "being capable of consistently, effectively using a tool for its intended purpose." IE, I would not call any actual human proficient with a spear if they didn't know how to keep an enemy at range with it, that's the entire basic function of the weapon. Farming farmers aren't proficient with pitchforks, though, they're just improvising in a panic, so they wouldn't have access to the feature, and putting it on the weapon doesn't change anything for them. Speaking of which:


That's a point where I think 5.5 is taking a step in the right direction in the form of weapon masteries. Now I think it's pretty far from perfect, and I wouldn't even call it good, but its still a step in the right direction.

The idea that only a "master" would use a spear in a way that has different game effects than a dagger annoys me, especially if masteries remain so expensive and singular. But I can understand wanting to distinguish proficiency and mastery in the first place. I think mastery is a good place to put effects that are much more fantastical, like bouncing a thrown weapon off of a dozen targets or the single samurai strike that's so fast the enemy doesn't even know it's dead until six seconds later. A sort of signature move type thing, possibly with more than one option per weapon, or even an interplay between class and weapon (ie, mastery that works for any great weapon but only barbs can take it, vs mastery only for daggers but some rogues get it automatically, vs one for all axes from thrown to great that anyone can grab).


I'd add a couple more.

1) Monks. Will elven monks (who aren't kensai) be using their longsword proficiency? Probably not often, since it messes up their monk abilities.
2) Thieves Rogues. Again, you're gonna see very few dwarven rogues using their battle-axe proficiency, because their fighting style (sneak attack) precludes the use of battle axes.

Fair point. I can definitely say, to pick a completely random example, that a Githyanki monk who uses a silver greatsword for her main attack and still gets to use her monk features feels very good and thematic, and is the sort of thing that makes you go "huh, I wish monks were like this in base D&D." But I've always disagreed strongly with the devs about how thematically restrictive the monk is to begin with. I'm much more comfortable with rogue restrictions, because I agree with WotC that the class they have adapted over the years should probably be using finesse weapons; I think exceptions should exist, but are enough of a divergence from the base concept that they should be fully-developed subclasses like "guild enforcer" and "dwarven tunnel scout" rather than available to any rogue in the base chassis. I can see how their logic for monks is the same. (Although even then, I think those exceptions are important enough that a STR rogue and weapon monk subclass should have been in the PHB from jump.)

[Kane0]

I'd add a couple more.

1) Monks
2) Thieves Rogues

Ooh yes, already done for my own versions!

To clarify:

Martial Arts
While wearing light or no armor you gain the following benefits:
- When attacking with an unarmed strike or melee weapon you are proficient in, you can use your monk die as the damage die as shown in the monk class table
- You can use your dexterity instead of strength for the purposes of jumping, grappling and unarmed strikes
- As a bonus action you can make an unarmed strike

Graceful Defence
While wearing light or no armor you gain the following benefits:
- You can add your Wisdom bonus to your unarmored AC
- You reduce any falling damage you take by three times your monk level
- When hit by an attack that deals bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage you can use your reaction to reduce the damage taken by your monk die + dex + your monk level.

Sneak Attack
Once per turn, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an attack roll if you do not have disadvantage on the attack roll and either A) have advantage on the attack roll or B) the target is within reach of an ally that is not incapacitated.
This extra damage equals a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (rounded up). The extra damage’s type is the same as the attack’s Damage Type.

Ranged monk weapons and medium/heavy armor monks would still be a subclass thing though.

[Witty Username]

I am more comfortable main boarding rogue versatility, because it is self corecting.

Light armor, benefits from stealth and mobile play all already encourages dex builds and finesse and ranged weapons.

Sneak attack with a greatsword gives options but that doesn't mean the are good without auxiliary support like multiclassing or a subclass.

Monk is sorta the opposite, I am pretty comfortable with no monk features working with ranged weapons, because as we see on the optimization end, ranged on monk specificly overshadows almost all the benefits of melee on a monk.

You do have narrative things like how a crossbow would drop movement speed, but that is not all that different then the frustrations of a rogue trying to sneak attack with a sword, which most of have seen as at least tolerable without a game balance issue.

That being said, I still prefer open concept
Paladin bow smiting
Zabuza rogues
Monk bow masters
Barbarian axe throwers
Minsc style rangers with mighty swords
Etc.