I took resil: wisdom on my barb

[Skrum]

And it feels terrible >:(

He was 18 str 8 wis, giving him a -1 wisdom save
After failing a few too many wisdom saves against dominate, I respec'd him to

16 str 10 wis with resil: wisdom feat. And I grabbed a stone of good luck for another +1 all saves. He's now rocking a respectable +5 wisdom saves.

How'd the very first game go? Well he missed twice, by 1. One of those attacks was against a boss, who's death ward had just triggered. Me missing let him escape. I also failed to kill another enemy....by 1.

Was this a statistical outlier? Yah, sure. But still. The -2 str was *noticable.* Taking a hit to a main stat is awful. I'm a barb! I use str literally every turn. The fact that my only option to get a half way decent wisdom save is to reduce my main stat is bu@$_&#+.

Seriously considering switching back.

/End rant

[Dr.Samurai]

In before the "But this is how the game is designed, if you don't like this, then get paralyzed/stunned/dominated or play a different game/class." comments.

[KorvinStarmast]

Seriously considering switching back.

/End rant Low sample size.
Your decision to go Res Wis was an Excellent one.
Why do I say that?
My Rune Knight began with 11 Wis. +0. I took the feat. +1, and then prof bonus +2 initially.
I am now level 15 and I am +6.
I have frequently made Wis saves that I'd have otherwise missed. And we have to make a lot of them.
(And ask one of your caster friends to maybe use Intellect Fortress: it gives you advantage. It is a team game).

I occasionally have to rely on the Indomitable Fighter feature to re roll a save, and I was tempted to later take the Lucky feat. Have not yet.

Hang in there. It will pay off.

And you are still going to miss a few wisdom saves. That's the nature of how saving throws versus spells work. My warlock rolled a 1 on a Charisma save the other day: he's proficient and has a +4 mod. Yes, it sucked, but that's how the game works.

[Skrum]

Yeah I mean I'm gonna stick it out, for at least a little while. Give it a chance to make me look smart. This game was definitely (hopefully lol) an outlier.

It's kind of a vibe thing, yah know? I'm a 10th level character with 16 in my main stat. Other characters almost universally have at least 18. Many have 20. It's a bad feeling.

Fortunately we do have solid access to magic items; I'm gonna invest in a +2 weapon, maybe even +3 if I get the gold. That will offset my crummy str.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fortunately we do have solid access to magic items; I'm gonna invest in a +2 weapon, maybe even +3 if I get the gold. That will offset my crummy str. Good plan.

[JellyPooga]

Frankly, having a 20 in your main stat at level 10 probably means that you're somewhat a one-dimensional character; no feats (unless Variant Human), dip multiclass (if any) and only interested in the statistically most beneficial character build. For me, personally, that's kind of boring because success alone isn't very interesting. It's not actually very interesting at all. Failure and specifically how one overcomes it is far more engaging as a narrative conceit.

Giving your Barbarian a better Wisdom is far more interesting than giving them more Strength. Are they still a "Strong CharacterTM? Yeah, absolutely. Are they now also able to resist mind-control once in a while instead of being the complete tool of anyone that happens to cast Charm Person on them? Also yes. Better at Perception (the most common skill check called for in the game), Insight, Medicine and even at petting the goodest bois? Even better. Yeah, if you want my opinion, far better to be built broad than specialised, even when the game technically rewards the latter; it's more fun and you get to engage with more of the game. Being good at one thing means engaging with only that one thing. Being good at many things means you get to actually play the game more because very few games involve only a single, narrow field of play and even those that do (e.g. arena games that focus solely on combat) would get pretty boring if all you did was hit things with a stick, no matter how good you are at it.

[lall]

My sorcerer takes it. Feels sort of irresponsible not to. He would take it again for INT saves if he could. Having said that, he pushes his CHA to 20 first.

[Theodoxus]

Was your only respec option Str? Otherwise seems odd. -2 Int or Cha would have been the better trade. Or, probably better -1 to each... or heck, even -1 to Con and Dex...

[GeneralVryth]

Fortunately we do have solid access to magic items; I'm gonna invest in a +2 weapon, maybe even +3 if I get the gold. That will offset my crummy str.

Seems like you should be looking for Belt of Giant's Strength instead of a +3 weapon.

[CTurbo]

By level 10 Belts of Giant Strength shouldn't be that hard to come by. The Hill Giant one which sets Str to 21 is "just" Rare. The Stone and Frost ones are Very Rare.

[Psyren]

Hang in there. It will pay off.

^ That, especially if your DM is Wis-happy. You just had bad luck OP.

Think of it this way, you'd have failed those same saves without Resilient, except you wouldn't be anywhere near success. Missing by 1 might feel terrible, but succeeding by 1 will make you feel awesome.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm confused, what's your build here? You're a 10th level character and it sounds like you switched out an ASI +2 Str for the Res:Wis, but what's your race, other ASI and subclass?

Personally, I wouldn't have respecced like this, but I also think Res:Wis is vastly overrated as a DM that likes to smack my Barbarian's Wisdom save around. It's a team game, no character needs to be an unbreakable monolith.

[Kurald Galain]

He was 18 str 8 wis, giving him a -1 wisdom save
After failing a few too many wisdom saves against dominate, I respec'd him to

16 str 10 wis with resil: wisdom feat.
Okay, so you actually did two things.

One, you took the Resilient feat. This is a good idea.
Two, you lowered your strength to increase your wisdom. This is what feels terrible (AND note that the first step had a MUCH greater impact on your wisdom save!)


The -2 str was *noticable.* Taking a hit to a main stat is awful. I'm a barb! I use str literally every turn.
Yep. So statistically speaking, keep the feat AND restore your strength.

[Skrum]

One feat is Infernal Constitution, and I get enough milage out of it that I don't feel I can change it without significantly impacting the build and his narrative. So I only have 1 ASI to play with.

Belt of Giant Str and other stat boosting items are banned. We have the ability to make customized items, but most of the abilities are enhancement-type bonuses. I do plan on grabbing +2 to wisdom saves eventually. Crafting and adding to items is very expensive, taking weeks or months of IRL time to accumulate the gold.

[Dork_Forge]

Okay, so you actually did two things.

One, you took the Resilient feat. This is a good idea.
Two, you lowered your strength to increase your wisdom. This is what feels terrible (AND note that the first step had a MUCH greater impact on your wisdom save!)


Yep. So statistically speaking, keep the feat AND restore your strength.

Resilient is a half feat, their Str lowered because they turned a +2 Str into Res:Wis, which increased their Wis as well as giving the save prof.

[Theodoxus]

Skrum, can you describe the process of your respec? Because 18 Str, 8 Wis to 16 Str 10 Wis, plus Res: Wis, would make it 11 Wis... which isn't what you stated, and it's confusing everyone.

[Kurald Galain]

Resilient is a half feat, their Str lowered because they turned a +2 Str into Res:Wis,
I don't think that's what OP meant, because (a) it doesn't go from 18 str / 8 wis to 16 str / 10 wis, and (b) OP mentions a respec and that's not a respec.

[Keravath]

I'll agree with everyone else that Resilient wisdom is the way to go, especially in a game where the DM likes to use wisdom saves. One of the major weaknesses of a barbarian (and fighters) is wisdom saves - especially since the +1 difference in strength is usually unnoticeable next to reckless attack. If you aren't regularly using reckless attack that would be another question :)

You'll also likely want to pick up Great Weapon Master at some point since it synergizes really well with reckless attack as well.

[Skrum]

Skrum, can you describe the process of your respec? Because 18 Str, 8 Wis to 16 Str 10 Wis, plus Res: Wis, would make it 11 Wis... which isn't what you stated, and it's confusing everyone.

Word!

Tiefling Barb 6 Rogue 4
point buy

original stats
14 14 14 9 8 13
Racial: +2 str +1 con
Feats: Infernal Constitution and ASI +2 str
final: 18 14 16 9 8 13

Respec (table rules; we can change any and all aspects of a character. Nothing in particular is prevented from being changed as long as the narrative of it isn't too tortured and the player isn't abusing it. People have changed their classes before...my change was really just the ASI)

new stats
14 14 14 8 9 13
Racial: +2 str +1 con
Feats: Infernal Constitution and Resil: Wisdom
final: 16 14 16 8 10 13

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

Is this perfectly optimal? No. I get that this is spreading him out, but - there's a narrative reason that he has 13 Cha. And the thing is, what am I really going to do with those points? Keep the 18 str and make his wisdom save +1 instead of -1? Saving throw DCs are routinely 18-20. I'd rather have the Cha and have something to do besides athletics and stealth.

[animewatcha]

Interestly, I tried to google for periapt of wisdom. I figured it would set the ability score to 16 or something. Oddly enough, 5e does NOT have an official necklace like it directly. Third party has them increase Wisdom by +2 (able to go beyond 20). So could you get your DM to 'allow' you to find such a necklace. Wisdom of 16 while attuned shouldn't be too OP, right?

[Skrum]

Interestly, I tried to google for periapt of wisdom. I figured it would set the ability score to 16 or something. Oddly enough, 5e does NOT have an official necklace like it directly. Third party has them increase Wisdom by +2 (able to go beyond 20). So could you get your DM to 'allow' you to find such a necklace. Wisdom of 16 while attuned shouldn't be too OP, right?

0% chance. There's a ban on items deemed "workaround." Like, replacing the need to meet certain criteria. For instance, mithril was just banned as it removes the str requirement for heavy armor. Stat-setting (and stat-boosting) items are exactly what the GMs don't want.

They do, admittedly, make the topic of respec's awkward. Wow I just found this Belt of Giant Str, I'm gonna respec and dump my str...

[Kane0]

Well Skrum you do operate in a higher-op environment, not having a maxxed attack stat certainly would be felt.
Any allies that can help you with mental saves? Bard in the party? Protection from Evil?

[Amnestic]

Interestly, I tried to google for periapt of wisdom. I figured it would set the ability score to 16 or something. Oddly enough, 5e does NOT have an official necklace like it directly.

Yeah there's Strength (anywhere between 19 and 29 depending on item), Constitution (19) and Intelligence (19) but nothing for Dex, Wis, or Cha, at least in official works. I'm not really clear why. Gloves of Dexterity, Periapt of Wisdom, and Cloak of Charisma were all things in the past, and I can't really argue that Cha is a 'more' valuable stat to have than Con is generally.

There are Ioun stones that boost each stat by +2, to a maximum of 20, though they're pricy on the attunement cost. That's another thread's discussion though...

[Psyren]

Well Skrum you do operate in a higher-op environment, not having a maxxed attack stat certainly would be felt.

Frankly, the fact that they only failed by 1 proves to me that the feat is working.

[Witty Username]

Interestly, I tried to google for periapt of wisdom. I figured it would set the ability score to 16 or something. Oddly enough, 5e does NOT have an official necklace like it directly. Third party has them increase Wisdom by +2 (able to go beyond 20). So could you get your DM to 'allow' you to find such a necklace. Wisdom of 16 while attuned shouldn't be too OP, right?

If I remember right, only headband of intellect and belt of giant's strength/Guantlets of Ogre power have proper rules in 5e.
5e is much more limited in stat boosting items.

[Skrum]

Frankly, the fact that they only failed by 1 proves to me that the feat is working.

What do you mean by that?

[Psyren]

What do you mean by that?

Your campaign is higher difficulty, i.e. higher DCs. That you only failed by one means the feat would have resulted in a success in a less difficult campaign.

[Dork_Forge]

Your campaign is higher difficulty, i.e. higher DCs. That you only failed by one means the feat would have resulted in a success in a less difficult campaign.

The missing by 1 was about the attack they made, not passing a Wis save DC. OP had two examples from their first game where the -1 to Str was noticeable, and that was their issue not that their new Wis save modifier wasn't high enough.

The conflict more seemed to be 'this is a statistical outlier but it sucked and whilst it's only a +1 to Str missing, Str is a stat I'll use as a Barbarian every turn, where as Wis saves are less frequent and out of my control anyway.'

[Kane0]

There is a constitution amulet

[Schwann145]

Barbarians are supposed to fail Wisdom saves and be dangerous for their own party. This is part of the excitement of playing Barbs. :V

Real talk though, you can either be well-rounded (and not get those 18s and 20s) or you can be focused and dump other important stats. Unless you either roll very lucky for stats, or your DM is providing higher than normal, then you'll have to deal with the consequences of one or the other.
(Sympathies, though; Barbarian in 5e is a painful class that needed better design before release.)

[sithlordnergal]

Soo, I'd personally keep the Resilient Wisdom. Yeah, you have -1 to your normal Strength stuff, and that sucks, but Wisdom Saves cover so many different detrimental effects that the drop in Strength is basically always worth it. Just off the top of my head, Wisdom protects you from Charm, Frightened, Domination, Paralyzed, and Incapacitated. I have played a Strength Based Paladin from one to 20 and kept his Strength at 16, I found the 16 worked perfectly fine on its own until around level 15 with just a +1 weapon. At which point I needed to upgrade my my weapon to a +2 and eventually got a +3 weapon. Most enemies don't have super high AC, with the highest being the Tarrasque at 25 AC.

[DeTess]

And to add to the above, there are some wisdom saves in late game that are like DC17 or higher that absolutely debilitate you until you make the save, so in those cases the difference between a +4 or -1 is huge.

[Arkhios]

To be fair, you could've left Wisdom 8 (or 9 with Resilient). The difference between 8 and 10 ability modifiers' isn't that big. The big benefit comes from Proficiency, because it grows as you level up. Wisdom doesn't, unless you invest in it. Plus, if your wisdom were 9 and your strength 17, at a later level you could even both out.

Besides, there's a certain appeal living a bit on the edge, with risking failure for things like you described. Try to make lemonade from those lemons. It can be funny if you embrace the fact that you're playing a bit slow-witted, slightly inperceptive muscle-maniac, who can still brush off "weakling" tactics such as mind-affecting effects by e.g. being "angry all the time".

[Skrum]

To be fair, you could've left Wisdom 8 (or 9 with Resilient). The difference between 8 and 10 ability modifiers' isn't that big. The big benefit comes from Proficiency, because it grows as you level up. Wisdom doesn't, unless you invest in it. Plus, if your wisdom were 9 and your strength 17, at a later level you could even both out.


The absolute highest this character will get is 12. My current plan is to take rogue 5 for uncanny dodge and SA +3d6, meaning he won't get another feat.

Idk... I'm honestly questioning his build though. Trying to get the most out of those last two levels, just not sure what is the right call. Rogue and barb are almost definitely the two worst classes, and combining them leaves me feeling pretty shortchanged at level 10+ content.

[Witty Username]

I am not sure how much Infernal constitution is doing for you.

Your stat line looks pretty similar to my BG3 character,
I think it is: str 16 dex 14 con 14 Int 8 wis 11 cha 12
With Str + 2, GWM and Resilient wis as feat selections.
But this was after trying to use Medium Armor Master and a str & dex of 16, but the feats value proved to just not be high enough to warrant.
I am curious that it might be a similar situation on your end, for IC it looks like the only big benefit is +1 con, but +2 str and Res: Wis are going to likely have more value than that.


This is also a straight barbarian though, I have few oppinions on barb/rogue other than it is in fact possible.

[stoutstien]

I am not sure how much Infernal constitution is doing for you.

Your stat line looks pretty similar to my BG3 character,
I think it is: str 16 dex 14 con 14 Int 8 wis 11 cha 12
With Str + 2, GWM and Resilient wis as feat selections.
But this was after trying to use Medium Armor Master and a str & dex of 16, but the feats value proved to just not be high enough to warrant.
I am curious that it might be a similar situation on your end, for IC it looks like the only big benefit is +1 con, but +2 str and Res: Wis are going to likely have more value than that.


This is also a straight barbarian though, I have few oppinions on barb/rogue other than it is in fact possible.

It's just one of those feats that are hard to value outside the context of a given game. It could range from practically uses to the single largest source of mitigation. Since you already got fire resistance by nature of the base race getting the non-physical damage types covered is nice.

Ironically I think it's better for characters I don't necessarily have a ton of health to begin with because it's most just direct HP type stuff. Pretty flavorful if you're making a general dragon Hunter.

[Skrum]

I am not sure how much Infernal constitution is doing for you.

Your stat line looks pretty similar to my BG3 character,
I think it is: str 16 dex 14 con 14 Int 8 wis 11 cha 12
With Str + 2, GWM and Resilient wis as feat selections.
But this was after trying to use Medium Armor Master and a str & dex of 16, but the feats value proved to just not be high enough to warrant.
I am curious that it might be a similar situation on your end, for IC it looks like the only big benefit is +1 con, but +2 str and Res: Wis are going to likely have more value than that.


This is also a straight barbarian though, I have few oppinions on barb/rogue other than it is in fact possible.

Cold resist doesn't come up that much, but poison resist comes up a lot. Most enemies we have have a elemental damage rider (little specific to our table).

I'm super hesitant to drop it; being tough is basically his thing

[CTurbo]

The absolute highest this character will get is 12. My current plan is to take rogue 5 for uncanny dodge and SA +3d6, meaning he won't get another feat.

Idk... I'm honestly questioning his build though. Trying to get the most out of those last two levels, just not sure what is the right call. Rogue and barb are almost definitely the two worst classes, and combining them leaves me feeling pretty shortchanged at level 10+ content.


In most cases, any 6/4 split is going to feel underwhelming for a 10th level character. Having "only" a 16 in your main stat too is only going to make it feel worse. Res(Wis) is a VERY good feat for a Barb, but I'd rather have the 18 Str all day every day. I'd rather my character feel as useful as possible while also having a glaring weakness than not have any obvious weaknesses, but also not be all that useful if you know what I mean.


I know it's probably not the popular opinion, but on my characters, they have to have an 18 in their main stat before I even consider ANY feat. If there is a feat I MUST have for a particular character concept, I go vhuman or CL and pick it up at level 1.

[RSP]

Not sure if this come up as much at your table, but the +1 to Wis (resetting the Wis 8 to Wis 10) also helps Wis skills (namely Perception).

So in addition to the Wis Saves, there’s that, which usually isn’t nothing, at least.

[Silly Name]

Tbh, I feel the Rogue levels may be more impactful in making you feel "worse" than Resilient: Wis does.

The extra damage from sneak attack isn't bad, by all means, and we all know that Barbarian levels past 6 usually aren't exciting, but I find Fighter levels tend to be a better fit.

Rogue forces you into using finesse weapons, so that ~7 damage you get from Sneak Attack is really ~4.5 damage (1d8 base damage vs 2d6). Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge are good and all, but they don't make you a better attacker.

Meanwhile, 4 levels of Fighter would've net you Fighting Style (better damage curve with GWF), Second Wind (B.A. that gives you a little survivability boost), Action Surge (one of the best "force multipliers" for weapon users), and picking Battle Master as your subclass gives you some extra options on the battlefield. And, yes, Fighter 5 is a dead level for you, but going Barb 8/Fighter 4 isn't too bad, and nets you an ASI as your "capstone" if you end at level 12.

[Skrum]

Tbh, I feel the Rogue levels may be more impactful in making you feel "worse" than Resilient: Wis does.

The extra damage from sneak attack isn't bad, by all means, and we all know that Barbarian levels past 6 usually aren't exciting, but I find Fighter levels tend to be a better fit.

Rogue forces you into using finesse weapons, so that ~7 damage you get from Sneak Attack is really ~4.5 damage (1d8 base damage vs 2d6). Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge are good and all, but they don't make you a better attacker.

Meanwhile, 4 levels of Fighter would've net you Fighting Style (better damage curve with GWF), Second Wind (B.A. that gives you a little survivability boost), Action Surge (one of the best "force multipliers" for weapon users), and picking Battle Master as your subclass gives you some extra options on the battlefield. And, yes, Fighter 5 is a dead level for you, but going Barb 8/Fighter 4 isn't too bad, and nets you an ASI as your "capstone" if you end at level 12.

You're definitely right about all that lol. Rogue is bad. But in this case... it's a flavor pick. The character is an assassin that "hides in plain sight" by being a well-regarded chef. His subclass (soul knife) and expertise picks are all in service to making him feel like an assassin.

I know, I'm making a bunch of flavor picks and then ranting about my sub-par build choices. I'm asking for cake and wanting to eat it too.

[Witty Username]

What is barbarian doing for your character, theme wise?

[Kane0]

What is barbarian doing for your character, theme wise?

Being tough it seems. Its his thing so it is said.

[Witty Username]

I ask because straight rogue wouldn't be out of place here.

Uncanny dodge, high con, and not needing to split stats between Strength and Dex as bad. Weapon choice is not a new issue and the loss of extra attack is offset by increased sneak attack damage (no GWM, so you not getting some of the bigger gains of extra attack anyway).

Respecing to Rogue entirely would net gain 2 feats over the multiclass, since your not losing the 12th level one and gaining the 10th level buff.

Soulknife also has decent means to boost ability checks. Take Athletics and maybe expertise, and you should be good at the technical aspects of those things.

[Skrum]

I ask because straight rogue wouldn't be out of place here.

Uncanny dodge, high con, and not needing to split stats between Strength and Dex as bad. Weapon choice is not a new issue and the loss of extra attack is offset by increased sneak attack damage (no GWM, so you not getting some of the bigger gains of extra attack anyway).

Respecing to Rogue entirely would net gain 2 feats over the multiclass, since your not losing the 12th level one and gaining the 10th level buff.

Soulknife also has decent means to boost ability checks. Take Athletics and maybe expertise, and you should be good at the technical aspects of those things.

Also a pretty good idea...and if I kept infernal constitution he'd still have all of his elemental resistances, which is nice.

Thing is, this character is pretty well established. Mechanically, he's wild magic barb, but narratively his "rage" is him eating a profiterole that has some random filling (thus the 8 different abilities of the wild magic rage). The 6th level power, bolstering magic, is also flavored as special bite-sized gourmet foods he's made that provide some magic benefit.

Point being, I've spent a bunch of time and thought into making this character feel the way I want it to; he's a chef who believes in the magic of food (and he also kills people for money).

What I'm really complaining about is the stark choice I have to make - boost my main stat and be essentially helpless against wisdom effects, or be half way decent at wisdom saves but have a low main stat. It's especially grating because there's far better builds being played in the same game. On some level I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick because I'm going for the interesting, narratively cool build.

[Theodoxus]

But the food is just roleplay narrative. There's nothing stopping you from doing exactly the same thing as a pure rogue, especially if you take a 'mystical' archetype like AT or Soulknife.

Eat a pastry, cast a spell. Eat a pastry, get Dex-swoll and uncanny dodge all the things. Eat a pastry, stab a dude in the neck...

I don't know exactly how you're playing up the baking/chef angle, but I'd be a little surprised if you couldn't play it up after dropping the Barbi levels, to the point that your partymates might not even realize there's been a second change in your character's make up. (Totes depends on how open the table is - totally cool if everything is out in the open too.)

Barbarian and Rogue can synergize really well, or not at all, depending on your build and desires. It's sounding like yours isn't working so great at the moment. Best to cleave off one or the other... imo, straight Rogue makes more sense than Barbarian.

[Witty Username]

I sympathize with the simple math issue, it is weird how multiclasses and feats for theme or flavor tend to reduce the characters capacity fairly dramatically unless one is setting out to break the game (which isn't exactly ideal either).

[Snails]

The Barbarian class is particularly well-suited for dealing with a non-sky high Str score by simply relying on Reckless Attack. Str 16 is just fine.

Now, weirdly enough, although Reckless Attack only benefits Str-based attacks, that does not preclude Sneak Attack. The only limitation on Sneak Attack is that you use a Finesse (or ranged) weapon -- you can attack with any Finesse weapon by employing your Str stat just fine, and then use your Sneak Attack.

What I would recommend is that you go Bar5/Rog5. The reason is Uncanny Dodge can be used to mitigate getting hit due to Reckless Attack, if you do not a Rage to burn for this combat. Note that Rage damage resistance and Uncanny Dodge do stack together. Eventually pick up Barbarian 6 for that 4th Rage per day.

[Skrum]

The Barbarian class is particularly well-suited for dealing with a non-sky high Str score by simply relying on Reckless Attack. Str 16 is just fine.

Not wrong, but we play with the flanking variant rules. Gaining advantage is essentially free; reckless is only useful in the random cases where a character isn't flanking (or attacking a prone enemy, faerie fire, etc). It seriously devalues what is one of barb's best abilities, but water under the bridge at this point.



What I would recommend is that you go Bar5/Rog5. The reason is Uncanny Dodge can be used to mitigate getting hit due to Reckless Attack, if you do not a Rage to burn for this combat. Note that Rage damage resistance and Uncanny Dodge do stack together. Eventually pick up Barbarian 6 for that 4th Rage per day.

I'm coming to that realization; 5/5 would be better than 6/4. I might request this change.

[Kane0]

Not wrong, but we play with the flanking variant rules

I feel your pain. Acutely.

[Arkhios]

To be honest, I've always felt that advantage from flanking is perhaps a little too much, given how (too) easy it makes getting advantage, and I've been wondering how to change it.

Maybe applying proficiency twice on attack rolls instead, effectively having expertise on said attacks? Or something else, like a flat +2 bonus to Hit, like in 3rd edition.

[Amnestic]

To be honest, I've always felt that advantage from flanking is perhaps a little too much, given how (too) easy it makes getting advantage, and I've been wondering how to change it.

Maybe applying proficiency twice on attack rolls instead, effectively having expertise on said attacks? Or something else, like a flat +2 bonus to Hit, like in 3rd edition.

Flat +2 makes the most sense to me. Basically equivalent to Bless.

Could do it at 1/2 PB instead, so it starts at +1 and scales to +3. Direct 'expertise' feels like too much, though I guess that's how it starts at for tier 1 if you just had +2...

[Skrum]

To be honest, I've always felt that advantage from flanking is perhaps a little too much, given how (too) easy it makes getting advantage, and I've been wondering how to change it.

Maybe applying proficiency twice on attack rolls instead, effectively having expertise on said attacks? Or something else, like a flat +2 bonus to Hit, like in 3rd edition.

100% agree. This game has been going on for about 3 years. Something like 6 months or so after we started, people began to catch on that adv flanking was not a good rule, but the GMs of the game are weirdly opposed to doing anything about it. They all say it's a problem, but they won't change it. And thus 3 years goes by (why the heck I decided to play a barbarian in such a game, idk. Reckless and grappling are far less valuable when simple flanking does 85% of that work).

While in theory I like adding proficiency bonus, having a flat value has simplicity merits. +3 proficiency is where the bulk of playtime happens IME, so my favored solution is to say flanking provides a +3 bonus.

[diplomancer]

Flat +2 makes the most sense to me. Basically equivalent to Bless.

Could do it at 1/2 PB instead, so it starts at +1 and scales to +3. Direct 'expertise' feels like too much, though I guess that's how it starts at for tier 1 if you just had +2...

I had a DM that used the flat +2. It works well, gives tactical options and reasons for being in melee, without being overpowering or basically negating class features. I don't think it should scale with proficiency. Proficiency scales with proficiency ;), and usually faster than monster AC, so there's really no reason to do so.

[Witty Username]

If you don't like flanking bonuses, just don't play with flanking bonuses.
Its an optional rule.

[Skrum]

If you don't like flanking bonuses, just don't play with flanking bonuses.
Its an optional rule.

Not up to me! I would definitely drop that silly rule if it was.

[Witty Username]

My frustration is more the picking at it, I have a suspicion that the reduced flanking bonuses are still likely to cause the table issues inherent to flanking.

I personally think it is a consequence of movement being too easy, being anywhere on the battlefield you want has essentially no consequences. But that is another sketch.

[Skrum]

My frustration is more the picking at it, I have a suspicion that the reduced flanking bonuses are still likely to cause the table issues inherent to flanking.

Adv from flanking is a particular problem because adv doesn't stack. Getting it from flanking makes a whole list of tactical options and just cool abilities almost entirely redundant.

It also makes Elven Accuracy kinda busted.



I personally think it is a consequence of movement being too easy, being anywhere on the battlefield you want has essentially no consequences. But that is another sketch.

I like the movement in 5e. If I were to change anything, it would be having OA's trigger when a creature leaves a threatened square, not just when leaving reach. I do not like the aesthetics of moving freely around an enemy, but the general freedom of movement is a massive improvement over 3e.

[Theodoxus]

The Flanking optional rule in the DMG is the epitome of WotC going overboard in bringing simplicity and reducing stacking numerical bonuses. I get the desire to eliminate as much of the 'wait, I have a +1 bonus from X and a +3 bonus from Y, so my actual roll is a total of Z" that happens frequently at the table, and math crunchy games like PF(x) and 3rd Ed certainly drive me to distraction when nearly every turn is peppered with 'wait...' instances.

But there are definitely times when advantage is just too strong, and a small bonus is more appropriate. If I had my druthers, I'd make it so that you can have 2 instances of a bonus to a single roll, outside of Ability Mod and Proficiency Bonus (those always count). So, attack might have Magic Weapon, Fighting Style, Flanking, Bless etc. And you can pick any two of them. If you manage to get 5 bonus options, you still pick 2, but you get Advantage on the roll. Doing this, I'd also change Reckless Attack to a static +5 to hit (and enemies get +5 to hit you). It's another bonus Barbarians can pick, and it doesn't become a class tax for crit fishing builds (nor a trap for Rogues).

Regarding OAs, I don't understand the mentality that you either have 3rd Ed style movement and a lot of AoOs, or 5th Ed style movement and 1 way to generate an OA. Like, there seems to be this psychic divide that you can't have movement outside of an action type and detailed OAs. The only thing I can think of that perpetuates this concept is that AoOs stopped movement. But in 5E, that requires a feat. Sure, it might make Sentinel a feat tax for tankier martials, but I don't see why casting within 5' or using a bow within 5' isn't punishable by more than disadvantage (and for spells, only if it has an attack roll). You wiggle your fingers within striking range, and I'm gonna try to slice them off!

There's been a bit of discussion on how easy it is for casters to get heavy armor. Well, granting OAs to casting within 5' instead of allowing them to wade into the middle of a scrum and PBAoE all over the place might curtail such multiclassing/feat expenditure naturally instead of making some weird rulings about it.

[Witty Username]

I tend to agree with those points, I like the additional mobility of combat, but opportunity attacks are generally difficult to come by. It makes alot of position based mechanics land strangely since there is little resson to not simply go to best spot.

I think the design intent was to eliminate the feeling of being 'stuck in' like could happen in 3.5, but in practice it allows the battlefield to be too accessible.

[Sindeloke]

If I had my druthers, I'd make it so that you can have 2 instances of a bonus to a single roll, outside of Ability Mod and Proficiency Bonus (those always count). So, attack might have Magic Weapon, Fighting Style, Flanking, Bless etc. And you can pick any two of them. If you manage to get 5 bonus options, you still pick 2, but you get Advantage on the roll.

I've been playing around with the idea of "you can add one fixed integer and one die roll." So you can have flash of genius and bless on the same roll, but not bless and bardic inspiration, and not flash of genius and aura of protection. It's not as flexible as your "pick any two," but it'd very easy to track. Apart from preserving bounded accuracy, it would theoretically also encourage spreading buffs around.

You'd probably have to do something like 3.path did and give them explicit nonstacking types, though (static and rolled, or w/e). You don't want to be unclear about whether something like Archery Style counts as a fixed integer bonus, or whether shield stacks with a shield. (If things like Archery and shields did count, though, that would help to address certain other concerns you sometimes see on this board.)

[Merlecory]

Kinda late to this party, and back tracking the thread a bit. I have two things Is add in support of Resilient: Wisdom. Making just one more save means that a) you already almost certainly got those two attacks back, and b) you can keep yourself in Rage more easily. A fear affect that makes you flee means you didn't get to make the attacks from your action, and that makes you not mad.

[Skrum]

Kinda late to this party, and back tracking the thread a bit. I have two things Is add in support of Resilient: Wisdom. Making just one more save means that a) you already almost certainly got those two attacks back, and b) you can keep yourself in Rage more easily. A fear affect that makes you flee means you didn't get to make the attacks from your action, and that makes you not mad.

I'm gonna continue to tell myself that and stick with the change, for now.

Most effects that target wisdom will remove the character from combat, or at best severely curtail what actions can be taken. Hitting those saves is pretty important, BUT - they don't come up all the time. In fact, several sessions may pass without needing to make a single wisdom save. And that entire time, having the lower main stat is making the character marginally worse at whatever it is they're doing.

Be slightly better, but occasionally fall on your face, or be slightly worse and fall on your face less often. Honestly put like that...

Each time I think about it I change my mind about which is better.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm gonna continue to tell myself that and stick with the change, for now.

Most effects that target wisdom will remove the character from combat, or at best severely curtail what actions can be taken. Hitting those saves is pretty important, BUT - they don't come up all the time. In fact, several sessions may pass without needing to make a single wisdom save. And that entire time, having the lower main stat is making the character marginally worse at whatever it is they're doing.

Be slightly better, but occasionally fall on your face, or be slightly worse and fall on your face less often. Honestly put like that...

Each time I think about it I change my mind about which is better.
As someone that did his duty and paid his taxes at level 12 by grabbing Resilient (Wisdom), I completely understand.

The thing is, while 5% is minimal, when it's the thing you are doing ALL the time, it will come up. And given that it's like... the one thing Barbarians do and are meant to do very well, it's an annoying choice to have to make. It's a tax, pure and simple.

[Theodoxus]

I've been playing around with the idea of "you can add one fixed integer and one die roll." So you can have flash of genius and bless on the same roll, but not bless and bardic inspiration, and not flash of genius and aura of protection. It's not as flexible as your "pick any two," but it'd very easy to track. Apart from preserving bounded accuracy, it would theoretically also encourage spreading buffs around.

You'd probably have to do something like 3.path did and give them explicit nonstacking types, though (static and rolled, or w/e). You don't want to be unclear about whether something like Archery Style counts as a fixed integer bonus, or whether shield stacks with a shield. (If things like Archery and shields did count, though, that would help to address certain other concerns you sometimes see on this board.)

Your solution is definitely the simpler, while maintaining most of what I was proposing anyway. I'm ok with Archery being counted as a fixed integer; not sure what other fixed bonuses you could stack with it outside of a magic weapon/ammunition, and personally I see those stacking with the Ability Modifier, not really their own thing anyway.
Shield becomes a bit more problematic (and one reason I'd rather it impose disadvantage than be a fixed amount). Since the question is whether it stacks with a mundane shield or not, you have two decent options (and one complicated one) - change it to disad, or have it grant +3 (if using a shield) or +5 if not - so you're never getting more than +5 outside of magical shields. (Which as with weapons, I'm perfectly ok with stacking.) You could even combine them, if you're ok with further complicating combat a bit. If the attacker doesn't have disadvantage, then shield grants disad. If the attack already has disadvantage, shield grants a +3 (or +5) bonus to AC (which will pretty much all but guarantee a miss.

I suppose a fourth option would be to let the shield caster pick which they'd prefer at the time of casting... though I'd definitely keep the +3/+5 version regardless.

[diplomancer]

I'm gonna continue to tell myself that and stick with the change, for now.

Most effects that target wisdom will remove the character from combat, or at best severely curtail what actions can be taken. Hitting those saves is pretty important, BUT - they don't come up all the time. In fact, several sessions may pass without needing to make a single wisdom save. And that entire time, having the lower main stat is making the character marginally worse at whatever it is they're doing.

Be slightly better, but occasionally fall on your face, or be slightly worse and fall on your face less often. Honestly put like that...

Each time I think about it I change my mind about which is better.

SO, this changes from table to table. But in my experience being slightly worse tends to be less deadly than falling on your face, turning on your party, etc.

Though it might feel bad more often. In the end, it's more of a personality decision. Another data point to be considered is how much metagaming the DM engages in. If he now stops trying to target your wis saves and goes after the Sorcerer instead, I'm not sure whether it's a net plus.

[Skrum]

Your solution is definitely the simpler, while maintaining most of what I was proposing anyway. I'm ok with Archery being counted as a fixed integer; not sure what other fixed bonuses you could stack with it outside of a magic weapon/ammunition, and personally I see those stacking with the Ability Modifier, not really their own thing anyway.
Shield becomes a bit more problematic (and one reason I'd rather it impose disadvantage than be a fixed amount). Since the question is whether it stacks with a mundane shield or not, you have two decent options (and one complicated one) - change it to disad, or have it grant +3 (if using a shield) or +5 if not - so you're never getting more than +5 outside of magical shields. (Which as with weapons, I'm perfectly ok with stacking.) You could even combine them, if you're ok with further complicating combat a bit. If the attacker doesn't have disadvantage, then shield grants disad. If the attack already has disadvantage, shield grants a +3 (or +5) bonus to AC (which will pretty much all but guarantee a miss.

I suppose a fourth option would be to let the shield caster pick which they'd prefer at the time of casting... though I'd definitely keep the +3/+5 version regardless.

Question: is stacking bonuses in this way really a problem? I think stacking AC specifically is a problem. Stacking attack and damage bonuses is literally How to Martial, and I'd be very hesitant to curb that for fear of making martial classes worse at one of the few things they're actually good at. Also, tracking bonus types is something I'm glad 5e didn't continue. Stacking saves is like...well there's not many options there, is there?

But, AC I think has some particular offenders that can be addressed directly
1) Shield spell. Yeah this is the worst one
Solution 1: it only applies to the triggering attack. It doesn't last until next turn.
Solution 2: put a cap on how high it can raise your armor (kinda like barkskin does). I like 21
Solution 3: raise the spell level to 3rd

I'm sure there's other ideas. I personally like 2 the most, as it preserves the spell for "intended" use; saving a squashy caster from getting mobbed. But armored casters and gishes can't use it for AC Tower Status.

2) Forge Cleric. Wow this was a poorly thought out domain - but it's cleric, why would it be balanced?
Solution: ehhh I mean I don't want to say ban it because Twilight is sitting right there being way worse, but...I have the perhaps hot take that Forge Cleric is more poisonous to the game. Twilight is broken but it at least is a party-wide buff. It works towards party unity. Forge's only purpose is stacking AC until bounded accuracy breaks in half. The game is not improved by its inclusion.

3) 1 level dips for heavy armor prof
Solution 1: make a new proficiency. Call it Advanced Armor. Advanced Armor is breast plate, half plate, splint mail, and plate. The classes that currently get heavy armor prof gain Advanced Armor proficiency at level 3. A player playing one of those classes doesn't care because they wouldn't be able to afford that armor yet anyway. A caster now has to take 3 levels of those classes to get the best armor.
Solution 2: bring back arcane spell failure. 10% for light, 20% for medium, 30% for heavy. +10% for shield, or 15% for a shield by itself. Give the classes that are expected to cast arcane spells in armor (bard, warlock, artificer, eldritch knight, and arcane trickster) an armored casting proficiency that applies to their own spells only.

Solution 1 is far more appealing to me; 2 just takes a hammer to one of the cooler character options (gish). But it would certainly end tank wizards.

[stoutstien]

As someone that did his duty and paid his taxes at level 12 by grabbing Resilient (Wisdom), I completely understand.

The thing is, while 5% is minimal, when it's the thing you are doing ALL the time, it will come up. And given that it's like... the one thing Barbarians do and are meant to do very well, it's an annoying choice to have to make. It's a tax, pure and simple.

Wouldn't that make the spending opportunity cost for continually improving your strength the tax not the diversifying defenses?

Opie's game coach the little different where they tend to need to max out those things but the system only really considers up to 18 to be normal and 20 exceeding the curve.

If the class only seems to function by dumping all your universal picks into a single ability score, or in the case of barbarian looking at ways to add additional damage riders because the core chassis lacking it, then that's the issue. Well there's a more complex issue where you can't have the same pool of choices at level four then at level 16 and expected them not feel like some free will paradox.

In my opinion the barbarian should be shaking off these types of effects regardless of their wisdom because that's what the class image is. They're not just physically tough they have the ability to endure all types of strength so if a level one spell is just as likely to take you out of the fight at level one than at level 20 something has fundamentally gone wrong.

[Skrum]

Opie's game coach the little different where they tend to need to max out those things but the system only really considers up to 18 to be normal and 20 exceeding the curve.

I don't think that's true (https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/fundamental_math/)

Bringing your main stat up to 20 is pretty clearly a core assumption of the game. Not doing it should only be done for very good reasons. My barb is taking defensive features (infernal con and resil: wis) over offense: he could be sitting on 20 str instead. +2 attack, +2 damage, +2 athletics. My particular character is giving up 7 DPR for those defensive features (49 --> 42)



If the class only seems to function by dumping all your universal picks into a single ability score, or in the case of barbarian looking at ways to add additional damage riders because the core chassis lacking it, then that's the issue. Well there's a more complex issue where you can't have the same pool of choices at level four then at level 16 and expected them not feel like some free will paradox.

I mean, he's still functional. Good, even. He can take a beating, he's got great movement, nearly unbeatable grapple check, and hopefully now he can even hit a wisdom save. And yeah, he can even dish out some punishment. My original post was literally a rant; like I knew he was taking on that 5% worse factor, but I didn't expect it to get thrown in my face in such a dramatic fashion in the very first game. Just felt crummy that those were my choices when like...paladins and clerics exist.



In my opinion the barbarian should be shaking off these types of effects regardless of their wisdom because that's what the class image is. They're not just physically tough they have the ability to endure all types of strength so if a level one spell is just as likely to take you out of the fight at level one than at level 20 something has fundamentally gone wrong.

10,000%

[Dork_Forge]

I may have missed it (though a quick skim didn't turn it up), what is the party composition that you felt like you need Res:Wis anyway?

One of my tables has a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass on less than optimal terms (Minotaur), but he also has a Bard (primarily at least) and Paladin to support him, does your party lack support characters or do you just not want to rely on them?

[Skrum]

I may have missed it (though a quick skim didn't turn it up), what is the party composition that you felt like you need Res:Wis anyway?

One of my tables has a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass on less than optimal terms (Minotaur), but he also has a Bard (primarily at least) and Paladin to support him, does your party lack support characters or do you just not want to rely on them?

Party isn't set; there's multiple DM's and players have multiple characters. So sometimes there might be support, but sometimes not.

But yeah, I also prefer to not rely on those measures (how the heck did paladin get made along side barbarian??)

[stoutstien]

While I agree that the 65 to 70% success rate is a good benchmark, Taking the average AC of the challenge rating table is a fundamentally flawed method. Not only are some CRs practically non-existent the system also doesn't expect you to fight CR equivalent encounters.
It also fails to consider final accuracy rather than just your base attack. Barbarians get reckless attack which is a situationally huge accuracy booster. You'll notice almost all the class options that their main niche is hitting people with sticks they have something to increase their accuracy rather than just maxing their abilities. They also fail the consider intensity and frequency in relationship to the accuracy. My fighter can afford to miss a lot more often than a road because each individual attack is a much smaller portion of their impact.

This means maxing your primary attack stat is used to catch up to the classes that are supposedly have that type of stuff built in via other methods. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way because they failed in taking account basic human psychology and had a series of exceedingly larger numbers with a cap in the cap is going to instinctually be considered the goal. Regardless if they plan for the bill is going to be maxed or not it's a fundamentally flawed design that first removed that progression off the class and then added an "optional" rule to compete with it. It's technically agency but it's done in a way that just feels bad regardless of what you do pick. You either maximize your attack stat and keep with the status quo or fall behind and address a glaring weakness that is also entirely void of choice in and of itself because you don't get to pick when you make STs.

Well it's fun to talk about the theoretical differences between one or other it's also frustrating at the GM because you want players to make decisions and feel good about them even though sometimes they made the wrong one. It's missing all the feel-good failures well simultaneously stripping the sense of accomplishment from success.

I don't know if any of that made any sense so I'm kind of in a rambling mood today.

[Theodoxus]

Question: is stacking bonuses in this way really a problem?
A problem for whom? WotC? Definitely. Removing stacking bonuses was a huge design goal for 5E. Dumbing them down into Advantage was the only move they really had available that both simplified the math so the game wasn't as crunchy, while simultaneously keeping Bounded Accuracy intact. If your To Hit was ultimately capped at +14 (+5 Mod, +6 PB, +3 magic weapon); ACs are likewise capped at 33, since a nat 20 is going to hit regardless. It doesn't matter how many d20s you get to roll, your best non-critical roll is going to be a 19.

Is it a problem for me? Only when advantage is overplayed. Especially since it doesn't stack. I'd rather get an option to choose a +5 bonus over advantage; I don't want to get as crunchy as 3.PF(2), else I'd try to find some folks to play them. I just want additional options; codified would be nice, though I'm happy to run it homebrew too. Then you can decide just how hard you want it to be to hit your monsters and modify them too.


(how the heck did paladin get made along side barbarian??)
Might be apocryphal, but from what I've heard, Barbarian was (one of) the first class(es) built and tested in D&DNext and basically once Berserker was finalized, WotC washed their hands and went on to build other classes. It's why Frenzy deals exhaustion damage, and things like Divine Smite and Horde Breaker, which are arguably more useful, more often, don't.

Even if it isn't true, it definitely feels true - and it would have been nice if Barbarian got a final once over taking all the other (sub)class abilities into consideration.

I think Barbarian was supposed to be the 'let the folks who want a simple class that just rages and recklessly attacks all day long' class that Champion ended up taking because rage isn't usable enough for such a simple concept and RA requires more micromanaging than is otherwise deemed acceptable. Barbi definitely needs the new coat of paint that D&Done is bringing... and arguably more.

[Dork_Forge]

Party isn't set; there's multiple DM's and players have multiple characters. So sometimes there might be support, but sometimes not.

But yeah, I also prefer to not rely on those measures

Ahh, then Res Wis makes a lot more sense, never been in a rotating party before but it must make some parts of the game tough.


(how the heck did paladin get made along side barbarian??)

If this is referring to my table I just encouraged them to make whatever they wanted to play. In this case the Barbarian/Rogue made a 'bull in a china shop' character whilst the other player came from 2e but never had the stats to be a Paladin.

I try to discourage the whole 'what roles need to be filled' default at my tables to put emphasis on personal preference. In 5e the games work out regardless.

[Skrum]

A problem for whom? WotC? Definitely. Removing stacking bonuses was a huge design goal for 5E. Dumbing them down into Advantage was the only move they really had available that both simplified the math so the game wasn't as crunchy, while simultaneously keeping Bounded Accuracy intact. If your To Hit was ultimately capped at +14 (+5 Mod, +6 PB, +3 magic weapon); ACs are likewise capped at 33, since a nat 20 is going to hit regardless. It doesn't matter how many d20s you get to roll, your best non-critical roll is going to be a 19.

Right, I know that was the design goal for 5e. My point is they succeeded! There's hardly any additional sources of numerical bonuses beyond ability score, prof bonus, and magic weapons. I could probably name them right here -

1) archery fighting style
2) bless
3) technically the magic weapon spells? But those spells suck and are redundant with actual magic weapons
4) channel divinity: guided strike
5) ummm
6) wild magic barb's bolstering magic
6) yeah I can't think of any others

My question of Is This Necessary is why would someone have to make additional rules about stacking bonuses? They're already not in the game.

[Skrum]

If this is referring to my table I just encouraged them to make whatever they wanted to play. In this case the Barbarian/Rogue made a 'bull in a china shop' character whilst the other player came from 2e but never had the stats to be a Paladin.

Oh no I mean on WotC's part. How did barb go to print. It's not like the class is non-functional, it's just got the most glaring and frustrating holes.




I try to discourage the whole 'what roles need to be filled' default at my tables to put emphasis on personal preference. In 5e the games work out regardless.

Same! I love character op, but party op annoys me. Unless character backstories ties them together and explains why they're so synergistic.

[Dr.Samurai]

If the class only seems to function by dumping all your universal picks into a single ability score, or in the case of barbarian looking at ways to add additional damage riders because the core chassis lacking it, then that's the issue. Well there's a more complex issue where you can't have the same pool of choices at level four then at level 16 and expected them not feel like some free will paradox.
I don't think anyone is saying the barbarian can't function with a 16 Strength. Really this thread is all about how it *feels* to have to make these choices.

My fighter makes three, sometimes four, attack rolls per turn. We have around 4-5 encounters per day, and they might average around 4-5 turns, as some of them are slogs and our party isn't the online D&D fantasy swat team meme that finishes everyone off in 2 turns.

Point being statistically I will fail an attack roll by 1 point around 4 times per campaign day. Meanwhile, the wisdom saves are no where close to being as frequent.

The effects are disproportional, both in impact and in frequency.


In my opinion the barbarian should be shaking off these types of effects regardless of their wisdom because that's what the class image is. They're not just physically tough they have the ability to endure all types of strength so if a level one spell is just as likely to take you out of the fight at level one than at level 20 something has fundamentally gone wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree. Rage used to give you a morale bonus to mind-affecting effects. Not sure why they changed that.

[renzdog]

You have 13 charisma, Have you considered 1 level of sorcerer? Wild magic and divine soul each have a level 1 ability that can help with saving throws?

[Skrum]

You have 13 charisma, Have you considered 1 level of sorcerer? Wild magic and divine soul each have a level 1 ability that can help with saving throws?

Not a bad idea. Outside chance I make it to level 12....barb 6 rogue 5 sorc 1 has some merit. Wild magic sorc would fit thematically for sure.

[CTurbo]

I took 1 level of Wild Magic Sorc on my Wild Magic Barb at level 7 and it's been a lot of fun.

Of course my Barb had a 20Str from level 1.

OTHER than lacking strong mental saves, Barbs are already built pretty defensively. Offensive capability is where the focus should be put on during character development most of the time. That or boosting the nonexistent utility.

I would rather have a low, but consistent offensive output though in most cases.

For example, I'd rather have a 20 Str and deal 1+5 damage with a +8 to hit than a 16 Str and deal 1d10+3 damage with a +6 to hit.

Also, it's fun to sometimes have glaring character flaws. I'd swap back to 18 Str if it were me.

[Schwann145]

I wholeheartedly agree. Rage used to give you a morale bonus to mind-affecting effects. Not sure why they changed that.

That would be that very complicated math that no one can handle these days. :smalltongue:

[Silly Name]

For the record, I am currently playing a level 12 Paladin with 16 STR and a +1 weapon, and 18 CHA. I probably whiff attacks a bit more often than the Rogue/Fighter with 20 DEX, but overall I don't feel like I'm constantly missing or failing to deal damage.

Sure, Paladin has a higher floor than Barbarian, and my chances to hit are empowered by Bless being pretty much the first thing I do on every serious encounter, but I think Skrum just got "unlucky" in that immediately after respeccing for lower STR, he failed a couple rolls by *exactly* the 1 point he gave up. In the long term, the difference may end up averaging out, and with added sources of bonuses to hit (Advantage, Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Magic Weapons), they'll breach the gap, hopefully.

[Silly Name]

I wholeheartedly agree. Rage used to give you a morale bonus to mind-affecting effects. Not sure why they changed that.

They stuck that on the Path of the Berserker level 6 feature. Which... yeah. I would rather it be a base class feature.

[Arkhios]

That would be that very complicated math that no one can handle these days. :smalltongue:

Pfft. "kids" these days. Back in the day, I had dozens of characters that had to count dozens of cirmcumstantial bonuses and/or penalties from several sources each, and I was fine. And I didn't even graduate with advanced mathematics syllabus, or whatever.

[stoutstien]

I don't think anyone is saying the barbarian can't function with a 16 Strength. Really this thread is all about how it *feels* to have to make these choices.

My fighter makes three, sometimes four, attack rolls per turn. We have around 4-5 encounters per day, and they might average around 4-5 turns, as some of them are slogs and our party isn't the online D&D fantasy swat team meme that finishes everyone off in 2 turns.

Point being statistically I will fail an attack roll by 1 point around 4 times per campaign day. Meanwhile, the wisdom saves are no where close to being as frequent.

The effects are disproportional, both in impact and in frequency.


My WIP has a fairly simple solution to this as the barbarian type class (risk/reward disruptive melee type) practically always deals damage even on misses when they go full offense. Makes them dangerous to ignore. Help that they build up as they fight to a point so you really don't want to be around them unless you think you can survive until they run out of steam.

When you have a more stable baseline that works regardless of further investment you actually feel like it's a choice.