Barbarian ASIs are for feats

[Tanarii]

I think it's as simple as "mindless rage murdering everything on your path = low Wisdom".
High wisdom barbarian is the one that control their rage and actually choose to release their inner brutality.
Low wisdom barbarian is the one that is overwhelmed by their madness and can't control themself in the middle of a battlefield.

Thats ... a weird way to think about wisdom, even by older edition versions or mistaken assumptions based purely on the common English use of the word.

But especially in 5e where Wisdom is awareness of their surroundings and being attuned to the world. Those are both things that trope-y Barbarians are excellent at.

Of course, no idea why being good at that also makes you good at resisting certain kinds of mind control

[solidork]

Straight strength checks are surprisingly common, but it's kind of frustrating how even if you invest in strength you're not going to be very good at them. My 14 Str artificer that can use Armor of Magical Strength and Flash of Genius to get an extra +8 is going to be better at them than just about anybody.

[Psyren]

Straight strength checks are surprisingly common, but it's kind of frustrating how even if you invest in strength you're not going to be very good at them. My 14 Str artificer that can use Armor of Magical Strength and Flash of Genius to get an extra +8 is going to be better at them than just about anybody.

Note though that the DM still has to allow you to roll. There are certainly many instances where the magical assistance and your knowledge of engineering and leverage will let you get better results than a barbarian, but there can be a few instances that don't too.

[MoiMagnus]

Thats ... a weird way to think about wisdom, even by older edition versions or mistaken assumptions based purely on the common English use of the word.

But especially in 5e where Wisdom is awareness of their surroundings and being attuned to the world. Those are both things that trope-y Barbarians are excellent at.

Of course, no idea why being good at that also makes you good at resisting certain kinds of mind control

You are right that I put much more emphasis on the Wisdom save than on the Wisdom skills when giving this characterisation of Wisdom.
[There might also be a language bias as the word for Wisdom in French, "Sagesse", is also used to describe well-behave children, in contrast to the ones that are uncontrollable walking disasters.]

But it still check out with the fact that a raging barbarian (at least in one of the trope I have in mind) is not really aware of their surrounding. A barbarian spamming reckless attack is also a barbarians that isn't particularly paying attention to its surroundings outside of the strict minimum they need for their battleaxe to hit a target (hence giving an advantage to the enemies).

Note that I'm not saying that the Barbarian attuned to nature and their surroundings is not also a trope. But I have also a secondary trope in my mind for a Barbarians that don't.

[Dork_Forge]

Conan fights sorcerers. If he is easily susceptible to Fear/Charm, that would be really really hard. Like... he'd probably be dead. As mentioned previously, in the Conan film Thulsa Doom can beckon toward a person and compel them to jump to their deaths from a cliff. He tries this same thing on Conan and it fails and Thulsa dies.

Conan fights Thulsa Doom, Thoth Amon, Yara, and other wizards. Thundarr the Barbarian fights evil techno wizards as well. Lion-O fights Mumm-Ra the Everliving. He-Man fights Skele-tor.

We can argue about whether these are all barbarians or not but shirtless warriors fighting magic-users is a trope, and it would be hard to do if the warriors were all easy to terrify or mind control.

Also, going berserk means becoming uncontrollable. Guts in the manga is like this, nothing can deter him when he goes berserk. Wolverine is resistant to psychic intrusion when he's raging, etc. The whole point of raging and berserking is that you're out of control. It should be a little tougher to control your mind IMO.

But this seems to heavily draw on the visual medium, whereas the game likely more draws on the older, and original, written version. The one that wasn't shirtless all the time, that early on wore a chain shirt and then whatever garb was suitable for the land he was in. (this s backed by the Conan series being listed in the inspirational reading section of the PHB).

I'd also challenge the whole Wolverine thing, one of the more famous plotlines for Wolverine is him killing all of the X-men in a rage because he was tricked into thinking they were enemies.

Strong mental defenses might be a sub-trope for some barbarianesque characters, and there are at least two subclasses that offer defenses for those wanting to play that kind of barbarian.


I'd wager that most people don't think 'strong mental defenses' when thinking of a Barbarian, they thing really strong and hard to kill, maybe even actively stupid (which has nothing to do with D&D Wisdom).

[Dr.Samurai]

Even armored Conan is fighting sorcerers and cultists and priest-kings though. For me, this would be a hard trope to fulfill if you are weak against mind control. I mean... that's Thulsa Doom's signature power. In Conan the Destroyer, the princess is lulled into a pliant state so she can be sacrificed at the altar. What a lame hero you'd be if the villain could easily do that to you instead!

The knight in shining armor is seen riding his loyal steed and facing the wrath of a deadly dragon, so the Paladin gets the Find Steed spell and Aura of Protection/Courage, otherwise he'd be replacing his horse all the time like Geralt and he'd be running at the first sight of a dragon. And the paladin gets this protection in aura form because they are knightly and leaders.

Barbarians fight magic-users. To me it makes sense to fit that in the base class somewhere.

I'd wager that most people don't think 'strong mental defenses' when thinking of a Barbarian, they thing really strong and hard to kill, maybe even actively stupid (which has nothing to do with D&D Wisdom).

That doesn't fit my perception, but even still, most people also think "shirtless", and yet you're saying that's not where the inspiration comes from. So I'm perfectly fine detaching from the "barbarians have weak minds" preconception. Conan, famously, is not stupid.

But for me, it's suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper lame to have the big strong barbarian that wrestles demons and chokes out monstrosities to stop in his tracks frightened of a creature. I'm not saying it can't ever happen, but it shouldn't be the expectation that any monster that has a "Boo!" ability is going to send the barbarian packing. I desperately hope this changes in 5.5. Let the wizard, who's only ever engaged in monster theory with all of his little books and scrolls, run scared at the first sight of an eldritch horror. But the barbarian, on the fringes of civilization, protecting his tribe from the monsters that roam the wilderness, trained to kill anything that comes his way... I think he can muster a little more courage than what is currently given to the class.

And given that all the barbarian does is engage in melee combat, it's not like shoring up a mental saving throw is going to make them overpowered. This isn't a LudicSavant build that excels at 72 different roles and we're like "also, let's make sure they can't be Frightened". The barbarian just fights, and can easily be taken out of the fight.

[Psyren]

But for me, it's suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper lame to have the big strong barbarian that wrestles demons and chokes out monstrosities to stop in his tracks frightened of a creature. I'm not saying it can't ever happen, but it shouldn't be the expectation that any monster that has a "Boo!" ability is going to send the barbarian packing. I desperately hope this changes in 5.5. Let the wizard, who's only ever engaged in monster theory with all of his little books and scrolls, run scared at the first sight of an eldritch horror. But the barbarian, on the fringes of civilization, protecting his tribe from the monsters that roam the wilderness, trained to kill anything that comes his way... I think he can muster a little more courage than what is currently given to the class.

And given that all the barbarian does is engage in melee combat, it's not like shoring up a mental saving throw is going to make them overpowered. This isn't a LudicSavant build that excels at 72 different roles and we're like "also, let's make sure they can't be Frightened". The barbarian just fights, and can easily be taken out of the fight.

What I find most disappointing about it is that it's an ability they had baked in back in 3e. There just doesn't seem to be a good reason for having removed it. And they had their chance to bring it back as optional in Tasha's and didn't do it then either.

[Dork_Forge]

Barbarians having good mental defenses in general:

There's nothing in the descriptive blurbs in the PHB to indicate anything about their mental fortitude, so it's likely that it just wasn't a design goal for them. Given that it's not a clear-cut iconic thing from the source material (you could easily say that Conan was too high level or whatever for the spell, it's a different fictional world with different rules).

On it not being overpowered to give them good Wis defenses:

5E operates on a strong save and a weak save system for what you get. Barbarians already get coverage for a second strong save through Feral Instinct and incentive for some degree of positive Dex.

This is being talked about in isolation, just adding Wis defenses, but that would make them covered against all strong saves and that is most certainly not common and is very powerful, especially since the option to have better defenses is already there in many forms.

And in terms of general defense: hit points are the defense that covers all sins, and the Barbarian gets them in spades.

[Schwann145]

That doesn't fit my perception, but even still, most people also think "shirtless", and yet you're saying that's not where the inspiration comes from.

To be fair, the "shirtless barbarian" thing comes entirely from the visual medium, and if we're gonna take the visual medium that seriously, then armor should provide zero AC, since every weapon ever seems to punch right through it like tissue paper.

What I find most disappointing about it is that it's an ability they had baked in back in 3e. There just doesn't seem to be a good reason for having removed it. And they had their chance to bring it back as optional in Tasha's and didn't do it then either.

5e just kinda dropped the ball with Barbarian design as a whole. It's probably the worst designed class out of the lot of them. Of all the character options, it needs a 2nd pass/5.5 update more than any other, save maybe core-Ranger.

(you could easily say that Conan was too high level or whatever for the spell, it's a different fictional world with different rules)

If we're being honest, Conan is a VHuman with rolled stats that he rolled incredibly well on, and his DM did the common houserule of "everyone gets a free feat at 1st level." (Edit: Oh, forgot - he's also a Barbarian/Rogue gestalt. )
Conan is way stronger than your average, fairly built, PC.

[Dr.Samurai]

Barbarians having good mental defenses in general:

There's nothing in the descriptive blurbs in the PHB to indicate anything about their mental fortitude, so it's likely that it just wasn't a design goal for them.

Which class does have this included in their blurb though? The wizard doesn't. The book suggests pumping Intelligence, then Constitution, then Dexterity.

Looking back to the barbarian blurb, let me fix it:

"Life in the wild places of the world is fraught with peril: rival tribes, deadly weather, and terrifying monsters. Barbarians charge headlong into that danger so that their people don't have to. and then immediately stop the moment they see something scary, too terrified to move any closer to the source of their fear! Only if accompanied by some dusty old wizard or priest that can shake the fear from the barbarian, does the barbarian have any hope of confronting the terrifying monsters that threaten their homes."

Given that it's not a clear-cut iconic thing from the source material (you could easily say that Conan was too high level or whatever for the spell, it's a different fictional world with different rules).

When is a trope not a trope lol.

I think the issue is this; I see the evil wizard's power as the thing that allows them to rise up over the regular people and threaten/control them. I don't expect the hero to be as vulnerable to that power as all the normal people. When it comes to summoned monsters or dodging fireballs, etc. the barbarian is better at this by virtue of their features. When it comes to resisting Fear, they are as normal as anyone else.

In the example of Conan, it just doesn't make sense to send someone susceptible to CHARM to take out the hypnotic leader of a serpent cult.

It would be too far to say barbarians should be anti-magic, but the trope is there. Thundarr has a line in the show and says "Your magic cannot touch me, wizard!".

On it not being overpowered to give them good Wis defenses:

5E operates on a strong save and a weak save system for what you get. Barbarians already get coverage for a second strong save through Feral Instinct and incentive for some degree of positive Dex.

This is being talked about in isolation, just adding Wis defenses, but that would make them covered against all strong saves and that is most certainly not common and is very powerful, especially since the option to have better defenses is already there in many forms.

And in terms of general defense: hit points are the defense that covers all sins, and the Barbarian gets them in spades.

I will let the monk know.

But really, my big beef is the Frightened condition. It's so incongruous to me with the image of a warrior that it feels like a sin to let them be this vulnerable to it. I don't need barbarians to have a great wisdom saving throw, but I would like for them to be able to not get scared so easily.

[strangebloke]

As I said, its as iconic as barbarians being shirtless. Which is to say that big heroic muscly men in tv and cinema are often shown struggling with and eventually overcoming magical spells or the nearest "sufficiently advanced technology" equivalent. Those people are usually modeled as barbarians and it makes sense that people would expect barbarians - by default - to have some defenses here. Indomitable, and the Zealot feature are good examples here. Its not enough to make them 'mage killers' but they get a chance to fight the magic rather than just crumple like a sheet of paper. Barbarians getting zero features that help with mental saves (the only martial class to do so) is as annoying as melee fighters getting no mobility boosting features.

[Dork_Forge]

Which class does have this included in their blurb though? The wizard doesn't. The book suggests pumping Intelligence, then Constitution, then Dexterity.

Looking back to the barbarian blurb, let me fix it:

"Life in the wild places of the world is fraught with peril: rival tribes, deadly weather, and terrifying monsters. Barbarians charge headlong into that danger so that their people don't have to. and then immediately stop the moment they see something scary, too terrified to move any closer to the source of their fear! Only if accompanied by some dusty old wizard or priest that can shake the fear from the barbarian, does the barbarian have any hope of confronting the terrifying monsters that threaten their homes."

You don't get the Frightened condition by looking at a monster unless that monster specifically has an ability. Firghtened in D&D is not the same as being scared like a commoner would be, and is often imparted by magical effects/creatures.

When is a trope not a trope lol.

I think the issue is this; I see the evil wizard's power as the thing that allows them to rise up over the regular people and threaten/control them. I don't expect the hero to be as vulnerable to that power as all the normal people. When it comes to summoned monsters or dodging fireballs, etc. the barbarian is better at this by virtue of their features. When it comes to resisting Fear, they are as normal as anyone else.

In the example of Conan, it just doesn't make sense to send someone susceptible to CHARM to take out the hypnotic leader of a serpent cult.

You send the person that has the highest chance of surviving, you can have great mental defences, that won't help you fighting off the cultists physically. And if the magic user does something to you, you're hardy enough to withstand it.

Conan was defeated/captured multiple times (one time he apparently ran into a wall whilst drunk), but he was strong enough/hardy enough to overcome it. The example from the wiki was when he spent a night without sleep because he was crucified, yet still managed to rip the nailes out of himself and ride a horse for ten miles.

In D&D the Barbarian can get hit by Hold Person or whatever, they have the hp etc. to take it. They can get hit by charm effects, they have the hit points for you to force more saves on them.

It would be too far to say barbarians should be anti-magic, but the trope is there. Thundarr has a line in the show and says "Your magic cannot touch me, wizard!".

I have no idea who Thundarr is or anything about them to comment on what appears to be magic immunity?

I will let the monk know.

Diamon Soul comes online at 14th level and is widely regarded as a powerful feature.

Danger Sense comes online at 2nd level. Apples to Oranges.

But really, my big beef is the Frightened condition. It's so incongruous to me with the image of a warrior that it feels like a sin to let them be this vulnerable to it. I don't need barbarians to have a great wisdom saving throw, but I would like for them to be able to not get scared so easily.

Then play a Beserker or Zealot? Again, that is already represented in the Barbarian, WotC just decided it's not a defining characteristic of the entire class.

I think this is partly a hangup about seeing the Frightened condition as being scared in general, but you can also look at it like this:

They're clearly related to animalistic nature and instincts heavily. Bears are really powerful and fearsome creatures, you can still scare them off. Same with wolves etc.

As I said, its as iconic as barbarians being shirtless. Which is to say that big heroic muscly men in tv and cinema are often shown struggling with and eventually overcoming magical spells or the nearest "sufficiently advanced technology" equivalent. Those people are usually modeled as barbarians and it makes sense that people would expect barbarians - by default - to have some defenses here. Indomitable, and the Zealot feature are good examples here. Its not enough to make them 'mage killers' but they get a chance to fight the magic rather than just crumple like a sheet of paper. Barbarians getting zero features that help with mental saves (the only martial class to do so) is as annoying as melee fighters getting no mobility boosting features.

I mean, depicting them as struggling and then overcoming doesn't sound like good mental defenses. It sounds like they failed, endured, and made their save after a bit, which any Barbarian can do since success is on the die for the vast majority of things.

[strangebloke]

I mean, depicting them as struggling and then overcoming doesn't sound like good mental defenses. It sounds like they failed, endured, and made their save after a bit, which any Barbarian can do since success is on the die for the vast majority of things.

Struggling for a moment and overcoming is a success. The "I know you're in there" moments are eventual successes. Both occur, but then, I'm not really arguing that barbs should be good at these saves, just that they should at least have something like indomitable that gives them a chance. Historically that's where rage bonuses to saves and such left you. You could succeed, even if it wasn't a strength of the class.

As it stands, without buffs or magic items most level 20 barbarians lose to like, a random succubus on average.

[Dork_Forge]

Struggling for a moment and overcoming is a success. The "I know you're in there" moments are eventual successes. Both occur, but then, I'm not really arguing that barbs should be good at these saves, just that they should at least have something like indomitable that gives them a chance. Historically that's where rage bonuses to saves and such left you. You could succeed, even if it wasn't a strength of the class.

As it stands, without buffs or magic items most level 20 barbarians lose to like, a random succubus on average.

Any +0 Wis Barbarian has a 25% chance of success against a DC 15 save like Succubus charm, and there's no real reason why they couldn't have a +1 fro 30%.

You can succeed these things already, a 25% chance of saving against what you are weak against isn't bad at all, and few monsters will take it off the die and make it actually impossible.

I guess I'd like to know at what point would you actually be happy with their defenses?

[Dr.Samurai]

You don't get the Frightened condition by looking at a monster unless that monster specifically has an ability. Firghtened in D&D is not the same as being scared like a commoner would be, and is often imparted by magical effects/creatures.

I'm not sure why you're being this technical but... the point stands. Horrifying Visage requires that you see the creature. Frightful Presence requires that you're "aware" of it. The various Baleful Moans and Shrieks require that you can hear the creature.

Meaning, the barbarian isn't even engaging or getting bit or hit or anything. They just become aware of the creature and the creature uses an action of some kind and the barbarian is (very likely) Frightened. That's really... underwhelming as a barbarian. Recall almost everyone at the ritual in Conan the Destroyer totally terrified and unsure what to do when Dagoth comes forth. Even Zula, badass warrior that she is, circles Dagoth cautiously while it fights Conan before she goes in for a strike. The barbarian though? He runs right in. The wizard tells him the horn is the source of Dagoth's power, and the barbarian just jumps right on top of the reborn god and tears the thing out. Can't do that if you're stupified...

You send the person that has the highest chance of surviving...

But... this is my point. How high are your chances of surviving when the leader can easily control your mind? See succubus example below.

Conan was defeated/captured multiple times (one time he apparently ran into a wall whilst drunk), but he was strong enough/hardy enough to overcome it. The example from the wiki was when he spent a night without sleep because he was crucified, yet still managed to rip the nailes out of himself and ride a horse for ten miles.

In D&D the Barbarian can get hit by Hold Person or whatever, they have the hp etc. to take it. They can get hit by charm effects, they have the hit points for you to force more saves on them.

Just what I always dreamed of, playing a human pinata while my allies take down the bad guys!

I have no idea who Thundarr is or anything about them to comment on what appears to be magic immunity?

Thundarr is a barbarian who fought against the 13 wizard-kings in a post-apocalyptic United States. He wielded the Sunsword (as in, exactly like D&D's Sun Blade) and dealt with magic all the time. He didn't have immunity; he said that line after dodging a laser I think.

Casters (like the villains in all the cartoons) can summon creatures and cast other spells to inhibit the warriors, hence they don't need to worry too much about melee capabilities or Strength saves, etc. Barbarians don't have anything to help stave off some of this magic (except Feral Instinct).

Diamond Soul comes online at 14th level and is widely regarded as a powerful feature.

Is powerful the same as overpowered though?

And Paladins are granting everyone a pretty slick bonus to all saves as well. And it bears mentioning that "proficiency in all strong saves" is not an argument that it is too powerful.

Danger Sense comes online at 2nd level. Apples to Oranges.

There was no comparison at all actually, I never said a feature was needed at level 2, or that it had to be Advantage, or that it had to be Diamond Soul, etc. I have said that Paladins are outright immune to fear, and now I'm saying other classes get boosts to their saving throws, and in the case of the Paladin, Monk, and Artificer, it's ALL saving throws.

Then play a Beserker or Zealot? Again, that is already represented in the Barbarian, WotC just decided it's not a defining characteristic of the entire class.

What is the point of this statement? I appreciate that we don't see eye to eye on this but it should be plainly OBVIOUS that if the Berserker or Zealot interested me, I could just play those.

I think this is partly a hangup about seeing the Frightened condition as being scared in general, but you can also look at it like this:

They're clearly related to animalistic nature and instincts heavily. Bears are really powerful and fearsome creatures, you can still scare them off. Same with wolves etc.

Lol, nothing says "I'm taking you seriously" like "you have a hangup".

Wild animals are skittish. Yes, when predators haven't set up the prefect ambush kill, they are in total preservation mode. But skittish is not really what I'm going for with my barbarian. Somehow, getting startled by every unexpected noise or event doesn't scream "heroic" to me.

Any +0 Wis Barbarian has a 25% chance of success against a DC 15 save like Succubus charm, and there's no real reason why they couldn't have a +1 fro 30%.

You can succeed these things already, a 25% chance of saving against what you are weak against isn't bad at all, and few monsters will take it off the die and make it actually impossible.

I guess I'd like to know at what point would you actually be happy with their defenses?

Right, a level 20 barbarian has a 75% chance to get taken down by a CR 4 succubus, nevermind anything of an appropriate level.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not sure why you're being this technical but... the point stands. Horrifying Visage requires that you see the creature. Frightful Presence requires that you're "aware" of it. The various Baleful Moans and Shrieks require that you can hear the creature.

I'm bringing up the point because you're treating a supernatural ability to instill fear in other creatures as the Barbarian just being scared of any old creature.

Meaning, the barbarian isn't even engaging or getting bit or hit or anything. They just become aware of the creature and the creature uses an action of some kind and the barbarian is (very likely) Frightened. That's really... underwhelming as a barbarian. Recall almost everyone at the ritual in Conan the Destroyer totally terrified and unsure what to do when Dagoth comes forth. Even Zula, badass warrior that she is, circles Dagoth cautiously while it fights Conan before she goes in for a strike. The barbarian though? He runs right in. The wizard tells him the horn is the source of Dagoth's power, and the barbarian just jumps right on top of the reborn god and tears the thing out. Can't do that if you're stupified...

This example is really quite meaningless when we don't know if there's any supernatural fear effect or people just being scared or the horrifically powerful monster. There's plenty (the majority probably) of monsters the Barbarian can do this to without a Wisdom save coming up at all.

But... this is my point. How high are your chances of surviving when the leader can easily control your mind? See succubus example below.

Still pretty good... You could always, I don't know, make sure they don't get the chance to try if it's such a big deal?

Just what I always dreamed of, playing a human pinata while my allies take down the bad guys!

I see you're new to playing a Barbarian.

Seriously though, debilitating Wis saves aren't this common and it's a team game...

The Paladin gets immunity to fear, they also make others immune to it, amongst various other abilities to help with this stuff.

Thundarr is a barbarian who fought against the 13 wizard-kings in a post-apocalyptic United States. He wielded the Sunsword (as in, exactly like D&D's Sun Blade) and dealt with magic all the time. He didn't have immunity; he said that line after dodging a laser I think.

Casters (like the villains in all the cartoons) can summon creatures and cast other spells to inhibit the warriors, hence they don't need to worry too much about melee capabilities or Strength saves, etc. Barbarians don't have anything to help stave off some of this magic (except Feral Instinct).

So your example was better suited to say, a Dex save helped with Danger Sense then.

Magic targets a whole bunch of different saves, and the Barbarian is good at more than one of them.

Is powerful the same as overpowered though?

And Paladins are granting everyone a pretty slick bonus to all saves as well. And it bears mentioning that "proficiency in all strong saves" is not an argument that it is too powerful.

Everyone... within 10 ft, as a melee-centric class, is dependent on a secondary stat, and it's one of their iconic class abilities.

And 'prof in all strong saves' on top of a lot of hit points and Rage? Yeah I'll say that it's too much.

There was no comparison at all actually, I never said a feature was needed at level 2, or that it had to be Advantage, or that it had to be Diamond Soul, etc. I have said that Paladins are outright immune to fear, and now I'm saying other classes get boosts to their saving throws, and in the case of the Paladin, Monk, and Artificer, it's ALL saving throws.

And what level would make this good for you? Because it looks like you're throwing in the Artificer's 20th level capstone now.

And this is all in isolation, throw this modified Barbarian in a party with that Paladin and Artificer and they'll probably never fail a save like that.

What is the point of this statement? I appreciate that we don't see eye to eye on this but it should be plainly OBVIOUS that if the Berserker or Zealot interested me, I could just play those.

The point is this: Better defenses like that clearly have a place in the Barbarian, they already exist. If that's not good enough and you want something on another subclass, that's exactly what feats and racial abilities are for. Any changes to the core class will have a trickle down effect on those two subclasses at minimum.

Lol, nothing says "I'm taking you seriously" like "you have a hangup".

If I wasn't taking you seriously I wouldn't bother replying to you so much.

Wild animals are skittish. Yes, when predators haven't set up the prefect ambush kill, they are in total preservation mode. But skittish is not really what I'm going for with my barbarian. Somehow, getting startled by every unexpected noise or event doesn't scream "heroic" to me.

And that unrealistic hyperbole is not interesting to me. Supernatural features are not 'every unexpected noise or event.'

Right, a level 20 barbarian has a 75% chance to get taken down by a CR 4 succubus, nevermind anything of an appropriate level.

Really not seeing the problem here, it's a team game and monsters are meant to stay relevant, especially when they target weaknesses.

Last week I nearly killed a 10th level Druid with CR 1/2 Shadow, and before that a level 8 Fighter with a CR 1 Harpy.

[JackPhoenix]

Conan, famously, is not stupid.

Conan, famously, is also a rogue/fighter, not a barbarian (despite being called thanks to his place of origin). Lack of iconic barbarian ability, Rage, should be a clue.

[strangebloke]

Any +0 Wis Barbarian has a 25% chance of success against a DC 15 save like Succubus charm, and there's no real reason why they couldn't have a +1 fro 30%.

You can succeed these things already, a 25% chance of saving against what you are weak against isn't bad at all, and few monsters will take it off the die and make it actually impossible.

I guess I'd like to know at what point would you actually be happy with their defenses?

yeah, a 20th level adventurer having a 30% chance against 1 CR 4 monster, ten of whom would make for a medium encounter. Nothing to see here. At this same level, a monk would have something like a +11 with rerolls, a fighter would have several rerolls via indomitable at minimum, a Paladin could be well into double digits with spellcasting support, a rogue has slippery mind...

You see the pattern here?

Martials are already less strong than they could be, with the only real challengers at high level being the paladin and maybe the ranger if you're really generous. They have inherent weaknesses in the form of not being able to do broken high level caster things. Barbarians are strong at low levels, but at higher levels they drop off hard, and their complete lack of any way of dealing with basic saving throws is part of why. In the history of DND, barbarians were often seen as better than other martials in part because they were relatively strong against spells (when raging) and in larger fiction, big strong, raging sorts are presumed to have exceptional mental fortitude to go with their physical fortitude. When they break free of some magic binding them, its often portrayed as something that's thought to be impossible in the setting, indicating that yeah, its an exceptional thing.

Again, the barbarian can have weaknesses. But

• this doesn't make sense to be one of them to this extent (especially the frighten effect)
• they have loads of other weakenesses.

Anyway I've strayed from my point. Regardless of whether it was good design to make barbarians so weak in this way, its still really advisable to shore up this weakness.

[Witty Username]

I think it is a false premise that Barbarian does not require as much in stats as other classes. I feel like if this is true it would be simply more true of the fighter, paladin and ranger.

Paladin and Ranger's capacities with fighting styles, spells, and more favorable stat spreads. As well, particular feats have strong synergy with what they already do. For both, Resilient (Con) makes them nearly unassailable by Saves, By having all three at least partially covered, Resilient(Wis) being a half feat is also a strong selection for Wis based rangers as it turns a normally decent save into a hard point. Mounted Combatant or mobile can have similar get similar gains of mobility. The gains on PAM, CBE, SS and GWM have already been given. And then there is niche picks depending on your mood like Alert, Sentinel, Medium Armor Master (Ranger can get up to an AC 19 and a +15 stealth without disadvantage).

I am not necessarily against the idea, I have heard it floated that ASIs are a trap discouraging players from taking feats, I don't agree, but that is more lack of evidence than any strong feelings on the subject.

[Frogreaver]

Regarding the initial claim of this thread. I largely agree and have said as much for a number of years.

I see the logic as the following.

In tier1.. Hitpoints is the primary decider of bad events happening to the party. In that sense pumping con should matter more, especially for a barbarian who gets double value from each point gained due to resistances. *But* that ignores the fact that the game was balanced around the mean. Other characters have far fewer hps than the barbarian and are expected to survive. Thus, there is essentially a cutoff value where pumping hps higher hits marginal returns (think how useless all those extra hps are for moondruids in tier1, as they might die in .0000001% of all campaigns). Thus I see something ilke 14 con with a d12 die as more than enough.

I think it's likely that current hp can change player combat decisions and that this phenomenon doesn't just have to occur when at very low hp. The player is constantly estimating his PC's toughness vs the punishment enemies can potentially rain on him. The player with significantly higher con is going to reach those decision changing hp values slower. This opens more opportunities to charge into the thick of it, to reckless attack, to grapple, to take an OA to target a higher priority target.

IMO it's the potential change in decisions due to higher hp that your analysis above misses.

[strangebloke]

I think it is a false premise that Barbarian does not require as much in stats as other classes. I feel like if this is true it would be simply more true of the fighter, paladin and ranger.

Paladin and Ranger's capacities with fighting styles, spells, and more favorable stat spreads. As well, particular feats have strong synergy with what they already do. For both, Resilient (Con) makes them nearly unassailable by Saves, By having all three at least partially covered, Resilient(Wis) being a half feat is also a strong selection for Wis based rangers as it turns a normally decent save into a hard point. Mounted Combatant or mobile can have similar get similar gains of mobility. The gains on PAM, CBE, SS and GWM have already been given. And then there is niche picks depending on your mood like Alert, Sentinel, Medium Armor Master (Ranger can get up to an AC 19 and a +15 stealth without disadvantage).

I am not necessarily against the idea, I have heard it floated that ASIs are a trap discouraging players from taking feats, I don't agree, but that is more lack of evidence than any strong feelings on the subject.

Eh, its not the same. I'm taking a very strong position, that Barbarians should almost never straight up boost STR or CON. Even if they get to 20th level. That's simply not true for any other class.

Fighters get enough ASIs they will legitimately run out of better options depending on what they're going for. Like you get CBE/SS/res:wis/inspiring leader and then??? Ritual Caster? If you don't have a wizard?

Paladins and Rangers have lots of options and ways to play, generally means that depending on what you're going for and what level you are, an ASI might be the best option. You'll really have a hard time arguing that a Hexblade/Conquest pally should never max charisma, for example. A hunter ranger gets a lot of mileage out of a dexterity boost since they're damage specialists who really want whatever accuracy boosts they can get their hands on, and they have a lot of attacks, and their AC might be dependent on their armor.

No matter what you're going for as a barb, there's a feat that does it better, or a massive gap you need to cover somewhere in your defenses.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm bringing up the point because you're treating a supernatural ability to instill fear in other creatures as the Barbarian just being scared of any old creature.

Oh. It's not any old creature of course.

It's that of the entire party, the barbarian is the most likely to be afraid. And this flies in the face of what the barbarian does. All of their features are geared toward running right up into a monster's grill and fighting it. The idea that someone like this intends to go adventuring and fight monsters and is the easiest one to be scared of the entire party is, to me, ridiculous.

Casters can fight from a distance, so there isn't necessarily a commitment to get up close and personal with whatever fiendish horror the cultists summoned forth, or ancient evil bubbling up from the depths below. They'll keep their distance and cast spells from a safer vantage point. Rangers and rogues can best use their features with ranged attacks as well.

The barbarian HAS TO move in and engage. You're playing someone that wants to run up to the monsters, and they are the most likely to get hit by Frightened. It doesn't make sense to me, there is a dissonance there.

The party has all the roles that we know about, and this particular frontliner might never make it to the frontline against the typical monsters that have a fear effect.

Still pretty good... You could always, I don't know, make sure they don't get the chance to try if it's such a big deal?

Yeah sure. It's not a big deal to you... I'm not sure why we're arguing then lol. Let's just disagree?

Seriously though, debilitating Wis saves aren't this common and it's a team game...

The Paladin gets immunity to fear, they also make others immune to it, amongst various other abilities to help with this stuff.

Yes and paladins also get healing abilities and heavy armor proficiency and spells and various other very useful abilities. I'm not sure why something against Fear is overkill on the barbarian, but IMMUNITY to fear in an AURA is perfectly fine on the paladin chassis...

So your example was better suited to say, a Dex save helped with Danger Sense then.

Magic targets a whole bunch of different saves, and the Barbarian is good at more than one of them.

You are resistant to the idea that there's a link between barbarians and fighting magic, so I just gave you a straight line example.

The point is this: Better defenses like that clearly have a place in the Barbarian, they already exist. If that's not good enough and you want something on another subclass, that's exactly what feats and racial abilities are for. Any changes to the core class will have a trickle down effect on those two subclasses at minimum.

The berserker can use some help anyways, and Zealots reroll impacts things other than fear effects. We've just noted the barbarian's weakness and you're completely against it without considering what it might look like so... noted, you're not a fan of the idea lol.

If I wasn't taking you seriously I wouldn't bother replying to you so much.

Very fair enough.

And that unrealistic hyperbole is not interesting to me. Supernatural features are not 'every unexpected noise or event.'

I think you're missing the part where I emphasize that you are a hulking veteran warrior adventurer that does his stuff for a living. So yes, you should be better at resisting some supernatural fear than others. Studying magic doesn't necessarily mean "OMG his mind is like an iron vault nothing can penetrate it". Similarly, fighting terrifying monsters (from the PHB blurb, which you brought up) should help steel the barbarian against... terrifying monsters. But instead they get absolutely nothing. You can read "every unexpected noise or event" as "every monster with a fear effect" and the point stands.

Really not seeing the problem here...

Yeah I mean, again, fair enough. Not much more to say here really, we just have different opinions on this.

Anyway, this is a bit offtopic. Regardless of whether it was good design to make barbarians so weak in this way, its still really advisable to shore up this weakness.

I think the solution is to find some way for the casters to concentrate on multiple spells and then they can cast buffs on the barbarian and still do other things. This definitely strikes me as a caster problem to solve...

[Schwann145]

you are a hulking veteran warrior adventurer

Wait... says who?
If you're not pumping Str, you're def not hulking.
If you're in tier 1, and arguably tier 2, you're not a veteran anything.


=======

Aside from that, why does the argument, "[insert high level] Barbarian still struggles against [insert lower level monster]'s abilities!" keep coming up?
Bonded Accuracy is the design intent of 5e, which means things never stop being a threat. There is no "outgrowing" enemies, the way you do in, say, Pathfinder 2e. Quite the opposite. By design.
And every class will have it's weaknesses. Mental saves are the Barbarian's weakness. By pointing out that the Barbarian remains weak... in the thing they're weak at... throughout the game built around bonded accuracy...
Well... yeah. Duh. Working as intended. (Maybe not desirable, but certainly not unexpected.)

[JackPhoenix]

Oh. It's not any old creature of course.

It's that of the entire party, the barbarian is the most likely to be afraid.

How is the barbarian any "more likely to be afraid" than an artificer, bard, fighter, rogue or sorcerer? You know, all the OTHER classes who don't get proficiency in Wis saves, class features improving those saves and don't rely on Wis for their casting?

[Eldariel]

Wait... says who?
If you're not pumping Str, you're def not hulking.
If you're in tier 1, and arguably tier 2, you're not a veteran anything.


=======

Aside from that, why does the argument, "[insert high level] Barbarian still struggles against [insert lower level monster]'s abilities!" keep coming up?
Bonded Accuracy is the design intent of 5e, which means things never stop being a threat. There is no "outgrowing" enemies, the way you do in, say, Pathfinder 2e. Quite the opposite. By design.
And every class will have it's weaknesses. Mental saves are the Barbarian's weakness. By pointing out that the Barbarian remains weak... in the thing they're weak at... throughout the game built around bonded accuracy...
Well... yeah. Duh. Working as intended. (Maybe not desirable, but certainly not unexpected.)

Well, it's about the proportional threat. HP damage quickly becomes negligible. That's the "magnitude"-scaling. However, CC remains JUST AS EFFICIENT on 20 or 1; no magnitude scaling. And no incidental defenses. This means that low level CC MONSTERS remain relevant but random Goblins? Who cares if they poke you for 1% of your HP. In other words,it's the discrepancy in efficiency that's the issue.

[strangebloke]

Well, it's about the proportional threat. HP damage quickly becomes negligible. That's the "magnitude"-scaling. However, CC remains JUST AS EFFICIENT on 20 or 1; no magnitude scaling. And no incidental defenses. This means that low level CC MONSTERS remain relevant but random Goblins? Who cares if they poke you for 1% of your HP. In other words,it's the discrepancy in efficiency that's the issue.

Well and its not consistent. As I outlined above, literally every other martial class in the game has a better chance against that succubus. Literally every one, and usually by a lot. You're never supposed to "outgrow" a threat, but most everyone gets more ways of dealing with low level control effects like this.

And, again. Historically in dnd and mythologically its not really supposed to be a weakness of the archetype.

[Dr.Samurai]

Wait... says who?

The PHB:

A tall human tribesman strides through a blizzard, draped in fur and hefting his axe. He laughs as he charges toward the frost giant who dared poach his people's elk herd.

A half-orc snarls at the latest challenger to her authority over their savage tribe, ready to break his neck with her bare hands as she did to the last six rivals.

Frothing at the mouth, a dwarf slams his helmet into the face of his drow foe, then turns to drive his armored elbow into the gut of another.

Barbarians come alive in the chaos of combat. They can enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience.

A true barbarian among these people is as uncommon as a skilled fighter in a town, and he or she plays a similar role as a protector of the people and a leader in times of war.

Life in the wild places of the world is fraught with peril: rival tribes, deadly weather, and terrifying monsters. Barbarians charge headlong into that danger so that their people don't have to.

Their courage in the face of danger makes barbarians perfectly suited for adventuring. Wandering is often a way of life for their native tribes, and the rootless life of the adventurer is little hardship for a barbarian.

If you're not pumping Str, you're def not hulking.

Well, the weakness to Frightened exists whether you pump Strength or not and the OP is a novel way of looking at the barbarian. Meaning, most people pump strength.

If you're in tier 1, and arguably tier 2, you're not a veteran anything.

Why is that? The PHB describes a protector of their tribe and a leader in war, someone that charges headlong into battle.

Aside from that, why does the argument, "[insert high level] Barbarian still struggles against [insert lower level monster]'s abilities!" keep coming up?
Bonded Accuracy is the design intent of 5e, which means things never stop being a threat. There is no "outgrowing" enemies, the way you do in, say, Pathfinder 2e. Quite the opposite. By design.
And every class will have it's weaknesses.

So the same attack bonuses and damage bonuses that monsters have at low levels continue to threaten the wizard at level 20?

Mental saves are the Barbarian's weakness. By pointing out that the Barbarian remains weak... in the thing they're weak at... throughout the game built around bonded accuracy...
Well... yeah. Duh. Working as intended. (Maybe not desirable, but certainly not unexpected.)

You'll note that my posts do not read as "Hey, were you guys aware that barbarians are weak to mental stats?" but rather "I think this is ridiculous".

As for expectations, I think we've explained pretty clearly that we believe part of the trope is not crumpling against magic. But obviously you and others have different ideas about what a barbarian is.

@Strangebloke - Where do you think this stops being the case? Would you say a 14 strength is workable throughout the barbarian's career? I tend to think that 5e is designed to not require super specialization so I am inclined to agree somewhat with Witty_Username. Couldn't anyone go to level 20 with a 16 in their primary stat? Or maybe, anyone that's not imposing saving throws on the enemy? I know your argument is specifically because "Advantage" and "lots of HP/Resistance", and that would mean the barbarian is better than most at this, right?

[Arkhios]

Great post.

Yet somehow, not maxing Str on a barbarian still feels wrong. Even though practically nobody gets there, having a 26 Strength at level 20 with a tome seems too awesome to pass up.

Wait, aren't barbarians supposed to be illiterate!?

[JackPhoenix]

Wait, aren't barbarians supposed to be illiterate!?

It's got pictures, duh!

[Psyren]

How is the barbarian any "more likely to be afraid" than an artificer, bard, fighter, rogue or sorcerer? You know, all the OTHER classes who don't get proficiency in Wis saves, class features improving those saves and don't rely on Wis for their casting?

Fighters get Indomitable and the rest of those either aren't on the frontlines at all or have ways to mitigate the issue if they are. Barbarians get nothing, other than Zealot and Berserker.