Barbarian Playtest Poll

[Asmor]

If they went this route, maybe the barbarian would mark those who Attack / Damage him.

I don't think that would work simply because it defeats the purpose of marking entirely. If the barb were a defender and had a marking ability like that, he'd be a pretty lousy defender, because enemies could just ignore him.

Marking forces people who don't want to focus on you to deal with you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like how everyone has the same vision of what a Barbarian should do, we're mostly just disagreeing on whether that is done by Strikers or Defenders.

High damage- all he honestly needs for this is good two handed weapon options. And even if he has more than that, it doesn't necessarily mean he's going to have high single target striker style damage

I think you're underestimating it. A two-handed weapon is, first of all, ALL ABOUT trading defense for offense. And I think that a barbarian can gain many advantages with a two-handed weapon a la a rogue with daggers. Whirlwind attacks that clear a room. Knocking creatures prone. Pushing creatures with the force of blows. Massive earthquakes from hitting the ground with your axe. Soaring leaps that take him over the heads of defenders right back to the squishy rear ranks.

A barbarian, IMO, shouldn't just have a two-handed weapon. He should be using it as much as possible to kill the other guy. That offense-minded mentality works best with a striker.

High mobility- the only things that made the barbarian a high mobility character in 3e were 1) light armor, and 2) +10 speed. Nothing about avoiding OAs, or anything that would help with the in-combat maneuverability that has so far defined striker style mobility.

3e doesn't matter. If the designers' vision of a barbarian matches up with mine, Athletics checks will be their friend, so to speak. Charging mandates mobility, and there's nothing more Berserker than charging into the heart of battle, axe flailing wildly, foam on your lips. The other guys that stand in your way get mowed down, pushed aside, jumped over, or slain in passing. You break down walls. You are the unstoppable force, not the immovable object.

In a nutshell, that's the core idea behind a berserk rage -- you run into your foes screaming, throwing them to the four winds and hewing off limbs. A rage is not a defensive strategy. It says "I don't care if I get killed!"

Lightly armored- Heavy armor doesn't define the defender, nor does light armor define the striker. What matters is actual durability. The swordmage is an example of a lightly armored character that has high durability, due to his high statistic bonus to his armor class. But that's not the only way that things could be done- a character with relatively low AC in comparison to other defenders could work just fine, if it had the hit points (and therefore the healing surge value) and the healing surge triggers necessary.

Actually, AC does kind of matter. A mark's primary function is to get people to attack targets that they would otherwise probably pass by. Even Swordmages get fighter-caliber AC. And that AC is usually pretty nice, likely one of the highest in the party. That means that enemies normally wouldn't bother attacking you, but the mark forces them to (in a way) by making up the difference to the rest of your party.

Without a high AC, there's no reason to mark. You're already a good target, because an enemy that can hit you can do other stuff to you, including pushing you and pulling you away from the people you're supposed to be defending. And that -2 to hit other people just means that other people are now even harder to hit than you are.

If the mark affected damage, this might be okay, but it doesn't penalize damage. Just the attack roll (not that a barbarian's theoretical mark couldn't penalize damage, too, really).

The biggest issue in favor of a striker-barbarian is that a barbarian should not be standing in place asking people to attack him. Instead, he should be catapulting himself and his enemies across the battlefield, demanding that people run away from him. When the barbarians are at the gates, you know those gates will fall. When raping and pillaging is done, it is a failure of defense. When you are the victim of a barbarian raid, you have not protected yourself. This is aggressive, this is destructive, this is them coming to get you.

That all speaks to a striker in my mind.

If the barbarian IS a defender, it will have been a failure to capture that flavor of raid-pillage-rape-destroy that is so integral to the fun of playing a barbarian. Barbarians are not DEFENSIVE archetypes. They are wolves at the borders. They are OFFENSIVE archetypes. They should be going out from their homeland to destroy civilization (and upend defenders), not staying at home asking the enemy to come get them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

KM, I can only assume you haven't seen a lot of fighters or paladins in play in 4E. The fact that their role's position is "defender" doesn't mean that the character isn't proactive, or must wait for the enemy to come to them.

(Truth be told, I'm not sure "defender" was the best name for the role, for precisely this reason.)

Their purpose is, in part, making the enemy focus on them. But you don't do that by hanging back and waiting. You do it by charging into combat, establishing yourself as the front line, doing as much damage as you can, and never letting up. They might move less, and they might dish out less damage on a hit-to-hit basis, but I've never seen a paladin or fighter played any less offensively than a rogue or ranger.

There's no reason making a barbarian a defender--in terms of mechanical role--prevents them from "going out from their homeland to destroy civilization (and upend defenders)," rather than "staying at home asking the enemy to come get them." It's not as though the warlike fighter or the crusading paladin are sitting around twiddling their thumbs and waiting for action to come to them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, I can only assume you haven't seen a lot of fighters or paladins in play in 4E

Quite the opposite, actually. Defenders are one of the more popular character choices in my group. I'm currently playing a Swordmage in a campaign where another character is playing a Fighter.

The fact that their role's position is "defender" doesn't mean that the character isn't proactive, or must wait for the enemy to come to them.

Mmmm....maybe in my dramatic hyperbole I gave something of a wrong impression about my case. Defenders can be proactive, they just usually get no particular benefit to being very highly proactive. My swordmage can do a charge attack into a group of enemies just fine, but he can also just walk (or teleport) over to where the biggest cluster of minions is and take them out. I would imagine a barbarian behaving more like the rogues or warlocks I've seen behave: "Nail the squishy." Sneak attacks and eldritch blasts and barrages of arrows. I could see barbarians sprinting, charging, leaping, climbing, and otherwise running up to the squishy more than I could see them distracting something for a few turns. Dodging in and out, not just being the attention whore.

But you don't do that by hanging back and waiting. You do it by charging into combat, establishing yourself as the front line, doing as much damage as you can, and never letting up.
...
They might move less, and they might dish out less damage on a hit-to-hit basis, but I've never seen a paladin or fighter played any less offensively than a rogue or ranger.

Meh. Warlocks deal more damage than fighters. My swordmage is very happy standing in the center of the action and spinning like a top. You are the center of gravity; you are the sun. The striker moves around you like a sattelite working on the outlying critters, running back if they need help.

My anecdotal evidence would disagree with yours. My swordmage (an assault swordmage, even!) and my friend's fighter (a two-weapon fighter, even!) are very happy to make small movements and shifts to put them in the middle of things, hacking at everything around the sides. Generally the rest of the party is happy with us there, too, as it means they're not the targets. I can blink around the battlefield, but I'm nowhere near as mobile as the warlock or the rogue or the ranger is. When I go somewhere, I generally stay there until everything around me is dead.

I don't envision a barbarian being that still or that passive.

It's not as though the warlike fighter or the crusading paladin are sitting around twiddling their thumbs and waiting for action to come to them.

No, but they are the ones surrounded in melee on all sides while the strikers run around and nuke the outliers.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Quite the opposite, actually. Defenders are one of the more popular character choices in my group. I'm currently playing a Swordmage in a campaign where another character is playing a Fighter.

Okay, fair enough. I shouldn't assume.

Defenders can be proactive, they just usually get no particular benefit to being very highly proactive. My swordmage can do a charge attack into a group of enemies just fine, but he can also just walk (or teleport) over to where the biggest cluster of minions is and take them out.

See, I consider moving to the enemies you want to attack, and being able to establish the "front line" where you choose--allowing you to place it tactically, and keep it away from your squishy friends--to be a great benefit for being proactive.

I would imagine a barbarian behaving more like the rogues or warlocks I've seen behave: "Nail the squishy." Sneak attacks and eldritch blasts and barrages of arrows. I could see barbarians sprinting, charging, leaping, climbing, and otherwise running up to the squishy more than I could see them distracting something for a few turns. Dodging in and out, not just being the attention whore.

See, I disagree. I seem them charging into the midst of the foe--not necessarily going for the "squishy," but the biggest, baddest mofo on the field--and standing toe-to-toe, trading strike for strike and strength for strength. A character needn't be mobile to be focused heavily on offense.

My swordmage is very happy standing in the center of the action and spinning like a top. You are the center of gravity; you are the sun. The striker moves around you like a sattelite working on the outlying critters, running back if they need help.

I've seen a little more movement than that with my own defenders. But even if your example is the standard case, I don't see the barbarian as dashing around the perimeter. He's in the center of it all, the more enemies the better, the tougher the enemy the better. He stands tall, and he doesn't stop hitting until he or the foe drops, only then moving on to the next one.

I can blink around the battlefield, but I'm nowhere near as mobile as the warlock or the rogue or the ranger is. When I go somewhere, I generally stay there until everything around me is dead.

As above, I don't see the barbarian needing to move that much, and I certainly don't consider racing into the thick of things and doing your best to stay there to be "passive" in any meaningful definition of the term.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Incidentally, I'm not saying that I can't see the barbarian as a striker. Heck, I think it's more likely than defender.

I'm just saying I think the defender role works equally well, and that some people are dismissing it out of hand due to (what I consider) misconceptions.

(I also, for the record, don't think that all defenders have to focus on, or make great use of, the marking mechanic. Yes, those we've so far do so, but I think there are other ways to be an effective defender. But that's replying to a different part of the thread.)

 

[Zsig]

I think it is going to be a Defender as I think it makes more sense... but I don't like barbarians that much so it'll be cool if they surprise me with something different.

EDIT:
So, like 10 more minutes till we find out, right?

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I think it is going to be a Defender as I think it makes more sense... but I don't like barbarians that much so it'll be cool if they surprise me with something different.

EDIT:
So, like 10 more minutes till we find out, right?

and it is a striker! Download - 368_Playtest_Barbarian.pdf

I had voted defender :-(

 

[Asmor]

Called it!

 

[Hussar]

Haven't read it yet.

I agree it will likely be Defender or Striker, but, just to be contrary, I voted Leader. I'd absolutely love this personally. The concept of the strong savage directing his men around the battlefield to crush everyone through superior tactics just appeals to me.

But, I don't think it will happen.