Is the barbarian too powerful in your campaign?

[Henrix]

I respectfully disagree.

The barbarian only has two stats he has to worry about: strength and con. Barbarians almost always have a ginormous con (16+) giving them typically a lot more hit points.

And I respectfully disagree with that. A barbarian needs dex more than most, and certainly more than fighters, as they're limited to light and medium armour.


We've generally seen barbarians deal more damage than most others (though not quite as much as the half-giant psychic warrior), but also take a lot more damage.
They are generally among those most liable to be unconsious before the encounter is over.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

What's wrong with barbarians dominating a Conan-themed campaign? My interpretation of the REH Conan stories I've read is that barbarians dominate the campaign at low to mid levels but that sorcerers dominate at high levels.

Note "sorcerer" in the Sword & Sorcery genre is not the same as the D&D sorcerer.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Has anyone tried the PHBII's variant rule for barbarians, where they fly into a rage automatically whenever they're low on HP?

Yeah, it was pretty useless. If it was 5hp/character level, it *might* just be mediocre instead of terrible. Or if it factored your Con bonus into account. Right now, it punishes you for rollign well on HP and having a good con bonus. The fact that its rarely available in the first round of combat isnt a good thing, and most of the barbarians I've seen tend to have enough rages for worthy encounters. Its also completely worthless for NPC antagonists. It gets a huge thumb's down from me as a worthy addition.

 

[WizarDru]

My experience has been that barbarians are what we politely refer to as 'Eggshells-with-hammers'. They have a higher HP to make up for their generally reduced AC. They are generally more vulnerable than the fighter, although they can outperform in some situations. Someone pointed out that fighters also have poor will saves and don't rage, which is correct...but fighters have LOTS of feats, and Iron Will is often a popular choice....an option that is far less desireable for a barbarian.

A two-handed raging power-attacking barbarian is a fearsome thing, no question. In my Return to Temple of Elemental Evil game, the barbarian was terrifying. Especially to the party, when he was dominated.

 

[Emirikol]

I just TPK'd our 5th level home group when the barbarian was charmed by a yaun ti sorcerer. One barbarian took out the fighter, rogue-swashbuckler, and monk.

That's the reason I asked this question in the first place. If he's powerful enough to take out his own party, maybe he's too powerful.

BTW, we run low-magic so there were no plusses involved with anyone beyond masterwork.

It was my favorite game EVAR!

jh

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

First of all, my interpretation of the Charm Person spell does not make it a practical means of making a targetted character turn on his friends. Not even close, unless used with truly mind-bogglingly extraordinary cleverness. There is a reason why Domination is a 5th level spell.

Second of all, someone has to be the top of the heap in pure uncomplicated damage dealing. Nothing wrong with that being the Barbarian. An offensively focussed Fighter really lags the Barbarian only slightly in damage dealing. If you weaken the Barbarian then there would be no point in playing the class (except as a dip because it is frontloaded).

 

[Gizzard]

I just TPK'd our 5th level home group when the barbarian was charmed by a yaun ti sorcerer. One barbarian took out the fighter, rogue-swashbuckler, and monk.

The Barbarian is really strong up at low levels; he dominated our campaign (combat anyway) over a TWF and a Monk until Level 6 when the TWF feat selections pushed her into the lead. I expect the TWF to continue to outpace the Barbarian after level 6.

So, yes, the Barbarian is going to smash the Monk and the Rogue-Swashbuckler flat. At 5th, I'd expect a Fighter to put up a decent ...um... fight, but lose more than win (in a one v. one match). But, I don't see how the Barbarian beats all three unless 1) the rest are not well tuned or 2) the Barbarian gets lucky crits or comes in fresh when the others are wounded.

You also ran into the other issue that is supposed to balance the Barbarian; that they have very poor Will Saves and so they start spending as much time fighting the party as fighting against it after spellcasters start to power up around 5th level.

 

[Crust]

My previous campaign had a barbarian. At the end of the campaign he was:

Rusk: CG male human barbarian 13/fighter 6/champion of Gwyharwyf 9 (Exalted Deeds... I made Gwynharwyf a celestial vassal of Tempus in my FR campaign)

With dire charge, dev. crit., combat brute, and a +6 adamantine intelligent lightning blast greataxe, most enemies died with one full attack.

Of course, he couldn't fly, had very little defense against magic (a cloak of resistance +5 helped with saves), and he was an instant target. His spot and listen were also bad (compared to other's), so he was often falling victim to surprise rounds. His will saves were awful, so he often used instantaneous rage to try to beat fear effects (which he often failed anyway). He was played by a masterful player, so it was a joy to DM Rusk.

I will say that, even at his height, Rusk was only ever balked by two foes: a trio of glooms and an xixecal. The glooms, hiding from Rusk, almost killed him in one round with their human dread daggers before the spellcasters obliterated them, almost killing Rusk in the process. The xixecal was... well, beyond any of them. They annihilated its fiendish white dragon servants, but the ice colossus itself was pummeling Rusk with its slam attacks while the spellcasters whittled away at it. They had to retreat, eventually fleeing by the wizard's teleportation magic.

Rusk filled his niche perfectly, being the only front-line brawler in the group. He adventured with three others, each of them epic spellcasters (an elf wizard, a human cleric of Mystra, and a gnome arcane trickster), so he was often layered with spells before battle (when time permitted). I had no problem with him slaughtering foes. In fact, I went out of my way to set up dramatic, one-on-one duels for Rusk. Whether githyanki bounty hunters, astral stalker hunters, the odd upstart or "wannabe," or a balor gated in by Vlaakith herself, I tried to give Rusk those moments of glory.

I had a lot of fun with Rusk.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

BTW, we run low-magic so there were no plusses involved with anyone beyond masterwork.

Well, here is part of the problem. Low-magic reduces assumed power levels in D&D. Unless the DM is actively always compensating for this, things can get kinda wonky. At 5th level this shouldn't be game breaking but at higher levels this can right there throw things out of balance.

But, back to your original question. Do I find barbarians unbalancing? No. In combat, they have a tendency to rule the short combats. They don't often have the stamina to last a long combat too well - or multiple successive combats for that matter. Try using oppent tactics that wait for the rage, then seal off the barbarian's path until the rage ends. Try that a couple of times and the barbarian character won't go auto-rage every time.

But, to be honest, our group has recently decided that we really prefer to gain RP XP rather than combat XP. Even when combat comes up weapons don't often get drawn. spellcasters charm, players use diplomacy/intimidate, etc. In this type of game, the barbarian doesn't outdamage many people! Perhaps your group could benefit from a little less combat and get the players into an RP mode? That would take some of the focus off of the barbarian ruling in combat since other characters can rule elsewhere.