D&D (2024) UA 8 Barbarian Discussion
having just made a few high level barbs one concern that came up. While brutal strike has some fun options, ultimately if I'm not using them (aka I'm just facing an enemy I really need to hit), than ultimately this barb has LESS than what they used to have. Brutal critical wasn't always flashy and ultimately not that strong but it was always there for you, it and reckless attack went together like peas in a pod.
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
If someone is reeeeally into statistics and variables, they can figure out the DPR variance for varying ACs. If you have a +15 to attack, there is an AC threshold when the average damage you deal with the Brutal Strike is higher than what you get when you hit because advantage helped you hit. But I'm not a math human.
If your pulling out the spreadsheet as a Barbarian than the class has failed.
Chaosmancer
Legend
No, it really wasn't there for you all the time. I've played a few barbarians, and I can probably count the number of times I've crit with ALL of them combined with just my fingers and toes. Yes, it could always potentially activate, but with at best a 9% chance, it really didn't have any more chance of activating that this ability does.
And the 2014 barbarian using a greatsword only got +1d6 when it did activate at level 9. I've seen plenty of barbarians using Polearms (d10) and one-handed weapons (1d8) as well. Not every player used or wanted to use a greataxe.
So, if we take the advantage, and that 9% and multiply it by the damages of those weapons...
2 x 0.09 x 5.5 / 4.5 / 3.5 = 0.99 / 0.81 / 0.63
Sure, if you don't use Brutal Strike, it does less than this, but if you DO use it, then you can expect 5.5 x 0.6 x 1 = 3.3 extra damage AND an effect. And since you can choose when you activate it, you can choose when it happens, instead of praying for a critical hit. And that is FAR more valuable to me.
fluffybunbunkittens
Hero
Ah, true, good spot. Then they should probably edit the actual Brutal Strike rules text to say that.
I'm sorry your so terribly unlucky. In reality in a 3 round fight where the barb is attacking twice and using reckless attack, you have a ~58% chance to crit at least once (more if your a berserker). So you should see a crit every other fight
Kinematics
Hero
I played a barbarian over a 4 year campaign. I'd be surprised if I managed to land even 10 crits in the entire campaign.
Not that I didn't roll 20's. I got plenty of nat 20's on skill checks and saves and such. I also ran a fighter NPC as a secondary character for about half the campaign, and that character crit quite frequently.
But as far as the barbarian was concerned (even with Polearm Master), Brutal Critical might as well have not even existed.
Which is part of the reasoning Jeremy gave for why they changed it. It is so heavily reliant on random chance that it's not only statistically weak, for some players you just get to feel bad for having an utterly worthless feature.
Chaosmancer
Legend
The theoretical chances of landing a crit doesn't really change the reality of not landing them.
By your same logic, one could say it would be terrible luck for a party of adventurers to go through an entire combat, post level 5, and not land a single critical hit. But that certainly does happen. And in fact, I do not expect to see at least one critical hit per fight on the player's side.
As Kinematics said below, it was this randomness of the ability activating that made it so frustratingly unreliable. The chances were just too small.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
5% of the time, brutal critical was always there for you. At least with brutal strike you get to choose when not to use it.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
