Diff'rent Strokes: Barbarians and Varying Mechanics by Class

[ZombieRoboNinja]

One of the ideas mentioned somewhere about 5e was that, while wizards would be Vancian, other spellcasters would use different spell mechanics. To me, this sounds ideal: those who like spell preparation and the rest of it can play wizards, while those who'd rather just blast everything in sight can play, say, warlocks.

I've been thinking that the same kind of divisions might help to flesh out non-magical classes as well. What got me thinking about this specifically was looking at the barbarian class in Pathfinder, which, rather than raging X times per day (like in 3e), instead gets Y rounds of raging per day. I thought, wow, that sounds a lot like the stamina point system Mustrum Ridcully has a thread about. Maybe, rather than trying to reinvent the fighter class, we should be adapting the barbarian to use those stamina points.

So here's a sample Barbarian class:

HP: d12; HD: d12

Class abilities:

Level 1: Stamina Points. Your maximum Stamina Points is equal to your CON modifier + your class level. They recharge to full when you take a LONG rest.

Level 1: Rage.On your turn, you can spend a stamina point to start raging. While raging, you get +6 Str and +6 Con, but cannot do anything that requires concentration. You must spend another stamina point at the beginning of each subsequent turn to keep raging. You also stop raging when you are knocked unconscious. When you stop raging for any reason, you are Winded until you take a SHORT rest. (While Winded, you get disadvantage on all rolls, have your speed reduced by 50%, and can't start raging again.)

Level 2: Barbarian Technique. At 2nd level and every other even-numbered level, you may learn one of the following barbarian techniques, which use your stamina points to give you added power. Unless noted in the description, you do NOT have to be raging to use these abilities.

Quick Recovery (1 stamina): As a reaction, you recover instantly from being Winded after raging.

Brutal Strike (1 stamina): While raging, declare before making an attack roll to add an extra weapon die of damage to that attack.

Uncanny Dodge (1 stamina): Use as a reaction when an opponent is making an attack with advantage to take away their advantage.

Uncanny Senses (1 stamina): Grants advantage on one saving throw.

Beatdown (2 stamina): Get one extra action as part of your turn while raging.

Backswing (1 stamina): Use after you miss in melee to immediately make another attack against the same target.

Blood Valor (1-5 stamina): While raging, gain 1d8 temporary HP per stamina point used. These hit points vanish when the rage ends; if the loss would otherwise drop you below 1 HP, you stay at 1HP instead.

...and so on. The idea is that we get a class with the same ability to "nova" that a wizard has, in a way that (maybe) (I hope) doesn't piss off everyone who likes simple fighters. After all, this is pretty much a streamlined version of the powers barbarians had in 3e.

I think other non-caster classes might benefit from the same type of variation in mechanics. For example, I've always thought of rangers as sort of Batman-esque, always doing best when prepared specifically for each encounter. Maybe this could translate into more 4e-style "encounter" abilities for rangers?

 

[Ahnehnois]

This sounds like a really inappropriate idea for the barbarian concept. The barbarian is supposed to cater to players who are just interested in smashing things, who do just want to say "I attack" every turn, and who don't want to have to track a lot of resources. I am not a fan of 3e rage uses/day or barbarian rage points, and I don't think this idea is appropriate.

A similar idea might work better for the monk or another martial class.

Mechanical variation is good.

 

[Serendipity]

Not in any way interested in a barbarian class that has rage as a primary or core feature.
And not interested in 'helping people nova' either, as pointlessly blowing your resources in a single setting is, to me, a sign of poor play.
HOWEVER, the notion of stamina points for the barbarian (or other classes possibly) is an interesting one.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

This sounds like a really inappropriate idea for the barbarian concept. The barbarian is supposed to caster to players who are just interested in smashing things, who do just want to say "I attack" every turn, and who don't want to have to track a lot of resources. I am not a fan of 3e rage ruses/day or barbarian rage points, and I don't think this idea is appropriate.

A similar idea might work better for the monk or another martial class.

Mechanical variation is good.

I see where you're coming from on the barbarian, but without rage (as a use-limited mechanic) I'm not sure what defines the D&D barbarian, and this system certainly seems no less elegant than previous iterations.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think +6 Str and +6 Con is a no-no. Better make it something like +x to attack or damage.

I think that the Barbarian's shtick is Rage. I wonder what other people think it should be then?

The 3E Barbarian also had Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense, for example. So maybe more abilities regarding evasion/dodging and shrugging off damage?

 

[Serendipity]

I think that the Barbarian's shtick is Rage. I wonder what other people think it should be then?

Websters defines barbarian as :

of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people

However I think their list of synonyms tells the real story -

savage, barbaric, barbarous, heathen, heathenish, natural, Neanderthal (or Neandertal), rude, uncivil, uncivilized, uncultivated, wild

In a more specific context, barbarian to me is a culture somewhere shy of "civilized" (meaning cities, guilds, and all that medieval rot) that still lives off the land, may or may not be nomadic, likely organizes itself (at best) in clans or tribes, yet has some rudimentary technical knowledge while not having industry or large scale agriculture. (In short, more a ranger than a barbarian).

Nothing in there says berserker to me, sorry. Not that there's anything wrong with a berserker as a character notion or idea, but it's NOT the same thing as a barbarian. While I don't necessarily think the next edition needs a barbarian class (at all, actually) if there must be one, and it follows the whole rage thing, I hope they call it what it is, which is a berserker. Hopefully such a class would then get a tighter focus to make it the best berserking fighter it could possibly be, maybe with various triggers necessary to set the rage off (which I suppose you could get full builds out of if you liked).

The last barbarian class I thought was at all worth the name was the 1e version in unearthed arcana, overpowered as it was. Though I question the necessity of a barbarian (as I'm describing it) as a class, as it seems more appropriate to me as a theme.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What was the Unearthed Arcana Barbarian then?

The problem I see is that the Barbarian definition from Webster doesn't really seem to create a class to me.
The synonyms seems to have room for "Rage", as it also contains the word "savage" and "wild". Of course the class shtick shouldn't only be raging, but also the parts where it's "natural" and uncivilized. "heathen" may bring an interesting aspet into it, it would imply no fealty to the recognized gods and instead to minor dieites or sprits. (Which reminds me of 4E Barbarians and Primal classes with their relationship to Primal Spirits).

I think in combat he'd rage, and outside of combat he would be excellent in climbing, running, swimming (all stuff the Fighter also can do), foraging (Fighter isn't particularly good there but the Ranger is) and all that stuff. And he may also pray to spirits for guidance and aid (which is something he'd only share with a Druid or Shaman, I think).

 

[Serendipity]

What was the Unearthed Arcana Barbarian then?
The problem I see is that the Barbarian definition from Webster doesn't really seem to create a class to me.

You'll note that I am not advocating for it to be a class.
In 1e the barbarian was a super overpowered wilderness warrior type (better at doing wildernessy stuff by FAR than the ranger) that had a VAST passel of wilderness related skills (that the rangers, I might point out, did not have) got bonuses for not wearing armor, had higher strength and double the bonuses from a high con etc etc.
They were also restricted in use of magic items (to a point) and associating with wizardly types until higher levels (which I think everyone disregarded). They also (at high levels) had the ability to generate once a year a barbarian horde of several hundred of their people to take out a specific target or perform a specific task. I think their initial weapon load out was restricted to their originating culture but this being first edition, this required a GM to actually do the work.
In short, it was an absolutely broken (as was a lot of stuff from that book) sort of super ranger BUT it represented what a barbarian actually is far better than any incarnation since.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You'll note that I am not advocating for it to be a class.
In 1e the barbarian was a super overpowered wilderness warrior type (better at doing wildernessy stuff by FAR than the ranger) that had a VAST passel of wilderness related skills (that the rangers, I might point out, did not have) got bonuses for not wearing armor, had higher strength and double the bonuses from a high con etc etc.
They were also restricted in use of magic items (to a point) and associating with wizardly types until higher levels (which I think everyone disregarded). They also (at high levels) had the ability to generate once a year a barbarian horde of several hundred of their people to take out a specific target or perform a specific task. I think their initial weapon load out was restricted to their originating culture but this being first edition, this required a GM to actually do the work.
In short, it was an absolutely broken (as was a lot of stuff from that book) sort of super ranger BUT it represented what a barbarian actually is far better than any incarnation since.

The ideas (minus the superpoweredness*) sound interesting to me, though.

Barbarian is probably a little worse as a class name then Fighter. But I think that's just something we have to live with, so I can deal with it being its own class.

*) It's all a matter of power relation. I think it's fine if a Barbarian can call in a horde of warriors at high level, similar to how it's okay to summon some creatures. Less okay in my mind is the idea of outperforming the Ranger in outdoor survival related things. Equal ability is okay, maybe with the Ranger being the better tracker and hunter while the Barbarian better at fast and long-distance travel.

Summon Barbarian Horde (Level 13 Barbarian Feature)
You contact local barbarian trades and rally them to your cause
The Barbarian can spend 7 Stamina to gather a force of warriors from clans. This may take several days, depending on the distance to the nearest barbarian tribes and clans.
Each day the Barbarian devotes to gathering his force, he must spend the Stamina. Once has gathered the force, he can direct it do his bidding, but each day they fight for his cause, he must also spend Stamina to retain control. The Horde consists of (Charisma + Strength + Constitution + Wisdom) (Score, not modifier) + class level levels of warriors (mooks), with the highest level not exceeding 7+STR or CHA (modifier) for any individual warrior). Should the Barbarian fall on the battlefield, he loses control of the Horde. He can spend (once concious again) to regain control, requiring 7 Stamina.
The Barbarian may still need to negoitate with the horde he gathers - they usually expect loot and treasure. He has advantage on all checks involving the negotiations.

 

[ComradeGnull]

The trouble with Barbarian as low-culture warrior is that it both stomps all over the niche of the Ranger, and that giving a particular cultural level a class of its own is kind of at odds with the rest of the class structure. A Wizard from an Iron Age culture is not one class and a Renaissance wizard another; one may have a much better quality spellbook (made from paper and decent ink rather than a bunch of leaves and some pig blood), but their core mechanisms- spells, hit dice/points, saves, BAB, etc., are the same. 'Guy from a primitive culture' isn't in need of its own class- themes and backgrounds can establish things like that quite easily. For better or worse, 'Barbarian' has become associated with a berserker archetype- as a result, I'm quite happy to tell Webster and Roget to take a flying leap and keep the class centered around berserking as a core mechanism.