Barbarian with Mobile and GWM Feats: as cool as it seems?

[BookBarbarian]

How about it's a bit like buying a Jeep but never going off-road?

That doesn't seem too unrealistic given all the Soccer Moms I see driving them in my neck of the (not) woods.

 

[jgsugden]

No, I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a fair response. Exaggerating for dramatic effect is fine, but in this case it's misleading. It's true that Barbarians are good at soaking damage, and that if some of the time I'm running in and out of range then I'm not optimizing that ability for the good of the party.

But your analogy made it sound like I was ripping the guts out of the class, and not utilizing their main asset. Perhaps if I were playing a Rogue who was not going to use a finesse weapon (and thus never get Sneak Attack) or a Wizard who was only going to cast rituals, then the "$500k sports car for errands" analogy would be appropriate.

You're obviously completely right. My analogy was like a hamster being used as a Star Vessel to make lunch for Ioun Stones. It was entirely present.

As I have now performed the most heinous crime possible against another being by saying something about a game that they thought was excessive, I will now ... uhhh well, I'm just going to start to wonder why, if resilience and the ability to endure damage is not a core element of the class, the barbarian has so many resilient features like Unarmored Defense, Resistance while Raging, d12 HD, and Danger Sense... in the first 2 levels.

All in all, my analogy seems like the most perfect, precise and psedo-literally accurate hyperbole ever spoken.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But your analogy made it sound like I was ripping the guts out of the class, and not utilizing their main asset.

That's certainly how it seems to me. The barbarian's main job is to get hit, because you're invincible, and it's better for the enemies to attack you rather than anyone else. Their secondary ability is to make it seem like a good idea for enemies to attack you, by giving them advantage when they do it.

Contrast that with an offensive-based class, like the paladin, which discourages enemies from attacking them by having a high AC.

 

[Mistwell]

That's certainly how it seems to me. The barbarian's main job is to get hit, because you're invincible, and it's better for the enemies to attack you rather than anyone else. Their secondary ability is to make it seem like a good idea for enemies to attack you, by giving them advantage when they do it.

Contrast that with an offensive-based class, like the paladin, which discourages enemies from attacking them by having a high AC.

Your assumptions about the purpose of each class don't really mesh with what I've seen, and seem overly simplistic and inflexible. 5e isn't a game where each class has some specified role. Barbarians and Paladins don't have a built in combat "job" in my experience.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Your assumptions about the purpose of each class don't really mesh with what I've seen, and seem overly simplistic and inflexible. 5e isn't a game where each class has some specified role. Barbarians and Paladins don't have a built in combat "job" in my experience.

I'm sure that perspective varies based on experience. In my experience, though, an enemy who has a choice between a high-AC paladin and a low-AC barbarian will target the barbarian nine times out of ten; and even if every attack goes against the barbarian, they will still survive, because barbarians are effectively invincible. Doubly so if it's a high-level barbarian, who imposes disadvantage on attack rolls made against other targets.

Even though 5E lacks codified party roles, the mechanics still work together to promote certain outcomes over others.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm sure that perspective varies based on experience. In my experience, though, an enemy who has a choice between a high-AC paladin and a low-AC barbarian will target the barbarian nine times out of ten; and even if every attack goes against the barbarian, they will still survive, because barbarians are effectively invincible. Doubly so if it's a high-level barbarian, who imposes disadvantage on attack rolls made against other targets.

Even though 5E lacks codified party roles, the mechanics still work together to promote certain outcomes over others.

Creatures of low intelligence tend to attack whatever last attacked them or pissed them off the most in my experience. Creatures of high intelligence tend to attack the most vulnerable and know what Barbarians can do with respect to resisting damage. Creatures between those two depend on which creature and the situation and whether their "leader" is being threatened and whether there is some spell caster to reach and such varied considerations. If you're finding a 9 times out of 10 situation because "Barbarian has low AC", that sounds like a DM'ing issue to me. There should be no such automatic assumption for creatures in this game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In my experience, though, an enemy who has a choice between a high-AC paladin and a low-AC barbarian will target the barbarian nine times out of ten.

You say that as if the enemies are sentient. The DM is making the choice. Maybe you play with a DM who just likes to target Barbarians over Paladins.

If the enemies are smart enough to target the guy with less armor, they will probably be smart enough to realize they're not hurting him very badly.

(EDIT: What Mistwell said.)

As an aside, this makes me think of an experience I had in an AL game, where a ghoul was beating on our rogue, so I moved my Paladin (with Sentinel) next to them at the end of my turn, figuring that the ghoul would continue beating on the rogue, provoking an AoO from me. Instead the DM had the ghoul attack me. It hit, I failed my save, things went south.

 

[jaelis]

You say that as if the enemies are sentient. The DM is making the choice. Maybe you play with a DM who just likes to target Barbarians over Paladins.

If the enemies are smart enough to target the guy with less armor, they will probably be smart enough to realize they're not hurting him very badly.

(EDIT: What Mistwell said.)

As an aside, this makes me think of an experience I had in an AL game, where a ghoul was beating on our rogue, so I moved my Paladin (with Sentinel) next to them at the end of my turn, figuring that the ghoul would continue beating on the rogue, provoking an AoO from me. Instead the DM had the ghoul attack me. It hit, I failed my save, things went south.

What you get for not playing an elf.

 

[jgsugden]

At least we all finally agree that barbarians are there to be damage sponges and building them as hit and run specialists is immoral, unethical, wrong, unconscionable, base, iniquitous, and no big deal.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You say that as if the enemies are sentient. The DM is making the choice.

It's a role-playing game, so the enemies are sentient. They make decisions based on their own observations and internal logic, as the DM interprets it.

If your DM is meta-gaming, and having the enemies attack whoever the DM wants rather than whoever they think the enemy would want, then you have far worse problems than choosing which feat to take.

If the enemies are smart enough to target the guy with less armor, they will probably be smart enough to realize they're not hurting him very badly.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather take the 90% chance of hitting for half damage than the 10% chance of hitting for full damage.