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

[Mistwell]

A Meat Shield is a Meat Shield. There's no shame in it. Are Wizards embarrassed, when they conceal themselves at the back of a party? Heck no,
they serve a different purpose, is all. Own it, embrace it, what it is isn't bad. I'm just wrapping my head around the scene as it unfolds: Attack, attack, run away, maybe get chased, maybe not, if not, run back, attack, attack, run away, etc. {snirk}
And this is what the front-liners are doing? So the rest of the party runs behind you? In front of you? It sounds confusing, man.

Barbarian with 18 Con and 14 Dex and a shield has an AC of 18. Fighter or Paladin with plate armor and a two handed weapon has an AC of 18. Add a shield to the Fighter and their AC goes up two whole points, a 10% difference with respect to that d20 to hit. There is nothing inherent about a barbarian which dictates "meat shield" any more than there is anything about a Fighter or Paladin which dictates high AC. It's funny, I never see people call a Ranger a "meat shield' even though their ACs will likely be around the Barbarian's AC. Why isn't a Druid called a "meat shield" even though one form of them (the most popular form) has more hit points and a lower AC than the Barbarian?

Also, he specifically said all other roles are already filled so he is not "the front liner". Why are people crapping on this concept, it sounds fun and effective to me. Because it doesn't conform to what you expect?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's funny, I never see people call a Ranger a "meat shield' even though their ACs will likely be around the Barbarian's AC.

The Ranger's primary class feature is not to grant enemies Advantage on attacks made against them.

 

[Mistwell]

The Ranger's primary class feature is not to grant enemies Advantage on attacks made against them.

Nor is the Barbarians. That is definitely not their "primary class feature". Rage is their primary class feature. Reckless Attack is a much more particularized tactic for certain situations. Some people will build their Barbarian around that feature, much like some people will build any class around a particular feature of the class, but I don't think it's fair to generalize that every, or even most, Barbarian PCs are focused on reckless attacks.

Barbarians by the way also get Fast Movement and Feral Instincts. Totem Path: Eagle also makes it so that "other creatures have disadvantage on opportunity attack rolls against you, and you can use the Dash action as a bonus action on your turn." It eventually adds a Flying Speed to you as well. All of that feeds the proposed concept of running around a lot on the battle field rather than staying in place as some meat shield front line target.

I am not sure where this one dimensional view of the Barbarian is coming from, but it seems odd to me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Nor is the Barbarians. That is definitely not their "primary class feature". Rage is their primary class feature. Reckless Attack is a much more particularized tactic for certain situations.

That is a matter of perspective, but I've always felt that at-will abilities were more definitive than dailies. You can certainly disagree on that point, but it's still the origin of the argument, for why some people think that the Barbarian is a tank and the Ranger is not.

I mean, the Rage does also contribute to the tank argument, but there would be very little incentive for an enemy to attack the Barbarian if it was hard to hit and took half damage from attacks. Granting Advantage is kind of like the equivalent of a Taunt button.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I can only report based on what I've seen. If a barbarian has good Strength and Con, then they don't have much room left over for Dexterity, so their AC isn't going to break 20 anytime soon. Subpar AC, combined with advantage on all incoming attacks, and that's the formula for being targeted.

Below 20 is hardly sub par. 14 Dex is achievable with Point Buy and even Standard array. With Half-Plate that is 17 AC which is pretty dang respectable.

 

[BookBarbarian]

That is a matter of perspective, but I've always felt that at-will abilities were more definitive than dailies. You can certainly disagree on that point, but it's still the origin of the argument, for why some people think that the Barbarian is a tank and the Ranger is not.

I mean, the Rage does also contribute to the tank argument, but there would be very little incentive for an enemy to attack the Barbarian if it was hard to hit and took half damage from attacks. Granting Advantage is kind of like the equivalent of a Taunt button.

Reckless Attack is a great tanking tool. It's a huge hit me button. But that doesn't mean barbarians can't be effective at other things.

Just like a Rogue can use Expertise to become a fantastic grappler, despite that ability being more designed to make them better stealthy lock-pickers.

It's fun to think outside the box.

 

[Salthorae]

Every class has enough game mechanics over everything in their sheet that even if one implies a certain thing (like a d12 hit die implies high HP and should take attacks and hits)... there are more than enough other mechanics that can and will change the implied role of the character that has it.

Yes, a barbarian has a d12 for hit die, so it will have a good amount of HP. A rogue that takes the Durable and Toughness feats will also have large numbers of HP. But by the implication it seems many are saying, the automatic response to any rogues are "No, no, the rogue can't take hits! It should remain out of combat!", even if the rogue COULD use the rest of the mechanics in the game to adapt itself TO another role. The same way a barbarian CAN adapt itself to another role besides "Damage soaker", through the use of feats like the OP has suggested.

And also, let's just be honest here-- why would any of us bother telling others the most obvious of statements and recommend that the player play that character exactly the same way as 95% of all other players do, in a default mode that the game already explicitly defines for us? What exactly it the point of that? Especially for players for whom it appears pretty obvious they already know how the game is played and don't need "newbie help"?

"I'm thinking of doing X! Anything I should know or think about doing X?"
"No, you shouldn't do X. The default way to play that character is Y."
"Really? That's your advice? Wow. Thanks so much for repeating what the Player's Handbook already says. Big help there! Now... does anyone else have anything to say about playing X so I can actually have some meaningful advice to use?"

This!

A Bladesinger with the Tough feat is going to have d10 avg hit points and for at least 2 combats a day will have that same 18 (mage armor +2 dex +3 Int) to 23 (mage armor + 5 dex + 5 Int) AC depending on stats and that is before shield!

Don’t tell them they can’t stand in the front line and also drop a fireball on the back line if they want to...

 

[jgsugden]

A barbarian has features that can be used to make a hit and run PC. However, avoiding being attacked means you're not taking advantage of the high hit points, highish AC, or the damage resistance. You paid for the features by choosing the class, but you're trying not to use them. You can make that choice, but any sane, rational, sensible, reasonable, intelligent person will not care what you're doing. Unless your PC is in a party with my PC, because very few of my PCs would pass on the opportunity to mock the cowardly barbarian. Can you please make the PC a Tabaxi?

 

[Salthorae]

A barbarian has features that can be used to make a hit and run PC. However, avoiding being attacked means you're not taking advantage of the high hit points, highish AC, or the damage resistance. You paid for the features by choosing the class, but you're trying not to use them. You can make that choice, but any sane, rational, sensible, reasonable, intelligent person will not care what you're doing. Unless your PC is in a party with my PC, because very few of my PCs would pass on the opportunity to mock the cowardly barbarian. Can you please make the PC a Tabaxi?

It seems like people on this thread don’t realize that there are other ideas and concepts for barbarians than a Bear Totem version.

There are at least 4 other totem options that allow for mobility and movement and pack tactics over just being a damage absorber. And that is just ONE subclass.

Don’t give someone a hard time for wanting to do a different barbarian and tell them how they’re not doing it right.

That is a meta game optimized POV, characters in the game should be free to be whatever the heck someone wants to make them without being told they are wrong.

 

[Guest 6801328]

... and that is why you fail.

Insults? I didn't realize we had crossed that threshold (already).

Might I suggest listening to Critical Role, a great podcast where voice actors play D&D. In it, there are a lot of situations in which the DM does exactly the type of thing we discuss.

No DM (except me) is perfect. However, you're a better DM if you try to do the right things.

Clearly you have likewise completely failed to comprehend the point, if you think that "voice actors" have anything to do with it.

Saelorn claimed that adversaries are sentient beings. Like, literally claimed they are sentient. Here, I'll quote:

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

Not, "they are imaginary representations of sentient beings" or whatever. No, the enemies are sentient.

But here's the end of the quote:

...as the DM interprets it.

Right. That's the point. You can imagine all day long what you think somebody would do in a situation, but ultimately it is the player or DM thinking they know what that would be. And there's no right answer to the question: it's what the player or DM thinks the character would do.

(As an aside, the way Saelorn describes it sounds particularly uninteresting to me. I don't care what a generic wood-elf would do in a given situation. I'm interested in what this unique, flawed, adventurous wood-elf is going to do. Hopefully something unexpected. Great stories happen when people do things you DON'T expect them to do. Like a timid Hobbit charging giant spiders. Or a Jedi master intentionally dropping his guard. But I digress.)

Anyway, let's tie this back to the topic of Barbarians and their "job". We ended up arguing about roleplaying because of the claim that enemies would choose their targets in certain ways. As if that is, or should be, a predictable thing, and that therefore Barbarians are meant to be played a specific way, in a specific role.

I call horse$#!+ on the whole enterprise. Your DM chooses targets not because monsters "would do that in this situation", but because your DM believes monsters would do that, or maybe because he just thinks it makes for a better story. There is no such thing as what these imaginary monsters would do; it's all in your (or your DM's) head. So to start with the premise that you know what they would do, and then conclude with how to properly play a Barbarian, is just....nutty.

And, um, yeah...none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the quality of the voice acting. You, sir, are the one who fails.