D&D (2024) Barbarian (Playtest 7)

[Incenjucar]

I disagree, it is not about appearing more intimidating than you are, it is about appearing sufficiently intimidating to get what you want, whether you actually are or not. That is where being intimidating helps with this

Being intimidating is Cha, being scary is different.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Intimidation is just a really weird skill, if you start poking at it.

 

[Parmandur]

Intimidation is just a really weird skill, if you start poking at it.

You might want to be careful about pokikg it, I understand it can get violent if pushed too far.

 

[Kinematics]

After UA 5, I made a spreadsheet to examine the impact of the changes on damage potential. I made it primary against target AC because I was most interested in the scaling effects of the changes to the Great Weapon Master feat compared to the new versions.

As that's kind of all been resolved, I've rewritten it to see the scaling across levels. I did check with varying base accuracy levels, but the curve's shape remains pretty much the same throughout, so I'm not worried about that side of things. I used a base accuracy value of 60% (ie: succeed when you roll an 9 or better) to match with Treantmonk's and others' assumptions on their estimations, though I'd prefer a 65% base.

I set up four configurations. All comparisons assume Rage is always on, and Reckless Attacks is always used. This uses the Berserker subclass.

1. UA PAM: This uses a glaive (Graze mastery), and picks up Polearm Master at level 4, Great Weapon Master at level 8, and Charger at level 12. It starts at 17 Str, gets 18 at level 4 with PAM, and 20 at level 12 from the combination of GWM and Charger.
2. UA DW: This uses dual wielding, with two shortswords at level 1. At level 4 it picks up the Dual Wielder feat and changes the main weapon to some versatile d8 weapon. Charger is picked up at level 8, and level 12 caps Str at 20 using some undefined ASI or feat. It does not have the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style since that's no longer available as a 1st level feat.
3. UA BA: This uses a battleaxe in one hand, and a shield in the offhand. He's picked up Sentinel and Mage Slayer at levels 4 and 8, and Great Weapon Master at level 12 to cap off Str at 20. This isn't the best subclass for a more tanky-focused barbarian, but it can at least show where a one-handed build is at compared to the others.
4. UA GA: This uses a greataxe (Cleave mastery), and picks up Great Weapon Master at level 4. Level 8 just raises Str to 20, but using half-feats at 8 and 12 instead doesn't really change much.

As you can see, the curves are all quite similar, just offset a bit. The greataxe and dual wielding start off slightly better, with the glaive jumping up to join them at level 4. From level 5, PAM and GWM are pretty much on par until level 12, after which PAM pulls ahead.

At level 10, damage ranges from 32 to 48 DPR. At level 13, where Treantmonk likes to compare, it ranges from 47 to 67 DPR.

For reference, here's the damage curves with Reckless Attack turned off:

At level 10, the damage ranges from 15 to 30 DPR, and level 13 ranges from 22 to 42. Reckless Attack contributes about half of the Berserker's potential damage (though slightly less in the PAM build).

Putting aside the one-handed battleaxe build, the other builds put up respectable numbers and keep fairly close together.

Also, for the issue of Brutal Critical, I made a version where PAM got 0 from brutal critical across the board. You can see it drop from modestly above the greataxe in the upper levels (in the earlier image) to almost even with it. At level 20, it drops from 84 DPR to 77 without Brutal Critical, so Brutal Critical is about a 9% increase in total damage by the end. (NB: Flex was about 10%-12% increase in damage.)

 

[Incenjucar]

Intimidation is just a really weird skill, if you start poking at it.

In real life it's pretty complicated, as you can just be too ignorant of danger to recognize signs that should intimidate, like a dog thinking a cat is wagging its tail joyfully and not raging mad.

 

[deganawida]

You might want to be careful about pokikg it, I understand it can get violent if pushed too far.

“Don’t make me intimidate. You wouldn’t like me when I intimidate.”

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm a little unclear about the mechanics of primal knowledge. Rage normally happens in combat, so for doing out of combat checks you...what? Enter a rage and continuously extend it with your bonus action, for up to 10 minutes? This seems both clunky and a super poor use of rage. I feel like I must be misunderstanding how it works - what am I missing?

Why not take rage out of it and just say that barbarians can use strength for those checks all the time, because primal power yada yada?

No. It is a great use of rage. If the barbarian had those bonuses all of the time, you could as well just say: everyone just uses their highest modifier all of the time for everything, because yada yada.

Edit: of course, rage could just say: for 10 minutes you have following benefits. Just take all the ifs out.

I tend to agree with Clint on this. Using Rage only for the bonuses to your skills is a BAD usage of Rage. Every single thing that makes a Barbarian actually function in a fight is tied to Rage. You could try and argue Reckless Attack, but since that makes you easier to hit, a penalty only mitigated by Rage reducing incoming damage, it is still intrinsically tied to being able to rage.

And without rage... you just have extra attack and a high strength.

However, I also agree with UngeheurLich that being able to use it all the time is too much. I really want it to read "X times per short rest or while raging" so that the Barbarian can occassionally pull off these moments without wasting their key combat resource.

It is a fine line.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Thinking about my notes on intimidation, I realized a lot of us (myself included) wasn’t really thinking about what intimidation actually means in context of the game.

It’s not “are you scary”…you don’t need a check to look scary. It’s “can you use that fear to get the outcome you want”. Whether it’s making someone cower in front of you, or pulling out information, etc)

A failed intimidate doesn’t necessarily mean the person in question isn’t scared of you, but for one reason or another you could leverage it well.

Example; a hill giant failing an intimidate check to demand an item from a person might mean the person just runs away screaming…or falls to their knees and begs for their life…but still doesn’t actually give the hill giant what they wanted.

So under that context, strength for intimidate does still seem off.

This starts really mattering in WHAT you are intimidating for.

For example, if the Hill Giant screams "LEAVE!!" you aren't going to have the villagers falling over themselves to give him tribute. Intimidation is just one of the trickiest CHA skills, mechanically speaking.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The more I think about it, the less I like Primal Knowledge. While I can imagine scenarios where adding strength to a specific survival check, for instance, makes sense, allowing it to be used for any survival check seems nonsensical. I also think there are some structural issues worth considering, in addition to the thematic ones:

It is only as nonsensical as you force it to be. By drawing on primal power they are drawing on the ideas of animals. Tracking = stalking prey, Finding food and water, ect.

• This mechanic ties Barbarians to a fixed set of skills. Usually, when classes gain bonuses to skills (proficiency, expertise, battlemaster maneuvers, etc.) they can choose from a variety of skills to fit a diverse range of character concepts. Saying that every Barbarian (regardless of subclass, background etc.) has a bonus towards these same five skills seems like it's enforcing a very narrow conception of what a Barbarian can be.

I mean, a wizard getting a bonus to all Intelligence skills would be equally narrow by this definition. Yes, all Barbarians have greater than average skill in these five things. The only one that is a little weird is acrobatics, but it isn't even that strange as having good balance isn't a bad thing for even the biggest of brutes. Everything else flows naturally together.

• The focus on strength punishes non-standard ability score allocations. A Barbarian with exceptional constitution and merely above average strength, for example (or even one prioritizing wisdom or dexterity), seems like a concept the game should support, but by further codifying strength as the Barbarian's primary ability score, Primal Knowledge pushes such characters further from viability.

That character concept is perfectly fine? The only time when this ability prevents things is when you want Dex or Wis to be your highest stats, and um... Rage? Reckless Attack? Both of these incredibly strongly force Barbarians to focus on Strength over Dex. Adn the Barbarian with wisdom as their highest stat is... not a concept that works. You'd be a melee combatant with no skill in melee weapons.

 

[Clint_L]

I tend to agree with Clint on this. Using Rage only for the bonuses to your skills is a BAD usage of Rage. Every single thing that makes a Barbarian actually function in a fight is tied to Rage. You could try and argue Reckless Attack, but since that makes you easier to hit, a penalty only mitigated by Rage reducing incoming damage, it is still intrinsically tied to being able to rage.

And without rage... you just have extra attack and a high strength.

However, I also agree with UngeheurLich that being able to use it all the time is too much. I really want it to read "X times per short rest or while raging" so that the Barbarian can occassionally pull off these moments without wasting their key combat resource.

It is a fine line.

This is my thinking as well. I definitely see having it use up rage as being a non-starter for most players, maybe except for high levels when barbs no longer have to worry about rage that much. But at low-mid levels, where the game is mostly played, rage is just too integral to the class to be wasting it on a skill check. I mean, we can all imagine the occasional scenario where it might be worth it. But I think the reality is that most players will want to save their rages just in case, even on days where they don't expect a fight. So unless we want this to be a once-in-a-blue-moon ability, you have to make it worthwhile.

Compare to tactical mind, where you can decide to use it only when needed, and if it fails, the resource is not lost. That is design that encourages usage.

Why not just say that they can use primal awareness as many times as they have rages, recharging on a short or long rest (not sure which would make most sense)? It's too cool an ability to hamstring it by making it use up rage; a barbarian without rage is useless.