And the barbarian says RAAAAARRRHHH!

[Aiden_Keller_]

I 100% understand!

Thats why I have renamed mine a "Tactician" and it uses an ability called "Focus" instead of Rage...

I was also allowed to change the Strength and Constitution to Dexterity and Constitution and basically became a "Focused Ranger" with no spells.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I always felt that ''rage'' as a resource to spend over a day was strange. I would have preferred a system where the barbarian would accumulate ''wounds'' that would give the PC more strength as they build up, like an inverted exhaustion chart.

Something like:

Wounded fury:
The pain from your foes attacks fuel the mighty rage that burns within you. Each time you are hit for 5 damage or more, mark a level of fury. The levels of fury are cumulative and disappear after a minute if no other wounds are received.
1: Adv on str check.
2: Attack deals +2 damage
3: Gain resistance to B/S/P
4: deal +5 damage
5: gain a fear aura
6: Deal half-damage to every creatures within 5' after a hit.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would say that fits the historical\mythical berserker pretty well (except for the accuracy part). They were scary because they were hard to put down, even in situations where anyone else would be "this fight is going bad, time to make a break for it",

I hadn't thought of it that way.

To me, the image of an undying berserker is one who has taken arrows and axe blows beyond the point where they should be dead, but they're still up. And that image says, to me, that those hits are still fully effective. After all, if they were resisting the damage, then they wouldn't actually look like they should be dead yet. If someone of a given power level can normally absorb 100 damage before dying, then something spooky is going on if they've taken 130 and are still coming. But in this case, with resistance to damage, the berserker has only absorbed 50 damage, so they shouldn't be dead yet, and there's nothing spooky about that. The level 11 ability, where you reset to 1 when you would otherwise drop to zero, is a better reflection of that image.

That could just be a difference in how Hit Points work between editions, though. I still don't have a solid idea of exactly what Hit Point damage represents in 5E, to nearly the same degree as everything made sense in 3E.

It could also be a change in lore, though. I know that 4E added a magical aspect to barbarians, and some of that carried over to 5E, so maybe I'm imagining it wrong and they really are supposed to be possessed by a magical entity that protects them with a glowing energy barrier or something. That would explain the mechanics, in which case the only disconnect is that I'm picturing the wrong image.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Wiseblood]

he puts the laughter in slaughter.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would say that fits the historical\mythical berserker pretty well (except for the accuracy part). They were scary because they were hard to put down, even in situations where anyone else would be "this fight is going bad, time to make a break for it", and because it was assumed they were being possessed by spirits/gods/fiends, all of which were likely to bring you problems if you fought (or killed) them. Hitting hard was a pretty distant third. Except for some recent Incredible Hulk stuff (where Banner's subconscious was apparently doing all kinds of math so that the Hulk never killed anyone while rampaging), I am pretty sure no one has ever expressed any admiration for a berserker's accuracy.

This. The Viking Berserk were said to become immune to steel and fire when they entered their rage, and while these stories were obviously embellished, they almost certainly did enter some altered psychological state (though whether or not drugs were involved is hotly debated among scholars) wherein they were likely very unconcerned with pain, and the heightened adrenaline may well have made capable of performing seemingly superhuman feats of strength and endurance. Allegedly they went into battle naked, and they were still the most feared warriors on the battlefield (by both sides, since an enraged Berserk couldn’t tell ally from enemy.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I hadn't thought of it that way.

To me, the image of an undying berserker is one who has taken arrows and axe blows beyond the point where they should be dead, but they're still up. And that image says, to me, that those hits are still fully effective. After all, if they were resisting the damage, then they wouldn't actually look like they should be dead yet. If someone of a given power level can normally absorb 100 damage before dying, then something spooky is going on if they've taken 130 and are still coming. But in this case, with resistance to damage, the berserker has only absorbed 50 damage, so they shouldn't be dead yet, and there's nothing spooky about that. The level 11 ability, where you reset to 1 when you would otherwise drop to zero, is a better reflection of that image.

Damage resistance could as easily represent taking the full brunt of the attack while being only half as hampered by it as it could represent taking half the force of the attack. It’s just a game mechanic.

That could just be a difference in how Hit Points work between editions, though. I still don't have a solid idea of exactly what Hit Point damage represents in 5E, to nearly the same degree as everything made sense in 3E.

Hit points in 5e (in all editions, really, 5e is just more honest about it) are just handwavium that represent whatever they need to represent. They’re an abstract resource that tracks nothing more and nothing less than how many of themselves a character can lose before falling unconscious. Attacks and damage represent a nonspecific exchange of blows that one way or another result in the unconsciousness and possible death of characters whose hit points run out.

It could also be a change in lore, though. I know that 4E added a magical aspect to barbarians, and some of that carried over to 5E, so maybe I'm imagining it wrong and they really are supposed to be possessed by a magical entity that protects them with a glowing energy barrier or something. That would explain the mechanics, in which case the only disconnect is that I'm picturing the wrong image.

I’d call it preternatural. A barbarian, like a berserk, survives blows that would fell a lesser man. Is it the protection of his gods? His totem spirit? Is it the influence of drugs? Pure adrenaline? Nobody knows for sure. The berserk themselves certainly ascribe pseudo-religious spiritual significance to it. But what do they know? They’re just barbarians.

 

[Quickleaf]

Perhaps it’s my skewed perception from the DM side of things but...the Barbarian’s ability to rage feels off somehow.

It works fine, I guess. I don’t feel like it’s too strong or too weak. It just feels kind of, I don’t know.know, wrong. Uses per day and duration haven’t come up yet.

I like the idea of a barbarian as far as fanasy literature goes. Aside from an uncivilized warrior (RP wise) I haven’t been able to commit to a “Barbarian” class in any edition of D&D 5e being the version I currently use.

I can’t quite put my finger on what is causing this. Is there a question or cause that is obvious that I am missing?

When I've seen a Barbarian's Rage role-played, it almost invariably is a response to something the player is portraying their PC being vehemently opposed to. You ambushed my friend?! You stole my horse?! You called me a coward?! Etc. At the table it plays as something which could very well get triggered outside of your turn – in other words, like a Reaction (instead of a Bonus Action).

Another slight discrepancy is that "Angry" isn't the only adjective that applies to "Primitive Warrior Entering Altered States". A more representative "Rage" feature might be treated like Fighting Styles – you choose from a couple options which one you like. For example, going back to the roots of the AD&D Barbarian, they were highly resistant to magic & could see through illusions – that could be interpreted as a specific kind of altered state. Another might make you a better ambusher/faster, and so forth.

Also, I've on occasion seen a disconnect between the types of players attracted to playing a Barbarian and tracking book-keeping on # of Rages. Alternately, there could be stricter stipulations about when a Rage could be triggered, or what it takes to maintain a Rage, and get rid of # of Rages entirely. Make it unlimited...within specific strictures. You could add additional things that cause it to end. Or you could add an additionally downside (beyond not being able to cast spells), such as not being able to receive beneficial spells while Raging.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Damage resistance could as easily represent taking the full brunt of the attack while being only half as hampered by it as it could represent taking half the force of the attack. It’s just a game mechanic.

No, because damage interacts in specific ways with other system mechanics, such as healing. A character who is at 30/40 has objectively suffered twice the injury as one who is at 75/80, by at least one metric.

Hit points in 5e (in all editions, really, 5e is just more honest about it) are just handwavium that represent whatever they need to represent. They’re an abstract resource that tracks nothing more and nothing less than how many of themselves a character can lose before falling unconscious.

As with any game mechanic, it's only as abstract as you absolutely need it to be. Unfortunately, 5E pushes the line even further into unnecessary abstraction, such that now we can't even tell what's happening when someone gets hit. Third edition was significantly better, in this regard.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, because damage interacts in specific ways with other system mechanics, such as healing. A character who is at 30/40 has objectively suffered twice the injury as one who is at 75/80, by at least one metric.

Only if you assume the number of hit points restored represents something more specific than how many more of themselves the healed character can lose before falling unconscious.

As with any game mechanic, it's only as abstract as you absolutely need it to be. Unfortunately, 5E pushes the line even further into unnecessary abstraction, such that now we can't even tell what's happening when someone gets hit. Third edition was significantly better, in this regard.

Yeah, we're never going to agree about that.