D&D (2024) Barbarian (Playtest 7)

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Enter a rage and continuously extend it with your bonus action, for up to 10 minutes?

Yes. Barbarians are already limited in their number of daily rages, so it's definitely kept on a short leash. But, because Rage gives you advantage on Str checks, and Primal Knowledge turns a few skills into Str checks, the combo of using higher stat + advantage is pretty hefty for when you do want it.

The default way of using both to your advantage would be to Rage first, then stealth into combat, which certainly gives Barbarians a niche, but definitely might not fit a lot of concepts. Surprise becomes the middle name of orc barbarian hordes, kind of a thing.

 

[Stalker0]

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

The bonus action for rage (frankly all the prereqs to stay in rage other than unconscious) has always been a question mark for me. The barb is often portrayed as a very simple class, and I've never understood the bookeeping needed here. I guess WOTC considers rage without some requirement to maintain it very OP or something, because its even a high level ability that you can "stay in rage without dealing damage or using a bonus action".

I would have expected them to at least try just allowing rage straight up, no maintenance required, in a playtest by now. Especially now since we are clearly moving away from "I am hulking out" to "I am channeling primal power". So the idea you need to constantly either bash things in or do some bonus action "something" to maintain it is a bit weird now.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

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

But this only applies in a state of supernatural enhancement induced by Primal Power. Ao the normal rules of the universe have been hacked.

 

[mamba]

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.

agreed, but the first step is to scare / intimidate them, and that is where the Hill Giant has a distinct advantage over the first level Bard. If you fail that part already, the rest does not matter…

What is the Bard going to do? Threaten to sing an awful song badly and with an out of tune lute?

The difference is in how the check fails. For the Hill Giant, the people run away screaming instead of doing what he wanted, for the Bard they laugh at him and point fingers

 

[FitzTheRuke]

agreed, but the first step is to scare / intimidate them, and that is where the Hill Giant has a distinct advantage over the first level Bard. If you fail that part already, the rest does not matter…

What is the Bard going to do? Threaten to sing an awful song badly and with an out of tune lute?

The difference is in how the check fails. For the Hill Giant, the people run away screaming instead of doing what he wanted, for the Bard they laugh at him and point fingers

I usually assume that the Bard threatens to have his buddy the Barbarian break your kneecaps, while the Barbarian stands there looking menacing. The Barbarian, in this case, is a passive part of the threat, the same way a cliff would be (that you threaten to drop them off).

 

[Amrûnril]

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:

• 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.
• 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.

 

[Incenjucar]

agreed, but the first step is to scare / intimidate them, and that is where the Hill Giant has a distinct advantage over the first level Bard. If you fail that part already, the rest does not matter…

What is the Bard going to do? Threaten to sing an awful song badly and with an out of tune lute?

The difference is in how the check fails. For the Hill Giant, the people run away screaming instead of doing what he wanted, for the Bard they laugh at him and point fingers

The whole point of intimidation is being able to convince someone you're even scarier than you appear. I've made my own mother jump back in fear by using a creepy demon laugh just to show off my vocal range - accidental successful intimidation check.

 

[mamba]

I usually assume that the Bard threatens to have his buddy the Barbarian break your kneecaps, while the Barbarian stands there looking menacing.

so you are intimidating with STR after all

 

[mamba]

The whole point of intimidation is being able to convince someone you're even scarier than you appear.

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