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

[Mistwell]

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.
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.

Barbarians are in the upper half of ACs typically. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but they don't mesh with any guides or pregens or anything I've seen.

Plus, you're simultaneously arguing immortals and best target to choose to attack. It's a mutually exclusive position. Either they are not killable and therefore intelligent targets wouldn't target them, or they are worth attacking 90% of the time. Pick a position.

 

[CTurbo]

I think intelligent creatures usually want to take the Cleric and/or Paladin out first from what I've seen.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Barbarians are in the upper half of ACs typically. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but they don't mesh with any guides or pregens or anything I've seen.

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.

Plus, you're simultaneously arguing immortals and best target to choose to attack. It's a mutually exclusive position. Either they are not killable and therefore intelligent targets wouldn't target them, or they are worth attacking 90% of the time. Pick a position.

As far as the enemies are concerned, the barbarian might not be immortal. At least you're actually hitting and dealing damage to the barbarian. Nobody can just keep taking hits forever, right? Neither the paladin nor the barbarian are actually invincible, but the barbarian at least appears to be getting hurt.

I guess some of that might come down to how you describe damage, which is expected to vary between tables; but all of my experience across multiple tables and editions is in agreement that you know whether or not you hit or miss, and whether or not the damage from a successful attack was resisted.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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?"

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Oh, right, you're the guy who thinks it's possible/desirable to always know "what a character would do" in a given situation.

As Mistwell points out, the smart monsters would therefore avoid attacking the guy who can't be killed.

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.

Where on earth do you get 10%/90%? If the Barbarian is a point or two behind the Fighter/Paladin, those percentages should be 5 or 10% apart.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Oh, right, you're the guy who thinks it's possible/desirable to always know "what a character would do" in a given situation.

I'm not going to apologize for assuming that you would want to role-play in a role-playing game. If you're working from a different premise, then you need to declare that from the start.

Where on earth do you get 10%/90%? If the Barbarian is a point or two behind the Fighter/Paladin, those percentages should be 5 or 10% apart.

In my experience, the Paladin is far more than two points ahead in terms of AC. Maybe it's closer to 70/15, but even a five-point AC disparity would go a long way after you factor in advantage and disadvantage, and the enemies don't have a ton of time to gather data before they need to start acting on it. If the first wave of attacks bounce ineffectually off of the paladin's armor, but manage to sink into the barbarian's flesh, then that's more than enough information to form a battle plan.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not going to apologize for assuming that you would want to role-play in a role-playing game. If you're working from a different premise, then you need to declare that from the start.

Clearly you misunderstand my point. I'm simply doubting that you, or the DMs you imagine, are as good at roleplaying (by your definition of it) as you claim to be. I'm skeptical that in your attempts to determine "what a character would do" in any given situation you are able to do so without your own personality and thoughts getting in the way. Let alone a DM doing that for all the NPCs he/she controls.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Clearly you misunderstand my point. I'm simply doubting that you, or the DMs you imagine, are as good at roleplaying (by your definition of it) as you claim to be. I'm skeptical that in your attempts to determine "what a character would do" in any given situation you are able to do so without your own personality and thoughts getting in the way. Let alone a DM doing that for all the NPCs he/she controls.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't try, though.

In any case, that's tangential to the point at hand, which is that I think you're losing out on a lot by not standing around in melee and getting hit. It's better if nobody is getting hit, of course, but there are likely to be enough situations where you would want to stay in melee, that there are better alternatives to this feat. Based on my history and experience with barbarians across twenty levels, YMMV, etc.

 

[jgsugden]

Clearly you misunderstand my point. I'm simply doubting that you, or the DMs you imagine, are as good at roleplaying (by your definition of it) as you claim to be.

... and that is why you fail.

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.

 

[Les Moore]

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.

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.