I think Barbarians should be strikers, or maybe even controllers

happyelf

First Post
Just an errant thought, but i've been thinking of the as yet unmentioned classes, and wether they may fit in a niche other than the one we might assume.

It seems likely at least on the surface that the Barbarian would be a defender, like the fighter or paladin. They're a front-line fighter, after all. But I honestly think they'd fuction better as a striker, dealing large amounts of damage and being more manuverable as they charge around the battlefield like the beserk lunatics we all know they should be.

But taking it futher, i'm wondering if they could be a controller instead, like a wizard. While it might seem odd to think of a barbarian as comparable to a wizard, when you think about it a really hell-for leather barbarian rampage might be best depicted in the rules by area effect attacks, status effects, and the ability to move foes around. You could easily imagine a barb charging into a swarm of goblins, bowling them over, sliacing a few at a time, while he hefts one up by the throat and hurls it into a chasm.

Maybe a barb's at-will attack could alllow them to slide one foe or themself on a successful attack, while their daily could be an AE melee attack as they swing their blade around in a frenzy. Obviously they would not have the range of otehr controllers, but if anything that's a good way to render them more versatile.

I guess they could have some of this flavour as a defender, but i think the niche would prevent them from rampaging around as much as they should be. OTOH a striker doesn't have the right potential for mayhem IMO.

Does anyone have any other thoughts like this?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think they will make the druid as the only primal class, due to the enormous influence of WoW. We will therefore have:

Druid in Bear form: Primal Defender
Druid in Cat form: Primal Striker
Druid casting spells: Primal Controller
Druid healing and buffing with spells: Primal leader

See, no need for the barbarian anymore, one less class to worry about.

;)
 

Jack99 said:
I think they will make the druid as the only primal class, due to the enormous influence of WoW.

Not to get into the whole WoW argument (there's another thread for that), but Races and Classes already revealed that the Barbarian will be a Primal class. Barbarians will be to Druids as Paladins are to Clerics.
 

I actually think they could go a whole different route with this and answer the critics of the "barbarian" class name. They could make a barbarian "rager" who is the 3e barbarian, then make a barbarian "shaman" who is a leader, and other barbarian themed classes for the other roles (this is just off the cuff).

Interesting.

Thaumaturge.
 

The 3E barbarian is a striker. He does lots of damage, but because of low AC, temporary nature of rage and constantly being in melee, needs a lot of propping up to stay in the fight.

Whether this is true to the underlying archetype is debatable. You could argue that a "real" barbarian should be the guy who's fighting from dawn to dusk, untiring, covered with the blood of his foes, yadda yadda. Stamina and toughness is as big a part of this archetype as is raw damage output. In turn, this suggests the barbarian should be a defender since they're the guys meant to soak damage. (Defenders don't need to have low damage output.)
 

Jack99 said:
I think they will make the druid as the only primal class, due to the enormous influence of WoW. We will therefore have:

Druid in Bear form: Primal Defender
Druid in Cat form: Primal Striker
Druid casting spells: Primal Controller
Druid healing and buffing with spells: Primal leader

See, no need for the barbarian anymore, one less class to worry about.

;)

Make it equivalent and in some cases better than the dedicated class for that role, and it'll be just like WoW! ;)

Seriously, there should be some sort of gaming maxim based off of trends seen in 3.5, WoW and several other notable PnP and CRPG sources: When in doubt, PLAY A DRUID.

Fobok said:
Not to get into the whole WoW argument (there's another thread for that), but Races and Classes already revealed that the Barbarian will be a Primal class. Barbarians will be to Druids as Paladins are to Clerics.

I think you missed Jack's ;) to indicate sarcasm. :)
 

Personally, my vision of the barbarian is a brawler, standing tall in the center of about 10 enemies, beating on them all at once, and as they try to run away, grabbing them back the back of the neck and throwing them into the pile of foes so that he can beat on them some more. He's probably laughing while he does this.

That's a Defender all the way.

He might be a defender with a lower AC and higher damage output compared to a Fighter, but that doesn't make him no longer a defender. Besides, there are other ways to be durable besides AC. Lots of hit points will do it. In 3e, this didn't work so well because having lots of hit points and a low AC basically just made you a bigger drain on the party cleric, but since healing surges (and therefore healing magic) are now proportional to the recipient instead of the caster, this will be a more viable strategy.
 



That is how I see the Barbarian in 4E, but I've been wrong before...

Power Source: Primal
Role: Hybrid
Armor: Clothes or Hides
Favorite Weapons: Two-Handed

His primary role should be the defender (sticky as a warrior)
His secondary role should the one of a leader

Enrages when bloodied (gives bonus in combat)
Different Warcries (affect enemies in combat)
 

Remove ads

Top