I think Barbarians should be strikers, or maybe even controllers

[Mad Mac]

By that logic people are using we could call pretty much anything a defender. I mean is a wizard who uses a lot of walls a defender, too? I think people are stuck on the idea that front line fighter=defender but that's only going to lead to a dull situation where each role is dominated by variations on the same archetypes.

It's more complicated than that. Controllers and Strikers are designed to be squishy. A glass-jawed Barbarian would go against archtype. Unless you want to make him a tough-as-nails aoe damage machine, which would be overpowered.

I like the idea of making the Barbarian a great crowd-control class, but functionally a guy who jumps into a pile of goblins and knocks them all flying still seems closer to fighter than a wizard, in terms of role.

A 'hands on' controller is a cool idea and a good alternative take on the niche.

It's an interesting idea, but that doesn't make Barbarian the best class for the job.

 

[Chucklesnj]

I gotta admit, i reviewed the definitions of controllers and defenders in Races & Classes and now I am not sure which one our hypothetical goblin-thrashing machine would fall into.

DEFENDER: A character with high defenses and high hit points. This is the character you want getting in front of monsters and absorbing their attacks...... Ideally, a defender ought to have some sort of abilities that make him "sticky" - in other words, a defender should be difficult to move past or ignore so that he can do his job.

CONTROLLER: A character who specializes in locking down multiple foes at once, usually at range. This involves inflicting damages or hindering conditions on multiple targets....... Controllers sacrifice defense for offense, they want to concentrate on taking down the enemy as quickly as possible while staying a safe distance from them.

So, assuming we are dealing with a lightly-armored individual with lots of hit points who can control multiple monsters at once, then that class doesn't really fit either role, it is a tweener. I would argue he is closer to a controller than a defender, but i think either argument is valid.

Of course, this is all pure speculation, just because Barbarians were that way in Iron Heroes doesn't mean they can't be something else in 4e, but speculation is fun.

 

[catsclaw]

Striker: A character who deals very high damage to one target at a time, either in melee or at range. This is the job we want to move the rogue toward-when she positions herself for a sneak attack and uses her best attack powers, she deals some of the highest damage in the game. Strikers need mobility to execute their lethal attacks and get away from enemies trying to lock them down.

Lets see--high damage, check. Mobility, check. Lower defenses, check.

I'd love to see a Barbarian as a striker. Wade into combat and do massive amounts of damage, but not be able to take the hits like a fighter. Abilities could be things like "Tough it Out" (immediate reaction when hit, get resist weapon/10 against that hit), "Bellow" (standard, all enemies adjacent to you have -5 to hit you until the end of your next turn), and "Uncanny Dodge" (immediate reaction when attacked, attack automatically misses, and if there is an enemy on the opposite side of you from the attacker the attacker must roll the attack against them instead).

Basically, while the ranger stays far away from the battle, and the rogue darts in and out of the battle, the barbarian would have things to negate attacks against them specifically. Defender doesn't work because they don't have the armor and protect themselves rather than others, and controller just seems a little odd to me--I want barbarians to be smashing their club into one foe and pulping them, not throwing lots of conditions around the battlefield.

 

[Cactot]

i kind of assume that a barbarian will be a hybrid, just like the paladin.

The paladin is a defender/leader, and i can see the barbarian as a defender/striker if they focus it on high single target damage, or defender/controller if they make it based on AOE damage and fear.

Druids imho will most likely be a controller/striker hybrid, and the bard a leader/controller or leader/striker hybrid (or maybe a pure leader, not sure)

I have to say that i am actually really excited about the primal classes. I havent actually wanted to play a bard since the 2nd ed blade and skald kits = D Also the druid was probably my favorite 3/3.5e class, and I have always loved the idea of a beserker (never liked the barbarian name) but I really didnt get the right "feel" from the 3e barbarian.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

So, assuming we are dealing with a lightly-armored individual with lots of hit points who can control multiple monsters at once, then that class doesn't really fit either role, it is a tweener. I would argue he is closer to a controller than a defender, but i think either argument is valid.

Again, I think the Barbarian is going to have something like damage resistance to absorb damage. I bet when he rages he'll get lots of extra hp as well. So rather than relying on armor or shields to deflect blows, he'll just soak it up (although, given the Strikery elements of the class, Barbarians may get dodge bonuses to AC as well). Also, it says Controllers like to stay far away from the battle. That is *not* what I see a Barbarian doing.

Of course, I don't know any of these things for sure.

 

[MaelStorm]

Enough good point has been presented to revise my POV. I will say they are hybrid striker/leader. I see no reason for them to be controllers as controllers IMO stays in the back as opposed to leaders who are more combat friendly.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I think the Barbarian could function perfectly well as a Defender. I'd imagine he'd probably have some kind of staying-alive power, sort of like Shifter Ferocity (or whatever it was called) in 3.5, that let the Shifter continue clawing people apart even at negative hp.

It'd probably be some kind of Daily power, perhaps looking like this:

Die-Hard
Your body is beaten and broken, but you still won't go down.
Daily - Primal
Immediate Reaction
Trigger: The Barbarian falls to 0 hp or below from an attack.
Effect: The Barbarian continues fighting without penalty until the end of his next turn.
Sustain Minor. The Barbarian cannot sustain this power past the end of the encounter.

Hey, look, I just made up a Defender power on the fly.

And yes, I realise there is nothing to base this off of, but I'm bored and felt like being creative

Your forgot the best part under Effect:

As a minor action the Barbarian my spend a healing surge to regain hit points by shouting "Yippy Kai-A" at his opponent.

 

[happyelf]

Thanks for you thoughts, everyone

 

[Scrollreader]

Some very good points in here. I'd love to see a martial controller, but I don't think the barbarian is it. He's too caught up in being 'tough' to be a wimpy little controller primary. Controller secondary, like how the fighter is kind of a striker secondary? Sure.

My picture of a martial controller is like the 3.0 lasher, or the weighted chain AoE karmic strike + extra reach fighter in 3.5. He's not tough as nails. What he does do, is change the battlefield. He has AoE attacks. He trips, disarms, etc. He controls a chunk of the battlefield, a pretty good sized one, centered on himself. Maybe I'm just biased by Metroid, Indiana Jones, and Castlevania, or my love for the whip, and the Lasher. But I can definately see a low HP martial role for someone who focuses on the whip/chain weapons, and controls things, without being a wizard or needing magic.

 

[Vayden]

The way I see the "primal" power source breaking down is:

striker -> barbarian/berserker
defender -> shapeshifter (splitting off that branch of druid powers)
controller -> druid (entangle, call lightning, produce flame, creeping doom, etc.)
leader -> bard (because it'd be nice to link bards and druids thematically)

Not to rain on the happy fun speculation, but they've said explicitly that the Bard will be the Arcane Leader.
Arcane breakdown:
Defender: Swordmage
Striker: Warlock
Controller: Wizard
Leader: Bard

Also, since this is spreading out to cover the whole Primal source, there's been a lot of speculation that the Sorceror will be joining the Primal group with the Barbarian, Druid, and ??, mostly based off the little bit about Sorcerors in Races & Classes. I think we'll see something like this:
Barbarian: Primal Defender (maybe Striker?)
Sorceror: Primal Controller
Druid: Primal Striker (maybe Leader?)
?? Shaman ??: Primal whatever's left over.