Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour: Barbarian Marauder
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 7387379" data-attributes="member: 6932123"><p>Acrobat:</p><p></p><p>Had left off the 17th level ability when last we saw it, so wanted to finish it off. The problem had seemed to have been that he was putting too much focus on replicating the capstone +damage ability from Thief and Assassin. Dropping that, he instead went to doubling up on the Aerial Artistry ability, essentially doubling movement. The idea is to let this be more focused on freeing the character's creativity, rather than copy/paste the combat approach. Don't feel like you have to chase the abilities from another subclass.</p><p></p><p>To WC, the idea of "broken" means overshadowing the other players in a way to make them feel less needed, or they aren't really contributing. However if there isn't competition for the same functionality (which is much easier for abilities constrained to a specific subclass), it's OK to double down on that. If it hasn't broken in the previous ~16 levels, then you're probably safe to boost the "specialness" of it. </p><p></p><p>Related note: People are willing to accept a lot more forgiving of magic, or resource-based abilities, than they are of "always on" abilities. Always-on abilities are more tiresome to deal with and plan around, and are more easily able to overshadow other players (which leads back to the 'broken' definition). They also tend to warp the game more than abilities that you use and then they go away.</p><p></p><p>People are more OK with more outlandish things when the user has to pay for the ability. So WC tend to be a lot more conservative with the design for those options. And, as seen in the Barbarian subclass design, continual-use abilities also tend to be more problematic on the multiclassing side.</p><p></p><p>All of this is relevant to the ongoing discussions regarding the Warlord class design.</p><p></p><p>In any case, all of this gets into whether the Aerial Mastery would start to become too problematic to deal with. It's not something that can be numerically evaluated, but can very much be something that players or DMs just are uncomfortable with, and also has an impact on adventure design. For this particular case, he didn't <em>expect</em> it to be, but it gets the usual, "Needs to be playtested" caveat.</p><p></p><p>The example he gave was the Aarakocra race, with its inherent flight, being something that <em>enough</em> DMs had problems with that they exclude it from AL availability. I've seen threads about it here and on other sites, and it's easy to see the contention, and thus easy to understand why it's restricted. WC has to view all DM's reactions in aggregate, rather than individually.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Barbarian Marauder:</p><p></p><p>Based on requests, he looked at the idea of Dex-based Barbarian. The key to this HFH is looking at how to do something that may not actually be doable.</p><p></p><p>Action Economy: If this phrase comes up as part of the design process, we (WotC) have probably done something wrong. That starts getting way too fiddly, and too mechanics-focused.</p><p></p><p>Main problem: Rage only works on Str-based attacks. It also has a restriction against heavy armor while raging, for a similar reason. Multiclassing. In addition, these restrictions came about because of multiple years of playtesting, with hundreds of thousands of players. You don't just kick those design limits to the side, because they're based on hard play data.</p><p></p><p>We don't want you to change your character in a seemingly nonsensical way when you gain your subclass. That is, don't create radical alterations to how the class in played between levels 2 and 3. So we can't just change Rage from requiring Str-based attacks to Dex-based attacks when you select your subclass.</p><p></p><p>Getting to the multiclassing, having the ability to dump 'important' stats because you can just grab an ability from a multiclass choice that negates that dump, doesn't feel like a good place for the game to be in. At least, per Mike.</p><p></p><p>* Comment: One would then question why a Paladin with 8 Dex (because he can just take heavy armor and ignore Dex entirely) is OK, but an 8 Dex Barbarian is not. Flavor-wise it makes sense, but mechanics-wise it doesn't seem quite as well justified.</p><p></p><p>In any case, the damage profile combination of the multi-attack classes (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin) has trouble when stacking with a high-damage single-attack class like Rogue.</p><p></p><p>Aside: Mike did try to make a comment about how making Rage attacks or Sneak attacks actions unto themselves, this stacking issue wouldn't be a problem. However since they're layered on top of the standard attack action, this becomes more complicated. </p><p></p><p>He also answered a question regarding Fighter having the same issue. His answer that it does, somewhat, but it's really the damage bonus from Rage that's causing the conflict, and Fighter doesn't really have the same thing. (Except the Dueling fighting style, which he never addressed.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Aside: Even with these multiclass issues, they try to design something satisfying first, and balanced second, rather than try to balance it first, leaving you with a dry or boring class/subclass. Still, the Rogue is a common "problem" class in terms of multiclassing that they have to be careful about.</p><p></p><p></p><p>~~~</p><p></p><p>Outline details:</p><p></p><p><strong>Marauder</strong></p><p>Speed, agility, hitting power</p><p>Threat vs a group</p><p>More attacks?</p><p>More speed</p><p>Fluid</p><p>Raider, pillager, gets in, destroys, leaves</p><p>Really feel like a predator - bird of prey or hunting cat</p><p>Not good at claiming territory</p><p>TWO WEAPON FIGHTING!</p><p></p><p>Aside: Has to be careful not to overlap with Eagle Totem</p><p></p><p></p><p>3rd level - defining ability</p><p>When you rage, you turn into a tornado of attacks when using two weapon fighting and using finesse weapons.</p><p>10 attacks!</p><p>Hit everything in the room!</p><p>When you rage, if you use two weapon fighting, you can attack everyone in your reach. (explicitly not a bonus action) Can't attack a target more than once, but allow for extra attacks to pile on.</p><p></p><p>* Aside: Various commentary on optimal tactics vs what might be suggested by abilities.</p><p></p><p>6th level - ribbon ability</p><p>Roleplaying specific</p><p></p><p></p><p>10th level - useful utility</p><p>Movement ability - super dash?</p><p></p><p></p><p>14th level - combat upgrade</p><p>Lay Waste - bunch of attacks against one target</p><p>Burst of damage, once per rage</p><p></p><p></p><p>* Aside: Comment on the Wolf Totem lvl 14 ability to knock a Large or smaller creature prone with an attack — It's more of a 2014 approach, and WotC wouldn't really care about the specific size, now.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Next week, look at how the strength based usage of dex-type weapons works, and what sort of repercussions there would be to making it fully dex-based. See if there are other classes where this sort of issue comes up, and how it's dealt with.</p><p></p><p>Mike noted that it needs better flavor, as "Marauder" is fairly generic, and may not evoke the proper image of what the class was designed to be. Chat stream suggested "Dervish", given the focus on two weapon fighting and Tasmanian Devil-like approach to fighting, though Mike didn't seem to notice, as the stream was coming to an end. Personally, Dervish does seem to evoke an image that better matches the mechanics outline.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 7387379, member: 6932123"] Acrobat: Had left off the 17th level ability when last we saw it, so wanted to finish it off. The problem had seemed to have been that he was putting too much focus on replicating the capstone +damage ability from Thief and Assassin. Dropping that, he instead went to doubling up on the Aerial Artistry ability, essentially doubling movement. The idea is to let this be more focused on freeing the character's creativity, rather than copy/paste the combat approach. Don't feel like you have to chase the abilities from another subclass. To WC, the idea of "broken" means overshadowing the other players in a way to make them feel less needed, or they aren't really contributing. However if there isn't competition for the same functionality (which is much easier for abilities constrained to a specific subclass), it's OK to double down on that. If it hasn't broken in the previous ~16 levels, then you're probably safe to boost the "specialness" of it. Related note: People are willing to accept a lot more forgiving of magic, or resource-based abilities, than they are of "always on" abilities. Always-on abilities are more tiresome to deal with and plan around, and are more easily able to overshadow other players (which leads back to the 'broken' definition). They also tend to warp the game more than abilities that you use and then they go away. People are more OK with more outlandish things when the user has to pay for the ability. So WC tend to be a lot more conservative with the design for those options. And, as seen in the Barbarian subclass design, continual-use abilities also tend to be more problematic on the multiclassing side. All of this is relevant to the ongoing discussions regarding the Warlord class design. In any case, all of this gets into whether the Aerial Mastery would start to become too problematic to deal with. It's not something that can be numerically evaluated, but can very much be something that players or DMs just are uncomfortable with, and also has an impact on adventure design. For this particular case, he didn't [i]expect[/i] it to be, but it gets the usual, "Needs to be playtested" caveat. The example he gave was the Aarakocra race, with its inherent flight, being something that [i]enough[/i] DMs had problems with that they exclude it from AL availability. I've seen threads about it here and on other sites, and it's easy to see the contention, and thus easy to understand why it's restricted. WC has to view all DM's reactions in aggregate, rather than individually. Barbarian Marauder: Based on requests, he looked at the idea of Dex-based Barbarian. The key to this HFH is looking at how to do something that may not actually be doable. Action Economy: If this phrase comes up as part of the design process, we (WotC) have probably done something wrong. That starts getting way too fiddly, and too mechanics-focused. Main problem: Rage only works on Str-based attacks. It also has a restriction against heavy armor while raging, for a similar reason. Multiclassing. In addition, these restrictions came about because of multiple years of playtesting, with hundreds of thousands of players. You don't just kick those design limits to the side, because they're based on hard play data. We don't want you to change your character in a seemingly nonsensical way when you gain your subclass. That is, don't create radical alterations to how the class in played between levels 2 and 3. So we can't just change Rage from requiring Str-based attacks to Dex-based attacks when you select your subclass. Getting to the multiclassing, having the ability to dump 'important' stats because you can just grab an ability from a multiclass choice that negates that dump, doesn't feel like a good place for the game to be in. At least, per Mike. * Comment: One would then question why a Paladin with 8 Dex (because he can just take heavy armor and ignore Dex entirely) is OK, but an 8 Dex Barbarian is not. Flavor-wise it makes sense, but mechanics-wise it doesn't seem quite as well justified. In any case, the damage profile combination of the multi-attack classes (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin) has trouble when stacking with a high-damage single-attack class like Rogue. Aside: Mike did try to make a comment about how making Rage attacks or Sneak attacks actions unto themselves, this stacking issue wouldn't be a problem. However since they're layered on top of the standard attack action, this becomes more complicated. He also answered a question regarding Fighter having the same issue. His answer that it does, somewhat, but it's really the damage bonus from Rage that's causing the conflict, and Fighter doesn't really have the same thing. (Except the Dueling fighting style, which he never addressed.) Aside: Even with these multiclass issues, they try to design something satisfying first, and balanced second, rather than try to balance it first, leaving you with a dry or boring class/subclass. Still, the Rogue is a common "problem" class in terms of multiclassing that they have to be careful about. ~~~ Outline details: [B]Marauder[/B] Speed, agility, hitting power Threat vs a group More attacks? More speed Fluid Raider, pillager, gets in, destroys, leaves Really feel like a predator - bird of prey or hunting cat Not good at claiming territory TWO WEAPON FIGHTING! Aside: Has to be careful not to overlap with Eagle Totem 3rd level - defining ability When you rage, you turn into a tornado of attacks when using two weapon fighting and using finesse weapons. 10 attacks! Hit everything in the room! When you rage, if you use two weapon fighting, you can attack everyone in your reach. (explicitly not a bonus action) Can't attack a target more than once, but allow for extra attacks to pile on. * Aside: Various commentary on optimal tactics vs what might be suggested by abilities. 6th level - ribbon ability Roleplaying specific 10th level - useful utility Movement ability - super dash? 14th level - combat upgrade Lay Waste - bunch of attacks against one target Burst of damage, once per rage * Aside: Comment on the Wolf Totem lvl 14 ability to knock a Large or smaller creature prone with an attack — It's more of a 2014 approach, and WotC wouldn't really care about the specific size, now. Next week, look at how the strength based usage of dex-type weapons works, and what sort of repercussions there would be to making it fully dex-based. See if there are other classes where this sort of issue comes up, and how it's dealt with. Mike noted that it needs better flavor, as "Marauder" is fairly generic, and may not evoke the proper image of what the class was designed to be. Chat stream suggested "Dervish", given the focus on two weapon fighting and Tasmanian Devil-like approach to fighting, though Mike didn't seem to notice, as the stream was coming to an end. Personally, Dervish does seem to evoke an image that better matches the mechanics outline. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour: Barbarian Marauder
Top