D&D 5E New playtest packet available.

[TwoSix]

I think fatigued for the rest of the encounter is a bad mechanic for ending a rage. But maybe they can still have a form of fatigued that lasts only one round after a rage.

It would be not so crippling and would be easier for the players to remember.

Barbarian rage seems like a good candidate for an escalation dice mechanic, where the rage gets stronger the longer the barbarian maintains it. The penalty the barbarian endures afterwards is larger the longer the rage continues.
Rage for 1 round = fatigued for 1 round.
Rage for 3 rounds = fatigued for 5 minutes
Rage for 5 rounds = falls unconscious for an hour.

Obviously, the bonuses for rage should be escalating as well. A barbarian who's been raging for 4-5 rounds should be a killing machine, while a barbarian who's only in the 1st round might just be equal to a fighter. Make the barbarian the omega striker. If you don't take him down early, he's going to win the battle for you, because he won't go down.

 

[Stalker0]

One positive I will say, I like the idea that rage lasts as long as you attack. It drops duration tracking in favor of a mechanic that encourages the player to be as aggressive as possible. Its simple and elegant.

 

[Zireael]

I like D&D Next more with each packet they release - I might stop working on my homebrew system altogether and devote myself to D&D Next the moment it comes out.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Barbarian rage seems like a good candidate for an escalation dice mechanic, where the rage gets stronger the longer the barbarian maintains it. The penalty the barbarian endures afterwards is larger the longer the rage continues.
Rage for 1 round = fatigued for 1 round.
Rage for 3 rounds = fatigued for 5 minutes
Rage for 5 rounds = falls unconscious for an hour.

Obviously, the bonuses for rage should be escalating as well. A barbarian who's been raging for 4-5 rounds should be a killing machine, while a barbarian who's only in the 1st round might just be equal to a fighter. Make the barbarian the omega striker. If you don't take him down early, he's going to win the battle for you, because he won't go down.

I haven't had a chance to play Next but it sounds like the encounters are typically very short (2-3 rounds long). An escalation mechanic might be a detriment if the encounters are short because the barbarian will rarely have an opportunity to turn into a killing machine.

 

[Grimmjow]

One positive I will say, I like the idea that rage lasts as long as you attack. It drops duration tracking in favor of a mechanic that encourages the player to be as aggressive as possible. Its simple and elegant.

agreed with this.

I like D&D Next more with each packet they release - I might stop working on my homebrew system altogether and devote myself to D&D Next the moment it comes out.

and this

 

[Grimmjow]

So I like the barbarian so far, but I do miss some of the feel of the 4e barbarian. One of my friends told me that this packet was suppose to have a warden like barbarian, did I miss it, or was he miss informed?

im not sure you ever got an answer to this so i will try to provide one. they said two mondays ago that the barbarian might be able to be like a warden, and that the first time we see a barbarian he wouldn't have any options, just a straight up basic barbarian to see what people think of it. After we know what we want from the barbarian, then we can start getting options. The monk was mentioned as to what they want to do with the barbarian. They showed us what they thought the monk should be like and saw what we had to say and made changes (or are making changes) to fit our view. Now its the barbarians turn

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

One positive I will say, I like the idea that rage lasts as long as you attack. It drops duration tracking in favor of a mechanic that encourages the player to be as aggressive as possible. Its simple and elegant.

I very much agree. The small quibbles I have with the class are outshined by this single mechanic. Though it might need a stipulation that the attacks must be against a creature. This prevents the barbarian from attacking inanimate objects just to keep the rage going, but leaves open the possibility of attacking allies and the innocent.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think both these two issues are very important.

There are people who play the game with little concern for balance. Whether the game is balanced or not, doesn't matter much to them. So why not making the game balanced anyway?

There are people who play the game with little concern for verisimilitude. Whether the game has verisimilitude or not, doesn't matter much to them. So why not making the game with verisimilitude anyway?

I don't disagree, and I'm not "anti balance".

However, with regards to the issue at hand, a daily-limited barbarian rage is neither balanced nor believable. D&D-style Vancian isn't a great magic system to begin with, but it's absolutely terrible for anything other than magic. In this case, the issue is sacrificing verisimilitude (by creating situations where a barbarian is "out of rage" but not because of fatigue or similar issues) but not gaining anything on a game level (because rage doesn't need that limitation to balance it and because managing that resource creates numerous problems in play).

In some cases, there are choices to be made or compromises to be made on issues of believability vs balance, but sometimes you can win on both. And sometimes you can lose on both. Daily nonmagical abilities are a lose-lose.

And, to the original point I was quoting, daily barbarian rage is just as bad regardless of what edition it's in.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And (from my own, possibly observationally biased, perspective) more love.

In that respect, it was an excellent preview of 4e.

Oh, no doubt. There are still people playing 3e with ToB and asking questions about it on these boards years after the 4e release. It's loathed, but certainly not universally loathed; it's a highly polarizing topic. As were many of the rules that were piloted in late 3e supplements, like martial mind control, at-will magic, nonmagical healing, dragon races, etc. All of those things have their fans and their detractors, and all of them are multifactorial (i.e. one might like nonmagical healing, but dislike the implementations that 3e or 4e offered).

Relative to the original point I was quoting, it's not about which edition number you slap on it; the controversies are a matter of substantive disagreement and different goals for gaming and views on how to achieve them. Which is why when a barbarian comes up with some class abilities that some people will reject, it's important.

 

[FireLance]

... martial mind control ... nonmagical healing ...

I think your bias is showing. Tactically disadvantageous decisions made by your enemies are not necessarily the result of mind control, and non-magical recovery of hit points does not have to be described as healing.