I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
The barbarian can just end his rage, but why does he want to? The save is a penalty to the ability, not a boon. If you save, you're done raging (until you're bloodied anyway). No barbarian in his *right* mind would actually want to give up the extra damage.
That's kind of muddying the waters of what a "save" is, though. The penalty is really a bonus? He's going to want low saving throws? "No, Jozan, don't bless me! I won't be as ANGRY!" or "Okay, I'm going to go into rage, I'm going to first take off my Cloak of Resistance and my magic armor, so that I won't save against the effect!"
It also has the secondary effect of making the other things that require a save to end more difficult for most barbarians who will want to drop their saving throw scores pretty low.
Which is pretty backwards for a defender -- shouldn't they be able to resist what is thrown at them?
The damage is coming from the right place, the mechanic to end it, though, is wonky.
As to his role as a striker, I point back to (i think) my second post in which I state that he's a combination striker/defender. People try to kill him first (a defender quality) because if they don't, that big ol' axe of his is gonna cut them down (a striker quality). also, making him a defender grants him the HUGE hitpoints he had back in 3.5 without taking anything away. The names I use for his abilities could be changed to more animal focused talents easily enough. Hunters use tactics frequently enough (the daily free move and pack tactics when flanking), but they also try to take out the prey (mark) as quickly as possible to prevent escape.
Wait, people try to kill the Warlord and the Cleric fist because if they don't, the party fights better. People try to kill the Wizard first because if they don't, they get a fireball to the face. People try to kill the rogue first because if they don't, they get a knife in the kidney.
The other defenders -- the fighter, the paladin...people don't try to kill them first. People would love to leave them for last. But the Fighter and the Paladin *make* people try and kill them first.
He can be a striker with high HP. 4e is an exception-based ruleset, am I right? "Strikers get X hp." "The Barbarian is a striker. He gets Y hp!" Rage may also add hp. The balance for a higher hp than normal is a lower AC/Defense value than normal. He gets wallopped more often, but can take more wallops, so the thing's a wash.
Fighters and Paladins don't really take out their marks quickly. Rather, they focus the attention on themselves. A barbarian -- any kind of predatory animal -- really doesn't WANT to be seen by the prey. Wolves use feints and allies. Big cats and crocodiles use stealth and power.
I just can't imagine the barbarian standing still in the front lines while his friends get to kill mooks. He doesn't protect or bolster or hamper or mark. No, no, the barbarian needs to, IMO, act like a predatory animal. He needs to get to the back row, find the vulnerable member (the one with low hp), and attack and kill with a powerfully placed blow.
That is, exactly, what a rogue does.
That is very similar to what a ranger does.
That is very similar to what a warlock does.
A ranger and a warlock do it through ranged attacks. A rogue does it through stealth. A barbarian might be able to do it by picking up people and throwing them out of his way. Or, less HARDCORE, through athletics -- jumps, swings, pounces, trips, fast strikes, wrestlin'....
A barbarian might be able to stand for a few rounds in the front row to cover someone else's retreat, but it seems to me that the entire zeitgeist of the barbarian archetype is one who brings the fight right to your wizard's face and beats it in, while a fighter's is more of a heavy-armor tactical wiz, and a paladin's is more of a beacon of strength.