D&D 5E Speculation on the Barbarian DD Next Class

[Raunalyn]

L&L today announced it was the Barbarian

 

[MatthewJHanson]

According to the new L&L Article they'll be showing the Barbarian.

As for the never in D&D? I'm not sure that it could be a fighter/wizards, since that's been done. Honestly it's hard for me to think of a fantasy arch-type that has not been represented by a D&D class. Maybe a dedicated summoner? (Since WOTC doesn't count pathfinder). Maybe something really off the wall?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, the one concept that's really never been done in D&D is the non-magical class whose primary focus is the Interaction pillar. The "Talker" or "Face" class. The other two pillars have classes mainly focused on them-- the Combat pillar has Fighter, Barbarian, Monk etc... and the Exploration pillar has the Rogue, Ranger etc... but the Interaction pillar? The classes who have dabbled in that have always been magical in nature-- the Bard, the Paladin. The closest they've gotten non-magically is the Rogue assuming you build it specifically in that way, away from the prototypical thievery-esque Exploration mechanics.

Now granted... the question comes down to whether or not the Interaction pillar or "roleplaying" needs a class that is focused in that direction. And for that, I think it comes down to whether or not the Interaction pillar eventually gains it's own rules and mechanics outside of the Skill System. Is there going to be a module or rules for "Social Combat" as it were? Other games have it... the question is whether D&D will add it? Because then if it does... then a class that is primarily meant to be the best in that pillar (with the game mechanics to back it up) is certainly a class concept that could be added to the game.

 

[ferratus]

Personally Defcon 1, I've found that the "interaction" skills tend to be the death of roleplaying at the table. If you take them away, people talk to the NPC's. With skills such as diplomacy, bluff, charisma checks, etc. there is generally a lot more tendency to treat those skills as a "NPC, do as I say!" button, as if it is a charm spell. I'd also like charm spells raised in level from level 1 as well.

 

[RangerWickett]

They could go full steampunk and have a technologist. Kill monsters with gadgets!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8ZI8PEQSZENJgdg&bvm=bv.41248874,d.eWU&cad=rja

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?159855-The-Fantastic-Science-A-Technologist-Handbook

Failing that, how about a combat shapeshifter (non-spellcasting), a beastmaster (non-martial, relies on pets), or a 'superhero' (has just one magical power that gets better and stronger, instead of a whole suite of spells)?

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, the one concept that's really never been done in D&D is the non-magical class whose primary focus is the Interaction pillar. The "Talker" or "Face" class. The other two pillars have classes mainly focused on them-- the Combat pillar has Fighter, Barbarian, Monk etc... and the Exploration pillar has the Rogue, Ranger etc... but the Interaction pillar? The classes who have dabbled in that have always been magical in nature-- the Bard, the Paladin. The closest they've gotten non-magically is the Rogue assuming you build it specifically in that way, away from the prototypical thievery-esque Exploration mechanics.

Rokugan had the Courtier class, which exactly does that but is also a skill-monger (8 skill points per level, not so long class skill list but every 5 levels you get 2 more class skills to expand your list).

IMHO it's a very cool class (but be warned I'm a fan of the setting ) but indeed such character can be both either underpowered or overpowered depending on how the DM setups the game.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Well, the one concept that's really never been done in D&D is the non-magical class whose primary focus is the Interaction pillar. The "Talker" or "Face" class.

A well-designed Rogue class should be able to do this out-of-the-box. We default to thinking of Rogue as a Dex-based class, but (especially in DDN) there is nothing that should require that. The first playtest pack gave us (potentially) a Str and a Dex based build, but since then, Dex or Dex-and-Cha seem to be presumed.

If they could take away the need for good Dex, so that a Str-rogue, and Int-rogue, or a Cha-rogue were also viable builds, the game would be more robust.

Personally Defcon 1, I've found that the "interaction" skills tend to be the death of roleplaying at the table.

In some games this is certainly true. But not all -- some FATE games have robust social engagements, for example, that are as tense as physical combat. Reign and Burning Wheel also address this in different ways.

As long as this thinking holds, though, Charisma becomes a dump stat for most of the party. This is a habit that should be broken. Anything that actively penalizes, in a meaningful way, a character with any ability at less than 10 is going to be the better for it.

 

[variant]

Barbarian is the class of the core classes from the past that I am least interested in after the Monk. Neither belong. Barbarian because 'barbarian' is a descriptive term for how someone lives, not someone that wears no armor and rages, and Monk because it's an Asian themed class in a fantasy European medieval world.

 

[gyor]

I like that the Barbarian is going to eat the Warden, although I simpathize with those that would prefer it as its own class. Realistically the Warden is simply not iconic enough and is too simular to 4e Barbarians, with a touch of Druid. This way at least we get Wardens in some form for the core. I wonder how many of other less iconic classes will appear this way. Avengers? Some will say Paladin, but honestly a Divine build for Rogues makes more sense. Instead of Artful Dodge or Sneak Attack, you get Oath of Enimity, a skill trick that allows you,to deal holy damage, and a skill trick that punishes your target for certain infractions. Martial weapons like the Assassin build gets. Seeker? A Ranger build maybe. Runepriest? Diety Archtype for Clerics. Ardent, Psionic Bard Favoured Soul has been mentioned as a bloodline for Sorcerors that grants divine magic instead of arcane.

 

[Li Shenron]

As long as this thinking holds, though, Charisma becomes a dump stat for most of the party. This is a habit that should be broken. Anything that actively penalizes, in a meaningful way, a character with any ability at less than 10 is going to be the better for it.

I agree, Cha always had this problem that 1 PC in the party with high Charisma can cover the whole party's needs for interaction.

3e already improved the case by giving Cha-based features to some classes (Clerics, Paladins, Bards, Sorcerers) that weren't used for interaction but for combat, but the problem was still there, because it often caused a group to think "the Sorcerer (or Cleric etc) already needs high Cha anyway, what's the point in having a high-Cha Fighter or Rogue in our group? boost your Str (or Dex) instead".

I think at least one way to improve things further, is to make sure there are enough Cha ST required during the game, because every PC has to make her own ST and they cannot be avoided (I started a whole thread on ST yesterday for these reasons...). Plus, make sure that there is NO WAY in the core for a PC to get a feat/ability/whatever that allows you to freely choose which stat to use for ST, as in "I have this feat which lets me use Con instead of Cha for ST vs charms".