D&D (2024) We don't talk about Barbie
Blue Orange
Gone to Texas
"I don't want to achieve immortality through serving my God, I want to achieve it through not dying."
"I'm astounded by people who want to know the Universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Waterdeep."
"I can't listen to that much Volo. I keep getting the urge to conquer Undermountain."
"Guy comes to me and says 'hey, you know, my brother thinks he's an everfull pouch.' And I ask him, "why don't you cast cure disease"? And he says, 'I would, but I need the money'."
"Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering-and it's all over much too soon."
aco175
Legend
What, no Slinky-Dog the thief.
Scott Christian
Hero
My contention is there is no "new school" or "old school" style balance. There is only: "I want my character to be good at everything" or "I understand that in a class system, my character will have strengths and weaknesses."
And, as a side note, it is still ALL up to the DM. The DM makes for balance, not the class or its abilities.
The point is that you are not recognizing the idea of roles within the pillars.
A barbarian can be good at combat, exploration, and social challenge but not good at every combat, exploration, and social challenge.
Scott Christian
Hero
You are 100% correct. The barbarian, as written in the original 5e PHB, can and is good at all three pillars.
Correct. The way it was intended when written. That is, until people wanted them to be good in all pillars - all the time.
I don't think many want that.
For example People want the Barbarian to be useful in social pillar. The Playtest barbarian is good at Intimidation.
However when Intimidation is a bad idea or impossible, the Barbarians ability to contribute is heavily reduced or removed. This allows other PCs who are good at other social skills and checks to shine.
That's what I mean old school, middle school and new school: the concept of roles and how they divided.
Scott Christian
Hero
Thank you for the example. It is appreciated.
And I understand what you are saying, but again, it still all boils down to the DM. Who tells the barbarian that intimidation is not the way to go? What happens if the DM sets it up where intimidation is never the way to go? What happens if the barbarian didn't take the intimidation skill? Now they only get their +3 or +4, or in my barbarian's case, a +2. And then there is this...
How is it that people only seem to envision scenarios where the DM is dense? I mean, a cleric of helm might have a low charisma, but can persuade a town mayor in danger more easily than a bard that looks as though they might run. The mayor might also turn towards the barbarian as a sign of hope, wanting to believe a muscle-bound, rage-machine, more than a bard that can play a lute. Most DMs in that situation would call for advantage for the cleric or barbarian. They might even call for a disadvantage for the bard. This is especially true of the bard had no look or preceding reputation.
This scenario has gone on since the beginning of D&D. And it is so class, deity, species, etc. related, that it shows that the DM's scenario makes for contributions, not a rules adjustment. And that doesn't even include the roleplaying aspects of the players themselves! (Which, in my experience, contributes more to party direction and social outcomes than any roll I've ever seen.)
I guess, in the end, I am glad certain players are getting a barbarian that can now do even more. But I am wary of getting more equaling more fun for players.
mellored
Legend
The same thing that happens to a rogue when stealth isn't the way to go.
Or a ranger when survival is never needed.
Or turn undead when you never see any undead...
Similar Threads
