I'll NEVER Die! (A Guide to the 5E Barbarian)

[jas61292]

First off, if you're worried about consistent damage, the greatsword is right over there.

Secondly, you've emphasized the supposed importance of mooks - guys whose life or death commonly depends on a single damage die roll. In this case, Sentinel improves far more than Savage Attackers, because it'll generate far more AoOs. And that's nothing compared to the offensive benefits of Polearm Master (even more AoOs) or GWM (cleave, far better kill guarantee) against these same mooks. Even +2 STR looks better, as it increases kill reliability through both damage and accuracy.

Ancillary point: The fact that you can choose when to apply Savage Attacker doesn't stop it from being 2d12k1 when you only have one hit in a round. It merely mitigates the issues brought up when you have potentially multiple hits in a round.

I'm not saying its an amazing Feat, but I believe it it one that is constantly undersold. I've seen it in play a lot (as I have seen Sentinel), and they are just completely different beasts to me. You can't just compare the damage thy do in a vacuum. The situations where sentinel comes into play are great, but are limited (including sometimes needing an ally to potentially be hurt to actually get that extra damage). Savage Attacker is not limited at all.

And yeah, yeah, Polearm Master is better. But that's easy with it being so horribly unbalanced. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, for what its worth, I never said anything about mooks. It works just as well against strong enemies. The fact is that if you need to roll a 8 to kill something, and you roll a 3, nothing else is going to finish off the enemy. And if that is your last attack, well, that may just mean they get another full turn to hurt your party. My most recent experience with this feat was as DM when a barbarian using a greataxe took it. I can't even tell you how many times it turned a weak hit into a finishing blow. Theoretically boosting damage by 2 (or really 2.76 if used optimally with a two attack character) doesn't seem like much, but the instances where it turned a 2 to a 11, where why the player took it, and those were very impactful.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You can't just compare the damage thy do in a vacuum. The situations where sentinel comes into play are great, but are limited (including sometimes needing an ally to potentially be hurt to actually get that extra damage). Savage Attacker is not limited at all.

I wasn't even really thinking about the "attack ally" portion. I was thinking about forcing AoOs because they want to get away from you (or to someone else) and don't realize you have Sentinel because your DM doesn't metagame. But yeah, Sentinel might do less damage if they decide to trade blows... with the tanky barbarian. I call that a win.

And yeah, yeah, Polearm Master is better. But that's easy with it being so horribly unbalanced. But that's neither here nor there.

Fair enough, but (from an optimization perspective) that's a feat slot. Barbarians want that, GWM, and probably max strength. After that, Savage Attacker is competing with stuff that prevents the Barbarian from not being in the fight; I know what I'm taking.

Also, for what its worth, I never said anything about mooks. It works just as well against strong enemies. The fact is that if you need to roll a 8 to kill something, and you roll a 3, nothing else is going to finish off the enemy. And if that is your last attack, well, that may just mean they get another full turn to hurt your party.

Except that happens less often per swing against a strong enemy, since most hits just chip away at the ablative defense. Average damage matters more against big piles of HP, since you can reduce the # of hits required to kill far before that last one.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I wasn't even really thinking about the "attack ally" portion. I was thinking about forcing AoOs because they want to get away from you (or to someone else) and don't realize you have Sentinel because your DM doesn't metagame. But yeah, Sentinel might do less damage if they decide to trade blows... with the tanky barbarian. I call that a win.

Fair enough, but (from an optimization perspective) that's a feat slot. Barbarians want that, GWM, and probably max strength. After that, Savage Attacker is competing with stuff that prevents the Barbarian from not being in the fight; I know what I'm taking.

Except that happens less often per swing against a strong enemy, since most hits just chip away at the ablative defense. Average damage matters more against big piles of HP, since you can reduce the # of hits required to kill far before that last one.

Bah, just go listen to your Mr. Bungle.

[hegly]

Hello,

Great guide. Thank you.

I created a Barbarian based upon this guide and chose greataxe as my primary weapon. Another player in the group rolled a fighter and chose the Dual Wielder feat (which you discourage for the Barbarian). He uses two long swords. When I attack, I roll one d12 so my min damage is 1+ my strength bonus and my max damage is 12 + my strength bonus. When the fighter attacks, he rolls two d8, so his min damage is 2 + his strength bonus and his max damage is 16 + his strength bonus.

You state that one two-handed weapon is better than two one-handed weapons. Am I missing something? Is this because you only get one bonus action per turn, so once you start getting extra attacks two-weapon attacks become less valuable?

Also, would it not be better to use a maul or a greatsword as they use two d6 for damage instead of one d12? that way you maximize your minimum damage.

Thank you.

[bjj8383]

Glad to see the old "Guide to XXX" style hasn't died out.

[Devious Shelf]

Hello,

Great guide. Thank you.

I created a Barbarian based upon this guide and chose greataxe as my primary weapon. Another player in the group rolled a fighter and chose the Dual Wielder feat (which you discourage for the Barbarian). He uses two long swords. When I attack, I roll one d12 so my min damage is 1+ my strength bonus and my max damage is 12 + my strength bonus. When the fighter attacks, he rolls two d8, so his min damage is 2 + his strength bonus and his max damage is 16 + his strength bonus.

You state that one two-handed weapon is better than two one-handed weapons. Am I missing something? Is this because you only get one bonus action per turn, so once you start getting extra attacks two-weapon attacks become less valuable?

Also, would it not be better to use a maul or a greatsword as they use two d6 for damage instead of one d12? that way you maximize your minimum damage.

Thank you.

The damage becomes better with two-handed when you use the Great Weapon Master feat. Adds +10 to damage on each hit (but also a -5 to attack). Also, in your calculations you didn't add rage damage (but that would apply to one-handed as well as two-handed weapons for the barbarian). Since a pure barbarian doesn't get the Two-Weapon fighting style you can't add your STR to the off-hand weapon damage and you can't use Great Weapon Master with a one handed attack. ( you could dip a level into fighter to pick up Two-Weapon fighting style but then you lose your level 20 primal champion boost, unlimited rages per day, and obviously you wouldn't be using Great Weapon master for the extra 10 dmg per hit)

*None of my calculations are taking into consideration the double chance for a crit while using reckless attack and obviously the higher the base die the better the chance for higher crit damage especially when combined with Brutal Critical but that is something to consider when designing your character.

Variant Human at level 1 while raging: Great Axe Min: 13+STR Max: 24+STR (but -5 to hit hurts so you won't want to use it until level 2 minimum with reckless attack for the advantage on attack rolls)
Anyone else at level 4 while raging: Great Axe Min: 13+STR Max 24+STR (-5 to hit still hurts but at least you have advantage on attacks with reckless attack)

Great Sword has a higher minimum damage which gives you more consistent damage while a Great Axe has a higher chance of giving you max damage. (Great Sword requires two dice to roll max for max damage while Great Axe only requires one die to roll max damage.) Its a slight difference in play style but they are equivalent weapons. Pick higher minimum damage or higher chance for max damage

So to recap: Two-handed weapons do better damage than Two-Weapon Fighting for pure barbarians because of Great Weapon Master and the specific Two-hander you use is based on whether you want slightly higher average damage or slightly higher chance to get max damage.

Side note: it seems to be "optimal" to use a pole-arm with Pole-arm mastery and Great Weapon Master. Slightly less damage per hit (1d10 instead of 1d12) but you can use your bonus action to make a "1d4+STR+Rage+Great Weapon Master" attack (1d4+7 STR+4 Rage+10 for a minimum 22 dmg / max of 25 dmg at level 20 w/max STR) Obviously the efficacy of this route is open for debate as a large portion of this thread has been devoted to people arguing Pole-arm vs. regular Great Weapon vs. Sword and Board vs. Dex Barbarian but sheer damage output appears to be in the pole-arm masters favor. Unless you go Berserker in which case "Technically" a regular two-hander is slightly better.

[Devious Shelf]

My personal ideas of fun barbarian concepts would be a Half-Orc Crit focused barbarian or a Hill Dwarf for the insane number of HP you can get.



*Half-Orc: Fighter 3 "Champion" / Barbarian 17 "Berserker"
Wielding Great Axe, Max Str

Half-Orc: Savage Attacks: +1d12 on Crit
Champion: Crit 19-20 (plus action surge and other nice bonuses) 10% chance to crit instead of 5%
Barbarian: Reckless Attack: Advantage on attacks = double chance to crit due to two rolls for each attack. 20% to crit instead of 5-10%
- Brutal Critical: + 3d12 on Crit.
-Frenzy +1 attack for a total of 3 per round
-Rage: +4 dmg
Great Weapon Master for +10 dmg


Half-Orc has a 20% chance per hit to crit for 5d12 + 5 (STR) + 4 + 10

Minimum dmg per hit: 20 (Non-Crit)
Maximum dmg per hit: 31 (Non-Crit)
Minium dmg per Crit: 24
Maximum dmg per Crit: is 79

If all three hit that's a possibility of 237 Points of dmg in a round without taking action surge for an additional 2 attacks in one round (395 points if all attacks+action surge Crit)

Obviously the probability of all of your attacks critting is slight but the possibility is fun.




*Hill Dwarf: 20 Barbarian (+1 HP per Level)
Toughness (+2 HP per level)
"Bear Totem"
Max Con: 24 (+7 HP per level) (Max Con is not including using a Manual to up Con further so +1 per level per Manual)

IF (big "if" I know) you roll max HP on each level you end up with 440 HP and you only take half damage while raging (thanks to bear totem) enemies have to deal 880 points of damage to take the barbarian down. Lack of AC really isn't an issue when you're dealing with that kind of HP. you can reckless attack all day without worrying about dying too much and after a long rest you're all ready to go for another fun day of not caring what tries to eat you as you bash in it's face with your two-handed weapon of choice

[GlenSmash!]

Hello,

Great guide. Thank you.

I created a Barbarian based upon this guide and chose greataxe as my primary weapon. Another player in the group rolled a fighter and chose the Dual Wielder feat (which you discourage for the Barbarian). He uses two long swords. When I attack, I roll one d12 so my min damage is 1+ my strength bonus and my max damage is 12 + my strength bonus. When the fighter attacks, he rolls two d8, so his min damage is 2 + his strength bonus and his max damage is 16 + his strength bonus.

You state that one two-handed weapon is better than two one-handed weapons. Am I missing something? Is this because you only get one bonus action per turn, so once you start getting extra attacks two-weapon attacks become less valuable?

Also, would it not be better to use a maul or a greatsword as they use two d6 for damage instead of one d12? that way you maximize your minimum damage.

Thank you.

Two Weapon fighting is very strong until level level 4 (when you can pick up a feat) or level 5 (when you get extra attack). I'll echo the advice that was already given: Pick up the Great Weapon Master feat or Polearm Master feat at level 4 and you will now be at least matching a TWF fighter for sure. Get both and you will be the melee damage king.

I'm a little weird in that my low level barbs (as long as they are Variant Humans that start with a feat) use 2 hand axes as their main weapons, until they can pick up a bonus action attack from another source (like GWM or PM). I prefer 1d6+Str+rage and 1d6+rage to 1d12 +Str+rage or 2d6+str+rage. Essentially, until you pick up another source of bonus attacks you can get extra rage damage per round by dual wielding. It's only when you start adding extra attack, bonus GWM damage, and Bonus attacks with a 2 hander that pull ahead (and it pulls FAR ahead) of dual wielding.

[Specter]

I don't know if you were joking or not, but Barbarians can't hold a candle to Rangers in terms of exploration.

[Purespoo]

No I didn't even take damage resistance into account.
I'll come up with another example which might help you better (This time I will even take the resistance into account if that makes you feel better).
At level 8 an appropriate CR monster is the Werewolf (CR 3)
At level 8, the Strength-based Barb has Str 20, Dex 12, Con 14. = 1D12+7 damage (While raging), +8 to-hit, 13 AC and 77 HP (And takes half damage)
At level 8, the Dexterity-based Barb has Dex 20, Con 14. = 1D8+5 damage (While raging), +8 to-hit, 19 AC and 77 HP (And takes half damage)
Against the Strength-based Barb, the Werewolf inflicts an average of 4.45 damage per round, taking 18 rounds to kill him. The Strength-based Barb inflicts an average of 23.8 per round to the Werewolf, so in those 18 rounds he will inflict an average of 428.4 damage before dropping.
Against the Dexterity-based Barb, the Werewolf inflicts an average of 2.35 damage per round, taking 33 rounds to kill him. The Dexterity-based Barb inflicts an average of 16.6 per round to the Werewolf, so in those 33 rounds he will inflict an average of 547.8 damage before dropping.

Against enemies that are no threat, the difference doesn't really matter - both will finish their enemy without taking too much damage (Although the Dex-based guy will take less damage before killing his enemy than the Str-based guy) but against an actual challenging encounter, the Dex guy is more useful. The Dex guy survives longer and in doing so inflicts more damage than his strength-based counterpart.



I didn't take that into consideration because that ability kind of sucks. Here is what the Strength-based Barb looks like against the Werewolf if he uses it:
Against the Strength-based Barb, the Werewolf inflicts an average of 6.3675 damage per round, taking 13 rounds to kill him. The Strength-based Barb inflicts an average of 28.05 per round to the Werewolf, so in those 13 rounds he will inflict an average of 364.65 damage before dropping.
Basically, a Strength-based Barb is not only weaker than the Dexterity-based Barb by using that ability but he is also considerably weaker than a Strength-based Barb that isn't using that ability. It is rubbish.

I think your math and your logic is a bit off but more so the logic. Let's be clear, I'm not trying to belittle your argument. I more want to point out that it seems like its being thought of from the wrong angle. To do that, I'll use numbers to compare.

First off, if you're making your assuming on how much damage your character can do before he drops, it will almost always be the case that a higher AC will seemingly outperform. What you're not asking yourself is, is my character feasibly going to have to fight that long, and how much quicker will more damage (now) drop the creature versus more damage (later) do. In that sense, Reckless Attack seems horribly de-evaluated.

On top of that, you're assuming a raw slugfest, versus the actual use of skill checks which the Strength based barbarian would potentially excel at.


So to reevaluate,
Strength based Barb AC +1 (12 dex) +2 (14 Con) = +3 + 10 = 13
Dex Based Barb AC +5(20 dex) + 2(14 Con) = 17 Not 19.. unless your assuming the shield so ok that's a 19 but your sacrificing dpr.

First lets compute the damage per round of each barbarian.
Strength Based 1d12 + 7 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5 + (1/20 * 6.5) = 13.825
Dex Based 1d8 + 5 = 9.5 + (1/20 * 4.5) = 9.725

Werewolf has an 11 AC so presumably both types hit on 3-20 or (18/20) of the time.
This means for two attacks
Str: 13.825 * 2 * 0.9 = 24.885
Dex: 9.725 * 2 * 0.9 = 17.505

The werewolf has a +4 to hit on all of his attacks.
As such he has a 12/20 (9-20) chance to hit a strength based barbarian and a 6/20 (15-20) chance of hitting the dex based barbarian.

Assuming average damage of a bite and claw (13).
The werewolf should do an average damage of 0.6 * 13 = 7.8 / 2 = 3.9 to the strength based.
The werewolf should do an average damage of 0.3 * 13 = 4.9/2 = 2.45.
If we figure in crit damage 1/20 * (9.5) (5 claw + 4.5 bite) = 0.475 / 2 0 =0.2375 (This is the bonus damge from a crit).
So 4.1375 for strength
2.6875 for Dex

Now lets tie this together.
Knowing that a CR 3 werewolf has 58 hp on average, there's no way a werewolf will drop either of these barbarians assuming average damage in a slugfest.

So how long would it take for the Barbarian to drop the Werewolf.
Strength: That's 58 / 24.885 = 2.3 or 3 rounds.
Dex: That's 58/15.505 = 3.74 or 4 rounds.

Thus the argument above is grossly exaggerated. There is no reason to think of the fight going to the 30th round because if it does, a statistical anomally has occurred in your to hit or damage rolls.
Realistically the difference between strength and dex barbarians is this.
Strength based have a 30% easier chance to be hit due to lower AC, but their average damage is approximately 30% higher to make up for it. This means that they drop their targets 30% quicker on average. The 30% rounds that creature is dead makes up for the 30% lower AC they possess. However, lower AC does make them more susceptible to burst fluctations that healers may not be able to compensate for.

How much damage did the barbarian take.
4.1374 * 3 = 12.4
2.6875 * 4 = 10.75

So yes, while you took 1.65 less damage, than a Strength based Barbarian, the Strength based Barbarian finished his werewolf a round sooner and can move on to the next target dealing another 25ish damage that round where you were still trying to finish the first. Assuming one target the Dex survivability may seem better in terms of not being hit, but the Strength based barbarian wins hands down as he flat out finishes targets sooner. All in all, for 1.6 hit point difference per werewolf its a fairly even trade-off. If a barbarian cares about 1.6 hit points, there's something wrong. :)

Finally, it needs to be made clear that reckless attack is not as ineffective as its made out to be. The main difference comes in, how many opponents, the damage of my opponent, versus my damage.

For example,
Lets assume my same Strength based barbarian uses reckless attack but duel wields 1d10 and lets compare his damage with and without.

Assuming 1d10 duel wielding with reckless attack versus without.
With Reckless attack:
(1d10 + 7) * 0.990 + 0.098 * 5.5 =12.375 + .539 = 12.914 per main attack
Times 2 since you get 2 main attacks
25.828
+ the offhand attack = 1d10 * 0.990 + (0.098 * 5.5) = 5.445 + 0.539 = 5.984
31.8612 damage per round

Without reckless attack.
(1d10 + 7) * 0.900 + 0.05 * 5.5 =11.25 + .275 = 11.525 per main attack
Times 2 since you get 2 main attacks
23.05
+ the offhand attack = 1d10 * 0.9 + (0.05 * 5.5) = 4.95 + 0.275 = 5.225
28.275 damage per round

That's roughly a 3.6 damage increase, and that's before we consider the fact that this has a relatively low AC and we haven't even achieved brutal critical yet which doubles the small effective crit damage bonus.

We give up 4.1375 per round to the werewolf without disadvantage (same as above since we are assuming no shield).

Assuming average damage of a bite and claw (13).
The werewolf should do an average damage of 0.840 * 13 = 10.92 + 0.098 * (9) = 11.802 /2 = 5.901
So by giving the werewolf advantage to gain advantage ourselves we increased our DPR by 3.6 yet only increased the wolves dps by 1.77. On top of that, 58/31.8612 = 1.82ish round or 2 rounds. This is a full round faster than our 1d12 str example and 2 rounds faster than the Dex based example. So while we take extra damage per round, if we attack first, we only ever take one rounds worth of damage ..or 5.901.

You may notice that I used 1d10 instead of 1d6 in the offhand. Part of this is for simplicity assuming at later levels Two-Weapon fighting feat would be inevitable. But also consider that I did not add in the raw +2 barbarian bonus for damage that should be there regardless. If the full +7 were added Reckless Attack would outperform by about 6-7 instead of just 3.6.

Meanwhile the Str base example needing three rounds will take 12.4 damage and the Dex based shield barbarian will take 10.75. As such, this clearly outperforms the other 2 when fighting a werewolf and even more exemplifies how thinking the example above is a misrepresentation of optimal stats.

Finally, and I'll leave this for you, consider the rules on knocking a target prone and than backing out of range when they have to stand up. The werewolf is not proficient in Athletics or Acrobatics. Thus it has a +2 versus, the Barbarians +5(str) +3 (proficiency) if the barbarian decided to use an Athletics to knock the werewolf down. On top of that the Barbarian has advantage to strength checks. With advantage, a Barbarian would have nearly an 80% chance of achieving an 18. The werewolf would have 25% chance. The dex base would only have a 40% chance of achieving the same 18 result. With 2 attacks a Barbarian could almost guarantee the werewolf is knocked down. If he has another attack that turn he could attack with advantage (since the werewolf is prone).. Then use his movement to back out of the werewolves range. (Disadvantage to attack of opportunities while prone). When he decided to stand up, I could chase him down, rinse, repeat.

[N810]

Thanks for the awesome breakdown man.

[StrykerAZ]

Long time reader and first time poster. I just wanted to thank you for the guide as well as all of the input and discussion about barbarians in 5e. I'm only going to throw two races out there for consideration that I didn't see in the thread:

Goliath
Duergar

I have two friends who are playing Goliath barbarian brothers in PoA and I am playing a Duergar barbarian in OotA. The guide and the discussions here helped me mold him. SO thank you again, everyone, for their input and insight.

Happy gaming!

StrykerAZ

[moveable feats]

I think your math and your logic is a bit off but more so the logic. Let's be clear, I'm not trying to belittle your argument. I more want to point out that it seems like its being thought of from the wrong angle. To do that, I'll use numbers to compare.

First off, if you're making your assuming on how much damage your character can do before he drops, it will almost always be the case that a higher AC will seemingly outperform. What you're not asking yourself is, is my character feasibly going to have to fight that long, and how much quicker will more damage (now) drop the creature versus more damage (later) do. In that sense, Reckless Attack seems horribly de-evaluated.

On top of that, you're assuming a raw slugfest, versus the actual use of skill checks which the Strength based barbarian would potentially excel at.


So to reevaluate,
Strength based Barb AC +1 (12 dex) +2 (14 Con) = +3 + 10 = 13
Dex Based Barb AC +5(20 dex) + 2(14 Con) = 17 Not 19.. unless your assuming the shield so ok that's a 19 but your sacrificing dpr.

First lets compute the damage per round of each barbarian.
Strength Based 1d12 + 7 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5 + (1/20 * 6.5) = 13.825
Dex Based 1d8 + 5 = 9.5 + (1/20 * 4.5) = 9.725

Werewolf has an 11 AC so presumably both types hit on 3-20 or (18/20) of the time.
This means for two attacks
Str: 13.825 * 2 * 0.9 = 24.885
Dex: 9.725 * 2 * 0.9 = 17.505

The werewolf has a +4 to hit on all of his attacks.
As such he has a 12/20 (9-20) chance to hit a strength based barbarian and a 6/20 (15-20) chance of hitting the dex based barbarian.

Assuming average damage of a bite and claw (13).
The werewolf should do an average damage of 0.6 * 13 = 7.8 / 2 = 3.9 to the strength based.
The werewolf should do an average damage of 0.3 * 13 = 4.9/2 = 2.45.
If we figure in crit damage 1/20 * (9.5) (5 claw + 4.5 bite) = 0.475 / 2 0 =0.2375 (This is the bonus damge from a crit).
So 4.1375 for strength
2.6875 for Dex

Now lets tie this together.
Knowing that a CR 3 werewolf has 58 hp on average, there's no way a werewolf will drop either of these barbarians assuming average damage in a slugfest.

So how long would it take for the Barbarian to drop the Werewolf.
Strength: That's 58 / 24.885 = 2.3 or 3 rounds.
Dex: That's 58/15.505 = 3.74 or 4 rounds.

Thus the argument above is grossly exaggerated. There is no reason to think of the fight going to the 30th round because if it does, a statistical anomally has occurred in your to hit or damage rolls.
Realistically the difference between strength and dex barbarians is this.
Strength based have a 30% easier chance to be hit due to lower AC, but their average damage is approximately 30% higher to make up for it. This means that they drop their targets 30% quicker on average. The 30% rounds that creature is dead makes up for the 30% lower AC they possess. However, lower AC does make them more susceptible to burst fluctations that healers may not be able to compensate for.

Well done. You got to the heart of the problem with the previous analysis which waited for the PC to die instead of the enemy which is bass ackwards.

I would even go a step farther and say that the Str Bar is actually not giving up more HP than the Dex Bar. Your analysis has the Str Bar with AC 14 but an 8th level Bar would likely have a breastplate for a total of AC 16.
The Str Bar, doing 14 dmg/hit, finishes off the werewolf in 2.45 rds, taking 7.4 damage in the process.
The Dex Bar, doing 9.5 dmg/hit, finishes off the werewolf in 3.59 rds, taking 7.3 damage in the process.
So the Str Bar takes an extra tenth of a point of damage and kills his opponent a full round earlier.

And this is for an enemy with +4 to hit. As this to-hit bonus increases, the Str Bar takes LESS damage than the Dex Bar. It's only for enemies with to-hit bonuses under +4 that the Dex Bar has the advantage.

And this is before the Str Bar has GWM which combined with Reckless Attack puts him miles ahead of the Dex Bar in terms of killing enemies more quickly and taking less damage in the process.

So if you're a Str Bar with GWM or you're fighting enemies with +5 to hit or better you'll outperform the Dex Bar on every metric.

[mbh700]

First, thanks for the guide. Good discussions, and most of all, thanks for being able to take feedback and adjust your guide accordingly.

I wanted to suggest a correction about the Mage Slayer feat. There is a common mistake about reactions that is being spread in the description.

Two things:
1) You can't use a readied action to interrrupt spellcasting like you could in previous editions. (See explanation below).
2) Although a paladin smite uses up spell slots, it's not the same as casting a spell, so couldn't be interrupted even if you could do number 1

Explanation: Unlike some previous editions, readied actions occur AFTER the trigger, not before or during. PHB p. 192 has the description (quoted below for your convenience).

The only way an attack can interrupt a spell being cast is if the spellcaster was using concentration for the spell because:
A) It is a concentration spell (duh)
B) The spellcaster has readied a spell and has not finished casting it yet (also described in the quote below)
C) The spell has a casting time longer than 1 action


Here's the "Ready" section from the PHB p. 192:
Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for
a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you
can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can
act later in the round using your reaction.
First, you decide what perceivable circumstance
will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action
you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose
to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples
include “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the
lever that opens it,” and “If the goblin steps next to me,
I move away.”
When the trigger occurs, you can either take your
reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore
the trigger. Remember that you can take only one
reaction per round.
When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but
hold its energy, which you release with your reaction
when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must
have a casting time o f 1 action, and holding onto the
spell’s magic requires concentration (explained in
chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell
dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are
concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile,
your web spell ends, and if you take damage before
you release magic missile with your reaction, your
concentration might be broken.

[Arial Black]

Since readied actions go after the trigger, you can't interrupt a spell by defining the trigger as the spell effect, because the spell would take effect before your readied action.

However, 'casting a spell' can be taken two ways:-

* the act of releasing a spell effect into the world

* the spellcasting process of VSM components which, if completed successfully, cause a spell effect

So, the trigger for your readied action is not 'the spell coming into effect', but 'the target beginning to perform the VSM components'.

This means that as soon as the guy begins, but has not yet completed, the VSM components, this triggers your readied action.

The normal sequence of events, without your readied action, would be:-

begin VSM components -> complete VSM components -> spell effect begins duration -> spell effect completes duration

With your readied action, which has 'target begins VSM components' as the trigger:-

begin VSM components -> triggered readied action -> complete VSM components, if still able!

This follows the rules of the trigger occurring before the readied action, while still (possibly) preventing the VSM components being successfully completed and thus meaning that the spell never takes effect.

[ChampionWiggles]

Durable: I'm not sure what the second part of the feat refers to, must be something I'm not seeing in the rules. It sound good though.

Just to reiterate what the second part of the feat says:
"When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the
minimum number of hit points you regain from
the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier
(minimum of 2)."

This means that if you're taking a short rest and decide you want to spend hit dice to regain HP, when you roll to recover HP, your roll can't be less than (2 * your Con mod) per hit dice spent/rolled. So let's say it's end game and you have this feat and your Con is maxed out, giving you a Con mod of +5. When you roll a hit dice to recover HP, the die roll result can't be less than 10. Since the PHB states that when you roll a hit dice to recover HP, you regain the Hit Dice roll result + Con mod for each hit dice spent/rolled, this means that in this situation, for each hit dice you're rolling you regain 10+5, 11+5, or 12+5 HP. If you get your Con above 20 through Primal Champion or any other means, this feat makes it so you automatically receive max HP you can recover from using a hit dice, because you can't roll less than a 12. Combo that with a Periapt of Wound Closure and you're getting (12+Con Mod)*2 HP per hit dice spent.

Long story short:
This feat makes you recover well during short rests (or like a champ if you have that Periapt). It's best taken at later levels IMO and only if you find yourself needing to recover more HP during short rests. If that's not an issue, you only have 4 ASI's and there's better feats that you could be taking.

[icewolfblade]

Edit: Oh, you're talking about a Dex barb versus a Str barb. I don't care about that. Why would two barbarians fight each other? I'm going off the assumption that you're fighting, you know, monsters. Like you would at a table. In that case, Dex doesn't help you do either of your jobs (tanking or DPS) better than a Str barb does.

this just happened in the campaign where i am playing a halfling dex barb i had to duel a half orc barb who im assuming was str based I won so clearly dex barb>str barb

[greenstone]

So, the trigger for your readied action is not 'the spell coming into effect', but 'the target beginning to perform the VSM components'.

What exactly is the percievable trigger here? The caster talks? The caster moves her arms? The caster gets something out of a pouch?

How does the readying character know that the talking or moving is part of a spell?

[Arial Black]

What exactly is the percievable trigger here? The caster talks? The caster moves her arms? The caster gets something out of a pouch?

How does the readying character know that the talking or moving is part of a spell?

From 5E PHB p203:-

Verbal: "Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion".

Somatic: "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures".

I suppose that a caster might try to fool you by pretending to use verbal and somatic components, then it would be a Deception/Arcana contest. Although I might rule that this takes the caster's action, there is no RAW for trying this.

[greenstone]

From 5E PHB p203:-

Verbal: "Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion".

What I was asking is, how does the Barbarian know that what the Mage just said was the start of a spell, as opposed to a shouted instruction to a minion, or a verbal component for a magic item, or a class feature, or just a swear words in a language the Barbarian doesn't understand?

Allowing triggers for part-actions is a slippery slope. Would you allow a trigger of "the Barbarian starts to swing their sword" to allow interrupting the Attack Action? Interrupting the Rage Action?

Generally in 5E, reactions go after the triggering action. Exceptions are things like counterspell.

[Tsubodai]

this just happened in the campaign where i am playing a halfling dex barb i had to duel a half orc barb who im assuming was str based I won so clearly dex barb>str barb

Personally, I think a single duel decides nothing. What were the factors in play when you duelled? Were you both on full health e.t.c.?
In addition to this, a Dex barbarian probably has unusually high AC for his level, in comparison to monsters. As such, although the Str barb may have struggled to hit your AC, he would have fewer issues hitting monsters.
Therefore, if for some reason you are doing PvP, a Dex barb may be better, but if you are playing a normal game where you primarily fight monsters, the Strength barb is probably as good, if not better.
A few sessions ago my Lightning Dragon/ Tempest Cleric character killed an enemy wizard, of the same level, in one round. I still think that wizards are at least as good, if not better, than my character. That fact that my character killed a single wizard means very little.

[MeeposFire]

Personally, I think a single duel decides nothing. What were the factors in play when you duelled? Were you both on full health e.t.c.?
In addition to this, a Dex barbarian probably has unusually high AC for his level, in comparison to monsters. As such, although the Str barb may have struggled to hit your AC, he would have fewer issues hitting monsters.
Therefore, if for some reason you are doing PvP, a Dex barb may be better, but if you are playing a normal game where you primarily fight monsters, the Strength barb is probably as good, if not better.
A few sessions ago my Lightning Dragon/ Tempest Cleric character killed an enemy wizard, of the same level, in one round. I still think that wizards are at least as good, if not better, than my character. That fact that my character killed a single wizard means very little.

A duel is actually where a dex barb works best because its single benefit (better defense) is maximized and its disadvantages (being relatively low threat so easily ignored) are minimized since you have no choice but to attack the high AC target with resistance. In a game with a group enemies would be smart to mostly ignore the dex barb because he is relatively low damage and is hard to kil so best to concentrate on the friends and kill the barb last. Other barbs do not have this problem because his attacks are usually nasty enough that ignoring him is a bad idea.

[Tsubodai]

A duel is actually where a dex barb works best because its single benefit (better defense) is maximized and its disadvantages (being relatively low threat so easily ignored) are minimized since you have no choice but to attack the high AC target with resistance. In a game with a group enemies would be smart to mostly ignore the dex barb because he is relatively low damage and is hard to kil so best to concentrate on the friends and kill the barb last. Other barbs do not have this problem because his attacks are usually nasty enough that ignoring him is a bad idea.

This is exactly what I was trying to say; you can't just declare that Dex barbs are superior to Strength barbs based on one duel.

[Arial Black]

What I was asking is, how does the Barbarian know that what the Mage just said was the start of a spell, as opposed to a shouted instruction to a minion, or a verbal component for a magic item, or a class feature, or just a swear words in a language the Barbarian doesn't understand?

Allowing triggers for part-actions is a slippery slope. Would you allow a trigger of "the Barbarian starts to swing their sword" to allow interrupting the Attack Action? Interrupting the Rage Action?

Generally in 5E, reactions go after the triggering action. Exceptions are things like counterspell.

The kind of verbiage required as a verbal component is so strange that it's obvious. At worst I would ask for an Arcana check DC 5, but probably wouldn't waste my time. Usually I would only ask for a check if the would-be caster is actually pretending to cast (hoping to provoke), and it would be he who has to succeed at an opposed check: Deception versus Insight.

IRL, I cannot speak Mandarin, I cannot speak Cantonese (apart from a few phrases/swear words), but I can tell which of these two a Chinese person is speaking.

In the game, verbal components are usually required to be spoken in a certain manner, with a certain rhythm and intonation, in a dead language of magic (or maybe draconic), and usually accompanied by unnatural gestures.

Spellcasting components are, and should be, obvious. Their descriptions attempt to convey that. It takes feats (in previous editions) or class features (in 5E) to disguise them. The default is that components are obvious, and it takes a special ability to change that.

[Gignere]

The kind of verbiage required as a verbal component is so strange that it's obvious. At worst I would ask for an Arcana check DC 5, but probably wouldn't waste my time. Usually I would only ask for a check if the would-be caster is actually pretending to cast (hoping to provoke), and it would be he who has to succeed at an opposed check: Deception versus Insight.

IRL, I cannot speak Mandarin, I cannot speak Cantonese (apart from a few phrases/swear words), but I can tell which of these two a Chinese person is speaking.

In the game, verbal components are usually required to be spoken in a certain manner, with a certain rhythm and intonation, in a dead language of magic (or maybe draconic), and usually accompanied by unnatural gestures.

Spellcasting components are, and should be, obvious. Their descriptions attempt to convey that. It takes feats (in previous editions) or class features (in 5E) to disguise them. The default is that components are obvious, and it takes a special ability to change that.

I am sure you would mix up Taishanese with Cantonese though if you don't speak either. But it doesn't matter please don't use real life examples it really doesn't apply to D&D.

[vehementi]

Couple of questions after reading this whole thread

1. How do people feel about Orcish Fury (recent feat)? Gives you +1 to an ability score, extra attack die per short rest, and you get a reaction-attack when Relentless Endurance triggers. Pretty situational/sparsely used but if you start with 17 Str through point buy, this gets you up to 18 which is a big deal.

1b. By the way I've seen conflicting reports of whether that die would be doubled on a crit. Apparently it's worded like Smite so it should. Right? And since you decide after you hit, you could save it for crits... 5d12 crit before you even get brutal criticals...

2. Also it seems like you should only take one of Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master, right? Polearm master already gives you guaranteed attacks every turn - GWM would just make it so you occasionally do a bigger-die attack (str+rage+d10 instead of str+rage+d4).

3. I keep hearing everyone talk about easily having advantage -- what is this from? Nothing I can see in the thread or barbarian descriptions or feats gives barbarians advantage on attacks, only on (basically) shoves.

4. More of a theme question... my party already has a great weapon fighter. I'd like to differentiate so I'm leaning toward doing the human polearm master route for more attacks and stuff. But I also feel like I should go for ginormous amazing criticals with d12's like a real barbarian should. Any thoughts on how to do cool stuff here while not just being a crappier fighter? (Gonna feel bad not rerolling my 1's and 2's like the fighter is, critting less often if he's a champion, etc.)

[Klorox]

Couple of questions after reading this whole thread

1. How do people feel about Orcish Fury (recent feat)? Gives you +1 to an ability score, extra attack die per short rest, and you get a reaction-attack when Relentless Endurance triggers. Pretty situational/sparsely used but if you start with 17 Str through point buy, this gets you up to 18 which is a big deal.

1b. By the way I've seen conflicting reports of whether that die would be doubled on a crit. Apparently it's worded like Smite so it should. Right? And since you decide after you hit, you could save it for crits... 5d12 crit before you even get brutal criticals...

2. Also it seems like you should only take one of Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master, right? Polearm master already gives you guaranteed attacks every turn - GWM would just make it so you occasionally do a bigger-die attack (str+rage+d10 instead of str+rage+d4).

3. I keep hearing everyone talk about easily having advantage -- what is this from? Nothing I can see in the thread or barbarian descriptions or feats gives barbarians advantage on attacks, only on (basically) shoves.

4. More of a theme question... my party already has a great weapon fighter. I'd like to differentiate so I'm leaning toward doing the human polearm master route for more attacks and stuff. But I also feel like I should go for ginormous amazing criticals with d12's like a real barbarian should. Any thoughts on how to do cool stuff here while not just being a crappier fighter? (Gonna feel bad not rerolling my 1's and 2's like the fighter is, critting less often if he's a champion, etc.)

I don't use UA, so I can't offer an opinion on those feats.

3)You get advantage easily from reckless attack. I think it's the barbarians level 2 ability.

4)A vhuman barbarian will be quite nasty if you get the polearm master feat and great weapon master feat. Remember, that bonus action attack with the haft end of the polearm gets strength, rage, and potentially +10 damage (from the great weapon master feat)

[vehementi]

I don't use UA, so I can't offer an opinion on those feats.

3)You get advantage easily from reckless attack. I think it's the barbarians level 2 ability.

4)A vhuman barbarian will be quite nasty if you get the polearm master feat and great weapon master feat. Remember, that bonus action attack with the haft end of the polearm gets strength, rage, and potentially +10 damage (from the great weapon master feat)

Ah of course how did I miss reckless attack. Hahaha.

So people don't feel like GWF+PAM is redundant? I do like the +10 damage on haft hit with the -5 to hit mitigated by advantage and that certainly feels "barbarian".

[MeeposFire]

Ah of course how did I miss reckless attack. Hahaha.

So people don't feel like GWF+PAM is redundant? I do like the +10 damage on haft hit with the -5 to hit mitigated by advantage and that certainly feels "barbarian".

No not redundant rather very potent. The only real issue is that it requires two feats but the barbarian can afford it if you want to hit things as much and as hard as possible (and you do not want to deal with exhaustion which means no frenzy).

[polymphus]

The OP says brutal critical is only 5% of the time, which isn't really correct -- with Extra Attack and Reckless Attack, you've got just under 20% to crit on any given turn. This seems like a very intentional design decision: the guy with easy access to Advantage is also the guy who does a ton of extra crit damage.

If you either frenzy or rock THWs then you're looking at a crit every 3-ish turns. Being able to go from 1/20 to 1/3 is huge, and makes crit damage a reliable/predictable part of combat instead of an occasional random burst.