10 minute barbarian rage is completely incoherent

[Psyren]

Call it "adrenaline rush" and be done with it.

My guess is that would just prompt a new round of threads complaining about Warforged, Autognomes, Reborn etc having adrenaline. (Besides, Orcs beat them to it.)

I add a houserule that, "if a Barb spends their turn attempting to close with an enemy in a vigorous physical activity, their Rage does not end". So Dashing toward an enemy or lifting a gate your enemy is behind would let you extend, but attempting to Hide generally would not.

I understand anger comes in many different flavors, but the definition of the word "Rage" is "violent, uncontrollable anger". The spouse waiting for her husband to drink the poisoned coffee may be incredibly angry, but she isn't raging.

Also "seething" means "filled with intense but unexpressed anger". You can seethe, or you can rage, but "seething rage" is an oxymoron.

I'm not the one who was advocating for seething rage, FYI (but I take Darth Credence's side of that particular argument.)

Personally I like the "spend a bonus action to maintain or make an attack" because that covers nearly everything the barbarian would be doing in combat anyway. If you need to Dash or Dodge, pick the first one; if you need to do something else and you're out of reach, toss a javelin. Heck, javelins get the Reckless Attack bonus now, so you have a pretty good chance of hitting most enemies, and if they're at long range you can even cancel out any penalties. Stowing and retrieving your melee weapon to produce a javelin is going to be easier than ever too.

[Dr.Samurai]

Also "seething" means "filled with intense but unexpressed anger". You can seethe, or you can rage, but "seething rage" is an oxymoron.

To qualify the comment about the identity crisis of the barbarian's rage, we're saying that it's a seething rage, so the barbarian can sneak around a dungeon or engage in a social encounter.

But then we're also saying the barbarian is the Incredible Hulk, accounting for Advantage on Strength checks as a limited resource.

So the D&D barbarian is the Incredible Seething Hulk, a hulking monster of intense repressed anger and bottled emotions ready to burst at any moment but never doing so.

[Schwann145]

To qualify the comment about the identity crisis of the barbarian's rage, we're saying that it's a seething rage, so the barbarian can sneak around a dungeon or engage in a social encounter.

But then we're also saying the barbarian is the Incredible Hulk, accounting for Advantage on Strength checks as a limited resource.

So the D&D barbarian is the Incredible Seething Hulk, a hulking monster of intense repressed anger and bottled emotions ready to burst at any moment but never doing so.

In other words... The Barbarian is Bruce Banner

[Kane0]

Personally I like the "spend a bonus action to maintain or make an attack" because that covers nearly everything the barbarian would be doing in combat anyway.

The Search and Help actions I find criminally underutilized, and I don't think the Barbarian should be locked into certain action choices more than any other class.
Secondarily, i'm also in the pro- heavy armor barb camp, much like metal armor druids and armored monks. If they get the proficiencies from somewhere there's no reason they shouldn't be usable.

[Psyren]

The Search and Help actions I find criminally underutilized, and I don't think the Barbarian should be locked into certain action choices more than any other class.

...That's literally my point, they're not. Since you can maintain rage with a bonus action now, your action can be spent doing literally anything, in or out of combat, for as many rounds/minutes in a row as you like (up to the duration).

Secondarily, i'm also in the pro- heavy armor barb camp, much like metal armor druids and armored monks. If they get the proficiencies from somewhere there's no reason they shouldn't be usable.

I mean, monks (both versions) do lose access to multiple features in armor, proficient or not. The druid thing I agree with, but that's because the metal armor thing was never properly explained or designed for. It's not like Barbarians - or Monks for that matter - have no good options without plate.

But one feature Barbarians get to keep in heavy armor is Reckless Attack, so you could build a heavy-armor barbarian around that. They'll probably be mostly Fighter, or Paladin, but still.

[Kane0]

...That's literally my point, they're not. Since you can maintain rage with a bonus action now, your action can be spent doing literally anything, in or out of combat, for as many rounds/minutes in a row as you like (up to the duration).

Now imagine of your bonus action were freed up in the same way. Well once you spend that first turn starting rage.

I mean, monks (both versions) do lose access to multiple features in armor, proficient or not. The druid thing I agree with, but that's because the metal armor thing was never properly explained or designed for. It's not like Barbarians - or Monks for that matter - have no good options without plate.

But one feature Barbarians get to keep in heavy armor is Reckless Attack, so you could build a heavy-armor barbarian around that. They'll probably be mostly Fighter, or Paladin, but still.

Like I said, im in favor of simply removing those restrictions. I'd be interested in seeing for example a dwarf monk that can use all their monk abilities armored and unhindered. Same for a juggernaut style, plated up barbarian.

[Mastikator]

The Search and Help actions I find criminally underutilized, and I don't think the Barbarian should be locked into certain action choices more than any other class.
Secondarily, i'm also in the pro- heavy armor barb camp, much like metal armor druids and armored monks. If they get the proficiencies from somewhere there's no reason they shouldn't be usable.

With all due respect, can't the barbarian use an action to search or help then bonus action to maintain rage? Maintaining rage with Attack Action™ or bonus action does not lock the class into actions. (I do agree with the armor though, if wizards can cast in plate then barbarians can rage in plate, provided they are proficient. It should be all, or nothing)

[Schwann145]

"Theme" remains an important feature for class-based design in 5e D&D, and simply removing all restrictions basically eliminates any sense of theme.

It doesn't make much sense that armor would require "training" in the first place.
Wizards struggling to cast in armor falls apart the moment you start examining the "whys" of that decision, yet they remain unable to do so (albeit, it's easier than ever to overcome this obstacle).
Monks are expected to be kung-fu-based martial artists first and foremost, and those styles don't work well in restrictive outfits.
Barbarians are rugged nature-goers as much as they are hardened warriors, and they're also poor, from backwoods communities that can't forge/afford full plate.
Etc.

You get your exceptions from Subclasses, obviously, but D&D will never be the sort of game to break away from enforced themes, regardless of how well (or poorly) they fit.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't disagree that Barbs need more OOC stuff. But I do think they also need more Rage.

How's this: Give Barbarians a choice at first level.

Rage of the Seas: Your Rage is mercurial and comes and goes like the tide. You get a number of rounds to Rage equal to 10 times your proficiency bonus. These rounds don't need to be consecutive, but it does require a Bonus Action to initiate, but not maintain. The rounds of Rage refreshes on a Long Rest.

Rage of the Beasts: Your Rage is slow burning and on a hair trigger. You get a number of Rages equal to your proficiency bonus. Each Rage requires a Bonus Action to activate, and lasts for a maximum of one minute, though may be canceled at any time. Your Rages refresh on a Short or Long Rest.

Interesting idea.

I don't picture it like a seething rage, more like an adrenaline induced destructive anger.

It's an adrenaline shot.

At least that is how I see most people play it.

I've seen this, and more narrative approaches.

I lean into the primal flavor rather than the emotional state.

Yep.

Call it "adrenaline rush" and be done with it.

Yes. Kind of like a linebacker on a blitz...

[Psyren]

Now imagine of your bonus action were freed up in the same way. Well once you spend that first turn starting rage.

It is. All you need to do is attack instead, or do something that forces an enemy to make a saving throw.

In short: when you need your bonus action free, attack. When you need your action free for something else, use your BA. And if you need both... chances are you're attacking (e.g. PAM or TWF).

Like I said, im in favor of simply removing those restrictions. I'd be interested in seeing for example a dwarf monk that can use all their monk abilities armored and unhindered. Same for a juggernaut style, plated up barbarian.

You can be a plated barbarian, you just can't rage while you have it on. That still leaves Reckless Attack during combat and rage outside it (you were probably stowing your plate for the stealth section anyway.)

I'd be fine with a plated rager subclass, as well as a raging caster subclass.

[Blatant Beast]

You can be a plated barbarian, you just can't rage while you have it on. That still leaves Reckless Attack during combat and rage outside it (you were probably stowing your plate for the stealth section anyway.)

The AC Advantage of Plate Mail over Medium armor is generally not enough to counteract the Advantage to Foe’s attacks that the Reckless Attack option grants. The higher one boosts their AC, also increases the effective numerical plus, (within limits, of course), that Advantage grants to attack rolls.

A plate wearing barbarian is not a great path to walk in 5e, but perhaps it will be a more attractive option in 1D&D. Taking 10 minutes to don your Plate Mail, and then 5 minutes to doff it, strikes me as a hassle, and may not be something that will always be possible.

I'd be fine with a plated rager subclass, as well as a raging caster subclass.

I am fine with the former, less fine for the later.

If 5e had decided to not use Subclasses, and instead folded the power budget allocated to Subclasses to creating narrowly themed base classes…then I think a spell rager might be viable.

I liked the Barbarian Cleric ‘NPC Class’ published in Dragon Magazine during the 1e Age, when TSR was the Elden Lord of D&D. It was a nice flavor add: the light or no armor wearing tribal religious leader, that is not a Wildshape using Druid.

3e’s spell rager, I did not find particularly cool.

[Psyren]

The AC Advantage of Plate Mail over Medium armor is generally not enough to counteract the Advantage to Foe’s attacks that the Reckless Attack option grants. The higher one boosts their AC, also increases the effective numerical plus, (within limits, of course), that Advantage grants to attack rolls.

I don't disagree, but presumably a platebarian is dipping for RA and has other defenses or techniques at their disposal from their main class that compensate from the loss of DR from Rage. For example, a Barbarian 2 / Paladin X using RA against some fiends or undead could throw on Pro:Evil and cancel out the penalty completely, leaving themselves with Plate, a shield, and perma-advantage from RA boosting their Smite crits.

A plate wearing barbarian is not a great path to walk in 5e, but perhaps it will be a more attractive option in 1D&D. Taking 10 minutes to don your Plate Mail, and then 5 minutes to doff it, strikes me as a hassle, and may not be something that will always be possible.

One key change in 1DnD is that RA applies to thrown attacks. So you can wear plate, activate RA, but then stay at range - which will also mitigate the incoming advantage to hit you if you're sticking to cover etc.

I am fine with the former, less fine for the later.

If 5e had decided to not use Subclasses, and instead folded the power budget allocated to Subclasses to creating narrowly themed base classes…then I think a spell rager might be viable.

I liked the Barbarian Cleric ‘NPC Class’ published in Dragon Magazine during the 1e Age, when TSR was the Elden Lord of D&D. It was a nice flavor add: the light or no armor wearing tribal religious leader, that is not a Wildshape using Druid.

3e’s spell rager, I did not find particularly cool.

I agree 3e Rage Mage sucked ass, and PF's Rage Prophet was considerably better but still not quite good enough. But the concept itself is salvageable, especially in 5e which takes a subclass approach. A 5e "Rage Mage" would be a 1/3 caster that has some kind of synergy between rage and casting, likely in exchange for some kind of limitation that even the Eldritch Knight doesn't possess.

[Ignimortis]

I agree 3e Rage Mage sucked ass, and PF's Rage Prophet was considerably better but still not quite good enough. But the concept itself is salvageable, especially in 5e which takes a subclass approach. A 5e "Rage Mage" would be a 1/3 caster that has some kind of synergy between rage and casting, likely in exchange for some kind of limitation that even the Eldritch Knight doesn't possess.

Runescarred Berserker and Bloodrager for 3.5 and PF1 respectively are far better versions of what you're describing. A 5e "Rage Mage" could be limited to magic self-buffs only, i.e. only effects with a range of Touch or Personal that they can target themselves with.

[Psyren]

Fair point on Bloodrager. I could see that either being a base class (similar to an arcane paladin) or a Barbarian subclass with sorcerer themes. Or even a sorcerer subclass that leans more towards martial prowess, Ao knows we could use one.

[Witty Username]

Like I said, im in favor of simply removing those restrictions. I'd be interested in seeing for example a dwarf monk that can use all their monk abilities armored and unhindered. Same for a juggernaut style, plated up barbarian.

If rogues get the same courtesy with sneak attack weapons I am on board.

I also have notes on smites with ranged weapons being on the table, but I understand that makes people nervous.

[Dr.Samurai]

There should be some trade off for going ranged. Damage potential should be limited, or Cover should be adhered to and not so easy to mitigate with Archery fighting style and/or Sharpshooter.

[Psyren]

I also have notes on smites with ranged weapons being on the table, but I understand that makes people nervous.

There should be some trade off for going ranged. Damage potential should be limited, or Cover should be adhered to and not so easy to mitigate with Archery fighting style and/or Sharpshooter.

Yeah, they axed their Ranged Smites idea for this reason. (Thrown Smites are still a thing, but you can't combine those with Archery style or Sharpshooter; as mentioned though, you CAN combine them with Reckless Attack.)

[Kane0]

If rogues get the same courtesy with sneak attack weapons I am on board.

I also have notes on smites with ranged weapons being on the table, but I understand that makes people nervous.

For the former, sure. Sledgehammer sneak attacks would be great fun

For the latter my first inclination is to allow at a reduced die size, say d6s instead of d8s. So everything works just the same but you lose a bit of effectiveness by benefitting from being at range.

[Witty Username]

There should be some trade off for going ranged. Damage potential should be limited, or Cover should be adhered to and not so easy to mitigate with Archery fighting style and/or Sharpshooter.

Yeah, they axed their Ranged Smites idea for this reason. (Thrown Smites are still a thing, but you can't combine those with Archery style or Sharpshooter; as mentioned though, you CAN combine them with Reckless Attack.)

Yep yep, my frustration isn't that the restriction doesn't have a reason, just that it is obviously balance and not narrative or thematic.

Sneak attack is the more fortified hill, since it is there for narrative/thematic reasons that make no damm sense, and balance is alot harder to argue since it has limitations and knock on effects.
Things like greatsword or halberd doesn't change the need for advantage or positioning, for example and allows greater range for bandits, thugs and ruffians.

[Gurgeh]

Yeah, they axed their Ranged Smites idea for this reason. (Thrown Smites are still a thing, but you can't combine those with Archery style or Sharpshooter; as mentioned though, you CAN combine them with Reckless Attack.)

quibble: you can combine them with sharpshooter since the only one of its bullet points that requires a ranged weapon is the damage-for-accuracy trade (and you're already getting a damage boost by smiting so it's less valuable than it would otherwise be). Ignoring cover and the long-range disadvantage are still very big things, especially for thrown weapons which have all of nothing for their short range bracket.

[Nagog]

- BARB GETS SOME DARN ABILITIES THAT AREN'T BASED ON RAGE

Ok I'm raging about this. But it wasn't for 10 minutes; that would be crazy.

This is exactly it. Frankly, Combat isn't my favorite aspect of play (despite it being the crunchiest), so Barbarians have almost no appeal to me. They usually have like one subclass ability that isn't strictly combat focused, and other than that you don't really have much to do until initiative is rolled.

[NeptunianOM]

I just wish they'd gone back to rounds for Rage. Multiply their current rage by 10, that's how many rounds a LR you have. Initiate a Rage with a BA, it goes as long as you need (3 or 4 rounds I guess is typical) and then it stops. No wasting 6 or 7 rounds on one of your precious 2 Rages for nothing. No need to constantly seethe for 10 minutes.

If you have 20 rounds of Rage, its less concerning blowing 1 of them to Rage, lift a gate with advantage and the immediately calm down.

You can spring traps with your face. You can dwarf toss your friends across the 20' chasm (is that racist? I think it's racist...) Also removes the weird skill beats that were used to justify the 10 minutes.

IDK what WotC was thinking, but they went in the complete opposite direction of what the class needed.

I generally agree with this.

I wonder if the reason they did not want to go this route is that it is more difficult to track? It is not that much more difficult but it could lead to situations where players kept bad notes and use additional turns of rage or cheat themselves with fewer.

[Psyren]

quibble: you can combine them with sharpshooter since the only one of its bullet points that requires a ranged weapon is the damage-for-accuracy trade (and you're already getting a damage boost by smiting so it's less valuable than it would otherwise be). Ignoring cover and the long-range disadvantage are still very big things, especially for thrown weapons which have all of nothing for their short range bracket.

I mean sure, SS isn't useless without the damage boost, but I don't know that it would be worth a precious feat either. Throwing is more of a side-gig for Str-based classes, and they have plenty of others they need on top of the ASIs to hit 20 at a reasonable time. A Str-based Fighter can afford to blow an ASI on ignoring cover but I don't know that a Paladin or Barbarian could, especially when the latter can just ignore long-range penalties without it anyway.

Yep yep, my frustration isn't that the restriction doesn't have a reason, just that it is obviously balance and not narrative or thematic.

Sneak attack is the more fortified hill, since it is there for narrative/thematic reasons that make no damm sense, and balance is alot harder to argue since it has limitations and knock on effects.
Things like greatsword or halberd doesn't change the need for advantage or positioning, for example and allows greater range for bandits, thugs and ruffians.

Narrative and thematic reasoning are easy though. You can smite with melee and thrown but not projectile weapons because you need direct physical contact with the delivery vector while attacking to charge the energy into it; bows, crossbows, and slings don't work for that. You can RA with Str-based attacks but not Dex-based ones because you're swinging with wild abandon and brute force rather than precision. Those took me a few seconds for even me to come up with, so it's no wonder they didn't spend much time on it either.

Sneak Attack makes plenty of sense as well; you're landing precision hits against foes who are distracted by allies and/or otherwise especially vulnerable to attack.

I generally agree with this.

I wonder if the reason they did not want to go this route is that it is more difficult to track? It is not that much more difficult but it could lead to situations where players kept bad notes and use additional turns of rage or cheat themselves with fewer.

They don't want DMs to be forced to track rounds outside of combat unless they want to. But making rage a rounds-based ability would pretty much force them to do that. Out of combat, for most characters there is very little difference between taking 30 seconds or 1 minute to bend some bars or pry off a grate, but when one of those characters is using a resource measured in rounds then those two become very different.

[Witty Username]

Sneak Attack makes plenty of sense as well; you're landing precision hits against foes who are distracted by allies and/or otherwise especially vulnerable to attack.

But that is a methodology of combat, not a trait of a subset of weapons, a blackjack to the back of the head is as effective anything else applied with savage cunnin.

Sure there are reasonings that you can't apply unwieldy things to sneak attacks, but there is equally good reasoning that unwieldy things are ineffective weapons.

A mace applied to stress points of armor, a spear at the knee of a distracted enemy, half swording to get the point of a claymore through gap near the neck are things accomplished by relatively mundane combat training at least in the eras we draw inspiration from

And all of this would be easier than say a longbow at 600 ft away, which a rogue can accomplish without specific training (SS and proficiency make it easier but are not strictly necessary). Or whatever you do to make a whip work as a weapon.

With this in mind, rogue being able to use sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient with would make alot more sense, than finesse and ranged weapons only.

Like, why is it physically impossible to aim for the head with a hammer? Does everyone have head mounted deflector shields that don't work on daggers?

The psudo flanking and advantage are sufficient limitations. Its the tactics that make the sneak attack not the loadout.

[Slipjig]

In other words... The Barbarian is Bruce Banner

Exactly: he's always angry, but he's NOT always raging.

Bruce Banner seethes. The Hulk rages.

[Theodoxus]

But that is a methodology of combat, not a trait of a subset of weapons, a blackjack to the back of the head is as effective anything else applied with savage cunnin.

Sure there are reasonings that you can't apply unwieldy things to sneak attacks, but there is equally good reasoning that unwieldy things are ineffective weapons.

A mace applied to stress points of armor, a spear at the knee of a distracted enemy, half swording to get the point of a claymore through gap near the neck are things accomplished by relatively mundane combat training at least in the eras we draw inspiration from

And all of this would be easier than say a longbow at 600 ft away, which a rogue can accomplish without specific training (SS and proficiency make it easier but are not strictly necessary). Or whatever you do to make a whip work as a weapon.

With this in mind, rogue being able to use sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient with would make alot more sense, than finesse and ranged weapons only.

Like, why is it physically impossible to aim for the head with a hammer? Does everyone have head mounted deflector shields that don't work on daggers?

The pseudo flanking and advantage are sufficient limitations. Its the tactics that make the sneak attack not the loadout.

I guess I'm a bit of a grognard in this respect. I can totally get behind sneak attack with any weapon you're proficient with (why do Rogues get Longswords?!?) as long as you have advantage. But I wouldn't grant it to any other condition (melee partner, 1v1 as a swashbuckler, etc.) with non-finesse weapons.

Probably makes Rogue/Barbarian multiclasses quite strong.

[Psyren]

But that is a methodology of combat, not a trait of a subset of weapons, a blackjack to the back of the head is as effective anything else applied with savage cunnin.

I'd be totally okay if they added a blackjack or sap to the game as a Finesse bludgeoning weapon, presumably weaker in some way than a club. But the issue there isn't the system - it's the missing weapon.

And all of this would be easier than say a longbow at 600 ft away, which a rogue can accomplish without specific training (SS and proficiency make it easier but are not strictly necessary). Or whatever you do to make a whip work as a weapon.

Your chances of landing an effective longbow hit without proficiency are pretty slim (you start off with a 40% deficiency and it only gets wider from there), so yes, they do need training.

Like, why is it physically impossible to aim for the head with a hammer? Does everyone have head mounted deflector shields that don't work on daggers?

A hammer isn't a finesse weapon. You can "aim for the head" (insomuch as D&D's abstracted combat lets you 'aim' for anything) but you don't get the same benefits as a finesse weapon would. There's multiple ways to justify this, such as "the head" still being too broad of a target to realize the benefits of sneak attack.

Again, the issue here seems to be more with your ability to come up with narrative justifications than with the game.

The psudo flanking and advantage are sufficient limitations. Its the tactics that make the sneak attack not the loadout.

It's both. The loadout is a component of the tactics, or at least works in tandem with them.

[Witty Username]

Narrative and thematic reasoning are easy though. You can smite with melee and thrown but not projectile weapons because you need direct physical contact with the delivery vector while attacking to charge the energy into it; bows, crossbows, and slings don't work for that. You can RA with Str-based attacks but not Dex-based ones because you're swinging with wild abandon and brute force rather than precision. Those took me a few seconds for even me to come up with, so it's no wonder they didn't spend much time on it either.

A brief reminder that smites don't work on throwing attacks. Which actually makes this reasoning more accurate, since you lose contact with the weapon when throwing. And physical contact with arrows seemed like a fact of life back when I did Archery, even if it wasn't a lot to be nice to the poor fingers.

And there are plenty of examples, 5e and otherwise of smite like affects being applied at range, from banishing smite, to eldritch smite, to ensaring strike. You even have effects like Lightning arrows with fits the themes of smite very well and it is required to be a ranged attack.


Reckless Attack is mostly fine, I think there is some design space on the table for a whirling frenzy style barbarian but that would require modifications on the rage side to implement so would probably fit a subclass modification more neatly.

[Psyren]

A brief reminder that smites don't work on throwing attacks.

They will in 5.5e, and given that this thread is complaining about the upcoming 10-minute rage, it's a 5.5e thread.

Reckless Attack is mostly fine, I think there is some design space on the table for a whirling frenzy style barbarian but that would require modifications on the rage side to implement so would probably fit a subclass modification more neatly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "whirling frenzy style barbarian." Can't they already be that?

[Kane0]

I'm not sure what you mean by "whirling frenzy style barbarian." Can't they already be that?

A TWF barb i suppose, with Rage getting in the way of your offhand attack and lack of access to the fighting style.