I took resil: wisdom on my barb

[sithlordnergal]

Soo, I'd personally keep the Resilient Wisdom. Yeah, you have -1 to your normal Strength stuff, and that sucks, but Wisdom Saves cover so many different detrimental effects that the drop in Strength is basically always worth it. Just off the top of my head, Wisdom protects you from Charm, Frightened, Domination, Paralyzed, and Incapacitated. I have played a Strength Based Paladin from one to 20 and kept his Strength at 16, I found the 16 worked perfectly fine on its own until around level 15 with just a +1 weapon. At which point I needed to upgrade my my weapon to a +2 and eventually got a +3 weapon. Most enemies don't have super high AC, with the highest being the Tarrasque at 25 AC.

[DeTess]

And to add to the above, there are some wisdom saves in late game that are like DC17 or higher that absolutely debilitate you until you make the save, so in those cases the difference between a +4 or -1 is huge.

[Arkhios]

To be fair, you could've left Wisdom 8 (or 9 with Resilient). The difference between 8 and 10 ability modifiers' isn't that big. The big benefit comes from Proficiency, because it grows as you level up. Wisdom doesn't, unless you invest in it. Plus, if your wisdom were 9 and your strength 17, at a later level you could even both out.

Besides, there's a certain appeal living a bit on the edge, with risking failure for things like you described. Try to make lemonade from those lemons. It can be funny if you embrace the fact that you're playing a bit slow-witted, slightly inperceptive muscle-maniac, who can still brush off "weakling" tactics such as mind-affecting effects by e.g. being "angry all the time".

[Skrum]

To be fair, you could've left Wisdom 8 (or 9 with Resilient). The difference between 8 and 10 ability modifiers' isn't that big. The big benefit comes from Proficiency, because it grows as you level up. Wisdom doesn't, unless you invest in it. Plus, if your wisdom were 9 and your strength 17, at a later level you could even both out.

The absolute highest this character will get is 12. My current plan is to take rogue 5 for uncanny dodge and SA +3d6, meaning he won't get another feat.

Idk... I'm honestly questioning his build though. Trying to get the most out of those last two levels, just not sure what is the right call. Rogue and barb are almost definitely the two worst classes, and combining them leaves me feeling pretty shortchanged at level 10+ content.

[Witty Username]

I am not sure how much Infernal constitution is doing for you.

Your stat line looks pretty similar to my BG3 character,
I think it is: str 16 dex 14 con 14 Int 8 wis 11 cha 12
With Str + 2, GWM and Resilient wis as feat selections.
But this was after trying to use Medium Armor Master and a str & dex of 16, but the feats value proved to just not be high enough to warrant.
I am curious that it might be a similar situation on your end, for IC it looks like the only big benefit is +1 con, but +2 str and Res: Wis are going to likely have more value than that.


This is also a straight barbarian though, I have few oppinions on barb/rogue other than it is in fact possible.

[stoutstien]

I am not sure how much Infernal constitution is doing for you.

Your stat line looks pretty similar to my BG3 character,
I think it is: str 16 dex 14 con 14 Int 8 wis 11 cha 12
With Str + 2, GWM and Resilient wis as feat selections.
But this was after trying to use Medium Armor Master and a str & dex of 16, but the feats value proved to just not be high enough to warrant.
I am curious that it might be a similar situation on your end, for IC it looks like the only big benefit is +1 con, but +2 str and Res: Wis are going to likely have more value than that.


This is also a straight barbarian though, I have few oppinions on barb/rogue other than it is in fact possible.

It's just one of those feats that are hard to value outside the context of a given game. It could range from practically uses to the single largest source of mitigation. Since you already got fire resistance by nature of the base race getting the non-physical damage types covered is nice.

Ironically I think it's better for characters I don't necessarily have a ton of health to begin with because it's most just direct HP type stuff. Pretty flavorful if you're making a general dragon Hunter.

[Skrum]

I am not sure how much Infernal constitution is doing for you.

Your stat line looks pretty similar to my BG3 character,
I think it is: str 16 dex 14 con 14 Int 8 wis 11 cha 12
With Str + 2, GWM and Resilient wis as feat selections.
But this was after trying to use Medium Armor Master and a str & dex of 16, but the feats value proved to just not be high enough to warrant.
I am curious that it might be a similar situation on your end, for IC it looks like the only big benefit is +1 con, but +2 str and Res: Wis are going to likely have more value than that.


This is also a straight barbarian though, I have few oppinions on barb/rogue other than it is in fact possible.

Cold resist doesn't come up that much, but poison resist comes up a lot. Most enemies we have have a elemental damage rider (little specific to our table).

I'm super hesitant to drop it; being tough is basically his thing

[CTurbo]

The absolute highest this character will get is 12. My current plan is to take rogue 5 for uncanny dodge and SA +3d6, meaning he won't get another feat.

Idk... I'm honestly questioning his build though. Trying to get the most out of those last two levels, just not sure what is the right call. Rogue and barb are almost definitely the two worst classes, and combining them leaves me feeling pretty shortchanged at level 10+ content.

In most cases, any 6/4 split is going to feel underwhelming for a 10th level character. Having "only" a 16 in your main stat too is only going to make it feel worse. Res(Wis) is a VERY good feat for a Barb, but I'd rather have the 18 Str all day every day. I'd rather my character feel as useful as possible while also having a glaring weakness than not have any obvious weaknesses, but also not be all that useful if you know what I mean.


I know it's probably not the popular opinion, but on my characters, they have to have an 18 in their main stat before I even consider ANY feat. If there is a feat I MUST have for a particular character concept, I go vhuman or CL and pick it up at level 1.

[RSP]

Not sure if this come up as much at your table, but the +1 to Wis (resetting the Wis 8 to Wis 10) also helps Wis skills (namely Perception).

So in addition to the Wis Saves, there’s that, which usually isn’t nothing, at least.

[Silly Name]

Tbh, I feel the Rogue levels may be more impactful in making you feel "worse" than Resilient: Wis does.

The extra damage from sneak attack isn't bad, by all means, and we all know that Barbarian levels past 6 usually aren't exciting, but I find Fighter levels tend to be a better fit.

Rogue forces you into using finesse weapons, so that ~7 damage you get from Sneak Attack is really ~4.5 damage (1d8 base damage vs 2d6). Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge are good and all, but they don't make you a better attacker.

Meanwhile, 4 levels of Fighter would've net you Fighting Style (better damage curve with GWF), Second Wind (B.A. that gives you a little survivability boost), Action Surge (one of the best "force multipliers" for weapon users), and picking Battle Master as your subclass gives you some extra options on the battlefield. And, yes, Fighter 5 is a dead level for you, but going Barb 8/Fighter 4 isn't too bad, and nets you an ASI as your "capstone" if you end at level 12.

[Skrum]

Tbh, I feel the Rogue levels may be more impactful in making you feel "worse" than Resilient: Wis does.

The extra damage from sneak attack isn't bad, by all means, and we all know that Barbarian levels past 6 usually aren't exciting, but I find Fighter levels tend to be a better fit.

Rogue forces you into using finesse weapons, so that ~7 damage you get from Sneak Attack is really ~4.5 damage (1d8 base damage vs 2d6). Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge are good and all, but they don't make you a better attacker.

Meanwhile, 4 levels of Fighter would've net you Fighting Style (better damage curve with GWF), Second Wind (B.A. that gives you a little survivability boost), Action Surge (one of the best "force multipliers" for weapon users), and picking Battle Master as your subclass gives you some extra options on the battlefield. And, yes, Fighter 5 is a dead level for you, but going Barb 8/Fighter 4 isn't too bad, and nets you an ASI as your "capstone" if you end at level 12.

You're definitely right about all that lol. Rogue is bad. But in this case... it's a flavor pick. The character is an assassin that "hides in plain sight" by being a well-regarded chef. His subclass (soul knife) and expertise picks are all in service to making him feel like an assassin.

I know, I'm making a bunch of flavor picks and then ranting about my sub-par build choices. I'm asking for cake and wanting to eat it too.

[Witty Username]

What is barbarian doing for your character, theme wise?

[Kane0]

What is barbarian doing for your character, theme wise?

Being tough it seems. Its his thing so it is said.

[Witty Username]

I ask because straight rogue wouldn't be out of place here.

Uncanny dodge, high con, and not needing to split stats between Strength and Dex as bad. Weapon choice is not a new issue and the loss of extra attack is offset by increased sneak attack damage (no GWM, so you not getting some of the bigger gains of extra attack anyway).

Respecing to Rogue entirely would net gain 2 feats over the multiclass, since your not losing the 12th level one and gaining the 10th level buff.

Soulknife also has decent means to boost ability checks. Take Athletics and maybe expertise, and you should be good at the technical aspects of those things.

[Skrum]

I ask because straight rogue wouldn't be out of place here.

Uncanny dodge, high con, and not needing to split stats between Strength and Dex as bad. Weapon choice is not a new issue and the loss of extra attack is offset by increased sneak attack damage (no GWM, so you not getting some of the bigger gains of extra attack anyway).

Respecing to Rogue entirely would net gain 2 feats over the multiclass, since your not losing the 12th level one and gaining the 10th level buff.

Soulknife also has decent means to boost ability checks. Take Athletics and maybe expertise, and you should be good at the technical aspects of those things.

Also a pretty good idea...and if I kept infernal constitution he'd still have all of his elemental resistances, which is nice.

Thing is, this character is pretty well established. Mechanically, he's wild magic barb, but narratively his "rage" is him eating a profiterole that has some random filling (thus the 8 different abilities of the wild magic rage). The 6th level power, bolstering magic, is also flavored as special bite-sized gourmet foods he's made that provide some magic benefit.

Point being, I've spent a bunch of time and thought into making this character feel the way I want it to; he's a chef who believes in the magic of food (and he also kills people for money).

What I'm really complaining about is the stark choice I have to make - boost my main stat and be essentially helpless against wisdom effects, or be half way decent at wisdom saves but have a low main stat. It's especially grating because there's far better builds being played in the same game. On some level I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick because I'm going for the interesting, narratively cool build.

[Theodoxus]

But the food is just roleplay narrative. There's nothing stopping you from doing exactly the same thing as a pure rogue, especially if you take a 'mystical' archetype like AT or Soulknife.

Eat a pastry, cast a spell. Eat a pastry, get Dex-swoll and uncanny dodge all the things. Eat a pastry, stab a dude in the neck...

I don't know exactly how you're playing up the baking/chef angle, but I'd be a little surprised if you couldn't play it up after dropping the Barbi levels, to the point that your partymates might not even realize there's been a second change in your character's make up. (Totes depends on how open the table is - totally cool if everything is out in the open too.)

Barbarian and Rogue can synergize really well, or not at all, depending on your build and desires. It's sounding like yours isn't working so great at the moment. Best to cleave off one or the other... imo, straight Rogue makes more sense than Barbarian.

[Witty Username]

I sympathize with the simple math issue, it is weird how multiclasses and feats for theme or flavor tend to reduce the characters capacity fairly dramatically unless one is setting out to break the game (which isn't exactly ideal either).

[Snails]

The Barbarian class is particularly well-suited for dealing with a non-sky high Str score by simply relying on Reckless Attack. Str 16 is just fine.

Now, weirdly enough, although Reckless Attack only benefits Str-based attacks, that does not preclude Sneak Attack. The only limitation on Sneak Attack is that you use a Finesse (or ranged) weapon -- you can attack with any Finesse weapon by employing your Str stat just fine, and then use your Sneak Attack.

What I would recommend is that you go Bar5/Rog5. The reason is Uncanny Dodge can be used to mitigate getting hit due to Reckless Attack, if you do not a Rage to burn for this combat. Note that Rage damage resistance and Uncanny Dodge do stack together. Eventually pick up Barbarian 6 for that 4th Rage per day.

[Skrum]

The Barbarian class is particularly well-suited for dealing with a non-sky high Str score by simply relying on Reckless Attack. Str 16 is just fine.

Not wrong, but we play with the flanking variant rules. Gaining advantage is essentially free; reckless is only useful in the random cases where a character isn't flanking (or attacking a prone enemy, faerie fire, etc). It seriously devalues what is one of barb's best abilities, but water under the bridge at this point.

What I would recommend is that you go Bar5/Rog5. The reason is Uncanny Dodge can be used to mitigate getting hit due to Reckless Attack, if you do not a Rage to burn for this combat. Note that Rage damage resistance and Uncanny Dodge do stack together. Eventually pick up Barbarian 6 for that 4th Rage per day.

I'm coming to that realization; 5/5 would be better than 6/4. I might request this change.

[Kane0]

Not wrong, but we play with the flanking variant rules

I feel your pain. Acutely.

[Arkhios]

To be honest, I've always felt that advantage from flanking is perhaps a little too much, given how (too) easy it makes getting advantage, and I've been wondering how to change it.

Maybe applying proficiency twice on attack rolls instead, effectively having expertise on said attacks? Or something else, like a flat +2 bonus to Hit, like in 3rd edition.

[Amnestic]

To be honest, I've always felt that advantage from flanking is perhaps a little too much, given how (too) easy it makes getting advantage, and I've been wondering how to change it.

Maybe applying proficiency twice on attack rolls instead, effectively having expertise on said attacks? Or something else, like a flat +2 bonus to Hit, like in 3rd edition.

Flat +2 makes the most sense to me. Basically equivalent to Bless.

Could do it at 1/2 PB instead, so it starts at +1 and scales to +3. Direct 'expertise' feels like too much, though I guess that's how it starts at for tier 1 if you just had +2...

[Skrum]

To be honest, I've always felt that advantage from flanking is perhaps a little too much, given how (too) easy it makes getting advantage, and I've been wondering how to change it.

Maybe applying proficiency twice on attack rolls instead, effectively having expertise on said attacks? Or something else, like a flat +2 bonus to Hit, like in 3rd edition.

100% agree. This game has been going on for about 3 years. Something like 6 months or so after we started, people began to catch on that adv flanking was not a good rule, but the GMs of the game are weirdly opposed to doing anything about it. They all say it's a problem, but they won't change it. And thus 3 years goes by (why the heck I decided to play a barbarian in such a game, idk. Reckless and grappling are far less valuable when simple flanking does 85% of that work).

While in theory I like adding proficiency bonus, having a flat value has simplicity merits. +3 proficiency is where the bulk of playtime happens IME, so my favored solution is to say flanking provides a +3 bonus.

[diplomancer]

Flat +2 makes the most sense to me. Basically equivalent to Bless.

Could do it at 1/2 PB instead, so it starts at +1 and scales to +3. Direct 'expertise' feels like too much, though I guess that's how it starts at for tier 1 if you just had +2...

I had a DM that used the flat +2. It works well, gives tactical options and reasons for being in melee, without being overpowering or basically negating class features. I don't think it should scale with proficiency. Proficiency scales with proficiency ;), and usually faster than monster AC, so there's really no reason to do so.

[Witty Username]

If you don't like flanking bonuses, just don't play with flanking bonuses.
Its an optional rule.

[Skrum]

If you don't like flanking bonuses, just don't play with flanking bonuses.
Its an optional rule.

Not up to me! I would definitely drop that silly rule if it was.

[Witty Username]

My frustration is more the picking at it, I have a suspicion that the reduced flanking bonuses are still likely to cause the table issues inherent to flanking.

I personally think it is a consequence of movement being too easy, being anywhere on the battlefield you want has essentially no consequences. But that is another sketch.

[Skrum]

My frustration is more the picking at it, I have a suspicion that the reduced flanking bonuses are still likely to cause the table issues inherent to flanking.

Adv from flanking is a particular problem because adv doesn't stack. Getting it from flanking makes a whole list of tactical options and just cool abilities almost entirely redundant.

It also makes Elven Accuracy kinda busted.

I personally think it is a consequence of movement being too easy, being anywhere on the battlefield you want has essentially no consequences. But that is another sketch.

I like the movement in 5e. If I were to change anything, it would be having OA's trigger when a creature leaves a threatened square, not just when leaving reach. I do not like the aesthetics of moving freely around an enemy, but the general freedom of movement is a massive improvement over 3e.

[Theodoxus]

The Flanking optional rule in the DMG is the epitome of WotC going overboard in bringing simplicity and reducing stacking numerical bonuses. I get the desire to eliminate as much of the 'wait, I have a +1 bonus from X and a +3 bonus from Y, so my actual roll is a total of Z" that happens frequently at the table, and math crunchy games like PF(x) and 3rd Ed certainly drive me to distraction when nearly every turn is peppered with 'wait...' instances.

But there are definitely times when advantage is just too strong, and a small bonus is more appropriate. If I had my druthers, I'd make it so that you can have 2 instances of a bonus to a single roll, outside of Ability Mod and Proficiency Bonus (those always count). So, attack might have Magic Weapon, Fighting Style, Flanking, Bless etc. And you can pick any two of them. If you manage to get 5 bonus options, you still pick 2, but you get Advantage on the roll. Doing this, I'd also change Reckless Attack to a static +5 to hit (and enemies get +5 to hit you). It's another bonus Barbarians can pick, and it doesn't become a class tax for crit fishing builds (nor a trap for Rogues).

Regarding OAs, I don't understand the mentality that you either have 3rd Ed style movement and a lot of AoOs, or 5th Ed style movement and 1 way to generate an OA. Like, there seems to be this psychic divide that you can't have movement outside of an action type and detailed OAs. The only thing I can think of that perpetuates this concept is that AoOs stopped movement. But in 5E, that requires a feat. Sure, it might make Sentinel a feat tax for tankier martials, but I don't see why casting within 5' or using a bow within 5' isn't punishable by more than disadvantage (and for spells, only if it has an attack roll). You wiggle your fingers within striking range, and I'm gonna try to slice them off!

There's been a bit of discussion on how easy it is for casters to get heavy armor. Well, granting OAs to casting within 5' instead of allowing them to wade into the middle of a scrum and PBAoE all over the place might curtail such multiclassing/feat expenditure naturally instead of making some weird rulings about it.

[Witty Username]

I tend to agree with those points, I like the additional mobility of combat, but opportunity attacks are generally difficult to come by. It makes alot of position based mechanics land strangely since there is little resson to not simply go to best spot.

I think the design intent was to eliminate the feeling of being 'stuck in' like could happen in 3.5, but in practice it allows the battlefield to be too accessible.