EDIT: (I thought he was gonna be a Defender.)
What else can you tell us (without hurting your fingers from typing all the powers up) about our beloved barbarian?
EDIT: I'm in the midwest and its only 11 right now.
All I can say is, thank you for posting this. (Sorry about you being wrong though.)
What else can you tell us (without hurting your fingers from typing all the powers up) about our beloved barbarian?
EDIT: I'm in the midwest and its only 11 right now.
I'm in Edmonton (Mountain Time), so it's only 10 right now. :P
You should go to dndinsider.com and check it out. It's probably there for you, too.
Not another striker! It seems like those are the only classes people want to play!
Truth. That said, this Striker as the most Defender-y of Strikers that we've yet seen. He doesn't get proficiency with any ranged weapons. He gets extra HP and temporary HP. He's basically a big, tough, mofo.
Seriously, just reading the class features and powers, I found myself thinking, "Holy s***! This guy is crazy!" I definitely get the "rage" vibe from this class.
Makes me seriously wonder what the Primal Defender will be. (Druid? Please, no; those are supposed to be casters.)
Also, FWIW, the text suggests that the other (not shown) Barbarian build is more Striker/Leader, albeit still with Defender HP. I'm curious how that works.
I hate being wrong.
I love being right.
Makes me seriously wonder what the Primal Defender will be. (Druid? Please, no; those are supposed to be casters.)
I'd wager the Druid to be the Primal Controller, laying waste to opponents with fire and lightning while turning the battlefield on its ear with mudslides and snowdrifts to screw with terrain.
If one thinks about it a barbarian would make a horrid defender as "rage" is pretty much the anti-force to stand in one place and tank, as is the idea of tanking without "real" armor.
It does suck to be in the wrong though, but I admire you for coming on here and saying such. I argued with many people, about this very topic, and I can almost assure you that you are going to be one of a very small percentage (if not the only one) that is going to man up to it! So, in that you have earned my respect (for what it's worth).
I'd wager the Druid to be the Primal Controller, laying waste to opponents with fire and lightning while turning the battlefield on its ear with mudslides and snowdrifts to screw with terrain.
My guess it that it is going to be one of the classes that we have not heard of before (one of the "new" ones). Or it is entirely possible that primal will not have a defender. There is really nothing primal about standing around and taking damage.
That is the one thing I am uber happy about with 4E: Things make sense!
If one thinks about it a barbarian would make a horrid defender as "rage" is pretty much the anti-force to stand in one place and tank, as is the idea of tanking without "real" armor.
It does suck to be in the wrong though, but I admire you for coming on here and saying such. I argued with many people, about this very topic, and I can almost assure you that you are going to be one of a very small percentage (if not the only one) that is going to man up to it! So, in that you have earned my respect (for what it's worth).
Hey, it's not every day a stranger tells you that they respect you. Thanks for that, friend!
My guess it that it is going to be one of the classes that we have not heard of before (one of the "new" ones). Or it is entirely possible that primal will not have a defender. There is really nothing primal about standing around and taking damage.
OTOH, I'm not sure it's especially "Martial", "Arcane", or "Divine" to stand around and take damage, either. :P
Hey, it's not every day a stranger tells you that they respect you. Thanks for that, friend!
It's not everyday that people accept accountability, and it is something that is sorely lacking in our world!
OTOH, I'm not sure it's especially "Martial", "Arcane", or "Divine" to stand around and take damage, either. :P
I can't argue that at all, but if I HAD to do it I would be using the 100 lb. armor and a shield, as well! It really says something when one gives up that mobility in a combat zone.
He doesn't get proficiency with any ranged weapons.
Oh great, I can see it already: "4th Edition is restrictive because I can't play my Archer-Barbarian from 3.5."
That madness aside: I think I like the barb, but it'll take a while to be sure.
I'd wager the Druid to be the Primal Controller, laying waste to opponents with fire and lightning while turning the battlefield on its ear with mudslides and snowdrifts to screw with terrain.
Oh I hope so! Only one choice for controller made me not the happiest camper in the world. I agree there's too many strikers, but I do see how barbarian couldn't be a very good defender and works as a striker (not a good leader either).
Come to think of it...what could be another leader? I thought the same with controller. I see how druid could be, is there gonna be a sorcerer? I don't see how...maybe less at wills, but they're...umm...better? Fires TWO magic missiles!
It gives me precedent to create a class with out or role HP.
Barbarian has just justified creating a Martial Controller with Striker or Defender HP instead of Wizard HP.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA SUCK IT!
Sorry, I don't know where that came from.
Anyway, Since it's now officially permissible, via a published first party source, for a class to have the HP set from a different role, there is NO ACCEPTABLE COUNTER ARGUMENT for giving a class HP outside it's role.
I win.
I love being right.
I love being wrong.
I really like how Rage Strike allows you to at least get some damage out of your other Rages if you don't want to give up the benefit from the one you entered, and at the higher levels, more base damage than any power I've seen. 9W at level 29? Wheeee!
You know what I like most about Barbarian?
It gives me precedent to create a class with out or role HP.
Barbarian has just justified creating a Martial Controller with Striker or Defender HP instead of Wizard HP.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA SUCK IT!
Sorry, I don't know where that came from.
Anyway, Since it's now officially permissible, via a published first party source, for a class to have the HP set from a different role, there is NO ACCEPTABLE COUNTER ARGUMENT for giving a class HP outside it's role.
I win.
Dude. What in the world are you cackling about?
Based off what I could gather from the article, I'm going to guess the builds are as follows:
Rageblood = STR/CON
Thaneborn = STR/CHA
Now, the section on races says the following:
Goliaths are ideal rageblood barbarians.
I'm guessing this means goliaths are +2 STR/+2 CON.
Half-orcs are often barbarians but don’t favor either of the two types.
This probably means they don't have a CON or CHA bonus, so they'll have different stat arrays from the STR/CON orc. I'm going to guess that Half-Orcs are STR/WIS.
Dwarf and shifter barbarians tend to be rageblood barbarians
We know from the monster manual that shifters are either STR/WIS or DEX/WIS. Maybe they'll have a CON/WIS shifter subspecies in PHB2.
Oh I hope so! Only one choice for controller made me not the happiest camper in the world. I agree there's too many strikers, but I do see how barbarian couldn't be a very good defender and works as a striker (not a good leader either).
Come to think of it...what could be another leader? I thought the same with controller. I see how druid could be, is there gonna be a sorcerer? I don't see how...maybe less at wills, but they're...umm...better? Fires TWO magic missiles!
Shaman is confirmed as a Primal Leader, and Sorcerer is confirmed as an Arcane Controller. Also, it's been confirmed that PH2 will have a Divine Controller as well, and IIRC, it's confirmed that there's also a Primal Controller there too.
Thus, PH2 will have three new controllers and at least one new leader. CORRECTION: Two leaders, counting the Bard.
That is some MASSIVE damage output there. Ha!The way rages and rage strike work is pretty interesting. As mentioned, though, I too thought the secondary-Leader build sounded odd.
I'd wager the Druid to be the Primal Controller, laying waste to opponents with fire and lightning while turning the battlefield on its ear with mudslides and snowdrifts to screw with terrain.
This concept as Primal Controller, definitely. Still not 100% convinced it'll be the "Druid," though, due to the as yet plausible ideas of Druids shapeshifting into tanks or being Leader-y. (Or...do you think they would sneak in the Sorcerer on us as Primal Controller, even though we're expecting Arcane??) I'm not sure which way I think the Druid will fall or even which I personally prefer, except that I think I'd like to see a Shaman as the Primal Leader.
Anyway, fun stuff!
Go Barb!Shaman is confirmed as a Primal Leader, and Sorcerer is confirmed as an Arcane Controller. Also, it's been confirmed that PH2 will have a Divine Controller as well, and IIRC, it's confirmed that there's also a Primal Controller there too.
Thus, PH2 will have three new controllers and at least one new leader. CORRECTION: Two leaders, counting the Bard.[Bold added.]
I definitely remember those confirmations, but I can't remember if there was a similar "confirmation" for the Barbarian's role. Was it just a lot of people convinced one way or the other? The reason I ask is it makes me just skeptical enough to worry about who gets which seat where.
When I think about it again, though, the Shaman, Sorcerer, and Bard don't seem to have as much controversy or speculation surrounding them as the Barb did. I may just be being paranoid.
I definitely remember those confirmations, but I can't remember if there was a similar "confirmation" for the Barbarian's role. Was it just a lot of people convinced one way or the other? The reason I ask is it makes me just skeptical enough to worry about who gets which seat where.
When I think about it again, though, the Shaman, Sorcerer, and Bard don't seem to have as much controversy or speculation surrounding them as the Barb did. I may just be being paranoid.
IIRC, someone was supposedly informed by a developer by one of the conventions that the Barbarian would indeed be a striker, or something of that sort.
This could be the druid, or it might be a new class entirely. If it's a new class, I'm going to guess that it's focused on combat shapeshifting. The difference between it and the Druid would be that this class focuses on a single combat form, while the druid gets several (which are generally more useful as utility skills than as combat abilities, such as turning into a bird to gain flight).
The totem idea could be applied here, with each totem working similarly to the Warlock's pacts. For instance, there might be a bear totem, wolf totem, and tiger/wildcat totem (with bear focused on STR, cat focused on DEX, and wolf focused on a combination of the two).
The way rages and rage strike work is pretty interesting. As mentioned, though, I too thought the secondary-Leader build sounded odd.
Barbarian sub-leader roll makes enough sense to me. Such character would inspire rage-like power in his allies. For what it's, there were, as I recall, a barbarian prestige class or two back in 3.5 that could share rage benefits with allies.
Edit: Oh, and put me in the camp that expected the barbarian as a defender that used fear and intimidation to cow his enemies. Though I did also expect the barbarian to be a the least defendery defender, and to have enough striker like options to make the fighter ashamed to call itself a sub-striker.
I'm not sure how I feel about a few of these features. First, if he is supposed to specialize in two handed weapons, why not give them weapon proficiencies in all Simple and Martial two handed weapons, to balance out their power, a bit?
Also, their extra damage can be used if they burn and Action Point, unlike the other strikers, who thanks to the errata only get their extra damage once per round, even if the spend an Action Point, so I see no parity there.
The totem idea could be applied here, with each totem working similarly to the Warlock's pacts. For instance, there might be a bear totem, wolf totem, and tiger/wildcat totem (with bear focused on STR, cat focused on DEX, and wolf focused on a combination of the two).
This sounds nifty conceptually. I hope that's the route they took with the Druid, and sloughed the nature/weather magic off to another class (Witch, as others have posited, or whatever they decided to name it, XD).
On another note, if they don't include a class of every role, I hope they double up on something other than Striker. We've got plenty as is. XD
I think the main caster-oriented type will be Shaman. I could see a Shaman making deals, contracts, overpowering, etc, etc. the spirits in nature to do his bidding. So a spirit of a animal, a spirit of a river, etc.
Not another striker! It seems like those are the only classes people want to play!
I'm playing a Controller and I'm tossing up between a Leader or a Striker for my next role. It will depend largely on what the team needs at the time. Although I _really_ wanted to be a Controller for my first char :D
Well when they first started talking about the Druid they said the main focus would be wild-shape with some weather spells on the side.
They've been pretty consistent with this--the druid will focus on wild shaping, with a lot of similarity to the 3.5 PHB2 shapeshifting druid. That doesn't really scream controller to me.
The barbarian's all Daily Attack Evocations are Rages may even offer an insight as to how Wildshape may be implemented.
I kinda figured the (druid's?) wildshape ability would work like the stances a fighter has, you use the daily power to shapeshift and you get the bonus until you shapeshift again, the end of the encounter or you are knocked unconcious. I figured that would be the easiest way to do it. All shapeshifting is reduced to is a daily power, all the details are in said power and it doesn't have to be a class ability per say. It would also be cool for multi-classing. That way you can have one build of (druid?) that focuses on shapeshifting, the other that focuses on the weather type. If you mix and match powers, then you can have a bear calling down lightning on an enemy.
Well when they first started talking about the Druid they said the main focus would be wild-shape with some weather spells on the side.
I think the main caster-oriented type will be Shaman. I could see a Shaman making deals, contracts, overpowering, etc, etc. the spirits in nature to do his bidding. So a spirit of a animal, a spirit of a river, etc.
At the time that they started talking about the Druid it was a hybrid class(likely striker/controller). Since then they have said that hybrid classes don't work and they aren't going to be doing any. As such the original idea for the Druid has changed.
Swift Panther Rage + Swift Charge + Howling Strike = Win
I'm gonna have to theorycraft some more, but I already like the design here.
This concept as Primal Controller, definitely. Still not 100% convinced it'll be the "Druid," though, due to the as yet plausible ideas of Druids shapeshifting into tanks or being Leader-y. (Or...do you think they would sneak in the Sorcerer on us as Primal Controller, even though we're expecting Arcane??) I'm not sure which way I think the Druid will fall or even which I personally prefer, except that I think I'd like to see a Shaman as the Primal Leader.
I think the Sorcerer will remain Arcane, and I'm hoping Wildshape has gone the way of the dodo.
I think the Sorcerer will remain Arcane, and I'm hoping Wildshape has gone the way of the dodo.
Again I bear bad hypothetical tidings, dear Salla! I highly doubt wildshape is being sent to the remote outpost you've envisioned for it. If you're lucky, maybe they'll rename it to just shapechanging or shifting or something.
[indent]Edit: PS (But I do think you're right on the Sorcerer!)[/indent]
Back to the Barbarian, was anyone else hoping for the bite attack mentioned in races and classes? Hehe.
Again I bear bad hypothetical tidings, dear Salla! I highly doubt wildshape is being sent to the remote outpost you've envisioned for it. If you're lucky, maybe they'll rename it to just shapechanging or shifting or something.
I think you're right there. The devs have said repeatedly that wild shape is the druid's main thing. I think they're willing to throw out all the other features of the druid before they get rid of wild shape.
How will the barbarian be balanced out, considering he has defender hp?
Instead of sneaking, leaping, or teleporting around the battlefield like a typical striker, the Barbarian just runs around wherever he wants. Instead of avoiding all the enemies' attacks, he takes the many hits and shrugs them off into his bank of temporary and regular hit points. His defenses and armor class are not high like a defender's would be, nor do his class features help him directly protect anyone. What he does is deal damage! (Which, incidentally, can be a fairly helpful form of protection in itself.) As a striker, you might consider the barbarian to simply have a heavy handed method of mobility.
I am expecting the contrary, some paragon paths with rages so vicious that the barbarian has to make a saving throw to not hit his only friends.
About thibbs question:
The barbarian also lacks stun, he "maybe" deals a little more damage than the other strikers but the ability to control his targets and to control himself is limited.
He came to bring chaos to the battlefield, not the contrary.
I love being wrong.
I love being.
Dude. What in the world are you cackling about?
Right, the biggest argument against a Martial Controller is that their life would be so low (as a controller) that they would be to soft for melee combat.
Barbarian fixes that problem, by allowing a class to have HP based on a different role.
I'm laughing like a madman, because next time I post my Brute class (Martial Controller) and some whiny punk complains about his having to much HP, I now have a 1st party source to throw in his face.
I love being.
I love.
Right, the biggest argument against a Martial Controller is that their life would be so low (as a controller) that they would be to soft for melee combat.
Barbarian fixes that problem, by allowing a class to have HP based on a different role.
I'm laughing like a madman, because next time I post my Brute class (Martial Controller) and some whiny punk complains about his having to much HP, I now have a 1st party source to throw in his face.
Really? I thought the biggest argument was that most martial controller concepts were strained and/or silly.
I love.
I.
As for 'proof' that a martial controller would work I think the hp isn't the real flaw of a martial controller (a controller shouldn't need hp, no matter what power source) is their concept. The best I could see would be a non-alchemical based artificer or archer type class that works at range to manipulate the battlefield. A melee controller is a defender, and a ranged defender is a controller (or more likely a leader or striker). I think part of the confusion is the term 'controller' since despite being called one the wizard really doesn't have many (MMO-style) crowd control powers. In MMO terms with the wizard as a base the D&D4e controller would be called a nuker. The leader classes seem more like what I think of as a controller.
I.
..
You know what I like most about Barbarian?
It gives me precedent to create a class with out or role HP.
Barbarian has just justified creating a Martial Controller with Striker or Defender HP instead of Wizard HP.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA SUCK IT!
Sorry, I don't know where that came from.
Anyway, Since it's now officially permissible, via a published first party source, for a class to have the HP set from a different role, there is NO ACCEPTABLE COUNTER ARGUMENT for giving a class HP outside it's role.
I win.
As he explained, he basically can have different HP due to a "official" source saying it was ok otherwise. Also, I too configured this as well, now with this information in tow, the FF esque Dragoon can now be created, without worry of it' having too much hp for it's role.
I too find the barbarian interesting indeed, I can see quite a bit of Conan our beloved Cimmerian with these powers. However I do have the concern of it's At-wills being too strong, oh well I'm sure all will be fixed come it's release, or otherwise by members of the boards.
As far as the barbarian being a striker bit, it didn't matter too much to me, as I had accepted the barbarian as a dead class. Just figured one could use the fighter, or whatever have you as the character. After all, a barbarian is merely one who lives in the wilds, and such.
..
Sqrt -i
Oh great, I can see it already: "4th Edition is restrictive because I can't play my Archer-Barbarian from 3.5."
That madness aside: I think I like the barb, but it'll take a while to be sure.
I already thought about that.
My solution: Ranger base class, with the "Primal Warrior" feat (or whatever they end up calling the Barbarian multiclass feat) and the Archer Ranger build, adding in the appropriate power-swap feats as called for during leveling up.
Just figured one could use the fighter, or whatever have you as the character. After all, a barbarian is merely one who lives in the wilds, and such.
That's why I always think of the Barbarian as a Berserker. It makes more sense that way. Any class can be a barbarian, not everyone can be a berserker.
Sqrt -i
Divide by zero?
Oh great, I can see it already: "4th Edition is restrictive because I can't play my Archer-Barbarian from 3.5."
This from another thread: "I never got how the Barbarian was precisely firing a bow while consumed by a crazy roid rage!"
That madness aside: I think I like the barb, but it'll take a while to be sure.
Agreed, except that I think that I really like the Barbarian.
This from another thread: "I never got how the Barbarian was precisely firing a bow while consumed by a crazy roid rage!
Same here, although I COULD easily see an axe-hurling or (for the more exotic types) boomerang-slinging Barbarians easily, for some reason...
Not another striker! It seems like those are the only classes people want to play!
Actually it's because many 3.5 classes fall under the 4e designation of strikers. I also suspect that there will be many strikers because the role is the easiest to design for, I mean look at the Ranger and Rogue. Two very different strikers while not stepping on each others shoes.
Oh great, I can see it already: "4th Edition is restrictive because I can't play my Archer-Barbarian from 3.5."
Now see here! I play 4th and 3.5. And while I enjoy both and lean a little more on the 3.5 side, "archer barbarians"!? Seriously? If the barbarians don't start with ranged weapon profs. then I'm ok with that.
I mean, maybe javelins or some kind of throwing spears or nets would be nice for those wilderness-hunter barbarians. That'd be cool.
If the barbarians don't start with ranged weapon profs. then I'm ok with that.
I mean, maybe javelins or some kind of throwing spears or nets would be nice for those wilderness-hunter barbarians. That'd be cool.
Yeah, just about any hurled weapon as opposed to mechanically flung weapons seem more suitable to Barbarian characters, thematically. Spears, Javelins, nets, throwing axes, boomerangs (the Feral Kid from the Road Warrior, anyone?) and other thrown killing toys are far more likely to be used by a raging barbarian than a composite wheelbow or repeating crossbow.
"YAY!!!!!!!!!!"
:bounce:
Throwing weapons are also melee weapons, so they do have ranged weapons. Just not bows.
Is that really so?
Throwing weapons are listed in the melee weapon tables true enough, but the Ranged Basic Attack power is used when you throw them. It even has that [Special] note indicating Heavy Throw weapon use Strength modifier instead of Dexterity.
So, does the same principle apply to non-basic attacks? Is throwing a weapon even possible with powers with a range of [Melee weapon] only, or do you require a power to have a [Ranged weapon] range in order to throw one?
...
For raging strike, it says you have to be raging and use one rage power.
I am not quite clear on what a "rage power" is. Is it the encounter and at-will powers? If so, he can do rage strike at will while raging right?
I'm having a little trouble understanding...
For raging strike, it says you have to be raging and use one rage power.
I am not quite clear on what a "rage power" is. Is it the encounter and at-will powers? If so, he can do rage strike at will while raging right?
Rage powers are his daily powers. He is limited to using rage strike in a single encounter to total number of daily powers-1, since he has to use one to start the rage.
Rage powers are his daily powers. He is limited to using rage strike in a single encounter to total number of daily powers-1, since he has to use one to start the rage.
Thank you for the clerification.
Again I bear bad hypothetical tidings, dear Salla! I highly doubt wildshape is being sent to the remote outpost you've envisioned for it. If you're lucky, maybe they'll rename it to just shapechanging or shifting or something.
The name isn't the issue. I just hate the concept.
I'm not fond of the Barbarian totem-spirit stuff either, but that's fluff ... unfortunately, it's extremely integrated fluff. I may have to just throw out the whole Primal power source at this rate.
For powers if they say melee then it's melee, throwig a weapon won't work since that's a ranged attack. The keyword in powers for melee/range is for the 'range' of the power, plus a thrown weapon is considered a ranged weapon when thrown, and a melee weapon when not thrown. A few thrown weapons don't count as melee weapons (shuriken for example) at all as they can't be used as a melee weapon.
Looking at the barbarians powers I didn't really see any totem aspects other than choice of power names. The DMG already talks about how to refluff powers to make for different campaign themes. Nothing in the power mechanics are dependent on some totem animal aspect.
The name isn't the issue. I just hate the concept.
I'm not fond of the Barbarian totem-spirit stuff either, but that's fluff ... unfortunately, it's extremely integrated fluff. I may have to just throw out the whole Primal power source at this rate.
"That's the point of these classes? What is the problem here? If you don't like 'Totem BARBARIANS' call them 'Totemists' or something... It's people who can't open their minds who can't do more than whine about 4e."