The Dungeon Bastard got an exclusive Barbarian Preview!
Brutal Critical, huh? Crit fishing sounds like the name of the barbarian game.
Outlander background; we have a background per class so far.
Whoah! They previews are coming out at a stunning rate!
I like the art quality, though it reminds me of a woodsman more than a barbarian. Also, this class sounds like it's got interesting options from the very beginning (just as in the playtest), with unarmored defense and reckless attack (a favorite of mine).
Mephi1234 wrote:
Looks good to me! Art is nice too! I see a nice synergy for Barbarian MC Champion Fighter to make even more Brutal Critical...
Plaguescarred wrote:
Not ranger. Again.
Brutal critical? Aw yeah.
5d12+Str?
Nice! I like the art, too.
I like the art.
More crit mechanics? /sigh
Sifaka wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
My wife has boots just like that, I wonder if he got his at Kohl''s too?
I like the art, it's not Conan. Looks more like what I imagine a real viking/berserker guy would have looked like. No horned helmet or comically large axe either. Also, no matter how tough you are, exposed skin + cold and wet climate = frostbite, hypothermia, and eventually death.
I don't like the 1d12+1d12 vs 2d6+1d6 thing for crits...I hope it's not nerfed greatswords vs swingy greataxes. No incentive for a barbarian to anything other than a greataxe then. I want the great spear back. 1d10 or 1d12 piercing with reach. I also hope there's a dual wield barbarian build that matters.
Plus, basing your higher damage on rolling 20's is sad. I hope a barb at least gets a better chance to crit when raging. Mechanics based on rolling lucky aren't good mechanics. I'd give a barbarian something that does DoaM. Less damage, for sure, but still something. They are supposed to be a melee 'force of nature'.
I'd still rather play a wizard (or maybe a sorcerer, or warlock) if doing damage was my PC's main thing.
seti wrote:
So is it better to go all the way to level 20 in barbarian, or do you take three levels of fighter for the easier crits?
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
rookrock wrote:
I was surprised to not see Conan, but by avoiding that huge icon, perhaps more doors are opened in my mind. I like his more pensive look here, too; it brings to mind the more thoughtful aspects of the archetype: bewilderment at other civilizations, contemplation of a dark homeland, measurement of an approaching hardship, ...
I oft thought it odd barbarians weren't called berserkers, considering their central bear-trance rage and the other term's geographical dependency, but it seems pulp fiction, not the least of which Conan's marriage of human intellect and beastial grace and power, is an ingredient in the D&D archetype. Haven't met Fafhrd, but he sounds like Conan to be a stranger from an "untamed" land north of his stories' settings.
The art matches the Barbarian King in my setting exactly except no golden crown and golden tan.
Chief Thunderaxe
Art looks great, class sounds good. This is the new Battle rager I suppose? I like it so far.
edwin_su wrote:
knightserpent wrote:
I like the class as much as any we've seen thus far, the pic just reminds me of "early retirement financial planner who bought a Harley and a cabin because he thought it would make him look cool".
Orzel wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I think there must have been some edict for all the art in 5th edition. No females in leather underwear, no males in leather underwear. Boris Vallejo will be shot on sight.
ArkPanda wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
In the 2e AD&D barbarian handbook, there was a ravager kit for the barbarian class that sounds very similar to the path of the berserker. No other 2e AD&D barbarians got rage, but a few of them used "totem" mechanics. Meanwhile, the 3e barbarian also seems to be represented by the berserker, and the 4e barbarian seems to be represented by the path of the totem. All in all, I am happy.
GhostStepper wrote:
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
I love the art.
Something I really like about the class art we've seen so far is that it tends not to be what I immediately think of when I hear the class name. This means double the inspiration!
I hear "Barbarian" and think of Fabio on a Howard cover. Then I see that art and have a whole new set of ideas hit my mind.
Well done, WotC.
Looking a lot like a class taken as a 2-level splash to get advantage on all attacks... and that is it.
1eejit wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
CVB wrote:
I complained about the Paladin art, but this Barbarian I like. So far only three peices of art I am not too keen on, which isn't bad.
Path features carrying the load for unique and interresting mechanics is a good thing in my opinion. The core of the class is farily basic yet imparitive to making the Barbarrian different from other classes. I think this is a good thing, and will make it easier to represent more than one type of raging fighter via paths.
CVB wrote:
CVB wrote:
Just ran some numbers and found out some fun stuff.
With a base 65% hit chance, the fighter beats the barbarian in damage by a significant amount from level 11+. From levels 2-10 though the barbarian is the clear winner.
The greataxe trumps the greatsword at level 13 for the barbarian. The difference between the weapons is still fairly small even at level 17, so you are usually better off going for the sword and the reduced variance that comes along with it for 90% of your attacks.
With the geeatweapon master feat, everything changes. Reckless attacker for advantage on attacks puts the barbarian ahead of the fighter when combined with that feat. Also, greatweapon master favors the sword instead of the axe across all levels.
The barbarian's reaction attacks and bonus action attacks will all be about as strong as 2 fighter attacks. This combines well with a number of feats that grant reaction and bonus action attacks.
For both fighters and barbarians, Great Weapon Master provides a very significant boost to combat effectiveness (about 40% increased damage for the fighter, more for the barbarian).
The real question I have, LaWolf, is baseline game, is outside of bragging rights, does the damage make any real difference? Would it matter at the higher levels? Or could easily still play a Fighter and not have a Barbarian in the PC party, and still 'survive' most encounters?
CVB wrote:
THEMNGMNT wrote:
seems to me 6 d12 does more damage then 9d6, so even with the great weapon master feat it seems the great ax is doing better than the great sword for the barbarian.
Istbor wrote:
Dark Horse art.
This is the Barbarian as RE Howard imagined.
Teggerdine wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
Love the art. One of the few barbairan pics i've seen where I buy the character as a barbarian and not mouth breathing berzerker.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
ArkPanda wrote:
thewok wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I have never felt a desire to play a barbarian character before (in previous editions), but after seeing this sneak preview, I am suddenly feeling the "character creation desire" hit hard... I think it is time I had my first ever barbarian character. 
This pic also seemed to suit the "mood". 
Barbarian Princess by Werdandi (http://werdandi.deviantart.com/art/Barbarian-Princess-75210489)
RokElfslayer wrote:
I want to see a barbarian that is like Wulfgar or Conan. Since it is D&D and the Forgotten Realms is now the main world, they should have put a picture of Wulfgar in the frozen north for this class.
Cennedi wrote:
RokElfslayer wrote:
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
RokElfslayer wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
DLfan wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Looking at the math from what we have so far the difference between Sword and Axe, and fighter/barb really looks like it will be generally imperceptable with the variances of gameplay. It feels like it will just come down to personal preference and how hot your dice are on any given night.
Re: Math and Fun. It's not for everyone. Neither is high-end and theoretical Char Op. But there are folks who enjoy it.
xd12 vs 2*xd6: What you are looking at here is about variance. Any time you are rolling more dice, you are leaning towards a normalized / bell curve type distribution - more reliable averages. Bigger dice leads to swinginess. You have better odds of jackpots, and better odds of crapping out. The smart gambler takes the reliable payoff, the risk-taker goes for the higher-risk option. They're both at the table.
And really, a class that focuses on putting itself at higher risk in the hopes of reaping the gains before taking the losses sounds like it would appeal to risk takers. Adding features that actually improve the swingier weapon option is a good choice.
Art: It reminds me some of the original UA barbarian art - all rugged and bearded and wearing clothes, although this one is less beefy looking. That could be the lack of armor and bearskin cloak.
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
I want to know where this notion of +4 Str and Con is coming from, last I recall, they were settling on the +4 rage damage, instead of big ability boosts.
I certainly would prefer the ability boosts as I got used to them in 3e. The preview seems to back the static damage boost however with the Rage Damage column. Unless of course someone knows something I don't, I would love to see proof of it.
One thing with barbarian class is that they try to merge 2 consepts in one class.
the first being characters from a less "civilised" cumture, often living as hunter gatherers and being nomadic.
I still this this picture from dragonlance expresses those kind of barbartians, and it is what comes to my mind when talking about barbarians.
this type of barbarian might be better expressed as a background then a class in 5th edition.
the second is the besherker, wariors that go in a rage in combat and usualy wear light armor.
you can still be part of a prety advanced society that settles in cities like the vikings and be a beserker.
Theoreticly you could even come from a modern metropolitan city and still use the berherker fighting style.
During the playtest i also expresses that i would rather have seen the barbarien on 3e and lter split up into the barbarian background, and besherker class.
not al barbarians are besherkers and not all besherkers are barbarians but ever since 3rd edition they seem to try to capture these 2 concepts in one class.
Istbor wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Istbor wrote:
Well I would have rather seen them as a subclass of fighter but at least they play well with others this time.
Istbor wrote:
The mechanics look neat for a Wandering Ronin-type character who goes into a battle-trance and strikes down his enemies with elegant blows.
Ahglock wrote:
Poor Pyro. Always catching flak for thinking and analysing. Weird that D&D players can turn into the "STFU nerd!" types when someone challenges them to look at something a new way.
CVB wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
CVB wrote:
CVB wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
One thing missing from the barbarian discussion is that barbarians give a reason to take versatile weapons.
Great-Axe crit 3D12 vs GreatSword Crti 5D6 = Great-Axe Slightly Better
Longsword =3D10 on a crit when used versatile but you can use a buckler with it so you can still make use of a shield for AC or possible shield feats or choose to go two-handed and forgo the shield benefit for the round or you can keep your hand free to initiate a free grab if you have the brawler feat. It really opens up some nice options for you.
emwasick wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
CVB wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Istbor wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
CVB wrote:
mellored wrote:
CVB wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
CVB wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
FLAKPANZER wrote:
In his own defense, that barbarian has something to say.
So the guy's a barbarian... but also a gentleman.
A very british barbarian, mind you. And only proper of him. No excuse not to be a gentleman, I say!
Conan the Librarian most certainly agrees.
Why does everyone forget Tarzan? :-(
Tarzan was a druid...?
Nonsense! Tarzan was a bard...
Dat voice!
I bet it could even counter spells!
He may even be a gnome. I hear he can talk to small burrowing animals...
Gnome Bard... most def.
...I thought Tarzan was a Ranger who couldn't cast spells...
CVB wrote:
Tarzan is a mage who lost his spellbook offscreen and has already burned through his prepared spells.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Akeisha wrote:
Ahglock wrote: