Battle rager and Barbarian tactics - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Battle rager and Barbarian tactics

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
nadalis
Mar 02, 2009 14:06:19 So, we are 2nd level party, and I have a gripe/complaint/issue with battlerager and barbarian tactics and how they don't match up with party tactics. I know we are supposed to play our characters and blah, blah, blah... But at what point do you expect people to just "suck it up" and skip the stupid "I just charge in and kill everything that moves" tactics for the sake of the group?
I am a 1/2 elf chaladin (low int)
and the rest of the group is a tiefling warlock (13 int),
eladrin cleric (10 int)
dragonborn battlerager (8 int)

the first three sessions we have been joined by a dragonborn warlord (13 int)
but this last session we were joined by a dwarven barbarian (8 int)

The first three sessions I felt the party was always saving/dealing with the lack of impulse control of the battlerager. (ON a side note, people have questioned as to whether the battlerager is overpowered. If you play the battlerager as a "battlerager" who runs in to kill everything and thus getting swarmed, it is certainly not, but if your run him or her as a smart fighter, maybe.) So, last night the warlord couldn't make it but we added another player who played the dwarven barbarian. He certainly "played his character" and made full use of the 8 intellignece.

Not only is int his dump stat, but he took improved initiative to make sure he does all of his stupid antics before the rest of us can react. I think if I was a striker role, I might go the opposite direction and wait till the front line defenders set up all my targets nicely and then wade into battle, but apparently he would rather wade in first and then have us come save him. I learned quickly ten years ago when I first started playing that the first person into battle, no matter what they do or who they are draw agro very effectively. I haven’t played a lot of 4E, but I have also learned quickly that you want the “defenders” drawing agro, because that is how they are designed and it makes everyone’s jobs that much easier.

As the pally, I was trying to respond in character giving advice and pointing out his rashness wasn’t helping our party at this particular time. His response was of the “don’t insult me, I smash warrior way, don’t do coward way, no sneak, no talk, no look, no listen, SMASH! Frankly is the best way.” variety. (His huge maul is named, Frank Lee.) Good on’ya, way to go being creative and all that. Way to go bringin in roleplay and character into battle, but you are screwing with the group as a whole. I did not build my character in the self-sacrifice for the stupid barbarian model. I built my character with virtues and dignity and a bit of altruism, but there is definitely a limit as to how far I am willing to go. I do not want every battle to be a broken record of us cleaning up the messes of those with impulse control. When their character makes a rash decision, there is only so far I am willing to bend over backwards to save them. Last night I caught flak for not running to their aid, when I was covering the cleric and warlock.

We as a party and me, individually had enough trouble with one blood-thirsty character, now they are fighting over the lime-light and the opportunity to charge blindly into battle. We had played enough sessions that we had made progress and we managed to eek out some effective tactics despite the lack of impulse control of the battlerager. I found it mildly amusing that the dragonborn battlerager recognized how volatile they were together and toned it down a bit, but the dwarven barbarian would have none of it.

Unfortunately it was getting on my nerves. I understand he "was just trying to play his character" but willingly setting off traps, charging in blindly, trying to kill caged defenseless prisoners is going too far. I know there should be a drawback to using int as a dump stat, but at what point do you feel it is going overboard. I know it is fun to play your character and do cool stuff, but is it worth it if it hamstrings the group as a whole. I feel like it is possible to play an unintelligent character but still not bring the group down, because the character keeps an eye on the overall objective of the group.

So, what say you? Advice? Similar gripes?
#2
salla
Mar 02, 2009 14:56:10 Please break that big chunk of text into a few paragraphs?
#3
masteraaron
Mar 02, 2009 16:50:17 A summary of OP's point, as I understand it ('cause that's a wall of text, jeeze):

My party is full of low Intelligence characters, nothing above a 13. Two characters in particular, a Battlerager fighter and a Barbarian, have low Int and a love of reckless tactics. They don't take the group account in fights, and they refuse to let the primary defender (me) go in first to draw attention. And when they get in trouble, I get blamed for not pulling them out of it. The Barbarian's been particularly bad by charging into ambushes and traps, and even trying to kill prisoners.

First, I don't know your group. How much of this is roleplaying the character and how much is the players' desire to hold the limelight? The latter is people being dickwads, and there's only so much that you can do. Talk to your DM about it if that's the case. The former, in my mind, could be two different problems. First, they may both honestly want a brutal, reckless character. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with that, though you could reasonably ask them to cut it back a bit. Point out that their characters should probably listen to someone with greater tactical acumen, such as yourself or the warlord, rather than trying to act independently in every fight.

Second, they may feel forced into the role by their low Intelligence scores. This is also legitimate, but misses the big picture. Intelligence does have the part of reasoning that includes coming up with complex tactics, true, but it's not the only relevant part of a character's mind. The most important part here is Wisdom, which by my understanding includes the type of intelligence called "common sense". Point this out to them if they feel that their Intelligence justifies this. Also, an 8 Int is something like an 85-90 IQ - not smart, but not "hurr I hits things" either. I guarantee that you knew people in high school with an IQ like that who still wouldn't do suicidal dumb things all the time.

Finally, with the Barbarian, you run into the problem of group morality. I'll try to avoid boiling this down into an alignment discussion, but any group has a particular identity which includes a set of more-or-less shared values. If someone is violating these values in a profound way, they aren't likely to remain with the group - they'll leave on their own, or be kicked out by the rest. As I said before, I don't know much about your group, but if the Barbarian's attempt to kill the prisoners was a serious problem, that character might not be right for your party. If things like that continue and the group's stability is threatened IC, it would not be unreasonable for your group to remove the character (in-game) and for your DM to have the player create a new character (out-of-game). On the other hand, if the group as a whole wasn't too upset by the prisoners, and shows generally questionable ethics, you may want to consider some changes in your character to go along with those.
#4
Cyber-Dave
Mar 02, 2009 17:10:50 Have the rest of the group role-play their characters. If they are tactically minded, don't rush in to save the Barbarian. He has been talked to in character. he has been warned in character. Next time he rushes in like a fool, let his character reap his in character rewards. Meanwhile, the rest of the group can act like a tight knit tactical group. Chances are, the result is the barbarian will die. And, if his character is not meshing with the rest of the group, maybe that is the best possible outcome.
#5
nadalis
Mar 05, 2009 14:35:48 I was atching Breavheart last night, and young William Wallace's father shared a line, that I might have to adopt incharacter when speaking to thus barbarian. "Aye, ye can fight, but its er wits that make us men." Since he is a Dwarf, I don't want to start a race war, I might change it to, "You remind me of a another Dwarven champion I shared an ale with he gave me great advice, 'Few can wield a hammer with great efficiency, but its the wits that turn a fighter into a hero.' "

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 nadalis Mar 02, 2009 14:06:19	So, we are 2nd level party, and I have a gripe/complaint/issue with battlerager and barbarian tactics and how they don't match up with party tactics. I know we are supposed to play our characters and blah, blah, blah... But at what point do you expect people to just "suck it up" and skip the stupid "I just charge in and kill everything that moves" tactics for the sake of the group? I am a 1/2 elf chaladin (low int) and the rest of the group is a tiefling warlock (13 int), eladrin cleric (10 int) dragonborn battlerager (8 int) the first three sessions we have been joined by a dragonborn warlord (13 int) but this last session we were joined by a dwarven barbarian (8 int) The first three sessions I felt the party was always saving/dealing with the lack of impulse control of the battlerager. (ON a side note, people have questioned as to whether the battlerager is overpowered. If you play the battlerager as a "battlerager" who runs in to kill everything and thus getting swarmed, it is certainly not, but if your run him or her as a smart fighter, maybe.) So, last night the warlord couldn't make it but we added another player who played the dwarven barbarian. He certainly "played his character" and made full use of the 8 intellignece. Not only is int his dump stat, but he took improved initiative to make sure he does all of his stupid antics before the rest of us can react. I think if I was a striker role, I might go the opposite direction and wait till the front line defenders set up all my targets nicely and then wade into battle, but apparently he would rather wade in first and then have us come save him. I learned quickly ten years ago when I first started playing that the first person into battle, no matter what they do or who they are draw agro very effectively. I haven’t played a lot of 4E, but I have also learned quickly that you want the “defenders” drawing agro, because that is how they are designed and it makes everyone’s jobs that much easier. As the pally, I was trying to respond in character giving advice and pointing out his rashness wasn’t helping our party at this particular time. His response was of the “don’t insult me, I smash warrior way, don’t do coward way, no sneak, no talk, no look, no listen, SMASH! Frankly is the best way.” variety. (His huge maul is named, Frank Lee.) Good on’ya, way to go being creative and all that. Way to go bringin in roleplay and character into battle, but you are screwing with the group as a whole. I did not build my character in the self-sacrifice for the stupid barbarian model. I built my character with virtues and dignity and a bit of altruism, but there is definitely a limit as to how far I am willing to go. I do not want every battle to be a broken record of us cleaning up the messes of those with impulse control. When their character makes a rash decision, there is only so far I am willing to bend over backwards to save them. Last night I caught flak for not running to their aid, when I was covering the cleric and warlock. We as a party and me, individually had enough trouble with one blood-thirsty character, now they are fighting over the lime-light and the opportunity to charge blindly into battle. We had played enough sessions that we had made progress and we managed to eek out some effective tactics despite the lack of impulse control of the battlerager. I found it mildly amusing that the dragonborn battlerager recognized how volatile they were together and toned it down a bit, but the dwarven barbarian would have none of it. Unfortunately it was getting on my nerves. I understand he "was just trying to play his character" but willingly setting off traps, charging in blindly, trying to kill caged defenseless prisoners is going too far. I know there should be a drawback to using int as a dump stat, but at what point do you feel it is going overboard. I know it is fun to play your character and do cool stuff, but is it worth it if it hamstrings the group as a whole. I feel like it is possible to play an unintelligent character but still not bring the group down, because the character keeps an eye on the overall objective of the group. So, what say you? Advice? Similar gripes?
#2 salla Mar 02, 2009 14:56:10	Please break that big chunk of text into a few paragraphs?
#3 masteraaron Mar 02, 2009 16:50:17	A summary of OP's point, as I understand it ('cause that's a wall of text, jeeze): My party is full of low Intelligence characters, nothing above a 13. Two characters in particular, a Battlerager fighter and a Barbarian, have low Int and a love of reckless tactics. They don't take the group account in fights, and they refuse to let the primary defender (me) go in first to draw attention. And when they get in trouble, I get blamed for not pulling them out of it. The Barbarian's been particularly bad by charging into ambushes and traps, and even trying to kill prisoners. First, I don't know your group. How much of this is roleplaying the character and how much is the players' desire to hold the limelight? The latter is people being dickwads, and there's only so much that you can do. Talk to your DM about it if that's the case. The former, in my mind, could be two different problems. First, they may both honestly want a brutal, reckless character. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with that, though you could reasonably ask them to cut it back a bit. Point out that their characters should probably listen to someone with greater tactical acumen, such as yourself or the warlord, rather than trying to act independently in every fight. Second, they may feel forced into the role by their low Intelligence scores. This is also legitimate, but misses the big picture. Intelligence does have the part of reasoning that includes coming up with complex tactics, true, but it's not the only relevant part of a character's mind. The most important part here is Wisdom, which by my understanding includes the type of intelligence called "common sense". Point this out to them if they feel that their Intelligence justifies this. Also, an 8 Int is something like an 85-90 IQ - not smart, but not "hurr I hits things" either. I guarantee that you knew people in high school with an IQ like that who still wouldn't do suicidal dumb things all the time. Finally, with the Barbarian, you run into the problem of group morality. I'll try to avoid boiling this down into an alignment discussion, but any group has a particular identity which includes a set of more-or-less shared values. If someone is violating these values in a profound way, they aren't likely to remain with the group - they'll leave on their own, or be kicked out by the rest. As I said before, I don't know much about your group, but if the Barbarian's attempt to kill the prisoners was a serious problem, that character might not be right for your party. If things like that continue and the group's stability is threatened IC, it would not be unreasonable for your group to remove the character (in-game) and for your DM to have the player create a new character (out-of-game). On the other hand, if the group as a whole wasn't too upset by the prisoners, and shows generally questionable ethics, you may want to consider some changes in your character to go along with those.
#4 Cyber-Dave Mar 02, 2009 17:10:50	Have the rest of the group role-play their characters. If they are tactically minded, don't rush in to save the Barbarian. He has been talked to in character. he has been warned in character. Next time he rushes in like a fool, let his character reap his in character rewards. Meanwhile, the rest of the group can act like a tight knit tactical group. Chances are, the result is the barbarian will die. And, if his character is not meshing with the rest of the group, maybe that is the best possible outcome.
#5 nadalis Mar 05, 2009 14:35:48	I was atching Breavheart last night, and young William Wallace's father shared a line, that I might have to adopt incharacter when speaking to thus barbarian. "Aye, ye can fight, but its er wits that make us men." Since he is a Dwarf, I don't want to start a race war, I might change it to, "You remind me of a another Dwarven champion I shared an ale with he gave me great advice, 'Few can wield a hammer with great efficiency, but its the wits that turn a fighter into a hero.' "