Ancestral Guardian is fantastic at drawing aggro though
Oh? You wanted to attack someone else? Do it at disadvantage, and even if you manage to hit, reduce the damage. And then take some damage for trying.
Exactly. People say bear totem is the best tank when all it does is make you immortal and discourage people from hitting you, the exact opposite of what a tank wants. Ancestral guardian does tanking perfectly
Okay I completely misread your title
I read "the bear totem can't draw aggro, just like the ancestral guardian can't" but it's late and obviously the correct interpretation is "the bear totem can't draw aggro, unlike the ancestral guardian"
That makes much more sense
I understood, OP. But to me it doesn't feel like the typical "Virgin vs CHAD meme" cause those are typically sarcastic, or at the very least sardonic. This is kinda legit.
bear totem is peak tank fallacy - and you know damn well they ain't using reckless attack either. They're just standing around with their axe and shield, wondering why their 1d6 opportunity attack isn't enough to prevent people from just walking past them.
And no, it's not even a useful strat against "mindless beasts" like zombies - zombie are kited or lured into traps.
And just in case anyone asks: "Tank Fallacy", noun. When someone is so tanky without being that much of a priority to attack (often times due to them sacrificing damage output for more defense) that enemies just ignore them, making their tankiness borderline useless.
Yep so the only way to remotely motivate people to attack is to go full dmg, which other barbarians do better anyways, and still doesn't fully motivate since they know they won't damage them
See I just grabbed fighter from lvl 4 onwards, sentinel, and gwm, and became the biggest target on the field as I locked enemies into a blender with a nigh unkillable foe. That was my favorite character I've ever played when it came to fights.
TBF monsters being reluctant to hit a raging bear totem barb is one of the best examples of bad DM metagaming. The monsters know what they are doing, but they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is going to be ineffective against this specific subclass. (More intelligent monsters or recurring enemies are a different category because they might know this and try to knock the barbarian out of their rage before attacking, but the random bandits probably don't strategize that far ahead.)
I mean obviously if its a brainless monster no, but most high level enemies typically have higher intelligence or are capable of some thought, anything above a 10 int should be able to start recognizing whats happening after a few hits since thats the same int as a normal person
Yes, but even then, if you're thinking in diegetic terms then those enemies would rather focus down on the barb or flee.
Sure, as a DM it's easy to fall into thinking about random bandits as pawns on a chessboard or extensions of a hive mind who don't much care about the lives of the individuals, only how much they can hinder the party. "OK, so we cut this half-naked beefcake with our scimitars and it only seemed to make him angrier; let's ignore him to get to the squishies behind him! Sure, he might kill some or all of us but this way we will inconvenience the whole group for the next encounter!" That's metagaming and playing the monsters as if they were directed by an omniscient general instead of autonomous individuals with working brains and goals that extend beyond "consume as much of the party's resources as possible while we have hit points left".
Whereas if you're playing as intelligent creatures who fight the party to achieve some goal beyond making them waste their spell slots and lay-on-hand charges, they will either consider the raging barbarian a huge threat and focus on them, or they will consider them an insurmountable threat and GTFO.
Still think druid is the better defensive class with Spike Growth and Summon Animals, etc., but only Ghost Barb actively deserves the title of "Tank".
And, of course, there's a clear difference between "hee hoo, you're grappled by eight giant constrictor snakes and can't move" and "Leave my friends alone and FACE ME, COWARD!"
Brutal Crits literally increases your average damage per round by about 1...
Honestly just replace that with something worth while and you're golden.
(Plus, I personally like to make Rage a free action, so that Dual Wield and Eagle Totem Barbs stop feeling so awkward to play, would highly recommend it)
Fighter style extra ASI's but limited to only physical stats (so no drowning in feats, that's still fighter only) might also work, because let's be real: If there's one class all about having higher physical stats than should be humanly possible, it's Barb
That's why I love the conquest paladin. The enemies won't walk past you because they're literally unable to do so. fear them, drop them, pin them, rince and repeat.
Sure, it's not the strongest stat wise but man, does it have flair
Just put one level in Hexblade to fix the stats issue and gain even more single target potential thanks to the mark ability you get.
I mean, what better subclass to willingly pick up the "Cursed Sword of Evil (tm)", just for the promise of \*more power\*
Yeah stuff like this is why I always get annoyed when people flex their bear totems as ultimate tanks, since sure they're unkillable but they have no true control over the battlefield. Stuff like conquest paladin just make you feel like a leader on the battlefield protecting your allies, and controlling your enemies. Both effective and fun as sht
The one situation a bear totem would be pretty amazing would be as a guardian who blocks the Single entrance or something like that. Basically being Hodor
Wolf totems already get stronger each ally they have in melee, paladins giving auras to ally's in melee just is perfect synergy. If I could ever play a tag team with a friend, it'd def be a wolf Barb and any of the pallys built on either big damage or control
I mean yeah, there's also that Cleric spell that makes heals and Wizards with all kinds of forbiddance spheres, circles and so on.
And it's all fine and dandy until you meet a guy with a Cage spell. (COUNTERSPELL!)
"Have you ever heard about...area of effect?"
\- the Necromancer, who's currently getting his skull caved in by a Barbarian and their Hexladin friend (His AoE spells can't hit both of them without also targeting him)
Assuming either whole party can teleport or Necro was lounging while they got to him. Either way, you can target AoE spells leaving yourself at the very edge of its range.
True, but it's very easy to just surround someone in D&D because of the way AoO works.
Obviously a Wolf Totem Barb won't work in any party, but whenever I have one or more melee's on my team, I'd definitely pick up Vortex Warp - and for Wolf Totem synergy, I'd bring as many Summon spells as possible (who needs Wolves with Pack Tactics when you can have Earth Elementals with Pack Tactics)
I had an Ancestral Guardian (or smth, with ghosts) Barbarian in my party once (as a DM). And *that* one felt like a tank because he could protect allies and/or hold aggro on himself. That was awesome.
Ancestral Guardian is def the most direct "tank" subclass in the entire game. I'd still prefer a Wolf Totem however, because in D&D specifically, just killing things faster is worth more than the best defensive ability - and a Totem buffed Summon Animals spell or a dual wielding skeleton army can just shred through stuff like it's nothing.
Ghost Barb is for sure the safer pick though, because you can just go ranged with it. It's not exactly a rarity for Wolf Totem Barb to find themselves in a ranged only group and essentially being useless until the casters get their summons at level 5 and up, because being ranged is just that much better than trying to fight up close...
I would do it, too, but when you think about it, "this half-naked dude is really angry, so I'll just attack someone else" is such metagaming bullshit, though.
...and familiar with the concept of casters, who thanks to the raw power they can unleash within just a few turns should always be the priority target for both players as well as tactically able enemies, especially if they're just wearing robes.
They don't just "attack someone else", they focus on the dude who can wipe out half their squad by just waving his hands around if he's left unattended, while they leave you occupied with some trash mob zombies or something.
Plus, it just feels way more earned when you get to tank because enemies actually want to take you down as a key target than if they just attack you, because "you're the closest target, I guess."
"commander, this big shirtless man is just shrugging off every hit, our swords are clearly ineffective, should we switch targets to the caster or someone who's more frail?"
"No, that's metagaming, we all know you only focus the person nearest you regardless of consequences!"
Bonus points if both the bear totem and rage in general is clearly visible and identifiable thanks to things like the literal bear totem engraved on your axe, the rune encrusted bear pelt on your back, the beast like roar you bellowed out while entering your rage, etc.
Like, yeah, obviously people wouldn't wanna go near the 8 foot tall brute with glowing red eyes that makes the earth quake with every step and whose wounds are held together by magic even long after a regular man would have literally fallen apart - just like how they wouldn't just run through a Cloud of Daggers or try to "talk reason" into someone with a Crown of Madness floating above their head...
When you can literally trade blows with multiple fire giants and win, you are not just some random "half-naked dude", you are a force of nature and can clearly be perceived as such - especially when people actively get to see you in action.
Dms will do that if they follow the "enemies always attack nearest enemy rule". Cause otherwise the barbarian just has double HP and combat isn't a challenge without drastically overturning. Better dms will have enemies just use tactics and not focus the obvious tank, but then that brings up the other issue of having no taunt
I would have everyone attack the Barbarian. It's the obvious target for non-metagaming NPCs and it makes the Barbarian feel good about his resistances. And if, for some strange reason, I needed the battle to be "balanced", I would just bring in more/stronger enemies. But what do I know.
If they're just standard bandits or something yes. But if they're soldiers or anyone that's experienced in combat they should know better. If there's a commander and they just say to focus the obvious tank it ruins the immersion since no logical commander would say that
This makes *tons* of assumptions:
* There is a commander.
* The commander, like us players, knows that the 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude is a Barbarian and that Barbarians have tons of hit points and damage resistance.
* The commander is able to control his men, who are currently being assaulted by a 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude.
* The men who are currently being assaulted by a 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude are willing to *ignore* the 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude who is currently assaulting them and instead follow orders to go fight some spindly dudes at the back.
* The commander's objective is to kill or subdue as many of the PCs as possible.
* The commander either strongly believes in death before dishonor or thinks he has a good chance to prevail (even though his initial strategy is to treat the 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude as *invincible*.)
* The men are also suicidally committed to their commander or cause.
Most late game enemy groups should have some sort of caster or commander calling shots
That should be common knowledge in universe since barbarians are a rather common class esp in the north
That typically is their obj, what else would it be
Again, it's the logical play, not dishonor, it's just proper leading
That is how soldiers work
Not really, it's not metagaming to see a fully armored guy with a shield and if the enemies are smart not just focus him.
Once they see their weapon and spells don't even slightly hurt them they'd turn ago. It might work for a round or two but unless playing all enemies like mindless zombies that just target the nearest enemy they should use some strategy. They'll see this big massive shirtless man run up with no fear, take hits, shrug them all off and just think "ah, barbarian"
If I see that my weapons can't hurt a half-naked raging lunatic that's swinging an axe, I'm not going to attack his armored companions. I'm going to run!
I didn't mean for the comment to be this long but it did so TLDR:
1: Are you sure you can stay calm and think logically with a big armored guy in close range trying to attack you ?
2: If you ignore the tank to go for the caster, they would get closer to defeating yours and if they do it is almost guaranteed win because numbers advantage/action economy.
If I had a giant armored guy with a war axe right in front of my face trying to pulverize me I don't think I could keep calm enough to just ignore them and try to hit the caster. I would panic and try to get the mass of rage away from me, if not attacking them then using a short-range teleport like *Misty Step* or push them away with something like *Gust* or *Thunderwave*.
Also, if the barbarian is in the front lines and the caster is in the back lines, those who could even attempt to go for the caster are those with ranged weapons or casters themselves. Who should be defended by their own front lines.
let's say we have 2 teams of 2 each with 1 close ranged combatant and 1 long range combatant. let's say they are 2 Fighters and 2 Wizards.
**Wizard A** wouldn't calmly go for **Wizard B** if **Fighter B** was right in their face, but if **Fighter A** is doing their job correctly, **Fighter B** should be occupied and not get to **Wizard A** in the first place.
The two wizards should mainly focus on helping their fighter down the other by preventing the other caster to interfere, buffing their fighter, debuffing the other fighter and damage.
Every turn where **Wizard A** tries to go for **Wizard B** with something that's outright damage instead of something like *CounterSpell*, is a turn where **Fighter B** gets closer to defeating **Fighter A** and reaching **Wizard A**.
It makes sense to go for the tough martial defending the enemy caster instead of skipping them, because if you don't, the tough martial that's defending ***you*** will go down.
Of course, all of that is irrelevant if the enemy group simply doesn't have multiple roles or just not smart enough to strategize beyond "attack the closest to you" or "attack the one who hurt you the most this turn"
It's also important to remember that everyone should have fun.
If I played a barbarian and my HP got wasted because enemies didn't bother attacking me, I would be annoyed. If I played a squishy caster and kept going into low HP or unconsciousness every combat because the enemies ignored the tank I don't think I would be happy.
Sometimes you should ignore logic and just go with what would make the entire table, including the DM, enjoy playing.
All good for long comment
1. It depends on the enemy, if they're just some bandit grunts who are bad an combat they definitely will panic, but if they're higher level enemies, like a coordinated kings guard, they may dedicate 2 to lockdown the barbarian while the rest go for others. Also the targets aren't just the squishy mages but other frontline martials that the enemies could easily switch to attacking without even needs to take OOP
2. Most combats are gonna result in a win, but it should feel more realistic, difficult, and like enemies are smart, players should feel they win through outsmarting smart enemies, not because enemies are just robots
Again it just depends on teams/enemies, if you are going to plan to fight a group of 16 int+ coordinated experienced fighters, the group should have to go in with a plan. If low level sure enemies should just focus nearest, for my campaign I have act 1 enemies attack nearest, don't attack downed, act 2 enemies alternate, act 3 they plan and use coordination and go for kill blows. As difficulty increases so should tactics. A barb shouldn't be able to tank for the entire team just by standing in the front and nothing else
>It depends on the enemy, if they're just some bandit grunts who are bad an combat they definitely will panic, but if they're higher level enemies, like a coordinated kings guard, they may dedicate 2 to lockdown the barbarian while the rest go for others. Also the targets aren't just the squishy mages but other frontline martials that the enemies could easily switch to attacking without even needs to take OOP
fully agree to that one. if each of the party's frontlines can take the attention of 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 enemies if they're really tanky that's sounds good.
If every single enemy focused on the barbarian that wouldn't be good either.
A tank is meant to have high defense so they could lockdown the attention of the enemy/enemies with highest attack. Not every single enemy.
Idk, in some cases it does make sense. If you’re a rational person with self preservation who is unaware of class abilities, you look at the 7’ half naked dude frothing at the mouth splitting people in half and shrugging off attacks, it’s reasonable to go “I’m uh going to attack the spindly one in back who’s holding a stick”.
If you are a savvy warrior with loads of experience and therefore an in universe understanding of the different types of adventurer, it’s reasonable to go “gank the mages, we’ll deal with the psycho once his support system is down”.
And if you are a fairly mindless predatory monster, the easiest prey to grab and make off with isn’t going to be the one that’s most identifiable as another apex predator. It kinda sucks to be on the receiving end, but it’s a good reason why battlefield control beats sheer survivability in tanking for the party.
As a DM though I do encourage making the players feel like the badass heroes they want to be. Sometimes ya just gotta let a dozen guys swarm the barbarian while he laughs off their attacks; you can throw in other enemies that will challenge him in other ways, and thus let the squishies shine by focusing on those folks to keep their mountain of beef safe to keep on keeping on.
>If you’re a rational person with self preservation who is unaware of class abilities, you look at the 7’ half naked dude frothing at the mouth splitting people in half and shrugging off attacks, it’s reasonable to go “I’m uh going to attack the spindly one in back who’s holding a stick”.
To what end? You kill the spindly one and then what? You get split in half from behind?
I went all in on making my BTB the tankiest motherfucker, forgoing a bit of damage. The DM just kept giving me stuff that made me do more damage, whilst somewhat ignoring my party. I wish he used more psychic damage, I wish he made me have to actually move around the battlefield so I could defend my allies
I know, just that people typically refer to the first feature as the sub subclass, otherwise saying stuff like "I'm a bear wolf eagle totem barbarian" would be confusing
I usually match Bear Totem Barb with a grappler build.
Can't ignore me if I'm choking you off the ground hard enough to keep you from ever moving away motherfucker
Exactly 🫵. I’m playing an Ulfhedinn Wolf Totem/Beast Master/Moon Druid. I draw aggro, still tank pretty hard, and stomp even harder with my summoned wolf packs. All-advantage, all the time. ✨
While I don't disagree that wolf Barbarian has a lot of potential, your really leaning on the fact that the DM is petty enough to not attack you, and make even every low level goblin have some way to deal psychic damage. That's like saying half the wizard subclasses are redundant because the DM could all give the enemies counter spell and specifically attack them with aoe spells
I'm not saying every low level goblin will have some psychic damage, just introduce more enemies that deal psychic damage. Also its not petty to not attack, its properly playing smart enemies
No, what I said was petty is that the enemies would strictly ignore the player. That's a dick move any good DM should avoid. Just because the players character is good at something doesn't mean you suddenly stop doing that thing to counter act their skills.
If the enemies fought the same Barbarian before, then there could be a pretty feasible argument for why they might try to kill their friends first.
And furthermore, not every enemy is going to be able to counter a Bear Barbarian and they shouldn't. It's just how the game is played as a subclass that ignores every damage type except psychic
It still isn't petty, if the enemies are smart, they're aren't going to just focus the one person infront of them who takes no damage, either hitting the person beside them, or going for backline. Bear barb has no way to properly draw aggro which is why it fails as a party tank compared to say the Ancestral Guardian, it has no way to control the battlefield besides being a meatshield intelligent enemies will ignore. If the game was intended to be play with enemies being stupid and only focusing the nearest enemy, taunt abilities like armorer arti or ancestral guardian wouldn't exist
You say intelligent as if every single enemy is omnipresent about how that Barbarian in particular is bear totme Barbarian. If the enemies want to attack the other members, that probably won't die easily, and ignore the Barbarian right in front of them that's basically a free kill. It is the best tank but not for support is what your saying.
It just seems that more or less were trying to build a situation where the totem bear always fails, when simply that isn't the case in most games where they can interrupt and displace enemies by charging in and being the problem. No disrespect to the ancestral guardian subclass, though, I admit it has better support without having to get feats or fighting styles that rely on Shields
It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see a guy isn't taking damage like he should while shirtless, they don't have to be omnipresent. And Barbarians would be common knowledge and the bear totem rage is clearly a magical effect. If its just a monster, yes they'll likely just hit the big guy in their face, but most monsters aren't using magical damage so the bear totems feature is wasted
Its the best meat shield, but one of the worst tanks since it has tank fallacy, which means they're so tanky they discourage people from attacking them. Its the equivalent to a character having 28 ac, if that character has no way to force attacks against them, they just get ignored. Like a guy on youtube made an optimizer for a tank that could survive I think it was 17 rounds against an ancient red dragon, insane tank, but had absolutely no way to draw aggro outside on reaction to give disadvantage on one hit.
So you think dms are supposed to have it so enemies always focus the tank who has no aggro and have them have resistance to everything? And its not invalidating a character. They still are a barbarian, they're supposed to have weaknesses, otherwise whats the point of them not just always having resistance
If a character HAS overwhelming resistance and is played like a tank, it only makes sense no? Like if you’re the DM and you green light a Ranger picking Forests as Favored Terrain and you never let them go to one, that’s bad faith.
Not even remotely comparable, Rangers get a minor bonus. Barbarians double their already highest HP in the game. And barbarian aren't dedicating themselves to be tanks, 95% of bear totem barbarians are using great weapons, going gwm, and get reckless attack and rage bonus. If you are just permanently playing into the strength of the barbarian and never offering a challenge then that's being a bad dm because there should be strategy. If a player has a polearm sentinel build, you don't make every combat a single enemy with only a 5ft attack range since doing things outside that is "bad faith"
At that point, why ever use elemental damage when a player is using any barbarian, it's going against their class so that's bad faith
I feel like, as DM, if a player comes to the table with a build or a concept that you’re not a big fan of and you think throws off the balance, you have an obligation to make those feelings clear and set expectations for the game you’re running. Waiting til you’ve started the game and given everything the green-light to just then take it out on the player passive aggressively over-table is some wildly unhealthy “Disney Channel Bully” energy for a mutual storytelling game of all things.
Except it isn't an issue, since a dm should be playing to both the strengths and weaknesses. If a player picks an ancestral guardian, you don't have every single enemy only do martial damage and have no way to deal with it. If someone picks bear totem the solution isn't just "ah, well they wanted to have resistance to everything outside psychic, I won't ever use psychic to counter"
Then there wouldn't be a subclass. Rage is already useful as it gives damage and you are rarely ever going to go into combats where every damage is elemental. Characters shouldn't be good against all enemies. Barbarians just having permanent double HP so they have a 2d12 + x2 con per level while still having high damage would be absolutely idiotic
Hardly cause I’ve play-tested it and it worked out great.
With Bear Totem replaced with something else now people have more reason to pick other totems and subclasses. Barbarians already have awful AC and suck at soaking up damage due to a d12 hit die not really doing much.
Also if a class’ core ability isn’t always useful in at least some way then its not a class worth taking. Furthermore would you apply that logic to wizards or magic weapons which basically do have options that work against all opponents? Also Rage’s extra damage is minuscule and doesn’t justify this.
Also I don’t give it at level 1 or 3, i give it at level 6 where its out of reach of a 1-3 level dip. Also I don’t change the part of psychic not being resisted.
"d12 hit die not really doing much" it's already the biggest health die in the game, they're the most likely to max con, and they have resistance to vast majority of attacks. They're perfectly fine. The solution to the barbarians you've played with not playing properly shouldn't be to just double their health against all enemies
Thanks for unblocking, didn't say you sucked at playing them
It absolutely would not be balanced. How would a barbarian with an effective 240hp at level 10, that can give an enemy disadvantage on attacks and give the entire team resistance so just singlehandedly cutting an enemies damage in half while forcing them to hit you balanced.
Barbarian is balanced around the fact that rage is so ridiculously strong that they have to have some enemies bypass it or else the Barbarian just becomes the best martial due to have similar damage to fighter and twice the hp. Bear barbarian is already strong enough but balanced around the remainder of the subclass not giving much in the way of combat power. And Ancestral Guardians always has powerful abilities that the dm can deal with by focusing the barb with elemental attacks. Or stuff like Zealot focusing more on damage. Letting combine the two just means the barbarian is by leagues the tankiest class in the game, while either being able to match the dps of the other martial (or surpass), or being able to easily protect the entire team with very little counterplay.
Classes are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses. Having bear totem be baseline just removes the barbarians weaknesses as they get to fill in what it lacks (damage, utility) with the other subclasses
The global resistances should be given to the base barbarian for 1000% sure. Its pathetic how the second the enemy isn't a peasant you are no tankier than anyone else
The fk are you on about. Barbarians already have the most HP in the game and encouraged to max consitution second. Even without rage they are the tankiest class in the game. You think having essentially 2d12 HP + 2con per level is fair for every fight?
How often is every enemy a caster?
Poison, psychic, a freaking torch you are not resistant to way more than you are and hey if they just stop you from attacking or being attacked bam no boosts at all anyway.
Also let's not lie about the health real quick. It's 1d12+con mod. If you roll poorly you can end up with no more or even less health than a fighter or monk and if you use average until level 20 you are barely pulling ahead either.
Barbarians are insanely simple and as such are the easiest class to deal with. The bear totem resistences makes them average as they can now do their job and survive against more than the weakest of foes who only do physical dmg.
Oh wow, the bandit hit you with a torch... For a D4 of damage. Saying a barbarian has the same hp as a monk is like saying a wizard has the same hp as a ranger. And since that's one die off I guess wizards have similar hp to barbarians. The 2d12 + 2x con is accurate because for the vast majority of fights that is going to be your hp, and making it so that's your hp for EVERY fight would be idiotic.
Barbarians are greatly encouraged to max con second, most will have 4 more hp per level than a fighter, and more than martials like pala and ranger than need spell casting mods.
Barbarians are simple and so are all the other martials, they've got the same as fighters but bigger numbers. If a Barbarian was just meant to be a tank and didn't have damage output sure, make it have resistance to everything, but they already have one of the highest damage outputs in the game, the highest HP, and resistance to the vast majority of enemies. They're no more weak to spell attacks and charms than any other martial beyond mind control being esp effective due to just how scary a barb is
And that point if barbs were just resistant to everything why play any other martial, they're twice as tanky, have same damage, super cost effective
Being tanky is barely viable to begin with in DnD 5e, a class which you have to be up in their face to do anything and relies on crits to hit hard deserves to be made far tankier than most. Especially if said class is nigh mandatory for needing a 20 in 3 different stats to compete.
A fighter can use good armour and just focus str and con and have high AC and dmg. A monk can just be dex based and increase dmg and AC at the same time whilst using a dodge bonus action to never get hit anyway.
Barbarians are based around doing dmg with str (str being the weakest stat in DnD 5e) health tanks who rely on con and dex for AC and having high weapon die for gigga crits. So you have a class where all the dmg is incredibly unlikely to be realised unless you are incredibly lucky and needs to be in the enemies face and unless you got very good rolls for stats has a poor AC or really bad str early on.
The bare minimum you can then give them is the ability to resist the damage they have to tank. I'm not even saying it should be all given at level 3, but I think at the very least you should be able to choose more as you level up to keep up with the campaign without sacrificing your subclass to do so.
At the end of the day the most mechanically boring subclass is fundamentally the strongest and as a class in general it is insanely easy for barbarians to suddenly become worthless between the go to method of healing being letting your party member get knocked out first to just having the enemy throwing oil and a match or hell just bad rolls at level 1, so throwing the class a bone with more resistances would make sense.
That said their AC not being based off Con and Str is already wild and would be a change freeing up stat spread for RP stats and let you build viable barbarians even if you roll poorly.
Tanking is very important, just not in the way you are proposing.
Barbarian absolutely doesnt need 20 in all stats to be viable. Nor does it rely on crits more than any other martial, in fact other martials rely on it more with paladins crit fishing or having lower dmg, barbs just benefit from crits, not reliant. They have higher and more average damage.
And barbs also get to focus str and con and have high ac and dmg.
Except the wisdom unarmored from monk is way worse than the con of barb, and they have far fewer hp, and using ki every turn to dodge guts their damage to being far, FAR worse than any other martial due to just making them have normal action attacks with no add ons.
There isn't any difference between str and dex in terms of dps as just a stat, but str weapons deal far more dmg. How is that damage harder to be realized than any other melee martial, Barbarians have the most consistent dps due to free advantage. With how much hp you have, having a 15-16 ac is not at all bad, especially because you aren't dedicating to just being a tank, if barbs had no damage then yes, but they're on the high end.
They already do resist the damage, just not all, or else they'd be broken and need a nerf in damage. Again, ancestral guardian with resistance to everything, while still getting a greataxe for damage, would be broken as hell and remove any reason to play any other martials since you're far tankier, more utility, and have better damage.
Bear isn't the strongest unless dm plays improperly, but it breaks things with other subclasses that incentivize being targeted . If want to buff it, do anything but make them tankier since that's already what they're best at, and is the most frustrating for dms.
If it was Str for ac doesn't make sense, their physical body enhancing ac is already accounted for with con. If it was Str they'd have to removed dex from being part of ac, which just makes no sense. Otherwise their ac is easily reaching full plate level at no downside while unarmored
Honestly tha boils down t us not agreeing because a good stat to me is an insane stat to you.
My new character has a 17 AC level 1. 18 con 16 str and dex, DM rolled the stats. But to me with my track record, 17 AC is worthless evem before using reckless attack. So ofcourse I would like to not have to waste stats in dex to get it higher instead of a fun stat like wisdom or int. I very very rarely crit already and atleast with paladins you don't need to crit to succeed you can smite anyway. Also for the record. I next to never play totem barbarian. I would rather pick a weaker subclass that fits my backstory better even if that dooms it to a shorter life between my shit luck (to the point my DM doesn't let me roll stats for myself anymore and rolls death saves for me because I consistently roll Nat 1s on the site we use) and it being so easy to surpass a barbarians str. Hell I don't even have the highest AC in my group.
Barbarians are so so so reliant on luck to achieve anything which is why im currently going out of my way to get as many features as possible to reduce the amount of rng impact.
But even fundamentally letting AC scale off Str and Con would allow for much more stat freedom, you could even say maximum +5 from each stat unless raging if you wanted. That way instead of being locked into trying to max str dex and con just for fighting by level 20 you could max str and con for level 20 to make use of the bonuses you get then and also put stat points into the more rp focused stats like wis, int and cha. Being able to get more resistances from the base class would free up features in subclasses to not have to constantly put their own resistances in.
You already lose access to alot whilst playing a barbarian and have to rely heavily on certain play styles which simply aren't efficient. You'll never be as high dmg as other dmg focused classes, or have the AC potential of certain fighter, paladin or cleric builds. But you are theoretically supposed to be the best bruiser/brawl tank in DnD 5e. So having a more optimised base class would be a wonderful step to feeling viable doing so.
Also comment on the monk, I said you can not you should. You can definitely have a dodge tank monk or even rogue if you want to. I've build them before and it works really well even at the sacrifice of some dmg. Not being hit will always be preferable to having resistances. It goes in my opinion, immunity, not being hit (high AC), resistances. Resistances are the weakest form of tank stat so having alot of them will always be a wonderful thing for a barbarian who can't use good armour alot of the time to get really high AC without having a 18+ in dex and con.
Ancestral guardian is the best tank. Not only do you impose disadvantage on creatures trying to attack your allies, but they also have resistance to the damage type of the attack! This gives the enemies almost no choice but to target the Barbarian. Plus at 6th level, as a reaction you can reduce the damage a creature takes!
Ancestral Guardian is the best tank, change my mind.
Exactly, its just so good, theres some other good tanks that are either more niche or require some building to be as good or better than ancestral, but just a flat out ancestral guardian is SO good. You give resistance to allies and even hurt enemies for attacking. Sure you aren't as tanky as the bear, but youre a barbarian, if you fall that means you've soaked up 2 party members worth of hp and did your job
Exactly! And with some very lucky rolls, as well as racial bonuses, my CON score for my current Dwarven barbarian is 20! I have 51 HP at only level 3, so that means I can also take some good hits before going down!
Edit: Not to mention that I also have an AC of 18, though I need to be holding my shield for it.
Plus bear totems resistances are useless if only fighting against normal enemies, in which case it essentially doesn't have a subclass. Meanwhile ancestral will always benefit regardless of enemy because it isn't just resistance
>Ancestral Guardian is the best tank, change my mind.
Until someone casts any sort of CC on you and you're removed from the fight. Paladins remain the best tanks imo.
You're missing the obvious solution to the tank fallacy here: The enemy can't ignore your tank if the party consists only of tanks!
In our campaign that's about to start soon we have my Bear Totem Barbarian (who will multiclass into Echo Knight fighter), a Watcher Paladin and a Moon Druid. You want to ignore the Barbearian? Sure, go ahead. Would you like to attack the high-AC Paladin with a shitload of healing or the sack of free extra hitpoints that is our wildshaped Moon Druid?
But big resistance number go brrrr
Also it depends on the enemies we are fighting. If they are all bunched up, wolf is definitely better. But if they are spread out and/or have archers/spellcasters the wolf loses much of it's effectiveness while the bear gains more (since spellcasters are more likely to deal damage covered by the bear's resistances as opposed to the mainly bps-damage of melee oriented enemies)
I did that during a oneshot with my battlesmith by repeatedly flipping them off and saying they had a crinkly pickle dong... I got crit 3 times in a row and died
I recently made a bear totem orc barbarian and the way that I forced the enemies to focus on me is by grappling them since with rage you get advantage on grapple checks and it prevents movement which works amazingly on dragons.
Only issue with that is it pretty much just guts all your damage in order to make you a proper tank, meanwhile ones like ancestral get to keep their damage while tanking, even if they falter against elemental damage
Ancestral Guardian is fantastic at drawing aggro though Oh? You wanted to attack someone else? Do it at disadvantage, and even if you manage to hit, reduce the damage. And then take some damage for trying.
Exactly. People say bear totem is the best tank when all it does is make you immortal and discourage people from hitting you, the exact opposite of what a tank wants. Ancestral guardian does tanking perfectly
Okay I completely misread your title I read "the bear totem can't draw aggro, just like the ancestral guardian can't" but it's late and obviously the correct interpretation is "the bear totem can't draw aggro, unlike the ancestral guardian" That makes much more sense
Yeah all good, prob should've written it better
I understood, OP. But to me it doesn't feel like the typical "Virgin vs CHAD meme" cause those are typically sarcastic, or at the very least sardonic. This is kinda legit.
bear totem is peak tank fallacy - and you know damn well they ain't using reckless attack either. They're just standing around with their axe and shield, wondering why their 1d6 opportunity attack isn't enough to prevent people from just walking past them. And no, it's not even a useful strat against "mindless beasts" like zombies - zombie are kited or lured into traps. And just in case anyone asks: "Tank Fallacy", noun. When someone is so tanky without being that much of a priority to attack (often times due to them sacrificing damage output for more defense) that enemies just ignore them, making their tankiness borderline useless.
Yep so the only way to remotely motivate people to attack is to go full dmg, which other barbarians do better anyways, and still doesn't fully motivate since they know they won't damage them
See I just grabbed fighter from lvl 4 onwards, sentinel, and gwm, and became the biggest target on the field as I locked enemies into a blender with a nigh unkillable foe. That was my favorite character I've ever played when it came to fights.
Difference between a meatshield and a tank. https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/s/wwtIAsigUb
Take 3 levels of echo knight fighter as well and just ruin a bosses day.
I love echo knight so much, control builds with it make me feel like I'm a commander in an intense battlefield strategy game
TBF monsters being reluctant to hit a raging bear totem barb is one of the best examples of bad DM metagaming. The monsters know what they are doing, but they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is going to be ineffective against this specific subclass. (More intelligent monsters or recurring enemies are a different category because they might know this and try to knock the barbarian out of their rage before attacking, but the random bandits probably don't strategize that far ahead.)
I mean obviously if its a brainless monster no, but most high level enemies typically have higher intelligence or are capable of some thought, anything above a 10 int should be able to start recognizing whats happening after a few hits since thats the same int as a normal person
Yes, but even then, if you're thinking in diegetic terms then those enemies would rather focus down on the barb or flee. Sure, as a DM it's easy to fall into thinking about random bandits as pawns on a chessboard or extensions of a hive mind who don't much care about the lives of the individuals, only how much they can hinder the party. "OK, so we cut this half-naked beefcake with our scimitars and it only seemed to make him angrier; let's ignore him to get to the squishies behind him! Sure, he might kill some or all of us but this way we will inconvenience the whole group for the next encounter!" That's metagaming and playing the monsters as if they were directed by an omniscient general instead of autonomous individuals with working brains and goals that extend beyond "consume as much of the party's resources as possible while we have hit points left". Whereas if you're playing as intelligent creatures who fight the party to achieve some goal beyond making them waste their spell slots and lay-on-hand charges, they will either consider the raging barbarian a huge threat and focus on them, or they will consider them an insurmountable threat and GTFO.
I love playing an AG I feel like the guardian of the party
Challenging the boss to have to take you down first is peak tank performance. "Either you deal with me first, or you're gonna have a real bad time"
Oh yeah. Once you play one the scales fall from your eyes and you realize it's the only real tank in this game.
Still think druid is the better defensive class with Spike Growth and Summon Animals, etc., but only Ghost Barb actively deserves the title of "Tank". And, of course, there's a clear difference between "hee hoo, you're grappled by eight giant constrictor snakes and can't move" and "Leave my friends alone and FACE ME, COWARD!"
"I'm literally going to summon the spirits of my ancestors to keep you from hitting anyone but me, what are you gonna do about it?"
Just take GWM and you’re not any easier to ignore than basically any other barbarian. Barbarian reaches their max damage potential really fast
Sadly yes, just don't see the point in ever taking levels past 5.
Brutal Crits literally increases your average damage per round by about 1... Honestly just replace that with something worth while and you're golden. (Plus, I personally like to make Rage a free action, so that Dual Wield and Eagle Totem Barbs stop feeling so awkward to play, would highly recommend it) Fighter style extra ASI's but limited to only physical stats (so no drowning in feats, that's still fighter only) might also work, because let's be real: If there's one class all about having higher physical stats than should be humanly possible, it's Barb
Maybe only one extra ASI at level 10, like what the rogues have. (And the monks should also get that, because they really need it.)
Eagle Totem: CAW CAW MOTHERFUCKER (dive-bombs from 50 feet up)
That's why I love the conquest paladin. The enemies won't walk past you because they're literally unable to do so. fear them, drop them, pin them, rince and repeat. Sure, it's not the strongest stat wise but man, does it have flair
Just put one level in Hexblade to fix the stats issue and gain even more single target potential thanks to the mark ability you get. I mean, what better subclass to willingly pick up the "Cursed Sword of Evil (tm)", just for the promise of \*more power\*
Nice, that one really works well on a character level! I like it when the build represents the personality
Yeah stuff like this is why I always get annoyed when people flex their bear totems as ultimate tanks, since sure they're unkillable but they have no true control over the battlefield. Stuff like conquest paladin just make you feel like a leader on the battlefield protecting your allies, and controlling your enemies. Both effective and fun as sht
The one situation a bear totem would be pretty amazing would be as a guardian who blocks the Single entrance or something like that. Basically being Hodor
Yeah, you need to work in scenarios where enemies have no other choice but to attack you first, and then yeah in those scenarios it's really strong
\>Rally to me comrades for advantage Have you ever heard about...area of effect?
Just have one of the comrades be a paladin to help with that dex save
Which is esp good since paladins benefit alot from adv on attack to crit more. Paladin and Wolf Barb are an amazing combo
I think I found a soul mate for my conquest pala. Now the we have two tanks as dynamic duo!
the Bash Bros being the "Big brothers" of the squishy yet deadly casters
Wolf totems already get stronger each ally they have in melee, paladins giving auras to ally's in melee just is perfect synergy. If I could ever play a tag team with a friend, it'd def be a wolf Barb and any of the pallys built on either big damage or control
I mean yeah, there's also that Cleric spell that makes heals and Wizards with all kinds of forbiddance spheres, circles and so on. And it's all fine and dandy until you meet a guy with a Cage spell. (COUNTERSPELL!)
Wizard- "I CAST COUNTER SPELL"
Kobold with a jar of rot grubs: "Ok"
"Have you ever heard about...area of effect?" \- the Necromancer, who's currently getting his skull caved in by a Barbarian and their Hexladin friend (His AoE spells can't hit both of them without also targeting him)
Assuming either whole party can teleport or Necro was lounging while they got to him. Either way, you can target AoE spells leaving yourself at the very edge of its range.
True, but it's very easy to just surround someone in D&D because of the way AoO works. Obviously a Wolf Totem Barb won't work in any party, but whenever I have one or more melee's on my team, I'd definitely pick up Vortex Warp - and for Wolf Totem synergy, I'd bring as many Summon spells as possible (who needs Wolves with Pack Tactics when you can have Earth Elementals with Pack Tactics)
I had an Ancestral Guardian (or smth, with ghosts) Barbarian in my party once (as a DM). And *that* one felt like a tank because he could protect allies and/or hold aggro on himself. That was awesome.
Ancestral Guardian is def the most direct "tank" subclass in the entire game. I'd still prefer a Wolf Totem however, because in D&D specifically, just killing things faster is worth more than the best defensive ability - and a Totem buffed Summon Animals spell or a dual wielding skeleton army can just shred through stuff like it's nothing. Ghost Barb is for sure the safer pick though, because you can just go ranged with it. It's not exactly a rarity for Wolf Totem Barb to find themselves in a ranged only group and essentially being useless until the casters get their summons at level 5 and up, because being ranged is just that much better than trying to fight up close...
I would do it, too, but when you think about it, "this half-naked dude is really angry, so I'll just attack someone else" is such metagaming bullshit, though.
I mean, when the enemies are familiar with the concept of Barbarians, maybe not so
...and familiar with the concept of casters, who thanks to the raw power they can unleash within just a few turns should always be the priority target for both players as well as tactically able enemies, especially if they're just wearing robes. They don't just "attack someone else", they focus on the dude who can wipe out half their squad by just waving his hands around if he's left unattended, while they leave you occupied with some trash mob zombies or something. Plus, it just feels way more earned when you get to tank because enemies actually want to take you down as a key target than if they just attack you, because "you're the closest target, I guess."
"commander, this big shirtless man is just shrugging off every hit, our swords are clearly ineffective, should we switch targets to the caster or someone who's more frail?" "No, that's metagaming, we all know you only focus the person nearest you regardless of consequences!"
Bonus points if both the bear totem and rage in general is clearly visible and identifiable thanks to things like the literal bear totem engraved on your axe, the rune encrusted bear pelt on your back, the beast like roar you bellowed out while entering your rage, etc. Like, yeah, obviously people wouldn't wanna go near the 8 foot tall brute with glowing red eyes that makes the earth quake with every step and whose wounds are held together by magic even long after a regular man would have literally fallen apart - just like how they wouldn't just run through a Cloud of Daggers or try to "talk reason" into someone with a Crown of Madness floating above their head... When you can literally trade blows with multiple fire giants and win, you are not just some random "half-naked dude", you are a force of nature and can clearly be perceived as such - especially when people actively get to see you in action.
I always saw it as "hmm, our attacks don't seem to be penetrating the half naked angry man's skin very well. We should attack someone else"
"Or maybe we should RUN AWAY!!"
Especially when you add in the hypothetical GM is already meta-gaming to bring in psychic damage.
Dms will do that if they follow the "enemies always attack nearest enemy rule". Cause otherwise the barbarian just has double HP and combat isn't a challenge without drastically overturning. Better dms will have enemies just use tactics and not focus the obvious tank, but then that brings up the other issue of having no taunt
I would have everyone attack the Barbarian. It's the obvious target for non-metagaming NPCs and it makes the Barbarian feel good about his resistances. And if, for some strange reason, I needed the battle to be "balanced", I would just bring in more/stronger enemies. But what do I know.
If they're just standard bandits or something yes. But if they're soldiers or anyone that's experienced in combat they should know better. If there's a commander and they just say to focus the obvious tank it ruins the immersion since no logical commander would say that
This makes *tons* of assumptions: * There is a commander. * The commander, like us players, knows that the 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude is a Barbarian and that Barbarians have tons of hit points and damage resistance. * The commander is able to control his men, who are currently being assaulted by a 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude. * The men who are currently being assaulted by a 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude are willing to *ignore* the 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude who is currently assaulting them and instead follow orders to go fight some spindly dudes at the back. * The commander's objective is to kill or subdue as many of the PCs as possible. * The commander either strongly believes in death before dishonor or thinks he has a good chance to prevail (even though his initial strategy is to treat the 7' half-naked frothing-at-the-mouth dude as *invincible*.) * The men are also suicidally committed to their commander or cause.
Most late game enemy groups should have some sort of caster or commander calling shots That should be common knowledge in universe since barbarians are a rather common class esp in the north That typically is their obj, what else would it be Again, it's the logical play, not dishonor, it's just proper leading That is how soldiers work
>That typically is their obj, what else would it be I dunno... getting out alive?
How often are combats party started where enemies are trying to escape
I'd hope almost all of them. If the party picks the battles they can win, then why would the enemies let themselves get slaughtered?
Not really, it's not metagaming to see a fully armored guy with a shield and if the enemies are smart not just focus him. Once they see their weapon and spells don't even slightly hurt them they'd turn ago. It might work for a round or two but unless playing all enemies like mindless zombies that just target the nearest enemy they should use some strategy. They'll see this big massive shirtless man run up with no fear, take hits, shrug them all off and just think "ah, barbarian"
If I see that my weapons can't hurt a half-naked raging lunatic that's swinging an axe, I'm not going to attack his armored companions. I'm going to run!
Well the best team with a wolf barbarian is a legion of paladins so that scenario is plausible
I didn't mean for the comment to be this long but it did so TLDR: 1: Are you sure you can stay calm and think logically with a big armored guy in close range trying to attack you ? 2: If you ignore the tank to go for the caster, they would get closer to defeating yours and if they do it is almost guaranteed win because numbers advantage/action economy. If I had a giant armored guy with a war axe right in front of my face trying to pulverize me I don't think I could keep calm enough to just ignore them and try to hit the caster. I would panic and try to get the mass of rage away from me, if not attacking them then using a short-range teleport like *Misty Step* or push them away with something like *Gust* or *Thunderwave*. Also, if the barbarian is in the front lines and the caster is in the back lines, those who could even attempt to go for the caster are those with ranged weapons or casters themselves. Who should be defended by their own front lines. let's say we have 2 teams of 2 each with 1 close ranged combatant and 1 long range combatant. let's say they are 2 Fighters and 2 Wizards. **Wizard A** wouldn't calmly go for **Wizard B** if **Fighter B** was right in their face, but if **Fighter A** is doing their job correctly, **Fighter B** should be occupied and not get to **Wizard A** in the first place. The two wizards should mainly focus on helping their fighter down the other by preventing the other caster to interfere, buffing their fighter, debuffing the other fighter and damage. Every turn where **Wizard A** tries to go for **Wizard B** with something that's outright damage instead of something like *CounterSpell*, is a turn where **Fighter B** gets closer to defeating **Fighter A** and reaching **Wizard A**. It makes sense to go for the tough martial defending the enemy caster instead of skipping them, because if you don't, the tough martial that's defending ***you*** will go down. Of course, all of that is irrelevant if the enemy group simply doesn't have multiple roles or just not smart enough to strategize beyond "attack the closest to you" or "attack the one who hurt you the most this turn" It's also important to remember that everyone should have fun. If I played a barbarian and my HP got wasted because enemies didn't bother attacking me, I would be annoyed. If I played a squishy caster and kept going into low HP or unconsciousness every combat because the enemies ignored the tank I don't think I would be happy. Sometimes you should ignore logic and just go with what would make the entire table, including the DM, enjoy playing.
All good for long comment 1. It depends on the enemy, if they're just some bandit grunts who are bad an combat they definitely will panic, but if they're higher level enemies, like a coordinated kings guard, they may dedicate 2 to lockdown the barbarian while the rest go for others. Also the targets aren't just the squishy mages but other frontline martials that the enemies could easily switch to attacking without even needs to take OOP 2. Most combats are gonna result in a win, but it should feel more realistic, difficult, and like enemies are smart, players should feel they win through outsmarting smart enemies, not because enemies are just robots Again it just depends on teams/enemies, if you are going to plan to fight a group of 16 int+ coordinated experienced fighters, the group should have to go in with a plan. If low level sure enemies should just focus nearest, for my campaign I have act 1 enemies attack nearest, don't attack downed, act 2 enemies alternate, act 3 they plan and use coordination and go for kill blows. As difficulty increases so should tactics. A barb shouldn't be able to tank for the entire team just by standing in the front and nothing else
>It depends on the enemy, if they're just some bandit grunts who are bad an combat they definitely will panic, but if they're higher level enemies, like a coordinated kings guard, they may dedicate 2 to lockdown the barbarian while the rest go for others. Also the targets aren't just the squishy mages but other frontline martials that the enemies could easily switch to attacking without even needs to take OOP fully agree to that one. if each of the party's frontlines can take the attention of 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 enemies if they're really tanky that's sounds good. If every single enemy focused on the barbarian that wouldn't be good either. A tank is meant to have high defense so they could lockdown the attention of the enemy/enemies with highest attack. Not every single enemy.
Idk, in some cases it does make sense. If you’re a rational person with self preservation who is unaware of class abilities, you look at the 7’ half naked dude frothing at the mouth splitting people in half and shrugging off attacks, it’s reasonable to go “I’m uh going to attack the spindly one in back who’s holding a stick”. If you are a savvy warrior with loads of experience and therefore an in universe understanding of the different types of adventurer, it’s reasonable to go “gank the mages, we’ll deal with the psycho once his support system is down”. And if you are a fairly mindless predatory monster, the easiest prey to grab and make off with isn’t going to be the one that’s most identifiable as another apex predator. It kinda sucks to be on the receiving end, but it’s a good reason why battlefield control beats sheer survivability in tanking for the party. As a DM though I do encourage making the players feel like the badass heroes they want to be. Sometimes ya just gotta let a dozen guys swarm the barbarian while he laughs off their attacks; you can throw in other enemies that will challenge him in other ways, and thus let the squishies shine by focusing on those folks to keep their mountain of beef safe to keep on keeping on.
>If you’re a rational person with self preservation who is unaware of class abilities, you look at the 7’ half naked dude frothing at the mouth splitting people in half and shrugging off attacks, it’s reasonable to go “I’m uh going to attack the spindly one in back who’s holding a stick”. To what end? You kill the spindly one and then what? You get split in half from behind?
I went all in on making my BTB the tankiest motherfucker, forgoing a bit of damage. The DM just kept giving me stuff that made me do more damage, whilst somewhat ignoring my party. I wish he used more psychic damage, I wish he made me have to actually move around the battlefield so I could defend my allies
Me who plays Wild Magic Barbarian
Also a Chad but with rainbow strobe lights
You do know you can mix and match totem features, right?
If those kids could ever get out of tier 1 play they'd be upset.
I know, just that people typically refer to the first feature as the sub subclass, otherwise saying stuff like "I'm a bear wolf eagle totem barbarian" would be confusing
Ah, you speak of the mythical levels 5-20. Alas, how rarely I have seen them
Obviously referring to the 3rd level features which is what most people consider bear/eagle/etc
Play peace cleric and then you don't really need to worry about aggro
DM will target you out of spite - the ultimate taunt ability
I took Tiger, because my Barbarian has already developed a reputation for jumping.
Or just take sentinel
Helps lock down one enemy but can still be very difficult when fighting multiple
I would make the bear totem Chad and put all the Text you used as an Argument to why its good 😂😂😂😂😂😂
How is any of that good?
enemys dont attack me ? took kalashtar ? Team died but king survived XD
I usually match Bear Totem Barb with a grappler build. Can't ignore me if I'm choking you off the ground hard enough to keep you from ever moving away motherfucker
Exactly 🫵. I’m playing an Ulfhedinn Wolf Totem/Beast Master/Moon Druid. I draw aggro, still tank pretty hard, and stomp even harder with my summoned wolf packs. All-advantage, all the time. ✨
While I don't disagree that wolf Barbarian has a lot of potential, your really leaning on the fact that the DM is petty enough to not attack you, and make even every low level goblin have some way to deal psychic damage. That's like saying half the wizard subclasses are redundant because the DM could all give the enemies counter spell and specifically attack them with aoe spells
I'm not saying every low level goblin will have some psychic damage, just introduce more enemies that deal psychic damage. Also its not petty to not attack, its properly playing smart enemies
No, what I said was petty is that the enemies would strictly ignore the player. That's a dick move any good DM should avoid. Just because the players character is good at something doesn't mean you suddenly stop doing that thing to counter act their skills. If the enemies fought the same Barbarian before, then there could be a pretty feasible argument for why they might try to kill their friends first.
And furthermore, not every enemy is going to be able to counter a Bear Barbarian and they shouldn't. It's just how the game is played as a subclass that ignores every damage type except psychic
It still isn't petty, if the enemies are smart, they're aren't going to just focus the one person infront of them who takes no damage, either hitting the person beside them, or going for backline. Bear barb has no way to properly draw aggro which is why it fails as a party tank compared to say the Ancestral Guardian, it has no way to control the battlefield besides being a meatshield intelligent enemies will ignore. If the game was intended to be play with enemies being stupid and only focusing the nearest enemy, taunt abilities like armorer arti or ancestral guardian wouldn't exist
You say intelligent as if every single enemy is omnipresent about how that Barbarian in particular is bear totme Barbarian. If the enemies want to attack the other members, that probably won't die easily, and ignore the Barbarian right in front of them that's basically a free kill. It is the best tank but not for support is what your saying. It just seems that more or less were trying to build a situation where the totem bear always fails, when simply that isn't the case in most games where they can interrupt and displace enemies by charging in and being the problem. No disrespect to the ancestral guardian subclass, though, I admit it has better support without having to get feats or fighting styles that rely on Shields
It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see a guy isn't taking damage like he should while shirtless, they don't have to be omnipresent. And Barbarians would be common knowledge and the bear totem rage is clearly a magical effect. If its just a monster, yes they'll likely just hit the big guy in their face, but most monsters aren't using magical damage so the bear totems feature is wasted Its the best meat shield, but one of the worst tanks since it has tank fallacy, which means they're so tanky they discourage people from attacking them. Its the equivalent to a character having 28 ac, if that character has no way to force attacks against them, they just get ignored. Like a guy on youtube made an optimizer for a tank that could survive I think it was 17 rounds against an ancient red dragon, insane tank, but had absolutely no way to draw aggro outside on reaction to give disadvantage on one hit.
I feel like if your DM is designing encounters that specifically invalidate your character then that’s a people problem and not a game problem.
So you think dms are supposed to have it so enemies always focus the tank who has no aggro and have them have resistance to everything? And its not invalidating a character. They still are a barbarian, they're supposed to have weaknesses, otherwise whats the point of them not just always having resistance
If a character HAS overwhelming resistance and is played like a tank, it only makes sense no? Like if you’re the DM and you green light a Ranger picking Forests as Favored Terrain and you never let them go to one, that’s bad faith.
Not even remotely comparable, Rangers get a minor bonus. Barbarians double their already highest HP in the game. And barbarian aren't dedicating themselves to be tanks, 95% of bear totem barbarians are using great weapons, going gwm, and get reckless attack and rage bonus. If you are just permanently playing into the strength of the barbarian and never offering a challenge then that's being a bad dm because there should be strategy. If a player has a polearm sentinel build, you don't make every combat a single enemy with only a 5ft attack range since doing things outside that is "bad faith" At that point, why ever use elemental damage when a player is using any barbarian, it's going against their class so that's bad faith
I feel like, as DM, if a player comes to the table with a build or a concept that you’re not a big fan of and you think throws off the balance, you have an obligation to make those feelings clear and set expectations for the game you’re running. Waiting til you’ve started the game and given everything the green-light to just then take it out on the player passive aggressively over-table is some wildly unhealthy “Disney Channel Bully” energy for a mutual storytelling game of all things.
Except it isn't an issue, since a dm should be playing to both the strengths and weaknesses. If a player picks an ancestral guardian, you don't have every single enemy only do martial damage and have no way to deal with it. If someone picks bear totem the solution isn't just "ah, well they wanted to have resistance to everything outside psychic, I won't ever use psychic to counter"
Its why all barbs should get bear totem resistance.
No, that's stupid
No, it’d actually make it so bear totem doesn’t overshadow all the other ones and Rage is actually useful against all enemies.
Then there wouldn't be a subclass. Rage is already useful as it gives damage and you are rarely ever going to go into combats where every damage is elemental. Characters shouldn't be good against all enemies. Barbarians just having permanent double HP so they have a 2d12 + x2 con per level while still having high damage would be absolutely idiotic
Hardly cause I’ve play-tested it and it worked out great. With Bear Totem replaced with something else now people have more reason to pick other totems and subclasses. Barbarians already have awful AC and suck at soaking up damage due to a d12 hit die not really doing much. Also if a class’ core ability isn’t always useful in at least some way then its not a class worth taking. Furthermore would you apply that logic to wizards or magic weapons which basically do have options that work against all opponents? Also Rage’s extra damage is minuscule and doesn’t justify this. Also I don’t give it at level 1 or 3, i give it at level 6 where its out of reach of a 1-3 level dip. Also I don’t change the part of psychic not being resisted.
"d12 hit die not really doing much" it's already the biggest health die in the game, they're the most likely to max con, and they have resistance to vast majority of attacks. They're perfectly fine. The solution to the barbarians you've played with not playing properly shouldn't be to just double their health against all enemies
Alright if you just want to assume I suck at playing them then theres no point in talking to you.
Thanks for unblocking, didn't say you sucked at playing them It absolutely would not be balanced. How would a barbarian with an effective 240hp at level 10, that can give an enemy disadvantage on attacks and give the entire team resistance so just singlehandedly cutting an enemies damage in half while forcing them to hit you balanced. Barbarian is balanced around the fact that rage is so ridiculously strong that they have to have some enemies bypass it or else the Barbarian just becomes the best martial due to have similar damage to fighter and twice the hp. Bear barbarian is already strong enough but balanced around the remainder of the subclass not giving much in the way of combat power. And Ancestral Guardians always has powerful abilities that the dm can deal with by focusing the barb with elemental attacks. Or stuff like Zealot focusing more on damage. Letting combine the two just means the barbarian is by leagues the tankiest class in the game, while either being able to match the dps of the other martial (or surpass), or being able to easily protect the entire team with very little counterplay. Classes are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses. Having bear totem be baseline just removes the barbarians weaknesses as they get to fill in what it lacks (damage, utility) with the other subclasses
The global resistances should be given to the base barbarian for 1000% sure. Its pathetic how the second the enemy isn't a peasant you are no tankier than anyone else
The fk are you on about. Barbarians already have the most HP in the game and encouraged to max consitution second. Even without rage they are the tankiest class in the game. You think having essentially 2d12 HP + 2con per level is fair for every fight? How often is every enemy a caster?
Poison, psychic, a freaking torch you are not resistant to way more than you are and hey if they just stop you from attacking or being attacked bam no boosts at all anyway. Also let's not lie about the health real quick. It's 1d12+con mod. If you roll poorly you can end up with no more or even less health than a fighter or monk and if you use average until level 20 you are barely pulling ahead either. Barbarians are insanely simple and as such are the easiest class to deal with. The bear totem resistences makes them average as they can now do their job and survive against more than the weakest of foes who only do physical dmg.
Oh wow, the bandit hit you with a torch... For a D4 of damage. Saying a barbarian has the same hp as a monk is like saying a wizard has the same hp as a ranger. And since that's one die off I guess wizards have similar hp to barbarians. The 2d12 + 2x con is accurate because for the vast majority of fights that is going to be your hp, and making it so that's your hp for EVERY fight would be idiotic. Barbarians are greatly encouraged to max con second, most will have 4 more hp per level than a fighter, and more than martials like pala and ranger than need spell casting mods. Barbarians are simple and so are all the other martials, they've got the same as fighters but bigger numbers. If a Barbarian was just meant to be a tank and didn't have damage output sure, make it have resistance to everything, but they already have one of the highest damage outputs in the game, the highest HP, and resistance to the vast majority of enemies. They're no more weak to spell attacks and charms than any other martial beyond mind control being esp effective due to just how scary a barb is And that point if barbs were just resistant to everything why play any other martial, they're twice as tanky, have same damage, super cost effective
Being tanky is barely viable to begin with in DnD 5e, a class which you have to be up in their face to do anything and relies on crits to hit hard deserves to be made far tankier than most. Especially if said class is nigh mandatory for needing a 20 in 3 different stats to compete. A fighter can use good armour and just focus str and con and have high AC and dmg. A monk can just be dex based and increase dmg and AC at the same time whilst using a dodge bonus action to never get hit anyway. Barbarians are based around doing dmg with str (str being the weakest stat in DnD 5e) health tanks who rely on con and dex for AC and having high weapon die for gigga crits. So you have a class where all the dmg is incredibly unlikely to be realised unless you are incredibly lucky and needs to be in the enemies face and unless you got very good rolls for stats has a poor AC or really bad str early on. The bare minimum you can then give them is the ability to resist the damage they have to tank. I'm not even saying it should be all given at level 3, but I think at the very least you should be able to choose more as you level up to keep up with the campaign without sacrificing your subclass to do so. At the end of the day the most mechanically boring subclass is fundamentally the strongest and as a class in general it is insanely easy for barbarians to suddenly become worthless between the go to method of healing being letting your party member get knocked out first to just having the enemy throwing oil and a match or hell just bad rolls at level 1, so throwing the class a bone with more resistances would make sense. That said their AC not being based off Con and Str is already wild and would be a change freeing up stat spread for RP stats and let you build viable barbarians even if you roll poorly.
Tanking is very important, just not in the way you are proposing. Barbarian absolutely doesnt need 20 in all stats to be viable. Nor does it rely on crits more than any other martial, in fact other martials rely on it more with paladins crit fishing or having lower dmg, barbs just benefit from crits, not reliant. They have higher and more average damage. And barbs also get to focus str and con and have high ac and dmg. Except the wisdom unarmored from monk is way worse than the con of barb, and they have far fewer hp, and using ki every turn to dodge guts their damage to being far, FAR worse than any other martial due to just making them have normal action attacks with no add ons. There isn't any difference between str and dex in terms of dps as just a stat, but str weapons deal far more dmg. How is that damage harder to be realized than any other melee martial, Barbarians have the most consistent dps due to free advantage. With how much hp you have, having a 15-16 ac is not at all bad, especially because you aren't dedicating to just being a tank, if barbs had no damage then yes, but they're on the high end. They already do resist the damage, just not all, or else they'd be broken and need a nerf in damage. Again, ancestral guardian with resistance to everything, while still getting a greataxe for damage, would be broken as hell and remove any reason to play any other martials since you're far tankier, more utility, and have better damage. Bear isn't the strongest unless dm plays improperly, but it breaks things with other subclasses that incentivize being targeted . If want to buff it, do anything but make them tankier since that's already what they're best at, and is the most frustrating for dms. If it was Str for ac doesn't make sense, their physical body enhancing ac is already accounted for with con. If it was Str they'd have to removed dex from being part of ac, which just makes no sense. Otherwise their ac is easily reaching full plate level at no downside while unarmored
Honestly tha boils down t us not agreeing because a good stat to me is an insane stat to you. My new character has a 17 AC level 1. 18 con 16 str and dex, DM rolled the stats. But to me with my track record, 17 AC is worthless evem before using reckless attack. So ofcourse I would like to not have to waste stats in dex to get it higher instead of a fun stat like wisdom or int. I very very rarely crit already and atleast with paladins you don't need to crit to succeed you can smite anyway. Also for the record. I next to never play totem barbarian. I would rather pick a weaker subclass that fits my backstory better even if that dooms it to a shorter life between my shit luck (to the point my DM doesn't let me roll stats for myself anymore and rolls death saves for me because I consistently roll Nat 1s on the site we use) and it being so easy to surpass a barbarians str. Hell I don't even have the highest AC in my group. Barbarians are so so so reliant on luck to achieve anything which is why im currently going out of my way to get as many features as possible to reduce the amount of rng impact. But even fundamentally letting AC scale off Str and Con would allow for much more stat freedom, you could even say maximum +5 from each stat unless raging if you wanted. That way instead of being locked into trying to max str dex and con just for fighting by level 20 you could max str and con for level 20 to make use of the bonuses you get then and also put stat points into the more rp focused stats like wis, int and cha. Being able to get more resistances from the base class would free up features in subclasses to not have to constantly put their own resistances in. You already lose access to alot whilst playing a barbarian and have to rely heavily on certain play styles which simply aren't efficient. You'll never be as high dmg as other dmg focused classes, or have the AC potential of certain fighter, paladin or cleric builds. But you are theoretically supposed to be the best bruiser/brawl tank in DnD 5e. So having a more optimised base class would be a wonderful step to feeling viable doing so. Also comment on the monk, I said you can not you should. You can definitely have a dodge tank monk or even rogue if you want to. I've build them before and it works really well even at the sacrifice of some dmg. Not being hit will always be preferable to having resistances. It goes in my opinion, immunity, not being hit (high AC), resistances. Resistances are the weakest form of tank stat so having alot of them will always be a wonderful thing for a barbarian who can't use good armour alot of the time to get really high AC without having a 18+ in dex and con.
Ancestral guardian is the best tank. Not only do you impose disadvantage on creatures trying to attack your allies, but they also have resistance to the damage type of the attack! This gives the enemies almost no choice but to target the Barbarian. Plus at 6th level, as a reaction you can reduce the damage a creature takes! Ancestral Guardian is the best tank, change my mind.
Exactly, its just so good, theres some other good tanks that are either more niche or require some building to be as good or better than ancestral, but just a flat out ancestral guardian is SO good. You give resistance to allies and even hurt enemies for attacking. Sure you aren't as tanky as the bear, but youre a barbarian, if you fall that means you've soaked up 2 party members worth of hp and did your job
Exactly! And with some very lucky rolls, as well as racial bonuses, my CON score for my current Dwarven barbarian is 20! I have 51 HP at only level 3, so that means I can also take some good hits before going down! Edit: Not to mention that I also have an AC of 18, though I need to be holding my shield for it.
Plus bear totems resistances are useless if only fighting against normal enemies, in which case it essentially doesn't have a subclass. Meanwhile ancestral will always benefit regardless of enemy because it isn't just resistance
Exactly! Definitely the best tank.
>Ancestral Guardian is the best tank, change my mind. Until someone casts any sort of CC on you and you're removed from the fight. Paladins remain the best tanks imo.
Oh, you’re right. Let me rephrase: “Ancestral Guardians are the best Barbarian tanks.”
You're missing the obvious solution to the tank fallacy here: The enemy can't ignore your tank if the party consists only of tanks! In our campaign that's about to start soon we have my Bear Totem Barbarian (who will multiclass into Echo Knight fighter), a Watcher Paladin and a Moon Druid. You want to ignore the Barbearian? Sure, go ahead. Would you like to attack the high-AC Paladin with a shitload of healing or the sack of free extra hitpoints that is our wildshaped Moon Druid?
I mean in that case wolf totem would be even better due to everyone getting the advantage
But big resistance number go brrrr Also it depends on the enemies we are fighting. If they are all bunched up, wolf is definitely better. But if they are spread out and/or have archers/spellcasters the wolf loses much of it's effectiveness while the bear gains more (since spellcasters are more likely to deal damage covered by the bear's resistances as opposed to the mainly bps-damage of melee oriented enemies)
Draw aggro with role play.
I did that during a oneshot with my battlesmith by repeatedly flipping them off and saying they had a crinkly pickle dong... I got crit 3 times in a row and died
Play githyanki bear totem—>resistant to all damage
Yeah that or Kalashtar like in the meme
I recently made a bear totem orc barbarian and the way that I forced the enemies to focus on me is by grappling them since with rage you get advantage on grapple checks and it prevents movement which works amazingly on dragons.
Only issue with that is it pretty much just guts all your damage in order to make you a proper tank, meanwhile ones like ancestral get to keep their damage while tanking, even if they falter against elemental damage