Troll Lord Games

I have a question. Aside from the non combat abilities and the once a day spin attack, what does the barbarian have going for him? Yes, he has more hit points than any other class, but to me, it appears he doesnt have a shtick like the other melee classes.

Assassin: auto kill and sneak atk
Bard: inspiration stuff
Fighter: combat dominance and extra attack
Rogue: back/sneak atk
Knight: inspiration stuff
Ranger: favored enemy and marauder dmg
Paladin: soooo much stuff
Illusionist, wizard, druid, cleric: magic
Monk: double atk

What does the barbarian have going for him? Did I miss something?

Intimidation and survival, plus raw feats of physical power which may be considered as part of the livability aspect.

Whenever I play any melee warrior, I always give them the barbarian's intimidate because it is badass powerful.

I don't know what to tell you without just listing all of the abilities they have and calling them awesome instead of useless .

And they are the only class that has the name Barbarian. If you want to be a barbarian, obviously you have to choose the Barbarian class.

Also, the only non-combat ability I see is Deerstalker. Everything else can and should be used by the creative Barbarian player in combat. Note also, not only do they have high hit dice, but they can wear any armor in the game, only penalized in Deerstalker and Primeval Instinct if it's over 25 lbs. Add Primeval Will hit points and you have a character that can really take a beating, and he'll even get hit less if he intimidates successfully, and he probably will because he has CON prime and it's a CON ability.

And the most fun thing about playing a Barbarian is finding ways to use Primeval Instincts, in and out of combat.

If you can't make a Barbarian awesome you are doing it wrong.

I'm not saying the barbarian is useless, I know he isn't, I just dont see an obvious, "I'm getting better at fighting ability" like all the other classes have. Maybe i misunderstand how intimidate works.

Okay, i greatly misunderstood intimidate. It is pretty cool. Here is my next question: a level 3 barbarian indicates he is going to use intimidate this round. He atks and makes his con check, succeeds at both, and intimidates the orcs. On the next round, since he cannot hit both orcs (he'll gain whirlwind next level) he only attacks one of the two intimidated orcs. Does this mean 1 orc is now normal and the second is still intimidated? Or do they both remain intimidated since the barbarian hit an intimidated critter?

If he can't attack both, he can't miss one... he didn't fail an attack, he didn't make one. So, they both remain intimidated.

I've considered allowing the barbarian to use his whirlwind attack 1 per round plus his Con bonus per combat. Gives it a little more usefulness.

R-

serleran wrote:If he can't attack both, he can't miss one... he didn't fail an attack, he didn't make one. So, they both remain intimidated.

That isn't what is written in the rules. It says if the barbarians fails to strike an intimidated critter, intimidate ends. Though I understand what you mean and I want to agree with you, that isnt what I read in the RAW.

Rigon wrote:I've considered allowing the barbarian to use his whirlwind attack 1 per round plus his Con bonus per combat. Gives it a little more usefulness.

R-

I've considered this too. I go back and forth on the matter.

You cannot fail if you did not try.

I don't see how it can be any more clear.

Reading it otherwise means the barbarian can only ever successfully intimidate one opponent, even when they are higher level, for maybe two rounds. That is beyond pathetic for a high level PC.


But, if that's how it was intended (and I highly doubt it is), then I can see why you think the barbie is useless. They are with that interpretation. (Well, not useless, but far less effective.)

The best option in that case is to be barbie-fighter.... at least then you get more than one attack, eventually.

Anyone else want to admit when you saw the title of the thread your brain took you to an entirely different direction?

seskis281 wrote:Anyone else want to admit when you saw the title of the thread your brain took you to an entirely different direction?

I was wondering what kind of retirement plan a Barbarian would have.

serleran wrote:You cannot fail if you did not try.

I don't see how it can be any more clear.

Reading it otherwise means the barbarian can only ever successfully intimidate one opponent, even when they are higher level, for maybe two rounds. That is beyond pathetic for a high level PC.


But, if that's how it was intended (and I highly doubt it is), then I can see why you think the barbie is useless. They are with that interpretation. (Well, not useless, but far less effective.)

The best option in that case is to be barbie-fighter.... at least then you get more than one attack, eventually.

One can also argue, failure to strike also means, not swinging at all. You bring up my exact concerns, if fail to strike = no attack, not missing an attack, then yes. At most you will get one or two rounds of intimidate on a mere one or two baddies. That is why I brought up the topic. I want to make sure I know what is really meant by fail to strike. Because to me, the phrase fail to strike means one either missed or didn't even attempt to attack a target, thus failing to strike. In school, one can fail a test by performing poorly (missing) or by not taking the test (not attempting to atack).

If the barbarian can simply ignore a bad guy, or number of badguys (for a high level barbarian) to ensure the effects of intimidate stay active then they make a better support class than knights or bards, whose powers are limited by stats or levels. Again, I'm not opposed to the barbarian's intimidate effecting bad guys indefinantly, I just want to ensure I understand what "fail to strike" means on the barbarian's profile in the phb.

I'd say the spirit is the same as with Primeval Instincts; the Barbarian can't intimidate and not follow through, everything the Barbarian does needs to have immediate follow-through with no hesitation. If you say you are going to cut someone's heart out, it's just words unless you then cut their heart out.

If you tell a group of foes "You'll soon be seeing your ancestors in Hell", then you need to go about making that come true. My reading then, in terms of the rules is, you must keep attacking the foes under your Intimidate every round (and only those foes, and not doing anything else) or you lose the benefit. You hit as many of them as you can, but at least one.

Strike could mean a telling blow or just an attempt. I think it makes the most sense if it is an attack that succeeds.

I don't think it's saying if you have intimidated 16 creatures you have to hit all of them in one round.

I can see what Serleran is saying too though, you could rule that you can do something else, but if you show your foe that your threats are hollow by attacking and missing, the effect ends. But in any case, you don't need to run around tagging every single creature you intimidate each round.

Aergraith wrote:
I don't think it's saying if you have intimidated 16 creatures you have to hit all of them in one round.

I can see what Serleran is saying too though, you could rule that you can do something else, but if you show your foe that your threats are hollow by attacking and missing, the effect ends. But in any case, you don't need to run around tagging every single creature you intimidate each round.

This is how I read it too. As you take apart one foe the others are still intimidated. The threat immediately followed up by what makes the threat intimidating in the 1st place.

Aergraith wrote:I'd say the spirit is the same as with Primeval Instincts; the Barbarian can't intimidate and not follow through, everything the Barbarian does needs to have immediate follow-through with no hesitation. If you say you are going to cut someone's heart out, it's just words unless you then cut their heart out.

If you tell a group of foes "You'll soon be seeing your ancestors in Hell", then you need to go about making that come true. My reading then, in terms of the rules is, you must keep attacking the foes under your Intimidate every round (and only those foes, and not doing anything else) or you lose the benefit. You hit as many of them as you can, but at least one.

Strike could mean a telling blow or just an attempt. I think it makes the most sense if it is an attack that succeeds.

I don't think it's saying if you have intimidated 16 creatures you have to hit all of them in one round.

I can see what Serleran is saying too though, you could rule that you can do something else, but if you show your foe that your threats are hollow by attacking and missing, the effect ends. But in any case, you don't need to run around tagging every single creature you intimidate each round.

I'm confused. Which printing of the rules are you guys looking at for Intimidate? 5th printing says nothing about having to attack or strike an opponent in order to intimidate:

"Barbarians offer an imposing display of ferocious raw power. They instinctively realize that victory lies in the wine-besotted, soft demeanors of their foe and that brute force works best when combined with overwhelming terror. Barbarians are able to project themselves as this brutal, terrifying force.Whether through sheer force of will, or savage decorum, a barbarian is able to strike fear into and intimidate his opponents. Any creature of equal or lesser hit dice of the barbarian who fails a charisma check suffers -2 to all rolls, including but not limited to initiative, attack, damage and attribute checks. This ability takes effect as soon as the barbarian uses the ability, and it has a 15 foot radius area of effect. At 1st level, a barbarian can intimidate one creature. The number of creatures increases with level as follows: up to 2 creatures at 3rd level, up to 4 creatures at 6th level, up to 8 creatures at 10th level, and up to 16 creatures at 15th level."

Also since a failed intimidate roll, affects all rolls, this implies this can occur without a combat situation. And note it succeeds on a failed charisma save by the opponent. Which also implies it is more about the Barbarian's fierce nature then their success at striking an opponent. If success at striking an opponent was the necessary component a fighter would be better at intimidate. So the Barbarian can scare an opponent and get them to run away perhaps (fail intimidate roll by opponent, then successful charisma roll by Barbarian). Or scare an opponent who needs a dex roll to open a door in order to run away, or who needs a dex check to climb a rope to escape, etc . . . Also the rule in 5th printing doesn't say how long the effect lasts, only how many opponents it affects. So the length would be situational and worked out by the CK.

dachda wrote:
I'm confused. Which printing of the rules are you guys looking at for Intimidate?

6th Printing: "While attacking and upon a successful constitution check any creature of equal or lesser hit dice of the barbarian suffers -2 to all rolls, including but not limited to initiative, attack, damage and attribute checks. This ability
takes effect as soon as the barbarian uses the ability. He must announce it before rolling initiative. "

Arduin wrote:

dachda wrote:
I'm confused. Which printing of the rules are you guys looking at for Intimidate?

6th Printing: "While attacking and upon a successful constitution check any creature of equal or lesser hit dice of the barbarian suffers -2 to all rolls, including but not limited to initiative, attack, damage and attribute checks. This ability
takes effect as soon as the barbarian uses the ability. He must announce it before rolling initiative. "

Huh. Hmm, I'll have to pull out my 6th printing when I get home. Only have the 5th on my laptop at work. That's a big difference. Though I don't see why attacking would necessarily equal a successful to hit roll. I would CK it to mean, the Barbarian declares intimidate, rolls initiative, and on his turn, rolls his to hit, I would have the intimidate continue until the Barbarian stops attacking (rolling to hits).

I also think I prefer the opponent make a successful charisma check to avoid being intimidated with a CL of the Barbarians's level. I think this would mean an easy intimidate for creatures like goblins and orcs, with their primes being physical, while being less likely to work on more intelligent and advanced creatures with a primes being mental. Though I can see TLG wanted the barbarian to make the roll and always have it be prime.

dachda wrote:

Arduin wrote:

dachda wrote:
I'm confused. Which printing of the rules are you guys looking at for Intimidate?

6th Printing: "While attacking and upon a successful constitution check any creature of equal or lesser hit dice of the barbarian suffers -2 to all rolls, including but not limited to initiative, attack, damage and attribute checks. This ability
takes effect as soon as the barbarian uses the ability. He must announce it before rolling initiative. "

Though I don't see why attacking would necessarily equal a successful to hit roll. I would CK it to mean, the Barbarian declares intimidate, rolls initiative, and on his turn, rolls his to hit, I would have the intimidate continue until the Barbarian stops attacking (rolling to hits).

Me either. But, if he didn't start connecting (doing damage) at some near point in time during the battle, I could see a problem continuing to intimidate the foes. I mean why be intimidated by someone who can't hurt you?

As mentioned, I don't mind intimidate being an ongoing effect. If it is, what will stop a pc from intimidating x foes then doing nothing for the rest of the battle so intimidate's effects never wear off? Barbarian in plate-mail intimidates then goes full defensive for the rest of the fight so all 16 baddies suffer a -2 to everything until the combat ends. I know it is a poor rpg move and would only be made by a metagaming, rules-lawyer munchkin and permitted to continue by a lackluster ck, but seriously, is the barbarian's intimidate supposed to be that strong? If so, cool that solves my "what can a barbarian do?" problem.

jdizzy001 wrote:As mentioned, I don't mind intimidate being an ongoing effect. If it is, what will stop a pc from intimidating x foes then doing nothing for the rest of the battle so intimidate's effects never wear off? Barbarian in plate-mail intimidates then goes full defensive for the rest of the fight so all 16 baddies suffer a -2 to everything until the combat ends. I know it is a poor rpg move and would only be made by a metagaming, rules-lawyer munchkin and permitted to continue by a lackluster ck, but seriously, is the barbarian's intimidate supposed to be that strong? If so, cool that solves my "what can a barbarian do?" problem.

Per the PHB 6th printing, it is effective WHILE attacking.

If the Barbarian makes a successful CON check to intimidate, I will not allow a CHA save to avoid being Intimidated. That goes against the very premise of the SIEGE engine. The WHOLE reason the CL of the SIEGE check would be the HD of the opponents is because their HD/level being the determining factor already gives them their "chance" at not being effected. C&C is not an "opposed roll" system, and giving a CHA save after the Barbarian already succeeded at a SIEGE check using their HD/level as the CL is a "opposed roll" rather than being a simple SIEGE check.

So in my game, the Barbarian makes a CON check to Intimidate, CL being the highest HD of the opponents to be intimidated. If they succeed, the opponents are intimidated, no additional save roll possible.

Treebore wrote:If the Barbarian makes a successful CON check to intimidate, I will not allow a CHA save to avoid being Intimidated. That goes against the very premise of the SIEGE engine. The WHOLE reason the CL of the SIEGE check would be the HD of the opponents is because their HD/level being the determining factor already gives them their "chance" at not being effected. C&C is not an "opposed roll" system, and giving a CHA save after the Barbarian already succeeded at a SIEGE check using their HD/level as the CL is a "opposed roll" rather than being a simple SIEGE check.

So in my game, the Barbarian makes a CON check to Intimidate, CL being the highest HD of the opponents to be intimidated. If they succeed, the opponents are intimidated, no additional save roll possible.

Right, agreed.

Now, how do you handle this type of non-magical, non-supernatural power vs. PC's? I don't allow an NPC Barbarian to "intimidate" PC's.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:If the Barbarian makes a successful CON check to intimidate, I will not allow a CHA save to avoid being Intimidated. That goes against the very premise of the SIEGE engine. The WHOLE reason the CL of the SIEGE check would be the HD of the opponents is because their HD/level being the determining factor already gives them their "chance" at not being effected. C&C is not an "opposed roll" system, and giving a CHA save after the Barbarian already succeeded at a SIEGE check using their HD/level as the CL is a "opposed roll" rather than being a simple SIEGE check.

So in my game, the Barbarian makes a CON check to Intimidate, CL being the highest HD of the opponents to be intimidated. If they succeed, the opponents are intimidated, no additional save roll possible.

Right, agreed.

Now, how do you handle this type of non-magical, non-supernatural power vs. PC's? I don't allow an NPC Barbarian to "intimidate" PC's.

I have it work the same both ways. Paladins would be immune, and I would add any save bonus' versus Fear they have add to the CL to effect them. So if they are in close enough proximity to the Paladin, for example, the bonus to saves versus Fear the Paladin gives would increase the over all CL the Barbarian would have to beat. I would not allow general save items, such as Rings or Cloaks, add to the CL check of the Barbarian, unless enough of the party have such items to increase the over all effective level of the whole party.

So for my current on line group, they have a Paladin, so the Paladin would be out right immune to Intimidate, since it is a "fear based" effect, and the Paladin is 9th level, so has been immune to Fear for several levels now. Then I would look at how many party members are within 10 feet of the Paladin at the time the Barbarian attempts their Intimidate, and increase the effective HD of those Party members accordingly (+4) for determining the CL the Barbarian will need to beat. So a PC party would definitely be far more difficult to intimidate than a "typical" group of NPC's, especially if they have a Paladin, or a Bard Inspiring them, or a Knight doing their thing.

Treebore wrote:If the Barbarian makes a successful CON check to intimidate, I will not allow a CHA save to avoid being Intimidated. That goes against the very premise of the SIEGE engine. The WHOLE reason the CL of the SIEGE check would be the HD of the opponents is because their HD/level being the determining factor already gives them their "chance" at not being effected. C&C is not an "opposed roll" system, and giving a CHA save after the Barbarian already succeeded at a SIEGE check using their HD/level as the CL is a "opposed roll" rather than being a simple SIEGE check.

So in my game, the Barbarian makes a CON check to Intimidate, CL being the highest HD of the opponents to be intimidated. If they succeed, the opponents are intimidated, no additional save roll possible.

I agree too, just confusing when I had just read the 5th print rule. I also would say that to be "attacking" would simply mean what the dictionary definition is:
"take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
OR (of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill."

So I would say as long as the Barbarian is actively doing something to injure his opponents he is attacking. That could be swinging his weapon at the enemy, chasing them down with the intent to strike them, charging, or even trying to push a broken stone pillar over so it could land on the enemy. But I'm on the side of ruling this liberally. I see the barbarian's intimidate as the raw physicality of the character, that element of nature boiling up from inside the veneer of humanity. The yell of an angry gorilla or the roar of a lion as it moves toward you is the equivalent in my thought. Both those would be intimidating long before they even attacked and certainly during an attack even if you successfully dodged each blow or bite.

dachda wrote:

Treebore wrote:If the Barbarian makes a successful CON check to intimidate, I will not allow a CHA save to avoid being Intimidated. That goes against the very premise of the SIEGE engine. The WHOLE reason the CL of the SIEGE check would be the HD of the opponents is because their HD/level being the determining factor already gives them their "chance" at not being effected. C&C is not an "opposed roll" system, and giving a CHA save after the Barbarian already succeeded at a SIEGE check using their HD/level as the CL is a "opposed roll" rather than being a simple SIEGE check.

So in my game, the Barbarian makes a CON check to Intimidate, CL being the highest HD of the opponents to be intimidated. If they succeed, the opponents are intimidated, no additional save roll possible.

I agree too, just confusing when I had just read the 5th print rule. I also would say that to be "attacking" would simply mean what the dictionary definition is:
"take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
OR (of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill."
So I would say as long as the Barbarian is actively doing something to injure his opponents he is attacking. That could be swinging his weapon at the enemy, chasing them down with the intent to strike them, charging, or even trying to push a broken stone pillar over so it could land on the enemy. But I'm on the side of ruling this liberally. I see the barbarian's intimidate as the raw physicality of the character, that element of nature boiling up from inside the veneer of humanity. The yell of an angry gorilla or the roar of a lion as it moves toward you is the equivalent in my thought. Both those would be intimidating long before they even attacked and certainly during an attack even if you successfully dodged each blow or bite.

Yes, in order for it to make any sense what so ever for them to effect more than 1 opponent at a time, that is how you have to interpret it.

Like I was watching Peter Jackson's King Kong this weekend, and the scene between Kong and the 3 Rex's, when they stand there roaring at each other, struck me as entirely equivalent to a Intimidate check by all of them, which I would say only Kong succeeded at making, since he was the one who went on to kick their butts.

seskis281 wrote:Anyone else want to admit when you saw the title of the thread your brain took you to an entirely different direction?

that's SO where I went first.

Treebore wrote:

Arduin wrote: Now, how do you handle this type of non-magical, non-supernatural power vs. PC's? I don't allow an NPC Barbarian to "intimidate" PC's.

I have it work the same both ways. Paladins would be immune, and I would add any save bonus' versus Fear they have add to the CL to effect them. So if they are in close enough proximity to the Paladin, for example, the bonus to saves versus Fear the Paladin gives would increase the over all CL the Barbarian would have to beat. I would not allow general save items, such as Rings or Cloaks, add to the CL check of the Barbarian, unless enough of the party have such items to increase the over all effective level of the whole party.

So for my current on line group, they have a Paladin, so the Paladin would be out right immune to Intimidate, since it is a "fear based" effect, and the Paladin is 9th level, so has been immune to Fear for several levels now. Then I would look at how many party members are within 10 feet of the Paladin at the time the Barbarian attempts their Intimidate, and increase the effective HD of those Party members accordingly (+4) for determining the CL the Barbarian will need to beat. So a PC party would definitely be far more difficult to intimidate than a "typical" group of NPC's, especially if they have a Paladin, or a Bard Inspiring them, or a Knight doing their thing.

Hmm. Not bad at all. Maybe I will set it so that if the Barbarian Trying to Intimidate is of equal or greater level there is a chance of a PC being effected.

One interesting dilemma concerns halflings. They are immune to fear are they not? Are they, then, not subject to intimidation either?

serleran wrote:One interesting dilemma concerns halflings. They are immune to fear are they not? Are they, then, not subject to intimidation either?

They just get a +2 on their saves vs. Fear based stuff.

One of these days I really should read the PHB... it seems to change daily.