# Class features with drawbacks



## Redwizard007 (May 14, 2020)

In another thread we spent some time discussing the merits and flaws of the Barbarian's Frenzy ability from 5e. I don't want to rehash that whole conversation, but it did strike me as odd that the Frenzy feature has a significant benefit, and a scaling penalty depending on number of times it is used. More specifically, that it appears to be the ONLY instance where the 5e designers did this. With that in mind, how would the community feel about more class features using this type of model in future editions?


----------



## Galendril (May 14, 2020)

I think the developers have been pretty clear why they didn’t include drawbacks in character classes.


----------



## Prakriti (May 14, 2020)

Considering how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was over the ability score penalties in _Volo's Guide to Monsters_, I don't think today's gamers react to downsides very well (I'm pretty sure I've seen the goblin and kobold in _Volo's Guide_ described as "literally unplayable" because they have ability score penalties).

Best to avoid penalties in future designs.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 14, 2020)

The latest Unearthed Arcana has a major drawback in the capstone ability of the Scribe wizard, where you come back to life after you die at the price of not being able to cast selected spells again. 

WotC generally doesn't create abilities like this.


----------



## J-H (May 14, 2020)

And how many people use the Barbarian's Frenzy ability?
Not many I suspect.
It's even worse because a couple of the popular Barbarian feats (PAM & GWM) also give an attack with a bonus action frequently.

Not sure what I'd houserule it to be...maybe "You can attack as a bonus action, and if you have two bonus-action attacks somehow, you can make both."


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

J-H said:


> And how many people use the Barbarian's Frenzy ability?
> Not many I suspect.
> It's even worse because a couple of the popular Barbarian feats (PAM & GWM) also give an attack with a bonus action frequently.
> 
> Not sure what I'd houserule it to be...maybe "You can attack as a bonus action, and if you have two bonus-action attacks somehow, you can make both."




True, but lots of class abilities conflict with feats, whether reactions or bonus actions.  The lesson here is that you can't have everything.  (And GWM is still plenty effective with Frenzy, just maybe less so against waves of CR 1/4 mooks.)


----------



## neogod22 (May 14, 2020)

J-H said:


> And how many people use the Barbarian's Frenzy ability?
> Not many I suspect.
> It's even worse because a couple of the popular Barbarian feats (PAM & GWM) also give an attack with a bonus action frequently.
> 
> Not sure what I'd houserule it to be...maybe "You can attack as a bonus action, and if you have two bonus-action attacks somehow, you can make both."



My 1st barbarian was a berserker. I actually didn't use it much, mainly because I was playing AL, and most fights didn't last long enough for me to even waste a rage over. But when I dod rage, I would use frenzy at least 1/day.


----------



## neogod22 (May 14, 2020)

J-H said:


> And how many people use the Barbarian's Frenzy ability?
> Not many I suspect.
> It's even worse because a couple of the popular Barbarian feats (PAM & GWM) also give an attack with a bonus action frequently.
> 
> Not sure what I'd houserule it to be...maybe "You can attack as a bonus action, and if you have two bonus-action attacks somehow, you can make both."



The way to fix it is, Frenzy gives you an extra attack per round, not as a bonus action. This way, it works with PAM and GWM.


----------



## Redwizard007 (May 14, 2020)

neogod22 said:


> The way to fix it is, Frenzy gives you an extra attack per round, not as a bonus action. This way, it works with PAM and GWM.



Getting side tracked here. Frenzy isn't the actual discussion. 

Try this out, in MTG black decks often use sacrificing life or creatures to power their best tricks. Thats the way i see Frenzy. How do people feel about say, Sorcerers taking Con damage to power up a spell, or Fighters taking a penalty to defense for a large boost to attacks or damage (like Reckless Attack. Huh, i guess its a theme with barbarians. )


----------



## cbwjm (May 14, 2020)

I'm not against drawbacks, I quite like an ability like the evoker's overchannel. It lets you use the ability once for free, but further uses have a drawback (necrotic damage). I know it isn't the actual discussion, but I think this is how I'd prefer Frenzy to work. 

In regard to race, I'm actually fine with stat penalties. I'd be fine if gnomes and halflings and other small races had a strength penalty for instance, admittedly this would possibly have prevented one of my players making a strength based barbarian which does have some great imagery.


----------



## Galendril (May 14, 2020)

MtG is a single player game. In DND with multiple players, it’s way too easy to make drawbacks become negligible.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (May 14, 2020)

Chronurgists' capstone also gives you an exhaustion, but this is completely warranted, as it is way overpowered.


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2020)

Prakriti said:


> Considering how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was over the ability score penalties in _Volo's Guide to Monsters_, I don't think today's gamers react to downsides very well (I'm pretty sure I've seen the goblin and kobold in _Volo's Guide_ described as "literally unplayable" because they have ability score penalties).
> 
> Best to avoid penalties in future designs.



I'm of the complete opposite mindset: no benefit without drawback.

Ability scores are a perfect example.  There should be a baseline (usually Human) and every other race is compared to that for each stat and given a racial bonus, or penalty, or neither.  Ideally the bonuses and penalties for each race more or less cancel off, unless one actually wants the races to start with greater or lesser overall ability power.

And if people can't handle downsides now and then: tough.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 14, 2020)

Prakriti said:


> Considering how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was over the ability score penalties in _Volo's Guide to Monsters_, I don't think today's gamers react to downsides very well (I'm pretty sure I've seen the goblin and kobold in _Volo's Guide_ described as "literally unplayable" because they have ability score penalties).
> 
> Best to avoid penalties in future designs.




Oh wow, really? I assumed it was the opposite reason. I assumed the designers realized that strengths are more meaningful than weaknesses because players will always play to their strengths while playing around their weaknesses, so giving player options more pluses and minuses just results in really stacked characters. Well at least it sounds like we are all in agreement to just not include penalties anyway.



Galendril said:


> MtG is a single player game.




I don't know how to respond to this.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I'm of the complete opposite mindset: no benefit without drawback.
> 
> Ability scores are a perfect example.  There should be a baseline (usually Human) and every other race is compared to that for each stat and given a racial bonus, or penalty, or neither.  Ideally the bonuses and penalties for each race more or less cancel off, unless one actually wants the races to start with greater or lesser overall ability power.
> 
> And if people can't handle downsides now and then: tough.




I agree with benefits pairing with drawbacks.

I don't agree with racial bonuses and penalties to attributes though.  I don't think it adds anything to the game to encourage players to play specific races for specific classes.

Even if we want to agree that elves (in general) have high dexterity, and dwarves (in general) have high constitution, adventurers are not average representatives of their races. 

But back on topic, I've always wanted to play a monk with Blindsight who is also actually blind.  I homebrewed a subclass for it, somewhere in this forum.  "Way of Four Senses" I think I called it.


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> I don't agree with racial bonuses and penalties to attributes though.  I don't think it adds anything to the game to encourage players to play specific races for specific classes.
> 
> Even if we want to agree that elves (in general) have high dexterity, and dwarves (in general) have high constitution, adventurers are not average representatives of their races.



No, but it doesn't make sense that all the clumsy Elves and non-sturdy Dwarves would be the ones to go adventuring, does it? 

And, I don't at all mind races other than Human trending toward specific classes and even being outright banned from a few others.  That's the whole point of playing a Human - you've got the flexibility to equally be any class you want (and have the stats for).



> But back on topic, I've always wanted to play a monk with Blindsight who is also actually blind.  I homebrewed a subclass for it, somewhere in this forum.  "Way of Four Senses" I think I called it.



Cool idea!


----------



## Li Shenron (May 14, 2020)

Redwizard007 said:


> In another thread we spent some time discussing the merits and flaws of the Barbarian's Frenzy ability from 5e. I don't want to rehash that whole conversation, but it did strike me as odd that the Frenzy feature has a significant benefit, and a scaling penalty depending on number of times it is used. More specifically, that it appears to be the ONLY instance where the 5e designers did this. With that in mind, how would the community feel about more class features using this type of model in future editions?




The drawback of the Barbarian ability is *temporary* and I think this makes it totally fine.

What I think it's generally a bad idea, is to have a permanent drawback or limitation, such as forbidden magic schools.



Galendril said:


> I think the developers have been pretty clear why they didn’t include drawbacks in character classes.




That's ridiculous, they should ask the Druid about that. Except that I think the developers were not fully responsible of the armor restrictions, I always had the feeling that it was sneaked into the PHB by a high-up who listened to a bad but influential playtester at the last minute without thinking of the repercussions.

Druid armor restrictions are by far the worst possible kind of drawback, because not only they are permanent, but they also carry over when multiclassing, there is technically no way to offset them except merrily ignore or reinterpret the rule.


----------



## Rikka66 (May 14, 2020)

Redwizard007 said:


> Try this out, in MTG black decks often use sacrificing life or creatures to power their best tricks.




Was just reading through some magic articles about various mechanics and the designer (Rosewater) mentions that those that require a sacrifice on the part of the player are generally not received well by newer or inexperienced players, at least initially. 

I think it's a very natural reaction that extends across all games, and really is a basic part of human psychology.


----------



## Shiroiken (May 14, 2020)

Abilities with drawbacks are perfectly fine, so long as the benefit makes the cost worthwhile. Overchannel is farily acceptable, but I think the argument with Frenzy is that getting rid of Exhaustion is rather difficult.


----------



## Horwath (May 14, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I'm of the complete opposite mindset: no benefit without drawback.
> 
> Ability scores are a perfect example.  There should be a baseline (usually Human) and every other race is compared to that for each stat and given a racial bonus, or penalty, or neither.  Ideally the bonuses and penalties for each race more or less cancel off, unless one actually wants the races to start with greater or lesser overall ability power.
> 
> And if people can't handle downsides now and then: tough.




I play D&D for 20 years and I am not in favor of racial ability bonuses/penalties. Especially if there are both.

Maybe best way for 6E to get rid of ability modifiers from race and make them class only or make something similar like 13th age where both race and class gets bonuses and you cannot stack them.

And bonuses/penalties from race could be "floating" so most character concepts could be avalilable.

No combination in unplayable but we cannot even compare in 3E, difference between Sun elf and half-Orc wizard.

So I.E:
elf could get 3 favorite abilites; DEX,INT and WIS and 3 secondary abilities STR,CON and CHA.
they would get +2(or +1, or what ever) to 2 of those abilities and -2(or whatever) penalty to one of the latter 3.

Half-orcs would have favorite STR,DEX and CON and secondary INT,WIS and CHA.

Humans, +2 to any score

etc...

In addition every class would get +2 to one of 3 abilities that are key for that class:
I.E. fighter +2 to STR, DEX or CON. rogue +2 DEX,INT or CHA. ranger +2 STR,DEX or WIS...etc...

keep max point buy to 14 for this variant


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 14, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> That's ridiculous, they should ask the Druid about that. Except that I think the developers were not fully responsible of the armor restrictions, I always had the feeling that it was sneaked into the PHB by a high-up who listened to a bad but influential playtester at the last minute without thinking of the repercussions.
> 
> Druid armor restrictions are by far the worst possible kind of drawback, because not only they are permanent, but they also carry over when multiclassing, there is technically no way to offset them except merrily ignore or reinterpret the rule.




Perhaps they are an awesome idea that many people like, but some people are like, "I DON'T WANT ANY LORE IN MY CAPTAIN CRUNCH!"

To each their own.

I think drawbacks are a great idea, and give the game more flavor as opposed to just being a power-trip fantasy. But that's not the direction the game has moved.

Just like I think that the game is better when classes are more specialized, and there is more class protection (and, thus, more need to operate thinking of the party holistically instead of individually), but that too has fallen by the wayside.

Things change.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> No, but it doesn't make sense that all the clumsy Elves and non-sturdy Dwarves would be the ones to go adventuring, does it?




Errr....no. But if we play a campaign together, and one of us has a clumsy elf, does that mean “all the clumsy elves” go adventuring?

I guess it does if you assume there’s only one in the entire world.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 14, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> I always had the feeling that it was sneaked into the PHB by a high-up who listened to a bad but influential playtester at the last minute without thinking of the repercussions.






Snarf Zagyg said:


> Perhaps they are an awesome idea that many people like, but some people are like, "I DON'T WANT ANY LORE IN MY CAPTAIN CRUNCH!"




Found the bad, but influential playtester! Just kidding.

The thing I think I've seen people take issue with about the Druid armor restriction isn't that it exists, but rather that it is a lore idea with mechanical consequences and the mechanical side of it is poorly defined. If they just said something like "Druids will not wear metal armor, and as such are always treated as not proficient with it, even if they have proficiency from another source." things would be better. It also doesn't help that they tell us that Druids don't like wearing metal armor, but not why. Metal is a naturally occurring material, and fashioning it into armor is no more unnatural than fashioning clothes from other materials (though a bit more work is involved). How am I supposed to roleplay such a nonsensical notion?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Found the bad, but influential playtester! Just kidding.
> 
> The thing I think I've seen people take issue with about the Druid armor restriction isn't that it exists, but rather that it is a lore idea with mechanical consequences and the mechanical side of it is poorly defined. If they just said something like "Druids will not wear metal armor, and as such are always treated as not proficient with it, even if they have proficiency from another source." things would be better. It also doesn't help that they tell us that Druids don't like wearing metal armor, but not why. Metal is a naturally occurring material, and fashioning it into armor is no more unnatural than fashioning clothes from other materials (though a bit more work is involved). How am I supposed to roleplay such a nonsensical notion?



Funny I’ve never had problems interpreting it. I suspect that hair-splitting is mostly interesting to those looking for a loophole in the restriction.


----------



## Krachek (May 14, 2020)

Base on the UA class variant and the overall popularity of the berserker I can guess that we won’t see drawback so much.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 14, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> Funny I’ve never had problems interpreting it. I suspect that hair-splitting is mostly interesting to those looking for a loophole in the restriction.



There's probably a good deal of that going on too, but given the nature of the hobby I suspect a good deal of them are like myself and just like things to be well-defined. Also, like I said, I find the lore pretty illogical in the first place; are Warforged Druids just supposed to kill themselves on principle?


----------



## GlassJaw (May 14, 2020)

Shiroiken said:


> Abilities with drawbacks are perfectly fine, so long as the benefit makes the cost worthwhile. Overchannel is farily acceptable, but I think the argument with Frenzy is that getting rid of Exhaustion is rather difficult.




No it's not. Just get rid of it. Done. Congrats you just fixed the Berserker!

You hit the nail on the head with cost benefit. _Everything _we do in life - never mind gaming - is cost-benefit analysis.

The problem with the berserker is that incurring exhaustion is an extremely steep price to pay, and one that no other class has to pay.


----------



## ChameleonX (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> There's probably a good deal of that going on too, but given the nature of the hobby I suspect a good deal of them are like myself and just like things to be well-defined. Also, like I said, I find the lore pretty illogical in the first place; are Warforged Druids just supposed to kill themselves on principle?




It's because the Druid originated as a specialty variant of the Cleric, and in those days, specialty variants had to give up some of their features in order to get new ones. Losing their armor proficiency in exchange for wild Shape is one of those. Its been carried over into the modern edition partly out of tradition, and partly because it (at least on the surface) reinforces the unique identity of the class.

Incidentally, there are historic examples of armor (mostly scale) being made of non-metallic materials like bone, animal horn, or even wood.


----------



## Rikka66 (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Metal is a naturally occurring material, and fashioning it into armor is no more unnatural than fashioning clothes from other materials (though a bit more work is involved). How am I supposed to roleplay such a nonsensical notion?




That's the the nature of a lot of moral/philosophical/religious beliefs. Full of contradictions, illogical, and eventually you'll come up with a scenario too challenging to be answered by rigid principles. The question is whether you can imagine the founders of a druidic sect convincing themselves working metal is wrong, or at least worse than using other naturally occurring materials.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> are Warforged Druids just supposed to kill themselves on principle?




Yes.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 14, 2020)

Rikka66 said:


> That's the the nature of a lot of moral/philosophical/religious beliefs. Full of contradictions, illogical, and *eventually* you'll come up with a scenario too challenging to be answered by rigid principles. The question is whether you can imagine the founders of a druidic sect convincing themselves working metal is wrong, or at least worse than using other naturally occurring materials.




Emphasis mine. I feel like the bolded word is the important one. If you get really attached to an ideology, but then at some point down the road find a bit of a contradiction you can kinda just try and rationalize it or deal with it, but when the elevator pitch to get me into it in the first place is blatantly flawed things fall apart a lot faster.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Yes.



Fair enough, I like your conviction.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Fair enough, I like your conviction.




It's just like Kirk and Nomad.

Except replace Nomad with Warforged, and Kirk with "internal self monologue."

I tell ya, you haven't lived until you see a Warforged Druid realize that somewhere along the line, a serious mistake was made.


----------



## Rikka66 (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Emphasis mine. I feel like the bolded word is the important one. If you get really attached to an ideology, but then at some point down the road find a bit of a contradiction you can kinda just try and rationalize it or deal with it, but when the elevator pitch to get me into it in the first place is blatantly flawed things fall apart a lot faster.




I imagine the metal armor bit wasn't part of the elevator pitch. They entice you with the hippie nature talk and chance at magic weather predicting powers, and don't start telling you the restrictions are hard-coded until you're in deep and ready to sign the bark contract.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 14, 2020)

Rikka66 said:


> I imagine the metal armor bit wasn't part of the elevator pitch. They entice you with the hippie nature talk and chance at magic weather predicting powers, and don't start telling you the restrictions are hard-coded until you're in deep and ready to sign the bark contract.




Hacky sack is probably involved too.

...and drum circles.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

GlassJaw said:


> No it's not. Just get rid of it. Done. Congrats you just fixed the Berserker!




You really think it's an appropriately balanced 3rd level ability if there's no drawback?

In the other thread I offered some numbers.  You know how good Assassinate is _if_ you can manage to get surprise?  Frenzy is just as good in that first round, without surprise.  Then it continues to be equivalent to the rogue's free crit _in every subsequent round_. 



> The problem with the berserker is that incurring exhaustion is an extremely steep price to pay, and one that no other class has to pay.




As was discussed elsewhere, it's only an extremely steep price if you just pop it every time you rage.  Sure, if you want to whiteroom a scenario where you rage and frenzy in the first three fights of the day, then you do the same thing the next day, and THEN you suddenly discover that being exhausted was really a bad idea...well, yeah.  No $#%&. 

If you play as smart as I'm sure you're able to, and use frenzy strategically, it's only sometimes a price, and pretty reasonable at that.


----------



## HJFudge (May 14, 2020)

Putting aside any specifics and speaking purely conceptually, I think Drawbacks are a good thing for a game. They open up design space in a lot of ways and make both design of a character (or a deck or a build or a whatever) more interesting and decisions during play more meaningful.

That said, theres this school of thought that I have seen from people that any drawback, any failing, any sort of penalty that is meaningful in anyway is to be avoided at all costs. So from a 'sell more stuff' perspective, it makes sense NOT to have Drawbacks. Since this school of thought in my entirely anecdotal experience seems far larger than the 'hard choices are interesting!' school.

There's also the additional fact that Drawbacks can be implemented well or implemented very very poorly. A poorly implemented drawback overshadows the benefits provided. OR is so meaningless that it isn't an actual drawback. In both cases, it becomes a False Choice. There is no situation where you have to sit and think 'Do I want to use this ability even with the drawback?'. In the first instance, the answer is almost always No (so why even have the ability?) but the answer to the second is equally almost always Yes (so, again, why have the drawback at all?)

Blah blah blah yack yack yack...

In short: Drawbacks make for, in my opinion, a more interesting and enjoyable game. However, most others I meet tend to not enjoy meaningful/interesting drawbacks so perhaps from a business perspective should be avoided.


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> Errr....no. But if we play a campaign together, and one of us has a clumsy elf, does that mean “all the clumsy elves” go adventuring?
> 
> I guess it does if you assume there’s only one in the entire world.



Campaigns I play in or run tend to go through a lot of characters over a lot of time (particularly at low level!), thus you're not just looking at one Elf but at enough to give a bit of a sample.

Couple that with knowing that a) the PC Elves are not the only adventuring Elves in the setting and b) PCs and NPCs use the same char-gen mechanics; and yes: not having a racial Dex boost for Elves while at the same time claiming they're dextrous directly tells us that it's the clumsy Elves who go adventuring.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 14, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> You really think it's an appropriately balanced 3rd level ability if there's no drawback?




Yup, or at least not exhaustion as a drawback.



> As was discussed elsewhere, it's only an extremely steep price if you just pop it every time you rage.
> 
> If you play as smart as I'm sure you're able to, and use frenzy strategically, it's only sometimes a price, and pretty reasonable at that.




So now the price the Berserker has to pay is to _not use their signature ability._

Again, no other class has to make that kind of choice.


----------



## Redwizard007 (May 14, 2020)

GlassJaw said:


> So now the price the Berserker has to pay is to _not use their signature ability._
> 
> Again, no other class has to make that kind of choice.



But should they?


----------



## NotAYakk (May 14, 2020)

neogod22 said:


> The way to fix it is, Frenzy gives you an extra attack per round, not as a bonus action. This way, it works with PAM and GWM.



I'd go another way.

Frenzy gives you an extra damage die on your melee weapon attacks.

So greataxe becomes 2d12/4d12, a TWF shortsword user becomes 4d6/6d6, a 2HSword becomes 3d6/6d6.

16 str, GWF at level 4, 18 str at level 8.

3: 2d12+6 (19) vs 2d12+3 (16)
4: 2d12+26 (39) vs 2d12+13 (26)
5: 3d12+39 (58) vs 4d12+26 (52)
8: 3d12+42 (61) vs 4d12+28 (54)

It is actually weaker (with GWF) than an extra attack. But now it stacks with other bonus action attacks, and it "turns on" on your first turn (which is big).


----------



## GlassJaw (May 14, 2020)

Redwizard007 said:


> But should they?




Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: maybe

Trust me, I am all for consequence of choice and meaningful decisions in design. However, imposing exhaustion is a bridge too far for me. It's a misstep by the design team.

If you want to keep a drawback for frenzy, there are a few ways to go:

Each time the barbarians take a bonus action to make an extra attack, the barbarian suffers damage equal to half its level (or something along those lines). Wording would need to be cleaned up of course. Does the damage have a type? Can it be resisted? Etc, etc.
Keep the exhaustion but allow the berserker to recover it more quickly. I like a mechanic that allows it to be recovered during a short rest once per day.
Allow the berserker to ignore the effects of a certain level of exhaustion. The level of exhaustion ignored could scale with level.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

GlassJaw said:


> So now the price the Berserker has to pay is to _not use their signature ability._




Wait, who said "not use it"?  I said, "use it strategically".  As in, use it when it's really important, and/or you think you'll be taking a long rest soon.  If you do that it's not really much of a penalty.  Sure, there's a risk.  That's what makes it fun.

And using it _just once a day_ it's still a pretty amazing ability.  Better, by far, than any other level 3 subclass ability.  Vastly better than Action Surge (at least in terms of dpr).

But here's the truly great thing: unlike other abilities which explicitly say "you need to take a long rest before using this again", you can use it again if you want.  And, at higher levels, again and again!  It's up to you to decide whether the risk:reward is worth it each time.



> Again, no other class has to make that kind of choice.




I would say, "No other class *gets to* make that kind of choice."

Imagine if the Wizard class had, "After you've used all your spell slots for the day* you can still keep using your highest level spells, but you'll get a level of exhaustion each time."  Wouldn't that be a $%$^ing incredible card up their sleeves?

*What's more gimped: a wizard without any spell slots, or a barbarian with one level of exhaustion?


----------



## MechaTarrasque (May 14, 2020)

(off topic, sorry) In 6e, I would prefer races to give advantage on certain skill checks/saves instead of a bonus for racial stats.  

(back on topic) I would like 6e to have more "opt in" to high risk/high reward abilities options.  Maybe frenzy could be a barbarian fighting style (of which there should be a lot more, ones with no drawbacks should take concentration, and fighter's big gimmick will be marital secrets that lets them take fighting styles from other classes).  Likewise if a caster wants to burn hp's for spell slots, there should be a feat for that.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

MechaTarrasque said:


> (off topic, sorry) In 6e, I would prefer races to give advantage on certain skill checks/saves instead of a bonus for racial stats.




There is some of that, but, yeah, more would be nice.



> (back on topic) I would like 6e to have more "opt in" to high risk/high reward abilities options.  Maybe frenzy could be a barbarian fighting style (of which there should be a lot more, ones with no drawbacks should take concentration, and fighter's big gimmick will be *marital secrets* that lets them take fighting styles from other classes).  Likewise if a caster wants to burn hp's for spell slots, there should be a feat for that.




Best typo ever.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 14, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> And using it _just once a day_ it's still a pretty amazing ability.  Better, by far, than any other level 3 subclass ability.  Vastly better than Action Surge (at least in terms of dpr).




Is it? Let's compare a 3rd level Fighter (Battle Master, 16 Dex, wielding 2 short swords, TWF Fighting Style) with a 3rd level Barbarian (Frenzy, 16 Str, wielding a greatsword)

Round 1 (B): The Barbarian rages and takes a single swing. 2d6+5 damage
Round 2 (B): The Barbarian takes one swing as an action, and another as a bonus action. 4d6+10 damage
Round 3 (B): The Barbarian takes two swing just like last round; let's model the impact of Reckless Attack by saying the Barbarian gets a crit here, because advantage will do that from time to time. 6d6+10 damage
Total: The DMG recommends using the first three rounds when assessing damage output, so let's end combat and take a tally here. 12d6+25 (67 average) damage

Round 1 (F): The Fighter attacks once as an action. The Fighter attacks again with an Action Surge! The Fighter attacks a third time with their off-hand weapon as a bonus action. He decides to spend superiority dice on all of these attacks. 3d6+3d8+9 damage
Round 2 (F): The Fighter attacks once as an action, and again as a bonus action; he has one superiority die left, and spends it on his first attack. 2d6+1d8+6 damage
Round 3 (F): The Fighter attacks once as an action. Healing is as good as damage, so the Fighter decides to pop his Second Wind as a bonus action. 1d6+1d10+6 damage (including healing)
Total: Like with the Barb, we'll stop at round 3. 6d6+4d8+1d10+21 (65.5 average) damage

These damage numbers look pretty even, despite the Barbarian burning through a long rest worth of resources while the Fighter burns through only a short rest's worth. Let's say the maneuver the Fighter was using was Precision Strike because otherwise, by assuming all attacks are hits, we aren't being fair to the accuracy the Barbarian gains from Reckless Attacks, even with that crit I threw in there.



Elfcrusher said:


> Imagine if the Wizard class had, "After you've used all your spell slots for the day* you can still keep using your highest level spells, but you'll get a level of exhaustion each time."  Wouldn't that be a $%$^ing incredible card up their sleeves?




More like: imagine if Wizards had to get a level of exhaustion each time they expend a spell slot above 2nd level to cast a spell. You have to expend rage uses just like the Wizard expends spell slots, and unlike the Wizard feature you pitched you are not gaining exhaustion to _keep_ using frenzy, you are gaining exhaustion to use frenzy_ at all. _



Elfcrusher said:


> What's more gimped: a wizard without any spell slots, or a barbarian with one level of exhaustion?




I'm glad you brought this up, because it is another thing that bothers me. The Barbarian with exhaustion has disadvantage on ability checks, reducing their ability to contribute to the exploration and social pillars of the game where I've always believed casters already have a bit of an unfair advantage to begin with. A Wizard without spell slots still has their cantrips and rituals.


----------



## Redwizard007 (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Is it? Let's compare a 3rd level Fighter (Battle Master, 16 Dex, wielding 2 short swords, TWF Fighting Style) with a 3rd level Barbarian (Frenzy, 16 Str, wielding a greatsword)
> 
> Round 1 (B): The Barbarian rages and takes a single swing. 2d6+5 damage
> Round 2 (B): The Barbarian takes one swing as an action, and another as a bonus action. 4d6+10 damage
> ...



So is your problem how this was executed in 5e, or an active dislike for the concept as a whole?


----------



## Phazonfish (May 14, 2020)

Redwizard007 said:


> So is your problem how this was executed in 5e, or an active dislike for the concept as a whole?



I don't actually dislike Frenzy, I just think saying that it is by far the best low level feature for martial classes is a bit of an exaggeration. If I had to answer I would probably say execution though. Would have been nice if the first frenzy per long rest was free and the exhaustion didn't kick in until the rage ends.


----------



## Salamandyr (May 14, 2020)

Drawbacks have their place, but I believe that the Berserker Frenzy drawback is a bad one, while ability penalties offsetting bonuses in other areas is a good one.

To elaborate--one has a baseline; for instance, in earlier editions of D&D, the human is the standard by which attributes are judged. The human has neither bonuses nor penalties his attribute scores. So looking at attributes the human would be worth 0 points. By contrast other races have bonuses and penalties, that make them weaker or stronger than a human would be. For instance an elf is more agile, but also more frail. So the elf costs 1 point for his dexterity bonus, but subtract 1 point for his constitution penalty, for a result of 0. The elf and the human are balanced. The drawback allows for a player to have a desired advantage while not being overpowered next to a fellow player.

By contrast, every subclass is supposed to gain a cool ability-they get 1 point. The Champion gets improved critical, the Wizard gets cool School abilities, the Totem barbarian gets a need power-up. But the berserker, who gets an ability that isn't overpowered relative to other subclass abilities, also has to deal with a drawback that, once in play, hurts the characters effectiveness for the rest of the game session.

So 1 point for his ability, -1 for his drawback; while everyone else is at 1, the berserker barbarian is at 0.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Is it? Let's compare a 3rd level Fighter (Battle Master, 16 Dex, wielding 2 short swords, TWF Fighting Style) with a 3rd level Barbarian (Frenzy, 16 Str, wielding a greatsword)
> 
> Round 1 (B): The Barbarian rages and takes a single swing. 2d6+5 damage
> Round 2 (B): The Barbarian takes one swing as an action, and another as a bonus action. 4d6+10 damage
> ...




First, if we are talking about the value of the subclass ability you have to compare ability to ability, not class to class. 

So compute how much damage fighter and barbarian would each do at level 3, then compute additional damage due to the ability. 

You’ll get a dramatically different result.  Quick math says it’s +12 for barb, +4.5 for fighter, per round. 

Then, what if the fight goes on 3, 4, 5 rounds? More?  The fighter is out of gas. The barbarian keeps dishing it out. 

And if they were wrong and this was NOT the boss fight, and before they even get a short rest they find themselves in a worse fight? The barbarian can frenzy again. Two levels of exhaustion are getting to be a pain, but maybe worth it. The fighter doesn’t have that option. 
.
Typing on phone so more will have to wait.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 15, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> First, if we are talking about the value of the subclass ability you have to compare ability to ability, not class to class.
> 
> So compute how much damage fighter and barbarian would each do at level 3, then compute additional damage due to the ability.




Except by doing so, you overvalue Frenzy because you are treating the bonus action like free real estate, when in reality there are many ways to get an extra attack as a bonus action. Sure, Frenzy is the best one, but that doesn't make it okay to assume the others are worthless. Frenzy comes after dipping 3 levels into a class and is still pretty restrictive; by comparison, anyone can perform two-weapon fighting.

Even if you try to isolate it though...



Elfcrusher said:


> Better, by far, than any other level 3 subclass ability.




...this is still an exaggeration. Over a three round combat, Frenzy boosts your damage by 4d6+6 (20 average) (since you wanna be strict about keeping it isolated I'm not counting rage damage, that credit goes to Rage rather than Frenzy); in the meantime, the Battle Master is getting 4d8 (18 average) damage plus riders. Again, approximately the same impact, with the Fighter only spending short rest resources.



Elfcrusher said:


> Then, what if the fight goes on 3, 4, 5 rounds? More?  The fighter is out of gas. The barbarian keeps dishing it out.
> 
> And if they were wrong and this was NOT the boss fight, and before they even get a short rest they find themselves in a worse fight? The barbarian can frenzy again. Two levels of exhaustion are getting to be a pain, but maybe worth it. The fighter doesn’t have that option.




Then, what if the day goes on for 6, 7, 8 medium or harder encounters? More? The Barbarian was starting to hurt when the second one started. And each level of exhaustion is an order of magnitude worse than the last. We can both find situations where the Frenzy Barb excels or fails, but I wouldn't say it excels the vast majority of the time.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 15, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Except by doing so, you overvalue Frenzy because you are treating the bonus action like free real estate, when in reality there are many ways to get an extra attack as a bonus action. Sure, Frenzy is the best one, but that doesn't make it okay to assume the others are worthless. Frenzy comes after dipping 3 levels into a class and is still pretty restrictive; by comparison, anyone can perform two-weapon fighting.
> 
> Even if you try to isolate it though...
> 
> ...




Maybe the DMG suggests 3 rounds as the way to compute damage (I don’t recall seeing that) but, sure, if you use that to compare the two it’s going to make things like Superiority Dice look better, relatively. And maybe your table runs differently than mine, but in my experience the epic fights...the ones where everybody is burning their cool downs...last a LOT longer. 10+ rounds is not uncommon for us. So that may be coloring how I evaluate it. 

Also, you should count the rage damage, but only for the bonus attack, because it’s damage that wouldn’t have occurred without Frenzy. Battle master doesn’t get to count Str because the damage is on top of normal attacks. 

What are all these ways of getting bonus attacks of which ye speak, that don’t require Feats? Sure, a barb could dual wield and do....the same 2d6. Except then at 5th level it’s 3d6 instead of 4d6.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 15, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Then, what if the day goes on for 6, 7, 8 medium or harder encounters? More? The Barbarian was starting to hurt when the second one started. And each level of exhaustion is an order of magnitude worse than the last. We can both find situations where the Frenzy Barb excels or fails, but I wouldn't say it excels the vast majority of the time.




Forgot to respond to this.  

If you used Frenzy on a fight that lasts three rounds, and then you still have 6-8 medium/hard encounters before a long rest, I'd say you really misjudged that first fight badly.

But seriously, how often over the course of a 1-20 campaign do you think you'd f*** up this badly?  If you really can't judge about where you are in the adventuring day, and/or which fights are the really important ones, either because of skill or because of your table's style, then, yeah, Berserker probably isn't for you.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 15, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> Also, you should count the rage damage, but only for the bonus attack, because it’s damage that wouldn’t have occurred without Frenzy. Battle master doesn’t get to count Str because the damage is on top of normal attacks.




It's also damage that is part of the class outside of the feature in question. Saying Rage damage should count towards Frenzy's total is like saying maneuver damage should count toward the extra attacks from Action Surge, because the attacks the superiority dice were applied to wouldn't have happened without Action Surge.



Elfcrusher said:


> What are all these ways of getting bonus attacks of which ye speak, that don’t require Feats?



Martial Arts, Flurry of Blows, Two-Weapon Fighting, War Priest, Quickened Firebolt, Spiritual Weapon. And that's just non-feat granted attacks. Other impactful features also make use of this resource the Frenzy Barb is giving up. Also, why don't feats count again? After all, that's kind of an important point. The bonus action frenzy uses is such a drawback because now GWM grants Fighters and such a free attack when it procs, but Barbarians don't because they already spent it.



Elfcrusher said:


> If you used Frenzy on a fight that lasts three rounds, and then you still have 6-8 medium/hard encounters before a long rest, I'd say you really misjudged that first fight badly.




You criticized the Fighter for "running out of gas" after a few rounds, but a character who is "out of gas" will perform the same as a character who has resources left but refuses to use them. It's not even about judging. If you face that gauntlet of encounters, even if you only use your frenzy on the last one, the Fighter could take no short rests, foolishly refuse to make use of his abilities until you frenzy, and still outperform the Barbarian in every fight except the last, and keep up for the first few rounds of the last.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 15, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> It's also damage that is part of the class outside of the feature in question. Saying Rage damage should count towards Frenzy's total is like saying maneuver damage should count toward the extra attacks from Action Surge, because the attacks the superiority dice were applied to wouldn't have happened without Action Surge.




Hmmm.  We seem to be crossing signals here.  

If normally I do 2 attacks, adding Str and rage to each one, then I get to make a 3rd attack because of Frenzy, I add rage and Str to that attack.  So base class does 2 * (weapon damage + rage + str) and Frenzy adds an addition (weapon damage + rage + str).  Yes, the rage damage is a class feature, but you only get 2 of them without the subclass feature.




> Martial Arts, Flurry of Blows, Two-Weapon Fighting, War Priest, Quickened Firebolt, Spiritual Weapon. And that's just non-feat granted attacks. Other impactful features also make use of this resource the Frenzy Barb is giving up.




Ah, I thought you mean lots of ways for _barbarians_, presumably of other subclasses, to get a bonus attack.  I'm not sure why you think all those other classes are relevant to this discussion.  If you want to pick one and model how much their level 3 subclass ability is worth, I'm all ears.



> Also, why don't feats count again? After all, that's kind of an important point. The bonus action frenzy uses is such a drawback because now GWM grants Fighters and such a free attack when it procs, but Barbarians don't because they already spent it.




Because there's an opportunity cost for Feats.  That is, if you don't take GWM because you already have a bonus attack (but see below) then you get to take something else.  And how do you compare, say, Mobile, with GWM?

That said, I think GWM with Frenzy is still mostly ok.  The bonus attack of Frenzy occurs _mostly_ against mooks.  So don't waste Frenzy on those fights.  Sure, sometimes (about 1/10, assuming Reckless Attacks) you'll crit,  C'est la vie.  But if you're using Reckless you'll often (not always) use the -5/+10, so GWM will shine anyway.



> You criticized the Fighter for "running out of gas" after a few rounds, but a character who is "out of gas" will perform the same as a character who has resources left but refuses to use them. It's not even about judging. If you face that gauntlet of encounters, even if you only use your frenzy on the last one, the Fighter could take no short rests, foolishly refuse to make use of his abilities until you frenzy, and still outperform the Barbarian in every fight except the last, and keep up for the first few rounds of the last.




I wasn't "criticizing" it so much as commenting that the numbers you quote only work for a few rounds, then he's a normal fighter again (which is still pretty darned good).

But, sure.  Different classes/subclasses/builds shine at different things.  The Battlemaster build is great for a few rounds once per short rest.  Not arguing with that.  

Frenzy just isn't like Superiority Dice.  It's not an easy way to sprinkle extra damage (with some additional benefits) here and there.  Yes, mistiming it carries some risk. But if you time it right it's freaking awesome.

Anyway, about to drive 1,000 miles.  Catch you all on the flipside.


----------



## Redwizard007 (May 15, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> Anyway, about to drive 1,000 miles.  Catch you all on the flipside.




But, I would walk 500 miles, and I would walk 500 more...

I think that's the lyric. My Google is lazy right now. Hopefully everyone can have an hour or so of that catchy little tune from the Proclaimers rattling around in their heads.

In all seriousness, safe travels.


----------



## Phazonfish (May 15, 2020)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ah, I thought you mean lots of ways for _barbarians_, presumably of other subclasses, to get a bonus attack.  I'm not sure why you think all those other classes are relevant to this discussion.




Primarily because you didn't specify barbarians when you said...



Elfcrusher said:


> Better, by far, than any other level 3 subclass ability.  Vastly better than Action Surge (at least in terms of dpr).




...and even went so far as to bring up another class' feature when you did.



Elfcrusher said:


> But, sure.  Different classes/subclasses/builds shine at different things.




We appear to be on the same page now that I see what you mean. I still think you are underestimating Frenzy's flaws, and personally I prefer the Bear Totem Barb's resistances, but we're not gonna be able to quantify and compare these so let's call it a matter of preference. Enjoy your trip!


----------



## Quartz (May 15, 2020)

Horwath said:


> I play D&D for 20 years and I am not in favor of racial ability bonuses/penalties. Especially if there are both.




Agreed. In 5E just give a feat instead.


----------



## Horwath (May 15, 2020)

Quartz said:


> Agreed. In 5E just give a feat instead.




I would go with 2 feats. One must be racial one from XGE


----------



## Quartz (May 15, 2020)

Horwath said:


> I would go with 2 feats. One must be racial one from XGE




Sorry, to expand, nonhumans would get a feat plus racial abilities; humans get two feats plus two skills (q.v. variant human).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 16, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Primarily because you didn't specify barbarians when you said...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and even went so far as to bring up another class' feature when you did.




1,000 mile drive through the night.  Check.
Power-nap upon arrival.  Check.
Back on Enworld.  Check.

Was thinking about this exchange on the drive, and I'm still puzzled so wanted to get back to it.

In my mind there are two distinct questions to figure out, regarding the worth of Frenzy:

How much is the bonus attack worth?  Part of the calculation for that is asking what else the barbarian might have done with the bonus action.
How does it compare to other 3rd level subclass abilities, either for the barbarian or other classes?
So other classes/subclasses are relevant, but only so far as determining what a 3rd level subclass ability should be worth.

And other bonus actions are relevant, but only so far as they are bonus actions that the barbarian could be taking if not using Frenzy.

What I don't understand is the relevance of bonus actions that barbarians can not take, that aren't granted due to 3rd level subclass abilities.

So, sure, martial arts and spiritual weapon...not to mention disengage/dash/hide for a rogue...are all useful bonus actions.  But since barbarians don't have the option of using those, they are not opportunity costs for using Frenzy.

What am I missing?


----------



## Xenonnonex (May 16, 2020)

If the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Possibly. It could bring something interesting. An emphatic no otherwise.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 16, 2020)

Xenonnonex said:


> If the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Possibly. It could bring something interesting. An emphatic no otherwise.




Agreed.  I think the tricky thing about Frenzy is that it's hard to objectively assess.  Some people imagine the worst case scenario (use it early in the adventuring day on a short fight, followed by lots of climbing and jumping checks) and other people imagine the best case scenario (use it at the end of the day in an extra long fight against the boss, then immediately rest).

Whereas things like attribute modifiers (+2 Dex, -2 Con) are pretty straightforward to evaluate.

Personally, I like trade-offs, such as with Frenzy, where your decision-making can dramatically impact the magnitude of both the benefit and the drawback.  I'd like to see a lot more class abilities and feats designed that way.


----------

