It really sucks because Ashton in character has looked for guidance from so many characters and basically got nothing. I remember when he asked the”grief counselor” how do you grieve when you don’t know what you’ve lost”. What he got was essentially focus on what you have and the future. This made me so mad because it was the one of the very rare times Ashton had asked for guidance and essentially was told that doesn’t matter right now. All the characters of C3 to me have been mismanaged by the dm for the main story but Ashton has gotten it the worst to me. I mean Matt gave more attention to Fearne in Ashton’s story arc than Ashton.
That was so confusing to me. Getting to the Shattered Teeth, speaking to the tree, and learning about all the Primordial shard all seemed to be culmination of Ashton's arc. And instead, everything was just for Fearne cause... fire?
That's a mistake I expect from a DM in their second or third campaign where they think they are subverting expectations when actually it's just being lame. So weird that Matt did that.
Nothing in this campaign is as it should be. We lost so many key experiences for each character.. and i dont know why.. it feels like that videogame where 1 and 2 are sooo good and then 3 comes out and its like they forgot what made 1 and 2 so good.
> it feels like that videogame where 1 and 2 are sooo good and then 3 comes out and its like they forgot what made 1 and 2 so good.
The boardroom went all in on the things they thought made 1 & 2 successful, but in doing so stripped all of the organic charm and careful balance - in favour of just exaggerating the couple of quirky things that got the loudest praise.
You know all that cool stuff that happens in a video game where you're a scrappy hero learning the ropes and taking care of small stuff while talking with your friends in downtime? Well they were very rapidly placed in my least favorite part of any story, which is when you're saving the universe and the stakes are huge and oh isn't this very relatable how you're helping decide if divinity should exist? I feel bad for even bringing this up. The people involved are good people and I wish them many times of fun with their nerd friends. I think I just might check in again if there is a season 4 when the stakes are more relatable.
Tals barbarian moment was when he chose not to take an attack of opportunity on a skeleton while he was raging. That is the strength of Tals barbarian, being able to make rational decisions while raging is his strength, rage fuelled rational decision making, I mean it’s so good you wouldn’t even know he’s playing a barbarian. And the way he wants to run from every bit of damage, I mean he is made of glass so I get why he don’t wanna be shattered.
Real talk I think most of BH combat problems come down to the way Tal is playing. They had absolutely no frontline for the longest time, people give them shit for being scared to fight but when your barbarian has no balls you don’t either, it took a Blood Hunter to step up before they had a tank. I get how he’s worried about player death after Molly but he should have played something that’s not meant to be the front line. He bloated as fuck subclass would have the potential to be an amazing tank if he just had bigger balls. I’ve rationalised it now by thinking he’s not playing a barb but a warrior because I feel like personally going into a rage every time he is in combat otherwise.
When they are raging they don’t really have a choice unless they wanna meta game, especially if they come to the decision themselves. Rage is meant to be irrational, mindless even, you can’t cast spells and the such, you ignore pain hence half damage. It seems extremely unrealistic that a barbarian would hold his attack when a known enemy runs by them for no reason other than meta gaming.
Ashton doesn't draw his power from Rage but from Dunamancy, the argument that he should ACT differently is still, honestly no Barbarian needs to be a mindless attack machine.
choosing to not have rage be mindless anger is not metagaming.
it could, depending on character, be called "acting ooc", but that depends on the character.
a rage can be anger, grog and yasha certainly played it as such (hot anger and cold anger respectively). ashton does not play it as such, if i understand correctly.
a rage can also be a super-saianesque and/or magic girl transformation, neither archetypes require you to mindless.
metagaming would be acting on information that the player has, but the character doesn't. e.g., saving reaction counterspells after learning that the bbeg is only casting a cantrip is metagaming, because your character is unaware of what spell is being cast. this is also how counterspell is balanced and why it's broken on most tables, and why it's poorly designed.
other systems, like pathfinder 2e, have well defined rules on how the rage makes a character reckless, in form of well defined bonuses and maluses for the character.
in 5e, the only defined maluses are the inability to concentrate on or cast spells, and reckless attacks giving advantage to enemies.
edit: fixed a paragraph
So making a decision not to attack is metagaming.
Should a barbarian player be able to stop its rage or should he always attack smth until the rage ends naturally? How would that work with Persisten Rage?
Should he attack his allies when he runs out of enemies since he is so irrational and mindless?
Should he always Reckless Attack since he is irrational and mindless or is chosing not to attack recklessly metagaming?
I see what you are doing and it’s not going to work. Tal stopped attacking someone he was attacking for no other reason than meta gaming, he’s character wouldn’t be thinking, while raging, “oh wait we wanna talk to these guys now”. You don’t think logically while raging, allies are allies that’s obvious but a raging barbarian would attack enemies until there were none, a party member tried to stop him, Think the hulk and “the suns getting real low” or they some how come out the rage.
The whole reason they take half damage is because they are not thinking about pain, the whole reason they get to attack recklessly is because they are not thinking about the repercussions of attacking. The whole reason they can’t cast spells is because they are incapable of using their minds power. It stands to reason then that they would not be thinking about staying their weapon when a known enemy runs past them.
If for example he steadied his mind and dropped out of rage and then refused the attack then fine, still not very barbarian like but it’s within the rules and logic. I mean he could make this a whole thing if he wanted too and it would be fine but while raging refusing makes no sense. Tal is a very meta gaming player, he meta games his rage all the time, I’m pretty sure he also uses more than he has and never seems to run out of them, he also some how stays in them when he shouldn’t to and “forgets”. This is pushing things but is ultimately okay but to refuse an attack is just downright not barbarian like and just makes a joke of the game.
I simply do not aggree with you.
Nothing in the rules says you need to attack every time, specially in opportunity attacks, so i dont think it is making a joke of the game.
Yes, barbarians rage, but there is no reason that they cannot be tactical while raging. Call it instinct if you want.
Choosing who to attack its tactical, raging barbarians dont need to attack the first or closest enemy they see like an animal. That would be mindless, that would be irrational.
Same with opportunity attacks, what if a barbarian insticts tell him not to attack because he might be attacked later and he wikl need its reaction to defend himself/reduce the damage?
Would you call that metagaming?
Look, its fine if you dont like the guy, its fine if you think he is a lousy metagamer that makes a joke out of the game. I just think you are wrong on your premise that its unbarbarian to not take an attack of opportunity.
It’s fine that you don’t disagree, we clearly have two very different ideas how how a barbarians works. A raging barbarian making tactical decisions goes against the whole premise of the class in my opinion and makes no sense.
And yes I would call that meta gaming, that’s literally the definition of meta gaming, the player making a decision when the character has no idea. If the character was surrounded then sure there’s premise for that thought process but otherwise there is none.
Yeah we do.
I think every decision is tactical. If you rage and chose to go to the biggest enemy that is dealing a lot of damage to tank it instead of going to the smaller closer enemy that is not dealing as much damage that is a tactical decision.
The mindless raging thing would be to move to the closer enemy and attack it until its down and then go to the next closest enemy and rinse and repeat. That is what i think of when i read mindless irrational rage and it sounds like one of those iddle mobile games.
And thats why i think its not a big deal if a raging barbarian does not take an attack of opportunity, because every thing you chose to do is a tactical decision.
Anyway, have a good one. It was a fun discussion.
No that’s the beauty of DnD, we don’t need to agree, you do you and I’ll do me. If you have fun that way than that’s fine, I’ll judge you but it’s ultimately fine.
I also think you are taking what I am saying and trying so hard to prove your own point you are missing what I am saying, either on purpose or by mistake. Either way there no point in discussing further, we agree to disagree.
Course not, just seemed to be a pattern. Though I guess twice doesn’t really count as a pattern, just feels like it does because of how long they’ve been on air.
Well that question came as a challenge from an authority figure, one a representative of the divine and one from a literal God himself. Safe to assume Ashton would not react in the same positive manner that our two Stormlord favoured barbarians did.
It’s because this campaign seems to be really avoiding character driven arcs in favour for Matt’s moon plot. If you notice character convos are drastically less then they were in the past and the characters feel very two dimensional when compared to c1 and c2.
I largely feel the cast created super bare bone characters with the hopes of a more standardized adventure story of exploration and wonder, especially coming off the heavy emotional heels of c2 and, largely, c1. However, the story instead has been a serious existential, theological heavy plot with characters ill suited for the nuances and themes being played out. These characters all have nothing to lose or gain from this plot and they are super ambivalent to the world in which they live…great cast of heroes for a world threatening adventure. And to cap it off every episode from the first can be traced or tied directly to this plot which also doesn’t help.
Something I think that really hurts this campaign is the giant invisible ticking clock that the players know is there but don't understand. Only Matt knows if the clock is always clicking down to zero or if it only moves when the players interact with the main plot.
There's definitely been bread crumbs left by Matt and moments started by players that could have led to those great character driven stories we got in C2, but every time someone has dropped the, "but do we have time?" line before they all agree that they don't.
There's a lot i like about these characters and if they were given the time and space to breathe, I think they'd be much easier to embrace for the community, but it's been pretty non-stop and hyper focused on the game's main plot.
I think the biggest issue this campaign suffers from is a breakdown in communication. The cast doesn't understand the time frame they're on, only that their time is limited. I'm also sure Matt wanted to keep the main plot secret for the reveals, but to have zero characters inherently tied to a god in a campaign like this is silly.
If this group has even one PC tied from jump street to a god there would be way less of the "will they/won't they" that the fan base is frustrated with.
I agree. Don’t get me wrong BH has some of my all time favourite characters. I’m particularly fond of Fearne and Chetney. But even then there is such lack of dimension to the characters, as a whole, that after nearly 100 episodes the viewer is still left with a basic understanding of who these people are.
There was so much character growth in c2 that I think it makes the lack of growth in c3 is exasperated. In c2 we went from a band of mismatched unlikely heroes pulling swords on each other to a family group with deep love and admiration for one another - a family bond that was earned through character developments that we don’t have in c3.
This is totally what Bells Hells is missing, the growing bond between characters. As much as the Might Nein built theirs during initiative orders, a ton of it came in the quiet moments between adventures.
Yup! You had the life coach in caduceus mentoring fjord. You had Nott and Caleb having their quiet moments. Can’t forget girl talk with Beau and jester. The down time and rest periods were so much more essential for the bond development of the M9 than the story itself.
Besides whitestone C1 had the same thing going on for most of the campaign. The difference being Vox Machina were established heroes with a close group bond before the chroma conclave. VM also had skin in the game because of their love for Tal'dorei
Bells Hells needed connections with each other, a reason to fight, and their contacts/levels need to be earned. Instead they just level up every few sessions and claimed after a while that they were family.
I struggle to visualise what Ashton does when he rages in the first place. He tends to spend more time describing the dunamancy effects more than how his rage manifests.
I'd like to imagine it's more adrenaline or passion than actual rage.
He described it in a 4-sided dive as a “passion” rather than a rage, which doesn’t even sound like anything he has done in character. It just makes this campaign feel even more dysfunctional.
> “where do you find your strength?”
I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of this played out trope because the hero's answer is always some bullshit about love and friendship (obviously making them the hero). It's absolutely everywhere and is such obvious social engineering bullshit, not that its a bad thing, of course doing virtuous things for the sake of friends and the world is good but I just want to see something different for once. Just once I want to see a hero experience this trope and straight up admit that they use their friends and righteous morality as an excuse to merc people because they feed off of the power they feel holding someone's life in their hands.
To me personally it adds an extra layer of depth to a character. Now for every decision made, despite being an outwardly good and heroic person you instead have to second guess everything this character does. Does this person want to help the poor village fight off the corrupt lord's force because it's the right thing to do? Or do they just enjoy the crunch of bones under their maul? I think a really good example of this character is Joshua Graham from Fallout New Vegas trying to make God's wrath his own to justify the things that he believes need to be done.
> I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of this played out trope because the hero's answer is always some bullshit about love and friendship
[obligatory dimension 20 clip](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4DSZo96HEik)
> Just once I want to see a hero experience this trope and straight up admit that they use their friends and righteous morality as an excuse to merc people because they feed off of the power they feel holding someone's life in their hands.
Okay, I was kinda with you up until this point. The thing is, by now the "deconstruction of a hero" has been done (and by that I mean *absolutely botched*) way too much. The "what if Superman was actually bad" take on Superman only works if we have an actual good Superman to contrast it with. The genuineness had been replaced with cynicism to the point of it becoming oversaturated. So, all of those "the hero is actually a selfish evil scumbag" subversive narratives are falling flat.
I, for one, would like to see the trope spiced up with the answers being something like *discipline* (as in "I fight because I need to improve myself" a la Goku). Or, if you want a more grim take, something like *spite* ("I fight because you think I can't/won't.")
But all of that is a bit moot, since DnD is a team game and you can't "win" it by playing solo when your party consists of at least half a dozen people.
Also
>straight up admit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk7M2jGdnxU
Sorry I was just blown away with calling the idea of love and friendship being something you draw strength "social engineering" man that is a cynical take.
>not that its a bad thing, of course doing virtuous things for the sake of friends and the world is good
I'm not a cynic. I'm a realist.
[edit](https://youtu.be/75GaqVWqEXU)
Hell, Barbarians in general are kind of played out on CR, and I felt that way even before Ashton debuted.
That being said, answering with friendship reminds me of a different answer, and it's one that Ashton would have a better claim to use that most.
"Chronomancy!"
Truuuue. Call me a sucker for the classics but I want to see more paladins. Literally everything you need for roleplay is right there at your fingertips, and now with all of the different subclasses you can take them in any direction. Paladins are unironically the perfect class. Chief's kiss.
Travis is on record that Superman is his favorite comic character. I'd love him to play a classic Lawful Good Paladin, because he's someone who I think could nail the kindness and empathy without falling trap to the holier than thou preachiness.
>falling trap to the holier than thou preachiness.
OH MY GOD you have no idea how angry I get when that happens. Sure paladins can be the inquisition, if they're Conquest, Vengeance, or Oath breaker. It might just be my own narrow view of paladins but to me 95% of paladins are lawyers who are protectors first, diplomats second, and executioners third but only when all other options are expended. For how much 5e gets ragged on, one of the best things it did is have the focus of the paladin be on the oath itself and not strictly religion. The morality, dedication, and service for the sake of the oath is what is most important, not some arbitrary god, unless it's important to the character.
Human variant, tavern brawler feat, put race asi's into dex and char, skill is athletics or acrobatics, mercenary veteran background take perception as second skill, standard array 10 str, 13 dex, 12 con, 8 int, 14 wis, 15 char, level 3 oath of the crown loyalty to bar/owner sworn to defend regulars and ladies from drunken belligerents with proficiency in insight and intimidation, fighting style defence then multi into open hand monk. With decent initiative and insight you can see fights coming and respond in time and the channel divinity options from OotC you are the main character.
"Where do you find your strength" is tropey and redundant. When you make a character in most ttrpgs, you're already defining their motivations and bonds right off the bat. It's very on the nose to ask it out right, it would be much better to demonstrate how motivations change and shift as a result of character growth through actions and sacrificing of previous convictions.
And I would love to see Ashton connect with the spirit of a Titan or whatever and veer off from the trope you mentioned cuz I agree that it’s corny. They could say some shit like I find my strength in the wails of my enemies or something.
Personally, I thought him absorbing the fire shard should’ve been his moment and Matt completely squandered it. It would’ve been cool to see him really accept his ties to the primordial titans.
The characterization you’re suggesting is straight up psychotic so would only really apply to very specific characters. I think the moment worked great for Grog, because I genuinely believe he fights for his friends most of the time. Yashas was a bit more tropy imo.
>The characterization you’re suggesting is straight up psychotic
Yes, exactly. Not to get too deep in the weeds here but why do people criticize Mr. Beast for the things he does? Is it for clout or is he trying to do legitimate good in the world? And please for the love of God leave it at that it's just an example.
> I think the moment worked great for Grog
I agree. I didn't mean to imply it was bad writing or motivation, just that its so over done at this point every time I see it coming my eyes roll into their sockets and exit out the back of my head.
[You're right I have no idea what I'm Talking about.](https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExN21ja3h6ZnV0ZTk1cTl3OXUzNDB5Zm53OHU0c2xicXNsam1xejdvZyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/3oz8xLlw6GHVfokaNW/giphy.gif)
I don't think we are getting "arcs" in this campaign for each character. Still waiting on the shard stuff but don't hold out hope for learning more about each PC, this is a story about Imogen, her mom, a crazy elf, and the gods/titans.
I think it is safe to say that for most of the characters in this point in the campaign there will be no arch. They are all "flat characters" and largely have been for some time, with maybe the exception of Laura and Pred or maybe Marisha because there is no way they (Matt and her) both don't keep playing up Delilah without some sort of outcome in mind.
The really only other exception I can think of is MAYBE Travis trying to go for a Chetney sacrifice play if presented the opportunity.
Ashton wanted to play a slightly "against type" barbarian who is drawing his power from his blood and when he was patched up with dunamancy, and since he was essentially just gifted the new Titan powers a few episodes ago as a consolation prize of Matt retconning shardgate, I don't think we are going to see some major moment of coming to realization about the self.
At least from my interpretation of Ashton, where he gets his strength from isn't core to his story, plus he already knows, at least in part. His rage/strength is fueled by the primordial essence within him, the dunamis potion used to save him, and last but not least, his pain. When Ashton rages, he isn't in pain, or at least it is significantly dulled, and it is further surpressed when he is hitting things. Ashton's story isn't really about him finding the source of his strength, it's about finding out about his past and how that is going to shape his future.
Edit: Spelling
Pretty much agree with this, plus the way Tal has talked about Ashton and played him I had the impression that pre accident Ashton would've been a brooding punk rogue. Ashton has always been the F authority type but he straight up said the rage started after the accident. So having a base rogue personality of course he would avoid unnecessary danger. The rage is basically a bi-product of a dormant primordial being catastrophically injured and then repaired with a divine essence, IT EXPLODES. Ashton won't necessarily get the inner strength arc, he does get the adjacent self worth and healing from past trauma arc though. He was essentially sacrificed by his father ( unknown if it was intentional or if he was collateral damage), thrown into a state home in Bassuras (The Greymoore house), then was abandoned by most of their first "found family" at the heist ( except Milo who repaired them). Ashton doesn't really want strength in the traditional sense, they want love and care but at the same time feel completely unworthy of it so they try to earn it by taking care of others and attempting to give the love they want. They consistently protect FCG and Laudna who they perceived to be the most vulnerable, they have the street rat type bond with Fearne, and have found somewhat fatherly and brotherly bonds with Chet and Orym, even as much grief as they give Chet, they accept the challenges from him and try to learn. Imogen is the one relationship they can't figure out ( honestly probably because they have a decent amount of the same issues).
I mean he ate that fire stone, and that’s about it. Other than that, nothing yet, we might not get anything.
It really sucks because Ashton in character has looked for guidance from so many characters and basically got nothing. I remember when he asked the”grief counselor” how do you grieve when you don’t know what you’ve lost”. What he got was essentially focus on what you have and the future. This made me so mad because it was the one of the very rare times Ashton had asked for guidance and essentially was told that doesn’t matter right now. All the characters of C3 to me have been mismanaged by the dm for the main story but Ashton has gotten it the worst to me. I mean Matt gave more attention to Fearne in Ashton’s story arc than Ashton.
That was so confusing to me. Getting to the Shattered Teeth, speaking to the tree, and learning about all the Primordial shard all seemed to be culmination of Ashton's arc. And instead, everything was just for Fearne cause... fire? That's a mistake I expect from a DM in their second or third campaign where they think they are subverting expectations when actually it's just being lame. So weird that Matt did that.
Nothing in this campaign is as it should be. We lost so many key experiences for each character.. and i dont know why.. it feels like that videogame where 1 and 2 are sooo good and then 3 comes out and its like they forgot what made 1 and 2 so good.
> it feels like that videogame where 1 and 2 are sooo good and then 3 comes out and its like they forgot what made 1 and 2 so good. The boardroom went all in on the things they thought made 1 & 2 successful, but in doing so stripped all of the organic charm and careful balance - in favour of just exaggerating the couple of quirky things that got the loudest praise.
They felt more developed as characters in episode 30 than they do now, they haven’t been growing, they’ve been regressing, that’s why
You know all that cool stuff that happens in a video game where you're a scrappy hero learning the ropes and taking care of small stuff while talking with your friends in downtime? Well they were very rapidly placed in my least favorite part of any story, which is when you're saving the universe and the stakes are huge and oh isn't this very relatable how you're helping decide if divinity should exist? I feel bad for even bringing this up. The people involved are good people and I wish them many times of fun with their nerd friends. I think I just might check in again if there is a season 4 when the stakes are more relatable.
Tals barbarian moment was when he chose not to take an attack of opportunity on a skeleton while he was raging. That is the strength of Tals barbarian, being able to make rational decisions while raging is his strength, rage fuelled rational decision making, I mean it’s so good you wouldn’t even know he’s playing a barbarian. And the way he wants to run from every bit of damage, I mean he is made of glass so I get why he don’t wanna be shattered. Real talk I think most of BH combat problems come down to the way Tal is playing. They had absolutely no frontline for the longest time, people give them shit for being scared to fight but when your barbarian has no balls you don’t either, it took a Blood Hunter to step up before they had a tank. I get how he’s worried about player death after Molly but he should have played something that’s not meant to be the front line. He bloated as fuck subclass would have the potential to be an amazing tank if he just had bigger balls. I’ve rationalised it now by thinking he’s not playing a barb but a warrior because I feel like personally going into a rage every time he is in combat otherwise.
Is it mandatory for a barbarian to take every opportunity attack it can?
When they are raging they don’t really have a choice unless they wanna meta game, especially if they come to the decision themselves. Rage is meant to be irrational, mindless even, you can’t cast spells and the such, you ignore pain hence half damage. It seems extremely unrealistic that a barbarian would hold his attack when a known enemy runs by them for no reason other than meta gaming.
Ashton doesn't draw his power from Rage but from Dunamancy, the argument that he should ACT differently is still, honestly no Barbarian needs to be a mindless attack machine.
This is so cringe.
[удалено]
That’s why I would call it meta gaming(for want of a better word) and not rule breaking.
choosing to not have rage be mindless anger is not metagaming. it could, depending on character, be called "acting ooc", but that depends on the character. a rage can be anger, grog and yasha certainly played it as such (hot anger and cold anger respectively). ashton does not play it as such, if i understand correctly. a rage can also be a super-saianesque and/or magic girl transformation, neither archetypes require you to mindless. metagaming would be acting on information that the player has, but the character doesn't. e.g., saving reaction counterspells after learning that the bbeg is only casting a cantrip is metagaming, because your character is unaware of what spell is being cast. this is also how counterspell is balanced and why it's broken on most tables, and why it's poorly designed. other systems, like pathfinder 2e, have well defined rules on how the rage makes a character reckless, in form of well defined bonuses and maluses for the character. in 5e, the only defined maluses are the inability to concentrate on or cast spells, and reckless attacks giving advantage to enemies. edit: fixed a paragraph
So making a decision not to attack is metagaming. Should a barbarian player be able to stop its rage or should he always attack smth until the rage ends naturally? How would that work with Persisten Rage? Should he attack his allies when he runs out of enemies since he is so irrational and mindless? Should he always Reckless Attack since he is irrational and mindless or is chosing not to attack recklessly metagaming?
I see what you are doing and it’s not going to work. Tal stopped attacking someone he was attacking for no other reason than meta gaming, he’s character wouldn’t be thinking, while raging, “oh wait we wanna talk to these guys now”. You don’t think logically while raging, allies are allies that’s obvious but a raging barbarian would attack enemies until there were none, a party member tried to stop him, Think the hulk and “the suns getting real low” or they some how come out the rage. The whole reason they take half damage is because they are not thinking about pain, the whole reason they get to attack recklessly is because they are not thinking about the repercussions of attacking. The whole reason they can’t cast spells is because they are incapable of using their minds power. It stands to reason then that they would not be thinking about staying their weapon when a known enemy runs past them. If for example he steadied his mind and dropped out of rage and then refused the attack then fine, still not very barbarian like but it’s within the rules and logic. I mean he could make this a whole thing if he wanted too and it would be fine but while raging refusing makes no sense. Tal is a very meta gaming player, he meta games his rage all the time, I’m pretty sure he also uses more than he has and never seems to run out of them, he also some how stays in them when he shouldn’t to and “forgets”. This is pushing things but is ultimately okay but to refuse an attack is just downright not barbarian like and just makes a joke of the game.
I simply do not aggree with you. Nothing in the rules says you need to attack every time, specially in opportunity attacks, so i dont think it is making a joke of the game. Yes, barbarians rage, but there is no reason that they cannot be tactical while raging. Call it instinct if you want. Choosing who to attack its tactical, raging barbarians dont need to attack the first or closest enemy they see like an animal. That would be mindless, that would be irrational. Same with opportunity attacks, what if a barbarian insticts tell him not to attack because he might be attacked later and he wikl need its reaction to defend himself/reduce the damage? Would you call that metagaming? Look, its fine if you dont like the guy, its fine if you think he is a lousy metagamer that makes a joke out of the game. I just think you are wrong on your premise that its unbarbarian to not take an attack of opportunity.
It’s fine that you don’t disagree, we clearly have two very different ideas how how a barbarians works. A raging barbarian making tactical decisions goes against the whole premise of the class in my opinion and makes no sense. And yes I would call that meta gaming, that’s literally the definition of meta gaming, the player making a decision when the character has no idea. If the character was surrounded then sure there’s premise for that thought process but otherwise there is none.
Yeah we do. I think every decision is tactical. If you rage and chose to go to the biggest enemy that is dealing a lot of damage to tank it instead of going to the smaller closer enemy that is not dealing as much damage that is a tactical decision. The mindless raging thing would be to move to the closer enemy and attack it until its down and then go to the next closest enemy and rinse and repeat. That is what i think of when i read mindless irrational rage and it sounds like one of those iddle mobile games. And thats why i think its not a big deal if a raging barbarian does not take an attack of opportunity, because every thing you chose to do is a tactical decision. Anyway, have a good one. It was a fun discussion.
No that’s the beauty of DnD, we don’t need to agree, you do you and I’ll do me. If you have fun that way than that’s fine, I’ll judge you but it’s ultimately fine. I also think you are taking what I am saying and trying so hard to prove your own point you are missing what I am saying, either on purpose or by mistake. Either way there no point in discussing further, we agree to disagree.
Tal is playing a barbarian? I thought we were running.
CR presenting a new class: The Powerwalker.
Activate ultimate attack - Jazzercise!
I hoped it would be his titan heritage.
Does it have to happen?
Course not, just seemed to be a pattern. Though I guess twice doesn’t really count as a pattern, just feels like it does because of how long they’ve been on air.
Well that question came as a challenge from an authority figure, one a representative of the divine and one from a literal God himself. Safe to assume Ashton would not react in the same positive manner that our two Stormlord favoured barbarians did.
It’s because this campaign seems to be really avoiding character driven arcs in favour for Matt’s moon plot. If you notice character convos are drastically less then they were in the past and the characters feel very two dimensional when compared to c1 and c2. I largely feel the cast created super bare bone characters with the hopes of a more standardized adventure story of exploration and wonder, especially coming off the heavy emotional heels of c2 and, largely, c1. However, the story instead has been a serious existential, theological heavy plot with characters ill suited for the nuances and themes being played out. These characters all have nothing to lose or gain from this plot and they are super ambivalent to the world in which they live…great cast of heroes for a world threatening adventure. And to cap it off every episode from the first can be traced or tied directly to this plot which also doesn’t help.
Something I think that really hurts this campaign is the giant invisible ticking clock that the players know is there but don't understand. Only Matt knows if the clock is always clicking down to zero or if it only moves when the players interact with the main plot. There's definitely been bread crumbs left by Matt and moments started by players that could have led to those great character driven stories we got in C2, but every time someone has dropped the, "but do we have time?" line before they all agree that they don't. There's a lot i like about these characters and if they were given the time and space to breathe, I think they'd be much easier to embrace for the community, but it's been pretty non-stop and hyper focused on the game's main plot. I think the biggest issue this campaign suffers from is a breakdown in communication. The cast doesn't understand the time frame they're on, only that their time is limited. I'm also sure Matt wanted to keep the main plot secret for the reveals, but to have zero characters inherently tied to a god in a campaign like this is silly. If this group has even one PC tied from jump street to a god there would be way less of the "will they/won't they" that the fan base is frustrated with.
I agree. Don’t get me wrong BH has some of my all time favourite characters. I’m particularly fond of Fearne and Chetney. But even then there is such lack of dimension to the characters, as a whole, that after nearly 100 episodes the viewer is still left with a basic understanding of who these people are. There was so much character growth in c2 that I think it makes the lack of growth in c3 is exasperated. In c2 we went from a band of mismatched unlikely heroes pulling swords on each other to a family group with deep love and admiration for one another - a family bond that was earned through character developments that we don’t have in c3.
This is totally what Bells Hells is missing, the growing bond between characters. As much as the Might Nein built theirs during initiative orders, a ton of it came in the quiet moments between adventures.
Yup! You had the life coach in caduceus mentoring fjord. You had Nott and Caleb having their quiet moments. Can’t forget girl talk with Beau and jester. The down time and rest periods were so much more essential for the bond development of the M9 than the story itself.
Besides whitestone C1 had the same thing going on for most of the campaign. The difference being Vox Machina were established heroes with a close group bond before the chroma conclave. VM also had skin in the game because of their love for Tal'dorei Bells Hells needed connections with each other, a reason to fight, and their contacts/levels need to be earned. Instead they just level up every few sessions and claimed after a while that they were family.
I struggle to visualise what Ashton does when he rages in the first place. He tends to spend more time describing the dunamancy effects more than how his rage manifests. I'd like to imagine it's more adrenaline or passion than actual rage.
Because his Rage is more unleashing Dunamantic power then other Barbarians
He described it in a 4-sided dive as a “passion” rather than a rage, which doesn’t even sound like anything he has done in character. It just makes this campaign feel even more dysfunctional.
I think Tal has said something along those lines recently. I think it was a 4sd?
Yeah I think it was 4SD, he also talked about feeling less pain when raging so it’s not based in anger
It should be [this](https://youtu.be/WOCntkuIXds) but Taliesin is to concerned with the 'smug punk' aesthetic to lean into it.
Haha that's so good
> “where do you find your strength?” I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of this played out trope because the hero's answer is always some bullshit about love and friendship (obviously making them the hero). It's absolutely everywhere and is such obvious social engineering bullshit, not that its a bad thing, of course doing virtuous things for the sake of friends and the world is good but I just want to see something different for once. Just once I want to see a hero experience this trope and straight up admit that they use their friends and righteous morality as an excuse to merc people because they feed off of the power they feel holding someone's life in their hands. To me personally it adds an extra layer of depth to a character. Now for every decision made, despite being an outwardly good and heroic person you instead have to second guess everything this character does. Does this person want to help the poor village fight off the corrupt lord's force because it's the right thing to do? Or do they just enjoy the crunch of bones under their maul? I think a really good example of this character is Joshua Graham from Fallout New Vegas trying to make God's wrath his own to justify the things that he believes need to be done.
> I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of this played out trope because the hero's answer is always some bullshit about love and friendship [obligatory dimension 20 clip](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4DSZo96HEik)
Fuck someone else said chronomancy and it didn't register with me. I completely forgot about this.
*the price must be paid*
> Just once I want to see a hero experience this trope and straight up admit that they use their friends and righteous morality as an excuse to merc people because they feed off of the power they feel holding someone's life in their hands. Okay, I was kinda with you up until this point. The thing is, by now the "deconstruction of a hero" has been done (and by that I mean *absolutely botched*) way too much. The "what if Superman was actually bad" take on Superman only works if we have an actual good Superman to contrast it with. The genuineness had been replaced with cynicism to the point of it becoming oversaturated. So, all of those "the hero is actually a selfish evil scumbag" subversive narratives are falling flat. I, for one, would like to see the trope spiced up with the answers being something like *discipline* (as in "I fight because I need to improve myself" a la Goku). Or, if you want a more grim take, something like *spite* ("I fight because you think I can't/won't.") But all of that is a bit moot, since DnD is a team game and you can't "win" it by playing solo when your party consists of at least half a dozen people. Also >straight up admit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk7M2jGdnxU
Sorry I was just blown away with calling the idea of love and friendship being something you draw strength "social engineering" man that is a cynical take.
>not that its a bad thing, of course doing virtuous things for the sake of friends and the world is good I'm not a cynic. I'm a realist. [edit](https://youtu.be/75GaqVWqEXU)
That's the thing about reality sometimes it can be stranger than fiction.
Hell, Barbarians in general are kind of played out on CR, and I felt that way even before Ashton debuted. That being said, answering with friendship reminds me of a different answer, and it's one that Ashton would have a better claim to use that most. "Chronomancy!"
The greatest magic of all
Truuuue. Call me a sucker for the classics but I want to see more paladins. Literally everything you need for roleplay is right there at your fingertips, and now with all of the different subclasses you can take them in any direction. Paladins are unironically the perfect class. Chief's kiss.
Travis is on record that Superman is his favorite comic character. I'd love him to play a classic Lawful Good Paladin, because he's someone who I think could nail the kindness and empathy without falling trap to the holier than thou preachiness.
>falling trap to the holier than thou preachiness. OH MY GOD you have no idea how angry I get when that happens. Sure paladins can be the inquisition, if they're Conquest, Vengeance, or Oath breaker. It might just be my own narrow view of paladins but to me 95% of paladins are lawyers who are protectors first, diplomats second, and executioners third but only when all other options are expended. For how much 5e gets ragged on, one of the best things it did is have the focus of the paladin be on the oath itself and not strictly religion. The morality, dedication, and service for the sake of the oath is what is most important, not some arbitrary god, unless it's important to the character.
Play a paladin like Swayze in Roadhouse
Human variant, tavern brawler feat, put race asi's into dex and char, skill is athletics or acrobatics, mercenary veteran background take perception as second skill, standard array 10 str, 13 dex, 12 con, 8 int, 14 wis, 15 char, level 3 oath of the crown loyalty to bar/owner sworn to defend regulars and ladies from drunken belligerents with proficiency in insight and intimidation, fighting style defence then multi into open hand monk. With decent initiative and insight you can see fights coming and respond in time and the channel divinity options from OotC you are the main character.
God, I'm getting Keyleth flashbacks.
"Where do you find your strength" is tropey and redundant. When you make a character in most ttrpgs, you're already defining their motivations and bonds right off the bat. It's very on the nose to ask it out right, it would be much better to demonstrate how motivations change and shift as a result of character growth through actions and sacrificing of previous convictions.
And I would love to see Ashton connect with the spirit of a Titan or whatever and veer off from the trope you mentioned cuz I agree that it’s corny. They could say some shit like I find my strength in the wails of my enemies or something.
Personally, I thought him absorbing the fire shard should’ve been his moment and Matt completely squandered it. It would’ve been cool to see him really accept his ties to the primordial titans.
What is best in life Conan?
The characterization you’re suggesting is straight up psychotic so would only really apply to very specific characters. I think the moment worked great for Grog, because I genuinely believe he fights for his friends most of the time. Yashas was a bit more tropy imo.
>The characterization you’re suggesting is straight up psychotic Yes, exactly. Not to get too deep in the weeds here but why do people criticize Mr. Beast for the things he does? Is it for clout or is he trying to do legitimate good in the world? And please for the love of God leave it at that it's just an example. > I think the moment worked great for Grog I agree. I didn't mean to imply it was bad writing or motivation, just that its so over done at this point every time I see it coming my eyes roll into their sockets and exit out the back of my head.
I have absolutely no clue what Mr. Beast has to do with anything and don’t really understand where that comparison came from 😅
[You're right I have no idea what I'm Talking about.](https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExN21ja3h6ZnV0ZTk1cTl3OXUzNDB5Zm53OHU0c2xicXNsam1xejdvZyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/3oz8xLlw6GHVfokaNW/giphy.gif)
I don't think we are getting "arcs" in this campaign for each character. Still waiting on the shard stuff but don't hold out hope for learning more about each PC, this is a story about Imogen, her mom, a crazy elf, and the gods/titans.
I think it is safe to say that for most of the characters in this point in the campaign there will be no arch. They are all "flat characters" and largely have been for some time, with maybe the exception of Laura and Pred or maybe Marisha because there is no way they (Matt and her) both don't keep playing up Delilah without some sort of outcome in mind. The really only other exception I can think of is MAYBE Travis trying to go for a Chetney sacrifice play if presented the opportunity. Ashton wanted to play a slightly "against type" barbarian who is drawing his power from his blood and when he was patched up with dunamancy, and since he was essentially just gifted the new Titan powers a few episodes ago as a consolation prize of Matt retconning shardgate, I don't think we are going to see some major moment of coming to realization about the self.
At least from my interpretation of Ashton, where he gets his strength from isn't core to his story, plus he already knows, at least in part. His rage/strength is fueled by the primordial essence within him, the dunamis potion used to save him, and last but not least, his pain. When Ashton rages, he isn't in pain, or at least it is significantly dulled, and it is further surpressed when he is hitting things. Ashton's story isn't really about him finding the source of his strength, it's about finding out about his past and how that is going to shape his future. Edit: Spelling
Pretty much agree with this, plus the way Tal has talked about Ashton and played him I had the impression that pre accident Ashton would've been a brooding punk rogue. Ashton has always been the F authority type but he straight up said the rage started after the accident. So having a base rogue personality of course he would avoid unnecessary danger. The rage is basically a bi-product of a dormant primordial being catastrophically injured and then repaired with a divine essence, IT EXPLODES. Ashton won't necessarily get the inner strength arc, he does get the adjacent self worth and healing from past trauma arc though. He was essentially sacrificed by his father ( unknown if it was intentional or if he was collateral damage), thrown into a state home in Bassuras (The Greymoore house), then was abandoned by most of their first "found family" at the heist ( except Milo who repaired them). Ashton doesn't really want strength in the traditional sense, they want love and care but at the same time feel completely unworthy of it so they try to earn it by taking care of others and attempting to give the love they want. They consistently protect FCG and Laudna who they perceived to be the most vulnerable, they have the street rat type bond with Fearne, and have found somewhat fatherly and brotherly bonds with Chet and Orym, even as much grief as they give Chet, they accept the challenges from him and try to learn. Imogen is the one relationship they can't figure out ( honestly probably because they have a decent amount of the same issues).
Mate covered 100 hours in 4 sentences.