I know that Barbarians are played as a melee class pretty much all of the time. But I've got an interesting idea to play a ranged Barbarian, and I'm wondering how effective it would be.
I would be a Goblin using a short bow, and taking the Path of the Ancestral Guardian. I would scurry between hiding places, doing a Bonus Action hide quite often from the racial bonus, and Bonus Action Disengage if an enemy gets too close. I would have a very nice health pool and AC from being a Barbarian. The Urchin background would give me some nice Dexterity skills. Urchin makes complete sense as a background for Goblin, of course.
The 3rd and 6th level abilities for the Path of the Ancestral Guardian look like they would work quite well with an archer. Nothing in the text indicates that it has to be a melee attack for the 3rd level ability. Using a ranged attack to trigger the 3rd level ability makes it much easier to pick out the most dangerous enemy each turn to give that debilitating debuff to. For the 6th level ability, I would need to stay somewhat close to my party to help them out, so that might force me to be closer to the action. It would be quite easy to stay close to the other ranged damage dealers in the party, the ones that are more likely to benefit from the 6th level ability anyways.
The level 2 Reckless Attack ability doesn't help at all, but that ability comes with the downside of giving enemies advantage when they attack you. The +2 to damage on Strength attacks during a Rage wouldn't be utilized at all either. But it seems like most of the Barbarian abilities would work fairly well for a ranged archer.
So the question is - is this a viable character build? How much am I gimping my character if I try to do a ranged Barbarian?
Yes...and no. Barbarians dont make great DeX fighters, but in 5e anything can work. The stereotypical half-orc or dwarf barbarian can become boring and a less than optimal build can be challenging and fun.
I say go with what makes you happy and dont worry about min/maxing or "optimal builds".
If you are a little worried about the numbers or efficiency then try something else and flavor it as you please.
May I ask a little about your characters backstory? What's your vision and reasoning for this character?
I haven't had to make the character yet, but I am trying to at least have some idea of a character to play if one of my current characters gets killed and I have to roll a new character. I am trying to come up with something to play that works well even if I only have zero or one good stats when I roll for stats.
The backstory would be really simple: he was a slave held captive by bugbears, orcs, hobgoblins, or something like that, and one or more members of the party killed his captors (possibly with his help), putting him in eternal debt to the people in the party. Now he follows them around and he's very protective of them (thus explaining his Path of the Ancestral Guardian abilities).
I like playing characters that are unorthodox, but I like to make sure that they're built well enough to still be quite effective. I don't want to feel like my character is a burden on the party and that he can't keep up with the party. I want the character to still feel like an integral part of the party even while I do something quite unique.
Because all of the healing spells require spell slots, you don't really have the healer role in D&D. So in a way, the Spirit Shield ability is about as close as you get to an at will healing ability (still limited in it's uses to only being available during one of your limited number of rages each day).
Also, my group is doing it's 3rd and 4th campaigns together right now and nobody has played a Barbarian yet, so it would be fun to be the first in our group to do that. Even if I intentionally play it the "wrong" way.
Your usefulness will be questionable till you level up. Everything negates majority of the class features...but it could be fun. If your firm on making this work I'd add a level of rouge for the added damage from sneak attack and sharpshooter at level 4.
If you opt out, but want to keep the character idea maybe a goblin cleric. Sort of a tribal shaman.
Your usefulness will be questionable till you level up. Everything negates majority of the class features...but it could be fun. If your firm on making this work I'd add a level of rouge for the added damage from sneak attack and sharpshooter at level 4.
If you opt out, but want to keep the character idea maybe a goblin cleric. Sort of a tribal shaman.
A majority of the class features? I don't think I'd be missing out on a majority of the features. What am I missing out on? Reckless Attack, +2 damage during a rage, and if I go to level 9, the Brutal Critical. But in the first 8 levels it's just Reckless attack and +2 damage, right?
Why would the usefulness be questionable until I level up? What levels early on would be too early for it to be useful?
I think after level 8 is probably a good time to start multiclassing in Ranger, Rogue, or Fighter. But up through level 8 it seems like it should be pretty useful.
Majority was poor wording. Your negating your core abilities and overall defeating the purpose for a barbarian. A barbarians purpose in combat is essentially being a tank. Your meant to draw attention to yourself (every attack directed towards you is one less directed at a friendly) and hit harder. Essentially aggro and heavy damage.
By going dex ranged fighter your staying out of the fight and not doing the damage your meant to. Hence not supporting as your role is intended. Your own survivability will be high, but your usefulness is questionable. Metaphorically speaking your a rogue who wont sneak, and has given up their ife of crime.
With all that said I'm not saying not to play this character. You've asked about the mechanics and I'm giving you the facts. I always say play what excites you...but mechanically speaking there are better options.
Majority was poor wording. Your negating your core abilities and overall defeating the purpose for a barbarian. A barbarians purpose in combat is essentially being a tank. Your meant to draw attention to yourself (every attack directed towards you is one less directed at a friendly) and hit harder. Essentially aggro and heavy damage.
By going dex ranged fighter your staying out of the fight and not doing the damage your meant to. Hence not supporting as your role is intended. Your own survivability will be high, but your usefulness is questionable. Metaphorically speaking your a rogue who wont sneak, and has given up their ife of crime.
With all that said I'm not saying not to play this character. You've asked about the mechanics and I'm giving you the facts. I always say play what excites you...but mechanically speaking there are better options.
This is 5e though; anything can work.
So causing one opponent to have disadvantage and do half damage, and reducing the damage taken by an ally by 2D6 every single round isn't doing a good job of support? On top of doing two attacks per turn? And being a fast moving fairly stealthy ranged attacker that can move to a dangerous position on the battlefield without fear? One that could switch to a short sword and shield when necessary, getting an AC of probably 3 to 5 points more than a Strength based Barbarian using a two handed weapon, and having therefore fantastic survivability.
My four characters so far in D&D have had 16, 16, 20, and 18 AC, so playing a 15 AC (or worse) Barbarian that has Strength as its top stat and then using Reckless Attack to give every opponent advantage against me seems to completely cancel out the resistance to three damage types from Raging. Especially since my two current characters have 18 AC and 20 AC, I would feel quite vulnerable having just 15 AC and then giving people advantage on me on top of that. And if I wasn't raging because I ran out of rages or was trying to save my last rage for a more important time, it'd be almost suicidal. Or even if I'm just facing an opponent that does a type of damage other than bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing.
The +2 damage boost to Strength attacks is something I would definitely miss, but it seems to me to be the only thing I would miss out on in the first 8 levels of Barbarian.
You're saying that I'm missing out on my core abilities, but as far as I can tell, the only thing I would miss out on is +2 damage on attacks. Please let me know what else I'm missing out on.
It is not so much a thing of missing out on features, it is just plain and simple not using the advantages you could have by focussing on strength. Core element of the Ancestral Guardian is the combination of you making everyone else a far less attractive target. Even if you are not able to use Reckless as an Archer, you will still be drawing attention to yourself, resulting in lower damage output, because you are constantly on the backfoot.
Now imagine you would outright start with a Battlemaster Archer for example - still only really depending on your DEX, which also is essential for its maneuvers. First or second shot could be a trip attack - all melees get advantage, the prone target gets disadvantage, it has to use half its movement to get up, further slowing it down. By the time you reduce damage as an Ancestral Guardian, it could already be dead if you were a Battlemaster. Not only reducing the damage by 2d6, but completely negating it. All of that by lvl 3. You could get the Archery Fighting Style, Action Surge and Second Wind on top. And still equip a sword and shield if need be. This would have the most martial focus.
Similar options happen for the other two classes you mentioned for considered multiclass, Ranger and Rogue.
Gloom Stalker makes for an excellent Scout, skipping entire encounters and thus protecting your party. You are invisible to creatures who rely on darksight. The first turn can be absolutely amazing and take out an enemy before he/she/it even gets to act. You get Disguise Self and Favored Enemy, which would really fit in your Background, and have the ability to cast heals if you want to. Or you could protect the group by using Primeval Awareness and tracking those enemies. And you can still flavour all those skills how you like, you could be communing with ancestors to draw on their wisdom,for example.
Horizon Walker and Monster Slayer have similar Features you could reflavour.
Rogue offers Scout and Mastermind, both could be fitting your concept. In Addition you get Sneak Attack, Expertise, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Mastermind lets you do the Help Action as a Bonus Action wih a Range of 30 feet and more interesting stuff.
So when you talk about pulling your own weight in the party, some alternatives seem alot more potent when it comes to the mechanical options you have.
All that being said, your concept of the protective archer is awesome! Personally, I would try to add to the uniqueness in your roleplay and not so much with that one feature. Whatever you decide to play, the most important thing is to have fun playing it!
One on my parties right now has a Goblin Battlemaster with trip attack. It's not nearly as great as you are pretending that it is. You need your target to fail a strength saving throw, or nothing happens. All melee get advantage, but all ranged get disadvantage. And when the target takes its turn, it almost always stands up (without having to make any saving throw), so it doesn't get disadvantage when it attacks on its turn. Some of your allies might not have had a turn before the enemy stood up (if you even knocked it down in the first place), which isn't a bad thing if your allies are ranged. Trip attack isn't really that great.
Asking me to imagine I'm a Battlemaster Archer isn't necessary when I've got a Goblin Battlemaster Archer in the party already. That means I don't need to actually do any imagining.
Action Surge is great, especially with Sharpshooter. Archery Fighting Style is great, especially with Sharpshooter. Second Wind is pretty good, too. You should have given more than just a one sentence mention to those abilities instead of focusing mostly on trip attack.
You also neglected to mention that the 2D6 of damage prevention can be done when anyone damages your party. It's not limited to just the guy you attacked damaging your party. The 3rd level ability only affects the guy you attacked, giving him disadvantage and giving his target resistance. But the 6th level ability works even if the target you attacked was killed before it took a turn but one of his allies attacked your party. That's another way in which your story about how awesome Battlemaster is just doesn't match up with how things would actually work out.
I have already played a Gloom Stalker, and skipping encounters isn't that easy to do.
Rogue is really powerful, and I am considering playing a ranged Rogue. Although for that, I like the idea of Sharpshooter feat and 600ft range with the longbow, being a Sniper. I enjoy playing a ranged Rogue, but it doesn't have any abilities to negate damage to your allies.
A Rogue, a Gloomstalker, or a Shadow Monk would have the ability to go behind enemy lines and try to take up a dangerous position, much like a Goblin Barbarian Archer would. It wouldn't have the same health pool to handle being the focus of enemy fire, but it would have the good movement speed and stealth abilities to try to get to a dangerous position on the battlefield.
Any of those three would have a lot of useful abilities that a Barbarian wouldn't have. But it wouldn't have the huge health pool of a Barbarian and the ability to negate damage on your allies. It would be fun playing any of those three, and it fits the type of character that I like playing. Which is probably why I'm trying to turn the Barbarian into more of a Rogue.
Because of my personal play style, I love abilities that have unlimited uses, which is one reason I love Rogue. I always tend to be very cautious about using abilities that have a limited number of uses.
Our party seems to almost always do long rests and rarely do short rests, which is why Barbarian seems a bit intriguing to me, and why Battlemaster doesn't interest me nearly as much.
I apologise if I sound a bit hostile in my criticism of the Battlemaster trip attack. My personal experience of my party member using that specific ability just hasn't impressed me at all.
No offense taken. Center point is that other subclasses would give you so much more options.
Trip Attack is by far not the only maneuver which could be a viable contender here. That is where the emphasis lies - you are more flexible with alot of the alternatives and the higher damage output will make your group kill enemies quicker, resulting in less damage taken overall. They just give you a certain level of proactivity and not just relying on a damage reduction. Not adding to the other Fighter skills just was a means of not escalating into a wall of text.
In regards to relying on features that can be used all the time, bear in mind that your rage also has a limited number of uses. Spirit Shield is dependant on you raging and by no means unlimited. By the time you run out of Rages, you cannot reduce anything at all.
My personal opinion is that you can get way more out of other subclasses, especially considering you had concerns of the character not being able to keep up with the party.
Majority was poor wording. Your negating your core abilities and overall defeating the purpose for a barbarian. A barbarians purpose in combat is essentially being a tank. Your meant to draw attention to yourself (every attack directed towards you is one less directed at a friendly) and hit harder. Essentially aggro and heavy damage.
By going dex ranged fighter your staying out of the fight and not doing the damage your meant to. Hence not supporting as your role is intended. Your own survivability will be high, but your usefulness is questionable. Metaphorically speaking your a rogue who wont sneak, and has given up their ife of crime.
With all that said I'm not saying not to play this character. You've asked about the mechanics and I'm giving you the facts. I always say play what excites you...but mechanically speaking there are better options.
This is 5e though; anything can work.
By the way, if you do the math on it, the two abilities for the Path of the Ancestral Guardians at levels 3 and 6 make it so that you're not always supposed to draw attention to yourself. Especially if you're doing Reckless Attack. In fact, for the level 3 ability, you'll almost always prefer that the enemy attack somebody else. For the level 6 ability, it depends on what portion of the attack you can negate with the 2D6 (and whether or not you have your reaction available).
Those two abilities only are available during a rage, so we can assume that you'll have resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage because you're raging. If you're facing an enemy that's doing a different type of damage, then you're taking full damage and don't have resistance. But let's assume that you're facing enemies that are doing damage that you're resistant to. I'll assume 14 AC for the Barbarian and 14-18 AC for the ally and +3 to +9 chance to hit for the enemy. I think 14 AC is reasonable for a Barbarian using a two handed weapon with Strength being his highest stat. That means that your 2nd and 3rd best stats are both 14s. Given that I'm assuming in the next paragraph that his unspecified ally has just 12 or 13 Constitution, while the Barbarian has 14 or 15 Constitution, I think that's fair.
It wouldn't be right to assume that the Barbarian losing 10 HP is just as bad as the ally losing 10 HP. The Barbarian has a lot more HP. We'll assume about 9 HP per level for the Barbarian (7 HP from hit die, 2 HP from Con bonus), and 6 HP per level for the unspecified teammate (5 HP from hit die, just 1 HP from Con bonus). So in other words, the Barbarian losing 50% more HP puts it at even with the other classes.
For the level 3 ability Ancestral Protectors: You'll have resistance to the damage (because I'm being generous and assuming bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage), but so will the target of the enemy's attack if the enemy targets somebody other than you. If the enemy targets somebody other than you, they'll have disadvantage. If they target you, it'll either be a normal hit, or with advantage if you did reckless attack.
Against an enemy with +3 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 50% or 75% chance of being hit depending on whether or not they did Reckless Attack, and the ally has a 9% to 25% chance of being hit, depending on their AC. And because the ally has resistance to the damage, he takes the same amount that the Barbarian would. But with a much much lower chance of actually being damaged. Against an enemy with +5 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 60% or 84% chance of being hit, and the ally has a 16% to 36% chance of being hit, with each one taking the same amount of damage when they actually do get hit. Against an enemy with +7 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 70% or 91% chance of being hit, and the ally has a 25% to 49% chance of being hit Against an enemy with +9 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 80% or 96% chance of being hit, and the ally has a 36% to 64% chance of being hit This doesn't factor in the 5% or 9.75% crit chance the enemy has against you, versus the 0.25% crit chance they have on your ally. Once we factor that in, these numbers will look even worse for the Barbarian.
Even though the ally's hit points are 50% more valuable than the Barbarian's hit points (because the Barbarian has so many more hit points as stated above), you still would rather the enemy attack your ally with disadvantage and with the ally having resistance, than to have the enemy attack you. Because the difference in the chance to hit is so extreme.
For the level 6 ability Spirit Shield: It's significantly harder to calculate because we don't know what portion of the damage the 2D6 reduction will be. With the level 3 ability, we know that it's a 50% reduction. For the level 6 ability, 2D6 will stop a huge portion of a small hit, but stop a small portion of a huge hit. There's also the obvious correlation that a higher % chance to hit is usually linked to a larger amount of damage.
In many cases here, you will want the enemy to focus on you instead of attacking one of your allies. But not all of the time. Especially not if they're doing damage other than bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing. Although once you've already used your reaction, it's far more likely that you'd rather they attack you.
Against a simple enemy like a CR 1/2 Orc that does only 1D12+3, obviously you'd prefer that they attack your ally when you have this ability available. You're quite likely to negate nearly all of the damage. Not accounting for the times where 2D6 is actually greater than 1D12+3, you'll negate 73.7% of the damage on average (7 out of 9.5). Not to mention that their chance to hit (+5) on you would be 60% or 84% (for normal and for reckless), whereas their chance to hit your ally would be 40% to 60% (for 18 AC to 14 AC). Even though your ally's hit points are 50% more valuable than yours, you're going to be taking so much more damage than your ally on average in this situation.
If you move up to something like a CR2 Ogre that does 2D8+4, you'll now negate about 7 out of 13 damage, or 53.8% of the damage on average, which puts it very slightly better than having resistance. With +6 to hit, they'll hit you 65% or 87.8% of the time, whereas their chance to hit on your ally would be 45% to 65%. Your average damage taken would be 4.2 or 5.7 (not including crits), whereas their average damage taken would be 2.7 to 3.9. When you multiply their average damage taken by 50% to account for the Barbarian having 50% more HP, you get 4.05 to 5.85 average damage taken. So now it's pretty much equal.
So if you are raging and taking 50% less bludgeoning damage and you're fighting an Ogre, and you've got a reaction that can decrease the damage your ally takes by 2D6, a 14 AC barbarian using Reckless Attack with 50% more HP than his 14 AC ally, or a 14 AC Barbarian not using Reckless Attack with 50% more HP than his 18 AC ally, they are about even in terms of who is going to lose a larger percentage of their health on average.
When you go beyond this range of +6 to hit and 13 avg damage per hit (2D8+4), or when you've already used your reaction, that's when it's actually better for the Barbarian to take the hit than his ally to take the hit. Once you get to levels 10 and 14, this will boost up the damage negation of the Spirit Shield, but most of the enemies will be hitting much harder than +6 to hit and 13 damage per hit. When you're facing damage that isn't bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing, and you don't have resistance to the damage, this causes a huge increase in how much damage you're taking, obviously. It doubles it, of course.
So I take issue with this assertion that the Path of the Ancestral Barbarian's job is to get hit. Especially that it is his job to get hit by the target of his Ancestral Protectors, or by an enemy that does damage that the Barbarian is not resistant to. You're telling me that you're giving me the facts, but I'm disputing those facts.
Well, there is a little item called a shield. Which any Barbarian can use. Pushes AC by 2 atleast. With the assumed CON of 14 or 15, you are likely to boost CON or DEX at lvl 4, giving you +1 AC. If you play a race with atleast +1 to CON, you are extremely likely to already have that 16 CON to start with. While most of your teammates won't focus on survivability as much because they prioritize other aspects, further shifting this caculation in favor of the Barbarian. By the time you can even apply the comparison for Spirit Shield, you have to be level 6, your AC would be more likely 15 or even 16 without a shield.
Your focus as an Ancestral Guardian however is protecting your allies. Which most of the time means taking more damage than they would. That is the case for any other protector standing in front of the group. Regardless of class. Most of them don't even have the base resistance of Rage and profit from a higher AC instead. But when they get hit by the Ogre, it hurts them more than the Barbarian.
All that math is nice and shows which constellation would result in the least damage taken by any one player character in the group. It also proves the exact reason why the creature would hit you and not your ally. It simply has the better chance to hit you and do reliable damage.
As an Ancestral Guardian, especially if you go Reckless, you want to be hit by your target, since you just gave all enemies advantage on you and your specific first target disadvantage on teammates. The point is not even who would take more damage, the point is that they choose you over your ally. The application of the resistance for your ally already happens as soon as you land a regular hit, and more often then not, you can already get advantage by other means (Help Action by Familiars, Guiding Bolt, prone targets, to name a few). Even if the damage happens to be different than bludgeoning, piercing and slashing, a whole lot of these effects include saving throws. They do not even include an attack roll and rather have the target make a saving throw, thus not even being impaired by the disadvantage or resistance feature. You already have proficiency in STR and CON, advantage on DEX against effects that you can see while not blinded, deafened, or incapacitated. Effectively giving you half damage in most cases. Even if you have to take all of it, you prevent the others from getting hit. You are more than well equipped to take these blows.
You make room for the others to use their action economy to the fullest. In return, your cleric will throw a heal your way. That archer might not have to disengage and can unload into the target. Your casters will not have to make a CON-Save to keep concentration up. Basically, you free up the group to take their optimal options without really loosing anything yourself in the process. That is what any protective combatant does and, for the Barbarian in particular, includes drawing attention to yourself on the battlefield.
If you're using a Shield and prioritizing Constitution instead of Strength, you're seriously limiting your damage output. Then why are you saying that a Barbarian Archer isn't contributing much if your idea is to use a shield and prioritize Constitution over Strength? Making yourself less threatening isn't the way to make enemies attack you.
You're saying that you likely have +5 or +6 combined to Con & Dex at level 6, does that mean that your strength is only +2? If we're assuming that you've got a combined +8 or +9 to your top 3 stats, why can't we assume that your allies also have +8 or +9 to their top 3 stats? If we assume that your allies rolled as well as you did, we have to expect them to have better Con and AC than I accounted for in my calculations. You're prioritizing Constitution over Strength, as well as over feats like Great Weapon Master, Mage Slayer, Polearm Master, Sentinel, and Shield Master?
You're saying that the enemy will know that you're doing Reckless Attack and give them advantage, but you're saying that they won't recognize that you're raging and taking half damage?
You're saying that the enemy won't recognize that you're attacking with a one handed weapon and using a shield instead of using a two handed weapon to make yourself more threatening?
You're saying that the enemy won't recognize that you're attacking with your secondary or tertiary stat, whereas your allies are attacking with their main attack stat?
You're saying that the DM will cooperate with you and attack you just because you're a raging Barbarian, and not look at how much damage they can deal and how much damage you're dealing? If that's the case, why can't the DM cooperate with you and attack you just because you're a raging Barbarian with a short bow? Is there some rule in the book that says the DM needs to prioritize attacking the guy with a shield?
Your own math proved that you make yourself easier to hit - if you equip a two-handed weapon, your AC is lower, making for an even better target. The shield would be for the sole reason of damage reduction and survivability, simply an option. This does not at any time mean you can't ever use your Greataxe. The later the game, the more likely you are going to do so.
A one-handed axe/sword has the same damage die (d8) as the longbow btw. It benefits from your Rage due to using strength. The flat damage is already 1d8+STR+2(Rage) at lvl 1. With a +3 STR that is a base 1d8+5. So even the one-handed option is superior to the longbow. The assumed Goblin would have to default to a shortbow(d6). You don't get the Rage benefit, which at level 1, considered a +3 DEX, puts you at 1d6+3, medium races at 1d8+3. Needless to say that the Greataxe would even be at 1d12+5. Both melee options are far more threatening than the Archer option while having the same attack bonus. If you happen to take the ASI in DEX at lvl 4, you get up to a 1d6+4. Even then the lvl1 one-handed option is better. Sure, you did not boost your STR by lvl 4, instead you can do that at lvl 8. In addition, you get Reckless whenever you feel like it. So you don't even limit your damage that much.
I don't know of any rule that would state you have to attack someone with a shield. Let's keep this a serious discussion pls.
The guy in melee range is just more appealing to hit, moreso if you have advantage on him, than the Goblin 50 feet away which you can't even hit this turn, taking one if not more opportunity attacks on top and then not even having advantage. So no, I don't expect the DM to "work with me", I just present him the best option to be hit. Then I reduce the incoming damage. At this point, no Feat is in play. Adding one just makes you even more threatening over the archer.
You did the assumption of Strength as the highest stat and CON 14 at lvl 1 yourself. 16 STR is more than realistic, aswell as 12-14 in DEX and CON. Math above chose DEX and STR at +3 for comparison. You can reach those stats with Standard Array and point buy pretty easy, and we want to keep it comparable for a discussion. In any other case, it would make no sense.
Even if we were to assume a +2 STR and DEX +3, a DEX increase to a +4 would put you to 1d6+4, compared to 1d8/1d12+4. Still not nearly as attractive to hit considering circumstances. If all of your group were ranged, maybe. Good luck in being more threatening than the damage casters right next to you with 1d6+4. Eldritch Blast is 1d10 btw. Alot of Warlocks go for Hex and an added CHA-Modifier on top.
If you say the enemy would know you take half damage, they yould know your ally does so aswell, making this point of discussion completely obsolete.
You're changing the math to suit whatever is best for you. If you want higher damage, let's assume a two handed weapon with strength as your top stat. But if you want survivability, let's assume a Shield and Constitution as your top stat.
It's hard to do the math when you keep changing the assumptions to whatever is needed to prove your point.
If you're putting Strength as your top stat at level 1, why are you putting +2 in Constitution at level 4? Why not +2 Strength at level 4? Or why not make Constitution your top stat at level 1? You can't do both, although for your math, you like to assume that. Every time you get an ASI, you have to choose between Constitution and Strength. And if you try to level them up equally, they'll increase at a slower rate than somebody that focuses on just one stat. That's how math works.
Is there some equation out there that shows that you're supposed to keep your Strength and Con equal to each other, and that 16 strength 16 constitution is better than 18 strength 14 constitution or 18 constitution 14 strength, and 18 strength 18 constitution is better than 20 strength 16 constitution or 20 constitution 16 strength? Or are you just saying this because you want to pretend that both stats are just as high as somebody that focuses on Dex?
Let me know what I'm supposed to compare it to. I'm not going to compare it to a character that has Strength as its main stat, and Constitution as its main stat, that uses a two handed weapon and a shield. Obviously, I can't compete with a Barbarian that gets to have two stats just as good as my one top stat, and gets to use a two handed weapon and a shield.
If the enemy knows that you take half damage, and that your ally does as well, and if the enemy knows they'll have advantage when they attack you, they would also know that they would have disadvantage if they attack your ally.
If you're going to draw attention and make yourself a more attractive target with Reckless Attack, then Ancestral Protectors would make your ally a less attractive target. If Reckless Attack makes the enemy more likely to attack you, then why are you pretending that Ancestral Protectors wouldn't also make an enemy more likely to attack you?
This point of discussion is indeed obsolete, because you can't assume that Reckless Attack by a melee makes them more likely to get hit by all of the enemies, but then pretend that Ancestral Protectors won't make a ranged Barbarian more likely to get hit.
In fact, if you're a melee Barbarian, and you need to get the attention of an enemy that isn't next to you, you need to give all of the enemies next to you an opportunity attack to go out and chase somebody that isn't next to you. But if you're a ranged Barbarian and you need to get the attention of an enemy that isn't next to you, you don't need to go around chasing them. While a melee Barbarian has to go around chasing his enemies, the ranged Barbarian can make his enemies chase him.
Why would your DM just naturally make all of the enemies gather around you? Why not have some enemies go at you, and some enemies run at your squishy allies? You are asking your DM to work with you. You're relying on your DM to let you be a tank without having to actually earn it. You don't make yourself the best option to be hit. Even dumb ogres know that the Wizard is a better target to hit than the raging barbarian. It sounds like your DM is letting your party play on easy mode.
["If you're going to draw attention and make yourself a more attractive target with Reckless Attack, then Ancestral Protectors would make your ally a less attractive target. If Reckless Attack makes the enemy more likely to attack you, then why are you pretending that Ancestral Protectors wouldn't also make an enemy more likely to attack you?"]
First of all, I did at no point state that Ancestral Protectors makes you less likely to be hit. In fact, I stated the exact opposite, if you read properly. As stated in an earlier post, that is exactly the point of any Protector, you want to get hit instead of your allies.
In regards to your point on why to not push STR: you simply do not have to focus on one stat when choosing ASI's. Doing so would put you even further ahead of the archer in terms of damage, as you will see below. Personally, with the 14 CON that you assumed above I would like to get some more toughness at some point.
For a simple comparison at lvl1 we can assume
16 STR 14 DEX 14 CON for the melee
16 DEX 14 CON 14 X for the archer, assuming you want to use unarmored defense
The melee will most likely choose those three as his highest stats, the archer could be free to chose anything. It is not looked at for the damage calculation regardless.
So while raging, we get for the melee
1h + shield : +5 to hit, 1d8+3+2
Greataxe: +5 to hit, 1d12+3+2
Javelin, thrown: +5 to hit, 1d6+3
and for the archer
Shortbow: +5 to hit, 1d6+3
Longbow: +5 to hit, 1d8+3
So at level 1, the thrown Javelin, which is by far the worst option for the melee, is on par with your Shortbow. From here, you would need 2 ASI's to get the same flat damage modifier that the melee gets on his melee weapons at lvl 1. In order to do that, you have to be lvl 8. The flat bonus is then on par for one lvl until the Rage Bonus increases to a flat +3. All of that assuming that the melee would have neither taken an improvement in STR at levels 4 or 8.
Following your post above, a Javelin won't be enough and the melee has to go chase his enemy. Then why would someone attack your archer? You don't even do more damage and are far less likely to be successfully hit, considering the circumstances an enemy has to go through in order to hit you. If you assume the Javelin does not draw attention, why would you assume the Shortbow does?
Concerning your question about any DMs grouping enemies, please keep this discussion on a serious level.
Part of playing a melee is running up to your enemies in order to deal damage. You naturally get up to atleast one. If you do it right, agressive movement alone can be enough to draw enemies to you. You could stand before your group in narrow corridors, or just charge ahead in the open field. Nothing of this garanties you that you are the only one who gets hit. Others will take some damage inevitably. That is an essential part of the combat, otherwise it wouldn't be fun. Tactical behaviour by the group can go a long way.
If you still think that having advantage on the Barbarian while having disadvantage on everyone else doesn't make the Barbarian the best target, you just need to take a look at your own math.
I know that Barbarians are played as a melee class pretty much all of the time. But I've got an interesting idea to play a ranged Barbarian, and I'm wondering how effective it would be.
I would be a Goblin using a short bow, and taking the Path of the Ancestral Guardian. I would scurry between hiding places, doing a Bonus Action hide quite often from the racial bonus, and Bonus Action Disengage if an enemy gets too close. I would have a very nice health pool and AC from being a Barbarian. The Urchin background would give me some nice Dexterity skills. Urchin makes complete sense as a background for Goblin, of course.
The 3rd and 6th level abilities for the Path of the Ancestral Guardian look like they would work quite well with an archer. Nothing in the text indicates that it has to be a melee attack for the 3rd level ability. Using a ranged attack to trigger the 3rd level ability makes it much easier to pick out the most dangerous enemy each turn to give that debilitating debuff to. For the 6th level ability, I would need to stay somewhat close to my party to help them out, so that might force me to be closer to the action. It would be quite easy to stay close to the other ranged damage dealers in the party, the ones that are more likely to benefit from the 6th level ability anyways.
The level 2 Reckless Attack ability doesn't help at all, but that ability comes with the downside of giving enemies advantage when they attack you. The +2 to damage on Strength attacks during a Rage wouldn't be utilized at all either. But it seems like most of the Barbarian abilities would work fairly well for a ranged archer.
So the question is - is this a viable character build? How much am I gimping my character if I try to do a ranged Barbarian?
Yes...and no. Barbarians dont make great DeX fighters, but in 5e anything can work. The stereotypical half-orc or dwarf barbarian can become boring and a less than optimal build can be challenging and fun.
I say go with what makes you happy and dont worry about min/maxing or "optimal builds".
If you are a little worried about the numbers or efficiency then try something else and flavor it as you please.
May I ask a little about your characters backstory? What's your vision and reasoning for this character?
I haven't had to make the character yet, but I am trying to at least have some idea of a character to play if one of my current characters gets killed and I have to roll a new character. I am trying to come up with something to play that works well even if I only have zero or one good stats when I roll for stats.
The backstory would be really simple: he was a slave held captive by bugbears, orcs, hobgoblins, or something like that, and one or more members of the party killed his captors (possibly with his help), putting him in eternal debt to the people in the party. Now he follows them around and he's very protective of them (thus explaining his Path of the Ancestral Guardian abilities).
I like playing characters that are unorthodox, but I like to make sure that they're built well enough to still be quite effective. I don't want to feel like my character is a burden on the party and that he can't keep up with the party. I want the character to still feel like an integral part of the party even while I do something quite unique.
Because all of the healing spells require spell slots, you don't really have the healer role in D&D. So in a way, the Spirit Shield ability is about as close as you get to an at will healing ability (still limited in it's uses to only being available during one of your limited number of rages each day).
Also, my group is doing it's 3rd and 4th campaigns together right now and nobody has played a Barbarian yet, so it would be fun to be the first in our group to do that. Even if I intentionally play it the "wrong" way.
Your usefulness will be questionable till you level up. Everything negates majority of the class features...but it could be fun. If your firm on making this work I'd add a level of rouge for the added damage from sneak attack and sharpshooter at level 4.
If you opt out, but want to keep the character idea maybe a goblin cleric. Sort of a tribal shaman.
A majority of the class features? I don't think I'd be missing out on a majority of the features. What am I missing out on? Reckless Attack, +2 damage during a rage, and if I go to level 9, the Brutal Critical. But in the first 8 levels it's just Reckless attack and +2 damage, right?
Why would the usefulness be questionable until I level up? What levels early on would be too early for it to be useful?
I think after level 8 is probably a good time to start multiclassing in Ranger, Rogue, or Fighter. But up through level 8 it seems like it should be pretty useful.
Majority was poor wording. Your negating your core abilities and overall defeating the purpose for a barbarian. A barbarians purpose in combat is essentially being a tank. Your meant to draw attention to yourself (every attack directed towards you is one less directed at a friendly) and hit harder. Essentially aggro and heavy damage.
By going dex ranged fighter your staying out of the fight and not doing the damage your meant to. Hence not supporting as your role is intended. Your own survivability will be high, but your usefulness is questionable. Metaphorically speaking your a rogue who wont sneak, and has given up their ife of crime.
With all that said I'm not saying not to play this character. You've asked about the mechanics and I'm giving you the facts. I always say play what excites you...but mechanically speaking there are better options.
This is 5e though; anything can work.
So causing one opponent to have disadvantage and do half damage, and reducing the damage taken by an ally by 2D6 every single round isn't doing a good job of support? On top of doing two attacks per turn? And being a fast moving fairly stealthy ranged attacker that can move to a dangerous position on the battlefield without fear? One that could switch to a short sword and shield when necessary, getting an AC of probably 3 to 5 points more than a Strength based Barbarian using a two handed weapon, and having therefore fantastic survivability.
My four characters so far in D&D have had 16, 16, 20, and 18 AC, so playing a 15 AC (or worse) Barbarian that has Strength as its top stat and then using Reckless Attack to give every opponent advantage against me seems to completely cancel out the resistance to three damage types from Raging. Especially since my two current characters have 18 AC and 20 AC, I would feel quite vulnerable having just 15 AC and then giving people advantage on me on top of that. And if I wasn't raging because I ran out of rages or was trying to save my last rage for a more important time, it'd be almost suicidal. Or even if I'm just facing an opponent that does a type of damage other than bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing.
The +2 damage boost to Strength attacks is something I would definitely miss, but it seems to me to be the only thing I would miss out on in the first 8 levels of Barbarian.
You're saying that I'm missing out on my core abilities, but as far as I can tell, the only thing I would miss out on is +2 damage on attacks. Please let me know what else I'm missing out on.
It is not so much a thing of missing out on features, it is just plain and simple not using the advantages you could have by focussing on strength. Core element of the Ancestral Guardian is the combination of you making everyone else a far less attractive target. Even if you are not able to use Reckless as an Archer, you will still be drawing attention to yourself, resulting in lower damage output, because you are constantly on the backfoot.
Now imagine you would outright start with a Battlemaster Archer for example - still only really depending on your DEX, which also is essential for its maneuvers. First or second shot could be a trip attack - all melees get advantage, the prone target gets disadvantage, it has to use half its movement to get up, further slowing it down. By the time you reduce damage as an Ancestral Guardian, it could already be dead if you were a Battlemaster. Not only reducing the damage by 2d6, but completely negating it. All of that by lvl 3. You could get the Archery Fighting Style, Action Surge and Second Wind on top. And still equip a sword and shield if need be. This would have the most martial focus.
Similar options happen for the other two classes you mentioned for considered multiclass, Ranger and Rogue.
Gloom Stalker makes for an excellent Scout, skipping entire encounters and thus protecting your party. You are invisible to creatures who rely on darksight. The first turn can be absolutely amazing and take out an enemy before he/she/it even gets to act. You get Disguise Self and Favored Enemy, which would really fit in your Background, and have the ability to cast heals if you want to. Or you could protect the group by using Primeval Awareness and tracking those enemies. And you can still flavour all those skills how you like, you could be communing with ancestors to draw on their wisdom,for example.
Horizon Walker and Monster Slayer have similar Features you could reflavour.
Rogue offers Scout and Mastermind, both could be fitting your concept. In Addition you get Sneak Attack, Expertise, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Mastermind lets you do the Help Action as a Bonus Action wih a Range of 30 feet and more interesting stuff.
So when you talk about pulling your own weight in the party, some alternatives seem alot more potent when it comes to the mechanical options you have.
All that being said, your concept of the protective archer is awesome! Personally, I would try to add to the uniqueness in your roleplay and not so much with that one feature. Whatever you decide to play, the most important thing is to have fun playing it!
Cheers and stay safe :-)
Edit: wording
One on my parties right now has a Goblin Battlemaster with trip attack. It's not nearly as great as you are pretending that it is. You need your target to fail a strength saving throw, or nothing happens. All melee get advantage, but all ranged get disadvantage. And when the target takes its turn, it almost always stands up (without having to make any saving throw), so it doesn't get disadvantage when it attacks on its turn. Some of your allies might not have had a turn before the enemy stood up (if you even knocked it down in the first place), which isn't a bad thing if your allies are ranged. Trip attack isn't really that great.
Asking me to imagine I'm a Battlemaster Archer isn't necessary when I've got a Goblin Battlemaster Archer in the party already. That means I don't need to actually do any imagining.
Action Surge is great, especially with Sharpshooter. Archery Fighting Style is great, especially with Sharpshooter. Second Wind is pretty good, too. You should have given more than just a one sentence mention to those abilities instead of focusing mostly on trip attack.
You also neglected to mention that the 2D6 of damage prevention can be done when anyone damages your party. It's not limited to just the guy you attacked damaging your party. The 3rd level ability only affects the guy you attacked, giving him disadvantage and giving his target resistance. But the 6th level ability works even if the target you attacked was killed before it took a turn but one of his allies attacked your party. That's another way in which your story about how awesome Battlemaster is just doesn't match up with how things would actually work out.
I have already played a Gloom Stalker, and skipping encounters isn't that easy to do.
Rogue is really powerful, and I am considering playing a ranged Rogue. Although for that, I like the idea of Sharpshooter feat and 600ft range with the longbow, being a Sniper. I enjoy playing a ranged Rogue, but it doesn't have any abilities to negate damage to your allies.
A Rogue, a Gloomstalker, or a Shadow Monk would have the ability to go behind enemy lines and try to take up a dangerous position, much like a Goblin Barbarian Archer would. It wouldn't have the same health pool to handle being the focus of enemy fire, but it would have the good movement speed and stealth abilities to try to get to a dangerous position on the battlefield.
Any of those three would have a lot of useful abilities that a Barbarian wouldn't have. But it wouldn't have the huge health pool of a Barbarian and the ability to negate damage on your allies. It would be fun playing any of those three, and it fits the type of character that I like playing. Which is probably why I'm trying to turn the Barbarian into more of a Rogue.
Because of my personal play style, I love abilities that have unlimited uses, which is one reason I love Rogue. I always tend to be very cautious about using abilities that have a limited number of uses.
Our party seems to almost always do long rests and rarely do short rests, which is why Barbarian seems a bit intriguing to me, and why Battlemaster doesn't interest me nearly as much.
I apologise if I sound a bit hostile in my criticism of the Battlemaster trip attack. My personal experience of my party member using that specific ability just hasn't impressed me at all.
No offense taken. Center point is that other subclasses would give you so much more options.
Trip Attack is by far not the only maneuver which could be a viable contender here. That is where the emphasis lies - you are more flexible with alot of the alternatives and the higher damage output will make your group kill enemies quicker, resulting in less damage taken overall. They just give you a certain level of proactivity and not just relying on a damage reduction. Not adding to the other Fighter skills just was a means of not escalating into a wall of text.
In regards to relying on features that can be used all the time, bear in mind that your rage also has a limited number of uses. Spirit Shield is dependant on you raging and by no means unlimited. By the time you run out of Rages, you cannot reduce anything at all.
My personal opinion is that you can get way more out of other subclasses, especially considering you had concerns of the character not being able to keep up with the party.
By the way, if you do the math on it, the two abilities for the Path of the Ancestral Guardians at levels 3 and 6 make it so that you're not always supposed to draw attention to yourself. Especially if you're doing Reckless Attack. In fact, for the level 3 ability, you'll almost always prefer that the enemy attack somebody else. For the level 6 ability, it depends on what portion of the attack you can negate with the 2D6 (and whether or not you have your reaction available).
Those two abilities only are available during a rage, so we can assume that you'll have resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage because you're raging. If you're facing an enemy that's doing a different type of damage, then you're taking full damage and don't have resistance. But let's assume that you're facing enemies that are doing damage that you're resistant to. I'll assume 14 AC for the Barbarian and 14-18 AC for the ally and +3 to +9 chance to hit for the enemy. I think 14 AC is reasonable for a Barbarian using a two handed weapon with Strength being his highest stat. That means that your 2nd and 3rd best stats are both 14s. Given that I'm assuming in the next paragraph that his unspecified ally has just 12 or 13 Constitution, while the Barbarian has 14 or 15 Constitution, I think that's fair.
It wouldn't be right to assume that the Barbarian losing 10 HP is just as bad as the ally losing 10 HP. The Barbarian has a lot more HP. We'll assume about 9 HP per level for the Barbarian (7 HP from hit die, 2 HP from Con bonus), and 6 HP per level for the unspecified teammate (5 HP from hit die, just 1 HP from Con bonus). So in other words, the Barbarian losing 50% more HP puts it at even with the other classes.
For the level 3 ability Ancestral Protectors:
You'll have resistance to the damage (because I'm being generous and assuming bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage), but so will the target of the enemy's attack if the enemy targets somebody other than you. If the enemy targets somebody other than you, they'll have disadvantage. If they target you, it'll either be a normal hit, or with advantage if you did reckless attack.
Against an enemy with +3 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 50% or 75% chance of being hit depending on whether or not they did Reckless Attack, and the ally has a 9% to 25% chance of being hit, depending on their AC. And because the ally has resistance to the damage, he takes the same amount that the Barbarian would. But with a much much lower chance of actually being damaged.
Against an enemy with +5 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 60% or 84% chance of being hit, and the ally has a 16% to 36% chance of being hit, with each one taking the same amount of damage when they actually do get hit.
Against an enemy with +7 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 70% or 91% chance of being hit, and the ally has a 25% to 49% chance of being hit
Against an enemy with +9 to hit, the Barbarian has either a 80% or 96% chance of being hit, and the ally has a 36% to 64% chance of being hit
This doesn't factor in the 5% or 9.75% crit chance the enemy has against you, versus the 0.25% crit chance they have on your ally. Once we factor that in, these numbers will look even worse for the Barbarian.
Even though the ally's hit points are 50% more valuable than the Barbarian's hit points (because the Barbarian has so many more hit points as stated above), you still would rather the enemy attack your ally with disadvantage and with the ally having resistance, than to have the enemy attack you. Because the difference in the chance to hit is so extreme.
For the level 6 ability Spirit Shield:
It's significantly harder to calculate because we don't know what portion of the damage the 2D6 reduction will be. With the level 3 ability, we know that it's a 50% reduction. For the level 6 ability, 2D6 will stop a huge portion of a small hit, but stop a small portion of a huge hit. There's also the obvious correlation that a higher % chance to hit is usually linked to a larger amount of damage.
In many cases here, you will want the enemy to focus on you instead of attacking one of your allies. But not all of the time. Especially not if they're doing damage other than bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing. Although once you've already used your reaction, it's far more likely that you'd rather they attack you.
Against a simple enemy like a CR 1/2 Orc that does only 1D12+3, obviously you'd prefer that they attack your ally when you have this ability available. You're quite likely to negate nearly all of the damage. Not accounting for the times where 2D6 is actually greater than 1D12+3, you'll negate 73.7% of the damage on average (7 out of 9.5). Not to mention that their chance to hit (+5) on you would be 60% or 84% (for normal and for reckless), whereas their chance to hit your ally would be 40% to 60% (for 18 AC to 14 AC). Even though your ally's hit points are 50% more valuable than yours, you're going to be taking so much more damage than your ally on average in this situation.
If you move up to something like a CR2 Ogre that does 2D8+4, you'll now negate about 7 out of 13 damage, or 53.8% of the damage on average, which puts it very slightly better than having resistance. With +6 to hit, they'll hit you 65% or 87.8% of the time, whereas their chance to hit on your ally would be 45% to 65%. Your average damage taken would be 4.2 or 5.7 (not including crits), whereas their average damage taken would be 2.7 to 3.9. When you multiply their average damage taken by 50% to account for the Barbarian having 50% more HP, you get 4.05 to 5.85 average damage taken. So now it's pretty much equal.
So if you are raging and taking 50% less bludgeoning damage and you're fighting an Ogre, and you've got a reaction that can decrease the damage your ally takes by 2D6, a 14 AC barbarian using Reckless Attack with 50% more HP than his 14 AC ally, or a 14 AC Barbarian not using Reckless Attack with 50% more HP than his 18 AC ally, they are about even in terms of who is going to lose a larger percentage of their health on average.
When you go beyond this range of +6 to hit and 13 avg damage per hit (2D8+4), or when you've already used your reaction, that's when it's actually better for the Barbarian to take the hit than his ally to take the hit. Once you get to levels 10 and 14, this will boost up the damage negation of the Spirit Shield, but most of the enemies will be hitting much harder than +6 to hit and 13 damage per hit. When you're facing damage that isn't bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing, and you don't have resistance to the damage, this causes a huge increase in how much damage you're taking, obviously. It doubles it, of course.
So I take issue with this assertion that the Path of the Ancestral Barbarian's job is to get hit. Especially that it is his job to get hit by the target of his Ancestral Protectors, or by an enemy that does damage that the Barbarian is not resistant to. You're telling me that you're giving me the facts, but I'm disputing those facts.
Well, there is a little item called a shield. Which any Barbarian can use. Pushes AC by 2 atleast. With the assumed CON of 14 or 15, you are likely to boost CON or DEX at lvl 4, giving you +1 AC. If you play a race with atleast +1 to CON, you are extremely likely to already have that 16 CON to start with. While most of your teammates won't focus on survivability as much because they prioritize other aspects, further shifting this caculation in favor of the Barbarian. By the time you can even apply the comparison for Spirit Shield, you have to be level 6, your AC would be more likely 15 or even 16 without a shield.
Your focus as an Ancestral Guardian however is protecting your allies. Which most of the time means taking more damage than they would. That is the case for any other protector standing in front of the group. Regardless of class. Most of them don't even have the base resistance of Rage and profit from a higher AC instead. But when they get hit by the Ogre, it hurts them more than the Barbarian.
All that math is nice and shows which constellation would result in the least damage taken by any one player character in the group. It also proves the exact reason why the creature would hit you and not your ally. It simply has the better chance to hit you and do reliable damage.
As an Ancestral Guardian, especially if you go Reckless, you want to be hit by your target, since you just gave all enemies advantage on you and your specific first target disadvantage on teammates. The point is not even who would take more damage, the point is that they choose you over your ally. The application of the resistance for your ally already happens as soon as you land a regular hit, and more often then not, you can already get advantage by other means (Help Action by Familiars, Guiding Bolt, prone targets, to name a few). Even if the damage happens to be different than bludgeoning, piercing and slashing, a whole lot of these effects include saving throws. They do not even include an attack roll and rather have the target make a saving throw, thus not even being impaired by the disadvantage or resistance feature. You already have proficiency in STR and CON, advantage on DEX against effects that you can see while not blinded, deafened, or incapacitated. Effectively giving you half damage in most cases. Even if you have to take all of it, you prevent the others from getting hit. You are more than well equipped to take these blows.
You make room for the others to use their action economy to the fullest. In return, your cleric will throw a heal your way. That archer might not have to disengage and can unload into the target. Your casters will not have to make a CON-Save to keep concentration up. Basically, you free up the group to take their optimal options without really loosing anything yourself in the process. That is what any protective combatant does and, for the Barbarian in particular, includes drawing attention to yourself on the battlefield.
Edit: wording
If you're using a Shield and prioritizing Constitution instead of Strength, you're seriously limiting your damage output. Then why are you saying that a Barbarian Archer isn't contributing much if your idea is to use a shield and prioritize Constitution over Strength? Making yourself less threatening isn't the way to make enemies attack you.
You're saying that you likely have +5 or +6 combined to Con & Dex at level 6, does that mean that your strength is only +2? If we're assuming that you've got a combined +8 or +9 to your top 3 stats, why can't we assume that your allies also have +8 or +9 to their top 3 stats? If we assume that your allies rolled as well as you did, we have to expect them to have better Con and AC than I accounted for in my calculations. You're prioritizing Constitution over Strength, as well as over feats like Great Weapon Master, Mage Slayer, Polearm Master, Sentinel, and Shield Master?
You're saying that the enemy will know that you're doing Reckless Attack and give them advantage, but you're saying that they won't recognize that you're raging and taking half damage?
You're saying that the enemy won't recognize that you're attacking with a one handed weapon and using a shield instead of using a two handed weapon to make yourself more threatening?
You're saying that the enemy won't recognize that you're attacking with your secondary or tertiary stat, whereas your allies are attacking with their main attack stat?
You're saying that the DM will cooperate with you and attack you just because you're a raging Barbarian, and not look at how much damage they can deal and how much damage you're dealing? If that's the case, why can't the DM cooperate with you and attack you just because you're a raging Barbarian with a short bow? Is there some rule in the book that says the DM needs to prioritize attacking the guy with a shield?
Your own math proved that you make yourself easier to hit - if you equip a two-handed weapon, your AC is lower, making for an even better target. The shield would be for the sole reason of damage reduction and survivability, simply an option. This does not at any time mean you can't ever use your Greataxe. The later the game, the more likely you are going to do so.
A one-handed axe/sword has the same damage die (d8) as the longbow btw. It benefits from your Rage due to using strength. The flat damage is already 1d8+STR+2(Rage) at lvl 1. With a +3 STR that is a base 1d8+5. So even the one-handed option is superior to the longbow. The assumed Goblin would have to default to a shortbow(d6). You don't get the Rage benefit, which at level 1, considered a +3 DEX, puts you at 1d6+3, medium races at 1d8+3. Needless to say that the Greataxe would even be at 1d12+5. Both melee options are far more threatening than the Archer option while having the same attack bonus. If you happen to take the ASI in DEX at lvl 4, you get up to a 1d6+4. Even then the lvl1 one-handed option is better. Sure, you did not boost your STR by lvl 4, instead you can do that at lvl 8. In addition, you get Reckless whenever you feel like it. So you don't even limit your damage that much.
I don't know of any rule that would state you have to attack someone with a shield. Let's keep this a serious discussion pls.
The guy in melee range is just more appealing to hit, moreso if you have advantage on him, than the Goblin 50 feet away which you can't even hit this turn, taking one if not more opportunity attacks on top and then not even having advantage. So no, I don't expect the DM to "work with me", I just present him the best option to be hit. Then I reduce the incoming damage. At this point, no Feat is in play. Adding one just makes you even more threatening over the archer.
You did the assumption of Strength as the highest stat and CON 14 at lvl 1 yourself. 16 STR is more than realistic, aswell as 12-14 in DEX and CON. Math above chose DEX and STR at +3 for comparison. You can reach those stats with Standard Array and point buy pretty easy, and we want to keep it comparable for a discussion. In any other case, it would make no sense.
Even if we were to assume a +2 STR and DEX +3, a DEX increase to a +4 would put you to 1d6+4, compared to 1d8/1d12+4. Still not nearly as attractive to hit considering circumstances. If all of your group were ranged, maybe. Good luck in being more threatening than the damage casters right next to you with 1d6+4. Eldritch Blast is 1d10 btw. Alot of Warlocks go for Hex and an added CHA-Modifier on top.
If you say the enemy would know you take half damage, they yould know your ally does so aswell, making this point of discussion completely obsolete.
You're changing the math to suit whatever is best for you. If you want higher damage, let's assume a two handed weapon with strength as your top stat. But if you want survivability, let's assume a Shield and Constitution as your top stat.
It's hard to do the math when you keep changing the assumptions to whatever is needed to prove your point.
If you're putting Strength as your top stat at level 1, why are you putting +2 in Constitution at level 4? Why not +2 Strength at level 4? Or why not make Constitution your top stat at level 1? You can't do both, although for your math, you like to assume that. Every time you get an ASI, you have to choose between Constitution and Strength. And if you try to level them up equally, they'll increase at a slower rate than somebody that focuses on just one stat. That's how math works.
Is there some equation out there that shows that you're supposed to keep your Strength and Con equal to each other, and that 16 strength 16 constitution is better than 18 strength 14 constitution or 18 constitution 14 strength, and 18 strength 18 constitution is better than 20 strength 16 constitution or 20 constitution 16 strength? Or are you just saying this because you want to pretend that both stats are just as high as somebody that focuses on Dex?
Let me know what I'm supposed to compare it to. I'm not going to compare it to a character that has Strength as its main stat, and Constitution as its main stat, that uses a two handed weapon and a shield. Obviously, I can't compete with a Barbarian that gets to have two stats just as good as my one top stat, and gets to use a two handed weapon and a shield.
If the enemy knows that you take half damage, and that your ally does as well, and if the enemy knows they'll have advantage when they attack you, they would also know that they would have disadvantage if they attack your ally.
If you're going to draw attention and make yourself a more attractive target with Reckless Attack, then Ancestral Protectors would make your ally a less attractive target. If Reckless Attack makes the enemy more likely to attack you, then why are you pretending that Ancestral Protectors wouldn't also make an enemy more likely to attack you?
This point of discussion is indeed obsolete, because you can't assume that Reckless Attack by a melee makes them more likely to get hit by all of the enemies, but then pretend that Ancestral Protectors won't make a ranged Barbarian more likely to get hit.
In fact, if you're a melee Barbarian, and you need to get the attention of an enemy that isn't next to you, you need to give all of the enemies next to you an opportunity attack to go out and chase somebody that isn't next to you. But if you're a ranged Barbarian and you need to get the attention of an enemy that isn't next to you, you don't need to go around chasing them. While a melee Barbarian has to go around chasing his enemies, the ranged Barbarian can make his enemies chase him.
Why would your DM just naturally make all of the enemies gather around you? Why not have some enemies go at you, and some enemies run at your squishy allies? You are asking your DM to work with you. You're relying on your DM to let you be a tank without having to actually earn it. You don't make yourself the best option to be hit. Even dumb ogres know that the Wizard is a better target to hit than the raging barbarian. It sounds like your DM is letting your party play on easy mode.
["If you're going to draw attention and make yourself a more attractive target with Reckless Attack, then Ancestral Protectors would make your ally a less attractive target. If Reckless Attack makes the enemy more likely to attack you, then why are you pretending that Ancestral Protectors wouldn't also make an enemy more likely to attack you?"]
First of all, I did at no point state that Ancestral Protectors makes you less likely to be hit. In fact, I stated the exact opposite, if you read properly. As stated in an earlier post, that is exactly the point of any Protector, you want to get hit instead of your allies.
In regards to your point on why to not push STR: you simply do not have to focus on one stat when choosing ASI's. Doing so would put you even further ahead of the archer in terms of damage, as you will see below. Personally, with the 14 CON that you assumed above I would like to get some more toughness at some point.
For a simple comparison at lvl1 we can assume
16 STR 14 DEX 14 CON for the melee
16 DEX 14 CON 14 X for the archer, assuming you want to use unarmored defense
The melee will most likely choose those three as his highest stats, the archer could be free to chose anything. It is not looked at for the damage calculation regardless.
So while raging, we get for the melee
1h + shield : +5 to hit, 1d8+3+2
Greataxe: +5 to hit, 1d12+3+2
Javelin, thrown: +5 to hit, 1d6+3
and for the archer
Shortbow: +5 to hit, 1d6+3
Longbow: +5 to hit, 1d8+3
So at level 1, the thrown Javelin, which is by far the worst option for the melee, is on par with your Shortbow. From here, you would need 2 ASI's to get the same flat damage modifier that the melee gets on his melee weapons at lvl 1. In order to do that, you have to be lvl 8. The flat bonus is then on par for one lvl until the Rage Bonus increases to a flat +3. All of that assuming that the melee would have neither taken an improvement in STR at levels 4 or 8.
Following your post above, a Javelin won't be enough and the melee has to go chase his enemy. Then why would someone attack your archer? You don't even do more damage and are far less likely to be successfully hit, considering the circumstances an enemy has to go through in order to hit you. If you assume the Javelin does not draw attention, why would you assume the Shortbow does?
Concerning your question about any DMs grouping enemies, please keep this discussion on a serious level.
Part of playing a melee is running up to your enemies in order to deal damage. You naturally get up to atleast one. If you do it right, agressive movement alone can be enough to draw enemies to you. You could stand before your group in narrow corridors, or just charge ahead in the open field. Nothing of this garanties you that you are the only one who gets hit. Others will take some damage inevitably. That is an essential part of the combat, otherwise it wouldn't be fun. Tactical behaviour by the group can go a long way.
If you still think that having advantage on the Barbarian while having disadvantage on everyone else doesn't make the Barbarian the best target, you just need to take a look at your own math.
Edit: wording