Recent Posts
Barbarians are survivable on their own (as per my post). He was suggesting other tactics and combinations that would help with their barbarian's survivability (or any other front line character's survivability for that matter).
Superstition is far from the best rage power. It may have the best benefit (I'd argue that it doesn't regardless), but you have to include the drawback in the evaluation, and that brings it back down to middle of the pack. I'd argue that even if they completely removed the negative that unexpected strike would still be more useful over the course of a character's life.
So, the tactics to make a Barbarian survivable is relying on magic from your fellow party members is it? Haha, that's funny to hear...
Yeah, quite honestly. Every melee class should be relying on party buffs to a fairly large extent by mid to high levels. Nothing unique to the Barbarian about this.
And also kiss the best rage power, superstition, goodbye while using this tactic.
Superstition is a horrible, crippling rage power unless you're playing a solo campaign or something. I don't know why you think it is any good. It is basically "you will never receive a buff or healing spell in combat ever again."
My personal experience from playing a meleer is that you will always be getting hit far more by buff spells from your party than by offensive spells from the enemy. Statistically speaking, the fighter I'm playing currently tends to get hit by offensive spells every other combat or so, while generally getting hit by two to three buffs in any significantly hard combat. Four or five to one so far as to how often I get buffed by the party vs how often I am rolling saves vs enemy spells overall.
YMMV, of course, but if you're getting hit by enemy spells more than spells from your teammates, your party casters are probably shortchanging you.
Buffs are normally used before combat begins or in the first or second round of combat tops. So, superstition IS an awesome power. YOu get your buffs, THEN you rage. You all talked about tactics, but you didn't consider this one.
Not EVERY melee class depends on the party buffs, the barbarian DOES, as you said. I'm not saying the other classes don't benefit from it, I'm saying they do not DEPEND on it. And that's a bad thing.
I'm gonna ask you this, have you actually PLAYED a barbarian under PF rulez WITH other melee classes in the same group? Cause I did, and I don't like to get my Thunder stole in EVERY combat.
Buffs are normally used before combat begins or in the first or second round of combat tops. So, superstition IS an awesome power. YOu get your buffs, THEN you rage. You all talked about tactics, but you didn't consider this one.
Not EVERY melee class depends on the party buffs, the barbarian DOES, as you said. I'm not saying the other classes don't benefit from it, I'm saying they do not DEPEND on it. And that's a bad thing.
I'm gonna ask you this, have you actually PLAYED a barbarian under PF rulez WITH other melee classes in the same group? Cause I did, and I don't like to get my Thunder stole in EVERY combat.
Not over a long term campaign, but I have played in a short 3 session playtest with one this past Christmas. Ran through six combats. Thirteenth level, five person party with a sword and board TWF fighter, a bard, wizard, and druid as the other four.
Yeah the fighter outshone me when it was a question of just standing up and trading full attacks. But that only happened in one out of the four melee based fights. The other three I had a hell of a lot of fun screwing people up with the aforementioned unexpected strike/knockback/bull rush feats combo. Using Strength Surge as well - NEVER failed a CMB check. I think I was a bit more effective overall, though we were roughly even as he did have noticeably better AC and full attack.
In that game we probably had two to three party wide buffs dropped per fight. Not counting prefight stuff. We fought casting monsters twice, think I only rolled two or three spell saving throws overall.
Buffs are normally used before combat begins or in the first or second round of combat tops. So, superstition IS an awesome power. YOu get your buffs, THEN you rage. You all talked about tactics, but you didn't consider this one.
Yeah and I don't want to miss out on those buffs in the first or second round, thanks. They are usually awesome stuff like haste.
I don't want to miss out on spells on the third or fourth round either. Because if a party member is casting spells on me then, it's usually because things have gone pear shaped and we need to heal, or teleport out of combat, or something like that. Kind of sucks to pass your will save vs Teleport while the rest of the party bugs out of a fight that's suddenly gone wrong.
Buffs are normally used before combat begins or in the first or second round of combat tops. So, superstition IS an awesome power. YOu get your buffs, THEN you rage. You all talked about tactics, but you didn't consider this one.
Oh I considered it, but by the time you're just beginning your rage I'm finishing off the largest enemy. The fewer rounds combat lasts the fewer resources you need to use, and there's nothing more tactical than having excess resources in reserve.
The last 2 options presented by Caspian and Cartigan would be the most easily adjusted way to help out - it doesn't do too much to hit everything, but it's a step in the right direction.
Letting "rage points" back in from Beta will improve their situation dramatically, BUT it comes at the expense of tracking "ticks" of a resource on a level that NO other class has to manage currently. So, I get the "why" they toned it down in the first place (annoying secondary calculations constantly), but the final version nerfed it SO hard as to make most powers virtually useless. If you can deal with the added resource tracking - it'll be a fine "upgrade" as far as I'm concerned.
With the increasing level, or flat modification of rage powers - that can work just as well. It'll actually make the powers have some sort of meaning/significance to their impact on use and usability. I would posit that you *should* go further and get rid of action-activations on many of the rage powers as well. I've been re-tooling rage powers something fierce recently with exactly this design approach (as it's more direct than the resource management and more "accessible" I'd think to the average pick-up sort of player).
As far as I'm concerned, certain Rage power should work all the time while Raging because they are (1) already limited by having to be in a Rage and (2) that's how other class' abilities work.
Ranger Favored Enemy? Fighter Weapon Proficiencies? Rogue Sneak Attack? Why is the Barbarian getting the shaft?
I can only assume the reason it doesn't work like that is because Paizo didn't want them to be a given as part of the class and players would complain about a rage power "tax." So they took the path of least resistance leading to a weakened Barbarian.
psionichamster
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
Is it just me, or does this site just randomly decide not to update and display posts after recording they have been made?Not just you. Times out after ~15 min.
Recommended solutions include using a text editor prior to posting, and some 'net application called Lazarus or something similar
-t
That doesn't quite address the problem of the site not displaying other people's posts.
Ya know, I think it's interesting to note that the Fighter got a VERY nice power boost between the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder (a welcome one at that), but now people are complaining that Barbarian is weak because they are no longer the kings of DPR. It's not that big of a deal.
Really, how often does it come up that Barbarians do slightly less damage than Fighters? How often does it come up that the Fighter's higher to-hit bonus means the difference between life and death?
The road we're going down leads to World of Warcraft. People keep whining about how class X is too weak, or how class Y is too strong, and any SEMBLANCE of balance or workability the game may have had goes down the crapper because nobody is satisfied 100% of the time.
I for one couldn't care less if the Barbarian is inferior to the Fighter in damage, inferior to the Rogue in skills, and inferior to any other class in any other aspect of gameplay. They can be played, they can be enjoyed as a class, and they can pull their weight in a group, despite not being entirely optimal. As long as they aren't diminishing the group's capabilities (which is more of a player problem than a class problem), there really isn't a problem.
Again, do they need more options with Rage Powers? Yes. Could they use a buff? It'd be NICE, but it's hardly necessary.
Davor is making the most sense in this thread. I still can't believe people spend all this time trying to show how one class is mathematically better than the other. So yeah the fighter can fight better than the barbarian, the bard can sing better than him, the rogue can sneak better, and the barbarian can rage better than them all. There's no way they can design a bunch of classes all completely equal with each other so why bother trying to find which is best. Just play what you like.
In the end it doesn't come down to the class, it comes down to the player.
...what? That was just silly. "The barbarian can rage better than them all." What the devil is that supposed to me? Raging, in and of itself, has no purpose. What Raging does do is make the Barbarian better at combat. If the Barbarian doesn't match or exceed the fighter at combat while raging, then it's a pretty crappy ability that makes the Barbarian only worth a 1-level dip by the Fighter to make it a better combatant.
psionichamster
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
That doesn't quite address the problem of the site not displaying other people's posts.Is it just me, or does this site just randomly decide not to update and display posts after recording they have been made?Not just you. Times out after ~15 min.
Recommended solutions include using a text editor prior to posting, and some 'net application called Lazarus or something similar
-t
Ah, my bad.
Not familiar with that issue
I think the issue is that the fighter has better defense AND offense than the Barbarian, I realize that the Barb should be compared to everyone not just the fighter but he really is the other "tank" choice (besides pally) with his d12's like it or not. I just think the barb should out-damage the fighter because they need to sacrifice the AC. I honestly think the barbarian and fighter should be equal in damage output UNTIL the barbarian rages then that should put him over the top. the damage reduction is nice but it's kind of crappy that the fighter gets the same amount at 20 AND it's in heavy armor, it feels like it did when they gave the warblade d12 hit dice, I realize A LOT goes into balancing, making, etc. classes but that is what I feel they should be on par until the rage, it only makes sense with all the limitations the barbarian gets. I am in no way an optimizer, and I've never played a PF barb but my favorite character I played was a Barb in 3.5 and I completely blew our fighter out of the water (he wasn't an optimizer either and was as new to the game as I was). It just doesn't sit well with me that Conan is less lethal than the thugs he slaughters :P
On the barbarian's list of "stuff" it should bring to the table I'd rate it like so:
1) Toughness/Durability {this was the intent CLEARLY with the d12 hd (only class initially to have it) and the innate DR - even when out of rage. Plus it's of the BEST kind of DR to have DR x/- how is toughness or resiliance NOT an inherent part of the concept at that point?)
2) Damage {again, when released they were the ONLY class that could get crazy to hit and damage numbers - always above and beyond the fighter. Fighter's could match the damage w/wpn. sp, but needed 4 feats to do it and they could do it earlier/longer than barbarians. So, in the mid-range fighter's skill out-shone the barbarian, but in the upper tier, barbarian was king w/the to hit bonus. Again - original design intent there - 3.x}
3) Mobility {beyond Monks, only class with some *small* speed boost ... always odd since it was +10 period and never got better ... but :shrug:)
4) Secondary Effects {never present in any concept before PF got a hold of it ... Rage Powers brought this to the table in Beta, then nerfed it like crazy for final release}
@Icares: Man ... the fighter should KICK the barbarian's ASS in combat ... if it's out of rage. When raging, the barbarian should at least come close to the level of a fighter in "to hit", but should clearly surpass him in both durability (more than the average +1 hp/hd does w/D12's) and damage output. He's all about the rage. I'm w/you on everything else, though. ;-)
On the barbarian's list of "stuff" it should bring to the table I'd rate it like so:
1) Toughness/Durability {this was the intent CLEARLY with the d12 hd (only class initially to have it) and the innate DR - even when out of rage. Plus it's of the BEST kind of DR to have DR x/- how is toughness or resiliance NOT an inherent part of the concept at that point?)
2) Damage {again, when released they were the ONLY class that could get crazy to hit and damage numbers - always above and beyond the fighter. Fighter's could match the damage w/wpn. sp, but needed 4 feats to do it and they could do it earlier/longer than barbarians. So, in the mid-range fighter's skill out-shone the barbarian, but in the upper tier, barbarian was king w/the to hit bonus. Again - original design intent there - 3.x}
3) Mobility {beyond Monks, only class with some *small* speed boost ... always odd since it was +10 period and never got better ... but :shrug:)
4) Secondary Effects {never present in any concept before PF got a hold of it ... Rage Powers brought this to the table in Beta, then nerfed it like crazy for final release}The original Barbarian was from Unearthed Arcana. The things I remember from it were that it could track like a ranger, it had bonuses vs. magic and couldn't use magic, it could hit creatures that required magic weapons to hit, it wasn't a combat monster (due to its experience chart being a real bear), it had enhanced movement (50% better than everyone save. the monk), it had the ability to hide and move silently (iirc).
I don't remember it having damage resistance.
Well, keep in mind most of my comparison is from the PF progenitor, 3.x games.
But going as old school as that is interesting in itself. It certainly (especially w/Caspian's point) makes a strong case for their original concept being outrageous damage-dealing machines somehow {if they were +5 w/NO magic in their hands, there was literally NOTHING they couldn't hurt back in the day}.
It certainly (especially w/Caspian's point) makes a strong case for their original concept being outrageous damage-dealing machines somehow {if they were +5 w/NO magic in their hands, there was literally NOTHING they couldn't hurt...No, it really doesn't. Like I said, they had terrible to hit values when compared to other fighter types of equal exp.
Right .... forgot about the different xp tables. Still, of comparable "level" this would hold true (not xp, though).
I think that is enough of a "spirit of conversion" to carry into the updated games and class revisions.
Our PF party (all level 12) consists of...
Barbarian
Paladin
Rogue
Wizard
Cleric
The barb (greataxe wielder) is generally the king of combat. He knocks down BBEG's as well as he cleaves into their minions. He also has some utility out of combat because, well, he's our only Survival skill character. He has a poor AC, but mountains of hps. He definitely doesn't need healing every round, but you can't let him go a full fight without dropping some healing on him at some point usually.
The paladin (sword and board) just recently demolished (and I mean Demolished!) an undead BBEG, so he got to shine and shine brightly. Ordinarily he delivers solid, consistent damage and has good defensive capabilities as well.
The rogue (dual wielder) can deliver some devastating combos given the right conditions, but those happen less than 50% of our combat rounds. Other than that he tends to do light melee damage.
The wizard and cleric are more spell-based than melee, so I won't bring them into the discussion.
Our barbarian is a mainstay of our front line. A fighter build may have been a better choice, but the player wanted to play what in his mind was clearly a barbarian. He likes the rage powers (although more would be better), and knew he couldn't get them with a fighter. We love our friendly barbarian.
Except it makes no sense to compare characters of equal level across classes in 1e.
Right .... forgot about the different xp tables. Still, of comparable "level" this would hold true (not xp, though).
I think that is enough of a "spirit of conversion" to carry into the updated games and class revisions.
We're not *in* 1e anymore. We're in PF and looking at the more modern design aesthetics with the "old source" as information to mine for ideas.
Taking a direct port is ludicrous as the old exp system has NO place in the modern game.
:shrugs:
Not much else to say on that.
Ok, well why isn't the size increase thing a rage power? say stacked at somewhere around 7th lvl?
Also that size increase, combined with the AoO feat, and a reach weapon is kind of anti-barbarian in playstyle... Neat for sure, but kind of tankish.
Some basic increase to the scaling of rage would be good maybe so it ends at +12 STR/CON at lvl 20? Extra damage as a rage ability? And as to the toughness, scale up DR 1-2 more points?
I would think about, increasing every size of the barbarian weapons for damage purposes. That would be a neat power. Everything is just more deadly in his hands.
I would think about, increasing every size of the barbarian weapons for damage purposes. That would be a neat power. Everything is just more deadly in his hands.Ok, well why isn't the size increase thing a rage power? say stacked at somewhere around 7th lvl?
Also that size increase, combined with the AoO feat, and a reach weapon is kind of anti-barbarian in playstyle... Neat for sure, but kind of tankish.
Some basic increase to the scaling of rage would be good maybe so it ends at +12 STR/CON at lvl 20? Extra damage as a rage ability? And as to the toughness, scale up DR 1-2 more points?
Permission to misconstrue, sir! ;)
Permission to misconstrue, sir! ;)I would think about, increasing every size of the barbarian weapons for damage purposes. That would be a neat power. Everything is just more deadly in his hands.Ok, well why isn't the size increase thing a rage power? say stacked at somewhere around 7th lvl?
Also that size increase, combined with the AoO feat, and a reach weapon is kind of anti-barbarian in playstyle... Neat for sure, but kind of tankish.
Some basic increase to the scaling of rage would be good maybe so it ends at +12 STR/CON at lvl 20? Extra damage as a rage ability? And as to the toughness, scale up DR 1-2 more points?
I didn't get it, hehe :)
Yes, I understand. But increasing damage is never in the wrong direction with a barbarian. And I kinda like the Cloud effect (Final Fantasy 7/ Monkey grip) but not so much. It's a thin line beetween cool and too much.
A barbarian that is treated as large would carry a Huge weapon... well, sorry, I don't see it being believable.
Huh, or just the ability to wield larger weapons while in rage. The idea is comic, a big sword they can't regularly wield but when the character freaks out can swing it with ease. The net increase is only like 1-2 points on average for a 1 size shift though?
This is exactly how Amiri works as the iconic PF barbarian. That's a large bastard sword she's wielding.