Recent Posts
It plays merry hell with the concept of treasure but if I remember there was a caveat that said magic weapons/armor resize to fit you. As long as that's there it should be alright.It only does that with magic armor, not with the weapons sadly. :(
Not when they are size categories diferent. What this line means is that if it's medium, normally it does for a diferent size medium person. Not sure it works for dwarfs though for instance.
Look - on all the size alteration stuff. If you're going there, make it an (su) ability vs. (ex) AND let it basically act EXACTLY like the Enlarge Person spell that is always on while in rage. That grants the melee weapon size damage increase as the weapons, armor, etc all grow/adapt to match the new size of the barbarian.
Problem solved.
:-D
Look - on all the size alteration stuff. If you're going there, make it an (su) ability vs. (ex) AND let it basically act EXACTLY like the Enlarge Person spell that is always on while in rage. That grants the melee weapon size damage increase as the weapons, armor, etc all grow/adapt to match the new size of the barbarian.
Problem solved.
:-D
I disagree. I -don't- want the Barbarian to actually get bigger. I want his ferocity to make him seem bigger and be capable of more.
As such, it should be an (ex).
+1
And I ... disagree with that. Let him actually get infused with the "spirit of fury" itself and cause his very being to swell with unadulterated rage to be brought down upon the heads of his enemies that he may better cleave them from navel to chops!
Dramatic - but point being - just go with it and let 'em get their "special power" on like everyone else does.
{Something tells me our game philosophies are doomed to always conflict LilithsThrall ... lol}
And I ... disagree with that. Let him actually get infused with the "spirit of fury" itself and cause his very being to swell with unadulterated rage to be brought down upon the heads of his enemies that he may better cleave them from navel to chops!
Flavorwise there is certainly some justification. Grendel swelled with rage entering Heorot, and all.
Mechanically, getting natural reach might be a bit much though. And there's plenty of legendary berserkers who weren't known for growing ten feet tall when they got angry too.
It might work as a higher level rage power. Man I'm liking the idea of a special list of level 12+ rage powers more and more the more I think about it. Enlarge person as an always-on-while-raging?
Except it makes no sense to compare characters of equal level across classes in 1e.
*can't resist*
One! Two!! Three!!!
FORSAKER!
While the class itself required that the player act rather directly against the standard process of kill -- loot -- upgrade, are there not some valid things that can be taken from the class as a potential addition to the Barbarian?
You wouldn't say that if you saw my party with reasonably optimized ftr and barbarian.
And that.. I'm a fan of story, and building the character as the character would be, not what would wiggle the numbers better-- not that I'm implying that there is anything wrong with the way you and yours play, just that it is not my style.
My initial thought when hearing "Optimize" is that "Character" and "Story" just got pushed halfway down the list. Once again though, I'm just chiming in for all the fluff-heads out there that may keep their distance on discussions like this.
And that.. I'm a fan of story, and building the character as the character would be, not what would wiggle the numbers better-- not that I'm implying that there is anything wrong with the way you and yours play, just that it is not my style.
My initial thought when hearing "Optimize" is that "Character" and "Story" just got pushed halfway down the list. Once again though, I'm just chiming in for all the fluff-heads out there that may keep their distance on discussions like this.
I don't want to really get into this but that's just nonsensical. Just because my wizard has more than a 11 int doesn't make me a power gamer and doesn't mean my backstories are weak or that I'm a poor roleplayer. Optimize just means you want your character to work more efficiently within the rules, and roleplaying and tactical combat don't really affect one another. I love to roleplay, as long as the story continues to progress, but I also love a good combat and the teamwork and tactics that go into overcoming a good challenge. Not that you're doing this, but there is always a lot of derision on the side of the roleplayers vs. the rollplayers, but those who enjoy combat never say that people who like to role play are somehow less of players because of it, which I do hear the other way around quite a bit.
But roleplaying doesn't enter into this argument over which character class is better, because frankly you can play a fighter class character as a berserker and a savage just as easily as you can a barbarian. It's the rules we are taking issue with, and frankly I think mechanically the barbarian is a little weak. Topsided, to be sure, and does pretty ok to level 5 or 7 but the lack of AC and the power level of feats vs. rage powers will lead me to choose a straight fighter virtually every time. Other than a couple level dip if it fits my concept (i.e. my infamous cannibal halfling).
I'm a bit believer in roleplay trumping mechanics, but I think you're looking at "optimize" a bit wrongly.
The features I've promoted are things which are grounded in flavor, not mechanical advantage. They just happen to give mechanical advantage right alongside giving flavor.
A product of the company I have kept and the circles I've ran at one point or another. I implied nothing at -- and do agree -- with the beta Barbarian. Math for Chaos seemed rather appropriate, if oddly unexpected.
Much to my dismay, I could not locate a copy of the Forsaker Prestige class from that wonderfully broken book "Sword snd Fist", but surely there have to be some aspects of that class that are worth appropriating and adapting?
And I ... disagree with that. Let him actually get infused with the "spirit of fury" itself and cause his very being to swell with unadulterated rage to be brought down upon the heads of his enemies that he may better cleave them from navel to chops!Flavorwise there is certainly some justification. Grendel swelled with rage entering Heorot, and all.
Mechanically, getting natural reach might be a bit much though. And there's plenty of legendary berserkers who weren't known for growing ten feet tall when they got angry too.
It might work as a higher level rage power. Man I'm liking the idea of a special list of level 12+ rage powers more and more the more I think about it. Enlarge person as an always-on-while-raging?
Absolutely! A rage power at a mid-high range that does this the the duration of a rage is perfectly fine, and *maybe* even under-powered.
Keep in mind Enlarge Person is a 1st level spell - extremely minor by 12th level (even by 1st level standards, actually). If it's granted "in rage only" then it's only a matter of how many rounds of rage a barbarian has. At 1st level it's very, very little. 4+con mod - being "average" or "sensible" that's 6 rounds of rage, or about 36 seconds or 1/2 a minute. If a caster were do use it, it's 1 min/level in duration. It's highly, HIGHLY restricted by comparison. On that, I could see just letting it fly as a "low level" rage power - earliest available by 2nd.
A 12th level caster doing it has a full 12 minutes - barbarian rage will NOT last that long ...
But this is just a matter of "what's appropriate" and where to put it. Power-wise, totally fits! :-)
@Me'Mori: it's not so much about #'s as finding a way to give the barbarian's "thing" back to him. I'm a long-standing fan of the way that rage points from Beta worked out with the rage powers. The way they settled upon, however, effectively highly limits and restricts those powers (that were there to give an edge/bonus in the first place) and while interesting have mechanically lost their power. It's one thing if you're blowing all your rage points on heavy output and the like - you're choosing to spend 'em that way. It's something else when you're suddenly relegated to spell-like "fire and forget" with your options in a rage for things that DO NOT approach the level of "real" fire and forget effects in the game (ie: spells).
I didn't forsake anything. The standard for comparing characters in 1e was exp, not levels.Except it makes no sense to compare characters of equal level across classes in 1e.*can't resist*
One! Two!! Three!!!
FORSAKER!
While the class itself required that the player act rather directly against the standard process of kill -- loot -- upgrade, are there not some valid things that can be taken from the class as a potential addition to the Barbarian?
Me'mori is talking about the 3.0 Prestige class the Foresaker, a barbarian like class that had spell resistance and acted as if using magic weapons of various plusses (when plusses were important to overcome DR), but couldn't use magic items or spells.
You wouldn't say that if you saw my party with reasonably optimized ftr and barbarian.Eh. I think barbarians are on par or on top levels 1-9, fighters subsequently pull even and ahead, but that the disparity is not glaring in either direction.Fighters are better than Barbarians.
/thread
Haven't see that for my self, but I agree that really is how it looks to me.
Me'mori is talking about the 3.0 Prestige class the Foresaker, a barbarian like class that had spell resistance and acted as if using magic weapons of various plusses (when plusses were important to overcome DR), but couldn't use magic items or spells.I didn't forsake anything. The standard for comparing characters in 1e was exp, not levels.Except it makes no sense to compare characters of equal level across classes in 1e.*can't resist*
One! Two!! Three!!!
FORSAKER!
While the class itself required that the player act rather directly against the standard process of kill -- loot -- upgrade, are there not some valid things that can be taken from the class as a potential addition to the Barbarian?
Horrible, horrible prestige though. Luckylly they transformed it in vow of poverty.
Many of the differences depend on what level you look at them. A fighter might have damage reduction, but not until level 19. Before that point, the barbarian will be the only one with it, and he can have even more if he uses rage powers to boost it up. So at say, level 16, the barbarian can have a DR of 7, compared to a DR of nothing.
Yeah so the Barbarian takes 18 damage instead of 19 damage when the Fighter has a far better chance of not getting hit at all.
And never mind by the time you have that DR of 7 you are facing things with a standard damage bonus of +8 to +16. Great, so when you get hit more than the fighter, you are going to die slower.
Hey all! Definitely go take a look at version 2 of my re-build for the class (barbarian).
It's in the house rules section, so hit me with the feedback (2nd version is with input from posters to modify and fine-tune it - coming along nicely I think).
The thing with the fighter getting it AT ALL is that it completely cheapens yet one more thing the barbarian had over other classes (not that 5 mattered much, mind you given the damage bonuses and such, but still).
You'll find my version goes pretty far towards addressing this particular issue.
Hey all! Definitely go take a look at version 2 of my re-build for the class (barbarian).
It's in the house rules section, so hit me with the feedback (2nd version is with input from posters to modify and fine-tune it - coming along nicely I think).
The thing with the fighter getting it AT ALL is that it completely cheapens yet one more thing the barbarian had over other classes (not that 5 mattered much, mind you given the damage bonuses and such, but still).
You'll find my version goes pretty far towards addressing this particular issue.
Link it.
Man ... I was afraid some would ask - I don't really know how.
Here's the address: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/speakersBarbarianVersion20
I'll try that code tags stuff now ... see if it does anything ...
Speaker's Barbarian Version 2.0
Edit After: HOLY CRAP!!! It worked!!! WooHaa!!! Go me!!!
I didn't forsake anything. The standard for comparing characters in 1e was exp, not levels.Except it makes no sense to compare characters of equal level across classes in 1e.*can't resist*
One! Two!! Three!!!
FORSAKER!
While the class itself required that the player act rather directly against the standard process of kill -- loot -- upgrade, are there not some valid things that can be taken from the class as a potential addition to the Barbarian?
Apologies. It is my favorite out of all the classes published in that era, because a human could take two of the three required feats at character start (Great Fortitude, Iron Will), and the third by level 3 (Lighting Reflexes), jumping directly into the prestige class at level 4. It also made a nice play on counting; 1, 2, 3, Forsaker. I used your post as a reference since you seemed the most relevant post to quote at the time.
Where is that now? I can't seem to find a mention in the PRD where I thought it was.
Edit: I can find where it says that thing about the *actual* size, but where is the part about resizing for the wearer?
When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn't be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.
There may be rare exceptions, especially with race-specific items.
Armor and Weapon Sizes: Armor and weapons that are found at random have a 30% chance of being Small (01–30), a 60% chance of being Medium (31–90), and a 10% chance of being any other size (91–100).
You wouldn't say that if you saw my party with reasonably optimized ftr and barbarian.Eh. I think barbarians are on par or on top levels 1-9, fighters subsequently pull even and ahead, but that the disparity is not glaring in either direction.Fighters are better than Barbarians.
/thread
Not much I can say to this unless you post said reasonably optimized ftr and barbarian. Otherwise its just "why did you post that, there is no possible response."
I've played a barbarian myself in a higher level one shot (13th level) as well as a fighter at lower levels, I'm not entirely talking out my ass here.
Yeah the "in my game" response isn't really a valid one for determining whether a barbarian is effective or not simply because the situations, players and encounter style vary so much. So, the only way to look at it reasonably is to examine the class itself outside the context of a game, ie just look at the numbers.
Which has been done. The fighter is stronger in nearly all situations.
guys, sorry to repeat myself but a revision won't happen, our only hope to fix the barbarian is thru new rage powers. suggest those.
I wouldn't be so sure. The Advanced Players Guide may very well have some alternate class features that are more complicated (as befits the APG) but also more powerful. There have been some hints that the Fighter will have some alternate features and the same could be true of the terribly lackluster Barb.
guys, sorry to repeat myself but a revision won't happen, our only hope to fix the barbarian is thru new rage powers. suggest those.
Well ... if you're stuck on "official" then I guess that's possible. Me, I'm a system mechanic at heart - don't tell me I can't rebuild it to suit my taste, or that of my gaming group. If you don't want to - by all means, you're entitled to that.
Attempting to prevent discussion amongst those that are interested otherwise - no.
I've not no beef w/modding or adding on more rage powers ... it will not go far enough to "fix" the problems I've seen, but at least it's something.
Especially if "no revision" is possible, then all of the existing rage powers (with few exceptions) would need whole new rage-power entries that attempt to correct whatever went wrong in the first place ... or wait? Is that a revision as well? And therefore useless?
Hmm ... I'd think that the company itself saying, "Whoops!" and announcing the intention to make more rage powers is akin to a "revision" myself, but hey - maybe my view's skewed because I'd like a full on revision anyway.
:shrugs:
Discussion, however, doesn't hurt at all.
As I wrote in the Barbarian thread the barb is way underbalanced compared to the fighter. The difference is the fighter has powers that are always "on". No need to keep track of rounds for to hit & damage bonuses and no AC penalty. What is the point of weapon training? It seems uneeded compared to focus & spec and the greater variants of these feats. It just seems like extra cheese on a class that does not need it.
I agree with the armor traning. A soldier used to wearing heavy armor constantly would be more mobile than a person who occansionaly uses it. I totaly disagree with the fighter getting DR at 17th level. What? She finally learned how to roll with a punch after 17 levels? Garbage.
The main problem I have with the fighter is that his combat power is too good for being always on. Differences in classes are built upon managing your resources. Casters are more powered than melee at higher levels due to the fact that they have to manage when they use their big guns. Fighters don't manage anything. Their powers work against every monster in the book all the time. Even creatures immune to stunning, criticals, ability damage, ect. take damage from all basic fighter meele attacks. Something that overpowering should not be better than a class that has a limited use meele ability.
As I wrote in the Barbarian thread the barb is way underbalanced compared to the fighter. The difference is the fighter has powers that are always "on". No need to keep track of rounds for to hit & damage bonuses and no AC penalty. What is the point of weapon training? It seems uneeded compared to focus & spec and the greater variants of these feats. It just seems like extra cheese on a class that does not need it.
I agree with the armor traning. A soldier used to wearing heavy armor constantly would be more mobile than a person who occansionaly uses it. I totaly disagree with the fighter getting DR at 17th level. What? She finally learned how to roll with a punch after 17 levels? Garbage.
The main problem I have with the fighter is that his combat power is too good for being always on. Differences in classes are built upon managing your resources. Casters are more powered than melee at higher levels due to the fact that they have to manage when they use their big guns. Fighters don't manage anything. Their powers work against every monster in the book all the time. Even creatures immune to stunning, criticals, ability damage, ect. take damage from all basic fighter meele attacks. Something that overpowering should not be better than a class that has a limited use meele ability.
Very well said. I would like to add that the fighter's ability to be soo much better than a barbarian, especially with the action use eliminating stacking of effects, even outshines the bonuses to skills a barbarian has.
I find it appropriate for the fighter to be the most powerful melee class in terms of damage potential and AC (I'd actually nerf the paladin just a bit to make this really true). The reason is simple: it can't do anything else, while the barbarian with 2 more skill points as double the versatility outside of combat.
as for the feats, how many of them are worth uncanny dodge and improved u.d alone?
it's true that some rage power are somewhat lame, but all in all I think the barbarian is quite well balanced when compared to the fighter: maybe a little bit more of DR could be considered, as it is now it's a bit low, and maybe mighty rage could arrive a couple of levels earlier, but still I'm convinced that barbarian remain a solid choice when compared to a fighter.
I can't help but think sometimes the argument that this class or that class is woefully underpowered and unbalanced is more about:
"Darnit, I'm not more powerful than everyone else anymore!"
Plus, its not always about combat. It's not. I know RPG's feature tons of combat, but sometimes its more about flavor.
So...don't like the Barbarian? Play a Fighter and pretend to be an uncouth, uncivilized brute. Because it sounds like all anyone is wanting here is a fighter that outfights the Fighter.
I can't help but think sometimes the argument that this class or that class is woefully underpowered and unbalanced is more about:
"Darnit, I'm not more powerful than everyone else anymore!"
Plus, its not always about combat. It's not. I know RPG's feature tons of combat, but sometimes its more about flavor.
So...don't like the Barbarian? Play a Fighter and pretend to be an uncouth, uncivilized brute. Because it sounds like all anyone is wanting here is a fighter that outfights the Fighter.
Not at all, I think you misunderstand. The Barbarian class is nearly unplayable as written and has built in fatal flaws. Past a certain level when you rage you're sealing your own demise because if you ever fall unconscious from damage you die instantly. To utilize your abilities you want to not wear heavy armor, but until you're at a level where you have easy access to a multitude of magic items that give other bonuses to AC your armor class is going to be abyssmal because of this (and because when you use your CLASS DEFINING ABILITY your ac is reduced by 2). Vs the fighter you get 11 less feats, which is a huge amount of versatility in and potentially out of combat, and in return you get an average of 1 HP per level and 2 skill points per level more, which is a really unfair traid IMO.
It boils down to using the Rage Powers to try to balance the class, and that might be possible with the APG but at the moment there just aren't enough powers that are equal in power to a feat of the same level. I don't want the barbarian to be stronger than the fighter AT FIGHTING because as it has been said he does have some versatility outside of combat. He should be as useful overall, which I strongly feel is not the case at the moment.
Has any actually played in group with fighter and barbarian?
I have and I can say the barbarian holds up just fine next to the fighter. When raging the Barbarian was pretty much equal to the fighter and this was at level 14. With out rage the fighter was definitely superior but the Barbarian had more than enough rage to last through days encounters. There were times when the fighter was better and times when the barbarian was better. Though I have to say I like fighters better than Barbarian myself. Purely preference but seeing them in play the Barbarian is not getting the short end of the stick. On paper though I do agree the Barbarian does look less appealing.
Monks and Barbarians are often considered the weakest classes in the game.
One of our players has a multiclass orc barbarian/monk. Nevertheless he outfights everyone else in the party by a large margin and provides a significant contribution to our adventuring group (and many of the rest of us are optimizers so its not for lack of trying).
Sometimes I think the people on these boards focus too much on the wrong things. Too often do I see "Class X can't stand up to Class Y" rather than "Class X can't contribute to the party as well as Class Y."
Monks suck in games*. I practically ignore them. I don't nerf them or have any anti-monk rules. They just don't do anything to make the party miss them if the player can't show up. If the party does not miss you(general statement) then you must not be too valuable. The barbarian has not seen yet past level 10. I have one in a game I am running. I will post his results once he gets to level 11+.
I actually like the idea of an unarmed guy holding his own in a world of magic, and monsters, but the mechanics just don't allow it to be.
*My own experience, but they are still fun to play.
PS: sorry for the threadjack.
Has any actually played in group with fighter and barbarian?
I have and I can say the barbarian holds up just fine next to the fighter. When raging the Barbarian was pretty much equal to the fighter and this was at level 14. With out rage the fighter was definitely superior but the Barbarian had more than enough rage to last through days encounters. There were times when the fighter was better and times when the barbarian was better. Though I have to say I like fighters better than Barbarian myself. Purely preference but seeing them in play the Barbarian is not getting the short end of the stick. On paper though I do agree the Barbarian does look less appealing.
I have. I played an entire adventure path from 1-17 or so with a barbarian and a fighter. straight fighter, 2hander, power attack and cleave and the fighter is a shield slam build. Level 1-3 barbarian shook the house with damage, around level 5 they were even, level 8 fighter pulled ahead, and by level 12 the barbarian was crying that fighters are OP.
aside from having similar numbers damage wise, the fighter was a bull-rushin machine and had an AC a full 10+ higher than the Barbar (dodge, expertise, +5 shield, full plate). Barbarian fell SO often in combat it was absurd, and he even tried to concentrate on defense with magic items.
Seriously man, 11 bonus feats, weapon training, armor training, tower shields, nothing in Barbarian comes close.