|
And lastly, as said earlier, it's inconsitant. Wizards have to study for years to master magic, as do clerics in the service of a god. Sorcerers need to posssess in herit magical abilites, Paladins are chosen by their gods, bards need not only magical talent, but muscial talent to tie it with. The Barbarian? He doesn't need any work, he can just make his weapon drip acid by being angry.
And that's where I call BS, the barbarian doesn't just need to be really angry, that would be if the ability was available at first level.
He needs to survive through 11 levels of incredible hardship and constant battle with variety of magical beasts, being blasted by gods know what magical effects and seeing sights not meant for mortal eyes. After which he has learned to channel the fundemental forces of magic by sheer force of his rage which at this point is strong enough to enable him shatter steel like glass and leap casms that normal men believe uncrossable with a single bound, but is non-magical (my behind).
And I've talked with several groups as well, I've been networking the entire central FL area to enable as many gamers to form groups as you have. I'm not going to say their aren't douches out there who would argue, but from my experience it hasn't been problematic which is why anecdotal experience shouldn't be taken into account here. and I know several DMs that when a game starts pull out a packet of houserules that alter core.
And in 3.5 I've known both online and in real life several DMs who outright banned natural spell from their games. That's 3.5 core, are you telling me that if a feat was so easy to ban, it would be somehow harder to ban an optional class feature, that probably isn't going to taken anyways because it's not as strong as other available options so is purely a flavor choice, but somehow it's existence ruins the entire flavor of your world?
Turin, I believe your understanding of Immediate Actions is identical to how they're described in the Beta (and 3.5),
so I don't really know how they could be better described than they currently are.And in your example, yes, as I take it, in Round 2 the Barbarian could not take ANY Swift Action (Rage Power OR OTHERWISE), though they COULD take another Immediate Action, which of course prevents any Swift Actions in Round 3...
Thank you Quandry. My way of looking at immediate actions is that it irks me - if nothing else as just one of my many quirks - that "interrupts" are in any way, shape or form an element of game play. They're tolerable when they are personal and either curative or defensive, in my opinion. And I blunty despise the concept of "borrowing now to pay you back on Tuesday" that immediate actions can be used to do.
And it is far worse (especially for Extraordinary abilities!) when such abilities are accessible - and are for all practical purposes routinely useable - before a Cleric, Druid or Wizard can hope to match that with anything other than Feather Fall can emulate via Quickened Spell tacked onto a simple 1st level spell.
After farther consideration about why these abilities it has become clear that they are also immediate actions to allow to be used in conjunction with attacks of opportunity. So if some one tries to get past you, the barbarain yells "FOE!" and smacks them outside their head and back 15 feat, I am sure they will think twice before trying that again.
And in 3.5 I've known both online and in real life several DMs who outright banned natural spell from their games. That's 3.5 core, are you telling me that if a feat was so easy to ban, it would be somehow harder to ban an optional class feature, that probably isn't going to taken anyways because it's not as strong as other available options so is purely a flavor choice, but somehow it's existence ruins the entire flavor of your world?
That's not the point. DMs can add houserules to fix stuff they don't like, fine, not the point. I posted a longer explanation just a bit back, but what it boils down to is that Pathfinder shouldn't be changing the major themes each class is built on, or the iconic roles they fill, if it's going to be trying to be as easily convertible from 3.5 as possible.
Now where a class needs to be improved to help game balance, it's forgivable. But Elemental Rage adds absolutely nothing from a game balance perspective, and screws with some of the basics of barbarians (namely that they were non-magical to the point of being a sort of wizard antithesis in 3.5). There's no reason at all Elemental Rage couldn't have it's name changed to something like Vicious Blows, and the elemental damage changed to just a normal damage buff. The people that want a magical barbarian can describe it how they like, and the core class keeps it's classic themes and roles.
|
|
but what it boils down to is that Pathfinder shouldn't be changing the major themes each class is built on, or the iconic roles they fill, if it's going to be trying to be as easily convertible from 3.5 as possible.
I don't get what you are saying here at all, flavor has always been mutable from the very begining, and the flavor of the barbarian was that they were uncivilized cultures fighters.
Now where a class needs to be improved to help game balance, it's forgivable. But Elemental Rage adds absolutely nothing from a game balance perspective, and screws with some of the basics of barbarians (namely that they were non-magical to the point of being a sort of wizard antithesis in 3.5).
Now your just making things up. actually you aren't what you are doing is importing the original barbarian from waaayyy back and saying it applies to 3.5. As a person who learned with 3.5 I can tell you that the class in no way shape or form conforms to your statement above about being the wizard antithesis. Barbarians could have just as much magical gear as any other class, they couldn't read, but that didn't stop them from putting cross class ranks in UMD. There was nothing inherently non-magical about the class, it just lacked magic powers. the class still lacks magical powers however it has one supernatural power that actually enables a barbarian to mimic some real world cultures. We are at disagreement that it "adds nothing to the game"
There's no reason at all Elemental Rage couldn't have it's name changed to something like Vicious Blows, and the elemental damage changed to just a normal damage buff. The people that want a magical barbarian can describe it how they like, and the core class keeps it's classic themes and roles.
You're absolutely right, go ahead and houserule that for your games, but don't take it away from me who wants to have it because I can create a shoanti spirit rager for whom the flavor fits and saves me from having to make something up or multiclass, or try to convince a DM to change something they may not be inclined to change.
After farther consideration about why these abilities it has become clear that they are also immediate actions to allow to be used in conjunction with attacks of opportunity. So if some one tries to get past you, the barbarain yells "FOE!" and smacks them outside their head and back 15 feat, I am sure they will think twice before trying that again.
Exactly. I think the way this works is GREAT.
...And I'm not sure, but are would an Immediate Action be usable even in a Surprise Round, before the Barb. has acted?(Which makes perfect sense considering the Barb. gets Uncanny Dodge & all)
I don't get what you are saying here at all, flavor has always been mutable from the very begining, and the flavor of the barbarian was that they were uncivilized cultures fighters.
Exactly, not "uncivilized magical fighters"
Now your just making things up. actually you aren't what you are doing is importing the original barbarian from waaayyy back and saying it applies to 3.5. As a person who learned with 3.5 I can tell you that the class in no way shape or form conforms to your statement above about being the wizard antithesis. Barbarians could have just as much magical gear as any other class, they couldn't read, but that didn't stop them from putting cross class ranks in UMD. There was nothing inherently non-magical about the class, it just lacked magic powers. the class still lacks magical powers however it has one supernatural power that actually enables a barbarian to mimic some real world cultures. We are at disagreement that it "adds nothing to the game"
As someone who learned with 3.5, I can say thats wrong. I've always viewed a barbarian as a non-magical warrior, in fact, one of the first things I noticed about the barbarian was that out of 11 core classes if was one of 4 that didn't get spells. I repeat, that was the first thing that noticed about it. The class was inheritly non-magical, the class had as much magic potential as a commoner (note, that is not an exaggeration, you claim the barbarian can still put ranks in UMD, theres nothing to stop a commoner doing that).
You're absolutely right, go ahead and houserule that for your games, but don't take it away from me who wants to have it because I can create a shoanti spirit rager for whom the flavor fits...
You say don't take away your idea of a spirit rager, what I hear is "My idea should be encouraged in core". Just because it fits with a single character idea of yours doesn't make it a good option. You want us to apply houserules so you can keep a single barbarian idea when it would be so much easier the other way around?
P.S I love how everyone responded to my previous point. I claim I wouldn't mind if magical options were given to every class and everyone then points out the rogue, failing to forget the fighter which not only has no magical abilities, doesn't even have abilities which could resemble magic. Please don't use the arugment of "But every class does cater to other cultures" when every class doesn't.
After farther consideration about why these abilities it has become clear that they are also immediate actions to allow to be used in conjunction with attacks of opportunity. So if some one tries to get past you, the barbarain yells "FOE!" and smacks them outside their head and back 15 feat, I am sure they will think twice before trying that again.Exactly. I think the way this works is GREAT.
...And I'm not sure, but are would an Immediate Action be usable even in a Surprise Round, before the Barb. has acted?
(Which makes perfect sense considering the Barb. gets Uncanny Dodge & all)
I have a great new ability/feat idea for the barbarian.
This probably should be a flat barbarian ability, but it could be down-gradable to a rage power, a feat, or split into a mixture of ability/feat, or maybe a power/feat combination.
Ability format\
Prepped Rage Power.
At 7th level a barbarian may prepare a rage power 1 turn in advance. It still uses up that action required to use the power the turn in advance that it was prepared in, but not an action in which it is used. So now you may use two powers that normally couldn't be combined at once.
At 14th level a barbarian may prepare a rage power up to 2 turns in advance. Thus allowing for 3 rage powers to be used at once in advance. Also prepping a rage power maybe, if they chose to, done as a swift action instead of an immediate action.
__________________________
This would allow some neat combination such as power surge and knockback. So if you prep ahead of time you could send an enemy flying.
Now a feat version would be once per day, probably, and the rage power probably would be once per minute.
What you guys think?
Well I guess I will just have to present it as a feat, when the feat section comes up.
|
|
Exactly, not "uncivilized magical fighters"
Did the barbarian start casting spells? no he gained a couple of supernatural powers.
As someone who learned with 3.5, I can say thats wrong. I've always viewed a barbarian as a non-magical warrior, in fact, one of the first things I noticed about the barbarian was that out of 11 core classes if was one of 4 that didn't get spells. I repeat, that was the first thing that noticed about it. The class was inheritly non-magical, the class had as much magic potential as a commoner (note, that is not an exaggeration, you claim the barbarian can still put ranks in UMD, theres nothing to stop a commoner doing that).
Your absolutely right, there's nothing to stop any class from doing it which means that in 3.5 there is no "antithesis to the wizard" which is what I was responding too. Are you saying that the rogue, barbarian, swashbuckler, samuri, fighter, commoner, warrior, aristocrat, monk, and every other class created that don't cast spells are antithesis of the wizard?
You say don't take away your idea of a spirit rager, what I hear is "My idea should be encouraged in core". Just because it fits with a single character idea of yours doesn't make it a good option. You want us to apply houserules so you can keep a single barbarian idea when it would be so much easier the other way around?
Oh yeah, I forgot that native american culture doesn't also reflect it, it's only my shoanti spirit rager. Or heck what about a character concept that his rage is fueled by a demonic possesion. If I really need to I can sit here and think of over 30 different character concepts for a barbarian that could use that ability give me a week and I could write up 100, or I could just take your route and say that what I hear is "I'm too narrow minded and uncreative that an option would threaten how I picture the identity of the barbarian".
then since its an option argue that its a lot easier for a DM to say hey don't take that (there are plenty of alternatives, heck or the DM could just take Brodiggans idea), than it is for a player to say, hey DM would you allow my homebrewed houserule into the game so I don't have to multiclass?
P.S I love how everyone responded to my previous point. I claim I wouldn't mind if magical options were given to every class and everyone then points out the rogue, failing to forget the fighter which not only has no magical abilities, doesn't even have abilities which could resemble magic. Please don't use the arugment of "But every class does cater to other cultures" when every class doesn't.
Oh yeah hmm, how could I possibly respond to that? oh i've got it, the fighters optional class features are feats, of which only 10 have to be used for combat purposes, unless you can show me a feat tree that uses all 20 feat slots then I can point you to a bunch of feats that a non-magical class can take to get some (su) powers without multiclassing. Are you saying that we should ban the fighter from taking those feats because the fighter is a non-magical class? Happy? I've responded.
And If you try to argue that the fact that any class can take them I'll respond that the difference is that other classes have to take them at the cost of feats that allow them to be more effective for their role, the fighter is the only class that can really "afford" feats for flavor. Without suffering for it.
Did the barbarian start casting spells? no he gained a couple of supernatural powers.
The fact that it's supernatural and not spells makes it unmagical? This doesn't address my reason for disliking it at all.
Oh yeah, I forgot that native american culture doesn't also reflect it, it's only my shoanti spirit rager. Or heck what about a character concept that his rage is fueled by a demonic possesion. If I really need to I can sit here and think of over 30 different character concepts for a barbarian that could use that ability give me a week and I could write up 100, or I could just take your route and say that what I hear is "I'm too narrow minded and uncreative that an option would threaten how I picture the identity of the barbarian".
then since its an option argue that its a lot easier for a DM to say hey don't take that (there are plenty of alternatives, heck or the DM could just take Brodiggans idea), than it is for a player to say, hey DM would you allow my homebrewed houserule into the game so I don't have to multiclass?
Narrow-minded? Uncreative? Feel free to ask my group (which do read this forum), they might say I'm not the best player in the world, but the last thing they'll say is that I've ever done a boring, unnimagiinative character. (And note, while I said how I felt you came across to me, I never insulted you, so don't insult me).
My problem isn't that a character has access to magical powers, it's that the barbarian gains it as a class feature. There are plenty of better ways to gain magical powers, other ways which don't involve building it directly into the class. Has the thought of multiclassing ever occuried to you? What about feats which can grant magical powers? Being a Rage power, it will never have fluff tied directly to it, so it can very easily just be interpretated as "You get mad, your weapon now deals fire damage". Isn't the whole point of feats, character traits, and ability scores to make your character unique?
And while you might have "30 different character conceapts" do you actually itend to play them all? Are you honestly going to have a horde of barbarian PC's running around with elemental rage? I've been playing D'n'D for about 5 years now, and I don't think I've played 30 characters in total, let along 30 characters in a single class.
As for games with no multiclassing, what would be the point of such a houserule? If it's to limit what the characters are capable of then keeping elemental rage is counter-prodcutive. If it's to stop min-maxing and power gamming then I wouldn't bother, I can think of plenty of power-builds which don't require multiclassing at all. Also you seem to be missing the point of multiclassing, it's to allow players to make characters which don't fit into a specific class, such as say...a warrior who just happens to have access to magical powers.
Oh yeah hmm, how could I possibly respond to that? oh i've got it, the fighters optional class features are feats, of which only 10 have to be used for combat purposes, unless you can show me a feat tree that uses all 20 feat slots then I can point you to a bunch of feats that a non-magical class can take to get some (su) powers without multiclassing. Are you saying that we should ban the fighter from taking those feats because the fighter is a non-magical class? Happy? I've responded.
No actually, I ain't happy. If these options are as viable as you say, why are you so insistant on keeping elemental rage? These feats should be more than enough.
You can't have both, one way or the other. Either feats and other character options are a viable means of making semi-magical characters on there own or they're not.
Also you're missing the point, you have to spend the feats the character normally gains to get them, therefore the fighter doesn't have any class features which allow semi-magical options. There are several character creation options that allow them, but not fighter class features. Besides, I've never found sacrificing feats for flavour to be a problem, on the contrary, I've unintentionally created overpowered characters in the past simply by taking feats which just look interested.
How are Feats fundamentally different than Rage Powers? Both have many more options than you have the ability to gain (Feats/Rage Powers)
Likewise the Minor/Major Arcana Rogue Tricks...
it seems like Pathfinder is pretty consistently giving the option for things like this.
since they're all OPTIONS, just like no-one is FORCED to be a 2 Weapon Fighting Ranger, it doesn't force an archetype on anyone.
Your character doesn't actually know (in-character) that they may have access to Supernatural Powers.
|
|
lastknightleft wrote:
Did the barbarian start casting spells? no he gained a couple of supernatural powers.
The fact that it's supernatural and not spells makes it unmagical? This doesn't address my reason for disliking it at all.
I guess I just see being able to jump chasms, or be unconcerned about jumping casms because you can reliably survive the unstopped plummet to the earth, get up and try again, get up and try again, get up, drink a potion to heal the damage and try again, get up and try again, or, you know, stand for 5 minutes in a fully stoked fireplace naked, or bash through a 2 inch thick steel wall, as magical allready. Those are all things that are possible from a level 12 barbarian depending on build, but getting angry enough that his rage alters reality in a world where reality is mutable to begin with, that's too much.
Narrow-minded? Uncreative? Feel free to ask my group (which do read this forum), they might say I'm not the best player in the world, but the last thing they'll say is that I've ever done a boring, unnimagiinative character. (And note, while I said how I felt you came across to me, I never insulted you, so don't insult me).
Your right, I took your dismissiveness as insulting, if you weren't trying to be dismissive with that comment then sorry for getting offended.
My problem isn't that a character has access to magical powers, it's that the barbarian gains it as a class feature. There are plenty of better ways to gain magical powers, other ways which don't involve building it directly into the class. Has the thought of multiclassing ever occuried to you? What about feats which can grant magical powers? Being a Rage power, it will never have fluff tied directly to it, so it can very easily just be interpretated as "You get mad, your weapon now deals fire damage". Isn't the whole point of feats, character traits, and ability scores to make your character unique?
Yes, but for a minor power like that to match flavor it shouldn't require a huge break like multiclassing for a minor bit of flavor. Not to mention that while multiclassing can be a powerful tool, it can also seriously hurt your character. As for feats, see below.
And while you might have "30 different character conceapts" do you actually itend to play them all? Are you honestly going to have a horde of barbarian PC's running around with elemental rage? I've been playing D'n'D for about 5 years now, and I don't think I've played 30 characters in total, let along 30 characters in a single class.
So because I couldn't possibly play them all, despite the fact that there are aparently a lot of other players who agree with me who have wanted similar characters so I'm pretty sure that while I'm not going to be playing them, someone somewhere probably already has it as what he's playing next.
As for games with no multiclassing, what would be the point of such a houserule? If it's to limit what the characters are capable of then keeping elemental rage is counter-prodcutive. If it's to stop min-maxing and power gamming then I wouldn't bother, I can think of plenty of power-builds which don't require multiclassing at all. Also you seem to be missing the point of multiclassing, it's to allow players to make characters which don't fit into a specific class, such as say...a warrior who just happens to have access to magical powers.
Umm can you say strawman? when did I ever say that multiclassing wasn't allowed or that the option needed to be there for games where multiclassing isn't allowed.
The closest I've come is the argument that I just made that multiclassing is a rather significant departure and isn't always cost productive. but seeing how I made that argument now and not before you said what you did...
No actually, I ain't happy. If these options are as viable as you say, why are you so insistant on keeping elemental rage? These feats should be more than enough.You can't have both, one way or the other. Either feats and other character options are a viable means of making semi-magical characters on there own or they're not.
hmmm pay attention when the teacher speaks class
And If you try to argue that the fact that any class can take them I'll respond that the difference is that other classes have to take them at the cost of feats that allow them to be more effective for their role, the fighter is the only class that can really "afford" feats for flavor. Without suffering for it.
Also you're missing the point, you have to spend the feats the character normally gains to get them, therefore the fighter doesn't have any class features which allow semi-magical options.
Dude, feats are a fighters class feature. If you are going to argue that they aren't then we might as well stop talking because we have completely opposite ideas of what class features are. I might also point out that since there are more rage powers than a single character can get you have to "spend" rage powers in the exact same way you "spend" feats.
There are several character creation options that allow them, but not fighter class features. Besides, I've never found sacrificing feats for flavour to be a problem, on the contrary, I've unintentionally created overpowered characters in the past simply by taking feats which just look interested.
Yeah I have taken feats for flavor too, and wound up seriously behind in the power curve for it when I played in a group that didn't. Worked out for you great, once again, because it works out for you doesn't mean it works out for everybody, and we want this to be a game for everybody, not just Nero24200. How does having it there hurt your game or any barbarian you would build. how is it so hard to ignore. And how can you tell me that it's easier for the player to add it to his game if it isn't an option than it is for the dm to disallow it? Basically the gist is you don't want barbarians to have any "magical powers", I don't understand why you just can't not have magical powers for the barbarian in your game. And lets say the worst happens, the player creates a barbarian with the power taken at level 12. If he could just take a feat or multiclass to have gotten the power then what difference does it make? Ohh sudenly he was able to do it much more effectively without potentially hurting himself by loosing a feat (which in most of the games I play precious) or taking a whole level which means he wont progres with his other powers for a level and miss out on the capstone power all because he came to the game with a concept that doesn't fit into your box?
|
To be fair I'm a member of Nero's group and I'm actually all for the elemental rage powers and the like. So far we since the rules came out we have had/ proposed 3 barbarians. 2 of the barbarians the catfolk one and the shifter one I'm about to do are very much the traditional angry barbarian type so elemental rage doesn't really fit in. The third one plans to be a tiefling barbarian im my next campaign and I can see elemental rage as something like channelling into her demonic heritage to set her axe ablaze which I think is really cool.
through a 20 lvl career a barbarian will get 10 rage powers. Now if there were only 10 powers to chose from then I would say there was a problem since you would then at some point be forced to take it. Since there will more likely be closer to 20 rage powers I don't think it becomes a problem since your not forced to take it. If it's an option no problem.
|
|
The third one plans to be a tiefling barbarian im my next campaign and I can see elemental rage as something like channelling into her demonic heritage to set her axe ablaze which I think is really cool.
Or heck what about a character concept that his rage is fueled by a demonic possesion.
despite the fact that there are aparently a lot of other players who agree with me who have wanted similar characters so I'm pretty sure that while I'm not going to be playing them, someone somewhere probably already has it as what he's playing next.
I rest my case your honor.
I guess I just see being able to jump chasms, or be unconcerned about jumping casms because you can reliably survive the unstopped plummet to the earth, get up and try again, get up and try again, get up, drink a potion to heal the damage and try again, get up and try again, or, you know, stand for 5 minutes in a fully stoked fireplace naked, or bash through a 2 inch thick steel wall, as magical allready. Those are all things that are possible from a level 12 barbarian depending on build, but getting angry enough that his rage alters reality in a world where reality is mutable to begin with, that's too much.
And? Most characters are capable of doing all of this at high levels, not everyone gains access to elemental rage though. The most immersion breaking aspect of D'n'D, for me, is the levelling system. simply by beating up a few goblins a wizard suddenly has access to higher spells, clerics and paladins gain more powers from their god etc. But it's a nessicery evil in an RPG, somthing like this just adds to it no end. At least when, in your example, a character jumps out of a tall building, or from atop a cliff, they still take damage. The amount of damage steadily becomes more insignificant, it's not a simple "You reach level X, congrats, falling damage isn't really that importent anymore" while elemental rage on the other hand is.
Yes, but for a minor power like that to match flavor it shouldn't require a huge break like multiclassing for a minor bit of flavor. Not to mention that while multiclassing can be a powerful tool, it can also seriously hurt your character.
Sorry, but that is just the power angle. You won't take class or ability XY and Z purely because you feel it makes your character less powerful. i'm not trying to say multiclassing won't weaken youc character, but it would fit magical barbarian conceapts better than a power like elemental rage. If you want demonic heritage, wouldn't levels in sorcerer (with the inferno or abyssel heritage) make more sense? (besides, the abilities they gain aren't actually that bad for a melee warrior anyway, I'd happily give a level to gain two claw attacks).
So because I couldn't possibly play them all, despite the fact that there are aparently a lot of other players who agree with me who have wanted similar characters so I'm pretty sure that while I'm not going to be playing them, someone somewhere probably already has it as what he's playing next.
And all these ideas popped up only after you saw elemental rage? There is nothing to stop such characters existing even if elemental rage is taken out. did you ever once houserule anything even remotely clsoe to this before you looked at the paizo rules? Whats to say that most of these players didn't simply look at the power and tried to tie a fluff reason to it?
Dude, feats are a fighters class feature.
No fighter feat allows a magical ability, therefore the fighter gains no magical class features.
Basically the gist is you don't want barbarians to have any "magical powers", I don't understand why you just can't not have magical powers for the barbarian in your game. And lets say the worst happens, the player creates a barbarian with the power taken at level 12. If he could just take a feat or multiclass to have gotten the power then what difference does it make?
A few, for one, no one would actually do it unless it fit their conceapt. In all honesty, if I played a barbarian under paizo rules, I'd probably just take elemental rage because it's simple and adds a damage bonus to attack, not to do with conceapt at all. Taking a feat or muticlassing, to me, means that the player is at least willing to sacrifice somthing to make their character unique and different.
Besides, how are most magical abilities handeled anyway? Gaining magical powers thruogh study requires high intellegence, gaining magical powers through spirits or divine beings requires wisdom, gaining innate magical pwoers requires charisma. You could, in theory, have a barbarian with a score of 3 in each mental ability, and have almost no understanding of the world around him/her, as long as he/she is able to hack their way through enough fodder they can then gain access to magical powers?
The third one plans to be a tiefling barbarian im my next campaign and I can see elemental rage as something like channelling into her demonic heritage to set her axe ablaze which I think is really cool.
Lets say this was my campaign, if I told you I didn't think such powers fitted a barbarian in my setting, would you argue?
That's 3.5 core, are you telling me that if a feat was so easy to ban, it would be somehow harder to ban an optional class feature, that probably isn't going to taken anyways because it's not as strong as other available options so is purely a flavor choice, but somehow it's existence ruins the entire flavor of your world?.
|
|
Sorry, but that is just the power angle. You won't take class or ability XY and Z purely because you feel it makes your character less powerful. i'm not trying to say multiclassing won't weaken youc character, but it would fit magical barbarian conceapts better than a power like elemental rage. If you want demonic heritage, wouldn't levels in sorcerer (with the inferno or abyssel heritage) make more sense? (besides, the abilities they gain aren't actually that bad for a melee warrior anyway, I'd happily give a level to gain two claw attacks).
No because then, you're actually a spellcaster, which doesn't fit the character at all. Your saying that in order to have a slight bit of magical power I have to go full out and cast spells. Nope no other way around it, you're either a spellcaster or you don't get any slight bit of magical power. I'm telling you that being a spellcaster fits the flavor of your character better than that minor power "I" don't like. Stop thinking for yourself you're ruining my campaign world with your twinky powergaming.
|
|
Lets say this was my campaign, if I told you I didn't think such powers fitted a barbarian in my setting, would you argue?
No I wouldn't, I'd suck it up and take the hit you forced me to take and I'd never argue once. Then when my turn to DM rolled around I'd allow it. Aparently you're players however argue a lot more about things you try to change for your settings.
A few, for one, no one would actually do it unless it fit their conceapt. In all honesty, if I played a barbarian under paizo rules, I'd probably just take elemental rage because it's simple and adds a damage bonus to attack, not to do with conceapt at all. Taking a feat or muticlassing, to me, means that the player is at least willing to sacrifice somthing to make their character unique and different.
And I'm the one who's making a power argument? a) if the argument is power then you've lost already because this is one of the weakest rage powers in the game so if your players are taking it "just for added damage" then you have more problems then magical rage. And if they are just taking it for extra damage then telling them that its called vicious blow and just adds 1d6 damage that isn't elemental wouldn't affect them in the slightest would it?
b)And once again what part of, more rage powers than a single character can take don't you understand. The player of the barbarian is sacrificing something to get the elemental rage, he's sacrificing better rage powers at the expense of a pretty weak and useless flavor power. And that is coming from a power aspect to the argument. Coming from a flavor aspect it's the easiest way to add a bit of flavor matching ability to my character. But you want to argue power lets argue power, I garuntee I'll win that arguement.
|
|
Lets say this was my campaign, if I told you I didn't think such powers fitted a barbarian in my setting, would you argue?
Actually yes Since I allowed you to do a psionic Feat fighter even though as you have mentioned on these forums yourself I don't like the feel of Psionic races, classes or abilities in general. It however is a mute point since like I said elemental rage doesn't fit my character concept so I wouldn't take it.
Oh and Lastnightleft I actually do agree with you on this but can you please tone down the snark a little?
And I'm the one who's making a power argument? a) if the argument is power then you've lost already because this is one of the weakest rage powers in the game so if your players are taking it "just for added damage" then you have more problems then magical rage. And if they are just taking it for extra damage then telling them that its called vicious blow and just adds 1d6 damage that isn't elemental wouldn't affect them in the slightest would it?
You underestimate how good elemental damage can be if used right. There is no shortage of creatures with damage reduction, or even immunity to damage types. Have you ever gone up against trolls or other creatures with regeneration? Without a source of fire or acid it can be almost immpossible.
b)And once again what part of, more rage powers than a single character can take don't you understand.
All the more reason why it shouldn't matter if elemental rage goes, it's not needed, and I'm constantly seeing paizo claim they're struggiling for space for the final print anyway. I do understand, you're the one that seems to be struggiling with the conceapt that maybe, just maybe, not everyone wants semi-magical barbarians in their setting. I am willing to accept the idea, I just think it should be the result of somthing like a feat, multiclassing, or some other idea, and not a direct class feature which has no magic orientated prereequisites.
Actually yes Since I allowed you to do a psionic Feat fighter even though as you have mentioned on these forums yourself I don't like the feel of Psionic races, classes or abilities in general.
And if you had mentioned this before the campaign I might have done a different character. I asked, you said you were okay with it. In fact I never heard you even remotely complain about psionics until about 2-3 weeks into said campaign.
No because then, you're actually a spellcaster, which doesn't fit the character at all. Your saying that in order to have a slight bit of magical power I have to go full out and cast spells. Nope no other way around it, you're either a spellcaster or you don't get any slight bit of magical power. I'm telling you that being a spellcaster fits the flavor of your character better than that minor power "I" don't like. Stop thinking for yourself you're ruining my campaign world with your twinky powergaming.
Wait, you're complaing that my method means you'd need to be able to use magic to use magical abilities? And as said before, I don't have a problem using feats to acheive magical effects.
Stop thinking for yourself you're ruining my campaign world with your twinky powergaming.
Yes, because what I say here is really going to ruin your games.
|
|
And if you had mentioned this before the campaign I might have done a different character. I asked, you said you were okay with it. In fact I never heard you even remotely complain about psionics until about 2-3 weeks into said campaign.
Even though elsewhere on these forums you said we complained about them before they were even ever used?
|
|
stop thinking for yourself you're ruining my campaign world with your twinky powergaming.Yes, because what I say here is really going to ruin your games.
heh, I was speaking as you man. Guess I should have used quotes around the phrase or something to make that clearer.
Anywho, I'm going to bow out of this discussion too, spellcasting is the only way you'll accept that a character in a magical world can have some kind of supernatural power that's fine, I just hope Jason doesn't feel an urge to conform to such a limited interpretation.
Hey Kevin, sorry for the snark, I guess I've been a little to stressed out of late and have been bringing home life to the forums.
heh, I was speaking as you man. Guess I should have used quotes around the phrase or something to make that clearer.
Thats nice, and when you're done being condensending why not use an actual argument? Being insulting only makes it seem as if you're running out of ways to counter my points.
Anywho, I'm going to bow out of this discussion too, spellcasting is the only way you'll accept that a character in a magical world can have some kind of supernatural power that's fine, I just hope Jason doesn't feel an urge to conform to such a limited interpretation.
If you read what I wrote, you'll note that I only have a problem with a class gaining supernatural powers as a class feature when it didn't before.
Even though elsewhere on these forums you said we complained about them before they were even ever used?
While I heard that you thought the classes might be overpowering, you had never once said you "don't like the feel of Psionic races, classes or abilities in general".In fact, when I first mention psionics, if I recall correctly you even contemplated converting an existing sorcerer NPC (Pride, the Mindflayer) into a Psion. Besides, I still asked and you did say you were fine with it.
|
|
heh, I was speaking as you man. Guess I should have used quotes around the phrase or something to make that clearer.
Thats nice, and when you're done being condensending why not use an actual argument? Being insulting only makes it seem as if you're running out of ways to counter my points.
Anywho, I'm going to bow out of this discussion too, spellcasting is the only way you'll accept that a character in a magical world can have some kind of supernatural power that's fine, I just hope Jason doesn't feel an urge to conform to such a limited interpretation.If you read what I wrote, you'll note that I only have a problem with a class gaining supernatural powers as a class feature when it didn't before.
Even though elsewhere on these forums you said we complained about them before they were even ever used?While I heard that you thought the classes might be overpowering, you had never once said you "don't like the feel of Psionic races, classes or abilities in general".In fact, when I first mention psionics, if I recall correctly you even contemplated converting an existing sorcerer NPC (Pride, the Mindflayer) into a Psion. Besides, I still asked and you did say you were fine with it.
Nope don't remember that since you never brought it up since the one with Pride was long over by that point. Anyway a forum is not the place to be talking about this so ill leave it till sunday.
|
One little suggestion, could we list the Barbarian's Rage powers by level gained?
One thing I always do when I have a new class to play with is to create a 20th level NPC just to get a feel of what the "ultimate" version is.
But with the barbarian, I was slowed down by going back and forth with the "he gets this power at this level". I think it would make it easier for a DM to create mid to high level NPC Barbarians if the list was by level accessed.
A few things need to be added. While we have the Knockback ability for bull rush, it would be nice to get a few other similar abilities for overrun and sunder, sense they are the other strength combat maneuvers.
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as our swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your
turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn).
It's unclear in the rules, what happenes if your turn comes first and you use a swift action, can you use a immediate action after your turn but in the same round and thus use the swift action from the next turn in the next round. Can you?
If not most of the the Barbarian rage power based on immediate action seems useless.
Am I clear (my English isn’t that good)?
Are you asking if this situation:
Round 1You go first in itiative, you use swift action. You can't use an immediate because it is still your turn.
Evil mage's turn: he cast spell on you. You can use immediate action to reroll Will save (if take that Rage power).
Back to you: you used up swift action by using immediate action when not your turn.
But:
Are you asking what happens if you use up your immediate action onm your turn? Then you used up your swift action; but not your immediate action.
Good news: Overall, this looks to be very promising.
Bad news: There are still some weak spots.
Guarded Stance/Rolling Dodge: Yay on being toned down, boo on them being separate. Mash ‘em together and you’ve got a rage power worth taking.
Increased DR: Too weak. DR 3/-- just ain’t cutting it. Make it increase the barbarian’s damage reduction by DR 1/--, and have it improve by DR 1/-- for every four barbarian levels the character has.
Elemental Rage: Still too weak. Converting half of the barbarian’s damage to energy damage would be better. At the very least, it needs to scale beyond +1d6. Twelfth level is too late for this ability—it needs to be selectable at around sixth level. Then you could have it improve by +1d6 for every additional four levels the barbarian has. (+4d6 damage per attack isn’t going to break the barbarian, especially if he’s smart and he trades out his other attacks for Vital Strike.
Low-Light Vision/Night Vision: Weak. Combine them into one ability, and then spice it up by giving the barbarian the ability to see through magical darkness at around eighth level.
Swift Foot: Very “meh.” It’d be better as a single ability that automatically improved.
Renewed Vigor: Scaling good, but still weak. If you’re going to leave it at a 1/day, it needs to be something with more “oomph”—like 1d8 + Con bonus + 2 HP/level. If you’re going to leave it weakened, it needs to be usable multiple times per day—perhaps 1/day at 4th level and then +1 time/day for every four levels thereafter.
Other than that, the barbarian’s abilities seem to be heading in the right direction.
Quoting because.
Free actions can only be taken when you can normally act, which means not during another's turn.Where do you find this rule? It might well be the intent, but it should be clarified. "Speak," at least, is a free action that can be used even when it's not your turn.
--Jeff
By definition an "action" is something you do on your normal turn. Things like immediate actions contain exceptions to this rule and non-normal rounds like surprise rounds specifically state what actions can be available as an exception to the action definition as well. In the case of "Speak" it also contains the exception:
Speak: In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
The SRD makes specific note of the exception that speaking can be performed when it isn't your turn.
|
|
Stuff
Are you asking if this situation:
Round 1
You go first in itiative, you use swift action. You can't use an immediate because it is still your turn.Evil mage's turn: he cast spell on you. You can use immediate action to reroll Will save (if take that Rage power).
Back to you: you used up swift action by using immediate action when not your turn.
Yes, that's it.
And to me the rules are unclear.
Let's continue your example:Round 2.
Back to me: I've used up my swift action by using immediate action last round. I do - stuff.
Evil mage's turn: Cast one more spell on me. I can use immediate action to reroll Will save (if take that Rage power).Etc. etc.
Som basically, You say it's is possible to use a swift action and a immediate action in the same round. If this is true, then all is well. If not, it isn't.
But:
Are you asking what happens if you use up your immediate action onm your turn? Then you used up your swift action; but not your immediate action.No. What I'm asking is:
If I've used a swift action on my turn in round 1 can I also use a immediate action in the same round (if I use the immediate action after my turn but in the same round i.e. before round 2)?
Should the rules be read:"effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn" ....even if your turn is in the next round
I still like Jason to clear this out once and for all.
And can you rage and use combat expertise?
I'm pretty sure that if you've used your swift action in the round you don't get to use your immediate action that round. So you wouldn't have been able to use that immediate action in the first place, though I could be wrong.
I'm pretty sure that if you've used your swift action in the round you don't get to use your immediate action that round. So you wouldn't have been able to use that immediate action in the first place, though I could be wrong.
You are incorrect, you can use a swift action and an immediate action in the same round, however the next round you can not use a swift action, only and immediate. This is why I think knock back should be changed to a swift action or immediate action so you can combine strength surge and knock back. I:-D
Swift vs immediate depends. From page 7 of the Rules Compendium, because it's easier than listing the 14 trillion other books it's squirreled away in some god-awful impossible to find location:
"An immediate action consumes a tiny amount of time. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time during a round, even when it isn’t your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn counts as your swift action for that turn. If you use an immediate action when it isn’t your turn, you can’t use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn. You can’t use an immediate action when you’re flat-footed."
Note the difference in the use of the word "Turn" instead of "Round". You can do both in any single combat round, it just depends on the order you do them in, and where your initiative falls in the combat round.
|
|
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
Hmm, wow that is clunkily worded. So using an immeadiate action before your turn you cannot use a swift action on your turn. Using an immeadiate action before or during your turn you cannot use a swift or immediate action till after your turn ends. But if you use a swift action on your turn you can use an immediate action after your turn but then have to wait till after your turn ends to be able to use another swift or immediate action.
So it's pretty clunky but it works out. but yes you can use a swift and immediate action in the same round so long as the swift action came first.
Just a thought:
Why not make Renew Vigor a type of fast healing? Maybe Fast Healing 2 + 2 per six barbarian levels or something like that? My thought is this shows the barbarians body going into overdrive and healing as it does so.
I think the best answer would be to deal only with rage length. Make the whole system easier, perhaps something like, a rage lasts character level (+ con. mod) turns, activated once per encounter and after a 5 or 6 round rage the character is fatigued, after a 10 or 15 round rage the character is exhausted. Just spit-balling, here.
I know from my personal experience that when the barbarian is out of rages, the party tends to want to rest. Why even have an "out of rages"?
I agree 100%
The rounds/day restriction really effects characters under level 8 or so, as past that level you have enough to Rage for pretty much every encounter in an adventuring day.
|
With the system published in beta a character got (Con +2) * level + 2 rounds per day (assuming no rage powers are used) which seemed like ample rounds to get trhough the day.
On bad days, when the monsters are particularly nasty I found some of the rage powers rather enticing to blow through what was left of my rage points in rapid fashion while I smashed my way through a stone block before I and my comrades drown in acid (drowning was questionable as face melting death may have come first.)
But now I have significantly less rounds per day [(level +1) *2 +con], and the new rage skills are weakened. If I am in a significant fight that may last more then a minute, I'm probably out of rage rounds before that minute is up, because if the battle is lasting that long, it is unlikely the situation has made it friendly enough to even want to leave a rage. Not that Galnörag Gray Wolf Troll Widower* would willingly leave a rage while foes stand...
So I think that means I am for the beta system, or the new system that scales with con (so the balancing effect is that players have to take points from str to rage longer.) With the old system the Greater Rage and Mighty Rage should only cost one point otherwise it really hamstrings the class.
Spitballing some more here, um Extra Rage the feat 6+con points/rounds or maybe 4+con? because even the most avg barbarian should have at least +2 in con.
Other rage powers that could be good:
Might Leap (Ex): + 1/2 barbarian level to acrobatics check (4 rage points)
Bring the Walls Down (Ex): Barbarians attacks over come 5 points of hardness (per 2 rage points spent) to smash inanimate objects. Maximum hardness that can be overcome is the barbarians level (2, 4, 6 or 8 points)
Fastball Special (Ex): . . .
Hurls a companion, medium creatures may be thrown in range increments of 5, small range increments of 15. Creature must be sentient, and willing to participate. Attack deals 2d6 + str in damage, and creature must make a acrobatics check DC 10 + Your Str or take equal damage. If creature readies an attack, and makes their acrobatics check they may also strike.
Barbarian must be level 11 and the added weight of the creature must not make the barbarian medium encumbered. (10 rage points)
Galnörag's "creature" Tobin volunteered to beta test this one out...
*Except that one time when Galnörag saw fit to first inform one troll widow of her newly widowed state, and then mercifully send her to join her mate.
|
|
Particularly since it stops Barbarians from dropping dead if they ever reach 0 hp.I like that they can die if they overdo it while raging -- it's beautifully true to the death of Kveldulf (the quintessential berserker) as described in Egil's Saga.
Heh heh....they need a rage power where you can blow chunk on somebody and drown them in it...
A barbarian must be at least 8th level before selecting this power
Does this mean a Barb4/Fighter4 would qualify to take this Rage Power?
Or does it mean Barbarian only levels?
8th level barb only be my take. that needs cleared up
As a rules class power or ablitys that say level 8 mean level x of that class
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I have to say, I prefer the rage point system. More flexibility, more fun, not as vanilla as the old/new system.
That said, the barbie needs some love. How about giving him some sort of ability that grants a bonus to his CMB when performing overruns or bull rushes? They just seem really barbaric and need some love.
|
|
I have to say, I prefer the rage point system. More flexibility, more fun, not as vanilla as the old/new system.
That said, the barbie needs some love. How about giving him some sort of ability that grants a bonus to his CMB when performing overruns or bull rushes? They just seem really barbaric and need some love.
I gotta disagree, I've run Galnorag here with both systems. What I saw immediately is that their is less number crunching and book keeping with the rounds method then with the points method. The only added complexity is the 1/10 round abilities, but for 90% of combats that means 1/combat.
The other thing I observed is that the changes to the abilities for the round system would be carried back into the point system as they balanced the abilities, or demystified the mechanism.
As for the CMB, done, take the Strength Surge rage power and bullrush, trip, grapple and over run to your hearts content, I know that is what Galnorag does. (or Knockback which lets you do 1 bullrush a round on top of your attack...)
I greatly prefer this system. I have no love for point usage outside of hit points in combat, and I look forward to playtesting this.