A PC in the game I'm running just took this power, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to adjucate it. The wording simply states that the barbarian simply gets +1 (or more) damage against creature possessing spells or spell-like abilities. The kicker for me is how does the barbarian know a creature possesses spells or spell-like abilities? Especially for NPCs - does the power just magically let him detect and identify if a person has spells, even if the barbarian has no idea?
What's the best way to rule this? (To be honest if I would've known about this power at the start of the campaign I simply would've banned it.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just add +1 to the damage done on your end when you change their current HP total, he has no need to know if they do or not.
It isn't so overpowered you should ban it. You can rule it however you like. If you wanted you could even say that it doesn't work until he knows that the person is a spellcaster(but then you get complicated when they fake it.) Banning it would also ban spell sunder.
RAW it doesn't say that. You can just tack it onto the total yourself.
I don't think it's particularly overpowered; my problem with it is more conceptual. If the barbarian otherwise has no way to tell that the target of his attack is a spellcaster, why should he get the bonus damage?
I think I'm going to amend it so that he has to see the creature cast a spell or use a spell-like ability in order for the power to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becuase magic. Becuase he hates magic so much he naturally hits spellcasters harder without thinking about it. If he even thinks they cast magic, he just happens to hit them harder. He already took superstitious to get this power and is refusing buffs while he's raging right?
You can fluff it in a lot of ways. Its probably not awful to say he has to suspect they use magic before he gets the bonus and he can add in the bonus himself. Just don't forget now if he thinks anyone cast magic they get hit harder.
The barbarian doesn't have to activate Witch Hunter; it just works whenever she rages. It's like having a bane weapon. You don't have to identify what you're fighting to turn on the bane function on your sword; the sword just automatically does more damage to whatever it's bane against.
I don't think it's particularly overpowered; my problem with it is more conceptual. If the barbarian otherwise has no way to tell that the target of his attack is a spellcaster, why should he get the bonus damage?
I think I'm going to amend it so that he has to see the creature cast a spell or use a spell-like ability in order for the power to work.
While this would certainly remove all doubt, you could also lean on skills. A successful monster knowledge check should identify a creature naturally capable of casting spells, and a perception or sense motive check should suffice for trained casters- at least in some cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's particularly overpowered; my problem with it is more conceptual.
I have a fundamental issue with nerfing things just because you don't like the concept, but I'll drop that for now.
If the barbarian otherwise has no way to tell that the target of his attack is a spellcaster, why should he get the bonus damage?
The same way a Ranger uses his Favored Enemy is one answer. You're not one of those people that needlessly requires a Ranger to make Knowledge checks in every battle are you?
A second answer would be that he simply DOES, just like everything a Barbarian can do. Why can a Barbarian snap magic in half with his bare hands? The only answer is because he's very,
I think I'm going to amend it so that he has to see the creature cast a spell or use a spell-like ability in order for the power to work.
I don't like this approach at all. You should never nerf things just because you don't like like the flavor.
Make the flavor fit the mechanics. Don't make the mechanics fit the flavor.
Come up with an explanation for why it works if your only problem is "Why does it work?"
Don't go "I don't know why it works, so now it needs to work differently".
While this would certainly remove all doubt, you could also lean on skills. A successful monster knowledge check should identify a creature naturally capable of casting spells, and a perception or sense motive check should suffice for trained casters- at least in some cases.
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian cannot make Knowledge checks to identify monsters while raging.
I don't think it's particularly overpowered; my problem with it is more conceptual.I have a fundamental issue with nerfing things just because you don't like the concept, but I'll drop that for now.
If the barbarian otherwise has no way to tell that the target of his attack is a spellcaster, why should he get the bonus damage?The same way a Ranger uses his Favored Enemy is one answer. You're not one of those people that needlessly requires a Ranger to make Knowledge checks in every battle are you?
A second answer would be that he simply DOES, just like everything a Barbarian can do. Why can a Barbarian snap magic in half with his bare hands? The only answer is because he's very,
I think I'm going to amend it so that he has to see the creature cast a spell or use a spell-like ability in order for the power to work.I don't like this approach at all. You should never nerf things just because you don't like like the flavor.
Make the flavor fit the mechanics. Don't make the mechanics fit the flavor.
Come up with an explanation for why it works if your only problem is "Why does it work?"
Don't go "I don't know why it works, so now it needs to work differently".
Hmmm, I think we have pretty divergent approaches to the game. I have zero issues nerfing or more commonly banning things that don't fit conceptually. Moreso for campaign setting reasons (druids, summoners, gunslingers, and the majority of the races in the ARG are banned in my game) than mechanical ones (Clustered Shots). I don't know if we'll be able to see eye-to-eye on this issue.
Also, of course the party ranger needs to make Knowledge checks on creatures in order to get his Favored Enemy bonus if their true nature isn't immediately obvious.
It is nothing to do with what the barbarian is intending to do, or knows.
The barbarian can THINK a witch or wizard is really a fighter: the bonus dmg still applies.
The barbarian can THINK a fighter or rogue is really a witch or wizard: the bonus dmg doesn't apply.
Something about the barbarians attacks is simply MORE DISRUPTIVE AND LETHAL vs. casters and creatures with SLAs.
In other words, it's something that is 'on' all the time, that applies to every attack,
but only spellcasters are actually vulnerable to this bonus damage...
The game otherwise has creatures who are specifically vulnerable to a specific energy type,
you don't need to KNOW that fact when you target them with a fireball, the bonus dmg just applies.
In other words, the minimum dmg moves from 1 to whatever this bonus damage is,
and all damage is raised by that amount. Same thing for Witch Hunter barbarians.
A barbarian cannot make Knowledge checks to identify monsters while raging.
Yeah, that's another issue. Frankly I'd be more comfortable if Witch Hunter was a Supernatural Power instead of an Extraordinary Ability - which is also why I don't have any issues with the Bane ability.
In fact, that's what I'm leaning toward right now. I'll just treat Witch Hunter and Superstitious as (Su) abilities instead of (Ex).
Its okay to have wizards and clerics but its not okay to have summoners or druids? What a strange world.
You can change the fluff instead of nerfing or banning things. Nerfing and banning alienates players and can leave hurt feelings. Agreeing on fluff can help create a character.
I like switching them to Su over nerfing them or trying to figure out how they work myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it an issue that the Barbarian can't make Knowledge checks?
The target can be invisible, successfully Disguised as a non-caster, and the ability still works just fine.
There is no downside of the ability vs. non-casters, so there's no reason to say that ALL of the Barb's attacks aren't now being made with the same technique/juju/whatever that is especially damaging to casters, non-casters are simply not vulnerable to this extra damage.
Rynjin didn't write anything against BANNING for flavor, he said he has an issue with NERFING because you don't like the flavor (if the issue is the mechanical balance of the class/whatever, then flavor isn't the reason for the NERF). If it's not enough of a flavor conflict to BAN from your game-world, then nerfing it for flavor reasons (not mechanical balance) just smacks of passive-aggressiveness.
That said, we have examples like Guns, whose power IS modified based on flavor considerations (tech level of world), but I think what Rynjin means is nerfing a mechanic simply for 'not fitting in' without any specific justification, just 'this doesn't fit/i don't like it, so we'll nerf it' when there isn't a specific flavor justification for the specific nerf version vs. non-nerf version. (which there is for different tech-level versions of Guns, for example)
Its okay to have wizards and clerics but its not okay to have summoners or druids? What a strange world.
You can change the fluff instead of nerfing or banning things. Nerfing and banning alienates players and can leave hurt feelings. Agreeing on fluff can help create a character.
I like switching them to Su over nerfing them or trying to figure out how they work myself.
Gunslingers because I don't like the way the class works and because guns don't exist in my game world. Summoners because I don't care for the flavor of the class. Druids aren't an absolute no, but I warned my players that druids in my game world are extremely rare, secretive, and prone to being persecuted.
Somethings I'm willing to fluff because they fit in my game/gameworld in one fashion or another, but others would require so much reworking that it's easier to simply ban them instead.
If that means someone doesn't want to play my game because of it, that's no big deal to me.
A Ranger learns fighting techniques that are more effective against members of certain races the he incorporates in to his fighting style. He doesn't need to turn it on, it's just part of how he fights. When he faces as disguised Orc, his natural tendency to strike at the Orc's weak spots are still going to come through.
The superstitious Barbarian gains a sort of 6th sense that allows him to, subconsciously, recognize the stink of a spell caster and causes him to strike them extra hard.
Summoners abilities to build their own pets is probably one of the most open and flexible fluffs I've seen in the game. Druids being secretive and rare makes them sound like a special snowflake, people like playing those sometimes. Are clerics with the animal domain disliked too?(no need to answer, just commentary. I don't mean to insult or anything, I just think its wierd on a personal level.)
Can we just say barbarians power works like the ranger favored enemy then?
The superstitious Barbarian gains a sort of 6th sense that allows him to, subconsciously, recognize the stink of a spell caster and causes him to strike them extra hard.
Or to be more precise, it doesn't depend on 'recognizing' (subconscious or not) at all, the Barbarian can simply be fighting with this technique/mojo/whatever all the time, it's just that real spellcasters are the only ones vulnerable to it. Since there's no downside vs. non-spellcasters, there's no reason the ability shouldn't be used on ALL attacks ALL the time, but it only actually works depending on the target. Just like an Evoker throwing Fire spells around all the time, which just do more damage vs. certain Fire-vulnerable creatures, or your example of Ranger with Favored Enemy training, whose attacks are just more damaging vs. the FE types (again, independent of 'recognition, invisibility, disguise checks, etc).
That works too, really the point is that there are lots of ways you can fluff the ability working without requiring a knowledge check or the like.
right... i always see posters here get in a frenzy on how to fit crunch with how they imagine the fluff of abilities to work, when quite simply, certainly for abilities that don't have real-world analogues, you can easily go in reverse and imagine some fluff that doesn't conflict with the crunch. especially when the rules aren't giving you a specific fluff that conflicts with the crunch, there's just no reason to default to a fluff which conflicts with the raw.
Ranger's favored enemy, barbarian's witch hunter.... do not require identifying the target as a FE / caster / SLA user. As said, it's something that has no effect, positive or (and this is the important part) negative, so there is no reason to not use said ability all the freaking time.
The abilities don't let the character know they are fighting such a monster. If you don't want the players to know / are afrad of them metagaming, then keep a note of such bonuses for yourself and apply it when it is appropriate to the damage dealt. (It's a bit harder w/ FE since that also includes and attack bonus; it wouldn't take long for the players to realize something is up based on attack roll totals and what is hitting and not hitting, oh well *shrug*)
I agree with Quandary and all the others saying it is an always on ability. If you need fluff:
Witch Hunter Barbarians always aim for the little mana secreting lymph glands. Just happens to hurt casters, and not non casters. Problem solved.
Stream of the sky: Where is that "I want to nerf _____ ability" funny post you used to have linked? All GMs who tote the ban hammer/nerf bat need to read it...
Stream of the sky: Where is that "I want to nerf _____ ability" funny post you used to have linked? All GMs who tote the ban hammer/nerf bat need to read it...
This is such a strange sentiment. There are always threads on the forums here about how some rule/class/ability is broken/unbalanced and needs to be fixed (fighters, rogues, monks, summoners, guns, the conjuration school, vital strike, etc.), yet if a GM takes it upon themselves to try to fix something everyone decries it as bad GMing. Why is it that nerfing is always considered a sign of bad GMing and poor system mastery, but buffing is not?
Nerfing things that are underpowered or just fine (like Witch Hunter or Favored Enemy) is bad GMing.
Buffing things that are already overpowered, like spellcasting classes (example: impementing a "low magic setting" by restricting magic items but allowing casters as written; casters need items less than non-casters and can make their own anyway) is also bad GMing.
Making overly harsh or nonsensical nerfs, even if it's to something warranted, is also bad GMing. For example, saying "all spells have a 50% chance of failing when cast" certainly nerfs the overpowered spellcasters. But it's so harsh and random/arbitrary, it's still a horrible rule, despite casters deserving a nerf.
Nerfing things mid-campaign that a player has been using all along and did not realize would not function as written in your game, is again bad GMing, mitigated if you're decent enough to at least let the player rebuild the PC or bring in a new one at the same level / wealth in response to the change.
I think that includes most instances of nerfs/buffs that are bad GMing. The rest people don't particularly care about.
@Azrihel: I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I have a link in my minmaxboards signature to a thread on ENWorld seeking to houserule that creatures can choose to ignore a flanker to deny flanking to a rogue that I thoroughly lampooned w/ a little dialogue/play. I have a "That's Unrealistic Retort Compendium" thread that while useful and awesome, isn't particularly funny. Is it one of those?
the strange part to me is the OP's wording. "I don't know how to adjudicate this"
Yes, you actually do. Add more damage to the attack. This is NOT a clarity problem, the rule is clear enough as it is. I'm pretty sure it's not a math issue either.
So, you've got a different issue with it, and you aren't quite saying what that is. I suspect it's something like "there's a game world in my head, and this doesn't fit well"
If that's the reason, fine. You're going to be one of those people with a LOT of house rules, and as long as you can still attract players, more power to you. I really do hope you're having a good time.
But if you're coming to the message boards for help with the game that's in your head, then I'm afraid we won't be much use.
A barbarian cannot make Knowledge checks to identify monsters while raging.Yeah, that's another issue. Frankly I'd be more comfortable if Witch Hunter was a Supernatural Power instead of an Extraordinary Ability - which is also why I don't have any issues with the Bane ability.
In fact, that's what I'm leaning toward right now. I'll just treat Witch Hunter and Superstitious as (Su) abilities instead of (Ex).
That seems like a pretty good solution.
I am not sure on your change to rangers but I guess if you don't try to abuse it as a GM there should not be an issue with that ruling, and either way not the subject of this thread.
This is such a strange sentiment. There are always threads on the forums here about how some rule/class/ability is broken/unbalanced and needs to be fixed (fighters, rogues, monks, summoners, guns, the conjuration school, vital strike, etc.), yet if a GM takes it upon themselves to try to fix something everyone decries it as bad GMing. Why is it that nerfing is always considered a sign of bad GMing and poor system mastery, but buffing is not?
Sure, there are plenty of such threads. Yet this thread isn't one of those. You yourself directly admitted you don't think the ability is overpowered.
I don't think it's particularly overpowered; my problem with it is more conceptual. If the barbarian otherwise has no way to tell that the target of his attack is a spellcaster, why should he get the bonus damage?
If it's not overpowered, that means it's power doesn't need to be weakened. Which is what your nerf would do. Pretty clearly.
Your problem seems to merely be with coherence of fluff and crunch.There's been several posts on that topic, from why you're looking at things from the wrong end, to suggesting approaches which would give you a concrete way to imagine the ability working that doesn't have any crunch/fluff conflict. I don't really understand the basis of your issue with Ex vs. Su, I don't think Ex is really as limited as you believe, but if that's what floats your boat, changing the ability type to Su seems the less disruptive change for an ability that isn't overpowered as written.
the strange part to me is the OP's wording. "I don't know how to adjudicate this"
Yes, you actually do. Add more damage to the attack. This is NOT a clarity problem, the rule is clear enough as it is. I'm pretty sure it's not a math issue either.
So, you've got a different issue with it, and you aren't quite saying what that is. I suspect it's something like "there's a game world in my head, and this doesn't fit well"
If that's the reason, fine. You're going to be one of those people with a LOT of house rules, and as long as you can still attract players, more power to you. I really do hope you're having a good time.
But if you're coming to the message boards for help with the game that's in your head, then I'm afraid we won't be much use.
What I originally meant by my first post was this: How do I account for the power when the barbarian attacks?
If the power allows him to consciously know that the monster/NPC that he's attacking qualifies, then I as the GM would have to tell the player that his enemy has spells/spell-like abilities - even if the creature hasn't used any yet.
On the other hand, if it's just a passive, "always on" power that just works without the character's conscious awareness (like the aforementioned Bane ability), then I wouldn't actually tell the player; I'd simply add the additional damage in when it applied.
Either interpretation annoys me. The first because it (lamely, IMO) has the potential to act as an infallible spellcaster detector, even if the spellcaster is making a point to hide the fact they're a spellcaster.
The second interpretation means more bookkeeping for me, of which I already have enough.
Between the two options, I'll take the latter, since it's less of a headache. Which is why I'm also changing it to a Supernatural ability - Supernatural abilities are magical, so I can simply handwave it that way.
Finally, although I don't think the ability is explicitly overpowered, it is unbalanced. It ends up being worth more than two feats combined, which is too much for a single rage power, IMO. That is however the least of my concerns, so I'm not too worried about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It requires 0 additional book keeping ...
Barbarian player: *rolls damage* "20, 22 if it has spells or SLA."
DM: *Does exactly the same thing he does every single time someone damages a creature.*
|
Stream of the sky: Where is that "I want to nerf _____ ability" funny post you used to have linked? All GMs who tote the ban hammer/nerf bat need to read it...This is such a strange sentiment. There are always threads on the forums here about how some rule/class/ability is broken/unbalanced and needs to be fixed (fighters, rogues, monks, summoners, guns, the conjuration school, vital strike, etc.), yet if a GM takes it upon themselves to try to fix something everyone decries it as bad GMing. Why is it that nerfing is always considered a sign of bad GMing and poor system mastery, but buffing is not?
It's especially bad if someone dares to suggest toning wizards down. 2/3 of the posters here seem to agree that wizards are overpoweroed, but about 3/4 of them go ballistic if you suggest that maybe having spells that duplicate anything that any other character can do, often more effectively and sometimes even at a lower level, just MIGHT be a bad idea.
@xexyz - Im all about DM's running the game their way, and when people dont like it, you hear "Find a new group". Not sure about accessibly there but here its not easy to find a group. The group im in, is the only one in my city that I know of. Im lucky my DM honors the "its suppose to be fun for everyone" rule above all else. Keep that im mind with whatever way you decide to go. I would say talk to the PC to see how he feels, maybe yall can come to a compromise.
Also, how do you run DR? Do you tell the players "he has DR 5/slashing" so they can come up with new damage numbers? Our DM ask for damage type when we call damage. So we cant tell the DR or any special properties.
PC1: "I did 20 piercing damage"
DM figures if DR applies, writes new totals.
How is that different from:
PC2: "I do 20 Slashing Damage, 22 if its got SLA/Caster"
DM figures the appropriate damage.
Have you a large problem with your players metagaming?
For my barbarian, it's normally:
Me: Okay, that's *rolls* 25 damage. Does it have spells or SLAs?
GM: *sighs* Everything does by now. Yes.
ME: In that case, 28 damage. Enjoy!
Yes, it might be easier on you as a GM if you can just tell the player "Yep, add the Witch Hunter damage for this one." Why not?
Have your players not encountered the concept of OOC versus IC knowledge before?
No, in-character it's not an infallible detector. As has been said, something about the barbarian's attacks just hurts spellcasters more. You can fluff that lots of ways. My barbarian, for example, cuts the threads of magic apart with his strikes.
The issue of GMs reflexively banning things they don't like also gets me hot under the collar, because frankly it's easy to fluff things based on the mechanics. Doing it the other way ends badly.