Do Vikings (Fighter Archetype) get Greater Rage?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Quite simply put, do they it Greater Rage at 14th level? It isn't listed so I presumed no, but I saw postings that the Wild Stalker, a ranger equivalent to the Viking, got Greater Rage at the appropriate level.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm sorry but I looked at both Viking and Wild Stalker and neither one of them says they get Greater Rage, could you link where you read this?

Viking:
Berserker (Ex)

At 4th level, a viking gains the rage ability as the barbarian class feature, but her barbarian level is considered to be her fighter level –3.

This ability replaces weapon training 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Viking

Wild Stalker:
Rage of the Wild (Ex)

At 4th level, a wild stalker gains the Rage ability as the barbarian class feature, but its barbarian level is considered to be his ranger level –3.

This ability replaces hunter’s bond.

Wild Stalker

Also Rage, Greater Rage, and Mighty Rage are all separate Class Features. But Greater Rage and Mighty Rage rely on a character having the Rage Class Feature to function.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

in a home game? i'd be inclined to say yes, they get the greater and mighty rage features. the fighter is giving up not just weapon training I , but 1, 2, 3 and 4.

for wild stalker, they just give up nature's bond? i'd be inclined to just give them rage since they haven't swapped out something else.

but thats conjecture and opinion if your'e in a home game.
looking at the archetypes use of rage ability and Rage ability. it might be possible that the Viking archetype is intending to give the entire range of rage abilities, Rage, Greater Rage, and Mighty Rage, by not using a specific name'd rage ability. the Ranger one specifically calls out Rage ability. it may be reading into the capitalization. but it could mean something.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Since Greater Rage and Mighty Rage are separate abilitys, neither Fighter or Ranger gets them, if they did it would be mentioned on the entry for Fighter/Ranger.

Also, Yes, you lose all Weapon Training, but since you get a Moral Bonus from Rage (and normally fighters don't get moral bonuses) you now get an additional +2 hit & +2 damage with all melee weapons when you rage.

So basically you give up some specialization for versatility.


@dark78660: The reason why at least for the viking it is quesrionable is because it says "a viking gains the rage ability as the barbarian class feature, but her barbarian level is considered to be her fighter level –3." The bolded portion is meaningless if the intent of the ability was only to gain the basic rage ability, excepting for determining how many rounds of rage you would get.

I contend that the rules as intended (at least for the viking) is that you should gain Rage, Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, but not Mighty Rage. Mighty Rage is a 20th level barbarian ability, so would require viking level 23 to obtain. Tireless Rage is a 17th level barbarian ability, which would be obtain at viking level 20. Also, if the Viking didn't function in this manner it would be a terrible archetype, which I don't think was the intention. A +4 to strength and con just isn't enough to justify the loss of all four level of weapon training.

Wild Stalker is phrased in the same manner as the viking ability, so I would contend it funcitons in the same manner. The Wild Stalker gives up the entirety of the animal companion, and it can be debated about whether this is equal to gaining Rage, Greater Rage, and Tireless Rage but at elast on the surface to me they are not incredibly unequal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, getting Grater Rage could make total sense, but as of right now by RAW you don't get Greater Rage since it is a separate class ability.

But the thing I find that really throws a wrench into your line of thinking is the Mad Dog

If you go the the Barbarian Archetype table and look at Barbarian Archetype Mad Dog It only changes Rage Class Feature and not Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, or Mighty Rage. Also it causes Rage to fall more in line with the Wild Stalker and Viking, the Barbarian gains Rage ability at level 4. Also it treats his Barbarian level for Rage as his actual Barbarian level -3, it however dose not change Greater Rage at all on the table or in the abilitys, he would still gain it when he becomes a level 11 Barbarian (who rages as a level 8 Barbarian). To continue with your line of reasoning a Mad Dog would never get Mighty Rage unless they were a level 23 Barbarian, but they still get it at Barbarian level 20, regardless of there effective Barbarian level for Rage.

So that kind of creates a bit of a mess with how you said a Viking or Wild Ranger should get Greater Rage at level 14 (effective Barbarian level 11)

This also could bring into Question the Urban Barbarian that dose change how Rage, Greater Rage, and Mighty Rage function, it is listed in the new ability and noted on the table that it is changing all three.

And as a final note, all of these don't mention a single thing about Tireless Rage since it is also a separate Class Ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The barbarian level -3 tells you how many rounds of rage you have. Or someone looking at your sheet can retroactivrly figure it out. It also tells you what level you can take rage powers st.

The viking archetype has no need or higher levels of rage it can take weapon spec greater weapon spec greater weapon focus. It can slo take stuff to reduce damage reduction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

@dark78660: The reason why at least for the viking it is quesrionable is because it says "a viking gains the rage ability as the barbarian class feature, but her barbarian level is considered to be her fighter level –3." The bolded portion is meaningless if the intent of the ability was only to gain the basic rage ability, excepting for determining how many rounds of rage you would get.

I contend that the rules as intended (at least for the viking) is that you should gain Rage, Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, but not Mighty Rage. Mighty Rage is a 20th level barbarian ability, so would require viking level 23 to obtain. Tireless Rage is a 17th level barbarian ability, which would be obtain at viking level 20. Also, if the Viking didn't function in this manner it would be a terrible archetype, which I don't think was the intention. A +4 to strength and con just isn't enough to justify the loss of all four level of weapon training.

Wild Stalker is phrased in the same manner as the viking ability, so I would contend it funcitons in the same manner. The Wild Stalker gives up the entirety of the animal companion, and it can be debated about whether this is equal to gaining Rage, Greater Rage, and Tireless Rage but at elast on the surface to me they are not incredibly unequal.

Archtypes are supposed to be worse off than the base class, or at least on par. Otherwise you get one awesome archtype that everyone takes. (OK those Invulnerable Ragers...)

These archtypes get the barbarian's rage class feature. Nowhere in that feature does it mention greater, tireless or mighty rage. The part you put in bold is to determine which rage powers you qualify for and for how many rounds you can rage a day.

EDIT: ninja'd :P


I agree rules as written it doesn't work for either. My whole argument was rules as intended. Without commentary about the class from whomever wrote the archetype its impossible to know with 100% certainty. I believe the intention is as I have stated it, or else the cost isn't particularly worth the benefit. Of course, not all options in Pathfinder are meant to be good.

RAW, I agree with you it doesn't work. As I stated in my original post I believe the intention was otherwise. I do also agree that the phrasing in Mad Dog archetype makes it dubious. But in that regard I think poor phrasing is poor phrasing. Or rather, it was not thought out about that the barbarians rage ability doesn't actually scale with class level, but actually gets better because it gains new abilities which modify its rage (which is converse to how other class abilities funciton).

Edit: You have convinced me, its not intended. Its just poor a choice compared to the base class and two-handed fighter or two-weapon fighter archetypes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

And the Cavalry arrives!

@Claxon:
I only just now saw (or finally paid attention to) when you stated "Also, if the Viking didn't function in this manner it would be a terrible archetype", this kind of irks me a bit since that is purely a matter of opinion. Such as my opinion of the class is that it is an amazing class being as I can take fighter feats that barbarians cant get and still Rage without Multi-classing. Most Archetypes or Classes have a goal in mind when some one is creating them and as such if you play to the strengths of the Class or Archetype then you will do well, but hey, that's just an opinion.

As far as the class abilitys (scaling vs. new abilitys) I would actually like to hear your opinions on that, though I don't think this would be the thread to talk about that XD

I will send you a PM so I can hear what you have to say on that matter :)


Uhh its /great/ wether it is better than the other archetypes or not is irrelevant. The key thing is you can do a lot of stuff the normal barbarian or fighter cs not do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skull wrote:
Archtypes are supposed to be worse off than the base class
Claxon wrote:
not all options in Pathfinder are meant to be good.

If the above statements are true, then Pathfinder has the worst game design in the history of gaming. I happen to like this game despite its flaws, and I see evidence of great game design everywhere, so I don't believe Pathfinder has been built with these quoted goals in mind.

When options like archetypes (or anything else) prove to be weaker than the alternatives, I tend not to jump right to the conclusion that "Oh, yeah, well, this is designed to suck. Paizo intends to waste time and money creating rules that suck."

Instead, I just assume that the author accidentally created a weaker option, perhaps through carelessness or perhaps he was rushed or perhaps his play-testing time was limited and it played out OK in his tests.

Whatever went wrong, if the option truly is significantly weaker, it is probably just an oversight.

In this case, I think maybe the right solution would have been for the fighter to give up HALF of his Weapon Training, since he's only getting about half of the Rage ability (losing the higher-level improvements). I might have written it as "The viking gives up part of his Weapon Training - he gets nothing for Weapon Training 1 and 2 and when he is eligible for Weapon Trainging 3 and 4, he instead takes Weapon Training 1 and 2, respectively, at those levels as indicated." Or something like that. But Archetypes usually don't give up half a class feature to acquire half a different class feature, sot he author was in uncharted territory and maybe didn't think it through, or maybe he just felt like "training" seemed out of character for a viking.

dark78660 wrote:
Such as my opinion of the class is that it is an amazing class being as I can take fighter feats that barbarians cant get and still Rage without Multi-classing.

Maybe.

But there is a huge difference.

A fighter who dips barbarian gets the rage AND he can still get his weapon training. Getting that +4 to hit and damage is a huge benefit. Definitely one of the best class abilities of a fighter.

A fighter who chooses this archetype gets rage BUT he loses his weapon training. In return for losing the weapon training, he can rage more rounds per day as his fighter levels go up.

It does seem to be an inferior trade off.


Eh, I've decided not to turn this into an argument about better or worse and simply say its not an option I would choose without getting access to the improved rage abilities.

As far as class abilities scaling, lets take the example of the faithful Paladin first. Iconic ability is Smiting. It improves with character level. Lay on Hands, heals based on character level.

A fighters armor training and weapon training bonuses scale with level again. Despite being listed as separate abilities on the class progression chart, they're only listed to remind you of the increase (and other wise the chart would be pretty bare).

A monk's flurry of blows is progression is based on his level, as well as his unarmed damage dice. They are not discrete new abilities.

There are a lot of iconic abilities that progress as the character levels, rather than getting new abilities that replace/modify the old. Rage is one that is modified. That's all I was getting at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find this archetype to be lackluster. I want to like it but I just can not. It is just a weaker fighter or a weaker barbarian.

I used to think like Dm blake, but with the time playing PF I have the feeling that the game is purposely designed to have a few stronger options and a bunch of weaker ones.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

i'm not saying my argument is based on RAW.
the OP posted a rules question, since it didn't seem PFS specific, and someone else was already providing the RAW response, I provided other options on how to rule in a home game.

you already had RAW covered. if i were going to argue RAW i'd cite something.
i did note that there's a slight difference in the archetypes referring to Rage or rage.
if that's important to some GM's, they might rule otherwise. its not going to break your game if your viking can greater rage at 14th level. and he's never going to qualify for mighty rage until 23rd level anyhow. ::shrug::

a fighter giving up +4 to hit / +4 damage with his focus weapon group, for +2 to hit / +2 damage and near-instant death if he drops unconscious, is not a bonus. its a weakness, that isn't compensated enough for by giving up 4 levels of weapon training. if he's human he can already spread out specialization/focus and stuff to his entire weapon group with a few feats.
I agree with Blake that its an inferior trade off.

either getting a better rage at 14th, or half the weapon training, would be nicer fit for the archetype. he's right, you get more benefit from 2 levels of barbarian, and the rest fighter, than you do from this archetype.

Spoiler:
w/ 2 levels, you've gotten the rage power class feature, so you can take any of your regular feats as Extra Rage Power. and as a Fighter, you probably have plenty of feats free. You can take Extra Rage once for 6 extra rounds, the equivalent to 3 class levels of barbarin or viking, and still have lots of feats, and get your weapon training, AND get invulnerable rager option or uncanny dodge. thematically and ruleswise, why WOULDN'T you do it that way when building your character? if you're a viking from the start, don't you want to rage at first level? ::shrug::


Claxon wrote:
@dark78660: The reason why at least for the viking it is quesrionable is because it says "a viking gains the rage ability as the barbarian class feature, but her barbarian level is considered to be her fighter level –3." The bolded portion is meaningless if the intent of the ability was only to gain the basic rage ability, excepting for determining how many rounds of rage you would get.

Number of rounds of rage is rather important. However, it is also important to include because as it determines what Rage Powers you qualify for. Not meaningless at all.

Also, +2 to will saves while raging.


Nicos wrote:
I used to think like Dm blake, but with the time playing PF I have the feeling that the game is purposely designed to have a few stronger options and a bunch of weaker ones.

I am quite convinced that his is dead wrong.

Nobody would do that. Nobody would "purposely" make a design goal out of: Hey! Let's "purposely" create crappy options to trap players into making crappy characters.

Nobody.

But, and Paizo staff members have stated on these forums, they have never set out to balance every feature.

That said, their goal is to make everything they write playable, but without trying too hard to make perfect balance. "Playable" means nothing is "bad". Without perfect balance, some things will inevitably be better than others, but all of it should be better than "bad".

They have sometimes failed at this. Some things clearly are "bad". But it was never their "purpose" to make bad things. It simply falls into the category of things they didn't try to perfectly balance that they assumed would still be good enough, but they turned out to be farther out of balance than their initial assessment.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Archetypes usually don't give up half a class feature to acquire half a different class feature

Two off the top of my head are Dragoon and Tactician, and that's just for the Fighter. I know there are several more at least that grant Specific class abilitys granted from other classes.

Dragoon replaces WT 2,3 and 4 for Banner (Ex)
Tactician replaces WT 1 for Tactician (Ex)

However if it has a separate entry on the Archetype table it is separate, some stack/rely on earlier version, or if in some cases an earlier version is removed from a chain then you gain the earlier version instead at a later point.

At this point this is all just an opinion war of if you think its fair trade or not, this really isn't the place for that discussion guys.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

that just illustrates that there's a design imbalance with Viking then.
they give up the whole weapon training class feature with progression, for another class feature that has no progression for the archetype.

its not a fair trade.


Seraphimpunk wrote:

i'm not saying my argument is based on RAW.

the OP posted a rules question, since it didn't seem PFS specific, and someone else was already providing the RAW response, I provided other options on how to rule in a home game.

you already had RAW covered. if i were going to argue RAW i'd cite something.
i did note that there's a slight difference in the archetypes referring to Rage or rage.
if that's important to some GM's, they might rule otherwise. its not going to break your game if your viking can greater rage at 14th level. and he's never going to qualify for mighty rage until 23rd level anyhow. ::shrug::

a fighter giving up +4 to hit / +4 damage with his focus weapon group, for +2 to hit / +2 damage and near-instant death if he drops unconscious, is not a bonus. its a weakness, that isn't compensated enough for by giving up 4 levels of weapon training. if he's human he can already spread out specialization/focus and stuff to his entire weapon group with a few feats.
I agree with Blake that its an inferior trade off.

either getting a better rage at 14th, or half the weapon training, would be nicer fit for the archetype. he's right, you get more benefit from 2 levels of barbarian, and the rest fighter, than you do from this archetype.

** spoiler omitted **

That's a bit of a revelation; is two levels of barbarian really going to make the character better than Viking? I'm not too familiar with Barbarian, will I be unable to take some powers because of only 2 levels of Barb rather than -3 from Viking?


Seraphimpunk wrote:
its not a fair trade.

I would take it. Rage is much more than +2/+2. It's more like +2/+3 (two-handed or dual-wielding), +2hp/level, +2 Fort, +2Will. Edit: and -2 AC of course :)

Also, since we're talking about 14th level here, 6 rounds of rage (from L.2 Barb) is a lot less than 24 rounds (11th equivalent level from Viking).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also you are still a full Fighter and would still get your Fighter capstone ability!

Sovereign Court Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The viking is intended to get only the base rage ability, not greater rage, tireless rage, or mighty rage, which are separate barbarian class abilities. A viking is a fighter who can rage; it is not a fighter who picks up the full progression of another class's primary feature. And as others have said, rage provides more than just a +2 to hit and damage.


Rob McCreary wrote:
The viking is intended to get only the base rage ability, not greater rage, tireless rage, or mighty rage, which are separate barbarian class abilities. A viking is a fighter who can rage; it is not a fighter who picks up the full progression of another class's primary feature. And as others have said, rage provides more than just a +2 to hit and damage.

Thank you for your input and clarification on the matter.


And you can get all that for about 2 levels in barb. I guess higher level rage powers are something, but they don't feel nearly enough (to me).


I think the problem is that people seem to be looking at rage soley for its damage. Its more than damage. It has a lot of funky poqers to it.

Secondly mighty rage and greater rage are not now nor have they ever been part of the rage class feature.

Fighters give up weapon training for All of the rage class feature. Ill repeat myself they get the /entire/ class feature.

So rage is +2 to hit and damage and a lot of funky powers given up for +4+4.

I really don't see why this is a problem.


Mojorat wrote:

I think the problem is that people seem to be looking at rage soley for its damage. Its more than damage. It has a lot of funky poqers to it.

Secondly mighty rage and greater rage are not now nor have they ever been part of the rage class feature.

Fighters give up weapon training for All of the rage class feature. Ill repeat myself they get the /entire/ class feature.

So rage is +2 to hit and damage and a lot of funky powers given up for +4+4.

I really don't see why this is a problem.

Eh, they get access to take Rage Powers. And it's place of their bonus feats.


+4/+4 and stuff like duelist gloves, so it's more like +6/6


Claxon wrote:
Mojorat wrote:

I think the problem is that people seem to be looking at rage soley for its damage. Its more than damage. It has a lot of funky poqers to it.

Secondly mighty rage and greater rage are not now nor have they ever been part of the rage class feature.

Fighters give up weapon training for All of the rage class feature. Ill repeat myself they get the /entire/ class feature.

So rage is +2 to hit and damage and a lot of funky powers given up for +4+4.

I really don't see why this is a problem.

Eh, they get access to take Rage Powers. And it's place of their bonus feats.

I'm saying if I am a lvl 10 viking with superstition. I really won't feel week or underpowered compared to a straght fighter.

I already have more feats than I need. So the viking is a wmidgin weaker at lvl 15 ...oh wait no he isn't because he has pounce.

Basically your ttading off extra damage for a lot of cool stuff fighyets can't do.


Mojorat wrote:


I'm saying if I am a lvl 10 viking with superstition. I really won't feel week or underpowered compared to a straght fighter.

I already have more feats than I need. So the viking is a wmidgin weaker at lvl 15 ...oh wait no he isn't because he has pounce.

Basically your ttading off extra damage for a lot of cool stuff fighyets can't do.

Yeah, but then I look at that I think I might as well have just played a barbarian. It's the barbarian stuff thats really good. The only good that the Viking can access and the barbarian doesn't is fighter only feats. And while some of them are good...they just don't seems good enough to compensate for what you could have.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Vikings also get move-swift-free action Intimidate to Demoralize in later levels, allowing them to utilize their action economy more fully than a standard fighter, make good sword and board two weapon fighters with their shield bonuses and the fact that Rage applies equally to both weapons (unlike Weapon Training).
Viking is a very solid archetype that holds up really well against the core Fighter, regardless of them not getting Greater Rage, etc.

And like Mojo mentioned, a Viking with Superstition and the right feat selections isn't going to feel underpowered compared to the straight fighter. My experience with the archetype has been that it's usually the straight fighter feeling like the Viking is too strong an archetype.


Really? Again your thinking too narrowly in your focus. Normally fighters cant pounce and barbarians can't take feats to bypass dr.

How about a twf axe and shield viking that has some of the barb defensive stuff. I'm sure there is a lot of cool things you can do that isn't a 1 for 1 bonus.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Mojorat wrote:

Really? Again your thinking too narrowly in your focus. Normally fighters cant pounce and barbarians can't take feats to bypass dr.

How about a twf axe and shield viking that has some of the barb defensive stuff. I'm sure there is a lot of cool things you can do that isn't a 1 for 1 bonus.

A viking can also complete feat trees way sooner that a barbarian (just like a fighter) meaning that he can pair up combat styles with Rage powers and abilities better and faster than either class alone or multi-classed. Continuing to qualify as a fully leveled Fighter is a big deal in and of itself for feat acquisition, especially since your Fighter levels are also pushing up your effective barbarian levels.

Shadow Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:

In this case, I think maybe the right solution would have been for the fighter to give up HALF of his Weapon Training, since he's only getting about half of the Rage ability (losing the higher-level improvements). I might have written it as "The viking gives up part of his Weapon Training - he gets nothing for Weapon Training 1 and 2 and when he is eligible for Weapon Trainging 3 and 4, he instead takes Weapon Training 1 and 2, respectively, at those levels as indicated." Or something like that.

the rage ability is merely a basis for you getting rage powers, thats why its there. and when you can stack fighter only feats with rage powers, shit gets stupid real quick. i mean the bonuses to hit from rage powers and pounce, you would be better then a normal fighter by a wide margin if they didnt take weapon training away from you completely.

i see this class as a VERY powerful archetype. having the ability to make a fighter based rage prophit (life oracle) is nuts in its self.


I would like to see a 10th level viking who is not weaker than a equivalent 10th level fighter or a 10th level barbarian. I think it is not possible, I would be glad is someone prove me wrong.


DM_Blake wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I used to think like Dm blake, but with the time playing PF I have the feeling that the game is purposely designed to have a few stronger options and a bunch of weaker ones.

I am quite convinced that his is dead wrong.

Nobody would do that. Nobody would "purposely" make a design goal out of: Hey! Let's "purposely" create crappy options to trap players into making crappy characters.

Nobody.

But, and Paizo staff members have stated on these forums, they have never set out to balance every feature.

I agree with you. It would not be reasonable, still that is the feeling I get everytime they release a new product and a new FAQ.


Nicos wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I used to think like Dm blake, but with the time playing PF I have the feeling that the game is purposely designed to have a few stronger options and a bunch of weaker ones.

I am quite convinced that his is dead wrong.

Nobody would do that. Nobody would "purposely" make a design goal out of: Hey! Let's "purposely" create crappy options to trap players into making crappy characters.

Nobody.

But, and Paizo staff members have stated on these forums, they have never set out to balance every feature.

I agree with you. It would not be reasonable, still that is the feeling I get everytime they release a new product and a new FAQ.

That's too bad.

I wonder if it's because you set your expectations too high. MY expectation is that a new product won't have anything in it that blows away the core stuff. If they put out a class, say (hypothetically), Myrmidon, that works just like a fighter, fits the same role, and does everything a fighter does but better, then the new myrmidon has destroyed the balance and essentially replaces the old fighter.

Paizo tries very hard to NOT do this. They want each new thing they add to be an alternative to the older stuff rather than making something so powerful that it becomes a mandatory decision and everything else becomes a very bad choice.

Sometimes, maybe, they try a bit too hard and the new stuff is too weak. Occasionally they don't try hard enough and some new thing is clearly superior to old stuff. But none of it is "purposely" sabotaged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:


That's too bad.

I wonder if it's because you set your expectations too high. MY expectation is that a new product won't have anything in it that blows away the core stuff. If they put out a class, say (hypothetically), Myrmidon, that works just like a fighter, fits the same role, and does everything a fighter does but better, then the new myrmidon has destroyed the balance and essentially replaces the old fighter.

Paizo tries very hard to NOT do this. They want each new thing they add to be an alternative to the older stuff rather than making something so powerful that it becomes a mandatory decision and everything else becomes a very bad choice.

Sometimes, maybe, they try a bit too hard and the new stuff is too weak. Occasionally they don't try hard enough and some new thing is clearly superior to old stuff. But none of it is "purposely" sabotaged.

I used to think like you. But a Dev told me that Somethings are just designed to be plain superior and some other things are just designed to be inferior.

Probably I am just overreacting, but this is how i feel since this thread

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj?False-Options-in-Pathfinder#1


Nicos wrote:
I would like to see a 10th level viking who is not weaker than a equivalent 10th level fighter or a 10th level barbarian. I think it is not possible, I would be glad is someone prove me wrong.

I don't plan to try to meet your challenge (could be a very very long thread), but you have picked an interesting point for the comparison. 10th level Viking counts as 7th level Barbarian, immediately prior to the level when the very good rage powers start coming available. Generally speaking, with 16+Con rounds of rage, a 10th level Viking will be nearly identical to a 10th level Fighter most of the time as far as damage potential goes.


Majuba wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I would like to see a 10th level viking who is not weaker than a equivalent 10th level fighter or a 10th level barbarian. I think it is not possible, I would be glad is someone prove me wrong.
I don't plan to try to meet your challenge (could be a very very long thread), but you have picked an interesting point for the comparison. 10th level Viking counts as 7th level Barbarian, immediately prior to the level when the very good rage powers start coming available. Generally speaking, with 16+Con rounds of rage, a 10th level Viking will be nearly identical to a 10th level Fighter most of the time as far as damage potential goes.

WHy to look only damage?. How is the viking AC and CMD for example?


I've no idea - I just liked that it was an interesting point to pick. It should be about the weakest point of the comparison.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Nicos wrote:


WHy to look only damage?. How is the viking AC and CMD for example?

If you're weighting damage less heavily, the Viking still does better than the base fighter. Bonus to will saves that applies to all Will saves, not just saves vs. fear effects, the option of taking Superstition which beats the hell out of any save boosting feat. Rage boosts to STR should also raise your CMD, and while the Viking's shield focus locks him into a particular fighting style, he can also squeeze more AC out of a shield and still wear Mithril Full Plate without losing anything.

The Viking has the potential for better saves than a fighter, while having better AC than the Barbarian, and the ability to cherry pick from some of the best options from each class without breaking his progression. By 20th level you've had the options for feats and Rage Powers of a 20th level Fighter and a 17th level Barbarian, free action Demoralization, the ability to get the same AC from a buckler that someone else gets from a tower shield... And these abilities are distributed evenly throughout a solid progression.

As a side note-
I don't think SKR telling you that Pathfinder tries to keep a certain verisimilitude between weapon performance equates to "Some options are just supposed to suck". He pointed out that it takes more feats for a guy with a pair of daggers to be as effective as a guy with a Greatsword, because that reflects a reality of the disparity between the two weapons, and that it's harder to reload a crossbow as a free action than a longbow because in real life, it takes longer to reload a crossbow. That does not in any way equate to "Paizo put intentionally sub-par options into the game".


CAn somebody post a build? if the viking want to compete with his damage he need to TWF with shields, a really long feat chain. Woudl he have the feats to buy rage powers?. A THF fighter easily can spend a feat or two in his saves, a vanilla fighter will be better switch hitter, and in the end I think a THF fighter will just do more damage in melee.

I think it is pointless to talk without builds.


Ssalarn wrote:
He pointed out that it takes more feats for a guy with a pair of daggers to be as effective as a guy with a Greatsword, because that reflects a reality of the disparity between the two weapons, and that it's harder to reload a crossbow as a free action than a longbow because in real life, it takes longer to reload a crossbow. That does not in any way equate to "Paizo put intentionally sub-par options into the game".

A 10th level fighters who spend 10 feats in crossbow shoudl be on part with a 10 level fighter that spend 9 feats on archery, IMHo. They are not. Daggers and great sword are very diferents in the game, crossbows are just bad longbows.

But this conversation is not appropiate for this thread.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Nicos wrote:

CAn somebody post a build? if the viking want to compete with his damage he need to TWF with shields, a really long feat chain. Woudl he have the feats to buy rage powers?. A THF fighter easily can spend a feat or two in his saves, a vanilla fighter will be better switch hitter, and in the end I think a THF fighter will just do more damage in melee.

I think it is pointless to talk without builds.

And it's pointless to compare switch hitters and THF to Sword and Board TWF's. If you're comparing a Viking to a fighter or a barbarian, you should be comparing to a fighter or barbarian using the same weapon style.


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

CAn somebody post a build? if the viking want to compete with his damage he need to TWF with shields, a really long feat chain. Woudl he have the feats to buy rage powers?. A THF fighter easily can spend a feat or two in his saves, a vanilla fighter will be better switch hitter, and in the end I think a THF fighter will just do more damage in melee.

I think it is pointless to talk without builds.

And it's pointless to compare switch hitters and THF to Sword and Board TWF's. If you're comparing a Viking to a fighter or a barbarian, you should be comparing to a fighter or barbarian using the same weapon style.

I disagree for a simple reason.

A vanilla figher can be a THF, a TWf, an archer, an archer Tank, etc... No one of his class features constraint him to one specific style. More importantly, armor training work as good for all those styles.

The viking by the other hand lose armor training for an improved AC bonus with shields. If he is not using shields then he is losing a class feature.

==================

Although, I have no problem if you post a a THF viking. It is just obvius to me that it will be much weaker than the respective barbarian who have a better speed, uncanny dodge and DR on top of his much better Rage.


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

CAn somebody post a build? if the viking want to compete with his damage he need to TWF with shields, a really long feat chain. Woudl he have the feats to buy rage powers?. A THF fighter easily can spend a feat or two in his saves, a vanilla fighter will be better switch hitter, and in the end I think a THF fighter will just do more damage in melee.

I think it is pointless to talk without builds.

And it's pointless to compare switch hitters and THF to Sword and Board TWF's. If you're comparing a Viking to a fighter or a barbarian, you should be comparing to a fighter or barbarian using the same weapon style.

Actually I'd be happy to get the axe/sword n board TWF Viking.

The appeal to me of the Viking is that he's less boring than a Fighter because of the barbarian rage powers (I get bored with just rolling attack dice in combat, usually don't play straight martial characters) and might be able to do some fun stuff like make enemies wizz their pants or toss them around.

Should Viking bother with Dazzling Display? I've been hoping there'd be some synergy feats to work with his heavy shield use and free intimidates.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but keep in mind that shield bonus to AC is very easy to manipulate.

You can two hand on your turn and then use a Ring of Force Shield to get your shield AC, for example.

Also, it's a STRAIGHT BONUS. IT doesn't rely on Dex...which is cool, because the Dex to AC is the msot worthless part of Armor Training. Between mithral armor and celestial armor, a fighter will likely never fail to use his Dex bonus without usinig his class features.

i.e. A viking should have the best AC of any Fighter Archetype, and that's before dipping into Barbarian Dodge and Natural AC bonuses on top of it!

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I look at viking as an archetype that allows for very swingy AC and damage depending on the situation. The high AC from a shield makes for a nice AC, even with a light shield or buckler. The viking can then rage and use reckless abandon when he doesn't need AC and can spring for offence.

A barbarian has one mode, while a viking can pull off two.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:


I disagree for a simple reason.

A vanilla figher can be a THF, a TWf, an archer, an archer Tank, etc... No one of his class features constraint him to one specific style. More importantly, armor training work as good for all those styles.

The viking by the other hand lose armor training for an improved AC bonus with shields. If he is not using shields then he is losing a class feature.

==================

Although, I have no problem if you post a a THF viking. It is just obvius to me that it will be much weaker than the respective barbarian who have a better speed, uncanny dodge and DR on top of his much better Rage.

It's a sword and board archetype. If you pick an archetype designed for a certain fighting style and expect it to do something else, that's you not being.... I'm having trouble finding a polite way to finish that sentence, so I just won't.

Archetypes are not new base classes. They are class variants designed to do something you can't otherwise do, usually in a unique way.
Saying the Viking isn't going to be good at ranged is like saying the Archer Fighter makes a poor tank, or that the Martial Artist isn't good with ki.

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Do Vikings (Fighter Archetype) get Greater Rage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.