Are Barbarians Bad without rage?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

In my group our encounters typically last 5+ rounds but we seem to have far less combat than average games. We have played a couple of Pathfinder adventure paths and are always taken off guard by just how much combat is in them.


lemeres wrote:
A player is currently left feeling his class is useless, despite the fact that it is a fairly powerful class.

The player in question thinks that a Barbarian is "not that good" when not raging. Not bad all the time, certainly not "useless".

Ever been in a game where a Fighter or Rogue is seen as "not that good"? That's usually a sign of a playstyle where combats are so short / infrequent that Barbarians can rage constantly, Wizards never run out of spells, etc.

They're both valid playstyles, but they alter class balance in subtle ways.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
squarecat wrote:

Barbarians are bad even with rage. Their a tier 4 class at best and only worth a couple dip levels and nostalgia. You want to have fun try paladin 4 with the mercy to negate fatigue as a swift action and 2d6 self heal, this heal can be enhanced with a phylactery, the trait opportunistic gambler for +1d4 rage rounds. I hope Divine grace doesn't need to be pointed out to you. The rest of your levels are going to be Bloodrager for the same rage mechanic as a barbarian plus self buffing.

Let's not forget having a cha score to keep you from going "I'm bored! when are we going to have combat?" That gets you killed in my games. It's the players choice to ham string their rp potential.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore the fact that I inherently disagree with almost everything not strictly mechanical you just said (Gods Above and Below I loathe the Tier List especially) and just point out... you can't stack Barbarian and Paladin. Paladin requires Lawful Good and Barbarian cannot be Lawful.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
squarecat wrote:

Barbarians are bad even with rage. Their a tier 4 class at best and only worth a couple dip levels and nostalgia. You want to have fun try paladin 4 with the mercy to negate fatigue as a swift action and 2d6 self heal, this heal can be enhanced with a phylactery, the trait opportunistic gambler for +1d4 rage rounds. I hope Divine grace doesn't need to be pointed out to you. The rest of your levels are going to be Bloodrager for the same rage mechanic as a barbarian plus self buffing.

Let's not forget having a cha score to keep you from going "I'm bored! when are we going to have combat?" That gets you killed in my games. It's the players choice to ham string their rp potential.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore the fact that I inherently disagree with almost everything not strictly mechanical you just said (Gods Above and Below I loathe the Tier List especially) and just point out... you can't stack Barbarian and Paladin. Paladin requires Lawful Good and Barbarian cannot be Lawful.

Also Opportunistic Gambler is a 3.5 campaign trait, so most GMs aware of it usually won't let players take it outside of said campaign it belongs to.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
squarecat wrote:

Barbarians are bad even with rage. Their a tier 4 class at best and only worth a couple dip levels and nostalgia. You want to have fun try paladin 4 with the mercy to negate fatigue as a swift action and 2d6 self heal, this heal can be enhanced with a phylactery, the trait opportunistic gambler for +1d4 rage rounds. I hope Divine grace doesn't need to be pointed out to you. The rest of your levels are going to be Bloodrager for the same rage mechanic as a barbarian plus self buffing.

Let's not forget having a cha score to keep you from going "I'm bored! when are we going to have combat?" That gets you killed in my games. It's the players choice to ham string their rp potential.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore the fact that I inherently disagree with almost everything not strictly mechanical you just said (Gods Above and Below I loathe the Tier List especially) and just point out... you can't stack Barbarian and Paladin. Paladin requires Lawful Good and Barbarian cannot be Lawful.

I think squarecat meant that instead of Barbarian, you should play a Paladin 4 / Bloodrager X, which is legal because the bloodrager has no alignment restriction.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Multiple Waves and DM's that play their npc's like tactical generals.
So this is more of a problem with the GM's style.
Is it a problem, though?

In game balance terms, it's probably an improvement. The weakest classes tend to be the ones with unlimited-use abilities (Fighter, Rogue) because in a typical game the other classes can nova for a few rounds per day, and then get to rest because all the enemies are dead.

If combats are longer, the classes with limited daily abilities have to conserve their powers, and the Fighter gets a chance to shine.

It depends on the type of longer fight IME. A long fight that involves waves of weaker enemies or such isn't necessarily a fighter's time to shine, at least not a melee fighter. Too much taking move actions to get from mook to mook, not enough of the standing still that is necessary for full attacking.

(as is often the case martially, an archer might have a better time).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah, I somehow completely missed bloodrager in there. Yeah that's legal.

I still disagree on completely writing Barbarian off because of that stupid Tier List but yeah I guess the build itself is legal.

Silver Crusade

Shinigami02 wrote:

Oh yeah, I somehow completely missed bloodrager in there. Yeah that's legal.

I still disagree on completely writing Barbarian off because of that stupid Tier List but yeah I guess the build itself is legal.

Honestly once you actually play around with them build wise you can kind of see why the tier list is a thing.

Again i do like long more drawn out combats because it means you cant just nova someone and win, which does narrow the gap a lot

Still you just realize the lack of versatility eventually.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've played, like, 30-something characters so far, of just about every type of character except Prepped 9-level Caster, and I still loathe the Tier List, and don't understand why some people take it as gospel. I've solved about as many situations as a Swashbuckler with fully invested Diplomacy and Acrobatics as I ever did as a Sorcerer or Oracle. In fact, the first time I played an Oracle I was the most useless member of the party often as not.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
I've played, like, 30-something characters so far, of just about every type of character except Prepped 9-level Caster, and I still loathe the Tier List, and don't understand why some people take it as gospel. I've solved about as many situations as a Swashbuckler with fully invested Diplomacy and Acrobatics as I ever did as a Sorcerer or Oracle. In fact, the first time I played an Oracle I was the most useless member of the party often as not.

I think its just the allure of having an "I win" Button available to you at all times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The tier list is legit, but it doesn't mean the lower classes are useless. It's more designed to show how much a class can do.


wraithstrike wrote:
The tier list is legit, but it doesn't mean the lower classes are useless. It's more designed to show how much a class can do.

From the Wizard threads we had last month and earlier this on: It kinda does mean that?

I mean they aren't useless. But they are so blow out of the water, why play them? Example; Monk and Rogue.

This however is slowly moving away from the starting point of the discussion so maybe someone should start another thread.


I feel like an underexamined comparison between classes is something you could call like "adventuring stamina" roughly how long you can keep going before you'd want to rest because you're out of stuff". Some classes are great at this- a fighter has very little to run out of except HP, a Kineticist rarely hits the burn limit, a Swashbuckler is unlikely to run out of Panache, etc. But a Wizard who is out of spells probably does not want to keep going any more and a twf-with bombs grenadier alchemist is going to want to sleep a lot.

But neither of these extremes is a problem, since "how long can you go before you want to stop" is often just baked into the structure of the campaign. If you're pirates raiding ships, you're probably not going to want to raid more than 1-3 in a day (because as mighty as the PCs may be, their crew is not). If there's time pressure (got to rescue the hostage before the ritual happens) the party may want to finish the whole dungeon in one go.

So sure, Barbarians are not great when they are out of rage, but they are still better than clerics when they are out of spells. So this is mostly a matter of knowing what to expect in a given campaign and making appropriate choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn’t that kind of like asking if a Paladin is bad without Smite, or a Rogue without Sneak Attack? I mean, sure, if you take away their most powerful class feature and don’t give anything back for it they’re pretty bad. But why would you do that? On the other hand, I’m running a Mad Dog Barbarian right now and love it. Delaying Rage until L4 (we’re at 3 now) isn’t so painful when I have a companion to fight alongside me. The only times I’ve even noticed not having Rage is when I think “Geez, once I get Rage and take Ferocious Beast, this combo may be completely OP.”


MerlinCross wrote:
You'd be surprised how often it is treated as gospel though(Playing X? Why not Wizard?)

Wouldn't 'gospel' mean "you have to accept it at face value without any proof whatsoever"?

That sounds more like the "classes are totally balanced" group.

The tier list is actually surprisingly relevant for this thread because it's a good indication of how much a Barbarian is in danger of running out of rage. Of course, campaign and encounter design plays a large role as well, and the GM might adapt the challenge to the party, but in general, in a party consisting of tier 4-5 classes, a Barbarian will be significantly higher danger of running out of rage rounds than if he's in a party with tier 1-3 classes.

MerlinCross wrote:
(...) Why not Wizard? (...) Wizard threads we had last month (...)

A big use of the tier list is to show that it's not just Wizards. The tier list shows that the Barb will likely be more pressed for rage rounds in a Wizard/Rogue/Monk party than in a Summoner/Druid/Witch party. And it also shows that you don't have to play a Wizard to be powerful, because there are ten classes in the top two tiers.

Just in this thread people complained that I used Summoner, a tier 2 class, as an example!

MerlinCross wrote:
I mean they aren't useless. But they are so blow out of the water, why play them? Example; Monk and Rogue.

Because you don't need to play top tier characters. Adventure Paths are easy enough, and you can totally have fun with low tier classes. But the tier list can serve as a warning: A low tier class can pretty easily be useless in a not-too-unusual situation (both in and out of combat). Playing a low tier class in a party of high tier classes can make one feel vastly overshadowed.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
If there's time pressure (got to rescue the hostage before the ritual happens) the party may want to finish the whole dungeon in one go.

The problem with that is that hier tier classes generally have the ability to bypass enemies, and are thus still better in such situations. You don't need to slay the dragon when you can simply fly to the highest room in the tallest tower to save the ogre princess!


What I'm seeing for the post is "Why play barbarian?"

Oh your group picked Teir ones? Good luck doing anything past level 5.

Oh your group picked low? Good luck doing things when you run out of rage.

In short pick Teir One and get to do stuff.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Wouldn't 'gospel' mean "you have to accept it at face value without any proof whatsoever"?

Gospel as I meant it is "Follow it and nothing else, or else be damned for eternity." And I loathe it because far too often it winds up "if you're using anything below Tier 3, and especially doing anything outside of combat as anything below Tier 3, you're playing wrong and are having bad-wrong-fun." Most of the time when it's come up in discussions I've been involved in it's been used to belittle anyone who would dare play a Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, or the like. Yes, I admit that the tier list can be representative of potential options (though... neither Gold nor Spell Slots are an infinite resource, so the best Full Caster in the world will not be able to do everything every time.) But far too often it used not as an educational tool but as a tool of oppression.

In fact, look at the very post I was responding to with that original post. Statements such as "[They're]... only worth a couple dip levels and nostalgia," or "It's the players choice to ham string their rp potential." Just for being a "Tier 4" class. Stuff like that is why I so adamantly disagree with it.

And to respond to an earlier statement of your own, provided it's not happening at super-natural rates you can solve rising sea levels with skill checks and time. Knowledge (Engineering) to know how to build a levee, or even full dam; some Diplomacy to recruit the townsfolk to help save their town; and then time and manual labor to build the thing. Worked well enough IRL. As for if it is happening at Supernatural rates... If you're not at rather high levels the Wizard's going to be no more help than the Barbarian for that. At least the Barbarian can carry more to help evacuate the town.

But to be more on-topic... All I can say is that the CR system (as I understand it) is approximately balanced around the idea of 4 CR=APL encounters a day, or equivalent, and a CR=APL encounter is intended to consume 1/4 the party's resources. While resource-deprivation games do happen, chances are high it's going to hit everyone, not just the Barbarian.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shiningami puts it far better than I could. I posted out of bitterness and just plain tired (bother mentally and physically).

Does this excuse what I put? No but Shiningami worded it much better the I could in my current state.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Gospel as I meant it is "Follow it and nothing else, or else be damned for eternity."

Shouldn't there be some truthfulness component involved? Because following the truth and nothing else is not a bad thing - quite the contrary.

Shinigami02 wrote:
And I loathe it because far too often it winds up "if you're using anything below Tier 3, and especially doing anything outside of combat as anything below Tier 3, you're playing wrong and are having bad-wrong-fun." Most of the time when it's come up in discussions I've been involved in it's been used to belittle anyone who would dare play a Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, or the like.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not the tier list, it's people misusing it.

As I said before, the tier list is merely an observation - to be precise, it's a quantification of an observation. In the words of it's original 3.5 post (as far as I can tell), "a measure of the power and versatility of classes for balance purposes".
Acting like the tier list didn't exist wouldn't change anything. It's a three monkeys situation - closing your eyes and ears doesn't make the evil of the world go away, and not speaking about it only makes it worse.
People experience the differences between the tiers even when they haven't even heard of the list. Not everyone does, as optimization plays a big part, as does the campaign, and some people just don't care as long as they can roll enough dice or something, but many do.

An example: After out last campaign ended about a month ago, the Magus's player complained that he often felt overshadowed by my Summoner, the Druid, and Sorcerer. He asked me if the Magus was somehow weak, even though it probably did more damage, (and provided more utility,) than his previous Paladin - the difference being that this time, his character was competing not with a cMonk and a Ranger, but with an Eidolon and a wildshape Druid.
I did actually use that as an example of why I don't want any tier 1 or 2 classes in the campaign I'm going to GM.

I also seem to read different threads than you, or interpret posts in them differently. Maybe it's selective memory for either or both of us, but I don't really remember the tier list being used in a mean spirited way. Maybe it's more prevalent on other boards due to Paizo's strict enforcement of their policies?

Shinigami02 wrote:
In fact, look at the very post I was responding to with that original post. Statements such as "[They're]... only worth a couple dip levels and nostalgia," or "It's the players choice to ham string their rp potential." Just for being a "Tier 4" class. Stuff like that is why I so adamantly disagree with it.

The thing is, the other two classes he talked about? Also tier 4, both of them. There is no "Barbarian is bad because it's only tier 4" argument in his posts (at least not a functional argument). Remove the mention of tiers from his post and it says exactly the same.

­

MerlinCross wrote:
Does this excuse what I put?

Er, why should you need to be excused? I see nothing offensive in any of your posts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it is Selective Memory, or maybe it's my background from the PF Reddit, but every time I can think of that the Tier List has ever come up it's pretty much always used to deride martial players. Maybe it's used better here, but if it is it's not in conversations I can remember reading. So maybe I am being a bit unfair on the tier list, but it's hard to resist that association when it is misused in most of your (remembered, again not ruling out the possibility it may be Selective Memory, negative does stick with you more) exposures to a tool.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Pretty much. You don’t have to put your hands over your eyes to not see the “evil” if the evil doesn’t exist. But someone labels something evil, and a large group jumps on it as evil and decree it as evil, so now it’s evil even if it isn’t.

Thus the failing of the Tier system. It’s not educational or informative, its just a quick reference tool for people to beat other people over the head with for choosing to play a certain way.


Shinigami02 wrote:
I've played, like, 30-something characters so far, of just about every type of character except Prepped 9-level Caster, and I still loathe the Tier List, and don't understand why some people take it as gospel. I've solved about as many situations as a Swashbuckler with fully invested Diplomacy and Acrobatics as I ever did as a Sorcerer or Oracle. In fact, the first time I played an Oracle I was the most useless member of the party often as not.

Why couldn't the Sorcerer or Oracle use those skills?


I don't think I've ever seen somebody actually berate another player using the tier list as an excuse. They might suggest a more useful/fitting option, but in my experience, the tone is meant to be helpful as opposed to antagonizing.

Furthermore, I disagree that the Tier system isn't educational or informative; on the contrary, that's all it is. It is a measure of a class's relative power and versatility. That's all.

For example, it's an objective fact that the Core Paladin is superior to the Core Fighter. One has a bonus to a small subset of Will saves, the other has straight up immunity to that subset, as well as a better Will save, and a class feature that directly boosts ALL saves.

However, for the people who refuse to see things from an objective point of view, somebody telling them to play a Paladin instead of a Lawful Good Fighter comes off as a personal attack, rather than a helpful suggestion.

We're just trying to help. A lot of us who ascribe to the tier list do so because we ourselves have been in positions where our characters felt...inadequate. It's not a good feeling at all. That's why it's important to understand the tier list.

Understanding the tier list helps you understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of each class, and once you understand the reasons behind their placement, you can carve out a niche for yourself and never feel useless again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The tier list is legit, but it doesn't mean the lower classes are useless. It's more designed to show how much a class can do.

From the Wizard threads we had last month and earlier this on: It kinda does mean that?

I mean they aren't useless. But they are so blow out of the water, why play them? Example; Monk and Rogue.

This however is slowly moving away from the starting point of the discussion so maybe someone should start another thread.

From a real life perspective: You play the other classes because they are still useful, and provide enjoyment.

From a perspective of only caring about power: Everyone should take the most powerful builds possible everytime even if it lead to cookie cutter city.

However most people are just looking to play the best builds so that is why the lower tier classes get played. Enjoyment matters just as much as potential power.

edit:In my experience the ability of a player to optimize a character trumps the class tier. I've seen barbarians and other classes below tier 3 be the MVP because the person playing them understood the game better than everyone else at the table.


wraithstrike wrote:
In my experience the ability of a player to optimize a character trumps the class tier. I've seen barbarians and other classes below tier 3 be the MVP because the person playing them understood the game better than everyone else at the table.

That's not a comparison of classes, it's a comparison of players.


Shinigami02 wrote:
If you're not at rather high levels the Wizard's going to be no more help than the Barbarian for that. At least the Barbarian can carry more to help evacuate the town.

Well...if the wizard knows Floating Disk or Ant Haul, this is objectively untrue beyond about 3rd level. Then again, if he just knows Sleep, Magic Missile and so on, he's about as much use as a Tier 1 chocolate teapot.

So we'll call it a draw.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

TIER LIST NOT PUT BARBARIAN AT TIER 0, THEREFORE TIER LIST AM ROUGHLY AS USEFUL AS SMASH BROTHERS TIER LIST.

AM MADE BY NOOBS, FOR NOOBS, FOR HAZING AND FEELING BAD ABOUT STUFF. FOR CALLING IT 'TRUTH' AM SORT OF LIKE CALLING FOX ONLY CHARACTER THAT AM WORTH DARN. 'NO ITEM, WIZARD ONLY, FINAL DESTINATION' AM ONE STEP SHY OF BEING GUY WHO AM STILL PLAYING MELEE AT TOURNAMENT. NOBODY WANT BE THAT GUY.

SO NOT BE THAT GUY.

--YES, BARBARIAN PLAY SMASH BROTHERS AND KNOW ABOUT META OF COMPETITIVE SCENE WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW MELEE PLAYERS AM TERRIBLE.

NAME AM SMASH BROTHERS FOR SAKE OF PETE. WHY AM THIS SURPRISE? BARBARIAN MAIN JIGGLYPUFF. AM WRECKING ALL KINDS OF FOOLS WITH SINGNAPPOUND. ALSO, GROWING TO SIZE OF PLANET. THAT AM COOL TOO.


Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:


On top of that the enemies would be more tactical, blindsiding the wizard crippling the frontliner with tanglefoot bags. Just making it more so that the party has to be more clever in how they fight.

Uh? How are you blindsiding a wizard after level 3? Isn't Mirror Image

a thing?

Or level 7 - Emergency Force Sphere.

Look PFS fights are designed (mostly) for the party to win. 3-4 rounds, usually.


AM BARBARIAN wrote:

TIER LIST NOT PUT BARBARIAN AT TIER 0, THEREFORE TIER LIST AM ROUGHLY AS USEFUL AS SMASH BROTHERS TIER LIST.

AM MADE BY NOOBS, FOR NOOBS, FOR HAZING AND FEELING BAD ABOUT STUFF. FOR CALLING IT 'TRUTH' AM SORT OF LIKE CALLING FOX ONLY CHARACTER THAT AM WORTH DARN. 'NO ITEM, WIZARD ONLY, FINAL DESTINATION' AM ONE STEP SHY OF BEING GUY WHO AM STILL PLAYING MELEE AT TOURNAMENT. NOBODY WANT BE THAT GUY.

SO NOT BE THAT GUY.

--YES, BARBARIAN PLAY SMASH BROTHERS AND KNOW ABOUT META OF COMPETITIVE SCENE WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW MELEE PLAYERS AM TERRIBLE.

NAME AM SMASH BROTHERS FOR SAKE OF PETE. WHY AM THIS SURPRISE? BARBARIAN MAIN JIGGLYPUFF. AM WRECKING ALL KINDS OF FOOLS WITH SINGNAPPOUND. ALSO, GROWING TO SIZE OF PLANET. THAT AM COOL TOO.

So am I like tier -1? that doesn't make me sound more tiered hmm I got it I'm tier: infinite!!!

Although I do still get beat by AM at Parcheesi for some reason. I think he cheats >.>


Athaleon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In my experience the ability of a player to optimize a character trumps the class tier. I've seen barbarians and other classes below tier 3 be the MVP because the person playing them understood the game better than everyone else at the table.
That's not a comparison of classes, it's a comparison of players.

I realize this. I said that to point out that in an actual game player ability also matters because some people think the tier of a class is everything.

Grand Lodge

Perfect Tommy wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:


On top of that the enemies would be more tactical, blindsiding the wizard crippling the frontliner with tanglefoot bags. Just making it more so that the party has to be more clever in how they fight.

Uh? How are you blindsiding a wizard after level 3? Isn't Mirror Image

a thing?

Or level 7 - Emergency Force Sphere.

Look PFS fights are designed (mostly) for the party to win. 3-4 rounds, usually.

Mirror Image: Spell Sunder or Blind Fight + closing your eyes.

Emergency Force Shield and everything else: Spell Sunder.


Surprised that nobody mentioned using the Rage spell to relieve the need for Rage rounds. (Note: Ignore the "Cencentration" part of the "Concentration + 1 round/level" duration, and just treat it as 1 round/level, unless the caster is of some kind of Reach/AoO build.) It isn't as good as actual Barbarian Rage, but (unlike Skald's Inspired Rage at less than 20th level) it still works for activating Rage Powers, so you can use it to save on Rage rounds in the fights of intermediate toughness or if your adventuring day runs unexpectedly long. Consumables (except maybe a Wand if your UMD was good enough to activate it reliably) are usually too expensive to use on a regular basis (and the action economy of this would be questionable at best), but if your party has a caster that can cast it as a 2nd level spell and craft the consumable themselves, it would be good to stock a few Potions or Scrolls or have a Wand in case of an emergency.

Silver Crusade

Perfect Tommy wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:


On top of that the enemies would be more tactical, blindsiding the wizard crippling the frontliner with tanglefoot bags. Just making it more so that the party has to be more clever in how they fight.

Uh? How are you blindsiding a wizard after level 3? Isn't Mirror Image

a thing?

Or level 7 - Emergency Force Sphere.

Look PFS fights are designed (mostly) for the party to win. 3-4 rounds, usually.

IF thats the case then you might as well drop the table top all together and just stick to online RPing.

Any sort of optimization talk immediately becomes irrelevant if the DM just gives everybody plot armor.


wraithstrike wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In my experience the ability of a player to optimize a character trumps the class tier. I've seen barbarians and other classes below tier 3 be the MVP because the person playing them understood the game better than everyone else at the table.
That's not a comparison of classes, it's a comparison of players.
I realize this. I said that to point out that in an actual game player ability also matters because some people think the tier of a class is everything.

The thing is, we get people disparaging the entire idea of a Tier list as invalid because a good player with a low-tier [thing] can beat a new player with a high-tier [thing]. That's not what the list is for, and it leads to thinking along the lines of the trite piece of folk pseudo-wisdom that "a poor craftsman blames his tools"—as though there are no differences between tools and as such the tools cannot be rated as better or worse relative to each other. A craftsman with good tools will do a better job (or at least get it done faster and easier) than that same craftsman having to work against or around a poor set of tools.


Matthew Downie wrote:
lemeres wrote:
A player is currently left feeling his class is useless, despite the fact that it is a fairly powerful class.

The player in question thinks that a Barbarian is "not that good" when not raging. Not bad all the time, certainly not "useless".

Ever been in a game where a Fighter or Rogue is seen as "not that good"? That's usually a sign of a playstyle where combats are so short / infrequent that Barbarians can rage constantly, Wizards never run out of spells, etc.

They're both valid playstyles, but they alter class balance in subtle ways.

This

The GM favors a playstyle that encourages resource management. Classes that have limited resources, including barbarians and most casters will have to be more selective if their usage of limited resources while classes without limited-use abilities will start to shine.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:


On top of that the enemies would be more tactical, blindsiding the wizard crippling the frontliner with tanglefoot bags. Just making it more so that the party has to be more clever in how they fight.

Uh? How are you blindsiding a wizard after level 3? Isn't Mirror Image

a thing?

Or level 7 - Emergency Force Sphere.

Look PFS fights are designed (mostly) for the party to win. 3-4 rounds, usually.

With a minute/level duration Mirror Image will not be up at all times at 3rd level, even with a literal 15 minute adventuring day.

Emergency Force Sphere reuires an immediate action. It cannot be used prior to the wizards first turn in each combat. It also effectively takes the wizard out of the fight by blocking the wizards line-of-effect.

The playstyle the barbarian is complaining about is equally effective at preventing a wizard from using spells like this to solve everything,


thats why my favorite 3 barbarians are:
1. Invulnerable Rager:
energy resistance + SUPER DR when not raging.
can Tank very very very well with not a single rage round spent (if fatigued.)

2. Titan Mauler :
shorten the foe's reach, SUPER sized weapons, bardiche in 1 hand witha shield.
many many things without rage.

3: Mounted fury. small size .
no charging feats, take team feats with mount \ gang up etc.
you ride your Boar , and both attack VERY well.
super mobility, and at later levels, with monstreous mount - a flying mounted character.

VERY easy to make a Barbarian intresting without useing any rage powers or rounds.


666bender wrote:

2. Titan Mauler :

shorten the foe's reach, SUPER sized weapons, bardiche in 1 hand witha shield.
many many things without rage.

My wife's favorite archetype.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Maybe it is Selective Memory, or maybe it's my background from the PF Reddit, but every time I can think of that the Tier List has ever come up it's pretty much always used to deride martial players. Maybe it's used better here, but if it is it's not in conversations I can remember reading. So maybe I am being a bit unfair on the tier list, but it's hard to resist that association when it is misused in most of your (remembered, again not ruling out the possibility it may be Selective Memory, negative does stick with you more) exposures to a tool.

I'm not sure it's you being selective. I think it's that the only reason someone would have to bring up a tier list in a discussion about a Cooperative, table-top role-playing game is to prove another wrong about a class' strengths or weaknesses.

C/MD is the actual "tool" to use to not screw over a game for others or yourself, because, ya know, it's cooperative, and I personally consider a responsibility upon everyone to ensure fun is had. But that's just me thinking an extremely social game that exists for purposes of cooperative entertainment should be... fun for everyone, which is why there are options for all types, but I guess that makes too much sense.

Facetiousness aside, tiers themselves almost feel moot at this point. Anything that was weak or awful has been changed , buffed or can be Archetyped to be at least considered for tiers 3 or 4, which is generally considered to be the sweet spot of power for both players and GMs anyway.

Edit: As for the OP. Yes. Yes they are.


Frosty Ace wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Maybe it is Selective Memory, or maybe it's my background from the PF Reddit, but every time I can think of that the Tier List has ever come up it's pretty much always used to deride martial players....

I'm not sure it's you being selective. I think it's that the only reason someone would have to bring up a tier list in a discussion about a Cooperative, table-top role-playing game is to prove another wrong about a class' strengths or weaknesses.

C/MD is the actual "tool" to use to not screw over a game for others or yourself, because, ya know, it's cooperative, and I personally consider a responsibility upon everyone to ensure fun is had. But that's just me thinking an extremely social game that exists for purposes of cooperative entertainment should be... fun for everyone, which is why there are options for all types, but I guess that makes too much sense.

Facetiousness aside, tiers themselves almost feel moot at this point. Anything that was weak or awful has been changed , buffed or can be Archetyped to be at least considered for tiers 3 or 4, which is generally considered to be the sweet spot of power for both players and GMs anyway.

Edit: As for the OP. Yes. Yes they are.

I agree that Shinigami likely see's it that way for that reason, but it can still be useful for discussions about the campaign by the DM with other DM's for general assistance with encounter design/plot, just not something that should enter most player/dm discussions or into conversations with specifics.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Are Barbarians Bad without rage? All Messageboards