Barbarian Class Preview

Monday, June 11, 2018

Rage consumes you in battle. You delight in carving through your enemies using powerful weapons and wreaking havoc without needing complicated techniques or rigid training, and you rely on your astonishing durability to get you through a fight. You associate your rage with a traditional symbol of affinity known as a totem, which might take the form of an animal, a spirit, or even a part of yourself. To many barbarians, brute force is a hammer and every problem looks like a nail; to others, the dark emotions within them are something to hold back and release only when it matters most.

When it came to barbarians in the playtest, we wanted to take the most popular parts of the original barbarian and the unchained barbarian and brew them together with a few special ingredients to make the class even more flexible to fit even more roleplaying and mechanical concepts. Let's take a look!

Rage

Rage is a barbarian's key class feature. Barbarians aren't super-trained in fancy weapon techniques like most of the other martial classes. Instead, a barbarian can enter a rage that drastically increases her damage and grants her a significant booster shot of temporary Hit Points, in exchange for a –1 penalty to AC and the inability to use concentrate actions unless they specifically have the rage trait (note, this means that somatic-only spells are now possible in a rage!). Unlike in Pathfinder First Edition, rage in the playtest is not limited in rounds per day—let's be honest, in Pathfinder First Edition, our barbarians never ran out of rounds anyway once they had gained a few levels. A rage lasts 3 rounds, followed by a round of fatigue. While you're fatigued, you can't rage again, but once that round has passed, you can enter a new rage, with a shiny brand-new set of temporary Hit Points to go along with it. You can do this as often as you need during the day!

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Totems

Without a doubt, the most popular element of barbarians in Pathfinder First Edition is the totem, introduced in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player Guide. These totems are a set of three thematically linked abilities the barbarian can choose, starting at 2nd level. In the playtest, you get a totem right away at 1st level. Your totem is a representation of how and why you rage and grants you an initial ability, access to more totem feats down the line, and, at 9th level, resistance equal to your Constitution modifier against a specific type of damage. Each totem also has its own anathema, most of which are relatively low impact and designed to create roleplaying hooks. For instance, the giant totem's anathema states that you cannot fail to accept a personal challenge of your strength, much like how Amiri accepted the challenging task her tribal fellows set her to slay a frost giant. Some though, are stricter—the superstition totem requires that you never willingly accept the benefits of spells, but grants you some truly astounding antimagic abilities in exchange.

Some of the totems, like animal totem, giant totem, and dragon totem, offer a few abilities that are flat-out magical. For instance, animal totem barbarians can adopt animal features and attacks and even transform into an animal (a great way to represent lycanthrope characters), whereas dragon totem barbarians gain a dragon breath attack can even grow wings. Even though totems are popular and roleplaying opportunities are fun, we recognize not everyone necessarily wants to commit to them, so we also offer the fury totem, which has no anathema or special requirements and focuses more on barbarian feats that aren't tied to any totem, which we'll look at in a bit. But first...

Additional Barbarian Features

Though I called out rage and totems specifically, the barbarian has some really neat abilities beyond those. For instance, at level 3, barbarians gain critical specialization effects when in a rage, even if they don't fulfill the usual proficiency rank requirement for the weapon—they use whatever weapon is most efficient to express their rage! One other thing they have that nobody else does: 12 Hit Points per level. Add that to the substantial temporary Hit Points that they can generate (possibly multiple times in a long fight) and the resistances from their totem that kick in at level 9, and barbarians have incredible staying power. Sure, they don't prevent as many hits as a paladin or a shield fighter might, but they can stand there taking hits long past the point where anyone else could stay standing. This is also a good point to mention one feature barbarians don't have in the playtest: alignment requirements. Barbarians can be whatever alignment they want; for instance, a lawful barbarian might act like one of the concepts I described earlier, controlling and holding back her emotions to channel and release her rage when it matters most.

As many of you have predicted, barbarians also have the best Fortitude proficiency, gaining the juggernaut class feature at level 7 (which grants master proficiency in Fortitude and the ability to count any successes you roll as critical successes instead) and improved juggernaut at 13th (which grants legendary proficiency and removes the chance of critically failing), but they also have a secondary Will focus, gaining indomitable will at 15th level to become masters in Will. Tireless rage comes in at level 17 to allow barbarians to ignore fatigue after ending a rage (though they still must wait the normal amount of time before entering a new rage). Barbarians are all about brutalizing opponents without worrying about carrying lots of different weapons and selecting the right one for the job with their monster knowledge, so it makes sense that they gain the ability to rip through a chunk of resistances automatically with level 19's devastating strikes ability. Possibly my favorite barbarian feature, though, is the level 11 ability mighty rage—whenever you enter a rage, it allows you to immediately use one of your rage-only actions for free. So many possibilities!

Barbarian Feats

In addition to the feats based on totems, there are a variety of other feats available, from the bread-and-butter, low-level Sudden Charge to the devastating Whirlwind Strike (attack everything in your reach), Brutal Critical (your critical hits deal an extra die of damage as well as persistent bleed damage), Vicious Evisceration (you maim the enemy, dealing extra damage, reducing its maximum HP by an amount equal to its level, and giving it a –1 penalty to Fortitude), Contagious Rage (one of your allies gets the benefits and –1 penalty to AC imposed by your rage, but can still concentrate), and Quaking Stomp (you stomp so hard that it creates an honest-to-goodness earthquake). But none caused a playtest GM to raise their eyebrows quite like the superstition totem's Spell Sunder, which really saved us when we faced walls of force, magical trap effects, and more.

To close off, some of you might have expected me to talk about the dragon totem barbarian Linda is playing in my playtest game, who has sometimes been the party's primary healer. She does that through abilities beyond the barbarian class, though certainly Moment of Clarity (which allows a barbarian to use an extra action to use a concentrate ability mid-rage). But if you're wondering why there was a time in my playtest when she was the only one with an area attack, that was because of her barbarian's dragon breath!

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Amiri Barbarians Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
801 to 850 of 859 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of downtime mode, and you

...

Potions are literally spells in a can and can't be used, refer to up thread dev posts, they literally haven't mentioned any healing alchemical items. The only thing they have mentioned (that I forgot about) was medicine skill works, but that's also with a character dedicated to it. So now my barb has to be dedicating their feats to being a healer instead of being a Superstitious barb.

Sure the second one is you screwing yourself, but what if it's something in character wise, like "I don't accept challenges the day before heading out because I want to prepare to leave and don't want to risk hurting myself doing something strenuous." Similar to how athletes don't go wearing themselves out before a big competition.

Or maybe the gm said they had 2 weeks of downtime and the player had kept getting pestered by the gm to do something to do with their anathema everyday of it by the gm (who's not trying to be a jerk, just wants to hook em and they ain't biting in) and so halfway through stops following their anathema just to knock it off, figuring theyll do it the day before the 2 weeks is up. Only the gm had already planned to ambush the town after 1 week, thereby screwing the player.


Consequence of not following the restrictions you agreed to when creating a character. Feelsbadman


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I seriously don't see how people claiming taboos won't be too bad mechanically will ever succeed in convincing people who say this is terrible thematically, which it also is.

I see no point in it.


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of

...

The actual comment that was said was:

>A lot of things in the game that are the spell, now count as spells. Those spell in a can items (wands, scrolls, staves) would not work. Elixirs from alchemists aren't even magic, so they're definitely fine. As seen in a few playtests where potions were found, potions aren't exactly spells in a can any more either, though some are pretty similar to spells (we had enough spell in a can types of items).

Notice how potions aren't on the "spell in a can items" list.

There's been the healing alchemical (Potion of Vitality I think was the name) that's been mentioned on the Glass Cannon podcast. Heals less than a potion, but gives an alternate bonus if you're at full health. Pretty sure it was 1d6, but gives a +1 to Fort vs toxins at full health, or something like that.

If you purposefully don't accept challenges, then you have to accept the consequences that come with it. Again, we're back to "want to do dumb things and don't like having consequences".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of downtime mode, and you

That's the thing though, totems are almost entirely flavor with a little bit of mechanics. With the exception of superstition, you lose barely anything when you trigger your totem. You still have your rage, your feats and skills, and any other choices you made. Unless you built a character entirely around wielding extra-big weapons (which is unlikely) you are basically unaffected. And it's not like you can only wield those weapons with the Giant totem. There are going to be other ways, probably with a small penalty like in PF1. So I don't see how the triggering the totem is this session-ruining event, even in the outlier case of superstition. Totem's are just not a big enough deal that if you lose the benefits you are left hiding during fights.

I don't see how we don't get benefits from adding totems, even with anathema. Take away the totem powers and you get... a PF1 barbarian. So we can only gain from this. They say "hey, you can have this, but only if you follow certain rules". OK, and if you don't like those rules then you're right back where you started. So we really can't say anything has been taken.

But again, if anyone really hates this system, they just take Fury. No big deal.

Except totems aren't supposed to be flavor with a splash of mechanics, it's supposed to be mechanics with a splash of flavor. And the bigger the mechanic, the bigger the splash of flavor that's supposed to accompany it (superstition vs giant totem).

Except we don't know that we can wield those weapons other ways, unless you can point me to a relevant blog or dev post. So I'm going based off of the fact that totems, which are a barb thing, are tied only to barbs, and we also know that the pf1 totems which these were based off of are exclusive.

Yeah, the same pf1 barbarian that had these totem powers, whether through rage powers or an archetype, and still didn't have the anathema. We've yet to see any indication these restricted powers are better than the unrestricted ones that were in pf1.

Woo, I get the choice of 1 totem if I don't like how anathema is done. That's like saying, "You don't like cleave, all you can take is vital strike and it's chain, enjoy."

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Potions are literally spells in a can and can't be used, refer to up thread dev posts, they literally haven't mentioned any healing alchemical items.

These statements are both factually false. PF2 Potions are not spells in a can, per the Mark Seifter (and there are still healing potions, we know from a demo game). And there provably are alchemical healing items (the alchemist pregen has used them in various demo games)...as well as Mark saying as much in the linked post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your

...

I guess I misremembered that then, I stand corrected. That alchemical item sounds neat.

And we're back to the how is this better done than in pf1 were there weren't these restrictions. Don't say it's a roleplaying hook, because in pf1 the player could have had these hooks without an anathema. Also I still don't think they need removal, just that players should be able to select from a list of them.

Also I just realized that this started over me correcting that it's not that the barb loses these powers for a day, but until he spends a day to get them back, which was a huge difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The first two points are a non-sequitur that will lead to a can of worms far worse than debating what to name an anti-magic totem. I will not debate those points because there is no merit to do so, for either side, and they do nothing to aid the topic at hand.

Which is precisely why "purity" is not an appropriate term to introduce into gameplay in PF2.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
how is absolution not there? Absolution means the subject, and nothing else. The more pure something is, the less of anything else being there. If an entity is of pure courage, there would be no fear or doubt present, as the absolution of courage eschews the other aspects entirely. That is absolution, which is also purity.
You need to look up the meaning of "absolution"

Because someone will take it way out of its intended context to something that is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand? Sure. While we're at it, why don't we just get rid of combat in PF2, because it will make people think homicide is okay in the real world, and we can't have that! (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

Words have multiple definitions. Sure, absolution is commonly associated with cleansing of religious guilt, but absolution, in this case, refers to the certainty and unity of a result. Hence why, when people say "Absolutely," they don't mean it in a guilt-removing way. They mean it in a sense of confirmation.

Context is important here, because it's the difference between a discussion of gender favoritism and totem names. Last thing this board needs is more of the former, and quite frankly, it's way out of left field here, when this is all about changing totem names.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Sure, absolution is commonly associated with cleansing of religious guilt, but absolution, in this case, refers to the certainty and unity of a result. Hence why, when people say "Absolutely," they don't mean it in a guilt-removing way. They mean it in a sense of confirmation.

,snip.

Context is important here, because it's the difference between a discussion of gender favoritism and totem names. Last thing this board needs is more of the former, and quite frankly, it's way out of left field here, when this is all about changing totem names.

No, it is NOT out of left field here. It is central to any discussion of changing terminology in an official rule book.

The word you are looking for that has its root in 'absolute' is "absolutism", as Secret Wizard said earlier. There is no definition of 'absolution' that has the meaning 'the certainty and unity of a result'.


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.


Willuwontu-
You do realize that when some one talks about large and huge weapons they aren't usually speaking of greatsword? Regardless, the size of weapons definetly affects how its wielded, in pf1 it applied a -2 penalty (if you could wield it at all). Or are you saying a person can wield a large greatsword effectively (16 lbs, if the double weight per category is used)?

Edit: Well looks like I took too long and Cyouni gave a better response before me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, Darksol, you are losing this argument because now you are basically trying to take on Merriam-Webster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.

And this is currently associated with a -4ish penalty to attack in 1E. Don't see you up in arms about it.

Still a mundane act. 15 STR characters are ridiculously strong by modern standards.


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.

Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.

And this is currently associated with a -4ish penalty to attack in 1E. Don't see you up in arms about it.

Still a mundane act. 15 STR characters are ridiculously strong by modern standards.

Yes and that 15 Str character is still less likely to hit than a 10 Str commoner with a dagger.

That's the point - fighting with an 8-foot long sword like it's a normal weapon is not really a mundane act anymore.


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.

I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.
I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.

Here another and another

You also have to remember this is just the blade length we're discussing, this doesn't include the handle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the removal of alignment, because I always wondered how organised Barbarians could do it, like wandering brigands or whatever. I understand it was about Not following the law, doing what's in your heart, but that shouldn't stop you from learning how to flurry of blows as well, for exampler.

Barbarian Paladins hazaar!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlatan wrote:
but that shouldn't stop you from learning how to flurry of blows as well, for exampler.

...But I loved my "Fallen/Chaotic Monk at 1st level -> Barbarian multiclass" Escaped from Evil Monastery character!


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.
I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.

Here another and another

You also have to remember this is just the blade length we're discussing, this doesn't include the...

In your own links:

> Dr. Hans-Peter Hils in his 1985 dissertation on the work of the great 14th century master Johannes Liechtenauer noted that since the 19th century many arms museum collections typically feature immense parade or bearing greatswords as if they were actual combat weapons ignoring the fact they are not only blunt edged, but of impractical size and weight as well as poorly balanced for effective use. (Hils, p. 269-286). Though never intended for actual fighting, examples of such ponderous specimens are still occasionally cited incorrectly as having been actual combat weapons.

Furthermore, if you go check further down to actual weapon examples, all the samples are 5 feet or less. Same thing if you check the actual weapons in Wikipedia instead of just linking to classifications, because those classifications also include the ceremonial ones.

Edit: The lengths they reference also include the hilt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Sure, absolution is commonly associated with cleansing of religious guilt, but absolution, in this case, refers to the certainty and unity of a result. Hence why, when people say "Absolutely," they don't mean it in a guilt-removing way. They mean it in a sense of confirmation.

,snip.

Context is important here, because it's the difference between a discussion of gender favoritism and totem names. Last thing this board needs is more of the former, and quite frankly, it's way out of left field here, when this is all about changing totem names.

No, it is NOT out of left field here. It is central to any discussion of changing terminology in an official rule book.

Yes it is. When I've seen the word "pure" or "purity" be used, in a fantasy setting, it's never been in the context of gender favoritism or mass genocide, nor was it an intended context in any manner. It's more-or-less a variant of strawmanning what I meant when I brought that word into context.

Not gonna bother arguing the other point because it's a matter of semantics, so we'll agree to disagree there.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When I've seen the word "pure" or "purity" be used, in a fantasy setting, it's never been in the context of gender favoritism or mass genocide,

Then you are reading a vastly different set of authors and artists than I am.

If we could be sure that only your authors' ideas and meanings influenced gamers, then I wouldn't have a problem.

My concern is with the people who read/view the other comics, books, movies, etc and bring in those other ideas and meanings to Pathfinder games.

The connotations of "purity" that I've experienced make me leary of using that word in a Pathfinder core rulebook that is being interpreted by people who have a different experience than yours.


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.
I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.

Here another and another

You also have to remember this is just the blade length we're

...

Paizo ate my response T_T, here's the gist of what I was gonna say.

Also in that page further down are more examples of practical swords one of which is 70.4 in.

In addition there's this excerpt you chose to ignore as well of a longer one, with a total length of 71 in.

Curator of arms for the Hungarian Military History Museum in Budapest, László Töl, describes a very fine specimen of another 16th century German two-handed great sword of 53.4 inches length, which this author also had the privilege of examining, as weighing only a little over 8 pounds. Again, the piece's size and weight betrayed a functional and well-balanced weapon. László Töl adds: "The full length of the sword is 1808 mm [this is 71 in], the full length of the blade is 1355 mm[this is the 53.4 in he refers to], the edge of the blade is 936 mm long, the length of the hilt is 306 mm, and the diameter of the cross-guard is 502 mm. The width of the blade is 46 mm, and its thickness is 7.5 mm. The 'neck' of the blade is 8.6 mm thick and 32 mm wide. The centre of gravity is 616 mm from the pommel. The sword weighs 3650g. The blade's cross-section is rhomboid in shape."

I linked to the wiki page that I did because it links to all the 2 handed swords, if you look through all the various practical ones of each type, they range from 34 in (the shortest I remember, fairly certain this was a blade length and not including the handle) to 80.4 in.

Large swords are a thing.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When I've seen the word "pure" or "purity" be used, in a fantasy setting, it's never been in the context of gender favoritism or mass genocide,

Then you are reading a vastly different set of authors and artists than I am.

If we could be sure that only your authors' ideas and meanings influenced gamers, then I wouldn't have a problem.

My concern is with the people who read/view the other comics, books, movies, etc and bring in those other ideas and meanings to Pathfinder games.

The connotations of "purity" that I've experienced make me leary of using that word in a Pathfinder core rulebook that is being interpreted by people who have a different experience than yours.

I'd hope so, since apparently I should be reading authors that condone and support such bad things and treat their teachings as gospel for "What I can include in a fantasy genre game." It's just an absurd concept.

Regardless, this only proves further discussion on this matter is pointless. Topics like that don't belong on these forums anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd hope so, since apparently I should be reading authors that condone and support such bad things and treat their teachings as gospel for "What I can include in a fantasy genre game." It's just an absurd concept.

I'm not following your logic here.

You should be reading whatever you want to read. No one has said anything different.

Some authors "condone and support" bad things. I have read some of those authors.

I don't know who you're referring to who is "treating their teachings as gospel". I don't think it's yourself, since you clearly don't read those books/watch those videos. Perhaps you're talking about the Paizo developers who are creating the new game?

"What I can include in a fantasy genre game" Are you talking about the Paizo developers here, or your own experience in creating such games?

Again, this is most certainly an appropriate discussion for these boards, since different interpretations of "purity" can lead to very different experiences when playing Pathfinder.

My experience is quite different from yours. Both experiences are important in giving feedback to developers about how an item in a game might be labeled in the final version.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When I've seen the word "pure" or "purity" be used, in a fantasy setting, it's never been in the context of gender favoritism or mass genocide,

Then you are reading a vastly different set of authors and artists than I am.

If we could be sure that only your authors' ideas and meanings influenced gamers, then I wouldn't have a problem.

My concern is with the people who read/view the other comics, books, movies, etc and bring in those other ideas and meanings to Pathfinder games.

The connotations of "purity" that I've experienced make me leary of using that word in a Pathfinder core rulebook that is being interpreted by people who have a different experience than yours.

I'd hope so, since apparently I should be reading authors that condone and support such bad things and treat their teachings as gospel for "What I can include in a fantasy genre game." It's just an absurd concept.

Regardless, this only proves further discussion on this matter is pointless. Topics like that don't belong on these forums anyway.

Why are you acting like your experience is the only valid one?

I stand with CrystalSeas on everything they said. I can bring in evidence to point towards my reading, scholarly articles on the subject, etc.

Do you think facts and people exist beyond the scope of your perception?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have they said somewhere else that totems give you free powers? Because the blog post says "These totems are a set of three thematically linked abilities the barbarian can choose, starting at 2nd level." Bolding mine. Since you already pick the totem at level one that "choose" has to be refering to something else. Picking abilities at level 2 sounds an awful lot like the old rage powers (would be called class feats now, I think?). So it seems possible (and even likely, depending how often you can take them) that characters could have most of their chosen class abilities tied up in totem powers. If that's true then there's no way it's "just as good as PF1 Barbarian" after violating its anathema.

Also I'm still not seeing any defense for "the GM can make you recreate Amiri's backstory, only without having to let you get lucky and not die". The dev says it's not a test of strength if it's grossly unfair but that's not how language works. There are plenty of unfair tests of strength. That's the entirety of the labors of Hercules, I think. The dev even ends that post with "if you expect bad actors and must play with them, go fury". That sounds an awful lot like confirmation anathema can be used to screw players.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we drop the “purity” argument please. I’m not keen on locking this until I’m in the office tomorrow so please get back on topic.


Thank you. AFAIK that was just one name proposal for a general concept, which was about naming it for a 'positive ideal' like other Totems are. If there is another name that could be used, then great, but nobody seems to bother suggesting one. This also doesn't need to strictly be seen as "in-character" concept/vocabulary, it's more something that COULD be used in character OR is just a better sign post to a character-specific terminology that also fits as positive ideal (as Animal Totem). I could see an actual Barbarian character just calling it 'Totem of the One Path' or 'Totem of the Witch Slayer' or somesuch. And of course they don't even need to use the term 'Totem' in character. A negative/outside-judgement name isn't conducive to pointing the way like that. And of course, ALL the Totems could be characterized as Superstitious re: their different Anathemas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Have they said somewhere else that totems give you free powers? Because the blog post says "These totems are a set of three thematically linked abilities the barbarian can choose, starting at 2nd level." Bolding mine. Since you already pick the totem at level one that "choose" has to be refering to something else. Picking abilities at level 2 sounds an awful lot like the old rage powers (would be called class feats now, I think?). So it seems possible (and even likely, depending how often you can take them) that characters could have most of their chosen class abilities tied up in totem powers. If that's true then there's no way it's "just as good as PF1 Barbarian" after violating its anathema.

In the bolded sentence, the blogger is talking about totems in PF1, which you can select once you get your first rage power at 2nd. In PF2, it's moving to 1st.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Also I'm still not seeing any defense for "the GM can make you recreate Amiri's backstory, only without having to let you get lucky and not die". The dev says it's not a test of strength if it's grossly unfair but that's not how language works. There are plenty of unfair tests of strength. That's the entirety of the labors of Hercules, I think. The dev even ends that post with "if you expect bad actors and must play with them, go fury". That sounds an awful lot like confirmation anathema can be used to screw players.

Just about any tradeoff can be used to screw players. Anathema isn't special in that regard. Take fey heritage for your spritely gnome? Suddenly enemies are all wielding cold iron. Jerks will find a way to ruin cool things. That's not a reason to not have cool things.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The dev says it's not a test of strength if it's grossly unfair but that's not how language works. There are plenty of unfair tests of strength.

It kinda is since those unfair ones tend to be exceptions that stand out. When I hear “test” I think of something that’s supposed to be trying, not impossible.

Also we don’t have the final language for the Anathema as well so it may be spelled out even more there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I also imagine "Challenge your strength" doesn't let a person declare a goal they can't themselves do. E.G

"Go lift that horse if your are so strong" isn't a challenge in this sense. It isn't pitting the Barbarian versus the challenger. The barbarian doesn't have to show of his muscles to every cocky child in town.

"I challenge you to a horse lifting contest" is an appropriate challenge.

I could be wrong on that of course. But that is how I would like it to go.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It is my understanding that most Rage powers of PF1 now belong to a totem. I am sure that there will be a way to get several totems, else you could not recreate a character that had powers which are now part of different totems.

But still these powers now come with a given anathema (or several maybe) imbedded : restrictions that just were not there in PF1.

Anathema for so many classes will surely make for more diversity on the boards : "Did the PC fall ?" will not be Paladin-only anymore ;-P

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Just realized by reading the Monk blog post that the Barbarian does not have Fast Movement anymore. I liked that class feature. I hope there will be a way to regain it


The Raven Black wrote:
Just realized by reading the Monk blog post that the Barbarian does not have Fast Movement anymore. I liked that class feature. I hope there will be a way to regain it

Me too, and I hope there is a way for Barbarians to get a good unarmoured AC.


The Raven Black wrote:
It is my understanding that most Rage powers of PF1 now belong to a totem. I am sure that there will be a way to get several totems, else you could not recreate a character that had powers which are now part of different totems.

I don't think this has been suggested. There might be many Barbarian Feats that only apply during Rage.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

A lot of things get left out of the blog previews. I wouldn’t consider it evidence of absence if they don’t mention fast movement. I’m curious if they had Amiri at Origins so we could know, though.


I wouldn't be surprised if Fast Movement was changed to a Barbarian Feat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
It is my understanding that most Rage powers of PF1 now belong to a totem. I am sure that there will be a way to get several totems, else you could not recreate a character that had powers which are now part of different totems.

That's not my understanding at all. Indeed, I'm betting Totem stuff applies regardless of currently Raging or not, and that many Barbarian Class Feats only work during Rage.

But really, we just don't know.

Shadow Lodge

Weather Report wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Just realized by reading the Monk blog post that the Barbarian does not have Fast Movement anymore. I liked that class feature. I hope there will be a way to regain it
Me too, and I hope there is a way for Barbarians to get a good unarmoured AC.

Image related.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:

The problem is as follows –

I like the idea that a totem is something you submit yourself to while under rage. "Fury, take the wheel." "Bear spirits, take the wheel." and so on. I can even roll with "Superstition, take the wheel."

What I think is terrible is all the things that are NOT related to rage receiving benefits/penalties from taboos.

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

PLUS, the whole "Barbarians are atavistic" thing is problematic.

You lose the totem powers. So far they don't seem to be "mundane acts".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

You are missing a point. That is a "normal" Zweihänder ("normal" greatsworh in classical fencing treatise are as tall as the fencer armpit).

A giant sized version of those swords would be as high as a giant and as high as a giant armpit. 3 meters and 2.5 meters? Surely well above the character height.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Obviously enough people dig longboard-sized weaponry to allow the option, easy to ignore it if you think it is stupid, which is perfectly reasonable, at least for some campaign settings.

If that is meant for me, I was responding to Secret Wizard comment comparing being unable to use giant sized weapons to "straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act" and willuwontu idea that "Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act." when referred to using giant sized weapons.

Swinging a sword as high as you with two hands can be done with the appropriate training and a good physique. Swinging an 8-10' sword with two hands or a 7-8' sword with one requires something more.
In PF2 that "something more" is the appropriate totem or, possibly, a jet undisclosed feat or class feature.

A 13-20' sarissa made for the 10" long human hand is very different from a 16' spear made for a 25" giant hand.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

I also imagine "Challenge your strength" doesn't let a person declare a goal they can't themselves do. E.G

"Go lift that horse if your are so strong" isn't a challenge in this sense. It isn't pitting the Barbarian versus the challenger. The barbarian doesn't have to show of his muscles to every cocky child in town.

"I challenge you to a horse lifting contest" is an appropriate challenge.

I could be wrong on that of course. But that is how I would like it to go.

Well, the classic test of the sword in the stone can be seen as a strength challenge:

"Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil, is rightwise king born"
It is a test of lineage, but most knights saw it as a test of strength, and it was done against an inanimate object, not against another person.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I also imagine "Challenge your strength" doesn't let a person declare a goal they can't themselves do. E.G

"Go lift that horse if your are so strong" isn't a challenge in this sense. It isn't pitting the Barbarian versus the challenger. The barbarian doesn't have to show of his muscles to every cocky child in town.

"I challenge you to a horse lifting contest" is an appropriate challenge.

I could be wrong on that of course. But that is how I would like it to go.

Well, the classic test of the sword in the stone can be seen as a strength challenge:

"Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil, is rightwise king born"
It is a test of lineage, but most knights saw it as a test of strength, and it was done against an inanimate object, not against another person.

Yeah it depends on the actual wording of the Anathema. I'm hoping the Challenger has to be an active participant of the challenge, or that when challenged the Barbarian can choose an appropriate response so long as it flaunts their strength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Just realized by reading the Monk blog post that the Barbarian does not have Fast Movement anymore. I liked that class feature. I hope there will be a way to regain it

Multiclass into monk? ;)

801 to 850 of 859 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Barbarian Class Preview All Messageboards