I like the changes to the hit die (attaching it on attack bonus.) That makes more sense to me. One suggestion I might make is to change the barbarian's hit die to a d10 like everyone else with the full attack bonus, but give them Improved Toughness as a bonus feat at first level. Statistically speaking, their hit points should be nearly identical over time, but maintains internal consistency with the system. Also, Improved Toughness fits the flavor of the barbarian nicely.
Our group was saying the same thing if we have a system lets keep it
So at 1st level give them toughness or an improved toughness and maybe static plus to hp
Yeah that makes more sense. Instead of breaking the mold.
Good call. d10 Hit Die and free Toughness on 1st level sounds about right. And it makes a dip into one barbarian level more appealing to characters with anger management problems.
Hmm, that actually brings up a balancing issue I hadn't thought of. It's kind of like when they moved the Rangers Two-weapon fighting to 2nd level in 3.5 to stop everyone from just automatically taking Ranger at 1st level when all they really wanted to play was a fighter. Then again, maybe it would still make sense...I don't know.
Give Barbarians d10 not d12 period. They have rage and damage reduction they dont need this as well.
Barbarians have d12 as a hangover from 1st edition when barbarians were completely different- for example their major restriction was they could not use ANY magic items- d12 and all the fruit they got (much of which they still have)was compensation for not being allowed to use magic items. In 3.5 they do not have this major restriction yet they kept all the compensations- they obviously had a strong lobby group.
Of course they are very popular with players- the power gamers love them. Barbarians in 3.5 are pound for pound better than the fighter. They are stronger, faster, tougher, more skilful, more alert. Why? Because they had a wilderness upbringing?
I reckon the 3.5 barbarian is still tougher than the PRPG fighter even with the power up.
I don't see any purpose behind this rule change since the effect is nearly same as if it wasn't implemented. The only thing I see it doing is encouraging a one level dip into barbarian. Barbarian is already a popular 1 level class for the rage. I don't think this is the kind of thing we want to encourage.
I agree I hate when people one level dip to get rage.
I love barbarians, and it has nothing to do with power gaming. It's probably from reading too much Conan. Barbarian isn't any more power gaming than the cleric, druid, or wizard. I have never viewed the barbarian as a power gamer's option.
That first level dip screams power gamer, but playing a barbarian 1-20 is balanced against the other classes 1-20. The fighter may have issues, but the barbarian is far from unbalanced.
Fizz
P.S. What would we use those d12s for if this changed happened?
Leave it as it is, D12 is fine. I don't care if you say it is "different" but you know that is just what makes this class more "different."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hey d12's need some love to{stokes his d12's gently and says it'll be ok dont cry}see what yall did poor things.
Just want to say if you create a system with Hit Die related to Base Attack stick to it! The d12 may be ust nostalgia and it annoys me to death that it breaks the aforementioned system. Toughness on first level won't fix the change to d10 for the Barbarian as it really makes a dib very attractive (which already is with other classes like the rogue and his broad skill selection).
Just my two coppers.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
My proposed solution is have the barbarian use the d10 for consistency (sorry D12!), and give the barbarian class an ability 'barbarian toughness' or something, that gives them 2 hp at 1st level and +1 hp at every barbarian level after that. This is better than giving them the toughness feat, since it leaves the player the options of taking that feat in addition, just like if the barbarian had the d12 from the good old days.
Call me grognard, an old curmudgeon, or whatever but really I like that the plan is to leave the Barbarian HD alone. Keep the d12 please.
Agreed lets leave it be.
Found it
Fizz
I would say all other of that bab would be a d10 but the barbarian has oh lest say barbarian toughness so gets a d12.
It seems to me that if the Barbarians get a d10 hit die and then the improved toughness feat at maybe 2nd or 3rd level. That might slightly decrease the one level dip thing in addition to making the hit die rules more internally consistent.
It seems to me that if the Barbarians get a d10 hit die and then the improved toughness feat at maybe 2nd or 3rd level. That might slightly decrease the one level dip thing in addition to making the hit die rules more internally consistent.
Maybe but I never thought it was the d12 that made a munchkin dip, but rage. I'm sure the d12 helped, but I don't see a way around rage. Maybe make the barbarian with a dual classing restriction.
When ones barbarian level is not within 2 levels of other class levels one loses the barbarian class features.
That's kind of clunky...I don't know. Something needs to be done but should we really change some thing to stop munchkins? maybe the munchkins should change?
Fizz
|
I say leave it at D12. I hated when the old first edition barbarian was downsized. I want him back. I would say as the barbarian is refined look back at the old Dragon Magazine where he was conceived and bring some of that back. He was designed to be more of a Conan character and he has been reduced to a mix of fighter and ranger...
Personally, I just like keeping the d12 being a "class feature" of the barbarian. I love the BAB/HD connection for the most part, but I'd rather keep the barbarian hit dice the same.
Another vote to keep the d12. After all, if not for barbarians, where does it even go into the game? Barbarians, greataxes, undead and dragons (and for those two... when do you ever actually roll their hit points?).
It looks like a fairly even split for the d12 issue. Don't know how Paizo is going to do this without slightly ticking someone off. I personally am for the d12 position, but am all for an innovative way to rectify it with a d10. Maybe something like a class feature; d10 hit points, but any rolls of 1-3 are automatically made a 4, thus representing their natural hardiness they are supposed to have (Barbarian Hardiness?). Maybe even have that represent an increased Hit die format, so that even if you were to switch classes, if you started in Barbarian, you gained the hit die increase (d6 to d8, d8 to d10). One or the other, I wouldn't want to see both.
One of the problems I have had with barbarians is it always seemed more of a cultural thing than a class thing, in my opinion. Barbarians are most hunter/gatherers fighters. Rangers are the Rogues, Druids being the Clerics, and Wizards... were usually hunted and killed on sight.
In Pathfinder, the Barbarians are also a seperate culture, one that keeps to itself from what I can tell, with occasional raids into the outlying areas. How would one multi-class a societal boundry?
These are just my crazy ideas, streams of consciousness, whatever you want to call them. I just think that Barbarians should get more hit points, after all, the fighter gets more higher-grade armor.
|
|
Has anyone here seen a Barbarian played with below average hitpoints? Such a character isn't really capable of performing its traditional function of standing up front and taking a beating while unleashing a full six-pack of whoopass. Rolling two 1's in a row or below average for four levels in a row would be a pain for somebody playing a rogue or cleric, a considerable deficit for somebody playing a fighter, but for this to happen to a barbarian makes the character unplayable in its intended role. Yes, I've seen it.
I'd say switch the barbarian over to D10 + 2 hp per level. This keeps the HP max the same, raised their average by one and helps make low hit point rolls a sting rather than a disaster.
I'd also consider giving some kind of slow regeneration at higher levels if he's over half his hit points. I've found barbarians to be a significant drain on the cleric's healing when they should be the guys most likely to tell the healer to help the other guy first.
Sam
I'd also consider giving some kind of slow regeneration at higher levels if he's over half his hit points. I've found barbarians to be a significant drain on the cleric's healing when they should be the guys most likely to tell the healer to help the other guy first.
Sam
I would be for this idea. Maybe make it combat only fast healing so he doesn't just heal to max out of comabt.
Fizz
|
|
I tell you what gets my goat... Humanoids get a d8, but all the classes get a smaller HD. So, if you just take a level of humanoid, you're tougher than if you take a level of rogue (and forget about sorcerer). Now, I can see some arguments for wizardly training making you a pansy - cause that's what it seems like, but less than 1/2 your 'race appropriate hit points'?
Why not keep the barbarian at d12, but give the fighter and other +1 BAB the d12, give the +3/4 the d10 and the +12 the d8. Nobody is weaker than the humanoid HD and the d12 gets some love.
On the other hand, the HD to BAB adjustment doesn't totally make sense either. Obviously the ranger and the fighter have different HD size in 3.5 - and part of that is that the Fighter is expected to take a little more damage and be a little more resilient. If other classes are going to step on the fighter's toes (and he was weak already) I think there is a problem.
Of course, since I expect to see a fighter re-design here, that may not be a problem.
|
I think it's an interesting idea to give all the +1 BAB d12 hit die. I played some of the Living Greyhawk where you get average HP per level. This only gave a fighter 6hp per level.
With the proposed Pathfinder system, Wizards get 4 HP per level average and fighters still get 6 hp average. Give them a D12 and at least they get 7HP per level. Of course if your rolling HP you can still get a 1...
As for barbarians, the toughness feat would fill the gap, as would a special class ability. As fighters, rogues, clerics and wizards have had a makeover, I'm sure the others will too, including the barbarian.
Initially, I really preferred the idea of sticking with the d12, but now I have to concur with the idea of d10 + 2hp per barbarian level. It gives benefit for doing more than a level dip, especially since it should stack with toughness. Now THERE's a barbarian for you.
|
|
I would be for this idea. Maybe make it combat only fast healing so he doesn't just heal to max out of comabt.
Fizz
During combat they've already got DR. Healing up to max out of combat is exactly the effect I think would be most helpful while still being in theme without going over the edge. Why should the guy who's supposed to be one of the toughest members in the party require most of the group's healing?
What I'm thinking of is self-healing 1hp per hour / every third barbarian level as long as the barbarian is currently over half his hit points. All barbarians usually get at these levels is an increase to Trap Sense and their minor save bumps.
Anyway, it's an idea. May be good, may be bad.
Pros: Fixes part of the problem of high level barbarians being a gigantic healing sink for the party. Being this sink is an emergent side effect that's out of character for this class.
Cons: Forces the DM to consider half the barbarian's hit points as non-physical(most do anyway, but who likes to be forced). More bookkeeping needed. May shift the balance too far for some groups. May cause additional side effects.
Any alternate suggestions?
Sam
|
|
Nah. If it's an even split, I don't see anyone getting upset if Paizo keeps it as is. Sticking to the existing rules should be the default.
Yeah, no reason to get upset. Switching between d12 and d10+2 is easy to just house rule anyway.
Now d10 plus Improved Toughness is another matter. Too tempting to dip in out of character just to get Rage and Improved Toughness.
Sam
|
Ok my 2 coppers is this. Lets take the Barbarian at a d12 hit die. S/He is a Half-Orc at first level with a Con of 18. Now by following the general idea of what people like... we see that this Combat machine will start with a miniumum of hit points of 25, add toughness and they get 29 hit points (This is using Favored class and racial hit points as out lined on pages 7 and 11 respectively.)
I don't feel comfortable with a character with just about 30 hit points at first level taking anything on unless it is fair that the DM critters get the same treatment. In the end it really depends on how things pan out as a general rule for Hit points, as the same example with d10 hit die would be down only 2 hit points.
|
|
I think d12 is ok; that's part of their class ability - better than normal hit die.
Toughness at level one, especially with the new and more sensible version, is going to make a frightening amount of "one-level" multiclassers, as has been mentioned above. It'll be like all the old characters in 3.0 who snagged a level of ranger just for two free feats, only worse.
Nah. If it's an even split, I don't see anyone getting upset if Paizo keeps it as is. Sticking to the existing rules should be the default.Yeah, no reason to get upset. Switching between d12 and d10+2 is easy to just house rule anyway.
Now d10 plus Improved Toughness is another matter. Too tempting to dip in out of character just to get Rage and Improved Toughness.
Sam
Agreed, just leave it a D12 to prevent more dipping.