Playtested Pathfinder with my group. Here are some of the issues that have been raised.
Barbarian Rage Points:
Issue: Yet another point system to keep track of. Rage Powers a VERY GOOD IDEA, but concept could be simplified.
Suggested fix: Keep rage/day and rage duration of 3 + CON modifier concept. Allow rage powers to kick-in for a daily use of rage. Create a new power, Extended Rage, which allows a new rage to start at the end of the first one. Boost the rage/day allowance to barbarian level divided by 2.
Reasoning: Payers more familiar with use/day (seen in many other classes). Concept could also be applied to Monk (Ki / day?)
This was raised after a test game that lasted 3 sessions in a game that included a Cleric, a barbarian and a Rogue (all 6th level).
Lots of people have commented saying they dislike the "points" aspect of the barbarian, so you're not alone!
But even in 3.5, don't you already have to count how many rounds that your barbarian has been raging? All the "points" system does is count rounds of rage individually rather than in chunks of 3+Con rounds. Then you have powers that cost you a number of rounds of rage.
For example: In 3.5, a 1st level barbarian with 14 Con can rage for 7 rounds, so the player needs to count up to 7 when he rages. In Pathfinder, a 1st level barbarian with 14 Con can rage for 6 rounds, so the player needs to count up to 6 with respect to raging.
Is the accounting really that different? You have to count the number of rounds either way.
Is the accounting really that different?
Not so much, just less intimidating. From a marketing point of view, less intimidating is better, unless the options it offers are better still. In this case, I'd go with the simpler version.
As far as I'm concern, Rage could last the whole encounter unless an obvious conclusion happens before the fight is reset by god knows what... With the Pathfinder system, the barbarian can soon rage through the whole combat anyway.
|
Here is a post converting the rage points mechanic to a "X/day" mechanic. Try it and see if you like it.
I am sorry but I like the point system. It is not that hard to keep track of compared to spell slots or hit points.
My vote is for keeping them.
However paying more for the improved versions of normal rage seems a little silly sorry and I hope they change it to a set cost.
I guess the main reason why some people do not like rage points (including me) is that for the player who controls the barbarian, the careful and constant accounting of the point is "unbarbarian-ish".
But that takes us on a metagaming level; should the mechanics behind the character support the feel of the character?
Should you, as a player, need a INT score of 16+ to be able to play a wizard efficiently? Should a character with poor acting skills be able to enjoy his bard?
I really would like to say "NO! the mechanic are universal and anybody can enjoy all characters equally". But my experience forces me to to say "yes, the way you handle the character will influence your gaming experience with the said character"
This brings me back to the way I like to handle my barbarian - like a barbarian. By all means, I don't need to be a mindless barbarian myself (and the barbarians I play are not mindless anyway), but the accounting is a mood killer in the case of the barbarian, which is the key to my whole argument.
Now, I bet that only 25% (if so) of players will think like me, but for the difference that the Rage/day option makes, making those 25% players happy may make a bigger difference on the marketing level. By marketing I mean making the system attractive to as many people as possible.
I think that rage powers can be elegantly supported with a rage/day concept that keeps all of the fun yet seems less of a chore (and I think it should start with rage last whole combat unless you voluntarily end it or are forced to put a premature end to it)
I am sure that whatever variant option I would create would not be equivalent to the present option on a point-by-point comparison. But as long as it is balanced with the rest of the game, does it really matter? (That by the way, is truly a question, not a criticism)
yours sincerely,
Benoit
|
For example: In 3.5, a 1st level barbarian with 14 Con can rage for 7 rounds, so the player needs to count up to 7 when he rages. In Pathfinder, a 1st level barbarian with 14 Con can rage for 6 rounds, so the player needs to count up to 6 with respect to raging.
Is the accounting really that different? You have to count the number of rounds either way.
I think that it is different, But in a good way. In 3.5, the 1st level barbarian with 14 Con(AKA Conan) goes into a Rage and crushes his enemies in three rounds. Now, combat is over, he is fatigued for less than a Min, and four rounds of Rage were wasted.
In Pathfinder, Conan goes into a Rage and crushes his enemies in three rounds, but when combat ends, and his fatigued Condition wears off, He can still Rage for three more rounds.I will admit that when I first saw the Rage Points I was skeptic. But after playing them, I never want to go back to Rage/day.
However paying more for the improved versions of normal rage seems a little silly sorry and I hope they change it to a set cost.
But you don't Have to pay more. You can use Rage(paying 1 point), then later that day use Greater Rage(paying 2 point)