|
We replaced Rage points by going back to a "X per day" mechanic. Here is how we used it.
Rage
Can be used once per day - additional times per day gained every time a Rage power is learned (This equals an additional time at 2nd level and every other level after). Rage lasts 3 + adjusted CON modifier rounds. Fatigue lasts an equal amount of rounds as rage.
Rage Powers
Rage points from Beta = minimuml level for gaining rage powers (i.e. a cost of 6 Rage points means 6th level is the minimum level to take this Rage power). Some Rage powers can be taken multiple times for additional effect (i.e. Increased Damage Reduction and Swift Foot).
Rage powers can only be activated once per encounter. If a Rage power is used, fatigue lasts twice the amount of time as rage.
The big thing I liked about rage points was that the player could break her rage up into 2 round combats or 12 round combats without worrying about either wasting a rage or running out of rage. Sure after the 3rd or 4th or maybe more encounter the rage would run out, but she only has one pile of rage points to worry about.
So I'm not a big fan of rage/ day + rounds of rage, my player and I much prefer the Alpha 3 system.
Love the rage point system...I have always hated the x/day powers
I've read quite a few complaints about the rage points. Can I ask someone to specificially say what they don't like about it? Is this a "too complicated" issue?
I love the system. Instead of Barbs having to take all the complete warrior feats and such, they get the equivalent of Destructive Rage and other feats within the existing rage system. As for points, I don't see why that's so complicated, if that's the issue. Playing the most basic spellcaster will still be far more complicated than a Barb with points. I suppose you could put the WOTC feats back in and make the Barb take them to get the same effects.
If the issue is making things too complicated for the DM, like most other things, all the DM needs to do is ballpark the point use, and in any event, I don't see how it'd be much more complicated than running a barb with the CW feats anyways.
|
|
I've read quite a few complaints about the rage points. Can I ask someone to specificially say what they don't like about it? Is this a "too complicated" issue?
The groups that I have playtested Pathfinder with have both tried the Barbarian with the Rage Points. Both groups have been run through adventures/encounters at 1st, 5th, 10th 15th and 20th level. The general complaint woth Rage points is the tracking of them as the character advances in level, from both sides of the screen. At just 10th level, the minimum is 32 points, if the character had a CON of 12.
With few exceptions, Rage Powers fit the Barbarian class. The mechanic, on the other hand, requires a some degree of tactical thinking... not the first thing that comes to mind with Rage. And it stinks of Psionics (not a big fan personalyy, but to each his own) or Tome of Battle.
The flavor of Rage Powers works, replacing the non-OGL feats with a mechanic that can be expanded on in further sourcebooks. The system of the mechanic is were the problem seems to be.
I love rage points. Rage points =versatility and flexibility which are very good things. You can't achieve this versatility/flexibility with a powers/day mechanic.
Keep rage points. Yawp!
Speaking as a DM, rage points looks like they'll lead to the same problem as psionics. Cool idea and great for players but a true pain in the ass for a DM to run.
Hmm... Well I haven't play tested rage from the DM's end but what I've done with my player who plays a barbarian is give her a can of buttons and she just pulls them out and plops them into another can as she uses them.
Again I haven't play tested it but I don't see how it can be any more confusing than tracking spells cast by enemy spellcasters. If you want to avoid the Nova effect on the PCs then only give NPC barbarians 1/3 or 1/4 as many rage points. Personally I don't think it's a problem, your enemy spellcasters always have access to all of their high level spells in each combat so why shouldn't the enemy barbarians?
Another problem is "ease of use". The barbarian, along with the rogue, are actually the easiest class to both play and use (anyone that says fighter is dead wrong) since even if you ignore half of said classes feats, the chassis is powerful enough to work by itself.
My experience doesn't match yours on this. Our rogue is highly ineffective, Our barbarian does Ok but often has issues regarding whether to rage or not and she gets chewed up due to her low AC. The fighter has a high enough AC and does enough damage that he tends to overshadow the barb and the rogue both.
If anything the rage points have made running the barbarian easier because she doesn't have to worry about running out blowing up after 3+CON bonus rounds right now.
Heh...You're not a DM are you?Speaking as a DM, rage points looks like they'll lead to the same problem as psionics. Cool idea and great for players but a true pain in the ass for a DM to run.
Psionics, more than any other system, is tied to NOVAing and makes more work for the DM without much gained over the slot system for spellcasters.
The "nova" thing can be a concern with psionics. But I don't get what the "more work" is for the DM; tracking individual spell slots and tracking a point total is roughly the same amount of work.
As I've said before, a 3.5 DM already has to track how many rounds of rage a barbarian has used; the rage points aren't really anything new (except you can sacrifice rounds of rage for other effects).
The groups that I have playtested Pathfinder with have both tried the Barbarian with the Rage Points. Both groups have been run through adventures/encounters at 1st, 5th, 10th 15th and 20th level. The general complaint woth Rage points is the tracking of them as the character advances in level, from both sides of the screen. At just 10th level, the minimum is 32 points, if the character had a CON of 12.
Is it really any worse than tracking hit points? A 10th level barbarian is going to have way more than 32 of those!
From my DM experience, I find a single reserve of points (e.g. psionic power points or hit points) is fairly easy to keep track of; I just have to make the occasional deduction. Spell slots are a bigger pain (at higher levels, anyways) since I have to keep a detailed list of what the character has memorized for the day instead of just knowing a single number.
Heh...You're not a DM are you?
not usually no. But I've been gaming for years with a DM who's perfectly happy using psionics, and even used spell points back in AD&D. Seems like it'd be easer to me. You don't have to worry about what's memorized, you can just use what you need until you run out. How is it more complicated than hit points?
Speaking as a DM, rage points looks like they'll lead to the same problem as psionics. Cool idea and great for players but a true pain in the ass for a DM to run.
Again, don't get it. Your concern about nova-ing only makes the case that psionics and rage points would be better for an NPC. They're gonna die anyway. DMs have no worry about managing or saving them. I think nova-ing is much better for DMs than players, if you want to go that route. On the other hand, if you think that's cheesy, there's no need to spend them all. It does, however, provide a nifty incentive to prevent players from nova-ing, since what goes around comes around.
My fear is the same thing will occur here where Barbarians go NOVA over a round but being significantly underpowered from other points during the day.
Sounds like a player, not a DM problem. With the appropriate response, I suspect they'll figure it out. I may not be our usual DM, but I've seen this done many, many times.
Another problem is "ease of use". The barbarian, along with the rogue, are actually the easiest class to both play and use (anyone that says fighter is dead wrong) since even if you ignore half of said classes feats, the chassis is powerful enough to work by itself.
OK, so you've just made the case that you don't need to use all the resources of the class to be effective. Since you can just spend rage points on raging and not all the bells and whistles, what's the difference?
I should also note that many of the rage powers appear to be based on raging feats from Complete Warrior and other books. So using rage points for just rage would be essentially like playing a barb who didn't take the rage feats. Sounds fine to me.
I have playtested npc barbarians...7 of em.I used a scap piece of paper to track rage points, it was no harder then tracking HP and they were very cool.My players were expecting em to blow there wad and be done for the day...poor poor players.
I've had the same experience in the playtesting I've done. With a "spend points to activate combat-related powers" system, the barbarian is essentially just a variant psychic warrior.
As I've advocated in other threads, rage powers should work like combat feats. While raging, you can activate one per round, every round. No points to track; just pick powers as needed and smash stuff.
I guess I don't get it. Is it just because they both use points? Because lots of classes have combat-related powers they can activate -- in fact, all of the primary melee classes, from rogues, to paladins, to rangers, to fighters. And combat feats don't exist anymore (removed in beta). Under 3.5, you could just take the similar rage feats and get the benefits continuously while raging (ie, destructive rage, for example).
So much of these arguements focus on the use of the word "points". If the rage power instead said you can rage for x+Con number of rounds and activating Power A expends this many rounds of rage instead of saying you got x+Con number of rage points and each rage power costs x points nobody would be bellyaching about it.
Comparing barbarian to psychic warrior because of the word "points" is retarded.
Comparing barbarian to psychic warrior because of the word "points" is retarded.
Complaining that you don't like the "feel" of a particular class feature is a legitimate complaint, IMO. I don't particularly like the feel of combining Concentration into Spellcraft, for instance, even though I don't think there's anything wrong with the mechanic.
Comparing barbarian to psychic warrior because of the word "points" is retarded.Complaining that you don't like the "feel" of a particular class feature is a legitimate complaint, IMO. I don't particularly like the feel of combining Concentration into Spellcraft, for instance, even though I don't think there's anything wrong with the mechanic.
I agree to a point. My point here is that many people are griping based on terminology. It's silly. In play the Alpha 3 barbarian kicks so much ass in so many ways it's just to cool to put a cap on.
I do regret my use of the word "retarded". It would've been better if I'd used "silly".
I apologize to anyone who was/is offended by my choice of words.
["points." Any system where you have to seriously weigh costs and benefits (duration of rage vs. use of rage powers) requires tactical thinking and micromanagement. The barbarian shouldn't involve either.
What do you mean by tactical? Of course a barbarian thinks tactically, otherwise he'd just full power attack on the first thing he sees, repeat ad nauseum. Even avoiding a suicidal attack is "tactical" in some sense, and no one suggests being a raging barbarian means you have to be suicidal.
The rage mechanic has always kept barbarians from using spells or other more finess ways of doing things. They certainly don't pause to reflect before they choose a particular option, they attack more instinctively, in the moment. Nonetheless, raging barbarians are great at choosing the best way to kill something, whether that's running around a corner to drive an ax through someone's skull, or battering down the wall and going through to drive an ax through someone's skull.
I think your problem is that you're thinking of the rage abilities as magic abilities they are invoking or something. Choosing to take a hit in a certain way so as to reduce the damage (increased damage reduction) for example, or making an extra angry blow (powerful blow) against an opponent are no different than the other things a barb normally does in combat, like doing an overhand chop on the guy on the left but switching to a shorter grip to cut the guy on the right in the stomach.
What about this: A barbarian can rage once per encounter. It's duration could be his barbarian level + his Con modifier. Using the rage power will reduce the duration by an amount (at least 1 round). So if the barbarian goes crazy, he'll tire himself out ending the rage.
This is just a rough idea that popped into my head, so I'm not sure how many rounds each rage power could require, but I thought it might be something to think about.
|
|
Instead of decreasing the number of rounds, how about increasing the number of rounds of fatigue? This doesn't topload the players with a hindrance or limitation. A simple mechanic would be for Rage Powers to increase the fatigue duration by X 2 for using them, regardless of which type. Level limitations on Rage Powers (like spells have) would decrease the chance of them being abused at lower levels. And limiting the use to one per round makes them easy to track.
I wish I could find the exact quote, because a poster on another thread put it perfectly: the rage point mechanic encourages a barbarian to think tactically and micromanage his powers. If there is one character that should never have to think tactically and micromanage powers, it's a raging barbarian.
<Stuff omitted>
I don't mind tracking rounds of rage or "points." What I mind is that those rounds of rage have to be spent at all. It would feel more barbaric - and would require less mid-combat cost/benefit analysis - to just toggle back and forth between cost-free rage powers when raging.
I think the big misunderstanding about barbarians is the assumption that the use of rage powers should be used all the time. Rage powers are very situational and should be used only when the situation justifies it. This is not micro managing it just makes sense. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a barbarian to bite someone every round but it's highly effective in a grapple.
I see a lot of people second guessing this change without actually playing it and seeing how fun it is. Rage powers are not something a barbarian uses constantly, it's a set of cool situational powers to be used when the time it right. Look at the nature of the abilities, almost every single one is an ability that looks pretty weak but under the right circumstances can shine. Use the powers when they shine and you will likely never run out of points. Try to micro manage and burn every point then you will likely run out of points.
The PRPG barbarian with straight rage points and rage is more effective than the 3.5 barbarian even without the rage powers. If you don't like rage powers then don't use them.
I've read quite a few complaints about the rage points. Can I ask someone to specificially say what they don't like about it? Is this a "too complicated" issue?The groups that I have playtested Pathfinder with have both tried the Barbarian with the Rage Points. Both groups have been run through adventures/encounters at 1st, 5th, 10th 15th and 20th level. The general complaint woth Rage points is the tracking of them as the character advances in level, from both sides of the screen. At just 10th level, the minimum is 32 points, if the character had a CON of 12.
With few exceptions, Rage Powers fit the Barbarian class. The mechanic, on the other hand, requires a some degree of tactical thinking... not the first thing that comes to mind with Rage. And it stinks of Psionics (not a big fan personalyy, but to each his own) or Tome of Battle.
The flavor of Rage Powers works, replacing the non-OGL feats with a mechanic that can be expanded on in further sourcebooks. The system of the mechanic is were the problem seems to be.
It does not stink of Psionics. Why? Because old Werewolf game from White Wolf had rage points. And it worked great.
This should have been in this game sooner.
It stinks of Psionics.
I don't get it, who cares if the mechanic is roughly the same as Psionics. Saying it "Stinks of psionics" doesn't say anything about whether it's a good mechanic or not, it says more about the posters opinion of psionics than it does anything else. It's a distraction and really not worthy of discussion.
A character has a limited resource which he expends throughout the day. Under 3.5 your limit was Rages Per Day. The Vancian system is a way to track abilities and uses, you have a set number of abilities (spells) per day of each power level. Psionics and the UA Spell Points system used points to track that limited resource. 4th edition chose a solution which metered out abilities based on Daily Powers, Encounter Powers, and At Will powers. I guess fairly easy to track in some ways but seems a bit silly to me.
Some way or another you are going to have to track use of the rage powers (Actually there are some people who have suggested you don't track rage or rage powers at all but that's another issue). Each method of tracking has it's advantages and disadvantages. Personally I see rage points as a vastly superior mechanism than the previous rages per day. What other method is better? Tracking daily rounds of rage is just another way of saying rage points. Someone suggested fewer rage points and reducing the cost of rage points and that's a possibility.
Further, if rage powers truly were situational, why should they cost resources at all? The very fact that they are situational will restrict their use. (Of course, I question the assumption that rage powers are situation. In particular...)
The actual benefit derived varies greatly based on the situation thus they are truly situational. Yes you can use them every round, but then you burn through them quite quickly. Use them only when it makes the most sense and you don't.
Any micromanagement is self imposed upon yourself in order to try and maximize the benefit of the power, it is not inherent in the powers themselves. I haven't had any issues with it.
IMO part of the problem is that the Animal Fury power is poorly worded. I think the intent is to grant an extra attack as part of the normal attack sequence, not as a swift action in the way you have been using it. In particular I don't think granting a swift attack action is balanced at 2 rage points. That said, I can completely see your POV on how you read it as well.
If you are going to make blanket statements like this after quoting me...
You are correct, it was rude and confrontational, I apologize.