|
Well, I spent 20 minutes composing a post, hit Submit, and it disappeared into nothingness. Got kicked back to the main Pathfinder page, somehow. Super.
In short: Rage Points add too much book-keeping to the game. It drove me crazy as a DM, and it would drive me crazy as a player. Pick a few threshold levels at which barbarians gain access to a new menu of powers that are always-on during a rage. The powers will need to be rebalanced, but they need that anyway.
In any case, I've played several barbarians as a DM so far, and here on my observations on rage powers. A 0 is "too crappy to consider," a 10 is "too good to pass up," and a 5 is "balanced." Note that this analysis is while using rage points, not for a hypothetical power-menu barbarian. If i don't mention a power, it's because I didn't use it and don't necessarily think it's too weak to use.
Please forgive terseness ... my more expansive post was eaten by board gremlins, did I mention?
Animal Fury -- 9. Adds too much damage potential.
Clear Mind -- 5. A very in-genre ability.
Elemental Rage -- 6. Not a fan of "non-magic magic," but it's fairly well balanced.
Guarded Stance -- 2. If I wanted AC, I'd be a fighter.
Intimidating Glare -- 9. Shaken for 7 rounds is a big deal.
Knockback -- 5. Self-balancing, since it's not permissive.
Low-Light Vision -- 0. This is an example of a power that could be always-on and balanced.
Mighty Swing -- 6. On the nice side, but not brokenly so.
Night Sight -- 2. Why not "Darkvision"?
Powerful Blow -- 5. Compare this to Animal Fury.
Renewed Vigor -- 2. Needs to be a move action.
Rolling Dodge -- 2. See Guarded Stance.
Roused Anger -- 4. 5, if the fatigue goes away temporarily.
Strength Surge -- 5.
Surprise Accuracy 5. Compare to Animal Fury.
Swift Foot -- 3. Not real useful when already raging.
Terrifying Howl -- 11. Yes, 11. Panicked? DC based on STR? Are you kidding me?
Unexpected Strike -- 9. See Animal Fury.
Question: Rage points are renewed after 8 hours of rest. Can that happen more than once a day?
Oh, and wanted to add: instead of rage points, or rages per day, simply have rage trigger at a certain HP threshold. If the barbarian is down, say, 25% of his HP, he enters rage immediately and stays there until all enemies are dead, he hits 3.5's CON mod + 3 rounds limit, or he's healed.
BBEG -- "Yes, I said, 'Cast your healing spell on the berserker!'"
interesting stuff
just to say the playtest we had with a very tired father playing the barbarian did not give any book-keeping problems and actually 'felt' easier to control than the on-off 3,5 version...
can't comment on the ability analysis without talking to the player though we did wonder if darkvision would be better replaced with blindsense for more of a super senses than supernatural sense feel. and zero point cost for some of the minor ones (while beserking and paying the 1 point a round) would make sense
Oh, and wanted to add: instead of rage points, or rages per day, simply have rage trigger at a certain HP threshold. If the barbarian is down, say, 25% of his HP, he enters rage immediately and stays there until all enemies are dead, he hits 3.5's CON mod + 3 rounds limit, or he's healed.BBEG -- "Yes, I said, 'Cast your healing spell on the berserker!'"
lol
i like this idea in principle, but i'd hate for the barbarian to get hit by a trap in encounter 1 and burn up all his rage points reducing the front door to matchsticks...... maybe a save to voluntarily stop or a shorter timescale (maybe 3 rounds unless he takes more damage..)
we have a vampire cursed player in a 3,5 game who has to make a will save (DC damage taken) to not shift into vampire form when in combat. works quite well as a mechanic, but the penalty is social rather than burning up points...
|
|
just to say the playtest we had with a very tired father playing the barbarian did not give any book-keeping problems and actually 'felt' easier to control than the on-off 3,5 version...
As a player it would bother me primarily because it feels like YATONRS (Yet Another Tacked-On Rules Subsystem). As a player, I wouldn't have a real problem with the book-keeping.
As a DM, it's nightmarish. In one encounter I had three barbarians. Gah. What I want, as a DM, is the ability to make a "raging" statblock, without having to worry about tracking a fiddly little detail every single round.
i like this idea in principle, but i'd hate for the barbarian to get hit by a trap in encounter 1 and burn up all his rage points reducing the front door to matchsticks
A trap is neither an enemy nor "in combat," so rage wouldn't trigger.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I think as a DM, I could handle it. I'd use the chips in two cups method. As a point is spent, it gets moved to another cup. But ... I don't want to handle it. I want to focus on story-telling not bookkeeping.
Also, I think the bookkeeping feels out of flavour with the barbarian. It just feels like the opposite of what a barbarian is. I know the mechanics and the character are not the same but I mind these here more than I mind ki points for the monk.
|
For DM's, though, I can see it being a nightmare. Maybe there should be a rules sidebar detailing a quick n' easy way for DMs to handle it.
Just work out their stats, assuming they blow the whole lot as quickly as possible, and see how many rounds that lasts.
The D&D3.5 model assumed that an encounter of CR=Party Level, the PCs were expected to win, so the enemies know their dead meat, and have no reason to hold back.
|
|
Having said the above, I like the added variety that rage powers given to barbarians. I want to lose rage points without losing rage powers.
I second the notion that "Rage Feats" would be a simpler solution and still give similar options. Just define them so the Barbarian can only have one rage feat active at a time (unless the feat says otherwise). I would prefer this system as a DM - much less bookkeeping and way easier to make a character: just look at the feat table and see which ones are level appropriate.
There are two ways to handle them:
1. Make them part of normal feat progression choices.
2. Give the Barbarian a rage feat every few levels.
I think #2 is the better choice, if only because it keeps the barbarian interesting. Could even include a note that any feat that improves rage (like Extended Rage) can substitute for a rage feat. It's a bit more work for conversions, but I think it is a fair trade.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Having said the above, I like the added variety that rage powers given to barbarians. I want to lose rage points without losing rage powers.I second the notion that "Rage Feats" would be a simpler solution and still give similar options. Just define them so the Barbarian can only have one rage feat active at a time (unless the feat says otherwise). I would prefer this system as a DM - much less bookkeeping and way easier to make a character: just look at the feat table and see which ones are level appropriate.
There are two ways to handle them:
1. Make them part of normal feat progression choices.
2. Give the Barbarian a rage feat every few levels.
I think #2 is the better choice, if only because it keeps the barbarian interesting. Could even include a note that any feat that improves rage (like Extended Rage) can substitute for a rage feat. It's a bit more work for conversions, but I think it is a fair trade.
I like the idea of rage styles and rage feats.
I would replace this:
With this:
I realize the second one is slightly more powerful but given that opponents might not just stand there and get hit and if we keep the duration of the barbarian's rage limited, it may not be as overpowered as it looks.
For what its worth, when we first started using the Alpha 1 for our group to playtest, we had a Goliath rogue who had the traditional tribal goliath background, but he was going to go for rogue/fighter as he wanted to play a versatile, mobile combat class that had a lot of non standard "tricks," and between rogue skills and fighter feats, he thought that concept would fit with those classes the best.
Once the barbarian came out, he immediately scrapped his ideas of being a fighter and wanted to be a rogue/barbarian, because he now had tons of tricks to use and it felt more logical with the character's background than fighter did.
Keeping track of points was never an issue for him, and it was far outweighed by having the option to not only rage, but use rage powers. He only got the chance to take two levels of barbarian before he had to leave for school, but he loved being able to burn rage points to charge across the battlefield and either mop up bad guys with other party members or run down retreating ones or spellcasters.
But he never once complained about keeping track of rage points. I'm not saying its not an issue, just saying that the one player I had that took the class didn't even think twice about the mechanic.
As a DM, I probably wouldn't have NPC barbarians using tons of rage points all of the time, rather than just raging, but for a BBEG raid leader or some such, I'd love to have the extra options. I don't see it as any more complicated than having a spellcaster oppose the PCs. But I will admit I haven't used any barbarians yet against the PCs.
|
|
he loved being able to burn rage points to charge across the battlefield and either mop up bad guys with other party members or run down retreating ones or spellcasters.
I like the idea of being able to burn rage, or ki to have a surge of speed during combat or before an important jump, rather than have fast movement be always on.
It contributes to ooc level-dipping, and in the case of the monk, becomes quite silly, when he walks at treble the speed of everyone else, all day long.
Well, I spent 20 minutes composing a post, hit Submit, and it disappeared into nothingness. Got kicked back to the main Pathfinder page, somehow. Super.
Welcome to the forum, this is a well known and oft mentioned issue. CTRL-A CTRL-C (Select All then Copy to Clipboard) then hit Submit.
In short: Rage Points add too much book-keeping to the game. It drove me crazy as a DM, and it would drive me crazy as a player. Pick a few threshold levels at which barbarians gain access to a new menu of powers that are always-on during a rage. The powers will need to be rebalanced, but they need that anyway.
Is it worse than tracking player and NPC spells? I don't feel it is. As a player I give them a tin of buttons and they pull them out. As a DM it depends on the encounter. Unless I suspect an NPC barbarian is going to last more than one encounter I don't even track them. They rage the entire time they are fighting the PCs and they can use 1 rage power per encounter per point of CON bonus they have (16 CON = up to 3 rage powers for the encounter).
Animal Fury -- 9. Adds too much damage potential.
Until we get some clarification on this I am not sure. If it adds a swift attack (which is how it's written) then you are right. I think the intent was for the swift action to grow the teeth and the barbarian be able to use this instead of a normal attack. A very effective attack in a grapple which is what it is intended to be.
Terrifying Howl -- 11. Yes, 11. Panicked? DC based on STR? Are you kidding me?
Lets see, it's 8th level, costs 8 rage points. Seems like this is comparable to a 4th level spell. Also, it's not clear if the DC is based on the rage enhances strength or not. I think it's Ok but the DC is too high, either the DC should be lowered or maybe the range decreased. An 8th level wizard has a handful of spells this powerful.
Unexpected Strike -- 9. See Animal Fury.
It's a rage power that is less powerful than a 3rd level spell and it costs 8 rage points. A PC barbarian who uses this power every round is going to Nova quickly.
|
|
Having said the above, I like the added variety that rage powers given to barbarians. I want to lose rage points without losing rage powers.I second the notion that "Rage Feats" would be a simpler solution and still give similar options. Just define them so the Barbarian can only have one rage feat active at a time (unless the feat says otherwise). I would prefer this system as a DM - much less bookkeeping and way easier to make a character: just look at the feat table and see which ones are level appropriate.
There are two ways to handle them:
1. Make them part of normal feat progression choices.
2. Give the Barbarian a rage feat every few levels.
I think #2 is the better choice, if only because it keeps the barbarian interesting. Could even include a note that any feat that improves rage (like Extended Rage) can substitute for a rage feat. It's a bit more work for conversions, but I think it is a fair trade.
Jal is voicing something that I've posted similar thoughts to. I agree that the "feat" or "talent" idea is a better idea (for the purpose of record keeping).
My proposed suggestion was to make it so that only ONE rage power could be used each round.
So - in the case of a couple of suggestions about the "elemental" and the "animal fury" it's not as important to limit it to once per day to enter such a rage - instead if the character wants to use either, it then becomes the one power he uses that round.
Furthermore, my suggestion carried with it a caveat that a few of them like the Unexpected Strike that allows for an extra attack a round - would be way too powerful in such a system - as everyone would use that ability for their once/round rage power; in the case of this one and a few others with obvious imbalanced factors, needs to be said that using that particular power uses up an extra round of your rage (or shortens the duration by an extra round - however it needs to be worded); thus it cannot be used on the last round of a rage.
So if your rage (based off CON etc as it was in 3.5) lasts 7 rounds normally, and you use Unexpected Strike on round 3, you know that now your rage will only last 6 rounds and thus you only have three rounds left for that rage, instead of 4.
Furthermore, the Fatigue you experience at the end of the rage - lasts for the number of rounds your rage would TYPICALLY last - not the modified duration that results from use of your powers.
Robert
|
|
Is it worse than tracking player and NPC spells? I don't feel it is.
So you've DMed barbarian NPCs using rage points?
I think it's worse, yeah. (I suppose it depends on what you mean by "tracking." We use an initiative board -- run by a player -- to track spell durations. Spells themselves I just cross off as used. A spell point system would annoy me just like rage points do.) But even if it's not "worse," it's additional. Barbarians can be made just as interesting by menu-by-level choices or (as someone else suggested) Rage Powers (a la Rogue Talents). Why are we adding another subsystem to the game?
That aside, you mentioned going nova in your reply. That, in itself, is an issue; a big enough issue to seriously rethink the subsystem. A DM using rage points has no reason not to nova.
Here's another thing about rage points ... Jason is having to balance three things, with every power: barbarian level, rage point cost, and the potential effect of the power. It's just too much, and too easy to get wrong.
So, anyway, what's wrong with menu choices or Rogue Talent-like Rage Powers? What makes rage points superior enough to deal with the problems that go along with them, including the simple fact of Yet Another Subsystem?
Regarding other specifics of your reply:
Your reading of Animal Fury makes a lot of sense, and I agree that was probably the intent.
As for Terrifying Howl, well, I don't want barbarians to have a power as powerful as a 4th-level spell at clearing away enemies. It would be slightly better, obviously, if it doesn't use the barbarian's modified Strength, but it's still too much. (BTW, what wizard spell at 4th-level takes out a potentially unlimited number of enemies, with no HD limit, to the extent that the panicked condition does?)
I agree that Unexpected Strike isn't quite as good as I thought at first. I'll downgrade it to a 7, borderline 8.
I can see that rage points can get very unwieldy. I ran a module called Thieves of Badabaskor last year. One of the encounters/battles was between the heroes and a barracks style room full of orc barbarian soldiers. Forty of them. Some used missle weapons, others charged. And one ran out the door to get help from the two dozen or so orc barbarians scattered throughout the rest of the level.
I cringe to think of trying to run such an encounter with Pathfinder's barbarian class rage points. Actually, I won't do it. I'd use D&D barbarians. Which means I am also torn on allowing Pathfinder's version of the class in the game.
|
|
My proposed suggestion was to make it so that only ONE rage power could be used each round.
If I misunderstood, I apologize, but Rage Powers pretty much already work like this. Unless otherwise specified, using a Rage Power is a swift action. Since only one swift action per turn, only one Rage Power per turn.
--Jeff
I also have to add my vote for rage powers being Barbarian specific feats. If you give Barbarians an extra feat every so many levels that they have to use on Rage abilities it would work nicely. I'll have to try out the current barbarian design first.
...elemental rage...
For some reason this ability really annoys me (after the barbarian player read it and went wtf?). It, and darkvision, are the two supernatural abilities the barbarian gets that cannot be explained away by inner fury.
"i foam at the mouth charge my enemy and start chewing arms" - standard beserker
"I scream banzai, run throught the darkness unerringly, my sword glows with fire and i leap to the attack" - is not a beserker type barbarian but a magic using creature.
ok, maybe i'm biased by the old school barbarian who used to get xp for destroying magical items (or in one case, my 9th level wizard (mutter, mutter)) but i just don't see what in the concept of barbarians gives you a 'flame on' ability?
I'm guessing part of the reason for this was to give some method of bypassing DR. if thats the case, why not just give them an ability to bypass DR?
eg
penetrating blow. ignore 5 points of DR.
advanced penetrating blow, ignore up to 10 points of DR
[/rant]
the only problem with feats / abilities instead of points is what i found with my shifter pc in 3,5 that you never use the ability until final encounter (low levels) or final encounter + one other (mid levels). points really give you more flexibility in this so from a PC perspective its much more freindly
DM tracking rage points. the one NPC barbarian i used was never going to get through their points meaning I didn't bother tracking them. at higher levels, yes it could be an issue if you're not willing to handwave.
maybe the solution is for DM's to have a 'std' battle spend for NPC barb's and so turn it into a 'total rounds spent raging' stat to track. the odd point or two lost or gained as abilities are used / not used will probably not make a huge difference in the end
|
|
I can see that rage points can get very unwieldy. I ran a module called Thieves of Badabaskor last year. One of the encounters/battles was between the heroes and a barracks style room full of orc barbarian soldiers. Forty of them. Some used missle weapons, others charged. And one ran out the door to get help from the two dozen or so orc barbarians scattered throughout the rest of the level.
I cringe to think of trying to run such an encounter with Pathfinder's barbarian class rage points. Actually, I won't do it. I'd use D&D barbarians. Which means I am also torn on allowing Pathfinder's version of the class in the game.
Honestly, to me, i see the rage points as a Boss/PC thing only. Your average barbarian bad guy will just rage and be done with it, but the NPC (boss) barbarians will use rage points as will your PCs. This is how I've been running it and it works out great for me. I don't think we were ever intended to track rage points for 40+ random barbarian horde members.
Is it worse than tracking player and NPC spells? I don't feel it is.So you've DMed barbarian NPCs using rage points?
Umm, did you read my previous post?
I think it's worse, yeah. (I suppose it depends on what you mean by "tracking." We use an initiative board -- run by a player -- to track spell durations. Spells themselves I just cross off as used. A spell point system would annoy me just like rage points do.) But even if it's not "worse," it's additional. Barbarians can be made just as interesting by menu-by-level choices or (as someone else suggested) Rage Powers (a la Rogue Talents). Why are we adding another subsystem to the game?
Sorry, I just don't see this. A little tin of buttons for the player, no tracking at all for NPCs... I just don't see an issue here.
It would be nice if there were a sidebar for DMs running NPC barbarians to simplify things but the shortcuts aren't that tough to figure out.
That aside, you mentioned going nova in your reply. That, in itself, is an issue; a big enough issue to seriously rethink the subsystem. A DM using rage points has no reason not to nova.
How do you prevent player spellcasters from Novaing? Is that a big enough issue to merit rethinking the spellcasting system? I've seen spellcasters burn through all their higher level spells in 1 encounter.
Here's another thing about rage points ... Jason is having to balance three things, with every power: barbarian level, rage point cost, and the potential effect of the power. It's just too much, and too easy to get wrong.
So, anyway, what's wrong with menu choices or Rogue Talent-like Rage Powers? What makes rage points superior enough to deal with the problems that go along with them, including the simple fact of Yet Another Subsystem?
I agree that having yet another subsystem/ mechanic to learn/ thing to go wrong is a significant issue. I got nothing for this. I'm not sure I agree that rogue talent like abilities are appropriate for the barbarian though. Rage Talents?
As for Terrifying Howl, well, I don't want barbarians to have a power as powerful as a 4th-level spell at clearing away enemies. It would be slightly better, obviously, if it doesn't use the barbarian's modified Strength, but it's still too much. (BTW, what wizard spell at 4th-level takes out a potentially unlimited number of enemies, with no HD limit, to the extent that the panicked condition does?)
Heh... I was thinking about it afterward and I'm not sure there is a 4th level spell quite this strong there are some that are definitely in the ballpark though. Black Tentacles disables anyone in the area who loses to the grapple. Confusion is 15' radius but arguably worse than panicked. While the AoE is smaller on these spells the wizard can center them at a distance which makes them more effective (unless the barbarian charges into the middle of a large group of enemies then uses his power). That's not including Solid Fog or the wall spells can essentially remove a large group of opponents from combat.
Why shouldn't an 8th level barbarian have an ability equivalent to a 4th level spell or I would prefer slightly less powerful than a 4th level spell. I don't think he should be defined by these powers but I think it's reasonable that he should be able to do something like this a few times a day.
|
|
So the people voicing support of rage points ... don't bother to track them when they DM?
I can definitely understand that (the PITA of tracking them is my point, after all), but if character creation rules are only intended to limit PCs, this should be made very clear in the final Pathfinder rules, because that's a major paradigm shift.
--Jeff
So the people voicing support of rage points ... don't bother to track them when they DM?
I can definitely understand that (the PITA of tracking them is my point, after all), but if character creation rules are only intended to limit PCs, this should be made very clear in the final Pathfinder rules, because that's a major paradigm shift.
Hey I'm not saying rage points are perfect. My biggest concern is the whole idea of creating a whole new mechanic for it, the specifics I don't think are that far off whack though.
I also agree that the idea of running NPCs differently than PCs is not great. This was the purpose of NPC classes though, to provide a set of weaker, simpler classes for the DM to use for NPCs. The problem is the NPC classes were too weak.
So the people voicing support of rage points ... don't bother to track them when they DM?
I don't think that's the case at all. But personally I would stick with raging/not raging if I had a whole bunch of barbarian NPCs instead of trying to figure out "O.K., barbarian #1 uses Animal Rage because he's kind of a hothead, but barbarian #2 prefers to save his points for Clear Mind Later, [...long list of different choices deleted...], and barbarian #40 will do nothing for now."
|
|
So the people voicing support of rage points ... don't bother to track them when they DM?
I can definitely understand that (the PITA of tracking them is my point, after all), but if character creation rules are only intended to limit PCs, this should be made very clear in the final Pathfinder rules, because that's a major paradigm shift.
--Jeff
Your point is well taken. At least on my end, i don't propose using rage points for generic guys without tracking them. That would be cheating in my book. I just think that generic barbarian hordes don't use the rage powers, they just rage, get the basic benefits, and then fight. I see only the best barbarians getting to use the rage powers. Its what makes them the cut above the other masses. While yes this is a departure from the strict reading of the rules and my personal interpretation, i think it works very well and is an answer to how to deal with the tracking of lots of difference characters at once.
I don't see it being any more complicated than tracking spells on a spell list for sure. But when was the last time you saw 40 wizards attacking a party? Lol. Hence my ruling of basic rage vs rage powers. Yes, i think Paizo should probably make it clearer for how DMs should handle it. Give us suggested guild lines or something. But i don't have a problem with the system. In fact i like it a lot.
Just my 2cp for what its worth.
No Brb experience here, but I have DM a monk with Ki points to lvl 11 now (the point issue is similar).
As others here, the player did not find point tracking too problematic. It is, certainly, simpler than calculating and scratching off slots for metamagic feats with an spontaneous caster.
As a DM, I am one of those who does use asymmetry with monsters and "minor" NPCs. I do keep track of points for important villain barbarians and monks, not so much for your rank-and-file 3rd level Brb Ogre. I just give them a boost commensurate with the encounter in question. After all, PCs have a daily allotment to keep track of, and they are going to run into several encounters. The monsters will probably have only one encounter in the spotlight, but it is fair enough to think that they may have raged before (hunting, getting into a friendly brawl, etc).
Actually, I would use "HP loss" thresholds for monsters as a quick-and-dirty way. I still like points for PCs, as management of resources during the adventuring day is, IMO, to be encouraged.
|
|
While I don't mind the rage points...I think the rage X/day and then having rage feats would be better. The Elemental rage I don't necessarily like flavor wise, in fact I'd prolly just change it to destructive rage, causing more damage. This would give the barbarian more dmg, while gettign rid fo the elemental rage...why? how? Never ever seen that in a book...
and to the OP...if you spent 20 minutes typing...always copy clip your entire post prior to posting...after 15-30 minutes you time out of the post...
|
Those are intended to be 'rage styles'. A lot of the other stuff could be kept as 'rage feats'.
I really like the variety this gives to the barbarian. They make me want to play a barbarian again.
I don't want to keep track of a lot of things while I do.
I guess you haven't played any spellcasters in 3E or PF, then? Ever? Because if you don't like to keep track of things, and think that using a point pool is "too much", you'd probably hate to keep track of your character's spell slots...
Seriously, I definitely think that tracking spell slots is way, way harder than a solid point pool -- not to mention that playing a multiclassed PC with two or more spellcasting classes gives me a headache (for example, try playing a Paladin/Cleric/Favoured Soul).
And let's not forget that in essence your character's Hit Points are also a point pool -- is keeping track of them "too much"?
|
|
The barbarian's player in my group *loves* the Rage Point mechanic, although him (and me) both gave to agree with the OP about some of the rage powers being a bit odd thematically (supernatural elemental damage to your attacks?) and mechanically perhaps "too good"/"broken". For example, in my opinion the barbarian's ability to boost his attack bonus and AC by half his level feels like stepping on the fighter's toes...
So the people voicing support of rage points ... don't bother to track them when they DM?
If the NPC barbarian is not going to last more than a single encounter then no I don't track them. This is reasonable because unless your combat lasts more than 10 rounds your NPC barbarians are unlikely to expend all their rage points.
If it is a single significant NPC that might last multiple encounters I do track them and it's not that difficult.
I am running my PCs through Rise of the Runelords, with me Pathfindering the 'important' enemies (the players are all using the Pathfinder classes) and so Kreeg was a rage point barbarian, I found the mechanic easy and fun.
(Also, since I use spell points for spellcasters, the barbarian is much easier to deal with than a spellcaster of the same level.)
|
|
My proposed suggestion was to make it so that only ONE rage power could be used each round.If I misunderstood, I apologize, but Rage Powers pretty much already work like this. Unless otherwise specified, using a Rage Power is a swift action. Since only one swift action per turn, only one Rage Power per turn.
--Jeff
You didn't misunderstand per se - just seemed to miss the overall point that I was on board with the notion of rage talents - just to continue with the concept that no more than 1 can be used in a round (since you're not keeping track of points); and yes you can use more than swift action - you can trade a move for a second swift for instance.
The other point that I was making was to shorten duration by a round for using certain specific talents taht are obviously too good not to use.
Regardless, I feel doing it this way is easier to track than points pool.
Robert
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The rage point mechanic... as a player I don't love it or hate it. I think that rage feats, esp. ones that work whenever you are raging, are a better way to do it.
As a DM, though, I would fall squarely in the camp of feeling like it's more paperwork than I would like to do for a rager.
Now, fair enough, it's probably still less than you would have to do with a spellcasting monster, but even with them your buff spells and such are rarely round-to-round changes.
I wouldn't cry if rage points were kept in the final PF game, but I would probably give a lean towards cutting them over keeping them.
...in my opinion the barbarian's ability to boost his attack bonus and AC by half his level feels like stepping on the fighter's toes...
Well, the problem comes in that he can "outshine the fighter" for a very limited time. After the fight, the barbarian is basically a fighter without the feats. He won't outshine the fighter then, he`ll just be dead weight.
The barbarian is, by its definition, a nova fighter. You break out the barbarian when you really want something dead in a few rounds. I play one myself, but i constantly look at the fighter with a niggling envy....i have gone into a fair few fights and have had to make the choice *not to rage*, because i fear a later battle or because i just don't have that many points to play with (some of the powers cost a shocking amount and the better rages cost more per round).
However, though this is uncomfortable, i do feel somewhat better when i get the chance to really break loose and do something that is "above the party power level" for a short time. It makes a difference and it can make a bad situation manageable or turn a likely loss into a break even.
***
My main concern with the rage mechanics as written is that they lock you into buying more barbarian levels. It's bad enough that you lose rage points when multiclassing into anything else (effectively losing a feat for each non barbarian level taken), but to compound this, most of the powers use barbarian level to generate their effect, causing a double loss. When you have powers sucking up more rage points than you might be getting each level, this hurts a lot.
The barbarian is basicaly a victim of its own success. The barb player gets a lot of rewards for sticking with his class, but by contrast he is severely punished for straying, beyond the rewards that multiclassing may offer.
***
I dont find rage points fiddly, i just find that the supporting mechanic is unique and thus causes some incompatability with multiclassing and general playstyle. Prestige classes need to fix this, by offering "rage progression" or "barb level progression" like spell progression. Otherwise they will be lost to us as well.
|
|
Those are intended to be 'rage styles'. A lot of the other stuff could be kept as 'rage feats'.
I really like the variety this gives to the barbarian. They make me want to play a barbarian again.
I don't want to keep track of a lot of things while I do.
I guess you haven't played any spellcasters in 3E or PF, then? Ever? Because if you don't like to keep track of things, and think that using a point pool is "too much", you'd probably hate to keep track of your character's spell slots...
Seriously, I definitely think that tracking spell slots is way, way harder than a solid point pool -- not to mention that playing a multiclassed PC with two or more spellcasting classes gives me a headache (for example, try playing a Paladin/Cleric/Favoured Soul).
And let's not forget that in essence your character's Hit Points are also a point pool -- is keeping track of them "too much"?
The point some of us are making is that it isn't the points themselves, it is choosing what power to use, when you can acquire it, and calculating the cost when you use it. I have run the PRPB Barbarian as both player and DM, and had no problems. But that doesn't mean the system is easy - a feat/talent system would be much more intuitive.
Second, I don't think it is fair to connect not liking rage points to not liking spellcasters - each has their niche. For people looking to play a simple class (whether or not they like spellcasters is irrelevant), Barbarian and Fighter are the standby. Making the Barbarian more complicated, which rage points unequivocally do, is not the direction Pathfinder should take.
In conclusion, it isn't that rage points are TOO complicated, it is that they are MORE complicated than the old class or the possible alternatives.
|
|
Those are intended to be 'rage styles'. A lot of the other stuff could be kept as 'rage feats'.
I really like the variety this gives to the barbarian. They make me want to play a barbarian again.
I don't want to keep track of a lot of things while I do.
I guess you haven't played any spellcasters in 3E or PF, then? Ever? Because if you don't like to keep track of things, and think that using a point pool is "too much", you'd probably hate to keep track of your character's spell slots...
Seriously, I definitely think that tracking spell slots is way, way harder than a solid point pool -- not to mention that playing a multiclassed PC with two or more spellcasting classes gives me a headache (for example, try playing a Paladin/Cleric/Favoured Soul).
And let's not forget that in essence your character's Hit Points are also a point pool -- is keeping track of them "too much"?
The point some of us are making is that it isn't the points themselves, it is choosing what power to use, when you can acquire it, and calculating the cost when you use it. I have run the PRPB Barbarian as both player and DM, and had no problems. But that doesn't mean the system is easy - a feat/talent system would be much more intuitive.
Second, I don't think it is fair to connect not liking rage points to not liking spellcasters - each has their niche. For people looking to play a simple class (whether or not they like spellcasters is irrelevant), Barbarian and Fighter are the standby. Making the Barbarian more complicated, which rage points unequivocally do, is not the direction Pathfinder should take.
In conclusion, it isn't that rage points are TOO complicated, it is that they are MORE complicated than the old class or the possible alternatives.
Yep, you're correct in saying that it does make a "simple" class more complicated, and I didn't mean to sound so condescending as I did -- sorry for that!
Yet I think the rage points are not too hard to keep track of, or make the class too complicated to play, if you want a to play a "martial" character. I also think this (i.e. powers/spells tracked with a point pool) is exactly the direction that PF should choose with *EVERY* class (fighters and spellcasters included).
I'm also inclined to think that Talents is another viable option, but perhaps slightly less elegant than the rage points, in my opinion. But I wouldn't throw a temper tantrum, if Jason chooses to do that.
Feats are, IMO, the least elegant option here -- first of all, there are only a certain amount of Feats in the game, and barbarians already suffered (in my own experience) from this in 3E. It tended to result in half of the feats never being picked in my group (e.g. 'Destructive Rage'? -- no, thank you, unless it was a prerequisite for a broken PrC) while *all* the barbarian PCs had some of the Feats. The only option that I see would be to create a new category of Feats (Rage Feats) that only barbarians have access to, but I think it would feel awkward and far less elegant than rage powers or Talents.
|
|
My main concern with the rage mechanics as written is that they lock you into buying more barbarian levels. It's bad enough that you lose rage points when multiclassing into anything else (effectively losing a feat for each non barbarian level taken), but to compound this, most of the powers use barbarian level to generate their effect, causing a double loss. When you have powers sucking up more rage points than you might be getting each level, this hurts a lot.
Personally I welcome any class-based options/abilities/mechanics that gives less impetus to multi-class.
In fact by the very admissions of the designers, the classes were desired to be re-worked so that they would appeal far more to people to play as single-class than ever before.
Anything the takes away the desire or need to feel like min/maxing via multi-classing is a thumbs up in my book.
Robert
|
|
The rage point mechanic... as a player I don't love it or hate it. I think that rage feats, esp. ones that work whenever you are raging, are a better way to do it.
As a DM, though, I would fall squarely in the camp of feeling like it's more paperwork than I would like to do for a rager.
Now, fair enough, it's probably still less than you would have to do with a spellcasting monster, but even with them your buff spells and such are rarely round-to-round changes.
I wouldn't cry if rage points were kept in the final PF game, but I would probably give a lean towards cutting them over keeping them.
Hmmm... see my points about making them Feats above -- I think it would be an odd choice to include another category of Feats in the game (soon we might end up with Feat Categories similar to 4E's "Power Sources") that only barbarians have access to (and therefore must get Extra Rage Feats at every second level).
I think Rage Powers or Rage Talents are more elegant and better than Rage Feats.
|
|
...in my opinion the barbarian's ability to boost his attack bonus and AC by half his level feels like stepping on the fighter's toes...Well, the problem comes in that he can "outshine the fighter" for a very limited time. After the fight, the barbarian is basically a fighter without the feats. He won't outshine the fighter then, he`ll just be dead weight.
The barbarian is, by its definition, a nova fighter. You break out the barbarian when you really want something dead in a few rounds. I play one myself, but i constantly look at the fighter with a niggling envy....i have gone into a fair few fights and have had to make the choice *not to rage*, because i fear a later battle or because i just don't have that many points to play with (some of the powers cost a shocking amount and the better rages cost more per round).
However, though this is uncomfortable, i do feel somewhat better when i get the chance to really break loose and do something that is "above the party power level" for a short time. It makes a difference and it can make a bad situation manageable or turn a likely loss into a break even.
***
My main concern with the rage mechanics as written is that they lock you into buying more barbarian levels. It's bad enough that you lose rage points when multiclassing into anything else (effectively losing a feat for each non barbarian level taken), but to compound this, most of the powers use barbarian level to generate their effect, causing a double loss. When you have powers sucking up more rage points than you might be getting each level, this hurts a lot.
The barbarian is basicaly a victim of its own success. The barb player gets a lot of rewards for sticking with his class, but by contrast he is severely punished for straying, beyond the rewards that multiclassing may offer.
***
I dont find rage points fiddly, i just find that the supporting mechanic is unique and thus causes some incompatability with multiclassing and general playstyle. Prestige...
As to your last point, I wouldn't mind seeing all the classes utilizing 'point pools' (Arcane, Divine, Nature, Rage, etc.), but that's probably just me. Yes, it would shatter 'backwards compatibility', but that's not an issue for me -- if the system "evolves" and ends up being more consistent and easier to play/run, I don't mind doing some extra work with converting 3E stuff to PF.
Anyway, you have a point there, but I thought one of the design goals was to encourage single-classing and staying on your chosen path, while not making multiclassing not a viable choice? Me? I'm tired with players min-maxing and multiclassing into X number of overpowered Prestige Classes ("Hey, two more cleric and fighter levels, and a lever of Craftmaster, and I can take my first level of Hammer of Moradin to *finally* get that +30 damage bonus with my warhammer!!!"), or picking up a few levels of both rogue and fighter just to get more "tricks" up their sleeve or more skill points. Personally, I would make multiclassing into Prestige Classes cost a Feat. That would eliminate a *lot* of needless min-maxing from the game, and make new players feel more comfortable with the system and also more "equal" in the group, as the "veteran" players with all that min-maxing knowledge won't have as strong an "edge" as before.
In conclusion, it isn't that rage points are TOO complicated, it is that they are MORE complicated than the old class or the possible alternatives.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the way Pathfinder is going... almost every class is a little more complicated and more powerful. The rogue? Rogue talents. The sorcerer? Bloodline Powers etc.
In a lot of ways I would rather the game had gone the other way and trimmed down class features of the more powerful classes to bring them in line with the less powerful classes. This happened to some extent with the druid but almost universally the rest of the classes got some little added complexity or power bump.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
My main concern with the rage mechanics as written is that they lock you into buying more barbarian levels. It's bad enough that you lose rage points when multiclassing into anything else (effectively losing a feat for each non barbarian level taken), but to compound this, most of the powers use barbarian level to generate their effect, causing a double loss. When you have powers sucking up more rage points than you might be getting each level, this hurts a lot.Personally I welcome any class-based options/abilities/mechanics that gives less impetus to multi-class.
In fact by the very admissions of the designers, the classes were desired to be re-worked so that they would appeal far more to people to play as single-class than ever before.
Anything the takes away the desire or need to feel like min/maxing via multi-classing is a thumbs up in my book.
Robert
I would second the call to reward single-classing, especially among martial characters. The lack of caster level advancement is hardcore enough as a disincentive for casters to MC, but I like rewarding single-class dedication. MC has its own temptations and its own rewards for those who choose it, but you shouldn't be able to get all the goodies with just a dip.
As a side note, I wonder if we made "Evasion" into ability that was usable once per day per CLASS level (rather than just being on all the time), would people be less inclined to dip into monk and rogue?
Just a thought (and on topic, since Evasion is also a Ranger class feature!)
Hmmm... see my points about making them Feats above -- I think it would be an odd choice to include another category of Feats in the game (soon we might end up with Feat Categories similar to 4E's "Power Sources") that only barbarians have access to (and therefore must get Extra Rage Feats at every second level).I think Rage Powers or Rage Talents are more elegant and better than Rage Feats.
Agreed. Class-exclusive feats (as opposed to class-favored ones) seem to be "patches" in the system, as that's not what feats are made for.
On the other hand, if we get a hefty list of Barb. talents (each of them with a set number of uses per day), isn't bookkeeping more of a pain? Recording what I have done twice of a 3-day talent or what of a 2/level one seems to require the same or more bookkeeping than having your neat list, your max points, and freely substract as you use stuff. Rogue talents tend not to have set number of uses per day, but they are also a bit less destructive than the barbarian's (and many of them are defensive).I can sympathize with those who want to balance the point tally for NPCs in a long row. One option would be to pre-calculate a set of rage uses from the available number of points per NPC per level. Maybe that could be included in the DM section of the core book: "4th lvl Brb with 14 Con = x Rage points = [listing of typical uses of rage to be accessed in a day]". That eliminates bookkeeping for NPCs (other than adding or substracting a couple uses for really high ability scores).
The obvious idea is to make people actually think twice about taking a prestige class. The rogue talents idea is a great one and certainly makes me (a frequent rogue player) think twice about it. The cleric and the sorcerer (and to a lesser extent the wizard) are absolutely ridiculous in this regard. Take one level and (if you can) never look back!
Making Evasion a per-level ability just makes things more complicated unnecessarily. Is that really needed?
I like more playability and options in the base classes, and rage points are a big pluses for my group and running 15 or 20 npc ones was not what I would call very hard.
|
|
Agreed. Class-exclusive feats (as opposed to class-favored ones) seem to be "patches" in the system, as that's not what feats are made for.
On the other hand, if we get a hefty list of Barb. talents (each of them with a set number of uses per day), isn't bookkeeping more of a pain? Recording what I have done twice of a 3-day talent or what of a 2/level one seems to require the same or more bookkeeping than having your neat list, your max points, and freely substract as you use stuff. Rogue talents tend not to have set number of uses per day, but they are also a bit less destructive than the barbarian's (and many of them are defensive).
Thats actually not the way I envision it working. My proposed suggestions was that rage mechanic worked the same way 3.5 did (# of times per day); but that you gain a certain number of talents (rage powers) to select from as you advance, and can use them while raging (though limited to using 1 / round).
Then, the only think you're keeping track of daily as a player is the number of times you've raged that day. As a DM - since a typical NPC encounter is just one time thing - theres nothing to really keep track of (other than the length of the combat vs the length of the rage).
Robert
I haven't had a problem, but then again, I think of the "points" as rounds remaining, and call them "rounds worth of rage" at the table. Before, you had to keep track of how long your rage lasted, in rounds. You still do. If you use a rage power, just tack off a few more rounds. It's no harder than keeping track of hp.
But that said, it would be REALLY nice if greater rage didn't cost 2 rounds per round, or whatever. That one kind of irks me -- I'd like to see greater rage and mighty rage be free upgrades, rather than costing extra per round of usage.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I haven't had a problem, but then again, I think of the "points" as rounds remaining, and call them "rounds worth of rage" at the table. Before, you had to keep track of how long your rage lasted, in rounds. You still do. If you use a rage power, just tack off a few more rounds. It's no harder than keeping track of hp.
But that said, it would be REALLY nice if greater rage didn't cost 2 rounds per round, or whatever. That one kind of irks me -- I'd like to see greater rage and mighty rage be free upgrades, rather than costing extra per round of usage.
Amen to that, brother! Most of the Barb's rage powers improve with level. Why not the rage itself?