As things are right now, if hurt, I can sit in a corner and rage until I feel betterWell... except on top of everything else, Renewed vigor is only usable once per day.
Well...in the scenario I wrote, I was assuming the date stretched on long into the night and into the next day....
So there!!!!
Still, good point. I just double checked, and yes, you are right.
It's a slippery slope, if only for the oft-quoted "there's no reason NOT to". As things are right now, if hurt, I can sit in a corner and rage until I feel better, then(presumably after slaughtering those who injured me), I can rage my way up a mountain to pick up my date, then put her on my back to rage back down the mountain then across the river to take her to a restaurant. Once at the restaurant, I will fly into yet another rage when the check arrives, intimidating the matire 'd into giving us our meal for free, then rage yet again to take her home, where I will rage once more when she says she just wants to be friends- alas, renewed vigor does not work on a broken heart! A humorous situation, but one that works according to the...
Except you can't rage your way up the mountain because it lasts for 6 seconds. I suppose you could burn all your rage and do maybe 3 minutes of frenzied climbing an wind up a couple hundred feet up. But then you are stuck 200' up and fatigued.
It's a slippery slope, if only for the oft-quoted "there's no reason NOT to". As things are right now, if hurt, I can sit in a corner and rage until I feel better, then(presumably after slaughtering those who injured me), I can rage my way up a mountain to pick up my date, then put her on my back to rage back down the mountain then across the river to take her to a restaurant. Once at the restaurant, I will fly into yet another rage when the check arrives, intimidating the matire 'd into giving us our meal for free, then rage yet again to take her home, where I will rage once more when she says she just wants to be friends- alas, renewed vigor does not work on a broken heart! A humorous situation, but one that works according to the...Except you can't rage your way up the mountain because it lasts for 6 seconds. I suppose you could burn all your rage and do maybe 3 minutes of frenzied climbing an wind up a couple hundred feet up. But then you are stuck 200' up and fatigued.
LoL - Perhaps he raged across the moat and over the city walls then. As long as its not to step a climb he could just use his fast movement to run down the mountain.
LoL - Perhaps he raged across the moat and over the city walls then. As long as its not to step a climb he could just use his fast movement to run down the mountain.
What's he get for that? Move 60'?
What's he get for that? Move 60'?
LoL - Perhaps he raged across the moat and over the city walls then. As long as its not to step a climb he could just use his fast movement to run down the mountain.
Funny enough... not too hard to do. Considering his base move with the class is 40 and a 60 movement is only four FLEET feats away.
Funny enough... not too hard to do. Considering his base move with the class is 40 and a 60 movement is only four FLEET feats away.What's he get for that? Move 60'?
LoL - Perhaps he raged across the moat and over the city walls then. As long as its not to step a climb he could just use his fast movement to run down the mountain.
And he have to use light armor or no armor.
What is "Ferocious Charge"?I hope they boost the barbarian. Medium armor and -2 to AC when raging means he'll have to boost his dex way up high and he needs con so just boosting str is not wise.
We have a Paldin in our goup. At level 9 he can deal 100 damage to and undead/evil oustider/Evil dragon when he smites and crits with his greatsword. No damage reduction and he get a boost to his AC. IF the foe is just evil it's just 82 point of damage.
A 9:th level barbarian with Powerful Blow would gains a +3 bonus on a
single damage roll. And the power must be used before the roll to hit is made. And it's just once per rage. Good? I think not.
It's a slippery slope, if only for the oft-quoted "there's no reason NOT to". As things are right now, if hurt, I can sit in a corner and rage until I feel better, then(presumably after slaughtering those who injured me), I can rage my way up a mountain to pick up my date, then put her on my back to rage back down the mountain then across the river to take her to a restaurant. Once at the restaurant, I will fly into yet another rage when the check arrives, intimidating the matire 'd into giving us our meal for free, then rage yet again to take her home, where I will rage once more when she says she just wants to be friends- alas, renewed vigor does not work on a broken heart! A humorous situation, but one that works according to the...Except you can't rage your way up the mountain because it lasts for 6 seconds. I suppose you could burn all your rage and do maybe 3 minutes of frenzied climbing an wind up a couple hundred feet up. But then you are stuck 200' up and fatigued.
Well...what if it's a Hugh Grant sized mountain?
The game is built on math. Miss chances, AC, and DR are all functionally the same thing...they mitigate damage over time. Thematically, a blow whiffing into empty air from a miss chance, bouncing off a ready shield, or half its power taken away by DR are all the exact same thing in the long run.
==+Aelryinth
This is only true within unlimited hit points.
Given limited HP and fall unconcious at -1, die at -Con, and various special abilities, they actually work differently and have different effects, mathamatically.
Stephen E
No they work exactly the same, because we are talking about damage over a creature's entire career, not just one fight. That's why its called damage over time, not Damage Per Encounter. You're only seeing the effects on the microscale. On a Macro scale, it all balances out.
==Aelryinth
As for Roll With It and Savage Species, unless a feat, power, spell, PrC or magic item has been rewritten/updated in 3.5, it's considered perfectly valid for 3.0.
Ergo, feats in Savage Species are still valid. Indeed, the monster progressions therein are quoted in a number of 3.5 sources regarding monster +LA.
Also, DR was higher in 3.0 because it was easier to overcome, i.e. all you needed was a high enough weapon +. 3.5 DR is actually TOUGHER then 3.0. The former, all you needed was Greater Magic Weapon. Now, you actually need to have cold iron, silver, Good, adamantine, and all that other stuff. Ugh.
===Aelryinth
As for Roll With It and Savage Species, unless a feat, power, spell, PrC or magic item has been rewritten/updated in 3.5, it's considered perfectly valid for 3.0.
Well that's an interesting claim, but unless you've got something to back it up, I'm not sure I agree. Certain feats and classes from 3rd edition might be usable and balanced in 3.5, if the DM at your table allows it, and similarly certain feats and classes from 3.0 and 3.5 might be usable and balanced in Pathfinder, again, if the DM at your table allows it. But using a feat, class, or ability from 3rd edition to make an argument about class balance in Pathfinder is ridiculous, as that feat may or may not be available at any particular table, and considering the vast array of non-open content in 3rd edition and 3.5, could not possibly have been considered in depth by Paizo during the Pathfinder creation process.
(Some supporting evidence, during the conversion from 3.0 to 3.5, it was specifically not legal to use feats from 3rd edition material when building your character for Living Greyhawk, with a few very specific exceptions.)
Ergo, feats in Savage Species are still valid. Indeed, the monster progressions therein are quoted in a number of 3.5 sources regarding monster +LA.
Such as? I remember a few places in a couple books that suggest using Savage Species as a reference when creating house rules regarding level adjustment, but I don't remember anything using tables from Savage species wholesale.
Also, DR was higher in 3.0 because it was easier to overcome, i.e. all you needed was a high enough weapon +. 3.5 DR is actually TOUGHER then 3.0. The former, all you needed was Greater Magic Weapon. Now, you actually need to have cold iron, silver, Good, adamantine, and all that other stuff. Ugh.
The specifics of how DR was changed don't really matter a whole lot, the fact was that it was changed, and changed quite a bit, so it's not unreasonable to say, when looking at something from 3.5 (let alone pathfinder) that we shouldn't consider feats and abilities balanced under the old DR system when looking at balance in the new system.
Greyhawk isn't a valid comparison, because Greyhawk nerfed a lot of problem things that were a part of the rules to insure playability. Restricting things to 3.5 at the time of play also put a helpful limit on what characters could do, and removed a LOT of rule abuse from splatbooks.
WoTC's position for 3.0 is that if they didn't update/change it, it's perfectly valid.
As for your arguments on 'DM acceptance', that's a non-issue. If it's not in the Core Rules, it's always a DM permission issue. As for balance with Pathfinder, if you can find someone who knows all the published feats, here's a cookie for you. I know a bunch of effects, and have a good reference site to go to, but trying to keep track of all of them is a losing battle. I think there's more feats, most of them in the 'meh' category, then there are spells!
==Aelryinth
Greyhawk isn't a valid comparison, because Greyhawk nerfed a lot of problem things that were a part of the rules to insure playability. Restricting things to 3.5 at the time of play also put a helpful limit on what characters could do, and removed a LOT of rule abuse from splatbooks.
WoTC's position for 3.0 is that if they didn't update/change it, it's perfectly valid.
As for your arguments on 'DM acceptance', that's a non-issue. If it's not in the Core Rules, it's always a DM permission issue. As for balance with Pathfinder, if you can find someone who knows all the published feats, here's a cookie for you. I know a bunch of effects, and have a good reference site to go to, but trying to keep track of all of them is a losing battle. I think there's more feats, most of them in the 'meh' category, then there are spells!
==Aelryinth
Living games always end up limiting things to keep the system within reason.
Agreed. It is always up to the DM to place limits on what he or she does not want in game. I'm also pretty sure if you did a google search you could still come up with WotC's info on 3.0 to 3.5 feats. (My google foo is only so-so)
I think the Roll With It feat is still a acceptable option for game-play and allow it in my games. If you decide that you'd like to use it but believe it is to powerful as is... you can always change the feats pre-reqs or crunch. Nerfing it down to DR 1/- per feat selected could still allow it to be useful. Or... upping Roll With It's pre-reqs to make it more "expensive" to pick up is also a option.
Greyhawk isn't a valid comparison, because Greyhawk nerfed a lot of problem things that were a part of the rules to insure playability. Restricting things to 3.5 at the time of play also put a helpful limit on what characters could do, and removed a LOT of rule abuse from splatbooks.
WoTC's position for 3.0 is that if they didn't update/change it, it's perfectly valid.
True, Greyhawk did restrict a lot of things based on balance, but that wasn't my point, my point was that Living Greyhawk, a wizards of the coast backed organized play group, specifically made all 3rd edition material illegal during the changeover, not just all the material they'd previously banned for balance reasons, everything.
Now that may not be indicative of every gaming table, some DMs might allow that material, but to the best of my recollection, the position from WotC was always that 3.5 was compatible with 3rd edition, not a continuation of it. Which is why I'm asking, if you know of something official from Wizards of the coast that says otherwise, please present it, it's entirely possible I have been mistaken this entire time, but lacking any proof beyond "I think it works this way" I don't think you can include the vast array of 3rd edition and 3.5 material as an argument for Barbarian balance.
As for your arguments on 'DM acceptance', that's a non-issue. If it's not in the Core Rules, it's always a DM permission issue.
Which is a big part of why, if you're looking at the balance of something in the core rules, you should only be looking at what's available in those core rules.
As for balance with Pathfinder, if you can find someone who knows all the published feats, here's a cookie for you. I know a bunch of effects, and have a good reference site to go to, but trying to keep track of all of them is a losing battle.
Which was exactly my point, so I'm not sure quite what you're arguing. One of my points about why we shouldn't consider all of the material from 3rd and 3.5 was that it was mostly material that the writers at Paizo couldn't possibly have considered, both for legal reasons, and just because there was so much of it no one could be expected to keep track of it all when balancing a new class or a class revision.
I'm curious how the PF Barbarian would work with the Rage variant from Players Handbook 2.
Unlimited rage per day... but only activates when your health has dropped to a certain percentage.
I find your selection of Barb Powers strange, excluding what I think are the more powerful options:
Knockback (comprising Shield Slam functionality, but allowing Wpn Focus on 2H weapon doing more dmg w/ Vital Strike, no 2WF/Shield Feat Tax), Unexpected Strike (huge AoO opportunity to disrupt Enemy actions), Animal Fury (extra Full Attack more like Archery Feats than 2WF chain, +2 Grapple Bonus), Clear Mind!!! (like Imp Iron will but not limited to 1x/day and no 2 Feat Requirement), and Scent (with solid Perception can effectively negate Invisibility w/o magic).
Further, the ORDER you take the Powers in seems bizarre, as the level-scaling Powers like Powerful Blow only offer substantial pay-back at higher levels. No Escape seems weak to me, as it only works vs. Withdraw actions, not ANY movement away from you (which WOULD have been nice) ...I'd rather take the Step-Up Feat, (or better) grab a Magic Item simulating Step-Up, as 5' Steps away are far more common than Withdraw actions (at least in my game - if your Enemies are WIthdrawing, I think you're already winning anyways). Given Feats are sparse for Barbarians (vs. Fighters), I'd probably (barring particular character concepts, i.e. Gladiator Barbarian w/ Shield+Trident+Net) avoid long Feat Chains like 2WF/Shield and spend my precious Feats where they can offer advantages Powers don't have. I was also shocked NONE of your 'builds' (even your Fighter!?) have even the INITIAL Vital Strike Feat!? If you never move and wait for the enemy to come to you, that might be OK...
BTW, if you're not actually willing/capable of doing a real statistical comparion (a loathsome task I myself would not willingly take on, certainly not for something so petty as messageboard debates), I'd recommend you NOT make claims of "mathematical" superiority. IMO, most of the better Barbarian rage powers do not easily lend themselves to statistical comparison, perhaps only if you want to compare them in a given setting, i.e. a Paizo module/ AP with given opponents/environments.
I thought about Knockback- since shield slam replicates it I didn't want to double up. Didn't go 2H weapon because wanted Highter AC- a plus 5 Large shield is significant. And the build is Control rather than damage focused.
Sure, taking both would undoubtedly be wasteful. I think it's safe to say that for most Barbarians, the Feat cost of 2WF+Shield Feats is too heavy to justify, when they could get Wpn Focus/Spec in 2Handed weapon, Vital Strike, and numerous utility Feats instead. The fact you upped the # of Feats thru "flaws" to achieve your example build I think re-enforces that reality.
Yes, noteworthy but your will save sucks nuts anyway. Would take both if I had more room- Will swap no escape for scent..
The Fighter can spend 2 Feats on IW/Imp.IW and have 1 re-roll/day.
The Barbarian can spend 1 Feat on IW and take Clear Mind for a net better effect.The Barbarian effectively makes up for their 50% Feat disadvantage AND MORE.
re: Vital Strike, it WAS changed dramatically from the Beta:
It applies on Standard Attack Actions now*, NOT 'trading out' lower Iteratives - I would have liked to see both, and without the Feat cost, but what the hey...
*The specific wording looks likely to be updated slightly (from James/Jason's commentary) but the idea is basically it applies to any Standard Action - they seem to be excluding Charges (perhaps not Partial Charges?) for whatever reason, but Standard Attacks, 1st Cleave Attacks, Spring Attacks, should all apply the Vital Strike damage.
A word on Vital Strike from another tread.
Hey there all,
Couple of notes. Generally speaking, when reading feats, the descriptive sentence at the very beginning is just that, descriptive. It is not generally rules text.
As for the Vital Strike issue... just roll the damage dice for the weapon twice. Everything else is as normal. If you normally deal 1d8+4 with a longsword, you would deal 2d8+4 with a longsword using Vital Strike.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action. You cannot use it as part of a full-attack action.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ok, so, The barb, is not underpowered. In fact, he's about the best incarnation of it I've found. And unexpected strike almost netted my GM self a TPK by accident. I understand that they're different, but really, I don't find it any less survivable to play a barb than a fighter.
No Escape, Unexpected Strike and Superstitious alone make Barbarian a great character. Melee power of a Fighter, saves of a Paladin with extra abilities to surprise foes.
What is not to like here? I made barbarian NPC recently for the campaign I run and he is probably going to be a most dangerous fight my players had since PF full has come out.
|
To be fair, just have monsters keep on hitting the unconscious guys to make sure they are dead instead of refocusing on the still acting PCs. Is is after all highly unrealistic to leave a soon to be healed and back in the game opponent alone when you can do away with him completely in one attack.
This way, the still-standing guy does not become a soon to be dead magnet for all attackers (and therefore, abilities which allow one to keep on going will stop looking like hidden weaknesses)
Or allow PCs to play possum and feign death. Maybe a bluff check with high circumstance bonus on par with the damage already sustained. (opponents really want to believe they did end up killing you with those measly 100+ damage you sustained). Of course, you would have to fall prone and keeping your weapon in your hands would make the check more difficult.