My main issue with barbarians is that rage scales poorly. +4 to two stats is an enormous boost at 1st level, but +6 to two stats is kind of lacklustre later on. Instead, I scale them as follows:
Level : Ability Boost
1st-4th : +2
5th-9th: +4
10th-14th: +6
15th-19th: +8
20th: +10
I really like this!
I really like this!
Thanks! I'll refrain from posting the rest of it, including the rage powers that come in four "levels" (like spells) corresponding to the attribute boost gained by rage (this allowed me to make some 15th level rage powers that keep high-level barbarians in the game).
One thing I will mention is that I allow barbarians, at the time the character is rolled up, to choose any two physical stats to boost while raging: default is Str and Con, but an individual player might pick Str and Dex, or Dex and Con instead.
I am pretty sure Jason has stated that there will be new rage powers in the APG, hopefully some of them are better then much of whats currently available. It isnt an amazing solution, but it should help. I think the big thing that got missed is the variable power attack 2handing was the barbarians big damage source, now that has been evened out and standardized, the barbarian lost alot of umph. We will see if hopefully some options come out that help him back to where he was.
I'd like to see a fight between a barbarian (non-evil) and a paladin (both same level), as I'm having trouble seeing the paladin winning the fighter more than the barbarian. As has been said before, yes, if both just stand and swing, sure, but the barbarian shouldn't just stand and swing.
I'd say there's a greater chance the barbarian has spring attack and vital strike+ than the paladin (based purely on anecdotal evidence), so the barbarian gets more out of his 40 ft. move (assuming light armor) than the 20 ft. of the paladin. In fact, the barbarian gets to choose when and where the paladin can attack him in any but the rarest occasions.
I'd like to see a fight between a barbarian (non-evil) and a paladin (both same level), as I'm having trouble seeing the paladin winning the fighter more than the barbarian. As has been said before, yes, if both just stand and swing, sure, but the barbarian shouldn't just stand and swing.
I'd say there's a greater chance the barbarian has spring attack and vital strike+ than the paladin (based purely on anecdotal evidence), so the barbarian gets more out of his 40 ft. move (assuming light armor) than the 20 ft. of the paladin. In fact, the barbarian gets to choose when and where the paladin can attack him in any but the rarest occasions.
Unless the paladin is mounted on his divine bond animal companion Lion (with pounce!) with ride by attack and spirited charge, while wearing that full plate and using a heavy shield.
I'd like to see a fight between a barbarian (non-evil) and a paladin (both same level), as I'm having trouble seeing the paladin winning the fighter more than the barbarian. As has been said before, yes, if both just stand and swing, sure, but the barbarian shouldn't just stand and swing.
I'd say there's a greater chance the barbarian has spring attack and vital strike+ than the paladin (based purely on anecdotal evidence), so the barbarian gets more out of his 40 ft. move (assuming light armor) than the 20 ft. of the paladin. In fact, the barbarian gets to choose when and where the paladin can attack him in any but the rarest occasions.
Although I do love strategy (I do play Street Fighter RPG, till this day) I do not believe that the Barbarian would be going out with spring and vital strike, and even if he was, the paladin could have something like this also, and his spells to boost.
I think they would be swing, from an RP point of view, but it is not a rule issue, it's a flavor one. So, carry on.
Unless the paladin is mounted on his divine bond animal companion Lion (with pounce!) with ride by attack and spirited charge, while wearing that full plate and using a heavy shield.
Except Xum had previously assumed the Paladin would have a bond with a weapon instead. But sure, if he goes mount instead, the movement problem is off-set.
Although I do love strategy (I do play Street Fighter RPG, till this day) I do not believe that the Barbarian would be going out with spring and vital strike, and even if he was, the paladin could have something like this also, and his spells to boost.
I think they would be swing, from an RP point of view, but it is not a rule issue, it's a flavor one. So, carry on.
Why wouldn't the barbarian do that? Because you play him as a straight fighter using all-out attack every round?
Yes, the paladin could have the same feats, but (according to my purely anecdotal evidence) it is less likely. More likely the paladin is optimized to fighting evil by having taken channeling feats, extra mercy, etc. Of course, my anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily more accurate than yours, but that's why you think the barbarian sucks and I have trouble seeing a paladin routinely beating a non-evil barbarian.
Although I do love strategy (I do play Street Fighter RPG, till this day) I do not believe that the Barbarian would be going out with spring and vital strike, and even if he was, the paladin could have something like this also, and his spells to boost.
I think they would be swing, from an RP point of view, but it is not a rule issue, it's a flavor one. So, carry on.Why wouldn't the barbarian do that? Because you play him as a straight fighter using all-out attack every round?
Yes, the paladin could have the same feats, but (according to my purely anecdotal evidence) it is less likely. More likely the paladin is optimized to fighting evil by having taken channeling feats, extra mercy, etc. Of course, my anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily more accurate than yours, but that's why you think the barbarian sucks and I have trouble seeing a paladin routinely beating a non-evil barbarian.
As stated Earlier, I DO NOT think it sucks, I think it is unbalanced, mostly because of it's weak rage powers.
And sure, he should not be played as a straight fighter, you are correct in this. And although your strategy is good, I do not think it would work forever.
Besides, that's one way of playing it, also as stated earlier, I do not think that the barbarian should be the one relying too much on strategy there, it should be the paladin.
I do not think that the barbarian should be the one relying too much on strategy there, it should be the paladin.
Beside the fact you have a great looking avatar almost as good looking as mine...
Why shouldn't the Barbarian be relying strategy?
Sorry if I am misinterpreting but I get the impression that you think that the Barbarian should be a "Conan" step up and smack with an axe type? Or the Viking Berserker type.
There are other options, you could go the whirling two weapon dervish style. The pictish throw your self on the enemies spears and wear them out (Max out on hp and just keep taking damage).
If the class is not doing what you want its time to look at your tactics and strategy.
|
Okay, it's time we started providing specific mechanical examples here.
Sure, on paper, the barbarian class looks like it has problems. But as myself and pretty much every other person posting to this thread has said, the class works really well in practice.
So how about this: 15th level (the system doesn't hold together well right at the level cap, and we all know it). 15 point buy. Human. A Barbarian, a Fighter, and a Paladin, all using two-handed weapons. Feat selection, while not identical, should be relatively close, so the pally will have a bonded weapon. Gear should likewise be close, but again not identical (pally has different enchants on his sword, barbarian is sporting medium instead of heavy, etc). Setting is the classic infinite (and boring) featureless plane.
One last thing: the characters should not be purely optimized for solely this fight. They should be optimal builds given the constraints, but not built specifically for beating their mirror image.
I don't have the time to build the actual characters, but if nothing else this limits the range of possible characters to those that look most like each other. Not the only way to compare, but that seems to be the issue at hand.
If nothing else, the barbarian certainly has a strength (or con) advantage over the pally, who needs a solid charisma.
Agreed, we should put a Ranger there too. I will try something like this with a friend and post a reply.
By the way 8th, The Barbarian, sadly is MUCH better with a two-handed weapon, without it, this strength bonus are mediocre.
|
|
okay, I know I just posted an hour ago, and there's only a single two sentence reply, but that's exactly what we are talking about here.
What, EXACTLY, is wrong with barbarians needing to use a two-handed weapon? Why do you feel so strongly against it? What do you expect barbarians to be doing, if not trying to use every muscle in thier body to kill their opponents?
Specific examples, remember? We can't help you if all you do is whine generically about "how much barbarians suck". You need to tell us WHAT about them sucks and WHY. Specific, detailed complaints.
So speak up.
Okay, it's time we started providing specific mechanical examples here.
Sure, on paper, the barbarian class looks like it has problems. But as myself and pretty much every other person posting to this thread has said, the class works really well in practice.
So how about this: 15th level (the system doesn't hold together well right at the level cap, and we all know it). 15 point buy. Human. A Barbarian, a Fighter, and a Paladin, all using two-handed weapons. Feat selection, while not identical, should be relatively close, so the pally will have a bonded weapon. Gear should likewise be close, but again not identical (pally has different enchants on his sword, barbarian is sporting medium instead of heavy, etc). Setting is the classic infinite (and boring) featureless plane.
One last thing: the characters should not be purely optimized for solely this fight. They should be optimal builds given the constraints, but not built specifically for beating their mirror image.
I don't have the time to build the actual characters, but if nothing else this limits the range of possible characters to those that look most like each other. Not the only way to compare, but that seems to be the issue at hand.
If nothing else, the barbarian certainly has a strength (or con) advantage over the pally, who needs a solid charisma.
I can do one of them over the weekend.
But one question, when you say feat selection should be relatively close, I disagree. The barbarian should have feats that make sense for a barbarian having been played since first level, the paladin should have relevant feats as if played from first level, etc.
okay, I know I just posted an hour ago, and there's only a single two sentence reply, but that's exactly what we are talking about here.
What, EXACTLY, is wrong with barbarians needing to use a two-handed weapon? Why do you feel so strongly against it? What do you expect barbarians to be doing, if not trying to use every muscle in thier body to kill their opponents?
Specific examples, remember? We can't help you if all you do is whine generically about "how much barbarians suck". You need to tell us WHAT about them sucks and WHY. Specific, detailed complaints.
So speak up.
Actually, at low levels, I think barbarians should have heavy shields and scimitars, as their str bonus is more than enough to kill most creatures on one hit, the 18-20 crit is sweet with that str bonus and a +2 AC bonus from shield actually makes a difference for the first 4-5 levels.
okay, I know I just posted an hour ago, and there's only a single two sentence reply, but that's exactly what we are talking about here.
What, EXACTLY, is wrong with barbarians needing to use a two-handed weapon? Why do you feel so strongly against it? What do you expect barbarians to be doing, if not trying to use every muscle in thier body to kill their opponents?
Specific examples, remember? We can't help you if all you do is whine generically about "how much barbarians suck". You need to tell us WHAT about them sucks and WHY. Specific, detailed complaints.
So speak up.
There is nothing "wrong" with it, except that as 8th stated, you could make a barbarian that WANTS to use 2 weapons, or a shield, or whatever, that hinders the barbarian main source of damage, but I can deal with that, is not as big as a problem as it seems.
Let's go by topics about what I don't like, ok? That shall make it clearer for you.
Trap sense: Never liked it, don't think it has anything to with a barbarian, but I do understand the concept about a barbarian developing a sixth sense kind of perception, so I roll with it.
Mighty Rage: I think they deserve something better as a capstone ability, a +2 to 2 ability scores at 20th level doesn't seem like enough to me.
Tireless Rage: Too long to get there, and the worst part isn't really that, it is the fact that u cand o ridiculous stuff with it now, like entering a rage at the begining of your actions, and when u finish it, u end it, not cool.
Rage Powers: Concept is awesome, really is, unfortunatelly there are too little options and most of them are nigh unnusable, below I will post each and give my thoughts about it.
Animal Fury (Ex):Awesome, nothing bad about it.
Clear Mind (Ex): I like this, I don't like the fact that it is usable once per rage though.
Fearless Rage (Ex): Cool, to bad u gave to be 12th level to get it.
Guarded Stance (Ex): This is actually pretty good, the main problem is the move action to activate it, I do like the time it lasts, and most powers that are nigh unusable would benefit from a concept like this.
Increased Damage Reduction (Ex): Needless to say, the best one out there, the problem is u would have to use 3 advancements of rage powers to use it at full extent, unlike lots of other class abilities that grown with level, but I can deal with it, since it's a powerfull ability.
Internal Fortitude (Ex):Interesting.
Intimidating Glare (Ex): I don't like the use, it's a move action for ONE guy, I believe it should be a little better, no reason to take it.
Knockback (Ex): Very good ofensive ability, the good thing is that it is usable once per round, so it is a positive.
Low-Light Vision (Ex):Too situational, an the "while raging" part limits it even more.
Mighty Swing (Ex): Good, but once again, only once per rage and you have to be 12th, not good when there are first level spells that have better effects and durations. (Bless weapon)
Moment of Clarity (Ex): No sense to me whatsoever.
Night Vision (Ex): Read low-light.
No Escape (Ex): If u use it once per CAMPAIGN it's already a lot.
Powerful Blow (Ex): Horrible, +6 at 20th level for ONE attack and ONCE per rage is laughable
Quick Reflexes (Ex): Can be used, if the barbarian in question can't buy combat reflexes or low dex, but most probably won't be used.
Raging Climber (Ex): No.
Raging Leaper (Ex): Hell no.
Raging Swimmer (Ex): GOD no!
Renewed Vigor (Ex): too little amount of cure, and I believe "cure" is not nice for a barbarian, would be better if it was temporary HP.
Rolling Dodge (Ex): Read guarded stance.
Roused Anger (Ex): Becomes almost useless if u go all the way barbarian at one point.
Scent (Ex): Read low-light.
Strength Surge (Ex): Pretty decent, too bad that it is once per rage.
Superstition (Ex):A good one with a SEVERE backlash, not being able to receive buffs and healing in the middle of combat is too much for a +2 only bonus.
Surprise Accuracy (Ex): Read Powerful blow.
Swift Foot (Ex): Actualy I like this one, but it has the same problem as I stated in the DR and will most likely be left behind.
Terrifying Howl (Ex): Awesome idea, no sense in it's use though, the guy has to be scared for this to have ANY effect? Makes no sense.
Unexpected Strike (Ex): That's actualy a very good one, but once again we come to the once per rage problem.
Well, there you have it. I will post more conclusions about it after some feedback.
|
|
Tireless rage is goofy, but it's not a one-sided trick. On the one hand, it has the silly 'drop in and out' gimmick. On the other hand, being in Rage gives will bonus and access to rage powers, some of which can't be used on your turn, so there's a trade-off.
Mighty Rage isn't big enough and it's too far back. I think most of us here would agree that being in rage should grant a somewhat bigger boost to str and con as the class nears 20th.
Trap Sense is one of those utility things. If the party doesn't have a rogue or monk, odds are the barb is going to be the one to open doors, check for plates, and generally serve as the party trap-tester. One of many non-combat abilities the barbarian has.
As for the rage powers, according to your list, there's a third that are good, a third that are okay, and a third that aren't worth touching in a stereotypical campaign. Sounds about right - that's how a list of variable abilities like that should break down, IMHO. I fail to see the problem.
The barbarian loses to a fighter because all fighters do is fight. Every single ability they get can be used on combat ability. So a fighter built to do nothing but fight is going to win. But he's going to be absolutely useless at doing anything other than standing in place and hitting things with a big piece of metal. They don't have useful skills, increased speed, improved defenses against spells and sneak attack. The fighter class is very flexible, but an individual fighter is rather locked in place; barbarians are the opposite, as they all share a significant set of common abilities but can individually adapt to a wider variety of situations.
What the three different Star Wars d20 games and 4th edition taught me, as a player and DM, is that fights in flat, featureless plains are boring. If every dungeon fight is a square room with a spic-and-span floor, and every outdoor fight is on a flat golf course, things get dull and repetitive. Mobile classes like Monks and Rogues suffer, many combat maneuvers get mostly ignored, and things become very mechanical. use optimized combo. roll dice. repeat.
Barbarians just flat out do better when the fights get interesting and complex. Maybe that's part of the problem; stop approaching the class from the generic boring toe-to-toe arena perspective, and things will open up.
As for the rage powers, according to your list, there's a third that are good, a third that are okay, and a third that aren't worth touching in a stereotypical campaign. Sounds about right - that's how a list of variable abilities like that should break down, IMHO. I fail to see the problem.
Why should there be any horrible abilities in the first place? I don't see this happening as much in any other class, that's my main problem with it. ALL rage abilities should be usefull, and should make you think about what to get. This is true for feats and several class abilities, like the Rogue talents for instance. Hell, ROGUE talents let u take a combat FEAT in place of an ability, why in the seven heavens shouldn't the barbarian which is a real WARRIOR have this? Or anything AT LEAST as good as those presented by the rogue?
Hey folks,
I just wanted to add a couple things here. I read every post and I don't think this has been mentioned yet. There are a ton of "builds" given here and clearly you people know your game, but unless I missed it, nobody has yet mentioned pure flavor.
Some people play barbarians because they want to be a barbarian. Someone mentioned them as "agents of chaos" and that's the closest I believe anyone came to saying: "Hey, barbarians are very different from fighters in the way they operate and I like it."
Now I am a little old school and I understand that a lot of game theory has changed with the advent of MMOs. Words like "build," "tweak," etc. did not used to ever be uttered. It was simply: "I wanna be like Conan or Harald Hadrada."
Please don't think I am saying that there is anything wrong with knowing your rules and crunching the numbers, but also keep in mind that some people play what they play so there is a cool party dynamic, not just the "best" stat sheet.
I think PF's barbarian does just that. Do I agree that some of the Rage Powers seem useless: yes I do- I laughed out loud when I read "Raging Swimmer." However, my wife plays a dwarf barbarian in our game and not only does she dominate combat, but she has a really good time doing it. Her catch phrase before going berserk is: "I AM A FIST OF RAGE!" And that's just good times at the table.
Anyway, just thought I would throw in the fuddy-duddy approach and say that barbarians are good at what they do, I think. More than enough reason to play them if someone wants to play that type of character.
|
|
Why should there be any horrible abilities in the first place? I don't see this happening as much in any other class, that's my main problem with it. ALL rage abilities should be usefull, and should make you think about what to get. This is true for feats and several class abilities, like the Rogue talents for instance. Hell, ROGUE talents let u take a combat FEAT in place of an ability, why in the seven heavens shouldn't the barbarian which is a real WARRIOR have this? Or anything AT LEAST as good as those presented by the rogue?
As for the rage powers, according to your list, there's a third that are good, a third that are okay, and a third that aren't worth touching in a stereotypical campaign. Sounds about right - that's how a list of variable abilities like that should break down, IMHO. I fail to see the problem.
First: RAGE POWERS AREN'T ROGUE POWERS. Comparing them to rogue powers is like comparing a wizard's bond to a paladin's bond. They don't stack up. They aren't the same. They don't compare. They are similar, but have differing levels of power and are meant to be that way. None of the rage powers are meant to fundamentally change what a barbarian can do while raging; all of them are meant to serve as gimmicks to provide a little additional uniqueness and flexibility.
Second: NONE OF THE RAGE POWERS ARE HORRIBLE. Stop calling them horrible, because they AREN'T. What they are is situational. You described Raging Swimmer as "GOD no!". If the campaign was set in 'generic fantasy setting' or 'desert setting', you'd be right - it's almost completely worthless in those scenarios. But in any kind of aquatic campaign, be it piratey or islandy or underwater, the rage power is suddenly really good.
Also: some of your classifications were just flat out wrong. No Escape is huge; barbarians are fast, so they can quickly get nice and close with enemy spellcasters and archers, who will want to use the withdrawal action. This ability is huge if you ever fight anything other than guys with big pieces of metal.
I would also like to point out rage powers are in addition to the traditional rage bonuses they have always had....Our barbarian at 13th level has the ability to confirm crits, a huge bonus to intimidate, and can run like the wind. That is in addition to his huge chunk of hit points and strength he adds everytime he rages. Again I would like to ask what the specific build this guy is running might be...because our Barbarian as a matter of habit makes my Rogue look like a joke in damage output.
There are a ton of "builds" given here and clearly you people know your game, but unless I missed it, nobody has yet mentioned pure flavor.
Flavor is its own thing, though; mechanics need to be evaluated separately from that.
|
[sarcasm]Xum, you're right. Barbarians blow goats for pocket change.
We will all play wizards and paladins now so we can be leet and pwn those stoopid noobs in our Pathfinder games.[/sarcasm]
Like several have said before, there are many other things to take into consideration such as flavor, role-play interactions, general adventuring, personal preference, etc. Role-playing games should not be competitions.
Make your own house rules until you're happy.
Hey folks,
I just wanted to add a couple things here. I read every post and I don't think this has been mentioned yet. There are a ton of "builds" given here and clearly you people know your game, but unless I missed it, nobody has yet mentioned pure flavor.
Some people play barbarians because they want to be a barbarian. Someone mentioned them as "agents of chaos" and that's the closest I believe anyone came to saying: "Hey, barbarians are very different from fighters in the way they operate and I like it."
Now I am a little old school and I understand that a lot of game theory has changed with the advent of MMOs. Words like "build," "tweak," etc. did not used to ever be uttered. It was simply: "I wanna be like Conan or Harald Hadrada."
Please don't think I am saying that there is anything wrong with knowing your rules and crunching the numbers, but also keep in mind that some people play what they play so there is a cool party dynamic, not just the "best" stat sheet.
I think PF's barbarian does just that. Do I agree that some of the Rage Powers seem useless: yes I do- I laughed out loud when I read "Raging Swimmer." However, my wife plays a dwarf barbarian in our game and not only does she dominate combat, but she has a really good time doing it. Her catch phrase before going berserk is: "I AM A FIST OF RAGE!" And that's just good times at the table.
Anyway, just thought I would throw in the fuddy-duddy approach and say that barbarians are good at what they do, I think. More than enough reason to play them if someone wants to play that type of character.
When we discuss a class's mechanics here, it does not mean we don't care about flavor. We do, but you can't assume a DM is going to fudge the dice for you just because you have a nice background story, so a class should be as mechanically sound as possible. Giving powers like "raging swimmer", which I somehow missed does not do a lot for the class
First: RAGE POWERS AREN'T ROGUE POWERS. Comparing them to rogue powers is like comparing a wizard's bond to a paladin's bond. They don't stack up. They aren't the same. They don't compare. They are similar, but have differing levels of power and are meant to be that way. None of the rage powers are meant to fundamentally change what a barbarian can do while raging; all of them are meant to serve as gimmicks to provide a little additional uniqueness and flexibility.
Rogue is a base class as a Barbarian? Yes
Do they gain abilties every even level as the Barbarian? YesHumm, so ok, I can't compare them ... WHY!?
What you just said is not an argument, if u can't compare the classes, then you cannot have balance, I'm sorry, but I'm just ignore this cause it makes no sense whatsoever.
And for the record, I never said the Barbarian power should be as good as the rogue's (although it makes no sense for them to have more acess to combat feats then barbarians) I stated the fact that ALL rage power should be useful, andthey are not.
Second: NONE OF THE RAGE POWERS ARE HORRIBLE. Stop calling them horrible, because they AREN'T. What they are is situational. You described Raging Swimmer as "GOD no!". If the campaign was set in 'generic fantasy setting' or 'desert setting', you'd be right - it's almost completely worthless in those scenarios. But in any kind of aquatic campaign, be it piratey or islandy or underwater, the rage power is suddenly really good.
Yes some of them ARE horrible. Stop saying they aren't cause they ARE.
If I was gonna play an aquatica campaign I would play 7th Seas, or if someone convinced me to play one on this terms, I would simply max out my skill and have no need for this so called power.
And even if I took it in an aquatic campaign then raging climber would be HORRIBLE.
The powers should not be designed for those kinds of campaigns anyway, it's preposterous even sugesting that.
Also: some of your classifications were just flat out wrong. No Escape is huge; barbarians are fast, so they can quickly get nice and close with enemy spellcasters and archers, who will want to use the withdrawal action. This...
Flat out wrong eh?
Hum, odd, I play for like 15 years, since this action was INVENTED I have never seen it in use. So, I'm glad u see it in use, cause nor me, nor a number of people remember seeing it.
[sarcasm]Xum, you're right. Barbarians blow goats for pocket change.
We will all play wizards and paladins now so we can be leet and pwn those stoopid noobs in our Pathfinder games.[/sarcasm]
Like several have said before, there are many other things to take into consideration such as flavor, role-play interactions, general adventuring, personal preference, etc. Role-playing games should not be competitions.
Make your own house rules until you're happy.
I never said the WHOLE class is terrible, and I know a lot of reasons to play one, that does not MEAN they are balanceds.
You can play an infant kobold Aristocrat too, if you like, I see lots of reason for it, I don't think you will though.
And when you discuss mechanics, RP does not come into it, I love it, it's awesome, I don't even need a sheet to play some games, but when the sheet exists and dictates lots of my actions, I want a well round one.
Rogue is a base class as a Barbarian? Yes
Do they gain abilties every even level as the Barbarian? YesHumm, so ok, I can't compare them ... WHY!?
Okay, let's see, which part do I bold... ah, yes:
First: RAGE POWERS AREN'T ROGUE POWERS. Comparing them to rogue powers is like comparing a wizard's bond to a paladin's bond. They don't stack up. They aren't the same. They don't compare. They are similar, but have differing levels of power and are meant to be that way. None of the rage powers are meant to fundamentally change what a barbarian can do while raging; all of them are meant to serve as gimmicks to provide a little additional uniqueness and flexibility.
Rogue is a base class as a Barbarian? Yes
Do they gain abilties every even level as the Barbarian? YesHumm, so ok, I can't compare them ... WHY!?
Okay, let's see, which part do I bold... ah, yes:
First: RAGE POWERS AREN'T ROGUE POWERS. Comparing them to rogue powers is like comparing a wizard's bond to a paladin's bond. They don't stack up. They aren't the same. They don't compare. They are similar, but have differing levels of power and are meant to be that way. None of the rage powers are meant to fundamentally change what a barbarian can do while raging; all of them are meant to serve as gimmicks to provide a little additional uniqueness and flexibility.
Your point?
So, the rogue talents aren't "gimmicks to provide additional uniqueness and flexibility" to you too? That's strange...
Priest spells aren't wizard spells either... Fighters aren't Barbarians nor paladins ... and so on, so I should just do what I like with the class, and comparing it is pointless anyway, is that it?
Two responses now saying that mechanics are the discussion, not flavor. But the thread title is: "Barbarian...oh god why!?"
I was just answering that question based on an angle no one had yet mentioned.
Just stepping out of the rules mechanic box for a second...sorry to blow your minds.
Two responses now saying that mechanics are the discussion, not flavor. But the thread title is: "Barbarian...oh god why!?"
I was just answering that question based on an angle no one had yet mentioned.
Just stepping out of the rules mechanic box for a second...sorry to blow your minds.
Dude, i loved your posts, and I wholeheartdly agree with much of it, but when you plan to play a character like Conan for instance, and it doesn't pay of where it should, the field of batle, you get disapointed. Again, I AM NOT saying Barbarians are unplayable, but they lack what other classes take for granted.
Yeah, I think that's the consensus. Turn the lights off when you're done.Priest spells aren't wizard spells either... Fighters aren't Barbarians nor paladins ... and so on, so I should just do what I like with the class, and comparing it is pointless anyway, is that it?
Well, u must be one of those thinking a good gish is a full BAB and full caster class... I will turn it off, be sure of that. ;)
Priest spells aren't wizard spells either...
...and that's why clerics get medium armor and 3/4 BAB, while wizards get no armor and 1/2.
Kind of like how barbarians get medium armor and full BAB, while rogues get light and 3/4.
Classes are the whole bag, not the individual contents.
Edit: I'll note that I agree with you regarding barbarian damage output being less than it probably should. (Not a lot less, though.) But it's a good, fun class with lots of tricks, some of them unique, and you seem to be dismissing that as meaningless. You don't have to be optimal to be viable.
Could be. I think all of the analysis and opinions are well-informed and interesting. And I agree with a lot of what you are saying as well.
For my part, I don't find barbarians disappoint in battle in terms of the "image" of how they perform. In my mind during play, a raging barbarian and a skilled fighter are very different and the numbers just don't seem to matter (not in the shortcomings that are being presented here).
We have a fighter and a ranger and neither of them come close to our barbarian as far as killing the bad guy. Can't speak to Paladins; we don't have one.
I come from decades of Rolemaster and MERP; systems with a great deal of very granular control over skills and combat prowess. PF is more fixed; AC, damage dice, HP-all very static numbers for the most part and that's a proud gaming tradition and a fun one as well. I'm not knocking that or the mechanics discussion of this thread. I guess, my final point was meant to say that the spirit of the barbarian is intact in PF. I know you are not calling them "unplayable" and I salute your drive to improve upon the game you clearly enjoy.
Priest spells aren't wizard spells either......and that's why clerics get medium armor and 3/4 BAB, while wizards get no armor and 1/2.
Kind of like how barbarians get medium armor and full BAB, while rogues get light and 3/4.
Classes are the whole bag, not the individual contents.
Edit: I'll note that I agree with you regarding barbarian damage output being less than it probably should. (Not a lot less, though.) But it's a good, fun class with lots of tricks, some of them unique, and you seem to be dismissing that as meaningless. You don't have to be optimal to be viable.
AGREED. I never said they should have EXACTLY the same things or even same level of power of abilities as the rogue talents. I said ALL Rage powers should be GOOD and USEFUL, and on the same level of power of each other AT LEAST. That's all I'm asking, is it too much? Seriously?
Could be. I think all of the analysis and opinions are well-informed and interesting. And I agree with a lot of what you are saying as well.
For my part, I don't find barbarians disappoint in battle in terms of the "image" of how they perform. In my mind during play, a raging barbarian and a skilled fighter are very different and the numbers just don't seem to matter (not in the shortcomings that are being presented here).
We have a fighter and a ranger and neither of them come close to our barbarian as far as killing the bad guy. Can't speak to Paladins; we don't have one.
I come from decades of Rolemaster and MERP; systems with a great deal of very granular control over skills and combat prowess. PF is more fixed; AC, damage dice, HP-all very static numbers for the most part and that's a proud gaming tradition and a fun one as well. I'm not knocking that or the mechanics discussion of this thread. I guess, my final point was meant to say that the spirit of the barbarian is intact in PF. I know you are not calling them "unplayable" and I salute your drive to improve upon the game you clearly enjoy.
Ahh, I see a keen spirit, Mr. Cong ;)
2WF is not horrible for Barbarians because it's damage sucks. PRPG allowing PA to apply to Light Weapons means a "1H+ Light" setup has the same net damage bonus as a "2Handed" weapon setup. The reason it's sub-optimal for Barbarians is because it's very Feat intensive to take full advantage of, and these Feats only apply on Full Attacks, while Barbarians have THE LEAST # of Feats of ANY Class.
I don't see any problem making a great Barbarian build all the way to 16th level or so, and all the way to 20th Level certainly isn't "horrible", though grabbing Armor Training 1 w/ 3 levels of Fighter seems a good way to go (making the most of Acrobatics @Class Skill). There certainly isn't a "huge variety of awesome Powers", but as has already been announced, further Powers WILL be included in the APG, so complaining about that fact is completely pointless - it's already being addressed.
2WF is not horrible for Barbarians because it's damage sucks. PRPG allowing PA to apply to Light Weapons means a "1H+ Light" setup has the same net damage bonus as a "2Handed" weapon setup. The reason it's sub-optimal for Barbarians is because it's very Feat intensive to take full advantage of, and these Feats only apply on Full Attacks, while Barbarians have THE LEAST # of Feats of ANY Class.
I don't see any problem making a great Barbarian build all the way to 16th level or so, and all the way to 20th Level certainly isn't "horrible", though grabbing Armor Training 1 w/ 3 levels of Fighter seems a good way to go (making the most of Acrobatics @Class Skill). There certainly isn't a "huge variety of awesome Powers", but as has already been announced, further Powers WILL be included in the APG, so complaining about that fact is completely pointless - it's already being addressed.
Well, they could have at least had the measly bonus to damage and to hit, via rage powers, apply to all attacks in a round, rather than the first attack.
That would have helped out a lot for TWF.
They could have also make TWFing feat scale rather than make it a feat chain.
Base feat Twfing:
Blah, blah. You know what it does. When you reach +6 BAB, you get an extra attack for off hand, etc. At +11 BAB you get a third off hand attack. Same for +16 BAB, when you geta 4th.
So one scale-able feat.
That would make it less feat intensive.
Ranger 6th, is limited to Two weapon defense though. And 10th, he gets Rend.
The barbarian's biggest advantage over the other warrior classes is versatility, so the toe-to-toe examples are pretty slanted. Face them off in near any real campaign encounter, though, and it's a different story.
Fighter or paladin is going to be optimized for a single melee weapon, but you give that barbarian a few javelins or throwing axes and he can take some chunks out of them before they even toe up. He might even be able to get a surprise round on them, he's got the skills to support it. By the time they face off in melee, the fighter is at an hp disadvantage and both fighter and paladin will need to free up a hand to heal up while the barbarian is concentrating on walloping them.
The barbarian's real advantage comes into play when you lock them all up in a prison together: fighter and paladin are trying to slap some non-lethal damage into the barbarian while he brutalizes them.
Heh... yeah, barbarians are about the best candidates for Improvised Weapon Mastery, aren't they.
Heh... yeah, barbarians are about the best candidates for Improvised Weapon Mastery, aren't they.
Holy heck yes! When a Barbarian can rage, grab a cart and beat people with it... I'd say thats pretty effective.
I myself am of the school of thought that Pathfinder was built to work with all the books out there. Not using the wide selection of 3.5 feats that are available is kinda silly.
Feats like -
- Reckless Rage to give you an additional +2 STR/+2 CON when raging
- Monkey Grip to allow the Barbarian to use a Large sized Greatsword for 3d6 damage
- Destructive Rage to gain an additional +8 bonus on strength checks to break or burst things
Also, The Barbarian's best defense is a honking good offense, with that in mind consider the Frenzied Berserker.
One other option that should be considered, is the Roll With It feat from Savage Species. Roll With It gives you DR 2/- every time you take it and it stacks with itself and other sources of DR X/-. It requires you take Toughness and have a 20 CON which is a fairly high stat cost. I myself believe it is still a balanced and viable option.
Granted - Savage Species is technically a 3.0 book, but when it was released it had material in it that was supposed to be 3.5 compliant. However, 3.5 D&D was changing right up to the point they sent it to the printer and allot of that material was changed.
Paizo cannot copy over every great idea or feat that already exists. Most were not open content. Also... the Pathfinder Core RPG book is HUGE already. Given time we'll be sure to see more feats or Rage Powers in the Advanced Players Guide that are Barbarian specific. Until then lets use what is out there now.
Also - I believe someone posted up thread something about trying to play Conan. Agreed - at first glance Conan is the "stereotypical" barbarian. However, if you've read all his stories you'd know that he has been many many many things. Barbarian, Thief, Pirate, and Mercenary Fighter being just a few. With that in mind Conan would be a widely diverse multi-classed character by D&D standards.
Barbarian / Rogue would be sufficient ;)
Barbarian / Rogue would be sufficient ;)
I myself have been having lots of fun with a barbarian rogue character. Xum has a point. More than any of the other classes, the barbarian favors dipping. You get almost everything that makes a good barbarian in the first level. After that not so much. Throw a couple of feats at extra rage if you are running out and take fighter from there if you want a straight melee guy. Or go 3 levels mixed with rogue and get uncanny dodge just a hair quicker and have a front line rogue.
The rage talents for sure don't measure up to switching to a different class. Even with the extra hp it is debatable.Unlike Xum i don't actually view this as a problem. Playing a straight class barbarian is mostly a RP decision.
I solidly disagree about the need to support styles other than two handed weapon fighting. If you want an archer or two weapon fighter from the wilderness the ranger is there. Sword and board needs the big stack of fighter feats to make it work.
You get almost everything that makes a good barbarian in the first level.
Besides the bad ass 8th and 12th level Rage Powers, and Knockback and Bite from 2nd level? (etc)
I would agree with your assesment in 3.5 - not in PRPG.