My group was talking about the mechanics of the barbarian and the fighter the other day. The talking points were basically that the fighter should be able to outlast the barbarian, but the barbarian was the higher damage-dealer. Since I’m always focused on game balance (meaning that given two melee classes like this, if both are to be appealing to play, then one’s strengths & weaknesses should be complimented by those of the other), I took a look at the stats to see if that was really the case.
Here are the results:
Attack
Damage
AC
HP
Fighter Data
Barbarian Data
How I made these graphs:
For attack bonus I am including:
- weapon focus
- greater weapon focus
- weapon specialization
- greater weapon specialization
- weapon training
- barbarian rage
For the AC I am including:
- 10 + breastplate for the barbarian (highest armor possible while raging)
- 10 + full plate for the fighter
- armor training
- heavy shield
- shield focus
- greater shield focus
- barbarian rage
- max dexterity modifier
Notes:
- In all cases, the barbarian is considered to be raging.
- To tease out the core differences between the two classes, I didn’t include any bonuses that would be applied equally to both classes such as magical bonuses for armor and weapons and items, or strength modifiers.
- Dexterity does have a significant difference in the AC between the two classes, so I included the maximum dex that would be allowed to the class.
- I would have liked to include a rage power in there somewhere, but there just aren’t any that I could include in this kind of comparison.
So, what do we find out?
- The barbarian has a +2/+2 melee advantage over the fighter until level 5.
- After ~10 level the fighter has a better attack and damage bonus.
- The fighter always has a major advantage in AC over the barbarian.
- The barbarian always has a slight advantage in HP over the fighter.
- After 5th level, the fighter is superior to the barbarian in all ways.
- When survivability is considered, the damage output of the fighter is dramatically higher.
- The idea that the barbarian is a DPS class is false.
So, after all that, here’s my question: why include two similar melee-only classes where one is so markedly superior (mechanically) to the other?
|
ugh.
I am honestly getting rather tired of this argument, so I apologize in advance if my post is somewhat dismissive and condescending.
Your facts are wrong. The numbers are right, but you are missing some very important data. Run those numbers for a Melee Ranger, Monk, Rogue Melee Druid, a Summoner and his Eldiolon, an a self-buffing Melee Bard.
Oh wait, we did that already in the DPR Olympics.
To summarize: we found that all of the classes besides Fighter come out more or less equal to each other; in other words, the Barbarian isn't weak, he's balanced.
A Fighter is better at fighting than a Barbarian. A Fighter is better at fighting than a Ranger, a Monk, a Rogue, a Melee Druid, a Summoner's Eldiolon, an a Melee Bard.
A Fighter is better at fighting than every other class in the entire game because all Fighters do is fight. They have no tricks like rage powers or spells or talents, that they can use to counter enemy behavior or deal with restrictive terrain or what-have-you. They have an extremely limited selection of skills, which heavily limits their ability to contribute in non-Fighting situations. All Fighters do is fight, and they are better at it than anyone else because its quite literally all the class is capable of excelling at.
The only exceptions to the above rule are Melee Druids at level 6ish, due a quirk of scaling, and Paladins when using their (powerful but limited use) smite ability, which is how it should be; pallys should be better at "smiting an oath-sworn foe" than anyone else, just like a class that does nothing but fight should be better at fighting than anyone else.
Now, barbarians do have some minor problems at higher levels, and rage powers could be somewhat more interesting, but saying "they aren't a DPS class" is basically saying "Fighters are the only DPS class in the game and all other classes are completely worthless in combat". It's the wrong conclusion.
Spoiler:My group was talking about the mechanics of the barbarian and the fighter the other day. The talking points were basically that the fighter should be able to outlast the barbarian, but the barbarian was the higher damage-dealer. Since I’m always focused on game balance (meaning that given two melee classes like this, if both are to be appealing to play, then one’s strengths & weaknesses should be complimented by those of the other), I took a look at the stats to see if that was really the case.Here are the results:
Attack
Damage
AC
HP
Fighter Data
Barbarian DataHow I made these graphs:
For attack bonus I am including:
- weapon focus
- greater weapon focus
- weapon specialization
- greater weapon specialization
- weapon training
- barbarian rage
For the AC I am including:
- 10 + breastplate for the barbarian (highest armor possible while raging)
- 10 + full plate for the fighter
- armor training
- heavy shield
- shield focus
- greater shield focus
- barbarian rage
- max dexterity modifier
Notes:
- In all cases, the barbarian is considered to be raging.
- To tease out the core differences between the two classes, I didn’t include any bonuses that would be applied equally to both classes such as magical bonuses for armor and weapons and items, or strength modifiers.
- Dexterity does have a significant difference in the AC between the two classes, so I included the maximum dex that would be allowed to the class.
- I would have liked to include a rage power in there somewhere, but there just...
Thanks, this backs up my decision to make Weapon Spec, Greater WS, and Greater Weapon Focus BAB requirements instead of Fighter level.
ugh....
To summarize: we found that all of the classes besides Fighter come out more or less equal to each other; in other words, the Barbarian isn't weak, he's balanced.
A Fighter is better at fighting than a Barbarian. A Fighter is better at fighting than a Ranger, a Monk, a Rogue, a Melee Druid, a Summoner's Eldiolon, an a Melee Bard.
A Fighter is better at fighting than every other class in the entire game because all Fighters do is fight. They have no tricks like rage powers ...
umm.. all a barbarian does is fight. their rage powers are pretty weak with a couple of exceptions and they flat-out die and fast after level con/2 - esp. with their AC being so dramatically lower than fighters at mid-high levels that monster melee units automatically hit them unless they roll a 1.
this class is not-at-all balanced.
...and Paladins when using their (powerful but limited use) smite ability, which is how it should be; pallys should be better at "smiting an oath-sworn foe" than anyone else, just like a class that does nothing but fight should be better at fighting than anyone else.
Personally I think pallys are more powerful than Fighters. Smiting when it counts, access to spells (Holy Weapon), Sweet saves, and LoH as swift action.
My vote: Nerf the Pallys
Here are the results:
So by 'no strength' are you meaning 'no base STR', i.e. only considering the strength bonus from rage? If not, this is seriously flawed, and if so, you have to realize that your approach is deceptive IF you actually extend it to comparing it to appropriate target ACs, because even if both classes/characters share the same mods, the benefit doesn't apply linearly: Certainly on standard attacks (or when using full BAB) the Fighter's apparent attack bonus advantage can be practically irrelevant once the numbers are approaching territory where Natural 1's comprise a large % of misses.
For attack bonus I am including:
[list]weapon focus
So both have this?
For the AC I am including:
[list]10 + breastplate for the barbarian (highest armor possible while raging)
10 + full plate for the fighter
- Dexterity does have a significant difference in the AC between the two classes, so I included the maximum dex that would be allowed to the class.
I feel this is deceptive because it is ridiculously easy for the Barbarian to have the same armor as the Fighter: take 1 level of Fighter or Paladin or take Heavy Armor Proficiency Feat. There isn't anything 'sacred' about a single-class build vs. a 1-level dip, and any Barbarian who felt impeded by a low AC would obviously consider one of the options to gain Heavy Armor proficiency. The only difference is the max DEX, but for the Fighter to be taking advantage of that would be taking away from their point-buy/improvements to STR, affecting their damage output. What do you mean by 'I included the maximum dex allowed to the class'? Did you just give the Fighter that maximum DEX amount on top of the same base STR score both of them used, or did you actually account for the 'cost' of getting that max DEX, both point-buy and enhancements to DEX, and how that is a trade-off to STR?
You also don't say what you're talking about when you say damage: Are you talking about single Attack Actions? Full Attacks? If you're talking Full Attacks, that is really not a representative of game-play in general, I would weight it more like 35% (probably 70% for archers) - you really need to take surprise rounds into account, as well as maneuvering.
I don't have the numbers immediatley available, but there was a whole "DPR Olympics" thred, and off the top of my head the #s for single attack actions had very little discrepancy (that thread was calculating average damage vs. typical AC for CR) while the fighter pulled ahead on full attacks. INCLUDING 'common buffs and enhancements' would tend to emphasize that even more. (the DPR Olympics included base and enhanced STR and weapon enhancements all paid for from point-buy budget and level-appropriate wealth, but didn't include common 'group buffs', which would tend to favor barbarian since the proportional benefit of to-hit goes down (esp. for single attacks) when you have a large amount vs. a given AC)
- I would have liked to include a rage power in there somewhere, but there just...
Why not? If you notice, there are rage powers which enhance single attack damage (for attack actions), enhance single attack attack roll (possibly for attack actions, but most effective for lower iteratives in full attacks), and most importantly: unexpected strike w/ knockback (or imp trip feat) which is a huge way of PREVENTING the opponent from getting a full attack (or any attack) on you in the first place. One more round of the barbarian's slightly below par full attack damage should more than counter for the nominal advantage a fighter has in that department. And why not Animal Fury, an additional attack equivalent to a 2nd iterative attack that doesn't impact other attacks' attack bonus like 2WF does: pure extra damage.
they flat-out die and fast after level [ > ] con/2 - esp. with their AC being so dramatically lower
You're sort of collapsing this issue, and this is one which I analyzed and proposed alternatives for during the playtest, so I'm definitely sympathetic, but you're over-stating the issue. The issue is that up to the point you note, the ability IS fully useful, and continues to be useful, it is just that the ADDITIONAL SCALING of the ability starts to become potentially suicidal if used to the full extent of it's abiility: but a 16th level Barb IS getting the full 100% positive benefit out of the ability up to it's 8th level of functionality or so, and probably the majority of the time they WILL get healing before they run out of Rage Rounds, making it suicidial in only a small number of cases. I'm with you on it that this could be implemented better, but overstating the case doesn't impress or convince anybody who matters.
|
I'll go ahead and bring up the point that is always brought up in arguments like this, as well as a point made during a podcast I listened too.
1) Listen to the people playing the classes. This is the ONLY, and I mean ONLY, reliable means of determining how powerful or useful a class is. People who actually play the game will, more likely than not, disagree with any of the mathematical information presented.
2) Theorycrafting and Mathematics have been done already. The people who modified and helped create the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, I guarantee, are all quite competent at mathematics. They have PROBABLY already done the math, and they released the class anyways. Do you REALLY think they did this with the sole intention of making the class significantly weaker?
Now, I know that Paizo has said that some of the Rage Powers need to be pumped up, and I agree. But I have yet to see a game where the minor differences between Barbarian and Fighter have completely ruined the adventure, or even given the group any kind of mentionable disadvantage.
- I would have liked to include a rage power in there somewhere, but there just...
Why not? If you notice, there are rage powers which enhance single attack damage (for attack actions), enhance single attack attack roll (possibly for attack actions, but most effective for lower iteratives in full attacks), and most importantly: unexpected strike w/ knockback (or imp trip feat) which is a huge way of PREVENTING the opponent from getting a full attack (or any attack) on you in the first place. One more round of the barbarian's slightly below par full attack damage should more than counter for the nominal advantage a fighter has in that department. And why not Animal Fury, an additional attack equivalent to a 2nd iterative attack that doesn't impact other attacks' attack bonus like 2WF does: pure extra damage.
Additionally, there is
- Uncanny dodge. Whose AC is better when the fighter's dex bonus is 0 rather than max dex?
- Improved Uncanny dodge. Taking 1d4 damage per attack from the rogue is much better than 1d4+5d6.
- 2 more skills and better class skills. Acrobatics and Perception are nice skills.
- Faster speed. A fighter can eventually move as well as a Barbarian in a breastplate, but a barbarian in a chain shirt is always faster.
- Uncanny dodge. Whose AC is better when the fighter's dex bonus is 0 rather than max dex?
- Improved Uncanny dodge. Taking 1d4 damage per attack from the rogue is much better than 1d4+5d6.
- 2 more skills and better class skills. Acrobatics and Perception are nice skills.
- Faster speed. A fighter can eventually move as well as a Barbarian in a breastplate, but a barbarian in a chain shirt is always faster.
Right. That last one of course further modified if Barbarian has Heavy Armor Proficiency somehow, meaning a Barb is still faster in Mithril Full Plate.
But those also emphasize an ignored point: Barbarian probably tend to compare better over-all with shorter fights, as well as where Full-Attacking isn't consistently possible. (that Acrobatics Class Skill + more skills makes them great maneuvering combatants) I would say an average fight length is 4 rounds, and at that length I think the Barbarian's damage output compares fine to Fighters, and they are well able to out-do them on single attacks as well as avoiding getting full attacked themselves. If the enemy avoids getting full attacked, that advantage can continue indefinitely.
I'll go ahead and bring up the point that is always brought up in arguments like this, as well as a point made during a podcast I listened too.
1) Listen to the people playing the classes. This is the ONLY, and I mean ONLY, reliable means of determining how powerful or useful a class is. People who actually play the game will, more likely than not, disagree with any of the mathematical information presented.
2) Theorycrafting and Mathematics have been done already. The people who modified and helped create the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, I guarantee, are all quite competent at mathematics. They have PROBABLY already done the math, and they released the class anyways. Do you REALLY think they did this with the sole intention of making the class significantly weaker?
Now, I know that Paizo has said that some of the Rage Powers need to be pumped up, and I agree. But I have yet to see a game where the minor differences between Barbarian and Fighter have completely ruined the adventure, or even given the group any kind of mentionable disadvantage.
I won't play a barbarian...I love playing fighters.
How about the number of fighters in the PbP games I run versus the number of barbarians?
- I would have liked to include a rage power in there somewhere, but there just...
Why not? If you notice, there are rage powers which enhance single attack damage (for attack actions), enhance single attack attack roll (possibly for attack actions, but most effective for lower iteratives in full attacks), and most importantly: unexpected strike w/ knockback (or imp trip feat) which is a huge way of PREVENTING the opponent from getting a full attack (or any attack) on you in the first place. One more round of the barbarian's slightly below par full attack damage should more than counter for the nominal advantage a fighter has in that department. And why not Animal Fury, an additional attack equivalent to a 2nd iterative attack that doesn't impact other attacks' attack bonus like 2WF does: pure extra damage.
Additionally, there is
[list]
Uncanny dodge.
Improved Uncanny dodge. Taking 1d4 damage per attack from the rogue is much better than 1d4+5d6.
Not a big difference when the rogue can't hit the fighter except on a 20. Fighter will hit the low AC rogue on almost every attack. Toe-to-toe a fighter will destroy a rogue. [this is for high level play]
Fighters can invest in +1 burst weapons while the rogue has to invest in +5 weapons to close the BAB/Weapon Mastery gap.
BTW, the real dynamic being overlooked is that "the most optimal" melee combatant is not a pure Fighter or pure Barbarian, but a multiclass. What PRPG has done is make it isn't just a 1-level Barb dip that is most optimal, but that there are serious benefits to taking 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12+ levels of Barbarian. It's really more about your character concept and what type of combat style you want.
|
|
I won't play a barbarian...I love playing fighters.How about the number of fighters in the PbP games I run versus the number of barbarians?
Why do you, and the players in your PbP games, choose Fighter? Do they choose it for damage purposes? Role-Playing purposes? The point isn't that Fighters deal superior damage to Barbarians... it's rather obvious that they do.
The point is that Barbarians not only have their own useful abilities, but that they are also contributing members of the party. Maybe the damage isn't superior to a Fighter... but, as has been said many times, the game isn't the DPR Olympics.
BTW, the real dynamic being overlooked is that "the most optimal" melee combatant is not a pure Fighter or pure Barbarian, but a multiclass. What PRPG has done is make it isn't just a 1-level Barb dip that is most optimal, but that there are serious benefits to taking 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12+ levels of Barbarian. It's really more about your character concept and what type of combat style you want.
The most optimal fighter is a 20th level pure fighter
combine 21 feats, and Weapon Mastery, Auto crit...increased critical multiplier, +4 atk/dmg...No multi-classing can improve that IMHO, not for optimal combat.
Where fighters suck is skills, but I was the one saying 4+int skills minimum for all classes from Alpha onward.
Why do you, and the players in your PbP games, choose Fighter? Do they choose it for damage purposes? Role-Playing purposes? The point isn't that Fighters deal superior damage to Barbarians... it's rather obvious that they do.
The point is that Barbarians not only have their own useful abilities, but that they are also contributing members of the party. Maybe the damage isn't superior to a Fighter... but, as has been said many times, the game isn't the DPR Olympics.
I personally play them for feat selection. I also love rogues at low levels; haven't had a chance to play a high level rogue yet. ( I usually DM)
|
|
Exactly. Now, I'm not bashing your choices. You're free to choose what you want to play, and they are by no means bad choices.
But here's the thing. Barbarian is a good class. Does it need a bit of work? Sure. But it is not, by any stretch of the word, weak or unusable. It is functions perfectly well at what it is: A highly mobile melee fighter with above average speed, bonuses when facing Rogue-Type enemies, better skill selection, and better durability when he IS hit.
Now, that's not to say he's as good as a fighter in straight, trading-blows style melee combat. But that's not what he's supposed to be. I think that may be what people WANTED him to be, but that's not what this iteration is. It's something slightly different, and I welcome that.
*Note: Barbarians DO need better Rage Powers though (/crosses fingers for Advanced Player's Handbook)
For all the "heavy armor" arguments: remember that the barbarian cannot rage while in heavy armor.
For the various "what was /was not counted" arguments, that's why I posted all the stats I used in the graphs - so you could answer these questions yourself.
For whoever made those "you don't play..." comments: lol
For whoever asked "don't you think the dev's would have..." comments: I hope but wouldn't assume that at all - I've seen worse in this field.
I would pick Barbarian over fighter 9.5/10 times. It has much tastier flavor and he can actually do things outside of combat beside pick his nose and wait for the next fight, sure the fighter out damages the barbarian, sure the barbarian might need some fixes but damage output< character depth, but that's my opinion.
Exactly. Now, I'm not bashing your choices. You're free to choose what you want to play, and they are by no means bad choices.
But here's the thing. Barbarian is a good class. Does it need a bit of work? Sure. But it is not, by any stretch of the word, weak or unusable. It is functions perfectly well at what it is: A highly mobile melee fighter with above average speed, bonuses when facing Rogue-Type enemies, better skill selection, and better durability when he IS hit.
Now, that's not to say he's as good as a fighter in straight, trading-blows style melee combat. But that's not what he's supposed to be. I think that may be what people WANTED him to be, but that's not what this iteration is. It's something slightly different, and I welcome that.
*Note: Barbarians DO need better Rage Powers though (/crosses fingers for Advanced Player's Handbook)
Actually from what I've seen, Fighters and Barbarians are on different power curves.
As the Fighter gets better the Barbarian ebbs, at low levels the Barbarian rages combined with 2H weapons can destroy HIGH CR opponents 1 or 2 rounds. A High level fighter is at the top of both damage, the ability to hit and the ability to survive combat with their High AC. Where fighters are weak is their will power.
I would pick Barbarian over fighter 9.5/10 times. It has much tastier flavor and he can actually do things outside of combat beside pick his nose and wait for the next fight, sure the fighter out damages the barbarian, sure the barbarian might need some fixes but damage output< character depth, but that's my opinion.
I have a fighter character with lots of role-play depth, skill wise she sucks unfortunately, but her character depth is there.
For all the "heavy armor" arguments: remember that the barbarian cannot rage while in heavy armor.
heavy armor or lack of has absolutely nothing to do with rage. the only thing it is relevant to is barbarian fast movement, which is active outside of rage, and that the barbarian does not have automatic proficiency in it by itself. this is the exact same as it was in 3.5.
|
For all the "heavy armor" arguments: remember that the barbarian cannot rage while in heavy armor.
Uh just checked the rage entry dosent say anything about not being able to rage in heavy armour. He dosent get the fast movment ability but if you are wearing a mithril version of the armour that is a mute point anyway.
You are correct about rage being unaffected by heavy armor, but keep in mind that mithral armor is a little more limited then it used to be.
SRD:
"A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor's check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving."
So it seems like you could get fast move by wearing mithral full plate, but you would need to acquire heavy armor proficiency to make it worth doing.
Celestial Armor and Elven Chain are light armors, and Mithral Full Plate of Speed has this notation:
"It is considered medium armor, except that you must be proficient in heavy armor to avoid taking nonproficiency penalties. "
Uh just checked the rage entry dosent say anything about not being able to rage in heavy armour. He dosent get the fast movment ability but if you are wearing a mithril version of the armour that is a mute point anyway.For all the "heavy armor" arguments: remember that the barbarian cannot rage while in heavy armor.
Cause barbarians have so much feats anyway...
Uh just checked the rage entry dosent say anything about not being able to rage in heavy armour.
oh right, my bad. I'll update the AC graph to assume they are in full plate.
Uh just checked the rage entry dosent say anything about not being able to rage in heavy armour.oh right, my bad. I'll update the AC graph to assume they are in full plate.
Why would you do that? No one in their right mind would spend a precious feat in it.
fighters need those 21 feats more than the barbarians because the fighter gets no special abilities like the barbarian (i.e. uncanny dodge, raqe, fast movement) A fighter gets what he chooses, and nothing more, which means he is usually a slow-moving (most of the time) Straight forward fighter. Take away his big iron suit (touch attacks, ambushes) and he's a walking meatbag (no perverted jokes, please) Whereas the barbarian has a higher DEX, and other abilities. Since alot of enemies are incorporal or can become ethereal at higher levels, this cannot be discredited. The barbarian is also (mostly) faster. So when the rogue attacks the weak decoy instead of the big bad guy, you can pull him out. So for direct (but not unthinking or shallow) combat, go fighter. If you will need mobility or a secondary scout, who can still do good damage, go barbarian
fighters need those 21 feats more than the barbarians because the fighter gets no special abilities like the barbarian (i.e. uncanny dodge, raqe, fast movement) A fighter gets what he chooses, and nothing more, which means he is usually a slow-moving (most of the time) Straight forward fighter. Take away his big iron suit (touch attacks, ambushes) and he's a walking meatbag (no perverted jokes, please) Whereas the barbarian has a higher DEX, and other abilities. Since alot of enemies are incorporal or can become ethereal at higher levels, this cannot be discredited. The barbarian is also (mostly) faster. So when the rogue attacks the weak decoy instead of the big bad guy, you can pull him out. So for direct (but not unthinking or shallow) combat, go fighter. If you will need mobility or a secondary scout, who can still do good damage, go barbarian
Why would a barbarian have more dex if he is the one that benefits LESS from this Ability score? Barbarians won't go 2 weapon fighting, nor archery, nor use armor with A LOT of Dex, I don't know where u got hte idea that the Barbarian would have more dex than the fighter. Well...
Yeah, scout... that deals good damage.... Wait, there is that guy, the Ranger! And he is WAY better at that, so the Barbarian is the 3rd best.... humm... or fourth if u count the druid...
So he is really not the best at anything is that it? That's kinda lame...
fighters need those 21 feats more than the barbarians because the fighter gets no special abilities like the barbarian (i.e. uncanny dodge, raqe, fast movement) A fighter gets what he chooses, and nothing more, which means he is usually a slow-moving (most of the time) Straight forward fighter. Take away his big iron suit (touch attacks, ambushes) and he's a walking meatbag (no perverted jokes, please) Whereas the barbarian has a higher DEX, and other abilities. Since alot of enemies are incorporal or can become ethereal at higher levels, this cannot be discredited. The barbarian is also (mostly) faster. So when the rogue attacks the weak decoy instead of the big bad guy, you can pull him out. So for direct (but not unthinking or shallow) combat, go fighter. If you will need mobility or a secondary scout, who can still do good damage, go barbarianWhy would a barbarian have more dex if he is the one that benefits LESS from this Ability score? Barbarians won't go 2 weapon fighting, nor archery, nor use armor with A LOT of Dex, I don't know where u got hte idea that the Barbarian would have more dex than the fighter. Well...
Yeah, scout... that deals good damage.... Wait, there is that guy, the Ranger! And he is WAY better at that, so the Barbarian is the 3rd best.... humm... or fourth if u count the druid...
So he is really not the best at anything is that it? That's kinda lame...
DEX i did screw up. I'm in the process of cenverting from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder. But the barbarian has some skills in everything, and is a good character to support others, like back up for your rogue/ ranger, flanking buddy for your fighter, or fast pursuer (unless an animal companion/ eidolon/ etc fills this role)
wouldn't the barb rely more on dex for his/her AC since it isn't the wisest plan to wear the heavier armors? Fighter could afford not to have high dex if they wear the heavy stuff (realizing high AC isn't the barbs bag but the more the better right?)
wouldn't the barb rely more on dex for his/her AC since it isn't the wisest plan to wear the heavier armors? Fighter could afford not to have high dex if they wear the heavy stuff (realizing high AC isn't the barbs bag but the more the better right?)
No, actually. Cause the fighter can use more DEX than the barbarian in any armor. At the end of the day the Fighter will be with a Fullplate being able to use +5 Dex mod WITHOUT it being Mithril, if it is mithril it's gonna be +7, the max dex a barbarian will EVER use is +5 if he has a mithril breast, and it's not even worth to invest in such a thing for a barbarian, since he is gonna get hit anyway, and he is unlikelly to rely on ranged attacks.
The problem is not the fighter being better, is the fighter being WAY better, and all the time, since he doesn't have to rage to use his stuff.
wouldn't the barb rely more on dex for his/her AC since it isn't the wisest plan to wear the heavier armors? Fighter could afford not to have high dex if they wear the heavy stuff (realizing high AC isn't the barbs bag but the more the better right?)No, actually. Cause the fighter can use more DEX than the barbarian in any armor. At the end of the day the Fighter will be with a Fullplate being able to use +5 Dex mod WITHOUT it being Mithril, if it is mithril it's gonna be +7, the max dex a barbarian will EVER use is +5 if he has a mithril breast, and it's not even worth to invest in such a thing for a barbarian, since he is gonna get hit anyway, and he is unlikelly to rely on ranged attacks.
The problem is not the fighter being better, is the fighter being WAY better, and all the time, since he doesn't have to rage to use his stuff.
Factor in the currently Fighter only feats as well, don't forget the penetration, critical mastery, and disruption feats. (Which MONKS should definitely have access to, since their supposed job is to harry spellcasters...)
yes but the fighter is also pretty much usualess when outside of combat
yes but the fighter is also pretty much usualess when outside of combat
At low levels, with traits you can gain access to additional class skills. (But, pure PFRPG, yeah you're kinda hosed)
yes but the fighter is also pretty much usualess when outside of combat
Define "useless" Cause I don't see the barbarian, being "oh so glorious" outside of comabat too. I see him being mediocre everywhere now.
Fast movement+trap sense+best HP= best anti trap character next to a rogue. Run ahead and spring them all.
More skills= better movement.
Technically combat-oriented, but can react much better when ambushed or night attacked.
|
|
Ya know, I think it's interesting to note that the Fighter got a VERY nice power boost between the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder (a welcome one at that), but now people are complaining that Barbarian is weak because they are no longer the kings of DPR. It's not that big of a deal.
Really, how often does it come up that Barbarians do slightly less damage than Fighters? How often does it come up that the Fighter's higher to-hit bonus means the difference between life and death?
The road we're going down leads to World of Warcraft. People keep whining about how class X is too weak, or how class Y is too strong, and any SEMBLANCE of balance or workability the game may have had goes down the crapper because nobody is satisfied 100% of the time.
I for one couldn't care less if the Barbarian is inferior to the Fighter in damage, inferior to the Rogue in skills, and inferior to any other class in any other aspect of gameplay. They can be played, they can be enjoyed as a class, and they can pull their weight in a group, despite not being entirely optimal. As long as they aren't diminishing the group's capabilities (which is more of a player problem than a class problem), there really isn't a problem.
Again, do they need more options with Rage Powers? Yes. Could they use a buff? It'd be NICE, but it's hardly necessary.
Just on a related note - have any of you looked at my Barbarian re-build on the Houserules forum?
I'm looking for feedback of any kind - so - yeah. Take a look.
I'm in the camp of "Fix them, PLEASE" though, so - be warned. ;-)
As long as they aren't diminishing the group's capabilities ...
With such a low AC and a rage that forces them to fight till they die (if you roleplay at all) they require their own personal cleric to heal them every round or they will die (actual death) so fast you miss it if you blink. In our Rise of the Runelords game, at 9th level our melee PCs were fending off 2-5 attacks a round, every round, each of which was averaging ~20-25 damage. The barbarian gets hit by 95% of those attacks (literally!).
That's one major suck on the group's capabilities.
A 9th level cleric who is totally dedicated to just keeping the barbarian alive can't actually keep up with the damage they take. And at 9th level, we're not just talking about the barbarian getting dropped every combat - we're talking about the barbarian possibly dying every combat!
As long as they aren't diminishing the group's capabilities ...With such a low AC and a rage that forces them to fight till they die (if you roleplay at all) they require their own personal cleric to heal them every round or they will die (actual death) so fast you miss it if you blink. In our Rise of the Runelords game, at 9th level our melee PCs were fending off 2-5 attacks a round, every round, each of which was averaging ~20-25 damage. The barbarian gets hit by 95% of those attacks (literally!).
That's one major suck on the group's capabilities.
A 9th level cleric who is totally dedicated to just keeping the barbarian alive can't actually keep up with the damage they take. And at 9th level, we're not just talking about the barbarian getting dropped every combat - we're talking about the barbarian possibly dying every combat!
Even if you DO have a cleric to heal your barbarian you are gonna have to leave one neat rage power behind Superstition, otherwise you "cannot" be cured.
People that are not complaining about barbarians, don't play barbarians. I do, and I like it. It's unplayable today? No, of course not. But barbarians became COMPLETELLY unecessary, any melee class is better.
Fighters are better in combat, ALWAYS. Rangers are too, cause they get nice feats and an animal companion to boot, and are way better at the wild, and the paladin... well the paladin Smites and has unbeatable saves, and some other stuff.
The thing is, if I wanna be GOOD at something, barbarian is not the way to go, and that's not nice. Besides, I barbarians are one of the only classes that have useless abilities, and there are a lot of those there.
i know all the things that barbarians can do but i wonder if the barbarian isn't supposed to be the best warrior meaning highest damage and survivability then what is the barbarian supposed to be best at.
all other classes seem to be best at something but what about the barbarian.
I'll chime in on this.
Fighters fight better than Barbarians... Okay.
Can a fighter survive weeks in [insert terrain here] unaided, and not draw the negative attention of the natives, be they wildlife or sentient?
Can a fighter win a running fight in heavy armor? (Reach X distance in Y rounds before Z damaging event happens, encompassing the area the fighter was racing to cross?)
There are always more things to consider when not going toe-to-toe -- unless you are going toe-to-toe.
|
|
*Note: Barbarians DO need better Rage Powers though (/crosses fingers for Advanced Player's Handbook)
My thought as well. I played my first ever Barbarian with Pathfinder, and was struck by how little I wanted *any* of the Rage powers.
Looking over them, I felt like I was being asked to choose between cod liver oil or a smack in the face. "Uh, can I have none of the above, and substitute the entire Rage Powers class feature for something else, like a Favored Enemy or something?"
On the other hand, the fact that I've never played one before probably makes me the last person to go to for advice on how to make them fun. It's not like I really have a dog in this fight. If the Barbarian continues to be un-sexy, I'll be fine doing the same thing I've done for 20 odd years now, and not play one. :)
|
With such a low AC and a rage that forces them to fight till they die (if you roleplay at all) they require their own personal cleric to heal them every round or they will die (actual death) so fast you miss it if you blink. In our Rise of the Runelords game, at 9th level our melee PCs were fending off 2-5 attacks a round, every round, each of which was averaging ~20-25 damage. The barbarian gets hit by 95% of those attacks (literally!).
This doesn't sound like a problem with the barbarian class, it sounds like a problem with not recognizing good combinations and tactics. On top of that you seem to throw an additional negative onto them based on close-minded roleplay options.
Don't get me wrong, I think the barbarian could use a little extra help, but intentionally using bad tactics and additional roleplay negatives isn't helping the case for that. They'd be fine with a different raging hit point mechanic and slightly beefed up rage powers.
Ya know, I think it's interesting to note that the Fighter got a VERY nice power boost between the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder (a welcome one at that), but now people are complaining that Barbarian is weak because they are no longer the kings of DPR. It's not that big of a deal.
Really, how often does it come up that Barbarians do slightly less damage than Fighters? How often does it come up that the Fighter's higher to-hit bonus means the difference between life and death?
The road we're going down leads to World of Warcraft. People keep whining about how class X is too weak, or how class Y is too strong, and any SEMBLANCE of balance or workability the game may have had goes down the crapper because nobody is satisfied 100% of the time.
I for one couldn't care less if the Barbarian is inferior to the Fighter in damage, inferior to the Rogue in skills, and inferior to any other class in any other aspect of gameplay. They can be played, they can be enjoyed as a class, and they can pull their weight in a group, despite not being entirely optimal. As long as they aren't diminishing the group's capabilities (which is more of a player problem than a class problem), there really isn't a problem.
Again, do they need more options with Rage Powers? Yes. Could they use a buff? It'd be NICE, but it's hardly necessary.
I agree that we shouldn't nit-pic too much, but, it just seems so overwhelmingly in favor of a fighter. Yeah the barbarian gets tricks, but it seems to be at too great a cost. The end result is a melee type that has a few small tricks, but another class that can do everything he can better, just like the problems with the CoDzilla in 3.5.
1. Negative for ending rage
2. lower AC
3. Lesser armor or much higher dex, very much higher dex if to use their faster movement to any advantage.
4. limited actions while in rage
5. High Cha needed to get good use of some powers.
6. Morale Stat Bonus type while raging.
So yeah while the tricks are nice, such as better skills, scent, knock back, and power surge, it would have been nice to have at least 1 combat bonus that wasn't completely negated by the negative of a very low AC.
With such a low AC and a rage that forces them to fight till they die (if you roleplay at all) they require their own personal cleric to heal them every round or they will die (actual death) so fast you miss it if you blink. In our Rise of the Runelords game, at 9th level our melee PCs were fending off 2-5 attacks a round, every round, each of which was averaging ~20-25 damage. The barbarian gets hit by 95% of those attacks (literally!).
This doesn't sound like a problem with the barbarian class, it sounds like a problem with not recognizing good combinations and tactics. On top of that you seem to throw an additional negative onto them based on close-minded roleplay options.
Don't get me wrong, I think the barbarian could use a little extra help, but intentionally using bad tactics and additional roleplay negatives isn't helping the case for that. They'd be fine with a different raging hit point mechanic and slightly beefed up rage powers.
+1.
There is nothing in rage that suggests you have to trade full attacks until you die in every combat. In fact that's a poor use of the barbarian's other class abilities.
If your primary meleer is regularly drawing full attacks from a bunch of enemies at once, that's probably a sign of bad battlefield control tactics as well. Probably one that could be pretty well mitigated by rage powers such as an unexpected strike/knockback combination (with the bull rush feats for best results). However the simplest thing would probably be to have the party arcanist memorize a displacement spell or two. Miss chances have proportionally greater effect the more you are getting hit normally, so you will be golden there.
Or have the cleric cast shield other and channel energy, maybe. With damage being split between two people, the barbarian's survivability just jumped a lot and if the cleric isn't taking damage otherwise, channel energy efficiency just doubled. Single target healing in combat is not generally a good use of time until you get heal, at least.
I'll chime in on this.
Fighters fight better than Barbarians... Okay.
Can a fighter survive weeks in [insert terrain here] unaided, and not draw the negative attention of the natives, be they wildlife or sentient?
Probably not, not can the barbarian, the one that CAN do that is the ranger. And he is also a melee class, so, he ALSO fares better then the Barbarian.
Can a fighter win a running fight in heavy armor? (Reach X distance in Y rounds before Z damaging event happens, encompassing the area the fighter was racing to cross?)
That's what he does best, actually, cause he isn't hindered by armor like the barbarian is, and in fact, he doesn't have to buy a feat to use heavy armor to be in said race. ;)
There are always more things to consider when not going toe-to-toe -- unless you are going toe-to-toe.
Concur. The problem is that IF I go toe-to-toe I'll loose, EVERY time, there isn't even a question about it. And I don't see a barbarian going "Uh, sorry sir fighter, but I can't win anyway so here, u can have that nice Axe"
With such a low AC and a rage that forces them to fight till they die (if you roleplay at all) they require their own personal cleric to heal them every round or they will die (actual death) so fast you miss it if you blink. In our Rise of the Runelords game, at 9th level our melee PCs were fending off 2-5 attacks a round, every round, each of which was averaging ~20-25 damage. The barbarian gets hit by 95% of those attacks (literally!).
This doesn't sound like a problem with the barbarian class, it sounds like a problem with not recognizing good combinations and tactics. On top of that you seem to throw an additional negative onto them based on close-minded roleplay options.
Don't get me wrong, I think the barbarian could use a little extra help, but intentionally using bad tactics and additional roleplay negatives isn't helping the case for that. They'd be fine with a different raging hit point mechanic and slightly beefed up rage powers.
+1.
There is nothing in rage that suggests you have to trade full attacks until you die in every combat. In fact that's a poor use of the barbarian's other class abilities.
If your primary meleer is regularly drawing full attacks from a bunch of enemies at once, that's probably a sign of bad battlefield control tactics as well. Probably one that could be pretty well mitigated by rage powers such as an unexpected strike/knockback combination (with the bull rush feats for best results). However the simplest thing would probably be to have the party arcanist memorize a displacement spell or two. Miss chances have proportionally greater effect the more you are getting hit normally, so you will be golden there.
Or have the cleric cast shield other and channel energy, maybe. With damage being split between two people, the barbarian's survivability just jumped a lot and if the cleric isn't taking damage otherwise, channel energy efficiency just doubled. Single target healing in combat is not generally a...
So, the tactics to make a Barbarian survivable is relying on magic from your fellow party members is it? Haha, that's funny to hear...
"Uhhmm, so guys, I'm gonna play a Barbarian in this game, who is willing to play casters and take care of me?"
And also kiss the best rage power, superstition, goodbye while using this tactic.