I'm not following the build you're gunning for ... at all. Here's what it reads like to me:
1) using 3.x source material and "kitchen sink" approach with a Ftr9/Barb11 - but I've NO idea the point of this build. To show that they harmonize together? Sure ... but no one's said anything about that (I think anyway). The focus has been on a "weak" Barbarian treatment by the PF system by comparison ... using 3.x builds of combining barb and ftr doesn't really seem to do much of anything in this context. So ... yeah. I'm not following the point of this one.
2) core "just barbarian, 20-levels" is this that list you made? Is that what you want help on? Or the first one (that I still don't understand).
I'm willing to try and build up the meanest barbarian I can ... I'm just not sure how to help and what direction you're taking.
Some stuff that stands out immediately as "something's wrong here":
*Combat Form Feats - by their very nature would seem to fully negate the ability to rage. I can't imagine a more diametrically opposed mechanic and description, honestly. None of that for a barbarian (at least not while he's raging for benefits). Now, if you go all rage-crazy, drop out and start up a combat focus - sounds good to me! But the effects can't really stack with each other. One's about absolute mental discipline and focus, and the rage clearly states that anything that requires focus or concentration are not usable when in a rage state.
*Fast Healing - using combat forms can only get to 4, tops. 10 is crazy!
*DR - how'd 10 creep in there? 5 + 3 from the rage power options = +8, no? {taken from your list}. If you dumped EVERY rage power possible from 8 forward into it, you'd get 5 + 7 = DR 12 - DEFINITELY toughening up the barbarian big-time! Total worthwhile investment ... and a total sacrifice of every other rage power option (honestly, most of them suck anyway, so probably not a total loss). If I were to optimize a build for Barbarians, I'd go for Increased DR for every option from 8+ and get that 12 DR. Shaking off 12 DR from EVERY hit is damn golden! The only things that matter earlier are a few "trick" powers (ie: 1/rage and the like) as a pure matter of *maybe* using them because I have to choose something.
*what's an "earthbreaker" (less something wrong and more I've NO idea what you mean)
*DR - how'd 10 creep in there? 5 + 3 from the rage power options = +8, no? {taken from your list}. If you dumped EVERY rage power possible from 8 forward into it, you'd get 5 + 7 = DR 12 - DEFINITELY toughening up the barbarian big-time!
Okay, reading the Barbarian Rage Powers Description, the Increased Damage Reduction Rage Power can only be selected three times maximum, and Damage Reduction from different sources doesn't stack, even if it is the same type of DR. So a Barbarian with be able to get DR5/- at level 12, not bad, and if you took that one feat from the PHB II, Greater Resilience (or however it was spelled) you could add a further point of DR/-. A Barbarian with this build, at level 20, would have a Damage Reduction of DR6/- Non-Raging and DR9/- while Raging.
I still hold that Barbarians should double their amount of DR/- gained, simply to give them that surviveability in the knock-down-drag-out brawls that happen at high level. DR10/- at end-game is a life-saver for the Barbarian, allowing him to take a Great Wyrm's main attack and keep swinging. Or perhaps the Increased Damage Reduction should instead be swapped to a level 12 or higher 'Power' and Double the Barbarian's DR/-, which makes it more important than ever to be able to conserve your Rage until it counts for the tougher fights.
|
This feat I designed (and used in several home games) would make a good rage power.
ENLARGED RAGE
You get bigger when you rage.
Prerequisite: Rage class ability.
Benefit: When you rage, you go up a size category. This is treated as a supernatural power,
not a spellike ability.
I'll save the argument and read it later.
I use a wand of enlarge, passed off to another player, for the same affect. It allows me to do my job better, to control the battlefield, with reach, grapple, bite, and a massive amount of damage. I take a huge hit to AC, -2 to -4 when raged, but it's worth it at times. I use an adamanite greataxe and silvered earthbreaker and I count on the others to support me and keep me alive.
I'm part of a team, not solo. Comparing a barb to any other class one to one isn't accurate, you operate in a team.
...
*what's an "earthbreaker" (less something wrong and more I've NO idea what you mean)
A massive two-handed maul - 2d6 / x3 bludgeoning
Personally I would assign some of the rage powers a cost in the round/day, somewhat returning to the rage point mechanic.
This feat I designed (and used in several home games) would make a good rage power.
ENLARGED RAGE
You get bigger when you rage.
Prerequisite: Rage class ability.
Benefit: When you rage, you go up a size category. This is treated as a supernatural power,
not a spellike ability.
I'll save the argument and read it later.
HULK SMASH?
|
The fighter will never make a melee attack on a barbarian at range until the barbarian decides HE wants to melee.I think I'm going to have to agree with Xum here. Sure, I could point out that even unspecialized fighter archers are going to be better than barbarian archers, so you'd have no chance at a ranged fight (especially since you're going to have to keep moving the first few rounds and I won't, if that's your choice of combat), but I'm to the point where I no longer believe something as simple as obvious and undisputable facts will convince you.
Nowhere did I say a barbarian archer is better than a fighter archer. What I said was specifically aimed at the sword'n'board fighter with a locked gauntlet. A sword'n'board locked gauntlet fighter will never get a hit on a barbarian who just happens to have a bow and an efficient quiver. That's a fact. Hell, the barbarian could beat that particular fighter with a bunch of hurled rocks (and the right feat).
For the record: 1) I never claimed the barbarian is better at DPS than a fighter; 2) I have only made counter arguements that the idea that the barbarian "sucks" or is "weaksauce". The fighter came into his own with PRPG, but that doesn't mean the barbarian is "useless" or "gimped" or "sucks". Most of the arguements to that effect have made unfair comparisons, used skewed scenarios, or just plain ignored other features of the class.
A sword'n'board locked gauntlet fighter will never get a hit on a barbarian who just happens to have a bow and an efficient quiver. That's a fact.
And the barbarian will never get a hit on the fighter, either.
Most of the arguements to that effect have made unfair comparisons, used skewed scenarios,
Uh, what was that about people who live in glass houses again?
|
|
A sword'n'board locked gauntlet fighter will never get a hit on a barbarian who just happens to have a bow and an efficient quiver. That's a fact.And the barbarian will never get a hit on the fighter, either.
Natural "20" will always hit. Like I said, I'll take a 5% chance to do some damage to you in exchange for a 0% chance to take any damage in return.
Most of the arguements to that effect have made unfair comparisons, used skewed scenarios,Uh, what was that about people who live in glass houses again?
Is this one of your "funnies"? Oh, ok. Ha. Ha.
Go back and read the posts to which I was referring. I did not make up some skewed scenario, I pointed out a simple reaction to someone else's skewed scenario.
but so much too-ing and fro-ing and bullhockery going on I have little doubt Xum or some other rabid forumite will bite my toes off for this blasphemy)Mate, your name has "Orc" and "Heavy Metal" in it, I can't really be that pissed at you. Just that name alone earns and "auto-friend" with me. :)
But it was instated that in fact the Barbarians are sub-par. So far the only available build is a two-handed wielder with a knack for scaring people. And although that's cool, there should be other options as well. And even with the most optimal choice, the barbarian still doesn't stand a chance against the fighter. And "not a chance" irks the hell out of me.
To disprove you, I have 3 builds. Only 1 uses a 2 handed weapon, and his is a reach/tripping weapon. 1 favors grappling and unarmed strikes, and annother is a sword and board with Bull Rush. The Sword and board one is feat intensive, and can't get everything the fighter gets, but it still has some abilities that the Fighter does not. I make no claim that these are optimized, but all are very playable. Not every ability is filled in.
Feats
1. Power Attack
H Combat Expertise
3. Improved Trip
5 Cleave
7 Greater Trip
9 Greater Cleave
11 Combat reflexes
13 Weapon Focus
15 Lunge
Rage
2 Quick reflexes
4 Stregnth Surge
6 Unexpected Strike
8 Knockback
10 Clear Mind
12 Mighty Swing
1 Improved Unarmed Strike
H Improved Grapple
3 Weapon Focus
5 Dazzling Display
7 Greater Gapple
9 Shattered Defenses
11 Intimidating Prowess
13 Skill Focus
2 Animal Fury
4 Intimidating Glare
6 Stregnth Surge
8 Terrifying Howl
10 No Escape
12 Mighty Swing
1 Improved Shield Bash
H Two Weapon Fighting
3 Power Attack
5 Improved Bull Rush
7 Shield Slam
9 Double Slice
11 Shield Master
13 TW Rend
15 Greater Bull Rush
17 ITWF
19 GTWF
2 Knockback
4 Strength Surge
6 Quick Reflexes
8 Unexpected Strike
Go back and read the posts to which I was referring. I did not make up some skewed scenario, I pointed out a simple reaction to someone else's skewed scenario.
A barbarian kiting a fighter using a bow and an efficient quiver IS a skewed scenario. It's something you would never see in actual play. Its only purpose is to be a strawman. It's also easily defeated in anything but a "glass planet" scenario (ie, any scenario where there's any realistic amount of cover or concealment). Or if the fighter just carries some javelins.
Go back and read the posts to which I was referring. I did not make up some skewed scenario, I pointed out a simple reaction to someone else's skewed scenario.A barbarian kiting a fighter using a bow and an efficient quiver IS a skewed scenario. It's something you would never see in actual play. Its only purpose is to be a strawman. It's also easily defeated in anything but a "glass planet" scenario (ie, any scenario where there's any realistic amount of cover or concealment). Or if the fighter just carries some javelins.
Or ... What if the Fighter's a spartan? spear and shield and javelins??
How about that, eh? -j/k
Hmm ... looking at Caineach's builds, I have to say that (in the interest of finding some middle-ground and just settle things down a bit) what we have been mostly talking about has been the nature of the barbarian change and not so much the ability to build an "effective" character.
All of those builds can work just fine (and especially with more power choices on the blank ones), but that's not what gets our goats - it's the fact that it was changed so much as to be virtually unrecognizable at the things it was supposed to be good at (in previous editions, especially 3.x). It's a massive paradigm shift, and I think it's that more than "effective" we react to. The numbers bear this out as well (which is why we keep going back to them).
Just an observation, but that sword and board barbarian will need to offer up strength as a serious casualty of his build in order to qualify for the Two Weapon Fighting feats (dex 19 at top end). He'll be well protected, and have a MUCH higher AC than most others (I'd suggest putting the "rolling X" rage powers in there to help some more), and can probably equal the fighter's AC outright (if he take 1 feat in that chain out and swap it for hvy Armor prof). But when it comes to maneuvers and damage, even with the rage this barb build will be pretty under par in his primary melee role (ie: damage dealing). He does have the skill stuff ... but in combat he's all messed up, which is ok as long as optimization isn't the end-game. I'd suggest dumping more Rage Powers into Improved DR, too - this guy's gonna need something to help out, IMO, if he's supposed to be front-lining. Unfortunately, he'll only edge out a fighter by 3 DR points at the top levels.
Go back and read the posts to which I was referring. I did not make up some skewed scenario, I pointed out a simple reaction to someone else's skewed scenario.A barbarian kiting a fighter using a bow and an efficient quiver IS a skewed scenario. It's something you would never see in actual play. Its only purpose is to be a strawman. It's also easily defeated in anything but a "glass planet" scenario (ie, any scenario where there's any realistic amount of cover or concealment). Or if the fighter just carries some javelins.Or ... What if the Fighter's a spartan? spear and shield and javelins??
How about that, eh? -j/k
Hmm ... looking at Caineach's builds, I have to say that (in the interest of finding some middle-ground and just settle things down a bit) what we have been mostly talking about has been the nature of the barbarian change and not so much the ability to build an "effective" character.
All of those builds can work just fine (and especially with more power choices on the blank ones), but that's not what gets our goats - it's the fact that it was changed so much as to be virtually unrecognizable at the things it was supposed to be good at (in previous editions, especially 3.x). It's a massive paradigm shift, and I think it's that more than "effective" we react to. The numbers bear this out as well (which is why we keep going back to them).
Just an observation, but that sword and board barbarian will need to offer up strength as a serious casualty of his build in order to qualify for the Two Weapon Fighting feats (dex 19 at top end). He'll be well protected, and have a MUCH higher AC than most others (I'd suggest putting the "rolling X" rage powers in there to help some more), and can probably equal the fighter's AC outright (if he take 1 feat in that chain out and swap it for hvy Armor prof). But when it comes to maneuvers and damage, even with the rage this barb build will be pretty under par in his primary melee role (ie:...
I agree with you that the Barbarian has changed focus, and the fighter now serves in the place that the old barbarian once did. I think this is because they raised fighter though, not because they changed barbarian. They kept the Barbarian near the power level that he was, and then gave him great side powers, while they raised the fighter in 1 place.
The sword and board guy will be more effective than the fighter at keeping enemies away form the party, and will have close enough AC to the fighter's or other melee characters. He has ~= damage potential to the THF, and if his strength is high enough, more. He gets 2X str instead of 1.5, thanks to double slice, and has the added potential of Rend for an extra d10+1.5str, but his attacks are at slightly lower to hits. I should probably drop GTWF, since his dex will likely not be that high, but you can alway use a +6 belt by that point
|
|
Go back and read the posts to which I was referring. I did not make up some skewed scenario, I pointed out a simple reaction to someone else's skewed scenario.A barbarian kiting a fighter using a bow and an efficient quiver IS a skewed scenario. It's something you would never see in actual play. Its only purpose is to be a strawman. It's also easily defeated in anything but a "glass planet" scenario (ie, any scenario where there's any realistic amount of cover or concealment). Or if the fighter just carries some javelins.
Did you bother to read the posts to which I was referring? Of course not. Let me summarize for you:
Person A: "The barbarian can make the fighter run in fear, AND he drops his weapon to boot."
Person B: "Not if I lock my gauntlet."
Me:" Lock the gauntlet and the barbarian can keep the fighter at range forever and plink him with arrows."
Person C: "Barbarains aren't as good at archery as a fighter!!"
??
Now you come in with nonsense about glass planets and straw men. How does a fighter throw a javelin with a locked gauntlet again?
Never see in actualy play? So no barbarian ever carries a ranged weapon? I guess the horse archers of the steppes of asia never happened in actual history either. If a fighter locks his gauntlet, he will lose to a barbarian with a ranged attack and greater mobility. Dunno why you have a problem with this, it's patently obvious. Unless you are being intentionally obtuse, which I wouldn't doubt.
Don't bother replying to my posts if you don't bother to read the posts first, m'kay?
Now you come in with nonsense about glass planets and straw men. How does a fighter throw a javelin with a locked gauntlet again?
By wearing his shield or unlocking his gauntlet (which he doesn't need any more anyway, as the panic-inducing rage power is "affected once per day only").
Never see in actualy play? So no barbarian ever carries a ranged weapon?
No barbarian is going to buy an efficient quiver (and even if they did, it's only 60 arrows; that's 3 hits on the fighter, no big deal).
DR from barbarian and adamantine armor doesn't stack RAW, though I usually let it. Thing is, barbarians at level 10 have DR 2/-. Dr/- can be bypassed by any magical damage, so its just against physical damage.Okay, I agree with most of the argument thus far but I call bullhockey on that part I bolded. DR only overcombes Cold Iron/Silvered at +3, Adamantine at +4 and Alignment-Based at +5. DR2/- is basically 2 points off any physical-based attack, even if it is magically enhanced. Whack a 10th level Barbarian with a +3 Flail and all you'll do is piss him off. Hit him with a spell, yes he's in pretty much the same boat as everyone but the Spell Resistance crowd is in.
Let's face it, DR has to increase dramatically. I'd prefer to have seen Barbarians get DR/2 at level 7 and then increase it by 2 at levels 10, 13, 16 and 19 to make the Barbarian able to shrug off a great deal of physical damage just on his own account, not including magical enhancements via armor, bracers, rings or amulets. It would add a serious level of toughness to the Barbarian and allow those additional +2 hitpoints per level to count towards something.
I didn't say magical weapon, I said magical damage. Like fireball, or scorching ray, or magic missile, or acid splash, etc etc etc.
Never see in actualy play? So no barbarian ever carries a ranged weapon? I guess the horse archers of the steppes of asia never happened in actual history either. If a fighter locks his gauntlet, he will lose to a barbarian with a ranged attack and greater mobility. Dunno why you have a problem with this, it's patently obvious. Unless you are being intentionally obtuse, which I wouldn't doubt.
This isn't true. The barbarian will have to travel a loooong way to even get one shot, without retaliation. The fighter can run after all. And if he can't, it likely means there is cover. He also has access to tower shields (which would make it a stalemate), and reach weapons, which won't allow the barbarian to withdraw without retaliation. Plus, he can always just unlock the gauntlet. A locked gauntlet won't gimp the fighter against a ranged attacking barbarian at all, UNLESS he is poorly equipped for that particular encounter.
The barbarian will have to travel a loooong way to even get one shot, without retaliation. The fighter can run after all. And if he can't, it likely means there is cover. He also has access to tower shields (which would make it a stalemate), and reach weapons, which won't allow the barbarian to withdraw without retaliation. A locked gauntlet won't gimp the fighter against a ranged attacking fighter at all, UNLESS he is poorly equipped.
Precisely. And if he's wearing medium armor (or has a racial speed lower than the fighter), he can't outrun the fighter at all anyway.
Feats are a non-starter; the Fighter can afford to spend way more feats on stupid stuff like an extra 5 feet of speed than the barbarian can.
Rage eventually runs out, especially when you're kiting for 5 rounds before you can afford to stop to get 1 shot off, and only 1 in 20 shots lands a hit. That's 100 rounds per hit. In other words, your rage runs out long before the fight's over.
|
|
This isn't true. The barbarian will have to travel a loooong way to even get one shot, without retaliation. The fighter can run after all. And if he can't, it likely means there is cover. He also has access to tower shields (which would make it a stalemate), and reach weapons, which won't allow the barbarian to withdraw without retaliation. Plus, he can always just unlock the gauntlet. A locked gauntlet won't gimp the fighter against a ranged attacking barbarian at all, UNLESS he is poorly equipped for that particular encounter.
Fighter running = 30x4 = 120 feet.
Barbarian running = 40x4 = 160 feet.Fighter running for 4 rounds = 480 feet.
Barbarian running for 4 rounds = 640 feet.
Barbarian can turn and fire away and the fighter can't catch him. Ever.
"Oh but the fighter has a tower shield!!"
"Oh-oh, the fighter has Fleet and Run!!"
"OOOOOOH the fighter cornered the barbarian in a dead-end 5' wide hallway!!!"
"Oooo the fighter has a Helm of Teleportation!!"
Blah-blah-blah.
|
Me:" Lock the gauntlet and the barbarian can keep the fighter at range forever and plink him with arrows."
Person C: "Barbarains aren't as good at archery as a fighter!!"
??
Let me clarify the ?? here for you, since you seem to be approaching this specific scenario in the same manner that you're approaching the overall issue. The specific issue in this case is that if you want your non-archer barbarian to stay at range against my non-archer fighter, I'LL WIN THAT FIGHT ALSO. I'm going to be a better archer than you since we'll both have the same strength damage (because it's limited by the bow itself) but I'll have a higher chance to hit both because of the armor class discrepancy AND because I require a higher dex to fill out my armor.
The point is that you're just arguing to be arguing. You have absolutely no point that can be backed up mathematically, and while having opinions is great, this isn't about opinions. It's about a power gap, which can (and must) be measured mathematically.
|
|
Fighter running = 30x4 = 120 feet.
Barbarian running = 40x4 = 160 feet.Fighter running for 4 rounds = 480 feet.
Barbarian running for 4 rounds = 640 feet.Barbarian can turn and fire away and the fighter can't catch him. Ever.
*sigh*
If the barbarian spends a move action to move 40 feet and fire, the fighter then charges (moving up to 60 feet) and still hits the barbarian.
Yes, the barbarian can run at x4 movement and stay away from the fighter. This is provided that the fighter doesn't increase his movement (since most fighters I know get boots of striding and most barbarians I know don't). However, if you spend a full round running away from me I'm not going to chase you, I'm going to put away my weapons and fire back. At this point we're having a straight archery war, and the fighter will STILL win. I don't know why these simple scenarios seem to trouble you so.
This isn't true. The barbarian will have to travel a loooong way to even get one shot, without retaliation. The fighter can run after all. And if he can't, it likely means there is cover. He also has access to tower shields (which would make it a stalemate), and reach weapons, which won't allow the barbarian to withdraw without retaliation. Plus, he can always just unlock the gauntlet. A locked gauntlet won't gimp the fighter against a ranged attacking barbarian at all, UNLESS he is poorly equipped for that particular encounter.Fighter running = 30x4 = 120 feet.
Barbarian running = 40x4 = 160 feet.Fighter running for 4 rounds = 480 feet.
Barbarian running for 4 rounds = 640 feet.Barbarian can turn and fire away and the fighter can't catch him. Ever.
"Oh but the fighter has a tower shield!!"
"Oh-oh, the fighter has Fleet and Run!!"
"OOOOOOH the fighter cornered the barbarian in a dead-end 5' wide hallway!!!"
"Oooo the fighter has a Helm of Teleportation!!"Blah-blah-blah.
You can't run AND take a shot in a round. Running is a full round action. The moment he stops to take a shot his movement is reduced to 40 and the fighter will close, if not charge. You then have to withdraw to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity, which means you'll be maximum 80 feet away, meaning the fighter can run again and we just repeat this process.
But whatever, this argument has degenerated into utter banality.
Wow great! Someone found a way that the barbarian can beat the fighter! Dude, we can make a commoner beat a fighter in the right scenario.
The numbers are pretty clear in all instances, Fighter wins in movement(maybe), AC, to hit, Damage, number of feats (thus tricks) and times per day he can do his thing(always). The barbarian wins in... Hitpoints, DR (maybe) and some different stuff he can do once in a lifetime.
So, if the blá-blá-blá gonna keep going, as you said, "if I do this" "then I do that" crap, why not make 2 sheets and play it out online? Then you can see the difference.
Fighter running = 30x4 = 120 feet.
Barbarian running = 40x4 = 160 feet.Fighter running for 4 rounds = 480 feet.
Barbarian running for 4 rounds = 640 feet.Barbarian can turn and fire away and the fighter can't catch him. Ever.
And the barbarian won't kill the fighter. Ever. He's got 60 arrows (which is all an efficient quiver holds) and you yourself said only 1 in 20 would hit. That's 3 hits.
Fighter running = 30x4 = 120 feet.
Barbarian running = 40x4 = 160 feet.Fighter running for 4 rounds = 480 feet.
Barbarian running for 4 rounds = 640 feet.Barbarian can turn and fire away and the fighter can't catch him. Ever.
"Oh but the fighter has a tower shield!!"
"Oh-oh, the fighter has Fleet and Run!!"
"OOOOOOH the fighter cornered the barbarian in a dead-end 5' wide hallway!!!"
"Oooo the fighter has a Helm of Teleportation!!"Blah-blah-blah.
Hey look, I'm not the one making statements that are shortsighted. You said:
If a fighter locks his gauntlet, he will lose to a barbarian with a ranged attack and greater mobility.
You aren't seriously saying that as an absolute are you? I'm not the one throwing out corner case variables (helms of teleportation, Fleet, Run feats, etc.) that may or may not be present. Citing tower shields and reach weapons are just as relevant as the bow and locked gauntlet, as is using the run action to close a gap in distance between you and a target. You don't take into account encounter distance, layout of the battlefield, initiative, nor the initial actions of the barbarian or fighter. On any given battlefield, your statement doesn't hold up UNLESS the situation is ideal for the barbarian.
And the barbarian won't kill the fighter. Ever. He's got 60 arrows (which is all an efficient quiver holds) and you yourself said only 1 in 20 would hit. That's 3 hits.
Well… he could miraculously roll several 20s, and confirm the crits! ;P
Wow great! Someone found a way that the barbarian can beat the fighter! Dude, we can make a commoner beat a fighter in the right scenario.
The numbers are pretty clear in all instances, Fighter wins in movement(maybe), AC, to hit, Damage, number of feats (thus tricks) and times per day he can do his thing(always). The barbarian wins in... Hitpoints, DR (maybe) and some different stuff he can do once in a lifetime.
So, if the blá-blá-blá gonna keep going, as you said, "if I do this" "then I do that" crap, why not make 2 sheets and play it out online? Then you can see the difference.
Personally, I would take most of the rage powers over a feat. I would say the barbarian handily wins in the trick department. He has access to almost all the tricks the fighter has, but also gets some unique ones that no one can get. You seem to not acknowledge the rage powers because they are once per encounter. Do you also discount the power of a wizard because they can only use a given spell once per day (since most wizards don't memorize multiple copies of 1 spell)?
Personally, I would take most of the rage powers over a feat. I would say the barbarian handily wins in the trick department. He has access to almost all the tricks the fighter has, but also gets some unique ones that no one can get. You seem to not acknowledge the rage powers because they are once per encounter. Do you also discount the power of a wizard because they can only use a given spell once per day (since most wizards don't memorize multiple copies of 1 spell)?Wow great! Someone found a way that the barbarian can beat the fighter! Dude, we can make a commoner beat a fighter in the right scenario.
The numbers are pretty clear in all instances, Fighter wins in movement(maybe), AC, to hit, Damage, number of feats (thus tricks) and times per day he can do his thing(always). The barbarian wins in... Hitpoints, DR (maybe) and some different stuff he can do once in a lifetime.
So, if the blá-blá-blá gonna keep going, as you said, "if I do this" "then I do that" crap, why not make 2 sheets and play it out online? Then you can see the difference.
Well for one a lot of spells will either a)affect multiple targets or b)have a duration longer than immediate/1 round. Furthermore, a barbarian only has 1/2 his level in "tricks" where a wizard has far more. If a wizard only gained one trick every other level that could each be used once per encounter then yeah, they would be freaking horrible.
IMNSHO most barbarian powers are either too weak or only work in too specific situations. Superstition I think is incredible, as do I feel animal fury is exceptionally strong. Everything else I can more or less live without.
Personally, I would take most of the rage powers over a feat. I would say the barbarian handily wins in the trick department. He has access to almost all the tricks the fighter has, but also gets some unique ones that no one can get. You seem to not acknowledge the rage powers because they are once per encounter. Do you also discount the power of a wizard because they can only use a given spell once per day (since most wizards don't memorize multiple copies of 1 spell)?
Not directed at me, but I can take this one.
Look at the power of a spell ... any one really. You know - how they fundamentally alter physics of the world? You get that, right?
Now ... look at the rage powers again. They look anywhere near as powerful or useful as spells?
Let's not get on the Barbarian's are like spell casters wavelength. Please ... pretty please? With sugar on top???
On a quick side note of the actual combat, I worked it out w/the Barbarian doing his fear *schtick* and allow a pretty generous build assuming some melee-heavy design (as barbs tend to be).
Here's how this runs down vs. the fighter - more or less:
round 1 = give barb init outright and let 'em go first. assume a "reasonable" distance of 30' to start and we'll put 'em in a wide open plains ... somewhere (irrelevant). Barbarian wins, rages, runs up and uses intimidating glare (must be adjacent). So, we get a move, and another move action, or essentially a full round full of move actions (ie: barb does nothing but set-up). Fighter (despite likely good saves here we'll assume failure - stack things in favor of the barb), fails and is shaken, he takes a -2 to attacks and stuff now. He full attacks the barbarian in melee ... ouch. Ftr takes 1 AoO, probably won't hit, but :shrugs: it can happen.
Round 2 = howl = standard action, so howl and move ... somewhere??? largely irrelevant, IMO. Fighter's turn, he fails the save and is panicked, drops what he holds (but not if in lock gauntlet - or his shield - strapped) and runs away with the Run option, so 30' normal x3 = 90' running. go middle ground w/panic's duration and he's at 3 rounds of running, this is the first one.
Round 3 = barb shoots, full attack at a guy 90' away. Probably not geared for both melee and range, though - not like a fighter would/could/should be. Fighter - runs 90' more (180' distance total; 2nd round).
Round 4 = barb shoots full attack at 180 and takes -2's for range this time. Fighter - runs 90' more (270' distance, and last round of panic).
Round 5 = barb full attack at -4 to hit for range now. fighter, ready bow (likely w/spec tree feats and 2nd weapon for wpn training, along with the likes of deadly aim, and far shot - neither of which likely on a melee-build barb), opens up with a full attack at fully 1/2 the penalties and a lot more bonuses than the barb gets for his ranged attacks. It's to the advantage of the fighter to stay at range now - the further, the better for him as it means more and more penalties to the barb fighting him w/no real feats to deal with a long range archery contest (because he's built to do stuff with his combat options, sunder, grapple, bull rush, etc - that, or the takes up archery stuff seriously, but can't really get full utility of his barbarian features).
This is just a quick run down of the most efficient manner I can imagine to attack the fighter w/that fear stuff and start "picking him off"
In the end, the barbarian gets 1 more full attack of ARROWS (ie: not his build design) over the fighter assuming the fighter fails 2 different fear-based saves in the 1st 2 rounds. After that, the archery contest heavily favors the fighter.
Personally, I would take most of the rage powers over a feat. I would say the barbarian handily wins in the trick department. He has access to almost all the tricks the fighter has, but also gets some unique ones that no one can get. You seem to not acknowledge the rage powers because they are once per encounter. Do you also discount the power of a wizard because they can only use a given spell once per day (since most wizards don't memorize multiple copies of 1 spell)?Not directed at me, but I can take this one.
Look at the power of a spell ... any one really. You know - how they fundamentally alter physics of the world? You get that, right?
Now ... look at the rage powers again. They look anywhere near as powerful or useful as spells?
Let's not get on the Barbarian's are like spell casters wavelength. Please ... pretty please? With sugar on top???
On a quick side note of the actual combat, I worked it out w/the Barbarian doing his fear *schtick* and allow a pretty generous build assuming some melee-heavy design (as barbs tend to be).
Here's how this runs down vs. the fighter - more or less:
round 1 = give barb init outright and let 'em go first. assume a "reasonable" distance of 30' to start and we'll put 'em in a wide open plains ... somewhere (irrelevant). Barbarian wins, rages, runs up and uses intimidating glare (must be adjacent). So, we get a move, and another move action, or essentially a full round full of move actions (ie: barb does nothing but set-up). Fighter (despite likely good saves here we'll assume failure - stack things in favor of the barb), fails and is shaken, he takes a -2 to attacks and stuff now. He full attacks the barbarian in melee ... ouch. Ftr takes 1 AoO, probably won't hit, but :shrugs: it can happen.Round 2 = howl = standard action, so howl and move ... somewhere??? largely irrelevant, IMO. Fighter's turn, he fails the save and is panicked, drops what he holds (but not if in lock gauntlet - or his shield - strapped) and runs...
1. I love how you assume that the fighter build will have all these archery feats... I haven't seen a melee fighter build yet that doesn't use almost all its feats for its schtick. I think the most feats I saw dedicated to archery on a non-archer build was 3, and that was a rare case.
As for the barbarian's rage powers being like spells, I actually think many of them are that powerful. 3 or 4 of them can pretty much completely alter any combat and turn a hard fought encounter into a trivial one. Terrifying Howl and Stregnth Surge are the most obvious in that regard. They may not be equivalent to high level spells, but most I would put at lvls 2-5, in the same range as Paladin and Ranger spells.
As for annother thing the Fighter cannot do, take a look at my tripper. Looking at him more, I would swap where some of his feats are, like make combat reflexes earlier and add lunge somewhere, but he can do things that no other character can do.
Ememy comes within reach - trip, provoke 2nd AoO
Enemy stands - disarm or sunder
Enemy picks up weapon - trip again, new AoO
Enemy leaves threatened area to engage - bull rush back, enemy must attempt to close again.
He can more effectively prevent an enemy from closing with him than any other melee build I have seen. No other class can bull rush in place of an attack or gets an AoO when the enemy enters their threatened space. Sure, one of these is once per rage, but that free round can make it so that enemy is irrelevant for the rest of the combat. And if dice seem to not be going his way, he can pretty much guarantee one of the trips or the bull rush will succeed by adding his level to the roll.
|
|
I love how you assume that the fighter build will have all these archery feats... I haven't seen a melee fighter build yet that doesn't use almost all its feats for its schtick. I think the most feats I saw dedicated to archery on a non-archer build was 3, and that was a rare case.
As I've already shown, the fighter is better at archery than the barbarian WITHOUT any feat investment due to the way an optimal fighter is built.
Terrifying Howl and Stregnth Surge are the most obvious in that regard. They may not be equivalent to high level spells, but most I would put at lvls 2-5, in the same range as Paladin and Ranger spells.
That may be where you'd put them, but the creators of the game obviously disagreed. Have you ever heard of the first level spell, "cause fear"?
No other class can bull rush in place of an attack or gets an AoO when the enemy enters their threatened space.
You're absolutely right. No other class can bull rush IN PLACE OF an attack. Unfortunately, fighters (and anyone else who takes the feat) can use their shields to bull rush WHILE making an attack. Again, making the barbarian just that much more inferior.
You can argue that the barbarian isn't inferior all day long. The only problem is that there will never be a scenario in which a fighter built for the same role won't be a better overall character. The reason for this, of course, is because barbarians are moderately underpowered, just like we've been telling you (and a few others) for six pages now.
stuff
Well, hold on now - I just made what I'd consider a "reasonable" build for a fighter - primary build on melee, and a secondary build on archery (for when things get out of reach). It's just a BAD idea for a fighter to ignore one way to operate in both areas. If I've made an assumption, it would be that it's rather foolish to build a fighter pure class, take it to level 20 (if that was unclear in the set-up, that's what I was going for), and ignore archery or any ranged weapon as the "back up" for a heavily melee-focused concept. We were talking sword and board, so it's a small investment of feats that remain to take deadly aim, pb shot, precise shot, and far shot, let alone wpn focus and the like. Fighter's have a LOT of feats ... sprinkling in some for being effective both at range and in melee isn't a huge assumption.
In PF, fighter's get even more feats than ever before. Perfectly within reason to let the fighter have at least that - note, I've not stacked anything against the barbarian, but made the assumption that it would have things that lead to it's advantage and build in the concept (although fighting at range to pick off a fighter was suggested as the "win" for range combat - I just wanted to point out the problem with that particular design tactic. It'd be a lot different vs. say your tripper - completely different encounter, BUT I wasn't going after that build - just showing how the fear - run - and pick 'em off from far thing would work out in some concrete terms). At many points I give the barbarian auto-fails for the fighter (vs. measure %'s), and let him have some convenient power build - it *seemed* to be a barbarian built for melee in tone. That said, it could be a barb that largely ignores his rage power features in favor of running up, intimidating (or using dazzling display - whatever), then following up with a howl to make people run, and then use every available feat to be an archer with some anime-bow for use only while raging ... it would certainly be effective at that tactic, BUT anything that doesn't run would mess him up pretty bad. Everything that runs is in trouble, though. :shrugs:
Don't take it as some personal attack to your builds, man. It was just to show that a 'typical' barbarian (even your tripper guy) if using that run up and scare 'em then pick 'em off business would probably lose.
And there are a few powers that are feat-like in allowing new options - no disagreement with that. Using those powers to set up "run and pick 'em up" approach doesn't really do the class justice.
|
|
Let me clarify the ?? here for you, since you seem to be approaching this specific scenario in the same manner that you're approaching the overall issue. The specific issue in this case is that if you want your non-archer barbarian to stay at range against my non-archer fighter, I'LL WIN THAT FIGHT ALSO. I'm going to be a better archer than you since we'll both have the same strength damage (because it's limited by the bow itself) but I'll have a higher chance to hit both because of the armor class discrepancy AND because I require a higher dex to fill out my armor.Me:" Lock the gauntlet and the barbarian can keep the fighter at range forever and plink him with arrows."
Person C: "Barbarains aren't as good at archery as a fighter!!"
??
Can't shoot a bow if your gauntlet is locked around a melee weapon. The entire point of the whole archery line. I never claimed that an archery build is the way to go for the barbarian. What I did claim is that if a fighter locks his gauntlet to prevent losing his melee weapon to a fear effect then the barbarian can stay at range and plink him to death. Not move 40' fire and get charged. Duh. Stay at range. When the fighter unlocks his gauntlet and fires back, then he is succeptible to the fear effect and being disarmed. NOTHING in this is talking about an archery duel.
Any assumption about a fighter's race or gear to overcome a situation can be as easily countered by the barbarian having the sppropriate race or gear, so none of this "well your barbarian is a dwarf in heavy armor and my fighter has Fleet (x3) and Run and Boots of Speed" nonsense.
I am not trying to say the barbarian is greater than the fighter at DPS. Never have. What I have said is that these crazy overexaggerations about how much better the fighter is are wrong and silly. And they ignore everything else the barbarian can do better than the fighter, making it seem like there is never any reason to play a barbarian.
Demoyn:
Cause fear has a hit die restriction, a low save, and is single target. Intimidating glare is a move action you can do all day and a skill check that has greater than 50/50 chance if your build is any good, at works at any level. The save DC on terrifying howl is also huge.
As for the fighter maxing his dex more than te barbarian. I really don't see many fighters going much higher than the 20 the barbarian will go (Mithral Breastplate). The fighter may go higher, if he wants to pick up mithral platemail, but most probably wont. The figter's AC will be higher though.
Edit: And I would like to see a fighter build that can do what my tripper does better. A sword and board fighter can bull rush for free with a shield attack, but he wont be getting that at reach on an AoO. My sword and board barbarian can also do that, and he can bull rush when an opponent ENTERS his square, preventing the enemy from closing for a round. The Barbarian also doesn't have to move with the person he is bull rushing, and that option alone makes him better than the fighter IMO.
SiD:
I did not think you were attacking me at all. I was just pointing out that barbarians can be quite effective and do things no one else can. But, a sword and board fighter is one of the most feat intensive builds:
Two Weapon Fighting: 5 feats
Shield Master: 3 feats
Bull Rush: 3 feats
Throw in the fighter staples:
Weapon Focus/Spec: 4 feats
Iron Will: 2 feats
Total of 17 feats. Now you have 4-5 feats to pick up other stuff, and you haven't even taken all the shield feats. Thats why I say most builds I have seen assume that the high dex and str mod of the fighter will be good enough to handle ranged combat. They will have a magical ranged weapon, but most builds I have seen do not spend any feats on it. They focus in their trick to be amasing at it, rather than branching out.
.....I am not trying to say the barbarian is greater than the fighter at DPS. Never have. What I have said is that these crazy overexaggerations about how much better the fighter is are wrong and silly. And they ignore everything else the barbarian can do better than the fighter, making it seem like there is never any reason to play a barbarian.
You see that's the point I was trying to make all along. I stepped away some time ago because it got too ridiculous but this is the simple truth. All the people who sit around concocting mathematical scenarios in order to show how much dominant one class is than the other are out of touch with reality (funny how every time they do this exercise, they have to bring up obscure equipment for the "dominant" class and assume lackluster feats and suboptimal builds for the "weaker" class. not to mention their percentages and formulas tend to be skewed). Took me 5 minutes to build a hypothetical half-orc barb, with max intimidate and terrifying howl, that the average fighter wouldn't be able to stand against without fleeing. Next thing I know people start introducing 5 swords, locked gauntlets, tower shields, "I won initiative" you need a 20 to hit me, bs) Yeah the fighter does more damage and has higher AC, so if that's all that mattered in the game then that would be cool.... but it's not. Hell truth be told I still think the Cleric puts every class to shame but that's just me.
Seems like every week someone puts up a thread trying to show how this class got screwed and this class sucks, and starts harking back to 3.5 and how it used to be. If you feel that way then go back and play 3.5 with all the little splat books and broken feats and have a munchkin party.
Barbarian and fighter, Two different classes, both equally viable. Each plays their role well. Again, If you find yourself playing either one and think that you are not effective you just built a weak character it HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CLASS BALANCE OR LACK OF ABILITIES, stop lying to yourself.
This post was not directed at anyone in particular, but take it how you will...
This thread really is just too funny!
First, nobody will get anywhere unless actual builds are presented.
Second, nobody will get anywhere unless appropriate tactics are used.
Third, nobody will get anywhere until the debate gains some structure.For instance, Caineach can present all the builds he likes, but is just spinning wheels unless someone else actually presents a fighter build that can answer his claim.
And a Barb expecting a melee fight, and knowing his most powerful tactic takes both a move action AND a standard action to activate, will delay his init to let the fighter go first. In fact, a tripping reach weapon barb will let the opponent into melee, panic them, and trip on the AoO, probably using Lunge as well. I would. Keep them close, force them to use their entire round to try and get away, then full attack while they are prone. And I CAN provide a build to back that up.
But isn't the OP all about rage powers? Wouldn't a better tact be to see what the rage power provides and see if there is a better or more easily gained alternative? Especially in terms of feats and class abilities? If the rage powers are giving unique abilities not replicated by any other class, then the argument should center around if the power is too weak to be useful or too circumstantial to be worth taking.
Myself, I think the rage powers need a boost. All those 1/rage powers need to be more like [1 + 1/5lvls]/rage. Many of them are fine, but they quickly become less useful as enemies become more powerful.
I like this cat... I really do....Good post MM
I agree with MM - the rage powers need a boost.
A little ways up-thread, someone suggested charging "rounds of rage" to use certain powers - this would bring it closer to the originally FINE Rage Point mechanic from the Beta.
The problem really stems from exactly what MM noted (and has been stated earlier as well) in that the powers are weak and circumstantial when divorced from the originally intended "rage point" mechanics and transposed onto the "rounds of rage" for the final version barbarian.
It's that most of the things are far too odd to qualify as a constant boon to the barbarian given the circumstances and the limited nature of the uses (1/rage is terrible - not the mention irrelevant through never intended loop-holes in the Tireless Rage ability).
As for the things barbarians bring ... honestly, I feel as if the fighter and barbarian have somehow switched roles from 3.x to pathfinder. I'd have expected the barbarian to be the key damage dealing junkie, and the fighter to be more of the maneuver expert ... but there's been this sort of incidental change in the "rage per round" mechanic that really makes maneuvers the best thing barbarians have ... and that's just weird. I mean, conceptually, Cainreach's little list a few posts up made me literally stop and stare ... because it's the kind of thing I'd have expected from a fighter/thinking character that could/would look at controlling the field.
I don't expect a barbarian to control the battlefield - I expect him to clear it. I expect the fighter, with his tactical options, to be the guy holding enemies at bay, making shield walls, etc, etc.
It's like a full thematic switch that the mechanics have resulted in ... it's all sort like a tumbling/cascading effect, IMO, from the change to both maneuvers (vs. 3.x's defaults), and rage points (from Beta).
{note: Cainreach - I think you've mis-counted the feats in there ... not 100%, though, but it seems off to me. Double counting or something maybe? Your point stands, though - definitely a feat-consumer option overall}
This thread really is just too funny!
First, nobody will get anywhere unless actual builds are presented.
Second, nobody will get anywhere unless appropriate tactics are used.
Third, nobody will get anywhere until the debate gains some structure.For instance, Caineach can present all the builds he likes, but is just spinning wheels unless someone else actually presents a fighter build that can answer his claim.
And a Barb expecting a melee fight, and knowing his most powerful tactic takes both a move action AND a standard action to activate, will delay his init to let the fighter go first. In fact, a tripping reach weapon barb will let the opponent into melee, panic them, and trip on the AoO, probably using Lunge as well. I would. Keep them close, force them to use their entire round to try and get away, then full attack while they are prone. And I CAN provide a build to back that up.
But isn't the OP all about rage powers? Wouldn't a better tact be to see what the rage power provides and see if there is a better or more easily gained alternative? Especially in terms of feats and class abilities? If the rage powers are giving unique abilities not replicated by any other class, then the argument should center around if the power is too weak to be useful or too circumstantial to be worth taking.
...
Exactly, the entire point is that the rage powers let him do things no other class can. Particularly in that concept(I freely admit the build is not the best), Knockback and Unexpected Strike, with support from Strength Surge. Knockback allows a reach character to bull rush with an AoO, which is a huge strength.
Now, its hard to find 10 barbarian tallents that all compliment a single, unified build. But many of them are decent no matter what your build is, and I don't have a problem with forcing a player to branch out. I would like to see more powers, but at least 1/2 of them I feel are the right power level.
Myself, I think the rage powers need a boost. All those 1/rage powers need to be more like [1 + 1/5lvls]/rage. Many of them are fine, but they quickly become less useful as enemies become more powerful.
Personally, I disagree. Some of them I wouldn't mind seeing more than once per rage, but many of them would be flat out broken if used all the time. If I could use strength surge more than once, for instance, I could gaurantee that someone cannot close with me every round with trip or bull rush. Same with knock back. And guaranteeing more criticals is a really powerful ability at lvl 12. The abilities that are limitted to 1/rage are all ones that need to be limitted, and if you make them more frequent I think the barbarian gets overpowered very easily.
|
|
Well, we ARE only talking about 5 uses per rage at lvl 20. Discounting the Tireless Rage exploit, I can't see it as too game breaking. Not more so than Time Stop, anyway.2 uses at lvl 5, OTOH, makes some of those really worth investing in.
I wonder if the Tireless Rage thing is a bug or a feature. I mean, maybe they meant for that to be the high level benefit that lets you avoid the 1/rage limits??
I wonder if the Tireless Rage thing is a bug or a feature. I mean, maybe they meant for that to be the high level benefit that lets you avoid the 1/rage limits??
Well, we ARE only talking about 5 uses per rage at lvl 20. Discounting the Tireless Rage exploit, I can't see it as too game breaking. Not more so than Time Stop, anyway.2 uses at lvl 5, OTOH, makes some of those really worth investing in.
I seriously doubt that. And if they did, that's just lamer than the +10 enhancement cap and the Staff arcane bounded item.
I TOTALLY agree with Speaker about the roles thing, I think ANYONE that plays a barbarian cause they like the idea of the barbarian (me for instance) shouldn't have to be all tactical to be effective. Hell, from the martial classes BARBARIANS are the ones that have to be more tactical than anyone else! You seriously don't think there is something wrong with that?
|
|
I kind of like the Barbarian being tactical. Conan is a good example of a Barbarian who was very wise and clever. In fact, most Barbarians are like that - it's practically a cliche.
I think there is a disconnect between what "barbarian" meant when introduced in 1st ed to what "barbarian" has come to mean since then. Originally it was more "magic-fearing superstitious tribal" and it became more "foaming at the mouth berzerker".
I wonder if the Tireless Rage thing is a bug or a feature. I mean, maybe they meant for that to be the high level benefit that lets you avoid the 1/rage limits??
Well, we ARE only talking about 5 uses per rage at lvl 20. Discounting the Tireless Rage exploit, I can't see it as too game breaking. Not more so than Time Stop, anyway.2 uses at lvl 5, OTOH, makes some of those really worth investing in.
I seriously doubt that. And if they did, that's just lamer than the +10 enhancement cap and the Staff arcane bounded item.
I TOTALLY agree with Speaker about the roles thing, I think ANYONE that plays a barbarian cause they like the idea of the barbarian (me for instance) shouldn't have to be all tactical to be effective. Hell, from the martial classes BARBARIANS are the ones that have to be more tactical than anyone else! You seriously don't think there is something wrong with that?
I think you can play any class with the personality that you want. I have seen paladins go into rages in combat and do nothing but power attacks, and barbarians who use tactical abilites. You describe it differently. The barbarian can easily be slamming his weapon into their shins as hard as posible instead of tactically waiting for the opponent to get a good trip in. The mechanics are the same, but the description is totally different.
Edit: And if your looking for a high poewr character who does nothing but full attack, you can get that in the nice fighter shell. Just describe him as going into a berserker rage when he kills people.