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.
Wait ... what? You want the class that *does* go crazy nutty in combat (specific skill and feat use restrictions mentioned, etc) to be the "thinking, clever" combatant, and the class that stays even and level headed to play like a psychotic???
8-0
I'm with you on the part of making the features too good, BUT that was the great thing about the rage points (or if adopted rage rounds) idea.
Each of those things costs "rage points" to use it. No activation, no actions, and no limits on x/round. So ... you could totally run in there and nova the hell out of your barbarian (add level to hit, level to damage, suddenly attacking for AoO's when not normally allowed - all of it), and you'd clean house, possibly burn through all of your rage points ... and then have to deal with it. The point is, though, that under that system it was a resource management thing that DID allow barbarians to totally and completely more than hold their own against any melee-capable character. Now, though, you can add level to hit ... 1/rage, period. Or add level to damage ... 1/rage period. So the barbarian ends up feeling almost more like a very, VERY weak caster on account of it, and his effects don't even begin to approach those a caster gets.
Honestly, if rage points were maintained, or if each rage power maintained some sort of 'round cost' I doubt we'd have much to discuss in the thread as, at that point, it's totally fine. Best feat for barbarians becomes extra rage to get more "rounds" to fuel abilities ... at the player's option to nova, or be more conservative in how and when to apply the rage powers (and thus trade in more of his effects and usage per day).
I don't think any of us would have a problem at all if say Unexpected Strike cost 2 rounds of rage and had no action requirement (just the round cost) associated with it.
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.Wait ... what? You want the class that *does* go crazy nutty in combat (specific skill and feat use restrictions mentioned, etc) to be the "thinking, clever" combatant, and the class that stays even and level headed to play like a psychotic???
No, I am saying that you can define the flavor of your character however you want to, regardless of the mechanics that you use. Just because the player is playing a stratiegic game does not mean that the character is thinking stratiegicly.
And I too highly miss rage points. I thought they were awesome. But we don't have them, so I am working with what we got, and that is not going to change.
I think that disconnect is still in the game (gaining nightvision while raging? I could see this if rage represented taping into some primal spiritual force, but just getting pissed off?). The class still tries to be both things at the same time and I think that causes a lot of confusion. I'm not really a big fan of the class being restricted to such a tightly defined stereotype as "foaming at the mouth berzerker". I think it should aim for the "noble savage" archetype (Mowgli, Tarzan, Conan, Cameron's Avatar, the Tauren in WoW, etc.).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 agree, I think they should have had a rage power trees to create the different flavors. Something similar to the bloodlines of the sorcerer, but more open. I think the person being powered by a animal or rage spirit of some sort would be a cool idea. There would be 1 or 2 intro powers, granting some minor SU ability, then have new powers to go from there, but still having the default universal abilities they could chose.
|
I agree, I think they should have had a rage power trees to create the different flavors. Something similar to the bloodlines of the sorcerer, but more open. I think the person being powered by a animal or rage spirit of some sort would be a cool idea. There would be 1 or 2 intro powers, granting some minor SU ability, then have new powers to go from there, but still having the default universal abilities they could chose.
I wonder if something like this isn't in the works for the APG??
I agree, I think they should have had a rage power trees to create the different flavors. Something similar to the bloodlines of the sorcerer, but more open. I think the person being powered by a animal or rage spirit of some sort would be a cool idea. There would be 1 or 2 intro powers, granting some minor SU ability, then have new powers to go from there, but still having the default universal abilities they could chose.I wonder if something like this isn't in the works for the APG??
With the use of Night Vision and maybe bite, it should have been there to start.
PAIZO STAFF DO NOT PUT A POWER CREEP ON ANY CLASSES. ALL MELEE CLASSES HAVE POINTS THAT THEY BEAT EACH OTHER AT, GOOD WORK. NO POWER CREEP!
I agree, I think they should have had a rage power trees to create the different flavors. Something similar to the bloodlines of the sorcerer, but more open. I think the person being powered by a animal or rage spirit of some sort would be a cool idea. There would be 1 or 2 intro powers, granting some minor SU ability, then have new powers to go from there, but still having the default universal abilities they could chose.I think that disconnect is still in the game (gaining nightvision while raging? I could see this if rage represented taping into some primal spiritual force, but just getting pissed off?). The class still tries to be both things at the same time and I think that causes a lot of confusion. I'm not really a big fan of the class being restricted to such a tightly defined stereotype as "foaming at the mouth berzerker". I think it should aim for the "noble savage" archetype (Mowgli, Tarzan, Conan, Cameron's Avatar, the Tauren in WoW, etc.).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 actually disagree. I am glad that there are very few powers with prereqs, and think that if something like this were implemented it would have been too restrictive. The rage powers are the primary feature of the class. Bloodlines are a minor thing for the most part. I think if they implemented trees you would see many more identical barbarians, and I like the flatness of the class.
No, I am saying that you can define the flavor of your character however you want to, regardless of the mechanics that you use. Just because the player is playing a stratiegic game does not mean that the character is thinking stratiegicly.
And I too highly miss rage points. I thought they were awesome. But we don't have them, so I am working with what we got, and that is not going to change.
Ok ... what I'm saying is that about 90% of the reaction against the barbarian change from 3.x to PF revolves around that shift in tactical Fighter and damage dealing Barbarian to DAMAGE dealing Fighter and TACTICAL Barbarian.
Regardless of play (which I agree with) the mechanics run entirely counter-intuitive to what is expected for the uncontrolled, furious barbarian when all of his best junk revolves around plotting and planning the battlefield control options at his disposal.
And ... until I see the APG, I'm holding off on assuming NO change planned. The developers are reading these boards all the time, and they've admitted some problems with the final version they released. This means they're admittedly dissatisfied with their end result, so of all the classes, I expect the most revisions to fall upon the barbarian and it's rage powers when all is said and done. Exactly what form that'll take - no clue. But I'm not writing off riders for "optional rules" and things like that to allow for a resurgence of "rage points" in a side bar or something like that. Maybe even some heavy revisions of the existing rage powers (like condensing the swim, jump, acrobatic skill-adder powers into a single one, or something more reasonable).
I'd LOVE to see them close that damnable "Tireless Rage" loop hole of "rage on/rage off" as it's one of the most pathetic tactical options I've ever heard of period! It's technically *smart* to get as many rage powers "on" as you'd like, but my gods!!! It reeks to the high heavens of cheese!
PAIZO STAFF DO NOT PUT A POWER CREEP ON ANY CLASSES. ALL MELEE CLASSES HAVE POINTS THAT THEY BEAT EACH OTHER AT, GOOD WORK. NO POWER CREEP!
1. Paizo already admitted they were week.
2. Too late, they are already have better powers for the barbarian in the APG.3. Blindly stating such with out support vs. pages of counter arguments isn't going to hold.
4. How about some supporting points so I can see your point, as I would LOVE to see this as well.
1. Paizo already admitted they were week.
2. Too late, they are already have better powers for the barbarian in the APG.
3. Blindly stating such with out support vs. pages of counter arguments isn't going to hold.
4. How about some supporting points so I can see your point, as I would LOVE to see this as well.
I stand corrected and will welcome any new options paizo offers. My group has... tactical barbarians which now that i think of it seems very odd. I concede
Srs passive aggression in this thread. People should take it easy.
Once I saw this. I couldn't read any further. Passive aggression is for people that should stick to classes outside of Barbarian, or get smashed to pieces because of their own unwillingness to stop dancing around the enemy, and just hitting it with their bloody axe.
But seriously.
Barbarian is more fun to me. Than fighter.
Thats why I think its better than fighter.
I dare you, you kill that opinion..
Double Dog dare you to, AGGRESSIVELY, take on that.
But really, honestly, seriously.
Barbarians need better rage powers.
First, Hulk Smash is a sort of barbarian build.
To hit flying creatures he needs the feat (Or prestige class)Hulking Hurler, which could become a Barbarian power. Basically, he can throw any rock he can lift.
Second, a fighter can hit a barbarian with an arrow if he can get through their damage resistance.
Weapons focus and specialization, composite longbow.
Point Blank Shot
Percise shot
Far shot
A composit longbow +5 both magic and strength.
A Royal Knight who expects to fight barbarians at the gate should consider a sniper build.
Untill Barbarians get the power to fly, they will lose to a sniper raining death from above.
First, Hulk Smash is a sort of barbarian build.
To hit flying creatures he needs the feat (Or prestige class)Hulking Hurler, which could become a Barbarian power. Basically, he can throw any rock he can lift.
Oooo! Nice idea, man!!!
*applauds*