Hey guys,
A friend of mine wants to play a barbarian/ fighter/ ranger, and I thought to make 2 feats for her:
-One would allo fighter and ranger levels to stack with barbarian levels to determine his barbarian level for purposes of chosing rage powers (we have about 30 homebrew rage powesr with level prerequisite, so it's kind of a nice feat)
A second once that needs the first and would allow levels to stack with barbarian for purposes of determining rage duration.
I think the power scale sound sabout ok, the mechanics sort of as well, as her character concept seems nice for that weird class combo that would otherwise be underpowered, am willign to allow it.
The weird thing would be the name of the feat, and the fluff explanation perhaps. Any suggestions?
|
Hey guys,
A friend of mine wants to play a barbarian fighter, and I thought to make 2 feats for her:
-One would allo fighter levels to stack with barbarian levels to determine his barbarian level for purposes of chosing rage powers (we have about 30 homebrew rage powesr with level prerequisite, so it's kind of a nice feat)
A second once that needs the first and would allow fighter levels to stack with barbarian for purposes of determining rage duration.
Suggestions? Underpowered? Silly? Name?
I suggest not, perhaps you should look instead at the feats from complete warrior like extended rage and the like instead? Allowing calculation like that is too much for a single feat.
I don't think this is a good idea. A fighter is really a lot different than a barbarian -- one relies on primal instinct and the other relies on dedicated training.
What I might consider, is a feat like Practice Caster. It would allow a Barbarian to add 4 to her level for the purpose of qualifying for rage powers and for rage duration, with the sum not allowed to exceed her hit dice.
I changed my post to add a talk about ranger, but that besides, is not a multiclass combo like that going to be totally underpowered?
Now I understand that it seems very weird from a fluff point of view, and that multiclassing like that usually should be discouraged, but me and the players like the concept and want to see it happen, but then again I feel it's going to be worthless mechanics-wise as is. Never going to reach capstone abilities and not even middle level abilities.
By the ay I do not know if you noticed but t's TWO feats. I could at worst only let these feats stack HALF the other classes levels.
I would say no, if he wants more rage, take more levels of the class that gains that class ability. A fighter is not much like a barbarian other then the BAB being the same.
Also, for those who say No, how would you make that multiclass thing not suck?
If I was to build a, say, barb 7, ranger 3, fighter 10, I think it would be easily outclass by any barb or ranger OR fighter 20 any day. But we do want to have our ranger/fighter/barbarian at the table- and not have it totally suck- as weird as it sounds.
|
I'd say if you wanted to make a multi-class feat, that's fine. WotC made a number of useful feats back in 3.5 in the later complete books that encouraged multi-classing. Some were obviously better then others but a lot of them were fluffy fun.
That said I'd definitely not make one that did Fighter+Ranger+Barbarian all at once. One feat for Fighter+Barbarian (that has reasonable per-requisites like Requires Fighter4 /Barbarian 4) and one that does Ranger+Barbarian with similar requirements.
Something that says like, "The character with this feat can combine their half their fighter levels to their barbarian levels for qualification of rage powers and half their barbarian levels to their fighter levels for qualification of fighter feats." And then rage power level qualification and perhaps favored enemy progression ranger done at about the same rate. Heck, make them combat feats for fun, but definitely make it two separate feats. :)
There is already an Extra Rage feat you can take multiple times so there is no reason to double up on that kind of thing.
Now your friend wants to multi-class which isn't a problem at all, it's a part of the game and has been since the first fighter/magic user/thief. There has to be a purpose to it though or no amount of house ruled feats will make it worth while. If your multi-classing into Fighter past say level 4, what is your benefit? You'd already have the movement bonus that a barbarian would want from armor training and qualify for Weapon Specialization. Ranger would net you some skill points and bonus feats up to level 3, but to take it after gets you what? You'd have endurance, your two-weapon fighting in medium armor and favored enemy (something convenient).
Remember it isn't the DM's responsibility to change the game to prop up the players' characters, it's the players' responsibility to react to challenges as their characters are capable of dealing with them. If on paper they aren't as powerful as they could be it's up to them to start being clever.
I've a few questions, and a few suggestions. Questions first ...
1) *Why* the "Ranger" class in this build? Point being at level 3, I see NO significant gain here.
2) Why the feats for FULL on class stacking? Nothing else does this at ALL.
Suggestions on Ranger:
*The "tracking" ability of rangers for adding +1/level can be fully worked around, or simply re-introduced *as* a feat since you've no problems with this rout. So ... create a new feat "Track" and let it do EXACTLY the same thing. :shrugs: Yeah - steps on a class "schtick" but whatever - apparently not a big deal to you and the group, so who cares, right? ;-)
*Introduce "Tracking" as a feat to gain only +1/2 character level to the check {maintains the ranger *niche* protection}. Honestly, from what I see, a +3 boon is all that would be gained by Ranger 3, so this feat would *already* out-perform that build and you don't need ranger levels at all for it.
*Screw new feats! Just pick "Skill Focus: Survival" and you get the +3 bonus right there, and a +6 later on in the career (ie: effectively double the Ranger 3 gain w/out losing Fighter, OR Barbarian levels).
*Wild Empathy - this is just using diplomacy on an animal. It gets the same +Ranger level (or 3 in this case), so again - why bother? You can side-step this with the feat "Skill Focus: Handle Animal" and, like the Survival - get an identical bonus immediately, and a double bonus later on w/NO level sacrifice from either class.
*Combat Style Feat? - just a feat. Use fighter levels to pick it up.
*Endurance? - just a feat. Use fighter levels to pick it up if you *really* want it.
*Favored X - these can not be emulated ... but are they *that* seminal to the concept? +2's to particular skills that apply ONLY against 1 type of target, or in ONE specific terrain type = nearly useless ... unless the whole campaign = ALWAYS in this terrain and ALWAYS dealing with those enemies.
Final Thought on *why*: You're the GM, and the ONLY features that are irreplaceable are the Favored X at the lowest possible functioning level. You KNOW how the campaign will run, so you should steer the player either towards or away from Ranger based on what I'm giving you for alternatives to similar effects above. Honestly ... in that build above, the Ranger levels are literally dead weight. They bring NOTHING that can't be emulated though one of the other classes w/NO level loss for the investment on top of that.
Suggestions on Multi-Feats:
*As another poster suggested - just go w/ "+4 levels" like the practiced spell caster thing. It's just a good idea overall - one feat that lets classes stack outright is CRAZY!!! Even letting 1/2 levels stack is powerful as hell. Essentially it's like relegating a class to "unimportant" in status if you let things like that happen in your game. The flat +4 (single bonus, too, mind you) helps out the multi-class, but doesn't "give away" the class either. If you EVER want more than just that +4, you need to take the class ... this is a *good* thing, IMO, otherwise you're basically running gestalt characters. Now, operative piece of ALL of the above = your game. Run it how you like - just giving you explanation behind the scenes here.
*Specifically stated was "rage rounds" = extend rage works WOW for this, IMO. Again - a feat choice here that will help out the barbarian via the Fighter if needed. It's a GOOD feat choice for Barbs, honestly.
*Another specifically stated was "qualification for rage powers by level minimums" or something along these lines. How about introducing a BARBARIAN specific feat that lets *them* multi-class easier? Not with the +4 mechanic of Practiced Spellcaster's feat, but more along the lines of using bab instead of barbarian level to determine rage power qualifications? This way, Fighter *dips* can come back to help the barb's selection of rage powers w/out just throwing out MORE rage powers than the barbarian level would/should be entitled to - instead, he has a greater range of selection given his higher BAB from the fighter class instead?
Final thought on multi-class helping: There is *only* but so much you can do in a straight-jacketed level-based system to help out cross discipline progression. There are *out* points at which you simply need to question the benefits of the investment in the first place vs. the sacrifice of the upper level tiers of lesser class selections.
The overall drive of this character seems to be "martial/full bab" and "nature-tricks". I've shown you can manage this in several ways w/lesser feats that DO NOT replace or de-emphasize other classes.
Ranger, IMO, brings very, very little beyond a bit of sp's, and a *slightly* better Ref save (also handled w/a Feat, btw). The other things it brings are *so* marginal as to be unimportant and/or negligible. For the same 3 levels of fighter - you can get the 3 feats that will replace those features of most interest anyway - and sticking w/fighter = 1 feat/level anyway ... so why bother?
Likewise, I'm looking at Barbarian and seeing little gain EXCEPT by rage powers (Fighter will out-damage the barbarian, constantly) so beyond picking up a few tricks via rage powers - and only the levels in barb needed to get the *right* amount - why bother there? Even 1 level dip will grant that Rage boons, so progressing would *have* to be about the rage powers (that are weak as hell, but you've got house rules in play so maybe they're better). The pure "rage" itself won't progress or advance until level 11 ... 11 levels to get +1 more to hit and damage output and +1 more temporary hp/level is a LONG time to wait ...
This leaves Fighter as the key source of *boons* to the concept I'd think (mechanically anyway). IT has the feats to keep generating out and helping with the concept gaps from Ranger, AND can pick up the feat-slack of the barbarian, too. If you go w/that BAB-determination feat for Barb "level" to select rage powers, the fighter will synergize nicely for that effect as well (ie: unlocking otherwise restricted rage powers due to barb level req's), and it does it without stepping on toes of any pure-class barbarians out there (ie: they *should* have more rage powers than the multi-guy ... they invested more heavily *as* a barbarian after all, no?).
Remember it isn't the DM's responsibility to change the game to prop up the players' characters, it's the players' responsibility to react to challenges as their characters are capable of dealing with them. If on paper they aren't as powerful as they could be it's up to them to start being clever.
Now ... I TOTALLY disagree with at least half of this. Players *should* work within the game world - this is clear.
But GM's should *equally* be helping to shape and design the PC's by providing a clear sense of expectations of how the game will play out, the tone and tenor of the setting, etc, etc. You don't plan to run "Water World" and let someone run off and make a Desert-Specialized Ranger. That's just GM-ass-hattery of the highest offense, IMO.
Also, for those who say No, how would you make that multiclass thing not suck?
If I was to build a, say, barb 7, ranger 3, fighter 10, I think it would be easily outclass by any barb or ranger OR fighter 20 any day. But we do want to have our ranger/fighter/barbarian at the table- and not have it totally suck- as weird as it sounds.
A bit more detail on the concept may help the discussion along. I think encouraging a 1 level dip in either barbarian or ranger would be a mistake to your game, but there are possibly other ways to get what you're wanting without such drastic measures.
fighter/ranger/barb is not going to be weak depending on how you design it. Melee types aren't like a mage where you lose your main ability ie magic when you cross class. Let me go into more detail...
Barbarian: Rage, fast movement
Fighter: bonus feats(permanent)
Ranger: two weapon fighting/bow abilities
none of those things are severely impacted by multi-classing yourself, only real thing lose out on are animal companion levels, and rage duration/times per day. I believe is an actual feat lets your animal companion scale with your total class levels or at least +4 like practiced caster.
Further more...
Base attack for each class is +1 per level, meaning your base attack will be same if your a 20 fighter or Barb or a 10 fighter/5 barb/5 ranger.
As you can see a feat like you propose would make taking barbarian a bit useless, since get all those nice rage bonuses with out needing to take much in class itself. A prc might be better course a fighter type, gains rage abilities and animal companion bonuses prehaps? i'm not sure... but yea even with base rules his multi-classed character would be fairly decent if built right.
|
|
Now ... I TOTALLY disagree with at least half of this. Players *should* work within the game world - this is clear.
But GM's should *equally* be helping to shape and design the PC's by providing a clear sense of expectations of how the game will play out, the tone and tenor of the setting, etc, etc. You don't plan to run "Water World" and let someone run off and make a Desert-Specialized Ranger. That's just GM-ass-hattery of the highest offense, IMO.
I don't think you understood what I mean when I say that Speaker.
If you as a DM are planning on running a water world scenario and someone who knows that comes to the table with that desert-specialized ranger, why would the solution to that problem be to make a feat that makes the oceans count as a deserts?
The players should have a general idea of what the campaign or world is about and if they choose to do something usual it's up to them to make it work. They should succeed or fail on their own actions. Always be willing to offer advice, but don't play favorites by trying to prop up failed experiments.
Now ... I TOTALLY disagree with at least half of this. Players *should* work within the game world - this is clear.
But GM's should *equally* be helping to shape and design the PC's by providing a clear sense of expectations of how the game will play out, the tone and tenor of the setting, etc, etc. You don't plan to run "Water World" and let someone run off and make a Desert-Specialized Ranger. That's just GM-ass-hattery of the highest offense, IMO.
I don't think you understood what I mean when I say that Speaker.
If you as a DM are planning on running a water world scenario and someone who knows that comes to the table with that desert-specialized ranger, why would the solution to that problem be to make a feat that makes the oceans count as a deserts?
The players should have a general idea of what the campaign or world is about and if they choose to do something usual it's up to them to make it work. They should succeed or fail on their own actions. Always be willing to offer advice, but don't play favorites by trying to prop up failed experiments.
Hmm ... ok, more reasonable.
I still think that there are shades of grey areas under that general approach and a GM should *always* work to steer the player as FAR away from those concepts as possible.
Not every thing is as easy or polarized as water-world vs. desert savant, for instance.
In principal, however, I follow that - mechanical rewrites for ONE ill-advised concept at the table is generally a terrible idea (unless, say, it's a game FOR this one character period - whole different story when it's a "party of 1" though). I back that sentiment fully.
I *do* however, warn to be wary of the grey areas that could tip either way and that GM's *absolutely* must do what they can to save the player from unwanted aggravation as it'll just ruin the mood of the game as a whole.
To clear up a confusion, I never intended a feat to give rage powers, but merely to allow you qualify to some more by stacking levels from other classes. I.e: a ranger 4, barbarian 3 with intimidating glare can chose terrifying howl at barbarian 4 even though normalyl you would need barbarian 8, etc.
The rage duration stacking is redundant with the extended rage feat indeed.
Something that says like, "The character with this feat can combine their half their fighter evels to their barbarian levels for qualification of rage powers and half their barbarian levels to their fighter levels for qualification of fighter feats." And then rage power level qualification and perhaps favored enemy progression ranger done at about the same rate. Heck, make them combat feats for fun, but definitely make it two separate feats. :)
This would be the proper thing for pathfinder and what I am looking for. A true barbarian still has a high DR/- and 4 extra strength.
In this case ranger is useless except for favored ennemy and favored terrain.
Well yeah, those 2 features are the reason why ranger is coming up at all. And they will be very pertinent in the incoming campaign.
fighter/ranger/barb is not going to be weak depending on how you design it
They still will never get any med or high level ability, nevermind about capstones. The nice attack bonus and etc is not a bonus when compared to any single class level. What he is doing, is sacrifying greater and mighty rage or greater focus, specc, penetrating strike, or some 3 favored ennemies, hide in sight, spells just to get a bunch of abilities of lv7 or lower. There might be some sinergy but they definitely do not beat single class at high levels.
Now I gotta go, but I'll be back for more. Thanks for the feedback aswell, very helpful =).
A bit more detail on the concept may help the discussion along. I think encouraging a 1 level dip in either barbarian or ranger would be a mistake to your game, but there are possibly other ways to get what you're wanting without such drastic measures.
It will not be a one level dip, more like a 3/7/10 build. You are right, more detail would help, but mehhhhh, lazy GM to go over it here. I think we will try out the mechanics suggested by Morgen and give the player an Extra Rage feat as a bonus, then see how it goes from there. Me and the other players think it's fair, and if it's not, there will always be room for adjustment.
P.S:
For what it's worth, I find Extra Rage (and Extra Bardic Music, and Extra Ki) Horribly underpowered and frankly not worth a feat.
Also, I personally am from the school of thought that feats SHOULD scale. Look at Power Attack. THAT is an example of a decent feat. Look at Weapon Finesse. THAT is a decent feat.
haha Just quoting someone as a P.S would be a pretty lame way of addressing a point. No. I just agree.
For one example, in my campaign Weapon Focus scales with level to include the entire weapon focus and weapon specialization chain at appropriate BAB's
Same here. But only for fighters as to keep them (fighters) yummy. Same for penetrating strike.
Hmm, I rechecked the group's book and actually:
-Weapon focus scales to +2 at B.A.B +8 for fighters for free.
-Weapon spec and penetrating striek are available for everyone, but for fighters they scale automatically to the improved versions for free at the approppriate levels.
The idea you mentioned could be nice to help fill the 'fighters have nothing special' void when they reach spec or penetrating strike like everyone else can, but before they reach the free upgrade at the indicated B.A.B.
Okay just some thoughts one, when multiclassing barbarian extra rage goes a long way that is equivalent of 3 levels of barbarian for duration. and with fighter you will be getting lots of feats, rangers combat will allow you to ignore some of the prerequisites for some archery or two weapon feats.
I approve of the idea of making a feat that allows them to choose rage powers off of total level, you might want to consider this for fighter as well in a separate feat, unless you have your heart completely set on granting the fighter access to these upgraded feats.
Also back in 3.5 Unearthed arcana, brought up weapon groups, allowing us to take weapon focus in a group of weapons instead of just one, so I say go for it on that respect.