For those who have gotten the PDF of the advanced player's guide, I would like to point out that after buying 3 rage powers and being at least level 10 you can now, once again, pounce.
At first I felt the "face-palm", but after thinking about it, I came to some conclusions.
First, you don't get it off the bat like the lion totem barbarian.
Second, the barbarian's damage output hasn't been increased, but has been made more viable for dealing damage in specific situations.
Third, the rage powers here do not exactly support the multi-attack two weapon fighting monsters we saw in 3.5, rather they give claw attacks, and some natural armor bonus.
So what are your thoughts?
Reading the title, my first thought was the same as yours -- "face palm".
As a 10th level ability requiring several weaker rage abilities first, though, it's not so bad. I expected you to say it was one of the archetype features. Lion Totem Barbarian was horribly, horribly broken.
I think the reason it was abusive in 3.5 wasnt the ability to pounce, it was what you could do when charging (i forget the name of the feat that let you drop AC for damage bonus when charging). Pounce just made it more apparent. Just granting the pounce ability with the current pathfinder barbarian should be just fine, and actually lends itself well to the class. The Barb needed a boost if you ask me, and this will definately help.
I think the reason it was abusive in 3.5 wasnt the ability to pounce, it was what you could do when charging (i forget the name of the feat that let you drop AC for damage bonus when charging).
No, the reason it was abusive in 3.5 is that you could get Pounce with any character with just a single level dip into Barbarian (plus pick up rage, a d12 hit die, decent skill points and class skills, etc to boot).
That's not true with this version, so it's really not a big deal. Barbarians needed help.
|
This is off topic a bit but can you give a few details on what the new ranger combat styles are> Oh, and is there a spell-less ranger variant? If so, can you give details?
Thanks!!!
The spell-less ranger is called the Skirmisher, and replaces spellcasting with a series of "tricks" that are a series of abilities you can only use a specific number of times per day. I think there's a little over a page of tricks, too, so there's a lot to choose from. I'm making it the default ranger in my campaign setting. I always thought spellcasting rangers were dumb.
|
The spell-less ranger is called the Skirmisher, and replaces spellcasting with a series of "tricks" that are a series of abilities you can only use a specific number of times per day. I think there's a little over a page of tricks, too, so there's a lot to choose from. I'm making it the default ranger in my campaign setting. I always thought spellcasting rangers were dumb.This is off topic a bit but can you give a few details on what the new ranger combat styles are> Oh, and is there a spell-less ranger variant? If so, can you give details?
Thanks!!!
Interesting, thanks! I can't wait to check it out.
It probably goes without saying that I also never liked Rangers casting spells ...
I think the reason it was abusive in 3.5 wasnt the ability to pounce, it was what you could do when charging (i forget the name of the feat that let you drop AC for damage bonus when charging). Pounce just made it more apparent. Just granting the pounce ability with the current pathfinder barbarian should be just fine, and actually lends itself well to the class. The Barb needed a boost if you ask me, and this will definately help.
That is two feats:
Shocktrooper (tactical feat in Complete Warrior, trade AC instead of hit bonus for power attack). You must Power attack for minimun 5.Leap Attack: when charging you can jump to increase Power attack damage.
As a 10th level ability requiring several weaker rage abilities first, though, it's not so bad. I expected you to say it was one of the archetype features. Lion Totem Barbarian was horribly, horribly broken.
Not really. The default situation, where all it takes to cut a melee type's damage output in half or less is to move ten feet per round (which is hardly a brisk walk) is just outright silly. Pounce just solved a really stupid problem that needed to be fixed with all melee types to begin with.
Not really.
Yes, really. As a 1st level ability that replaced an easily-done-without class feature, it was broken. As a generic concept, it's fine. It made dipping into barbarian a basic requirement to have a viable melee character, and made monks and paladins even worse than they already were (because they had conflicting alignment requirements that prevented them from dipping barbarian).
The default situation, where all it takes to cut a melee type's damage output in half or less is to move ten feet per round (which is hardly a brisk walk) is just outright silly.
Not really, since it also cuts the moving critter's damage output by half or more.
Yes, really. As a 1st level ability that replaced an easily-done-without class feature, it was broken. As a generic concept, it's fine. It made dipping into barbarian a basic requirement to have a viable melee character, and made monks and paladins even worse than they already were (because they had conflicting alignment requirements that prevented them from dipping barbarian).
It is better to have a necessary dip than a nonfunctioning archetype.
Just because there is a single ability that must be taken does not make it overpowered; it can just as easily be the case that there is something seriously wrong with everything around that ability. The lack of melee mobility is a massive failing.
Darkstalker is the same way; any stealth character needs Darkstalker at higher levels in order to actually be able to perform stealth at all in the face of all the supersenses that would otherwise automatically detect them no matter how high their stealth skills. Darkstalker is not overpowered; it's the glut of unreasonable supersenses that automatically beat stealth that are the problem.
Not really, since it also cuts the moving critter's damage output by half or more.
If and only if they're relying on that same borked melee rather than magic or Manyshot or standard action maneuvers or any number of supernatural abilities that monsters are liable to have.
If and only if they're relying on that same borked melee rather than ... Manyshot or standard action maneuvers or any number of supernatural abilities that monsters are liable to have.
All of those deal less damage than melee full attacks, in general (some exceptions apply, of course, such as dragons' breath weapons). There's also the fact that there are ways to prevent enemies from moving more than 5', ways to punish that movement with additional damage, and ways to full attack at 10'+ range with melee attacks.
"Not if they cast spells" is a valid response, except that "they cast spells" instantly means they're better than melee in all respects in 3.5 anyway.
"Not if they cast spells" is a valid response, except that "they cast spells" instantly means they're better than melee in all respects in 3.5 anyway.
...
You're not seeing the blatant, glowing, neon internal inconsistency here, where you're admitting magic is flat better than melee, then panning one of the few abilities that give melee a leg up as broken? *Facepalm.*
"Not if they cast spells" is a valid response, except that "they cast spells" instantly means they're better than melee in all respects in 3.5 anyway....
You're not seeing the blatant, glowing, neon internal inconsistency here, where you're admitting magic is flat better than melee, then panning one of the few abilities that give melee a leg up as broken? *Facepalm.*
Will you please stop lying about what I have said? I quite explicitly said that pounce is not broken. I said that lion totem barbarian is broken.
"Not if they cast spells" is a valid response, except that "they cast spells" instantly means they're better than melee in all respects in 3.5 anyway....
You're not seeing the blatant, glowing, neon internal inconsistency here, where you're admitting magic is flat better than melee, then panning one of the few abilities that give melee a leg up as broken? *Facepalm.*
One thing that helps in PFRPG is the higher DC of acrobatics needed to avoid an AoO when moving away, step up, higher DC on defensive casting.
A single attack can still be very useful against non-combat type, you can charge and get a +2 to hit while the AC penalty matters little and PA freely, vital strike added to that, altogether the one attack is still the best by far, I just wished vital strike was only one feat instead of a chain.
If by broken you mean 'retarded class feature for a character that gets no benefit out of it for five levels unless he is TWFing'.
Will you please stop lying about what I have said? I quite explicitly said that pounce is not broken. I said that lion totem barbarian is broken.
Among other things, yes.
I regard an absolutely mandatory multiclass as being broken. No character should be forced to multiclass to be effective (especially in Pathfinder, where multiclassing is horribly punishing).
I think the reason it was abusive in 3.5 wasnt the ability to pounce, it was what you could do when charging (i forget the name of the feat that let you drop AC for damage bonus when charging). Pounce just made it more apparent. Just granting the pounce ability with the current pathfinder barbarian should be just fine, and actually lends itself well to the class. The Barb needed a boost if you ask me, and this will definately help.That is two feats:
Shocktrooper (tactical feat in Complete Warrior, trade AC instead of hit bonus for power attack). You must Power attack for minimun 5.
Leap Attack: when charging you can jump to increase Power attack damage.
Shocktrooper-lite is available to Pathfinder barbarians now via the reckless abandon rage power, just FYI.
I just wished vital strike was only one feat instead of a chain.Amen. Or better yet, part of the BAB rules. Then Full BAB would really mean something.
I could agree with that. I have been thinking of ruling vital strike one feat and just have it scale but unsure as they would make it an almost must have feat.
A bit off topic but... Anything on the Cavalier? Please?
ya know we need one big spoiler thread as I have picked up a few from like 5 diff threads now.
ya know we need one big spoiler thread as I have picked up a few from like 5 diff threads now.
I think so too... I want SPOILERS!
|
I regard an absolutely mandatory multiclass as being broken.
Agreed on all points. If something is so good that no one passes it up, either tone it down or make it not cost resources. (Natural Spell, Improved Natural Attack, Vital Strike, I'd make them part of the combar rules or class features.)
I could agree with that. I have been thinking of ruling vital strike one feat and just have it scale but unsure as they would make it an almost must have feat.
Hence my stance of rolling it into the BAB rules. Having it be all one scaling feat is my compromise to people who want it to cost resources. It doesn't come into play until 6th level, and there are enough other decent feats that anyone but a fighter is going to have to weigh it against other options. Might be too much for some people, I acknowledge.
I do kinda like the idea of rolling it into full BAB. That would upset some folks as then the cleric and druid types could not match it but I would be ok with that as Full BAB classes should be better at smashing things
Might experiment with that at some point
I could agree with that. I have been thinking of ruling vital strike one feat and just have it scale but unsure as they would make it an almost must have feat.I just wished vital strike was only one feat instead of a chain.Amen. Or better yet, part of the BAB rules. Then Full BAB would really mean something.
Not more so than power attack, I think characters with reach and smaller weapons will have less use for it not having the feat by default is good for having warrior types do some other things in between as well, like drinking a potion or cast a spell in between when nobody is near them.
I do kinda like the idea of rolling it into full BAB. That would upset some folks as then the cleric and druid types could not match it but I would be ok with that as Full BAB classes should be better at smashing things
Might experiment with that at some point
You know I think it could just be rolled into BAB without any issues.
Though I might change the effect some... I've been thinking about having it do the following:
Vital strike does precision damage = 50% of normal damage.
Improved vital strike does precision damage = 100% of normal damage.
Greater vital strike does precision damage = 200% of normal damage.
However I would probably not allow the vital strikes with spirited charge... not sure however.
Clerics should just be happy they get multiple attacks. :)
That and armor.
(especially in Pathfinder, where multiclassing is horribly punishing).I agree with this statement entirely.
The spell-less ranger is called the Skirmisher, and replaces spellcasting with a series of "tricks" that are a series of abilities you can only use a specific number of times per day. I think there's a little over a page of tricks, too, so there's a lot to choose from. I'm making it the default ranger in my campaign setting. I always thought spellcasting rangers were dumb.This is off topic a bit but can you give a few details on what the new ranger combat styles are> Oh, and is there a spell-less ranger variant? If so, can you give details?
Thanks!!!
I agree. The spell casting seemed out of place to me. I love the KQ version with its talents. This sounds similar
Clerics should just be happy they get multiple attacks. :)That and armor.
Plus the ability to cast in heavy with just a feat.
For those who have gotten the PDF of the advanced player's guide, I would like to point out that after buying 3 rage powers and being at least level 10 you can now, once again, pounce.
At first I felt the "face-palm", but after thinking about it, I came to some conclusions.
First, you don't get it off the bat like the lion totem barbarian.
Second, the barbarian's damage output hasn't been increased, but has been made more viable for dealing damage in specific situations.
Third, the rage powers here do not exactly support the multi-attack two weapon fighting monsters we saw in 3.5, rather they give claw attacks, and some natural armor bonus.So what are your thoughts?
I'd like so more info on this !!!
I guess I just can't wait to get my hands on the APG, so i'll ask you.
What do you mean by claw attacks and natural armor? I suppose it means that to get the "pounce" rage power (once per rage yes?) you must have the animal fury first, the some new animal fury ++ which provides claw attacks, and also some natural armor rage power?
Then the pounce is also limited to being used with the claws (using bab-iterative attacks) + animal fury bite attack ? So it's impossible to full-attack on a charge with, say, a two-handed weapon, as it was possible under the 3.5 pounce?
-Jelly
I just wished vital strike was only one feat instead of a chain.Amen. Or better yet, part of the BAB rules. Then Full BAB would really mean something.
Interesting Idea, I might yoink that as a houserule for my games.
Iterative attacks have long had the problem of requiring a full attack to work - this is why archers are so powerful in Pathfinder, because their full attack is easier to access.
What makes this aggravating is that melee don't really need to be punished. If fighters could full attack everything as a standard action forever, they still wouldn't be "broken" or "overpowered."
I agree that lion totem barbarian is broken, but not in the sense people tend to use it. Lion Totem Barbarian is broken in that it's terrible yet neccesary. It's the string beans you need to eat before your delicious ice cream of not sucking in combat.
|
|
I'd like so more info on this !!!
I guess I just can't wait to get my hands on the APG, so i'll ask you.
What do you mean by claw attacks and natural armor? I suppose it means that to get the "pounce" rage power (once per rage yes?) you must have the animal fury first, the some new animal fury ++ which provides claw attacks, and also some natural armor rage power?
Then the pounce is also limited to being used with the claws (using bab-iterative attacks) + animal fury bite attack ? So it's impossible to full-attack on a charge with, say, a two-handed weapon, as it was possible under the 3.5 pounce?
-Jelly
Beast Totem has three levels:
Lesser gives claw attacks. Regular gives escalating NA that can be taken at 6. Greater gives pounce whenever raging, increases the claw damage (d6>d8) and makes them x3 crit weapons at 10th.
Pounce lets you make a full attack, but pathfinder has made it very suboptimal to attack with both natural weapons and manufactured weapons. You could charge and iterate with your sword, but the sword attacks take TWF penalties and the natural attacks take both the TWF penalties and the secondary natural attack penalties. It is a far better idea to pounce with just natural weapons.
As for biting, if you're a half-orc, APG gives you two options for gaining a bite attack outside of raging. You gain give up Ferocity for a primary bite attack or spend a feat to get a secondary bite attack.
I agree that lion totem barbarian is broken, but not in the sense people tend to use it. Lion Totem Barbarian is broken in that it's terrible yet neccesary. It's the string beans you need to eat before your delicious ice cream of not sucking in combat.
This is what I meant, for the record. I apologize for any poor communication that mislead people as to my meaning.
For the record, there's apparently a Fighter archetype in the APG that can full attack as a standard action at higher levels.
I'd like so more info on this !!!
I guess I just can't wait to get my hands on the APG, so i'll ask you.
What do you mean by claw attacks and natural armor? I suppose it means that to get the "pounce" rage power (once per rage yes?) you must have the animal fury first, the some new animal fury ++ which provides claw attacks, and also some natural armor rage power?
Then the pounce is also limited to being used with the claws (using bab-iterative attacks) + animal fury bite attack ? So it's impossible to full-attack on a charge with, say, a two-handed weapon, as it was possible under the 3.5 pounce?
-Jelly
Beast Totem has three levels:
Lesser gives claw attacks. Regular gives escalating NA that can be taken at 6. Greater gives pounce whenever raging, increases the claw damage (d6>d8) and makes them x3 crit weapons at 10th.
Pounce lets you make a full attack, but pathfinder has made it very suboptimal to attack with both natural weapons and manufactured weapons. You could charge and iterate with your sword, but the sword attacks take TWF penalties and the natural attacks take both the TWF penalties and the secondary natural attack penalties. It is a far better idea to pounce with just natural weapons.
As for biting, if you're a half-orc, APG gives you two options for gaining a bite attack outside of raging. You gain give up Ferocity for a primary bite attack or spend a feat to get a secondary bite attack.
How did the rule change from 3.5 to pathfinder? I am not seeing it.
I'd be perfectly willing to go with full attacks from Melees as standard actions, and charges only allowing 1 attack at +2/-2, with all them feats multiplying the hit.
And no Pounce. Sure, sign me right up!
it's the combo of full attacks + dmg multiplied Power Attacking uberstrikes that makes Pounce dangerous...it can only be combined with Charges, but ooooo, what you could do with charge dmg across multiple attacks!
==Aelryinth
|
|
I put together a DPR build in the olympics thread to demonstrate how nasty the pounce barbarian can be. Give it a look.
Further, haven't seen the book yet but maybe multiclassing got better- a Pouncing barbarian 10/2 handed fighter 10 with overhand chop/backswing would be scary.
There are a lot of L20 character builds that are scary. I'm not seeing that as a bad thing.