|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Wild Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, even when not raging, wild ragers often fight with reckless, savage abandon. A wild rager using the full-attack action can make one extra attack per round at her highest base attack bonus. Until the beginning of her next turn, however, she takes a 2 penalty on attack rolls and 4 penalty to AC. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.
It's Frenzied Berserker all over again. Zorch 'em now before they become a problem like they were in Living Greyhawk.
|
|
...or when they try to join the party, just say 'thanks but no thanks'... :)
No sale. -- This archetype is tailored made to go berserk and slaughter allies, and thereby violates the no-player-vs-player proscription.
Watch (and almost every one of these barbarians will be built exactly this way):
01 barb1 [totem archetype][wild rager archetype] WF:Greatsword, FEAT(human)
02 barb2 [Wild Fighting], Beast Totem:Lesser
...at 2nd level, this guy has four attacks (assume rage STR of 22):
2d6+9 greatsword
2d6+9 greatsword
1d6+6 claw
1d6+6 claw (ungrip/regrip weapon as free action to make natural attacks)
Crowded corridor fight at Tier 1-2, and he blows his will save after attack #1. Guess who's standing around him, and will be slaughtered?
Your character, because they're PFS legal?
|
Hmmm I reckon what looks even more 'illegal' is the four attacks you have cited.
I would have to go back and examine the mechanics, but that seems a little...far fetched? Has to be some cheeze being crafted :p
[edit]
Had a read...
They can either have 3 claw attacks, or they can have two Greatsword attacks; all attacks will be at -2 and they will take a -4 to their AC.
They cannot have both.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Your character, because they're PFS legal?I don't understand your question.
They can either have 3 claw attacks, or they can have two Greatsword attacks; all attacks will be at -2 and they will take a -4 to their AC. They cannot have both.
A beast-totem barbarian is not subject to a monk's limitation on mixing natural attacks with Flurry of Blows. They "gain" two claw attacks (which means: in addition to other attacks, which, in the context of Wild Fighter, would be two main attacks).
...But let's not get sidetracked by irrelevancies.
What matters is that a Wild Rager is required to attack the nearest creature if he fails a will save -- and we should not have that in PFS.
|
|
A Wild Rager is required to attack the nearest creature if he fails a will save[/i] -- and we should not have that in PFS.
Hey I agree it's a walking time bomb, but then its the same as any other compulsion/charm etc... just with a fairly likely chance to go off.
I guess knowing what he is you could just make sure you aren't nearby when he cracks, but sadly the banhamer might be required because the class might attarct the wrong sort of person.
|
|
Hey I agree it's a walking time bomb, but then its the same as any other compulsion/charm etc... just with a fairly likely chance to go off.
Wrong. Way wrong.
Confusion is a 4th-level spell which has only a 25% chance of requiring the target to attack the nearest creature.
A Wild Rager is automatically required to attack the nearest creature (which, if there is one, is more likely than not to be a PC ally if a different adjacent foe has just been dropped) -- no ifs, ands, or buts; and you can't shut it off.
sadly the banhamer might be required because the class might attarct the wrong sort of person.
The chance that Wild Rager will not attract the "jerk player" is an infinitesimal.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Forget I said it; as I don't want to derail the thread.
This archetype needs to get punted now before any newly-made PCs in the last few weeks have made it to 2nd level to pick up their extra attacks.
(I was around during the Living Greyhawk Frenzied Berserker fiasco; and oh, brother -- PFS does not want to have to go through that.)
|
|
It wont be an issue, I would just say as a GM, no thats violates the rules of pathfinder and override the rule and say they cannot attack a party member. BanHammers are not needed if the GM just tells the player no they can't do that, since the no attack fellow players usurps the attack closest person rule.
And how you would rule he will work?
When he should attack the nearest creature he will attack only enemies or neutral bystanders?
When Confused and "forced" to attack friends he will instead stay there babbling? Attack a enemy?
This archetype at the cost of Uncanny dodge and the drawbacks of Uncontrolled rage get the possibility to make an extra attack when doing a full attack from level 2 onward and the possibility to reroll the save against mind affecting spells (and becoming confuse as for Uncontrolled rage.
If you remove the drawbacks of Uncontrolled rage the class get a serious boost.
|
|
If you remove the drawbacks of Uncontrolled rage the class get a serious boost.
Unquestionably, since Wild Rager is a serious contender for DPR Champ of the game; I could see one of these monsters Enlarged at 7th or 8th as a Barb4/Alch2[ragechemist]/figh(?) with Boots of Speed, Amulet of Mighty Fists(Furious), Furious greatsword and a Pale Green Prism Ioun; skips the Beast Totem line for Reckless Abandon +2 and Invulnerable. He has four greatsword attacks and three Feral Mutagen natural attacks, and all but one of them them are at primary bonus. -2 for Wild Fighting but getting +10 from other stuff, and dumping his will save into the grave.
It's a veritable catalyst of completely irresponsible uber cheese.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It wont be an issue, I would just say as a GM, no thats violates the rules of pathfinder and override the rule and say they cannot attack a party member. BanHammers are not needed if the GM just tells the player no they can't do that, since the no attack fellow players usurps the attack closest person rule.
Step 1: Build Wild Rager
Step 2: RAAAAGE!Step 3: Kill something.
Step 4: "Throw" Will save.
Step 5: Be confused for 1 round.
Step 5.5: If Confustion Result is not "Attack Closest Enemy," wait until after round of nonmurder to continue to Step 6.
Step 6: Return to Step 3 until all enemies are dead.
Step 7: Have friends make you aware of more enemies via kiting or other various methods.
Step 8: Return to Step 3.
This has been "How to Finish Multiple Rooms with only 1 Round of Rage Used!"
And I meant little-to-no snark in this. Just simply showing how handling the class like that could mean "Lost Story/Prestige NPCs," at worst, unless you would count them as "Don't Be a Wildly Raging Jerk" exemptions as well.
|
I mentioned this weeks ago when the PDF was first released. I was also familiar with the frenzied berserker in Living Greyhawk. I'm surprised that the VC's haven't been more proactive in restricting approaches which have been a problem in previous organized play. However, the only VC I know personally is Russell and while I know he was active in Living Greyhawk, I'm not sure whether he was involved during the 3.0 FB days.
|
|
I get the impression that whomever built this class was under the assumption that the first clause of the phrase, "For the remainder of her current turn, she attacks the nearest creature...," represented an impediment on the destructive potential (to allies) of the class ability. -- But as demonstrated above, this is severely not the case; as it is easy to get a massive number of attacks and to get the reach and/or Enlarge to deploy them.
In a typical PFS module room/dungeon fight, it is likely that a barbarian build will have a lot of attacks and have at least 10' reach (both absolutely by mid-level is not right away at low level). A Wild Rager with half the party under her melee threat will continue to attack PC ally after PC ally until out of attacks for that "current turn".
|
|
I get the impression that whomever built this class was under the assumption that the first clause of the phrase, "For the remainder of her current turn, she attacks the nearest creature...," represented an impediment on the destructive potential (to allies) of the class ability. -- But as demonstrated above, this is severely not the case; as it is easy to get a massive number of attacks and to get the reach and/or Enlarge to deploy them.
In a typical PFS module room/dungeon fight, it is likely that a barbarian build will have a lot of attacks and have at least 10' reach (both absolutely by mid-level is not right away at low level). A Wild Rager with half the party under her melee threat will continue to attack PC ally after PC ally until out of attacks for that "current turn".
So the party makes sure to be out of the barbarian's reach before they get a full attack... so long as an enemy isn't starting the combat within reach, there's at least one round where they'll only get a single attack (unless they take cleaving finish, of course, but by the time that's an option, a one shot kill shouldn't be an issue against anyone who's willing to stand near the enemy).
|
|
I mentioned this weeks ago when the PDF was first released. I was also familiar with the frenzied berserker in Living Greyhawk. I'm surprised that the VC's haven't been more proactive in restricting approaches which have been a problem in previous organized play. However, the only VC I know personally is Russell and while I know he was active in Living Greyhawk, I'm not sure whether he was involved during the 3.0 FB days.
To be clear, Venture-Captains do not make rules.
|
|
So the party makes sure to be out of the barbarian's reach before they get a full attack.
You mean leave the module?
Well, I guess that's an option.
(Note that there's no intrinsic reason the Wild Rager couldn't be an archer barbarian who'll just gun down each next-closest "creature" after dropping the last -- the text doesn't mandate that he make melee attacks.)
|
|
You mean leave the module?
Well, I guess that's an option.
(Note that there's no intrinsic reason the Wild Rager couldn't be an archer barbarian who'll just gun down each next-closest "creature" after dropping the last.)
No, I mean be beyond 15' of the barbarian.
You're right that an archer wild rager could be an option for someone who wanted to abuse the system... but I think that any player who goes out of their way to ensure that they'll be able to attack their party members would fall under the disruptive player description and be handled that way. I don't think there's a need to remove an option entirely because some people can't follow the don't be a jerk rule.
|
|
I'm still stuck on how this 4x attacks/round works... given the player is using those 'claws' to hold a 2h weapon.
"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type".
Seems either/or to me, none of this 'free swapping' caper.
|
|
I think that any player who goes out of their way to ensure that they'll be able to attack their party members would fall under the disruptive player description and be handled that way.
This point of the thread is that any Wild Rager build meets that criteria by definition due to the mechanics of "Uncontrolled Rage".
Each and every time he drops an opponent, he must make a will-save or automatically spooge whomever's closest with the rest of his attacks.
-- It's as if he had Leadership for an evil sorcerer companion who, every time his boss killed something, would cast a hypothetical "Greater Confusion" on him and make him go auto-berserk on his allies.
|
|
I'm still stuck on how this 4x attacks/round works... given the player is using those 'claws' to hold a 2h weapon.
"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type".
Seems either/or to me, none of this 'free swapping' caper.
Feral Mutagen: ...These are primary attacks and are made using the alchemist’s full base attack bonus.
Beast Totem, Lesser: ...These attacks are considered primary attacks and are made at the barbarian’s full base attack bonus.
-- To me it's emphatically clear that these class options override game mechanics elsewhere which would otherwise relegate them to secondary attacks.
(This part of the discussion should be moved to the rules forum, as well as the claws/held-weapons argument, which has already been discussed there.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mentioned this weeks ago when the PDF was first released. I was also familiar with the frenzied berserker in Living Greyhawk. I'm surprised that the VC's haven't been more proactive in restricting approaches which have been a problem in previous organized play. However, the only VC I know personally is Russell and while I know he was active in Living Greyhawk, I'm not sure whether he was involved during the 3.0 FB days.
My fellow VC also commented to this, but it's worth repeating. Venture Captains can act as your ears and voice to the campaign coordinator (currently Mark Moreland acting in the interim), but we do not make policy. We cannot turn away a player who has made a legal player any more than any GM can. What we can do is note that there is a concern and pass it along (as Mark Garringer has done).
I'll note that I've seen at least four cases of PvP being built into various modules, usually by some kind of confusion mechanic. Confusion based PvP is not unheard of in PFS and in fact has been used as a major story mechanism in at least one module. It's worth reviewing, and worth noting, but it is incorrect to refer to all confusion based PvP as "against the rules."
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those powers just give you a natural attack. You still have to follow the rules on how to use them. Hence (assuming you only have 2 arms) you either get your iterative attacks with a two-handed weapon, your iterative attacks with a one handed weapon + 1 claw at -5 BAB, or two claw attacks at BAB. That's it.Feral Mutagen: ...These are primary attacks and are made using the alchemist’s full base attack bonus.
Beast Totem, Lesser: ...These attacks are considered primary attacks and are made at the barbarian’s full base attack bonus.
-- To me it's emphatically clear that these class options override game mechanics elsewhere which would otherwise relegate them to secondary attacks.
(This part of the discussion should be moved to the rules forum, as well as the claws/held-weapons argument, which has already been discussed there.)
Entirely correct. These abilities grant you natural attacks; these natural attacks are considered primary attacks, because all natural attacks must be designated as primary or secondary.
If you attack using only natural attacks, you take all primary natural attacks at your full base attack bonus and all secondary attacks at your full bonus -5. You do not take iterative attacks for high BAB in this instance.
If you attack with manufactured weapons or seek to use iterative attacks from a high BAB even without a weapon, all your natural attacks are treated as secondary attacks for that full attack action. You also cannot use a natural claw attack if you are wielding a weapon or holding an item in that hand.
The feral mutagen and beast totem powers do not override these rules in any way.
|
The way i understand, the cheeze, is you attack with the weapon , then drop it. Then attack with the claws, he talks about wealding and unwealding, I would buy that you could attack with the great weapon then drop it, then get your claw attacks as a seconday. But i do not think this is legle. I think is build works with a bite attack. You will have to make it seconday. I think the power lets you make a bite attack in attiong to your normal attacks.
Well I love paying FB or what every you want to call them. I also love to play with them. They are a great why to deal a lot of dameage. But you need a controller.
As a gm I woold explain to the other players how the mecanic works. Know on will go any where near the barb!
But you are write when a the guy running it is not very skilled, and the other player have not seen this before a ALLPK can happen. but i would then find a way to kill the barb also. And tell all other groups in your area about this player and your VC.
There are a lot of ways to control players like that and charatures.
One of my favrate charatures was a human fighter that found and curst sword. The sword was always trying to kill the paladin. I did kill a few troublem charactures. That is also why I like playing controller type characters.
|
|
Indeed.
The rules do not allow 'four attacks at second level'.
The most you get is THREE primary claw attacks, assuming they are all claw attacks and no weapon is involved. Being able to drop or ready weapons as a free action is neither here nor there, otherwise evryone would take quickdraw and throw five hundred spears a round...
So going Wild you can either:
* Attack with the 2 handed weapon twice.
* Attack with a one handed weapon twice, and make a secondary off hand attack with a claw.
* Or claw three times all as primary.
All of the above combo's are at -2 penalty to hit , and drop your ac by 4.
Whilst this is a sideline to the original debate, it was pointed out in the OP as a critical factor, so I believe it warranted full discussion.
|
|
Draw or sheathe a weapon, it is a move action, if you have a +1 BAB then you can do it with a free action in a move action, SO you can not make a full attack action with out QD feat.
beast totem, lessor, it gives a claw attack, now where does it say that it gives an extra attack, just that they can be used as your primanry weapon, so get 2 claw attack with two weapon fighting. It is a very intersting power. But it can not be added to the above cheeze.
|
...or when they try to join the party, just say 'thanks but no thanks'... :)
I can tell you right now, if it remains legal, this will be my stance.
I played in 3.0 with a Frenzied Berserker PC in the mix at our local RPGA group, and he was asked not to bring the character back around after sitting down and explaining that the cleric had to either prepare calm emotions for most of their second level slots or run the risk of him killing us all. I'm not keen on doing it again and many players who understand the risks this archetype presents will probably take the same approach.
|
|
To be honest, I don't understand why they keep persisting in making anti-social classes like this. Fairly certain we had the same issue back in 2nd ed... I can't 100% place it, but it may have been an issue with the 1st ed Barb as well (can't find my old Unearthed Arcana atm).
Really design people?, really?
|
|
I would say that their are plenty of other classes that have similar capabilities to do accidental damage to their own parties. Alchemists, sorcerers, and wizards all have the explosive power to "accidentally" hit allies on a regular basis.
I've been running one of the mid-level modules and one of my players has opted to build a wild rager for it. Specifically a Barbarian 4 (wild rager)/Alchemist 4 (ragechemist). When he is damaged, at the end of his turn he has to make a Will save or take an Intelligence penalty and a penalty to his will save. When he knocks someone down, he has to make a will save or suffer the effects of his rage that have been listed in this thread.
He has a very strong offense. His rage, the mutagen, along with the extra attack that wild rager grants have given him the capability to dole out a lot of hurt.
On the other hand, the party is aware of this and pretty darn cautious that he might go berserk on them. One comment made by another of the players as to the situation was something like such, "We didn't bother preparing to take out these bad guys, we knew we would be able to beat them down with our standard prepared stuff. We prepared for his character and have our contingency plans prepared for him."
For his part, even if enjoys that class ability giving him free rage and cheap intimidate (against his party), he has been been playing it careful. When a battle broke out into a crowd market he actively chose not to activate the rage else get random innocents caught up in his frenzy. When the chance to just destroy a random mook came up he similarly chose not to rage (even though he had plenty rounds of rage left) because it was unnecessary and only put his party members at excess risk. I expect that though most of his battle choices, he takes actions specifically to minimize and negate the threat he poses to his own party and the party is perfectly happy to let him do that. When creating his character he chose Iron Will and other save boosting items and options to minimize the danger he would put the party in while still retaining his significant damage bonus.
There is another relevant incident I had running a game recently. In one PFS scenario, at the start of the battle, the party's barbarian (who is not a wild rager) was caught in the enemies charm/compulsion magic. The parties immediate concern was what the barbarian may do to hinder them (maybe stand in their way, aid the enemy, possibly attack them). With his strength, they weren't taking any chances. The bard took him out with hideous laughter. When he got over it, the bard hit him again. When he recovered once again, the witch used her slumber hex on him. Even when he wasn't made to threaten the party, he managed to easily become a grave threat to them because of an enemy enchantment. In that case, any highly offensive character could become a grave threat to the party by minimizing their Will save and maximizing their damaging power.
I do agree that the wild rager as potential as a tool for a jerk player. But I would say that there are other classes that fit that bill too. If the player is really setting up their own party to be damaged by themselves, I think that is less a problem with the class and more one with the player. A problem that is best dealt with by removing the player from the table when it seems that they are just being a jerk.
|
|
The issue, in part, is that in the pickup style that non-home PFS games tends to represent, it is extremely difficult for a random party to handle a party member who tends to wind up taking out the party.
Alchemists won't do much damage, really, with their splash.
Sorcerors & wizards will get ostracized, home gfame or public game, if they are too wild with their AoE spells.
However, unless the S/W deliberately attacks the party with their fireball, they cannot hope to equal the damage output of a "well-built" Wild Rager.
2d6+9 at second level is a significant number, potentially an outright kill on a crit.
2d6+9 = 16 points on average.
2nd level Fighter-boy, with the recommended 14 Con has only 20 hit points at second level.
And, of course, it is entirely possible that 2nd level Wild Rager is adventuring with a party composed of mainly 1st level PCs. That moves the damage from dangerous to deadly, since a 1st level Cleric might have as few as 8 hp with a 10 Con, well within a near-average damage roll.
|
|
And, of course, it is entirely possible that 2nd level Wild Rager is adventuring with a party composed of mainly 1st level PCs. That moves the damage from dangerous to deadly, since a 1st level Cleric might have as few as 8 hp with a 10 Con, well within a near-average damage roll.
While I definitely agree that a 2nd level Wild Rager could easily wipe out a party made up of first level characters, I can't help but feel that a Cleric with a 10 CON has a limited life span to begin with =D.
|
|
Depending on your PFS DM, you may have problems casting any offensive spells including Hideous Laughter and the Slumber hex on party members due to the no PVP rule.
Should not be a problem if it is clearly a way to disable a character who is not in control of themselves. Might be different if you were then stealing all of their stuff or something :)
|
|
This archetype sounds fun if it were a home game, so I don't blame the designers, Ultimate Combat wasn't made specifically for PFS, right? The Wild Rager seems terrible for PFS though, and seems open to abuse.
I agree for home campaigns of NPCs the wild rager has the potential to add a lot of flavour.
For PFS? no. last thing i want to do is sit down at a con with a wis 7 cha 14 wild rager running glaive and combat reflexs
|
|
Everyone who is calling out Mike on his cheese of being able to get 4 attacks a round is correct.
You either get your natural attacks at full BAB, your Two-Handed Weapon + interative attacks, or your One-Handed Weapon + Interative attacks + 1 Claw at BAB -5. This is how it works if you wish to wield a weapon and have natural attacks. Exceptions would include the alternate half-orc Bite attack, in which case you would get your Two-Handed weapon + interative attacks + Bite at BAB -5.
Additionally, for the argument of using a free action to drop your weapon or unwieldy with one hand, then with the other, or whatever cockamamie crap you wanna try to do, would not work.
You cannot split an attack action or full attack with other actions, unless those other actions specifically say you can. You cannot perform a free action in the middle of a full attack action. You would do this before or after your full attack.
So there are two rules that would negate all these extra attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed.
The rules do not allow 'four attacks at second level'.
The most you get is THREE primary claw attacks, assuming they are all claw attacks and no weapon is involved. Being able to drop or ready weapons as a free action is neither here nor there, otherwise evryone would take quickdraw and throw five hundred spears a round...
So going Wild you can either:
* Attack with the 2 handed weapon twice.
* Attack with a one handed weapon twice, and make a secondary off hand attack with a claw.
* Or claw three times all as primary.
All of the above combo's are at -2 penalty to hit , and drop your ac by 4.
Whilst this is a sideline to the original debate, it was pointed out in the OP as a critical factor, so I believe it warranted full discussion.
Where does the 3rd claw attack come from? Does he have a 3rd arm?
Just because the claws are considered primary, does not give the natural attacks BAB + interative attacks. You still have to use them like monsters, in that if you get two claw attacks, you get both at full BAB (unless otherwise stated by the ability), and that's it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets also remember, that not all archetypes or prestige classes are actually appropriate for adventurers or player characters.
Many of these new archetypes and prestige classes (why weren't there any in Ultimate Combat?) are clearly meant for the GM's to create NPC's out of, and not for PC's.
That being said, in PFS, there isn't a way for a GM to explain as much.
|
|
Moving away from the bad attack mechanics...Mike is right in that the archetype will cause trouble, especially when some players will see it as breaking pvp. From a rules as is perspective I would not say that it should be banned however, as the archetype uses the confusion spell as its mechanic (which is not a banned spell). I would say that players need to think before playing this archetype and try to build in safe guards against killing your allies (ditch your Char, bump your will, get a will re-roll, etc).