Is there a reason why your post is mean-spirited and personal?
Did you read the post I was responding to? Go read it since you seem to clearly see when a post is mean-spirited.
I responded the way I did because I felt the post I responded to was mean-spirited towards me.
When players try to utilize mechanics they know are beyond what the game can reasonably support to make my life as a DM miserable, I have zero problem doing the same. So why do you feel it is ok for a player to completely destroy the story by using overpowered mechanics, but not the DM?
Are you biased solely towards the DM or do you see the need for the mechanics to faciliate story telling that is attractive for both the DM and the players?
I see people seem to think is about AM BARBARIAN's build. It isn't.
I have a level 20 barbarian in my game with regular pounce. Regular pounce is too powerful in the hands of a regular barbarian.
Here is how the fights go. It doesn't really matter if there is a surprise round or not.
1. Monster attacks or party attacks. Depends on initiative.
2. Everyone else goes.
3. Barbarian pounces. Gets full attack and is in melee range.
Does Greatsword 2d6+62 (+18 str +18 PA +5 weap +21 raging brutality)
Average 69 a hit
Att roll: +20 BAB +5 weap +2 charge +6 reckless abandon -6 PA +12 str
=+39/34/29/24
Usuall hits 2 or 3 tise for roughly 200 points of damage. +5 weapon penetrates all DR.
4. Monster retaliates and deals with Come and Get Me.
Each attack +37 to hit and 2d6+41 dam
Monster half dead or more before it knows what happened.
5. Monster deals about half this amount of damage and has no way to get through the barbarian's DR. And barbarian saves are so high no spell can really stop the barbarian either.
The synergies are nightmarish. No other class has abilities like this. None of the other martial characters have all these abilities. And the barbarian has been using them since lvl 12.
Limiting the Pounce from Greater Beast Totem is merely one step in bringing this under control. The other would be putting some kind of limit on Come and Get Me. Though I'm doubtful they will ever limit Come and Get Me as Buhlman seems fine with it. I find it troubling. I can deal with it, but it requires I play enemy monsters as though they already know the barbarian has the ability. I don't care for that type of metagaming.
The AM BARBARIAN is pounce taken to absurd levels. Pounce was already troublesome with iterative attacks as is. The party uses the barbarian like a heat seeking missile buffing him up with haste and fly and letting him charge away doing insane amounts of damage. He has a ring of freedom of movement to ensure grapple and the like can't slow him down.
Is there a reason why your post is mean-spirited and personal?Did you read the post I was responding to? Go read it since you seem to clearly see when a post is mean-spirited.
I responded the way I did because I felt the post I responded to was mean-spirited towards me.
When players try to utilize mechanics they know are beyond what the game can reasonably support to make my life as a DM miserable, I have zero problem doing the same. So why do you feel it is ok for a player to completely destroy the story by using overpowered mechanics, but not the DM?
Are you biased solely towards the DM or do you see the need for the mechanics to faciliate story telling that is attractive for both the DM and the players?
DM is not deus. If you want to dictate how combat goes, since you are omniscient and know what's the most fun for players even when clearly they don't, then stop using dice and just tell your immaculate story. If you want to play a cooperative game, you have to cooperate with your players.
If you tell a player that he can't play a ragepounce barbarian before he creates a character, that's fine. If you let him play one, and then punish him both as a player and a character for having the wherewithal to disturb your pristine story and perfect balance, you're a jerk.
So the party is spending actions casting 3rd level spells on your Barbarian rather than using 9th level spells to rewrite reality and win in the first round. It sounds to me like you have issues with teamwork :P
Granted the Barbarian could, if he had the necessary slots available, acquire both effects for himself as magic items, but they are expensive enough he would probably take a hit somewhere else to do so, and the biggest price to pay at level 20 is the slots themselves.
Why waste a 9th level spell that gives a save and must bypass SR when the barbarian can kill it with a couple of 3rd level spells. My players tend to use the best possible method to kill something using the fewest possible resources.
Is there a reason why your post is mean-spirited and personal?Did you read the post I was responding to? Go read it since you seem to clearly see when a post is mean-spirited.
I responded the way I did because I felt the post I responded to was mean-spirited towards me.
When players try to utilize mechanics they know are beyond what the game can reasonably support to make my life as a DM miserable, I have zero problem doing the same. So why do you feel it is ok for a player to completely destroy the story by using overpowered mechanics, but not the DM?
Are you biased solely towards the DM or do you see the need for the mechanics to faciliate story telling that is attractive for both the DM and the players?
DM is not deus. If you want to dictate how combat goes, since you are omniscient and know what's the most fun for players even when clearly they don't, then stop using dice and just tell your immaculate story. If you want to play a cooperative game, you have to cooperate with your players.
If you tell a player that he can't play a ragepounce barbarian before he creates a character, that's fine. If you let him play one, and then punish him both as a player and a character for having the wherewithal to disturb your pristine story and perfect balance, you're a jerk.
That's really how you see it? I'm punishing the player? I think players punish DMs with these builds. DMs cannot know everything. So when a guy makes a character and enters the campaign, how should I foresee this? I the DM should foresee every build a player thinks up?. Every cheesy combination you players come up with? Is that your expectation?
Then when I see that it is a problem that makes my work as a DM much more difficult, I have to think of a way to tone this build down. And I usually have to deal with an unhappy player that wants to argue with me.
Players can't even play the game without DMs. If playres are intent on making my life miserable, I think it is only fair I can do the same back. Why isn't that the case?
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If the player is looking to exploit the rules and as you say "punish" the DM. Then turnabout is fair play, isn't it?
I pay the game designers good money to make sure this stuff doesn't happen. I expect if they want to keep on earning my money, they make sure stuff like this doesn't make it in the game or is held in check in some fashion. That's my expectation. I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation at all. I find it strange that you do. You must play far more often than you DM or you would understand how much work a DM puts into an adventure and how irritating it is to have to deal with a build that is almost impossible to reasonably challenge within the framework of a party.
When players try to utilize mechanics they know are beyond what the game can reasonably support to make my life as a DM miserable, I have zero problem doing the same. So why do you feel it is ok for a player to completely destroy the story by using overpowered mechanics, but not the DM?
Are you biased solely towards the DM or do you see the need for the mechanics to faciliate story telling that is attractive for both the DM and the players?
Sorry. I shouldn't have questioned your GMing since it's not the topic. But no, it's not OK for players to destroy the story either. The GM is ultimately in control of the game though. The GM steers the course of the adventure. If a player is doing something that doesn't work, talk with the player. If the player was building this broken build since lvl 1 and it didn't get uber til lvl 12, that can definitely be challenging and I don't have the easy answer for that. In this pounce example, I've been saying I don't think it's the intention of the actual rules and I would tell a player that.
What bothers me about your statement is the punishment reaction. In my view of GMing, that's not appropriate even though it seems prevalent on these boards. Many share the view "I'll let my players do it, but if they use it my monsters use it" and things like "my player made a wish; show me how to screw him over." It's penalizing players for playing the game. Much better to discuss with players if you think something isn't working.
A GM has far more power to ruin a story than a player. Recently, I've noticed a couple builds showing up again and again in discussions: the pounce builds and heavens oracle with color spray. Imagine a party that used these and every other enemy they fought either had pounce or cast a high powered color spray on the party? I'd much rather have the entire course of the adventure planned out in a way that makes sense, like in an Adventure Path, than react to players by using their dirty tricks against them. Is it fun to have them fight against similar tactics once or twice? Sure. But not to penalize them.
Players can't even play the game without DMs. If playres are intent on making my life miserable, I think it is only fair I can do the same back. Why isn't that the case?
Because it's not a competition. Players aren't thinking "how can I break the game?" They're trying to make the best character possible. Your response is specifically trying to break the game. If you put in terrain that impeded charging, extra opponents, gave enemies higher HP, etc. these would be appropriate responses to a pounce build. You specifically said you've killed your own group with the tactic many times. That's not fun.
I'm a little new to this debate and the whole AM Barbarian thing, but why aren't all these scared little mages and great red wyrms doing more to control their surroundings with stuff like solid fog and other terrain control spells that would limit the whole charging combo's effectiveness? Yes, I've read the Spell Sunder thing but that can be used only once per rage and at this level a caster type has got to be able to layer more than one spell effect around the field of battle.
And where are the hordes of expendable minions interposing themselves before their masters? I don't understand this at all.
stuff
Role playing games have a lot to offer both players and DMs as far as avenues for fun. One way in which players have fun is making effective characters, understanding the system and discovering new parts of it. A player demonstrates his understanding of the system by making good strategic and mechanical choices that are effective in and out of combat.
I don't disagree that this mounted barbarian build is extremely powerful. I might even be annoyed if a player made it in my game. But there are a lot more solutions than just throwing powerful stuff back at the player. As has been suggested, don't have a single monster encounter-ever! It totally throws the curve in favor of the players, regardless of the gap in CR. If it still utterly disrupts every encounter, talk to the player and ask him if he's willing to tone it down, or make some selective judgements about how things interact. For example, after the first attack on the charge the player is no longer "charging" for the purposes of extra lance damage. Or collectively vetoing its one-handedness so he gets less lance attacks.
If the first thing you imagine is some DM vs. player aggression, you should ask why you're playing with the people you do. Are they not your friends? They didn't create this out of malice towards you, they created it because it is fun for them. IF all the players agree that this one build is disruptive then talk to the player collectively. Seeing a player's creation as a slight against you is only going to add tension to the table between the players, external to the game, and that will make it less fun for everyone.
In short, unless the player says "I'm doing this to get back at you for xyz" then assume he's just doing it to enhance his enjoyment of the game. If it's to the detriment of everyone else's enjoyment (that means ask the other players), whatever the behavior is, you should talk to the player rather than escalate the tension. I've been on the other side of the table where the DM makes rulings against me just to remove my effectiveness, and I wasn't even abusing loopholes, just playing a wizard! Your fun evaporates immediately when that happens.
I'm a little new to this debate and the whole AM Barbarian thing, but why aren't all these scared little mages and great red wyrms doing more to control their surroundings with stuff like solid fog and other terrain control spells that would limit the whole charging combo's effectiveness? Yes, I've read the Spell Sunder thing but that can be used only once per rage and at this level a caster type has got to be able to layer more than one spell effect around the field of battle.
And where are the hordes of expendable minions interposing themselves before their masters? I don't understand this at all.
Also, you have to know a spell is there in order to sunder it. You can't tell illusions until you interact. Casters can throw up an illusion of themselves and throw up solid fog around THAT.
Again, Madiggan, respond by having your villains fight smart, not by participating in the metagame arms race.
I'm a little new to this debate and the whole AM Barbarian thing, but why aren't all these scared little mages and great red wyrms doing more to control their surroundings with stuff like solid fog and other terrain control spells that would limit the whole charging combo's effectiveness? Yes, I've read the Spell Sunder thing but that can be used only once per rage and at this level a caster type has got to be able to layer more than one spell effect around the field of battle.
And where are the hordes of expendable minions interposing themselves before their masters? I don't understand this at all.
Well said.
I'm a little new to this debate and the whole AM Barbarian thing, but why aren't all these scared little mages and great red wyrms doing more to control their surroundings with stuff like solid fog and other terrain control spells that would limit the whole charging combo's effectiveness? Yes, I've read the Spell Sunder thing but that can be used only once per rage and at this level a caster type has got to be able to layer more than one spell effect around the field of battle.
And where are the hordes of expendable minions interposing themselves before their masters? I don't understand this at all.
Well said.
Once per rage is irrelevant once the barbarian is immune to fatigue. That ability, normally gained at level 17, effectively turns "once per rage" powers into "whenever you want".
I would much rather prefer a barbarian in a party I GM for using manufactured weapons on a pounce than natural weapons.
Natural weapons are so much better, it's ridiculous. And everyone is focusing so hard on lances, that they are completely forgetting the power of natural attacks. It almost betrays a lack of understanding of the rules, tbh.
Natural weapons are so much better, it's ridiculous. And everyone is focusing so hard on lances, that they are completely forgetting the power of natural attacks. It almost betrays a lack of understanding of the rules, tbh.
Wait, what?
Wait, what?
Natural weapons are so much better, it's ridiculous. And everyone is focusing so hard on lances, that they are completely forgetting the power of natural attacks. It almost betrays a lack of understanding of the rules, tbh.
Same here, what? Cheapy can you please expand on that?
Same here, what? Cheapy can you please expand on that?Wait, what?
Natural weapons are so much better, it's ridiculous. And everyone is focusing so hard on lances, that they are completely forgetting the power of natural attacks. It almost betrays a lack of understanding of the rules, tbh.
I beleive he is saying natural attacks do not suffer from the iterative penalty. And you can have 3, 4 or possiblely 5 (I can't remember) of them as a barbarian. Thus with a high BAB class, you will almost always hit with all your attacks.
Honestly, if we're going to look at something like the absurdity that is level 20 to make the case for pounce brokenness... it's just silly.
You could easily make a whole party's worth of different characters who all can potentially move and then full attack in a round. A melee character that can't do it (and also doesn't have some other trick that massively jacks their single-attack damage up to compensate) has ceased to be relevant to combat a half-dozen levels earlier.
I beleive he is saying natural attacks do not suffer from the iterative penalty. And you can have 3, 4 or possiblely 5 (I can't remember) of them as a barbarian. Thus with a high BAB class, you will almost always hit with all your attacks.
How is that even remotely better than a full attack with triple damage? If even the FIRST lance attack hits, that will be BETTER than three natural attacks that hit.
You're forgetting something. Spirited Charge is still a x2 multiplier for non-lances.
Right!
Oh, well. Pounce should just explicitly state that the full attack does not count as a charge attack. Problems solved. Please, Paizo, put that in errata.
The spirited charge / lance charge damage bonus was clearly never intended to work with more than one attack. Put that silliness to an end Paizo, please.
No. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. All that cats and most cat-type enemies have going for them is pounce. And, to be blunt, again, damage is all that martial characters can do. You won't break the game by doing damage, let them have their fun.
Well, all they'd (the cats) lose is a +2 to attacks.
If you really think they absolutely need that, restrict only greater beast totem.
To your other argment: Only the beast totem Bbn can do this ridiculous damage. If "damage is all martial characters can do", he invalidates ALL other martial characters by doing vastly more damage than they.
Cheapy, I'm assuming that you're referring to a barbarian simply raging, dropping out of rage, and then raging again. Right?
Again, at these levels, if the bad guys don't have the PCs well scouted they are dumber than s~+!. As a DM I would have my caster (and my back up caster - why would they ever go up alone against these kinds of odds) readying themselves for just such an opportunity. Drop out of rage? No rage powers means no Superstition or other bonuses to their saves. Great time for some of those high-level compulsions to start flying around.
At any rate, this is the kind of thing that meat shields are made for and paid for. And they don't have to be paid for if they're doing their job right (nyuk nyuk).
You're forgetting something. Spirited Charge is still a x2 multiplier for non-lances.Right!
Oh, well. Pounce should just explicitly state that the full attack does not count as a charge attack. Problems solved. Please, Paizo, put that in errata.
The spirited charge / lance charge damage bonus was clearly never intended to work with more than one attack. Put that silliness to an end Paizo, please.
You know that you don't actually have to have pounce right? The same thing can be done with the spirited charge and mounted skirmisher feats.
Yes I know, and its exactly as stupid as lancepounce.
Yes I know, and its exactly as stupid as lancepounce.
If you know it then you can understand that the problem doesn't lie within pounce but in lance damage multiplier thing, that is what i think needs to be changed.
Changes as in: "This works only for a single attack"?
Changes as in: "This works only for a single attack"?
Or just throw it away entirely and be done with it once and for all.
Cheapy, I'm assuming that you're referring to a barbarian simply raging, dropping out of rage, and then raging again. Right?
Again, at these levels, if the bad guys don't have the PCs well scouted they are dumber than s&&~. As a DM I would have my caster (and my back up caster - why would they ever go up alone against these kinds of odds) readying themselves for just such an opportunity. Drop out of rage? No rage powers means no Superstition or other bonuses to their saves. Great time for some of those high-level compulsions to start flying around.
At any rate, this is the kind of thing that meat shields are made for and paid for. And they don't have to be paid for if they're doing their job right (nyuk nyuk).
This is good, but bear in mind if you're readying for him dropping out of rage, you also need to GIVE him a reason to drop out of rage. Just readying and not doing anything worth dropping for?
That's asking for a full attack from a raging barbarian, and that is a painful thing.
Yeah, let's remove the iconic lance charge because the system allows to full-attack on a charge. Awesome idea.
I agree. The core rules (in this case: x2 dmg on mounted lance charge) are fine - the broken stuff that entered the game via supplements should be nerfed / fixed.
I think I would be hard-pressed to see lance working with pounce. Though, I agree this is a tricky situation.
The lance, spirited charge, were made for that 'one massive attack' that you'd taken time to set up.
Throwing pounce in there seems to send it off in unintended areas, multiplying that 'one massive attack that already has its own multipliers' into 'bunches of massive attacks that now have a bunch of multipliers', even though it's RAW.
Ah, nobody disagrees on that. Lancepounce IS cheezy. Not one of us would use this on our table without feeling unclean. It's pure munchkin.
But by RAW it works.
The problem is that AM BARBARIAN used cheese to kill the Schroedinger caster, aka master of cheese, he who stinks like a french cheese buffet, and some (CENSORED)s decided that the solution was to cry foul and demand that pounce be nerfed. Interestingly, the same people will also yell and complain when someone points that spells like Contingency or Time Stop, by RAW, don't work like they think they do.
Thus this thread.
Ah, nobody disagrees on that. Lancepounce IS cheezy. Not one of us would use this on our table without feeling unclean. It's pure munchkin.
But by RAW it works.
The problem is that AM BARBARIAN used cheese to kill the Schroedinger caster, aka master of cheese, he who stinks like a french cheese buffet, and some (CENSORED)s decided that the solution was to cry foul and demand that pounce be nerfed. Interestingly, the same people will also yell and complain when someone points that spells like Contingency or Time Stop, by RAW, don't work like they think they do.
Thus this thread.
ACTUALLY THIS THREAD AM COME ABOUT TO HELP ME COME CLOSE TO DR. BARBARIAN'S AWESOME.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, nobody disagrees on that. Lancepounce IS cheezy. Not one of us would use this on our table without feeling unclean. It's pure munchkin.
But by RAW it works.
The problem is that AM BARBARIAN used cheese to kill the Schroedinger caster, aka master of cheese, he who stinks like a french cheese buffet, and some (CENSORED)s decided that the solution was to cry foul and demand that pounce be nerfed. Interestingly, the same people will also yell and complain when someone points that spells like Contingency or Time Stop, by RAW, don't work like they think they do.
Thus this thread.
I have been sitting here and trying to pretend that it is not a versus argument...but I suppose there we go.
I've been seeing it as more of a kerfluffle--reactionary to large numbers that's polarized the various gamers here.
I'm hoping the dust settles soon, and something reasonable can be arrived at.
|
does it really matter that we have the ability to create a barbarian that has the potential to deal almost a thousand damage from a mile away? level 20 is full of absurd stuff.
even though no official foe has over a thousand hit points. what you should do, is instead of solo creatures, use more slightly lower level creatures.
if the 20th level barbarian can solo a CR 24 foe, you use 16 CR16 foes instead (same effective EL) and look at the difference.
levels 10 and after are basically playing "tag" with nuclear weapons.
levels 10 and after are basically playing "tag" with nuclear weapons.
No.
I mean level 10 is a bit early in this assessment.
Perhaps if your group is full of munchkins, then OK, may<be you are right. But characters that are built as assumed by the designers aren't "nukes" by level 10. Nor are the monsters they are supposed to fight at this stage (~ CR 8 - 13).
False. Other martial classes have methods of getting full attacks at the end of charges.
And this is OK: It just should not work with the damage bonus from a lance charge, is all I am saying.
This is clearly cheesy as hell and the monsters in the Bestiary are not designed with that kind of damage potential in mind.
I am frankly astounded why so many of you (maybe a vocal minority?) fail to agree to that.
I mean yes, Paladins and Rangers also can be devastating to their chosen foes, and full attack after a charge is maybe even needed for the melee characters to be able to keep up with the archers.
But spirited charge, mounted skirmisher (or pounce, spirited charge), and a full attack with sth like 3d8+150 dmg?? Please.
And you don't even need lvl 20 for that, as some of you here argued. It becomes this severe a Problem basically as soon as the character has the ability to charge an full attack after that (lvl 12 or 14).
Now the argument for pounce and movement with a full attack because of archery is a strong argument. Archers deal a lot of damage and get the equivalent of two-weapon fighting at high level. They don't have a Raging Brutality, but Deadly Aim is better than Power Attack for a two-weapon fighter and about on par given the number of attacks for a two-hander fighter.
Pounce with the barbarian is over much. But they gave the barbarian far too many abilities, which makes them clearly superior to all other martial classes. But that djinni is out of the bottle and they probably can't put it back in. So I'll probably have to live with it.
But I will probably house rule the following since the game designers refuse to make an official FAQ concerning charge: Only the first attack of a charge benefits from the charge bonuses/benefits be it the bonus from Spirited Charge or a Lance.
Maybe if Pathfinder ever does another edition they'll reign in things like the barbarian and archer, so they aren't so problematic for DMs. I know the spell fickle winds negates archery and drives them nuts. invisibility negates Come and Get Me. Fly can usually counter pounce for a round or two. So still have defenses against certain abilities for monsters.
The one thing that's been nice about having to deal with the barbarian in my campaign is that I've come up with many different ways to counter them or lessen their impact. I've really had to pour over the books and study the rules for AoOs and charge so that I know exactly how to deal with the abilities.
Ah, nobody disagrees on that. Lancepounce IS cheezy. Not one of us would use this on our table without feeling unclean. It's pure munchkin.
But by RAW it works.
The problem is that AM BARBARIAN used cheese to kill the Schroedinger caster, aka master of cheese, he who stinks like a french cheese buffet, and some (CENSORED)s decided that the solution was to cry foul and demand that pounce be nerfed. Interestingly, the same people will also yell and complain when someone points that spells like Contingency or Time Stop, by RAW, don't work like they think they do.
Thus this thread.
That is an antagonistic and inaccurate assessment of this thread. But thanks for calling me and others (CENSORED)s. Very mature.
That is an antagonistic and inaccurate assessment of this thread. But thanks for calling me and others (CENSORED)s. Very mature.Ah, nobody disagrees on that. Lancepounce IS cheezy. Not one of us would use this on our table without feeling unclean. It's pure munchkin.
But by RAW it works.
The problem is that AM BARBARIAN used cheese to kill the Schroedinger caster, aka master of cheese, he who stinks like a french cheese buffet, and some (CENSORED)s decided that the solution was to cry foul and demand that pounce be nerfed. Interestingly, the same people will also yell and complain when someone points that spells like Contingency or Time Stop, by RAW, don't work like they think they do.
Thus this thread.
See, what did I tell you about that guy.
This is clearly cheesy as hell and the monsters in the Bestiary are not designed with that kind of damage potential in mind.
I am frankly astounded why so many of you (maybe a vocal minority?) fail to agree to that.
The disconnect is this: you think this is the only build that can put out ridiculous damage at those levels, so you think that one thing needs to be nerfed to put it back into line.
Whereas the people disagree with you realize that:
1) Lots of other builds can do damage that's on that order of magnitude at the same level, and,
2) If you made a list of the top ten most ridiculous characters you could make, ragelancepouncing barbarian might not even make the list.
Basically you're arguing about the balance of a game that you don't really understand, and like a guy arguing that baseball stadiums need to be twice as big because home runs are overpowered, you seem silly to people with a stronger understanding of the game.
That's one interpretation of the thread.
The other one, assuming that castys are people too (Jury's still out on that one. I'm watching you.) is that the BARBARIAN thread made someone go 'Huh wait is this really what the creators intended?' thus causing a rules thread in order to see if it is and if it's not what they should do about it.
Like most rules threads, nothing important was accomplished here other than both sides stating their beliefs on what should occur and why, and then maybe some bickering.
Plus side, this thread has stayed more on topic than most related to that other one.
