"Death itself" is not a balancing mechanic for rage. That's a little over dramatic, don't you think? There have been many reasonable posts in this thread defending rage, and you've shot most of them down. I doubt reason is going to find its way through thick skull, so I will agree to disagree.
I will say that Ashiel makes an unshakable point... without the extra HP from the CON in the first place, the barbarian would have ALREADY been dead. In other words, another character would have reached -1 HP BEFORE the barbarian did. Therefore, the barbarian might die outright at -1 HP, but he has a bigger chance than anyone else to avoid -1 HP in the first place.
Yet I can already feel your argument continuing to persist.
For raging barbarian...-1 Hp equals death.
For everyone else...you sleep till the end of the encounter.
No other class has death itself as a balancing mechanic for its benefits, and it makes the barbarian impractical for someone who wants to play a character longterm.
Um, no?
If you've reached -1 HP and it would kill you, that means you have sustained more than your Con score in negative damage already. That means you're already dead. If a 10th level barbarian rages and gains 20 HP, and then falls to -1 HP, and his rage ends he dies, but if he didn't have that 20 HP, he would have already been dead.
You also don't "sleep till the end of the encounter". You bleed out, often with little hope to stabilize, as the check is a Con check with a penalty equal to your negative Hp. Got 14 Con? +2 to the check, but -5 menas you're actually rolling at -3. Miss the check? You drop to -4. Repeat.
Likewise, I'm not sure how cushy your GM is, but being at negative HP is a bad thing, and likely means death anyway. You are now unconcious, with a -5 penalty to your AC for being helpless and immobile, and prone (another +4 to melee attacks against you). You're also free to get couped, but at this point, that's probably not even an issue. Your enemy can just pretty much finish the job and then move on to the next guy.
The argument "but you could die when your rage ends" has always amused me, because if you would die when your rage ends you were already dead. Rage actually gives your Cleric a little more breathing room to get a heal off before you're pushing daisies.
I liked 3E rage much better, overall. With Extra Rage granting two extra uses per day, and the Con bonus affecting the duration, you could easily have enough rage for every fight, and it was much simpler to track over the course of the adventuring day. The worst thing PF did by far, though, was de-evolve back to 3.0's horrific rule that going unconscious = rage ends. There's a reason that was fixed in 3.5! It's not just that hitting -1 hp = autodeath. It's that momentarily losing consciousness while still at like 20 or so hp can be autodeath at higher levels. If you're a level 12 barb, you gain 36 hp from raging. Then an enemy witch hits you with Slumber and...you die. Even if you friend's turn is next and he could've just slapped you awake. Nope, dead.
Instead of fixing this, Paizo made Raging Vitality as a feat tax. Ugh.
The one thing I do like about PF rage is removing the STUPID 3E rule that you can only rage once per encounter...even after you gain Tireless Rage. How long an "encounter" lasts is very subjective and up to the DM. It's not a barbarian, but recently my 3E Dervish character (who could dervish dance for up to 10 rounds for mechanical boons but cannot dance more than once/encounter, even though she had Tireless Dance) ended up along with the party assaulting a fortress. In a series of running battles with hordes of enemies with a few brief rounds between some of us rushing to the next area w/o rest, we actually had a ~35 round combat. I had 3 more dance uses left for the day as the casters were literally running out of all their spells, but I could not make use of them since we were still "in the same encounter." Good thing it wasn't a full scale army battle...
I will say that Ashiel makes an unshakable point... without the extra HP from the CON in the first place, the barbarian would have ALREADY been dead. In other words, another character would have reached -1 HP BEFORE the barbarian did. Therefore, the barbarian might die outright at -1 HP, but he has a bigger chance than anyone else to avoid -1 HP in the first place.
And chances are if he didn't have that -2 AC from raging, he would not have lost as many hp in the first place!
I will say that Ashiel makes an unshakable point... without the extra HP from the CON in the first place, the barbarian would have ALREADY been dead. In other words, another character would have reached -1 HP BEFORE the barbarian did. Therefore, the barbarian might die outright at -1 HP, but he has a bigger chance than anyone else to avoid -1 HP in the first place.And chances are if he didn't have that -2 AC from raging, he would not have lost as many hp in the first place!
Because obviously HP damage only comes from attacks targeting AC.
Because obviously HP damage only comes from attacks targeting AC.I will say that Ashiel makes an unshakable point... without the extra HP from the CON in the first place, the barbarian would have ALREADY been dead. In other words, another character would have reached -1 HP BEFORE the barbarian did. Therefore, the barbarian might die outright at -1 HP, but he has a bigger chance than anyone else to avoid -1 HP in the first place.And chances are if he didn't have that -2 AC from raging, he would not have lost as many hp in the first place!
IME an overwhelming majority of it does come from such attacks, yes. Since that also includes melee and ranged touch spells, Sp, and Su. Might not always be the case, but raging Barb has a lot of hp to churn through. It's fairly likely that the +10% chance of hitting him made a difference for at least one of the multiple attacks made against him in that time.
And again, Raging Vitality is pretty much mandatory. It sucks that all barbarians are required to waste a feat on one thing, but there it is.
In the mean time, those extra HP keep the barbarian in the fight doing damage for longer. That's the advantage.
And if you don't want the risk, then simply back out of combat as soon as your damage taken gets close to your non-raging HP.
My Barbarian didn't take raging vitality, and he has made it to 13th level so far (started at first). It is a risk I have accepted. It is a nice feat, but not a mandatory feat.
Fighter takes 30 damage, goes below 0. Is bleeding out, enemy focuses on another target. If the enemy is defeated soon, the fighter can be stabilized and cured.
Raging barbarian takes 30 damage, barbarian is still standing. Then enemy attacks the Barbarian for another 30 damage, the barbarian goes below 0, the barbarian is dead. Even if the enemy is dead soon, there is a really expensive cost to rez that barbarian.
Also note that a skilled fighter is more likely to have better AC and thus get hit less often than the raging barbarian. The barbarian generally makes up for this by generally being able to kill an enemies faster, thus sometimes it's more advantageous for the enemies to take out the barbarian first.
If a combat ever lasts more than 4 turns, you're probably spending a lot of resources on the barbarian.
IME an overwhelming majority of it does come from such attacks, yes. Since that also includes melee and ranged touch spells, Sp, and Su. Might not always be the case, but raging Barb has a lot of hp to churn through. It's fairly likely that the +10% chance of hitting him made a difference for at least one of the multiple attacks made against him in that time.Because obviously HP damage only comes from attacks targeting AC.I will say that Ashiel makes an unshakable point... without the extra HP from the CON in the first place, the barbarian would have ALREADY been dead. In other words, another character would have reached -1 HP BEFORE the barbarian did. Therefore, the barbarian might die outright at -1 HP, but he has a bigger chance than anyone else to avoid -1 HP in the first place.And chances are if he didn't have that -2 AC from raging, he would not have lost as many hp in the first place!
Well ignoring stuff like magic missile spamming, falling damage, failed fortitude, reflex, and will saves, stuff falling you or crushing you, stuff that grabs you (targets CMD), area of effect stuff that doesn't offer a saving throw, and so forth, then I'm inclined to agree.
The most common form of damage is actually just getting hit. Though again this is one of those things where the skill of the player is involved. If you're fighting a lot of weenie enemies whom you can easily kill without raging, do so without raging. If you need to rage, the benefits for that AC penalty are probably worth it.
You're getting an on demand +2/+3 to hit and damage (later +3/+4, then +4/+6), and +2, +4, or +6 to Will saves. Toss in a bonus Hp up to 4 * HD, which gives you enough juice to survive incoming pain long enough for you to get healed.
Babarians also get Uncanny Dodge, and a Rage power that allows the Barbarian to get up to a +4 dodge bonus to her AC every time she enters a rage. Another that allows her to more or less ignore the to-hit penalty when using Combat Expertise, allowing her to hit a +10 dodge bonus while Raging; which means if the Barbarian desires it, the Barbarian can actually be HARDER to hit while raging.
That's before concealment effects like minor cloaks of displacement, which provide a 20% evasion regardless of armor and makes her immune to sneak attacks.
And chances are if he didn't have that -2 AC from raging, he would not have lost as many hp in the first place!
This is more true at lower levels, as at higher levels, -2 AC is trivial. Let's take your 12th level barbarian as an example. You're saying that his -2 AC penalty pretty much negates his 36 extra HP gained from raging. I disagree, and I'm willing to bet that most other players would too. For the level 2 barbarian who only gains ~6 or so HP from raging, yes, the -2 penalty to AC stings him more. The fact that rage improves at higher levels diminishes the -2 penalty to AC even further.
Again, the -2 penalty to AC is part of the package. The rules for rage are as clear as day. You either accept it or you don't. Most players agree (as do I) that the benefits of rage outweigh the drawbacks.
|
It's a good point that rage keeps the barbarian a target, but the barbarian could make a choice to drop rage and go unconscious if he felt that staying up would be pushing his luck. He could even attack first and then drop rage and go unconscious, thus making himself less of a target.
I have noticed that a lot of fighter players who get revived are suddenly prone and right in front of an enemy. The barbarian can avoid being prone by still being conscious (albeit in the death range should rage drop) when receiving healing.
Fighter takes 30 damage, goes below 0. Is bleeding out, enemy focuses on another target. If the enemy is defeated soon, the fighter can be stabilized and cured.
Raging barbarian takes 30 damage, barbarian is still standing. Then enemy attacks the Barbarian for another 30 damage, the barbarian goes below 0, the barbarian is dead. Even if the enemy is dead soon, there is a really expensive cost to rez that barbarian.
Also note that a skilled fighter is more likely to have better AC and thus get hit less often than the raging barbarian. The barbarian generally makes up for this by generally being able to kill an enemies faster, thus sometimes it's more advantageous for the enemies to take out the barbarian first.
If a combat ever lasts more than 4 turns, you're probably spending a lot of resources on the barbarian.
That likely wouldn't fly in the games I play in. If you drop to -1 and fall unconscious, then your party best be scrambling to save you and you should be making some deals with your deity, because when you go down, it's just asking for a...well you know.
Downed enemies can be healed. Enemies aren't going to want you getting back up. You're lying on the ground, immobile (-5 Dex mod, +4 to hit you), and already near death, time to finish the job. A single melee strike or a well placed coup de grace, and you're out of here. That's before dealing with the fact you're probably already bleeding out and likely below -1.
EDIT: This is especially true at higher levels, when an enemy can end you with their worst attack while using their real attacks for people who are still standing.
Got a +13/+7/+2? Want to know what to do with that dinky +2? Yeah, that guy on the ground has a -5 AC penalty and you have a +4 to hit him. Go on. You know you really want to...
Also note that a skilled fighter is more likely to have better AC and thus get hit less often than the raging barbarian. The barbarian generally makes up for this by generally being able to kill an enemies faster, thus sometimes it's more advantageous for the enemies to take out the barbarian first.
At very low levels, this is true. Fighter very qucikly surpasses the Barbarian for damage, though. When you factor Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization (and Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization), that alone beats out the str bonus from rage by mid levels. Add gloves of duelling and it becomes pretty lopsided. Later on, Barbarian gets as many extra attacks per turn as he has dex bonus Come and Get Me, which probably gives the advantage back to him, though Fighter gets access to feats that cut through DR, so maybe not. But in any case, Fighter's doing it with MUCH better AC.
Well ignoring stuff like magic missile spamming, falling damage, failed fortitude, reflex, and will saves, stuff falling you or crushing you, stuff that grabs you (targets CMD), area of effect stuff that doesn't offer a saving throw, and so forth, then I'm inclined to agree.
I thought the -2 AC affected CMD? Of course the str bonus negates that... And most fort and will saves aren't for hp damage.
Babarians also get Uncanny Dodge, and a Rage power that allows the Barbarian to get up to a +4 dodge bonus to her AC every time she enters a rage. Another that...
And Fighter just plain wears full plate while still moving full speed... What's it have to do with anything? I was countering you saying that Rage allowed him to take more damage with the point that rage was likely also the cause of some damage.
When a 10th lvl Barbarian is adjacent to a a CR 10 monster, like a Mountain Troll...
Rage = PC Death
ooops, challenge rating
When a 10th lvl Barbarian is adjacent to a a CL 10 monster, like a Mountain Troll...
Rage = PC Death
A caster level 10 monster? You'd think adjacent is where the barbarian would want to be, and raging. :P
Seriously though, the Barbarian's AC isn't going to be that good anyway, since you are effectively 3 points behind a heavy-armor character in mid to high levels. Then again, your Barbarian raging also means he might kill that fool. Or auto-grapple that fool, end his rage, then auto-tie that fool up on the next round, rendering him helpless. :P
Fighter takes 30 damage, goes below 0. Is bleeding out, enemy focuses on another target. If the enemy is defeated soon, the fighter can be stabilized and cured.
Raging barbarian takes 30 damage, barbarian is still standing. Then enemy attacks the Barbarian for another 30 damage, the barbarian goes below 0, the barbarian is dead.
You've proven our point. It took 30 damage to remove the fighter from play. With the barbarian, after that same 30 damage, he is still in play. Yes, another 30 damage puts the barbarian in worse shape than the fighter, but you assume that the barbarian is still at equal risk after the first 30 damage. You're assuming that there's an equal chance of the enemy leaving the unconscious fighter alone as there is for the active barbarian to take double the fighter's damage.
And that's probably not true. For one thing, the barbarian probably had a chance to avoid the 2nd hit of 30 damage by either ending his rage voluntarily, getting healed, or removing himself from harm's way. The fighter would not have this chance. Also, as Ashiel has said, there's no guarantee that the enemy would have just left the unconscious fighter alone. A smart enemy, or an enemy facing no other immediate threat, or an enemy with an ability that favors true death, etc. would likely finish the job. And finally, the party might have a shot at finishing the enemy off before that 2nd hit of 30 damage to the barbarian goes through. In the fighter's situation, since the party just lost a member, there's much less of a chance to kill the enemy in the next round - not only because the fighter is down, but also the healer may spend his turn trying to help his unconscious comrade. So at least 1 party member is kicked out of the "killing" picture in the fighter's scenario (maybe 2), while 0 party members (at maximum, 1) are kicked out after the same damaging hit to the barbarian.
When a 10th lvl Barbarian is adjacent to a a CR 10 monster, like a Mountain Troll...
Rage = PC Death
Maybe if the other 3 party members are standing around with their thumbs up their bum. Even then, a good barbarian still has a chance.
Rage = NPC Death
|
Edit: Also, the lvl 8 raging Barbarian could easily take 27 points of damage, which would also kill him/her outright instead of just knocking them unconscious.Which would also kill it if it's not raging.
The rage bonus isn't suicidal. Acting like it makes you tougher is suicidal.
It's like saying casting protection from elements is suicidal because when it drops, if you're still in the lava lake, you'll die.
EDIT: Bad analogy on my part. Prot. from E. makes you tougher. It's like saying Delay Poison is suicidal because you'll keep fighting and keep getting more poisoned.
What Adam is trying to tell you is that if a barbarian hits -1 hp then he automatically takes the Con damage because his rage has just ended which can mean auto death.
If any other character hits -1 then they lose hp as normal.
It's not hard to comprehend people and the "any PC would be dead anyway" has nothing to do with this.
|
|
Also note that a skilled fighter is more likely to have better AC and thus get hit less often than the raging barbarian. The barbarian generally makes up for this by generally being able to kill an enemies faster, thus sometimes it's more advantageous for the enemies to take out the barbarian first.At very low levels, this is true. Fighter very qucikly surpasses the Barbarian for damage, though. When you factor Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization (and Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization), that alone beats out the str bonus from rage by mid levels. Add gloves of duelling and it becomes pretty lopsided. Later on, Barbarian gets
as many extra attacks per turn as he has dex bonusCome and Get Me, which probably gives the advantage back to him, though Fighter gets access to feats that cut through DR, so maybe not. But in any case, Fighter's doing it with MUCH better AC.
Let me give you some advice about "Come and Get Me". It's nice at times but it can get you killed really quick, especially if you have a lot of enemies around you. That +4 to hit and damage makes a "big" difference. It's not as good as people think it is. It's a gamble really because if you miss and they hit you then that's an automatic +4 they get on damage.
If I am a 10th level Fighter, and I only have 5hp left, I know I am in imminent danger of dying. 20 damage from a single hit could easily happen and outright kill me. With a 10th level Barbarian I may have 40 more hitpoints whilst raging, but I must realize I am in more danger if I hit negatives. So if I have 35 hitpoints left as a Barbarian I must realize I am in grave danger. In both situations, I can't afford to just sit on the front lines and hammer it out unless the situation is extremely dire. Instead, I look to withdraw and/or get healing of some sort.
Rage is a great, great ability. And yes, there is an inherit danger in your Rage ending when you are in negatives and outright dying. Every single person who is playing a Barbarian must realize that, and decide how they want to address the issue. And the great thing about Pathfinder is that there are numerous ways to deal with that issue.
1. Manage your Rage. If you are getting low on hitpoints, end your rage early, so you lessen the chance of Rage-death.
2. Pick up Raging Vitality feat. Not only gives you more HP, but it let's you continue rage while unconscious.
3. Take Guarded Life / Greater Guarded life rage powers. Convert lethal damage to nonlethal to keep you alive while unconsious.
4. Use tactics. Don't stay on the front lines when you are getting a lot of hurt. Withdraw, find better positioning, deny full attacks against you.
5. Get healed. If you have a cleric that loves to just heal people, you rarely need to worry about rage-death. If not, then there are all kinds of other healing options. Five foot step and drink a potion. Take feats like Godless Healing, or powers like Renewed Vigor. Multiclass into something that can heal yourself.
6. Play an Urban Barbarian. Seriously, if the Rage-death is that big of an issue to you, and you don't want to do anything to mitigate it, just play one of these. You can choose not to get a con bonus- ever.
But seriously, if you are aware of the threat of Rage-death, then you should be able to deal with it. But, if like in all of Adam's examples, you want to play a melee brute who just stands on the front line and continues to attack even when he's in single digit hp, then you either have to take Raging Vitality, or you should play an Urban Barbarian, or yes you will die.
Manage your rage????? This seems like the definition of metagaming.
Again, character options should not be used to fix awkward class features.
And again, if you simply take away the Con bonus to rage there is no problem.
|
|
Anything can be metagaming to some people. Managing one's rounds of rage is no different from managing your uses of spells. These are class features, and we as players know what class features we have, because we're playing a game.
If you really want a roleplay reason, I would be willing to bet most athletes are vaguely aware of for how long they can run flat out. Same general idea: a barbarian knows vaguely how much time he has in a powerful rage per day.
|
As a related discussion - anyone find that having a mount as a cavalier is crazy? What other class has so much of its advantages factored into an easily killed companion that isn't available in the most common adventuring environments ie underground.
In OUR home brew we just make the mount invisible and indestructible thereby removing any disadvantage to having one. We find that the class performs so much better without having to worry about it AND they get to charge with lance in confined areas.
Truely its win win.
And yes this was a sarcastic response - the point being like it or lump it PF Barbarians are Barbarians as designed by Pazio.
You don't like it? Well apply Rule 0 to your group and have a great time.
Absolutely NOTHING you can say will change the majority opinion of the class here Adam. If you don't like it - fine - great - wonderful.
But your argument makes as much sense as my fake post above - TO ME.
You are welcome to your opinion but you are dangerously close to having this thread shut because nothing valuable is coming out of it anymore.
Just accept that you don't like how barbarians are played in PF and make whatever allowances you wish in your game.
But PLEASE don't persist in arguing that your view point is any more correct flavour wise than anyone else's. That's just conceit of the higest order.
Thank you
Manage your rage????? This seems like the definition of metagaming.
Again, character options should not be used to fix awkward class features.
And again, if you simply take away the Con bonus to rage there is no problem.
How is that in anyway metagaming? The barbarian can turn his rage off and on at will. The system assumes that Barbarians are managing when and when not to use their rage rounds. Otherwise they would have just left it be combats/day instead of rounds/day. And if you want a fluff reason why this would happen, it's simply "wow that last blow was really hard, it knocked some sense into my Barbarian. He realized that he has to be more careful, or he will wind up dead," and ends his rage.
Your arguments essentially boil down to: Raging is dangerous. But I'm going to refuse to treat temporary HP as it should, and instead pretend it's regular hp. I don't believe I should be able to turn my rage off and on at will, even though I am permitted to mechanically, and the system assumes I do so by default. And even though I refuse to use the default option available to me, I shouldn't have to take any feats or powers to make my character more survivable, even though I have plenty of feat and power slots, and numerous options to choose from.
And in response to that, I say play an Urban Barbarian- it's exactly what you want. In the meantime, the rest of us will love our Barbarians and love our Rage.
|
|
Manage your rage????? This seems like the definition of metagaming.
Again, character options should not be used to fix awkward class features.
And again, if you simply take away the Con bonus to rage there is no problem.
Do you play with a character sheet in front of you? Or do you just tell your GM what type of character you want to play and let him manage the details for you on a character sheet that you never see? Because if you know how many HP you have, and make decisions about whether or not to stay on the front lines of a fight or go for healing based on info like that, then that's metagaming at least as much as anything else we've talked about in this thread.
As for taking away the con bonus for rage, I once again ask why. You can just as easily ignore the feature without taking it away. If my 5th level barbarian has 57 HP without raging, and he's taken 55 HP of damage, then he knows he needs a heal. Raging with Raging Vitality, his current HP at that point would be 17 instead of 2, but he still needs healing. Under your house rule, he really would only have 2 HP, so that would limit his options for what to do at that point. Under the rules as they are now, he could still act like he only has 2 HP and go for healing instead of staying on the front lines, but he also has other options, such as staying in the fight, even after getting hit for another 16 HP, which your house rule would take away.
Players with barbarian characters understand the risk, and they can manage it however they please, as Merkatz explained nicely. They even have the option of ignoring the bonus HP, which would work out the same as your house rule most of the time, but would occasionally work out in their favor compared to your house rule if they happen to get hit one more time before they have a chance to get healed.
Manage your rage????? This seems like the definition of metagaming.
Again, character options should not be used to fix awkward class features.
And again, if you simply take away the Con bonus to rage there is no problem.
Wow. Just wow.
If you have a 15 Con and 100 HP, and you rage for 20 Hp, you have 120 HP until your rage ends. You can suffer Hp + Con + 5 damage before you fall unconscious and die. But, if you didn't rage and took 120 damage, or even 115 damage, you die.
In essence Rage is like having the Diehard feat, except you aren't even staggered while you should be dead. Best yet, it even combos with the Diehard feat or orcish ferocity, allowing you to keep wailing and keep breathing deep into the negatives.
So what does this mean for our intrepid Barbarian? Well, it buys him an extra round or so to get someone to cast heal on him, when he would normally be dead. Or any cure spell. Kill a foe and drink a potion. Maybe even activate a command word item that gets him out of trouble (command word + dimension door = flee to safety, get healed, rush back in shouting AAAAAAAMMMMMM JEEEEEENKIIIIINSSS).
Do you play with a character sheet in front of you? Or do you just tell your GM what type of character you want to play and let him manage the details for you on a character sheet that you never see? Because if you know how many HP you have, and make decisions about whether or not to stay on the front lines of a fight or go for healing based on info like that, then that's metagaming at least as much as anything else we've talked about in this thread.Manage your rage????? This seems like the definition of metagaming.
Again, character options should not be used to fix awkward class features.
And again, if you simply take away the Con bonus to rage there is no problem.
Yeah, I facepalmed. :(
As for taking away the con bonus for rage, I once again ask why. You can just as easily ignore the feature without taking it away. If my 5th level barbarian has 57 HP without raging, and he's taken 55 HP of damage, then he knows he needs a heal. Raging with Raging Vitality, his current HP at that point would be 17 instead of 2, but he still needs healing. Under your house rule, he really would only have 2 HP, so that would limit his options for what to do at that point. Under the rules as they are now, he could still act like he only has 2 HP and go for healing instead of staying on the front lines, but he also has other options, such as staying in the fight, even after getting hit for another 16 HP, which your house rule would take away.
Don't forget that the extra HP can buy the Barbarian some breathing room to actually get that help. A fighter falls below 0 HP and he's out of the fight and is helpless. The barbarian falls below his normal HP maximum, but has Rage HP left? He can slug some dude and make a run towards his cleric.
For raging barbarian...-1 Hp equals death.
For everyone else...you sleep till the end of the encounter.
No other class has death itself as a balancing mechanic for its benefits, and it makes the barbarian impractical for someone who wants to play a character longterm.Um, no?
If you've reached -1 HP and it would kill you, that means you have sustained more than your Con score in negative damage already. That means you're already dead. If a 10th level barbarian rages and gains 20 HP, and then falls to -1 HP, and his rage ends he dies, but if he didn't have that 20 HP, he would have already been dead.
Um, no?
My barbarian (if I had one) would go in raging and let's say I'm fighting a boss that does consistently 20 damage per turn. I've got 5 levels in barbarian and 34 HP because I dumped CON like a smart lil barbarian. I get 10 extra HP when raging, for a total of 44 HP.
Round 1: Bang, I take 20 damage, HP is at 24
Round 2: Bang, I take 20 damage, HP is at 4
NOW, I think Adam is saying at this point an equivalent fighter would be unconscious at -6 HP. My barbarian is not, thanks to temporary HP.
Tactically, the boss probably has other people to deal with and won't want to waste an action stabbing a fallen foe when he could swat a pesky rogue/cleric/anything who's actively killing him.
The fighter is safe, he's down and out for the count. The barbarian though is still a threat, and consequently a target.
Sure, you can argue "That's what he does, bla bla bla" but I think the rounds/day and fatigue are already limiting enough without adding this "Whatever, you're gonna die if you front-line while raging and get knocked unconscious"
I mean, this is a RPG where we make our characters based on heroic icons. Look at Boromir from LOTR movies, he's dead and dying after the first arrow essentially. On he fights, raging in his defense of the halflings, slaughtering on. We all know he's going to die because there's no magical healing available. However, there's enough time for him to speak to Aragorn and pledge his dying allegiance. By Pathfinder rules he'd have been dead.
*Cue arguments about how he didn't reach 0 HP*
*Cue counter-arguments about how he didn't really seem to be raging when he pledged his allegiance and so should have previously dropped into unconsciousness and died without stabilizing becuase if he stabilized he wouldn't have died...*
*Cue argument he was a fighter not a barbarian*
*Cue dismissal due to Darth Vader + Sea + water bottle picture*
Tactically, the boss probably has other people to deal with and won't want to waste an action stabbing a fallen foe when he could swat a pesky rogue/cleric/anything who's actively killing him.
The fighter is safe, he's down and out for the count. The barbarian though is still a threat, and consequently a target.
That's an awfully big assumption. It must be convenient living in a fantasy world with villains who won't kill people...
|
|
That's an awfully big assumption. It must be convenient living in a fantasy world with villains who won't kill people...Tactically, the boss probably has other people to deal with and won't want to waste an action stabbing a fallen foe when he could swat a pesky rogue/cleric/anything who's actively killing him.
The fighter is safe, he's down and out for the count. The barbarian though is still a threat, and consequently a target.
It is the way most PFS games play.
That's an awfully big assumption. It must be convenient living in a fantasy world with villains who won't kill people...Tactically, the boss probably has other people to deal with and won't want to waste an action stabbing a fallen foe when he could swat a pesky rogue/cleric/anything who's actively killing him.
The fighter is safe, he's down and out for the count. The barbarian though is still a threat, and consequently a target.
It's not awfully big, the BBEG would use an action to kill a fallen creature instead of killing people who are hurting him? Who's metagaming now, the player or the GM? As far as the BBEG knows he hit the guy hard enough to kill him.
Please.
DanQnA we all understand what Adam was trying to say. I responded that there are countless ways to deal with that issue.
EVERY Barbarian in the situation you described could make another attack on his turn, then end his rage, and wind up in the same exact situation as the fighter, but having made an extra attack. That's just one option open to ALL Barbarians. If you want to do something else, there are a multitude of feats, powers, abilities, potions, and hell even teamwork to take into consideration if you so desire.
The point we are making is that it not such an issue, because it is easily recognized, and even easier to deal with. The laziest and safest way is just take Raging Vitality. But I've already gone over many, many more.
|
|
That's an awfully big assumption. It must be convenient living in a fantasy world with villains who won't kill people...Tactically, the boss probably has other people to deal with and won't want to waste an action stabbing a fallen foe when he could swat a pesky rogue/cleric/anything who's actively killing him.
The fighter is safe, he's down and out for the count. The barbarian though is still a threat, and consequently a target.
It's not awfully big, the BBEG would use an action to kill a fallen creature instead of killing people who are hurting him? Who's metagaming now, the player or the GM? As far as the BBEG knows he hit the guy hard enough to kill him.
Please.
Players will actively ask the GM "Is he bleeding out or dead?". If the GM can answer them affirmatively or negatively, or allows them a Heal check to know for sure, I don't see why the BBEG cannot do the same.
Yeah, I thought Sinatar's explanation kind of covers it from the "It won't break your game unless you let it" but didn't really add anything to helping the barbarian class feel heroic. You "CAN" take the extra damage and stand on your feet until your rage ends, but you're not really any tougher than the fighter.
Anyway, I won't argue further - it just seemed to me everyone was missing the point that the class ability didn't really add anything "heroic".
EDIT: "Heroic" as in, the CON temp HP ability. The rest of it is pure awesome
Yeah, I thought Sinatar's explanation kind of covers it from the "It won't break your game unless you let it" but didn't really add anything to helping the barbarian class feel heroic. You "CAN" take the extra damage and stand on your feet until your rage ends, but you're not really any tougher than the fighter.
+1 HP per level over the Fighter? Check.
+2/+3/+4 HP per level when in rage? Check.Ability to AC-Tank while raging by choosing a defensive rage power? Check.
Continuing to fight when you should already be dead? Check.
Being able to walk away from that fight when you should already be dead? Check.
The option to mix Diehard with your Constitution boost and bonus Con to let you keep fighting even after you should already be dead twice. Check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an awfully big assumption. It must be convenient living in a fantasy world with villains who won't kill people...Tactically, the boss probably has other people to deal with and won't want to waste an action stabbing a fallen foe when he could swat a pesky rogue/cleric/anything who's actively killing him.
The fighter is safe, he's down and out for the count. The barbarian though is still a threat, and consequently a target.
It's not awfully big, the BBEG would use an action to kill a fallen creature instead of killing people who are hurting him? Who's metagaming now, the player or the GM? As far as the BBEG knows he hit the guy hard enough to kill him.
Please.
Given the triviality of killing a downed enemy in terms of effort, the fact that slaying people is demoralizing, the fact he's probably not working by himself (most big bads have minions and assistance when fighting the PCs unless they are way overpowered or suicidal), yeah, it's tactically sound. Especially since it's basically impossible to bring someone back to life in the middle of combat, but healing them is easy. This is especially true at higher levels when one heal spell brings the guy at -1 back to full health.
Again, I say, it must be convenient to fight enemies who won't kill you.
So, what I'm taking away from this entire conversation is only play a Barbarian when you:
-Have super-high wealth, enough to be able to constantly rely on having good, expensive, healing potions for every fight.
-Turn a feat choice into a feat requirement.
-Have a dedicated healer in the group (And let's be honest, this one is rare. In my 15 years of gaming with several groups, the ONLY time I've seen a dedicated healer played is when I personally felt like playing one, which was rare enough as is.)
Seems like something with the class needs fixing.
(Someone made a VERY good argument with pre-negative unconscious situations [such a sleep effects] and basically got ignored. Classy ;) )
[u]Bottom line: Having extra health doesn't mean anything when, to survive tough fights, you have to pretend that you don't actually have extra health.[/u]
Finally, and I know this board is ruled by "optimizers" and I'll likely get shot down for this one, but dipping a level into Oracle? A Charisma-based divine caster? Let's just say that any DM I know would require an essay-sized back-story to support THAT kind of class-metagaming. :P
Neo, the first suggestion is to treat the bonus HP you get from Rage like a suped up version of the Diehard feat (or to a lesser extent Orc Ferocity). A Raging Barbarian at 5 hp is in the same situation that a Fighter with Diehard would be at -5 hp. How would you handle that situation for the Fighter? If you can answer that question you have your answer for the Barbarian.
If you refuse to do that, then you simply manage your Rage rounds. When things get really dangerous, drop out of Rage. Any Barbarian can do that without spending any money, or feats, or rage powers.
If you refuse to do that, then there are numerous options available to a Barbarian. The most common is Raging Vitality, because not only does it keep you alive, it gives you even more HP to soak attacks with, and you can still be in prime condition if you go unconscious and then get healed (Raging not Fatiguing).
And finally, a Barbarian / Oracle multiclass is a rather common occurrence (although I prefer Oracle dipping Barbarian). You can call it class-metagaming all you want, but the Rage Prophet Prestige Class built around this very combination kind of legitimizes the whole idea. Unless you consider Rage Prophets to be "class-metagaming" as well.
And finally, a Barbarian / Oracle multiclass is a rather common occurrence (although I prefer Oracle dipping Barbarian). You can call it class-metagaming all you want, but the Rage Prophet Prestige Class built around this very combination kind of legitimizes the whole idea. Unless you consider Rage Prophets to be "class-metagaming" as well.
I'm not suggesting that you can't mix the classes, or that there isn't even support for such a character idea.
What I'm saying is, "Show me a player who made a level 19 Barb/1 Oracle and didn't do it just to get that level 17 ability super-early, and I'll show you a liar who was just metagaming." :P
|
|
Finally, and I know this board is ruled by "optimizers" and I'll likely get shot down for this one, but dipping a level into Oracle? A Charisma-based divine caster? Let's just say that any DM I know would require an essay-sized back-story to support THAT kind of class-metagaming. :P
I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)
|
|
I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?
I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)
You win by handling encounters in 2-3 rounds tops, something that Barbarians are quite good at - Come and Get Me is great at helping make it happen, just like the original inspiration behind it (Robilar's Gambit from PHB2) was.
You don't worry about the enemies having +4 to damage against you, because they will be dead before they get to profit from that.
As a houserule, I eliminate the Con bonus and instead, the barbarian gains 2x barbarian lvl in temp HP at the beginning of a rage. The current rage system makes Barbarians kamikazes, and that's just not right. It's one of those things that Pathfinder did not fix from 3.5. Oh well.
This is a houserule I could support, and one I think is appropriate to the intention of the class - I've never felt comfortable that the 'temporary' hit points you get for raging could be healed... although to be fair, the player still has to choose to kamikaze, and fantasy literature is rife with heroes fighting until all their foes are slain and then succumbing to their wounds.
Some people are set in their ways, willfully ignorant, if you will. Continuing to debate with them, after they have shown themselves as such, is a waste of time.Which side are you talking about, incidentally?
Maybe both.
|
|
I'll take a stab: since you're not that stellar at optimizng, you draw conclusions about a class based upon, well, moderately grounded theorycraft, unlike us optimizers who know how the class works because we play to win.
Sorry for party rockin'.
I know how to optimize just fine, but that is defeating the purpose more often than not.
How do you "win" this game? How do you "win" ~any~ ROLEplaying game?
I realize you're playing a ROLLplaying game, but... still. ;)You win by handling encounters in 2-3 rounds tops, something that Barbarians are quite good at - Come and Get Me is great at helping make it happen, just like the original inspiration behind it (Robilar's Gambit from PHB2) was.
You don't worry about the enemies having +4 to damage against you, because they will be dead before they get to profit from that.
I know everyone has their own playstyle but RPG's in general are not played to "win" like a board game or a video game. Taking out encounters in a round or two may be "your" goal but it's not the goal of the game.