OK I'm just going to say it. Barbarians are unbalanced.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 714 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

kyrt-ryder wrote:
You guys do realize it doesn't even need to be Synthesist Summoner right? The baseline summoner still brings a beastly Eidolon to the table who pounces like a Tiger on steroids.

That's why I noted that the Synthesist was actually at the weaker end of the Summoner spectrum. He's basically the training wheels version of the Summoner (or would be were it not for the pages of FAQs a new player would have to slog through to actually get it right).

...

In play, he's the training wheels version of the Summoner. He'll get you from point A to point B while protecting you from small mishaps along the way, but he's not what's going to take you to the top of the mountain.

Actually, I guess the Synthesist Summoner is basically a Barbarian with spells.

High Hit points? Check.
Pounce option? Check.
Decent Will saves on a melee chassis? Check.

So yeah, the Synthesist is the Barbarian with a spell list.


Ssalarn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
You guys do realize it doesn't even need to be Synthesist Summoner right? The baseline summoner still brings a beastly Eidolon to the table who pounces like a Tiger on steroids.

That's why I noted that the Synthesist was actually at the weaker end of the Summoner spectrum. He's basically the training wheels version of the Summoner (or would be were it not for the pages of FAQs a new player would have to slog through to actually get it right).

I disagree. The vanilla summoner have more power due to action economy, but The synthetist survivality is way better.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
You guys do realize it doesn't even need to be Synthesist Summoner right? The baseline summoner still brings a beastly Eidolon to the table who pounces like a Tiger on steroids.

That's why I noted that the Synthesist was actually at the weaker end of the Summoner spectrum. He's basically the training wheels version of the Summoner (or would be were it not for the pages of FAQs a new player would have to slog through to actually get it right).

I disagree. The vanilla summoner have more power due to action economy, but The synthetist survivality is way better.

In actual play, its far more likely for something to go wrong as the Synthesist than the vanilla Summoner by virtue of being on the frontline rather than the back.


Daenar wrote:
But a double edged sword, preventing helpful buffs and healing.

As per always, not a real drawback as most healing is out of combat or channels, AND you can still save for half


Lemmy wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Pounce is just wrong. Most of the rest is alright.

What's wrong is that Barbarians are the only martial class that get Pounce. (At 10th level. After investing 3 Rage Powers. Meanwhile, Druids get it for free at 6th level and Summoners at 1st level for a single evolution point).

Martial classes losing 90% of their effectiveness because they dared to move 10ft is one of the biggest flaws with the system.

I was actually sadden when ultimate combat was released. I was really hoping for chain of feat to help that exact case. Something similar to this:

Combat Momentum:
Prerequisite: Step-up, BAB +1
Benefit: You can move 10 feet and still perform a full round action to perform melee attacks. If your movement is slowed by difficult terrain you cannot use this feat unless you have a way to circumvent the movement penalty.

Improved, Combat Momentum:
Prerequisite: Step-up, Combat Momentum, BAB +6
Benefit: You can move 20 feet and still perform a full round action to perform melee attacks. If your movement is slowed by difficult terrain you cannot use this feat unless you have a way to circumvent the movement penalty.

Greater, Combat Momentum :
Prerequisite: Step-up, Combat Momentum, Improved, Combat Momentum BAB +11
Benefit: You can move 30 feet and still perform a full round action to perform melee attacks. Difficult terrain does not prevent you anymore from using combat momentum.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
You guys do realize it doesn't even need to be Synthesist Summoner right? The baseline summoner still brings a beastly Eidolon to the table who pounces like a Tiger on steroids.

That's why I noted that the Synthesist was actually at the weaker end of the Summoner spectrum. He's basically the training wheels version of the Summoner (or would be were it not for the pages of FAQs a new player would have to slog through to actually get it right).

I disagree. The vanilla summoner have more power due to action economy, but The synthetist survivality is way better.

Survivability is a huge factor in what makes the synthesist a larger problem than the summoner.

Unlike the master summoner, the synthesist class features are MORE effective than the base summoner.

I think all of the above might have problems though but the Synthesist is the biggest offender.

*sigh* Post 5000 for me... *sigh*

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Alexandros Satorum wrote:


I disagree. The vanilla summoner have more power due to action economy, but The synthetist survivality is way better.

Nope. As I mentioned earlier, you end up with a big issue with the Synthesist in that you become the only one who can restore your Eidolon's hit points. Unlike with a standard Summoner, you have to stop attacking and cast a spell (could be an issue in and of itself), and the party healer can't jump in to help you out. So if your Eidolon gets in a bad way, your choices are either to start pouring your own, very limited, hit points into the Eidolon to keep it up, hoping that this doesn't end with your little 8 Con caster standing alone and near death in the middle of the battlefield. A standard Summoner can keep his distance, using spells to counterspell and buff and keep his Eidolon viable, and capable of being assisted by the party healer in keeping it on its feet. If it goes down, he's not going to be standing right next to whatever killed it and can call up reinforcements with a summon spell ( a very risky proposition for the squishy guy in melee range).

Maker's Call and Transposition make it ridiculously easy to deal with any enemies who get the smart idea to find some way around the Eidolon (itself not a guaranteed proposition) and go after the caster.

The Synthesist just isn't anywhere near as good as the core class.

Liberty's Edge

Ssalarn wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
I'm gonna add to the "Barbarians get ridiculous stuff *cough*pounce*cough* that I wish Beast Totem only applied to natural attacks since it makes more sense. ***
Agreed. I think 90% of the "Barbarian's are OP!" stuff would go out the window if Beast Totem Pounce applied specifically to natural attacks instead of letting a guy hurl himself forward and swing his greatsword or thrust with his lance 4 times. Having claws and a bestial nature shouldn't help you swing a sword faster.

Uh...three or more Natural Attacks is just as powerful as a Full Attack. This wouldn't actually make Barbarians notably less powerful, just make them forced into Natural Weapon builds. Which sounds boring and against the theme of the class.


Ssalarn wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Serum wrote:
Perhaps pounce in general should only apply to natural attacks.
Synthesist Summoners would laugh even harder.
Fortunately they're already on the weaker end of the Summoner spectrum, so no worries there.
The weaker end of the Summoner spectrum is the stronger end of the martial spectrum.
Which definitely serves to reinforce the idea that Barbarians are not OP, though they do have options that are pretty superior to the same level options of their martial counterparts.

So where does that leave Fighters? Barbarians do not equal "the martial spectrum". Either Barbarians get cut down to size to be in line with other martials, or the martials get buffed to the Barbarians level.

Since Paizo seems to think that the Rogue, nevermind the Fighter, is fine as is, I'll only give you one guess as to which option is more likely to happen.

It doesn't matter if the Barbarian is or isn't balanced against the Druid or Wizard, it matters that Barbarian is or isn't balanced against the Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and Cavalier, Because those classes exist in the same continuum.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ranger and Paladin look good next to the Barbarian, thank you very much. All three are well balanced against each other and fit very well as martials alongside the other classes.

Do not lump Paladins and Rangers in with the refuse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Ranger and Paladin look good next to the Barbarian, thank you very much. All three are well balanced against each other and fit very well as martials alongside the other classes.

Do not lump Paladins and Rangers in with the refuse.

Amen. I dig the dichotomy of,

Paladin- Evil's Bane. Saves and Immunities with tons of party resources to bring.

Barbarian- Killing Machine. Built well it brings all fights down to HP and AC.

Ranger- Skillful Skirmisher. Gets more to do out of combat than the others. Trapfinder potential, jam packed with FLAVOR!

I'd play a Guide Trapper Ranger any day over a Fighter. He simply has so much more he can do out of combat and has tons of flavorful options.


Ssalarn: the weakness of summoners that synthesists bypass is not so much HP as its saves. A normal eidolon is really easy to Dismissal, while the summoner is easu to Blind. Synthesists have much, much better saves. Also, yes, incombat healing is a bit limited for them but its not that often that it is needed - and on those rare occacions you can stand back and launch offensive spells very efficiently.

The vanillasummoner has more power, but it has a few glaring weaknesses that can be exploited. Synthesist isnt as powerful, but shores up basically every single one of the summoners weakness.

A quadroped eidolon at level 10 has a base will save of +2 and a Wisdom of 10. Just sayin'. Sure, with a feat and a cloak it's +6 instead of +2, and if the summoner keeps within reach of the eidolon (which isn't that easy to do safely) it rises to +8 but even +8 means a lower-level npc cleric will have like a 50/50 to dismissal it in a single action.

And that is using up the cloak slot from the summoner, leaving her with a fort save of maybe +7 or so too, making her an easy target for stuff like Blindness, especially if she keeps within reach of the eidolon.

Not to mention that if they keep so close to each other, any area save or suck will force them to roll two saves, and either one saving means a very hamstrung character.

Compare to a synthesist who's likely rocking a +14 will save (+7 base +2 meld +2 cloak +3 wis) and a +10 fort (+3 base +3 con +2 meld +2 cloak) and won't have to make two saves against area effect spells. Dismissal? No biggie. Blindness? You're kidding.


Ssalarn wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


I disagree. The vanilla summoner have more power due to action economy, but The synthetist survivality is way better.

Nope. As I mentioned earlier, you end up with a big issue with the Synthesist in that you become the only one who can restore your Eidolon's hit points. Unlike with a standard Summoner, you have to stop attacking and cast a spell (could be an issue in and of itself), and the party healer can't jump in to help you out. So if your Eidolon gets in a bad way, your choices are either to start pouring your own, very limited, hit points into the Eidolon to keep it up, hoping that this doesn't end with your little 8 Con caster standing alone and near death in the middle of the battlefield. A standard Summoner can keep his distance, using spells to counterspell and buff and keep his Eidolon viable, and capable of being assisted by the party healer in keeping it on its feet. If it goes down, he's not going to be standing right next to whatever killed it and can call up reinforcements with a summon spell ( a very risky proposition for the squishy guy in melee range).

Maker's Call and Transposition make it ridiculously easy to deal with any enemies who get the smart idea to find some way around the Eidolon (itself not a guaranteed proposition) and go after the caster.

The Synthesist just isn't anywhere near as good as the core class.

The standard summoner can try to keep the distance, nothing guarantee that.

When you add the summoner hp tp the eidolon Hp the total is very high, and there is no bout that the synthesist will do it, because , wy not?

And, It is not only AC and HP, synthesist have better ways to jut raise their saves too. Standar summoner saves are mediocre at best. A lot of spells/monster abilities can take them out of hte fight and their eidolon with them, without the need to be close to the summoner.


Ashiel wrote:

Ranger and Paladin look good next to the Barbarian, thank you very much. All three are well balanced against each other and fit very well as martials alongside the other classes.

Do not lump Paladins and Rangers in with the refuse.

So what are you saying exactly? That I should just forget about playing any heavily armoured warrior (awful lot of fantasy history and tropes goes out the window with that one) that isn't lawful good and infused with divine power?

Or maybe I want to play an effective Monk. You know, that class that has been around since 1st ed? Oh wait, it's refuse. I should know better. Monks are badwrongfun.

Paladins are an ultra-specific RPG trope. Rangers are more flexible than they used to be, but they still come with boyscout nature boy flavour out of the box. Maybe I don't won't to play those classes.

I'm sorry, but what you're saying is bs.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:

So what are you saying exactly? That I should just forget about playing any heavily armoured warrior (awful lot of fantasy history and tropes goes out the window with that one) that isn't lawful good and infused with divine power?

Or maybe I want to play an effective Monk. You know, that class that has been around since 1st ed? Oh wait, it's refuse. I should know better. Monks are badwrongfun.

Paladins are an ultra-specific RPG trope. Rangers are more flexible than they used to be, but they still come with boyscout nature boy flavour out of the box. Maybe I don't won't to play those classes.

I'm sorry, but what you're saying is bs.

Uh...he didn't say anything about Fighters and Monks shouldn't be better...he said that Barbarian wasn't better than Ranger or Paladin, which means the weak classes should be powered up, not Barbarian powered down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

EDIT: Ninja'd by DMW.



Ilja... how did you do that? It looks like you literally posted nothing. Wow!


Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Ranger and Paladin look good next to the Barbarian, thank you very much. All three are well balanced against each other and fit very well as martials alongside the other classes.

Do not lump Paladins and Rangers in with the refuse.

So what are you saying exactly? That I should just forget about playing any heavily armoured warrior (awful lot of fantasy history and tropes goes out the window with that one) that isn't lawful good and infused with divine power?

Or maybe I want to play an effective Monk. You know, that class that has been around since 1st ed? Oh wait, it's refuse. I should know better. Monks are badwrongfun.

Paladins are an ultra-specific RPG trope. Rangers are more flexible than they used to be, but they still come with boyscout nature boy flavour out of the box. Maybe I don't won't to play those classes.

I'm sorry, but what you're saying is bs.

No-one is saying that you cannot enjoy playing a fighter, rogue or monk. I am sure loads of people do for many and varied different reasons. It doesn't change the fact that all three are mechanically weak classes in comparison to other melee and ranged classes.

And given what various devs have said about maintaining the balance between the classes in the CRB that isn't going to change any time soon.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...three or more Natural Attacks is just as powerful as a Full Attack. This wouldn't actually make Barbarians notably less powerful, just make them forced into Natural Weapon builds. Which sounds boring and against the theme of the class.

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you really arguing that it is against the theme of a line of Rage Powers titled "Beast Totem", which give natural attacks and an ability normally reserved for specific types of monsters, to use natural weapon builds?

You realize that's a bit of a ridiculous statement right? I can promise you that the guy who wrote that line of powers assumed you would be using the claws he gave you, not ignoring them to grab a greatsword.

Dropping manufactured weapons from Pounce puts the barbarian in a position where he needs to use something like BWoMS or AoMF to enchant his natural attacks, balancing things there, and removes some of the stupid stuff going on right, like mounted RAGELANCEPOUNCE. It would go a lllllooooooooonnnnggg way towards removing one of the only two issues that crop up with Barbarians seeming OP.


Given the wording of the ability which contains no such limitation I am not sure how anyone writing the Beast Totem line could come to such a conclusion. Of course we will never know what happened in the editing process.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?

Cavalier doesn't need a buff. He's already got multiple options to simulate the benefit of having Pounce, has pretty solid party buffs with unlimited duration, decent short term duration buffs, and a self buff that can be as good as or better than Smite.

The Monk, taken in its entirety, also has a few options that are very viable, like the Tetori, Sensei, Zen Archer, and various Qinggong mish-mashes.

It's really just the Fighter and the Rogue who are behind the curve.


andreww wrote:
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Ranger and Paladin look good next to the Barbarian, thank you very much. All three are well balanced against each other and fit very well as martials alongside the other classes.

Do not lump Paladins and Rangers in with the refuse.

So what are you saying exactly? That I should just forget about playing any heavily armoured warrior (awful lot of fantasy history and tropes goes out the window with that one) that isn't lawful good and infused with divine power?

Or maybe I want to play an effective Monk. You know, that class that has been around since 1st ed? Oh wait, it's refuse. I should know better. Monks are badwrongfun.

Paladins are an ultra-specific RPG trope. Rangers are more flexible than they used to be, but they still come with boyscout nature boy flavour out of the box. Maybe I don't won't to play those classes.

I'm sorry, but what you're saying is bs.

No-one is saying that you cannot enjoy playing a fighter, rogue or monk. I am sure loads of people do for many and varied different reasons. It doesn't change the fact that all three are mechanically weak classes in comparison to other melee and ranged classes.

And given what various devs have said about maintaining the balance between the classes in the CRB that isn't going to change any time soon.

Yes, they are saying that, by insisting that "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" which is ridiculous. It is because I'm aware of Paizo's mulish stubbornness regarding "balance", and I use that term very loosely in regards to pathfinder, that I'm pushing the more realistic course of nerfing, specifically, beast totem, and superstitious.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?

The idea of nerfing other classes to match the fighter is for lack of a more eloquent term obscenely stupid. Not only would that basically ruin the classes that do work, but it would create way more of a workload for whomever was doing it for virtually no gain.

In core, the following classes work very well. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. All of these characters bring stuff to a group that is worthwhile, fun, entertaining, and well rounded. Those that are specialists are masters of their specialization (such as Barbarians and Paladins).

Out of those core classes, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue stand out as being severely lacking.

The Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are the odd-men out. If you were to assign each class to a player, it would disrupt more players to break the rest of classes down than it would be to build the other ones up. Not only would it create needlessly complicated revisions and extra work but it would be a great irritation to the rest of the characters who actually are very functional.

And they are functional. I have games where players play martial characters all the time. My current campaign had a Barbarian and a Paladin in it. The Barbarian player later switched to a revised version of the Rogue class for a change in theme, but when he was around he did very well next to the Paladin and other characters in the group.


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Yes, they are saying that, by insisting that "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" which is ridiculous. It is because I'm aware of Paizo's mulish stubbornness regarding "balance", and I use that term very loosely in regards to pathfinder, that I'm pushing the more realistic course of nerfing, specifically, beast totem, and superstitious.

Barbarians are fine because Paladins and Rangers.


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them.

Not sure about hte monk (after all the non core material), but about rogues they are just wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?

Clearly, you read it poorly. It happens to the best sometimes.

Look, you said,

you wrote:

So where does that leave Fighters? Barbarians do not equal "the martial spectrum". Either Barbarians get cut down to size to be in line with other martials, or the martials get buffed to the Barbarians level.

Since Paizo seems to think that the Rogue, nevermind the Fighter, is fine as is, I'll only give you one guess as to which option is more likely to happen.

Which is a false dichotomy anyway (they're just as likely to leave it alone as to change it), and then,

you wrote:
It doesn't matter if the Barbarian is or isn't balanced against the Druid or Wizard, it matters that Barbarian is or isn't balanced against the Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and Cavalier, Because those classes exist in the same continuum.

... then Ashiel said,

literally the post immediately below yours wrote:

Ranger and Paladin look good next to the Barbarian, thank you very much. All three are well balanced against each other and fit very well as martials alongside the other classes.

Do not lump Paladins and Rangers in with the refuse

... which you seemed to boil down to (and focus only on),

Quote:
refuse

... to produce,

you again wrote:

So what are you saying exactly? That I should just forget about playing any heavily armoured warrior (awful lot of fantasy history and tropes goes out the window with that one) that isn't lawful good and infused with divine power?

Or maybe I want to play an effective Monk. You know, that class that has been around since 1st ed? Oh wait, it's refuse. I should know better. Monks are badwrongfun.

Paladins are an ultra-specific RPG trope. Rangers are more flexible than they used to be, but they still come with boyscout nature boy flavour out of the box. Maybe I don't won't to play those classes.

I'm sorry, but what you're saying is bs.

... which is a really hard conclusion to come to.

It's almost like a conversation like this:
Person A: Man, I hate that super-fruit jelly has the most flavor! Honey-jelly, tart-jelly, bland-jelly, and weak-jelly suck in comparison, having no flavor, so they're likely going to change the recipe for super-jelly!
Person B: Actually, I think super-fruit jelly, as well as honey-jelly, and tart-jelly all have strong flavors, too. They're very different, but all very good. Please don't equate those to bland-jelly and weak-jelly.
Person A: You dare suggest that no one should enjoy bland jelly?!
Person C: ... uh? Actually he just said that they have flavor.
Person A: NO HE DIDN'T
Everyone else: ???


Ashiel wrote:
In core, the following classes work very well. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. All of these characters bring stuff to a group that is worthwhile, fun, entertaining, and well rounded. Those that are specialists are masters of their specialization (such as Barbarians and Paladins).

Besides superstitions (that is not that good in just core) I am not sure the barbarian are better than fighters (except for the better skills, of course)


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Yes, they are saying that, by insisting that "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" which is ridiculous. It is because I'm aware of Paizo's mulish stubbornness regarding "balance", and I use that term very loosely in regards to pathfinder, that I'm pushing the more realistic course of nerfing, specifically, beast totem, and superstitious.

How is that the more realistic option?

I'm interested in precedents set, if you don't mind, so I can see what you're seeing.


Ssalarn wrote:
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?

Cavalier doesn't need a buff. He's already got multiple options to simulate the benefit of having Pounce, has pretty solid party buffs with unlimited duration, decent short term duration buffs, and a self buff that can be as good as or better than Smite.

The Monk, taken in its entirety, also has a few options that are very viable, like the Tetori, Sensei, Zen Archer, and various Qinggong mish-mashes.

It's really just the Fighter and the Rogue who are behind the curve.

I remain unconvinced of this, even in regards to the Ranger and Paladin. Mostly based on personal experience.

The Monk is a complicated example because of the archetypes for that class were apparently supposed to "fix" the class, yet the chassis of the class is still fundamentally broken in my opinion.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the cavalier, as I have yet to see the class in play, but I have read it. Anyways, mounted has always been a really strong option, when it actually is an option, it is basically situational.


Ashiel wrote:
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?

The idea of nerfing other classes to match the fighter is for lack of a more eloquent term obscenely stupid. Not only would that basically ruin the classes that do work, but it would create way more of a workload for whomever was doing it for virtually no gain.

In core, the following classes work very well. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. All of these characters bring stuff to a group that is worthwhile, fun, entertaining, and well rounded. Those that are specialists are masters of their specialization (such as Barbarians and Paladins).

Out of those core classes, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue stand out as being severely lacking.

The Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are the odd-men out. If you were to assign each class to a player, it would disrupt more players to break the rest of classes down than it would be to build the other ones up. Not only would it create needlessly complicated revisions and extra work but it would be a great irritation to the rest of the characters who actually are very functional.

And they are functional. I have games where players play martial characters all the time. My current campaign had a Barbarian and a Paladin in it. The Barbarian player later switched to a revised...

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying, that failing a buff of varying potency across the martial classes (an event I am dead certain will not happen inside this edition of pathfinder, so maybe never), I want beast totem and superstitious nerfed, nothing more nothing less. I'm not asking for nerfs on anything else, just those two features, which in my opinion stretch things just a little too much considering that other classes get nothing comparable.

I am aware of the power gap between Fighter, Rogue, Monk and the rest of the classes, but that in no way changes what I'm saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
In core, the following classes work very well. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. All of these characters bring stuff to a group that is worthwhile, fun, entertaining, and well rounded. Those that are specialists are masters of their specialization (such as Barbarians and Paladins).
Besides superstitions (that is not that good in just core) I am not sure the barbarian are better than fighters (except for the better skills, of course)

I like Barbarians because they begin stronger than Fighters and have more options. Rage Powers give you things that you can do, and even many of the ones from core are very nice. Clear Mind for example allows you a rerolled will save each rage, which is very nice when rage-cycling comes online (has a lot of synergy with superstition). I like No Escape even more than Step-Up but the two work really well together. Strength Surge is always useful and makes Barbarians the kings of CMB and CMD (has a lot of synergy with Spell Sunder). Unexpected Strike allows AoOs even when they wouldn't normally provoke, again a nice power. Mighty-Swing allows you to auto-confirm a critical hit when you need to, which is mighty nice! Fearless Rage is also really awesome.

Splat material gives more options for padding defenses and giving more support vs magic. Barbarians are magic-light done right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?

Cavalier doesn't need a buff. He's already got multiple options to simulate the benefit of having Pounce, has pretty solid party buffs with unlimited duration, decent short term duration buffs, and a self buff that can be as good as or better than Smite.

The Monk, taken in its entirety, also has a few options that are very viable, like the Tetori, Sensei, Zen Archer, and various Qinggong mish-mashes.

It's really just the Fighter and the Rogue who are behind the curve.

I remain unconvinced of this, even in regards to the Ranger and Paladin. Mostly based on personal experience.

The Monk is a complicated example because of the archetypes for that class were apparently supposed to "fix" the class, yet the chassis of the class is still fundamentally broken in my opinion.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the cavalier, as I have yet to see the class in play, but I have read it. Anyways, mounted has always been a really strong option, when it actually is an option, it is basically situational.

Again. More classes are closer to par with the Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian than the Rogue/Fighter. The Monk is essentially fixed with Qinggong.

You mention the chassis of the class is still fundamentally broken. Yes it is and it'll be that way till 2nd edition or if they release a revised version of the CRB classes.

Archetypes are pretty much the go to option for fixing base class problems. Unfortunately they don't exactly solve the Rogue/Fighter's problems yet.

Lets take a look at the guys who are comparable to the Rogue.

Bard, Inquisitors and Alchemists. Are you saying these three should be brought down to be more on par with the Rogue?

Now lets look at the Fighter and Monk's comparables.

Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Cavaliers, and Samurai are all generally "better" than the Fighter and Monk. The Monk is fortunate to have archetypes that more or less fix it. So really its 5 good and 1 bad.

To sum, it is never a good idea to break all the runners' legs to make them even with the guy who has a limp.


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying, that failing a buff of varying potency across the martial classes (an event I am dead certain will not happen inside this edition of pathfinder, so maybe never), I want beast totem and superstitious nerfed, nothing more nothing less. I'm not asking for nerfs on anything else, just those two features, which in my opinion stretch things just a little too much considering that other classes get nothing comparable.

Superstitious isn't even that powerful without the Human FCB.


Ashiel wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
In core, the following classes work very well. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. All of these characters bring stuff to a group that is worthwhile, fun, entertaining, and well rounded. Those that are specialists are masters of their specialization (such as Barbarians and Paladins).
Besides superstitions (that is not that good in just core) I am not sure the barbarian are better than fighters (except for the better skills, of course)

I like Barbarians because they begin stronger than Fighters and have more options. Rage Powers give you things that you can do, and even many of the ones from core are very nice. Clear Mind for example allows you a rerolled will save each rage, which is very nice when rage-cycling comes online (has a lot of synergy with superstition). I like No Escape even more than Step-Up but the two work really well together. Strength Surge is always useful and makes Barbarians the kings of CMB and CMD (has a lot of synergy with Spell Sunder). Unexpected Strike allows AoOs even when they wouldn't normally provoke, again a nice power. Mighty-Swing allows you to auto-confirm a critical hit when you need to, which is mighty nice! Fearless Rage is also really awesome.

Splat material gives more options for padding defenses and giving more support vs magic. Barbarians are magic-light done right.

Except for strengh surge, the power you listed are considerably weaker than the ones for the main barbarian build.

And letting aside the matter of personal taste the result is not stronger than a core fighter. For example no beast totem to patch the big difference in AC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
I want beast totem and superstitious nerfed, nothing more nothing less. I'm not asking for nerfs on anything else, just those two features, which in my opinion stretch things just a little too much considering that other classes get nothing comparable.

Suffice to say I don't want those nerfed. Those are good abilities which allow the non-magical barbarian a leg up in a world that frankly pisses in her cornflakes on a daily basis. She is the deaf guy in a world where hearing is king. She is the blind guy in a world with pitfalls everywhere. Yet she still holds her own.

Superstition is good, but it's not that good. Paladins still have better saving throws (this is doubly so when bestow grace comes online) and they have tons of awesome immunities and spells to boot. Both Paladins and Rangers have spells to supplement their already formidable martial expertise. Barbarians have nothing except their rage powers which are supposed to make up for everything.

And spells are everything. That's why Barbarian is magic-lite done right. Barbarian actually manages to compete and adapt to a world of magic. She manages to be a warrior who without casting spells, buffing herself up to heck and back, or otherwise being anymore than a heroic badass manages to go toe to toe with big bad monsters and not get completely invalidated by spellcasters. Even stuff like wall of stone and wall of force do not invalidate her because Strength Surge and Spell Sunder allow him to do heroic-normal things like break walls and shout "By Crom!" and break the wizard's spell.

And Pounce is not overpowered. If anything it's a throwback to how strong martials were in 3.0 when your boots of speed allowed you to move up to your speed and full-attack. The only difference is pounce is easier to foil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

'Kay. I've said enough in this thread. you've gone back to "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" again. I'm not going to argue in circles.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Except for strengh surge, the power you listed are considerably weaker than the ones for the main barbarian build.

What is the "main barbarian build"? Because honestly I build barbarians in lots of different ways. I generally throw superstitious or beast-totem onto them because those are pretty solid staples for defensive barbarians (and I believe strongly that being disabled in combat means you are neither defending nor ending someone). I don't even bother with the Pounce thing in a lot of cases 'cause honestly it's way to easy to ruin charge-reliant builds so it depends on what I'm going to be giving up for the option (seriously, difficult terrain, the slightest thing in your path, having to take anything other than a strait line, all of these things ruin charging tactics and are goofy-common).

Quote:
And letting aside the matter of personal taste the result is not stronger than a core fighter. For example no beast totem to patch the big difference in AC.

I'd doubly take a barbarian before a core-only fighter if we had to go single-classed. Barbarians begin stronger and go longer. By the time the AC difference is really a thing, AC doesn't matter half as much as saving throws and the ability to shrug bad effects. I'd gladly trade a few points of AC for +7 to saves, the ability to re-roll a will save 1/rage, auto-critical confirmation with any weapon, +level on Strength checks, Combat Maneuver Bonuses, and Combat Maneuver Defense, Immunity to Shaken an Frightened (Bravery can suck it), Uncanny Dodge (amazing ability), and DR that reaches 8/- in core (if I have only core-only rage powers then grabbing the DR increasing power a few times is a decent deal).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
'Kay. I've said enough in this thread. you've gone back to "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" again. I'm not going to argue in circles.

Ya, Rangers and Paladins and Alchemists and Inquisitors and Druids and Summoners and Magi (right?) are all totally Wizards. There's definitely no way you are completely missing the point Liches-Be-Crazy. There is certainly no chance you failed a reading comprehension check. That's just impossible.

(This is the internet, so the above is sarcasm.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
'Kay. I've said enough in this thread. you've gone back to "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" again. I'm not going to argue in circles.

How do you come to that conclusion? I haven't said anything about wizards, other than Barbarians can do something to fight them without casting spells. Rangers and Paladins also do stuff to fight them but they cast spells.


Well barbarians are fine and other non magic classes could use a lift:)


Ashiel wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Except for strengh surge, the power you listed are considerably weaker than the ones for the main barbarian build.

What is the "main barbarian build"? Because honestly I build barbarians in lots of different ways. I generally throw superstitious or beast-totem onto them because those are pretty solid staples for defensive barbarians (and I believe strongly that being disabled in combat means you are neither defending nor ending someone). I don't even bother with the Pounce thing in a lot of cases 'cause honestly it's way to easy to ruin charge-reliant builds so it depends on what I'm going to be giving up for the option (seriously, difficult terrain, the slightest thing in your path, having to take anything other than a strait line, all of these things ruin charging tactics and are goofy-common).

The forum main barbarian build have superstitions chain+beast totem chain + spell sunder and generally is an invulnerable rager.

Ashiel wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Except for strengh surge, the power you listed are considerably weaker than the ones for the main barbarian build.

What is the "main barbarian build"? Because honestly I build barbarians in lots of different ways. I generally throw superstitious or beast-totem onto them because those are pretty solid staples for defensive barbarians (and I believe strongly that being disabled in combat means you are neither defending nor ending someone). I don't even bother with the Pounce thing in a lot of cases 'cause honestly it's way to easy to ruin charge-reliant builds so it depends on what I'm going to be giving up for the option (seriously, difficult terrain, the slightest thing in your path, having to take anything other than a strait line, all of these things ruin charging tactics and are goofy-common).

Quote:
And letting aside the matter of personal taste the result is not stronger than a core fighter. For example no beast totem to patch the big difference in AC.

I'd doubly take a barbarian before a core-only fighter if we had to go single-classed. Barbarians begin stronger and go longer. By the time the AC difference is really a thing, AC doesn't matter half as much as saving throws and the ability to shrug bad effects. I'd gladly trade a few points of AC for +7 to saves, the ability to re-roll a will save 1/rage, auto-critical confirmation with any weapon, +level on Strength checks, Combat Maneuver Bonuses, and Combat Maneuver Defense, Immunity to Shaken an Frightened (Bravery can suck it), Uncanny Dodge (amazing ability), and DR that reaches 8/- in core (if I have only core-only rage powers then grabbing the DR increasing power a few times is a decent deal).

You say a couple of point in AC but we are talking about a diference of 5.

Besides superstitions is not that good by itself. The core barbarian is way more reliant on party buff/heal because he AC sucks, he does not have the damage reduction of an invulnerable rager and he is slower to deliver his full damage.

There is also no rage cycling until level 17 th (If I am not missing anything).

We can do a build comparison if you want.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Except for strengh surge, the power you listed are considerably weaker than the ones for the main barbarian build.

What is the "main barbarian build"? Because honestly I build barbarians in lots of different ways. I generally throw superstitious or beast-totem onto them because those are pretty solid staples for defensive barbarians (and I believe strongly that being disabled in combat means you are neither defending nor ending someone). I don't even bother with the Pounce thing in a lot of cases 'cause honestly it's way to easy to ruin charge-reliant builds so it depends on what I'm going to be giving up for the option (seriously, difficult terrain, the slightest thing in your path, having to take anything other than a strait line, all of these things ruin charging tactics and are goofy-common).

The forum main barbarian build have superstitions chain+beast totem chain + spell sunder and generally is an invulnerable rager.

Ashiel wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Except for strengh surge, the power you listed are considerably weaker than the ones for the main barbarian build.

What is the "main barbarian build"? Because honestly I build barbarians in lots of different ways. I generally throw superstitious or beast-totem onto them because those are pretty solid staples for defensive barbarians (and I believe strongly that being disabled in combat means you are neither defending nor ending someone). I don't even bother with the Pounce thing in a lot of cases 'cause honestly it's way to easy to ruin charge-reliant builds so it depends on what I'm going to be giving up for the option (seriously, difficult terrain, the slightest thing in your path, having to take anything other than a strait line, all of these things ruin charging tactics and are goofy-common).

Quote:
And letting aside the matter of personal taste the result is not stronger than a core fighter. For example no beast totem to patch the big
...

Ya, who uses Cords of Stubborn Resolve or a 1 level dip in Oracle (though you have to wait some) to rage cycle way before 17th level? Everyone you say? Oh just everyone then.


+5 celestial armor = +11 armor
+5 heavy shield = +7 shield
+5 ring of protection = +5 deflection
+5 amulet of natural armor = +5 natural armor
-2 Rage

vs

+5 mithral full plate armor = +14 armor
+5 heavy shield = +7 shield
+5 ring of protection = +5 deflection
+5 amulet of natural armor = +5 natural armor
Net gain +5 AC

HOWEVER the barbarian gets...
DR 8/-. +7 on saves vs Magic. Re-roll a failed Will save. Uncanny Dodge (cannot be flat-footed, can make AoOs when surprised, benefits vs invisible foes, blinded isn't nearly as bad, can walk around taking a total defense for a +6 dodge bonus on the surprise round), Trap Sense (+6 vs traps, which if placed intelligently are like an extra enemy in an encounter), Improved Uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked). +4 on Will saves and +8 vs Enchantment effects.

I've barely scratched my Rage powers. Spent no feats. I think the defensive qualities of the core Barbarian spit in the face of the Fighter's. +5 AC. Pfft. He can sit on his AC.

Especially when you start tossing on things like displacement effects (such as the lesser cloak of displacement, and armor effects like fortification). I will most definitely trade 5 points of AC over 20 levels for tons of defensive stuff and the ability to not be a lawn ornament.


The cloak does mean you sacrifice the cloak of resistance which is a pretty essential item for basically everyone, even superstitious barbarians. If you have a crafter buddy you can do it in another slot I suppose.


Quickly to the Otherwordly Kimono!


Anzyr wrote:
Ya, who uses Cords of Stubborn Resolve or a 1 level dip in Oracle (though you have to wait some) to rage cycle way before 17th level? Everyone you say? Oh just everyone then.

You missed hte part when I was talking about core.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
'Kay. I've said enough in this thread. you've gone back to "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" again. I'm not going to argue in circles.

Can you articulate why your counter argument amounts to more than "Barbs are OP becuz Fiter?"


andreww wrote:
The cloak does mean you sacrifice the cloak of resistance which is a pretty essential item for basically everyone, even superstitious barbarians. If you have a crafter buddy you can do it in another slot I suppose.

Well everyone is going to want a cloak of displacement because it's a very solid means of defending yourself because it adds another layer of defense. If you absolutely must get it only in cloak form, then that means that the Barbarian can enjoy that phat +7 vs magic and get get the miss % and a +10% bonus vs magic. Or just enjoy that you've got an extra +35% saving throw if things are equal.

551 to 600 of 714 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / OK I'm just going to say it. Barbarians are unbalanced. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.