Going over these abilities for the Barbarian and the Rogue, many of them seem absurd.
Take Major and Minor Magic for the Rogue. It makes no sense why a Rogue should have access to this when, if he wanted to, he could multi-class into Wizard or Sorcerer. Shouldn't magic be rare enough to be left to the professionals? And why should a Rogue be able to dispel magical effects (Dispelling Attack) or be able to escape magical holds (Slippery Mind). I guess Sneak Attack wasn't good enough now you gotta give him a Bleeding Atack?
With the Barbarian, just because he gets mad he gets to unleash an Elemental Rage and deal elemental damage in addition to his pretty awesome damage? All of the sudden he gets to see in the dark? What's up with this?
I understand that Pathfinder is trying to give people a reason to stay with a class to L20 if they wanted to, but isn't this patronizing? I smell a munchkin at work here.
Going over these abilities for the Barbarian and the Rogue, many of them seem absurd.
Take Major and Minor Magic for the Rogue. It makes no sense why a Rogue should have access to this when, if he wanted to, he could multi-class into Wizard or Sorcerer. Shouldn't magic be rare enough to be left to the professionals? And why should a Rogue be able to dispel magical effects (Dispelling Attack) or be able to escape magical holds (Slippery Mind). I guess Sneak Attack wasn't good enough now you gotta give him a Bleeding Atack?
With the Barbarian, just because he gets mad he gets to unleash an Elemental Rage and deal elemental damage in addition to his pretty awesome damage? All of the sudden he gets to see in the dark? What's up with this?
I understand that Pathfinder is trying to give people a reason to stay with a class to L20 if they wanted to, but isn't this patronizing? I smell a munchkin at work here.
I agree that some of the rogue talents seem a bit of for the flavor of the class. I personally like bleeding attack, but the minor and major magic talents doesn't seem to fit the class IMO. Also some of the talents like Weapon finesse seems redundant when you could just take the talent that grants a combat feat instead. I would instead have a talent that allowed for any bonus feat as long as you met the requirement. The dispelling attack I kind of see since the class already knows how to disable magic traps, so perhaps some rogues know of mundane ways to disrupt magical energies. I kind of like the rage powers of the barbarian, and I can see the elemental rage as some sort of spiritual connection to the barbarians environment, although some of the powers seems vastly better than others.
Going over these abilities for the Barbarian and the Rogue, many of them seem absurd.
Take Major and Minor Magic for the Rogue. It makes no sense why a Rogue should have access to this when, if he wanted to, he could multi-class into Wizard or Sorcerer. Shouldn't magic be rare enough to be left to the professionals? And why should a Rogue be able to dispel magical effects (Dispelling Attack) or be able to escape magical holds (Slippery Mind). I guess Sneak Attack wasn't good enough now you gotta give him a Bleeding Atack?
With the Barbarian, just because he gets mad he gets to unleash an Elemental Rage and deal elemental damage in addition to his pretty awesome damage? All of the sudden he gets to see in the dark? What's up with this?
I understand that Pathfinder is trying to give people a reason to stay with a class to L20 if they wanted to, but isn't this patronizing? I smell a munchkin at work here.
IDK about the rogue, but what the Barbarian needed more than anything else was flavor! A druidic fighter to pair off with the paladin.
Personally I wouldn't mind blood line like organization. Like druids, where a barbarian gets his great rage abilities. He got claws in earlier versions. With the bite and lowlight vision, I would say lycanthropic ancestry.
In the END, these are OPTIONS, not manditory. If you don't like it don't use it. If you a GM ban them if you must, but that seems more like thought control to me, so just don't use them yourself.
IDK about the rogue, but what the Barbarian needed more than anything else was flavor! A druidic fighter to pair off with the paladin.
Personally I wouldn't mind blood line like organization. Like druids, where a barbarian gets his great rage abilities. He got claws in earlier versions. With the bite and lowlight vision, I would say lycanthropic ancestry.
In the END, these are OPTIONS, not manditory. If you don't like it don't use it. If you a GM ban them if you must, but that seems more like thought control to me, so just don't use them yourself.
A druidic fighter? In what way is a Barbarian druidic? In that he's an angry warrior from a primitive culture? Or, could it be that simply a Barbarian is a warrior who has informal training? Who says he has to come from the woods? It makes no sense whatsoever that he gets this kind of access to magic power just because he's a little miffed, irregardless of his connection to the natural world.
I can see if it's something like a Ki power, like the Monk (which is so broken that I've banned it completely until I can fix it), but ki is something that is to be refined. You have to train in order to use it consistently and properly. If Elemental Rage is like that, then it should be a rare occurance, something like a critical hit.
The problem with Optional anything is that I've diminished the purity of the game as published, so I'll have to work a little harder to remove all instances where I see them; in published adventures and munchkins looking to try to put one over on me. Better to have not put that in the game in the first place. There can't be so many crutches for players.
|
IDK about the rogue, but what the Barbarian needed more than anything else was flavor! A druidic fighter to pair off with the paladin.Personally I wouldn't mind blood line like organization. Like druids, where a barbarian gets his great rage abilities. He got claws in earlier versions. With the bite and lowlight vision, I would say lycanthropic ancestry.
In the END, these are OPTIONS, not manditory. If you don't like it don't use it. If you a GM ban them if you must, but that seems more like thought control to me, so just don't use them yourself.
The Ranger is the Druidic Fighter to pair off with the Paladin.
When did Barbarians ever gain claw attacks in earlier editions of the game?
In what way does that amount to thought control? Whose going to punish you for wanting to use them? The worst that could happen is that your GM will say no, just like anything else in the game. No does not equate to punishment.
As for the rogue minor and major spellcasting... rogues have always been 'dabblers' as far as I know. From ability to use wands and scrolls at higher levels in earlier editions to.... the ability to try and use wands and scrolls at all levels in the more recent. You'd think that eventually they'd figure a little something out.
That is true, I completely forgot about UMD, the ability makes a bit more sense to me now.
Take Major and Minor Magic for the Rogue.
Those are as rogue as stabbing people in the back. Roguish types picking up a few magical tricks without getting formal training is a classic. It's even in 3e in some form: Use Magic Device. It even used to be a skill exclusive to rogues (and bards, if I recall correctly).
It makes no sense why a Rogue should have access to this when, if he wanted to, he could multi-class into Wizard or Sorcerer.
In the same vein, you could ask a thousand questions, like "why can rangers cast nature spells when they could just take a druid level or two?" Or "why have bards when you can do a fighter/rogue/sorcerer multiclass?"
Shouldn't magic be rare enough to be left to the professionals?
Definetly not! That would be boring! Let rogues, paladins, rangers and bards have their magic!
And why should a Rogue be able to dispel magical effects (Dispelling Attack) or be able to escape magical holds (Slippery Mind).
Counter question: Why not? They're so sneaky and able to get out of fetters that they manage to sneak magical effects and escape from even magical shackles
Plus, slippery mind has been there since 3.0, so you're complaining in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
With the Barbarian, just because he gets mad he gets to unleash an Elemental Rage and deal elemental damage in addition to his pretty awesome damage?
I'm kinda with you on this one. Don't like it. But I can see it, if you go beyond conan and get more mystical about berserkers. If you do the possessed-by-spirit-of-rage angle, an elemental manifestation of this malevolent spirit riding the barbarian can make sense.
All of the sudden he gets to see in the dark? What's up with this?
Pure instinct. Or, again, pseudo-mystical stuff. Once he enters his rage, he's no longer a rational human(oid) being, but a beast.
isn't this patronizing?
Huh? You feel patronised? You think Paizo considers you an idiot who cannot play a barbarian effectively so he lets you have these powers?
If they said stuff like "people cannot figure out about power attack and all those bonuses and penalties, so it's going to be simplified" I would consider it patronising....
I smell a munchkin at work here.
Man, get your nose checked out. Did you maybe eat a munchkin earlier today and had to sneeze? Maybe a piece went up your nose and is stuck there.
Those are as rogue as stabbing people in the back. Roguish types picking up a few magical tricks without getting formal training is a classic. It's even in 3e in some form: Use Magic Device. It even used to be a skill exclusive to rogues (and bards, if I recall correctly).
That's a weak argument. Even a jack of all trades should have limitations, and being able to shape reality should be one of them. Just because they can disarm a magical trap or use a magical device shouldn't make them default sorcerers. I may be able to perform CPR or treat a sucking chest wound, but that doesn't make me a doctor.
In the same vein, you could ask a thousand questions, like "why can rangers cast nature spells when they could just take a druid level or two?" Or "why have bards when you can do a fighter/rogue/sorcerer multiclass?"
We need to ask those questions. Perhaps Rangers and Bards should lose that ability to cast spells.
Definetly not! That would be boring! Let rogues, paladins, rangers and bards have their magic!
I didn't mention anything about divine magic. Magic should be rare.
Counter question: Why not? They're so sneaky and able to get out of fetters that they manage to sneak magical effects and escape from even magical shackles
Because it's magic. If you fail to make your save the first time, just because you're sneaky gives you an opportunity to make another save attempt? Come on.
Plus, slippery mind has been there since 3.0, so you're complaining in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I've known about that since I playtested 3.0, and I disagreed with it then. Hopefully, we can correct this.
I'm kinda with you on this one. Don't like it. But I can see it, if you go beyond conan and get more mystical about berserkers. If you do the possessed-by-spirit-of-rage angle, an elemental manifestation of this malevolent spirit riding the barbarian can make sense.
Not enough that he can do mighty blows, clear his mind (when he's raging mad) and a whole lot of other things, now he's gotta tap into that mystical realm and put acid on his unarmed hands or on a naked blade. Let's see, I know, why don't we give him the ability to knock over a castle wall while we're at it? Or hogtie an elephant. Or ignore psionic attacks.
I think if you give players an inch, they'll take the mile. Give a player an atomic bomb, he'll find a reason to use it.
Pure instinct. Or, again, pseudo-mystical stuff. Once he enters his rage, he's no longer a...
This I just don't buy. It's getting too mystical. Rage is nice, but it's not magic, nor should it be anything like it. Not that I don't think a Barbarian shouldn't derive something from being a berserker, it's just that all these abilities, particularly the Elemental Rage bit, is ridiculous. The Terrifying Howl is a bit less ridiculous, and I do understand it, but given everything else this guy can do isn't this a bit much?
Huh? You feel patronised? You think Paizo considers you an idiot who cannot play a barbarian effectively so he lets you have these powers?
Not me, per se, but others. Why have them? Isn't the Barbarian or the Rogue just as effective without them? There's a saying in Engineering that perfection is not when you feel there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
So perhaps they should reevaluate the Bard and the Ranger while they're at it. Perhaps they should leave Arcane Magic in the hands of a few in order to make the game truly exciting once again.
IDK about the rogue, but what the Barbarian needed more than anything else was flavor! A druidic fighter to pair off with the paladin.Personally I wouldn't mind blood line like organization. Like druids, where a barbarian gets his great rage abilities. He got claws in earlier versions. With the bite and lowlight vision, I would say lycanthropic ancestry.
In the END, these are OPTIONS, not manditory. If you don't like it don't use it. If you a GM ban them if you must, but that seems more like thought control to me, so just don't use them yourself.
The Ranger is the Druidic Fighter to pair off with the Paladin.
When did Barbarians ever gain claw attacks in earlier editions of the game?
In what way does that amount to thought control? Whose going to punish you for wanting to use them? The worst that could happen is that your GM will say no, just like anything else in the game. No does not equate to punishment.
IN alpha barbarians had claw attacks as rage powers. True about the scout, but in a tribe like setting I don't see many rangers, I see a few rangers as scouts, maybe half at most, and the main troops being barbarians.
I would call it thought control because if a GM does not allow a player play what they want, not because it is over powered, but because they don't like the fluff.
I call barbarians a new druidic fighter because other than the few combat abilities, like strength surge and powerful blow, they have beast like abilities which is similar to wild shape, and the elemental ability which is similar to elemental form. It is obvious to that the barbarian, in the setting of tribe described above, is gaining abilities through osmosis from their cleric, the druid.
In 3.5 and I guess in pathfinder you have these equivalents.
Civilized World:Natural World
Fighter:Barbarain
Paladin:Ranger
Cleric:Druid
Grant it a fighter doesn't have any cleric abilities, but this example isn't perfect. Again these changes in fluff were needed as the main flaw with the barbarian is that it was stagnant and always the same character, so this dip into druid fluff is just one option.
In the end the barbarian is better off for the greater option of fluff.
The fluff isn't that off, as if you remember the various totem variants.
A druidic fighter? In what way is a Barbarian druidic? In that he's an angry warrior from a primitive culture? Or, could it be that simply a Barbarian is a warrior who has informal training? Who says he has to come from the woods? It makes no sense whatsoever that he gets this kind of access to magic power just because he's a little miffed, irregardless of his connection to the natural world.
Well lets see. Original they couldn't read to start, they are commonly associated with totems, and every variant ever made in 3.5, if not neutral, seemed to point to something naturalistic or shamanistic in nature. You could play it as just an non formally trained melee type, but that was never their primary fluff.
The problem with Optional anything is that I've diminished the purity of the game as published, so I'll have to work a little harder to remove all instances where I see them; in published adventures and munchkins looking to try to put one over on me. Better to have not put that in the game in the first place. There can't be so many crutches for players.
Purity? Having more options breaks some sort of purity? Sounds more like you have your concept that you are letting break rather than expand. This is not a PrC this is a core class which needs to be able to mold into different roles and fluffs. It is just a character options, and other than balance and power, there is zero reason not to let players play what they want.
P.S. I never heard anyone complain about the fluff when in additional books the totem's for barbarians got released. So we got this fluff in the core rather than being forced to buy it separate. oh well, get over it. Some people like it, why not let them play what they want, and just play what you want.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
A whole lot of stuff.
Sounds like Pathfinder/3.0/3.5 is not for you. You mention issues you have with rules dating back to 3.0, as well as concerns with spell use for core classes such as Rangers that have been around since 1E. In addition, you mention that the Monk is "broken." My observation is that these concerns are specific to the way YOU want the game to look, as opposed to the game system itself being unbalanced.
To address your specific concerns:
* Giving Rogues the ability to cast some low level spells at high levels is very reasonable. Giving the Rogue the ability to Detect Magic or cast Knock does not give them the ability to "bend reality."
* Giving Barbarians an elemental flavor to enhance their primal abilities is also very reasonable. Their berserker rage has to come from somewhere. I know a lot of people who get really angry, but none of them "hulk up" the way Barbarians do.
* Magic should be rare? Not according to the RAW. In D&D, magic is pretty common. Magic may be rare in your campaign world, but that is not a restriction of the RAW, that is an artificial restriction based on your preferred playing style.
Remember, this play test is to help create an updated, better version of 3.5 that retains some degree of backwards compatibilty - not to create an entirely new game. Removing options that have been around since 1E does not accomplish this goal.
The best advice I can offer to you since D&D/Pathfinder does not seem to provide the types of classes, abilities, and rules that you wish to use: Try a different game with a lower magic level. I believe the Conan RPG has a low magic feel, so that may be more up your alley.
|
I think in general people place too much stock in the name of the classes. I try to ignore them, personally, but maybe that's because I prefer to have a more open way to build characters than with classes.
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with opening classes up in a way that allows them to fit a broader variety of archetypes inside of a general theme they represent. I see some of the barbarian abilities as semi-shamanistic sort of abilities that harness the powers of spirits and nature and such. A warrior who allows the greater spirits of nature to take him and guide him through battle in a frenzy.
This is going to sound bad, but here goes, D&D is a game of Archetypes. There are a lot of gaming systems that are more free form, and even variants like True20 which redo D&D into a free form system, but they aren't D&D, or I suppose they aren't MY D&D.
It is my opinion that D&D has thrived because it has such iconic archetypes. Just the name breeds mental images of those cliche moments that make it what it is. Got Dungeons? Got Dragons? Fighter, Cleric, Theif, Mage? All check? Then your probably playing D&D. I know this forum is littered with a thousand threads and flamewars arguing this point, but Pathfinder is an update to D&D and not a whole new game. So to me, again specify my opinion, constrained archetypes are an asset not a flaw of the system, they make D&D what it is, and we shouldn't stray or change it.
That's a weak argument. Even a jack of all trades should have limitations
0- and 1st-level spells only, and only 1/day. Call that what you will, but I call that a limitation. It doesn't go beyond that. They don't get 2nd-level. 3rd. Or more than these two spells. Pretty big limit.
and being able to shape reality should be one of them.
We're talking about cantrips and 1st-level spells here. Not exactly Wish or Miracle.
Just because they can disarm a magical trap or use a magical device shouldn't make them default sorcerers.
An option that grants you an extremely limited amount of spellcasting doesn't make you a default sorcerer. It's neither default nor sorcerer.
I may be able to perform CPR or treat a sucking chest wound, but that doesn't make me a doctor.
Define "doctor". If you define it as someone who has really studied the stuff, and can do a lot of medical stuff, then you're right.
And it's such a nice analogy, because I define spellcaster as someone who has really devoted time to learning magic and can do a lot of magical stuff.
1/day cantrips are just like applying a bandage or putting salve on a wound.
We need to ask those questions. Perhaps Rangers and Bards should lose that ability to cast spells.
Not this time around they don't. This is not a new edition, it's a revision.
I didn't mention anything about divine magic. Magic should be rare.
Magic is magic is magic.
And magic should be as rare as the GM and players want it. And the rules should support a wide range of possibilities.
But honestly: 3e doesn't lend itself that well to rare magic. Not with 7 out of 11 core classes having a spell progression, 4 of which going all the way up to level 9 and another still being able to cast spells from 1st level.
Iron Heroes or something like that would be a better fit.
Because it's magic. If you fail to make your save the first time, just because you're sneaky gives you an opportunity to make another save attempt? Come on.
No. Being a high-level rogue and choosing that ability gives you an opportunity to get another shot.
"It's magic"? How comes people are able to resist in the first place? If I use magic to enslave one's mind, how can he resist without magic at all? Or if I turn his body to dust with a ray of disintegration? How does that work?
I've known about that since I playtested 3.0, and I disagreed with it then. Hopefully, we can correct this.
You can only correct what is wrong. This isn't.
If you think otherwise, houserule.
I think if you give players an inch, they'll take the mile. Give a player an atomic bomb, he'll find a reason to use it.
Yeah, we have to fight them for every inch! It's us against them! Fight the players! GMs of the world unite! After all, the GM should always be out to win the game!
So perhaps they should reevaluate the Bard and the Ranger while they're at it. Perhaps they should leave Arcane Magic in the hands of a few in order to make the game truly exciting once again.
Perhaps D&D/PF really isn't for you.
This is going to sound bad, but here goes, D&D is a game of Archetypes. There are a lot of gaming systems that are more free form, and even variants like True20 which redo D&D into a free form system, but they aren't D&D, or I suppose they aren't MY D&D.
While it is true that D&D is one of the few games that still has clases and levels, they haven't been that narrowly defined for some time now.
3e already does a great job at this: By introducing skills and feats, i.e. abilities that are not directly dependant on what class you are, they allow more freedom in character creation and advancement.
The classes aren't like the ones from, say, Diablo 2, where the (all-female) sorceresses only get to use fire, ice or lightning attack magic, or amazones are basically forced to use either a bow or a javelin
I agree that D&D should not go classless or even make generic classes (like in true20 or Unearthed Arcana, or even d20 Modern) standard, but generally, I'm for granting classes more freedom.
In PF (and, to some extent, in 3e), we can do stuff like paladins that use crossbows and don't have a magical horse; or bards that use mockery to fuel their abilities; or honest rogues who don't know how to hide; or evil rangers who specialise in archery, or dwarven wizards who specialise in transmutation and wield hammers and axes in combat.
And I think that's fantastic! Freedom is great! I don't want to play a roleplaying game where you can basically have your character reduced to a 3 1/2 by 2 1/2 inch stat card which is included in the core game because all 3rd-level fighters have the same stats so you can print them out.
|
|
IN alpha barbarians had claw attacks as rage powers. True about the scout, but in a tribe like setting I don't see many rangers, I see a few rangers as scouts, maybe half at most, and the main troops being barbarians.
What we've got here is a mismatch of definition. In earlier editions barbarians didn't get claw attacks, in an earlier PHASE they did. Now they don't.
I would call it thought control because if a GM does not allow a player play what they want, not because it is over powered, but because they don't like the fluff.
Still not thought control. You're still allowed to like whatever you want to like, you've just agreed to follow the DM.
I call barbarians a new druidic fighter because other than the few combat abilities, like strength surge and powerful blow, they have beast like abilities which is similar to wild shape, and the elemental ability which is similar to elemental form. It is obvious to that the barbarian, in the setting of tribe described above, is gaining abilities through osmosis from their cleric, the druid.
I absolutely hate the idea of classifying paladins as clerics with swords, or any class with another for that matter. They're supposed to be their own seperate classes, but I cannot deny that some classes have certain connection that others don't.
Scout, the class, is a splatbook thing too. If you're just gonna go by the core then Ranger is what you'd compare to a druid and not the barbarian.
In 3.5 and I guess in pathfinder you have these equivalents.
Civilized World:Natural World
Fighter:Barbarain
Paladin:Ranger
Cleric:DruidGrant it a fighter doesn't have any cleric abilities, but this example isn't perfect....
Why does the barbarian have to come from the natural world? Don't we all come from the natural world? What about a cleric of a nature god? A paladin of the forest? A Temple Ranger? They all cross the threshold, and the classes don't seem to matter.
In the end, the only thing that matters is the character you're playing. Their personality will dictate whether or not there is a rift between the "civilized" and "natural".
Also, I don't see this druid thing you're talking about with the barbarian? He's not an elemental, he can just cause his sword to be fiery. He gains a bite, but ghouls and vampires have bites too. He can howl, oh well. None of that necessarily equates to a druidness in my opinion. Savage yes, druid no.
Druids and Barbarians really don't have much in common. Sure, they're nature types, but there the similarity ends.
It's not even that similar: Druids venerate nature and draw power from it, while barbarians are more the self-sufficient type who just happen to live in more natural places because they think civilisation is soft.
But their MOs are completely different.
Those are as rogue as stabbing people in the back. Roguish types picking up a few magical tricks without getting formal training is a classic. It's even in 3e in some form: Use Magic Device. It even used to be a skill exclusive to rogues (and bards, if I recall correctly).
That's a weak argument. Even a jack of all trades should have limitations, and being able to shape reality should be one of them. Just because they can disarm a magical trap or use a magical device shouldn't make them default sorcerers. I may be able to perform CPR or treat a sucking chest wound, but that doesn't make me a doctor.
Actually, originally, most surgeons were barbers ( I guess skill with a blade?)If you needed a bullet dug out of your leg, you went to the BARBER! This is only a few hundred years old by the way!
AS early ago as the 1950s Doctors themselves had NO clue how to perform CPR. So that skill is realtively new.
The EMT/Paramedic and eventually civilian CPR prgorams were formed nigh 25 years ago.
SO the fact that you CAN do CPR but not go to school for 8 years, is literally the same as a rogue taking minor magic, without formal wizard/sorceror training.
The EMT/Field Medic abilites to treat sucking chest wounds or even tension pnemothorax would be equivalent to major magic on the doctor/sorceror hypothesis.
Even a 13 year old babysitter can now do (CPR) what doctors had no idea how to do 50 years ago.
Minor/major magic only gives the rogue once per day anyway and a sorc or bard or wizard can do cantrips (and many of them) all day long.
Theoretically (at least) Major magic gives the rogue archer the ability to become an arcane archer without burning a level of wizard. All you need to do is cast 1st level arcane.
So yes, the imbue arrow ability would be a moot point for this archer, but he could get all the other abilities.
There are several uses for these talents without comming any where near encroaching on true arcane spellcasters.