|
Who deals more damage is level dependent.
There are some level dependent factors, but I am pretty confident that after 12th level when the Horn of the Criosphinx + Raging Brutality + Greater Beast Totem pounce + Mammoth Hide comes online for the Barbarian, the damage game is pretty well over for the fighter.
Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.
If they nerf Superstitious in anyway, they'd best give the barbarian something really good in return. If not, I don't think we'll see many people using the unchained barbarian.
Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.
Considering that neither of those things is a "3.5 holdover" and are in fact PF exclusive, I fail to see any reason Unchained would touch on them.
|
Considering that neither of those things is a "3.5 holdover" and are in fact PF exclusive, I fail to see any reason Unchained would touch on them.Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.
If you fail to see the reason, you need to reread this thread.
|
|
Who deals more damage is level dependent.There are some level dependent factors, but I am pretty confident that after 12th level when the Horn of the Criosphinx + Raging Brutality + Greater Beast Totem pounce + Mammoth Hide comes online for the Barbarian, the damage game is pretty well over for the fighter.
Until level 20, when Weapon Master kicks in.
Pounce is nice, but there are several options available that allow high mobility while retaining full attacks. You just need the feat chains.
If you fail to see the reason, you need to reread this thread.Considering that neither of those things is a "3.5 holdover" and are in fact PF exclusive, I fail to see any reason Unchained would touch on them.Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.
I would be incredibly surprised if they touched rage powers as the purpose of unchained is to break the sacred cows of 3.5.
Im guessing rage will either be something completely different or reworked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you fail to see the reason, you need to reread this thread.Considering that neither of those things is a "3.5 holdover" and are in fact PF exclusive, I fail to see any reason Unchained would touch on them.Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.
I don't understand. This thread has only established that barbarians have higher numbers than fighters.
"Unchained" is a thought experiment book where the devs allow themselves to rewrite the rules as they see fit without any attachment to 3.5 sacred cows. It is the expanded arcana of pathfinder. Now one could point to the summoner rework and see that the PF devs are rewriting non-3.5 things since a lot of what was made new in PF is still tied to those concepts.
But as far as this thread goes I can only draw a couple reason "rereading it" would offer a conclusion as to why the barbarian's superstitious would get a rewrite.
1. Barbarians are better than fighters
2. Fighters are fine so barbarians need nerfed (not shown in thread, but seems to be the assumption you are implying)
I still don't see how the thread gives the insight that Barbar superstitious will be rewritten in "unchained". Perhaps you should try more direct explanations, than depend on everyone reaching the conclusion that is apparent to you?
|
|
Who deals more damage is level dependent.There are some level dependent factors, but I am pretty confident that after 12th level when the Horn of the Criosphinx + Raging Brutality + Greater Beast Totem pounce + Mammoth Hide comes online for the Barbarian, the damage game is pretty well over for the fighter.Until level 20, when Weapon Master kicks in.
Pounce is nice, but there are several options available that allow high mobility while retaining full attacks. You just need the feat chains.
That might be so. I am honestly not quite sure how to factor the critical aspect into an average DPR calculation.
I think you missed the point on the pounce issue, though. For a Barbarian, it's not just about the full attack - it's about charging with a full attack because of all the bonuses a charge triggers. If you're packing the aforementioned feats while wielding Molvenn, you're looking at around a flat +100 damage per hit on pounce attacks.
Pounce is nice, but there are several options available that allow high mobility while retaining full attacks. You just need the feat chains.Name three.
Mobile Fighter, Mythics, Quick-runner's shirt
None of those are feat chains, but non-pounce move-fullattacks are a thing.
|
How about 4?Pounce is nice, but there are several options available that allow high mobility while retaining full attacks. You just need the feat chains.Name three.
Rapid Attack (Ex): At 11th level, a mobile fighter can combine a full attack action with a single move. He must forgo the attack at his highest bonus but may take the remaining attacks at any point during his movement. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. This ability replaces armor training 3.
If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
You can take a full-attack action, activating abundant step or casting dimension door as a swift action. If your do, you can teleport up to twice your speed (up to the maximum distance allowed by the spell or ability), dividing this teleportation into increments you use before your first attack, between each attack, and after your last attack. You must teleport at least 5 feet each time you teleport.
Dance of Fury (Su): At 12th level, a dervish dancer can attack more than once as he moves while performing a battle dance. He can combine a full-attack action with a single move, taking the attacks at any point during his movement, but must move at least 5 feet between each attack. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. This ability replaces soothing performance.
If you fail to see the reason, you need to reread this thread.Considering that neither of those things is a "3.5 holdover" and are in fact PF exclusive, I fail to see any reason Unchained would touch on them.Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.
I could be misreading what you mean, but are you saying that since the barbarian is more powerful than the fighter, that it needs to be nerfed?
Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.
I hope not. Barbarians are effective, but not broken. They do their job and do it well, but ain't derailing anyone's campaign.
I really hope Paizo doesn't cripple Barbarians just because Fighters are horribly designed.
Though the Dervish Dancer is a fine example of how even spellcasters can get their hands on non-magical forms of pounce.
|
|
I could be misreading what you mean, but are you saying that since the barbarian is more powerful than the fighter, that it needs to be nerfed?
Looks back upthread .....
When 1 ability gives higher bonuses to all saves than a full 20 levels of monk, and those saves are then used to judge the viability of all classes, something is broken. This has already taken place in this thread.
Superstition was used as the excuse to set the bar for "viable" will saves so high that even wizards had to be dwarven and take either Iron Will or Steel Soul to meet the minimum requirements.
Combat Patrol is cool... But giving up your full attack for AoOs is not all that impressive... Especially when it requires Dodge and Mobility....
I could be misreading what you mean, but are you saying that since the barbarian is more powerful than the fighter, that it needs to be nerfed?Looks back upthread .....
When 1 ability gives higher bonuses to all saves than a full 20 levels of monk, and those saves are then used to judge the viability of all classes, something is broken. This has already taken place in this thread.
Superstition was used as the excuse to set the bar for "viable" will saves so high that even wizards had to be dwarven and take either Iron Will or Steel Soul to meet the minimum requirements.
So Barbarians have the highest will save after spending a resource, and must make the save even against friendly spells... So what?
Someone has to have the highest will, why not Barbarians? Because Fighters are awful?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Patrol would typically be combined with Stand Still, Step Up, and Pin Down.
Combat Patrol doesn't allow you to make full attacks, it just expands your threatened area. It also has the downside of being utterly awful as you waste your entire turn telegraphing what you are doing to the enemy and then hoping they then move through your slightly larger threatened area.
You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed.
If you provoke, I get to move on your turn, hit you, and full attack on my turn. I do not need a straight line, charge lanes, or anything else. Pin Down means even taking a 5' step or withdraw action provokes.
Mounted Skirmisher is OK for a ranger or paladin but given the fighter will be riding a normal animal it isn't going to last long against even the most incidental of area damage. That's a lot of feats to waste.
Look for better mounts. I'm sure you can find options if you actually try instead of standing around saying "I don't want to acknowledge that option."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Barbarians have the highest will save after spending a resource,
The equivalent of 1 feat for; I believe the number quoted was +16 to all saves?
and must make the save even against friendly spells... So what?
Looks back upthread ... disadvantage dismissed as being irrelevant due to rage cycling.
Someone has to have the highest will, why not Barbarians? Because Fighters are awful?
Having the highest by 1 or 2 points, yes. Having the highest by more than doubling what a class with strong saves has? No.
And it is not just will saves. For the equivalent of one feat you are more than doubling all saves received by every class in the game.
Still don't see any problem with it. It's still far less powerful than anything casters can do by the time that Barbarian gets a +16.
Should all martials have a Fighter's awful defenses and painful limitations?
Still don't see any problem with it. It's still far less powerful than anything casters can do by the time that Barbarian gets a +16.
Should all martials have a Fighter's awful defenses and painful limitations?
We'll find out with Unchained wont we?
Superstitious alone can be a +16 morale bonus to saves. It's so amazingly good that it is really hard to pass up on.I also strongly suspect it will be one of the issues addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, along with rage cycling.I hope not. Barbarians are effective, but not broken. They do their job and do it well, but ain't derailing anyone's campaign.
I really hope Paizo doesn't cripple Barbarians just because Fighters are horribly designed.
Idk if barbarians are all that effective. The flying teleporting Pit fiend can still widdle the CR 20 or CR 999999 barbar to death just by staying out of reach with fireballs.
The barbar has essentially two things over the fighter:
1. higher numbers
2. spell sunder
The barbar is able to stay competitive through obscene numbers and one utility option, but still fall victim to many "lol silly mortal" problems. I would like to see the unchained barbar stay competitive with good numbers and more utility.
I think Fighters should have slightly worse saves than a Paladin and much better defenses than a Ranger as a good balance point since Rangers have loads more utility and Paladins are just better in every way than a Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk if barbarians are all that effective. The flying teleporting Pit fiend can still widdle the CR 20 or CR 999999 barbar to death just by staying out of reach with fireballs.
Perhaps, but the same could be said about any martial class (or caster without teleport).
The barbar has essentially two things over the fighter:
1. higher numbers
2. spell sunder
Also: Pounce and skill points.
Barbarians have tons of options in combat because they have the numbers to back them. Fighters, OTOH, have numbers but no options, while Rogues have the opposite problem, "options" but not high-enough numbers to make them viable.
'Til this thread, I always thought Fighters had better damage output and AC than Barbarians, although by only a small margin, and yet, I'd much rather have a Barbarian in my party than a Fighter.
In fact, I'd much rather have a Ranger than a Fighter, no matter how much higher a Fighter's numbers are. Because while they are fairly high numbers (I've seen Fighters consistently outdamage smiting Paladins), their limitations are too numerous and too restrictive.
All in all, Fighters are a horribly designed class. Even Rogues are not that badly designed (even if they are less useful).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We might just need to retire the ki-less, magic-less, psionic-less mundane dude as an effective character concept.
The biggest difference between the Warrior and the Fighter is feats. The fighter might have slightly more AC and be slightly more accurate, but the main difference is the feats.
Unless feats get reworked and can synergised, I don't think the fighter can be a viable high level concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Superstition was used as the excuse to set the bar for "viable" will saves so high that even wizards had to be dwarven and take either Iron Will or Steel Soul to meet the minimum requirements.
Superstition didn't do that, spellcaster DC's did. When one set of classes can demand an entry fee for high-level play, which only some classes can pony up, who is broken here? The classes that can pay the fee, or the ones who extract it in the first place?
If you provoke, I get to move on your turn, hit you, and full attack on my turn. I do not need a straight line, charge lanes, or anything else. Pin Down means even taking a 5' step or withdraw action provokes.
Combat Patrol is terribly contingent, and it's not even a real Pounce effect. It's using a Full Round Action on one turn, then moving up and attacking something (maybe), then you get to Full Attack on your next turn provided you don't have to move again to reach it. Stand Still specifically requires them to move through adjacent squares, which makes the whole thing even trickier. And this is all at a feat cost that would make even a Fighter raise an eyebrow.
Finds several suitable mounts for even high level characters, that do not require feats.
Which ones are those? I'm genuinely curious, because this could actually be useful.
Even Rogues are not that badly designed (even if they are less useful).
I must disagree. Fighters rock just fine until about level 10 (they become less awesome over time).
Rogues have troubles from 1-20 and not just in comparison to other classes.
far as i can tell, easiest ways for fighters to get 'pounce' is from:
-mobile fighter (though it's not mobile at all until 11th level, and even then)
-dawnflower dervish (which i personally prefer over mobile fighter, though it still doesnt become mobile until 11th either)
-a 3-level dip into horizon walker for the dimensional dervish line
-nature soul + animal ally feats for an animal companion (use as a mount, though why not just play a cavalier or samurai at that point?)
you can sortof cheat it by grabbing the step up (and strike) line to try and be 'sticky' enough to stay within full-attack range of your target (it's just a matter of getting over to them).
also, dwarven fighters (or humans/half orc or elf/aasmar with racial heritage) can get spellshatter (which IS spell sunder), though barbarians can still get it, what, six levels earlier?
There is no mount that is accessible with feats that can survive high level combat. Classes with Special Mounts can manage, but non-special mounts might as well be speed bumps.
Even Rogues are not that badly designed (even if they are less useful).I must disagree. Fighters rock just fine until about level 10 (they become less awesome over time).
Rogues have troubles from 1-20 and not just in comparison to other classes.
That's my point... Rogues are bad because they lack numbers to make their options viable (and a bunch of classes can "out-Rogue" them).
But at least they (theoretically) have those options. Rogues (supposedly) can contribute both in and out of combat.
Fighters are built with the idea that increasing DPR and AC is worth being completely useless in anything other than standing still and full attacking.
So, while it's sadly true that Paizo made Rogue's "options" too weak and easy to replace, making them not very useful, their class design is better than the Fighter's.
my only post on the rogue thing: if they had SOME way to be accurate (and use SA reliably), SOME way to survive past 9th level, and their rogue talents got the same love paizo has for rage powers, they'd be a feasible class.
the lack of those is what stunts the rogue so horribly in comparison to literally every other class in the game.
back on-topic: dont fighters have a large (the largest, actually) pool of abilities they get to choose from every even level (like the rogue/barb)? what were they called again... combat feats? that said, they're still not as good as rage talents at their best (rage talents largely surpass every other class' 'equivalent' while we're at it--magus arcana, most revelations, rogue talents, etc.)
How many combat feats are actually good? Good enough to compare to class features like Rage Powers? How wide a variety of abilities do they actually give you? And how many of the good feats are Fighter-only?
Even Rogues are not that badly designed (even if they are less useful).I must disagree. Fighters rock just fine until about level 10 (they become less awesome over time).
Rogues have troubles from 1-20 and not just in comparison to other classes.
That's my point... Rogues are bad because they lack numbers to make their options viable (and a bunch of classes can "out-Rogue" them).
But at least they (theoretically) have those options. Rogues (supposedly) can contribute both in and out of combat.
Fighters are built with the idea that increasing DPR and AC is worth being completely useless in anything other than standing still and full attacking.
So, while it's sadly true that Paizo made Rogue's "options" too weak and easy to replace, making them not very useful, their class design is better than the Fighter's.
I still have to disagree. Fighters are more than passable in low level combat where things are simple, where having the extra feats for blind-fight, combat reflexes, great cleave, and lunge really do make a difference. At low levels just having a high strength score solves lots of problems out of combat, and intimidating prowess even gives a fair amount of social power.
At 11+ game play 99% of that becomes irrelevant, but until then the fighter class is pretty well designed for handling encounters.
The rogue isn't. They don't have real options. They have options in doing one thing, sneak attack. They have skill points and that sort of allows you to do things. But rogues have trouble handling both combat and non-combat encounters. That makes far worse designed IMO.
The 1-10 fighter only seems weak in comparison to other classes. The 1-20 rogue has problems in a vacuum. You don't even need to cover the rogues role in a party. They don't even need to be replaced. You could just walk though traps and heal up the damage, or have a wand of mount handle mundane traps and dispel handle magic traps. Most out of combat situations don't require a rogue or rogue replacement to handle. Not only is it a poorly designed class, but it was made for an irrelevant role. At least "smack things for damage" is a needed ability for a party.
back on-topic: dont fighters have a large (the largest, actually) pool of abilities they get to choose from every even level (like the rogue/barb)? what were they called again... combat feats? that said, they're still not as good as rage talents at their best (rage talents largely surpass every other class' 'equivalent' while we're at it--magus arcana, most revelations, rogue talents, etc.)
And if those were worth a damn, that would mean something... Too bad most combat feats are either garbage or "You get a slight increase to DPR". There are some that are useful and allow characters to do something new, but very few of them aren't hidden behind a wall of awful prerequisites.
And what do those awful prerequisites do? They cheat Fighters out of their main class feature.
Paladin can't take feat chains? Well, at least they still have Smite Evil, Divine Grace, Weapon Bond, spells, etc.
Barbarians can't take feat chains? Who cares? Extra Rage Power is all they want!
Ranger can't take feat chains? Oh, right... They can. And they still have skills, spells, FE and FT.
Fighters and feat chains are be like a Paladin having to give up Divine Grace, Bonded Weapon and Detect Evil just to make Smite Evil scale with level.
How many combat feats are actually good? Good enough to compare to class features like Rage Powers? How wide a variety of abilities do they actually give you? And how many of the good feats are Fighter-only?
I run out of feats I want by level 8.
Human Fighter || 18 14 14 10 10 10 || Intimidate, Climb, Survival, Swim; Perception|| Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Toughness, Intimidating Prowess, Combat Reflexes
2 |Bravery, Power Attack
3 |Armor training, Cleave
4 |Great Cleave
5 |Weapon training(Blades, Heavy), Blind-Fight
6 |Bravery, Lunge
7 |Armor training, Iron Will
8 |Quick Draw
a lot of them really stop being useful past that though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still have to disagree. Fighters are more than passable in low level combat where things are simple, where having the extra feats for blind-fight, combat reflexes, great cleave, and lunge really do make a difference. At low levels just having a high strength score solves lots of problems out of combat, and intimidating prowess even gives a fair amount of social power.
At 11+ game play 99% of that becomes irrelevant, but until then the fighter class is pretty well designed for handling encounters.
I agree. Just houseruling 4 skill per level for thee fighter rise their utility to an acceptable level, and the diference in saves at low levels is not htat high. Giving them high will or ref increase their survivality a lot.
On the other hand, for rogues you have to look at those awful rogue taletns and fix them in order for them to not been outlcassed.
You guys are missing my point. I'm not saying Fighter are less effective than Rogues. They aren't! No PC class is less effective than Rogues! Rogues have never been a very good class, IMO, but in PF they are at the bottom of the barrel.
What I'm saying is that the design idea behind Rogues ("Skilled guy who can contribute in combat") is better than the one behind Fighters ("Can hit stuff. Useless at everything else").
I still have to disagree. Fighters are more than passable in low level combat where things are simple, where having the extra feats for blind-fight, combat reflexes, great cleave, and lunge really do make a difference. At low levels just having a high strength score solves lots of problems out of combat, and intimidating prowess even gives a fair amount of social power.
At 11+ game play 99% of that becomes irrelevant, but until then the fighter class is pretty well designed for handling encounters.
I agree. Just houseruling 4 skill per level for thee fighter rise their utility to an acceptable level, and the diference in saves at low levels is not htat high. Giving them high will or ref increase their survivality a lot.
On the other hand, for rogues you have to look at those awful rogue taletns and fix them in order for them to not been outlcassed.
You guys are missing my point. I'm not saying Fighter are less effective than Rogues. They aren't! No PC class is less effective than Rogues!
What I'm saying is that the design idea behind Rogues ("Skilled guy who can contribute in combat") is better than the one behind Fighters ("Can hit stuff. Useless at everything else").
I think the concept for both are equally flagging without a rework to feats and skills. I for one think the fighters key concept is "featmonger", cause that is the only real difference between him and a warrior. Skills also fall flat.
If you gestalt the two together you get a fairly decent concept "master of all things mundane is a world ruled by magic". Both of the classes smashed together may be able to stand toe-to-toe with a ranger (although slayer is basically this).