I take it you're of the school that a Barbarian can take no action but "ATTACK IT TIL ITS DEAD DURRRRRRRR" while Raging?
The RP behind superstitious...heck, the name itself...is that you don't trust magic. So why would you voluntarily lower your defenses against magic to be hit with it?It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.Why? Barbarians clearly have the ability to control their Rage. Otherwise they would not be able to call upon it at any time and drop it as a free action. Are you saying that Barbarians cannot think tactically while they Rage?
The whole ability chain aggravates me flavor-wise. First superstitious people deeply believe in the supernatural and are the most susceptible to it. Somehow avoiding black cats and throwing salt over your shoulder makes you more resilient to magic. Then this ability goes into spell sunder, which not only lets you destroy magic but remove intricate curses from allies by smacking them. Somehow your disdain for magic gives you intimate knowledge about it's inner workings.
Bah!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.
Eh, I dunno. A lot of superstitious tribal cultures are fine with their particular shaman or priest blessing them or protecting them from hostile magics, just not strangers doing the same (Who knows what they might really be casting, after all?). Seems like fine roleplaying to me if the Barbarian knows the spellcaster well.
Which has literally nothing to do with the point at all, so I'm not even sure why you're saying it. You don't need a to have "constant one-upmanship" for a wizard to be better than a rogue. Nevermind that, again, saying that the wizard can just play down at the rogue's level doesn't change the fact that that's a conscious choice on the player's part and therefore only highlights the issue.
It's not a question of "playing down at the rogue's level". It's more a question of choosing to focus on something else rather than the rogue's jobs within the party.
How does that fit with, "While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies?" If he were okay with an ally casting a spell on him, he wouldn't need to stop raging to let it happen.
You can explain it as Rage being a very heightened state of mind so that the Barbarian is just reflexively resisting all spells cast on them, no matter who is casting it. Once they drop Rage they are no longer in such a state of mind where they immediately resist the moment they feel a spell being cast on them.
The RP behind superstitious...heck, the name itself...is that you don't trust magic. So why would you voluntarily lower your defenses against magic to be hit with it?It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.Why? Barbarians clearly have the ability to control their Rage. Otherwise they would not be able to call upon it at any time and drop it as a free action. Are you saying that Barbarians cannot think tactically while they Rage?The whole ability chain aggravates me flavor-wise. First superstitious people deeply believe in the supernatural and are the most susceptible to it. Somehow avoiding black cats and throwing salt over your shoulder makes you more resilient to magic. Then this ability goes into spell sunder, which not only lets you destroy magic but remove intricate curses from allies by smacking them. Somehow your disdain for magic gives you intimate knowledge about it's inner workings.
Bah!
"Intimate knowledge about its inner workings"?
What?
The Barbarian is not unraveling this magic, dispelling it, undoing it, or anything like that.
He is taking it in one hand, and squeezing it until it cracks like a walnut between his beefy fingers. It doesn't take any sort of "intimate knowledge" to HULK SMASH something.
I know perfectly well how to smash a television with a baseball bat. Just don't ask me to fix it afterward, because I have no earthly clue.
|
|
How does that fit with, "While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies?" If he were okay with an ally casting a spell on him, he wouldn't need to stop raging to let it happen.It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.Eh, I dunno. A lot of superstitious tribal cultures are fine with their particular shaman or priest blessing them or protecting them from hostile magics, just not strangers doing the same (Who knows what they might really be casting, after all?). Seems like fine roleplaying to me if the Barbarian knows the spellcaster well.
When raging, I imagine them as getting tunnel vision and shrugging off all effects without even paying attention to who they're from...but if they're no longer Raging, they can pause a moment and let their friends help them. Seems reasonable to me, if perhaps poorly named.
@Jaçinto
A couple things:
1. You don't have to go out of your way to make full casters better than everyone. It's engrained into the system. You pretty much became better than everyone the first time you looked through your shiny new potential spell list with virgin eyes and saw options like Color Spray and Stinking Cloud and thought to yourself, "Gee willikers, these sure sound neat!"
2. If the only way the "thief" is useful is if you throw out other classes that do what he does+, then I don't see that as a shining endorsement for the overshadowed class. Instead of cutting the other class down at the knees, why is it so wrong to want that overshadowed class to have its own nice things? Hell, a lot of people who get angry about the Rogue love the Rogue concept. The issue is that the Rogue class does not fulfill the Rogue concept to the point that half the classes in the game just do it better.
3. I agree balanced/planned party composition and teamwork is good. I don't agree with you in saying that bad classes should dictate what good classes are capable of doing via houserules. If a few options are subpar compared to the rest it seems much more efficient to buff or prune them then to balance every other option that is not bad against them.
The RP behind superstitious...heck, the name itself...is that you don't trust magic. So why would you voluntarily lower your defenses against magic to be hit with it?It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.Why? Barbarians clearly have the ability to control their Rage. Otherwise they would not be able to call upon it at any time and drop it as a free action. Are you saying that Barbarians cannot think tactically while they Rage?The whole ability chain aggravates me flavor-wise. First superstitious people deeply believe in the supernatural and are the most susceptible to it. Somehow avoiding black cats and throwing salt over your shoulder makes you more resilient to magic. Then this ability goes into spell sunder, which not only lets you destroy magic but remove intricate curses from allies by smacking them. Somehow your disdain for magic gives you intimate knowledge about it's inner workings.
Bah!
"Intimate knowledge about its inner workings"?
What?
The Barbarian is not unraveling this magic, dispelling it, undoing it, or anything like that.
He is taking it in one hand, and squeezing it until it cracks like a walnut between his beefy fingers. It doesn't take any sort of "intimate knowledge" to HULK SMASH something.
I know perfectly well how to smash a television with a baseball bat. Just don't ask me to fix it afterward, because I have no earthly clue.
He smacks the baleful polymorph, dominate person, geas, and other such spells off his allies. That takes some finesse and magic know-how.
He smacks the baleful polymorph, dominate person, geas, and other such spells off his allies. That takes some finesse and magic know-how.The RP behind superstitious...heck, the name itself...is that you don't trust magic. So why would you voluntarily lower your defenses against magic to be hit with it?It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.Why? Barbarians clearly have the ability to control their Rage. Otherwise they would not be able to call upon it at any time and drop it as a free action. Are you saying that Barbarians cannot think tactically while they Rage?The whole ability chain aggravates me flavor-wise. First superstitious people deeply believe in the supernatural and are the most susceptible to it. Somehow avoiding black cats and throwing salt over your shoulder makes you more resilient to magic. Then this ability goes into spell sunder, which not only lets you destroy magic but remove intricate curses from allies by smacking them. Somehow your disdain for magic gives you intimate knowledge about it's inner workings.
Bah!
"Intimate knowledge about its inner workings"?
What?
The Barbarian is not unraveling this magic, dispelling it, undoing it, or anything like that.
He is taking it in one hand, and squeezing it until it cracks like a walnut between his beefy fingers. It doesn't take any sort of "intimate knowledge" to HULK SMASH something.
I know perfectly well how to smash a television with a baseball bat. Just don't ask me to fix it afterward, because I have no earthly clue.
No, he cleaves through it with all the blunt force of whatever two handed weapon he happens to be using. It's "Spell Sunder" not "Spell Disarm" or "Spell Trip" would would require him to have Combat Expertise. Nor does it require him to have a single damn clue about magic due the lack of knowledge/spellcraft rank requirements.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He smacks the baleful polymorph, dominate person, geas, and other such spells off his allies. That takes some finesse and magic know-how.
That idea works fine. I just find more amusing to think that the Barbarian is just hitting spells so hard that they fail.
I'm waiting for the day when I see a Barbarian dispel a Wizard's demiplane using Spell Sunder by getting angry and punching the ground so hard the entire plane blinks out of existence. Come to think of it, it'd be pretty epic too.
1. You don't have to go out of your way to make full casters better than everyone. It's engrained into the system. You pretty much became better than everyone the first time you looked through your shiny new potential spell list with virgin eyes and saw options like Color Spray and Stinking Cloud and thought to yourself, "Gee willikers, these sure sound neat!"
Yeah, I just have to compare how my Magus and Fighter at similar levels in two different campaigns played.
He smacks the baleful polymorph, dominate person, geas, and other such spells off his allies. That takes some finesse and magic know-how.No, it requires the raw power to simply break the subtle magics in half. No subtlety needed.
And yet the person doesn't break? How did he figure out how to smack magic instead of people?
And yet the person doesn't break? How did he figure out how to smack magic instead of people?He smacks the baleful polymorph, dominate person, geas, and other such spells off his allies. That takes some finesse and magic know-how.No, it requires the raw power to simply break the subtle magics in half. No subtlety needed.
I dunno, but it certainly didn't require me to learn anything about magic, as per the lack of knowledge/spellcraft rank requirements.
Hey I don't have the every book or study every single thing in all the books so please tell me, what classes do what the theif/rogue does, but better?
Lessee...
Bard
Archaeologist Bard
Trapper Ranger
Vivisectionist Alchemist
Slayer
Investigator
Seeker Sorcerer
Seeker Oracle
Ninja
Inquisitor
Just off the top of my head.
I don't recall the base bard having any class abilities for finding/disabling traps or picking locks or anything like that.
You mean besides the skills, of which he gets more than any class in the game (after Versatile Performance), Perception and Disable Device?
Trapfinding is not necessary to find traps, and is only necessary to disable the minority of them.
Also, Aram Zey's Focus. Bard 2. 1 min/level. Grants Trapfinding. Also, you can re-roll your Disable check if you flub it hard enough that the trap would be set off.
The usual argument is "Yeah but uh it's short duration" to which I answer: You don't need it on all the time. You can FIND non-magical traps just fine without it. Cast it on the fairly rare occasion you find one.
By the way, my group has decided that for a certain campaign it will be core rulebook only and I am playing a thief in that one, and yes I mean full on thief not just rogue. I think there will be a bard in the group but he wants to play minstrel style, not "better rogue."
Neat?
Also not totally sure how a wizard does every classes job better all the time, myself but again I don't study everything. I mean because of the number of spell slots means they can't really do what everyone does all day every day I think.
Wizards aren't good because they can do everything all day every day, they're good because they can potentially (with a realistic potential) do just about anything in a single class. There is a spell for (almost literally) EVERYTHING, and many spells actually do things better than skills (EX: Spider Climb, Fly vs Climb).
Unless of course people are talking about magic items like wands and stuff but when I compare classes, I am talking about just the class by itself. I don't tend to take into account skill points or feats or items or traits that really anyone can get.
I do. Know why?
Because if class X can do Y, but class A can do B, C, D, and there is a trait or non-class option that allows class A to do Y...but there's no equivalent that allows class X to do B, C, or D (much less all 3), that indicates class A is better, since it has more options.
In our example, the Rogue (Class X) has Trapfinding as its only real feature. Sneak Attack is simply damage (which anyone can do), and Rogue Talents are largely garbage and/or Feats, and that is everything a ROgue can really do.
A Bard (class A) has non-class options that grant it Trapfinding. It can also use Bardic Performances, Versatile Performance, and spells.
The Rogue has no non-class options that grant it ANY of those things.
So you're left with Class X (Rogue) being able to do Y...but Class A (Bard) being able to do B, C, D, AND ALSO Y.
Which is why it's better.
|
|
And yet the person doesn't break? How did he figure out how to smack magic instead of people?He smacks the baleful polymorph, dominate person, geas, and other such spells off his allies. That takes some finesse and magic know-how.No, it requires the raw power to simply break the subtle magics in half. No subtlety needed.
Magic. Old, simple, brutal, instinctive magic. It's a supernatural ability after all. They simply channel their sheer hate of black sorcery into the blow and strike at the air near their friend where the spell floats like an invisible rune, not seeing it, but feeling where to strike with all their will and strength...and the spell shatters at their mighty blow. Their will manifests in the world the same way a Paladin's does when he Smites Evil, just with a different target. It's not learned the way book-learning is, it's a thing of blood and heart and will. A thing of instinct and the power of rage and hate, and how those forces can break the very force of magic itself.
Or at least that's how I see it.
Tunnel Vision to the point that he can't pay attention to who is casting a spell, but he can stop raging because he noticed that his buddy wants to cast a spell? That's a bit contrived to justify an action that seems to me to be pure metagaming.
What, you've never seen fiction where a friend calling their name snaps a berserker out of it, though they barely noticed said friend before? I imagine it as exactly like that, they yell "Hey, Kulgrash!" and he shakes his blood-fury off for a moment and turns to them.
Just as in S&M (or in Shamanistic rituals?) you can use a safe word. :)
Rage =/= Stupid.
There is actually ways for Santeros, Houngans and Mambos to make people quickly snap out of ceremonial spirit possession.
I think there is a silent majority that like it and a vocal minority that want to change everything they can so they can have more power under the guise of "but it is a sub standard class"Ironic given the extremely loud vocal minority on this forum that wants to make sure no one can be as 1337 as their wizard under the guise of "no guys, there isn't a balance problem at all, what are you talking about?"
To be fair, some of that vocal minority are at least pretty open about it. I disagree with Nathaniel Love's opinions on most issues of game balance, but at least he is open about his desire to play a god wizard.
I dunno, but it certainly didn't require me to learn anything about magic, as per the lack of knowledge/spellcraft rank requirements.And yet the person doesn't break? How did he figure out how to smack magic instead of people?He smacks the baleful polymorph, dominate person, geas, and other such spells off his allies. That takes some finesse and magic know-how.No, it requires the raw power to simply break the subtle magics in half. No subtlety needed.
Exactly my issue.
Idc that he can do these things, but it needs better reasoning.
Uh, no change that I (or anyone who understands the balance of the system) has ever been enough to put the sub-par classes on par with the truly powerful classes (full casters).
Well, I disagree.
Wizards aren't good because they can do everything all day every day, they're good because they can potentially (with a realistic potential) do just about anything in a single class. There is a spell for (almost literally) EVERYTHING, and many spells actually do things better than skills (EX: Spider Climb, Fly vs Climb).
I might point out that this potential underlines the fact that it's a matter of choice in how the player wants to play the wizard. He could fill a niche that no other player has chosen to play - he's got that potential. Or, if a niche is filled, choose to devote his resources to another one.
Uh, no change that I (or anyone who understands the balance of the system) has ever been enough to put the sub-par classes on par with the truly powerful classes (full casters).Well, I disagree.
Do tell what change that has been suggested for Fighters, like say 4+Int base skills, a common enough one, or giving the Rogue a mechanic to boost their accuracy or more reliable bonus damage is going to put those classes on the same standing as Mister "Summon a horde of a celestial superbeings". I haven't seen any such suggestions, but I suppose they might exist.
Wizards aren't good because they can do everything all day every day, they're good because they can potentially (with a realistic potential) do just about anything in a single class. There is a spell for (almost literally) EVERYTHING, and many spells actually do things better than skills (EX: Spider Climb, Fly vs Climb).I might point out that this potential underlines the fact that it's a matter of choice in how the player wants to play the wizard. He could fill a niche that no other player has chosen to play - he's got that potential. Or, if a niche is filled, choose to devote his resources to another one.
It costs a Wizard very minimal resources to do both though (around level 9). So why wouldn't they?
It costs a Wizard very minimal resources to do both though (around level 9). So why wouldn't they?Wizards aren't good because they can do everything all day every day, they're good because they can potentially (with a realistic potential) do just about anything in a single class. There is a spell for (almost literally) EVERYTHING, and many spells actually do things better than skills (EX: Spider Climb, Fly vs Climb).I might point out that this potential underlines the fact that it's a matter of choice in how the player wants to play the wizard. He could fill a niche that no other player has chosen to play - he's got that potential. Or, if a niche is filled, choose to devote his resources to another one.
Seems like a waste to me. Play with the PCs you have not the PCs you want.
If you do have a rogue in the party, it's a waste to prepare knock or make wands of it.
Now a more important question: What is more efficient? Buffing the rogue or summoning monsters to do things? At some point it becomes the latter.
It costs a Wizard very minimal resources to do both though (around level 9). So why wouldn't they?Wizards aren't good because they can do everything all day every day, they're good because they can potentially (with a realistic potential) do just about anything in a single class. There is a spell for (almost literally) EVERYTHING, and many spells actually do things better than skills (EX: Spider Climb, Fly vs Climb).I might point out that this potential underlines the fact that it's a matter of choice in how the player wants to play the wizard. He could fill a niche that no other player has chosen to play - he's got that potential. Or, if a niche is filled, choose to devote his resources to another one.Seems like a waste to me. Play with the PCs you have not the PCs you want.
If you do have a rogue in the party, it's a waste to prepare knock or make wands of it.
Now a more important question: What is more efficient? Buffing the rogue or summoning monsters to do things? At some point it becomes the latter.
Yes, at some point it does indeed become the latter. And that's the problem.
