Unchained impact on Bloodrager and Skald question

[Green Eyed Liar]

I feel like I saw a thread about this, but my search-fu is weak and I cannot find it now.

My question is: If a campaign mandates that the Unchained Barbarian rules be used in place of the Core Barbarian, would the GM instituting similar rules changes for the Bloodrager and Skald be fair, or would such changes cause problems for those classes?

[SiuoL]

i guess you can do that, but I don't see why would one prefer unchained rage over normal rage. Normal rage gives strength, which is better than attack and damage bonus if you are using two hands or dragon bites. Also you can hardly find Morale bonus to Strength through items or spells while you get plenty spells and items that gives you morale bonus on attack and damage.

[Milo v3]

SiuoL wrote:

i guess you can do that, but I don't see why would one prefer unchained rage over normal rage. Normal rage gives strength, which is better than attack and damage bonus if you are using two hands or dragon bites. Also you can hardly find Morale bonus to Strength through items or spells while you get plenty spells and items that gives you morale bonus on attack and damage.

Well, with unchained rage you have less chance of dying afterwards... so that's a benefit.

[Markov Spiked Chain]

Unchained Barbarian isn't a Morale bonus, it stacks with anything else. Two handed bonuses vs full damage with two weapon fighting ot light weapons is probably a wash.

Unchained gives you Temp HP instead of a Con bonus, which is a big upgrade.

I think Unchained rage would be a pretty big upgrade for a Skald. Giving everyone temporary hit points is a pretty nice longevity buff.

I think it would be fine.

[My Self]

Milo v3 wrote:

Well, with unchained rage you have less chance of dying afterwards... so that's a benefit.

Unless you invest a single feat so you can be amazing.

It's like Toughness that also gives a +1 to Fortitude saves and 2 extra HP on top of that to determine when you die. And it keeps you from suffering from sudden rage failure.

[shroudb]

normal barbarian is more damage with a two hander
unchained barbarian is more damage with natural/twf

normal barbarian has extra benefits like increased fort, increased strength for feats of strength (especially with strength surge), spell sunder and others

unchained barbarian has higher survivability and lower maintenance cost (he doesn't need that much healing after each and every battle), has quite higher accuracy, and has some pretty cool powers in the various stances (accuracy one has quite a few perks)

i find unchained barbarian a bit more balanced (in the sense that it isn't a slaughter machine that requires half a wand afterwards to keep going)

now, back to the OP:
giving unchained rage to bloodragers would be ok, more of the same with the barbarian
giving unchained rage to skalds would be iffy. flat bonuses would get into bard territory, unchained rage powers would be quite OP to share with a group, it would take away their only real drawback (they dont help casters/dexterity users as much as bards, but they help strength users more than bards)

[BretI]

My Self wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Well, with unchained rage you have less chance of dying afterwards... so that's a benefit.

Unless you invest a single feat so you can be amazing.

It's like Toughness that also gives a +1 to Fortitude saves and 2 extra HP on top of that to determine when you die. And it keeps you from suffering from sudden rage failure.

Bloodrager is already MAD, and Raging Vitality requires a Con of 15. Although Con is important to a Bloodrager, they might have wanted to put some of those points into Strength and Charisma.

I agree that the Unchained Rage is less likely to get the characters killed. It also doesn't come with a hidden feat and attribute tax.