| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By this logic, we can dismiss any concept of conveying ideas through mechanics.
By the logic that your idea of The Barbarian class is not the same as everyone else's?
The answer is, I COULD, but it would be BAD design. Perhaps not in an absolute, objective sense. But in a 'most people with any knowledge on the subject would reject it' sense.
I think we can agree that this specific example is an example that is clearly missing something.
So. If we have a class feature named rage that is supposed to embody a group of people who know, by the class' own description "only rage,"
But what is rage really? according to dictionary.com (the easiest dictionary source I could access at work), rage can mean any of the following:
noun
1. angry fury; violent anger (sometimes used in combination): a speech full of rage; incidents of road rage.
2. a fit of violent anger: Her rages usually don't last too long.
3. fury or violence of wind, waves, fire, disease, etc.
4. violence of feeling, desire, or appetite: the rage of thirst.
5. a violent desire or passion.
6. ardor; fervor; enthusiasm: poetic rage.
7. the object of widespread enthusiasm, as for being popular or fashionable: Raccoon coats were the rage on campus.
I think we can both agree to exclude #7 as being not appropriate to our discussion.
I think we can also exclude 3-6, since 3 seems to deal mostly with natural disasters and things of that nature, and 4 through 6 have to do with desire.
That leaves us with #1 and 2:
1. angry fury; violent anger.
2. a fit of violent anger.
You'll note that neither definition fits very well with hit more and do more damage but easier to hit in turn. More on this in a bit, since I have to leave work...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hah, I actually really liked the Swashbuckler when it came out. Still do, even if its got some glaring weaknesses. At the time, I remember actually thinking it to be a definitive example of power creep, since if was a high ac, full bab dex fighter who could deflect touch attacks with a riposte (infinitely, before the signature deed faq), and it was our first true example of dex to damage that didn't involve a scimitar.I remember in-game getting my swashbuckler mind-controlled, and making the power gamer shocking grasp magus a little angry as I idly brushed his touch attacks away like he was an annoyance.
Yep. The only time it felt really powerful was when it could cheese the parry deed. Nowadays my Snake Style Vigilante does a similar trick without relying on wonky noncit damage on a high crit weapon.
The annoying thing about the unchained eidolon is that it did very little to change the power of the thing. It just made it a lot less customizable and thus less fun for a lot of people.
Your evolution points are nearly cut in half, and the semi situational free things from subtypes do not make up for it. (Though some are much, much better than others.) The Largesize evolution, a must-have of combat eidolons, had its numerical benefits cut in half across the board. This is especially painful with its enemic point pool.
Huh. Strange. I came to a thread about he worst class, but Swashbucklers don't get a Rage ability. You might want to reread their entry, Cryn, I think you got the names mixed up.The Swashbuckler gets a lot less hate because the concept of a "agile charming swordmaster" is so much fun that people tend to like the idea of the swashbuckler, it's just unfortunate that the mechanical conceits of the game make the swashbuckler unlikely to have anything useful to do beyond the first few levels (they do good damage when they can full attack, but not good enough that the various casters around you would care to keep you around.)
The clunky mechanics used to get a pass because the Swashbuckler was legit the best way to build in that style. Nowadays other options give it some stiff competition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely agree the stances thing is completely misplaced. It would make perfect sense as something for a Fighter, a Cavalier, a Samurai, or the like, but a Barbarian? The instinctual combat of rage does not invoke a sense of disciplined and controlled martial instruction. It shouldn't be their central thing.
UnBarb also changes so little that there's basically no justification for its existence. It's a Core Barbarian, but ever so slightly worse at most things and ever so slightly better at specialty builds that are better suited to other classes. The UnSummoner got a spell list fix (though a straight downgrade is still not a good thing to add to what you're labeling as "Unchained"), the UnRogue added much-needed features to actually made it a good class, and UnMonk changes enough that you have to think about whether you'll choose it or Core Monk depending on what type of build you want.
Picking up from earlier, setting aside the literal definition of rage, Let's examine thematics as mechanics. For examples of barbarians, I would point to 2 anime and a novel series:
Record of Lodoss War: The barbarian here is named Orson. Orson is possessed by a spirit of fury, called Hyuri. When he berserks, Orson can split massive rocks in half with his blade, plus at one point he slaps someone with the flat of his blade so hard that he sends him literally flying (a good dozen feet or more).
Berserk: Speaking of barbarians with massive swords, Guts is arguably one of the most iconic barbarian type characters imaginable. He has a Cloudesque greatsword, grenades, a cannon built into his arm, and wears heavy armor. He is so strong that he routinely swings his greatsword one handed, and has cut an armored knight and horse in half with a single downward chop. Guts is a bada$$.
Finally, when it comes to iconic barbarians for me, is Fafhrd, from the Lankhmar series. A northern barbarian, he wields a series of greatswords named Greywand. He is well-noted for his singing voice, and he even the loss of a hand just forces him to learn to fight with a greatsword one-handed. One could rightly argue that quite a few of the fantasy tropes originate with Leiber's Lankhmar series.
So, based on the characters, I think each of these characters could easily be created as a barbarian, and each has shown a powerful rage-like ability at one point or another in their series.
The problem is, in my opinion, none of these characters are really best represented by barbarian. I'll explain my reasoning for each, starting with Orson:
Orson's rage comes from his possession by an evil spirit. Thematically, he clearly has some occult shenanigans being done to him. While there are a few ways that you could take a "I'm possessed" character, mechanically speaking, I think the Medium is probably the best way to go, as it directly involves possession by spirits who wield influence over the character.
Having said that, how does the medium stack up to the chained barbarian?
A 20th level Barbarian has 10 rage powers (which for purposes of this comparison we will ignore), improved uncanny dodge, a d12 hit die, 20 bab which grants him 4 attacks at 20/15/10/5, and +8 to strength and constitution when raging and a +4 to will saves, which he can do for most of the day (42+con modifier rounds per day base).
a 20th level Medium who channels the champion spirit has spells (which we will flat out ignore for our comparisons) has a d8 hit die, 15 bab which grants him 3 attacks at +15/10/5, and the following bonuses from his spirit (not including spirit focus which a character built like this most assuredly would have): He would add his spirit bonus of +6 to attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, strength checks, fort saves, and strength-based skill checks, a séance bonus of +2 to all non-spell damage, an extra attack at his highest bonus when he full attacks (bringing up to 4 attacks at 15/15/10/5), and 2 bonus feats that he can change daily (and counts his class level as his bab and his class levels as levels in another class like fighter, barbarian, or slayer).
As far as feats go, I would grant the unchained barbarian probably has raging vitality (cause more con is more con) and the medium would clearly take spirit focus (which increases his spirit bonus by +1 for 1 spirit).
stats and gear aside, they're pretty close combat wise: The barbarian has more hp, but the medium doesn't lose any ac. Their offensive power increase is similar (the barbarian's bonus to hit from rage is lower, but the medium needs the bonus to hit to catch up with the barbarian's full bab). Oh, and the medium also has will primary as opposed to the barbarian's fort primary (which stats and gear being similar the medium is better comparable at making most of the time since he adds 7).
Since I'm already probably 2 pages in at this point, I'll sum up the other two comparisons:
Guts makes a lot more sense as a fighter than a barbarian since he wears armor and has a cybernetic arm, and a good argument could be made that Fafhrd is either a bard (for earlier pathfinder stuff) or a Skald.
All of these characters could be built as barbarians, and all of them could be validly built with other classes that do not rely on a mechanic that can kill you if it stops working (like being in space).
The rather long-winded point I'm trying to make is that there is more than one way to play a character (or a class, for that matter), and just because I don't like something thematically (I'm looking at you slayer) doesn't mean it's a poorly written class. It just means that it doesn't meet my current needs. Because I know that my idea of barbarian and yours aren't the same thing, it doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, it just means that we build our characters differently, and that's actually ok.
When you think barbarian, what words come to mind?Honestly, before 3rd edition, barbarian meant Celtic, Goth, or Cimmerian to me. None of which meant "rage" to me. "Rage" is berserker in my head, and berserker is directly attached to Viking first in my head (although I think Celts had a version)
I think it's sad that a class has to be connected to a shtick to be interesting to players. Although I might be wrong, Unearthed Arcana 2nd Ed Barbarian never seemed preoccupied with rage. And Conan the RPG certainly had no problem developing a barbarian that wasn't cartoonish.
You could be thinking of the Celtic myth of Cu Chulainn, who had a Rage like ability called (I believe) Riastrad, sometimes translated as warp spasm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read all the Unchained classes and will be banning them from my games when I GM. Nothing and I mean nothing about them makes me want them anywhere my game. The only class chosen to be unchained that did need help was the Summoner. The issue was spells and the lack of them. From what I read they nerfed their spell list even more. The Spiritualist is essentially a Summoner their Phantom slightly less powerful then an Eidolon. What makes them superior to a Summoner is their spell selection.
All the others show me not weak classes but weak or inexperienced players not playing them well. I have played Rogues all through 1st ed D&D, 2nd, switching to Pathfinder. Never ever had a problem holding my own in a dungeon. Same with the Monks.
Not everyone's games are the same. "Did ok in my games" does not mean they are ok.
I really doubt you are much better than most of the board members here at system mastery when it comes to Pathfinder and many of the better ones have had problems with rogues and monks. There are numerous threads on the topic. If you have a solution feel free to present it, but assuming people are weak players is 100% incorrect. Even the devs admitted the monk and rogue had issues. Normally when these topics come up the defense often comes up with a rogue is not supposed to be in combat, and/or to not rely so much on sneak attack.
PS: Most of those comments were about the core rogue and monk. Things such as the zen archer archetype tend to do well.
PS2: House rules to help them out or GM's taking it easy on those classes whether on purpose or by accident, does not help the case of them not being weak.
I've read all the Unchained classes and will be banning them from my games when I GM. Nothing and I mean nothing about them makes me want them anywhere my game. The only class chosen to be unchained that did need help was the Summoner. The issue was spells and the lack of them. From what I read they nerfed their spell list even more. The Spiritualist is essentially a Summoner their Phantom slightly less powerful then an Eidolon. What makes them superior to a Summoner is their spell selection.
All the others show me not weak classes but weak or inexperienced players not playing them well. I have played Rogues all through 1st ed D&D, 2nd, switching to Pathfinder. Never ever had a problem holding my own in a dungeon. Same with the Monks.
You can do what you want, it's your table, but the Monk and Rogue issues didn't stem from poor players, they really are weak classes.
The Monk is a melee class with 3/4 BAB and d8 HD that needs Str to increase damage, Dex to increase AC, Con to stay alive, and Wis to fuel ki. They can't use most weapons, and the vast majority of the weapons supposedly for them they aren't proficient with. In addition the Flurry mechanic is cludgy. Unchained gives them proper frontline stats, abilities that aren't reliant on ki, and the ability to use the good monk weapons.
The rogue has a crappy, unfun niche in trapfinding and disabling and lots of skill points in a system where skill points are made irrelevant by spells. Unchained gives them a better, more fun niche as the Dex fighter. Finesse training and Dex-to-damage are big helps, and the Rogue's Edge keeps their skill ranks somewhat competitive by unlocking different skill changes exclusive to them.
I've read all the Unchained classes and will be banning them from my games when I GM. Nothing and I mean nothing about them makes me want them anywhere my game. The only class chosen to be unchained that did need help was the Summoner. The issue was spells and the lack of them. From what I read they nerfed their spell list even more. The Spiritualist is essentially a Summoner their Phantom slightly less powerful then an Eidolon. What makes them superior to a Summoner is their spell selection.
All the others show me not weak classes but weak or inexperienced players not playing them well. I have played Rogues all through 1st ed D&D, 2nd, switching to Pathfinder. Never ever had a problem holding my own in a dungeon. Same with the Monks.
I mean, that's fine. I encourage my players to use Unchained because they are either simpler, or they are better experiences. I really, really do not think it is an inexperienced player issue, but an issue of the rules quite legitimately working against them in ways that the other class simply never have to deal with, and the lengths these classes needed to go to achieve the same results leaves people not wanting to have to deal with them.
So expect people not to touch Archetypeless Monks and Rogues with a yard stick.
And definitely do not allow anyone to play: Archaeologist Bard, Brawler, Ninja, Slayer or Vivisectionist Alchemist. Because they steal their niche pretty blatantly.
And definitely do not allow anyone to play: Archaeologist Bard, Brawler, Ninja, Slayer or Vivisectionist Alchemist. Because they steal their niche pretty blatantly.
Really? Ninja, Brawler, Slayer, and Vivisectionist Alchemists are all totally fine. Slayer in particular is probably one of the best written classes. You'd really force someone to be a Rogue or a Monk if they wanted to play a different class that fills the same niche? Would you force someone to play a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid if they wanted to play a Witch? Would you force someone to play Sorcerer if they wanted to play a Psychic? What about a Fighter if they wanted to play a Paladin? And I guess Barbarian is out since it has Trap Sense, and Swashbuckler since it's a Dex attacker, so those steal the Rogue's thunder, too.
Sure, I'd probably discourage one of those and a Rogue/Monk in the same party since they do fill approximately the same niches (though not exactly; Slayer can fill different roles depending on build; Brawlers don't use Ki, have far different archetypes, and fill a different thematic concept; Ninja is somewhere between Core Rogue and UnRogue for usefulness; Vivisectionist works quite well in a combat medic type of character) but not ban them entirely. The only classes I think I'd ban outright would be Wizard, Arcanist, and non-archetyped Antipaladin.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And definitely do not allow anyone to play: Archaeologist Bard, Brawler, Ninja, Slayer or Vivisectionist Alchemist. Because they steal their niche pretty blatantly.Really? Ninja, Brawler, Slayer, and Vivisectionist Alchemists are all totally fine. Slayer in particular is probably one of the best written classes. You'd really force someone to be a Rogue or a Monk if they wanted to play a different class that fills the same niche? Would you force someone to play a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid if they wanted to play a Witch? Would you force someone to play Sorcerer if they wanted to play a Psychic? What about a Fighter if they wanted to play a Paladin? And I guess Barbarian is out since it has Trap Sense, and Swashbuckler since it's a Dex attacker, so those steal the Rogue's thunder, too.
Sure, I'd probably discourage one of those and a Rogue/Monk in the same party since they do fill approximately the same niches (though not exactly; Slayer can fill different roles depending on build; Brawlers don't use Ki, have far different archetypes, and fill a different thematic concept; Ninja is somewhere between Core Rogue and UnRogue for usefulness; Vivisectionist works quite well in a combat medic type of character) but not ban them entirely. The only classes I think I'd ban outright would be Wizard, Arcanist, and non-archetyped Antipaladin.
GTW was not speaking badly of those classes. She made that comment about not allowing those classes as a play on Derek's comments about the allowing the unchained classes.
His logic is basically that the unchained classes add nothing to the game since the original classes work fine so he won't allow the unchained classes.
The classes she named are played by many people because they are better than the core classes in many people's opinions so she is saying "by that logic these classes should not be played either".