|
It's been my understanding that most of us have always viewed the Invulnerable Rager as too powerful-- that Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge and DR1- @ 7th, DR2- @ 10th, DR3- @ 13th, etc., are not close to being worth DR 1/2 PC Level.
But have I been wrong?
A 2nd Level Barbarian has Uncanny Dodge
A 2nd Level Invulnerable Rager has DR 1-
A 7th Level Barbarian has Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge and DR 1-
A 7th Level Invulnerable Rager has DR 3-
A 14th Level Barbarian has Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge and DR 3-
A 14th Level Invulnerable Rager has DR 7-
.
I was going to allow a PC to trade Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge for DR 1/3 Barbarian Level.
What do you guys think?
- - - -
The specific build is Invulnerable Rager, Urban Barbarian (Unchained), Android with Repairing Nanites instead of Nanite Surge.
THANKS for all feedback!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Invulnerable Rager archetype is a straight upgrade on the vanilla Barbarian, gaining more than it's trading off. This does not make it "too powerful", however. Good archetypes for martial classes are quite frequently unambiguous upgrades, and the Invulnerable Rager isn't out of line with other similarly powerful options. It was maybe arguable back when the APG was new and archetypes were ostensibly supposed to be side-grades, but archetypes that are upgrades are a dime a dozen and uncontroversial in today's Pathfinder.
Not sure who the "most of us" who have always claimed the invulnerable rager is too powerful are. But no, I don't think the invulnerable rager is too powerful.
I think most people agree it is an upgrade from the standard barbarian, however, the standard barbarian isn't exactly game breaking most of the time.
If you want to nerf your player you could point out that technically Urban Barbarian and unchained barbarian do not stack as they both modify rage.
|
|
It was maybe arguable back when the APG was new .... but archetypes that are upgrades are a dime a dozen...today
.
Not sure who the "most of us"...is
.
Yeah, I think my memory of "most of us" was back when the APG was new, even before the broken Ultimate Combat was published (which is not allowed in my game). And that makes sense with what Dasrak said as well.
Now looking at it (for the first time in years) I wonder.
Thanks!
Keep the feedback coming.
|
If you allow all the published pathfinder content to date, then invulnerable rager is one of the old archetypes that remains decent. Unlike most of the early archetypes, which are now trash tier. It was definitely better than normal when it was first published, but now I'd consider it on par at best with the latest content.
You can't balance martials by treating core as the baseline. The cold truth is that they're just way weaker than core casters...any caster at all. Yes that means that some options are going to be strict upgrades, but a C- is also a higher grade than a D+ and neither looks that impressive to your parents when your siblings are pulling A's
In comparison to the shenanigans a CRB only wizard can pull an invulnerable rager is far from OP.
Wait whut? DR/- more powerfull than Improved uncanny dodge? If you ask me, I'd never NEVER EVER trade of the uncanny dodges, especially when you can have both of them in 5 lvls. NEVER being flatfooted or not being able to be flanked, IMO, beats the hell out of some DR/-. A rogue would be scared s#@#less against a CRB Barbarian (with uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge), because he can't (normally) sneak the Barbarian with flanking (improved uncanny dodge) or initiative (flatfooted, uncanny dodge), while the same rogue, could deal massive sneak attack against an """"Invulnerable"""" rager. That difference of DR4/- would be s&*! against 7d6 sneak damage from a rogue.
A wizard who has initiative and casts a fireball? You still have your DEX on your refelx save with uncanny dodge while DR/- does s$$& against magic.
So, in general, nah, """"Invulnerable"""" rager is not OP, by far.
Clay skin, 3rd level spell, DR 5/adamantine for 10 min/level
Stone skin, 4th, DR 10/adamantine for 10 min/level (with a 250 gp cost attached)
DR/adamantine isn't unbeatable by enemies but it's mostly reliable. Clay skin is likely accessible at 7th level, and stone skin should be by 14th, and the cost on the latter is insignificant at that level. Uncanny dodge is harder to get via spell, it's one of the functions of foresight, a 9th level spell. Anyone suggesting that the invulnerable rager is overpowered should consider this comparison IMO.
Unchained Barbarian can get higher DR than the Invulnerable Rager.
Invulnerable Rager tops out with DR 10/- at 20th level.
Unchained Barbarian tops out with DR 11/- at 19th level.
It costs three rage powers, but he keeps Uncanny Dodge.
The specific build is Invulnerable Rager, Urban Barbarian (Unchained)
If I am correct in assuming that the reason you're interested in the Urban archetype is because you intend to play a Dex-based character, then the loss of Uncanny Dodge will hurt acutely (since you'll lose your dexterity bonus to AC when surprised or flat-footed for any other reason).
BTW, since you're playing an android, you might be more interested in the Savage Technologist barbarian archetype over the Urban archetype. It'll give you even higher AC, and without sacrificing will-save.
the broken Ultimate Combat (...) (which is not allowed in my game).
And there's the problem. You're f@@%ing with game balance*, and then you wonder about oddities in the game balance.
Sure, if you withhold the necessary fixes from the other martial classes, Barbarian is by far the strongest pure martial, and Invulnerable Rager makes that more pronounced, especially in fairly vanilla combats (i.e. mostly mundane enemies).If you want to fix something about the Barbarian in question, start with disallowing Unchained Urban Barbarian - the archetypes that change the ability scores Rage affects don't really work as unchained. You could homebrew the archetype to grant a rage where the player chooses between +2 to attack/damage, +2 AC/Ref, and temp HP, I guess.
*) Operate under the presumption that UC is not the only book you ban, not that banning UC alone doesn't hurt game balance already.
A rogue would be scared s@$%less against a CRB Barbarian (with uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge), because he can't (normally) sneak the Barbarian with flanking (improved uncanny dodge) or initiative (flatfooted, uncanny dodge), while the same rogue, could deal massive sneak attack against an """"Invulnerable"""" rager. That difference of DR4/- would be s%!% against 7d6 sneak damage from a rogue.
7d6 is 13th level. As a Rogue, I'd rather face a core-only Barbarian, than an Invulnerable Rager with Greater Beast Totem and Come and Get Me/Taunting Stance + Dazing Assault.
Seriously, sneak attacking enemies are neither common nor (usually) paticularly dangerous. Pre-pounce, a Rogue enemy willingly moving into melee with you to get that one sneak attack off is a blessing.
Also note: Improved Damage Reduction only works when raging, so when Uncanny Dodge is active, Imp. DR isn't.
|
|
And there's the problem (that you disallow UC). You're (messing) with game balance.
.
And I acknowledge that (it's important to note that disallowing UC is the beginning of the multitude of sources I disallow, but your point is still made.
Um, ....that's why I'm coming to The Boards.
.
Part of me sees that Invulnerable Rager isn't as unbalanced as I had initially felt, what, six/eight years ago. And I should maybe allow it.
And yet from the beginning I saw that Unchained Urban Barbarian and Invulnerable Rager don't work following RAW. But I was willing to tweak in order to consider it for the Player wanting to run the Android Barbarian in my upcoming campaign.
But part of me is also starting to think it's getting too tricky to determine whether the build the Player wants is or is not unbalanced. (And I don't have the time to spend to really crunch numbers and research.
Keep it coming guys!
.
Important: (for my situation)
As DM I feel strongly that I should, in general, try to allow my Player to create the build he or she wants to create. And I will keep an open mind -- we're all apportioning or precious free time to come to my house every week for a few hours to game.
There are TWO criteria that will make me say "No."
Whether this build will be much stronger or weaker than the other PCs at the gaming table. If it looks to be much greater or lesser than the others, I'll ask for changes or just ban it.
Whether I am really familiar with the rules-set in question. I don't really know Occult Adventures or Mythic Adventures or a host of the little softback splat books, legions of them. If I don't know it I can't really adjudicate it during Gameplay. (although I will try to learn it when I can!)
What books do you allow then? If you're banning lots it might be easier to think of this in terms of the books you do allow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait whut? DR/- more (powerful) than Improved uncanny dodge? If you ask me....
.
This is interesting, because my experience is different.
It's just another example, I feel, where so much of game balance depends MORE on DM-style and how a group usually plays than on a few certain build-types.
For example, the DM that has one big combat per session will maybe make Wizards better than Sorcerers, Classes with limited-use Features better than Classes with unlimited-use Features. While the opposite is true for the DM that fills a session with half a dozen small combats per session.
....I wonder how many times throughout my upcoming campaign the Barbarian PC will be Flanked, and Flanked by those using Precision Damage -- as opposed to how many times he'll be toe-to-toe with another tank.
|
|
My Invulnerable Rager gets beat to living hell.
.
This is actually really helpful. Seems like the DR would be more helpful at low levels than high levels. (I guess if I had thought it through I would have come to that conclusion.)
Thanks TOZ.
.
@ Slim Jim
Alas, many of the options listed on this Thread -- especially material from the 'Technology Guide' (but also Clay Skin, etc. -- are not available in my game.
It's important to note, though, that the Android Barbarian build in question will have an 18 STR, 16 CON, 16 DEX at 1st Level. And I'm pretty sure he's going with a two-handed weapon.
|
|
18 16 16 means either some terrible mental stats, or you give your players some very generous stat generation. In my experience, giving players 15 point buy and allowing all content is more balanced than giving them 25 point buy and core only. I find people balk at restrictions. So the more restrictions you make, the more they gravitate to the most powerful options available.
|
|
If you allow all the published pathfinder content to date, then invulnerable rager is one of the old archetypes that remains decent.
.
This is, like, the scariest comment ever -- Giant Thank You.
It sounds like, in your experience, all of the unbalanced (broken crap) splat material that's come out over the years is about on par with the Invulnerable Rager -- as if the Invulnerable Rage were 'ahead of its time.' In other words, one of the early unbalanced options, equal to the gross tonnage of unbalanced things available today!
Food for thought comparing your post with TOZ's post.
|
|
In comparison to the shenanigans a CRB only wizard can pull an invulnerable rager is far from OP.
.
Not at 1st Level.
But yeah, broken Core Wizards -- Etc. -- are a different problem for me.
.
.
.
.
How about this Everybody:
On a scale of one to ten, where 10 is greatest, where is the Unchained Urban Barbarian and where is the Unchained Urban Barbarian, Invulnerable Rager?!?
Invulnerable Rager an 8 with regular Bbn a 7?...
Invulnerable Rager a 9 with regular Bbn a 3?...
How would you compare them to each other?
(Since I know the balance of a regular Unchained Barbarian in my game.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you allow all the published pathfinder content to date, then invulnerable rager is one of the old archetypes that remains decent..
This is, like, the scariest comment ever -- Giant Thank You.
It sounds like, in your experience, all of the unbalanced (broken crap) splat material that's come out over the years is about on par with the Invulnerable Rager -- as if the Invulnerable Rage were 'ahead of its time.' In other words, one of the early unbalanced options, equal to the gross tonnage of unbalanced things available today!
Food for thought comparing your post with TOZ's post.
The most badly balanced book is the core Rulebook which released the core wizard alongside the core rogue and the core monk.
Splat books that make martial better aren’t unbalancing they’re closing (partially closing) the endemic gap that existed since core.
Unless the assumption is martial characters should be worse then these books aren’t unbalancing.
What’s unbalancing is the release of things like mystic geometry.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Invulnerable Rager gets beat to living hell..
This is actually really helpful. Seems like the DR would be more helpful at low levels than high levels. (I guess if I had thought it through I would have come to that conclusion.)
Thanks TOZ.
I can recall a manticore fight in which my rager's low AC meant he ate a lot of tail spikes in the face while trying to get it grounded. (My mighty running leap before it took to the air missed, unfortunately.) At around 5th level he took 45 points of damage AFTER reduction, which kept him alive but very close to Sudden Barbarian Existence Failure. He is now much less risky thanks to Raging Vitality, but the DR only makes him invulnerable to mooks who are not damage focused. Many bestiary monsters have damage that is fairly appropriate against his DR and can be even worse if they have Power Attack considering the likelihood of hitting him. Going up against an anti-paladin was the most dangerous fight he has had thanks to the smite good boost.
it's important to note that disallowing UC is the beginning of the multitude of sources I disallow, but your point is still made.
You apparently don't even understand my point. The more books you ban, the worse off the game balance is. For the most books, at least (core line i.e. hardcover books and player companions). There're select exceptions, of course, but those are few and far between.
Case in point:
This is, like, the scariest comment ever -- Giant Thank You.
It sounds like, in your experience, all of the unbalanced (broken crap) splat material that's come out over the years is about on par with the Invulnerable Rager -- as if the Invulnerable Rage were 'ahead of its time.' In other words, one of the early unbalanced options, equal to the gross tonnage of unbalanced things available today!
No no no NO! The "unbalanced broken crap" is the Core Rulebook. There you have the greatest imbalance between the classes. Three of the four pure martial classes utterly suck, and the full casters have almost everything they could want. All these latter books greatly improved game balance, because almost all of the super powerful spells are in the CRB - the strongest classes in the game have gained very little (power) from these books. Weapon Master's Handbook makes Fighter a proper class. Unchained plus style feats (from ACG, UC, and WMH) made Monk a proper class. Stuff like the Quick <maneuver> feats from UC allow new builds beyond mere "I hit 'em with a stick" boringness.
Don't get me wrong, there has been a significant power increase for the weaker classes, and the CR system needs to be adjusted accordingly. The differences between casters and non-casters are also so deeply rooted in the rules that they still very notably exist, and there are also classes that with all the options are still very bad. But allowing more books is much better for both the players (because they can play what they want without being a hindrance to the party) and the GM (because the player don't have to play full casters to contribute).
And yet from the beginning I saw that Unchained Urban Barbarian and Invulnerable Rager don't work following RAW. But I was willing to tweak in order to consider it for the Player wanting to run the Android Barbarian in my upcoming campaign.
Why does he want Unchained Urban Barbarian? It's a bit vague whether Androids can use unchained Rage, but when in doubt, Empathy fixes any problems. UnRage already supports dex-based melee or thrown, and Primal Hunter works fine for archery or firearm builds. I have the feeling the player wants Urban Barbarian to not suffer the AC penalty.
Seriously, if you want to fix/change/nerf something, start there and at those crazy ability scores.
From my own GM experience with an Invulnerable Rager: Its strength depends a lot on the enemies. The DR is nice when facing lots of weak enemies (especially archers), but is almost irrelevant against a small number of strong opponents. Sure, it allowed the Barbarian to completely ignore the sixteen young squirrel encounter, but that's a fringe case.
I also tend to think anyone considering a martial... anything OP is a bit silly.
Now, specific martial builds? Sure. A class/archetype without seeing what the actual build is? No.
The sad truth is, when people talk about how broken any martial is, its usually because optimizing a martial for damage is frankly easy. A big 2 handed weapon, high strength, power attack, you're at 95% of the building you need to do massive damage per hit.
I think most of these people have never had the pleasure of someone who really knows how to make a full caster sing in their game.
|
|
I don't understand the casters are so much better arguments. To me that's legacy 3ed that lingered for the first few years of pf and is no longer true. In every game I have played in the last 5 years or so, it has always been the martial characters that get complained about. It's always how the melee guy just killed the bbeg in one round, while the casters are sighing in frustration as even the mooks save against their spells on a 2. Anyway, that's a total tangent.
Back to the topic, I think it is important to know that the base game is designed assuming a 15 point buy and 4 players. If you increase your point buy and/or number of players, then the challenge rating system will no longer be accurate. If you are going with a whopping 26 point buy, then you will have to boost the stats on everything to maintain balance, and because all your numbers are bigger now things will have a tendency to get even more out of whack than usual.
I don't understand the casters are so much better arguments. To me that's legacy 3ed that lingered for the first few years of pf and is no longer true. In every game I have played in the last 5 years or so, it has always been the martial characters that get complained about. It's always how the melee guy just killed the bbeg in one round, while the casters are sighing in frustration as even the mooks save against their spells on a 2. Anyway, that's a total tangent.
Back to the topic, I think it is important to know that the base game is designed assuming a 15 point buy and 4 players. If you increase your point buy and/or number of players, then the challenge rating system will no longer be accurate. If you are going with a whopping 26 point buy, then you will have to boost the stats on everything to maintain balance, and because all your numbers are bigger now things will have a tendency to get even more out of whack than usual.
Thats what I mean wen i say people probably don't get a lot of folks who know how to make their 9 level casters sing in their groups. Its not some legacy of 3rd edition, pathfinder does it too.
|
|
At the end of the day invulnerable rager doesn't help much.
If you have 200 HP, and you take 250 damage, having DR 10/- isn't stopping you from dying.
To give a recent personal example, I played a PFS special recently with an invulnerable rager. They naively decided to not invest in AC in the hopes that their DR would stop them from dying. At the end of the day it wasn't the DR that stopped him from dying, it was the oracle (me) and a warpriest that took our actions in combat to ensure he was still standing. He then had the audacity to ask to use our own wands of cure light between combats since he had been taking the brunt of the damage, rather than have us use his own.
Granted certain builds can get away without investing in AC, but his was not one of them. It didn't help that he ignored the table's tactics too.
The sad truth is, when people talk about how broken any martial is, its usually because optimizing a martial for damage is frankly easy. A big 2 handed weapon, high strength, power attack, you're at 95% of the building you need to do massive damage per hit.
I think most of these people have never had the pleasure of someone who really knows how to make a full caster sing in their game.
Yes. In many games the martials are the heroes and the full casters provide some useful support.
To someone in such a game, advice along the lines of, "Stop nerfing the martials because they'll never catch up with the power of a Wizard," is pointless (and possible quite annoying).
To me the frustration is that it is easy to deal with most partials in game
They’re normally have one or two tricks they're good and are pretty linear. People see that good thing and knee jerk away from it without thinking if it’s actually a problem.
For instance this character could do a lot of big hits to one target in melee and take a lot of little hits.
Work arounds
-have more than one threatening enemy on the board
-use ranged enemies
-use flying enemies
-control spells to keep them at arms length
-target saves or do ability score damage
That’s five ways to make life hard for this character of varying degree of commonality across the bestiaries.
You could if you wanted to run a whole campaign with massively different and varied encounters and never once let that character do the thing they shine at.
Martial normally shine pretty bright in one o two areas, but unless you feed into their strengths every combat it should normally be a problem. Let them have their shiny thing and let them use it, some of the time.
I don't understand the casters are so much better arguments. To me that's legacy 3ed that lingered for the first few years of pf and is no longer true. In every game I have played in the last 5 years or so, it has always been the martial characters that get complained about.
It should be acknowledged 2h martials can 1 shot most enemies at low levels but that's one enemy per round max. An optimised foresight wizard/arcanist will often win initiative and end the encounter before it began with Colour spray. When that runs out of steam there's plenty of other things casters can do, dazing fireballs anyone? It's not just wizards & arcanists, every 9th level caster can trivialise encounters if built to.
|
|
(An Invulnerable Rager in PFS) naively decided to not invest in AC in the hopes that their DR would stop them from dying. At the end of the day it wasn't the DR that stopped him from dying, it was,...
This is really helpful! Thanks
.
He then had the audacity to ask to use our own (Happy Sticks) between combats since he had been taking the brunt of the damage, rather than have us use his own.
Well that's just bad manners -- every PFS PC should get a Happy Stick and have the healers use it on them when needed -- asking a stranger to use their own resources like that in PFS is in poor taste (a different point of topic).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After really going over all of your posts, crunching some comparative numbers/ thinking about the Invulnerable Rager, and after talking extensively with another advanced-player friend of mine--
I'm Allowing Invulnerable Rager as is published.
.
I think I just got caught up in the memory 9-10 years ago of screaming 'Hell No' at the APG when it came out that I'd forgotten how much my own game has evolved.
But when I look at what the Player's Android Urban Barbarian, Invulnerable Rager will be able to do compared to other PCs, especially other combat PCs, I think it's reasonably balanced.
.
Thanks for all the help everyone!
(And now, Nadrewod, you have to choose between that and Magus!)
|
|
He then had the audacity to ask to use our own (Happy Sticks) between combats since he had been taking the brunt of the damage, rather than have us use his own.Well that's just bad manners -- every PFS PC should get a Happy Stick and have the healers use it on them when needed -- asking a stranger to use their own resources like that in PFS is in poor taste (a different point of topic).
Don’t worry, I flat out refused to let myself or anyone else at the table heal the 40 HP he lost every combat with happy sticks that were not his own.
But it’s a sad situation when the warpriest who is built for melee damage dealing is stuck expending his few 2nd level spells to cure moderate wounds the guy who refused to retreat when his health got low. Not even considering the fact that the WP was outdamaging him in the first place.
In summary, I'm still in the fleshing-out stage of character creation. If possible, I would like to make some kind of Android Barbarian (or, if Barbarian doesn't work, Magus), but I'm willing to take any and all suggestions for making a front-line adventurer who can keep my party's many casters out of direct harm's way (whether by tanking the blows or by killing them before they can kill any of my party)
Shuffle those awesome stats you were given around a little (i.e., get a decent one into wisdom), and do this instead with your android (more for the cool factor rather than it being the strongest thing possible). Tactics: mainly "reach-cleric", but with a mount feat or two folded in at the expense of overkill summoning feats (which can wait until the higher-level game).
My advice is to not be the only martial in a caster-dominated party, especially if you're feeling browbeat into that role (it's as thankless as being the last player to sign up and being "expected" to play a healbot in a martial-heavy party). Sometimes it's a lot more fun if everybody is a caster.