| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is worth pointing out that casters have a much harder time building up around skill based combat mastery, but it is because they can accomplish those things with spells and they need their skill boosts and feats for things related to being casters. To me this is a good thing. I think casters would be in a worse state if they had no way of using skills to interact with their casting, and were thus just expected to use demoralize instead of fear. It was a narrow line to make sure that spells don't just obliterate skill usage, like what happened in PF1, but I actually think that PF2 has threaded that needle very well. Casters can use magic to do many things, but dedicated skill based characters are not made to look foolish for having invested so heavily in their expertise.
I don't think there's much point in arguing which is better - both sorcerer and barbarian are better than the other in certain situations. Barbarian has the action economy advantage and cost no resources, but can really only do it once a fight. It is too bad a barb can't howl and whirlwind on the same turn though. Whereas sorcerer has to spend some resources (admittedly the resources spent are on lower level slots if we're comparing it to a 14th level barb, but still can't do it indefinitely) and then only have a single action left.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the barbarian/sorcerer with demoralize thought exercise is actually very interesting and does point to some of the perception issues that some players are having with PF2.
People look at caster feats at levels 1, 2 and 4 and often get underwhelmed by the options, so look outside of caster options, going for Dedications and such that give them great lower level options. But casters really need to keep pumping their casting skill and take lower level feats that are not sexy at the time, so that they can be dominant as casters at higher levels.
Otherwise they often do end up worse at their side project (like a sorcerer wanting to be a demoralize specialist and prioritizing Intimidation over their casting skill), and incapable of taking advantage of the things that being a focus caster allows for at higher level.
This is even more true of casters that spend 2 or 3 class feats picking up armor and weapon proficiencies.
You can still have a functional character, but you might start thinking that spells suck because you don't have the basic building blocks in place to make them better, Feats like dangerous sorcery for sorcerers and spell penetration for wizards, or feats like widen or reach for all of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
scroll savant adds another 2,3 and then 4 spells to that. And Krispy might have been thinking of silent spell, the conceal spell that only requires one skill check and is thus much easier to use in situations where you are facing higher level opposition.
...all of which is presuming that Wizards aren't The Best at anything, which is contradicted by their having The Most Spell Slots and exclusive access to things like Spell Penetration, Conceal Spell, etc. And a chassis that is extremely synergistic with being The Smart Guy. Advantages that are quick to be dismissed by many, which doesn't diminish their intrinsic value.
That's because the examples you've given are pretty much not true in any meaningful way.
Going for maximum spells per day builds, a Wizard has at the very most 3 additional spell slots over a sorcerer. At that, they don't even get to that number until 19th.
Spell penetration and conceal spell aren't precisely amazing and can both be accessed through multiclassing. Plus Conceal Spell is also an option for the Witch.
Outside of Int being their key casting stat, the chassis of the Wizard has no use for Int.
Scroll Savant is one of the wizard's best feats. Most of the wizard's best feats amount to cast another spell that often isn't as good as another class's focus spell and will be resisted roughly 50% of the time. If some of their spells were on par with focus spells, then people wouldn't feel so bad.
MY game guys, MY game. The one I have with only 5 other people. The barbarian is OUR best controller.
FFS.
Look at the context of the post as well, it was about the sorcerer and barbarian competing in the same niche with a demoralise build. The barbarian is all about it, it's his whole build.
You don't have an occult sorcerer, bard, or witch?
In one game the bard is the best controller and in the other the witch is the best controller. The bard's ability to control is pretty straight-forward. The witch's ability to control is far more interesting and subtle.
The occult spell list seems like the best list for control and debuffing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MY game guys, MY game. The one I have with only 5 other people. The barbarian is OUR best controller.
FFS.
Look at the context of the post as well, it was about the sorcerer and barbarian competing in the same niche with a demoralise build. The barbarian is all about it, it's his whole build.
Sure, it's your game, but you stated your barbarian outdamages AND has more control than your sorcerer. Which begs the question, what does your sorcerer do with his actions ?
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just to understand.
I'll tell Mic that people think he sucks!
That said, don't downplay what a Barbarian can do. The damage setup of:
Enter Rage: Free Action Terrifying Howl, Whirlwind Strike, Agonizing Rebuke, puts some serious numbers on the board.At our level he is generally hasted, so the next turn is generally a stride and more spinning along with more Agonizing Rebuke ticks.
The barbarian is pretty ridiculous. In my experience the barbarian is the strongest damage martial in the game and one of the most interesting to build. If there is a tier of martial power in terms of raw ability to kill things, barbarian is at the top of that tier.
I'm playing a fighter right now and I still don't understand how ctricking's tool has the fighter on top of the barbarian for damage because in actual play my fighter is not touching my barbarian for sheer wrecking enemies in a group environment. I'm not saying every fight the barbarian wrecks everything as there are disparities in rolls and such. But no martial class I have played to date has the ability to obliterate encounters quickly than the barbarian. When a barbarian gets a critical hit, the damage spike is nutty. It's like the half the monsters hit points are suddenly up in smoke if they're at full health. If he gets a swipe crit or whirlwind attack crit while in titan form, it's like the damage numbers balloon up to good AoE hits.
If you can make it past those low levels when you get knocked down a lot, barbarians reach a brutal state. My barb has 260 hit points, renewed vigor, Titan Stature, whirlwind attack, and swipe while wielding a greater striking acid cold greatpick. When he gets a series of standard to good rolls, it's game over for the enemy. He's hard to swallow, hard to grapple, and a big monstrous brutal force in the middle of a party with Legendary Fortitude saves shrugging off poison and disease and stink auras.
It's a sight to behold after seeing every other martial in action. I feel terrible for the monk when playing a barbarian.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To sum up this thread, like all the previous ones on this subject:
- Casters are weaker than they are in 1e, but balanced with the other classes.
- Some casters have feel concerns because we can't agree on how valuable 2-3 extra spell slots are. (I'd say they're strong, others have said its negligible.)
- Spell Attack Rolls suffer from having a 50% accuracy rate on at-level targets with moderate AC and could stand to have some kind of small buff.
- Some posters think "the real problem here is that other people disagree with me" is a good argument, which is like, Big Yikes.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd some up this thread as: One person says some stuff about casters. Another person says completely the opposite. Follow 13 pages of arguing back and forth and nobody convincing anyone else of anything.
(This is me disagreeing with your summation in order to continue the trend, though I do agree with your last point)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only thing contentious here is the idea that casters are balanced with martials, which doesn't really see, to be the case from most of play experience admittedly that's not a lot of experience .
Its like that for us, they seem very balanced. We play 2 times/week, 10-12 players. No one thinks that the casters are weaker than martials...
The barbarian is pretty ridiculous. In my experience the barbarian is the strongest damage martial in the game and one of the most interesting to build. If there is a tier of martial power in terms of raw ability to kill things, barbarian is at the top of that tier.MY game guys, MY game. The one I have with only 5 other people. The barbarian is OUR best controller.
FFS.
Look at the context of the post as well, it was about the sorcerer and barbarian competing in the same niche with a demoralise build. The barbarian is all about it, it's his whole build.
Sure, it's your game, but you stated your barbarian outdamages AND has more control than your sorcerer. Which begs the question, what does your sorcerer do with his actions ?
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just to understand.
I'll tell Mic that people think he sucks!
That said, don't downplay what a Barbarian can do. The damage setup of:
Enter Rage: Free Action Terrifying Howl, Whirlwind Strike, Agonizing Rebuke, puts some serious numbers on the board.At our level he is generally hasted, so the next turn is generally a stride and more spinning along with more Agonizing Rebuke ticks.
I disagree about Barbarians being strong or fun to build. They are so easy to crit and bring down from sheer damage that it's ridiculous. We had a Barbarian-type boss who I was nuking from afar with 4th level Acid Arrows (both were crits by the way, thanks to True Strike) and 5th level Magic Missiles (easy damage since Fortitude Saves are a joke to use), with a 3rd level Manifold Missile wand going (free damage after a 1 action casting). After 3 rounds of attacking, I had him half dead, and by the time he got in range of people, our party Ranger got into melee range and skewered him with 3 attacks (2 or which were crits) in a single round. He was a Giant instinct Barbarian with a Meteor Hammer. The guy had over 200+ HP, and was taken down like a chump because hit points can be gone through so easily compared to actually having AC or damage reduction that's fully applicable to all attacks and not just one or two types that are somewhat common but not particularly.
I looked at all of the instincts, and they are very, very meh. Pick Giant instinct? Super slow, super easy to crit, and the damage boost per attack is weaksauce. Animal instinct? Only good once you rage, and you're forced to use no armor like a Monk, which has its own problems. It's basically Monk-Lite, except without the cool stances or ki feats. Spirit instinct? Good against undead and little else, and the boosts are even weaker than Giant or Animal. Plus, a lot of adventures where you go in and plunder old tombs and such are off limits as a result of your choice. It's almost as bad as Champions in a party of neutral or even evil characters. Did I also mention that Dragon instinct requires you to basically be a servant to the first dragon you come across because you draw your power from them and facing them means you're going against what gives you your power? Not to mention that like Spirit instinct, a lot of adventures where you go slay the dragon to save the town are off limits as a result. Superstition is the worst of them all, with pitiful benefits that a Bard grants (except better and more applicable), with weak "self-healing" benefits, and even worse restrictions, which is "No spellcasters or focus users in the party."
Anything a Barbarian can do, the Fighter does better. Take hits? Fighter has Heavy Armor, plus the option to use Shields and take Shield Feats. What does Barbarian get? Oh, a little bit of temporary hit points and maybe slight healing with a feat, wow, what a joke. Hit? Fighter has +2 at all times over the Barbarian. Feat choices? I can pick all kinds of feats with a Fighter from 1st level, and I'll never run out or almost have no reason to select dedication feats, because there's so many good choices. Barbarians? If I don't take dedication feats by 2nd level, I'm wasting feats on garbage, because Sudden Charge is the only good 1st level class feat they get. They get a couple other ones, maybe, usually the ones that tie to their instinct choice, but those are less choices and more "You better take this or your raging just sucks even more than before."
I can't build a Barbarian that feels good or performs good compared to other classes like Champions or Rangers or Fighters. This is especially true at lower levels or against boss enemies, where they are very, very likely to crit you for tons of damage that can one-shot you, even with temporary HP or increased Constitution. In fact, the only PC death we had with a one-shot character for one part of the campaign was, indeed, a Giant instinct Barbarian.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I also mention that Dragon instinct requires you to basically be a servant to the first dragon you come across because you draw your power from them and facing them means you're going against what gives you your power? Not to mention that like Spirit instinct, a lot of adventures where you go slay the dragon to save the town are off limits as a result.
While I personally disagree with almost your entire post, but don't have the time to go into detail, this is just so wrong I have to point it out. When choosing the dragon instinct you decide if like OR hate one type of dragon. And even if you choose to respect those dragons it doesn't effect your interactions with all other types of dragons.
I disagree about Barbarians being strong or fun to build. They are so easy to crit and bring down from sheer damage that it's ridiculous. We had a Barbarian-type boss who I was nuking from afar with 4th level Acid Arrows (both were crits by the way, thanks to True Strike) and 5th level Magic Missiles (easy damage since Fortitude Saves are a joke to use), with a 3rd level Manifold Missile wand going (free damage after a 1 action casting). After 3 rounds of attacking, I had him half dead, and by the time he got in range of people, our party Ranger got into melee range and skewered him with 3 attacks (2 or which were crits) in a single round. He was a Giant instinct Barbarian with a Meteor Hammer. The guy had...The barbarian is pretty ridiculous. In my experience the barbarian is the strongest damage martial in the game and one of the most interesting to build. If there is a tier of martial power in terms of raw ability to kill things, barbarian is at the top of that tier.MY game guys, MY game. The one I have with only 5 other people. The barbarian is OUR best controller.
FFS.
Look at the context of the post as well, it was about the sorcerer and barbarian competing in the same niche with a demoralise build. The barbarian is all about it, it's his whole build.
Sure, it's your game, but you stated your barbarian outdamages AND has more control than your sorcerer. Which begs the question, what does your sorcerer do with his actions ?
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just to understand.
I'll tell Mic that people think he sucks!
That said, don't downplay what a Barbarian can do. The damage setup of:
Enter Rage: Free Action Terrifying Howl, Whirlwind Strike, Agonizing Rebuke, puts some serious numbers on the board.At our level he is generally hasted, so the next turn is generally a stride and more spinning along with more Agonizing Rebuke ticks.
In group play with healing, my experience is a barbarian exceeds a fighter in damage. Their feats are pretty awesome. A fighter can't grow to huge size and reach attack creatures from 15 to 20 feet away. The ability to get health back with a 3rd action which is often a missed attack is nice. If you think +10 and then 18 damage is a small bonus on top of your usual strength and specialization, not even sure how to rate that.
I've played a flurry ranger, seen a power attack fighter in action, have a champion in two parties, seen multiple precision archers, ruffian and thief rogue, a two weapon fighter, and a wit swashbuckler, none of them are holding a candle to the damage of a giant instinct barbarian.
But hey, if that's your experience, that's your experience. My barbarian is level 14 now and he crushes crap. First four or five levels were rough. That -2 to AC got me crit and taken down a lot. But at 14th level the barbarian never comes to close to falling and his damage is so nuts that things die before he does.
And as far as taking fighter feats, not sure what you're getting. I and my group found the fighter feats quite boring. We almost always make a multiclass fighter. You only get to specialize in one weapon group. If you don't use that weapon group, then you pretty much lose the main advantage of the fighter: increase accuracy. So not sure why you would do that. Not sure what feats you're taking that make the fighter great.
I also have no idea why you think a barbarian can't use a shield if you wanted that style. I know someone built some animal rage shield builds that seemed good.
Basing your analysis of a barbarian on a boss against some PCs is a very weak analysis. I haven't seen a martial enemy that can stand against a PC party. Nothing much does by intent. I have seen some caster mobs using defensive spells stand up to a PC party. They are much more dangerous at higher level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The barbarian is pretty ridiculous. In my experience the barbarian is the strongest damage martial in the game and one of the most interesting to build. If there is a tier of martial power in terms of raw ability to kill things, barbarian is at the top of that tier.
I'm playing a fighter right now and I still don't understand how ctricking's tool has the fighter on top of the barbarian for damage because in actual play my fighter is not touching my barbarian for sheer wrecking enemies in a group environment.
Using similar weapons, the fighter ought to more damage than the barbarian, assuming they use the fighter's specialist weapons. +2 to hit is a pretty massive advantage over time, but it shows up in doing more reliable damage, and in critting more often.
If the barbarian needs a 10 to hit (and a 20 to crit), their average damage is 60% of a damage roll (50% chance of a regular damage roll and 5% of a double roll, assuming no extra damage on a crit). In the same situation the fighter needs an 8 to hit and an 18 to crit, which is 80% of a damage roll (50% chance of regular damage, and 15% of double damage). That's 33% more, which is quite a lot for the barbarian's rage to cover (less 1 point, because the fighter gets more mileage from weapon specialization). On a second attack, the barbarian deals 35% damage and the fighter 45%, which is about a 30% increase. The fighter also has attacks of opportunity, but that's hard to quantify because it's extremely situational.
However, that doesn't tell the whole truth. There's also the thing where people who choose to play fighters often like playing "cunning" warriors. They will often choose feats and weapons that allow them to do cool things, like taking a weapon with reach or trip over one that does more damage. They will be more likely to use a shield over a two-handed weapon. Barbarians, on the other hand, tend to attract the kind of player that likes Big Numbers. Get the biggest weapon, and hit with it as often...
Barbarian can easily get Attack of Opportunity with up a 20 foot plus reach that covers an area of roughly 11 squares from side to side. Never quite understand those talking AoOs when almost every martial class can get them in one form or another.
More what I'm seeing is parties don't play in a vacuum. On paper the fighter's +2 attack appears great. In group play when you have a witch dropping synesthesia on something while flanking, you hit more often. Then damage suddenly becomes a much larger premium. Or you get a series of lucky rolls like a natural 20, then suddenly the damage spikes to nutty levels. Or you get a set up for a swipe or a good whirlwind attack, then you're swinging 5 or 6 times at every creature within 20 feet of a 15 foot hit box at maximum attack roll. Or you have a fly spell cast on you and you're swinging on some creature with a 10 foot reach on the ground while you have a 15 foot reach. Or you're fighting some creature that can swallow medium creatures fine, but he can't swallow huge creatures.
I went into playing a barbarian having read that fighters do more damage than them. I figured what the heck, I'm still going to try it. Then my barbarian died, so I decided to play a greatsword fighter. But I was too addicted to the huge damage numbers. Two-hander fighters hit soft compared to giant instinct barbarians. Maybe in some aggregate average a two-hander fighter outdoes a giant instinct barbarian over a thousand battles.
But with my collected data in real game group play, the giant instinct barbarian did more damage. On rounds when the barbarian crits, it's laughably outrageous.
Then I found little perks like Renewed Vigor being a good use of a 3rd action for a few extra hit points. Legendary Fortitude saves is really nice to have as lots of nasty things hit fortitude. Being huge prevents swallowing and easy trampling.
And I picked up AoO which comes up often with his immense reach.
It's been a nice experience so far, but I'll freely admit those 4 to 5 levels were rough. You take some nasty hits. But if you can tough it out to those higher levels, you really become a wrecking machine.
To sum up this thread, like all the previous ones on this subject:
- Casters are weaker than they are in 1e, but balanced with the other classes.
- Some casters have feel concerns because we can't agree on how valuable 2-3 extra spell slots are. (I'd say they're strong, others have said its negligible.)
- Spell Attack Rolls suffer from having a 50% accuracy rate on at-level targets with moderate AC and could stand to have some kind of small buff.
- Some posters think "the real problem here is that other people disagree with me" is a good argument, which is like, Big Yikes.
I happen to agree with all of this, but I also think this topic defies summary or consensus. At least half of the posters are going to disagree with anything that pinpoints casters relative position to martials (are they as powerful as martials? Or weaker than martials?)
So your first point is true for what some posters (including myself) have stated; but other still strongly feel otherwise. Same for point 3 to be honest, there seems to be broad agreement that spell attacks are pretty lame, but people generally haven't been agreeing how one might go about changing that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In group play with healing, my experience is a barbarian exceeds a fighter in damage. Their feats are pretty awesome. A fighter can't grow to huge size and reach attack creatures from 15 to 20 feet away. The ability to get health back with a 3rd action which is often a missed attack is nice. If you think +10 and then 18 damage is a small bonus on top of your usual strength and specialization, not even sure how to rate that.
I've played a flurry ranger, seen a power attack fighter in action, have a champion in two parties, seen multiple precision archers, ruffian and thief rogue, a two weapon fighter, and a wit swashbuckler, none of them are holding a candle to the damage of a giant instinct barbarian.
But hey, if that's your experience, that's your experience. My barbarian is level 14 now and he crushes crap. First four or five levels were rough. That -2 to AC got me crit and taken down a lot. But at 14th level the barbarian never comes to close to falling and his damage is so nuts that things die before he does.
And as far as taking fighter feats, not sure what you're getting. I and my group found the fighter feats quite boring. We almost always make a multiclass fighter. You only get to specialize in one weapon group. If you don't use that weapon group, then you pretty much lose the main advantage of the fighter: increase accuracy. So not sure why you would do that. Not sure what feats you're taking that make the fighter great.
I also have no idea why you think a barbarian can't use a shield if you wanted that style. I know someone built some animal rage shield builds that seemed good.
Basing your analysis of a barbarian on a boss against some PCs is a very weak analysis. I haven't seen a martial enemy that can stand against a PC party. Nothing much does by intent. I have seen some caster mobs using defensive spells stand up to a PC party. They are much more dangerous at higher level.
Barbarian feats, especially levels 1-4, aren't neat or interesting. You get Darkvision or Scent while raging? Wow. So meaningful and game changing, said nobody ever. You make your instinct choice less bad? About at useful as Domain feats, which are almost all bad choices and depend on your initial choice to begin with. Meanwhile, Fighter is getting Power Attack or Lunge, strong combat choices that a Barbarian looks on in envy from, making use of feats like Reflective Shield and Quick Shield Block for some awesome out-of-turn combat durability, plus with a feature of added feat flexibility going up against certain predicted challenges.
By comparison, as a Barbarian, you're basically forced to take Fighter dedication for feats of that level and usefulness. And in many situations, if a Fighter is useless, so is the Barbarian.
It's also about more than raw damage, it's consistency and staying power. Fighters are more accurate and have better defenses to absorb damage and avoid hits, meaning multiple attacks are more likely to hit, and can take numerous enemies without being downed by a lucky hit/crit streak. Same with Flurry Ranger; having only -4 to attack rolls with a 4d6+7 attack means 5 attacks are averaging over 100 damage a round, and they are still better than a Barbarian defensively.
Even with a Giant Barbarian making Whirlwind attacks, that requires surviving over 15 levels to see this become a reality. Meanwhile, Fighter is strong from level 1 and only slightly plateaus by 20th level. Our only PC death in this campaign thus far, has been, surprise surprise, a Giant Barbarian, using a Greatpick. You can hit as hard as you want; dead damage dealers = no damage dealing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think gaining imprecise scent can be game changing and very interesting. Please don't speak for everyone ever!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's also about more than raw damage, it's consistency and staying power. Fighters are more accurate and have better defenses to absorb damage and avoid hits"
I feel that this is a good example of what makes Pathfinder 2e great and TTRPGs in general. Each class is good at different things and some people like some feats while others think they are bad.
Some feats are definitely better for certain circumstances. Also for the most part from my impression Barbarians arent exactly trying to be consistent and have good staying power. I feel the class normally tries to do as much damage as possible before getting knocked out.
PF2E is so flexible I bet there are plenty of ways to play the Barbarian as a more consistent tank character though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think gaining imprecise scent can be game changing and very interesting. Please don't speak for everyone ever!
Again, I disagree. From my understanding, even against invisible foes, the most common reason you'd want this ability, you can take Seek actions to find their location regardless of whether you have the scent ability or not. Even with imprecise senses, you don't know their location, meaning you're just as blind with it than without it, and with skill feats like Foil Senses, you're S.O.L. even with it. At best it might give you heads up through a door filled with undead or similarly smelly creatures, but it only works while raging, and you probably won't be raging out of combat when you might need it in combat, which is when an ability like this is most needed.
Precise Scent might be more valuable, but imprecise senses aren't valuable when you already possess imprecise senses like hearing. And with that being gated behind 2 class feats and only really having in-combat applications, it's not worthwhile compared to Power Attack (with a D12 or Fatal weapon), or Lunge, both of which are useful for all levels of play on multiple types of playstyles, and scale as such.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To sum up this thread, like all the previous ones on this subject:
- Casters are weaker than they are in 1e, but balanced with the other classes.
- Some casters have feel concerns because we can't agree on how valuable 2-3 extra spell slots are. (I'd say they're strong, others have said its negligible.)
- Spell Attack Rolls suffer from having a 50% accuracy rate on at-level targets with moderate AC and could stand to have some kind of small buff.
- Some posters think "the real problem here is that other people disagree with me" is a good argument, which is like, Big Yikes.
I happen to agree with all of this, but I also think this topic defies summary or consensus. At least half of the posters are going to disagree with anything that pinpoints casters relative position to martials (are they as powerful as martials? Or weaker than martials?)
So your first point is true for what some posters (including myself) have stated; but other still strongly feel otherwise. Same for point 3 to be honest, there seems to be broad agreement that spell attacks are pretty lame, but people generally haven't been agreeing how one might go about changing that.
Thankfully truth is not mutually inclusive of consensus, and I was well aware that I was taking a position on those points of controversy. The wryness of 'To sum up this thread, like all the previous ones on this subject' was intentional on my part.
We pretty much know that they're balanced, asserting that the sky is red, when it is in fact blue, does not make it red. Nor does insisting that while it may not be red, it feels red, so it should be treated as red.
This is because feel while valuable in the abstract, is too subject to bias to stand up to scrutiny by itself-- if someone goes in with the expectation that there's going to be a problem, they're liable to find one even if there isn't one. One's experience of something like this is very subject to how one has been conditioned to view it.
Whether or not magic should be nerfed from it's pf1e state, elicited vocal (if minor) resistance from the first suggestion, I recall posts from early in the playtest when i dipped in to check how things were going, insisting that balance is a blight on RPGs and that Martials being weaker than casters is an essential part of Pathfinder/ Dungeons and Dragons Milieu.
At this point, we're far into the territory where a contingent has been conditioned with standards for magic that defy anything resembling real balance. We've run numbers, gathered testimonials to the contrary, and pushed them in debate to the point where they have only their own insistence that something is true as evidence, and moral imperatives that something be changed to try and circumvent the idea that they can be debated, or god forbid, lose.
This horse has been beaten to death so many times, that it still moving is an affront to Pharasma herself.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
and with skill feats like Foil Senses, you're S.O.L. even with it.
Do you have a single example, any at all, of an NPC or monster from a published source where the NPC or monster gains the benefit of this Skill Feat?
Gaining an extra imprecise sense (such as Scent) is intended to provide a means to counter things like Invisibility - therefore, it should do so. Providing monsters and NPCs extra inherent counters to abilities that cost players resources is... well, its adversarial GMing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like scent, its a useful, flavorful ability. And in play, has been game changing for us, and memorable (The most important quality in a feat)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with imprecise senses, you don't know their location, meaning you're just as blind with it than without it...
Wrong.
You can usually sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense, but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed condition.
While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
By comparison, as a Barbarian, you're basically forced to take Fighter dedication for feats of that level and usefulness. And in many situations, if a Fighter is useless, so is the Barbarian.
I'm not going to address most of your opinion stuff, but barbarians have a lot of options fighters don't for mobility, reach, and ranged attacks so this seems unlikely for them.
Fighters are more accurate and have better defenses to absorb damage and avoid hits
While they are certainly harder to hit, fighters definitely don't absorb damage better than barbarians who have temporary hit points and better damage resistance. The only advantage fighters have is access to shield feats in class, but that requires them to spend their feats and keep a sturdy shield up to snuff. And Barbarians can get most of those feats anyway now through the Bastion Archetype. (Also, Animal Skin with moderate dex seem to equal heavy armor AC, at least at some levels.)
There was a fight with a sea serpent during the playtest where it was critting EVERYONE left and right, and the champion and fighter went down first and the dwarf barbarian kept trucking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to address most of your opinion stuff, but barbarians have a lot of options fighters don't for mobility, reach, and ranged attacks so this seems unlikely for them.
Can confirm, as a GM an Animal Barbarian presents a wholly unique list of Fun* challenges during encounters, due to extra sensory and mobility options (and things like No Escape!) That Fighters don't get which are situationally extremely useful.
I personally have found Fighters to be better damage output wise, and that Barbariand eat more hits to the face, but overall survivability for each is essentially similar.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and with skill feats like Foil Senses, you're S.O.L. even with it.Do you have a single example, any at all, of an NPC or monster from a published source where the NPC or monster gains the benefit of this Skill Feat?
Gaining an extra imprecise sense (such as Scent) is intended to provide a means to counter things like Invisibility - therefore, it should do so. Providing monsters and NPCs extra inherent counters to abilities that cost players resources is... well, its adversarial GMing.
I mean, can't NPCs from a specific class (like Swashbuckler) take class feats and skill feats not unlike players? I understand NPCs don't have to be built that way, but it's not like they can't or the rules don't permit it to be done. After all, how can PCs retrain if there are no NPCs with the abilities they need to retrain into?
As for having enemies with abilities that help them at their schtick (such as sneaking around or avoiding capture), it's not so much as "adversarial GMing" than it is simply building a creature to work with their schtick. I could simply give them abilities that function identical to the skill feats, or even stronger if it so calls for it. Such as a capable shapeshifter type that takes creature's forms to the point of being undetectable, in sight, scent, touch, etc. I simply referred to Foil Senses as a general example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6204[/b]]While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are.
Darn these modern RPG core rulebooks are getting ridiculously large...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with imprecise senses, you don't know their location, meaning you're just as blind with it than without it...Wrong.
You can usually sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense, but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed condition.While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are.
Which makes scent so damn pointless when humanoid creatures already have hearing as an imprecise sense to make invisible creatures hidden (unless they are actively stealthing, which is where Seek comes into play in the first place, something that's not precluded by having imprecise scent). So other than maybe active sneaking, it might be viable in an area of Silence, but that's it. I'd rather not take a feat that's somewhat useful in very few situations, when feats like Lunge (having a leg up on equivalent enemies or keeping pace with larger enemies) or Power Attack (attacking at -10 sounds lame? Just do a 1 action thing and get that extra umph in) are much more practical, applicable, and overall desirable to the flavor of "Barbarian Am Smash."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By comparison, as a Barbarian, you're basically forced to take Fighter dedication for feats of that level and usefulness. And in many situations, if a Fighter is useless, so is the Barbarian.
I'm not going to address most of your opinion stuff, but barbarians have a lot of options fighters don't for mobility, reach, and ranged attacks so this seems unlikely for them.
Fighters are more accurate and have better defenses to absorb damage and avoid hitsWhile they are certainly harder to hit, fighters definitely don't absorb damage better than barbarians who have temporary hit points and better damage resistance. The only advantage fighters have is access to shield feats in class, but that requires them to spend their feats and keep a sturdy shield up to snuff. And Barbarians can get most of those feats anyway now through the Bastion Archetype. (Also, Animal Skin with moderate dex seem to equal heavy armor AC, at least at some levels.)
There was a fight with a sea serpent during the playtest where it was critting EVERYONE left and right, and the champion and fighter went down first and the dwarf barbarian kept trucking.
The mobility stuff competes for reactions. No Escape? Takes a reaction. So does Attack of Opportunity. So does Come and Get Me. I mean, having options for your reactions are nice, even just simply having 2 is good. But having only one reaction means you need to make note of it and utilize it carefully. Do you want to try and disrupt that spellcaster, or chase down the support type running away or the fighter type trying to beat down your party? Better pick one, and hope it pays off. Reach is largely instinct dependent. Giant might have the most, but it costs 3+ feats and takes numerous actions (and levels) to reach that point, and Animal isn't bad, but it's very limited in its scope. Fighter takes, what, one feat, wields one weapon type, and is good from then on? I'm calling BS on the ranged attacks, though. Sure, Barbarians are probably as proficient as Fighters, but they don't get crap for feats to support it, and I haven't seen any instincts that make it work even comparatively to them or a Ranger for that matter.
Fighters have better "on-demand" protection with Shield Block, even if it costs feats. Those are feats that are saving your character's life, whereas a Barbarian's feats are very limited on this front, and their HP and AC are being tanked down hard. Even basic feats like Reactive Shield, granting circumstance bonuses to Reflex Saves (which isn't exactly your best), are pretty damn fantastic. Fair point about the Bastion dedication, which wasn't available from Core, but it still requires additional investment that a Fighter doesn't have to make. Barbarians might not need to worry about that investment because the other ones are trash, but I'd rather have that shored up with better class feats than archetype feats that might be useful in certain situations. (Plus, I believe Viking dedication gives the same and then some, so this would be a better choice comparison.)
Playtest numbers aren't the same as published numbers, meaning it's not exactly applicable to state the Dwarf Barbarian will still outpace said Champion and Fighter.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like this thread and the thread, "some thoughts on 2nd Ed." have switched topics.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which makes scent so damn pointless when humanoid creatures already have hearing as an imprecise sense to make invisible creatures hidden (unless they are actively stealthing, which is where Seek comes into play in the first place, something that's not precluded by having imprecise scent). So other than maybe active sneaking, it might be viable in an area of Silence, but that's it. I'd rather not take a feat that's somewhat useful in very few situations, when feats like Lunge (having a leg up on equivalent enemies or keeping pace with larger enemies) or Power Attack (attacking at -10 sounds lame? Just do a 1 action thing and get that extra umph in) are much more practical, applicable, and overall desirable to the flavor of "Barbarian Am Smash."Even with imprecise senses, you don't know their location, meaning you're just as blind with it than without it...Wrong.
You can usually sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense, but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed condition.While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are.
That is not how the rules work. Someone who successfully uses stealth will be hidden from sight and hearing (assuming they have cover, concealment, or the like) but that same character will not be hidden from scent unless they specifically taken precautions against it. To use an actual example, my players wanted to sneak by some goblin dogs so they went back to some dead goblins and basically rolled around in them so they would just smell like goblins too.
The one thing that bypasses this is the Foil Senses feat, a skill feat that no creatures or NPCs to date have. (And that shouldn't be showing up before 7th level, way later than characters can get scent.)
Scent is basically auto detecting anyone in range who isn't scentless (like an incorporeal creature) or taking precautions. That is, no checks need to be rolled, no actions need to be taken. You know their square regardless of how high they roll for stealth. It is actually an ability that a player needs to remind their GM about frequently because it can really screw up ambushes before initiative is even rolled.
You can still not like it, but you have thus just been wrong about the rules and need to use hypothetical creatures you made up to invalidate it as a choice.
The mobility stuff competes for reactions. No Escape? Takes a reaction. So does Attack of Opportunity. So does Come and Get Me.
Only one you listed is a mobility option. You didn't mention Sudden Charge, Fast Movement, or Raging Athlete exist at low levels. At high levels they get straight up flight or the highest straight line land speed in the game.
I'm calling BS on the ranged attacks, though. Sure, Barbarians are probably as proficient as Fighters, but they don't get crap for feats to support it, and I haven't seen any instincts that make it work even comparatively to them or a Ranger for that matter.
Dragon's Rage, Raging Thrower, Oversized Throw, Friendly Toss, Spirit's Wrath. A dedicated archer fighter will obviously be better, but a fighter who didn't take those feats doesn't really have options. But Barbarians do have some solid additions.
Fair point about the Bastion dedication, which wasn't available from Core, but it still requires additional investment that a Fighter doesn't have to make.
Not really. The Bastion dedication is one feat that grants reactive shield. I suppose barbar needs to pick up shield block, but you can do that with an ancestry or general feat. The only real "cost" is you need to take feats from it before getting another archetype, but if you're actually serious about shield use that's not a problem because you wanted those feats anyway.
Fighters do still get some exclusive feats and will be better at it... But that's being weighed against more hit points, more resistance, and temporary HP. Also... That's ONE fighter build. A fighter build that sacrifices a lot of offensive power. Barbarians get all those listed things by default. And if they build for it they can use stuff like Renewed Vigor or Spirit's Interference to get additional defenses.
(Plus, I believe Viking dedication gives the same and then some, so this would be a better choice comparison.)
Well you'd be wrong if you are talking about pure shield use. Vikings have a lot of dead feats on a barbarian, though hurling charge is OK outside of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like this thread and the thread, "some thoughts on 2nd Ed." have switched topics.
It went from comparing spellcasters to comparing martials (because people are drawing class parallels by saying Wizards are like Fighters or like Swashbucklers or whatever). I might have pushed it a bit, but I do know it was starting to go that way well before I put in my thoughts on that matter.
Back on topic, then.
I play a Wizard myself. It's only really rewarding because of my system mastery and having certain "just in case" spells in place for common situations. I don't find those to be "Class" accomplishments, more that they are "Player" accomplishments. Yes, as a Wizard, I could put up a Wall of Force to prevent enemies from escaping and alerting the camp. So can a Witch or a Sorcerer though, and they have better abilities and features to work with. Dangerous Sorcery? Awesome feat for blasting, that Wizards or any other class don't get without multiclassing, that's fairly hard to come by in terms of requirements, no less. Bloodline powers like Elemental Toss? Very strong one-action nuke, with a bloodline that provides healing and most every good blast spell a Wizard will be using. What do Wizards get as compensation? Oh, Augment Summoning that is basically "Inspire Minions," Force Bolt that is basically "Magic Missile but worse," amidst several other abilities that are either situational or just plain garbage. And basic feats that are junk. Scroll Savant is pretty decent for flexing out some utility and is Wizard-only, and Quickened Spell is strong for that immediate action economy burst. But one or two feats, some added Trained skills (which don't mean much by the endgame) and junk powers, does not a Wizard make. And with crafting really only rewarding for Uncommon/Rare/Unique tier crafting (because otherwise you might as well buy from town), it's not worth investing compared to something else, like Society.
I might blame this on the fact that I chose the wrong class for the objective I wanted (which is all-day powerful blasting potential), but Wizards are leagues and bounds behind classes like Witches and Sorcerers as a result of not knowing what sort of niche the Wizard is supposed to fill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like this thread and the thread, "some thoughts on 2nd Ed." have switched topics.I might blame this on the fact that I chose the wrong class for the objective I wanted (which is all-day powerful blasting potential), but Wizards are leagues and bounds behind classes like Witches and Sorcerers as a result of not knowing what sort of niche the Wizard is supposed to fill.
If you mean to imply to sorcerer fills a "blasting" niche, I can't entirely agree because there's a lot of ways you can try and go with a sorcerer. Hag debuffing, imperial generalist, angelic healer, etc. They don't fall into just one category (although quality of sorcerers varies widely.) I'll say a blaster sorcerer might be the "best" way to play one (even if I am not a fan of that) but optimal builds aren't the only ones that exist.
I'll admit I am very biased here, though, as blasters have always been my least favorite way to play casters and sorcerers have always been a favorite class so I am glad they were kept out of that niche somewhat (and honestly, I wish Dangerous Sorcery had just been Dangerous Wizardry and a class bonus for the evoker.) Druids feel like the best blasters overall, to me, but that's as speculative as any answer.
I guess in my ideal world, sorcerers would have been the best casters in terms of spell slots and raw magic power and wizards would have occupied the "versatile caster" niche. I suppose that ship has sailed, but as it stands neither class is really all that good regardless of what niche you consider it to occupy.
But what niche does witch fill? Debuffing? I don't know that she's great at it, even versus monsters of any level.
In any case, I am still wondering from earlier in the thread how true strike helps attack roll spells be viable across the board when a huge amount of casters don't get it. It feels like across the board optimal builds are the only ones that get considered in these threads. What if you have a primal caster making a lot of spell attack rolls without it? It seems like a lot of novice to moderate players could easily make that mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian feats, especially levels 1-4, aren't neat or interesting. You...In group play with healing, my experience is a barbarian exceeds a fighter in damage. Their feats are pretty awesome. A fighter can't grow to huge size and reach attack creatures from 15 to 20 feet away. The ability to get health back with a 3rd action which is often a missed attack is nice. If you think +10 and then 18 damage is a small bonus on top of your usual strength and specialization, not even sure how to rate that.
I've played a flurry ranger, seen a power attack fighter in action, have a champion in two parties, seen multiple precision archers, ruffian and thief rogue, a two weapon fighter, and a wit swashbuckler, none of them are holding a candle to the damage of a giant instinct barbarian.
But hey, if that's your experience, that's your experience. My barbarian is level 14 now and he crushes crap. First four or five levels were rough. That -2 to AC got me crit and taken down a lot. But at 14th level the barbarian never comes to close to falling and his damage is so nuts that things die before he does.
And as far as taking fighter feats, not sure what you're getting. I and my group found the fighter feats quite boring. We almost always make a multiclass fighter. You only get to specialize in one weapon group. If you don't use that weapon group, then you pretty much lose the main advantage of the fighter: increase accuracy. So not sure why you would do that. Not sure what feats you're taking that make the fighter great.
I also have no idea why you think a barbarian can't use a shield if you wanted that style. I know someone built some animal rage shield builds that seemed good.
Basing your analysis of a barbarian on a boss against some PCs is a very weak analysis. I haven't seen a martial enemy that can stand against a PC party. Nothing much does by intent. I have seen some caster mobs using defensive spells stand up to a PC party. They are much more dangerous at higher level.
If all you play is low level, then sure, stick with the fighter. I agree. You are mostly right about low level barbarians. Fighters are pretty consistent and good at low level, though I think the whole boring feats trend reverses at higher level. When the barbarian is getting Titan's Stature, Renewed Vigor, and Whirlwind Attack, the fighter is getting I don't even know. Maybe that feat that gives you a circumstance bonus to damage for frightened creatures?
Barbarians are a class I would only recommend to people who know they will make it to high level. Low level barbarian feats can be tough to survive with that -2 AC for giants.
They shine at high level. They keep on getting better all the way to 20. My barbarian started off tough just like you stated, but at lvl 14 he's a beast that doesn't even see close to zero hit points. And things die long before he does.
So sure, if all you're going to see is the first 10 levels of the class, stick to a fighter. It's more consistent, safe, and boring. If you are playing to lvl 11 to 20, barbarian will beast it up like few martial classes you've seen. Complete wrecking machine that is hard to bring down.
It's been fun to play for sure. Fighter is kind of boring. I know they're accuracy is great, but goodness they are boring to play. No real magical abilities. Pretty much pure martial attacks.
I'm trying to stick to my two-weapon fighter, but it's rough. I keep looking at all these other classes with cool feats and options and getting class envy. Most fighter feats are hit something with your special weapon group and have some effect. No growing into a giant, hunter's edge, a good mix of shots, no animal companion, no interesting spell combinations, no dragon or giant form, just hit stuff and add some effect. I have to tough it out to see what a fighter can do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like this thread and the thread, "some thoughts on 2nd Ed." have switched topics.I might blame this on the fact that I chose the wrong class for the objective I wanted (which is all-day powerful blasting potential), but Wizards are leagues and bounds behind classes like Witches and Sorcerers as a result of not knowing what sort of niche the Wizard is supposed to fill.If you mean to imply to sorcerer fills a "blasting" niche, I can't entirely agree because there's a lot of ways you can try and go with a sorcerer. Hag debuffing, imperial generalist, angelic healer, etc. They don't fall into just one category (although quality of sorcerers varies widely.) I'll say a blaster sorcerer might be the "best" way to play one (even if I am not a fan of that) but optimal builds aren't the only ones that exist.
I'll admit I am very biased here, though, as blasters have always been my least favorite way to play casters and sorcerers have always been a favorite class so I am glad they were kept out of that niche somewhat (and honestly, I wish Dangerous Sorcery had just been Dangerous Wizardry and a class bonus for the evoker.) Druids feel like the best blasters overall, to me, but that's as speculative as any answer.
I guess in my ideal world, sorcerers would have been the best casters in terms of spell slots and raw magic power and wizards would have occupied the "versatile caster" niche. I suppose that ship has sailed, but as it stands neither class is really all that good regardless of what niche you consider it to occupy.
But what niche does witch fill? Debuffing? I don't know that she's great at it, even versus monsters of any level.
In any case, I am still wondering from earlier in the thread how true strike helps attack roll spells be viable across the board when a huge amount of casters don't get it. It feels like across the board optimal builds are the only ones that get considered in these threads. What if you have a...
Sorcerers definitely have all kinds of options available to them, but as far as blasting is concerned, they do fulfill it the best simply due to that 1st level class feat that's quite heavily gated from attribute requirements and dedication feats. And they have some of the strongest blasting focus abilities in the game too (Elemental Toss and Dragon's Breath are very solid focus abilities, just to name a couple). Storm Druids can compare, but they won't outmatch them, not by a long shot. There's even amazing ancestry support for it with Kobolds; a Dragonscale or Spellscale Kobold Elemental Bloodline with Dragon Disciple Dedication feats basically have the best of both worlds at their fingertips, plus having some of the crucial support from Primal spellcasting, they're the strongest versatile blaster I've ever seen. Healing? Done. Buffing? Done. Blasting? Done. Face skills? Done. The only things they can't do is tank, take hits, and swing a sword or shoot a bow very good. Which is fine, it's not meant to do everything. But it does a lot, and it's pretty strong at everything it does, too.
Considering that blasting isn't really that strong to begin with (for good or ill), I'm not keen on it either. I mean, if spellcasters are meant to do sub-par damage, what are they meant to do? Teleport? Weakened to junk and is Uncommon. (It also doesn't work with oversized parties, a major design problem in my opinion.) Do knowledge checks? Rogue could do the same thing while still stabbing people in the face effectively, and with little to no sacrificial investment being made. Buff? Bard already does this to the point that it's a joke for anyone else to even try, and that's not even touching on spell slots. I just don't see what sort of support niche spellcasters are meant to fill outside of maybe being a Healbot. In which case we can ditch Wizard and Arcane Sorcerer bloodlines out the window, because they can't heal.
But I do agree that True Strike being the balancing point of spell attacks being held back (which isn't available to everyone so easily) really means True Strike is a problem and not spell attacks. So why is everyone being punished for one select spell that probably should be nerfed to the ground for spell attack and DC potency runes to come online?