| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Get rid of Anathemas. I wanna play a Barbarian without being told how they should act. If you want to keep them, keep something SUPER specific that won't interfere with the regular flow of character building.
2. Get rid of the AC penalty on Rage. -1 is MASSIVE, and causes Barbarians to be health piñatas at low level. I've DM'd multiple games where the Barb just blows up because of big increase in critical chances. The class shouldn't be strictly a damage dealer, it should be allowed to be the tank for the party too. The AC penalty needs to go... can be replaced by Clumsy, Stupefied, or whatever, but get rid of what makes the class so dangerous to frontline with.
3. Let Fury increase damage from 2 to 4 as an Instinct ability. No Lv1 Barb Feat can compete with the Instinct bonuses AND +2 to damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Get rid of Anathemas. I wanna play a Barbarian without being told how they should act. If you want to keep them, keep something SUPER specific that won't interfere with the regular flow of character building
This won't happen.
RoE gives Elemental Instinct with Anathema. As it is already a "remastered" book this already points that the barbarians anathema will stay. Also without alignment anathemas was reinforced as "alternative".
2. Get rid of the AC penalty on Rage. -1 is MASSIVE, and causes Barbarians to be health piñatas at low level. I've DM'd multiple games where the Barb just blows up because of big increase in critical chances. The class shouldn't be strictly a damage dealer, it should be allowed to be the tank for the party too. The AC penalty needs to go... can be replaced by Clumsy, Stupefied, or whatever, but get rid of what makes the class so dangerous to frontline with.
Make sense as a way to go way from OGL mechanics. Having a different permanent condition for different instincs could be interesting too. But I don't know if you have noticed but Clumsy will basically worse than -1 AC penalty on Rage, except for Giant Instinct that already have it.
3. Let Fury increase damage from 2 to 4 as an Instinct ability. No Lv1 Barb Feat can compete with the Instinct bonuses AND +2 to damage.
I agree that Fury Instinct needs some love. Not only a better dmg but also some feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anathemas are certainly a really weird design decision. Out of all classes, I certainly didn't expect barbarians to be the one to have in-built restrictions. They certainly aren't going to remove them though since they are making a big fuss about edicts and anathema in the Remaster.
The penalty to AC is both something that barbarians have for tradition since it is common to have barbarians being "clumsy" in lieu of them being hp sacks that hit like a truck. I agree fury needs a boost though.
Honestly I don't care too much about barbarians' anathemas must of them are practically thematic once most of then won't will trigger except for Superstition Instinct (that's horrible for 99% of parties), Spirit Instinct that could be very restrictive for tomb raid adventures and a little bit for Animal Instinct once it restricts you to use weapons (but your unarmed Strikes is already very powerful so..).
IMO the barbarians is already well designed only needing some adjustments in some instincts that are poorly unbalanced.
The penalty to AC is both something that barbarians have for tradition since it is common to have barbarians being "clumsy" in lieu of them being hp sacks that hit like a truck.
It's also common to have them be really sturdy, which isn't the case in practice. If DR started at level 1, sure. Because it doesn't, I think the AC penalty should go.
I think the Action restriction is penalty enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair. Honestly PF2e removed a ton of sacred cows so it's not like I would be angry if they remove the -1 to AC while raging.
I agree anathemas serve a cool thematic and flavor purpose, though the fact that we could possibly get more superstition instinct-like anathemas in the future honestly scares me and I would prefer for them to not be there in the first place if that could happen at some point.
I agree fury needs something since it's so...lackluster. Fury is like the thief racket of the barbarian in that it serves as the "basic" option for its class, but its so barebones than people often default to giant as the de-facto subclass for the barbarian (it also doesn't help that's the iconic's instinct).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree anathemas serve a cool thematic and flavor purpose, though the fact that we could possibly get more superstition instinct-like anathemas in the future honestly scares me and I would prefer for them to not be there in the first place if that could happen at some point.
Superstition instinct is one of those strange aberrations of APG. I don't think that Paizo will keep such batten for new content because is very clear that what they done with it was a mistake and this becomes clear to me that's not the refence when they made Elemental Instinct.
The remaster is already they making adjustments for CRB and APG based in the current game maturity fixing some bad design decisions and changing some unused options.
I have a strong hope that they will remade these bad barbarian instincts into something usable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about the APG the more I think it was a mistake. I don't know what was happening at Paizo at the time, but most of the stuff that is obviously wrong in the system comes from the APG, and most of the stuff that is reciving a rework in the Remaster also comes from the APG.
Either Paizo didn't know how to go further with the system after the CRB or whoever was in charge at the time didn't get the gist about adding new stuff into the system. I'd even argue that Paizo didn't have a handle on good class design until Dark Archive, because even while Secrets of Magic is fantastic, I feel the magus has some issues mainly with its action economy and the classes from the G&G were a huge miss for me. SoM still has the summoner though, which IMO is probably the second most well designed class in the game after the kineticist (not strongest btw, just well designed class), but it's clear that when Paizo had to delve further from the core 12 they didn't know what to do for a while.
Take away the -1 to AC but dropping them to d10 or d8 like normal martials I guess would be okay.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reduced AC for a barbarian when raging is more than "just" a mechanical penalty. It is a central thematic part of the "berserker" heritage that is the inspiration for the class: caring more about attacking with mighty blows than defending.
I have literally never seen anybody have any trouble with the Barbarian anathema. They're more RPing prompts than anything else.
They could make more instincts without them (Fury is pretty bad TBH) but things like the Superstition instinct absolutely need Anathema to function correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The low level AC and crits are brutal for the barbarian. Eventually you have enough hit points to shrug it off, but at those low levels it's pretty rough.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a thing about the barbarian that I've felt hurts how fun they are to play, it isn't Anathema or Armor Class, it's the number of runes and talismans that use activations with a Concentrate trait.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts are:
1 No they add flavour. Just fix the Superstitious one as it is largely unplayable and interferes with team cohesion.
2 Another terrible idea. Disadvantages like this are key conceptually to the class and are fun to play with. If you really think barbarians are soft then go for more hp or resistance.
3. For sure, add some bonuses to some of the weaker subtypes.
What I'd want to see is:
4. Fix Cleave so MAP does not make it near worthless. So far it depresses 99% of users.
5. Fix Elemental instinct by clarifying the rage trait so that you can use Elemental powers outside of rage.
6. Add something specific to each instinct. Especially Fury.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people really think things through when they ask paizo to get rid of the drawback to rage. The entire balancing point of giving you such large static damage bonuses and allowing you to use them the entire fight is because of that -1.
Without that, Rage damage and potentially Barbarian HP is going to be reduced. Or, Rage is potentially going to become an on/off state for the barbarian that is lost after 1 attack, and then has to be regained in combat. This brings a non-penalty rage in line with other abilities like Finishers, Spellstrike, and Unleash Psyche. Unleash Psyche is actually probably a good indicator of how Rage would be balanced, get a big bonus that lasts a fixed number of rounds, and then gain a negative condition that lasts a number of rounds.
Personally, I'd prefer rage remain as is. It's a risk/reward that works for the simplistic mechanic it is, and there's no reason to take apart a fence that's serving its job just fine as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people really think things through when they ask paizo to get rid of the drawback to rage. The entire balancing point of giving you such large static damage bonuses and allowing you to use them the entire fight is because of that -1.
Without that, Rage damage and potentially Barbarian HP is going to be reduced. Or, Rage is potentially going to become an on/off state for the barbarian that is lost after 1 attack, and then has to be regained in combat. This brings a non-penalty rage in line with other abilities like Finishers, Spellstrike, and Unleash Psyche. Unleash Psyche is actually probably a good indicator of how Rage would be balanced, get a big bonus that lasts a fixed number of rounds, and then gain a negative condition that lasts a number of rounds.
Personally, I'd prefer rage remain as is. It's a risk/reward that works for the simplistic mechanic it is, and there's no reason to take apart a fence that's serving its job just fine as is.
I agree. The whole class balance would be destroyed and in need of desperate adjunstments if the AC penalty was simply. And I don't think (non-giant) barbarians are anywhere near as squishy as some people seem to think. The first few levels can be rough, admittedly. After the lowest levels, though, they have high HP, tempHP, above average saves, damage resistance at level 9+ and they are hard to flank. Deny Advantage alone can more than make up for the AC penalty in many situations.
The remastered armor proficiency feat also allows a barbarian to get full heavy armor proficiency all the way to level 18 (assuming they keep their current armor proficiency scaling). I expect more barbarians to go the way of the armored juggernaut in the future, which also negates the AC penalty.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian is a class where their AC penalty is well compensated, just not all instincts compensate equally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a Superstition Instinct Barbarian in PFS. At first, I was playing it only with friends explaining clearly that it is a Superstition Barb, but I started more and more to play it in pick-up groups without even stating he's a Superstition Barb (still telling everyone to avoid using magic on him). The Anathema is fine, not that crippling. But there are 2 interpretations of it because of the use of the word "willing": Either you consider the game meaning of "willing" and as such you can be affected by a lot of spells and it's fine or you consider the natural language definition of "willing" and then it has nothing to do in adventure. I feel a lot of players are using the excessively restrictive interpretation that leads to unplayability when the other interpretation works wonders.
I also think the penalty to AC should stay. Depending on your Instinct, it leads to interesting choices as to when you should rage. Also, the temporary hit points compensate the AC penalty so it's not that nasty (unless you're a Giant Barbarian, but that's specific).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come to think of it, having a Protector Instinct would make perfectly sense. It could trade the damage bonus for increased AC, more temp HP or other defensive bonuses.
That might be worth exploring further down the line, but I doubt we'll get anything like that in Player Core 2, since it inverts the whole premise of the class.
And another random thought I just had: The new Protection spell with its universal AC and save buff will make parties who favor defense easier to pull off. Your barbarian might want to dabble in magic a bit or be nice to your party's casters.
I play a Superstition Instinct Barbarian in PFS. At first, I was playing it only with friends explaining clearly that it is a Superstition Barb, but I started more and more to play it in pick-up groups without even stating he's a Superstition Barb (still telling everyone to avoid using magic on him). The Anathema is fine, not that crippling. But there are 2 interpretations of it because of the use of the word "willing": Either you consider the game meaning of "willing" and as such you can be affected by a lot of spells and it's fine or you consider the natural language definition of "willing" and then it has nothing to do in adventure. I feel a lot of players are using the excessively restrictive interpretation that leads to unplayability when the other interpretation works wonders.
I also think the penalty to AC should stay. Depending on your Instinct, it leads to interesting choices as to when you should rage. Also, the temporary hit points compensate the AC penalty so it's not that nasty (unless you're a Giant Barbarian, but that's specific).
The extended text clearly rules out your interpretation.
Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells this is effects not just being the target of a spell. So even being in the aura of an InspireCourage or a Bless is clearly a problem.
continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells. Willingly is defined well enough.
SuperBidi I can't see any logic in your point, though I completely agree the right approach / outcome is to find some way to make the anathema playable and go with that. But IMHO Paizo need to fix it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the defensive part of the Barbarian, I've seen all Barbarians (but mine) raging at round 1, which is a tactical mistake. Stride + Strike x2 does more damage than Rage + Stride + Strike. And at round 2 you are very often using Rage instead of a 3rd attack making it much cheaper.
Also, if you see that your Barbarian is raising a lot of attention you can choose not to rage to take tanking duty. And then the combination of extreme hit point pool and the ability to gain a few more when you get closer to 0hp makes a nasty tank out of the Barbarian.
My Barbarian has gone down only once at level 1 (considering that he can't be magically healed as a Superstition Barbarian). I don't find him less tanky than my Paladin, just different tanky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells this is effects not just being the target of a spell.
There's a notion of "willing" target for spells. So this sentence can clearly mean that you are never a "willing" target for spells. You can't rule out this interpretation.
So even being in the aura of an InspireCourage or a Bless is clearly a problem.
By that logic, you can't cross a Wall of Fire or any area of magic to kill the Wizard on the other side. On top of being unplayably restrictive it clashes with the fantasy.
And there's the "too bad to be true" rule. If an interpretation is unplayable then maybe the interpretation is wrong. Considering there's an interpretation that is totally playable while still being restrictive, maybe it should be considered.
Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells this is effects not just being the target of a spell.There's a notion of "willing" target for spells. So this sentence can clearly mean that you are never a "willing" target for spells. You can't rule out this interpretation.
Yes I can because it says "effects" not "target". We have definitions that we can look up in the glossary.
TBTBT for sure, but that is the point of this conversation. Watering it down to targets would be a more reasonable anathema, but it clearly says something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I can because it says "effects" not "target".
I don't see where my interpretation is wrong. "Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells" or "Being a willing target to a spell" are synonymous to me. You are making a distinction that I don't see at all.
Your interpretation leads to funny situations:
Mage hunter Superstition Barbarian: "I gonna kill you, evil Wizard!"
Wizard: **rolls a RK check** "If you attack me I will cast spells on you!"
Mage hunter Superstition Barbarian: "Noooooooo, I can't attack you anymore without losing all my anti-wizard powers!!!!!!!"
I don't see where my interpretation is wrong. "Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells" or "Being a willing target to a spell" are synonymous to me. You are making a distinction that I don't see at all.
The first is a superset that includes the second.
Targets and effects are different. A fireball doesn't target, produce flame does.The first is not going to miss because of concealment, the second can. The effect of both is damage.
Still confused read this Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
Anyway Paizo have acknowledged your confusion. It is part of the reason they are getting rid of golems. Their antimagic is complex and most people are getting it wrong.
Superstition's entire gimmick is hating magic, I feel like someone like that isn't just going to be like "Don't use heroism on me, however standing next to me with bless active is fine"
"Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead)."
So willing is not just about the character willingness. If the Bard with Conceal Spell bluffs my Barbarian into believing they're not casting a spell on them I can still decide if I accept it or not.
"Whether you're a member of a superstitious family or culture that distrusts magic, a warrior in constant battle against wizards and witches, a survivor of a magical accident that instilled an intense aversion in your mind and body, or a scion of a bloodline known for its magic resistance, your rage is inimical to magic"
Amongst the 4 archetypes described in the Instinct, only one will run away from magic at all cost. The warrior in constant battle against wizards and witches is obviously affected by a lot of magic on his own volition: their career choice. Similarly, the last 2 archetypes have more of a natural resistance to magic than a willing choice to not be affected by magic. So they can be considered always unwilling to represent their magical resistance when the character itself is not necessarily refusing any form of magic (actually, the Superstition Barbarian doesn't refuse any form of magic as they use magic items, it's just the magic from spells).
The first is a superset that includes the second.
Targets and effects are different. A fireball doesn't target, produce flame does.The first is not going to miss because of concealment, the second can. The effect of both is damage.
Still confused read this Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
Anyway Paizo have acknowledged your confusion. It is part of the reason they are getting rid of golems. Their antimagic is complex and most people are getting it wrong.
So if the Bard casts Inspire Courage, I'm not willingly accepting the effects of magic as I'm affected by magic outside my own will. As such it doesn't trigger my Anathema.
They also are driven by a deep distrust of magic. Like that is the first thing the instinct says. This reading also makes what I said pointless because heroism doesn't require a willing target so a superstition barbarian can have a spellcaster walk up to them and cast a spell directly on them and that doesn't break anathema according to you. Despite the whole continuing to travel with someone who has shown that they will to cast spells on you counts as willing accepting them thing.
Heroism is a weird case as it looks like you can cast it on an unwilling target. Anyway, it's not important to the current case.
The second part of the Anathema refers to the first part when it says "despite your unwillingness".
So the crux of the discussion is what "willingly accepting" means. If you know you will certainly be affected by a spell and still decide to continue your course of action but when you are actually affected you resist it as much as you can, are you willingly accepting the effects of magic or not?
I say no, you say yes.
Your interpretation clashes with absolutely everything. First, the Anathema is unplayable if there's a spellcaster in the party as being affected by any one of their spells forces you to leave the party. Second, you can't be "a warrior in constant battle against wizards and witches" because that would be willingly accepting the effects of spells (as you can be sure wizards and witches cast spells). And even adventuring will put you under the effects of spells and as such can be considered Anathema to you (especially if you know you face a spellcaster). If fighting a spellcaster triggers the Anathema the second they cast a spell on you I think I can safely say it breaks the entire concept of the Instinct.
My interpretation works wonders. It's a watered down version of the Superstition Barbarian who can hardly been healed and buffed by single target buffs but otherwise is fully functional. Also, it covers a lot of archetypes including the bloodline with strong magic resistance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the Bard casts Inspire Courage, I'm not willingly accepting the effects of magic as I'm affected by magic outside my own will. As such it doesn't trigger my Anathema.The first is a superset that includes the second.
Targets and effects are different. A fireball doesn't target, produce flame does.The first is not going to miss because of concealment, the second can. The effect of both is damage.
Still confused read this Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
Anyway Paizo have acknowledged your confusion. It is part of the reason they are getting rid of golems. Their antimagic is complex and most people are getting it wrong.
Well when you emphasize accepting, it gets a bit clearer what you are going on about. It doesn't really help though as the anathema has 2 restrictions.Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells and an ally insists on using magic on you.
Both are effects. Its clearly includes the secondary effects of Bless and Circle of Protection. Using magic on you does not require either targeting or acceptance.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
an ally insists on using magic on you
The whole text is: "If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness"
So there's again this notion of "unwillingness". If you use the common language meaning of "unwillingness", then I agree with you. If you use the "willing" logic of spells, then you don't trigger this part if you are affected by Bless or Inspire Courage as you are not required to be a willing target (and as such are not unwilling).
Even if you use the common language of "unwillingness", there's the "insist" word that is important. The Cleric casting Heroism on you (because it somehow doesn't ask for a willing target, which I think is a mistake as it's clearly an outlier) would definitely trigger this Anathema. But the Cleric using Bless to buff the party, taking care to not include you if possible and being overt about what they do is not really "insisting on using magic on you". They are using magic and it may somehow affect you during the fight. In my opinion, the intent is important to trigger this part of the Anathema: Is the Cleric trying to circumvent the Anathema or are they taking care of not triggering it and just unadvertedly affected you?
Also, I've been affected only twice by spells with my PFS Barbarian, Inspire Courage and a 3-action Heal (my Barbarian is a Dhampir...), so I also think there are far less circumstances where you would be affected by spells than people think. Especially when you take the necessary steps to avoid them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a Superstition Instinct Barbarian in PFS. At first, I was playing it only with friends explaining clearly that it is a Superstition Barb, but I started more and more to play it in pick-up groups without even stating he's a Superstition Barb (still telling everyone to avoid using magic on him). The Anathema is fine, not that crippling. But there are 2 interpretations of it because of the use of the word "willing": Either you consider the game meaning of "willing" and as such you can be affected by a lot of spells and it's fine or you consider the natural language definition of "willing" and then it has nothing to do in adventure. I feel a lot of players are using the excessively restrictive interpretation that leads to unplayability when the other interpretation works wonders.
I also think the penalty to AC should stay. Depending on your Instinct, it leads to interesting choices as to when you should rage. Also, the temporary hit points compensate the AC penalty so it's not that nasty (unless you're a Giant Barbarian, but that's specific).
It's pretty hard to not accept a too restrictive interpretation with the following explanation:
Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells (including from scrolls, wands, and the like), even from your allies, is anathema to your instinct. You can still drink potions and invest and activate most magic items you find, though items that cast spells are subject to the same restrictions as all other spells. If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct.
This subjective context basically is saying that willingly is directly and indirectly accept spell effects. So for example walking with a Bard that uses Inspire Courage knowing that it used it and that this affects you too means that you are willingly it and violating your anathema.
You're almost distorting the logic of anathema to make it not so bad. It's pretty hard for most players and GMs to accept exceptions to this anathema without thinking they are entering in homebrew area.
For you the Superstition instinct could be fun and interesting for you to play but for other players and GMs it can be very annoying to deal thats why even in PFS most players and GMs turn a blind eye to it (also the PFS guide enforces to take it easy with anathemas).
For you the Superstition instinct could be fun and interesting for you to play but for other players and GMs it can be very annoying to deal thats why even in PFS most players and GMs turn a blind eye to it (also the PFS guide enforces to take it easy with anathemas).
I really never had any issue. Well, one advantage of PFS is that you don't adventure with a character more than a mission, so the second part of the Anathema is not really annoying. But outside one Bard, I've never played with a single caster that affected me with their spells in a way that could trigger this part of the Anathema. As a result, I stopped being overt about my Instinct and it doesn't cause any issues (I just ask the casters to target other characters, obviously).
As I say, the Instinct is not that annoying. From my experience, (outside Bards) you don't cast that many spells on allies and the main one is Heal/Soothe (that my Barbarian handles by being really tanky and asking not to be targeted by such spells anyway).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the damage resistance come online earlier, or the temp HP from raging beefed up. I don't feel quite as solid as I'd like as a Barbarian. However, removing the AC penalty is for wimps! You're not a wimp are you?
Fury and Superstition need help.
Concentrate restriction is the only reason we don't already have a functioning Bloodrager and it drives me nuts.
As for Anathema, you can often just ignore it if it's giving you problems. If you really need a mechanical option, maybe bake it into a feat of some sort that you can ignore Anathema for certain things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also really appreciate the Superstition Anathema to be revised-- saying you can't be part of casting spells or rituals, would be a real restriction, but it would lubricate their ability to function in a normal party to a great degree.
I will say that a full on rework of Fury would be greatly appreciated, as it does feel like it's lackluster compared to the other instincts. Perhaps make it's gimmick getting damage resistances earlier, or higher than other barbarians, in exchange for the lower damage. Would be nice to have something beyond Animal Instinct for those defensive barbarians.
Also the proposal for making rage just give Clumsy 1 is intriguing. Making it something that's likely to stack with other sources of -1 but also making it lower your saves could have some pretty interesting gameplay implications.
I don't think people really think things through when they ask paizo to get rid of the drawback to rage. The entire balancing point of giving you such large static damage bonuses and allowing you to use them the entire fight is because of that -1.
Without that, Rage damage and potentially Barbarian HP is going to be reduced. Or, Rage is potentially going to become an on/off state for the barbarian that is lost after 1 attack, and then has to be regained in combat. This brings a non-penalty rage in line with other abilities like Finishers, Spellstrike, and Unleash Psyche. Unleash Psyche is actually probably a good indicator of how Rage would be balanced, get a big bonus that lasts a fixed number of rounds, and then gain a negative condition that lasts a number of rounds.
Personally, I'd prefer rage remain as is. It's a risk/reward that works for the simplistic mechanic it is, and there's no reason to take apart a fence that's serving its job just fine as is.
The problem is that static damage bonus (outside of giant) doesn't seem to outdamage a fighter, especially when you factor in the action burnt on raging. (The DPR calcs I recall they came out pretty even with each other, with the winner dependent on what they targeted.) So it feels more apt to compare the defensive bonuses martials get instead of the offensive ones.
Barbarians are up to -3 compared to a fighter's AC (rage, heavy armor, and giant instinct clumsy) and don't get native shield block. They also have a worse reflex saves but their overall progression is even-ish. In exchange, the barbarian gets 2 HP per level, the rage temp HP, and eventually DR to at least one common physical damage type. Those are swell bonuses, but I'm not sure if they make up for that AC gap. I have seen the barbarian outlast champions and fighters against APL +3 foes who reliably crit everyone despite AC, and uncanny dodge helps on weaker foes. But needing to burn feats on heavy armor to still be 1 AC behind is rough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're worried about comparing average damage, it's worth noting that team support buffs accuracy more than base damage and that accuracy buffs (and enemy AC debuffs) do tend to increase barbarian damage averages more than the fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that static damage bonus (outside of giant) doesn't seem to outdamage a fighter, especially when you factor in the action burnt on raging.
That's wrong. The only Fighter you don't outdamage is the Greatsword Fighter. The second you start reducing the damage dice the Fighter takes a massive hit when the Barbarian doesn't move much.
It is slightly unexpected but the Barbarian shines with low damage dice weapons. For example, sword and board Barbarians deal massive damage while also being super tanky. And with the fix on Heavy Armor Proficiency, you can grab Bastion and Heavy Armor by level 3 as a human. An extremely solid build, much better than the Fighter equivalent at low level due to the important damage difference.
The problem is that static damage bonus (outside of giant) doesn't seem to outdamage a fighter, especially when you factor in the action burnt on raging.That's wrong. The only Fighter you don't outdamage is the Greatsword Fighter. The second you start reducing the damage dice the Fighter takes a massive hit when the Barbarian doesn't move much.
It is slightly unexpected but the Barbarian shines with low damage dice weapons. For example, sword and board Barbarians deal massive damage while also being super tanky. And with the fix on Heavy Armor Proficiency, you can grab Bastion and Heavy Armor by level 3 as a human. An extremely solid build, much better than the Fighter equivalent at low level due to the important damage difference.
Fair enough. I don't have the patience to run DPR calculations myself. The consistency of fighter accuracy may also create a false impression of greater damage. But a fighter doesn't need to spend feats to gain heavy armor and shield block, which lets them invest in other stuff. Reflexive Shield is hella nice, for example. That + not raging gives the fighter a smoother action economy to raise their shield.
Also, if the optimal build on a medium armor class is to spend feats on heavy armor, we should think critically about whether that class should just get heavy armor natively. Especially if the reason the class doesn't get heavy is because of a tradition Pathfinder now needs to distance itself from. Alternatively, if heavy armor isn't supposed to be part of the class fantasy, we should consider whether the class needs a stronger incentive to avoid it. 5e's heavy armor rage ban is clunky, but they do a better job of facilitating the shirtless barbarian trope.
I like the idea of keeping the AC penalty but bringing DR online earlier, though at early levels DR can translate to invincibility. It also might be interesting if the barbarian had an incentive to take hits, like a retaliatory strike reaction, or a damage bonus on rounds they get crit. (Not balanced ideas, just throwing them out there.)
Fair enough. I don't have the patience to run DPR calculations myself. The consistency of fighter accuracy may also create a false impression of greater damage. But a fighter doesn't need to spend feats to gain heavy armor and shield block, which lets them invest in other stuff. Reflexive Shield is hella nice, for example. That + not raging gives the fighter a smoother action economy to raise their shield.
The Fighter class stays the best one for a "basic" melee martial, so any comparison will at some point end up with "just play a Fighter". The Barbarian is slightly worse, but a good Barbarian build works fine and shouldn't be overshadowed by a Fighter one.
It also might be interesting if the barbarian had an incentive to take hits, like a retaliatory strike reaction, or a damage bonus on rounds they get crit. (Not balanced ideas, just throwing them out there.)
Come and get me is what you are looking for.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the barbarian (it is easily the most metal class in PF2) but think it has some thematic failings. Conceptually, it should be one of the simplest play experiences, but Rage modifies 3 separate stats which is not as newbie friendly as the unchanging fighter numbers.
But it also feels odd that a class who is all about losing control and attacking recklessly plays best with defensive builds like Super layed out. The giant instinct is the perfect embodiment. People pick it to play the heaviest hitter in the game and go all in on offense... But the real strength lies in abusing the huge reach and poking enemies from afar. (And PF2 calls for you to use good tactics, so the optimal path is an important one.)
Which is why I like the idea of features that encourage you to get hit in order to fuel your damage. Renvisioning on this level is probably beyond the scope of player core 2, but it is fun to think about for the future.