I think it was a legacy that had acquired its own unique meaning for the barbarian in the years since. It's been a long time since Conan was relevant to that extent.
As for a single martial class aside from rogue being immune to flanking making sneak attack encounters irrelevant? I dunno about that one. The only time I've really gotten screwed by it as a GM is against a rogue PC, and they still have it, don't they?
|
I think it was a legacy that had acquired its own unique meaning for the barbarian in the years since. It's been a long time since Conan was relevant to that extent.
As for a single martial class aside from rogue being immune to flanking making sneak attack encounters irrelevant? I dunno about that one. The only time I've really gotten screwed by it as a GM is against a rogue PC, and they still have it, don't they?
To be clear, I was not talking as the GM, but as the Barbarian's player.
Wading into enemies that would collapse with max two hits from my PC while they had basically no hope of significantly damaging him is NOT what I want from a PF2 encounter.
Well, that's kind of what rogue already did, then. Higher AC, no off-guard. This kind of sounds more like a table/character/encounter-building issue to me. Barbarian did better at certain kinds of fights, sure, but struggled against others, like bosses. Rogue's the same way, except basically reversed. And we all know thief rogues are a terror.
|
|
Well, that's kind of what rogue already did, then. Higher AC, no off-guard. This kind of sounds more like a table/character/encounter-building issue to me. Barbarian did better at certain kinds of fights, sure, but struggled against others, like bosses. Rogue's the same way, except basically reversed. And we all know thief rogues are a terror.
I admit I have not played a Rogue in PF2 yet. Still I feel, at least at low levels, sneak attack is less reliable than the higher damage of a Raging Barbarian. Which IMO balances things more when it is a Rogue facing their colleagues.