| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if we know rage I'd getting an upgrade... I wouldn't guess it is from the AC penalty for two reasons.
1. The temp HP, DR, and uncanny dodge all feel like patches to the lowered AC, and getting rid of all just feels boring.
2. 5e barbarians don't have the AC penalty anymore. I'm not sure if that protects a feature which originated in 3.5, but it can't hurt.
I'm also guessing the ceiling for rage damage isn't increasing, though individual instincts might. Peak barbarian damage is pretty good, even compared to the fighter.
What I'd bet on is rage becomes easier to use, like losing the cool down period that screws you if you are knocked out and healed back up, or maybe an action compressor like Mighty Rage coming online sooner.
I think its also important that barbarians get 12 hp per level.
More HP naturally + temp Hp and more damage when raging to offset the -1 ac
True. So if you ditch the AC penalty, your barbarian then has the same durability of other martials but with Con + 3xlevel effective HP, handy resistances, and is unflankable. That's not balanced, but if you got rid of all those advantages to justify getting rid of the AC penalty, the class becomes blander and samey.
I think the barbarian is very solid already, though there's stuff I would rather see done sligthly different. I don't think any of this would be in the book since they would heavily change the class, but I'll mention them anyways.
1. I feel the -1 to AC when raging is weird design-wise. Barbarians are the only class with 12 + Con HP in the system, which is something that was pretty much lifted from D&D 3.5 into PF1e and then here, and while those systems also had penalties to AC when raging, in this system that -1 AC is way more impactful. I feel that the idea is that you have that -1 but you have 12 + Con HP so it evens out (at that point why have that extra HP if you are going to take AC from me) but on top of that you also gain temporary HP when you rage. I would rather prefer to remove both the temporary HP and the -1 AC for simplicity than have that -1 to AC to patch the extra HP but also have the temporary HP to make that penalty less harsh. That or bring barbarians to 10 + Con HP like other martials.
2. The instinct's rage damage progression feels all over the place. Animal instinct has lower scaling but compensates that with the cool unarmed options and damage die size increases to them. Dragon instinct for some reason scales better than elemental instinct even though the differences between them are anecdotical at best (it doesn't really matter that I can use impulses when raging if you aren't going to give me impulses unless I go my own way to take them, basically making elemental instinct only a worthy option if you play with Free Archetype). Fury instinct has the lowest scaling out of all instinct and to compensate receives...a 1st-level feat, and everybody knows about the problems that superstition has already. I think the rage damage scaling should be standarized into something like 4/8/16 and have all instincts have a unique feature. Animal instinct already has the unarmed attacks, dragon could get something flavorful with the new dragons from the Remaster, elemental I guess has the option to use impulses and the concealment against ranged attacks, I think fury would be fine with just a feat if the damage scaling becomes standarized, giant would likely have more damage (+2 at 1st level, probably +4 at higher levels?), spirit is already nice giving you ghost touch and vitality or void damage, and I think superstition would also benefit greatly from the higher damage and a not as a bad anathema.
3. Allow barbarians to Demoralize without taking a feat. This is hella dumb.
I think everything else about barbarians is fine as is.
I mean the AC Penalty is mostly because the quintessential barbarian fantasy involves "you shrug off blows that would end lesser warriors and laugh in the face of your enemies" or something like that.
Though they might want to get back to the drawing board to figure out a way to better represent this since the Barbarian's other defenses like resistance and more HP aren't actually as good as "AC" because lower AC means you take more crits.
I think the "no more concentration restriction" seems plausible.
|
Yeah the AC penalty combined with the high durability is what makes it interesting. Not sure what the math is like though. Does it break even with fighters durability?
I'll add that the ac penalty can also be seen a taunt ability, which barb has the most of as far as I know. They want to draw attacks to them since they've got the most hit points. One change could be some kind of crit mitigation ability. Maybe rage adds x amount of resistance to critical hits. That would be sweet
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that the 12 + Con HP barely matters when that -1 to AC can cause a regular hit to crit, which makes those 2-40 extra HP through your whole career barely matter when compared to a regular martial's HP since a single crit does damage way beyond that. All the trope-y design decisions from earlier editions were kept in PF2e, and even new ones appeared. Rogues were the only class with 8 + Int skills back in D&D 3.5 / Pf1e? They get the highest amount of trained skills in PF2e by a wide margin. Were monks really solid AC tanks that went naked everywhere? They start being expert in unarmored AC. Are fighters the best weapon users? They start being expert on weapons. Why can't just barbarians have more HP and that's it? That -1 to AC is not only weird taking account they have temp HP, but also literally goes against the idea of barbarians "shruging blows off" as they get attacked and critted more often.
Again, I don't think this is a huge problem for the class, but it feels weird design-wise that barbarians have their extra HP patched with a -1 to AC which itself is patched by having temporary hit points. As if Paizo knew the extra HP is nice so they decided to nerf it with the -1 to AC, but at the same time know the -1 to AC is a huge nerf that makes that extra HP kinda meaningless so they compensate it with temporary hit points. Its literally a patch on top of another patch.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I like Vengeful Strike mechanics. To an enemy, the barbarian should be "too dangerous to ignore, but the more I hit them the scarier they get." Like Vegeta's Ultra Ego. Another interesting pop culture reference point could be Wolverine. The Battle Oracle's fast healing makes them a pretty fun faux barbarian because if they get knocked down they WILL get up again without an ally needing to help. Without proper healing they will risk getting out down again, possibly permanently, but I don't play a berserker if I'm afraid of dying gloriously. Some feats to let them get back in the fray quicker a la Kip Up would compliment this quite well.
Edit: Ferocity type mechanics are also a good fit, but if you really are worried about the crits you could build in some kind of fortification mechanic too. Being able to turn crits into regular hits still feels thematically appropriate compared to having the same AC as the fighter. Make barbarians the oozes of PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Ferocity type mechanics are also a good fit, but if you really are worried about the crits you could build in some kind of fortification mechanic too. Being able to turn crits into regular hits still feels thematically appropriate compared to having the same AC as the fighter. Make barbarians the oozes of PCs.
I disagree that turning crits into regular hits would be appropiate to the barbarian. If they ever introduced such a mechanic it would be to compensate for the -1 to AC, so at that point why don't remove the penalty to AC? Why search for ways to go around the -1 to AC when that is likely something that only exists because barbarians used to have it in older editions? 12 + Con HP is nice but it's barely higher than a regular martial's HP of the same level (at 10th level its literally 20 HP, which barely accounts to withstand one more attack if at all. I also get the feeling most people forget barbarians have temp HP (I certainly do, though its not like I played one myself though I see them frenquently when I GM).
IMO the -1 AC isn't a big problem. The Clumsy of Giant Instinct is way more punitive and basically gives 2 points more to dmg than Dragon Instinct.
IMO the -1 AC penalty is OK for an ability that about 3/4 of your level as extra damage to all your attacks with high dmg heavy weapons without require a constant action tax like Investigators, Magus, Swashbucklers and Inventors or Rogues that its extra damage is limited to d6/d8 weapons and requires flanking or some investment in feats that grants its Sneak Attack.
IMO barbarian is the class that currently can get one of the strongest damage output without action tax or limited resources after fighters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the solution is Temp HP regen while raging?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the take as good as it gives doesn't work at all. Come and Get Me and anything that further lowers AC for one reactive strike is a very, very sad exchange. It isn't countered by having 12 hit points at all.
Whoever mathed that out did some really bad math because I mathed it out and I would never take Come and Get Me and Vengeful Strike.
Basically the current way they have built Come and Get Me with Vengeful Strike looks like a scene where the tough guy goes, "Come and get me you bastards." He takes one swing as they come in and kick the living crap out of him leaving him beat down on the ground, while they laugh about the idiot tough guy they just beat down while sharing beers together.
That mechanic doesn't work with PF2 mooks and monsters with the new crit rules and high hit chances of even mooks. Very bad design IMO. It's an unusable mechanic that will lead you to faceplant often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would look at giving the Barbarian a "flat check to negate crits" ability. Like if you're at -1 AC, you have a 5% better chance of getting critted, but if you have a 10% chance of negating any crit then that's not so bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the solution is Temp HP regen while raging?
What are we 'solving' though? The Barbarian's in a very good place as is, and changing things just for the sake of changing things (buff their ac but lower their hp, etc.) isn't really a 'fix' to anything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing the AC penalty and/or the inability to use Concentrate actions might make Rage too strong if gained via the archetype.
It's obvious that the archetype could needs some help, but outright removing these downside might swing too far in the other direction.
Perhaps the solution is Temp HP regen while raging?
This. Probably count your temp HP as double its amount for the purposes of crits too.
Still think that it would be easier to just remove the -1 to AC though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the solution is Temp HP regen while raging?What are we 'solving' though? The Barbarian's in a very good place as is, and changing things just for the sake of changing things (buff their ac but lower their hp, etc.) isn't really a 'fix' to anything.
Barbarian is in a mostly good place. Could use some smoothing over at lower levels.
From a DMing and player perspective, I think they could get rid of the rage rest duration. Barb should just be able to rage like a monk does stances or a rogue sneak attacks at this point.
It's the same type of mechanic for the barbarian. They are either raging or they are a weak fighter. They should just be able to rage all the time lasting until fights are over.
I think that is what I would do in the Remaster. Design rage to be an always on mechanic with no rest or between duration. It's part of the barbarian attack abilities. Why screw around limiting it when it's all they can do and nearly every one of their powers keys off it.
It's not like PF1 where you had daily rounds to spend on it as needed per fight. It has to be on or the barbarian is a very bad fighter. It should just have an off and on switch with no need to rest or think much about durations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Ferocity type mechanics are also a good fit, but if you really are worried about the crits you could build in some kind of fortification mechanic too. Being able to turn crits into regular hits still feels thematically appropriate compared to having the same AC as the fighter. Make barbarians the oozes of PCs.I disagree that turning crits into regular hits would be appropiate to the barbarian. If they ever introduced such a mechanic it would be to compensate for the -1 to AC, so at that point why don't remove the penalty to AC? Why search for ways to go around the -1 to AC when that is likely something that only exists because barbarians used to have it in older editions? 12 + Con HP is nice but it's barely higher than a regular martial's HP of the same level (at 10th level its literally 20 HP, which barely accounts to withstand one more attack if at all. I also get the feeling most people forget barbarians have temp HP (I certainly do, though its not like I played one myself though I see them frenquently when I GM).
Because just making their defenses functionally identical to other martials is boring and actively goes against the fantasy the class is meant to enable. It is like asking why not take away the rage damage bonus and give them legendary weapon proficiency like the fighter. Finding new, more interesting ways to accomplish the same goal (deal enough damage to kill the other before he kills you) is like 90% of marshal class design.
Also, temp HP are auto calculated with good VTTs, so that's not the problem you think it is. (Though I don't personally love how fiddly the number adjustments are without VTTs, but that's only really a problem for newbs using paper and pencil.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As always, my suggestions always focus on breath of options and action economy so, here it goes:
Getting the obvious out of the way, Intimidation while raging shouldn't require a feat tax. In fact, Raging Intimidation is the perfect opportunity to ease in some action economy early on for them. Which I suggest that it should remove the free Scare to Death at higher levels in favor of being Rage+Demoralize.
More special attacks (like fighters) from early on, preferably that are strong but tied to instinct, should be a good design direction as well. I feel like that are way too few feats that interact with them. For example, Giant Instinct could have an AOE-type attack that requires Reflex Save rather than the usual Sweep (and the beyond awful Cleave, in fact, Cleave should potentially be reworked to work this way). Assuming there are several feats that work like that, this opens a niche for Fury Instinct to have access to them all.
For Animal Instinct, I think each weapon type should work as a Monk Stance (Good weapon + benefit), even if the cost is having less options. Another thing, which is just a baseless opinion ant taste preference, is that I don't like the fact this instinct heavily implies body transmutation (sorry, but I don't want my Deer Barbarian to be mindlessly headbutting people all the time). On the other hand, the transmutation feats for this Instinct are god awful and a waste of space, tbh. They need major rework.
Spirit Barbarians should borrow some of Animist flavor to it. Maybe a good place to enable Finesse or Ranged Barbarians (the spirit embodies the Barb and guide their rage filled strikes or some such).
Fury should gain a meaningful Rage ability, since Anathema are nowhere near as punishing or a drawback as Paizo, presumably thought at the time. The extra feat will only be good if there are stronger level 1 options, which might preclude a stronger Instinct ability, though.
Superstition Instinct should, frankly, be dropped entirely as a concept. It has an awful party-disrupting anathema (even if PF2e allows it to work better than PF1e), the Rage benefits nowhere near offset the penalties, and the whole concept is ill conceived. If you're a superstitious kind of Barbarian, it stands to reason you will fall even for party tricks that look like magic, that's what superstitious people are basically known for, believing on supernatural things people say are true. Skeptical Barbarians or Anti-Mage Barbarians, on the other hand, offer much better conceptual foundations for an instinct that accomplishes the intended purpose Superstitious clearly was going for.
Here's an easy anathema that could fit both concepts I suggested: You cannot cast spells yourself, you don't have enough belief/faith to conjure spells (skeptical) and the hypocrisy prevents you to do so (Anti-Mage).
This is just a rough idea, though. I do love the niche superstitious barbarian was trying to fill, I actually had one in PF1e when it was easier to play, but its current implementation isn't accomplishing it at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a DMing and player perspective, I think they could get rid of the rage rest duration. Barb should just be able to rage like a monk does stances or a rogue sneak attacks at this point.
Agree a lot with this one. The rest requirement is one of those odd things that might never come up in a campaign but on the off chance it does basically makes you feel miserable until you get to deal with it. It's not a balancing tool because it's not relevant enough to serve any balance purpose, which just kind of leaves it as an annoying legacy feature.
I'd also really like to see Animal get a pass over. The balance between animal types is genuinely horrible. Pathfinder sometimes makes really bad trade-offs but some of these instincts don't even have that (the only difference between deer and snake is that snake never gets reach).
Fury similarly could use a buff.
Though after PC1 and seeing them mostly pass on subclass balancing (even for classes that got significant changes) I'm not optimistic.
What should a barbarian be able to do in combat, what roles do the base class fill?
Does the class fill those roles as is.
Does the class step on other classes toes in unintended ways?
That's what I would ask when thinking about any revisions to the class.
Edit: if another class is stepping on this classes toes in a bad way I wouldnt change this class to fix that problem.
Ok to finish that thought.
The barbarian seems to me to be a good flanker and damage dealer, some control through grapple builds. They effectively fill the same role as a rogue.
They do not fill the defensive frontline role of a fighter, champion, or now warpriest. no shield no heavy armor in the base class and rage gets -1 ac.
The temp HP isnt there to allow them to fill a defensive role, its there to hold the flank position longer. If they need more Temp hp do do that then more of it is probably the solution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not lean into the ‘I block your sword with my face’ fantasy and turn on Raging Resistance earlier? I loved the 1e Invulnerable archetype for barbarians. Make it meaningful resistance too. Is the current Raging Resistance useful at level nine?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Ferocity type mechanics are also a good fit, but if you really are worried about the crits you could build in some kind of fortification mechanic too. Being able to turn crits into regular hits still feels thematically appropriate compared to having the same AC as the fighter. Make barbarians the oozes of PCs.I disagree that turning crits into regular hits would be appropiate to the barbarian. If they ever introduced such a mechanic it would be to compensate for the -1 to AC, so at that point why don't remove the penalty to AC? Why search for ways to go around the -1 to AC when that is likely something that only exists because barbarians used to have it in older editions? 12 + Con HP is nice but it's barely higher than a regular martial's HP of the same level (at 10th level its literally 20 HP, which barely accounts to withstand one more attack if at all. I also get the feeling most people forget barbarians have temp HP (I certainly do, though its not like I played one myself though I see them frenquently when I GM).Because just making their defenses functionally identical to other martials is boring and actively goes against the fantasy the class is meant to enable. It is like asking why not take away the rage damage bonus and give them legendary weapon proficiency like the fighter. Finding new, more interesting ways to accomplish the same goal (deal enough damage to kill the other before he kills you) is like 90% of marshal class design.
Also, temp HP are auto calculated with good VTTs, so that's not the problem you think it is. (Though I don't personally love how fiddly the number adjustments are without VTTs, but that's only really a problem for newbs using paper and pencil.
Except being easier to target isn't really part of the barbarian's fantasy. In fact, if you wanted to be accurate to the "barbarian fantasy" then we should borrow Unarmored Defense from the 5e's barbarian as that the only one I know that can run bare chested, while PF2e barbarians are pretty much always going to be in medium armor. The whole "barbarian fantasy" revolves around a raging hulk that springs into combat while taking blows that feel like scratches, which a -1 to AC not only not accomplishes but makes those "scratches" feel like small nukes. That barbarians are known for shrugging off damage doesn't mean they should be easier to target as barbarians can dodge attacks too, the thing is that when they are actually hit they seemingly don't bother that much from the damage. That's the whole purpose behind Raging Resistance on PF2e, so I don't know what the -1 to AC does for the barbarian besides making him a squisher target (when barbarians are known for not being squishy).
I feel the whole "removing the penalty to AC isn't flavorful" comes from people with the perspective of "I want to have a -2 to X because its flavorful" and I totally disagree with that. You can flavor stuff without having to penalize yourself, which is why I'm glad PF2e moved over giving characters tons of penalties if they have a severed arm, are blind, lack one or two legs, etc, specially in the case of the barbarian when the penalty doesn't really accomplish what its supposed to accomplish.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who've brought up Cleave, Swipe is essentially what Cleave should have been. Though I wish there was some way to get it to a point where the enemies don't have to be adjacent. My barb will eventually be Huge with a 15-foot reach, but will still only be able to Swipe 5-feet.
I'm in the camp that thinks that there are too many feats that are locked to specific classes that don't really have anything to do with that class. I'd have preferred that Combat Feats had remained as its own category, instead of being how they tried to differentiate the core classes from each other. But, I know enough not to think that will change in the remaster, so it is what it is at this point.
I find that Barbarian has a lot of good feats. Level 1 is a little underwhelming, but that's true of a lot of classes. Sudden Charge means there's at least one good choice that also helps with the action economy of needing to rage. Acute Vision is also decent if it's an ancestry without Darkvision. Yes, Raging Intimidation, Moment of Clarity, Adrenaline Rush, and Raging Thrower are all kinda meh, but two decent/good 1st-level feats is more than some classes get.
Evening out the instincts would be good. And yes, the biggest issue with Rage is not being able to do Concentrate actions, so it would be great if that got fixed. I don't mind so much that Rage ends if you get knocked unconscious, as that gives incentive to not get dropped.
In general, though, I'm pretty happy with where the Barbarian is. I'd just want more cool, unique feats that let them do interesting Barbarian things. But I want a version of that for all of the classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What should a barbarian be able to do in combat, what roles do the base class fill?
Does the class fill those roles as is.
Does the class step on other classes toes in unintended ways?That's what I would ask when thinking about any revisions to the class.
Edit: if another class is stepping on this classes toes in a bad way I wouldnt change this class to fix that problem.
The concept of roles is a weak concept in PF2e (this easily noticeable when you notice that you can choose many free skills with any class) so I don't think that try to explain any class existence/need by roles.
Instead the classes are build around of "what kind of fantasy this class will cover" and for the PF2e barbarian this concept is the concept of berserkers as mythic warriors that fights recklessly using pure rage or using an animalistically rage that comes from natural/supernatural powers.
Is over this concept that the class mechanics are founded. The barbarians get rage to represent their reckless fight way giving them extra damage representing its violent focus in slaughter their enemies, the extra and temp HP and resistances representing their physical resistance against injury and the AC penalty representing their reckless fight way when in rage.
The gameplay mechanics are build around this to reinforce the concept and to try to mitigate big weaknesses.
What should a barbarian be able to do in combat, what roles do the base class fill?
Does the class fill those roles as is.
Does the class step on other classes toes in unintended ways?That's what I would ask when thinking about any revisions to the class.
Edit: if another class is stepping on this classes toes in a bad way I wouldnt change this class to fix that problem.
The concept of roles is a weak concept in PF2e (this easily noticeable when you notice that you can choose many free skills with any class) so I don't think that try to explain any class existence/need by roles.
Instead the classes are build around of "what kind of fantasy this class will cover" and for the PF2e barbarian this concept is the concept of berserkers as mythic warriors that fights recklessly using pure rage or using an animalistically rage that comes from natural/supernatural powers.
Is over this concept that the class mechanics are founded. The barbarians get rage to represent their reckless fight way giving them extra damage representing its violent focus in slaughter their enemies, the extra and temp HP and resistances representing their physical resistance against injury and the AC penalty representing their reckless fight way when in rage.
The gameplay mechanics are build around this to reinforce the concept and to try to mitigate big weaknesses.
Inside this concept what I thing that could improve would be a removal/compression of rage action. Allowing to enter in rage as free-action when the encounter starts instead to force the player to pay an unjustified action in every first action of each encounter. The increase of rage duration limit to an entire encounter duration. Rebalance between instincts powers. Animal and Fury instinct are unjustified weak and animal doesn't allow to use weapons to do ranged attacks. Dragon Instinct is clearly best than others due its high dmg output with getting any extra penalty limitation. Elemental Instinct have an strangely...
Is P2e really that removed from the role concept?
I mean i see the great amount of flexibility classes have when you start considering general feats and archteypes but the chassis and class feats lean into certain combat functions.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, I see the barbarian as a tank that tanks by doing lots of damage or controlling a target with combat maneuvers.
Barbs don't have any particular advantage in skills other than Athletics.
A very strength-focused rage class able to do high single target and melee AoE damage. Punishes enemies for ignoring them.
I think that role is attractive to quite a few players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The increase of rage duration limit to an entire encounter duration.
I mean, I feel there's like a nonverbal agreement that most people take the 1 minute duration of most things to mean "until combat ends". I also could literally count with a single hand how many combats I had that lasted more than 10 rounds. Two weeks ago we finished Abomination Vaults and the whole battle lasted like...7-8 rounds I think? And I even made Belcorra purposefully stronger and made it so that the PCs should bring her down at least once before they could use the lenses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I feel there's like a nonverbal agreement that most people take the 1 minute duration of most things to mean "until combat ends". I also could literally count with a single hand how many combats I had that lasted more than 10 rounds. Two weeks ago we finished Abomination Vaults and the whole battle lasted like...7-8 rounds I think? And I even made Belcorra purposefully stronger and made it so that the PCs should bring her down at least once before they could use the lenses.The increase of rage duration limit to an entire encounter duration.
To me that kind of emphasizes the point. The scenarios in which the 1 minute/1 minute rule will actually come into effect are so infrequent that it doesn't really serve any valuable purpose and just ends up being a very slim chance that your character feels awful for a bit.
For those who've brought up Cleave, Swipe is essentially what Cleave should have been.
I see Cleave as the Barbarian equivaent to Reactive Strike. That is what it is really competing with. Yes Swipe is a nice power and it give Barbarians a role versus hordes. But I'm much more concerned about giving Barbarians a reaction that is not AoO so the martials actually play very differently.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Cleave wants to compete with Reactive Strike, but since Barbarians can get Reactive Strike at the same level, I’ve never seen anyone choose Cleave over it. Cleave is far too situational. Sure, Barbarians might drop a lot of enemies, but the requirement that the target of the cleave be adjacent to that enemy drastically reduces its usefulness. Plus having to take the MAP hit on the second attack. Swipe has the adjacent issue, but at least is a full MAP attack, and likely with a to-hit bonus if you combo it with a Sweep weapon.
Maybe it’s just annoyance that they used a feat name from 1E, but made it work differently. Then they create a feat with a different name, but made that one work almost like Cleave from 1E.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok to finish that thought.
The barbarian seems to me to be a good flanker and damage dealer, some control through grapple builds. They effectively fill the same role as a rogue.
They do not fill the defensive frontline role of a fighter, champion, or now warpriest. no shield no heavy armor in the base class and rage gets -1 ac.The temp HP isnt there to allow them to fill a defensive role, its there to hold the flank position longer. If they need more Temp hp do do that then more of it is probably the solution.
The problem I see with Barbarian after having played a dwarf Animal one with Sentinel archetype (for the Heavy armor) in PFS is that, at low level, you can go down very easily because of crits. And if you do, as opposed to all other classes, you are absolutely unable to play the character you wanted for the rest of the fight.
So, having a way from level 1 to lessen the damage you take from crits would be both useful and fitting the class' fantasy.
I railed earlier against needing lots of healing (from other PCs) even at higher levels. But, come to think of it, this might actually be a good thing because it enables different party compositions to work well. If the rest of the party is mostly offence oriented, the Barbarian should need less healing. And if the party has a dedicated in-combat healer, they can keep on their feet the Barbarian who will be dishing out the damage that the healing PC does not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think I'd like to see them soften the action restrictions on raging a little. I'm not sure they really serve much of a purpose because "it's how it was in d&d".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are overestimating the impact of -1 to AC. The temporary hit points from rage roughly compensate it.
At low level, every character goes down easily, that's not a Barbarian thing. In general, what makes you go down is the amount of attention you raise, so the Barbarian goes down at low level because it raises lots of attention not because of lowered AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point is to fix Cleave and make it competitive so there is a choice.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are overestimating the impact of -1 to AC. The temporary hit points from rage roughly compensate it.
At low level, every character goes down easily, that's not a Barbarian thing. In general, what makes you go down is the amount of attention you raise, so the Barbarian goes down at low level because it raises lots of attention not because of lowered AC.
The problem is not going down. It's that you do not have any of your special abilities left for the rest of the fight when you get back up.
Imagine a caster losing all their spells, a Fighter losing their higher weapon proficiency, a Rogue losing their sneak attack for the rest of the fight once they go down. Not fun and not consistent with being a dedicated frontliner, which the Barbarian is.
If they just removed the 1-minute timer on Rage, it would already help tremendously.
The problem is not going down. It's that you do not have any of your special abilities left for the rest of the fight when you get back up.
Imagine a caster losing all their spells, a Fighter losing their higher weapon proficiency, a Rogue losing their sneak attack for the rest of the fight once they go down. Not fun and not consistent with being a dedicated frontliner, which the Barbarian is.
If they just removed the 1-minute timer on Rage, it would already help tremendously.
I see your point, but I think it's not really important. Healing downed martials, especially those who use weapons (well, I know yours don't but most Barbarians do), is in general a weak move. I don't do it with my healers and I tell other players not to do it on my Barbarian (still, they sometimes do, but it's nonetheless pointless).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see your point, but I think it's not really important. Healing downed martials, especially those who use weapons (well, I know yours don't but most Barbarians do), is in general a weak move. I don't do it with my healers and I tell other players not to do it on my Barbarian (still, they sometimes do, but it's nonetheless pointless).The problem is not going down. It's that you do not have any of your special abilities left for the rest of the fight when you get back up.
Imagine a caster losing all their spells, a Fighter losing their higher weapon proficiency, a Rogue losing their sneak attack for the rest of the fight once they go down. Not fun and not consistent with being a dedicated frontliner, which the Barbarian is.
If they just removed the 1-minute timer on Rage, it would already help tremendously.
It's a choice and a playstyle. But not that many Barbarian players would choose this I think. For them, it is an important point.
Is P2e really that removed from the role concept?
They don't removed they weakened its need.
You still can do a traditional frontliner, skill monkey, healer and caster party but if the party players don't want they don't need and everything is ok. I have a party without a healer where the players are going well using Medicine for off-encounter healing and potions/elixirs for emergency in encounter heal. OK if they get a healer their things would go more smoothly but is no more a must have role.
This creates freedom for the class design to need to meet a role to work in the game. The barbarian for example fits well the concept of frontliner DPR that try to kill its target before its target can kill it. It's not a traditional frontliner "tank" role but just a barbarian in the frontline.
I mean, I feel there's like a nonverbal agreement that most people take the 1 minute duration of most things to mean "until combat ends". I also could literally count with a single hand how many combats I had that lasted more than 10 rounds. Two weeks ago we finished Abomination Vaults and the whole battle lasted like...7-8 rounds I think? And I even made Belcorra purposefully stronger and made it so that the PCs should bring her down at least once before they could use the lenses.The increase of rage duration limit to an entire encounter duration.
I agree that in more than 99% of encounters the rage duration doesn't really mater and many tables not even count the rounds (I only count it online when using foundry because the foundry does this for me) but for this exactly reason. To simplify the things I think this could be just removed like the designers removed many focus points restrictions.
I mean, Cleave wants to compete with Reactive Strike, but since Barbarians can get Reactive Strike at the same level, I’ve never seen anyone choose Cleave over it. Cleave is far too situational. Sure, Barbarians might drop a lot of enemies, but the requirement that the target of the cleave be adjacent to that enemy drastically reduces its usefulness. Plus having to take the MAP hit on the second attack. Swipe has the adjacent issue, but at least is a full MAP attack, and likely with a to-hit bonus if you combo it with a Sweep weapon.
Maybe it’s just annoyance that they used a feat name from 1E, but made it work differently. Then they create a feat with a different name, but made that one work almost like Cleave from 1E.
I agree that Cleave need way more love. It directly competes with Reactive Strikes but is way less frenquently to activate and get MAP doesn't help.
While players can "force" Reactive Strike to trigger more frequently with Trip and/or reach geting some MAPless Strikes, Cleave is way more dependend from many other factors like the number of enemies, how much harder is to defeat them and don't have too much space to "manipulate" the situation to it trigger.
IMO Cleave needs a full rewrite, removing the MAP, probably allowing to trigger in critical hits too or making any more adjustment to make it competitive with Reactive Strikes.
Ok to finish that thought.
The barbarian seems to me to be a good flanker and damage dealer, some control through grapple builds. They effectively fill the same role as a rogue.
They do not fill the defensive frontline role of a fighter, champion, or now warpriest. no shield no heavy armor in the base class and rage gets -1 ac.The temp HP isnt there to allow them to fill a defensive role, its there to hold the flank position longer. If they need more Temp hp do do that then more of it is probably the solution.
The problem I see with Barbarian after having played a dwarf Animal one with Sentinel archetype (for the Heavy armor) in PFS is that, at low level, you can go down very easily because of crits. And if you do, as opposed to all other classes, you are absolutely unable to play the character you wanted for the rest of the fight.
So, having a way from level 1 to lessen the damage you take from crits would be both useful and fitting the class' fantasy.
I railed earlier against needing lots of healing (from other PCs) even at higher levels. But, come to think of it, this might actually be a good thing because it enables different party compositions to work well. If the rest of the party is mostly offence oriented, the Barbarian should need less healing. And if the party has a dedicated in-combat healer, they can keep on their feet the Barbarian who will be dishing out the damage that the healing PC does not.
Yes this is probably the currently main problem of Barbarians. You can mitigate this with Orc Ferocity but this almost turn to play as Orc or Half-orc a must have for barbarians. Maybe turn the ferocity as a class feature for rage could make the things more easier and more thematic too.
I see your point, but I think it's not really important. Healing downed martials, especially those who use weapons (well, I know yours don't but most Barbarians do), is in general a weak move. I don't do it with my healers and I tell other players not to do it on my Barbarian (still, they sometimes do, but it's nonetheless pointless).The problem is not going down. It's that you do not have any of your special abilities left for the rest of the fight when you get back up.
Imagine a caster losing all their spells, a Fighter losing their higher weapon proficiency, a Rogue losing their sneak attack for the rest of the fight once they go down. Not fun and not consistent with being a dedicated frontliner, which the Barbarian is.
If they just removed the 1-minute timer on Rage, it would already help tremendously.
I agree that's a weak move but this doesn't means that this doesn't happens too sometimes due very bad dice rolls or due some mistaken moves in an encounter. IMO this could be mitigated in some way to prevent over-punishment.
|
|
The whole point is to fix Cleave and make it competitive so there is a choice.
Yes, but I don’t think Cleave as a reaction was the right direction for it in the first place. So, I’m not sure how to fix that. Unless it’s just anytime you hit, you can use a reaction to strike another opponent within reach, it’s going to fall short of Reactive Strike (and Opportune Backstab that Rogue gets, and Retributive Strike from Paladin). Reactions that require such a limited specific circunstance to trigger just aren’t going to compete.
Vengeful Strike is more comparable to those other reactions, and more thematic to a Barbaian (at least when the class is taking AC penalties and is essentially the get hit but deal big damage class), but for some reason they chose to make it 8 levels higher and require a prerequisite.
I don’t think Cleave as a reaction was the right direction for it in the first place.
Well then you are just creating another problem then. There are too many Reactive Strikes in the game. I would prefer is the martials all had different reactions, and not just minor differences to Reactive Strike like they do now. Really speaking only the Champion and the Rogue's is good enough.
The whole point is to fix Cleave and make it competitive so there is a choice.Yes, but I don’t think Cleave as a reaction was the right direction for it in the first place. So, I’m not sure how to fix that. Unless it’s just anytime you hit, you can use a reaction to strike another opponent within reach, it’s going to fall short of Reactive Strike (and Opportune Backstab that Rogue gets, and Retributive Strike from Paladin). Reactions that require such a limited specific circunstance to trigger just aren’t going to compete.
Vengeful Strike is more comparable to those other reactions, and more thematic to a Barbaian (at least when the class is taking AC penalties and is essentially the get hit but deal big damage class), but for some reason they chose to make it 8 levels higher and require a prerequisite.
I think the only way for Cleave to remain a reaction is to give it a lot more power. Maybe an half movement stride+strike on another target, basically splitting a dude in half (or batting them away like a baseball) and instantly wrecking another into another foe. That would be really cool.
Currently, I think it's too restrictive. If it must remain with its current restrictions, might as well make it a free action.
Since design decisions because of tradition have been mentioned a couple of times on this post already, why do you think Paizo made the conscious decision to now allow barbarians to demoralize unless they take a feat for it? PF1e barbarians were explicitly allowed to still be able to intimidate while raging, and I believe D&D 3.5's ones were as well, so it feels really weird that a literal angry dude running around to hack things down somehow isn't able to be intimidating. Was that an oversight or they made it on purpose just to create room to have feats to solve it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would be some better first level feats for barb actually?
Acute Vision should include Acute Scent too IMO. Acute Vision is not bad per se, but I feel it is the kind of option that most people would ignore.
Adrenaline Rush is like the definition of a trap option. I don't know what it could be done to make it better without making it a whole new feat.
Moment of Clarity should probably be a 1/round free action.
Raging Intimidationg shouldn't be a feat.
Raging Thrower could honestly just be a thing that barbarians can do too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may be a cold take, but I think the time is long overdue for PF2 barbarians to get some support for spellcasting builds. The idea of someone entering a "spell-rage" and going on a rampage is iconic. Skalds, too.
Since design decisions because of tradition have been mentioned a couple of times on this post already, why do you think Paizo made the conscious decision to now allow barbarians to demoralize unless they take a feat for it? PF1e barbarians were explicitly allowed to still be able to intimidate while raging, and I believe D&D 3.5's ones were as well, so it feels really weird that a literal angry dude running around to hack things down somehow isn't able to be intimidating. Was that an oversight or they made it on purpose just to create room to have feats to solve it?
More likely an oversight from the staggering amount of work that needed to be done between the playtest and actual launch. Even if with this annoying issue, Barbarians are largely great as a class. Flavorful, strong and enable multiple types of characters (even if the main focus is high damage dealer).
Back then, things were in flux quite a lot, the devs were still finding their bearings with this new system (that's quite a jump from PF1e) and Paizo likes their taxes more than the IRS sometimes.
You can see the difference in design paradigm between classes from the APG that were incredibly undertuned, had issues with action economy that only became more apparent with time (once players and devs got more familiarized with the ins and outs of the game) and the design of classes like Thaumaturge, Kineticist and the upcoming Animist (easily the strongest class ever released in its playtest form and incredibly flavorful as well).