I only played one barbarian in PF(S) 1.He was Guarded Stance (where his AC went *up* when he was raging) with a few add-on Feats to make it hard for things like incorporeal and the like to hit him.
It felt 'better' to not be a 'glass cannon' dependent on the charity of (relative) strangers at a random table, and it made him a pretty awesome tank, to boot.
So far, I haven't seen anything in PF2 that comes close to replicating that.
If I want a 'glass cannon', wizards can do that just fine.
I loved Guarded Stance, best Rage power in the book for my money.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we have to jump through so many loops to solve the -1 to AC, why don't remove it? As we already discussed the -1 AC goes against the basic idea of barbarians being tanks that shrug off blows as they get hit and crit more often.Yup, I think another solution could be that enemies now have to beat your lowered AC by +11 instead of +10 to crit, but that might be tricky to remember...
As you mentioned, that shrugging off attacks fantasy no longer works cuz lowering AC opens Barbarians up to eating more crits. When I played a Barbarian I didn't feel tough at all, I felt extremely fragile. Not at all the experience I was expecting. Hopefully they dump the AC penalty in the Remaster, or if they want to keep it then Barbs need damage resistance from lvl 1. Temp HPs don't even come close to making up for the AC penalty..
You keep saying this like this is a universally held consensus. It is not. Not getting hit is diametricly opposed to how barbarians are supposed to tank hits. Not getting crit, sure. Not going down super quickly, sure. But getting hit is part of the basic idea. See: Wolverine, Ultra Ego Vegeta, Metal Bat, and various other berserker types.Ummm...Conan is THE ORIGINAL Barbarian, and in the Robert Howard stories he was described as having the reflexes of a cobra, or a panther, when he went berserk. He hardly ever took a hit, bad guys would end up hitting each other cuz he was so fast.
I wasn't as big a fan of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, tho I read a couple of their stories and I recall Fafhrd being fast and an excellent swordsman, not someone who stood around and got stabbed alot.
The whole "face tanking" thing has nothing to do with Barbarians in literature. As far as I know, it was a D&D invention that Barbarians were too stupid to duck a hit.
Logan Ninefingers facetanks as far as I know.
The historical berserker was also known to take blows and shrug them off killing until he died.
Conan was never really known to go berserk. In D&D Conan is usually a fighter. He was trained to be a fighter that fought in a very controlled manner with great skill.
I've never seen Conan as the model for the D&D barbarian as nothing in his stories simulates the D&D barbarian.
I always figured they based the D&D barbarian off the historical berserker from legend. A lunatic who enters a battle frenzy and starts killing everyone until they are dead or he is dead, shrugging off blows and nearly unstoppable while raging.
A basic barbarian build could look something like this
I don't see this as being weak at all even with -1 ac from rage at least not at level 1.
Hold-Scarred Orc Nomad Blue Dragon instinct Barbarian
4 2 2 0 1 0
HP 26
Hide armor 18 AC 7 Fort 5 Ref 6 Will
Great Axe +7/+2/-3 hit 1d12+4
Raging Temp Hp +3
Raging AC 17
Raging strike +7/+2/-3 hit 1d12+4slashing +4electric
Darkvision
Orc Ferocity
Diehard
Sudden Charge
This is level 1 and it looks like it will rock things.
When raging 29 hp, 17 AC, 1d12+8 damage, built to stand and keep swinging when they should be unconscious, Diehard makes orc ferocity a bit safer.
at level 1 the best hitting enemies would have a +9 to hit and would need an 18 to crit. Those with a +7 need a 20. So just be careful what you throw yourself at. let the player with a shield and heavy armor get the attention of the best hitting enemies and then come around for a flank and do your damage. level -1 or -2 enemies wont have any better chance to crit the barb as they would other martials.
That -1 AC while raging, no heavy armor and no shield block in chassis makes the stock barb less apt do what the heavy armor shield character would do but isn't that ok?
I guess I have to ask, how do you want to play a babarian in combat?
If this is the only martial in the group or the best defended martial that could be rough, maybe drop the two handed weapon and get a shield and 1 handed 1d8 weapon instead that at least nets 2 more AC when raising a shield.
Probably optimal would be to play this barb opposite a warpriest that goes for heavy armor and a shield. You have a tanky character to flank with that also can heal you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one I just threw together with the idea to see how he compares after PC2 comes out. No attempt to min-max or optimize or whatever, just a quick and dirty take.
nanoc the barbarian
Human barbarian 1 (Advanced Player's Guide)
Medium, Human, Humanoid
Heritage versatile human
Background martial disciple
Perception +6
Languages Common, Orcish
Skills Acrobatics +4, Athletics +7, Intimidation +4, Medicine +4, Survival +4, Warfare Lore +3
Str +4, Dex +1, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +1
Items hide armor, greatsword, javelin (4), backpack, bedroll, chalk (10), climbing kit, crowbar, flint and steel, grappling hook, healer's toolkit, minor elixir of life, rations (1 week) (2), rope (foot) (50), soap, torch (5), waterskin
--------------------
AC 17; Fort +7; Ref +4; Will +6
HP 22
--------------------
Speed 25 feet
Melee [1] greatsword +7 (versatile P), Damage 1d12+4 S
Ranged [1] javelin +4 (thrown 30 ft.), Damage 1d6+4 P
Rage [1] (barbarian, concentrate, emotion, mental) Requirements You aren’t fatigued or raging Effect You tap into your inner fury and begin raging. You gain a number of temporary Hit Points equal to your level plus your Constitution modifier. This frenzy lasts for 1 minute, until there are no enemies you can perceive, or until you fall unconscious, whichever comes first. You can’t voluntarily stop raging. While you are raging:
• You deal 2 additional damage with melee weapons and unarmed attacks. This additional damage is halved if your weapon or unarmed attack is agile.
• You take a –1 penalty to AC.
• You can’t use actions with the concentrate trait unless they also have the rage trait. You can Seek while raging.
After you stop raging, you lose any remaining temporary Hit Points from Rage, and you can’t Rage again for 1 minute.
Ancestry Feats Natural Ambition
Class Feats Adrenaline Rush[APG], Raging Intimidation, Sudden Charge
General Feats Diehard
Skill Feats Intimidating Glare, Quick Jump
Other Abilities fury instinct, instinct
Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free demo available at https://herolab.online
Pathfinder and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Inc., and are used under license.
I can however bring up the example of Guts from Berserk, who is a pretty smart and scrappy combatant who usually tries to dodge stuff and he's pretty quick on his feet, but he's also really ballsy when enraged, and he has to be to outsmart his monstrous opponents who underestimate his tolerance for pain.
Guts concept is way different. He's way more a Fighter that gets a cursed uncontrolled rage due Berserker Armor.
In gameplay aspects it's like the Armor was a magical full-plate that gives to him the full rage damage bonus without the AC penalty and Ferocity as free-action instead of a reaction basically making him killed only when reach wounded 5 (Guts character also have Diehard) but makes him in a special Confused condition that doesn't hurt himself and without the damage and DC 11 flat check to recover (damage him only calls his attention), ending only when there's no targets (allies or enemies) or due some spell like Calm.
I guess I have to ask, how do you want to play a babarian in combat?
If this is the only martial in the group or the best defended martial that could be rough, maybe drop the two handed weapon and get a shield and 1 handed 1d8 weapon instead that at least nets 2 more AC when raising a shield.
Probably optimal would be to play this barb opposite a warpriest that goes for heavy armor and a shield. You have a tanky character to flank with that also can heal you.
I still didn't play as barbarian by myself (my experience comes from GMing players that played as Barbarian in PF2) due there's other characters concepts that I still want to play before.
But if I would play as a barbarian I probably would play as Dragon Instinct using a d8 weapon + Sturdy Shield or Giant Instinct using a Gnome Flickmace + Sturdy Shield, taking Shield Block via general feat and using heavy armors via Sentinel archetype. The point is simple. The barbarian many times lacks of a good 3rd action (specially in early game) that a Shield can provide and the class don't penalizes the use of Heavy Armors, it just doesn't provide its proficiency. Both helps to compensate the -1 AC (and Clumsy 1 if is a Giant Instinct) making the barbarian survivability better than rogues and the careless of rage bonus with your weapon dice size makes the use of one-handed weapons less penalty than it is for fighters that gets feats like PA that depends from the weapon damage dice.
High risk high reward can work if there is a big heal spell coming
Yep, that's the big issue of "high risk high reward" on a class: You can't be sure there'll be a big heal coming and as such you can end up with an unplayable class depending on the party.
That's why I quite like current Barbarian design which is less "high risk high reward" and more of a classical martial. You don't need a specific party to support you. And there's still the Giant Instinct if you really want the "high risk high reward" gameplay, but at least the other Instincts are playable whatever the party.PF2 is a game where you can survive without a dedicated healer but this cleary changes the game difficult and risks.
I nearly never play with a dedicated healer for a simple reason: I generally play the healer and I'm not dedicated at all. But I've sometimes played with one. Overall, I've found them to be mostly unimpactful, they could have stayed at the inn the adventure would have been the same. As such I prefer to play without one as they increase fight duration for no good reason to me. So I guess there are very different experiences when it comes to dedicated healers. PF2 is a game where you can easily survive without a dedicated healer, I assure you. Now what makes some parties so reliant on one is a mystery...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been ruminating it a bit and come to conclusion that Concentrate action restriction is b+$$~&!% and should just be removed--Rage's bonuses just don't compensate for the restriction in build variety.
Also some of the action that are allowed--Battle Medicine, Sneak, some spells here and there--also don't quite fit the 'frothing maniac incapable of controlling themself' angle they're going for either
Honestly, I always felt like verbal spells made more sense than somatic ones for a barbarian, a la Skyrim shouts. I agree with you the concentrate restriction is just more trouble than it is worth.
... But I just realized that with verbal/material/somatic components gone, there's room to publish spells that just lack the concentrate trait all together. If they kept the restriction, they could still publish "blood rager spell" much like ki spells or warden spells. Just make those spells lack concrentrate (and preferably manipulate too, both for reactive strike risk and flavor) and you're golden. You could also make a class archetype which essentially multiclasses into sorcerer but gives the concentrate trait to bloodline spells.
But again, the simplest thing would be just remove the restriction. And I'm all for simplicity when complexity hurts build concepts and doesn't make things feel balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen Conan as the model for the D&D barbarian as nothing in his stories simulates the D&D barbarian.
Pre-D&D 3e barbarians used to be a sort of lesser skill monkey because they were inspired by Conan. That's why in 3.5 they got stuff like Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, and (I think?) more class skills than fighters which all were rogue-ish things, though at the same time they made them iliterate for some reason. 3e was so popular that even to this day we still have these "discrepancies" in regards to barbarians (Deny Advantage in PF2e is literally a carry over from 3e's Uncanny Dodge) even though we moved away from barbarians being skilled, though luckily we also moved away from them being dumb too though not in a big or obvious way (most people still assume they have to be dumb).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before, I think, but removing the concentrate restrictions would make howl of the wild options + beast master + animal instinct a lot more awesome. I just wanna be a werewolf running around with their pack
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the only one that has this opinion on this post, but I ask you; how is getting hit more often part of the barbarian flavor?
This gets into what a hit point is, which is always a contentious topic. Looking at the difference between someone who tanks with high AC versus someone with high HP seems relevant here; for high AC, we have:
- Someone who is extremely agile, able to maneuver out of the way of blows before they can make contact- Someone who is extremely well armoured, able to be hit by a blow but unaffected because of the protection provided by their armour
- A combination of either of the above with the use of a shield
- Temporary ways of boosting one's AC, such as being divinely blessed to avoid blows, or understanding the enemy's attack patterns well enough that you know what they'll do before they do it
None of that seems in keeping with the theme of a barbarian to me. The class description emphasises their "astonishing durability", and the general flavour is established of someone who rushing headfirst into conflict, focusing on offence over anything else - which seems at odds with most of the above, and the others rely on equipment that barbarians aren't trained in, and so presumably are not part of the intended flavour. On the other side, tanking with HP is associated with someone who is able to take damage and keep going without it having a huge effect on them, which is the exact sort of flavour barbarians typically get given. That flavour is fairly unique amongst the classes printed so far, and I'd rather keep it - if there are concerns about a barbarian's durability, I'd rather the class design lean-in to this flavour than change the flavour to be more in-line with the other martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
High risk high reward can work if there is a big heal spell comingYep, that's the big issue of "high risk high reward" on a class: You can't be sure there'll be a big heal coming and as such you can end up with an unplayable class depending on the party.
That's why I quite like current Barbarian design which is less "high risk high reward" and more of a classical martial. You don't need a specific party to support you. And there's still the Giant Instinct if you really want the "high risk high reward" gameplay, but at least the other Instincts are playable whatever the party.PF2 is a game where you can survive without a dedicated healer but this cleary changes the game difficult and risks.I nearly never play with a dedicated healer for a simple reason: I generally play the healer and I'm not dedicated at all. But I've sometimes played with one. Overall, I've found them to be mostly unimpactful, they could have stayed at the inn the adventure would have been the same. As such I prefer to play without one as they increase fight duration for no good reason to me. So I guess there are very different experiences when it comes to dedicated healers. PF2 is a game where you can easily survive without a dedicated healer, I assure you. Now what makes some parties so reliant on one is a mystery...
Not sure what was being mentioned.
But Come and Get Me with Vengeful Strike is not high risk-high reward at all.
It's high risk-bad reward play. You are literally setting yourself up to die for a single Vengeful Strike and a bonus you could get in a variety of other ways.
The calculus for Come and Get Me and Vengeful Strike is so bad that only a someone that could not possibly understand the game mechanics would ever take this absolutely high risk-bad reward series of feats.
I would account this one of the worst options on the barbarian list.
Come and Get Me: Give all attackers off-guard and a +2 circumstance bonus to damage. What do you gain? If they hit you, they are off-guard, but will likely do so much damage you will get absolutely wrecked.
You get in return a single vengeful strike against a single attacker. If you hit you get a 3 to 6 Temporary hit points that don't stack. Eaten in to by the +2 circumstance bonus to damage every attacker gets against you.
You lose your reaction to use an Attack of Opportunity, meaning the enemy can literally swing a couple of times, then just move out of your range they feel like it further setting you up for failure.
Ranged attackers also get the off-guard against you.
IF the targets have precision damage based on off-guard, you take damage from that.
Casters get off-guard against you.
Casters, ranged attackers, as well as all melee get a +2 circumstance bonus to damage against you.
Ranged attackers will get their precision damage against you for being off-guard if they have that agility.
Come and Get Me is one of the worst designed abilities in the entire game at setting up any class for getting absolutely wrecked.
It's just a terrible ability and another example of an ability that was a must have, game breaking ability in PF1 that was nerfed into non-use in PF2.
It is not high risk-high reward play. It's high risk-low reward play.
If it were high risk-high reward like the old Come and Get Me, everyone would be taking it. It's an extremely bad, bad idea in PF2.
Which is why I hope they find a mid-ground when they Remaster the barbarian if they keep Come and Get Me which they will likely rename or change completely.
As I see it right now, Come and Get Me far too good in PF1. It is far too bad in PF2. If kept in some form, needs to be reworked into some kind of worthwhile choice middle ground.
Not sure what was being mentioned.
I was not speaking about Come And Get Me, we were talking in general.
About Come And Get Me, there's a build to use it: Come And Get Me + Vengeful Strike + Vibrant Thorns + 1-action Heal: Everytime the enemy hits you they take 1d6 of damage every 2 levels you have with no save and for the first attack they also trigger Vengeful Strike. The amount of damage you dish out is unmatched but you also take a lot of punishment so it's better on a rather defensive Barbarian with strong healing in the party.
Otherwise, the main asset of Come And Get Me is to attract attention on you. Sometimes, it's better for the party if you take damage instead of someone else, even if a lot of it. But I agree, it's rather niche and clearly not something you use every fight.
Not sure what was being mentioned.I was not speaking about Come And Get Me, we were talking in general.
About Come And Get Me, there's a build to use it: Come And Get Me + Vengeful Strike + Vibrant Thorns + 1-action Heal: Everytime the enemy hits you they take 1d6 of damage every 2 levels you have with no save and for the first attack they also trigger Vengeful Strike. The amount of damage you dish out is unmatched but you also take a lot of punishment so it's better on a rather defensive Barbarian with strong healing in the party.
Otherwise, the main asset of Come And Get Me is to attract attention on you. Sometimes, it's better for the party if you take damage instead of someone else, even if a lot of it. But I agree, it's rather niche and clearly not something you use every fight.
And there is a far superior way to accomplish the same ends.
For me when doing design, options should be comparatively effective. Otherwise it is just filler on the feat list. When I say comparatively effective, I don't mean just damage, but effective for a given build.
Animal Rage I look at as effective because even though it doesn't do as much damage as dragon or giant, it provides a defensive build option that is comparatively effective.
The barbarian could use some more effective reaction options as Gortle stated. I think Vengeful Strike or Cleave is the way to build them. Differentiate the barbarian from the fighter or rogue in an equally effective manner.
And there is a far superior way to accomplish the same ends.
You know of another equivalent retaliation build? Because the only other one I know is the Parry and Riposte Swashbuckler that is doing way less damage and doesn't attract attention at all.
As for taunting, Come And Get Me is the most powerful taunt in the game. It is actually too powerful most of the time as you'll automatically attract nearly everyone's attention without any way of getting rid of it. So it definitely has usability issues but it's unmatched for what it does.
Of course, a very classical use of Come And Get Me is when you are already Off Guard, like if you are Grappled by an enemy who doesn't want to get rid of you or if you face a higher level Hidden enemy.
And then, you can get into the troll Come And Get Me builds, like the Huge-size Giant Barbarian with Come And Get Me under the effects of Sanctuary (that your Divine caster refreshes if needed). It can even be combined with the retaliation build as being hit can hardly be considered a hostile action. If you want a troll build that severely screws low Will enemies, this one is perfect.
In my opinion, you are looking at Come And Get Me from an extreme optimization standpoint. And I agree it's not the best feat out there, but there are many such feats if all you care about is optimization. I personally like Come And Get Me, both from an RP perspective and because of it's incredible (even if dangerous) effect. I'm just a bit sad it's so high level as I play my Barbarian in PFS and as such I will certainly never get there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And there is a far superior way to accomplish the same ends.You know of another equivalent retaliation build? Because the only other one I know is the Parry and Riposte Swashbuckler that is doing way less damage and doesn't attract attention at all.
As for taunting, Come And Get Me is the most powerful taunt in the game. It is actually too powerful most of the time as you'll automatically attract nearly everyone's attention without any way of getting rid of it. So it definitely has usability issues but it's unmatched for what it does.
Of course, a very classical use of Come And Get Me is when you are already Off Guard, like if you are Grappled by an enemy who doesn't want to get rid of you or if you face a higher level Hidden enemy.
And then, you can get into the troll Come And Get Me builds, like the Huge-size Giant Barbarian with Come And Get Me under the effects of Sanctuary (that your Divine caster refreshes if needed). It can even be combined with the retaliation build as being hit can hardly be considered a hostile action. If you want a troll build that severely screws low Will enemies, this one is perfect.
In my opinion, you are looking at Come And Get Me from an extreme optimization standpoint. And I agree it's not the best feat out there, but there are many such feats if all you care about is optimization. I personally like Come And Get Me, both from an RP perspective and because of it's incredible (even if dangerous) effect. I'm just a bit sad it's so high level as I play my Barbarian in PFS and as such I will certainly never get there.
Come and Get Me is an end up dead ability. It will absolutely get the barbarian wrecked. It needs improvement. I don't know why you would argue the effectiveness of some ability that needs a rework.
When I say accomplish the same end, I mean using a reaction attack. There is one reaction attack. If you use it for Vengeful Strike, it's gone for everything else. Barbarians don't get extra reactions.
"Retaliation" builds that get you face planted are not retaliation builds. They are "Hey, I'm dead" builds.
The only thing you will find out with Come and Get Me if you use it at high level is a lot of creatures have precision damage that a barbarian can normally avoid with Deny Advantage and that it will lead to far more damage than your retaliation build will do. You will also be open to big hits from casters and bosses, on top of such creatures with DR that will ignore damage shields.
I am not sure if you played PF1, but Come and Get Me in PF1 was a power ability. It absolutely let you destroy your enemy and was well-designed for the High Risk-High Reward style of play. It truly fulfilled its purpose.
This new Come and Get Me isn't a taunt or a retaliation build or even cool RP any more. It's just a way to get your barbarian absolutely wrecked.
It doesn't create a High Risk-High Reward playstyle. It creates a High risk-low reward playstyle that should be heavily avoided.
This is not just from an optimization standpoint. It's from a "Does this do what it is supposed to do?" The answer is nope, it doesn't.
Cleave is too limited and that is why it's not great. But can be situationally useful like Swipe.
Come and Get Me is just a straight up cruelty to the barbarian. One of the biggest advantages to the barbarian defensively is Deny Advantage. This basically throws that defensive ability away and sets you up for the worst of every single attack enemies have to offer on top of every saving throw and effect from them.
All you get in return is a single Vengeful Strike.
That is an absolutely terrible trade off. I hope they rework this ability for use by the barbarian. Off guard is seriously bad mojo enabling a whole lot of nasty abilities the barbarian usually avoids.
I'll stop beating the dead horse. Boy, I really do dislike when someone argues for some ability they haven't extensively used and is truly bad and needs a rework. It leaves the ability in a bad place.
If you want to see why, spec up some barbs and put them in a variety of situations using Come and Get Me, then see how it goes DMing with at least mild intelligent use of actions. It gets real, real for the barbarian. It's investing two high level feats to get yourself faceplanted a whole bunch that could be better spent om something else.
I've played three barbarians now. Two to 17 and one to 13. I never touch that ability. I gave it a shot on my first barbarian way back when and he got absolutely trashed due to the crit rules, precision damage, ranged attackers, and the like before I got rid of it.
One single Vengeance Strike for one single hit by one single target was an absolutely terrible tradeoff. The enemy often ended up doing more damage to you than you did to it and far, far more damage as a group than you do.
At level 12 plus enemies have tons of hit points, hit pretty hard, and little damage shields against enemies with 200 plus hit points each and possible DR getting reducing your AC by 3 with a damage bonus isn't in anyway a worthwhile trade off.
Come and Get Me is an end up dead ability. It will absolutely get the barbarian wrecked. It needs improvement. I don't know why you would argue the effectiveness of some ability that needs a rework.
It's because I take a lot of pleasure in disagreeing with you. Also, often, I've proven that my point of view was very valid so it seems it's not just for the sake of disagreeing.
"Retaliation" builds that get you face planted are not retaliation builds. They are "Hey, I'm dead" builds.
It's an absolute boss killer. Against a melee martial boss that doesn't resist piercing damage you nearly solo them considering the sheer amount of unavoidable damage they take to put you down (roughly 50% of their hp pool).
I am not sure if you played PF1, but Come and Get Me in PF1 was a power ability. It absolutely let you destroy your enemy and was well-designed for the High Risk-High Reward style of play. It truly fulfilled its purpose.
PF1 Come And Get Me was not a high risk high reward ability but a low risk high reward ability, or, put otherwise, a completely broken feat. The penalty to AC was useless as you were rarely building Barbarians with strong AC so you were taking just 4 points of damage for a free attack which is completely broken. That's why Barbarians were using it without a second thought.
The only thing you will find out with Come and Get Me if you use it at high level is a lot of creatures have precision damage that a barbarian can normally avoid with Deny Advantage and that it will lead to far more damage than your retaliation build will do.
If you are using Come And Get Me against lower level Rogue type enemies then I can't do much for you.
It doesn't create a High Risk-High Reward playstyle.
On that I fully agree. Come And Get Me is not a playstyle, it's a feat that you activate depending on the circumstances. If you consider using it always I fully agree with you but then we go back to: Badly used abilities are bad.
spec up some barbs and put them in a variety of situations using Come and Get Me
I won't, because I don't see the point in covering the situations when it's bad. I'll only use Come And Get Me when it's good, mostly when I'm already Off Guard with no way to remove the Condition easily or when in the middle of the fight I realize that unlike my teammates I still have most of my hp pool and as such I want to raise more attention. Using it with the free Rage action from Mighty Rage is stupid, I hope you were not doing that.
|
I don't think Come and Get Me is particularly good in 2E. It's higher level than it should be, and it's a lot of drawback for little advantage. It only makes the enemy off-guard to you for one round at a time, and in exchange you have to be off-guard for essentially the rest of the fight. There are so many other ways to get an enemy off-guard which don't require getting hit that it's just not worth it.
Come and Get Me is also only a "taunt" if nobody else is off-guard. If the enemy can flank someone else and get off-guard and not get hit back by the high damage Barbarian, then you aren't taunting anyone.
It really feels like what's being argued as good about Come and Get Me isn't what's in that feat. It's Vengeful Strike, which as I noted above, I think could be the signature Barbarian reaction. It's got a different flavor from the other "get an extra attack" reactions. If it was not tied to Come and Get Me, then it would fire on the majority of rounds (like Opportune Backstab), or it would cause enemies to have to make a choice between attacking the big damage dealer (at the cost of more damage), or moving to avoid them. But, again, I think based on Opportune Backstab, Vengeful Strike should be an 8th level feat and trigger when you are hit by a creature within your reach.
It should be reworked to only make you vulnerable against one attack, one, from the enemy you used it on.
Flavorwise your choosing a specific enemy to come and get you not everyone. You are giving them one free shot at you but why would you guve them more than that? Your only trying to lure them in for a vengeful strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little surprised at the intensity of the discussion around this feat. From our experience, it's less that the ability is too risky or dangerous and more that it just doesn't accomplish much. Enemies get a small damage bonus (and a debuff that's already easy to apply anyways) and in exchange you get to apply the same debuff back and maybe some THP.
It's less that the feat is going to get you killed, imo, and more that spending a 10th level feat and an action to maybe make someone flat footed is kind of underwhelming.
Come and Get Me is also only a "taunt" if nobody else is off-guard. If the enemy can flank someone else and get off-guard and not get hit back by the high damage Barbarian, then you aren't taunting anyone.
I personally consider that enemies will switch to the Barbarian quite often if they use Come And Get Me, not because the Barbarian is Off Guard but because they're voluntarily dropping their guard to attract attention.
Also, there's the +2 to damage that makes attacking the Barbarian more appealing than someone you flank.It's less that the feat is going to get you killed, imo, and more that spending a 10th level feat and an action to maybe make someone flat footed is kind of underwhelming.
That's why I consider the main benefit of Come And Get Me is not to give the Off Guard Condition but to take the Off Guard Condition and more damage from attacks. For me, it's a control ability, not a debuff.
I'm a little surprised at the intensity of the discussion around this feat. From our experience, it's less that the ability is too risky or dangerous and more that it just doesn't accomplish much. Enemies get a small damage bonus (and a debuff that's already easy to apply anyways) and in exchange you get to apply the same debuff back and maybe some THP.
It's less that the feat is going to get you killed, imo, and more that spending a 10th level feat and an action to maybe make someone flat footed is kind of underwhelming.
I think there a a lot of ways to make one enemy flatfooted against your attacks, and sometimes only against your next attack.
To make an enemy flatfooted against all attacks from all sources for basically all of combat is actually very powerful and not balanced with the feats benefits.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little surprised at the intensity of the discussion around this feat. From our experience, it's less that the ability is too risky or dangerous and more that it just doesn't accomplish much. Enemies get a small damage bonus (and a debuff that's already easy to apply anyways) and in exchange you get to apply the same debuff back and maybe some THP.
It's less that the feat is going to get you killed, imo, and more that spending a 10th level feat and an action to maybe make someone flat footed is kind of underwhelming.
I'm not sure how your DMs do things.
We tend to focus fire targets with enemies. So all the enemies will take one target and try to put them in the earth. So we try to set things up so that target is a martial, preferably a champion, but if the barb is there it is often the barbarian.
We don't really like to spread out attacks a lot because that makes it too easy for the players to focus fire while the enemy is fighting piecemeal.
So my experience is a barbarian using Come and Get Me with Vengeance Strike getting whacked on by 3 or 4 or more enemies spending all their actions to kill you makes being off-guard an absolute nightmare of pain. The crits are plentiful. You get one Reaction Attack against 9 to 12 or more attacks and you're basically making their second attack hitting almost free. You often increase damage of rogue type enemies.
It's a really, really bad tradeoff.
If you're used to playing piecemeal enemies where your DM puts one or two targets on you and you've got decent combat healing, then I can see your viewpoint where Come and Get Me and Vengeful strike is viewed as a lousy feat. But for our games, it's highly deadly. I won't touch it.
By level 15 your Con is usually 18. So you're getting a 4 point temp hit point gain while giving off-guard and +2 circumstance bonus to damage every single attack. One hit is worth half your temp hit point gain. Multiple hits eat that temp hit point shield. One crit obliterates it. You get one Vengeful Strike in return for those benefits.
I would like Come and Get Me to be a desirable feat again. Right now I use Reactive Strike on my barbarian with trip. It's getting kind of boring. I'd like something else for the barbarian that is good.
Actually if it remains as it is it should give the barbarian damage reduction.
It could be a gotcha ability. Enemies only see they will hit harder and more easily but wont see that the barbarian will be able to shrug off some of the damage until its too late.
As long as the damage reduction is not apparent to enemies that haven't tried hitting the come at me barbarian yet it will still attract strikes as it does now.
Actually if it remains as it is it should give the barbarian damage reduction.
It could be a gotcha ability. Enemies only see they will hit harder and more easily but wont see that the barbarian will be able to shrug off some of the damage until its too late.
As long as the damage reduction is not apparent to enemies that haven't tried hitting the come at me barbarian yet it will still attract strikes as it does now.
I think damage resistance is always visible to the attacker. It is for PCs anyway. I do like having resistance as a thing though — I grabbed Invulnerabe Rager in 1e as soon as I could.
I think damage resistance is always visible to the attacker. It is for PCs anyway. I do like having resistance as a thing though — I grabbed Invulnerabe Rager in 1e as soon as I could.Actually if it remains as it is it should give the barbarian damage reduction.
It could be a gotcha ability. Enemies only see they will hit harder and more easily but wont see that the barbarian will be able to shrug off some of the damage until its too late.
As long as the damage reduction is not apparent to enemies that haven't tried hitting the come at me barbarian yet it will still attract strikes as it does now.
Invulnerable Rager is part of what made Come and Get Me work so effectively along with Combat Reflexes.
Come and Get Me can still be cool. I think it needs some work to make it work. Off-guard is a bad idea. Maybe another point of AC reduction. The Temp hit points go bye, bye too quickly. Maybe some kind of DR would be better to offset the damage bonus or just get rid of both.
And more than one reaction. If you're in Come and Get Me Stance with Vengeance Strike, maybe a reaction at the start of each enemies turn would put it back on par to what it was or close to it.
|
|
Come and Get Me is also only a "taunt" if nobody else is off-guard. If the enemy can flank someone else and get off-guard and not get hit back by the high damage Barbarian, then you aren't taunting anyone.I personally consider that enemies will switch to the Barbarian quite often if they use Come And Get Me, not because the Barbarian is Off Guard but because they're voluntarily dropping their guard to attract attention.
Also, there's the +2 to damage that makes attacking the Barbarian more appealing than someone you flank.
But there is absolutely zero mechanically to require them to do so. I can’t really think of why, if they’re already attacking someone else, and they can easily flank that person, they would feel the need to change targets. Even if they know there’s a +2 to damage, if they can drop another character, they’re going to drop them. An actual taunt either compels them to attack you, or penalizes them for attacking someone else. Come and Get Me does neither.
It's less that the feat is going to get you killed, imo, and more that spending a 10th level feat and an action to maybe make someone flat footed is kind of underwhelming.That's why I consider the main benefit of Come And Get Me is not to give the Off Guard Condition but to take the Off Guard Condition and more damage from attacks. For me, it's a control ability, not a debuff.
It’s not a control ability if it doesn’t make someone do something, prevent them from doing something, or at least present a difficult choice. Nothing in Come and Get Me does any of that. If anything, it encourages them to attack someone else to avoid being made Off-Guard.
As has been pointed out, ranged characters can attack the Off-Guard Barbarian. Yes, somehow they’ll also become off-guard, but then the Barbarian has to waste actions moving to them or attack someone else and just take the ranged damage. It just really doesn’t feel like a win for the Barbarian in that situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think the foe knows it will be made off guard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think the foe knows it will be made off guardMaybe not until the first time it happens. But then, the foe also doesn't know that it will get a +2 to damage, either.
I would think of it as a matter of televising an opening in your defenses but not what your going to do to them for taking that shot at you.
|
|
I would think of it as a matter of televising an opening in your defenses but not what your going to do to them for taking that shot at you.I dont think the foe knows it will be made off guardMaybe not until the first time it happens. But then, the foe also doesn't know that it will get a +2 to damage, either.
The first time. And maybe they fall for it. Or maybe they just keep killing the person they are already killing, particularly if that person is already Off-Guard. For a taunt to be effective, you need to be able to actually draw enemies away from other targets. One off-guard foe is the same as another Off-Guard foe. It's certainly not a situation where you are going to automatically draw all of the attacks for the rest of the combat. But you will be Off-Guard for the rest of the combat.
Saying that a 10th level feat's main benefit is that you can make yourself Off-Guard (and that you will take extra damage), which is what SuperBidi said, just doesn't make any practical sense. You can make yourself Off-Guard without a 10th level feat, by lying prone or balancing or moving into a flank (at which point, you might also trick them, given Deny Advantage). And all of those can be undone if you start taking too much damage, unlike Come and Get Me.
I would think of it as a matter of televising an opening in your defenses but not what your going to do to them for taking that shot at you.I dont think the foe knows it will be made off guardMaybe not until the first time it happens. But then, the foe also doesn't know that it will get a +2 to damage, either.The first time. And maybe they fall for it. Or maybe they just keep killing the person they are already killing, particularly if that person is already Off-Guard. For a taunt to be effective, you need to be able to actually draw enemies away from other targets. One off-guard foe is the same as another Off-Guard foe. It's certainly not a situation where you are going to automatically draw all of the attacks for the rest of the combat. But you will be Off-Guard for the rest of the combat.
Saying that a 10th level feat's main benefit is that you can make yourself Off-Guard (and that you will take extra damage), which is what SuperBidi said, just doesn't make any practical sense. You can make yourself Off-Guard without a 10th level feat, by lying prone or balancing or moving into a flank (at which point, you might also trick them, given Deny Advantage). And all of those can be undone if you start taking too much damage, unlike Come and Get Me.
I agree with you for most of that. It isnt automatic and some situations it might not help at all because just as good a target are already in front of the foe.
It kind of taps into roleplaying a bit though. The barbarian is taunting in that respect even if not in a mechanical respect of compelling. Tt does succeed at making your character a vulnerable target though and that alone can change the behavior of foes even if not in all situations.|
|
Sure, maybe. But it doesn’t make it a good feat or worth a 10th level feat. And, again, my response was to someone who was claiming both that it is the best taunt in the game and that the main benefit is that you can make yourself off-guard. Which, again, you don’t need a feat to do.
My argument is that the main benefit of Come and Get Me is that it allows you to take.Vengeful Strike. Come and Get Me on its own is kinda terrible.
It’s exactly the kind of feat tax that 2E largely did away with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, maybe. But it doesn’t make it a good feat or worth a 10th level feat. And, again, my response was to someone who was claiming both that it is the best taunt in the game and that the main benefit is that you can make yourself off-guard. Which, again, you don’t need a feat to do.
I had a player dropping Prone to attract attention, but it's much more penalizing and enemies have easier time seeing through it (unless the PC rolls a Deception check to feint stumbling).
There are also very few taunts in this game, and no hard ones. Personally, I consider that a Barbarian coming to an enemy, hitting them with a good Barbarian blow and using Come And Get Me divert most enemies from a squishy caster. It is the essence of the ability, considering that enemies don't fall for it is denying the ability entirely.
My argument is that the main benefit of Come and Get Me is that it allows you to take.Vengeful Strike. Come and Get Me on its own is kinda terrible.
It’s exactly the kind of feat tax that 2E largely did away with.
I fully agree on that, in my opinion both feats should be merged. Come And Get Me alone is far too niche for a level 10 feat.
I was thinking that, if the penalty to AC has to stay, wouldn't it be more appropiate if instead of a -1 they instead became off-guard? It fits the "fighting without thinking" trope of barbs and while certainly much more worse than a -1 AC you would at least be able to circumvent it against creatures of your level or lower with Deny Advantage and wouldn't suffer from both against creatures which are higher level than you.
I would still consider increasing the temp HP and / or give Raging Resistance at 1st level since those first two levels would be deadly.
|
|
Sure, maybe. But it doesn’t make it a good feat or worth a 10th level feat. And, again, my response was to someone who was claiming both that it is the best taunt in the game and that the main benefit is that you can make yourself off-guard. Which, again, you don’t need a feat to do.I had a player dropping Prone to attract attention, but it's much more penalizing and enemies have easier time seeing through it (unless the PC rolls a Deception check to feint stumbling).
There are also very few taunts in this game, and no hard ones. Personally, I consider that a Barbarian coming to an enemy, hitting them with a good Barbarian blow and using Come And Get Me divert most enemies from a squishy caster. It is the essence of the ability, considering that enemies don't fall for it is denying the ability entirely.
I fully agree on that, in my opinion both feats should be merged. Come And Get Me alone is far too niche for a level 10 feat.My argument is that the main benefit of Come and Get Me is that it allows you to take.Vengeful Strike. Come and Get Me on its own is kinda terrible.
It’s exactly the kind of feat tax that 2E largely did away with.
This is a more measured view than some of your earlier posts, so it seems we aren’t that far apart from each other.
Does Come and Get Me offer some benefit over just falling prone or something similar? Yes, but also different disadvantages. Is that at all worth at 10th level feat? No.
Remember that Kip Up exists, so by 7th level you could even avoid the penalty when attacking and not trigger reactive strikes, as you could stand up for free. You would need to spend an action every round dropping prone again, and you would look silly. I’m just saying that, without considering Vengeful Strike, Come and Get Me isn’t that much better than something you can already do. I don’t personally ever do this. My preferred tactic is to move so that I am flanked. Most of the time the GM forgets that Deny Advantage is a Barbarian ability, so I both draw the attacks and don’t suffer off-guard. Granted, you can’t count on that in a continuing campaign, but in PFS I get away with it enough. It’s better that a class not have to count on a metagame tactic, though.
Antagonize is a better taunt, at least for a single opponent. Imposing a penalty on someone until they attack you is a win whether they attack you or not. But sadly 2E has moved away from Demoralize being something easy to use for a Barbarian (without another feat tax), and instead made that a Swashbuckler feat.
It’s been mentioned a couple of times that I should view Come and Get Me as a deception, but I don’t think that is the intent with the feat. You aren’t pretending to leave an opening. You are leaving an opening. It’s a challenge, not a deception. I’m pretty sure anyone attacking a Barbarian knows that if they don’t get a good hit in, they’re going to feel the punishment, whether or not they know it’s going to make them off-guard.
I was thinking that, if the penalty to AC has to stay, wouldn't it be more appropiate if instead of a -1 they instead became off-guard? It fits the "fighting without thinking" trope of barbs and while certainly much more worse than a -1 AC you would at least be able to circumvent it against creatures of your level or lower with Deny Advantage and wouldn't suffer from both against creatures which are higher level than you.
I would still consider increasing the temp HP and / or give Raging Resistance at 1st level since those first two levels would be deadly.
Agree. Off-guard makes it conceptually more consistent and prevents the over-stacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I think of a Barbarian conceptually I think of a strong warrior, athletic, tough, even somewhat agile. They shrug off pain and fight with intense ferocity.
Pathfinder barbarians fuel that ferocity with one of the subclass themes.
When they fight its instinctual aggressive and deadly. They have a quick sense of battle and uncanny reflexes which makes it difficult to catch them offguard.
The Pathfinder barbarian is best categorized as an instinctual warrior, instinct fuels their rage, power, and battle senses rather than just skill and training which they do have as well as they become tested in battle. not to the level of a fighter though who focuses on honing their skill.
-1 Ac represents an overly aggressive approach to battle when raging.
Off guard means they are not able to defend themselves properly.
I dont feel offguard better suits the barbarian it also makes them worse because a barb has an ability to make it harder to become offguard that would be invalidated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-1 Ac represents an overly aggressive approach to battle when raging.
This is the wrong way to go about it if you ask me. The way to represent they are more aggressive than defensive is getting them stuck on Master proficiency of Medium Armor and not give them any means to increase AC, which already happens everywhere else in the chassis.
Compare with Rangers who get options like Outwit, Skirmish Strike, Twin Parry/Riposte...
I feel the -AC is an artifact of a bygone era where you couldn't shape an experience with class feats.
AC reduction used to sort of make sense and was offset by innate damage reduction. That innate damage reduction doesn't exist any longer, so not sure what the AC reduction is for in a game where crits are far more common.
Hopefully the reason the barb is coming in player core 2 is because they are working out some of these creative issues.
|
|
Yeah, I don’t think off-guard as a general rule while raging is a good direction. As others have noted, it can be an incredible penalty when the enemy does decide to gang up on you. It would also invalidate Deny Advantage.
I can take or leave the AC penalty. I’ll trust someone has or will do the math on just how much that hurts. I play a Giant Instinct Barbarian, so I’m already even worse of than other Barbarians, but I haven’t felt fragile. Being Off-Guard on top of that, though, really hurts.
But I don’t know, aside from a few trap feats, I’ve never really felt the Barbarian was that bad off in 2E. They have good feats at every level. They deal good damage from the start, without gimmicks to be able to do so. Rage for your bonus damage/feats and you’re good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see damage reduction return.
Adding to this thought:
A small basic DR added to the basic rage effect.
Instincts would then increase it by amounts that help to balance the instincts.
I dont feel offguard better suits the barbarian it also makes them worse because a barb has an ability to make it harder to become offguard that would be invalidated.
No, because I'm explicitly mentioning that Deny Advantage would remove the off-guard against creatures of your level or lower as normal, effectively removing the penalty altogether against them. This keeps the flavor of "barbarians don't care about getting hit" but makes it so that creatures that aren't stronger than them (i.e higher level) can't even perceive their weaknesses.
I'm still of the opinion that there shouldn't be a penalty to begin with, but if we have to keep it, I feel off-guard is a much better fit and also prevents barbarians to have an effective -3 if they get flanked.
|
|
Deny Advantage would have to be altered to accommodate that. It doesn’t completely prevent Off-Guard. Only in specific circumstances (flanking, hidden, or undetected). If you’re Off Guard from raging, it doesn’t help as written. I suppose it would still apply when you aren’t raging, so only mostly invalidated.
Mmm, good point. I don't know why I just assumed Deny Advantage removed off-guard in general. In that case it should probably be a new feature.