# Fighter vs. Barbarian



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 21, 2010)

Just wanted to start a discussion on how the two compare.  Notably, in 3E I was accustomed to Barbarian being the class for doing the most damage, albeit being fragile and reckless (yes, even with the d12).  In Pathfinder, it seems that it starts out that way, but around mid levels Fighter overtakes Barb for damage dealing and dwarfs it by 20.

Just compare mirror copies, each with a two-handed weapon (the best possible set up for the Barb; Fighter gets the same static bonuses to damage regardless of the weapon, Barbarian misses out on the extra kick from rage's str boost being multiplied).  A level 20 Barb rages and gets +4 to hit and +6 damage.  A level 20 Fighter all day every day gets +6 to hit and +8 damage (Greater Weapon Focus, WF, Greater Weapon Specialization, WS, and Weapon Training +4).  The Fighter likewise has a better CMB for any maneuver he can use his weapon with.

I don't mind, my current Barb is a Intimidate-focused build that wouldn't be nearly as effective with Fighter, for instance.  It's just a little jarring to see Barbs dethroned.  I consider the lower AC and higher hp to be a wash mechanically, so Barbs have a few skills and some unique rage powers as the only real advantage now, it seems.


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Dec 21, 2010)

I just had my barbarian die at level 8 due to an encounter we were supposed to talk to not fight. But using average hp she had 100 ish +16 to hit before PA or buffs and enlarged was doing around 3d6 +21 ish damage. It was fun but there were a few bits I think a fighter would have done beter.

AC is one bit for a little less damage the fig hers ac would have been 4-5 pts higher.
Combat options being the other, the ability to control your environment and hit things is better than just hitting things.

That said I had tone down the optimization a little to keeping in line with the rest of the party and can think of a few barbarian builds that would have at this level spiked the damage .


The general consensus though is if damage is your main goal fighters are the kings in pf though this doesn't make me not want to play a barb and I will do so 3 or 4 characters from now with my new ideas.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 22, 2010)

Barbarians are more skillful characters (more points, Raging Climber etc) but are not stealthy like the Ranger. They are obstacle defeaters, who may be variously capable at dealing with walls, swimming, darkness, physical barriers, traps, and so forth.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 22, 2010)

*re*

Barbs have some optimized power builds. I'm dealing with one right now. The Inuvulnerable Rager is pretty powerful.

But Fighters seem like overall they are capable of being the top damage dealer. That Two-hander path is nutso for damage.


----------



## ruemere (Dec 22, 2010)

Rage powers make Barbarians much more versatile than Fighters. For example, the Barbarian PC in my party specializes in locking down enemies using grapple... He does a lot of damage, too, but when the party needs to shut down BBEG he does just that.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Dec 22, 2010)

How does that make them ersitil?

The barbarian can be made to do one thing well, which is good. But they generally cannot do several things well.

The great thing with the fighter is they can do good damage and be efficient with more than one combat maneuver. Someone who can trip drag and bull rush and hurt the enemy is more versatile for combat. As a previous poser said though, barbarians with the skills can bypass obstacles which is nice.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 22, 2010)

Barbarians can specialize in a few things, like Intimidate, and have Acrobatics and Perception, which is a plus (a plus 3 over Fighter, to be exact).  Of course, Fighters are much more adept tumblers than Barbarians in general since they get check penalties reduced and eventually can roll out in full plate.

Fighters pretty clearly seem better at hitting, damage, combat maneuvers, tanking, and dealing with unique defenses (more potent with back up weapons, more likely to have spare feats to boost a secondary fighting style like archery, later on get feats to tear through DR like a hot knife through butter...).  In other words, better than Barbarian at every single aspect of combat.  They're also fairly "solid."  You don't have to worry about a Fighter going unconscious or getting hit with a calm emotions and suddenly going from 30 hp to dead.  You don't have to use up very limited daily resources to dish out the heavy damage, and worry about when to begin/end rage, cause "man it would suck to end it in the middle of a fight."

The Rage powers are interesting, many of them are worse than a feat, in some cases blatantly worse than a feat (anything that gives you access to a feat while raging, for example).  But then there are some generally great ones.  The Intimidating Glare one is decent just for intimidate as a move action, though the need to be adjacent can be annoyingly limiting.  The followup rage power Terrifying Howl, gives you some genuine save-or-suck/battlefield control power.

Out of core, APG magnifies the trend.  A lot of the rage powers ubersuck, but a few (mostly higher level ones) stand out as much better than a feat.  Come And Get Me is like 3E Robilar's Gambit (widely considered a great feat), even including the level requirement, except waaaaaay better, because you get to make your AoO FIRST (what better way to boost your AC than killing people before they can hurt you?).  Not sure if Flesh Wound is overpowered, but if you actually think the Rogue's Defensive Roll advanced talent is a worthwhile class feature (I don't), it surely is to you.  It incorporates armor check penalty on your saving throw, that is its only downside.  Other than that, it is literally superior to Defensive Roll in *every possible aspect*.  And is available starting at the same level, 10th.

So it's really hard to judge the rage powers.  There's a handful (not enough to fill up all your rage powers gained 1-20) that are just plain amazing or at least "something good that a feat can't get you."  And then the rest are meh.  Also, most of the best rage powers come from APG, and if you're adding that in...several of the Fighter kits were much bigger boosts than any of the Barbarian ones.  Two-handed Fighter got a fair damage boost for instance.  By RAW, Mobile Fighter gets Rapid Attack AND Weapon training 2-4, and abilities to multiattack on a move regardless.  The most powerful barbarian variant basically just got better DR at the expense of even more AC (no Uncanny Dodge = effectively worse AC in many situations for the more lightly armored Barbarian; Fighters just put on Fullplate).  None really helped add to damage dealing.  Which sounds kinda selfish and single-minded, "why didn't the splat let my barb do even MORE damage?" ...except that they did add several alt Fighter classes to up _thier_ damage.


----------



## ruemere (Dec 23, 2010)

Mojo_Rat said:


> How does that make them ersitil?
> 
> The barbarian can be made to do one thing well, which is good. But they generally cannot do several things well.
> 
> The great thing with the fighter is they can do good damage and be efficient with more than one combat maneuver. Someone who can trip drag and bull rush and hurt the enemy is more versatile for combat. As a previous poser said though, barbarians with the skills can bypass obstacles which is nice.




Strength Surge + Intimidating Glare. Thanks to these two powers the Barbarian PC shines at controlling BBEGs.

"A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell."

This particular Barbarian reaches DC 46 (+ spell level) on this check. Of course, it lasts for a single round only, but I have yet to see an opponent to last longer, especially with things like Aura of Justice flying around.

As for the Intimidating Glare, this is like free -2 to saves of your opponent. Synergize it with Feeblemind and you have one dead spellcaster.


Of course, for pure damage the Fighter is going to be better, but at the level we're currently playing (13th), shutting down casters takes priority (the Paladin and the Shadowdancer with artifact sword can mop up the floor with physicals, in case of serious opposition summoned Huge Elementals do the job nicely, too).

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Dec 23, 2010)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Strength Surge + Intimidating Glare. Thanks to these two powers the Barbarian PC shines at controlling BBEGs.
> 
> "A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell."
> 
> ...





The above is all great for the barbarian, and makes it fun to play. I like the class a lot. But doing two things well isn't versatile.  Though it is grat if those two things come into play a lot.


----------



## Glade Riven (Dec 23, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Notably, in 3E I was accustomed to Barbarian being the class for doing the most damage, albeit being fragile and reckless (yes, even with the d12).




Obviously you haven't seen Kullan Longbeard. Dwarf Barbarian, started with a 20 CON thanks to lucky rolls, never rolls below a 10 for HP each level...He's not optimised, just lucky at the HP rolls.

Barbarian seem more like an intentional theme choice now, instead of a power-builder's choice. To which, I'm fine with.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 23, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> Obviously you haven't seen Kullan Longbeard. Dwarf Barbarian, started with a 20 CON thanks to lucky rolls, never rolls below a 10 for HP each level...He's not optimised, just lucky at the HP rolls.
> 
> Barbarian seem more like an intentional theme choice now, instead of a power-builder's choice. To which, I'm fine with.




I haven't seen Kullan, but I have seen Sucky McCrappypants (not his real name, at least I don't think so).  He was a Barbarian in a game I was in a few years back that rolled poorly on all his HD rolls.  Turns out, without a reroll-generous DM to make sure your high HD actually means something, whether it makes a difference or not is completely arbitrary.  Who'da thunk?  Anyways...the party sorcerer went into elemental savant and eventually became an elemental, which included a slight con boost.  Enough of one to put her over the barbarian for hit points.  So she ended up being a better tank than the poor Barb, AND had almost full spellcasting.


----------



## Glade Riven (Dec 23, 2010)

some characters are blessed, some characters are cursed...


----------



## ruemere (Dec 24, 2010)

Mojo_Rat said:


> The above is all great for the barbarian, and makes it fun to play. I like the class a lot. But doing two things well isn't versatile.  Though it is grat if those two things come into play a lot.




For that you'd need to be a spellcaster. However, the said Barbarian is 13th level now, so he brings a lot more goodies to the table now.
It's just that these two made him shine spectacularly several times already.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Tovec (Dec 24, 2010)

Just my two cents...
(Sorry if it offends anyone, I won't be checking back.)

In 3.5 (using the 3.x books) our barbarians never ceased to outshow and outgun fighters. With the wealth of prestige classes (bear warrior/frenzied berserker/rage mage) that helped the barbarian, the fighter was quickly outstripped in power and damage by nearly any level counted. Fighters could get some nifty feats but that was about it. Also our games had a trend of HATING the tome of battle and feats that resembled them.

Now in Pathfinder the fighter can finally stack up and we are having threads that they are outpacing the good ol' barb. What a reversal. When it comes down to it I rarely, if ever, pick a class based on their damage compared to another class at 20 (or any other level) unless the classes were similar. I hate to break it to you barbarians and fighters while very similar in build are completely different in background. It depends on style of play. If we were all going for stats no one would play anything but a caster in the first place.
Meaning, if you are interested in playing a barbarian, play a barbarian. If you are only worried about doing more damage at X then by all means take the class that gives you more damage. I'm tired of these kinds of threads that re-open old wounds in new ways.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 24, 2010)

Tovec said:


> I hate to break it to you barbarians and fighters while very similar in build are completely different in background. It depends on style of play. If we were all going for stats no one would play anything but a caster in the first place.
> Meaning, if you are interested in playing a barbarian, play a barbarian. If you are only worried about doing more damage at X then by all means take the class that gives you more damage. I'm tired of these kinds of threads that re-open old wounds in new ways.




I didn't realize I was "opening old wounds" or whatever.  You seem a little too worked up over this...

And what does "If you're interested in playing a Barbarian, play a Barbarian" really even mean?  I don't play a class to play a class.  I play a class to do a certain role well, or have a cool schtick.  I'd play a PF Barbarian to make an Intimidate build (or a Bard or other classes that can do more with the skill than normal), I'd play a PF Fighter to deal high damage (apparantly...), etc...


----------



## concerro (Dec 26, 2010)

Tovec said:


> Just my two cents...
> (Sorry if it offends anyone, I won't be checking back.)



With nonsense like the rest of your post you won't be missed. I won't be checking back either.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 26, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I didn't realize I was "opening old wounds" or whatever.  You seem a little too worked up over this...
> 
> And what does "If you're interested in playing a Barbarian, play a Barbarian" really even mean?  I don't play a class to play a class.  I play a class to do a certain role well, or have a cool schtick.  I'd play a PF Barbarian to make an Intimidate build (or a Bard or other classes that can do more with the skill than normal), I'd play a PF Fighter to deal high damage (apparantly...), etc...



I think that he means that if you want to play Conan, not Lancelot, play a barbarian - don't do it just to fill the damage dealing role, do it because being an intimidating berserker is _fun_.

If you want to be a tank (tankity tankity tank) then play a fighter because that is what you want to play, ditto for wanting to deal lots of damage - play what you want, not just fill the task.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Wiseblood (Dec 26, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Just wanted to start a discussion on how the two compare. Notably, in 3E I was accustomed to Barbarian being the class for doing the most damage, albeit being fragile and reckless (yes, even with the d12). In Pathfinder, it seems that it starts out that way, but around mid levels Fighter overtakes Barb for damage dealing and dwarfs it by 20.
> 
> Just compare mirror copies, each with a two-handed weapon (the best possible set up for the Barb; Fighter gets the same static bonuses to damage regardless of the weapon, Barbarian misses out on the extra kick from rage's str boost being multiplied). A level 20 Barb rages and gets +4 to hit and +6 damage. A level 20 Fighter all day every day gets +6 to hit and +8 damage (Greater Weapon Focus, WF, Greater Weapon Specialization, WS, and Weapon Training +4). The Fighter likewise has a better CMB for any maneuver he can use his weapon with.
> 
> I don't mind, my current Barb is a Intimidate-focused build that wouldn't be nearly as effective with Fighter, for instance. It's just a little jarring to see Barbs dethroned. I consider the lower AC and higher hp to be a wash mechanically, so Barbs have a few skills and some unique rage powers as the only real advantage now, it seems.




Can a fighter be a barbarian(uncivilised culture)and adopting the _Barbarian_(class) restrictions for armor and such and still outfight the Barbarian(class)?

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 27, 2010)

Wiseblood said:


> Can a fighter be a barbarian(uncivilised culture)and adopting the _Barbarian_(class) restrictions for armor and such and still outfight the Barbarian(class)?
> 
> Does that make sense to anyone other than me?




The only thing adopting the armor restrictions of the Barbarian class does is hurt your AC a little in the end; you'll be wearing mithral breastplate instead of mithral fullplate.  If you have the dex for it, Fighter's increases in max dex allowed by the armor would mean you're still at a higher AC than the Barbarian, even when he's out of rage.  All the other aspects of the Fighter's superior combat performance (better to hit, damage, some combat maneuvers...) are unaffected.


----------



## Kaisoku (Dec 27, 2010)

If all you are looking at is damage, attack, and AC, then yeah... the Fighter will be an obvious choice here.

The Barbarian gives access to rage abilities. Things like DR, or immunities, or animalistic traits like scent or night vision. Better skills (amount and selection), as well as things like uncanny dodge and trap sense.
These are things that point the Barbarian towards a specific feel and theme, that is different from the Fighter class.

The Fighter class feels far more clinical in their approach to combat. They learn about weapons and armor and how to best use them. It's not so much "Hulk Smash", but rather practice upon practice with a wide assortment of tools of war, learning exactly how to swing a blade or thrust a spear to be the most effective... or how to move in armor without hindrance, or how to make that blow more crippling.

This is just like how the Paladin feels different from the Ranger... one is clearly bent on aiding others and driving out evil, while the other is about learning how to use the weaknesses of his targets, and the environment around him, to his advantage.

They made the classes around themes, not around numbers. This is why you play a Barbarian vs a Fighter. Not because the numbers are higher.


Note that I'm not arguing that the Barbarian should or shouldn't do more or less damage than the Fighter while raging or not, etc.
I'm only addressing the "play a Barbarian if you want to play a Barbarian" comments.
As it is.. the Barbarian could stand to have a slightly more powerful base rage effect... I'm not sure if it needs more Strength, but perhaps some additional morale bonuses by default (automatic, not from rage powers). Something like a crit range or multiplier increase, or further increases to CMB/CMD (above the benefits of higher strength), etc. These would put the Barbarian in a position to compete against the Fighter's numbers, without having to "beat the numbers".


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Dec 31, 2010)

In Core, I was slightly underwhelmed by barbarians, but with bonuses to grapple, knockback, sudden strike, and the awesome, awesome strenght surge you can make a good barbarian, exspecially if you focus on the grapple and power attack lines.

And don't understimate superstition. 

And the fact that the true barbarian capstone is at level 17.

APG (take a look in the SRD if you don't have the book yet) loves deeply the barbarian. Human Barbarians are impervious to a lot of magic thanks to the superstition boost. 

A lot of archetypes make him far more durable, Come and get me is scary, and Barb can get pounce (3 rage powers in total, but prerequisites are more natural attacks).

You can find more combos with feats (you can build a barbarian able to pounce, and in the same turn drop by a bullrush every enemy in the path dealing to him damage).

Knockdown adds goodies to the control department.

Point is, Fighter is better in using weapons and armor.. not a surprise. But Barbarian is very spicy, and has a combat style with sudden surges of true power (+54 in a CMB check, istasunder of an armor).

You just have to understand what each class can do for you and play by it.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 1, 2011)

The choice between barbarians and fighters does seem to incorporate a lot of flavor issues. Hell Pathfinder stepped up to the plate and is even willing to kill Barbarians over said flavor since they incorporated the often maligned 3E houserule of _Unconsciousness ends rage_.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 1, 2011)

*re*

I'm running both a fighter and a barbarian right now head to head. Both two-hander fighters.

So far I can give my impressions at lvl 8.

Fighter: Slightly more damage and to hit chance. Pretty much a straight up offensive machine. Fighter has a better AC because he wears heavy armor. His path to power is feats.

Barbarian: Does great damage. Almost equal melee damage. Then toss in an extra natural weapon attack and spike damage to close the gap some. Can take a ton of damage with the DR. Moves faster and better skill set. More interesting and varied powers to look forward to with rage powers.

Both players seem like they are having fun and both are shining in combat. The fighter and barbarian seem pretty comparable.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 1, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> The choice between barbarians and fighters does seem to incorporate a lot of flavor issues. Hell Pathfinder stepped up to the plate and is even willing to kill Barbarians over said flavor since they incorporated the often maligned 3E houserule of _Unconsciousness ends rage_.




Well, like many other glaring problems, they "feat patched" this with Raging Vitality in the APG, rather than just eratta their mistake.  Still, the one Barbarian I've played in PF so far was allowed to use the Ferocity variant, and was actually using Whirling Frenzy for a few weeks before i noticed Ferocity and asked to switch.  I'd never play a Barbarian in PF with normal rage, way too easy to get killed trivially at mid to high levels, and I refuse to spend a feat just to fix a core problem with my own class.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 2, 2011)

*re*

How is losing rage when unconscious a core problem? Seems appropriate that a barbarian would lose rage when unconscious.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 2, 2011)

Because upon losing rage, you lose 2x level hp.  Or 3x or 4x level hp at higher levels.  Take a level 11 Barbarian for example.  He falls unconsious for any reason in PF, he suddenly loses 33 hp.  If he's low enough for that to put him to dying or dead, he's taken a lot of damage already, sure.  But it's still pretty twisted to suddenly go from fighting healthy and kicking ass to...DEAD.  The worst part is, as you go higher in level (and the higher the con bonus goes as rage improves) the hp threshold of "if I get knocked out, I'm done for" gets larger and larger and thus makes the issue of ever graver concern.  A level 20 Barbarian's Rage is a suicide pact.

Maybe you find that flavorful and interesting.  I find characters that don't suddenly go poof and die to be more flavorful and interesting.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 3, 2011)

*re*



StreamOfTheSky said:


> Because upon losing rage, you lose 2x level hp.  Or 3x or 4x level hp at higher levels.  Take a level 11 Barbarian for example.  He falls unconsious for any reason in PF, he suddenly loses 33 hp.  If he's low enough for that to put him to dying or dead, he's taken a lot of damage already, sure.  But it's still pretty twisted to suddenly go from fighting healthy and kicking ass to...DEAD.  The worst part is, as you go higher in level (and the higher the con bonus goes as rage improves) the hp threshold of "if I get knocked out, I'm done for" gets larger and larger and thus makes the issue of ever graver concern.  A level 20 Barbarian's Rage is a suicide pact.
> 
> Maybe you find that flavorful and interesting.  I find characters that don't suddenly go poof and die to be more flavorful and interesting.




Don't try to sell me on the you find it more "flavorful and interesting" angle. You don't want your character to die and you want them to make it mechanically safer for barbarian characters. 

I find it more appropriate that they lose rage when unconscious. Not more "flavorful or interesting" as you put it.

My player solved this problem by buying _Endurance_ and _Diehard_. So he'l be standing and fighting until he is dead. With that amped up con and hit points, that will be a long damn time too.

We have an Oracle of Life healer purely focused on healing with magical lineage (heal) for lvl 7 empowered heals for 225 points of healing damage back at 14th level. The chances of him buying the farm are pretty slim, but it could happen.

I say have a good healer or buy _Diehard_ or _Raging Vitality_ if you want to stay standing. Otherwise your at risk of buying the farm when you leave your psychotic rage when being knocked out. That is appropriate in my opinion.

if Paizo gave no options to overcome this possibility, I might agree with you. But Paizo gave a few nice options to make sure that doesn't happen. I think those options work out fine and in the case of _Diehard_, it makes the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian that much more bad to the bone and unique.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 3, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> You don't want your character to die and you want them to make it mechanically safer for barbarian characters.




Well no, I prefer my characters alive, unless they're undead, and if they're going to die, I'd rather it not be sudden or trivial.  If Weapon Specialization had a 1% chance of killing the Fighter every round he used it, I'd never ever make a Fighter either.



Celtavian said:


> I find it more appropriate that they lose rage when unconscious. Not more "flavorful or interesting" as you put it.




Sounds like a flavor reason to me...



Celtavian said:


> My player solved this problem by buying _Endurance_ and _Diehard_. So he'l be standing and fighting until he is dead. With that amped up con and hit points, that will be a long damn time too.




Two feats, one of them incredibly crappy, on a class with no bonus feats, just take make his primary class feature less suicidal?  Of course, that STILL doesn't protect him from effects that make you unconscious on a failed save, like the Sleep spell.



Celtavian said:


> if Paizo gave no options to overcome this possibility, I might agree with you. But Paizo gave a few nice options to make sure that doesn't happen. I think those options work out fine and in the case of _Diehard_, it makes the Invulnerable Rager Barbarian that much more bad to the bone and unique.




I completely disagree, and even if the feats did fix the problem, it's far too much of a cost, the class feature should just work right from the start.


----------



## Tovec (Jan 4, 2011)

I know I said I wouldn't be back but I got re-linked to this updated thread by a friend 

As far as fixing the base problem with rage (getting knocked out means death) I can see two basic fixes. First would be the good ol' Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy, I would recommend it being added only at higher levels but it fixes the problem as long as the Barbarian can keep up their rage.
For any who don't know:


> Deathless Frenzy (Ex): At 4th level and higher, a frenzied berserker can scorn death and unconsciousness while in a frenzy. As long as her frenzy continues, she is not treated as disabled at 0 hit points, nor is she treated as dying at -1 to -9 hit points. Even if reduced to -10 hit points or less, she continues to fight normally until her frenzy ends. At that point, the effects of her wounds apply normally if they have not been healed. This ability does not prevent death from massive damage or from spell effects such as slay living or disintegrate.



The second option I see is make rage HP temporary HP instead of what they are now, this is a lesser change and not nearly as breaking. It also means that when they come out of rage they only lose the  HP they didn't use instead of their base HP. Honestly, I'm not sure why they aren't temporary HP in the first place but that is not really the point.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 4, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> A level 20 Barbarian's Rage is a suicide pact.



It is a round by round choice to have the barbarian's _usable_ HP total is 80 HP over his normal HP total at the cost of not having access to the 20'ish dying HP the character would have had to be laying helpless on the ground. 

Pathfinder probably should have just let raging barbarians fight while in negative HP instead of having rage grant a Con bonus. With higher level barbarians getting to go deeper and deeper.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 4, 2011)

*re*



StreamOfTheSky said:


> Well no, I prefer my characters alive, unless they're undead, and if they're going to die, I'd rather it not be sudden or trivial.  If Weapon Specialization had a 1% chance of killing the Fighter every round he used it, I'd never ever make a Fighter either.




Death is part of the game. You want a safe game, then house rule it. I don't want a safe game. If a barbarian enters a psychotic rage, he should risk dying just like the barbarians of old.





> Sounds like a flavor reason to me...




So designing archetypes appropriately is flavor to you? It isn't to me. It's simulationist. It's trying to capture the realism of the ability. If that's what you call flavor, then we have completely different ideas of what flavor is. So we'll never agree on that.

It's saying "If a barbarian is unconscious, should he be able to maintain a psychotic rage?" The answer is no. Thus the mechanic should fit the ability. In this case it does. 

It is inappropriate that a barbarian can maintain rage while unconscious. Unrealistic and inappropriate is the word I would use.




> Two feats, one of them incredibly crappy, on a class with no bonus feats, just take make his primary class feature less suicidal?  Of course, that STILL doesn't protect him from effects that make you unconscious on a failed save, like the Sleep spell.




Neither feat looks bad to me.

_Diehard_ lets you fight to massive negatives.

_Raging Vitality_ gives you an extra hit point a lvl and higher fort save.





> I completely disagree, and even if the feats did fix the problem, it's far too much of a cost, the class feature should just work right from the start.




It does work right. 

It isn't too much of a cost. Both methods provide a decent benefit to a barbarian.

Even the prereq of _Endurance_ allows the barbarian to sleep in his medium armor. Which is huge in a campaign unless you never bother to catch your players unaware out of their armor. That happens quite often in our campaigns. They get ambushed while sleeping all the time.

Sounds to me like you don't like the change form 3E because you want to lower your risk of death. Well, if you play a berserker, you should be at risk of death.

The berserker's of old usually did what they did and expected to die. Berserking was usually the last stand of a warrior. He was going to amp up, usually with drink, and then go all out until he bit the farm.

The barbarian rage ability simulates that well. I encourage my barbarian player to remain in character all the time which means he is at risk of death. 

This is a *ROLE-PLAYING* game. The role of the character comes first. Not mechanical safety.

If you're interested in staying alive and having a safe character, then don't play a psychotic barbarian berserker. It wouldn't fit your personality. Play a safe arcane caster or rogue or something. Fighters, barbarians, and paladins are the type of classes that throw themselves into the fray to the death.

A berserking barbarian the most insane of all of them as he throws himself into battle with complete, psychotic abandon with no thought of his own life. The currently designed rage ability simulates that quite well. Which is the intent of the game and quite right...very, very right. It's how a role-playing game should be designed with the role-playing before the game aspect.

If you want a safer game and don't care about closer simulation of psychotic rage including the chance of death, then house rule it differently. I like the fact that the barbarian might die when coming out of a rage. That fits the archetype.

And that is not flavor as you like to call it. It's simulation.

What you want to do is purely game mechanics without regard for simulation. You want to make something safe mechanically, even if it doesn't properly simulate the ability. Not what I want to see _Pathfinder_ do myself.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jan 4, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> Death is part of the game. You want a safe game, then house rule it. I don't want a safe game. If a barbarian enters a psychotic rage, he should risk dying just like the barbarians of old.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




History has nothing to do with it. Or I would suggest for wizards to be just con-men with no real magic... just like the wizards of the old.




Celtavian said:


> So designing archetypes appropriately is flavor to you? It isn't to me. It's simulationist. It's trying to capture the realism of the ability. If that's what you call flavor, then we have completely different ideas of what flavor is. So we'll never agree on that.




QFT. And being a simulationist is nothing inherently better than being a gamist!



Celtavian said:


> It's saying "If a barbarian is unconscious, should he be able to maintain a psychotic rage?" The answer is no. Thus the mechanic should fit the ability. In this case it does.
> 
> It is inappropriate that a barbarian can maintain rage while unconscious. Unrealistic and inappropriate is the word I would use.




And characters dying for using a core ability I call not fun in a game whose whole purpose is to have fun. And that bothers me more.



Celtavian said:


> ... Even the prereq of _Endurance_ allows the barbarian to sleep in his medium armor. Which is huge in a campaign unless you never bother to catch your players unaware out of their armor. That happens quite often in our campaigns. They get ambushed while sleeping all the time.
> ...



The best medium armor is only 1 point better than the best light armor... when mithral is available it is also already the time magic made resting save.



Celtavian said:


> And that is not flavor as you like to call it. It's simulation.
> 
> What you want to do is purely game mechanics without regard for simulation. You want to make something safe mechanically, even if it doesn't properly simulate the ability. Not what I want to see _Pathfinder_ do myself.




Weak and unbalanced classes and abilities are bugs, not features.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 5, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> The best medium armor is only 1 point better than the best light armor...




2 armor bonus; PF breastplate is +6 armor, not +5.

Unless you meant armor + max Dex, in which case breastplate is 1 better than chain shirt. Of course that assumes your barbarian is going to casually have a 16 or 18 Dex; I'm not sure how common that is (outside of very nice ability score generation methods).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 5, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> Death is part of the game. You want a safe game, then house rule it. I don't want a safe game. If a barbarian enters a psychotic rage, he should risk dying just like the barbarians of old.




"Barbarians of old"?  Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?




Celtavian said:


> So designing archetypes appropriately is flavor to you? It isn't to me. It's simulationist. It's trying to capture the realism of the ability. If that's what you call flavor, then we have completely different ideas of what flavor is. So we'll never agree on that.
> 
> It's saying "If a barbarian is unconscious, should he be able to maintain a psychotic rage?" The answer is no. Thus the mechanic should fit the ability. In this case it does.
> 
> It is inappropriate that a barbarian can maintain rage while unconscious. Unrealistic and inappropriate is the word I would use.




Why is it unrealistic?  A barbarian could be put to sleep but still have angry dreams, thrashing about on the floor in an unconscious state.

I'm calling it flavor because it's not for mechanical or crunch reasons that it was changed.  Unless you actually think a Barbarian not losing his rage from going unconscious breaks the class somehow.  It's not simulating anything, there's nothing in reality like a rage, the closest thing is an adrenaline rush, which shares very little things in common with rage, as rage is presented mechanically. 




Celtavian said:


> Neither feat looks bad to me.
> 
> _Diehard_ lets you fight to massive negatives.
> 
> _Raging Vitality_ gives you an extra hit point a lvl and higher fort save.




The sucky feat I was referring to was Endurance, actually.  Diehard is an ok feat. Raging Vitality, however, is a bad feat.  The +1 hp per level is only on loan for while you rage, it's much worse than actually getting +1 hp/level via Toughness (a pretty below average feat in its own right, IMO).  +1 fort while raging....meh.  The real reason to take Raging Vitality is to patch the broken rage mechanic.




Celtavian said:


> It does work right.
> 
> It isn't too much of a cost. Both methods provide a decent benefit to a barbarian.
> 
> Even the prereq of _Endurance_ allows the barbarian to sleep in his medium armor. Which is huge in a campaign unless you never bother to catch your players unaware out of their armor. That happens quite often in our campaigns. They get ambushed while sleeping all the time.




AFAIK, mithral breastplate still counts as light armor in PF, you just need to have proficiency in it.  So even without endurance, the Barb can sleep in mithral breastplate, just not mithral full plate.  But he's not proficient with full plate and wouldn't be wearing it anyway, so... *shrug*



Celtavian said:


> Sounds to me like you don't like the change form 3E because you want to lower your risk of death. Well, if you play a berserker, you should be at risk of death.




How is keeping the rule that's been in place for 8 years *lowering* my chance of death?  Maintaining 3E's rules about what ends rage maintains status quo, incorporating the new PF rules *increases* risk of death.



Celtavian said:


> The berserker's of old usually did what they did and expected to die. Berserking was usually the last stand of a warrior. He was going to amp up, usually with drink, and then go all out until he bit the farm.
> 
> The barbarian rage ability simulates that well. I encourage my barbarian player to remain in character all the time which means he is at risk of death.
> 
> ...




Rage isn't safe, you take a -2 to AC and make yourself a major target by virtue of being an unstoppable rampaging killing machine.  If I want to RP my Barbarian as reckless, I'll do that.  If the rules want to force me to RP the rage as suicidal, they can make it work like Frenzied Berserker and remove the player's control of when it starts, when it ends, and who is and isn't safe from you.

Are you saying that the Barbarian used for the entire duration of 3E and widely regarded as one of the most flavorful classes as well as one of the better designed melee classes was actually poorly designed and didn't fit th archetype?

And your whole berserking "was usually the last stand of a warrior" is a total load of bs.  In both PF and 3E, rage is the barbarian's core class feature.  Even MORE so in PF, where 90% of his other class features, rage powers, ONLY work while raging!  It's not his last stand, it's his damned PLAN A!  And B, C, and occasionally D.  Plan E is to try hitting it harder.  And the historical Viking berserkers?  That was also their plan A, not last stand.  They got all amped up and crazy, fought hard, tried to scare enemies into fleeing, and plundered.  It's pretty freaking stupid to go on a *raiding* expedition expecting to die, don't you think?  They may have been prepared with the possibility of dying, but so are most good warriors.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 5, 2011)

Stepping aside from the argument a moment, I did recently notice one cool shtick a high level (more specifically, level 17+) Barbarian has at his disposal to justify sticking with the class for the long haul.  Possibly their best "capstone" ability that they get.  I'd like to dub the practice, "Rage Hopping."

One change PF made that was awesome and overdue from 3E was to change Rage such that it specifically allowed a Barbarian to enter new rages in the same encounter, as long as he isn't fatigued or such.  Because at level 17, you get Tireless Rage.  In 3E, even at 17, in a very long "single encounter" like a war battle, even a level 17 Barbarian was so out of luck once his rage ran out.  He was barred from entering a new one by RAW, no matter how much time elapsed or how silly it got.  With PF, that is no longer an issue.  Now, as for this "trick," note that *entering* a rage and *leaving* one are both free actions.  Logically, your rage has to last at least one round, so you couldn't hop in and out infinitely many times but merely once per round.  Which is good, I hate infinite loops.  Anyway...this means that a whole slew of once/rage rage powers that were formerly very poor -- mediocre in usefulness (none surpass mediocre, IMHO) become at least one step better and either reach the vaunted status of "useful" or jump to "powerful."  I review the options below:

[sblock]Clear Mind: I'd be hesitant to take this in a pre-17 game, it's somewhat situational.  With Rage Hops, though, a save reroll once/round is pretty good!  Well worth it for a high level game.

Mighty Swing: Decent in its normal use, with Rage Hopping the Barb is now auto-confirming once/round if he can roll high enough to threaten.  Still seems underwhelming compared to Fighter 20's Weapon Mastery, but...3 levels earlier counts for something, right?

No Escape: Extremely situational, and IME enemy withdraw actions are so rare that using it once/round will seldom make a difference.  It's sort of ok for use as a normal rage power, but hopping doesn't really bolster it any.

Powerful Blow: Even if I were starting at 17 and right from the 1st session could use this ability once/round, I still wouldn't pick it.  Awful.

Strength Surge: Heavily benefits from rage hopping.  A high combat maneuver check once/combat is fairly underwhelming, once per round is made of awesome and win!

Surprise Accuracy: See Powerful Blow, this one's very faintly better, but still not enough to actually learn.

Unexpected Strike: Once a foe realizes you can't be flanked, I don't see this triggering very much.  Further, once you use this the first time, he's unlikely to fall for it again.  So this is subpar normally and I don't think hopping improves it at all.  Has some potential with reach weapon shenanigans possibly.  Specifically, if you have a weapon to attack adjacent (like a rage power for natural weapons), could be useful with superior reach to keep stepping backwards each turn and forcing the foe to give you a free whack.

APG powers:

Lesser Elemental Rage: This power uber sucks normally, basically a tax to get Elemental Rage.  Hopping makes it feel like less of a waste, but there are better uses of your swift/immediate by level 17.

Energy Eruption: WAAAAY too costly in pre-reqs to consider normally.  But with hopping and a friendly arcanist, this could be a really sweet dual tech!

Flesh Wound: Pretty decent choice normally.  With hopping, it becomes like supplemental DR and over the course of a long day could probably prevent hundreds of points of damage.  Best rage hop combo, IMO.

Ground Breaker: I personally like it, but it's of questionable use.  That it precludes attacking for the round (standard action) means having it every round per day isn't necessarily an improvement.

Knockdown: Knockback is once/round, strangely this was a crappy once/rage.  Oh well, rage hop makes it quite usable.  Great combo with strength surge.

Smasher: In combat, you're destroying treasure.  It's a decent out of combat ability to break things in your way, but rage hopping adds nothing since out of combat you can just spend 3 rounds (one raging, two fatigued) retrying without being pressed for time generally.[/sblock]


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 5, 2011)

Rage powers are utterly infuriating.  Here we have something that lets us inject awesome directly, be it things from mythological battle rages or things from books or video games or movies or whatever.

Instead we get *rage swimming*.

Such wasted potential.

Also death to class-as-identity.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jan 5, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Rage powers are utterly infuriating.  Here we have something that lets us inject awesome directly, be it things from mythological battle rages or things from books or video games or movies or whatever.
> 
> Instead we get *rage swimming*.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but represent rage powers with rage swimming only is asinine.

One both core and APG are filled with good rage powers. Bonus to maneuvers and strenght checks, maneuvers + damage, pounce, mount boosting, control effects based on terrain and fear, natural weapons, anti caster feats, hit-boosting feats, saves vs spells from +7 to + 13 at level 20.

Yeah, raging climber, swimmer ect sould have been merged in one. But Barbarians and Rage powers are far more than that.

And sincerely, Cirno, you always say "deat to alignments", "death to classes", death to this, death to that. Just play another game if you don't like it, and don't even bother to take a look with a slight deep to its features.

StremOfTheSky: yeah, I noticed it. Assuming it has not been errata'ed, it's the reason I always say that barbarians get the real capstone at level 17 instead of level 20.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 6, 2011)

Kaiyanwang said:


> StremOfTheSky: yeah, I noticed it. Assuming it has not been errata'ed, it's the reason I always say that barbarians get the real capstone at level 17 instead of level 20.




From what I've seen, the less broken a combo is or less powerful the class that benefits from it is, the more likely it is to get eratta'd, so I wouldn't be surprised.  Paizo already went and eratta'd monk's Imp. Natural Attack availability and the incredibly-mindnumbingly-awesome-yet-still-not-that-powerful-because-it's-a-freakin-level-20-monk-we're-talking-about-here combo of Cloud Step + infinite Slow Fall distance.  Oh, and Vital Strike + Spring Attack, because Spring Attack needed to be kept in check lest it become close to worthwhile. Meanwhile, powerful spells remain untouched and cruddy ones got ridicu-nerfed (like Forcecage) 
/side rant


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jan 6, 2011)

Even if I like a lot the game, I agree with your analysis.

Little semi-patch fo the monk INA: there is a druidic spell able to improve natural attacks by two steps.

An enlarged monk wit that buff could improve the Unarmed Strike by three steps. More fun is is four wind and has vital strike  - 6 ki points for 3 Vital Strikes in one round with damage die increased.

A little convolute and nothing earth shattering, but..

(doubt: I can understand concerns about spells like simulacrum not clarified or addressed, but forcecage has a save now IIRC)


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 6, 2011)

Forcecage has a save negates, had the duration cut to 1/1200 of what it used to be, and can now *be broken by smashing it enough*.  The material component cost was reduced to 1/3 the original.  But at 500 gp and a level 7 slot, it's still _too much gold to ever justify using_, especially now that it gained the awesome trait of not even lasting long or resisting sword thumping attacks and retained the awesome trait of being thwarted by any teleportation spell at all.  I just mentioned it because it was just such a blatant and utter nerfing of something that was never very broken to begin with (another good example was what they did to Ray of Enfeeblement).  Not that I have a problem with Baleful Polymorph (I actually rather love that spell and am glad it wasn't changed), but the fact it wasn't even touched and these other spells were is just crazy.  And I'm not going to get started on the monk...

Forcecage
Forcecage :: d20srd.org


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Sorry, but represent rage powers with rage swimming only is asinine.
> 
> One both core and APG are filled with good rage powers. Bonus to maneuvers and strenght checks, maneuvers + damage, pounce, mount boosting, control effects based on terrain and fear, natural weapons, anti caster feats, hit-boosting feats, saves vs spells from +7 to + 13 at level 20.




See, here's the thing - most of that is still _utter rubbish_.

These are *rage* powers.  Where's the primal anger?  Where's the rich narrative power?  Where's the mythological roots?  So many rage powers are little more then a small bonus while attacking.



> Yeah, raging climber, swimmer ect sould have been merged in one. But Barbarians and Rage powers are far more than that.




God, I wish so.



> And sincerely, Cirno, you always say "deat to alignments", "death to classes", death to this, death to that. Just play another game if you don't like it, and don't even bother to take a look with a slight deep to its features.




I've never said death to classes :U

Beyond that, I'm allowed to see flaws in a game I like.  I'm not binary.  There's a place between "HATE" and "LOVE UNCONDITIONALLY"  For god's sakes, man, if there were _no flaws ever_ in 3.x then Pathfinder would've never even been made.  Finding and discussing these flaws is what leads to progress - and what leads to a better game.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jan 6, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> S
> These are *rage* powers.  Where's the primal anger?  Where's the rich narrative power?  Where's the mythological roots?  So many rage powers are little more then a small bonus while attacking.




Could you please bring examples of the mythological roots?



> Beyond that, I'm allowed to see flaws in a game I like.  I'm not binary.  There's a place between "HATE" and "LOVE UNCONDITIONALLY"  For god's sakes, man, if there were _no flaws ever_ in 3.x then Pathfinder would've never even been made.  Finding and discussing these flaws is what leads to progress - and what leads to a better game.



I agree with you that criticism is the base of improvement. Nevertheless, mine was just an observation based on the fact that you seemed, reading this and other posts (my mistake perhaps) that you considered useless a lot of things that are iconic of the game, so I asked essentially "if you dislike Dragons and hate Dungeons, why play D&D?". 

But I see your point now. Please bring example of what would you do as rage power.

StreamOfThe Sky: I see - you mean, forcecage is _nerfed_ now - I admit that since there is a save the cost could have been dropped.

Nevertheless, IMHO, is not so easy break it. Hardness 30. Blocks ethereals. 500 GP means you just use it more rarely- no spam. Can used better (IMHO) out of the box compared to polymorph - just trap something very nasty and spam dominate until the 1. Maybe with dimensional lock. Things like this.

Remeber: Baleful Polymorph needs two saves to hit really hard, and has SR.

But I can see how you see it as a double standard... I suppose that make it spammable could have been annoying.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Cu Chullainn would literally transform into a horrible monster when he went into his warp spasms 

It's more of a problem I have with the idea of non-casters being forced entirely into being a "mundane" in a world of "supernaturals."  Going into a rage should be more then just a bonus to combat, it should have a bigger narrative power.  Creating shockwaves and disrupting the ground by slamming into it, ignoring DR and hardness completely, leaping impossible distances, commiting amazing and impossible feats of strength.  Heck, Faenor is filled with such passion that when he dies his body spontaniously combusts.

At level 20 a raging barbarian should be a horrifying force of natural destruction, a towering behemoth on the battlefield.

Currently he, well, he gets +8 to strength and constitution!


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Jan 6, 2011)

I took raging leaper on my panther totem themed barbarian, I had a big list of rage powers to finish the theme but died at level 8 to phantasmal killer. I can probably come up with a fun savage grappler ape totem themed chR I might take raging climber with. bit our game is in a jungle right now so you can use climb. if I have done games with a lot of water in the past but I agree the swim one is a bit week. a raging athlete power would be nice.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

To be fair, I think the issue with the swimming power is less the rage power and more that Paizo simply didn't cull and combine the skills enough.

I stand steadfast that swimming does not need to be a separate skill


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jan 6, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Cu Chullainn would literally transform into a horrible monster when he went into his warp spasms




So try out either a Beast Totem+ Ferocious Bite or a Fiendish Totem Barbarian.. add in Terrifying Howl.

+8 Constitution means 80 HP at leel 20... but his is on top of d12 + standard constitution. And DR of 5/-, 10/- or features and rage powers able to absorb damage. In top of powers to absorb spell damage and to get bonuses to saves.

+8 Strenght means +4 hit + 4/6 damage, _but is on the top of all sort of things._ A barbarian can get str 40 ragin at that level.

Add in strenght surge and greater grapple. With the ferocious bite above, you can get a +61 to a grapple check in one round. One could use surprise accuracy and few bonuses for a + 46 in one round, and then use the +20 of SS for the CMD the subsequent round to avoid enemies escape.

Take a look to high CR monsters... these numbers (barring FoM but no perfect tactic exist) are comparable.

Add in powers to smackdown, during a full attack or a sudden, unexpected AOO, enemies around, or to throw obects, or to destroy things ignoring hardness. Adamantine Axes, Walls.. everything broken.

IMHO, this represents quite well a towering behemoth of the battlefield.

Not to say that it couldn't be done better (see the athlete powers, or the fact that guarded life should have been a mechanic inherent to rage _and I freaking hate patch feats_  ).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 6, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> To be fair, I think the issue with the swimming power is less the rage power and more that Paizo simply didn't cull and combine the skills enough.
> 
> I stand steadfast that swimming does not need to be a separate skill




I disagree, swimming when it does come up is HUGE.  And other than being in generally well conditioned good shape (str score), swimming hardly requires the same things as climbing.  I wouldn't have minded seeing jump and climb merged into athletics and a single rage power to benefit jump, climb, and swim.  But I do prefer swim as its own skill.

I think the biggest issue is how the very limited rounds/day aspect of rage makes those powers less useful (particularly swimming), even if they were merged into one power.  I was considering a rule for Bards to use Countersong, Distract, and Fascinate (maybe some others) to be able to use those performances for up to 10 consecutive rounds and only expend 1 round of performance for the day (if you want to use Suggestion a second time w/ fascinate, you'd have to burn a second _real_ round of performance per day, etc...), for as long as you keep the song going without stopping (so if it went 29 rounds straight, you'd lose 3 rounds of performance).  Maybe I could houserule something similar for crappy rage powers mainly used for out of combat situations.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Cu Chullainn would literally transform into a horrible monster when he went into his warp spasms
> 
> It's more of a problem I have with the idea of non-casters being forced entirely into being a "mundane" in a world of "supernaturals."  Going into a rage should be more then just a bonus to combat, it should have a bigger narrative power.  Creating shockwaves and disrupting the ground by slamming into it, ignoring DR and hardness completely, leaping impossible distances, commiting amazing and impossible feats of strength.  Heck, Faenor is filled with such passion that when he dies his body spontaniously combusts.
> 
> ...




See, I think the wildly, over the top supernatural rage should be a character development option. I hate, hate, hate it as a default. I hate the whole idea so much I wrote an entire book of classes devoted to mundane characters, and debunking the idea you need Dragonball Z type powers to be competent at your chosen role. In fact, I think the barbarian leans too hard on the rage ability, and it's only gotten worse with support material and the Pathfinder iteration. I don't have a problem with angry swimming, but I really wonder why the barbarian can't just be a good swimmer, period.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 7, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> debunking the idea you need Dragonball Z type powers to be competent at your chosen role.



I'm thinking their argument is not so much a question of "competency" but more an issue of style.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> See, I think the wildly, over the top supernatural rage should be a character development option. I hate, hate, hate it as a default. I hate the whole idea so much I wrote an entire book of classes devoted to mundane characters, and debunking the idea you need Dragonball Z type powers to be competent at your chosen role. In fact, I think the barbarian leans too hard on the rage ability, and it's only gotten worse with support material and the Pathfinder iteration. I don't have a problem with angry swimming, but I really wonder why the barbarian can't just be a good swimmer, period.






frankthedm said:


> I'm thinking their argument is not so much a  question of "competency" but more an issue of style.




Yeah, more or less.  I don't mind a gritty, bronze era style barbarian - I've been thinking of giving Runequest (Mongoose edition) a go, after all  - but D&D is stylishly everywhere, with ren-era bards, medieval clerics who can literally high five God, super powerful wizards, and mutant sorcerers.

I just feel many of the rage powers don't give as much oomph as I'd like them to.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jan 7, 2011)

Swim is Str based. Barbarians ARE good swimmers. You take the rage power to be an outrageously good swimmer.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Jan 8, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Stepping aside from the argument a moment, I did recently notice one cool shtick a high level (more specifically, level 17+) Barbarian has at his disposal to justify sticking with the class for the long haul.  Possibly their best "capstone" ability that they get.  I'd like to dub the practice, "Rage Hopping."




Did you see the "Heart of the Fields" Alternate Racial Trait for Humans? (APG, p. 23.) Do you need to ignore the fatigued condition more than once per day?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 8, 2011)

Flatus Maximus said:


> Do you need to ignore the fatigued condition more than once per day?




To Rage Hop?  Yes.  The whole trick is that you can both end and start a rage as a free action (so it doesn't hinder full attacking or even using immediate action rage powers), but you can't enter rage while fatigued.  And ending a rage makes you fatigued for 2x the # of rounds you had just raged (ie, minimum 2).  You _could_ do 1 round rage, 2 rounds fatigued before 17 I suppose.  But spending 2/3 of the combat sucking seems like a poor plan to me.  A one/day ignore fatigue isn't good enough, you would want to be able to hop in and out of rage many times, if not the ultimate potential of once each round.

Now, I was excited at the prospect of doing this 10 levels earlier as a Barbarian 6 / Horizon Walker 1 (with Desert mastery).  But PF's completely changed how the class works and nerfed the best of the 3E mastery benefits (including desert), so that's no longer viable.  Which is probably a good thing.

I suppose the REAL way to pimp/abuse the rage system in PF would be if your DM allows you to port in the Warforged race from Eberron...


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Jan 8, 2011)

horizon walker with terrain dominance desert still gets immunity o fatigue.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 8, 2011)

Mojo_Rat said:


> horizon walker with terrain dominance desert still gets immunity o fatigue.




So you're correct.... 3 levels in HW for Fatigue immunity, overall character level 9.  Interesting...

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/horizon-walker


----------



## Tovec (Jan 8, 2011)

Just another thought.
What about calling them Barbarian Powers instead of Rage Powers. Then changing anything that is 'while ranging' to 'any time'. Simple examples are Animal Fury, gaining a bite all the time. Raging Swimmer allows them to use their level as a bonus outside combat. Additionally, things that are more than once but not constant during rage become only during rage - Guarded Stance for example gaining a +1 dodge bonus while raging.
This wouldn't seriously unhinge or unbalance the game. It gives the barbarian more options for non-rage powers. If you wanted to go one step further any rage power that is usable once per rage make it usable once per day Outside rage too. I think that might be going too far but I digress.
Thoughts?

Edit: also not sure how this would affect the majority of APG rage powers, only looked at the Core ones.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2011)

*re*



ProfessorCirno said:


> Cu Chullainn would literally transform into a horrible monster when he went into his warp spasms
> 
> It's more of a problem I have with the idea of non-casters being forced entirely into being a "mundane" in a world of "supernaturals."  Going into a rage should be more then just a bonus to combat, it should have a bigger narrative power.  Creating shockwaves and disrupting the ground by slamming into it, ignoring DR and hardness completely, leaping impossible distances, commiting amazing and impossible feats of strength.  Heck, Faenor is filled with such passion that when he dies his body spontaniously combusts.
> 
> ...




Are you still using only core?

The barbarian I'm dealing with sprouts spikes all over his body and grows horns. He hits like a vicious truck, has 5/-DR at lvl 8, and more hit points by 25 points than the fighter. He's extremely hard to deal with. He is definitely a vicious force of destruction.

I figure he'll be much worse at lvl 20.

I'm not seeing the problem with the barbarian. He's a load to handle as a DM. 

Though I do agree some of the powers are dumb ones that no one will take like the swimming and climbing rage powers. They should have focused all the rage powers on combat like they mostly did in the APG.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> So you're correct.... 3 levels in HW for Fatigue immunity, overall character level 9.  Interesting...
> 
> Horizon Walker - Pathfinder_OGC




I should have known you were more of a rule abuser than a role player. Always looking for some angle to abuse the intent of the rules by trying to make a DM live by the exact wording.

That's while we'll never see eye to eye. You try that Horizon Walker tactic and I'd house rule it away right quick by adding the simple line "Does not work for effects like Barbarian Rage". Same with the warforged.

I can't stand people trying to circumvent intent, especially when it perverts the game into an exercise in game mechanic manipulation.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> History has nothing to do with it. Or I would suggest for wizards to be just con-men with no real magic... just like the wizards of the old.




Yes. History does have something to do with it. Without history, none of these games would have even been made. Where you do you think so many of these archetypes come from? 

History, mythology, fiction, and popular culture. It's a smorgasbord of all of it.

Did you forget the various inspirations for the game? History being a major inspiration.




> QFT. And being a simulationist is nothing inherently better than being a gamist!




I prefer simulationist. So it is a matter of preference. I'm happy that _Pathfinder_ leans towards simulationist over gamist.

I consider it my preference. It has nothing to do with "inherently better". I'm glad _Pathfinder_ strays more towards simulation versus gamist philosophies. It's why I play them over 4E.






> And characters dying for using a core ability I call not fun in a game whose whole purpose is to have fun. And that bothers me more.




Death is an aspect of the game. It should not be taken out.

Using a dangerous core ability like Rage should put you at risk. Better hope your healer is good at their job.

From my experience the barbarian rarely goes unconscious. He mashes things apart. He is a vicious war machine that is very hard to bring down because of all the extra healable hit points. Which are much better than temporary.

I'd really like to see how often the unconscious mechanic comes into play and kills the barbarian. So far it hasn't been an issue at all in my game. The barbarian is rarely brought to lethal hit point levels and then knocked unconscious. He murders everything before that happens.




> The best medium armor is only 1 point better than the best light armor... when mithral is available it is also already the time magic made resting save.




DR and massive hit points are in general as good, if not better than, armor class. Chain Shirt is +4 armor versus Chainmail or BP which is +6. So +2 better. And Heavy armor is only +3 better than the best medium armor. So what are you trying to illustrate?

Unless they are of course one of those players that searches around for every mechanical advantage. Which isn't much encouraged by either the game designers or in my campaign.

The guys always looking to squeeze every mechanical advantage out of the game are usually very campaign specific. And more interested in mechanical manipulation than role-playing. Which isn't my cup of tea. Not why I play RPGs.





> Weak and unbalanced classes and abilities are bugs, not features.




Prove that rage is a weak ability. Prove it. And I don't mean prove it has  weakness like getting hit with a _sleep_ spell while dangerously close to death, a very specific situation. And anything that can knock a barbarian down is going to outright kill a fighter, ranger, or any other class in the game. So not quite getting how the hit points are a problem.

Prove that rage is generally a weak ability compared to others. Having a weakness and being weak are entirely different. The fighter has a weakness as well. Take his weapon out of his specialized weapon out of his hands and he is weaker too. The barbarian can pick up any weapon, even a tree branch, and be bashing away while raging. Rangers are weak against their non-favored enemies. Having a weakness does not make an ability weak.

I know I can't prove it. The barbarian in my group rips people apart and is one of the most dangerous in my group. He's hard to kill. Does a ton of damage. And hasn't had a problem yet.

If the equally geared fighter and barbarian are fighting at lvl 20, I'm not sure who I would put my money on. It would be a tough fight to say the least.

Like I said, rage isn't broken. Some people want to have no chance of failure or any weakness. So they come up with some rare situation and make it seem as though that somehow makes the entire ability weak or useless. I don't see it. Don't agree with it. 

I like that rage stops when unconscious. Seems appropriate. And gives the barbarian a weakness that can be exploited. Just like taking a fighter's favored weapon or sending enemies that aren't favored against the ranger. Gives DMs a weakness to exploit and we need that sometimes when players are trying to min/max to the point where they have no weaknesses and do everything they can to do the most possible damage.

I don't know if you realize it, but it's annoying to have players like that as a DM. Most DMs enjoy the story telling aspect of the game. When they run a game with a group of players that are mainly interested in mechanical manipulation, it makes our jobs that much harder. I know _Adventure Paths_  are not designed with the min/maxing in mind.

So it's up to us DMs to keep that kind of stuff in line. I'm glad Paizo is helping a little bit tossing in things like unconscious barbarian boy doesn't get to have rage spasms while laying unconscious on the ground. I hate stupid things like that in a game that don't make sense.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2011)

*re*

My main offense was stating the current rage wasn't "right" or that it was "broken". Sorry, in a role-playing game those words don't exist. There is the method used to simulate the power, end of story. Sometimes it hits perfect in terms of gamist and simulationist. Sometimes it leans a little one way or the other. Sometimes something is flat out changed for mechanical reasons like the old _Haste_. It was appropriate that a spellcaster could cast faster, it was a good simulation. But it was far too overpowered in actual play. So that was a pure mechanical change to ensure arcane casters couldn't annihilate everything in one round. That's the nature of a pen and paper RPG. No "right" and "wrong", only rules and how they work during play. 


That being said. I don't like the idea of barbarians dying when knocked to negative 1 or more hit points from damage in battle.

And I don't like barbarians maintaining rage while unconscious.

Neither fits the archetype of the berserker.

I also don't like making my player take two feats like Endurance and Diehard. I've thought about historical barbaric groups and there were some berserkers that were fat, lazy warriors with bad tempers. Endurance implies being in good physical shape, which isn't required of a berserker. So it doesn't fit.

So I'm rolling with this in my house rules to get the feel I want.


*Rage to the Death (Ex): *At 1st level a barbarian gains this power. While raging a barbarian at 0 to negative con hit points can continue to fight. He can move without taking any hit point damage, but every attack he makes causes 1 hit point of damage. He is in a death frenzy and knows to fall is to die. If he reaches a negative hit point total equal to his constitution score, the barbarian dies. His instinct to survive while in this state does allow him to drink a healing potion or use any magic item on his person solely to heal himself, but otherwise has all the limitations of normal rage.


Done with the debate. Problem is solved for my campaigns to my satisfaction. As in it is "right" for my campaign and the feel I want barbarians to have.


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Jan 8, 2011)

the apt provided a solution to the firing issue, though some might see it as a "feet tax" I saw it as +2 con while raging. I like the barbarian class and have no problems with the supernatural powers. the above poster is right death is part of the game, but I think without raging vitality my barb would nit have. made it past level 3. the dr you can get with a invulnerable rager barely compensates when monsters can drop you from full hps to nearly dead in one round. 

in the case of the hydra and the dracolisk, the power that converts damage to nl when your going into negatives was all that saved me, then raging vitality stopped me from instant death.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jan 9, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by __*Walking Dad*__
> 
> _ _
> ...




Yes, but just because something was in a way in the medieval real world doesn't mean it has to be the same way in a fantasy world.

And popular fiction and mythology often have heroes defeated, but living through it, unlike the Pathfinder barbarian, where defeat or succumbing to certain spells means instant death.
Like Beowulf or 300, the game 'simulates' the fantastic stories told in myths, not the lives of vikings who eat natural drugs to enter a 'rage'.



> _Quote:
> QFT. And being a simulationist is nothing inherently better than being a gamist! _
> 
> 
> ...



 That is fair, but it makes criticism from gamists on the rules not invalid.


_



			Quote:
                             And characters dying for using a core ability I call not fun in a game whose whole purpose is to have fun. And that bothers me more.
		
Click to expand...


_


> Death is an aspect of the game. It should not be taken out.
> 
> Using a dangerous core ability like Rage should put you at risk. Better hope your healer is good at their job.
> 
> ...



 I played a barbarian who died because the DM read the 3.5 rules wrong (the result was the same as the Pathfinder change).

Looks that in my games death still happens. But I want character deaths meaning something beyond:

"Yes, the wizard teleports around, you know, magic... but your character having two other rage rounds, so the cleric can reach you after going unconscious... that is totally unrealistic!"

_



			Quote:
                             The best medium armor is only 1 point better than the best light armor... when mithral is available it is also already the time magic made resting save.
		
Click to expand...


_


> DR and massive hit points are in general as good, if not better than, armor class. Chain Shirt is +4 armor versus Chainmail or BP which is +6. So +2 better. And Heavy armor is only +3 better than the best medium armor. So what are you trying to illustrate?
> 
> Unless they are of course one of those players that searches around for every mechanical advantage. Which isn't much encouraged by either the game designers or in my campaign.
> 
> The guys always looking to squeeze every mechanical advantage out of the game are usually very campaign specific. And more interested in mechanical manipulation than role-playing. Which isn't my cup of tea. Not why I play RPGs.



 This was an answer why I think that Endurance is still not a good feat. Not sure how your talk about "squeeze every mechanical advantage" has to do with it, after you said it would be a decent feat. Either it is or not.



> _
> Quote:
> Weak and unbalanced classes and abilities are bugs, not features._
> 
> Prove that rage is a weak ability. Prove it ...



Don't have to do it.

Proof that the change was necessary because it was to strong before.

Tell me one situation in which the barbarian character is dying instead of going unconscious (so there is a chance for the other players to help) is enhancing the game.

EDIT: Sorry for the strange formatting. I hope it is still clear which quote belongs to whom.


----------

