PDA

View Full Version : 4e- Does Hide Armor Expertise break the Barbarian?



Asbestos
2009-10-19, 12:33 AM
Does anyone else feel that giving the barbarian better AC than the rogue, in addition to its absurd HP, sort of breaks the whole 'Brute' concept that the Barb (and many Primal classes) had?

Doesn't it also re-break the Battle Rage Vigor fighter a little? I mean, why wouldn't you MC into some primal class, take that feat, and then just run around in Hide armor?

Sorry, but I took a little (three months?) break from D&D and I'm not sure I'm liking what I'm seeing waiting for me.

Sir Homeslice
2009-10-19, 03:53 AM
What brute concept? Everyone took Chain/Scale and sometimes Plate anyways, since you needed it for an AC that can be called decent without causing people to die of laughter.

With Hide Expertise, this means the Barbarian gets 1/2 more feats freed up. I don't see the problem with this at all, though I suppose it doesn't work with Thaneborn, but lol thaneborn.

Tengu_temp
2009-10-19, 04:55 AM
Better AC than rogue is not really an accomplishment in 4e. Rogues are squishy.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-19, 08:59 AM
Does anyone else feel that giving the barbarian better AC than the rogue, in addition to its absurd HP, sort of breaks the whole 'Brute' concept that the Barb (and many Primal classes) had?

...no. It's only 5% over leather armor, anyway.

Ent
2009-10-19, 09:20 AM
Does anyone else feel that giving the barbarian better AC than the rogue, in addition to its absurd HP, sort of breaks the whole 'Brute' concept that the Barb (and many Primal classes) had?

Nah. The rumored Con to AC feat in Primal Power might though.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 09:25 AM
Nah. The rumored Con to AC feat in Primal Power might though.

It'll probably be like the Druid's class feature, limiting it to light armor only and in place of Dex/Int.

Xallace
2009-10-19, 09:29 AM
Nah. The rumored Con to AC feat in Primal Power might though.

I thought Hide Armor Expertise was the rumored Con to AC feat.

nightwyrm
2009-10-19, 11:57 AM
Hide armor expertise just replaces the Int/Dex bonus to AC with Con. It's not a simple addition. And you need to be primal and only works for hide armor.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 12:00 PM
Hide armor expertise just replaces the Int/Dex bonus to AC with Con. It's not a simple addition. And you need to be primal and only works for hide armor.

There we go. They're just boosting the weakest armor type a little by making it a viable option (if a bit more expensive in resources).

hamishspence
2009-10-19, 12:03 PM
So, it basically adds the Earthstrength Warden feature (Con instead of Dex/Int, non-heavy armour only) as an option for other classes?

Kylarra
2009-10-19, 12:07 PM
Guardian druids also had this option, so it's only enabling barbs really.

nightwyrm
2009-10-19, 12:20 PM
Guardian druids also had this option, so it's only enabling barbs really.

Or a con based shaman... or some other class that multiclass into a primal class. But I can really only think of the fighter that's gonna have the con for it.

Mercenary Pen
2009-10-19, 12:30 PM
Or a con based shaman... or some other class that multiclass into a primal class. But I can really only think of the fighter that's gonna have the con for it.

Possibly warlocks multi-classing to Primal?

nightwyrm
2009-10-19, 12:33 PM
Possibly warlocks multi-classing to Primal?

That's a good one too. Forgot about them.

Kylarra
2009-10-19, 12:38 PM
Or a con based shaman... or some other class that multiclass into a primal class. But I can really only think of the fighter that's gonna have the con for it.I remain unconvinced. A fighter could spend two feats to gain access to this yes, but he'd need a +4 con to match what he's getting for free in scale, or spends 1 feat to get plate armor which means he needs a +5 con to match that in hide.


Possibly warlocks multi-classing to Primal?Not a bad bonus per-se, but then they're needing to boost a non crucial stat (STR) to 13 in order to take the MC and hide proficiency, so I'm not terribly concerned if they want to dump 3 feats into this. Keep in mind that warlocks also have intelligence as a secondary stat, so the bonus is still only a marginal increase overall, unless you're an infernal-lock in which case you might be okay since you don't have any CHA-dependant powers necessarily.

nightwyrm
2009-10-19, 12:43 PM
I remain unconvinced. A fighter could spend two feats to gain access to this yes, but he'd need a +4 con to match what he's getting for free in scale, or spends 1 feat to get plate armor which means he needs a +5 con to match that in hide.


Perhaps the battlerager then, or someone who was gonna take the barb multiclass feat anyways for the free +2 damage for an entire encounter once per day. But I'll stick with the point that this feat isn't anywhere near to being overpowered.

Kylarra
2009-10-19, 12:46 PM
Perhaps the battlerager then, or someone who was gonna take the barb multiclass feat anyways for the free +2 damage for an entire encounter once per day. But I'll stick with the point that this feat isn't anywhere near to being overpowered.Yeah I don't see it breaking the game. It's a nice option to be sure though.

Sipex
2009-10-19, 12:51 PM
Yeah, I really don't see this overpowering the barbarian, it would give them better AC but the warrior would still have marking capability, the rogue would still have good damage potential.

Really, this just allows for a Barbarian who can act as a secondary tank if need be.

Thajocoth
2009-10-19, 01:50 PM
From what I've seen, the Barbarian has the worst AC of all. Worse than Wizards. None of their primary or secondary stats add to AC, they're in light armor, and their class feature gives them a measly 1 to AC & Reflex (per tier), and they lose class features if they take a feat for chain. Getting an AC that's on par with everyone else is far from broken.

tcrudisi
2009-10-19, 01:52 PM
That depends on how you define "breaking the game." It's not an infinite damage combo ... but it does make the Rageblood Barbarian, with one feat, have equal/higher AC than defenders! Yes, that is very broken.

Ragebloods were balanced around the fact that they will either 1) spend several feats to raise their AC, which will inadvertantly lower their damage, or 2) have a low AC but do really darn good damage, but gain temp hp to keep themselves alive. The main system Barbarians were meant for is that -- high damage, high hit points, easy to hit.

Compare this to Leather Armor proficiency -- a feat considered to be incredibly good because it gives +2 AC for one feat. What does this give? Well, it gives most Ragebloods up to +7 or +8 to AC, possibly even +9 ... for one feat. Oh sure, I'm looking at epic levels, but even at level one that is a +3 or +4, which means that at level 1 this is still better than Leather Armor Proficiency in terms of the amount of AC given.

If you do not think that a Barbarian with defender-level AC, doing some of the best damage in the game, and gaining great amounts of temp hp is not broken ... then I really don't know what to say to convince you otherwise.

Maybe you are thinking, "Well, it just shores up a weakness." Well, that's true I suppose. Heck, I've got a Wizard that would like one feat to do Ranger-level damage, one feat to raise my Fort defense by 10, and one feat to give me the same hp as a Warden. That's all I want. All that does is shores up my weaknesses.

Weaknesses are something that classes have. If you take them away for one class but not the others, you end up with a class that is far more powerful than everyone else. I, personally, will not allow anyone to take that feat in the games I run. I really hope that WotC errata's that feat soon.


From what I've seen, the Barbarian has the worst AC of all. Worse than Wizards. None of their primary or secondary stats add to AC, they're in light armor, and their class feature gives them a measly 1 to AC & Reflex (per tier), and they lose class features if they take a feat for chain. Getting an AC that's on par with everyone else is far from broken.

It's not that they get AC on par with everyone else. I would be okay with a small increase for that -- but that they get AC on par with the highest AC people in the game (yes, better/equal to Fighters and Swordmages).

Thajocoth
2009-10-19, 02:47 PM
It's not that they get AC on par with everyone else. I would be okay with a small increase for that -- but that they get AC on par with the highest AC people in the game (yes, better/equal to Fighters and Swordmages).

Defenders get about 18-20 AC at level 1. This brings barbarians from 14-15 AC at level 1 to the 16-17 range. And it costs a feat... Comparing to other melee striker classes, a rogue would have about 16-17, An Avenger 15-16, An assassin 16-18, and a Monk 16-17. This feat allows a barbarian to reach just below defenders, but spends a valuable feat to do so. I still say it makes them "on par".

Above assumes 18-20 in primary stat, 14-16 in secondary stat, 10-12 in dex or int if neither are either primary or secondary, no other feats, no magic, and some variation of deciding to use a shield or not for classes who can by default. I know this set of assumptions can result in a Swordmage with 17AC, which is below my range listed for defenders and that a Fighter can drop as low as 16 if they go with BRV, a 2-handed weapon, and take chainmail for the damage bonus... But those are more cases of defenders dropping to striker AC, not vice versa (imo).

DSCrankshaw
2009-10-19, 02:50 PM
Has anyone actually seen this feat yet? If we only have the summary, it's possible that there are some limitations we're not aware of yet.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-19, 03:01 PM
I'd like to see the details, but while it annoys me (it's along the same lines as the Expertise feats :smallannoyed:) it's not going to break anything.

First of all, it is important to remember that +AC is not +Reflex. Anyone with Reflex-based attacks is going to pwn a Barbarian with "CON to AC." Additionally, even Goliath Barbarians need to spend a lot of BP to get what the Rogue or Wizard already has - +Attack and +AC.

Secondly, Barbarians still will not be using shields. Shields are incredible, and should keep classes that can use them well ahead defensively.

My one concern is other classes going MC Barbarian - particularly for CON-based classes (Infernal Warlock anyone?). Still, it is two feats (and closing off of multiclassing for other classes) and if it has a detail like "and cannot use a shield" then that basically takes care of any other concerns.

And, while I like baseless speculation as much as the next guy, can anyone either throw up a link or give a summary of what's going on?

tcrudisi
2009-10-19, 03:05 PM
Barbarians are contenders for being the best strikers in the game. Even without the two obviously broken multiattack powers, they still outdamage most of the other strikers. On top of that, Barbs have features to compensate for not having a secondary stat to AC. The Rageblood class feature was designed specifically to increase their endurance, offering a healthy amount of temp HP per kill. If that wasn't enough, Barbs get a nice AC bonus that scales per tier. If you're still not convinced, Barbs ALSO get defender levels of HP. That seems likely plenty to compensate for only moderately lower AC.

How many people were crying that Barbarians were underpowered to begin with? I doubt that anyone was. This just makes them even better. Con Barbs were already close to being broken -- now they absolutely are.

A defender that does more damage per round than a striker is bad; so is a striker that is tougher than a defender. It is really sad when you should target the shield wearing Paladin instead of the Barbarian because the Pally is easier to hit and has less hp.

The problem occurs, not really at level 1, but as you level. The Barbarians class feature for +AC scales, as does the +Con to AC feat. I remember reading for an optimizer about how he compared his Barbarian at level 14 to his Swordmage at level 14. The difference? The shielding SM had 1 more point of AC. The Barbarian had more hp, could get temp hp more easily, and does far more damage. Of course, the Barbarian is supposed to do more damage, so that hardly counts. But the point is that the SM is supposed to be tougher -- and the Barbarian clearly is the tougher of the two.

Use the Con18 build (there are a lot of other benefits) and you have AC, Reflex bonus like Scale + Shield at Paragon, Plate + Shield at Epic. You can then still take the +2 AC feat to even beat Plate + Shield + Plate spec by 1 AC. This without a check or movement penalty. So if this feat is not OP then please tell me, why are the heavy armor guys the soft targets now?

*edit* I would like to give credit to all the number-crunching geniuses over at the wizards 4e charop boards for this post.

tcrudisi
2009-10-19, 03:14 PM
First of all, it is important to remember that +AC is not +Reflex. Anyone with Reflex-based attacks is going to pwn a Barbarian with "CON to AC."

And, while I like baseless speculation as much as the next guy, can anyone either throw up a link or give a summary of what's going on?

First, that argument is horrible. "You can still target his Ref or Will!" does not mean that it's not overpowered (double negatives ftl). If I take a hypothetical feat, "Pun-Pun: you now do infinite damage with every hit, always hit, and can not be hit by close, ranged, or melee attacks, and can not be hit by any power that targets AC, Fort, or Ref. Furthermore, your Will defense drops to 0, permanently, and can not be increased above this." This feat is perfectly balanced; you can still attack Will with area attacks! The fact that it takes a sub-optimal stat (compared to all classes) and increases it on par with defenders (who should have the highest AC) is what makes this OP. It takes a weakness and turns it into a strength. I can't think of another feat which single-handedly does that.

Second, the link you should read: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20744541/Primal_Power_Feats_New_AC_options_for_Con_Builds?n um=10&pg=1 That is for the Wizards 4e CharOp boards where they were discussing this and throwing around the numbers.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-19, 03:24 PM
Use the Con18 build (there are a lot of other benefits) and you have AC, Reflex bonus like Scale + Shield at Paragon, Plate + Shield at Epic. You can then still take the +2 AC feat to even beat Plate + Shield + Plate spec by 1 AC. This without a check or movement penalty. So if this feat is not OP then please tell me, why are the heavy armor guys the soft targets now?

*edit* I would like to give credit to all the number-crunching geniuses over at the wizards 4e charop boards for this post.
So, at LV 1 you have a CON 18? What's your STR? :smallconfused:

Assuming that we're using a 25 point build and a +STR/CON race, that's still going to be 18 points. Since we'll be dumping INT/DEX, that'll give us one 14 for our other NADs. So let's go like this:

DEX 12, WIS 14, INT 8, CHA 10

Which means we have Will 12 and Reflex 12. Pretty terrible. At least your AC is 19 and Fort is 16. Oh, and Initiative +1.

Now take a Fighter (Sword & Board) and we'll use Scale & Light Shield to keep the Armor Checks the same. We'll use the same Race, but this time we'll spread the points around a bit more.

STR 16+2, CON 12+2, DEX 14, INT 12, WIS 14, CHA 10

This gives us AC 18, Fort 14, Reflex 13, Will 12 and +2 Initiative. And we still have a Feat to spend. Heck, if I wanted to I could drop INT to 8 and use those 4 extra points to get WIS 16 and therefore Will 13.

And that spare Feat can get me Plate Armor (+8 AC) if I want to go 2-Weapon. Sure my Reflex would drop 1 but defensively, I'm still way ahead of our theoretical Barbarian.

Perhaps my math is wrong. Could someone please link to the uber-Barbarian thread on CharOp?

EDIT:
Thanks for the link. I question your response to my post though - isn't the argument that this Feat gives the Barbarian better defenses than Defenders? If so, surely NADs are relevant to the argument, no?

Also: Martial Training for another Stat Substitution Feat. No, not as good, but an example.

Oh, and I forgot the inherent +1 to AC/Reflex. Added it in.

Kylarra
2009-10-19, 03:29 PM
Barbarian gets +1 reflex in addition to +1 ac from their agility ability, so that's 12 reflex putting it comparatively at

Barbarian
AC 18, Fort 16, Reflex 12, Will 12 and +1 Initiative

vs

Fighter
AC 18, Fort 14, Reflex 13, Will 12 and +2 Initiative

tcrudisi
2009-10-19, 03:36 PM
So, at LV 1 you have a CON 18? What's your STR? :smallconfused:

EDIT:
Thanks for the link. I question your response to my post though - isn't the argument that this Feat gives the Barbarian better defenses than Defenders? If so, surely NADs are relevant to the argument, no?

The "optimal" stat array for Rageblood Barbarians is Str 18 and Con 18. A couple of their powers give extra attacks based on Con mod, so it means that Con is equally as important.

No, NADs are not really relevant, just as damage output is not relevant. The feat increases AC and nothing else. But the problem is that it does it so well that Barbarians eventually match a defenders AC. At level 1, it helps a little more than Chainmail, though not much. By paragon, they've pretty much tied a defenders AC. That's a huge bonus, for one feat, for a class that was designed to have low AC.

Barbarians were given Barbarian Agility to help mitigate their stat selection. They get +1 AC and Reflex per tier already, to help make up for their woeful defenses. Heck, by paragon level, they effectively get a heavy shield for free (+2 AC and Reflex). By epic, it's better than a heavy shield. But the Rageblood was not designed to have Con to AC. It puts them on par with other strikers at level 1 and on par with defenders AC at paragon level. For a feat, that is a really, really good deal. Too good.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-19, 03:46 PM
So, I just finished the thread, and it hardly seems like "OMG H4X" is the consensus here.

Many say it is a powerful feat (and I'll agree with them) but it is by no means overwhelming or game-breaking. Indeed, it is matched by the already existing Avenger Build.

Now, I'm not thrilled about this Feat from a design standpoint (StatSub Feats are bad, m'kay) nor (as a Thaneborn player) do I feel like Ragebloods need the extra help. Still, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, because AC is not everything (or even most things, looking at the MM).

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-19, 04:12 PM
So, I just finished the thread, and it hardly seems like "OMG H4X" is the consensus here.

Many say it is a powerful feat (and I'll agree with them) but it is by no means overwhelming or game-breaking. Indeed, it is matched by the already existing Avenger Build.

Now, I'm not thrilled about this Feat from a design standpoint (StatSub Feats are bad, m'kay) nor (as a Thaneborn player) do I feel like Ragebloods need the extra help. Still, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, because AC is not everything (or even most things, looking at the MM).

I have a high con barbarian character myself.

Not interested in taking the feat, really. I'm not playing him so that other people can't hit him. If I want to avoid being hit, I'll fight next to our defender. Problem solved.

RESUME SMASHING.

nightwyrm
2009-10-19, 04:14 PM
Has anyone actually seen this feat yet? If we only have the summary, it's possible that there are some limitations we're not aware of yet.

I have the book (Chapters pre-order, yay). Anyways, it's pretty much how I described it. I'm leary of actually posting the feat word for word in case I may be breaking some rules.

You need to be primal, prof in hide and have 15 con. When wearing hide armor it allows you to use Con for AC instead of Int/Dex.

Artanis
2009-10-19, 04:23 PM
I see a lot of comments about Barbarians wearing chainmail already. Well, chainmail proficiency is basically, "Spend a feat to get +X AC". Hide Specialization is basically, "Spend a feat to get +Y AC". So while this feat undoubtedly gives a hide-wearing Barbarian more AC, how does X stack up to Y? That is, if you're already spending a feat to add AC, how does spending it on Hide Expertise stack up to spending the feat on Chainmail Proficiency?


I'd post the numbers I've come up with, but I have the optimization skills of a house plant, and as such would like to see what others here come up with for that comparison. I also want to see what else I've missed, like some feature or power that relies on light armor but is unrelated to AC.

Kylarra
2009-10-19, 04:27 PM
I see a lot of comments about Barbarians wearing chainmail already. Well, chainmail proficiency is basically, "Spend a feat to get +X AC". Hide Specialization is basically, "Spend a feat to get +Y AC". So while this feat undoubtedly gives a hide-wearing Barbarian more AC, how does X stack up to Y? That is, if you're already spending a feat to add AC, how does spending it on Hide Expertise stack up to spending the feat on Chainmail Proficiency?


I'd post the numbers I've come up with, but I have the optimization skills of a house plant, and as such would like to see what others here come up with for that comparison.Assuming 12 dex and the 18/18 setup earlier

chainmail would give you 16AC 10+6
this feat would give you 18 AC 10+3 armor+4 con+1 agility

normal obviously leaves you at 15

so it's a pretty significant boost in AC. Obviously this is rather specific to rageblood barbarians, but eh whatever.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-19, 04:28 PM
I see a lot of comments about Barbarians wearing chainmail already. Well, chainmail proficiency is basically, "Spend a feat to get +X AC". Hide Specialization is basically, "Spend a feat to get +Y AC". So while this feat undoubtedly gives a hide-wearing Barbarian more AC, how does X stack up to Y? That is, if you're already spending a feat to add AC, how does spending it on Hide Expertise stack up to spending the feat on Chainmail Proficiency?
This is actually dealt with over at the CharOp thread. Basically this blows chainmail out of the water - at higher levels.

Conclusion from a number-heavy post:

Now there are several builds which are at defender level AC (+17) and one more that beats it (the int warlock at +18). However, with the exception of the avenger and the hide armor expertise barbarian, all of them spend at least one more feat than a paladin or a warden does to get that high, and with the further exception of the int warlock and the non-swarm druid all of them spend at least 2 more feats than a paladin or warden to get that high. There are more aspects to defending than having a high AC, and there are plenty of feats for paladins to pick up that boost those other aspects of the role despite only being able to take one feat that actually boosts their AC. In contrast, non-defender classes that take feats to get above AC-2 of the defender are actually choosing feats which go against the intent of their role (since as you said, there's little reason for a marked target to attack someone other than the defender unless their AC is at least 3 lower).

The only two classes which can cheaply boost their AC as high as a defender are the avenger and the barbarian. Now you might feel this is a problem for the avenger too; I don't feel this is the case because they do significantly less damage than a rageblood and they are forced to target the same foe until it is dead, which means they are much more likely to become separated from the defender and/or stuck within the enemy scrum. Either way though, that's a separate argument from whether it is OK for a barbarian to be able to attain AC that high; they are already among the highest damaging strikers and have excellent longevity thanks to their high number of surges. This extra AC boost just isn't necessary and makes an already powerful build too good.
Basically, the main concern is that Ragebloods are already good, and this feat just makes them better.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-10-19, 04:31 PM
From what I've seen, the Barbarian has the worst AC of all. Worse than Wizards. None of their primary or secondary stats add to AC, they're in light armor, and their class feature gives them a measly 1 to AC & Reflex (per tier), and they lose class features if they take a feat for chain. Getting an AC that's on par with everyone else is far from broken.

Worse than wizards? All the wizards I've ever made had comparable Ac a sword 'n' board fighter. Staff of defense + defensive staff + staff fighting + high int + leather armor. If you pull out all the stops, you can even have an AC 27 wizard at level 6 (though this would eat 5 feats, making it not worth it at all). In my experience, its warlocks who have the worst AC in 4e. Laser clerics and rogues are pretty bad though. The best seems to be plate+shield guys (especially with agile armor), swordmages and avengers.

Yakk
2009-10-19, 04:34 PM
Thaneblood just needs "Styling Leathers" feat; while wearing Leather, you can substitute Cha for Int/Dex to AC!

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-19, 04:36 PM
Thaneblood just needs "Styling Leathers" feat; while wearing Leather, you can substitute Cha for Int/Dex to AC!

But only while carrying a light load, wearing a moustache and at least one tattoo per tier. Sunglasses optional.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-19, 04:37 PM
Thaneblood just needs "Styling Leathers" feat; while wearing Leather, you can substitute Cha for Int/Dex to AC!
Requirement: Female Only :smallbiggrin:

Artanis
2009-10-19, 04:48 PM
*helpful things*


*more helpful things*

Thank you, this was exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for :smallsmile:

Shardan
2009-10-19, 08:32 PM
I don't think its broken. I think its strong though.

Barbarians and shaman are really the only ones it would be useful for, though.

Or Multiclassing and spending 2 feats for the AC.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-10-19, 09:05 PM
But only while carrying a light load, wearing a moustache and at least one tattoo per tier. Sunglasses optional.

http://kataix.umag.cl/wiki/images/b/b1/Judas_Priest.jpg

Asbestos
2009-10-20, 01:18 AM
I think it shows a trend going on, or rather one that has been going on. 'X class sucks at Y compared to Z class so lets just make a feat that lets it do Y just as well' What, did some designer feel that his rageblood barbarian with a million HP was getting hit too much? They might as well come out with 'AC Training: Like Melee Training, but for your armor class!'

I'm a fan of 4e, but I fear that in another year, it may very well be a little bit more like something the anti-4e crowd says it is.

Mystic Muse
2009-10-20, 01:30 AM
wait it's 25 point buy? I thought it was 22.:smallconfused:

I kind of wish I had my 4th edition PHB right now.

Thajocoth
2009-10-20, 02:28 AM
wait it's 25 point buy? I thought it was 22.:smallconfused:

I kind of wish I had my 4th edition PHB right now.

22 is the standard.

With 25, you'd be able to get a 20 in your primary stat and an 18 in your secondary... Or 2 18s and a 15...

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-20, 02:59 PM
22 is the standard.

With 25, you'd be able to get a 20 in your primary stat and an 18 in your secondary... Or 2 18s and a 15...
Man, I am not big on the accuracy for this thread :smallredface:

Blackfang108
2009-10-20, 03:23 PM
Man, I am not big on the accuracy for this thread :smallredface:

*uses Divine Guidance on Oracle Hunter*

There, now try it. :smallbiggrin:

Asbestos
2009-10-20, 03:25 PM
Secondly, Barbarians still will not be using shields. Shields are incredible, and should keep classes that can use them well ahead defensively.

Since there are currently two (and probably more I'd imagine in Primal Power) Barbarian at-wills that do NOT require a two-handed weapon I don't see why, other than needing to spend the feats, a Barbarian can't also use a shield.

Thajocoth
2009-10-20, 08:01 PM
Since there are currently two (and probably more I'd imagine in Primal Power) Barbarian at-wills that do NOT require a two-handed weapon I don't see why, other than needing to spend the feats, a Barbarian can't also use a shield.

A barbarian with a shield ceases to be a striker... And they don't become another role. "Taste my 1d8 longsword!"... No... They need big weapons that have large damage dice. It's what they do...

Asbestos
2009-10-20, 08:52 PM
A barbarian with a shield ceases to be a striker... And they don't become another role. "Taste my 1d8 longsword!"... No... They need big weapons that have large damage dice. It's what they do...
Presumably they'd pick up a Waraxe, Bastard Sword, or Craghammer. Any sword and board type is going to do less damage than someone using a two-handed weapon but I think they'd still certainly be strikers. They'd be strikers with armor comparable to defenders too.

Thajocoth
2009-10-21, 12:51 AM
Presumably they'd pick up a Waraxe, Bastard Sword, or Craghammer. Any sword and board type is going to do less damage than someone using a two-handed weapon but I think they'd still certainly be strikers. They'd be strikers with armor comparable to defenders too.

Their damage would be comparable to a Ranger who fights in melee with only one weapon (ignoring their second attack) and always forgets to quarry.

Yakk
2009-10-21, 09:59 AM
Their damage would be comparable to a Ranger who fights in melee with only one weapon (ignoring their second attack) and always forgets to quarry.
Barbarian powers tend to do more damage than other class powers.

Their at-wills, for example, have extra damage dice riders. And under rages, they get another boost. Plus they keep their 'on a crit, get an extra attack', and 'when you down an opponent, get an extra charge' features.

Asbestos
2009-10-21, 12:39 PM
Their damage would be comparable to a Ranger who fights in melee with only one weapon (ignoring their second attack) and always forgets to quarry.

Yeah, the 'striker bonus' (quarry in the case of the ranger) is built into Barbarian at-wills either as they are, when raging, or when something else sets it off. Also, they definitely do more damage. A high-AC Rageblood Barb (one with a shield + HAE) could use Avalanche Strike with impunity. Even with a 1d10 weapon... they'd still probably be doing more damage than any other striker with a level 1 encounter power.

Thajocoth
2009-10-21, 12:46 PM
Barbarian powers tend to do more damage than other class powers.

Their at-wills, for example, have extra damage dice riders. And under rages, they get another boost. Plus they keep their 'on a crit, get an extra attack', and 'when you down an opponent, get an extra charge' features.

Howling Strike adds a d6. A Ranger with 2 weapons would add at minimum a d8 (Longsword) or at max a d12 (Waraxe [feat required]) Maybe the miss chance balances that a little... But then there's also Quarry dice. The Barbarian is not matching that with a single weapon.

Howling Strike 1H weapon + Shield vs Twin Strike

Level 1: One feat each: (1d8 + 1d6 + 4-5 + 1AC/Reflex) vs (1d12 + 1d12 + 1d6)
Average 12-13 vs 16.5

Level 2: Two feats each: ((1d12 + 1d6 + 4-5 + 1AC/Reflex) OR (1d8 + 1d6 + 2AC/Reflex)) vs (1d12 + 1d12 + 1d8)
Average 14-15 OR 12-13 vs 17.5

Level 4: Three feats each: (1d12 + 1d6 + 4-5 + 2AC/Reflex) vs (1d12 + 1d12 + 1d8 + 2)
Average 14-15 vs 19.5

(Ranger 4th feat: (1d12 + 1d12 + 1d8 + 2 + 2) Average: 21.5)

Deft Strike:
One feat: 1d4 + 2d8 + 4-5 + 0-3 (Average 15.5-19.5)
Two feats: 1d4 + 2d8 + 4-5 + 0-3 + 1 (Average 16.5-20.5)

Howling Strike (2H weapon):
One feat: 1d12 Brutal 2 + 1d6 + 4-5 (Average 15-16)
Two feats: 1d12 Brutal 2 + 1d6 + 4-5 + 1 (Average 16-17)