PDA

View Full Version : 4e Barbarian's Up



Pages : [1] 2

BardicDuelist
2008-10-06, 12:12 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20081006

The 4e Playtest version of the Barbarian was just released. It's a Primal Striker with the HP and surges of a defender. It looks like it could be a solid defender if you gave it the armor prof. feats, actually.

Anyway, there it is for those of you who care.

skywalker
2008-10-06, 12:28 AM
There is no RPG but D&D, and BardicDuelist is its prophet...

:smallbiggrin:

I'm bad at powers, but my thoughts on stuff other than that:
-No ranged proficiency at all. Really? That could really suck...
-Charisma is important. I didn't expect this.
-Looks like if you play them straight, DEX is going to be another important attribute. Since INT isn't going to be, and there is no heavy armor prof...
-There are going to be half-orcs! And they'll be a player race, not in the back of the MM.
-These things are going to be doing scads of damage. Get a free attack for multiple [W]s of damage, when you're probably using a maul/mordenkrad/otherwise high damage weapon=Big time damage.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-06, 12:31 AM
Mmm, me likey.

3[W] as a 1st level Encounter Power is very, very strong for its level, but I think it's probably in line with the other strikers.

And hopefully the Rage mechanic will win over those fellows who complain about the "vanilla mechanics" of 4e :smalltongue:

I think Final Confrontation may be my favorite power in all of 4e. How can you not feel Epic when you turn it on :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:
@Skywalker
The CHA thing makes sense for the "kill you with awesome" sort of stuff you'd expect Conan to do - but not on this variant, apparently. I'm sure most of the Primal Sources use CHA in some fashion.

As for AC, I'd prefer Barbarians to not have much in the way of armor, but they don't appear to have any restriction (in class) to keep them from Feating all the way up to Plate (and Heavy Shield, really). I expect they'll probably put a "no heavy armor while raging" restriction at some point, like the weapon-restriction on Rogues.

Otherwise, a Plate Spec Barbarian would be the most frightening thing ever. :smalleek:

Jokes
2008-10-06, 01:05 AM
At least they learned from the Artificer playtest to include 3 at wills and a paragon class.


Goliaths are ideal rageblood barbarians...Half-orcs are often barbarians but don’t favor either of the two types.

A couple of new races?

I'm still looking over the powers, but so far looks to be a blast to play.

The New Bruceski
2008-10-06, 01:26 AM
Unfortunately, this means DDI will be going pay soon. They said it would be after the barbarian.

Dhavaer
2008-10-06, 01:32 AM
I like this. I've been waiting for a two-handed weapon using striker. Also, the lady on page 6 is gorgeous.

JackMage666
2008-10-06, 01:35 AM
I like I like I like I like.

Really, I wasn't sure how they were going to pull this off, but wow. I like it.

I love how the rages last until the end of the encounter. There's so much potential in that.

Also, they're awesome strikers, because they're not helpless when surrounded. Yes, their primary goal is to kill one specific enemy, but it Minions surround a barbarian, they're going to have a tough time living.

And, yes, damage is high, but take into account they don't have any Striker damage bonus (sneak attack, hunter's quarry, ect.), and it's pretty well set.

Eldmor
2008-10-06, 01:38 AM
Mr. Great Weapon Fighter, I'd like to introduce you to Miss Barbarian. I'm sure you two will compliment each other and be multiclassing in the near future.
I really like how they handled Rage as a mechanic you can repeatedly go in over the day or blow it all in a fit of HULK SMASH! Frenzied Berserker kept all the nice features without the need of a Grease spell to prevent a self-TPK.
That dwarf on pg4 isn't bleeding, he's oozing liquid bad-assery.

RTGoodman
2008-10-06, 01:42 AM
Dear gods, it might be a couple of weeks late but this is the best birthday present I've gotten this year! (Well, maybe not, since I haven't actually READ the article yet, but I'm VERY excited for the return of Barbarians, Half-Orcs, and Goliaths, three of my favorite things about 3.x.)

EDIT, now that I've read the article:

I do like the looks of it, but I don't think the Rageblood build will be the cooler of the two, and I think the Thaneborn will probably be my personal preference.



I think Final Confrontation may be my favorite power in all of 4e. How can you not feel Epic when you turn it on :smallbiggrin:

I agree. And one thing I noticed is that there's an abundance of melee basic attack-granting powers and such, and that really makes the various at-wills that can be used for them look like fun.

Also, Thunderhawk Rage seems really good to me - it lets you knock down opponents around you as FREE action at the beginning of your turn with no chance to avoid it, and there's a LOT of things you can do to prone targets (e.g., powers that do more damage against prone targets like Oak Hammer Rage, I think it grants CA so you could use sneak attack against them if you're a multiclass Barb/Rogue, etc.). EDIT2: I just noticed Thunderhawk Rage is a daily power, not an encounter power, so I guess it's not as strong as I thought, but it's definitely still pretty good.

Crow
2008-10-06, 01:45 AM
It's pretty meh to me. I don't know what I was expecting, but this just strikes me as more of the same. Maybe it's because there isn't that much material for it yet.

JaxGaret
2008-10-06, 06:22 AM
All I have to say is wow. And I want to play one.

I'm really surprised at how big of a smile it put on my face just to read the class entry, tbh. I usually derive much more enjoyment from the actual play experience in 4e.

BobVosh
2008-10-06, 06:27 AM
but I'm VERY excited for the return of Barbarians, Half-Orcs, and Goliaths, three of my favorite things about 3.x.)

These are a few of my favorite things!
when the bee stings...er, sorry

*will edit when the link actually loads* :smallmad:

Starbuck_II
2008-10-06, 07:06 AM
These are a few of my favorite things!
when the bee stings...er, sorry

*will edit when the link actually loads* :smallmad:

When a dog bites, when I'm feeling sad?


Compared to my Barbarian:
They gave it less healing surges/starting HPs: 15 + Con and 8 + con surges.
Mine was 18+ con and 10 + con surges.
Same defense bonus.
I gave free chain and light shield, but they didn't.


They changed Rage: While in 3rd edition it worked regardless of being conscious: in 4th now it stops working if hit 0.

Anyone know if Rage Power expending is almost similar to Pathfinder's Rage points, but maybe be more awesome depending on how it is done.

I love the at wills: they unique.
At first I thought Pressing Strike was like the Ranger's move 2 squares on, but it isn't.

Avalanche Strike is 3[W] as a 1st level encounter (sure you lose defenses but eh).

Frenzied Berseker is back? No more party killin' Yay!
Anyone read this:
* We are currently in free trial mode, and you can check out D&D Insider content as a free action. The free trial period ends this month (exact date to be announced).

RebelRogue
2008-10-06, 07:09 AM
Oooh! Shiny! I'm happy with my current Elf Cleric and all, but now I really want to try one of these out!

BTW: am I the only one who loves that Primal Powers are called "Evocations"?

RebelRogue
2008-10-06, 09:02 AM
Hmm, after reading a little closer, I fail to see how you could ever use the Rage Strike Power before level 5 (since you need to expend a Rage power while already raging). Am I misunderstanding something?

Person_Man
2008-10-06, 09:03 AM
Can someone Spoiler it for those of us who have WotC blocked at work?

Kurald Galain
2008-10-06, 09:09 AM
Hmm, after reading a little closer, I fail to see how you could ever use the Rage Strike Power before level 5 (since you need to expend a Rage power while already raging). Am I misunderstanding something?

I came to the same conclusion.

Furthermore, the rage strike either uses up one of your highest-level dailies, or it doesn't really deal all that much damage compared to your own power. For instance, if you're paragon level, you can give up your level-1 daily for a 3[W] attack, which isn't seem all that impressive. On the other hand, you could give up your level-29 daily for a 9[W] strike which sounds impressive, until you compare it with what the level-29 normally does (e.g. 6[W]+10 ongoing+secondary effect).

The ability appears to be sub-par and doesn't really do what it intends to do.

(edit) unless combo'ed with anything that lets you recover high-level daily powers.

Charity
2008-10-06, 09:09 AM
Can someone Spoiler it for those of us who have WotC blocked at work?

It may be a bit ugly...


October 2008 | Draragon 368
TM & © 2008 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All rights reserved.
“MY strength is the fury of the wild.”

Class Traits
Role: Striker. You use powerful two-handed
weapons to deal serious damage to your enemies. Your physical power and daunting presence can cause foes to cower before you, and you can temporarily increase your abilities by harnessing great bursts of terrifying rage. Depending on your choice of class features
and powers, you lean toward either defender or leader as a secondary role.

Power Source: Primal. You are a primal champion, a warrior devoted to the natural world and an embodiment of your tribe’s fierce traditions.
Key Abilities: Strength, Constitution, Charisma
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee
Bonus to Defense: +2 Fortitude

Hit Points at 1st Level: 15 + Constitution score
Hit Points per Level Gained: 6
Healing Surges per Day: 8 + Constitution modifier
Trained Skills: From the class skills list below, choose three trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Nature (Wis), Perception (Wis)
Class Features: Feral Might, Rage, Rampage

Barbarians are savage warriors who deal out
powerful blows from their mighty weapons.
They charge from foe to foe and seldom feel the pain of an enemy’s strike. For barbarians’ foes, the moments of greatest terror come when barbarians call upon primal forces to lend power to their raging spirits. These rages, although temporary, give a barbarian incredible powers, a combination of skill, willpower, and a legacy of ancient tribal rituals.

As a barbarian, you possess a link to powerful nature spirits and other primal forces bound to the warriors of your tribe by the songs and totems of your legacy. These spirits lend great power to your rages, transforming you into a devastating force on the battlefield while you wield them. As you increase in power, these rages transcend mortal limitations, manifesting directly as waves of elemental power or gifting you with supernatural recuperative powers.

When the heat of battle is upon you, how will you respond? With a sudden charge that fells with one mighty swing of your weapon, or with a
prolonged rage that leaves destroyed foes in your wake?

Barbarian Overerview Characteristics: You combine powerful melee attacks with an excellent ability to absorb damage. You gain tremendous bursts of power through mighty rages.

Religion: Most barbarians revere the primal spirits
of the natural world rather than calling on the gods of the Astral Sea. Some barbarians don’t see conflict between the gods and the primal spirits and therefore honor deities of nature or warfare in addition to the primal spirits. These barbarians often revere Kord, Melora, Avandra, or the Raven Queen. Evil or chaotic evil barbarians turn to Gruumsh or, more rarely, Bane or Zehir.

Races: Goliaths are ideal rageblood barbarians.
Dragonborn make excellent thaneborn barbarians. Half-orcs are often barbarians but don’t favor either of the two types. Dwarf and shifter barbarians tend to be rageblood barbarians, while halfling and half-elf
barbarians choose the thaneborn path.

Barbarian Class Features
Barbarians have unusually high hit points for their role, making them more durable than other strikers. In addition, barbarians have three class features.

Feral Might
Barbarians connect with the natural world in a
variety of ways. Some barbarians grow so hardened to physical punishment that they find it easier to simply absorb, rather than avoid, attacks. Others are living examples of the power of one’s will to shape one’s fate.
This preview presents the Rageblood Vigor option, which provides bonuses to certain barbarian powers, as detailed in those powers.

Rageblood Vigor: You gain the swift charge power. In addition, whenever you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier. The number of temporary hit points equals 5 + your Constitution modifier at 11th level and 10 + your Constitution modifier at 21st level.

Rage
Your daily attack powers are known as rages, and they allow you to unleash powerful bursts of emotion, willpower, and primal energy. Each rage starts with a powerful attack and then grants an ongoing benefit until the rage ends.

Rage✦ Duration: Your rage lasts until you enter a new rage, until you drop to 0 hit points or fewer, or until the end of the encounter.
✦ Rage Strike: While raging, you gain access to the power rage strike, which allows you to channel one of your unused rages into a devastating attack.
✦ At-Will Attack Powers Enhanced: Your barbarian at-will attack powers gain additional benefits while you are raging. The benefits are detailed in those powers’ descriptions.

Rampage
Once per round, when you score a critical hit with a barbarian attack power, you can immediately make a melee basic attack as a free action. You do not have to attack the same target that you critically hit.

Creating a Barbarian
You can choose any barbarian powers you like for your character, though many barbarians favor one of two different builds: the rageblood barbarian and the thaneborn barbarian. All barbarians rely on Strength. Barbarians also benefit from a high Constitution or Charisma, depending on which expression of the class they favor. This preview presents the rageblood barbarian.

Rageblood Barbarian
You can withstand great deals of physical punishment, especially when in the throes of rage. At higher levels, your powers, particularly your rages, visibly manifest the spirits sacred to your tribe. Strength should be your highest ability score, since you use it for your attacks, but make Constitution a close second. Charisma might be your third-best score,especially if you want to use some powers designed for the thaneborn barbarian build. Choose the
Rageblood Vigor form of Feral Might. Rageblood barbarians lean toward defender as a secondary role.

Suggested Feat: Weapon Focus
Suggested Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Perception
Suggested At-Will Powers: howling strike, recuperating strike
Suggested Encounter Power: avalanche strike
Suggested Daily Power: bloodhunt rage

Barbarian Powers
Your powers are evocations of primal strength. At lower levels, your powers rely partly on martial skill and personal presence, but even at the start of your career, the primal spirits of the world infuse your body with vigor. At higher levels, the primal spirits flow more freely through you and your weapons, creating effects that are more obviously supernatural.

Class Features
All barbarians know rage strike, usable only during
a rage.

Rage Strike Barbarian Feature
You channel your primal rage into a devastating attack.

At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be raging and have at least
one unused rage power.
Target: One creature
Effect: Before the attack, you expend an unused rage power.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: You deal damage based on the level of the rage
power you expended:
1st level 3[W] + Strength modifier
5th level 4[W] + Strength modifier
9th level 5[W] + Strength modifier
15th level 6[W] + Strength modifier
19th level 7[W] + Strength modifier
25th level 8[W] + Strength modifier
29th level 9[W] + Strength modifier
Miss: Half damage.


Your Rageblood Vigor class feature grants you the swift charge power.

Swift Charge Barbarian Feature
As your foe falls, you rush toward your next victim.
Encounter ✦ Primal
Free Action Personal
Trigger: Your attack reduces an enemy to 0 hit points
Effect: You charge an enemy.

Level 1 Encounter Evocations

Avalanche Strike Barbarian Attack 1
You drop your guard and put all your strength into a devastating overhead swing.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Rageblood Vigor: The attack deals extra damage equal to your Constitution modifier.
Effect: Until the start of your next turn, any attacker gains
a + 4 bonus to attack rolls against you.

Great Cleave Barbarian Attack 1
The numbers arrayed against you mean nothing. You swing your weapon in a great arc, stopped by nothing so trivial as flesh and bone.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 1
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage + 1 damage for each enemy adjacent to you.

Level 1 Daily Evocations

Bloodhunt Rage Barbarian Attack 1
Your rage surges up from the depths of your pain to bring pain to the wounded.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the bloodhunt. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to melee damage rolls equal to your Constitution modifier if either you or your target is bloodied.

Level 1 At-Will Evocations

Howling Strike Barbarian Attack 1
With a blood-freezing scream, you throw yourself into the fray.
At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + 1d6 + Strength modifier damage.
Increase damage to 1[W] + 2d6 + Strength modifier at 11th level and to 2[W] + 3d6 + Strength modifier at 21st level.
Special: When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you do not provoke opportunity attacks for moving during the charge.

Pressing Strike Barbarian Attack 1
You push lesser foes from your path, moving through the lines of battle at will.
At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Effect: Before the attack, you shift 2 squares. You can move through an enemy’s space during the shift, but you can’t
end there.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square. If you are raging, the attack deals 1d6 extra damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.

Recuperating Strike Barbarian Attack 1
Nothing restores your will to fight more than slamming your weapon into a foe. Each crushing swing gives you more will to press on.
At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you gain
temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier.
If you are raging, you instead gain temporary hit points equal to 5 + your Constitution modifier.
Increase damage to 1[W] + 1d6 + Strength modifier at 11th level and to 2[W] + 2d6 + Strength modifier at 21st level.

Swift Panther Rage Barbarian Attack 1
You slash your foe with fury as the spirit of the swift panther grants you its speed and agility.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the swift panther. Until the rage ends, you gain a +2 bonus to speed and can shift 2 squares as a move action.

Level 2 Utility Evocations

Great Leap Barbarian Utility 2
With a surge of strength and will, you leap a great distance without a running start.
Encounter ✦ Primal
Move Action Personal
Prerequisite: You must be trained in Athletics.
Effect: You make an Athletics check to jump with a +5 power bonus. You are considered to have a running start and can move as far as the check allows.

Primal Vitality Barbarian Utility 2
Drawing strength from the ground beneath your feet, you push away the pain of minor wounds.
Daily ✦ Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You gain temporary hit points equal to one-half your level + your Constitution modifier. If you are raging, you instead gain temporary hit points equal to one-half your level + twice your Constitution modifier.

Level 3 Encounter Evocations

Blade Sweep Barbarian Attack 3
Though the fury of your attack is directed at a single foe,
no nearby enemy is spared your wrath.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and each bloodied enemy adjacent to you takes damage equal to your
Constitution modifier.
Rageblood Vigor: Each enemy adjacent to you, bloodied
or not, takes damage equal to your Constitution modifier.

Hammer Fall Barbarian Attack 3
You swing your weapon in a great underhand arc, and the impact lifts your target off its feet and sends it crashing to the ground.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock
the target prone.

Level 5 Daily Evocations

Frost Wolf Rage Barbarian Attack 5
Like the great spirit wolf whose breath is the cold north wind, you are wreathed in frost, chilling those who try to harm you.
Daily ✦ Cold, Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Effect: Before the attack, the target can make a melee basic attack against you as a free action. If it makes that attack, your attack deals 1[W] extra cold damage.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier cold damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the frost wolf. Until the rage ends, any enemy that hits you with a melee attack takes cold damage equal to 3 + your Constitution modifier.

Thunder Hawk Rage Barbarian Attack 5
Your thunderous attack dazes your foe as you channel the great spirit hawk whose wings rumble across the sky. Your screaming charge blasts your enemies with thunder.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Thunder, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier thunder damage, and the
target is dazed (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the thunder hawk. Until the rage ends, before you take any actions during each of your turns, you can knock an adjacent enemy prone as a free action.

Level 6 Utility Evocations

Inexorable Shift Barbarian Utility 6
You pound across the battlefield, leaving no opening as you move and drawing strength from the numbers arrayed against you.
Daily ✦ Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You shift a number of squares equal to your Constitution modifier. You then gain temporary hit points equal to 1d10 + 1 for each enemy within 2 squares of you.

Instinctive Charge Barbarian Utility 6
Instinctively aware of danger, you are poised to fight as soon as the battle begins.
Daily ✦ Primal
No Action Personal
Trigger: You roll initiative at the beginning of an encounter
Effect: You gain a +5 power bonus to your initiative.
You also gain a +2 power bonus to your first attack roll during the encounter.

Level 7 Encounter Evocations

Great Shout Barbarian Attack 7
You slam your weapon into a foe then give voice to the rage of your ancestors, cowing those who dare to stand against you.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and each enemy
within 5 squares of you takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.

Tide of Blood Barbarian Attack 7
Your rage sweeps over every nearby enemy, drawing blood to fuel the tide of your assault on one of them.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage. The attack deals 1 extra damage for each enemy adjacent to you.
Rageblood Vigor: The attack instead deals 1 extra damage for each enemy within a number of squares of you equal to your Constitution modifier.

Level 9 Daily Evocations

Oak Hammer Rage Barbarian Attack 9
The ancient spirit of the oak knocks your foe to the ground. As you rage, you knock foe after foe down to the earth, then strike them with the earth’s fury.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock the target prone.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the oak hammer. Until the rage ends, whenever you hit a target with a melee attack, you knock that target prone. If that target is already prone, the attack instead deals extra damage equal to your Constitution modifier.

Stone Bear Rage Barbarian Attack 9
The spirit of the stone bear that hunts at the mountains’ roots courses through you, and its fury blunts the pain of your wounds.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the stone bear. Until the rage ends, you gain resistance to all damage equal to 3 + your Constitution modifier.

Level 10 Utility Evocations

Mountain Roots Barbarian Utility 10
You sink your spirit into the earth to stand your ground.
Daily ✦ Primal, Stance
Immediate Interrupt Personal
Trigger: You are pulled, pushed, or slid
Effect: You negate the forced movement. Until the stance ends, you can negate forced movement against you.

Wellspring of Renewal Barbarian Utility 10
You draw on a fount of primal energy to renew your strength and your focus.
Encounter ✦ Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You gain temporary hit points equal to one-half your level + your Constitution modifier. In addition, if you are marked, that condition ends.

Level 13 Encounter Evocations

Blade Whirlwind Barbarian Attack 13
Driven by strength and will, your weapon sweeps in a mighty arc that cuts every foe around you and drives them back from your fury.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 1
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Rageblood Vigor: You push the target 1 square.

Crack the Skull Barbarian Attack 13
You slam your weapon against the skull of your foe, leaving
it disoriented.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is
dazed until the end of your next turn.

Level 15 Daily Evocations

Flameheart Rage Barbarian Attack 15
The spirit of the red dragon imbues your attack with fiery wrath, scorching your foe. As you rage, the fire of the dragon’s heart lashes out at those that strike you.
Daily ✦ Fire, Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 1
Targets: Each enemy in burst
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier fire damage, and ongoing 5
fire damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the red dragon. Until the rage ends, any creature that hits you with a melee attack takes fire damage equal to 5 + your Constitution modifier.

Thunderfury Rage Barbarian Attack 15
Charging at your foe and knocking it to the ground, you call on the spirit of the thunderfury boar to grant you health and strength in your rage.
Daily ✦ Healing, Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock
the target prone.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the thunderfury boar. Until the rage ends, whenever an enemy adjacent to you attacks you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate reaction.

Level 16 Utility Evocations

Great Stomp Barbarian Utility 16
As you slam your foot into the ground, primal energy pours through you, buckling the ground beneath you with its power.
Daily ✦ Primal
Minor Action Close burst 5
Effect: Each square in the burst becomes difficult terrain until the end of your next turn.

Spur the Cycle Barbarian Utility 16
Just as in the natural world, death leads to new life: killing your foe spurs you to further action.
Daily ✦ Primal
Free Action Personal
Trigger: You reduce an enemy to 0 hit points during your turn
Effect: You take a standard action.

Level 17 Encounter Evocations

Shoulder Slam Barbarian Attack 17
You lower your shoulder into your foes, driving them across the ground.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Primary Target: One creature
Primary Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the
target 1 square. You then shift 1 square and make a
secondary attack.
Secondary Target: One creature other than the primary target
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Special: When charging, you can use this power in place of
a melee basic attack. If you charge, you gain a bonus to the primary attack roll equal to your Constitution modifier.

Vigorous Strike Barbarian Attack 17
You strike your foe with a mighty assault that bolsters you against attacks.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you gain
temporary hit points equal to one-half your level.
Rageblood Vigor: You instead gain temporary hit points equal to one-half your level + your Constitution modifier.

Level 19 Daily Evocations

Storm Drake Rage Barbarian Attack 19
Lightning cascades around you and flows into your enemy. As you rage, lightning lashes out at any foe that strikes you, knocking it to the ground.
Daily ✦ Lightning, Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier lightning damage, and ongoing 10 lightning damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: Your manifest the rage of the storm drake. Until the rage ends, any enemy that hits you with a melee attack takes 5 lightning damage and is knocked prone.

Winter Phoenix Rage Barbarian Attack 19
Your blow erupts in grasping frost as the spirit of the winter phoenix enters you. As you rage, vitality surges through you to ward you from death.
Daily ✦ Cold, Healing, Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier cold damage, and ongoing 10 cold damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the winter phoenix. Until the rage ends, you gain regeneration 5 + your Constitution modifier. In addition, the first time you drop to 0 hit points or fewer, you can spend a healing surge as an immediate interrupt.

Level 22 Utility Evocations

Primal Instinct Barbarian Utility 22
You close your eyes and strike guided more by your instincts than by your senses.
Daily ✦ Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You gain blindsight 10 until the end of the encounter.
Untouched Barbarian Utility 22
Primal energy from the earth and the air courses through you, cleansing you from the dire effects of battle.
Daily ✦ Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You make a saving throw against each effect on you that a save can end. You gain a bonus to the saving throws equal to your Constitution modifier.

Level 23 Encounter Evocations

Crater Fall Barbarian Attack 23
You dip your weapon in a great underhand arc and then drive it up into your opponent, sending it flying back through the air.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 3 squares and knock it prone. This forced movement ignores hindering terrain, such as a pit, between the target’s starting square and its destination. If you push the target through squares occupied by other enemies, those enemies are knocked prone.
Special: When charging, you can use this power in place of
a melee basic attack. If you charge, you instead push the
target a number of squares equal to your Strength modifier.

Fatal Strike Barbarian Attack 23
Your powerful attack, like the coming of winter, puts an end
to growth and healing.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 4[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target cannot regain hit points until the start of your next turn.
Rageblood Vigor: The attack deals extra damage equal
to your Constitution modifier.

Level 25 Daily Evocations

Blood Hunger Rage Barbarian Attack 25
Your fierce attack leaves your target reeling. As you rage, the Primal Beast surges in your blood, drawing on the carnage around you to empower your attacks.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 7[W] + Strength modifier, and the target is dazed (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the blood hunger rage. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of bloodied creatures within 3 squares of you.

Stone Tempest Rage Barbarian Attack 25
Like the mighty storms that shake the earth, your attack
crashes into your foe and brings it to the ground. As you rage, your fury turns your attacks into devastating wounds.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Thunder, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 7[W] + Strength modifier thunder damage, and you knock the target prone.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: Your manifest the rage of the stone tempest. Until the rage ends, you can score a critical hit on a roll of 18–20.

Level 27 Encounter Evocations

Blood Frenzy Barbarian Attack 27
The blood of your foes fills you with a thirst for more violence.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC. You gain a +2 bonus to the attack
roll if the target is bloodied.
Hit: 5[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Rageblood Vigor: The bonus to attack rolls is equal to
your Constitution modifier.

Hurricane of Blades Barbarian Attack 27
You become a tempest of steel, ripping through your foes in
a horrific display of carnage.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One or more creatures
Attack: Strength vs. AC, six attacks
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage per attack.

Level 29 Daily Evocations

Rage of the Primal Beast Barbarian Attack 29
The Primal Beast awakens within you, and your attack leaves your foe bleeding. As you rage, you feed on the presence of your foes; overwhelming numbers only make you stronger.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 5[W] + Strength modifier damage, and ongoing 10
damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the Primal Beast. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of enemies you can see.

Winter Ghost Rage Barbarian Attack 29
The touch of your weapon is the wintry chill of death. As you rage, the spirit of winter fills you, causing you to become a ghost to your foes as you near death.
Daily ✦ Cold, Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 6[W] + Strength modifier cold damage, and ongoing
10 cold damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the winter ghost. Until the rage ends, you are insubstantial while you are bloodied.

Paragon Path
Frenzied Berserker
“Caution? Discretion? No! Valor is to face your foe in
battle and then stand over the broken corpse.”
Prerequisite: Barbarian
The devastation of the thunderstorm rages in your soul, wild and untamed. You thrill in the chaos of battle, your rage unquenched and uncontrollable. Battle, for you, is not a means to an end; it is an end
in itself. The thrill of combat draws you on, and wounds only drive you to greater frenzy.
Caught in the frenzy of your rage, you must attack—calculated maneuvers and intricate strategies are diversions. You attack with sweeping blows that cleave through your enemies or lock single foes in deadly exchanges that can only end in the death of one or the other of you. When the frenzy of battle seizes you, you ignore pain and even keep fighting while others would fall, raging like an unconquerable whirlwind of destruction.
Frenzied Berserker

Path Features
Frenzied Blood (11th level): If you spend an action point to make a melee attack and that attack misses, you deal half of that attack’s damage on
the miss.

Warpath (11th level): Whenever you hit with a melee attack while raging, the attack deals 2 extra damage. In addition, whenever you start your turn adjacent to one or more enemies while raging and are able to take actions, you must either make a melee or a close attack against one of those enemies during your turn or be stunned until the end of your next turn.

Unfeeling Rage (16th level): You gain resist 5 to all damage while you are bloodied and raging.

Frenzied Berserker Evocations

Persistent Frenzy Frenzied Berserker Attack 11
Caught up in the madness of your rage, you swing your
weapon again and again.
Encounter ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 1
Target: Each creature in burst you can see
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Special: If you use this power while raging, roll a d20. On a 10 or higher, you retain the use of this power.

Deathless Frenzy Frenzied Berserker Utility 12
For a time, rage can stave off even death.
Daily ✦ Primal
No Action Personal
Trigger: You drop to 0 hit points or fewer
Effect: You are dying, but you don’t fall unconscious until
you fail a death saving throw.

Final Confrontation Frenzied Berserker Attack 20
Your rage spills over to your foe, locking the two of you in
a lethal duel.
Daily ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Effect: Before the attack, if the target is marked, that
condition ends on it. It can then make a melee basic
attack against you as a free action.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 7[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: After the attack, you can allow the target to make a
melee basic attack against you as a free action. If the
target makes that attack, you can make a melee basic attack against it as a free action. You can repeat this effect until the target chooses not to make the attack.


About the Authors
Rob Heinsoo led the design of the 4th Edition D&D®
Roleplaying Game, and currently serves as a Senior Designer for Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D. His 4th Edition design credits include Martial Power™ and the Forgotten Realms® Player’s Guide. His other game designs include
Three-Dragon Ante and Inn Fighting.
Mike Mearls is a Lead Designer for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. His recent credits include the new H-series of adventures.
Jesse Decker began D&D in the third grade with the fabled ‘red box’ basic game. Today he’s DM #3 in a 3-group campaign that includes 15 unique players spread over the three groups.
Robert J. Schwalb works as a freelance designer for
Wizards of the Coast; his recent credits include Martial Power™, Draconomicon, and the Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide. Robert lives in Tennessee with his incredibly patient wife Stacee and his pride of fiendish werecats, but is
happiest when chained to his desk, toiling for his dark
masters in Seattle.

Jokes
2008-10-06, 09:19 AM
Hmm, after reading a little closer, I fail to see how you could ever use the Rage Strike Power before level 5 (since you need to expend a Rage power while already raging). Am I misunderstanding something?

Well, what if you are raging and have a pretty decent rage power going (ie Flameheart vs Trolls), but you want to spend another daily? Well, you'd have to change your rage, possibly taking away the nice bonus you really wanted to keep. Rage strike lets you keep your rage while dishing pretty decent damage.

Awesomologist
2008-10-06, 09:33 AM
I picked this up last night at 1AM est and spent quite some time reading through it. I have the same questions about rage strike but i think we're going to have to do what the article suggests and just play test it. Damage output looks like it might go through the roof... assuming you don't roll poorly.

Caewil
2008-10-06, 09:56 AM
Slap on a breastplate, that fighter paragon path which fights dirty and you have Sam Vimes. Wheee!

Saph
2008-10-06, 09:59 AM
And hopefully the Rage mechanic will win over those fellows who complain about the "vanilla mechanics" of 4e :smalltongue:

Yup, they've made the class much less generic this time. It looks like it might actually feel different to play, which would be a big plus.

Rage Strike, as mentioned, looks useless, but several of the other abilities seem very strong and more than make up for it. The class seems like it could do huge amounts of damage - but inconsistently (the variance is pretty high).

- Saph

Lord Herman
2008-10-06, 10:04 AM
Me likey! I really like what they did with Rage - it fits perfectly in 4E's power system.

I'm not sure I understand what Rage Strike does, though. Am I correct in assuming it lets you sacrifice a daily power to perform a high-damage attack?

Tengu_temp
2008-10-06, 10:08 AM
I don't like the fact that the new barbarian, with its Rage Strike, seems to promote nova-style play: burn all your dailies in one fight, then rest. A party should go through at least 3 encounters before resting, if you ask me.

The rest is gold. Great multiclass for rangers and some warlocks, too - barbarian's high power damage output is balanced by the fact he doesn't have the curse/quarry ability, so when you combine them, you get an extremely powerful damage machine - combine Howling Strike with Hunter's Quarry and those feats and items that passively boost your charge, and you've got the best at-will power ever.

Learnedguy
2008-10-06, 10:12 AM
Gentlemen, I present to you;

Gutts.

(If you don't know who I'm talking about don't bother:smallamused:)

Person_Man
2008-10-06, 10:17 AM
It may be a bit ugly...

Thanks for posting this Charity.

Thoughts:

I don't get why 4E feels the need to pigeonhole classes so thoroughly. Why does a Barbarian need to use weapons two handed, with all of the powers geared in that direction? What if I want a Barbarian hunter who uses a bow? I guess I have to play a Ranger and call him a Barbarian. But if that's the case, why attach fluff to your class. Have one section on building a character, and another section on crunch, and be open handed with the players, telling them that for balance purposes they didn't want too many tactics into one class.

In the few 4E games I've played so far, I noticed that players hoard Daily powers. And when they do use them, they tend to screw heavily with any balance that the DM might have built into the encounter. This has led me to viscerally dislike daily powers, even though they should be the coolest part of the game. The Barbarian continues this trend.

Instead of 40 different Encounter and At-Will powers that deal "X[w] + stat mod damage," and a few Daily powers that everyone hoards, I'd prefer 10-20 Encounter powers. Make them as interesting/useful as Daily powers, and make them scale with your levels. Throw in a couple At Wills to make sure you always have something to do. And you're done. A game that's a lot more interesting to play, but easier to write. But I guess I'll have to wait for 5E for that.

To give them credit where credit is due though, Swiftcharge, Hammer Fall, Tide of Blood, and a few of the other Encounter powers are certainly interesting and decidedly non-vanilla.

Question for those who have played 4E heavily: How bad is the codex creep so far?

I ask because it seems that one of the central tenents of 4E seems to be, "We need balance, and we don't trust the players to police their own groups and decide what power level is best for them." This is a somewhat laudable goal. But codex creep destroys balance, because players who have more books to mine end up with more optimized characters. Has this been the case, or am I just off base with this observation?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-06, 10:20 AM
I'm not sure I understand what Rage Strike does, though. Am I correct in assuming it lets you sacrifice a daily power to perform a high-damage attack?

Yep, provided you are already in a Rage. So yeah, you can't use this until 5th level, which they might fix in the actual release. However, the scaling on the weapon damage that results from it is very good.

Perhaps, rather than thinking of it as a class feature, we should think of it as an extra at-will Utility power you get a 5th level.

EDIT:
@Person Man
On the ranged barbarian you should ask yourself: why would someone who primarily hunts with a bow need, or be prone to, rages? If you merely want to be a hunter from a savage tribe, the Ranger does work very well.

To paraphrase Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) - there are facets of life that are not defined solely by class :smalltongue:

As for Codex Creep - I don't see any in the Barbarian, but I worry about the Swordmage. He just seems a little "awesome" when compared to his fellow Defenders, though I haven't taken an exhaustive look at the finished product. Artificier... well, it looked OK last time I saw it, but someone who has the FRPG should really speak on that.

Oh, and on Dailies: give the players time. They don't have to horde them - they just want to. Once they realize that they're ending every day without having spent any Dailies, they'll get better at using them. In a sense, it's like everyone has to deal with Wizard-style management now, and it'll just take some time to get used to it.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-06, 10:30 AM
I don't get why 4E feels the need to pigeonhole classes so thoroughly.
Because streamlining the cliches makes catering to the masses easier.



In the few 4E games I've played so far, I noticed that players hoard Daily powers. And when they do use them, they tend to screw heavily with any balance that the DM might have built into the encounter.
Interesting point. Could you elaborate? I should point out that I have not seen either behavior; indeed, I've seen players spend dailies on a whim (or upon being tricked into believing an encounter is more dangerous than it really was). I've also heard of players doing the narcoleptic, and of boss fights being difficult (or TPK) to players who did not hoard their dailies.

Overall, the case may be (as with the previous edition) that WOTC didn't take into account that players may be playing the game differently than they do.


Question for those who have played 4E heavily: How bad is the codex creep so far?
Not really noticeable yet, because the splatbooks so far don't allow for all that many combos (e.g. the FR handbook has a new class, but preciously little material for existing classes).
There are exceptions, of course; for instance, the AV book has a nasty combo with orbizards. I believe the first major codex creep hit will be the martial power book.

Charity
2008-10-06, 10:35 AM
Question for those who have played 4E heavily: How bad is the codex creep so far?

I ask because it seems that one of the central tenents of 4E seems to be, "We need balance, and we don't trust the players to police their own groups and decide what power level is best for them." This is a somewhat laudable goal. But codex creep destroys balance, because players who have more books to mine end up with more optimized characters. Has this been the case, or am I just off base with this observation?

I don't think I can claim to have played heavily, but I have seen everything out there and played quite a bit.
I can see what you mean, the Barb does on first glance look like a big swinger, and with all those free HP's he has some staying power as well, I figure they will reduce his HP down to standard striker value when they go to print on this. The Barb's defences are a bit shoddy, no heavy armour prof, no dependence on dex or int, so they are going to be behind the curve for defences (I think the ranger wins on defences in the striker camp) I'm personally quite happy to see classes with a narrow focus, especially as it seems there are going to be plenty of base classes, I think with a bit of multiclassing you could still have your Bowbarian...

The FR stuff is not that bad creepwise it holds it's own with the PHB stuff but the swordmage for example is not the best defender to my mind ( I think the fighter fills those shoes)

Awesomologist
2008-10-06, 10:36 AM
Thanks for posting this Charity.

Thoughts:

I don't get why 4E feels the need to pigeonhole classes so thoroughly. Why does a Barbarian need to use weapons two handed, with all of the powers geared in that direction? What if I want a Barbarian hunter who uses a bow? I guess I have to play a Ranger and call him a Barbarian. But if that's the case, why attach fluff to your class. Have one section on building a character, and another section on crunch, and be open handed with the players, telling them that for balance purposes they didn't want too many tactics into one class.

In the few 4E games I've played so far, I noticed that players hoard Daily powers. And when they do use them, they tend to screw heavily with any balance that the DM might have built into the encounter. This has led me to viscerally dislike daily powers, even though they should be the coolest part of the game. The Barbarian continues this trend.

Instead of 40 different Encounter and At-Will powers that deal "X[w] + stat mod damage," and a few Daily powers that everyone hoards, I'd prefer 10-20 Encounter powers. Make them as interesting/useful as Daily powers, and make them scale with your levels. Throw in a couple At Wills to make sure you always have something to do. And you're done. A game that's a lot more interesting to play, but easier to write. But I guess I'll have to wait for 5E for that.

To give them credit where credit is due though, Swiftcharge, Hammer Fall, Tide of Blood, and a few of the other Encounter powers are certainly interesting and decidedly non-vanilla.

Question for those who have played 4E heavily: How bad is the codex creep so far?

I ask because it seems that one of the central tenents of 4E seems to be, "We need balance, and we don't trust the players to police their own groups and decide what power level is best for them." This is a somewhat laudable goal. But codex creep destroys balance, because players who have more books to mine end up with more optimized characters. Has this been the case, or am I just off base with this observation?
I totally agree that players tend to hoard daily powers for "boss" battles. I've actually taken to telling them that they will face X number of encounters before an extended rest, but i don't tell them if that means one of them won't be a non-combat encounter. Now that we're playing around lvl 9 this problem seems to be going away. We'll be doing Paragon tier in a week or so while I don't expect that daily hoarding won't go away I think they'll be spreading them out a bit more.

As for your "Codex" problem, I've found it's less of an advantage and just more I need to stay on top of. The only extra so far that has been literally game changing is the Adventurer's Vault. So many magic items and so little time to figure them all out. The rest of the stuff isn't superior. Swordmages aren't better than fighters or Paladins, just a different style of play. Artificers actually kinda suck. Dark Pact is nice but no more powerful than other pacts IMHO.

Charity
2008-10-06, 10:39 AM
It's funny, the first game of 4e I ran, the most experianced D&D player there blew his daily in the first fight.

Theodoric
2008-10-06, 10:47 AM
I Somewhat like the Barbarian. The Rage system adds alot of depth, and gives you extra choices as well. Will you start a rage with power X, and expend power Y for a 5[W] + Strength hit, or use the more useful rage abilities of power Y and expend power X for a 4[W] hit?

Okay, the fact that it's limited to daily powers only, which will be expended really quickly, does limit it greatly. Luckily, it's only playtesting at the moment/

Tengu_temp
2008-10-06, 10:50 AM
As for Codex Creep - I don't see any in the Barbarian, but I worry about the Swordmage. He just seems a little "awesome" when compared to his fellow Defenders, though I haven't taken an exhaustive look at the finished product.

Artificer isn't out yet.
Swordmage looks so awesome because he's a defender/controller, just like fighter is a defender/striker and paladin is a defender/leader - and controller abilities have a nice synergy with defender ones. However, the price the class pays for this is much lower damage output - compare the lowest level when paladins, fighters and swordsages get their first 4[w] encounter power and 7[w] daily power, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

joela
2008-10-06, 10:58 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20081006

The 4e Playtest version of the Barbarian was just released. It's a Primal Striker with the HP and surges of a defender. It looks like it could be a solid defender if you gave it the armor prof. feats, actually.

Anyway, there it is for those of you who care.

i've sent it to my DM to see if he'll allow it for our next game.

EDIT. Just got his approval. yeah!

Yakk
2008-10-06, 11:07 AM
So, each barbarian Daily power is also a Rage. It both is an attack, and it places the Barbarian into the Rage mechanic (which is like a Fighter stance).

The problem becomes that the 2nd Rage you go into in a fight replaces the first.

Rage Strike is an attempt to patch this -- you can burn other daily powers in the same fight by turning them into a pure-damage attack. This allows a Barbarian to effectively burn multiple daily rages in a single fight, like other classes can burn multiple daily powers in a single fight.

On the other hand, using 1 rage/encounter gives you the ability to have the Rage pseudo-stance up in every single encounter, which is also damn tempting!

There also seems to be the light armor problem -- I think the class needs some supplimental feats to make going heavy armor less tempting. For 4/15 feats, a Barbarian can pick up fully specialized heavy armor, and with Str and Con being primary stats...

Another interesting issue is that a sword-barbarian needs high Dex for the blade powers. Axe/Hammer/Mace barbarians seem far more practical than Sword barbarians for this reason.

quotemyname
2008-10-06, 11:19 AM
whats that i see? a minotaur barbarian with a large great maul?

not sure if this was said or not yet, but i think its worth mentioning.

Awesomologist
2008-10-06, 11:26 AM
There also seems to be the light armor problem -- I think the class needs some supplimental feats to make going heavy armor less tempting. For 4/15 feats, a Barbarian can pick up fully specialized heavy armor, and with Str and Con being primary stats...

Another interesting issue is that a sword-barbarian needs high Dex for the blade powers. Axe/Hammer/Mace barbarians seem far more practical than Sword barbarians for this reason.

By level 4 you can start fixing your armor class problem.
Most classes seem to follow the patter of 2-4 heroic tier feats (of which 2 are build oriented.
This is followed by 2 Paragon and sometimes 1 Epic class feat.
You'll probably spend 4-6 feats on weapon specific feats (Weapon Focus, Hammer rhythm, Deadly Axe, Etc).
Then you'll have your 2-3 racial feats. This leaves plenty for armor upgrades and fluff feats. Just 3 feats will get you Specialized with Scale which keeps you mobile but requires Dex of 15 (something you may want early on anyways) or 4 feats will get you specialized with plate (you'll lose some mobility).

Mando Knight
2008-10-06, 11:37 AM
I like the barbarian... I can see the evocation of his rage... like an aura of the beasts... in a bloody rage, destroying, intimidating his foes through his sheer might...

"You think our rage... a weakness? Let me show you how wrong you are!" ~Edge, Final Fantasy IV

*Edge's anger awakened his latent powers.*
*Edge learned Flood and Blitz.*

AstralFire
2008-10-06, 11:44 AM
By level 4 you can start fixing your armor class problem.
Most classes seem to follow the patter of 2-4 heroic tier feats (of which 2 are build oriented.
This is followed by 2 Paragon and sometimes 1 Epic class feat.
You'll probably spend 4-6 feats on weapon specific feats (Weapon Focus, Hammer rhythm, Deadly Axe, Etc).
Then you'll have your 2-3 racial feats. This leaves plenty for armor upgrades and fluff feats. Just 3 feats will get you Specialized with Scale which keeps you mobile but requires Dex of 15 (something you may want early on anyways) or 4 feats will get you specialized with plate (you'll lose some mobility).

I believe Yakk's concern is that upgrading armor seems like too good of an idea to pass up for this class.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-06, 11:48 AM
I like the barbarian... I can see the evocation of his rage... like an aura of the beasts... in a bloody rage, destroying, intimidating his foes through his sheer might...

"You think our rage... a weakness? Let me show you how wrong you are!" ~Edge, Final Fantasy IV

*Edge's anger awakened his latent powers.*
*Edge learned Flood and Blitz.*

Awesome the FF4 reference. I loved that battle.

Hzurr
2008-10-06, 11:51 AM
Another interesting issue is that a sword-barbarian needs high Dex for the blade powers. Axe/Hammer/Mace barbarians seem far more practical than Sword barbarians for this reason.

Well...yes. I mean, it's "HULK SMASH" not "HULK SLICE, THEN PARRY!" Honestly, using things like a giant hammer or huge axe have much more of a cool, primal feel than a sword does.

On a side note, although the class mentions using 2-handed weapons, does it really suffer any if it spends a feat to go sword-n-board? I can't imagine why you would, but could you?

AKA_Bait
2008-10-06, 11:52 AM
Humm.... looks fun but I'm a little concerned about balance. I'll have to wait for the multiclass feat for it to know for sure but I'm having trouble seeing why and Rogue wouldn't want to multiclass into Barbarian if only for the Pressing Strike at will. It just seems like a really really easy way to gain combat advantage.


I believe Yakk's concern is that upgrading armor seems like too good of an idea to pass up for this class.

Yeah, I have a similar concern. We havent' seen the full class yet, but it looks like specific builds or aspects of builds are becoming clearly 'better' and relativley obvious. I'm not thrilled about that.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-06, 11:52 AM
Flameheart Rage:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/luckystar-animetenchouburning-tvtropes2.jpg

quotemyname
2008-10-06, 12:01 PM
after reading through the pdf more thoroughly, i think i see the problem with rage strike that people have been talking about. its nice but not THAT great. i don't think it quite measures up to the other striker abilities (certainly not sneak attack).

maybe if they decreased the damage ever so slightly and gave you the ability to sacrifice encounter powers for it as well then it would be worth it.

Inyssius Tor
2008-10-06, 12:10 PM
It's not supposed to be the Barbarian's extra-damage striker class feature, because other than the rage bennies he doesn't have one. His at-wills are already amped up to compensate! It's not supposed to be any sort of great class feature, since the Barbarian is already crazy good. All it's supposed to do is give the Barbarian some incentive to use more than one daily power in a single encounter, if he really wants to go nova like that. None of the other classes have any problem doing that, but because of the way rages work the Barbarian would be shooting himself in the foot if he tried--that is, if he didn't have Rage Strike.

TwystidMynd
2008-10-06, 12:17 PM
Personally, I think Rage Strike might be cooler if it were changed to


Rage Strike Barbarian Feature
You channel your primal rage into a devastating attack.

At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be raging.
Target: One creature
Effect: After the attack, your rage ends and you take a -2 to all d20 rolls until the end of your next turn..
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: You deal damage based on the level of the rage
power you expended:
1st level 3[W] + Strength modifier
5th level 4[W] + Strength modifier
9th level 5[W] + Strength modifier
15th level 6[W] + Strength modifier
19th level 7[W] + Strength modifier
25th level 8[W] + Strength modifier
29th level 9[W] + Strength modifier
Miss: Half damage.

Or something to that effect. I like the idea of a Barbarian going all-out, but then getting spent for a round while he catches his breath. This would allow him to use multiple rages during a single encounter, but not necessarily feel like he was "wasting" the rage when he loses it.

quotemyname
2008-10-06, 12:43 PM
My mistake earlier when i said it doesn't compare to other striker extra damage options. its not really what i was trying to say. but the point its moot now.


Personally, I think Rage Strike might be cooler if it were changed to


Rage Strike Barbarian Feature
You channel your primal rage into a devastating attack.

At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be raging.
Target: One creature
Effect: After the attack, your rage ends and you take a -2 to all d20 rolls until the end of your next turn..
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: You deal damage based on the level of the rage
power you expended:
1st level 3[W] + Strength modifier
5th level 4[W] + Strength modifier
9th level 5[W] + Strength modifier
15th level 6[W] + Strength modifier
19th level 7[W] + Strength modifier
25th level 8[W] + Strength modifier
29th level 9[W] + Strength modifier
Miss: Half damage.

Or something to that effect. I like the idea of a Barbarian going all-out, but then getting spent for a round while he catches his breath. This would allow him to use multiple rages during a single encounter, but not necessarily feel like he was "wasting" the rage when he loses it.

I like this idea a lot. this would give the barbarian incentive to use at least one daily per encounter. then when he feels that the rage has run it's course and/or the ability is no longer useful, he can "release the charge" so to speak and let all his pent up rage fly -- straight into his opponents.

another reason why i like this take on it is that its powerful. what can i say, power gaming is a guilty pleasure of mine. it would give the barbarian too much damage from:
a) using a daily power to get lots of damage and then the benefits of rage
b) ending the rage for even more damage
c) the ability to use it right at the end of combat and not suffer from the adverse effects of rage strike.

i'm not saying i like the way it IS better, i DO think it needs to be at least tweaked, yet i think its going to take a lot of work to tweak it without making it ridiculous.

Awesomologist
2008-10-06, 12:48 PM
Personally, I think Rage Strike might be cooler if it were changed to


Rage Strike Barbarian Feature
You channel your primal rage into a devastating attack.

At-Will ✦ Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be raging.
Target: One creature
Effect: After the attack, your rage ends and you take a -2 to all d20 rolls until the end of your next turn..
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: You deal damage based on the level of the rage
power you expended:
1st level 3[W] + Strength modifier
5th level 4[W] + Strength modifier
9th level 5[W] + Strength modifier
15th level 6[W] + Strength modifier
19th level 7[W] + Strength modifier
25th level 8[W] + Strength modifier
29th level 9[W] + Strength modifier
Miss: Half damage.

Or something to that effect. I like the idea of a Barbarian going all-out, but then getting spent for a round while he catches his breath. This would allow him to use multiple rages during a single encounter, but not necessarily feel like he was "wasting" the rage when he loses it.

I was thinking something similar too, although instead of -2 to d20 rolls they suffer from weakened and dazed until end of next turn.

maybe we'll see something like that for the thane build?

Also as to the armor upgrade feats, don't for get that almost any class can spare the feats to do this. Our party's ranger got scale armor as soon as he could as did a warlock. it generally a good idea for strikers anyways so i don't see it that much more game breaking than a TWR going up to plate.

Yakk
2008-10-06, 12:49 PM
That doesn't fix the thing that Rage Strike was trying to fix.

You are in a fight where your level 15 Rage is ideal. But it is a boss fight. You use your level 15 Rage power ... and don't use any other Rage powers, because you don't want to leave the level 15 Rage.

With the Rage Strike, you can choose to turn your other Rage powers into a raw-damage attack. This is sub optimal -- you do a bit extra damage, but an entire encounter of Rage effect (auto-damage? yes yes!) is way better than the extra [W] or two you get from the Rage Strike feature.

The 'stance fighter' build has a somewhat similar problem, but the 4e Barbarian is a class where every member of it is a 'stance fighter' in a sense.

...

And yes, my concern is simply that going heavy armor is too tempting for the Barbarian.

How about:
Feel No Pain: Heroic tier feat, Rage class feature, Barbarian class.
While wearing light or no armor and Raging, you may add the higher of your Charisma and Constitution bonuses to your AC instead of your Dexterity or Intelligence bonus. While not Raging, you can add the average of your Charisma and Constitution bonus instead of your Intelligence or Dexterity bonus.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-06, 12:53 PM
IOur party's ranger got scale armor as soon as he could as did a warlock.

That strikes me as not such a good idea for any int- or dex-based class, such as the ranger.

Charity
2008-10-06, 12:54 PM
There'll be a lot of Warlocks multiclassing as barbarians if that feat sees the light of day Yakk.

TwystidMynd
2008-10-06, 12:58 PM
Yeah, it's true that allowing him to give a huge wallop up front, then have a cool stance while raging, then have another huge wallop as he blows himself out does sound pretty overpowering.

Perhaps (assuming they don't fix it by the time the class comes out of beta) I would homebrew it such that all Rages are Minor Actions that give cool abilities while raging (basically like stances), but that you can "expend" them as a Standard Action for the damage and status effect. For example:


Bloodhunt Rage Barbarian Attack 1
Your rage surges up from the depths of your pain to bring pain to the wounded.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Minor Action
Effect: You manifest the rage of the bloodhunt. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to melee damage rolls equal to your Constitution modifier if either you or your target is bloodied.
Special: As a standard action, you may make an attack. After the attack, you stop raging, and take a -2 to all d20 rolls until the end of your next turn.
----Target: One creature
----Attack: Strength vs. AC
----Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
----Miss: Half damage.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-06, 12:59 PM
That strikes me as not such a good idea for any int- or dex-based class, such as the ranger.

Rangers aren't dex based: Ranged Rangers are Dex based.
Melee Rangers are mindly dex based just like light Blade Fighters are mildly Dex based.

Person_Man
2008-10-06, 01:08 PM
Interesting point. Could you elaborate? I should point out that I have not seen either behavior; indeed, I've seen players spend dailies on a whim (or upon being tricked into believing an encounter is more dangerous than it really was). I've also heard of players doing the narcoleptic, and of boss fights being difficult (or TPK) to players who did not hoard their dailies.

Overall, the case may be (as with the previous edition) that WOTC didn't take into account that players may be playing the game differently than they do.

In the half dozen or so 4E combats I've played in, players only used their Daily powers when they fought a dragon, who was obviously the "end" of that particular adventure.

So the mook and mini-boss fights all seemed harder then they should be, and they mostly seemed to have a slow grinding quality. Players hurt enemies a little each turn, enemies hurt players a little each turn, and there's a lot of 5-20 ft movement as people dance around trying to flank or using powers that push or shift or whatnot. The healing mechanics make it almost impossible for a PC to die unless they're fighting a boss. So in the player's minds, there was no reason to waste Daily powers, even if there was no boss fight that game day (something they obviously don't figure out until the game day is over). Since there's no threat of dying, there's no reason to use resources.

Conversely, the one boss fight seemed ridiculously quick and easy, because every player burned through every Daily power as quickly as possible.

In short, 4E is a much cleaner game that requires far less rules mastery then 3.5 (good), but it has done so by making all of the non-boss combats pretty boring (bad). Having more powers doesn't make the game more interesting. The powers have to do something unique and cool for them to be interesting. There are plenty of examples of that in 4E, but most of them are daily powers, which my players rarely use.

But then again, we're new to this. So it may be similar to the problem of slogging through heavy crunch we all had when we learned 3.0 years ago. It just takes time to master the rules.

Hzurr
2008-10-06, 01:11 PM
Is it just me, or does this power seem crazy:


Rage of the Primal Beast Barbarian Attack 29
The Primal Beast awakens within you, and your attack leaves your foe bleeding. As you rage, you feed on the presence of your foes; overwhelming numbers only make you stronger.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 5[W] + Strength modifier damage, and ongoing 10
damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the Primal Beast. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of enemies you can see.

This means that you can get a bonus to-hit with no upper limit. What happens if you decide to attack a general who is leading an army of thousands?

Also, this class strikes me as one that would have amazing synergy with a rogue, just for the number of powers that knock people prone. An archer-ranger might hate it, though.

Dancing_Zephyr
2008-10-06, 01:20 PM
Can anyone tell me why Thunderfury Rage has the healing keyword?

Awesomologist
2008-10-06, 01:25 PM
Is it just me, or does this power seem crazy:


Rage of the Primal Beast Barbarian Attack 29
The Primal Beast awakens within you, and your attack leaves your foe bleeding. As you rage, you feed on the presence of your foes; overwhelming numbers only make you stronger.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 5[W] + Strength modifier damage, and ongoing 10
damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the Primal Beast. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of enemies you can see.

This means that you can get a bonus to-hit with no upper limit. What happens if you decide to attack a general who is leading an army of thousands?

Also, this class strikes me as one that would have amazing synergy with a rogue, just for the number of powers that knock people prone. An archer-ranger might hate it, though.

You could technically state that after a couple of rows those soldiers have cover/total concealment so they "can't be seen" but that's still a moot point.

But thats just it, you save this rage for battles with a huge number of mobs. if you don't come across that situation then you can always burn it as a rage strike.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-06, 01:35 PM
Can anyone tell me why Thunderfury Rage has the healing keyword?

Disconnect between Fluff and mechanics.

Thunderfury Rage Barbarian Attack 15
Charging at your foe and knocking it to the ground, you call on the spirit of the thunderfury boar to grant you health and strength in your rage.
Daily ✦ Healing, Primal, Rage, Weapon


Skipping attack stuff

Effect: You manifest the rage of the thunderfury boar. Until the rage ends, whenever an enemy adjacent to you attacks you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate reaction.

It says grant you health but no health granted...

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-06, 01:38 PM
Is it just me, or does this power seem crazy:


Rage of the Primal Beast Barbarian Attack 29
The Primal Beast awakens within you, and your attack leaves your foe bleeding. As you rage, you feed on the presence of your foes; overwhelming numbers only make you stronger.
Daily ✦ Primal, Rage, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 5[W] + Strength modifier damage, and ongoing 10
damage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: You manifest the rage of the Primal Beast. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of enemies you can see.

Totally insane and overpowered, unless your campaign is unrealistically limited to encounters "by the books." It's a bit odd they'd let that slip by - surely "no unlimited bonuses" is a core concept of any game design.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-06, 01:43 PM
Totally insane and overpowered, unless your campaign is unrealistically limited to encounters "by the books." It's a bit odd they'd let that slip by - surely "no unlimited bonuses" is a core concept of any game design.

Meh, it's not the first time. They had to fix Blade Cascade right quick because it allowed for theoretically limitless attacks too. Which, like this, in practice doesn't become an unlimited number but becomes way too many. I think their folks just don't always think things totally through when they edit them.

AstralFire
2008-10-06, 01:44 PM
Totally insane and overpowered, unless your campaign is unrealistically limited to encounters "by the books." It's a bit odd they'd let that slip by - surely "no unlimited bonuses" is a core concept of any game design.

Nah, I'm pretty sure they just want you to play LuBu.

Yakk
2008-10-06, 02:00 PM
*nod*, a Barbarian with an enemy Army in sight...

The Barbarian simply cannot miss any attack rolls. :-)

Kletian999
2008-10-06, 02:01 PM
Nah, I'm pretty sure they just want you to play LuBu.

Indeed, when reading the powers I had the nagging feeling I was reading a "Chuck Norris Facts" list. In a way, it forces your enemies to conform to the law of conservation of ninja- the more there are the easier they die.

If players are saving their dailies till the big bang at the end of the day you should start making hard encounters happen in the middle. No need to follow the Sorting Algorithm of Evil.

Draz74
2008-10-06, 02:08 PM
I think their folks just don't always think things totally through when they edit them.

Yeah, but unlike Blade Cascade, they have a pretty good excuse, namely: "This is a playtest version."

MartinHarper
2008-10-06, 02:22 PM
This means that you can get a bonus to-hit with no upper limit. What happens if you decide to attack a general who is leading an army of thousands?

It's probably limited to about party size + two. DMG pg40: "Legitimate Targets".

TwystidMynd
2008-10-06, 02:22 PM
There's also a pretty big difference between "Theoretical infinite damage" and "theoretical guaranteed hit." The infinite damage is definitely broken, and should not be encountered in a balanced game. The "theoretical guaranteed hit" is actually pretty easy to get in a balanced game, with a combination of various buffs and status effects.

Flanking, proficiency bonuses, targeting the "right" defense, combat advantage, and party buffs can give a character a pretty good chance of hitting (a level 1 Rogue (let's say 16 Dex: +3) using Piercing strike (attacking let's say a Ref of 18), with the Lance of Faith buff (+2), combat advantage (+2), using a dagger (+4), and a Warlord's Lead the Attack buff (+4 or so), plus using an action point (including the Warlord's buff from that is +2 or so), can hit on a 2 or higher rolled). That's at level 1, so I understand that it would take a lot of situational conditions and teamwork to accomplish. But by level 29, I don't see that it's terribly bad to have a that same chance to hit when you expend a powerful daily, not requiring any other combos. You're still not going to be doing infinite damage per round, so I'm not too concerned.

KKL
2008-10-06, 02:25 PM
The Winter Ghost Rage is better anyways, in my opinion, seeing as when you're bloodied you effectively have double your HP. And that's not taking the temporary HP you have coming your way into account.

Although, lol high epic levels.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-06, 02:36 PM
Yeah, but unlike Blade Cascade, they have a pretty good excuse, namely: "This is a playtest version."

Well yes, and with some luck they will fix it. Perhaps they would be wise to have all their marterial copy/balance edited by the masses?


It's probably limited to about party size + two. DMG pg40: "Legitimate Targets".

Although you may be right here, I'd have a hard time telling my player "No, only the front six monsters in that advancing army are 'meaningful threats' the rest only become meaningful threats once you kill one of those six, and then only one at a time. Also, if it's going to take an additional reference to the DMG to figure out how the power works, why not spend the extra few words in the power itself phrase it:


Effect: You manifest the rage of the Primal Beast. Until the rage ends, you gain a bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of enemies you can see up to the number of PCs in your adventuring group plus 2.

Probably because that sounds really weird. At least to me it does.


There's also a pretty big difference between "Theoretical infinite damage" and "theoretical guaranteed hit."

Thing is, it's not theoretical guaranteed hit, it's guarnteed theoretical hits pretty much every time you attack for the rest of the encounter or until it's academic (only some minions left standing). Even the Orcus' Slayer could only attempt their trick for huge amounts of damage once. This bonus would last the entire combat.

ImperiousLeader
2008-10-06, 02:45 PM
Interesting. That's my initial opinion on the Barbarian. Kinda sexy, but I'm a little concerned that the barbarian's extra damage is built into their at-wills and other powers ... making them both poachable by other classes and conceivably broken, with feats like Heavy Blade Opportunity.

I really like the Rage mechanic, it gives the Barbarian a distinct approach to it's dailies, I even like Rage Strike. It gives the Barbarian an impressive Nova capability and makes all it's different Rages distinctive.

Yakk
2008-10-06, 02:51 PM
Meh -- just say "a bonus equal to the number of opponents you can see, up to +6".

AKA_Bait
2008-10-06, 03:04 PM
Meh -- just say "a bonus equal to the number of opponents you can see, up to +6".

Well, I would normally go with that, since it's less funky sounding, but I was trying to stick as close as possible to the DMG p 40 text which would allow up to say, 8 if you had a 6 person party.

Siegel
2008-10-06, 03:12 PM
Well, I would normally go with that, since it's less funky sounding, but I was trying to stick as close as possible to the DMG p 40 text which would allow up to say, 8 if you had a 6 person party.

But that would mean a Bard in a 3 Person party is nerfed if compared to a 12 people party ?:smallmad:

TwystidMynd
2008-10-06, 03:14 PM
Thing is, it's not theoretical guaranteed hit, it's guarnteed theoretical hits pretty much every time you attack for the rest of the encounter or until it's academic (only some minions left standing). Even the Orcus' Slayer could only attempt their trick for huge amounts of damage once. This bonus would last the entire combat.
Yeah, the bonus would last the entire combat, but that combat would involve at least 19 enemies.

If all 19 enemies are minions, then it likely wouldn't be an issue, because of how easy minions are to take out. But if we're imagining this kind of scenario, then we're playing with a loopy DM who has poor encounter building techniques, and I wouldn't be playing in his adventures for long anyways =P This is the same type of DM who might throw an Abyssal Ghoul at some level 1s just to powerlevel them if they roll a 20.

If we start talking about "reasonable" encouters, though, the power is much more tolerable. It may start off high, while there are a bunch of minions running around, but the fight could proceed in one of two ways:
1) The party takes out the minions first. In this case, the bonus starts seeping down as the fight wears on, which I feel is perfectly fine, because they're cutting off damage sources.
2) The party takes out the big baddies first, in which case they end up keeping the barbarian's +hit up, but at the cost of having more damage intake over the course of the combat.
It's a decision in most "normal" combats, not an "I win!" button.

So, ignoring the throw-away case of "Crazy DM," if we start considering more outside-the-norm combats, like ones that have 19 enemies, then even if 2/3rds of them are minions (imo, more than that is pushing the boundary of reasonable encounter building), we've got 6 regular tough guys rampaging around here, tearing through your party (and flanking with the minions). As level 29 monsters, they're not likely to be going down easily. Even if you hit every round, you're likely to see some people go unconscious (and, hell, you may be the first to go - and lose your +19 to hit with it) due to the sheer damage input the party's taking. The Daily may change whether the party wins or loses the fight, but it's certainly not going to be easy by any estimation.

Going to the other side of the extreme, if you've got a Crazy DM who is throwing 100+ mobs at you, then it kinda doesn't matter what combo you throw ... it's very unlikely that you'll be able to take them down before they take you down, even if you're hitting with every swing.


I guess my feeling is that, sure, a Barbarian may get more powerful as the number of enemies she faces increases, but as long as her DM isn't completely throwing the encounter in her party's favor, the enemies will grow in power much quicker than she does. So, for that reason, there is still a sort of cut-off point where the Barbarian, reckless though she is, will say "Sorry, but there's just way too many in there." And, for me, having that cut-off point be a little bit higher once she hits level 29 is an OK thing.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-06, 03:18 PM
But that would mean a Bard in a 3 Person party is nerfed if compared to a 12 people party ?:smallmad:

Hey, don't look at me. Thems the rules if you go with page 40 of the DMG and that interpretation of it. The Warlords Own the Battlefield power is by this reading already nerfed by this by smaller party size.


I guess my feeling is that, sure, a Barbarian may get more powerful as the number of enemies she faces increases, but as long as her DM isn't completely throwing the encounter in her party's favor, the enemies will grow in power much quicker than she does. So, for that reason, there is still a sort of cut-off point where the Barbarian, reckless though she is, will say "Sorry, but there's just way too many in there." And, for me, having that cut-off point be a little bit higher once she hits level 29 is an OK thing.

Well, I think there is a slight disconnect here about the kind of scenario we are talking about where this power gets a bit overboard. It's not the case where the DM throws 100+ monsters at your party of 12. It's the case where the DM wants a kind of Helms Deep feel to an encounter and has hundreds on both sides with the PCs being captians or whatever of one of the two sides. This means at any given time there will be a large number of enemies on the field but which are not necc targeting the PC's themselves but other portions of the PC's army.

This is, admittedly, reaching a bit beyond the mandate of the system. The DMG itself says the game isn't designed for that, this is just an example of where that design lack becomes a more glaring mechanical issue in it's current form.

Siegel
2008-10-06, 03:27 PM
I meant the Barbarian sorry, not the Bard

Ealstan
2008-10-06, 03:48 PM
I'm just impressed they broke open the glaive feat combo so quickly.

Pressing strike + glaive + Polearm gambit and heavy blade opportunity = this situation:

Enemy moves in to attack barbie. Barbie says uh-uh, hits him with an opportunity attack when enemy tries to move into adjacent square, and pushes him at least one square, up to 6 with optimization. Lather, rinse, repeat.

LotharBot
2008-10-06, 03:57 PM
In the few 4E games I've played so far, I noticed that players hoard Daily powers.

In my first couple of 4E sessions, my players tended to hoard dailies and action points too. It took a while to get a feel for the system and for how often those things should actually be used.

With a 7-player party, we realized that between us we should spend about 3-4 action points per fight, and in a 4-fight day, even at level 1 we can have one person spend a daily in each of the first 3 fights and still have 4 dailies to bust out in the last one. In a 6-fight day, that leaves us with only 2 dailies for the final fight, but even then, there's a good chance one of the earlier fights was easy and nobody used a daily there.

We're about 10 sessions in now, and somebody spends a daily in just about every fight now. I expect that, once we hit level 5 and everyone gets a second daily (as well as the daily utilities and item dailies we have around), we'll tend to see 2 or more dailies used in each fight.

Suzuro
2008-10-06, 04:23 PM
I don't really feel like digging through the DMG right now, so, and this is a bit off topic, how many encounters per day does it recommend?


I really like the barbarian, especially Rage Strike. I can just see the barbarian raging and then, over the next...what, three turns? Unleashing twenty-some [W] damage (Assuming they hit, of course).


-Suzuro

Kurald Galain
2008-10-06, 04:27 PM
Is it just me, or does this power seem crazy:

It's a level-29 so what did you expect? :smallsmile: It means that the barb is guaranteed to down one mook per turn, yay. At that level, I'm sure most characters and all strikers can have good enough to-hit bonuses for that.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-06, 04:41 PM
It's a level-29 so what did you expect? :smallsmile: It means that the barb is guaranteed to down one mook per turn, yay. At that level, I'm sure most characters and all strikers can have good enough to-hit bonuses for that.

I dunno. I expect that without more than a little optimization we could get that up to several mooks per turn down guaranteed.

Hzurr
2008-10-06, 04:44 PM
It's a level-29 so what did you expect? :smallsmile: It means that the barb is guaranteed to down one mook per turn, yay. At that level, I'm sure most characters and all strikers can have good enough to-hit bonuses for that.

I was thinking about how amazing it would be in regard to the frenzied berserker ability that lets you take turns hitting each other. That power becomes significantly more awesome when you're guarenteed to hit every single time, and your opponent only has, say...a 60% chance of hitting.

DM Raven
2008-10-06, 05:04 PM
Thanks for posting this Charity.

Thoughts:

I don't get why 4E feels the need to pigeonhole classes so thoroughly. Why does a Barbarian need to use weapons two handed, with all of the powers geared in that direction? What if I want a Barbarian hunter who uses a bow? I guess I have to play a Ranger and call him a Barbarian.

Yeah, or why can't I play a wizard who likes to knife-fight? Maybe I grew up in the bad part of town and thats all I know...maybe I just use wizardy as a hobby but most of the time I like keeping it real with my shanking skills. Give wizards knife-based powers plz!

chiasaur11
2008-10-06, 05:05 PM
Yeah, or why can't I play a wizard who likes to knife-fight? Maybe I grew up in the bad part of town and thats all I know...maybe I just use wizardy as a hobby but most of the time I like keeping it real with my shanking skills. Give wizards knife-based attacks plz!!

Black Mage would agree with that idea.

Random NPC
2008-10-06, 05:28 PM
Yeah, or why can't I play a wizard who likes to knife-fight? Maybe I grew up in the bad part of town and thats all I know...maybe I just use wizardy as a hobby but most of the time I like keeping it real with my shanking skills. Give wizards knife-based attacks plz!!

I'll buy that (multiclass swordmage :smalltongue: ), but not the ranged fury. Archery requires you to be in Zen in order to hit a target. That should be an Epic feat for a barbarian

EDIT: Also, Veteran's Armor seems quite tasty for a Barb right now :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2008-10-06, 05:33 PM
I was thinking about how amazing it would be in regard to the frenzied berserker ability that lets you take turns hitting each other.

Yeah, but that power is not so great. Any halfway-intelligent target will know to stop hitting you if you hit harder (or more accurately) than he does. It's flavorful, sure, but aside from the initial 7W attack it doesn't do all that much.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-10-06, 05:49 PM
Very interesting. I like it! Cool how they can do massive damage but aren't glass cannons.

Vortling
2008-10-06, 09:20 PM
I must agree that this is meh. It just doesn't say "unkillable smashy dude" to me. Again, the power structure leaves an underwhelming taste in my mouth. The bonus to other powers while in rage is nice but doesn't make the class different enough for me to qualify it as non-vanilla. I do believe we'll see the druid follow a similar pattern to the barbarian. Shapeshifting will be a daily power that grants bonuses to encounter powers.

Zocelot
2008-10-06, 09:35 PM
Yeah, but that power is not so great. Any halfway-intelligent target will know to stop hitting you if you hit harder (or more accurately) than he does. It's flavorful, sure, but aside from the initial 7W attack it doesn't do all that much.

Logically then, all enemies that are weaker then you should run away/sue for peace, ran then take turns attacking each other.

Besides, it's also pretty fun for the DM to see how much damage he can deal to the Barb, and especially if the monster starts winning, then they won't want to stop until one of them is dead.

If a player used this in one of my games, I would always take at least 2 attacks, more if the monster was elite or solo.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-06, 09:57 PM
Logically then, all enemies that are weaker then you should run away/sue for peace, ran then take turns attacking each other.

Besides, it's also pretty fun for the DM to see how much damage he can deal to the Barb, and especially if the monster starts winning, then they won't want to stop until one of them is dead.

If a player used this in one of my games, I would always take at least 2 attacks, more if the monster was elite or solo.

Me? I'm just imaging the following exchange:

Barbarian: All right you scaly bastard, LET'S THROW DOWN! *whack*
Ancient Red Dragon: *snort* *whack*
Barbarian: Oh, think you're tough eh? Have another! *whack*
Ancient Red Dragon: *raises eyebrow*
Barbarian: What? Had enough already? I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had the Sissy Template.
Ancient Red Dragon: *whack*
Barbarian: Oh yeah, that's more like it! *whack*

This is better if you imagine the Barbarian is a Dwarf... or better yet, Halfling :smallbiggrin:

Bonus points if you use it on Orcus

EvilElitest
2008-10-06, 10:26 PM
very little fluff i notice, just nut with an axe who rages.
from
EE

Thrawn183
2008-10-06, 10:46 PM
very little fluff i notice, just nut with an axe who rages.
from
EE

Seems to me like the standard Barbarian. Clearly, they must be doing something right.

THAC0
2008-10-06, 11:19 PM
Hurray, another melee based striker.

Seriously, there's already plenty of those. Why not release a controller?

BardicDuelist
2008-10-06, 11:46 PM
Hurray, another melee based striker.

Seriously, there's already plenty of those. Why not release a controller?

Rogue and ranger are competent ranged strikers as well (especially the ranger). The warlock is exclusively a ranged striker (note the lament on the part of many that their melee capability is, shall we say, non-existent).

Another controller would be nice, however. I like wizards, but I'd like to see something else.

mikeejimbo
2008-10-07, 12:16 AM
Hurray, another melee based striker.

Seriously, there's already plenty of those. Why not release a controller?

I kind of have to agree. I think there are too many strikers. It makes me feel sad because this implies that everyone obviously wants to be the AWSUM damage dealer.

Colmarr
2008-10-07, 12:20 AM
very little fluff i notice, just nut with an axe who rages.

This strikes me as an unfair comment, given that:

1. It's a playtest preview of a class that is not yet published; and

2. You pretty much summed up in your post the entirety of the barbarian fluff in the 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs.

At least the 4e barbarian has primal connections to spirits...

SadisticFishing
2008-10-07, 12:25 AM
It's also no less fluff than any other classes in 4e. Fluff and mechanics should be separate, and now they are. Sweet.

YPU
2008-10-07, 04:30 AM
Balancing aside the barbarian does what they should do, dish out a lot of damage and stacking up temporary HP so that they can soak all the counter attacks. This might be the most true to 3.5 class at the moment.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-07, 07:12 AM
very little fluff i notice, just nut with an axe who rages.
from
EE

Have you read the power descriptions?

Also, I won't compare the 4e barbarian to 3.x one, because many people mentioned that already before me.

On an unrelated note, Final Confrontation reminds me of Disgaea:

Counter!
Counter-counter!
Counter-counter-counter!
Counter-counter-counter-counter!
Etc.

_Zoot_
2008-10-07, 07:27 AM
What I want is for them to make Sorcerers....

Roderick_BR
2008-10-07, 08:35 AM
I just read the first few powers, and I must say: Damn!
That first power alone is awesome: Up to 9[W]+Str damage. Half if you miss! Not "only your Str as damage", half the whole thing. If you miss, it's "4.5"[W]+ half Str.
And that first at will: Garanteed +1d6 damage in every attack, for free. And if you are raging, you can use it as a normal attack (extra attacks, attacks of opportunity, etc) without need to get that feat. And it increases when you go up in tiers. I know people that'll love it :)

Inyssius Tor
2008-10-07, 09:05 AM
I just read the first few powers, and I must say: Damn!
That first power alone is awesome: Up to 9[W]+Str damage. Half if you miss! Not "only your Str as damage", half the whole thing. If you miss, it's "4.5"[W]+ half Str.
And that first at will: Garanteed +1d6 damage in every attack, for free. And if you are raging, you can use it as a normal attack (extra attacks, attacks of opportunity, etc) without need to get that feat. And it increases when you go up in tiers. I know people that'll love it :)

Not to disagree that the powers are awesome, or that those particular powers are awesome, or that the class as a whole is awesome (all of these things are true), but neither of the things you just said about Howling Strike are accurate. "Special: When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you do not provoke opportunity attacks for moving during the charge." That's all it does.

Rage Strike does indeed work that way, though, assuming you're 29th level, you've already used a lower-level daily power, and you're okay with throwing away your 29th-level daily for the sake of one powerful shot. Which does admittedly sound pretty fun.

Siegel
2008-10-07, 09:07 AM
Yeah, or why can't I play a wizard who likes to knife-fight? Maybe I grew up in the bad part of town and thats all I know...maybe I just use wizardy as a hobby but most of the time I like keeping it real with my shanking skills. Give wizards knife-based powers plz!

You could play a Roughe who MC to Wizard or the other way arround...

Tengu_temp
2008-10-07, 09:10 AM
And that first at will: Garanteed +1d6 damage in every attack, for free. And if you are raging, you can use it as a normal attack (extra attacks, attacks of opportunity, etc) without need to get that feat. And it increases when you go up in tiers. I know people that'll love it :)

Remember that it's to balance the fact barbarians don't have anything resembling Hunter's Quarry/Warlock's Curse. Now, if you combine these two by multiclassing, things start to get a bit silly...

I think I'll try making a level 11 ubercharger build and see how much damage can it pull off. Without using encounter/daily powers.

Ealstan
2008-10-07, 10:52 AM
I think I'll try making a level 11 ubercharger build and see how much damage can it pull off. Without using encounter/daily powers.


Mmm, tasty. Get a big Minotaur on a warhorse, executioner's axe, plus that power. :smallamused: Then if you kill the thing, you could burn that encounter to bring the pain again! Lovin it.

Grey Watcher
2008-10-07, 11:20 AM
Does Rage of the Primal Beast (the one with the attack bonus that scales with the number of enemies the Barbarian can see) make anyone else think of the Inverse Ninja Law?

Siegel
2008-10-07, 11:32 AM
Indeed, when reading the powers I had the nagging feeling I was reading a "Chuck Norris Facts" list. In a way, it forces your enemies to conform to the law of conservation of ninja- the more there are the easier they die.


:smallbiggrin:

AKA_Bait
2008-10-07, 11:39 AM
Does Rage of the Primal Beast (the one with the attack bonus that scales with the number of enemies the Barbarian can see) make anyone else think of the Inverse Ninja Law?

Oh very much yes. I think that's what they were going for really. The whole "One maniac with a huge sword takes kills like 200 people" thing.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-07, 11:47 AM
Here is my build. Important: I made it under the assumption the Brutal property lets you reroll [W] damage only, not all the dice you roll with the attack, correct me if I'm mistaken!

Minotaur Ranger
Level 11
Starting Strength: 20, improve at each level (so 23 at level 11)

Feats:
Lethal Hunter
Power Attack
Powerful Charge or Weapon Focus (Maul)
All four multiclass feats for Barbarian

Items (assuming no items over level 11):
Horned Helmet, Heroic tier
Vanguard Maul +2

Paragon multiclass with Barbarian, choose Howling Strike as your level 11 at-will replacement.

Tactics: designate an enemy as your quarry, charge at him with Howling Strike and Power attack.

Attack bonus:
+5 levels
+6 strength
+2 proficiency
+1 charge
-2 Power Attack
+2 weapon enhancement
Total: +14

Damage:
2d8 base
+2d8 Hunter's Quarry
+6 strength
+2d6 Howling Strike
+4 Power Attack
+2 Powerful Charge or Weapon Focus
+2 weapon enhancement
+1d6 Horned Helmet
+1d8 Vanguard
Total: 5d8+3d6+14
Minimum damage 22, maximum 72, average 47. As an at-will power.

Grynning
2008-10-07, 11:51 AM
Of course, you have the ludicrous imagery of a minotaur in a horned helmet.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-07, 11:55 AM
You can be a Bugbear too, or a Goliath (supposedly, as they're not released yet) - anything that has +2 strength and is Oversized.

Asbestos
2008-10-07, 12:16 PM
So, anyone else excited about the Cha-based Striker/leader build for the barbarian? I figure it'll be something like the opposite of the Cha-based Warlord, with the barbarian debuffing his enemies more than buffing his allies. I'm psyched about it because it presents a role for barbarians that was virtually non-existent in 3.x, now the barbarian leading the Orc tribe might you know, have some Charisma!
For those lamenting the lack of 'bowbarian', yeah I agree, its weird that they don't have any dedicated ranged weapon profs/powers, but then again, the whole "I'm precisely shooting arrows while consumed in a crazy roid rage!" never made sense to me. I think that the focus on charges is there so as to make up for the lack of ranged threat. An orc with the feat that lets you move further on a charge (fast runner?) would be a significant threat, even at range. Against flying enemies? That could be a problem, but then again, its a problem for the fighter too, crossbows are nice to have, but you aren't really bringing a threat to that fight since none of your fighter powers will mean much.



As for what to make my first barbarian... I'm leaning towards having a gnoll, rather than the 'powerful build' races. He'll be sprinting around and charging like some sort of pinball with bloodlust.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-10-07, 12:48 PM
As for what to make my first barbarian... I'm leaning towards having a gnoll, rather than the 'powerful build' races. He'll be sprinting around and charging like some sort of pinball with bloodlust.
:belkar: ?

Jokes
2008-10-07, 01:37 PM
Here is my build...

Hehe, I had a similar idea to you when I thought about all the charging fun. I got mine (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=85323) up to +22 by going straight barbarian (I'm pretty sure all that stuff stacks, but I suck at stacking rules). Min 30 (oversized mordenkrad) max 64. I don't think it's too bad without multiclassing. It's also 5am so my maths could really suck.

Oh, by the way Power attack adds +6 for Two handed weapons. And yeah, Brutal only lets you reroll [W], so the 2d8 from the weapon, but not the 2d6 from the power.

Add in Boots of Adept Charging and use Oak Hammer rage. Every time you hit, the target gets knocked prone and you can take a shift back one square. He has to spend a move action to get up, and since you are one step away, he can't charge you. Pretty good against anything that doesn't have reach or a ranged attack.

Querzis
2008-10-07, 06:41 PM
Whoa, really cool. I was kinda afraid the new powers could screw up the Barbarian but no, this sound really nice. I cant wait to play one.

JaxGaret
2008-10-07, 08:01 PM
So, anyone else excited about the Cha-based Striker/leader build for the barbarian? I figure it'll be something like the opposite of the Cha-based Warlord, with the barbarian debuffing his enemies more than buffing his allies. I'm psyched about it because it presents a role for barbarians that was virtually non-existent in 3.x, now the barbarian leading the Orc tribe might you know, have some Charisma!

Heck yeah, though I'm fairly sure that the first 4e Barbarian I play is going to be a raving lunatic - i.e. not a Thaneborn :smallsmile:


For those lamenting the lack of 'bowbarian', yeah I agree, its weird that they don't have any dedicated ranged weapon profs/powers

I don't find it weird. IIRC the Fighter and Warlord don't either.


, but then again, the whole "I'm precisely shooting arrows while consumed in a crazy roid rage!" never made sense to me.

Not only is that a hilarious turn of phrase, I agree. I don't get Rage + Bow. Rage + Throwing Axe, on the other hand...


As for what to make my first barbarian... I'm leaning towards having a gnoll, rather than the 'powerful build' races. He'll be sprinting around and charging like some sort of pinball with bloodlust.

I think that a Longtooth Shifter would make an awesome Frenzied Berserker, "redlining" (staying Bloodied) for as long as possible to keep the Regeneration and Unfeeling Rage going.

Zocelot
2008-10-07, 08:06 PM
Here is my build. Important: I made it under the assumption the Brutal property lets you reroll [W] damage only, not all the dice you roll with the attack, correct me if I'm mistaken!

Minotaur Ranger
Level 11
Starting Strength: 20, improve at each level (so 23 at level 11)

Feats:
Lethal Hunter
Power Attack
Powerful Charge or Weapon Focus (Maul)
All four multiclass feats for Barbarian

Items (assuming no items over level 11):
Horned Helmet, Heroic tier
Vanguard Maul +2

Paragon multiclass with Barbarian, choose Howling Strike as your level 11 at-will replacement.

Tactics: designate an enemy as your quarry, charge at him with Howling Strike and Power attack.

Attack bonus:
+5 levels
+6 strength
+2 proficiency
+1 charge
-2 Power Attack
+2 weapon enhancement
Total: +14

Damage:
2d8 base
+2d8 Hunter's Quarry
+6 strength
+2d6 Howling Strike
+4 Power Attack
+2 Powerful Charge or Weapon Focus
+2 weapon enhancement
+1d6 Horned Helmet
+1d8 Vanguard
Total: 5d8+3d6+14
Minimum damage 22, maximum 72, average 47. As an at-will power.

IIRC, the multiclass hunter's quarry got errated, so that it only applies for one round (and only once per round)

Asbestos
2008-10-07, 08:14 PM
I don't find it weird. IIRC the Fighter and Warlord don't either.


Ah, but they are proficient in simple range weapons, whatever that's worth (not much I think)

JaxGaret
2008-10-07, 08:22 PM
Ah, but they are proficient in simple range weapons, whatever that's worth (not much I think)

Ah, I didn't see that you included proficiencies.

Jokes
2008-10-07, 09:02 PM
IIRC, the multiclass hunter's quarry got errated, so that it only applies for one round (and only once per round)

Yeah, but that build starts off as a ranger, so the errata doesn't apply.

Yakk
2008-10-07, 09:16 PM
Yeah, but that build starts off as a ranger, so the errata doesn't apply.

*nod*, it uses a design flaw of the BZR class.

The BZR class doesn't have the "extra damage" component of the other strikers, but instead rolls the extra damage into their powers.

By being a non-BZR striker who multiclasses to get BZR powers, you end up double-dipping your striker damage.

(Note, however, that this is only adding ~10% to your average damage, I think. Also note that the particular attack is silly -- power attack is so not worth it.)

Helgraf
2008-10-07, 09:18 PM
That strikes me as not such a good idea for any int- or dex-based class, such as the ranger.

It's perfectly fine if you're not bothering with ranged attacks - at that point the only thing dex is giving you is initiative, AC/reflex and 3 skills, just like everyone else.

Go heavy armor, tank dex and int (and by tank, I mean min out, putting stat points where they'll do you the most good - Str & Wis. Two weapon feats are nice, but hardly critical to your build) And splatter your enemies with two-fisted melee death.

Like so:
Str 16 Wis 16, (Dex Or Int 13) (Other One 10 or 8), Cha 10 or 8

Alternately :
Str 16 Con 13 Dex 10 Int 08 Wis 16 Cha 10

And none of this accounts for racial stat bonuses.

Slap on heavy armor, and crush your enemies.

EvilElitest
2008-10-07, 09:25 PM
This strikes me as an unfair comment, given that:

1. It's a playtest preview of a class that is not yet published; and

2. You pretty much summed up in your post the entirety of the barbarian fluff in the 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs.

At least the 4e barbarian has primal connections to spirits...
1) So? The classes presented in Races and classes had more fluff and they way extremly unpublished.
2) When did i say i liked 3E barbarian fluff. Its slightly better than 4E through because the 3E one went into more detail about its relations to other classes, its way of life, beliefs ect ect ect.
I don't see how spirits make it better, the barbarion always seemed like a guy who can harness his own primal emotions into pure rage, not a spirit guy by default (through you can certainly do it that way). I always thought the many Shaman classes did that better



Seems to me like the standard Barbarian. Clearly, they must be doing something right.

Less detail through
from
EE

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 04:38 AM
The "detail" you mean about 3.x classes was a bunch of ass-pulled stereotypes, not actual fluff: druids and monks distrust each other? Orly?

BardicDuelist
2008-10-08, 07:13 AM
Yeah, but that build starts off as a ranger, so the errata doesn't apply.

Technically, there's no multi-class feat for barbarian yet. Even so, Hunter's Quarry only applies ONCE per round.

Asbestos
2008-10-08, 09:28 AM
The "detail" you mean about 3.x classes was a bunch of ass-pulled stereotypes, not actual fluff: druids and monks distrust each other? Orly?

Ha, yeah. Do I really need to be told the relationship between the classes?

ShaggyMarco
2008-10-08, 09:50 AM
You guys forget, in order to properly role-play, you need your class entry to tell you exactly how to treat other classes, and for your alignment to tell you how exactly you are supposed to act in narrowly defined terms.

The Barbarian preview, and most of 4ed for that matter, does not do this. It only gives you vague hints at RP information and expects the players and DM to do the rest THEMSLEVES. If I wanted to figure out how to role-play myself, I'd write my own RPG. What do they think we're paying for? The rule set?

If the game system isn't telling you exactly how to role-play your characters, it is made of fail. If there is one thing we DON'T NEED in the modern RPG community is players thinking they are allowed to role-play their characters in whichever way they want to.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 10:04 AM
Not only is that a hilarious turn of phrase, I agree. I don't get Rage + Bow. Rage + Throwing Axe, on the other hand...


I agree. Rage + Bow/sling/crossbow has alwasy struck be as odd. Thrown weapons are a different case. I can picture someone in a slavering rage using a throwing axe/table/boulder/halfling.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-08, 10:11 AM
Ha, yeah. Do I really need to be told the relationship between the classes?

Yes! And it's a soap series! Black Mage hates Fighter because (among others) he appears to be having an affair with White Mage! Meanwhile, Thief plots to extort the lot of them! Tonight on Fox...

Blackfang108
2008-10-08, 11:13 AM
You guys forget, in order to properly role-play, you need your class entry to tell you exactly how to treat other classes, and for your alignment to tell you how exactly you are supposed to act in narrowly defined terms.

The Barbarian preview, and most of 4ed for that matter, does not do this. It only gives you vague hints at RP information and expects the players and DM to do the rest THEMSLEVES. If I wanted to figure out how to role-play myself, I'd write my own RPG. What do they think we're paying for? The rule set?

If the game system isn't telling you exactly how to role-play your characters, it is made of fail. If there is one thing we DON'T NEED in the modern RPG community is players thinking they are allowed to role-play their characters in whichever way they want to.

:amused:

Priceless. This nearly put me in tears.

chiasaur11
2008-10-08, 11:50 AM
Yes! And it's a soap series! Black Mage hates Fighter because (among others) he appears to be having an affair with White Mage! Meanwhile, Thief plots to extort the lot of them! Tonight on Fox...

And what of Debbie?

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 12:26 PM
You guys forget, in order to properly role-play, you need your class entry to tell you exactly how to treat other classes, and for your alignment to tell you how exactly you are supposed to act in narrowly defined terms.

The Barbarian preview, and most of 4ed for that matter, does not do this. It only gives you vague hints at RP information and expects the players and DM to do the rest THEMSLEVES. If I wanted to figure out how to role-play myself, I'd write my own RPG. What do they think we're paying for? The rule set?

If the game system isn't telling you exactly how to role-play your characters, it is made of fail. If there is one thing we DON'T NEED in the modern RPG community is players thinking they are allowed to role-play their characters in whichever way they want to.

No, you're forgetting that every other page of the 4e PHB has a footnote that states "This system is not for roleplayers. If you are a roleplayer, go away, this is just a hack n slash".

The trolls are fairly sure about this, though I haven't been able to find it.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 12:38 PM
No, you're forgetting that every other page of the 4e PHB has a footnote that states "This system is not for roleplayers. If you are a roleplayer, go away, this is just a hack n slash".

The trolls are fairly sure about this, though I haven't been able to find it.

It's anagrammed throughout the pages. You need to rearrange the letters to get the hidden WotC message of Roleplayers and those who don't play WoW keep out. Only the most bright and experienced with older systems can accomplish this mindbending and high IQ demanding task. Most newbie/mmorpg/anime/teenage players are simply incapable of the intellectual feats required to read it.

/sarcasm :smallwink:

Asbestos
2008-10-08, 12:43 PM
It's anagrammed throughout the pages. You need to rearrange the letters to get the hidden WotC message of Roleplayers and those who don't play WoW keep out. Only the most bright and experienced with older systems can accomplish this mindbending and high IQ demanding task. Most newbie/mmorpg/anime/teenage players are simply incapable of the intellectual feats required to read it.

/sarcasm :smallwink:

I figured it was more like a Magic Eye sort of thing... or microdots.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 12:53 PM
Not only is that a hilarious turn of phrase, I agree. I don't get Rage + Bow. Rage + Throwing Axe, on the other hand...


Note - all thrown weapons apart from shuriken are melee weapons too, and therefore barbarians are proficient in them.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 01:08 PM
Note - all thrown weapons apart from shuriken are melee weapons too, and therefore barbarians are proficient in them.

I would also argue that, in the hands of a Barbarian, any object is a potential ranged weapon. Even things that are not a weapon (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20080609) :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 01:34 PM
Note - all thrown weapons apart from shuriken are melee weapons too, and therefore barbarians are proficient in them.

Which is why I find the 4e Barbarian's lack of SRWP fine.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 04:21 PM
You could play a Roughe who MC to Wizard or the other way arround...

Yes, but that's not how I envision my character. My character is a wizard who shanks his foes and uses magic to look good while he does it. I demand WOTC make powers for me so I can accomplish this. I demand shanking!

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 04:22 PM
Yes, but that's not how I envision my character. My character is a wizard who shanks his foes and uses magic to look good while he does it. I demand WOTC make powers for me so I can accomplish this. I demand shanking!

What about Swordmage?

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 04:29 PM
What about Swordmage?

NO, I'm a WIZARD! Dammit people work with me here...a dagger weilding wizard from the projects who learned magic to express himself. I only use my magic to keep my shanking skills looking good. My attacks are made with my signature Selene Dion CD carved into a shiv from my time in the big house. I learned magic and found Pelor and now I'm out...but I need to keep it real. I'm not a swordmage or a rogue...or anything like that. I'M A Shiv Wizard! There...I even gave myself a paragon path...now give me some powers related to my vision!

(Sorry for the small derailing.) =D

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 04:49 PM
how can you people instigate trolling when you don't' even address teh issue? What kind of double standard is that. Snide insults are all well and good, but accusations of trolling is only evading the question. Actually approach the problem for goodness sakes. in the 3E PHB, other flaws regardless, does go into far more detail about the barbarian then 4E's new version, which is basically "Grrrrrrr, big axe" It goes into common beliefs, ideals, practices, religion, normal interactions with other classes based upon their common beliefs, the way the class normal identifies with themselves and others. Its not a rule, but it is a description and it makes it more interesting then simply a series of mechanics about hitting things. And stop using the argument about "Oh, there isn't any fluff, thats good because we can make up our own" because thats an excuse. its a crop out for WotC's laziness. Its basically rule zero, and that doesn't work as a defense for an edition's flaws, as proven with 3E again and again and again. 4E didn't put any effort into fluff and description, as this article proves. It is just a combat figure, and that is shallow design unless the game is only existing as a hack and slash. Saying "well we make up our own fluff" is both a crop out for lazy design and insulting to people who put actual effort into their story. The complaint is that there is very little fluff other than nut with axe and that isn't changed by the fact that somebody else can add fluff. Of course somebody else can add fluff, somebody else can fix 3E wizards, taht doesn't change they system's flaws
from
EE

Random NPC
2008-10-08, 04:53 PM
Multiclass into Swordmage or take the paragon path of Wizard of the Spiral Tower and homebrew it a bit to use a Shiv instead (simple melee weapon, prof +2, 1d3, light blade, off-hand)

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 04:56 PM
It's a frickin' Barbarian in a multi-setting system. How much information do you need? It's a general, well-understood concept.

Knaight
2008-10-08, 04:57 PM
Its a playtest article. Its not going to have all the fluff, because you don't need to playtest that. And there is way more fluff than that anyways, including some of the attack descriptions, which are a step above those in the players hand book.

3e has loads of utterly worthless crap(class interactions for instance, which somehow still managed to retain a tenuous grasp in fourth edition), which fourth removes. The fourth edition version portrays the barbarian as a savage fighter connected to primal spirits rather than the gods who favors offensive tactics and heavy weapons. Seeing as classes are a means to an end(the character you want, which is fluff, you just want to fit that around mechanics) anyways, no more is really needed. It sparks the imagination, it doesn't drone on, because a starting point is all thats really needed for fluff. Furthermore there is no way that saying "we'll make our own fluff" is an insult to people who put effort into the story/setting, because thats what fluff is.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 04:59 PM
It's a frickin' Barbarian in a multi-setting system. How much information do you need? It's a general, well-understood concept.
Its about quality. An axe wielding nut is a very boring and shallow presentation of a class and entirely uninteresting. I like some quality back ground, as most classes (most) get in 3E.

Compare the PrCs in the "complete" series to the ones by the giant or in the cooler homebrews. The complete ones are simply three sentence descriptions that really amount to very little more than the combat states and picture, while the others actually reveal some interesting detailed information



Its a playtest article. Its not going to have all the fluff, because you don't need to playtest that. And there is way more fluff than that anyways, including some of the attack descriptions, which are a step above those in the players hand book.

1) Combat descriptions doesn't amount to very much
2) So? The complaint is lack of fluff makes it uninteresting and that still stands, play test or no


3e has loads of utterly worthless crap(class interactions for instance, which somehow still managed to retain a tenuous grasp in fourth edition), which fourth removes.
Define crap? I rather like class interactions, it adds an extra element to the game. Clerics and wizards don't tend to see eye to eye because of the differences between faith and intellectualism. Wizards and sorcs don't always agree because of differences in study and raw talent. Binders and clerics don't get alone for other reasons ects.


The fourth edition version portrays the barbarian as a savage fighter connected to primal spirits rather than the gods who favors offensive tactics and heavy weapons. Seeing as classes are a means to an end(the character you want, which is fluff, you just want to fit that around mechanics) anyways, no more is really needed. It sparks the imagination, it doesn't drone on, because a starting point is all thats really needed for fluff. Furthermore there is no way that saying "we'll make our own fluff" is an insult to people who put effort into the story/setting, because thats what fluff is.
1) And it doesn't go into any detail, which makes a perfectly cool idea utterly useless
2) Of course its insulting, because your basically saying fluff in game is only an unnecessary hinderence that bogs the game down and limits role playing. When you justify a game getting away with next to no back ground with the claim its less limiting, then that promotion of lazy design is a slap in the face for games that really make an effort in their background

from
EE

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 05:02 PM
When I'm looking at a class, I'm looking for good mechanics and cool abilities. I'm making the character interesting and deep myself.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 05:02 PM
how can you people instigate trolling when you don't' even address teh issue? What kind of double standard is that. Snide insults are all well and good, but accusations of trolling is only evading the question. Actually approach the problem for goodness sakes. in the 3E PHB, other flaws regardless, does go into far more detail about the barbarian then 4E's new version, which is basically "Grrrrrrr, big axe" It goes into common beliefs, ideals, practices, religion, normal interactions with other classes based upon their common beliefs, the way the class normal identifies with themselves and others. Its not a rule, but it is a description and it makes it more interesting then simply a series of mechanics about hitting things. And stop using the argument about "Oh, there isn't any fluff, thats good because we can make up our own" because thats an excuse. its a crop out for WotC's laziness. Its basically rule zero, and that doesn't work as a defense for an edition's flaws, as proven with 3E again and again and again. 4E didn't put any effort into fluff and description, as this article proves. It is just a combat figure, and that is shallow design unless the game is only existing as a hack and slash. Saying "well we make up our own fluff" is both a crop out for lazy design and insulting to people who put actual effort into their story. The complaint is that there is very little fluff other than nut with axe and that isn't changed by the fact that somebody else can add fluff. Of course somebody else can add fluff, somebody else can fix 3E wizards, taht doesn't change they system's flaws
from
EE

First of all I would like to say that the third edition barb fluff wasn't that great to begin with. It gave a very vague picture of the barb's place in society and didn't do anything to talk about tribal structures, and or the specifics of how a barbarian gets his or her powers. When I DMed I pretty much had to fluff up all the classes to fit into my world and ended up using very little of the included barb fluff. D&D is all about making your own fluff and stories using the mechanics provided to you. Pretty much all the provided fluff in previous editions was mediocre at best, so I have no problem with them including less of it for the sake of more interesting game mechantics.

Secondly...I'm not a BS Multiclass...I'm a wizard. I already told you people I keep it real with my Seline Deon CD Shiv. If WOTC won't support my choice I'm just going to have to roll Ol SKool Gurpes style. Perhaps then my dream of one day owning a pimped out mech to go along with my magical shivving will be realized.

*Edit: And yes I said Mechantics, again that's how I roll.

Da Beast
2008-10-08, 05:04 PM
how can you people instigate trolling when you don't' even address teh issue? What kind of double standard is that. Snide insults are all well and good, but accusations of trolling is only evading the question. Actually approach the problem for goodness sakes. in the 3E PHB, other flaws regardless, does go into far more detail about the barbarian then 4E's new version, which is basically "Grrrrrrr, big axe" It goes into common beliefs, ideals, practices, religion, normal interactions with other classes based upon their common beliefs, the way the class normal identifies with themselves and others. Its not a rule, but it is a description and it makes it more interesting then simply a series of mechanics about hitting things. And stop using the argument about "Oh, there isn't any fluff, thats good because we can make up our own" because thats an excuse. its a crop out for WotC's laziness. Its basically rule zero, and that doesn't work as a defense for an edition's flaws, as proven with 3E again and again and again. 4E didn't put any effort into fluff and description, as this article proves. It is just a combat figure, and that is shallow design unless the game is only existing as a hack and slash. Saying "well we make up our own fluff" is both a crop out for lazy design and insulting to people who put actual effort into their story. The complaint is that there is very little fluff other than nut with axe and that isn't changed by the fact that somebody else can add fluff. Of course somebody else can add fluff, somebody else can fix 3E wizards, taht doesn't change they system's flaws
from
EE

The class fluff in the Player's Handbook useless. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but no one in my group ever used it. When I make a big warrior guy I already have an idea in my head for what he's like and I don't need the PHB to tell me how likely he is to think druids are a bunch of hippies or that I shouldn't trust rogues. When they expanded the flavor text for every class they released people got pissed. It's material no one uses and they don't want to pay for it.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:04 PM
Compare the PrCs in the "complete" series to the ones by the giant or in the cooler homebrews. The complete ones are simply three sentence descriptions that really amount to very little more than the combat states and picture, while the others actually reveal some interesting detailed information
from
EE

Tell you what - I am Fluffmaster McFlufferson. I have made two settings, and I've won three custom class awards on various boards, each one for "Most Flavorful" or the equivalent. (The Child of Source Sorcerer and Cacophonic Bard on WotC, The Eldritch Blade on GameFAQs). I am the guy who used to write pages and pages of biography. I write out lyrics to bard songs.

If a class requires more fluff than what you can get in the average Complete ____/4E entry, with their useful and evocative short snippets, then it is -not- representing a generic or common concept and in all likelihood is taking up much more space than is necessary telling the reader something that a lot of them aren't interested in anyway.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:09 PM
When I'm looking at a class, I'm looking for good mechanics and cool abilities. I'm making the character interesting and deep myself.
And i can make mechanics on my own, where does that put us. thats basically promoting tolerance for shallow back ground design and making classes utterly uninteresting.


First of all I would like to say that the third edition barb fluff wasn't that great to begin with. It gave a very vague picture of the barb's place in society and didn't do anything to talk about tribal structures, and or the specifics of how a barbarian gets his or her powers.

They certainly went into more detail than this. It could have used a lot more detail, but at least they tried



When I DMed I pretty much had to fluff up all the classes to fit into my world and ended up using very little of the included barb fluff. D&D is all about making your own fluff and stories using the mechanics provided to you. Pretty much all the provided fluff in previous editions was mediocre at best, so I have no problem with them including less of it for the sake of more interesting game mechantics.
Again, does that make a for a game when ignoring fluff is considered a good thing? Anyone can make up fluff, and 3E having fluff in no way limits your imagination. You can always choose to ignore fluff, same way you can mechanics. However that isn't an excuse for lazy design
from
EE

Draz74
2008-10-08, 05:09 PM
I don't see how spirits make it better, the barbarion always seemed like a guy who can harness his own primal emotions into pure rage, not a spirit guy by default (through you can certainly do it that way). I always thought the many Shaman classes did that better

... news flash: The 4E classes with the "Primal Power Source" are all going to be somewhat Shamanistic if they weren't already.

Yes, that means the Barbarian's fluff is a little different than it used to be. If you want to play a 3E-style Barbarian, with a more Martial power source, in 4E, play a Fighter and fluff him as a barbaric type. (Maybe with multiclassing ... we haven't been told yet how that works, i.e. what the Barbarian multiclass feat will be like.)

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 05:15 PM
Again, does that make a for a game when ignoring fluff is considered a good thing? Anyone can make up fluff, and 3E having fluff in no way limits your imagination. You can always choose to ignore fluff, same way you can mechanics. However that isn't an excuse for lazy design


I would actually argue that 3.x design was much more lazy. Hence having several melee classes that behave almost the same in a combat situation. As a DM I make my own fluff, what I expect from my designers is a system that makes any class fun to play in an encounter, be it combat or role-play based. If they had included a ton of fluff I probably wouldn't have used it anyway.

AAAAAAAnnnndd, this is just a preview. They may very well include a ton of fluff in the actual release of the class that I will end up ignoring but will probably make you very happy.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:17 PM
Tell you what - I am Fluffmaster McFlufferson. I have made two settings, and I've won three custom class awards on various boards, each one for "Most Flavorful" or the equivalent. (The Child of Source Sorcerer and Cacophonic Bard on WotC, The Eldritch Blade on GameFAQs). I am the guy who used to write pages and pages of biography. I write out lyrics to bard songs.

If a class requires more fluff than what you can get in the average Complete ____/4E entry, with their useful and evocative short snippets, then it is -not- representing a generic or common concept and in all likelihood is taking up much more space than is necessary telling the reader something that a lot of them aren't interested in anyway.

So waht your basically saying is that background is unneeded and only mechanics matter? What kind of design advice is that? Thats rendering hte point of fluff without use. If you are such a fluff king as you've claimed (wow, i hope that isn't taken out of context) then you should be able to understand the value back ground and story and if you view that as unimportant then taht is basically applauding shallow design




The class fluff in the Player's Handbook useless. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but no one in my group ever used it. When I make a big warrior guy I already have an idea in my head for what he's like and I don't need the PHB to tell me how likely he is to think druids are a bunch of hippies or that I shouldn't trust rogues. When they expanded the flavor text for every class they released people got pissed. It's material no one uses and they don't want to pay for it.
1) Define useless
2) So you have your own idea, good for you, taht doesn't make the including of back ground useless, its just you choosing not to using it.
3) Nobody uses? Back taht up with something. really go ahead, i'm eager to see where you collect this information
4) Fluff can provide back ground, depth, ideas and detail to make a series of numbers into an interesting concept . Weather you choose to use it doesn't render it irrelevant
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:20 PM
So waht your basically saying is that background is unneeded and only mechanics matter? What kind of design advice is that? Thats rendering hte point of fluff without use. If you are such a fluff king as you've claimed (wow, i hope that isn't taken out of context) then you should be able to understand the value back ground and story and if you view that as unimportant then taht is basically applauding shallow design

Fluff is important to a character. It IS the character. It's necessary, but not helpful beyond the basics to a character class in a game where each class is supposed to represent a wide variety of semi-related concepts. Relevant fluff, the fluff that makes people go "AWESOME", is that which is inextricably bound to the very mechanic of the class - not pages and pages of text.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:20 PM
I would actually argue that 3.x design was much more lazy. Hence having several melee classes that behave almost the same in a combat situation. As a DM I make my own fluff, what I expect from my designers is a system that makes any class fun to play in an encounter, be it combat or role-play based. If they had included a ton of fluff I probably wouldn't have used it anyway.

1) Um, what? most of the classes have extremly diverse combat design. it doesn't work but that isn't lazyness, thats bad design. You could call 3E lazy for not trying to orginize itself, but taht is a different story
2) The fluff takes up almost three pages, while 4E's is about a paragraph? How is taht lazy?
3) So your saying the fluff has no point in a game then?


AAAAAAAnnnndd, this is just a preview. They may very well include a ton of fluff in the actual release of the class that I will end up ignoring but will probably make you very happy.
Considering the lack luster performance of the other PHB classes, i'm not making any bets
from
EE

Artanis
2008-10-08, 05:21 PM
I never had trouble making a character with a unique personality and deep, interesting background - in other words, a character with lots of fluff - when all I had access to was the SRD. And seriously, if I can do that without having a bunch of pre-existing stuff in the class description, then anybody can.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:24 PM
Fluff is important to a character. It IS the character. It's necessary, but not helpful beyond that to a character class in a game where each class is supposed to represent a wide variety of semi-related concepts.

yes it is, it provides detail, back ground, ideas. What the class repersents, its common beliefs, the interesting back ground about it, that is breathing life into a class rather then making it a pile of numbers


I never had trouble making a character with a unique personality and deep, interesting background - in other words, a character with lots of fluff - when all I had access to was the SRD. And seriously, if I can do that without having a bunch of pre-existing stuff in the class description, then anybody can.
So? It doesn't make the SRD's races/monsters/classes any less intersecting. Rule zero is not an excuse for lazy design, as 3E proved
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:31 PM
yes it is, it provides detail, back ground, ideas. What the class repersents, its common beliefs, the interesting back ground about it, that is breathing life into a class rather then making it a pile of numbers

The word 'Barbarian' does that - it is simple, brings with it a host of semi-related imagery and meanings, and well-understood. Less is more in the world of evocative language. If this was a "Harry Potter Wizard" class in a very specific setting - Hogwarts - then sure. But you have a generically understood concept that is supposed to be insertable into at least three worlds (FR, Eberron, and Core.) Core is specifically vague since it is an "anything goes" setting, and it is up to the campaign setting if people need specific information about how they fit in.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:34 PM
The word 'Barbarian' does that. Less is more in the world of evocative language.

barbarian can mean a lot of different things. Actually its one of the most subjective terms in history. the 3E view is like a beserker who embraces their primal emotions to a higher level, while 4E seems to be like a spirit warrior. It doesn't have to mean nut with axe simply because the combat ablities look like that
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:35 PM
barbarian can mean a lot of different things. Actually its one of the most subjective terms in history. the 3E view is like a beserker who embraces their primal emotions to a higher level, while 4E seems to be like a spirit warrior. It doesn't have to mean nut with axe simply because the combat ablities look like that
from
EE

Thank you for proving my point about the semi-related bit. Thus, you let the person fill their own expectations out, rather than projecting something that conflicts with their conception.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:36 PM
Thank you for proving my point. Thus, you let the person fill their own expectations out.

I said the word is subjective, taht isn't an excuse to not include detail. If a player can make their own concept, power to them, that doesn't justify lazy design. Unless your saying fluff has no place in a game like D&D. Why do you like fluff?
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 05:40 PM
barbarian can mean a lot of different things. Actually its one of the most subjective terms in history. the 3E view is like a beserker who embraces their primal emotions to a higher level, while 4E seems to be like a spirit warrior. It doesn't have to mean nut with axe simply because the combat ablities look like that
from
EE

That isn't howI saw the Barbarian in 3rd.
I saw him as the more skilled and versatile warrior class. He had more skill points, he was fast, and could fight just as well as any other warrior class like the Fighter.
He can call forth his mind to a higher plane of enlightenment (battlerager fluff), Call forth the spirits of his ancestors (4th's way I guess though I did this eay in 3rd edition), or just release his Id (my view of rage).

I never saw rage as Primal emotions: that would be Wilder fluff.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:40 PM
I said the word is subjective, taht isn't an excuse to not include detail. If a player can make their own concept, power to them, that doesn't justify lazy design. Unless your saying fluff has no place in a game like D&D. Why do you like fluff?
from
EE

As I said earlier, the place of fluff is in the character and the campaign setting. Other than that, the premade fluff should only be in mechanics tied directly to it.

I've made my own system; it is a fairly generic system, and only a few abilities are directly tied to one type of effect or origin. I go on at length in the setting section of the material in the differentiation in the habits and preferences of different kinds of learned magic casters, but except where I created a mechanic that directly ties to fluff, the system allows you to pick any ability you want and describe it any way you want.

In other words, a fiery explosion could be a fireball or it could be a grenade, they have the same effect and are used/accessed mechanically in the same way - but expelling a possessor from a creature is a very specific effect, so the mechanic is always magical. The only fluff included with advancement trees is to highlight non-obvious interpretations of abilities.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 05:41 PM
1) Um, what? most of the classes have extremly diverse combat design. it doesn't work but that isn't lazyness, thats bad design. You could call 3E lazy for not trying to orginize itself, but taht is a different story
2) The fluff takes up almost three pages, while 4E's is about a paragraph? How is taht lazy?
3) So your saying the fluff has no point in a game then?


D&D is a game that has always been designed to work with just about any story. If you want rule systems meant to work around a set background you should probably be playing WhiteWolf or Shadowrun. The rules of D&D are meant to be adapted to any story/system.

I'm not a big fan of the D&D base world and I was never a big fan (though I did find them interesting) of using pre-constructed game worlds to tell my stories.

As for extremely diverse combat design...I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you see a level 17 warrior and a level 17 barb in the same group in 3rd...there wasn't too much difference in their tactics. You charge in, look for flank opportunities, maybe try to get into a position to proc your cleaves or use your whirlwind attack, but other than that there wasn't too much. The barb had to be more tactical on when to use his rages and the warrior has to know when to put up his defences and weather huge attacks...but other than that there wasn't much there. I suppose you could argue that feats played a huge role in choices, but in that case you pretty much had "I'm hitting a lot more with two weapons" or "I'm hitting really hard with my two-hander." Or maybe "I'm using a shield and not hitting so hard to be much harder to strike." Or perhaps "I'm trying to trip people with my spiked chain." Fourth edition melee powers introduce many more tactical elements to the fray making melee classes much more viable and fun to play.

But...I'm getting off topic. Fluff is suggestive in D&D, it always has been. Players and DMs make their own fluff and story for characters, races and classes. For example, I converted my world from 3.x to 4.0, as a result, the classes and races in my world use the same mechanics as those in 4.0, but they all have very different origin stories and roles they played during the loss of the first city during the destroyer wars. All home-spun fluff that works for what I'm looking to do with my story.

I suppose you could call them lazy, I call it a better strategic design choice. You only have so many pages for the book and you need to fill them with information important to the game. And I'd rather have more room for class powers, magical items, and combat rules than more pages on how Illgriff the barbarian feels sad because his people have been driven away by the evil moose clan ninja making him spiteful towards both moose and ninja equally.

(I know how Illgriff feels.)

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 05:43 PM
A question - do you consider A Bearded Warrior Fighting With A Broadsword, Wearing A Kilt, Disliking Fish, With A Talent For Whistling And A Soft Spot For Kittens to be a good or bad character concept?

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 06:01 PM
A question - do you consider A Bearded Warrior Fighting With A Broadsword, Wearing A Kilt, Disliking Fish, With A Talent For Whistling And A Soft Spot For Kittens to be a good or bad character concept?

Um, could you repeat the question please?

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 06:10 PM
That isn't howI saw the Barbarian in 3rd.
I saw him as the more skilled and versatile warrior class. He had more skill points, he was fast, and could fight just as well as any other warrior class like the Fighter.
He can call forth his mind to a higher plane of enlightenment (battlerager fluff), Call forth the spirits of his ancestors (4th's way I guess though I did this eay in 3rd edition), or just release his Id (my view of rage).

I never saw rage as Primal emotions: that would be Wilder fluff.

I always viewed him as a dude who's tapping into his inner self to grasp the raw emotion and animal instinct that all humans have. Its like taking the part of you that is normally left untapped due to civilation and cultivating it into a raw power that you use as rage. Through our descriptions are pretty similar


As I said earlier, the place of fluff is in the character and the campaign setting. Other than that, the premade fluff should only be in mechanics tied directly to it.

So all RPGs shouldn't include fluff or back ground because its only limitation? Thats such an empty idea. Fluff adds life to a game, without it a game is essentially shallow

Take White wolf's games. I play some of them, even through i am totally not the intended audience. But they do such a great job with fluff and back ground that it is worth it

Legend of the five rings without fluff? its boring, its not interesting, its shallow, its essentially dead.


I've made my own system; it is a fairly generic system, and only a few abilities are directly tied to one type of effect or origin. I go on at length in the setting section of the material in the differentiation in the habits and preferences of different kinds of learned magic casters, but except where I created a mechanic that directly ties to fluff, the system allows you to pick any ability you want and describe it any way you want.

So a system as presented should only be mechanics? You realize the implications of taht right?


D&D is a game that has always been designed to work with just about any story. If you want rule systems meant to work around a set background you should probably be playing WhiteWolf or Shadowrun. The rules of D&D are meant to be adapted to any story/system.

That isn't a reason to not include the fluff because they are tied together. A good games is more then just a set of functional mechanics, it also has to be interesting on its own. Without fluff and background, a game is simply an empty shell, its not a game so much as an empty set of numbers. It is shallow. If you can make up your own fluff thats great, but just because you personally don't like the D&D fluff doesn't make its point any less valid. It has just as important part of the game, if not more.



I'm not a big fan of the D&D base world and I was never a big fan (though I did find them interesting) of using pre-constructed game worlds to tell my stories.

D&D doesn't have a base world, it has a base design concept (Cosmology) but no base world. Well i suppose greyhawk, but not really.

Also everybody keeps saying "D&d default fluff is bad" but they don't explain how


As for extremely diverse combat design...I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you see a level 17 warrior and a level 17 barb in the same group in 3rd...there wasn't too much difference in their tactics. You charge in, look for flank opportunities, maybe try to get into a position to proc your cleaves or use your whirlwind attack, but other than that there wasn't too much. The barb had to be more tactical on when to use his rages and the warrior has to know when to put up his defences and weather huge attacks...but other than that there wasn't much there.
I suppose you could argue that feats played a huge role in choices, but in that case you pretty much had "I'm hitting a lot more with two weapons" or "I'm hitting really hard with my two-hander." Or maybe "I'm using a shield and not hitting so hard to be much harder to strike." Or perhaps "I'm trying to trip people with my spiked chain."

Feats make a massive difference, because it makes your entire style different. ok, i suppose if you have a fighter without feats sure, but the feats they choose to enhance their abilities will make a difference. Now in teh end both are redundant because the party wizard will just render them useless but hey...



Fourth edition melee powers introduce many more tactical elements to the fray making melee classes much more viable and fun to play.
True, but in doing so simplify the rest of the game. Would be find if it has been niche great, but it isn't


But...I'm getting off topic. Fluff is suggestive in D&D, it always has been. Players and DMs make their own fluff and story for characters, races and classes. For example, I converted my world from 3.x to 4.0, as a result, the classes and races in my world use the same mechanics as those in 4.0, but they all have very different origin stories and roles they played during the loss of the first city during the destroyer wars. All home-spun fluff that works for what I'm looking to do with my story.

But it also has always been about presenting good material as default. Fluff makes the game more interesting rather than a mash of numbers. in Tome of Magic, if binder was just mechanics, it wouldn't be interesting at all. Anyone can make their own fluff, and thats fine, but that isn't a justification to simply design the game like a crappy action RPG and evade teh responsibility of making a back ground


I suppose you could call them lazy, I call it a better strategic design choice. You only have so many pages for the book and you need to fill them with information important to the game. And I'd rather have more room for class powers, magical items, and combat rules than more pages on how Illgriff the barbarian feels sad because his people have been driven away by the evil moose clan ninja making him spiteful towards both moose and ninja equally.

Define important. Combat takes up more than anything else, and it makes everything else simply dead

Again, rule zero doesn't offer protection from the rules. Once you look past combat, 4E is little more than an empty hack and slash as designed, and simply adding fluff is like adding balence to 3E. Anyone can make flfuf, taht doesn't mean game designers can simply neglect to make back ground. It is lazy because its neglecting a very important and essential part of teh game

Tengu, yeah i could work certainly. It also could not, that isn't very much information. If it could work, it would need a lot more information than that
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 06:15 PM
So a system as presented should only be mechanics? You realize the implications of taht right?

A generic system, when discussing its mechanics, should only or principally discuss the mechanics. Campaign setting books exist for a reason.


That isn't a reason to not include the fluff because they are tied together. A good games is more then just a set of functional mechanics, it also has to be interesting on its own. Without fluff and background, a game is simply an empty shell, its not a game so much as an empty set of numbers. It is shallow. If you can make up your own fluff thats great, but just because you personally don't like the D&D fluff doesn't make its point any less valid. It has just as important part of the game, if not more.

I didn't say that it wasn't important. It is equally important as the rules. No rules mean that it is freeform, no fluff means that it's a gimpy version of a computer or board game. However, a core rulebook's first priority is 'the rules'; good ideas grow on many more braintrees than good rules. Fluff in addition is sometimes nice, but that's about it. Similarly, when I am buying a fluff supplement, I do not expect rules and rule supplements everywhere. Here and there, sure, sometimes nice - but if I'm buying a fluff book, I already have a system to use it for. Rules are not what I was expecting and not needed.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 06:26 PM
Also everybody keeps saying "D&d default fluff is bad" but they don't explain how

Feats make a massive difference, because it makes your entire style different. ok, i suppose if you have a fighter without feats sure, but the feats they choose to enhance their abilities will make a difference. Now in teh end both are redundant because the party wizard will just render them useless but hey...

True, but in doing so simplify the rest of the game.

Define important. Combat takes up more than anything else, and it makes everything else simply dead


Excessive fluff isn't really bad, it's more unnecessary. Base amounts of fluff will get the noobs running and on their way to creating their own setting, lands, and worlds. If you don't want to go that route, then choose an established D&D gameworld and base all your games out of that setting. The various D&D game worlds have plenty of fluff and then some.

Feats in 3rd made a massive difference? Really? I suppose if I wanted to specialize and hit really hard with X weapon then I better use X weapon. Or maybe I want to do a lot of tripping or grappling...or maybe use some bluff. It boiled down to very basic strategies based around the 5 or 6 non-standard attack methods that were available. As a game combat system it was horrible (when compared to other combat systems of modern gaming)...the one thing I will give you is that the skill system was, in my opinion, more robust and gave players the ability to create more unique individuals. However, the feats and classes (minus caster classes) had little actual variety and didn't really work well with each-other minus a few exceptions. (And to be fare, I'm only comparing core book to core book.)

As for simplifies the rest of the game, I would disagree. You can have plenty of non-combat encounters that use the skill and utility power options to great advantage. I've had full on stealth quest where a rogue used her utility powers and her skill set to sneak into a castle and find her way past guard and trap to steal a very valuable relic. One thing that a lot of people dont realize is that the utility powers and rituals can be used to great effect for out of combat play. What exactly did 3.0 have that made it's out of combat play so much better? (And I'm actually asking this question seriously as I'm unable to think of anything specific off the top of my head.)

Combat heavy games are a choice, I've had several games in 4e that contained no combat and they were just as good as my similar 3e games.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-08, 06:49 PM
I believe that WOTC may have come to the conclusion that most people didn't actually read the lengthy fluff sections in the Complete Foo line of splatbooks. I'm not saying that this conclusion is accurate, but if you take a look at D&D forums here or anywhere, it would seem that most people do indeed take e.g. prestige classes for the mechanical benefit, rather than for the fluff.

So if the main audience does not appear to be interested in fluff, WOTC can hardly be blamed for cutting down on fluff. And as a result, the PHB (and AV, for that matter) are 95% crunch in fourth edition. That's just a statement of fact; I have not so far considered it problematic. On the other hand, I should point out that the first FR book is about 95% fluff, so if you want fluff it's still available.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 07:16 PM
On the other hand, I should point out that the first FR book is about 95% fluff, so if you want fluff it's still available.

My point exactly!

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 08:26 PM
A generic system, when discussing its mechanics, should only or principally discuss the mechanics. Campaign setting books exist for a reason.

Mechanics are not the entire system, just part of it. Campaign books exist for a reason, taht isn't it. They exist to offer a world to place teh fluff and the mechanics in, not to make the fluff



I didn't say that it wasn't important. It is equally important as the rules. No rules mean that it is freeform, no fluff means that it's a gimpy version of a computer or board game. However, a core rulebook's first priority is 'the rules'; good ideas grow on many more braintrees than good rules. Fluff in addition is sometimes nice, but that's about it. Similarly, when I am buying a fluff supplement, I do not expect rules and rule supplements everywhere. Here and there, sure, sometimes nice - but if I'm buying a fluff book, I already have a system to use it for. Rules are not what I was expecting and not needed.
no, the core books aren't about the entire game, not just teh mechanics. Fluff is still part of the game itself, not just an add on. A game without fluff is almost by definition a hack and slash. IF fluff isn't part of the core game, then you are essentially saying mechanics>fluff


Excessive fluff isn't really bad, it's more unnecessary. Base amounts of fluff will get the noobs running and on their way to creating their own setting, lands, and worlds. If you don't want to go that route, then choose an established D&D gameworld and base all your games out of that setting. The various D&D game worlds have plenty of fluff and then some.
No, because D&D game worlds are add ones. They aren't core products. Fluff is an essential part of the main game, not something only sold in secondary products. The game is not just a mass of mechanics, that is a pathetic excuse for a product, that is only a shallow game that doesn't have any actually quality. Fluff is part of the game's existence, it is what make the game alive. Sure you can use your own, but you can use your own mechanics as well, taht isn't an excuse for


Feats in 3rd made a massive difference? Really? I suppose if I wanted to specialize and hit really hard with X weapon then I better use X weapon. Or maybe I want to do a lot of tripping or grappling...or maybe use some bluff. It boiled down to very basic strategies based around the 5 or 6 non-standard attack methods that were available. As a game combat system it was horrible (when compared to other combat systems of modern gaming)
It did add variety, i mean look at the complete series. Does 3E have a great combat system? No. Does it have the ground work for one? Certainly. But combat isn't everything


...the one thing I will give you is that the skill system was, in my opinion, more robust and gave players the ability to create more unique individuals. However, the feats and classes (minus caster classes) had little actual variety and didn't really work well with each-other minus a few exceptions. (And to be fare, I'm only comparing core book to core book.)
4E hates diversity in options and differences. But thats another side affect of the game being dumbed down to the point where it is basically "D&D for dummies"


As for simplifies the rest of the game, I would disagree. You can have plenty of non-combat encounters that use the skill and utility power options to great advantage. I've had full on stealth quest where a rogue used her utility powers and her skill set to sneak into a castle and find her way past guard and trap to steal a very valuable relic.
1) But they aren't designed as such. Hell, NPCs and PCs aren't even designed on the same basis, of course its simplified. Compare to 2E where spells were designed to be used in an intellegent manner.
2) Um, using combat skills to sneak doesn't prove your point very well
The entire game is next to nothing but simplfication. THe entire game has been dumbed down the point where it is almost patronizing. Death rules, world building, NPCs rules, monsters, races, classes, fluff, dark vision, alignment, gods, paladins, cosmology, description, evil characters, PrC, weapons, magic items, bloody gnomes. Its just a series of painful cliches and arbitrary changes that are baffling unless they are deliberately trying to make the game like a video game/hack and slash to appeal to a wider audience and tahts just betraying the game.


One thing that a lot of people dont realize is that the utility powers and rituals can be used to great effect for out of combat play. What exactly did 3.0 have that made it's out of combat play so much better? (And I'm actually asking this question seriously as I'm unable to think of anything specific off the top of my head.)

Depth? Consistency? Verisimilitude? Diversity? Originality?




I believe that WOTC may have come to the conclusion that most people didn't actually read the lengthy fluff sections in the Complete Foo line of splatbooks. I'm not saying that this conclusion is accurate, but if you take a look at D&D forums here or anywhere, it would seem that most people do indeed take e.g. prestige classes for the mechanical benefit, rather than for the fluff.

So if the main audience does not appear to be interested in fluff, WOTC can hardly be blamed for cutting down on fluff. And as a result, the PHB (and AV, for that matter) are 95% crunch in fourth edition. That's just a statement of fact; I have not so far considered it problematic. On the other hand, I should point out that the first FR book is about 95% fluff, so if you want fluff it's still available.
1) Ok, prove that most of D&D players don't care about fluff.
2) First off it was like 60% and that was entirely crap. Destroying the established setting in the most ham handed manner possible, breaking established fluff and ideas to squeeze its own elements in, violating the existing history of the game, and in the end leaving us with a mockery of the original setting, and packed full with cliched and sloppy ideas that Eragon would take notes. FR is dead
from
EE

FoE
2008-10-08, 08:41 PM
FR is dead

OMG, they didn't release a setting exactly as I would have had it! Forgotten Realms is Ruined FOREVER! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER)

EE, your problem seems to be that you want a bunch of fluff in your Core books, and you apparently interpret the absence of fluff as D&D becoming a hack-and-slash RPG. Here's the thing: a lot of DMs would rather create their own worlds. They would rather use the rules as the foundation and apply their own interpretations. For example, I might want lizard men as the most numerous species within my campaign world and have a very-advanced civilization; generally, I will ignore accompanying descriptions in the Monster Manual that say lizard men live in mud huts in swamps.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the fluff says. Players will do what they want. It's not that we don't like fluff; it's that we don't necessarily need WotC's fluff.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 08:48 PM
OMG, they didn't release a setting exactly as I would have had it! Forgotten Realms is Ruined FOREVER! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER)
[/QUOTE[
So your not actually going to address the point
[QUOTE]
EE, your problem seems to be that you want a bunch of fluff in your Core books. Here's the thing: a lot of DMs would rather create their own worlds. They would rather use the rules as the foundation and apply their own interpretations. For example, I might want lizard men as the most numerous species within my campaign world and have a very-advanced civilization; generally, I will ignore accompanying descriptions in the Monster Manual that say lizard men live in mud huts in swamps.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the fluff says. Players will do what they want.

This doesn't prove anything. Of course everyone is going to tweak stuff to their own advantage and make up stuff, that doesn't change the fact that fluff has a place in the game by default. having people make up their own fluff is great, it doesn't justify inept design on the part of designers which leads to a shallow game
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 08:52 PM
You keep saying it leads to a shallow game, but that's just not true. Clearly, if so many people are not only willing but leaping to put in their own fluff and ignore whatever Wizards says, there is a very reasonable expectation that the users will fill in the gaps and be happy for it. That's like criticizing Lego Models for not coming preassembled, almost.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 08:57 PM
You keep saying it leads to a shallow game, but that's just not true. Clearly, if so many people are not only willing but leaping to put in their own fluff and ignore whatever Wizards says, there is a very reasonable expectation that the users will fill in the gaps and be happy for it. That's like criticizing Lego Models for not coming preassembled, almost.

public option doesn't prove quality. People like Eragon, Domionic Deegan, and even shreeded moose and they have no quality. Making up your own fluff doesn't chance the fact the game as designed is shallow
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 08:58 PM
public option doesn't prove quality. People like Eragon, Domionic Deegan, and even shreeded moose and they have no quality. Making up your own fluff doesn't chance the fact the game as designed is shallow
from
EE

Sorry, but that's a really bad analogy. I provided an analogy to something that expects user input, you showed something which is purely consumed. Reading, watching - those are one-way streets. Model-building, role-playing... those require end-user input greatly, and it's actually pretty hard to buy pre-assembled models that are good. People across the industry seem to prefer building things themselves. If someone mangles it on the way, so long as it's not due to shoddy craftsmanship, it's not the kit's fault.

FoE
2008-10-08, 09:03 PM
Most DMs would rather adapt the rules to their own ends and create their own fluff, but you don't agree. The problem is that you're the exception to the rule, EE, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

String
2008-10-08, 09:06 PM
Just popping in for the analogy discussion. Liked the Crunch and fluff on the Barbarian, will probably do fluff variants myself, agree more with Astralfire than EE.

A more fitting analogy for legos and the discussion at hand would be getting angry at LEGO for not making ALL of their stuff kits.

Knaight
2008-10-08, 09:07 PM
Claiming that missing fluff makes the game shallow completely misses the point. Games are bought for the rules, because fluff is so much easier to find. For instance there are these things called novels, and these other things called stories, which contain tons of fluff that you can use with a game. But for mechanics either you buy the books, find free books, build your own from scratch with very little reference material, or reverse engineer videogame mechanics. Granted fluff is nice, assuming its good fluff that doesn't increase the cost(the fifty pages of example characters with personalities and such written in and such in Fudge aren't exactly complained about, seeing as they didn't increase the cost at all, as its free by default), but bad fluff just gets in the way, and ups cost. D&D 3.x had some good fluff(I did like the planes system), but you could just use a setting from a novel, or a campaign setting, or you could make up your own because you have been exposed to so much. D&D is already pushing its luck pretty much requiring three books, where pretty much everything else takes one, having three expensive books full of bad fluff is asking for trouble.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:00 PM
Most DMs would rather adapt the rules to their own ends and create their own fluff, but you don't agree. The problem is that you're the exception to the rule, EE, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Prove it. Really, prove it. If all Dm's don't want fluff in the game core, then you should have no problem backing that with more than sterotypes and empty words. Until you prove that, your claims of eccentricity are nothing more than name calling.


Claiming that missing fluff makes the game shallow completely misses the point. Games are bought for the rules, because fluff is so much easier to find.

No, games are bought for quality. Story and back ground add as much to teh game as mechanics do, while mechanics make the game work, fluff makes the game interesting. They add depth, they add meaning, content, quality, detail to things that actually do make a difference in teh game. Why is the lords of maddness better then the book of undead? Why is the Tomb of magic better tahn complete mage? BoED better than



For instance there are these things called novels, and these other things called stories, which contain tons of fluff that you can use with a game. But for mechanics either you buy the books, find free books, build your own from scratch with very little reference material, or reverse engineer videogame mechanics.
They are totally different mediums for gods sake, taht doesn't mean anything. your saying that 4E is excused for bad design because players can read books for ideas? What the heck is that? Players can also design their own mechanics, that didn't act as a justification for 3E. Fluff is part of the game. A game without fluff is inherently shallow, in teh same way a video game without a story is shallow (gauntlet). Fluff provides a basis for the game world, and makes other styles of play apart from hack and slash more appealing. It makes monsters more than random encounters (as written) classes more than a bundle of numbers, races more than a portrait, and alignment system actually meaning something.



Granted fluff is nice, assuming its good fluff that doesn't increase the cost(the fifty pages of example characters with personalities and such written in and such in Fudge aren't exactly complained about, seeing as they didn't increase the cost at all, as its free by default), but bad fluff just gets in the way, and ups cost. D&D 3.x had some good fluff(I did like the planes system), but you could just use a setting from a novel, or a campaign setting, or you could make up your own because you have been exposed to so much. D&D is already pushing its luck pretty much requiring three books, where pretty much everything else takes one, having three expensive books full of bad fluff is asking for trouble.
Same goes to books with bad mechanics, its two sides of teh same coin. A game thats nothing but fluff isn't actually a game but a novel, while a game without fluff is just shallow system. It lacks depth because what it presents doesn't actually mean anything
from
EE

Colmarr
2008-10-08, 10:17 PM
Ultimately, I think it boils down to a simple dichotomy. Correct me if I'm wrong:

EE believes that it is one of the fundamental obligations of creating a role-playing game that the author/designer provide a minimum level of setting and flavour.

Others either disagree or think that EE is setting the "minimum level" too high.

It's a difference of opinion. So be it. Let's move on. Clearly no one's going to be convincing anyone of anything any time soon.

FoE
2008-10-08, 10:21 PM
Prove it. Really, prove it. If all Dm's don't want fluff in the game core, then you should have no problem backing that with more than sterotypes and empty words. Until you prove that, your claims of eccentricity are nothing more than name-calling.

This forum is my proof. Look through this section. Look through the Homebrewing section. Look through the Ongoing Games section. You'll see dozens of examples of worlds created by players. People want to make their own worlds, EE.

I'm not going to cite specific examples, because I'm not interested in taking this discussion any further. I was willing to argue this to a point, but there's no end to this deate I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but since your opinion is not going to make the game any less awesome for me, so why should I care?

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:24 PM
Ultimately, I think it boils down to a simple dichotomy. Correct me if I'm wrong:

EE believes that it is one of the fundamental obligations of creating a role-playing game that the author/designer provide a minimum level of setting and flavour.

Others either disagree or think that EE is setting the "minimum level" too high.


Correct with one exception, EE thinks taht the fluff and flavor needs to be treated just as well as the mechanics


It's a difference of opinion. So be it. Let's move on. Clearly no one's going to be convincing anyone of anything any time soon.
I wish that could be the case. If 4E was its own game, like um, the rule book for the D&D miniatures, it would be its own niche game As a new edition however, there we have problems



This forum is my proof. Look through this section. Look through the Homebrewing section. Look through the Ongoing Games section. You'll see dozens of examples of worlds created by players. People want to make their own worlds, EE.
That doesn't prove anything. People making their own worlds doesn't mean they dislike having pre made fluff from teh settings. That doesn't prove anything at all. Look at the threads that mock 4E. Look at those worlds in question and their fluff. Look at the standards of fluff in this forum. Your prove is worth nothing.


I'm not going to cite specific examples, because I'm not interested in taking this discussion any further. You are wrong, but it's not going to make the game any less awesome for me, so why should I care?

Again, your points down to
"your wrong because i say so, and so i don't have to respond directly"
from
EE

Innis Cabal
2008-10-08, 10:28 PM
Let em have their fun EE. Its a game. You don't like it. They do. Where is the problem?

As for the class, looks good. Only really have looked through 4th ed, not really my cup of tea but it sure as heck looks pretty. More power to ya'll

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:35 PM
Let em have their fun EE. Its a game. You don't like it. They do. Where is the problem?

I don't care about the class itself, note i'm not complaining about the mechanics. I'm just pointing out that the fluff is really lack luster. Which is a good thing apperently:smallconfused:
from
EE

Innis Cabal
2008-10-08, 10:37 PM
Not that you will listen to me, like you've not read so many others

If the fluff is poor, make your own. If your playing D&D and don't have an imagination. You are playing the wrong game. Go get Madden. Or two sticks and a rock and bang em togather.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:42 PM
Not that you will listen to me, like you've not read so many others

If the fluff is poor, make your own. If your playing D&D and don't have an imagination. You are playing the wrong game. Go get Madden. Or two sticks and a rock and bang em togather.

Sign
My making my own fluff doesn't change flaws in the system presented.
from
EE

ArtifexFelicis
2008-10-08, 10:42 PM
Yay barbarians! One of the few things (I personally anyway) thought was truly missing from the new PHB. this seems rather incredibly awesome though. I'm even more hopeful then before actually. I think this is gonna be pulled off really well.

This makes me curious towards the Bard and Druid though. This guy is a Striker/Leader I think. Will that make Druid a controller/leader, and the bard a leader/controller?

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:49 PM
wait, an on topic post? The legends are true
from
EE

Colmarr
2008-10-08, 11:28 PM
a new edition however, there we have problems.

Why do you say that? Why does the fact that it's a new edition raise the minimum level of fluff?

Ultimately I think that the level of fluff you desire is higher than I require. I also think it's higher than "D&D" can support. Setting-specific fluff has its place in core rulebooks when there is only 1 intended setting.

Once you get to a point where the mechanics are going to be used in numerous different settings (and D&D is now home to at least 3 active offical campaign settings), fluff in core rulebooks becomes an albatross around each setting's neck.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 11:30 PM
Why do you say that? Why does the fact that it's a new edition raise the minimum level of fluff?

Ultimately I think that the level of fluff you desire is higher than I require. I also think it's higher than "D&D" can support. Setting-specific fluff has its place in core rulebooks when there is only 1 intended setting.

Once you get to a point where the mechanics are going to be used in numerous different settings (and D&D is now home to at least 3 active offical campaign settings), fluff in core rulebooks becomes an albatross around each setting's neck.

Because 4E doesn't hold up the fluff of the previous generation. Each successive edition should be able to increase teh quality of their mechanics, and the quality of their fluff, and 4E simply goes down the john in teh later department , MM in particular.
from
EE

Asbestos
2008-10-08, 11:34 PM
Thought that people wanting a different sort of 'barbarian' might want to check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93222). Check the fighter class feature. Yes, its a Fighter and not a Barbarian. Its a dude in less armor than the standard fighter and he gets invigorated when he gets hit by an enemy... and does more damage when he's invigorated. That seems easy enough to fluff up into a warrior from a barbarian tribe.

EE, where you see "some nut with an axe" I see "A guy that is channeling ancestor/totem spirits through his body in order to put up a more powerful fight". The new fluff is actually less "nut with axe" than the older fluff. The wellspring of strength isn't how crazy the guy can get, its how in tune he is with the totem spirits of his tribe. The "rage" is more supernatural now, less ... ragey. Heck, I might refluff it so that they aren't even called Rages, just cut that and put Evocation in its place. Maybe that's just me... but that's what the current fluff, the fluff that everyone can read, is saying to me.
Also, in defense of the article... its a playtest article and its the only representative of the Primal power source that we have. For instance, the limited fluff we have for the Martial power source lets me figure it out pretty easily "Classes that use the Martial power source rely more on physical and personal strength and skill than anything else, this stuff takes a lot of training". Divine can be figured out pretty easily too "Classes that use the Divine power source are granted supernatural powers by their order/god as a reward for deep devotion and are entrusted to use that granted power to further the ideals of the church/god" Cool, that right there gives me plenty of background stuff for the classes and helps me figure out how they might relate to each other. How do the Fighter and Paladin get along (let's assume the same alignment to make this easier)? The Fighter may respect the dedication the Paladin has to his church and the Paladin may respect the dedication the Fighter has to his training. The Fighter may think the Paladin is copping out by recieving his strength from something beyond himself instead of intense work and training while the Paladin may find the Fighter's lack of religious zeal to be a flaw. The Fighter may be completely self-serving while the Paladin is serving a higher power. I got all that from the fluff in the PHB and like... a minute of thought.

Da Beast
2008-10-08, 11:39 PM
I don't care about the class itself, note i'm not complaining about the mechanics. I'm just pointing out that the fluff is really lack luster. Which is a good thing apperently:smallconfused:
from
EE


4e gives you all the fluff you need. It tells you what the class is about and their place in the world. I don't need to know more about the Barbarian class than that its a guy who rages and smashes things with a big weapon. That's all the spring board required to build a character because each character is an individual. The fluff from 3e you're so in love with? It's really not good. Calling it story is pathetic. It's a bunch of stereotypes mashed together. Take a look at some of the flavor text in the 3.5 barbarian entry. How about the section on religion. To paraphrase, it says the some barbarians don't trust organized religions and prefer to worship nature. Other barbarians do follow a god. WOW! Where did they come up with this stuff? I will forever be a better role player for having read it. But brace yourself, the next section is even better! According to the background section Barbarians come from uncivilized lands and barbaric tribes. Truly, it was an artist who penned these words.

Asbestos
2008-10-09, 12:12 AM
Because 4E doesn't hold up the fluff of the previous generation. Each successive edition should be able to increase teh quality of their mechanics, and the quality of their fluff, and 4E simply goes down the john in teh later department , MM in particular.
from
EE

I think all that previous fluff just turns into baggage. I think that's why they did what they did to FR too. Wipe out the old and bring in something new. I don't see anything wrong with that.
On the subject of FR... its just advanced a couple of centuries, it isn't "Dead".
I mean, imagine someone wrote a setting called "Earth" (and imagine we don't know of Earth) and the setting details the events from 1750-1799 and gives a broad history of Earth's past. The setting has been out for a while and we've got names for every ruler and places for every nation. We know that there was a revolution in some of the North American english colonies and some upstart named Napolean is Emperor of France and waging war. This Napolean has also recently (1797) invaded/dismantled a 1000 year old Republic. The biggest military power on the European continent is Prussia and Imperial Russia keeps having problems with the Turkish Empire. South America is ruled by basically one country and a large amount of North America is still 'frontier' with a number of Native American tribes still existing. Africa is mostly untouched by the rest of the world, except for the slave trade, and Asia is still mostly isolated from the rest of the world. Some guy named Cook is finding islands all over the place, some of them are huge (Austrailia). Also, its a bit cold, on a global scale (the Little Ice Age is in full swing). There are nearly 1 billion people currently alive.

Then, I decide that well, maybe its time to revisit Earth, I've circled it hundreds of times and its just more of the same... I re-write the setting 200 years in the future. The 'present' is now 1999. Almost everything has changed. Hundreds of animal species are extinct. 6 billion people are alive. Ice is melting across the globe. Dozens of nations have risen and fallen, Africa and Asia have been carved up and put back together, and whole peoples, cultures, and languages have been wiped from the planet. The political map of Europe has changed so much that its ridiculous. Those former North American English colonies are now the only Superpower on the entire planet. Wars of global scale have taken place, the world even nearly ended at least once, global pandemics have occurred and now we're seeing deadly diseases that didn't even exist before!

Did I kill the setting? Well, I did change it a lot. Did I kill Earth? No. Its still Earth, just older. It still has all its old history, just a lot of that isn't relevant anymore. Will anyone care that Napolean destroyed the Republic of Venice after it having existed for 1000 years? Probably not. I now have a whole new history to learn and I have two options. Whine about how what I knew is now out of date or how the people I used to root for no longer exist or be excited about the prospect of seeing how the world I was so familiar with has changed and be intrigued by all the events currently going on.

Asbestos
2008-10-09, 02:38 AM
No! It happened again! Another thread turned into EE's soapbox.

Raz_Fox
2008-10-09, 07:31 AM
The 4E Barbarian is... interesting. I wish they had given us the Thaneborn path, 'cause that sounds like pure awesome.

I may play one eventually. Probably a Kobold or a Orc barbarian. Y'know, with races like those, a female barbarian would be interesting to play.

Right now I'm still having fun with the base classes, but this article's saved in Adobe Acrobat right now so I can play it later.

:smallannoyed: Oh, and if you're going to argue with EE, argue civily, please. He's actually quite nice if you're polite to him.

Thrawn183
2008-10-09, 07:42 AM
wait, an on topic post? The legends are true
from
EE


Look who's talking.

Suzuro
2008-10-09, 07:55 AM
Look, no one is going to win this argument, so could you please just agree to disagree (Agitated at the Fault line)..........for the sake of the children/kitties/doggies...Leo Szilards...


-Suzuro

Roderick_BR
2008-10-09, 08:28 AM
Not to disagree that the powers are awesome, or that those particular powers are awesome, or that the class as a whole is awesome (all of these things are true), but neither of the things you just said about Howling Strike are accurate. "Special: When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you do not provoke opportunity attacks for moving during the charge." That's all it does.
Oops, my bad. I was reading it quickly at work. I'll have more time to read it today.

And are people still arguing about the new edition having more or less fluff? I stopped caring for these discussions long ago.

acirruscloud
2008-10-09, 08:51 AM
Looks good. I hope they can bring it somewhat into balance with the other strikers. Even a fantastic rogue isn't -always- going to be able to sneak attack, not to mention the fact that he can only do so once per round. Contrasting that with the Barbarian's higher base damage, it seems a bit unevenly weighted.

I don't understand all the 4E hate. I'm in the middle on a 4E campaign and I have to say it's some of the most fun I've had in D&D. Maybe if you read the books without the ability to see how the classes translate into the game... but in action (with intelligent players) the classes are very distinct. My campaign right now has one of every class except Warlord (and I'm looking to play a Warlord next campaign).

4E lets you spend more time on actually playing the damn game, and less time on convoluted and complicated rules. And they even say the fluff is just a guideline, that even Power flavor text can (and should!) be changed to match the character.

I honestly don't see how someone can actually play 4E, with a fun group of friends, and think it's vastly inferior to 3.5.

But yeah, I'm excited about PHB2.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-09, 09:36 AM
Even a fantastic rogue isn't -always- going to be able to sneak attack, not to mention the fact that he can only do so once per round.
That is a good point... barbarian + warlord seems like a good match, then, as the latter can give the former a bunch of additional high-damage attacks.



I don't understand all the 4E hate.
Well, this is the internet, you know :smallbiggrin:

There's also the notion that any game is fun with the right group of people, and any game is boring and/or annoying with the wrong group of people. If you've ever played [insert RPG here] with a poor DM, chances are you might not want to play [that RPG] again.

Asbestos
2008-10-09, 10:15 AM
Looks good. I hope they can bring it somewhat into balance with the other strikers. Even a fantastic rogue isn't -always- going to be able to sneak attack, not to mention the fact that he can only do so once per round. Contrasting that with the Barbarian's higher base damage, it seems a bit unevenly weighted.


I can see a few reasons for this though. The rogue's damage boosting ability, Sneak Attack, does 2x more damage than the Warlock's or Ranger's damage booster. This, presumably, is because it requires more difficult to achieve conditions than the Warlock/Ranger's. There is no limit to the amount of times per day that the PHB strikers can use their damage boosting striker abilities.
The barbarian can not rage every encounter if we go with the 4/day set up for encounters. This means that for at least 1 encounter the Barbarian will have no abilites boosted by rage. The barbarian at will that does 1[w] + 1d6 damage is basically a ranger making a basic melee attack and attaching his Hunter's Quarry to it (which is why I think its usable on a charge as well, its a substitute for a striker basic attack) its deceptively powerful because other strikers can tack that damage boost onto any power and the Barb only has it for one.

Artanis
2008-10-09, 10:32 AM
No! It happened again! Another thread turned into EE's soapbox.
And the exact same soapbox, too. "I hate 4E! I don't care what's being discussed, but it's something I can hold up to show everybody how bad 4E is!"

The Mormegil
2008-10-09, 10:52 AM
The barbarian is a good class. It is nicely represented within the mechanics, and though it does have a pair of major flaws, I am happy with what they gave us.
The major flaws I am refering to are the following:
1) The most important is multiclassing. This class works badly with the existing multiclass rules. I am not, like somebody over CharOp boards does, whining for the power of their at-wills. Those are powerful, but Paragon Multiclassing sucks so badly nobody except barbarians will ever get them. It's sad, but it's true. For the sake of balance, I would probably turn the extra damage over on a specific class feature, and I would certainly tone down Pressing Strike (too powerful, shifting inside enemies squares, pushing them and extra damage is just too much for a single at-will. Split it into two different ones).
I am thinking of the inherent power they gave to encounter and daily powers: they deal more damage than mot others, and they sometimes have even better effects. Rages in particular. Although I suspect they will write the multiclassing feat so as to limit this, even strictly, as it is rages are by far the best dailies ever. Think about a defender using Red Dragon's Rage... or better yet Stone Bear Rage...
2) The second problem in the class is represented by a few baaad powers:
- Thunder Hawk Rage is absurd. Knocking enemies prone without an attack is amazingly good.
- Stone Bear Rage gives too much resistance. Drop it to 3-5 at best.
- Hurricane of Blades is broken. Period. It one-shots anything in ight, and it's an encounter power! A demigod can use it every damn round, with a damage output that easily gets as high as 300! Absurd.


As for EE, just ignore him. The fluff in the barbarian article (and in 4E classes in general) is great, the fluff in 3.5 is just... meh.
This is of course my personal judgement, and you may probably address me directly and make me see why I am wrong and you are not, but since probably this thread will be in the second page by tomorrow, I won't even know. So just ignore me, ok? As I would have done with you if you were not spamming in a thread with another purpose... And if you guys think this too, just leave him be. Just like I did not.

Hzurr
2008-10-09, 11:43 AM
And the exact same soapbox, too. "I hate 4E! I don't care what's being discussed, but it's something I can hold up to show everybody how bad 4E is!"

Ok, this isn't an EE bashing thread. I disagree with him, and would also like to suggest that he starts putting the letter 'h' in the correct place ("taht" and "teh"? really?), but don't make this into repeatedly slamming someone whom you disagree with, or have had disagreements with in other threads.

Fortunately, the thread has recently turned back on topic.

One thing that I do like about the rage mechanic, is that there are different strategic options over how you rage. While in the past it was more of a "I rage to hit things more!" Now there's some strategic value in "Do I do the rage that will allow me to do frost damage, or fire damage (for a simple example). Since there are different strategies in which rage to use, and if you want to expand your other rages into "swift rages" or save them so that you can gain the benifits of a different kind of rage is cool. Schwanky.

nowiwantmydmg
2008-10-09, 12:31 PM
The barbarian is a good class. It is nicely represented within the mechanics, and though it does have a pair of major flaws, I am happy with what they gave us.
The major flaws I am refering to are the following:
1) The most important is multiclassing. This class works badly with the existing multiclass rules. I am not, like somebody over CharOp boards does, whining for the power of their at-wills. Those are powerful, but Paragon Multiclassing sucks so badly nobody except barbarians will ever get them. It's sad, but it's true. For the sake of balance, I would probably turn the extra damage over on a specific class feature, and I would certainly tone down Pressing Strike (too powerful, shifting inside enemies squares, pushing them and extra damage is just too much for a single at-will. Split it into two different ones).
I am thinking of the inherent power they gave to encounter and daily powers: they deal more damage than mot others, and they sometimes have even better effects. Rages in particular. Although I suspect they will write the multiclassing feat so as to limit this, even strictly, as it is rages are by far the best dailies ever. Think about a defender using Red Dragon's Rage... or better yet Stone Bear Rage...
2) The second problem in the class is represented by a few baaad powers:
- Thunder Hawk Rage is absurd. Knocking enemies prone without an attack is amazingly good.
- Stone Bear Rage gives too much resistance. Drop it to 3-5 at best.
- Hurricane of Blades is broken. Period. It one-shots anything in ight, and it's an encounter power! A demigod can use it every damn round, with a damage output that easily gets as high as 300! Absurd.


As for EE, just ignore him. The fluff in the barbarian article (and in 4E classes in general) is great, the fluff in 3.5 is just... meh.
This is of course my personal judgement, and you may probably address me directly and make me see why I am wrong and you are not, but since probably this thread will be in the second page by tomorrow, I won't even know. So just ignore me, ok? As I would have done with you if you were not spamming in a thread with another purpose... And if you guys think this too, just leave him be. Just like I did not.


Agree with your assesment of the flaws you should post them at WoTC so they consider them.

Would add:Lower HP or the number of surges (one or the other). I don't think the Barbarian should be able to take as much punishment as the Fighter or Paladin.

Blackfang108
2008-10-09, 01:29 PM
public option doesn't prove quality. People like Eragon, Domionic Deegan, and even shreeded moose and they have no quality. Making up your own fluff doesn't chance the fact the game as designed is shallow
from
EE

The lack of quality spelling in this post makes me sad.

So does the mention of something I like.

Inyssius Tor
2008-10-09, 01:47 PM
The lack of quality spelling in this post makes me sad.

So does the mention of something I like.

Oh, come on, we were almost on topic again!

Blackfang108
2008-10-09, 01:49 PM
Oh, come on, we were almost on topic again!

I didn't notice that when I posted.

However, my $0.02 on Barbarian.

Regarding the important part of the article: w00t!

Regarding the fluff: w00t! Just enough.

The Mormegil
2008-10-09, 02:02 PM
I'm making a comprehensible e-mail to send them right now (in my spare time, which is my free time, just without the Internet... ;) ), then I'll send it.

Not being a mothertongue, it's being quite laborous...

acirruscloud
2008-10-09, 03:18 PM
I can see a few reasons for this though. The rogue's damage boosting ability, Sneak Attack, does 2x more damage than the Warlock's or Ranger's damage booster. This, presumably, is because it requires more difficult to achieve conditions than the Warlock/Ranger's. There is no limit to the amount of times per day that the PHB strikers can use their damage boosting striker abilities.
The barbarian can not rage every encounter if we go with the 4/day set up for encounters. This means that for at least 1 encounter the Barbarian will have no abilites boosted by rage. The barbarian at will that does 1[w] + 1d6 damage is basically a ranger making a basic melee attack and attaching his Hunter's Quarry to it (which is why I think its usable on a charge as well, its a substitute for a striker basic attack) its deceptively powerful because other strikers can tack that damage boost onto any power and the Barb only has it for one.

I wasn't even talking about Rages. Forget dailies entirely, and look at how much damage the average Barbarian's powers (including At Will Powers!) do compared to someone like a rogue. The intent was clearly to give the Barb high base damage since he doesn't have anything like Sneak Attack.

But considering that there are many situations where you can actually use multiple attack powers in a round, but a rogue can never sneak attack more than once a round (and likely won't even be sneak attacking every round) the Barbarian is going to put out significantly more damage.

None of this even takes Rages into consideration.

Here's an example.

Barbarian is using some 1d12 greataxe or something. Rogue is using a shortsword (1d6). Both are level one. Not using specific builds because we don't know much about Thaneborn yet.

Here's three rounds of combat, using nothing but At Will Powers.

First turn, Rogue charges or moves to enemy and does 1d6 damage plus Dex mod.
Second turn, Rogue enacts a flank and does 3d6 damage plus Dex mod. Uses an action point to attack again, but doesn't get another Sneak Attack. 1d6 damage, enemy dies.
Third turn, Rogue finds a new enemy but isn't able to immediately set up a flank. He does 1d6 damage plus Dex mod.

First turn, Barbarian charges and does 1d12 damage + 1d6 damage + Str mod.
Second turn, Barbarian shifts and then charges another enemy to do 1d12 + 1d6 damage plus Str mod. Uses an action point to charge back to the first enemy (or a third enemy) and do another 1d12 + 1d6 damage + Str mod. Takes an opportunity attack during the second charge, but it's cool because he has higher AC, more HP, and more Surges than Rogue does. If the enemy's Marked by a defender, even better!
Third turn, Barbarian shifts and charges again (to first enemy? how about second enemy? that optional third guy we mentioned? oo, maybe there's a fourth), doing 1d12 + 1d6 damage + Str mod.

If you make average rolls [1d6=3.5 and 1d12=6.5] (and we'll ignore STR/DEX for simplicity's sake), Rogue did 21 damage while Barbarian did 40 damage.

If Rogue had been a bit luckier with combat advantage, he might have had another Sneak Attack and done a total of 28 damage. Even if he somehow managed to Sneak Attack on every turn, he's looking at 35 damage.

So, assuming an ideal fight for the Rogue where he always has Combat Advantage (how often does that happen?), he's still doing less damage than the Barbarian.

All that said, the Barbarian mechanics look neat. I'm just worried about having higher baseline damage than the other classes even without Raging, and the fact that any situation where you can attack multiple times in one round multiplies the Barbarian's damage much more than the damage of other Strikers.

It's in testing now, so I'm sure it'll be balanced by release.

String
2008-10-09, 03:22 PM
Hmm. MAybe it's just me, but that doesnt seem unreasonable. And extra 10 points of damage? I mean, isnt the Barb SUPPOSED to be the heavy hitter and the Rogue supposed to, yes, be a striker, but also a skill guy? Isnt there some sort of tradeoff

Artanis
2008-10-09, 03:30 PM
No, being a skill monkey doesn't balance out being overshadowed in combat. The idea is for 100% of the players to have fun 100% of the time, NOT to have 25% have fun 25% of the time while the other 75% of the players have fun the other 75% of the time.

Zocelot
2008-10-09, 03:43 PM
Stuff

A few problems with your equations. First of all, the damage is being dished out between two enemies, which is less effective then killing one enemy. Second, the barbarian is unlikely to have CA, because it is charging, so it's bonus to hit is two less then the rogue's (the other coming from wielding a +2 weapon instead of +3) Thirdly, the rogue isn't going to be using it's action point when it can no longer sneak attack. Rogues use them when they missed, in order to get another attack, which can land sneak attack. Finally, you assumed that the rogue was making basic attacks, using dex as the attack modifier. Depending on which at-will power is used, it will either get a bonus to damage, get another attack if the enemy attacks back, attack vs. ref (increasing the chance to hit), or move 2 squares (increasing the chance of being able to SA).

Kurald Galain
2008-10-09, 03:45 PM
So, assuming an ideal fight for the Rogue where he always has Combat Advantage (how often does that happen?),
With a skilled player and some teamwork, surprisingly often.

Nevertheless, your point is valid that the barbarian appears to outdamage the other strikers all too easily.

acirruscloud
2008-10-09, 04:13 PM
A few problems with your equations. First of all, the damage is being dished out between two enemies, which is less effective then killing one enemy.

In my first level example, most enemies are going to go down after a couple (or one!) hits. As I showed in the Rogue example, the enemy died and the rogue needed to set up all over again.


Second, the barbarian is unlikely to have CA, because it is charging, so it's bonus to hit is two less then the rogue's (the other coming from wielding a +2 weapon instead of +3)

I'll grant you that. So on the first turn, Barbarian and Rogue had the same chance to hit. On the second, Rogue had a 2 point lead on Barbarian. On the third, they were again even.


Thirdly, the rogue isn't going to be using it's action point when it can no longer sneak attack. Rogues use them when they missed, in order to get another attack, which can land sneak attack.

The Action Point was just an example of a way a character might make a second attack in the same round. There are others, like Warlord powers.


Finally, you assumed that the rogue was making basic attacks, using dex as the attack modifier. Depending on which at-will power is used, it will either get a bonus to damage,

CHA mod damage bonus, yes. Not too useful for a Brutal Scoundrel build, but you're correct. I did ignore this Power, just as I ignored the possibility that the Barbarian was raging. Another 2 damage on each attack would bring example Rogue to 29. That assumes a Trickster build, and I said I was ignoring builds since we don't know about Thaneborn bonuses yet. And I won't try to figure out how much more damage a raging Barbarian would have done.


get another attack if the enemy attacks back,

Speaking from experience, this isn't usually the best Power unless you're off on your own side of the battlefield. Your defenders are Marking things for a reason. And I'll equate the Barbarian's temp hitpoint Power with the defensive nature of this one.


or move 2 squares (increasing the chance of being able to SA).

The Barbarian has an At Will Power that lets him Shift twice (rogue's Deft Strike is Move twice, vuln. to Opp. Attacks) and lets him shift through enemies. So Barbarian actually has two different At Will Powers that let him move around the battlefield and attack in the same action.

And again, all this is without raging.

I'm just saying, it's not quite balanced yet.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 04:15 PM
With a skilled player and some teamwork, surprisingly often.

Nevertheless, your point is valid that the barbarian appears to outdamage the other strikers all too easily.

I feel like it's balanced by the unpredictability of the Barbarian. Some of those rages can force the barbarian to act wildly, and his lower accuracy (TWF Ranger), lack of real ranged attacks (Bow Ranger, Warlock), and limited non-combat utilities (Rogue) makes it so that the Barbarian isn't strictly better than any of the other Strikers.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-09, 04:34 PM
I feel like it's balanced by the unpredictability of the Barbarian. Some of those rages can force the barbarian to act wildly,
I don't see anything that forces anyone to act wildly. None of his powers appear to be more unpredictable than the powers of any other class. Although it is undoubtedly true that some people will play a barbarian as a raving lunatic, that should not be assumed the norm for terms of balance.

I never said the barb is strictly better (although he does make up for his lack of ranged attacks by getting a non-provoking charge, and a free action charge); I did say he appears to outdamage the other strikers all too easily.

DM Raven
2008-10-09, 04:43 PM
Wow this is still going? Alright, I'll answer the challenges put forth that other people didn't address.



Mechanics are not the entire system, just part of it. Campaign books exist for a reason, taht isn't it. They exist to offer a world to place teh fluff and the mechanics in, not to make the fluff


I would argue that your game world is part of the fluff. You can play D&D without a gameworld or story. (Though not a very interesting one.) Story, characters, plots...these things are all fluff. Fourth edition doesn't have as much fluff as third or second...but it gives more specific game mechanics that translate better into gameplay. Most people can make their own fluff...designing balanced combat mechanics is a whole other story.



No, the core books aren't about the entire game, not just teh mechanics. Fluff is still part of the game itself, not just an add on. A game without fluff is almost by definition a hack and slash. IF fluff isn't part of the core game, then you are essentially saying mechanics>fluff


I assume you meant the core books ARE about the entire game...and I would agree with that. However I would argue that mechanics are a bit more important as this is a game...not a novel. The whole point is I can make my own fluff that I like better than their fluff. And as I stated before it's way easier to make good fluff than it is to design a fun and balanced game system.



No, because D&D game worlds are add ones. They aren't core products. Fluff is an essential part of the main game, not something only sold in secondary products. The game is not just a mass of mechanics, that is a pathetic excuse for a product, that is only a shallow game that doesn't have any actually quality. Fluff is part of the game's existence, it is what make the game alive. Sure you can use your own, but you can use your own mechanics as well, taht isn't an excuse for


The game right now isn't just mechanics, it includes plenty of fluff that we won't use. And I dunno, there are a lot of good games that don't have a ton of fluff. You're trying to state your opinion as fact and you don't really have a way to back it.



It did add variety, i mean look at the complete series. Does 3E have a great combat system? No. Does it have the ground work for one? Certainly. But combat isn't everything


That's an unfair argument, you can't include the complete series...we are talking about core rules. Of course 3rd has more content being older...Im comparing core to core to keep things fair. Fourth edition has way better grounds for good combat than third edition had if you ask me. Powers were a great idea. Powers open up huge amounts of potential for the game to grow in very interesting directions. (though I'm not crazy about all classes having the exact same power advancement.)



4E hates diversity in options and differences. But thats another side affect of the game being dumbed down to the point where it is basically "D&D for dummies"


4e core has way more variety than 3e core if you compare the actual content. Having part to do with the removal of a lot of unnecessary fluff. ;)



1) But they aren't designed as such. Hell, NPCs and PCs aren't even designed on the same basis, of course its simplified. Compare to 2E where spells were designed to be used in an intellegent manner.
2) Um, using combat skills to sneak doesn't prove your point very well
The entire game is next to nothing but simplfication. THe entire game has been dumbed down the point where it is almost patronizing. Death rules, world building, NPCs rules, monsters, races, classes, fluff, dark vision, alignment, gods, paladins, cosmology, description, evil characters, PrC, weapons, magic items, bloody gnomes. Its just a series of painful cliches and arbitrary changes that are baffling unless they are deliberately trying to make the game like a video game/hack and slash to appeal to a wider audience and tahts just betraying the game.


I will concede that it's stupid NPCs and PCs cant fight on the same grounds. (Thats a personal pet peave of mine about 4e) I will also concede that the reduction in power and size of the spell list also greatly annoys me. However, I understand why they did it and I say it's a good call. Besides, there is plenty of room for growth when new wizard powers and builds are introduced in the future. The good thing is that now all classes can have huge amounts of options just like the wizard. And utility powers aren't combat skills, they are powers you can use to give yourself benefits inside and outside of combat. Actually, many of them work better outside of combat for the rogue... Haha, I can't believe you call 4th edition full of cliches while advocating 3rd...Don't you dare tell me 3.x wasn't full of silly fantasy cliches!




Depth? Consistency? Verisimilitude? Diversity? Originality?



All these things exist within 4th just as much as 3rd...

Sorry for the derail, but ee started it! ;)

Yakk
2008-10-09, 04:49 PM
I wasn't even talking about Rages. Forget dailies entirely, and look at how much damage the average Barbarian's powers (including At Will Powers!) do compared to someone like a rogue. The intent was clearly to give the Barb high base damage since he doesn't have anything like Sneak Attack.

But considering that there are many situations where you can actually use multiple attack powers in a round, but a rogue can never sneak attack more than once a round (and likely won't even be sneak attacking every round) the Barbarian is going to put out significantly more damage.

None of this even takes Rages into consideration.

Here's an example.

Barbarian is using some 1d12 greataxe or something. Rogue is using a shortsword (1d6). Both are level one. Not using specific builds because we don't know much about Thaneborn yet.

Here's three rounds of combat, using nothing but At Will Powers.

First turn, Rogue charges or moves to enemy and does 1d6 damage plus Dex mod.
Second turn, Rogue enacts a flank and does 3d6 damage plus Dex mod. Uses an action point to attack again, but doesn't get another Sneak Attack. 1d6 damage, enemy dies.
Third turn, Rogue finds a new enemy but isn't able to immediately set up a flank. He does 1d6 damage plus Dex mod.

First turn, Barbarian charges and does 1d12 damage + 1d6 damage + Str mod.
Second turn, Barbarian shifts and then charges another enemy to do 1d12 + 1d6 damage plus Str mod. Uses an action point to charge back to the first enemy (or a third enemy) and do another 1d12 + 1d6 damage + Str mod. Takes an opportunity attack during the second charge, but it's cool because he has higher AC, more HP, and more Surges than Rogue does. If the enemy's Marked by a defender, even better!
Third turn, Barbarian shifts and charges again (to first enemy? how about second enemy? that optional third guy we mentioned? oo, maybe there's a fourth), doing 1d12 + 1d6 damage + Str mod.

If you make average rolls [1d6=3.5 and 1d12=6.5] (and we'll ignore STR/DEX for simplicity's sake), Rogue did 21 damage while Barbarian did 40 damage.

If Rogue had been a bit luckier with combat advantage, he might have had another Sneak Attack and done a total of 28 damage. Even if he somehow managed to Sneak Attack on every turn, he's looking at 35 damage.

First, introduce a 50% miss rate on the Barbarian, and a 35% miss rate on the Rogue. The Rogue should be using a dagger, not a crappy short sword -- only an idiot Rogue uses a sword sword for an at-will attack. (At extremely high [W] damage, the SS can be worth it, otherwise...)

The Rogue's first turn has combat advantage, because the Rogue won initiative (huge dex, and lots of reason to boost it further).

Each turn after that, the Rogue has arranged combat advantage.

The Rogue has the Backstabber feat, and Nimble Blade (together with the ability to attack reflex as an at-will attack (~+2 to hit, +2 CA, +1 Nimble, +4 Dagger = +8 over base), compared to Barbarian (+1 charge, +2 CA, +2 Weapon = +5 over base)).

Rogue: 1d4+Stat+2d8 damage per at-will attack. 3 rounds, so misses on about one round -- that round the Rogue burns an action point for a 2nd attack. Total of ~2.6 hits. With a +5 stat modifier and a +1 implement bonus, that comes to 9+2.5+6 = 17.5 average damage per hit (ignoring crits) = 45.5 average damage over those 3 rounds.

The Barbarian has a lower dex -- note that this means that the Barbarian has effectively acted fewer times on average in a given fight (lower initiative). Ignoring that, we end up with:
1d12+1d6+Str+Implement per attack = average of 16 damage per attack.
50% chance to hit, 4 attacks = 2 hits.
Average of ... 32 damage.

The Rogue came head and shoulders over the barbarian.

Now, that isn't that surprising -- the Barbarian is has 1 extra free charge per fight, and other powers that boost their damage. The Rogue burnt 2 feats on increased damage -- so the Barbarian should have done the same, getting probably an extra +2 damage per hit (upping 4 round damage with an AP to 36).

I'm just saying, if you are gonna compare a Barbarian to a Rogue, don't use an idiot Rogue.

acirruscloud
2008-10-09, 06:02 PM
The Rogue's first turn has combat advantage, because the Rogue won initiative (huge dex, and lots of reason to boost it further).

There's no reason to assume Rogue won initiative at level one. Without feats, it's better than 50% chance that he acts before the enemy at level one, but by no means absolute.

There is no "boosting" because we don't know anything yet about the sort of "boosting" that Barbarians will be doing. So we don't assume an optimized rogue. We assume a base Rogue, and the base Barbarian we've been given. You can't pit an optimized Rogue against baseline Barbarian.


Each turn after that, the Rogue has arranged combat advantage.

Again, how can you assume this? We were leaving complications out of this. At level one, a rogue is going to spend some time without combat advantage. Plus a rogue's Sneak Attack usually depends on the teamwork of the party. Another thing the Barbarian doesn't appear to have to worry about. Just saying. Another point in Barb's favor.


The Rogue has the Backstabber feat, and Nimble Blade (together with the ability to attack reflex as an at-will attack (~+2 to hit, +2 CA, +1 Nimble, +4 Dagger = +8 over base), compared to Barbarian (+1 charge, +2 CA, +2 Weapon = +5 over base)).

No feats. We don't know what new Barbarian-friendly feats will be introduced in PHB2. Base rogue, base barbarian.


Rogue: 1d4+Stat+2d8 damage per at-will attack. 3 rounds, so misses on about one round -- that round the Rogue burns an action point for a 2nd attack. Total of ~2.6 hits. With a +5 stat modifier and a +1 implement bonus, that comes to 9+2.5+6 = 17.5 average damage per hit (ignoring crits) = 45.5 average damage over those 3 rounds.

Where the heck did +5 stat modifier come into play at level 1? Again, we're not talking about munchkins. We're talking about average baseline characters, because we have no way to really know what builds a Barbarian might have.


The Barbarian has a lower dex -- note that this means that the Barbarian has effectively acted fewer times on average in a given fight (lower initiative).

The last round in most fights rarely matters. That's just clean up. It's the beginning of fights where the danger is. Initiative order is a bit of a reach in terms of usefulness, after round 1.


I'm just saying, if you are gonna compare a Barbarian to a Rogue, don't use an idiot Rogue.

Ah internet. Thanks for providing an endless font of hostile strangers.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-09, 06:07 PM
Ah internet. Thanks for providing an endless font of hostile strangers.

To be fair, a dagger is more ionic than a short sword. and
Sneak attack!

acirruscloud
2008-10-09, 06:31 PM
I chose short sword in the example so people didn't think I was avoiding a rogue's higher-damage weapons. My current rogue uses a rapier anyway, but no feats in the example.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 06:33 PM
Eh. Don't confuse abrasive/blunt debating with hostility. Yakk's never struck me as the type for the latter.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-09, 06:42 PM
I chose short sword in the example so people didn't think I was avoiding a rogue's higher-damage weapons.

To a rogue, the dagger is the higher-damage weapon (since most of a rogue's damage comes from sneak attack anyway).

Also, Yakk has a good point: in any encounter with multiple enemies (which is the default in 4E), the rogue will more than likely have a better initiative than something nasty on the battlefield, so he can attack that particular creature, using his good maneuverability and/or ranged attacks.

A well-played rogue will have CA most of the time; level is irrelevant to that. This needn't even come from party teamwork; a rogue is more than capable of gaining CA himself, either through stealth or through several powers that explicitly do that. Rogues are awesome that way.

And trust me when I say that a barbarian also needs to rely on teamwork with the party - after all, 4E is a team game.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-09, 07:31 PM
First turn, Barbarian charges and does 1d12 damage + 1d6 damage + Str mod.
Second turn, Barbarian shifts and then charges another enemy to do 1d12 + 1d6 damage plus Str mod. Uses an action point to charge back to the first enemy (or a third enemy) and do another 1d12 + 1d6 damage + Str mod. Takes an opportunity attack during the second charge, but it's cool because he has higher AC, more HP, and more Surges than Rogue does. If the enemy's Marked by a defender, even better!
Third turn, Barbarian shifts and charges again (to first enemy? how about second enemy? that optional third guy we mentioned? oo, maybe there's a fourth), doing 1d12 + 1d6 damage + Str mod.

The Pinball Build.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-09, 07:55 PM
The Pinball Build.

He's a Pinball Wizard (from the Who).

Zocelot
2008-10-09, 08:35 PM
I chose short sword in the example so people didn't think I was avoiding a rogue's higher-damage weapons. My current rogue uses a rapier anyway, but no feats in the example.

I've done the math, and a dagger is about 2% more effective at level one (with rogue weapon talent), without adding in sneak attack, and without assigning a value to the thrown range.

Thrawn183
2008-10-09, 08:41 PM
Part of what I think some people are missing about the barbarian is that both of the stats they are dependent on (Str and Con) go do the same defense.

In addition, if we keep using these characters without feats, hide armor only has 1 more armor than leather armor but Rogues are going to have a massively higher Dex score than the Barbarian yielding a Rogue with probably a higher AC than the Barbarian. Not to mention that a Rogue is going to either have a boost in damage or a boost in AC against opportunity attacks (This isn't build! This is class features!)

Maybe its just that my Rogue (5th level mind you) does 3d8+12 damage on a basic attack that I'm not feeling like the Barbarian is going to out power the Rogue.

Gotta say though, I like what I see.

acirruscloud
2008-10-09, 08:53 PM
Rageblood is STR and CON, yes. Thaneborn is going to be STR and CHA, so that build will have a good Will defense.

But yeah, my level 6 rogue does 3d8+10 damage with his At Will powers when he has Combat Advantage (which is usually). I'm not complaining about Rogues. Just saying that, right now, Barbarian's damage increase being tied to the Powers themselves seems to have the potential for unbalance. Especially when you factor in Rages.

And yes, my first Barbarian is going to be a Howling Pinball Wizard. After describing it, it sounds fun.

Yakk
2008-10-09, 09:19 PM
The issue I see is that power-swap feats with the Barbarian are going to be too good.

Other than that, the Barbarian doesn't seem to be horridly imbalanced -- and without a decent comparison of a reasonably optimized barbarian actually beating a reasonably optimized rogue...

The Rogue's advantages are:
1> They get combat advantage easier than other melee classes.
2> They have an at-will that boosts damage via accuracy, and another that boosts damage via adding a 2nd stat. The accuracy one (vs Reflex) is rather key.
3> Light blades, while they do have poor stats, have some of the best feats -- including Nimble Blade, which kicks ass for Rogues.

Neglecting these, I'd expect the Barbarian to blow the Rogue out of the water.

A fight that presumes 100% accuracy... isn't useful information.

I tried to generate a somewhat reasonable model of Rogue vs Barbarian. If it has flaws, point it out -- and pump out a better model. :-)

LotharBot
2008-10-09, 09:42 PM
Each successive edition should be able to increase teh quality of their mechanics, and the quality of their fluff, and 4E simply goes down the john in teh later department , MM in particular.

You seem to be of the opinion that the 3.5 Barbarian fluff (and much of the rest of the 3.5 fluff) was of high quality. I don't think I can agree with that.

3.5's fluff was very often overly restrictive, and uninspiring. 4e seems to have pared down the fluff descriptions surrounding individual classes (getting rid of the "rogues hate druids" stuff), while channeling a lot of fluff into the power descriptions. I find this to be much more inspiring -- when writing out a bloodthirsty fighter the other day, I happened to see the link to the barbarian class, and reading through the powers I immediately recognized some fluff IN THE POWERS that I thought really fit well with my character. (In 4e, the crunch is fluffy. You don't need a description that says "Barbarians are like this" when you've got a series of powers that describe what your barbarian is like.)

------

Back on topic: I played a barbarian last night, at level 4. Minotaur with an executioners axe (d12, brutal 2). I had a couple of players call her "broken", which usually is reserved for another player's epic 3.5 wizard. I don't think the problem was the Barbarian, per se, but the fact that we had 2 warlords and a half-elf who took Commander's Strike as her dilettante power, which meant she was getting an attack power PLUS 2 or 3 basic attacks per round, with lots of bonus damage and often a bonus to attack rolls from one of the warlords.

(Yakk, this is something worth considering in your analysis -- when a rogue gets an extra attack, he doesn't get his best damage boosts to it; a barbarian will still get most of them.)

Thrawn183
2008-10-09, 11:05 PM
That's a very good point lothar, but I've found that getting extra attacks works wonders for rogues when they haven't gotten a sneak attack of yet in a round (either because they missed or they did something like a double move and weren't able to attack).

Then again, my rogue outdamages everyone else in the party by so much that even if I've gotten my sneak attack off already I still usually get the extra attacks (due of course to my having a higher attack bonus due to combat advantage) and of course 1d8+7 is a fair sight better than the 1d6+3 or 4 that the defenders in the group have.

It'd be very interesting to see a rogue and a barbarian in the same party as a warlord and watch as the warlord tries to figure out which to give an extra attack. I'd say as long as both have their own time to shine, things are looking pretty good.

Hmmm... can we come up with a way of deciding if the barbarian is too good or not good enough that isn't based on pure damage output?

Enlong
2008-10-10, 12:36 AM
WOW does the Barbarian look like an awesome class. I love the mechanics of the Rages, and the Paragon Path the playtest includes looks like all sorts of fun.

I love Final Confrontation, I really do. I'm envisioning pairing it up with a use of Deathless Frenzy to just go crazy on the enemy until they outright kill you. Of course, a truly evil DM will have the monster back off real early, making you waste a daily :smallfrown:. But anyway, Final Confrontation is the most crazy awesome attack I've seen, even beating out Blade Cascade or whatever that infamous Ranger attack is.

re: fluff. I like the Barb fluff. The savage primal warrior thing makes for an interesting perspective and frees the class up from the usual "HULK SMASH FOR NO REASON" Then again, "HULK SMASH"ing is terribly therapeutic...

Asbestos
2008-10-10, 12:46 AM
Hmmm... can we come up with a way of deciding if the barbarian is too good or not good enough that isn't based on pure damage output?

That is an excellent question, and I have no answer for it.

I do know that I will be giving a Barbarian to my friend to playtest. He currently plays a TWF Ranger. I'll get back to here with what he (the player) and I (the DM) thought and how things turned out.

Thrawn183
2008-10-10, 11:38 AM
I'm thinking of
1) Does the class fulfill its primary role (Striker)
2) Can you get multiple different feels from the class (fluff, power sources, build variations not counting multiclassing)
3) How well does the class multiclass (are there benefits but also drawbacks)
4) Does the class dramatically outshine other classes that fulfill the same role
5) Is it fun to play

I'll edit this post if I think of others.

Asbestos
2008-10-11, 01:28 AM
I made a level 5 Gnoll Barbarian for my friend (who normally plays a charge happy Minotaur TWF Ranger) to play, this is what we learned.

1) The Rageblood Vigor Barbarian *needs* to be played recklessly in order to consistently match the damage output of the ranger.
2) Charge, Charge, Charge. The class practically forces you to do this.
3) The RVB *loves* to be surrounded by enemies if he isn't charging.
4) Get to know the party defender, you and he/she are BFF.
5) A halfing Barbarian is actually a pretty decent build considering everything.

I think that #1 is the biggest difference between the 3.x barb and the 4e barb. In 3.x you could play your barb a lot like a fighter and it might not make much difference. Raging was inherently reckless and made you easier to hit and fatigued at the expense of hitting harder (don't say anything about the higher CON making you harder to kill, I've seen barbs die when they stop raging because of those 'false hp'.) However, nothing about the class really said "play me recklessly" besides the flavor. The mechanics of the 4e barb heavily encourage you to play recklessly and open yourself up for attack more than any other class(Rampage with its "please charge", attacks that give enemies free attacks/make you vulnerable so that you may attack/do more damage.)

The charging... it should be obvious, heck a class feature gives you a free charge even! There are also a number of powers that you can use in place of a basic attack on a charge. As for wanting to be surrounded by enemies, the barb has some decent burst attacks/attacks that are boosted in some way by being adjacent/near enemies.

The reckless behavior is what makes the defender the BFF of the barb. Normally the enemy the defender has marked is going to have limited choices of what to attack. If he doesn't attack the defender... he gets hurt, but who would he attack otherwise? The striker is either too far away or just going to be shifting around him and not provoking attacks (and has a decent AC) and the Wizard, thanks to his (most of the time) lower AC and HP, is probably going to shift away from the enemy before attacking so as not to provoke since he's so squishy. The barbarian on the other hand... heavily encourages people to attack him by either just opening himself up to attacks outright, or making it easier for enemies to attack him by lowering his defenses, pinballing off and provoking OAs, or having a lower AC than any other striker. Barbarians don't mind getting attacked as much as other strikers because they have A) more HP, and B) powers that are more powerful when they get attacked.

The reckless playstyle is also what makes Halflings competent barbs. Halfings are harder to hit in a crowd (where barbs want to be) and they can force a reroll on an attack (which they will be provoking more than other strikers). Sure, they might be doing 1d10 instead of 2d6... but they'll be getting hit less.

As for 'needing' to be played recklessly in order to match the damage output. All the really high damage powers either A) open you up to attack, B) Are only really effective when you spend a daily aka rage, C) invite you to charge and provoke OAs. "But when you're raging you can use howling strike in place of a basic attack and not provoke OAs" Yes, that's true, but either you're burning a daily every encounter or provoking OAs more often than not.

The other strikers have feats that improve the usefulness of their damage boosting class features... I'm going to predict that Barbs get a feat that's something like "do +2 damage while raging", so as to further encourage burning daily abilities and to keep the Barb on par with his striker friends.

As is, the feats I'd suggest for barbs are Fast Runner (esp. for the slower races) and that one that gives you +2 AC vs OA, because you'll definitely be provoking them. Powerful charge is iffy... useful if you really like pushing people with Bull Rush, otherwise Weapon Focus or a Weapon Proficiency feat probably make more sense.

Asbestos
2008-10-11, 01:46 AM
I'm thinking of
1) Does the class fulfill its primary role (Striker)
2) Can you get multiple different feels from the class (fluff, power sources, build variations not counting multiclassing)
3) How well does the class multiclass (are there benefits but also drawbacks)
4) Does the class dramatically outshine other classes that fulfill the same role
5) Is it fun to play

I'll edit this post if I think of others.

To answer those questions...

1) Yes. The Barb hits single targets and it hits them hard, but it has nothing forcing enemies to stay near it.
2) We played the gnoll barb as a stealthy follower of the Raven Queen. He actually played a lot like a ranger (the canny hunter) outside of combat and in skill challenges, rather than the "Nut with an axe". It seems like it would be pretty easy to play other roles. For instance, if we had taken the Skill training feat to gain training in Arcana rather than Stealth it would've made for a nice 'mage slayer' barbarian.
3) Sorry, we didn't multiclass it. Didn't seem too appealing fluff-wise.
4) Not so much as we saw. This is mostly because the other strikers get to add that extra damage to any attack, even if it is only 1/round, they do get to add it to any one thing in that round that hits. The barb's extra damage is either only on an at-will attack or after a daily is burned.
5) Yes. Using Swift Panther Rage to make an attack, shifting 2 squares, and then spending an action point to charge some other sap = awesome, especially if its a minion/really hurt guy... because then you get another free charge if it hits! Btw, this is not an example of the barb being grossly overpowered because, if you'll note, it takes a daily and an action point and some other conditions (minion/nearly dead guy and a hit)

JaxGaret
2008-10-11, 09:12 AM
1) The Rageblood Vigor Barbarian *needs* to be played recklessly in order to consistently match the damage output of the ranger.
2) Charge, Charge, Charge. The class practically forces you to do this.

*snip* explanations of these two

I could tell that just from reading the class entry, but thank you for the confirmation. It sounds awesome, I can't wait to play one :smallsmile:

quotemyname
2008-10-16, 05:16 PM
i finally sat down and thouroughly looked at most of the powers and compared them with lots of the other options at any given level.

here is a list of my complaints and or comments about the class. please excuse any typos and what not i typed it up during a class.


Comments on Barbarian 4e
Rage Strike: This power is useless until at least 5th level. This makes basically an entire class feature defunct at low levels. Reguardless of its usage at higher levels, this seems unfair at low levels. Perhaps decrease the damage and make it able to ‘end a rage’ with another extremely damaging attack. Then perhaps you are fatigued or weakend or take a -2 to attacks until the end of your next turn and or until the end of the encounter. Or some such thing.
Level 13 encounter power: Blade whirlwind:
Would be better if it the rageblood vigor option stated that you pushed the target a number of squares equal to your constitution modifier. Many other powers say this, why can’t this one? Also, pushing isn’t that ridiculous of an extra feature that you can’t justify it by upping proportionally as per the con mod. After all the alternative power deals more damage (albeit to a single target) and dazed the opponent. And dazing is very good. I feel that this would make the powers more balanced, as I am tempted to take crack the skull even though I am a rageblood barbarian.
Rage/Stance: it seems barbarians can use rages and stances at the same time? This seems like it could be a little overpowered, as a barbarian could multiclass to fighter and make use of the fighter stance daily powers if he feels that one of his daily power options is underpowered. Maybe barbarians should not be able to use stance while in rage? This may cause some of the utility powers to be rewritten, such as Mountain Roots (lvl10)
Level 15 daily rage: if you hit more than 50% of the time, thunderfury rage is simply better because it does approximately twice as much damage as the alternative
Crater fall: Maybe this attack should deal additional damage to the target if it hits a solid object such as a wall or something before it travels the full distance.
Hurricane of Blades: Average of 130 damage or so?
Frenzied Blood: does not matter for daily powers because all rages deal half damage anyways? Still good for encounter powers though.
Warpath/Unfeeling Rage: should these abilities scale upwards with level? Deal more damage // resist more damage?
Persistent Frenzy: Should the d20 roll from this power be a saving throw instead? It seems fair enough staying as a plain d20 roll though.

Asbestos
2008-10-16, 06:56 PM
i finally sat down and thouroughly looked at most of the powers and compared them with lots of the other options at any given level.

here is a list of my complaints and or comments about the class. please excuse any typos and what not i typed it up during a class.


Comments on Barbarian 4e
Rage Strike: This power is useless until at least 5th level. This makes basically an entire class feature defunct at low levels. Reguardless of its usage at higher levels, this seems unfair at low levels. Perhaps decrease the damage and make it able to ‘end a rage’ with another extremely damaging attack. Then perhaps you are fatigued or weakend or take a -2 to attacks until the end of your next turn and or until the end of the encounter. Or some such thing.
Level 13 encounter power: Blade whirlwind:
Would be better if it the rageblood vigor option stated that you pushed the target a number of squares equal to your constitution modifier. Many other powers say this, why can’t this one? Also, pushing isn’t that ridiculous of an extra feature that you can’t justify it by upping proportionally as per the con mod. After all the alternative power deals more damage (albeit to a single target) and dazed the opponent. And dazing is very good. I feel that this would make the powers more balanced, as I am tempted to take crack the skull even though I am a rageblood barbarian.
Rage/Stance: it seems barbarians can use rages and stances at the same time? This seems like it could be a little overpowered, as a barbarian could multiclass to fighter and make use of the fighter stance daily powers if he feels that one of his daily power options is underpowered. Maybe barbarians should not be able to use stance while in rage? This may cause some of the utility powers to be rewritten, such as Mountain Roots (lvl10)
Level 15 daily rage: if you hit more than 50% of the time, thunderfury rage is simply better because it does approximately twice as much damage as the alternative
Crater fall: Maybe this attack should deal additional damage to the target if it hits a solid object such as a wall or something before it travels the full distance.
Hurricane of Blades: Average of 130 damage or so?
Frenzied Blood: does not matter for daily powers because all rages deal half damage anyways? Still good for encounter powers though.
Warpath/Unfeeling Rage: should these abilities scale upwards with level? Deal more damage // resist more damage?
Persistent Frenzy: Should the d20 roll from this power be a saving throw instead? It seems fair enough staying as a plain d20 roll though.


Hmm... I disagree/mildly agree with a couple.

I don't see what's wrong with Rage Strike, yes its a class feature you aren't able to use until 5th level, but so what? Having it end a rage defeats the purpose of this power, which seems to be to allow you to be in your 'best' rage and still use your dailies to do damage, without having to end that rage. On average Rage Strike is doing more damage than the daily it is using up, it really isn't that bad a deal.

Rage/Stance: Nothing [yet] says you can't be raging and stancing at the same time, someone should make up a barb and multi into fighter and see what happens. Though, since stances are dailies and rages are dailies, you'd be using two daily abilities in the same encounter and one isn't doing immediate damage.

The Rageblood Critique about the CON mod push would be valid IF the power already pushed. The rageblood vigor option is adding something new to the power rather than just upgrading something it already does, I think that's the key difference. Also, as for why would you pick it over Crack the Skull? Because it can do 2[W] to up to 9 enemies and push them 1 square away from you instead of just doing 3[W] and dazing a single enemy. The choice is really Burst vs Single target.

Level 15 Daily Power: Thunderfury allows you 1 extra basic attack/round. Flameheart has no limit to how much it can hit. It could, in theory, kill a ton of minions between your turns. Also, the initial attack is again a choice between Burst and Single Target.


Crater Fall: I can see this, but it also seems like Crater Fall is pretty darn powerful. Use it on a charge (why wouldn't you?) and it pushes the target a number of squares up to your STR bonus and knocks down every other enemy in its path. That could be darn sweet if you angle it right. Do any other powers that push do damage if the target hits something solid before completing the push? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Hurricane of Blades: Hmm... I'm not in love with this power because its an encounter power. But, 130 average damage? Where is that number coming from? A Mordenkrand in the hands of a 22 STR barb would do an average of 90. A minotaur with the same STR is doing 102 average damage with a larger version of that weapon. Also, that's the average damage assuming that all attacks hit. If you hit only 50% of the time, it drops to 45 and 51.
This having been said I think that Blood Frenzy is the way to go here if you want to hurt 1 target with your level 27 encounter power. It gives a significant bonus to the attack roll if the target is bloodied and does a solid 5[W] damage and gives a substantial bonus to attack rolls for attacks made from then until the end of your next turn. You'll likely be running into a bloodied enemy at least 1/encounter and it likely won't be the last guy in the fight... this is a pretty darn useful power.

Frenzied Blood: It does matter because of encounter powers. Rage first, then use the action point, then use the encounter attack. Using another Daily (well, Rage Strike) could still be done and does not benefit from the ability, but you'll probably be using encounter powers more than you'll be Nova-ing by spending two dailies and an action point in the same encounter, all in succession.

Warpath/Unfeeling Rage: I can see these getting boosted at level 21/26 respectively. Still useful if they don't scale but yeah, don't seem that awesome.

Persistent Frenzy: If its a saving throw it actually punishes those races that gain a bonus on throws/PCs that are currently buffed up by a leader. Keeping it a flat d20 is the fair thing to do.

quotemyname
2008-10-17, 01:21 AM
im gonna spoiler the quote just cuz its so long:


Hmm... I disagree/mildly agree with a couple.

I don't see what's wrong with Rage Strike, yes its a class feature you aren't able to use until 5th level, but so what? Having it end a rage defeats the purpose of this power, which seems to be to allow you to be in your 'best' rage and still use your dailies to do damage, without having to end that rage. On average Rage Strike is doing more damage than the daily it is using up, it really isn't that bad a deal.

Rage/Stance: Nothing [yet] says you can't be raging and stancing at the same time, someone should make up a barb and multi into fighter and see what happens. Though, since stances are dailies and rages are dailies, you'd be using two daily abilities in the same encounter and one isn't doing immediate damage.

The Rageblood Critique about the CON mod push would be valid IF the power already pushed. The rageblood vigor option is adding something new to the power rather than just upgrading something it already does, I think that's the key difference. Also, as for why would you pick it over Crack the Skull? Because it can do 2[W] to up to 9 enemies and push them 1 square away from you instead of just doing 3[W] and dazing a single enemy. The choice is really Burst vs Single target.

Level 15 Daily Power: Thunderfury allows you 1 extra basic attack/round. Flameheart has no limit to how much it can hit. It could, in theory, kill a ton of minions between your turns. Also, the initial attack is again a choice between Burst and Single Target.


Crater Fall: I can see this, but it also seems like Crater Fall is pretty darn powerful. Use it on a charge (why wouldn't you?) and it pushes the target a number of squares up to your STR bonus and knocks down every other enemy in its path. That could be darn sweet if you angle it right. Do any other powers that push do damage if the target hits something solid before completing the push? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Hurricane of Blades: Hmm... I'm not in love with this power because its an encounter power. But, 130 average damage? Where is that number coming from? A Mordenkrand in the hands of a 22 STR barb would do an average of 90. A minotaur with the same STR is doing 102 average damage with a larger version of that weapon. Also, that's the average damage assuming that all attacks hit. If you hit only 50% of the time, it drops to 45 and 51.
This having been said I think that Blood Frenzy is the way to go here if you want to hurt 1 target with your level 27 encounter power. It gives a significant bonus to the attack roll if the target is bloodied and does a solid 5[W] damage and gives a substantial bonus to attack rolls for attacks made from then until the end of your next turn. You'll likely be running into a bloodied enemy at least 1/encounter and it likely won't be the last guy in the fight... this is a pretty darn useful power.

Frenzied Blood: It does matter because of encounter powers. Rage first, then use the action point, then use the encounter attack. Using another Daily (well, Rage Strike) could still be done and does not benefit from the ability, but you'll probably be using encounter powers more than you'll be Nova-ing by spending two dailies and an action point in the same encounter, all in succession.

Warpath/Unfeeling Rage: I can see these getting boosted at level 21/26 respectively. Still useful if they don't scale but yeah, don't seem that awesome.

Persistent Frenzy: If its a saving throw it actually punishes those races that gain a bonus on throws/PCs that are currently buffed up by a leader. Keeping it a flat d20 is the fair thing to do.

rage strike:
compare this with my other favorite striker: the rogue. although the flavor is different, a brawny rogue can still mess people up pretty nice. so this is going to be a striker class feature - class feature comparison. i say that compared with any of the rogue's class features rage strike falls short as it currently is. ill choose sneak attack as the first class feature to contrast since they both fall under the 'extra striker damage ken'
- sneak attack - bonus damage = nice. CA is not hard to get (esp. with winter touched/lasting frost combo). usable at all levels, highest damage of any striker bonus damage dice during heroic, and epic tiers.
- rage strike - unusable at levels 1-5 = bad. high damage output = good. pseudo at-will status = good (even though you can only use it once per daily you blow off, you still get multiple uses out of it). takes away your dailies = bad, but not a deal breaker, because its flavorful.
- my ruling: sneak attack is better. (but thats one man's opinion, and i love sneak)

the other two rogue powers then:
- rogue weapon talent - usable at all levels = good. awesome at all levels = good. no downside besides low dagger damage which is compensated by sneak = balanced.
- rage strike: still think its worse than this. but getting closer

- rogue fighting tactics: brawny: +str mod to sneak damage = amazing
trickster: +cha mod to AC vs OA's = fun as hell!
- rage strike: still think its worse, but this is more comparable.

this is seriously my biggest gripe about the class so far. the fact that you can't use it for the first five levels seems just plain crippling.

to clarify my earlier statement about making it "end the rage" could be better worded as "discharging" the "effect" block of the rage power you previously used. flavor wise it would be like you've been raging all encounter, now on the last guy, you blow of some of your pent up steam with another attack channeling the last bits of your rage into it. this would leave you feeling drained and winded (but in reality would be no more than you losing the extra effects of a rage power).

this fixes the unusable factor at early levels. we could also scale back the rage strike damage to be, say (arbitrarily), the same damage as the rage originally dealt. this gives you an extra attack, albeit a quite damaging, but not too ridiculous.


rage/stance:
not much else to be said here. just a neat point i picked up on when i read the power keywords closer. although i should mention at first glance, it seems to me that a fighter -> multi barb might work better crunch wise, even though we don't have the barb multiclass feat better.

CON mod push:
good point. didn't think of / notice that. i was just grumbly because it didn't do more. although i admit the burst effect and push (although minor is great for getting out of tight spots, esp for barbs cuz all the ones ive built so far have low defenses and would be hurting after a round of being surrounded be even a few foes)


level 15 daily power:
both of these are pretty balanced crunch wise. it would depend on the flavor the player wanted to go with. i personally like the flavor of gaining an extra attack to bat away any foe that tries to test you in combat. no complaints here, again just something interesting i saw. i think thunder fury might come out on top if you combine high strength with high damage weapons... but we shall see....


Crater Fall:
to me, this power just screamed "3.5 awesome blow feat (monster manual)" from the moment i read it. if memory serves, THAT dealt damage when you contacted stuff, (or that may have been a homebrew improved awesome blow one of my DM's came up with).

either way i see your point. no push powers deal extra damage if they are prematurely ended. i just get the feeling if you hit someone hard enough to send them flying over pits, and bowling down other hostiles on their way to the outfield that if they are stopped prematurely in their fight, they should take extra damage.

maybe we need a new game mechanic. instead of push it should be called grand slammed :P


Hurricane of blades:

its possible i did my math wrong here. let me recalculate:
Definitions:
- human rageblood barbarian (race and orriginal array are not optimal because the game im going to run this char in the DM wants only phb races, so no minotaur, otherwise i would be all over that.)
- feats: (relevent ones) weapon focus
- equipment: great maul
Assumptions: by 27 level you should have a +4 weapon at least
level 1 stats: 18/15/14/10/11/8 (not the best but again i have my reasons)
level 24-27 stats: 25/22/16/12/13/10 (str is whats important here)

not going to bother calculating to hit rolls, damage is the focus of this calculation:

six attacks, each 1[w] + str mod damage
great maul 1[w] = 2d6 =[avg]= 7 (3.5*2)
- damage modifier:
+ 6 (str and 1/2 for two handed) + 3 (wpn focus epic) + 4 (magic weapon) =13
(i think this is where i goofed last time i think i came up with closer to 17, and i cannot now figure out why, probably because its 2am but we will see how this turns out)

so each attack deals an average of 7+13 = 20 damage.
if you hit with all six thats 20*6 = 120

so yes my math was still off a little, but 120 is still pretty high. assuming you hit of course.

these numbers would be even higher with a minotaur and so on. (don't even get me started on a minotaur using a large executioners axe for 2d6 damage brutal 2. minimum of 6 damage per attack because you must roll 2 3's or higher. now you know why my dm wants phb only races)


frenzied blood, and warpath/unfeeling rage - no objections here

persistent frenzy:
how is making it a save detrimental to those pc's that are being buffed or have a bonus to saves? you pass the save you keep the power. those characters are more likely to pass the save. i think you may have gotten my meaning backwards. or i worded it badly i can't remember what i wrote.


its late and i have to hit the NJ DMV tomorrow. wish me luck, and happy number crunching guys :)

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 11:46 AM
Thought that people wanting a different sort of 'barbarian' might want to check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93222). Check the fighter class feature. Yes, its a Fighter and not a Barbarian. Its a dude in less armor than the standard fighter and he gets invigorated when he gets hit by an enemy... and does more damage when he's invigorated. That seems easy enough to fluff up into a warrior from a barbarian tribe.

That doesn't prove anything. That is homebrewing, not actual content. Homebrewing is great, its nice, but it doesn't make up for the games flaws and things they didn't include and it has never had If that was the case then 3e's mechanical problems could simply be viewed as "encouraging you to fix it".


EE, where you see "some nut with an axe" I see "A guy that is channeling ancestor/totem spirits through his body in order to put up a more powerful fight".
Look at hte actual content written, not the stuff your imaging or made up. It has some vague totem back ground and the rest of it is nut with axe. It isn't any actual context, just stuff that is made up


The new fluff is actually less "nut with axe" than the older fluff. The wellspring of strength isn't how crazy the guy can get, its how in tune he is with the totem spirits of his tribe. The "rage" is more supernatural now, less ... ragey. Heck, I might refluff it so that they aren't even called Rages, just cut that and put Evocation in its place. Maybe that's just me... but that's what the current fluff, the fluff that everyone can read, is saying to me.
Sure, your adding stuff, that is great, but that doesn't change the fact that your making stuff up from an extremely small amount of writing. That is fine, but you can draw your own conclusions from a better more indepth fluff description just as well, that doesn't hinder your ability to think creatively in any way.


Also, in defense of the article... its a playtest article and its the only representative of the Primal power source that we have. For instance, the limited fluff we have for the Martial power source lets me figure it out pretty easily "Classes that use the Martial power source rely more on physical and personal strength and skill than anything else, this stuff takes a lot of training". Divine can be figured out pretty easily too "Classes that use the Divine power source are granted supernatural powers by their order/god as a reward for deep devotion and are entrusted to use that granted power to further the ideals of the church/god" Cool, that right there gives me plenty of background stuff for the classes and helps me figure out how they might relate to each other.
Sure it is a playtest article, but that doesn't make my comment less valid. My comment of it lacking fluff more than some nut with axe cliche is just as valid because it doesn't have any content. If they come out with more content, great, but as of now there isn't any

Also the PHB classes don't have much in the way of content themselves actually compared to earlier editions



How do the Fighter and Paladin get along (let's assume the same alignment to make this easier)? The Fighter may respect the dedication the Paladin has to his church and the Paladin may respect the dedication the Fighter has to his training. The Fighter may think the Paladin is copping out by recieving his strength from something beyond himself instead of intense work and training while the Paladin may find the Fighter's lack of religious zeal to be a flaw. The Fighter may be completely self-serving while the Paladin is serving a higher power. I got all that from the fluff in the PHB and like... a minute of thought.
Sure, and i can play Fable and make up a more indepth, cooler, orginal plot than the game has, and that still doesn't change the fact it has a bad plot. I can watch the new starwars, write down a way for hte plot to make sense and make up confusions that would work better, and picture in my head better acting/design but that still doesn't change the fact the game is bad. You taking a hack and slash class design and imagining more than they present


4e gives you all the fluff you need. It tells you what the class is about and their place in the world. I don't need to know more about the Barbarian class than that its a guy who rages and smashes things with a big weapon. That's all the spring board required to build a character because each character is an individual.
Ok, then the 3E mechinics aren't broken. They are encouraging you to tweak with it and come up with your own creative design. The lack of Balence in 3E exist for you to make up balence based upon your own groups terms.
the lack of pictures in LOTRS is just encouraging you to make your own pictures
An empty falling apart house is just encouraging you to fix it to make it different
The lack of story in Dark Alliance is just encouraging you to make up your own
The plot holes in Harry Potter are just encouraging you to make up your own conclusions
The flaws in Eragon is just encouraging you to find ways to make it unique




The fluff from 3e you're so in love with? It's really not good. Calling it story is pathetic.
Because you say so? I'm glad we had this talk


It's a bunch of stereotypes mashed together. Take a look at some of the flavor text in the 3.5 barbarian entry. How about the section on religion. To paraphrase, it says the some barbarians don't trust organized religions and prefer to worship nature. Other barbarians do follow a god. WOW! Where did they come up with this stuff? I will forever be a better role player for having read it.
Hmmm, a chaotic only class not liking organized region but still following a job? Wow, the thought of it


But brace yourself, the next section is even better! According to the background section Barbarians come from uncivilized lands and barbaric tribes. Truly, it was an artist who penned these words.

I never said it was great, i said it was more indepth. I've always said 3E should try more, but they at least made the attempt rather than 4E's shallow hack and slash version

Respond to everything else later
from
EE

Asbestos
2008-10-17, 12:31 PM
im gonna spoiler the quote just cuz its so long:



rage strike:
compare this with my other favorite striker: the rogue. although the flavor is different, a brawny rogue can still mess people up pretty nice. so this is going to be a striker class feature - class feature comparison. i say that compared with any of the rogue's class features rage strike falls short as it currently is. ill choose sneak attack as the first class feature to contrast since they both fall under the 'extra striker damage ken'
- sneak attack - bonus damage = nice. CA is not hard to get (esp. with winter touched/lasting frost combo). usable at all levels, highest damage of any striker bonus damage dice during heroic, and epic tiers.
- rage strike - unusable at levels 1-5 = bad. high damage output = good. pseudo at-will status = good (even though you can only use it once per daily you blow off, you still get multiple uses out of it). takes away your dailies = bad, but not a deal breaker, because its flavorful.
- my ruling: sneak attack is better. (but thats one man's opinion, and i love sneak)

the other two rogue powers then:
- rogue weapon talent - usable at all levels = good. awesome at all levels = good. no downside besides low dagger damage which is compensated by sneak = balanced.
- rage strike: still think its worse than this. but getting closer

- rogue fighting tactics: brawny: +str mod to sneak damage = amazing
trickster: +cha mod to AC vs OA's = fun as hell!
- rage strike: still think its worse, but this is more comparable.

this is seriously my biggest gripe about the class so far. the fact that you can't use it for the first five levels seems just plain crippling.

to clarify my earlier statement about making it "end the rage" could be better worded as "discharging" the "effect" block of the rage power you previously used. flavor wise it would be like you've been raging all encounter, now on the last guy, you blow of some of your pent up steam with another attack channeling the last bits of your rage into it. this would leave you feeling drained and winded (but in reality would be no more than you losing the extra effects of a rage power).

this fixes the unusable factor at early levels. we could also scale back the rage strike damage to be, say (arbitrarily), the same damage as the rage originally dealt. this gives you an extra attack, albeit a quite damaging, but not too ridiculous.


its late and i have to hit the NJ DMV tomorrow. wish me luck, and happy number crunching guys :)

I still have an issue with your view of Rage Strike here, I think we may have to agree to disagree in the end, but I'll try to sell it one more time.

Rage Strike isn't the Barbarian's "striker power" as it were. It isn't meant to be the extra damage source. Barb's get their striker boost, it seems, from wielding larger weapons and having powers that just straight up do more damage. Also, when Barb's are raging all their at-will powers are boosted in some way, I think that's pretty significant in helping them catch up to other Strikers as well. All out ending rage to just do extra damage only makes sense at the very end of an encounter, as such, it isn't all that usable... unless you have other Daily powers in which case you have access to Rage Strike.

As for comparing it to the two Rogue builds, if you check the Rageblood Vigor build I think it comes out on top. You get hit points for killing an enemy and 1/encounter you get a free charge out of it (that you can use to make an at-will attack if you chose Howling Strike), that's pretty sweet to me.


Ha, DMV, have fun with that.






EE: The Fighter Build I pointed to is not, in fact, Homebrewed. It was a peak at one of the new Fighter Class Features in the Martial Power book. Unless you consider home brewing to be "My fighter is from a barbarian tribe".
I'm not responding to the rest because most of what you say is true only...
"Because you say so? I'm glad we had this talk"
Exactly.

Btw, I was looking at the actual content, so don't tell me I wasn't, it does indeed point towards the Barb being a 'spirit guy'. Even the fluff descriptions of most of the Rage Powers back this up.

"The spirit of the stone bear that hunts at the mountains’ roots courses through you, and its fury blunts the pain of your wounds."

"The spirit of the red dragon imbues your attack with fiery wrath, scorching your foe. As you rage, the fire of the dragon’s heart lashes out at those that strike you."

"Charging at your foe and knocking it to the ground, you call on the spirit of the thunderfury boar to grant you health and strength in your rage."

"Your blow erupts in grasping frost as the spirit of the winter phoenix enters you. As you rage, vitality surges through you to ward you from death."

There are others, I'm just not going to post them all.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 02:50 PM
I think all that previous fluff just turns into baggage.

Oh yes, because the players and the game simply can't handle that much complexity. It just can't possibly take a the stress of actually having to hold itself up to the older standards. It must take so much out of the edition for it to actually have to provide some damn background for its game, the stress and the pain must be too much. So lets cut it. Just get ride of it, because apperently its "baggage" because somebody claimed it. That proves something doesn't it. Oh wait, it doesn't. ITs just an excuse for WotC to avoid the damn responsibility of actually providing back ground beyond the basic information. IT cuts out a massive amount of information and detail that the old editions have made over the course of thirty years, and throwing it in the trash. It is erasing decades of effort and libraries of back ground so they don't have to deal with it. It is wiping clear the need to actually put detail and content into their information, which is a basically a hack and slash game. It focuses on the mechanics and combat more than anything else. And any claim that it is "encouraging" you to be creative is a lie because
A) This is a new edition not a new game, it has an obligation to keep the work of the older editions
B) The game offers no real (other than some empty paragraphs in the DMG) on making your own back story, it just presents mechanics.

That is a single minded style of playing and that is what 4E supports.



I think that's why they did what they did to FR too. Wipe out the old and bring in something new. I don't see anything wrong with that.
And we get the new FR, which is revolting . By the standards of 4E, it is utter crap. Its a petty wasted edition that ruins the old edition. It wipes clean the old history and creatures an admonitions in its name that only resembles its predessier in name and a few tolken characters. It can't even be called a new edition properly because it has this grotesque mis mash of mixed concepts and place that now cease to have any meaning



On the subject of FR... its just advanced a couple of centuries, it isn't "Dead".
I mean, imagine someone wrote a setting called "Earth" (and imagine we don't know of Earth) and the setting details the events from 1750-1799 and gives a broad history of Earth's past. The setting has been out for a while and we've got names for every ruler and places for every nation. We know that there was a revolution in some of the North American english colonies and some upstart named Napolean is Emperor of France and waging war. This Napolean has also recently (1797) invaded/dismantled a 1000 year old Republic. The biggest military power on the European continent is Prussia and Imperial Russia keeps having problems with the Turkish Empire. South America is ruled by basically one country and a large amount of North America is still 'frontier' with a number of Native American tribes still existing. Africa is mostly untouched by the rest of the world, except for the slave trade, and Asia is still mostly isolated from the rest of the world. Some guy named Cook is finding islands all over the place, some of them are huge (Austrailia). Also, its a bit cold, on a global scale (the Little Ice Age is in full swing). There are nearly 1 billion people currently alive.
Then, I decide that well, maybe its time to revisit Earth, I've circled it hundreds of times and its just more of the same... I re-write the setting 200 years in the future. The 'present' is now 1999. Almost everything has changed. Hundreds of animal species are extinct. 6 billion people are alive. Ice is melting across the globe. Dozens of nations have risen and fallen, Africa and Asia have been carved up and put back together, and whole peoples, cultures, and languages have been wiped from the planet. The political map of Europe has changed so much that its ridiculous. Those former North American English colonies are now the only Superpower on the entire planet. Wars of global scale have taken place, the world even nearly ended at least once, global pandemics have occurred and now we're seeing deadly diseases that didn't even exist before!

Did I kill the setting? Well, I did change it a lot. Did I kill Earth? No. Its still Earth, just older. It still has all its old history, just a lot of that isn't relevant anymore. Will anyone care that Napolean destroyed the Republic of Venice after it having existed for 1000 years? Probably not. I now have a whole new history to learn and I have two options. Whine about how what I knew is now out of date or how the people I used to root for no longer exist or be excited about the prospect of seeing how the world I was so familiar with has changed and be intrigued by all the events currently going on.


Ok, first off that is possibly the worst metaphor i've ever seen concerning the real world and a setting. Like ever, it doesn't fit. The history of hte world follows a natural series of events/dumb luck, not forced recone the wan FR did. They don't even compare Don't use the real life earth when the changes aren't the same. THe change happens, yes, just like change has been happening in FR. But it happens naturally. What happens in FR isn't history, its a recon on the highest level. Its erased the prior information and setting, it has with books worth of predefined information and content cut out of the picture. Old rules are ignored, old persons start acting out of character, old places and groups are cut out of the picture. This isnt' a natural transition, its a re con, that ignores a massive amount of predefined fluff in order to make their version of the game play true. So your real world example doesn't work out, because that isn't an nautral change, its a forced heavy handed recon




No! It happened again! Another thread turned into EE's soapbox.
oh cut the double standard. Its your soapbox more than mine. I had a relevant comment, pointing out the total lack of quality fluff. Your the one who turned this into a general 4E dicussion, not I. If you disagree fine, but don't use a double standard




And the exact same soapbox, too. "I hate 4E! I don't care what's being discussed, but it's something I can hold up to show everybody how bad 4E is!"
How about this, my comment is perfectly on topic. I pointed out the lack of fluff in the Barbarian play article, and that still stands. And your soap box is the same. It comes up every single thread and it basically is the same thing. Here is your soap box "EE is wrong because i say so. EE is wrong because i disagree with him. EE is wrong because he doesn't comply with what i say. EE is a troll because he makes negative comments about the content on hand. EE is wrong because he has the audacity to say something different. EE is so wrong, i dont have to respond directly to him but just rely on personal attacks"
Get over your double standards and actually do more than insult me please



Oh, and if you're going to argue with EE, argue civily, please. He's actually quite nice if you're polite to him.

thank you i don't mind debate, i just find double standards offensive


Look who's talking.
ironically, my original remark was on topic, the fluff was lack luster.



I don't understand all the 4E hate. I'm in the middle on a 4E campaign and I have to say it's some of the most fun I've had in D&D. Maybe if you read the books without the ability to see how the classes translate into the game... but in action (with intelligent players) the classes are very distinct. My campaign right now has one of every class except Warlord (and I'm looking to play a Warlord next campaign).

4E lets you spend more time on actually playing the damn game, and less time on convoluted and complicated rules. And they even say the fluff is just a guideline, that even Power flavor text can (and should!) be changed to match the character.
yeah i do, simplicity, hack and slash, arbitrary changes?




As for EE, just ignore him. The fluff in the barbarian article (and in 4E classes in general) is great, the fluff in 3.5 is just... meh.
1) Ignoring people? Yeah, because that will definitely prove you right.
2) So 3E fluff is bad......because you say so.....right
3) The 4E fluff being great is hard to believe when it only makes up a few paragraphs per class


This is of course my personal judgement, and you may probably address me directly and make me see why I am wrong and you are not, but since probably this thread will be in the second page by tomorrow, I won't even know. So just ignore me, ok? As I would have done with you if you were not spamming in a thread with another purpose... And if you guys think this too, just leave him be. Just like I did not.
Oh stop wasting time with flaming. If your going to make petty accusations and insult me, PM some blokes and stop wasting my time. All your proving is that you and anyone who listens to that advice are basically unable to address any complaint with the game and that only makes yourself and the edition look bad


Ok, this isn't an EE bashing thread. I disagree with him, and would also like to suggest that he starts putting the letter 'h' in the correct place ("taht" and "teh"? really?), but don't make this into repeatedly slamming someone whom you disagree with, or have had disagreements with in other threads.
Thank you, somebody actually sticking to the points.




The lack of quality spelling in this post makes me sad.

So does the mention of something I like.
why should i care?




I would argue that your game world is part of the fluff. You can play D&D without a gameworld or story. (Though not a very interesting one.) Story, characters, plots...these things are all fluff. Fourth edition doesn't have as much fluff as third or second...but it gives more specific game mechanics that translate better into gameplay. Most people can make their own fluff...designing balanced combat mechanics is a whole other story.

A game that focuses upon combat and mechanics beyond all else, one that also linearizes the mechanics and options for the sake of simplicity. Also focuses primarily upon combat.

What your basically saying is that two of the common complaints of 4E are right
A) Being a simplified game that only supports one style of play as written
B) it is a combat oriented hack and slash

Are true and are good things. That is basically what your saying. THe specific game mechanics without fluff makes it a combat game, and the narrowing options and lack of detail basically makes it a one style game.

By saying Mechanics> background then you are essentially supporting a style of play over other in a way the eariler editions did not. When you say Combat=Basis of Mechanics you are saying the hack and slash style is the default and what the core supports

your claim that fluff and mechanics aren't equal isn't quite true. Everybody seems to rely upon this claim that anybody can make up detail to justify flaws in the core design. But i can make up mechanics to fix 3E. You say fluff is easier, but it takes a good writer to make good fluff. It takes a good mathematician ot make up good mechanics.

Any change in the printed version is homebrew and homebrew cannot forgive an edition of its flaws



I assume you meant the core books ARE about the entire game...and I would agree with that. However I would argue that mechanics are a bit more important as this is a game...not a novel. The whole point is I can make my own fluff that I like better than their fluff. And as I stated before it's way easier to make good fluff than it is to design a fun and balanced game system.

1) Back ground and content need to be balanced. If you get mechanics, you just have an emotionally dead game (like most of 4E), if you have too much fluff you have a badly balanced game that doesn't work. Take 3E. It is over loaded with flaws, but it still has a lot of good things within the game because of its back ground. Its just unplayable due to mechinics
2) In D&D your playing within a world and in the world the fluff and mechanics will interact and that matters. NPC rules? how spells affect society, racial abilities as well. Alignment and the codes of gods (which in 4E mean next to nothing), and the way a D&D world is based (cosmology, souls, monsters) without that you get a dead edition



That's an unfair argument, you can't include the complete series...we are talking about core rules. Of course 3rd has more content being older...Im comparing core to core to keep things fair. Fourth edition has way better grounds for good combat than third edition had if you ask me. Powers were a great idea. Powers open up huge amounts of potential for the game to grow in very interesting directions. (though I'm not crazy about all classes having the exact same power advancement.)
ok, but even within Core 3E has more room for diversity and more back ground

And 4E runs combat better........because that is what hte entire game is focuses upon. It does a fourth of the job in making the game and leaves the rest up to the players to hid shoddy management


4e core has way more variety than 3e core if you compare the actual content. Having part to do with the removal of a lot of unnecessary fluff.
I wouldn't call it unnecessary, because without 4E is little more than a hack and slash

And it has more core in combat but in design. Linear, very very much so.

The game right now isn't just mechanics, it includes plenty of fluff that we won't use. And I dunno, there are a lot of good games that don't have a ton of fluff. You're trying to state your opinion as fact and you don't really have a way to back it.
taht is only true if you assert it is the same for you as well


I will concede that it's stupid NPCs and PCs cant fight on the same grounds. (Thats a personal pet peave of mine about 4e) I will also concede that the reduction in power and size of the spell list also greatly annoys me. However, I understand why they did it and I say it's a good call. Besides, there is plenty of room for growth when new wizard powers and builds are introduced in the future. The good thing is that now all classes can have huge amounts of options just like the wizard. And utility powers aren't combat skills, they are powers you can use to give yourself benefits inside and outside of combat. Actually, many of them work better outside of combat for the rogue... Haha, I can't believe you call 4th edition full of cliches while advocating 3rd...Don't you dare tell me 3.x wasn't full of silly fantasy cliches!

1) Yeah it was a good call, it made the game simpler and without consistency and detail, like every good combat game should be.......
2) The builds are made in a linear fashion. in 3E there is a massive amount of room for experimentation and diversity among the game. They don't work due to balence problems, but thats not the point, there is still a massive amount of options available in terms of customization. 4E doesn't have that, it has a series of paths. The diversity is choosing what linear path you have to follow
3) 3E took the cliches form 2E, which made them in the first place, so they aren't cliches. And while 3E had some, it wasn't made entirely out of them, it had a lot more to offer, including new takes on cliches or using cliches in new ways. Or making them work. 4E just gives you the cliches fresh from the book and focuses on what it likes, combat


All these things exist within 4th just as much as 3rd...
No, they do not because you have a system without back ground, without consistency, and without diversity. as this thread proved

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89456

Sorry for the derail, but ee started it! ;)
no i didn't actually, i made a valid comment, that the fluff had no back ground. Techincally ShaggoMarco started moving the dicussion off topic

Unless class fluff is so unimportant that it isn't valid


Lotherbot, problem there



The Fluff of the Barbarian isn't that good actually, but at least they tried and went into some detail, which is more than 4E could hope to say





EE: The Fighter Build I pointed to is not, in fact, Homebrewed. It was a peak at one of the new Fighter Class Features in the Martial Power book. Unless you consider home brewing to be "My fighter is from a barbarian tribe".
OK, fine, but that doesn't prove any point other than "minimal content vaguly saying that fighter is from barbarion tribe"


I'm not responding to the rest because most of what you say is true only...
"Because you say so? I'm glad we had this talk"
Exactly.
Hmmmm, so what does that make my giant thread made up off? Seems like a another double standard. Your basically saying that you don't need to prove me wrong, because you said so.


Btw, I was looking at the actual content, so don't tell me I wasn't, it does indeed point towards the Barb being a 'spirit guy'. Even the fluff descriptions of most of the Rage Powers back this up.

"The spirit of the stone bear that hunts at the mountains’ roots courses through you, and its fury blunts the pain of your wounds."

"The spirit of the red dragon imbues your attack with fiery wrath, scorching your foe. As you rage, the fire of the dragon’s heart lashes out at those that strike you."

"Charging at your foe and knocking it to the ground, you call on the spirit of the thunderfury boar to grant you health and strength in your rage."

"Your blow erupts in grasping frost as the spirit of the winter phoenix enters you. As you rage, vitality surges through you to ward you from death."


And i'm saying that doesn't matter, because of the actual content at hand is so little, that you just get vague spirit stuff with no detail. It essentially means nothing other than "Nut with axe who believes in spirits"
from
EE

LotharBot
2008-10-18, 01:23 AM
OK, EE, so you admit that 3.5e's fluff isn't very good.

What do you think of my followup comment, where I compared 3.5 and 4e's fluff? I'll repost it here:


3.5's fluff was very often overly restrictive, and uninspiring. 4e seems to have pared down the fluff descriptions surrounding individual classes (getting rid of the "rogues hate druids" stuff), while channeling a lot of fluff into the power descriptions. I find this to be much more inspiring -- when writing out a bloodthirsty fighter the other day, I happened to see the link to the barbarian class, and reading through the powers I immediately recognized some fluff IN THE POWERS that I thought really fit well with my character. (In 4e, the crunch is fluffy. You don't need a description that says "Barbarians are like this" when you've got a series of powers that describe what your barbarian is like.)

To phrase it another way:

In 3.5, every class had a couple pages of fluff that were completely divorced from the crunch. They had a couple pages of stuff like "rogues hate druids" that were unnecessary, unhelpful, and uninspiring. When you got through all that fluff, you came to a table and a couple pages full of crunch -- attack bonuses, feats, and powers like "rage" and "sneak attack"... and if you were playing a caster, you also had whole books of extra powers called "spells". And when you read through all the crunch, it didn't necessarily relate to the fluff. Sure, wizards put in the effort to write all that stuff, but you don't get points for effort, you get points for value, and the fluffy class descriptions in 3.5 didn't add a lot of value.

In 4e, each class has about a quarter page of fluff that's completely divorced from the crunch... and then pages and pages of fluffy crunch. Each class has a similar number of abilities and powers, and those abilities and powers combine to create a compelling picture of what the class is about. It's a much more integrated approach -- fluff and crunch working together, rather than separately. The way the fluff is presented in 4e, directly associated with powers (and items and races and so on), adds real value to the system.

Raz_Fox
2008-10-18, 09:32 AM
Alright. Let me see if I can help (or make the 3.5/4 arguement worse).

The 4E Barbarian has very little fluff.
The 3E Barbarian has some lame fluff.

Both had bad fluff. Both could be made better by just shoving away the fluff and saying, "Alright. This is my character, and this is how I'm going to play him." Lame fluff is just as bad as no fluff. Both encourage you to just make up your own.

Now can we talk about the Barbarian instead of talking about 4th Edition's lack of fluff?!? EE, if you wish to talk about it more indepth I'd simply make another thread and mention in this thread that if anyone wants to argue about fluff there they can.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Lappy9000
2008-10-18, 11:05 AM
The 3E Barbarian has some lame fluff.


but krusk like smash!

Erk
2008-10-18, 12:05 PM
In the interest of redirecting the thread off of it's current topic, "EE's Personal Crusade Against 4E", some stuff.

Whipped up a barbarian for my fiancee to playtest. Dragonborn, and because of alternate rules in my campaign she has pretty much all the level 1 abilities (except she only has the blood-thingy daily).

Considerations so far.
Her HP are high, but she will need it. Her defenses, except fort, are all abominable.
On the flip side, her damage rolls are obscene.
Feats (one bonus at 1stlevel, another campaign related bonus. I give out very few magic items, and let my characters have a higher personal baseline power)
-Weapon proficiency: Execution Axe --> the higher damage die and brutal make this a shoe-in.
-Powerful Charge --> coupled with that ability with the +1d6 that is useable after a charge, this is a shoe-in. Overall Weapon Focus might be more useful, but it's dull.
-Enlarged Breath --> gives her a means of choking hordes of enemies, especially minions, so she can keep on trucking with fewer swarmers. She is very vulnerable to swarming. And with the Con/Str dual requirement, dragonborn barbs can practically include their breath as a class feature.

another note: charisma presently doesn't seem to have a use for barbs, at least at low levels. I am sure the alternate class line will use it though. On the other hand, Dex may as well be considered a class required ability, unless the player goes for a lot of armour proficiency feats. I don't see those as all that advantageous though: we'll see, of course, but I don't know how well the speed penalty will mesh with a near-reliance on charging, and a lot of barbs' abilities are actually better if the barb is wounded. Avoiding damage is not necessarily that desirable.


Really looking forward to seeing this in action.

BardicDuelist
2008-10-18, 12:25 PM
Look, EE, I have quite a bit of respect for you. Many of your opinions are valid, but please stay the hell out of 4e threads. Everyone gets your point. You're mad that WotC changed the game on you, and you don't care for the new game. That's fine. The thing is, other people do like it. You aren't doing anything other than derailing threads. WotC isn't going to change things because you're pissed. I wish there were an option that would allow me to ignore you in 4e threads, so that things that are remotely relevant to the topic are easier to find, but not ignore you for the rest, as your insight in 3e and other areas is much appreciated.