Barbarian Rage

[Invader_Nym]

I made a post regarding barbarian rage suggesting that the rage be ended when the player activates wands and scrolls which was virtually instantly rejected.

This is another case of failing to counter-balance a powers with limitations, which is why we're still trying, and failing, to balance classes on a 15 year old game.

That a barbarian can be in the midst of a super-human barbaric rage and yet somehow find the time to carefully decipher and activate a level 9 scroll flawlessly is almost as conceptually goofy as the biteback damage was. Add to this that many barbarians will be doing all this while drunk.

[Nitro]

Why does the rage has to be a mindless screaming mouth-frothing berserker rage? It could just as well be a cold, focused sort of fury where your every fiber is focused on killing your enemy, including using any peripherals that might be necessary for that.

Fluff aside, if barbarians couldn't use wands/scrolls while raging, the class would be nerfed to the point of uselessness. A simple grease spell would be enough to drastically slow them down as they wouldn't be able to pop a wand of freedom to counter it, and if an enemy popped an acid sheath after they started raging? Woops, guess it's time to kill yourself on them because you can't do anything about it.

[Invader_Nym]

My suggestion is that barbarians /can/ use wands and scrolls while raging, but that it would break their rage.

The definition of rage is: violent and uncontrolled anger, not 'heightened focus.' This is another design feature that is all upside and no downside.

[Trunx]

The definition of rage is: violent and uncontrolled anger, not 'heightened focus.'

That's one definition of rage.

Other definitions that don't contradict what Nitro said include:

angry fury; violent anger
a fit of violent wrath
(a period of) extreme or violent anger

[Aodh Lazuli]

Are you guys trying to argue game balance based on the definition of a word?

That'd be a novel approach.

[Giftstoff]

I suggest giving barbarian different kinds of rages.

Reckless rage for extra burst, but no umd use.

Intense rage for ab but decreased will and ac.

Overpowering rage for a reduction in attacks per round but additional benefits. Things like that.

The current rage feels like per round WM, it lacks flavor and thematics that really say you're a berzerker.

also please, please stop balancing around WM.

[Cortex]

The suggestion of the OP is not going in due to reasons mentioned in several other threads, including this one. Barbarian rage shouldn't and won't be shoe horned into one concept, it is up to the player how they RP it. Not only would this make little sense for many barbarians, it'd be an unnecessary nerf.

[yellowcateyes]

also please, please stop balancing around WM.

Why?

If there's a class setup that's regarded as the gold standard for melee, why not make other melee builds similarly viable?

[Ork]

This is another design feature that is all upside and no downside.

Name a design feature that has a downside. You're really on the warpath for what you perceive is best for barbarians, but it sounds like you're only interested in screwing them.

[Dalenger]

My suggestion is that barbarians /can/ use wands and scrolls while raging, but that it would break their rage.

So basically, a grease wand can effectively allow me to force you to "turn off" your defining class feature? I don't see that ending well for the barbarian.

This thread could probably use a lock before it turns into a UMD or rp vs meta-building argument.

[flower]

also please, please stop balancing around WM.

Why?

If there's a class setup that's regarded as the gold standard for melee, why not make other melee builds similarly viable?

Because WM builds are not only meleers and when you compare all to them the rest of melee classes will suck as twice (facing WM and also other cookie loaded classes "balanced" to counter/face off WM).

[Lorkas]

My suggestion is that barbarians /can/ use wands and scrolls while raging, but that it would break their rage.

So basically, a grease wand can effectively allow me to force you to "turn off" your defining class feature? I don't see that ending well for the barbarian.

This thread could probably use a lock before it turns into a UMD or rp vs meta-building argument.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but someone casting grease on the ground doesn't seem to me like it merits stopping to cast freedom of movement instead of just charging out of the AoE with barb rage speed toward the target to show them why axe>wand.

Also, it's pretty disingenuous to make an argument against something someone else posted and then call for a thread lock so that arguments like the one you made don't happen. Please refrain from backseat moderating in the forum posts--if you think a thread should be locked to avoid some particular behavior, refrain from that behavior yourself and report the thread to moderators.

[yellowcateyes]

Because WM builds are not only meleers and when you compare all to them the rest of melee classes will suck as twice (facing WM and also other cookie loaded classes "balanced" to counter/face off WM).

So the answer is to keep only WM on top of the melee meta, rather than expanding the number of possible character archetypes that can perform at that level?

[Giftstoff]

Or instead of trying to change 12 classes to be as good as WM, bring WM back in line with everything else. Its so far ahead of everything.

[Hunter548]

Or instead of trying to change 12 classes to be as good as WM, bring WM back in line with everything else. Its so far ahead of everything.

How?

[Lorkas]

Personally I want to see more viable character archetypes, but ones that each have their own niche in a party.

The main problem here I see is that barbarians have 2x the HP of a standard WM, 2x the damage immunity (and damage reduction on top of that), PLUS more damage than the WM. The first two things aren't so much of a problem, but the third is.

Isn't it possible to expand the melee build ecosystem without having one build be the top in so many different categories?

It just seems to me like right now barbarians have as much or more potential damage mitigation as a DD (without DD's requirements, and with other side perks) as well as having as much damage as a WM (even outside of rage, they are nearly as high) without any of WM's requirements.

[Ork]

Or instead of trying to change 12 classes to be as good as WM, bring WM back in line with everything else. Its so far ahead of everything.

It's good that melee classes are good now. A long time ago, this server was mage/cleric centric and anything else was absolutely destroyed. Perspective helps. We're progressing in a way that actually allows diversity of classes & playstyles, not the other way around.

Also Barbarian have more average damage without crits, but a WM will always out damage a barbarian as Cortex quantified.

[gilescorey]

Or instead of trying to change 12 classes to be as good as WM, bring WM back in line with everything else. Its so far ahead of everything.

haha

Edit: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving "WMs are OP" approaches 1

[Hunter548]

Worth noting that a barbarian is, despite mighty rage and all that health, a lot more vulnerable to mages. Will save won't be untouchable like it used to be, and reflex save will be very low. Damage will also be lower than a WM when not raging, as will AB.

[Xuuldar]

The main problem here I see is that barbarians have 2x the HP of a standard WM, 2x the damage immunity (and damage reduction on top of that), PLUS more damage than the WM. The first two things aren't so much of a problem, but the third is.

Can you give the build/numbers? It's already been shown that the WM has far better dmg than a non-raging barbarian. The barbarian can eek out a tiny bit more damage while raging. The barb does have better HP and immunities but will have crap AC. It can be built to have a somewhat decent AC but to do that you have to give up damage and AB.

So everyone whined and cried about bite back, so the barbarian got a revamp to remove the bite back and now everyone is going to whine and cry that when using their temporary, class defining ability, they are SLIGHTLY better than a WM is 24/7? So in essence, you want the barbarian to be no better or even worse than the WM when raging, and far worse when not? Why in the world would anyone ever play a barbarian in that scenario? I am not sure why anyone would want to play a barbarian over a WM after the revamp in the first place.

[Ork]

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=14292&start=93

Here's the numbers Cortex masterfully drafted. WM still out preform Barbarians in almost every area, but Barbarians are still viable during rage.

[gilescorey]

WM does more damage, has better reflex, is generally more reliable.

Barb has 1000 hp, a bunch of DR and DI, and better fort.

They're fine. Everything is fine. Please be calm.

[hoshi]

I do find it funny all the calls for people to be calm in the various barbarian "rage" threads. At this point one has to wonder if the word refers to the class ability or the anger about the class itself.

I mean the prior in pure jest and don't have a horse in this race at all.

[Lorkas]

WM does more damage, has better reflex, is generally more reliable.

Barb has 1000 hp, a bunch of DR and DI, and better fort.

They're fine. Everything is fine. Please be calm.

WM doesn't do more damage than a raging barbarian--that's the thrust of my objection really. look later in the linked thread, where Peppermint included damage comparisons. WM has 2 or so more AC, 2 or so more AB, and reflex will be better naturally. I think it's important to remember also that when we talk about WM having more AC, what we're really talking about is fighter having more AC. The WM class itself doesn't add anything but offensive power, so those 7 levels into the class are now granting less than a barbarian gets as a standard class feature alongside a host of other bonuses.

Also, side question: do my posts come off as rage here? I'm not exactly hammering away at my keyboard here, I just want to express my ideas about class design. I don't feel not calm.

So in essence, you want the barbarian to be no better or even worse than the WM when raging, and far worse when not? Why in the world would anyone ever play a barbarian in that scenario?

Nope, that's a really bad summary of what I was saying. I want them both to be good options, but in different ways, like I said above. If we've got a prestige class that justs boosts damage (WM), I want it to be one of the best at dealing damage. If we have another prestige class that is focused totally on damage mitigation (DD), I want it to be the best at mitigating damage. Right now, barbarian can outdamage a WM in rage mode and can outdefend a dwarven defender.

If it can do both of those things, it shouldn't be better at the two prestige classes focused on them. 90% of a WM's damage and 90% of a dwarven defender's damage mitigation would be an incredibly strong meleer already--it doesn't need to be 110% of a WM's damage, along with having a better DI+DR kit than a DD.

[Dreams]

I'm not Durvy, but would you apply the same thinking to Assassin? It's a PrC for assassinations, and isn't the best at doing it. At all.