Is the barbarian too powerful in your campaign?

[Tzarevitch]

Well, the barbarian will have better DR than that from Adamatine anyway, so using Mithril is pretty much a no brainer for them. And they could use an Animated Shield to make up for using a 2 handed weapon. So it's more like:

Good Barbarian AC: 10 + 12 armor (Mithril Plate +4), +3 Dex, -2 rage, +5 shield (+3 Animated Lg Shield), +5 deflection (Ring +5) = 33
Good fighter AC: 10 + 13 armor (Full Plate +5), +9 shield (Tower Shield +5), +1 Dex, Ring +5 = 38

Considering that the fighter is losing 2 points of attack because of his Tower Shield, the 5 point gap doesn't seem too bad. Of course, that assumes that the barbarian gets his Dex for free - the gap widens a couple points if that's constrained.

Yes. That is correct. I was assuming the ability to fit the maximum dex possible under the armor cap and I was avoiding the mention of the animated shield because of a general distaste for it. Also, if the fighter uses the super-heavy armors in Races of Stone, the gap widens again. But in any case, the example was to demonstrate that barbarians are not overpowered.

Tzarevitch

 

[drothgery]

We're playing LOWER-MAGIC D&D in the world of Conan (essentially, all spellcasters have to take two levels of a non-spellcaster class). The rogues, swashbucklers and fighters seem to be horribly outshined by the barbarians who are doing what seems like exponentially more amounts of damage. I suppose that should be the case though right? How much is too much? Should the bbn be doing 10x the amount of damage as other classes?

Hmm... you're playing in a world where the rules have been tweaked to gimp casters (all casters are at character level-2 at best) and equipment-heavy characters (fighters, swashbucklers, rogues) almost certainly have considerably less than DMG-recommended treasure levels (and so associated magical equipment). In such a world, characters heavy in special abilities (barbarians, monks) and minor casters (rangers, paladins) -- if they don't operate under the same restrictions major casters do -- will be considerably more powerful, in a relative sense, than they would be otherwise.

Barbarians shouldn't be massively out-melee-damaging fighters (or other front-rank melee types, or self-buffed clerics and wildshaped druids in a standard-magic game), particularly if they're two-handed weapon/high-Str/power-attacking types. But they should be massively out-melee-damaging everyone else.

 

[frankthedm]

I would say that all the DMs I play with nixed the 2-for-1 power attack with 2H weapons as soon as we saw it in 3e; that probably contributes towards them being more balanced for us.

2-for-1 power attack hugely magnifies the damage that can be achieved by 2H weapon users, so you might want to try removing that (if you are the DM)

Cheers

Yep. Either that or Cap the modifier at -5/+5 [2H +10]

3.5 Power attack is so desirable for two handed weapons it fails the litmus test for feat balance IMHO. Maybe if it improved as the Cleave feat tree was climbed it be a little saner.

Cleave 1.5 for 2H
Great Cleave 2 for 2H

 

[drothgery]

Yep. Either that or Cap the modifier at -5/+5 [2H +10]

3.5 Power attack is so desirable for two handed weapons it fails the litmus test for feat balance IMHO. Maybe if it improved as the Cleave feat tree was climbed it be a little saner.

Cleave 1.5 for 2H
Great Cleave 2 for 2H

The problem is that 1-for-1 power attack is almost never worth doing if you do the math, and when it is worth it, it's more worth it for the dual-weapon/tons of attacks character than the two-handed weapon types that should be taking a feat called "power attack".

 

[frankthedm]

Has anyone tried the PHBII's variant rule for barbarians, where they fly into a rage automatically whenever they're low on HP?

it is suicidal.

The barbarian has to be at 5 x level in HP. Thier STR goes up as long as they are in that contition, but that is basicly health wizard HP for thier replacment rage to kick in. They have to be fighting in a condition the cleric should have been healing them from.

I think You rage for one round per 5 points of damage dealt to you would have been safer. Less rage but more sane.

 

[frankthedm]

The problem is that 1-for-1 power attack is almost never worth doing if you do the math, and when it is worth it, it's more worth it for the dual-weapon/tons of attacks character than the two-handed weapon types that should be taking a feat called "power attack".

It is "worth it" when the foe has low AC and high HP like how dinoes and even Dire animals have 14 to 18 AC. It is supposed to be "worth taking" to have the pre requirment to many other feats. The feat is strong enough now to no longer be a gateway feat, but a feat that, lets say cleave, is a gateway to.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The problem is that 1-for-1 power attack is almost never worth doing if you do the math, and when it is worth it, it's more worth it for the dual-weapon/tons of attacks character than the two-handed weapon types that should be taking a feat called "power attack".

The argument was attempted when 3.5 was launched, but I found it utterly unconvincing. It dwelt upon the %age improvement to damage and ignored the fact that it gave the same absolute bonus in each case, thus it was equally effective for 1H and 2H use - which makes more sense as well as being better balanced.

Cheers

 

[Lord Zardoz]

If your Barbarians are getting 16 Con as well as a huge Str, then what kind of point buy / stat rolling are you using?

An 18 costs 16 points and a 16 costs 10. A standard Point Buy is 25 points, so that is just not possible. And in my experience, players who grab Barbarians tend to dump most of their points into Strength.

A Barbarian character needs to worry about Str, Dex, and Con. Dex is important because Barbarians cannot wear heavy armor. Under a 25 point buy, the Barbarian might go for a stat set that looks like this:

Str 16
Dex 12
Con 16
Int 8
Wis 8
Cha 8

Not bad, but not awe inspiring either. The damage output is still good, Under Rage with a 2 handed weapon, you will score +7 damage per hit. But his AC is going to be awful, and while 17 HP is alot at 1st level under rage, it will still evaporate pretty quickly. A handfull of archers staying at medium range and half moving away, or double move / running as needed, will make a Barbarian suffer a great deal.

I am convinced that you have basically set up exactly the sort of campaign where a Barbarian is going to be an unholy terror to deal with. You say the game is low magic and inspired by Conan, which implies lots of melee combat. This is exactly the sort of situation the Barbarian will dominate by design.

Still, as is noted by many others here, the problems that seem so apparant right now will not last for very long. Once the opponents get even a marginally decent attack bonus, the disadvantage of the lower AC will be very apparrant. He will still be dominant, but not so much as he is at lower levels.

Besides, Rage does run out. There is no real reason you cannot have the enemies use a strategic withdrawl and stay away from a raging barbarian while he is raging, and then come back once the rage ends.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[drothgery]

The argument was attempted when 3.5 was launched, but I found it utterly unconvincing.

You will do less damage on average if you +1/-1 power attack, except in extreme corner cases where you only hit on a 20 or only miss on a 1, and in cases where you're trying to power through DR or hardness. It's impossible to argue with this in any coherrent fashion; the numbers don't lie.

It dwelt upon the %age improvement to damage and ignored the fact that it gave the same absolute bonus in each case, thus it was equally effective for 1H and 2H use - which makes more sense as well as being better balanced.

The thing is that lots-of-attacks guy hits more in two of the three scenarios where +1/-1 power attack is beneficial (only hits on 20, only misses on 1) and so does more additional damage due to power attacking.

Edit: The other reason +1/-1 power attack hurts you is that the more damage you do per hit, the greater the penalty for missing is.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Okay, okay... Middling skill points. Not especially good. I mean, it's half what a rogue gets, Wizards get fewer skill points, but since their class stat focus is intelligence, they wind up with more than the barbarian almost guarenteed.

Hmm, considering the amount of 2 skill points/level classes, I consider 4+ good and anything mroe to be great.