Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal - Martial Power
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oni" data-source="post: 4676444" data-attributes="member: 380"><p>I've thought about it a little and I've a couple of suggestions regarding the battlerager. </p><p></p><p>1. Give the battlerager DR 2/4/6 or 1/3/6 heroic/paragon/epic. Do away with the dwarf stoneblood feat. They still reduce damage but not quite as much. Overall best against groups, still somewhat effective against a single opponent. </p><p></p><p>or</p><p></p><p>2. At the start of each round they gain Temp HP equal to their Con mod, probably should still do away with the dwarf stoneblood feat. They'll reduce the same amount as the original battlerager against solo opponents, but less effective against groups. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The invigorating powers, I think I'm fine because they're a tradeoff in functionality with whatever other you're giving up to take them. And they can be taken by any fighter that wants to utilize them. </p><p></p><p>I'd say leave the damage bonus in lighter armour, in order to utilize it you'll have to be hit more and I think it evens out in effectiveness, the effectiveness of each point of AC actually quite high and you're giving up a lot to get it.</p><p></p><p>Despite the fact that it doesn't look like much +1 to hit is a very good bonus and 1 point of damage is definately not worth the trade off for it. So really I think it comes down to altering the first half of the battlerager entry to balance that +1 the rest IMO is self balancing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>All this said my personal preference is Option 1 I think if the numbers can be tweaked just right. Whatever is done we should remember to keep it simple to minimize the bookkeeping issues and the like.</p><p></p><p>[edit: Note I removed the melee/close limitation. One of the problems with the battlerager isn't that it was unbeatable, it's that it makes certain game situations unusable by being overly effective in one area, that is damage mitigation in melee combat. So effective that DM's have to build around it. Since I lowered the effectiveness of that damage mitigation I spread it out so that it would be useful in a more wide range of situations, if the mitigation is low enough you get a class feature that is always useful, but doesn't break any given encounter types unlike the original rules.]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oni, post: 4676444, member: 380"] I've thought about it a little and I've a couple of suggestions regarding the battlerager. 1. Give the battlerager DR 2/4/6 or 1/3/6 heroic/paragon/epic. Do away with the dwarf stoneblood feat. They still reduce damage but not quite as much. Overall best against groups, still somewhat effective against a single opponent. or 2. At the start of each round they gain Temp HP equal to their Con mod, probably should still do away with the dwarf stoneblood feat. They'll reduce the same amount as the original battlerager against solo opponents, but less effective against groups. The invigorating powers, I think I'm fine because they're a tradeoff in functionality with whatever other you're giving up to take them. And they can be taken by any fighter that wants to utilize them. I'd say leave the damage bonus in lighter armour, in order to utilize it you'll have to be hit more and I think it evens out in effectiveness, the effectiveness of each point of AC actually quite high and you're giving up a lot to get it. Despite the fact that it doesn't look like much +1 to hit is a very good bonus and 1 point of damage is definately not worth the trade off for it. So really I think it comes down to altering the first half of the battlerager entry to balance that +1 the rest IMO is self balancing. All this said my personal preference is Option 1 I think if the numbers can be tweaked just right. Whatever is done we should remember to keep it simple to minimize the bookkeeping issues and the like. [edit: Note I removed the melee/close limitation. One of the problems with the battlerager isn't that it was unbeatable, it's that it makes certain game situations unusable by being overly effective in one area, that is damage mitigation in melee combat. So effective that DM's have to build around it. Since I lowered the effectiveness of that damage mitigation I spread it out so that it would be useful in a more wide range of situations, if the mitigation is low enough you get a class feature that is always useful, but doesn't break any given encounter types unlike the original rules.] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal - Martial Power
Top