Battlerager: Experiences?

[Mal Malenkirk]

No problem at all. I agree that the "+1" is not a fair trade, but them we should discuss the Tempest as well that actually KEEP the "+1", get to use 2 weapons AND and receives bonus damage all in one package .

True enough but that's another debate. A very short one that can be fixed by canning the double-sword, actually. Without that weapon, the tempest technique is quite all right.

As I said, I agree that its the best build for tanks right now. I just think its balanced...

Err... Balanced against what? Against the other tank build that you say it is better than?

And lets remmember was the best kind of encounter for the BR (all melee and close attacks).

Not quite. One tough melee monster doesn`t let the Battlerager shine as much as several weaker one.

 

[Dr_Sage]

True enough but that's another debate. A very short one that can be fixed by canning the double-sword, actually. Without that weapon, the tempest technique is quite all right.

Interesting argument... you say its fair to trade the "+1" for the very same "+1" plus all the Tempest benefits.... poor great weapon fighter. Basically you say its fair to trade an apple for an aple plus oranges and a couple of bananas.

But I agree the Tempest discussion is not here.

Err... Balanced against what? Against the other tank build that you say it is better than?

Whats the other build? I said its the best if you use a heavy constitution build. I meant: if you are going for a heavy constitution build, go for the BR.
As I underestand, the classic Defender Fighter from the Core Rulebook usually have more dexterity and/or wisdom, and that gives the charactery a better array of defenses (specially will and reflex). I remmember someone from these foruns saying that his optimun fighter defender build started with 10 constitution.

Not quite. One tough melee monster doesn`t let the Battlerager shine as much as several weaker one.

Let me clarify for you: if the encounter was facing a well positioned solo artilhery my character would be almost useless compared to the others. At least his "battlerager features".



PS: No need for sarcasm here fellows.

 

[Nail]

And lets remmember was the best kind of encounter for the BR (all melee and close attacks).

Very true.

In my BRV Ftr's last encounter, most enemies had "aura" damage, and about half were ranged attackers. Against a balanced enemy, the BRV Ftr isn't much better off that the WT Ftr.

Next game I'll track my THP, hp, heals, etc, and post them here, just as Dr Sage has done.

I am extremely unlucky with dice actually...

You sure? Lets have you roll a statisticly significant number of times, and see what your average is.....

The fact that the BRV Ftr has a lesser chance to hit (at least +1, usually +2 with hammer, and potentially +3 because of lower Str to get the higher Con) means that although the BRV Ftr lasts longer, he also makes the fights *go* longer, as he's not hitting as often.

IOW, maybe you missed so much 'cause you have an effective -2 (or more) to hit.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Whats the other build? I said its the best if you use a heavy constitution build. I meant: if you are going for a heavy constitution build, go for the BR.
As I underestand, the classic Defender Fighter from the Core Rulebook usually have more dexterity and/or wisdom, and that gives the charactery a better array of defenses (specially will and reflex). I remmember someone from these foruns saying that his optimun fighter defender build started with 10 constitution.

That's just the thing - the 'rager and the Defender Fighter from the PHB attempt to do the exact same thing. They compete in the same conceptual space, and the 'rager clearly comes out on top. The defender fighter is a bit better defending against ranged attackers, but both of them will primarily fight melee opponents.

The fact that the BRV Ftr has a lesser chance to hit (at least +1, usually +2 with hammer, and potentially +3 because of lower Str to get the higher Con) means that although the BRV Ftr lasts longer, he also makes the fights *go* longer, as he's not hitting as often.

IOW, maybe you missed so much 'cause you have an effective -2 (or more) to hit.

Still, a -2 to hit compared to a 'normal' fighter won't make ~3 more rounds of combat. There is probably another 4 combatants, and especially in a solo fight, their total damage should dwarf the fighter's damage. Of course, it might have been a statistical 'anomoly' where no one in the party could hit anything.

But for one character with an effective -2 to hit to singly draw out the fight an extra 3 rounds (25% of the fight in question, which is about how long Sage said BRV let him survive) requires a rather specific range of die rolls.

I won't deny that an extra +2 to hit is great and it will make a difference ... I just don't think it will make that much of a difference.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Interesting argument... you say its fair to trade the "+1" for the very same "+1" plus all the Tempest benefits.... poor great weapon fighter. Basically you say its fair to trade an apple for an aple plus oranges and a couple of bananas.

Remember that to get that +1 to hit you need to use off-hand weapons. Absent the double sword, he would be using short swords and the like to get the +1 on both swords. Then he'd be using D6 compare to D10 or D12 for most defenders.

And the double sword threw a +1 to AC on top of allowing the +1 to hit and +2 to damage.

No, trust me, without the double sword (or simply by removing the 'off hand' tag on the double sword), the Tempest is quite all right.

Whats the other build? I said its the best if you use a heavy constitution build. I meant: if you are going for a heavy constitution build, go for the BR.

What other build? Absolutely every defender focused on on pure tanking duty as opposed to a semi-striker.

I remmember someone from these foruns saying that his optimun fighter defender build started with 10 constitution.

Just because a nameless fellow said it doesn't make it a sensible suggestion.

Let me clarify for you: if the encounter was facing a well positioned solo artilhery my character would be almost useless compared to the others. At least his "battlerager features".

That's an irrelevant argument because any fighter would suck in that situation.

It would be a balancing factor only if the Rager would perform worst than other fighters in that situation but the truth is every fighter have piss poor ranged option. Losing the use of the BV only bring him on par with the others.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Remember that to get that +1 to hit you need to use off-hand weapons. Absent the double sword, he would be using short swords and the like to get the +1 on both swords. Then he'd be using D6 compare to D10 or D12 for most defenders.

You mean absent the double sword, double axe, urgrosh, or double flail. The double weapons all have the off-hand quality and double sword is the low man on that weapon die totem pole.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You mean absent the double sword, double axe, urgrosh, or double flail...

Obviously.

 

[keterys]

14 Con has seemed more than enough for all the defenders I've seen, but I'd imagine that a Rager will have more Con than that.

A battlerager that was 3 hit worse than a defender fighter doesn't seem like it would be as threatening to those around it and would often get ignored, to be honest. That doesn't excuse the build, but it's a very valid consideration.

For example, I chose not to "retrain" my fighter to battlerager because it didn't seem particularly helpful for him. If I'd been a dwarven tank fighter, then I'd certainly have done it.

 

[Mengu]

A battlerager that was 3 hit worse than a defender fighter doesn't seem like it would be as threatening to those around it and would often get ignored, to be honest. That doesn't excuse the build, but it's a very valid consideration.

Where are you getting the 3 hit worse, it's only 1 worse. If you grab a race that gets +2 Str and +2 Con, such as Warforged, it's easy enough to start with 18's in both stats, and you can still have a 12 or 13 in Wisdom. I don't think anyone is going to want to ignore that battlerager. It's even possible to make up for part of the loss of weapon talent with a feat like Warforged Tactics. And there is nothing stopping you from wearing the heaviest armor possible, and using a +3 proficiency weapon.

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah, the whole -3 to attacks with the BR just isn't true.

Its a -1...period. If you are choosing to use a hammer than you are doing so for the other benefits it provides you (more damage, more use of your con, hammer feats and abilities). If you want to keep using your bastard sword (I was about to say longsword, but I haven't seen a fighter yet that didn't upgrade), than by all means.

A fighter wears scale. If you choose to wear chain, that's because you want to get those extra damage bonuses from the rager build. No one's putting the gun to your head, the brief time I used battlerager I just kept my scale. If you want to trade the AC for more damage, that's your choice.

You don't have to sacrifice str to get a decent con. Dragonborn, Dwarves, HalfElves, and Humans can all get a decent str and con score. Even 14 or 16 con is a huge benefit over time.

The comparison is not simple, but it is straightforward...is giving up +1 to attack balanced with virtual DR 2 or 3 (eventually 4, 5, etc) against melee and close attacks?