Barbarian and Avenger defenses (Forked Thread: Thaneborn Barbarians)

[balard]

I think the problem of the OP is much similar of the first version of the barbarian. Do we really want a class who has a such obvious choice as a feat? And an armor feat. It would be like a Crossbowman class, who could be doing more damage without any penalty by getting the longbow feat in the 1st level.

There should be always an OPTION to get a better armor, but likely not an automatic one, like the old barbarian and the avenger.

 

[Eldorian]

I think the problem of the OP is much similar of the first version of the barbarian. Do we really want a class who has a such obvious choice as a feat? And an armor feat. It would be like a Crossbowman class, who could be doing more damage without any penalty by getting the longbow feat in the 1st level.

There should be always an OPTION to get a better armor, but likely not an automatic one, like the old barbarian and the avenger.

Wizard, sorcerer, and avenger all have an obvious choice of armor feat. And I haven't seen magical cloth armor that's awesome enough for me to want to skip leather prof.


And I think the OP's original reasoning might be a bit off, or I didn't understand him.

Barbarians in light armor have the same AC gap from, say, rogues, throughout all levels basically. +1 per tier meets the stat bonuses at 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 28. Both characters get bonuses at 11 and 21.

if dex represents starting dex mod (with starting score even), then

Barbarian in hide at level 10, ac is 10 + hide + dex + 1

Rogue in leather at level 10, ac is 10 + leather + dex +1

Barbarian in hide at level 20, ac is 10 + hide + dex + 2

Rogue in leather at level 20, ac is 10 + leather + dex +2

Barbarian in hide at level 30, ac is 10 + hide + dex +4

Rogue in leather at level 30, ac is 10 +leather + dex + 4

In epic tier, the bonuses from 11 and 21 have kicked in for both classes. If the barbarian starts at 14 dex, and the rogue starts at 18, and neither improve ac by taking feats (of which there are far more available to the rogue (hide prof, two weapon defense, defensive weapon prof), which is my complaint) then the barbarian's AC is 1 behind the rogue's at the end of each tier. At the beginning of heroic and epic tiers, they're actually tied.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Rogues may have more options for raising AC, but Barbarians have more options for gaining THP and straight up healing.

 

[bganon]

I think it was quite deliberate that Avengers can achieve defender-like AC and hit points.

Basically, they are the striker whose bonus damage is most easily shut down. If the DM lets them isolate a monster, they get to be a good striker and deal the bonus damage, and their AC and hp don't matter too much since they're not being attacked. But if the DM counters the Oath/Censure abilities by having all the monsters swarm the Avenger? Then suddenly the Avenger has a very difficult time getting bonus damage... but they've drawn "aggro" from everybody... like a defender.

Contrast this with other melee strikers. Barbarians get their bonus damage built-in; there's not much the DM can do to stop it short of dropping the Barb. Melee Rangers have no trouble switching their quarry to whatever they attack. Melee Rogues have 1000 different ways to pick up CA.

I think if Fighters are defenders who can do striker damage if the monsters ignore them (negating their "defender-ness"), then Avengers are strikers who can get defender AC/hp if the monsters don't ignore them (negating their "striker-ness").

 

[Ceraus]

Wizard, sorcerer, and avenger all have an obvious choice of armor feat. And I haven't seen magical cloth armor that's awesome enough for me to want to skip leather prof.


And I think the OP's original reasoning might be a bit off, or I didn't understand him.

Barbarians in light armor have the same AC gap from, say, rogues, throughout all levels basically. +1 per tier meets the stat bonuses at 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 28. Both characters get bonuses at 11 and 21.

if dex represents starting dex mod (with starting score even), then

Barbarian in hide at level 10, ac is 10 + hide + dex + 1

Rogue in leather at level 10, ac is 10 + leather + dex +1

Barbarian in hide at level 20, ac is 10 + hide + dex + 2

Rogue in leather at level 20, ac is 10 + leather + dex +2

Barbarian in hide at level 30, ac is 10 + hide + dex +4

Rogue in leather at level 30, ac is 10 + leather + dex + 4

In epic tier, the bonuses from 11 and 21 have kicked in for both classes. If the barbarian starts at 14 dex, and the rogue starts at 18, and neither improve ac by taking feats (of which there are far more available to the rogue (hide prof, two weapon defense, defensive weapon prof), which is my complaint) then the barbarian's AC is 1 behind the rogue's at the end of each tier. At the beginning of heroic and epic tiers, they're actually tied.

... oops. My reasoning is slightly off, yes. I forgot that the barbarian gets a +1 from Dex at either level 11 or 21. Still, after level 1, the rogue gets a total +4 from Dex while the barbarian gets +1 from Dex and +2 from Agility. The first +1 from Agility is a starting bonus, not a "+1 per tier". So if the barbarian and rogue start with the same AC and don't improve it with feats, the barbarian will be one point behind at the end (not two like I said by mistake). Hmm... that's abusable but won't yield excessive results. A high-AC barbarian would sure look strange.

Also, I agree that Leather Armor Proficiency is a really tasty feat for the wizard and sorcerer too, but I have no problem with that. Usually, characters that can take that feat are way behind in AC.

The problem I see is that the avenger is not behind in AC when he faces that feat option, and once he takes it, his AC is comparable to that of a rogue with about three feats burned on AC. The other problem would be Improved Armor of Faith and the fact that it's, once again, a better AC imporevement than what other characters would gain with three feats (because of the prerequisites.

To resume, the Avenger starts with AC balanced with other Strikers' (except our poor sorcerer), but unlike the others, he gets two no-brainer, no-drawback, no-prerequisite feats that raise his AC by 3 to 5 more depending on tier.

And yes, I absolutely do have a problem with an attainable 54 AC, and its name is Agile Armor. If a class can reach such AC without that cheese, there's gotta be another source of cheese.

 

[Ceraus]

I think it was quite deliberate that Avengers can achieve defender-like AC and hit points.

Basically, they are the striker whose bonus damage is most easily shut down. If the DM lets them isolate a monster, they get to be a good striker and deal the bonus damage, and their AC and hp don't matter too much since they're not being attacked. But if the DM counters the Oath/Censure abilities by having all the monsters swarm the Avenger? Then suddenly the Avenger has a very difficult time getting bonus damage... but they've drawn "aggro" from everybody... like a defender.

Contrast this with other melee strikers. Barbarians get their bonus damage built-in; there's not much the DM can do to stop it short of dropping the Barb. Melee Rangers have no trouble switching their quarry to whatever they attack. Melee Rogues have 1000 different ways to pick up CA.

I think if Fighters are defenders who can do striker damage if the monsters ignore them (negating their "defender-ness"), then Avengers are strikers who can get defender AC/hp if the monsters don't ignore them (negating their "striker-ness").

I'm nitpicking, but swarming a Censure of Retribution avenger is the best way to make him deal tons of damage... unless you swarm without attacking him, in which case his HP and AC are irrelevant. Also, many of the avenger powers actually incite enemies to disperse or leave him alone.

Otherwise, your argument is well-reasoned.

 

[Ceraus]

(double post)

 

[Ceraus]

Avengers have a habit of getting in the thick of it. Other strikers tend to punish, disuade, or counter people from hitting them, or have tricks to get them out of dodge. Avengers don't so much. Higher AC tends to get involved.

I couldn't agree less. Avengers actually have a habit of getting out of the thick of it, what with their many powers that can teleport them away with a creature or punish enemies that swarm them.

Look at rogues: a popular way for them to get their bonus striker damage is to flank, which means they expose themselves. Yet I don't see their lower AC/HP as a problem.

As for getting out of trouble, avengers are even better than rogues and rangers. Just as level 2 encounter utilities, they get a "be invisible for a move" and "reactive teleportation that can apply after any attack, hit or miss". Other highlights include a big shift with +2 to AC and Ref, resistance, more invisibility and teleportation and crazy survival moves at level 22. My rogue and ranger players would be jealous.

So if the avengers don't expose themselves more than the other strikers and their moves help them evade danger/damage just as well, why would they get better AC and HP? And it's not just better AC, it's crazy-better AC.

For the record, I love the class, especially after seeing barbarians and sorcerers having boring extra striker damage. Rangers and warlocks get the same bonus damage, barbarians and sorcerers never have to maneuver or even think to get theirs, and BAM! Here are the avengers, and they get, count them, THREE entirely new, original and flavorful ablities to increase their damage.

Yet... I don't see why they deserve such high AC, especially their Improved Armor of Faith cheese.

 

[Eldorian]

... oops. My reasoning is slightly off, yes. I forgot that the barbarian gets a +1 from Dex at either level 11 or 21. Still, after level 1, the rogue gets a total +4 from Dex while the barbarian gets +1 from Dex and +2 from Agility. The first +1 from Agility is a starting bonus, not a "+1 per tier". So if the barbarian and rogue start with the same AC and don't improve it with feats, the barbarian will be one point behind at the end (not two like I said by mistake). Hmm... that's abusable but won't yield excessive results. A high-AC barbarian would sure look strange.

You're still off. At first level, barbarians get +1 ac and reflex from Barbarian Agility. It increases to +2 at 11, and to +3 at 21. They're just behind a rogue throughout most of their career. Reread the Barbarian Agility entry. It's +1 per tier.

The problem I see is that the avenger is not behind in AC when he faces that feat option, and once he takes it, his AC is comparable to that of a rogue with about three feats burned on AC. The other problem would be Improved Armor of Faith and the fact that it's, once again, a better AC imporevement than what other characters would gain with three feats (because of the prerequisites.

To resume, the Avenger starts with AC balanced with other Strikers' (except our poor sorcerer), but unlike the others, he gets two no-brainer, no-drawback, no-prerequisite feats that raise his AC by 3 to 5 more depending on tier.

The problem is the scaling of Improved Armor of Faith. If it was just +1, I'd be fine with it. In fact, it needs errata. Avengers do low damage (for strikers), but have high defenses and HP. Barbarians do high damage, but have low defenses and good HP. Rangers and rogues do high damage. Warlocks do low damage (for strikers) but copious secondary effects. Sorcerers do very high damage, but only to multiple targets.

 

[Ceraus]

No, while I did forget the auto-dex-up at levels 11 and 21, you're currently counting a starting bonus as a scaling one.

At first level, barbarians get about 10 + 3 armor + 2 dex + 1 agility.

At first level, rogues get about 10 + 2 armor + 4 dex.

So in my example, they both get 16 at first level.

As levels rise, both get +15 level and + 6 enhancement. The rogue also gets +4 dex (8 raises); the barbarian also gets +1 dex (2 raises) and +2 agility (compared to what he had at level 1). Not +3 agility; the first +1 was a starting bonus, just like his starting dex, and was already used in the level 1 comparison with the rogue.

So the barbarian would require two more dex boosts to keep up with the rogue. And if he's Thaneborn, he'll have very good overall defenses regardless.

Anyway, back to the avenger: I still don't see how his damage is so lacking compared to other strikers that he needs broken AC (for the low cost of two no-prerequisite, no-drawback feats). Like I said: two no-brainer stackable feats that both raise AC that is already competitive? It takes real effort to be as broken as Agile Armor.

I bet if the warlock had similar bonuses and higher HP, people would actually agree with those rules because his damage is low!