Barbarian and Avenger defenses (Forked Thread: Thaneborn Barbarians)

[Eldorian]

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.

You think weirdly. Agility is a bonus that scales. 1 per tier. In heroic, it's +1, in paragon, +2, and in epic, +3.

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 they did in my example.

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.

As I said, the barbarian is on average 1 behind the rogue. Even with the rogue at the start of a tier, and behind the rogue near the end.

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!

His AC after two feats spent at first level is 20. That's 3-4 points higher than other strikers. He does less damage, however. And he's melee, and his class abilities ask him to fight without support.

I'll get back to you after I seen him in action. We have an avenger in our new party (we just rebooted the game after PHB 2).

 

[Ceraus]

Yeah, Barbarian Agility scales twice after level 1, making the no-dex-raise barbarian fall a measly one behind the rogue. The first +1 cannot be counted as a raise since every barbarian starts with it. I'm only counting improvements over what the characters have at level 1.

Again, Agility does not get a +1 per tier; it starts at +1 and gets only two subsequent boosts. Scaling only applies to changes to something.

An example of a real +1 per tier would be our much-discussed Improved Armor of Faith. The avenger starts with +3, possibly keeping it for a few levels, and then improves it to +4, +5 and +6. The barbarian starts with +1 but only improves it to +2 and +3.

20 AC at level 1 is equivalent to plate + shield, and it will automatically get better at levels 11 and 21. Constraining the Improved Armor of Faith feat to a fixed +1 would solve half of the problem, and making Armor of Faith an armor bonus would keep the avenger down to expected striker AC, but with higher HP.

And yeah, the avenger is melee. So is half of the rogue and half of the ranger. Why does he get so much more survivability?

As pointed out, compared to melee rogues and rangers, the avenger does not get in more perilous situations and does not have a harder time getting out of them.

And I still can't see his reduced damage output. His powers look competitive, and rerolling once in a while added to occasional extra damage seems on par with other striker extra damage features.

Censure of Retribution alone is a nasty feature with major impact. It's kept in check by the fact that most of the time, when you get damaged by a non-oath enemy , you're also adjacent to that very non-oath enemy, blocking your rerolls unless you move away from it, provoking opportunity attacks every other turn. Oh, I just realized while typing... getting hit with that opportunity attack would boost the Censure damage even more! Wow.

Amusing remark: while controllers tend to love minions and strikers tend to find them annoying, avengers absolutely loathe them.

(Except, again, Censure of Retribution avengers, which would see their damage boosted in the stratosphere.)

 

[bganon]

And yeah, the avenger is melee. So is half of the rogue and half of the ranger. Why does he get so much more survivability?

As pointed out, compared to melee rogues and rangers, the avenger does not get in more perilous situations and does not have a harder time getting out of them.

And I still can't see his reduced damage output. His powers look competitive, and rerolling once in a while added to occasional extra damage seems on par with other striker extra damage features.

I don't think it's because of more perilous situations or difficulty getting out of them. I think it's because of how relatively easy (compared to other classes) it is to shut down the extra features that make an Avenger a striker.

I don't have a lot of actual play experience with Avengers, but for a group of monsters here's what I see them faced with:

vs melee Ranger: It's nearly impossible to prevent him from just designating his next target as quarry.

vs melee Rogue: Sometimes you can make formations to avoid being flanked, but the Rogue has buckets of move-or-shift-before-attack powers and can pick any target on the battlefield. The Rogue's party can do a lot to help get flanking, too.

vs Avenger: The Oath can't be switched, and simple formations (ally on either side) shut it down, although the Avenger's party might have some forced movement powers to help out with. Censure of Pursuit is negated by focus-firing on the Avenger, which is probably not a bad tactic anyway, and the Avenger's party explicitly can do nothing to help get the Censure bonus back. Censure of Retribution is negated by ignoring the Avenger and the only way the Avenger's party can help is to force attacks through domination-like effects.


I really do think the Avenger's striker features are harder to use. And if the Avenger winds up being a crappy striker in those situations, then I think it's reasonable that at least they get to be a passable defender.

 

[Keenath]

I disagree with the OP. Barbarians aren't getting fewer bonuses; they're getting the same number of bonuses four to eight levels early.

Look, ignore Agility for the moment. At 1st level, you have whatever you have. A Barbarian is going to be a few points lower than most classes because Int and Dex aren't priorities; that's fine, and makes sense for the flavor. He starts out a little better than he was from his strict ability scores, then falls back to even at 8, gets ahead a little at 11, and so on, until at 21st level he jumps up instantly from +2 to +4 above what he had at 1st level (ignoring armor). The rogue is at +3 at that point, and has to wait another 7 levels to get his +4. What's the issue?

The progression is correct, and that's all the matters. To stick with the proper power curve, you have to either advance your Int or Dex at every opportunity, or be wearing heavy armor. Since the Barbarian is dissuaded from both, he has a special ability that makes up for it. No problem. The level 1 bonus is not supposed to offset for Dex being a non-priority stat, it's an early boost.


On the avenger, I don't see it being a problem for reasons already mentioned.

But I'm confused. What is it that encourages an Avenger to be out all by himself rather than surrounded by his party members? His Oath operates as long as his sworn enemy is the only enemy adjacent to him... so why wouldn't he want his party nearby? In fact, he'd probably want them there, to help keep other enemies away from him and let him reroll more often.

Censure of Pursuit is negated by focus-firing on the Avenger, which is probably not a bad tactic anyway, and the Avenger's party explicitly can do nothing to help get the Censure bonus back.

What do you mean by this? How does focusing attacks negate the bonus against his oath target? How is his party unable to get it back? He has a damage bonus against his sworn enemy that works for any attack, even ranged. I mean, if you ask me, this is a good reason to make sure a Pursuit Avenger has a few long-ranged attacks (like Radiant Vengeance) that can reach out and touch the guy who's running away even if he's behind a meatwall.


edit: Oh, actually that brings up an additional question: In the Censure of Pursuit, what does "moves away" mean? Does that mean "an adjacent enemy ends his turn not adjacent", or does that mean "ends his turn further away than he started"? If the guy is three squares away from me, and shifts back out to 4, does that trigger my censure?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

edit: Oh, actually that brings up an additional question: In the Censure of Pursuit, what does "moves away" mean? Does that mean "an adjacent enemy ends his turn not adjacent", or does that mean "ends his turn further away than he started"? If the guy is three squares away from me, and shifts back out to 4, does that trigger my censure?

Yeah, I wonder the same thing. Very fuzzily worded. I would call it any moving further from you (ending movement further from you). That would be the most literal.

 

[Obryn]

edit: Oh, actually that brings up an additional question: In the Censure of Pursuit, what does "moves away" mean? Does that mean "an adjacent enemy ends his turn not adjacent", or does that mean "ends his turn further away than he started"? If the guy is three squares away from me, and shifts back out to 4, does that trigger my censure?

I'd work it much like you would for Dire Radiance, only ... backwards.

-O

 

[Ulrik]

Yeah, I wonder the same thing. Very fuzzily worded. I would call it any moving further from you (ending movement further from you). That would be the most literal.

I'd say that if the enemy moves even one square away from the avenger (as in, the square he moves to is further away from the Avenger than the one he just left), the avenger gets the bonus, even if the enemy then moves back towards him.

The pursuing avenger probably has the easiest time getting his pursuit bonus against ranged monsters, who have the option of shifting away (triggering the bonus), staying put and using a ranged power (triggering an opportunity attack, even better) and doing something else, like hitting the avenger with a puny melee attack (which is a win in itself against artillery monsters).

I think the Avenger will shine in a double line encounter, where the defender goes in and pins the front line while the avenger moves around them and attacks the real threats.

 

[Ceraus]

Ah, I hadn't thought of that about Censure of Pursuit. I see its wording "moves away" as meaning "for any square moved, ends up farther", but any interpretation means ranged enemies are screwed. So the two avenger builds are quite unique!

As for the barbarian, I'm dropping the issue. Which is not a real issue anyway; both interpretations end with a difference equivalent to a single balanced feat (Shield Specialisation for +1 AC, +1 Ref). As long as barbarian players don't boost Dex, everything's fine from my point of view. Actually, it was almost the point of the topic: pointing out that the barbarian's extra defense bonus is balanced while the avenger's is not.

I rather like the turn the topic has taken: discussing how the avenger gets his striker damage.

(Still, Improved Armor of Faith is major cheese.)

 

[deleteme123456]

A suggestion I saw on the WotC boards: restrict Improved Armor of Faith to only work in cloth (e.g., make it an armor bonus).

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, on the question of Barbarian AC, easiest way to make comparisons is via case study.

Two Barbarian builds with the same powers, one of them being say, a Genasi that pumped Str/Int all the way.

My reverse question:
What did the Genasi lose from not pumping their supposed "secondary" stat that's going to reduce their effectiveness more than what they gained?

Guess what I'm saying is, if the verdict is that Str/Con or Str/Cha barbarians end up weaker than Str/Int barbarians, there could be a problem.