Barbarian is up!!!

[Runestar]

So if barbs were given more hp, surges and temp hp to compensate for their supposedly lower AC, what then happens when players are still able to crank up their AC to defender-levels? Is this expected and necessary, or ...? As noted, the armour feat tree seems like a no-brainer here!

 

[JVisgaitis]

I could kiss you, but I don't swing that way.

BTW, I want to send you my portfolio link. Which e-mail do I send it to?

I have to warn you, we're probably one of the hardest companies that you would ever do art for... You can view the art guidelines here: Inner Circle Art Guidelines. You can just email me direct at:

jeff [at] innercircle.us.com

 

[Ulrik]

I'd say the warlock is in worse shape

AFAIK concealment and cover stack, so the warlock gets a -2 (for concealment) that's rare to get otherwise (cover generally being more available). That helps on heroic at least, although it pales in comparison to the +9 dex a rogue or bow ranger gets at 30.

An infernal lock with chain, on the other hand, should be one of the more solid strikers. (And if he starts with chain, he will be able to go all the way to plate specialization at epic levels, at the meager cost of four feats

 

[Cadfan]

And once the flawed notion that ranged attacks equate to safety is off the table, then what's left? The warlock has both lower defense and lower offense than the other strikers, barb included./quote]
Its not a flawed notion once you understand it instead of reducing it to some straw man shell of itself. Range, even a mere 10 space range, is not magical "I'm in a clocktower and you can't hit me" safety, but it is comparative safety if you contrast a ranged character with a melee character with the same stats. Its not about never being attacked, its about being attacked less often.

...not to mention that they have at will powers explicitly designed to stop enemies from closing range with them. I don't want to go too far with this since I do agree that Star Pact warlocks got kind of screwed on AC if/when they go for both Con and Cha, which they kind of have to do at the moment since there aren't really enough powers to run one that goes just Con and Int or Cha and Int. But I do think its pretty obvious that attacking from behind the fighter is safer than being on the front line. Its not a perfect shield, but its a definite advantage.

 

[Ethalias]

Sorry! I was just raging.

I think the Barbarian flavor lends itself to lighter armor, but the Barbarian really needs those armor feats. It was driving me nuts when people kept saying the barbarian needed some sort of armor restriction. That's not what the class needs. It needs some kind of innate armor bonus.

For example, perhaps a class feature that grants an AC bonus when wearing light or no armor that increases in potency based on tier. I would say maybe +2 at Heroic, +4 at Paragon, and +6 at Epic.

I was thinking along those lines too. I'm now interested to hear how the AC/(temp)HP balance works out in play. If I had 8 days in my week I'd run one through some tests. Sadly the Beatles sold me down the river..

 

[Klaus]

I have to warn you, we're probably one of the hardest companies that you would ever do art for... You can view the art guidelines here: Inner Circle Art Guidelines. You can just email me direct at:

jeff [at] innercircle.us.com

Duly noted, and e-mail sent.

 

[yesnomu]

AFAIK concealment and cover stack, so the warlock gets a -2 (for concealment) that's rare to get otherwise (cover generally being more available). That helps on heroic at least, although it pales in comparison to the +9 dex a rogue or bow ranger gets at 30.

An infernal lock with chain, on the other hand, should be one of the more solid strikers. (And if he starts with chain, he will be able to go all the way to plate specialization at epic levels, at the meager cost of four feats

Huh? Why would any warlock want heavy armor? A infernal warlock will pump Con and Int, and Fey and Star (if Dragon is allowed) should pump Int and Cha. Heavy armor is a total waste. They should stick with hide, at most, and like it! AC should be absolutely in line with rogues and bow rangers, and way ahead of TWF rangers.

 

[Cadfan]

Huh? Why would any warlock want heavy armor? A infernal warlock will pump Con and Int, and Fey and Star (if Dragon is allowed) should pump Int and Cha. Heavy armor is a total waste. They should stick with hide, at most, and like it! AC should be absolutely in line with rogues and bow rangers, and way ahead of TWF rangers.

I don't know why an infernal lock would bother with chain, but a star pact might want to go con and cha (for the largest variety of powers), which leaves him with no way to pump int. In that case, he would want chain.

TWF rangers do just fine in terms of AC because they pump Str and Dex. Wis just doesn't do enough for them. It provides benefits, but just not all that many benefits in comparison to what they could get from Dex.

 

[Drakhar]

Why would a TWF Ranger pump Dex? They'd be far better pumping Con or Wis and taking heavy armor.

 

[Cadfan]

Why would a TWF Ranger pump Dex? They'd be far better pumping Con or Wis and taking heavy armor.

That is indeed an option. But its not the only one, since Wis doesn't do that much for them, nor does Con, and Dex helps with a lot of skills they favor.