Battlerager Vigor limiting it - ideas?

[Garthanos]

My fix was to switch it to a Resist value (equal to your Con mod) against melee and close damage, and the damage bonus only applies to the one who triggered the resistance, only on your next attack on them, and only if you don't take damage in the meanwhile. Then behind the screen when I've got minions whose attacks ought to penetrate, I'll list that (4dam, 1 vs the Battlerager in our group).

This is actually more a simplicity fix than anything... the minions tweak gets rid of complete immunity issues, while the damage bonus is made more specific in order to tone the whole thing down, but the primary effect here is that done as a resistance value there's much less shuffling of tempHP counters. Which was honestly my biggest problem with it.

However, I like the solution proposed by Garthanos above; very elegant.

Another simple method for just minions .... roll the damage a halfling stout doing d8. But it doesnt address the perception that BRV is too powerful.... where as having it induced by only real hitpoint loss as above deals with both.

If handling it as DR maybe an alternative is in order something like the following off the top of my head...

Immune to Pain.
Reduce the rreal hit point loss from attacks by half your constitution mod +1.You may not use powers triggered by you taking damage from an attack, includeing BRV. When you take this power select one achilles heal against that damage type you take normal damage.

Unlike BRV you get no damage bonus on your attacks .... side benefit... It works against ranged attacks.
CAVEAT Since the above is completely off the cuff its probably imbalanced ;-)

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, but not all of a battlerager's attacks have the invigorating keyword, nor is invigorating just a battlerager's thing since other fighters can use it. They stack, so this just means that he gets more temp HPs when he uses invigorating keyword attacks.

That was what I consider lost...RAW battleragers are responding to be aggressed upon it could be envisioned as righteous indignation even ;-)
it is a significant style difference... and becomes ho hum just more of the
same.

 

[Garthanos]

where as having it induced by only real hitpoint loss as above deals with both.

Just to point out in case somebody missed it. If the BRV guy is stacking other sources of THP and dont they all? Those thp insulate further from taking real hit point loss and so you dont gain ever more brv based hit points.

Almost be inclined to play test allowing it to work against ranged attacks where you can see/identify the attacker, just cause they aren't close doesn't mean they don't p you off ;-), shrug.

 

[Kzach]

Don't mean to be rude but I don't even understand that solution let alone think it's simpler or a fix.

One temp hit point boost from an attack per round seems like it reduces the complexity and fixes the problem nicely.

 

[BobTheNob]

I am generally against banning things.. and like BRV conceptually, but I dont want it to be an overwhelming choice. I am looking for soft solutions instead of heavy ones.

I dont like banning either. When trying to decide what to do with this, I put some game time aside and chatted with the players. The consensus was overwhelmingly "We cant allow this" (6 people unanimous) and the group simply agreed that no-one will ever take one!

Its not "banned", but the agreement is that it is never going to be taken. Never had to broach the problem (I so LUV having a reasonable group)

 

[Kzach]

I dont like banning either. When trying to decide what to do with this, I put some game time aside and chatted with the players. The consensus was overwhelmingly "We cant allow this" (6 people unanimous) and the group simply agreed that no-one will ever take one!

Its not "banned", but the agreement is that it is never going to be taken. Never had to broach the problem (I so LUV having a reasonable group)

Lucky you. I have a player who LOVES the battlerager. It wasn't until I had to DM for him that I took a close look at the class and realised just how overpowered it is.

Of course, whatever nerf I introduce is going to make him hate the class probably because it's no longer a no-brainer choice that is obviously overpowered. Sigh.

 

[Elric]

Making it only happen once per round, however, makes it reasonable and still a very nice boon.

I suggested reducing the temporary HP BRV gives out above as opposed to limiting the temporary HP to once a round for a few reasons:

1) BRV fighters already alter GM tactics because it's so much better to target them with ranged/area attacks than melee attack. If BRV is once a round, the first time you hit them with a melee attack each round the GM wants to pile on in the window of opportunity- I don't see this as a good thing.

2) Making BRV once a round encourages BRV fighters to take on one opponent at a time, which is less thematic than "rush into the midst of battle."

3) Making BRV once a round probably means that BRV fighters will get out of Chain and into Plate (and may start to use shields as well). If you get hit twice in a round with that change, you won't get the BRV damage bonus, and higher AC makes it less likely you'll get hit multiple times in a round in melee (when this change actually affects you) in the first place. The iconic BRV fighter seems to be a Chain-user wielding a two-handed weapon, and I wouldn't want a house rule for BRV to really change that.

4) Given how BRV fighters can respond to cover up the weakness of BRV only giving HP once a round, reducing the temporary HP like I suggest above probably does more to weaken (non-Dwarf) BRV fighters overall.

 

[Kzach]

1) BRV fighters already alter GM tactics because it's so much better to target them with ranged/area attacks than melee attack. If BRV is once a round, the first time you hit them with a melee attack each round the GM wants to pile on in the window of opportunity- I don't see this as a good thing.

I'm not one of those GM's. And I don't think rules should be made to assume GM's are complete morons.

2) Making BRV once a round encourages BRV fighters to take on one opponent at a time, which is less thematic than "rush into the midst of battle."

As much as I can see that happening, at the end of the day, the fighter's purpose is to get into the thick of things and DEFEND. So avoiding multiple opponents simply means the player is being an ass by not fulfilling his role in the combat. He should damn well play a striker if he's going to do that sort of crap.

Again, I don't think a rule should be made to assume that the player is going to penalize everyone else at the table for his own selfish gain.

3) Making BRV once a round probably means that BRV fighters will get out of Chain and into Plate (and may start to use shields as well). If you get hit twice in a round with that change, you won't get the BRV damage bonus, and higher AC makes it less likely you'll get hit multiple times in a round in melee (when this change actually affects you) in the first place. The iconic BRV fighter seems to be a Chain-user wielding a two-handed weapon, and I wouldn't want a house rule for BRV to really change that.

I really don't think this will the case at all. The +2 damage bonus is way too good to pass up. If they're going to pick up a feat for plate, then they're going to go a Great Weapon or One-handed specialization above the battlerager (with my rule in play).

4) Given how BRV fighters can respond to cover up the weakness of BRV only giving HP once a round, reducing the temporary HP like I suggest above probably does more to weaken (non-Dwarf) BRV fighters overall.

I don't so much mind the idea of reducing the temp hit points gained, I just disagree that the methods mentioned above are simple or elegant. I see them as being overly complex and requiring more math at the table than even the standard rules.

 

[Elric]

I'm not one of those GM's. And I don't think rules should be made to assume GM's are complete morons.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. You're not a GM who would go after a Battlerager any more with multiple attacks if BRV only gave temp HP once a round? Also, can you elaborate on what rule would assume that GMs are "complete morons?"

As much as I can see that happening, at the end of the day, the fighter's purpose is to get into the thick of things and DEFEND. So avoiding multiple opponents simply means the player is being an ass by not fulfilling his role in the combat. He should damn well play a striker if he's going to do that sort of crap.

Again, I don't think a rule should be made to assume that the player is going to penalize everyone else at the table for his own selfish gain.

Groups can have two defenders. If you have a character who is as difficult to hurt in a 1-1 as a Battlerager under the rule you propose, letting him take on 1-2 opponents at a time is a great situation for the party unless it leaves your front line inadequately held.

I really don't think this will the case at all. The +2 damage bonus is way too good to pass up. If they're going to pick up a feat for plate, then they're going to go a Great Weapon or One-handed specialization above the battlerager (with my rule in play).

The +2 damage is only if you have Temp HP. Ongoing damage, being hit twice, and being hit with a ranged attack can all deny this bonus under the rule you have proposed. You have to give up +1 AC to get the potential for +2 damage in the first place.

I don't so much mind the idea of reducing the temp hit points gained, I just disagree that the methods mentioned above are simple or elegant. I see them as being overly complex and requiring more math at the table than even the standard rules.

Above, I proposed:

How about just reducing the number of hit points BRV gives you:
Battlerager Vigor (Fighter Class Feature): Battle Rage Vigor supplies (Con mod + 1) / 2, minimum 1, temporary hit points.

Dwarven Stoneblood: This feat becomes a Paragon-tier feat. Note that the with the above rule in place, doing the calculation out shows that a character with Dwarven Stoneblood gets temporary HP from Battlerager Vigor equal to his Constitution modifier.

In what way would this be overly complex and require more math at the table than the standard rules?

 

[Kzach]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. You're not a GM who would go after a Battlerager any more with multiple attacks if BRV only gave temp HP once a round? Also, can you elaborate on what rule would assume that GMs are "complete morons?"

Any GM that automatically uses tactics based on the character's weaknesses and strengths is a bad GM, IMO. The encounters should reflect the attacker's tactics, not the GM's knowledge of the characters.

If, after a few rounds, the attackers are smart enough to figure out the party's strengths and weaknesses and adapt to them, that's another story.