Talk:Martial Adept Barbarian (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)

Comments

While I think the idea of raging to get maneuvers is tactically interesting, it seems like an extremely poor fit given the daily limited numbers of rages that you get. Is that intentional? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It was intentional to make these acfs weaker to the ToB counterparts. And i wanted to give the barbarian a smaller "boost" than the fighter, as he is suposed to be tier 4, opposed to fighter being high tier 5. But thingking about it all, tier 3 is the place to be. I'll rework these acfs. Get them to tier 3 and retain or strenghten the flavor of each class. I'll make them so that other acfs may be still an option and try to balance the things they replace agains the better acfs (like street fighter and trapkiller for barbarians), ofc ToB maneuvres in themselves are powerfull, but i want to give it an extra flavor without getting into too complex teritory (like keying something with maneuvers to rage aso.). I think i'll start working on it in my sandbox1 as most of the original work was done there. One thing that bothers me is that im working on pure theory here, i haven't played in a long time now, played ToB warblade once for about 6 levels (and liked it) and most importantly can't do any game testing (can do some scenarios by myself but... that isn't the real thing), so help and suggestions are highly appreciated (keep is simple tho, i think i went owerboard on the monk...). - Sergejsvk (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nerfed Channeled fury a bit, i think it is still usefull. It used a limited resource, but still, it did what a feat did as a full-round action.--Sergejsvk (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)