Barbarian: Path of Stone (( 5E Write up ))

Interesting. 

At level 10, don't you feel extra AC (up to +4 depending on adjacent hostiles) is already great, so is not adding Heart of Stone a bit OP?  Maybe not, not sure (one damage type among the many options is not too bad).

Mind you, in Solasta, I gave my "stone barbarian" a fire resistance ring and a necrotic resistance ring.

I'm going to delete this because I think "as written" to be in line with TA's version, it's WAY WAY WAY too OP.

I'm going to write my own version that's tabletop friendly.

I got a lot of feedback from the groups on FB, and I agree that the version created by Tactical Adventures for the Solasta video game was/is completely OP, and not something I would personally allow at my table. 

Soooo, to tone it down and make it more tabletop friendly (and something I would allow), I made the following changes to the TA version:
1- I changed Stone Resistance to work as a reaction and work more like the Goliath's Stone Resistance, except less powerful (d6 instead of d12, and you do _not_ get to add in your CON bonus). 
2- For Strength From Within I added a limit of only twice per long rest (read: twice per day basically). 

I think that adds a lot more balance to the abilities and puts it more inline with existing rules.

Here's my version:

that seems like the weakest barbarian i've seen.   battlerager [SCAG p121] gets CON temp HP [albeit at 6th level] with a likely 3 or 4 for CON that would be the same as average d6 and it does not take a reaction.  path of the beast [TCoE p24] at 3rd lv gets to pick from three options with every rage and one option is a d8 AC increase and the path of the storm heard [ZGtE p10] gets 2 temporary HP at 3rd, 3 at 5th, 4 at 10th, 5 at 15th and 6 at 20th for everyone in 10' R.  the 2nd lv shepard druid is ever more powerful.  

your path of stone 6th ability is just a watered down bard ability?

The TA version as written was some of the most OP stuff I've ever seen.  And all the forums (I posted on 5 groups on FB) and everyone flamed the TA version as written for being completely OP as written.

But lets address your points:

1- Battlerager - No where near as powerful at the TA version. Let's explain why. You get it at 6th level instead of the TA 3rd. One strike against.

Secondly, with Battlerager you get your Con bonus which is likely going to be 3-5 temp hit points. Meanwhile with the TA version you are getting TWICE your prof bonus, sooo 4-12 temp hit points. Two strikes against.

Thirdly, with Battlerager you get it ONCE (and only ONCE) when you use Reckless Attack while raging. The TA Stone Resilience grants you temp hit points AT THE END OF EACH TURN YOU ARE RAGING at the cost of nothing. So you use them, they replenish, you use them, they replenish, effectively giving you damage reduction EACH ROUND. Something the Battlerager absolutely does not do. Third strike, you are out.

So you are either very bad at math, or you don't understand how this game works, but if that was your first argument and you struck out so badly, I don't even feel like looking up the rest....

... I did look up Storm Herald and yeah - that's 6 temp hit points each turn _AT 20th LEVEL_. Meanwhile the TA version you get +6 temp hit points each turn _AT 5th LEVEL_. The TA version is still OP.

your path of stone 6th ability is just a watered down bard ability?

Uhm - no.  It's literally the TA version but with just limit of twice per day.

The TA version as written was some of the most OP stuff I've ever seen.  

i was addressing the homebrew version not TA's, this hold thread [that you started remember] is about making a homebrew version 

But lets address your points:

1- Battlerager - No where near as powerful at the TA version. Let's explain why. You get it at 6th level instead of the TA 3rd. One strike against.

like i said "albeit at 6th lvl", however, over the lifetime of characters [eg lv 1-10, 1-20] starting at 3rd or 6th is not a big difference and the battlerager was the only non-3rd level comparison thrown in there but you know the saying "cherry pickers are going to cherry pick"

Secondly, with Battlerager you get your Con bonus which is likely going to be 3-5 temp hit points. Meanwhile with the TA version you are getting TWICE your prof bonus, sooo 4-12 temp hit points. Two strikes against.

again, commenting on the homebrew not TA as can be seen when i talking about a d6 and the average value for a d6 is 3.5 so a 3-5 point range is very very comparable 

Thirdly, with Battlerager you get it ONCE (and only ONCE) when you use Reckless Attack while raging. The TA Stone Resilience grants you temp hit points AT THE END OF EACH TURN YOU ARE RAGING at the cost of nothing. So you use them, they replenish, you use them, they replenish, effectively giving you damage reduction EACH ROUND. Something the Battlerager absolutely does not do. Third strike, you are out.

i think you need to read things more carefully [both my posts and D&D books], you get the points every time you use reckless attack so "effectively giving you damage reduction EACH ROUND".  plus with the dwarven fortitude feat you can 'reckless attack' and take the dodge action [thus canceling foes getting advantage to hit you] to gain even more HP and still attack with armor spikes with advantage

So you are either very bad at math, or you don't understand how this game works, but if that was your first argument and you struck out so badly, I don't even feel like looking up the rest....

... I did look up Storm Herald and yeah - that's 6 temp hit points each turn _AT 20th LEVEL_. Meanwhile the TA version you get +6 temp hit points each turn _AT 5th LEVEL_. The TA version is still OP.

again not talking about TA but even if i was 6 points to everyone is better than 12 to yourself

three strikes?  that seems violent, thankfully i think my AC was too high for those three strikes 

your path of stone 6th ability is just a watered down bard ability?

Uhm - no.  It's literally the TA version but with just limit of twice per day.

oh so you do know we are talking about your homebrew and not the TA version, now i am very confused about your complaints 

The path of stone Barbarian is average at best, hardly OP. And your homebrew ”fixes” turn an average class into a really weak class. You do what you like at your table, but hopefully TA doesn’t take this thread seriously.

The path of stone Barbarian is average at best, hardly OP. And your homebrew ”fixes” turn an average class into a really weak class. You do what you like at your table, but hopefully TA doesn’t take this thread seriously.

In my full playthrough in Solasta, my Path of Stone Barbarian was never even close to being in danger.

• Often took no damage due to weapon damage resistance (Rage) combined with Temporary HP each turn;
• The bonus to Saving Throws means he succeeded very often saves for anything;
• He has rather high AC as I used a shield combined with +1 to +4 if adjacent to many enemies, which he was as I sent him forward into the fray.

It is not weak.  

- Fighters, and other classes, have some weak Saving Throws (you do not have 18+ in all your Abilities normally!).
- AC is key, even more so in 5e.

The path of stone Barbarian is average at best, hardly OP. And your homebrew ”fixes” turn an average class into a really weak class. You do what you like at your table, but hopefully TA doesn’t take this thread seriously.

It's funny.  On the -5- FB groups I posted the TA version it got flamed hard for being way way way too OP.

I made changes - Everyone said it was really good. Much more balanced.

I come post it here on the Solasta board and they say it's too weak now.

Really shows the difference between tabletop games (who are more about being balanced and in line with 5E), and video game players who just want power power power.

I agree with the literally hundreds of comments I got on FB that the TA version is way too OP to be allowed in a 5E game.

I got a lot of feedback from the groups on FB, and I agree that the version created by Tactical Adventures for the Solasta video game was/is completely OP, and not something I would personally allow at my table. 

Soooo, to tone it down and make it more tabletop friendly (and something I would allow), I made the following changes to the TA version:
1- I changed Stone Resistance to work as a reaction and work more like the Goliath's Stone Resistance, except less powerful (d6 instead of d12, and you do _not_ get to add in your CON bonus). 
2- For Strength From Within I added a limit of only twice per long rest (read: twice per day basically). 

I think that adds a lot more balance to the abilities and puts it more inline with existing rules.

Here's my version:

[[ Image deleted by author ]]

In my full playthrough in Solasta, my Path of Stone Barbarian was never even close to being in danger.

It is not weak.  

i agree, the solasta path of stone would be OP for tabletop but the OP's [the other OP] homebrew seems to be at a lower level than many of the tabletop barbarian paths, i think it needs a bit more tweaking, but again, i only allow RAW at my table, homebrew too often results in debates and hurt feelings  

Facebook groups and YouTube personalities or whatever other oddball appeal to authority you want to try and make here are irrelevant. The statevent that this Barbarian subclass is overpowered is simply absurd. A Paladin will have the same sturdiness while buffing everyone’s saves. A mountaineer fighter will have an even higher AC. A law Cleric that takes a heavy armor feat will have an even higher effective AC thanks to Shield spell. There’s nothing unique about the survivability or the damage potential of this Barbarian subclass as written that makes it overshadow the rest of the party. For something to be overpowered, it’d have to be demonstrably better than the alternatives such that you are basically hurting your party to not take one of this subclass. And none of the Barbarian subclasses fit that bill. And your homebrew changes just make taking the Paladin instead straight up better. And it doesn’t help your case in the slightest that are trotting out “herp derp if you don’t agree with me you hate balance you video game scrub”, you can shove that attitude right back wherever you found it.

Well this conversation is going south slowly but surely. 

Do you expect Taco to give a reasonable response to that kind of tone?  You did not like some of Taco's judgements and tone, fair enough as such, but your response looks (to my eyes) needlessly salty and adds a layer. 

I hope Taco will not respond to be honest. 

You disagree on many levels.  Period.  I suggest we leave it at that.