Class balance.

[rheingold]

Sooooo... I've been reading posts on the forum for a while which go something like this:

Rangers suck. Chanters need to be fixed. How do I make monks viable? Paladins underwhelming.

Fighters useless. Barbarians no good. Rogues too weak.

 

Makes me think obs are doing something right....

 

Seriously with few class exceptions, it seems that it's pretty balanced at the moment. Note I did say with some exceptions, mainly the caster classes.

Obviously it's slightly more complicated than that - people also struggle with understanding the mechanics of a particular class, but the fact that people are complaining about all the melee classes seems to mean that they are actually pretty balanced.

Comments?

[MaxQuest]

Seriously with few class exceptions, it seems that it's pretty balanced at the moment. 

Comments?

Yeah, classes seem to be quite balanced atm.

The difference in opinions is mostly caused by different playstyles, party compositions, resting frequency, and trying to fit a class into specific niche.

[JerekKruger]

Given PoE isn't a multi-player game I think the balance is fine at the moment. Sure, if you unload all your per rest abilities in each fight and rest immediately afterwards then the three Vancian casters are going to be more powerful, and similarly if you avoid resting too often then classes like the chanter and cipher will come out ahead.

[Crucis]

I agree with Jerek.  If one spams their per-rest abilities and spells and rests extremely frequently, of course the spellcasting classes look amazing.  OTOH, I think that if players tried to play their party relatively close to the edge of their health (probably not really meaning that you rest when at lesat one gets in the red, but perhaps when you have multiple characters in the yellow and below 50% health), and you've probably expended a solid portion (at least 50%?) of their memorized spells, I think that things would look a LOT different.  And solid, durable, if unspectacular physical combatants like fighters, paladins, and even rangers (chanters and ciphers as well, since they don't use memorized spells) might start looking a lot better.

 

 

Another issue I have is that I suspect that there are a number of players who may have the following strategy, probably unconsciously.  They go with a balls to the wall, all-in offense strategy, trying to take out the enemy ASAP.  If they win, great.  If they lose, reload and try balls to the wall all over again until they get it right.  And they probably rest more often (due to heavier use of their per-rest abilities and spells) than a party that depends more on a slower, but steady physical combat style that makes tactical use of per-rest abilities and spells, rather than trying to pummel every group of enemies they face with them.  I suspect that the slow but steady combat style will have a lot more ability to go longer between rests than the all-in offensive style. 

 

Also, I think that people are judging the quality of the various classes based on their personal play style, preferred difficulty level, and whether they play solo or with a full party or somewhere in between.  But some of these people aren't being up front about these play style preferences, and are, intentionally or not, trying to presenting their opinion as the end all and be all of class rankings without this extremely important contextual data.

[Elric Galad]

I think all classes are pretty much balanced and suits their role.

 

Barbarians and Rogues could get just a little more love because :

 

- Rogue DPS is currently a bit under Ranger's DPS shadow. Rogue should do more DPS with a relevent margin (as pet brings other utility). I don't think the current margin is that relevent.

 

- Barbarian is a bit a 1 trick carnage poney.

 

- Many abilities of rogues and barbarians are not that good.

 

 

But it is not that bad, and even classes mentioned above are ok with the right build and equipment.

 

Not all classes are strictly equal but all can fulfill their own purpose.

[omgFIREBALLS]

You people praising the class balance gotta tell me how to make melee rogue shine. I can't even go as far as to say I've made it work. I quickly get frustrated and return to team Vancian T-Shirt Brigade.

[Dorftek]

So far, for me and for my playstyle I prefer the "per encounter"characters a lot more then I do casters because they bring the better sustained performance.

 

Favourite for my PC char so far is Rogue, with some speed gear/sugar/fast runner and high stealth and a couple of good weapons the Rogue is an insanely good flanker/ambusher. The Rogue clears the enemies backline like a pro!

 

Cipher is just amazing in many ways and definitely one of my favourites.

 

Chanters are, perhaps a bit above all other classes and they make a lot of the game a lot easier!

 

Paladin is amazing utility and awesome overall!

 

Barbarian with Tall grass is the best "choke point" DPS IMO.

 

Fighters are amazing tanks and can also be built offensively. Great overall class I'd say but a boring one.

 

All the classes seem to be pretty good if you give them time and thought. I just can't stand the "per rest" casters, simply because of playstyle

[Dorftek]

You people praising the class balance gotta tell me how to make melee rogue shine. I can't even go as far as to say I've made it work. I quickly get frustrated and return to team Vancian T-Shirt Brigade.

I play mine as a flanker/ambusher with Äru Bekr and fast runner. Also give him sugar sometimes!

Now when stealth works individually it's great because I can quickly get to the enemies backline and kill their casters and ranged guys. The Rogue is a crit heavy class so they work great with "on crit" weapons. I also use shod in faith boots on him and it's usually enough to keep him alive

Edited March 16, 2016 by Dorftek

[Elric Galad]

Vancian casters may be strong. But there's something even stronger :

 

Martial class boosted by tons of passive abilities that use scrolls.

 

Better accuracy and survivability than casters.

 

Arguments for vancians say their peak powers in critical battle is higher. That's true only if you don't count consumable and item powers in the equation. Yeah alacrity is awesome but even the dumbest fighter can cast is from a potion.

Need a casual caster ? Lore will mimic it !

 

So, yes, I think it's a matter of playstyle.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Elric Galad

[Crucis]

The thing with "Vancian" (I hate that term) casters is that their strength is in direct proportion to how often you rest. 

[Blades of Vanatar]

You people praising the class balance gotta tell me how to make melee rogue shine. I can't even go as far as to say I've made it work. I quickly get frustrated and return to team Vancian T-Shirt Brigade.

I found the best way to keep a Rogue alive that you want as a melee fighter is to have more melee characters in support. Melee Rogues take some microing. Let him shoot once then charge. The shooty damage is just extra anyway. The more characters you have enganging in melee in the first wave will usually allow the Rogue to pick and choose his victims for flank attacks. That is where he shines. Having Rangers with Rogues in the same party allows for more melee fighters with the AC added.

 

example party - everyone can melee

 

Pally

Monk

Rogue

Ranger

Cipher

Druid

Edited March 16, 2016 by Blades of Vanatar

[Teioh_White]

And the thing about resting is, you have to go out of you way to -not- rest. The game throws rests at you, to the point I have to throw out spells on a fight that's already under control, just because I know I'll be finding a camping supplies 3 encounters down the road. And any of the 'hard' fights, you'll be rested for. (Again, this is just playing the game as intended with no backtracking.)

 

The only way Casters aren't way overpowered compared to the rest is if we're playing under personal restrictions, which can't really count. I mean, I myself try to never rest, and generally only do it a handful of times throughout the game. But that's clearly not how the game is designed to be played.

 

As for Martial classes with potions and scrolls beating casters? Eh....no, not really. I mean first, is while Potions and Scrolls are technically unlimited, it's a far bigger pain to farm enough to use every encounter than it is to just rest spam. Casters can use them too, as well, if they really wanted. Even if using potions and lore, a Caster going all out is still much more than a martial class will do.

 

And heck, it's not as if the martial classes even use weapons -that- much better than the casters, due to Pillars desire to have every class use the same talents/growth/gear/stats.

 

Now, every class is of course viable in the game. But that doesn't mean they're all balanced.

[Elric Galad]

You're indeed comparing level of annoyance between rest and potion. I think it's conceptually the same as comparing the level of annoyance between resting spam and not resting spam.

 

No annoyance = Non casters are the best

Average annoyance = Casters the best

Extreme annoyance = Non casters become sturdy casters with high accuracy. Balance re-established.

 

Anyway there are far enough consumables to face the few encounters (dragons, archmages) that are real threat. Rest of the game does not really count as a power test.

 

Anyway, on another topic, I ve declared casters to be superior overall. I'm just pointing here that consumable reduce the gap.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Elric Galad

[Teioh_White]

Hmm, I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say 'Casters are better even with consumables when going all out; tangentially related, relying on constant consumables for every encounter is far more annoying  than just rest spamming' The argument after this is a tough one the whole, 'well, the games easy in general, what's it matter if one class obliterates it if another merely wrecks it' A true statement, one that points out more to serious design flaws.

 

No argument it reduces the gap though, as using scroll is a better use of a GCD than most things a martial class could've done otherwise. Just Casters get to use all their GCD on (often better) 'scrolls' just by being a caster.

 

On another note, beyond Casters being overpowered, so is the Lore skill to a hilarious degree. Both would take serious re-works to actually be 'balanced', which is large part why I rarely use them. (Casters I rarely use, Scrolls I never buy/craft, and only use found ones. Which still is too good, really).

[Crucis]

And the thing about resting is, you have to go out of you way to -not- rest. The game throws rests at you, to the point I have to throw out spells on a fight that's already under control, just because I know I'll be finding a camping supplies 3 encounters down the road. And any of the 'hard' fights, you'll be rested for. (Again, this is just playing the game as intended with no backtracking.)

 

The only way Casters aren't way overpowered compared to the rest is if we're playing under personal restrictions, which can't really count. I mean, I myself try to never rest, and generally only do it a handful of times throughout the game. But that's clearly not how the game is designed to be played.

 

As for Martial classes with potions and scrolls beating casters? Eh....no, not really. I mean first, is while Potions and Scrolls are technically unlimited, it's a far bigger pain to farm enough to use every encounter than it is to just rest spam. Casters can use them too, as well, if they really wanted. Even if using potions and lore, a Caster going all out is still much more than a martial class will do.

 

And heck, it's not as if the martial classes even use weapons -that- much better than the casters, due to Pillars desire to have every class use the same talents/growth/gear/stats.

 

Now, every class is of course viable in the game. But that doesn't mean they're all balanced.

 

1. Just because you run across some camping supplies (when you're already fully stocked) doesn't mean that you have to stop and rest.  I'll often leave them there, and keep on going, and when I feel it *IS* time to rest, I'll fall back to where these supplies are (assuming that I'm in the same dungeon, even if I might have to go up a level), take my rest there and grab the supplies to keep my camping supplies maxed out.

 

2. As for the second paragraph, yeah, there's some truth to what you say about personal restrictions.  OTOH, I don't agree about the "that's clearly not how the game is designed to be played" part.  The game is not designed to force you to rest often.  But neither is it designed to force you to rest only when absolutely necessary.  Even with the camping supplies mechanic, there's a lot of room for variation in how often one rests.  I somewhat suspect that it's this way because the devs knew that there's always going to be a portion of the players who will want to spam magic like crazy and rest really often, and who would whine and whine and whine if they couldn't.  Personally, I wish that the entire concept of rest was more restrictive in a way that essentially a more "realistic" model of play that prevented excessive resting and far more strongly encouraged continuing forward, and also forced you to be more conservative in one's expenditure of limited memorized spells, at least until you met a big boss, when it would clearly be time to let it all hang out.

 

I wouldn't mind if there was a risk of having the party's rest interrupted by random encounters, like occurred in the BG games, IIRC.  I also wish that there was a risk of random encounters as you traveled between outdoor map areas in the wildnerness (or heck even in the cities), since these would increase the risk the party would face of traveling while badly wounded and probably force you to approach these fights in a way to protect your wounded party members.

 

3. As for martial classes vs spellcasters regarding weapons, you're right, with the exception of the class limited soulbound weapons.  And even then, any class can wield class limited soulbound weapons, as long as they don't bind them.  Look at the Redeemer.  Arguably, its best power is the ability to destroy vessels on a portion of hits.  And this ability does not require the weapon to be bound to the character, meaning that a character of any class could use the Redeemer and go around nuking vessels (provided that they were of a high enough level).

 

4.  I agree 100% with your final sentence.

 

[Crucis]

Hmm, I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say 'Casters are better even with consumables when going all out; tangentially related, relying on constant consumables for every encounter is far more annoying  than just rest spamming' The argument after this is a tough one the whole, 'well, the games easy in general, what's it matter if one class obliterates it if another merely wrecks it' A true statement, one that points out more to serious design flaws.

 

No argument it reduces the gap though, as using scroll is a better use of a GCD than most things a martial class could've done otherwise. Just Casters get to use all their GCD on (often better) 'scrolls' just by being a caster.

 

On another note, beyond Casters being overpowered, so is the Lore skill to a hilarious degree. Both would take serious re-works to actually be 'balanced', which is large part why I rarely use them. (Casters I rarely use, Scrolls I never buy/craft, and only use found ones. Which still is too good, really).

 

I agree with your point about scrolls and Lore. 

 

I think that part of the problem is related to how spellcasting (and abilities') power, duration, and AoE are tied generically to the same two attributes, no matter the class.  The result of this is that you can have a barbarian, whom the current was attributes are designed, may have high Might and INT scores, and if that barbarian has a good Lore score, he will end up being to cast spell from a scroll with just as much effect as a wizard with the same Might and INT scores.

 

Of course, "fixing" this would require a drastic change in the way that attributes are applied.  I know that I would like this, but others wouldn't.  I'd love to see abilities' durations and AoE's tied to attributes that were more in keeping with the nature of their class, rather than blindly tied to INT by default.  For example, I think that it'd make more sense for a Paladin's abilities or a Priest's spells and abilities to be tied to Resolve, since I think that Resolve would be a strong measure of the strength of any paladin's or priest's beliefs, and hence the driving factor in the duration and size of AoE's (and arguably, even the power of those abilities and spells, rather than Might).  I personally think that it'd make the classes more interesting if the duration, AoE, and power of their spells and/or spell-like abilities were tied to attributes that varied by class and were rationally tied to attributes that made real sense for each class.

 

Barbs and perhaps Fighters might have these abilities tied to Might.  Paladins and Priests and probably Monks might be tied to Resolve.  Wizards and probably Ciphers and Chanters would likely be tied to INT.  Rogues would probably be tied to PER.  And so on.

 

Anyways, just a wishful thought...

 

 

 

 

[Crucis]

So far, for me and for my playstyle I prefer the "per encounter"characters a lot more then I do casters because they bring the better sustained performance.

 

Favourite for my PC char so far is Rogue, with some speed gear/sugar/fast runner and high stealth and a couple of good weapons the Rogue is an insanely good flanker/ambusher. The Rogue clears the enemies backline like a pro!

 

Cipher is just amazing in many ways and definitely one of my favourites.

 

Chanters are, perhaps a bit above all other classes and they make a lot of the game a lot easier!

 

Paladin is amazing utility and awesome overall!

 

Barbarian with Tall grass is the best "choke point" DPS IMO.

 

Fighters are amazing tanks and can also be built offensively. Great overall class I'd say but a boring one.

 

All the classes seem to be pretty good if you give them time and thought. I just can't stand the "per rest" casters, simply because of playstyle

 

If one is playing with a full party of 6, I don't think that having one character (a fighter) who is solid, durable, reliable, and low micro-management is such a bad thing, even if he may see a little boring.  With 6 characters to watch over, it's not a bad thing to have one guy you can count on to do his job without constant baby-sitting.

 

 

And for what it's worth, before my most recent party where I had Kana in the party about 90% of the time (except when I was trying to do some other character's personal quest before sending them back to the bench), I didn't think much of Chanters.  They didn't do much for me.  But I have to say that they're a lot better than I realized.  They're solid physical combatants, and once you start getting those fire-based 3rd level chants, they really start adding a LOT to the damage output of the party (at least when you're not fighting things that are immune to fire).  Most of the time, I never even bothered casting his invocations.  Only on the longest, hardest battles would I cast them, and usually I preferred the summoning ones, just to add more warm bodies on my side to do some damage and take some hits.  All in all, Chanters are solid support characters, who may not be flashy, but they fill a role and contribute to the party.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Crucis

[Dorftek]

 

 

So far, for me and for my playstyle I prefer the "per encounter"characters a lot more then I do casters because they bring the better sustained performance.

 

Favourite for my PC char so far is Rogue, with some speed gear/sugar/fast runner and high stealth and a couple of good weapons the Rogue is an insanely good flanker/ambusher. The Rogue clears the enemies backline like a pro!

 

Cipher is just amazing in many ways and definitely one of my favourites.

 

Chanters are, perhaps a bit above all other classes and they make a lot of the game a lot easier!

 

Paladin is amazing utility and awesome overall!

 

Barbarian with Tall grass is the best "choke point" DPS IMO.

 

Fighters are amazing tanks and can also be built offensively. Great overall class I'd say but a boring one.

 

All the classes seem to be pretty good if you give them time and thought. I just can't stand the "per rest" casters, simply because of playstyle

If one is playing with a full party of 6, I don't think that having one character (a fighter) who is solid, durable, reliable, and low micro-management is such a bad thing, even if he may see a little boring. With 6 characters to watch over, it's not a bad thing to have one guy you can count on to do his job without constant baby-sitting.

 

 

And for what it's worth, before my most recent party where I had Kana in the party about 90% of the time (except when I was trying to do some other character's personal quest before sending them back to the bench), I didn't think much of Chanters. They didn't do much for me. But I have to say that they're a lot better than I realized. They're solid physical combatants, and once you start getting those fire-based 3rd level chants, they really start adding a LOT to the damage output of the party (at least when you're not fighting things that are immune to fire). Most of the time, I never even bothered casting his invocations. Only on the longest, hardest battles would I cast them, and usually I preferred the summoning ones, just to add more warm bodies on my side to do some damage and take some hits. All in all, Chanters are solid support characters, who may not be flashy, but they fill a role and contribute to the party.

Yeah I never meant to imply that keeping a low micro fighter in grps are bad,on the opposite infact. I just think managing dmg soakers are boring, a tank is always a tank tho and if your building a pure meatshield I don't think any other class can compete with the fighter.

If you build your fighter offensively most of the abilitys you get to pick aren't fun. Weapon focus-weapon expertise-weapon mastery-armoured grace etc etc. No fun stuff such as backstabbing, AoEing (Cept a per rest AoE), or other stuff you will manually work. Atleast not the lvls I've played so far (lvl 10). That don't mean they aren't good tho, just not quite my taste

 

I say chanters are a little above the other classes because you can stack all defensive stuff on him pick almost nothing offensive and still chant everything to death with the dragon Thrashed chant, as long as you don't gimp your Might. With some INT aswell you can get great use out of invocations too and AoE charm stuff or summon things.

[Crucis]

 

 

So far, for me and for my playstyle I prefer the "per encounter"characters a lot more then I do casters because they bring the better sustained performance.

 

Favourite for my PC char so far is Rogue, with some speed gear/sugar/fast runner and high stealth and a couple of good weapons the Rogue is an insanely good flanker/ambusher. The Rogue clears the enemies backline like a pro!

 

Cipher is just amazing in many ways and definitely one of my favourites.

 

Chanters are, perhaps a bit above all other classes and they make a lot of the game a lot easier!

 

Paladin is amazing utility and awesome overall!

 

Barbarian with Tall grass is the best "choke point" DPS IMO.

 

Fighters are amazing tanks and can also be built offensively. Great overall class I'd say but a boring one.

 

All the classes seem to be pretty good if you give them time and thought. I just can't stand the "per rest" casters, simply because of playstyle

If one is playing with a full party of 6, I don't think that having one character (a fighter) who is solid, durable, reliable, and low micro-management is such a bad thing, even if he may see a little boring. With 6 characters to watch over, it's not a bad thing to have one guy you can count on to do his job without constant baby-sitting.

 

 

And for what it's worth, before my most recent party where I had Kana in the party about 90% of the time (except when I was trying to do some other character's personal quest before sending them back to the bench), I didn't think much of Chanters. They didn't do much for me. But I have to say that they're a lot better than I realized. They're solid physical combatants, and once you start getting those fire-based 3rd level chants, they really start adding a LOT to the damage output of the party (at least when you're not fighting things that are immune to fire). Most of the time, I never even bothered casting his invocations. Only on the longest, hardest battles would I cast them, and usually I preferred the summoning ones, just to add more warm bodies on my side to do some damage and take some hits. All in all, Chanters are solid support characters, who may not be flashy, but they fill a role and contribute to the party.

Yeah I never meant to imply that keeping a low micro fighter in grps are bad,on the opposite infact. I just think managing dmg soakers are boring, a tank is always a tank tho and if your building a pure meatshield I don't think any other class can compete with the fighter.

If you build your fighter offensively most of the abilitys you get to pick aren't fun. Weapon focus-weapon expertise-weapon mastery-armoured grace etc etc. No fun stuff such as backstabbing, AoEing (Cept a per rest AoE), or other stuff you will manually work. Atleast not the lvls I've played so far (lvl 10). That don't mean they aren't good tho, just not quite my taste

 

I say chanters are a little above the other classes because you can stack all defensive stuff on him pick almost nothing offensive and still chant everything to death with the dragon Thrashed chant, as long as you don't gimp your Might. With some INT aswell you can get great use out of invocations too and AoE charm stuff or summon things.

 

 

I guess we have different tastes in what we find boring or not boring.  I don't need active abilities to find a character interesting and enjoyable to play.  Frankly, I prefer a fighter build with weapon focus/specialization/master/armored grace, etc. because it's a good, solid, reliable character that's not dependent on a bunch of silly X/rest or Y/encounter abilities.  I like a nice fire-and-forget type of Fighter.  And frankly, I can look at a fairly offensively built fighter as still being a tank, because I define a tank as a well armored offensive character.  I don't hold to the silly geekspeak definition.  Tanks are armored, offensive weapons in real life and I stick with that definition. 

 

And when I build up Eder in my parties, I tend to go with a mix of offensive and defensive abilities and talents.  And to date, I've never been disappointed with Eder's contribution to any of my parties.  He rarely gets knocked out.  And in any battle where there's only 2-3 guys still on their feet, he's invariably one of them.

 

Of course, my play style favors physical combat over arcane combat.  I tend to only use spells as a form of tactical fire support, rather than as something to be constantly spammed.  Chanters and Ciphers are sort of an exception here.  Chanters are basically fire and forget with their chants.  And, of course, since ciphers aren't per-rest limited, so you can use them as much as you want with focus being your only limit.

 

As for your comments on Chanters, yes, you could in theory just have the chanter stand around chanting and they'd still help the team.  But that's be a real waste of a perfectly respectable character, when they could be doing so much more without in any way limiting their ability to chant.

 

 

[omgFIREBALLS]

I play mine as a flanker/ambusher with Äru Bekr and fast runner. Also give him sugar sometimes!

What difficulty are you playing? I always feel like my rogues get neutralized the moment enemies decide to target them. They'll lose the toe to toe fight, and if they try to escape the disengagement attack devastates them.

[Elric Galad]

That's strange. In PotD I feel that rogue wins most 1v1 fights. Blinding strike and Sap helps your everyday life and Casters CC helps too.

 

Ah, and my rogue is a moon godlike, which helps. And my paladin runs zealous endurance...

[omgFIREBALLS]

I'm not really getting 1v1's, but right now I don't see him winning those either. He joins the fray. N enemies realize he's the squishiest target and attack him. Good riddance. Swarmed like Heodan.

 

Having a blast with a different party though, essentially the same minus rogue plus barbarian. It's the first melee party I've had that's actually done something better than the Vancian squad did it.

[Mocker22]

I think Obs has finally done a great job with this. Every class can be built powerfully and be enjoyed if it suits your style.

 

I think that two things people tend to miss are....

 

-Most classes have multiple different playstyles that are equally viable, i.e. ranged or melee, etc. That is very amazing imo that Obs managed to make so many options viable.

 

-Not only do all 11 classes feel generally well balanced imo, but I think it is impressive that they managed this with such diverse classes. There really is a playstyle for everyone imo.

 

If I had to pick 2 classes that are a bit underpowered I'd say rogue, because they are just so damn hard to play and max out dps, and Barb simply because they start so slow. Takes some levels and seriously good gear to overcome their starting weaknesses....but they can be great.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Mocker22

[Elric Galad]

So the consensus seems to be that Vancians have top potential, barbarian and rogue could have a bit more wow, and classes are globally rather balanced.

[Crucis]

So the consensus seems to be that Vancians have top potential, barbarian and rogue could have a bit more wow, and classes are globally rather balanced.

 

Rogues seem fine to me.  But I just don't like barbarians at all.  But for me, it's how they're designed.  I don't like this AoE damaging barb concept.  It seems ridiculous to me.  To me, barbarians seem like warriors who are less disciplined than traditional Fighters.  Have less formal training, hence not possessing Weap Specialization nor Weap Mastery. 

 

*I do kinda wish that the "warrior" classes, like paladin, barbarian, and ranger could have access to Weapon Specialization.  And it would be nice if there was an ability/talent for rangers that was the equivalent of weapon mastery for ranged weapons, like maybe something like "Greater Marksman", which was a bonus on top of Marksman and obviously only available if you already had Marksman.  But I digress...

 

 

I suppose that all of the other barbarian abilities and talents beyond Frenzy are meant to further enhance barbarians.  But I have to say that i have a strong preference for talents and abilities that are passive and always on, or at least always on, when you choose to turn them on, like Vulnerable Attack.  I don't have this strong desire for warrior classes having piles of active, limited per-rest or per-encounter abilities as the means of enhancing the class.  Nor do I find a lack of such things boring.  My spellcasters eat up enough of my micromanagement bandwidth with their spells (aka their active abilities), without needing to pile on top of that with all of the melee characters being overloaded with them too.

 

Thus, I'd be a lot happier if barbarians were also designed to be somewhat lower MM maintenance in terms of fewer active abilities, and be characters you could just "aim" at the enemy, and not have to guide their every friggin' action with active abilities just to make them effective and useful.

 

But I know that tastes vary on this, and perhaps I'm in the minority.  Oh well.