Pathfinder 2e Barbarian Class Beginner's Guide: Basic Impressions 

This is not true. Champion, Cleric, and Druid all state: "These abilities can be regained only if you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual"* Barbarian does not have to conduct the Atone ritual, they just spend a day "re-centering" themselves, which does not carry the risk of failure that the Atone ritual does *The Champion specifically only loses access to their Focus Points and Divine Ally, but they still require the Atone ritual to be cast and be successful

I also wait for them to get Into pf2 ranger, because out of all martial classes it is probably my favourite ) also the first reaction of DND players who see that beast of a class is priceless, I hope they can read it for the first time on camera just for that )

@@JediMage Same for monk.

Make it a goblin with "Burn it!" and you get a small bonus on those fire DoTs. Further, make it a charhide goblin with "Torch goblin" and you can also set YOURSELF on fire to do a wee bit more on every hit.

Thanks so much for sending us the love! That barbarian concept sounds AMAZING!

Moment of Clarity doesnt end rage, it just lets you use actions that have the Concentrate trait, but not the Rage trait, until the end of your turn.

@@TimeOfSin Thank you for the correction.

Updated! Thanks for the heads up!

@@BasicLiches Thanks!

They kind of have to learn the PF2 classes first! They might do videos like this AFTER they've learned the classes!

@@JacksonOwex If they already plan like that, it would be great.

positive reply

You didn't type the dreaded F word? Color me impressed.

@@primaltheraptor2244 controversial, yet engaging reply to your reply.

If you think the barbarian is OP, you don't wanna see what a power attacking ranger can do.... Edit...Opps, you were talking about 5E...but that really only applies to one subclass.

Other than anathemas, what parts of the class don’t you like, out of curiosity?

​@@megavore97 First off, I would like to say that I think I came across a little more negative than I intended (I usually try to avoid that a bit better), I don't think this is the worst, or even a truly bad, take on the class (and there's certainly nothing wrong with really liking it); but it does lack a lot of the versatility and core risk/reward focus that I've always gravitated towards (with a little bit of being spoiled by PF1's crazy character building). It's also possible that if I dove deep enough into the system and character possibilities, that I might find that the class redeems itself. While there are a couple specific things like disliking the static 1-minute rage, most of it is some variation of either loss of what made them special in PF1 and many other games (there's a lot less room for specialization and synergy between their own powers in my opinion), or a failure to do take advantage of the best aspects of the system (it feels like the class is not built for PF2, but rather that it's a generic character archetype with some surface-level callbacks to PF1 just pasted into the system). Typically (and as I like them best) barbarians thematically thrive on trade-offs, picking something specific to 'max' (such as choosing between single target dmg and melee AOE) and adjusting it's optimization level based on how much 'min' you're willing to risk (such as the eternal tank-vs-glass-cannon debate, or resistance/weakness to and effectiveness against magic), often customizing the primary trade-off with some secondary abilities (such as battlefield control with things like intimidate or reach, or unstoppable mobility); the PF2 barbarian has shadows of these kinds of options, but overall has fewer choices of true specialization combined with fewer weaknesses to take on in pursuit of those specializations and less synergy and unique elements between the various secondary abilities; and not just that it's different than PF1, but through these choices the class is more restrictive in both build and play style than I believe it should be. (it should be noted that I still think that it's not as bad or restrictive as 5e barbarians, it's more about that given how great and versatile they were in PF1, and how great and versatile the PF2 system is, I expected a lot more from Paizo than what we got). The other big thing I've mentioned is how I feel the class fails to take advantage of the strengths of the system, this is something that is not limited to just the Barbarian class (although I think it's perhaps the most egregious example) but most of the core content has some trouble here. With Barbarians specifically I feel like there are gameplay aspects of the system that could so easily synergize with the trade-off nature of the class but just aren't being utilized. I think barbarians are a great opportunity to play around with things like de-coupling atk bonuses from crits (such as a raging attack that gets a huge bonus to hit, but can't crit, or lowering their AC further but reducing their crit-ability), treating Rage as a resource instead of just a passive buff (spend actions or deliberately taking extra damage to build up multiple charges of rage and expend them for big attacks or to shrug off incoming effects/damage, or to get extra reactions), or action economy (in PF1, Barbarians were the undisputed kings of Attacks of Opportunity, which had unique way's of playing out depending on your build and purpose, if you even chose to take that route at all; this would obviously synergize well with the rage-resource idea from above). The teamwork-tactical nature of PF2 also allows for interesting ideas, such as builds whose rage is based on protecting teammates, or expanding the 'battlefield control' options; while the splitting of combat and skill feats should be giving the class some new ways to be of help to the party outside of combat.