Barbarians. What's the point?
Luigirules
Member Posts: 419
I mean, for a melee class, they don't seem to me to be very useful. First of all, you can only put two stars into weapons. Secondly, you can only wear up to splint mail. To me, it just seems like it isn't worth the trade-off. I know you get to move faster, and you get a bit more HP, but it just doesn't look like it's worth it. Why not make a berserker? Then you get grand mastery, plate mail, and you can still enrage.
Anyone disagree? Please tell me there's something I'm just not getting here.
Anyone disagree? Please tell me there's something I'm just not getting here.
0
Comments
Second, not being able to put more than two stars in a weapon while annoying, isn't as big a deal as one might think. Sure, the extra half attack at grand mastery is pretty nice, but the majority of attacks for fighter types are from levels(7 and 13 both grant and extra ½ attack), specialization(two stars), dual wielding and if applicable, extra attacks from weapons. In the grand scheme of things grand mastery isn't all that powerful. Sure, it's far from trivial, but it's hardly the end all be all for a fighter type character.
And then you have the high level resistance bonuses. With hardiness a barbarian can become durable indeed. While hardiness is most certainly available to the berserker as well, the fact that they stack additively and not multiplicatively gives the barbarian a distinct advantage here.
All that being said though, the advantages of being a berserker usually outweigh the advantages of being a barbarian, especially when you consider that human berserkers can dual class while barbarians are always barbarians. The extra hp, immunity to backstab and extra movement do help sometimes and when playing a barbarian, you definitely notice those occasions and are glad that you are one. On the other hand, the same can be said of when you get level drained(which berserkers are immune to).
A lot of people like the barbarian for role-playing reasons, though. The mythos behind the class is totallly different from berserker. The berserker is supposed to be using highly trained, controlled, focused anger, while the barbarian is supposed to be just basically going wild.
The beastmaster is another class that is widely considered to have more weaknesses than advantages. But a lot of people are attracted to it for the roleplay value.
There are archetypes in TV and movies of these kinds of characters that roleplayers often enjoy identifying with.
Also, GM isn't really worth it, imo. Even using the EE version of the table, the only difference between BG2 and this version is 1/2 attack more...which is ok...but not as OP as BG1 GM. So...specialized actually isn't bad at ALL.
Depending on your str, the barbarian rage is better in terms of butt-kicking. Especially if you play good...if you play evil the berserker's enrage is a little better. On the other hand, a high level barbarian can get 80% DR with hardiness and DoEH (just 5% less then a F/C) so the armor isn't really a bit deal, has a bit more hp, is faster (you can kite melee enemies easily, and if you use faster weapons then your opponant can kill them without taking damage), can't be backstabbed (which is nice for the handful of places that enemies BS like crazy) and can eventually hit 25 str while raging as long as you started with a base of 18.
And with regard to the beastmaster, most people are also idiots. The BM is just as powerful as any other ranger (more so vs casters, since they can summon meat shields) and they get more hp since they can summon familars, which is basically on par with a fighter, despite their weapon selection. Their variety of weapons is a bit junky, but there are some good options there and expand a LOT in BG2. Bare in mind it just says weapons, they can use all the armor a plain ranger can.
Most people just see "can't use metal weapons" and go, well it's crap...well, it's not actually. It just means you have to fight outside of your weapon variety comfort-zone and use weapon types you'd normally avoid. Dual-wield clubs for enemies they can hit, use a staff for enemies they can't...that's all there is to it. And in BG2 there's some really nice options for early clubs, and the staff of the ram is the single most damaging weapon in the game, so just pop GWW and murder whatever is before you.
The Beastmaster is another class that I'd say is only useable for RP reasons. The main draw of the Beastmaster in BG:EE is the Summon Familiar uncredited innate ability the class gets. It will basically give you a few more hit points and make you more survivable in the early game, something the beastmaster typically needs.
Unlike normal rangers they cann't use metal weapons, therefore missing out on some great options and some powerful early weapons (Varscona), but they cannot wear heavier than studded leather armor either. While all rangers get stealth, and you cannot use stealth in heavier than studded leather armor, the vanilla ranger still has the option of wearing heavier armors and I find that most do. I know, whenever I use Minsc, I always give him fullplate and typically disregard his stealth abilities altogether using a Thief who can make better use of stealth and get backstab attacks.
The "bonuses" of the beastmaster class, besides the summon familiar ability which isn't mentioned in the kit description, is a 15% bonus to stealth (again, stealth being not so important for most rangers, excluding the stalker obviously) and Animal Summoning 1 at 8th level (this is the max level for Rangers in BG:EE) Animal Summoning 2 at 10th level and Animal Summoning 3 at 12th. In BG:EE you really only get the first summon spell which, at max level, is not all that useful considering a druid would have that spell long before the ranger and a wizard would also be casting comparable spells way before this. Even in BG2 I don't see all that much use for this class. I'd argue that losing access to a wide variety of weapons and to the heaviest (and typically best) armors in the game for a small bonus to hit points, stealth, and a few summon spells is really not that great of a trade off.
You're also probably one of those who thinks a straight ranger is weaker then a straight fighter...they aren't, they just seem that way if you try to play a ranger as if he was a fighter (though even then, they're just as good and simply not better).
It is mentioned in the class description (and I just checked in game now if they can or not and they cannot equip metal armors). Since it is mentioned in the class description I don't believe it is a bug, perhaps a change?
I don't seem to recall them being able to wear metal armor in BG2 either but I'm not sure as I usually stay away from the class.
Maybe they can wear magical metal armors? I doubt it since in BG:EE they added the restriction right into the class description.
Admittedly, as someone else indicated, barbarians are probably better suited for BG2 than BG1 (and indeed, their class was invented specifically for BG2). For starters, as you reach the higher levels, you can use multiple rage attacks in quick succession or even overlapping. Also at the higher levels, you get partial resistances to every kind of weapon, and you can ultimately get as much as double the amount of HPs as other chars in your party. Also in BG2, there are some fairly powerful non-plate armor and shields (i.e: Jester mail, fortress shield) that can compensate for inability to use plate.
Of course I'd definitely prefer being able to roll a Barbarian/Druid for my Shamanistic needs, but hopefully multiclassing will be externalised sooner, rather than later, and I'll be able to roll some oddball mixes.
But a Barbarian... raging... to throw tiny rocks? Just seems wrong to me.