Skip to content

Barbarian vs Berserker (which is better?)

I wanted to do an analysis of the Fighter Berserker kit vs the Barbarian class. This is for both BG:EE and BGII, assuming most players plan to take their toons to BGII. This thread is going to have some info, but in the end I am wondering which do you guys think is better.

---Post is mega long, please scroll to the bottom if you just want to see the summary---

The Barbarian:
Can specialize but not master weapons (or eventually Grand Master).
Is limited to splint mail.
+2 Movement.
+1-12 HP/Lvl
Lvl 10: 10% resistance to crushing, piercing, slashing and missile attacks.
Lvl 15: +5% resistance to all the above (15% total)
Lvl 19: +5% resistance to all the above (20% total)
Barbarian Rage: Can rage 1/day every 4 lvls with one/day use beginning at level 1.
Rage bonuses:
+4 Str
+4 Con
+2 AC (positive AC is bad, this is not a good thing) I
Immunity to every form of CC except web/entangle and slow. This includes staple disabling spells like Hold Person, Fear, Confusion, etc.
Duration of 5 rounds
No fatigue.

The Beserker:
Can master (5 points/Grand Mastery is max) in all weapons.
May wear plate and full plate.
+1-10 HP/Lvl
Cannot specialize in ranged weapons (but may be proficient with them)
Berserk: Can Berserk 1/day every 4 lvls with one/day use beginning at level 1 (it does not say that you begin with 1/day at lvl one in the text but you do).
Berserk bonuses:
+2 to hit
+2 to damage
-2 AC (negative AC is good, this is a bonus)
Immunity to every form of CC except web/entangle and slow. This includes staple disabling spells like Hold Person, Fear, Confusion, etc. I want to add that Berserkers also seem to have immunity to feeblemind effects, this immunity is not listed under the Barbarian's Rage ability if anyone knows if feeblemind does work on Barbs let me know. I am currently assuming they do have immunity to it because and the lack of text is just a mishap.
Duration of 1 turn/10 rounds.
Fatigued after Berserk. -2 to hit, -2 to damage and +2 AC (bad AC).


OK - so for starter we need to first think is this character just doing BG:EE or going on to BG2? This changes some things. So I have two comparisons, one that is BG:EE only and another that is assuming you plan on importing to BG2 (and ToB).

BG:EE Comparison:

Specializing vs Mastery (Break Even if you use two different weapons otherwise Pro Zerker)-
So it is actually impossible to Grand Master in BG:EE. The highest level either of these classes can reach is 8 in BG:EE. Though you start with four weapon skill ranks to distribute you are limited to a max of 2 in any category at character creation and you will only two more skill ranks through BG:EE to distribute. Regardless High Mastery (the max you can reach in BG:EE) grants +1/2 attack, +3 to hit, +4 to damage and -1 Speed Factor (negative speed is good). Specialization offers +1/2 attack, +1 to hit and +2 damage with no speed improvement. I have to say that High Mastery is a pretty solid bonus as it next +2 to hit, +2 damage and -1 speed. That's pretty big in BG:EE. In general any to hit bonus is a big deal.
On the flip side the Barb can spread his mastery ranks out into two weapons. Which adds some flexibility. Just remember you do not gain the +1/2 attack from Specialization (or beyond) in your off-hand if you are duel wielding (you do gain the bonus to hit, damage and speed).

Armor Limitations (Neg Barb, Pro Zerker)-
If you were to go on to BG2 this would not be a big deal, but in BG:EE being limited to splint mail is a huge blow. Mega huge. You're talking a 3 AC difference. That is ouch. Sure you can get Splint Mail +1 but then you cannot wear a ring or necklace. The +2 Ring with Full Plate grants a total of -2 AC for the Beserker while the Barb with the same ring and Splint Mail has 2 AC a total of 4 AC difference. That's a huge difference.

+2 Movement (Small Pro Barb)-
Very useful as it makes sure your Barb is in the front of your team, also when you click on random stuff he will get there faster. Just convenient. It does double from the boots of the cheetah you get in at the Mines, which makes you really fast.

+2HP/Lvl (Huge Pro Barb, Neg Zerker)-
The Barb gets 2 more HP/lvl than a Zerker, this is huge in BG:EE and BG2. It's like having +2 Con that doesn't grant regen. Pretty much the Barbarian has two more stat points than a Zerker, or any class for that matter.

Damage Reduction (Doesn't matter) -
For BG:EE you will never reach level 10 for the Barb's damage reduction. It is a big deal in BG2 and ToB though.

Beserk vs Rage (For BG:EE I have to say Pro Zerker):

-Immunities: Berserk lists one additional immunity Rage does not have, feeblemind spells/condition. I have not tested to see if the Barb is immune to feeblemind as well. If someone knows, please post. But if the text is to be believe the Beserker has one extra immunity.

-Uses per day: Same. Though the Beserker does not state that they start with Beserk at level one, they do.

-Duration: Beserk lasts twice as long as Rage. This is a huge advantage for the Beserker.

-Fatigue: Beserk fatigues the Berserker afterwards but Barbs do not fatigue (-2 to hit, -2 damage and +2 AC). This might seem like it is a big disadvantage for the Beserker but it really is not. First the fatigue takes a bit to kick in, so it does not happen as soon as Beserk ends. I cannot confirm this but I believe the fatigue waits until the current combat is over as I have never had it come up in the same combat I Beserked in. Also, since you will sleep after most hard fights for your spellcaster to regen their spells this is not a big downside.

-Attack/Damage Bonuses: +4 Str from Rage is a hell of a lot better than +2 to hit and damage from Beserk. Even as a 19 (or with Str manual, 20) Str Half-Orc the damage bonus from +4 Str is far above Beserk's +2. I do want to add that characters with 19 Str will actually only receive +2 to hit from +4 Str. As 19 Str grants +3 to hit, 21 grants +4, 23 +5 and only 25 Str grants +6. So a Beserker with 19 Str will have the same to hit bonus in Beserk as a Barb in Rage. The damage bonus from the Strength though will always be double or more (23 Strength grants +11 vs 19 Str's +7, +4 net bonus)

-HP Bonus: Rage gives +4 Con, which seems awesome. But it really is not. At 19 Con a warrior class (fighter, barb, paladin or ranger) receives +5 HP/lvl and it is not until 21 Con that this goes up to +6HP/lvl and 24 Con for +7HP/lvl. So this means Rage on a 19 Con Barbarian only gives you +1HP/lvl. If you have 20 natural Con (half-orc w/ Con manual) you can get 24 Con and gain a net +2HP/lvl. But Beserk on the other hand grants a whopping +15 HP from the start (which is awesome). This means only a half-orc Barb at level 8 can overcome the Beserk HP bonus in Rage (he would have +16HP). If you are continuing on the BG2 the Barb's Con bonus vastly surpasses Beserk's, but BG:EE maxes out at level 8.

-AC Effects: Barb Rage increases your AC by 2, this is bad. Beserk on the other hand reduces AC by 2, this is insanely good. Beserkers actually have the best AC for a pure fighter and the second best max AC possible in BG:EE with only Fighter/Mage multi-class characters casting Ghost Armor and Blur on themselves being able to beat them (Ghost Armor = Full Plate and Blur grants -3 AC). On the other hand Barbs have only splint mail which already puts them at a 4 point AC disadvantage. In Rage a Barb is 6 AC off from a Berseker and 8 AC off from the Beserker if the Beserker is in Beserk. A full plate Beserker with Beserk, the +2 Prot Ring, and 18 Dex has a massive -8 AC (possible -11 AC w/ +2 Shield). A Barb in Rage with the +2 Ring, splint mail and 18 Dex has 0 AC. 0 AC is not bad but it does not compete with -8 AC which is simply godly. The Barb would have -2 AC outside of Rage, while the Beserker would have only -6 AC out of Beserk. I want to add that even fatigued the Beserker would have -4 AC vs the Barbs -2 AC and thus even with the fatigue penalty the Beserker's AC will be better.

BG2 and ToB Changes:

-Weapon Masteries: Finally the Beserker can reach that coveted Grand Mastery extra +1/2 attack. Except that in BG2 Grand Mastery was mega nerfed and it does not grant +1/2 attack. It does still grant an extra +1 to hit, damage and -2 speed. There are mods that revert Grand Mastery to the BG1/BG:EE version but those are...mods. This is still a bonus to the Beserker bonuses to hit, damage and speed are always good but you will be very limited in what weapons you can use as Grand Mastery eats up three more Weapons Skill slots (9 levels worth). So if you do not have a very specific plan in mind then the advantage of Grand Mastery is not that big of a deal.

-Armor Selection: In TOB there is -1 AC Scale/Splint Mail that Barbs can wear while the best full plate in the game grants only -2 AC. A one AC difference. So the previous huge penalty for Barbs is gone.

-HP Bonus: Barbs still get more and more HP. I just want to mention this again. More HP = Awesome. Huge Barb advantage that just keeps on giving.

-Damage reduction: Barb damage reduction kicks in at level 10. This might not seem like a big deal in its own right. I mean 10%, 15% and 20% less damage from non-spells? Big deal....But it is a big deal once you gain High Level Abilities (HLAs). One of them (which both Beserkers and Barbarians can get) grants 60% reduced damage just like the Barb's class ability. This stacks with the 20% innate Barb amount for 80% reduced damage. This, is, sick. Seriously. It actually might be better than a Fighter/Mage's Stoneskin. You go from taking 40% damage to 20% damage which if my math is right means you take 50% net less damage. That is crazy. 100 damage dragon stomps now do 20. Hahaha. Barb wins this hands down.

Rage vs Beserk in BG2:
-Strength Bonus: All stats max out at 25, so any value beyond 25 grants nothing more than 25 does. This is important because there is very powerful 1h hammer in ToB that gives you 25 Strength called the Crom Faeyr. It sets your Str to 25. Which pretty much negates Rage. But...If you do not plan on using this hammer there is no other means to obtain 25 Str (except for very expensive and rare potions which only grant it for a short time) other than a Barb's Rage. I want to mention that the Beserker's Beserk stacks with Crom Faeyr's 25 Str bonus as it grants +2 to hit and damage. Since I am bringing up mega powerful weapons there is also a much easier to obtain sword that grants +1 full attack, most people either use that sword (called Blem, it is a scimitar) instead of the hammer if they can reach 25 Str by some other means.

-Con Bonus: Barb gets more HP/lvl as lvls go on over the Beserker. This like the Barb's increase HP/lvl is a gift that simply keeps on giving.

-AC Penalty/Bonus: Beserkers in BG2 and BG:EE have the best pure fighter AC possible. They now must compete with both Fighter/Mages who will always have -1 AC on them as well as Monks who have -1AC/2 lvls for best AC in the game, but they still land in 3rd which is not bad. Because Barb armor is extremely better in BG2 the AC difference for a Beserker in Beserk vs a Barb in Rage is only 5 points rather than 8. This is still pretty damn huge. Outside of rage this is down to 3, which is noticeable but not insane. Anyways, the AC difference is a huge plus to Beserkers. If this outweighs the Barb's extra HP and reduced damage...that is another question.

-Duration and Fatigue: In BG2 you can burn through 4 rages in one fight and not really care. Also with an extended spell list your mages should not need to rest so long. Which means the shorter duration for Rage and lack of fatigue plays out better. Though not a big switch I believe Barbs benefit more from this than Beserkers.

-Random Fighter Item: There is an epic item called the Gauntlets of the Master that grant +1/2 to their wearer in ToB. These gloves for whatever reason can be worn by Fighters (such as the Beserker), Rangers and Paladins but not Barbarians. This might be an oversight and there is likely a mod to fix this but be aware that all non-Barbarian warriors will have +1/2 attack over any Barb. Pretty lame. Blame Black Isle or Bioware. Should fix this in BG2:EE IMO.

Final Score:
In BG:EE IMHO Beserkers are the by far and hands down choice for a pure fighter. While they lose out on some HP they make up for it for the first few level with Beserk. Even late game they still compete. The massive 8 AC difference is insane. And Beserker AC is simply put, insane. They also will oddly enough have a higher to hit bonus than a Barb (due to weapon High Mastery) in and out of Beserk and while not Raging or Beserking the Beserker will do more damage as well (due to High Mastery).

In BG2 the Barb comes into his own. From having a massive HP pool as well as insane damage reduction (very late game), even more HP from Rage and good armor selection the Barb truly excels in BG2. The only thing that would keep the Beserker competative in BG2 would be a Grand Mastery mod that resets BG2's Weapon skills to BG:EE/BG1's versions.

Lastly, Fighter/Mages suck. Please don't post about them.

«1

Comments

  • OzzyBotkinsOzzyBotkins Member Posts: 396
    Wait till they add the Dwarven Defender Kit for the fighter
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    I think you overlooked the single biggest thing in the Berserker's favour - the ability to dual class, especially into cleric. The ability to immediately make oneself immune to CC (crowd control?) as you called it is a godsend for any melee hybrid. The cleric also gets Draw Upon Holy Might (as do good PCs, iirc) which will eventually give berserker>clerics the (in BG2, but even lvl 9 clerics will recieve +3 STR and CON - and DEX - from this spell) same bonuses as from Barbarian Rage, plus the Berserker bonuses and without the +2 AC malus.
  • SpaceInvaderSpaceInvader Member Posts: 2,125
    Banana.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    Barbarians can't dual-class. The end.

    While extra HP certainly is nice, the amount of flexibility, utility and plain offensive power you have to give up for them is simply not worth it, at least not in BG2/ToB.

    As always, though, this is somewhat dependent on what mods you play, how you play, etc... There certainly are situations where you'd love a Barbarian (and they certainly are good, no doubt about it), but most of the time dualing a Berserker will be the straight up better choice.
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    edited February 2013
    Also, thinking about what you said about the post being so long you could divide it up with [ spoiler ] tags if you want.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    While it's true that a Barbarian can become fairly equal to a B->C, that is only true in singular form. Sure you can protect yourself, but what about everyone else? What about the lost utility? There's several divine spells that see frequent use or are just very powerful (e.g. Righteous Magic), not to mention Turn Undead.

    And speed, really? You'll end up with Boots of Speed on all front-liners in SoA, and get even more of them in ToB. Why you would want to hit-and-run with a Barbarian I'm not quite sure, but either way the range gap is very easily bridged in no time. It's much more of an issue in BG1 admittedly, but not in BG2/ToB.

    The only thing Barbarians have going for them, really, are the damage resistance and high HP. They are quite nice, don't get me wrong, but the question is simply whether you are willing to take these highly personal, 1-character bonuses over group utility. You very well may want to in certain scenarios, as I mentioned before, but I think that in general you'd rather have the group advantages.



    ...or you could just go Ranger/Cleric multi and pick up the druid spells too, as well as fighter HLAs. Imo that makes an even better tank than both Barbarian or Berserker->Cleric :)
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited February 2013
    Because the class is MEANT to be used in a hit-run fashion. That's like saying the Kensai is worthless because they can't wear any armor at all, and will generally die fast if you simply tell them to auto-attack, when they're actually the strongest of the fighter kits, by a LARGE margin (only applies to single class), when used correctly.

    Each class has different play styles.....if you aren't using a class properly for it's strengths, then it's your fault, not the classes that it seems to be under-performing.

    And lets face it, you don't NEED utility, your Barbarian is already a 1 man army, that has all the personal benefits of a F/C, just tell the nubs and weaklings to stand back and take care of business yourself, we all know the NPCs are just there to haul loot and entertain you with their antics on long journeys, since they sure as hell aren't going to contribute meaningfully to combat compared to you...unless you're just an ass and like using them to set off traps or soak up instant death spells.

    The argument you're losing utility might hold water, except if you're using power gamed character you don't need it nor a party since Any power gamed character can solo the game..flat out, non-arguable fact, with EASE.


    If you're using a character with randomly rolled stats, just rolling and taking what you get without tweaking and then playing, I might see a point (though it's highly unlikely you'd even be able to dual-class given the high requirements, so the barb wins there too).
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    edited February 2013
    It's true that most if not all classes can in fact solo even the highest difficulty mods on Insane, but I'm not sure I'd agree about the "with EASE" part.

    Anyway, I did mention before that the whole discussion hinges entirely on the circumstances you set for yourself in your game. How is it modded? How many/which chars are you playing? It's no surprise that a Barbarian's disadvantage disappears if you consider a solo-game - many priorities and relative strengths change in such a scenario.

    That is in fact the whole reason I put in the caveat; you can never account for the myriad of combinations that people come up with for their own personal game, all you can do is approach at least some semblance of generality in your discussion, or risk the entire argument being pointless from the start.

    I'm still not sure about the whole hit-and-run strategy, though, nor how it is a genuine advantage when it takes about 30 minutes to get Boots of Speed in SoA. Also the fact that a class defined by its enormous HP-pool and damage resistance "is supposed to be played" as hit-and-run seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. It's true that certain situations, especially in a solo game, require frequent re-positioning, but to say that the entire class is defined by that special case is not really a convincing argument to me.

    Also, from a powergaming perspective it's not optimal to go solo or with very few people, since enemy HPs don't scale with party size. Maximizing your damage output will pretty much always favor parties with multiple characters, though not necessarily the full 6.

    I know it's difficult to make objective statements about a game that is so vastly different for every player, but I think that the discussion has merit if only to illustrate the complexity that BG offers. It's something severely lacking in many modern titles, and in my opinion a reason why after almost one and a half decades we still play this game!
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    Because the Barb doesn't start with those resistances, he starts with a speed boost (and in BG1 you don't get the boots of speed (the only pair I might add) till mid-chapter 4), later in mid levels, after his HD has capped out, THEN he starts getting resistances (coincidentally, around the same time that leather with ACs rivaling or surpassing full plate start appearing), at which point he transitions from from a careful hit/fade striker into a speedy zip in and kill everyone while not worrying about getting hit cause you're highly resistant to physical damage that slowly increases as you level, becoming nigh invulnerable once you can take Hardiness.

    The thing is, this is core game, no mods at all, the Barb is plain better (And truth be told for an experienced player, playing solo IS easier, since you're able to pull off fighting styles that require careful management and become tedious if you're bothering with using a party, especially for a warrior-type like Barbarians, who can carve a swath of destruction all day long without resting, as long as they save their rages for when they're truly needed. Lately, if I use a party, it's for their banters and extra carry space till the bag of holding becomes available, I leave them out of harms way and hand stuff myself.

    The only time a party is ever required is for a non-power gamed character, which are rare. Only complete noobs make non-power gamed characters (unless you're like me and do so to get a challenge in the game...even SCS and the like are boring with ideal stats, it's actually much more fun to play with less then ideal characters), and they're the ones who'll derive the most enjoyment out of those precious early playthroughs when everything is challenging, and you don't know what's around every bend.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,597
    Good thread. It's a tough call. Berserk is definitely better than Barbarian rage. However, the Barbarian immunities to damage are helpful. On the other hand, increased damage/thaco from weapon specialties in zerker. Tough tough call.
  • NocturneNNocturneN Member Posts: 123
    Barbarian, imho. The way I see it: Barb gets a natural Armor of Faith that is always active, Ber/Cler needs to cast theirs. The Barb's Rage is effectively like an instant DUHM, though Ber/Cler has an advantage in that he can cast his more often. The big one: Barb is a fighter and gets great thac0 nearing ToB, Ber/Cler is capped at 6 thac0 unless you dual very late (which is tedious at best and means you may not get your abilites back until late ToB).
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited February 2013
    And Barbs get access to the warrior HLA table, which a early dual B/C won't.

    B/C also typically dual at 9, which means the Barb either gets an extra half-attack more (offsetting some of disadvantage of not having GM, they'd have the same number of attacks if the Berserker GMs assuming BG2EE will use BGEE's prof table) OR they don't have to deal with a large amount of downtime if it's a 13 dual. While hitting 14 cleric for a 13 dual isn't quite as bad as hitting 14 mage (about 200,000 less or so), it's still over 1 million xp and unlike a Mage dual, you can't cheese scrolls for xp (if you do that).

    The reason you don't really go above 13 as a berserker is because all they get is a few more rage uses. Barbs on the other hand still gain class features (their resistances AND extra rage uses, which due to the less duration it just works out better that way), giving them an excuse to stick it out till HLA (well..if they had other options, anyway).

    Of course no Kensai should EVER dual-class since they have one of the biggest level-based perks in existence (Never understood why people would dual to a mage for short term, limited use defenses that sacrifice about 4/5th of the damage you could've been doing, and runs completely counter to a Kensai's Offense is the best defense philosophy in first place for effectively no benefit and is actually much worse then a Berserker or even plain fighter when dualed), allowing them to kill even the strongest enemies in the game in 1-2 rounds (that 1 enemy that takes 2 rounds only does so due to his 75% physical damage resistance, otherwise he'd drop in 7 hits like everyone else) while being able to achieve a respectable 60% physical damage resistance which can fully offset the little bit of damage they may or may not even take..
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    edited February 2013

    The thing is, this is core game, no mods at all, the Barb is plain better (And truth be told for an experienced player, playing solo IS easier, since you're able to pull off fighting styles that require careful management and become tedious if you're bothering with using a party, especially for a warrior-type like Barbarians, who can carve a swath of destruction all day long without resting, as long as they save their rages for when they're truly needed. Lately, if I use a party, it's for their banters and extra carry space till the bag of holding becomes available, I leave them out of harms way and hand stuff myself."

    That's fine, if that's your thing; many people don't play like that, though. Of course it's "easier" to solo an unmodded game, but vanilla can be cleared with anything without breaking a sweat because there are no hard fights anywhere. You can argue what class is better there, sure, but it's largely a moot point because it matters so little.

    The real differences between classes/kits are only truly important with mods that make the game actually hard (SCS I/II, Ascension, Tactics, Improved Battles, etc.). While it's for sure possible to solo even these, it's far from an easy feat.

    Speaking of "easy" - another highly relative term. Sure it's less of a hassle to not have to micro-manage multiple characters, but on the other hand having a party also means that enemy damage is spread out more, that you can employ a wider variety of tactics, and that your overall damage increases (because as I mentioned earlier, enemy HP doesn't increase with more party members). Playing solo it's not uncommon for certain fights to last VERY long - I recall reading a playthrough on Insane with a solo cleric that had a fight last over an hour in real time. Is that truly "easier", then, than having a party around to make that same fight last 5 minutes instead, albeit with more effort in managing the characters?

    The only time a party is ever required is for a non-power gamed character, which are rare. Only complete noobs make non-power gamed characters (unless you're like me and do so to get a challenge in the game...even SCS and the like are boring with ideal stats, it's actually much more fun to play with less then ideal characters), and they're the ones who'll derive the most enjoyment out of those precious early playthroughs when everything is challenging, and you don't know what's around every bend.

    Again, a moot argument. The vast majority of characters are in fact NOT power-gamed, simply because experienced/ambitious gamers aren't the majority of players in general. But that's fine because as I said earlier, the unmodded game is designed to allow even inexperienced "complete noobs", as you call them, to finish the game. That's why people made all those difficult mods to begin with!

    And Barbs get access to the warrior HLA table, which a early dual B/C won't.

    That is true. But again, it's a world of trade-offs - there's upsides and downsides, the HLAs are not the only difference between both classes. And if your Barbarian isn't the one using the FoA+5, GWW actually becomes pretty much useless, too. Remember, you can't just assume solo play for everyone! Many people prefer to give the best weapon to someone with more offensive power, i.e. Grandmastery and/or some other class damage bonus.

    B/C also typically dual at 9, which means the Barb either gets an extra half-attack more (offsetting some of disadvantage of not having GM, they'd have the same number of attacks if the Berserker GMs assuming BG2EE will use BGEE's prof table) OR they don't have to deal with a large amount of downtime if it's a 13 dual. While hitting 14 cleric for a 13 dual isn't quite as bad as hitting 14 mage (about 200,000 less or so), it's still over 1 million xp and unlike a Mage dual, you can't cheese scrolls for xp (if you do that).

    Almost every fighter that is dualed in BG2/ToB will be dualed at 13, for the extra half attack. Again, though, this almost by definition assumes a modded game because unmodded it just won't matter what you do (heck I think someone beat it with a lvl 1 party even. There is loads of XP to be had everywhere, and it's no trouble at all to regain the first class in a reasonable time. It's all part of the planning process for your game! I regularly make parties with multiple lvl 13 duals, and while there's some icky spots where you need to be creative, it's not really all that hard to get through to lvl 14 and regain your class.

    You brought up an interesting point, though. While it's definitely true that fighters stop gaining significant bonuses from levels past 13 (THAC0 and proficiency points aside), keep in mind that Barbarian progression also stops at lvl 19, when they gain their last bit of damage resistance. That means that for over half their levels (assuming cap at 40, though many people also remove XP cap in modded games), they gain relatively little from a level-up. Dualing into a caster classes on the other hand means you continue to gain something (i.e. more spells) all the way into your 30s.

    Of course no Kensai should EVER dual-class since they have one of the biggest level-based perks in existence (Never understood why people would dual to a mage for short term, limited use defenses that sacrifice about 4/5th of the damage you could've been doing, and runs completely counter to a Kensai's Offense is the best defense philosophy in first place for effectively no benefit and is actually much worse then a Berserker or even plain fighter when dualed), allowing them to kill even the strongest enemies in the game in 1-2 rounds (that 1 enemy that takes 2 rounds only does so due to his 75% physical damage resistance, otherwise he'd drop in 7 hits like everyone else) while being able to achieve a respectable 60% physical damage resistance which can fully offset the little bit of damage they may or may not even take..

    I'd like a demonstration, please, of a pure Kensai killing Ascension Amelyssan in 1-2 rounds. Or Improved Demogorgon. Or Pontifex. Or Melanthium. Yeah, I thought so.

    The whole reason why K->M is so stupidly powerful is that you CAN'T "just kill the strongest enemies in the game in 1-2 rounds". You trade some of your offensive power (SOME, mind you, not "4/5th" - where do you get these numbers from anyway?) for the power to become nigh-invulnerable against most things thrown your way. Stoneskin, PFMW, Mirror Image, Mislead, Spell Immunity, etc. are among the best defensive spells in the game. Add to that the power to do stupid things like go into Time Stop with Kai active, and you'll soon realize why Kensai->Mage is loved and hated so much. Kai is in fact one of the main factors in the whole equation, not just the innate damage bonuses. Dealing maximum damage is very, very good! And then there's all the other spells you can cast... Improved Haste, sequencers and contingencies, ADHW, Planetars, Mordenkainen's Sword... The list goes on and on, I think I don't have to demonstrate how powerful high-level mages are.


    Anyway, we're drifting a bit off-topic again. I just hope my rambling helps to illustrate once again the complexity of the game, and the danger of making easy assumptions and pseudo-generalized statements.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I think one thing you have to do in comparing is forget about dual classing. Any multi or dual classed fighter(or ranger)/cleric, is, beyond doubt, a superior front line fighter than any pure fighter (or barbarian) build. So you are really saying "which of these sub-optimal builds is least sub-optimal".
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    You are correct, dual-/multi-class is in general superior to pure classes. However, even though this thread compares two pure classes (Barbarian and Berserker), you can't ignore the fact that one of them can dual - this is a real advantage for that particular class or, approaching from the other side, a disadvantage for the other class. The comparison is not limited to pure vs. pure all the way, that would simply unfairly skew the advantage towards the class that cannot dual-class.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    No, an ability that is never used is not an advantage. Being ABLE to dual class is only an advantage if you use it. In which case you are comparing Barbarians with Berserker/Clerics, which is not a fair comparison.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    Why would you never use it, though? Why even have a discussion where that option is ignored? Of course you're comparing Barbarian to Berserker->X, but that's fine; there are cases to be made for either, depending on the situation. But simply discounting the very option doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In fact, the whole class was designed with the option, or lack of option, in mind. If you can't dual/multi-class, you have other advantages instead. You can't just take away dual-classing options from a pure class without compensation, and then make a comparison. THAT would be unfair.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited February 2013

    Why would you never use it, though?

    Because the thread is about comparing Barbarians with Berserkers, NOT with Berserker/Clerics. We already KNOW Berserker/Clerics are better, that is not what the discussion is about.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    I'm pretty sure someone made a case about Barbarians being better than Berserker->Clerics earlier. Not that I agree, but it's a valid concern and something that can't simply be discounted by "we already KNOW they are better".

    Also, as I said before, the whole point of classes like Barbarian (or Paladin, or Sorcerer) is that they HAVE to be compared to other classes that can dual-/multi-class, simply because they were given a lot of bonuses to compensate for their own inability to do so. It's a trade-off situations; do you take the bonuses at the cost of increased flexibility? If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a discussion at all, dual/multi-classes would always win, period. But things are not that simple, there's frequent arguments on all the BG boards about that very topic. How good are Barbarians? Inquisitors? Should I go for Sorcerer, or Fighter/Mage? The list goes on and on. It's not an easily decided issue, nor is it something "we all know".
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    I'm pretty sure someone made a case about Barbarians being better than Berserker->Clerics earlier. Not that I agree, but it's a valid concern and something that can't simply be discounted by "we already KNOW they are better".

    Also, as I said before, the whole point of classes like Barbarian (or Paladin, or Sorcerer) is that they HAVE to be compared to other classes that can dual-/multi-class, simply because they were given a lot of bonuses to compensate for their own inability to do so.

    No they wern't. They are based on the PnP game, and dual classing was not consideration in PnP game design.
    It's a trade-off situations; do you take the bonuses at the cost of increased flexibility?
    There is no "increased flexability". You either create a character intending to dual class them, or you don't. If you intent to dual class, there is no choice, you MUST choose Berserker. If you don't intend to dual class, then being able to do so is useless to you.
    But things are not that simple, there's frequent arguments on all the BG boards about that very topic. How good are Barbarians? Inquisitors? Should I go for Sorcerer, or Fighter/Mage? The list goes on and on. It's not an easily decided issue, nor is it something "we all know".
    Which is why you need to compare like with like. Pure fighters with pure fighters. Fighter/Clerics with Fighter/clerics. If you don't, it is impossible to have a mainingful discusion. This thread is for comparing a Pure Berserker with a Pure Barbarian. If a Berserker duals to a cleric, they are no longer a Berserker, so they take themselves out of this particular discussion.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    Fardragon said:

    No they wern't. They are based on the PnP game, and dual classing was not consideration in PnP game design.

    It is my understanding that dual-classing was present in PnP as well. Also, several things have been changed compared to PnP, for various reasons, and while it's true that it was the basis, balancing was done with the game engine in mind.
    Fardragon said:

    There is no "increased flexability". You either create a character intending to dual class them, or you don't. If you intent to dual class, there is no choice, you MUST choose Berserker. If you don't intend to dual class, then being able to do so is useless to you.

    Not sure I understand what you mean here. Surely you aren't always so rigid in the choices you are faced with? "Do I make a Barbarian, or do I make a Berserker" is the original thought, but "If I make a Berserker, I can dual-class it later. If I make a Barbarian, I can't" surely enters into the decision-making process somewhere?
    Fardragon said:

    Which is why you need to compare like with like. Pure fighters with pure fighters. Fighter/Clerics with Fighter/clerics. If you don't, it is impossible to have a mainingful discusion.

    It's not that simple most of the time. When building a party, you are facing many decisions, and these decisions span across several characters. Your party strength is defined by the combination of characters, and that makes a discussion of, say, Berserker->Cleric vs. Barbarian quite relevant indeed. You have a tremendous amount of options when configuring your party, and choosing one class over another can have ramifications well outside that class - if I take the Berserker->Cleric, for example, I may not take another Cleric, or a Ranger. If I take a Barbarian, maybe my Ranger will become a Ranger/Cleric instead, etc... Every change you make in one character slot affects the entire party, and vice versa.


    For me, making those kinds of choices has always been one of the more interesting aspects of the game. Comparing pure vs. pure has academical merit, but it's rarely a reflection of the actual decision-making process involved.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    Fardragon said:

    No they wern't. They are based on the PnP game, and dual classing was not consideration in PnP game design.

    It is my understanding that dual-classing was present in PnP as well. Also, several things have been changed compared to PnP, for various reasons, and while it's true that it was the basis, balancing was done with the game engine in mind.
    Dualclassing was in PnP 1st and 2nd edition, but "balance" simply didn't become a consideration until 3rd edition. G. Gygax's approach was "not all classes are equal. Deal with it." Which I think made it a far better game, especially than the balance-obsessed 4th edition.

    Since Sorcerer and Barbarian are based on 3rd edition, the PnP version could dual class as much as any other class, so it wasn't a factor their either.
    Fardragon said:

    There is no "increased flexability". You either create a character intending to dual class them, or you don't. If you intent to dual class, there is no choice, you MUST choose Berserker. If you don't intend to dual class, then being able to do so is useless to you.

    Not sure I understand what you mean here. Surely you aren't always so rigid in the choices you are faced with? "Do I make a Barbarian, or do I make a Berserker" is the original thought, but "If I make a Berserker, I can dual-class it later. If I make a Barbarian, I can't" surely enters into the decision-making process somewhere?
    No, it doesn't. In order to use dual classing effectively it has to be planned from the start. If you design a character based on the idea that "you possibly might want to dual class at some vague point" your build will be poor. For one thing, you would have to be human, when all the other races are superior. For another, you would have to dump points into wisdom, which would be wasted if you later decided not to dual class. You would have to specialise in a blunt weapon, and so on.
    Fardragon said:

    Which is why you need to compare like with like. Pure fighters with pure fighters. Fighter/Clerics with Fighter/clerics. If you don't, it is impossible to have a mainingful discusion.

    It's not that simple most of the time.
    You MAKE it simple by only comparing like with like. The same as you do a scientific experiment. Only change one variable at a time. It's the only way you could possibly reach any sort of valid conclusion. Science is all about trying to simplify complex problems.

    Hence the thread is called "which is better, Barbarian or Berserker", not "which is better out of all possible builds".
  • VizielViziel Member Posts: 11
    Berserker. I hate solo BG2 and some stupid lich cast imprisionment and then is GG. Stupid spell ever.
  • KaltzorKaltzor Member Posts: 1,050
    The Barbarian has a better rage in my opinion and at high levels has resistance to physical damage...

    And the Berserker has the ability to wear full plate to achieve a better AC and to get grandmaster weapon bonuses...

    I think the Berserker is better when not raging, but the Barbarian during their rage is better.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited February 2013
    @Lord_Tansheron At the very beginning, he said we weren't going to consider mods for the comparison, since there's just too many, and was limiting things to the core game.

    Mods made to add challenge due to the %^$&#^ implementation of spells/classes/items/abilities has nothing to do with this discussion.


    A Barbarian continues to progress as you said until 19..and once he hits 20, BAM his first HLA. He never stops progressing meaningfully.

    For most of the saga, the Barbarian is better, the only time the berserker can even compete is at the very end of the game, and assuming you're an evil half-orc (Barb Halflings are plain better, and Barb anything else are just as good), or if you waste a lot of items on Crom Faeyr, which is only worthwhile to make while soloing and still can't be attained until 89% of the way through SoA)
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I don't really agree. Belts of Giant Strength are fairly common in BG2, potions are consumed before tough battles, DOHM is likely available to CHARNAME for a significant span, and so on, it's quite easy to get to the Strength cap without Rage, making it of little benefit.

    IMO, which is better depends a lot on race. Halfings and Elves are better off as Barbarians, Half Orcs and Dwarves are better off as Berserkers, and you would only be human if you intended to dual class.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    Dwarves benefit more from being Barbarians, cause the higher Con gives stronger regen and an extra +2 to all saves (minor, but handy against the few things the rage doesn't stop, like webs and the like), which is pretty nice in BG1, when you can hit 25 with items.


    2 uses max (that are weaker then then the rage for a good chunk of the game..requires 15+ to be better) vs several (and increasing) uses of +4 str/con and boat load of immunities. OR you dual at 9 or 13 to cleric and wait even LONGER for DUHM to catch up...the Barb just plain wins here.

    Yeah...but then you can save the potions for the really tough battles, instead of wasting them in place of a renewable resource. And more to the point, no PC, unless you're playing a non-power gamed character should ever have to use a str potion (or even a str belt for that matter, if they're a non-halfling), they'd be better saved for NPCs...if you bother using those, until every one has access to a permanent strength increasing item.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited February 2013

    Dwarves benefit more from being Barbarians, cause the higher Con gives stronger regen and an extra +2 to all saves (minor, but handy against the few things the rage doesn't stop, like webs and the like), which is pretty nice in BG1, when you can hit 25 with items.

    The shorty save bonus doesn't increase after 18 con, so Barbarians have no advantage over Berserkers in this area. (unless, for some reason, you create a dwarf with a con less than 18).

    The marginly faster regeneration is pretty meaningless given the short duration of rage.
Sign In or Register to comment.