Technical question: Barbarian

Boaster

It is essentially a Fighter class, so why not just make it as a kit under Fighter and remove the ability to Dual class and list it as a penalty?

raywind

it would not change anything really berserker would be the one i dual from even if barbarian gets changed.

Cheesebelly

I think the only thing that would make a Barbarian worth playing is in fact the ability to Dual-Class. Not having it makes the Barbarian's advantages too small in comparison to a Berserker (especially being just able to specialize in weapons)

Lemernis

Not that you're asking about a comparison between various fighter kits, but the Berserker has the big advantage of being immune to mind altering spells while in berserker rage. That's a big deal in BG2 what with all the mind flayers, beholders etc. For that reason I never create a Barbarian. Hope that helps.

Schneidend

Lemernis said:

Not that you're asking about a comparison between various fighter kits, but the Berserker has the big advantage of being immune to mind altering spells while in berserker rage. That's a big deal in BG2 what with all the mind flayers, beholders etc. For that reason I never create a Barbarian. Hope that helps.

Barbarian Rage confers immunity to everything Berserker Enrage does except for Imprisonment.

Silence

Yeah, I gotta wonder why Berserker Rage grants immunity to imprisonment but Barbarian Rage does not. Personally I don't get why they have both the Berserker kit and the Barbarian class...there's kind of a heavy overlap between the two. I'd love to see a DC Barbarian.

Dee

Barbarian gets more hit points, doesn't it? I seem to recall the Barbarian using a d12 hit die instead of a d10.

Sceptenar

Basically the reason why they introduced the Barbarian as a seperate class instead of a fighter kit (which is what the game engine treats it as) is that it is intended to be it's own class. It is actually just a port of the barbarian class from 3rd edition D&D, same with the sorcerer and monk.

Boaster

This isn't about differences between kits. I am asking... WHY is this not just a kit under the Fighter Class?

You can easily make it a Fighter Class kit while still keeping a character from Dual Classing.

Lemernis

Schneidend said:

Lemernis said:

Not that you're asking about a comparison between various fighter kits, but the Berserker has the big advantage of being immune to mind altering spells while in berserker rage. That's a big deal in BG2 what with all the mind flayers, beholders etc. For that reason I never create a Barbarian. Hope that helps.

Barbarian Rage confers immunity to everything Berserker Enrage does except for Imprisonment.

Ah thx. It's been many years since I played and wasn't near a computer where I could look it up. Good to know.

Mornmagor

Schneidend said:

Lemernis said:

Not that you're asking about a comparison between various fighter kits, but the Berserker has the big advantage of being immune to mind altering spells while in berserker rage. That's a big deal in BG2 what with all the mind flayers, beholders etc. For that reason I never create a Barbarian. Hope that helps.

Barbarian Rage confers immunity to everything Berserker Enrage does except for Imprisonment.

Yeah they give immunity to level drain instead.

Amardarial

It's not a kit, because it's not a Kit, it's a separate class, same as Monk and Sorcerer ....

Sceptenar

Amardarial said:

It's not a kit, because it's not a Kit, it's a separate class, same as Monk and Sorcerer ....

It actually IS a fighter kit in the game engine, but it has been separated into it's own class in the class selection screen to make it appear as a unique class. If you know a bit about how the engine works it is quite possible to dual-class a barbarian. When you do, it appears as fighter/thief (if you dual into a thief), with the details saying you have x levels in barbarian and x levels in thief.

Amardarial

@Sceptenar How the game engine works, how how the class is designed are two different things.

All the dual class bit means, is that the engine is limited in the ways in can show a multi-class character (As that is in fact what a dual class is, just a alternate form), has nothing to do whether or not the Barbarian is a fighter kit or not (Which it isn't)...

oldsch00l

Sceptenar said:

Amardarial said:

It's not a kit, because it's not a Kit, it's a separate class, same as Monk and Sorcerer ....

It actually IS a fighter kit in the game engine, but it has been separated into it's own class in the class selection screen to make it appear as a unique class. If you know a bit about how the engine works it is quite possible to dual-class a barbarian. When you do, it appears as fighter/thief (if you dual into a thief), with the details saying you have x levels in barbarian and x levels in thief.

You're talking about the game mechanics when (I think) he's talking AD&D rules. Barbarian is a single class not just in the selection screen, it's also a single class in player's handbook (p&p).

Lemernis

It's been years since I looked at this, and it does surprise me a little now to see that Barbarian is a distinct class versus a kit. Although I guess it arguably does have enough differences from a Berserker to warrant that status...

Imho it's not a bad thing that they created a fighter kit in Berserker that shared the main advantage of the Barbarian (berserker rage and its immunities from mind spells). I'm not complaining about it as redundant. Because there are some fairly significant differences...

I suppose it's not so different than, say, the contrast between Sorcerer and Mage as the the question of redundancy. It gives us greater variety to select from. Whether it came via a class or kit doesn't really matter to me.

Sceptenar

oldsch00l said:

You're talking about the game mechanics when (I think) he's talking AD&D rules. Barbarian is a single class not just in the selection screen, it's also a single class in player's handbook (p&p).

The question from the OP is why they don't just make the barbarian a fighter kit. My point is that it is already a fighter kit from a purely technical standpoint, it would be incredibly easy to treat it as one instead of a separate class. You can talk about it in AD&D rules if you like, but the barbarian didn't exist as a class in 2nd edition AD&D, it is from 3rd edition and like the sorcerer and monk, is simply a backwards port. Although the monk and sorcerer are treated as unique classes by the game engine.

Amardarial said:

All the dual class bit means, is that the engine is limited in the ways in can show a multi-class character (As that is in fact what a dual class is, just a alternate form), has nothing to do whether or not the Barbarian is a fighter kit or not (Which it isn't)...

The barbarian is "intended" to be a separate class, that I will admit. But the game treats it as a fighter kit. The question from the OP is why they don't just let it be one.

oldsch00l

Sceptenar said:

The barbarian is "intended" to be a separate class, that I will admit. But the game treats it as a fighter kit. The question from the OP is why they don't just let it be one.

I totally see your point and the OP's one but to me making the barbarian a fighter kit would be the same as making the sorcerer a mage kit. In my mind, barbarian was always a class, not a specialization for the fighter class. But I agree it's just the way I see it ;-)

Schneidend

Mornmagor said:

Yeah they give immunity to level drain instead.

I think both abilities offer level drain immunity. At least Berserker does.

Boaster

So tell me. How different is a Fighter from a Barbarian, besides the obvious. Both are physically heavy fighters.

It just seems like the Barbarian "class" should be a Fighter sub-class, or kit.

Is there any point in the game where a weapon or armor can only be specifically worn by a Barbarian and not a fighter? Or vice versa? I'm talking where it specifically says in the description "Not usable by Barbarians."

And most people already think, that if a Fighter can use it, then a Barbarian can as well.

They're both Fighter Classes!

LordsDarkKnight185

Logic is not going to work for this, because your missing the point.

BG2 came out shortly after D&D 3.0 was released, so they poorly ported the Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer classes into soa in order to get people excited for that.

Its like this, you cant think "They're the same thing!" you have to think of it like "Play D&D3e! Look how the Barbarian will work if you do!"

Amardarial

So lets make rangers and paladins fighter kits then, after all they are just people who use weapons and armor!

Ken

They get physical resistance too, which is very helpfull as everyone will hit you in the endgame..

LadyRhian

Maybe because the Barbarian *was* a sub-class of fighter in the 1e rules? It got a d12 for hit points, hated mages and magic (and only barely tolerated clerical magic) and didn't even like using magic items.

reedmilfam

It's because of the different hit die. If the hit dice or the level exp progression was different, they were different classes. The original came from a Dragon magazine (Barbarian), so it was an add-in to 1st Edition rules. It showed up in the Players Handbook in later versions (I think 2, but I know it was in 3 and beyond). Not sure it would make a difference in playing, but there it is.

In the original rules, it was like @LadyRhian said - they eschewed magic items, making them a different animal. Haven't played them in BG, so I am not sure how close they followed the pencil & paper rule set.

Boaster

You cannot put Ranger and Paladin under the Fighter class, because they're original classes with abilities.

They're like 66% Fighter and 34% Druid/Cleric. And Paladins and Rangers can wield slashing and piercing weapons, and Bows/Crossbows, whereas Druids and Clerics cannot. Although, Druids can wield Scimitars. The two classes are not enough like either Fighter or Druid/Cleric enough to be "kits" in my humble opinion.

Barbarian is 100% Fighter.

Additionally, Paladin and Ranger have different hard coded interface bars (Turn Undead and Stealth). The Barbarian has no unique interface bar. Further more, experience progression for Barbarian is the same as a Fighter's.

kamuizin

Barbarians are a bit shit class in comparison with Berserker fighter kit. They resistance bonus are ridiculous small for the level they get them, their rage is weaker than berserker rage and they can't dual class.

Well, there is a kit that could enjoy a bit of "ENHANCEMENT" in this... "enhanced edition".

SCARY_WIZARD

Sceptenar said:

It is actually just a port of the barbarian class from 3rd edition D&D, same with the sorcerer and monk.

It doesn't have all the different types of rages at high levels like the 3rd Edition ones, it actually looks more like a combination between 2nd and 3rd Edition's.

dstoltzfus

I would like to RP a human barbarian/cleric

secretmantra

@dstoltzfus

Then just make a Berserker/Cleric and "roleplay" it as a Barbarian/Cleric. Roleplay is only limited by your imagination, after all. ;^)

Wolk

@dstoltzfus just make a barbarian and go until you want to dual class, then shadowkeep into a fighter, dual class and turn back to barbarian as a kit since it's coded as a kit in shadowkeeper (EE keeper actualy)

Sceptenar said:

Basically the reason why they introduced the Barbarian as a seperate class instead of a fighter kit (which is what the game engine treats it as) is that it is intended to be it's own class. It is actually just a port of the barbarian class from 3rd edition D&D, same with the sorcerer and monk.

i must disagree with you, i have a paper copy of the Complete Barbarian handbook of AD&D