Dude, Berserker rage > Barbarian Rage. Barbarian rage doesn't block imprisonment. Berserker can grandmaster anything except ranged weapons, barbarians can only get one (or two) points in proficience.
Make them able to dual class and it will become al little better.
It does really look to me like the "Barbarian" class should have been a ranger kit instead of a class.
The thinking behind it seems related more to roleplay than to in-practice game mechanics.
The barbie gets extra fast movement, d12, a rage that doesn't cause fatigue, but doesn't protect against imprisonment, and physical damage resistance.
What does he give up for all of that? Heavy armor, d10 instead of d12, no extra movement, no protection against imprisonment, and only two pips for weapon.
I don't really see this dichotomy as a clear win for either one. The berserker seems to have at least a slight edge for pure powergaming, but, if roleplay is a factor, they become equals.
If RP is factored in, then the berserker is a heavy-armor-wearing juggernaut type of character, who fits into almost any faction.
The barbarian conjures up images of the "noble savage", defending animals, nature, and a simpler way of life, and a foil to the lawful evil imperialism of supposedly more "advanced" cultures and governments. Along these lines, I think that the "beastmaster" would have been better as a barbarian kit than as a ranger kit. Or else, the barbarian could have been a ranger kit.
The way they've written everything, the one thing that seems certain is that the barbarian should not be its own class. It should have been either a fighter or a ranger kit. Probably a ranger kit - the abilties of two free pips in dual wield and limited cleric or druid spells would compensate for the loss of Imprisonment protection, heavy armor, and weapon grandmastery.
The Barbarian is a class in BG2 for the same reason the Monk and Sorcerer are present: the game needed to invoke 3e since that was the current ruleset. It's nothing to do with gameplay, variety or whatever - it's a marketing issue.
The Barbarian is a class in BG2 for the same reason the Monk and Sorcerer are present: the game needed to invoke 3e since that was the current ruleset. It's nothing to do with gameplay, variety or whatever - it's a marketing issue.
Needed to invoke 3e?
Really?
And do you have some inside information confirming this or is this just another "internet fact" thats been bandied about?
Seems to me that with 3e coming out it just might have been the devs idea that it would be kewl to add some new classes from it -
you know since they were D&D nerds to begin with...
and the game was based on D&D...
and new stuff is way more kewl than old stuff...
But if the facts say it was once again the evil empire forcing the devs to include these new classes against their will becuase the marketing dept has the hammer and the game developers are just pawns in their little game.............
It's not an "internet fact" as much as applying logic to what can be observed.
3e D&D came out around the same time as BG2:SoA. The new classes weren't the only "3isms" implemented (the look and feel of the game being another).
I've never read any official confirmation on this, but it's logical enough that I'm comfortable with assuming it to be true unless a reliable source outright contradicts it.
A barbarian is pretty much a single class Berserker/Cleric, except passive abilities instead of buff spells (and gets far superior HLA).
Also keep in mind, the current berserker barely resembles it's 2nd edition version. The PnP version's rage is just sleep, charm/dom, Command immunity, a +4 save bonus vs hold and paralyze for the duration of the rage, prevents 1 fear on a failed save but ends the rage. +3 damage, +1 hit, +5 hp, Doesn't roll saves vs death effect until the rage ends (which they then all roll at once) but also cannot benefit from any form of magical healing until the rage ends, for the duration of the rage their current HP is hidden, and they have to a save every round of combat or go completely berserk for 3 rounds (just like Minsc's berserk), attacking friend and foe a like.
They're also not allowed to use ranged weapons while berserk, and cannot spend proficiency points on ranged weapons at creation.
And technically, NO fighter kit should be able to get grand mastery. It's supposed to be reserved for a single-class, kitless fighter only (a fighter could get GM and then dual-class, but that class can only spend a max of * in all other weapons, since Specialization/GM is part of fighter advancement, which the new class doesn't have. All fighter kits are capped at specialization except the Kensai and the Archer (which is actually a fighter kit that rangers can optionally use).
The kensai selects 1 Sword-type weapon at creation they have ** in and gets a free 3rd point in it, but is otherwise limited to ** for all others. (Their bonus hit/damage/weapon speed, and Kai all require the use of the Mastered weapon to function (and only apply to the mastered weapon's type)...they can also wear armor if they wish, but lose their bonuses (including the -2 ac) while it's equipped, since their style requires freedom to move. The PnP version is also allowed to use thrown weapons and bracers with no penalty. Their only restrictions they lose their bonuses while wearing armor and/or not using their mastered weapon type, and cannot advance further in the class if they become chaotic, since their fighting style requires discipline to master (but retain any bonuses they already have) (their xp stops 1 xp from their next level until their alignment becomes valid again or they dual-class to something else).
And the Archer can put up to *** into any bow-type weapon (but not crossbows or other ranged weapons which are limited to **) but can only only be proficient in melee weapons and can never benefit from extra attacks when using melee weapons (but gains an extra attack when using any bow (but not crossbows) and not wearing armor heavier then studded leather, total of base 3), and gains an additional extra attack (base 4 total) when they spend a round to position themselves that lasts until they move (also requires light armor). (they're otherwise pretty much like the BG version, except ANY character in PnP can make called shots, Blades (thrown weapons only) and Archers (bows only) simply do so without the -4 thac0 penalty) (In PNP bows do NOT benefit from level or specialization based extra attacks, they get a flat 2 attacks per round, unless the bow has an ability that grants extra attacks, or a kit ability that says otherwise, as the archer does).
Massive Strength and Constitution gains > blocking one random effect that only comes into play in lategame BGII
I disagree with your disagree. Stat gains are somewhat meaningless when you have a hammer that sets your strength to 25 and Draw Upon Holy Might does the same thing. Not to mention the tomes and belts and Machines of Lum the Mads and whatnot.
At least Beserker rage always gives you bonuses to hit and damage. That would be more of a bonus than the nothing you get as a raging 25 Str Barbarian. Con bump I guess could be nice.
Grand Mastery, ability to dual class, more armor choices are pretty nice as well.
edit: also it seems barb rage, which since you don't get tired can activate one after another is 30 seconds (5 rounds) while Berserker Rage is 60 seconds
I disagree with your disagree. Stat gains are somewhat meaningless when you have a hammer that sets your strength to 25 and Draw Upon Holy Might does the same thing. Not to mention the tomes and belts and Machines of Lum the Mads and whatnot.
At least Beserker rage always gives you bonuses to hit and damage. That would be more of a bonus than the nothing you get as a raging 25 Str Barbarian. Con bump I guess could be nice.
Ahh yes, how could I forget. The sole measure of a character's worth is their end-game worth. Who cares about the entirety of BG1, and 75% of BGII.
Sarcasm aside, I get sick of this attitude. It is just plain illogical. Personally I care far more for enjoying my character throughout the game, not just marveling at their power in late-game BGII and then ToB. There is more to the game than that. Furthermore, you'd have to work damn hard to make a character that isn't impressive by late-game.
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.
Actually, in 1e, they were considered to be sub-classes of fighter. Fighter got 1d10, So did Paladins, but Rangers got 2d8 at level 1 and increased by 1d8 for each level until level 10 (and Fighters and Paladins advanced until level 9). Druids were a sub-class of cleric.
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.
Actually, in 1e, they were considered to be sub-classes of fighter. Fighter got 1d10, So did Paladins, but Rangers got 2d8 at level 1 and increased by 1d8 for each level until level 10 (and Fighters and Paladins advanced until level 9). Druids were a sub-class of cleric.
What would be cool? You *could* have a *Power Attack* special ability (ala the 3E feat) that trades BAB er Thaco heh for damage on a barbarian type character. @Beamdog should make a frenzied zerker kit for Barbarian with Power Attack modal ability.
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.
Actually, in 1e, they were considered to be sub-classes of fighter. Fighter got 1d10, So did Paladins, but Rangers got 2d8 at level 1 and increased by 1d8 for each level until level 10 (and Fighters and Paladins advanced until level 9). Druids were a sub-class of cleric.
Comments
Barbarian Rage > Berserker Rage
d12 hit die > d10 hit die
Improved walkspeed
Halfling Barbarian is badass as hell
Berserker can grandmaster anything except ranged weapons, barbarians can only get one (or two) points in proficience.
Make them able to dual class and it will become al little better.
The thinking behind it seems related more to roleplay than to in-practice game mechanics.
The barbie gets extra fast movement, d12, a rage that doesn't cause fatigue, but doesn't protect against imprisonment, and physical damage resistance.
What does he give up for all of that? Heavy armor, d10 instead of d12, no extra movement, no protection against imprisonment, and only two pips for weapon.
I don't really see this dichotomy as a clear win for either one. The berserker seems to have at least a slight edge for pure powergaming, but, if roleplay is a factor, they become equals.
If RP is factored in, then the berserker is a heavy-armor-wearing juggernaut type of character, who fits into almost any faction.
The barbarian conjures up images of the "noble savage", defending animals, nature, and a simpler way of life, and a foil to the lawful evil imperialism of supposedly more "advanced" cultures and governments. Along these lines, I think that the "beastmaster" would have been better as a barbarian kit than as a ranger kit. Or else, the barbarian could have been a ranger kit.
The way they've written everything, the one thing that seems certain is that the barbarian should not be its own class. It should have been either a fighter or a ranger kit. Probably a ranger kit - the abilties of two free pips in dual wield and limited cleric or druid spells would compensate for the loss of Imprisonment protection, heavy armor, and weapon grandmastery.
Massive Strength and Constitution gains > blocking one random effect that only comes into play in lategame BGII
Really?
And do you have some inside information confirming this or is this just another "internet fact" thats been bandied about?
Seems to me that with 3e coming out it just might have been the devs idea that it would be kewl to add some new classes from it -
you know since they were D&D nerds to begin with...
and the game was based on D&D...
and new stuff is way more kewl than old stuff...
But if the facts say it was once again the evil empire forcing the devs to include these new classes against their will becuase the marketing dept has the hammer and the game developers are just pawns in their little game.............
wanders on...
3e D&D came out around the same time as BG2:SoA. The new classes weren't the only "3isms" implemented (the look and feel of the game being another).
I've never read any official confirmation on this, but it's logical enough that I'm comfortable with assuming it to be true unless a reliable source outright contradicts it.
Also keep in mind, the current berserker barely resembles it's 2nd edition version. The PnP version's rage is just sleep, charm/dom, Command immunity, a +4 save bonus vs hold and paralyze for the duration of the rage, prevents 1 fear on a failed save but ends the rage. +3 damage, +1 hit, +5 hp, Doesn't roll saves vs death effect until the rage ends (which they then all roll at once) but also cannot benefit from any form of magical healing until the rage ends, for the duration of the rage their current HP is hidden, and they have to a save every round of combat or go completely berserk for 3 rounds (just like Minsc's berserk), attacking friend and foe a like.
They're also not allowed to use ranged weapons while berserk, and cannot spend proficiency points on ranged weapons at creation.
And technically, NO fighter kit should be able to get grand mastery. It's supposed to be reserved for a single-class, kitless fighter only (a fighter could get GM and then dual-class, but that class can only spend a max of * in all other weapons, since Specialization/GM is part of fighter advancement, which the new class doesn't have. All fighter kits are capped at specialization except the Kensai and the Archer (which is actually a fighter kit that rangers can optionally use).
The kensai selects 1 Sword-type weapon at creation they have ** in and gets a free 3rd point in it, but is otherwise limited to ** for all others. (Their bonus hit/damage/weapon speed, and Kai all require the use of the Mastered weapon to function (and only apply to the mastered weapon's type)...they can also wear armor if they wish, but lose their bonuses (including the -2 ac) while it's equipped, since their style requires freedom to move. The PnP version is also allowed to use thrown weapons and bracers with no penalty. Their only restrictions they lose their bonuses while wearing armor and/or not using their mastered weapon type, and cannot advance further in the class if they become chaotic, since their fighting style requires discipline to master (but retain any bonuses they already have) (their xp stops 1 xp from their next level until their alignment becomes valid again or they dual-class to something else).
And the Archer can put up to *** into any bow-type weapon (but not crossbows or other ranged weapons which are limited to **) but can only only be proficient in melee weapons and can never benefit from extra attacks when using melee weapons (but gains an extra attack when using any bow (but not crossbows) and not wearing armor heavier then studded leather, total of base 3), and gains an additional extra attack (base 4 total) when they spend a round to position themselves that lasts until they move (also requires light armor). (they're otherwise pretty much like the BG version, except ANY character in PnP can make called shots, Blades (thrown weapons only) and Archers (bows only) simply do so without the -4 thac0 penalty) (In PNP bows do NOT benefit from level or specialization based extra attacks, they get a flat 2 attacks per round, unless the bow has an ability that grants extra attacks, or a kit ability that says otherwise, as the archer does).
At least Beserker rage always gives you bonuses to hit and damage. That would be more of a bonus than the nothing you get as a raging 25 Str Barbarian. Con bump I guess could be nice.
Grand Mastery, ability to dual class, more armor choices are pretty nice as well.
edit: also it seems barb rage, which since you don't get tired can activate one after another is 30 seconds (5 rounds) while Berserker Rage is 60 seconds
Sarcasm aside, I get sick of this attitude. It is just plain illogical. Personally I care far more for enjoying my character throughout the game, not just marveling at their power in late-game BGII and then ToB. There is more to the game than that. Furthermore, you'd have to work damn hard to make a character that isn't impressive by late-game. These are good points.