For the moment, the movement of the Barbarian to the Fighter kit list is a UI change more than a functional one. We can look at altering the mechanics, but I would hesitate to change this behavior since it's pretty clearly intentional.
Giving barbarians an option to dual-class won't break the balance because berserkers already can do it, and generally speaking berserkers are at least not worse than barbarians, although I would agree that berserkers are stronger than barbarians.
Giving barbarians an option to dual-class won't break the balance because berserkers already can do it, and generally speaking berserkers are at least not worse than barbarians, although I would agree that berserkers are stronger than barbarians.
I would support a change like that.
It's not really a question of whether or not it would be balanced, although that's certainly a consideration. It's more a question of design intent. The Barbarian and Berserker are very, very similar in design. One of the differences between them is that Berserkers can dual-class and Barbarians can't. If you remove that difference, they become more similar.
Which isn't to say that we definitely won't do it, but like anything, when it comes to changing vanilla behavior, we'll need to examine it closely.
Can you change the dual class options for barbarians. Or perhaps more interestingly this could be something @subtledoctor could use when he makes his interesting kitted multiclasses. Being a barbarian version of a cleric or druid etc, rather than a more civilised one.
But @dee, aren't you already changing the barbarian from the original design intent by moving it from the class menu to the fighter kit menu? Bioware must have been aware that functionally it was actually a kit, yet they clearly put it alongside the other classes for a reason.
I don't really mind, I'm just saying if you're changing it already you might as well add the dual-class functionality while you're at it. I accept barbarians and berserkers are already very similar but I don't see how keeping the one that's already slightly weaker nerfed helps things.
Giving barbarians an option to dual-class won't break the balance because berserkers already can do it, and generally speaking berserkers are at least not worse than barbarians, although I would agree that berserkers are stronger than barbarians.
I would support a change like that.
It's not really a question of whether or not it would be balanced, although that's certainly a consideration. It's more a question of design intent. The Barbarian and Berserker are very, very similar in design. One of the differences between them is that Berserkers can dual-class and Barbarians can't. If you remove that difference, they become more similar.
Which isn't to say that we definitely won't do it, but like anything, when it comes to changing vanilla behavior, we'll need to examine it closely.
I would say it was only "design intent" in order to create the illusion that Barbarian was a new class rather than a kit, and therefore had to behave like a class. Bezerker and Barbarian are already too similar: duel classing is only different if the bezerker happens to be human.
From a role playing point of view, barbarian is more cultural, and hence it makes a lot of sense to have a barbarian cleric (for example). It's also less OP, with limits on weapon proficiencies and armour.
But @dee, aren't you already changing the barbarian from the original design intent by moving it from the class menu to the fighter kit menu? Bioware must have been aware that functionally it was actually a kit, yet they clearly put it alongside the other classes for a reason.
I don't really mind, I'm just saying if you're changing it already you might as well add the dual-class functionality while you're at it. I accept barbarians and berserkers are already very similar but I don't see how keeping the one that's already slightly weaker nerfed helps things.
Currently the change is a matter of UI; the change being proposed in this thread is a matter of mechanics. It's a subtle difference, but there it is.
Since we're talking about Barbarians and I don't want to open a new thread:
Barbarians (and Monks) increased movement rate is disabled by Free Action items.
Which is bad for at least 2 reasons: 1) it's not a magical increase, they are just fast due to training. 2) it makes counterproductive to use the notorious Flail of the Ages+5 / Defender of Easthaven, that would be particularly good on for this class.
Edit: had to change "B )" into a "2)" to avoid the smiley...
If you come at it from the point of a completely new player, it looks like dual classed barbarians are arbiterally forbidden (Like duel classed stalkers where in original BG2). Humans can duel class out of a kit, unless that kit happens to be a barbarian.
Barbarian and Sorcerer where added to BG2 as a nod to 3rd edition, which where the current PnP rules when it came out. I suspect the Berzerker kit had already been done when they decided they had to put in some 3rd edition stuff.
Barbarian ... added to BG2 as a nod to 3rd edition,
Barbarian was a 2nd Edition fighter kit years before 3rd Edition was even a twinkle in someone's eye... Barbarian and Berserker were both kits from the same book. From like 1989 or something.
That's irrelevant. Yes, the Barbarian and the Monk existed on some other form prior to 3E. It doesn't matter - the compromise between 2e and 3e is clear on BG2. It's not a far-fetched observation - the evidence is there. And understanding that can give players a different perspective on certain design decisions.
That's why it's so infuriating when every time someone makes that observation someone else immediately points out "these kits existed on [random 1e or 2e supplement]". Guys. That doesn't change anything. It's a non-argument.
Barbarian ... added to BG2 as a nod to 3rd edition,
Barbarian was a 2nd Edition fighter kit years before 3rd Edition was even a twinkle in someone's eye... Barbarian and Berserker were both kits from the same book. From like 1989 or something.
And there was a first edition version before that (Unearthed Arcana). Nevertheless, it only became a core class in 3rd edition, and the BG version is clearly based on 3rd edition.
The point is, the Barbarian was a late edition to BG2, based squarely on the 3rd edition class (damage reduction, fast movement, d12 HD) inserted because of worries a 2nd edition game would prove unpopular when 3rd edition was current. They admitted as much on the forums at the time. And that is why there are two very similar fighter kits in BG2.
This could lead to a nasty use of dual-classing if you can dual as a barbarian into a cleric after you got a couple of HLA. That would give you 20% (Innate)+ 20% (Defender of Easthaven)+ 40% (Hardiness)+ up to 25% (armor of faith) which is 105% resistance to melee physical damage, and 110% to ranged physical damage (DoE gives 0 but Belt of inertial barrier gives 25%). That, along with barbarian rage and cloak of mirroring, would make a character that is totally immune to everything besides Imprisonment. Your armor of faith can be dispelled indeed but it is a 1 cast-time spell (instant with Amulet of power) level 1 spell (you may have so many of them). This would take quite some time before you can get your abilities back, but once you do the game is trivialized.
Right now physical immunity cannot be achieved without an exploit (F/M/C polymorphing into mustard jelly, then dispelling the mustard jelly weapon and using the various physical resistance spells) and even then it cannot be renewed instantly without extra sequencers.
Since we are talking about barbarians however, the changes on cloak of the sewers will give them, thanks to hardiness, an undispellable immunity to physical damage as soon as they reach level 20, if they dispel the Mustard jelly weapon (with the cloak that creates MMM) and have defender of easthaven equipped. But this as well is an exploit. Dwarven defender into Mustard jelly would get 100% in the end with their defensive stance without exploit, but at the cost of movement speed and decent damage output.
Neither are not too worrisome however since this would be available at late stages of the game anyway, and right now a barbarian is quite close to this anyway (80% resistance to physical damage with Foebane or Blackrazor is already more than enough to tank anything, and they may already have resistance to both status effects and magic damage).
Comments
I would support a change like that.
Which isn't to say that we definitely won't do it, but like anything, when it comes to changing vanilla behavior, we'll need to examine it closely.
I don't really mind, I'm just saying if you're changing it already you might as well add the dual-class functionality while you're at it. I accept barbarians and berserkers are already very similar but I don't see how keeping the one that's already slightly weaker nerfed helps things.
From a role playing point of view, barbarian is more cultural, and hence it makes a lot of sense to have a barbarian cleric (for example). It's also less OP, with limits on weapon proficiencies and armour.
Barbarians (and Monks) increased movement rate is disabled by Free Action items.
Which is bad for at least 2 reasons:
1) it's not a magical increase, they are just fast due to training.
2) it makes counterproductive to use the notorious Flail of the Ages+5 / Defender of Easthaven, that would be particularly good on for this class.
Edit: had to change "B )" into a "2)" to avoid the smiley...
Must be because of a mod I installed
That's why it's so infuriating when every time someone makes that observation someone else immediately points out "these kits existed on [random 1e or 2e supplement]". Guys. That doesn't change anything. It's a non-argument.
Kthnxbai
That would give you 20% (Innate)+ 20% (Defender of Easthaven)+ 40% (Hardiness)+ up to 25% (armor of faith) which is 105% resistance to melee physical damage, and 110% to ranged physical damage (DoE gives 0 but Belt of inertial barrier gives 25%). That, along with barbarian rage and cloak of mirroring, would make a character that is totally immune to everything besides Imprisonment. Your armor of faith can be dispelled indeed but it is a 1 cast-time spell (instant with Amulet of power) level 1 spell (you may have so many of them).
This would take quite some time before you can get your abilities back, but once you do the game is trivialized.
Right now physical immunity cannot be achieved without an exploit (F/M/C polymorphing into mustard jelly, then dispelling the mustard jelly weapon and using the various physical resistance spells) and even then it cannot be renewed instantly without extra sequencers.
Since we are talking about barbarians however, the changes on cloak of the sewers will give them, thanks to hardiness, an undispellable immunity to physical damage as soon as they reach level 20, if they dispel the Mustard jelly weapon (with the cloak that creates MMM) and have defender of easthaven equipped. But this as well is an exploit. Dwarven defender into Mustard jelly would get 100% in the end with their defensive stance without exploit, but at the cost of movement speed and decent damage output.
Neither are not too worrisome however since this would be available at late stages of the game anyway, and right now a barbarian is quite close to this anyway (80% resistance to physical damage with Foebane or Blackrazor is already more than enough to tank anything, and they may already have resistance to both status effects and magic damage).