I'm just blown away how a simple menu change has sparked such an intense conversation. Beamdog could not have anticipated this reaction.
Just use a mod. Seriously. Stop complaining and use a mod. Nothing is different from before except how you select your character during character generation.
Because names matter.
If you changed the name of Magic Missile to Percy's Darts of Doom, without changing gameplay in any way, you would not expect it to pass without comment.
There are lots of things that have zero effect on gameplay, but still affect the overall experience. Changing all the goblin sprites to child sprites for example.
Likewise, if something is changed from a base class to a kit, it still matters, even though it's "just a name".
If Beamdog didn't anticipate a reaction, then they really understand very little about writing.
Actually I agree with @mashedtaters in that such a minor change has sparked such controversy. It really is no big deal that Barbarians are now a kit. There are many more changes that warrant this level of feedback. People are just complaining for the sake of it.
Actually, I don't think people complained here, they offered thoughts on updating the description of the kit and shared views on a possible feature of giving barbarians an option to dual-class, which is not a minor thing, and can be looked at in the same way as any other feature that may or may not be implemented in the EE.
Allowing Barbarians to dual-class is a great feature request. But maybe I miss-interpreted the mood, for which I apologise, but it felt that people were unhappy with the change from class to kit.
I don't think people actually mind that much about the change from class to kit, especially if they understand that it was needed to add a new class to the game.
We just differ our opinion about the possibility to dualclass, with one half saying "Barbarians were never able to dualclass, so they should remain unable to dualclass." and the other half saying "Barbarians weren't able to dualclass, because they were considered a class of their own that was unavailable to Multiclass. Now that they are no longer a class of their own, they should be available to dualclass."
I also must have misinterpreted the mood. I thought people were complaining and criticizing beamdogs decision, essentially nitpicking over a tiny thing that really doesn't matter, and is only a selection change not even worth mentioning, imho (obviously other feel differently). I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I have also been known to come off sharper in my posts than originally intended.
I'm pretty sure the reason barbarians were not allowed to dual class in vanilla is because they are capable of reaching 100% damage resistance if they dual to cleric.
I'm pretty sure the reason barbarians were not allowed to dual class in vanilla is because they are capable of reaching 100% damage resistance if they dual to cleric.
They weren't "capable of reaching 100% physical damage resistance". The Flail of Easthaven wasn't in the original release of BG2, and obviously, none of the ToB content was either. It had nothing whatsoever to do with 100% damage resistance. As I've stated before Barbarian and Sorcerer where added as token 3rd edition content. I don't know if the old Bioware forums are kept on record anywhere, but it was stated at the time that this was the case.
If 100% damage resistance is such a problem, it could easily be tackled with a cap. However, I do not believe this is the case. Other classes (e.g. Mages) can make themselves pretty much invunerable in many encounters without it being a problem.
As @Fardragon points out. Gaining 100% damage resist is only possible with the Defender of Easthaven (I never even knew that merchant was there!!). This item was added after the barbarian and so cannot be the reason that a barbarian cannot dual class.
It boggles my mind that people have the gall to try to dictate how Beamdog should design their game assets.
Isn't that what both sides are doing? The primary argument in this thread hasn't been between "barbarians should be able to dual" and "Beamdog should decide."
Besides, you can already tromp around with complete immunity to physical damage. It's called "being a mage".
Beamdog said, about 3 pages back, "we are not going to change barbarians and allow them to dual class." [/i]
You make it look as they said 100% "No".
In fact, they said exactly "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." It doesn't read 100% "No" to me.
@subtledoctor your post confused me abit. If it is me that has offended in anyway I apologise.
Personally I don't like powergaming and my brother can testify that all my homemade, table-top chars are flawed. I regularly roll archers and mages with 10 str and 9 con.
I'm actually planning on going through SOD with a Paladin with Str 15, Dex 17, Con 15
My thought process is simple: the more options and the more opportunities for customization, the better.
I agree that dualing a Barbarian or Beserker into a Cleric seems strange (Unless it was Tempus, that could work).
Likewise, a Kensai dedicating his life to a single blade, suddenly selling out and becoming a mage is just unrealistic.
I think what @subtledoctor is saying--and with which I would agree, personally--is that if the request is "Enable the Barbarian kit to dual-class like any other Fighter kit", then the argument should be on the merits of that change (i.e. it provides more options, it wouldn't be unblanced, etc.).
The argument shouldn't be focused on the placement of the Barbarian in the Fighter kit list; that problem is easily solved by updating the kit description (which, again, is not a change to the rules; it's a change to the communication of the rules that are already in place--much like the specialist mage kits).
What I'm saying, I guess, is this: If you want us to allow the Barbarian to dual-class, make the argument for why it would be a positive change, and why you would want it. Everything else is irrelevant.
I would enjoy an option to dual-class my barbarian.
It could give me plenty, plenty of RP character ideas, for example, a Barbarian/Thief who’s called Conan.
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 mean, barbarians lose GM and they can’t put on a heavy armour. They’re not protected from Feeblemind and Imprisonment. Yes, they do some things better – they move faster, they’re immune to backstabs, they have better HP rolls, they get innate resistances, but these bonuses look fine if we compare them to kensai/mages, wizard slayers/thieves and berzerkers/clerics.
I would like to see barbarians able to dual-class solely because it gives the player more options and also as it adds dynamic to a charactor's personality/backstory especially in Icewind Dale.
That barbarian from the Uthgardt Tribe was told he would never amount to anything... but now he's a journeyman mage!!
As @bengoshi pointed out, allowing a Barbarian to dual class is not game breaking as beserkers can already do it.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with barbarians being allowed to dual class. I use a mod to allow them to, not because I have played a barbarian, but because I like to have options. If we want to start a discussion about whether or not barbarians should be allowed to dual class on the merits of why it would be fun, then let's do it.
But, honestly... saying that barbarians should be allowed to dual class simply because now they are a kit...which isn't true, because they were always a kit... so, in effect, saying that barbarians should be allowed to dual class only on the merits of how it is selected during character creation is a totally bogus and unsubstantiated argument, and has, up to this point, from my understanding, been the main focus and feeling of this thread.
I believe that Beamdog should update the format of the barbarian description to more fall in line with the other kits: as @Dee said, a list of advantages and disadvantages, to make it clear for new players. This would certainly be more in keeping with the format change that beamdog made. (A format change is different than a rule change--requesting a rule change because of a format change just doesn't make sense to me.) But remember that the old description said nothing about them being unable to dual class either, so that confusion was potentially still there for new players to begin with. If anything, updating the description would be an improvement made by beamdog, not an oversight, which is what I get the feeling has been the main focus of this thread.
I personally would love...absolutely LOVE... If every class could dual/multi with every other class! Not every player feels that way. It is one of the drawbacks of 2e rules, imho. But I understand the limitations of the infinity engine do not allow for that at this time.
So sad...no ranger/Mage.
So I agree... Argue why you want to dual class your barbarian, not that it should be allowed to dual class now that it is selected differently.
Although I actually haven't tried doing so yet, I was always intrigued by the Barbarian -> Druid dual as a potential RP playthrough, either in the BG series or IWD. My idea was that the character, as they journeyed & progressed, gained a deep appreciation of nature, to the point where they sought to champion its cause and protect it.
Edit: I still don't think Beamdog should allow Barbarians to dual-class, however. Leave that to the modders.
Well to put my reasons that I think it would add to the game. I currently never use barbarians. Compared to berserkers, they seem both weaker (proficiencies) and more squishy (less armour, and their rage is less protective). The hitpoints seem pretty minimal (18 isn't much for a front liner) and the other benefits of their rage just don't seem that impressive. They aren't a bad class, but they just seem the weaker brother of another class.
If they could dual class to, a thief or a druid, suddenly the armour restrictions are taken right out, the hp becomes more significant (since the overall pool is smaller and you aren't necessarily the front line), and frankly barb/druid seems to make more sense than zerker/druid. I guess it could be restricted from mage or cleric for RP (either way, not a big deal).
That said, I don't have a lot of experience in the super late game where apparently armour is irrelevant and the damage reduction dominates, so maybe the balance breaks down there.
I'd especially like to multiclass a half-orc (another thing I never use) barbarian/shaman, but I guess that's not going to happen.
Comments
Because names matter.
If you changed the name of Magic Missile to Percy's Darts of Doom, without changing gameplay in any way, you would not expect it to pass without comment.
There are lots of things that have zero effect on gameplay, but still affect the overall experience. Changing all the goblin sprites to child sprites for example.
Likewise, if something is changed from a base class to a kit, it still matters, even though it's "just a name".
If Beamdog didn't anticipate a reaction, then they really understand very little about writing.
We just differ our opinion about the possibility to dualclass, with one half saying "Barbarians were never able to dualclass, so they should remain unable to dualclass." and the other half saying "Barbarians weren't able to dualclass, because they were considered a class of their own that was unavailable to Multiclass. Now that they are no longer a class of their own, they should be available to dualclass."
Though that would likely put Dragon Disciple as a seperate kit still and lead to all sorts of confusion.
I'm pretty sure the reason barbarians were not allowed to dual class in vanilla is because they are capable of reaching 100% damage resistance if they dual to cleric.
They weren't "capable of reaching 100% physical damage resistance". The Flail of Easthaven wasn't in the original release of BG2, and obviously, none of the ToB content was either. It had nothing whatsoever to do with 100% damage resistance. As I've stated before Barbarian and Sorcerer where added as token 3rd edition content. I don't know if the old Bioware forums are kept on record anywhere, but it was stated at the time that this was the case.
If 100% damage resistance is such a problem, it could easily be tackled with a cap. However, I do not believe this is the case. Other classes (e.g. Mages) can make themselves pretty much invunerable in many encounters without it being a problem.
Isn't that what both sides are doing? The primary argument in this thread hasn't been between "barbarians should be able to dual" and "Beamdog should decide."
Besides, you can already tromp around with complete immunity to physical damage. It's called "being a mage".
You make it look as they said 100% "No".
In fact, they said exactly "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." It doesn't read 100% "No" to me.
I wasn't...
I never actually use a barbarian, my Charname is too intelligent.
As you can see, when we do have the gall to tell Beamdog how to design their game assets, the company actually listen.
Good for you Beamdog!!
Personally I don't like powergaming and my brother can testify that all my homemade, table-top chars are flawed. I regularly roll archers and mages with 10 str and 9 con.
I'm actually planning on going through SOD with a Paladin with Str 15, Dex 17, Con 15
My thought process is simple: the more options and the more opportunities for customization, the better.
I agree that dualing a Barbarian or Beserker into a Cleric seems strange (Unless it was Tempus, that could work).
Likewise, a Kensai dedicating his life to a single blade, suddenly selling out and becoming a mage is just unrealistic.
I like realism in my fantasy worlds.
The argument shouldn't be focused on the placement of the Barbarian in the Fighter kit list; that problem is easily solved by updating the kit description (which, again, is not a change to the rules; it's a change to the communication of the rules that are already in place--much like the specialist mage kits).
What I'm saying, I guess, is this: If you want us to allow the Barbarian to dual-class, make the argument for why it would be a positive change, and why you would want it. Everything else is irrelevant.
It could give me plenty, plenty of RP character ideas, for example, a Barbarian/Thief who’s called Conan.
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 mean, barbarians lose GM and they can’t put on a heavy armour. They’re not protected from Feeblemind and Imprisonment. Yes, they do some things better – they move faster, they’re immune to backstabs, they have better HP rolls, they get innate resistances, but these bonuses look fine if we compare them to kensai/mages, wizard slayers/thieves and berzerkers/clerics.
That barbarian from the Uthgardt Tribe was told he would never amount to anything... but now he's a journeyman mage!!
As @bengoshi pointed out, allowing a Barbarian to dual class is not game breaking as beserkers can already do it.
But, honestly... saying that barbarians should be allowed to dual class simply because now they are a kit...which isn't true, because they were always a kit... so, in effect, saying that barbarians should be allowed to dual class only on the merits of how it is selected during character creation is a totally bogus and unsubstantiated argument, and has, up to this point, from my understanding, been the main focus and feeling of this thread.
I believe that Beamdog should update the format of the barbarian description to more fall in line with the other kits: as @Dee said, a list of advantages and disadvantages, to make it clear for new players. This would certainly be more in keeping with the format change that beamdog made. (A format change is different than a rule change--requesting a rule change because of a format change just doesn't make sense to me.) But remember that the old description said nothing about them being unable to dual class either, so that confusion was potentially still there for new players to begin with. If anything, updating the description would be an improvement made by beamdog, not an oversight, which is what I get the feeling has been the main focus of this thread.
So sad...no ranger/Mage.
So I agree... Argue why you want to dual class your barbarian, not that it should be allowed to dual class now that it is selected differently.
Edit: I still don't think Beamdog should allow Barbarians to dual-class, however. Leave that to the modders.
If they could dual class to, a thief or a druid, suddenly the armour restrictions are taken right out, the hp becomes more significant (since the overall pool is smaller and you aren't necessarily the front line), and frankly barb/druid seems to make more sense than zerker/druid. I guess it could be restricted from mage or cleric for RP (either way, not a big deal).
That said, I don't have a lot of experience in the super late game where apparently armour is irrelevant and the damage reduction dominates, so maybe the balance breaks down there.
I'd especially like to multiclass a half-orc (another thing I never use) barbarian/shaman, but I guess that's not going to happen.