Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 2837615" data-attributes="member: 22882">Don't LikeI don't like the name, since the class really doesn't model any particular type of 'barbarian,' much less all of them - although I only MIND the name if I have a GM who is slaved to the idea that class names/fluff are more than suggestions.Actually, I don't like the barbarian's flavor in general.&nbsp; It's all over the map, culturally-speaking.&nbsp; Rage is pseudo-Norse, fast movement seems more North American, damage reduction... eh, I don't know, someplace/time where ritual scarification was common, which is true of a lot of &quot;barbaric&quot;/tribal cultures but not, off hand, of Norse or most North American. :\&nbsp; Throwing the lot together and calling it a generic barbarian doesn't cut it for me, and wouldn't even if I wanted anything more than suggestions in my flavor text.&nbsp; At least make the prepacked fluff/suggestion GOOD.Alignment restriction.&nbsp; How about NO.Illiteracy.&nbsp; I can't tell if this is actually a balance issue (in which case it's bad design because Ranger 1/Barbarian x gets around it) or not (in which case it's bad design because it penalizes the class for no reason).Like Aside from Illiteracy, the 3.5 barbarian is a very well designed class.&nbsp; It's good enough to be worth going to 20th level and gets some interesting abilities at most levels.Indeed, barbarian is probably the only class in the PHB I would consider playing to 20th level (which isn't to say it's especially STRONG at higher levels, just enjoyable).On the flip side, barbarian doesn't penalize multiclassing the way spellcasting classes do.&nbsp; Barbarian 1-4 and 6 are perfectly viable components of a multiclassed character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 2837615, member: 22882"] [B]Don't Like[/B] I don't like the name, since the class really doesn't model any particular type of 'barbarian,' much less all of them - although I only MIND the name if I have a GM who is slaved to the idea that class names/fluff are more than suggestions. Actually, I don't like the barbarian's flavor in general. It's all over the map, culturally-speaking. Rage is pseudo-Norse, fast movement seems more North American, damage reduction... eh, I don't know, someplace/time where ritual scarification was common, which is true of a lot of "barbaric"/tribal cultures but not, off hand, of Norse or most North American. :\ Throwing the lot together and calling it a generic barbarian doesn't cut it for me, and wouldn't even if I wanted anything more than suggestions in my flavor text. At least make the prepacked fluff/suggestion GOOD. Alignment restriction. How about NO. Illiteracy. I can't tell if this is actually a balance issue (in which case it's bad design because Ranger 1/Barbarian x gets around it) or not (in which case it's bad design because it penalizes the class for no reason). [B]Like[/B] Aside from Illiteracy, the 3.5 barbarian is a very well designed class. It's good enough to be worth going to 20th level and gets some interesting abilities at most levels. Indeed, barbarian is probably the only class in the PHB I would consider playing to 20th level (which isn't to say it's especially STRONG at higher levels, just enjoyable). On the flip side, barbarian doesn't penalize multiclassing the way spellcasting classes do. Barbarian 1-4 and 6 are perfectly viable components of a multiclassed character. [/QUOTE]

Verification