Szatany
First Post
Should barbarian be rather a fighter subclass than a full class? I can see it working either way, and I'm curious about opinions of others.
Why it should be fighter's subclass:
- barbarian seems rather one-dimensional as a class, compared to fighter and even to 5e paladin
- warlord is roughly a concept of similar breadth, and it's not a separate class
- knight is is like above, and it will be a figher subclass
Why it shoudn't:
- it's been a base class since forever
- there could be subclasses for a barbarian, as proved by 3e's prestige classes
Why it should be fighter's subclass:
- barbarian seems rather one-dimensional as a class, compared to fighter and even to 5e paladin
- warlord is roughly a concept of similar breadth, and it's not a separate class
- knight is is like above, and it will be a figher subclass
Why it shoudn't:
- it's been a base class since forever
- there could be subclasses for a barbarian, as proved by 3e's prestige classes