D&D 5E Barbarians: Why not multiclass?

[Weathercock]

Halberds themselves are basically just long hafted axes. Not to mention that not all barbarians have to be of the Conan variety.

That said, I too am not a fan of the dominance of Polearms, especially for the Barbarian class (who actually benefit from them more than most other classes, all imagery aside). It's just that, as a mechanical suggestion, they are simply the best choice to take by a ridiculous degree. It's something I'm quite conscious of, and I tried to work around with my own Berserker homebrew variant.

 

[Uchawi]

5E is a 3E light system, so only experience is going to let the player know if the barbarian has any type of staying power or to multiclass right away.

 

[hejtmane]

There's only one slight problem with your analysis. Real Barbarian don't use halberds.

I mean, sure, if they are weaponless and they are forced to pick up the weapon of their enemies for a short period of time in order to slaughter them and hear the lamentations of the townsfolk said halberd-wielding enemies are guarding, why not?

But what self-respecting Barbarian is gallivanting around, lopping off heads and praising Crom for the gift of Wine, Women, and good, um, pole-arms? I mean, the jokes write themselves.

If I remember right Dacian Barbarians used pole arms that cough cough look like Glaives it depends on which Barbarian's you reference when it comes to weapons. The Celts, German, Viking had different weapons almost all them used spears. This does not count what era you are talking about because they changed as well over era's at the end of the day Barbarians had a wide range of diverse weapons depending on tribe, region and era

 

[Mouseferatu]

If I remember right Dacian Barbarians used pole arms that cough cough look like Glaives it depends on which Barbarian's you reference when it comes to weapons.

The falx. Basically a scythe-sword or scythe-spear. And the only weapon the Roman legions encountered that they feared enough to make en masse modifications to their armor--in this case, an extra reinforcing crest on their helms--while in the field on campaign.

Plenty of historical precedent for "barbarians" focusing on pole arms.

 

[S'mon]

The polearm master "butt strike" bonus attack seems both overpowered and visually incredibly stupid. I'm thinking of just removing the bonus attack, keep the opportunity attack on closing enemies.

 

[Weathercock]

Honestly, if you were to do it like that, it would still be a pretty powerful feat (and nobody actually spins a polearm around like an like that in a fight). But that said, I think the real problem is that it can work with GWM to absurd effect (sentinel to lesser extent). Quarterstaffs are fine with the current implementation, for example. I think a better solution would be to simply make it so that you could only benefit from one of the "weapon mastery" feats at a time.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

....
A concept can be different things to different people. Here's three-

1. I like to optimize. I will figure out different ways to multiclass in order to optimize (DPR, spells, something). That's not how I play, but I can understand why some people like that.

2. I like to roleplay. My character just did X, and it makes sense for my character to choose a new "class concept." Maybe the fighter was bested by a spellcaster, and then decides to go study the mystical arts. Or is an accident, and goes from being a surgeon, to being Dr. Strange. Ummm... anyway.

3. I like to design classes. Some people like to customize their class concepts from the beginning, but don't want to design a whole new class. So they map out what they will need to do to have their concept realized.

I don't enjoy doing any of those, but I can understand why some people do. On the other hand, it has been my experience that multiclassing because of unhappiness with a class generally leads to more unhappiness- because you're never as powerful in the new class either. Like anything, if you do it thoughtfully and with purpose, it tends to work a lot better than it you do it as a reaction to regret. YMMV.

I'd like to emphasize #3. Your DM might not let you design a new class, thus in effect "making" you MC. 2 and 3 are generally the reasons why i do MC. Few if any game system that has classes has really had one that really allows me to RP the kind of characters i'd like. At least not all of the time.

 

[TwoSix]

I just couldn't play a polearm character, even if the feat allowed me to roll d00 for damage.

Man, I'd play a 4-headed hermaphroditic snail from the planet Zorberg if I can roll 1d100 for damage.