Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="grodog" data-source="post: 3234770" data-attributes="member: 1613">OK, here's a comparison between the UA barbarian class and the version originally published in Dragon #63:All the same or close enough not to quibble (Dragon version doesn't specify "as 3rd druid" for secondary skills).These advantages are not present in the original article.  In Dragon 65 (page 10), Gygax mentioned that barbarians---because they would not use magic---gain the same progression in ability to hit creatures requiring magical weapons as do standard monsters:  +1 at 4th, +2 at 6th, +3 at 8th, +4 at 10th, +5 at 12th.  No bonuses are conferred to hit or to damage, just the ability to strike successfully.  All the same, although there were no ability score minimums (and the barbarian's generation method did pave the way for Method V, although the article numbers of dice rolled doesn't match exactly what appears in UA).  Restriction not present in Dragon 63.Restrictions not present in Dragon 63 version because barbarians cannot/will not use magic items at all, and will "shun" MUs (and likely higher-level clerics, too).  In addition, they are not able to be psionic (in the event that you used psionics), and were not eligible for weapon specialization.  FWIW, Gygax wrote a long discussion about the feedback that he had received on the barbarian in Dragon 67 (starting on page 64), which may be worth revisiting to gain some additional insight into his intentions when designing the class (in particular that for the PC to be viable at high level play, it would require 18 Str, 16 Dex, 17 Con, at minimums; and that Dex bonuses to AC are denied in many situations).  He also made note in the original article that the secondary and tertiary abilities were only most effective/useful when in familiar/native terrain.One of the reasons that I personally preferred the Dragon 63 version of the class was that it completely restricted PC barbarians from using magical weapons, which remains truer to my sense of what the barbarian was intended to represent (Conan, Kothar, Niall, Thongor, Fafhrd, etc. vs. Elric, the Grey Mouser, Cudgel, etc.).  That key restriction has kept any player from using the barbarian as a long-term PC in any game I've ever run:  players like the magic goodies and aren't willing to give them, up, and, per Trent's other comments, the barbarian demands a certain style and setting of play that doesn't mesh with what many players consider the default/traditional D&D setting.  Unrelatedly, a correction to my earlier post:  weapon specialization first appeared in Dragon 66 (page 27), as well, not in UA as I stated.</blockquote>

Verification