And this is different from taking two levels of barbarian how? Oh yeah, instead of getting +1 AC and +1 Reflex saves vs traps, I get a rage ability and +10 to my movement. Hm, tough call.
Is it "tough" or totally different? While you get rage you also lose out on evasion and 4 skill points per level (which is at least 8 for 2 levels, more if we are talking 1st level). It is actually a very tough call. I don't think taking one or the other is an "always" thing, but in my experience, adding the rogue levels fits more archtypes than adding the barb levels.
The point here is that once you invest 2 levels into a character (strictly for the purposes of power gaming), you have invested 2 levels into a character.
Whoa whoa. Who said "strictly for powergaming" about multiclassing? Is that what multiclassing other than evenly represents to you? In that case I think you need to revise some of the gospel you learnt from AD&D 2ed. If I choose to add 1,2, or 3 levels of rogue to my fighter there isn't necessarily anything "powergaming" about it, in fact, in a balanced system my DM shouldnt have to worry about powergaming from how you pick your classes and levels.
The point is your version is far more overloaded than either 3.0 or 3.5, which gives it a good chance of being "broken".
Two levels is two levels. Nothing to shake a stick at. Advancement slows down as you climb up that level ladder. Choose your initial *fast* levels wisely or recklessly cherry pick all you like. Your call.
Is this your way of saying you decreased the level you need to get 2 core rogue abilities but it doesnt make the class any more attractive to multiclass? Because...thats really wrong.
Which explains all those in-class ranks of Spot and Sense Motive that the barbarian will be taking.
You hear a click, you watch someone step on a tile, you open a door and it has more resistance than it should - any of those things can indicate a trap that is "set off", how quickly I react to those things has nothing to do with my sense motive roll (of all things) and while it could be tied to my spot roll, in 3e it isn't. Instead its linked to the reflex saving throw, which is poor for barbarians and good for rogues (a point you didn't bother to quote). Now, giving barbarians and rogues an ability which lets them avoid traps does not necessarily make them equally adept at trap removal, but it gives the barbarian more of a chance than say a fighter or a paladin. That makes sense to me, especially in the context of things like pit traps or outdoor snares and the like.
So is your problem with Trap Sense +x or the way traps are avoided in general? Because the sense motive and spot skills don't come into play (although search and disable device do).
Did I say anything about the monk? No?
No you didn't, but my analogy was as follows. You don't like that the barbarian got an ability to avoid traps because it doesnt fit them, says you. In 3.0 the new monk class got evasion, an ability it shared only with the rogue, which some might say belongs to the rogue more than the monk. In other words, if barbarians had had trap sense from the outset, would you have beef with it?
I personally don't see how a character, whose primary rage ability prevents them from using abilities that require patience or concentration, is going to be more aware of danger than a rogue.
This, I feel, is my strongest argument (or your weakest). It is very easy to see how a barbarian could fend off 2 people on his flanks. It is not so easy to see how the rogue could do this. Im speaking of stereotypes here. Most normal characters are "distracted" by the flank, so that they lose their dexterity bonus (their ability to react, if you will). Barbarians don't lose it because it is natural to them to react on either side, they have seen gangs of animals fight <insert whatever flavor>. Rogues get the ability because they often flank opponents and are supposedly covering openings they usually exploit.
Just because you know what you exploit doesnt mean you have the ability to defend against it, at least in my book, in the real world. I may know how to punch someone or box someones ears, but I dont know a particularly good block for either, especially if Im fighting 2 people on either side of me. Remember, one argument is about rules, does this rule make sense in the context of the rest of the abilities, the other is about flavor, does this rule make sense in the context of this archtype. Imo, the "keeps dex" makes sense for the rogue and the "can't be flanked" makes sense for the barb. Thus, I am happy with 3.5 because it presents a balanced solution for both classes.
Many characters do. Dead levels suck. Call it my personal bias, but I don't think I'm alone on that one.
May I ask how many level 20+ characters youve played? How many were created pre-level 15? If you have problems answering those questions than its safe to say you don't like dead levels because your personal bias is nothing more than an anal nature. IMO.
Also since when do characters need something every level? I think theres about 8 or 9 fighter levels where they don't get anything, and if you count feats as nothing special then just about all 20 are "dead levels". What about a spellcaster in between spell levels? Look at the bard or cleric. Dead levels are no big deal, you still get something every level, some of it just goes on "under the hood".
I was going for balanced...
Try again.
Technik
