Is the barbarian too front loaded?

[Darklone]

Some people here wrote something like: Never take one level of barbarian as a spellcaster.

I think it's a matter of the campaign you're in... but I've seen many sorcerers (ok, there the level loss in spellcasting hurt), clerics, bards (they rock) and psions with one barbarian level. The first one, naturally.

Some of these campaigns went till level 15, so my view to the topic is a little bit on the low level side. Plus, my campaigns tend to be pretty combat heavy and NOT necessarily CR balanced... I play status quo campaigns. So, in these games, that one level saved the characters more than once or gave them their biggest beef. The bbn1/brdX of a friend for example used a polearm and breastplate to form a defensive wall in front of the rest of the group together with the towershield cleric.

So IMHO the one level of barbarian gives a nice possibility to change existing character classes a lot and make them much more harder to kill.

 

[Bad Paper]

1) As DM, I forbid one-level dips.

2) I have never seen a multiclassed barbarian in any of my games. I have a 10th? 11th? (dunno, it's been a while) level barbarian right now, and I couldn't imagine watering him down with some lesser class.

3) L0RG SMASH!

4) The Chaotic Good fighter in my campaign took ten levels of fighter and six levels of holy liberator. No barbarian there; it would screw with his full-plate-wearing two-weapon-fighting schtick.

5) A minor way to fix perceived front-loading of the barbarian is to revoke literacy for any character with a level of barbarian. Your wizard took a level of barbarian? Oh, I'm sorry you can't use your scrolls until you burn two skill points and take a bath!

 

[2nd Ed Paladin]

As a DM, I don't let a player "dip" into barbarian unless there is a valid background to support it, or other RP reason to do so. Just doesn't seem logical to me otherwise (yes I know fireballs are not logical either).

That said, I have strong powergamer tendencies and like seeing what certain builds will do.

- first En World post!

 

[nittanytbone]

Some people here wrote something like: Never take one level of barbarian as a spellcaster.

I think it's a matter of the campaign you're in... but I've seen many sorcerers (ok, there the level loss in spellcasting hurt), clerics, bards (they rock) and psions with one barbarian level. The first one, naturally.

Well, there's, your problem, you consider bards to be a spellcaster!

I'll be a bit more precise - For a primary spellcaster (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, etc), nothing they get out of the bard level will make up for the loss of a caster level UNLESS you are carefully building a "gish" using a PrC like Rage Mage or perhaps Spellsword, etc.

So, if your players are cherrypicking barbarian, its only a "powergaming" issue for melee classes. Any primary spellcaster will be hurting themselves and reducing their potential.

 

[frankthedm]

If a DM thinks it's frontloaded, move Rage backwards.

That sounds like a decent Idea. I know it is the meat and potatoes of the class, but having to wait until 2nd level Gear and HP before you can drop your AC might make the class less likely to die. Plus this makes barbarian a little more reasonable when monsters start taking character levels in it.

I kind of like the Idea of

1st level: Fast movement, light armor, shields + simple weapons, greatclub & 1 martial weapon.

2nd Level: Rage, remaining martial weapons*, medium armor.

*Though I'd rather barbarians only get 1 martial weapon per level.


Heck, I really like the idea of most class's armor proficiencies start at light & medium and gain heavy at 2nd.

 

[Nail]

One DM I know had exactly the same issue, along with rogues in mithral breastplates: he house ruled Mithral to require proficiency..

I House-rule "there is no mithril". Simpler by far.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

As a DM, I don't let a player "dip" into barbarian unless there is a valid background to support it, or other RP reason to do so.

Yeah. There's just no reason for a character to have only one level in any class. They might spread their levels across different classes, or alternate levels, or even switch classes entirely... but I can't see someone learning only the rudiments of a class and never touching it again.

Of course, if it's a single level in a class, followed by progress in a Prestige Class related to it, it's not as big a deal. A Sorcerer taking a level of Barbarian before going into Rage Mage or Eldritch Knight makes sense.

edit: Though, to be fair, I'm less tolerant of excessive multiclassing because I allow Gestalt characters in my games. There's less reason for it... and it's a bookkeeping nightmare.

 

[frankthedm]

I House-rule "there is no mithril". Simpler by far.

I just say Breast plate and Fullplate don't get reduced weight catagory at all because their limitations come from the plates being too solid and interlocked. Loe and behold, You'll actually see someone in Mithral Half Plate and Mithral Banded mail! Though mithral Splint mail would still suck...

To compensate Mithral, I do also treat it as Silver so there is a reason to make weapons from it.

 

[el-remmen]

Multiclassing has been a part of the game since 1st edition.

*SNIP*

I define "dipping" as taking one level of a class with no in-game or sufficient backstory explanation for it in order to gain the mechanical benefits.
--------------------------------------------------------------

[MOD]
On an unrelated note, I don't really think this is a "rules" thread. There is no question about how a rule works or a new way to use an untinkered existing rule. It is more "Opinion on a class", so I think it should go in "General".
[/MOD]

 

[Seeker95]

makes Barbarian just a little too tempting to “One Dip” into.

That's why we have a DM. One-dipping is deniable.