Is the barbarian too front loaded?

[Aaron L]

I once made a grapple monkey that was a monk/ranger/wizard/fleshwarper. Yeah, we do these things. What else is there to do but break the system?

Theres nothing wrong with it at all if thats how you have fun with the game. It's just that I read so many people complaining[i/] about it (thats the annoying part), but I've never encountered anything worthy of complaint in my own experience.

Plus, I wouldn't consider that abusing the system, I'd consider it building a character to fit a specific concept. You should see my Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger/Abjurant Champion/Loremaster.


Hot Dang!!!

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

If there is a bothersome trend of folks dipping for one level of barbarian, the PHB2 has the best fix for the barbarian class. Drop rage for berserker strength.

 

[el-remmen]

Basically you cut non-caster classes out then?

I don't understand this comment.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't understand this comment.

Dipping helps bring non-casters up to caster power levels. Without it, why bother with non-casters? It benefits the have-nots a lot more than the haves.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If there is a bothersome trend of folks dipping for one level of barbarian, the PHB2 has the best fix for the barbarian class. Drop rage for berserker strength.

You may as well drop the barbarian class. That class "feature" is completely useless. It punishes you for rolling well on your HP/having a good con, and takes the ability out of your hands to use. Its not like barbarians cant rage in every meaningful encounter anyways.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

That class "feature" is completely useless. It punishes you for rolling well on your HP/having a good con, and takes the ability out of your hands to use.

It rewards PCs for staying in the class and inhibits dipping into the class. Also, it is hardly useless. Good HP and good Con is its own reward.

 

[el-remmen]

Dipping helps bring non-casters up to caster power levels. Without it, why bother with non-casters? It benefits the have-nots a lot more than the haves.

Yeah, I sometimes forget than I might as well be playing a totally different game than other people.

That's not a judgment of playstyle - but just neither I, or anyone in my group, thinks in terms of thing like comparative "power levels" of casters and non-casters.

 

[kiznit]

Barbarians are somewhat front-loaded, but then spellcasters tend to be "backend-loaded". I think these particular classes represent the opposite ends of the spectrum. I personally think the move to uber-balance every single class every level of the way is a little silly, and actually ruins some of the classic flavor - it's a good thing that different classes appeal to the different tastes of people on a mechanical level - and that there's exploration of different "pacing" of power.

I played a half-elven barbarian/sorcerer who multiclassed back and forth every level all the way up to about 8th, IIRC. A very interesting character combination - he was an illiterate half-elf, but fortunately his raven familiar could read. Made for some entertaining roleplaying.

 

[sydbar]

I'm a fan of the idea that classes like brabarian, and mage must be taken at 1st level or are otherwise inaccessable due to role-playing reasons.

 

[Darklone]

You may as well drop the barbarian class. That class "feature" is completely useless. It punishes you for rolling well on your HP/having a good con, and takes the ability out of your hands to use. Its not like barbarians cant rage in every meaningful encounter anyways.

I don't agree due to my abovementioned reasons. IMHO the class itself is not very stylish as a conan like dude thing with axe, but the multiclass options allow character designs not available by the other core class. In this regard the barbarian class is superior to the ranger for example.