Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al'Kelhar" data-source="post: 391342" data-attributes="member: 7884">The great disadvantage of barbarians, rangers and paladins in 3e is that compared to fighters they are not particularly powerful combatants at mid- to high-levels.&nbsp; The primary reason is their comparative lack of combat feats.&nbsp;&nbsp; While these other classes have their own particular strengths, they make poor primary warrior-types, and if you want the particular strengths that these classes bring to the game, you're often better off multiclassing, for example, as a fighter/rogue instead of a ranger, as a fighter/cleric instead of a paladin, and as a... well, as a fighter instead of a barbarian.&nbsp; The simple &quot;fix&quot; is just to give the other fighter &quot;subclasses&quot; (per 1e AD&amp;D) extra feats, as Monte Cook has done in his version of the ranger (plus given it a few more benefits which, IMHO, make it too powerful...).&nbsp; There are other more interestign ways to vary the classes to fit into a particular campaign, and I myself toyed with the idea of getting rid of the barbarian completely and replacing it with a series of feats permitting barbarian (or &quot;berserk&quot;) rage.&nbsp; However, seeing as no player in my campaign is playing a barbarian, I decided it was too much like hard work!Of course, the bard, druid and sorcerer are all pretty weak classes compared to the three &quot;real powers&quot; - cleric, fighter and wizard - but that's a whole other topic.Cheers, AK</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al'Kelhar, post: 391342, member: 7884"] The great disadvantage of barbarians, rangers and paladins in 3e is that compared to fighters they are not particularly powerful combatants at mid- to high-levels. The primary reason is their comparative lack of combat feats. While these other classes have their own particular strengths, they make poor primary warrior-types, and if you want the particular strengths that these classes bring to the game, you're often better off multiclassing, for example, as a fighter/rogue instead of a ranger, as a fighter/cleric instead of a paladin, and as a... well, as a fighter instead of a barbarian. The simple "fix" is just to give the other fighter "subclasses" (per 1e AD&D) extra feats, as Monte Cook has done in his version of the ranger (plus given it a few more benefits which, IMHO, make it too powerful...). There are other more interestign ways to vary the classes to fit into a particular campaign, and I myself toyed with the idea of getting rid of the barbarian completely and replacing it with a series of feats permitting barbarian (or "berserk") rage. However, seeing as no player in my campaign is playing a barbarian, I decided it was too much like hard work! Of course, the bard, druid and sorcerer are all pretty weak classes compared to the three "real powers" - cleric, fighter and wizard - but that's a whole other topic. Cheers, AK [/QUOTE]

Verification