Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8044262" data-attributes="member: 87792">In 4e I have no problem at all with the martial barbarian - largely because the fighter got moved off-center into the role of protector, opening up the &quot;simple smasher&quot;; for those who never played 4e the 5e Sentinel feat is basically the 4e fighter's level 1 class features. A better &quot;simple smasher&quot; turned up with the Essentials line and the Slayer (that was actually simple) but the barbarian took that role for a whole.Indeed the absence of the simple smasher in the 4e PHB is one of the weaknesses of the book as a starting point. There's also no thematic reason you couldn't handle rage and the rest of the Barbarian's thin 3.X ability list as a simple subclass, putting it on a level with Champion and Battlemaster. It's the primal features that give it the design space for its own class.Unarmoured defense as a class feature is an option that appeared in late-4e, although the option to use armour and your con instead of your dex showed up IIRC with the Barbarian itself, and the ability to take a feat (actually intended for wizards, monks, et al) that provided a leather-like level of protection while unarmoured showed up a little later; you got a free feat every even level and one at 1st in 4e. As for the main AD&amp;D barbarian I'm aware of, no one I've ever heard of is asking for that mess of a class back. It literally was based around not playing well with others to the point one could only knowingly associate with magic users at level 6.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8044262, member: 87792"] In 4e I have no problem at all with the martial barbarian - largely because the fighter got moved off-center into the role of protector, opening up the "simple smasher"; for those who never played 4e the 5e Sentinel feat is basically the 4e fighter's level 1 class features. A better "simple smasher" turned up with the Essentials line and the Slayer (that was actually simple) but the barbarian took that role for a whole. Indeed the absence of the simple smasher in the 4e PHB is one of the weaknesses of the book as a starting point. There's also no thematic reason you couldn't handle rage and the rest of the Barbarian's thin 3.X ability list as a simple subclass, putting it on a level with Champion and Battlemaster. It's the primal features that give it the design space for its own class. Unarmoured defense as a class feature is an option that appeared in late-4e, although the option to use armour and your con instead of your dex showed up IIRC with the Barbarian itself, and the ability to take a feat (actually intended for wizards, monks, et al) that provided a leather-like level of protection while unarmoured showed up a little later; you got a free feat every even level and one at 1st in 4e. As for the main AD&D barbarian I'm aware of, no one I've ever heard of is asking for that mess of a class back. It literally was based around not playing well with others to the point one could only knowingly associate with magic users at level 6. [/QUOTE]

Verification