Arabel Builds
-
I'm sure the history of science knows multiple alchemists turned into chemists.
-
I'm sure the history of science knows multiple alchemists turned into chemists.
Precisely. Alchemists turned into chemists. Alchemists who may have realized the folly of their pseudoscience and began fresh with chemistry. They did not become alchemist chemists. They erased the nonsense they learned and became chemists.
-
I don't like such rigid interpretations of the classes. You don't just "unlearn" things like that in real life when your direction changes. For example, I am a trained engineer, but recently I started architecture graduate school, which requires a very different skill set, engineering being technical and architecture being much more about creative problem solving and visual design. With a rigid interpretation of how skills are applied, I'd be about as advanced as a kid in their first year of undergrad, but with the help of previous training I am far more rounded and knowledgeable. I rarely have to apply that engineering knowledge directly, but it doesn't mean that I can't use those strengths to my advantage to hold my own in classes that mostly consist of students with a 4 year degree in architecture. This isn't anything unusual either, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the students in my (ivy league) program have no previous architecture experience at all.
A barbarian knows how to swing a weapon and hit opponents. That skill can't be unlearned. But when you multiclass you aren't both a pure fighter and pure barbarian. You have that ability to rage, but you don't rage as well as a pure barbarian, which has been curbed by your training as a fighter. You have those bonus fighter feats, but you don't have as many fighter feats as a pure fighter, representing less training as a fighter. This doesn't mean your combat experience gained as a barbarian has to be completely forgotten as if you were newly born, those past experiences can still be applied. If you are mostly barbarian with a sprinkling of fighter, you might not have learned the self-discipline to not rage-out at inappropriate times. On the other hand, if you are mostly fighter with a little bit of barbarian, you might have the discipline to control yourself, but in desperate times or on occasions when you need to overpower your opponent as quickly as possible, that ability to rage might emerge. This is also indicated with the development of your rage ability. If you have 1 or 2 barbarian levels, you can only rage once per day for a short time, so it is best saved for desperate measures, but with more barbarian levels you have more rages per day, indicating that you are more likely to rage out in combat. Also, your fighter training is indicated by your feats. One with more fighter will have more feats and therefore more trained weapon and combat skills. This doesn't make the character any better or worse, only one with different skills and strengths.
I think engineer and architect is a bad analogy. Fighter is kind of like the antithesis of barbarian- a relationship engineers and architects do not have.
When you became an architect, did your teacher hold you by the shoulders and tell you: By the way, all that engineering you did? That is absolute trash. Not even a science.
The difference of being a barbarian and a fighter is not just mechanics, its the character itself. I can't imagine a barbarian and a fighter learning from eachother.
"ok, ok, that sword trick you did was really good. But the next time you feel overwhelmed, scream like a mad man and slash wildly with little regard for your safety (-2 AC)."
"Oh, well I suppose I can put that into my routine."
Edit: I suppose it isn't worth arguing for though. if it makes people happy, then I give every barbarian fighter my blessing!
-
In my opinion I would go as far as to say barbarian and fighter mixes cannot exist- barbarian fighter is an oxymoron. The idea that a barbarian could become a fighter only makes sense if in doing so he goes straight back to level 1. You can't just "stack on" knowledge that is completely against what you've been taught. It's like being an alchemist and then turning into a chemist, the things you'd learn as a chemist would completely discredit all you've learned as an alchemist. You can't be an alchemist and a chemist, you can't use alchemy and add your knowledge of chemistry to make it better.
You shouldn't be able to get the advantages of a barbarian with the added feats of a fighter. Rage? Why do you rage? You just spent 4 months in the barracks learning to hold a line, such a foolish outburst could cost your life and the life of the men who fight next to you. It's also the way you wield your weapon.
Why do fighters get so many feats? They've studied other warriors and practiced with them every day, training themselves until they are calculating fighters, knowing exactly when to hit and where to hit. Most barbarians don't think that way, at least they aren't as meticulous or methodical with their stance, the proper grip on their weapon, etc etc. You get the point, you can't utilize your rage while making use of those feats you picked up with those fighter levels.
To take your own words to show you how wrong it is, Why do fighters get so many feats? Because they have studied other warriors and practiced what they have learned, and that could be up to and including the ability to tap into your full potential strength at the sacrifice of a little defense when all hell breaks loose. And there are many feats you can take and still use while raging, just not the social ones or ones that require thought. That does not exclude weapon focus, weapon spec, or nearly any other fighter feats short of Improved Expertise (offhand I think that requires Int). You can still cleave, probably easier with the added umph from your rage. Learning one style of fighting need not be to the exclusion of all other forms of combat. If you took your own argument seriously then you'd try to apply it to every Fighter/"other class" combo.
-
@The:
Once more, story > mechanic. If a concept really makes sense, then I would be very willing to close an eye, or both.
I too knew sneak attacks are effective because they aim at weak spots. That explains why it does not work on undead or constructs. But to make it work in nwn you have to flank or to attack a "disabled" opponent, and that is something a paladin shouldn't be doing.
I didnt realize paladins signed up to the Code of Chivalrous fighting that say the red harts do.
I know they have a code but,correct me if I'm wrong, don't recall then having to allow the enemy to regain his feet or regain his weapon if the drops it etc etc. -
I'm sure the history of science knows multiple alchemists turned into chemists.
Precisely. Alchemists turned into chemists. Alchemists who may have realized the folly of their pseudoscience and began fresh with chemistry. They did not become alchemist chemists. They erased the nonsense they learned and became chemists.
No? Newton, for example despite founding modern science, spent his precious time with a series of activities which would totally exclude a modern scientist from the scientific community these days.
But I got your point. -
The fighter is the disciplined warrior, where as the Barbarian is the spiritual, savage, who knows how to unleash his or her anger.
If you want a proper analogy, lets try something akin to sports. Soccer, vs American Football. In one, you use your hands, run with the ball, have a whole list of rules. The good ones play it from they can barely stand. In soccer, you CANT use your hands. You use your feet. Every tactic, every trained play, everything is different. And to be good with it, you need to unlearn the way you tackle. Its two entirely different games.
Fighters and Barbarians arent like learning English, and then learning Economics. Its two entirely different outlooks, perspectives, traditions. Does this mean a Fighter or a Barbarian cannot multiclass? NO! I could easily see Barbarian/rangers. A Sorc/Barb would also make good sense. However, a Barbarian/wizard wouldnt. Barbarians by default arent litterate. They arent Fighters with less feats but with Rage. You are suppose to be able to tell apart a fighter in a chainmail + Greatsword, and a Barbarian in a chainmail with a Greataxe, in more ways than they use a different weapon.
-
@O'louth:
If you want a proper analogy, lets try something akin to sports. Soccer, vs American Football. In one, you use your hands, run with the ball, have a whole list of rules. The good ones play it from they can barely stand. In soccer, you CANT use your hands. You use your feet. Every tactic, every trained play, everything is different. And to be good with it, you need to unlearn the way you tackle. Its two entirely different games.
The only problem with this analogy is that it's completely improper. You don't unlearn the way you tackle. The fact that you won't try playing soccer with your hands doesn't mean you forgot how to play football.
This applies to what Gnomish said and Topor quoted, about barbarians raging. Why would you rage when you spent 4 months in the barracks learning to hold the line? Well the answer is you wouldn't - if there is a line to be held. But if your unit is charging into the breach, raging serves perfectly. Different sports. Not to mention that 20,30 or whatever, years of growing up and learning to fight like a barb trumps 4 months of any boot camp :) .
@O'louth:
You are suppose to be able to tell apart a fighter in a chainmail + Greatsword, and a Barbarian in a chainmail with a Greataxe, in more ways than they use a different weapon.
I'm not sure i understand what you mean with this. You'll tell them apart by the way they roleplay it. Nobody is obliged to make simpler characters so others can tell their class and build at a glance. I'm sure that's not what you were trying to say.
-
The start of world war Hulk. Hieroim taught Hulk to channel his rage but still maintain control, turning Hulk from a barbarian into a barbarian/fighter, making him more dangerous than ever before ;)
-
All I see with such a combination is an excuse to play something seriously OP. It becomes excuses, and playing the devils advocate against those opposing it, but in general, it is two classes representing two very different ways of fighting. I am not the multiclass police, as I am not a dm. However, I havent seen any valid reasons how a character could have the combination and make any sense RP wise. Sure, if you play a savage barbarian, who through his meeting with civilization becomes intrigued by the way a fighter does things, and decides to change his way of life… Sure! But then you wouldnt rage. You would turn your back on your old life.
And in all of my many years on this server, I have never seen such a character.
-
Thats because it's not done for role play it's done for the weapons spec or for rage.
Lost count of the number of "fighters"that take a barb level for the extra 2 ab and damage,
Anyone that is coming up with the bull excuse as to why is lying it is done purely for the mechanical power,and you know i have no problem with that what i hate is the excuses you hear about why.
You do in fact get less of them now as fighters get other bonuses and magic gear they can only use if they stay single classed same in reverse for pure barbs they lose dr and things so less multiclassing ..but no it's not for the mechanics :roll: -
Way to go, colouring all fighter/barbs cheesy munchkins.
That said, while everyone is entitled to his own opinion, please don't be so insistent with it. The OP wanted to know official policy concerning multiclassing and afaik it does allow free multiclass of fighters and barbs. -
But don't you dare say it's for anything other than mechanical power, you terribad monsters you.
-
The Topic says Arabel Builds. As the "OP" two pages ago recieved the needed answers to her questions, the thread continued on regarding the topic, Arabel Builds and multiclassing. I dont see how the discussion is either offensive, or too insistent. Servers similar to CoA in terms of ideals, have "outlawed" the specific multiclass combination we are addressing. It was discussions such as this one, that finally changed Tumble, so Fighter/bards and Fighter/Rogues wouldnt get the insane tumble AC bonus in Full Plates.
Barbarian/fighter, IMO, should be "outlawed" similar to Druid/monks on the premise that it doesnt make RP sense, and that I dont see how it can be done for flavour to a concept. Barbarian/fighters is an OP build. Either it doesnt take into account what the barbarian Class is, or it doesnt take into account what the Fighter Class is. Unless of course something drastic happened since I stopped having time to play, i dont see it making sense.
-
Why? Barbarian/fighter is weaker mechanically than pure fighter or pure barbarian. I personally see no problem with it.
-
A barb/ fighter seems pretty simple to me..
Bob the barb spends his youth beating up wildcats and brawling with his buddies, relying on the power of his totem (the bear) to him through fights. (few levels of barb, with rage and bear totem).
He then enter the city of Arabel and meet Alice, a trained greatsword user, who between adventures gives him some pointers on how to swing his own greatsword better and use heavy armour (he picks up a few fighter levels). Of course his totem bear power haven't improved, but he's learn to hit better and take hits as well (as showed by the mechanical changes).
Honestly I think all this barb/fighter don't make sense is a throwback to when they were mechanical OP, which with the pure class bonuses for both classes has become a moot point now.
Similarly there use to be a time when rogue/fighter in full plate with bastard swords and tower shield were OP, but the general buffs to other weapons, the nurf to tumbling in plate and weight increase in tower shields have changed too!
-
general buffs to other weapons
Could you please elaborate?
-
Its fairly tricky to find a decent magical bastard sword these days, while weaker weapons tend to get magical versions which are better and easier to get hold of.
For example the flail "spider legs" +1 to hit + 1 acid damage + 1 on saves vs poisons. Will help you out a lot in any fight were DR is a issue and not too bad in general.
Similarly the new craftable items tend to favour the less powerful base weapons
Silver Longsword: 1d8, +2 Attack vs Shapechanger, +1d4 Sonic vs Shapechanger, +1d4 vs Outsider
Silver Dagger: d4+1d4 Slashing, +2 Attack vs Shapechanger, +1d6 Divine vs Shapechanger, +1d6 Divine vs Outsider
It doesn't mean you can't earn earn yourself a bastard sword of awesomeness, but these days that extra damage from grabbing a bastard sword is unlikely to be anywhere near as useful, if the only magic weapon you got is a flail.
-
So silver longsword is strictly worse than silver dagger? Kinda weird.
Thanks for explanation though. -
I really think like most things the question as to why you have the multiclass needs to be answered. Are you being a rogue merely for the sneak or is it for other ic reasons. Perhaps you are a paladin/ rogue because you joined a brotherhood and sought to follow your holy path as a paladin but you have some of rogue for lockpicking and a keen eye for seach and such because you grew up the son of a lock smith. Just because your a rogue doesn't mean your focus has to be nefarious. It could be because the rogue class only offer the skills you would like to develop icly. I have a fighter rogue with I think one point in hide but because of the way she grew up she has a facsination for mechanical things like locks and traps. Not because she is a sneaky stab you in the back sorta gal although she may still stab you.