|
|
Post by mao on Sept 13, 2017 15:33:33 GMT -5
Prob the number one thing about 1e I dislike is the barbarian. I was wondering if anybody allows it?
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 13, 2017 18:26:48 GMT -5
I never DMed for a 1e game so I didn't use it then. I did use it in 3.5e. It was OK, but I felt like a well-built fighter was more than a match. I played one character with Barbarian levels. He was a Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 2/Horizon walker whose specialty was the trip attack. Even then, I was concerned about fighters being stickier.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravewolf on Sept 13, 2017 20:01:21 GMT -5
Prob the number one thing about 1e I dislike is the barbarian. I was wondering if anybody allows it? I have a PC barbarian in my 1e Arduin campaign (using UA). So far it's been great all around. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 13, 2017 20:38:07 GMT -5
I can't think of anything I have borrowed from UA.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 14, 2017 6:50:40 GMT -5
Prob the number one thing about 1e I dislike is the barbarian. I was wondering if anybody allows it? I have a PC barbarian in my 1e Arduin campaign (using UA). So far it's been great all around. So it works in actual play,huh. Anybody else? |
|
|
|
Post by bravewolf on Sept 14, 2017 10:34:10 GMT -5
My favorite thing about the class at low levels is the conflict that the barbarian's arcanophobia introduces to a party, both in character and out. Barbarians aren't just to be played as oppositional to magic, but earn XP by destroying magic items. This is antithetical to the goals of most PCs and their players.
UA barbarians could fit very poorly with some gaming groups, campaigns, & character mixes. My table is pretty adventurous in this regard and the barbarian player had buy-in from the rest of the group.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 14, 2017 10:47:44 GMT -5
I love diversity. How peeps can take away from the riles and make them their own, I could never use the class because the stat modifier rub me the wrong way. Plus my group runs like a well oiled machine and the magicphobla would just be squashed(I hadn't even considered this before). I hate the 3.x ed barbarian too. I use a modified version of a great barbarian class from a very old White Dwarf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Timer on Sept 14, 2017 14:01:28 GMT -5
My favorite thing about the class at low levels is the conflict that the barbarian's arcanophobia introduces to a party, both in character and out. Barbarians aren't just to be played as oppositional to magic, but earn XP by destroying magic items. This is antithetical to the goals of most PCs and their players. UA barbarians could fit very poorly with some gaming groups, campaigns, & character mixes. My table is pretty adventurous in this regard and the barbarian player had buy-in from the rest of the group. Barbarians are a lot of fun. I really enjoy being DM to a whole party of barbarians. I give them the dwarf bonus on their saving throw because they are so opposed to and in denial of magic. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 15, 2017 8:18:32 GMT -5
Barbarians are odd. They are in fiction all the time now, and it sometimes leads to some confusion. For me personally, the term Barbarian is derogatory. An insulting word for a hick. My PC race is Hillbilly, and my class is Moonshiner so I can make medicine and get a +2 with my double barreled shotgun! I get a good CON bonus too because I can live off of opossum pie.  |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 15, 2017 8:50:21 GMT -5
Barbarians are odd. They are in fiction all the time now, and it sometimes leads to some confusion. For me personally, the term Barbarian is derogatory. An insulting word for a hick. My PC race is Hillbilly, and my class is Moonshiner so I can make medicine and get a +2 with my double barreled shotgun! I get a good CON bonus too because I can live off of opossum pie. Two words that gamers think are ok , when in fact they are actually derogatory . are Barbarian and mercenary. Thus real world mercs are called private contractors. |
|
