|
|
Post by AxeMental on Mar 18, 2005 15:42:06 GMT -5
The UA barbarian, like the majority of the rest of the UA was a mistake. Use the Beserker from the MM. It says some become fighters, no level limit is given.
AC 7 (can't were armor)
+2 to hit or two attacks a round
Just figure your a barbarian and do the stuff conan tried to do.
They can use magic at first (and take the best when they can)
They have no special healing powers, are assumed to be able to survive in the wilds and are assumed to have pretty good jumping and climbing abilities (once again from surviving in the hilly wilds).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ska on Mar 18, 2005 18:51:02 GMT -5
Axe took the words right from me--use the MM Berserker. (I actually had a post somewhere about the "hidden PC class"! d**n that Axe stealing my thunder again)
I've played one of these guys as a PC and it is lots of fun.
The barbarian from UA was simply poorly done and over powered. EGG himself has stated the UA was rushed to print to pay off TSR debt before it should have been.
|
|
Ron
Junior Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Ron on Apr 6, 2005 12:53:46 GMT -5
I recently asked Gary in the ENWorld forums about the Cavalier and the Barbarian and he supported both classes saying that they were ok with him. He justified the Cavalier and Paladin's training ability as a compensation to the fact they cannot use many magical equipment. However, he conceded that perhaps he went too far.
Personally, I don't allow Barbarians in my game and I remove the training ability from Cavaliers and Paladins.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Apr 6, 2005 13:54:58 GMT -5
 The UA magic tables assume fighters and cavaliers have access to the same kind of magic items. What was gary talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 6, 2005 14:09:43 GMT -5
The UA magic tables assume fighters and cavaliers have access to the same kind of magic items. What was gary talking about. Perhaps the fact that cavaliers won't normally use missile weapons of any kind, and will pass over magic armor in favor of mundane armor of a 'higher' type (IIRC the example in the book is passing over +3 chainmail in favor of normal splint or banded)? I dunno, just guessing... |
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Apr 6, 2005 14:27:05 GMT -5
Most of the best magic weapons are swords. And the armor rule isn't that big of deal, considering how good the cavs "mundane" armor is (and there is tons of magic plate on the UA charts anway).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ska on Apr 6, 2005 17:57:44 GMT -5
UA, for me, was simply a source of new spells and magic items.
The barbarian and Cavalier, IMO, were very poorly done and unnecessary. The MMI berserker fits the bill without over powering the standard fighter (who is supposed to be the best at fighting).
I think 1e had it down perfectly. EGGs drift to skills (barbarian etc.) and thief-acrobats (I once had one in a game. It appeared as a captured NPC and was promptly hung) were disturbing when applied to OAD&D. Maybe these were foreshadows of LA style thinking emrerging very early.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Apr 20, 2005 17:43:00 GMT -5
I don't much care for the UA barbarian or cavalier. The concepts are nice (and they should remain just that, concepts) but the mechanics are too far out in left field for my tastes.
Besides, since 1974 up until whenever the barbarian first appeared in Dragon, people were playing barbarian characters just fine using just the fighter class. I think only a few minor tweeks to the fighter class would be better than a whole new class. I agree that the berserker entry in the MM is a good place to start.
The same can be said for the cavalier. Why is a whole new class needed? Why can't someone just play a Lawful fighter who follows a code of chilvery, and who has plate mail, a lance, and a war horse? Anything more complicated than that is already provided by the paladin class. Personally I think that every single special ability assigned to the cavalier class was entirely unnecessary, and there certainly isn't any reason why a fighter shouldn't be able to get at least some of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Apr 25, 2005 23:50:48 GMT -5
I still don't know what Master G was smokin'...some bad $hit no doubt.
Well, everyone has their off days.
|
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Apr 26, 2005 2:20:25 GMT -5
I have an 8th level barbarian and he seems to have been castrated for years in contrast to my fighter characters who've slain half as much but can cut circles around him. The real problem with barbarians is that they're too tight-reigned on magic to justify incorporating some lame animal attack powers from the DMG. Not the other way around. Try and bring a barbarian up to 10th level and see me in a decade to complain about them being "overpowered"!  |
|
