Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dragonman407 01-20-06, 12:17 AM	Something that has always bothered me is the fact that the barbarian gets full BAB progression, while classes that would seem to be more accurate, such as the rouge, only get 3/4 BAB. Why would the great axe-wielding berserker who focuses on strength and durability, have a better chance of hitting something than a fast, accurate rouge? This seems even more ridiculous when playing with the armor as DR varient, because you can't use the exuse that you need to hit hard to get through armor. So here's my question: If I changed the barbarian to have 3/4 BAB progression, what could I do to balance it out?
Malancthon 01-20-06, 12:22 AM	Um... Barbarians are combat guys. They like being in the middle of the battle. That's why they have high BAB and HD. Rogues, while good in combat, are NOT combat guys. Thieves and backstabbers, yes, not in-yer-face-poky-poky. But they can still handle themselves better than a wizard in combat. So that's why they have medium BAB and low-medium HD.
Journeyman Samwise 01-20-06, 12:22 AM	Spellcasting. Sorcerer spell progression, but with the Vanican system. Barbarians: Just Not Broken Enough.
Vaelan 01-20-06, 12:25 AM	Barbarians get good BAB because they fight. They spend practically all of their training time learning how to fight. Rogues spend their time practicing many skills and learning about traps and anatomy. If you wanted to reduce their BAB, which is not a good choince either mechanically or conceptually, you'd need to give them something like flurry to make up for having fewer attacks per round.
dragonman407 01-20-06, 12:26 AM	Spellcasting. Sorcerer spell progression, but with the Vanican system. Barbarians: Just Not Broken Enough. ....Huh? :confused:
Lotus Crane 01-20-06, 12:35 AM	Yeah, I'm just as confused as you are about what Samwise's reply is supposed to mean...
BW0222 01-20-06, 12:43 AM	Why would you be surprised that Viking raiders, Ghengis Khan's horsemen, or Celtic warriors be better at hitting folks that a city dwelling rogue? A Viking raider is an expert with a broadsword and hand-axe. Ghengis Khan's horsemen are among the best horse archers in the world. Celtic warriors certainly knew how to use spears and javelins. Such folks were bread for war. Rogues represent folks who aren't specifically trained for combat and only do so when forced to. Scouts, con-men, thieves, or simple thugs who roll-over unarmed merchants. When they draw a blade, it's likely a sign of failure. They got caught. It doesn't surprise me that a barbarian who practices with weapons and who is expected to fight to protect his tribe from enemies is better at attacking someone than someone who spends more of his time learning to open locks, pick pockets, dealing with street contacts, sneaking, etc.
dragonman407 01-20-06, 12:56 AM	I always thought of the barbarian as an unintelligent, self-trained, swing-as-hard-as-possible-until-you-hit type character who was raised in the wild, got food by wrestling and killing bears with his bare hands, and only got hold of that war axe because he bopped a traveling dwarf over the head when he was walking past the woods. Top that off with the fact that he flys into a rage every time he gets a "boo-boo." In contrast, I held the opinion that a rouge was the opposite: an agile, precise fighter that could hit consistently,but not powerfully, and was so agile that he would almost never be hit. Maybe my view is a bit different from the norm, but, given the right feats, you could build a rouge like that. I am just looking for a variant to the barbarian that matches my view of how I think he should be. I am asking for an answer, not a debate. I get my answer, and we can debate all we want.
David Berlapin 01-20-06, 01:02 AM	give him 3/4 BaB and a d20 HD, thats sounds about fair
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-20-06, 01:04 AM	In contrast, I held the opinion that a rouge was the opposite: an agile, precise fighter that could hit consistently,but not powerfully, and was so agile that he would almost never be hit. You're thinking of a multiclass swashbuckler/duelist, not a rogue. And the swashbuckler/duelist has the same BAB progression as a barbarian does.
Thorak 01-20-06, 01:04 AM	I always thought of the barbarian as an unintelligent, self-trained, swing-as-hard-as-possible-until-you-hit type character who was raised in the wild, got food by wrestling and killing bears with his bare hands, and only got hold of that war axe because he bopped a traveling dwarf over the head when he was walking past the woods. Top that off with the fact that he flys into a rage every time he gets a "boo-boo." So you want a caricature, not a character. Got it. In contrast, I held the opinion that a rouge was the opposite: an agile, precise fighter that could hit consistently,but not powerfully, and was so agile that he would almost never be hit. And he's just so uberly awesome that he gets a d20HD and double BAB, cause he's just that cool. Maybe my view is a bit different from the norm, but, given the right feats, you could build a rouge like that. Sure, but considering all else he gets, it makes perfect sense that he's not nearly as good at the actual fighting as someone who spends all their time training at it. I am just looking for a variant to the barbarian that matches my view of how I think he should be. There isn't one. Your vision exists nowhere but your own head. It only barely touches on what a Barbarian in D&D is, and exagerrates to the class' detriment whereever possible. I am asking for an answer, not a debate. I get my answer, and we can debate all we want. Well, tough. You want a class that fits your view, go make it up. Your opinion is that Rogues should be better at absolutely everything than Barbarians, which makes absolutely no sense.
David Berlapin 01-20-06, 01:09 AM	haha but seriously if you want to give a Barb 3/4's BaB give her power attack, cleave, WF, WS, etc.. those type of feats at certain levels to balance with her low amount of actual hits
Red_Decker 01-20-06, 01:11 AM	I always thought of the barbarian as an unintelligent, self-trained, swing-as-hard-as-possible-until-you-hit type character who was raised in the wild, got food by wrestling and killing bears with his bare hands, and only got hold of that war axe because he bopped a traveling dwarf over the head when he was walking past the woods. Top that off with the fact that he flys into a rage every time he gets a "boo-boo." In contrast, I held the opinion that a rouge was the opposite: an agile, precise fighter that could hit consistently,but not powerfully, and was so agile that he would almost never be hit. Maybe my view is a bit different from the norm, but, given the right feats, you could build a rouge like that. I am just looking for a variant to the barbarian that matches my view of how I think he should be. I am asking for an answer, not a debate. I get my answer, and we can debate all we want. I think this constitutes as a logical fallacy. He fights all the time but isn't really that good in combat?? It's really tough to kill bears with weapons let alone barehands so your view seems just as much in line for full BAB as a Viking warrior. ANd they don't rage anytime they get a boo-boo, they Rage when they need to open up a can of Whup-*** on the enemy. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
JLaurHughes 01-20-06, 01:22 AM	Or if dragon want's a barbarian like what he's imagining them to be he would be wise to look at the Barbarian Variant in Unearthed Arcana(p.48) high BaB is for melee type classes to match the BaB of Monsterous Humanoids, Dragons, and Magical Beasts to name a few of them. I personally have seen barbarians more as wade-into-battle-and-smash-anything-in-my-way-to-get-what-I-want kind of guys who are your front line to protect spell casters and finesse workers(I.E. rogues) so that they can do what needs to be done for their part in battle.
dugfromthearth 01-20-06, 01:28 AM	"Why would the great axe-wielding berserker who focuses on strength and durability, have a better chance of hitting something than a fast, accurate rouge?" In D20 strength increases your chance to hit, dexterity does not (unless you take a feat). The whole system assumes that strength is better than dexterity for attacking in combat.
InkBlot 01-20-06, 01:35 AM	Wrestling bears and bopping dwarfs on the head still counts as combat training. Certainly more combat training than the average rogue gets. The exceptional rogue who does get more combat training takes Weapon Focus or multiclasses with fighter. Also, the thing to remember with D&D classes is that they mostly aren't defined by their names or flavor text. Their building blocks used to create characters. Also also, I can imagine a more animalistic barbarian, one who doesn't focus on combat, lets call him the wildman to ease confusion. The Wildman: A variant ranger *Lower BAB to 3/4 (as cleric) *Remove favored enemy *Remove combat style *Remove craft (int), knowledge (dungeoneering) (int), profession (wis), ride (dex), and use rope (dex) from his skill list *Reduce skill points at each level to 4 + int *Add rage 1/day at 1st level, with an additional use at 4th level and every 4 levels there-after *Add illiteracy as barbarian *Add +1 natural armour at 5th level and every 5 levels there-after *Add fast movement +10 at first level *Add uncanny dodge at 3rd level *Add improved uncanny dodge at 8th level *Add trap sense equal to 1/3rd of class level Although I called it a ranger variant, it's realy a mix of ranger, barbarian, and monk (mostly the AC, BAB, and survivability). The wildman is someone who could survive in the wild, even excell in the wild, even master the wild and become one with it. He can fight in a pinch but like all wild animals he knows that he who fighting is about survival, not "winning."
nastynate 01-20-06, 02:31 AM	"Why would the great axe-wielding berserker who focuses on strength and durability, have a better chance of hitting something than a fast, accurate rouge?" In D20 strength increases your chance to hit, dexterity does not (unless you take a feat). The whole system assumes that strength is better than dexterity for attacking in combat. Who swings an axe faster, a body builder, or a ballet dancer? Who penetrates armor more effectively? Who's attacks will be more difficult to dodge? Neither is trained for combat, yet I'd place my wager on the body builder if they got in a fight, and he certainly isn't the more agile of the two. Strength is most assuredly a very important part of melee combat. You also have to keep in mind that people who fight more, fight better, and few people fight more often than barbarians. There are certainly agile melee fighters. As other people have said the swashbuckler / duelist is a perfect example. It in fact exemplifies what you are describing, and suggesting. Dexterity is quite useful in melee, but rogues spend much less time training for battle, than they do skulking in shadows, and learning skills like forgery, disable device, etc. They have their sneak attack trick (which is mainly a tool to ensure they remain useful in combat situations which pop up frequently in D&D), but that isn't the defining ability of the rogue; skill points are.
dragonman407 01-20-06, 02:42 AM	:eek: Amid all that sarcasm, I finally got an answer! Thank you InkBlot. Also, I was exagerating my description to get my point across. I am not suggesting rouges are the best fighters, or that a barbarian could actually take down a bear with his bare hands. And just to argue my point further, just because you fight all the time doesn't mean you have a lot of skill. 3/4 BAB progression is still ten times better than anything a real person could hope to have.
Elemental_Elf 01-20-06, 03:19 AM	The whole point of a barbarian is that he is unskilled in every thing EXCEPT KILLING THINGS with what ever's available. That does not imply a 3/4 BAB, that implies a full BAB. A Barbarian's entire life is centered around maiming or killing things. He's illiterate, so it's not like he can just pick up a book and enjoy it like everyone else. No he must seek out the thrill of battle for enjoyment. He lives for the hunt, the chance to quell the primal urges itching in his barbaric heart. He sees no value, for himself atleast, in talking. No the Barbarian kills. It is the one, THE ONLY fascet of life he is good at! Just because the Barbarian wasn't trained in the military does not mean he shouldn't have a full BAB. If it weren't, and all peoples who trained in the military got full BAB thanx to thier 'better' training, then Warmages and Marshals would surely have a full BAB. For if they did not, then what kind of backwards military trained them? [/sarcasm] Barbarians deserve full BAB.
Wellby 01-20-06, 05:29 AM	Amid all that sarcasm, I finally got an answer!Yeah, the amount of degrading others and sarcasm on these boards is terrible. I'm just returning to this message boards after taking a break from D&D and I can't believe all the ridiculing that goes on in here. We should be more mature than this. If ya don't agree with someone, attack the subject not the person. - Wellby
Sae Cael Oanar 01-20-06, 05:59 AM	whoaaa. barbarians are NOT unskilled in everything except killing things. theyre main ability is rage, which grows as levels go up, that doesnt leave alot of room for other abilities. but what they have is this: he has uncanny dodge, with illustrates educated fighting techniques and good reflexes in combat. he has trap sence, which illustrates awareness of his surroundings. he has many proficiencies, leading me to believe hes had quite a bit of combat training. he also has more skills than the fighter. I think a "savage" in the jungle. he can show you around, what food to eat, where to hunt, but you sure as hell dont want to start with him unless you have a death wish. i see no reason why you can not play a completely rational barbarian. a hunter that uses his anger to pump himself up.
Seeker of Undeath 01-20-06, 07:46 AM	Something that has always bothered me is the fact that the barbarian gets full BAB progression, while classes that would seem to be more accurate, such as the rouge, only get 3/4 BAB. Why would the great axe-wielding berserker who focuses on strength and durability, have a better chance of hitting something than a fast, accurate rouge?Because he/she practices so much. You just pointed that out. You've just said that fighting is their thing. Why would they not be good at it? This seems even more ridiculous when playing with the armor as DR varient, because you can't use the exuse that you need to hit hard to get through armor.Actually it becomes doubly true.So here's my question: If I changed the barbarian to have 3/4 BAB progression, what could I do to balance it out?Give it a +1 unnamed strength bonus at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17.
CorSecJedi 01-22-06, 02:01 PM	Rogues can kind of meet the ideal you have for them in combat. Take a look at the Deft Strike feat from Complete Adventurer. It allows you to make a Spot check opposed by your opponent's AC. If you succeed, your next melee attack ignores both armor bonus and natural armor. Basically, you make a touch attack with your melee weapon.