https://efupw.com/efu1-forum/topic/14/14032/fighter-barb-rule-disregard/index.html?amp;highlight=

I'm just going to say; I disagree. Mostly since at the moment I see no basis for the decision. The plain regular classes are essentially "give me's" to play with and use.

Its without a doubt contrary to the base rules of DnD which maintain you have total freedom to play any of the base classes as you please with the exception of certain *ways* of multi-classing.

The decision already invalidates two character ideas that I've had for side characters, unless I send an application which isn't worth it for a side character-nor is liable to ever be approved for side characters.

I also have to say, this is the kind of decision that is going to wreck some people's builds and worse the concept behind the build. Its the sort of thing that I feel should be done with discussion with the player base, not fiat.

So what's the basis for this decision?

Because the DM team is pretty much united in feeling that in the overwhelming number of cases fighter/barbarians are a multi-class that is done entirely for the purposes of creating a tank that can damage monsters as much as possible, and it's not fair to players who play this multi-class (typically new players) to be unaware that their character build is frowned upon as much as it is.

Although I like multi-classes and certainly acknowledge there are more powerful multi-classes out there, we just felt that the fighter/barbarian build tends to dilute the cool parts of both classes.

Also, once this change is put into effect, we'll be much more comfortable adding more barbarian-only themed loot.

Bears asking, what about the monk/druid?

Personally, I feel that these multiclasses are inherently contradictory. Barbarians are barbarians because they're -not- disciplined Fighters. It's not a case of a Fighter being a wild dude. A barbarian is more than just a wild dude. There's the age old story of the 'wild barbarian that learned the ways of skilled combat', but that has been the case in practice about 0% of the time.

Monks and Druids have inherently conflicting reasons for existing. One draws their entire existence from without, from the natural world around them, one from entirely within. They don't co-exist easily in my mind (the exception would be what the apps are for).

Hell, I'd throw Druid/Clerics in there too, but nobody makes them anyway because they're weak.

That's my personal outlook on things.

Well, rationally and based on the universal rule set I'd like to ask if you considered:

1) Barbarians fight using an inherent rage. 2) Fighters are skilled and disciplined warriors. Those are not mutually exclusive so you could: 3) Be a warrior that is disciplined to channel his inherent rage.

They're not mutually exclusive. There's a thousand ways to justify this build, which is used on dozens of NPC who are canon and not mutually exclusive to one another.

Neither is a monk/druid.

1) A monk focuses inwards on a philosophical ideal for great power. 2) A druid focuses on nature for great power. Those are also not mutually exclusive so you could: 3) Be a warrior who focues inwards on the philosophy of nature for great power.

I can think of a few examples of each of these as well from various fantasy sources internal and external to DnD.

So what you're saying is that because the builds are disliked by the DMs; the players who enjoy them shouldn't play them even though the core rules do not ever make an attempt to restrict them like this and there are more powerful builds?

It really is that we feel the combination simply doesn't make sense in terms of how we'd like to interpret the classes, not out of a concern of stamping powerful builds (there are certainly much more powerful builds).

Just to clarify a point someone raised that bears asking:

Is there a complaint/issue/concern with barbarians in heavy armor using the feat?

Nope.