(oroborous) 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.

The thing is this leads back to the universal question of ... where do you stop? When you start blaming one minority for the evils of the world, how long before you start blaming another?

What about the evils of the fighter/rogue?.. when an enemy gets flanked (which isnt hard) they deal far more than a barbarian/fighter could ever do.

A barbarian/fighter for all intensive gameplay purposes is just a fighter who can also rage (once or twice a day maybe) and has a few more hitpoints (d12 instead of d10 for each barb level)

It's an extremely slippery slope you've stepped onto, I would definitely reconsider this decision and all the future ones you're likely to go with this theme.

While I am not a DM, I am going to go out of my way to make clear my issues with the barbarian/fighter multiclass.

Most of the time, it -is- done for strictly gameplay mechanics. "I AM SO MAD NOW WHEN I WEAR MY FULLPLATE I CAN TAP INTO A PRIMAL RAGE AND UTILIZE MY WEAPON SPECIALIZATION!!"

I have no issue with a barbarian-trained over time IG- to be come a fighter, because that is what makes fighters such a diverse class. A wizard, or rogue, or anyone can find a fighter, ask them to train him, and if RP'd correctly, the class is taken.

That scenario is fine with me.

My issue is this: 4 fighter/xbarbarian, or Xbarbarian/4 fighter multiclasses.

The ideal barbarian in my opinion is a chainshirt or loincloth wearing savage who uses a big axe, does ritualized combat, and generally has a dislike of magic.

The ideal fighter can be anything, which is what makes this so difficult.

A fighter/barbarian is pointless because barbarians are chaos and undisipline incarnate following their own traditions and taboos and fighters are rigorously and specially trained in warfare, hence weapon-spec.

If you take a level of fighter for fullplate, or 4 for weapon spec, or 1 of barbarian for Rage, as howland said, you cheapen the cooler aspects.

If you -do- go from barbarian to fighter, I'd say that your rage is disabled (I'd go for "weakened", but that could be difficult to script") because instead of relying on your pure fury, you take time and effort to re-learn how to use a weapon efficently, resulting in weapon specialization, or what have you.

Barbarian speed would be negated by fullplate as would uncanny dodge. I don't care how fast you are, you can't run faster than most people in fullplate and you certainly can't dodge.

So in short, I support the requirement of application. Fighter/barbarain, while an interesting build when done right, is often simply to exploit the strengths of both groups for gameplay.

It's not because fighter/barbarians are too powerful - quite the contrary. It's not a bad build, but there are certainly more powerful ones. Fighter/Rogues make fine sense to me, I've no issue with them at all. Or pure clerics. Or pure wizards.

Fighter/Barbarians just don't in terms of how we interpret the respective classes. They are fundamentally different, and mingling them is something we'd prefer to no longer see happen.

Its not how you interpret them though.

Its how the rules interpret them, and the rules for NWN and DND do not share your team's interpretation and I'd hazard a large number of players disagree with you as well.

Do you have problems with thinking of a chaotic fighter? Is that the problem?

Are fighters in your world a disciplined lawful lot only? Not all fighters are guardsmen.

Barbarians LOSE the ability to rage when they become lawful by the rules, but I dont see the problem with a chaotic fighter at all. (or neutral for that matter)

He's still focused on his weapons training and fighting with weapons, his reasoning is just different. His aims are different.

You havent succinctly explained what the actual problem is, you have said power ISNT the issue sighting more powerful combinations as not being a problem. Though you also said above that you thought people were making those choices for power. What is the actual issue?

Fighters are trained and well drilled in their abilities; barbarians are the exact opposite of this, with little to no training and the point of Barbarian's Rage being that they have no discipline. These two classes represent polar opposites.

Their alignment has little to do with it, if anything, too; I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there.

Pascal's Flawed Wager Fighters are trained and well drilled in their abilities; barbarians are the exact opposite of this, with little to no training and the point of Barbarian's Rage being that they have no discipline. These two classes represent polar opposites.

Their alignment has little to do with it, if anything, too; I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there.

Malarky though.

Fighters are trained, barbarians rage. Those are still not mutually exclusive.

You can rage and then go get training.

You can train and then tap into your rage.

For example:

Cyan in FFVI, a trained an honorable fighter; when his family is killed he unleashes a cold focused disciplined rage and wipes out entire battalions to get at the man he holds responsible.

Samuri Jack the cartoon, a trained and disciplined fighter who still unleashed torrents of rage when his back was to the wall.

Tempus the god of war, as undisciplined as they come, also a fighter/barbarian.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head.

As for monk/druid-think the character from Avatar: The Last Airbender which I'm watching with my kids.

Its just nonsensical if you ask me to restrict the basic classes. I don't like halflings, but I wouldn't write them out of existance or make them application only. Paladins on EfU are generally played in a manner that makes NO sense to anyone's interpretation but they're not application only.

Its also a dangerous slope, where do you cut the line on what you don't like about the rules so you won't allow it?

Worse though is the way this was done. The DM team made a fiat. They said "We don't like this and won't allow it unless you ask first from now on and we approve". Yet what they didn't like wasn't the balance of a spell or ability or a way something is implemented by NWN.

What they didn't like was a major core aspect of the game, the ability to multiclass two very common classes--the multiclass MOST common to one of the core races (half orcs) because they just have a personal feeling that they combination doesn't make sense.

This was really something I think us as players should have had a voice in.

(in reponse to the post above oro's) Fighters train in the use of their weapons yes, but you're saying that a CHAOTIC aligned fighter is impossible.

They're focused on the mastery of their weapons (or weapon) and the ways of combat, this is not mutually exclusive with a barbarian's attitude.

Next thing you'll be banning all non-lawful fighters. Saying they're not DISCIPLINED enough.

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.

Druids see themselves as part of the natural world, and the fact that in 3.0+ d&d rules you can have NG, NE, N, LN and CN druids shows that the aspects of nature are varied.

The owl that sits in contemplation on a branch observing it's world is not giving into it's base hunting instinct is it? When it is hungry it seeks it's food and claims it.

More than this multiclassing is often a representation of a characters CHANGE in path.. This doesnt invalidate everything they've learned in their earlier class, they just shift focus, so they dont become better at what they used to be because they're focusing on new things.

Also dont take the NWN2 OC as gospel either, what khelgar does (relevels as a monk) is NOT canon at all, he'd simply start as a level 1 monk and keep all his previous fighter levels. The only reason obsidian did what they did is to INCREASE khelgar's power level, because making that decision would have reduced khelgar's effectiveness as a companion in an official campaign that favours powerful builds.

As a player of a Barb/fighter I don't mind this. The important thing to me is that I still get to play his personality, rather his classes. And apart from the loss of a single feat (which I think the barb can still take but I'm not sure) it won't affect his stats hugely either.

One of the problems is that NWN/D&D doesn't have rules for entropying of skills. A barbarian who starts training at a big fancy academy wouldn't loose his inner rage straight away, but ten years later he would have forgotten he ever had it. To create this effect in EftU would I think be impossible. This is also compounded by the speed in which you gain levels, as opposed to how long you would have to spend training in real life.

The other problem is that it can be a slippery slope, I think however that the DM's are professional enough to prevent that from happening, and that in this case they can be trusted.

Finally I'd just like to ask when this is implemented, I logged on today and had no problem with playing my character, so will it be in a future build, or have I somehow slipped through the net?

Just note that these multiclasses are not banned. If the story fits, and the concept makes sense, it'll be approved. These two multiclasses, to me, are incredibly uncommon, hence the necessity for an application.

lol i love airbender toph is my favourite

I think the rule is more about clarifying the roles of the classes as they pertain to the server.

Incredibly uncommon? I cant see how that is.

Half-orc's favoured class is barbarian, so they're likely to be one without trying. Who's to say further down the track they dont get some formal combat training? I'd say for half-orcs it's likely to be a common multiclass not an uncommon one.

Druid/monks are a rare thing but they can be played right.

But if you start there, why dont you also make all paladins application only?

If you're worried about people not playing a character right, where do you stop?

Soon all classes, even mono ones and playing on the server will be application only.

Is that the end you're really trying to achieve?

It's much better to educate than it is to control. Teach people self-discipline rather than treating them like children.

You're much better letting people make what they want then asking for applications from ones you dont think are nailing the playing of their class(es).

Fighter/Barbarian's practically a cornerstone of PnP play for some people I have to admit, and I think normally the favored class system does tend to balance it quite a bit. It's really too bad that NWN doesn't remove fast movement in fullplate though!

In the end though, this sorta thing's really the choice of the EfU DMs and is no doubt really influenced heavily by powergamers who don't play up the barbarian side of the fighter/barbarian. Maybe I'd have a stronger opinion if I -ever- had any inclination to attempt this.

For the record though, druid/monk is usually just a ridiculous twink build to do wacky things in wildshape even in PnP XD

I think that saying this is a slippery slope and asking where it'll end yadda yadda isn't much of an argument; if you can't trust the DMs to make mature decisions then the very core of the server is at fault. A little more leniency and trust in the DMs rather than taking an extreme and highly unlike happening and formulating a poor argument from it.

I believe on a server like this that it is impossible to get the best outta each class with the conditions and lvl's common. while i do admit that I am a Hypocryte at times....i don't see why you would multi-class barbarian. a rouge / barbarian makes no sense. a fighter that lost his mind and went on a killing spree makes sense. also in the Qua-ron i believe there is a story on a barbarian turning into a civilized soul ((how is very unapproitpriant)). but those times are rare. people who go to the academy who are barbarians would go into a rage smash the doors and run into the woods.

Moot point. i am agreeing with the dm's. multiclass ftr barbarian should be APP

Pascal's Flawed Wager I think that saying this is a slippery slope and asking where it'll end yadda yadda isn't much of an argument; if you can't trust the DMs to make mature decisions then the very core of the server is at fault. A little more leniency and trust in the DMs rather than taking an extreme and highly unlike happening and formulating a poor argument from it.

I think the argument for their removal is the one thats flawed at the moment, I havent heard a single reasonable reason for why they've been banned. The leniency and trust is what's required towards the players, if somebody is doing something wrong you treat them on a case by case basis, not a blanket ban.

I'm not opposed to druid/monks needing an ap, they are a rare combination, I'd also put paladin/sorcs in that same boat myself.

But as was said above barbarian/fighter is almost a standard multiclass combo, especially for half-orcs.

It really isnt much of a step to see a barbarian who's just swinging whatever he can at an enemy to start understanding their weapon, and mimic anothers skill with it. Thats not to say he cant summon up that primal anger.

I'd also like to see the fast movement only work with medium armor or lighter, but I think we may be stuck with the nwn1 implementation without a hakpak.

As I said before multiclassing is as much to do with a characters history as it is with what they're doing now.

The banning of this particular build choice was a mistake-mainly because of the fact that they are both base classes and are able to be mixed freely in Core DnD, and because the argument that they cannot be intermingled and roleplayed effectively does not hold water. I could toss examples up, but the simple fact is that this multi-class can be found more than once or twice in various Faerun source materials.

That being said, however, core DnD is always subject to change based on the DM's interpretation of how aspects of the game rules and mechanics fit into their gameworld. The DMs have, from all impressions, very clearly thought about this and come to an agreement that they do not wish this build to be allowed in their gameworld without an application. Ultimately, this is a relatively minor change, and it is by no means a game-breaker for the majority of the server.

It is not, as you say, a "slippery-slope," because EfU is, overall, a very well-balanced and regulated gameworld. The DMs have made changes to the core gameworld before, including the death of an established deity and the rise of a latent old one, which is likely to have a similar impact across the server's character potential as this change, as well as changes to spells, and various other aspects of the game, mechanics-wise. In this case, the DMs have installed this rule likely because of a combination of mechanics reasons and lack of roleplay incentive, in their minds, for the class. In the end, the DMs are not going to start making changes that are hugely detrimental to the gameworld, and ultimately pretty much every change they have made to the gameworld has kept it good, or made it better.

The only major problem resulting from this is what appears to be a very heavy-handed interference in player's characters. Previously, changes to spells, skills, and even the deity change did not seriously damage characters, or necessitate total concept changes-unless there were Finderites hiding out that I did not notice. This change, however, gives a few players the distinct impression of having the rug pulled out from under them-not because of the application requirement, but the fact that they are being told they will have to re-level, which effectively can negate their concepts. In this regard, I would just ask, and expect of the DMs, to work out this issue with each of the players it arises for, and if they are not inclined to "grandfather" them past this rule, then I would hope they are at least willing to listen to their reasons for the multi-class and work with them so that they can keep their characters relatively intact, on a roleplaying level if not a mechanics one, or allow existing fighter/barbarians to send in more leniently-considered applications, or something in that vein.

Heavy-handed interference with how you play your characters would be something to worry about-but this is not that, and I sincerely doubt the DMs would ever slip to that level of aggrandizement. Ultimately, as on the other mechanics issues, you just need to trust that they know what is best for the gameword, with their broader perspectives, and trust them to work with people who suffer from problems this may cause to settle things amicably and ensure that fun is had by all. If this was a discussion, your rhetoric might still have time to sway, but all this is now is a reaction to a, from all appearances, solidly-supported ruling.

Thomas_Not_very_wise I believe on a server like this that it is impossible to get the best outta each class with the conditions and lvl's common. while i do admit that I am a Hypocryte at times....i don't see why you would multi-class barbarian. a rouge / barbarian makes no sense. a fighter that lost his mind and went on a killing spree makes sense. also in the Qua-ron i believe there is a story on a barbarian turning into a civilized soul ((how is very unapproitpriant)). but those times are rare. people who go to the academy who are barbarians would go into a rage smash the doors and run into the woods.

Moot point. i am agreeing with the dm's. multiclass ftr barbarian should be APP

You should note that it's not all Barbarian multiclasses being restricted, it's the all-too-common Fighter/Barbarian multiclass, specifically.

my problem with this is that in all the Pnp source material it clearly states that a dm has complete controll over a game world except when it comes to the creation of a charecter which is the one part that a player should have total freedom in. Now i have no problem with limiting the use of prestige classes (heck thats why they are a prestige class) but limiting a build that is freely allowed and in a lot of material supported seems a bit odd to me (I can understand the argument about the fast movment and such but thats more of an oversight by the Nwn programers and not a fault of the class itself because in pnp they would lose there fast movement in heavy armour)

Thats the thing , I havent yet heard a specific reason why not other than "it doesnt feel right for what we think of when we think of barbarians or fighters" Which to me sounds like a very glazed tunnel vision look at what comprises either of these classes.

It's already been said many times now it's NOT due to their abilities (ie. the power level) being wrong.

Either way whatever i'm saying is not being heard at the moment, nor do I have the power to change any decision that gets made. So i'll have to live with it, and everyone else will too.

I have enough characters that I can just play a different one, I have a barb/fighter but he's just one of many characters. So it's not really going to hurt me. It will hurt the ones that already have characters like that, that have played them much longer than me with all their history and attitudes that make them the character they are.

And yes the d.m's are god(s) here, and it's a "house rules" decision but I still want to go on record to say I dont think it's a good decision for players or the server. Anyway time to move on, I'm done bashing my head repeatedly against a stone wall.

I personally agree with the DM's choice, it seems to make sense to me.

Maybe it's worth asking, to the players who do have fighter/barb classes, why his/her character have both classes? What is it about them in their characters personality and history that make this class combonation make sense?

Just a suggestion.

cmenden

In the end though, this sorta thing's really the choice of the EfU DMs and is no doubt really influenced heavily by powergamers who don't play up the

I'm going to point out here, because the above statement demonstrates a weakness in my own thinking when I use to DM. I use to think as a DM it was your job to prevent powergamers from doing stupid things by limiting any option to do them, rather than the reverse which is to catch the powergamer and tell them to stop on a case by case basis--exhausting as it is because:

If you choose to do something that affects your whole player base because of something powergamers do, then it was actually the powergamers that made the choice and not you.

That said, I think the responses from the DMs on this have been:

Paraphrased:

"We dislike these builds more than any other build because we don't feel it makes sense so now to use this build you must convince us your idea makes sense."

So I think if you're going to disagree with the DM decision here then you really need to attack that statement by pointing out the hundreds of examples of barbarian/fighter in the core books, the several canon druid/monk orders, the core DnD rule book that allows these multiclass combinations, and appealing to the sense of community and cooperation between players and DMs oppossed to the impressment of DM's sole vision on the core components of the game.

Because I really do worry what's next? Fighter/Cleric? Any multiclass cleric? Certain stat combinations? Certain races? Certain weapons? All in a downhill slope? So perhaps the easiest solution is to make this an application only server? *Not being facetious, but raising an alternative.*

I dislike it. A great deal. Truly.

I have several side characters who are actually built around the concept of being monk/druid or barbarian/fighter. Now I have to send in an application to keep playing them? I only play them infrequently, I enjoy them when I pull them out-their classes are a core part of who they are in some ways since I built them that way on purpose partially as a demonstration to people that these builds ARE reasonable and to MAKE sense and AREN'T mutually exclusive.

What I come with honestly is a sense that some touch is being lost with the player base. I'm pretty keen on noticing these things. At first I just thought:

*edited for content*

But as the various nasty and partially angry thoughts subsided, I was like: wow, why are you so mad and worked up over a game? Then I realized it was because it is a game, and when you play games you tend to agree to all the rules mutually and in tandem as a team, community, whatever.

That's not what happened here. A major change was enacted to the core rules. It was done in a jarring way, and it was done in a manner that suggests (and please not I'm not saying IS only "suggests") that the views of the majority of people involved in this game did not in any manner matter when compared to the views of a very small but very powerful minority.

So after a few hours to calm down, that's my realization on why I disdain this change so harshly. Its not as much the change (which is bad) but the way it came across to me (which is just wretched).

Despite all my fondness for the DMs, and there are several whom I dearly would love to meet and hang out with in real life sometimes, I feel seriously like giving them all swirlies or setting them up with my little sister's ugly best friend.

Banning is a harsh term, I think.

They've not been completely expunged from the server for all time. There is still the possibility that, if you want to play a barb/fighter and you apply for it, you will get it, so long as you have proper reasons. I can think of countless ways in which the class can be justified, and countless ways in which it hasn't been justified in the past on EfU.

All we're asking here is that you invest a modicum of faith in the DM team. We would like to think the playerbase trusts the decision we make and recognises that they are in the best interests of the server as a whole. If you trust in the DM team's judgement and recognise that we've not completely closed this door, but we'll only be opening it for reasons we think are valid, you should have no objections whatsoever. Indeed, I'm quite sure that any objections raised here are direct critiques of all the DMs' judgement and therefore supposes us incapable of approving or rejecting all applications properly. So you think us utterly incompetent? It may be a point you'd like to try and argue for, but honestly, I don't think it's terrible convincing.

I don't think Howland or any other DM on the server has ever acted contrary to the server's best interest, and I don't think we've ever let anyone down or given anyone reason to doubt us or our judgement in applications and so forth.

It is my hope that what we have achieved here won't be overlooked for the sake of voicing some knee jerk opinions that have precarious grounds at best.

I truly am sorry that a few players seem to be upset about this decision, and regret that there seems to be an attitude that this is a sign that the DMs are sliding towards a server where everything is application-only. I do not think that is the case.

There are a couple of reasons I supported this change, although I think all of the DMs had their own different reasons.

Putting aside my own desire to expand both classes and give them more flavor in our setting, at the very least I think most people would agree that it would (or should be, canon-wise) be an uncommon build. However, the actual case is that this multi-class is very common in Sanctuary. Going through and speaking with every fighter/barb out there is totally impractical and in the end would do no good.

I, as a creator and builder, have an interest in giving both classes more flavor (particularly barbarians). This will probably take the form of more loot - stuff like raging totems, loincloths, charms that grant more toughness, whatever - that I think will make playing a barbarian more fun.

What is being described as "a very glazed tunnel vision look at what comprises either of these classes" is actually a desire to give them both more flavor, to make either path be viable and have advantages and disadvantages inherent within them but both be fun and have a different "feel." Sometimes restrictions which allow players to make choices actually end up helping them have more fun and feeling more free in being able to make meaningful choices.

I do not personally find the argument "he's a skillful and trained fighter who can draw on an inner rage from time to time" to be convincing or desirable. This may be because my interpretation of both classes (and you can certainly argue that this is non-canon if you like, but we're a non-canon server) is that they are very different and represent opposed forms of training and combat.

I think what really convinced me that this is a good decision is that allowing the fighter/barb multi-class simply wasn't fair to its players. I do not like unwritten rules. And the truth is that I, and probably other DMs, simply weren't going to change our minds that we don't like the combination. An unwritten rule of this kind simply wasn't fair. If I was totally new to roleplaying or EfU, I could absolutely see myself making a fighter/barb (maybe he'd been trained by a soldier but sometimes he got really pissed off and flipped out on people). However, I would be disappointed to learn after the fact that the Dms who administrate the server actually dislike the build. If we're going to DM this world, I do believe it is our responsibility to make our likes/dislikes clear and avoid unwritten rules but instead design a world as best we can.

I have nothing but affection for the EfU playerbase and players who currently play fighter/barbs. Please do not take this personally, but instead see it is what for it is: an attempt to improve the server and make playing both classes more fun.

Except, I think its entirely wrong. Every word you said. Its not a knee jerk reaction.

You're asking players to justify choosing the basic classes of the system in combinations the DMs do not like. Its a pain and shows no trust for your player base.

It assumes that the majority of players are a problem, so a solution is now necessary to prevent them from doing things wrong. When the problem is a small number of players who are choosing classes based solely, on what the DMs perceive is improper reasoning. Likely without approaching the majority of players with this class combination to see if that is the case.

It ignores the simple fact that there are a thousand ways to justify the build based on the feeling that its not always being justified.

Its also quite silly. There are classes like paladin and cleric that require far more justification to play and portray accurately than a barbarian/fighter-but these classes weren't the target of the change in policy. The system in game works fine for the cleric/paladin group though.

It assumes that if you're playing these classes and doing it poorly, that you'll lose your paladin/cleric powers.

I think its far better that if the DMs noticing a barbarian/fighter that isn't portraying his classes well that they should shift the barbarian's alignment towards lawful, or toggle the character so he can't Rage and tell him he's become so disciplined he's lost touch with his Rage ability until he makes a real effort to get back to his inner anger.

Point of fact though Ladociea is that you said the players raising complaints here are voicing the view that

I'm quite sure that any objections raised here are direct critiques of all the DMs' judgement

and therefore supposes us incapable of approving or rejecting all applications properly.

I'm sure the DMs can still judge applications properly. The point is, that basic combinations of the core classes of DnD should not require applications.

The ability of someone to criticize a single decision is not the same as the ability to believe someone is incapable of making a rational and thought out decision. Its the ability to have enough respect for the DMs to say "You made a bad decision and here is why it is a bad decision."

If you disagree with my view, I'd prefer to hear a rational disagreement about why you disagree and not be told I'm having a "knee jerk" reaction and the last thing I want to hear is "trust in the DMs" because it didn't work in Catholic school when it was "trust in God" and its not working now. I prefer to be given real explanations and not asked to have faith.

I really wish to know why the DMs felt that

1) The core rules of character creation were inadequete. 2) Why they felt the need to change them without talking to the player.

Even your own words say there are a thousand ways to justify these class combinations; so why on earth are other DMs saying the combination just doesn't make sense?

What doesn't make sense is the reasoning we're getting. It looks like "group think" to me.

A few DMs dislike a few barbarian/fighter builds because they don't think the players using them are portraying them well *even though every DM seems to agree that you can justify the build*. This indicates that the problem is not with every use of the build, only a few.

So the solution was not to deal with those few cases, but to arbitrarily deal with the entire player base.

There were better solutions, I get the feeling they weren't discussed. My feel is that a DM or a few DMs said "Man, I hate that build." the others agreed and they decided to remove the ability of players to play it unless they go through the effort of asking for a special perk.

The ability to portray a basic class combination is not a special perk, nor should it have been relegated to the status of one.

You can't be surprised that players are going to think the reasoning is untenable when its largely unexplained and thus far vaguely articulated or is defended with a "trust us" when the result of the decision itself was to reduce trust. You certainly can't be shocked when they disagree with a major change to the core rules of the game in which their opinions and views were not incorperated.

I had a modicum of faith in the DM team prior to this, I've gone through things that tested it but it normally is entirely restored even after some very frustrating situations-but this isn't about faith its about fiat.

Howland I do get where your coming from, I still dont like it, but as I said above i'm going to let the matter lie from my point of view.

Whats the status of other sorts of multiclass barbarians, or other sorts of multiclass fighters.

If these items are being made for fighters and/or barbarians that is overpowering on a character that is both. What about the other sorts of builds that will have access to the item?

Also what about magic device usage skill that may allow these items to be worn by a multiclass bard/fighter or bard/barbarian?

I trust in the DMs, and I agree with their decision. Barbarian/Fighter is silly, most of the players who have it don't really seem to justify it, and those who really feel strongly about it can send in the application (That likely has to be nowhere near as good as any other sort of application) to play their class selection.

EfU has always kicked ass, and the DMs have always been willing to talk with people about their qualms, though hassling them in this manner I find is pretty lame. In the end, it boils down to; They're the ones who have put months, if not a year+ of their time into it. We're the people who enjoy it for their hard work, and they're the ones who have to hear our whining everytime they do something we don't agree 110% on.

Tip of the hat to the DMs, wag of the finger to the nay-sayers!

Howland

Putting aside my own desire to expand both classes and give them more flavor in our setting, at the very least I think most people would agree that it would (or should be, canon-wise) be an uncommon build. However, the actual case is that this multi-class is very common in Sanctuary. Going through and speaking with every fighter/barb out there is totally impractical and in the end would do no good.

I, as a creator and builder, have an interest in giving both classes more flavor (particularly barbarians). This will probably take the form of more loot - stuff like raging totems, loincloths, charms that grant more toughness, whatever - that I think will make playing a barbarian more fun.

I could show you a conversation another DM team had once where we decided fighters were bland, and barbarians lacking flavor. We wanted to add raging totems, loincloths, and charms that granted ore toughness to make barbarians more fun but worried people with fighter levels would use them and unbalance the game.

There is a very simple script that checks the levels of a character, if it finds fighter levels, the character can't use the barbarian item. Again a less disturbing solution than the one chosen for this case.

What is being described as "a very glazed tunnel vision look at what comprises either of these classes" is actually a desire to give them both more flavor, to make either path be viable and have advantages and disadvantages inherent within them but both be fun and have a different "feel." Sometimes restrictions which allow players to make choices actually end up helping them have more fun and feeling more free in being able to make meaningful choices.

I think tunnel vision, while a little strong, is roughly accurate. Its just that in a desire to expand, you've restricted and feel it will be helping.

Yet to many players, it looks like you didn't look at all the options to achieve your goal and fixated on an option that is hard for several players to swallow and stomach.

I do not personally find the argument "he's a skillful and trained fighter who can draw on an inner rage from time to time" to be convincing or desirable. This may be because my interpretation of both classes (and you can certainly argue that this is non-canon if you like, but we're a non-canon server) is that they are very different and represent opposed forms of training and combat.

It would be very different if from the start of EfU the decision was "Fighters and Barbarians are such inherently different classes they can only rarely combine, therefore the class mixture is application only."

What was done though was after the server had been live for a year, an aspect of the core rules got changed. Not only that, I think there is a kind of gentleman's agreement with players and DMs that while any aspect of the setting can change at DM will (Finder can die, Moander can be reborn) things that compose the mechanics of how the server works (raise dead now requires a diamond) fall into the range of things you do with great thought and at least some discussion with the players but changing major aspects of how the game system itself handles (fighter/barbarian is now considered equivalent of a PrC or special perk like unusual races) is not something that should have been done without polling the opinion of the entire player base that idea affects.

I think what really convinced me that this is a good decision is that allowing the fighter/barb multi-class simply wasn't fair to its players. I do not like unwritten rules. And the truth is that I, and probably other DMs, simply weren't going to change our minds that we don't like the combination. An unwritten rule of this kind simply wasn't fair. If I was totally new to roleplaying or EfU, I could absolutely see myself making a fighter/barb (maybe he'd been trained by a soldier but sometimes he got really pissed off and flipped out on people). However, I would be disappointed to learn after the fact that the Dms who administrate the server actually dislike the build. If we're going to DM this world, I do believe it is our responsibility to make our likes/dislikes clear and avoid unwritten rules but instead design a world as best we can.

There's the part that irks me the most. You changed the rule because the DMs don't like the combination and I have to draw from that that it means the DMs tended to directly or indirectly react hostily to those builds. So to correct this, the builds are hidden.

Its like the Muslim head dress for women. Men react badly to uncovered women, so its the woman's fault and she needs to cover up.

I think the fault here is in how the DMs look at this, and it would have been better for them to adjust thier own thinking than to force the players to adjust their play style. Again the way the change was implemented may have been worse than the change itself.

I have nothing but affection for the EfU playerbase and players who currently play fighter/barbs. Please do not take this personally, but instead see it is what for it is: an attempt to improve the server and make playing both classes more fun.

I don't see how anyone can't take that a little personally. Its already been said the DMs dislike the build. Which means you have to have something other than affection for the players who use the build. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had to restrict the build for the players as you said.

I'd prefer to have seen the player base polled on this, to feel like a major change to the server was put through the players.

What happens when the DMs decide they don't like fighter/cleric--afterall if you're focusing on your god and his dogma to the exclusion of everything else you shouldn't have time to learn to fight. Barbarian/Bard since afterall bards are master's of written word and writing and expression but barbarians are poor communicators who resort to rage and violence to solve problems. What about clerics who use martial weapons? Then sorcerers who use martial weapons? Again they don't always make sense, these choice require justification often.

I think that's why players fear a "slope" its easy to see where the justification for this decision can go in the future and the door has been opened. There also is a lack of trust that future decisions of this sort would be made with any input or regard to the players affected. Again based on how it was done and what was done.

Howland I would be disappointed to learn after the fact that the Dms who administrate the server actually dislike the build. If we're going to DM this world, I do believe it is our responsibility to make our likes/dislikes clear and avoid unwritten rules but instead design a world as best we can.

My second main character here after my Min/Maxed Dwarf Druid (I needed something that would survive the harsh realities of beta) was a Fighter/Barb. I went Barb after level 4 of Fighter for the hp, the taunt, and the rage. I really didn't know any better and it did disappoint me to learn the Dms thought that was silly. And it was! I also put skill points into Tumble while fighting in fullplate. I've often wanted to make him pure fighter and now if I ever go back to him I'll be happier. I had some fun playing him.

I've had a great time playing EFU, and have been around almost as long as the server has been up. I've always been treated very respecfully and professionally by the DM crew, and have never personally experienced anything that would lead me to question their judgement in such a fundemental way.

Regards, Winston

Postscript,

I'm actually surprised that one of the players that makes the server so much fun is spearheading this discussion. The dms love you, and I love you, albiet from a distance. If you want to play a fighter/barb or monk/druid or pretty much anything I bet you have a great reason for it and the dms will give you the go ahead. Your opinion is valid but I think you should also respect that your voice was heard and the people that run the server have made their decision.

Winston Martin

I'm actually surprised that one of the players that makes the server so much fun is spearheading this discussion. The dms love you, and I love you, albiet from a distance. ... Your opinion is valid but I think you should also respect that your voice was heard and the people that run the server have made their decision.

One thanks!

Two I'd prefer to see a server community where the people who make big decisions are the community, not just the people who moderate the community. I'll admit forthrightly that that is my big concern in this.

After reading through the different opinions and such, my key issue with it is the fact that it was done without player concent. Though my thoughts have been voiced by others, so I'll not go into it.

The important thing in my mind, is the fact that you still can apply for it. It isn't like the DMs said "YOU TAKE THESE AND YOU ARE BANNED! APP AND WE SHALL MOCK YOU!". It is still possible to obtain the multiclass, but simply through applications. While I have never DMed, anything aside from small campaigns with friends, I think it is good to have things documented, especially when it comes to multiclassing and other things. Sometimes, yes, there are appropriate multiclasses, and yes, sometimes there are things that take away from both classes when they are mixed.

I somehow doubt the application to get the multiclass approved is going to be as hard as applying for a CG City watchman drow who is a spellguard spy working for the lower council while still having friendly relations with Tranesyr. Or even a special "Backround" approved. You were once a barbarian or a soldier, and you went a different path. If the character build is reasonable, and the story fits the build, then I'm sure we will still see Fighter/Barbarians.

The issue I have, is I don't believe simply flying off the handle in one tragic event is what makes a barbarian a barbarian. "That guy dinged my car! RAAAAGH!". Barbarian does not mean you are the hulk. If it is appropriately RP'd, it should be given. That's my thoughts on most things regarding classes. This is just putting a middle-man to see what constitutes what is appropriate and what is not. Which is exactly the job of a DM. I almost feel the same should be said of any multiclass.

I think that is the purpose of the "Journal" function. You can put down your character's thoughts, feelings, and goings on. This is a tool that helps DMs see what the hell is going on with your guy, in -principle- anyway. "Today on my patrols for the lower watch I found myself defending a cave worm barbarian from a pair of Orcblood adventurers. In return he offered me a seat at a feast in thanks for my aid". That could easily spread to a fighter/barb multiclass if pursued through IG events and actions.

Granted, I do not know much about barbarians in the canon-sense, I like to think that it is mostly a class that is obtained through spending X amount of time in the wilds surviving getting the more feral "Back to nature" fighter who does whatever it takes to survive, Or through interaction with other barbarians/tribes.

Just a few thoughts which came up in my mind reading through this, altought answers and comments on them are welcome.

1) Are the DM team really need to increase the number of applications they should answer with a decision like this? As this is also an effect of such a decision.

2) As for evening the decision out by offering more flavourful loot: I feel this is a wrong way to handle it because:

a) there is only a small chance that thoose flavourful loots will come up, while the decision is a flat and total influence on the environment

b) a new player sees only the restriction without knowing about possible loots on the server

3) as the server's expandability is pretty much limited by the 'no haks' policy any restriction have a much bigger effect. If there are 20 other PrCs I can choose from, and 3 of them has a theme which is close to fighter/barb, than I don't care about restricting fighter/barb. But as it is not the case, especially that the usable PrCs have nothing similar like the barb/fighter theme, this restriction reduces possibilities more than it would seem at first glance. Same with the monk/druid, althought those classes are basically more restrictive kind.

4) To settle this a fair way I would expect that existing charatcers with that build would be allowed to play further, and only further such builds would be effected.

As far as DnD core classes/rules and such go, that's irrelevant. We use rules of our own design and nothing demands we appeal to external authorities such as canon material. Base classes can be banned or made application only if we want them to be, and since when did you have to write an application to your Dungeon Master to play a Weapon Master in PnP? Is there such a rule in the rulebooks? A rule that demands PnPers write apps to their DMs? No. Yet we all accept that as a simple generic convention of PWs. It doesn't differ from making base classes application only either.

This is not a relevant point.

As for appealing to the players for our decision making, events have proven that players often don't agree with certain things that transpire at a later date to be sound. I seem to remember a lot of discontent elsewhere when Tieflings and Aasimar were made application only from free to play, and nowadays we wouldn't have it any other way, I'm certain.

The server's ground rules and setting were designed, practically from scratch, by the founding DMs. There were no players to appeal to in this, and so the DMs did what they thought was best and made rules and setting specifics that served best for their intentions. The mere fact that you're all playing here and there's such a healthy player base is testament to the foresight and common sense of the DM team.

This has been blown massively out of proportion, really. Basically, if you're a good player who puts thought into their character, you've got nothing to worry about. It's only people who have no real reason for taking their class combos beyond stats that should be concerned. Any other considerations lack congruity, particularly the appeal to external authority and rules. I can see merit in the appeal to player point, but again, if you're a good player, do you have anything to worry about? No. These objections are just an expression of truculence for the sake of being belligerent.

Ladocicea These objections are just an expression of truculence for the sake of being belligerent.

I'd really appreciate the disagreement resolving around the action in question and not a personal attack which that comes very close to being as its a defamation of personal character and feels unwarranted. I already know you dislike me, but we can keep it civil.

I actually can point to the rules that say you should get DM permission for a ECL race or PRC. Sadly, I undermine my own argument by admitting that there is also a rule that the DM should be consulted for multiclassing *any* classes. So I will actually concede this entire argument.

The one I do remain supporting is that this decision went down poorly with me because it was fiat. This isn't a case of building something from the ground up one way, OR even a case of instituting a new rule after an entire vault wipe as it was in CoA when I came up with the idea of applications, but rather a case of determining mid-stream that things would be changed without consulting the player base who deserve to have a say in the game world as much as anyone else.

I think most of us agree that the playerbase could have been consulted, we really didn't anticipate it being such a big deal to some players, though. Which was our mistake, and I apologize for that.

However, the rampant straw-manning in this thread needs to stop entirely, or it's Locktown USA unless new, accurate points are going to be made.

Metro_Pack rampant straw-manning

No idea what this means. Are you saying there's an argument that is being presented to be easily disproven and if so where? Because if its me, I'd stop but I don't think I've "strawmanned". I had to check a dictionary to even see what that meant.

The fallacy of the straw man.

You present another person's argument in a particularly weak manner by translating it incorrectly and then attacking the weaknesses you yourself have projected onto their points.

I'll leave it to metro to explain where you may or may not have employed the fallacy of the straw man, if he wishes.

I'm not going to do that, I'd just like the discussion to be as clear as possible if it's going to continue!

And I didn't mean to imply that anyone, Oro included, was doing this deliberately or intentionally.

I'd definitely like to see a better (radical) diversity of brutes and disciplinary warriors than a cross-breed.

It's funny because my knee-jerk reaction to any restriction is normally "APOCALYPSE!" (which is why I accidentally voted "I hate it"... scratch it out will ya?) ... because it's a good deal in the long run, and if understand basic role-play dynamics (particularly those of a PW), you can probably see through my POV.

I think people are making too much of a big deal out of this.

I am not against it, but,

The player who already has a char (not a lvl 2/3/4 char, but rather an experienced, includes the low leveled who died a lot), should be able to keep it, or at least be considered fairly, as this decision somewhat ignored them. (In this one I refer to the fighter/barb. Not the monk/druid, which needs an application, to my taste)

Other then that, these crosses should need an application.

So my vote, (if there a place to cast it), is yes, but reconsider, those who already invested thinking and playing with their chars for quite a time.

To clarify this because I'm trying to sift through this..

If we have a character that is Barb 1/Fighter X, we have to de-level him all the way down to Barb, and re-level as a barbarian..

OR

get an app approved to continue playing the character as built?

I don't think people are making too big a deal about this.

I, for one, am really happy that we have players who care, and like to talk about and discuss these issues.

Thank you all for your input, and if anybody has anything new to add, it's more than welcome. DMs are not the sole authority in these arguments - we're just the deciding vote. We can be swayed to either side.

Thanks for your contributions.

-Cross

I apologise firstly for the length of this message, and secondly for its lateness. I work 14-hour night shifts, and I just did two back to back, I simply didn’t have time to get my thoughts down on paper.

Firstly lets just reiterate the reasons barb/fighter –wasn’t- banned. It wasn’t banned because it was too powerful. If you want to make your fighter more powerful, it has been rightly observed that there are better ways to do it than a few levels of barbarian. You can take 4 levels of rogue or cleric, and trade a few hit points and one point of BAB for either masses of skill points and sneak attack, or for first and second level spells castable in full plate. Barb/fighter is solid, but it isn’t the bees knees. In fact one of the major game mechanical reasons to cross class is to expand on the lack of social skills offered to the fighter class. Its always annoying to realise that a massively build, trash talking half orc fighter has to cross class in intimidate and taunt…

Barb/fig has been banned, because:

Fighter/Barbarians just don't in terms of how we interpret the respective classes. They are fundamentally different, and mingling them is something we'd prefer to no longer see happen.

Now there seems to be some sort of idea that rage and technique are not possible in one person. I’m not sure I actually understand this argument. Is it because as soon as one starts to practice a little harder with that 2-h axe one is too calm to go berserk in combat? If so this is one of the more facile of arguments ever made. Some of the world’s top sportsman have furious tempers despite spending their lives in constant training. Moreover this argument posits that it is fine for a barbarian to cross class as a wizard, but not as a fighter. The idea that barbarian can stop drinking beer and laying buxom wenches (or whatever barbs do to practice their skills) for a few levels to learn all the arcane mysteries of the weave, but if he practices too much with an axe, he loses some innate talent he previously possessed? Simply ludicrous.

For me, balancing the two styles of combat seems a perfectly legitimate. If EfU was the type of server that paid more attention to class based archetypes, then there might be some cultural imperative placed upon the class of barbarian. A different server might dictate that a barbarian must actually come from Narfell or the Shaar or some similar nomadic people. But fortunately we are, as best I can understand it, the type of server that prefers to smash those archetypes than support them. We have had illithid worshiping sewer rangers; Mendelian arachnid manipulating druids; kobold wizard-engineers; trash collecting begger-monks etc. etc., the list goes on. Some of the most entertaining characters in EfU have been a long way from the classic interpretation of their class, and the server is richer for it. I would like to think that in this tradition we will have a rich future of interesting non-stereotyped barbarian characters.

As an aside, this separation of the barbarian class from a cultural imperative is something I strongly approve of, as the traditional DnD barbarian is subject to the most offensive of the classic tropes. The class associated with less technologically advanced (“primitive”) societies is violent, wild and angry. The primitive is portrayed as stupid, simple and prone to fits of rage. Anyone who has studied, or spent time in a non “civilized” population cannot but find this representation embarrassing. Conan, Tarzan and the other 20th century white men pretending to be black have created as painful a mythological legacy as any you choose to pick from the DnD smorgasbord of politically offensive stereotypes.

With this in mind I simply view barbs as people who tap rage, endurance and mobility for their martial spirit. Fighters are people who practice for maximum technique in for their martial spirit. Any character that does not fall into either of these two extremes might legitimately be a barb/fighter. So what does a barb/fighter look like?

My all time favourite fighter/barb has to be the Kurgen (Clancy Brown) from the film “Highlander” (1986). He is a badass maternal fornicator, with a strong streak of psychosis and fury that puts him firmly in the barbarian class. However at the same time he makes his 2-h sword dance, the control and mastery he demonstrates reveals technique only 4 levels of fighter could provide. He is perfect example of fury and technique personified in a single being. I would suggest Robert MacGregor (Liam Nesson) from the film “Rob Roy” (1995) also makes a good fighter/barb. He is a thoughtful and intelligent fighter, capable of clever tactical analysis, and well thought out battlefield manoeuvres. However he clearly took a few levels in barbarian, as it was a final act of insane rage and endurance that allowed him to smite the end boss.

To summarise my complaint, I feel that the basis for the ruling change is some reductionist vision about what a fighter, but especially what a barbarian should look like and “feel” like. I don’t like this traditional DnD representation, and I don’t see why the DM team isn’t encouraging it to be superseded at every opportunity, instead of reinforce it. Especially in the light of the archetype smashing tradition has made EfU such a delightfully rich and colourful place.

Separate to the issue of the legitimacy of the barb/fighter build, is the way in which this ruling has been introduced. This servers management have been characterised by good communication, careful weighing of issues and patient explanation of server policies. Which is why the ruling on barbarians is so out of left field. It came without any real warning, and appears to give players minimal recourse to object, though I note that Howland has edited out the glib “you can apply but you have Buckley's chance of getting accepted” comment, which is positive I suppose. However the fact I am now faced with remaking a level 7 character I have been playing for several months. The rebuild is going to be painful OOC and constantly break the suspension of disbelief IG. I will not be able to use trademark DM loot (“hey Adewale, didn’t you used to wear nifty platemail?”… “Yeah but I woke up this morning and the buckles were too hard for my primitive (int 13) mind to comprehend”). I will not be able to have the same feats I used to have, I wont be able to have the same skills I previously had. I tried my best to RP these feats and skills, and now this RP is wasted. “Hey Adewale, why was it you used to dance through combat like an incarnation of death, but now you are standing in front of your opponents trading blows?”….”Now I’m not weighted down by that armour I apparently cannot manoeuvre any more”.

Honestly it isn’t the nurfing of my character that hurts so much. Some of my previous characters were nurfed in different ways, and I welcomed the changes. Some of the combinations of skills, skins and gear my previous characters have had have been too powerful, and I was the first to point that out to the DM team. I have also often RPed to the detriment of my characters. I RPed away 3 levels of ECL on one character when I was at level 8 (11). I lost my druid powers on a level 7 character, never to get them back, knowing full well OOC that I would do so. So taking a step backwards in power for my character isn’t really the problem, it’s the suggestion that my character was so designed for powergaming, and/or such an affront to the FR world and the DnD game rules that I cannot continue to play him in the way I originally designed. It makes me look like a selfish mook who should have known better than to roll a barb/fighter, and frankly that really hurts.

P.S.

Druid/monk is a separate issue. It obviously has some intrinsic problems within the gameworld. With this in mind we might note that they have been very rare, in fact I have never seen one. This shows that even though they are a recognised power build, people think it is silly on an RP server. On the other hand the fact that fighter/barbs are so common, shows that many players don’t have a problem with it. There have been hate forum messages about how annoying ranger/rogues are, or paladins with cross classes… but not fight/barbs.

A few points to make about those who disagree

1st - Multi-class restrictions -do- apply for other classes. Paladins can only multi-class into certain classes pending on their god, and, though I'm not sure, I believe it applys to clerics as well.

2nd - In the players handbook under multi-classing, it states that all multiclasssing is at dm descreation, so the dms could be justifyed in making all multi-classes app only. The fact that they are only appyling it to builds they believe should be rare is loose as it is.

3rd - You can -still- be one, you simply need to app for it, meaning as long as you have a good reason, you can still get it.

4th - It is an overused build, the dms wouldn't make a change like this if it only affected 1 or 2 characters.

If anything what i object to is the way this came about the lack of discussion or even the hint that this change was on the wind, I feel that as a player this should have at least been discussed with the base irrespective of the decision. Currently the way this has been done has just left a bad taste in my mouth.

My opinion: It isn't really a big deal...

If I want to play a Fighter/Barbarian I apply for it.

The Druid/Monk I cannot see myself playing, but if you can, write up an app.

Naturally, I can see how this might lead to futher restrictions down the line, but if the DM team feel strongly about such, I'll play ball and see where it leads. They haven't let me down thus far and so I will trust their judgement until proven wrong.

I have had Barbarian/Fighter myself. A great Rashemi warrior he was if I may say so myself. He died a Barbarian's death charging into a lair of monstrous creatures (Setting off three traps in the process - Damn you, NC!1). I am confident this character would have been approved of the multi class combination had he been created now. I trust our DMs.

Currently, I have a pure fighter and what I am most upset about is the fact that he sees himself as a rather scary individual, but due to intimidate being a cross class skill for fighters (class skill in 3.5), he's not doing so well. Apparently, skilled fighters aren't very scary. Since Barbarians are VERY scary, he could multi class to boost his intimidate skill, but that would not fit the character at all, and so I will refrain from such foolishness.

I believe that many things can be achieved through applying for them and speaking your case. And this change matters little to me.

Currently, I have a pure fighter and what I am most upset about is the fact that he sees himself as a rather scary individual, but due to intimidate being a cross class skill for fighters (class skill in 3.5), he's not doing so well. Apparently, skilled fighters aren't very scary. Since Barbarians are VERY scary, he could multi class to boost his intimidate skill, but that would not fit the character at all, and so I will refrain from such foolishness.

There are ways around it, such as taking the feat skill focus, being better at a skill you're not normally suited for is one of the reasons this feat was made.

Not to mention that if the multiclass if for skills, there are still plenty of options to choose from.

If you wanted to go even further than that, there is always skill boosting items, which again, if explained properly to a dm, there is nothing to stop you obtaining an item like that.

Back to Topic though, although the change is rather sudden, it isn't as sudden as many make it out to be. Various DM's made their views clear in my Ranger/Rogue regarding -these specific builds- as well as the build covered by the origonal post. Said topic was started a while back, and many would have had a chance to read it since it remained active for so long. In a way, this rule was always in effect, since Apps for unusal character conceapts are to be made anyway, in doing this, the dms are simply making that rule clearer in regards to unusual multi-classing.

The Dms could very well go down a road in which few cross-classes are allowed without Apps, though personally, I would be in favour of this. The entire point of the rule change was to allow more realistic multi-classing, so in what ways is it really a bad thing? Yes, some players will need to remake their characters, but if they are desperate to get their characters back to what they were, there are plently of ways to go about it.

If you want a barberian with more focus in fighting, feats like weapon focus are simply the best way, since (as I agree with the dms here) Barberians and Fighters fight in very different ways. One point I strongly disagree with is playing a fighter, then taking a barberian level to RP "the character getting angry". This sounds like a misinterpretation of Rage to me. As I see it, rage is enacting primal rituals to allow the character to fight in a way that would normally be impossible (at least in a non-magical world anyway). Simply "being angry" isn't enough, otherwise any class could justify it. In fact, one of my primary characters has a reputation for being overly angry, yet I still fail to see how that justifies recieving -alot- more hit points the ability to go into a blood soaked frenzy -at will- (and it is at will, there is no save or check to prevent going into rage, you simply choose to, this is even in standard D'n'D). Simply being angry isn't enough, its not like some cheesy T.V show where, if the bully suddenly decides to glare at the main characters girlfriend in the corner, said character goes from being a complete wimp to some kind of heavy-wieght in a snap.

Yeah rage sort of conjures up images of the "hulk", going blitzo and out of control.

However it's not so out of control that they throw their weapon and start trying to claw their enemy apart. They dont froth at the mouth and go blind from the blood pressure in their eyes.

It's still a focused thing , it's also an act of self will (unlike the frenzied beserker who can frenzy upon getting hurt by something else) the barbarian chooses when to whip themselves up into that adrenalined state. (which is how I see rage)

Like others I dont see fighters and barbarians from being so different that they cannot mesh and find a middle ground. It's not so far of a jump for a chaotic fighter to become a barbarian either given the right worldly influences.

As I said earlier one of the aspects of multiclassing is to speak of a characters history, what they used to be, and what they have become now. It's as much a legacy as it is a current state of being.

Scrappa's post was well thought out and put together and I agree completely with everything he said but the d.m's obviously have VERY strong feelings about this subject or they wouldnt have jumped at the change like they did. Although I still dont really understand the attitude they must have their reasons, as a player I dont get to see all the "events" that transpire that a d.m does.

I think maybe it's best to just let it lie for now, see how the decision as made.. goes.

Well, at any rate we've decided to go with a different angle. I do think it's a shame in some ways, but I think it will work out all right.

Well...that was interesting. I suppose. Good, bad, and ugly.

Ultimately, the DMs decided that it was better and more in keeping with the spirit of the DM/Player relationship for us to reward players for playing things like straight barbarian (mechanically disadvantaged). We're going to try to introduce some new abilities, and other incentives for people to play this lesser-used class, as an alternative to the standard fighter/barbarian, rather than punishing or limiting people's ability to play fighter/barbarians.

Positive reinforcement always seems to work better, and leave everybody enjoying themselves more. =)

Again, thanks for the feedback everybody.

-Cross

well i'd just like to congratulate the DM's here on their response to the players attitudes to the matter..

granted i was in a greement with the decision.. (personally i hate any form of multiclass but thats just me) but the solution that the DM team has come up with is definitely a far better one... adding to a barbarian class is a much better idea the restricting classes..

all in all i'd like to thank the DM team for listening to their player base and being willing to compromise. This is a Rare and mature occurance that i believe doesn't happen that often in a PW / MMORPGS of any type.

*raises his Beer in a salute*

I agree in many ways that a mono-barbarian doesnt get the perks that other mono-classes do, they get the damage reduction far too late in their career (level 11), and up until that time all they get is more rages per day (one every 4 levels) , more hitpoints and some extra saves vs traps if they happen to accidentally trigger one while rushing ahead.

2nd edition barbarians (from unearthed arcana) had a huge number of skills, usually to do with survival (especially alone), the ability to swim and jump well.

For the mono barbarians, heres some ideas for items :

Clasp of the Rager: (armbands), +1 deflection AC, Casts the druid spell Blood Frenzy 1 per day. Only usable by Barbarian: Level 4 minimum Not usable by (any other class).

Boots of Persuit: Casts expedious retreat 3 per day. +4 tumble. Only usable by barbarian: Level 6 Minimum not usable by (any other class)

Amulet of Uthgar: +1 natural armor; summon animal 1 per day. (linked to an item which allows them to pick a totem animal much like summon components work right now) Usable only by Barbarian Not usable by (any other class)

Although I'm all for more flavour, I don't think we should go out our way to make barberians better, as it stands, there -are- pretty good. Any class is good depending on how you use it, barberians for instance, are stong, and tough, their only real downfall is their low AC, hence why it is handy to travel with a high AC character like a cleric or fighter, have them take point then flank them, this method allows you to ultlize the barberian best, whilst not letting it's flaws get in your way. Personally, I've always seen the barberian as a sort of "flanking fighter", considering their high strength (made higher by rage) and the sterotypical view of a barberian with a greataxe, so to me, they come across as "hard-hitters", which is the same way I see rogues and monks, surgesting to me that that is how they should be used. Though again, if you want to remove that weakness, just use your feats, thats what they're there for, any barberian qualifys for Heavy Armour Proficency at 1st Level As it stands, I think they're powerful enough as it is.

Barbarians hit no harder than your average fighter with Weapon Specialisation. In fact, they hit weaker given that they don't receive that +2 to damage constantly, only for a few rounds once or twice per day.

They still gain an effective +2 from Rage, and that applies to Critical hits and when using other melee weapons. Once a fighter takes weapon focus and specilization, they lose those benifits when using another weapon, so whilst weilding another weapon, the effects of two feats disapear.

indeed...but name one fighter who utilizes -any- weapon other than thier specialization

The +2 damage from Weapon Specialisation does apply to critical hits, according to credible sources. Thus, the only benefit over fighters in regards to damage that Barbarians have, is that their otherwise limited +2 damage can be applied to any and all weapons(or lack thereof) that the Barbarian might choose to use.

And as Turbospew suggested, it's largely uncommon for a Fighter with Weapon Specialisation to be using anything other than his chosen tool.

Using multliple weapons is a plus, what if you're suddenly attacked by chosen and your character knows IC what that *possible spoiler*does? What if you have been disarmed?

I didn't say it wasn't, it's just not a major plus in my view, especially when Rage is limited to 1/2 uses a day until level 8, and Barbarians don't do any more damage than a fighter does.

Using multliple weapons is a plus, what if you're suddenly attacked by chosen and your character knows IC what that *possible spoiler*does? What if you have been disarmed?

Back on the topic I think barbarian/fighter is much more powerful as a build than either pure class, and that is reason enough to find ways to bridge the gap. Yet, many people go barbarian/fighter although it is much harder to ICly reconcile the two classes than say pure fighter or pure barb. The DMs had the right idea in proposing making barb/fighters app only, to force people to think more about their IC justification for such a build; but apparently they already found a another and ostensibly better way to bridge the gap.

Dagam The DMs had the right idea in proposing making barb/fighters app only, to force people to think more about their IC justification for such a build

This is the part that initially irked me about the decision. It seemed like a way of saying "We know what's best for your character". I play a barbarian/fighter build, and I have devoted quite a bit of time and effort into crafting him mechanically in a manner that I believe best suits his background and personality. It was kind of insulting when the decision was initially made, because it felt like the ban was condescending in nature. I thoroughly commend the decision to revoke that ban. It shows trust in the integrity of the players on this server.

We all know the 6lvl Fighter 1lvl Barbarian and what purpose it serves...grand.

My issue is: The 6lvl Rogue 1lvl Ranger. I am certain I do not stand alone on this concern...not so grand.

Anyone want to take position of defense attorney on that?

https://efupw.com/efu1-forum/topic/11/11909/rant-alert-ranger-rogues/index.html?amp;start=0 <---Someone beat you to that one.

We -will- be making barbarians stronger. They are a mechanically disadvantaged class: At level 6, a fighter has access to arguably the best feat in the game (weapon spec), and has 4 bonus feats and heavy armor proficiency, at the cost of rage (an ability of questionable utility), 10% movement, and an average of 1 extra hitpoint per level.

Typically, when you've only got 1 or 2 non-multiclassed characters of a class, and have dozens of every other...an issue is present.

I assure you that the ideas currently under discussion for empowering barbarians will make them more flavorful -and- more powerful. Which is, I think, in keeping with the spirit of making everything in this server more awesome. =)

-Cross

Crosswind We -will- be making barbarians stronger. They are a mechanically disadvantaged class: At level 6, a fighter has access to arguably the best feat in the game (weapon spec), and has 4 bonus feats and heavy armor proficiency, at the cost of rage (an ability of questionable utility), 10% movement, and an average of 1 extra hitpoint per level.

Typically, when you've only got 1 or 2 non-multiclassed characters of a class, and have dozens of every other...an issue is present.

I assure you that the ideas currently under discussion for empowering barbarians will make them more flavorful -and- more powerful. Which is, I think, in keeping with the spirit of making everything in this server more awesome. =)

-Cross

That is also the reason that 3.5's ruleset significantly changed Barbarians and Rangers. Compared to fighters, there is nearly no reason to play these classes from a pure mechanic point of view. The 3.5 rules vastly improved both classes in terms of balance and comparability to Fighters.

Does mechanics really matter for class choice? This is an RP heavy server, meaning you are supposed to emphasise RP over powerful builds.

do what I do when players make insane stupid power builds...throw things at them that are just as nasty as they are.

I find PHK ends most fighter/barbs quickly as does hold(the most whored spell of all time!).

so let them build by all means then frag them..it's the cyber punk way...and it's a way I believe in!

Nero24200 Does mechanics really matter for class choice? This is an RP heavy server, meaning you are supposed to emphasise RP over powerful builds.

I would say: Yes!

In PnP, the answer would be no, but in NWN the monsters are usually controlled by AI, meaning that if the mechanics ain't right, you die a lot. And that means less rp, as my char will be dead. Of course, you can play without making powerbuilds, but mechanics are important in a computer game, as it relies heavily on rules and stats in order to determine what a char can do or can't. (I agree with you that RP should be more important than mechanics, just saying that mechanics are important as well :))

Miller Lites We all know the 6lvl Fighter 1lvl Barbarian and what purpose it serves...grand.

My issue is: The 6lvl Rogue 1lvl Ranger. I am certain I do not stand alone on this concern...not so grand.

Anyone want to take position of defense attorney on that?

For the record, I'm 100% behind you on this one, but as someone said, there's already another thread for this particular variety of cheese. >.>

This thread, methinks, is no longer serving its original function.