Quote from: Sacrosanct;783202In my campaigns that I DM, I do not allow multi-classing unless it fits with the player's actions in game.  I.e., you can't dip a level into monk if you've never seen one.  You can't dip into barbarian if you've played your PC as a scholarly rational fighter, etc.

well obviously barbarian should be a background not a class cos you can't dip into a culture....
But an excellent plan.

No one minds Graal the Beserker taking refuge in a high mountain monestry and using his time to learn to master his inner Chi and the Way of the Drunken Snail. They object to Graal the Beserker deciding that a couple of levels of monk woudl be useful to boost his unarmoured AC on Tuesday morning and being a 3rd level monk in a fortnight (havign never met a monk, never heard of the way of the drunken Snail and having he Inner enlightment of a donkey).

Quote from: jibbajibba;783331well obviously barbarian should be a background not a class cos you can't dip into a culture....

Except barbarian in D&Ds case isnt a culture, its a fighting style as it were.
Light armour, go nuts, very little finess. Mostly brute force style.

Personally I'd have made the Barbarian for the Fighter the same as the Assassin is for the Rogue. Sure youd lose some tricks. But some players play their fighters as barbarians anyhoo...

Quote from: Omega;783366Except barbarian in D&Ds case isnt a culture, its a fighting style as it were.
Light armour, go nuts, very little finess. Mostly brute force style.

Personally I'd have made the Barbarian for the Fighter the same as the Assassin is for the Rogue. Sure youd lose some tricks. But some players play their fighters as barbarians anyhoo...

Have to agree with previous poster in that Barbarian should be a background, rather than a class. Emulation of all of the above -- light armor, rage, etc. -- could have been accomplished with a Feat, since, as you correctly state, that is a fighting style.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;783310Meanwhile, the schadenfruede of this thread is an example of one of the key things keeping me away from 5E.

This makes me laugh insanely.

Yea, verily, what half a dozen peeps say on a message board shall stop me from getting into a game i was never going to get into anyway.

It's BNG 101.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171-Feats are where the Bullshit goes. Compartmentalizing the hyper-tactical aspect of the game and making it optional is a very good thing.  

Dude! I almost snorted my coffee all over the keyboard. Well done sir.

Quote from: One Horse Town;783379This makes me laugh insanely.

Yea, verily, what half a dozen peeps say on a message board shall stop me from getting into a game i was never going to get into anyway.

It's BNG 101.

   Since, of course, we all game in a vacuum and have no connection to the broader online culture, so that one would never have any hesitation about investing limited resources in a game where the culture seems steeped in snobbery, derision, and a growing search for ideological purity of varying sorts. It is, of course, impossible that this fact combined with concerns about the system's resilience, and skepticism about whether it's a substantial improvement over the other editions I already own without a $90-150 investment, would offset the interest in a gorgeous artifact that has some improvements over the editions it seems to be evoking, and where purchase and involvement would allow for more active participation in the largest portion of the hobby.

  [/sarcasm]

   Besides, the one player who's expressed a system preference for my run of I6 next month (once our Star Wars d6 game hits a stopping point) wants to finally play a version of D&D with THAC0, so we'll be using 2E for that. After that, it looks like Shadowrun's next on the docket.

Pundit's and Lars' takes on 0-level characters are really good.

Either or both of you should look into writing an official article for the WotC website.

I'd rationalise the barbarian thing this way: barbarians are warriors who practice fighting techniques from way back in the days before disciplined formations became quite so important in combat, and warfare tended to involve duels between individual champions, whereas fighters are trained in more modern martial styles. This explains why the barbarian has stuff like rage (driving himself into a frenzy to make sure he's the last man standing in the duel) and the totem warrior (invoking the spirits of the clan to help in the duel), whereas the fighter has stuff like the battle master (whose Warlord-y abilities make him officer material) and the Eldritch Knight (the sort of thing which could only arise in armies sophisticated enough to include a wizardry corps).

Cultures who live in places like the frozen wastes or the inner jungle and other wilderness areas tend to have more barbarians because they have preserved the older ways of war better; conversely, great kingdoms and empires fill their armies with fighters and don't have so much formal training in the old ways. At the same time, a city slicker who was accepted by the ancestor spirits could learn the old ways, and a patient drill sergeant could teach Conan to fight in a testudo if necessary.

Quote from: Warthur;783395I'd rationalise the barbarian thing this way: barbarians are warriors who practice fighting techniques from way back in the days before disciplined formations became quite so important in combat, and warfare tended to involve duels between individual champions, whereas fighters are trained in more modern martial styles. This explains why the barbarian has stuff like rage (driving himself into a frenzy to make sure he's the last man standing in the duel) and the totem warrior (invoking the spirits of the clan to help in the duel), whereas the fighter has stuff like the battle master (whose Warlord-y abilities make him officer material) and the Eldritch Knight (the sort of thing which could only arise in armies sophisticated enough to include a wizardry corps).

Cultures who live in places like the frozen wastes or the inner jungle and other wilderness areas tend to have more barbarians because they have preserved the older ways of war better; conversely, great kingdoms and empires fill their armies with fighters and don't have so much formal training in the old ways. At the same time, a city slicker who was accepted by the ancestor spirits could learn the old ways, and a patient drill sergeant could teach Conan to fight in a testudo if necessary.

What about a Pit fighter from the urban sprawl or a Mongol horseman with sophisticated combat tactics but totem animals and all sorts?
What about a barbarian shaman?

The barbarian is just a fighter from a different culture. They might have different tactics etc but these should be expressed with feats as should being able to fight in a testudo without taking a rank of fighter

Quote from: Exploderwizard;783385Dude! I almost snorted my coffee all over the keyboard. Well done sir.

Thanks. I knew I was onto something when it came to me.

I'll cop to moderate schadenfruede with respect to the loudest of the "D&D always sucked until 4e finally got it right!" haters.

But mostly, I was pleased to open the PHB and immediately think "Yep...this looks like D&D". And I'm someone who enthusiastically adopted 3e when it was first released.

Quote from: One Horse Town;783379This makes me laugh insanely.

Yea, verily, what half a dozen peeps say on a message board shall stop me from getting into a game i was never going to get into anyway.

It's BNG 101.

Personally it reminds me of neonchameleon.  Just the other day something came out about 5e (can't recall what it was, but it was pretty minor), and his response was, "Well, this is the deciding factor.  I won't be playing 5e."

Yeah, like your comments for the past 2 years didn't already imply that but now this is the deciding factor.  :rolleyes:

Statements like that and AG's aren't a declaration that the game isn't for them, it's an opportunity for a backhanded swipe at people who have different opinions.

Quote from: jibbajibba;783396What about a Pit fighter from the urban sprawl or a Mongol horseman with sophisticated combat tactics but totem animals and all sorts?
What about a barbarian shaman?

The barbarian is just a fighter from a different culture. They might have different tactics etc but these should be expressed with feats as should being able to fight in a testudo without taking a rank of fighter

In your reading, not in mine. I'm just trying to provide an IC explanation for why the different classes can all conceivably combine with the different backgrounds, or why partway into their career a fighter might multiclass into barbarian or vice versa.

It sounds to me like what you really want is to just use the basic classes and collapse all the fighty types down into the classic fighter, which is fine by me but not how I'd be likely to run 5E.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;783410Personally it reminds me of neonchameleon.  Just the other day something came out about 5e (can't recall what it was, but it was pretty minor), and his response was, "Well, this is the deciding factor.  I won't be playing 5e."

Yeah, like your comments for the past 2 years didn't already imply that but now this is the deciding factor.  :rolleyes:

Statements like that and AG's aren't a declaration that the game isn't for them, it's an opportunity for a backhanded swipe at people who have different opinions.

I find this so so so fucking hilarious! Exactly.

Quote from: Dimitrios;783409I'll cop to moderate schadenfruede with respect to the loudest of the "D&D always sucked until 4e finally got it right!" haters.

But mostly, I was pleased to open the PHB and immediately think "Yep...this looks like D&D". And I'm someone who enthusiastically adopted 3e when it was first released.

This is, of course, all that anyone is really saying. Funny how uptight people get.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;783410Personally it reminds me of neonchameleon.  Just the other day something came out about 5e (can't recall what it was, but it was pretty minor), and his response was, "Well, this is the deciding factor.  I won't be playing 5e."

Yeah, like your comments for the past 2 years didn't already imply that but now this is the deciding factor.  :rolleyes:

Statements like that and AG's aren't a declaration that the game isn't for them, it's an opportunity for a backhanded swipe at people who have different opinions.

Yup.