Proficiencies stack?

Remove all ads!

If I start as a fighter with 3 ranks in war hammer and then switch to cleric and get 1 rank in war hammer, how does that work?
Does it stack? Or does it just take the better of the 2? Or maybe even just take whatever the rank is for the latest class?

 

They do (kind of) stack, but not in the way you describe. If you start out as a fighter and dual out into a cleric, you get back the proficiencies from your fighter career once your cleric level reaches above your old fighter level. Once there, you can use your new cleric proficiencies to keep piling on the ones you managed to acquire earlier, even if you normally can't put more than one star into a weapon as a cleric.

This has the positive net effect of letting dual classed characters benefit twice from the easy early proficiencies, making stuff like dual grandmastery dual wielding builds possible much, much earlier than any single class would. Multiclass characters are even further behind in this regard.

Edit: For reference, a dualclassed ftr/cleric could reach dual GM + dualwield (13 stars total) already as early as ftr(12)/cleric(16), whereas a multiclassed ftr/cleric would need to wait all the way to ftr(27)/cleric(even more), ie. only AFTER the experience point cap.

 

Multiclass can only get above specialized with a cheat.

 

Oh yeah, in vanilla game. Totally forgot, since I've always allowed GM for pretty much any fighter in any combination - IMHO the sheer (lack of) availability of proficiency points is challenge enough.

Arguably, considering how many goodies Berserkers get, it's hard to argue that Paladins or even Barbarians should be limited to just specialization from a balance perspective, but that's a whole another discussion.

 

Barbarians probably should. They don't receive anything that could not be covered by their lack of armor proficiency (and possibly limiting ranged weapons to specialized or proficient).

Paladins should not though they do need to be beefed up a little bit. I like using the spell casting from IWD where they can get higher level spells and a better caster level. I also like adding the smite evil and the immunity to fear among other things.

 

Barbarians were originally considered a 'jack-of-all-trades' fighter. They had a lot more proficiencies and got them faster; as a result they could whack on anything with any weapon -- but they could never truly master a weapon because they lacked the inherent discipline to do so.

IMO it makes sense for only fighters to have mastery -- they are the only class completely dedicated to mastering the art of war and so focus completely on their weapons. Everyone else is ... distracted ... by other abilities.

 

Well if the barbarian is distracted by having a rage ability then surely shouldn't the berserker be treated the same?

In 2e I do not recall an actual barbarian class that was separate from the fighter class and all the types of kits for fighters that were similar in idea and use to the barbarian kept specialization.

In 1e barbarian was a class but it also got a significant number of abilities (and penalties for that matter) that made it significantly different from the fighter.

The real reason that the barbarian lacks specialization is the same reason why it is a separate class rather than just a kit (which is what it should be). That reason is that in 3e D&D barbarian is its own class and it cannot specialize. On the surface it would make sense to keep that going except for the fact

1. The barbarian actually is overall better than the fighter class in most of the important areas of the game and so the fighter needs the help.

2. Specialization in 3e adds only a small amount of damage while in 2e it adds to accuracy, damage, and attacks per round while simultaneously each of these things are more significant in 2e with smaller numbers (a +1 to damage means more in 2e than in 3e due to HP bloat in 3e).

If BG2 was just using 2e rules without trying to shoe horn in some 3e elements barbarian (if it existed) would be a fighter kit which would allow for weapon specialization. As for any issue with the fluff that they should be distracted from weapon training any more than the berserker I would have difficulty seeing that as being true.

 

How do you come up with that conclusion? Are referring to Vanilla fighter or all Fighters and the kits combined? Berserker Rage last a lot longer than Barbarian Rage. Fighters come up with a much Better AC, making them very sustainable in long melees and deal tons of damage by the time GM is reached which can happen rather early in BG2. The HP difference is minor at best.

Barbarian are differnet than Berserkers. Barbarians are wilderness survivors, able to adapt to anything encountered and overcome it. Bersekers are just nasty-ass melee-combat survivors.

 

Much better AC? The best scale armor has just as good an AC as the best heavy armor, excepting the drow armors.

 

I agree that barbarians are better on average than fighters. The HP difference doesn't seem so minor when you take into account the added resistance to physical attacks as well as the fact that getting to 25 CON is quite easy to do, and you don't need Crom Fayr to be sporting 25 STR a lot of the time as well. Plus you got the speed boosts, allowing a quick getaway when your hp is getting low, as well as rushing to the defense of a cornered companion.

I remember using Impaler, and later Ixil's Spike, for my barbarian. Crazy amounts of damage while being nigh-impenetrable. Fun times.

 

My comment was directed at 3.5e barbarians not the 2e barbarian sorry for the confusion. In 3.5 the barbarian is better than the fighter overall.

I agree with you the fighter is the better of the two in general in 2e. Extra HP and damage resist is nice for sure but pales in comparison to the offensive benefits of specialization in the long run. Berserker rage has better immunities as well.

Another are where you can see the 3e influence and how it screws with the game due to its implementation is that barb rage gives +4 str and con. Why this is screwy is due to the fact that ability score bonuses are so weirdly done in 2e that the bonus could give you a huge boost or no boost at all (for instance if you have an 11 str the boost gives you no benefit. If you have a 14 str you would receive only a +1 to hit and a +2 to damage. If you have a 15 str then you get a +3/+7). That is a lot of variation but in 3e with its standardized bonuses that is a nice strict +2 to hit and damage.

Barbarians are different from berserkers (potentially as I think you can certainly make a berserker using barbarian type fluff) in a fluff perspective but really does any of the barbarian bonuses make for it to really show that it is any more of a barbarian than a berserker? What makes a barbarian really a barbarian and how does this one class really show it off? Is it being strong? Well the berserker can be very strong too. Is it raging? Is that something every barbarian warrior does? If so wouldn't the berserker rage count?

I just don't see that this class shows that it is different enough to warrant being a separate class rather than just a kit for the fighter.

---------- Added 0 hours, 15 minutes and 51 seconds later... ----------

True but it takes a bit of effort and time in the vanilla game to get that armor (can't be made until ToB and it requires getting through most of Watchers keep) and by the time you get it AC is much less highly valued. In addition the cold resist isn't so great in the game either due to the relative lack of cold damage in the game (not useless just not as useful as fire or lightning resist). Oddly if this armor was in IWD it would be awesome.

Outside of that armor though you really lack good options. In BG1 you get chain +3 (chain +4 if you count drizzt). Not terrible but not very good either.

In BG2 SoA I think your best armor is shadow dragon leather unless the chain +5 is purchasable earlier than I recall. If so you are stuck with the same AC as thieves which is kind of meh for a warrior type.

Granted I am actually more irritated by the lack of cool options rather than a lack of high AC.


Personally I would have made barbarians a type of fighter kit. Give it the bonuses and penalties it has already but restrict it to proficiency (or specialization) in ranged weapons and perhaps restrict grand mastery into "classic" barbarian weapons for the flavor such as great swords, spears, halberds (as a call back to the two handed axe not due to the halberd itself), and battle axes, etc.

Then the choice between barbarian and berserker are less one sided.

In terms of how much better the berserker is it depends on what game you are using. Default BG2 the barbarian is actually better since GM sucks. BG2EE the berserker is only slightly better what with the better attacks per round. If you use the "true GM fix" type mods the berserker becomes truly ahead in the quality race. Since GM gives an extra 1.5 attacks per round (a full attack extra over the barbarian) the offensive advantage is huge in that case.

 

I find it funny that they added Barbarian as kit in BG2 where there really aren't any Barbarians around the area and yet IWD had no Kit or additional class options. A Dervish from the immediate south like Calimsham would of been more fitting. Barbarian would of been very fititng in IWD. They are a fun option in the IWD in BG2 mod.