Dual class FROM a barbarian?

Remove all ads!

I can dual a barbarian TO another class but not FROM any of those classes. Or any other class either of course. How is this possible? Is it a bug? I have the tweaks mod going so maybe that has something to do with it? I chose the option to allow any race to dual or multi but I still don't see why I can do that???

 

It was not possible to dual a barbarian in the vanilla game, and I'm pretty sure the tweakpack didn't add that either. It might be that EE or the EE version of the tweakpack does allow such a thing. You could start as a barbarian, change in SK to fighter for a little bit, dual, then change back to barbarian (as a kit). That way you should still have all the special abilities and higher hitpoints.

Disclaimer: I've never tested this.

 

I think barbarian is treated as a fighter kit by the game, much like sorcerer is treated like a mage in some regards, which means you're technically able to dual-class like you would a fighter.

That said, it should still be impossible to do it inside the game unless you're using a mod to change that.

 

I'm using the tweaks mod so that's probably it. I chose the option to allow any race to dual or multi class any class that's from the normal selection of mage, cleric, fighter, druid, or ranger. It doesn't have an option to change to a barbarian though. Silly game. What a silly game

 

Yeah, of course you can't dual-class TO a barbarian. You can never dual-class into a kit or any class besides those 5.

There's nothing silly about that.

 

Frankly, I find the entire manner that 2nd Edition approaches multi-classing and dual classing to be completely silly. It's over complicated for humans, and the class/race limitations are oh so arbitrary. Why couldn't a barbarian invest time in the healing arts? And since BG is modeled after 2nd Edition, there's plenty of silly limitations carried over. It's also a bit whacky that the barbarian is implemented as a fighter kit, when the game presents it as a base class. But, meh.

3rd Edition did multi-classing so much better.

 

Sorcerer, Monk, and Barbarian are all carry-overs from 3rd edition, so there's no reason to expect any kind of in-system or in-setting sense to it. If you want to make a barbarian/cleric or some other colorful combo, just roll a berserker instead and dual-class him or use Keeper.

Also, D&D is full of arbitrary limitations and ludicrous subsystems and 3rd ed. is no better in that regard. As someone who's spent over 10 years patching up 3rd edition stupidity, I can attest to the fact that as retarded as some systems in 2nd edition AD&D were, it wasn't nearly that much worse as people say.

 

I'm not trying to make a sweeping generalization that 3rd Edition is better than 2nd Edition (though I happen to think that it is - though it is still far from perfect, and I find Pathfinder to be superior to both). My comment is specifically related to the multi-classing mechanics of 3rd Edition vs. 2nd Edition, and yes, in this regard 3rd Edition comes out the clear winner in my opinion.

 

I'm liking 5th ed a lot so far too (we don't talk about 4th ed, that never happened..)
No matter what edition rules you take though, inevitably some things are going to be lost or will have to be "dumbed down" when converting PnP rules and mechanics to a video game.

 

Pathfinder still falls under 3rd edition, at least until they release Pathfinder 2.0.

Between XP penalties, Level Adjustments, and not all that fewer arbitrary restrictions, the 3rd edition multiclassing system is only superficially better than the 2nd edition one, although Pathfinder does do away with most of what was originally pestering the 3rd ed. in that regard (but it also heavily discourages multiclassing in the first place). That said, Pathfinder has layered so much crap onto itself over the years, that's it's hardly any less confusing for most players at this point. It's now squarely in splatbook hell, just like vanilla was before it.

We don't talk about 5th edition either, mainly because they f*cked up with 4th ed. and now there's a plethora of better systems around.

 

XP Penalties? A little more math, sure, but that never bothered me. Level Adjustments? I never particularly found anything about those not to like.

The key difference for me is that 3rd Ed allows for an array of choices that 2nd Ed does not. 2nd Ed was the "no you can't edition", while 3rd Ed was the "yes you can edition", again, with respect to multiclassing.

 

XP penalties and level adjustments were both absolutely horrible ideas that should never have seen the light of day.

3E was certainly more open with what you can do, but it also turned into a part time accounting job and wasn't any less confusing when you really got down to it.

 

Everyone's welcome to their opinions, of course.