Secret of Berserker

[Stworca]

I disagree with rangers always beign goody-two-shoes, thus i don't see a problem with ranger/thief. I could elaborate if needed, but would it change your mind G? No
I don't see a problem with adding barbarian to ranger. These two have a few things in common.
I cannot understand how one could be a thief and a barbarian at once however. These two 'classes' are negating each other. Yay for a thief that cannot read, and occasionaly enrages while sneaking with his 2h axe.

[QuenGalad]

Have a lot in common??!!! One's a country boy/girl, at home in the wild supposedly committed to helping nature and being a good gal/guy. The other is a city dwelling scumbag who cuts purses, robs people, with or without violence etc. etc., you'd have trouble finding two more disparate characters! Next you'll be telling me that a Ninja/Paladin are a natural combination.

I can see where the difference in oppinion comes from. I simply have a much broader intake on rogues. I think there is a reason why the term is 'rogue' and not 'thief' or, indeed, 'city-dwelling scumbag'.
Frankly, it seems to me that if a rogue should never have a good alignment, then neither should a warrior. After all, he's highly specialised in slaughter and lives by hurting/maiming/killing others.
The way I see it, a class is only one of many things that determines who a character is. It is a collection of skills and abilities, which will, of course, have their influence on the person, but so will many other things. Personally I know quite a lot about herbs, and indeed am very well able to poison people in many interesting ways. But that, by itself, does not make me evil.

[Stworca]

Ahhh.. Alignment discussion!


Let's say that Acrowts, the ranger, was climbing on a cliff and caused an avalanche, which killed several villagers living in the shadow of the cliff. Note that Acrowts was not aware of the risks. Does it make him an evil person?
What if Logdeg, friend of Acrowts, told him earlier on to not climb there, as it could cause an avalanche?
What if Acrowts was fleeing from orcs and climbing was his only way to save himself?
What if the villagers were evil cultists, but the hero wasn't aware of that?
What if..?

What the hell is good or evil alignment? No world is black and white. Not real one. Not D&D one. Not any.

[galraen]

No world is black and white.

It is for Paladins and Rangers, more so for Paladins, but Rangers have to stay on the right side of the road too. Take the evil options in the Abyss and you're no longer a Ranger or Paladin; it's just a shame Bioware failed to implement the rules throughout the game. There are a few other places where a line should have been drawn in the sand, but they chickened out.

As for the silly questions about landslides it's very simple; if the Ranger knowingly brings about the deaths of other through careless disregard for their safety, then he or she won't be a Ranger for very long.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Rangers didn't really have much, if anything to do with Druids originally, the class was based on Aragorn, the title Strider for a first level Ranger wasn't a coincidence. No Druids as such in Lord of the Rings of course, so originally when a Ranger reached 8th level they started acquiring Druidical spells to reflect their herb lore and wilderness abilities, and also mage spells*, then WoC started playing silly buggers!

Which was how my very first Ranger many decades ago also had a falcon familiar coincidentally.

Giant In the Playground Games - A Blissful Marriage

In 2nd Ed sure, but the removal of alignment restrictions on rangers in 3rd Ed is an improvement IMO, as is the 4th Ed change to Paladins whereby their alignment has to match their patron deity. A Paladin's special abilities are gifts from his/her deity and so there's justifiction for their losing them when their God decides they've been naughty (in 2nd Ed where they have to be goody-two-shoes), but nature is Neutral in D&D so there really isn't any reason for Rangers to Fall so hard.

[galraen]

n 2nd Ed sure, but the removal of alignment restrictions on rangers in 3rd Ed is an improvement IMO, as is the 4th Ed change to Paladins whereby their alignment has to match their patron deity.

Each to their own, that's one of the reasons I despise Turd edition and haven't even wasted my time on Kindergarten Edition; "don't bother with the role playing, do whatever you want to do and we'll change the rules to fit. Want your Want you paladin/assassin/mage to be able to make weapons and armour too? No worries we'll invent 'crafting', ignore the irrationality, just do your thing!"

[Stworca]

I always failed to see why rangers must be good in 2 ed.

[galraen]

I always failed to see why rangers must be good in 2 ed.

As I mentioned earlier, they were heavilly based on Aragorn and the Rangers in Lord of the Rings. When Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax invented D&D they were inspired by two things, Chainmail and Lord of the Rings. An awful lot of Basic and Advanced D&D were based on characters and features from LotR. Rangers were supposed to be the guys who roamed the land fighting the servants of evil, and as such were expected to adhere fairly strictly to a code of conduct that set them apart from the 'Neutral' denizens of the wild.

Paladins on the other hand were based on Sir Galahad of Arthurian and Holy Grail fame (not Monty Python and the Holy Grail I hasten to add ), and were supposed to strive to emulate him in every way.

The Ranger was slowly mutated (and nerfed) in 2ED for some reason I've never really understood.

[Stworca]

Well i always saw Rangers as trackers, survivalists, hunters etc. And these things point to no alignment.

Not harming the nature in most part

[koz-ivan]

Have a lot in common??!!! One's a country boy/girl, at home in the wild supposedly committed to helping nature and being a good gal/guy. The other is a city dwelling scumbag who cuts purses, robs people, with or without violence etc. etc., you'd have trouble finding two more disparate characters!

well there was this one guy, robin hood or something like that...

either way rangers & rogues have lots in common, as others have mentioned it's the 3rd ed version of the stalker kit. stealth, use of traps & ambush, using only lighter armors, relying on finesse vs brute force.

the level of barbarian is an obvious nod to powergaming, could be justifiable but imho it would need some serious backstory there.

I've always found the idea of a thief/rogue being able to be of any good alignment daft, they are, or should be, anti-social scum, end of story. A reformed character, fine, start as a thief, change class, and alignment if necessary, after atonement, but no backsliding.

the name is bond, james bond. perhaps even the scruffy nerf herder han solo, or from a more d&d based sources tasselhof or regis.

--

either way, alot also depends on how you view multiclassing in 3rd edition, is it revealing the potential the pc always had, or an abrupt change in career path? it could be both or neither, it all really depends on the basic concept.

[galraen]

We're going even further OT here but:

Robin Hood was an outlaw but not a rogue in D&D terms, he didn't backstab, wasn't any good at lock picking or trap detection and removal and never had a rep for being a pickpocket or burglar even. Ironically if any D&D class suits him it is Ranger, after all he was supposed to be a good guy. Trouble is he never existed of course. Neither did the evil James Bond; and make no mistake James Bond as written by Ian Fleming was evil, his bad side was very evident in the opening sequence of the film 'From Russia with Love' even. Just because the other side is bad, doesn't make Bond's side good.

[koz-ivan]

Trouble is he never existed of course.

i fail to see how that might be relevant to a discussion of fantasy roleplaying games and their rule sets.

----

to get back on topic, the berzerker is a fine choice for a pc (or for a companion w/ korgan) they get all the defensive benefits of armor, can use almost any of the melee weapons and or shields. get plenty of weapon skills to customize as they level too.

there are plenty of decent returning thrown weapons for the rare situations where they can't reach that which they wish to hit, and their rage has a sweet set of immunities attached to it.

all that being said if i wanted to play a slightly crazed shock trooper, i'd probably select the barbarian for the even more hp and damage reduction, the slight speed boost can be nice early on as well (really thinking about bg tutu here)

[Pellinore]

Want your Want you paladin/assassin/mage to be able to make weapons and armour too? No worries we'll invent 'crafting', ignore the irrationality, just do your thing!"

Well said, good sir! Turd edition is quite idiotic and the sole reason I quit playing D&D. Buzzards of the Coast ruined the game.

[RiseofBane]

I'm pretty sure that most people on these forums realize the value of Berserkers

I would like to make some corrections (and add some of my personal opinions) to your statements:

1. Berserkers have the same amount of HP as fighters.

Nope, Sarevok has much higher HP and hes 5 level below. And my main char has gears that increases HP. I have total 175HP, he has 188 HP without ANY HP increasing gears. Please, don't assume things when you actually don't know.

2. The THAC0 and damage of the Berserker is EXACTLY the same as that of a fighter of the same attributes, except for the two bonus to hit and damage during rage and two penalty to hit and damage after the rage.

I never said I didn't know that?

3. The half-orc Barbarian does NOT have the highest physical damage in the game. That would be a mage/thief. Also, damage is only dependent on race at the very start of the game, before girdles become available. As such, most characters imported from BG1 should match the half-orc in strength. Also, the weapon type, for the most part does not matter. What matters is the weapon itself.

Well I meant when wearing gears.. and they can wear those 2handed weapons which does x1000 more dmg and theif cant equip those. and with max proficiency points also. Who care about physical fist dmg. Noone uses fist other than monk.. for that underlined part, are you ****ting me?

In my opinion, the Barbarian is superior to the Berserker for the following reasons:

The Barbarian's Rage not only increases his to hit and to damage, but also increases his health, in addition to the immunities (and bonus saves that it provides). Also, this rage lets you control the Barbarian and has no side effects.

The Barbarian's hit die is d12, instead of the fighter's d10. As such, he gains hit points at a faster rate.

Over the course of the game, the Barbarian develops a total of 20% resistance to all physical weapons.

Although the Barbarian is limited to chain, he can still get the same AC as the Berserker by using the White Dragon Scale. My Halfling Barbarian currently has -15 AC. As such, with a total of -15 AC and 80% physical resistance (20% natural resistance, 20% from Defender of Easthaven and 40% from Hardiness), the Barbarian is in fact very strong defensively.

White dragon armor sucks. There are much better armors such as red dragon scale, and so on. Berserker is better IMO.

My answers are in the quote.

[Crenshinibon]

1.

As you said before, do not assume things that you don't know. A fighter and berserker have the same hit die, which is d10. Each time your character levels up, he gains a bonus to his hitpoints, which is essentially rolling this ten sided die. As such, a fighter or berserker would gain a random amount between one and ten, inclusive per level. Because classes have the same hit die, the have the same capability for health. The rest is just luck.

2.

You mentioned that their base attack and damage was about the same as a fighter, where as it is actually exactly the same if you're not using the Berserk ability.

3.

A thief can equip any item in the game, provided he or she meets the stat requirements for it by gaining the Use Any Item ability. And no, the weapon itself is what matters. For example, let's take the Flail of Ages +5 - it would kill a fully protected caster MUCH faster than some other two handed weapon, such as say a two handed sword, like Gram the Sword of Grief +5. Also, keep in mind that when you dual wield you attack significantly faster than a character that's using two handed weapons. The point is, proficiency doesn't really matter, it's the unique properties of the weapon that do, such as the Spelltrap ability from the Staff of the Magi or the bonus elemental damage from the Flail of Ages +5. I've soloed the game with a Blade who had only one point in any weapon at a time and still had no problems.

Physical damage means any non-elemental or non-magical damage used, such as damage caused by a sword or, like I explained earlier in the thread, the massive damage from the Iron Golem fist.

4.

The White Dragon Scale is actually very good. It allows the characters that can only use chainmail attain the same AC as those that can use plate. Also, you seem to have missed the entire part where I explained how the Barbarian would be able to take and deal significantly more damage than the berserker.

[koz-ivan]

i agree w/ Crenshinibon on points 1, 2.

point 3. meh. on one hand the berzerker is pretty much always ready to go - great source of consistent damage, from level 1 on up. maybe the mage / thief does some very odd things once they can shapechange and or gain use any item, but that isn't feasible for all of the early game.

either way in terms of the warrior classes, the kensai deals the most damage. the bezerker may have a slight edge on the barb there due to putting more points into weapons and having a slightly more favorable xp table.

point 4.

i do prefer the red dragon plate (more for the fire resistance than anything else) but ac wise the white is actually better (-2 ac vs -1 for the red).

[Crenshinibon]

In my opinion, the mage/thief is a solid character through and through. Being able to escape sticky situations through illusion spells (not to mention the Staff of the Magi which you can get early on) and of course having the ability to essentially start with +3 weapons and good armor (Enchanted Weapon and Spirit Armor).

As for being feasible at the beginning, it all depends on what you consider it to be. While the Barbarian will have less AC than the Berserker at the early stages of the game, he will have more hitpoints (due a d12 hit-die as well as the +4 constitution bonus from Rage) and will do more damage as well (due to the +4 bonus from rage) while at the same time being able to control himself. let's not forget that the Barbarian starts with a +2 movement bonus as well and at level eleven gains a full 10% physical resistance (which would total to 30% if using the Defender of Easthaven). Also, the immunity to backstab helps a lot in some of the more difficult SoA and ToB fights.

In regards to the last point, while I personally don't care for anything except for physical and magic resistance, I end up with more Potions of Fire Resistance than I ever need. Not to mention you get a Ring of Fire Protection very early on. Same goes for the Protection From Fire scrolls.

The Berserker's main advantage is being able to put at least three points into a weapon (since it grants an additional 1/2 attack per round and points after that have diminishing returns), however, the Barbarian can also achieve five attacks per round very early on by using Belm +2 and Kundane +2 together.

I believe that the Barbarian shares an XP table with the fighter.

[koz-ivan]

In my opinion, the mage/thief is a solid character through and through. Being able to escape sticky situations through illusion spells (not to mention the Staff of the Magi which you can get early on) and of course having the ability to essentially start with +3 weapons and good armor (Enchanted Weapon and Spirit Armor).

depends on what you consider the beginning to be, i was thinking more og bg1 as the start, from there spirit armor & enchanted weapon are pretty far off. (though you can get a familiar w/ tutu which certainly has it's perks)

we seem to be pretty much in agreement on the barb vs the bezerker.

I believe that the Barbarian shares an XP table with the fighter.

DOH! i must have had some 1st edition on the brain.

[Crenshinibon]

Ah. I usually don't play with Tutu, so for me, the barbarian only comes into play at the start of SoA.

While the Kensai does do the most damage out of the fighter classes, it's still second to the mage thief. In any case, my favorite way to play a Kensai is to take advantage of that universal THAC0 bonus and dualclass into a cleric, gaining some defensive capabilities (a good amount in fact), as well as increasing general offense, but more importantly, being the best at delivering the Harm spell.

[RiseofBane]

Crenshinibon learn the sarcasm please.
I said "are you ****ting me" because OBVIOUSLY I know weapon itself is what matters..

You are still assuming the **** outta stuffs, flail +5 can kill faster than Gram sword? How much do you wanna bet? Have you actually used 2handed weapons throughout the whole game? I bet you didn't.

IT doesn't matter if thief can use ability "equip any item". How much hitpoints do thief have? Can they survive themselves against strong monsters? No! you need bodyguards that will take damage first, then put thief to kill the monster. If that's what you meant, I understand. But I don't like that pussi strategy, I am a pure fighter who runs directly to the monster and survives with high hitpoints.


White scale armor sucks, there are billion monsters with billion different attacks/spells. There are many armors that does better job than White scale armor, get over it.