Talk:Barkeeper (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Playing this class[edit]

I'm playing this class at level 16 in a campagin w/ a large group. This is an awesome, actually balanced class. We don't have a healer, which ends up being ok since I can get potions out to everyone really quickly. Once I hit 20 I'm multiclassing into an alchemist from the Pathfinder stuff. Will give me the ability to make pretty much any level 6 spell into a potion by level 30. After that I'm not sure. But to the author, excelent job on the class. It plays really well and no one has complaned about balancing issues.

The trouble with Improvised[edit]

To add magic properties to weapons or armor, it requires them to be masterwork. An improvised item, by definition, is not one that has been masterfully designed for the purpose of combat. My suggestion? Boost the attack benefits with improvised weapons to be more on-par with magic weapons, and drop the idea of improvised shields. Regular shields work fine, are inexpensive and lightweight, are ready and useful during surprise rounds, and can be upgraded with magic properties.

A table as a shield is just ridiculous. The heft/balance is horribly wrong; you'll break your arm or go numb. Even tower shields are less unwieldy than a small shield-sized table. It doesn't really add anything interesting to the class, and encouraging people to buy, upgrade, and use regular shields will help ensure they have a reasonable amount of equipment to spend money on, just like every other non-monk class.

A work-around for this would be easy if the barkeep carries an improvised weapon with him, as opposed to picking one up on the run. For this example, we'll use my character Olaf's weapon of choice - a board with nails in it. Now, a masterwork board with nails is, to put it bluntly, silly. So, to accomplish this, only the nails are masterwork, and the nails themselves are enchanted. When combined with the board, it turns them into a handy, magical weapon. As for the shield bit, I think that a table is still feasable, it just wouldn't be able to be carried. It would probably be better to state that a table is less 'shield' and more 'sliding cover' or, depending on the character's size and or strength check, a REALLY heavy 2-handed weapon. --Immortal Vanguard 23:21, 26 July 2011 (MDT)

Ex-Barkeepers[edit]

Although this is funny and hilarious, that section seems a bit vague, does it mean that barkeepers are straight up stopped from multi classing, or simply suffer a heavier multi class penalty? Please clarify. 217.125.3.73 11:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Section on Ex-Barkeepers has been edited to give more description to things, as well as to make some sense of the whole 'ex-barkeeper' aspect. If you're not a practicing barkeep, you're not learning the latest tricks of the trade. Thus, you can't level unless you're a practicing barkeep. As for multi-classing, there's no real reason - at least in my mind - why a barkeeper would be penalized even more for multi-classing. That being said, certain classes would be more preferable to also being a barkeep. See the updated Campaign Information section for more. --Immortal Vanguard 23:01, 26 July 2011 (MDT)

Awesome Concept[edit]

I'll give it a better look over later, but from what I saw, that seriously has lots of RP possibilities. -- Flession 10:30, 2 July 2007 (MDT)

Remember that the usual NPC barkeep is a Commoner or an Expert, but this class here is designed as a full-blown PC class (even though a bit tongue-in-cheek). --Mkill 11:05, 2 July 2007 (MDT)


Hmm...[edit]

Severely tongue-in-cheek, not a bit. But seriously fun. Errr, would you like me to help with the wording? Or are you going to finish it? The main issue I've got is you mention several bonuses, but don't say exactly how much of a bonus they add. --Theophenes 22:31, 7 July 2007 (MDT)

The bonuses were in the table, but I've also added them in the text. If you have any improvements, feel free to edit the class (it's a wiki). --Mkill 00:07, 8 July 2007 (MDT)

Hee hee hee...[edit]

I love this idea, I can't wait til it's rated, I'd like to play one myself. (I'd rate but I've not got a good handle on it yet). --Eiji

Or you just play one and then rate it your self according to how it worked out :) --Mkill 01:05, 14 July 2007 (MDT)

Good idea[edit]

Aye, good idea. Got a character panned out for my next campaign, DM seems ok with it.

Fixed a typo just now, yo're into you're. Eiji 22:42, 15 July 2007 (MDT)

Ideas...[edit]

  • Add a fire breathing ability (similar to the Drunken Master) (jon) --Mkill 12:04, 23 July 2007 (MDT)
Probably would be better to keep this as just a potion-based thing. Barkeeps can brew 'potions' at level 3, so then, they could brew a potion to make them breathe fire, depending on their level. Also, they could easily just use a highly flammable beverage and a torch in a pinch.--Immortal Vanguard 23:03, 26 July 2011 (MDT)


  • Adding a Flair bartending skill at 5th level (that works as an Enthral spell) would be cool.--User:deadmanwalking 2/25/2013 6:24 p.m. PST

Reordering[edit]

I've reordered the abilities. The barkeeper now gets a combat-related ability at first level, second level and every 3rd level after that, a potion-related ability at third level and every third level after that, and a "other" ability at 4th level and every 3rd level after that. --Mkill 20:41, 24 July 2007 (MDT)

Reverting IP Edits?[edit]

Is there actually a reason to do that Green Dragon? Mkill said it was ok to modify the class since it is a wiki (see above). Even so, the "Feel free to edit constructively" line seems to have encouraged a lot more edits directly to game statistics of pages -- including by IPs. Perhaps instead of reverting pages right away, we should have people make a permanent link to their first "stable" version of a page. So the first final copy of Mkill's bartender could have a link at the top of the page like this: See the original version of this class. --Aarnott 03:44, 13 March 2008 (MDT)

I wouldn't normally revert IP edits out of hand. I actually took the intial step of getting a second opinion from another sys admin (Green Dragon) before doing any edits myself. Obviously he concurred that these edits appeared to be a subtle attempt to get away with vandalizing this article. I first noted this IP's edits when they edited one of my creations in a negative way that might possibly have escaped detection. I still feel justified in reverting this IP's edits. If the individual wants to come on here and post why they felt their edits are constructive and help make the class a better example I will happily allow their edits to remain. --Calidore Chase 08:01, 13 March 2008 (MDT)
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that it is much more helpful when a user that makes edits justifies them on the talk page. I did not know the history of this IP, and by looking at the history of this page, they were indeed just subtle rules edits. My point was more along the lines of "how do we define vandalism in a case like this?". Was this vandalism or balancing done by a user that just so happens to not have an account yet? We can't be sure. Especially since the talk page here even encourages it! I do like the idea of storing the first "final copy" of a class and even perhaps subsequent final copies. This encourages users to really adopt a class without really bugging the initial user. If the initial user wants to keep the class private, that is what the "editing" part of the author template is for. Even then the author could come back later and ask for a new branch to be made (ie. Barkeeper by Aarnott (DnD Class)) if too many changes are made and have the original page reverted (at which point the "editing" part of the template can be changed to match the author's wishes). What do you think? --Aarnott 09:09, 13 March 2008 (MDT)
Well, for what it's worth, having d8s for hit dice and a couple bonus feats wouldn't really upset the balance (it doesn't seem to be a very competent fighter for a PC class, although granted it's pretty much a heavily tweaked monk), and the latter would give the class a little bit of customizability. Still, it was probably overstepping bounds to edit all that information without at least some notice and discussion (although I imagine that statement is pretty obvious)...Thinking about it some more, maybe they could just do as the Constructive Edits page suggests: "If you really like the new changes you have made, you can always make a new page and say that it is a modified version of another person's page. For example, Half-Orc, from R.M.G.C.L.F. (DnD Race) is a variant on the SRD Half-orc." --Finfreeze 10:38, 13 March 2008 (MDT)
I understand your point of view on this and fully agree, typically there is no reason to revert IP edits, heck I've forgotten to log in before and done a bit of editting. In this one instance I still felt justified in bringing more attention to the edits. Granted they were minor and could possibly have actually been to help remake the class into a better whole. Unfortunately previous edits by this IP did not make this scenario likely. Most minor changes do not need to be discussed on the talk page as they are usually self evident, wholesale changes to stats, feats, etc all in one fell swoop probably need a bit of justification on the talk pages. --Calidore Chase 12:47, 13 March 2008 (MDT)
I reverted these edits because I felt they were the kind of edits that one would implement to tweak the balance of a class to present it in a campaign unfairly. Since I did not take a very detailed look at the edits I may be very wrong. If you guys really feel that these edits are constructive rather than subversive vandalism please feel free to implement them. --Green Dragon 20:34, 13 March 2008 (MDT)
Very recently, many things were added at one time by an IP edit, these changes were not discussed, but they are not exactly bad. Anyone care to review them to see if we'll keep them? --Ganre 00:18, 15 December 2009 (MST)

-Falls over laughing-[edit]

This is by far one of the best classes that has humor to it, you should put as one of the examples a Garden gnome Barkeep(Garden gnome is a SRD race someone made up on here that i came across...lol would be pretty funny) --Ryan B. 14:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)

Great Concept[edit]

The only thing that might be misused is the alcohol = potion ability. Potion of wish and the like, rather overpowered... Other than that its Great!!

...there's no such thing as a potion of wish. Only 0 through 3rd level spells may be put into potions. Read a DMG. --For Valor 15:19, 18 July 2009 (MDT)
Correction: The only 'Potion' of Wish, in this case, would involve the wish "I wish I had more beer", at which point, the barkeep would oblige.--Immortal Vanguard 23:06, 26 July 2011 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class is simply genius and works really well. I tried it, good work with mixing with other characters. Not too overpowered either.--Janwulf 00:30, 26 August 2008 (MDT)

Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because The improvised weapon table is a bit skewed, and you didn't place the class level that one would gain a class ability in the ability description. I guess just redo those two things and you're good. --Janwulf 00:30, 26 August 2008 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it creates a position in the party not really there before. It's like the ranger, this class could do many things. --Janwulf 00:30, 26 August 2008 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's a great idea to have the barkeeper become a character. Original and makes a lot of sense in comparison to the expert class. --Janwulf 00:30, 26 August 2008 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Flavor - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it has none of the campaign information present, and no example NPC present. --Green Dragon 13:02, 26 August 2008 (MDT)

Does example npc and all that stuff really matter? i think there's enough info to make up a playable barkeeper, technically speaking; the rest should be up to your creativity. as for myself, i'm translating this into my home language (italian) and my dm has adopted this class for his npc barkeepers. best class ever. Openyourmind 03:50, 6 September 2008 (MDT)
The example NPC and flavor information does matter for a complete class, aka a 20/20 class. --Green Dragon 11:33, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
Give me time. I'm working on adding more fluff and flavor to the class, while trying to clean up certain things (IE: adding in Extraordinary/Spell-like/Supernatural tags) --Immortal Vanguard 23:08, 26 July 2011 (MDT)

Ratings[edit]

Can we get rid of the above rating? They did not give reasons for why the rated so high, nor did they follow the guidelines for rating. --Ganre 17:13, 29 March 2009 (MDT)

We could just give it another 5/5 on the flavor rating and ignore the rest. -- Jota 18:33, 29 March 2009 (MDT)
I removed the ratings since they did not give reasons. I also removed the one above since the numbers did not correlate with the class. --Green Dragon 11:31, 30 March 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because It seems a little ridiculous that a barkeep could randomly teleport the entire party at a high enough level. --71.111.186.121 22:44, 4 June 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because again, it's well thought out. --71.111.186.121 22:44, 4 June 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's well presented, and well thought out --71.111.186.121 22:44, 4 June 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's damn brilliant. --71.111.186.121 22:44, 4 June 2009 (MDT)


Rating[edit]

Power - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<because he starts with a 0 bab>>> --131.61.211.15 08:30, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<this class can be intimidating at high levels>>> --131.61.211.15 08:30, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<3>>>/5 I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<only because some of the the things like starting package and playing a bartender sections are missing>>> --131.61.211.15 08:30, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<he just sounds fun cant wait to play one this weekend>>> --131.61.211.15 08:30, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

10 Skill points a level?[edit]

I am not aware of any other class that gets a base of 10, this leads me to think it's OP, please discuss. --Ganre 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

changeling rogue substitution levels give 10 skill points a level. this class doesnt have much else to do in the long run. it makes them awesome skill monkeys--Name Violation 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Adult Content?[edit]

Being that a large portion of this article is related to alcohol, and yes I know just about all of us drank before we were 21 at least once, should it have an Adult Content template? I'd say it couldn't hurt, but I figured I'd ask others for their thoughts.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why bother? Kids hear about sex in popular music way before they hit 18, so what's the point? I think the same logic applies to alcohol. More to the point, if you're worried about inappropriateness, what about classes and abilities related to demons and devils, or necromancy for that matter? Nobody complains about the black arts, but they're all willing to jump on any mention of booze. -- Danzig 22:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Danzig on this one. It's not telling kids how to make drinks, or stuff like that, it's just mentioning that booze exists. I guess you'd could try to make an "it's glorifying alcoholism" argument, but honestly Superbowl ads were worse than this is. --Badger 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually a CAR-PGA study (for those who do not know CAR-PGA is an RPG advocacy group that has been around for a bit and has a lot of members who specialize in research and statistics) showed that most parents actually have more concern over what we might consider minor things. For example, the common parent is smart enough and has enough common sense to realize that our books don't teach kids to worship devils or summon demons or how to cast fireballs (I said most, there are a few Patricia Pullings out there who are just crazy and stupid). These parents are more likely to worry about gratuitous sex, drugs and/or alcohol, and extreme violence - in that order. That is why I brought it up, but I can definitely see the point above that it doesn't teach kids how to brew and all that. Just was curious.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
No one cares about children. - ANONYMOUS, 13:47, March 31 2011 (ADT)

Wikify[edit]

Looks like the author went crazy with headlines here. I'm going to go through and remove headlines and replace with bold text and whatnot, so the table of contents isn't 2 full screen lengths, as long as no one minds. --Badger 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding in the ability types would be nice.[edit]

It would be nice to label the abilities as supernatural or extraordinarily, I'm playing a Barkeeper in my game now, and just hit an anti-magic field and am guessing on this. I may go through and add these later, in the middle of a game right now, so it's not viable at the moment.

I actually hit the same hole in my campaign when I got the ability Mobile Bar, as in my campaign, the use of magic leads to becoming demonic. We solved this by basically stating that, in this case, as long as the beer was not magically summoned (in other words, the 'infinite' part was not applied) then it would be considered an extraordinary ability. Otherwise, it would be supernatural, and thus incur the fact that it can be stopped by an antimagic field or, in my campaign's case, lead to becoming a bit pointy-horned. I've added a few tags to a few of the skills in the main article to help clarify. Let me know if you think it looks good. --Immortal Vanguard 23:12, 26 July 2011 (MDT)

Starting a campaign, and enjoying the very beginning[edit]

I stumbled upon this class, and as a joke, mentioned it to the upcoming DM for a new campaign. Ever since, I've been plotting and scheming, and decided to go ahead with it. The DM'd started off with doing 'pre-game', which consisted of little sub-plots to get us all together for the main plot (as opposed to 'you all have known eachother for years'), and mine made up for the previous player's in spades: He took Con damage and got a +1 Bow, I made 160 GP on my bar, spent 75 of that bribing my way to the front of a tryouts line, used alcohol and smooth talking (read: Bluff check) to extract information from a prisoner ,and knocked out a guard with a bench in one hit. Thus begins the story of Olaf, of The Stumble In. This also presents an interesting concept for DMs, as essentially, you're taking a normally NPC and making him active. This can create metagaming in the wrong hands ("I heard while talking to patrons in my bar that...") so just keep your wits about you, and when the barkeep asks if you'd like another, just say no. He's probably trying to make you roll a crit fail. --Immortal Vanguard 23:13, 26 July 2011 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because of it's ability to keep up with damage although restricted to improvised weapons, however the need to stay put in the bar makes this a difficult class to play.

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the abilities make sense, the titles for them are clever, but stick to the purpose, and because it all fits the style of the character.

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because as stated in wording, the skills make sense and are witty while keeping them usable and useful for the character style.

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 Fantastic, not too powerful, not too weak. You've managed to take a comical class and make it seem really viable in a long-lasting campaign. --RussianThunder (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2013 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 Excellent grammar and spelling. Everything was clear, concise, and easy to understand. --RussianThunder (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2013 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 Excellent format. Good use of tables, links, and redirects, without getting everything too messy. --RussianThunder (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2013 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 Hilarious and fantastic. Even without the humor, this class provides a very unique fighting class with a very useful mix of versatile spell-like abilities. --RussianThunder (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2013 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Balance - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I believe it is too powerful between the high improvised weapon damage, the full BaB, and the number of skill points. Something needs to be sacrificed to better balance it. --67.188.243.133 23:13, 7 July 2014 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is clearly worded. --67.188.243.133 23:13, 7 July 2014 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because I noticed no errors with formatting. --67.188.243.133 23:13, 7 July 2014 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's unique but believable. --67.188.243.133 23:13, 7 July 2014 (MDT)

Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors