Barbarians and Amazons

[Zulgyan]

How would you do this 2 fighting-men/woman subclasses in OD&D, in a non-supplement context.

I was thinking of just using the fighting-man class as base, adding advantages and disadvantages.

[coffee]

I'm a minimalist, myself, so I'd say it's all in the role playing.

But if you want some real rules for such things, I'd look at the specific things each type is noted for. Barbarians are noted for survival, toughness, etc. So you could give bonuses for such things.

Finding food in the wilderness, for example. Say your party is marching through the wilderness and run out of food. You could say that a fighter will find food only on a 1 on a d6, but a barbarian could on a 2 or even a 3 (depending on how generous you want to be).

You'll probably want to have a disadvantage to go along with that, or everyone will want to play a barbarian. Say, a -2 (or more) effective Charisma when dealing with 'civilized' folks, to represent the strange city ways that the barbarian isn't used to.

Stuff like that. It doesn't need to be complicated.

Remember: The less actual rules there are, the less the rules lawyers have to work with!

Hope this helps.

[ffilz]

I would tend to agree with not adding bits. The problem is the D&D fighter doesn't handle the unarmored barbarian very well. One simple thing might be to allow no better than leather armor (or bracers of course - which never get as good as magic armor) and in exchange give more hit points (perhaps d10, or maybe even d12).

Frank

[jrients]

In my Basic/Expert days my group had a Barbarian class that used d12's and was limited to leather armor. The two seemed to offset each other fairly well under normal melee conditions. Of course, the Barbarian did better against dragon breath and lightning bolts and other damage that did not require a to-hit roll.

[foster1941]

In a "rules-lite" context (i.e. if you're not in the market for something like the AD&D barbarian class with its raft of special abilities) I think the barbarian and amazon can both be handled sufficiently by role-playing a standard fighter.

As for mechanically supporting lightly-armored fighters (be they swashbucklers or barbarians) I'm not too keen on it, and think the advantages to going unarmored (or at least lightly-armored) are again things that are best handled through role-playing and the referee's discretion: characters in heavy armor move slowly (half the speed of unarmored characters) so that's a potentially significant disadvantage. Characters in heavy armor can't swim (plate armor = 100% chance of drowning) and probably have a hard time climbing. They have a hard time sneaking or being quiet, probably making it harder to gain surprise (which is, of course, the advantage you most want to have in D&D combat). Do these penalties outweigh the benefit of a better AC? Probably not generally, but maybe if you've got a boatload of hit points -- a man-at-arms or 1st level fighter would probably be dumb not to wear the heaviest armor he could get, but a 7th level barbarian with a 16 Con and 40 hp who's interested in speed and stealth might consider it a worthwhile trade -- he's got a buffer that allows him to take a few more hits in exchange for being able to move quickly and quietly. (Note: this assumes pre-Supp I combat where all weapons and most creature attacks do 1d6 damage and even the really big ones don't do more than 2d6 -- if you're using the Supp I damage system where lots of monsters can potentially deliver 20+ points of damage in a single hit then this doesn't work as well (but, then again, if you're using Supp I fighters will have more hp and Dex provides an AC bonus, so perhaps it still does even out a bit...)).

[Stonegiant]

If you want the brawny no armor type of warrior/barbarian from fiction I would suggest the Evermore module's suggestion-

No armor
Shield only
+2 damage with any weapon used

This really works the best when not using the supplement I damage system.

my 2cps.

[Deleted]

Does anyone have any thoughts on using the OD&D Monk character (from later editions/Cyclopedia) as an idea for how to handle Barbarians & Amazons?

The trade off would be that you can't wear armor to get the unarmored AC Bonus. You could either get the AC rating based on your AC, or you could get the AC Bonus allowed to you if you are completely unarmored (the logic here being that the bonus is based on the idea that you are fast and unencumbered, which in game terms would translate to an AC bonus).

The Monk has a lot of other abilities which wouldn't apply to the Barbarian/Amazon, so those would be simply ignored. But all of the things that do apply (acrobatics, etc., could apply if you're doing a Xena-type Amazon!) could be used.

I've been turning this over in my head for quite a while now, but I haven't actually tried it. I was just wondering if this idea had occured to anyone else and what they think.

[makofan]

To me these are just role-played versions of the fighter.

The advantages of no/light armor?
- faster
- quieter
- jump farther
- swim better
- climb better
- see more

Disadvantages?
- you take more damage

The barbarian/amazon is more versatile out of combat. I think the best thing is to apprise the DM of your wish to play this kind of class, and let the DM then tailor a few things to allow you occasionally to play this type of character with advantage.

[tgamemaster1975]

makofan said:

To me these are just role-played versions of the fighter.

The advantages of no/light armor?
- faster
- quieter
- jump farther
- swim better
- climb better
- see more

Disadvantages?
- you take more damage

The barbarian/amazon is more versatile out of combat. I think the best thing is to apprise the DM of your wish to play this kind of class, and let the DM then tailor a few things to allow you occasionally to play this type of character with advantage.

I would agree with your take on the roleplaying, for barbarians or amazons, I allow them max hitpoints for first level with no armor.

[badger2305]

I've always liked the Barbarian sub-class that appeared in White Dwarf. Interesting and different from the TSR version that came later. I'll see if I can dig it up when I am back home next week.

[doc]

If you want the typical fantasy "Sword-in-Hand, Brain-in-Neutral" barbarian, then just use the Berserker rules in OD&D, which states, iirc, that the berserker gets +2 to hit and damage in melee, but cannot willingly leave combat. I would also allow double dex bonus if the barbarian/amazon wears no armor (the bulletproof nudity rule).

Doc

[philotomy]

foster1941 said:

As for mechanically supporting lightly-armored fighters...I'm not too keen on it...

I agree with Foster, on this. I think the advantages and disadvantages of armor are already built-in (more protection, more noise, less speed/more weight). I think the lightly-armored Conan-type barbarian is best modeled with higher level/more hit points. (And note that even Conan put on armor when battle was imminent and he didn't intend to climb/sneak around.)

[thorswulf]

I like both StoneGiants proposal, and the berserker ideas for minimalsim. Remember though, that the higher the character gets the more attacks against 1 hit die or less creatures he/she will get if I read the Strategic Review article correctly. So a 4th level fighter attacks up to 4 1hd or less creatures in a melee round! This rule tends to make even mid level fighters killing machines against any orc horde!

[murquhart72]

Nov 13, 2007 14:22:56 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

How would you do this 2 fighting-men/woman subclasses in OD&D, in a non-supplement context.

I was thinking of just using the fighting-man class as base, adding advantages and disadvantages.

The first would be from a barbarian society. Probably Fighting-Man, but Magic-User works too. Probably favor hides (treat as leather) and axes/clubs.

The second would be from a society dominated by women warriors. Probably Fighting-Woman, but maybe the odd Magic-User or Cleric as well. Likely to use bows, swords, spears, etc. and wear the equivalent of leather (maybe chain if going for a bronze breastplate).

Contrary to popular belief, character classes aren't professions, races, or even roles, but are simply whether or not your dude(ette) is classed as either using magic or just fighting to deal with threats and obstacles. Not counting the oddball Cleric/Vampire Slayer maybe.

[oldkat]

Nov 13, 2007 14:22:56 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

How would you do this 2 fighting-men/woman subclasses in OD&D, in a non-supplement context.

I was thinking of just using the fighting-man class as base, adding advantages and disadvantages.

One should remember that the sub-class characters appearing in the supplements are drawn from the actual campaigns of Greyhawk and Blackmoor; that they are included, among all the other information, that those using their own campaigns could, if desired, incorporate anything within them (the supplements) into their own. Nothing in the supplements is mandatory in order to run one's own campaign based on the original system (LBBs).

However, they work well as a template.
And, if one is going to designate things like, "2 fighting-men/woman subclasses..." as a subclass--why not just go the whole route and define such designation? IOW, why is it important to include a barbarian/amazon "in a non-supplement context"? Isn't everything the game ref adds of his own on top of the original system more or less his/her own supplemental material?

I'm rambling.
I hope there's a point somewhere in the above.

[Deleted]

Do it within the existing rules. Lighter armor means greater mobility but less protection. Live with the tradeoff.

[Scott Anderson]

You *get* to wear lighter armor. You move faster. You retreat better. You can justify stepping back to enter missile combat rather than sucking up the enemy's melee attacks. And you can carry more treasure, which everybody likes.

[howandwhy99]

Gosh, it's a miniatures strategy game. If you play a fighter who prefers to fight only one way, then stick to fights where speed and mobility win. Not armor.

[snorri]

Use Dwarves as Barbarians (better saves) and Elves as Amazons (better in archery, using chainmail split fire rules). No changes in the rules.

[Porphyre]

Jul 22, 2017 2:49:09 GMT -6 snorri said:

Use Dwarves as Barbarians (better saves) and Elves as Amazons (better in archery, using chainmail split fire rules). No changes in the rules.

Or Halflings ("they will have deadly accuracy with missiles as detailed in CHAINMAIL")