leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 12, 2011 12:45:36 GMT -6
A friend of mine wants to play a barbarian. He's a huge Conan fan and he always plays something along those lines. I don't want to introduce a barbarian class, because a) I find it messy to add a new class for each literature or historical archetype and b) the "barbarian" seems closer to race as class (like the Elf or Dwarf class of BD&D) than a "proper" class like fighting man. I mean Conan (or any other literature barbarian) is simply a warrior (and a bit of a thief too). I have introduced a "skill" system (very similar the secondary skills of AD&D) so Fighting Man with the secondary skill of hunter or outdoorsman if you will (who knows how to survive in the wild and can even be stealthy in natural environments and has an apt perception) seems sufficient. But there's still the matter of the "Berserker Frenzy", which I don't know how to resolve. Conan did fly into battle rage some times, so did the Norse berserkers and also other heroes like Cu Chulainn. I took a brief look at the Conan OD&D "hack" for inspiration (great work BTW) which gives the berserker frenzy to certain races like the Aesir/Vanir and the Cimmerians. That doesn't seem to fit what I want though. First, do non-classed individuals go berserk? Would some class other than fighting man coming from such background go berserk? Of course I could simply rule that only fighting men from such background go berserk. But it also creates another problem which I don't want to get into. For each human race or ethnicity I have to give similar things, essentially multiplying the number of races in my game way beyond the usual 4 (Human, Hobbit, Elf, Dwarf). Madness!  Perhaps one solution is to introduce "elite paths" (like in Spellcraft & Swordplay) but in essence I would be introducing more classes (there can potentially be an unlimited amount of elite paths) something which I don't want to. A thought I have is to allow all fighting men to enter berserker frenzy given the circumstances. Some would try to control it and not enter it, but others would welcome it and even wilfully try to cause it. So if they are wounded, or an ally falls, or they face superior opposition and certain death, there's a chance of entering the frenzy. We have examples of heroes who are not "berserkers" and we wouldn't consider "barbarians" who enter such frenzy. Sir Sagramore of Arthurian legend for example (a lawful knight no less!) or even Achilles when he enters the battle after the death of Patroclus. Thoughts on the matter would be very much appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 12, 2011 14:27:39 GMT -6
I've always liked the idea that the path of a berserker is one that any warrior (or anyone) can go down, but it takes a tole on one's sanity.
Maybe raging gives a +2 to hit and damage, but the only action you can take in combat is to attack opponents in melee combat. The rage ends when all opponents have fled or are defeated. Every time a character goes berserk, there is a 5% chance he becomes a berserker. If a character becomes a berserker, he must make a saving throw to avoid berserking in combat situations.
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 12, 2011 14:35:44 GMT -6
I like that idea. Everyone can go berserk but there's a significant risk involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 12, 2011 14:41:02 GMT -6
I haven't playtested this idea, yet, so I'm not exactly sure how it will work out in actual play.
|
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Jan 12, 2011 14:46:30 GMT -6
... so Fighting Man with the secondary skill of hunter or outdoorsman if you will (who knows how to survive in the wild and can even be stealthy in natural environments and has an apt perception) seems sufficient. Works for me. Barbarians are really just funny rural folks who speak a different language than the proper civilized folks do. |
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 12, 2011 16:31:10 GMT -6
... so Fighting Man with the secondary skill of hunter or outdoorsman if you will (who knows how to survive in the wild and can even be stealthy in natural environments and has an apt perception) seems sufficient. Works for me. Barbarians are really just funny rural folks who speak a different language than the proper civilized folks do. Well, looking at Conan, he's just a warrior with very poor table manners. Other than that, he's like a ferocious wild animal: He can survive in the wild, he has very keen senses, he can track, he can move stealthily, etc. All in all the qualities you'd expect from a hunter or generally someone who is very comfortable in nature. |
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Jan 12, 2011 18:40:22 GMT -6
It sounds like outdoor survival, a better chance for surprise, and some kind of fighting frenzy are what you want for a barbarian character. I have a few thoughts about berserkers.
Berserkers are not welcome or encouraged in normal barbaric cultures from a historical perspective. They are more prone to violence and murder than normal warriors. Remember even barbaric cultures have taboos about murder! They are just much of a liability in peacetime as they are an asset in combat!
Heroic combat frenzy from S&S and Arthurian tales are usually not so much a true state of going berserk, as they are untapped reserves of adrenaline and endoriphins that cause a sudden surge of strength. Going berserk is entering into into a state of insanity, or even ecstacy if it is a religious ritual. Sometimes these altered states are brought on by the consumption of entheogens (Religiously used hallucinogens).
Another thing to consider is that berserkers are those with a heavy wyrd or doom upon them. They are fated to die in heroic combat, and only that will release them from their fate. They are grim, and morose. Unpleasant company to all save their own kind. It could even be suggested that they are cursed to some degree.
Well just some ideas thrown out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 12, 2011 18:43:40 GMT -6
Great information, thorswulf. I really helped me to solidify some of the lose strings I was having.
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 12, 2011 19:03:56 GMT -6
Very interesting post. Thank you for the info. Heroic combat frenzy from S&S and Arthurian tales are usually not so much a true state of going berserk, as they are untapped reserves of adrenaline and endoriphins that cause a sudden surge of strength. Going berserk is entering into into a state of insanity, or even ecstacy if it is a religious ritual. Sometimes these altered states are brought on by the consumption of entheogens (Religiously used hallucinogens). You are quite right of course, but I thought for the sake of simplicity to merge heroic frenzy, warp spasms (which in truth is supernatural and far more powerful than the "vanilla" berserker rage) and drug (mostly but not only) induced berserker rage into one. Obviously the "barbarian" will have more in common with Howard's (or similar S&S) barbarians than any historical "barbaric" nations, or any real world berserkers for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jan 12, 2011 20:10:51 GMT -6
I don't remember Conan going berserk like a Norse berserker would, only fighting furiously for his life, such as when he was attacking Thog, in The Slithering Shadow. But that's not the point here.
Your friend wants to play a barbarian... I suggest not making up details of this as a class, etc. but just making an exception for your friend and this one character. Something special for this PC. Maybe if he gets down to half his HP he can "rage", doing more damage. Something simple to note on a character sheet, and that's it. Don't make it a regular option for all players.
Basically, don't overthink it. And remember it's ok to make up new stuff for special cases without standardizing it. In many cases, making something a standard rule removes the specialness of it and sucks the life out of it.
|
|
jasons
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by jasons on Jan 12, 2011 20:23:22 GMT -6
Here's an off the cuff, I'm-no-rules-scholar, hyper-minimalist OD&D Barbarian class sans berserkery:
As Fighter in all particulars save the following exceptions: bonus hit die at 1st, 4th, and 8th levels due to extreme hardiness.
+1 damage to melee attacks due to savage ferocity.
+1 to hit wizards, priests, devils, demons, and apes due to Robert E. Howard stories.
Starting money/equipment: 3d6 gp, tribal raiment, knife, wineskin, bedroll, choice of sword, spear, or bow and 30 arrows.
Restrictions: Tribal mores allow the barbarian to wear any armor but plate and only employ magic items usable by thieves.
And so!
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 12, 2011 20:40:26 GMT -6
I don't remember Conan going berserk like a Norse berserker would, only fighting furiously for his life, such as when he was attacking Thog, in The Slithering Shadow. But that's not the point here. Well not the ritual kind of berserker frenzy, but he does enter a sort of battle rage. For example in "Queen of the Black Coast" when fighting a desperate battle having lost his love, it says: "In his berserk fury he did not miss" and there are quite a few such examples. While this is very sound advice, I'm trying to be "fair". I didn't give out any cool individual special powers to the other player characters, so if I did this it would seem like favouritism. If I do this, I'll have to come up with something "special" for everyone. And the barbarian "class" isn't really an individual case; it was merely an example. I want to be able to simulate certain archetypes without having to resort to the introduction of more classes. So when player X says "I want to play a character like hero Y" I will be able to somehow accommodate him (or when I want to create an NPC for that matter). So far I was able to recreate more or less what the players asked for, but the barbarian baffled me. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 12, 2011 20:49:36 GMT -6
If you're going to include berserking as part of the barbarian package, you might want to compare the (late edition) D&D berserk ability to a historical berserker, such as Egil Skallagrimsson. The historical berserker seems more like someone with impulse control issues and fearlessness, rather than the super-strength heroic frenzy of someone like Gawain. It's actually pretty close to the Monsters & Treasure version of he berserker: never check morale, +2 on attacks versus normal men (which I take to mean NPCs rather than 1st level characters.) The super-strength berserker is considerably more powerful and more complicated, so you have to decide where on that continuum you feel comfortable. Me, I'd feel comfortable saying that barbarians don't check morale (if they are henchmen) and get a +2 vs. level-0 types, in exchange for a reaction penalty from civilized types and starting out illiterate. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jan 13, 2011 4:25:17 GMT -6
Sounds to me like this guy doesn't want to play a barbarian because of any mechanical advantage it'll give him. He wants it because that's what he likes.
So I say: Let him. It's a role playing game, and that's the role he wants to play. There doesn't even need to be a special mechanical advantage; it can be pure role playing.
But if he wants special advantages, he can come up with them on his own. Just remember that every advantage will be balanced by a disadvantage (which you, the DM, get to come up with, unless he does a really good job on his own).
Also, as far as the other players? Go ahead and let them customize their characters as well. There is really no need for a cookie-cutter fighter or magic-user, if the player doesn't want one. If somebody complains that you "didn't let their character do that", tell them that they didn't ask. Then ask them what they're willing to give up for that ability.
I think you'll get a richer, more intensive game as a result. Once the players have the ability to contribute to the game (in ways other than just playing their character), their commitment rises accordingly.
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 13, 2011 8:58:33 GMT -6
Right, I'm convinced. I'll just give him the "advantage" of going berserk (rules based on the Berserker class of TD #3) but I won't give him any disadvantages to "balance it" because such things might lead to the dreadful min/maxing: "Can I have one more advantage? I'll take this disadvantage to balance it out". Soon you end up with deaf dumb and blind gimps who can kick ass if they manage to hold their sword with the one hand they have left. Instead, I will hand out some sort of special ability to each character of similar "power level" to make them feel "unique". I guess one special gift for each one of moderate power won't be game breaking. |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jan 13, 2011 12:05:26 GMT -6
"Barbarian" is a state of mind. Just role-play it (or if you're the DM, provide lots of plot "hooks" so the player feels special). If a player wanted a "barbarian" thief, cleric, or even M-U, I would allow it.
Conan is awesome because he is high-level, not because he belongs to a special class.
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 14, 2011 7:50:36 GMT -6
"Barbarian" is a state of mind. Just role-play it (or if you're the DM, provide lots of plot "hooks" so the player feels special). If a player wanted a "barbarian" thief, cleric, or even M-U, I would allow it. Conan is awesome because he is high-level, not because he belongs to a special class. Indeed. As for the barbarian, I wouldn't call it a "state of mind", it merely means a character from a less developed nation or tribe. When I think of D&D thieves, I think of someone from an urban "civilized" setting, or someone who despite his background lives there (like Conan who became a thief in his treks to civilized lands). Barbarian clerics of course (they could be shamans), but definitely not magic-users given their nature in D&D (they are bookworms). |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 23, 2011 23:06:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 24, 2011 0:32:35 GMT -6
That's a reasonable interpretation for pure Chainmail, but I can't say that I agree with it for D&D. "Normal men" is almost certainly either "Level 0" or "any human" or "any human of 1 HD or less." I'm leaning towards the former, but could see how the latter two might be a possible interpretation. "Less than Level 4 Fighter" doesn't seem reasonable, because: - then "Normal Men" would include M-Us up to level 6 and Clerics up to level 5, and they seem decidedly *not* normal;
- it's too fiddly a system, compared to other aspects of the combat system;
- the note on the alternative combat table defines the progression for Fighters, M-Us, and Clerics, then states "Normal men equal 1st level fighters," as if they were distinct from the three classes;
- if we interpret that note as meaning anyone who attacks as a 1st level Fighter is a "normal man", then 5th level M-Us are "normal men", but 6th level M-Us are only "normal" when using Chainmail instead of the alternative combat system. Similarly, 5th level Clerics would only be "normal" under Chainmail.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 24, 2011 0:35:28 GMT -6
It is a typo of, "fighting men in normal combat" not "normal men" which is anything other than the FCT. There is nothing in the chainmail man to man rules (where the berserkers appear) that inhibits a 2d6+2 attack roll against a hero or even super hero. What limits the berserker is that a +2 bonus is too small to have any effect on the FCT which requires a +3 or more to have an appreciable effect. Just like the ranger receives a +1 in MtM or a mounted fighter gets a +2 vs. unmounted foes. These are not large enough bonuses to register on the FCT.
Magic swords/armor deal +3 dmg in MtM and that translates to +1 on the FCT.
As far as playing a barbarian, I would follow Chainmail's berserker: had a natural AC of leather+shield/extra health/+2 attack roll/unable to quit combat until foes were dead or he
was. So no retreat nor is he allowed to take prisoners.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 26, 2011 12:56:35 GMT -6
The nomenclatures of 'normal men', 'supernormal men', 'normal troops', a 'normal figure', 'above normal men', a 'normal target', 'normal missile fire', 'normal combat', 'normal attacks', 'Fantastic opponents', 'Fantastic figures', 'Fantastic combat', are used throughout Chainmail and the 3LLBs. I do not see a particular reason to rule that a berserker "when fighting normal men they add +2 to their dice" is a typo as it does not deviate from the wording of much of the text...so here's my question:
Are not heroes and superheroes considered 'fantasic opponents' or are they otherwise 'normal combatants' who may melee with 'fantastic opponents'?
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 26, 2011 17:08:42 GMT -6
The are a bit of both. They can harm creatures that normal men cannot (before the rule changed to being hit by magic weapons), but they themselves can be harmed by normal men, but uniquely require simultaneous hits (heroes/lycanthropes/anti-heroes) to be brought down unlike an ogre or troll who only takes cumulative hits.
The Viking berserker gets a +2 attack dice due to their ferocity, I'm not sure what verisimilitude is served by making heroes immune to this, after all a hero is merely a, "well known knight, army commander" and not some mythical beast. A hero is eowyn, a hero is sir galahad.
Normal comat is either nomal m2m or normal mass combat
Fantastic combat is either FCT (m2m) or fantastic mass combat.
"when a 4th level berserker anti-hero attacks a hero in fantastic combat (FCT)no bonus is added to the die roll, however if a berserker anti hero attacked a hero in normal combat (m2m) then the +2 is granted because m2m is more granular.
Why would a DM ever send berserkers against heroes if they are no different from normal men?
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 26, 2011 23:54:39 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Yet, a hero in normal combat uniquely requires simultaneous hits (heroes/lycanthropes/anti-heroes) to be brought down, unlike an ogre or troll who only takes cumulative hits. A hero can harm creatures that normal men cannot (before the rule changed to being hit by magic weapons). It is for these very reasons I might consider reading the passage as written. Not trying to be cheeky here, just trying establish a valid motive for a possible reading of the hero in the way in question.
Here I am confused. The berserker quality of this figure would be obscured or rather assumed by that of the anti-hero; no need to check morale and the modifier is not applicable on the FCT. Granted, never ceasing the fight 'until either they have killed all of their opponents or they are themselves killed' (26 Chml.)would be additional.
Agreed, and the granularity is plain to see. However, as above, it is not clear to me that the berserker barring his 'kill everyone' quality, would even be recognizeable against a hero on the FCT. There doesn't seem to be anything that can be assumed or made less granular about the berserker in fantastic combat. This just appears to be a non-starter. However, maybe I have missed something...
Well, in MTM fantastic combat they don't appear to be any different. In MTM normal combat it appears they get a modifier on the dice. However, with the publication of Men & Magic the definition of a normal man has changed its appearance. Berserkers (in the way that I am reading this up to this point) receive this modifier against 'normal men', not 'supernormal men', heroes. What could this accomplish? It might possibly stand in place of or loosely approximate the hero's unique quality of death by simultaneous blows from Chainmail. It, then, underscores the difference between heroes and normal men types as well.
This is more or less a statement deriving from the rule set's rather organic feel and conception, not from any kind of hard-and-fast mechanical perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 27, 2011 11:32:49 GMT -6
If berserkers required simultaneous hits in Chainmail to be slain, it might be easier to represent berserking in D&D with something like:
"Once berserk warriors take enough cumulative damage to kill a normal man, they continue fighting until they are hit twice successfully in a single round."
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 29, 2011 20:17:00 GMT -6
Pg. 26 men and magic
Protection from normal missiles
The recipient of this charm becomes impervious to normal missiles. This implies only those missiles projected by normal (not above normal) men and/or weapons. Duration :12 turns. Range: 3"
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 1, 2011 21:15:13 GMT -6
Are not heroes and superheroes considered 'fantasic opponents' or are they otherwise 'normal combatants' who may melee with 'fantastic opponents'? They are fantastic opponents. Which is why they could fight on the Fantasy table and why in D&D they have greater than 1d6 HD and fighting capability. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 16:13:12 GMT -6
A Howardian barbarian is definitely NOT simply a regular civilized fighting-type with some skill at forestry and hunting. It's a race-as-class archetype all the way.
I can't find a public domain version of "Beyond the Black River" to copy and paste from at the moment, but recall the passage contrasting Conan's forestry skills with those of the border woodsmen. Conan's stealth is described as being categorically superior. The border woodsmen are hard men, but Conan is a wild man. It's the difference between education and genius.
cf. the Thief's abilities to hide "in shadows" and move with absolute silence.
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Feb 17, 2011 20:23:19 GMT -6
A Howardian barbarian is definitely NOT simply a regular civilized fighting-type with some skill at forestry and hunting. It's a race-as-class archetype all the way. I can't find a public domain version of "Beyond the Black River" to copy and paste from at the moment, but recall the passage contrasting Conan's forestry skills with those of the border woodsmen. Conan's stealth is described as being categorically superior. The border woodsmen are hard men, but Conan is a wild man. It's the difference between education and genius. cf. the Thief's abilities to hide "in shadows" and move with absolute silence. I see what you are saying, but that because it's Conan more than anything else. Obviously no player character can dominate the campaign as Conan does (what would the other players do?), so I'm not really interested in making the barbarian the "best class in the world" just 'cause Howard says so. Barbarians are merely fighting-men with poor table manners. I'll give the character stealth in nature and all that, but not something more than that. I decided that every fighter can go "berserk" given the circumstances (some might choose to control it, others would even try to provoke it) and not withhold it for some special class, subclass or race. Besides, doing a quick brush up on Conan stories it seems that this is the case in Howard's Conan as well and not some special ability that Conan possesses. In the end of the day, the nice thing about OD&D is that the classes are very general archetypes which you can play and imagine as you wish. Adding more and more classes or subclasses restricts the archetypes to very special case scenarios, which I don't really appreciate. D&D eventually evolved into adding a new class for about every tiny differentiation. If you look at the Dragon mag you'll find dozens of classes. This is a design strategy that I'm not particularly fond of and try to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 19, 2011 1:37:59 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Thanks Cooper!
Alexander wrote:
Indeed, the berserker's +2 cannot be taken too lightly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 28, 2013 22:32:48 GMT -6
I've always liked the idea that the path of a berserker is one that any warrior (or anyone) can go down, but it takes a tole on one's sanity. Indeed. Warriors would go into long bouts of depression after battle from the complete adrenaline drain of going berserk (not so much from ptsd as their whole lives were one big traumatic experience). It wasn't unheard of for a beserker to kill them self afterwards. Also it was induced by adrenaline, not by drug. The mushrooms in question have unpredictable effects often incapacitating and not all of the cultures who were said to have gone berserk had access to them. Pain, fear, and a complete release of any restraint brought it on. Honestly, men from all parts of the world probably entered a almost comparable state just from being scared shirtless and knowing they were about to die then going hulk smash on anything in their path- This eventually subsides into a hyper focused coordination, like we see in kung fu movies, where one master can get in the zone to pick up his opponents attacks quickly to take them out in slow motion. Anyone can experienced adrenaline rushes, they just weren't able to pre-meditatively enter the state before battle of their own volition, as was ritualistically done in northern europe and scandinavia. I'm not sure how reliable this ARTICLE is, but its an interesting read at least. The descriptions of the state remind me of Lovecraft's wild animalistic cultists leaping and screaming both in animalistic fervor and complete terror. |
|
