|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 29, 2013 1:33:28 GMT -6
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. According to Suppl. IV Gods Demi Gods & Heroes, Conan is "canonically" a 15th level fighter and a 9th level Thief with exceptional abilities (18/00 STR, 18 DEX) allowing him to multiclass according to the rules of Men & Magic -which are more lenient on multiclassing than AD&D( "In order for men to change class they must have a score of 1 6 or better in the prime requisite (...) of the class they wish to change to, and this score must be unmodified.") To me, the skills of Conan are less the capacities of some kind of "barbarian class" (in D&D terms) than the qualities of an exceptional individual. In other terms Conan is an archetypal “howardian hero” before being a barbarian . Other howardian characters, albeit supposedly more "civilized" -like Solomon Kane- display the same traits: action oriented; strong willed , working on instinct rather than reflection. I grant you that, in Howard’s writings, “barbaric” cultures do indeed produce more individuals of that fabric than “cultured” ones . As for the “berserk fury”, I always interpreted the mention Howard does of it like a stylistic figure rather than some kind of special ability like Chuculainn’s frenzy. To me it reflects some kind of “adrenaline boost” that a warrior can feel in desperation. In The Lord of the Rings, Boromir, who definitely is NOT a barbaric warrior manages to take down several opponents after being shot by several arrows. The CHAINMAIL ability (one attack by level against "men types") is good enough to reflect that aspect. So, if you want to have a barbaric character without creating a new class, and if you have a home-made skill system, better just go along with a fighting man with outdoor skills, good strength and good dexterity (or maybe good wisdom to reflect Conan’s “cunning” )
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 29, 2013 8:33:56 GMT -6
As for the “berserk fury”, I always interpreted the mention Howard does of it like a stylistic figure rather than some kind of special ability like Chuculainn’s frenzy. To me it reflects some kind of “adrenaline boost” that a warrior can feel in desperation. In The Lord of the Rings, Boromir, who definitely is NOT a barbaric warrior manages to take down several opponents after being shot by several arrows. The CHAINMAIL ability (one attack by level against "men types") is good enough to reflect that aspect. Nice thought. I always like it when you can use the existing classes to RP a particular character instead of having to create a whole new class. I had that same thought after reading the Boromir line. The chain mail ability could be used to represent incredible skill at arms of a knight, adrenaline rush of a barbarian, the calm confidence of a samurai, or ay number of things. It even works for the comic relief characters in movies who accidentally take more bad guys out that the real hero by dropping a chandelier on their heads or turning around in confusion while holding a long pole. It likewise bothers me when special rules get created for each super-specialized class, instead of just assuming a heroic fighting man is going to be extremely competent no matter where he's from or how he fights. It boils down to no matter how you fight, if your a hero you do it well.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 29, 2013 11:31:06 GMT -6
It even works for the comic relief characters in movies who accidentally take more bad guys out that the real hero by dropping a chandelier on their heads or turning around in confusion while holding a long pole. No matter what, an old-school player always gives some love to the almighty 10' pole!
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Sept 29, 2013 12:24:03 GMT -6
My personal feeling is that it was always a mistake to try to model every possible variation on a character type. If you have Barbarians, why not Paladins? Why not Knights and Rangers and Archers and Mercenaries and so on? I think it just gets weird to try to say "ok, barbarians need a +1 at ____" as if a slightly better hitting ability really represents what it is to be an uncivilized person.
The fighter class can model all kinds of stuff, the details are filled in by roleplaying. I prefer to keep things more general and abstract, rather than trying to represent every idea in little rules tweaks. The advantage to a simpler game is there is less to keep track of, less to balance, less unintended consequences.
That's just my take though - each to his or her own.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 8, 2013 21:39:02 GMT -6
Inkmeister wrote:'The fighter class can model all kinds of stuff, the details are filled in by roleplaying. I prefer to keep things more general and abstract, rather than trying to represent every idea in little rules tweaks. The advantage to a simpler game is there is less to keep track of, less to balance, less unintended consequences'.
I agree with your assessment of the game and its balance. One could argue that the modifiers associated with men racial types (bandits, dervishes, woodsman etc.) are there to approximate the mean specimen, since ability scores are unique to PC's and NPC's. That argument may not hold up, however, as other racial types associated with PC's (dwarves, halflings, elves etc.) usually benefit from racial modifiers. I, myself, have done away with ability scores substituting static modifiers for racial types ( so there are dervishes, woodsman, berserkers etc. in the campaign) and managed to not harm the core abstraction.
Even without applying racial modifiers, the beserk quality of being impelled to engage in melee until all foes are slain adds a certain color to the game without having to alter the dice. I prefer having modifiers in addition, but one could play with certain mechanisms like the one above and achieve much the same for dramatic effect.
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Dec 9, 2013 11:54:57 GMT -6
For those interested, I really like the Barbarian class for OD&D from White Dwarf issue ... um, 4 I think.
|
|
tec97
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 157
|
Post by tec97 on Dec 9, 2013 18:40:37 GMT -6
Well, I'll throw out that the Arduin Grimoire also had a barbarian class. It was in many ways similar to what's been mentioned here. If you're interested, I'll draft a summary.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Dec 9, 2013 19:09:51 GMT -6
The article in question I don't like this approach to classes in general. They start slapping on all type of bonus that take the game away from roll-playing your character as a barbarian (as Coffee mentions). We also need to differentiate between a berserker and a barbarian. I think of barbarians as Conan - a strong, clever, lustful thief. Conan is fit and agile, has good night vision, and comes up with practical solutions to the seemingly fatal predicaments he gets into. A berserker on the other hand describes a fighter who enters a rage and fights heroically(hero-2) until he is cut down. Barbarians are a character class. They are fighting men immune to disease and are elflike in their ability to move quietly and remain undetected in woods and glens. Thus combat is still abstracted so that a barbarian is no more powerful than your usual fighting man. Berserkers are not a character class. They are men that fight as two men and do not check morale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 14:01:04 GMT -6
Gronan of Simmerya is a barbarian. He is also a bog-standard Fighting Man.
Conan was not loathe to wear armor so that's no problem. Heck, based on the Sutton Hoo and Battersea treasure hoards, I'd even give a barbarian "Barbarian Plate Mail". Not exact, but hey, D&D isn't an exact game.
As far as "berserk fury," that's as easy as "Okay, I'll give you a +1 to hit and a +1 to damage, but you'll take a -2 on your AC." For that matter, that option would be available to any fighter; we used to say "I'm fighting cautiously" or "I'm fighting aggressively" or whatever.
No special class needed.
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Dec 18, 2013 1:11:02 GMT -6
I tend to think there's conceptual space to an outdoorsman sort of class, at least nearly as much as there is the thief. Such a class can, in my opinion, suffice well for ranger and barbarian alike, or a nomad or what have you-- someone who is as specialized in dealing with outdoor dangers as a thief is with the dangers of dungeons. A fighter can also, as Geezer points out, make a perfectly solid barbarian as well.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Dec 29, 2013 14:00:36 GMT -6
This doesn't specifically pertain to barbarians, but I saw an interesting suggestion that armor class should get better the less clothing he has on, because in movies when a hero takes their shirt off "things are about to get real"
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 29, 2013 14:58:11 GMT -6
Maybe making the Armor Class Charisma based , then?
|
|
Todd
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by Todd on Dec 29, 2013 16:23:29 GMT -6
An option I've pondered: use the greater of hit dice or armor for AC. The advantage of armor is that it works regardless of factors like surprise, etc. while the HD armor class works only if the character can react to (is aware of) the attack. I think this both preserves the benefits of heavy armor while, at the same time, giving some options to characters who want to stay light.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 2, 2014 15:16:22 GMT -6
Maybe making the Armor Class Charisma based , then? You can't hurt me! I'm too sexy. Swords bounce right off those abs of steel
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 2, 2014 16:11:22 GMT -6
And think of the Amazons too...
Another rationale for Charisma based Armor Class is the same as for the blue-painted naked celtic warriors: going to combat with no other protection that your painted skin can be seen as a proof of self-confidence and a total disregard for the valour of your opponent that can leave him awe-struck.
But only him you have enough presence to convey this feeling of awe and fear in the heart of your enemy. Otherwise, you just look reckless and foolish.
In a related stoty, there's an anecdote from the colonial history of France: A lieutenant of the spahi corp used to lead the assault against the Tuaregs wearing his full dress uniform, with a white cape, and was never hurt, in spite of this. His superiors one day asked him to tune it down. The next day, he leads the assault, is shot, and dies.
The real story: the superstitious Tuaregs actually were impressed by his show-of, and thought that the cloack he wore was a magical one that deflected the bullets back to the ennemies, and carefully avoided to shoot him. the day he doesn't wear the cloack, he isn't recognised, and the rebels shoot him like any other enemy...
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Jan 6, 2014 20:42:06 GMT -6
An option I've pondered: use the greater of hit dice or armor for AC. The advantage of armor is that it works regardless of factors like surprise, etc. while the HD armor class works only if the character can react to (is aware of) the attack. I think this both preserves the benefits of heavy armor while, at the same time, giving some options to characters who want to stay light. That'd be using ascending AC then, or what?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 6, 2014 21:04:51 GMT -6
An option I've pondered: use the greater of hit dice or armor for AC. The advantage of armor is that it works regardless of factors like surprise, etc. while the HD armor class works only if the character can react to (is aware of) the attack. I think this both preserves the benefits of heavy armor while, at the same time, giving some options to characters who want to stay light. That'd be using ascending AC then, or what? Or just subtract one at each level like a monk.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 6, 2014 21:24:27 GMT -6
Or...
Proper fighting-men: unarmoured AC9, leather AC7, mail AC5, plate AC3. Everyone else*: unarmoured AC7, leather AC6, mail AC5, plate AC4.
* Fast/light/nimble types that substitute grace, dodging, and quickness for a genuine fighting man's proper training with "real" armour. Includes thieves, rangers, barbarians, swashbucklers, etc.
|
|