This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

OSR: Barbarians, yea or nay?

Started by RPGPundit, April 23, 2013, 01:32:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 ... 6
User actions

RPGPundit

April 23, 2013, 01:32:28 AM
Do you like the idea of there being a separate "barbarian" class; or do you prefer that "barbarian" just be a descriptive thing while the class remains fighter (or ranger, or whatever)?

If the former, do you want that class to be the AD&D barbarian? Or would you rather it looked somewhat different?
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you\'ve played \'medieval fantasy\' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

thedungeondelver

#1
April 23, 2013, 01:38:17 AM
Barbarian "class" is...

I don't like them.  The d12 hit dice, the summon the barbarian horde, etc. etc. I just don't care for.  

I don't mind some of the things that the Barbarian class has and can do...it's just that the idea of it being a separate class is just weird to me.
THE DELVERS DUNGEON


Mcbobbo sums it up nicely.

Quote
Astrophysicists are reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion l

talysman

#2
April 23, 2013, 02:03:06 AM
The barbarian class in Unearthed Arcana is ridiculous.

In general, I prefer "barbarian" to be a description, but I did try creating a barbarian class that was waaaay more restrained than the UA barbarian (and intended for OD&D.) Prime ability score is *inverted* Int (smart barbarians are possible, but they advance faster if they are below Int 9.)

jibbajibba

#3
April 23, 2013, 02:13:20 AM
Should be a fighter kit.
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%

GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

danbuter

#4
April 23, 2013, 02:20:06 AM
I don't like them as a separate class.
Sword and Board - My blog about BFRPG, S&W, Hi/Lo Heroes, and other games.
Sword & Board: BFRPG Supplement Free pdf. Cheap print version.
Bushi D6  Samurai and D6!
Bushi setting map

JeremyR

#5
April 23, 2013, 02:33:10 AM
I'm not a big fan of "buffs", like how the barbarian's rage ability works.

The retro clone/house rules I'm working on has backgrounds that sort of work like kits. Barbarian is a background in it, basically classes that take it get their hit dice bumped up one, but use worse armor. So a fighter would have his HD bumped up to d12, but couldn't wear anything better than chain.

Spinachcat

#6
April 23, 2013, 02:50:57 AM
I never liked AD&D barbarians, but I like them to some extent in Mazes & Minotaurs where they fill an interesting niche in the setting.

I have dorked around with a Barbarian class for Swords & Wizardry as a Knockspell article, but I don't know if Knockspell has a future so I haven't done more than write notes about how to differentiate them from Fighters. Zero playtesting so far because whenever I think about it, the OD&D Fighter does the job for both Lancelot and Conan.

Silverlion

#7
April 23, 2013, 03:37:54 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;648328Do you like the idea of there being a separate "barbarian" class; or do you prefer that "barbarian" just be a descriptive thing while the class remains fighter (or ranger, or whatever)?

If the former, do you want that class to be the AD&D barbarian? Or would you rather it looked somewhat different?



I prefer them just be social classification. A fighter, who happens to be from a primitive culture.
High Valor REVISED: A fantasy Dark Age RPG. Available NOW!
Hearts & Souls 2E Coming in 2019

Dirk Remmecke

#8
April 23, 2013, 03:49:28 AM
"Barbarian" as a class makes no sense in the context of either AD&D or 3.x.
In S&W Core or BECMI, where classes feel more like abstract archetypes of the fantasy genre (than the more realistic "culture" and "profession" mix of most other games), a barbarian class wouldn't be out of place.
Swords & Wizardry & Manga ... oh my.
(Beware. This is a Kickstarter link.)

Machpants

#9
April 23, 2013, 03:57:24 AM
ALways been a no Barbarian class kind of Referee. I am happy for a berserk class, maybe, but barbarian is cultural not class.
LAST OF THE F3W
Gloria Finis

Naburimannu

#10
April 23, 2013, 04:40:53 AM
The barbarian class from the ACKS Players Companion seems to work OK in that game. LL does fine without one. YMMV.

artikid

#11
April 23, 2013, 04:44:06 AM
Maybe

For a Basic game: no
For an Advanced game: yes if it is not the UA one

Premier

#12
April 23, 2013, 05:20:16 AM
Depends. If the specific game or edition in question has very broad archetypal classes - Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric - then no. If it has a wider variety (be that of classes, subclasses or whatnot), then if the setting warrants it, sure, why not? Both are valid approaches.

The Unearthed Arcana barbarian, specifically, is utterly ridiculous.
Obvious troll is obvious. RIP, Bill.

Black Vulmea

#13
April 23, 2013, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: Premier;648375If the specific game or edition in question has very broad archetypal classes - Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric - then no. If it has a wider variety (be that of classes, subclasses or whatnot), then if the setting warrants it, sure, why not? Both are valid approaches.

The Unearthed Arcana barbarian, specifically, is utterly ridiculous.
This.
"Of course five generic Kobolds in a plain room is going to be dull. Making it potentially not dull is kinda the GM\'s job." - #Ladybird, theRPGsite

Really Bad Eggs - swashbuckling roleplaying games blog  | Promise City - Boot Hill campaign blog

ACS

Exploderwizard

#14
April 23, 2013, 11:30:05 AM
An entirely new class just to present a primitive fighter isn't needed IMHO.
Quote from: JonWakeGamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than \'oh, neat, what\'s this do?\', the reaction is to decide if it\'s a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 ... 6
User actions