Sort of related to the current discussion:

What's the best set of rules for berserking in AD&D?  I'm only familiar with an implementation from 2e, which amounted to keeping HP secret, and I never really liked it in theory or in practice.

Quote from: KenHR;648903Sort of related to the current discussion:

What's the best set of rules for berserking in AD&D?  I'm only familiar with an implementation from 2e, which amounted to keeping HP secret, and I never really liked it in theory or in practice.

Depends on what you think "berserking" is (or should be,) and what level of complexity you want as a minimum or maximum.

The original D&D berserkers got a +2 bonus in combat vs. normal men because of their ferocity and never check morale. That's it. No other special rules about attacking friends or shapeshifting or the various other suggestions I've seen.

Based on that, plus my reading of the OD&D Haste spell, I came up with "berserking" as equivalent to Haste: go first in combat against non-Hasted opponents, +2 to attack. You could toss in "never check morale", too. Simple.

If I wanted the "ignore wounds" feature, I suppose I would just roll all damage when the berserker take a critical hit or the combat ends. Same effect as secret damage, but not as much bookkeeping.

If I wanted the "attacks friends" feature, maybe I'd say "a berserker can only stop fighting when they do 5+ damage on a single hit; otherwise, keep making attack rolls." For target, have everyone near the berserker roll a d6; closest person whose d6 roll matches takes the hit.

I've never liked the other systems I've seen.

Quote from: talysman;648909Depends on what you think "berserking" is (or should be,) and what level of complexity you want as a minimum or maximum.

The original D&D berserkers got a +2 bonus in combat vs. normal men because of their ferocity and never check morale. That's it. No other special rules about attacking friends or shapeshifting or the various other suggestions I've seen.

Based on that, plus my reading of the OD&D Haste spell, I came up with "berserking" as equivalent to Haste: go first in combat against non-Hasted opponents, +2 to attack. You could toss in "never check morale", too. Simple.

If I wanted the "ignore wounds" feature, I suppose I would just roll all damage when the berserker take a critical hit or the combat ends. Same effect as secret damage, but not as much bookkeeping.

If I wanted the "attacks friends" feature, maybe I'd say "a berserker can only stop fighting when they do 5+ damage on a single hit; otherwise, keep making attack rolls." For target, have everyone near the berserker roll a d6; closest person whose d6 roll matches takes the hit.

I've never liked the other systems I've seen.

Hey, some cool ideas here!  I've been toying with a berserker type for my stupid homebrew.

Since berserkers are supposed to be reckless, glorious-death-seeking types, it might be out of kind to make it a sensible occupation for game-mechanic types ... but here's a go:

* bonus with a big two-handed weapon (incentive to eschew shield)
* extra attack or such when naked (or maybe dependent on a roll penalized for armor)
* after first hit when not wearing armor, toss dice for temporary extra hit points

years ago, after reading about the Roman's reactions to the berserkers they faced, I modeled mine as:

* restricted to light armor only (because getting himself in a beserker rage and to intimidate the opponent required them cutting themselves)
* opponents took a negative morale roll before battle even started
* when battle started, gained 1d10 temp hit points.  2d10 at level 5, and 3d10 at level 10.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648936* opponents took a negative morale roll before battle even started

That's a good one right there.

Normally I don't like them. The one in the ACKS Player's Companion is cool, though, being not by default a berserker and with built-in variations for primitive-warrior-types other than generically Nordic/Cimmerian.

In 1E AD&D, a berserker can choose between getting +2 to hit, or an additional attack at no bonus to hit.

This is for the version in the Monster Manual, under the "Men" entry.

Quote from: CRKrueger;648849The overpoweredness of the barbarian looks crazy on paper, and at First level is pretty bad.  After that, it plays completely differently.

At 1st level, the barbarian has more HPs then a fighter, and better AC because the fighter doesn't have plate yet.

The thing most people forget about the barbarian is it was difficult to qualify for one and it took 6000xps to get to 2nd.

The barbarian had restrictions on magic use, as well as the minor point that he had restrictions on traveling with clerics and magic-users.  These could lessen due to level.

The bottom line is, the barbarian's abilities are completely based on the restrictions.  You eliminate them, as a lot of people did, the class was overpowered.  If you didn't actually use it, and just looked at it on paper, as a lot of people did, you didn't find out that the benefits were not worth the restrictions at higher level play and that the barbarian gave a whole lot of RP opportunity, and some beef for B2, but after that, the fighters' generalizations were overall better then the barbarian's specific uses, just like the ranger and paladins.

If you did go into the higher level game, with castles, and politics and what not, then the barbarian could be fun extorting danegeld out of kingdoms for fear of the horde, but even that wasn't as detailed and interesting as running a castle or church.

If you just played the damn thing RAW instead of being butthurt at how your 1st level fighter wasn't the toughest (finding out later you're always going to be double the barbarian's level), instead of declaring it anathema due to it being the "Thing Gygax Was Forced To Write" and instead of ignoring all the massively inconvenient restrictions, you'd see it's nowhere near the monster it's supposed to be.

You are 1 level higher later on as the AD&D xp model works liek that so a Barbarian 8th level fighter 9th.
The trouble with the barbarian's restrictions is they are waived as he progresses in level and he gets bonus to replace. +s to damage, able to attack foes hit only with magical weapons (but also a relaxation of the rules restricting him to non magical weapons).

Barbarians are a pretty terrible kludge and I ran a game for barbarian PCs from 1st through 8th when UA came out.

The killer issue of course is that the class tries to replicate a single character Conan. Because Conan tends to wear little armour but doesn't get hit much the barbarian gets double AC benefit from high dex, because Conan can take a lot of damage Barbarians have d12 HD etc etc ...
The questions that arise are just like rangers dual weilding by default. Why? Why is a warrior from a primative culture better at dodging blows than a fencer trained from the age of 5 or a gladiator who spends 8 hours a day training or a martial artist that dodges arrows all day.
The answer is there is no reason. Barbarians are a meta class where you are trying to emulate a specific aspect of the source fiction that should evolve from roleplay through mechanics.

Also I hate restrictions as a "balance" because every character that is roleplayed rather than just run as a playing piece has restrictions. If I play a cowardly fighter his cowardliness is a huge restriction. If I play a greedy cleric, his greed is a restriction. If you are only playing a wilderness warrior from a primative society who fears magic, and the unknown, who doesn't like sleeping under a roof and who is constantly being ripped off by savvy merchants, because you get loads of mechanical bonuses then you are missing the main point of RPGs (IMHO).

The barbarian is only overpowered if you have 17s or 18s in 3 attributes.  With the normal stat rolling methods this will never happen.  Nevermind the idiotic stat generation method in UA.  Anyone who allowed that got what they deserved.

Quote from: CRKrueger;648849The thing most people forget about the barbarian is it was difficult to qualify for one and it took 6000xps to get to 2nd.

That only had an impact at the low levels though.  A 400,000 xp barbarian is level 8, while a fighter is level 9.  After the first couple levels, the barbarian was only one level behind the fighter.  Didn't they also get +2 hp per level per point of Con over 14?  Or was that in the Dragon magazine version?

*edit*  just pulled out my book (and it just about fell apart, stupid UA quality).  Yep, +2 hp per point of Con over 14, and -2 AC for every point of DEX above 14 if not in heavy armor.

Quote from: JRR;649055The barbarian is only overpowered if you have 17s or 18s in 3 attributes.  With the normal stat rolling methods this will never happen.  Nevermind the idiotic stat generation method in UA.  Anyone who allowed that got what they deserved.

Well, if what's his face (brand new poster in the fighter comparison thread) has you believe it, the "vast majority" of players just kept rerolling until they got those stats.  So if you had 18 dex and 18 Con, a 1st level barbarian in studded leather and shield would have an AC of -2 with 20 hit points.  With my earlier comparison above, an 8th level barbarian would have an average of 116 hp (max 160) and a 9th level fighter with 18 con would have an average of 85.5 (max 126)

OH, and while I'm at it, here are the UA barbarian attributes

* +2 bonus to hp for every point of CON above 14
* -2 AC for every point of DEX above 14
* use fighter tables for attack and saving throw
* use d12 for hp
* +4 ST bonus vs poison, +3 vs. para/DM/pet/and polymorph, +2 vs rod/staff/wand, and +1 for every 4 levels vs spells
* base move 15"
* hit creatures needing +1 at level 4, +2 at level 6, +3 at 8, +4 at 10, and so on
* climbing
* hide in natural surroundings
* surprise
* back protection
* leaping ans springing
* detect illusion
* detect magic
* leadership
* barbarian horde

Quote from: jibbajibba;649052You are 1 level higher later on as the AD&D xp model works liek that so a Barbarian 8th level fighter 9th.
The trouble with the barbarian's restrictions is they are waived as he progresses in level and he gets bonus to replace. +s to damage, able to attack foes hit only with magical weapons (but also a relaxation of the rules restricting him to non magical weapons).

Barbarians are a pretty terrible kludge and I ran a game for barbarian PCs from 1st through 8th when UA came out.

The killer issue of course is that the class tries to replicate a single character Conan. Because Conan tends to wear little armour but doesn't get hit much the barbarian gets double AC benefit from high dex, because Conan can take a lot of damage Barbarians have d12 HD etc etc ...
The questions that arise are just like rangers dual weilding by default. Why? Why is a warrior from a primative culture better at dodging blows than a fencer trained from the age of 5 or a gladiator who spends 8 hours a day training or a martial artist that dodges arrows all day.
The answer is there is no reason. Barbarians are a meta class where you are trying to emulate a specific aspect of the source fiction that should evolve from roleplay through mechanics.

Also I hate restrictions as a "balance" because every character that is roleplayed rather than just run as a playing piece has restrictions. If I play a cowardly fighter his cowardliness is a huge restriction. If I play a greedy cleric, his greed is a restriction. If you are only playing a wilderness warrior from a primative society who fears magic, and the unknown, who doesn't like sleeping under a roof and who is constantly being ripped off by savvy merchants, because you get loads of mechanical bonuses then you are missing the main point of RPGs (IMHO).

How exactly do you roleplay a Sioux sneaking up on someone using the AD&D Fighter class?  Make him a Ranger without alignment restrictions, Druid powers or followers?  You just made another class.

BTW Duelist and Gladiator were classes too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;649074How exactly do you roleplay a Sioux sneaking up on someone using the AD&D Fighter class?  Make him a Ranger without alignment restrictions, Druid powers or followers?  You just made another class.

BTW Duelist and Gladiator were classes too.

If you are using rangers you play a ranger.  Giving a Lakota ranger some shaministic powers at high levels works fine for me. Shit give him a spirit guide and a totem animal as well.
Rangers shouldn't have alignment restrictions anyway as it's daft.
Specific groups of rangers in specific settings should have alignment restrictions.

Now the actual answer you play a fighter with wilderness skills and you ditch ranger as well.

Duelists and gladiators weren't classes in AD&D and the fact that they became classes later is exactly the same mechanical bloat that you don't need .
With a system of combat that gives advantages and disadvantages to unarmoured fast fighters, board and sword fighters and heavy armour fighters all sorts of fighters should be playable.
Mix in a sprinkle of environemnt based skills , al a 5e Backgrounds and your golden.