Quote from: jibbajibba;649075Duelists and gladiators weren't classes in AD&D

They were if you're a Dragon Magazine heretic like me.  Thank you though for proving my point.  Everything you suggested altered an existing class, thus creating a new variant or toss the whole thing out for a more flexible system.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649062OH, 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

And people were worried about feats in 5e

The really intetrestign thing to do is compare this to the other wilderness guy the ranger.
Then look at the so called restrictions of the Barbarian and which levels they are waived at.

So these
2nd - May associate freely with clerics.
3rd - May use potions.
4th - May use magic weapons.
5th - May use magic armor.
6th - May associate with magic-users (and their sub-classes) if the need is great.
7th - May use weapon-like miscellaneous magic items.
8th - May associate with magic-users occasionally.
9th - May use protection scrolls.
10th - May use most magic items available to fighters.


Actually make these a bit unecessary
Level: Can hit:
1-3 No Special Creatures
4-5 Creatures hit by +1 weapons.
6-7 Creatures hit by +1 and +2 weapons.
8-9 Creatures hit by +1, +2, and +3 weapons.
10-11 Creatures hit by +1, +2, +3, and +4 weapons.
12+ Creatures hit by any magic weapons.

Since by the time A barbarian is 4th level and he can naturally hit +1 he can already use magic weapons and is just as likely to have a +1 sword as a fighter is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;649077They were if you're a Dragon Magazine heretic like me.  Thank you though for proving my point.  Everything you suggested altered an existing class, thus creating a new variant or toss the whole thing out for a more flexible system.

Um... not it doesn;t create a new class at all.

the Ranger  is just a ranger you just tailor their spell lists to be more in theme with the culture no new subsystems no new class powerz

Granting skill lists to fighters removes vast amount of power bloat.

You have a set of skills arranged in categories. Each figther gets to pick a category to fit their background. no new classes powers or specialist dodads needed.
The 5e backgrounds model even obivates the need for skill lists.
Sure you are a Lakota brave you you can sneak, track, hunt etc based on an ability check.

I hate class bloat as its just munchinism and a way to sell splat. AD&D was bad but 3 and 4 well....

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649062OH, 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

Jesus H Christ. Now I see what you meant about the UA Barbarian. Damn that's a lot.

Quote from: CRKrueger;648849If 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.

I've always been amused by those who shriek "OH NOES! TEH BARBARIAN CAN HAS TWENTY HIT POINTS AT 1ST LEVEL!", since a 1st level ranger can have 24 -plus his own assortment of wanked-out powers.

I agree with Jib that the game would be better served by getting rid of most of the classes in favor of maybe three or four that can be tailored to suit the player, the DM and the campaign. The Skills & Powers books from 2E were a step in the right direction, but would have been much better if (for example) the abilities from all the fighter sub-classes were lumped together so a player (subject to DM approval) can mix and match. Ditto for thieves/bards/assassins, clerics/monks/druids and so on.

I've always been tempted to get rid of the fighter and thief (plus sub-classes) in favor of a generic adventurer class that could be customized into a fighter (at one end of the spectrum), a thief (at the other end), and something in-between to represent the vast majority of heroic characters in fiction who were a little of both -but without using the tedious multi- and dual-class rules.

Quote from: jibbajibba;649078And people were worried about feats in 5e

Yeah, I know.  Since feats in 5e are prepackaged, they aren't any more complicated than class abilities in 1e.  I posit that because they're called feats, OSR fans get the panties in a bundle because it's a 3.e term, and the feat mechanic in 3.e is pretty darn screwy.

QuoteThe really intetrestign thing to do is compare this to the other wilderness guy the ranger.
Then look at the so called restrictions of the Barbarian and which levels they are waived at.

True, but that's with any weapon.  Usually the +1 long sword went to a different character first.  Also, I've never seen a level 10 character getting a +4 weapon and a level 12 character getting a +5 weapon unless you were playing monty haul or something.  But of all the barbarian's abilities, this was the least game breaking.

Quote from: Elfdart;649135I've always been amused by those who shriek "OH NOES! TEH BARBARIAN CAN HAS TWENTY HIT POINTS AT 1ST LEVEL!", since a 1st level ranger can have 24 -plus his own assortment of wanked-out powers.

I don't think anyone is "Oh Noes!".  Besides, the ranger then gets only 1d8 per level thereafter with a max con bonus of +2.  So the max hp per level after 1 is 10 for the ranger while the barbarian doubles that at 20.  In addition, they also can get a -2 AC with just studded leather and a shield at level 1.  A -2 AC is insane at level 1.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649138Yeah, I know.  Since feats in 5e are prepackaged, they aren't any more complicated than class abilities in 1e.  I posit that because they're called feats, OSR fans get the panties in a bundle because it's a 3.e term, and the feat mechanic in 3.e is pretty darn screwy.


True, but that's with any weapon.  Usually the +1 long sword went to a different character first.  Also, I've never seen a level 10 character getting a +4 weapon and a level 12 character getting a +5 weapon unless you were playing monty haul or something.  But of all the barbarian's abilities, this was the least game breaking.

.

Yeah not saing game breaking actually the oposite unecessary. By 4th level the party usually have a couple of magic weapons. Especially if you are using the random treasure tables.
I have seen big swords goinggn to low level PCs, I can't actually remeber a single monster that needs a +5 weapon to hit it though

It's like lets give him some penalties but then waive all of them, they can get healed from 2nd level, they can use healing potions from 3rd etc etc its like we will impose sactions that actaully have zero effect on stuff that actually happens in play.

Quote from: jibbajibba;649150Yeah not saing game breaking actually the oposite unecessary. By 4th level the party usually have a couple of magic weapons. Especially if you are using the random treasure tables.
I have seen big swords goinggn to low level PCs, I can't actually remeber a single monster that needs a +5 weapon to hit it though

It's like lets give him some penalties but then waive all of them, they can get healed from 2nd level, they can use healing potions from 3rd etc etc its like we will impose sactions that actaully have zero effect on stuff that actually happens in play.

Oh, I agree.  By the time they hit level 8 (when everyone else is level 9--not a big difference), they have really no penalties and are juggernauts of meat shield destruction.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649138I don't think anyone is "Oh Noes!".

ROFL, you're doing a helluva good impersonation then.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649138In addition, they also can get a -2 AC with just studded leather and a shield at level 1.  A -2 AC is insane at level 1.

and the second a Fighter can afford Plate Mail, with the same stats he has AC -2, and his specialization still works, unlike some of the other abilities of the barbarian.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649154Oh, I agree.  By the time they hit level 8 (when everyone else is level 9--not a big difference), they have really no penalties and are juggernauts of meat shield destruction.

Aren't you the one that objected most strenuously to the Denner's "white room" bullshit?  Why do it yourself then?  Jibba I expect it from since Barb's are 1st Edition they automatically suck and are just another reason a real roleplayer plays 2nd.

You realize that to get to 8th level, you had to actually live through all those penalties that made your "A-team table" hate the class as teenagers?

Once you get to 9th level you can tank with the best of them, and as everyone else integrates into society and starts ruling different parts of the civilized world, you go back home and decide who to raise a horde against every year.  Yay.  Oh yeah that's right - 14, so no campaign, just chop shit up.

You really hated the barbarian, I get it, and somehow this factors into your newfound Next fanaticism, I get it.

Dunno what to tell you, managed to have a campaign for over a decade where not only didn't the Barbarian or Cavalier destroy the universe, but the Fighter not only managed to control the major military force for a kingdom, but also be the one out on the pointy end when it came time to save the world again.  We must have done it wrong. :eek:

It's funny seeing all these people that stomp on "those non TSR-D&D gamers" for their stupid absolutist bullshit, will spout rivers of such bullshit themselves against TSR-D&D they don't like.

Remember before replying, whoever,  I'm one search away from quoting you as saying that in Old-School games, nothing is broken or overpowered if the GM knows what the hell he's doing. :cool:

Quote from: CRKrueger;649168Dunno what to tell you, managed to have a campaign for over a decade where not only didn't the Barbarian or Cavalier destroy the universe, but the Fighter not only managed to control the major military force for a kingdom, but also be the one out on the pointy end when it came time to save the world again.  We must have done it wrong. :eek:

Just admit that it was really the Magic User who did everything, and we'll believe your story.

QuoteRemember before replying, whoever, I'm one search away from quoting you as saying that in Old-School games, nothing is broken or overpowered if the GM knows what the hell he's doing.

Well, admittedly it is a bit of both right and wrong statement. As a GM you can handle broken things (and no I don't mean Wizard vs Fighter as broken, I mean the broken builds or munchikins or genius tacticians with int 6 on their character etc. etc.), but the question is, how far are you going to break yourself and the principles on which you based your campaign on. Because sometimes something that's a bit like a Deus Ex Machina will be needed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;649168ROFL, you're doing a helluva good impersonation then.

Really?  I don't think I'm flipping out here.  I'm just pointing out actual attributes of the class.

Quoteand the second a Fighter can afford Plate Mail, with the same stats he has AC -2, and his specialization still works, unlike some of the other abilities of the barbarian.

A fighter won't get AC -2 until at least a few levels of advancement.  And as I'm sure you will agree, the first couple levels are the most threatening to survivability.  One hit from a creature can kill most classes in one hit.  Not only does the lower level barbarian have a lot more hp than any other class, they can also have the best AC in studded leather.  Give him hide and it becomes -3 AC.

QuoteAren't you the one that objected most strenuously to the Denner's "white room" bullshit?  Why do it yourself then?

What does this even mean?  When you're comparing classes, it's important to look at the comparison from a mechanical standpoint.  That's basic objective analysis.

QuoteYou realize that to get to 8th level, you had to actually live through all those penalties that made your "A-team table" hate the class as teenagers?

AD&D 1e had xp for treasure.  Do you know that going through module T1 puts most classes at level 4 by the end of it, just by treasure XP?  And by the end of T1-4, characters were at level 9-10?  I know, we just ran that campaign not that long ago.

QuoteYou really hated the barbarian, I get it, and somehow this factors into your newfound Next fanaticism, I get it.

Whatever dude.  This is some weak bullshit here.  For one, I am not a fanatic of Next.  I've made plenty of criticisms against it.  I guess unless I denounce it from on high and back up the misconceptions about it, I'm a fanatic for it?  Jesus, you sound exactly like those idiots on TBP about any social issue.

What I have been doing this whole week is address where people are flat out wrong about their assumptions with Next.  You are no better than the 4vengers who keep lying about how it's nothing but a AD&D clone.  Congratulations on that.

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.

This is the essence of the issue of the Barbarian class right here, boiled down.

Quote from: Drohem;649172This is the essence of the issue of the Barbarian class right here, boiled down.

There is truth in that.
To me though its just mechanic bloat for no good reason which pisses me off.

I don't really care that with High stats the barbarian is super tough. My point it is more that like the cavalier and the druid and the illusionist and the assasin its simply unnecessary.
I played this shit for years like I said I ran a barbarian campaign for from 1st through 8th over 2 years back when UA can out.
In one particular memorable campaign (FairyLand) the party consited of a 1/2 ogre fighter, an assassin, a cavalier, a barbarian, an archer from Dragon magazine and a druid. And that is typical of an AD&D game everyone playing a class with special powerz and moves.
Its just that when you analyse this stuff in retrospect you see the class explosion  for what it really is which is munchkins that want special powers.
It's no different than 3e charop except the builds are preselected for you and presented as niche classes.  

At the time was this my opionin, no, cos I was 14 when UA came out so it was great. Shit my thief acrobat is my favourite ever PC...
But I was 14.

By all means play an assasin or a druid but you don't need a whoile class with special powers to do that. With a flexible class system and a simple skill mechanic Druids (naure priest, moderate combat, taboos round nature and animals and a couple of simple abilitties -feats- from a list of typical religious powers), paladins, rangers, assassins etc etc don't need pages of rules and unique powers.
I think 5e gives you that from what I have seen. Class + background = buglar, fence, ranger, barbarian, duelist, archer, illusionist, vizir, shaman,

But they won't pare it right back to 4 classes becauuase they don't want to upset folk and they are building bridges, 2e had the same problem.

Quote from: jibbajibba;649177I think 5e gives you that from what I have seen. Class + background = buglar, fence, ranger, barbarian, duelist, archer, illusionist, vizir, shaman,

But they won't pare it right back to 4 classes becauuase they don't want to upset folk and they are building bridges, 2e had the same problem.

OH, there's no way they will pare it back to four core classes.  Way too many people love their classes.  But my experience mirrors yours with what they are attempting to do.  For example, the character I'm playing in my Wed game is a halfing fighter with the skulker specialty package.  In 1e terms, he's essentially a fighter with hide in shadows and partial sneak attack (bonus to hit, but not rogue bonus sneak attack damage).

Combine that with the choices I chose as a fighter (specializing in damage) I essentially have an assassin class without it needing to be an actual assassin.

There are still some issues trying to emulate any class (especially magic using hybrids), but the structure is there to allow a player to play an archetype without needing a specific class to do so.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649171What I have been doing this whole week is address where people are flat out wrong about their assumptions with Next.  You are no better than the 4vengers who keep lying about how it's nothing but a AD&D clone.  Congratulations on that.

Except I haven't said shit about Next this week.  Good example of you mixing the arguments though.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649179For example, the character I'm playing in my Wed game is a halfing fighter with the skulker specialty package.  In 1e terms, he's essentially a fighter with hide in shadows and partial sneak attack (bonus to hit, but not rogue bonus sneak attack damage).

Combine that with the choices I chose as a fighter (specializing in damage) I essentially have an assassin class without it needing to be an actual assassin.

There are still some issues trying to emulate any class (especially magic using hybrids), but the structure is there to allow a player to play an archetype without needing a specific class to do so.

BTW, that is cool.  My only reservation is that now I see them doing something very cool with Backgrounds, Themes, Whatever-you-wanna-call-ems, and instead putting everything in Feats, which would suck.