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?
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 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.)
Should be a fighter kit.
I don't like them as a separate class.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
ALways been a no Barbarian class kind of Referee. I am happy for a berserk class, maybe, but barbarian is cultural not class.
The barbarian class from the ACKS Players Companion seems to work OK in that game. LL does fine without one. YMMV.
Maybe
For a Basic game: no
For an Advanced game: yes if it is not the UA one
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.
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.
An entirely new class just to present a primitive fighter isn't needed IMHO.
I have a funny memory of the Barbarian "Summon the barbarian horde" ability.
I was running ADnD many years ago, the party was in a dungeon getting on with dungeonbashing.
Things got a bit sticky and the player controlling the barbarian stated loudly. "I summon the barbarian horde" expecting a Horde of barbarians to immediately appear on the spot. He got quite annoyed when I didn't allow it.
He accepted it when I showed him the rules for it that it can take months to go to whenever your clan etc is and actually stir them up enough to be a Barbarian horde etc..
Good times.. lol
Whether or not you need a barbarian "class" depends on what a class is. The AD&D Barbarian was a very Howardian design. Sure with the different skills and weapons you could pick it could be used for Native Americans, Vikings, Mongols or whatever, but the Barbarian class assumes that primitive man is closer to his animal origins and as a result is tougher, stronger, faster and possessed of animal senses and instincts that civilized man has forgotten - pure Howard.
If you postulate that a civilized human who sneaks and steals is different enough from a civilized human who fights, who is different enough from a civilized human who tracks in order to define a class, it's kind of hard to deny the primitive warrior who really needs to do all of those things, almost every day, or else he dies.
If your game has the granularity to allow it, you could have Attributes determined by Race/Species, base Skill Packages or abilities determined by Culture, and then Class tacked on top.
In more basic race-as-class games you could have a barbarian, sure. In fact, in a race-as-class game, there's actually more case for "race/classes" of all types.
In a few games I played where somebody was thinking of playing a 1E AD&D + UA barbarian, the DM usually insisted everybody had to roll their stats via 3d6 in order. In the end, I only played in two campaigns where somebody was able to randomly roll a UA barbarian.
It just happens in one campaign, there was no magic user. So it was relatively easy to deal with the barbarian. In the other campaign, the magic user and barbarian were at each others throats with the other player characters trying to split up the in-fighting between them.
I like the aproach that any character class can be a barbarian and that it is down to how that character is acted/played rather than the number crunchiness. There was a great article talking about that for T&T somewhere, but I'm feeling too lazy to go find it for you just at the moment.
Like I've said elsewhere (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=616549&postcount=1):
Quote from: The Butcher;616549(...) I have the weirdest love/hate relationship with character classes.
On one hand, I like broadly-encompassing, archetypal character classes because they make my life as a GM easier. Barbaric berserker? Fighter. High-and-mighty knight? Fighter. Scruffy mercenary? Fighter. Disciplined legionnaire? You get the idea.
On the other hand, having a smorgasbord of character classes to choose from appeals to me on a visceral, fat-kid-in-a-candy-store level, because even as a GM I vicariously enjoy my players' excitement at the new toys; and on another level, as a GM who's into building and running worlds that behave reasonably like our own, because broadly defined classes inevitably require some handwaving; one recurring issue back in the day, playing TSR-era D&D was the Fighter in light armor – while it could be situationally useful (e.g. when stealth is called for, when you're at sea, or when the climate is very hot), in most situations the system didn't reward you for playing a nimble, lightly-armored melee combatant. And don't get me started on Clerics and polytheism!
Having specific classes for certain "corner cases" that exist in fiction but I feel aren't adequately covered by D&D's usual archetypes can be very appealing.
Yes. Reasonable home-brewed Conan types such as this:
http://theosrlibrary.blogspot.com/2012/01/archer-barbarian-my-osr-versions.html
Nay. I don't use classes from Unearthed Arcana.
If there was a class for the specific primal, raging combatant in the game, I'd name it a Berserker, rather than a "Barbarian".
Quote from: Benoist;648513If there was a class for the specific primal, raging combatant in the game, I'd name it a Berserker, rather than a "Barbarian".
I concur.
Damn Unearthed Arcana. It seems to have permanently welded the concept of barbarian to raging berserker.
That's crap. Fantasy barbarians to me are lightly armored (but can put on the platemail for major battles), tactically smart, sneaky bastards such as Picts, thieving Cimmerian adventurers, etc.
UA has seemed to upsurp that image with morons who charge into combat and kill til they drop over dead.
For the people who claim that "barbarian" is culture, not class, I have a question: do you accept "paladin" as a character class?
Umm, Unearthed Arcana had absolutely nothing to do with the Barbarian berserking. Rage was a 3e thing.
Quote from: baran_i_kanu;648520Damn Unearthed Arcana. It seems to have permanently welded the concept of barbarian to raging berserker.
That's crap. Fantasy barbarians to me are lightly armored (but can put on the platemail for major battles), tactically smart, sneaky bastards such as Picts, thieving Cimmerian adventurers, etc.
UA has seemed to upsurp that image with morons who charge into combat and kill til they drop over dead.
You must have a different UA than I do. In mine, barbarians are not raging berserkers, but lightly armored (sometimes) warriors who are adept at hiding in natural surroundings, very aware of their environment, and who have a deep cultural fear and hatred of magic. In fact, I don't see the words rage or berserker anywhere.
If I have a berserker, I'm so going to have it shapechange into a bear.
I tend to favor "the barbarian is a Fighter." That said, if playing AD&D, I could see a berserker subclass.
As seems to be pretty common, I dislike the UA Barbarian.
I dislike the barbarian as beserker type (having experimented with it myself).
The only barbarian option I have really been happy with is the Mazes & Minotaurs one, which works equally well for Hyborian pseudo-celts or khopesh sword wielding pseudo-Nubians in the M&M setting.
Castles & Crusades also had quite good version, from memory. The highlight being a Primal Fury or something which allowed a once-per-session +4 bonus to any barbarianish thing, so long as the player did it impulsively. So with that you could ignore the wizards mind control (save) through sheer rage, leap the gorge, wrestle the gorilla aside etc in a Conany way without being superhuman in stats most of the time, so long as you acted like an instinctive barbarian.
this is a problme we have discussed before the many many classes issue. Do we need a class for everything. A paladin, becuase someone wants to play galahad, a druid because someone wants to play Talesin, a barbarian becuase someone wants to play Conan.
RPG companies liek this becuase it sells splat, munchkins liek it becuase it enables them to get special Powerz.
2e started to tackle this but bottled it because of the possible rage so they kept rangers, and druids and paladins.
My heartbreaker has 3 classes and an infinite number of archetypes. the GM gets a kit to build archetypes for their setting and he base game includes 10 for each class.
So the players are restricted to archetypes that work in the game world. So say there is a tribe of brusque northerners who like int eh wilderness and come together only for feats and battles, the GM can design a Barbarian archetype, but he can also build a ba5rbarian scout using the Rogue class, and a barbarian Shaman using the Magus class. If there is a wide sea bristling with galeons, he can build a Corsair raider class, but can do the same with a bucaneer or a whatever.
If ther eis an order of holy knights that get boons from God he can build those, maybe a Paladin with the fighter, a Hospitaler etc .
The advantage of this is that there is no proliferation of special rules. There is a list of stuff the GM can use to give the archetypes colour and some mechanical variation, gladiators get d12 HP, Knights start with experience in using plate armour and can fight from horseback, Magi with the Charlatan archetype get access to stealth etc. You don't end up with a hundred special powers each with their own rules and there is much less chance of broken classes emerging.
2e moved to this but as I said bottled out.
My first experience with RPG barbarians was through Chaosium's 2nd edition RuneQuest, so I've always seen them as a cultural background rather than a separate class. I've tried playing them in 3.0E, but I didn't like it, it felt too forced. In the simpler realms of OSR I think fighter works perfectly well - a bit like the Classic D&D monster listings for berserkers, bucaneers and the like, which were all basically NPC fighters in different flavours.
Quote from: Silverlion;648575If I have a berserker, I'm so going to have it shapechange into a bear.
My view of the Berserker is Diablo II Druid + Barbarian/2. I like going with the crazy warrior druid.
The OD&D Barbarian class article I am playing with includes being touched with lycanthropy where at lower levels the Berserker may change in combat unwillingly, just lost in their animal rage.
I don't have anything against a barbarian class (except UA's horrible one), but my preference is to have it a subset of the fighter. I thought 2e' Complete Barbarian's Guide did this really well. In fact, now that I just looked it over, it was really well done. They weren't all just fighting types. You had fighter kits, cleric kits, etc.
This is how they should be done
I haven't read the UA nor played with it.
My assumption was from what I was reading.
My bad.
So how bad was the UA version? People have said they would not run it as is. Is it that overpowerful?
The UA Barbarian get magic resistance and d12s for hit dice and berserking and a barbarian horde.
Dark Passages has a barbarian culture and class. Given that it provides better outdoor abilities and restricts armor to chainmail it's really pretty close to the ranger but specializing in melee rather than missile fire.
But then, Dark Passages also has knights and archers which are also pretty close to being fighters. Though the fighter gets +1 to hit with melee at first level and the archer gets +1 to hit with missile fire. The big distinction of knights is that they get +1 to riding at first level so they can use their +1 to hit from horseback.
Quote from: David Johansen;648718The UA Barbarian get magic resistance and d12s for hit dice and berserking and a barbarian horde.
Didn't we just go through this? UA barbarians don't get berserking. They get a lot of stuff -- able to detect illusions, hit creatures only hit by magic weapons, hide in natural environments. But no berserking.
Not that I'm against berserking, if it's a more restrained version of the concept and only applies to a specific barbarian culture. The barbarian class I wrote up includes a berserker tribe that has the ability "act as if under a Haste spell in combat and trigger morale checks in normal men." Not that big an exploit.
The funniest part of the UA barbarian is the ten-foot leap. Doesn't specify any difference between standing jump and running jump. My jumping rules are: the scale-inch movement for a man is how far in feet he can jump safely. He can jump twice as far, with a risk of falling. A running jump doubles those distances. That means normal men in my game can outperform UA barbarians in AD&D.
The 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.
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..
As far as the "actual play" thing happened, the biggest problem with barbarians that I had was the constant bickering between them and the rest of the part re: magic, especially with Magic users themselves.
It always ended up being a problem when magic was going to be used to get past whatever was happening and the barbarian player flipping out over it. Inevitably it turned into the A-Team, with the barbarian playing Mr. T when it came to flying.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;648853As far as the "actual play" thing happened, the biggest problem with barbarians that I had was the constant bickering between them and the rest of the part re: magic, especially with Magic users themselves.
It always ended up being a problem when magic was going to be used to get past whatever was happening and the barbarian player flipping out over it. Inevitably it turned into the A-Team, with the barbarian playing Mr. T when it came to flying.
"I pity the fool who doesn't make his saving throw."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;648853As far as the "actual play" thing happened, the biggest problem with barbarians that I had was the constant bickering between them and the rest of the part re: magic, especially with Magic users themselves.
It always ended up being a problem when magic was going to be used to get past whatever was happening and the barbarian player flipping out over it. Inevitably it turned into the A-Team, with the barbarian playing Mr. T when it came to flying.
So in other words, the mechanics weren't the problem, your group wasn't up to the role-playing challenges? :p
Quote from: CRKrueger;648856So in other words, the mechanics weren't the problem, your group wasn't up to the role-playing challenges? :p
I'm all for RP challenges, but sometimes it becomes more of a hassle than it's worth. It would be like a party of thieves and one player wanting to play a paladin. The distraction(s) are problematic. You never realize just how many things in a typical D&D session involve magic until someone plays an UA barbarian.
I believe that according to errata in Dragon, that the barbarian is supposed to use d10 for hit points.
I don't allow it now; when I did allow barbs nobody who wanted one rolled high enough stats.
Quote from: CRKrueger;648849The 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.
It's not the overpowered-ness of the barbarian that's a problem for me. It's that damned nickel-and-dime approach to skills and abilities that first showed up in Blackmoor, became common in AD&D, and got worse with every new class and edition. That, and the fact that the restrictions are poorly designed. "Start illiterate": Good. "Can't play with other PCs who are magical": Bad.
In my OD&D barbarian, there's not a whole lot of powers. It's just an illiterate fighter from a less-sophisticated culture that's afraid of magic, but fearless about mundane dangers, with one tribal ability (the simplified "berserk" I mentioned earlier, or special horse training/riding ability, or double surprise in jungles... stuff like that.) I stuck to restrictions that were interesting without inhibiting, and kept the power-mongering in check. Most of the skills from UA are possible, but I just subsume that under the rule "you can do stuff that fits your background". The barbarian horde thing is something anyone could try, but barbarians would be better at; it doesn't need special rules.
The d12 HD concerns me. It's not tremendously overpowered, but it's another one of those obsessions ("I want more hit points at first level!") that gets worse with every rules expansion or new edition. And it's a waste of time, because the monsters get their hit points and hit dice bumped every edition, too. But aside from that minor quibble, the barbarian isn't really overpowered, it's just a waste of effort for something that could have been defined in half a page, as a minor variant of the fighter class.
Quote from: talysman;648891The d12 HD concerns me. It's not tremendously overpowered, but it's another one of those obsessions ("I want more hit points at first level!") that gets worse with every rules expansion or new edition. And it's a waste of time, because the monsters get their hit points and hit dice bumped every edition, too. .
Oh, I hate that fucking hit point/monster inflation.
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. :D
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. :D
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.
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. :D
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.
Quote from: CRKrueger;649180Except I haven't said shit about Next this week. Good example of you mixing the arguments though. ;)
You accused me of being a Next fanatic. That's why I made that comment. So why don't you explain then why you think I'm a Next fanatic.
QuoteBTW, 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 now putting everything in Feats, which sucks.
And this is what I've been trying to say. There is no functionality difference than earlier. They're calling them feats (a mistake IMO), but the structure and functionality is no different than class based abilities in AD&D or packages in the first playtest packages. I suspect they are calling them feats to appeal to the 3e crowd, and technically they do allow you to ignore the packages and do char op like in 3e. But the core structure is prepackaged themes where you don't go through a feat list looking at what to choose.
Quote from: CRKrueger;649180Except I haven't said shit about Next this week. Good example of you mixing the arguments though. ;)
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 now putting everything in Feats, which would suck.
Why do feats suck? if the DM can tailor them, set them to a class and if they include stuff that isn't just combat. Then they are just like class powers. Except you have a pool of them and not unique ones for every new class.
Now maybe they will fail at getting that last bit right I do fear that the mass of feats will be combat or combat related
I suspect Basic will have just themes/backgrounds and the feats will all be part of standard edition.
Quote from: jibbajibba;649184Why do feats suck? if the DM can tailor them, set them to a class and if they include stuff that isn't just combat. Then they are just like class powers. Except you have a pool of them and not unique ones for every new class.
Now maybe they will fail at getting that last bit right I do fear that the mass of feats will be combat or combat related
I suspect Basic will have just themes/backgrounds and the feats will all be part of standard edition.
WotC use of Feats sucked in 3e, I don't have faith in them making them not suck in 5e. The package idea was good, however, I get the sense they're just saying "Fuck that package stuff is hard, let's use Feats and replace them with Stat bonus for the old fucks." *wipes hands*
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.
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.
It's not that anyone's particularly bent out of shape about just one class, or that someone somewhere used the term "feat". It's that many of us old school types object to that nickel-and-dime list of powers approach used in the Barbarian, and the Ranger, and the Monk, and hell, even the Paladin... and the switch to Feats just exacerbates that. The hit point arms race is bad, too, but it's minor in comparison to that list of powers approach, and the list of classes needed to support every possible list of powers.
Screw it. We need just three or four classes, plus maybe three hybrids, and you can customize them mostly by changing the "fluff" for any particular ability, or by limiting one ability and bringing in a limited version of a single ability from another class, or both.
I've been writing up lots of class variants, myself, but I don't think of them as actual classes, since they all follow the same pattern: two or three class features, maybe split one feature into two limited versions. These classes are more examples of how to customize the base classes than actual stand-alone classes.
If D&D Next did something like that, it would be interesting. I don't want feats, but if D&D Next did feats the same way, making two to four base feats as patterns and creating new feats by changing the fluff, it might be bearable.
The same applies to retro-clones, or OSR supplemental materials. If they use the variant approach, that's great. If they add new classes that take the UA Barbarian or AD&D Ranger or Blackmoor Monk approach, that's not what I want.
Im a little late to this all. But wasnt the UA barbarian designed for solo play. Just the DM, and a single player. Thats why the class is stupid powerful. To act as a one man party? So to speak? So tone down the class, and make it a fighter with some primitive culture extras and bam. Barbarian thats not overpowered and makes sense to put in a party, Modern or OSR.
Quote from: talysman;649325It's not that anyone's particularly bent out of shape about just one class, or that someone somewhere used the term "feat". It's that many of us old school types object to that nickel-and-dime list of powers approach used in the Barbarian, and the Ranger, and the Monk, and hell, even the Paladin... and the switch to Feats just exacerbates that. The hit point arms race is bad, too, but it's minor in comparison to that list of powers approach, and the list of classes needed to support every possible list of powers.
Screw it. We need just three or four classes, plus maybe three hybrids, and you can customize them mostly by changing the "fluff" for any particular ability, or by limiting one ability and bringing in a limited version of a single ability from another class, or both.
I've been writing up lots of class variants, myself, but I don't think of them as actual classes, since they all follow the same pattern: two or three class features, maybe split one feature into two limited versions. These classes are more examples of how to customize the base classes than actual stand-alone classes.
If D&D Next did something like that, it would be interesting. I don't want feats, but if D&D Next did feats the same way, making two to four base feats as patterns and creating new feats by changing the fluff, it might be bearable.
The same applies to retro-clones, or OSR supplemental materials. If they use the variant approach, that's great. If they add new classes that take the UA Barbarian or AD&D Ranger or Blackmoor Monk approach, that's not what I want.
I have noted before my heartbreaker has 3 classes. Rogue (skills specialist) Warrior (combat specialist) Magus (spell specialist).
Within that there is a template to create archetypoes (much like 2e Kits with a bit opf S&P variation)
the GM creates archetypes for his setting they take about 5 minute to make and are composed of Class + skill pools (from a set of 12 most classes get 2 so A scout might get Wilderness + Stealth) then some variaton on HD, and the costs of stuff when you level.
Its not quite right yet but I am very happy with the class model.
I just ported the whole thing over to a Strontium Dog Sci fi setting. With 3 PCs each playing a Stront but one from each class, Warrior, Rogue (actually a pilot) and a Psyker (who replace Magus) and it looks good. The Rogue has plenty of skills and is meh at combat with a psychic power he isn't trained in, the Warrior is hard a couple of skills at reasonable levels but bristling with weapons and the Psyker is crap in combat except she has armed herself with tech (targeting computer and a few customer programs to help her out) and she has precongition which she can use to give her bonuses becuase she literally knows what you are going to do next.
Anyway the point is that I ported the entire game to a different genre and all I needed to do was update the skill lists, draw up some random mutation tables, create a Psyker system which is just a port and switch on the basic magic system.
There was no need to build any new class powers work or new classes, I don't need a pilot, a space marine, a smuggler as classes because with the archetype pattern I can just roll out whatever archetypes I want on the fly and they are all roughly balanced and full of flavour.
Always comes down to whether the character is based on flavor or mechanics. In the OSR style, for me anyway, a Barbarian is a Fighter with flavor. Player and GM can simply put their heads together and mash up a "template," perhaps like this:
P: "I'm playing a fighter."
GM: "Okay."
P: "I'm a barbarian from the Elk Tribe, and God is Tempus."
GM: "That's cool. Anything else?"
P: "Yeah. I served as an indentured servant for a crusty old dwarven weapons master, who saved me from execution after my tribe was wiped out in an ill-conceived attack on a local "civlized" settlement. Over the years, my innate barbarian prejudices and fears were tempered, and I came to see the dwarf as a surrogate-father."
GM: "Okay, cool. Anything else"
P: "Yeah. The dwarf made me a magic hammer that always returns to me when I throw or summon it."
GM: "...no..."
New school:
GM: "Okay, what ya got?"
P: "I'm playing a Human Barbarian with the following Feats (sundry list follows). I also would like the "Prodigal Son" and "Outsider" backgrounds.
GM: "Okay, cool. Anything else."
P: "I also want a magic hammer that always returns to me when I throw or summon it."
GM:"...no..."
Six of one, half dozen of the other, though the first seems more fun.
I personally don't see the need for a barbarian in a OSR style game. When I run OD&D the rules are easy enough that when one of my players wants to make their character stand out from the standard fighter we just work it out on the spot if we feel the need for an ability or something. I might would give a barbarian some kind of bonus on rolls in a survival situation or something, other than that I don't see why they should be much different than any other fighter. I guess it depends on what your idea of a barbarian is, I think of Conan and I don't think that kind of character is significantly different from a standard fighting man.
Quote from: Arkansan;649788I personally don't see the need for a barbarian in a OSR style game. When I run OD&D the rules are easy enough that when one of my players wants to make their character stand out from the standard fighter we just work it out on the spot if we feel the need for an ability or something. I might would give a barbarian some kind of bonus on rolls in a survival situation or something, other than that I don't see why they should be much different than any other fighter. I guess it depends on what your idea of a barbarian is, I think of Conan and I don't think that kind of character is significantly different from a standard fighting man.
I don't see the need for any of the fighter sub-classes (ranger, barbarian, cavalier). The paladin could just as easily be a type of cleric.
I recently came up with a list of 21 types for a basically all-fighters game, and I thought it looked like a fun way to go. It's one easy way to give each character a distinctive specialty, and a quick hook for role-playing. (One can jump in with Mowgli or Orlando, Cassanova or Marco Polo in mind as a starting point and build from there.)
I also had 20 attributes (scores randomly generated) further to distinguish figures, which had started with a different set of 6 -- rather lumping than splitting -- from the usual D&D set.
That's on the shelf for now, though.
I'm thinking of going in the opposite direction: no special classes, and not even a uniform set of six attributes.
Instead, I'd like to have each player make up a few descriptors (I'm currently thinking three or four, ranked) to call out what's most significant about the PC. If you're acquainted with Risus, cliches would fit the idea.
Quote from: Phillip;650165I recently came up with a list of 21 types for a basically all-fighters game, and I thought it looked like a fun way to go. It's one easy way to give each character a distinctive specialty, and a quick hook for role-playing. (One can jump in with Mowgli or Orlando, Cassanova or Marco Polo in mind as a starting point and build from there.)
I also had 20 attributes (scores randomly generated) further to distinguish figures, which had started with a different set of 6 -- rather lumping than splitting -- from the usual D&D set.
That's on the shelf for now, though.
I'm thinking of going in the opposite direction: no special classes, and not even a uniform set of six attributes.
Instead, I'd like to have each player make up a few descriptors (I'm currently thinking three or four, ranked) to call out what's most significant about the PC. If you're acquainted with Risus, cliches would fit the idea.
Marginally related to this I was thinking that measuring abilites on a 3-18 is a really poor mapping of reality. I recall the AD&D DMG suggesting for NPC you count 1s as 3s and 6s as 4s giving a range of 6-15.
In reality the range for most things is much lower apart from maybe IQ which I suspect was the benchmark point they started with (no idea if that is true of course).
A game where you can have an ability like "Smart", "Quickwitted", "Strong as an Ox" etc instead of having stats does work although not sure it gives you much benefit.
It would be interesting to see genuine medical facts on range of human strength, co-ordination etc. Although havogn read the Traveller 5 thread with the genetics of your parents affecting your stats I suspect it could lead to DISASTER :)
Quote from: Elfdart;650153I don't see the need for any of the fighter sub-classes (ranger, barbarian, cavalier). The paladin could just as easily be a type of cleric.
That is my mode of thinking as well, I see the classes as more of a broad category than a specific thing. I think the distinction between a knight and a typical fighting man is in how the player runs them. If there is a real need, or a good argument on the part of a player for some distinguishing feature we can just work out something on the spot rather than having a whole new class.
I suspect a lot of "just work out something on the spot" looks pretty much like the D&D character classes of my acquaintance. How the heck much simpler than the old D&D, Arduin, etc., write-ups is it really possible to get (apart from plain vanilla fighting-man)?
Quote from: Phillip;650286I suspect a lot of "just work out something on the spot" looks pretty much like the D&D character classes of my acquaintance. How the heck much simpler than the old D&D, Arduin, etc., write-ups is it really possible to get (apart from plain vanilla fighting-man)?
I like to put a frame work rounf 'just work it out' for the DM to avoid pitfalls of imbalance. They can always ignore it.
Also I want the DM to actually think about their setting and establish what type sof figthers the PCs can be as opposed to allowing everythign a PC can think of without putting that into the wider world context.
So a swashbuckler in a Roman campaign doesn't fit, maybe play a gladiator or a pirate instead. etc ...
My current pet grips is DMs not thinking enough about their settigns.