TheRPGSite

Of all the things to get mad at WoTC about, for me it's releasing these previews and intentionally leaving off the best bit (page 3+) ;)

http://www.dungeonbastard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/barbarian_p1.jpg
http://www.dungeonbastard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/barbarian_p2.jpg

Not including preview pics because they are too freaking large

Hmmm...I don't usually look for builds, but it occurred to me that a multiclassed Barbarian Fighter of level 5/5 gets 3 attacks.

Be interesting to see how that compares to a level 10 barbarian that seems to get 2 attacks. or How it compares to a level 10 fighter.

Quote from: Bill;773443Hmmm...I don't usually look for builds, but it occurred to me that a multiclassed Barbarian Fighter of level 5/5 gets 3 attacks.

Be interesting to see how that compares to a level 10 barbarian that seems to get 2 attacks. or How it compares to a level 10 fighter.

In alpha, 11th level fighters get 3.  The only class to get more than one extra attack IIRC.  So I guess a 11 F/5 B gets 4 attacks, where a straight fighter has to be level 20 before that happens.  Interesting to see how the rules work in the final PHB

Looks very good.

I really like the art.

Quote from: The Ent;773448Looks very good.

I really like the art.

To me he looks like Fafhrd.  General reaction so far is that he "doesn't look like a barbarian like Conan".  

o_O

Fafhrd is a pretty popular barbarian with plenty of history behind him ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773450To me he looks like Fafhrd.  General reaction so far is that he "doesn't look like a barbarian like Conan".  

o_O

Fafhrd is a pretty popular barbarian with plenty of history behind him ;)

Hell YEAH!!

Very happy with this. Goddamn do I wish we could see what some of those abilities are. I'm definitely not regretting doing a pre-order for the Player's Handbook.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773450To me he looks like Fafhrd.  General reaction so far is that he "doesn't look like a barbarian like Conan".  

o_O

Fafhrd is a pretty popular barbarian with plenty of history behind him ;)

Haha very true! :D

Fafhrd is every bit as cool as Conan, and should be as iconic. I like it.
(I Don't like that people who Don't know who Fafhrd is are bitching though)

I doubt they'd make him look like a Conan-lookalike anyhow. Too 80s.
(I'm absolutely a fanatic REH fanboy, but, hey)

As long as we never have to see something like the 3e barbarian again...

The only time that I ever got to play as a barbarian, it was in Pathfinder. I was reading Mouse Guard at the time so my character was a Rat-folk with a blood red cape and a black axe. Super derivative, I know, but none of the other players, nor the GM, caught the references.

Super freakin-fun, I must say.

I think the guy has more of an Abercrombie vibe. Think Caul Shivers before the burning of his face.

Needless I am of the school that says a Barbarian is just a fighter with a certain background. You don't need an extra class or subclass you just need the stones to fight in light armour and be at home in the wilderness.

Giving the generic barbarian more HPs than the generic fighter suggests that living out in the sticks is tougher than living in the back alleys of Leeli or learning your skills in the fighting pits of Hess.

The background could have an option to sell heavy armour usage in return for a d12 HP as opposed to a d10 then you could apply that consistently across all warrior types.

The art is great, but they should have given him a horned helmet just to troll the "historically accurate" brigade...

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;773464The art is great, but they should have given him a horned helmet just to troll the "historically accurate" brigade...

Haha, seconding that! :cheerleader:

WoTC are really batting good on the art front.  When I first saw this thread, I was a bit hesitant as to what the pic would be- but, I was pleasantly surprised.

Honestly 5e might well be the D&D edition with the best art since BECMI.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773446In alpha, 11th level fighters get 3.  The only class to get more than one extra attack IIRC.  So I guess a 11 F/5 B gets 4 attacks, where a straight fighter has to be level 20 before that happens.  Interesting to see how the rules work in the final PHB

Attacks don't stack like 3e.It's quite explicit in that to get any more then 2 attacks in some way you have to take 11 fighter levels. You might be able to get a faux 4th attack like a barbarian or war cleric but I am not convinced. The only other way of getting 2 attacks without 5 fighter levels is some combination of war cleric, barbarian, valor bard, paladin or ranger or blade pact warlock of 8 levels. Which leaves only a single classed fighter access to 4 attacks as it should be.

The art is great as usual and I'm really loving the realistic clothing for everybody.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;773464The art is great, but they should have given him a horned helmet just to troll the "historically accurate" brigade...

HA!


As for classes... I used to be in that 'atomic character' mindset, where if you want a cleric, it's fighter + priest and so on.

After being annoyed at multiclassing and seeing how nicely archetypes and modifications work in Pathfinder... yeah, I'm back to liking distinct classes that can be further modified.

Despite my loathing for the term "build", I like the quick build tips they add to these - it means you can make an "advanced" character about as quickly as a "basic" one, and it's a good sign that you should be able to make a competent character who can pull their weight and still have room to make choices based on roleplaying and flavour.

Quote from: Marleycat;773475Attacks don't stack like 3e.It's quite explicit in that to get any more then 2 attacks in some way you have to take 11 fighter levels. You might be able to get a faux 4th attack like a barbarian or war cleric but I am not convinced. The only other way of getting 2 attacks without 5 fighter levels is some combination of war cleric, barbarian, valor bard, paladin or ranger of 8 levels. Which leaves only a single classed fighter access to 4 attacks as it should be.

That was certainly true in the last 'open' play test packet.

The loooooooooooooooooooong opening paragraphs of these where they explain what the character class is with flowery, excessive verbiage is just so much wasted space and unnecessary extra page count.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;773572The loooooooooooooooooooong opening paragraphs of these where they explain what the character class is with flowery, excessive verbiage is just so much wasted space and unnecessary extra page count.

Mostly agree, but I think with targeting younger players again, they put the flavor text in there.

Some people like flavor text.  some people hate it and think it's a waste of space.  Some people don't care either way.  It's one of those "you can't please everyone" type of deals.  IMO, better to have it and ignore it, than to want it and not have it.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;773572The loooooooooooooooooooong opening paragraphs of these where they explain what the character class is with flowery, excessive verbiage is just so much wasted space and unnecessary extra page count.

You just described the worst thing about nearly every 'high production value' gaming product published in the last 30 years. The basic writing in most gaming books is an abomination, and the biggest sin is the verbose, windy, flowery crap that passes for color commentary. One reason why it used to be possible to present a playable, even complex game in a 64 page stapled book is that few games wasted space on this stuff.

Imagine what the rule book for Squad Leader contained three pages of drivel explaining what it feels like to be a mortar round. Or, closer to home, what if Steve Jackson had pumped up Melee with 100 pages of color text about gladiators? There are plenty of well crafted, timeless games that didn't fold in all this filler. And they were better for it.

Part of the challenge of a game book is that it serves as a tutorial, a reference, and a working manual, and each of those goals have different optimizations.

So RPGs suffer from trying to be good enough in all areas to work.

One thing I like about games with OGL is that you can have all the flowery crap and THEN someone can come up with the concise 'brass tacks' stuff to actually work with.

Quote from: Larsdangly;773575You just described the worst thing about nearly every 'high production value' gaming product published in the last 30 years. The basic writing in most gaming books is an abomination, and the biggest sin is the verbose, windy, flowery crap that passes for color commentary. One reason why it used to be possible to present a playable, even complex game in a 64 page stapled book is that few games wasted space on this stuff.

The Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit 1 was a wake up call to how much rules could be packed into a small pamphlet:)

God, if only there was a game that eliminated all that prose and flavor and just gave us the mechanics.

(http://www.dorkadia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/4E-Players-Handbook.jpg)

Quote from: Larsdangly;773577Imagine what the rule book for Squad Leader contained three pages of drivel explaining what it feels like to be a mortar round. Or, closer to home, what if Steve Jackson had pumped up Melee with 100 pages of color text about gladiators? There are plenty of well crafted, timeless games that didn't fold in all this filler. And they were better for it.

1) Are either of them actually RPGs?
2) I do love the historical background explanations in scenario books of GMT games. Different strokes, different folks? For me, that prose when done right, is the favourite part of the book to read, as it puts me in the mood for gaming.

Quote from: JonWake;773582God, if only there was a game that eliminated all that prose and flavor and just gave us the mechanics.

(http://www.dorkadia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/4E-Players-Handbook.jpg)

:).

I like rules interspersed with light fluff myself.  Palladium RPG 1st, AS&SH, and such.  If a setting is included, I want only the skeleton.

Elaborating on my last point, I think fluff material is useful... once.

I want to read through and get the context, where the developers were going with concepts. Once.

After THAT I just want the rules, man.

But we're not quite at the point of context-reshaping ebooks.

Quote from: Larsdangly;773575You just described the worst thing about nearly every 'high production value' gaming product published in the last 30 years. The basic writing in most gaming books is an abomination, and the biggest sin is the verbose, windy, flowery crap that passes for color commentary. One reason why it used to be possible to present a playable, even complex game in a 64 page stapled book is that few games wasted space on this stuff.

Semi-related: Last week I had dinner with a really cool dude that freelances for Paizo. We were talking about a PDF project of mine (Totally unrelated to Paizo or Pathfinder) and discussing various options for the probably-just-not-meant-to-be physical book. He had an "Jesus Christ what the fuck is wrong with you" reaction when I brought up doing it with black-and-white interior art. Apparently in the hip big-time RPG circles that he runs in THAT IS JUST NOT DONE ANYMORE and is considered one step above running out grainy bestiality porn on used butcher's paper in the prison print shop at midnight. I almost piped back with "But some of the greatest RPG books of all time had B&W interior art" but decided to just shut up and die inside a little.

I am firmly in the "Simpler is usually better" camp. I think that glossy over-production and the resulting over-pricing has just about killed comic books and it's well on it's way to strangling this hobby as well.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;773591I am firmly in the "Simpler is usually better" camp. I think that glossy over-production and the resulting over-pricing has just about killed comic books and it's well on it's way to strangling this hobby as well.

I just want the product to be durable and stand up to regular use.  Hardcover, softcover, staple bound_ whatever.  Palladium books are bombproof.

I will be playing Grizzly Adams, Barbarian for now on.

(http://talesofthebeard.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/grizzly1.jpg?w=470)

The fluff material in that barbarian entry seems to be for people new to the game. Isn't that a good thing?

Quote from: RunningLaser;773595.  Palladium books are bombproof.

Crazy Ol' Uncle Kevin's books typically have abysmal organization, but otherwise I give them very high marks for utility: Durable binding. Art that does a good job of setting mood but stays out of the way. Black letters in an easy-to-read font on white paper. Kevin gets it- this is a product meant to used, week after week, at a gaming table.

My preference is mostly b&w interior, maybe a few glamor(ie) shots.

Good layout is -far- more important, in my estimation; a book laid out like a cheap printout... ugh.
(Anyone read Nobilis 1? Yeah)

There are examples of B&W art and get-to-the-fucking-point writing in modern games. The art in Dungeon Crawl Classics kicks the holly hell out of any of the post 1995 glossy-paged hard backs that are currently serving as gravitational lenses in my basement storage. Burning Wheel is not really my game, but it goes a great job of expressing creativity and personality and a sense of character through the rules without layering on pages and pages of drippy prose about Filbert the Elf Who Could, or whatever. So, it can be done. But I can believe most of the people who have an official job title at a big company are so locked in tunnel vision that they can't even recognize it when something truly creative is put in front of them.

You know, not everyone can write compellingly about this sort of thing. Actually, its more like almost no one can. Michael Moorcock is allowed to write multiple paragraphs about the interior thoughts and dreams of fantastical people. Maybe one or two other people. Everyone else is just total rot at it. It is like listening to people talk about their dreams. Or artlessly written dirty stories. However exciting it seemed in your own head, when you start putting it down on paper it is just stupid. Almost no one working in fantasy roleplaying games can pull this off. It is not just a WoC problem — the fluff text describing classes and races in the Castles and Crusades PHB is just as bad. Perhaps the problem is that everyone working in the industry is a frustrated would-be author and can't resist the opportunity to share some of their creative vision.

Yes, because giving an examples of characters and how the class might perceive a "default" game world is exactly flowery prose. Not to mention why drop Moorcock out of all possible ones, since I'd say he is one of the most...divisive authors regarding his quality versus the legacy his work actually had.

I also repeat my question regarding the point you brought before - areSquad Leader of SJ's Melee RPGs?

That "flowery fluff" may be unnecessary to you, but to a new kid who had more Harry Potter and less Howard, they might be quite useful.

Melee is obviously a RPG.

Another one in the "barbarians don't need to be a class" and "bad flavor text is bad" camp...the whole thing feels like so much padding. Just add a berserk rage ability and wilderness background to the fighter.

Also, I'd rather have the occasional dwarf or elf with some kind of berserk rage ability, than a "dwarf barbarian" or "elf barbarian" who comes from the same society as their non-barbarian siblings.

Having said that about diversity of classes, I also wouldn't mind fighters being like, oh, sorcerers or clerics, where you select different 'fighter training.'

So, for example:
Fighters have light and medium armor.

Pick a training focus:
Berserker: gain Rage abilities and DR.
Formation: gain heavy armor proficiency, armor training, and tower shields, maybe some cooperative fighting techniques.
Skirmisher: mobility feats and dodging, perhaps more odd weapons, like gaining a few exotic weapons (trident and net!)
Duelist: more one-on-one melee, with a lot of maneuvers (disarm, trip, etc)

Pick a skill focus:
Forager: various tracking and nature skills.
Knight: various social and political skills.
Mercenary: mix of social and rough skills (escape artist, whatever)


Hmm. Might be a fun 3e OGL thing to tinker with.

Quote from: Will;773659Having said that about diversity of classes, I also wouldn't mind fighters being like, oh, sorcerers or clerics, where you select different 'fighter training.'

So, for example:
Fighters have light and medium armor.

Pick a training focus:
Berserker: gain Rage abilities and DR.
Formation: gain heavy armor proficiency, armor training, and tower shields, maybe some cooperative fighting techniques.
Skirmisher: mobility feats and dodging, perhaps more odd weapons, like gaining a few exotic weapons (trident and net!)
Duelist: more one-on-one melee, with a lot of maneuvers (disarm, trip, etc)

Pick a skill focus:
Forager: various tracking and nature skills.
Knight: various social and political skills.
Mercenary: mix of social and rough skills (escape artist, whatever)


Hmm. Might be a fun 3e OGL thing to tinker with.

Something like this is perfect for a setting book it's been done for Rokogun and 7th Seas and would be completely appropriate in all sorts of settings.

Also a fan of flavor text 4e totally lost me because the game read like a textbook.

I like having a decent amount of flavour text. I enjoy picking up an RPG book off my shelf and browsing it, and if it's just a dry presentation of rules then I'm likely to put it back and grab another.

The flavour text is what makes me want to play or run a game (or not), and games with little to no flavour text are ones I'll pass by when thinking about what to run next. It's not a deliberate decision I make to exclude them, it's just that they won't inspire and excite me as much as those that are more enjoyable to read.

It might be different for people who play one preferred game to the exclusion of all others, but with my group we have dozens of games on the shelves all competing for attention - and it's those that grab that attention through good art and flavour text that get played the most.

Quote from: Will;773659Having said that about diversity of classes, I also wouldn't mind fighters being like, oh, sorcerers or clerics, where you select different 'fighter training.'

So, for example:
Fighters have light and medium armor.

Pick a training focus:
Berserker: gain Rage abilities and DR.
Formation: gain heavy armor proficiency, armor training, and tower shields, maybe some cooperative fighting techniques.
Skirmisher: mobility feats and dodging, perhaps more odd weapons, like gaining a few exotic weapons (trident and net!)
Duelist: more one-on-one melee, with a lot of maneuvers (disarm, trip, etc)

Pick a skill focus:
Forager: various tracking and nature skills.
Knight: various social and political skills.
Mercenary: mix of social and rough skills (escape artist, whatever)


Hmm. Might be a fun 3e OGL thing to tinker with.

This is basically how my heartbreaker works except after first level you can opt to increase those skills or learn new ones at a higher cost.

So take the Solider Archetype in my game.
They get the military skill list (background) they light /medium/heavy armour they can use any weapon but they get a level of additional training with polearm and one other of their choice off a list and a free rank in Tactics.

Compare to the Ranger archetype
They also get military (this ranger is a military position  you can easiliy do an alternate without) skills but they add the wilderness pack as well. they get light/medium armour they can use any medium or light weapon and have an additional rank of training in Archery and a free rank in Tracking.

the Scout is a Rouge archetype.
they get Military and Wilderness and subdefuge skill lists, they only get light armour and light/medium weapon with an rank in archery and tracking. Very like the ranger but because they are a rogue they have cheaper skills (max skill level is limited by level) and worse combat stats HP/to hit and defense. The net result is that you can create a ranger /scout character that could focus on combat or skills.

Do it it like this means you just need a few background/skill packets I think I have 16 (military, wilderness, urban, nobility, academic, religious etc etc ) . Which you can mix and match to get anything from a martial monk living in a monestry to a hedge mage to an acrobat without having separate mechanical stuff for everyone

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;773703I like having a decent amount of flavour text. I enjoy picking up an RPG book off my shelf and browsing it, and if it's just a dry presentation of rules then I'm likely to put it back and grab another.

The flavour text is what makes me want to play or run a game (or not), and games with little to no flavour text are ones I'll pass by when thinking about what to run next.

I love reading interesting setting material. But the kind of padding that accompanies the actual rules of recent d20-ish games (3e, 4e, PF and now 5e) is just dire. Paragraphs of empty verbiage. "Rage is deep in your heart, and when you enter the lands of men the wild calls out to you. Your singing blade is your companion and your foes know that the tramp of your footsteps is to be dreaded" blah blah blah.

But then, D&D novels apparently have a huge audience, so what do I know.

Quote from: The_Shadow;773712I love reading interesting setting material. But the kind of padding that accompanies the actual rules of recent d20-ish games (3e, 4e, PF and now 5e) is just dire. Paragraphs of empty verbiage. "Rage is deep in your heart, and when you enter the lands of men the wild calls out to you. Your singing blade is your companion and your foes know that the tramp of your footsteps is to be dreaded" blah blah blah.

But then, D&D novels apparently have a huge audience, so what do I know.

Exactly. When Tolkien or Howard or Moorcock or (to give some modern props) Martin lays down a paragraph of fantasy mood music, it is worth reading and gets the creative juices flowing. When Sheldon the asthmatic game designer jerks off for a couple hundred words about Drizztzltlzet the half-Drow/half-sparkle pony it makes me want to spray vomit all around the room.

Barbarian = Zerker again, meh.

Quote from: CRKrueger;773740Barbarian = Zerker again, meh.

I do agree it should have been a subclass. But what can you do? At least they play well with others this time.

Quote from: Marleycat;773761I do agree it should have been a subclass. But what can you do? At least they play well with others this time.

Isn't it though?
(referring to both statements :))

I mean you got the zerk Barbie, and the other one with the animal powers?

For the rest of the ongoing conversation, I like flavor text. Well as long as it's good obviously.

A barbarian that is not a 'Berzerker' is just a ranger from a particular culture.

A Zerker could just be a type of fighter.

So I would have made 'Barbarians' a ranger subskill, and Zerkers a fighter subskill.

Neither needs a stand alone class.

Quote from: Bill;773887A barbarian that is not a 'Berzerker' is just a ranger from a particular culture.

A Zerker could just be a type of fighter.

So I would have made 'Barbarians' a ranger subskill, and Zerkers a fighter subskill.

Neither needs a stand alone class.

I agree.

That Being said I do like having my character sheet say "barbarian" rather than "fighter" or "Ranger". For the badassery factor. Y'know like THIS IS THE CHARACTER SHEET OF STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER, WHO ENJOYS POSING IN UNDERWEAR WITH A 30 lb POLEAXE, and so on.

Quote from: The Ent;773890I agree.

That Being said I do like having my character sheet say "barbarian" rather than "fighter" or "Ranger". For the badassery factor. Y'know like THIS IS THE CHARACTER SHEET OF STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER, WHO ENJOYS POSING IN UNDERWEAR WITH A 30 lb POLEAXE, and so on.

We need a picture of Steelraven the Deathmaster.

It reminds me of my thesis about classes...

D&D style classes suggest an old style connection between what someone does and who they are. What you do _is your identity_, and vice versa.

So you aren't Bob who works in a forge, you are Bob the Smith. And that shapes how you are seen and considered by those around you.

Point buy systems are essentially modernist -- you are free to pick and choose qualities, and pick them up. And they don't say anything in particular about you; you are Bob, who knows how to craft swords, and weave baskets, and is handy with a truncheon.

Sometimes there are crossovers, where classes are seen more as mechanical templates, bundles to select packages of abilities, but I think that misses the point.


The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.

That said, admittedly, I like the flexibility to tinker with classes, but I keep reminding myself that there's a conceptual justification for why each class is a thing. Changing classes should, perhaps, be more about an eye toward what embodies identity in your world than mechanical tinkering.

On the flip side, you can say 'fuck it' and embrace the modernist position and suggest that people in a setting call 'raging warrior' a Barbarian because people are idiots who slap labels to things.

Along THAT line, I once had a D&D campaign where 'druid' was a position with some confusion, since someone who was called a druid could actually be a cleric, a sorcerer, and several other things.

Maybe I should have renamed the Druid class, but it didn't cause any real confusion in play, so.

Quote from: Will;773899It reminds me of my thesis about classes...

D&D style classes suggest an old style connection between what someone does and who they are. What you do _is your identity_, and vice versa.

So you aren't Bob who works in a forge, you are Bob the Smith. And that shapes how you are seen and considered by those around you.

Point buy systems are essentially modernist -- you are free to pick and choose qualities, and pick them up. And they don't say anything in particular about you; you are Bob, who knows how to craft swords, and weave baskets, and is handy with a truncheon.

Sometimes there are crossovers, where classes are seen more as mechanical templates, bundles to select packages of abilities, but I think that misses the point.


The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.

That said, admittedly, I like the flexibility to tinker with classes, but I keep reminding myself that there's a conceptual justification for why each class is a thing. Changing classes should, perhaps, be more about an eye toward what embodies identity in your world than mechanical tinkering.

On the flip side, you can say 'fuck it' and embrace the modernist position and suggest that people in a setting call 'raging warrior' a Barbarian because people are idiots who slap labels to things.

Along THAT line, I once had a D&D campaign where 'druid' was a position with some confusion, since someone who was called a druid could actually be a cleric, a sorcerer, and several other things.

Maybe I should have renamed the Druid class, but it didn't cause any real confusion in play, so.

I once traumatized a dm by roleplaying a druid that hated the outdoors, and was from an urban upbringing. He just happened to be born a naturally gifted druid. Sure, he could talk to animals, and wield magic, but that didn't mean he actually liked being outside in the forest.

Quote from: Will;773899The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.

Yeah, except for the raging part.  That's the WotC-only definition.  They're taking one particular and actually rare example of one or two "barbaric" cultures and pretending that's an archetypal feature.

Quote from: Bill;773887A barbarian that is not a 'Berzerker' is just a ranger from a particular culture.

Not even remotely close.  Ranger is Aragorn, Barbarian is Conan (Cimmerian or Pict, not Aesir & Vanir).  Different archetypes.

So if you want archetypes, then rage doesn't belong with "Barbarian".
If you don't want archetypes, then rage is some form of option, not a class designation.

Quote from: Will;773899The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.
.

But should that raging warrior be a Mongol? An Apache? A Cimarian? A Zulu? A Viking? A hairy bloke from Hull after 6 largers and a Chicken Vindaloo?

Are all those things the same?

I think they are all just fighters (asuming we are talking about warriors in each case) with a cultural background package.

Quote from: Bill;773897We need a picture of Steelraven the Deathmaster.

We do.

I guess there's a bunch of 80s pictures that'd do mind. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;773912Yeah, except for the raging part.  That's the WotC-only meh definition.

It's their declaration of how the setting works, along with resurrections, gods being linked to certain domains, etc etc.

It suggests a setting in which the 'wild backwards people' are called barbarians, some stereotyped large subset of their warriors embrace raging, the 'civilized' folks conflate 'wild backwards people' with 'berserker' and away you go.

If that really bugs you or doesn't make sense in your setting, then eliminate the class or rename it something appropriate to your world. (Like 'berserker')

Heck, change other stuff. Maybe in your setting, raging warriors are all holy warriors, and have Knowledge/religion and a divine aura.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773914But should that raging warrior be a Mongol? An Apache? A Cimarian? A Zulu? A Viking? A hairy bloke from Hull after 6 largers and a Chicken Vindaloo?

Are all those things the same?

I think they are all just fighters (asuming we are talking about warriors in each case) with a cultural background package.

My point is that even FIGHTERS are warriors with a background package. ALL the classes reflect an identity within a setting.

Admittedly, WotC has vacillated between the two mindsets, which hasn't helped.

But my suggestion is that some people might be happier moving more solidly in one of the two directions -- either EVERY class has a cultural identity, or they are merely ability/skill packages you can tinker with to make the character you want.

Quote from: Will;773920Admittedly, WotC has vacillated between the two mindsets, which hasn't helped.

So, since you've admitted that...is it possible to reflect upon anything having even remotely to do with 5e in something less then 100% support without resorting to the..."you can change it" non-response response.  Seriously.

In a system like 5e, Barbarian could have easily been returned to it's original archetype with Berzerker being a subclass or type instead we have "how does your barbarian get his rage"?  It's got nothing to do with archetype vs. skillset, it's WotC doubling down on a poor archetypal choice.  So, MEH.  

Disclaimer: I'm headed to work again, so won't respond within 12 minutes. :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773450To me he looks like Fafhrd.  General reaction so far is that he "doesn't look like a barbarian like Conan".  

o_O

Fafhrd is a pretty popular barbarian with plenty of history behind him ;)

Shit, you're right.  Just needs red hair and an empty money pouch.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;773927Shit, you're right.  Just needs red hair and an empty money pouch.

And a greatsword-sized rapier :cool:

But yeah agreed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;773926So, since you've admitted that...is it possible to reflect upon anything having even remotely to do with 5e in something less then 100% support without resorting to the..."you can change it" non-response response.  Seriously.

Oh, I wasn't talking about 5e. I don't care if you like it or not, I'm not a stock holder.

I'm talking more theorycrafting about 'what is a class?' and reflecting on stuff that's been true in MANY D&D editions. I mean, heck, back in Basic or OD&D or whatever it was that had Elf as a class, there has always been this 'class is identity.'

Quote from: CRKrueger;773926In a system like 5e, Barbarian could have easily been returned to it's original archetype with Berzerker being a subclass or type instead we have "how does your barbarian get his rage"?  It's got nothing to do with archetype vs. skillset, it's WotC doubling down on a poor archetypal choice.  So, MEH.  

When was Barbarian not raging? (Honest question, I only barely remember 2e, let alone earlier games)

As for 'why didn't they'... well, clearly people generally like raging Barbarians. You got outvoted. ;)

My 'you can change it' isn't a defense of the system so much as saying it's a necessity to 'class as identity.' I think most people have coasted on just shrugging and ducking the issue by just going with accepting what's in the book.

Quote from: CRKrueger;773912Yeah, except for the raging part.  That's the WotC-only definition.  They're taking one particular and actually rare example of one or two "barbaric" cultures and pretending that's an archetypal feature.

Not even remotely close.  Ranger is Aragorn, Barbarian is Conan (Cimmerian or Pict, not Aesir & Vanir).  Different archetypes.

So if you want archetypes, then rage doesn't belong with "Barbarian".
If you don't want archetypes, then rage is some form of option, not a class designation.

I like to separate culture from character class. The skill sets of a 'non rage barbarian', per my statement, is essentially the same as a ranger.
What tribe, or culture they are from, is independent from class.

Quote from: The Ent;773829Isn't it though?
(referring to both statements :))

I mean you got the zerk Barbie, and the other one with the animal powers?

For the rest of the ongoing conversation, I like flavor text. Well as long as it's good obviously.

Yeah, remember the "I hate magic and a whole PC class" 1e barbarian or the 3e barbarian that couldn't stop their own rages?

Quote from: Marleycat;773940Yeah, remember the "I hate magic and a whole PC class" 1e barbarian or the 3e barbarian that couldn't stop their own rages?

Wizards hate it when their Barbarian ally keeps smashing their potions, breaking their staves, and using their scrolls for kindling!

Full agreement with Bill and Marley! :)

The 1e barbarian...was quite something. A completely aggravating Sue.

Quote from: Bill;773939I like to separate culture from character class. The skill sets of a 'non rage barbarian', per my statement, is essentially the same as a ranger.
What tribe, or culture they are from, is independent from class.

Yeah.

Conan and Aragorn have quite similar skills. It's mainly personality that sets them apart (well and culture, but that has Little bearing on their actual skillset!).

Quote from: Bill;773939I like to separate culture from character class. The skill sets of a 'non rage barbarian', per my statement, is essentially the same as a ranger.
What tribe, or culture they are from, is independent from class.

Well, if you're talking about Berserking as a skillset, then there is an English word for that, and...it's not Barbarian.  It's Berserker.

So Barbarian as cultural archetype - no Berserking, that's too specific.
So Barbarian as skillset - no Berserking, Berserker describes that skillset.

Barbaric Culture - large set of people
Barbaric Warrior - small subset of Barbaric Culture
Berserker - small subset of Barbaric Warrior.

In any case, Barbarians being "defined by their rage: unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury." is WotC-speak only.  Always has been lame, always will be.  it's a shame it somehow escaped them to have Berserker be a sub-type of Barbarian, but a lot escapes them, especially if we're talking about having things actually make sense in a setting.

In 2e barbarians and berserkers were separate fighter kits.

The former was STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER in all his loinclothed glory, required to be very strong and proficient in the use of battleaxes and bastard swords and given to inspire extreme reactions eg. "do me muscular mcdreamy" vs "die barbarian dog".

The latter was a crazy psycho, extremely dangerous but completely uncontrolled and prone to attacking his own party when not simply dying from his own wounds (since the DM was to keep his current HP total hidden when he was actually berserk, eg most of the time).

However there was also, in later 2e, a separate barbarian Class with a slew of kits of its own. The 2e Barbie was like a more reasonable 3e one - d12 hp, fast movement, etc, but not necessarily berserk. The kits were fairly fun - one was basically a Quest For Fire dude except way more primitive :D

The Barbarian Class from White Dwarf #4 (Dec 1977) with its 'First-strike Ferocity' feature is probably the first time that the ideas of Berserker and Barbarian were combined into one class.

After that you have to wait for the 'Ravager Kit' in The Complete Barbarian's Handbook.

Oh, the Ravager...

My group forbid me to ever play one. :rant:

Quote from: Will;773899When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds.

Huh? And I thought it just meant you talked funny since Greek (or later Latin) wasn't your native language.

Quote from: Will;773932When was Barbarian not raging? (Honest question, I only barely remember 2e, let alone earlier games)

Depends what you mean by 'barbarian.' To a Spartan (or an Athenian) a sophisticated and effete Phonecian or Mede was a barbarian and so was a Celt.

And Fafhrd was a very thoughtful guy (even if not originally very citified) and he was not big in the berserker department.

Barbarian = berserker is a strange and annoyingly simplified stereotyped. Most Norsemen, even most Vikings, though Norse berserkers were pretty weird.

I meant specifically D&D... I do realize where 'barbarian' the term comes from.

To restate my position...

The fact some people don't like D&D barbarians is essentially because they don't like the implicit setting that 'barbarian' as a class implies.

Like every other implied setting element, the solution is simple.

D&D is annoying in that this stuff isn't well-articulated, and the game is mostly silent on adjusting the setting to one's liking.

Yeah, in the Icelandic Sagas berserker is a borderline bad Word, meaning roughly "dangerous psycho" or "violent dude". And yes the Norse were generally violent but there's a limit to everything. Guys who'd just flip out at any time weren't trusted much.

And yes in Greek "barbarian" = non-Greek. Except the Romans past a certain point because they were scary.

Now Celtic and Norse warriors were both famed for Being fierce, ditto others like the Sarmatians whose main tactic seem to have been charging. But while a Gallic charge could break Even a phalanx or a legion, many other "barbarians" didn't fight like that at all (in Classical times Germanic tribesmen typically fought in phalanx-style shieldwalls or used hit & run frex), and that's Even considering whether considering Gauls to be "barbarians" in the modern sense of the Word is Even remotely fair. Of course, in later Ages, Scottish Highlanders and Irish Fighters had a bit of the "berserk barbarian" thing going. OTOH Scots tactics seem to have inspired Swedish tactics (fire a round then charge) wich for a while was a pretty dominant military tactic.

Eh. It might be best not to Think too much of real world analogues. Crusader fighting-monks weren't universally super Nice, western monks didn't know Kung Fu, musicians didn't have supernatural abilities and neither had priests...etc.

To return to D&D, the bad thing about the barbarian is that it's both a Class like fighter, paladin, etc, and also a cultural background, wich muddles the waters quite a bit.

Quote from: The Ent;774109To return to D&D, the bad thing about the barbarian is that it's both a Class like fighter, paladin, etc, and also a cultural background, wich muddles the waters quite a bit.

To my mind, a better arrangement would be to separate class and culture. So from a cultural perspective

Barbarian (a member of a culture) > Barbarian warrior > Berserker

where X > Y should be read as Y is a subset of X.

While from a D&D Class perspective I'd be inclined to go with both Barbarian Warrior and Berserker as subsets of Fighter.

Fighter > Barbarian Warrior or possibly Barbarian Warrior = Fighter (from a less urbanized society)

or

Fighter > Berserker

Here Berserker is an attribute that any fighter might have, but that would (probably) be more common in less urbanized societies.

Though not an ideal solution, I could also live with

Fighter > Barbarian Warrior > Berserker (a specialty of Barbarian warrior).


EDIT: Pointing out the Greek origins of the word Barbarian was supposed to be levity. I assumed most people on the board would already know that.

I'm sure everyone knows about the Greek thing. :)

I like the barbarian = subset of fighter thing.

This is btw one of the things FantasyCraft got really right.

Quote from: The Ent;774063In 2e barbarians and berserkers were separate fighter kits.

The former was STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER in all his loinclothed glory, required to be very strong and proficient in the use of battleaxes and bastard swords and given to inspire extreme reactions eg. "do me muscular mcdreamy" vs "die barbarian dog".

The latter was a crazy psycho, extremely dangerous but completely uncontrolled and prone to attacking his own party when not simply dying from his own wounds (since the DM was to keep his current HP total hidden when he was actually berserk, eg most of the time).

However there was also, in later 2e, a separate barbarian Class with a slew of kits of its own. The 2e Barbie was like a more reasonable 3e one - d12 hp, fast movement, etc, but not necessarily berserk. The kits were fairly fun - one was basically a Quest For Fire dude except way more primitive :D

Ah, yes. And then there were the green books, which covered a good deal of the culture part and gave a solid framework for DIY.

Oh 2e, you covered everything I wanted and then some. You're so dreamy! Le sigh. /doodles daydreams on PeeChee folder.

Quote from: Bill;773902I once traumatized a dm by roleplaying a druid that hated the outdoors, and was from an urban upbringing. He just happened to be born a naturally gifted druid. Sure, he could talk to animals, and wield magic, but that didn't mean he actually liked being outside in the forest.

I once played an Elf that wanted to be a dentist.

JG

Quote from: The Ent;774124I'm sure everyone knows about the Greek thing. :)

I like the barbarian = subset of fighter thing.

This is btw one of the things FantasyCraft got really right.

Its not even a subset of figther though its just a fighter.

A barbarian fighter would be a better way to describe it as opposed to a barbarian cleric or a barbarian bard.

Barbarian is more like Elf than figther in other words.

Also in your setting (and as I have stressed far too often too few DMs put enough focus on setting prefering instead some wishy washy default setting and putting all of the emphasis into one scenario or the details of one "hex") a barbarian may well be closer to a number of identified specific cultural groups.
Set your game in Ancient Greece for example and maybe there are Slavs, Celts, Bedouin, Moors, Vandals, Goths all of whome might be "barbarians"

Now a berker is perhaps a subset of fighter personally I think Beserk is more like a feat fighters may acquire.

Take the Cheyanne for example. They have their warriors they also have Contraries who are reverse warriors who do the opposite of what is commanded. They have a role not dissimilar to beserkers, they are generally committed to battle only as a last resort and don't tend to retreat unless told not to of course :)

Good points jibba!

Hm...didn't know that thing about Cheyenne. Thanx! :)

Quote from: The Ent;774307Good points jibba!

Hm...didn't know that thing about Cheyenne. Thanx! :)

The Cheyenne were pretty sophisticated with different warrior societies.  The Contrary Warriors and Dog Soldiers are probably the most famous.  The Contraries also had a valuable social function in instructing through comedy and satire, in a sense almost like a jester, in that they could get away with saying things others couldn't.  Some of them also had the crazy shaman thing going on, so as "touched" people, they were inviolate.

Read Bernard Cromwell, he goes into Briton v. Saxon and Anglo-Saxon v. Norseman conflict and has interesting things to say about Celtic and Nordic berserking based on a ton of literary and historical research.

The short version - Barbarian=Berserker is about one of the silliest statements you can make about either. :D

Now I want to make a bespectacled wizard in a vest and slacks from a foreign kingdom who introduces himself in refined Common as 'Nevin the Barbarian.'

Problem is....Dnd is about as historical as Star Trek.

Thanks to the movie "Eric, the Viking" I always imagine that every berzerker had a condescending parental figure who lectured them endlessly about the "proper" way to berzerk. Thus, part of the emotional fuel that powers the Rage is a sort of "FUCK YOU, DAD!" kind of thing.

Thanks to some history books I read years ago, I think of berserkers tripping on mushrooms.

Quote from: Marleycat;774985Problem is....Dnd is about as historical as Star Trek.

History is irrelevant, language and setting implication is the point.

Saying this is a drawing of a sword...
(http://www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/new-swords/nextgen-roman-fulham-sword.jpg)
isn't historical...it's the English language.  Saying it's a sword based on the Roman Gladius "Fulham" type would be historical.

Lot of elves are archers, lot of dwarves are miners, lot of halflings are cooks, but
Elf=Archer
Dwarf=Miner
Halfling=Cook

Would be silly.
There's plenty of absurd incorrect definitions you could do, WotC just chose this particular one.

Icewind Dale, Ruathym, Uthgardt, hell there's 3 different areas a "barbarian" could come from in the Savage North alone, and that's just off the top of my head.  All of which now have all warriors who are some kind of Berserker now, because to WotC Barbarian=Berserker. Or, they aren't Uthgardt Barbarians, they are Uthgardt Ranger, Uthgardt Fighters, Uthgardt whatever.

WotC makes up mechanics and definitions FIRST, and then, if we're very very lucky, decides if these things make sense when actually applied to a setting.

4e...not so lucky...yeah.
5e, so far, a hell of a lot better, I will admit.

In this case, however, they went down the old road of pooch-screwing.  So, as I said earlier, meh.

What are they smoking to even allow that thread in one of their main forums?

Tangency maybe or Trouble Tickets - but in a main forum?

Can't they even see that it has (b) nothing to do with gaming and (b) makes a terrible fucking impression on any new visitors to the site.

Quote from: CRKrueger;775008History is irrelevant, language and setting implication is the point.

Saying this is a drawing of a sword...
(http://www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/new-swords/nextgen-roman-fulham-sword.jpg)
isn't historical...it's the English language.  Saying it's a sword based on the Roman Gladius "Fulham" type would be historical.

Lot of elves are archers, lot of dwarves are miners, lot of halflings are cooks, but
Elf=Archer
Dwarf=Miner
Halfling=Cook

Would be silly.
There's plenty of absurd incorrect definitions you could do, WotC just chose this particular one.

Icewind Dale, Ruathym, Uthgardt, hell there's 3 different areas a "barbarian" could come from in the Savage North alone, and that's just off the top of my head.  All of which now have all warriors who are some kind of Berserker now, because to WotC Barbarian=Berserker. Or, they aren't Uthgardt Barbarians, they are Uthgardt Ranger, Uthgardt Fighters, Uthgardt whatever.

WotC makes up mechanics and definitions FIRST, and then, if we're very very lucky, decides if these things make sense when actually applied to a setting.

4e...not so lucky...yeah.
5e, so far, a hell of a lot better, I will admit.

In this case, however, they went down the old road of pooch-screwing.  So, as I said earlier, meh.

It is a one handed weapon right? It's a pivsticker right? So what's your issue again?

Quote from: Marleycat;775032It is a one handed weapon right? It's a pivsticker right? So what's your issue again?

The point is, it's not an axe.

or another way to put it...

Quote from: Marleycat;773761I do agree it should have been a subclass.

I managed to make a gladius in Planet Explorers (which has a GUI to let you design weapons, guns, vehicles, etc... but it's a limited GUI, so it takes a lot of finesse to get good results):

(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t1.0-9/10170854_10202595152253959_1807763044_n.jpg) (https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/1975038_10202595153213983_1534849951_n.jpg?oh=64b1d3f0ff98db44b10f46ebfc7f94df&oe=54528071)

Quote from: CRKrueger;775033The point is, it's not an axe.

or another way to put it...

U Mad Bro? Seriously you need to relax.

Quote from: Marleycat;775039U Mad Bro? Seriously you need to relax.

You're the one that agreed with me until you didn't, for whatever reason.  I might say since you're the one combing through looking for every 5e critique you may be the one who needs some relaxation.  ;)

Quote from: Will;775035I managed to make a gladius in Planet Explorers (which has a GUI to let you design weapons, guns, vehicles, etc... but it's a limited GUI, so it takes a lot of finesse to get good results):

(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t1.0-9/10170854_10202595152253959_1807763044_n.jpg) (https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/1975038_10202595153213983_1534849951_n.jpg?oh=64b1d3f0ff98db44b10f46ebfc7f94df&oe=54528071)

Pics not showing.  I yanked the link out though, not bad.

Quote from: CRKrueger;775040You're the one that agreed with me until you didn't, for whatever reason.  I might say since you're the one combing through looking for every 5e critique you may be the one who needs some relaxation.  ;)

True that given I am looking at things through a 5e lens... man are you late.:)

Quote from: Will;775035I managed to make a gladius in Planet Explorers (which has a GUI to let you design weapons, guns, vehicles, etc... but it's a limited GUI, so it takes a lot of finesse to get good results):

Looks good. A bit incongruent with the way the guy is dressed though, did he fight with it?

I was more playing around. It's a weird game (It's in early access, which I normally hate, but it's pretty damn functional despite that)

Premise is a colony ship crash-lands on alien planet, and there's something weird going on.

You gather resources from animals, trees, and rock that you can then use to build buildings or items you've designed, or standard items you can get recipes for. Swords are an option, though multibarrel guns work better... You can also get armor (which is sometimes dumb, like 'gold armor works great'). It's sometimes clever, like building a car you might have to build a microchip and other parts to get up to the car.

Not going to clutter this thread too much, check out Planet Explorers if you are curious. (You can get it on Steam if you want)

I'll take a look, thanks.