Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 18, 2022, 11:45:28 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 18, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Like, before D&D and video games popularized it, how often did you have D&D bards and paladins in fantasy fiction? Universal archetypes they are not.

  Paladins are an established archetype--Galahad, Percival, Holger Carlsen. Bards and clerics, not so much.

Knights are an established archetype. Knights with magic powers granted by a combination of devotion to God and personal charisma are not.

Classes are important for niche protection and clear purpose, as others have said.

I like systems that start you with an archetype and let you go classless from there. You start with a class, but when you improve, you can diverge into whatever you like, as long as rules and prerequisites are followed. TW 2000 4ed. does this. Aquelarre is similar. It starts you with a profession and does a point buy with reduced cost for your profession's primary skills. You are encouraged to stick with the primary skills, but don't have to. You can be that one soldier who knows some magic, but it will cost you. Once you start getting XP, you're off leash and can improve any skill you used.

I would like to see a classless system that takes this one step further. You start with an archetype/profession, you can diverge from there, BUT you always get some benefit when honing the old skills from your formative years. This would be the ultimate hybrid approach, IMO.

I feel like the niche protection goal has long ago fallen apart. D&D 5e has a dozen core classes and numerous subclasses (and a number of these subclasses are adapted from base classes from earlier editions). It feels bloated and I think a skill-based approach would be better.

For example, imo Spheres of Power is a better approach to caster classes because it separates class features from casting tradition.

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2022, 12:31:06 PM

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?

Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?

I used to prefer mainly classless systems, but I've come to accept classes as easier for most players. It simplifies the conceptual side of character creation, which many players find difficult. It's mostly not mechanical simplicity as that having a premade archetype helps players get a concept to work with. I think most people find it easier to pick an archetype and customize rather than build towards a given archetype.

What would you consider "classless Dnd" as opposed to classless fantasy in general? There's RuneQuest, The Fantasy Trip, and Warhammer Fantasy among others.

woo you guys move fast!...

Heh, see my problem is that once the non-stop debate about "established archetypes" hits the mat, then everyone starts dogpiling on the minutiea of what constitutes that specific archetype, then all the permutations of each different flavor of that archetype, then we start bickering about all the editions of the game and what those classes meant... etc etc.

When in reality we're *only* talking about the "class" as some demarcation of a package of accepted tropes that are indemic TO DnD. And every class has gone through it's periods of having to historically and fictionally back up their tropes until the "Class" itself has become the trope.

And that's where we are. We're post-Meta-Trope. When people will say shit like "My favorite Striker Class is the Warlord!" and "I wish 5e did the Warlock Class - especially Bloodline <X>" when these are all exist outside of any meaningful context.

Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible, rather than a pre-packaged gob of skills and abilities that constrain a player throughout play.

Runequest is an excellent example (though I'm more familiar with Mythras). But I made this thread as a reference to the Savage Worlds Pathfinder thread, where a lot of SW GM's are keenly aware that the addition of Classes via Pathfinder add nothing to the game. But they exist only to make DnD fantasy-players new to SW "feel good".

Warhammer likewise is uniquely tied to its setting. While I'm happy to use any of these systems as an exemplar - the real root of the question is this:

Why not break DnD down to only the required skills. Then divide up all Special Abilities (including spellcasting) into their own box(es), and create a method for players to build as-they-go? You could unify a LOT of the derived stats (To Hit Bonuses, AC, even HP) while retaining the traditional d20+stat mod task resolution system.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 18, 2022, 04:29:48 PM
I feel like the niche protection goal has long ago fallen apart. D&D 5e has a dozen core classes and numerous subclasses (and a number of these subclasses are adapted from base classes from earlier editions). It feels bloated and I think a skill-based approach would be better.

For example, imo Spheres of Power is a better approach to caster classes because it separates class features from casting tradition.

Agreed.

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?

Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?

  Classes are not...archetypes are.  With classless games I play (Savage Worlds, GURPS, and Mythras (very little Mythras under the belt...) I like for the players to have characters that have a specialty of a sort and sort of expect them to build strength in that specialization.   I do also like that classless systems allow for the characters to branch out enough that no character has to be a one trick pony.  IME though this is largely a consideration (classless or class) of people who are GMs, even if they also play.  People who just play and never GM seem to not really care, and if given a choice like having a class to see where the "level ups" (I suspect this is from video game influence...which was influenced by D&D....so it seems an endless cycle) and "power ups" are in different points of their development.     Players drive the RPG market economically IMO, and players also tend to buy FAR fewer books than GMs.  So I think Classless is never really going to catch traction.   Two very popular iterations of SW had classes worked into them (I know frameworks and edges, but they are classes by another name with lots of flexibility in development and growth) and I think part of that popularity was as much from making SW more palatable to people more used to a "traditional" appearance of a character (having a class) as much as anything else. 

Quote from: swzl on July 18, 2022, 02:06:47 PM
Try Knave by Ben Milton. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250888/Knave . for $2.99.
Highlights include:
High compatibility with OSR games.
No classes.
All rolls are based off characteristics.
Optional player-facing rolls.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License:
and Designer commentary.

At seven pages, I find it a refreshing, simple take on BX adjacent rules.

Knave is a good classless game.  There are also several Knave hacks out there that let PCs choose feats/special abilities to basically build their own classes.  That's what I did with my Knave hack, and my players enjoyed the flexibility and options for their PCs without being locked into a Class.

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 04:53:55 PM
woo you guys move fast!...

Heh, see my problem is that once the non-stop debate about "established archetypes" hits the mat, then everyone starts dogpiling on the minutiea of what constitutes that specific archetype, then all the permutations of each different flavor of that archetype, then we start bickering about all the editions of the game and what those classes meant... etc etc.

When in reality we're *only* talking about the "class" as some demarcation of a package of accepted tropes that are indemic TO DnD. And every class has gone through it's periods of having to historically and fictionally back up their tropes until the "Class" itself has become the trope.

And that's where we are. We're post-Meta-Trope. When people will say shit like "My favorite Striker Class is the Warlord!" and "I wish 5e did the Warlock Class - especially Bloodline <X>" when these are all exist outside of any meaningful context.

Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible, rather than a pre-packaged gob of skills and abilities that constrain a player throughout play.

...

Why not break DnD down to only the required skills. Then divide up all Special Abilities (including spellcasting) into their own box(es), and create a method for players to build as-they-go? You could unify a LOT of the derived stats (To Hit Bonuses, AC, even HP) while retaining the traditional d20+stat mod task resolution system.

I agree that is the way that classes usually go.  That's not the way they have to be, though.  The answer is right in your post.  Don't take the pre-established tropes from what has gone before, but go back further.  Take boundaries of the class from what the setting and the game is about instead.  If it's a fantasy game about, maybe, high adventure, with a certain amount of zero to hero in it, then they'll be some overlap with D&D.  That can't be helped.  However, all the interesting stuff on class system design happens at the boundaries of the classes.  (The interesting parts of the classes in play happen where they classes are centered, which is analogous but not exactly the same.)

I think I've got to the point where I'd really like your opinion on my class design in my own system--not because I think you'd like it, but to see how close I made it to answering your objections despite not going for the purely skills-based.  Especially considering your last sentence above.  That's more or less what I did--except I unified the bones of the system in six classes that provide the basis for the character and somewhat guide where it goes, but doesn't fully constrain it.  Then other mechanical elements are layered on top of that, some as discrete skills, some as heftier packages.  Among other things, this lets me toss multi-classing clear out the window onto the pavement six stories below.  But then, my classes by themselves are mechanical first, flavor second. 

I'm losing some of the economy of expression that Lunamancer admires.  On the other hand, I'm getting a fair amount of real mechanical differences in character customization without going for the overhead of full skills-based.  Instead of Wizard 2, I need something more like Sorcery Wizard 2, Hedge Witch, but that's a very different character than Holy Wizard 2, Healer.  The archetype gets expressed in the combination.  The "Wizard" part just means your bedrock is a more powerful caster than anyone else, with relatively little weapons ability and only so-so adventuring skills.  However, the player could later tack on, say Warrior or Thief or Hunter  when their level gets high enough, instead of doubling down on Hedge Witch or Healer, and take the character in a new direction.  Or they could have done that out of the gate.  Yeah, I've got some skills on top of that.  But the skills don't need to do everything.

I will also say that IMO, a big part of bad class design stems from doing classes in a vacuum or refusing to make them part of an overall consistent design.  For example, the "ability scores" that the system uses sets boundaries too, and it's impossible to do good class design without fitting them not only to the setting but also to the mechanics around them.  Having an explicit "Perception" ability score changes the list of potentially good classes in my design. 

Interesting.....  I've been riffing on the Warrior Rogue Mage concept, of using those 3 "Character Concepts", as 3 Ability Scores.  But I've also pondered simplifying that a little more still, down to Single Focus characters, or Dual Focus characters. 

A single focus character has advantage on everything in one of the three areas of focus, and no disadvantage in the other two areas.

A dual focus character has advantage in two areas, but disadvantage in the remaining area of focus.

Simple Character Creation.  Get to running a one shot or short campaign fast.  The players make their character focus choice, then the DM describes the situation, and then the players choose their path.  A game is underway.

1d6 for standard rolls.  Roll high.  Target number range is 4, 5, or 6.  With Advantage, roll 2d6 and take the better.  With disadvantage, roll 2d6 and take the worse.

Talk about simple.  Minimalism.  Run the whole game with 2d6.

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 04:53:55 PM
When in reality we're *only* talking about the "class" as some demarcation of a package of accepted tropes that are indemic TO DnD. And every class has gone through it's periods of having to historically and fictionally back up their tropes until the "Class" itself has become the trope.

Perhaps except for those of us who playtested our stuff over multiple campaigns with multiple people. Then adjust based on what they actually do rather than what the author thought they ought to be doing.

Quote from: Mark Caliber on July 18, 2022, 03:20:49 PM
And if you want guidance and "classes" check out "GURPS Fantasy" . . .

I played GURPS for 20 years and three editions (2nd to 4th). Great game but it is overkill for what it does in regards to D&D style adventures.

We play The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) and it is essentially classless.  You can build whatever you want on a point-buy system.  I like it and liked it for my players, but I have to say they were a little lost without classes.  They tended to stay within the "example" characters that were in the Core Rulebook.  And in session zero they were essentially figuring out, "who would be the tank, who would be the healer, the rogue, etc."

This is our second iteration in TDE so they were a little better at embracing the "open" nature of the game, but still stuck to archetype classes.  Treat it as an evolution as not everyone will be ready to embrace it outright.

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 04:53:55 PM
Why not break DnD down to only the required skills. Then divide up all Special Abilities (including spellcasting) into their own box(es), and create a method for players to build as-they-go? You could unify a LOT of the derived stats (To Hit Bonuses, AC, even HP) while retaining the traditional d20+stat mod task resolution system.

Mmm you are basically describing 3e where each level of every class is stacked on top of each other.

Also, there was Generic Class.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm

But there is a major issue. As you will soon see to make any OSR style D&D classless system you will have to chop away and reorganize the system to the point where it is unrecognizable as being any related to any edition. It will effectively be its own thing although if done right it will be compatible with classic edition adventures if you can establish an equivalent level mechanic. In much the same way that Castles & Crusades is its own thing but works with AD&D adventures using C&C NPC/Monster stats.

The other route is what I call the Blood & Treasure route (an older OSR RPG) where you take some of the ideas behind the d20 SRD and make it more minimalist. But there you are effectively reinventing a simpler Fantasycraft. But one that is compatible with classic edition adventures as opposed to D20 adventures.

Side Notes
A key element of this would be to keep the monsters as is. In classic editions a NPC can be stated out like a monster or it could be stated out as a character. This works because 1 HD effectively means 1 level. With a skill based system you will have to be careful to define what 1 HD is in relation to how character are defined.

In most classic edition there are only a handful of spells that are impacted by the spell caster's level. This is easily solved by adapting the 5e mechanic to make a rule that the spell's effect is based on the highest level spell that the character can cast.

Wrapping it up
I get that you are anti-class as a principle of RPG design. Especially when it comes to D&D. The trick as I found is to start with something that is closest to an ur-D&D as you can get and build from there. For me that was Swords & Wizardry Core. Then playtest the changes a lot in actual play with many different people. Keeping mind that character in 3 LBBs of OD&D were not all that different from each other. They all fought the same at 1st level. The hit point differences were minimal (variations of a d6 roll). Hell they even did the same damage (1d6 on a successful hit). Every change starting with the Greyhawk supplement perverted that original setup. Making things ever more out of whack in regards to the classes.

Some changes are good in my opinion like variable weapon damage. Some are not like higher strength percentages. The variable hit dices between classes. AD&D made all these worse. If you want something like how characters start out in GURPS, Savage World, Runequest, then OD&D 3 LBBs + selected Greyhawk elements is the starting point.


Reference

You have the following elements in OD&D/Swords & Wizardry. The other classic editions are just as quirky.

To hit bonus: for example, fighters get +1 to hit per level.
Hit dice: d8, d6, d4.
Allowed Weapons
Allowed Armor
Spell Slots
Specific Spell Lists
Saves
Skills (typically only Thieves and Assassins have them)
Abilities for example Paladins can Cure disease.

Traditionally all of these were scattered amid the different levels in pretty a whimsical fashion. But most of the abilities were front-loaded at 1st level.
Using OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry up to 5th level we have
Assassins
1st Level: Disguise Self, Poison Use.
1st Level and higher: Thieving Skills, Backstab

Cleric
1st Level: Save Bonus vs Paralyzed or Poisoned
1st Level and higher: Spell Casting (Cleric), Turn Undead.

Druids
1st Level: Save Bonus versus Fire, Secret Language
1st Level and higher: Spell Casting (Druid)
5th Level: Shape Change, Immune to Fey Charms

Fighters
1st Level: Parry, High Strength Score Bonus
1st Level and higher: Multiple Attacks (effectively kicks at 2nd)

Magic-Users
1st Level: Save Bonus versus Spells
1st Level and higher: Spell Casting (magic-user)

Monks
1st Level: Alertness, Deadly Strike, Deflect Missiles, Saving Throw Bonus,
1st Level and higher: Thieving Skills
2nd Level and higher: Weapon Damage Bonus
4th Level: Speak with Animals
5th Level: Slow Fall
6th Level: Multiple Attacks
6th Level and higher: Mastery of Mind

Paladins
1st Level: Parry, High Strength Score Bonus, Divine Favor, Immune to Disease, Warhorse
1st Level and higher: Multiple Attacks (effectively kicks at 2nd), Lay on Hands

Rangers
1st Level: Parry, High Strength Score Bonus, Alertness,
1st Level and higher: Multiple Attacks (effectively kicks at 2nd), Track, Bonus Damage versus Giants/Goblin types.
8th Level: Followers

Thieves
1st Level: Saving Throw Bonus versus devices
1st Level and higher: Thieving Skills, Backstab
3rd Level: Read Normal Languages

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PM
I agree that is the way that classes usually go.  That's not the way they have to be, though.  The answer is right in your post.  Don't take the pre-established tropes from what has gone before, but go back further.  Take boundaries of the class from what the setting and the game is about instead.  If it's a fantasy game about, maybe, high adventure, with a certain amount of zero to hero in it, then they'll be some overlap with D&D.  That can't be helped.  However, all the interesting stuff on class system design happens at the boundaries of the classes.  (The interesting parts of the classes in play happen where they classes are centered, which is analogous but not exactly the same.)

I think you're being WAY too reasonable, LOL. But I think you're saying the same thing that I am but I feel you're holding onto the "class concept" a little tighter than I am. I have no problem whatsoever with how you defined it. The problem is not alleviated (but I agree it could be*) if we don't put some necessary constraints on the *reasons* why classes exist.

The Boundaries of Class - as you describe (correct me if I'm wrong) above is describing what I mentioned in my post as "Classless systems, when they're done right puts the setting(!) as an imperative towards what constraints are possible." Those boundaries are the context of the setting. To be more specific - if you Steve said, "Tenbones, you're going to play in my setting, it's a quasi-Iron Age affair and we're playing in a Romanesque analog fantasy Empire." An appropriate class might be a Centurion as opposed to a "Fighter". Likewise you might also have a Gladiator etc.

The "issue" as such, would be that eventually someone would be "I want to play a Auxilliary that's a former Centurion" or a specific type of Gladiator ("I wanna be a Retarius! or whatever) and either the system will let you pivot in terms of other mechanics, or like DnD does - you make a whole new class. Of course the downstream issues is that the constant splitting of hairs and "class bloat" would theoretically (and probably occur). And it makes the system less agile if you want PC's to shift focus in the middle of a campaign.

Let me pivot slightly - and what if you had a "Fighting Man" class? And then your system had a bunch of skills, abilities that could let us create a specific type of "Fighting Man" of that setting. That might be where the sweet spot is - by having a 'class template' that informs sub-systems and derived stats but whose abilities are setting specific?

Another option is tight niche-protection where the context of the game is specific - Dungeon Crawling, Outdoor Hexcrawling, or whatever, where Classes do very specific jobs tied to Combat, and Non-Combat task-resolution.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PMI think I've got to the point where I'd really like your opinion on my class design in my own system--not because I think you'd like it, but to see how close I made it to answering your objections despite not going for the purely skills-based.  Especially considering your last sentence above.  That's more or less what I did--except I unified the bones of the system in six classes that provide the basis for the character and somewhat guide where it goes, but doesn't fully constrain it.  Then other mechanical elements are layered on top of that, some as discrete skills, some as heftier packages.  Among other things, this lets me toss multi-classing clear out the window onto the pavement six stories below.  But then, my classes by themselves are mechanical first, flavor second.

This sounds plausible. Certainly doable. Of course the devil's in the details! I'd be happy to look and give you an opinion.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PM
I'm losing some of the economy of expression that Lunamancer admires.  On the other hand, I'm getting a fair amount of real mechanical differences in character customization without going for the overhead of full skills-based.  Instead of Wizard 2, I need something more like Sorcery Wizard 2, Hedge Witch, but that's a very different character than Holy Wizard 2, Healer.  The archetype gets expressed in the combination.  The "Wizard" part just means your bedrock is a more powerful caster than anyone else, with relatively little weapons ability and only so-so adventuring skills.  However, the player could later tack on, say Warrior or Thief or Hunter  when their level gets high enough, instead of doubling down on Hedge Witch or Healer, and take the character in a new direction.  Or they could have done that out of the gate.  Yeah, I've got some skills on top of that.  But the skills don't need to do everything.

See? This is where things get REALLY hairy really fast. Right off the top - if the "archetype" is merely a bunch of tropes you like, but either 1) don't scale high enough on their own to <x> power level, 2) you're looking for a narrative and mechanical reason to justify your uber-archetype.

Magic is a tough nut to crack because looking at things at a class-first discussion I think gets the fundamentals wrong - and I think I came to this later than I should have. I had this realization many years ago playing MSH, because ultimately "magic" was just superpowers under a different name. But yet I never considered applying this concept to DnD, despite having having played many other games that did effects-based magic systems. The *fundamental* issue is that "magic" task resolution was almost always a separate function of "normal" task resolution for other actions.

This is where Savage Worlds really slammed it home for me. Because Magic, like in MSH, is just powers and the "flavors" of what is a Witch, Wizard, Druid etc. is handled as Trappings and Powers Lists. What this did was allow players to customize their magic's "appearance" within a the context of the setting without forcing the system to make spellcasters some special exception vs. non-casters to the normal rules of task-resolution. It's pretty brilliant. So much so that even in Savage Worlds Pathfinder's where all the DnD Classes are present, it still uses this system while maintaining the differentiation of not only those respective classes, but of class specializations (Invoker, Abjurer etc) as well as different types of Clerics and Druids.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 06:18:07 PM
I will also say that IMO, a big part of bad class design stems from doing classes in a vacuum or refusing to make them part of an overall consistent design.  For example, the "ability scores" that the system uses sets boundaries too, and it's impossible to do good class design without fitting them not only to the setting but also to the mechanics around them.  Having an explicit "Perception" ability score changes the list of potentially good classes in my design.

I think the latter is more prevalent than the former (but they're both important and correct). With clear demarcations of what "Skills" and "Abilities" are, including how their distinctions plug into the core mechanics, Classes (if properly built) interact with those skills/abilities to define the classes.

In Savage Worlds - Stats are *only* caps to how high you can develop your Skills without penalties of cost. In this way Skills operate mechanically exactly the same for non-casters as Casters. Imagine if DnD (or any other Class-based system) did this? And there ARE iterations of DnD/d20 which actually do this - Fantasycraft does this.

In Fantasycraft, spellcasters Wisdom bonuses determine How Many spells you know. Intelligence bonuses determine your bonus to your Spellcasting skill, and Charisma bonuses affect the saving-throw penalty to your targets. So that meant all spellcaster required all three stats to be "good" - much like Warriors need Strength, Con and Dex to be good respectively at what they do.

(Fantasycraft is, and I've said it many times, a beautiful fantasy heartbreaker, that in another reality would have become 4e... but alas).

Or course the trick is to make sure that the interactions between Class and Subsystem AND core Task Resolution layers are discrete yet integrated contextual to setting. That's harder trick to pull off design-wise than removing the Class portion and integrating that into the Subsystem layer. Can it be done? Yes. But I think it's unnecessary unless there are other unspoken claims about the game - like purposeful niche-protection, which is a fair point to stand on.

Yeah I'd be happy to look at your stuff.

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?

Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?

Dragon had a technically classless system presented for BX. A freeform build your own character system.

2e had in the PHB or DMG a less elegant version that worked. But not as straightforward.

This question comes up all to often. Fans of more freeform chargen. Sometimes freeform snobs who get summarily dismissed to the village idiot line. And I do like the Dragon version of that and tinker with it now and then as chance allows.

Freeform systems can be great when what is presented does not quite match what you want. Or to just have fun seeing what you can come up with. Or to tailor something to what stats you rolled. And some some games it works better than a class system would. Shadowrun being a prime example of this.

Do I think freeform is better than class systems. No. Its just different and from experience players have a tendency to just recreate classes anyhow. But in the hands of a creative player it can shine.

What bugs the hell out of me with freeform are the snobs and the morons who preach about the superiority of freeform. And then they all fall into the same damn char/op cookie cutter character. Thats when I hit my limit and say fuk you. You are using classes because you dont have the mental capacity to actually use a freeform system.

My own book way back used a bit of both. You selected from a base that gave you some starter skills and a base combat ability playing off this. But after that the player could if they so desired branch out into about anything of they put some effort into figuring out how. So you might select barbarian and get the light armour fighting skill and proficency with martial weapons. But from there you could say learn exotic weapons, or pick up some magic, or thievery tricks. Or upgrade to being able to fight well in heavy armour. Or just keep building on the barbarian base.