Troll Lord Games

I was thinking of the Barbarian rage and thought aoubt using a SW Saga rule:

Rage: gives +4 bonus to STR for attacking and a damage bonus equal to 1/2 the barbarian level (rounded down).

Would this be to strong a bonus?
_________________
Fry: Well, thanks to the internet, I'm now bored with sex.

Yes.

Thank you.
_________________
Fry: Well, thanks to the internet, I'm now bored with sex.

If you want to improve the rage, you can have it last longer, or reduce the fatigue penalties, but giving an effective +2 to hit and extreme damage (against everything, unlike the ranger ability) is what puts it over... the +2 isn't so bad (well, +4 Strength). Now, maybe if you did something like:

A barbarian can extend the rage, but each round they do so, they lose 1 Con, which cannot heal on its own (useful only because it requires the cleric to not expend their restorations, and, the cleric has to be able to cast it in the first place), per round it is extended; this loss comes from the Barbarian's true, original, Con. If, for any reason, the barbarian reaches a zero Con, death results immediately, with no save allowed (again, needed so the barbarian doesn't rage and extend it every combat.) All other aspects remain the same.

There are other ways, too. Someone here had a decent change to the class, but I think the barbie is fine the way it is... its not a class you just rush to rage with all the time. That would not be a barbarian... it would be a berserker or a dervish, or something else.

serleran wrote:
Yes.

Yeah, this could make the barbarian almost as strong as the ranger.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

bulletmeat wrote:
I was thinking of the Barbarian rage and thought about using a SW Saga rule:

Rage: gives +4 bonus to STR for attacking and a damage bonus equal to 1/2 the barbarian level (rounded down).

Would this be to strong a bonus?

I think it's okay since duration remains short and fatigue very long. If I were to play a barbarian with this houserule, I would still use the rage ability in emergency situations only.

My own houserule would be to use a rage version inspired from the AD&D2e berserker kit: +1 to hit, +3 dmg, immunity to mind-affecting spells, duration equal to combat, fatigue equal to 1 hour.
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

I've always liked the mechanic from 2nd Ed AD&D's Viking Sourcebook Berserker class. That class needed to make a check to go berserk. It wasn't automatic and it wasn't limited to a set number of times per day.

-Fizz

Fizz wrote:
I've always liked the mechanic from 2nd Ed AD&D's Viking Sourcebook Berserker class. That class needed to make a check to go berserk. It wasn't automatic and it wasn't limited to a set number of times per day.

-Fizz

That would work well with the SIEGE engine. Just what would the TN be? The CL would be what? The Barbarians own HD?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Treebore wrote:
That would work well with the SIEGE engine. Just what would the TN be? The CL would be what? The Barbarians own HD?

Well, like all things SIEGE, the CL varies with the situation.

If the berserker (i renamed the class imc) had just lost a loved one, it's easier. Or if he's about to face a known hated enemy, likewise easier.

Conversely, if he's just sitting in a bar having a quiet drink, or facing a bunch of easy-kill minions, then it's much more difficult to go into his fury.

There is also a cumulative -3 penalty to every successive check (successful or not) until the berserker gets a full nights rest.

I admit it's a bit of smoke and mirrors, but it gets the notion across. If you can think of a more solid mechanic, feel free to throw it out- i'd be interested to hear it.

-Fizz

It should always be zero, to enter, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Otherwise, a bar, err, berserker would have a harder time using his "only ability" every time he advanced a level, rather than an easier time. Or, conversely, the ability would have to be applied to an attribute that the berserker had as Prime to negate the increase, at which point the question comes of "why does it need a check at all?"

serleran wrote:
It should always be zero, to enter, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Otherwise, a bar, err, berserker would have a harder time using his "only ability" every time he advanced a level, rather than an easier time. Or, conversely, the ability would have to be applied to an attribute that the berserker had as Prime to negate the increase, at which point the question comes of "why does it need a check at all?"

Actually, if the CL were based on his HD, it would always be the same odds, since the CL is always equally countered by his level. Essentially, you'd always be adding +Level to each side of the equation.

Instead, i base it solely on the situation, as mentioned above. Basically you ask "in this situation, how easy is it to get frothy-angry?". The more emotional or dangerous the situation, the more likely a fury is.

-Fizz

Umm, exactly. A +6 by level against a 6 by level nets a zero... so, there's no need to make it any harder (and by doing so you ruin the class.) All one is doing by making it a "difficulty" at all is changing the percentage to either a 55% (12 needed on d20, without attribute modifier) failure or a 85% failure (18 needed without attribute modifier), which makes me wonder why you'd want the ability at all, seeing as it'd be very hard to use. Further modifying this with "situations" puts the class at odds unless they find themselves in favorable situations most times.

In fact, I'd argue that no check should ever be made since it completely weakens the class which people already say is pathetically weak.

Anyway, I don' think the barbarian needs improvement. It is more than a "I rage" class. Those who see that as all the barbarian does are missing the point of the class, completely and utterly.

serleran wrote:
Umm, exactly. A +6 by level against a 6 by level nets a zero... so, there's no need to make it any harder (and by doing so you ruin the class.)

....

In fact, I'd argue that no check should ever be made since it completely weakens the class which people already say is pathetically weak.

Anyway, I don' think the barbarian needs improvement. It is more than a "I rage" class. Those who see that as all the barbarian does are missing the point of the class, completely and utterly.

To be clear, i don't modify the CL by his HD or level. It's the situation that counts. So, i'm not ruining the class.
I too don't think the barbarian is underpowered. And i know he's not just there for raging. That's not why i've changed it.

I've made the modification because i dislike rules that say `once per day', and so forth. Those sorts of rules are artificial limitations. with only vague non-sensical in-game logic to support them. For the same reason i use a check-based magic system. (The spell is cleared from his memory after casting?... Oy... ).

Thus, i've modified the barbarian in such a way to remove that restriction. It gets more difficult throughout the day (-3 each attempt). As he goes up in level, he'll be able to rage more because he adds his level to the check, negating out those -3's.

In fact, i think it makes the barb, er, berserker, a little bit more powerful, since at any level he has a chance to rage more than what the standard rules allow.

-Fizz

serleran wrote:
Anyway, I don' think the barbarian needs improvement. It is more than a "I rage" class. Those who see that as all the barbarian does are missing the point of the class, completely and utterly.

Personally, I think the barbarian got completely nerfed in C&C. Most unimpressive. Until 3rd level, he's just a very weak fighter with a few extra hit points, and unless he's up against a rogue or a wizard he's not even that good. Primal Fury is a wasted ability. +2 to damage for four rounds at 3rd level is not a "devastating effect in combat." All Primal Might does is ensures that the barbarian fights until he drops dead. And Primal Will is too little too late.

So what, then, is the "point" of the class to be? To be a hit point soak for the party until the fighter and wizard get into position? Boring.

The barbarian as written makes a fine and dandy "tribal warrior" for humanoids and primitive races. Inspiring like Conan or Brak or Kull? Not at all.

I've created a completely different barbarian for my campaigns. It far better emulates a mix between the 2E barbarian and the 3E barbarian, and makes the class far more interesting to play and useful in the game.
_________________
James Mishler

Main Man, Adventure Games Publishing
jamesagp1@gmail.com
http://adventuregamespublishing.blogspot.com/
http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com

Heh, you're entitled to do whatever you want. Doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean I am either. If you prefer things to be one way, and that way is different than the "core" method, good. Shows the flexibility of the system. However, the "point" of the barbarian is not to be Conan, at all. That's hardly possible, under nearly any class-based game (a skill-based one would be much easier to emulate fiction, regardless.) Its a class that fall somewhere between ranger (not so much in the wilderness skills, but they are not loners, either, as the ranger is "supposed" to be) and the fighter, with some ability to break out into a rage when they need to kick more butt. There is plenty of open ground to make them "more fun" and its in the way they are apporcahed, not in the way their "skills" come out. By the logic that the abilities are what defines the fun of a class, I hope you have severely modified the fighter as well, because it is dog-awful f'n boring! Sure, they can attack a lot, but wow, that gets old unless all you like is to hack. Entirely useless in a city, or a wilderness (except when the combats happen) and lots of other places where the "role" part of "roleplaying" happens. Let's mentiont he boring wizard, too... fire one spell, rinse, repeat. Oh, I need a levitate? Ok, cast from scroll. Rinse, repeat. Boring.

Its not in the what a class has, but in how its applied. And, that's up tot he CK, and the players.

Sometimes, for some, that means changing the rules. Go for it if helps you have fun. I'll still sya its not needed... and it'll be true, for me.

jamesmishler wrote:
Personally, I think the barbarian got completely nerfed in C&C. Most unimpressive. Until 3rd level, he's just a very weak fighter with a few extra hit points, and unless he's up against a rogue or a wizard he's not even that good. Primal Fury is a wasted ability. +2 to damage for four rounds at 3rd level is not a "devastating effect in combat." All Primal Might does is ensures that the barbarian fights until he drops dead. And Primal Will is too little too late.

I've created a completely different barbarian for my campaigns. It far better emulates a mix between the 2E barbarian and the 3E barbarian, and makes the class far more interesting to play and useful in the game.

Agreed with you. But now, I would like to see your version...
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

Egads !! Not another Barbarian thread ! I hope this doesn't turn out to be another Paladins are assassins topic ( that was a topic when I used to post at planet D&D).

IMP