What is wrong with the original C&C barbarian?

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:12 pm

Hi Folks,

So as we all know, the original C&C barbarian class is being over-hauled in the new PH printing. I read Steve's recent Crusader article about why the changes are being made and it seems that it's mainly an issue of flavor. In other words, the original class is too much berserker and an not enough barbarian. I agree with this and am pumped for the new class.

However, is that the only reason the class is being retooled? Or is it somehow "broken?"
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

Relaxo · Post by **Relaxo** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:24 pm

My understanding is that the Rage ability is unpopular, not enough benefit for the penalties it imposes.

there's been a thread or three about it.

ssfsx17 · Post by **ssfsx17** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:42 pm

The barbarian was far from "broken" - I think it was simply more viable to choose the class of Fighter and roleplay him as if he was a barbarian. Suffice to say, there have been many house-ruled versions of the barbarian which attempt to improve it.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:30 pm

Yes... re-tooled and re-imaged but not because it was broken. I find the class as-is makes a fine berserker.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:41 pm

Good to know. I was thinking that it's kind of neat having two options for the barbarian class. Heck, I have James Mishler's barbarian class PDF as well, so make that three.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:05 pm

I have had barbarians played extensively in my C&C game now, and I do think they are vastly underpowered when considering other classes. For example, one of the barbarian's main abilities is Rage. However, the benefits while decent do no accound for the very harsh penalties invloved. Yes, the Barbarian is a good fighter type but with only some better bonuses to hit and damage. The new barbarian is chok full of new flavor and seems to be written with a completely new thought process on the class, i.e. totally different rules.

It makes sense that the barbarian should be somthing a little deeper then a simple set of bonuses. And I think that is what we are going to get.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:25 pm

Everything is wrong with it, depending on who you ask. And, nothing is wrong with it, also depending on who you ask. Apparently it comes down to two camps, regarding problems:

1) rage is stupid (too many penalties for little benefit)

2) being a class is stupid; it should be a "race" or a "culture."

Maybe some variation in there, and some who agree with 1 and 2, but that is the basic argument against the barbie.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:36 pm

Your two bullet points pretty much sum up the point of Steve's article. I don't mind the "raging" barbarian concept, but it does seem to be a very narrow idea of what a barbarian can be. It seems like the new barbarian will be closer to point number #2. If nothing else, it will be a refreshing take on what a "barbarian" is.

What I always find interesting is that just about every barbarian class I've seen (from the Unearthed Arcana to the 2e Complete Barbarian to 3.x and onward) never quite captures the "Conan" feel. Granted, the Conan-type is another narrow scope of what a barbarian might be. The only material I've ever seen geared specifically towards that concept is Mishler's version. His version gives the barbarian a "versatility" ability that allows the character to mirror Conan's development as the character advances in level. I quite like it, although it makes the class a bit complex.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:42 pm

Frost wrote:
Your two bullet points pretty much sum up the point of Steve's article. I don't mind the "raging" barbarian concept, but it does seem to be a very narrow idea of what a barbarian can be. It seems like the new barbarian will be closer to point number #2. If nothing else, it will be a refreshing take on what a "barbarian" is.

What I always find interesting is that just about every barbarian class I've seen (from the Unearthed Arcana to the 2e Complete Barbarian to 3.x and onward) never quite captures the "Conan" feel. Granted, the Conan-type is another narrow scope of what a barbarian might be. The only material I've ever seen geared specifically towards that concept is Mishler's version. His version gives the barbarian a "versatility" ability that allows the character to mirror Conan's development as the character advances in level. I quite like it, although it makes the class a bit complex.

The versatility ability you mention is probably one of the best features of that class version. I'm curious how the new one turns out but I think that, despite the changes there will still be some people looking to replicate a couple of classic fictional characters. Of course, multiclassing (or some form of dual classing) could also be an answer there too.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:48 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
The versatility ability you mention is probably one of the best features of that class version. I'm curious how the new one turns out but I think that, despite the changes there will still be some people looking to replicate a couple of classic fictional characters. Of course, multiclassing (or some form of dual classing) could also be an answer there too.
M

Right, I think that sums up an age old problem with the "barbarian" class. A lot folks, myself included, first think of Conan when they hear "barbarian." But, really, Conan would be more of a multi-class fighter/rogue in game terms. I do think Mishler's version is a cool alternative to that route though.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

Enpeze · Post by **Enpeze** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:43 pm

I think the barbarian is not really necessary. I would rather play a fighter with a certain cultural background. (similar to the bard and knight which I also dont they are good as interesting character classes)

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:46 pm

Enpeze wrote:
I think the barbarian is not really necessary. I would rather play a fighter with a certain cultural background. (similar to the bard and knight which I also dont they are good as interesting character classes)

Well, we'll see if that's true when the new barbarian comes out. It sounds like it is going to be something truely different, and much more then just a fighter type with a distinct background. Can't wait.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:48 pm

Funny thing is, with the variations on the Barbarian out already, one could almost use em as cultural backgrounds for a human character, and just tack on a character class on top.

_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Enpeze · Post by **Enpeze** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:57 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Funny thing is, with the variations on the Barbarian out already, one could almost use em as cultural backgrounds for a human character, and just tack on a character class on top.

Yes of course you could do it vice-versa. But I am friend of minimalism (thats the reason I am interested in c&c) so I try to cut away "unnecessary flesh" (for me not very interesting character classes like the barbarian or the knight) for the game.

I am not sure if c&c is really such an minimalistic game though. Alone the rules how to memorize magic or read scrolls etc. with more than 3 pages seems too extensive. Maybe I should rather (re-)read OD&D or such.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:06 pm

Enpeze wrote:
I am not sure if c&c is really such an minimalistic game though. Alone the rules how to memorize magic or read scrolls etc. with more than 3 pages seems too extensive. Maybe I should rather (re-)read OD&D or such.

Depends on the direction you're coming from? Folks coming from games much more complex find C&C's approach too minimalist.

Some folks coming from the other direction find C&C's approach too complex. Its all a matter of perspective.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:56 pm

I never thought anything was terribly wrong with the barbarian, per se, other than the Rage penaties being a little too stiff. Yes, I do think there's the culture issue, but I see that kind of like a samurai. The samurai is a big enough diversion from a fighter, that I feel a character class could be done up for a samurai all by itself. Sure, in a pinch, one could RP a fighter as a samurai...or barbarian. But I feel it would not make the game any less to have the barbarian it's own class.

Just my two cents.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:06 am

Well, barbarians dont get played much on our games. (i.e. not at all, ever)

But the new barbarian has me wanting to play one.

Just my luck it is my turn to CK the next campaign.
P.S. I do plan on using a few 'old' barbarians as bad guys.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Enpeze · Post by **Enpeze** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:00 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Depends on the direction you're coming from? Folks coming from games much more complex find C&C's approach too minimalist.

Some folks coming from the other direction find C&C's approach too complex. Its all a matter of perspective.

Yeah, this seems so. I for example played OD&D for some years in the 80ties, so I guess I am belonging more to the second cathegory.

But nonetheless isnt the question why some few sentences about memorizing magic in ODnD seems not to be enough for most players or for c&c? (mainly in the basic odnd book stands "one good night sleep should be sufficient and then at least hour of studying") Thats all. This short apporach I think is minimalistic and its about applying common sense to a game situation and is common sense not also one of the design principles of c&c?