I'm going to start a new thread, rather than detract from the old one.
Traveller wrote:
Barbarians can be duplicated by good role play rather than a specific class.
This is an interesting point. I gave this some thought, and it occurred to me that "barbarian" could be considered more of a social status, rather than a class. For example, you could have a barbarian fighter, ranger, cleric (shaman), and so on.
So what does everyone think? Does the barbarian warrant its own class, or should good role-playing cover this role?
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus
I tend to agree, and thought the same thing when the Barbarian was first trotted out for AD&D. Same thing with the Thief-Acrobat, for that matter; rather than a complete class, it's soemthing that could be done with judicious use of non-weapon-proficiencies, kits, skills, or whatever the system-du-jure calls them.
Well in theory depending upon the game I guess no class is necessary., and in my case no class surveys contact with my game with out a little tweaking to make it fit better
ken
Okay some classes I use RAw but in th course of play the evolve anyways as the character developers
_________________
Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics
Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you
I always thought of a Barbarian as a state of mind, a background that a player creates out of a fighter with skills and roleplaying. I have never never cared for the Thief-Acrobat. My campaign did not need a cat-burgler class.
I say that is true of the Barbarian, but the same could be said of the Assassin, the Ranger, the Knight, the Paladin, and perhaps even the Druid, much less the Bard. In fact if you put it that way, the only REAL classes that are needed would be a fighter (whom you could roleplay as a holy warrior, a noble, or nature lover, or even a killer), a Cleric (who you could play as a neutral worshipper of nature), a Rogue (who could also be played as a murderer) and perhaps the Wizard (though you could try only to take illusionary spells to become an illusionist type).
However, there is the idea that certain archetypes go beyond simple class. A Knight for example has an entire history that affects how he acts and how he fights, as well as how the world is percieved that separates him from the straight-up Fighter.
The Same would go for the Barbarian. Much like Conan, or other Barbarians of Fantasy, they aren't known as Conan the Barbarian who is actually a Fighter who was brought up in slavery after being taken from the Wild...No...it's Conan the Barbarian.
The Barbarian type of warrior class excludes that the character has a more savage type background, and untamed and perhaps even uncontrolled aspect of themselves, a mighty warrior that can take more and deal out more damage than the typical fighter, yet is less refined in many aspects as well.
It's the entire feel of the class that this passes on.
Of course such societies might have shamans, but those probably would be more of a druidic or clerical class...and WOULD not be of the Warrior/Barbarian class.
So in the end, it's possible to play a fighter like a Barbarian, or even a Rogue like a Barbarian...but whilst you are playing your Conan who is just a simple fighter who thinks he is wild...I'll play the Conan who is a Barbarian to his very heart and soul.
That's the difference. One is the 2e take on assassins and Barbarians, mine is more the other versions I suppose (1e/UA)
Traveller has a point, but as far as gam mechanics go I do enjoy the d12 HD classes and the rage ability. You could rename the class Berserker and ruleswise could function the same way. Basically it all depends how you want your game to go, eliminate classes, tweak some, its C&C do what you want with it.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."
I look at class builds as just being a representation of the type of training you have had. That is what a class really is anyways.
So has a barbarian had the same type of training as a fighter? Nope. HAs the Illusionist had the same kind of training as the wizard? Nope?
Has the Assassin had the same training as the thief? Nope, not completely.
So I accept classes for what they are, a representation of your training methods, which are not the same from culture to culture, or even town to town in many cases.
Now if you want to pretend the barbarian recieved the same type of training with the same methodologies, then I suppose roleplay can make it work, but that isn't my fundamental take on class abilities, so I want classes.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
I like the more specific classes. IMO, they work extremelty well with the SEIGE engine.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
PeelSeel2 wrote:
I like the more specific classes. IMO, they work extremelty well with the SEIGE engine.
I am in total agreement, I love the large number of classes in C&C, one of my favorite features of the game.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."
I'm the opposite, I'm a big fan of less is more, and C&C is not immune! I don't mind the thirteen classes at all, but the BOXED SET, if it was a bit more "up to speed" compared to how amazing and professional the PHB and M&T looked, would be the perfect product for me.
Dragonhelm wrote:
So what does everyone think? Does the barbarian warrant its own class, or should good role-playing cover this role?
We/I still haven't had a chance to playtest this class, but I think it would work fine either way. I've seen some good house rules/adjustments around the forums for his class abilities that allow for some nice variations.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte
"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax
"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte
"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax
"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth
I can think of reasons for having a separate Barbarian class and reasons for not having them... Both have been previously covered in this thread.
Once again, I think it comes down to the campaign style. If barbarians (regardless of the variety... be it a Viking or a Plainsman) are a rarity in your campaign world, then by all means it probably shouldn't be a class. In AD&D 2e... they were elminated but brought back as a 'kit' in the complete Fighter's Handbook.
Same goes for the assassin... what is an assassin but someone who specifically kills a designated target on someone else's behalf (be it for cash or crown and country).
In either case, if they are a significant culture or backdrop in a campaign (such as the Norse) then I'm all in favor for a specific class -- a class which means that character will have a completely different upbringing than the average persion in society.
With Dual-class possibilities (don't want to get into a rules debate here this is just an idea), a Fighter can become (change class) possibly change class into an Assassin (if they're are more common place in said campaign) as he become even more specialized in the art of killing... or a Knight if something warrants a change in social status. I'm just throwing a couple of ideas out there. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is this:
What matters most is the overall story (aka big picture) of a particular campaign a CK envisions.
The only problem I have with the barbarian is the name. A low-tech (read barbarian) society would have fighters, rangers, druids, bards, etc. and they would all be considered barbarians by the more sophisticated societies of the campaign world. However, as Kyle (I think) pointed out, if the name is changed to something like berserker, then that captures the feel of class more. Also it opens up the class to all levels of society in the campaign world.
R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator House Rules & Whatnots My Game Threads
Monday Night Online Group Member since 2007
My current thought are that the barbarian is more of a culture than a class. So as Rigon suggested I renamed the class Berserker, and modified his abilities.
"Barbarians" in my campaign will be little more than normal men with some wilderness skills, that live beyond the borders of civilization. The Berserker class is quite commons among the "barbarians" but even city dwellers have been known to lose thier mind at times and go berserk, fighting in an insane manner. So berserkes, while more common among the savage peoples, are not unheard of among the civilized lands.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!
Only to make little barbarians.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
I think I agree with the sentiment that 'barbarian' is a description, perhaps a derogatory one, rather than a class. The Romans called all non-Romans barbarians even when clearly they were not. Let's face it, if every non-Roman was a barbarian then that's a lot of barbarians!
I don't however agree with removing it because I believe they were supposed to be berserkers, which is a much tighter description of their abilities and background.
So in my campaign world 'barbarians' would stay but be renamed to 'berserkers'.
I'm in agreement with the OP here... The last D&D game in which I played, my "Barbarian" warrior was simply a Fighter from the north. A very viking-inspired guy, with chain armor, axe, shield and funky helmet.
I've always been a bit honked off my RPGs calling a guy in a loincloth with a frenzy ability 'barbarian'. In my opinion, the barbarian class would be better served just being renamed 'berserker' or something, which is closer to what it's trying to model.
Seconded. Don't get me wrong, I dig the expanded class list, but the boxed set was my intro to C&C, and is therefore enshrined in the Halls of Nostalgia.
meepo wrote:
the BOXED SET, if it was a bit more "up to speed" compared to how amazing and professional the PHB and M&T looked, would be the perfect product for me.
In my campaigns, I associate "barbarism" with a general outlook and style of life. I deal with it purely by roleplaying, with the only "gaming" requirement that a member of a barbarian race must choose at least one physical prime, while a member of a civilized race must choose at least one mental prime. This is enough for me to basically distinguish the two types of cultures (besided role-playing).
Then, the Barbarian is simply a shorthand for Barbarian Warrior.
I'm thinking the reason the class is a "barbarian" is more of a homage to Conan, where those from more "civilized" cultures felt the need to play up his ferocity in battle.
I think your most likely right. Lets go ask Gary. I think he had a hand in the Barbarian in Unearthed Arcana, which as far as I know/remember is the first time there was an "official" Barbarian class.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Treebore wrote:
I think your most likely right. Lets go ask Gary. I think he had a hand in the Barbarian in Unearthed Arcana, which as far as I know/remember is the first time there was an "official" Barbarian class.
No thanks. I heard from very, very reliable, trustworthy, and unopinionated sources that Gary was a no talent shill whose only interest was in causing pain, suffering and making innocent players who only want to decimate the forces of evil without having to look up from their laptops at the gametable cry in his games.
Treebore wrote:
I think your most likely right. Lets go ask Gary. I think he had a hand in the Barbarian in Unearthed Arcana, which as far as I know/remember is the first time there was an "official" Barbarian class.
Came out in Dragon Magazine before that actually. I still have that particular issue as a matter of fact. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
I like having a heedless-raging archetype class in the game, although I feel as though the C&C 'barbarian' if it's to be called that should at least have some wilderness-survival skills like the ranger. Especially if the idea is that they're living outside of civilized society and roaming the wilds and wastes of the game world. Yet they can't catch dinner or find shelter in the wilderness like ranger can? Hmmm...
Since their fundamental theme is to go berserk and and keep swinging until they drop, and all of their abilities are geared only in that direction, I'd prefer it if they were called berserkers or some similar name, rather than barbarians. But they fill an archetype niche, certainly, as much as an assassin or an illusionist does (and I certainly don't want to drop either of those either!)
_________________
----------------
