3rd Ed...Just say NO to assasins and barbarians!
Brian R. Rimmer
barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated them
from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
Also, while I am still wishing...please do not dumb it down any more than
the 2nd ed was.
thnx.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
I'll make this short and sweet...
Brian R. Rimmer <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
them
> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
I like both of those classes. They can be duplicated by RPing...but
then again, so can a Thief, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, and Druid. ;-) If you
want to get right down to basics, you either cast magic or you
don't....everything after that is just icing.
The barbarian is a cool character class that offers a tonne of RPing ops
for a good DM and decent group of players. The assassin is equally as fun
and useful.
> Also, while I am still wishing...please do not dumb it down any more than
> the 2nd ed was.
Agreed. I don't want to see... "See Thud. See Thud fight. Fight Thud,
fight." ;-) Then again I play 1st ed, so never had to even suffer with 2nd
edition.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Doc Shan
neutral evil killer armed with poison is hanging with you. I also didn't
like it when I allowed one of my players to be one(before I played with
one) because the player ALWAYS wanted more powerful poison ans such. I
have decided that this class will stay in the DM's guide and will be for
the DM only.
I like barbarians. I played one once and it got to be really fun(this
was with the second edition one). Unless 3e ruins the spirit of the
class I will allow it, though I don't think it deserves a place in the
Players guide.
As long as this thread is for wishes, how about this... Instead of
ending up with a collection of wizard and preist spell compendiums, a
tome of magic, a book of artifacts, the encyclopedia magic, etc, why not
have yearly or biyearly updates filled with all the new races, classes,
items, spells, suggested rules, and such that have been created within
that period of time. I think this idea might've been suggested before,
but if there's anyone from TSR/Wizards listening.....
Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
>
> I like both of those classes. They can be duplicated by RPing...but
> then again, so can a Thief, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, and Druid. ;-) If you
> want to get right down to basics, you either cast magic or you
> don't....everything after that is just icing.
> The barbarian is a cool character class that offers a tonne of RPing ops
> for a good DM and decent group of players. The assassin is equally as fun
> and useful.
>
> > Also, while I am still wishing...please do not dumb it down any more than
> > the 2nd ed was.
>
> Agreed. I don't want to see... "See Thud. See Thud fight. Fight Thud,
> fight." ;-) Then again I play 1st ed, so never had to even suffer with 2nd
> edition.
--
-Doc Shan
Alan D Kohler
<23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote:
>I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
>barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated them
>from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
>duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
>
Barbarian is actually semi balanced in 3rd edition. Still don't see
that much of a reason for it, but its palatable.
Assassin in 3rd edition does stink and should be exterminated with
extreme prejudice.
>Also, while I am still wishing...please do not dumb it down any more than
>the 2nd ed was.
Bah! Like 1st to 2nd was't an improvement!
Alan D. Kohler(hawk...@NOSPAM.olg.com)
"I once shot a man in Nepal just to watch him reincarnate." -Wierd Al
Hawkwind's RPG Pages are back at last!
http://members.tripod.com/~hawk_wind/homepage.html
Alan D Kohler
<Dena...@home.com> wrote:
>Hiya.
>
> I'll make this short and sweet...
>
>Brian R. Rimmer <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
>news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
>> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
>them
>> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
>> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
>
> I like both of those classes. They can be duplicated by RPing...but
>then again, so can a Thief, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, and Druid. ;-) If you
>want to get right down to basics, you either cast magic or you
>don't....everything after that is just icing.
> The barbarian is a cool character class that offers a tonne of RPing ops
>for a good DM and decent group of players. The assassin is equally as fun
>and useful.
That's all well and good. But for the most part, what is the real
difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
Dave
news:37f1442b...@news.olg.com...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:23:12 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
> <Dena...@home.com> wrote:
> > The barbarian is a cool character class that offers a tonne of RPing
ops
> >for a good DM and decent group of players. The assassin is equally as
fun
> >and useful.
>
> That's all well and good. But for the most part, what is the real
> difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
> class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
> fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
So should rangers - not that I necessarily like the barbarian class.
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Buttery
between a Barbarian and a Fighter, is society. A fighter that grows up in a
wilderness tribe will have some different skills from a fighter that grows
up in a city, but these should all be easily encompassed by the selection of
skills, and in no way represent justification for a separate class of
character. Not all fighters grow up in cities either. Can't I have a
fighter grow up in a small northern tribal community, and not have him be a
barbarian? In fact what would be the difference between the two?
Ian R Malcomson wrote in message <1hkRnNAI...@domicus.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>That's all well and good. But for the most part, what is the real
>>difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
>>class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
>>fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
>
>Not necessarily. At base level, a fighter is concerned with fighting,
>whereas a barbarian is concerned with protecting his tribe,
>hunting/gathering/producing food, and (in some cultures) perhaps raiding
>the neighbours.
>
>IMO, barbarians diverge from the standard fighter in basic definition
>enough to warrant a separate class in the same way in which druids do
>from clerics.
>
>Samurai are another "culture fighter". Yes, Samurai are fighters. But
>the culture that produces them differs enough from baseline D&D, making
>the differences in class much more than simply "different skill
>selection". The same theory applies to barbarians.
>
>--
>Ian R Malcomson
>"And pray that there's intelligent life up there in space, 'cause there's
bugger
>all down here on Earth" - Eric Idle, "Galaxy Song"
>Domicus Website, for all things Ian R Malcomson:
http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
Ian R Malcomson
Alan D Kohler
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>That's all well and good. But for the most part, what is the real
>>difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
>>class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
>>fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
>
>Not necessarily. At base level, a fighter is concerned with fighting,
So is a barbarian.
>whereas a barbarian is concerned with protecting his tribe,
So is a soldier concerned with protecting his land/village/city.
>hunting/gathering/producing food,
Which are skills/proficiencies.
> and (in some cultures) perhaps raiding
>the neighbours.
And this describes most standing armies of soldiers throughout
history.
>
>IMO, barbarians diverge from the standard fighter in basic definition
>enough to warrant a separate class in the same way in which druids do
>from clerics.
>
Ah, but druid is just an example of specialty priest. So druids aren't
getting anything that special, unlike barbarians vs. most other
fighters.
Further, AFAIAC, the cleric is TOO generic and uncapable of
representing a variety of religions as fighters can encompass a
variety of cultures. In short, that's a whole different ball of wax.
>Samurai are another "culture fighter". Yes, Samurai are fighters. But
>the culture that produces them differs enough from baseline D&D, making
>the differences in class much more than simply "different skill
>selection". The same theory applies to barbarians.
That theory hasn't applied to Samurai in the *D&D game since first
edition.
Alan D Kohler
<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Alan D Kohler <hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com> wrote in message
>news:37f1442b...@news.olg.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:23:12 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
>> <Dena...@home.com> wrote:
>> > The barbarian is a cool character class that offers a tonne of RPing
>ops
>> >for a good DM and decent group of players. The assassin is equally as
>fun
>> >and useful.
>>
>> That's all well and good. But for the most part, what is the real
>> difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
>> class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
>> fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
>
>So should rangers - not that I necessarily like the barbarian class.
Fair enough, save for the fact that I can see a ranger in a variety of
cultures. Thus I see rangers as being slightly more fair as a stand
alone class. Slightly.
Buttery
>>Also, while I am still wishing...please do not dumb it down any more than
>>the 2nd ed was.
>
>Bah! Like 1st to 2nd was't an improvement!
>
Have faith, 2nd edition was rebuilt for no good playing reason, it was
primarily done to make money and cater to the power gaming munchkins who
were willing to spend every nickel from their paper route on new kits and
other crap. 3rd edition is being built because the people who own the game,
now, role-play and can't stand the crap that makes up the game they own.
They are nuking the whole thing, and trying to improve it from a mature
players point of view. Of course they are hoping that the income from the
new material will justify the decision. They don't want to be left holding
the bag. I've discussed the nature of changes with Peter D. Adkinson soon
after WOTC purchased TSR, and a good friend of mine has discussed a lot of
issues with Gygax, who did not approve of the way the game was going with
2nd Edition.
Ian R Malcomson
>>Not necessarily. At base level, a fighter is concerned with fighting,
>
>So is a barbarian.
No - a barbarian is more concerned with surviving in the harsh
environment in which he lives.
>>whereas a barbarian is concerned with protecting his tribe,
>
>So is a soldier concerned with protecting his land/village/city.
Unfortunately, the poor old barbarian receives neither training nor pay
for his task. It is possible, being a soldier, to have to give your
life defending a site or ideal you care nothing about.
>>hunting/gathering/producing food,
>
>Which are skills/proficiencies.
So is Tracking, but rangers are the unquestioned masters of that. Why
not have a specialist fighter excel in these survival NWPs, among his
other abilities?
>> and (in some cultures) perhaps raiding
>>the neighbours.
>
>And this describes most standing armies of soldiers throughout
>history.
There's a difference between raiding for necessities and "the comforts
of society which we don't have", and raiding because some bloke at the
top decided country X needed a kick in the balls.
>>IMO, barbarians diverge from the standard fighter in basic definition
>>enough to warrant a separate class in the same way in which druids do
>>from clerics.
>
>Ah, but druid is just an example of specialty priest. So druids aren't
>getting anything that special, unlike barbarians vs. most other
>fighters.
I thought your argument was that barbarians *don't* get anything
special?
And what is not special about being able to shapechange, etc.?
>Further, AFAIAC, the cleric is TOO generic and uncapable of
>representing a variety of religions as fighters can encompass a
>variety of cultures. In short, that's a whole different ball of wax.
The cleric is not designed to represent a variety of religions. This is
why, when you look at a campaign setting, so much is dedicated to
modifying the cleric class (in the manner of speciality priests) in
order to make them fit.
IMO, the fighter represents generic professional warriors from settings
loosely based on Western civilisation. In the same way the cleric does
not cross over well into other cultures, the fighter does not cross over
that well into Viking, Mongol, Japanese, Chines, Goth, Hun, Amazon
Indian, Inca, and Indian cultures, among others. The addition of a
barbarian class, as it did in 1st Ed., goes some way to cover these
gaps, as do the warrior classes presented in the Oriental Adventures
rules, the kits in the Al-Qadim rules, and so on.
>>Samurai are another "culture fighter". Yes, Samurai are fighters. But
>>the culture that produces them differs enough from baseline D&D, making
>>the differences in class much more than simply "different skill
>>selection". The same theory applies to barbarians.
>
>That theory hasn't applied to Samurai in the *D&D game since first
>edition.
Nor has the theory that barbarians warrant anything extra than a kit.
IMO, none of the Oriental kits matched up well to the OA classes from
which they were derived - which is perhaps why even 2nd Ed. OA modules
still utilised the OA rules...
What we're seeing is the note that barbarians will reappear as a class
in 3E. I welcome that. What has not been said, but may be a
possibility, is that the Oriental Adventures book will come out under
the 3E line, and re-introduce Samurai, bushi, and all the others to the
game.
Ian R Malcomson
>You pretty much supported what Alan was saying, that the only difference
>between a Barbarian and a Fighter, is society. A fighter that grows up in a
>wilderness tribe will have some different skills from a fighter that grows
>up in a city, but these should all be easily encompassed by the selection of
>skills, and in no way represent justification for a separate class of
>character. Not all fighters grow up in cities either. Can't I have a
>fighter grow up in a small northern tribal community, and not have him be a
>barbarian? In fact what would be the difference between the two?
It is not enough to have a character simply "grow up in the wilderness"
to become a barbarian - he must grow up in a barbarian culture. This
would shape him away from being a professional warrior (like the fighter
represents), into someone that knows how to fight, certainly, but that
not being their primary function or concern.
IMO, the role of the barbarian sufficiently diverges from the role of
the fighter to warrant a separate class to cover those differences.
Ian R Malcomson
>>So should rangers - not that I necessarily like the barbarian class.
>
>Fair enough, save for the fact that I can see a ranger in a variety of
>cultures.
And I can see barbarians in a variety of cultures.
Or do you think every barbarian looks like Conan?
David R. Klassen
>
> Have faith, 2nd edition was rebuilt for no good playing reason, it was
> primarily done to make money and cater to the power gaming munchkins who
> were willing to spend every nickel from their paper route on new kits and
> other crap.
stuff
from Unearthed Arcana? How about getting rid of 1st ed's vague idea of
"secondary skill" and expanding on a full blown proficiency system? How
about using changing illusionists to specialist mages and the creation
of
all the other specialist mages? How about reclassifying druids as
specialty
priests and providing some ideas/rules on making other specialty priests
so
all clerics wouldn't have to look the same? How about providing rules
for
other humanoid PC races instead of just half-orc? Shall I continue?
I don't think the creation of 2nd edition was done for no good reason.
I
think it was needed, it put all the rules into three books (yeah, yeah,
other book proliferated, but they were *optional expansions* to the
rules). I also see the need for some redesign, even though I'm
relatively
happy with 2nd edition, I think 3rd will give us a chance to redo some
rules
that just don't make sense (like the whole, 'do I need to roll high or
low?'
problem).
> other crap. 3rd edition is being built because the people who own the game,
> now, role-play and can't stand the crap that makes up the game they own.
> They are nuking the whole thing, and trying to improve it from a mature
> players point of view. Of course they are hoping that the income from the
> new material will justify the decision. They don't want to be left holding
> the bag. I've discussed the nature of changes with Peter D. Adkinson soon
> after WOTC purchased TSR, and a good friend of mine has discussed a lot of
> issues with Gygax, who did not approve of the way the game was going with
> 2nd Edition.
Although I have a lot of admiration and respect for Gygax as the
inventor of
the game and campaign in which I play, I have to admit that near the end
of
1st edition I was getting a little tired with his "if you're not doing
it
my way, you aren't playing AD&D" attitude. Afterall, this *is* the guy
who gave us druid-rangers... (although I'll admit, I liked the concept
of the thief-acrobat, but the idea of the split-class was weird).
--
David R. Klassen
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028
Larry Mead
[snip]
: That's all well and good. But for the most part, what is the real
: difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
: class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
: fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
I must agree with Alan. I had a barbarian fighter just a campaign ago. He
was from a region where everone is considered a barbarian; the player
did him up just as the culture would dictate - no "forced" rules are
needed (such as 'kits').
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Tach Deneva
Ian R Malcomson wrote in message:
> Or do you think every barbarian looks like Conan?
>
Nah, some would probably look like Jay or Dave, but it's the ones that look
like Pat Sajak that we should all be really afraid of.
michael
news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
them
> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
If they can be duplicated through roleplaying & thoughtful character
creation, then what bothers you so much about them being in the player's
handbook? If they couldn't be duplicated and where overpowered or
unexplainable, then I would understand your complaints.
--michael
michael
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:05:32 -0700, "Brian R. Rimmer"
> <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote:
> Assassin in 3rd edition does stink and should be exterminated with
> extreme prejudice.
I heard that Assassins were not going to be in the Player's Handbook, but
were going to be an "optional" class in the DMG.
--michael
Bryan J. Maloney
(Alan D Kohler) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:05:32 -0700, "Brian R. Rimmer"
> <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote:
>
> >I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
> >barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated them
> >from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
> >duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
> >
>
> Barbarian is actually semi balanced in 3rd edition. Still don't see
> that much of a reason for it, but its palatable.
I say that all "inborn" classes should be removed from the core rules and
put into a "stupid inborn classes" supplement.
Buttery
1st edition. However, the munchkin crap from Unearthed Arcana was compared
to all the 2nd edition optional crap that was produced, like "high Mastery"
weapons, give me a break, that's bringing munchkinism to a higher level.
And just to make sure that the mages aren't left out, lets make specialty
mages and give them more spells. And just in case you have no imagination
on how to role play your cleric, lets make specialty priests and create all
kinds of kits for every race and class. That stuff is sickening. Kits and
specialty classes could all be replaced with an improved and more detailed
non-weapon proficiency system. Which would provide the cure in an open
architecture fashion, so that people aren't playing cookie cutter specialty
kit classes. Thank you 2nd edition for the creation of all that wasted
paper and cookie cutter class format. And don't tell me that those "were
optional materials" they were purchased by D&D players and used to play
within the 2nd Edition rules. Maybe there were some improvements with the
original 2nd ed. books, like real dragons, but they got drowned out in a
wave of refuse that all carried the 2nd Edition logo.
With all due respect, do you really need a book to tell you how to create a
humanoid character. It sounds like you are happy to let TSR provide the
imagination. 2nd Edition to me, was a deviation away from letting people
use their imaginations and figuring out their own way of doing things. The
rules should only be a rough guideline, its the players across the table
from you that make the game.
David R. Klassen wrote in message <37F20646...@rowan.edu>...
Buttery
Ian R Malcomson wrote in message ...
>
>
>>>Not necessarily. At base level, a fighter is concerned with fighting,
>>
>>So is a barbarian.
>
>No - a barbarian is more concerned with surviving in the harsh
>environment in which he lives.
Then what's he doing out adventuring? Shouldn't he be home guarding the
sheep, and hunting for food for his mother? Do all people who grew up in
harsh environments have to be barbarians? It sounds like your mind is stuck
in barbarian blind gear.
>>>whereas a barbarian is concerned with protecting his tribe,
>>
>>So is a soldier concerned with protecting his land/village/city.
>
>Unfortunately, the poor old barbarian receives neither training nor pay
>for his task. It is possible, being a soldier, to have to give your
>life defending a site or ideal you care nothing about.
A fighter character need not come from a rigid training program. I've never
read where that was the case. A fighter is simply someone who is somewhat
experienced with the use of weapons. You are confusing soldier with
fighter. Fighter characters are NOT soldiers. They do not hang out in
barracks and practice combat formations. They are just strong guys who use
big weapons to kill stuff that threatens them or gets in the way of their
task.
>
>>>hunting/gathering/producing food,
>>
>>Which are skills/proficiencies.
>
>So is Tracking, but rangers are the unquestioned masters of that. Why
>not have a specialist fighter excel in these survival NWPs, among his
>other abilities?
The perfect barbarian would be a fighter who prefers leather and furs as
armor, and has the hunting and cold climate survival non-weapon
proficiencies. How the hell does this create a different character class?
You can tell me that you believe there is a philosophical difference, but in
game terms, there isn't a practical difference. A barbarian can be created
from a fighter class by selecting barbarian type armor weapons and skills.
Just like a knight or cavalier can be done in the same fashion.
>
>>> and (in some cultures) perhaps raiding
>>>the neighbours.
>>
>>And this describes most standing armies of soldiers throughout
>>history.
>
>There's a difference between raiding for necessities and "the comforts
>of society which we don't have", and raiding because some bloke at the
>top decided country X needed a kick in the balls.
Again you confuse soldiers with fighters. Nobody plays a soldier character.
Soldiers are pawns, they have no character.
Buttery
Ian R Malcomson wrote in message ...
>
>>between a Barbarian and a Fighter, is society. A fighter that grows up in
a
>>wilderness tribe will have some different skills from a fighter that grows
>>up in a city, but these should all be easily encompassed by the selection
of
>>skills, and in no way represent justification for a separate class of
>>character. Not all fighters grow up in cities either. Can't I have a
>>fighter grow up in a small northern tribal community, and not have him be
a
>>barbarian? In fact what would be the difference between the two?
>
>It is not enough to have a character simply "grow up in the wilderness"
>to become a barbarian - he must grow up in a barbarian culture.
Ok so you are saying that anyone who grows up in a barbarian culture can't
be a fighter, but must be a barbarian instead? You also have some brainlock
that makes you think that the generic fighter class is a proffesional
warrior. Let me explain this in real simple terms, here are the classes and
what they do:
Priests: devote their lives to the teachings and worship of a particular god
or group of gods, and uses the gifts granted to them by their god to spread
his/her word or work. Are willing to fight and die for their god in the
name of advancing HIs or Her name and word.
Mages: Use and seek magic to further their own desires and needs, forsake
weapons as they feel magic is ultimately more powerful.
Fighters: Believe that brute force, and bodily harm, can solve most
problems. Use weapons and wear armor to "conduct business".
Rogues: Believe that stealth and deception are the tools most suited to get
what they want or need. Also believe that they are entitled to whatever
items and money that they can steal.
All other sub-classes, such as rangers, barbarians,druids, etc. Are simply
specific sub groups within these major classes. A barbarian is certainly a
"fighter". He may not be a knight or a soldier, but he is most definitely a
fighter.
This
>would shape him away from being a professional warrior (like the fighter
>represents), into someone that knows how to fight, certainly, but that
>not being their primary function or concern.
His primary concern? Barbarian player character's primary concern is
beating the snot out of the next enemy so they can take their goods. They
aren't adventuring to save their herd of goats. Maybe they did in their
first adventure, but they don't get to 10th level by standing around guading
sheep from wolves. Show me any barbarian character that got to 9th level by
doing nothing but gurading his people directly. If such a character exists,
he certainly is not what the game creators had in mind when creating the
barbarian class.
>
>IMO, the role of the barbarian sufficiently diverges from the role of
>the fighter to warrant a separate class to cover those differences.
Ian R Malcomson
>>No - a barbarian is more concerned with surviving in the harsh
>>environment in which he lives.
>
>Then what's he doing out adventuring? Shouldn't he be home guarding the
>sheep, and hunting for food for his mother? Do all people who grew up in
>harsh environments have to be barbarians? It sounds like your mind is stuck
>in barbarian blind gear.
Why does anyone adventure? One post can't sum up the myriad
possibilities for any reason for a barbarian to become an adventurer.
As well as the "classic fantasy" barbarians (Thongor, Conan, etc.), you
have characters like Fafhrd and so on from literature - lots of
barbarians being adventurers.
>>>>whereas a barbarian is concerned with protecting his tribe,
>>>
>>>So is a soldier concerned with protecting his land/village/city.
>>
>>Unfortunately, the poor old barbarian receives neither training nor pay
>>for his task. It is possible, being a soldier, to have to give your
>>life defending a site or ideal you care nothing about.
>
>A fighter character need not come from a rigid training program. I've never
>read where that was the case. A fighter is simply someone who is somewhat
>experienced with the use of weapons. You are confusing soldier with
>fighter.
Not I. Re-read the post I was replying to, and see where soldiers crept
into the argument.
>>So is Tracking, but rangers are the unquestioned masters of that. Why
>>not have a specialist fighter excel in these survival NWPs, among his
>>other abilities?
>
>The perfect barbarian would be a fighter who prefers leather and furs as
>armor,
Why? Why would a barbarian forego better armour if available to him,
picked up on his travels away from his home that does not possess the
technology to produce such?
>and has the hunting and cold climate survival non-weapon
>proficiencies.
And a higher number of hit points, representing his innate ability to
survive harsh conditions. And an innate feel for his surroundings (such
as represented by the "hide in familiar terrain" and similar skills
possessed by UA 1st Ed. Barbarians).
And why just "cold climate"? Why exclude desert nomads and jungle
tribes from the barbarian equation?
>How the hell does this create a different character class?
Because, like rangers and paladins, barbarians sufficiently diverge from
the fighter standard to warrant an additional class to deal with them.
Barbarians should, IMO, not just be a skill package. They deserve, and
get under UA, OA, and 3E, much more.
>You can tell me that you believe there is a philosophical difference, but in
>game terms, there isn't a practical difference. A barbarian can be created
>from a fighter class by selecting barbarian type armor weapons and skills.
>Just like a knight or cavalier can be done in the same fashion.
I disagree. Knights and cavaliers are highly specialised fighter types
in their own right, and I believe these should also possess their own
class (although I do not believe the UA cavalier class is the right way
to go). But I agree that knights and cavaliers deserve their own class
less so than do barbarians.
>>There's a difference between raiding for necessities and "the comforts
>>of society which we don't have", and raiding because some bloke at the
>>top decided country X needed a kick in the balls.
>
>Again you confuse soldiers with fighters. Nobody plays a soldier character.
>Soldiers are pawns, they have no character.
I know certain people who would fervently disagree with that suggestion.
In any case, see above as to where soldiers crept in.
Ian R Malcomson
>Ok so you are saying that anyone who grows up in a barbarian culture can't
>be a fighter, but must be a barbarian instead?
If the culture is described thus, then yes.
>You also have some brainlock
>that makes you think that the generic fighter class is a proffesional
>warrior. Let me explain this in real simple terms, here are the classes and
>what they do:
Do not patronise me.
<Snip>
>Fighters: Believe that brute force, and bodily harm, can solve most
>problems. Use weapons and wear armor to "conduct business".
That is a very, very limited view of the fighter. Fighters do not
necessarily "believe that brute force, and bodily harm" is the best way
to solve a problem. They are more highly trained to act where such
solutions are necessary (yes, fighters must *train* - they are
professional warriors in the same way that wizards are professional
spell casters) than the other classes, but this should not limit their
options.
Fighter != lumbering thug. Come to think of it, neither does barbarian.
>All other sub-classes, such as rangers, barbarians,druids, etc. Are simply
>specific sub groups within these major classes. A barbarian is certainly a
>"fighter". He may not be a knight or a soldier, but he is most definitely a
>fighter.
So, effectively, you are saying that it is only the magical and/or
spiritually based abilities possessed by rangers and paladins that
earmark them for individual classes?
>This
>>would shape him away from being a professional warrior (like the fighter
>>represents), into someone that knows how to fight, certainly, but that
>>not being their primary function or concern.
>
>His primary concern? Barbarian player character's primary concern is
>beating the snot out of the next enemy so they can take their goods. They
>aren't adventuring to save their herd of goats. Maybe they did in their
>first adventure, but they don't get to 10th level by standing around guading
>sheep from wolves. Show me any barbarian character that got to 9th level by
>doing nothing but gurading his people directly. If such a character exists,
>he certainly is not what the game creators had in mind when creating the
>barbarian class.
My friend, you possess an incredibly narrow perception of the definition
of a barbarian. As I said, barbarians are *not* (and should not be)
simple-minded lumbering thugs.
Napoleon48
classless game wouldn't have this debate.
Marmalade Cat
news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
them
> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
That is your opinion. Other people might like the assassin and barbarian. I,
for instance, like both. Assassins are fun, and barbarians make sure the
other PCs are not screwing around.
Marmalade Cat
news:37F0A403...@att.net...
> As long as this thread is for wishes, how about this... Instead of
> ending up with a collection of wizard and preist spell compendiums, a
> tome of magic, a book of artifacts, the encyclopedia magic, etc, why not
> have yearly or biyearly updates filled with all the new races, classes,
> items, spells, suggested rules, and such that have been created within
> that period of time. I think this idea might've been suggested before,
> but if there's anyone from TSR/Wizards listening.....
...because Hasbro would "lose potential profits" of doing something else. I
totally agree that this is what they should do, but they like the financial
side more.
Marmalade Cat
news:r+00CPBQ...@domicus.demon.co.uk...
>
> >Ok so you are saying that anyone who grows up in a barbarian culture
can't
> >be a fighter, but must be a barbarian instead?
>
> If the culture is described thus, then yes.
>
> >You also have some brainlock
> >that makes you think that the generic fighter class is a proffesional
> >warrior. Let me explain this in real simple terms, here are the classes
and
> >what they do:
>
> Do not patronise me.
hahaha well said.
>
> <Snip>
>
> >Fighters: Believe that brute force, and bodily harm, can solve most
> >problems. Use weapons and wear armor to "conduct business".
>
> That is a very, very limited view of the fighter. Fighters do not
> necessarily "believe that brute force, and bodily harm" is the best way
> to solve a problem. They are more highly trained to act where such
> solutions are necessary (yes, fighters must *train* - they are
> professional warriors in the same way that wizards are professional
> spell casters) than the other classes, but this should not limit their
> options.
I agree. In real life there have been an EXTREMELY wide variety of
personalities that could be classified in D&D terms as "fighters". In fact,
there are more fighter personalities than there are for any other class,
which makes them the most widely varied class in any role playing game, in
any time period. I know that what I am saying has nothing to do with "the
difference between a fighter and a barbarian" but I would just like to point
out that while barbarians only have five or six personality types (the
big-ass guy with a huge axe/hammer; the sneaky barbarian who uses brain
isntead of brawn, etc.) Fighters do not necessarily believe in bodily harm.
Napoleon was a fighter. Did he believe that "bodily harm can fix most
problems"? Gimme a break. Every fighter is a PERSON, not JUST a stamped
template. If one plays a fighter like a stamped template, then they should
think again.
--
marmalade_cat [at] hotmail.com
geocities.com/Area51/2801
ICQ 31558340
Ian R Malcomson
>You know, all these problems stem from one basic underlying problem: CLASSES. A
>classless game wouldn't have this debate.
Good luck with your new GURPS campaign....
Robert Baldwin
<kla...@rowan.edu> wrote:
>Buttery wrote:
>>
>> Have faith, 2nd edition was rebuilt for no good playing reason, it was
>> primarily done to make money and cater to the power gaming munchkins who
>> were willing to spend every nickel from their paper route on new kits and
>> other crap.
>Excuse me? What?! How about overturning all the "power gamer munchkin"
>stuff
>from Unearthed Arcana?
Which are....?
How about getting rid of 1st ed's vague idea of
>"secondary skill" and expanding on a full blown proficiency system?
And diluting the class concept in the process.
How
>about using changing illusionists to specialist mages and the creation
>of
>all the other specialist mages?
A good idea needing a particular tweak or two.
How about reclassifying druids as
>specialty
>priests and providing some ideas/rules on making other specialty priests
>so
>all clerics wouldn't have to look the same?
An idea started in 1st ed, and incorporated into the new PHB2.
How about providing rules
>for
>other humanoid PC races instead of just half-orc?
Easily done, if desired.
Shall I continue?
If you wish. 2nd ed codified *some* good ideas, but was ay the hell
over-blown by people (LW) who had money-making as the sole (soul?<g>)
goal for TSR.
>I don't think the creation of 2nd edition was done for no good reason.
>I
>think it was needed, it put all the rules into three books (yeah, yeah,
>other book proliferated, but they were *optional expansions* to the
>rules).
Same holds for 1st ed.
I also see the need for some redesign, even though I'm
>relatively
>happy with 2nd edition, I think 3rd will give us a chance to redo some
>rules
>that just don't make sense (like the whole, 'do I need to roll high or
>low?'
>problem).
<snip>
Anyone confused by *that* should stick to Candyland.
--
Saint Baldwin, definer of the unholy darkspawn.
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB].
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Buttery
Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
C'mon, Napoleaon wasn't a fighter, he was a leader, a ruler, far more than a
fighter. Fighters are common, like you said. Napoleon was unique. He
cannot be put into some class for comparison to a role playing character
class.
This post is tiring. I believe that Barbarians should exist, but they
should not be their own class. Any gaming system that cannot do a decent
job of providing the proper proficiencies and skills for a player to choose
from to create a Barbarian type of character is flawed. The human being is
the same species around the world, just as it is in D&D, there is no reason
why all barbarians around the world should have more "hit points" than the
normal fighter. The biggest toughest soldier should have the same amount of
hit points as the biggest toughest "Barbarian" they just come from
different cultures.
Again I state that a good game system should provide the blank canvas of the
warrior class, and all the necessary paints and brushes for you to create
your own warrior, soldier, knight, ranger or barbarian as you see fit. Why
restrict your barbarian by creating a set of rules that restricts his
ability to flow into other areas. Take pride in your own work, don't
require some game to tell you how to make a barbarian.
Buttery
Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
An assassin is simply someone who kills for money. Couldn't a mage be an
assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they would
probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to make an
entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
personally like the idea of assassins, I just see no reason for an assassin
character class.
A barbarian makes sure other PCs aren't screwing around? Sounds like a
Paladin. Climbing into a window and sneaking the captured Princess out
would probably be considered "screwing around" by a barbarian when there are
guards standing at the front gate that need a lesson taught to them?
Ian R Malcomson
>C'mon, Napoleaon wasn't a fighter, he was a leader, a ruler, far more than a
>fighter. Fighters are common, like you said. Napoleon was unique. He
>cannot be put into some class for comparison to a role playing character
>class.
Why not? If we were to make an AD&D translation of Napoleon, the
fighter class would be perfectly suitable.
And, if by "Napoleon was unique...fighters are common" you are saying
that a fighter character created using AD&D cannot be unique, cannot
have a personality, is merely reduced to the brute force & ignorance
merchant you seem to advocate, then I feel sorry for you for you are not
realising the potential of the game.
>This post is tiring.
Because we are exercising our own views, and not kowtowing to your POV?
>I believe that Barbarians should exist, but they
>should not be their own class. Any gaming system that cannot do a decent
>job of providing the proper proficiencies and skills for a player to choose
>from to create a Barbarian type of character is flawed.
Is it, now. Witchcraft is a very good game, and that doesn't allow for
barbarian characters. Rolemaster separates barbarians into a profession
of their own - is that flawed?
I don't think so. Yes, the AD&D game allows players to create barbarian
warriors using the fighter class - I don't deny that. My POV is that a
barbarian class adds more scope and colour to such a class, in the same
way that druids, speciality priests, and specialist wizards do for those
classes.
And, you mention in another post that you believe an assassin class is
irrelevant, citing that assassins are "people that kill". So that just
about sums up every character out there. IMO, assassins are those who
are specially trained in the arts of covert killing, the silent kill,
the ability to slay by having perfected the anatomical knowledge to know
exactly where to put a blade for maximum effect. All others are merely
amateurs...
>The human being is
>the same species around the world, just as it is in D&D, there is no reason
>why all barbarians around the world should have more "hit points" than the
>normal fighter.
Mainly due to the abstract nature of hit points. As far as pure
physical damage is concerned, then yes - barbarians and "civilised
fighters" should have the same capacity. As far as the other parameters
wrapped up in the hit point concept, then I'd argue that many of the
survival instincts that provide these "extra hits" are lost by standard
fighters because of the relatively safe environment they live in.
>Again I state that a good game system should provide the blank canvas of the
>warrior class, and all the necessary paints and brushes for you to create
>your own warrior, soldier, knight, ranger or barbarian as you see fit. Why
>restrict your barbarian by creating a set of rules that restricts his
>ability to flow into other areas. Take pride in your own work, don't
>require some game to tell you how to make a barbarian.
Every barbarian class I've seen, used, or written, with the exception of
one that appeared to want to model the likes of Conan, has provided
enough scope to model a number of different barbarian cultures.
By your argument, should not the cleric class purely provide a blank
canvas to write your particular priest onto? The wizard class to do the
same?
Hell, let's throw out the classes altogether, and reduce AD&D to the
level of GURPS...
Gebhard Blucher
[snips]
> This post is tiring. I believe that Barbarians should exist, but they
> should not be their own class. Any gaming system that cannot do a decent
> job of providing the proper proficiencies and skills for a player to choose
> from to create a Barbarian type of character is flawed. The human being is
> the same species around the world, just as it is in D&D, there is no reason
> why all barbarians around the world should have more "hit points" than the
> normal fighter. The biggest toughest soldier should have the same amount of
> hit points as the biggest toughest "Barbarian" they just come from
> different cultures.
>
> Again I state that a good game system should provide the blank canvas of the
> warrior class, and all the necessary paints and brushes for you to create
> your own warrior, soldier, knight, ranger or barbarian as you see fit. Why
> restrict your barbarian by creating a set of rules that restricts his
> ability to flow into other areas. Take pride in your own work, don't
> require some game to tell you how to make a barbarian.
So you don't believe there should not be separate classes for
Paladins, Rangers, Illusionists (& specialists), Assassins, Druids (&
specialists)? That may not be such a bad idea; but... the game
already has these as separate classes. So why not a barbarian too?
The barbarian is as distinct an archetype in fantasy literature as the
druid or ranger.
GB
William Huggins
terma an "assasin" is somebody who specialises in doing this through
subterfuge. The thieve handbook kit is probably the way to go, I agree with
you that you don't need an entire class for this.
Marmalade Cat
news:rv5rsp...@corp.supernews.com...
> An assassin is simply someone who kills for money.
This shows how little you know about role-playing.
> Couldn't a mage be an
> assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they would
> probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to make
an
> entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
So that you can make the PERFECT assassin. Mages cannot move silently as
stealthily as thieves. Neither can fighters. Neither can priests. In fact,
neither can bards. The thief class is the closest class with assassin-like
qualities. All that need be added is the ability to kill quietly and
quickly. That is why the assassin has the abilities that he has.
> A barbarian makes sure other PCs aren't screwing around? Sounds like a
> Paladin.
Let me give you an example. Say there is a party with a fighter, a priest, a
paladin, a barbarian, a thief, and a mage. The paladin is getting all high
and mighty on the thief because he thinks the thief stole the priest's
silver holy symbol. The mage, priest, fighter, and barbarian have to watch
patiently while the paladin and the thief are squabling. Enter the barbarian
<THWACK!> Paladin is now seeing stars, let the adventure continue...
The barbarian is obviously NOT just some kind of mediator, but he can be if
need be, because I have been in PLENTY of adventures where party members
have been squabling over the stupidest shit. A large axe carried by an 18/95
arm moves the adventure along...
> Climbing into a window and sneaking the captured Princess out
> would probably be considered "screwing around" by a barbarian when there
are
> guards standing at the front gate that need a lesson taught to them?
Um, no not really. Barbarians are quite stealthy, both in history and in
D&D. How do you think they manage to hunt so successfully? You think a
barbarian who is shouting at the top of his lungs through the forest is
going to catch a deer? He would catch shit all. Barbarians, because they
shun large and bulky armor, make less noise. Unlike the fuckin paladin who
is the TRUE problem, because HE will be the one wanting to charge the
gates...
Obviously you haven't much or any experience playing with barbarian
characters. They are extremely fun to play and I personally enjoy having
them in my party (but the magic-user might not!).
Marmalade Cat
> C'mon, Napoleaon wasn't a fighter, he was a leader, a ruler, far more than
a
> fighter. Fighters are common, like you said. Napoleon was unique. He
> cannot be put into some class for comparison to a role playing character
> class.
No! WRONG!!! You just don't think Napoleon was a fighter because he didn't
fight!!! Come on, gimme a fuckin break!!! That just goes to show how
narrow-minded you are about what a fighter is! Just because Napoleon didn't
fight doesn't mean he's not a fighter! He was a MILITARY genius. He knew all
the ropes, and the history of warfare. So did General Patton. Although these
huge historical figues didn't FIGHT per se, they were fighters to the last
drop.
> This post is tiring. I believe that Barbarians should exist, but they
> should not be their own class. Any gaming system that cannot do a decent
> job of providing the proper proficiencies and skills for a player to
choose
> from to create a Barbarian type of character is flawed. The human being
is
> there is no reason
> why all barbarians around the world should have more "hit points" than the
> normal fighter.
Yes there is. In the climate they are supposedly living in, one must be
tougher physically in order to withstand the harsh weather and barbarian
lifestyle. It is a KNOWN FACT that weak babies that could not survive the
temperatures and wilderness were PURPOSEFULLY left "for the gods" because
they would have a very hard time coping with barbarian life. Which is why
barbarians need (in Unearthed Arcana) a SHITLOAD more experience than anyone
else, and quite high ability scores (STR/CON 15+, DEX 14+). Although in the
other post (q.v.) I said I enjoyed the company of barbarians in the party, I
would never be one, because the experience table is frustrating (although it
takes a very good role-player to handle the slow level advancement).
> The biggest toughest soldier should have the same amount of
> hit points as the biggest toughest "Barbarian" they just come from
> different cultures.
Bullshit.
Bryan J. Maloney
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >You know, all these problems stem from one basic underlying problem:
CLASSES. A
> >classless game wouldn't have this debate.
>
> Good luck with your new GURPS campaign....
PS: Be sure to pick up a copy of GURPS Swashbucklers 3rd edition.
Bryan J. Maloney
My objection against the Barbarian class is that it is inborn. DEATH to
inborn character classes!
Henry Link
Napoleon48 <napol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990929215139...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> You know, all these problems stem from one basic underlying problem:
CLASSES. A
> classless game wouldn't have this debate.
Exactly, because we would then no longer be playing D&D, AD&D, or anything
similar...
Henry
Jason Hatter
marmal...@hotmail.spam proclaimed
<OjKI3.936$48....@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>:
>So that you can make the PERFECT assassin. Mages cannot move
>silently as stealthily as thieves. Neither can fighters. Neither
One mage with a flight spell moves far more silently (and at a faster
pace!) than an assassin.
However, to avoid getting into this whole debate again, a class (or,
my preference, a kit) devoted to the assassin makes far more sense
"overall" for an assassin....but any class can be a more effective
*specialized* assassin.
--
Jason
http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Larry Mead
: You know, all these problems stem from one basic underlying problem: CLASSES. A
: classless game wouldn't have this debate.
And wouldn't be Dnd. Classes give the game its unique flavor which i
happen to like.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Ian R Malcomson
>One mage with a flight spell moves far more silently (and at a faster
>pace!) than an assassin.
I can just imagine it...
Araldyte the Wizard floated silently behind Queen Yuhu, dagger poised
for the lethal strike he had been hired to deliver. As eerily noiseless
as a wraith, he moved the dagger forwards...then paused. "What the Hell
am I supposed to do with this thing?" he muttered, casting the lump of
sharpened steel down, suddenly remembering is abject inability to use
any kind of blade. "Bollocks", he worded the arcane ritual, then
frigged off two seconds before the delayed blast fireball gave the Queen
an early cremation...
:-)
Buttery
Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
>
>> An assassin is simply someone who kills for money.
>
>This shows how little you know about role-playing.
>
>
>> Couldn't a mage be an
>> assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they would
>> probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to make
>an
>> entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
>
>neither can bards. The thief class is the closest class with assassin-like
>qualities. All that need be added is the ability to kill quietly and
>quickly. That is why the assassin has the abilities that he has.
>
>> A barbarian makes sure other PCs aren't screwing around? Sounds like a
>> Paladin.
>
>Let me give you an example. Say there is a party with a fighter, a priest,
a
>paladin, a barbarian, a thief, and a mage. The paladin is getting all high
>and mighty on the thief because he thinks the thief stole the priest's
>silver holy symbol. The mage, priest, fighter, and barbarian have to watch
>patiently while the paladin and the thief are squabling. Enter the
barbarian
><THWACK!> Paladin is now seeing stars, let the adventure continue...
Oh yeah, you really know a lot about role playing, great example. Nice
stereotypes on all classes by the way. Do you tell everyone how they are
supposed to play each class?
>
>The barbarian is obviously NOT just some kind of mediator, but he can be if
>need be, because I have been in PLENTY of adventures where party members
>have been squabling over the stupidest shit. A large axe carried by an
18/95
>arm moves the adventure along...
How about a sleep spell from the mage, or a hold person from the priest.
Maybe the barbarian is bitching because someone stole his goat.
>
>> Climbing into a window and sneaking the captured Princess out
>> would probably be considered "screwing around" by a barbarian when there
>are
>> guards standing at the front gate that need a lesson taught to them?
>
>Um, no not really. Barbarians are quite stealthy, both in history and in
>D&D. How do you think they manage to hunt so successfully? You think a
>barbarian who is shouting at the top of his lungs through the forest is
>going to catch a deer? He would catch shit all. Barbarians, because they
>shun large and bulky armor, make less noise. Unlike the fuckin paladin who
>is the TRUE problem, because HE will be the one wanting to charge the
>gates...
>
>Obviously you haven't much or any experience playing with barbarian
>characters. They are extremely fun to play and I personally enjoy having
>them in my party (but the magic-user might not!).
I never said I don't like the barbarian character. I just don't think they
justify their own class. I am an avid fan of the viking and their society
and way of battle. I love barbarians. Again, just don't think that a
separate class is needed to make them work. Good roleplaying can do the
trick.
Buttery
>> C'mon, Napoleaon wasn't a fighter, he was a leader, a ruler, far more
than
>a
>> fighter. Fighters are common, like you said. Napoleon was unique. He
>> cannot be put into some class for comparison to a role playing character
>> class.
>
>No! WRONG!!! You just don't think Napoleon was a fighter because he didn't
>fight!!! Come on, gimme a fuckin break!!! That just goes to show how
>narrow-minded you are about what a fighter is! Just because Napoleon didn't
>fight doesn't mean he's not a fighter! He was a MILITARY genius. He knew
all
>the ropes, and the history of warfare. So did General Patton. Although
these
>huge historical figues didn't FIGHT per se, they were fighters to the last
>drop.
Are you talking about a fighters mentality or physical abilities. Last I
checked, a fighter in AD&D was given the proper physical tools and abilities
to bash skulls. Whether he turned into a combat strategist is an entirely
different story. Why can't a mage have a fighter's mentality and knowledge
of mass combat? I say he can. Napoleon never had the physical skills and
abilities that a fighter gets in this game. But he certainly had a military
mind, no question about that. I am not so narrow minded that I think you
must be a fighter to have a military mind.
>> This post is tiring. I believe that Barbarians should exist, but they
>> should not be their own class. Any gaming system that cannot do a decent
>> job of providing the proper proficiencies and skills for a player to
>choose
>> from to create a Barbarian type of character is flawed. The human being
>is
>
>> there is no reason
>> why all barbarians around the world should have more "hit points" than
the
>> normal fighter.
>
>Yes there is. In the climate they are supposedly living in, one must be
>tougher physically in order to withstand the harsh weather and barbarian
>lifestyle. It is a KNOWN FACT that weak babies that could not survive the\
Aren't we talking about a middle age scenario for all characters here? Wher
e the average peasant grows up in a cold shack with nothing more than a fire
to keep warm? Granted some characters may grow up in a more sheltered
environment, but I never have worked under the illusion that most
"civilized" people are better sheltered than the barbarian. In fact with
larger communities comes more exposure to disease. Most Barbarians would
not have grown up with the amount of deadly bacteria and viruses that exist
in larger communities. It could also be suggested that barbarians may be
less likely to have grown up with a balanced diet, and would be weaker and
less healthy than the more "civilized" person.
It basically comes down to the fact that some people believe in the fantasy
barbarian, while others think its just another human living in a specific
socio-environmental condition.
michael
> Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
> >Buttery <pe...@eastern.net> wrote in message
> >news:rv5rsp...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> How about a sleep spell from the mage, or a hold person from the priest.
> Maybe the barbarian is bitching because someone stole his goat.
his goat??!!
:^{
--michael
Buttery
michael wrote in message <7t0fh5$hav$1...@hornet.fibr.net>...
>Buttery <pe...@eastern.net> wrote in message
>news:rv7b6k...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
>> >Buttery <pe...@eastern.net> wrote in message
>> >news:rv5rsp...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>>[snipped stuff about barbarian mediators]
>> How about a sleep spell from the mage, or a hold person from the priest.
>> Maybe the barbarian is bitching because someone stole his goat.
>
>his goat??!!
You know, the stereotypical barbarian sexual partner, that can alternately
be used as food if the winter gets too harsh.
>:^{
>--michael
>
>
Marmalade Cat
> Are you talking about a fighters mentality or physical abilities. Last I
i am talking about both, you nidget (sic)!!!
> checked, a fighter in AD&D was given the proper physical tools and
abilities
> to bash skulls. Whether he turned into a combat strategist is an entirely
> different story. Why can't a mage have a fighter's mentality and
knowledge
> of mass combat? I say he can. Napoleon never had the physical skills and
> abilities that a fighter gets in this game. But he certainly had a
military
> mind, no question about that. I am not so narrow minded that I think you
> must be a fighter to have a military mind.
He is a fighter because his moves were MILITARY. "Military" has something to
do with fighting, u know... (to talke it down to the simplest level...)
> Aren't we talking about a middle age scenario for all characters here?
Wher
no, we are talking about barbarians in general, throughout time.
> e the average peasant grows up in a cold shack with nothing more than a
fire
> to keep warm? Granted some characters may grow up in a more sheltered
> environment, but I never have worked under the illusion that most
> "civilized" people are better sheltered than the barbarian. In fact with
> larger communities comes more exposure to disease. Most Barbarians would
> not have grown up with the amount of deadly bacteria and viruses that
exist
> in larger communities. It could also be suggested that barbarians may be
> less likely to have grown up with a balanced diet, and would be weaker and
> less healthy than the more "civilized" person.
the barbarian's diet is in direct relation to his environment. if for
example deer is all there is to eat in a certain area, then that is what the
barbarian will eat (and it will not "weaken" him), but barbarians are also
nomadic, making their locations (and thus diets) very varied.
> It basically comes down to the fact that some people believe in the
fantasy
> barbarian, while others think its just another human living in a specific
> socio-environmental condition.
whatever you say fan boy.
Marmalade Cat
> Oh yeah, you really know a lot about role playing, great example. Nice
> stereotypes on all classes by the way. Do you tell everyone how they are
> supposed to play each class?
whatever, it was off the top of my head... couldn't think of anything
original.
and no, i tell people how *not* to play each class :>
> How about a sleep spell from the mage, or a hold person from the priest.
> Maybe the barbarian is bitching because someone stole his goat.
yes and he will deal with it very quickly (kill the person who stole his
goat, and then retrieve the goat, or let the paladin <who loves bureaucratic
bullshit> deal with it...)
> I never said I don't like the barbarian character. I just don't think
they
> justify their own class. I am an avid fan of the viking and their society
> and way of battle. I love barbarians. Again, just don't think that a
> separate class is needed to make them work. Good roleplaying can do the
> trick.
true but if the barbarian doesn't deserve his own class, then why should the
ranger, paladin, specialist priest, etc.? because subtle differences (such
as though the barbarian has, just like the ranger, paladin, etc. do)
Napoleon48
but I'd like to know why. I mean, archetypes could handle it just as well.
Example: Deadlands, it has those nice Archetype pages(Man in Black, Huckster,
Indian Brave etc...) and they successfully carry over the spirit of the game
character wise, while the system also allows you to make a totally unique
character, such as, oh, say a rug merchant. I can't be a rug merchant in
AD&D(well I could...but my class name would be "fighter" or "thief" etc etc not
"rug merchant.") If I had the option of being a rug merchant, and the game
still preserved the fantasy "class" feel(through optional use archetypes) whats
the problem?
Buttery
society
>> and way of battle. I love barbarians. Again, just don't think that a
>> separate class is needed to make them work. Good roleplaying can do the
>> trick.
>
>true but if the barbarian doesn't deserve his own class, then why should
the
>ranger, paladin, specialist priest, etc.? because subtle differences (such
>as though the barbarian has, just like the ranger, paladin, etc. do)
>
The only reason that a ranger or paladin deserve their own class is their
eventual ability to cast spells. It should be possible, however, to create
a "Ranger like" character from the fighter class, without the spell casting
abilities, but so far it isn't, since there is no place to get the move
silently and hide in shadow portion of the ranger class.
Jefferson Krogh
> >Now wait just a minute...I know that Classes give AD&D its nice feel and all,
> >but I'd like to know why. I mean, archetypes could handle it just as well.
> >Example: Deadlands, it has those nice Archetype pages(Man in Black, Huckster,
<snip>
> Perhaps *the* defining part of D&D is found in the class structure. If
> you want a fantasy game that uses archetypes, GURPS provides some, as
> does Earthdawn. The various RQ-based games (as well as RQ itself)
> provide for a classless system that works very well.
>
> To take classes from D&D is to take away one of the factors that makes
> it different from other rpgs.
>
> Unless the aim is to make all rpgs the same. Which I dearly hope never
> happens.
Actually, sometimes I think that IS the aim. If I see another "add your stat to
your skill number" skill system, I think I might throw up. Frankly, RPG design is a
nearly dead art, as everyone is just copying everyone else. All you ever hear on
newsgroups is "you should change your game to make it like (game X which came out
recently)."
The reason I returned to D&D is that it is now the system which is different from
all the rest. Originally, everyone copied it; now, they're all copying each other,
and D&D is its own thing. Ungainly, quirky, and fun as all hell. Take the classes
and levels away, and you may as well play whatever saccharine Brand X which is this
month's flavor.
I used to run Amber, because it was different. I used to run Champions a billion
years ago, when it was different. I explored each until I was satisfied I'd done
everything I wanted to do with it. But I never exhausted D&D. Twenty years later,
and I haven't nearly exhausted everything I want to do with it.
Please, let's not homogenize all the different RPGs. Rather, let's hope someone
soon comes up with a rules set which makes everyone look at RPGs in a new way.
(Anything but "add your stat to your skill number and roll against it/with it/around
it" barf.)
--
Jefferson Krogh, MCSE
IS Manager
Kennerley-Spratling, Inc.
Wizard of VOBs
[snip]
> I just like options. In
> other more on topic words, I'm all for the Barbarian.
I guess I have to say that I like options too. I will most likely think
some of those options are stupid, others I think are great, still
others I will need to rework to fit into my game.
IMO, I prefer a system that gives me options to to dissallow, rather
than having me create it from whole cloth.. that way I know my game is
at least recognizable and somewhat "standardized" with other campaigns.
If you don't like a rule, a class, a power, a spell, an item. well..
don't use it in your game. It is not the end of the world if there is
something in the game that I find either too restrictive or too
munchinesque, because there is no one forcing me to use it in my game.
(I am reminded of thelittle cartoon in an old paranoia GM guide, with
the game police calling out on a bullhorn going after someone using
house rules.. heh).
--
"Never put of 'til tomorrow what you can delegate today"
To contact me remove "N-O~S'P&A`M " from my address
(darn... forgot to set an anti spam on my new browser and id.. sigh)
Darrell King
On Friday, October 1, 1999 at 1:56 am (EDT +4),
hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com wrote:
--SNIP--
. . OA went away for the same reason that Ravenloft and Planescape
did: not enough sales from the line. I doubt they close the door on
the shop for the latter two and then turn around and re-open a line that
they closed for the exact same reason.
--SNIP--
Uhhh...I wouldn't be too sure about that. If you recall, Greyhawk was
also canned due to bad sales; but as of next August, GH will once again
be the 'official' D&D world. Given the hardcore fanaticism that a small
section of gamers has for OA, and the fact that OA--while supported in
earlier 2e--is largely a 1e product, and that
TSR/WotC/Hasbro/whathehellever has said that 3e is trying to re-capture
(somewhat) the feel of 1e (and the original D&D), I wouldn't be too
surprised to see a 3e version of OA (not right off the bat, maybe, but
eventually).
My two cents . . .for what it's worth.
(Probably a cent and a half.)
Thanks for listening.
Darrell King
Ian R Malcomson
>Now wait just a minute...I know that Classes give AD&D its nice feel and all,
>but I'd like to know why. I mean, archetypes could handle it just as well.
>Example: Deadlands, it has those nice Archetype pages(Man in Black, Huckster,
>character wise, while the system also allows you to make a totally unique
>character, such as, oh, say a rug merchant. I can't be a rug merchant in
>AD&D(well I could...but my class name would be "fighter" or "thief" etc etc not
>"rug merchant.") If I had the option of being a rug merchant, and the game
>still preserved the fantasy "class" feel(through optional use archetypes) whats
>the problem?
The problem is exactly how you've just stated it: "Example:
Deadlands"...
Perhaps *the* defining part of D&D is found in the class structure. If
you want a fantasy game that uses archetypes, GURPS provides some, as
does Earthdawn. The various RQ-based games (as well as RQ itself)
provide for a classless system that works very well.
To take classes from D&D is to take away one of the factors that makes
it different from other rpgs.
Unless the aim is to make all rpgs the same. Which I dearly hope never
happens.
--
Robert Baldwin
>You know, all these problems stem from one basic underlying problem: CLASSES. A
>classless game wouldn't have this debate.
Indeed. And it wouldn't be AD&D.
Your point is...?
--
Saint Baldwin, definer of the unholy darkspawn.
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB].
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
>>Brian R. Rimmer <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
>>news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
>>> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
>>them
>>> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
>>> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
>>
>>That is your opinion. Other people might like the assassin and barbarian.
>I,
>>for instance, like both. Assassins are fun, and barbarians make sure the
>>other PCs are not screwing around.
>>
>
>
>An assassin is simply someone who kills for money. Couldn't a mage be an
>assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they would
>probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to make an
>entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
>personally like the idea of assassins, I just see no reason for an assassin
>character class.
<snip>
A thef is just someone who steals. Can't mages steal? Fighters can
steal, too.
Heck, a fighter is just someone who swings a weapon and wears armor
(maybe). *Anyone* can do that.
So, Mages, Clerics and miscellaneous "others" can be our new classes.
Alan D Kohler
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Not necessarily. At base level, a fighter is concerned with fighting,
>>
>>So is a barbarian.
>
>No - a barbarian is more concerned with surviving in the harsh
>environment in which he lives.
Okay, so why then does adding a beserk rage proficiency to a 3rd ed
fighter make it a barbarian? I think you miss-estimate what the *D&D
barbarians are. They are not realistic re-creations of historical
primitive culture. They are beserkers and conan take-offs cast in the
fantasy mold.
>
>>>whereas a barbarian is concerned with protecting his tribe,
>>
>>So is a soldier concerned with protecting his land/village/city.
>
>Unfortunately, the poor old barbarian receives neither training nor pay
>for his task.
I fail to see how that would make the barbarian a more different class
from the base warrior than other members of certain professions in
different cultures. Further, a great many real world soliders received
blessed little in terms of pay for their services - they often fought
to preserve their cities and lives. Finally, just because you are from
a culture on the barter system is not a valid divining line on why
warrior X should be a fighter and warrior Y should be a barbarian.
> It is possible, being a soldier, to have to give your
>life defending a site or ideal you care nothing about.
>
>>>hunting/gathering/producing food,
>>
>>Which are skills/proficiencies.
>
>So is Tracking, but rangers are the unquestioned masters of that. Why
>not have a specialist fighter excel in these survival NWPs, among his
>other abilities?
>
In 3rd edition, all classes have skills that are better for them.
Ranger is no longer unique in this aspect.
>>> and (in some cultures) perhaps raiding
>>>the neighbours.
>>
>>And this describes most standing armies of soldiers throughout
>>history.
>
>There's a difference between raiding for necessities and "the comforts
>of society which we don't have", and raiding because some bloke at the
>top decided country X needed a kick in the balls.
>
Not much. It's just a measure of how far up the chain you go.
>>>IMO, barbarians diverge from the standard fighter in basic definition
>>>enough to warrant a separate class in the same way in which druids do
>>>from clerics.
>>
>>Ah, but druid is just an example of specialty priest. So druids aren't
>>getting anything that special, unlike barbarians vs. most other
>>fighters.
>
>I thought your argument was that barbarians *don't* get anything
>special?
>
Huh?
>And what is not special about being able to shapechange, etc.?
>
Nothing - its just a sample of a priestly special ability AFAIAC.
However, somehow the barbarian beserk ability somehow manages to not
be just an example of a combat manuever. Figure that out.
>>Further, AFAIAC, the cleric is TOO generic and uncapable of
>>representing a variety of religions as fighters can encompass a
>>variety of cultures. In short, that's a whole different ball of wax.
>
>The cleric is not designed to represent a variety of religions. This is
>why, when you look at a campaign setting, so much is dedicated to
>modifying the cleric class (in the manner of speciality priests) in
>order to make them fit.
>
>IMO, the fighter represents generic professional warriors from settings
>loosely based on Western civilisation. In the same way the cleric does
>not cross over well into other cultures, the fighter does not cross over
>that well into Viking, Mongol, Japanese, Chines, Goth, Hun, Amazon
>Indian, Inca, and Indian cultures, among others. The addition of a
>barbarian class, as it did in 1st Ed., goes some way to cover these
>gaps, as do the warrior classes presented in the Oriental Adventures
>rules, the kits in the Al-Qadim rules, and so on.
>
>>>Samurai are another "culture fighter". Yes, Samurai are fighters. But
>>>the culture that produces them differs enough from baseline D&D, making
>>>the differences in class much more than simply "different skill
>>>selection". The same theory applies to barbarians.
>>
>>That theory hasn't applied to Samurai in the *D&D game since first
>>edition.
>
>Nor has the theory that barbarians warrant anything extra than a kit.
>IMO, none of the Oriental kits matched up well to the OA classes from
>which they were derived - which is perhaps why even 2nd Ed. OA modules
>still utilised the OA rules...
>
Glady, I don't see OA as the example that all following class
materials are to be measures against. Like the barbarian, I feel that
many of the classes in OA didn't deserve a separate culture based
class - and this is more true in ever in more modern incarnations of
the *D&D system where you can shape your abilities, such as S&P and
3e.
>What we're seeing is the note that barbarians will reappear as a class
>in 3E. I welcome that. What has not been said, but may be a
>possibility, is that the Oriental Adventures book will come out under
>the 3E line, and re-introduce Samurai, bushi, and all the others to the
>game.
Given TSRs/WOTCs mindset, I doubt that will happen. OA went away for
the same reason that Ravenloft and Planescape did: not enough sales
from the line. I doubt they close the door on the shop for the latter
two and then turn around and re-open a line that they closed for the
exact same reason.
Alan D. Kohler(hawk...@NOSPAM.olg.com)
"I once shot a man in Nepal just to watch him reincarnate." -Wierd Al
Hawkwind's RPG Pages are back at last!
http://members.tripod.com/~hawk_wind/homepage.html
Alan D Kohler
>You know, all these problems stem from one basic underlying problem: CLASSES. A
>classless game wouldn't have this debate.
That's nice. Instead we'd be having debates about which abilities when
combined are the most abusive, and how GMs have to deal with
characters explointing the rules by spending one point on dozens of
skills "just in case," making totally illogical characters, yadda
yadda yadda. Six of one, one half dozen of the other. Now go to the
GURPS newsgroup and tell someone who cares.
Alan D Kohler
wrote:
>Alan D Kohler <hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com> wrote in message
>news:37f143af...@news.olg.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:05:32 -0700, "Brian R. Rimmer"
>> <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote:
>> Assassin in 3rd edition does stink and should be exterminated with
>> extreme prejudice.
>
>I heard that Assassins were not going to be in the Player's Handbook, but
>were going to be an "optional" class in the DMG.
I heard that as well. And in my campaign, there they will stay.
Alan D Kohler
<marmal...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
>Brian R. Rimmer <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
>news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
>> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
>them
>> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
>> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
>
>That is your opinion. Other people might like the assassin and barbarian.
And lots of people who like assassins and barbarians could do a fine
job just picking the appropriate skills.
Alan D Kohler
<marmal...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
>Buttery <pe...@eastern.net> wrote in message
>news:rv5rsp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> An assassin is simply someone who kills for money.
>
>This shows how little you know about role-playing.
Non sequitir.
>
>
>> Couldn't a mage be an
>> assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they would
>> probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to make
>an
>> entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
>
>So that you can make the PERFECT assassin. Mages cannot move silently as
>stealthily as thieves.
Why not? Both of those skills are selectable by any class in 3e. Which
drives home the point: why the hell do we need an assassin class?
Assassins are thieves (who already have stealth and ambush abilities)
with a souped up ambush ability and spellcasting. Sounds like munchkin
bait to me.
Alan D Kohler
<willh...@kda.attmil.ne.jp> wrote:
>True anybody who kills for money could be considerd an assasin. In AD&D
>terma an "assasin"
Not anymore. Under 3e they cast spells. Tell me that's fair!
Napoleon48
I goto GURPS contemptously, i'll never know. I like D&D, don't get me wrong. (I
also like other games, however.) I do feel D&D could use an extensive overhaul,
with a more skill based system.(3rd supposedly handles that nicely), a better
Magic system, and well, more classes. Bring the Monks, the Assasins, the
Barbarians on! Bring me Samurai, Crusaders and Shamans. I just like options. In
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
> difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
> class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
> fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
So are rangers essentially, and paladins under this logic are just
fighter/priests. And druids are just priests of nature, and whats the point
of all those slimy specialist wizards. And that damn thief/mage they call a
bard?
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
> >enough to warrant a separate class in the same way in which druids do
> >from clerics.
> >
>
> Ah, but druid is just an example of specialty priest. So druids aren't
> getting anything that special, unlike barbarians vs. most other
> fighters.
And barbarians are just 'specialty fighters' like rangers and paladins.
> Further, AFAIAC, the cleric is TOO generic and uncapable of
> representing a variety of religions as fighters can encompass a
> variety of cultures. In short, that's a whole different ball of wax.
The fact that they (clerics) are so generic is what allows them to be
adapted to any religion.
> >Samurai are another "culture fighter". Yes, Samurai are fighters. But
> >the culture that produces them differs enough from baseline D&D, making
> >the differences in class much more than simply "different skill
> >selection". The same theory applies to barbarians.
>
> That theory hasn't applied to Samurai in the *D&D game since first
> edition.
True, the Samurai got relegated to a fighter 'kit' instead of its own class,
but in 3rd edition kits are being eliminated and class-building is
supposedly easier, so Samurai will probably be popping up all over the place
after the 3rd ed DMG comes out (and possibly before). Personally I'd rather
see them have official rules so that a mangled collection of horrid house
rules doesn't pop up, and the same goes for the barbarian, and the monk as
well.
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
> >environment in which he lives.
>
>
> sheep, and hunting for food for his mother? Do all people who grew up in
> harsh environments have to be barbarians? It sounds like your mind is
stuck
> in barbarian blind gear.
Do all people who don't grow up in harsh environments have to be fighters?
> >
> >So is Tracking, but rangers are the unquestioned masters of that. Why
> >not have a specialist fighter excel in these survival NWPs, among his
> >other abilities?
>
> The perfect barbarian would be a fighter who prefers leather and furs as
> armor, and has the hunting and cold climate survival non-weapon
> proficiencies. How the hell does this create a different character class?
> You can tell me that you believe there is a philosophical difference, but
in
> game terms, there isn't a practical difference. A barbarian can be
created
> from a fighter class by selecting barbarian type armor weapons and skills.
> Just like a knight or cavalier can be done in the same fashion.
Yes, you could simply make a barbarian like that, but according to many
fantasy sources, the barbarian-type character is also more rugged than your
normal-type, and possibly (in some cases) more resistant to magic out of
disbelief or sheer orneriness. So you then make the barbarian by
restricting its armor and weapons, and possibly lowering its charisma for
purposes of dealing with civilised folk, give it some sort of HP bonus, and
a form of Magic Resistance or saving throw bonus. So its a fighter with
disadvantages and perks related to its culture, and its also become its own
class at this point.
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
> >> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
> >them
> >> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
> >> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
> >
> >That is your opinion. Other people might like the assassin and barbarian.
>
> And lots of people who like assassins and barbarians could do a fine
> job just picking the appropriate skills.
As could those lots of people who like playing rangers, and those Lawful
Good Fighter/Priests they call Paladins.
Ian R Malcomson
>Why not? Both of those skills are selectable by any class in 3e.
So who is going to be better in the subterfuge department? Wizard or
thief?
The thief. Of course.
And the assassin'll top them all for the knife in the back routine.
Robert Baldwin
D Kohler) wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 02:20:38 GMT, "Marmalade Cat"
><marmal...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
>
>>Brian R. Rimmer <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
>>news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
>>> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
>>them
>>> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
>>> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
>>
>>That is your opinion. Other people might like the assassin and barbarian.
>
>And lots of people who like assassins and barbarians could do a fine
>job just picking the appropriate skills.
So, drop the skill system and bring back the classes. That's *two*
improvements.
Brian R. Rimmer
Ian R Malcomson <i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1hkRnNAI...@domicus.demon.co.uk...
>
> >That's all well and good. But for the most part, what is the real
> >difference between a barbarian and a fighter? Culture. Does any other
> >class have different divisions for culture? No. Barbarians are
> >fighters with a different skill selection, or at least they should be.
>
> the neighbours.
a role playing matter. That is a players choice, how to play a character
conception. It should not be codified into a seperate class.
Brian R. Rimmer
>
>
> >>Not necessarily. At base level, a fighter is concerned with fighting,
> >
>
> No - a barbarian is more concerned with surviving in the harsh
> environment in which he lives.
Both can assumed to have been brought up on the field of battle.
>
> >>whereas a barbarian is concerned with protecting his tribe,
> >
> >So is a soldier concerned with protecting his land/village/city.
>
> Unfortunately, the poor old barbarian receives neither training nor pay
> for his task.
He recieves honor and status amongst his people; the chance for a good
marriage and hearth.
> It is possible, being a soldier, to have to give your
> life defending a site or ideal you care nothing about.
The PC fighter is not neccessarily a soldier or a trained duelist.
The PC fighter is merely an effective fighter.
>
> >>hunting/gathering/producing food,
> >
> >Which are skills/proficiencies.
>
> So is Tracking, but rangers are the unquestioned masters of that. Why
> not have a specialist fighter excel in these survival NWPs, among his
> other abilities?
Why not make a ranger and call it a barbarian?
>
> >> and (in some cultures) perhaps raiding
> >>the neighbours.
> >
> >And this describes most standing armies of soldiers throughout
> >history.
>
> There's a difference between raiding for necessities and "the comforts
> of society which we don't have", and raiding because some bloke at the
> top decided country X needed a kick in the balls.
Not too much difference to the victims.
>
> >>IMO, barbarians diverge from the standard fighter in basic definition
> >>enough to warrant a separate class in the same way in which druids do
> >>from clerics.
> >
> >Ah, but druid is just an example of specialty priest. So druids aren't
> >getting anything that special, unlike barbarians vs. most other
> >fighters.
>
> I thought your argument was that barbarians *don't* get anything
> special?
>
> And what is not special about being able to shapechange, etc.?
When compared to being able to eventually use every priest spell?
>
> >Further, AFAIAC, the cleric is TOO generic and uncapable of
> >representing a variety of religions as fighters can encompass a
> >variety of cultures. In short, that's a whole different ball of wax.
>
> The cleric is not designed to represent a variety of religions. This is
> why, when you look at a campaign setting, so much is dedicated to
> modifying the cleric class (in the manner of speciality priests) in
> order to make them fit.
>
> IMO, the fighter represents generic professional warriors from settings
> loosely based on Western civilisation. In the same way the cleric does
> not cross over well into other cultures, the fighter does not cross over
> that well into Viking, Mongol, Japanese, Chines, Goth, Hun, Amazon
> Indian, Inca, and Indian cultures, among others. The addition of a
> barbarian class, as it did in 1st Ed., goes some way to cover these
> gaps, as do the warrior classes presented in the Oriental Adventures
> rules, the kits in the Al-Qadim rules, and so on.
The kits were pretty good ideas. Still, I would as soon leave the extra
classes out altogether, and force my GM to create them if they are needed.
The barbarian class from UNearthed Arcana also did not cross too many
cultural lines. I still prefere latitude with my roleplay than a formal
offical rules approach.
>
> >>Samurai are another "culture fighter". Yes, Samurai are fighters. But
> >>the culture that produces them differs enough from baseline D&D, making
> >>the differences in class much more than simply "different skill
> >>selection". The same theory applies to barbarians.
> >
> >That theory hasn't applied to Samurai in the *D&D game since first
> >edition.
>
> Nor has the theory that barbarians warrant anything extra than a kit.
> IMO, none of the Oriental kits matched up well to the OA classes from
> which they were derived - which is perhaps why even 2nd Ed. OA modules
> still utilised the OA rules...
>
> What we're seeing is the note that barbarians will reappear as a class
> in 3E. I welcome that. What has not been said, but may be a
> possibility, is that the Oriental Adventures book will come out under
> the 3E line, and re-introduce Samurai, bushi, and all the others to the
> game.
I would rather see a more general official write up on the four basic
character classes in the core rules book, and then either some good rules
for making new classes, or guidelines for creating balanced kits. Maybe even
accessories that are culture specific, though that may not look so good from
a business aspect.
Brian R. Rimmer
Buttery <pe...@eastern.net> wrote in message
news:rv5rif...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
> >Ian R Malcomson <i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:r+00CPBQ...@domicus.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> >Ok so you are saying that anyone who grows up in a barbarian culture
> >can't
> >> >be a fighter, but must be a barbarian instead?
> >>
> >> If the culture is described thus, then yes.
> >>
> >> >You also have some brainlock
> >> >that makes you think that the generic fighter class is a proffesional
> >> >warrior. Let me explain this in real simple terms, here are the
classes
> >and
> >> >what they do:
> >>
> >> Do not patronise me.
> >
> >hahaha well said.
> >
> >>
> >> <Snip>
> >>
> >> >Fighters: Believe that brute force, and bodily harm, can solve most
> >> >problems. Use weapons and wear armor to "conduct business".
> >>
> >> That is a very, very limited view of the fighter. Fighters do not
> >> necessarily "believe that brute force, and bodily harm" is the best way
> >> to solve a problem. They are more highly trained to act where such
> >> solutions are necessary (yes, fighters must *train* - they are
> >> professional warriors in the same way that wizards are professional
> >> spell casters) than the other classes, but this should not limit their
> >> options.
> >
> >I agree. In real life there have been an EXTREMELY wide variety of
> >personalities that could be classified in D&D terms as "fighters". In
fact,
> >there are more fighter personalities than there are for any other class,
> >which makes them the most widely varied class in any role playing game,
in
> >any time period. I know that what I am saying has nothing to do with "the
> >difference between a fighter and a barbarian" but I would just like to
> point
> >out that while barbarians only have five or six personality types (the
> >big-ass guy with a huge axe/hammer; the sneaky barbarian who uses brain
> >isntead of brawn, etc.) Fighters do not necessarily believe in bodily
harm.
> >Napoleon was a fighter. Did he believe that "bodily harm can fix most
> >problems"? Gimme a break. Every fighter is a PERSON, not JUST a stamped
> >template. If one plays a fighter like a stamped template, then they
should
> >think again.
> >
>
>
> C'mon, Napoleaon wasn't a fighter, he was a leader, a ruler, far more than
a
> fighter. Fighters are common, like you said. Napoleon was unique. He
> cannot be put into some class for comparison to a role playing character
> class.
>
> This post is tiring. I believe that Barbarians should exist, but they
> should not be their own class. Any gaming system that cannot do a decent
> job of providing the proper proficiencies and skills for a player to
choose
> from to create a Barbarian type of character is flawed. The human being
is
> the same species around the world, just as it is in D&D, there is no
reason
> why all barbarians around the world should have more "hit points" than the
> normal fighter. The biggest toughest soldier should have the same amount
of
> hit points as the biggest toughest "Barbarian" they just come from
> different cultures.
>
> Again I state that a good game system should provide the blank canvas of
the
> warrior class, and all the necessary paints and brushes for you to create
> your own warrior, soldier, knight, ranger or barbarian as you see fit.
Why
> restrict your barbarian by creating a set of rules that restricts his
> ability to flow into other areas. Take pride in your own work, don't
> require some game to tell you how to make a barbarian.
>
>
>
Brian R. Rimmer
I would still rather play GURPS.
Napoleon48 <napol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990930180034...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
Brian R. Rimmer
role-players need no additional crutches. Less skilled rp'ers should use
kits or classes designed ( or approved ) by their GM. What I do not like is
the arguments when I have to tell a player the they may not play assassin or
barbarian classes, but must role-play their career choices.
Buttery <pe...@eastern.net> wrote in message
news:rv5rsp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Marmalade Cat wrote in message ...
> >Brian R. Rimmer <23sk...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
> >news:rv0870...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
> >> barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated
> >them
> >> from Unearthed Arcana. I think they are useless classes that can be
> >> duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
> >
> >That is your opinion. Other people might like the assassin and barbarian.
> I,
> >for instance, like both. Assassins are fun, and barbarians make sure the
> >other PCs are not screwing around.
> >
>
>
> An assassin is simply someone who kills for money. Couldn't a mage be an
> assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they would
> probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to make
an
> entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
> personally like the idea of assassins, I just see no reason for an
assassin
> character class.
>
> A barbarian makes sure other PCs aren't screwing around? Sounds like a
> Paladin. Climbing into a window and sneaking the captured Princess out
> would probably be considered "screwing around" by a barbarian when there
are
> guards standing at the front gate that need a lesson taught to them?
>
>
>
>
Brian R. Rimmer
Marmalade Cat <marmal...@hotmail.spam> wrote in message
news:OjKI3.936$48....@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
And this shows how little YOU know.
>
>
> > Couldn't a mage be an
> > assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they would
> > probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to make
> an
> > entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
>
> So that you can make the PERFECT assassin. Mages cannot move silently as
> stealthily as thieves. Neither can fighters. Neither can priests. In fact,
> neither can bards. The thief class is the closest class with assassin-like
> qualities. All that need be added is the ability to kill quietly and
> quickly. That is why the assassin has the abilities that he has.
If your GM wants you to play the PERFECT assassin, don't you think that they
would allow you to make one?
>
> > A barbarian makes sure other PCs aren't screwing around? Sounds like a
> > Paladin.
>
> Let me give you an example. Say there is a party with a fighter, a priest,
a
> paladin, a barbarian, a thief, and a mage. The paladin is getting all high
> and mighty on the thief because he thinks the thief stole the priest's
> silver holy symbol. The mage, priest, fighter, and barbarian have to watch
> patiently while the paladin and the thief are squabling. Enter the
barbarian
> <THWACK!> Paladin is now seeing stars, let the adventure continue...
Don't bring it in my game. I allow the players to police thier own group. I
do not keep them from killing another player just for the sake of the story.
If I were playing in the group with your barabarian and he pulled that shit,
I gaurantee his lifespan would become a great deal shorter.
Sea Wasp
> If your GM wants you to play the PERFECT assassin, don't you think that they
> would allow you to make one?
Sure. Of course, then I as a GM have designed an Assassin class.
D&D is, and has always been, a Class-based game. While there are some
reasonable arguments against calling the Barbarian a class, the same
arguments don't hold water for the Assassin. In point of fact the
arguments against assassins can be used against thieves or fighters with
equal facility.
If you take those arguments seriously, then you should basically
eliminate classes. That's fine, but then it's not D&D anymore; there's a
number of games that do just that.
In my view, a Character Class is a reasonable thing to make for any
group of skills OR powers OR odd backgrounds which could be reasonably
expected to be commonly played. Barbarians, a la Conan, fit that
requirement. Straight fighters, druids, mages, rangers, paladins,
thieves, assassins, monks, and so on all fit that requirement. So I'm in
favor of the additional classes. Plus they're well-designed in Third Ed.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Dave
> Ian R Malcomson <i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rr6knEAq...@domicus.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > >
> > >Which are skills/proficiencies.
> >
> > So is Tracking, but rangers are the unquestioned masters of that. Why
> > not have a specialist fighter excel in these survival NWPs, among his
> > other abilities?
>
> Why not make a ranger and call it a barbarian?
Why have a ranger at all, since it too can be approximated by using a
fighter with proper skills and role-playing?
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
> Of course it is my opinion. I posted the message. My opinion is that good
> role-players need no additional crutches. Less skilled rp'ers should use
> kits or classes designed ( or approved ) by their GM. What I do not like
is
> the arguments when I have to tell a player the they may not play assassin
or
> barbarian classes, but must role-play their career choices.
What I don't like is when my players argue with me about how a class I
developed should work, or how some of them won't play a class/race that
isn't defined officially in a book. But my arguments with my players have
no bearing on this conversation, just as your arguments with your players
doesn't either.
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
> > > Couldn't a mage be an
> > > assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they
would
> > > probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to
make
> > an
> > > entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people? I
> >
> > So that you can make the PERFECT assassin. Mages cannot move silently as
> > stealthily as thieves. Neither can fighters. Neither can priests. In
fact,
> > neither can bards. The thief class is the closest class with
assassin-like
> > qualities. All that need be added is the ability to kill quietly and
> > quickly. That is why the assassin has the abilities that he has.
>
they
> would allow you to make one?
Ahh, but since the GM isn't the one playing the character, it shouldn't
really matter what he wants you to play. Also, say you DID want to play the
assassin and there were no rules for it... how costly is it going to be to
bribe your GM into making rules for the class? Just how many bags of
cheetos will it take before his omnipotent appettite is sated?
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>I have heard that the 3rd ed classes will include a new assassin and
>barbarian class. I really hope that this is not truly the case. I hated them
>from Unearthed Arcana.
The Assassin was in the 1st ed PHB by the way.
While I agree that the 1st ed versions weren't good that doesn't mean that the
3rd ed version can't be.
The 3rd ed assassin is not just a thief with a disguise ability, according to
Neverwinter nights it's a character with some stealth ability and some magical
ability.
I don't know what the 3rd ed Barbarian will be like but I assume that it will be
more balanced than the 1st ed version.
>I think they are useless classes that can be
>duplicated by good role-play and thoughtful character creation.
The original Barbarian cannot be duplicated by another class. You _can_ get a
warrior who is close in feel to the original Barbarian by choosing the right
NWPs and a bit of roleplaying. But it can't be an exact match.
The original Assassin can be done as a thief with disguise NWP with the only
losses being the Assassination table (good) and the ability to speak alignment
tongues (which are generally not used in 2nd ed)
The 3rd ed Assassin could _possibly_ be done as a mage/thief with limited spell
selection but I don't know how well it would work.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Mad Hamish
>I have played with an assasin in the party. It's not good knowing that a
>neutral evil killer armed with poison is hanging with you.
Presumably the other characters didn't know he was NE.
> I also didn't
>like it when I allowed one of my players to be one(before I played with
>one) because the player ALWAYS wanted more powerful poison ans such.
And you are under no obligation to give him any poisons at all. If he wants to
take risks then that's fine. I sure wouldn't want to be wandering around with
poison too often....
> I
>have decided that this class will stay in the DM's guide and will be for
>the DM only.
Werebat
>
> > > > Couldn't a mage be an
> > > > assassin? Or a thief with an evil streak, or even a fighter, they
> would
> > > > probably make real good assassins. Why the hell is it necessary to
> make
> > > an
> > > > entirely separate class just so you can get paid to kill people?
> > > So that you can make the PERFECT assassin. Mages cannot move silently as
> > > stealthily as thieves. Neither can fighters. Neither can priests. In
> fact,
> > > neither can bards.
Pardon? Sound Bubble, Invisibility, (maybe Fly, Strength, Haste, and
other spells to taste) and Voila! One BAD MUTHA. And a Bard who chooses
to focus on moving silently and hiding in shadows, is free to do so.
Anyway, the Druid is the TRUE master assassin of 2nd Ed. (DO NOT MESS
WITH DRUIDS!!! They will run away and then come back when you aren't
looking, armed with all manner of nasty things. You will find yourself
drawing a bead on every crow and squirrel that wanders your way, breaking
out into a sweat and wondering... Is that REALLY a cute little animal?
Or is it...? And then you will die, and you won't ever see what hit
you.)
An assassin is someone who is paid to kill people. Boom. An assassin
kit/class/whatever is fine, but if you limit the term "assassin" to that
particular character type, then what, pray tell, do you call a mage who
hires himself out as a hit man?
> The thief class is the closest class with
> assassin-like
> > > qualities.
Right on. And therefore the assassin should be a rogue "kit".
Before 1st Editioners get their panties in a bunch over kits, remember
that the 1st Edition Assassin is really a subclass of the Thief.
- Ron ^*^
--
"Get your priorities straight, Debbie. Your spiritual growth through the
game is more important than some lousy loser's life."
- Ms. Frost, "Dark Dungeons"
Gebhard Blucher
> An assassin is someone who is paid to kill people. Boom. An assassin
> kit/class/whatever is fine, but if you limit the term "assassin" to that
> particular character type, then what, pray tell, do you call a mage who
> hires himself out as a hit man?
There's assassins, then there's Assassins. Just like a there're
thieves and Thieves. Stealing makes you a thief, not a Thief. Why
should killing for payment make you an Assassin?
> Before 1st Editioners get their panties in a bunch over kits, remember
> that the 1st Edition Assassin is really a subclass of the Thief.
And the Ranger is a subclass of the Fighter. Is a Ranger not a valid
class?
GB
SirAyastar
>Pardon? Sound Bubble, Invisibility, (maybe Fly, Strength, Haste, >and other
spells to taste) and Voila! One BAD MUTHA. And a
>Bard who chooses to focus on moving silently and hiding in
>shadows, is free to do so.
You're slipping, Bards don't get MS\HS. Well the damn silly 'Class'
from 1st did, but well...yea. If bards did have such abilities the
agruements for an Assassin class would get weaker IMO. They have
good weapon choice, stealth and a bit of magic. The magic is
excessive for an assassin and they're still saddled with that crappy
thief thac0.
--
"Nobody ever said anything worth Quoting" --Anonymous
Return my address to its undiluted capitalist state from
its present misguided state, go ahead the computer
says you should and the computer is your friend...Right?
Werebat
>
> Ron (The one, The only?) wrote:
>
> >Pardon? Sound Bubble, Invisibility, (maybe Fly, Strength, Haste, >and other
> spells to taste) and Voila! One BAD MUTHA. And a
> >Bard who chooses to focus on moving silently and hiding in
> >shadows, is free to do so.
>
> You're slipping, Bards don't get MS\HS.
Ooops! You are right. Still, who needs it when you have invis. and fly
or sound bubble?
> Well the damn silly 'Class'
> from 1st did, but well...yea. If bards did have such abilities the
> agruements for an Assassin class would get weaker IMO. They have
> good weapon choice, stealth and a bit of magic. The magic is
> excessive for an assassin and they're still saddled with that crappy
> thief thac0.
>
> --
> "Nobody ever said anything worth Quoting" --Anonymous
>
> Return my address to its undiluted capitalist state from
> its present misguided state, go ahead the computer
> says you should and the computer is your friend...Right?
--
Jason Eric Nelson
If you like bookoo classes, check out my website at:
www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/8940/nelson/nelson.htm
Over a hundred classes and sub-classes/kits; the whole set is there except for
Druids (which I have finished but haven't gotten around to putting up) and
Psionicists (who will have to wait until after I move and maybe until Winter
Break, when I'm off from school). Hopefully you can find something useful or
interesting for your use there. The class types there are all balanced with
regard to one another, are all good at something, and are conceptually distinct
and unique (though in some cases you see alternate representations of somewhat
similar concepts, especially those which bridge between two archetypes--e.g.,
the religious-militant character, represented on the Priest side by the Crusader
class & kits and on the Warrior side by the Paladin class & kits, plus a
smattering of allied characters under Cavalier, Ranger, Cleric, and other
classes).
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Coke - He's the real thing"