|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:07AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
The "magical" barbarian should be a option, a speciality or subclass. A primal spellcaster-warrior wouldn´t be a true D&D barbarian but other class, a (4th ed) warden or with other name like skin-walker or nahual (too diferent to druid and shaman because it is a warrior class with some primal tricks). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagual
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:08AM
#32
|
|
|
The "magical" barbarian should be a option, a speciality or subclass.
A primal spellcaster-warrior wouldn´t be a true D&D barbarian but other class, a (4th ed) warden or with other name like skin-walker or nahual (too diferent to druid and shaman because it is a warrior class with some primal tricks).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagual
I'm pretty sure that's where the druid is heading in this edition :P The primal spellcaster/warrior.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:14AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
There are a few ways for this to happen and I would be happy, and many that I would see as unfit.
I want a guy that can get angry, and do nothing other than just be really really damned angry, and hit things really hard. No protecting his team, none of that. Just anger and hitting things really hard. As he progresses, his rage takes on supernatural proportions - something like the hulk - but there is no "I commune with nature" sort of thing. (I think this would be best seen as a striker fighter build with no defender mechanics).
I also want a guy that does commune with nature, using natural energies - the storms, the animals, the elements - to enhance his fighting and/or spellcasting. Maybe he can scream and lightning come out of his mouth, maybe he can use the rage of the dire boar, whatever. (I think this could easily be called a "barbarian" but might just overlap with the druid somehow).
In addition, I kind of want a guy that is super in-tune with nature, like butterflies land on him when he is still, and he knows how to speak tree. Like he has conversations with willow trees, that's how in-tune with nature. He can take the form of animals, he can cast lengthy rituals to do cool things, he can call upon the wrath of nature to do his work for him. (I think this is the more how the druid should be).
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:24AM
#34
|
|
|
I like barbarians as the place for all the sorts of things that are usually depicted as mostly non-magical but which are clearly outside the realm of meaningfully possible. (Monks fall in a similar place for me.) For example, the idea that a person can stomp their foot or slam the ground with their weapon and create a rumbling or a shockwave that dazes or knocks down creatures around them is hugely common, but I'm fairly certain that that's not something that's even close to plausible. That's the kind of thing that I think the barbarian should center around. Other things in this category include crazy resiliance in the face of debilitating blows and war cries with supernatural-seeming effects. The idea of raging itself also sort of goes here.
I see this as sort of the center point for barbarians, with room on either side for things like power attacking on the left and overtly magical effects on the right, but I guess if I had to pick one design swatch for Barbarians, it'd be to think about things that are kind of in the ground slam/warcry space.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:31AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
A primal spellcaster-warrior wouldn´t be a true D&D barbarian but other class, a (4th ed) warden or with other name like skin-walker or nahual (too diferent to druid and shaman because it is a warrior class with some primal tricks).
So, what you are suggesting, essentially, is that a player who wants to be "everything barbarian does, but I turn into a bear while raging" should be forced to play an entirely different and possibly nonexistant class instead?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:35AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I'd split the class
The Barbarian is the emotion and raw talent warrior.
The warden is the primal magical warrior (absorbing the 4e Barbarian)
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:49AM
#37
|
|
|
I think "Berserker" could simply be a subbuild of the fighter as the completely martial get angry fighter.
Barbarian could be a mix of martial and primal that is more than just a fighter who gets angry.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:53AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
Personal preference - I don't like the supernatural, primal powered barbarian. I much prefer the berserker kit style of barbarian.
In the end though, there should be availability of both and I think the mechanics can be the same and divorced of fluff.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,
That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion
Make yourselves scabs?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:58AM
#39
|
|
|
Why not have a class that can account for both?
Because that is the simple logical answer and invades on people's ability to argue.
Seriously though, this works as an answer for almost all the classes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 10:13AM
#40
|
|
|
I think a good approach would be to create a barbarian / berserker fighting style for the Fighter, along with related maneuvers to represent the martial, non-magical get-angry fighting guy. If the Fighter had other class related abilities that were tied to their Fighting Style, they could also be tailored towards the light-armored warrior (4e did this often by providing AC bonuses when they wanted to encourage fighting in lighter armor).
That done, I would then create a magical / supernatural class to represent the barbarian that derives its power from primal sources (or however that is described). I think there is enough existing mechanics from previous editions to make an interesting class out of this idea, just like how the Monk pulls in quite a few interesting abilities to go along wth its hand-to-hand martial combat style. Of course, I would also create a brawler fighting style for the Fighter as well.
Players that want to play a non-magical get-angry guy can use the Fighter with the Berserker fighting style and those that want a primal warrior can have a class to handle that.
|
|
|
