Another Barbarian (Please Review)

[jferngler]

Barbarian:

Good BAB, 1d8 HP, Saves as Cleric, Critical hits as Warrior

Proficiencies: All armor and shields; All knives, swords, axes.

If unarmored (shields count as armor): Barbarian can add Stamina bonus, if any, to AC in addition to Dex mod. Speed increases 5'.

Song of Battle: For each enemy slain in battle damage is reduced by one, up to character level, until the fighting is over.

Trust No Weavers of the Dark Arts: Any offensive magic that targets the barbarian provokes a maddened rage, which lasts until the caster is beyond reach (dead or fled), or the barbarian is reduced to zero hp, or slain. The barbarian gains 1 temporary hp for each enemy killed while maddened, but must always attack towards the magic user who initially provoked.

To the Death: Barbarians reduced to zero hp may choose to continue fighting for 2+character level rounds, or until the battle is over. At the end of the allotted time, the barbarian dies, and cannot be recovered with a luck roll.

[TheNobleDrake]

Interesting class... though I have questions regarding a few details:

1) What do you mean by "good BAB" - there are currently 5 different patterns by which attack bonus increases - Wizard, Elf, Cleric & Thief, Halfling, Dwarf & Warrior, in order from least to greatest.

2) "CL" is a common abbreviation for caster level... you are meaning to use it as character level, right?

3) To the Death allows 3+ additional rounds of fighting on regardless of HP total - how does healing the barbarian during that time interact with this? Why a different amount of time spent fighting than other classes get "bleeding to death"? With no ceiling to the ability to shrug off damage and keep fighting, doesn't that open the door to many incredibly ridiculous scenarios? (example: the barbarian, knowing he is about to die, flings himself into the lava pool, swims across, climbs out the other side and engages the powerful volcano dragon in melee combat, taking repeated critical hits as the dragon gnashes, claws, crushes, and repeatedly flings the barbarian back into the roiling molten caldera... but since that was only 6 rounds of action, the 8th level barbarian still has 4 more rounds time to fight.)

Also, while I understand the thematic choice to prevent recovery of the body since the character has obviously fought until truly dead... but then, why would a player ever actually use To the Death? Wanting to keep fighting is not, in my experience, enough of an incentive for a player to say "yes - I want to fight for up to 5 more rounds and then never play this character again."

4) In general, I feel the class abilities are far more benefit than what you can say was "given up" in comparison to being a warrior.

[jferngler]

To the Death allows 3+ additional rounds of fighting on regardless of HP total - how does healing the barbarian during that time interact with this? Why a different amount of time spent fighting than other classes get "bleeding to death"? With no ceiling to the ability to shrug off damage and keep fighting, doesn't that open the door to many incredibly ridiculous scenarios? (example: the barbarian, knowing he is about to die, flings himself into the lava pool, swims across, climbs out the other side and engages the powerful volcano dragon in melee combat, taking repeated critical hits as the dragon gnashes, claws, crushes, and repeatedly flings the barbarian back into the roiling molten caldera... but since that was only 6 rounds of action, the 8th level barbarian still has 4 more rounds time to fight.)

Also, while I understand the thematic choice to prevent recovery of the body since the character has obviously fought until truly dead... but then, why would a player ever actually use To the Death? Wanting to keep fighting is not, in my experience, enough of an incentive for a player to say "yes - I want to fight for up to 5 more rounds and then never play this character again."

Doing laundry and thinking about a specific barbarian class, I didn't think about the literal interpretation of the rule coming into play. If the judge wants to let a guy jump into lava and swim around, then I suppose that's their business. I don't think that would be the case in the main, however. So how's this for a slightly less ridiculous scenario: That 8th level barbarian, probably the best barbarian in the world if the rules are to be believed, along with a group of similar wunderkind, encounters a magma dragon the party can't defeat. They also can't easily escape. The barbarian, hurt probably to death anyway if To the Death is an option the player is considering, chooses to sacrifice his life to buy his companions time to flee. It's a mechanic for narrative storytelling. Perhaps it's unnecessary, but it sounds pretty durn epic to me.

What do you mean by "good BAB" - there are currently 5 different patterns by which attack bonus increases - Wizard, Elf, Cleric & Thief, Halfling, Dwarf & Warrior, in order from least to greatest.

I had in mind the third edition fighter progression, character level as base attack bonus. I have nothing against the 1d3 progression of the dwarf and the warrior. I love the deed die! But the barbarian above is hitting less often, but more brutally when the hits do land. Perhaps you have some ideas as to how to go about doing that? I think giving the barbarian the same crit progression as the warrior is a good start.

Ultimately, I want this class to function similar to the warrior, but without usurping the deed die mechanic that makes the warrior really exemplary. The barbarian doesn't get the flashy moves, the barbarian bashes into the fight, and bashes until the fight is over. I think the above does a good job of illustrating that mindset.

What do you think? I just threw this up earlier and asked for you all to read it without explaining the intent behind what I was doing. Does it makes sense, or am I needlessly complicating things?

[TheNobleDrake]

Doing laundry and thinking about a specific barbarian class, I didn't think about the literal interpretation of the rule coming into play. If the judge wants to let a guy jump into lava and swim around, then I suppose that's their business. I don't think that would be the case in the main, however.

Allow me to refocus my comment, as it was not so much about what a judge might actually allow but about how there is a clear opportunity to put a simple limit (other than just time) on how much abuse a barbarian can use To the Death to fight through - some examples: 20 extra hit points; fight through any amount of HP damage but still die from any effect that causes instant death; simple return to full hp and die permanently upon reaching 0 the 2nd time.

I think simply leaving it to a time limit, which again I question why you went with a time limit that differs from the normal time limit for characters that are bleeding to death, is too powerful mechanically.

Narratively, I see no point to the feature - any character can perform the narrative act of sacrificing himself holding off some big bad while everyone else escapes, it's a feature of the system's rules about withdrawing from combat.

I had in mind the third edition fighter progression, character level as base attack bonus. I have nothing against the 1d3 progression of the dwarf and the warrior. I love the deed die! But the barbarian above is hitting less often, but more brutally when the hits do land.

I don't see a need for a 6th attack bonus progression - so if you don't want the barbarian to have deeds, then I'd recommend sticking to the Halfling attack progression.

As for "hit less often but more brutally when the hits do land," you may actually want to use Deeds - the deed die adds to damage as well as to attacks, so the Warrior has better damage potential than your barbarian does as currently written.

Ultimately, I want this class to function similar to the warrior, but without usurping the deed die mechanic that makes the warrior really exemplary. The barbarian doesn't get the flashy moves, the barbarian bashes into the fight, and bashes until the fight is over. I think the above does a good job of illustrating that mindset.

I think the warrior does the same thing, if that's the way you flavor it.

In a way I think that each feature you include is a decent idea taken too far. I only speak from my own experiences, but here are some things I would worry about were I to include your barbarian class at my own table.

Unarmored bonus AC from Stamina - a decent way to encourage wearing no armor, which is all well and good but I am personally avoiding... I'm of the opinion that Fumble Die is the only incentive needed to encourage players to tend toward light armor or no armor, and Conan (the constantly shirtless barbarian) wears armor when he can afford (financially and circumstantially) to do so.

Speed increase - not a bad rule, though I am not a fan of conditional bonuses since that means that some barbarians (those that won't have "good enough" defenses without armor) will never benefit from it.

Song of Battle - too situational in my opinion, a party member trying to "help out" as normal can actually hinder the barbarian by taking his kill and preventing any damage reduction kicking in... I'd recommend finding a flat rate that applies without need to rack up killing blows, especially without any ability enhancing the barbarian's damage output.

Also, the high-end of the power is too powerful... high level combat would be required to only include limited numbers of potent creatures as the barbarian would be invulnerable, or nearly so, to the attacks from your standard "entire army of orcs" type encounters.

I would recommend a progression that increases at the same level as a warrior's critical hit range, and is simply a single point of damage reduction added at each interval (1 at 1st level, 2 at 5th level, 3 at 9th level).

Trust no Weavers of the Dark Arts - the benefit of the feature (gaining temporary hp) doesn't really match the flavor - mistrust of magic and added ability or focus against it... especially because it could come up, but then do absolutely nothing, if the offensive magic comes from the only combatant in the battle - there is no one around to smash for minor temporary hp gains.

I think it should have some effect against magic itself (a bonus to saving throws or a % chance to resist regardless of saving throw results or allowances for example) or against the user of magic directly (a bonus to attack or damage against the user of the magic that triggered the effect).

Final thought: Are you sure you even need a new class called "barbarian" and not just a warrior who is a barbarian by flavor?

You seem to want a big, tough, hard hitting type - that's exactly what warriors already are.

[jferngler]

Final thought: Are you sure you even need a new class called "barbarian" and not just a warrior who is a barbarian by flavor?

You seem to want a big, tough, hard hitting type - that's exactly what warriors already are.

That's a fair enough point. Call it a thought exercise in what a variant class might look like.

[Raven_Crowking]

jferngler, you asked me for my opinion, so here it is:

I know that we are going to see a Barbarian in Tales of Fallen Empire, and it is natural for gamers to create new classes. I remember the thrill I got when I read my Holmes Basic and discovered the neat classes that were going to appear in AD&D (which never did!).

Yet my first response in this case is Why?

You can't want to out-Warrior the Warrior. And any added class should not be simply "a new way to do X" but rather "a new approach to the game overall". To some degree, at least. DCC has strong niche protection, which means that the best new class is one that carves out a particular niche we were not aware we wanted filled. The niche can be setting-based, as with the Transylvania Adventures classes (to the degree that the Hammer Horror-esque setting demands certain niches to exist), or it can be operational (i.e., the monk in 1e AD&D faces the challenges of the game in a way which contrasts with that of the fighter and thief, which are its closest comparisons).

For this reason, I am going to posit that, in DCC, it is impossible to determine how well written a class is without first seeing a statement of what the class is meant to represent. Very different from games where, for example, prestige classes are a dime a dozen, and are often just variations on a theme.

Before I can comment meaningfully on your barbarian, I need to know what he is meant to represent, and why this shouldn't be represented with a Warrior. Right now, if someone said, "I'm on my last hit point, but I want to keep fighting even if it kills me" I would be likely to respond, "Roll your Deed die and subtract two. That's how many rounds you can keep going, fighting beyond certain death." And, if he didn't get killed that round, I'd probably let the Deed "hang" a couple of rounds until he did buy it. After all, holding the line so others can live is a cool, heroic Warrior thing to do.

Anyway, that's my 2 coppers.

RC

[caveman]

I thought I posted this last night, but it was late, and I had been carousing so I may not have pressed the button. Anyways, I agree with some of the above criticisms, and here's my idea to be criticized.
The progression is slow because I flattened all the BAB progressions... the idea is for him to be a step behind the fighter. Also, I use the Carousing rules (By contrast, Dwarves are really good at Carousing).
Basically, this Barbarian can Rage, and can do Mighty Deeds at higher levels. He often passes out after raging. This was one of the first player comments, that you will just die after raging, hence Subdual damage.

BARBARIAN
Savage fighters from the harshest climes of the world, barbarians carve their way through the world by dint of pitiless fury and violent madness.
Hit Dice: d14

+d2 1d12/III (20) 1d20
+d2 1d14/III (20) 1d20
+d3 1d16/IV (20) 1d20
+d3 1d20/IV (20) 1d20
+d4 1d24/V (19) 1d20
+d4 1d30V (19) 1d20 +1d14
+d6 1d30V (19) 1d20 +1d16
+d6 2d20V (19) 1d20 +1d20
+d8 2d20V (18) 1d20 +1d20
+d8+1 2d20V (18) 1d20 +1d20

Mighty Deed Dice: Add to Attack and Damage rolls; subtract from Fumble rolls.

At 3rd level Barbarians may perform Mighty Deeds of Arms.

Berserker Fury: Roll d24 for Attacks and all physical feats (jumping, grappling etc)

Foes roll d24 to attack a Berserk Barbarian.

The fury lasts 1d6/CL rounds. He takes this much subdual damage when it ends, due to shock and exhaustion. This damage must be healed before the Barbarian can Berserk again.
Whenever a foe is slain, the berserker immediately attacks the nearest creature, friend or foe.
If reduced to 0 HP, the Berserker may make a Will Saving Throw DC20, to keep fighting as long as there are foes within his sight.
Berserking Barbarians will tear off anything heavier than light armor and will always throw away a shield they are using. They don’t like to be slowed down.

Barbarians use all manner of weapons but prefer spears and axes.
Barbarians are natural climbers and are at home in the Wilderness: Roll a d20
Barbarians are unfamiliar with the trappings of civilization and thus easily fall victim to the perils of wealth.

When Carousing, Barbarians roll twice and use the HIGHER roll.

[jferngler]

Yet my first response in this case is Why?

The warrior is special, and in all the threads where other warrior-esque classes took the mighty deed and used it for whatever purpose, that usurpation of the warrior's unique ability has been somewhat frowned upon. The warrior is fine for all of the pure fighting classes.

Yet, I was thinking about a barbarian, the shirtless, sword swinging foe man who battles long odds and comes out relatively unscathed, and how that man or woman might survive combat. It's prowess, sure, but it's more than that. It's not training, per se, though someone like Conan certainly becomes more skilled as he progresses. It's something like a generic rage ability, but Conan rarely gets all fogged up with red fury. Conan, or even John Carter, trusts and relies upon his natural abilities almost exclusively. I would argue minimal formal training, and immense natural ability are key, but in large part their prowess comes from being comfortable in combat, and their extensive experience with battle. Hence, Song of Battle.

So while caveman's description of barbarians as savage fighters is correct for my instance of the barbarian, their violence is more pragmatic than mad; pitiless to foes, but loyal and die-hard companions (in the mold of John Carter, To the Death); and their sense of honor in battle precludes something as cowardly as magic, especially as used against themselves (Trust No Weavers of the Dark Arts).

To me, the abilities I've outlined accurately reflect an implacable foe; skilled, but without the versatility of a warrior, who becomes harder to kill the longer a fight goes on, reflecting supreme confidence and a primal will and strength.

[Raven_Crowking]

The first thing that jumps out at me, then, is that you allow your shirtless man any armour!

I get that you gave him a bonus for not using armour, but as Fumbles already include a bonus for not wearing armour, I think that this might be a mistake. Now that I understand the barbarian you are shooting for, let me look it over again, and get back to you.

Be warned that what I come back with might be a revised class using some of your ideas!

[jferngler]

Be warned that what I come back with might be a revised class using some of your ideas!

Do it!

[shadewest]

jferngler, you asked me for my opinion, so here it is:

I know that we are going to see a Barbarian in Tales of Fallen Empire, and it is natural for gamers to create new classes. I remember the thrill I got when I read my Holmes Basic and discovered the neat classes that were going to appear in AD&D (which never did!).

Yet my first response in this case is Why?

You can't want to out-Warrior the Warrior. And any added class should not be simply "a new way to do X" but rather "a new approach to the game overall". To some degree, at least. DCC has strong niche protection, which means that the best new class is one that carves out a particular niche we were not aware we wanted filled. The niche can be setting-based, as with the Transylvania Adventures classes (to the degree that the Hammer Horror-esque setting demands certain niches to exist), or it can be operational (i.e., the monk in 1e AD&D faces the challenges of the game in a way which contrasts with that of the fighter and thief, which are its closest comparisons).

For this reason, I am going to posit that, in DCC, it is impossible to determine how well written a class is without first seeing a statement of what the class is meant to represent. Very different from games where, for example, prestige classes are a dime a dozen, and are often just variations on a theme.

Before I can comment meaningfully on your barbarian, I need to know what he is meant to represent, and why this shouldn't be represented with a Warrior. Right now, if someone said, "I'm on my last hit point, but I want to keep fighting even if it kills me" I would be likely to respond, "Roll your Deed die and subtract two. That's how many rounds you can keep going, fighting beyond certain death." And, if he didn't get killed that round, I'd probably let the Deed "hang" a couple of rounds until he did buy it. After all, holding the line so others can live is a cool, heroic Warrior thing to do.

Anyway, that's my 2 coppers.

RC

I don't usually do this, but
+d30

[Dracones]

Interesting thread. Here's what I like most when reading the current DCC classes:

Warrior - Deed mechanic. When I picture the warrior I see a skilled warrior doing amazing stunts in battle. That's his thing.
Thief - Luck dice and luck regeneration. This guy falls out of second story windows, avoids the dragon's breath weapon, narrowly misses being hit by the blade trap, all because he's one lucky son of a B. No one gets out of trouble like the thief.
Wizard - Dark magic, spellburn, dark pacts, corruption.
Cleric - Healing, divine magic, being compelled by your God to do tasks.

The feel is in the design unlike any other rpg I know. They're interesting, flavorful mechanics that give each class their own special thing.

I'd want to see that for the barbarian. What is rage? What does it do for them? How's it expressed in an interesting and mechanical way. I don't want him to have deeds, that's the warrior thing. Maybe it's a die like the deed die, but it builds up and burns off in the fight. Maybe it let's him absorb damage and adds to saving throws. Maybe once it hits a certain point(roll of a 1?), he can go nuts and just starts attacking whatever is nearest until he makes a personality roll or something.

Something like that would be a brand new mechanic and unique to that class.

[Ravenheart87]

Sounds like a berserker, which is a pretty bad stereotype for barbarians. Honestly, I think the barbarian was never a well implemented class in any edition of D&D.

You need a raging warrior? Create a Berserker Rage Deed!

[TheNobleDrake]

I think the barbarian was never a well implemented class in any edition of D&D.

I agree with this... though the Barbarian kit for Fighters from 2nd edition is, to date, my favorite implementation.

It was a Fighter, and for a higher requirement for Charisma it gained a special mechanic that pushed social reactions toward the extremes (good reactions were pushed towards friendly, poor reactions were pushed towards hostile, and indifference still sat in the middle).

And the flavor was right too - you were a warrior from some distant land viewed as barbaric by the culture of the campaign area... you know, like Conan.

[Ravenheart87]

I agree with this... though the Barbarian kit for Fighters from 2nd edition is, to date, my favorite implementation.

It was a Fighter, and for a higher requirement for Charisma it gained a special mechanic that pushed social reactions toward the extremes (good reactions were pushed towards friendly, poor reactions were pushed towards hostile, and indifference still sat in the middle).

And the flavor was right too - you were a warrior from some distant land viewed as barbaric by the culture of the campaign area... you know, like Conan.

And I agree with you too. Using 5e terms, barbarian would be better as a background instead of a seperate class.

[jferngler]

I agree with this... though the Barbarian kit for Fighters from 2nd edition is, to date, my favorite implementation.

It was a Fighter, and for a higher requirement for Charisma it gained a special mechanic that pushed social reactions toward the extremes (good reactions were pushed towards friendly, poor reactions were pushed towards hostile, and indifference still sat in the middle).

And the flavor was right too - you were a warrior from some distant land viewed as barbaric by the culture of the campaign area... you know, like Conan.

And I agree with you too. Using 5e terms, barbarian would be better as a background instead of a seperate class.

So you don't believe there is any room for a different warrior-esque mechanic?

[TheNobleDrake]

So you don't believe there is any room for a different warrior-esque mechanic?

There is definitely room somewhere for a different warrior-esque mechanic.

I don't believe that "barbarian" is a good name for it, even if it is the rage-fueled wild man archetype which has been associated with the word barbarian since 3rd edition.

A rage-based class called a berserker, that seems more appropriate to me.
Or a warrior-type that becomes more threatening the more wounded he is, that could be cool to - it could be called a feral, or a fury, or something like that.

[Colin]

Dunno if it'd provide fodder for thought or not, but here's how the Barbarian class in Crypts & Things stacks up vs. the C&T Fighter:

Fighter Advantages
HPs: The Fighter has marginally more.
Armor Profs: Fighter can use any, Barb restricted from heaviest (so no plate-clad barbs).
Weapon Profs: Fighter can use any, Barb can use any except more technologically advanced ones (no crossbows or firearms, f'rinstance)
Fighters gain multiple attacks vs. low HD critters, Barb doesn't.
Fighter gets Fighting Styles (weapon spec and mastery, etc.) Barb doesn't.

Barbarian Advantages
Barb can track, climb, sense danger, notice things better, sneak, and use their own sign language.
Barbs gets a save bonus vs. diseases and poisons.
The first (and only first) blow a Barb makes in any combat is done with such ferocity it does more damage.
If magic or the like induces fear in a Barb they do not flee; they go berserk instead.
The Barb enjoys a single +1 AC bonus.

Colin

[Ravenheart87]

So you don't believe there is any room for a different warrior-esque mechanic?

If you want to have it in your campaign, do it. My opinion is that a barbarian or berserker is not that different from a warrior that it deserves a seperate class. Creating a "berserker rage" mighty deed would be more than enough.

[jferngler]

If you want to have it in your campaign, do it. My opinion is that a barbarian or berserker is not that different from a warrior that it deserves a seperate class. Creating a "berserker rage" mighty deed would be more than enough.

That's a great idea! I really like that. Whatever the berserk qualities are last for as long as the deed die says, between three and however high rounds. No other deeds can be performed while enraged, and maybe you can't voluntarily drop a rage before combat is over.

The abilities granted could vary too, depending on the warrior's personality. Personally, I would use Song of Battle as listed above for this, especially since it's limited by the maximum number of the deed dice. More furious confidence than blind rage, but that's just my thing.