| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've grown up with this D&D-esque mindset that "the Barbarian is a fighter-type."
Then AoC comes along and blows my mind: A barbarian is a thief class?! And this isn't just some strange off-shoot world where they threw in a barbarian and made it their own. This is THE quintessential barbarian setting, home of THE quintessential barbarian.
And then threads like "Should the Rogue have full BAB?" got me thinking even further, and that's blossomed out into a slew of other things I think I'd prefer to see in this game.
I haven't fleshed anything out as such, but just off the top of my head, these are some things I think would improve aspects of the game, at least in my opinion:
Skills per level should be 4+Int at minimum. (Personally, I'd just give all classes, except Bards - because Versatile Performance, an extra two!)
If feats are "what you can do," then skills are "who you are." Having ranks in certain skills will tell me what type of character you are, even if you never roll those skills. With that in mind, how does "2+Int per level" tell me anything? (And what Fighter ever has higher than a 13 Intellegence? Ditto all the classes that don't base their spells off intel or rely heavily on skills.)
Barbarians should have the Stealth skill as a class skill.
Barbs are not Fighters. They're not Paladins or Cavaliers either. They're "uncivilized" warriors, and they have more in common with a Ranger in terms of fighting style than they do with a Fighter. We're talking tribal societies that live outside (or on the outskirts of) heavy civilization, and the class doesn't even allow for heavy armor.
These guys are not "get in your face cuz I can take it" warriors - Instead, they're "I'm gonna ambush you, strike hard and fast, and suddenly the odds aren't in your favor quite so much anymore."
We're talking guerrilla warfare experts, not rank-and-file soldiers. And you can't ambush if you aren't stealthy.
Clerics wear robes, not full plate.
Every battle cleric is just a slap in the face to the Paladins of that order. In fact, D&D/Pathfinder is the only place I've ever seen clerics depicted as more warrior than robed priest. Every other fantasy genre seems to get this, so where did 3.X/Pathfinder go astray? Even favored weapons should be a Paladin thing. And since I keep bringing up Paladins...
Paladins should be holy warriors of their individual faith. Not every one of them needs to be Galahad!
If you have to rename the class to make this fit, then that's fine. "Paladins" can be the holy warriors for the LG gods. This is one of the few areas I think 4th Ed. got right. Change the "code" requirement to fit the god you serve, and change the powers to work on "enemies of your faith." (ie: If your god is lawful good, smite should work on chaotic and/or evil subtypes. If your god is chaotic good, your smite should work on lawful and/or evil subtypes, etc.)
In addition, let's just make them spontaneous casters, yeah? A 4-level spell list is nowhere near good enough to make me have to worry about preparation.
Druids...
Let's make them spontaneous casters too. Arcane has the two big powerhouses split between prepared and spontaneous, so I think Divine should too. (That's really my only reason for this. If Oracles are mainstream in your games, hey, ignore me here!)
Oh, and Monks!
Lol, no. We all know monks are currently broken, so let's wait until they're fixed to see if they need to change.
Since when were Rangers spell-casters??
No, really. When the creative influences for this class stem from characters such as Aragorn and the Rangers of the North, Robin Hood, and Orion, where did the idea that they need to be mini-Druids ever come from?
Should there be a mini-Druid option for a Ranger class? Absolutely! It would fit best as an Archetype. Even the Animal Companion is pushing it in my opinion, but in the interest of "not having my head bitten off in reply" I'll go ahead and overlook that one (unless enough people agree?)
Do Rogues do it from behind? Or do they just swing and miss?
Here's another class that needs some fundamental change, imo.
First, I think they should get a full BaB. You can argue for or against it all you want, but when you look at the facts, here's a class that spends all it's combat time in melee and has no spells and no built-in way to help hit opponents. And they're unique in this issue. If you think they shouldn't get BaB because they don't need to go up to a d10 in HD, then why can't they be the "other" exception to that rule (look at Barbarians!)
Also, I think Sneak Attack should only work on weapons that are finessable. I challenge you to convince me that you can "slip between the joints" with a great axe. But then, to make up for this a little bit, I think the class should get an improved form of Weapon Finesse built into the levels. "Dex determines to-hit AND damage for finessable weapons." "But woah, hang on there, you're just making Str a dump stat!" Yeah, so what? You weren't buying it on your Rogue anyway.
Rogue Talents also need a boost. Some of them are just plain weak compared to other classes that fill a similar role. Really, just mix and match the Rogue and the Ninja and you can fix a lot of what's wrong with Rogue, but then, most people already know that.
That's about all I've got for now. Feel free to agree/disagree with me, just please add why. Or if you can think of other things, feel free to drop those down!
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then AoC comes along and blows my mind: A barbarian is a thief class?! And this isn't just some strange off-shoot world where they threw in a barbarian and made it their own. This is THE quintessential barbarian setting, home of THE quintessential barbarian.
And then threads like "Should the Rogue have full BAB?" got me thinking even further, and that's blossomed out into a slew of other things I think I'd prefer to see in this game.
I understand your sentiment but you miss one major thing: Barbarian class is not the same as barbarian background. More cultural (in Runequest sense) barbarians are Rangers than Barbarians. The Barbarian class represents Berserkers. Yay for naming conventions.
BTW: for the rest of the text I will use capital letter Barbarians to refer to class and small letter barbarians to refer to cultural barbarians.
Skills per level should be 4+Int at minimum. (Personally, I'd just give all classes, except Bards - because Versatile Performance, an extra two!)
If feats are "what you can do," then skills are "who you are." Having ranks in certain skills will tell me what type of character you are, even if you never roll those skills. With that in mind, how does "2+Int per level" tell me anything? (And what Fighter ever has higher than a 13 Intellegence? Ditto all the classes that don't base their spells off intel or rely heavily on skills.)
I would say that it exactly the other way around. But I came from a skill-focused games background so don't mind me on this.
I generally agree with the rest of sentiment as I too often wondered about increasing number of skill points available to most classes by 2. Even done that when I was GMing D&D 3.0.
Barbarians should have the Stealth skill as a class skill.
Barbs are not Fighters. They're not Paladins or Cavaliers either. They're "uncivilized" warriors, and they have more in common with a Ranger in terms of fighting style than they do with a Fighter. We're talking tribal societies that live outside (or on the outskirts of) heavy civilization, and the class doesn't even allow for heavy armor.
These guys are not "get in your face cuz I can take it" warriors - Instead, they're "I'm gonna ambush you, strike hard and fast, and suddenly the odds aren't in your favor quite so much anymore."
We're talking guerrilla warfare experts, not rank-and-file soldiers. And you can't ambush if you aren't stealthy.
Probably falls under Barbarians represent Berserkers, while stealthy barbarians are Rangers.
Clerics wear robes, not full plate.
Every battle cleric is just a slap in the face to the Paladins of that order. In fact, D&D/Pathfinder is the only place I've ever seen clerics depicted as more warrior than robed priest. Every other fantasy genre seems to get this, so where did 3.X/Pathfinder go astray?
Preach it brother! Down with the Cleric! Priests wear robes not chain mails!
Maybe Conan just had levels of Rogue and Ranger. Doesn't mean the Barbarian class needs to be exactly like Conan. But stealth as a class skill would be nice and make sense I agree. I also like that they have Survival.
Conan is a complex character from a world which didn't bother about class levels.
He is a barbarian (not a berserker) by birth, a gladiator/fighter by upbringing, and a rogue (thief and pirate) by trade.
But back to OP:
I do agree on some of your points.
Minimum 4+Int skill points for all is one of my first house-rules.
Skills are fun and help flashing out characters outside of combat.
They don't make a character overpowered.
So bring it one (+2 skill points for all classes might be a bit too much for those already having 6 or 8 points)
I also make craft, knowledge, perform and profession "half as costly". Meaning you get 1 rank in those skills for 1/2 skill point.
(Hopefully helping to flash out background - or simply broadening knowledges which is fine too)
----
I too have a problem with the barbarian class. I believe a class shouldn't include any "cultural assumptions" (don't know how to name this one).
I always envisioned the barbarian CLASS as the opposite to the fighter.
Where the fighter uses tactics and training, the barbarian uses brute force and iron will.
With this in mind, abilities that focus on perception (trap sense, uncanny dodge) never made much sense to my.
And "Fast Movement" doesn't make sense to me from ANY perspective. (Ranger/Rogue anyone?)
----
Ah the cleric (aka templar). I too hope for a working PRIEST class to replace the cleric, but am yet waiting for one.
ATM, I believe the best way would be to DROP any divine caster classes and replace them by "Divine Gifts" (as feats maybe).
So god of war would have Fighters and Barbarians as his disciples, a god of nature his scouts and rangers, a god of knowledge his wizards, etc.
But if keeping the cleric/priest is the goal, how about removing medium armor and shield, dropping BAB and FORT-save to slow, increasing skill points to 4 or 6 (+ faith-focused class skills), increasing spells per day and give the priest one additional domain per 5th level (or so).
----
Agreed on the Paladin. I always had the "CHAMPION" in mind. Reducing the concept to Paladin and Anti-Paladin is somewhat stupid.
But then, I also vote for dropping alignments (except for outsiders), which might make things a little more complicated.
But since a Paladin/Champion should simply follow a certain "code of behavior" there really is no need for an alignment (restriction).
Giving Paladins the favored weapon is an interesting idea, but by RAW, Paladins actually don't HAVE to follow a deity. They simply follow their code. If a god is conform with those, fine then.
----
No particular feeling about druids and spontaneous casting. Actually, I believe the cleric would work better spontaneously, since the cleric class is supposed to reflect a LOT of different believes and a small but specifically tailored spell list might help in doing so.
----
Monks, Ninjas, Samurai. The brain-farts of D&D/PF.
----
Rangers? Since at least AD&D 2E. But back then, they were actually more of an arcane casting class. But you are right. The ranger is also one of those "fuzzy" classes. Half scout, half fighter, half nature-mystic (yes that three halves and the reason this class seems fuzzy). I think I would prefer a true scout class, with OPTIONS for either fighter OR nature-mystic.
----
I would HATE to see the rogue with full BAB. A rogue should lose against a fighter in open battle 9 times out of 10. The rogue should REQUIRE to use stealth and cunning to catch his VICTIMS (not opponents) off-guard and preferably put them down at the first strike.
This in mind, I would LOVE to see some better mechanics to help the rogue accomplish this (and not simply more damage when flanking).
Starting with an attack bonus if the target is unaware (flanking too if you wish), and maybe increasing the chances for critical hits too.
Maybe even replacing sneak attack damage by ability damage...
----
SUMMARY:
I believe your main problem (and mine too) is that you try to press "real" and complex characters (conan, robin hood, etc.) into a world which requires each and everything to be set into distinctive templates (aka classes) with a BAD BAD BAD mechanic for those with more than one class.
BUT, many complex characters usually fit into two, three or maybe even four class concepts. And these are the only ones that REALLY stick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great stuff guys/gals. :)
@Drejk - I actually see Barbs and Rangers as two different aspects of the same sort of societies, but that's on me. (I see Rangers as the hunters/scouts/etc and Barbs as the warriors, but I see both hailing from the "uncivilized" sort of society. But then, I won't argue that "Barbarian" is a misnomer for the class and "Berserker" would probably be a better fit!
@DracoDruid - I don't actually see a Rogue as a combat class. I think Sneak Attack was just a bone they were thrown so that they weren't totally useless in combat. But then, if you can't land your sneak attacks, you're still totally useless in combat! I admit full BaB isn't the most elegant solution, but it's the only one I can think of that doesn't step on another class(Bard)'s toes.
But on the topic of Sneak Attack, I just remembered something I meant to add to my list o' stuff:
Sneak Attack should be available to every class.
If you can catch your opponent in a flank, or flat-footed, or unable to defend themselves properly, add +1d6 damage. Rogue's should just be far better at that style than everyone else, which would be why their SA damage increases over their gained levels.
But maybe Rangers should get increased SA too, just lower than a Rogue's (maybe +5d6 over their 20-level career)? And maybe a Barb should get some increased SA too, just lower than a Ranger's (maybe +2d6 over their 20-level career)?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think all of your proposed changes are sensible and measured. If I was about to play in a campaign and a GM handed me that list of house-rules I wouldn't balk at all. I'm sure they would fit right in at many tables beside your own home game.
As to "what was Conan?"
He is the Drizzt Do'Urden of his world. What I mean is that most people say Drizzt is a Ranger, even though when you break him down through his stories, he's a little bit wizard, a little bit berserker, a little bit ranger, and mostly fighter.
Conan is a "Barbarian" but in his stories he's actually a little bit rogue, a little bit pirate, a little bit soldier, but mostly barbarian.
Yeah that's all I meant when I speculated about Conan's classes. Obviously in his or any other world people don't say "Hi, I'm Aragorn, I'm a 6th level Ranger with the Skirmisher Archetype from APG."
Still fun to speculate about.