RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yep, as berserkers were common among vikings they would have some professions potentially related to...ships...
So far as I've read, not so much. The bearsarks were, according to the eddas, not used by the Northmen when they went a-viking. They were gifted by the gods (today, we'd surely classify them as behaviorally disabled) and were sometimes brought to the (land) battles in cages, pointed at the enemy, and released.
Nobody wants to raid Ireland alongside a feral psychopath chewing on the oars.
Ultimately, you can still put ranks in it, even though it's not a class skill. So it is not a skill denied to barbarians, it is just not a skill that barbarians will normally receive training in as part of their class. I don't see the issue. This only means that they aren't as good at it as other classes. The way people are talking, it's like they can't even put ranks in it. It could be as it was in previous editions, they could still be illeterate and not good at the profession skill.
Also remember that cross class skills aren't a bad investment/point sink like they used to be. After putting ranks in a cross class skill for 10 levels you now have a +10 as opposed to the +5 you had in 3.5. The same person putting maximum ranks into a class skill for 10 levels in 3.5, had a +13 bonus as they do now. It's still not as good of an investment to put a couple ranks in cross class skill, but over time with continual investment it's not a huge factor.
True, and between you and me, it's the easiest houserule ever to just give Profession as a class skill to the barbarian.
My issue is that, conceptually, if you what to play a professional lumberjack, sailor, trapper, hunter, skinner etc, the barbarian class is a poor(er) choice. Yet, the class fit many concepts of professionals if you don't restrict the barbarian to "Thug likes to break things!". Even within a city setting, a street gang of professional dockers might comprise many barbarians.
As to why one would want to play a professional lumberjack/sailor/trapper/skinner and to what degree the number of ranks vs total skill bonus is relevant to the aptitude of one earning a decent living are different questions that deserves their own tread IMO.
'findel
|
While not everyone can pick up the knack to jerryrig a wand, everyone should be equally able to pick up a job.Adventurers by definition are the folks who decided to go out and rob other people's treasure chests instead of holding down honest work. :) Maybe no one should get Profession as a class skill. :)
Did you miss my opinion of removing Craft and Profession as skills and just making it a level check?
Did you miss my opinion of removing Craft and Profession as skills and just making it a level check?While not everyone can pick up the knack to jerryrig a wand, everyone should be equally able to pick up a job.Adventurers by definition are the folks who decided to go out and rob other people's treasure chests instead of holding down honest work. :) Maybe no one should get Profession as a class skill. :)
I didn't miss it TOZ. That seems a little too much of a 4E style convention to me. Everyone's automatically good at any profession/craft and gets better at it as they level.
|
|
I didn't miss it TOZ. That seems a little too much of a 4E style convention to me. Everyone's automatically good at any profession/craft and gets better at it as they level.
I'm sorry, I should have clarified that I would only allow one profession from the characters backstory to be rolled for. Multiple crafts would probably need a feat or something. So the character would not get better at every job ever, just the one specifically called out in his backstory. Also, don't swear at me like that. *makes the sign to ward off 4E* :)
I didn't miss it TOZ. That seems a little too much of a 4E style convention to me. Everyone's automatically good at any profession/craft and gets better at it as they level.I'm sorry, I should have clarified that I would only allow one profession from the characters backstory to be rolled for. Multiple crafts would probably need a feat or something. So the character would not get better at every job ever, just the one specifically called out in his backstory. Also, don't swear at me like that. *makes the sign to ward off 4E* :)
[sheepish grin]Sorry[/sheepish grin]
It is interesting that you can have "barbarians" (members of a "barbarian tribe") that are capable of having an occupation because they don't have levels of Barbarian. And you can have "civilized" folk (members of a "civilized society") that are not capable of having an occupation because they do have levels of Barbarian.
I find it strange that people are making roleplaying/flavor/fluff arguments about a specific class, when those exact roleplaying/flavor/fluff could apply to other classes when applied to characters with similar backgrounds and those arguments are considered void for those other characters and classes.
It is interesting that you can have "barbarians" (members of a "barbarian tribe") that are capable of having an occupation because they don't have levels of Barbarian. And you can have "civilized" folk (members of a "civilized society") that are not capable of having an occupation because they do have levels of Barbarian.
That is true, if one describes a barbarian (the class) as one who isn't capable of having an occupation. That is the part I don't agree with. The ability to rage in combat doesn't necessarily mean "cannot keep your temper long enough to have an occupation". It COULD mean exactly that, and that would be a very good explanation as to why the character became an adventurer. Only, I don't feel it has to be hardwired into the class.
If so, should the craft skill be also absent since many crafts require as much focus and dedication as a profession? I believe it would have been consistent to add Profession to the list.
I find it strange that people are making roleplaying/flavor/fluff arguments about a specific class, when those exact roleplaying/flavor/fluff could apply to other classes when applied to characters with similar backgrounds and those arguments are considered void for those other characters and classes.
Again, I agree. Although, the same statement could be used to argue why the barbarian should have the skill as a class skill.
I believe it was on oversight in regards to excluding barbarians, as all knowledge/professions started somewhere, and although they may be limited, they should have expertise in regards to knowledge/professions that are close to nature or common across all societies or cultures.
As to 4E, you are trained in certain skills, just like pathfinder, there is just less skills to choose from, and you may further speciailize in skills choosing feats with is offered by both systems.
The only big difference is 4E does not cover specific crafts or professions, but that can easily be added and I hope they devise a better mechanism to support it in the future.
I think you have to make a distinction on class mechanics versus the overall direction or feel of a class. Otherwise, rogues would always be back stabbing people as a matter of preference, paladins would be detecting evil and smiting/judging all evil creatures as soon as they are discovered, etc.
Barbarians can't hold down a job because of their anger management issues. Their tribe, culture, and all that other stuff isn't really of consequence.
You can't have someone smashing up your store whenever a customer cops an attitude.
You probably meant that as a joke, but who says that barbarian have anger management issue? And even if barbarian are all about breaking things, many people do a fair living going about breaking things...
Barbarians can't hold down a job because of their anger management issues. Their tribe, culture, and all that other stuff isn't really of consequence.
You can't have someone smashing up your store whenever a customer cops an attitude.
Assume a barbarian has no control what-so-ever over when they rage (funny, you get one angry for a minute or so at the beginning of the day, they tend to be fine for the rest of the day), all you are really arguing is that they shouldn't be working retail. There are still lots of jobs out there that don't require the worker to have to deal with dumbass customers regularly. A barbarian carpenter probably would be fine.
|
There are still lots of jobs out there that don't require the worker to have to deal with dumbass customers regularly. A barbarian carpenter probably would be fine.
Unless he hits is thumb with the hammer...then he's gonna go off like Lou Ferrigno painted green.
Stupid hammer! ARRRGGGHHHH! Now Groo do what Groo do best...SMASH!!
Basically, no matter how you look at it, Profession is best considered a SERVICE, where you are paid a wage, and CRAFT produces actual products. Therefore, barbarians, with no "civilized" commercial culture, all produce products, thus craft. No barbarian CEO's exist to pay wages to professional service providers.
IMHO, this is the intention of the skill. It's bizzar, and usually meant my characters are busy taking craft skills that are listed under profession (like brewer and herbalist), but I believe this best represents the spirit of the rules.
The problem here is that just because your class is "Barbarian" doesn't mean your character is.
Just like someone posted earlier in the thread, the OotS comic - Miko is a Samurai, but she has zero class levels of "Samurai". She has class levels of "Monk" and "Paladin", but she's still a Samurai.
I've played a priest who had absolutely no levels of "Cleric" - he wasn't a healer, he didn't turn undead. He was a priest who took up the sword on behalf of his god, righting wrongs.
This is one of those railroady design decisions that shouldn't be.
Barbarians can't hold down a job because of their anger management issues. Their tribe, culture, and all that other stuff isn't really of consequence.
You can't have someone smashing up your store whenever a customer cops an attitude.
Sure you can.
You can't tell me these guys make a living off of craft, perform, or survival can you?
And I find it hard to believe that the Pumphreys are a modern phenomenon only.
Basically, no matter how you look at it, Profession is best considered a SERVICE, where you are paid a wage, and CRAFT produces actual products. Therefore, barbarians, with no "civilized" commercial culture, all produce products, thus craft. No barbarian CEO's exist to pay wages to professional service providers.
So a guy with class levels in fighter, in the same tribe, can get paid in wages, but a guy with levels in barbarian suddenly causes the whole system to disappear?
Not everyone in a barbarian tribe has barbarian class levels, in fact I would wager that most do not. Your typical tribe member is probably going to be a commoner (profession as class skill), expert (profession as a possible class skill), or warrior (profession as class skill). It seems strange that it is only the character with a class level in the barbarian class that seems in capable of tapping into the local economy.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Has anyone made the world's oldest profession joke yet? I can't be bothered to wade through three pages to find out, but I don't see any reason why a barbarian couldn't practice it.
Come to think of it, a barbarian would be even better suited for world's second oldest profession - pimpin'.
[whines] but I want a noble savage! [/whines]
[whines] but I want a noble savage! [/whines]
I have that Virgin Steele Record, awesome stuff :)
I don't think he has profession as a class skill though.
[whines] but I want a noble savage! [/whines]I have that Virgin Steele Record, awesome stuff :)
I don't think he has profession as a class skill though.
\m/>@<\m/
[whines] but I want a noble savage! [/whines]
While actual character concepts vary the PF writeup of Barbarian explains the class as two things...
Page 30, Single ling write up to summarise Barbarian.
"The barbarian is a brutal beserker from beyond the edge of civilised lands"
Page 31, Barbarian Writeup
"For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors-they are battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war.Known as Barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preperation, or the rules of warfare, for them only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilised and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world.Within Barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage"
While people present good arguements, I encourage you to consider my points...
1.) Characters dont 'adopt' a class, they realistically have to become the class - which implies training. A peasant who picks up a sword does not a Fighter make, or a peasant who picks up a wizards spellbook he found become a Wizard. To a realistic extend, all characters have to 'train' to be these classes, though its never explained. I doubt a character should be able to (though by the RAW is not prevented) suddenly adopt a level of "Monk" for example, these types of characters are characterised by undertaking years of pious contemplation and ardious martial training...though in the ruleset as RAW characters 'could' dip into these classes, realistically, such career alterations should imply some downtime to 'train'.
2.) Characters that adopt the 'Barbarian' class dont self-teach themselves it...the only reasonably assumed 'self-taught' class is Sorceror, which are spontaneously created by people awakening their latent bloodline powers. Barbarians are people who have been taught to harness their anger into a powerful force, or to deal with situations with violence and action, and frequently, this means the character spends time in a teacher (much like other classes would do) or they live in the wilds to hone their fury (I doubt they would find adequate training in civilised places and not to mention they'd likely wind up in jail for assaulting others in a frenzy).
Barbarians in particular are said to focus on action, to think of only the moment and devote little if anything to training beyond survival and slaughter based on their write up.
Even if a 'civilised' person were to adopt this class at/from level 1, that would reasonably signify they were dissillusioned by civilised life and sought to make their own path in the wilds, perhaps taught to harness their rage by a teacher who is also a Barbarian or like Conan, endure a difficult and harsh life as a slave, then a gladiator, then a barbarian who also has thiefs talents (by d20 Conan, hes listed at low levels as a Barbarian 3/Rogue 1), then a pirate and so forth.
3.) People might assume the Barbarian writeup is an example, but all the character classes more or less assume some degree of training, which means they live a life up to that moment of adventuring that mimics their class.
Such as a Wizard going to school or being taught by a master as an apprentice, or a Fighter being taught by a weaponmaster/warrior who trains other warriors, or a Rogue leading a life in the shadows as a pickpocket, etc.
Joe Public doesnt get it in his head one day he wants to spontaneously 'get mad' at things, and if he did he wouldnt find the solution or means within civilisation that he could use (and get away with it), if he wanted to shun civilisation and live off his wits in the wild, honing his skills by fighting wild beasts then sure, go off and TRAIN to be a Barbarian.
4.) People who later multiclass into Barbarian dont just spontaneously 'develop a anger complex', while the RAW doesnt suggest there is training required the class write up of virtually every class suggests people spent time living as these classes for a while, so its not reasonable to assume a character would have to spend a few weeks at the very least learning on their own or from a teacher to develop the mentality and skills that character needs to be a Barbarian.
That being said the class is more than just a handful of useful abilities, its a lifestyle choice, characters who multiclass into Barbarians I would assume have a reason to do so that mechanically should fit into their backgrounds, and at the very least their multiclassing (into any class reasonably) should be roleplayed in the least.
5.) People who play Barbarians arent prevented from multiclassing later in their careers (except to classes like Monk/Paladin which require a Lawful Alignment), so they could find other ways to educate and train their character, but again, there should be a mechanical drive for the character to do so (perhaps the Barbarian spent alot of time in civilisation and wants to fit in better, so takes a level of Fighter or Rogue at the least but almost any class works for this purpose).
6.) I've never encountered 'an urban barbarian' in adventures or otherwise who isnt clad in hide and furs, bedecked in skulls and trophies from their enemies and whose flesh is covered in honorific battle scars (the Iconic Barbarian in particular and any other published pictures of barbarians as well as writeups for random barbarians I have ever encountered lists them or explains them to be savages in some form of another and appear as such).
...Thats not to say that this concept fits every Barbarian character archetype, but people dont spontaneously 'become' Barbarians, they need to learn it somehow from somewhere or someone and that education should reflect in their mentality.
7.) As to the point of the thread, Barbarians can still take Profession, but their inclination to stray away from or avoid civilisation (due to their training or other inclinations that drove them to adopt the class in the first place) means they dont do everyday jobs that earn them wages, but sure they could do Craft skills as well but generally, they take what they need by force and need only venture into town long enough to find the local tavern or to find a sharper axe/sword, if they are multiclassed they might take up more civilised pursuits but they still have moments where their Barbarian mentality comes to play...even as a Rogue/Pirate, etc...Conan still had an impressive physique, and cleaved skulls in a Barbarian rage frequently and had a very mercenary attitude with no regard to law or civilisation (which is more or less how a Barbarian should think).
PoC ... I was humoring. This debate is really meaningless to me, but thanks for the write-up. =)
You realize you bolded a section of text that explicitly says they shun training, right? ;-)
Bottom line - PF's design was more based around (as it appeared) making classes more like "kits" where, given enough choices and versatility they can become *most* concepts, or are at least broadly more adaptable to fill in many niche's.
Cripes! There's that whole thread about Bards = Ninja's. And people are really taking issue about adding Profession to Barbarian ... when it's the ONLY class (even NPC classes get it) that doesn't have it.
I remain of the opinion previously stated: "Weird!"
(snip)
The reason we didn't give barbarians the Profession skill comes down to the simple fact that you need to be in a civilization to have a Profession. If you're a barbarian, you don't need a job. You get what you want by making Survival checks and attack rolls.
So, wait, ALL pathfinder barbarians are savages? Ick, i'm a bit dissapointed. My Barbarian, historically inspired by the Geats of the Beowulf saga, who lives in a small, remote northern snow-covered fishing village, is an uncivilized savage? I better tell the town blacksmith he doesn't know what he's doing, along with a lot of the other village ancestral craftsmen.
James, I really love how a lot of Pathfinder has been trying to get back to historic roots of it's content and mythology, but someone obviously dropped the ball on research and reasoning behind the Barbarian. Read a history book, a large majority of "Barbarians" as described in history weren't actual savages. Mongols? Scots? Vikings? Actually highly cultured and skilled craftsmen.
If a Barbarian is RP'd as from a savage background, he just doesn't take profession. Otherwise, it's in all logical reason a class skill.
Epic fail.
Creative Director
|
Barbarians DO get the Craft skill, though. That's a different skill than Profession, remember.
Professions are, really, skills where you get up and go to a job and earn money practicing a trade. If you want a barbarian who builds boats or weapons or wants to be a blacksmith or whatever... take ranks in Craft.
Or just take ranks in Profession. I'm honestly a little stunned at how worked up people are getting over what basically amounts to a +3 bonus. It's not like in 3.5's days where a cross-class skill is limited to a maximum of half rank.
Barbarians don't have Sense Motive as a class skill either, despite the fact that the super superstitious and paranoid barbarian who constantly thinks that the city folk are trying to trick him is a pretty obvious choice. For that barbarian, just put ranks in Sense Motive and be done with it.
Same goes for Profession, or any class skill that barbarians don't have.
Not having a class skill does NOT mean you can't spend ranks in the skill. It doesn't even mean you can't make a character that's actually really good at the skill.
And at the end of the day... I suspect that if you really REALLY want to make a "highly cultured and skilled 'barbarian' who has ranks in Profession and actually gets the +3 bonus for it being a class skill," you're probably actually talking about a ranger anyway.
I say barbarians being bad at holding down a day job is great. If you want to play the amazing trades man then try a class is consistent, valued around the world, and good with people.
The barbarian doesn't need nor should he be the master of the 40 hour work week.
James is right the math makes little difference in the long run. A Barbarian, in time and dedication could be an excellent and very productive employee/business owner.
Well ... everyone keeps coming back to mechanics - that's NOT the issue ... not even slightly.
Sure - PF's skill mechanics are FAR better. Does this help the a-typical stereotyping the Barbarian CLASS suffers compared to the other classes? No.
Does this address all professions? No.
Look at the length of time of a daily rage - for a low level character. Does anyone seriously see a few SECONDS worth of daily rage truly will prevent a Barbarian from following directions and watching over his farm? His homestead? His flock?
I mean, cripes! Might as well slap some black-face on them at this point, eh? Line 'em up with Al Jolson & Co. because clearly they're stereotyping just the same.
When EVERY class has all kinds of elaborate "Look at 'em in this light" or "build 'em this way" and it's fine, but then one class is rigidly pigeon holed - it seems like not only a lack of progress, but a step backwards in social development.
People want to keep Barbarian's rigidly stereotyped? Knock your socks off. I'm not. It's THE most minor house rule ever, so easily fixed to fit my aesthetics.
It's a bit disappointing to see this rigid line of thought in general, and from developers as well - especially given the game design elements elsewhere that seemingly stand at odds with that.
:shrugs:
I'm more or less done now, too. I can't imagine any more ways in which to attempt to express this, and who ever is on side X seems pretty entrenched. End of the day - no skin off my nose either way.
One final note: Sense Motive is kind of a specific utility that's been under domain of a few classes for a bit already. . Not every class gets Sense Motive, nor should they - but that's worlds away from Profession and every single class in the book having it (not PrC's, though) except one. "Super superstitious barbarian" is another thing that is not across the board in application, but whatever. It stands out, and remains "weird" to say the least.
Apparently "barbarian" and "Barbarian" have no intended distinction in PF, and are NOT broad descriptive terms in the least, but rather very prescriptive in what the term means (unlike the semi-universal generality of the other classes).
How about profession sailor, vikings were sailors
I already commented on that last page:
In reference to the Vikings' sailing skills, let's not forget that their longships (while sturdy and highly seaworthy), were nowhere near as large or complex as a galleon or caravel. While the pilot would need skill in Profession (sailor), and the navigator would need ranks in Knowledge (geography), pretty much everything else is going to be not falling overboard, operating that one sail at the direction of the pilot, and (here's where the Barbarians will excel with all their strength and endurance) rowing.
A crew full of Barbarians, would only need one or two members with a level in Druid or Ranger to make for a highly capable crew given their sailing vessel of choice.
|
If this has been covered, direct me and I'll read it up there, BUT ... in a review of skills recently, I noticed that Barbarians are the ONLY class that does not have Profession as a class skill ... why is that?
It really sticks out (once you notice it) as something just *wrong* in the design - like it slipped through the cracks or something.
Seriously - why are they the ONLY class lacking this skill? (or on the reverse, why does every other class have it, but it's forbidden/non-class to Barbarians?)
Is this just some random little fluke?
The idea of profession seems to be "job" you do - why would a barbarian not be able to have a job?
**confused**
I guess Barbarian is a profession. Why not Profession(Pillage) or Profession (Killer) ;)
Sorry I was being a little jokey there, but you are right. Barbarians have loose knit communities, they aren't just hack/slash for the fun of it.
A barbarian could seriously be a professional in making clothes from animal skins, or he could be a horse trainer (some barbarians were horsemen) e.g. Atilla the Hun and Ghenghis Khan, come to mind. There is no reason why a barbarian couldn't be a weaoponsmith or a hunter. After all their communities need weapons and food, when not on the move. Conan was a barbarian and he was not always raging away in fights.
I think we tend to think as barbarians as being stupid because they are in general illiterate, but they still communicate by spoken language and often have rich oral traditions of stories of the renown of their ancesters. Vikings have great sagas (I have two massive Folio Soc volumes of Viking sagas that make great reading). Vikings made longboats that were seaworthy (i.e. they didn't need to hug coastlines like triremes), so boat/shipbuilding) is another possible profession.
We might also remember that the word barbarian came from the latin word barba meaning beard. In fact most Romans considered any non-Roman a barbarian (bearded one) because social mores in Roman society frowned on beards. Emperor Hadrian was the only Roman emperor who sported a beard (so far as we know) and he got a lot of criticism for it.
Barbarians are wild, chaotic but still live by certain codes nonetheless. We should remember that.
So really I don't think there is any reason why barbarians could not have professions.
|
|
Barbarian: WELCOME TO BURGER KING, WHAT CAN I GET YOU?
Customer: I'd uh ... well ... uh ... hold on a sec ...
Barbarian: *rage*
LOL! I get in a rage at Burger King all the time. Once I ordered a Double Whopper with cheese and ended up getting a junior meal ;) Gosh it sucks to be British in America, half the time people don't understand a word I'm saying. I guess people on these threads feel the same about me too ;)
How about profession sailor, vikings were sailors
How do you make money being a sailor? Oh, gambling :)
Barbarians DO get the Craft skill, though. That's a different skill than Profession, remember.
Professions are, really, skills where you get up and go to a job and earn money practicing a trade. If you want a barbarian who builds boats or weapons or wants to be a blacksmith or whatever... take ranks in Craft.
Are you suggesting that smiths do not get up and do a job?
Or just take ranks in Profession. I'm honestly a little stunned at how worked up people are getting over what basically amounts to a +3 bonus. It's not like in 3.5's days where a cross-class skill is limited to a maximum of half rank.
Let's turn that around, why is it so destructive to the concept of the barbarian to allow them to get that +3?
Barbarians don't have Sense Motive as a class skill either, despite the fact that the super superstitious and paranoid barbarian who constantly thinks that the city folk are trying to trick him is a pretty obvious choice. For that barbarian, just put ranks in Sense Motive and be done with it.
Same goes for Profession, or any class skill that barbarians don't have.
Except that barbarians are the only base class that doesn't get profession, including all of the NPC classes. Let's compare this to Sense motive.
Classes without sense motive: adept, commoner, warrior, barbarian, druid, fighter, ranger, sorcerer, and wizard.So the comparison is not quite the same. In the case of the profession skill this is where the barbarian is unique among every other class.
Not all vikings were barbarians, though.
But we agree that barbarians can come from cultures where profession is available. Thus the lack of profession for barbarians is not a culture issue. I think we can safely lay that idea to rest.
Why are people twisting the arms of the designers so harshly on this? At least that's what it's seeming.
|
|
Gosh it sucks to be British in America, half the time people don't understand a word I'm saying. I guess people on these threads feel the same about me too ;)
Don't worry, half the time Americans can't understand each other either.
Just happened yesterday, in fact. I was waiting at the grocery store deli counter for my turn to order, and the woman in front of me decided to ask the very Southern deli-worker what Head Cheese was.
The worker chuckled, and said, "before I tell ya, ya got anything on yer stomach?"
"What?" the woman replied, confused and (I believe) not sure if he was making an inappropriate comment to her.
"Ya got anything on yer stomach?" he asked again.
At this point I intervened. "He's asking you if you've eaten anything recently," I told her. "He's implying that knowing what Head Cheese is might make you nauseous."
"Ohhh," she said. Then to him, replied "No. It's okay, you can tell me."
Why are people twisting the arms of the designers so harshly on this? At least that's what it's seeming.
I don't think it is anything against the developers, it is just some can not support the reasons presented for not allowing barbarians to have profession as a class skill, whether they typically don't get paid to work (in standard currency to make a living), have rage issues, etc.
I am with the people that think it was an oversight, and can be easily added back into the game, but we also have to accept it is simple enough to add in as a house rule.
Therefore, there is not much more to add to this topic.
|
|
LOL! I get in a rage at Burger King all the time. Once I ordered a Double Whopper with cheese and ended up getting a junior meal ;) Gosh it sucks to be British in America, half the time people don't understand a word I'm saying. I guess people on these threads feel the same about me too ;)Barbarian: WELCOME TO BURGER KING, WHAT CAN I GET YOU?
Customer: I'd uh ... well ... uh ... hold on a sec ...
Barbarian: *rage*
Yeah, your accent is coming across pretty heavily on our ends... may have something to do with you signing each post with "Hi guv'ner!" :P
|
|
Gosh it sucks to be British in America, half the time people don't understand a word I'm saying. I guess people on these threads feel the same about me too ;)Don't worry, half the time Americans can't understand each other either.
Just happened yesterday, in fact. I was waiting at the grocery store deli counter for my turn to order, and the woman in front of me decided to ask the very Southern deli-worker what Head Cheese was.
The worker chuckled, and said, "before I tell ya, ya got anything on yer stomach?"
"What?" the woman replied, confused and (I believe) not sure if he was making an inappropriate comment to her.
"Ya got anything on yer stomach?" he asked again.
At this point I intervened. "He's asking you if you've eaten anything recently," I told her. "He's implying that knowing what Head Cheese is might make you nauseous."
"Ohhh," she said. Then to him, replied "No. It's okay, you can tell me."
LOL! That's funny.
|
|
Yeah, your accent is coming across pretty heavily on our ends... may have something to do with you signing each post with "Hi guv'ner!" :PLOL! I get in a rage at Burger King all the time. Once I ordered a Double Whopper with cheese and ended up getting a junior meal ;) Gosh it sucks to be British in America, half the time people don't understand a word I'm saying. I guess people on these threads feel the same about me too ;)Barbarian: WELCOME TO BURGER KING, WHAT CAN I GET YOU?
Customer: I'd uh ... well ... uh ... hold on a sec ...
Barbarian: *rage*
Ere wotcha! You're off your trolley if ya fink I cannae c'moonicate witcha! ;0
Actually I'm not from London so I rarely speak Cockney(I can do the accent - like the Gecko in the Geico commercial). I'm more of the well-spoken British type: "Jolly good, old boy." that kind of lingo. But you should know that I religiously try to spell things in my posts the American way. Thank goodness for spell-checkers ;)