|
Does the PF core book have to spell out which professions are and are not allowed for the barbarian?????
- Courtesan (one skilled in conversation, pleasant company, and subtle sexual innuendo) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Masseuse (one who knows the body and how to touch it) - Not allowed for barbarian- Master (one trained in the art of bondage, sadomasochism, and sexual domination) - Allowed for barbarian.
- Midwife (someone trained in assisting mothers with giving birth) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Piercer (one who knows how to safely pierce the body with jewelry and other adornments) - Not allowed for barbarian
- Prostitute (one who sells sexual favors) - Not allowed for barbarian (the rough stuff is already covered by Master).
- Purveyor (one who unites buyers of sexual favors with prostitutes) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Scarification Artist (one trained in the art of safely scarring the skin as adornment) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Tattoo artist (one who knows how to tattoo the skin using needles and ink) - Not allowed for barbarian.
|
I think it is wierd that barbarians are the only core class with no profession.
Why did they (designers)do this?
In general most barbarians do not have a profession.PCs are supposed to be exceptional thus having a profession is beyond the norm in some way.
This comes down to the history or backstory of your PC. Was he a young apprentice to a blacksmith who was taken in by a barbarian tribe after his town was destroyed. Did he gain acceptance by fashioning the metal for sturrps and bits changing the tribe from wanderers to horsemen....
Here then is a PC barbarian with the profession blacksmith.
Does the PF core book have to spell out which professions are and are not allowed for the barbarian?????
No I guess if he's got the requisites he can take skills in whatever profession he wants as his character progresses. Still as I said above, barbarians could be (horse-trainers, hunters, traders (I'm sure barbarians trade goods with tribes they're not currently trying to kill), weapon-smiths (Two-handed swords and battle axes don't grow on trees - though I guess they could if the GM's world permitted it).
Just think about the barbarian societies, they wouldn't survive if they spent all their spare time killing each other off) Also, they do not necessarily have rage issues as if its some psychotic condition which defines them. Instead it's a skill they have honed for fighting which they are under full control of. They can stop raging whenever they want to, they don't carry on until they drop down exhausted/unconscious awaiting a coup de grace from remaining opponents.
To me there is no reason why a barbarian can't have a profession, but there are certain professions they probably wouldn't have - i.e. novelist, lawyer, federal judge etc. ;)
I doubt we would find any books like "The Etiquette of the Dining Table" by Skullcrusher the Barbarian ;0 But you never know...
I'd just house rule it myself.
|
|
Does the PF core book have to spell out which professions are and are not allowed for the barbarian?????
- Courtesan (one skilled in conversation, pleasant company, and subtle sexual innuendo) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Masseuse (one who knows the body and how to touch it) - Not allowed for barbarian
- Master (one trained in the art of bondage, sadomasochism, and sexual domination) - Allowed for barbarian.
- Midwife (someone trained in assisting mothers with giving birth) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Piercer (one who knows how to safely pierce the body with jewelry and other adornments) - Not allowed for barbarian
- Prostitute (one who sells sexual favors) - Not allowed for barbarian (the rough stuff is already covered by Master).
- Purveyor (one who unites buyers of sexual favors with prostitutes) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Scarification Artist (one trained in the art of safely scarring the skin as adornment) - Not allowed for barbarian.
- Tattoo artist (one who knows how to tattoo the skin using needles and ink) - Not allowed for barbarian.
Interesting. Especially the last one. The barbarian ancient Britons used tatooing using the indigo pigment and needles. They produced some amazing permanent designs on their bodies. So there is no reason why a barbarian could not be a tattoo artist.
This is a good way to put things. Indeed, dipping into the barbarian class a level or two gives a good technical boost, and may develop a concept for a multiclassed character. At the same time, a primal warrior could be a ranger, because he excels at hunting animals.Barbarian is a collection of rules for interacting with the game. A 'barbarian' is a stereotype of other cultures that has become, in our minds, a naked savage who lives in tribes and attacks with berserker fury in battle, an unlearned man of the wild.
Your character does not need to be a barbarian to have levels in Barbarian, and you do not need levels in Barbarian to play a barbarian.
They walk the line, while the barbarian crosses it. Rangers could commonly be used in actual military use, and have an allegiance to a ruler of some sort, while the barbarian ideal shows no such common trait. However you bring up a good point, the barbarian probably should have the same ability to hunt.
I can see your point. Looking at some of the suggested Professions listed in the PRD under Profession, though..
I can only see a few a barbarian would not be "good" at, like architect, clerk, courtesan, engineer, innkeeper, librarian, miller, miner, and scribe. Seriously, what barbarian tribe has a library?Profession
(Wis; Trained Only)
The most common Profession skills are architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter.
"Ogg not like Books!!! YOU FILE!" tears book in half
"Card Catalog not a threat!" tosses cards
|
|
They produced some amazing permanent designs on their bodies.I'm trying to figure out how you might know this.
Actually and strangely enough from a book called Colour by Victoria Finley.
The tattooing was recorded by Roman authors including Julius Caesar.
|
|
They produced some amazing permanent designs on their bodies.I'm trying to figure out how you might know this.Actually and strangely enough from a book called Colour by Victoria Finley.
The tattooing was recorded by Roman authors including Julius Caesar.
Looks like a fascinating book. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of it.
Thanks.
You're welcome ;)
|
|
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 ;)
Meh... a bit of honour and colour wouldn't kill these boards I say... :P
Creative Director
|
Are you suggesting that smiths do not get up and do a job?
I'm suggesting that when smiths get up and do a job, they make a Craft check, NOT a Profession check, to determine how good they do their job.
Let's turn that around, why is it so destructive to the concept of the barbarian to allow them to get that +3?
It's not destructive at all. But we chose to not give them profession as a class skill, and that's pretty much it. Change it if you want in your game, but we like it as it is. There's enough errata in the game for us to take care of as it stands without us "inventing" errata that doesn't qualify as errata.
As for the barbarian being the only class not to get Profession... My take is this: this is something that helps define the barbarian as a class, just as much as rage, fast movement, and d12 HD. It's a design choice, and one that I happen to think is a GOOD design 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**
Well we've gotten your answer.
As for the barbarian being the only class not to get Profession... My take is this: this is something that helps define the barbarian as a class, just as much as rage, fast movement, and d12 HD. It's a design choice, and one that I happen to think is a GOOD design choice.
It was a judgement call for the type of system they wanted to develop. There really isn't any objective reason why barbarians shouldn't have profession. It is just the developers "feeling" that they shouldn't.
I mean people can talk about barbarian society this and wake up and get paid that, but in the end it was just a call by the designers. It was not a fluke, it was a call.
Honestly - James answered this a while back already (page 2 maybe?). We had that. My continued involvement was mostly at the idea that the they can't have "profession" because they're "savage" or "angry" or whatever.
He even answered that blacksmith thing earlier, too, pres man - just an FYI. ;-) {his answer was use Craft skill to paraphrase}
James has been totally respectable on his stance and answers - just happens that apparently MANY of us disagree strongly. {I'm one of 'em.}
He even answered that blacksmith thing earlier, too, pres man - just an FYI. ;-) {his answer was use Craft skill to paraphrase}
I was responding to this comment.
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.
The way that reads to me is that those with the profession skill get up and earn money practicing a trade. Those with the craft skill do not get up and earn money practicing a trade. Which is why asked for clarification because I believed that couldn't be what was actually meant. It just seemed to come across to me as if those with the profession skills were the hard working joes and those with the craft skill were the lazy do the job when they feel like it types. From just about every store that I've read that featured a blacksmith (a person with the craft skill), they always seemed to be hardest working townsfolk.
Sure - and there are plenty of professions that require real work - farming, sailor, trapper, etc. any number of which a "barbarian" could absolutely engage in. For the record, I'm 110% in your corner, buddy! :-D
@Kender: Dude - it's NOT about mechanics (for the umpteenth time!). It's about the underlying decision behind not including a sort of "everyman" skill for all but ONE class. It just stands out, and EVERY reason presented so far falls upon borderline "racist" rationale, IMO.
Mechanics are beside the point ... it's the take home message about that which I find disturbing.
|
|
It's about the underlying decision behind not including a sort of "everyman" skill for all but ONE class. It just stands out, and EVERY reason presented so far falls upon borderline "racist" rationale, IMO.
Mechanics are beside the point ... it's the take home message about that which I find disturbing.
I think you are extrapolating something that is not there, and I do not believe that the decision had "racist" overtones in the slightest. Someone just decided it wasn't necessary for a barbarian to have a profession skill. Do I agree with that decision, absolutely not, but I think that racism is way overreacting.
|
Creative Director
|
@Kender: Dude - it's NOT about mechanics (for the umpteenth time!). It's about the underlying decision behind not including a sort of "everyman" skill for all but ONE class. It just stands out, and EVERY reason presented so far falls upon borderline "racist" rationale, IMO.
Mechanics are beside the point ... it's the take home message about that which I find disturbing.
Racism doesn't enter into the picture, since we don't imply in the rules ANYWHERE that barbarians are meant to represent any specific real-world or fantasy race. In fact, this is so far off base that I had to re-read your post several times to figure out what you meant by "disturbing."
In other words, there's no attempt by the rules or any of my posts to imply that some peoples can't hold down jobs.
|
I think you are extrapolating something that is not there, and I do not believe that the decision had "racist" overtones in the slightest. Someone just decided it wasn't necessary for a barbarian to have a profession skill. Do I agree with that decision, absolutely not, but I think that racism is way overreacting.It's about the underlying decision behind not including a sort of "everyman" skill for all but ONE class. It just stands out, and EVERY reason presented so far falls upon borderline "racist" rationale, IMO.
Mechanics are beside the point ... it's the take home message about that which I find disturbing.
We were responding to the explanations given by other members of the forum, not the designers. Go back and read the suggestions that barbarians are uncivilized and unable to manage a business, but replace 'barbarian' with 'Mexican' or 'woman'. See how unbigoted you think it is. And yes, some of my own statements probably fail that test as well.
Racism doesn't enter into the picture, since we don't imply in the rules ANYWHERE that barbarians are meant to represent any specific real-world or fantasy race. In fact, this is so far off base that I had to re-read your post several times to figure out what you meant by "disturbing."
In other words, there's no attempt by the rules or any of my posts to imply that some peoples can't hold down jobs.
Discriminatory then, rather than racist.
Racism? Discrimination? Wow. Just...wow. I can not imagine a better example of taking things too seriously.
Just...wow.
|
|
I think the problem is that some people think "Barbarian" refers to a specific culture or set of cultures and that, further, these cultures must be complex agriculturalists.
What I can't figure out is why, given the class description, the assumption is being made that the class refers to a culture or set of cultures or why those cultures must be complex agriculturalists.
I know, it's crazy to tie a class to just one character type, isn't it?
I know, it's crazy to tie a class to just one character type, isn't it?Yeah, like Paladins, and Rangers. Oh, and Bards. Um, Druids too. And Clerics, to a lesser degree. And those sneaky Sorcerers and bookish Wizards. And backstabbing Rogues. Oh, and Monks. Talk about sterotyping!
Or it COULD be that ALL the classes appeal to archetypes that are present in fantasy literature, and while you can certainly deviate from the norm, doing so is going against the grain of the archetype, and so will be more difficult.
Classes are individual people. Nobosy is saying anything about the Shoanti Tribes being unable to hold a job. Specific barbarians IN the tribes, not to mention Chelaxian "mountain men" and Varisian "berserkers", may not be able to, but that says nothing of the people AT LARGE.
Yup, raging for less than a minute in the entire day (1440 minutes total, so 0.000694 or 0.0694% of the day), certainly would disqualify those individuals from being capable of maintaining a profession.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't get the racism angle either. That said, even if the barbarian were assumed to be of a certain race, that wouldn't imply that all membes of that race are barbarians. Presumably, some are experts, adepts, and other classes, each of which have profession as a class skill and wouldn't really have the can't-hold-down-a-jon stereotype of the barbarian.
But, mostly, the racism angle is very weird. If you replaced the word goblin with an ethnicity in any particular thread, that would probably be pretty offensive too. It wouldn't make any sense to make such a replacement, but it would definitely be offensive.
|
|
Hot showers are great time to order your thoughts.
I have no problem with the statement 'savage berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path should not get Profession as a class skill'.
I have a problem with 'Barbarians can only be savage berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path'.
I have a problem with 'barbarians should not get Profession as a class skill'.
|
|
I think you are extrapolating something that is not there, and I do not believe that the decision had "racist" overtones in the slightest. Someone just decided it wasn't necessary for a barbarian to have a profession skill. Do I agree with that decision, absolutely not, but I think that racism is way overreacting.It's about the underlying decision behind not including a sort of "everyman" skill for all but ONE class. It just stands out, and EVERY reason presented so far falls upon borderline "racist" rationale, IMO.
Mechanics are beside the point ... it's the take home message about that which I find disturbing.
We were responding to the explanations given by other members of the forum, not the designers. Go back and read the suggestions that barbarians are uncivilized and unable to manage a business, but replace 'barbarian' with 'Mexican' or 'woman'. See how unbigoted you think it is. And yes, some of my own statements probably fail that test as well.
Discriminatory then, rather than racist.Racism doesn't enter into the picture, since we don't imply in the rules ANYWHERE that barbarians are meant to represent any specific real-world or fantasy race. In fact, this is so far off base that I had to re-read your post several times to figure out what you meant by "disturbing."
In other words, there's no attempt by the rules or any of my posts to imply that some peoples can't hold down jobs.
Yah know, I'm out of this thread. There's nothing discriminatory or racist or any other (...name your own conspiracy here...) in the lack of profession for barbarian decision. It was simply a game design call and nothing more. Talk about getting touchy...
I have no problem with the statement 'savage berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path should not get Profession as a class skill'.
I have a problem with 'Barbarians can only be savage berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path'.
I have a problem with 'barbarians should not get Profession as a class skill'.
Indeed, some people seem to be confusing all barbarians with frenzy berserkers.
I have no real issues with barbarians not getting profession as a class skill. My explanation would be that, in general, that being a barbarian in my game would mean that they are in places where professions are just not too common. Out where they are generally in my game skills like Craft and Survival are much more common. While a fighter, druid, or ranger may also not commonly work a normal job, I would suggest that they are more commonly raised in or live near towns, cities, and such where they are more likely to receive enough exposure to such job that it is pretty easy for them to pick up if they decide to.
If you want to give Barbarians profession as a class skill, then I would suggest you do it, it will not make the class to powerful.
|
|
Is "frenzy berserker" a PrC?
I really -really- think the problem is that some people think "Barbarian" , in the game, refers to a culture or cultures of complex agriculturalists.
Rather, a culture has Barbarians. But it -also- can have farmers, fishers, etc.
Yes, and some people here seem to be equating the class Barbarian with a culture referred to as barbarian, and using that as grounds for why Barbarians do not get Profession. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been arguing against.
As for the confusion about the difference of my previous statements, I state that 'the Barbarian class does not only represent savage berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path, therefore the Barbarian class should get Profession as a class skill'.
As I said before, it seems some people seem to believe 'the Barbarian class represents berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path, therefore the Barbarian class should NOT get Profession as a class skill'.
This is what I argue against, along with 'barbarian society does not allow for Profession'.
|
|
What did you think my argument was then? Because I'm not sure how I'm confusing you.
Also, flagged my discrimination post. Examined it, found it a bad argument, hope Ross or Gary will nuke it for me.
Edit: Okay, then it's the same disconnect we've had in every argument. I don't believe fluff is RAW the same way crunch is, and you feel both fluff and crunch is equally RAW.
|
Creative Director
|
The part I'm the most confused by is the perception that not having a class skill = you can NEVER take ranks in that skill.
One of the major changes to how skills work in Pathfinder is that we killed the concept of a cross-class skill being something that you always suck at.
Nevermind the fact that barbarians in 3.5 have NEVER had the Profession skill as a class skill. Hell, in 3.5, neither did fighters. I guess I'm just a bit weirded out by the fact that this is suddenly such a big deal, 10 years or so after it first showed up.
|
|
The part I'm the most confused by is the perception that not having a class skill = you can NEVER take ranks in that skill.
One of the major changes to how skills work in Pathfinder is that we killed the concept of a cross-class skill being something that you always suck at.
Nevermind the fact that barbarians in 3.5 have NEVER had the Profession skill as a class skill. Hell, in 3.5, neither did fighters. I guess I'm just a bit weirded out by the fact that this is suddenly such a big deal, 10 years or so after it first showed up.
I'm arguing more about the concept rather than the mathmatics of it. :) Edited my previous post for LT.