Barbarian/Fighter Merge

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Barbarian/Fighter Merge

Post by Username17 »

Edit: Split from Monk thread - fbmf

Ah... I finally figured out what you were rambling about.

You seem to be thinking that Barbarian and Fighter are different classes. That's ridiculous. Barbarian and Fighter are freely mixable, taking levels in one advances the properties of the other. You don't give up anything except the next level bonuses of Fighter to take the next level bonuses of Barbarian, and vice versa.

Therefore, from the standpoint of the question "Is the game big enough to fit both these classes within this combat role?" the answer is that they are not different classes. Barbarian is just a feat chain, and its status as a feat chain quite clearly demonstrates that most feats are horribly underpowered - an observation which is tangential at best to this discussion.

When you take the "monk" you forsake armor and weapons. This doesn't mean a whole lot in a vaccuum, since you don't actually get meaningful armor and weapons in the first place. But when you multiclass the monk into character classes which do have weapons and armor as integral portions of their growth - you start paying through the nose out of your fighter levels.

So you can have as many "monk" classes as you want, and as many "Fighter" classes as you want - but they don't really mix well. And because they don't mix well - there's no fair way to have them compete for the same party role.

Barbarians and Fighters can compete for the same role because they are the same character class. Someone who is a "Fighter" who has no barbarian levels actually is a barbarian who happens to have zero barbarian levels yet. Someone who is a "Barbarian" who has no fighter levels really is a fighter who happens to have zero levels in fighter so far. A monk or wizard, otoh, who has no levels of fighter is actually not a fighter.

There is a difference between none and zero - and that's it.

-Username17
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by RandomCasualty »

Honestly I think for the reasons Frank is saying, that fighters and barbarians are basically one in the same, we ought to just ditch the barbarian class altogether and just make rage, damage reduction and uncanny dodge into feats.

Do we really need the barbarian, I don't think we do.
Wrenfield
Master
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Wrenfield »

RC wrote:Honestly I think for the reasons Frank is saying, that fighters and barbarians are basically one in the same, we ought to just ditch the barbarian class altogether and just make rage, damage reduction and uncanny dodge into feats.


If you are going to take this tack, you need to also port over the Barbarian skill selection and ranks to the standard Fighter. As I've always advocated, the Fighter needs the Survival skill - as his training not only comprises learning how to fight with various shields, weapons, and armors ... but also using them effectively and appropriately in different terrain. Fighters don't just assume that combat takes place on a stone-floored practice room. And 4 skills/level will not break the Fighter. Especially since those ranks will still only be applied physical based skills and stuff like Intimidate.

Although I am not sure how you would simulate the illiteracy component for the Barbarian. Especially since at its root, its not a class feature, it's a class detriment. Since illiterate, primitive peoples are staples of the fantasy D&D genre, we need to find an alternative mechanism for them.

Perhaps roll Illiteracy into a feat that eventually gives you enough benefits, that the downside of Illiteracy is overcome and is compelling to take for both the flavor and mechanics of being a primitive character.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by RandomCasualty »

Wrenfield at [unixtime wrote:1084046287[/unixtime]]
If you are going to take this tack, you need to also port over the Barbarian skill selection and ranks to the standard Fighter. As I've always advocated, the Fighter needs the Survival skill - as his training not only comprises learning how to fight with various shields, weapons, and armors ... but also using them effectively and appropriately in different terrain. Fighters don't just assume that combat takes place on a stone-floored practice room. And 4 skills/level will not break the Fighter. Especially since those ranks will still only be applied physical based skills and stuff like Intimidate.

Sure. 4 skill/level for the fighter would certainly be ok, as would giving him the barb skill list.


Although I am not sure how you would simulate the illiteracy component for the Barbarian. Especially since at its root, its not a class feature, it's a class detriment. Since illiterate, primitive peoples are staples of the fantasy D&D genre, we need to find an alternative mechanism for them.

I dunno, maybe we could just make illiteracy a benefit any character can take for a bonus 4 skill points or whatever it's worth to buy off (don't really remember the exact number offhand). It's a big enough disadvantage I think that people won't readily want to trade it for skills that often. And if they want to spend points to buy it off later, they won't really be gaining anything.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Draco_Argentum »

4sp/lvl and a big expansion to the fighter skill list? Sounds good to me.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Username17 »

It would necessarily require that players be allowed to get a feat every level and that the basic feat value be improved from its current abyssmal value.

A feat is not worth "as good as getting +2 to a single stat for some extremely specific circumstances and nothing the rest of the time". It's worth getting Rage, and Fast Movement, and more hit points. That's how much a feat is worth.

And when Fighters start actually getting what a feat is actually worth (that is, what it costs) every time they take a level of Fighter, then and only then they won't suck so god damn bad.

-Username17
Wrenfield
Master
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Wrenfield »

Frank wrote:It would necessarily require that players be allowed to get a feat every level and that the basic feat value be improved from its current abyssmal value.

A feat is not worth "as good as getting +2 to a single stat for some extremely specific circumstances and nothing the rest of the time". It's worth getting Rage, and Fast Movement, and more hit points. That's how much a feat is worth.

And when Fighters start actually getting what a feat is actually worth (that is, what it costs) every time they take a level of Fighter, then and only then they won't suck so god damn bad.


And for god's sake, we need *MORE* Tactical Combat feats! WotC came across a real novel idea by publishing feats like Shock Trooper and Elusive Target in the CW book. And I hope this trend continues. Granted, some of them sucked or were too confusing to use - but the concept is strong and *really* Fighter-friendly.

These feats offer both combat flexibility (multiples of options) and increased firepower. And they are not broken by being "must have" feats - since each of them are best taken by combatants who have certain niches (i.e. Elusive Target for DEX and Trip fighters - Shock Trooper for Tanks and Charge! fighters).

Even if they upped the pre-req.'s on these feats, that would be fine. Since doing so would most likely be structured around them being friendly to Fighter mechanics and/or level progression.

RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by RandomCasualty »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1084065429[/unixtime]]
A feat is not worth "as good as getting +2 to a single stat for some extremely specific circumstances and nothing the rest of the time". It's worth getting Rage, and Fast Movement, and more hit points. That's how much a feat is worth.


Well, I'd say rage alone is worth a feat, uncanny dodge is worth a feat and improved uncanny dodge is worth a feat.

Fast movement we could just drop because I really don't see it fitting in anywhere.

So we jump the fighter's hit dice to d12, improve his skills to 4/level and merge the barb/fighter skill lists. And a fighter can take Rage, Uncanny dodge, Imp.Uncanny dodge at his first 4 levels and then effectively be a barbarian.
Sma
Master
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Sma »


Frank wrote:When you take the "monk" you forsake armor and weapons. This doesn't mean a whole lot in a vaccuum, since you don't actually get meaningful armor and weapons in the first place. But when you multiclass the monk into character classes which do have weapons and armor as integral portions of their growth - you start paying through the nose out of your fighter levels.

So you can have as many "monk" classes as you want, and as many "Fighter" classes as you want - but they don't really mix well. And because they don't mix well - there's no fair way to have them compete for the same party role.


This may be just be me late at night, but my first thought was, replace Monk with Wizard or Caster and the meaning is actually the same.

Flurry monk = Fireball Wizard ? He may not do as much damage in one turn but can keep it up all day long.
So maybe we should´n´t try to make the monk better in melee, but instead pore over the Spell list for spells the monk gets as at will abilities.

Brainfart ?
Sma
Wrenfield
Master
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Wrenfield »


RC wrote:So we jump the fighter's hit dice to d12, improve his skills to 4/level and merge the barb/fighter skill lists. And a fighter can take Rage, Uncanny dodge, Imp.Uncanny dodge at his first 4 levels and then effectively be a barbarian.
But then you cause an imbalance in the structural mechanics of the Ranger, Paladin, and Hexblade. They all need to be slightly tweaked as well, or they become pointless. Unless of course, you turn a lot of their class abilities into feats as well.
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

I think the Hexblade is hopeless. Misguided class.

What would be the problem w/ the ranger and paladin? The main thing I see is that the ftr/barbarian now has at least 12 or 14 levels of class features worth taking, but ranger and paladin knock out at around 4 or 5 levels. Actually, thinking out loud, the ranger would fit in w/ the fighter/barbarian if extra skills/level and wilderness lore were feats instead of abilities. What else would be needed? Spells. Hmm.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Username17 »

Game mechanically, all of the Fighter Variant Classes (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Thug, etc.) could all be separate classes which are freely multiclassable, or selectable abilities off of a single Fighter class. There is no actual difference at all. In one you write "Samurai 1" into your "character classes" line on your character sheet, in the other you write "Samurai Package 1" into your "special abilities" box on your character sheet.

Unless you are fetishistic about where you write the word "Samurai" on your character sheet, there is no difference. Your character in actual play will be precisely the same degree of a Samurai regardless of where you write the word Samurai on your character sheet.

---

Now, honestly I don't really care whether these are made as classes or selectable abilities. But here's one thing I do care about:

Your class should not affect the amount of skill points you get.

That's a big claim, but here's my ideas on the subject: You can be the guy who lives in the wilderness and knows the way of the land, and when not in a combat situation your benefit to the party should be that you track people, know where stuff is, have insight into when it's going to rain and what you need to do about it - all that crap that the hermit helps the other adventurers with in stories. Right? What the hell difference does it make whether in combat you are the hermit who goes berserk like their bear totem, or the guy who snipes people with arrows, or the guy who calls lightning bolts from the sky?

Whatever you do in combat should be completely and totally divorced from what you do out of combat. There is no reason to link being the diplomatic information gathering guy to being the chandelier swinging rapier stabbing fast guy. It means that you have to have a huge multiple of classes to represent everybody.

Some people want ot be wilderness guys, and as long as that's connected to combat schtick, you are going to need a wilderness guy class or ability package for every single ability set you allow for combat types (see the existence of both the "Wilderness Rogue" and "Wild Assassin").

Some people want to be the party Face - the Diplomat, and as long as that's connected to combat schtick you are going to need a Diplomat class or ability package for every single combat schtick, and so on.

I really think that by dividing characters into a combat class and a non-combat class, we can reduce the number of classes to a workable number and represent more character types. Remember, a simple 6 combat schticks and 4 non-combat schticks is 10 class write ups - 1 less than is in the modern PHB. But it represents 24 different character types - more than double what the PHB currently supports.

It also has a secondary advantage, which is that NPCs can finally become one dimensional. One of the big problems with D&D is that for a Blacksmith or Farmer to get any good at his job - he has to be a total bad ass at the same time. That means that if you posit the existence of skilled Farmers, the starting PCs are totally outclassed in combat by the people they are supposedly protecting - which is retarded. Also, take a look at the skills on Dire Animals, they are much higher than the skills on normal animals, which is stupid.

Instead, NPCs (but not PCs) can have Combat and Non-combat levels without taking the other. So a Commoner might have no combat levels at all, and just have the basic minimum human hit points, but have several levels of Specialist in whatever field he works in. An Ogre might not have any skills by virtue of having no non-combat levels, but just have a bunch of combat levels and a big club.

Splitting the combat abilities away from the noncombat levels is advantageous in many ways:

1> Allows better customization of characters with less printed material.
2> Allows for the existence of Monsters and Innocents without non-sensical abilities.
3> Eliminates the bad game balance mistakes of classes like the Fighter and the Bard who are skilled in only one field.

-Username17
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

One other bonus. If monsters worked the same way, it'd be easier to integrate monster characters.
User avatar
Desdan_Mervolam
Knight-Baron
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Desdan_Mervolam »

While that idea IS intriguing, Frank, the big problem I see is that it forces people to have a combat and noncombat role no matter what. For example, in Van Helsing, the number of attacks Brother Carl made can be counted on one hand, but he provided research that neither Van Helsing nor Anna could have discovered on their own.

I don't see why someone MUST take a role unnessissary or inappropriate to their character if they don't have to.

-Desdan
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Username17 »

For example, in Van Helsing, the number of attacks Brother Carl made can be counted on one hand, but he provided research that neither Van Helsing nor Anna could have discovered on their own.


Actually, Friar Carl is a very effective combatant, killing more vampires than all other characters in the movie combined. He rescues the girl, saves the monster, and is generally a perfectly valid character. Now, Van Helsing is a weird movie because the characters are at such a radically different level - Van Helsing is an extremely powerful Paladin/Ranger, Anna is a moderately effective Fighter, and Carl is honestly a low level Gadgeteer.

Friar Carl has a combat schtick, he's just much lower level than Van Helsing.

Players need a combat schtick and a non-combat schtick. Really, they really really do. Players whose characters don't have both end up phasing out of the game and wandering off to play Smash Bros. when their schtick isn't available for use.

Note that your combat schtick and your non-combat schtick could be on different creatures. It would be perfectly reasonable to play a Thief and a Tiger at the same time. The one ability set doesn't really affect the other, so you could get by just fine playing both Calvin and Hobbes.

-Username17
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by RandomCasualty »

The real problem I'd see with separating noncombat and combat is that a lot of the stuff is mixed. So long as you've got skills like tumble, use magic device and hide. You really can't be sure what to call combat and what to call noncombat. Hide for instance can be used to gather recon, or it can be used to sneak up on someone to gain combat bonuses. Is this a combat or noncombat ability? Use magic device can be used to fire a wand of fireball at someone or also to read a scroll of locate object. Is this combat or noncombat?

And spells are even worse.

The main problem is that there's no easy way to differentiate a combat ability from a noncombat one, so while the idea sounds good, I don't think it's actually implementable.
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

Not a problem. Tumble can be separated into non-combat and combat uses. B/c spells and magic has combat and non-combat uses, UMD can also have combat and non-combat effectiveness.

It can make a kind of sense. We have Divine and Arcane magic. There's no reason those couldn't be changed to Combat and Non-Combat Magic. In fact, just make Non-Combat Magic have longer casting times, and you're basically done - now it's useless in combat.
Now, assume items that use NOn-Combat Magic also incorporate some difference - like a long activation time, or weird triggers, that require a different technique than Combat Magic.

Don't like the flavor text? WHo cares? It's just a mechanic.

Hide actually isn't a problem. There is no non-combat use for it. When you are actively hiding or actively searchign for a hidden person, you're in combat. You might not be stabbing w/ pointy things, but you're still in combat.

This could work. Frank, you've brought me around.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by RandomCasualty »

The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1084314144[/unixtime]]
Hide actually isn't a problem. There is no non-combat use for it. When you are actively hiding or actively searchign for a hidden person, you're in combat. You might not be stabbing w/ pointy things, but you're still in combat.


What about simply avoiding being seen to evade capture, or hiding in the trees to gain recon on a foe. A lot of the advantages of hide are actually to avoid a combat as opposed to help you win one.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by User3 »

I agree that everyone should have something useful to do outside of combat. However.....

There are no noncombat skills or spells in DnD. Simple.

For example, Knowlege(arcana): "Don't look into her eyes!, she'll turn you to stone!"

Knowlege(Engineering): "What's the roll to figure out how to make the roof collapse with a lightning bolt and bury the Golem?"

Knowlege(heraldry or nobilty or somesuch): "The tabard of the Black Duke! His army carries bows and wizards!"

Craft(Pottery): "Using my pottery skill, I want to know with a free action which would be the right kind of pot in the alchemists shop could hold the acid, so that I know which one to throw at the monster?"

"And now I use Leomund's Tiny Hut to get full concealment."

"And now we use Rope Trick to escape the dragon."

"I now I use Detect Magic to figure out which image is not an illusion, but the Wizard."

Etc.
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

I said this already. "Combat" isn't just stabbing w/ pointy sticks. It's whenever there's an "encounter." An encounter is when two groups are close together, can interact, and may act at crosspurposes. Then you go to rounds - and are in "combat." Even if all you do is spend a couple rounds talking until you figure out nobody wants to fight, and leave "combat."

So. For Hide, if nobody's looking for you, hide is irrelevant. Right? Hide only matters is somebody's looking. If you're trying to avoid being seen to get away, you're in combat until you get away. If you're trying to get recon, you're in combat until you leave.

The close case is setting up ambushes or hiding something in a room. In that case, you use your combat skill (hide), then nothing happens until somebody looks for you. Then, you're in combat rounds - and hide is compared to spot.
User avatar
Desdan_Mervolam
Knight-Baron
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Desdan_Mervolam »

Then noncombat effectiveness doesn't matter because you've redefined "combat" until it means "Anything you do when you're not doing nothing"

-Desdan
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

Not at all. We're talking about a 4.0 system w/ 3.5 terms - so, we "think" in terms of encounters. So, to explaing why the 3.5 Hide skill doesn't have any meaning outside of combat, I have to use the 3.5 definition of "combat," which is encounters.

Maybe that doesn't make sense. OK, start again. Basically, Hide is used either to be sneaky in combat, or to avoid combat. I can't think of any other uses for it. No matter how you slice it, Hide involves combat.

You could argue that at times infiltration (sneaking in, doing stuff unseen, stuff like that) doesn't involve combat, and should be part of a non-combat skill set. Fine, I disagree, but I can see that POV. But the skill should be "infiltrating," not Hide or Move Silently. Those just don't have much, if any, meaning outside of combat.

Tumble, on the other hand, is not. You could use tumble to avoid falling, to do fancy, impressive tricks, and so on - outside of combat. Or you can use it to be acrobatic and nimble in combat.

There's always going to be a gray area whenever you divide something up into 2 categories. But here, it's a pretty small gray area. Most skills are like Tumble, or have no combat uses. Like Track. Heck, even Diplomacy and Heal have clear combat and non-combat uses.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: What does a Monk need to not suck? (3.0)

Post by Username17 »

Combat is any time you are attempting to bypass encounters with hostile creatures as D&D considers this to be having an encounter with said hostile creatures.

Out of combat is any encounters you have with non-hostile creatures or with hostile non-creatures, or non-hostile non-creatures.

So if it is for some reason to your advantage to hide from non-hostile creatures, then that's a non-combat use of Hide. But that's also an obscure enough event that I'm OK with just calling it a Combat Ability. I mean you can use a high Strength to open doors by force - but that's still a combat ability.

-Username17
Post Reply