|
Post by dzubak on Mar 18, 2005 15:14:31 GMT -5
A quick nutshell summary of 3E armor is that it place a maximum dexerity modifier based on the bulkiness of the armor. Lighter armors (leather, hide, chain shirt) had fairly high maximums while heavy (chain mail, splint, plate) has low limits.
But as Axe stated, is there any "real" evidence to support that the heavier armors slowed reactions and combat mobility.
I'd prefer to have a player be able to have a lightly armored character as Axe hints at with his Berserker style PCs and still not feel out performed by his heavy armored comrades. Perhaps the Berserker is an idea to try. Any other limitations or bonuses to this class. (perhaps detailed in the homebrew section)?
-d
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Mar 18, 2005 15:34:38 GMT -5
dzubak: "Perhaps the Berserker is an idea to try. Any other limitations or bonuses to this class. (perhaps detailed in the homebrew section)?"
We thought about adding on a bunch of home brewed stuff (skills of hunting bla bla bla etc. etc.) but ended up thinking they were stupid. Just assume these guys are tuff SOB machines and can survive on grubs or ear wax but would prefer a half a cow for dinner and then some dancing girls. If you have read Conan (as most of us have) you can DM and play a beserker without a UA break down of "powers".
The best bet is to just read the MM description and just say to the DM I'm going to do this because I'm a barbarian and can (of course the DM might disagree, but what would a Barbarian not think they could do?...its all about attitude with them right? Let them find out they can't climb walls etc.)
The MM states that all Beserkers are 0 class except for a few exceptional ones that become fighters. No limit in fighting level is ever suggested. So, just say there unlimited fighters (the exceptional bad a$$ who gets special training from the chief's personal gaurd or something) and they must not wear armor of any sort. If they do wear armor they can't get the bonus (7 AC) and they don't get the 2 attacks or +2 ability. If they wear armor for more then a few hours I would also say the become uncomfortable and throw it off not being able to stand the confined feeling.
As for the idea that a beserker/barbarian wouldn't use magical rings, weapons etc. thats a bunch of crap and I have no idea where Gygax got this idea. The barbarian would always grab the most powerful sword, the most powerful protection ring and the biggest slice of Pizza...it's in their DNA....yeah even at 1st level.
I also wouldn't give them any special healing powers , they are really no better at healing then any other fighter (who are also tuff SOBs).
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Mar 18, 2005 16:23:14 GMT -5
Bah. Wear some armor and quit Bi**hing. Rome kicked barbarian ass for centuries cause the savages wouldn't get suited up.
;D
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Mar 18, 2005 18:55:12 GMT -5
Thats interesting, Barbarians attacking Rome really didn't wear armor (by choice or was it something they couldn't get)?
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Mar 18, 2005 19:08:11 GMT -5
P&P could elaborate more, but I know the Celts in Gaul and the Isles fought naked against the Legions. They had some victories against Rome initially, but once the Romans realized if they held their ground against the barbarians beserking, the celtic iron weapons would bend, and the centurions would be victorious.
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Mar 18, 2005 19:15:15 GMT -5
Of course the Goths and Visigoths eventually sacked Rome - but they were much better equipped by then.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Mar 18, 2005 19:40:09 GMT -5
Its amazing that a group would make war without armor by choice (naked?). Perhaps tactics (formations, speed, etc.) is the determining factor as to what armor to wear. For instance if your charging or defending.
Wow that sucks their metal would bend...what a bummer to find that out.
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Mar 18, 2005 20:48:24 GMT -5
I guess that's why they where called barbarians.
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Mar 18, 2005 23:37:22 GMT -5
Its amazing that a group would make war without armor by choice (naked?). Perhaps tactics (formations, speed, etc.) is the determining factor as to what armor to wear. For instance if your charging or defending. Wow that sucks their metal would bend...what a bummer to find that out. Their weapons did get better. The problem with iron (other than rusting) is that it is relatively soft, and doesn't hold an edge very well. The primitive iron blades thus tended to bend. Initially the naked charging blue painted Celts tactics worked. They scared the crap out of the civilized Romans. Those crazy ass barbarians would actually jump on top of the Roman shield walls, screaming like manaics, trying to break Roman morale.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 6, 2005 12:35:41 GMT -5
I've been re-reading Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces (always a dangerous way to start a post ) and thinking about classic fantasy and mythological archetypes and came to a stumbling block regarding my 'non-thief' stance -- that the rascal/trickster/changeling/coyote is very much one of the key archetypes, right alongside the hero/warrior (fighter), wiseman/mentor (cleric) and mystic/shaman (magic-user). But, although they are typically played as such (thus the gradual transformation from specific 'thief' to more general 'rogue'), is this archetype really well repsresented that well by the thief class? Does a detailed chart giving percentages for opening locks and disarming traps really fit with the trickster archetype -- if anything it actually seems more akin to a laborer/craftsman, a completely different archetype (see below). Giving this a little more thought, I was suddenly struck by something -- that the trickster archetype IS present in D&D, but is personified not by the thief class, but by the elf. Think about it -- elves break the standard rules (by operating as more than one class simultaneously -- wearing armor and casting spells), they are sneaky (silent and invisible per Chainmail), they have heightened perception (bonus to hear noise and spot secret doors), they're adept at ambushes and missile combat and 'unfair' fighting techniques (ability to split-move-and-fire), plus their typical personality is flighty, capricious, and irresponsible, unpredicatable and not necessarily trustworthy (even the alignment chart has them falling between law and neutral). These are all characteristics of the trickster archetype, and fit the elf at least as well as (better IMO) the thief class. This caused me to think about the other demi-human races and realize that they also fill archetypal roles. Thus we have: hero/warrior/protagonist -- fighter mentor/wiseman/'supernatural aid' -- cleric shaman/mystic/wizard -- magic-user rascal/trickster/changeling -- elf laborer/craftsman/'wise uncle' -- dwarf* child/innocent/maiden -- hobbit *dwarfs are sturdy and reliable but also a bit dull, able warriors but not quite as able as the actual warrior archetype, plus they have a degree of wisdom expressed through practical/worldly knowledge -- ability to spot and disarm traps, etc. -- that marks them as representatives of the mundane in the realm of the fantastic (i.e. adults in a world of children) and makes them perfect as both loyal sidekicks of the hero and protectors of the child/innocent (think of the most famous dwarfs from literature -- those in The Hobbit and in Disney's Snow White -- who fill this role exactly) So now I'm fully satisfied that not only is the thief class not needed game-mechanically (as discussed above), it's not needed symbolically either ;D
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Apr 6, 2005 13:15:01 GMT -5
Interesting take.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Apr 15, 2005 10:30:09 GMT -5
Well, I just re-read your newest post. I have to agree.
Since excising the thieves, a few questions.
I take it (as taken from the OD&D rules) dwarves will find and can successfully disarm the traps without error? Seems a little powerful doesn't it? Then again, as crafters of mines and dungeons, this makes a lot of sense.
What are the thief-like abilities for halflings and Elves in Chainmail? Is it that halflings having a 1-9 on a 1d10 chance to go unnoticed outdoors and 1-2 on a 1d6 in a dungeon? Who are the elves handled?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Apr 15, 2005 11:04:19 GMT -5
I've been re-reading Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces (always a dangerous way to start a post ) and thinking about classic fantasy and mythological archetypes and came to a stumbling block regarding my 'non-thief' stance -- that the rascal/trickster/changeling/coyote is very much one of the key archetypes, right alongside the hero/warrior (fighter), wiseman/mentor (cleric) and mystic/shaman (magic-user).I saw this the other day but I forgot to mention it. Is this reversed?
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Apr 15, 2005 11:24:54 GMT -5
I saw this the other day but I forgot to mention it. Is this reversed? Only if cast by a chaotic cleric. ;D I think it is.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 15, 2005 12:08:31 GMT -5
I saw this the other day but I forgot to mention it. Is this reversed? I went back and forth on this several times while writing that post. What I finally decided was based on thinking about the role typically played by each class in-game in relation to the hero (fighter) -- that the cleric's abilities generally serve to support and strengthen the abilities of hero, whereas the magic-user's abilities functions in a manner completely divorced the abilities of the hero that accomplish the same ends by different means. So for example, say we have 2 different heroes (fighters), one accompanied by a cleric and the other by a magic-user, who both come across an ogre (or other monster too tough for the hero to defeat unassisted). The cleric will typically provide aid to the hero in ways that enhance his intrinstic abilities -- Bless, healing, Protection from Evil, etc. -- thus giving him the extra strength/knowledge needed to fight and defeat the monster. Whereas the magic-user's aid will typically come in a manner that represents "the power of the otherworld" and completely circumvents the hero's abilities -- he will magically Charm or Sleep the monster, or turn them both Invisible so they can pass by unnoticed, etc. Thus the cleric to me seemed more like a mentor figure, and the magic-user more like an unknowable mystic. That was the thought process I had at the time, anyway. But, honestly, I'm not really sure either way and agree that the more common/straightforward reading would place the magic-user ("knowledge-based") as the mentor-figure and the cleric ("faith-based") as the shaman figure...
|
|