Barbarian Tips

[geneweigel]

I originally was following up on the Hunter thread and I remembered a few things and this deserves another thread:

I have so much berserker material that I didn't even recall all of it. The reason I wasn't apt to put any of them on the blog right away was that one of the groups is featured in an adventure for down the road. I completely forgot about them yesterday but they're more monster than class.

In the past, I've had glib people wanting to play barbarians and I turned them on to non-specialist fighters as being "regular" if they want to just kick back and "win the game". (NOTE: I suggest non-specialist because I usually do magic items by the book. Random. (Even in set pieces to add flavor) So its more than likely they're never getting the weapon they chose to specialize in and they're lucky if they're proficient with anything won.).

I think I would not do this trend anymore because the barbarian adds flavor but the DM needs to remember they're on a different wavelength and has to cater to it and pay attention.


Here are some tips that I've experienced:

1) Stay away from turning them into witch hunters which is the the automatic "button pushing" that the magic item destruction turns into. The minute they can freely associate with clerics is the minute they lose the experience from magic item destruction. Its just common sense.

2) Treat ruins as unfamiliar natural surroundings for the hide except when its straight up "not ruined" with large areas including undamaged rooms, stairs, hallways, doors, etc.

3) All barbarian magic sensitivity is negated if they ever cast a single spell.

4) Barbarian surprising others is just like all player characters. It must be intentional and declared or it doesn't happen.

5) They don't have to act naive but they must always, even after the magic has come into their life, frown on any organized meeting that involves traditions as its a magical "taboo". Thats chief to "get the feeling right".

5) Any deliberate attempt to take advantage of the counter back stab to receive free attacks by fighting backwards or some other similar stupidity is automatic death.

6) There are two types of disbanding of the horde. Abnormal and normal disbanding. Normal is at the end of term. Abnormal is loss of purpose by the units (morale fail, etc) or by the leader (doing something that is or seems against the original purpose of the summoning.) For example, in my campaign, the loss of Grok's horde at the Battle of Skulldon would have been a morale loss and they would have disbanded if any had survived. Although, they would have held nothing against him and "re-horded" if needed. But because they all died by magic and it was a victory overall none of these rules apply (he would also likely double the horde!), In the case of a failed victory and all these deaths it would be no more hordes for Grok. Once the character becomes tribal leader then he retains a number of men based the barbarian type in the MONSTER MANUAL (Cavemen, dervishes, nomads, and tribesmen) or elsewhere (Amazon in POLY #22 (MAR 1985) by Gygax for sure)

[GRWelsh]

I've always wanted to play the barbarian class in the way I think it was imagined by EGG... in a D&D game that is decidedly more swords & sorcery than is typical, with the barbarian solo or teamed up with another fighter or thief... Maybe playing through an adventure similar to the "Tower of the Elephant"!

A lot of people didn't like the barbarian class when it first came out because it was incompatible with the typical adventuring party -- you couldn't just roll up a barbarian and plug it into an existing party without expecting some conflict. But that was already true of existing options... the paladin wasn't compatible with the common "chaotic neutrals" and an evil-aligned anybody could cause party problems. The barbarian was not at all meant to be another option for the typical "Fellowship of the Ring" party, but to provide an option to an entirely different style of play -- i.e., the sorts of adventures Conan went on as written by REH.

[Scott]

I’ve only had one Barbarian last in any of my games, and he was an NPC. Snow Barbarian recruited as muscle by the Scarlet Brotherhood, tried to defect but was captured. Rescued by the PCs in a cell and became a follower. His sense of debt overpowered some of his natural instincts, so he stuck with the party, even though they had spell casters.

[foster1941]

I was recently looking back at how Gary's version of the barbarian class developed from the Conan write-up in Dragon #36 to the premiere of the class in Dragon #63 to the expansions and commentary in Dragon #65 & 67 to the "final" version in UA. It was originally stated flatly that barbarians shun magic. Readers apparently complained to Gary that that made the class too weak because he devotes several paragraphs in Dragon #67 explaining both how the various class abilities (bonus to saving throws and AC, high hp) make magical aid unnecessary, and also how "shunning" doesn't mean a blanket ban on use or association, but is a more subjective roleplaying guideline - that the barbarian doesn't like the stuff and looks down on it and won't use it or associate with those who do by choice, unless absolutely necessary. Someone who's read the Conan stories (plus various Conan-inspired stuff a la Gardner Fox) will "get" this - it's a role-playing pose. But between that article (late 1982) and UA (mid 1985) either Gary or (probably more likely) the guys who worked on developing UA - Mentzer, Mohan, and Grubb - felt more objective guidelines were needed, so we got that chart saying that barbarians can freely associate with clerics and use potions at level 2+, use magic weapons at level 4+, associate with magic-users if necessary at level 6+, etc. Sure that makes things more objective and consistent, but it also creates problems where they didn't exist before - there now IS a blanket ban on association, at least until a certain level - and also undermines the class at higher levels, making them gradually less archetypal as the other classes all become more archetypal (it also renders the "hit like a magic weapon" ability pretty much useless, since it comes online at the same level where the UA chart says the barbarian can just use an actual magic weapon).

As a result of that analysis I decided to throw out the UA chart and revert to Dragon #67 - a barbarian of any level will "shun" magic by choice, and only willingly subject him or herself to it in extremis (and will probably, at the DM's discretion) take an XP penalty for doing so. The barbarian can be a member of a "Fellowship of the Ring" type party even from 1st level, they'll just always insult and bicker with and be distrustful of the spellcasters and won't willingly subject themselves to spells (except low-level cleric spells) and will disdain magic items and boast about how they're only a crutch for weaklings and how a true man has no need or use for such things (which the other players object to with a wink and a nod, realizing the barbarian's obstinance means more magic items for them...).

[Scott]

Beyond shunning magic, they were encouraged to destroy it, getting the item's xp value for doing so. Wich Gary did confirm doing while he played a barbarian, to the chagrin of his fellow party members.

[foster1941]

In the game I played in with Gary we had a barbarian PC in our party who not only repeatedly pissed on things he didn't like but also destroyed a couple of magic items; as the rest of us howled in dismay, Gary was grinning from ear to ear, and I could tell that was exactly how he thought the class should be played.

I think barbarians destroying magic items has to be tempered by metagame "don't be a dick" thinking - it should be acceptable for the barbarian to destroy "his share" of magic items, but if it goes beyond that to destroying every item, including those that would have been useful to the other PCs, then the character should probably be given the boot (or at least the player should get a talking-to). The book doesn't say that the barbarian is compelled to destroy every magic item he or she encounters, just that they would rather destroy them than use them (and cleverly allows them to not fall behind the XP curve of the other PCs who are getting XP awards from their magic items in addition to the other benefits).

[geneweigel]

I don't know about the witch hunter type barbarians. Gary said the barbarian class weren't viable before in a brief comment in Dragon #103 pg 13 (NOV 1985) thats why the magic item availability add-on.

The anectdote about him smiling about the barbarian player's bad behavior might have been laughing at him/them and not with him. It might have been Gary was laughing because no one was going to try and kill the barbarian character to save the magic.

[foster1941]

At higher levels barbarians who aren't allowed to use magic items definitely fall behind other fighters in combat ability, and the steep XP chart exacerbates that (by the time a barbarian hits 12th level a fighter is at 16th - nearing 17th if they've got a +10% XP bonus), so it makes sense that Gary (et al.) decided to keep the class long-term viable that they needed to gradually lift the restrictions on magic item use. I still don't like it, though, and am wondering if there's a better way to accomplish the same end.

Something that occurs as a real possibility is to make the "hits like a magic weapon" ability an actual bonus to hit and damage - i.e. a 4th level barbarian gets a +1 to hit and damage with any weapon (or perhaps just any melee weapon), which gradually increases to +5 by the time they hit 12th level. Yeah, a blanket +5 to hit and damage seems like a pretty big deal, but the 16th level fighter already has a +4 advantage to hit over the 12th level barbarian not including any magic items (and, by 16th level, it's pretty likely that fighter is sporting at least a +3 (and more likely +4 or better) weapon, and probably a Girdle of Giant Strength, and so will still outperform the barbarian), so it doesn't seem unbalancing (and it's also consistent with the ability Gary gave to Conan in the Dragon #36 write-up). Other possibilities to beef up higher-level barbarians without giving them access to magic items might be to allow a temporary "primal strength surge" usable once per game-day that gives +1 to Str at 1st level, +2 at 3rd, up to a max of +7 at level 15+, for one turn (which is, I believe, something like what later editions do), or - going back again to the Dragon #36 Conan write-up - to allow any adjusted attack roll of 21+ to inflict double damage.

All of those seem more fun to me than declaring that high level barbarians can use magic items after all because the game-system math demands it.

[geneweigel]

One of the major factors is the Conan emulation. Its a good attempt to get players to that point, although as you said its not really there, but it only represents one man and not his opponents of the same ilk. What does Conan have that another savage lacks? Thats the big question that is never answerd with the class.

Here is the sequence:
The straight up CHAINMAL man to man
Then fighting man
Then thief
Then ranger/paladin
Then CONAN! NPC article
Then barbarian.
AD&D Conan modules
Then barbarian UA.

By the time, we got to UA we lost so much Conan that we don't even know what we have anymore.

Let's say a hillman from the Cairn Hills. Is he going to emulate Conan? Where do you draw the line?

The original Gygax Conan article was a really good attempt but the real perks are on the cutting room floor with the barbarian class like the latent psionic ability, parrying, grappling, overbearing and weaponless combat. By the time you get to the "Cook-ed" 1984 Conan all thats been carelessly left aside in the name of "its for the kids" which was the Zeb exit strategy when scrutinized.

[Scott]

Nov 6, 2017 18:48:00 GMT -5 foster1941 said:

In the game I played in with Gary we had a barbarian PC in our party who not only repeatedly pissed on things he didn't like but also destroyed a couple of magic items; as the rest of us howled in dismay, Gary was grinning from ear to ear, and I could tell that was exactly how he thought the class should be played.

I think barbarians destroying magic items has to be tempered by metagame "don't be a dick" thinking - it should be acceptable for the barbarian to destroy "his share" of magic items, but if it goes beyond that to destroying every item, including those that would have been useful to the other PCs, then the character should probably be given the boot (or at least the player should get a talking-to). The book doesn't say that the barbarian is compelled to destroy every magic item he or she encounters, just that they would rather destroy them than use them (and cleverly allows them to not fall behind the XP curve of the other PCs who are getting XP awards from their magic items in addition to the other benefits).

This captures my thoughts pretty well. You have to balance the flavor with the reality of 'you're playing a game with other people and the goal is to have fun'. I don't mind the class building up a bit of a tolerance towards magic as the character advances, especially with fighter related items. It's hard to say anything concrete since I have so little experience with the class in play.