PDA

View Full Version : Playing a Barbarian... Without Playing a Cliche



Callista
2011-02-24, 03:24 AM
How many times have we seen this?

The party barbarian (usually a half-orc, if not then he's a human dressed in skins) is named something like Krog or Gruk or another similarly cave-mannish monosyllable. He doesn't know what a fork is. He loves to smash his enemies, arm-wrestle bears, and generally be macho (this also applies to female barbarians, oddly enough). He may or may not eat his enemies' hearts after he kills them, but he sure seems the type. He's as dumb as a pile of rocks and thinks books are good to wipe with when you can't get leaves. He's loud, crude, and most definitely not the sort of person you want at the King's banquet.

He is, in a word, the clone of every unimaginative barbarian character that has ever existed.

It might be fun to play this kind of a guy once in a while; in fact, I've laughed my head off at the antics of several of them. But if there's anything these fellows are, it's predictable. Utterly, utterly predictable.

So how do you avoid the cliche?

NotScaryBats
2011-02-24, 03:34 AM
Refluff rage? Maybe you are a tiefling who channels your inner demon or a holy warrior who draws strength from your god or a shifter who frenzies at the sight and smell of blood?

joe
2011-02-24, 03:34 AM
Personally, I think the easiest way to avoid the class cliche is to think of the class as a tool for creating a character rather than a role.

The basic description of a barbarian is someone that is strong and goes into a rage in battle. This could just as easily describe an urban street-brawler as it could a barbarian tribesman. Even a rowdy town guard with a few marks on his performance record could qualify as a barbarian in terms of class. I've also played a character that was found in the wild and was more or less feral. While that isn't too far off from the cliche, its still a plausible example.

I find this also can and should apply to the Asian themed classes in the Complete Series. I have used Shugenja without any trouble to represent priests who worship elementals, and I have also used the Ninja class for a gypsy character.

Greymane
2011-02-24, 03:37 AM
The last barbarian I made was actually a barbarian merely for the rage. He was a Tiefling who tapped into his demonic bloodline to unleash destruction on all of his foes. He spent all of his time in the Blood War being used as little destructive pet on the battlefield until recently, before escaping to the Prime.

Then I realized he was basically Valen Shadowbreath from NWN: Hordes of the Underdark. :smallsigh:

ffone
2011-02-24, 03:39 AM
One key is to decouple Rage the name of the class feature for 'rage' the near-synonym for anger.

William Wallace / woad raider / passionate Scottish highland warrior archetype. FREEEDOM! "Passionate rage" rather than "angry rage." The 'woad raider' fits the barbarian class skills, fast movement, and rage.

Tarzan animalistic-feral-but-gentle soul whose rage is like 'going into the zone' where the animal brain takes over and pushes out the 'higher' thoughts.

Westernized 'drunken master' who uses weapons rather than martial arts.

Emo brooding vamp guy (vamp the style, not vampire) whose rage is like a bout of explosive nihilism or vandalistic anarchism. (Makes me barf, but it's an option.)

(These are tropes too, but different ones!)

Lord.Sorasen
2011-02-24, 03:43 AM
Personally, I think the easiest way to avoid the class cliche is to think of the class as a tool for creating a character rather than a role.

The basic description of a barbarian is someone that is strong and goes into a rage in battle. This could just as easily describe an urban street-brawler as it could a barbarian tribesman. Even a rowdy town guard with a few marks on his performance record could qualify as a barbarian in terms of class. I've also played a character that was found in the wild and was more or less feral. While that isn't too far off from the cliche, its still a plausible example.

I find this also can and should apply to the Asian themed classes in the Complete Series. I have used Shugenja without any trouble to represent priests who worship elementals, and I have also used the Ninja class for a gypsy character.

What about Belkar? Sure he's a ranger/barbarian, but barbarian seems to fit his character better, least to me.. Raging for that mad killing frenzy, but not really stupid, and not really tribal either.

The other option is really obvious aversion. I've heard at least a few times of wise barbarians. I myself have played a barbarian with 16 int : Not the best character... In fact, optimized pretty badly.. But it's a fun idea.

There's a certain rage alternate feature that boosts dex instead of strength : With this in mind, one could be a druken master type (not race); using instict to evade blows and deal AoOs.

EDIT: Hey everyone, I have been swordsaged for the first time today! It feels sort of exciting.

Hazzardevil
2011-02-24, 03:43 AM
You want to avoid a cliche then? How about this:
A Halfling gentleman who is well mannered and an exxecilent swordsman and uses a 2 rapiers with for a reaason no-one understands, hiim too 2 halflign sized Great-Axes.
When he gets angry he grows and then throws his rapiers at an opponent, draws his axes and rips the opposition to shreds before turning back.

How does that sound?

Edit: Ahh! Ninja's/Swordsages/Rogues/spellthieves/scouts/factotums!

ffone
2011-02-24, 03:45 AM
You want to avoid a cliche then? How about this:
A Halfling gentleman who is well mannered and an exxecilent swordsman and uses a 2 rapiers with for a reaason no-one understands, hiim too 2 halflign sized Great-Axes.
When he gets angry he grows and then throws his rapiers at an opponent, draws his axes and rips the opposition to shreds before turning back.

How does that sound?

"8 bit Theater" webcomic had a minor character - dwarf? berserker? viking? - who wore a viking helmet and monocle. He was very civilized and highbrow with the monocle. But when the monocle came off....

So, Jekyll/Hyde would be the trope I guess.

Calmar
2011-02-24, 03:52 AM
I see barbarians primarily as tough guys, not as idiots. For me, the barbarian class covers everything from a fearless northlander king to a brute street thug or highwayman, or even a peasant who has to defend himself and his village regularly.

Fearan
2011-02-24, 04:13 AM
There's more to barbarian than vanilla Conan-type. Why don't you try basing your barbabrian on Zulu tribes? Or Aztecs. Or Chukchi. Sure, these tribes don't have two-handed power attacking, but it's the originality you want, right?

Doc Roc
2011-02-24, 04:27 AM
My barbarians tend to be well-read, highly cultured, heart-eating warrior-poets wearing wizard robes.

It's a long story, okay?

Sillycomic
2011-02-24, 04:39 AM
I played my barbarian as a child trapped in a man's body.

So he wasn't raging so much as he was having temper tantrums. This happened sometimes when people were hurting him (I think my rule was whenever he lost half his total hitpoints) or whenever something happened that he didn't like.

He was fairly optimized for raging and mechanically played very well. But the role playing aspect was pretty cool. He took on a gnoll as a pet cause he thought they looked cute.

Callista
2011-02-24, 04:42 AM
He took on a gnoll as a pet cause he thought they looked cute.Er... so what did the gnoll think of it? :smalleek:

Ravens_cry
2011-02-24, 04:57 AM
You're a farmer see. You like, many others, joined the militia, for the tax break,see. Then </insert villain here> laid claim to your lands. You and others were ordered to go out to fight them, see. But they snuck around you, see, and razed the village, killing everyone, see, including your wife and family. Now you're mad, angry see.You desperately want to see your family again, but your farms gone, see, and no farmer could ever make enough to get some snooty priest to raise your wife, let alone your whole family, see. But then you hear of adventurers, see, they make mounds of silver, piles of gold, see, even platinum see, more then enough to get your family raised, see. You're a farmer see, you got more anger then skill, but it's enough to bust some heads. You hear many adventurers don't survive, see, that most don't make a copper, see. But if you die, well, you just see your family sooner, see.
Now you got a motivation to want to fight the big bad, a goal for the character, and some definite plot hooks for the DM.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-02-24, 05:11 AM
I don't mean to pull the rare reverse stormwind fallacy, but it seems like multiclassing might get some players out of such a rut. A barbarian 1/fighter 2/Warblade X doesn't scream "big tough idiot" the same way straight barbarian does.

In any event, I happen to be playing a cliche Chaotic Stupid barbarian, but it's for laughs. (Let's put it this way: he's one of the more reasonable members of the party.) If I wanted to break from the norm, I would have changed his fighting style to involve more than just "I hit it really hard, a lot."

Greymane
2011-02-24, 05:28 AM
You're a farmer see. You like, many others, joined the militia, for the tax break,see. Then </insert villain here> laid claim to your lands. You and others were ordered to go out to fight them, see. But they snuck around you, see, and razed the village, killing everyone, see, including your wife and family. Now you're mad, angry see.You desperately want to see your family again, but your farms gone, see, and no farmer could ever make enough to get some snooty priest to raise your wife, let alone your whole family, see. But then you hear of adventurers, see, they make mounds of silver, piles of gold, see, even platinum see, more then enough to get your family raised, see. You're a farmer see, you got more anger then skill, but it's enough to bust some heads. You hear many adventurers don't survive, see, that most don't make a copper, see. But if you die, well, you just see your family sooner, see.
Now you got a motivation to want to fight the big bad, a goal for the character, and some definite plot hooks for the DM.

Ravens_cry is Al Capone! :smalleek:

John Campbell
2011-02-24, 06:00 AM
So my current PC is a half-orc barbarian (small 'b'... I do have one level of Barbarian, primarily for the rage, which I feel is required for half-orcs, but the bulk of my levels are in Ranger, which fits better), by the name of Toghrul Bâlak.

He knows what a fork is; it's that thing short-tooths use because they don't have proper teeth. Smash enemies, check... doesn't everyone love to do that? ("Maz kulat slaiug mâmar?" "Barashat gothu-lab, honatul irzug lat-ugil, agh khlârat blordumu lobu-ulub-ob."*) Arm-wrestle bears... never done that, actually, but I did once headbutt a wyvern to death. (Wait, no, that was my previous character, the human rogue.) I did once wrestle a mul who tried to out-macho me when I was in a lousy mood because I'd just gotten booted out of a world after (just barely) killing an incarnation of ultimate evil in hand-to-hand combat. It's not that I really cared about the macho... I'd just killed an incarnation of ultimate evil in hand-to-hand combat. I had nothing to prove. I just wasn't in the mood for it. So he tried to grapple, and I picked him up and tossed him.

He's been known to eat the hearts of the fallen, but only if he really respected them. The most-honored dead you eat their flesh to take their strength into yourself, and then cremate what's left to send their frűmu to Wind on the smoke. Less honored you don't eat, but still cremate to set their frűmu free. The ones you don't care much either way about, you leave exposed to the elements so the carrion-eaters can take their strength, and their frűmu can go where they will. Only those you have the uttermost contempt for get buried in dirt where only the worms can consume what strength they had, and their frűmu are trapped away from Wind forever.

The only time I've eaten someone's heart in-game, it was a giant that had actually killed me. And I succeeded in convincing the cleric that, as the one who killed the giant, it was her right and duty to take the first bite. (Though she was more than willing to let me and my wolves have the rest. You'd almost think she didn't want to consume his strength.)

He speaks broken Chondathan, because it's not his first language. He grew up speaking Orcish - Chondathan and Goblin (his third language**) he knows primarily for the purposes of speaking to captives and slaves, and, as such, his vocabulary in those languages is not really up to talking about complicated and subtle subjects (and Orcish just doesn't really have the vocabulary). This leads even his fellow party members to sometimes forget that he's not stupid (smarter than the cleric, in fact)... despite the fact that his Chondathan is way better than their Orcish. And, yeah, so he doesn't know what those squiggles on parchment mean. Get back to me when you can tell me what that patch of bent grasses, or the shape of those clouds on the horizon, or the set of that horse's ears mean. (He knows.)

And why don't we send all those poncy aristocrats who're sneering at my table manners to the steppes to live with Baiark Naur for a while, and see how long they last before someone tears them limb from limb and buries them in the dirt? For that matter, why is that guy "king", anyway? He doesn't look like much. Always hiding behind armed warriors, and afraid to let anyone else come close with weapons. Coward and weakling. I could take the lot of them, anyway. There's only, what, two hands worth? Don't even need my weapons. I'll kill the first one with my hands, and then I'll have his...

Cliché? Maybe. Poorly developed unimaginative clone? Don't think so.

___
* "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."***

Y'know, just in case you've ever wanted to know how to say that in the Black Speech.

** Oh, D&D joke:
Someone who speaks three languages is called "trilingual".
Someone who speaks two languages is called "bilingual".
What do you call someone who speaks only one language?

A human.

*** Conan, incidentally, wasn't the Conan stereotype, either.

Coidzor
2011-02-24, 06:18 AM
Rage could definitely be the weird or the place where one's higher functions are switched off, personality subsumed into cold, efficient, and in cases of Whirling Frenzy, quite rapid forcible discorporation.

Saintheart
2011-02-24, 06:26 AM
Refluff rage into going berserk when threatened only, and make the character something of a coward. Check out the protagonist of Legend by David Gemmell -- the author plays with some fantasy tropes rather nicely.

Leon
2011-02-24, 06:30 AM
By having the majority of the PCs class level in Cloistered Cleric and playing what is basically a Research Librarian

The reason for the barbarian levels is that the PC was a Werewolf for long enough that everyone else got 2 levels and the DMs wouldn't let my play a Shifter as a result of trying to remove the curse [reason "we don't want to add another race" Ha they have since added warforged...]

Barbarian was chosen as its the closest i could think of at the time for a savage primal beast like aspect - now i wish i'd taken one of the rage variants over core rage

Tenebris
2011-02-24, 06:36 AM
Refluff barbarian? Then here you go:

"I am the master of my emotions, never vice versa. I've learned to inhibit them, accumulate them, and when necessary release them."

You could probably dip in Swordsage. Having a high wisdom score is also nice.

Miscast_Mage
2011-02-24, 06:52 AM
I don't mean to pull the rare reverse stormwind fallacy, but it seems like multiclassing might get some players out of such a rut. A barbarian 1/fighter 2/Warblade X doesn't scream "big tough idiot" the same way straight barbarian does.

I think the problem is that "RAAAAAAGE" is one of the only things a pure barbarian has to play with, role-play wise.

Personally, I think a dip in barbarian can be good just to have the rage for when the character *snaps*. Nothing says awesome like a calm, dignified warrior seeing someone they care about get hurt/go down, and tap into.


I like the idea of a protective barbarian, a real papa-wolf/mama-bear type. They might be slow to anger at first maybe even seeking a peaceful alternative, but go near their loved one, and you will regret it. Imagine them standing between their wounded loved one and someone trying to kill them, a look of utter serenity on their face, weapon drawn and ready,saying "Think of harming even a single hair on their head, demon, and I will show you just how luke-warm the hell you crawled out of really is." Que rage at the first sign of movement.:smallbiggrin:

Edit: Come to think of it, one of the problems, in my opinion, is that rage is a barbarians first option in each and every scenario, not something special to only be released when pushed far enough and released in that single moment of "oh snap". Even then, it's always a "wild, roaring rampage" type of rage, never a rage of hatred and fury so concentrated it's ice-cold, determined, focused fury.

Hazzardevil
2011-02-24, 07:22 AM
There's more to barbarian than vanilla Conan-type. Why don't you try basing your barbabrian on Zulu tribes? Or Aztecs. Or Chukchi. Sure, these tribes don't have two-handed power attacking, but it's the originality you want, right?

Actually the Zulu's were well organised, I'd say they were more of rangers than barbarians.

For my earlier idea I was thinking more of he gets angry when he does badly and just goes crazy.

Kris Strife
2011-02-24, 08:19 AM
Dave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-plZEiDC984) and Bill (http://www.legendofbill.com/) spring to mind. :smallbiggrin:

The Big Dice
2011-02-24, 08:30 AM
So my current PC is a half-orc barbarian (small 'b'... I do have one level of Barbarian, primarily for the rage, which I feel is required for half-orcs, but the bulk of my levels are in Ranger, which fits better), by the name of Toghrul Bâlak.<Snip>
This is good stuff. It's exactly how the "Cliched Barbarian" should be and was pretty much the kind of thing I was planning to post if I hadn't been ninja'd by a couple of hours.

Barbaraians are, to me at least, all about the difference between stupid and uneducated. They're the hockey players of the tribe, powerful and aggressive. But not stupid. In fact, they might be more self sufficient in the wild than any soft city dweller. Who's stupid now, when your pale and weak Wizard can't find enough to eat? Or where he's going. Or even tell that this is Owl Bear country.

Stupid city boy :smalltongue:


I think the problem is that "RAAAAAAGE" is one of the only things a pure barbarian has to play with, role-play wise.
I disagree. "RAAAAAAGE" is what a Barbarian uses to crush his enemies. But's it's not the defining characteristic of who he is.

And it's all well and good refluffing Rage. But tht still leaves you with a skill set that says "Big scary guy, lives out of doors a lot of the time" to deal with.

Renegade Paladin
2011-02-24, 08:33 AM
My one and only barbarian learned to read... and then didn't tell the rest of the party about it, just to play pranks on the wizard. :smallamused: He was intelligent, a divine caster (runescarred berzerker, specifically), and fought intelligently, both in and out of rage. It's not hard to break the mold even without straying very far from what the class is about.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-24, 08:53 AM
My one and only barbarian learned to read... and then didn't tell the rest of the party about it, just to play pranks on the wizard. :smallamused: He was intelligent, a divine caster (runescarred berzerker, specifically), and fought intelligently, both in and out of rage. It's not hard to break the mold even without straying very far from what the class is about.

If I may be so bold, I think my angry mourning farmer gets pretty far from the fur loincloth and oiled abs Ahnold type, while sticking close to what the class is about, channelling ones anger to do better in battle.:smallsmile:

some guy
2011-02-24, 09:08 AM
Put ranks in Perform (Sing) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBGOQ7SsJrw)?

LOTRfan
2011-02-24, 09:14 AM
This is from another thread. Theos isn't exactly playing a normal barbarian.


Actually, it can be very fun if worked into a character where it isn't being abused. I have a gnome barbarian named Grobnar. I wanted a naturey themed character for our upcoming campaign. His age cat is old. His stats are 8,8,11,16,14,20 . I don't remember what point buy I used. Since, I wasn't making a melle barbarian, dm let me use more than default 2 flaws. Most of those extras went to making him better with animals and less able to see. At level one, with a tad of wbl altering through backstory(not abused and Dm approved). He has a total +15 mod to handle animal(+17 if he uses his masterwork kit). So, at level 1 he can take 10 and succeed on anything, but pushing an injured animal(so long as he hasn't used his speak with animals racial spell, the dm allows that to be a +2 mod for emergency situations in which my bear/badger is doing something REALLY STUPID). He has a warbeast badger and wb bear (I forget black or brown). He normally needs to use rage to be able to stand up and constantly complains as you would expect an old cranky preachey gnome to do. What was funny was when our drunk monk and fighter couldn't land a hit on the bbeg, my badger was raging and taking massive damage, and my bear was put asleep. I rollled a nat 20 on a charge with my dagger and nearly killed the bbeg.

His feats were
lvl 1 - Flexible Mind(I don't even remember what this one does)
murkey eyed -Animal Afinity
Love of nature -Skill Focus Handle Animal
Frail -Animal Friends(quasi homebrewed/altered version)

btw- anyone know the rules for intoxication?, since our monk isn't a drunken master yet, and we aren't sure how to handle it statwise

tl;dr, and yes kidna offtopic, but funny and enjoyable story

BadJuJu
2011-02-24, 09:22 AM
My Barbarians tend to be pretty socially adept. Smart and cunning, with rage being more combat focused. "In the Zone". Not screaming and spitting.

Erom
2011-02-24, 09:25 AM
One of the actual WOTC books had the "Noble-born swordsman with a temper" archetype... I think they recommended spending the feat on literacy and a ranger dip for favored enemy for that, but it was a 90% barbarian build.

[CLASSIFIED]
2011-02-24, 09:46 AM
You could maybe play a barbarian that wants to become civilized, and changes his name to something like "William," yet has difficulty becoming civilized due to intense bouts of rage that members of his tribe experience (maybe they of magical origin, but have been passed down until the whole tribe has them). Eventually, he could be able to control his rage, and it could be replaced with a homebrew class feature or you could say that the bonuses from it are lower, but that there are no longer restrictions on the skills and abilities that he can use while raging.

Ossian
2011-02-24, 10:06 AM
I ll give you the solution. Play it like a monk. As soon as you can, get "Improved Unarmed Strike" and "Superior Unarmed Strike", "Improved Grapple", "Improved Initiative", "Power Attack", "Cleave" and "Great Cleave". You ve got the endurance (d12hp) and the good Bab.

Then when they piss you off, you use the "Dragon Breath Chi Channeling Technique" and go like this.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2350/hokuto2ej1kr8.jpg

Then you get DR (breathing technique there too, go shaolin)

The you get Greater Rage and in front of blatant injustice, the holy fury of the north star is yours.

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/20849_o.gif

Go "Whirling Frenzy" barbarian for extra attacks (atatatatatataata).

Dip monk 2 levels for loads of feats if you feel like (the a periapt of WIS becomes a good idea, prayer beads come to mind for style and fluff).


7 Stars shall guide your path.

O.

PS

A feat makes unarmed damage "slashing", Make it non-epic, and you can go Nanto.

http://gamesurf.tiscali.it/forum/customavatars/avatar21163_2.gif

Gullintanni
2011-02-24, 10:23 AM
All that really needs saying here is...

Is that a Monocle?
http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/07/10/episode-440-berserkers-want-what-we-all-want-civilization/

Although upon reflection, this may just be playing a different cliche...

Darth Stabber
2011-02-24, 11:17 AM
Barbarian has about the same lvl of cliche as Paladin and wizard. Paladins by and large tend to have Miko tendencies (even if their not Mikos), and whats worse, they actually have a mechanical rope around their neck forcing them into the trope. Wizards while not as bound to archetype, are still by and large played as pure academicians, and there is little ability to be anything else, as the class features encourage a certain level of cowardice (until prestige anyway). Druids are almost always militaristic hippies.

Classes that get alot of freedom of interpretation
Fighter - with a list of bonus feats a mile long, you could anything from a focused civilized fencer to a psuedo-barbarian

Rogue - Any number of sneaky, skillful, or silvertongued archetypes are doable.

Cleric - With all the different gods, there is probably a god that supports the way you want to behave.

Bard - Simple bit of refluff, and the traveling musician becomes a military officer with a penchant for rousing speeches.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-24, 11:44 AM
The dwarf-analogue culture in the setting I'm writing has 'Battle-ragers' as part of their elite troops...they don't go into a screaming berzerk fury, but more of a trance-like state - completely calm, completely emotionless, and completely unstoppable until the trance breaks or someone kills them. Pure-classed barbarians, mechanically, but pretty much the exact opposite of the RAEG! stereotype.

Daftendirekt
2011-02-24, 11:48 AM
A one-shot character I made once was a Wild Elf Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker/Wildrunner. He wasn't stupid, he was just.... feral. However, not all the time. He could hold up his end of civilized conversation, but when it came down to the fight, he quite literally went wild. Pulled out his flaming scythe, stacked on his 3 layers of rage, and went to town.

Lord_Gareth
2011-02-24, 11:55 AM
One player of mine used the Barbarian class, but refluffed it to something I'd never expected - his character was a young city boy (about 15 or so) seeking adventure and in way over his head. His Rage was basically a youthful adrenaline rush, with everything else being a combination of paranoia learned from dungeon-delving in the campaign and athleticism.

BenTheJester
2011-02-24, 12:05 PM
I once played a Frenzied Berserker who was constantly tormented by his fear of killing everyone around.

The party he was in was ok with him going on a rampage and had a few contingencies prepared in case he was going to attack them, but he still was scared of his own power, due to the countless number of people he killed(including a lot of loved ones).

He wouldn't speak much, his nights were often sleepless, and would often keep to himself.

Gullintanni
2011-02-24, 12:21 PM
The dwarf-analogue culture in the setting I'm writing has 'Battle-ragers' as part of their elite troops...they don't go into a screaming berzerk fury, but more of a trance-like state - completely calm, completely emotionless, and completely unstoppable until the trance breaks or someone kills them. Pure-classed barbarians, mechanically, but pretty much the exact opposite of the RAEG! stereotype.

I've always preferred cold rage as opposed to the mindless variety. I suppose you could argue that Barbarians exemplify the former, as they remain in control, while Frenzied Berserkers comprise the latter...but I'm pretty sure the default Barbarian fluff contradicts this...

Dalek-K
2011-02-24, 12:22 PM
In 4e I played a one shot where I was a Barbarian that thought he was a 3.5 cleric (yes this game was a bit goofy) and that rage was just Divine Might. He would "cure minor wounds" by touching someone and walking away... Of course it did nothing but he didn't know that :p

No one had the heart or the courage to tell him otherwise....

Darth Stabber
2011-02-24, 12:43 PM
Barbarian Prestige classes and feats play really hard into the stereotype of anger so powerful reason and logic run away.

Bear warrior - I'm so angry i turn into a bear
Frenzied Berzerker - I'm so angry that death can't kill me.
(what ever the frostburn feat is) - I'm so angry that I freeze
(what ever the sandstorm feat is) - I'm so angry that I am on fire

Combine and rage transforms you from a primitive human to a ANGRYUNDYINGFLAMINGICEBEAR

flabort
2011-02-24, 12:44 PM
In the myth series of books, by one Robert Asprin, there is a Troll named Chumley. To those that know him, he enjoys reading, he's high cultured, he's probably the most logical, observant, and level headed character of all. and he's a vegetarian.
But to outside observer's, he's Big Crunch, consistently angry for no reason, table eating, scary, your cliche barbarian.

I believe others have mentioned similar characters, but hey. "It's what people want to see," In Chumley's own words.

Daftendirekt
2011-02-24, 12:49 PM
Barbarian Prestige classes and feats play really hard into the stereotype of anger so powerful reason and logic run away.

Bear warrior - I'm so angry i turn into a bear
Frenzied Berzerker - I'm so angry that death can't kill me.
(what ever the frostburn feat is) - I'm so angry that I freeze
(what ever the sandstorm feat is) - I'm so angry that I am on fire

Combine and rage transforms you from a primitive human to a ANGRYUNDYINGFLAMINGICEBEAR

Have a cookie for that post. :smallbiggrin:

Psyren
2011-02-24, 01:02 PM
A PrC can go a long way to focusing your character. It might be hard to imagine a regular barbarian being restrained and civil, but I'd definitely expect it of a Champion of Gwynharwyf. Similarly, you'd expect a regular barbarian to be somewhat mystified by magic, but a Rage Mage or Runescarred Berserker would recognize a sigil or two, as well as being literate; that sort of thing.



Combine and rage transforms you from a primitive human to a ANGRYUNDYINGFLAMINGICEBEAR

Add the Incarnum one (Cobalt Rage?) and now you sing Eiffel 65 while doing all that.

Sillycomic
2011-02-24, 01:02 PM
Er... so what did the gnoll think of it?

Interesting story.

The gnoll thought he was captured and taken prisoner. My barbarian just felt sorry for him because unlike all of his other friends, this particular gnoll got his weapon sundered and then tried to run away but was knocked unconscious.

So, while I thought he was a pet and asked the rest of the group if he could follow us around (so I could pet him and feed him and call him George) the gnoll interpreted this as being captured.

It was quite an interesting dynamic between the two actually.

Waker
2011-02-24, 01:09 PM
I've only played as one barbarian and to this day he is one of my most iconic characters. He was a desert barbarian, equipped in cloth and leather armor and wielding a falchion. His alignment was True Neutral (as opposed to the always popular Chaotic Neutral) because out in the desert, survival is what is important, not ideologies. He was not a mental midget (Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 12) but he was a fairly quiet sort. He didn't feel it was necessary to talk all the time, but when he did speak up, everyone took notice. While he would never admit it to anyone, he was always entranced by the ocean (high sense motives and detect thoughts used by the party) and often could be found in the downtime between adventures just looking out at the water.
One of his most defining traits though was how I described my rage. Rather than turning into a drooling, screaming killer, I took a different approach. My rage turned off all the unnecessary distractions, more of a heightened state of focus. He never made a sound while in his rage and the way that other characters could tell he was raging was the cold look in his eyes.

Tytalus
2011-02-24, 01:11 PM
more of a trance-like state - completely calm, completely emotionless, and completely unstoppable until the trance breaks

The two rage reflavoring I like best are something I found on the old WotC boards a long time ago:

1.) Rage as a trance:

The character was a well-read, principled man who believed in traditions and held his elders and ancestors in high esteem. His "rage" was a self-induced trance that he would explain as giving himself up to the guidance of his ancestors (i.e., the spirits he revered). One reason why the mandatory chaotic alignment doesn't make much sense for all barbarians.

2.) Combining "rage" with leadership (a bit more involved):

A friend of mine played a halfling barbarian with leadership. The concept was he was a scared little person with low str (even, theoretically, in rage). But when he raged, his inner "Rage Demon" (AKA Shade from leadership) Came out and fought, and he fell unconcious until the rage ended. It was a lot of fun to be in that group.

eepop
2011-02-24, 01:27 PM
A friend of mine once played a Barbarian that was a High Elf that had contracted lycanthropy*. He was banished from his home. He was perfectly sane, intelligent, and academic. It was only when his lycanthropy took over that he would enter a rage.

He took up alchemy so he could gain some measure of control of his lycanthropy by using various chemicals. Like Adrenaline to initiate his rage, or alchemical silver to make it subside.


*lycanthropy - He didn't use any of the actual lycanthropy rules, it was just how he refluffed rage.

VirOath
2011-02-24, 01:39 PM
How to avoid getting in the mindset of Cliche, when it's your first time trying?

Don't write down "Barbarian" on your character sheet. Don't be a Barbarian. Use the same table, progression and features of that class, but call it something like "Lumberjack." You'll still get to do cool stuff like wrestle bears and chop things in half with a big axe, but now you'll be on your first steps to avoiding the Barbarian Cliches.

Come up with a reason why he gets so angry, such as unions being outlawed and his friends put through forced dangerous labor and underpaid for it. Hey look! He has a reason to adventure now too!

Master_Rahl22
2011-02-24, 01:58 PM
My favorite take on Rage is in The War God's Own series by David Weber. The Hradani are a race that is larger, stronger, longer lived, and hardier than humans. They magically turned into Frenzied Berserker type shock troops by evil wizards who used that natural strength and hardiness to give them a Rage that was uncontrollable and caused a killing frenzy. This trait bred true in their race, and the society adapted to deal with it. Women were protected from any sort of crimes with incredibly strict laws because they were the sole preservers of any sort of society or culture they could hope to have.

So you have a race cursed by evil wizards to fly into a bloodthirsty Rage when angered or hurt. One guy discovers that when he chooses to summon the Rage rather than be consumed by it, he's still in control of his actions and still gets the benefits of increased speed, strength, reaction time, etc. So that could be your character, he grew up among cliche barbs and he's the one guy who actually gets more focused and in control when he Rages.

Velden
2011-02-24, 02:14 PM
1)Visit the cityscape web enhancement for making an urban version of the barbarian.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a

2)Avoid using rage every time you´re in combat. Try to use "more rational" combat alternatives, like combat expertise and improved trip instead. Rage is your trump card in a desperate situation.

3)Think of that class as a character who lets his/her emotions and intuition take over when there is danger. Any kind of character would fit that description.

paddyfool
2011-02-24, 02:27 PM
Anyone here read Guilded Age? (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1586075904/tt0083866) (Worth starting at the beginning).

EDIT: Just to clarify, this isn't spam. It's just that there's a character there who fits one of the cliche-aversions which have already been discussed.

Shyftir
2011-02-24, 02:27 PM
There is a Celtic hero, Cuchulain, who was known for his "warp spasm" basically he had a rage ability that also distorted his features. Cuchulain was a very skillful warrior who didn't need to use his riastrad (warp-spasm; rage) to defeat most enemies.

I recently created a character, Sheamus Manx, who is a Celtic rager. He is a changeling; not the race "Changeling" he was a fae-blood left in a human baby's place. His actual race is cat-Hengokai. Anyway he took two levels of (lion spirit totem) barbarian before going Warblade (dual kukri, Tiger Claw.) What happens is that most of the time he's a human with odd hair and a bit of a feline matter but when he rages he also changes into his hybrid-form. (He never changes into his full cat form and is unaware that he can do so. He'd be sad to find out that he's not a tiger-man just a tiger striped-house-cat man.) By taking only two levels of barbarian (Skills that don't suck!) and picking Extend Rage, my character now has a once daily rage that involves him becoming a monster right in front of your eyes. So there is my version of a not-cliche barbarian.

I also made a character, Conik Skysong, who was a multi-class bard/barbarian. He was the son of his tribe's Skald and in training to be one himself. My raging northman sweet talked his way out of imprisonment by using suggestion on a hapless (read moronic) guard. Also he once raged with his hands tied behind his back in order to kick an enemy into submission. Neither one fit directly into the idiot berserker stereotype.

Amphetryon
2011-02-24, 03:15 PM
Issue: The OP wants to avoid playing a cliche.

Problem: All solutions posted so far simply exchange Cliche #1 with Cliche #4, #5, or #72.

Clarification of Problem: It is fundamentally impossible to create a character that doesn't hearken to, emulate, or otherwise recall certain broad strokes characteristics that we will generally recognize as 'archetypes', 'cliches' or 'tropes'. If one focuses on those broad strokes (or the player does not do the filigree and shading work after the broad strokes) then the cliche is what remains embedded in the minds of those who see the character.

If, on the other hand, one focuses on the bits that make your Barbarian (or Bard, or Monk, etc) a unique being in his or her environment, then the similarities of type brought about by the broad strokes definitions should not matter.

If a character is individualized and unique enough to be memorable enough on his or her own merits and there is still an objection based on broad stroke archetypes, then the objection is truly a monumental one to overcome.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-24, 03:19 PM
Issue: The OP wants to avoid playing a cliche.

Problem: All solutions posted so far simply exchange Cliche #1 with Cliche #4, #5, or #72.

Clarification of Problem: It is fundamentally impossible to create a character that doesn't hearken to, emulate, or otherwise recall certain broad strokes characteristics that we will generally recognize as 'archetypes', 'cliches' or 'tropes'. If one focuses on those broad strokes (or the player does not do the filigree and shading work after the broad strokes) then the cliche is what remains embedded in the minds of those who see the character.

If, on the other hand, one focuses on the bits that make your Barbarian (or Bard, or Monk, etc) a unique being in his or her environment, then the similarities of type brought about by the broad strokes definitions should not matter.

If a character is individualized and unique enough to be memorable enough on his or her own merits and there is still an objection based on broad stroke archetypes, then the objection is truly a monumental one to overcome.

Solution: ???
Profit?

Your issue/problem conflict is only really a conflict if the thread title is the only thing someone reads. The OP did explain the specific cliche they are trying to avoid - the savage, uncultured berzerker. All of solutions thus indeed posted are answers to the problem - claiming that they are also cliches seems to be redefining 'cliche' as 'more than a pile of numbers'. A lot of the solutions given don't avoid the uncontrolled berzerking, they embrace it, but with unique flavors that make them different than the example dumb-brute cliche.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-24, 03:21 PM
"Diliberately averting a trope is in and of itself a trope",
"Tropes are not Cliches"
"Your Milage May Vary"

Tyndmyr
2011-02-24, 03:23 PM
Issue: The OP wants to avoid playing a specific cliche.

Problem: All solutions posted so far simply exchange Cliche #1 with Cliche #4, #5, or #72.

Fixed that for you. Clearly, the solutions remedy his problem with a simple exchange. Cheers to those who suggested them.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-24, 03:23 PM
"Diliberately averting a trope is in and of itself a trope",
"Tropes are not Cliches"
"Your Milage May Vary"

"TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life"
"TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Ability to Post Coherent Forum Arguments."

Wait, scratch that last one.:smallbiggrin:

Flickerdart
2011-02-24, 03:26 PM
Or you could be some kind of archer who uses Whirling Frenzy as a means of shooting more arrows at people, and runs around with a huge bow instead of a huge axe. It's slightly different, but still close to the original in many respects, which is what makes a subversion fun in my opinion.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-24, 03:28 PM
Or you could be some kind of archer who uses Whirling Frenzy as a means of shooting more arrows at people, and runs around with a huge bow instead of a huge axe. It's slightly different, but still close to the original in many respects, which is what makes a subversion fun in my opinion.

I've actually played that. It's very much fun, and fairly effective too with a decent Composite Bow.

ffone
2011-02-24, 03:31 PM
You're a farmer see. You like, many others, joined the militia, for the tax break,see. Then </insert villain here> laid claim to your lands. You and others were ordered to go out to fight them, see. But they snuck around you, see, and razed the village, killing everyone, see, including your wife and family. Now you're mad, angry see.You desperately want to see your family again, but your farms gone, see, and no farmer could ever make enough to get some snooty priest to raise your wife, let alone your whole family, see. But then you hear of adventurers, see, they make mounds of silver, piles of gold, see, even platinum see, more then enough to get your family raised, see. You're a farmer see, you got more anger then skill, but it's enough to bust some heads. You hear many adventurers don't survive, see, that most don't make a copper, see. But if you die, well, you just see your family sooner, see.
Now you got a motivation to want to fight the big bad, a goal for the character, and some definite plot hooks for the DM.

Last of the Mohicans, see.



By having the majority of the PCs class level in Cloistered Cleric and playing what is basically a Research Librarian

The reason for the barbarian levels is that the PC was a Werewolf for long enough that everyone else got 2 levels and the DMs wouldn't let my play a Shifter as a result of trying to remove the curse [reason "we don't want to add another race" Ha they have since added warforged...]

Barbarian was chosen as its the closest i could think of at the time for a savage primal beast like aspect - now i wish i'd taken one of the rage variants over core rage

Conan the Librarian!

The Big Dice
2011-02-24, 03:33 PM
Or you could be some kind of archer who uses Whirling Frenzy as a means of shooting more arrows at people, and runs around with a huge bow instead of a huge axe. It's slightly different, but still close to the original in many respects, which is what makes a subversion fun in my opinion.

I always thought that was a bit of a silly idea. Archery requires pretty much the exact opposite of whirling round in a frenzy. I know the rules don't forbid the use of missile weapons while doing it, but a Strength bonus and the name taken together kind of imply a melee thing going on there...

Amphetryon
2011-02-24, 03:34 PM
Conan the Librarian!Horace Worblehat. It's been done. :smalltongue:

Lord.Sorasen
2011-02-24, 08:44 PM
My one and only barbarian learned to read... and then didn't tell the rest of the party about it, just to play pranks on the wizard. :smallamused: He was intelligent, a divine caster (runescarred berzerker, specifically), and fought intelligently, both in and out of rage. It's not hard to break the mold even without straying very far from what the class is about.

Complete Arcane gave two feats, communicator and Insightful, that gave a player the ability to use comprehend languages and read magic and spell like abilities.

I saw them and immediately put them on a barbarian. For extra fun, he still was illiterate. He could read magic and only magic.

Leon
2011-02-25, 01:30 AM
Conan the Librarian!

That's what they call me. Its easier somewhat than what my actual PCs name is to remember.

Tytalus
2011-02-25, 09:00 AM
I always thought that was a bit of a silly idea. Archery requires pretty much the exact opposite of whirling round in a frenzy.

That's why you reflavor the ability. Mechanically, there's nothing that impedes archery.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-25, 10:36 AM
Or you could be some kind of archer who uses Whirling Frenzy as a means of shooting more arrows at people, and runs around with a huge bow instead of a huge axe. It's slightly different, but still close to the original in many respects, which is what makes a subversion fun in my opinion.

UNDYING FREEZE FLAMING ANGRY BEAR ARROWS!!!

Darth Stabber
2011-02-25, 10:41 AM
ANGRYUNDYINGFLAMINGICEBEAR

Add the Incarnum one (Cobalt Rage?) and now you sing Eiffel 65 while doing all that.

The picture for that feat looks like the dude is crying out some sort of blue mist, which is still really cool.

Flickerdart
2011-02-25, 12:12 PM
I always thought that was a bit of a silly idea. Archery requires pretty much the exact opposite of whirling round in a frenzy. I know the rules don't forbid the use of missile weapons while doing it, but a Strength bonus and the name taken together kind of imply a melee thing going on there...

Obviously you're twirling the arrows with your hands, not your whole body - and those motions allow you to draw and loose faster at the expense of accuracy. Makes perfect sense.

gomipile
2011-02-25, 01:01 PM
The barbarian in my weekly game just embraces different cliches. I wont say what those cliches are for fear of offending delicate sensibilities.

The_Jackal
2011-02-25, 01:57 PM
This is one of the big problems with the 'classful' nature of D&D. The classes are there to present familiar tropes in a coherent format to the novice gamer. The trouble is, most novice gamers stop being novices at some point.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-25, 02:17 PM
This is one of the big problems with the 'classful' nature of D&D. The classes are there to present familiar tropes in a coherent format to the novice gamer. The trouble is, most novice gamers stop being novices at some point.
Which is why there is feats and multi-classing. Its not a perfect system, oh god no, but it allows a novice to make a character with relative ease, while allowing a plethora of options you usually see only in point buy systems. Maybe not a well optimized character, but a character nonetheless.

Last of the Mohicans, see.
Oh, I know its been done before, but I think it would be neat to use the Barbarian class to play someone from civilisation.

Nero24200
2011-02-25, 06:03 PM
I don't like that the barbarian class only really has one function...and that's "get angry and hurt foes a bit more". If I wanted to play a barbarian that fights intellegently rather then recklessly, I think it sucks that I cannot use the barbarian class to represent it.

As far as I'm concearned, "barbarian" is a fluff term that can be applied to any character if appropraite. The class in the PHB should just be called "Berserker". Wtih regards to fluff, a "berserker" would, much like RL berserkers, activitely train/use narcotics to actually make them stronger/tougher/reckless.

VirOath
2011-02-25, 07:13 PM
I don't like that the barbarian class only really has one function...and that's "get angry and hurt foes a bit more". If I wanted to play a barbarian that fights intellegently rather then recklessly, I think it sucks that I cannot use the barbarian class to represent it.

As far as I'm concearned, "barbarian" is a fluff term that can be applied to any character if appropraite. The class in the PHB should just be called "Berserker". Wtih regards to fluff, a "berserker" would, much like RL berserkers, activitely train/use narcotics to actually make them stronger/tougher/reckless.

There are plenty of things you can trade Rage with, for starters. Gaining the ability to read and write only costs two skill points and you'll have 16 atleast at first level. And you have a damn good skill list, only lacking the profession skill.

The Barbarian has a lot more meat to use to fight intelligently with than the Fighter, but the Barb should have the raw power to just plow through things if need be.

I've played a sweet, kind, thoughtful character of the barbarian class before. Wasn't imposing, was soft spoken, ended up being the face for the party and loved intelligent discussion pertaining to choices and general philosophy with the skill points to back it up. Often ended up getting into friendly debates with clerics on the matters of religion.

And, he just had a greatclub that was permanently stained red from the blood it had shed. He was vindictive, cunning, thoughtful, and mercilessly efficient. Rarely did he charge right in to deal massive damage, if there was a better option (like collapsing the ceiling in on the room instead)

Runestar
2011-02-25, 07:18 PM
I thought this was funny.


their main class feature is grunting to "power up", they're uncannily fast for no particular reason, they can avoid surprise attacks like some kung fu master, and they also get the power to resist mind control by believing in themselves. Seriously? Plus they have at least two PrCs which let them turn into invincible monsters by channeling their emoness. One of them makes them Large and gives them natural weapons. But even more ridiculously, the other PrC is some Dangerous Forbidden Technique thing where you might die or go insane every time you use it.
:smallbiggrin:

Who said barbs weren't anime?

mabriss lethe
2011-02-25, 09:13 PM
I'm currently toying around with an Eberron character. Human Barbarian with multiple ACFs for custom fun, Aberrant dragonmarked and going into Child of Khyber. To make things more interesting, I've decided to give him construct grafts. His story: He's a piece of "art" that once belonged to a daelkyr with a fascination with the warforged. The pain and suffering he endured at the daelkyr's hands caused his latent (and aberrant) dragonmark to manifest. When threatened, he goes to "that place" in his head where he went to escape the reality of his torture. Unfortunately for those who threaten him, "that place" is Xoriat.

Callista
2011-02-26, 02:29 AM
I always thought that was a bit of a silly idea. Archery requires pretty much the exact opposite of whirling round in a frenzy. I know the rules don't forbid the use of missile weapons while doing it, but a Strength bonus and the name taken together kind of imply a melee thing going on there...Ehh, you can refluff it. There's nothing about the mechanics that assumes melee, and a highly mobile archer isn't really too odd to think about.

The Big Dice
2011-02-26, 08:57 AM
Ehh, you can refluff it. There's nothing about the mechanics that assumes melee, and a highly mobile archer isn't really too odd to think about.
Have you ever done any archery?

If you have, you'll get why a Whirling Frenzy archer sounds silly. If you haven't, you'll quite possibly think it's cool. Refluffed or not, the idea of frenzied archery of any kind is... it's not something easy to imagine or to reality check.

Darth Crater
2011-02-26, 09:16 AM
I played a barbarian who was actually a pretty calm and intelligent guy.
Build: Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Horizon Walker 9/ Barb X (bypassed skill points cap via DM fiat, otherwise took Educated [dumping many skill points into assorted Knowledges] and Endurance to qualify the hard way). Took a modified version of that Exalted feat that loosens the action restrictions of Rage. Had great fun teleport-spamming the party around with Dimension Door before raging, then used either greatsword or massive composite bow (depending on range to target) afterward. The alignment wandered from CG to solidly NG.

For plot/backstory reasons he was an immortal wanderer, who'd spent the first years of his life with a barbarian tribe. (Any resemblance to Highlander is coincidental, since I've never seen it.) Essentially, he saw the Barbarian training as a powerful tool for combat (though a risky one - he didn't want to lose himself to the rage like the Frenzied Berserker that had been in the party earlier), not as a complete lifestyle. He loved books enough to devote a section of his Handy Haversack to them (and, in the backstory, even wrote a few himself), spoke every language he we ran across, and could generally have been a bard had his Charisma been higher than 10.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-26, 11:07 AM
Have you ever done any archery?

If you have, you'll get why a Whirling Frenzy archer sounds silly. If you haven't, you'll quite possibly think it's cool. Refluffed or not, the idea of frenzied archery of any kind is... it's not something easy to imagine or to reality check.

so....refluff the 'frenzy'? If you strip out everything related to fluff, rage, frenzying, etc., you are left with the following?



In this state, the character gains +4 Strength and +2 Dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves.
He may make an extra attack at his highest BAB each round, but suffers a -2 penalty to all attacks that round.
As his level increases, the Strength and AC/Save bonuses increase.
While in this state, the character may not use any Charisma, Dexterity, or Intelligence-based skills except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, or Ride, the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats.
When this state expires (it lasts for 4+Con mod rounds), he is fatigued, and may not re-enter the state for the rest of the encounter.


The first clause - he can make himself stronger for a short time, and has increased reaction times against enemies. Okay, that's a deliberate adrenaline rush.
The second clause - it's Rapid Shot without a feat spent. Very few people call Rangers hard to imagine. He cares more about getting as many arrows into the air as he can than pinpoint accuracy, and pays for it.
The third clause - he's so hyper-focused on what he's doing (shooting stuff) that he has no attention to spare on anything else. The only things that exist in his world are himself, his bow, and his target.
The fourth clause - it eventually wears off, and he gets tired.

Is that still difficult to imagine or reality check, once you boil it down to its mechanical bones and completely re-fluff it? Just removing the words 'frenzy' or 'rage' and you've got a lot of material to work with...this could be a berzerker rage, it could be a cold battle trance, it could be, in a futuristic setting, an injection of powerful combat drugs.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-26, 11:32 AM
So how do you avoid the cliche?

A couple thoughts...

1) Make him a sailor. Barbarians have access to most of the physical-type skills (except for Tumbling), so a sailor-barbarian works pretty well. Instead of a greataxe, he uses a cutlass. You might even build him to be primarily Dex, using Rage to do some damage with his hits, rather than being primarily strength, with Rage adding to an already big number.

2) Refluff rage, as has been mentioned. Instead of Rage, refer to it as Focus. Instead of roaring, the character becomes eerily silent, devoting everything to taking out his opponent before he, himself, is taken out.

Half-Orc Rage
2011-02-26, 11:58 AM
You know, Conan went into a kind of rage when he fought, but it wasn't a foaming at the mouth berserk kind of thing, it was more just going on pure instinct and power over a more trained fighting style. Conan is the original barbarian, after all.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-26, 12:02 PM
You know, Conan went into a kind of rage when he fought, but it wasn't a foaming at the mouth berserk kind of thing, it was more just going on pure instinct and power over a more trained fighting style. Conan is the original barbarian, after all.

He was also a horrible example of the Barbarian class, but we've had numerous threads on that topic.

Knaight
2011-02-26, 12:08 PM
Coming back to examples, the Barbarian class is very good at representing Arthurian style knights. There is a tendency in arthurian myth for battles to be described as "A and B fell upon eachother, both of them were covered in blood with tears in their mail, then A killed B with X", for which rage is a very good representation. Furthermore one can take the idea of protecting someone (which is heavily involved in chivalry as portrayed in much Arthurian myth), and have Rage get brought out when the person being protected is in danger and the knight disregards their own safety.

Dalek-K
2011-02-26, 12:19 PM
My friend has two masters (math and science) and loves to play the cliche barbarian....

It is quite entertaining how he has to try very very hard to play the "big dumb guy with a sword"

:)

Isn't there an option somewhere you can make your own class using basically all the 3.5 stuff? Like take stuff from each class at each level or something like that? And by this I mean there is an official formula for it not just multiclassing.

Callista
2011-02-26, 12:34 PM
Unearthed Arcana has lots of the class features remade as feats. Is that what you mean?

Ravens_cry
2011-02-26, 12:36 PM
Isn't there an option somewhere you can make your own class using basically all the 3.5 stuff? Like take stuff from each class at each level or something like that? And by this I mean there is an official formula for it not just multiclassing.
Well, by no means 'all the 3.5 stuff', there is the Generic Classes variant from Unearthed Arcana and can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)in the SRD.

The Big Dice
2011-02-26, 01:32 PM
The first clause - he can make himself stronger for a short time, and has increased reaction times against enemies. Okay, that's a deliberate adrenaline rush.
The second clause - it's Rapid Shot without a feat spent. Very few people call Rangers hard to imagine. He cares more about getting as many arrows into the air as he can than pinpoint accuracy, and pays for it.
The third clause - he's so hyper-focused on what he's doing (shooting stuff) that he has no attention to spare on anything else. The only things that exist in his world are himself, his bow, and his target.
The fourth clause - it eventually wears off, and he gets tired.

Is that still difficult to imagine or reality check, once you boil it down to its mechanical bones and completely re-fluff it? Just removing the words 'frenzy' or 'rage' and you've got a lot of material to work with...this could be a berzerker rage, it could be a cold battle trance, it could be, in a futuristic setting, an injection of powerful combat drugs.
The Strength part is really irrelevant to D&D style archery. Your average bow isn't going to get any benefit from it. Because if bows were just as good as melee weapons, melee would be even worse. Archery also requires a certain amount of stillness and control, which kind of makes the increased AC and Reflex save questionable. So the first clause isn't really relating itself to archery when you examine it closely.

The rset of it could be interpreted as possibly relating to archery. If you squint at it and don't ask questions.

But the biggest issue I have with refluffing is, where does it end? If you're rewriting stuff to make it fit your view of things better, then you're opening a door to refluffing the entire game. It starts with wanting an ability that going by fluff is intended for melee. Along thje way you get Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior (http://www.goblinscomic.com/03232010/) and then you end up with someone saying "Why can't I refluff Polymorph Any Object into a class ability rather than a spell?"

Dalek-K
2011-02-26, 01:33 PM
Ah I thought I remembered something like that... Its more watered down than what I thought (no rage for example). I wasn't aware that it was online though ^ ^

The Glyphstone
2011-02-26, 02:23 PM
The Strength part is really irrelevant to D&D style archery. Your average bow isn't going to get any benefit from it. Because if bows were just as good as melee weapons, melee would be even worse. Archery also requires a certain amount of stillness and control, which kind of makes the increased AC and Reflex save questionable. So the first clause isn't really relating itself to archery when you examine it closely.

The rset of it could be interpreted as possibly relating to archery. If you squint at it and don't ask questions.

But the biggest issue I have with refluffing is, where does it end? If you're rewriting stuff to make it fit your view of things better, then you're opening a door to refluffing the entire game. It starts with wanting an ability that going by fluff is intended for melee. Along thje way you get Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior (http://www.goblinscomic.com/03232010/) and then you end up with someone saying "Why can't I refluff Polymorph Any Object into a class ability rather than a spell?"


I guess we're just drfting into YMMV territory then. I consider WoTC's default fluff to be a prime example of Sturgeon's Law in action - 90% of it is crap, so I'm perfectly happy to refluff the entire game if I have to.

Saying Minimax and PAO-at-will are the inevitable result isn't guaranteed though....not everything has to lead to a slippery slope.

Dienekes
2011-02-26, 02:33 PM
But the biggest issue I have with refluffing is, where does it end? If you're rewriting stuff to make it fit your view of things better, then you're opening a door to refluffing the entire game. It starts with wanting an ability that going by fluff is intended for melee. Along thje way you get Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior (http://www.goblinscomic.com/03232010/) and then you end up with someone saying "Why can't I refluff Polymorph Any Object into a class ability rather than a spell?"

I don't see your logic here. Somehow changing a small bit of text to come up with interesting but legal ideas leads to abusing the flaw rules and a potentially interesting homebrew?

Maybe it's just me, but I love it when my players get creative without breaking the rules.

So I feel like I'm actually contributing: I GMed a barbarian war leader who was trying to unite his tribes and get them recognized as a nation so that they would not have their border's encroached upon. He tried to show that he was "civilized" when ambassadors from other nations showed up. However he could not read or write, which he felt was a huge embarrassment and tried to hide as best he could when in these meetings. A fun character, pity my PCs killed him.

Zaydos
2011-02-26, 02:46 PM
My normal barbarian is the Conan type. You know, literate, above average intelligence (I tend to roll well in character creation :smallsmile:), takes ranks in Diplomacy and Speak Language, and powerfully able to smash your face in with a sword. He might be tribal, but he's not a big dumb guy, he's a warrior from the fringes of the world where you don't have time for the decadence that is society, and only for the fight to survive. See Conan type.

Other times I go for the Norseman type. Literate (just because I hate playing illiterate characters), ability to make poetry insulting my foes even as I kill them. More stereotypical in that he is after Fame and Glory.

Other barbarians... smart, charismatic (only character in the party who put ranks in diplomacy), 1/4th elven. His village slaughtered he took his father's mercurial greatsword and fled. All but dead of exhaustion and hunger a tribe of orcs took him in and raised him teaching him their ways. He learned the art of the orcish battle-fury and he set forth to find avenge his birth-tribe. A mighty warrior, he feared the arcane arts as unnatural (he didn't use magic items except maybe his father's sword) till his closest companion turned to sorcery (happened in game; he became friends with the monk who became a sorcerer and then they got into a punching contest; they made up afterward and it might have been the only character development in the campaign).

So yeah I play stereotypical barbarians.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-26, 03:09 PM
But the biggest issue I have with refluffing is, where does it end? If you're rewriting stuff to make it fit your view of things better, then you're opening a door to refluffing the entire game. It starts with wanting an ability that going by fluff is intended for melee. Along thje way you get Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior (http://www.goblinscomic.com/03232010/) and then you end up with someone saying "Why can't I refluff Polymorph Any Object into a class ability rather than a spell?"

The core of refluffing is "The mechanics don't change." If I refluff my Blessed Book into an iPad, the fact remains that, by mechanics, it's still Boccob's Blessed Book... I can't make it do anything else, unless I've paid for those functions in that item.

If I'm playing a Barbarian, but decide I want more of a "religious fanatic" feel, I might refluff Rage as a divine zeal, making me stronger and tougher so long as I can keep the chants going. The mechanics remain the same. To refluff Polymorph Any Object into a class ability, instead of a spell, you first have to be able to cast PAO as a spell, and your class ability would be no different than casting a spell, mechanically, though it can look like anything else you want. Otherwise, you aren't "refluffing"... you're homebrewing a variant.

Nothing wrong with homebrewing a variant, mind you, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.

The Big Dice
2011-02-26, 04:50 PM
The core of refluffing is "The mechanics don't change." If I refluff my Blessed Book into an iPad, the fact remains that, by mechanics, it's still Boccob's Blessed Book... I can't make it do anything else, unless I've paid for those functions in that item.
The problem as I see it with refluffing is, like I said, where do you stop? Because once you decide it's ok to start rebranding something, someone is bound to ask for something else to be refluffed. And I'd personally sooner play something where the fluff matches my desires than rewrite hundreds of pages.

I guess I'm looking at the difference between what the text lets you be and what the mechanics lets you do.

Take Psionics in the SRD. I wouldn't allow them in a game because I don't have the books that gives the fluff that defines the numbers. It's all well and good saying the various arguments about why Psi is better than magic, or how power points are better than Vancian casting. But with nothing to tell me the difference between a Psychic Warrior and a Psion other than a chart and list of game stats, there's nothing to tell me who this character is or what he is trained to be.

Callos_DeTerran
2011-02-26, 05:06 PM
There's more to barbarian than vanilla Conan-type.

I'm sure someone else has covered this by now, but I didn't read the entire thread to find out.

The barbarian class is as far from being like Conan as wizards are. I tremble with nerd-rage at this very moment at the implication that Conan was a mindless berserker.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-26, 05:16 PM
I'm sure someone else has covered this by now, but I didn't read the entire thread to find out.

The barbarian class is as far from being like Conan as wizards are. I tremble with nerd-rage at this very moment at the implication that Conan was a mindless berserker.
Well, having Ahnold play the part in the movie doesn't help.

Zaydos
2011-02-26, 05:30 PM
I'm sure someone else has covered this by now, but I didn't read the entire thread to find out.

The barbarian class is as far from being like Conan as wizards are. I tremble with nerd-rage at this very moment at the implication that Conan was a mindless berserker.

But... but... I like having my barbarians take speak language and be literate. Also Conan did have Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, possibly even Improved Uncanny Dodge and DR. So Conan had all the barbarian abilities except the one that serves as its defining characteristic. If I was to actually try and build Conan he'd probably be a Barbarian with a 1 or 2 level fighter dip, some PrCs and the Whirling Frenzy variant. Depending of course upon what point in his career he was.

Now King Kull was a barbarian (one story has him fighting snake-men with one of his loyal retainers who notes how the king entered a battle frenzy where he left himself completely open just killing and slaughtering the enemies and how he had to do more to defend the king than to kill the foe).

John Cribati
2011-02-26, 05:34 PM
Gestalt Game. Orc Barbarian//Rogue. 18 INT, 12 CHA, 10 WIS. Got bonuses to Diplomacy simply because every NPC was so surprised that an Orc was so well mannered. Still illiterate.

Shyftir
2011-02-26, 05:53 PM
Well, having Ahnold play the part in the movie doesn't help.

Really? because "Ahnold" is a man from another country who succeeded in this country through a tremendous amount of charisma and physical acumen. Learned a foreign language well known for being difficult to learn.(English) and has enough grasp of it to a) be an actor and b) become the governor of one of the largest states in the Union. You may not like the man's politics but he is anything but a mindless Berserk.

He kinda makes a good Conan honestly. In his youth ,he made his way by being imposing and strong. In his middle age, he combined that with his charisma and intelligence to become a leader of men. The major difference is that all his conquering was in front of a camera.

Dienekes
2011-02-26, 06:10 PM
The problem as I see it with refluffing is, like I said, where do you stop? Because once you decide it's ok to start rebranding something, someone is bound to ask for something else to be refluffed. And I'd personally sooner play something where the fluff matches my desires than rewrite hundreds of pages.

I guess I'm looking at the difference between what the text lets you be and what the mechanics lets you do.

Take Psionics in the SRD. I wouldn't allow them in a game because I don't have the books that gives the fluff that defines the numbers. It's all well and good saying the various arguments about why Psi is better than magic, or how power points are better than Vancian casting. But with nothing to tell me the difference between a Psychic Warrior and a Psion other than a chart and list of game stats, there's nothing to tell me who this character is or what he is trained to be.

Honestly for me that'd be pretty sweet. Simply looking at them completely mechanically, psionics are like magic but with possibly better mechanics.

So why can't I play a psion, and introduce the character as "Grand Wizard Shertigarden?" Really, nothing except the GM being a stick in the mud. Of course in my campaign there's a lot like that. Warblades are just warriors, they don't have to go meditate on the balance of nature and the will of the blade and that crap, they can just be one tough as hell hombre. They can go by knight, or samurai, or berserker if they want to. Because to me, the fun of roleplaying is that the players get to decide who there character is and what he is trained to be. The numbers just help realize it, and the fluff is just a helpful motivator.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-26, 06:18 PM
@Shyftir
Ok. . . .:smallconfused:
Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes, but politics has nothing to do with it. Rather, many of the roles he played before and since were big beefy guys with more brawn then sense, engaged in bloody, violent 'badassery' and gratuitous one-liner abuse. He didn't generally play subtle warrior poets.
Whatever he is in real life, his type-casted role in movies fits the Barbarian class default fluff better then Edgar Rice Burroughs ideas. But because more people are more fully aware of the movie then the surrounding media, his role in that movie has done more to shape that conception.
That was my point.

Zaydos
2011-02-26, 06:31 PM
@Shyftir
Ok. . . .:smallconfused:
Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes, but politics has nothing to do with it. Rather, many of the roles he played before and since were big beefy guys with more brawn then sense, engaged in bloody, violent 'badassery' and gratuitous one-liner abuse. He didn't generally play subtle warrior poets.
Whatever he is in real life, his type-casted role in movies fits the Barbarian class default fluff better then Edgar Rice Burroughs ideas. But because more people are more fully aware of the movie then the surrounding media, his role in that movie has done more to shape that conception.
That was my point.

Robert E. Howard wrote Conan. Also while Conan was smart, borderline genius in some stories even, he was never really a warrior-poet. That's part of his charm actually, that he wasn't a cliche warrior poet. That said he was literate, always seeking to learn, and nothing like the movie representation. While Arnold had the physique to play Conan, he is and was typecast as big and dumb and his role as a slave-gladiator and his heavy accent (no offence intended there, I have a heavy accent in English and its my only language) made it hard if not impossible for him to pull off Conan.

Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote John Carter of Mars, Tarzan, and much more but not Conan.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-26, 06:33 PM
Robert E. Howard wrote Conan.
OK, my mistake.:smallredface:

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2011-02-26, 06:40 PM
I like playing with the stereotypes in little ways; my last barbarian was dumb in terms of book-smarts, but cagey in terms of common sense, to the point of pretending to be really dumb most of the time. He had a soft spot for animals (except this one hawk was just such a **** you don't even know) and was a snazzy dresser.

The Big Dice
2011-02-26, 11:43 PM
So why can't I play a psion, and introduce the character as "Grand Wizard Shertigarden?" Really, nothing except the GM being a stick in the mud. Of course in my campaign there's a lot like that. Warblades are just warriors, they don't have to go meditate on the balance of nature and the will of the blade and that crap, they can just be one tough as hell hombre. They can go by knight, or samurai, or berserker if they want to. Because to me, the fun of roleplaying is that the players get to decide who there character is and what he is trained to be. The numbers just help realize it, and the fluff is just a helpful motivator.
The numbers define what you can do. The fluff describes who you are. It's a subtle thing, and it easily gets lost in the rush of "I'm going to play a <class> with <feats> and <alternate features>."

In the case of psionics, the SRD tell me nothing that I need to know. There's all these specialist Psion things, but no explanation for what they are or why they are there. What is a Xeph or a Maenad? Do they even have arms or legs, there's no description of what they look like. Let alone what kind of environment they live in or what sort of relations they have with other species.

Prestige Classes have the same problem. What is a War Mind for? Why does a Thrallherd do what it does? Pure mechanics tell me nothing that I actually need to know to be able to make a decision about the character I want to play.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2011-02-27, 12:50 AM
I suppose, but I think sticking to mechanics and not to fluff is the better route for the rules; one can use the mechanics to represent any kind of character whose character would have those abilities. Maybe one thrallherd is a lonely bard-wannabe, another a ruthless slaver, and another a paladin type dedicated to forcibly reforming the wicked, etc.

snikrept
2011-02-27, 03:14 AM
The character played by Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven comes to mind as a decent Barbarian re-fluff. At the end when he begins drinking he is channeling his rage mechanic... then he rides into town and slaughters everyone, and cannot give an account of how he managed to do it when asked.

Substitute guns for swords and presto.

claricorp
2011-02-27, 03:20 AM
I saw a barbarian whos backstory fluff was that he was once a favored mook of a very powerful wizard though was often forced to do unsavory fighting(killing rebellious young wizards and such)

He ended up being incredibly polite and extremely honest, though he would fly into a rage whenever someone tried to force his hand.

He was an interesting character and a bit out of the way of your regular HULK SMASH barbarian, though still keeping the ragey flavor.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-27, 07:27 AM
The numbers define what you can do. The fluff describes who you are. It's a subtle thing, and it easily gets lost in the rush of "I'm going to play a <class> with <feats> and <alternate features>."

In the case of psionics, the SRD tell me nothing that I need to know. There's all these specialist Psion things, but no explanation for what they are or why they are there. What is a Xeph or a Maenad? Do they even have arms or legs, there's no description of what they look like. Let alone what kind of environment they live in or what sort of relations they have with other species.

Prestige Classes have the same problem. What is a War Mind for? Why does a Thrallherd do what it does? Pure mechanics tell me nothing that I actually need to know to be able to make a decision about the character I want to play.

That's a problem with the SRD, not the Psionics rules though (since that's the example given). The SRD, being free, is deliberately pared of almost all fluff. It doesn't tell you if dwarves and elves have arms or legs either, or what specialist wizards are there for. Heck, it completely fails to explain that monks usually live in monasteries.

This is not entirely a bad thing, it means you don't have to look at Mialee if you're using the SRD.:smallsmile: But I think this is taking your car to the helicopter repair shop and complaining that the paint doesn't taste enough like pineapples - the total lack of fluff is a deliberate design feature/flaw of the SRD, you get the fluff (lackluster as it is) in the actual books.

Amphetryon
2011-02-27, 07:43 AM
That's a problem with the SRD, not the Psionics rules though (since that's the example given). The SRD, being free, is deliberately pared of almost all fluff. It doesn't tell you if dwarves and elves have arms or legs either, or what specialist wizards are there for. Heck, it completely fails to explain that monks usually live in monasteries.

This is not entirely a bad thing, it means you don't have to look at Mialee if you're using the SRD.:smallsmile: But I think this is taking your car to the helicopter repair shop and complaining that the paint doesn't taste enough like pineapples - the total lack of fluff is a deliberate design feature/flaw of the SRD, you get the fluff (lackluster as it is) in the actual books.

Not to mention the whole 'Flavor Is Mutable' school of thought...

Runestar
2011-02-27, 08:00 AM
Dungeon 126 had stats and a rather interesting backstory for this half-orc barb/duelist. Unfortunately, her stats were illegal for most part. :smallannoyed:

Any thoughts on how these 2 classes could be made to reconcile with each other? They seem quite contradictory. :smalltongue:

Combat Reflexes
2011-02-27, 08:12 AM
Don't know if anyone mentioned it yet, but maybe the Dwarf Slayer (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cghub.com/files/Image/008001-009000/8073/872_realsize.jpg&imgrefurl=http://adrian-smith.cghub.com/images/page:10/&usg=__3v-PYKpXzgl3ARUhRba0FysfzZw=&h=2757&w=2000&sz=170&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=7cR5gjscVOn6sM:&tbnh=171&tbnw=144&ei=mExqTYnaNsWeOpDKjcoL&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddwarf%2Bslayer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26s a%3DN%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D509%26tbs%3Disch:10,208&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=502&oei=iExqTdDCHsvJ4AbcpuzhCQ&page=1&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=79&ty=111&biw=800&bih=509) (ok the image is a bit off) from Warhammer Fantasy is an option: those guys are Dwarves that were kicked out of their clan for doing something unforgivable (like not drinking enough). They dye their hair orange - not necessary - and travel to the far realms of the world to find something to get killed by. The bigger the monster that slays you, the more honour you receive.

Thus: a stalwart barbarian that DOESN'T eat hearts. Ever.

The Big Dice
2011-02-27, 08:51 AM
That's a problem with the SRD, not the Psionics rules though (since that's the example given). The SRD, being free, is deliberately pared of almost all fluff. It doesn't tell you if dwarves and elves have arms or legs either, or what specialist wizards are there for. Heck, it completely fails to explain that monks usually live in monasteries.

This is not entirely a bad thing, it means you don't have to look at Mialee if you're using the SRD.:smallsmile: But I think this is taking your car to the helicopter repair shop and complaining that the paint doesn't taste enough like pineapples - the total lack of fluff is a deliberate design feature/flaw of the SRD, you get the fluff (lackluster as it is) in the actual books.

Not having to look at the characters in the D&D books is always a good thing :smallsmile:

The reason I picked Psionics specifically out of the SRD is, I don't have the books relating to that section. So for my purpose, it serves as a good example of something I won't use simply because the mechanics aren't enough by themselves. If I turn up a copy of the XPH at some point, that might change.

The problem with he races in that section when compared to the races for them core books is, Elves and Dwarfs are generic enough fantasy species that you can safely make assumptions about them. Xeph and Maenad, on the other hand, are things I've never heard of outside the SRD.

But the real thing with the SRD is, it's a reference document intended primarily for use by designers making OGL games. It's a resource for mechanics, not for fluff because it's intended to allow people to make the Judge Dredd, Call of Cthulhu or Lone Wolf (or whatever licensed D20) game.

I'd say complaining about the lack of fluff is more like taking your car to a panel beater, then complaining they don't have a spray shop.

As for Barbarians, they are a cross between Conan and a Viking berserker. Sort of. But like most classes in D&D, they only really work as a D&D class and not as a representation of something from history or literature.

Dienekes
2011-02-27, 08:54 AM
The numbers define what you can do. The fluff describes who you are. It's a subtle thing, and it easily gets lost in the rush of "I'm going to play a <class> with <feats> and <alternate features>."

In the case of psionics, the SRD tell me nothing that I need to know. There's all these specialist Psion things, but no explanation for what they are or why they are there. What is a Xeph or a Maenad? Do they even have arms or legs, there's no description of what they look like. Let alone what kind of environment they live in or what sort of relations they have with other species.

Prestige Classes have the same problem. What is a War Mind for? Why does a Thrallherd do what it does? Pure mechanics tell me nothing that I actually need to know to be able to make a decision about the character I want to play.

Sure, that's why I leave it up to the players and GM to decide. That's the fun part of the system. The Thrallherd does X, how it got around to doing X can rather easily be decided by through the GM and the player. If my player says he wants to play a character who is magical and has a knack for manipulating peoples minds that he learned by searching for the scrolls of some ancient power, I'd point him to the Thrallherd. If the same player decided that he was born with a curse that draws people to him unwillingly, I'd still point him to the Thrallherd. The reaction to the PC is now different, the first may be respected and feared among the magic using population for his dedication to his art. The second one may be hated by the peasants and seen as an evil bogey-man. Both use the mechanics of the class equally and could be incredibly fun to play.

What matters is the mechanics, setting fluff in stone just sets (rather arbitrary in some cases) boundaries on your creativity.

The Big Dice
2011-02-27, 09:01 AM
Sure, that's why I leave it up to the players and GM to decide. That's the fun part of the system. The Thrallherd does X, how it got around to doing X can rather easily be decided by through the GM and the player.
How isn't what I'm thinking of. The how is the mechanics, the stuff in the SRD. What I'm interested in is the why. Why does a Thrallherd herd thralls? That's the stuff that is important to me. It's one thing saying "Change the fluff!" But it's not possible to change something when you have nothing to change. It's a multiply by zero situation to me.

Dienekes
2011-02-27, 09:02 AM
How isn't what I'm thinking of. The how is the mechanics, the stuff in the SRD. What I'm interested in is the why. Why does a Thrallherd herd thralls? That's the stuff that is important to me. It's one thing saying "Change the fluff!" But it's not possible to change something when you have nothing to change. It's a multiply by zero situation to me.

Then make it up. It's not like it's all that hard.

Besides, I'd rather have my players decide on why their characters do things. Otherwise what's the fun on playing your own character?

DeltaEmil
2011-02-27, 09:12 AM
Fluff has always been mutable and changes depending on the background world. Eberron handles stuff differently than Forgotten Realms which handles stuff even more differently than Dark Sun which handles stuff really differently than Dragon Lance which handles stuff differently from Greyhawk which will be handled differently by Homebrew World of Jimmy, the GM.
Good class descriptions give ideas how to adapt the class into the world, they don't set it in stone. Demanding that it should is rather insulting to the many thousands of GM AND players who like to thinker around and want to play a character, only using the rules to enable them to play their favored archetype best.

Scarlet Knight
2011-02-27, 11:35 AM
If we are talking about roleplaying, one trick I like is to remember "ignorant" is not the same as "stupid". If you choose your barbarian to come from a nomadic wilderness setting, where would he see stairs? It wouldn't stop him from using them, but he could be facinated by them and by homes that are on levels. Cobblestones would be a wonder as might ships. No of this would interfer with the game itself nor be a cliche. Ok, maybe it would now that I think of Junglebook's Mowgli in the village....

crowe
2011-02-27, 12:17 PM
One of my favorite characters I played was Wogar Hellsbreath, a Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter. Wog's primary stat was intelligence, a mighty 14 or so iirc correctly. Being a damn genius in an orc tribe makes you pretty tough, just like a boy named Sue. Wog secretly taught himself to read from a cache of books taken from a raid, and often dream of being the hero in the mighty tales he read, but was eventually expelled from said tribe when it was found out that he blasphemed with that learnie stuff. Wog went to a human city, were his intelligence was similiarly disdained, so he dumbed himself down and took up a job as a bouncer (part of his charm was eating onions like apples, hence Hellsbreath). The job paid the bills, but was boring and demeaning. Eventually, he overheard a group of adventurers planning a raid, and decided to come along to see if he could live a tale that someday someone might write about. Wog was played as a tactical fighter, he generally tried to trip, disarm, grapple, sunder, and otherwise gain an advantage over an opponent before pounding them into the dirt. While he generally acted (badly) like the dumb thug, he always had a plan and a keen eye. He also voraciously collected books, though he read them in secret. Generally, Rage was used as a last resort, and Wog felt ashamed when he was forced to lose it.

TechnOkami
2011-02-27, 04:23 PM
My barbarians tend to be well-read, highly cultured, heart-eating warrior-poets wearing wizard robes.

It's a long story, okay?

I've got time... :3

nedz
2011-02-27, 04:48 PM
If you want a different Cliche try
Human Sorc 1/Barb 1/...
Feats: Eshew Materials, Practiced Spellcaster, plus combat stuff whatever.
With Enlarge Person and Fist of Stone.
You now have the Incredible Hulk :smallsmile:

Prestigitating your skin green does take a while though, so perhaps you want Disguise Self at Sorc 3 :smallbiggrin:

You could probably do this with Psionics instead, but whatever.

Flickerdart
2011-02-27, 05:48 PM
If you want a different Cliche try
Human Sorc 1/Barb 1/...
Feats: Eshew Materials, Practiced Spellcaster, plus combat stuff whatever.
With Enlarge Person and Fist of Stone.
You now have the Incredible Hulk :smallsmile:

Prestigitating your skin green does take a while though, so perhaps you want Disguise Self at Sorc 3 :smallbiggrin:

You could probably do this with Psionics instead, but whatever.
Psychic Warrior with Expansion and any of the powers that improve attacks.

Trobby
2011-02-27, 06:08 PM
Put ranks in Perform (Sing) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBGOQ7SsJrw)?

This is why my Singing Half-Orc monk Gesan was such a success. :smallwink:

Barbarian is actually a pretty excellent class, when you consider it can be pretty much ANY race and still succeed.

Human - Already can be any class and succeed

Dwarf - Con bonus is a real plus!

Elf - Con penalty? So what? I'm a dual-wielding whirlwind that gains a brief bonus to my damage each time I rage, cutting you into quarters with maximum efficiency!

Gnome - Strength penalty? Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my sudden Barbarian Rage! Not to mention my speed deficiency suddenly disappears with Fast movement!

Half-Elf - ...I can't help you with this one.

Half-Orc - Made for being a Barbarian. Sadly, not made for much else.

Halfling - See the Gnome and Elf above, and combine them. A tiny version of the half-orc, FTW!


I played two Barbarians in an old RP world, both of them Elves, both of them pretty successful front-liners. One of them, Edhelion, was a former-nobleman who learned from his father the way to channel the inner animal strength within himself in battle, and to unleash it upon his foes. Being a Barbarian, he didn't much care for the ways of the courts and so he ran away from home.

His little sister Inyalote, who in elf years was only 12, followed him. She was the other barbarian I played. She was also MORE popular in the group than Edhelion.


Really, the only limit to making a character interesting is your own willingness to break with convention. Make yourself a Catfolk Monk. Throw together a Half-Orc Cleric of Peace. Build yourself a Halfling Paladin or a Dwarven Rogue. Sure, the handbook suggests certain races take certain classes. That doesn't mean you actually have to DO that sort of thing.

Set
2011-02-27, 07:29 PM
My Barbarians tend to be pretty socially adept. Smart and cunning, with rage being more combat focused. "In the Zone". Not screaming and spitting.

That's my preference. The Barbarian doesn't have a rotten temper, he's spent a long time learning to enter a state of 'no-mind' or 'zen' or 'combat trance' to be able to fight with 100% focus and no distraction, turning his otherwise formidable intellect entirely towards the immediate battle at hand.

Less 'Incredible Hulk,' more 'Deathstroke the Terminator.'

It's the sort of state I only enter into while playing racquetball, where I'm seeing stuff before it happens, and I can hit every serve, every time, and it only happens once in a while for a short time. This kind of barbarian trains to be able to turn it on and off at will.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-28, 10:11 AM
I rarely let D&Ds "fluff" determine the classes I choose to fit a character concept. I had a character that was a Priestess of We Jas. Fluff would dictate that my character should be a Cleric or Favored Soul. My character was a Dread Necromancer.

Similar tale for my priest of Olidimara (Bard). I have had a couple of Ninja's that were classed as Rogues (despite having access to the Ninja class). If I had a character that was going to be a Samurai, they would be classed as a fighter or knight or ranger or something along those lines. Classes are tools that define ability sets. Figure out what abilities you character needs and use whatever class/feat/skill combination meets it, and you will have a character that fits your fluff. The D&D fluff is like a speed limit, in theory following it has value, but can more easily get what you want by going your own pace provided your willing to pay the price. And in this case the price is meerly an explanation.

Titanium Fox
2011-02-28, 10:21 AM
I'm working on rolling a Barbarian right now actually. He's an Arctic Fox Lycanthrope, who fights two handed. Obviously he isn't going to be optimized with two-weapon fighting, but for role playing purposes he's far from a Cliche. He rages when his allies are in danger, kind of an adrenaline / unlocking his power kind of thing. He's going to be quite literate, and I'm planning on Cha and Wis being a couple of his higher skills since I want to see him class into some type of magic blaster for a level or two (maybe warlock).

Darth Stabber
2011-02-28, 11:15 AM
Also look at illiteracy as a class feature (ie immune to explosive runes and sepia snake sigil).

Hazzardevil
2011-02-28, 11:43 AM
Illiteracy is actually quite useful, it makes you immune to explosive runes and other runes that activate upon reading. I see Illiteracy less as stupid more of never been able to learn.

I think to be honest that Arnold Whatshisface may have been a good actor but a poor choice for the role.

A sohei is pretty much a monk/barbarian so a barbarian that has rage that puts them in the zone and just rip things to shreds.

The Big Dice
2011-02-28, 12:41 PM
Illiteracy is actually quite useful, it makes you immune to explosive runes and other runes that activate upon reading. I see Illiteracy less as stupid more of never been able to learn.
I'd say never bothered to learn, or needed to. I see Barbarians as being part of a culture where Barbarians are your berserk warriors, Rangers are your hunters and Bards are your oral history source. Pretty much any class in the PHB could fit into this culture, with the possible exception of Rogues and Wizards. People who live on the subsistence line don't need scam artists and thieves as part of their society. Nor does the idea of an academic college graduate fit too well in a life on the plains.

Callista
2011-02-28, 04:05 PM
There are non-bookish versions of wizards. I seem to recall one that has a spellbook in the form of runes carved into a staff...

Ravens_cry
2011-02-28, 05:27 PM
I'd say never bothered to learn, or needed to. I see Barbarians as being part of a culture where Barbarians are your berserk warriors, Rangers are your hunters and Bards are your oral history source. Pretty much any class in the PHB could fit into this culture, with the possible exception of Rogues and Wizards. People who live on the subsistence line don't need scam artists and thieves as part of their society. Nor does the idea of an academic college graduate fit too well in a life on the plains.
Treat Rogue as the Scout.
Not thieving, but sneaking ahead and reporting back without disturbing the prey as well as enemy tribes/clans.
Wizard is harder as I think of wizards as being the most scientific of the base spell casters, certainly the most learned.

McSmack
2011-02-28, 05:39 PM
Had a character play his barbarian as a drug addict ex con. He maxed out Alchemy and Knowledge Nature so he could make small doses of drugs. When he was fighting he'd just pop a little somethin' somethin' in his mouth and get his kill on.
Like some have said it helps to disassociate the Rage class ability with actual angry rage. You could call if Focus, or the Engine, or the Dance of Death. What matters is that for a short period of time your character gets really really good at killing things.

Lord_Gareth
2011-02-28, 05:43 PM
I'd say never bothered to learn, or needed to. I see Barbarians as being part of a culture where Barbarians are your berserk warriors, Rangers are your hunters and Bards are your oral history source. Pretty much any class in the PHB could fit into this culture, with the possible exception of Rogues and Wizards. People who live on the subsistence line don't need scam artists and thieves as part of their society. Nor does the idea of an academic college graduate fit too well in a life on the plains.

Rogues can thrive in the wilderness. Additionally, Rogues can be of any alignment, and are thusly not always scam artists, thieves, or even illegal. [/annoyed at assumptions that rogue = criminal]

Callista
2011-02-28, 06:27 PM
If you started with old school D&D, you remember back when the rogue was called a Thief. So it used to be that way.

Nowadays, the rogue is a skillset that does well at all sorts of things, lawful and not. A secret agent--absolutely loyal to his home country, absolutely disciplined, meticulous, and always on guard--is a Lawful rogue. They also make great investigators and detectives, as well as military scouts and special forces.

In a barbarian tribe, I think a rogue would make a good archer; not all barbarians are melee fighters. Also, his social skills would make him a good diplomat and negotiator; he might be the person who travels to civilized lands to trade for metal weapons and other manufactured goods. A party of combined rogues and rangers would make a great hunting party: The rangers track the animals, and the rogues take them down with precise strikes, arrows straight through the heart.

The Big Dice
2011-03-01, 05:45 AM
In a barbarian tribe, I think a rogue would make a good archer; not all barbarians are melee fighters. Also, his social skills would make him a good diplomat and negotiator; he might be the person who travels to civilized lands to trade for metal weapons and other manufactured goods. A party of combined rogues and rangers would make a great hunting party: The rangers track the animals, and the rogues take them down with precise strikes, arrows straight through the heart.
A Rogue is too civilised, too urbanised. Why bother with a Rogue diplomat when you can have a Bard fill that role? Especially as Charisma is a BArd's casting stat. Why bother with a Rogue as a hunter when there are Rangers and Scouts who both have the ability to track game without having to take Survival as a Cross Class skill?

You don't need to have all classes in all cultures, and I don't think that a tribal society has any real need for Rogues. Or Paladins, Monks and quite a few other splatbook classes.

hamishspence
2011-03-01, 06:02 AM
A lot of hunting might cater as much to the rogue as to the ranger- sneaking up on the target and shooting it in a vital spot from close range.

While the Scout is basically the "wilderness rogue" in games with a fairly narrow set of classes, the Rogue can be just as "in place" as the ranger.

Some of the more "savage" humanoid races still tend to favour the rogue rather than the ranger- like goblins.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 06:09 AM
A Rogue is too civilised, too urbanised. Why bother with a Rogue diplomat when you can have a Bard fill that role? Especially as Charisma is a BArd's casting stat. Why bother with a Rogue as a hunter when there are Rangers and Scouts who both have the ability to track game without having to take Survival as a Cross Class skill?

You don't need to have all classes in all cultures, and I don't think that a tribal society has any real need for Rogues. Or Paladins, Monks and quite a few other splatbook classes.
The Wilderness Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm) fits in perfectly even without refluffing. I already mentioned how even the base Rogue can be fluffed to fit a tribal culture, the Variant Rogue makes things easier.
The Paladin is easily fluffed as a warrior called by their god, and this can include the more rustic types of warrior. They may be rare, but they are always rare, the gods choose who they choose.
Monks? They basically don't fit in a Standard Western Fantasy setting anyway, even the more civilized areas.

hamishspence
2011-03-01, 06:11 AM
The Paladin is easily fluffed as a warrior called by their god, and this can include the more rustic types of warrior. They may be rare, but they are always rare, the gods choose who they choose.

In Eberron, quite a few orc tribes have paladins- devoted to their own version of the Silver Flame.

So, they may not be all that out of place in a tribal culture.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 06:15 AM
In Eberron, quite a few orc tribes have paladins- devoted to their own version of the Silver Flame.

So, they may not be all that out of place in a tribal culture.
That's Eberron for you, it already has the good ideas.:smallbiggrin:

The Big Dice
2011-03-01, 07:15 AM
A lot of hunting might cater as much to the rogue as to the ranger- sneaking up on the target and shooting it in a vital spot from close range.
Unless you take an ACF, a Rogue is always going to lose out to a character that has Survival as a class skill. Even more so if, like Rangers, they get Track as a class feature. Because face it, who wants to burn a feat on Track?

Lord_Gareth
2011-03-01, 07:20 AM
Unless you take an ACF, a Rogue is always going to lose out to a character that has Survival as a class skill. Even more so if, like Rangers, they get Track as a class feature. Because face it, who wants to burn a feat on Track?

So what? That doesn't make Rogues automatically urban. When it's time to bring down something big and nasty (like, say, 80% of the wild creatures in D&D) it's time to call a rogue, since the ranger is just gonna die like the chump he is.

Being married to WotC's fluff only ends in tragedy, Dice. Their flavor text has strong signs of being written by intoxicated simians, and just about anything my players have ever come up with on their own has been better.

The Big Dice
2011-03-01, 08:40 AM
So what? That doesn't make Rogues automatically urban. When it's time to bring down something big and nasty (like, say, 80% of the wild creatures in D&D) it's time to call a rogue, since the ranger is just gonna die like the chump he is.
See, my experience of playing a pure Ranger from 1st to 21st level says otherwise. More often than not, I was the last one standing and that was purely down to my character being able to choose his engagement range.

Track it, see or hear it before it sees or hears you, choose your moment. It works in the real world, it sort of works in D&D. Sometimes.


Being married to WotC's fluff only ends in tragedy, Dice. Their flavor text has strong signs of being written by intoxicated simians, and just about anything my players have ever come up with on their own has been better.
Here's the thing. Class skills don't lie. If you don't have Survival, you're at a disadvantage in a wilderness situation. If you don't have Track, you're at a disadvantage in a hunting situation. If you don't have either, you're going to be cold and hungry a lot of the time if you're not in an urban environment.

Rogues don't have either. And nor do they offer anything that a tribe needs that Scouts and BArds don't. Bard's have enough going on that they are worth the effort of the group to keep them alive. Rogues don't. There are classes that suit a semi nomadic lifestyle so much better than Rogues. And arguing for refluffing them is arguing to make them into something other than the urban characters that they are.

That's not taking anything away from Rogues. They have their turf, Scouts have theirs. No point trying to make the two do the same thing, since you're just demeaning both by doing that.

AnonymousD&Der
2011-03-01, 02:16 PM
How many times have we seen this?

The party barbarian (usually a half-orc, if not then he's a human dressed in skins) is named something like Krog or Gruk or another similarly cave-mannish monosyllable. He doesn't know what a fork is. He loves to smash his enemies, arm-wrestle bears, and generally be macho (this also applies to female barbarians, oddly enough). He may or may not eat his enemies' hearts after he kills them, but he sure seems the type. He's as dumb as a pile of rocks and thinks books are good to wipe with when you can't get leaves. He's loud, crude, and most definitely not the sort of person you want at the King's banquet.

He is, in a word, the clone of every unimaginative barbarian character that has ever existed.

It might be fun to play this kind of a guy once in a while; in fact, I've laughed my head off at the antics of several of them. But if there's anything these fellows are, it's predictable. Utterly, utterly predictable.

So how do you avoid the cliche?

Strong People, slightly less crafty or bookish (mainly seen due to the whole illiteracy thing) than others, who get stronger as they get upset... wasn't there an entire series of characters like this that got incredibly popular? Hm... I wonder...

http://images.wikia.com/dragonball/images/a/a1/Kaioken!.jpg

But seriously, there are lots of different ideals and character types a Barbarian could identify with beyond "Thog Smash Puny Organic" that incorperate not being a nerd and getting stronger as you get mad.

kyoryu
2011-03-01, 06:40 PM
I've got a Barbarian that doesn't fit the popular cliches, but doesn't avoid them either.

He's kind of based on the saying "it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." He never had an opportunity to learn more "schooled" techniques. What he did have is an opportunity to train his ferocity. He eschews heavy armor because he sees it as a sign of fear - and the way to win is to attack the enemy with everything you have.

But he came from a relatively civilized area - the equivalent of the sticks, but not the typical "savage lands". He knows what forks are. He's seen some of the spirit world, and has had an awakening because of it, but mostly lives in the everyday world. His rages are a matter of temporarily giving control to those spirits. He speaks normally, and is even relatively capable of deeper thoughts.

Maybe I'll post a link to his backstory :D