PDA

View Full Version : No barbarian make me want smash!



krossbow
2008-07-31, 11:10 PM
Anyways, me and my friends were thinking of taking the brave step into 4th edition.

However, when looking at it and deciding my character concept, i found out that there are no barbarians in 4th edition.


How does this affect those of us who like to go "character name smash!"? I really liked the raging barbarian type and abilities.


is there a feat to replicate this, or an easy way to homebrew adapt one? Its really something of a turnoff for me.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-31, 11:22 PM
Anyways, me and my friends were thinking of taking the brave step into 4th edition.

However, when looking at it and deciding my character concept, i found out that there are no barbarians in 4th edition.


How does this affect those of us who like to go "character name smash!"? I really liked the raging barbarian type and abilities.


is there a feat to replicate this, or an easy way to homebrew adapt one? Its really something of a turnoff for me.

Until it comes out, you can always just pick another class and call yourself a barbarian. In particular, off the top of my head, a Strength primary, Wisdom secondary two-weapon ranger (maybe with big weapons, like axes or bastard swords!) who multi-classes fighter and goes pit fighter ... be sure to pick up Armor Splinter and Blade Cascade and just fluff the shocking array of extra hits as the effects of your rage making you so fast that time seems to slow down as you hew away like a steel whirlwind of death (and taxes).

If you want to play up your barbarian toughness, pick up No Surrender (which is also really nice) via that same multi, and at some point, you'll get a chance to describe how, just as your blood-covered body starts to fall ... you plant your feet and will yourself erect again through sheer rage! (be sure to go "RAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!")

And so on.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-31, 11:34 PM
You can even re-name and re-fluff the powers if you want.

For example, Blade Cascade:

Frenzied Whirlwind

Your vision turns red, and your weapons become a blur of constant motion as you throw yourself upon your foe with a howl of pure rage.

Like it? Think they'll offer me a job now? :smalltongue:

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-31, 11:46 PM
On a side note, if the monk, when it comes out, turns out to have Strength-based attacks, I'm going to do one multi-classed into ranger purely for the right to attack with ...

"Gomu Gomu no ... GATLING GUN!"

Then the DM will probably kill my character, but first I get to giggle hysterically, so it's all worthwhile.

Seffbasilisk
2008-07-31, 11:56 PM
Just a note, the edit button lets you add on to already existing posts.

Also, you can flavor almost anything to fit. Hell, you could even have a wizard whose spells is just an outward manifestation of rage.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-01, 12:01 AM
Just a note, the edit button lets you add on to already existing posts.

Also, you can flavor almost anything to fit. Hell, you could even have a wizard whose spells is just an outward manifestation of rage.

That works even better as a warlock. :smalltongue: Also, sorry about the multiple posts.

Jarlax
2008-08-01, 12:49 AM
Anyways, me and my friends were thinking of taking the brave step into 4th edition.

However, when looking at it and deciding my character concept, i found out that there are no barbarians in 4th edition.

is there a feat to replicate this, or an easy way to homebrew adapt one? Its really something of a turnoff for me.

beginning of next year in the PHB 2 you will be receiving your barbarians.

in the meantime wizards suggest this:


Most barbarians fit best into the great weapon fighter build (p76), though barbarians wielding a pair of weapons should instead consider the two-blade ranger build (p104). Note that the former build slots you into the defender role and the latter into the striker role, so be sure you’re happy with the destination.

Either way, feat selection can also be useful in helping recreate your former identity. For example, Power Attack is still good for the greataxe-wielding barbarian, while Toughness replicates your d12 Hit Dice. Fleet-footed gives back some of your speed boost, and Blood Thirst certainly feels appropriate for the savage barbarian.

4th Edition doesn’t yet offer a rage mechanic to mimic the 3E barbarian’s iconic class feature, so you and your DM will need to get a little creative if you want to retain that flavor. For example, perhaps once you use Power Attack, you can’t stop using it until the end of the fight (but it gives you an extra +1 damage). Or perhaps you can just announce at any time: “I’m taking +4 melee damage at the cost of -2 AC for the rest of the encounter.” Whatever you come up with, keep it simple and easy to use… and keep your eyes open for barbarian class previews on D&D Insider later this year.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-08-01, 12:51 AM
What all posters above said, plus one more thing...

Take 8 or lower INT. :smallwink:

Xuincherguixe
2008-08-01, 12:53 AM
On a side note, if the monk, when it comes out, turns out to have Strength-based attacks, I'm going to do one multi-classed into ranger purely for the right to attack with ...

"Gomu Gomu no ... GATLING GUN!"

Then the DM will probably kill my character, but first I get to giggle hysterically, so it's all worthwhile.

Now I want to build a three weapon fighting ranger.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-01, 01:00 AM
Now I want to build a three weapon fighting ranger.

It's not exactly Santoryu, but you can do a two-weapon ranger and then get a dancing weapon. :smalltongue:

Tengu_temp
2008-08-01, 04:49 AM
I've never seen the need for a barbarian class. The classical barbarian, Conan, would be described as a fighter/rogue in DND (he's pretty cunning, he can read, he doesn't rage the way DND barbarians do and in the books he wears heavy armor).

Barbarians are fighters and rangers who come from tribal cultures. Although Wizards seem to disagree with me, as they will have a Barbarian class released in some expansion.

Ecalsneerg
2008-08-01, 05:18 AM
What all posters above said, plus one more thing...

Take 8 or lower INT. :smallwink:

Hey, my 18 Int Half-Dragon barbarian was a highly educated battle-frenzied monstrosity. Being clever meams knowing the best time to rage.

kamikasei
2008-08-01, 05:50 AM
Hey, my 18 Int Half-Dragon barbarian was a highly educated battle-frenzied monstrosity. Being clever meams knowing the best time to rage.

"We're about to face the arch-villain. Quick, you, tell me Janeway was the best captain! You, give me a mangled explanation of quantum mechanics, now!"

Storm Bringer
2008-08-01, 06:15 AM
I am reminded of the discription of the a battle rage form Intresting Times (a discworld novel). The raging barbarian in question, a member of the Silver Horde (which, at the time it overruns the discworld version of china, numbered seven), is called Mr. Ronald Saveloy. he is a former geography teacher who settled down to barbarian advernturing as a nice easy retirement after teaching.

His rage is rather something like kamikasei joked about. It manages to impress the other members of the sivler horde, who, lest we forget, are OAP barbarian who have been doing this since they were teens.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-01, 06:28 AM
I've never seen the need for a barbarian class. The classical barbarian, Conan, would be described as a fighter/rogue in DND

Wouldn't the classical barbarian be Cuchulainn instead? Or perhaps Beowulf?

At any rate, as 8-bit Theatre proves, you can be a berserker and still be cultured :smallwink:

Tengu_temp
2008-08-01, 07:01 AM
Wouldn't the classical barbarian be Cuchulainn instead?

Ah, but to represent him properly, you need Fate/Stay Night Exalted. ToB will do in a pinch.

Morty
2008-08-01, 07:17 AM
Ah, but to represent him properly, you need Fate/Stay Night Exalted. ToB will do in a pinch.

:smallconfused: Wouldn't Cuchulainn be simply high-level Fighter or Barbarian in whatever D&D edition cleaving through thousands of low level mooks, which in 3ed are represented by 1st level warriors and in 4ed by minions? Given that he was likely a son of a god, you might swap some template on him. Granted, I'm not an expert on Irish myths but I don't see the problem here.

AstralFire
2008-08-01, 07:17 AM
I've never seen the need for a barbarian class. The classical barbarian, Conan, would be described as a fighter/rogue in DND (he's pretty cunning, he can read, he doesn't rage the way DND barbarians do and in the books he wears heavy armor).

Barbarians are fighters and rangers who come from tribal cultures. Although Wizards seem to disagree with me, as they will have a Barbarian class released in some expansion.

Agreed 100%. Getting Angry isn't a fighting style, it's part of one at best.

Viruzzo
2008-08-01, 07:22 AM
Agreed 100%. Getting Angry isn't a fighting style, it's part of one at best.
True. Actually with this idea in mind a variant warrior could be created by removing Combat Challenge and replacing it with some sort of rage ability?

AstralFire
2008-08-01, 07:28 AM
True. Actually with this idea in mind a variant warrior could be created by removing Combat Challenge and replacing it with some sort of rage ability?

Actually, what I was thinking was a feat that uses up healing surges to increase damage (maybe provides a small damage boost when you use a healing surge?), since they're essentially both variations on the idea of the Adrenaline Surge. But nothing more specific comes to mind as I haven't had time to get heavily invested in 4E's rules, I'd feel uncomfortable making statements on balance.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-01, 07:33 AM
:smallconfused: Wouldn't Cuchulainn be simply high-level Fighter or Barbarian in whatever D&D edition cleaving through thousands of low level mooks, which in 3ed are represented by 1st level warriors and in 4ed by minions? Given that he was likely a son of a god, you might swap some template on him. Granted, I'm not an expert on Irish myths but I don't see the problem here.

Cuchulain didn't fight only mooks, he fought other powerful warriors too. When he raged, he became a spiky-haired, hulking and grotesque monstrosity. He possessed the Gae Bulg - a terrible barbed spear made from a bone of a sea monster, as well as a special thrust with this spear that was unstoppable and involved throwing it with his foot.

Doesn't look like simply a high-level 3.x fighter/barbarian to me.


"We're about to face the arch-villain. Quick, you, tell me Janeway was the best captain! You, give me a mangled explanation of quantum mechanics, now!"

NERDRAAAAGE!

Morty
2008-08-01, 07:37 AM
Cuchulain didn't fight only mooks, he fought other powerful warriors too. When he raged, he became a spiky-haired, hulking and grotesque monstrosity. He possessed the Gae Bulg - a terrible barbed spear made from a bone of a sea monster, as well as a special thrust with this spear that was unstoppable and involved throwing it with his foot.

Doesn't look like simply a high-level 3.x fighter/barbarian to me.

True. High level D&D -whichever edition- fighters/barbarians are "merely" badass warriors, and Cuchulain was a bit more... so yeah, D&D might not be the best way to picture him.
But I still refuse to belive this whole "throw spear with his foot" thing.

jcsw
2008-08-01, 07:47 AM
... you plant your feet and will yourself erect again through sheer rage! (be sure to go "RAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!")

And so on.

Ah, the wonders of out-of-context quoting.

Spiryt
2008-08-01, 08:23 AM
Cuchulain didn't fight only mooks, he fought other powerful warriors too. When he raged, he became a spiky-haired, hulking and grotesque monstrosity. He possessed the Gae Bulg - a terrible barbed spear made from a bone of a sea monster, as well as a special thrust with this spear that was unstoppable and involved throwing it with his foot.


It depends on the version of legend. Especially the foot thing.
And beside the foot thing, I can't see nothing non 3.5.
In fact 3.5 with boots of flying, wands, animated shield and other stuff quickly leaves a guy with spear on chariot behind.

As for Barbarian - the bloody rage, state of terrible anger is very popular motive in very many mitologies (Cúchulainn and berserkers for example), often associated with animalism, licantrophy and other stuff.

If there is a point of making Rogue and Ranger different classes in 4e, why not Barbarian? They both (R&R) focus on striking first, quickly nad strongly - while by simple logic striking like that should be as well only a characteristic of Fighter who is a velite in Roman legion, not a hastati for simple analogy.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-01, 08:34 AM
If there is a point of making Rogue and Ranger different classes in 4e

Why wouldn't there be? They are widely different archetypes - the Bilbo vs. the Aragorn (or, for that matter, Robin Hood).

Okay, 4E rogues don't anywhere near resemble Bilbo Baggins any more... I blame memetics.

Spiryt
2008-08-01, 08:48 AM
Why wouldn't there be? They are widely different archetypes - the Bilbo vs. the Aragorn (or, for that matter, Robin Hood).

Okay, 4E rogues don't anywhere near resemble Bilbo Baggins any more... I blame memetics.

And Aragorn doesn't really resemble 4ed Ranger.

Cuchulain is rather different from "standard clunky knight".

Of course, everything can be simplified - while foresting, survival, endurance, wild emphaty, some primal/mysterious powers or gods grace (however you define ranger 3.5 spells) are all gone, why Ranger shouldn't be some kind of slighty untidy Fighter, who from whatever reason is fighting with two sword, and is wearing leather (obviously Heavy Metal fan *horns* , although shouldn't he wear Metal as well, then) ? Everything revolves around fight now, anyway.

But I don't think it's really best thing to do.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-01, 08:51 AM
And Aragorn doesn't really resemble 4ed Ranger.
No, the 4E ranger is Drizz't.


Cuchulain is rather different from "standard clunky knight".
That's why I said he was a barbarian archetype. Not that fighters resemble knights in any fashion, though.


But I don't think it's really best thing to do.
Design philosophy. 4E classes are supposed to be narrowly designed (as opposed to, say, 3E rogues or wizards) and therefore any "type" that the design team can think of is likely going to be a new class. Eight power sources times four roles...

Spiryt
2008-08-01, 09:00 AM
Design philosophy. 4E classes are supposed to be narrowly designed (as opposed to, say, 3E rogues or wizards) and therefore any "type" that the design team can think of is likely going to be a new class. Eight power sources times four roles...

And therefore bands of adventurers everywhere contains definite number of guys who are mainly fighting everything in strightly defined ways, why another class like Barbarian would be so weird?

The fact that Rogue is tumbling around and stabbing people with daggers, while Ranger is running around waving his hands like windmill (however weird those pictures may be) is sufficent to make them different classes.

So the fact that Barbarians are primal, wild, uncivilized and full of life, rage and passion (or whatever) is sufficent to give them different fight style, and different class.

krossbow
2008-08-01, 09:06 AM
I've never seen the need for a barbarian class. The classical barbarian, Conan, would be described as a fighter/rogue in DND

Book version maybe, but my love of barbarians stems from ah-nold Running around Whacking things until he solves the issue (my friends and i have a theory that conan didn't actually discover the wizard's weakness to mirrors in the second movie, but rather just smashed things until, by process of elimination, he found out how to hurt him).

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-01, 02:56 PM
Cuchulain didn't fight only mooks, he fought other powerful warriors too. When he raged, he became a spiky-haired, hulking and grotesque monstrosity.

Did his spiky hair turn gold, too?

But ... okay, yes, you can't exactly do Cuchulain with 4e rules. You also can't do Lina Inverse or Mihawk, just off the top of my head, both of whom are ridiculously stronger than you can possibly become in 4e.

In 3.e, you still couldn't do Mihawk (or anything close to that) because fighter types were if anything far weaker and less versatile than they are now. Meanwhile, you could play a wizard, and it was like hacking D&D rather than playing it. Rather than being unable to quite represent classic fantasy archetypes, none of the classic fantasy archetypes could hope to match up with you!

So I guess I'm just saying, "So what?" If the difference between the rage that drives a 4e fighter or ranger to victory in battle and the rage that powered Cuchulain is only a matter of scale, then does it really matter? And does the system fail if it can't precisely match the scale of a given fictional figure? ... because if so, then all editions of D&D that have ever been published have failed ...

Gralamin
2008-08-01, 03:30 PM
Did his spiky hair turn gold, too?

But ... okay, yes, you can't exactly do Cuchulain with 4e rules. You also can't do Lina Inverse or Mihawk, just off the top of my head, both of whom are ridiculously stronger than you can possibly become in 4e.

In 3.e, you still couldn't do Mihawk (or anything close to that) because fighter types were if anything far weaker and less versatile than they are now. Meanwhile, you could play a wizard, and it was like hacking D&D rather than playing it. Rather than being unable to quite represent classic fantasy archetypes, none of the classic fantasy archetypes could hope to match up with you!

So I guess I'm just saying, "So what?" If the difference between the rage that drives a 4e fighter or ranger to victory in battle and the rage that powered Cuchulain is only a matter of scale, then does it really matter? And does the system fail if it can't precisely match the scale of a given fictional figure? ... because if so, then all editions of D&D that have ever been published have failed ...

Now you've made me want to make a Lina Inverse based Paragon Path. I hope your happy :smalltongue:

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-08-01, 03:46 PM
NERDRAAAAGE!
I am so houseruling that in.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-08-01, 04:17 PM
Now you've made me want to make a Lina Inverse based Paragon Path. I hope your happy :smalltongue:You know, I'm rather amazed that there's no specifically-uberdamage Warlock Paragon Path.

Incidentally, Lina is totally a somehow-Chaotic-Neutral Hellfire Warlock in 3.5.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-01, 05:32 PM
Did his spiky hair turn gold, too?


Dunno. But it was literally spiky. You could impale stuff on it.

Yes, I'm aware of this being a joke question.

I think the best systems to represent hero X or character Y are those that let you create your own abilities - BESM, M&M, GURPS.

AstralFire
2008-08-01, 05:48 PM
There are only a handful of concepts that 3.x can't really represent well (not to say that it represents them best, but that it can do a serviceable job) simply due to the huge amounts of releases. Most of the issues tend to revolve around spellcasting, Eastern spellcasting, since Psionics and Magic and Warlocks and C. Mage and Tome of Magic really cover about as much western magic as I can think of. The Wu Jen, Shugenja, and Spirit Shaman are just paint over the Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 05:52 PM
Did his spiky hair turn gold, too?
Petty much, actually. Sparkes danced on it and he glowed with "the hero-halo".

The whole super-saiyan thing from DBZ is in fact based on him. TRUFAX.[/QUOTE]

krossbow
2008-08-01, 06:15 PM
Well, its still a matter of substance.

For example, you could say that Wolverine and the hulk are both barbarians because they both get angry. However, rage is intrinsic to one, and for the other it just means he's pissed.



What i'm saying is, if Thog in the comic strip just said "Me mad!" because he was mad, and that's all it entailed, with him being just as strong as he normally is, would it have the same impact? No! His comments in the icecream shop and the like would be empty and meaningless, because they would be simple threats instead of statements of his character.


Likewise, if my barbarian becomes an unstoppable killing machine from saying that he's pissed, rather than it being an expression of his intent to kill (in which case it just means he's determined), there's more RP impact. The other people know to duck under a table because things are going to break. Its not just my character stating his intent, he really is an unstoppable killing machine now.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-01, 06:28 PM
There are only a handful of concepts that 3.x can't really represent well (not to say that it represents them best, but that it can do a serviceable job) simply due to the huge amounts of releases. Most of the issues tend to revolve around spellcasting, Eastern spellcasting, since Psionics and Magic and Warlocks and C. Mage and Tome of Magic really cover about as much western magic as I can think of. The Wu Jen, Shugenja, and Spirit Shaman are just paint over the Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric.

Things 3.x Cannot Represent:

ANYTHING in One Piece

ANYTHING in Slayers (not even Gourry, who thinks a warblade 20 is "cute")

Fyodor of Rashemen, Liriel Baenre's boyfriend ... even though he was specifically written into a D&D world!

Gandalf

Dark Schneider

Uhhh ... I could keep going, but it would be easier to list all of the things 3.x can represent than to try to list all of the things it can't ...

Starbuck_II
2008-08-01, 06:29 PM
Did his spiky hair turn gold, too?

But ... okay, yes, you can't exactly do Cuchulain with 4e rules. You also can't do Lina Inverse or Mihawk, just off the top of my head, both of whom are ridiculously stronger than you can possibly become in 4e.



Actually, Lina is surprisingly easy. She has Fighter Training (she has a few weapon skills).
Her at will fireballs = Scorching Burst.
Her big one =Fireball (only uses them 1 or twice an encounter)

An NPC is easiest. In fact, I made up a psuedo Naga the Serpant as an enemy. His name was Grass the Snake: he used the Dragon Slave!

Gralamin
2008-08-01, 06:34 PM
Actually, Lina is surprisingly easy. She has Fighter Training (she has a few weapon skills).
Her at will fireballs = Scorching Burst.
Her big one =Fireball (only uses them 1 or twice an encounter)

An NPC is easiest. In fact, I made up a psuedo Naga the Serpant as an enemy. His name was Grass the Snake: he used the Dragon Slave!

Dragonslave destroys an area of about the size of a small city. Fireball can't represent that.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-01, 06:34 PM
Well, its still a matter of substance.

For example, you could say that Wolverine and the hulk are both barbarians because they both get angry. However, rage is intrinsic to one, and for the other it just means he's pissed.



What i'm saying is, if Thog in the comic strip just said "Me mad!" because he was mad, and that's all it entailed, with him being just as strong as he normally is, would it have the same impact? No! His comments in the icecream shop and the like would be empty and meaningless, because they would be simple threats instead of statements of his character.


Likewise, if my barbarian becomes an unstoppable killing machine from saying that he's pissed, rather than it being an expression of his intent to kill (in which case it just means he's determined), there's more RP impact. The other people know to duck under a table because things are going to break. Its not just my character stating his intent, he really is an unstoppable killing machine now.

But what stops you from just fluffing it that way? Is my Frenzied Whirlwind version of Blade Cascade somehow less valid because I just made it up? If the ability had originally been written that way and not as it currently is, would you feel differently about it than you do now?

Is there any special reason why you can't reason that all of your powers are fueled by rage, and that the reason you eventually run out of powers (aside from At-Will) is that your rage ability wears off?

Which will govern? The text or your imagination?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 06:40 PM
Is there any special reason why you can't reason that all of your powers are fueled by rage, and that the reason you eventually run out of powers (aside from At-Will) is that your rage ability wears off?

Which will govern? The text or your imagination?

Apparently refluffing is only possible in 3E.

And if you played a Jade Phoenix Mage, you HAD to be the Good-aligned reincarnaton of a previous JPM, no exceptions. Can't play the class in a campaign world that didn't specifically have the Jade Phoenix order. And you CERTAINLY can't adapt it to an evil character (Ebon Phoenix Mage--if it's not too trite for you, have your Desert Wind maneuvers produce black flame); perish the thought!

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-01, 06:43 PM
Dragonslave destroys an area of about the size of a small city. Fireball can't represent that.

And that's just her third-most-powerful spell.

Her second-most-powerful creates a blade that breaks through any amount of DR and any amount of spell resistance to cut through anything, even going through all dimensions at once. One of the lines of the spell aptly describes it as "power that can smash even the souls of the Gods."

Her most powerful spell is so strong she can barely control it, if she can control it at all, and her being able to is never certain. If she blows it, she could end up unmaking all of existence. Frankly, not even 3.5e Batman McWizard can cast a spell like that (although he's still more powerful than Lina overall because his abilities are made of cheap and hax).

So ... no. There's no way 4e could cover Lina. Then again, neither could 3.5e really, because you'd need to be into epic to even try to create a spell like the Dragon Slave (and forget about making the Ragna Blade or the Giga Slave), and all the while you're mucking about trying to do that, you already have all kinds of abilities Lina never had (such as even just the ability to teleport!).

Edit: Let me put it this way: Lina in 4e? Facing Orcus? ... is going to go through him like wet tissue paper. Solo.

Gralamin
2008-08-01, 06:48 PM
And that's just her third-most-powerful spell.

Her second-most-powerful creates a blade that breaks through any amount of DR and any amount of spell resistance to cut through anything, even going through all dimensions at once. One of the lines of the spell aptly describes it as "power that can smash even the souls of the Gods."

Her most powerful spell is so strong she can barely control it, if she can control it at all, and her being able to is never certain. If she blows it, she could end up unmaking all of existence. Frankly, not even 3.5e Batman McWizard can cast a spell like that (although he's still more powerful than Lina overall because his abilities are made of cheap and hax).

So ... no. There's no way 4e could cover Lina. Then again, neither could 3.5e really, because you'd need to be into epic to even try to create a spell like the Dragon Slave (and forget about making the Ragna Blade or the Giga Slave), and all the while you're mucking about trying to do that, you already have all kinds of abilities Lina never had (such as even just the ability to teleport!).

Edit: Let me put it this way: Lina in 4e? Facing Orcus? ... is going to go through him like wet tissue paper. Solo.

Well, arguably a 3.X epic wizard could do a Giga Slave (and possibly Ragna Blade), but that's with epic spell cheese, so I doubt that should count.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-01, 06:54 PM
So ... no. There's no way 4e could cover Lina. Then again, neither could 3.5e really, because you'd need to be into epic to even try to create a spell like the Dragon Slave (and forget about making the Ragna Blade or the Giga Slave), and all the while you're mucking about trying to do that, you already have all kinds of abilities Lina never had (such as even just the ability to teleport!).

Edit: Let me put it this way: Lina in 4e? Facing Orcus? ... is going to go through him like wet tissue paper. Solo.

Please, Orcus would require the Giga Slave and she knows she has 33% chance each time she uses it of activating the destruction of the world.
That was the whole reason she stopped using it.

Lina did teleport in the movies; short distance (dimension door fits it). She also flys and Feather Falls.

Dragon Slave was a more powerful Fireball.


In Lina's World Monsters are closer to 4E: they have high resistances to fire, but few immunities (there was an exception).

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-01, 07:10 PM
Please, Orcus would require the Giga Slave and she knows she has 33% chance each time she uses it of activating the destruction of the world.
That was the whole reason she stopped using it.

Lina did teleport in the movies; short distance (dimension door fits it). She also flys and Feather Falls.

Dragon Slave was a more powerful Fireball.


In Lina's World Monsters are closer to 4E: they have high resistances to fire, but few immunities (there was an exception).

I disagree, and I'll explain why:

In 4e, your pinnacle spells for area damage are things like Closing Spell, Meteor Swarm, Astral Storm ... none of them demonstrating even nearly the sheer destructive capacity we've seen from the Dragon Slave, which got its name from its ability to one-shot dragons (bastardized from Dragon Slayer originally). Red dragons run, from Adult to Ancient, in the 750-1,390 hit point range, and if we even just very conservatively say that "Adult Red Dragon" is what a Dragon Slave reliably one-shots, that means it does at least an average of 750+ hit points per shot. That's extremely conservative, and yet not even the strongest single-target damage attacks in 4e are that powerful!

Furthermore, the spell in 4e with the widest area is Legion's Hold, which is a Close Burst 20. Impressive. But Dragon Slave can take out an entire small city, so, er ... yeah. 'Nuff said on that.

So we have a spell that runs at least in the 750-1,000 hit point average damage range (and could be argued to be higher) and covers an area far wider than Legion's Hold. That's Lina's third-strongest spell and not even the strongest spell she can cast without risking universal destruction. The Ragna Blade is so much more powerful (in terms of damage, not area effect or range of course) that comparing it to the Dragon Slave is laughable. It would definitely one-shot Orcus. The Dragon Slave ... he might survive, but it would at least hurt him extremely badly, unlike certain very high-level Mazouka who can more or less shrug it off.

Next, look at how gods in Slayers perform in battle. The strongest fighter you can produce in 4e might not be able to solo Orcus, but he could bloody his nose a little. Gourry, the strongest fighter in the Slayers world, with demonstrated feats that outstrip anything in 4e at all, using an artifact as his sword, and teamed up with Zelgadis, who's a bit behind him in swordsmanship but still strong with a blade and also a powerful sorcerer ... both of them together got tossed around by Gaav like rag-dolls. He wasn't even really trying! They certainly didn't hurt him ... at all!

No. I'm sorry, but the power scale is completely different. I could create Lina in 4e, but I'd have to use the Monster Manual and design her as a special Solo.

AstralFire
2008-08-01, 09:12 PM
Re: Gandalf

Divine Rank 0 Bard 6, custom race. LotR is fairly low-powered - not Middle Earth as a whole (see: Fingolfin), but LotR itself is fairly low-powered and L4-7 is generally looked at as the end of D&D 3.x's 'heroic' tier.

Re: Rashemen boy, I don't know, I hate FR so I don't know what his deal is.

Re: Other stuff
Your objections seem to me to be generally predicated on Anime (and I did mention something about D&D's issues with Eastern) and/or power. Unless you are a reality-alterer on the order of worlds, there are few concepts that aren't representable in 3.x by 20th level due to issues of power. My Crusader with permanent Searing Beam and Fly might not be pushing Pluto around, but if he puts on a cape and some spandex, you'll still know what he's supposed to be referencing.

At no point did I say 3.x represents these concepts best or even particularly well - simply that they can do serviceable representations.

A blaster is a blaster is a blaster, I don't care how many dice you've added to do it.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-02, 02:22 AM
Re: GandalfDivine Rank 0 Bard 6, custom race. LotR is fairly low-powered - not Middle Earth as a whole (see: Fingolfin), but LotR itself is fairly low-powered and L4-7 is generally looked at as the end of D&D 3.x's 'heroic' tier.

That's really not Gandalf, though. It's a cute take on it, but in truth he's both much more, and much less, powerful than that.

The system just doesn't support creating a being like Gandalf. Not really.


Re: Rashemen boy, I don't know, I hate FR so I don't know what his deal is.

He's basically a berserker, but the feats he performs are completely out of line with (and well beyond) what you can do using the rules and the classes provided.


Your objections seem to me to be generally predicated on Anime (and I did mention something about D&D's issues with Eastern) and/or power. Unless you are a reality-alterer on the order of worlds, there are few concepts that aren't representable in 3.x by 20th level due to issues of power. My Crusader with permanent Searing Beam and Fly might not be pushing Pluto around, but if he puts on a cape and some spandex, you'll still know what he's supposed to be referencing.

Well no, they're just examples, and I'm sorry, but your crusader doesn't cut it to be Superman. I can just as easily throw a Lina-esque costume on my 4e wizard, and she'll be just as close to being like Lina as your crusader is to being like Superman (actually, probably a great deal closer).

Heck, you can dress a 4e character up in a Spider-Man suit and take the Sure Climber feat, too. That won't make you Spider-Man, but it's just as close to being Spider-Man as your crusader is to being Superman. Or ... probably ... closer.


At no point did I say 3.x represents these concepts best or even particularly well - simply that they can do serviceable representations.

But they don't.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-02, 04:14 AM
Re: Gandalf

Divine Rank 0 Bard 6, custom race. LotR is fairly low-powered

No, it's fairly low-magic. Based on the things they do, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are around level 12-15.


I do believe Feist's Magician novel was originally based upon his D&D campaign... any luck in statting Pug or Tomas? For somebody like Macros we can simply go "wizard/25" with perhaps some prestiges instead; but Pug has all this innate magical power stuff going...

tiercel
2008-08-02, 10:46 PM
Re: Gandalf

Divine Rank 0 Bard 6, custom race.


That's really not Gandalf, though. It's a cute take on it, but in truth he's both much more, and much less, powerful than that.

Getting off-topic, but, hey, why not....

I know there is Tolkien lore more fully explaining what Gandalf actually *is*, but in terms of what we actually see Gandalf *do* in LotR, bard is actually a pretty good model. Not exact, perhaps, but let's face it, almost no character that isn't specifically a D&D character (or the archetype for one, e.g. Aragorn) is going to be without flaws when represented by D&D rules.

In D&D terms:

Gandalf is a highly charismatic (certainly high Cha, Diplomacy) wanderer who knows a little bit about everything (say, Bardic Knowledge). He doesn't seem to have/use very many spells, and they don't seem to be the kind of high-level magic we might expect of a powerful spellcaster, but the limited effects he does achieve seem to be potent against some of the most powerful entities in the LotR world (say, limited spells and spell levels, but high casting level).

He seems to be decent with a sword -- in particular, see The Hobbit -- if not as predisposed to full-on melee as Gimli or Aragorn (say, medium BAB). A lot of Gandalf's actual power in LotR seems to be based as much upon his knowledge and influence over others as on his personal abilities, and he does a pretty reasonable job of rallying the defenders of Minas Tirith (say, Inspire Courage), not to mention talking his way out of a jam (e.g. the trolls or Beorn from The Hobbit).

Heck, Gandalf's co-"wizard", Saruman, seems to have most of his actual ability in the power of his voice (say, high Cha, Ability Focus: Bardic Fascination, Bardic Suggestion).

While the Bard class may not be a perfect description of Gandalf, in terms of what we actually see him do in The Hobbit/LotR, it actually describes him pretty well much of the time.

Heck, it's actually nice to see a *positive* archetype of the Bard out there; too many characters actually identified as bards in fiction are there largely to be useless comic relief. If people thought of bards as being more like Gandalf, it might put a bit more popular sheen back on the class.

brennanatorx45
2008-08-03, 08:51 PM
Getting off-topic, but, hey, why not....

I know there is Tolkien lore more fully explaining what Gandalf actually *is*, but in terms of what we actually see Gandalf *do* in LotR, bard is actually a pretty good model. Not exact, perhaps, but let's face it, almost no character that isn't specifically a D&D character (or the archetype for one, e.g. Aragorn) is going to be without flaws when represented by D&D rules.

In D&D terms:

Gandalf is a highly charismatic (certainly high Cha, Diplomacy) wanderer who knows a little bit about everything (say, Bardic Knowledge). He doesn't seem to have/use very many spells, and they don't seem to be the kind of high-level magic we might expect of a powerful spellcaster, but the limited effects he does achieve seem to be potent against some of the most powerful entities in the LotR world (say, limited spells and spell levels, but high casting level).

He seems to be decent with a sword -- in particular, see The Hobbit -- if not as predisposed to full-on melee as Gimli or Aragorn (say, medium BAB). A lot of Gandalf's actual power in LotR seems to be based as much upon his knowledge and influence over others as on his personal abilities, and he does a pretty reasonable job of rallying the defenders of Minas Tirith (say, Inspire Courage), not to mention talking his way out of a jam (e.g. the trolls or Beorn from The Hobbit).

Heck, Gandalf's co-"wizard", Saruman, seems to have most of his actual ability in the power of his voice (say, high Cha, Ability Focus: Bardic Fascination, Bardic Suggestion).

While the Bard class may not be a perfect description of Gandalf, in terms of what we actually see him do in The Hobbit/LotR, it actually describes him pretty well much of the time.

Heck, it's actually nice to see a *positive* archetype of the Bard out there; too many characters actually identified as bards in fiction are there largely to be useless comic relief. If people thought of bards as being more like Gandalf, it might put a bit more popular sheen back on the class.

I agree, but when have you ever seen Gandalf sing or play an instroment? Mabey he is just a low level wizard with a high charisma?

Back on the the origanal topic, there is no replacement for the 3.5 barbarian, a fighter or ranger can never can't capture all the aspects of the barbarian class that made it great there was a reason that WOTC made a seperate class in the first place.

Jayabalard
2008-08-03, 08:59 PM
Is there any special reason why you can't reason that all of your powers are fueled by rage, and that the reason you eventually run out of powers (aside from At-Will) is that your rage ability wears off?I think it's that that doesn't do anything mechanically equivalent to what they expect out of a rage ability.


I do believe Feist's Magician novel was originally based upon his D&D campaign... any luck in statting Pug or Tomas? For somebody like Macros we can simply go "wizard/25" with perhaps some prestiges instead; but Pug has all this innate magical power stuff going...No prestige classes back in 1982; no kits, those are 2nd ed AD&D (mostly released in 89 and the 90s). Maybe extra content from the Dragon, but Unearthed Arcana isn't published yet.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-04, 11:46 AM
Furthermore, the spell in 4e with the widest area is Legion's Hold, which is a Close Burst 20. Impressive. But Dragon Slave can take out an entire small city, so, er ... yeah. 'Nuff said on that.

In the movies:
Look, she used 4 or so Dragon Slaves in the same city before and it was not destroyed.
It was against that dragon thingy. The movie where she worked for a family that controlled dragons. Father versus daughter conflict.

Either you are exaggerating the area or the movie showed it wrong.

Malek
2008-08-04, 02:57 PM
In the movies:
Look, she used 4 or so Dragon Slaves in the same city before and it was not destroyed.
It was against that dragon thingy. The movie where she worked for a family that controlled dragons. Father versus daughter conflict.

Either you are exaggerating the area or the movie showed it wrong.

The movie showed it wrong in that cease, or the city was very large (havn't seen the movies yet)... I can remember at least two instances of her a Dragu Slave leveling a city with one shot without trying much.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-04, 03:57 PM
I think it's that that doesn't do anything mechanically equivalent to what they expect out of a rage ability.

For example?


The movie showed it wrong in that cease, or the city was very large (havn't seen the movies yet)... I can remember at least two instances of her a Dragu Slave leveling a city with one shot without trying much.

It's worth nothing that the movies are also, I believe, set well before Season 1, back when Lina was still with Naga. She was still a n00b back then (although still a powerful one).

Here are some examples of Dragu Slave (sadly, I couldn't find the one where she uses it to destroy an entire floating island, or the one where she takes out a small mountain with it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myLgqceVdQU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtgWI_UtMM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2zls8EEPds&feature=related

I'm not saying bigger and more powerful is necessarily better -- if that were true, Dragon Ball Z :smallyuk: would be some of the highest quality stuff you could find. I'm just saying you can't properly represent Lina without custom-designing her as a more-powerful-than-level 30 Solo.

Hurlbut
2008-08-04, 04:49 PM
Just look up Human Berserker in Monster Manual and rip off his Battle Fury for rage.

Jayabalard
2008-08-04, 05:08 PM
For example?It's just a guess on my part as to why they wouldn't be accepting of that sort of reflavoring, so I'll leave the specifics to them. I do believe that they did give some of their expectations, so it seems like a good fit to me.

Cainen
2008-08-04, 05:23 PM
For example?

They don't need an example. The point is that if they wanted to reflavor mechanics, they'd do so. They want new mechanics that more appropriately reflect what they want - they don't need to provide an example to get this point out there.

Coplantor
2008-08-04, 05:36 PM
First i'd like to apologize in case that what I'm about to say was said already by any other poster, but I'm quite lazy and I've only read half the thread. Barbarians are not a class, I played 2nd ed for a while, if wanted a barbarian all you had to do was roll a fighter and add to the background "comes from uncivilized tribal socity". Come on! Of course, 2nd ed was much more strict with the concept of class.

Any way, just have a fighter or a ranger and call yourself a barbarian!

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-04, 05:40 PM
They don't need an example. The point is that if they wanted to reflavor mechanics, they'd do so. They want new mechanics that more appropriately reflect what they want - they don't need to provide an example to get this point out there.

But that doesn't make any sense. If the problem is just the flavor text, that can be fixed. If the problem is a particular mechanic, then it shouldn't be difficult to give an example of what's missing.

If the intent is just to say, "I'm not happy, but I'm not going to tell you why!" ... well, isn't it annoying enough when you're fed that line in real life? I know I make a real effort never to do it.

Edit: Although to be clear, I'm not saying the OP is doing that. It may well be that krossbow has a valid response to my question, after all.

Cainen
2008-08-04, 06:17 PM
But that doesn't make any sense. If the problem is just the flavor text, that can be fixed. If the problem is a particular mechanic, then it shouldn't be difficult to give an example of what's missing.

It's not a particular mechanic, and it's certainly not the flavor text. They want new mechanics to play with. They don't need to cite examples to point this out - a critic doesn't have to be a talented musician to criticize a band, after all. Just a simple mechanic wouldn't do it - they need an entire class to fix this point.

Prophaniti
2008-08-04, 06:41 PM
Well, after having read most of the thread, I'd just like to make a point.

Yes, barbarian was never a class before 3e, so for 4e to not include them is not a serious mark against them. That said, I've always felt that the more a system allows you to reflect background and character with actual mechanical representation, the easier it is for many people (myself included) to get more into the character. The character can feel different because it IS different, not just because I say it's different. Is such mechanical differentiation necessary? Of course not. My point is simply that many players find it enhances their experience. That is why some do not view 'change the fluff' as a viable solution to the lack of barbarians.

Personally, I've started to get away from D&D more and more lately, as I've finally gotten my group to try other systems, and they've liked the change. We still do and still plan to play D&D, however, and for us a character is defined as much by what they can do as by the personality we create for them. When I run a fighter, and my friend runs a fighter, the only way one of us is going to be called a barbarian is if I am obnoxious about it. Even then, the other players are going to take a look at my sheet and say, "Yeah, you're a fighter with a fetish for loincloths and not bathing." The barbarian class in 3.5, for me at least, had nothing to do with being 'from a tribal background'. Background is what you define yourself, not what your class defines for you. Class, IMO, is to show what you're capable of, not where you're from or what kind of person you are. Using your class to define that for you is kind of shooting yourself in the foot, from a role playing standpoint.

Now, I just know someone is going to reply to this with something along the lines of 'Go play GURPS, that's not what D&D is about. It's about archetypes!' It's happened before.

First, for many players, D&D is the only real option if they want to play regularly with a local group. Second, D&D is only about playing archetypes if you want it to be about that.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-04, 06:49 PM
It's not a particular mechanic, and it's certainly not the flavor text. They want new mechanics to play with. They don't need to cite examples to point this out - a critic doesn't have to be a talented musician to criticize a band, after all. Just a simple mechanic wouldn't do it - they need an entire class to fix this point.

Oh, me too. I also want:

A ninja class.

A pirate class.

A Viking class.

A knight class.

A samurai class.

A swashbuckler class.

A Spartan class.

A Landschnekt class.

A blind swordmaster class.

A janitor class.

A Power Ranger class.

A mime class.

I'll add more to my list as they come to me. Until my demands are met, the system will never be complete!

Coplantor
2008-08-04, 06:56 PM
Oh, me too. I also want:

A ninja class.

A pirate class.

A Viking class.

A knight class.

A samurai class.

A swashbuckler class.

A Spartan class.

A Landschnekt class.

A blind swordmaster class.

A janitor class.

A Power Ranger class.

A mime class.

I'll add more to my list as they come to me. Until my demands are met, the system will never be complete!


Dont forget Cthulhu, Highlander, Cyborg and Conceptual artist classes!

Tengu_temp
2008-08-04, 07:22 PM
A Power Ranger class.


Disgaea Campaign Setting (see sig) will have Prism Ranger as a paragon path, which is almost the same (only more pathetic). Your wish came true!

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-05, 05:28 AM
Disgaea Campaign Setting (see sig) will have Prism Ranger as a paragon path, which is almost the same (only more pathetic). Your wish came true!

Yay! :smallbiggrin: