Hormalakh

The wildlife never really poses much of a challenge either. Unless there's some extra adjective in front of their name (dires, vampirics, hell, etc)

please read my initial post about the greek concept of barbarians. It was not strictly meant 'non-Greek'. The Chinese also have similar connotations for barbarians in their literature. Similarly, outside of the RPG/D&D scene, barbarian still maintains its previous connotations. Using "pop culture" as the reference for games is a poor substitute for creativity, especially in a game intended for mature audiences.

My mistake on wisdom. I did look at "most hated" polls. Along with sorcerer, and bard (which were hated more) barbarians were one of the top 4 hated classes in DnD. I've posted the link. Monk was also one, but there was an extremely long discussion about monks earlier last year. As for the name, if we aren't having "two-handed swords", "studded leather armor", and other innane faux-medieval terminology in the game, I don't understand why we should have "barbarian" as a class if we aren't going to be true to the name "barbarian". The skills/mechanics is something we agree on.

I didn't actually see any arguments for me to address. If your argument is that "Conan is a barbarian. People want to be Conant, ergo we need a barbarian class" that isn't much of an argument and I have already addressed that (as have some others). Conan is not a class. A fighter/thief is a class. A ranger is a class. Conan would have fit fine in either of these classes. I'm thinking of writing a book called "Edward the philistine." He's going to be strong, smart, and gets all the women :rolls eyes: Maybe in fifty years "philistine" will become a class that you can play in D&D. @Adhin You had an upper-limit for wisdom in 3e barbarians. Illiteracy might not mean stupid but it shows a "lack of civilization" and this combined with other stereotypes thrown at barbarians really makes the class a fairly narrow niche class. As stated before, "barbarianism" was basically an insult -one with no actual truth- thrown at non-Christians living in the outliers of "civilized Europe." This is a poor name for a class verging on being insulting. A mature game like this shouldn't be continuing mischaracterizations and "popular ideas" that are just plain wrong. If we will use barbarian as the class name, then let's be realistic. If we use another name (like berserker) then let's still continue to think about ways in which we can expand the class so that a varied number of characters can play it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian Also known as Conan the Cimmerian. First found in a few stories in pulp magazines.

do you want more polls? A google search finds quite a few.

Conan isn't a historical depiction: it's a popular comic that later became a movie. It's odd that the rest of the game has some sort of "historical feel" to it with weapons named estoc and fairly interesting armors (female armor and that whole thing being another aspect) while we just let the "barbarian" thing fly. This was a poll done here. It was not scientific, but this has always been a general trend among D&D classes. For another poll done, see here: http://community.wiz.../favorite_class Also, another good read: http://5eworld.blogs...s-at-gates.html More polls: http://querulousarti...al/poll/492075/ http://bouserthedog....l/poll/2672117/ http://bhryn.deviant...al/poll/144384/ http://bluemoonauror...c.php?f=7&t=729 http://ua.reonis.com/index.php?topic=591.0

The 3.5e of D&D has illiteracy as a barbarian feature. Similarly in 3e. Inteliigence was a dump stat in 4e. What do you mean barbarians didn't have to be dumb brutes? There are many problems with barbarians, only one being the name. We already have so many "melee combat-only" classes out there. Can't the barbarian have a few non-combat skills that he specializes in? What is with this idea that barbarians have to be "savage brutes" that wield only "big weapons"? This idea that they are "free in battle and undisciplined" sort of makes sense, but once again that isn't really a barbarian. A name change would definitely help. The point is this: the idea of a barbarian, even from reading many of the comments here, comes from this misconception that historically speaking these were savage peoples. This was in fact the idea propagated by "civilized" Europe against the tribes and outsiders. This mentality of Vikings being "barbarians" is also very incorrect. That's the whole point. The concept of a barbarian is a pretty crude mischaracterization of groups of peoples and has no basis in reality whatsoever. These people were not "free and spirited warriors different than other fighters." The differences between the barbarian and the crusader are very slim, if even existant. The point is, if you want to have a "berserker class," fine. But let's not lie to ourselves thinking that this has any basis in reality. Let's build a class from the ground up and make them interesting for people to play. Don't stick to dumb old tropes that make the class uninteresting for people to play. It is obviously going to take developer time and resources to build this class: at least make them interesting for more than 2.8% of the population. Relevant comic:

I would too. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem like it will happen. I think -to start- just the class name "barbarian" is sort of silly. It's a class named after a pejorative! It's a class named after stereotypes, generalizations, and just base idiocy. This was then furthered by the concept of "Conan the barbarian." This is the whole point of my thread. If barbarians are (unfortunately) in, then let's take a look at these guys once more. Let's not continue to feed into the cliches and base stereotypes. How can we move away from the tired old "barbarian" class and really make "barbarians" proud that they are barbarians? One more thing: Conan was ONE barbarian. What about all the other types of barbarians? Why not just make a "Conan" class. This whole idea that Conan is the only kind of barbarian we can have is even beyond railroading. It's catering one singular character and creating game mechanics just to cater to that singular character.

I've been thinking about the barbarian class a lot since the beginning of this whole kickstarter and they, like monks, have always rubbed me the wrong way. I decided to read a little about the history of barbarians as well as previous PnP implementations of the "class." From a historical perspective, barbarian as a term has, except for a few notable exceptions, been used as a pejorative by different civilizations (mainly the Greek) to describe a savage outsider. Many of these outsiders were, of course, not savages nor were they bloodthirsty raging fighters. A more complete description can be found on wikipedia. From a gaming perspective, generally speaking, barbarians have always just been considered some sort of "raging fighter with low intellect" and seem pretty railroaded into a very narrow niche class. In fact, an earlier poll on this site singled the barbarian class as the least interesting for players to start with. Generally, barbarians are raging machines with d12 hit-dice, and pretty much always played as a low intelligence class. It is easy to see why such characters are rarely interesting to play and even less interesting to role-play. From this it seems to me that barbarians should not continue to be pigeonholed into such trite stereotypes, nor should they be known as just a "raging warrior with d12 hit-dice." Rather, the barbarian should embrace his/her description and the designers should find interesting mechanics for the barbarian. I have detailed a few below. The Barbarian Class The barbarian is ultimately a person from a tribe or group of peoples outside of what is known as "modern civilization." This does not mean that barbarians are ruthless savages, unintelligent, or uncultured. Rather they are of the disenfranchised groups whose culture has not become the norm. In city-states like the Free Palatinate of Dyrwood or Vailian republics, these people are always considered outsiders. However, barbarians have lived a life as outsiders and know the value of culture and tradition. They are thus welcomed into smaller villages and tribes as they show these people the respect that others do not. Similarly, because of the lives that they have lived without the "comforts" of modern civilization, many barbarians are hardy people. They are hard-working, many of them are intelligent, and above all else, they value their communities. Skill bonuses and maluses: 1- Barbarians do not know the common tongue. As such, they have difficulty communicating with the public of the modern city-states. They are generally looked down upon by people who live within cities. On the other hand, they are well-versed in languages outside of the common tongue (player gets to choose which language). Don't know common. Knows two non-common languages. 2- Hit dice. Because of their hardy lifestyles, barbarians are generally healthier and live longer than than their city cousins. Hit dice gets a bonus. 3- Barbarians because they are outsiders get very severe reactions from people. If they gain favor with factions, their reputation increases faster than normal. If they lose favor, their reputation decreases faster than normal. They always start with low reputations inside cities. They always have higher reputations in outlying tribes/villages. 4- Barbarians have used weapons to defend their communities from outside invaders. As such they have skill with certain tools that have been used as weapons. (Specifics here probably should be detailed when more is known about the weapons) These weapons are most likely tribal weapons like the spear, the hand-made axe, and bows. Perhaps some have skill with farming tools and peasant tools as they have seen these used. 5- Barbarians utilize their tribal communities and the ways of the tribes effectively. They will have bonuses that deal with utilizing such communal skills. For example, it could be possible for them to become extremely defensive of their party because they begin to see them as part of their family. So, if any of them get severely injured, barbarians defend them zealously as they would their own kin. This is obviously a very rough introductory sketch. I just think that it's a shame to continue the stereotype that all barbarians are supposed to be these "savages" that don't know anything and are dumb fighters. Expanding the class and allowing room for barbarians to be played in a variety of ways makes the class much more interesting and much more worthwhile. Let me know your own thoughts on where the barbarians should go. What sort of mechanics they should have and shouldn't have.

An easy-to-use portrait tool/method to allow players to import images quickly and easily. Similarly with voices, sounds, and other character customization options. Make it easy to add-on these customization options later when modders develop them (or as DLC if OEI wants to).

It could have other minor effects, like a save bonus vs fear effects, or a -INT/+CHA effect? I'm actually looking into this as part of a thug feat/kit/playstyle I'll be suggesting a bit later. Even allowing drinking to give rumors would be nice. The taverns in most games are sort of just a place to go and get quests. The actual innkeeper is pretty much redundant and unnecessary with useless game mechanics (drinking and resting) that add no value whatsoever. A little odd I think...

Barging into people's houses without consequences. Being able to rest anywhere and at any time without consequences. Having taverns all over the place where you can pay for resting, but nobody really uses it. Drinking alcohol and it having no real gameplay consequences other than the short "drunk" phase which you just walk off.

Stores that allow you to change the color of your armor/weapons. It would cost money to "dye" the equipment, but you could do it if you wanted. -mouse wheel usability -hot keys

I would like spells to have some sort of to-hit. And then if they miss, for the spell to still be cast and to-hit something/one else. For example, a fireball spell with AoE might be cast, but if you "miss" the fireball still lands, except not exactly where you expect. Of course, I don't think Sawyer would implement this because too many players would just reload on a "missed fireball."

I've gotta agree with OP here. Loot shouldn't just be a stepping stone for getting more gold. I wanted to throw out Arcanum as an inspiration as well. They had some interesting ways of dealing with selling loot. Certain merchants bought only certain items (and they didn't always buy these items either) and then you had a junk dealer who would buy mostly anything else at reduced prices. Gold and ammo also had weight in that game. It was minimal, but it was not insignificant. Also wanted to mention Might and Magic and its use of "training" to level up players as an interesting "money sink." It can give players a choice of "should I level up my player now, or buy that better item/use my gold for something else?" that can be interesting. Of course, at that point you have to make sure that there are ways of getting gold to pay for training.

Man this thread is just obnoxious... *continues to eat popcorn*

One point I want to make since I've been reading through this thread is that a lot of people argue for experience gain through killing by basing their arguments on a "realism" or "verisimilitude" reasoning. The argument usually goes something like "since fighters gain experience in fighting in real life, then fighters in the game should gain experience in the same way." I don't think that this is a very strong argument for why a game mechanic should exist.

4.3 million before fees but after failed charges.

A like for you my good man for utilizing Chomsky terminology.

And honestly, if people couldn't pirate Photoshop, it would be a really obscure tool known only by professionals and it would be difficult for aspiring graphics designers to learn the tool. It is a very complex tool afterall.

Honestly, there is way too much unknown about the armor mechanics to make reasoned judgements on it. Many of these game mechanics play very differently in theory than they do in the game, because they are components of a larger system. Without knowing a lot about everything else, I don't think it's fair to judge the systems. As an example, we only recently learned about dodges, misses, when armor can be equipped (not during combat), and the attack mechanics that manage the other end of the armor question.

I'm playing Thief now (on Expert too) and have finished a few levels without the degeneracy you speak of. It's been several years since I've played the game, but as long as you're OK with some dirty finishes (almost dead, a few alarms going off, wasting arrows, etc) it's doable and extremely fun. I work the maps without prior knowledge to the extent that I can (I've forgotten pretty much the whole game). I did want to mention that sometimes, I'll complete a section of the game, save and try a different strategy just to see how it feels. I don't consider that degenerate. As for Commandos, I don't think that they should directly copy the game mechanics down to the T, but there are unquestionably some very fun game mechanics that can be inspirations. Also, the loud shots bringing the whole camp against you SHOULD be something that PE does. Pulling single enemies into combat should not be a viable option; enemy units should be able to call out to their allies within visual/hearing range for back-up.

All that to say that you shouldn't be too worried. Our precious game is in good hands.