GURPS Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Barbarians

[Fossilized Rappy]

While a lot of the material presented here is familiar to me (I own most of the GURPS 4E line, and more issues of Pyramid than I'd like to admit to my wallet), and I don't really play Dungeon Fantasy games per se and instead scavenge their bits and bobs for other games, I'm definitely giving this an overall seal of approval.

I really like the rules for Crude gear. It seems like a great addition to post-apocalyptic games that are more on the cinematic side.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Gnomasz

Well, I know it's just a crossover and lacks power-ups and gear, but I'd say that Dungeon Magic is a lot of love for wizards.

I concur, and not only did it give a few variant templates, Dungeon Magic gave simpler prerequisite lists if you take a style. More love for wizards would be more books like GURPS Magic: Plant Spells for schools that wizards can cast. This also helps related casters; frex, doing a set of mental influence spells will also expand the bard's spell list.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

The problem isn't with the concepts, it's with the character point prices of those traits. Outdoorsman is hardly better than a level of Per, but it costs double. If you removed the Fishing skill from Outdoorsman, you would be paying only 5/level for it. This means you're paying five points a level for Fishing when you take Outdoorsman. Compared to other traits, Outdoorsman is one of the worst deals in the game. It's bad enough that we're sinking large numbers of points into wilderness abilities in a game about killing things in dungeons already. We shouldn't have to overpay for them as well! If we were given the option to remove Fishing and take a 5/level version of Outdoorsman, it would be a good deal.

That's a generic problem with the Talents mechanic, as implemented in GURPS 4E, and one that I'm well aware of. It's not a problem that is in any way particular to DF's Barbarians, or to DF only.

My proposed solution, apart from the drastic one of ditching GURPS in favour of something better designed, is to re-bracket and re-price Talents so that they fall into 4 breadth categories rather than 3, and costing 6, 9, 12 and 15 points per level (not 5, 10 and 15). Perhaps in combination with increasing the cost of DX and IQ to 25/level (Per could cost 6/lvl too, and in a fantasy world Will could cost 6/lvl too, whereas in most other types of worlds Will should probably cost only 4/lvl).

Keeping in mind that rolls affected by the Outdoorsman Talent should sometimes realistically float to an attribute or sub-attribute other than Per (where Outdoorsman Talent still gives its benefit), I think it'd be fine.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

And Gigantism is bad because it doubles the cost and weight of the Barbarian's armor. This is a serious enough disadvantage that it would be best avoided if possible. Like with Outdoorsman, this would be dandy if it gave you, say, fifteen points back as a disadvantage.

I'd say -5 points is more like it for the inconvenience of having to pay a lot extra for armour and enviromental/space suits..

But really, the thinking behind it seems to be that Barbarians shouldn't wear armour, and I'd be OK with that. I just think that to make it more fair and balanced, there ought to be traits offering unarmoured defensive options.

For instance a couple of levels of Enhanced Dodge, one Limited to only when not wearing armour, and one Limited to only when at Light-or-better Encumbrance.

Likewise, a few levels of DR, with Limitations that reflect a light-footed approach to combat (Only When at Light-or-better-Encumbrance) and active defenive movements (Only When Aware of Attack, and Vs Melee Only).

Note that I haven't purchased the PDF. It's quite possible that such traits are already present in it. I don't seem to recall much of that sort of thing in DF11, even though that would have been an obvious thing to do, but then again I haven't read DF11 very closely and certainly haven't memorized it.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I can envision a more or less "tarzanic" type who isn't big and who isn't almost super-strong (ST 25 feels rather less super than something like DX 20 or IQ 20), but at that point a different template might be warranted.

Funny thing about that is that the current barbarian is more "If Tarzan were one of those big-time professional basketballers in size" in concept than he is anything like Conan. Conan could be argued as a Swashbuckler, but fits the Knight better than any of the other DF professions (likewise fitting single-class human Fighter than any class in D&D).

Originally Posted by Peaches

Being a big, mean, axe swingin' machine never fails to be good fun.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

And if you do happen to get tired of the concept, you can always switch to a club.

Originally Posted by Not

That's why I never take weapon bond.

I'll take one spear and magic helmet combo package.

[RyanW]

Am I the only one that, when hearing "barbarian warrior", immediately thinks of light cavalry over a big guy with an axe? Foederatus, rather than Viking.

[thulben]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

DF has its own set of assumptions, though. Sure you're able to deviate from them, but I don't think that's fitting with the spirit of the series.

You're right; it does have its own set of assumptions. And I think the underlying theme is that each class is good at some thing (or things) that the other classes aren't. And, as I said in my original post, if you take away Outdoorsman, you take away the thing that the Barbarian is good at that other classes aren't (namely, outdoorsy stuff) and so should replace it with something. So if you step back and then ask "if I take away Outdoorsman, what is the Barbarian's niche?" and have a good answer, you're good to go.

But maybe in your game Barbarians are just melee fighters with a weird culture (but not necessarily good at hunting and whatnot). It's probably not going to break anything to make them just that. Don't let anyone tell you that the fun you're having is the wrong kind of fun.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by thulben

So if you step back and then ask "if I take away Outdoorsman, what is the Barbarian's niche?" and have a good answer, you're good to go.

The difference, in my mind, is that the barbarian is strong but the knight is skilled. The barbarian might have ST 20, but the knight has skill 25 with both his sword and shield.

If they were thought of in this way, they would about even out. I'm not suggesting that the barbarian shouldn't have wilderness abilities, but I think they would be more appropriate if they were treated similarly to the knight's military skills: something he starts with some competence in, with the option of raising them with a Talent from his advantages, rather than having a mandatory large number of his points spent on them.

I'm sure this is easier for players to see after years of using these rules than it was to predict exactly how the templates would play out when they were being written. I've played barbarians and had fun doing so; I just feel like the template could make better use of its points.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Fossilized Rappy

I really like the rules for Crude gear. It seems like a great addition to post-apocalyptic games that are more on the cinematic side.

I was going to pick it up anyway (I've bought every other GURPS product so far) but this really seals the deal!

[Wavefunction]

Originally Posted by Kromm

(though completely removing the latter turns the barbarian into a knight clone, so the rules stop short of that and try to make Outdoorsman cheaper and more useful).

You see, I've always got this argument before now, but then you went and released a whole truckload of new and incredibly awesome abilities for barbarians that effortlessly differentiate them from the knight. So I really don't think the above statement is valid.

For instance, if I choose to be a Shirtless Savage I'm filling the roll of a strong, yet slightly less skilled knight who doesn't rely as much on equipment, that's reasonably differentiated.

If I go Rage Barbarian the difference is even more obvious since I now have a ton of magical abilities that the Knight never gets access to.

That's not to mention the power-ups which I think are probably the biggest thing that differentiates the more martial classes as they steer the way your character grows (in the case of the barbarian, really big!).

As it stands I still have to head over to DF Henchmen and tack on the Veteran lens to a Brute to get the character I want. The only problem is that now I'd also have to try and persuade the GM to give me access to all the delicious possibilities in this book!

[SimonAce]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't have this book yet. Is there an option to skip purchasing Outdoorsman and/or Gigantism?

Dude, its GURPS if you GM allows it and the points match its all good.

Heck I've done it plenty of times and Evil Stevie's Hell Striker teams have never ever shown up in retaliation.

Probably a good thing though, I hear they really like beer and I'm kind of a teetotaler