Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 2842328" data-attributes="member: 22882">If I could find any I haven't read already, I would. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />&nbsp; OK, I can (and do, regularly) reread some of what I've already read, but that doesn't changeTrue.He also would have, at most, a one or two level dip in the &quot;Barbarian&quot; class as presented in D&amp;D, unless he was gestalted (which he arguably should be).Why do we need an entire class to (fairly poorly) model Conan?&nbsp; I suppose the ranger originally served a similar function for Aragorn, but most of the D&amp;D classes don't even manage to be archtypical, much less come close to any character from genre fiction.FWIW, I agree with Felon's take on the purpose of the barbarian class.&nbsp; It took a (fairly poor) Conan class from 1e and updated it to 3e as the easy to play 'kill things and break stuff' class the fighter used to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 2842328, member: 22882"] If I could find any I haven't read already, I would. :( OK, I can (and do, regularly) reread some of what I've already read, but that doesn't change True. He also would have, at most, a one or two level dip in the "Barbarian" class as presented in D&D, unless he was gestalted (which he arguably should be). Why do we need an entire class to (fairly poorly) model Conan? I suppose the ranger originally served a similar function for Aragorn, but most of the D&D classes don't even manage to be archtypical, much less come close to any character from genre fiction. FWIW, I agree with Felon's take on the purpose of the barbarian class. It took a (fairly poor) Conan class from 1e and updated it to 3e as the easy to play 'kill things and break stuff' class the fighter used to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification