D&D 5E Is Conan in 5e?

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, that is just fine if your DM decides to never challenge you with anything more than 1/3rd your ECL and fudge the dice constantly to make your broken, hopelessly screwed character look competent. Unfortunately, in most games DMs tend to use your level to determine the power of the challenges you face and don't hold back on what the dice read, not go with whatever is easy for your dysfunctional cobbled together nonsense to handle.

And in a proper ECLed challenge, your character is the idiot who gets knocked out on the first round of every fight.

That's a pretty big assumption you're making there. On a lot of different angles.

 

[Greg K]

True but the 1E Barbarian used the same weapons and armor as everyone else. The 2E Barbarian really played up the stone age thing.

Yes and no in 1e about same weapons. The chart in Unearthed Arcana stated proficient any weapon. However, there starting number of weapon proficiences was proficient in 1e was only six (Unearthed Arcana). Of the starting weapons, "the initial number of weapons the barbarian uses must include the hand axe, knife and spear. Additional weapons based upon the barbarian's native area may be chosen by the DM" (Unearthed Arcana p. 18). Of thecultural examples given in Unearthed Arcana

Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians had to also have proficiency in broad sword and short bow leaving one open starting weapon slot.

Rovers of the Barrens, Tiger, and Wolf Nomads which represented horse nomads were given a choice of the following (and had no additional choices):

a) Club, Javelin, and lasso or short bow; or
b) lance, scimitar, and composite short bow​

Amedio Jungle: club, blow gun or short bow, and dart or javelin

Hepmonaland: atlatl and javelin, club, and short sword


In 2e, I am not sure to what you are referring. There were several kits considered to be "Barbarian kits" (edit: in the 2 Complete Fighter's Handbook): The Barbarian, Berserker, The Beast-Rider, the Savage, and the Wilderness Warrior. The savage is the most "primitive" and represents stone age. The Wilderness Warrior was similar to the 1e Barbarian in that it was tied to a starting terrain and the examples given have suggested weapons based upon terrain. The kits and any starting armor and weapon restrictions were only for starting. As characters with these kits leveled, they could learn any weapon available to the fighter. As for armor, after the start of play, they could wear any armor available to fighters if they encountered it. Thus, they were not much different in this respect than the 1e Barbarian.

 

[occam]

Thule has got me thinking about Conan. Now, I am not a Conan aficionado, but I have read a few of his adventures. It seems to me he is not well-represented by the Barbarian class and its sub-classes. For one, he doesn't really seem to be a berserker, in the sense of the historical battle-frenzy that got baked into the barbarian class, he is not a spirit-harnessing totem-warrior (from what I have read), and he certainly isn't a doubled-down super berserker.

Yep. Tarzan is a D&D barbarian, Conan is not.

 

[MG.0]

A character in D&D is a character...not just a set of stats and abilities. I played a warrior-general type character. Massive strength, decent con, very intelligent and fairly wise. He was always thinking tactically, planning battles he could and utilizing the other PC's cababilities. He would wade into battle with his two-handed sword to help bolster his side and kick some ass! He had OK hp's, and his AC wasn't horrible, and he took a lot of damage during battle...but damn it all if he wasn't heroic and inspirational! Oh, did I mention he was a wizard?

I like characters like that!
In some games I've run, we roll players up using the original 1st Ed. AD&D method: 3d6, applied in order. No wimpy point-buy or choosing your ability scores. You don't pick your genes! Characters like that tend to be memorable, vs. the generic "yet another optimized fighter build" cardboard cut-outs everywhere you look. I see a lot of players outside my main group that whine if they don't have a couple 16's or higher. It's hilarious.

As a DM I also don't level my encounters based on player level or ability either. You have to be smart enough to avoid the big nasties or at least know when to make a hasty retreat, or you will be rolling up new characters constantly. Leveling challenges to match the players is boring and makes the world feel completely artificial.

 

[Argyle King]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but Conan does wear armor when it's available.

 

[GreenTengu]

That's a pretty big assumption you're making there. On a lot of different angles.

Not at all.
One put together a random group of ability scores that do not align with what you want to do and used a class in a manner it wasn't remotely designed to be used, in fact quite the opposite of how it is supposed to be used, pretty much guaranteeing that the character was functionally at least 15-20% less effective and more vulnerable than it is supposed to be at that level if used in that manner....

And somehow it dominants every encounter it comes across, apparently by itself with no assistance....

That makes it an absolute safe bet that the DM is not presenting on-level encounters and fudging the dice heavily to favor this character.

You make a melee character with no armor and nothing to use in place of armor, or you use a Rogue with Dex of 12 or lower, and you have a character who is not going to survive on-level encounters in the way this game was designed. And, if they are, it is only because the DM is cheating in your favor or the other party is pulling all the weight.

 

[MG.0]

That makes it an absolute safe bet that the DM is not presenting on-level encounters and fudging the dice heavily to favor this character.
You make a melee character with no armor and nothing to use in place of armor, or you use a Rogue with Dex of 12 or lower, and you have a character who is not going to survive on-level encounters in the way this game was designed. And, if they are, it is only because the DM is cheating in your favor or the other party is pulling all the weight.

That's not true at all. I've DM'ed plenty of games with characters who had mismatched or inferior ability scores. Intelligent playing goes a long way, especially when the DM is not coddling players by constantly balancing all their encounters.

It's not what you have, it's how you use it.

 

[Grimstaff]

I think you could do a very nice pulp sword&sorcery game with 5E. Human only, restrict classes to Barbarian (berserker), Fighter (Battlemaster or Champion), Monk (Open Hand or Shadow), Rogue (Assassin or Thief), and Warlock (Fiend or Great Old One). That's like 9 classes, not a bad selection. Not to mention SCAG offering like Mastermind, Swashbuckler, and Undying Warlock.

I'd stat a mid-level Conan as Barbarian(berserker)1, Rogue(thief)4, Fighter(Battlemaster)5.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Yeah I don't think that is a great thing, either, but this isn't like a "is Guenhwyvar an animal companion or a follower" level of incompatibility, this is like, we can't even make a stone cold badass who doesn't wear armor. It's not in the game. I know how to do my own thing and make it work, but it seems like a gap to me.

Guenhwyvar is a magic item. (Figurine of Wonderous power.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not at all.
One put together a random group of ability scores that do not align with what you want to do and used a class in a manner it wasn't remotely designed to be used, in fact quite the opposite of how it is supposed to be used, pretty much guaranteeing that the character was functionally at least 15-20% less effective and more vulnerable than it is supposed to be at that level if used in that manner....
.

15% or 20% less than optimized does not equal "your character is the idiot who gets knocked out on the first round of every fight." And no, the DM doesn't need to fudge anything. D&D is WAY more than just a group of people throwing number crunching at each other.

Seriously, back in the day (and many people still do) random stat gen was done. How do you think people managed to not only survive, but thrive? Because the DM just fudged everything? It's called "roleplaying" for a reason. MG.0 has it perfectly correct. It's how you play your PC. If all you do is throw your formula at the DM's formula to see who wins, then you're missing out on a huge part of the game.