D&D 5E Let us stat up Conan the *insert sub-title here*

[BookBarbarian]

I was being a tiny bit facetious. He describes the concept behind the new Samurai sub-class, which could be paraphrased "somebody who unleashes a sudden burst of efficient destruction when in a tight spot".

Sounds like Conan to me.

It's funny, but because of this Samurai would probably work for almost any Hero since all hero's get backed into a tight spot sometime or another, then dig deep to pull of some heroics. Jon Snow? Samurai. Hercules? Samurai. Thor? Samurai with a Hammer of Thunderbolts.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Here is how I would stat Conan.

Race: Human Variant (Cimmerian)
Class/Level: Barbarian 2 Fighter 11 (Battlemaster)

Str 18 (16 base +1 Racial +1 feat: tavern Brawler)
Dex 16 (15 Base +1 ASI)
Con 20 (18 Base +1 Racial +1 ASI)
Int 13
Wis 16 (15 Base +1 Feat: Resilient)
Cha 14

Save Proficiencies: Str, Con, Wis

Feats: Lvl 1 Tavern Brawler, Ftr Lvl 4 Resilient, Ftr Lvl 6 Mobile, Ftr Lvl 8 ASI

Battlemaster Maneuvers: Menacing Attack, Sweeping Attack, Riposte ( Riposte not being a fancy move but an almost animalistic lunge under an oponents missed attack that makes them look rigid by comparison.)

I lean away from giving a twenty strength. His endurance and durability were constant. One thing I see many builds overlook was his Will. He had an iron will and it would take wisdom to rule. I would say if anything should change it would be strength.

I would not give him proficiency in social skills. If he intimidates someone I would assume they are not impressed with his words but rational in their fear of disembowelment. Being in the same room with Conan would be like being in the same room as a lion. You can be part of the pride or you can be lunch.

For me I would do Fighter: Scout instead of Battlemaster, but that's just a minor personal preference. This is a really good Conan.

I could also see the Level One feat being Tough, to represent his Cimmerian upbringing.

 

[Yardiff]

I was being a tiny bit facetious. He describes the concept behind the new Samurai sub-class, which could be paraphrased "somebody who unleashes a sudden burst of efficient destruction when in a tight spot".

Sounds like Conan to me.

To me as well, sound better then 'rage' which I never agreed with for Conan.

 

[Slit518]

But does Conan not get mad quite often?

Does he not sometimes break things while killing people?

I know he uses his brain a lot too, and often flees if the fight is against him.

 

[Wiseblood]

For me I would do Fighter: Scout instead of Battlemaster, but that's just a minor personal preference. This is a really good Conan.

I could also see the Level One feat being Tough, to represent his Cimmerian upbringing.

Tough was considered, just ran out of feats. I haven't read Fighter: Scout but have heard snippets from it and I am inclined to agree.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Tough was considered, just ran out of feats. I haven't read Fighter: Scout but have heard snippets from it and I am inclined to agree.

Yep, running out of Feats is not surprising. I could Easily see Conan with Tough, Mobile, Lucky, Tavern Brawler and that's not even including UA. Brawny certainly fits Conan to my mind. Stealthy, Perceptive, and Survivalist could all fit too.

 

[Yardiff]

But does Conan not get mad quite often?

Does he not sometimes break things while killing people?

I know he uses his brain a lot too, and often flees if the fight is against him.

Getting mad doesn't equate to 'raging', everyone gets mad. When I see 'rage' I think berserker and Conan was never a berserker, my opinion.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't equate the barbarian rage ability with a frothing at the mouth berserker, for that we have the frenzy ability of the berserker subclass. Rage to me can also mean drawing upon hidden reserves to over bear your opponent, something which Conan did often. Rage also does well to differentiate the physical power of the uncivilised vs the civilised that has been brought up in this thread.

 

[Greg K]

It's funny, but because of this Samurai would probably work for almost any Hero since all hero's get backed into a tight spot sometime or another, then dig deep to pull of some heroics. Jon Snow? Samurai. Hercules? Samurai. Thor? Samurai with a Hammer of Thunderbolts.

Which, to me, is further indication of what I was thinking this morning which is that 1)
the archetype would be better off with a different name and then mention in the class description that the archetype would be appropriate for *some* depictions of the samurai; and 2) Mearls should not be allowed to name classes/subclasses .

 

[Yardiff]

Like I said my opinion. I've never like the barbarian in any edition. Earlier edition the rager was kit or subclass of the barbarian class. 3rd edition is when rage was the cornerstone of the class.