green slime
First Post
SHARK said:
OK, now I'm intrigued. which number was it?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Primitive and Advanced Barbarian Tribes
- Thread starter SHARK
- Start date
OK, now I'm intrigued. which number was it?
Issue 72. Another issue to check out is issue 148 with David Howery's rewrite of the 1e Barbarian. Despite being for 1e, this a fantastic article for tailoring barbarians by culture if you use the following UA variants:
- weapon groups. Instead of all martial weapons, barbarians start with either a cultural weapon group (think druid or rogue weapons, but are culturally based) or you pre-specify their weapon groups by the weapons found in the culture.
- the barbarian hunter variant. Use this for cultures that do not rage or for cultures in which you want rage to only be available by a cultural PrC. Also, consider allowing two weapon fighting or another alternative ranger fighting style (if you use any) to replace the bow if the bow is not the culture's main weapon
- favored terrain. If you use the barbarian hunter variant, consider substituting favored terrain for favored enemy with the first terrain being the barbarian's native terrain.
Actually, the above also worked for recreating several kits from the 2e from the Complete Fighter's handbook. Not exact recreations, but close enough.
- weapon groups. Instead of all martial weapons, barbarians start with either a cultural weapon group (think druid or rogue weapons, but are culturally based) or you pre-specify their weapon groups by the weapons found in the culture.
- the barbarian hunter variant. Use this for cultures that do not rage or for cultures in which you want rage to only be available by a cultural PrC. Also, consider allowing two weapon fighting or another alternative ranger fighting style (if you use any) to replace the bow if the bow is not the culture's main weapon
- favored terrain. If you use the barbarian hunter variant, consider substituting favored terrain for favored enemy with the first terrain being the barbarian's native terrain.
Actually, the above also worked for recreating several kits from the 2e from the Complete Fighter's handbook. Not exact recreations, but close enough.
Last edited:
green slime
First Post
Greg K said:
Ah cool! Thanx for those numbers. I've already restricted weapons, armour, and classes based on culture. I'm sure to find more inspiring thoughts in these articles. Just need to dig up the CD from somewhere in the PC room!
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
In my Thandor Campaign, I have reworked the barbarian class to reflect different natural environments. Then, I have special culture-specific armour, weapons, skills, feats, and special abilities based on what kind of barbarian the character is.
I have then tweaked the core Barbarian so that the core Barbarian is more of a generic barbarian--if such a thing exists--though I have special tailored abilities even for the core Barbarian, so that whatever culture and environment he comes from, they are different. They can adopt the dominant special abilities and packages, or have a reduced selection if they want to keep *Rage* and therefore fit into the traditions of being one of the frenzy-barbarians popular within each culture. But if the whole "Rage" thing doesn't fit their conception of their barbarian character, it is easily fixed by allowing them to adopt a traditional barbarian of whatever culture and environment that their character is from.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
In my Thandor Campaign, I have reworked the barbarian class to reflect different natural environments. Then, I have special culture-specific armour, weapons, skills, feats, and special abilities based on what kind of barbarian the character is.
I have then tweaked the core Barbarian so that the core Barbarian is more of a generic barbarian--if such a thing exists--though I have special tailored abilities even for the core Barbarian, so that whatever culture and environment he comes from, they are different. They can adopt the dominant special abilities and packages, or have a reduced selection if they want to keep *Rage* and therefore fit into the traditions of being one of the frenzy-barbarians popular within each culture. But if the whole "Rage" thing doesn't fit their conception of their barbarian character, it is easily fixed by allowing them to adopt a traditional barbarian of whatever culture and environment that their character is from.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
fuindordm
Adventurer
Primitive wizards
Here's what I did for barbarian wizards (1st and 2nd edition):
Primitive spellcasters do not keep books. The spells that they know, they have fully mastered and can always prepare as well as if they had a book. Their maximum number of spells known per level, however, is halved and can never be greater than half their intelligence. They do not scribe scrolls, but if single-classed know how to craft “fetishes” which function in much the same way. (Other wizards cannot learn new spells from a fetish.) They will never be able to learn spells from scrolls or books, only by training with a person. As they spend less time in academic study, primitive spellcasters are slightly tougher: they have a d6 hit die, may wear light armor, and gain proficiency in one weapon from the following list: spear, short sword, mace, morningstar, short bow, or crossbow. Light armor does not interfere with spellcasting, if the character is proficient in its use.
In 3e, you could do something similar by requiring them to take Spell Mastery to gain new spells known, but this is even harsher and could justify giving them much bigger advantages.
Here's what I did for barbarian wizards (1st and 2nd edition):
Primitive spellcasters do not keep books. The spells that they know, they have fully mastered and can always prepare as well as if they had a book. Their maximum number of spells known per level, however, is halved and can never be greater than half their intelligence. They do not scribe scrolls, but if single-classed know how to craft “fetishes” which function in much the same way. (Other wizards cannot learn new spells from a fetish.) They will never be able to learn spells from scrolls or books, only by training with a person. As they spend less time in academic study, primitive spellcasters are slightly tougher: they have a d6 hit die, may wear light armor, and gain proficiency in one weapon from the following list: spear, short sword, mace, morningstar, short bow, or crossbow. Light armor does not interfere with spellcasting, if the character is proficient in its use.
In 3e, you could do something similar by requiring them to take Spell Mastery to gain new spells known, but this is even harsher and could justify giving them much bigger advantages.
I have some stone-age barbarians -- Ur-Flannae -- in my Greyhawk campaign, living in small bands in the Yatils and Barrier Peaks. I play them as essentially American Indians in the early 19th century, who are isolationist in nature and uninterested in outsiders for the most part. I play Perrenland as essentially "civilized tribes", like the Cherokee and Iroquois, with an admixture of Swiss culture (cheese and cantons instead of lodges/tribes).
I also have the official campaign's usual semi-barbarians, such as the Tiger Nomads and Uli (Iuz-allied in my game), Wolf Nomads and Rovers of the Barrens (wild and free blood enemies of Iuz), and centaurs (friends of the Rovers). These guys all have metal technology, though they mostly trade for it (the Wolf Nomads have one town of their own). Mostly I treat them as Central Asian nomads, except the Rovers who I treat as noble warrior Plains Indians a la "Dances with Wolves".
As for bronze-age technology, I have that too, in Wee-Jas worshipping Suel survivors of the nuclear holocaust . . . err, magical Twin Cataclysms . . . in the back-end of Mordor's Nurn . . . err, the Sea of Dust. Something like that. Anyhow, I have one PC with bronze hoplite armor who is an explorer from that group.
I also have the official campaign's usual semi-barbarians, such as the Tiger Nomads and Uli (Iuz-allied in my game), Wolf Nomads and Rovers of the Barrens (wild and free blood enemies of Iuz), and centaurs (friends of the Rovers). These guys all have metal technology, though they mostly trade for it (the Wolf Nomads have one town of their own). Mostly I treat them as Central Asian nomads, except the Rovers who I treat as noble warrior Plains Indians a la "Dances with Wolves".
As for bronze-age technology, I have that too, in Wee-Jas worshipping Suel survivors of the nuclear holocaust . . . err, magical Twin Cataclysms . . . in the back-end of Mordor's Nurn . . . err, the Sea of Dust. Something like that. Anyhow, I have one PC with bronze hoplite armor who is an explorer from that group.
Hmm, I've developed to varying degrees a variety of barbarian cultures, but the more technologically-backwards of them are pretty well removed from the Renaissance-era center of the setting. The two prominent sources, a seafaring, plundering, horse-archering Central Asian culture and a mountaineering, more landlubbering, variously civilized Scandinavianish/ Pictish culture, both have weapons tech, steel, siege, on a full mid-medieval level, chain armor, good-to-very-good weapons. Arcane magic is more primitive, but wizards can be found and they work just like wizards elsewhere... I use binders to represent a more primitive form of magic, and the Central Asian area is home to what binders there remain in the world.
Further out there are the remains of fallen cultures. One group knows bronze and the other's solidly stone-age. The first has a few sorcerors pop up now and again, and the second does not know arcane magic at all.
I just use some of the UA totem variants to shade the differences between barbarians mechanically.
As for places where they may be "barbarians" but they aren't really barbarians, scout and ranger work pretty well for their heroic warrior-types, I don't see a need to screw the barbarian class into the slot. Ranger's solid for the legendary Native American warrior/hunter archetype, for example... I don't even know that you'd have to change anything.
Further out there are the remains of fallen cultures. One group knows bronze and the other's solidly stone-age. The first has a few sorcerors pop up now and again, and the second does not know arcane magic at all.
I just use some of the UA totem variants to shade the differences between barbarians mechanically.
As for places where they may be "barbarians" but they aren't really barbarians, scout and ranger work pretty well for their heroic warrior-types, I don't see a need to screw the barbarian class into the slot. Ranger's solid for the legendary Native American warrior/hunter archetype, for example... I don't even know that you'd have to change anything.
There are several barbarian tribes IMC.
Everyone is at the Iron age in terms of technology except the Chun and the G'Skrel who are near stone age
Among them the Chun, who are cannibals and skin hunters, the matriarchal Mazi, The Toulani who are basically Native American/Mongol hybrids, The somewhat peaceful Vohi herders, The Vi who are kinda sorta barbarians, really closer to the Rohirrim of Tolkien, The Totemistic Beast Tribes, The Steel Tribes who are exiled from a psi dictatorship and have reverted to tribalism, G'Skrel who are basically generic islander savages and not well developed, and lastly the Pali who are Polynesian Jews more or less
Everyone is at the Iron age in terms of technology except the Chun and the G'Skrel who are near stone age
Among them the Chun, who are cannibals and skin hunters, the matriarchal Mazi, The Toulani who are basically Native American/Mongol hybrids, The somewhat peaceful Vohi herders, The Vi who are kinda sorta barbarians, really closer to the Rohirrim of Tolkien, The Totemistic Beast Tribes, The Steel Tribes who are exiled from a psi dictatorship and have reverted to tribalism, G'Skrel who are basically generic islander savages and not well developed, and lastly the Pali who are Polynesian Jews more or less
Last edited:
Imp said:
My reasons
1. I don't like the scout class and it does not get used in our group
2. I don't consider the ranger, with its spells, to be solid for the legendary Native American warrior/nunter unless you are basing soley on one poem. As far as I am concerned the only thing it has going right is the skill set.
Now, there are the spellless variants from the Complete Warrior and Complete Champion. The former is, imo, garbage. The latter is better in my opinon, better but I still don't want the animal companion or favored enemy and I'd want the barbarian to be more skilled in his native terrain (As a gm I'd swap it for favored terrain. As as a player, I'd ask the GM to use the favored terrain variant if they don't have their own cultures pre-built). Plus, I think a barbarian should be physically tougher (i.e., better hit die)
3. Considering the above, barbarian hunter does exactly what I want as a GM and a player.
Similar Threads
