Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9876919" data-attributes="member: 4937">Meh.  You've eliminated all the reasons for ever playing a Barbarian, that is, to play a fighter that is competent in non-combat situations and which is super tanky.  And 'rage' already exists in 1e AD&D - see the OA Bushi and Samurai for examples of how to do it with 1e feel if you want to make the class more like it's 3e cousin.  You've also left in one of the things I found rule breaking and inexplicable and generally unfair - that the class would increase the number of attacks it got per round if someone attacked it from the rear.   So if I attack you from the front you can only attack me once, but if I have the advantage and attack you from behind, you get to attack me twice.  Ok, then.... Also, your limitations on magic use are in some ways harsher than those in the original.  At least you fixed the "can't join the party" anti-social problem.It's best to not think of the class as being a wimp compared to the fighter, but as being tanky compared to the thief.  And for that matter, your revision is still a wimp compared to the fighter, samurai or cavalier.  It's closer to the Kensai in abilities, just with a different flavor.As for NWP, I think they are essential for making AD&D playable in modern context.  I left the game in the early 90s because of my frustration with a lack of unified rules for all characters and situations made adjudicating situations fairly impossible and always a headache.  You are left with fiat - which is fine if the problem is just "can you make a fire" or something trivial like that - which is unacceptable whenever the ruling would be important.   See the flooding room encounter in C1 for an example of just how bad the situation is.  A unified NWP system as 2e was trending toward but never quite managed to develop makes AD&D playable.You'll notice I've basically developed a universal skill system in the write up of the revised thief.  With only a tiny bit of tweaking, NWP's would cover skills, feats, and backgrounds in an elegant manner and let players have narrative force in non-combat situations that didn't wholly depend on "Mother May I?"2e almost got it right but was too conservative in how it revised the concept.  The core ideas are there but they were a step or two behind where they needed to be.UPDATE: Also, the more I think about it, the more your system is just asking for out of table drama - even more so than the original write up.  The problem is that the original write up just asked the barbarian to forgo taking a share of the early magic treasure because they were just going to destroy it anyway.  That left you only with problem players who were upset they didn't get to destroy treasure and argued with the party over it.  So parties would have to then hash out what was fair.  But eventually, Barbarians could freely pick some sorts of loot for their own use, so the problem would go away.But in your case, I can foresee you having problems with party dynamics forever, because now you'll have people arguing that it's not fair for the barbarian to pick the +1 or +2 sword, because it won't function right for them anyway and they are harming the party overall by taking good weapons that would function better for a different party member.  And that's a real argument over individual vs. party dynamics that will never go away.</blockquote>

Verification