Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 5798149" data-attributes="member: 54846">I don't see how that relates to Lawfulness. Self-discipline doesn't, for instance, negate neutrality. Alignment is philosophy. Adherence to laws or principles, as well as motivations. That should not be attached to class features.That depends on how you define/describe rage. Also, just because you have rage doesn't mean that you can't be disciplined in other areas. I mean, barbarians weren't barred from having the Craft skill, for instance, which is inherently disciplined. Besides, barbarians don't lose their rage if they become disciplined (i.e. multi-class). You can easily have a Dr Jeckyl/Mr Hyde thing going, or a Hulk-like effect. I looked at the mechanics of the Rage and thought about how to re-interpret it based on its stats. The rage is simply an increased Str/Con, and resistance to will at the detriment of AC. So I thought that the Rage could easily be an altered state of consciousness, or something like &quot;Bullet time&quot;, if you will - an offensive battle mode/martial art form/etc. Harnessing adrenaline and other such things through meditation/training. Hence, Monk/barbarian. I also liked the idea of a character whose rage was simply PTSD. crazy panic-mode. Unfortunately the Monk class is pure Kung Fu Ascetic, instead of having room for just being a pugilist, Greco-roman wrestler, or any other type of unarmed combatant, which would go quite well with a barbarian.But I strongly dislike how Barbarian class = primitive. They are illterate for instance. That's unnecessary. I mean an army can have berzerkers who are barbarians, does that mean that they shoudln't be able to read or accept command from their superior officers (not being lawful, being nice and chaotic)? No. Etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rechan, post: 5798149, member: 54846"] I don't see how that relates to Lawfulness. Self-discipline doesn't, for instance, negate neutrality. Alignment is [I]philosophy[/I]. Adherence to laws or principles, as well as [I]motivations[/I]. That should not be attached to class features. That depends on how you define/describe rage. Also, just because you have rage doesn't mean that you can't be disciplined in other areas. I mean, barbarians weren't barred from having the Craft skill, for instance, which is inherently disciplined. Besides, barbarians don't [I]lose[/I] their rage if they become disciplined (i.e. multi-class). You can easily have a Dr Jeckyl/Mr Hyde thing going, or a Hulk-like effect. I looked at the mechanics of the Rage and thought about how to re-interpret it based on its stats. The rage is simply an increased Str/Con, and resistance to will at the detriment of AC. So I thought that the Rage could easily be an altered state of consciousness, or something like "Bullet time", if you will - an offensive battle mode/martial art form/etc. Harnessing adrenaline and other such things through meditation/training. Hence, Monk/barbarian. I also liked the idea of a character whose rage was simply PTSD. crazy panic-mode. Unfortunately the Monk class is pure Kung Fu Ascetic, instead of having room for just being a pugilist, Greco-roman wrestler, or any other type of unarmed combatant, which would go quite well with a barbarian. But I strongly dislike how Barbarian class = primitive. They are illterate for instance. That's unnecessary. I mean an army can have berzerkers who are barbarians, does that mean that they shoudln't be able to read or accept command from their superior officers (not being lawful, being nice and chaotic)? No. Etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification