In Defence of Borderers

[Valgrim Bragisson]

A lot of people on this Forum are of the opinion that Borderers as a class are weak, overspecialized, and redundant. This is surprising to me. I see the class as good all around fighters, with the same hit die and BAB progression as the other combat oriented classes, some free Feats from Combat styles, and some *Added Benifits* when in a Favored Terrain. In a Quasi-Mideival setting, 95% of the world is wilderness anyway, so don't tell me FTs are too limited or situational. This is especially true in comparison to the Nomad, who has to be in his Favored Terrain AND be on a horse to get the full benefits of that class. For the Borderer, there are enough Favored Terrain and Comat Style choices to allow a fair degree of customization. Especially with the Styles and Feats from Hyboria's Fiercest. Am I the only one who sees it this way?

MP

 

[slaughterj]

I like Borderer as well, especially as a Hyborian (and subset Tauranian) being the only favorable race, then I allocate the Hyborian background skills, adaptability, and INT bonus skills around to cover a couple of other areas to make a cool bandit-type character.

 

[Krushnak]

valgrim i agree with you, borderers are cool and should definately be kept as a seperate class. i get the feeling some people expect too much or want some classes to be able to do more than they should.

 

[Valgrim Bragisson]

I just thougt of something else. The name "Borderer" has always struck me as a bit ambiguous and undescriptive. I think Howard used it himself, but it's just odd sounding to me. I would suggest Scout or Woodsman.

But I would slit my own throat before stooping to calling them "Rangers"!

ps. It's nice to know I'm not the only member of the Borderer Anti-Defamation League.

 

[Sutek]

I just feel that the Borderer is a "Conan version of Ranger" and comes off that way too much. The Nomab is very different to any D&D core class, so I like it better than the Borderer.

The ideal to me: Fuse the two and just call it "Nomad" instead.

The Borderer class is intended to be the two-weapon/archer class that the Ranger is in D&D. Everything about it screams "copy/paste" and it therefore just doesn't feel like it belongs. Were they to combine the two and give more "tracks" to take (like Scout or Calvaryman to benefit from the terrain/guide at some levels and born to the saddle stuff at other levels) That would make the Nomad class a formidible multi-role class instead. Throw in a few good class features about Craft(Storytelling) and you have a really cool "Arabian Nights" type of motif for the Shemites to still take, but that could easily be the Kenning master of Nordheim or the wandering hermit-sage from Stygia...orwhatever.

I just think that the Nomad is a more appropraiate Conan-ish class as written, and with so much similarity in class features with the Borderer a hybrid would be a better option, better character build basis, better multi-class option and more in genre. Think of it as a Bard with the ability to choose to be mounted or be a foot guide as level progression goes on.

I mean reall - who looks forward to getting "Heroic Sacrifice" class feature?? :lol:

This is what I'd assign for class features, and I'd drop the BAB progression to that of the Thief, Pirate, Nomad and Scholar:

1 - Born to the saddle 1, Track, Favored terrain +1
2 - Combat style OR Bonus feat (must choose)
3 - Endurance
4 - Favored terrain +2, Mobility
5 - Combat style OR Nomad Charge (must choose; can start progression here for style)
6 - Diehard
7 - 2nd Favored Terrian +1, Guide OR Bonus feat (must choose)
8 - Favored terrian +3
9 - Swift tracker
10- Combat style bump OR Nomad Charge bump (must choose; can start progression here for also)
11- Bonus feat, Improved mobility
12- 2nd favore terrian +2, Favore terrian +4
13- Born to the saddle 3, 3rd Favored terrain +1, Guide or Bonus feat must choose; can start progression here for also)
14- Bonus feat
15- Greater Mobility, Guide or Bonus feat must choose; can start progression here for also)
16- Favored terrian +5
17- 2nd favored terrain +2
18- Swift Tracker OR 4th favored terrain +1 (must choose)
19- 3rd favored terrain +2
20- Mounted Mobility, Favored terrain +6

 

[Kemper Boyd]

I think the borderer class is good, since it's a nice class to play in the game, and it's existence is supported by Howard's Conan stories.

 

[Netherek]

Sutek, Soldiers are literally copy/paste of the fighter class, should they be dramatically altered as well???

As is the Soldier is more fighter than the Borderer is ranger...

The only I think the Borderer could use to spice them up is maybe Camouflage, that way they can hide in any terrain without needing cover. That or at least allow them that ability within their favored terrain.

Otherwise they are just fine. My two cents...

 

[Trodax]

I like the concept of the borderer and definitely want to keep it as its own class.

I'm not all that fond of the fighting styles, though, and do agree that it feels a bit like a copy/paste from the D&D Ranger (why should borderers be good at fighting with two-weapons?).

I would like borderer to perhaps instead have some extra tracking or camouflage ability at lower levels. Maybe also some more bonus feats from "general" stuff like Toughness, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Fleet-Footed, Run etc., to make him a generalist badass.
I guess you could also throw in either the Mobility ability chain or the Uncanny Dodge stuff. Might end up too similar to Barbarians and Nomads, though.

 

[Majestic7]

I pretty much agree with Trodax. Borderer is good as it is, but the fighting style thing feels a bit ridicilous. It should be replaced with something else - or at least replace the two-weapon fighting with something else. I have no problems with borderers being good archers.

Combining Nomad and Borderer doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Their flavour is simply too different. Nomad is the ultimate horseman, a steppe wanderer in the spirit of Mongols and their kind. Borderer on the other hand is a civilized (usually hyborian) person living on the edge of the civilized world, trying to survive the best he can.

 

[Netherek]

Pick Hyboria's Fiercest, the borderer gains 20+ combat styles to choose from based on cultural perspectives. They are just fine as is.

 

[Sutek]

Sutek, Soldiers are literally copy/paste of the fighter class, should they be dramatically altered as well???

As is the Soldier is more fighter than the Borderer is ranger...

The only I think the Borderer could use to spice them up is maybe Camouflage, that way they can hide in any terrain without needing cover. That or at least allow them that ability within their favored terrain.

Otherwise they are just fine. My two cents...

I said so in the other thread on "what would you do to change second edition", but since there's so many threads, the comment probably got lost in the myriad.

Yes, I feel more specific "soldiery" Class Features should be given to that class - stuff dealing with pole arms or whatever, and more to do with functioing along with other fighters in the same group, like formations.

 

[Netherek]

I said so in the other thread on "what would you do to change second edition", but since there's so many threads, the comment probably got lost in the myriad.

Yes, I feel more specific "soldiery" Class Features should be given to that class - stuff dealing with pole arms or whatever, and more to do with functioing along with other fighters in the same group, like formations.

Personally, there isn't much you can do in a formation than out of a formation. I think the formation benefit should be static and just apply as a soldier trait, and than if the give the formation a morale bonus or if using the massed combat from FC a military cohesion bonus. That way formations of trained soldiers would be better in mechanical way as well as literary.

I think TPTB should incorporate the Borderer styles from Fiercest (or at least some) to remove the base D&D choices. Would that be a good fit for you? Include the ability to hide in favored terrain regardless of cover and I think they would balance quite well.

 

[Bregales]

Sutek, Soldiers are literally copy/paste of the fighter class, should they be dramatically altered as well???

As is the Soldier is more fighter than the Borderer is ranger...

The only I think the Borderer could use to spice them up is maybe Camouflage, that way they can hide in any terrain without needing cover. That or at least allow them that ability within their favored terrain.

Otherwise they are just fine. My two cents...

I agree. Sorry Sutek, Borderer is IMO the second most essential class besides Barbarian. Where's Galt Hagar's Son to the Defence or any of those from the Tauran to defend against the Wolves Against the Border? They're IMO essential to that fantastic supplement Across Thunder River!!!!

Sure Borderer compares to Ranger, but Rangers are based on Tolkien's Rangers of the same name (hard to argue otherwise) whereas IMO the Borderer seems based to me on Roger's Rangers from the American Colonial Revolution, Cooper's Natty Bumpo from the Leatherstocking Tales (i.e., Last of the Mohicans) and any new world forester you can draw a parallel to. If I were playing in a campaign I'd be hard pressed to choose between a barbarian or a borderer. The stats as written evoke this feel from Howard's writing. However, Camouflage is essential to the survivability of this character class! 8)

 

[Netherek]

Kudos Bregales!

 

[Bregales]

Thanks And yeah, the term Borderer does come from a Howard story. Yeah, they act as scouts, they act as rangers against the Picts and could against Aquilonia's other national threats, but it's more their lifestyle than their job that forms the basis of this class; they come from frontier homesteaders trying to protect their families and neighbors from marauding Picts. So I'm even happy with the name, and am quite happy with the way they were written in those stories.

 

[Starkus]

I like them as well. One of the players in my party is a borderer from the Westermarch. He's basically gone the way of the sick bowman and is highly effective in combat. But his primary benefit is his ability with herbs, tracking and general wilderness knowledge.

When I write adventures I attempt to be as realistic as possible, which means strugging against the wilds. The borderer has been essential for doing so.

We also have a nomad 4 / soldier 1 in the party, yet he likes to spend his attention on mounted fighting and his melee ability. Thus he doesn't have the ability to "be the borderer" as it were.

I suppose that it all comes down to how much wilderness adventure you have and how stringent you are with wilderness rules.

Stark

 

[Sutek]

I dont'entirely disagree, but I do feel that two classes that excell in gaininbg terrain bonuses is a bit of a waste, so that integrating them into a single class makes sense to me.

But see, I'm aproaching the discussion purely froma gamer perspective as someone very unfamiliar with the actual works of REH. I'm sure there's plenty of character classes that could be argued for, but to me, the current Border and Nomad calsses are too similar and would be better presented as a single class that gave the option to take either route as a character progressed. As it is, about a third of the awarded class features are ideatical between the two and are even awarded at the same level. Thast's too redundant in my opinion.

 

[Netherek]

The main problem with blending the two is that they become too generic, or need something modular within the class like Talents from d20 modern. I like them seperate as they do take some what different approachs to life. And they cover some different terrains, with Plains being the only overlapped terrain.

It may be more appropriate to allow the nomad only one terrain feature out of the two instead having both in the long run. Possibly give the Borderer more skill points. I just don't see it as necessary.

 

[kintire]

Thanks And yeah, the term Borderer does come from a Howard story. Yeah, they act as scouts, they act as rangers against the Picts and could against Aquilonia's other national threats, but it's more their lifestyle than their job that forms the basis of this class; they come from frontier homesteaders trying to protect their families and neighbors from marauding Picts.

It does. And he makes it quite clear what they are

They were of a new breed growing up in the world on the raw edge of the frontier — men whom grim necessity had taught woodcraft. Aquilonians of the western provinces to a man, they had many points in common. They dressed alike — in buckskin boots, leathern breeks and deerskin shirts, with broad girdles that held axes and short swords; and they were all gaunt and scarred and hard-eyed; sinewy and taciturn.

They were wild men, of a sort, yet there was still a wide gulf between them and the Cimmerian. They were sons of civilization, reverted to a semi-barbarism. He was a barbarian of a thousand generations of barbarians. They had acquired stealth and craft, but he had been born to these things.

They are civilised by race, but have taken the Barbarian class.

I like the concept of the borderer and definitely want to keep it as its own class

I'm firmly opposed to the idea that a concept requires a class. Classes are collections of skills and techniques; they are flexible enough to cover many concepts, with minimal tinkering. The wild Stone Age Pict, the Hyborian borderer recovering their ancient skills, the Pirate who fights through ferocity and prefers raiding land targets to waylaying ships at sea and the gladiator who lives only to fight are all fine concepts... and the Barbarian class can cover them all nicely (with a modicum of multiclassing for some of them).

 

[Netherek]

And the Borderer fills it's nitch just fine.

A barbie is an uncivilized warrior...

A bord is a scout, and works for any culture.

Nomads are a cultural perspective as well, and fits just fine.

The problem is that if you remove a bunch of classes, because one does the job with the need of multi-classing or customization, you end up making things too generic, or needing more fluff than already exists.

The classes are fill significantly different cultural and character roles to warrant their existence as a seperate class.