In Defence of Borderers

[kintire]

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

There are rules for cultural differences already: we don't need those in the character classes as well. Borderer doesn't fill a different character role: its seriously overlapped by both Barbarian and Nomad.

 

[Daz]

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

There are rules for cultural differences already: we don't need those in the character classes as well. Borderer doesn't fill a different character role: its seriously overlapped by both Barbarian and Nomad.

Flavor-wise there's a very important difference between someone who is born into the wild and someone who learns to live in it. The civilization/savagery divide is the main theme of Howard's writing and Borders are important since they straddle that divide more than anyone else.

However I'm not sure if the rules do enough with this flavor...

 

[kintire]

Flavor-wise there's a very important difference between someone who is born into the wild and someone who learns to live in it. The civilization/savagery divide is the main theme of Howard's writing and Borders are important since they straddle that divide more than anyone else.

Very true. But:

1) The difference is cultural, not skill based... SPECIFICALLY not skill based, and hence should come from race not class.

2) You DO NOT need a different class for each flavour concept. Apply the flavour to the class, and it works fine.

 

[Baduin]

The argument that classes should be sets of skills and techniques is a powerful one. The problem is that it is an argument against the Barbarian class, not the Borderer. Borderer is a scout with specific skills.

"Barbarian" is only a background. A barbarian can be a woodland scout (a Borderer - Picts), a fairly disciplined warrior fighting in heavy armour (Soldier - "vikings" from Asgard), a pirate (Barachan pirates).

But in Conan RPG, classes are not made this way. They are simply specific character archetypes. Barbarian class is Conan, Borderer - Balthus, Pirate - Belit etc.

 

[kintire]

The problem is that it is an argument against the Barbarian class, not the Borderer. Borderer is a scout with specific skills.

"Barbarian" is only a background.

Both the Barbarian and the Nomad have slightly confusing names, but they are appropriate skill archetypes ("Barbarian" do not encompass all barbarian cultures by a long way, and Turanian city dwelling non nomadic mounted scouts are well represented by the "Nomad" class). Borderer is a duplicate of the Barbarian role.

 

[Sutek]

Archetypes is what I was trying for too, and kintire has hit the nail on the head.

Merge the two classes and call the new amalgam "Borderer". It doesn't matter. Just like "Barbarian" the title is only that; something to head up the sub-section that describes that archetype of a weapon wielding brute.

I see the archetype to be strived for as being "Terrain Specialist" and currently both Nomad and Borderer fit the role, but neither do it to the point that includes the full scope.

In other words, as has already been mentioned, the Borderer is closer to what such an archetype should be, but all it's missing is the mounted talents of the Nomad to be a true terrain master. That, and at 15th level, they get the special ability to die (lol). Not much of a turn-on for my players, I can tell you that.

The Nomad should be a wanderer, but has fewer terrain abillities than the Borderer. That just doesn't even make sense to me, but what it is doing it setting up the combo of Shemite and Nomad, which makes the Nomad class a cultural feature, almost, rather than a character archetype.

Archetypes shold be generic; that's the point. Combining the two into one Class would only serve to give flexibility to the archetype, and it could still allow the Borderer class to be taken asmost as is, but with the mounted abilities of the Nomad thrown in. Who ever heard of a long range scout that couldn't ride?

If the classes are combined, it wouyld have to be done something similar to my suggestion above so that class features could be opted for as the character progresses. Want to ride well; choose that feature instead of something else.

Breagles, I'm also not suggesting that the Borderer is a bad idea, just that it strikes me as just another copy/paste rather than a unique archetype, or even one that is as effective as it could be. If I were playing this game rather than running it, I'd probabl y have me a Borderer/Thief, for sure. But what I'm driving at, whether you're a Borderer fan or a Nomad fan, is that both classes are too similar to one another and I feel they they should be mergegd to include all aspects of one another. My list of Class Features may not be perfect, but it includes all class features from both classes, so nothing is lost; you'd just have the abilty to choose your emphasis under one class.

 

[argo]

Flavor-wise there's a very important difference between someone who is born into the wild and someone who learns to live in it. The civilization/savagery divide is the main theme of Howard's writing and Borders are important since they straddle that divide more than anyone else.

Very true. But:

1) The difference is cultural, not skill based... SPECIFICALLY not skill based, and hence should come from race not class.

2) You DO NOT need a different class for each flavour concept. Apply the flavour to the class, and it works fine.

Ah, but using classes to reinforce falvor-archtypes is a great strength of the Class/Level game mechanic. In fact one might say it is the PRIMARY strength of Class/Level systems (as opposed to point-buy and other systems). Classes should support the archtypes of their setting and therefore reinforce the flavor of the setting.

Of course, it is a fine line between a class which reinforces archtypes and a class that is redundant or too narrowly specalized. A fine line which often depends on the setting you find it in. Borders and Nomads may be redundant in many settings. But I agree that in the Hyborian age they are strong enough archtypes to deserve their own classes. And ultimately this is the Conan RPG.

Later.

 

[Netherek]

That's just it though. Nomads are based off nomadic cultures who's lives depend on their mount as much as their survival skills. Borderers on the other hand are scouts/hunters that grew in mixed terrain, and typically terrain that doesn't allow the sheer dependancy on mounts.

 

[Sutek]

But why have two separate classes that emphasize "terrain + ____"?

I guess that's my point.

 

[Netherek]

So are you saying why do both get Favored Terrain?

I don't know, why have a Pirate class, when Thief + other using sea based feats is just as viable??? Let alone two classes that backstab...

Really one could just use gestalt classes and break the special up for a selection like in Unearthed Arcana. The problem is though that you lose the essence of archetypes, and that doesn't work if you don't have the right people.

 

[Daz]

I think a lot of classes are there for as much flavor reasons as mechanical reasons. If you take pretty much any character in the Conan stories they fit very easily into one (or at the very most two) of the 8 classes that the book has.

I guess its easier a new player who wants to be pirate to be handed the pirate class instead of being told "well play a thief with lots of sea skills and maybe throw in some soldier to make your character a little tougher or maybe barbarian since that way you can get uncanny dodge which is cool..."

 

[kintire]

Ah, but using classes to reinforce falvor-archtypes is a great strength of the Class/Level game mechanic.

Using class mechanics to support an archetype, sure. Having a seperate class for every tiny variation, not at all.

Borders and Nomads may be redundant in many settings. But I agree that in the Hyborian age they are strong enough archtypes to deserve their own classes. And ultimately this is the Conan RPG.

I don't believe anyone is questioning the status of Nomads. But Borderers are based on a group of people specifically described by Howard as civilised men returning to the skills of barbarism for survival. The increasing similarity between the "civilised" borderers and their Pictish adversaries is one of the main things that makes the tale so powerful.

I don't know, why have a Pirate class, when Thief + other using sea based feats is just as viable??? Let alone two classes that backstab...

I guess its easier a new player who wants to be pirate to be handed the pirate class instead of being told "well play a thief with lots of sea skills and maybe throw in some soldier to make your character a little tougher or maybe barbarian since that way you can get uncanny dodge which is cool..."

Apples and oranges. The Pirate has a well defined niche as a sea based light armoured fighter, a niche which no other class intrudes on. The Borderer's wilderness warrior is covered better by the Barbarian, except for the sections of his class that are covered by Nomad. How is it any harder for a new player to be told "just take the barbarian class, it applies to semi civilised borderers too?"

If you take pretty much any character in the Conan stories they fit very easily into one (or at the very most two) of the 8 classes that the book has.

Some do. Some don't. Consider Conan himself, who fills the roles of a Barbarian, Thief, Soldier, Nomad, Pirate, Borderer and Noble...

 

[slaughterj]

Apples and oranges. The Pirate has a well defined niche as a sea based light armoured fighter, a niche which no other class intrudes on. The Borderer's wilderness warrior is covered better by the Barbarian, except for the sections of his class that are covered by Nomad. How is it any harder for a new player to be told "just take the barbarian class, it applies to semi civilised borderers too?"

Why not just roll up Borderer, Nomad, and Pirate all into one omnibus class that gets bonuses in certain environments (sea, desert, plains, etc.)?! Seems just as viable as rolling up Borderer and Barbarian together

 

[Bregales]

Ah, but using classes to reinforce falvor-archtypes is a great strength of the Class/Level game mechanic.

Using class mechanics to support an archetype, sure. Having a seperate class for every tiny variation, not at all.

Sounds like you're telling Mongoose to change their classes to all prestige classes. Seems to me that Mongoose has a game with it's own world it values making generic enough to mold into various other worlds: runequest. However this game is made for this world.

Now then, in large part I'm sympathetic to what you're arguing for, to the effect that I'm sick of another game companies' flooding the market with trash expansions with countless new prestige classes, feats, & etc. But while I may sigh an "Eh, umph" to the bandit class, maybe even the temptress class which you seem to indicate you'd scrap as well as boderer/nomad for the argument of unnecessary duplicity, I have no problem with their cultural influences and also tell my prospective players, "If you want a borderer who comes from Vendhya/Khitai/Punt or wherever, fine, just let me know his background and how he came to be and we'll work it all out." As I do with any character proposal. As a GM, I'm more interested in how a player's character was brought into being than the particular metagaming monopolizing of point comparsons. (Although I do follow the rules when making up NPCs adhering to levels, classes, etc)

Everyone seems aware that this game has a theme of civilisation versus barbarism. Many also seem aware of Howard's notable theme that the barbarian is the superior state, that civilisation by comparison is infinitely weak and corrupt by comparison. So there are "civilised" character classes: *Soldier, Scholar, Temptress, Bandit, Noble; and their are not-really-civilised classes: *Barbarian, Nomad, Borderer. HOW barbaric depends on culture and background. And of course there's rogue and pirate. So a nomad is a mounted man of the heath and a borderer is a footed man of the heath. So what? Honestly, of all the points in this game to argue about, I'm surprised at the extent to which this one is going on. They've already written the Aquilonia sourcebook as well as Across Thunder River, so telling someone to just make it a regional thing doesn't really go, and I like the idea of molding them to different areas, despite the source influence.

So go ahead, house rule them into a deedle dee scout or ranger, but I'm perfectly happy with them as their own classes for this particular game. And hey if this sounds angry or anything it isn't (written as such), I just wanted to pipe in. :lol:

 

[Bregales]

Apples and oranges. The Pirate has a well defined niche as a sea based light armoured fighter, a niche which no other class intrudes on. The Borderer's wilderness warrior is covered better by the Barbarian, except for the sections of his class that are covered by Nomad. How is it any harder for a new player to be told "just take the barbarian class, it applies to semi civilised borderers too?"

Why not just roll up Borderer, Nomad, and Pirate all into one omnibus class that gets bonuses in certain environments (sea, desert, plains, etc.)?! Seems just as viable as rolling up Borderer and Barbarian together

See, why can't I just write short posts like this, instead of going on and on? :lol:

 

[kintire]

Bregales, I confess that I don't entirely follow your argument, so if I've misinterpreted it, apologies in advance!

Sounds like you're telling Mongoose to change their classes to all prestige classes

I despise prestige classes with every fibre of my being. It is said that English has the largest vocabulary of any language, and yet I find that there are not words enough to express my revulsion at everything they stand for. What I want is a set of classes that are mechanically different: the habit of going "oo.. I have a concept for a woodsman! new class!" "Well, I have a concept for a sneaky woodsman. New class!" " Well, I have a concept for a sneaky woodsman who hunts animals. New class!" "well, I have a concept for a sneaky woodsman who hunts animals specialising in trapping. New class!" "well, I have a concept for a sneaky woodsman who specialises in trapping beaver. new class!" is exactly what I want to avoid.

But while I may sigh an "Eh, umph" to the bandit class, maybe even the temptress class which you seem to indicate you'd scrap as well as boderer/nomad for the argument of unnecessary duplicity

Err... pardon? My problem is with the borderer being to similar to the Barbarian, not the Nomad. And who mentioned temptresses?

Everyone seems aware that this game has a theme of civilisation versus barbarism. Many also seem aware of Howard's notable theme that the barbarian is the superior state, that civilisation by comparison is infinitely weak and corrupt by comparison

I'm not quite sure about that. Barbarism's victory is inevitable in the long run, but its not at all clear that barbarism is seen as superior, or that it's victory is a good thing. The Picts had to learn civilised warfare before they could destroy Aquilonia after all.

So there are "civilised" character classes: *Soldier, Scholar, Temptress, Bandit, Noble; and their are not-really-civilised classes: *Barbarian, Nomad, Borderer. HOW barbaric depends on culture and background.

But this is absolutely the wrong approach which loses a vital point that Howard is making about the Hyborian world: being a Barbarian is not about your class at all.

Conan's dark scarred face was darker yet with passion; his black armor was hacked to tatters and splashed with blood; his great sword red to the cross-piece. In this stress all the veneer of civilization had faded; it was a barbarian who faced his conquerors

Conan is King of Aquilonia at this point: he has been a soldier in many civilised armies, and is currently a Noble. He has been a thief, a pirate and a nomad chieftain. But he is, and will always be, a Barbarian regardless of his skills or role. Its what he is, not what he does.

So a nomad is a mounted man of the heath and a borderer is a footed man of the heath. So what?

So nothing. A borderer is a footed man of the heath, and a barbarian is a footed man of the heath. That's the problem.

I like the idea of molding them to different areas, despite the source influence.

That's what race and roleplaying are for.

 

[Netherek]

The thing is you miss a certain aspect of the classes.

Barbarians are Warriors of the heath, that uses clearly uncivilized fighting methods. The direct counter part is the Soldier, whom clearly use civilized fighting methods.

Nomads, are akin to Barbarian horseman from nomad cultures whose very lives depend on their mounts.

The Borderer is a civilized man of the heath, a frontiersman. He is seen as barbaric to a point by their civilized brethren, but are not the barbaric warrior using a savage and lethal fighting techniques from those cultures.

Conan never developed the civilized fighting styles, he remain true to his fighting cultural heritage despite fighting in organized army of the civilized men.

 

[kintire]

The Borderer is a civilized man of the heath, a frontiersman. He is seen as barbaric to a point by their civilized brethren, but are not the barbaric warrior using a savage and lethal fighting techniques from those cultures.

But I have quoted the description of the group which describes them as exactly that. They even use the same weapons as their Pictish foes, and Conan complains that they won't wear armour (!)

Conan never developed the civilized fighting styles, he remain true to his fighting cultural heritage despite fighting in organized army of the civilized men.

I'm sorry, that's not correct.

Early:

The lurid lights and drunken revelry fell away behind the Cimmerian. He had discarded his torn tunic, and walked through the night naked except for a loin-cloth and his high-strapped sandals. He moved with the supple ease of a great tiger, his steely muscles rippling under his brown skin.

Late:

clad him in Conan's armor of black plate-mail, with the vizored salade, and the dark plumes nodding over the wyvern crest. Over all they put the silken surcoat with the royal lion worked in gold upon the breast, and they girt him with a broad gold-buckled belt which supported a jewel-hilted broad-sword in a cloth-of-gold scabbard

Trappings of civilization, adopted when thought needed.

 

[Netherek]

Umm... You really missed my point. Conan never adopt the fighting traditions of the civilized man. Never once did I say Conan refused the trappings of civilization.

 

[kintire]

Conan never adopt the fighting traditions of the civilized man

At the battle of Valkia he was proposing to, and his replacement did, ride into battle on a warhorse dressed in full gothic plate armour at the head of his knights, pikemen and archers. Sounds pretty civilised to me...