In Defence of Borderers

[Sutek]

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

Functionally, the main classes in Conan opperate exactly as D&D prestige classes do. There's no XP penalty and they stack right on top on your other classes. The only real drawback to taking more than one class is slowed class feature progression/acquisition.

My issue is, why would I ever want to multi-class in Borderer and Nomad?

It's not going to work out because the have mostly the same class features, and terrain expertise actually slows down if you take the best two terrain classes because they each have different Favoured Terrain lists to choose from.

I think the Temptress and Pirate classes are a different issue. One is much more of a Blff/Diplomacy type and the other clearly slotted for seafaring and distinctly piratey things (Sneak Subdual and Bite sword illustrating this perfectly). If I were to multiclass in Thief, Pirate and Temptress, I'd feel like I'm slowing class features acquisition, but not retreading my steps. Each are distinct enough to warrant multiclassing with any other class in the game.

I don't know about the Bandit class. Can't recall it's specs, so I'll have to go with "probably too close to Borderer and Thief". I'm resistant to too many base calsses to the degree that some people are resistant to Prestige Classes (kintire!).

It should work more like interlocking puzzle pieces that form a different image the more pieces you choose. If there's too much overlap, then a piece is wasted somewhere.

 

[Netherek]

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...

Do you understand the difference between what you where and how you fight?

Yes, you are correct that Conan wore plate, took a civilized position of power, and yet Conan was still a barbarian. He never took up civilized Honour, Fighting styles, or religions.

While some of the borderers on the black river took up the Pict ways, that's a far cry from losing their cultural identity.

Really the way I see the Fierce classes are...

Barbarian, uncivilized warrior.

Nomad, an uncivilized mounted warrior, (Whom actually have more class feature that match Barbies than Borderers by the way.) Maybe Nomads and Barbies should be rolled into one...

Borderer, is a scout, whether or not they are civilized.

 

[Sutek]

I think the theme is more like "What is Barbarism really?" Supposedly civilized cities are the most corrupt and evil places in Hyboria, and Conan struggles with the ballance of being honest and straight forward from the beginning on up.

There's an honesty to steel and telling someone that if he ticks you off you chop off his arm; he ought not be surprised when he does and you do. Is that more barbaric than enslaving his village and rapin g his women on a whim and without warning or compassion?

The twist is that Civilization is more barbaric than the Barbarians.

Nomad, an uncivilized mounted warrior, (Whom actually have more class feature that match Barbies than Borderers by the way.) Maybe Nomads and Barbies should be rolled into one...

No they don't.

Barbarians have Track, Endurance and Diehard in common with both Nomad and Borderer, and Track, Endurance, Mobility and Diehard in common with just the Nomad Class.

Between Nomad and Borderer, those classes have 9 Class Features in common: Track, Favored Terrain +1 to +6, and Diehard. Granted, m ost are FT, and each class has a different group of terrains to choose from, but that's another drawback to the two classes being separate as far as I'm concerned. What if I want a Plains Borderer? Can't be done by the current RAW. I have to settle for a Nomad and not be able to get the Combat Styles I like from the Borderer.

If the two classes were integrated, and Favored Terrain made a "choose and stick with it or choose another" type of option, you can still have a Borderer as is, Or a more improved Terrain-based Nomad, but at the same time, you can have a Borderer that might be able to get good with mounts or more varried terrain types.

 

[Netherek]

Umm... Sutek, try the Mobility feats, Borderers don't get these and the Nomad and Barbie do.

Which means that Barbies and Nomads have more in common as that is a much more significant feature than Favored Terrain.

Also, you can have a plains Borderer, not a desert one. The plains is the one terrain feature that overlaps. The reasoning is some what simple, there have been non nomad frontier people in the plains, while in desert regions this would be much less feasible as the distance required to travel for water and the sheer heat demands make mounts almost necessary in that region.

 

[Azgulor]

Sorry, but I can't fathom the rationale for dropping the Borderer.

1) There is REH-precedent for the Borderer.

2) The Nomad is a tribal (usually barbaric or at the very least not "civilized") mouted warrior archetype. If a nomad has a Code of Honor it's probably going to be the Barbaric Code of Honor.

3) Barbarian ranges from the clannish warband to the primitive savage. A ferocious fighter that disdains civilization. Can't really see this guy with the Civlized Code of Honor.

4) Borderer is the civilized man that either is trained to thrive in the wilderness, finds the allure of the wild more satisfactory than the decadent cities, the pioneer or settler living on the borderlands, the military scout, etc. These archetypes are more likely to have the Civilized Code of Honor than the Barbaric. The Borderer is also distinct from the Nomad in that it doesn't focus on mounted combat.

I mean, really, if you don't like the borderer, why not just eliminate it from your game? I fail to see why it should be eliminated from the Conan RPG. Hell, they published a Bandit class in S&P that looks a lot like a blend of Borderer and Pirate to me. Some people use it, others don't.

Books like Across the Thunder River and Hyboria's Fiercest convincingly demonstrate (at least to me) that the Borderer is not only a viable character archetype in Conan, but a necessary one. Actually, the entire Hyboria's F--est series does an excellent job of providing distinct roles for single and multi-class characters. Combining Borderer & Nomad roles diminishes the game in my view rather than enhancing it.

Azgulor

 

[Netherek]

Agreed!

 

[Valgrim Bragisson]

Hi! I'm amazed by what I started here. When I started this thread, I thought it would get maybe 10 replies at most. I had no idea that Borderers were such a bone of contention among other players! It's been an interesting thread, though.

Sutek asked why he would ever want to multiclass into Borderer. I gave Valgrim, my Vanir Barbarian/Soldier a couple of levals of bord to make him more flexable. Those two levals gave him Skill Focus(Survival), Rapid Shot(combat style), and Forest Favored Terrain. As opposed to one bonus feat from 2 more levals of soldier. It makes sense from a purely mechanical point of view, and since he was serving as a mercenery in the Westermarck, it fit the game. Now he has some things he can use when he's not dressed like a siege engine in his plate armor.

Its been good reading,
Enjoy the Border War

 

[kintire]

Do you understand the difference between what you where and how you fight?

I do indeed. What you are is your basic identity, your fundamental assumptions, your basic culture. It is reflected in the game by your Race, and how you are roleplayed. How you fight is the skillset that you have built up over your career; it is reflected by your class.

Yes, you are correct that Conan wore plate, took a civilized position of power, and yet Conan was still a barbarian. He never took up civilized Honour, Fighting styles, or religions.

He absolutely did take up civilised fighting styles, where he found them useful, and incorporated them into his own style. Witness his expert archery in Queen of the Black Coast... not a Cimmerian speciality at all!

What you need to understand is that just because REH refers to Conan as a "Barbarian" and there is a classin Mongoose Conan RPG called "Barbarian" doesn't mean that these two are identical. REH is referring to culture, fundamental assumptions and what you are. The Mongoose class refers to a skill and ability set; what you do. They are different concepts. And what that also means is that when REH says that civilised people cannot become barbarians, he is NOT talking about the Mongoose class.

Umm... Sutek, try the Mobility feats, Borderers don't get these and the Nomad and Barbie do.

Which means that Barbies and Nomads have more in common as that is a much more significant feature than Favored Terrain.

Not at all. The mobility feats a free feats: anyone can take them, its just Barbies and Nomads have to. Favoured Terrain is a unique class ability that no one else can get.

Sorry, but I can't fathom the rationale for dropping the Borderer.

Allow me to clarify

1) There is REH-precedent for the Borderer.

Is there? I've quoted the description before. These are Hyborians who are fighting the Picts using their own skills. They sneak like the Picts, fight like the Picts, even use the same weapons as the Picts (although metal versions of course). They are civilised people rediscovering barbaric skills through necessity. They are represented much better by Hyborians with the Barbarian class.

) The Nomad is a tribal (usually barbaric or at the very least not "civilized") mouted warrior archetype. If a nomad has a Code of Honor it's probably going to be the Barbaric Code of Honor.

No its not. Its a skillset appropriate for a mounted warrior who spends a good deal of time in the wilds. It fits a Turanian mounted archer excellently... and they have a thousand year old civilisation with cities, silk and steel that rivals the Hyborians at their height. Its a skillset, not a culture (although its a skillset that appeals more to some cultures than others of course)

3) Barbarian ranges from the clannish warband to the primitive savage. A ferocious fighter that disdains civilization. Can't really see this guy with the Civlized Code of Honor.

Once again, your race is your culture, not your class. The Barbarian class is a skillset for a warrior who favours individual ferocity over group effort, and is self sufficient. It is class suggested by Mongoose for Argossean gladiators (with slight revision), as well a Cimmerian marauders. These are the gladiators who are the darlings of high Argossean society and can mingle with the rich and famous.

Books like Across the Thunder River and Hyboria's Fiercest convincingly demonstrate (at least to me) that the Borderer is not only a viable character archetype in Conan, but a necessary one

I absolutely agree. There are many archetypes that cannot be removed from Conan's world and leave it the same. The canny borderer is one. The mounted knight another. The Bossonian archer, the Turanian cavalry archer, the Shemite asshuri, the kidnapper, the slaver and the tomb raider to name just a few. All of these archetypes give the world its colour.

But an Archetype is not a class. There is no Knight class, no Archer class, no Cavalry Archer class, no Asshuri class, no Kidnapper class, no Slaver class, no Tomb Raider class. Why? because al of them can be handled by existing classes. All of the above can be produced using pure or mixed Soldier, Noble, Nomad, Scholar and Thief. The base classes are nicely generic and customisable enough that you can cover a wide variety of different archetypes with each class. Why does the Borderer archetype get special treatment? Its just an archetype of the Barbarian class: a civilised person relearning Barbarian skills. If it had any drmatically interesting mechanics that set it out from the crowd I might think again, but it basically doesn't.

 

[Azgulor]

But an Archetype is not a class. There is no Knight class, no Archer class, no Cavalry Archer class, no Asshuri class, no Kidnapper class, no Slaver class, no Tomb Raider class. Why? because al of them can be handled by existing classes. All of the above can be produced using pure or mixed Soldier, Noble, Nomad, Scholar and Thief. The base classes are nicely generic and customisable enough that you can cover a wide variety of different archetypes with each class. Why does the Borderer archetype get special treatment? Its just an archetype of the Barbarian class: a civilised person relearning Barbarian skills. If it had any drmatically interesting mechanics that set it out from the crowd I might think again, but it basically doesn't.

Except that in in class-based games, archetype often is a class. Usually, game designers pick what they consider the most essential archetypes to emulate for their system/setting. The Frontiersman or Scout archetype was apparently viewed as a more necessary archetype than say a Knight, which some have made a case for. Why should my scout have to be a savage fighter, a mounted warrior, or (worse) a larcenous thief? Using your argument, I could use different class combinations to argue that other classes aren't necessary either.

My other question is still unanswered: If you don't like the borderer, why not remove it from your game. Why should it be removed from the RPG?

I think your criteria applies well to a less-defined-class-based game such as True20, where each Warrior is customized according to your vision of the archetype. I don't think it holds up as well in a class=archetype game such as Conan.

(And while the breadth of the Conan classes and multiclass combos allow for greater variation in archetypes, Conan is still a class=archetype RPG. The fact that so many different archetypes can be emulated using just the base classes is a testament to the flexibility of the game and the Mongoose writers' ability.)

Azgulor

 

[Daz]

Mongoose Conan RPG called "Barbarian" doesn't mean that these two are identical. REH is referring to culture, fundamental assumptions and what you are. The Mongoose class refers to a skill and ability set; what you do. They are different concepts.[/quote[
Agreed but in a class-based system those two things should match as closely as possible, that's the whole point of HAVING a class base system.

If the classes don't match the archetypes then there's very little point in not going with a classless system.

 

[kintire]

Why should my scout have to be a savage fighter, a mounted warrior, or (worse) a larcenous thief? Using your argument, I could use different class combinations to argue that other classes aren't necessary either.

You persist in ascribing attitudes to skill sets. And there is no other class that is so easily covered by another.

My other question is still unanswered: If you don't like the borderer, why not remove it from your game. Why should it be removed from the RPG?

Because it is duplicated by one and possibly two other classes, and isn't needed.

I don't think it holds up as well in a class=archetype game such as Conan.

Conan is not a class equals archetype game. It is a Race/Class = archetype game. A Turanian Nomad is a very different archetype from a Shemite Nomad. A Kushite Barbarian is a very different archetype to an Aesir Barbarian. You can't just equate classes with archetypes and ignore the impact of culture.

If the classes don't match the archetypes then there's very little point in not going with a classless system

And the Barbarian class meets the skills of the borderer archetype perfectly. Hyborian barbarian... excellent match.

 

[Azgulor]

Kintire,

I guess I have to conclude that your interpretation of the game and mine are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You see a signifcant distinction between different races taking levels in the same class (I agree) but don't see the distinction between the Borderer and the Barbarian (or Nomad). I see a big difference in a savage barbarian's abilities and mindset vs. those of a civilized frontiersman or military scout.

Between the Conan RPG, Acroos the Thunder River, and Hyboria's Fiercest if you don't see how the two are/can be different, I don't think anything I can post on a forum is going to change your mind.

I am still surprised that you haven't suggested adopting this criteria more broadly. Using your Barbarian-fits-the-bill v. the Borderer argument, shouldn't the pirate be eliminated in favor of a Barbarian/Thief multiclass? (As you might expect, I would say no.)

For me the proof is in actual play. I've got two campaigns running. Both have borderers or borderer multi-classes. Neither have barbarians. The borderer resonated more than the barbarian or nomad with those players for achieving the archetypes they wanted.

Azgulor

 

[Netherek]

Do you understand the difference between what you where and how you fight?

I do indeed. What you are is your basic identity, your fundamental assumptions, your basic culture. It is reflected in the game by your Race, and how you are roleplayed. How you fight is the skillset that you have built up over your career; it is reflected by your class.

Yes, you are correct that Conan wore plate, took a civilized position of power, and yet Conan was still a barbarian. He never took up civilized Honour, Fighting styles, or religions.

He absolutely did take up civilised fighting styles, where he found them useful, and incorporated them into his own style. Witness his expert archery in Queen of the Black Coast... not a Cimmerian speciality at all!

What you need to understand is that just because REH refers to Conan as a "Barbarian" and there is a classin Mongoose Conan RPG called "Barbarian" doesn't mean that these two are identical. REH is referring to culture, fundamental assumptions and what you are. The Mongoose class refers to a skill and ability set; what you do. They are different concepts. And what that also means is that when REH says that civilised people cannot become barbarians, he is NOT talking about the Mongoose class.

Not in a way that would suggest that Conan is more of a Soldier than a Barbarian in the way the cultural outlooks have been applied to those classes. Conan clear uses some techniques, but not the school of thought.

Umm... Sutek, try the Mobility feats, Borderers don't get these and the Nomad and Barbie do.

Which means that Barbies and Nomads have more in common as that is a much more significant feature than Favored Terrain.

Not at all. The mobility feats a free feats: anyone can take them, its just Barbies and Nomads have to. Favoured Terrain is a unique class ability that no one else can get.

Again you are wrong. The Mobility "feats" of Imp. Mobility and Greater Mobility are exclusive to the Barbie, Nomad, and Pirate. If you want to reduce classes, it would be more appropriate to reduce those three into one class and call it the Raider. As that is what all of those have in common, besides the Mobility track and fighting outlook.

Sorry, but I can't fathom the rationale for dropping the Borderer.

Allow me to clarify

1) There is REH-precedent for the Borderer.

Is there? I've quoted the description before. These are Hyborians who are fighting the Picts using their own skills. They sneak like the Picts, fight like the Picts, even use the same weapons as the Picts (although metal versions of course). They are civilised people rediscovering barbaric skills through necessity. They are represented much better by Hyborians with the Barbarian class.

A class is made up of more than just a skill set, besides Barbarian do wear armor by the way... The reason the Borderers from the Borderlands have become Pict like is that the civilized tools (heavy armor, large and cumbersome melee weapons) are a detriment to survival in the Pictish wilderness. Like the American Frontier men did in the early colonial period of America, which this part of Howards world is inspired from. The American colonial picked up many tecniques that were much like the Native population, but that's a far cry from complete adoption of there ways.

) The Nomad is a tribal (usually barbaric or at the very least not "civilized") mouted warrior archetype. If a nomad has a Code of Honor it's probably going to be the Barbaric Code of Honor.

No its not. Its a skillset appropriate for a mounted warrior who spends a good deal of time in the wilds. It fits a Turanian mounted archer excellently... and they have a thousand year old civilisation with cities, silk and steel that rivals the Hyborians at their height. Its a skillset, not a culture (although its a skillset that appeals more to some cultures than others of course)

Wrong again, the Turanians have become civilized to the point that it's suggested that they should have the Soldier as their favored instead of Nomad, you can find this in Hyboria's Fiercest under Turan.

3) Barbarian ranges from the clannish warband to the primitive savage. A ferocious fighter that disdains civilization. Can't really see this guy with the Civlized Code of Honor.

Once again, your race is your culture, not your class. The Barbarian class is a skillset for a warrior who favours individual ferocity over group effort, and is self sufficient. It is class suggested by Mongoose for Argossean gladiators (with slight revision), as well a Cimmerian marauders. These are the gladiators who are the darlings of high Argossean society and can mingle with the rich and famous.

Books like Across the Thunder River and Hyboria's Fiercest convincingly demonstrate (at least to me) that the Borderer is not only a viable character archetype in Conan, but a necessary one

I absolutely agree. There are many archetypes that cannot be removed from Conan's world and leave it the same. The canny borderer is one. The mounted knight another. The Bossonian archer, the Turanian cavalry archer, the Shemite asshuri, the kidnapper, the slaver and the tomb raider to name just a few. All of these archetypes give the world its colour.

But an Archetype is not a class. There is no Knight class, no Archer class, no Cavalry Archer class, no Asshuri class, no Kidnapper class, no Slaver class, no Tomb Raider class. Why? because al of them can be handled by existing classes. All of the above can be produced using pure or mixed Soldier, Noble, Nomad, Scholar and Thief. The base classes are nicely generic and customisable enough that you can cover a wide variety of different archetypes with each class. Why does the Borderer archetype get special treatment? Its just an archetype of the Barbarian class: a civilised person relearning Barbarian skills. If it had any drmatically interesting mechanics that set it out from the crowd I might think again, but it basically doesn't.[/quote]

Again this is wrong, the classes are Archetypes in there broad spectrum. That's the point of classes. Otherwise it would be classless, or going with the Gestalt series having Warrior, Expert, Scholar/Diplomat. We don't have that, and we don't want it.

 

[kintire]

I see a big difference in a savage barbarian's abilities and mindset vs. those of a civilized frontiersman or military scout.

Between the Conan RPG, Acroos the Thunder River, and Hyboria's Fiercest if you don't see how the two are/can be different, I don't think anything I can post on a forum is going to change your mind.

They are very different... but not in skills. I'll say this again; there is nothing in your class about your mindset.

I am still surprised that you haven't suggested adopting this criteria more broadly. Using your Barbarian-fits-the-bill v. the Borderer argument, shouldn't the pirate be eliminated in favor of a Barbarian/Thief multiclass? (As you might expect, I would say no.)

No, because they don't fit. Barbarians are rural and outdoors skill based, thieves aren't melee combatants. They are different skill sets.

Not in a way that would suggest that Conan is more of a Soldier than a Barbarian in the way the cultural outlooks have been applied to those classes. Conan clear uses some techniques, but not the school of thought.

Yes. Exactly. He has taken a series of civilised classes, and uses the appropriate skills, but this has had no effect on his mindset or cultural attitudes. The same applies when a civilised person takes the barbarian class.

If you want to reduce classes, it would be more appropriate to reduce those three into one class and call it the Raider. As that is what all of those have in common

Why? One is sea based, one is wilderness based, one is cavalry based. They are meaningfully different.

The American colonial picked up many tecniques that were much like the Native population, but that's a far cry from complete adoption of there ways.

Given that I am flatly denying that picking up a class has the kind of implications for one's culture you think it has, this just isn't an issue for me.

Wrong again, the Turanians have become civilized to the point that it's suggested that they should have the Soldier as their favored instead of Nomad, you can find this in Hyboria's Fiercest under Turan.

Indeed, because they have regular armies as well. Doesn't change the fact that most light cavalry will have Nomad levels.

Again this is wrong, the classes are Archetypes in there broad spectrum. That's the point of classes

I'm sorry, you are wrong. The classes are part of the archetype, but you just can't ignore the contribution of the culture.

 

[Bregales]

I've haven't gotten back onto this thread in a while. As for your reply way back when on page 3 of this threaadkintire, no problem, I don't think there's a pissing contest going on, just differences of opinion. In the essence of your stance I agree, I like simplified systems more than a myriad of rules, sub-rules, offset rules, and et cetera. But on this one issue I differ: I am very happy with the Borderer class and would not be happy if it were removed from the next edition of the core rules.

I have to agree with you on a point: I can't find it at the moment, but I thought I read a post that classes are not in the races, whereas every race in this game has starting favored classes and prohibited classes for beginning characters, so the race/culture factor does apply.

I just feel such an affinity for the Borderer that I have to defend it's maintained existence in this system. Coming from upstate New York, growing up in the country and always being in love with the wild (it's in my genes I would argue, being the descendent of a frontiersman who fought with and allied with different tribes in the 1700s for example) I have always preferred this game class option and must insist it remain.

That being said however, I must reiterate what I often write on these boards: As the GM, you're the lord of your own universe, you're in charge, so if there's something in the game that'd you'd rather change or drop or substitute, go ahead! In the end that's the GM's task and reward. 8)

 

[Sutek]

Umm... Sutek, try the Mobility feats, Borderers don't get these and the Nomad and Barbie do.

To defend my not listing the Mobility Class Features (yes it's a feat that anyone can take, but in this instance it is a Class Feature), I was asked about why I'd chosen the Borderer to axe or whatever, and I was comparing Class Features to the Borderer class, not to Nomad.

I can list it this way:

• Barbarian : 3 features in common with Borderer, 4 with Nomad
• Nomad: 4 features in common with Barbarian, 9 with Borderer
• Borderer : 3 features in common with Barbarian, 9 with Nomad

I just feel such an affinity for the Borderer that I have to defend it's maintained existence in this system.

I didn't say it should go entirely, and I think that's kintire's opinion too. The discussion about what a "Class" is doesn't enter into it. What I'm getting at is that the Borderer and Nomad have so many class features in common that they may as well be balled into a single, terrain-centric class with different options at certain levels.

My Class Features list was just a stab in the dark, but I thought it was pretty Borderer-generous. The "options points" were at certain levels as follows:
lvl2 - Combat style OR Bonus Feat
lvl5 - Combat style OR Nomad Charge
lvl7 - Guide OR Bonus Feat
lvl10- Combat style OR Nomad Charge
lvl13- Guide OR Bonus Feat
lvl15- Guide OR Bonus Feat
lvl18- Swift Tracker OR 4th Favored Terrain +1

I thought that was a pretty good spread allowing a Borderer to be created by sticking to the Guide option each time, but if you wanted to you could choose Bonus feats making for an even better Borderer. On the other hand, you could choose the Nomad Charge option each time, or mix it up as you go. Just the way Mobility expands each time you take it, Combat Style, Guide and Nomad Charge would do the same.

But it was just a sketch. Nothing to be a definite direction or example I think should be implemented. I just see too many similarities between the two classes such that they inhibit one another when multi-classing. Since there are so many fetures in common, you end up really doing you character a disservice rather than creating the ultimate Terrain badass, which seems like what should happen with the two classes combined.

BTW...
The closest thing that a Class resembles is an occupation, not a culture or whatever. It's the character's job. Being a Barbarian for a living requires certian inate ablities, as does being a Thief. Classes are cross-cultural, and the Race choices represent those cultures.

 

[Netherek]

That's where you and I really disagree here...

Each Favored Terrain is one feature, not each time it increases, the features of Favored have a much smaller impact on the game then Imp. and Greater Mobility. So in that outlook the Barbie and Nomad have more in common.

Why? One is sea based, one is wilderness based, one is cavalry based. They are meaningfully different.

Umm... Really, I thought the barbie was more an undisciplined warrior, not the master of the wild. They are more adapted than a soldier for life in the wilds, but are generally lacking in the disciplined combat of civilized ways. The reason to make the Barbie, Nomad, and Pirate the same and classify it as a raider makes more sense as it is taking the fundimental outlook of fighting style into account. Those classes rely on fast, moving, wild fighting techniques that you expect from undisciplined warriors.

So in that outlook,

Raider, Scout, Noble, Soldier, Scholar, and Thief would be the class. It's a clean and logical drop. I am not promoting this, I like the setup as it exists, but when it comes to streamlining it's more logical to take the fundamental aspects of the class that have commonalities.

 

[Krushnak]

yes barbarian is probably a good class for a westermark frontiersman sometimes to represent him 'going native' and becoming more like the picts than hyborians. but you have to remember that borderers are spread all over he hyborian kingdoms and definately dont have the direct influence from a barbaric culture to warrant them being barbarians.

it still seems kind of wrong that civilised people becoming more bararic could then be just as good as already exsisting barbarians. if you wanted to represent the slide from being a soldier to borderer to barbarian more you could allow the borderer to take versatility as his fighting style.

the borderer as it stands is a good stand alone class for representing frontiersmen, foresters, game keepers and army scouts.

class is as much of a definition of your culture as your race or the geography of the land you live in.

 

[Sutek]

That's where you and I really disagree here...

Each Favored Terrain is one feature, not each time it increases, the features of Favored have a much smaller impact on the game then Imp. and Greater Mobility. So in that outlook the Barbie and Nomad have more in common.

We don't "disagree". You just didnt'understand me.

Make it incremental, such that each time you take "Terrain Knowledge" or whatever, it either goes up by +1 or you can start another terrain feature as long as you have +3 in other ones. That's the progression used in the book, but they just don't state it. I think it works better and grants more flexibiltiy if it is incremental and adding new terrains is optional.

Currently, each +2 or +5 or, whatever level you like, is a separate Feature. At each level you gain a new one, You dont'currently gain "Favoured Terrain" and increase it each time you get to a level where it is offered.

Maybe I wan't entirely clear what I meant.

I'll also take this opportunity to say that nowhere in the Barbarian Class does it intimate that they are a kind of Wilderness Wildman Warrior at all. As a template, a Barbarian can be used to generate a savage city thug or the basis for a vicious Pirate corsair. It all depends on whether you are choosing to use the word "Barbarian" to reflect the traditional and Conan-influenced image, or if you are just looking at the class feature and BAB/Feat progression as a character Class template.

I choose the latter, and in that sense, the Barbarian class satisfies the "savage warrior" archetype.

Also along that line of reasoning, both Borderer and Nomad conflict ro ownership of the "wanderer warrior" archetype to a degree I find wasteful, when they could be molded into a single, more useful archetype with qualities of both.

 

[Netherek]

That's true, a barbie isn't just a wilderness warrior if you play are with the skill list as a variant, and that is exceptable. I just see the Nomad and the Barbie being more alike. A nomad isn't a dedicated scout, they are nomadic uncivilized/undisciplined warriors. So you can just as easily drop nomad and then give the horse options in place of versatility.

That's why I think leave it as is, yes there are overlaps with the classes as they have similarities, but have enough distinction to stand on their own.