In Defence of Borderers

[kintire]

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

I am absolutely not suggesting that the Borderer as an archetype should disappear. I just think it is better reflected by Barbarian (or Nomad with some tweaking).

Really, I thought the barbie was more an undisciplined warrior, not the master of the wild

Mostly he is, but he does get outdoors skills and a few feats.

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

There's more to class than fighting style, its the full skill set. Anyway, Nomad and Pirate are not very similar fighting styles; there are few instances of mounted naval combat, and Pirates are not really up for wilderness survival. Beyond a bit of fishing. Barbarian is closer, but the skill sets are different.

definately dont have the direct influence from a barbaric culture to warrant them being barbarians.

/sigh. Classes are not cultures. You don't need any influence from a culturally barbaric people to adopt the skill set referred to as "barbarian".

class is as much of a definition of your culture as your race

It is utterly and absolutely not. An Aesir noble will have far more in common with an Aesir barbarian than he ever will with a Vendhyan Noble.

 

[Sutek]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying at least: That you feel a Nomad is just as barbaric as a Barbarian, but the Barbarian class is geared towards lots of fighting prowess and the Nomad is geared more toward terrain and mounted knowledge, so they feel more reflective of one another to you. Is that correct?

I'm speaking soley from the words that are in the lists of Class Features. Nomad and Borderer have so many of the same class features as to be almost identical classes compared to looking at Thief versus Nomad or Thief versus Borderer. In those cases, multicalssing, or indeed if looked as as lone class options, all of the classes have unique strengths and weaknesses. It's only when you look at and compare Nomad and Borderer with one another that it appears that there's is room for overlap because they themes of both are so similar.

Put it another way, if I just say the phrase "Savage medium weapon combat class with inherant terrain specialties,"...am I talking about the Nomad ot the Borderer? Other classes are more easily identified by short descriptors of thier mechanical and archetypal role in the game.

 

[kintire]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying at least: That you feel a Nomad is just as barbaric as a Barbarian, but the Barbarian class is geared towards lots of fighting prowess and the Nomad is geared more toward terrain and mounted knowledge, so they feel more reflective of one another to you. Is that correct?

Mostly. I confess I largely ignore Terrain Familiarity when comparing classes as it seems so marginal to me...

Put it another way, if I just say the phrase "Savage medium weapon combat class with inherant terrain specialties,"...am I talking about the Nomad ot the Borderer?

Nomad. I don't use the Borderer

More seriously, The Nomad does have a niche which is clearly distinct from the Barbarian: Cavalry versus infantry to put it crudely. I confess that Nomad hasn't been a popular class in my games, so I'm uncertain whether the Nomad reflects the role well... it looked alright reading it over. If it doesn't it may be up for a redesign, but I think it does at least have a theoretical niche, which the Borderer doesn't (well, that is to say assuming the Barbarian is kept).

 

[Netherek]

Really, Calvery vs. Infantry...

Hey if the Soldier can roll them into one, why the Barbie...

I am not advocating change, I am saying from a mechanic perspective this is just as easy to do as they are similar enough if you remove the Horse features of the Nomad and the Versatility and other melee skills of the Barbie.

Also Barbies, Borderers, and Nomad have the vertually the same "Skills" with a couple that are different in each.

As to Aesir Nobles, the only way you have that is to use the class variant from Fiercest, and should then be able to see the utility of the Borderer class...

If you don't like the term Borderer being used to represent scouts because it doesn't match the literature, than call them scouts and have the Borderers of the Borderland be multi-classed Barbies.

 

[kintire]

Also Barbies, Borderers, and Nomad have the vertually the same "Skills" with a couple that are different in each.

By skill set I am not referring just to the skills. Skill set is the thing that the class represents; but it includes class features and feats.

As to Aesir Nobles, the only way you have that is to use the class variant from Fiercest,

Nice focus on the specific to avoid the general point. The same applies to any combination: Hyborian Nobles vs Vendhyan Nobles, Stygian Scholars vs Pictish Scholars, etc etc. The point is that someone of the same race is far more similar to you than someone of the same class.

I am not advocating change, I am saying from a mechanic perspective this is just as easy to do

And I'm saying I don't care. I'm not advocating merging borderer because it's class features are too similar to Barbarian, I'm advocating junking it because it's niche is already covered by Barbarian, and better.

 

[slaughterj]

[And I'm saying I don't care. I'm not advocating merging borderer because it's class features are too similar to Barbarian, I'm advocating junking it because it's niche is already covered by Barbarian, and better.

That's all well and good, but many of us enjoy playing semi-civilized Borderers rather than raging Barbarians and would prefer to keep it. And it's certainly better to have more classes and options rather than less. So it should stay, and you can choose not to use it if you don't like it, that makes the most sense.

 

[kintire]

That's all well and good, but many of us enjoy playing semi-civilized Borderers rather than raging Barbarians and would prefer to keep it

You can play a semi civilised borderer using the barbarian class.

And it's certainly better to have more classes and options rather than less

Why? Superfluous class do nothing but take up space.

 

[Sutek]

I still dont'see Barnarian and Borderer as being too similar at all. Barbarians are all about fighting, and Borderers can opt for 2wpn or ranged specialization and have terrain features (which if you don't pay attention to them, then both a major strength of the class, and nearly this entire discussion thread, are eluding you).

The idea that racial influences mean more than class influences I totally agree with, and that's the way the game is designed (over D&D, that is, where it's dead even). So I don't think character race really enters into it; we ought not throw that into the discussion.

I'll leave it at this for a while: I made my own list of Borderer, Nomad and Barbarian class features for each level and compared then side by side. The Nomad and Barbarian have huge similarities in thier class features on a level by level basis that no other classes in the game have, so I tried out a hybrid class feature list that included as much of both as possible.

Try it yourself: Make your own hybrid or at least look at the features right next to each other. I didn't even look at Class Skills, but I'll do that now. The Hit Dice are even the same. What's the difference besides Combat Style for Borderers and Mounted stuff and Nomad Charge for Nomads?

After looking at the class skills, why the heck do Nomads have Knowledge (Local) and Borders have Ride?

 

[Netherek]

Sutek, according to class framework in various D&D articles, Class features that have a increment frame work are considered 1 feature for the most part, occasionally 2. So under those guidelines, Favored Terrain, Seamanship, Nomad Charge, are one feature that grows in power incrementally. Each given Terrain would be a Feature, so that leaves the three fiercest very similar in class framework...

The other problem if you roll the Nomad and Borderer into one, you end up losing either the dedicated scout, or the dedicated Nomad as that is really all you can call them. This is also the same problem when trying to roll the Barbie and Borderer into one. And it's a problem if you roll the Barbie/Nomad into one as one can conceivably be an an civilized footman, who learns the nomad ways later in life. If you roll any of these into a single class you actually limit the possibilities of character design...

 

[slaughterj]

That's all well and good, but many of us enjoy playing semi-civilized Borderers rather than raging Barbarians and would prefer to keep it

You can play a semi civilised borderer using the barbarian class.

And it's certainly better to have more classes and options rather than less

Why? Superfluous class do nothing but take up space.

But I can't get the particular class features I want from barbarian, only from borderer. And that demonstrates that it is not superfluous.

Personally, I think nomad and borderer are much more similar to one another, from a "feel" perspective, than barbarian and borderer, but that may be due in part to the terrain bonuses class feature that they have in common.

 

[Sutek]

I can't say I'd advocate rolling the Barbarian and Border into one class because they are too different. Far too different.

Sure, the Terrain stuff could be listed as a single feature that ramps up over levels, but when you can get up to four such Terrain abilities, that's four separate Class Features to count.

Not only that, but the Nomad and Borderer progrees at thier Terrain abilities almost level for level.

I still cannot for the life of me see what folks are looking at Barbarian and Borderer as similar. They are so vastly different in thier rules and class features that it makes Nomads and Borderers even more similar by comparison.

Anyway, I may create a hybrid myself, but I still suggest that meching the two classes of Borderer and Nomad into one Scout type giving the player the ability to choose what Class Features he wants to progress in at given levels would be the most ideal way to go. It makes room for other classes to be included and merges two classes that are already mostly identical anyway.

 

[kintire]

Barbarians are all about fighting, and Borderers can opt for 2wpn or ranged specialization and have terrain features (which if you don't pay attention to them, then both a major strength of the class, and nearly this entire discussion thread, are eluding you).

Hardly. I'm not unaware they exist, I just think you are overstating their importance. A simple listing of number of class features doesn't move me much; especially with no assessment of how important they are, and especially with counting incremental feats seperatly at each increment. Its not a similarity in mechanics that worries me. its the similarity in role.

If you roll any of these into a single class you actually limit the possibilities of character design...

Not if you do it sensibly. You can produce either archetype with a single class.

it's a problem if you roll the Barbie/Nomad into one as one can conceivably be an an civilized footman, who learns the nomad ways later in life

Yes, yes you can. And this is not a problem at all, becuase "civilised" is a comment about your culture, and "barbarian" is your class, so there is no conflict.

 

[Sutek]

Its not a similarity in mechanics that worries me. its the similarity in role.

Now, you went and summed it up better than I have b een able to in all these pages. (lol)

And this is a "role" playing game, right.

That's what I dislike about the "space" that both Nomad and Borderer occupy separately. It seems to me that they occupy the same roles without too many distinct differences, and could be (as you say, sensibly) rolled into a single class that can get you to the same (or very similar) goal.

I just think a two-weapon borderer with Nomad charge and better knowledge mounts in addition to exceptional ability at crossing various terrain types is a perfect amalgam, and still doesn't break the concept of either original classes. I'm also not suggesting "hey, let's put them together to be a totally awesome badass class" either. It would have to be in line with other classes, but having them separate for really just Combat Style, Nomad Charge and being able to pick the best camel of the bunch just like a waste of potential to me.

 

[Netherek]

Hardly. I'm not unaware they exist, I just think you are overstating their importance. A simple listing of number of class features doesn't move me much; especially with no assessment of how important they are, and especially with counting incremental feats seperatly at each increment. Its not a similarity in mechanics that worries me. its the similarity in role.

They actually are not similar in role, a barbie is a warrior first and formost, the Borderer is primarily a scout (one that can be either civilized or barbaric.) If a barbarian is purely a cultural albeit "racial" characteristic and you don't care about mechanics, than why not drop the Barbie class and use Soldier for Barbaric warriors???

A simple listing of class features does matter to you, you just have an emotional dislike of the Borderer due to it's refences of the Westermark Borderers that the class got its name from.

If you roll any of these into a single class you actually limit the possibilities of character design...

Not if you do it sensibly. You can produce either archetype with a single class.

Actually you cannot create a true scout out of the Barbarian, especially one whom are for the military. Also, the barbarian class is ill suited for the Tauranians of Aquilonia.

it's a problem if you roll the Barbie/Nomad into one as one can conceivably be an an civilized footman, who learns the nomad ways later in life

Yes, yes you can. And this is not a problem at all, becuase "civilised" is a comment about your culture, and "barbarian" is your class, so there is no conflict.

Actually that's a typo there, it was supposed to be uncivilized fighting style, which doesn't truly reflect culture, it reflects how one learned to battle. Think of Civilized as formalized, it might help with interpriting the differences. As much as you think a Bordie is reduntant, by your stance that its about culture i.e. race that determines what is civilized then why not drop the redundancy of the warriors and use Soldier???

It would be a simple matter to remove the cultural based classes with your point of view, and have Scout, Soldier, Thief, Pirate, Scholar, and Noble. You wouldn't have any cultural based classes with that setup, but would lose out the archetypes, and even lose the True feel for the vast differences between the barbaric and the civilized.

 

[Baduin]

I think the idea of Nomad class is very good, but execution is not perfect. It should be ultimate light cavalryman, horse archer etc (not necessarily a nomad in the strict sense, however). And if horses are not used very much used in a campaign, it would be better not to use this class.

I would get rid of favoured terrain, and add some horse related abilities.

1. Horse-master: something like paladin's mount, or druid's animal companion. Eg your horse can gain hit dice up to half your level, gaining hit points, attack bonuses etc as usual. It represents the PC selecting and training the best mount, etc. Your horse gains two hit dice when you gain a level, up to half your level. If you lose a horse, you must train, steal or buy a new one. (for each hit dice price increases by lets say +500 sp). Horse can also gain bonus abilities like paladin's mount.

2. Parthian shot: you can shot at any point of your movement - before moving, at any point during movement, or after movement.

3. Riding hanging from horse's flank - this way you can use the horse as a cover, or pick up something from the ground - eg beheaded goat when playing Buzkashi. Moving to or from a normal position is a move action.

4. Ability to cover very long distances quickly, especially if possessing spare horses.

5. All Mobility feats should be mounted mobility instead - usable only while mounted. There is no reason for a Nomad to be especially quick on his own feet.

6. Nomad should be proficient with all cavalry bows (Shemite bow, Hyrcanian bow).

7. Nomads should gain Mounted Archery and perhaps also Improved Mounted Archery (eg - no penalty when the mount is double moving).

8. Proficiency with such weapons as lasso, used to bind opponent at range (lasso was used by Tartars and Mongols).

 

[Netherek]

I think the idea of Nomad class is very good, but execution is not perfect. It should be ultimate light cavalryman, horse archer etc (not necessarily a nomad in the strict sense, however). And if horses are not used very much used in a campaign, it would be better not to use this class.

I would get rid of favoured terrain, and add some horse related abilities.

I agree here, by removing the Favoured Terrain you definately remove the redundancy, if that is done, then Desert Terrain must be added to the Borderer though, and maybe rename it to Scout. Then I'd even add the either the Hyrkanian Light Cavalry style or Koth Skirmisher Combat Style to the Borderer/Scout.

1. Horse-master: something like paladin's mount, or druid's animal companion. Eg your horse can gain hit dice up to half your level, gaining hit points, attack bonuses etc as usual. It represents the PC selecting and training the best mount, etc. Your horse gains two hit dice when you gain a level, up to half your level. If you lose a horse, you must train, steal or buy a new one. (for each hit dice price increases by lets say +500 sp). Horse can also gain bonus abilities like paladin's mount.

This one seems a little too fantasy for my tastes, but that is more opinion than relying on fact.

2. Parthian shot: you can shot at any point of your movement - before moving, at any point during movement, or after movement.

Nice.

3. Riding hanging from horse's flank - this way you can use the horse as a cover, or pick up something from the ground - eg beheaded goat when playing Buzkashi. Moving to or from a normal position is a move action.

It's already available as Snatch a Mounted Maneuver, check RoK and H. Fiercest, and Cover under the Ride skill

4. Ability to cover very long distances quickly, especially if possessing spare horses.

There's Coax as a Mounted Maneuver. Though maybe a bonus would do.

5. All Mobility feats should be mounted mobility instead - usable only while mounted. There is no reason for a Nomad to be especially quick on his own feet.

That would be over the top, maybe allow the use of the feats at one step lower so when you attain Improved you can use Standard Mobility when mounted, and then have Greater allow on a mount at 20.

6. Nomad should be proficient with all cavalry bows (Shemite bow, Hyrcanian bow).

I disagree here, the relevent races have familiarity already so with the Martial Proficiency they get for the class they will be proficient with their racial bow. I think the current set up is fine.

7. Nomads should gain Mounted Archery and perhaps also Improved Mounted Archery (eg - no penalty when the mount is double moving).

Definately plausible, esp. with the removal of Fav. Ter.

8. Proficiency with such weapons as lasso, used to bind opponent at range (lasso was used by Tartars and Mongols).

I like that, I'd include the Whip as well.

 

[Foxworthy]

8. Proficiency with such weapons as lasso, used to bind opponent at range (lasso was used by Tartars and Mongols).

The lasso was invented by Native Americans, while used by the Tartars it was after the discovery of America. Which would make it a good proficinecy for the Picts but not the Conan nomads.

 

[Baduin]

Lasso was used by all horse-cultures. American Plains Indian (NOT forest Indians from the East Coast who were used as model for Picts) used lasso - which, like horse-riding, they learned from the Spanish (Sp. lazo, from Latin laceum noose cf. lace).

Here is a description of lasso by Pausanias, circa 160 AD:

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/pausanias-bk1.html

"[1.21.5] Among the votive offerings there is a Sauromatic breast plate. On seeing this a man will say that no less than Greeks are foreigners skilled in the arts. For the Sauromatae have no iron, neither mined by them selves nor yet imported. They have, in fact, no dealings at all with the foreigners around them. To meet this deficiency they have contrived inventions. In place of iron they use bone for their spear-blades, and cornel-wood for their bows and arrows, with bone points for the arrows. They throw a lasso round any enemy they meet, and then turning round their horses upset the enemy caught in the lasso."

Mongols of Genghis-Han (XIII century) also had lassos.

 

[Sutek]

I think the idea of Nomad class is very good, but execution is not perfect. It should be ultimate light cavalryman, horse archer etc (not necessarily a nomad in the strict sense, however). And if horses are not used very much used in a campaign, it would be better not to use this class.

I think you're definitely on to something here. Make them more akin to Persian horse cav, and then see if that fits REH sources, rather than the other way around. Duplicating REH's works is great, but this is also supposed to be a RPG and, by virtue of that, fun.

1. Horse-master: something like paladin's mount, or druid's animal companion. Eg your horse can gain hit dice up to half your level, gaining hit points, attack bonuses etc as usual.

I'd suggest that Ride skill ranks can be added to the mount's DV.

2. Parthian shot: you can shot at any point of your movement - before moving, at any point during movement, or after movement.

3. Riding hanging from horse's flank - this way you can use the horse as a cover, or pick up something from the ground - eg beheaded goat when playing Buzkashi. Moving to or from a normal position is a move action.

4. Ability to cover very long distances quickly, especially if possessing spare horses.

5. All Mobility feats should be mounted mobility instead - usable only while mounted. There is no reason for a Nomad to be especially quick on his own feet.

I agree with all but 5. Remember, if you drop a lot of the Terrain mod stuff you have a lot of holes to fill, and Mounted Prowess (or whatever) is a better idea for this class than Terrain anything - leave that to the Borderer.

6. Nomad should be proficient with all cavalry bows (Shemite bow, Hyrcanian bow).

7. Nomads should gain Mounted Archery and perhaps also Improved Mounted Archery (eg - no penalty when the mount is double moving).

Agreed. Make these guys total mounted fighters, and make Nomad Charge able to be executed while Mounted.

8. Proficiency with such weapons as lasso, used to bind opponent at range (lasso was used by Tartars and Mongols).

The lasso is too New World, and why bind when you can just kill 'em. (lol) There are nets and rope in Conan, so let the players get creative with setting snares and Rope Use.

Great ideas, Baduin. Welcome to the discussion!

 

[Foxworthy]

Lasso was used by all horse-cultures. American Plains Indian (NOT forest Indians from the East Coast who were used as model for Picts) used lasso - which, like horse-riding, they learned from the Spanish (Sp. lazo, from Latin laceum noose cf. lace).

Here is a description of lasso by Pausanias, circa 160 AD:

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/pausanias-bk1.html

"[1.21.5] Among the votive offerings there is a Sauromatic breast plate. On seeing this a man will say that no less than Greeks are foreigners skilled in the arts. For the Sauromatae have no iron, neither mined by them selves nor yet imported. They have, in fact, no dealings at all with the foreigners around them. To meet this deficiency they have contrived inventions. In place of iron they use bone for their spear-blades, and cornel-wood for their bows and arrows, with bone points for the arrows. They throw a lasso round any enemy they meet, and then turning round their horses upset the enemy caught in the lasso."

Mongols of Genghis-Han (XIII century) also had lassos.

Interesting. My info came from reference.com

lassolăs′ ō, lăsoo͞′ , light, strong rope, usually with a smooth, hard finish, made of a fine quality of hemp or nylon. It is used primarily for catching large animals such as cattle and horses. Horsehair or rawhide lassos were formerly common in America, but they have almost completely given way to the hemp and nylon ropes, which are far more efficient roping tools. The rope varies in length from 35 to 50 ft (11–15 m). At one end of the rope is a running knot or a metal ring by means of which a loop or noose is made. The loop is thrown, from as far away as 30 ft (9 m), around the horns or the feet of an animal and drawn tight. The lasso was invented by Native Americans, who used it effectively in war against the Spanish invaders. In the W United States and in parts of Latin America the lasso is a part of the equipment of a cattle herder. To use it on horseback requires great skill of the rider and his horse—the pull of the captured animal may throw the rider's horse, or the horse or rider may become entangled in the rope. The lasso is often called a lariat; the term lariat is applied also to a rope used in picketing, or tethering, animals.


The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2004, Columbia University Press.
Licensed from Columbia University Press

Looking at the greek version of the text seems to be they use the word seirais whic seems to be roughly equivalant to rope. Of course the latin route of lasso is laqueus which seems to mean noose which makes me think that Pausanias might have been refering to a noose as opposed to a lasso/lariat which would be the same basic principle in action since th main diffrence which would be in knots.

Of course to really figure it out would take a lot more effort than I'm willing to put in and it's just easier to assume that Columbia is wrong.