Solider vs. Barbarian

[sanseveria]

I`m thinking of implementing a very simple rule in regards to the soldier and the formation combat. I'm dropping the part that says he must fight along side 2 others.

If he has the formation combat, and wears the appropriate gear, he gets the bonus, regardless of who's with him.

SS

 

[Maximo]

OggSmash wrote

But use some sense and allow the situation to determine if a char should be flat footed on iniative loss and a bunch of the soldiers woes will go away.

That's what I think. Whenever I find nonsensical that someone sneak attacks somebody, I disallow it. Sneak attacks are intended to be used for backstabbing and simmilar tactics, not for open warfare. Perhaps in the future I will come along with a Combat Maneuver which allows to use a feint to do some extra damage with swashbuckling techniques. Anyway, it should be difficult to do the trick -the mark of a master fencer- or the thief class will seem more combat oriented than the soldier class, and I don't think that's the concept.
By the way, just taking out all Parry and Dodge bonuses is quite a benefit for making feint a powerful combat option. Full sneak attack damage makes it a powergamer's dream.
As for barbarians being better fighters than soldiers, I think, as others have pointed before, that it depends on the situation. I have not seen gaming unbalance at this point, and my Soldier players are happy with their characters, so that's it.

 

[slaughterj]

Something I do have a problem with is being flat footed in ALL lose initative situations. I do not see any reason for a char to be flat footed in a situation where he and his opponent are aware of one another, and NO sneak attacks should be allowed.

...

But use some sense and allow the situation to determine if a char should be flat footed on iniative loss and a bunch of the soldiers woes will go away.

I'm with you on this as well, it seems incredibly excessive, and seems to draw little distinction between being aware and unaware.

 

[sbarrie]

Here are two Combat Maneuvers I have introduced to my group to partially address this issue.

I like Combat Maneuvers. I've got a big 'ole stack of them now.

Quick Parry
Your trained reflexes always protect you against known threats.
Prerequisite: Parry, Wis 13+
Circumstance: You're attacked by a known opponent while flatfooted
Effect: Your Parry Defense is equal to 10+ your base Parry bonus + any shield bonus. You don't gain any further bonus from feats (including Parry) or Attributes, and you're still vulnerable to sneak attacks and similar effects.


Quick Dodge
Your nimble reflexes always protect you against known threats.
Prerequisite: Dodge, Int 13+
Circumstance: You're attacked by a known opponent while flatfooted
Effect: Your Dodge Defense is equal to 10+ your base Dodge bonus. You don't gain any further bonus from feats (including Dodge) or Attributes, and you're still vulnerable to sneak attacks and similar effects.

 

[grizzly ruin]

Head to head Barbarian vs Soldier the soldier is at a disadvantage, i dont have a big problem with this.

Personally it's not something that sits well with me.

(the rest of this isn't directed at you OggSmash )

I suppose my real question is why 3 out of 4 high BAB classes have an average of 6 extra special abilities built in to their class, not including abilities that continue to improve as they go up levels (trap sense, damage reduction, favored terrain, etc.)?

And then why do those same 3 classes also get 2 high save scores?

And finally they also get an extra 2 skill points per level.

I just don't understand why the soldier class wasn't given the attention it could have been given. The more I look at it, the more it just seems like a straight port of the D&D fighter with "Formation Combat" thrown on top of it.

There have been a variety of arguments ranging that Barbarians are supposed to be tougher or how it shouldn't affect roleplaying etc.

However the fact that barbarians should be tougher is something that should be reflected in the races that are barbarians (and it is), not is something so arbitrary as a "class".

Not to mention that Barbarian isn't actually any kind of a profession. No one, not even in the Hyborian age, said "I think I want to be a barbarian when I grow up".

Once you turn a story into a game you still need to have a modicum of class balance.

After looking at it long, I don't think there is anything wrong with the solider, rather some of the abilities given the other classes are over the top.

Chiefly; Improved Mobility, Greater Mobility, Mounted Mobility, Innate Damage reduction, Versatility (in particular improved critical and greater critical with ALL weapons) are all quite powerful and wide ranging abilities.

Then factor in the power of a high reflex save as discussed previously with regards to initiative.

It seems that the Hyborian age was designed to be a bit more of a "Hyper" D20 game. Which is great, but I think a few of the classes require a bit more looking into in the interests of class balance.

For example, neither the Borderer nor the Nomad could probably go against the Barbarian and survive. However put the nomad on a horse, or put the Borderer in a situation of survival and the odds swing back fairly.

This doesn't exist for the Soldier in my eyes. And there are no other parry based classes for him to multi-class with to take advantage of his strengths.

The Barbarian, Borderer, Nomad, Theif and Pirate can all mutliclass to their hearts content and not lose significantly in the dodge based/mobility department. Also a fair few of their special abilities and built-in feat chains stack nicely together.

Again this just isn't an option for the Soldier. Any class he multi-classes with will dilute his high parry bonus, which is one of his greatest strengths.

 

[argo]

This doesn't exist for the Soldier in my eyes. And there are no other parry based classes for him to multi-class with to take advantage of his strengths.

...

Again this just isn't an option for the Soldier. Any class he multi-classes with will dilute his high parry bonus, which is one of his greatest strengths.

Which is exactly why IMC I houseruled the Noble to have a good (3/4) parry bonus. Makes the Soldier/Noble multiclass very good and emphasises the whole "a soldier is a part of an army" pardagrim even more. Also emphasises the Noble as being the polar opposite of the barbarian: noble gets good parry and poor dodge becuase he is schooled, disciplined and educated, the barbarian gets good dodge and poor parry because he is wild, instinctive and self-taught.

Later.

 

[AZZA]

This doesn't exist for the Soldier in my eyes. And there are no other parry based classes for him to multi-class with to take advantage of his strengths.

...

Again this just isn't an option for the Soldier. Any class he multi-classes with will dilute his high parry bonus, which is one of his greatest strengths.

Which is exactly why IMC I houseruled the Noble to have a good (3/4) parry bonus. Makes the Soldier/Noble multiclass very good and emphasises the whole "a soldier is a part of an army" pardagrim even more. Also emphasises the Noble as being the polar opposite of the barbarian: noble gets good parry and poor dodge becuase he is schooled, disciplined and educated, the barbarian gets good dodge and poor parry because he is wild, instinctive and self-taught.

Later.

I like the sound of this. I have a soldier/noble in my game and I believe he will be quite happy with this alteration.
It might also be possible to give nobles a choice. High parry or maybe for the less martially inclined, a slightly higher dodge, say +1/2 and a slightly higher MA, say 1/3, for those sorcerer nobles.

I'm going to try out a new rule with my PC's for Flat footed. Basically I will allow a flat footed character to have a DV of 5 less than normal once his base DV reaches +6. The +6 figure is in line with the second attack BAB requirement. The character is still considered to be flat footed for the purposes of sneak attack. I havent decided whether he should get the bonus vs a successful feint, I'll think about that one.

I was also thinking about adding an archery formation style. It woudl give the character either +10 feet range increment or increase his point blank shot range by +5 feet. Any opinions? the requirement would be two other soldiers with the same formation style and all three using the same style of bow.

 

[OggSmash]

The reason I dont mind the Barbarian having an advantage in a one on one combat is he is also a warrior and I can live with edge going to barbarian. THe iniative issue creates a whole separate issue. It gives Pirates and Thieves the ability to face down the soldier and win easily should they win iniative. That is unbalanced. It also further screws the soldier against the Barbarian (at least on who is smart enough to finesse after winning first init.)

I agree though the Soldier is screwed for multi classing, the Noble getting 3/4 sounds good though and makes alot of sense.

 

[grizzly ruin]

Which is exactly why IMC I houseruled the Noble to have a good (3/4) parry bonus. Makes the Soldier/Noble multiclass very good and emphasises the whole "a soldier is a part of an army" pardagrim even more. Also emphasises the Noble as being the polar opposite of the barbarian: noble gets good parry and poor dodge becuase he is schooled, disciplined and educated, the barbarian gets good dodge and poor parry because he is wild, instinctive and self-taught.

Later.

I have to agree, I think that's a really good idea. I think it would make a great representation between Soldiers who just fight, and Soldiers who are born and bred to be officers.

 

[Sutek]

But soldiers aren't born and bred to be officiers in the Hyborian universe. Well, I mean , they may be, but then they have feats like Agile and stuff like that to represent that edge. I think you guys are confusing the Noble Class with just rich people - Nobles are intended to be elite and pure of blood-line and not the sort to engage in fighting themselves. A Noble/Soldier is then going to be someone who would never be truly as good an infantryman as someone who has spent his entire life in that profession (Soldier only).

Even in modern times, soldiers go through advanced training in order to become officers, and this is usually after some tough testing to see if they are capable (skill checks more easily passed due to high stat bonuses). Granted, West Point isn't inexpensive, but it doesn't follow that only the rich are eligible to be officers and especially only because of thier wealth.

I'd say that Soldiers have an edge over Barbarians in that they have generic feat slots with which to fill in any feat they choose. Barbarians are prdictable in that sense and yet a Soldier can be crafted to be superior or excel in areas where a Barbarian cannot, simply based on Class benefits/restrictions inherenet to them.

 

[SableWyvern]

[Wild Tangent]

Granted, West Point isn't inexpensive...

You're kidding???? :shock:

You can't become an officer in the US Army if you can't afford it???

:shock: :shock:

 

[Mayhem]

Nobles are intended to be elite and pure of blood-line and not the sort to engage in fighting themselves.

I strongly disagree. In a medieval and psuedo-medieval culture a good proportion of nobles will be *expected* to lead their men into combat. In many cases, the titles they hold will have been *earned* by their prowess in combat.

And Conan RPG supports this - not only in the descriptions of the armies of various countries, many of which include massive units of armoured nobles as heavy cavalry, but also in the fact that the hit bonus granted by the Regional feature pretty much cancels out the difference in BAB between Soldier and Noble.

 

[grizzly ruin]

I think you guys are confusing the Noble Class with just rich people - Nobles are intended to be elite and pure of blood-line and not the sort to engage in fighting themselves.

Both historically and in the game Nobles were quite often called upon to go to war. I'm sure there were a great deal of Nobles who had nothing to do with warfare, but in a place like ancient rome (which Aquilonia reminds me of most, "Aquilonia" coming from the word "Aquila" which was the Eagle battle standard of the Roman Legions) nobles were most certainly expected to go to war, to lead troops and to fight. You had no honor, and no hope of a political career, without doing so.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion

"Cavalry or equites. The cavalry was originally the most prestigious unit, where wealthy young Roman upstarts displayed their skill and prowess, laying the foundation for an eventual political career. Cavalry equipment was purchased by each of the cavalrymen and consisted of a round shield, helmet, body armour, sword and one or more javelins. The cavalry was outnumbered in the legion."

This follows along with Mayhem's posts. The reason why "knights" are almost always (there is one instance in the main rulebook where a group is referred to as "knights" but they aren't nobility) soldier/nobles is because they are

A) Out to prove their reputation/start a political career
B) Able to afford a Horse
C) Able to afford heavy armor
D) Expected by fealty to fight for their liege/country

Even in modern times, soldiers go through advanced training in order to become officers, and this is usually after some tough testing to see if they are capable (skill checks more easily passed due to high stat bonuses). Granted, West Point isn't inexpensive, but it doesn't follow that only the rich are eligible to be officers and especially only because of thier wealth.

Unfortunately that isn't relevant. You can't compare the modern armies to ancient armies. For the most part they are two completely different things.


I think a lot of people have the mindset that the Soldier class just means you are some sort of a grunt. While this should be true for someone who is 1st to 3rd level or so, once you go beyond that your character would either be an Officer of some kind, or a highly experienced veteran or soldier with special training. Beyond 8 or 10 most characters (of any class) are leaving the realm of normal human people way behind for the stuff of heroes and legends.

I see no reason why that should not apply to the "soldier" class as well.

And Conan RPG supports this - not only in the descriptions of the armies of various countries, many of which include massive units of armoured nobles as heavy cavalry, but also in the fact that the hit bonus granted by the Regional feature pretty much cancels out the difference in BAB between Soldier and Noble.

For the most part I agree with you, except although the regional feature grants a bonus "to hit" it does not equal a High BAB in that you won't have nearly as many attacks per round as a pure Soldier if you take alot of levels of Noble.

While in many ways the Noble is a very nice class for the Soldier to Multi with to gain special abilities is still lacks a great deal of the versatility granted to all of the mobility based classes in the way that they can multi together Barbarian, Nomad, Borderer, Pirate, Thief.

And I still hold onto my primary opinion that the Soldier is just the D&D fighter with formation combat glued on. Where as the rest of the classes (mostly) got alot more detail and attention.

 

[Sutek]

Wonderfully put, but one thing invalidates all that: This isn't Rome we're talking about - it's Conan.

Nobles are leaders, but not fighters. They are "courtly characters" favoring "brains over brawn" and are often accompanied by a retinue of fighters to do the fighting. Now, the book further goes on to explain that Nobles represent characters from "pampered courtiers to battle-hardened border lord" but this is a reflection of stats, feats and skills. Besides that, a "battle-hardened border lord" can be an utter fool or weakling too, having gone through many retinues to achieve his nobility.

I think in the Roman example, it's more appropriate to think of them as advanced level characters that are multi-classed and have all the right feats, not that Nobles make good warriors.

I'm not even certain how this fits into the topic at hand comparing and contrasting Soldier and Barbarian.

 

[grizzly ruin]

Wonderfully put, but one thing invalidates all that: This isn't Rome we're talking about - it's Conan.

While true, Howard obviously took a great deal of inspiration from the ancient world so I see no reason for us not to do so as well.

Nobles are leaders, but not fighters. They are "courtly characters" favoring "brains over brawn" and are often accompanied by a retinue of fighters to do the fighting.

If that's true why have an innate class ability called "Lead by Example" and not "Lead by Ordering people around".

In order for the companions of the noble to get the bonus granted by that ability the Noble must actually use his own abilities.

Nobles represent characters from "pampered courtiers to battle-hardened border lord"

And in that there is a great deal of leeway to build a Noble, or Noble/Multi-class of great variety. Which is good.

I'm not even certain how this fits into the topic at hand comparing and contrasting Soldier and Barbarian.

One could say the same of west point... :wink:

I think it's good that we are exploring where we'd like to take the Soldier class in our own personal games rathar than just stick to the Barbarian vs. Soldier topic. It seems as if the majority agree that the Barbarian is at once both more versatile and mechanically superior to the Soldier.

 

[Mayhem]

Has anyone considered makign teh soldiers Formation bonus "stackable"

IE you can take the second level in the same Formation as the first, increasing teh bonus. And the 3rd, 4th and 5th if you so choose (5th, because this method would make Formation Mastery redundant)?

This way, a soldier who chooses to specialise in just one or two forms of combat will gain quite a large bonus.

It might even be worth increasing what the bonus effects. Its already quite limited, only operating in circumstances much narrower (and IMO much harder to work into a game, especially if there are not 3 soldiers in the group!) than the bonuses that pirates, Nomads, and borderers get in their chosen "terrains".

In fact, taking it a step further, it might be worth giving it two sets of effects - one set useful for a lone soldier (which, face it, is more usually what you have in a party) and another set that builds upon the same bonus to make it even more effective when fighting in a unit.

****

And I reckon I would, as somebody else suggested, also add an Archer style, and also allow the skirmisher bonus to apply when weilding a ranged weapon other than a longbow, crossbow or Arbalast.

 

[AZZA]

I had a talk to my players and came up with the following style.
Archery
Whenever the soldier has two allied soldiers who have also selected Archery adjacent to him he gains +5ft bonus on his range increment and his point blank shot range(commonly this would make the range 35ft). All three must be on foot and armed with the same missile weapon.

I then looked at the disciple feats in the Free companies book. They seem to be of such wildly different power levels I decided to link them with the formation combat styles.

Disciple of Archery/Heavy Infantry/Heavy Cavalry/Light Cavalry/Skirmishing
Your training in an individual discipline of the army makes you more effective.
Prerequisite: Soldier level 1, Dex 12/Str 12/Str 12/Dex 12/Dex 12
Benefit: Your character is considered to have the relevant formation combat. If the character later chooses the formation combat he benefits from double the normal formation combat bonus
Special: This feat can be selected multiple times choosing a different formation style each time. This feat must be selected at least 1 level before the soldier selects the same style as formation combat style if he wishes to benfit from the double bonus. i.e. before 3rd, 5th, 7th etc.

I gave the soldier a further formation combat style selection at 5th level and the ability to select the same style twice and be able to use it without needing allies. To do this the soldier must be at least 7th level and can never have all his combat styles individualised.

The overall effect is that a soldier could end up with double the normal bonus from a style and not need the two allies, but he would have to be at least 7th level and it would cost him a feat.

With 5 ranks in knowledge warfare a character gets +2 init which certainly helps when it comes to the soldiers initiative.
Finally I added a flat footed defense of 5 less than their normal parry/dodge defense once the base parry/dodge reached +6(this is for all classes) and is calculated for parry and dodge seperately.
I'm pretty happy with these alterations

 

[Sutek]

If that's true why have an innate class ability called "Lead by Example" and not "Lead by Ordering people around".

In order for the companions of the noble to get the bonus granted by that ability the Noble must actually use his own abilities.

It takes a successful attack roll and the "aid another" action. That's an action usable by anyone, but presumably more "inspiring" when conducted by someone in high standing helping you out and putting himself on the line for you. Therefore, the Noble can manage to offer a higher bonus to friends when using that action. However, they also get regional ability bumps at varrying levels to represent thier "noble training", the Hyborian equivilent of "West Point" right there.

Nobles also have two pages of Social Ability, quite obviously thier primary specialty. They also have the responsibility of rank and the benefits of Leadership (at higer levels) which are much more "social based". They aren't intended to be fighters at all, but they are somewhat inspiring when they do fight.

If you want a Roman Legion Noble, you're a little out of luck anyway because Hyboria is set well before that time, but with ideas pulled from Dark Ages cultures, all post Roman fall. Make your Noble and Hyborian or a Cimerian or a Zingaran and you get different cultural bumps that make that Noble drastically different, bot socially and in combat.

Bottom line though is that they aren't fighters and can't really be viewed in the same category as Barbarians or Soldiers. Nobles are always on the battle field historically out of their bloobline and status more than thier compat prowess...with a very few exceptions of course.

 

[Judge Walker]

A few points are being missed about the Noble in combat.

Aside from him having Title/Rank and the wealth ability to afford the best armour and weapons...not to mention a horse. The nobles other abilities will assist him greatly in combat. "Special Region Feature"...more then not imparts weapons training to the Noble. "Lead by Example" is very useful. Enhanced Leadership not only gives the Noble the Leadership Feat for free, but also a +1 bonus to his leadership value for every 3 lvls he has attained, whcih adds to the number and power of his cohort and followers...

as example a Noble I rolled up for an online game at 6th lvl he will bring in an additional 5th lvl fighter to the group, plus the support of 18 more swords. All the more to impale your enemy on. So, the Noble has taken the average party of 4-5 PCs and has increased it approx 5 fold...

And finally the "Rally."

Not to mention the troops he could call up as reserves if his allies/family are placed high enough.

If you are looking for a mud slogging a$$ kicker then Noble is not the PC to play. If, however, you are looking for someone to lead a battalion of mud slogging a$$ kickers to victory, then the Noble is the way to go.

 

[Sutek]

I guess that's all I was trying to say. Nobles can fight, but that's not thier main role. Said it netter than me though, Walker... :wink: