Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AJ Gardner 04-14-04, 12:53 PM	I have a new group of players that are relatively new to DnD. One of them wants to run an Intelligent Barbarian. Is there such a thing? Has anyone ever ran one? Should I allow him to do it? thanks for your help, aj the new guy:D
LORD SPOCK 04-14-04, 02:07 PM	Yes there are... I'm actually playing one now, but he is a scald and thus a little more focused on charisma. If he is going to play an intellegent barbarian I suggest you teach him to multiclass. That way he can play the role of some of the barbarian specialists... scald, ummm rogue barbarian (scout?)... somthing like that.
AJ Gardner 04-14-04, 03:27 PM	thanks for the input. I never could imagine a barbarian being sneeky...lol
AustrianOak 04-14-04, 04:15 PM	Try not to pigeon hole the barbarian. If you look at the barbarian as a slightly more skillful warrior that can go nuts on occasion, you have a much more flexible PC. I like the barb/rogue idea. Raging on a sneak attack seems pretty neat. Also there are some over lapping abilities like trap sense and uncanny dodge.
Dauntless 04-14-04, 05:14 PM	Now is a great time to learn the difference between flavor and mechanics. A barbarian (class) character could be anything from a jungle dwelling primitive, to a plainsman hunter, to an advanced viking-esque berserker, etc. A barbarian (background) character could mechanically be a barbarian, ranger, rogue, cleric, fighter, druid, etc, or any multiclass of the above. Make sure you and the player are on the same page. The options are limitless.
Mr. VanderMeer 04-15-04, 04:57 AM	Conan was actually quite intelligent. (In the books, in the movie he's, well Ahnie)
LiXinjian 04-15-04, 08:39 AM	I second Dauntless on that one. D&D often makes us too narrow-minded because of its game mechanics (I had experienced players once who believed they couldn't try to gather information because no one in the party was a rogue...). If you ever saw Records of Lodoss War, you have an idea of an intelligent barbarian/berserker. A man possessed by anger and fury, but who is still, first and foremost, a normal man. And that's only one take on this intelligent barbarian concept.
AJ Gardner 04-15-04, 08:54 AM	sort of like the Dr jeckel and Mr. Hyde?
LordofIllusions 04-15-04, 11:00 AM	Originally posted by LiXinjian I second Dauntless on that one. D&D often makes us too narrow-minded because of its game mechanics (I had experienced players once who believed they couldn't try to gather information because no one in the party was a rogue...). If you ever saw Records of Lodoss War, you have an idea of an intelligent barbarian/berserker. A man possessed by anger and fury, but who is still, first and foremost, a normal man. And that's only one take on this intelligent barbarian concept. I disagree. With the new skill system rogues can do what a fighter can do(skill wise) and fighters can do some of the things that rogues can do. ~~~
LiXinjian 04-16-04, 09:39 AM	Originally posted by LordofIllusions I disagree. With the new skill system rogues can do what a fighter can do(skill wise) and fighters can do some of the things that rogues can do. Skill-wise? Certainly. Besides, the system allows you to pick cross-class skills, making sure this isn't that big an issue. But we're talking class here. In terms of game mechanics, a barbarian isn't a rogue, or anything other than a barbarian. But my previous post was only meant to say "Hey, think outside of the box [that is D&D]". Don't confuse flavour with game mechanics. One does not preclude the other at all as they do, in fact, often merge into one. But in some instances, it is important to discriminate between the two. Such as with the case at hand.
CursedMoredhel 04-17-04, 09:24 AM	Originally posted by AustrianOak I like the barb/rogue idea. Raging on a sneak attack seems pretty neat. Also there are some over lapping abilities like trap sense and uncanny dodge. i dont think it would be possible to sneak attack while in a rage. in a rage your attacks are reckless sure ur more likely to hit and will do more damage but a sneak attack requires accuracy an finese. but besides that i think multiclassing as a barb/rogue would help with his intellegence
AustrianOak 04-17-04, 10:38 PM	I understand where you are coming from, but think about when you can sneak attack. When the opponent loses or doesnt have the use of his dex bonus to AC. I dont see how that impacts whether or not the attacker is in a rage or not. Plus, I am not aware of a rule where it says you cannot.
LiXinjian 04-18-04, 09:40 AM	I think he bases his opinion on the description of the barbarian's rage ability, in the PHB (p.25): "While raging, a barbarian cannot use [...] any abilities that require patience or concentration." We all know you need precision and accuracy to make a sneak attack, and it seems to conflict with a raging character IMHO. I'd say it's the DM's call, unless some errata or FAQ clarifies this matter.
AustrianOak 04-20-04, 10:12 AM	For what you say to be true, the Sneak Attack must be defined as needing patience and concentration. By definition, the sneak attack does not need either.... Here's the definition. Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty. A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach
Sisyfos 04-20-04, 10:51 AM	Of course you can sneak attack while raging... if you can use your BAB to aim your attacks while raging, then you can sneak attack ;) People seem to have a lot of misconceptions about sneak attacking. Just think of it as dirty fighting. You hit the kidneys, kick on the groin, headbutt on the bridge of the nose, hammerblow to the back of the neck, stab in the front of the neck, hit to the temple. That sort of stuff. If you can think of a raging berserk headbutting his opponent and then kneeing him in the groin, then you can think of a raging sneak attacker. Sisyfos
m15a 04-21-04, 01:46 AM	definitely. i'm a big fan of going against stereotypes. (and this is a big one - foreign/nature-oriented people as stupid.) there's definitely room for a nature-type fighter to be intelligent. just think about all the nice tactical consideration that can come into play when battling in the wilderness. the other obvious point is can an intelligent person "let go" (rage) every once in a while. personally, i can't. ;-) but there sure are many that can. and it can also be thought of as a trained ability, too. there's no need to multiclass for it to work . . . but the possibilities are oh-so-tempting. :-)
LiXinjian 04-21-04, 08:37 AM	If raging allowed precision, then no martial arts teacher would ever advise his/her students to keep their cool, and keep the emotions at bay. Angry people in a fight are the ones hitting air and looking stupid as their level-headed opponents circle around, calm and in charge. Emotions cloud judgment. When angry, you reach for the feral instincts long buried within. You don't give a damn about training: you want to hurt your opponent, but not by deftly striking his vitals; you want to pound his face into mush. That's "humanly" angry. Imagine a rage that's so great your strength decuples, and your stamina improves, such as a barbarian's! You may say that it is possible to sneak attack while raging, and there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to prove you wrong, but I believe many DMs would think this one over if the opportunity ever presented itself. How you perceive a raging barbarian/sneak attack has a lot to do with your opinion in this matter. That being said (and back on topic), no one ever said barbarians needed to be dumb brutes. Imagine a self-absorbed man who never says a word against anyone (socially impaired, perhaps). Someone who stockpiles his anger, who keeps it inside at all time.. but who sees combat as a means to vent all those frustrations.. There's an intelligent barbarian, and a character concept to boot!
LordofIllusions 04-21-04, 10:54 AM	DnD is not a box. The Dungeons and Dragons game is highly customizable. If you cannot get variations in your campaign then you are not being creative enough. I wish people would stop blaming DnD for their own lack of creativity. If it is that stifling, don't play. ~~~
LordofIllusions 04-21-04, 10:58 AM	Originally posted by AJ Gardner I have a new group of players that are relatively new to DnD. One of them wants to run an Intelligent Barbarian. Is there such a thing? Has anyone ever ran one? Should I allow him to do it? thanks for your help, aj the new guy:D Sure there is put a nice score in intellgience, use skill points to gain Reading and Writing and do not play your Barbarian like a moron. Also read up on the history and etymology of the word Barbarian. The term barbarian does not denote Conan. That is just Hollywood flare. ~~~
Trydan 04-21-04, 12:45 PM	I'll also second Dauntless on this one. From my own experience, I think that the master guerilla tactician is a good way to go. He's outnumbered and out-tech'd, but he uses cunning and the primitive resources he has (along with the sheer fanaticism of his followers) in combination with a firm belief in what he is doing. In my case, it was barbarian/ranger, but barbarian/something-else or even straight barbarian would also work.
LiXinjian 04-21-04, 05:59 PM	Originally posted by LordofIllusions DnD is not a box. The Dungeons and Dragons game is highly customizable. If you cannot get variations in your campaign then you are not being creative enough. I wish people would stop blaming DnD for their own lack of creativity. If it is that stifling, don't play. Obviously, you didn’t bother reading my posts and making sure you understood my meaning. So, let me explain it again. Is D&D a box? Yes, it has to. Any game is a box in itself, a definition, a set of rules upon which all players agree to play. It couldn’t be otherwise. You need ground rules to say what you can and cannot do, you need to lay some rules down so that all players can learn them and use them to have fun. Now, is that box stifling? I never said it was. I said that some of my players sometimes felt it was, although if you had read between the lines, you would have understood that I was not in complete accord with them. In fact, if you must know, after my players made the aforementioned comment, I told them that it was certainly not so, and that the rules didn’t preclude anyone from attempting to gather information by paying rounds at the local tavern. Also, I never blamed D&D for some alleged lack of creativity on my part because: 1) I don’t lack creativity, as you might observe by searching for my posts on the Character Development boards. 2) I don’t blame D&D for being what it is. I understand the need for rules and understand that choices had to me made during its conception. Going for a class-based system was one such choice. I personally think it’s fine, and I immediately agreed that there could be an intelligent barbarian, which was never a ludicrous prospect in my not-so lacking mind. All I did was concur with Dauntless on the fact that there was difference between Flavour and Game Mechanics. I think you’re trying to pigdeonhole me into some type of player you’ve met (perhaps repeatedly) in the past. Don’t.
AustrianOak 04-23-04, 10:12 AM	Using rule zero to stop a barbarian from sneak attacking is trifling, just because you "don't think" it fits. There could be many reasons why it does fit. Adrenaline for instance. Adrenaline doesn't necessary stop you from hitting someone in the privates in a fight. Adding extra rules because your concepts of rage and sneak attack are limited can bring uncessary tension and arguements to a group. I had a DM once who wouldnt let my Barb wear armor, cause he didnt think that Barbs should. DM's perrogative, rule zero, but a bad call.
LiXinjian 04-23-04, 10:52 AM	I'm not talking about rule zero, here, only posting my vision of a barbarian's rage. As I said, by the rules, nothing seems to prevent a barbarian from sneak attacking. I just mentioned that I - as a DM, should the occasion arise in one of my games - would need a little prompting/arguing/convincing. Everybody's answer is the correct answer. In fact, your answer/interpretation is probably even better than mine, since nothing in the rules contradicts it (and if it's not contradicted by the rules, it's presumed to be supported), whereas nothing in the rules supports mine. Is it rule zero to question what a rage is? How it works? What it can and cannot do? What limitations it carries? About your DM denying your barbarian the right to wear armour... Is that a bad call? Depends. You're playing in HIS world. He takes the time to prepare the game every week. He puts a lot of efforts into this, and ultimate prerogative is his sole right. As such, it's not a bad call if, in his world, barbarians don't wear armour. But if he takes away something from your character, without balancing the loss with something else, then it is a bad call, because the various classes were meant to be balanced, and he's just given the cleric or any other player a slight edge. IMHO, no heavy armour is right on. I agree it's fairly easy to hit someone in the groin even with adrenalin, but if sneak attack was simply that, anybody could do it. No, sneak attack is a precise hit on some vital (not necessarily painful) location : the throat, the kidneys, etc. Those things are harder to reach, to hit with precision, which is why common thugs and fighters cannot hit them with consistency and why rogues need flanking or flat-footedness to strike so... that, and the fact that they don't know where the vitals are located. While I agree that this knowledge isn't lost during a frenzy, I'm only saying it's probably not important to a raging barbarian who just "looses it". But let me be the first to admit that such rule arguing is needless and fruitless: all that matters is that the rules don't keep a barbarian from sneak attacking while raging, and if I expressed my opinion on the matter, it was only for commentary purposes.. like most of everyone's posts on these boards.
AustrianOak 04-23-04, 11:36 AM	If you were the DM, I wouldnt mind prompting, arguing, convincing you to let me do it.:) Here's a good point to remember. You sneak attack when the opponent is flanked or loses his dex bonus to armor. Is it really that hard to hit someone in the neck or kidneys if he can't dodge you? Also, I don't see how an adrenaline rush is going to prevent someone from making a precise hit, couple that with the target who is either flanked or not able to dodge...
LiXinjian 04-23-04, 04:44 PM	Originally posted by AustrianOak [B]If you were the DM, I wouldnt mind prompting, arguing, convincing you to let me do it.:) [B] Ah, but now that I know you would attempt this with me, I'd never let you play a barbarian/rogue in the first place :D