[NPC] Berserker

[God_of_Awesome]

Berserker [NPC]
"WAAAAAAAUUUUUUUGH!!!!!"

Barbarian hordes are a classical foe of DnD. They differ from Warrior in that a Warrior NPC, in a round-a-bout way, implies a trained and civilized militia whereas barbarian horde are kinda... not. Except they can't all have actual levels in Barbarian, that would be statisticaly unfair. And also hard to stat. So you need something to represent the faceless barbarian hordes and it needs to be something angry.

Berserker In Game: Berserker are just like Warrior; in fact many of their abilities are the same. Their CR is half their level, etc, etc. They're suppose to come in lots of numbers.

HD: d10
Class Skills: I'll fill these up later.
Skill Points: 4+Int

BAB: As Warrior
Saves: Fort as Warrior's Will, Ref as Warrior, Will as Warrior's Fort.

1: Replaceable Rage
2: Deathless Rage
3: Fearless Rage
4: Senseless Rage
5: Chieftain Rage

Proficiency: Berserkers are proficient with all simple and martial weapons as well as light and medium armor and shields, except tower shields.

Replaceable Rage: Berserkers represent the faceless barbarian horde. Easy to use, easy to replace but still scary. They do not get feats as normal. Instead, once each day, whenever they take damage they may go into a rage as an immediate action. This rage lasts as many rounds per feats they are elligible for and confers a +2 to-hit bonus for every feat they are elligible for.

Deathless Rage: While in a rage, a 2nd level berserker remains conscious and unstaggered even at 0 and below hit points.

Fearless Rage: 3rd level berserkers never have to make Morale checks. Any attempt to shake their Morale allows them to go into a rage once more if they had already used their rage for the day. While in a rage they get a +3 bonus on saves vs Fear.

Senseless Rage: A 4th level berserker has the PHB Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge. He retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if he is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

Chieftain's Rage: A 5th level berserker confers a to-hit morale bonus equal to his Charisma Modifier to all lower level allies within ten feet while in a rage.

Trading Out Berserker Levels: If a berserker becomes a named character, he becomes a member of a real class. Like Barbarian.

[Sunwitch]

Replaceable Rage: Berserkers represent the faceless barbarian horde. Easy to use, easy to replace but still scarry. They do not get feats as normal. Instead, each day, for a number of rounds equal to the feats they would be eligible for, a berserker may go into a rage as a standard action. While in a rage, they get a +2 to-hit bonus for each feat they would be eligible for.

Breaks RNG and introduces way too much bookkeeping for an NPC class. Needs to be completely rewritten.

[TarkisFlux]

WTF are you on Mauver? It's a 5 level NPC class, so you get like 3 feats if you're human (unless you're an idiot and start giving bullshit NPCs bullshit flaws). +6 to hit is not going to break the RNG at that level, but it is going to mean that you probably hit PCs. It's a slightly boosted version of F&Ks warrior NPC class ability that I don't even care about.

The duration is a bit bookkeepy, but it's not half as bad as you suggest. I'd probably make it an always on +1 per feat, with an additional +1 per feat on a charge (useable forever, sorta covers the berserk aspects). Alternately, just double the feats in bonus on charges and call it done.

The chieftain ability is absolutely bookkeepy though, and should probably be replaced or otherwise rethought. A damage boost to himself and every member of his war party would probably work better.

[Sunwitch]

WTF are you on Mauver? It's a 5 level NPC class, so you get like 3 feats if you're human (unless you're an idiot and start giving bullshit NPCs bullshit flaws). +6 to hit is not going to break the RNG at that level, but it is going to mean that you probably hit PCs. It's a slightly boosted version of F&Ks warrior NPC class ability that I don't even care about.

Ugh, you're right, I sort of forgot about how limited a 5-level class is going to be in terms of feat intake.

The duration is a bit bookkeepy, but it's not half as bad as you suggest. I'd probably make it an always on +1 per feat, with an additional +1 per feat on a charge (useable forever, sorta covers the berserk aspects). Alternately, just double the feats in bonus on charges and call it done.

Because I am a derp, I read the thing as rounds per day, Pathfinder style. Which would be especially crappy for an NPC class. Having some kind of condition other than rounds elapsed for ending the rage would probably be good though. And if it's supposed to be blatantly better than the warrior ability it should definitely not be on virtually all the time. I think it might be interesting to have it activate as a result of damage or something, so that these NPC barbarians are at their best when directly in the fray getting knocked around and at their worst when their adversaries ignore them. And then ends after maybe 5 rounds or something else that basically means "once the encounter ends"

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'd let them go into a rage as an immediate action whenever they take damage. So you can have them start combat by punching each other, or you can have them wait until they get hit by the PCs.

Alternatively, you could change it to "bloodlust", and them them rage whenever someone in LoS takes damage.

The thing I like about the 'takes damage' option is, as well as being flavorful, it means that AoEs can actually be a trade off against them--not the usual case for mooks.

[RobbyPants]

Also, you should probably type Chieftain's Rage so it doesn't stack if you have other 5th level berserkers near each other.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Also, you should probably type Chieftain's Rage so it doesn't stack if you have other 5th level berserkers near each other.

A morale bonus would do the trick.

[God_of_Awesome]

Also, you should probably type Chieftain's Rage so it doesn't stack if you have other 5th level berserkers near each other.

A morale bonus would do the trick.

Why would they need a morale bonus when they never need to make moral saves.

Hold on, let me look up morale mechanics.

Goddamn subsystems.

Edit: Alright, took a look-sees and morale bonus fits.

[CatharzGodfoot]

_Technically______________________________

 It's a morale bonus to attack rolls.
_______________________________________

[God_of_Awesome]

I copied alot from the Warrior write up.

[For Valor]

ummm... Cha mod bonus?

Doesn't that seem a little unhelpful? I mean, a strong barbarian is probably (by that, I mean stereotypically) gonna look ugly as hell. His rage will probably end up DECREASING the to-hit rolls of all his compatriots.

Why not just let him give out a scream of rage that gives his allies +1 or +2 to-hit for a few rounds. He could issue it as a move-equivalent action so that he has to keep going with that every once in a while, and so a decent party will be able to deal with him.

P.S. Does this follow the same pattern where each level is 1/2 CR? He seems a little strong for that.

[IGTN]

Charisma isn't looks. Charisma is leadership.

[For Valor]

Charisma is actually appeal. But that's not really important...

More importantly, Charisma usually serves no functional purpose for the Barbarian, aside from use on Intimidate checks (and even then, the Barbarian's rankings usually outstrip his Cha penalty). The build you have suggested here changes that, making Charisma important enough that any Barbarian who wants to go for Chieftan will have to have at least 12 Charisma for a +1 mod (which really isn't even that useful).

That makes very little sense. And it's functionally a bad idea. Barbarians should be trying to keep their AC high with Dexterity, get lots of hit points, bash things, and not give a damn about how nice they look or how much their tribe likes them. A barbarian will be chieftan of a tribe solely because he can wipe the floor with ANYONE who challenges him in combat. Strength, not Charisma, is how a Barbarian rules his tribe.

That being said, this new type of Barbarian hurts those rules. Orc Barbarian Chieftans are now at an inherent disadvantage, as are Dwarves and SRD Half-orcs. The Dwarves aren't super important, but Orcs are MADE to be Barbarians, and giving Barbarian chieftans an ability that relies on something that Orcs are inherently bad at... is just a bad idea.

The bonus should be based off of Con, Str, or should just be flat bonus.

[ubernoob]

Charisma is actually appeal. But that's not really important...

More importantly, Charisma usually serves no functional purpose for the Barbarian, aside from use on Intimidate checks (and even then, the Barbarian's rankings usually outstrip his Cha penalty). The build you have suggested here changes that, making Charisma important enough that any Barbarian who wants to go for Chieftan will have to have at least 12 Charisma for a +1 mod (which really isn't even that useful).

That makes very little sense. And it's functionally a bad idea. Barbarians should be trying to keep their AC high with Dexterity, get lots of hit points, bash things, and not give a damn about how nice they look or how much their tribe likes them. A barbarian will be chieftan of a tribe solely because he can wipe the floor with ANYONE who challenges him in combat. Strength, not Charisma, is how a Barbarian rules his tribe.

That being said, this new type of Barbarian hurts those rules. Orc Barbarian Chieftans are now at an inherent disadvantage, as are Dwarves and SRD Half-orcs. The Dwarves aren't super important, but Orcs are MADE to be Barbarians, and giving Barbarian chieftans an ability that relies on something that Orcs are inherently bad at... is just a bad idea.

The bonus should be based off of Con, Str, or should just be flat bonus.

Don't be retarded. Charisma is force of personality. If you're the leader, you obviously have some of it.

[For Valor]

And if you're level five, you immediately get some?

The BEST barbarians are completely useless regarding Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. As NPCs AND as PCs, their only job is to bash things. They won't be specializing in Charisma EVER if they plan on being useful in combat (since running around and hitting things is usually a poor strategy, you need to be VERY good at it to be successful. That means wasting nothing on Cha/Int/Wis).

This class assumes that a Barbarian will only be hitting Level 5 if he has "force of personality". Which is a poor idea, since the Barbarians that MAKE IT to Level 5 are going to have worked on their Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and won't give a damn about their force of personality. I mean, that's how survival works.

Chieftans rule the tribe with Intimidate ranks, using frightening weaponry, legacies, and scary scars for inherent bonuses.

[ubernoob]

And if you're level five, you immediately get some?

The BEST barbarians are completely useless regarding Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. As NPCs AND as PCs, their only job is to bash things. They won't be specializing in Charisma EVER if they plan on being useful in combat (since running around and hitting things is usually a poor strategy, you need to be VERY good at it to be successful. That means wasting nothing on Cha/Int/Wis).

This class assumes that a Barbarian will only be hitting Level 5 if he has "force of personality". Which is a poor idea, since the Barbarians that MAKE IT to Level 5 are going to have worked on their Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and won't give a damn about their force of personality. I mean, that's how survival works.

Chieftans rule the tribe with Intimidate ranks, using frightening weaponry, legacies, and scary scars for inherent bonuses.

No, seriously, if someone else is the 'chieftain' then it's because they are a better leader than you. It's that simple.

[Vebyast]

No, seriously, if someone else is the 'chieftain' then it's because they are a better leader than you. It's that simple.

Barbarian tribes (hunter-gatherer groups of about 30 adults) are small enough that the only thing affecting whether you eat tonight is how many things your hunters kill. In that society, the most able hunter really is the leader. The smart or charismatic guy might be popular, but the person that kills things the best brings in the most food. If he went away, people would starve to death, so he's in charge, end of story.

[God_of_Awesome]

Changed Unstoppable Rage to Senseless Rage, since I can actually think of rules for that.

Sorry I couldn't find that other stuff mentioned.

[Rejakor]

It... doesn't.. actually work like that.

In fact, a lot of tribal societies had both 'chieftain' and 'top hunter/warrior'(sometimes both), and those were rarely, if ever, the same person. Most of the time the chieftain's job was to stop people killing each other and resolve disputes, and lead the tribe in war and to safety. And the chieftain wasn't always the guy who had the best leadership skills, but he traditionally was that guy because if you bring a group of humans together without a competent leader they spend far more time bickering and killing each other than they do actually achieving shit. Keeping those wheels greased and having the foresight to look above the everyday crap and listen to the guy who keeps going on about floods and this valley being a bad place to build a village is what caused tribes to prosper, not having a strong swordarm. Historically, those who led by strong swordarms LOST to those who had lots of friends and won via numbers. Having both was preferable, but having lots of friends > swordarm/hunting skills. When those friends have strong swordarms and hunting skills, you double win.

[Vebyast]

I still think you're still thinking too large. These aren't groups of a hundred people living in an agricultural village. These are twenty or thirty people in the middle of nowhere. Think wolf pack rather than village. This kind of arrangement doesn't really exist any more, and it hasn't since humans adopted agriculture.

Additionally, remember that this is DND. There are things out there that will kill you. Either your society lives in a walled village, has a standing army, and kills everything that moves within two miles, or you're a band of twenty really badass guys protecting their women and children, and that survives by eating the things that attack them. The first society doesn't have barbarians, because they're too dangerous when they get drunk. In the second, the wise man's opinion doesn't really matter, because running away from displacer beasts today is more important than finding a spot to farm in good soil.

[edit disclaimer] It's four in the morning where I am, and it's entirely possible that everything I just wrote is complete shit and I just don't realize it because I've lost all touch with reality. If so, tell me. [/edit /disclaimer]

[Rejakor]

That depends on your campaign setting. In a campaign setting where everyone who doesn't live in a walled city is a 20th level barbarian or they're dead, they're dead. No questions. Over multiple generations, the displacer beasts win, because Johan the 3rd Level Barbarian runs into a Black Dragon and gets eaten because the real world doesn't throw CR appropriate encounters at you, and while he may have class levels, he only gets those by fighting, and ankhegs are born with acid attacks and big digging claws, and over time the law of averages will win out and every human will end up being mismatched against a monster WITHOUT class levels who is nevertheless his superior in terms of combat, and who kills and eats him.

The only, ONLY way that DnD works is if you assume that monsters don't exist under every bush and hedge. Most people don't deal with monsters. A monster is more like a starving wolf pack, or a bear, or a disease or sudden flood - normal dangers. People know not to down to the Moor Fens cause /something bad lives there/. If an ankheg wanders into Bear Tribe lands, a big hunt is organized and everyone rides off and kills it, using ropes and spears and bows. And if by bad chance it turns and acids Little Horn, son of Big Horn, it's a tragedy that no-one forsaw and everyone shakes their fist at the gods for causing such a tragedy. Monsters HAVE to occur at least semi-rarely, have habits and places they live that allow people to avoid them, and generally be CR 3 or lower, because otherwise human society a) warps into something completely unrecognizable where babies are locked into adamantine cribs until they get their first 6 class levels, b) all the humans are dead.

Also tribes of 30 people only existed in larger tribal arrangements of dozens of small tribes of 30 people in an area that was collectively called 'Bear Tribe' or 'Bear Clan'. And even then, those 30 people would usually be led by a charismatic/wise person over some young turk with a strong sword arm (although the smaller group size totally let some young'uns onto the Elder Council than other tribal organization schemes). Usual tribe size was more in the 70-240 size ratio, if we're talking african or native american, although it did vary, and even then was usually in some larger racial alliance (cherokee, people of the plains, zulu). The small 30man bands would meet and mix, though, and leave in different bands each year or something like that. You can't have a discrete unit of 30 that stays together, it either grows or breaks apart.


Also, humans in tribes had an area they traveled through or lived in. The only groups of people that traveled without staying in a certain territory or area are the... gypsies? The only thing that really fits that is traveling to find a new land to live in, when the home range/area/tribal land got too crowded.


People in the past had shit they had to worry about from nature, like bears and wolves and cougars and floods and diseases and locust swarms and fire and storms and hurricanes and tidal waves. In DnD, monsters are divided between threats you can fight (wolves, bears, ankhegs, goblin tribes, giant ants) and shit you just run away from (chimerae, basilisks, medusi, dragons, flood, typhoons, diseases). So you basically just go 'Okay, a tribe would run away from a flood in the real world, so they run away from a dragon here'. Assuming that all tribes fight everything and therefore must have characters capable of dealing with everything the dnd world can throw at them goes against real world examples and common sense.

That's not to say that a tribe might not have a 17th level barbarian in charge of it. But it's more likely it has a 5th level expert. And his first hunter is a 7th level barbarian. But if he just up and killed the chief, all the 3rd-5th level barbarians in the tribe (holy combat experience batman, this tribe is epic level'd) would be like 'The chief is dead! First Hunter Dickhead killed the chief! Kill him!' and sure he'd take down 2 or 3 with his superior fighting skills, but they'd rip him to bits and call it justice, cause that's how tribes work.

Ideally a chief is wise AND strong. Most of the time though, he's just wise and politically savvy. Sometimes he's just strong, and historically, that ends badly, because a tribe that's fighting people all the time takes losses that aren't easy to get back.

[Leress]

Umm... this is an NPC class, it's for mooks and throw-aways. This class doesn't even have class skills. All this talk about what chieftain would has as charisma doesn't mean anything since those would have the Barbarian class. Seriously the difference in that morale bonus would be 1.

[Rejakor]

This class is uninteresting and causes bookkeeping. I vote a) make it more interesting, i.e. make the rage make a person give a damn, and b) make it require less tracking of to hit bonuses.

As a DM I have two choices using this class. Plan as if it is in a rage, and so therefore give it -to hit of whatever it gets from rage, or let it autohit with every attack. +8 to hit+BAB+weapon+str means you're going to be hitting everything but the AC specialist, for however much damage your guy does, on a 2. That's silly. Have the rage do more damage or force saves or allow him to double his hp bar or something. Giving +hit is just strange and unnecessary.

[Leress]

I just whip this together real quick. It is mostly just a tweaking of the original.

HD: d10
Class Skills: The Beserker’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Hide (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge: Nature (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Spot (Wis), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str). (Use Rope, in non-Tome)

Skill Points: 4+Int

BAB: Good

Saves: Fort-Good, Ref-poor, Will-poor.

1: Replaceable Rage
2: Deathless Rage
3: Fearless Rage
4: Breaking Stare
5: Chieftain Rage


Replaceable Rage: Berserkers represent the faceless barbarian horde. Easy to use, easy to replace but still scary. They do not get feats as normal. Instead, once each day, whenever they take damage they may go into a rage as an immediate action. This rage a number of rounds equal to CR rounded up and confers a +2 bonus to damage for every feat they are elligible for.

Deathless Rage: While in a rage, a 2nd level berserker remains conscious and unstaggered even at 0 and below hit points.

Fearless Rage: 3rd level berserkers never have to make Morale checks. Any attempt to shake their Morale allows them to go into a rage once more if they had already used their rage for the day. While in a rage they get a +3 bonus on saves vs Fear.

Dazzling Rage: At 4th level, the beserker dazzles all opponents within 30ft during a rage.

Chieftain's Rage: A 5th level berserker makes all damage he and his allies deal ignore DR to all lower level allies within ten feet while in a rage.


Trading Out Berserker Levels: If a berserker becomes a named character, he becomes a member of a real class. Like Barbarian.


----

If the shaken is too strong, than make it dazzled.

[God_of_Awesome]

I would change Breaking Stare's name to Frightening Rage to keep up with theme.