"Runescarred Berserker" Too good to be true?

[Masakan]

So im looking at this class and im thinking yes...any barbarian player should go into this class asap...but then i started to look at the requirements and began to realize something

Ok lets go over it for a sec.

BAB+7 No problem any one of them should reach this easily meaning you can get in by level 8
Craft:5
Intimidate 5
Sense Motive:2 Again no Problem

Feats:Iron Will and Survivor, 2 reletively worthless feats but 5 levels in warblade can get your iron heart for free making a Warblade 5/Barbarian 2 build optimal
and one feat from barbarian lounge:Real talk get wolf berserker as it stacks with improved trip which is why your getting barbarian 2 over just 1

Special:Must rage once per day, be a member of the lounge and must be able to qualify for barbarian lounge feats.

See the issue here? A lot of the requirements are regional meaning that half of the world into getting into this class is convincing the dm to waive the regional requirements

Meaning if he won't your kinda screwed....so...how much do people actually adhere to regional requirements. I know it varies from dm to dm but is it common for DM's to be such tight wads?

[Nanshork]

The regional requirements are all because of the book it's in, it is in a FR book that's based on a specific region. It's pretty common for the campaign setting.

In my experience the regional requirements are waived if you're not playing in a Forgotten Realms game.  Otherwise you have to A) just say that you're from the region (background fluff) or B) IIRC there's a way to bypass the region requirements by putting skill points into Knowledge:Local for the region.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

There should be a box, or small rules quote,
that says what you can do with Realms or
Eberron material, when played outside there.
(idk exactly where, I haven't looked for that in a long time)


The 2 pre-req feats, and the background/lodge feat
can all be taken at level 1, so take two flaws,
put something else there until you retrain them out,
right when you enter Runescarred.

[Masakan]

There should be a box, or small rules quote,
that says what you can do with Realms or
Eberron material, when played outside there.
(idk exactly where, I haven't looked for that in a long time)


The 2 pre-req feats, and the background/lodge feat
can all be taken at level 1, so take two flaws,
put something else there until you retrain them out,
right when you enter Runescarred.

So there Are ways to enter cleanly, thats good to know.

[Amechra]

You should go for Ettercap Berserker instead of Wolf Berserker.

Because which is cooler: +4 to Trip attempts, or "set your Con bonus from Rage to +6, even if you don't normally get a Con bonus from Rage"?

I say the second one.

And Runescarred Berserker makes me sad - mainly because it gives you weird pseudocasting instead of real casting, so you can't use it to get into Rage Mage.

[Masakan]

You should go for Ettercap Berserker instead of Wolf Berserker.

Because which is cooler: +4 to Trip attempts, or "set your Con bonus from Rage to +6, even if you don't normally get a Con bonus from Rage"?

I say the second one.

And Runescarred Berserker makes me sad - mainly because it gives you weird pseudocasting instead of real casting, so you can't use it to get into Rage Mage.

Honestly It's a toss up between this an Champion of Gwyn. RB has reliable spells but Champion of Gwyn can tank better and is way easier to get into.

[Keldar]

Knowledge (Local)-Rasheman -2 Ranks meets the regional prerequisite as much as being Rashemi does.

[Amechra]

You should go for Ettercap Berserker instead of Wolf Berserker.

Because which is cooler: +4 to Trip attempts, or "set your Con bonus from Rage to +6, even if you don't normally get a Con bonus from Rage"?

I say the second one.

And Runescarred Berserker makes me sad - mainly because it gives you weird pseudocasting instead of real casting, so you can't use it to get into Rage Mage.

Honestly It's a toss up between this an Champion of Gwyn. RB has reliable spells but Champion of Gwyn can tank better and is way easier to get into.

Honestly? If Champion of Gwyn wasn't Exalted, it'd win hands down. It gets actual spellcasting instead of a weird crafting ability, lets you load up on spells faster, has a much looser limit on how many you can have at a time, stacks with Barbarian for the purposes of how many rages you have and your rage improving, gets +Cha to all saving throws, gets every meaningful class feature that the Runescarred Berserker gets, can target others with its spells...

Actually, strike that. Sure, Champion of Gwyn doesn't have as good a spell list, but you can add stuff to that list, unlike Runescarred Berserker.

[Masakan]

You should go for Ettercap Berserker instead of Wolf Berserker.

Because which is cooler: +4 to Trip attempts, or "set your Con bonus from Rage to +6, even if you don't normally get a Con bonus from Rage"?

I say the second one.

And Runescarred Berserker makes me sad - mainly because it gives you weird pseudocasting instead of real casting, so you can't use it to get into Rage Mage.

Honestly It's a toss up between this an Champion of Gwyn. RB has reliable spells but Champion of Gwyn can tank better and is way easier to get into.

Honestly? If Champion of Gwyn wasn't Exalted, it'd win hands down. It gets actual spellcasting instead of a weird crafting ability, lets you load up on spells faster, has a much looser limit on how many you can have at a time, stacks with Barbarian for the purposes of how many rages you have and your rage improving, gets +Cha to all saving throws, gets every meaningful class feature that the Runescarred Berserker gets, can target others with its spells...

Actually, strike that. Sure, Champion of Gwyn doesn't have as good a spell list, but you can add stuff to that list, unlike Runescarred Berserker.

You can? that's the first i heard of this. Also Real talk, I have no issue playing good aligned characters At all.

[Amechra]

It's Exalted, not Good. Good is forgiving - Exalted is not.

But yeah - here's some sources.

[Keldar]

Exalted is the Jedi of alignments, its rules make no damn sense and are full of shit.  Poisons are bad, but ravages are cool because they only poison evil people.  Totally different!  You will be afraid, but fear leads to the dark side.  It makes the Paladin code seem healthy and well adapted.  But Champion of Gwynhryippogryph is the bees knees anyway.

[Masakan]

Exalted is the Jedi of alignments, its rules make no damn sense and are full of shit.  Poisons are bad, but ravages are cool because they only poison evil people.  Totally different!  You will be afraid, but fear leads to the dark side.  It makes the Paladin code seem healthy and well adapted.  But Champion of Gwynhryippogryph is the bees knees anyway.

I Guess My interpretation of Exalted is very....Loose.

Basically don't be a douche, and help when you can.
There is nothing wrong, with doing something that benefits both you and the people around you.
Expect payment from those who can, to make up for those who can't.
Worship good Deities
Heal the sick and wounded for next to nothing.

See things like that, Exalted doesn't mean jumping in at the first sign of trouble or being captain save a ho.
it just means being the best person you can be, help those when you can, and set as much of an example for others as you can.
Just be a genuinely good dude with no ulterior motives. That's all.

P.S If i Ever D.M I would waive the alignment for poisons so long as they
A.Disable and not kill
or
B.Are used to assassinate evil people.
Because hey, just because your good doesn't mean you have to be impractical.

[Amechra]

That's the problem - if you're waiving those requirements, you aren't playing an Exalted character. There's a reason that the BoVD and BoED are worthless for any kind of practical alignment guidelines - the BoED is schizophrenic vis-a-vis what is and isn't "good", while the BoVD is basically "evil as written by a sheltered 12-year-old Midwesterner."

[ketaro]

Excluding the poisons bit from Masakan's post, the rest of what they've said isn't exactly that far off from how the BoED actually describes how to be Exalted. It gives many different types of characters in many different types of roles explanations on how you can still be considered properly Exalted without being Lawful Stupid levels of "Good"-aligned.

It's most drastic example of an Exalted type of character is a redeemed Illithid that still fucks up occasionally and does bad or evil things still, but it's still okay enough for Exalted status as the good intention is there and they're learning how to not rely on outright vile levels of evil to accomplish their goals.

As well, the Exalted status is also granted to a character by a 3rd party, a higher being/creature (but definitely not actually described as a real deity type of being but merely powerful outsiders that embody 'goodness', like angels for example) whom which the player shares a common goal or ideal with. If said being is cool with less than properly nice/good actions to accomplish said objectives it may share an interest in seeing accomplished, there is no reason for a player's Exalted status to feel threatened.

Basically, a lot of DMs have an incredibly stricter idea of what "Exalted" means than the book does. Half the time I feel it's not being properly handled or understood. It does require legitimately reading an entire chapter of the book which houses no true mechanic-based rules so of course it gets skimmed, if not outright skipped, over rather haphazardly.

[Masakan]

Excluding the poisons bit from Masakan's post, the rest of what they've said isn't exactly that far off from how the BoED actually describes how to be Exalted. It gives many different types of characters in many different types of roles explanations on how you can still be considered properly Exalted without being Lawful Stupid levels of "Good"-aligned.

It's most drastic example of an Exalted type of character is a redeemed Illithid that still fucks up occasionally and does bad or evil things still, but it's still okay enough for Exalted status as the good intention is there and they're learning how to not rely on outright vile levels of evil to accomplish their goals.

As well, the Exalted status is also granted to a character by a 3rd party, a higher being/creature (but definitely not actually described as a real deity type of being but merely powerful outsiders that embody 'goodness', like angels for example) whom which the player shares a common goal or ideal with. If said being is cool with less than properly nice/good actions to accomplish said objectives it may share an interest in seeing accomplished, there is no reason for a player's Exalted status to feel threatened.

Basically, a lot of DMs have an incredibly stricter idea of what "Exalted" means than the book does. Half the time I feel it's not being properly handled or understood. It does require legitimately reading an entire chapter of the book which houses no true mechanic-based rules so of course it gets skimmed, if not outright skipped, over rather haphazardly.

In other words, a lot of the time it's DM's who tend to have the extreme view of what good and evil is.

[Unbeliever]

That's the problem - if you're waiving those requirements, you aren't playing an Exalted character.

Yeah, just a fun functional one. 

[Masakan]

I implore you all to look up mary seacole, Real life person who is the perfect example of being exalted but realistic.

[Amechra]

That's the problem - if you're waiving those requirements, you aren't playing an Exalted character.

Yeah, just a fun functional one.

Precisely!


Mary Seacole is besides the point - in your "standard" D&D campaign, your job is killing things and taking their stuff (in that order). That's what the system expects you to do. If a player shows up wanting to play Mary Seacole, the DM is going to have to hash stuff out that will make the game fun for them.

At that point, why not just pick up FATE or something where stuff like pacifism or vows of poverty don't break basic assumptions of character progression?

[Masakan]

That's the problem - if you're waiving those requirements, you aren't playing an Exalted character.

Yeah, just a fun functional one.

Precisely!


Mary Seacole is besides the point - in your "standard" D&D campaign, your job is killing things and taking their stuff (in that order). That's what the system expects you to do. If a player shows up wanting to play Mary Seacole, the DM is going to have to hash stuff out that will make the game fun for them.

At that point, why not just pick up FATE or something where stuff like pacifism or vows of poverty don't break basic assumptions of character progression?

Then just play evil characters all the time. If killing things and taking their loot is all you care about then just rampage the country side and dont give 2 shits about anyone but yourself. sounds like it would fit you perfectly.

Besides if what you say is true and thats all that matters in DnD. Things like diplomacy would be completely pointless, bards would lose any real use outside of being inspire courage engines, and rouge would be considered even worse then they are now.

Besides a Campaign, that's whole focus is Loot, Pillage and kill, where you just have monsters thrown at you without any forethought or strategy just comes off as lazy and is a shitty campaign run by a bad DM.

[Unbeliever]

Masakan, please stop tilting at straw men.  Please. 

D&D is an action-adventure game.  It is obviously an action-adventure game.  It has ever been thus.  Indiana Jones is not a raging psychopath.  He is not a chaotic evil murderous maniac.  Yet, he kills plenty of folks.  And, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Nazis are at least no worse than demons from the Nine Hells. 

If I'm ever in a campaign that manages to essentially be "Raiders of the Lost Ark," the Game, you're welcome to come over and call it lazy and a shitty campaign and run by bad DM be murdered to death by everyone at the table for shitting on something that is totally awesome.