Female barbarian Warrior

[Veknironth]

Well, I don't want to create another long, angry thread like the last one that this brought up. This is more of a rules situation. It says that only 5% of women are allowed to be Barbarian warriors in their societies, and they must have a PS of at least 17, and PP and PE of at least 14. Is that before or after taking the skills and abilities? If it's before, that's a lot lower than 5%.

-Vek
"I know, I know, some of you would ignore that and let the player play whatever. This is NOT a question about that."

[kiralon]

My guess would be before, as you need to have the prerequisites before you take the class, and the class gives you the skills. I would probably give an exception if someone got social background bonus stat points.

But in my games humans can put stats where they like, so it's less of an issue for me, and when creating a character i'll allow multiple stat blocks to be rolled, so if someone wants to be a class enough, they can keep rolling stat blocks until they get what they need.

And then i get a bunch of pre-rolled stat blocks to use with named npc's so it works out for both of us.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I treat things like that more like how Captain Barbossa treats the Pirate's Code. "The [rule] is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules..."

Some aspects of the game are just best left ignored. This is one such aspect. Players are naturally outliers by their very nature, anyway.

[Kraynic]

I'm not sure which way I would go. In general, I would probably lean towards Kiralon's take on this. On the other hand, you could go with allowing skills to make up the difference, which might (to my mind anyway) be a decent match for the trope of someone training in secret. Their attributes didn't match their desire until they put in the time and training to make up the difference...

[Goblin-Jack]

Imho, all of the previously expressed views are on the mark, and should work just fine for any campaign. In my time as a GM, if I have a player who rolls poorly in relation to the class they want to play, so long as the race they've chosen is allowed to play that class (a female, Human Barbarian in this case), I would let them adjust their required attributes for the class to the minimum scores required by that class. As for the percentages listed, that's mostly a guide, I assess, for the GM to use in designing NPCs and cities or towns, and breaking down the demographics of classes. Player characters, I believe, are always the most unique their societies have to offer, and frequently would fall into the role of playing extraordinary class, race and gender combinations.

[Soldier of Od]

I'm probably not adding much to this, but just to say I agree with the other posters - it should be before skill bonuses.
I just have one thing to add - it's not just humans that can be barbarians, so perhaps there are many more female dwarf, orc, ogre or wolfen barbarian warriors than there are female human barbarian warriors, as those races can more easily reach the high requirement needed for a female to impress the men enough to be allowed to become a warrior. That would take it much closer to 5%.

[Prysus]

It says that only 5% of women are allowed to be Barbarian warriors in their societies ...

Greetings and Salutations. Which quote are you referring to? I ask because I'm looking at the line in Book 13: Hinterlands, page 178, Gender restrictions, and if you're using the same one, you're misquoting the passage.

Gender: Male. Less than 5% of all Barbarian Warriors are female.

This states less than 5% of those who select this O.C.C. are female. Unless 95% of all males are Barbarian Warriors, then we don't have to worry about 5% of all females being Barbarian Warriors.

Basically, I think you're looking at the wrong equation. While the race doesn't have any attribute requirements for males, I figure not all males go into this class (that's why they can also be Shaman, Beastmasters, Woodsman, Blacksmiths, and Psychics) and those that do tend to have higher stats. We do not have exact percentages of either gender (that I'm aware of), so the percentage of the female population that meets those requirements is irrelevant.

Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Veknironth]

Well, what about the female barbarians who don't make it up to a PS of 17, and PP/PE of 14 washing out in training? Many try, but those who don't reach those stat goals don't make it through to gain that OCC. If you can acheive them by the time you finish whatever training that might be, then you're allowed to join the hunt.

-Vek
"Of course, in Palladium FRPG there is no physical difference between the sexes, stat wise."

[Crimson Dynamo]

These types of "requirements" are a carryover from AD&D, which Kevin ripped off when 'creating' his rules. And just like in D&D, they were rules that someone finally realized were stupid to the extreme and were gotten rid of (though admittedly, they crop up in more obscure rules here and there, though even then they're usually ignored; multiclassing in D&D 5e, for example).

Honestly, it's what should be done in this game, too. Is someone making a Barbarian? Well guess what, chances are pretty f*cking high that they're going to prioritize P.S. as one of their main attributes. And even if they don't, so what? They're only hurting themselves.

Rules like this serve no purpose whatsoever. Even dumber is the "onLy FiVe peRCenT oF ThEm aRe tHIs!!!" type rules. Like, why is that even remotely in a section of rules relating to character creation? That's, at best, a suggestion for GMs building their own location, at which point they're free to do whatever the hell they want anyway. It's just... pointless.

Just... god, it's so easy to hate the rules of this game while loving the setting(s).

[Prysus]

Well, what about the female barbarians who don't make it up to a PS of 17, and PP/PE of 14 washing out in training? Many try, but those who don't reach those stat goals don't make it through to gain that OCC. If you can acheive them by the time you finish whatever training that might be, then you're allowed to join the hunt.

-Vek
"Of course, in Palladium FRPG there is no physical difference between the sexes, stat wise."

Greetings and Salutations. Are you asking about a rules as written or house rules?

Rules as written? You cannot take skills until you select an O.C.C. Thereby, you cannot use the skills you gained by selecting the O.C.C. to select the O.C.C. So, as a real life example, to join the FBI Academy you need to pass a physical fitness test. If you cannot pass the physical, you cannot join the academy. And you're asking if you can pass the physical by the time you finish the academy if you can use it to join the academy. You can't wash out of the Academy for not meeting the physical requirements because you'd have never been allowed to join in the first place. So, if you were strictly following the rules, you'd need to multi-class and select a different O.C.C. first (such as the Barbarian Keeper), then after using the skills of that class to meet the requirements, change to the Barbarian Warrior.

As a house rule? *Shrug.* Sure. You can also just ignore the Attribute Requirement for women only, or you can say that they've effectively multi-classed in their backstory without all the baggage attached to it. I mean, there's a lot of skill overlap already with the Barbarian Keeper, and since you won't get the bonuses from the same skills twice so the difference is really negligible. Or you can just bump the character's stats up to the minimum to meet the requirements. As a G.M. for a player, I'd probably do one of the first two choices. As a G.M. making a NPC, I'd probably be lazy and just do the last one. I mean, for me, the important thing is that the resolution is something both the G.M. and the player can be happy with.

Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

[glitterboy2098]

The requirements exist to ensure that the character fits the style of the occ. The barbarian occ representing a warrior type focused on melee fighting, so it has a high strength requirement. So you don't get stuff like a PS 3 barbarian.

And stuff like "only 5% are female" isn't meant to effect players, its to give GMs context when making NPCs and when having NPCs interact with players. For example, townsfolk being amazed at the sight of a player's female barbarian, because you rarely see those. (Or conversely, if they aren't surprised to see one, it suggests that the area might have some interesting social dynamics going on, etc)

[Crimson Dynamo]

The requirements exist to ensure that the character fits the style of the occ. The barbarian occ representing a warrior type focused on melee fighting, so it has a high strength requirement. So you don't get stuff like a PS 3 barbarian.

"Is someone making a Barbarian? Well guess what, chances are pretty f*cking high that they're going to prioritize P.S. as one of their main attributes. And even if they don't, so what? They're only hurting themselves."

So who cares if some derp is making a barbarian with a P.S. of 3? And if the GM is allowing it, it's on both of them and they clearly have a reason for it.

And stuff like "only 5% are female" isn't meant to effect players, its to give GMs context when making NPCs and when having NPCs interact with players.

"Even dumber is the "onLy FiVe peRCenT oF ThEm aRe tHIs!!!" type rules. Like, why is that even remotely in a section of rules relating to character creation? That's, at best, a suggestion for GMs building their own location, at which point they're free to do whatever the hell they want anyway. It's just... pointless."

So yeah, they serve no real purpose whatsoever. If a GM doesn't think a female barbarian is something that should already stand out when interacting with NPCs, then having that blurb won't change that one iota.

[ShadowLogan]

It says that only 5% of women are allowed to be Barbarian warriors in their societies, and they must have a PS of at least 17, and PP and PE of at least 14. Is that before or after taking the skills and abilities? If it's before, that's a lot lower than 5%.

Pre-Requisites come before skills and abilities. Megaversally I can point to two examples in Rifts that show this... The Jucier and Crazy OCCs both have no attribute requirements, but after selecting the class they get bonuses to certain attributes in addition to skills and those bonus rolls to attributes have a minimum requirement (they also state at this point if the result is lower to just raise it to the minimum, but that is specifically called out and may only apply to these classes).

As for the 5% needing to meet attribute requirements, is 5% the chance of rolling 14+, 14+, 17+ on 3x rolls of 3d6? Individually that seems off, isn't it more like a 1% chance of getting those 3 results?

[Kraynic]

I generally use anydice.com for simple dice probabilities: https://anydice.com/
Getting 16+ on any race/species with 3 dice (since you get an extra die in 2E on a 16 also instead of just 17 or 18 like in 1E) on the roll has a 4.63% probability, so it is close to that 5% specified. Getting 14+ is much higher at 16.2%.

But that really isn't the whole picture is it? That bit of setting information that indicates roughly 5% of barbarians are female isn't about the stat requirement really, but about the roughly 19 to 1 ratio of the gender of barbarians. It is setting info on how the author sees that occupation being represented in the world as a whole, not character generation info. Just because a female character has the stats for it doesn't mean she will desire to be a barbarian. Just because a male character meets the attribute requirement to be a barbarian doesn't mean the character wants to be a barbarian. A character of either gender could have the attribute rolls to be a barbarian but opt to be anything else, because "barbarians are dumb" (or whatever reason).

On the topic of whether skills can be filled in before or after looking at OCC requirements, I agree that a strict "rules as written" approach will disallow that. I have always thought that skills being treated as instantly gained is a bit wonky (that goes for any system, not just Palladium), though it is easy to maintain the "suspension of disbelief" when acquiring a few skills at a time as the character gains experience during play, since a player is likely to choose skills that are in some way associated with things that have happened during play.. At the beginning though, it doesn't make any sense to me that a character decides "I am going to be a barbarian (or any other OCC)!" and suddenly all these skills simply poof! into existence and apply at that instant. It seems to me that many skills that a character starts with would require interest and training stretching back years. That is why I would allow a starting character's skills to apply to reach requirements for a specific OCC. It also means that the probability of certain dice results no longer matters, since the physical training needed to meet the requirements of an OCC can start when the character gets an interest in the OCC instead of when the character is at the point of being formally (how formally is a barbarian trained?) trained for that OCC. Obviously that is up to individual GM discretion, or lack thereof, so can't be counted on without consulting the GM running a particular game.

[Veknironth]

Well, Kraynic hit on one of my concerns. Sure, the rules of character creation state you pick the OCC and then the skilks so you wouldn't recieve benefits from those skills to determine the viability of the OCC. Then again, they also say to roll stats before selecting your race, which is clearly backward. So, you're going to have to break the prescribed order of character creation a tad. So, I can see someone training to become a Barbarian warrior and that training allows them to make the cut.

The strange thing is how there are requirements for the female barbarian, but not the males. You could have a female barbarian with a 30 PE, a 30 PP, and a 16 strength amd she would be turned down in favor of a male barbarian with a 3 in PS, PE, and PP. What sense does that make? Also, the real minimum PS of a female Barbarian is 22,what with the physical skills they recieve. "Are to be feared" indeed.

-Vek
"Maybe best to ignore that line."

[Kraynic]

male barbarian with a 3 in PS, PE, and PP.

I'm not sure if it is different in 2E (and I am too lazy to look it up at the moment), but I'm not sure I would allow a male barbarian with stats like that. I mean, in 1E, even squires (one of the optional classes) required a PS of 5 or 6 just to carry their master's shields and lances around. Mercenaries had to have minimum of 7 PS, and to be a soldier you had to have 10. Although, I suppose a PS of 3 would make the steriotypical lack of armor make sense if they aren't actually strong enough to really carry any around...

Maybe some male barbarians are really just bards/actors with really good disguise and acting/impersonation skills.

[Crimson Dynamo]

...but I'm not sure I would allow a male barbarian with stats like that.

That sentence fragment. That's why those restrictions are dumb and best left ignored, because it's ultimately up to the GM allowing the character in the first place.

In fact, suggesting (and this is a general reference, and by no means specific to you Kraynic) that you should use the restrictions as written, then stating something like this in virtually the same breath, is a huge ??? moment. Like, if you're sticking to the rules as they're written, then a male barbarian with physical attributes of 3 is absolutely allowed and there's no reason to not allow it.

It's more of a philosophical thing for me, I suppose. These "rules" are rules that are just not worth having/abiding, as they're completely arbitrary and serve no real purpose whatsoever.

[Kraynic]

...but I'm not sure I would allow a male barbarian with stats like that.

That sentence fragment. That's why those restrictions are dumb and best left ignored, because it's ultimately up to the GM allowing the character in the first place.

In fact, suggesting (and this is a general reference, and by no means specific to you Kraynic) that you should use the restrictions as written, then stating something like this in virtually the same breath, is a huge ??? moment. Like, if you're sticking to the rules as they're written, then a male barbarian with physical attributes of 3 is absolutely allowed and there's no reason to not allow it.

It's more of a philosophical thing for me, I suppose. These "rules" are rules that are just not worth having/abiding, as they're completely arbitrary and serve no real purpose whatsoever.

It isn't philosophical at all to me. It is about world building. Is it reasonable for male barbarians to have a lower strength requirement than squires, or mercenaries, or soldiers (especailly in light of the high requirements for female barbarians)? It seems to me like a requirement was left out by mistake. Or maybe it wasn't. So it is up to whoever is building the world for a particular game to decide if it makes sense for male barbarians to have no stat requirements at all.

[Nevermore]

I can't speak for the person you replied to, but I believe he or she meant that that sort of information doesn't really belong as a restriction for the OCC. It's a general note for the gamemaster and really only applies when worldbuilding. I mean, what are the odds of a Godling walking around compared to a female Barbarian existing? Why does one basically require (quote unquote) you to roll a 1 on a d20 just to roll up the character when the other has no such limitation? It's a bit on the silly side.