Best of the Web - Barbarians and Abstract Combat

I read two posts recently that separate were okay, but when put together got my imagination churning. 

The first was an old post (July 2008) by Noisms at Monsters and Manuals called I hate Barbarians [Warning: Rant] in which he rants (he did warn you) that Barbarians should be a fighter combined with role playing and not a class of their own. For reasons or archetype and potential racism. He makes a lot of good points but I'm not sure I'm sold, still it was on my mind.

The second was on the blog Ongoing Campaign by faoladh. The post was called Abstract Combat in AD&D 1st Edition. I played a lot of 1E back in the day and we always called who we would attack so it was a surprise to read a quote from the DMG basically saying it should be more random than that. Then in the comments faoladh says: 

"Specifically notable, there is no situation for a "set-piece battle" as opposed to a "swirling melee". The only thing described is a melee, which is described elsewhere (I think in the missile rule) as everyone within 10 feet of an opponent, and a single melee is all of the combatants who can be connected by being within 10 feet of anyone in that same melee."

That bit was the chocolate in my peanut butter bit. Basically we have two types of battle, the set piece as most people already play it, and the swirling melee as 1E was written. We also have two types of fighters, the fighter (set-piece) and the Barbarian (swirling melee). 

Set Piece Battle Rule

If 3 or more fighters (optionally a Cleric might count) work together they turn any melee into a set-piece battle. They become an island of stability in the chaos of battle. Enemies will come to them to attack, movement in combat and attacks of opportunity are a thing, and their allies can select targets (most notably thieves and archers can better do their thing). If the number of fighters drops in numbers due to wounds or whatever the battle devolves into a swirling melee in which nobody can pick targets, movement and attacks of opportunity are ignored and considered just part of the melee, and basically everything is a lot more random. 

Barbarians don't have the discipline to fight in units, they do not count as part of a set-piece or take advantage of the set-piece even if they are allies. No matter what they do they fight swirling melee style, always fighting random enemies in the melee.

Lastly Barbarians should be called Berserkers as that's really what the class is talking about with the Rage business anyway. 

How To Run Combat

James Young at Ten Foot Polemic has a nice post on combat called TFP DMG: How To Run Combat. It's good stuff, especially the idea of the wrestling. 

Tiger's don't stand off 10 feet away swiping with their claws, they jump on their opponent in what is a bit of a blend between wrestling and melee. If you treat their claws like daggers the wrestling rules in the post should work nicely. I use Tiger's as an example but really any animal you can imagine is likely to bull rush their target making stand-off weapons more difficult. This would make fighting animal-like beasts feel very different than fights against armed opponents as it should be and could make fights against Ogres (who are very bear-buggy) or some other weapon-less humanoid feel very different.

.