Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey and SaGa Scarlet Grace are both excellent entries in the genre, with Scarlet Grace having a unique take on combat that is very tactical. I also very much enjoy SMT IV and V.
Actually, female vampires can use ghoulification on you know what and there you go. As in feed blood. I don't actually know, do the fangs work both ways?
IE games on iPad is pretty comfy.
The codex is a great place for women, it is a pure coincidence that there is so few.
It is not that they're shite but it is the fact that everyone and their granny uses Drak Souls in every CRPG thread as some kind of a measuring stick be it an action, tactical, isometric, blobber whatever. I implore anyone to find a thread where Dark Souls ain't mentioned. The thing is Dark Souls is hot damn console action game no matter how good the said action and worldbuilding is. It is like a bringing Gears of War example to Arcanum thread.
That's a broad statement. Thematically and aesthetically barbarians don't make any sense. When I think of barbarians I think of people like Celts, Huns, Goths, Vikings. They have armor as good as anybody else, they might fight from horseback and use bows. Not really very different from a normal fighter. But in D&D retard land a barbarian is a flanderized Frazetta painting. The barbarian runs around in a leather thong, eats raw dirt, and gets REALLY ANGRY ARGGGHHHH. But honestly all of the non-core classes in D&D and its ripoffs are retarded. Oh I want to be a charming trickster but also sword fight and cast spells sometimes. Well then I'd better fucking learn guitar because you need to be a "Bard" for some goddamn reason. Ranger? Just a grab-bag of bullshit somebody wanted for their special little guy and made into a class. Must be "good" alignment for some reason. Monk, totally retarded, adding jrpg kung fu bullshit into western fantasy, doesn't belong at all. Then there's all the other retarded classes they keep adding. I hate D&D for the brain rot its brought to fantasy settings.
Have ye nae read thine Howard, Robert Ervin?
The Conan created by Howard is not the Conan painted by Frazetta and converted into a Marvel character. Look at how Conan was drawn by other artists before Frazetta got him (and painted his own face on him).
My point is that the barbarian class in D&D is based on Frazetta's paintings, not the Conan stories of Howard. Howard's Conan was clever, stealthy, wore plate armor when he had it. Not a retard who got angry and hit everything with a huge ax.
That's a lot to read off a painting done showing a dude at some damned inconvenient times.
Also does cooking dirt make it better?
Looking a 1st edition pnp rules it doesn't look too far off. But I've never played tabletop and my experience of the barbarians is from video games. Where their distinguishing features are usually leather thong, big ax, lots of hp and angery.Barbarian was based on Howard's Conan.
Indeed frazetta wanted to paint only the most action-packed scenes or the ones with the most naked butts. Its harder to paint conan doing something clever or stealthy. But Frazetta also said that he never actually read the stories he illustrated and any similarity was mere coincidence.
