Ye Olde Inn

I put this guy together. Never made a UK hero before, so that's why this is.

I decided to use the name "Oriental" as its the closest equivalent to "Barbarian," logically. I understand that there is sophomoric use of the word as a pejorative. The point is to have him described from a Western perspective, and it literally means "from the East."

not bad, an interesting ability. could seriously drain cash if you wanted to use it a lot though!
the name however, just doesn't work. I think you'd be better off just calling it a ninja or a knife thrower maybe?

He's not a flavoring, that is literally the only descriptive equivalent there is. I suppose I could find something else, since "Barbarian" actually means, "not Greek."

Easterling, Eastron...
The picture, the stats, the special ability call for Assassin or Scout or something similar, independent from the character's geographical origin.
Maybe a combination, like Eastron Assassin, would make sense.

The word Ninja is too heavily connotated with something very very specific in the real world. It doesn't fit a fantasy setting because the whole setting will appear as merely a frame for uncreative derivations of cliché ideas you wanna press into that setting until it all gets too much and very stuffed. The Warhammer world is such an abomination of zero naturalism OR realism where ideas and derivations are pressed in a very unimaginative map of a world that under the circumstances is just too freakin' thinly populated and would be far from as assessible as the game suggests.
I also don't like the term Zombie for the above reason. Or monk. You get the idea.

Let's call him something totally basic d&d, like Shooter or Thrower or something 4E--Tornadohawk Fellknife.

Tornadohawk Fellknife is almost as cool as Fighter.

Fighting-Man.

call it a ninja that is what the picture is of and most people will call it that anyway I mean id bet if you showed that pic to 10 people and asked them to describe it at least 8 of them would say ninja

chaoticprime wrote:or something 4E--Tornadohawk Fellknife.

Implying 3.x didn't suffer from that? Because it totally did. No need for the barbed words, fearsome Edition Warrior.

I hate 3rd and 3.5 most of all. Descriptively, 4E was rife with those used to distinguish between multiple types of monster--but was extended further still in describing singular species as well. 3.5 was rife with the templates. I could have said, "Axiomatic Dire Tarantula."

It must be non-alliterated logical fallacy Wednesday. You were able to glean the exact opposite of my beliefs based on what I didn't actually say. I also didn't mention Original D&D, 1st ed, 1.5 ed, 2nd ed, or 2.5 ed. So what I can assume is that you are either a fan of Basic (doubtful) or 4E, and you probably also have a bad history with 3E apologists. I have been banned on Facebook by Monte Cooke and Sean K Reynolds for pointing out their *lemony goodness*. And if you liked being bamboozled by 4E, no one here is going to call you a petulant loser who got roped in by a card/board/miniatures/world of warcraft-game. There were so many pieces, what wasn't to like?

The only RPG I will play is GURPS: Bunnies & Burrows.