Would blending rangers and barbarians fix what is wrong with barbarians?

I say yes.
Barbarians and Rangers are the same in my opinion, two sides of the same coin.
These two classes represent what would be the warrior, or adventure type of a specific culture, those, like in a city or village, would defend the area, or go beyond it for trade or battle: culture, something that never seems to come up in game.
The barbarians is always just that, but barbarians are not a lumping of people, it is a broad term used to classify those who are outside of the dominate or ruling culture which sees them as dirty, wild, animal-like people who care nothing for virtue or civility. But when in game, how often does the barbarian have a people or is it more likely that the player didn’t look into that or the DM just ignored it since the only people who play them are out for the stats and damage and not the RP’ing part. In my experience, I’ve seen it rarely brought up.
The other thing I’d like make as an issue is this, not every barbarian was a Viking which is where the concept of rage comes from. Not every barbarian tastes battle when waking.
Ex from the book, barbarian page under adventuring, and then others: “They are not suited for the monotony of guard duty or other mundane tasks.” ok So this is just a killing class with no concept of what a real person would do. They are like dogs, or simple humans...any one ever pick up a book, or at the least, watch the history channel about barbarians... “He is home in the wild, and runs at great speed?” what is a barbarian, a horse? “These rages leave him winded, and he only has the energy for a few such spectacular per day...” Barbarians: characters coming soon in the next Mortal Combat. It’s saying a whole people have special attacks....haha. “Barbarians are never lawful?” So...no laws...they just did what they saw fit? “Barbarians distrust established religions, and prefer an intuitive relationship to the cosmos over formal worship.” Ok, so they have a concept of the COSMOS, but they can’t read? Yeah, sounds like their dumb.
It gets annoying that every barbarian is the same Conan rip off that seeks to cut down and do battle with any foe he or she sees. Barbarians had, within their own tribes, knights and kings..and trained soldiers with skills and tactical knowledge...they didn’t just run into what was coming hoping that their DR would save them. Another thing, barbarians could READ AND WRITE...perhaps not the language of their oppressors, but in many cases they knew that as well. Their wrote poetry and were artistic, they had a culture and that is not represented in the game play at all.

Movie examples: Triston and Isolde...barbarians...were they illiterate?
Brave Heart...once again.
Even Conan became king, and red books to expand his knowledge.

I think, by putting rangers, and barbarians together, players can bridge the gap and make something greater than the two.

So, you’re thoughts.

I disagree with your basic assumption. To my mind, while there's a bit of overlap, the two classes are fundamentally different.

The berserker, the rage-driven warrior, is a very different archetype from the woodland hunter. You're comparing Conan with Aragorn, and asking us to accept that they're one and the same.

Your problems with the barbarian seem to stem from a conflict between the class and the common usage of the term. But the barbarian class in D&D represents one specific archetype. It's not meant to apply to every member of every culture that might be "barbaric," any more than every individual who fights is a fighter, or every individual who performs is a bard.

If you think of the barbarian as a specific type of wilderness-oriented warrior, and not a representative of all barbarian cultures, I think you'll be a lot happier. There's nothing at all wrong with the class as it stands. And I submit that if you've never seen someone RP a barbarian as barbaric, the problem is not with the class, but with the players.

Right. Not every barbarian has levels in the Barbarian class, and not everyone who has levels in the Barbarian class is a barbarian.

Just like not every warrior has levels in the Warrior class, and not everyone who has levels in the Rogue class is a rogue, and not everyone from a monastery has levels in Monk.

-Hyp.

of course defining cultures as barbaric is a form of racism As such divorcing the term barbarian from any cultural assumptions might be considered enlightened.

The DnD Barbarian is a person from ANY culture who "is not suited for the monotony of mundane tasks, prefers an intuitive relationship to the cosmos, is at home in the wild, runs at great speed, has not learnt to read and is able to into a trance-state which seems to increase physical prowess”

Tarzan fits the description of Barbarian much better than Conan
I've even had Dervish-like mystics who were Barbarians (usually Barbarian/Psychic Warrior) with Rage defined as a "Inner Focus" like the Eye of a Storm

That being said in my Mythic Polynesia campaign the term Barbarian has been changed to Cannibal Savage who are those who enter a 'Blood Frenzy' by indiscriminately eating the flesh (or blood) of others...

The raging barbarian of 3e bears no resemblance to Conan, that I can see. Conan always seemed pretty self-controlled. He's a bit more like Cuchulainn (or Slaine) type Celtic battle-ragers, but even there the analogy seems weak. I dunno, overall I really don't like the class and its core Rage ability. For most barbarian warriors, unless you're a Berserker I think the Fighter class works much better. Even the 1e Barbarian was better IMO, though it needed to be toned down and given a reduced XP progression.

Maybe you're right - take the Barbarian, remove Rage and add some Ranger skills, for 3e 6 skill points/level; ought to give a workable class.

In my opinion barbarian isn't even a class per se but a concept for role-playing. I dislike the barbarian for monopolizing an entire emotion.

Never considered Barbarian broken. A bit 1 dimensional (like Clooney's Batman with emotion), but not actually broken.

Isn't Conan a strong thief?

robberbaron said:

Isn't Conan a strong thief?

Click to expand...

In 3e Conan would probably be a min-maxed Fighter-Rogue, yup.

For some reason EGG never liked Thieves who could fight decently, which makes Fafhrd, Mouser or Conan types difficult to do justice to.

S'mon said:

The raging barbarian of 3e bears no resemblance to Conan, that I can see.

Click to expand...

Buh? Maybe it is because I just recently re-read Howard's original stories, but it seems to me the Barbarian class is an an attempt at perfect emulation of the archetype epitomized by Conan. now, Conan was also other things -- a pirate and a thief most notably -- but for the most part he was a skilled wilderness survivalist who was tough as nails and occassionally unleashed primal fury in battle. Note that the rage ability in 3E isn't really "rage" in the sense of being overcome with emotion. It isn't like the 2E berserker that took ten minutes to build himself up, couldn't end the rage and might even attack his friends while under the influence. The 3E rage is a state of perfect battle meditation that can be switched on and off and doesn't blind the PC from the differences between friend and foe.

IMO, the only thing wrong with the Barbarian class is the name. 'Berserker' would probably have fit better. (Oh, and I suppose I also consider the class a little too good when compared with the Fighter... but much of that is due to Mithral Full Plate, two-handed Power Attack and Animated sheilds, and is another conversation for another time anyway.)

That said, I have on occasion wondered about merging the Ranger and Barbarian classes together. Both seem to cover similar ground in the 'Wilderness Warrior' niche. Then again, the 3.5e revision went a long way to eliminating my issues with the Ranger, and also made the classes more distinct.