Diff'rent Strokes: Barbarians and Varying Mechanics by Class

[Serendipity]

I'm quite happy to tell Webster and Roget to take a flying leap and keep the class centered around berserking as a core mechanism.

So...why not just call it a berserker? We don't call Wizards "Scholars." Though I suppose overall it's just another fine example of wizards taking a word that means one thing and using it for a completely different thing (fortitude for example, though that was repurposed by white wolf first).

 

[ComradeGnull]

So...why not just call it a berserker? We don't call Wizards "Scholars." Though I suppose overall it's just another fine example of wizards taking a word that means one thing and using it for a completely different thing (fortitude for example, though that was repurposed by white wolf first).

To me, the Barbarian class being the guy who uses rage or berserker-type attacks is well established enough that there is little reason to change it. It builds on a popular perception (even if it perhaps not a correct one), it was used that way in 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder, and there were a couple of 2e Barbarian kits that embraced that idea as well (though the Complete Book of Barbarians approach was closer to the 1e version than 3e). As you mention, 'guy from primitive background' is probably not suited to being a class, but surely Barbarian ought to be a class- it's just a question of what it would be. The berserker niche is better defined than any of the other possible niches for a Barbarian (in that it doesn't overlap with Rangers, Druids, or Fighters-with-leaf-wearing-backgrounds), so it seems like we might as well stick with it.

In other words:
1) I want there to be a class that has rage as its defining mechanic
2) I want there to be a Barbarian class, regardless of what mechanic it uses
3) There are at least a few extant sources that combine 1 & 2
4) No one seems to have a clearer idea of what to make a Barbarian that doesn't step on the toes of Rangers or Fighters, or elevate a background into a class without giving it a clear identity.
5) Ergo keep Barbarians as rage-filled primitives, and use backgrounds or themes to create Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, etc., that also come from primitive tribes.

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

 

[Serendipity]

Makes a point, pretty well.

I disagree on almost every point, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. In the meantime, I'll keep hoping for a barbarian theme/background and probably make a ranger...or a cleric, or a druid, or whatever, from that background.

 

[babomb]

So...why not just call it a berserker?

Because there's no character called Conan the Berserker.

 

[Serendipity]

Because there's no character called Conan the Berserker.

Yes, but - crappy movies possibly aside - Conan wasn't a berserker.

 

[steeldragons]

I see, and oddly enough agree with, both sides of this.

For myself, I too definitely hope for a "Berserker" theme (now going to be "Specialty" apparently. bleh) and a "Barbarian" background. It just makes more sense, to me...and always has, in my games, been the case. I've even gone so far as to keep "barbarians" restricted to a certain human tribal culture in my game world.

At the same time, the "Barbarian" as a D&D class has a longstanding tradition and great popularity (as far as I can tell). And the core mechanic/niche of the class, for D&D, was always the rager-guy. So, from a standpoint of "if it ain't broke" and/or not changing things for the sake of change (that kinda thing just makes me nuts!) I also agree with ComradeGnull and others that changing it, while it would be more accurate and (I think) flavorful, is unnecessary. I'll still define my game world's "barbarians" as I always have, a specific, yes often "wild" and "more primitive" culture than the cities and castles of the more "civilized" realms.

But, I will still hope that we don't see "Barbarian" as a class, but Berserker as a theme (preferably limited to Fighters, but in the interests of people's versatility and imagination, I'll take it allowed for any class). I just doubt the likelihood that will happen.

Warlord falls into this line of thinking also...easily doable by a theme/specialty tacked onto a base class (why not a cleric warlord? or hells, a mage?). The Cavalier and/or Knight, also. I just don't think every permutation of the Fighter needs to have its own class if it can be done via background and/or theme.

Now, of course, that calls up the whole 'Then where do you draw the line?" debate. i.e. If yer gonna do that, why can't Rangers just be fighters with a "Woodsman or Hunter" background and an "Archer or Two-Weapon Fighter" theme? Why isn't a Paladin just a Fighter with a "noble/knight" background and a "Holy Smiter or Devout Champion [or what have you]" theme?

There's really no right/wrong answer/place for that line, of course...I base mine on traditionalism, I suppose...and my perceptions of the popularity and legacy of certain classes. Rangers and Paladins just came first...they have a slew of special abilities that are their own...even though Barbarian and Cavalier both made their entry shortly thereafter (in 1e Unearthed Arcana) and had all of their own special bells and whistles...they seemed forced...pulled out of stuff that I could reasonably envision ANY fighter (with appropriate backgrounds) being able to do.

And, in yon early days, saw more than my share of "knight or "barbarian" characters who were just Fighters with different clothes (or lack thereof) and weapons. The window dressing was different, the role play certainly was different, but the character sheet still said Fighter.

Warlords, of course, are the new kids on the block, so they don't get many "traditional" points. I also feel their range of special/class abilities all [or mostly] belong to any Fighter character...the guy who fights better than anything else! A warlord, by definition, is all about fighting..."scream healing" mechanic aside...but one could make the argument that aids in the group's overall ability to Fight, so it still counts in a way. Better than the fighter, though? No thanks. Theme, please.

Just my thoughts.
--Steel "berserking over my barbarians" Dragons

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Now, of course, that calls up the whole 'Then where do you draw the line?" debate. i.e. If yer gonna do that, why can't Rangers just be fighters with a "Woodsman or Hunter" background and an "Archer or Two-Weapon Fighter" theme? Why isn't a Paladin just a Fighter with a "noble/knight" background and a "Holy Smiter or Devout Champion [or what have you]" theme?

My answer is that it should only be a class if it can have unique enough mechanics to differentiate it from any other class. So a "berserker" theme could let you rage a few times a day, but probably couldn't handle the full stamina-point system I've outlined here; that requires a full class write up.

Similarly, if a ranger or paladin is basically a fighter, rogue, or cleric with the right theme/background, it doesn't deserve to be a class... It's up to wotc to come up with compelling and unique enough game mechanics to make each of those classes fun to play mechanically and clearly differentiated from other classes.

As for the complaints that this class is too complex for those who want a simple brute character... If we assume that every class is defined by its special abilities (including spells), this model would actually seem to reduce the amount of bookkeeping. You have to keep track of exactly one extra number, stamina points; even the "simple" fighter in the play test has to keep track of surges per day. This model also lets the player determine where and how he/she wants complexity added.

 

[Dausuul]

I think the cleanest mechanic for rage would be to give you a big damage boost, an automatic 20 on all Strength checks, and the ability to keep fighting well into negative hit points; but you take some damage when you come out of it.

This puts limits on raging, without requiring the player to track an additional resource, and it lines up very well with the fiction. You can perform feats of inhuman prowess, but you're causing yourself stress and injury in the process, and you'll feel it--maybe even die from it, John Henry-style--when the battle is over.

 

[Greg K]

I also dislike Barbarian as rager or totem powered warrior.

I like the barbarian as warrior from less civilized society with weapon selection/proficiency and armor based on the culture
1e. The barbarian was not a rager. Gygax provided several culture examples and that determined a few extra weapons and various additional skills. The class had some issues, but David Howery's rewrite from Dragon is, in my opinion, still the best D&D version of the barbarian.

2e. Barbarian was not a berserker. Beserker was only one of several barbarian kits in the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

4e. Conan is not an example of the barbarian class. According to the designers, he was a model for the Fighter class.

Plus, there is no reason rage should be limited to tribal/clan people. There are examples of people in media of characters with rage issues and from "civilized" societies/

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

What defines the barbarian?

A d12 hit die and a big ax.