D&D General Naming the Barbarian? [added battlerager]

[Umbran]

I'm done and will post no further in this topic, but:

Mod Note:
But... claiming it as your last statement doesn't make it okay to argue with the red text in-thread. Remember the rules next time.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, the discussion has evolved over the last 8 pages or so, but originally it was more a question of « if WotC had to reprint the PHB tomorrow and find a new name for that barbarian class, how would you name it? »

I don’t think the thread meant to deconstruct the class that far, but seeing how the 5e version is the merging and evolution of several concepts is interesting nonetheless.

I don't think it was meant to deconstruct the class but all the suggested names in the poll refer to a mechanic directly.

We aren't looking to rename the rogue the backstabber or the cleric the healer.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Berserker is probably best since the core of the class is the Rage feature. Battlerager or Rager works too.

I believe Barbarian is a bad class name because it describes a culture as well as a class. Not all Barbarians are barbarians, and not all barbarians are Barbarians.
You can have a barbarian Fighter, or a barbarian Wizard etc. To me this indicates that Barbarian is rather clumsy as a class name to retain.

 

[MarkB]

I don't think it was meant to deconstruct the class but all the suggested names in the poll refer to a mechanic directly.

We aren't looking to rename the rogue the backstabber or the cleric the healer.

The problem is finding a common-ground name that covers all the various Barbarian subclasses while not making them sound like a stereotypical "primitive tribal warrior". When I suggested "Battlerager" it wasn't because I felt that it was good or evocative, it was simply because I couldn't think of any existing term which encapsulates pretty much the only things that all the variants of barbarian have in common - they're heavily combat-focused, and they have a "rage" mechanic.

"Warrior" is another reasonable option, but it skews almost too far towards the generic. It's a term that could be applied to almost any character that was focused around weapon-based combat, but not sufficiently martially trained that the term "soldier" would feel more applicable. It's not particularly evocative of a character becoming especially enraged or otherwise focused during combat and gaining extraordinary offensive and defensive benefits as a result.

 

[Maxperson]

Berserker is probably best since the core of the class is the Rage feature. Battlerager or Rager works too.

I believe Barbarian is a bad class name because it describes a culture as well as a class. Not all Barbarians are barbarians, and not all barbarians are Barbarians.
You can have a barbarian Fighter, or a barbarian Wizard etc. To me this indicates that Barbarian is rather clumsy as a class name to retain.

Berserking is typically understood as mindless attacking, which rage isn't. Now, 5e has created Disney Berserkers that don't lose control like that even though it references mindless rage, but they're still Rage and then some.

Berserker only fits the subclass, not the class.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem is finding a common-ground name that covers all the various Barbarian subclasses while not making them sound like a stereotypical "primitive tribal warrior". When I suggested "Battlerager" it wasn't because I felt that it was good or evocative, it was simply because I couldn't think of any existing term which encapsulates pretty much the only things that all the variants of barbarian have in common - they're heavily combat-focused, and they have a "rage" mechanic.

"Warrior" is another reasonable option, but it skews almost too far towards the generic. It's a term that could be applied to almost any character that was focused around weapon-based combat, but not sufficiently martially trained that the term "soldier" would feel more applicable. It's not particularly evocative of a character becoming especially enraged or otherwise focused during combat and gaining extraordinary offensive and defensive benefits as a result.

The issue is that the Barbarian went too far down the Rage route in 5e that the name makes no sense. However a class fully based on Rage is too narrow.

But this is a general edition thread. The 1e and 2e barbarians didn't rage by default. And the 4e barb was straight primal.
If 6e were to untie or loosen the bond between the class and Rage, would the "Barbarian" name be okay?

If they Warlocked the Barbarian and made the barbarians choose The Path of Rage, The Path of Totems, and the Path of Brawn along with a Barbaric archetype, would "barbarian" be the best name again?

 

[Bradley Hindman]

Berserking is typically understood as mindless attacking, which rage isn't. Now, 5e has created Disney Berserkers that don't lose control like that even though it references mindless rage, but they're still Rage and then some.

Berserker only fits the subclass, not the class.

Well if you go back a little further than "typical understanding", the berzerkr or "bear shirts" are believed by many to have members of a religious cult. The myth is that some could actually transform into a bear or channel the bear when they entered their hamask or frenzied state. Sounds like a bear-totem barbarian to me. The Ulfheðnar were a similar wolf-based cult and if memory serves, there was also a cult of the boar. I have no idea what the boar cultist were named, but I now want boar totem options!

 

[Maxperson]

Well if you go back a little further than "typical understanding", the berzerkr or "bear shirts" are believed by many to have members of a religious cult. The myth is that some could actually transform into a bear or channel the bear when they entered their hamask or frenzied state. Sounds like a bear-totem barbarian to me. The Ulfheðnar were a similar wolf-based cult and if memory serves, there was also a cult of the boar. I have no idea what the boar cultist were named, but I now want boar totem options!

Well, they were still frenzied and out of control, so Bear Totem + D&D Berserker. The bear part of your post just adds flavor to the nature of the Berserker.

And I agree, a Boar Totem subclass would be really cool.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

The issue is that the Barbarian went too far down the Rage route in 5e that the name makes no sense. However a class fully based on Rage is too narrow.

You have stated this several times in this thread. I honestly would like to know why you hold that opinion. Why do you say that "rage" as the central feature is too narrow? Seems to me that the current barbarian already has rage as a central feature and it seems like a fairly popular class. I've seen a large variety of barbarian character in the games that I run and play in. Doesn't seem too narrow from my perspective.

I am NOT suggesting that a "barbarian" class that focused on something other than rage would be unenjoyable or nonfunctional. I am just stating my opinion that the current class is also enjoyable and functional.

 

[Minigiant]

You have stated this several times in this thread. I honestly would like to know why you hold that opinion. Why do you say that "rage" as the central feature is too narrow? Seems to me that the current barbarian already has rage as a central feature and it seems like a fairly popular class. I've seen a large variety of barbarian character in the games that I run and play in. Doesn't seem too narrow from my perspective.

Because many posters state that not every barbarian rages. Isn't that 50% of the point of the thread? That the class is so tied to rage that the name barbarian is beginning to not fit.

I'm not saying the barbarian isn't fun or functional. However there seems to be some desire to play a less formalized warrior. Especially one with no overt spellcasting. And in D&D for the last few editions, the only option for this is the barbarian. So if barbarians are all berserkers, the only option to play wild, tribal, or untrained warriors are as berserkers.

It's less about the rage being to narrow and more the lack of options. You'd either have to delink the barbarian to rage, relink wild warriors back to fighters, or create a new class. The same old story of D&D. The current trend of D&D is to do the first one.

I have no idea what the boar cultist were named, but I now want boar totem options!

Wikipedia calls them Svinfylking.