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

[Laurefindel]

"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.

"Warrior" isn't that overly generic than "fighter" or "rogue" however, whereas both terms can be applied to a very wide range of character, independently from their class abilities.

 

[Laurefindel]

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.

If we leave aside the sensitive issues with the term "barbarian" itself, this seems more like "rage", as a game mechanic, is the misnomer here as it has been noted upthread. In other words, it isn't barbarian that doesn't go well with rage, it's rage that doesn't go well with barbarian, but independently from its mechanics. Change rage to, lets say, "battle stance", and suddenly you open up a whole new range of barbarians who aren't frothing at the mouth frenzied beserkers.

Elven wardancer as a companion technique to bladesong, dwarvish shield-bearer on the defensive line, fencing-school trained daredevil, an order of frontier-guarding knights against the tides of undead, and of course, the frenzied berserker or the totemic barbarian. Would these still be "barbarians"? Probably not however.

 

[Tonguez]

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!

In a prehistoric campaign I once ran I reimagined Paladins as being possessed by the Beast Spirits (Wolf, Bear, Boar, Shark and Raptor). Their Smite was releasing the fury of the Beast and thats why they needed to be Lawful so that they had the discipline and will to remain in control of the raging spirit

 

[Maxperson]

If we leave aside the sensitive issues with the term "barbarian" itself, this seems more like "rage", as a game mechanic, is the misnomer here as it has been noted upthread. In other words, it isn't barbarian that doesn't go well with rage, it's rage that doesn't go well with barbarian, but independently from its mechanics. Change rage to, lets say, "battle stance", and suddenly you open up a whole new range of barbarians who aren't frothing at the mouth frenzied beserkers.

Elven wardancer as a companion technique to bladesong, dwarvish shield-bearer on the defensive line, fencing-school trained daredevil, an order of frontier-guarding knights against the tides of undead, and of course, the frenzied berserker or the totemic barbarian. Would these still be "barbarians"? Probably not however.

How sensitive is the name, really? I mean, there are exceedingly few primitive tribes in the world and they don't have access to the internet or D&D.

 

[Laurefindel]

How sensitive is the name, really? I mean, there are exceedingly few primitive tribes in the world and they don't have access to the internet or D&D.

Personally, I think the name can be sensitive but that gaming hobby has passed its pejorative connotation and defines it as something to be proud of, but the sensibility of the term barbarian was nevertheless the premise of this thread.

 

[Minigiant]

If we leave aside the sensitive issues with the term "barbarian" itself, this seems more like "rage", as a game mechanic, is the misnomer here as it has been noted upthread. In other words, it isn't barbarian that doesn't go well with rage, it's rage that doesn't go well with barbarian, but independently from its mechanics. Change rage to, lets say, "battle stance", and suddenly you open up a whole new range of barbarians who aren't frothing at the mouth frenzied beserkers.

Elven wardancer as a companion technique to bladesong, dwarvish shield-bearer on the defensive line, fencing-school trained daredevil, an order of frontier-guarding knights against the tides of undead, and of course, the frenzied berserker or the totemic barbarian. Would these still be "barbarians"? Probably not however.

Rage seems to be the issue. As the only option for a barbarian, it seems weird. However if it shares the same space as battle dances, spirit trances, primal forms, ancestral guards, wild moves, and raw brutality, the barbarian name doesn't seem bad.

I also think if the barbarian's key feature is expanded,the sensitivity issue lessens as well.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Berserking is typically understood as mindless attacking, which rage isn't.

By whom?
I understand it as wild or possibly crazed, but not mindless.

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.

"Disney" Berserkers?

Berserker only fits the subclass, not the class.

How do you feel about my reasoning as to why?

 

[Maxperson]

By whom?
I understand it as wild or possibly crazed, but not mindless.

Mindless in the sense that they are not in control of their actions. Rage allows control. Berserk isn't supposed to.

"Disney" Berserkers?

Yep. 5e's "Berserkers" don't actually go berserk. They just rage and have an ability that references mindless, without any actual loss of control. They've made them rated PG Berserkers, or Disney Berserkers.

How do you feel about my reasoning as to why?

I agree that there are both non-class Barbarians and class Barbarians, but I really don't think it needs changing, because of that. There are also non-Rogue Rogues, non-Cleric, Clerics, non-Fighter Fighters, non-Druid Druids, etc.

 

[Don Durito]

I think uncoupling Barbarian as a class from Rage runs into conceptual problems.

There's not a lot of room in between the Fighter and Ranger, for a more generic wilderness warror - this is especially so when the Fighter is as wide as it is and backgrounds exist.

There isn't really a good need for the Barbarian as a class separate from the Fighter other than tradition and the existence of a unique mechanic.

 

[Don Durito]

Personally, I think the name can be sensitive but that gaming hobby has passed its pejorative connotation and defines it as something to be proud of, but the sensibility of the term barbarian was nevertheless the premise of this thread.

Was it? I'm not entirely sure. All the OP says is that Barbarian is perhaps not the best name for the class. There could be a whole lot of other reasons for that: eg. not being accurate for people who want to reskin the class an angry civilised person, not encompassing many types of characters people associate with barbarians, etc.