D&D General Has D&D abandoned the "martial barbarian"?

[Mind of tempest]

You also hit the nail on the head with why the Pathfinder Instincts are so magical:

Paizo painted themselves into a corner by making Skill Feats a core function of the game and put all the "Nonmagical Cool Stuff" into them, leaving them with little to put elsewhere and multiple classes needing what little is left available.

... and then the whole "Magic is Cool" thing of high fantasy in modern times.

what I would not give for a decent skill system where you need not be a certain class or have feats to do cool stuff.

 

[le Redoutable]

Je ne comprends pas... Démonologiste? You mean the warlock? What that has to do with barbarians? Except that Conan often fought against such...

je me réfère ( en fait je fais de la pub ) à un système que j'appelle TEMPS ( ici WFTMP ) décrit ( mais bon c'est expérimental ) dans mon topic Replacing CON with Energy

 

[Crimson Longinus]

je me réfère ( en fait je fais de la pub ) à un système que j'appelle TEMPS ( ici WFTMP ) décrit ( mais bon c'est expérimental ) dans mon topic Replacing CON with Energy

Ah, d’accord!

 

[Blue]

Preternatural is, I think, the word you’re looking for here. And I agree; I think that best fits with the Berserkers that inspired the class. I do wish there was a true Wild Shape Barbarian though.

This is funny because I've been asked to bring back a character and was just looking at that.

Ina very short lived follow-up campaign in 2019 to a concluded campaign, me and oen of the other players were playing brother and sister who was the child of a prominent moon druid NPC from the first campaign. My older sister was also a moon druid, so could wild shape, and as the younger brother I never managed ot do it all the way - but part of Totem Spirit was "At your option, you also gain minor physical attributes that are reminiscent of your totem spirit", so with the DM's permission I made that happen but only when raging - so I "partially transformed".

Anyway we're starting a new campaign in the same setting and have been asked to bring that character back, but I need to de-level and remake him. And since then we've had the Path of the Beast come up which is pretty easy to work as a Wild Shape Barbarian. Limited shaping, but still the concept is there for thematics.

 

[le Redoutable]

This is funny because I've been asked to bring back a character and was just looking at that.

Ina very short lived follow-up campaign in 2019 to a concluded campaign, me and oen of the other players were playing brother and sister who was the child of a prominent moon druid NPC from the first campaign. My older sister was also a moon druid, so could wild shape, and as the younger brother I never managed ot do it all the way - but part of Totem Spirit was "At your option, you also gain minor physical attributes that are reminiscent of your totem spirit", so with the DM's permission I made that happen but only when raging - so I "partially transformed".

Anyway we're starting a new campaign in the same setting and have been asked to bring that character back, but I need to de-level and remake him. And since then we've had the Path of the Beast come up which is pretty easy to work as a Wild Shape Barbarian. Limited shaping, but still the concept is there for thematics.

Wild Shape Barbarian ?
pour moi, c'est Barbarian/Druid

 

[le Redoutable]

aussi, si les Barbares on Fast Pace, les Moines aussi ils ont de la speed

 

[le Redoutable]

aussi, Conan c'est un Peau-Rouge ( Indien d'Amérique )

 

[Minigiant]

Battlerager, Berserker, Juggernaut, Totem Barbarian.

The other five released subclasses are kinda on the mystical side, sure. And you could probably argue the totem Barbarian is magic, too, what with it's all seeing eagle eyes, but the rest of it is pretty much just "I'm a completely normal warrior who uses animalistic fighting styles". But 4/9 ain't the worst, y'know?

Is the Juggernaut official? Even so that's over 50% of babarians in Overt Magictown.

1) There's only so many ways to do "Nonmagically hits stuff good" and it's split between Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues.
2) Players like Magic or Reality Bending stuff because it's reflected in popular media.
3) They painted themselves into a corner by making Martial Combat really simple compared to previous editions and there aren't a ton of little rules to break with class abilities that make for interesting options.

I think D&D uses these as a cop out.

If D&D can add a bunch of subsystems to fighters why not barbarians.

1. Tap into 4e and allow Barbarians to do Rage Strikes by expending rages.
   1. More Damage
   2. Shove opponents dozens of feet
   3. Crumple foes with devastating blows
2. Do the equivalent of the fighter's Samurai and Cavalier and have barbarians of alternate fighting styles and skill foci
   1. Barbarian Chiefs and Thanes
   2. Barbarian Horseman
   3. Wolfcoats as fixed berserkers
3. Focus on the ability scores to display more superhero or action hero levels of athleticism.
   1. Hulks. Powerful axe throws. Monkeygripping.
   2. Speedsters. Increased speed. More attacks with lighter weapons. Bestial dodging.
   3. Tanks. Increased AC. Clublike fists and rocking headbutts. Barehanded swordcatching.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wild Shape Barbarian ?
pour moi, c'est Barbarian/Druid

I figured someone would say this (though I figured it would be in English).

Some people want their martial characters to be able to do cool things without having to multiclass into a caster class.

 

[Umbran]

I think this was right around the time it started to dawn on me that AD&D was really its own thing rather than a generic fantasy.

So, that opens a question - what is "generic fantasy"?

"It doesn't model the specific abilities I care about of a specific character who is seminal in a specific sub-genre." means, "not generic"?

I think I want to push back that that. In other places, "generic" does not mean, "adequately mimics all specifics." Generic rather means "not terribly specific itself".

I also think there's an over-focus on mechanics when folks think about "generic". If we consider it from the sense of the general themes and styles and forms of the fictional genres, is D&D generic? Can you tell a story like Conan, and similar to Fafhrd & Grey Mouser, and in the general vein of Tolkien? Well, yeah. The system has few specifics to support any one of them, but can kinda do them all.

That makes it pretty generic. As in, not being specific enough to exclude many story types.