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

[Tonguez]

Once again I ask "How is this a barbarian in specific and not a fighter, especially when Conan is normally translated to D&D as a fighter"? Why does "fighting wizards" correlate to "stripping down to a loincloth and getting really angry as your big thing"?

And the "wrapped in cold iron" was a reference to metal armour.

The anti-magic Barbarian plays in to the “Nature v Civilsation” Motif where corrupting magics are an aspect of urbanisation and civilisation and the simple Barbarian represents the more honest, unadulterated purity of nature where a person must rely on their wits, common sense and physical prowess to overcome challenges and deceptions.

The Barbarian is thus

• unencumbered by the artifice of civility and manners
• easily duped yet ultimately able to see through illusions and lies
• able to resist false words and suggestions that go against their true nature
• able to subsume fear and turn it to advantage
• able to shake off magical effects by sheer force of will

 

[le Redoutable]

Hey! you miss the Saga Immortal Hulk ( well, I miss it too )
Hey! perhaps Tarzan is an Ape polymorphed to a human ??

 

[Garthanos]

Hulk is just epic level. Outside of being green, he just punches people, smashes things, and throws large objects. Cut down the power level and it's classic barbarian.

Strong, fast, tough, no armor, fights like a beast, has wilderness knowledge.
Tarzan isn't a ranger (Or at least a pure ranger) because Tarzan isn't a hunter

he most definitely hunted its how he gained some of his food/protein and musculature in fact I seem to recall it annoying the apes he lived with (in one version of the story) as the apes didnt actually hunt but he started emulating tribesman he ran into in this regards and also wearing a loincloth.

Hunter in theory works very well but its a spear and dagger tribesman style hunter not an archer and not a magic using one. (ie not a current 5e build you have to go to fighter/rogue)

 

[Tonguez]

Tarzan isn't a ranger (Or at least a pure ranger) because Tarzan isn't a hunter, escort, nor scout by trade and he fights like an ape not a man. He is raised by gorillas and act just like a gorilla until he meets a human.

You havent actually read any of Edgar Rice Burroughs books have you?
Firstly Tarzan isnt raised by Gorilla he is raised by Mangani, a fictional Great Ape species with the beginnings of sapience and there own language. Gorillas are a more primitive and savage species who Tarzan must fight.

Secondly Tarzans entire character arc before meeting Jane is one of rising above his environment and becoming the jungles greatest hunter. ERB emphasizes Tarzans human intelligence coupled with his wild instincts making him unique. He quickly realises that he isnt an ape and upon finding his human fathers cabin acquires a knife, teaches himself to read (in the process creating his own language) and realises that he is a B-O-Y or as he says BUMUDe-MUTo-MURo

Tarzan fights with savage ferocity, but only after carefully tracking and stalking his prey. Also in addition to the hunting knife, Tarzan is skilled with lassoo and with the bow and arrow (which he stole from one of the local villagers)

 

[le Redoutable]

Stan Lee spoke of " True Believers " ( I hope it's no insult still )

 

[Minigiant]

he most definitely hunted its how he gained some of his food/protein and musculature in fact I seem to recall it annoying the apes he lived with (in one version of the story) as the apes didnt actually hunt but he started emulating tribesman he ran into in this regards and also wearing a loincloth.

Hunter in theory works very well but its a spear and dagger tribesman style hunter not an archer and not a magic using one. (ie not a current 5e build you have to go to fighter/rogue)

The hunting rangers as said to do is not for sustenance but of foes. Rangers are also have an emphasis that they are the civilized part of nature and/or actively protecting civilization from the harsh parts of the wilderness.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Tarzan is most definitely a ranger, his animal instincts, honed senses and ferocity make him the consummate hunter - and as a hunter he is a master of stealth and ambush not made rages. Even when he is fighting lions, ERB describes him as quick and agile, studying his opponents movements, so that as soon as it leaps the mobile Tarzan is able to dodge in and counter attack wrapping his steely thews arounds its neck.

The few times he rages is when he’s desperately fighting for his life against killer Gorillas

He is a physically utterly superior wildman that fights naked with animal ferocity. I think him drawing on his animal insticts when fighting is perfect example of rage. And he doesn't cast spells. Now perhaps you could have a fantasy version of Tarzan that would, but I really don't think that is something that is naturally linked to the wildman trope.

But this is the issue with representing many literary characters in D&D. D&D characters are weirdly hyper focuses, and optimisation priorities encourage making them even more narrowly so. Tarzan is both ranger and barbarian, and has many high level capabilities of both. He also has ability scores far above than what could be gotten via point buy in D&D, even if you account ASIs from levelling. The Conan faces similar issues and so do many other fictional heroes.

 

[Tonguez]

The hunting rangers as said to do is not for sustenance but of foes. Rangers are also have an emphasis that they are the civilized part of nature and/or actively protecting civilization from the harsh parts of the wilderness.

Tarzan does that too, especially after he returns back to Africa and becomes chief of the Waziri. But even before meeting Jane he defends his fathers hut as his own particular piece of civilisation, keeping it free of predators and human enemies

He is a physically utterly superior wildman that fights naked with animal ferocity. I think him drawing on his animal insticts when fighting is perfect example of rage. And he doesn't cast spells. Now perhaps you could have a fantasy version of Tarzan that would, but I really don't think that is something that is naturally linked to the wildman trope..

if I were GM for a Tarzan ranger I’d allow Animal Friendship, Beast Bond, Hunters Mark and Speak with Animals to be refluffed as special abilities rather than spells, Even Jump could be refluffed as Tarzan swinging through the trees

As for the Snare spell - the spell requires a 30 foot coil of rope that you hide and set up as a trap. Well um so to cast the snare spell the Ranger first has to set an actual snare as a component?

 

[Minigiant]

You havent actually read any of Edgar Rice Burroughs books have you?
Firstly Tarzan isnt raised by Gorilla he is raised by Mangani, a fictional Great Ape species with the beginnings of sapience and there own language. Gorillas are a more primitive and savage species who Tarzan must fight.

Secondly Tarzans entire character arc before meeting Jane is one of rising above his environment and becoming the jungles greatest hunter. ERB emphasizes Tarzans human intelligence coupled with his wild instincts making him unique. He quickly realises that he isnt an ape and upon finding his human fathers cabin acquires a knife, teaches himself to read (in the process creating his own language) and realises that he is a B-O-Y or as he says BUMUDe-MUTo-MURo

Tarzan fights with savage ferocity, but only after carefully tracking and stalking his prey. Also in addition to the hunting knife, Tarzan is skilled with lassoo and with the bow and arrow (which he stole from one of the local villagers)

Couldn't finish the book

Anyway most of that sounds like basic barbarian. Tarzan is a wild man for most of the book. Whereas rangers are specifically noted to be starting as part of civilized society and protecting it. Fighters are even more described as being civilized.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because people want to play Conan (from the movies, not the books), Hulk or any other representation of the naked angry guy but if they were just fighters it would mean they would be worse than fighters who do the sensible thing and wear armor in addition to their big, two handed weapon (and rightly so).
Thus they got their own class to make them equal to sensible fighters.

Which is fair enough. But people playing Conan from the movies aren't playing him from the books.

Hulk is just epic level. Outside of being green, he just punches people, smashes things, and throws large objects. Cut down the power level and it's classic barbarian.

Outside of being green, being almost planet-crackingly strong, being able to clap his hands for an AoE attack, and more.

And sure if you take away all the supernatural powers Hulk ceases to be supernatural. Or recognisable as The Hulk.

Yes. That's why I say it abandoned the concept. 5e gave 2 subtly supernatural barbarians then then poured flashy magic down the class's maw. 4e started with flashy magic in the base and forced you to maneuver to not be reliant on it.

And as I say it didn't abandon the concept any more than 5e abandoned the life cleric despite the life cleric being core. It put it front and center in the PHB, making it central and the default choice, including being the only choice in the SRD.

Far from "abandoned" it takes pride of place. It simply doesn't get all the barbarian stuff because there's a lot of merit in the primal barbarian. And no you didn't have to maneuver in 4e except by picking fairly basic options in character creation. What more do you want here?

The anti-magic Barbarian plays in to the “Nature v Civilsation” Motif where corrupting magics are an aspect of urbanisation and civilisation and the simple Barbarian represents the more honest, unadulterated purity of nature where a person must rely on their wits, common sense and physical prowess to overcome challenges and deceptions.

The Barbarian is thus

• unencumbered by the artifice of civility and manners
• easily duped yet ultimately able to see through illusions and lies
• able to resist false words and suggestions that go against their true nature
• able to subsume fear and turn it to advantage
• able to shake off magical effects by sheer force of will

If you look into most mythology then magic is on the side of nature rather than civilisation. And things like cold iron that repel magic are products of civilization. The "anti-magic barbarian" is nowhere near as thematically resonant as the anti-magic fighter, relying on guts, wits (which raging reduces), cold steel, and physical prowess to defeat magic.

You neither want nor need rage for this archetype and tying it to outlanders with closer connections to magic than ordinary people rather than relying on their own skill makes it less rather than more resonant.