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

[Jfdlsjfd]

It has felt as though some of the classes have become more magical over time.

The barbarian is recognizable as the feral warrior you'd expect if you look at their core abilities, but that changes with primal path (which is the whole point of subclasses, of course).

The bard has become more magical as well. I long for the days when they were more rogue than wizard.

I'd say most have become more magical because GM usually restrict non-magical abilities to what is "realistic". This is supported by the ruleset, though I dont' blame anyone for this: in 3rd edition, you could hide in plain sight or balance over a cloud, like any self-respecting wuxia warrior, but it's no longer supported with the narrowed DC values necessary to accomodate both bounded accuracy and the wild swing of the d20 -- if you determine that it's DC 25, any starting character could do it once in a while, and if you set it to DC 40, nobody will, ever.

We generally agree that wizard can do anything "because magic", accepting models like Merlin, but somehow we have difficulties accepting martial classes modeled after Siegfried (single-handedly defeated an army of Danes to prove his worth to his father-in-law), Samson (though this one was blessed, he isn't "magical", and he killed 1,000 Philistine warriors with a lousy 1d4 improvised weapon) or Diomede? Why can't a fighter pin a chariot in full-course with an arrow (Vishnu's chariot in this particular case) or support the weight of the sky for Atlas to have a coffee break? Being reluctant at even the incredibly modest feats of athletics usually displayed in swashbucking movies (like using handaxes to climb over a drawbridge by pulling oneself as part of the move action) results, IMHO, in players wanting to play more magical, ie, less restricted, classes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Couldn't finish the book

The book! Burroughs wrote 24 Tarzan books! (I'm pretty sure I've read them all, many of them several times. It's been ages since I last read any of them though.)

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.

Yes, but he also has god-level wilderness skills, and in D&D that would be tough to represent as pure barbarian, so I certainly see where the ranger idea comes from.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Anyway most of that sounds like basic barbarian. Tarzan is a wild man for most of the book.

A barbarian is more than that. If we look at the actual 5e description of the barbarian it says "These barbarians, different as they might be, are defined by their rage: unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury."

Now I don't know the Tarzan mythos that well, but I'm not aware he's defined by his rage.

Whereas rangers are specifically noted to be starting as part of civilized society and protecting it.

Where? Rangers are noted to protect civilized society but I see absolutely nothing saying they start as part of civilized society.

Rangers are however the wilderness experts. Tarzan living in the wilderness and protecting civilized society fits him perfectly. Thematically he's a ranger.

Fighters are even more described as being civilized.

Since when? If we look at the fighter description we see "All of these heroes are fighters, perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings—as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat."

Nothing in there says that fighters have to be civilized - and bandit kings generally aren't considered so.

What defines fighters is their mastery of fighting and of the skills of combat. What defines barbarians is their rage. Neither of these are necessarily connected to where they live.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That is the "lack of desire to do the hard work and going the easy route" route.

D&D is magical. But the default was never barbarians having an aura of fire at level 3 magical.
There is something between LOTR and Bleach for warriors.

No. Your statement implies a negative morality of laziness onto the designers. That it is a failing of theirs that they just won't "work hard" to make these things. As opposed to them not making them because they don't find it to be important to do so.

If you want to rephrase your claim so that you state WotC isn't doing it because of a personal choice, as opposed to because they just want to take it easy and don't want to put in the work... then I won't say anything after that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Indeed I'm going to go a step further and say openly that without the supernatural elements there is no purpose in the barbarian being a class. "I'm a fighter but I go berserk" is exactly the sort of thing that subclasses are intended for. It's only by extending the concept of rage beyond "I hit things" and exploring what that could mean that makes the barbarian something other than a fighter subclass.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is the "lack of desire to do the hard work and going the easy route" route.

D&D is magical. But the default was never barbarians having an aura of fire at level 3 magical.
There is something between LOTR and Bleach for warriors.

This to me reads like nothing other than an accusation that other people are having badwrongfun.

The default now is not that barbarians have an aura of fire at level 3. There is one option in one subclass that does this. If you don't like it, don't play one.

Also it's nowhere near as high powered as Bleach, while as we all know in Lord of the Rings Gandalf was only a fifth level magic user. D&D has always allowed the casters to be much much more overtly magical than Lord of the Rings. But every time the fighter-types get something more overtly magical than LotR there are massive numbers of complaints.

 

[Minigiant]

This to me reads like nothing other than an accusation that other people are having badwrongfun.

The default now is not that barbarians have an aura of fire at level 3. There is one option in one subclass that does this. If you don't like it, don't play one.

Also it's nowhere near as high powered as Bleach, while as we all know in Lord of the Rings Gandalf was only a fifth level magic user. D&D has always allowed the casters to be much much more overtly magical than Lord of the Rings. But every time the fighter-types get something more overtly magical than LotR there are massive numbers of complaints.

Im not promoting badwrongfun.

The opposite really. I want barbarians to be supported on both side of the martial-primal spectrum.

I am just stating that primal barbarians are easier to design and easier to bring attention to. However that shouldn't be an excuse to ignore less flashy barbarians.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Im not promoting badwrongfun.

The opposite really. I want barbarians to be supported on both side of the martial-primal spectrum.

I am just stating that primal barbarians are easier to design and easier to bring attention to. However that shouldn't be an excuse to ignore less flashy barbarians.

But they haven't been ignored. They took pride of place in the PHB. The default barbarian is the berserker. And the Totem Warrior is a non-flashy barbarian and the only other PHB option.

They got prioritised first and have been given the highest priority. They jumped to the front of the queue. They are front and center. And everyone else had to wait their turn until after the martial barbarian had been served. And once they'd eaten their fill, monopolising the PHB, only then were others allowed to have a turn. It's not "abandoning" someone to let them eat first then serve others who come after who haven't yet eaten.

Meanwhile you specifically call out one subclass of one optional splatbook as the "default".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But they haven't been ignored. They took pride of place in the PHB. The default barbarian is the berserker. And the Totem Warrior is a non-flashy barbarian and the only other PHB option.

They got prioritised first and have been given the highest priority. They jumped to the front of the queue. They are front and center. And everyone else had to wait their turn until after the martial barbarian had been served. And once they'd eaten their fill, monopolising the PHB, only then were others allowed to have a turn. It's not "abandoning" someone to let them eat first then serve others who come after who haven't yet eaten.

Meanwhile you specifically call out one subclass of one optional splatbook as the "default".

My only issue with this that berserker is terribly designed subclass. And whilst I don't personally really need a martial barbarian, it would be nice to have an non-terrible option for those who want it.

 

[Minigiant]

But they haven't been ignored. They took pride of place in the PHB. The default barbarian is the berserker. And the Totem Warrior is a non-flashy barbarian and the only other PHB option.

They got prioritised first and have been given the highest priority. They jumped to the front of the queue. They are front and center. And everyone else had to wait their turn until after the martial barbarian had been served. And once they'd eaten their fill, monopolising the PHB, only then were others allowed to have a turn. It's not "abandoning" someone to let them eat first then serve others who come after who haven't yet eaten.

Meanwhile you specifically call out one subclass of one optional splatbook as the "default".

That's why I stated the martial side of the barbarian was "abandoned". It was pushed first, put on a pedestal, then that whole side of the spectrum was left alone. Doesn't help that the archetypal martial heavy path displayed first was poorly designed.

I get going to the more primal side. It's not the most promoted. However I am shocked that there wasn't any jumps back to the martial side nor more calls for it.