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

[PsyzhranV2]

The only time the berserker should be "useless" outside combat is after they've given their all in the climactic battle of the day. Other than that they're little different to other barbarians or fighters.

Except how do you know it's the climactic battle of the day and that you aren't popping off your Frenzy early when there could still be more combats to come, or other scenarios where having a level of Exhaustion could be debilitating? If it was meant to be something only used on rare occassions, then change it to a 1/LR ability without the Exhaustion penalty, or a 1/SR or PB/LR ability if you're feeling more generous.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And that's terrible design. Sorry, it just is. It leads to gameplay where the berserker player has to choose between doing their only cool thing and or contributing anything meaningful to the rest of the session.

And that's just hyperbole. Sorry, it just is. It leads to gameplay where the berserker player can be pretty cool or they can be ultra-cool and truly shine in the most important battles at the cost of struggling later. And in case you aren't aware capstone boss fights (which is when you'd want to use it) normally happen at the end of the session.

Could it be done better? Yes. Should there be more warning? Definitely. Is there meaningful design space there worth exploring? Yes.

The part of the berserker that's actually bad design is making it a default archetype.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except how do you know it's the climactic battle of the day and that you aren't popping off your Frenzy early when there could still be more combats to come, or other scenarios where having a level of Exhaustion could be debilitating? If it was meant to be something only used on rare occassions, then change it to a 1/LR ability without the Exhaustion penalty, or a 1/SR or PB/LR ability if you're feeling more generous.

If you are dragon hunting and meet the dragon you've got a pretty good idea that this is the climactic battle of the day.

If you're wrong and it's a bait-and-switch for the real villain then you can still frenzy again without any combat penalties although this will cause trouble the next day, which gives you more flexibility than standard 1/LR abilities.

If the DM regularly runs "double bait and switch" climaxes then the DM is a jerk.

 

[Undrave]

No. It's a bit unfortunate though, as movie Tarzan tends to be very different to the book Tarzan.

AKA he is very BORING.

 

[Garthanos]

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)

I had not remembered the bow and arrow.

 

[Undrave]

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.

D&D heroes are either way more magical than magical characters of fictions, or way more mundane and restricted by 'reality' than the martial characters of fiction. The worst of both world?

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?

D&D is bad at trap making...

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

You get Lou Ferrigno

 

[le Redoutable]

" quoi de neuf Docteur ? " ( wtf à la Bugs Bunny ? )

 

[Garthanos]

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

I was going to mention Lord Greystoke buying a hunk of Africa to protect it.

 

[Garthanos]

I was going to mention Lord Greystoke buying a hunk of Africa to protect it.

I want to double down on this... Tarzan was not just a raised by beasts story he was very much about one who rises above his circumstance demonstrating nobility and grace due to his own inherent awesome which is itself giving way too much credit to genes/bloodline but there you have it.

 

[steeldragons]

I think it safe to say from somewhere in late 3.5-.75, through 4e for sure, and glaringly apparent in 5e, that WotC has all but given up on ANY "martial/non-magical" class. Even the only two main/base/"Big 4" classes that are indisputably not fueled or enhanced by magic have magical sub-class archetypes as a base PHB option.

Part of this might be -and I am purely speculating here- that the argument might be made having the magic built in to classes makes for a more "fantastic" feeling game. Also, it opens the class/subclasses/archetypes up to myriad -if not unlimited- further development. The non-martial Barbarian (off the top of my head) could give you a "Conan" analogue base class, a "Viking" styled subclass, perhaps a "Hun/Mongol/mounted archer" subtype... some cultural warrior that is appropriately African-flavored... That kinda does it. Anyone else: Dar the Beastmaster, storm-throwing-Thor-barbarian, shaman-y shapeshifter barbarian, etc..., those all need magic/access to magic to possess any viable "realism" in a game world [where magic is a presumed reality].

My homebrew system/setting/game is fairly stringent in making sure that the non-magical classes STAY non-magical. Their features/abilities are performed/evoked from the character's own ability, fortitude, training, skills, and strengths.

Yes, magical classes have a seeming infinity of variations for classes and specialists, themed-casters, RW cultural flavors, different magical sources, and on and on. It is a real challenge to make sure that if there is going to be a class/subclass added to one of the magical classes (the Mystic and Wizard "groups" whose default classes are Cleric and Mage, respectively) that a class/subclass gets added to one of the non-magical classes (the Warrior and Rogue groups, default Fighter and Thief).

This does lead to a bit of overlap...a non-magical "Cavalier" [knight] specialist class of the Fighter...and a "Templar" [paladin-lite] specialist class of Cleric can serve very similar roles in a group. The Bard, to my world/system is a Mystic class. The non-magical "Rake" specialist class, is a non-magical Rogue who relies on charm, wit, cunning, being a capable "face" of a group, and no small amount of knowledge/information gathering/retention from their diversity of contacts among the various social classes. Very similar character types available. One has magic/spells, along with interactive skills, various knowledge/lore, invoking inspiration/bolstering their allies... all the things we think of as "Bard" abilities. One is purely mundane, everyday person that would function entirely well in a game/setting containing NO magic, and could easily be gifted/trained in the lute/mandolin/harp to be every bit the knowledgeable charming wandering minstrel.

The mythical, legendary, fantastic, and [pseudo-]historical archetypes (and meaningful mechanical variations) are much fewer and farther between for the non-magical character archetypes. Which is bizarre considering in myth/legend/history workers of magic are all pretty much capable of all the same things. You engage in divinations/premonitions, transmutations and illusions/tricking your target/foe are all the biggies. Summoning storms, commanding/charming people and animals...all that stuff. But the lines between the pseudo-religious Magi, and pantheistic priest castes, spirit-shamans, or witches or wizards or soothsayers of any culture/story is really just a matter of who's telling the story. The person with knowledge and access to magic power are all, fairly, the same character (for good or ill).

But in RPGs we've shown them through so many prisms, the separations seem significantly more "obvious" and "real [i.e., worthy of a separate class]" than non-magic classes...which generally are only differentiated by HOW the fight -or sneak- and/or which weapons they like/prefer to use ("You have my sword. And my Bow. And my Axe." ...sooo, you three are all the same guy except for species.)

Anywho, that's probably enough of a rambling diatribe on a single cup of coffee on a Monday morning.

I think/hope that I answered or contributed something to the general question of the thread.