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

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

Geez, Tarzan's a lot more White Man's Burden than I remember it being...

 

[J.Quondam]

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.

Chill. I'm only proposing something I though about in the fiction. If you don't like it, cool.
Enjoy your thread, I guess.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

What WotC have given up on isn't "non-magical", it's "enforced muggledom".

If you want to play a purely martial fighter, rogue, barbarian, or monk then that is fine. But what they are (rightly) saying is that there are people who want to play fighters like Hercules and that you should not be forced to either play a spellcaster or play a muggle in a world run by mages and where 40% of the PHB is made up of spells. Being a fighter doesn't force you to have nothing magical about you. You can if you want be pure skill - but there's nothing that should be inherent to the class if the world is as magical and with such easy access to magic as is normal for D&D worlds. And if you want a low magic setting? You need to ban all full caster classes.

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.)

The thing is that there is (as both 4e and 5e demonstrate) plenty of room for the rogue who draws the shadows around them, the fighter who can cause minor earthquakes, and the barbarian so metal that when they howl to the heavens the heavens answer with lightning. There is nothing in the concept of "fighter" or "rogue" that should ban supernatural abilities being used to supplement the fighting style.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

Important to note that multiclassing is a customization option only available with the Dungeon Master's permission whereas the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster support archetypes assumed to be found in almost every Dungeons & Dragons world barring DM restriction.

It's an acknowledgement that mashups are a part of D&D's DNA, not a sign that anyone's "given up."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Important to note that multiclassing is a customization option only available with the Dungeon Master's permission whereas the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster support archetypes assumed to be found in almost every Dungeons & Dragons world barring DM restriction.

It's an acknowledgement that mashups are a part of D&D's DNA, not a sign that anyone's "given up."

Yeah. And multicalssing is a mess, I much prefer the multiclass-emulating subclasses such as edritch knight and arcane trickster. So perhaps following similar logic, there should be a fightery subclass for barbarian that would emulate the feel of fighter/barbarian and would fulfil the desire for the martial barbarian?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah. And multicalssing is a mess, I much prefer the multiclass-emulating subclasses such as edritch knight and arcane trickster. So perhaps following similar logic, there should be a fightery subclass for barbarian that would emulate the feel of fighter/barbarian and would fulfil the desire for the martial barbarian?

I'd say that the reverse needs to happen more. A strength based low armour subclass of fighter. The thing is that there isn't that much clear water between the fighter and martial barbarian anyway. And the berserker takes the thing that makes the barbarian at all distinct from a fighter (rage) and doubles down on it.

 

[Garthanos]

Geez, Tarzan's a lot more White Man's Burden than I remember it being...

I tried to be somewhat gentle Burroughs was more than a bit of an elitist.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd say that the reverse needs to happen more. A strength based low armour subclass of fighter. The thing is that there isn't that much clear water between the fighter and martial barbarian anyway. And the berserker takes the thing that makes the barbarian at all distinct from a fighter (rage) and doubles down on it.

The main trend going from 3e to 5e is that the fighter is the learned warrior. The fighter learns the secret techniques, knows proper forms, has the swordsmanship master, and reads training manuals. Barbarians mainly rely their might, speed, and toughness for weapons based victory. Their stances may be bad. Their forms may be sloppy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The main trend going from 3e to 5e is that the fighter is the learned warrior. The fighter learns the secret techniques, knows proper forms, has the swordsmanship master, and reads training manuals. Barbarians mainly rely their might, speed, and toughness for weapons based victory. Their stances may be bad. Their forms may be sloppy.

If you'd said disciplined I might have agreed with you. But certainly in 3.0 and 3.5 the fighter is the character least likely to know anything outside their supposed discipline; 2+Int skill points per level don't go very far, especially in a system where climb, jump, swim, handle animal, balance, ride, and tumble are all separate skills and they have no knowledge skills on their class list . At least the barbarian got 4+Int skills and survival on their list. In 4e again the fighter has the lowest number of class skills in the game (3) but at least can match the barbarian here, and climb, jump, and swim are covered by a single skill. And there are no skills on the fighter list covering knowing your enemy.

The 5e fighter is better. I mean they are still sitting in joint last in terms of skills they are proficient in, but history and survival are at least on their class list. Still, learned they aren't.

Now if you were to say the fighter is the disciplined warrior who spends lots of their time training I might agree with you. But 3.X fighters are narrowly specialised rather than more generally trained. (4e fighters on the other hand are people deadly enough to take advantage of any time the enemy takes their eyes off them.)

 

[Garthanos]

Tarzan was a genius too.. so of course you couldn't build him as a D&D fighter /sarcasm