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

[TheAlkaizer]

Could you explain what this means? In relation to barbarians, at least?

It's poetry.

 

[Hussar]

Not starting this fight again, but, sheesh, I suggest that a single race gets moved over to the DMG to make room for new ideas and I get absolutely dogpiled for how much I hate the game. You folks are talking about rewriting, what, a third of the PHB and everyone's patting each other on the back? Sheesh.

------------

It's pretty simple. 5e, because they absolutely had to avoid any 4e cooties, went back to 3e class design. Which means that, outside of a couple of choices, everyone is a caster. They then took that a step further and made classes that weren't really casters until very high level in AD&D, half-casters and gave them spells starting at 3rd level.

5e has always been the Harry Potter edition. This is nothing new. It was that way since day 1.

Put it this way. Which would be easier to run through, say, Storm King's Thunder? A group made up of half and full casters or a group with no casters at all - just barbarian (if we ignore rituals), fighters, a couple of monks and rogue classes?

That, right there, is all the answer you really need. Caster classes dominate the game. WotC tried to make a D&D where that wasn't true and people absolutely lost their minds. So, we go back to the 3e style game where everyone is a caster. 2e? You could do it because fighter types absolutely ruled when it came to damage. You could, without any real difficulty, make fighters that could drop trolls at 1st level. Remember, we're talking an edition where Ogres had 17 HP. Two shots from a fighter without any strength bonuses could drop an ogre.

But, we've massively upped monster HP's, drastically reduced fighter damage output and then made 7/8ths of the classes have access to either magic or straight up spells. Of course they've "abandoned the martial barbarian". They abandoned that when 5e was first released.

 

[mrpopstar]

Not starting this fight again, but, sheesh, I suggest that a single race gets moved over to the DMG to make room for new ideas and I get absolutely dogpiled for how much I hate the game. You folks are talking about rewriting, what, a third of the PHB and everyone's patting each other on the back? Sheesh.

------------

It's pretty simple. 5e, because they absolutely had to avoid any 4e cooties, went back to 3e class design. Which means that, outside of a couple of choices, everyone is a caster. They then took that a step further and made classes that weren't really casters until very high level in AD&D, half-casters and gave them spells starting at 3rd level.

5e has always been the Harry Potter edition. This is nothing new. It was that way since day 1.

Put it this way. Which would be easier to run through, say, Storm King's Thunder? A group made up of half and full casters or a group with no casters at all - just barbarian (if we ignore rituals), fighters, a couple of monks and rogue classes?

That, right there, is all the answer you really need. Caster classes dominate the game. WotC tried to make a D&D where that wasn't true and people absolutely lost their minds. So, we go back to the 3e style game where everyone is a caster. 2e? You could do it because fighter types absolutely ruled when it came to damage. You could, without any real difficulty, make fighters that could drop trolls at 1st level. Remember, we're talking an edition where Ogres had 17 HP. Two shots from a fighter without any strength bonuses could drop an ogre.

But, we've massively upped monster HP's, drastically reduced fighter damage output and then made 7/8ths of the classes have access to either magic or straight up spells. Of course they've "abandoned the martial barbarian". They abandoned that when 5e was first released.

Oh, no! I hope I didn't inadvertently contribute to any dog-piling or mean girl excluding. I apologize if so.


What was the race you proposed we move to the Dungeon Master's Guide? I'd like to hear about it.

 

[Tonguez]

Honestly, the only part of Tarzan (the first book, I guess) that I remember was that, despite being raised by apes in the middle of a jungle with no other contact with humans, was that he came to the conclusion that dark-skinned people were inferior to light-skinned people.

Thats not entirely true. While the portrayal of the tribe of Mbonga in the first book perpetuates all the racist stereotypes of the era, describing them as savage cannibals, they are the first humans the young Tarzan sees, Mbongas son kills Tarzans Ape-mother and thus there relationship is outright antagonistic, portraying them in the worst light fits the narrative (while also being racist). However in the second book Return of Tarzan, the Waziri warrior Busuli is introduced when Tarzan saves him from a Lion attack. Tarzan befriends the Waziri as honourable, cultured warriors who despise cannibalism.

"Lord and Lady Greystoke with Basuli and Mugambi rode together at the head of the column, laughing and talking together in that easy familiarity which common interests and mutual respect breed between honest and intelligent men of any races."

I do think ERB clearly believed in Eugenics and ranking 'civilisation' and the books certainly link Tarzans nobility to his English Aristocratic lineage but Tarzan is a superhero and superior to EVERYONE in the same as Superman and Batman are superior, its not just black people are inferior, ERB also puts Russians and other 'white' antagonist as being inferior (especially Russians).
Then we get Barsoom where the main good guys a Red Men, White Therns are the antogonist and Black Martians are considered 'pure'

 

[Yaarel]

Yup.

Berserker could have been a Fighter archetype.

Something like this, a mix of Samurai and UA Brute.

Berserker
Fighter Archetype

Wrathbearer
At 3rd level, you can enter a trance-like battle madness called Berserk. As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn. When you do so, you also gain temporary hit points equal to your level.

You can use this feature a number times equals to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.

Bearskin
At 3rd level, your skin is capable of enduring the hardship of battle. Your AC is 12 + Dex when you are not wearing any armor. Furthermore, the maximum Dex bonus you gain from Medium armors increases to 3.

Towering Presence
Starting at 7th level, your might and mien allow you to excel in social situations. Whenever you make a Charisma (Persuasion) or Charisma (Intimidation) check, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Strength modifier.

Tireless Trance
Starting at 10th level, when you roll initiative and have no uses of Fighting Spirit remaining, you regain one use.

Berserker's Resilience
Beginning at 10th level, your toughness allows you to shrug off assaults that would devastate others. Whenever you make a saving throw, roll 1d6 and add the die to your saving throw total. If applying this bonus to a death saving throw increases the total to 20 or higher, you gain the benefits of rolling a 20 on the d20.

Mauling Strikes
Starting at 15th level, you learn to trade accuracy for devastating speed. If you take the Attack action on your turn and have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target, as part of the same action. You can do so no more than once per turn.

Strength before Death
Starting at 18th level, your berserker spirit can delay the grasp of death. If you take damage that reduces you to 0 hit points and doesn't kill you outright, you can use your reaction to delay falling unconscious, and you can immediately take an extra turn, interrupting the current turn. While you have 0 hit points during that extra turn, taking damage causes death saving throw failures as normal, and three death saving throw failures can still kill you. When the extra turn ends, you fall unconscious if you still have 0 hit points.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

If using the Norse nickname, Berserkar, it is a kind of psionic shaman that reuses its magic for melee combat. The magic itself relates to jǫtnar wrath and the ferocity of shapeshifting. In other words, this is either a fullcaster or a class with many highly magical features. It probably makes sense as a Druid psionic subclass, integrating the Wildshape feature, and adding spells that are specifically for melee-range combat. To go berserk is a magical tradition that associates with a set of magical skills, including full and partial shape shifting, force armor, outofbody remote presence, and so on.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, no! I hope I didn't inadvertently contribute to any dog-piling or mean girl excluding. I apologize if so.


What was the race you proposed we move to the Dungeon Master's Guide? I'd like to hear about it.

Oh, no. Not opening that can of worms. Just thought it was kinda funny.

 

[Minigiant]

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.)

I'm not even attempting to say that fighters are smart.

My point from the get go was that fighters fight with learned techniques whereas barbarians rely on raw muscle, iron lungs, and rock hard skin.

 

[Garthanos]

The main trend going from 3e to 5e is that the fighter is the learned warrior.

Does the 5e champion feel that way? he seems a rather instinct driven character.

Put it this way. Which would be easier to run through, say, Storm King's Thunder? A group made up of half and full casters or a group with no casters at all - just barbarian (if we ignore rituals), fighters, a couple of monks and rogue classes?

Do people consider the monk non-caster?

 

[Garthanos]

Thats not entirely true. While the portrayal of the tribe of Mbonga in the first book perpetuates all the racist stereotypes of the era, describing them as savage cannibals, they are the first humans the young Tarzan sees, Mbongas son kills Tarzans Ape-mother and thus there relationship is outright antagonistic, portraying them in the worst light fits the narrative (while also being racist). However in the second book Return of Tarzan, the Waziri warrior Busuli is introduced when Tarzan saves him from a Lion attack. Tarzan befriends the Waziri as honourable, cultured warriors who despise cannibalism.

"Lord and Lady Greystoke with Basuli and Mugambi rode together at the head of the column, laughing and talking together in that easy familiarity which common interests and mutual respect breed between honest and intelligent men of any races."

I do think ERB clearly believed in Eugenics and ranking 'civilisation' and the books certainly link Tarzans nobility to his English Aristocratic lineage but Tarzan is a superhero and superior to EVERYONE in the same as Superman and Batman are superior, its not just black people are inferior, ERB also puts Russians and other 'white' antagonist as being inferior (especially Russians).
Then we get Barsoom where the main good guys a Red Men, White Therns are the antagonist and Black Martians are considered 'pure'

Yes, I characterized him as elitist... for those reasons.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

If using the Norse nickname, Berserkar, it is a kind of psionic shaman that reuses its magic for melee combat. The magic itself relates to jötnar wrath and the furocity of shapeshifting. In other words, this is either a fullcaster or a class with many highly magical features. It probably makes sense as a Druid psionic subclass, integrating the Wildshape feature, and adding spells that are specifically for melee-range combat. To go berserk is a magical tradition that associates with a set of magical skills, including full and partial shape shifting, force armor, outofbody remote presence, and so on.

That's interesting, but I'm not having the discussion on psionic Norse warriors again with you
(Though I agree that classes with powers and abilities fueled by emotions or the control of them should be flavored as psionic: Bard, Barbarian and Monks, frex).

In this here case, I'm making a berserker subclass for the fighter in a D&D game; much like the Samurai and Cavalier dont have much resemblance with the either the real life ones, nor the ones often seen in myths. They are (overly?) simplified to fit the fighter's theme. The archetype could be called Battlerager or Wrathbearer, I dont really care for now.

If WotC kept the old Mystic UA, it would have been nice to have psionic barb archetype that gains a few Disciplines from a list of: Crown of Rage, Crown of Fury, Bestial Form, Brute Force, Celerity, Iron Durability and Giant Growth(?).