Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Didn't both Barbarian and Cavalier first appear in Dragon magazine? Or am I remembering that wrong?
D&D General Has D&D abandoned the "martial barbarian"?
- Thread starter Minigiant
- Start date
Didn't both Barbarian and Cavalier first appear in Dragon magazine? Or am I remembering that wrong?
One thing I think a barbarian can delve into is them getting bigger and heavier. The supernatural magic just makes you bigger and bigger.
Prodigious Size
Your body continues to grow despite your natural maturity. At the 3rd level, roll 2d4. You grow a number of inches in height and five times the amount in pounds equal to the roll. At the 10th level, roll 2d4 and repeat this process.
Moreover, you count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift and you add your Constitution modifier to damage rolls with unarmed strikes.
Colossal Weaponry
Your grand size and long limbs allow you to use weapon in unusual ways. When you gain this feature at the 7th level, if you are Medium size, you can wield weapons that are made for Large creature without penalty as long as they do not have the heavy property. If you are Small size, you can wield heavy weapons without penalty.
MAybe the large dude with the unrealistically oversized great-axe is a barbarian.
Prodigious Size
Your body continues to grow despite your natural maturity. At the 3rd level, roll 2d4. You grow a number of inches in height and five times the amount in pounds equal to the roll. At the 10th level, roll 2d4 and repeat this process.
Moreover, you count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift and you add your Constitution modifier to damage rolls with unarmed strikes.
Colossal Weaponry
Your grand size and long limbs allow you to use weapon in unusual ways. When you gain this feature at the 7th level, if you are Medium size, you can wield weapons that are made for Large creature without penalty as long as they do not have the heavy property. If you are Small size, you can wield heavy weapons without penalty.
MAybe the large dude with the unrealistically oversized great-axe is a barbarian.
CapnZapp
Legend
It's not just Barbarians. It's the entire concept that Strength is the most important combat stat.
WotC is following the general trend where people prefer playing moody snowflakes than people that actually look the part, and aren't spectacular in other areas like looks and wit as a result.
Keanu Reeves instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Also "girl power" - people don't want to sacrifice fashion and beauty just to be able to wield a big-ass sword (in either sex). In fact it's even unacceptable to point out gender still exists.
The idea you need to compromise on beauty and smarts to create a fearsome warrior is truly dead
It's only within the Sword & Sorcery subgenre the hope of games where reality still is given a token nod when it comes to the physicality needed for martial combat.
And as I said it's not just Barbarians. It's Dwarves too. For precisely the same reasons.
It's Fighters in general. If you can use magic to explain why you don't need to look like John Cena to be a killer, well, then people prefer to look like Hit-Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) or maybe Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), or say a gnome barbarian to take a memeable fantasy example.
Just take Red Sonja as an example. Yes if you get to cheat and put 18 in every stat, so you get to have big strength without bulging muscle, and get to have a feminine look with big breasts at the same time, why not?
But if you prefer having the choice of fantasy gaming where you can choose a game where you basically need to be a male muscle mountain (or a Gimli, or, to be honest, an Orc) if you want to excel at killing people with a heavy object, you basically have zero choice in gaming product published this millenium.
So, yes, I very much see your point. Let's hope this current climate blows over and featuring realistic constraints on body type and mass, even in games with Dragons and Dungeons, once more becomes less utterly unacceptable! [emoji106]
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Addendum:
I am not trying to tell you how to run your game.
I am not even saying you prevent me from running the game I want.
And yes, I know I can change D&D or whatever to feature any house rule, thank you very much.
But if you like a particular genre or take on fantasy, you wouldn't like me essentially saying "you can write it yourself". What you want is a ready-made published product. Something others too knows of and discusses on forums. Something you can use without extensive prep beforehand.
Let's just say I miss a bit of variety in available game products. There exists movies and books that take risks and even alienates segments of the public. Why can't there be ttrpgs that do the same?
What's unique about this hobby, where "if you don't like it don't use it" would be an entirely uncontroversial and acceptable response to "this crap offends me?"
PS. In before the inevitable: no I don't want to play FATAL, but thanks for trying. Cheers. DS
I am not trying to tell you how to run your game.
I am not even saying you prevent me from running the game I want.
And yes, I know I can change D&D or whatever to feature any house rule, thank you very much.
But if you like a particular genre or take on fantasy, you wouldn't like me essentially saying "you can write it yourself". What you want is a ready-made published product. Something others too knows of and discusses on forums. Something you can use without extensive prep beforehand.
Let's just say I miss a bit of variety in available game products. There exists movies and books that take risks and even alienates segments of the public. Why can't there be ttrpgs that do the same?
What's unique about this hobby, where "if you don't like it don't use it" would be an entirely uncontroversial and acceptable response to "this crap offends me?"
PS. In before the inevitable: no I don't want to play FATAL, but thanks for trying. Cheers. DS
Last edited:
It's not just Barbarians. It's the entire concept that Strength is the most important combat stat.
WotC is following the general trend where people prefer playing moody snowflakes than people that actually look the part, and aren't spectacular in other areas like looks and wit as a result.
Keanu Reeves instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Also "girl power" - people don't want to sacrifice fashion and beauty just to be able to wield a big-ass sword (in either sex). In fact it's even unacceptable to point out gender still exists.
The idea you need to compromise on beauty and smarts to create a fearsome warrior is truly dead
It's only within the Sword & Sorcery subgenre the hope of games where reality still is given a token nod when it comes to the physicality needed for martial combat.
And as I said it's not just Barbarians. It's Dwarves too. For precisely the same reasons.
It's Fighters in general. If you can use magic to explain why you don't need to look like John Cena to be a killer, well, then people prefer to look like Hit-Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) or maybe Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), or say a gnome barbarian to take a memeable fantasy example.
Just take Red Sonja as an example. Yes if you get to cheat and put 18 in every stat, so you get to have big strength without bulging muscle, and get to have a feminine look with big breasts at the same time, why not?
But if you prefer having the choice of fantasy gaming where you can choose a game where you basically need to be a male muscle mountain (or a Gimli, or, to be honest, an Orc) if you want to excel at killing people with a heavy object, you basically have zero choice in gaming product published this millenium.
So, yes, I very much see your point. Let's hope this current climate blows over and featuring realistic constraints on body type and mass, even in games with Dragons and Dungeons, once more becomes less utterly unacceptable! [emoji106]
I think its less that Strength is less an important stat.
It's that D&D fans are going for flash and taking overt magic to do it.
The halfling barbarian should not fight like a goliath barbarian. But it is harder to lean into the small warrior in most editions of D&D. You can't lean into the increase speed or toughness of a normal sized or small warrior without going monk or snagging blatant arcane/divine/rune/psi/shadow/primal magic.
You say Keanu Reeves but you can't be Keanu Reeves in D&D. The rules breaking of a 90s, 00s, or 10s action hero warrior is very limited in D&D. So forget about the rules breaking of the 80s or 70s action warrior.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
May have been. I couldn't say. Not everyone had or used issues of Dragon to play their games.
Their first appearance, for the public masses, in an AD&D hardback book, as proper "official" class options, was 1e's UA.
Mod NOte:
Why can't there be ttrpgs that objectify women, you mean? Because, like it or not, by reports that's how these posts are getting taken. Your focus on the female form indicates to the readers a bit of a regressive view of women, and it is making people uncomfortable.
So, going forward, maybe reduce your argument's reliance on making sex objects that sound like they are tuned for the male gaze. You may feel that point has merit, but it isn't appropriate for these boards. Thanks.
Yes and the book Conan is the only one that matters, all others are just poor copies.
Northern Phoenix
Adventurer
Yes and the book Conan is the only one that matters, all others are just poor copies.
It's fine to think that, but i think for ease of frame of reference, it helps to be aware of the most popular understanding of the character.
le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
Here I say barbarians could look like hill giants
Similar Threads
