D&D General Naming the Barbarian? [added battlerager]

jgsugden said:

Still curious about what types of trouble a thread like this might invite?

Click to expand...

I am. Should I be looking over my shoulder? Is that you in the bushes over there?

Morrus said:

I am. Should I be looking over my shoulder? Is that you in the bushes over there?

Click to expand...

No, BUT THERE'S A SPIDER ON YOUR SHOULDER!

CleverNickName said:

The more I think about it, the less I like "Battlerager." It's too similar to "Battle Master," which is already a subclass of Fighter.

Come to think of it, "Battle Rager" would be a great fighter subclass that adds a splash of Barbarian...much like the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster subclasses add a splash of wizard.

Click to expand...

Battlerager as Fighter subclass
then make Barbarian a Background

MGibster said:

No, BUT THERE'S A SPIDER ON YOUR SHOULDER!

Click to expand...

Spider picks up ringing phone.

Police: We've traced where the calls are coming from. YOUR STANDING ON A HUMAN!!!!

Spider: Horrified look on face as the plot twist hits it hard.

Don Durito said:

If Barbarian is a class, and not defined by a Rage mechanic, then what is the Fighter?

Should the Fighter then be redefined as "Soldier" or "Man-at-arms"?

Part of the issue here is that backgrounds as separate from classes fit somewhat oddly with classes that have strongly implied backgrounds.

Click to expand...

In the Dragon Quest series, the class that best matches the D&D Fighter best is called Soldier. The name "Fighter" is instead used for basically the Monk class.

CleverNickName said:

I've always preferred "Berserker." It's not political, I just like it better.

Click to expand...

I don't like Berserker for the same reason I was happy when Thief was renamed to Rogue in 3e. I don't want players thinking that Berserkers have to go berserk all the time or that they can't think rationally. It's bad enough as it is with people thinking Ranger = Archer because it has the word "range" in it.

Morrus said:

Somebody mentioned battlerager up thread, and that’s now my current favourite.

Click to expand...

I like this one, too, in spite of my reservations. I don't want the class's core ability to be in the class's name. It'd be like calling the Sorcerer the Fireballer. But I do like Battlerager.

I started going through 3.5e Presitige Classes (Bear Warrior, Tempest) and 4e Classes or Paragon Paths (Warden, Wildrunner) looking for inspiration, but they're not really generic enough or don't fit the flavor quite right. I think Tempest would work.

Edit: Actually, I think I just don't want Rage to be called Rage. I don't like that it's flavor is about getting getting angry. I think it narrows the class scope. Obviously, yes, in actual play you can ignore the description in the book and call it Battlesense or Super Saiyan or whatever. I'm just not a fan of the default flavor of the ability, partially because of the cultural assumptions it packs along with it about what we civilized folks think barbarians are, and partially because I don't like telling new players that there's a class whose schtick is getting super angry. "They've got a bad temper," isn't a very fun or cooperative personality trait.

MGibster said:

Since when has bard been a derogatory term? Outside of D&D, the only context I hear the word used is to describe a poet or Shakespeare in particular.

Click to expand...

Since it was invented, and for about 300 years after that until the term got romanticized.

BlivetWidget said:

Since it was invented, and for about 300 years after that until the term got romanticized.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

Tough call........if all "barbarians" rage, I'd go with battlerager.......

BlivetWidget said:

Since it was invented, and for about 300 years after that until the term got romanticized.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well, if you take a term to describe someone who is not of the politer classes as derogatory, maybe. But it doesn't seem to have been treated with upper class snobbery throughout its entire existence as a term.

CleverNickName said:

The more I think about it, the less I like "Battlerager." It's too similar to "Battle Master," which is already a subclass of Fighter.

Come to think of it, "Battle Rager" would be a great fighter subclass that adds a splash of Barbarian...much like the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster subclasses add a splash of wizard.

Click to expand...

There's also Battle Smiths as an Artificer subclass, which I already get mixed up with Battle Masters enough. Changing Barbarians to Battleragers would make it even harder for my brain to keep all the "battle _____"'s straight (I do know that there's already a subclass for barbarians called battleragers, but as they are not a very good subclass and not commonly used, I don't get its name mixed up that often).