Barbarian: Why did it become a rage based class?

[occam]

Wow, I'd forgotten that the 1E barbarian didn't get a rage ability.

Yeah, me too. That's weird.

I also agree with Diamond Cross, the 1E barbarian was largely based on figures like Conan and possibly Tarzan.

Actually, the 3e barbarian is an excellent match to the literary Tarzan. In addition to the wilderness skills and general agility, the original books feature several instances where Tarzan is overtaken by a near-mindless rage.

 

[Greg K]

As I was getting stuff ready for the auction coming up at Games Plus, I cam across my battered and beaten copy of Unearthed Arcana. Reviewing the barbarian class for kicks, I couldn't help but notice how vastly different just in core concept it was from today's 4e and even the 3e version that have a core rage mechanic powering it.

the Unearthed Arcana barbarian is a mismatch of skills, abilities, unique abilities for ability scores, and a whole host of other bits, but it's not a berserker. It seems much more modelled after the warrior whose life of living on the edge grants it the ability to detect ambush, as well as outdoor survival and a hearty endurance.

My favorite version was David Howery's clean up of the Unearthed Arcana Barbarian. I liked how the UA version had culture/environment influence the weapons and skills.

When I did my houseruled 3e barbarian, I specifically used the 3e Unearthed barbarian hunter variant (with different fighting styles), the favored environment environment environemt, and cultural weapon groups to capture more of the 1e flavor.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Katherine Kerr wrote an excellent piece on the "Real Barbarians" in Dragon issue 72. She broke down the Barbarians into three groups:

- High Barbarians: The more sophisticated Celts with their agricultural economy.
- Low Barbarians: The true savages.
- Nomad Barbarians: In between.

She looked at the Barbarian as an honour-bound warrior who is bonded to their word. Before battle, they would "boast" or more accurately make battle pledges that they would live to or die trying: "I will kill four of your men and take the horses they ride upon" or some such. They are ruled by the avoidance of shame and carry a personal taboo - usually of a weird variety such as that they must never kill a bird, or must never take the left hand path when the moon is high.

A truly fascinating article that sheds an interesting perspective on the Barbarian (with no raging to be seen anywhere).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Nifft]

I didn't say anything about literacy. I was referring to:

While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function.


I was using mindless as the antonym of mindful, not of intelligent.

Oooooookay, so for all the turns out of the day that the Barbarian isn't using his Rage class feature, he is a mindful killing machine?

- - -

I don't think your claim holds up, though, even as revised. Barbarians keep their Uncanny Dodge even while Raging. This means that, even at their most "mindless", they still have more wits about them than any Fighter (since the Fighter can be flanked).

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

Oooooookay, so for all the turns out of the day that the Barbarian isn't using his Rage class feature, he is a mindful killing machine?

He's a downright conscientious killing machine, at times.

I don't think your claim holds up, though, even as revised. Barbarians keep their Uncanny Dodge even while Raging. This means that, even at their most "mindless", they still have more wits about them than any Fighter (since the Fighter can be flanked).

Cheers, -- N

Uncannily dodging does imply awareness, but not necessarily mindfulness. *shrug* "Significantly less mindful killing machine" doesn't have the right ring to it, certainly.

Fun party trick in Pathfinder: Barbarian 2/Alchemist 18 with the moment of clarity rage power. Once per rage, he can pause for one round and create any alchemical item if he has the necesssary materials on hand.

 

[Greg K]

Katherine Kerr wrote an excellent piece on the "Real Barbarians" in Dragon issue 72.

Yep. One of many great articles by her.

 

[slwoyach]

I always allowed barbarians to trade out their rage abilities for feats, but nobody ever took me up on it. Rage is simply much better than feats.

 

[Voadam]

As I was getting stuff ready for the auction coming up at Games Plus, I cam across my battered and beaten copy of Unearthed Arcana. Reviewing the barbarian class for kicks, I couldn't help but notice how vastly different just in core concept it was from today's 4e and even the 3e version that have a core rage mechanic powering it.

Now I recall the old 'Berserkers' subclass back in the day that was Viking based and could turn into a werebear and that the whole barbarian bit was at least a nod in there, but is anyone happy with the barbarian = berserk as its default?

the Unearthed Arcana barbarian is a mismatch of skills, abilities, unique abilities for ability scores, and a whole host of other bits, but it's not a berserker. It seems much more modelled after the warrior whose life of living on the edge grants it the ability to detect ambush, as well as outdoor survival and a hearty endurance.

Was this switch something that happened later in 2nd ed or was it brand new in 3e?

I think the evolution of the berserker class in the 2e viking book is the reason. I think the 2e celtic book might have had some hulking out berserking as well. And maybe the dwarven handbook's warhammer troll hunter equivalent as well. A lot of things came from the 1e version (the uncanny dodge, the d12 HD, more skills than a fighter) but raging is definitely a berserker thing.

In 1e UA the barbarians came from 3 types of Greyhawk groups IIRC:
1) the norse ones (Snow, Frost, Ice, Hold of Stonefist) who were basically vikings;
2) the nomads (Wolf, Tiger, and Rovers of the Barrens) who were sort of like mongols; and
3) the jungle types (hepmonoland) which were based on jungle savage archetypes.

I would say people generally thought of barbarians as Conan types which I would put as sort of celtic/northern european. Basing the barbarian combat mechanics on one archetype I'd go with the sword/axe/and or shield vikings over scimitar and bow mongols or blowgun jungle savages as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Fun party trick in Pathfinder: Barbarian 2/Alchemist 18 with the moment of clarity rage power. Once per rage, he can pause for one round and create any alchemical item if he has the necesssary materials on hand.

"I am going to create the SH*T out of this potion!"

 

[Orius]

What's a barbarian beyond a fighter or ranger with a particular attitude, background, and a couple minor powers (like what eventually became uncanny dodge)? Not that much, really. The fighters and rangers can carry the weight of portraying barbarians like Conan or Brennus and other central European Celts without too much difficulty.

So they went a different inspiration (berserkers, Cú Chulainn, Sláine and other warp spasmers) with the 3e barbarian and brought in a different sort of mechanic for a more distinctive mechanical flavor. It's a little different but it's got a good beat. I can dance to it.

This is probably the reason. Stuff like attitude, background, and the like really don't have any hard mechanical benefits to distinguish the older barbarians from a fighter who's taken the right set of skills and feats. Also, keep in mind that 3e's design philosophies don't consider role-playing penalties to be balanced with conbat benefits. Raging brings something unique to the class, and I suppose there were enough berserker variants in 2e that the designers felt a core class with the abilities would be helpful/useful as a baseline for raging.