Barbarian will it be the only illiterate class again

[Sadrik]

Barbarians, always kind of irked me in 3e because it was the only class that had a culturally connotative name which happened to be backed up with actual rules that supported it. Should the barbarian have the illiterate social limitation again in 4e?

If the barbarian truly is going to be a primal defender, will that change the whole concept of the barbarian around to be something entirely different? For instance: If the druid is a primal striker, shaman a primal defender, and sorcerer a primal controller those are all very "magical" in nature will the Barbarian become magical in nature too (ala swordmage (the arcane defender))? Will Conan fit into this class still? Or would he be better served as a Fighter?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I don't think the 4e barbarian will be illiterate. However I also don't think the druid will the a striker. I think it will be a controller, given its 3.5 spell list.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, since it is named Barbarian, it might make sense to keep the class illeterate, but I'd actually prefer if the rules were flexible enough to make me decide how common literacy is in my campaign world.

 

[Stogoe]

Literacy should be a player choice to suit a character concept, rather than something attached to a class as a theoretical balancer. Really, in my experience with the barbarian's illiteracy, it was merely a skill point tax.

 

[Crothian]

Everyone should be illiterate and PC's just have to learn it like any other skill.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I'm in favor of all characters paying for literacy, if they want to. In the typical medieval fantasy setting, I don't think a fighter has an improved chance of knowing how to read and write in comparison with a barbarian.

Does anyone remember if the commoner in the DMG was also illiterate? That surely would make sense, but as far as I can remember, that was no word on that.

Cheers,

 

[Crothian]

Does anyone remember if the commoner in the DMG was also illiterate? That surely would make sense, but as far as I can remember, that was no word on that.

In 3e Barbarian was the only class I can recall that was not literate.

 

[Cryptos]

I think the problem is that Illiteracy is OK if 'Barbarian' is a culture, but not so much if 'Barbarian' is a class / set of abilities.

If we're talking about a character from the nomadic hordes roaming the hinterlands, then yes, he's probably illiterate. If we're talking about an otherwise typical character that rages out during battle, fights like a berserker, and throws himself into melee without consideration of personal harm then it's questionable. All too often, Barbarian characters were more like the latter. When 'Barbarian' is stripped of flavor and used as a stat block, illiterate makes less sense.

Personally, I hope it gets left out of 4e because it's not something you can universally balance. In a campaign of intrigue, mystery, traps and puzzles it's a major penalty. Or in 4e, a Skill Encounter heavier campaign. In a campaign of kick-in-the-door and kill, it's hardly a disadvantage at all.

The initial balance question in 3.0 was "given a choice, would someone (anyone) choose X ability over Y or take B class over C." At least, that's the way they described their design philosophy back when we were eagerly chomping up bits of news on that edition on this site. In one sense it was good, because it's almost impossible to fairly balance a bonus to "Use Rope" or "Diplomacy" against a bonus To-Hit. That's going to vary by character, player, and campaign. But "balance" was probably the wrong term for them to use. Mitigating uselessness or extreme advantages, yes. But you can't truly balance an Illiteracy drawback against an alignment restriction against Deflect Arrows. Just ensure that the overall choices are attractive to someone without being too attractive.

In 4e, though, there really does seem to be some effort to only include quantifiable elements in class and combat advantages, and then ship everything else off to whatever the DM decides to include (Rituals, skill encounters, etc.)

I don't think illiteracy has a place as a class feature / class restriction in 4e given the difference in 3e and 4e philosophies.

 

[DandD]

The name "Barbarian" always was uber-idiotic for what one should simply consider a Fighter-subclass (or fighting man, if you're that old) whose special schtick was simply to rage and be a berserker.
If they only had called it a Berserker, it would make so much sense. But making a cultural designation a class/set of abilities always irked me. That said, I prefer playing a Barbarian instead of a Fighter, simply because they're overall better statswise. But I rather prefer to call them Berserker.

 

[katahn]

I don't think the 4e barbarian will be illiterate. However I also don't think the druid will the a striker. I think it will be a controller, given its 3.5 spell list.

Druid's have been hinted at being "primal strikers", and sorcerers (if primal too) fit as "primal controllers". Shamans are a natural "primal leader". This leaves barbarian as a "primal defender".

As for literacy, there are two ways I think are good to handle it.

1) Unless the character class is scholarly like a wizard or a cleric, then literacy is a skill that must be selected at some point. Think of being literate as a "class feature" or possibly implied in having certain skills like arcana or religion. This certainly fits the bill for more realistic for the middle ages.

2) Ignore realism and remember the characters are heroes, they are exceptions to the rule, and destined for great things. Heroes are literate automatically unless the player desires the character to be illiterate for story purposes.