Barbarian will it be the only illiterate class again

[Shroomy]

I think barbaric illiteracy needs to go the way of the dodo, like alignment and multi-classing restrictions. Besides not making sense in many context, to me, these types of role-playing penalties run counter to the idea of options, not restrictions. If I want an illiterate character, I'd prefer some sort of optional flaw system like that introduced in UA or just role-play it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm fairly certain sorcerers aren't primal, as that would denote they get their magical energies from being one of them tree hugging hippies like those dastardly druids. I think they're supposed to be just ANOTHER arcane controller.

As for barbarians, I agree that it was dumb that they were the only illiterate class. Honestly, MOST of the classes should've started illiterate. I can see how clerics, wizards, and monks wouldn't be. But the vast majority of classes came from "some random surly peasant who goes out to adventure for various reasons." Chances are, they WOULDN'T be literate.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't think Barbarians will be illiterate, given that they got rid of Attributes Negatives, so why have a class with a negative that correlates so closely with Attributes.

As for the Sorcerer, I think it will be Primal. Given how its magic is natural and from within their own body, and the "uncontrollable" aspect just screams a minor-correlation to the Barbarian (thus why I want to make a Sorcerer/Barbarian).

And the Druid, since it is mainly based around Wild Shape, well we know it is a Hybrid. So I would say Striker/Controller: Attack a single target in one form, turn into a large form to hit a large group, turn back into regular form and cast a storm spell to pelt the enemies with hail.

 

[Gloombunny]

Will Conan fit into this class still? Or would he be better served as a Fighter?

Conan was always an awkward fit with the 3.x barbarian. I think in 4e you'll be able to do a very good Conan homage as a fighter with ranger training.

 

[Kishin]

Conan was always an awkward fit with the 3.x barbarian. I think in 4e you'll be able to do a very good Conan homage as a fighter with ranger training.

I would lean more toward rogue, actually. Conan is -very- capable when it comes to subterfuge and thievery, see The Tower of the Elephant and The Jewels of Gwahlur for but two examples, and some of the more brute force thievery exploits fit his combat style well.

 

[Gloombunny]

I would lean more toward rogue, actually. Conan is -very- capable when it comes to subterfuge and thievery, see The Tower of the Elephant and The Jewels of Gwahlur for but two examples, and some of the more brute force thievery exploits fit his combat style well.

You might be right, especially if the ranger melee powers are all strictly two-weapon oriented. He does need Nature training, I think, but it could come from a plain Skill Training feat.

 

[Stoat]

I'd prefer that all PC's be literate unless the player chooses otherwise. I like to put maps, notes and eerie graffiti in my games, and literacy encourages that.

I'd also rename the class "Berserker."

 

[DandD]

I'd prefer that all PC's be literate unless the player chooses otherwise. I like to put maps, notes and eerie graffiti in my games, and literacy encourages that.

I'd also rename the class "Berserker."

Yeah. I sure hope they're going to consider this when they're going to write the Player's Handbook 2. I mean, it's so obvious. A raging warrior is a berserker. But a barbarian doesn't have to be a berserker. A barbarian is simply an uncivilised man (or woman). That's all.

 

[Stogoe]

I'm fairly certain sorcerers aren't primal, as that would denote they get their magical energies from being one of them tree hugging hippies like those dastardly druids. I think they're supposed to be just ANOTHER arcane controller.

I find this doubtful. "Barely-controlled elemental fury" screams Primal to me, and Primal is much broader than tree-hugging. See: the Barbarian.

 

[Andor]

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

Totemists defaulted to illiterate too.

But this really is a campaign specific thing. If your world looks like 10th century europe then almost all of the population should be illiterate. If it looks more like 16th century europe, or the 2nd century mediterranian then literacy is commonplace. For real fun you can set it up like ancient china where literacy is rare and a difficult skill, but also allows for a country with 300 spoken languages to have a single written language. And then when the chinese writting system hit japan it spawned two simplified syllabic alphabet, one used by monks, the other used by the nobility.