Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Serendipity" data-source="post: 5976854" data-attributes="member: 18216">Websters defines barbarian as :However I think their list of synonyms tells the real story - In a more specific context, barbarian to me is a culture somewhere shy of &quot;civilized&quot; (meaning cities, guilds, and all that medieval rot) that still lives off the land, may or may not be nomadic, likely organizes itself (at best) in clans or tribes, yet has some rudimentary technical knowledge while not having industry or large scale agriculture.&nbsp; (In short, more a ranger than a barbarian). Nothing in there says berserker to me, sorry.&nbsp; Not that there's anything wrong with a berserker as a character notion or idea, but it's NOT the same thing as a barbarian.&nbsp; While I don't necessarily think the next edition needs a barbarian class (at all, actually) if there must be one, and it follows the whole rage thing, I hope they call it what it is, which is a berserker.&nbsp;&nbsp; Hopefully such a class would then get a tighter focus to make it the best berserking fighter it could possibly be, maybe with various triggers necessary to set the rage off (which I suppose you could get full builds out of if you liked). The last barbarian class I thought was at all worth the name was the 1e version in unearthed arcana, overpowered as it was.&nbsp; Though I question the necessity of a barbarian (as I'm describing it) as a class, as it seems more appropriate to me as a theme.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Serendipity, post: 5976854, member: 18216"] Websters defines barbarian as : However I think their list of synonyms tells the real story - In a more specific context, barbarian to me is a culture somewhere shy of "civilized" (meaning cities, guilds, and all that medieval rot) that still lives off the land, may or may not be nomadic, likely organizes itself (at best) in clans or tribes, yet has some rudimentary technical knowledge while not having industry or large scale agriculture. (In short, more a ranger than a barbarian). Nothing in there says berserker to me, sorry. Not that there's anything wrong with a berserker as a character notion or idea, but it's NOT the same thing as a barbarian. While I don't necessarily think the next edition needs a barbarian class (at all, actually) if there must be one, and it follows the whole rage thing, I hope they call it what it is, which is a berserker. Hopefully such a class would then get a tighter focus to make it the best berserking fighter it could possibly be, maybe with various triggers necessary to set the rage off (which I suppose you could get full builds out of if you liked). The last barbarian class I thought was at all worth the name was the 1e version in unearthed arcana, overpowered as it was. Though I question the necessity of a barbarian (as I'm describing it) as a class, as it seems more appropriate to me as a theme. [/QUOTE]

Verification