D&D General Has D&D abandoned the "martial barbarian"?

[cbwjm]

I always thought some of the reason for the more magical subclasses was to bring back a handful of 4e paragon paths where the barbarian had a more supernatural flavour. If people weren't enjoying the subclasses we're getting then I'm sure the surveys would reflect that, though that could just lead to a revision rather than dropping the subclass.

 

[Faolyn]

Why do we get a Wild Surge Barbarian before Tarzan or the Hulk?

Probably because at the time they were writing for Tasha's, they were starting to think about, or were already starting to develop, Witchlight. Both the Wild Magic Barb and Witchlight are Fey-related.

 

[Hussar]

Whoops, sorry, hadn't realized just how far back I was replying to and the conversation has moved on.

My bad.

 

[Garthanos]

Anyway, that's why I'm envisioning an archetype based on resisting magical effects and hurting magical beings with fists, rather than focusing on dispelling and the like. Though to be fair, Conan did stab more than a few evil sorcs in the face, so the Mage Slayer feat certainly fits!

(edit: To be clear here, I'm not trying to model the full character of Conan, just this one facet of the character.)

how about throwing a dagger in a reaction to interfere with a spell as its being cast.

 

[Garthanos]

The issue is not the heavy primal barbarian.
The issue is lack of lean into the more martial, subtle supernatural barbarians.
The 3e and 5e barbarians got really overt with their supernatural powers and the 4e one started there.

The first barbarian in 4e that I saw might have been the Battlerager (fighter)... utterly not supernatural basically "what is in a name"

 

[le Redoutable]

... a,d 1St Ed Unearthed Arcana Barbarian had lots of Hit Points, like in the Brute class
( so, Hunter/Brute/Fighter seems to be the result of this Find the Path )

 

[Minigiant]

It's conceivable that WotC is just giving the market what their research tells them the market wants. The demographics and cultural touchstones are significantly different today than 20 or 40 years ago.

Maybe that's just the sort of barbarian character most newer gamers just want now.

Spoiler: shakes fist!

View attachment 141893

I always thought some of the reason for the more magical subclasses was to bring back a handful of 4e paragon paths where the barbarian had a more supernatural flavour. If people weren't enjoying the subclasses we're getting then I'm sure the surveys would reflect that, though that could just lead to a revision rather than dropping the subclass.

I don't think that method of logic works since there was never a barbarian subclass of the other side of the scale given.

It was never "Which one do you like more Path of the Savage or Path of the Beast"? I was "Do you like the Path of the Beast". So questions on more grounded but supernatural barbarians aren't asked.

Subclasses are removed or changed when the community says the subclass doesn't belong in the class, belongs in another class, or has mechanics the community dislikes. However the more primal barbarians prcs/paths/paths of 3e, 4e, and 5e fit the concept of a barbarian. So they aren't removed.

However outside of the combat style barbarians (Hurler Build. TWF build), barbarians that focus on their actual strength, speed, toughness, and weapons don't see the limelight long enough too get judged. If they are pushed at all. Heck 5e didn't even offer the combat style barbarians or them even to be downvoted. Based on the DMGuild, there is plenty of interest is subtler barbarians.

 

[le Redoutable]

I don't think that method of logic works since there was never a barbarian subclass of the other side of the scale given.

.

this is where I have difficulties in English:
you say " I don't think that method ..."
wouldn't it be " I don't think that that method ... "
or is is subtlety I can't deal with
( like perhaps a shortcut ? )

 

[Garthanos]

this is where I have difficulties in English:
you say " I don't think that method ..."
wouldn't it be " I don't think that that method ... "
or is is subtlety I can't deal with
( like perhaps a shortcut ? )

I think that both are grammatically correct and further I believe meaning is still conveyed fine without one of them. What do you feel the difference in meaning would be? with 2 versus one?

 

[le Redoutable]

I think that both are grammatically correct and further I believe meaning is still conveyed fine without one of them. What do you feel the difference in meaning would be? with 2 versus one?

thank you for the puzzle :
1° I don't think that methods ( generally speaking )
2° I don't think that , that ( or this ) kind of method, based on logics, works ...