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

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Sorry to say for anyone reading this, but this didn't actually happen.
You sure got your panties in a bunch. Did I under sell the amount of variation earlier in the game?
WoW has not "implemented new body types". Nor did it ever have "2 variations of mesomorphic male and 1 variation of mesomorphic female". Blizzard always had wildly exaggerated and varied figures for all the races in WoW.
Oh my they are exaggerated oooh that is completely different not being realistic makes all the difference yep you caught me /sarcasm. The females even between the races in the earlier game just did not seem that varied but I guess I could have called the human ones more super model body types.

Sheesh
The race Garthanos is referring to aren't "a new body type",
These body types are definitely the same exact same human body types.

1629896231906.png

1629896043408.png


And Oh my the latter kind of does have the Pandaren body type which is also significantly newer than the other human. (but for a human to be able to be heavier body form whatever you call it is quite new).

The Kul Tiran Humans also have a very thin body type which is not currently a playable option
1629897491474.png


Being a humanoid panda is not the same feel by any shake and differences between body types on species also just not the same even if they mechanically implement Kul Tirans as another race. Kul Tirans also have the some members (npc) who have the original Azaroth body type.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

You sure got your panties in a bunch. Did I under sell the amount of variation earlier in the game?
I'm pretty sure I said what I meant in my post lol. What you're claiming isn't true, and there's no "new body type". Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but the spindley human model, which is male-only, note, is not going to be playable any time in the foreseeable future (and uses Undead animations).
 


Looks new to me... significantly nothing like it without playing a non-human and that heavier non-human was added years after the game started too.
Kul'Tirans aren't "humans" in any meaningful sense in WoW. They're a different race with different classes allowed, different special abilities, and so on. Also they're goddamn 8ft tall lol (not even exaggerating). And if you're worried about "playing a non-human" WoW is the wrooooooong game for you. Pandaren were added nearly a decade ago.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but the spindley human model, which is male-only, note, is not going to be playable any time in the foreseeable future (and uses Undead animations).
Classic thin Wizard would be great and the current male only part may be why it would be a larger job to translate to a playable.
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
And if you're worried about "playing a non-human" WoW is the wrooooooong game for you.
People talk about feeling represented in entertainment this is often in context of real life human racial variation ... but its also body types, and it seemed like for a long time games never did. Being a somewhat cartoon like non-human does not seem exactly the same.
 

Laurefindel

Legend
Not having to have characters who you feel uncomfortable playing does in fact, necessarily make for a better game, by any normal measure of "better" that I can think of. I've read your posts on this in this thread and you haven't presented any actual argument, just engaged in a lot of nostalgia and mythmaking.
I think that between "all species and cultures are just an homogeneous soup because everybody can choose everything anyway" and "only a few specific stereotypes are available to be played", there's a pretty generous middle ground.

There will always be some for whom things are too specific and or specific enough. The point isn't to exclude both ends of the spectrum from having fun, but establishing an expectation that will define the game in a positive way. "Everything goes" isn't necessarily positive, and neither is binary choices.
 

I think that between "all species and cultures are just an homogeneous soup because everybody can choose everything anyway" and "only a few specific stereotypes are available to be played", there's a pretty generous middle ground.

There will always be some for whom things are too specific and or specific enough. The point isn't to exclude both ends of the spectrum from having fun, but establishing an expectation that will define the game in a positive way. "Everything goes" isn't necessarily positive, and neither is binary choices.
I get what you're saying but I think what you're maybe not considering is how many underlying assumptions about game design you're making in this post, because it is a really large number. The issue I was addressing was that the poster had created an entirely fictional period of gaming design history, which never actually existed, in order to complain about how people were making choices in modern games.

And that's something you're not really addressing too - it's not the mechanics which lead to the complaint, because the mechanics were literally never the issue. It's the choices.
The game is quite old and had existed for 8 years before Pandarans were added
LOL thanks for teaching this grandma how to suck eggs. I literally bought WoW day 1 NA release, at 8am, after playing in the open beta.
 






I think this has been the push since 3e for ALL classes. In 4e, it really started to sweep across every class. In 5e, I felt that they actually pulled back a little (compared to 4e). But, as you play any class, you begin to notice most of the abilities are reliant on magic.
I'm going to disagree fairly hard. In 4e you could play a larger than life fighter without having to wiggle your fingers and mutter some magic words. You were getting towards mythological - but that's not the same as magical.
It's not just Barbarians. It's the entire concept that Strength is the most important combat stat.

WotC is following the general trend where people prefer playing moody snowflakes than people that actually look the part, and aren't spectacular in other areas like looks and wit as a result.

Keanu Reeves instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Also "girl power" - people don't want to sacrifice fashion and beauty just to be able to wield a big-ass sword (in either sex). In fact it's even unacceptable to point out gender still exists.
Here's a couple of reality checks:
  1. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a body builder. This is a "fashion and beauty" choice and really strong people don't normally look like that.
  2. Big-ass swords like the Buster Sword don't actually exist in reality. And D&D swords have weights that are significantly over that of reality.
Your objection here is that other people are not following your fashion and beauty choices - you may like Frank Frazetta artwork and the like but not everyone shares your tastes in "fashion and beauty" and they don't want to be forced to follow your personal tastes.
The idea you need to compromise on beauty and smarts to create a fearsome warrior is truly dead :(
That's because the idea that you needed to compromise on smarts to create a fearsome warrior was always 100% a fashion and beauty choice. If we look at history's genuinely fearsome warriors like Musashi then smarts have always been an essential part of their toolkit. Does this mean that strength isn't important? No. But the idea that intelligence should be a dump stat among truly fearsome warriors rather than goons is ridiculous.

And as mentioned body builder muscles like Arnie or as shown in Frazetta's artwork are and have always been a beauty choice. Especially the bare chested versions.
It's only within the Sword & Sorcery subgenre the hope of games where reality still is given a token nod when it comes to the physicality needed for martial combat.
Nonsense. It's only Sword & Sorcery where strength, contrary to reality, reigns supreme.

In D&D strength is a useful combat stat although in 5e dexterity is extremely over-weighted (in reality you can't entirely separate the two). But strength is still the most used stat for front line melee combatants in my experience, whether fighters, paladins, or barbarians, or even clerics.
And as I said it's not just Barbarians. It's Dwarves too. For precisely the same reasons.
What? Because they are no longer in fashion.
It's Fighters in general. If you can use magic to explain why you don't need to look like John Cena to be a killer,
You probably need magic or steroids and/or human growth hormone to explain why you look like John Cena in the first place.

As for "to be a killer", if you ask me what a killer looks like I'm a Brit. If you ask me what a killer looks like I'm going to say Dr. Harold Shipman, Britain's most prolific serial killer. And if you ask me what a dangerous warrior or soldier looks like then I'm going to say a Gurkha - and they are all strong, but they don't look like gym rats or man-mountains.
well, then people prefer to look like Hit-Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) or maybe Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), or say a gnome barbarian to take a memeable fantasy example.
So your complaint is that people prefer not to look like dehydrated steroid pushing body builders? And instead have different tastes of beauty to yours.
But if you prefer having the choice of fantasy gaming where you can choose a game where you basically need to be a male muscle mountain (or a Gimli, or, to be honest, an Orc) if you want to excel at killing people with a heavy object, you basically have zero choice in gaming product published this millenium.
So ... if you want a type of fantasy gaming where you "basically need to" fit precisely one unrealistic beauty choice and no others you don't have many options. Good!
So, yes, I very much see your point. Let's hope this current climate blows over and featuring realistic constraints on body type and mass, even in games with Dragons and Dungeons, once more becomes less utterly unacceptable!
And with those realistic constraints we'll find that the equivalent of Str 18/00 isn't actually that desirable compared to a much better balance of strength, dexterity, and intelligence. And the winning body types aren't the really large targets.
 

And instead have different tastes of beauty to yours.
This is what @CapnZapp's entire complaint seems to boil down to, once you remove the nostalgia, false claims about how systems worked and so on.

In the past, Zapp feels like players who played people with high STR portrayed them as "muscle mountains", and this made him happy.

After 2000, Zapp feels like players who play people with high STR don't do that - that instead they play high STR characters as having quite a variety of appearances, some of them as wimpy-looking as (the example he gave) Keanu Reeves (SHOCK HORROR), which is to say, this 90lb shrimp:

keanuwimp.jpg

What Zapp demands is your character must instead look like this Keanu:

keanustrong.jpg


Otherwise Zapp is going to go be sad because other people's characters don't fit his tastes.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
There are a couple of posters addressing me, ignoring or not realizing that topic has been moderated.

(In case anyone's wondering why I won't engage)
 



An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top