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

[Garthanos]

thank you for the puzzle :
1° I don't think that methods ( generally speaking )

he used singular... not plural

2° I don't think that , that ( or this ) kind of method, based on logics, works ...

 

[Garthanos]

I think he actually meant the premise was faulty ie the situation lacked a necessary supporting component.

 

[le Redoutable]

he used singular... not plural

wait, don't come to help, he must assume his propos like a man!
( a bit too late perhaps ? )

 

[Garthanos]

wait, don't come to help, he must assume his propos like a man!
( a bit too late perhaps ? )

singular means it's specific a pluralisation at that point would mean an issue with the argument validity. I think the issue is in a missing supporting condition which is what he pointed out a necessary perquisite for the conclusion to be sound.

 

[le Redoutable]

this is the art of Résumés
I applause

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

It's not like there aren't more fictional and real life inspirations to use. The question is "why does D&D ditch to blatant supernatural archetypes for barbarians so quickly and barely attempt less blatant ones?"

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

The Hulk is to me an extremely blatant supernatural archetype? And the Totem, Warrior is a lot more subtle as a supernatural archetype. Meanwhile I have problems seeing Tarzan having much to do with the mechanical core of the barbaian.

To me therefore your issue seems to not be that subtler barbarians and less supernatural ones aren't covered (berserker, totem warrior) but that what's published reaches beyond that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess I'm not viewing at it as "beating magic with anti-magic." (That was probably a bad word-choice on my part!) It seems to me as if Conan mostly overcomes magic with the force of "good ol' fashioned steel, thews, and grit!" Counterspells and such seem pretty out of character for him. In my limited acquaintance with the stories, I don't recall him using magic to beat other magic at all. It always always boils down to one or more of of: Punch the fiend! Stab the caster! or Smash the macguffin!

Once again I ask "How is this a barbarian in specific and not a fighter, especially when Conan is normally translated to D&D as a fighter"? Why does "fighting wizards" correlate to "stripping down to a loincloth and getting really angry as your big thing"?

And the "wrapped in cold iron" was a reference to metal armour.

 

[Tonguez]

I agreed with the other things you said, but I really think Tarzan and Wolverine are barbarians. Or more like that the barbarian class should be able to represent characters like them.

I think Tarzan is actually pretty interesting take on barbarian. A person who fights with animal ferocity, has animal instincts and senses, is in tune with nature and has crazy wilderness skills and understands animals. Also runs around butt naked and fights with simple weapons (no necessarily 'simple' in D&D sense.) Yes, it is kinda rangery and even a bit druidy, but I think fierce animalistic warrior that uses no armour and strangles lions with bare hands is definitely in the barbarian territory. I think you could build a pretty cool subclass based on that.

Tarzan is most definitely a ranger, his animal instincts, honed senses and ferocity make him the consummate hunter - and as a hunter he is a master of stealth and ambush not made rages. Even when he is fighting lions, ERB describes him as quick and agile, studying his opponents movements, so that as soon as it leaps the mobile Tarzan is able to dodge in and counter attack wrapping his steely thews arounds its neck.

The few times he rages is when he’s desperately fighting for his life against killer Gorillas

 

[Ixal]

Once again I ask "How is this a barbarian in specific and not a fighter, especially when Conan is normally translated to D&D as a fighter"? Why does "fighting wizards" correlate to "stripping down to a loincloth and getting really angry as your big thing"?

And the "wrapped in cold iron" was a reference to metal armour.

Because people want to play Conan (from the movies, not the books), Hulk or any other representation of the naked angry guy but if they were just fighters it would mean they would be worse than fighters who do the sensible thing and wear armor in addition to their big, two handed weapon (and rightly so).
Thus they got their own class to make them equal to sensible fighters.

 

[Minigiant]

Hulk is to me an extremely blatant supernatural archetype?

Hulk is just epic level. Outside of being green, he just punches people, smashes things, and throws large objects. Cut down the power level and it's classic barbarian.

Meanwhile I have problems seeing Tarzan having much to do with the mechanical core of the barbaian.

Strong, fast, tough, no armor, fights like a beast, has wilderness knowledge.

Tarzan isn't a ranger (Or at least a pure ranger) because Tarzan isn't a hunter, escort, nor scout by trade and he fights like an ape not a man. He is raised by gorillas and act just like a gorilla until he meets a human.

To me therefore your issue seems to not be that subtler barbarians and less supernatural ones aren't covered (berserker, totem warrior) but that what's published reaches beyond that.

Yes. That's why I say it abandoned the concept. 5e gave 2 subtly supernatural barbarians then then poured flashy magic down the class's maw. 4e started with flashy magic in the base and forced you to maneuver to not be reliant on it.