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

[Yaarel]

I'm not even attempting to say that fighters are smart.

My point from the get go was that fighters fight with learned techniques whereas barbarians rely on raw muscle, iron lungs, and rock hard skin.

It reminds me of a saying I learned from a friend.

"If youre gonna be stupid, you better be tough."

 

[Yaarel]

That's interesting, but I'm not having the discussion on psionic Norse warriors again with you
(Though I agree that classes with powers and abilities fueled by emotions or the control of them should be flavored as psionic: Bard, Barbarian and Monks, frex).

In this here case, I'm making a berserker subclass for the fighter in a D&D game; much like the Samurai and Cavalier dont have much resemblance with the either the real life ones, nor the ones often seen in myths. They are (overly?) simplified to fit the fighter's theme. The archetype could be called Battlerager or Wrathbearer, I dont really care for now.

If WotC kept the old Mystic UA, it would have been nice to have psionic barb archetype that gains a few Disciplines from a list of: Crown of Rage, Crown of Fury, Bestial Form, Brute Force, Celerity, Iron Durability and Giant Growth(?).

I feel strongly. If D&D uses reallife terms from reallife cultures, it must use the terms as accurately and as culturally respectfully as possible. This is true for any culture - including the heritage that a modern culture is proud of.

If D&D has no intention of cultural sensitivity or accuracy, then dont use a reallife term from an other culture.

Actually the 5e Samurai comes from Japanese movies about Samurai and was vetted by Japanese.

Regarding the non-berserkr berserker Fighter, maybe call it a Savage?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel strongly. If D&D uses reallife terms from reallife cultures, it must use the terms as accurately and as culturally respectfully as possible. This is true for any culture - including the heritage that a modern culture is proud of.

If D&D has no intention of cultural sensitivity or accuracy, then dont use a reallife term from an other culture.

Actually the 5e Samurai comes from Japanese movies about Samurai and was vetted by Japanese.

Regarding the non-berserkr berserker Fighter, maybe call it a Savage?

‘Savage’ is your culturally sensitive suggestion?

 

[Yaarel]

‘Savage’ is your culturally sensitive suggestion?

Yes. I dont know any reallife culture that considers themselves a "savage". And this is precisely the subhuman animalistic archetype that this Fighter subclass is articulating.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not starting this fight again, but, sheesh, I suggest that a single race gets moved over to the DMG to make room for new ideas and I get absolutely dogpiled for how much I hate the game. You folks are talking about rewriting, what, a third of the PHB and everyone's patting each other on the back? Sheesh.

There's a huge difference between rewriting to align things thematically and taking something entirely away from being a player-side option. "Moving to the DMG" is little different to "putting through a paper shredder" other than plausible deniability and "make room for new ideas" when very little space is freed up makes no sense. Come up with the new ideas before removing the old ones and then show why you can't have both.

Meanwhile e.g. turning the barbarian into a subclass of fighter opens up some options for the barbarian - for example it means barbarians get a fighting style, and both second wind and action surge feel entirely in line with the martial barbarian. It also puts the option of some barbarian options into the fighter; the unarmoured defences would be a positive as would fast movement for many fighter-types. And unlike your removal of a race suggestion care is being taken here to keep as much of the thematics as possible.

The huge thing you lose when you turn one class into a subclass of another is the subclasses of what is now a subclass. I don't think e.g. Storm Herald would survive turning the barbarian into a subclass, and it's worthwhile.

It's pretty simple. 5e, because they absolutely had to avoid any 4e cooties, went back to 3e class design.

I'd have put it very differently; subclasses are a 4e thing more than they belong to any other edition and the barbarian being primal is very much 4e. 5e just made sure that it didn't look at all like 4e to people who hated 4e.

Which means that, outside of a couple of choices, everyone is a caster. They then took that a step further and made classes that weren't really casters until very high level in AD&D, half-casters and gave them spells starting at 3rd level.

2nd level... And 3.X had already brought the start of spellcasting down to 4th level for ranger and paladin.

But, we've massively upped monster HP's, drastically reduced fighter damage output

Has fighter damage output been "drastically reduced"?

In AD&D (either 2e or post Unearthed Arcana 1e) assuming Str of 17 you only have +1 to hit and damage and 3 attacks/2 rounds, rising to 2 attacks/round at level 7. A longsword therefore does 1d8+3 damage or an average of 7.5/attack (9.5 vs large) for an average of 11.25 dpr. But this is extremely frontloaded as other than getting a magic +1 or +2 sword the next damage increase the fighter gets is the level 7 2 attacks/round and more likelihood of facing large foes.

By contrast in 5e a first level fighter with Str 16, longsword, and the duelist fighting style is doing 1d8+5 damage for 9.5 damage/attack or in round terms 20% behind. With only one attack per round this isn't looking so good - but that's first level. At second they gain Action Surge, closing about half the gap assuming the textbook 6 encounters, 2 short rests/day. At third they gain a subclass which (depending on subclass) finishes closing the gap. At fourth it's an ASI or a feat - and at 5th level they get their second attack, doubling their DPR and permanently ending the one reason the AD&D fighter was doing more damage.

Of course all of this is largely irrelevant when an AD&D ogre had 19 hp, a 3.5 ogre had 29hp, and a 5e ogre has 59hp. Fighter damage might not have been drastically reduced but hps were massively upped so the effect is the same. The fighter might as well be waving a nerf bat.

 

[Minigiant]

Does the 5e champion feel that way? he seems a rather instinct driven character.

It's less about instinct and more how they fight. The Champion still feel like they read swordsmanship manuals and subscribe to some old samurai's fan club for katana tips.

 

[Yaarel]

‘Savage’ is your culturally sensitive suggestion?

Actually, you are probably right. I mean, "savage" as in a savage animal.

I hope ethnologists today are no longer using the offensive term "savage" to mean a nonliterate culture. But in case some are, a different name is probably for the better.

How about a "Brute" for a subhuman bestial Fighter concept?

 

[Minigiant]

Actually, you are probably right. I mean, "savage" as in a savage animal.

I hope ethnologists today are no longer using the offensive term "savage" to mean a nonliterate culture. But in case some are, a different name is probably for the better.

How about a "Brute" for a subhuman bestial Fighter concept?

The brute fighter subclass was tried and removed in 5e. Turns out, there isn't much design space left in the fighter subclass for an subclass simpler than the Champion that isn't broken.

The barbarian has more design space in its subclasses in 5e at least

In 4e, all the fighter subclasses are martial arts geeks.

 

[Yaarel]

The brute fighter subclass was tried and removed in 5e. Turns out, there isn't much design space left in the fighter subclass for an subclass simpler than the Champion that isn't broken.

The barbarian has more design space in its subclasses in 5e at least

In 4e, all the fighter subclasses are martial arts geeks.

Heh, if the call the subhuman bestial Barbarian subclass, ... Wolverine, it is probably win-win!

 

[jmartkdr2]

I have heard that as an argument about all D&D martial characters they cannot portray fictional heroes well because of the lack of versatility.

Sorry if this has already been pointed out, but I think it's because DnD is a team game. Fictional heroes often go alone, even if they are often part of a team - so they need to be broadly capable in all the tasks that might come up. As part of a team, DnD characters (and fictional characters who are always on a team, like the Fantastic Four) only need to be good at their role.

And to prevent spotlight hogging, DnD even goes out of its way to make it harder for you to reach into other class's wheelhouses.