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

[Garthanos]

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.

Generally speaking if one can do only one role at a time then the need for multiple and a team remains, team synergy is and still can be a thing where having one of one role and one of another may be more effective, and could be much more of a situational thing - for instance one could have a stance which in 4e terms swapped one from striker role to defender. Time dependent non-combat situation can create this too. It doesn't matter if both characters have a skill/ritual/practice that applies if you need both and done faster or at the same time is better.

D&D has classically and likely even now done a poor job of limiting casters in this regard.... but had no compunctions of narrowing martial types though.

On topic the Berserker in 4e was a character who switched modes in combat

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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?

Agreed. Though ''savage'' isnt the good option I still remember my grand-ma calling people of the First Nations ''sauvageonne'' (more or less Wildlings'') until I told her that it wasnt an innocent name...given that herself is of First Nation descent

Slayer would be generic enough?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

Yeah, and I think it also lead to fights becoming a little static.

I recently started using enemies with the lowest HP permitted by their HD and Con mod (ie: an Ogre with 28 HP) but they add their PB to damage dealt (also large, huge and colossal add their Con to all saves and ability check made to resist being moved or grappled).

Makes the fights shorter, but deadlier.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

You wanted to to throw out a race you didn't like, used incomplete data and deliberately bad math to support your claims that they are unpopular, refused to accept that other people liked the race, and you deliberately misconstrued or ignored what people were telling you when it didn't fit your narrative.

This thread generally has people trying to find what's bad (or less-good) about a class and improve the class as a whole. Nobody is saying "throw barbarians out completely." Even the people talking about making some classes into subclasses and are serious about it aren't saying "throw barbarians out completely."

And you're surprised there's a difference in this thread's tone?

 

[mrpopstar]

You wanted to to throw out a race you didn't like, used incomplete data and deliberately bad math to support your claims that they are unpopular, refused to accept that other people liked the race, and you deliberately misconstrued or ignored what people were telling you when it didn't fit your narrative.

This thread generally has people trying to find what's bad (or less-good) about a class and improve the class as a whole. Nobody is saying "throw barbarians out completely." Even the people talking about making some classes into subclasses and are serious about it aren't saying "throw barbarians out completely."

And you're surprised there's a difference in this thread's tone?

Oh, I definitely missed whatever thread that was.

 

[Faolyn]

Thats not entirely true.

Well, it was 30+ years ago. In skimming through the book on Project Gutenburg, I'm not finding the exact passage I remember again, but more than enough other racist stuff to make me not really care about re-reading it in full.

 

[Faolyn]

Oh, I definitely missed whatever thread that was.

You're not missing much, to be honest. It was mostly a few people who disliked a race demanding that people who liked it justify their opinion, and then dismissing that opinion and moving their goalposts. Ad nauseum.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Back to the original question: I think there's room for some more non-magical barbarian subclasses (whirling dervish dex-barb comes to mind) but I think "abandoned" is too strong a word - they haven't ruled out making such a subclass, they just haven't chosen to go that direction yet.

Given how slowly they are moving (for cogent reasons) I'm not sure I'd hold such a choice against them, or at least not strongly.

Edit: actually what I really want is a beastmaster barbarian, which I guess doesn't really require any overt magic so that could work.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Apologies if it's been said, but thanks to portions of the fanbase, characters aren't allowed to be cinematically fantastic without being overtly supernatural. 'Martial' characters can't do awesome, badass things because it will be attacked for hurting verisimilitude or being 'anime' as if either of those were bad things.

So for barbarians, long time badasses meant to do awesome things, the only defense it to cover that in supernatural windowdressing.

If we don't like it, we have only ourselves to blame.

 

[Minigiant]

Apologies if it's been said, but thanks to portions of the fanbase, characters aren't allowed to be cinematically fantastic without being overtly supernatural. 'Martial' characters can't do awesome, badass things because it will be attacked for hurting verisimilitude or being 'anime' as if either of those were bad things.

So for barbarians, long time badasses meant to do awesome things, the only defense it to cover that in supernatural windowdressing.

If we don't like it, we have only ourselves to blame.

I think it not really that.

I think is most that the D&D designers and fanbase, especially in the last few editions and later in them, are enamored with the super supernatural and more grounded ideas or subtler supernatural elements just don't meet the amount of flashiness desired at first glance.

The grumblers get most of what they want early.

So a barbarian who chokes up on his maul and knocks a goblin back like a line drive in the 8th inning into a dragon's eye isn't what is promoted for new product.