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

[Garthanos]

Warlord ( from DC ) just does the same lol

really skimpy gear on that dude it's hot at the center of the earth ... also the second hero type I read about called a Warlord the first being John Carter, followed by others inc. Zena being a gendered Warrior Princess. She was "typically" less skimpy.

 

[le Redoutable]

then, perhaps Major is quality while minor a weakness
so, using 4x3
would bring
Barbarian : +Fighter, -Magic-User

 

[steeldragons]

Ok, look...We've all been dancing around the real obvious and actual issue at hand here...We're just all too proper and polite to say it... But it's time to wake up and just speak the truth...

The problem with the martial-ity of the Barbarian goes back to one simple truth...

It's the Paladin's fault.

No, really! Now, hear me out.

The Paladin was in the 1e PHB as a subclass of Fighter. Yes, as was the Ranger. So, right from the get go, the game said the guy with a sword and the "shining hero knightly guy with a sword" are two different people. And, guess what! The shining knightly hero guy has all kinds of magic powers! Spell use, as compared to today's Paladin, was relatively minimal and only came into play at middling-higher levels (8th or 9th, I think, off the top of my head). But they had magical abilities and features: laying on hands, auras of protection, immunities to fear and confusion and disease, not to mention the [basically, magical intelligent] steed.

The Ranger, as all we scholars of the game know, was the "wilderness warrior" with a great number of additional abilities that fell more into the "skills" kind of category - better at fighting "giant class humanoids," tracking (of course), calming animals, and so on. Ranger was the Warrior [Fighter] who knew and worked well IN the Wild. Again, very minimal magic use came into play at later levels -both druidic and arcane- I submit the later was almost entirely so Rangers could do things like "Affect Normal Fires," "Detect Magic," and produce "Light" with miraculous/magical-seeming "expertise," and/or to emulate Aragorn's use of crystal balls and providing a story-element to explain why Rangers were adept at using clairvoyance/divination devices.

But the idea that the Ranger was a sword-swinging "Magic-user" was very much NOT in the class' conception. That was the Paladin, albeit divine magic. But with the Bard being a lengthy "prestige class" kind of set up that used druid magic, and Fighter/Magic-users being -solely- the multiclass options of elves and half-elves (and gnomes for Fighter/Illusionist). The Paladin was really the "magical warrior" guy.

The Barbarian didn't come into existence, as we all know, until 1e's Unearthed Arcana. A warrior that did not "go into the Wild" but was actually originating FROM the Wild. The Ranger was the "Fighter" class that went into the wilderness/borderlands to protect "civilized" realms. The Barbarian was the Wild/Borderland Fighter who came INTO the civilized realms. And was set up, very much like Ranger, with a long list of mundane "skills" and extra bits, including their Berserker Rage [by whatever name it was then] and magical resistance that made them excellent warriors, and trackers, and survivalist types.

What happened in 1eUA, though? THE CAVALIER also made its introduction. For some reason -and I mean, I see the thematic similarities, of course, but it really was a poor choice/judgement for organization at the time- the Cavalier was introduced as its OWN category of Base Class, not a type of "Fighter." And with that, for some reason, the Paladin was "moved" to become a [magical version] subclass of the Cavalier.

The Barbarian, thence, was slotted into the paladin's old spot as a "Fighter" subclass. So there was Fighter: generic guy with a sword who knows how to fight, with Ranger: guy with a sword who knows how to fight but knows all kinds of wilderness things, and Barbarian: guy with a sword who knows how to fight but knows all kinds of wilderness things, too... as its progeny.

From there, through the editions, Ranger just kept getting more magical (while the game still, steadfastly REFUSED to make a straight up Fighter/Mage single class). Barbarian was actually not a class in the 2e PHB (I guess they got a kit/supplemental manual later). And came back when WotC began calling shots from 3e on. With its Rage abilities getting more and more outrageous/cartoonish while other elements of it -the magic resistance, the horde summoning,- went by the wayside or began stepping on more of the Ranger's skill-toes...but with more and more magical seeming ability.

While the Paladin just sat back, back to a Fighter subclass in 2e, while Cavalier similarly went into the kit supplement-land. Paladin stayed, and remains, its own class in 3e on, while the cavalier was all but forgotten. Their magical powers staying the same. Their spell-use, like Rangers, steadily climbing with each iteration.

So we get to a world where there is: Fighter: guy with a sword who knows how to fight; Paladin: guy with a holy sword and divine magic powers who knows how to fight; Ranger: guy with a sword and bow who knows how to fight in the wild, with magical lore and spell use; and Barbarian: guy with a sword and axe who knows how to fight FROM the wild, with weird-spiritual-ancestral-maybe cultural but not entirely-preternatural physical powers...because if Barbarian is going to continue and compete with other "not Fighter fighters," the designers feel some "need" to make magic more prevalent...in the class that once could barely have a spell effect them.

There we have it. Paladin's fault.

 

[Greg K]

The Barbarian didn't come into existence, as we all know, until 1e's Unearthed Arcana. A warrior that did not "go into the Wild" but was actually originating FROM the Wild. The Ranger was the "Fighter" class that went into the wilderness/borderlands to protect "civilized" realms. The Barbarian was the Wild/Borderland Fighter who came INTO the civilized realms. And was set up, very much like Ranger, with a long list of mundane "skills" and extra bits, including their Berserker Rage [by whatever name it was then] and magical resistance that made them excellent warriors, and trackers, and survivalist types.

The 1e Unearthed Arcana Barbarian class did not rage. The first official instance of raging Barbarian for pcs was the Berserker Kit in the AD&D 2e Complete FIghter's Handbook and it was just one of five or six Barbarian kits for the fighter (the 1e Barbarian equivalent of the UA Barbariant (until the Complete Barbarian's Handbook) was the Wilderness Warrior kit).

The AD&D 1e UA Barbarian was a tough, perceptive, skill based wilderness warrior with the following abilties:
1. d12 hit die,
2. several bonuses to saving throws
a. increased defensive AC from high dex (when not wearing fairly bulky or bulky armor)
b. increased hit die modifier from constitution
3. increaed movement rate: 15" and increased leaping and springing distances
4. the ability to hit creatures immune to non-magical weapons starting at 4th level and increasing every two levels
5. Wilderness abilities: climbing cliffs and trees, hiding in natural terrain, outdoor tracking (as ranger), survival (hunting, trapping, food gatthering), predict weather, first aid (set bones, concoct natural antidotes for natural poisons and disease), increased chances to surprise opponents (3 in 6, 4 in 6 (in wilderness)
5. Increased Perception abilities: harder to surprise, detecting/avoiding backstab, detecting illusion, detecting magic),
6. Cultural specific skills: additional skills based on culture and environment. The Greyhawk examples were Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians, Rovers of the Barrens, Tiger and Wolf Nomads, the Amedio Jungle and Hepmonoland
7. Cultural specific bonus weapons: The barbarian class granted proficiency in 6 weapons slots. Three always had to be hand axe, knife, and spear. Additonal weapons were based upon the culture. For example, the Amedio Jungle granted club, blowgun or shortbow, and dart or javelin. Hepmonland granted atlatl, javelin, club, and short sword
8. Leadership bonus when dealing with Barbarians (add level as bonus) and later the ability summon Barbarian Hoarde

 

[steeldragons]

The 1e Unearthed Arcana Barbarian class did not rage. The first official instance of raging Barbarian for pcs was the Berserker Kit in the AD&D 2e Complete FIghter's Handbook and it was just one of five or six Barbarian kits for the fighter (the 1e Barbarian equivalent of the UA Barbariant (until the Complete Barbarian's Handbook) was the Wilderness Warrior kit).

The AD&D 1e UA Barbarian was a tough, perceptive, skill based wilderness warrior with the following abilties:
1. d12 hit die,
2. several bonuses to saving throws
a. increased defensive AC from high dex (when not wearing fairly bulky or bulky armor)
b. increased hit die modifier from constitution
3. increaed movement rate: 15" and increased leaping and springing distances
4. the ability to hit creatures immune to non-magical weapons starting at 4th level and increasing every two levels
5. Wilderness abilities: climbing cliffs and trees, hiding in natural terrain, outdoor tracking (as ranger), survival (hunting, trapping, food gatthering), predict weather, first aid (set bones, concoct natural antidotes for natural poisons and disease), increased chances to surprise opponents (3 in 6, 4 in 6 (in wilderness)
5. Increased Perception abilities: harder to surprise, detecting/avoiding backstab, detecting illusion, detecting magic),
6. Cultural specific skills: additional skills based on culture and environment. The Greyhawk examples were Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians, Rovers of the Barrens, Tiger and Wolf Nomads, the Amedio Jungle and Hepmonoland
7. Cultural specific bonus weapons: The barbarian class granted proficiency in 6 weapons slots. Three always had to be hand axe, knife, and spear. Additonal weapons were based upon the culture. For example, the Amedio Jungle granted club, blowgun or shortbow, and dart or javelin. Hepmonland granted atlatl, javelin, club, and short sword
8. Leadership bonus when dealing with Barbarians (add level as bonus) and later the ability summon Barbarian Hoarde

That's an awesome list/summation. Thanks.

I was obviously misremembering/conflating several of those to conclude/recall "magic resistance" and "rage attacks" (clearly leaning heavily into the hit magic-weapon creatures, save bonuses, and higher/extra HD/Con that kept them from going down).

Still, all boils down to the Paladin's fault.

 

[Garthanos]

The battlerager was a 4e build that particularly in its original form was pretty much hulkish barbarian this was before the 4e barbarian class came out. His rage sort of fluctuates via gaining temporary hit points when he was harmed (they gave him bonuses to his attack damage).

The battleragers special abilities generally required armor less than or equal to chain too... so that kind of fits as well

Yeah, but how many of those are barbarian ways, and how many of them are fighter ways? Barbarians in D&D are Hulk Smash! people. Even if it's realistic for a barbarian to be a weapon arts master, it won't feel as right. There's only so far you can go before people start saying "it would be a great archetype for a fighter, but it's out of place for a barbarian."

Cuh Chulainn is sort of a prototype berserk with his Daemonic Feat actually transforming him into a monstrosity, most people know this ability as Warp Spasm. He was also extremely a trained combatant. He also qualified as a totemic oath bound Paladin. Source material just doesn't make these archetypes just one thing or another.

Perhaps assuring really clean multiclassing would help.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The 1e Unearthed Arcana Barbarian class did not rage. The first official instance of raging Barbarian for pcs was the Berserker Kit in the AD&D 2e Complete FIghter's Handbook and it was just one of five or six Barbarian kits for the fighter (the 1e Barbarian equivalent of the UA Barbariant (until the Complete Barbarian's Handbook) was the Wilderness Warrior kit).

The AD&D 1e UA Barbarian was a tough, perceptive, skill based wilderness warrior with the following abilties:
1. d12 hit die,
2. several bonuses to saving throws
a. increased defensive AC from high dex (when not wearing fairly bulky or bulky armor)
b. increased hit die modifier from constitution
3. increaed movement rate: 15" and increased leaping and springing distances
4. the ability to hit creatures immune to non-magical weapons starting at 4th level and increasing every two levels
5. Wilderness abilities: climbing cliffs and trees, hiding in natural terrain, outdoor tracking (as ranger), survival (hunting, trapping, food gatthering), predict weather, first aid (set bones, concoct natural antidotes for natural poisons and disease), increased chances to surprise opponents (3 in 6, 4 in 6 (in wilderness)
5. Increased Perception abilities: harder to surprise, detecting/avoiding backstab, detecting illusion, detecting magic),
6. Cultural specific skills: additional skills based on culture and environment. The Greyhawk examples were Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians, Rovers of the Barrens, Tiger and Wolf Nomads, the Amedio Jungle and Hepmonoland
7. Cultural specific bonus weapons: The barbarian class granted proficiency in 6 weapons slots. Three always had to be hand axe, knife, and spear. Additonal weapons were based upon the culture. For example, the Amedio Jungle granted club, blowgun or shortbow, and dart or javelin. Hepmonland granted atlatl, javelin, club, and short sword
8. Leadership bonus when dealing with Barbarians (add level as bonus) and later the ability summon Barbarian Hoarde

Don't forget the drawbacks. You need to be level 2 to associate freely with clerics, 3 to use potions, 4 to use magic weapons, 5 to use magic armour, 6 to associate with magic users if necessary, 7 to use weapon-like miscellaneous magic weapons, and 8 to associate with magic users occasionally.

This I really don't want back.

 

[Helldritch]

Don't forget the drawbacks. You need to be level 2 to associate freely with clerics, 3 to use potions, 4 to use magic weapons, 5 to use magic armour, 6 to associate with magic users if necessary, 7 to use weapon-like miscellaneous magic weapons, and 8 to associate with magic users occasionally.

This I really don't want back.

And do not forget the experiemce gained from destroying magical items. More than one M-U in my groups chocked when the barb broken the evil warlock's staff right after defeating the warlock...

 

[Hussar]

Oh and let’s not forget the do table. By the time a barbarian could be in a group with an mu, that mu was like 13th level.

 

[Garthanos]

Related to Barbarians and Their relationship with Magic : I designed a Martial Practice called Oath of Independence / Riddle of Steel (the latter name to invoke a certain barbarian). The practice involved destruction of a magical item (the act converted the item into Karma Points sort of like a martial version of residuum or gold) . The idea was by showing you are "independent" of magic items you gained another resource. One could also gain Karma by giving over wealth to charity with no other return or simply recieve it as an adventure reward.