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

[Rune]

Has D&D more or less given upon promotion of a barbarian that doesn't have overtly supernatural or magical features?

In 4e the barbarian was firmly placed in the Primal Power source. Even the essentials berserker was martial/primal. It took a bit of finagling to avoid the powers that didn't give you claws, flight,or lightning powers.

In 5e, barbarian base doesn't have unmistakable magical abilities. However once you get passed the bad berserker, the subclasses really push the Rage Magic. 5e barbarian subclasses are straight up called "primal paths" and mostly adjust your rage by having spirits or energy spout out of your barbarian when they rage. The Totem Warrior takes along while to not be visibly magical from the outside. However WOTC has the other paths quickly run pass the barbarian having blatant supernatural feature.

Even in 3e, the prestige classes and feats that weren't patchworks to the rigid system to give barbarians options... quickly go down the "when you rage you turn into a bear" mindset.

So has the D&D designers and community given up on the martial barbarian? Or is it more that the supernatural primal barbarian is more exciting and easier to design and homebrew?

One thing I feel D&D is missing or losing is the Warrior of Physicality. The fighter, as time marches on, has become more academic in its method of fighting. Fighters have become masters of the weapon arts. Whereas traditionally the barbarian was just harder better, faster stronger and would cleave opponents in two with mostly their higher strength and speed. However there has been a shift of barbarians being more warlocky and reliant on the support of spirits, gods, or straight magic to make the axe swing faster. If the axe swings faster at all.

…But…historically, the berserkers were considered supernatural and/or magical.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem, I think, is "What differentiates the Warrior of Big Muscles" from a fighter with a high Strength score?

The core thing that differentiates a barbarian from a fighter is that the barbarian has Rage. The fighter has various trained techniques at their disposal (whether those are in the form of battlemaster maneuvers or something else), but the barbarian can enter a state of enhanced fighting ability. So it's only natural for barbarian subclasses to build off that enhanced state. And even out of that state, the barbarian is clearly not an entirely martial character – something has to be going on in order to let them use Constitution for unarmored AC.

That said, I think there's probably room for a barbarian subclass that deals more in athleticism than supernatural things. The problem with that, I think, is that most of the things that would feel natural are already covered by the Totem Warrior subclass if you look at what they actually do, except for the flavor.

…But…historically, the berserkers were considered supernatural and/or magical.

Never said the barbarian isn't supernatural.
My point is the barbarian has become more over the top and overt about it and lessof it is base on athleticism.

The 2 newest barbarians in 5e when they rage at level 3

• grows claws, fangs, or a tail
• has Wild Surges

Not punt a foe 50 feet or block a weapon with their steel hand hands or throw a spear through 3 guys or just run really really fast.

The barbarian now (checks book) has a storm aura that deals fire or lightning damage.

 

[Steampunkette]

Battlerager, Berserker, Juggernaut, Totem Barbarian.

The other five released subclasses are kinda on the mystical side, sure. And you could probably argue the totem Barbarian is magic, too, what with it's all seeing eagle eyes, but the rest of it is pretty much just "I'm a completely normal warrior who uses animalistic fighting styles". But 4/9 ain't the worst, y'know?

Why are they going more magic as they go? 3 reasons.

1) There's only so many ways to do "Nonmagically hits stuff good" and it's split between Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues.
2) Players like Magic or Reality Bending stuff because it's reflected in popular media.
3) They painted themselves into a corner by making Martial Combat really simple compared to previous editions and there aren't a ton of little rules to break with class abilities that make for interesting options.

 

[Staffan]

3) They painted themselves into a corner by making Martial Combat really simple compared to previous editions and there aren't a ton of little rules to break with class abilities that make for interesting options.

This is a big one. Pathfinder 2 has a much more complex combat system, which gives a lot more design space for martial characters to exploit.

That said, it's not a design space the barbarian partakes particularly of. Out of six subclasses (which are called Instincts for the PF2 barbarian), one is non-magical (and considered a bit underpowered, much like in 5e), another one is anti-magical, and the other four are very much magical and call on the power of animals, dragons, ancestors, or giants. There is some athleticism in the barbarian feats, but most of that stuff is in the fighter class and/or skill feats.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There's 2 options here:
- create a battlerager archetypes for the fighter (the samurai would be spot on) and a goshdarn figthing style that let's the fighter to add Wis or Con to their unarmored AC (its long overdue anyway).

- Create moaaaar barbarian archetypes that are supernatural but not magical:
Wildrunner (Speed based, can use rage with dex if using 2 light weapons)
First Hunter ( thrown weapon, controller moves: reduce speed, prone, bleed)
Thane Champion (Cha-based abilities)
Survivor ( classic image of the broken mercenary, drifting from battlefield to battlefield in his scrapped armor and his trusty, tattered blade).



PS: My favorite option would be the 3rd one (!): Merge the supernatural barbarian and the spellcasting ranger in one class, call it the Warden (4e) and make spell-less ranger and the martial barbarian fighter's archetypes.

 

[Steampunkette]

This is a big one. Pathfinder 2 has a much more complex combat system, which gives a lot more design space for martial characters to exploit.

That said, it's not a design space the barbarian partakes particularly of. Out of six subclasses (which are called Instincts for the PF2 barbarian), one is non-magical (and considered a bit underpowered, much like in 5e), another one is anti-magical, and the other four are very much magical and call on the power of animals, dragons, ancestors, or giants. There is some athleticism in the barbarian feats, but most of that stuff is in the fighter class and/or skill feats.

You also hit the nail on the head with why the Pathfinder Instincts are so magical:

Paizo painted themselves into a corner by making Skill Feats a core function of the game and put all the "Nonmagical Cool Stuff" into them, leaving them with little to put elsewhere and multiple classes needing what little is left available.

... and then the whole "Magic is Cool" thing of high fantasy in modern times.

 

[Shiroiken]

What class would Conan the "Barbarian" even be?
Not really a barbarian, given none of the paths make sense. Maybe a fighter that chooses not to wear armor and has a level dip in rogue?

Conan can't realistically be created by D&D rules. It's been tried in pretty much every edition (not sure if someone tried in 4E, but I know the rest), and none of them ever quite fit. The closest I saw used the 3E multiclass rules to have a barbarian/ranger/rogue, and even it didn't quite work. The problem is that as a literary character, his abilities are redefined for the needs of the story, making him unwieldy to narrow down with confined rules.

If I was to try and make him in 5E, I'd go with barbarian (berserker)/ ranger (hunter). The ability for him to cast spells as a ranger throws things off, but picking certain spells would limit the disconnect. You could go with rogue (scout) instead of ranger, but without finesse weapons sneak attack is lost, a major class feature loss.

 

[Hussar]

Battlerager, Berserker, Juggernaut, Totem Barbarian.

The other five released subclasses are kinda on the mystical side, sure. And you could probably argue the totem Barbarian is magic, too, what with it's all seeing eagle eyes, but the rest of it is pretty much just "I'm a completely normal warrior who uses animalistic fighting styles". But 4/9 ain't the worst, y'know?

Why are they going more magic as they go? 3 reasons.

1) There's only so many ways to do "Nonmagically hits stuff good" and it's split between Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues.
2) Players like Magic or Reality Bending stuff because it's reflected in popular media.
3) They painted themselves into a corner by making Martial Combat really simple compared to previous editions and there aren't a ton of little rules to break with class abilities that make for interesting options.

How is a Totem Barbarian non-magical? They can fly and speak to animals. How is that non-magical?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What class would Conan the "Barbarian" even be?
Not really a barbarian, given none of the paths make sense. Maybe a fighter that chooses not to wear armor and has a level dip in rogue?

a multi class fighter rogue, most likely around 9th level

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Personally I like barbarians being low-key magical. Mystical or spiritual might be a better word. Totem barbarian is my favourite. Granted some of the later barbarians have gotten a bit too blatantly magical for my liking, but it is fine that they exist as options.

Now this is not to say that there shouldn't be barbarian variants that lean more heavily into martial. Berserker is such, the issue is that it is a terribly designed subclass. Be super killy in combat in exchange for being exhausted and thus completely useless out of combat. No thanks. This goes so strongly against what I want D&D games to be that I'd just literally ban this subclass; it is anti-fun.

Another issue is that champion fighter already exists in similar design space, so it might be hard to differentiate between that and non-magic barbarian.