Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Has D&D abandoned the "martial barbarian"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 8370248" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>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...</p><p></p><p>The problem with the martial-ity of the Barbarian goes back to one simple truth...</p><p></p><p>It's the Paladin's fault.</p><p></p><p>No, really! Now, hear me out. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>There we have it. Paladin's fault.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 8370248, member: 92511"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Has D&D abandoned the "martial barbarian"?
Top