D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Mirrorrorrim]

One could argue that you don't see it as limiting because you are getting exactly what you want, and other playstyles aren't important to you personally, so it's fine that only your desired playstyle is focused upon.

And that makes sense if true, but it is a perspective.

I'm not getting what I exactly want. I just recognize that inclusion as a baseline is more important than exactly what I want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not getting what I exactly want. I just recognize that inclusion as a baseline is more important than exactly what I want.

Well, I did ask what people want D&D to be. If it's not what @Incenjucar wants, then what do you want?

 

[Maxperson]

D&D: Hobgoblins, the barbarian class, the monk class

Barbarians and monks struck me as coming from Conan and Kung Fu movies, not real life or revised histories. Hobgoblins never struck me as being based on anything real life, either. I mean they had a slightly asian look to them in 1e, but that was about it.

WH: Savage orcs, Pygmies, Tomb Kings, Warriors of Chaos, Lizardmen

These I don't really know about as far as lore goes.

 

[Hussar]

But how is it a problem?

The only people complaining about this are the 'racial purity' extremists. "Pure race" people who are NOT 'half' in real life.

Those people can F-off, if they have a problem with me being alive, they can come over here and we'll sort this out in person the same way my grandfather did in the 1940s during the last time we had a war over "racial purity".

This is very much not true.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I am not wading into the Roman discussion but I just want to point one outcome of what you are saying would be the class Barbarian isn't tenable. Again, I wouldn't point so much to history, because this is all pretty removed from a 2000 year old conflict between Rome and Germanic tribes. But I think it's a powerful image that people gravitate towards and want to play (I love Barbarians as a class and love Conan the Barbarian as a character). I wouldn't look to Conan for an understanding of humans in our past that were labeled barbarians, but for a fun sword and sorcery world where we are guided more by imagination than logic, I think it works really well

I actually suspect that the barbarian class will get renamed one day. Maybe not for 5.5e, but later on than that.

 

[Incenjucar]

I actually suspect that the barbarian class will get renamed one day. Maybe not for 5.5e, but later on than that.

Agreed. It's kind of an outdated usage and narrows the class down in ways that aren't very helpful, and the broader concept of more wildernessy folks doesn't automatically translate to rage.

 

[Minigiant]

Barbarians and monks struck me as coming from Conan and Kung Fu movies, not real life or revised histories. Hobgoblins never struck me as being based on anything real life, either. I mean they had a slightly asian look to them in 1e, but that was about it.

Conan was smart. The D&D barbarian says its based on Conan but was designed to play like the outsider caricature form xenophopic cultures.

The monk was rumored to be based on the Kung Fu tv series and not actual martial arts movies.

and the hobgoblin racial paint is my point. They painted Japanese over hobgoblins so you can tell the difference between the 2 raider monster humaniods.

TSR and WOTC just repeated these idea year after year with no thought into them unless they hit scandal or did 4e-style sacred cow slaughter.

These I don't really know about as far as lore goes.

There wasn't much lore back then. That's the point. They just painted the nonhumans and not-advanced nonEmpire humans in in the dress of nonEuropeans.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I hope the term barbarian doesn't get changed. It really conjures up images of certain warriors used by the norse, celtic, and germanic cultures.

Or if the term is changed for the main class, it can at least continue as a subclass.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I actually suspect that the barbarian class will get renamed one day. Maybe not for 5.5e, but later on than that.

Agreed. It's kind of an outdated usage and narrows the class down in ways that aren't very helpful, and the broader concept of more wildernessy folks doesn't automatically translate to rage.

would 'the beserker' be an apropriate moniker for the class if it were to be changed? barbarian isn't a class i've looked into all that much myself so i don't know the finer details of it's flavour and abilities.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

would 'the beserker' be an apropriate moniker for the class if it were to be changed? barbarian isn't a class i've looked into all that much myself so i don't know the finer details of it's flavour and abilities.

'Berserker' originates from the old Norse warriors who were known to fight like that, though there were many variations and different names amongst the different germanic and celtish peoples too.

It is certainly more accurate for the terminology. Barbarian simply meaning 'foreigner' while berserkers are the raging warriors. And of course most tribal warriors were not berserkers, and fought in a more orderly fashion.