D&D General Naming the Barbarian? [added battlerager]

[NotAYakk]

Leaning in on 4e and power source (again): Totemist

Under that model, Rage would be one option for the class, and you'd have a series of "Totems" you'd pick up (like warlock invocations) as you gained levels.

Teach "Totem" would be a primal spirit who is aiding you that you channel.

You could even split it into Totems and Aspects; Totem of Rage might have Aspect of Bear. Aspects would come online when you channel the Totem.

This would correspond to the barbarian features that activate "while in a rage", like resistance, advantage on strength checks, extra damage, etc.

It would be turning the Path of the Totem Warrior upside down or inside out.

The class becomes Totem Warrior. With a "subclass" (or build choice) of Berzerker.

 

[CleverNickName]

(I've added Battlerager to the poll, though it's probably too late now!)

Eh, it's okay I guess...better than 'barbarian' anyway, and it's descriptive of the core mechanic of the class. I still much prefer 'berserker.'

But now I'm thinking of other similar names for other classes, and I can't stop. Eldritchbaster. Sneakattacker. Flurryblower. Huntersmarker. I've been chuckling like an idiot for ten minutes, send help.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Why is "barbarian" a negative word? Sure it can be used as an insult, but I don't see why it's necessarily problematic.

noun

1. a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. I see nothing wrong with being savage (MMA fighters), primitive (Australian aboriginals are fascinating), or uncivilized (depends on the civilization).
2. a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine. Depends on the culture and educational field.
3. (loosely) a foreigner. Nothing wrong with that.
4. a non-Greek. Nothing Nothing wrong with that, either.

 

[Slit518]

For years, before 5e came out I had Barbarian as a background as opposed to a class.

 

[Tonguez]

Why is "barbarian" a negative word? Sure it can be used as an insult, but I don't see why it's necessarily problematic.

noun

1. a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. I see nothing wrong with being savage (MMA fighters), primitive (Australian aboriginals are fascinating), or uncivilized (depends on the civilization).
2. a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine. Depends on the culture and educational field.
3. (loosely) a foreigner. Nothing wrong with that.
4. a non-Greek. Nothing Nothing wrong with that, either.

Why did you link Australian aboriginals with primitive? What standard are you using to make that assessment? Therein lies your answer

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Why is "barbarian" a negative word? Sure it can be used as an insult, but I don't see why it's necessarily problematic.

noun

1. a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. I see nothing wrong with being savage (MMA fighters), primitive (Australian aboriginals are fascinating), or uncivilized (depends on the civilization).
2. a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine. Depends on the culture and educational field.
3. (loosely) a foreigner. Nothing wrong with that.
4. a non-Greek. Nothing Nothing wrong with that, either.

Ironic, since the Philistines were of Grecian stock.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Why did you link Australian aboriginals with primitive? What standard are you using to make that assessment? Therein lies your answer

Technological innovation. Not that a lack of technological innovation is negative either. I'm not sure modern technology has been a universal improvement.

Like I said with barbarian, while primitive could be used a pejorative, it need not be. It could even be a compliment in some contexts - just like any other adjective.

Edit: I would not considered Australian citizens of aboriginal decent aboriginals. I would simply consider them Australians, as per their citizenship. They can, of course, consider themselves whatever they want, however.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'd pick Barbarian, but Battlerager is my second choice. It's a single word that is descriptive of what the class does, culturally neutral, and evocative, while actually sounding like a D&D class name.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Barbarian and Ranger are the only two classes in D&D that I’d accept combining, as the Wilder or Outlander or something like that, or even just making Rage something a Ranger can pick instead of Spellcasting, and make all Ranger and Barbarian subclasses available to this class. Nothing in any subclass for either class is something that wouldn’t fit just as well in the other.

So, level 2 you pick between Rage and Spellcasting. Level 1 you gain Unarmored Defense as a choice alongside the UA wilderness stuff from the class variants UA.

Beef up rage if needed to match the power of Spellcasting, but it shouldn’t take much.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As "Hulk" is not an option, I will have to go with Berserker, as I think it is more accurate and carries less negative connotations than Barbarian.