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

[Gammadoodler]

+1 for Juggernaut. Tbh, I think many of the other options presented could also be construed as offensive under a certain lens. How many times have you come across Ravagers whose company you prefer? Some might even take offense at "Other"

 

[Bradley Hindman]

Which stories actually have a main character raging D&D Barbarian style as a regular thing?

Are there any where Conan of Fafhrd do? (Are they the two most famous literary Barbarians?).

In Glen Cook's "Dread Empire" series, Bragi Ragnarson's father does (and would probably be a Barbarian), but he's a minor character. I think Bragi does once or twice (but is clearly a fighter except in the prequels).

Cuchulain, the mythic Irish hero, springs immediately to mind, as does the comic book character Slaine who was inspired by Cuchulain. The "warp spasm" of Irish myth looks a lot like the berzerker trance to me. Or in game terms, they are both rage.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[GSHamster]

What about taking both the Fighter and the Barbarian, and transmuting them to Soldier and Warrior?

Soldier has more connotations of formal training, fighting in a group, and fighting defensively. While Warrior has connotations of individualism, more offense, which is fitting for the current Barbarian.

In my opinion, a lot of the problem with martial classes is that "Fighter" is too broad, covers too much of the spectrum. Maybe narrowing the current Fighter a bit will give more room for the other martial classes.

 

[commandercrud]

The more classes there are the more they pigeonhole, so the more classes you need to be able to play what you want. Barbarian is a just a fighter with an anger management problem. You don't need a whole class for that.

 

[Minigiant]

What about taking both the Fighter and the Barbarian, and transmuting them to Soldier and Warrior?

Soldier has more connotations of formal training, fighting in a group, and fighting defensively. While Warrior has connotations of individualism, more offense, which is fitting for the current Barbarian.

In my opinion, a lot of the problem with martial classes is that "Fighter" is too broad, covers too much of the spectrum. Maybe narrowing the current Fighter a bit will give more room for the other martial classes.

This is what I did for my own d20 homebrew game.

And this is I think where D&D is going except for in name change. The fighter gets all the technical weapon users as subclasses. The barbarian handles the raw talented weapon users.

 

[CleverNickName]

I consider things like 'berserker' more a style of playing for a PC, and not a CLASS.
...
As such, in my books, a berserker is nothing but a reckless WARRIOR. aka. a warrior! Not a class.

I've long been of the opinion that Barbarian should be a subclass of Fighter, and not a separate class. Apparently I'm not the only one with this opinion.

 

[Minigiant]

The more classes there are the more they pigeonhole, so the more classes you need to be able to play what you want. Barbarian is a just a fighter with an anger management problem. You don't need a whole class for that.

To me rage is just a subsystem that should be available to the barbarians, rangers, and sorcerers. It shouldnt be the defining aspect of the class. 3e tied it too much to rage and 4e and 5e continued it.

That's the whole issue with this discussion.

We are asking "Why is the rage class named 'Barbarian'?" instead of "Why is the barbarian class so tied to rage that we consider renaming it?"

 

[jgsugden]

So it's come up a few times recently that the word 'barbarian' isn't necessarily the best choice for the class. Or maybe it is? That's what I'm here to find out!
….

You've clearly taken some kind of personal offense to anybody suggesting that there might be a better name for the barbarian class than the barbarian. I don't know why. But drop it, please. Either join in the conversation or don't, but it's time to stop telling people they're not allowed to have the conversation.

I'm done and will post no further in this topic, but:

You framed the conversation and invited the discussion of whether changing the name or keeping the name was the "best choice". I've pointed to why changing the name is a bad choice and is inviting trouble. It was on topic as you framed the conversation.

 

[Laurefindel]

To me rage is just a subsystem that should be available to the barbarians, rangers, and sorcerers. It shouldnt be the defining aspect of the class. 3e tied it too much to rage and 4e and 5e continued it.

That's the whole issue with this discussion.

We are asking "Why is the rage class named 'Barbarian'?" instead of "Why is the barbarian class so tied to rage that we consider renaming it?"

Well, the discussion has evolved over the last 8 pages or so, but originally it was more a question of « if WotC had to reprint the PHB tomorrow and find a new name for that barbarian class, how would you name it? »

I don’t think the thread meant to deconstruct the class that far, but seeing how the 5e version is the merging and evolution of several concepts is interesting nonetheless.

I like the class the way it is (the lack of options in non-magical or non-supernatural paths does annoy me though), and the mechanics of it is sound and different enough from that of the fighter to coexist as distinct options IMO. As for the name... it’s not worse than « monk » as far as class-title-imposes-concept goes, and while the name can be pejorative, I don’t think it’s aimed at a specific group, depicting them in a bad light, enough to cause damage and need changing, but I may be wrong.

still, vote « warrior » folks!