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

[Laurefindel]

Was it? I'm not entirely sure. All the OP says is that Barbarian is perhaps not the best name for the class. There could be a whole lot of other reasons for that: eg. not being accurate for people who want to reskin the class an angry civilised person, not encompassing many types of characters people associate with barbarians, etc.

The OP states that « the reasoning is that ‘barbarian’ means uncivilized or uncultured - it’s derogatory. »

now, there are more reasons to revisit ‘barbarian’ than it being potentially sensitive. I bet we’d have the same discussion about ‘monk’. But as I understand it, the premise of the thread was « barbarian is derogatory - what would you propose instead. »

personally, I think RPG community gave the barbarian an identity that has moved past its derogatory baggage, but the term does have baggage, and I believe that what’s prompted this thread.

 

[Tonguez]

I think uncoupling Barbarian as a class from Rage runs into conceptual problems.

There's not a lot of room in between the Fighter and Ranger, for a more generic wilderness warror - this is especially so when the Fighter is as wide as it is and backgrounds exist.

There isn't really a good need for the Barbarian as a class separate from the Fighter other than tradition and the existence of a unique mechanic.

I’m increasingly favouring shifting ‘Rage’ to a Fighter subclass (or a new Battle Trance mechanic) as the better option And turning Barbarian in to a Background which is even more of a tradition if you look to 2e with its various Kits from Barbarian tribes as a baseline.
That way I can do my Barbarian Paladin with Savage Smites, Beastmaster Rangers and Totem Shaman Warlocks

 

[Laurefindel]

I’m increasingly favouring shifting ‘Rage’ to a Fighter subclass (or a new Battle Trance mechanic) as the better option And turning Barbarian in to a Background which is even more of a tradition if you look to 2e with its various Kits from Barbarian tribes as a baseline.
That way I can do my Barbarian Paladin with Savage Smites, Beastmaster Rangers and Totem Shaman Warlocks

You can already do that.

class A has heavy armour training, fighting techniques, a self-healing ability, a do-it-again ability, and many attacks.

class B has damage resistance, ability to gain advantage on attacks and Dex saves, improved critical and a not-dying Ability.

both classes are distinct and complete enough to exist independently, no need to mix them or modify them. Rename barbarian and/or rage and you’re good to go.

 

[Don Durito]

I’m increasingly favouring shifting ‘Rage’ to a Fighter subclass (or a new Battle Trance mechanic) as the better option And turning Barbarian in to a Background which is even more of a tradition if you look to 2e with its various Kits from Barbarian tribes as a baseline.
That way I can do my Barbarian Paladin with Savage Smites, Beastmaster Rangers and Totem Shaman Warlocks

I am mostly in favour of this.

The one issue I see is the pyschological element of players not usually wanting to double up on classes these days.

Taking out of the few non-caster classes in the game, could lead to an ever increasing preponderance of casters, and players not playing what they would prefer because they feel someone already has that role.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Their skill proficiencies make them in touch with nature. Their martial training make them fight with little to no clothing. I suggest we call them Naturists as it describes best what they are.

 

[Minigiant]

I think uncoupling Barbarian as a class from Rage runs into conceptual problems.

There's not a lot of room in between the Fighter and Ranger, for a more generic wilderness warror - this is especially so when the Fighter is as wide as it is and backgrounds exist.

There isn't really a good need for the Barbarian as a class separate from the Fighter other than tradition and the existence of a unique mechanic.

Actually I think there is a huge gulf between Fighters and Barbarians and Rangers.

Since AD&D, the fighter has become more and more formally trained. Gone as the day that fighters are everyone with a sword, armor, and no wizard hat. Fighters are more and more likely to have masters, gone to schools, or been in a military program. Even self taught fighters get some skills from books and classes as fighter subclasses have become more academic.

One the other hand, the ranger is firmly defined as a defender of the border between civilization and the wild for at least 4 editions now. It is fundamentally different in skillset desired from the fighter and methodology from the barbarian archetype. Confusion only happen if you create your own flavor to rewrite the ranger purpose.

Therefore there are plenty of mechanics untouched by the fighter and ranger for the Barbarian to explore. The issue is that these mechanics are only lightly touched at best and this causes rage to overtake Barbarian flavor.

If the barbarian isn't purely a rage monster, the name stops being as derogatory. It is like when paladins where saddled with Lawful Stupid due to the class restrictions.

 

[Deset Gled]

My battlerager rode a donkeyhorse from Greyhawk to Blackmoor. The other members of the party were a swordmage, a runepriest, and a battlemind. They were attacked by a group of warthorn battlebriars and shardminds, but chased them off into the feywild underdark.

 

[billd91]

My battlerager rode a donkeyhorse from Greyhawk to Blackmoor. The other members of the party were a swordmage, a runepriest, and a battlemind. They were attacked by a group of warthorn battlebriars and shardminds, but chased them off into the feywild underdark.

As much as I got a chuckle out of it and many of the 4e naming conventions, it's not that different from a bear sarker (berserker) riding a warhorse from Torquay to Oxford...