Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 8104806" data-attributes="member: 12251">As other have noted, this is bad because it is really not the class to play if you want to be like Conan, especially not in its recent incarnations.(Interesting ideas snipped). Is Warden Form's a version of the 4e Warden's Guardian Forms?[HR][/HR]Anyway, I will not quote any individual posters because I do not want to further an argument about whether the thread should even exist. But I will note that there is a lot of talk about "offence" as if that is ever the thing that matters. Offence should never be the metric, harm shoud be.Now I do not believe that the term Barbarian causes any real-world harm (although of course I would be open to well-reasoned arguments to the contrary). So the worst thing about it is that it is misleading, as noted above. For that reason alone, it would be worth changing it in a hypothetical sixth edition (unless they changed the class to be more like Conan, of course). But OTOH, I would not be too upset if it stayed.For what it should be changed too, I would support it's being changed to any of the options in the poll except "Rager" - it lacks gravitas, being a term for parties used by soap-opera characters, and is also only one letter away from Ranger. Battlerager OTOH is fine, as long as there are not too many other "noun-verbers" making a pattern. Obviously, if you renamed the class berserker you would need to also rename the Berserker subclass. Ravager is fine too, but in the end I voted for Battlerager._glass.</blockquote>

Verification