Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8106044" data-attributes="member: 63508">Because many posters state that not every barbarian rages. Isn't that 50% of the point of the thread? That the class is so tied to rage that the name barbarian is beginning to not fit.I'm not saying the barbarian isn't fun or functional. However there seems to be some desire to play a less formalized warrior. Especially one with no overt spellcasting. And in D&amp;D for the last few editions, the only option for this is the barbarian. So if barbarians are all berserkers, the only option to play wild, tribal, or untrained warriors are as berserkers.It's less about the rage being to narrow and more the lack of options. You'd either have to delink the barbarian to rage, relink wild warriors back to fighters, or create a new class. The same old story of D&amp;D. The current trend of D&amp;D is to do the first one.Wikipedia calls them Svinfylking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 8106044, member: 63508"] Because many posters state that not every barbarian rages. Isn't that 50% of the point of the thread? That the class is so tied to rage that the name barbarian is beginning to not fit. I'm not saying the barbarian isn't fun or functional. However there seems to be some desire to play a less formalized warrior. Especially one with no overt spellcasting. And in D&D for the last few editions, the only option for this is the barbarian. So if barbarians are all berserkers, the only option to play wild, tribal, or untrained warriors are as berserkers. It's less about the rage being to narrow and more the lack of options. You'd either have to delink the barbarian to rage, relink wild warriors back to fighters, or create a new class. The same old story of D&D. The current trend of D&D is to do the first one. Wikipedia calls them Svinfylking. [/QUOTE]

Verification