D&D General why did they transform the Barbarian into a Raging Monster ?


log in or register to remove this ad


Vaalingrade

Legend
And how is my sentence in contradiction with that policy ? Please read: "The Romans used the term barbarus for uncivilised people, opposite to Greek or Roman, and in fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners among Romans after Augustus age (as, among the Greeks, after the Persian wars, the Persians), including the Germanic peoples, Persians, Gauls, Phoenicians and Carthaginians." Simple historical fact that has NOTHING to do with Dungeons and Dragons and its history.
We really don't want to go down the road of 'it's okay because the Romans did it'.

Also, 'uncivilized' meant 'not Roman'.
 


Lyxen

Great Old One
We really don't want to go down the road of 'it's okay because the Romans did it'.

Again, where did I say that we had to do it all the time ? It was an historical example showing that you CAN use the term, as long as you are doing it properly.

Also, 'uncivilized' meant 'not Roman'.

No: "The Romans used the term barbarus for uncivilised people, opposite to Greek or Roman." meanings changed over the ages, but I'm pretty sure that the romans never called the greeks barbarians.
 

Undrave

Legend
To give them a distinct game mechanic. Otherwise they're just fighters.
This. If you don't want a raging barbarian you just make a Fighter with the Outlander background and maybe pick up the Healer feat for some herbalism.

The Barbarian wouldn't be a class anymore without the leg work done by 4e to add an element of primal spirits to its lore, giving us the Totem Barbarian, the Storm Barbarian, the Ancestral Barbarian, etc.
 


not-so-newguy

I'm the Straw Man in your argument
Because he just can't live without rageahol
qBKoDtN8w5KLkTxhcWjv8q4iEtNr38alSTkM4MNKj0o.jpg
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Again, where did I say that we had to do it all the time ? It was an historical example showing that you CAN use the term, as long as you are doing it properly.
Someone said it was bad form to use 'barbarian' for real world peoples. Your response was 'of course you can, the Romans did!'

The Roamns doing it wasn't doing it properly. IT was them being pejorative pricks. The current theory I'm aware of is that it was literally them making fun of their language.
 

And how is my sentence in contradiction with that policy ? Please read: "The Romans used the term barbarus for uncivilised people, opposite to Greek or Roman, and in fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners among Romans after Augustus age (as, among the Greeks, after the Persian wars, the Persians), including the Germanic peoples, Persians, Gauls, Phoenicians and Carthaginians." Simple historical fact that has NOTHING to do with Dungeons and Dragons and its history.
Your sentence seemed odd because I was talking about a modern company, and how they are moving away from using potentially contentious words. Mostly, it feels like you objected to the word "Can't" with a WELL AKSHULLY, and I'm not sure if you meant it entirely in jest or not. So I went with a more neutral (or so I hope) posting of the WotC policy to make it clear I was talking about the company, in case there was a misunderstanding.

And since that failed, I'm hoping this post makes it super clear!
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top