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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6877590" data-attributes="member: 87792">Just to add a correction to some misinformation on the thread. Far from getting more specific over the years, the Barbarian class has got a whole lot more generic.In 1e the Barbarian was a completely anti-social warrior who would not associate with spellcasters at all (they needed to be second level before they would even associate with clerics, never mind wizards) and who objected to using magic items and gained XP for destroying them. They were right down there with thieves who stole from their own party and only slightly ahead of Kender in terms of how specific they were and how much of a problem they were for the rest of the group.In 2e they barely existed.In all three versions of 3.X they were warriors who raged. A whole lot more generic than the 1e Barbarian.In 4e they were warriors who drew power through themselves - either through mundane raging, or frequently being so metal that when they roared at the heavens they were answered with thunder, or through allowing totem spirits to enter them. They covered the 3e archetype and went a whole lot further if you wanted them to towards the empowered mystical warrior. How supernatural you made them was up to you.In 5e they walked back from 4e so Barbarians only go up to extraordinary limits most of the time and not the supernatural Barbarians of the more dramatic end of 4e but are still a much broader archetype than the 3.X ones, never mind the hyperspecialised magic haters of 1e.</blockquote>

Verification