Would blending rangers and barbarians fix what is wrong with barbarians?

[Klaus]

In 3e Conan would probably be a min-maxed Fighter-Rogue, yup.

For some reason EGG never liked Thieves who could fight decently, which makes Fafhrd, Mouser or Conan types difficult to do justice to.

The excelent Conan d20 website stats him (at the time he's king) as Barbarian 11/Fighter 4/Rogue 5.


Back on topic:

If anything, I'd change the Barbarian's class name. The class serves equally well to translate a chaotic Berserker and a lawful warrior that attains a martial trance to fight.

 

[buzz]

What's wrong with barbarians?

Bonus hint for William: You're looking for logic in, and applying it to, all the wrong places.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

What's wrong with Barbarians?

 

[The_Gneech]

The only thing wrong with barbarians is that I don't get to play them anywhere near often enough!

That, and low armor class.

-The Gneech

 

[Reynard]

That, and low armor class.

Who needs armor when you've got d12 hit dice?

 

[The_Gneech]

Who needs armor when you've got d12 hit dice?

Getting chewed up by everything's iterative attacks is no picnic, d12 or no d12! The tank in the game where I play a barbarian has d10 hit die and AC 25+ ... my barbarian has d12 hit die and AC 16 -- with a shield! The extra ~1.5 hp per hit die isn't that big, let me assure you.

-The Gneech

 

[Plane Sailing]

That said, I have on occasion wondered about merging the Ranger and Barbarian classes together. Both seem to cover similar ground in the 'Wilderness Warrior' niche. Then again, the 3.5e revision went a long way to eliminating my issues with the Ranger, and also made the classes more distinct.

In my 3e campaign I did actually merge them - Rangers got d12 HD, 40ft move and uncanny dodge from the Barbarian bit, and then the rest of the ranger stuff - spells.

The steps of barbarian rage were turned into feats which were made available to PCs from barbarian tribes or of dwarf background (the 'ragers' in my campaign) so you could get raging druids, raging rogues, raging fighters, raging rangers or possibly even raging sorcerers in those cultures.

In 3.5e I was happy enough with the ranger changes to leave it as it is.

I've never been dissatisfied with the 'barbarian' class per se though.

Cheers

 

[Ghendar]

So, you’re thoughts.

My thoughts?
I don't see a problem. Play what you like, how you like it. There's nothing "wrong" with the Barbarian.

 

[Ghendar]

Who needs armor when you've got d12 hit dice?

Will you keep saying that when you're rollings twos and threes for HP every level?

 

[billd91]

Getting chewed up by everything's iterative attacks is no picnic, d12 or no d12! The tank in the game where I play a barbarian has d10 hit die and AC 25+ ... my barbarian has d12 hit die and AC 16 -- with a shield! The extra ~1.5 hp per hit die isn't that big, let me assure you.

-The Gneech

Why is there such a disparity between the ACs? There's only a 4 point difference between the best light armor and the toughest heavy armor. There's no reason a barbarian has to give up more than 4 points of AC to the fighter, particularly if he's using shields rather than 2-handed weapons.