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

[Nyeshet]

The 3E rage is a state of perfect battle meditation that can be switched on and off and doesn't blind the PC from the differences between friend and foe.

So why can't barbarians be Lawful? You just described something far more lawful than chaotic, and - in fact - it rather well describes what some samurai were doing / attempting when in combat.

 

[Greg K]

I say yes.
Barbarians and Rangers are the same in my opinion, two sides of the same coin.
These two classes represent what would be the warrior, or adventure type of a specific culture, those, like in a city or village, would defend the area, or go beyond it for trade or battle: culture, something that never seems to come up in game.

First, I disagree that the the barbarian and ranger are two sides of the same coin. They might share some overlap in that they have wilderness skills, but they are very different. The barbarian is a warrior that relies on fury rather than formal training in a variety of weapons tactics. Meanwhile the ranger is a wilderness warrior that slowly develops a mystical attunement with nature.

Second, on the issue of culture, if you want culture to come up in game add it.

I was personally disappointed with with the barbarian on two accounts- the first was actually the cultural issue as I prefered how the 1e barbarian worked in cultural variants as a part of the class via cultural weapon groups and skills (even if I disliked several of the class's other mechanical and flavor elements).

For my own campaign, I wanted culture to a factor and I didn't want the barbarian to necessarily be a rager. I wanted a class that represented tribal or clan warriors that didn't have to be about raging while still lacking both the fighter's training in a variety of weapon tacktics and the rangers' mystical attunment with nature.

The solution was was a three step processs.
First, I replaced the barbarian's simple and martial proficiency with culturally specific weapon groups based on UA weapon groups. Each weapon group included dagger, hand axe and spear plus a few other weapons (one of which was usually a bow, but occassionaly an exotic weapon weapon like the blowgun or boomerang replaced the bow).

Second, I introduced a non raging variant using the Unearthed Arcana barbarian hunter as a starting point. I assigned a style to each culture and the styles were not limited to archery or two weapon fighting as, when appropriate, I assigned an alternative style from other sources. Furthermore, I replaced favored enemy with the Unearthed Arcana favored terrain further playing up the environment in which the barbarian grew up.

Third, was determinning the cultural fluff which I do for every culture- subsistance, social structure, religous practices, mores, cultural dress, body adornement, etc.


As for my second issue, it was rage as a class ability. By making rage a class ability of the barbarian, it limited the idea of a berserker to a person with a skill for the wilderness. Rage struck me as something that should have been a feat or, at the least, that there should have been an urban class variant for the barbarian. Unfortunately, we had to wait several years before we got an "official" method for urbanizing the class via Ari's web enhancement. (even if I did create my own variant several years ago)

 

[The_Gneech]

Well, now I see the problem. Chain shirt + size Large = ouch! If you were to get breastplate armor you wouldn't have that problem.

{more threadjack}

Breastplate would give him +1 AC and -10' movement ... I don't see how that's to my advantage!

{/more threadjack}

-The Gneech

 

[painandgreed]

The DnD Barbarian is a person from ANY culture who "is not suited for the monotony of mundane tasks, prefers an intuitive relationship to the cosmos, is at home in the wild, runs at great speed, has not learnt to read and is able to into a trance-state which seems to increase physical prowess”

Tarzan fits the description of Barbarian much better than Conan

Tarzan can read just fine. In fact, he learned to read before he could speak English from the baby and adult books his parents had brought with them. His first encounters with the English that found him was through the signs he put up warning them off and via writing once contact was made. Also, Tarzan was a pulp hero and was probably capable of any problem put infront of him including mundane tasks.

I'm sorry, pet peeve of mine as an ERB fan.

 

[Greg K]

and not everyone who has levels in the Barbarian class is a barbarian.
.

And, yet. they all some how develop an access to the wilderness related skills even if it would be inappropriate (unless the DM was willing to create a class variant). Thankfully, Ari gave us an official variant so that barbarians don't have to be officially tied to a set of wilderness skills.

 

[pawsplay]

Movie examples: Triston and Isolde...barbarians...were they illiterate?
Brave Heart...once again.
Even Conan became king, and red books to expand his knowledge.

Conan, while culturally a barbarian, stopped taking levels in barbarian at a young age. During the mature part of his career I would peg him as Bar 2/Rog3/Fighter 4... during his later adventures I'd add some levels of Reaping Maulder, Horizon Walker, and maybe Dread Pirate. So he may not be the best example.

The 3.5 barbarian is a complete mess, mixing Conan with berserks, Gawain, Cuchalain, and neanderthals. Very few fantasy barbarians in literature, even D&D literature, seem to embody the frothing at the mouth stereotype. Most seem more like rangers... "Hi, I'm like a lightly armored fighter with Survival, who uses an axe." Barbarians, as written, would be pretty rare... A sort of primal warrior.

I think orcs would probably favor fighter, not barbarian.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The raging barbarian of 3e bears no resemblance to Conan, that I can see. Conan always seemed pretty self-controlled.

Conan often fell into the "fighting-madness of his race," as REH wrote.

It think maybe a barbarian "race" might be a good idea (human-based).

 

[Gentlegamer]

People still keep crappy HP rolls? I thought "at least half the die" (if not more) had been a univeral house rule since OD&D.

REAL MEN keep crappy HD rolls.

 

[GreatLemur]

So why can't barbarians be Lawful? You just described something far more lawful than chaotic, and - in fact - it rather well describes what some samurai were doing / attempting when in combat.

Alignment restrictions are as silly as the rest of the alignment system, and should be ignored in all cases.

And, yet. they all some how develop an access to the wilderness related skills even if it would be inappropriate (unless the DM was willing to create a class variant).

I think a lot of DMs are willing to let players swap out a few class skills. My current Wizard's got Perform (carousing) in place of Profession, for example. It's pretty much never game-breaking, and does a lot to mitigate WotC's character-class-as-lifestyle problem.

 

[Greg K]

I think a lot of DMs are willing to let players swap out a few class skills. My current Wizard's got Perform (carousing) in place of Profession, for example. It's pretty much never game-breaking, and does a lot to mitigate WotC's character-class-as-lifestyle problem.

Hopefully, that is the case now. I remember advocating that prior to 3.5 and was nearly always told that multiclassing was designed for characters that wanted to learn new skills without using cross class skills (despite the example in the PHB).