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

[I'm A Banana]

I think a Lawful Barbarian that follows a very spartan (as in "without amenities", not "This Is SPARTA!!!!") lifestyle and that pursues a divinely-inspired trance-like fighting style mimics a dervish (not the PrClass) quite well.

I've also used the Barbarian to mimic a lycanthropic PC. When he "rages", he changes into hybrid form. During the 3 nights of the fulll moon, he's an NPC and rages all night long, with no memory of what happened.

Hmm...

Yep, mechanics aren't nothin' but a hanger for ideas. D&D has always been about ditching the parts that don't work and making the game your own, and those are all good things reflected in the Bbn's skill set.

 

[Greg K]

Now, I would merge or agree with the merge of the barbarian to the ranger class. Like the martial advantages of ranged or two weapon fighting, give an option of the barbaric fighter. Also give a cultural basis that would give some skills or assets from an urban ranger to the more barbaric style. A native american indian would tend to be barbaric in nature but would tend to be a range attacker. Also two weapon fighting with a tomahawk and knife could be common.

Wouldn't that be the barbarian hunter variant in Unearthed Arcana? Give up rage for favored enemy and ranger fighting style

 

[wildstarsreach]

Wouldn't that be the barbarian hunter variant in Unearthed Arcana? Give up rage for favored enemy and ranger fighting style

or vice versa. The raging combat might be the package that a nordic or germanian style barbarian takes instead of the 2 weapon or ranged.

 

[Tonguez]

A native american indian would tend to be barbaric in nature but would tend to be a range attacker. Also two weapon fighting with a tomahawk and knife could be common.

on what basis would you consider a native american to be barbaric? I would not have any Barbarians in this culture but I would allow Rangers, Fighters and Paladins

A psion has 6 distinct subtypes that work, the ranger could have a similar set of packages.

Then why not make Ranger and Barbarian both variants of Fighter? afterall both classes are just specialised fighters (you could do the same with Cleric and Paladin while your at it)

 

[William drake]

The word barbarian has been misinterpreted. The Persians were barbarians to the Greeks. How many anecdotal examples could be shown that barbarians are literate, just not in the cultural moors of the society that the individual is visiting. Humans as a general rule would be barbarians in elven society. There is more to a cultural barbarian that the class. I never agreed with the class.

Now, I would merge or agree with the merge of the barbarian to the ranger class. Like the martial advantages of ranged or two weapon fighting, give an option of the barbaric fighter. Also give a cultural basis that would give some skills or assets from an urban ranger to the more barbaric style. A native american indian would tend to be barbaric in nature but would tend to be a range attacker. Also two weapon fighting with a tomahawk and knife could be common.

A psion has 6 distinct subtypes that work, the ranger could have a similar set of packages.

That's my point, and thank you for those who have said it. The class needs to be redone, and general cultural aspects need to be added into it to make it something else than the "hulk smash class" which it is mostly played for.

 

[William drake]

I disagree with your basic assumption. To my mind, while there's a bit of overlap, the two classes are fundamentally different.

The berserker, the rage-driven warrior, is a very different archetype from the woodland hunter. You're comparing Conan with Aragorn, and asking us to accept that they're one and the same.

Your problems with the barbarian seem to stem from a conflict between the class and the common usage of the term. But the barbarian class in D&D represents one specific archetype. It's not meant to apply to every member of every culture that might be "barbaric," any more than every individual who fights is a fighter, or every individual who performs is a bard.

If you think of the barbarian as a specific type of wilderness-oriented warrior, and not a representative of all barbarian cultures, I think you'll be a lot happier. There's nothing at all wrong with the class as it stands. And I submit that if you've never seen someone RP a barbarian as barbaric, the problem is not with the class, but with the players.

No, not comparing Conan *and yes, I knew there were alot of different things that Conan is, since he's been written by more than one writer* and Aragon. What I meant is that they, as two charcters, should have been from the same or similar people, but both took differnt paths that started out the same way.

Also, why the stupid...why not the "Different" let them read...many people on this have said, like I, that barbarians are those outside of another culutre...don't make them into something, which turns them almost not human.


Also, no one has explained why the DR...its a bit silly. Somehow your skin is able to stop swords...I get the "youcan overlook damage, or not feel it or even care about it" but the Sword not going through the gut...gets a bit cheezy. And, if barbarians are so tough, how did the cultured world conqure them...wouldn't an army of barbarians just run through soldiers and not be killed, everyone in a frenzy....with their hands and arms not being periced by spears and swords.

Now, if DR is say toned down to bashing weapons...I might go for that, years of living with out armor, or protective clothing or gear..yeah, make it so that your bones and skin might be tougher than a normal man's, but to the degree that is done in the book, still is a bit much.


I know, barbarians aren't trained fighters...but just because they give up skill, for strength, doesn't mean that they become supernatural.
Also, the Rage...explain to me how this isn't a free-bee if no social or roleplaying aspect is kept up to explain why the character rages. In the stories...rage came from a great loss, or a curse..or w/e, don't you think it should be in the book that to rage that first time, it must be set up in the story...you don't just get it be reaching some magical level. I mean, we can talk word and usage all we want, but we all know where Rage came from, and it's not a simple thing, and I don't think D&D does it well to just make it like some hidden combo that the barbarian can pull out without a story-dynamic to explain it.


Also, by puting a limit on it, unstead of a meeter that would keep a tab of their anger, which would exploid at any time once peaked, makes it a bit video-game like. "Oh no, You only have three attacks left...better use them now before you die." DO you think that rage should be like a switch?

 

[wildstarsreach]

It's been made apparent to me that raging ability really doesn't make sense. If you look at Conan and Aragorn, the difference between them is initial training based on the cultural moors. Aragorns was trained by elves since his heritage was a noble lineage. Conan was on the opoosite end. Now to what the could do, both tracked, both were formidable combatants, both were stealthy and climbed, there are too many similarities between them if you strip off the personality. They look completely different from the way in which they c\acted. This is culture and upbringing, not abilities or skills.

 

[wildstarsreach]

No, not comparing Conan *and yes, I knew there were alot of different things that Conan is, since he's been written by more than one writer* and Aragon. What I meant is that they, as two charcters, should have been from the same or similar people, but both took differnt paths that started out the same way.

Also, why the stupid...why not the "Different" let them read...many people on this have said, like I, that barbarians are those outside of another culutre...don't make them into something, which turns them almost not human.


Also, no one has explained why the DR...its a bit silly. Somehow your skin is able to stop swords...I get the "youcan overlook damage, or not feel it or even care about it" but the Sword not going through the gut...gets a bit cheezy. And, if barbarians are so tough, how did the cultured world conqure them...wouldn't an army of barbarians just run through soldiers and not be killed, everyone in a frenzy....with their hands and arms not being periced by spears and swords.

Now, if DR is say toned down to bashing weapons...I might go for that, years of living with out armor, or protective clothing or gear..yeah, make it so that your bones and skin might be tougher than a normal man's, but to the degree that is done in the book, still is a bit much.


I know, barbarians aren't trained fighters...but just because they give up skill, for strength, doesn't mean that they become supernatural.
Also, the Rage...explain to me how this isn't a free-bee if no social or roleplaying aspect is kept up to explain why the character rages. In the stories...rage came from a great loss, or a curse..or w/e, don't you think it should be in the book that to rage that first time, it must be set up in the story...you don't just get it be reaching some magical level. I mean, we can talk word and usage all we want, but we all know where Rage came from, and it's not a simple thing, and I don't think D&D does it well to just make it like some hidden combo that the barbarian can pull out without a story-dynamic to explain it.


Also, by puting a limit on it, unstead of a meeter that would keep a tab of their anger, which would exploid at any time once peaked, makes it a bit video-game like. "Oh no, You only have three attacks left...better use them now before you die." DO you think that rage should be like a switch?

To point out, conan was not supernatural, he was a man who had confidance and drive. As the poster here has pointed out, the barbarian raging and DR abilities just make his abilities inside the supernatural. The original dragon barbarian made it much more an adherence to avoiding arcane magic and use thereby.

I agree with this poster on his points. I also believe that the class is for the powergamer fighter. We had in our age of worms campaign a shifter barbarian/fighter/were touched master/war shaper. He was awesome in the fighter capacity. He was better than our straight fighter. The barbarian base class is no weaker than a fighter.

 

[S'mon]

Incidentally a player IMC did create a nice Dog Soldier class which is basically a 'native American' Ranger-Barbarian; no Rage, but fast movement, d10 hit dice, Ranger abilities but no spellcasting. I prefer it to both the 3(.5)e Wilderninja and Hulk-Smash classes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's been made apparent to me that raging ability really doesn't make sense. If you look at Conan and Aragorn, the difference between them is initial training based on the cultural moors. Aragorns was trained by elves since his heritage was a noble lineage. Conan was on the opoosite end. Now to what the could do, both tracked, both were formidable combatants, both were stealthy and climbed, there are too many similarities between them if you strip off the personality. They look completely different from the way in which they c\acted. This is culture and upbringing, not abilities or skills.

I must disagree - there are huge differences in their abilities too - Conans ability to strike unerringly in complete darkness, sense danger and go into a feral rage, as against Aragorns healing abilities. If you were going to stat out classes to represent those two archetypes I'm sure that most people would come up with quite different classes.

(not to mention that Aragorn wasn't really human either, but numenorean!)

Cheers