Quote from: Marleycat;773761I do agree it should have been a subclass. But what can you do? At least they play well with others this time.

Isn't it though?
(referring to both statements

I mean you got the zerk Barbie, and the other one with the animal powers?

For the rest of the ongoing conversation, I like flavor text. Well as long as it's good obviously.

A barbarian that is not a 'Berzerker' is just a ranger from a particular culture.

A Zerker could just be a type of fighter.

So I would have made 'Barbarians' a ranger subskill, and Zerkers a fighter subskill.

Neither needs a stand alone class.

Quote from: Bill;773887A barbarian that is not a 'Berzerker' is just a ranger from a particular culture.

A Zerker could just be a type of fighter.

So I would have made 'Barbarians' a ranger subskill, and Zerkers a fighter subskill.

Neither needs a stand alone class.

I agree.

That Being said I do like having my character sheet say "barbarian" rather than "fighter" or "Ranger". For the badassery factor. Y'know like THIS IS THE CHARACTER SHEET OF STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER, WHO ENJOYS POSING IN UNDERWEAR WITH A 30 lb POLEAXE, and so on.

Quote from: The Ent;773890I agree.

That Being said I do like having my character sheet say "barbarian" rather than "fighter" or "Ranger". For the badassery factor. Y'know like THIS IS THE CHARACTER SHEET OF STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER, WHO ENJOYS POSING IN UNDERWEAR WITH A 30 lb POLEAXE, and so on.

We need a picture of Steelraven the Deathmaster.

It reminds me of my thesis about classes...

D&D style classes suggest an old style connection between what someone does and who they are. What you do _is your identity_, and vice versa.

So you aren't Bob who works in a forge, you are Bob the Smith. And that shapes how you are seen and considered by those around you.

Point buy systems are essentially modernist -- you are free to pick and choose qualities, and pick them up. And they don't say anything in particular about you; you are Bob, who knows how to craft swords, and weave baskets, and is handy with a truncheon.

Sometimes there are crossovers, where classes are seen more as mechanical templates, bundles to select packages of abilities, but I think that misses the point.


The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.

That said, admittedly, I like the flexibility to tinker with classes, but I keep reminding myself that there's a conceptual justification for why each class is a thing. Changing classes should, perhaps, be more about an eye toward what embodies identity in your world than mechanical tinkering.

On the flip side, you can say 'fuck it' and embrace the modernist position and suggest that people in a setting call 'raging warrior' a Barbarian because people are idiots who slap labels to things.

Along THAT line, I once had a D&D campaign where 'druid' was a position with some confusion, since someone who was called a druid could actually be a cleric, a sorcerer, and several other things.

Maybe I should have renamed the Druid class, but it didn't cause any real confusion in play, so.

Quote from: Will;773899It reminds me of my thesis about classes...

D&D style classes suggest an old style connection between what someone does and who they are. What you do _is your identity_, and vice versa.

So you aren't Bob who works in a forge, you are Bob the Smith. And that shapes how you are seen and considered by those around you.

Point buy systems are essentially modernist -- you are free to pick and choose qualities, and pick them up. And they don't say anything in particular about you; you are Bob, who knows how to craft swords, and weave baskets, and is handy with a truncheon.

Sometimes there are crossovers, where classes are seen more as mechanical templates, bundles to select packages of abilities, but I think that misses the point.


The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.

That said, admittedly, I like the flexibility to tinker with classes, but I keep reminding myself that there's a conceptual justification for why each class is a thing. Changing classes should, perhaps, be more about an eye toward what embodies identity in your world than mechanical tinkering.

On the flip side, you can say 'fuck it' and embrace the modernist position and suggest that people in a setting call 'raging warrior' a Barbarian because people are idiots who slap labels to things.

Along THAT line, I once had a D&D campaign where 'druid' was a position with some confusion, since someone who was called a druid could actually be a cleric, a sorcerer, and several other things.

Maybe I should have renamed the Druid class, but it didn't cause any real confusion in play, so.

I once traumatized a dm by roleplaying a druid that hated the outdoors, and was from an urban upbringing. He just happened to be born a naturally gifted druid. Sure, he could talk to animals, and wield magic, but that didn't mean he actually liked being outside in the forest.

Quote from: Will;773899The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.

Yeah, except for the raging part.  That's the WotC-only definition.  They're taking one particular and actually rare example of one or two "barbaric" cultures and pretending that's an archetypal feature.

Quote from: Bill;773887A barbarian that is not a 'Berzerker' is just a ranger from a particular culture.

Not even remotely close.  Ranger is Aragorn, Barbarian is Conan (Cimmerian or Pict, not Aesir & Vanir).  Different archetypes.

So if you want archetypes, then rage doesn't belong with "Barbarian".
If you don't want archetypes, then rage is some form of option, not a class designation.

Quote from: Will;773899The reason why you have a Fighter and a Barbarian and a Ranger is because, in the world, a Barbarian is a certain _thing_. When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds. That is who and what you are.
.

But should that raging warrior be a Mongol? An Apache? A Cimarian? A Zulu? A Viking? A hairy bloke from Hull after 6 largers and a Chicken Vindaloo?

Are all those things the same?

I think they are all just fighters (asuming we are talking about warriors in each case) with a cultural background package.

Quote from: Bill;773897We need a picture of Steelraven the Deathmaster.

We do.

I guess there's a bunch of 80s pictures that'd do mind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;773912Yeah, except for the raging part.  That's the WotC-only meh definition.

It's their declaration of how the setting works, along with resurrections, gods being linked to certain domains, etc etc.

It suggests a setting in which the 'wild backwards people' are called barbarians, some stereotyped large subset of their warriors embrace raging, the 'civilized' folks conflate 'wild backwards people' with 'berserker' and away you go.

If that really bugs you or doesn't make sense in your setting, then eliminate the class or rename it something appropriate to your world. (Like 'berserker')

Heck, change other stuff. Maybe in your setting, raging warriors are all holy warriors, and have Knowledge/religion and a divine aura.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773914But should that raging warrior be a Mongol? An Apache? A Cimarian? A Zulu? A Viking? A hairy bloke from Hull after 6 largers and a Chicken Vindaloo?

Are all those things the same?

I think they are all just fighters (asuming we are talking about warriors in each case) with a cultural background package.

My point is that even FIGHTERS are warriors with a background package. ALL the classes reflect an identity within a setting.

Admittedly, WotC has vacillated between the two mindsets, which hasn't helped.

But my suggestion is that some people might be happier moving more solidly in one of the two directions -- either EVERY class has a cultural identity, or they are merely ability/skill packages you can tinker with to make the character you want.

Quote from: Will;773920Admittedly, WotC has vacillated between the two mindsets, which hasn't helped.

So, since you've admitted that...is it possible to reflect upon anything having even remotely to do with 5e in something less then 100% support without resorting to the..."you can change it" non-response response.  Seriously.

In a system like 5e, Barbarian could have easily been returned to it's original archetype with Berzerker being a subclass or type instead we have "how does your barbarian get his rage"?  It's got nothing to do with archetype vs. skillset, it's WotC doubling down on a poor archetypal choice.  So, MEH.  

Disclaimer: I'm headed to work again, so won't respond within 12 minutes.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773450To me he looks like Fafhrd.  General reaction so far is that he "doesn't look like a barbarian like Conan".  

o_O

Fafhrd is a pretty popular barbarian with plenty of history behind him

Shit, you're right.  Just needs red hair and an empty money pouch.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;773927Shit, you're right.  Just needs red hair and an empty money pouch.

And a greatsword-sized rapier :cool:

But yeah agreed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;773926So, since you've admitted that...is it possible to reflect upon anything having even remotely to do with 5e in something less then 100% support without resorting to the..."you can change it" non-response response.  Seriously.

Oh, I wasn't talking about 5e. I don't care if you like it or not, I'm not a stock holder.

I'm talking more theorycrafting about 'what is a class?' and reflecting on stuff that's been true in MANY D&D editions. I mean, heck, back in Basic or OD&D or whatever it was that had Elf as a class, there has always been this 'class is identity.'

Quote from: CRKrueger;773926In a system like 5e, Barbarian could have easily been returned to it's original archetype with Berzerker being a subclass or type instead we have "how does your barbarian get his rage"?  It's got nothing to do with archetype vs. skillset, it's WotC doubling down on a poor archetypal choice.  So, MEH.  

When was Barbarian not raging? (Honest question, I only barely remember 2e, let alone earlier games)

As for 'why didn't they'... well, clearly people generally like raging Barbarians. You got outvoted.

My 'you can change it' isn't a defense of the system so much as saying it's a necessity to 'class as identity.' I think most people have coasted on just shrugging and ducking the issue by just going with accepting what's in the book.