I have decided I really hate the barbarian’s class name.

75 posts / 0 new
Last post

Back in 2e there was a class called the barbarian. It was sort of like a mix between the rogue, ranger, and fighter, but with no magic. It had a large hit die. It attacked with a good thac0. It got poor armor proficiencies. I can’t remember what its weapon proficiencies looked like. It also got a bunch of the percentile “skills” from the rogue list. I can’t remember if it had hide or not, but I do remember that it had great jumping, running, and climbing abilities. Then you picked a kit to finalize your character type. There were LOTS of kits. The berserker was only one type of barbarian. Other barbarians focused on very different types of activities.


I HATED the 3e barbarian because it forced all barbarians to be berserks. The class went from being one of my favorite classes to being one of my least favorite classes. Then the 4e barbarian came out. The 4e barbarian still used “rages.” Except, rages were not actually rages, per se. I mean, they could be. But, sometimes they gave you lasting benefits that really had nothing to do with getting angry. Look at swift panther rage; it has more to do with moving at inhuman and animalistic speeds than berserking. A paragon path like the “swiftrunner” really re-cemented the 2e notion that not all barbarians are berserkers. The 4e rages were more like channeling primal spirits to focus on performing some particular activity. The mechanics were not the same, but it felt more like the 2e barbarian class to me. You could be a stereotypical Viking inspired berserker, but you did not have to be.


The current DDN barbarian class looks very fun. But, it is once again a pigeonholed berserker. If they add alternative options instead of the existing features then fine. Otherwise, I really want this class to be renamed berserker. Maybe “barbarian” could become a background skill package with some sort of thematic trait. Then again, maybe that already exists in the form of the “wanderer.” Either way, if the barbarian class keeps the barbarian name I would like to see the class offer more of the various archetypes offered in 2e and 4e. Otherwise, I would like the class to be renamed berserker.    

I agree.

Barbarian  tribes sometimes had berserker warriors or groups  of them, but that didn't make them all berserkers. 

Back in 2e there was a class called the barbarian. It was sort of like a mix between the rogue, ranger, and fighter, but with no magic. It had a large hit die. It attacked with a good thac0. It got poor armor proficiencies. I can’t remember what its weapon proficiencies looked like. It also got a bunch of the percentile “skills” from the rogue list. I can’t remember if it had hide or not, but I do remember that it had great jumping, running, and climbing abilities. Then you picked a kit to finalize your character type. There were LOTS of kits. The berserker was only one type of barbarian. Other barbarians focused on very different types of activities.


I HATED the 3e barbarian because it forced all barbarians to be berserks. The class went from being one of my favorite classes to being one of my least favorite classes. Then the 4e barbarian came out. The 4e barbarian still used “rages.” Except, rages were not actually rages, per se. I mean, they could be. But, sometimes they gave you lasting benefits that really had nothing to do with getting angry. Look at swift panther rage; it has more to do with moving at inhuman and animalistic speeds than berserking. A paragon path like the “swiftrunner” really re-cemented the 2e notion that not all barbarians are berserkers. The 4e rages were more like channeling primal spirits to focus on performing some particular activity. The mechanics were not the same, but it felt more like the 2e barbarian class to me. You could be a stereotypical Viking inspired berserker, but you did not have to be.


The current DDN barbarian class looks very fun. But, it is once again a pigeonholed berserker. If they add alternative options instead of the existing features then fine. Otherwise, I really want this class to be renamed berserker. Maybe “barbarian” could become a background skill package with some sort of thematic trait. Then again, maybe that already exists in the form of the “wanderer.” Either way, if the barbarian class keeps the barbarian name I would like to see the class offer more of the various archetypes offered in 2e and 4e. Otherwise, I would like the class to be renamed berserker.    




I'm very much with you, here: reminds me of the thief->rogue renaming.  Barbarian should include berserker as a class archetype, much like rogue can include thief (and something like 'champion' could include paladin.) 


They said the barbarian would eat the warden.  So we'll have tree-form, defensive oriented barbarians too.


And yes, barbarian is a crappy name.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

It is not warden-barbarians with shapeshifting powers that I want to see. It is a 2e style barbarian from The Complete Barbarian's Handbook. Though, I won't be upset to see warden style powers under the umbrella of the barbarian class!
For once I think I unequivocally agree with Cyber-Dave [I know its happened before, work with me here].
As overused as this excuse is, keep in mind that it is a playtest.  I would be shocked if there weren't a whole mess of alternative features to take in place of rage when the game finally launches, or at least once a few splat books are out.
Well... the technical meaning of the word "Barbarian" really just meant "not from Rome".
The connotation is a more primitive person.
I think, however, that options are always better.  Does a native american Apache warrior need to "rage" in combat?  Nope.  He would be able to intimidate, ride, move quickly over the land, use both bow and axe etc.  He could track, hunt, fish, and fight.  But that is pretty well covered by the Ranger class isn't it?

I don't know where I land on this issue.  I don't have a problem with the name even if it is really generic.  Berserker would probably be more apt, but then there are characters like D'Artagnan who fly into a rage in a very different way and I doubt we would call him a berserker OR a barbarian.  Then there is the issue with the word Berserker itself.  It references Bears as part of the root word.  Bear pelt wearing norse warriors (who by some myths killed said bear in single hand-to-hand combat to earn their pelts) who would fly into bloody rages in battle.  SO, again we have a word that has specific meaning that becomes generalized in English usage.  

Where does this put us?  Pretty much back where we started.  A rose by any other name, so-to-speak. 
I agree.

Barbarian  tribes sometimes had berserker warriors or groups  of them, but that didn't make them all berserkers. 

Not every barbarian is a Barbarian, just as not everybody that fights is a Fighter.

That said, I like the idea of having something other then bezerker barbarians. The option to swap rage out for other daily abilities would be easy to balance and let the class serve a lot of functions. Even if you limit it to primitive tribal types to keep the other class abilities/skills simple and related, the possiblities for shape changing, elemental channeling, divine channeling, and such covers a lot of space.

As much as I like it 3rd edition wrecked a few classes.  Bard and Barbarian two of them.

I think the WOTC designers of 3rd edition should have considered this:

The first fictional character someone thinks of with barbarian is Conan the Barbarian.

Yet if you wanted to make Conan the Barbarian in third edition, 4e, or Next you cannot use barbarian to stat him out.

Conan did not overcome his challenges through rage.

Somehow the Berserker enveloped all the savage cultures.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Back in 2e there was a class called the barbarian. ... The berserker was only one type of barbarian. ...

I really want this class to be renamed berserker.


Totally agree.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

"I have decided I really hate the barbarian's class name."

Fair 'nuff.


Personally, rather than change the name to Berserker, I'd really prefer to see the concept broadened out significantly.  I think we'll see some of that once we get more than the cookie-cutter version.

But, if they can't manage that, then sure, change the name so that more people get it.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Back in 2e there was a class called the barbarian. ... The berserker was only one type of barbarian. ...

I really want this class to be renamed berserker.


Totally agree.



But if you call it a beserker it becomes to obvious that it is just a fighter with a beserker fighter style.
and then the fans of the warlord will complain even more
fighter + beserking fighting style = seperate class
fighter + leadership fighting style = not seperate class.
 

Yet if you wanted to make Conan the Barbarian in third edition, 4e, or Next you cannot use barbarian to stat him out.




You can make Conan using the 4e barbarian. In the original stories he is often described as moving in very animalistic/primal patterns. Sometimes he is described as taking on some particular pattern for the duration of short period of time. This does not happen via some sort of explicit channeling. Rather, it is an artifact of the way Howard describes Conan in a particular encounter. The adjectives he uses to describe Conan's movements, and the complex metaphors that often last throughout some particular event. The 4e "rages," as they are not really "rages" per se, work well within the paradigm of those complex metaphors. That being said, I think it was far easier to model Conan using the 2e barbarian class from The Complete Barbarian’s Handbook. 

I totally agree.  

The barbarian should not be a class.

2e had the Amazon, Barbarian, Beast Rider, Berserker, Savage, Wilderness Warrior, and Viking Berserker as kits/sub classses of the fighter. 

Rage just doesn't apply to all of those.   Rage should be an ability provided by a specialty.  At best, rage is just a feat. 

I know I'll be making it a point to complain about the Barbarian class in the next survey.    


Well, if barbarian eat's warden, then beserker will really only be 1 kind of barbarian.


You could have..

Barbarian (Beserker)  Rage
Barbarian (Amazon)  Agility
Barbarian (Viking)  Cold
Barbarian (Earthstrength)  Endurance
Barbarian (Wildblood)  Protector
Barbarian (Lifespirit)  Healing
Barbarian (Stormheart)  Lighting


If I get my wish, you could learn more then 1 buff, and use them depending on the situation.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

It is not warden-barbarians with shapeshifting powers that I want to see. It is a 2e style barbarian from The Complete Barbarian's Handbook. Though, I won't be upset to see warden style powers under the umbrella of the barbarian class!



You can make that with a Fighter right now. They're not really anything different. The only way Conan would not be a Fighter is because of the Fighter's crappy skills, which is pretty un-Conan.

If the objection is to the name only, I agree with you. But if I want a warrior whose "Rage" (whatever it's called in that culture) has significant results then I want a class to do that. So warp-spasms, berserkergang, amok, battle trance, and other things get some representation.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

Conceptually, "barbarian" is a background, and "berserker" is a specialty.  They could be laid on top of a fighter, or another class for that matter. 
I totally agree.  

The barbarian should not be a class.

2e had the Amazon, Barbarian, Beast Rider, Berserker, Savage, Wilderness Warrior, and Viking Berserker as kits/sub classses of the fighter. 

Rage just doesn't apply to all of those.   Rage should be an ability provided by a specialty.  At best, rage is just a feat. 

I know I'll be making it a point to complain about the Barbarian class in the next survey.    



No you don't. I never said that the barbarian should not be a class. I said that the existing "barbarian" should not be the barbarian class; it should either be a build of the barbarian class or it should be renamed as the berserker class. 

And 2e also had a barbarian class with a large group of kits. One of those kits turned the 2e barbarian class into something very much like the 3e/DDN barbarian. That, however, was just one kit. There were many other kits/builds. 
I totally agree.  

The barbarian should not be a class.

2e had the Amazon, Barbarian, Beast Rider, Berserker, Savage, Wilderness Warrior, and Viking Berserker as kits/sub classses of the fighter. 

Rage just doesn't apply to all of those.   Rage should be an ability provided by a specialty.  At best, rage is just a feat. 

I know I'll be making it a point to complain about the Barbarian class in the next survey.    



Weren't all of those in the complete barbarians book?  DO I have them mixed up.  I thought those were all barbarian kits.  Its great that there were kits for barbarian which was not technically a class in 2nd edition it was a fighter with a culture.  Good stuff.  mAkes me feel a bit of ick towards pathfinder and 3rd edition.

I mean we have a players guide in second edition for a fighter THEME (Barbarian).  It is also one of my favorite books.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I totally agree.  

The barbarian should not be a class.

2e had the Amazon, Barbarian, Beast Rider, Berserker, Savage, Wilderness Warrior, and Viking Berserker as kits/sub classses of the fighter. 

Rage just doesn't apply to all of those.   Rage should be an ability provided by a specialty.  At best, rage is just a feat. 

I know I'll be making it a point to complain about the Barbarian class in the next survey.    



Weren't all of those in the complete barbarians book?  DO I have them mixed up.  I thought those were all barbarian kits.  Its great that there were kits for barbarian which was not technically a class in 2nd edition it was a fighter with a culture.  Good stuff.  mAkes me feel a bit of ick towards pathfinder and 3rd edition.

I mean we have a players guide in second edition for a fighter THEME (Barbarian).  It is also one of my favorite books.




I believe the kits mentioned here were in the Fighter's and Ranger's handbooks. (Edit: or maybe just Fighter's)

The Complete Barbarian's Handbook did indeed include Barbarian as its own class, with many kits of its own. In fact, there were two classes in that book - the second was Shaman, I believe.
It is not warden-barbarians with shapeshifting powers that I want to see. It is a 2e style barbarian from The Complete Barbarian's Handbook. Though, I won't be upset to see warden style powers under the umbrella of the barbarian class!



You can make that with a Fighter right now. They're not really anything different. The only way Conan would not be a Fighter is because of the Fighter's crappy skills, which is pretty un-Conan.



No, sorry, that is not true. The fighter, right now, is nothing like the barbarian from The Complete Barbarian's Handbook.

If the objection is to the name only, I agree with you. But if I want a warrior whose "Rage" (whatever it's called in that culture) has significant results then I want a class to do that. So warp-spasms, berserkergang, amok, battle trance, and other things get some representation.



That is fine. I never said that they should remove the existing bundle as either a class or a build option of a larger barbarian class. I merely said that I want a barbarian class that can be used to model the sorts of barbarians that you could build with The Complete Barbarian's Handbook. 

The Complete Barbarian's Handbook did indeed include Barbarian as its own class, with many kits of its own. In fact, there were two classes in that book - the second was Shaman, I believe.



Yup. It had the Barbarian and the Shaman and a host of kits for each. It was one of my favorite 2e AD&D books. At the time, the Barbarian was my favorite class. 
I tend to agree more with dmgorgon on this one - I'd rather see Barbarian as a Background, with Rage being a specialty that could be combined with the barbarian background to create something similar to the 3e barbarian.
I totally agree.  

The barbarian should not be a class.

2e had the Amazon, Barbarian, Beast Rider, Berserker, Savage, Wilderness Warrior, and Viking Berserker as kits/sub classses of the fighter. 

Rage just doesn't apply to all of those.   Rage should be an ability provided by a specialty.  At best, rage is just a feat. 

I know I'll be making it a point to complain about the Barbarian class in the next survey.    



Weren't all of those in the complete barbarians book?  DO I have them mixed up.  I thought those were all barbarian kits.  Its great that there were kits for barbarian which was not technically a class in 2nd edition it was a fighter with a culture.  Good stuff.  mAkes me feel a bit of ick towards pathfinder and 3rd edition.

I mean we have a players guide in second edition for a fighter THEME (Barbarian).  It is also one of my favorite books.




I believe the kits mentioned here were in the Fighter's and Ranger's handbooks. (Edit: or maybe just Fighter's)

The Complete Barbarian's Handbook did indeed include Barbarian as its own class, with many kits of its own. In fact, there were two classes in that book - the second was Shaman, I believe.



Ah Right! 

I remember it was a book put out for the new class.  I think I am going to dig all of these out when I get home.  I found a bunch of them, I need go in my storage and find the others.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!

Ah Right! 

I remember it was a book put out for the new class.  I think I am going to dig all of these out when I get home.  I found a bunch of them, I need go in my storage and find the others.




Yeah, I've recently ended a 3.5 campaign and started a new 2nd edition campaign - one of the players had a barbarian in the 3.5 campaign and I thought he might want to do something similar in 2e, so I dug that out and had a look. In the end he went a different direction, but it is a great book.

I'm very happy to have my fairly large 2e collection front and center on the shelves again.
I totally agree.  

The barbarian should not be a class.

2e had the Amazon, Barbarian, Beast Rider, Berserker, Savage, Wilderness Warrior, and Viking Berserker as kits/sub classses of the fighter. 

Rage just doesn't apply to all of those.   Rage should be an ability provided by a specialty.  At best, rage is just a feat. 

I know I'll be making it a point to complain about the Barbarian class in the next survey.    



Weren't all of those in the complete barbarians book?  DO I have them mixed up.  I thought those were all barbarian kits.  Its great that there were kits for barbarian which was not technically a class in 2nd edition it was a fighter with a culture.  Good stuff.  mAkes me feel a bit of ick towards pathfinder and 3rd edition.

I mean we have a players guide in second edition for a fighter THEME (Barbarian).  It is also one of my favorite books.





oh yeah, I have to look at the complete barbarians handbook.  I only looked at the complete fighters book for that list.  


We don't have the whole class - we have one build of the class.  Who knows - maybe the name for this particular build will be 'berserker'.

Maybe the 'rages' will allow options as flexible as was possible in AD&D2 and 4E.  (Or at least be far more flexible than it is at present since all prior options for a (complex) class will never make it into the intial release).

I think we need to see more of the class before we can start to hate it for not encompassing a wide enough range of character concepts.


On the other hand, I too dislike the name because it is somewhat limiting to the concept.  But that is equally true of many other classes (especially 'rogue' which is a personality and not all rogues need be rogues, etc.).  But I just accept it as a necessary quirk and keep in mind that just because the game calls you a 'rogue' or a 'barbarian' you don't have to call yourself one.  In many cases the build (scheme, fighting style, etc.) is probably a better label to use than the base class.


Carl
The point I'm trying to make here is that D&D Next needs to be more flexible.   Just look at all the different "Barbarian" concepts floating around all the 2e books.      

I'm really hoping to see the same sort of thing happen with D&D specialties.    The problem is when base classes include mecahnics that just don't always apply to the archetype they are trying to portray.

I suppose a specialty can say,  "You lose trait X, but you gain Trait Y", but I haven't seen that yet in D&D Next.    2e did that with many kits.   For example, the Ghosthunter Paladin could cast dispel evil, but couldn't lay on hands.      Perhaps a D&D Next specialty can also remove core features of a class and replace them.  If however a specialty is just a feat delivery mecahnism then I'm afraid 2e kits are superior.  


At the risk of starting a fight, but why isn't "Rage" simply a fighter combat style? Seems like a far better spot to put it. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing generic fighter features such as "Fast movement: Gain a bonus 10' to your movement speed while wearing no or light armor." Not all "barbarians" are skirmishers, etc. We need have one class that focuses on combat, with plenty of room for classes that are more spread out among the pillars. More that one is wasteful and counter-productive, IMO.

I'm in the "barbarian/berserker needs to be a separate class as much as a ranger does" (which, IMO, doesn't either). If you have a combat-focused character, a single chassis will work just fine. Now pick how you will excel in combat (ie combat style).

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
At the risk of starting a fight, but why isn't "Rage" simply a fighter combat style?

Same reason "Magic Missile" isn't a fighter manuver.

Cause other classes need stuff to do.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

It could be a fighting style.  Except it has uses outside of combat.    


We need have one class that focuses on combat, with plenty of room for classes that are more spread out among the pillars. More that one is wasteful and counter-productive, IMO.

I'm in the "barbarian/berserker needs to be a separate class as much as a ranger does" (which, IMO, doesn't either). If you have a combat-focused character, a single chassis will work just fine. Now pick how you will excel in combat (ie combat style).


The barbarian is not a class that focuses only on combat. By producing such a barbarian, be it as a build of the fighter or a standalone class, you fail to model what the barbarian has been in D&D. The barbarian of 2e was as much about its exploratory and survivalist capabilities as it was a combat character. Thankfully, there are aspects of the DDN barbarian that do model some of that. By taking the barbarian and folding him into the fighter you will completely destroy that aspect of the barbarian.

DDN should be flexible. There should be a "berserker" specialization, with some berserker style feats. There should also be a class called barbarian. The barbarian should be a martial combatant with a fair quantity of capabilities that aid it in exploration and harsh wilderness survival. One build of that class should also be a martial berserker. I would also like to see other builds: the horseman barbarian of the plains; the anti-magic barbarian; the tarzan vine-swinging jungle barbarian that hangs out with the apes; the stealthy hunter barbarian that sneaks up on his foes and then unleashes brutal hell; the spirit talking warden than channels shape-shifting magic while he fights; the supernatural berserker that actually morphs into a bear as he fights; and so on and so forth. 

When I pick "barbarian" I want to be able to build a viking berserker, Conan, an Aiel (from the Wheel of Time series), Tarzan, or Ghenghis Khan.  

The barbarian is not a class that focuses only on combat. By producing such a barbarian, be it as a build of the fighter or a standalone class, you fail to model what the barbarian has been in D&D. The barbarian of 2e was as much about its exploratory and survivalist capabilities as it was a combat character.

Except IIRC the 2e barbarian didn't have rage, right? The RAGE! version of 3e/4e are combat-centric, and thus could/should be folded into the fighter class.
When I pick "barbarian" I want to be able to build a viking berserker, Conan, an Aiel (from the Wheel of Time series), Tarzan, or Ghenghis Khan.

Precisely, but now you are talking about background, not class.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I like the flavor of the 4th edition barbarian. It kind of feels like a savage warrior that relies on his animal instincts to increase his effeciency. You could easily imagine different kinds of rage like in 4th edition.

I don't mind the barbarian name though.
The barbarian is not a class that focuses only on combat. By producing such a barbarian, be it as a build of the fighter or a standalone class, you fail to model what the barbarian has been in D&D. The barbarian of 2e was as much about its exploratory and survivalist capabilities as it was a combat character.

Except IIRC the 2e barbarian didn't have rage, right? The RAGE! version of 3e/4e are combat-centric, and thus could/should be folded into the fighter class.
When I pick "barbarian" I want to be able to build a viking berserker, Conan, an Aiel (from the Wheel of Time series), Tarzan, or Ghenghis Khan.

Precisely, but now you are talking about background, not class.





As a 2e barbarian you could choose rage. One of the kits you would pick to define your barbarian made you a berserker ala the 3e barbarian. You just did not have to. The fact that one particular class feature is combat centric does not mean it should belong to the fighter. Magic missiles are combat centric. So is sneak attack. Should those features belong to the fighter too? I certainly don't think so. 

And no, I am not talking about a background. I am talking about a class. The sort of character I want cannot be built without features like iron hide, feral instinct, feral reflexes, feral senses, or primal might. They are not merely a choice of a few skills. They are something far more than that. What defines them is not what skills they have, but what features allow them to go above and beyond merely using a particular set of skills. Some of those features help them in combat. Others help them while they are exploring the wilderness. That speaks to a class concept. 

The fighter, barbarian, and ranger all have some level of conceptual overlap. But, the core idea that defines each of them is different. The fighter fights. The ranger hunts. The barbarian survives. A fighter is all about a set of fighting styles. A barbarian does not use a fighting style in the same sense that a fighter does. Its focus is not on a particular way to use your weapons. Rather, the focus of a barbarian is survival in extreme conditions. Some do that by using their anger to keep them going. Some do that by learning to act and move like the animals in the region they live. Some do that by forming a symbiotic bond with some particular totem animal. All, however, focus on survival against all odds. That is a very different concept than the fighter (or ranger). 

Agree with Dave, I was actualy reading the Barbarians Handbook from 2nd ed last week. It is about the only ediiton that has got the class right IMHO. You did not have access to all the armor types to start with and there was a reasonable chance you would be using stone weapons as well. The book was very big on the lack of  technological development of the class.

 I can't recall the 1st ed one very well but I think they got to call up a horde at higher levels. I think Monte Cook designed the 2nd ed one. Barbarian=Berzerker needs to die in a fire IMHO. The name barbarian is also problematic IMHO along with Assassin and some other classes as a job description.
The dfault Barbarian in 2nd ed was not a rager. He had high marks in the exploration pillar side of things (as in survive in the wilds).

Barbarian Kits 2nd ed from the Barbarians Handbook (Fighters Handbook had them for fighter as well).

Brushrunner
Brute
Forest Lord
Islander
Plainsrider
Ravager
Wizard Slayer

Cleric kits
Dreamwalker
Flamespeaker
Medicine Man
Seer
Spiritist
Witchman

 Feel free to ask for anything else from the bok as I have it beside me. 3rd ed made it a rager, 4th ed made it a striker which kind of continues the 3rd ed concept.

Huh. I remember the wizard slayer (very Conan if I remember correctly), ravager (the 3e/DDN barbarian), forest lord (tarzan), and plainsrider (a cross between an Apache warrior and Ghenghis Khan). Would you mind reminding me of the others? What did brute do again? Wasn't there something about him using his fists as weapons? Or, am I confusing brute and ravager, in which case what do each of them do? The islander gets swimming abilities if I remember correctly, right? How about the brushrunner? I don't remember that one at all anymore...

But yes, those are the sorts of variable options I want to be able to pursue when I choose the barbarian class.  

The dfault Barbarian in 2nd ed was not a rager. He had high marks in the exploration pillar side of things (as in survive in the wilds).

How did it differ from the ranger? I'm genuinely curious, having zero experience with the 3ed barbarian firsthand.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

The ranger got stuff relating to hunting down particular foes and a smattering of druid magic. The barbarian got stuff relating to survival of harsh conditions (in general). They were very different, though there was a small amount of conceptual overlap (as both were wilderness centric classes).