Quote from: CRKrueger;773912Yeah, 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.

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.

I like to separate culture from character class. The skill sets of a 'non rage barbarian', per my statement, is essentially the same as a ranger.
What tribe, or culture they are from, is independent from class.

Quote from: The Ent;773829Isn'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.

Yeah, remember the "I hate magic and a whole PC class" 1e barbarian or the 3e barbarian that couldn't stop their own rages?

Quote from: Marleycat;773940Yeah, remember the "I hate magic and a whole PC class" 1e barbarian or the 3e barbarian that couldn't stop their own rages?

Wizards hate it when their Barbarian ally keeps smashing their potions, breaking their staves, and using their scrolls for kindling!

Full agreement with Bill and Marley!

The 1e barbarian...was quite something. A completely aggravating Sue.

Quote from: Bill;773939I like to separate culture from character class. The skill sets of a 'non rage barbarian', per my statement, is essentially the same as a ranger.
What tribe, or culture they are from, is independent from class.

Yeah.

Conan and Aragorn have quite similar skills. It's mainly personality that sets them apart (well and culture, but that has Little bearing on their actual skillset!).

Quote from: Bill;773939I like to separate culture from character class. The skill sets of a 'non rage barbarian', per my statement, is essentially the same as a ranger.
What tribe, or culture they are from, is independent from class.

Well, if you're talking about Berserking as a skillset, then there is an English word for that, and...it's not Barbarian.  It's Berserker.

So Barbarian as cultural archetype - no Berserking, that's too specific.
So Barbarian as skillset - no Berserking, Berserker describes that skillset.

Barbaric Culture - large set of people
Barbaric Warrior - small subset of Barbaric Culture
Berserker - small subset of Barbaric Warrior.

In any case, Barbarians being "defined by their rage: unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury." is WotC-speak only.  Always has been lame, always will be.  it's a shame it somehow escaped them to have Berserker be a sub-type of Barbarian, but a lot escapes them, especially if we're talking about having things actually make sense in a setting.

In 2e barbarians and berserkers were separate fighter kits.

The former was STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER in all his loinclothed glory, required to be very strong and proficient in the use of battleaxes and bastard swords and given to inspire extreme reactions eg. "do me muscular mcdreamy" vs "die barbarian dog".

The latter was a crazy psycho, extremely dangerous but completely uncontrolled and prone to attacking his own party when not simply dying from his own wounds (since the DM was to keep his current HP total hidden when he was actually berserk, eg most of the time).

However there was also, in later 2e, a separate barbarian Class with a slew of kits of its own. The 2e Barbie was like a more reasonable 3e one - d12 hp, fast movement, etc, but not necessarily berserk. The kits were fairly fun - one was basically a Quest For Fire dude except way more primitive

The Barbarian Class from White Dwarf #4 (Dec 1977) with its 'First-strike Ferocity' feature is probably the first time that the ideas of Berserker and Barbarian were combined into one class.

After that you have to wait for the 'Ravager Kit' in The Complete Barbarian's Handbook.

Oh, the Ravager...

My group forbid me to ever play one. :rant:

Quote from: Will;773899When you are a Barbarian, you are the raging warrior from the wilds.

Huh? And I thought it just meant you talked funny since Greek (or later Latin) wasn't your native language.

Quote from: Will;773932When was Barbarian not raging? (Honest question, I only barely remember 2e, let alone earlier games)

Depends what you mean by 'barbarian.' To a Spartan (or an Athenian) a sophisticated and effete Phonecian or Mede was a barbarian and so was a Celt.

And Fafhrd was a very thoughtful guy (even if not originally very citified) and he was not big in the berserker department.

Barbarian = berserker is a strange and annoyingly simplified stereotyped. Most Norsemen, even most Vikings, though Norse berserkers were pretty weird.

I meant specifically D&D... I do realize where 'barbarian' the term comes from.

To restate my position...

The fact some people don't like D&D barbarians is essentially because they don't like the implicit setting that 'barbarian' as a class implies.

Like every other implied setting element, the solution is simple.

D&D is annoying in that this stuff isn't well-articulated, and the game is mostly silent on adjusting the setting to one's liking.

Yeah, in the Icelandic Sagas berserker is a borderline bad Word, meaning roughly "dangerous psycho" or "violent dude". And yes the Norse were generally violent but there's a limit to everything. Guys who'd just flip out at any time weren't trusted much.

And yes in Greek "barbarian" = non-Greek. Except the Romans past a certain point because they were scary.

Now Celtic and Norse warriors were both famed for Being fierce, ditto others like the Sarmatians whose main tactic seem to have been charging. But while a Gallic charge could break Even a phalanx or a legion, many other "barbarians" didn't fight like that at all (in Classical times Germanic tribesmen typically fought in phalanx-style shieldwalls or used hit & run frex), and that's Even considering whether considering Gauls to be "barbarians" in the modern sense of the Word is Even remotely fair. Of course, in later Ages, Scottish Highlanders and Irish Fighters had a bit of the "berserk barbarian" thing going. OTOH Scots tactics seem to have inspired Swedish tactics (fire a round then charge) wich for a while was a pretty dominant military tactic.

Eh. It might be best not to Think too much of real world analogues. Crusader fighting-monks weren't universally super Nice, western monks didn't know Kung Fu, musicians didn't have supernatural abilities and neither had priests...etc.

To return to D&D, the bad thing about the barbarian is that it's both a Class like fighter, paladin, etc, and also a cultural background, wich muddles the waters quite a bit.

Quote from: The Ent;774109To return to D&D, the bad thing about the barbarian is that it's both a Class like fighter, paladin, etc, and also a cultural background, wich muddles the waters quite a bit.

To my mind, a better arrangement would be to separate class and culture. So from a cultural perspective

Barbarian (a member of a culture) > Barbarian warrior > Berserker

where X > Y should be read as Y is a subset of X.

While from a D&D Class perspective I'd be inclined to go with both Barbarian Warrior and Berserker as subsets of Fighter.

Fighter > Barbarian Warrior or possibly Barbarian Warrior = Fighter (from a less urbanized society)

or

Fighter > Berserker

Here Berserker is an attribute that any fighter might have, but that would (probably) be more common in less urbanized societies.

Though not an ideal solution, I could also live with

Fighter > Barbarian Warrior > Berserker (a specialty of Barbarian warrior).


EDIT: Pointing out the Greek origins of the word Barbarian was supposed to be levity. I assumed most people on the board would already know that.

I'm sure everyone knows about the Greek thing.

I like the barbarian = subset of fighter thing.

This is btw one of the things FantasyCraft got really right.

Quote from: The Ent;774063In 2e barbarians and berserkers were separate fighter kits.

The former was STEELRAVEN THE DEATHMASTER in all his loinclothed glory, required to be very strong and proficient in the use of battleaxes and bastard swords and given to inspire extreme reactions eg. "do me muscular mcdreamy" vs "die barbarian dog".

The latter was a crazy psycho, extremely dangerous but completely uncontrolled and prone to attacking his own party when not simply dying from his own wounds (since the DM was to keep his current HP total hidden when he was actually berserk, eg most of the time).

However there was also, in later 2e, a separate barbarian Class with a slew of kits of its own. The 2e Barbie was like a more reasonable 3e one - d12 hp, fast movement, etc, but not necessarily berserk. The kits were fairly fun - one was basically a Quest For Fire dude except way more primitive

Ah, yes. And then there were the green books, which covered a good deal of the culture part and gave a solid framework for DIY.

Oh 2e, you covered everything I wanted and then some. You're so dreamy! Le sigh. /doodles daydreams on PeeChee folder.

Quote from: Bill;773902I 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.

I once played an Elf that wanted to be a dentist.

JG