The Barbarian class really has expanded well past it's origins to the point it really no longer matches up, with the sole factor of the class being the rage mechanics - it would be smarter to rename it as Berserker and would allow better options.
The class was based on Conan the Barbarian and was meant to be a representation of anti-civilization and primitive culture - however, successive D&D generations have stripped that from the core of the class and have greatly expanded the class - the only central element to the class is the rage mechanic and as such the class is far better represented by calling it Berserker.
The class and subclasses still seem to follow the spirit and tendencies of Conan as rough edged and violent man. Conan also led an army and seized Aquilonia's crown.
Adaptations depicted Conan as more primitive to the point of almost classical views of cavemen or a man raised by wolves, running round in a loin cloth with an axe.
Regardless though, the class itself is well within the ideals of channeling fury and rage in different ways with the idea being that they are rejecting the more civilised ways and society as being a source of weakness. It can be a zealot channeling blind devotion and fury of it's god/s or a beast channeling raw animalistic instinct. The major one that doesn't feel to fit is wild magic. I could see it fitting, but I don't think it was implemented well to hold within the fury aspect of barbarians.
The major thing that tends to subvert the class are player's implementations with backgrounds or multi-classes that don't really match with the barbarian ways.
This seems to be yet another example of "if it aint broke don't fix it." There's no real reason it shouldn't be called a barbarian. It's been called that for quite a while now, so changing it would inevitably cause confusion (especially because of Path of the Berserker).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Just because a class originates with a particular source does not mean that every incarnation of that class, or use of that class, has to conform with it going forward. The class has outgrown it's origin and become a "thing" in its own right (honestly, until your comment I was under the assumption that it was based on the Celts and Goths from actual history, not a specific piece of media). Further, Quar1on's comment about the berserker already existing as a subclass is enough reason to avoid renaming the class as you propose
This seems to be yet another example of "if it aint broke don't fix it."
Except it is broken, as it creates a number of weird disjointed options and doesn't lean on the original concept of the Barbarian. ( Which is more suited as background then an entire class, unlike say the Rogue as that covers a wider variety of options.)
An example is the equipment options don't have any armour picks, despite having both medium armour and shield as proficiencies. ( Better to move both the unarmoured and damage reduction traits to the Totem Warrior subclass.
especially because of Path of the Berserker.
Non-issue, as with the change of Berserker to a class would remove a redundant sub-class - would also allow for non-barbarian backgrounds, such as in the model of Guts from the anime Berserk.
Regardless though, the class itself is well within the ideals of channeling fury and rage in different ways with the idea being that they are rejecting the more civilised ways and society as being a source of weakness.
Runs into the same problem that Thief as class had, it was too specific and the more generalized Rogue class replaced it, so there is already precedent for this and would allow the class to cover wider range of options.
As I mentioned earlier, Barbarian would be a better match as Background as it covers a lot wider ground than a person with anger management issues. ( Such as Barbarians being other classes.)
Sounds like an entirely pointless change just for sake of changing something. I don't know anybody who has an issue with the class being called Barbarian. No misconceptions or whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Just as the 5E cleric has very little to do with the first edition cleric, the 5E barbarian is it's own thing. There's really no need to change things just because it doesn't match up to your personal opinion on what it "should" be. But then again, if you want to call it something else when you play, you can do that.
and 50gp of valuable inks, papers, and spell components.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It isn't a pointless change, as the sub-classes have a disconnect within the class between abilities, such as having medium armour proficiency, despite having unarmoured defense - Barbarian speaks more to a ethnic classification and not a class type, where as Berserker is far more inline with the central elements of the class, namely rage mechanic, damage resistance and medium armour.
It's the same thing as dropping Thief as a class and instead making the class Rogue, with a sub-class as thief.
The Barbarian class really has expanded well past it's origins to the point it really no longer matches up, with the sole factor of the class being the rage mechanics - it would be smarter to rename it as Berserker and would allow better options.
To what origins are you referring?
The class was based on Conan the Barbarian and was meant to be a representation of anti-civilization and primitive culture - however, successive D&D generations have stripped that from the core of the class and have greatly expanded the class - the only central element to the class is the rage mechanic and as such the class is far better represented by calling it Berserker.
The class and subclasses still seem to follow the spirit and tendencies of Conan as rough edged and violent man. Conan also led an army and seized Aquilonia's crown.
Adaptations depicted Conan as more primitive to the point of almost classical views of cavemen or a man raised by wolves, running round in a loin cloth with an axe.
Regardless though, the class itself is well within the ideals of channeling fury and rage in different ways with the idea being that they are rejecting the more civilised ways and society as being a source of weakness. It can be a zealot channeling blind devotion and fury of it's god/s or a beast channeling raw animalistic instinct. The major one that doesn't feel to fit is wild magic. I could see it fitting, but I don't think it was implemented well to hold within the fury aspect of barbarians.
The major thing that tends to subvert the class are player's implementations with backgrounds or multi-classes that don't really match with the barbarian ways.
This seems to be yet another example of "if it aint broke don't fix it." There's no real reason it shouldn't be called a barbarian. It's been called that for quite a while now, so changing it would inevitably cause confusion (especially because of Path of the Berserker).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Just because a class originates with a particular source does not mean that every incarnation of that class, or use of that class, has to conform with it going forward. The class has outgrown it's origin and become a "thing" in its own right (honestly, until your comment I was under the assumption that it was based on the Celts and Goths from actual history, not a specific piece of media). Further, Quar1on's comment about the berserker already existing as a subclass is enough reason to avoid renaming the class as you propose
Except it is broken, as it creates a number of weird disjointed options and doesn't lean on the original concept of the Barbarian. ( Which is more suited as background then an entire class, unlike say the Rogue as that covers a wider variety of options.)
An example is the equipment options don't have any armour picks, despite having both medium armour and shield as proficiencies. ( Better to move both the unarmoured and damage reduction traits to the Totem Warrior subclass.
Non-issue, as with the change of Berserker to a class would remove a redundant sub-class - would also allow for non-barbarian backgrounds, such as in the model of Guts from the anime Berserk.
Runs into the same problem that Thief as class had, it was too specific and the more generalized Rogue class replaced it, so there is already precedent for this and would allow the class to cover wider range of options.
As I mentioned earlier, Barbarian would be a better match as Background as it covers a lot wider ground than a person with anger management issues. ( Such as Barbarians being other classes.)
Sounds like an entirely pointless change just for sake of changing something. I don't know anybody who has an issue with the class being called Barbarian. No misconceptions or whatever.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Just as the 5E cleric has very little to do with the first edition cleric, the 5E barbarian is it's own thing. There's really no need to change things just because it doesn't match up to your personal opinion on what it "should" be. But then again, if you want to call it something else when you play, you can do that.
No thank you.
You can change whatever you like in your own PHB. All you need is some white-out and a pen.
Behind every successful Warlock, there's an angry mob.
and 50gp of valuable inks, papers, and spell components.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It isn't a pointless change, as the sub-classes have a disconnect within the class between abilities, such as having medium armour proficiency, despite having unarmoured defense - Barbarian speaks more to a ethnic classification and not a class type, where as Berserker is far more inline with the central elements of the class, namely rage mechanic, damage resistance and medium armour.
It's the same thing as dropping Thief as a class and instead making the class Rogue, with a sub-class as thief.
That's obviously just your opinion.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...