Barbarian issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Barbarian issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Plunderer_of_the_planes
03-20-04, 02:24 AM In the D&D game the barbarian is hit with an odd limitation. He is illterate.

I have few issues with this idea as I feel it lacks sense in the overall game. So here goes:

The only real disadvantage of this is loosing a couple skill points (usually at creation) to remedy this problem.
when balancing out the overall implications of this class I feel being not being able to read is not a large issue
Historically most Barbarians were quite literate and advanced. (that is going by the fact that said 'barbarians' were the Founders of the holy Roman empire. Creators of such works as Beowulf and the Kalevala and even was in America as far in as Oklahoma nearly 500 years before Columbuses voyage)
Even the term Barbarian is misleading as the class has more in common with the old style Berserkers .

Maybe this is just nitpicks but the idea of the class doesn't fit. Now understand that I am not crusading for a change to the class but these are merely nitpicks I have found that presents flavor issues.

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed this or have made 'fixes' to these issues.
Salla
03-20-04, 08:10 AM I threw out the illiteracy disadvantage, myself. I also make it a point to remind people not to apply any connotative baggage to the name. Just because your character sheet says 'Barbarian', it doesn't mean you're a savage whose body odor is more lethal than his axe-swing.
Mawtaw
03-20-04, 01:12 PM The barbarian isn't supposed to be a complete rip of historical figures. It is described as the one probably the one class most cut off from society and usually you have a big dumb guy not the person playing but the character which should mean that reading and things are harder. An 8 intelligence is about mildly retarded so reading could be hard. But that is just what I think.

Just me.
Plunderer_of_the_planes
03-20-04, 01:29 PM See that is exactly what I am trying to avoid...Dig around on some reasearch and you will find Barbarians are not big dumb guys!!

And as far as being cut off from society they really were not True barbarians had there own societies as well.

I am aware that any sort of historical accuracy is beyond WOTC's abilities but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Hell, the way I figured this out was when I was reasearching the Visigoths for an idea I had.

That is where I began to see the errors and realised I cannot play a Barbarian off as Sloth with an Axe.

But for those that want to know your major tribes were considered to be:

Visigoth
Ostrogoth
Vandal
Norse (or viking)
German (some fold them in with the vikings)
Hun (not from the same root race as the above 5)

I'm sorry but the big dumb Barbarian is just as assinine as those who equate Lawful Good with stupidity....
Iron Chef Vastrox
03-20-04, 02:13 PM Replace the name 'Barbarian' with the name 'Berserker' and you should be able to fix the problems that you see with the 'Barbarian' class.

The D&D Barbarian is meant to emulate the big, brutish, scary, stupid Bearsark from the Norse and Icelandic sagas. These guys were known for their ferocious battle lust (rage), imperviousness to weapons (damage reduction), a 'danger sense' (Uncanny Dodge), and disregard for armor (no Heavy armor proficiency. rage and movement bonuses negated in Heavy Armor).

Where the illiteracy factor comes into all of this is in an attempt to reflect the only downfall of the Berserks: their susceptibility to trickery. Because their strength was so great, the berserk tended to rely on it to solve all problems, making hasty decisions or simply not thinking a situation through thoroughly enough that they fell victim to well-laid traps. It's not a Lawful-Stupid scenario, just the historical flavor behind the class.

The Berserk in Norse mythology was a rare and half-crazy individual, definitely not just some run-of-the-mill person who can get really mad when they pick up a sword. 'Barbarian' is simply a cultural label the Romans applied to anybody without aqueducts. That's why problems arise when one tries to make a sweeping generalization with an ambiguous term. In other words, 'all berserks are barbarians but not all barbarians are berserks'. Going by the Sagas, the vast majority of the 'Barbarians' are better represented by the Fighter class.

WotC tried to make the Barbarian class a 'noble savage' sort of archetype, but would have probably been much better off just calling it the 'Berserk'. If you feel like it causes problems, just change the name.
Grimsword
03-20-04, 07:53 PM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes
I am aware that any sort of historical accuracy is beyond WOTC's abilities but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Hell, the way I figured this out was when I was reasearching the Visigoths for an idea I had.

Historic accuracy is not beyond WotC. It is just not important to them to be historically accurate. Which is fair enough, because they are not writing a historic RPG. D&D is a fantasy game.

It draws on elements of history and fantasy literature and mixes in their own creativity to produce a fantasy game.

So the barbarian class doesn't conform to the historic example that you have recently studied. Change it for your game. But that doesn't make it an error on WotCs part. They have based the barbarian more on berserkers of norse sagas as Iron Chef Vastrox pointed out. They are also based on characters like Conan.

If you want historical accuracy way stop with barbarians. You should make all classes illiterate except clerics, paladins and aristocrates. Most people could not read in medieval times.

Giving the barbarian literacy would hardly make it represent a visigoth very well anyway. I don't believe that Berserk rages was part of there culture. They would be better represented by a fighter/ranger multiclass probably, although you would have to stop before getting spells as a ranger (or use an non-spellcasting alt. ranger) because spells are not historically accurate.

It is fair enough that you want barbarians to be able to read for your games. I am not saying that you shouldn't change things to suit you better, but you have stated that it is beyond wotc to do something they were never trying to do and calling it an error.
Plunderer_of_the_planes
03-20-04, 08:27 PM Funny Conan should be mentioned. There are as many misconceptions about him as well as Barbarians.

Conan was more of a "barbarian/Theif" than he was a Barbarian Conan could read as well. In Fact the Cimmerions were more advanced than most people will give them credit for. And Conan himself was more complex than what people would think.

Robert E Howard chose to play the stories more form the Action/Adventure standpoint but really reading his Original stories you see a more complex Character in the Background.

Now as to the Pretenders to the Conan crown ( I am meaning the authors who based Conan material off of REH's work) most of them erroniously played him as the big dumb brute wich was not the case.

BTW if you want acuurate Conan avoid the movies (no matter how good they were) and non-Howard texts. This also means L. Sprague DeCamps bastardized edits of Howards work as well.

I am also aware of the differences between norse and Visgoth etc. And have decided to change the name to Berserker. Seeings how a Barbarian tribe would include Driuds (another inaacuracy), Rangers, Bards, the occasional Rogue and a Shaman or two.

Alll I am really asking is for some better judgement in naming certain classes (druid included) when trying to adapt them to a pseudo-Medieval setting.

The litercy thing is more of a comparason to other classes rather than accuracy. However as to one of my current projects (actually hombrewing a fantasy Europe) I will be limiting Literacy quite a bit.

And yes The druid mistake has been around since OD&D but I feel it has been enough time to correct that flaw.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-20-04, 02:24 AM	In the D&D game the barbarian is hit with an odd limitation. He is illterate. I have few issues with this idea as I feel it lacks sense in the overall game. So here goes: The only real disadvantage of this is loosing a couple skill points (usually at creation) to remedy this problem. when balancing out the overall implications of this class I feel being not being able to read is not a large issue Historically most Barbarians were quite literate and advanced. (that is going by the fact that said 'barbarians' were the Founders of the holy Roman empire. Creators of such works as Beowulf and the Kalevala and even was in America as far in as Oklahoma nearly 500 years before Columbuses voyage) Even the term Barbarian is misleading as the class has more in common with the old style Berserkers . Maybe this is just nitpicks but the idea of the class doesn't fit. Now understand that I am not crusading for a change to the class but these are merely nitpicks I have found that presents flavor issues. I was wondering if anyone else had noticed this or have made 'fixes' to these issues.
Salla 03-20-04, 08:10 AM	I threw out the illiteracy disadvantage, myself. I also make it a point to remind people not to apply any connotative baggage to the name. Just because your character sheet says 'Barbarian', it doesn't mean you're a savage whose body odor is more lethal than his axe-swing.
Mawtaw 03-20-04, 01:12 PM	The barbarian isn't supposed to be a complete rip of historical figures. It is described as the one probably the one class most cut off from society and usually you have a big dumb guy not the person playing but the character which should mean that reading and things are harder. An 8 intelligence is about mildly retarded so reading could be hard. But that is just what I think. Just me.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-20-04, 01:29 PM	See that is exactly what I am trying to avoid...Dig around on some reasearch and you will find Barbarians are not big dumb guys!! And as far as being cut off from society they really were not True barbarians had there own societies as well. I am aware that any sort of historical accuracy is beyond WOTC's abilities but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Hell, the way I figured this out was when I was reasearching the Visigoths for an idea I had. That is where I began to see the errors and realised I cannot play a Barbarian off as Sloth with an Axe. But for those that want to know your major tribes were considered to be: Visigoth Ostrogoth Vandal Norse (or viking) German (some fold them in with the vikings) Hun (not from the same root race as the above 5) I'm sorry but the big dumb Barbarian is just as assinine as those who equate Lawful Good with stupidity....
Iron Chef Vastrox 03-20-04, 02:13 PM	Replace the name 'Barbarian' with the name 'Berserker' and you should be able to fix the problems that you see with the 'Barbarian' class. The D&D Barbarian is meant to emulate the big, brutish, scary, stupid Bearsark from the Norse and Icelandic sagas. These guys were known for their ferocious battle lust (rage), imperviousness to weapons (damage reduction), a 'danger sense' (Uncanny Dodge), and disregard for armor (no Heavy armor proficiency. rage and movement bonuses negated in Heavy Armor). Where the illiteracy factor comes into all of this is in an attempt to reflect the only downfall of the Berserks: their susceptibility to trickery. Because their strength was so great, the berserk tended to rely on it to solve all problems, making hasty decisions or simply not thinking a situation through thoroughly enough that they fell victim to well-laid traps. It's not a Lawful-Stupid scenario, just the historical flavor behind the class. The Berserk in Norse mythology was a rare and half-crazy individual, definitely not just some run-of-the-mill person who can get really mad when they pick up a sword. 'Barbarian' is simply a cultural label the Romans applied to anybody without aqueducts. That's why problems arise when one tries to make a sweeping generalization with an ambiguous term. In other words, 'all berserks are barbarians but not all barbarians are berserks'. Going by the Sagas, the vast majority of the 'Barbarians' are better represented by the Fighter class. WotC tried to make the Barbarian class a 'noble savage' sort of archetype, but would have probably been much better off just calling it the 'Berserk'. If you feel like it causes problems, just change the name.
Grimsword 03-20-04, 07:53 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes I am aware that any sort of historical accuracy is beyond WOTC's abilities but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Hell, the way I figured this out was when I was reasearching the Visigoths for an idea I had. Historic accuracy is not beyond WotC. It is just not important to them to be historically accurate. Which is fair enough, because they are not writing a historic RPG. D&D is a fantasy game. It draws on elements of history and fantasy literature and mixes in their own creativity to produce a fantasy game. So the barbarian class doesn't conform to the historic example that you have recently studied. Change it for your game. But that doesn't make it an error on WotCs part. They have based the barbarian more on berserkers of norse sagas as Iron Chef Vastrox pointed out. They are also based on characters like Conan. If you want historical accuracy way stop with barbarians. You should make all classes illiterate except clerics, paladins and aristocrates. Most people could not read in medieval times. Giving the barbarian literacy would hardly make it represent a visigoth very well anyway. I don't believe that Berserk rages was part of there culture. They would be better represented by a fighter/ranger multiclass probably, although you would have to stop before getting spells as a ranger (or use an non-spellcasting alt. ranger) because spells are not historically accurate. It is fair enough that you want barbarians to be able to read for your games. I am not saying that you shouldn't change things to suit you better, but you have stated that it is beyond wotc to do something they were never trying to do and calling it an error.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-20-04, 08:27 PM	Funny Conan should be mentioned. There are as many misconceptions about him as well as Barbarians. Conan was more of a "barbarian/Theif" than he was a Barbarian Conan could read as well. In Fact the Cimmerions were more advanced than most people will give them credit for. And Conan himself was more complex than what people would think. Robert E Howard chose to play the stories more form the Action/Adventure standpoint but really reading his Original stories you see a more complex Character in the Background. Now as to the Pretenders to the Conan crown ( I am meaning the authors who based Conan material off of REH's work) most of them erroniously played him as the big dumb brute wich was not the case. BTW if you want acuurate Conan avoid the movies (no matter how good they were) and non-Howard texts. This also means L. Sprague DeCamps bastardized edits of Howards work as well. I am also aware of the differences between norse and Visgoth etc. And have decided to change the name to Berserker. Seeings how a Barbarian tribe would include Driuds (another inaacuracy), Rangers, Bards, the occasional Rogue and a Shaman or two. Alll I am really asking is for some better judgement in naming certain classes (druid included) when trying to adapt them to a pseudo-Medieval setting. The litercy thing is more of a comparason to other classes rather than accuracy. However as to one of my current projects (actually hombrewing a fantasy Europe) I will be limiting Literacy quite a bit. And yes The druid mistake has been around since OD&D but I feel it has been enough time to correct that flaw.