[D&D, several editions] Barbarian vs. Fighter: the poll

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

As a player, would you rather play a...

  • Barbarian

    Votes: 6 14.6%

  • Fighter

    Votes: 35 85.4%
  • Total voters
    41
T

The Butcher

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
4,657
Reaction score
12,176
What it says on the tin.

I’m in the Fighter camp, probably owing to strong old school sensibilities (I don’t really think the Barbarian as presented in just about every edition of D&D since AD&D1 UA really merits being a distinct class, but it I suspect I’m in the minority.

And before anyone else says anything — multiclassing is bullshit. :thumbsdown::clown:
 
The need to introduce barbarian as a separate class never made any sense to me as "barbarian" doesn't mean "Viking movie-Conan berserker" anywhere other than D&D. A fighter, cleric, wizard, whatever can all be barbarians if you play them that way. Unearthed Arcana indeed!
 
If I can only get one, I'll go for consistency over spike damage; fighters can go all day, but barbarians are on a timer.

I see the barbarian as a specialist, for when you need someone really dead right now or you need a flashy distraction.
 
Barbarian as a class doesn't exist for me.
Barbarian as a character concept, OTOH...

Most of them would probably be fighters from a less-"civilized" culture (whatever that means), but barbarian cleric or wizard (= shaman, witch doctor, or else) are possible, as well.
 
Dumarest said:
The need to introduce barbarian as a separate class never made any sense to me as "barbarian" doesn't mean "Viking movie-Conan berserker" anywhere other than D&D. A fighter, cleric, wizard, whatever can all be barbarians if you play them that way. Unearthed Arcana indeed!
Click to expand...

Stan said:
The barbarian should be renamed. It's not really about being from a rural/pastoral culture. It's about rage and resistance to damage (or high hitpoints in some editions). Call it a dervish or something.
Click to expand...

200w.gif
 
Last edited:
Dirk Remmecke said:
Most of them would probably be fighters from a less-"civilized" culture (whatever that means), but barbarian cleric or wizard (= shaman, witch doctor, or else) are possible, as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in 5e at least they've tended to add those things as Barbarian subclasses, which... doesn't quite feel right.

Dungeon World has crazy berzerker barbarians, but they also all have the race "Outsider : You may be elf, dwarf, halfling, or human, but you and your people are not from around here," which I quite like. Wouldn't work in real D&D, though.
 
Well it's a subclass of fighter. Subclasses were an okay concept. It's not like Paladins and Rangers are balanced against fighters. I've always felt Paladins should need to make some level in fighter, maybe fifth level, maybe tenth to qualify for entry. Barbarian, on the other hand is a starting point. A culture as much as a class.

The 5e class should be called Conan and people should play as a Conan. Draculas and Metroids should also be classes.
 
TJS said:
Surely "Berserker" would the obvious choice?
Click to expand...
Not trying to tell anyone how to run their dwarfgames, but I think even that is stretching the truth:

(LindyBeige, Berserkers! The facts and the fictions.)
 
Any class that abjectly fails to model either its archetypal literary inspiration (Conan of Cimmeria) or its historical antecedents is suspect at best.

Fighter FTW.
 
In 2E the Barbarian was a subclass of the Warrior wasn't it? It wasn't even in the PHB.
 
Maybe we should just rename Barbarians as Angryboys (or Angrygirls).
Or possibly Rageholics.
Moracai said:
Not trying to tell anyone how to run their dwarfgames, but I think even that is stretching the truth:

(LindyBeige, Berserkers! The facts and the fictions.)
Click to expand...

Well we definitely wouldn't want that in our D&D games.
 
TristramEvans said:
unlike...Paladins?
Click to expand...
Exactly! :wink:

Or those shifty druids, which are also totally historically accurate:tongue: I once read that bards are quite present in irish folklore, but I don't even know where the druid shapeshifting thing has came from...

A sidenote. In finnish folklore, the head-honcho, Väinämöinen, was definitely a bard, carrying his string instrument, kantele, everywhere and singing people back from the dead and all that stuff. But that doesn't mean that I like bards in my D&D either.
 
Fighter all day every day; I agree with the general consensus "Barbarian" should either be rewritten as something completely different in the fluff or just be a subtype of fighter. Perhaps with limitations on equipment compensated with survival skills, higher HD or others such things.

I hate druids in 3.5 They're all over the place and generally should be divided in at least two classes (a nature-caster and a shapeshifter class) and the rest given to the ranger (like give the ranger the animal companion at full level and to the nature-caster-druid the animal companion 4 levels lower He's a caster he won't even freaking notice). In 5e They're mostly ok on the power level but still don't make a lick of sense.

I like bards tho. I wish their music was emphatized above their spells or perhaps that they didn't even have spells and just went by with something similar to Truenaming In 3.5 (but You know, something that WORKED).
 
Voros said:
In 2E the Barbarian was a subclass of the Warrior wasn't it? It wasn't even in the PHB.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall they did away with it entirely in the PHB. Maybe they brought it back in one of those "Complete Whatever" books.
 
Dumarest said:
I seem to recall they did away with it entirely in the PHB. Maybe they brought it back in one of those "Complete Whatever" books.
Click to expand...

Yup

64_ni9qtd.jpg


including kits such as "shaman" and "runecaster", this seemed to be a confusing mix of class with culture.
 
Johnny Blade said:
Fighter all day every day; I agree with the general consensus "Barbarian" should either be rewritten as something completely different in the fluff or just be a subtype of fighter. Perhaps with limitations on equipment compensated with survival skills, higher HD or others such things.

I hate druids in 3.5 They're all over the place and generally should be divided in at least two classes (a nature-caster and a shapeshifter class) and the rest given to the ranger (like give the ranger the animal companion at full level and to the nature-caster-druid the animal companion 4 levels lower He's a caster he won't even freaking notice). In 5e They're mostly ok on the power level but still don't make a lick of sense.

I like bards tho. I wish their music was emphatized above their spells or perhaps that they didn't even have spells and just went by with something similar to Truenaming In 3.5 (but You know, something that WORKED).
Click to expand...

I dig the Druid and the Bard way more than the Barbarian personally, outside of any mechanical issues (which I don't really exist too much in 2e or 5e) I've always liked them for their flavour.
 
TristramEvans said:
Yup

64_ni9qtd.jpg


including kits such as "shaman" and "runecaster", this seemed to be a confusing mix of class with culture.
Click to expand...
Yeah...we didn't buy or use any of those. Too expensive even if we wanted to! I seem to recall we went back to 1st edition AD&D after using 2nd edition for a while. I did like the different wizard schools and druids just being a type of cleric rather than a separate class. Curious how they undid the point of removing unnecessary classes with all those handbooks. Exposes the major flaw in class-based games when you have to keep adding classes to encompass basic concepts. A large part of why I don't much care for class-based games.
 
Dumarest said:
Yeah...we didn't buy or use any of those. Too expensive even if we wanted to! I seem to recall we went back to 1st edition AD&D after using 2nd edition for a while. I did like the different wizard schools and druids just being a type of cleric rather than a separate class. Curious how they undid the point of removing unnecessary classes with all those handbooks. Exposes the major flaw in class-based games when you have to keep adding classes to encompass basic concepts. A large part of why I don't much care for class-based games.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair 2e didn't actually add more classes in the Completes, they had 'Kits' in them, essentially character concepts with a few minor mechanical tweaks. I thought they were fine, useful for the imaginatively impaired. But I think 5e was wiser to replace them with just Backgrounds.
 
Dumarest said:
Curious how they undid the point of removing unnecessary classes with all those handbooks. Exposes the major flaw in class-based games when you have to keep adding classes to encompass basic concepts. A large part of why I don't much care for class-based games.
Click to expand...

In the 2e PHB they established the concept of "sub-classes", hence Druid a subclass of priest, Paladin of Fighter etc. So they worked along the same lines, and level track as the main class, but had special restrictions and abilities. The Handbooks introduced "Kits", which were like very specific sub-sub-classes, like professions in WFRP. They usually were largely flavour and mostly dealt more with Proficiencies the character knew more than anything else.

I don't really have anything against the approach, and I was fine with the Handbooks and kits, insofar as I'm not a fan of class and level systems overall. There were complaints about balance, but my brain turns to frolicking bunnies whenever anyone talks about balance in RPGs.
 
Dumarest said:
We have Voros Voros' next PC ready: dual-classed bard-druid!
Click to expand...

Now you've made me think of an OSR game that reimagines D&D through the lense of the 1960s hippies counterculture. It could even be called 'Dirty Hippy Fantasy.' It makes a lot of sense as the hippies embraced Tolkien and fantasy and were instrumental in reviving the genre.

oq90xc2t74b01.jpg
 
Voros said:
Now you've made me think of an OSR game that reimagines D&D through the lense of the 1960s hippies counterculture. It could even be called 'Dirty Hippy Fantasy.'

View attachment 4401
Click to expand...
I don't know if "fantasy" is the word I would use..."nightmare," maybe...:wink:

Edit: Tom Bombadil?

Could be a good Gamma World setting with roving bands of dirty hippie mutants scouring the countryside to scavenge what their irradiated communes can't provide.
ayae8me7e84z.jpg​
 
Technically, a "Barbarian" should be a background (in D&D5, they have the "Outlander"), but even then I think it's a pejorative title.

That said, it's a well celebrated archetype in and out of D&D. The factors that make up the archetype are the removal of the need for armour, extra hitpoints, the wilderness survival motif and the characteristic ability to 'rage' and do lots of destruction. You could handle it as a Fighter archetype, but there would need to be a lot of fiddly rule stipulations to make it work. On that basis, it's just easier to stick with the seperate Class.

For my choice, I'd prefer to play a Fighter though.
 
Last edited:
King Ghidorah said:
Any class that abjectly fails to model either its archetypal literary inspiration (Conan of Cimmeria) or its historical antecedents is suspect at best.
Click to expand...
I think Logen Ninefingers from Joe Abercrombie's First Law novels - is the closest decent literary fantasy equivalent to the latter day D&D Barbarian.

But the D&D Barbarian is just too safe - there needs to be at least some chance that a berserk rage will end in tears. (For the Barbarian)
 
Last edited:
I also think it should be a subclass of Fighter.

In 5e, it would be an archetype. But not just stuck on "light armored noble Savage". Rather as a fighter who focuses on frenzied, reckless attacks and flipping out once in a while. A Berzerker, to be exact.

The whole "lightly armored, swift melee fighter" would just be a style.
 
TJS said:
I think Logen Ninefingers from Joe Abercrombie's First Law novels - is the closest decent literary fantasy equivalent to the latter day D&D Barbarian.
Click to expand...
Haven't read them. Heard they're good, though.
 
Moracai said:
Exactly! :wink:

Or those shifty druids, which are also totally historically accurate:tongue: I once read that bards are quite present in irish folklore, but I don't even know where the druid shapeshifting thing has came from...

A sidenote. In finnish folklore, the head-honcho, Väinämöinen, was definitely a bard, carrying his string instrument, kantele, everywhere and singing people back from the dead and all that stuff. But that doesn't mean that I like bards in my D&D either.
Click to expand...
Real druids were so much more interesting than D&D druids. They should really be straight-up clerics with no special "nature" emphasis, though. Bards should just be what a thief PC calls himself...I've never liked the idea of a magical musician. It works better as a mythical archetype, like Väinämöinen or Orpheus, than an adventuring archetype.

I've always found the whole berserking thing to be vaguely insulting. Unearthed Arcana tried to have it both ways, with high hit point barbarians who went berserk, didn't wear armor and hated magic...but also have some second-rate ranger skills and the like. Truly a class with no role of its own.

Honestly, in class based games, I only like the holy trinity: fighter, magic-user and thief.
 
I'm playing a game with elves, dwarves and dragons so I'm pretty willing to suspend disbelief and accept the excuse/answer "we did it cuz it's fun!"

Whatever it's accuracy there's a big enough group who want to play a vaguely woodland ragefighter I'm ok with designers making a class or template for it.

I view classes these days as convenience feature. It would be nice if designers made a good faith attempt to make the classes interesting and functional and good at what they are attempting to imitate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top