Barbarian was used in D&D 3.5, which was the basis for Pathfinder. With no mechanical reason to change the name of the class, combined with the push for backwards compatibility, it was retained.
Ultimately barbarian vs. berzerker is nothing more than semantics and personal choice. There's really no point in discussing it.
yea... I know.
but its also a fact that the barbarian class is vaguely based on the Conan imagery so the point that the class should be called berserker rather than barbarian is still relevant... unlike debating the comparison of the barbarian class to the Conan character."Berserker" is a very specific term, though. It refers to a class of Norse fighter that wore the skin of bears and went crazy in battle. They counted their numbers amongst others who were not considered quite the same as they.
Whereas, "barbarian" is a generic term that could encompass both a berserker, and whatever other less civilized nature-warrior you wanted to build.
So, the opposite of what you are saying is true. "Berserker" is not a generic catch term for barbarian. Barbarian is.
Except the term has ALSO come to mean anyone who fights in a reckless and ferocious manner.
Again, a scenario.
You are a writer of modules. Someone hires you to write a module. The only directions are to include a "barbarian tribe".
Would you interpret that as "a tribe of people who only take the barbarian class"?
No. But I would be baffled if that tribe included no barbarians.
That's like telling someone to make a warrior tribe, and they made everyone have the NPC Warrior class.
Or telling someone you'd like a city of oracles, and EVERYONE in that city had a level of oracle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian was used in D&D 3.5, which was the basis for Pathfinder. With no mechanical reason to change the name of the class, combined with the push for backwards compatibility, it was retained.
Ultimately barbarian vs. berzerker is nothing more than semantics and personal choice. There's really no point in discussing it.
It isn't worth discussing if the only goal of the discussion is to consider what will show up in the Pathfinder Core Book, I agree.
If you don't want to participate in a discussion about it though, there is a hide feature. This is an internet forum and the express purpose of an internet forum is having discussions. I don't think that this topic is in any way offensive or disruptive to the forum overall, so you can't objectively say there is not point to the discussion, you can only do so subjectively which is expressing your opinion.
I think it is worth discussing. Language and how we use it often feels overlooked and talking about things like this I've often found to be productive.
No. But I would be baffled if that tribe included no barbarians.
That's like telling someone to make a warrior tribe, and they made everyone have the NPC Warrior class.
Or telling someone you'd like a city of oracles, and EVERYONE in that city had a level of oracle.
The point that more than one term could use examination isn't a defense.
My point is that the style of combat is more central and iconic to the character class, not the societal origin. Players can come up with the origin/family/society of their character, the class doesn't need to provide that. The term "barbarian" carries certain connotations with it that might feel constraining to character creation.
The term "berserker" carries connotations as well, but that mostly focuses on the style of combat the character engages in, which is a major reason for choosing the class.
This isn't to say that the class should be devoid of "barbarian" connotations, I think some of the various options for rage powers are both mechanically interesting and flavorful as well.
Well, there aren't any classes called "Civilized", "Nomad", "Primitive" or the like so...
Thief could be separated from Rogue, or be an Archetype of it.
"Berserker" is a very specific term, though. It refers to a class of Norse fighter that wore the skin of bears and went crazy in battle.
Not true, In the real world.
I fight MMA and we have descriptive names for different types of fighters like technitian, or pure striker or what ever. In my gym and region we often call people who go all out to close a fight quickly to fight in a berserker style. Mike Tyson for example was a berserker.however i think the most relivant point here is that raised by Irontruth.
the rage class should represent a fundamental individual flavor of the character, Barbarian is more like a representation of a group of people.
Its true that ultimately class name if flexable but its also true that the name effects the way we play the game.
goblins are evil 99% of the time because they are goblins. If i say good goblin its POSSIBLE but does not really mesh with out mental picture.
The name BARBARIAN does not limit itself to any one who rages in combat. it also creates a picture of an uncivilized brute or possibly borderline insane person with little self control.
when is the last time you or any one you know made a civilized or highly intelligent barbarian? and when they did so was it or was it not simply an attempt to buck the norm?
its possible... but its not likley, mostly because the name barbarian has too much of an influence on how we imagine the character.
when is the last time you or any one you know made a civilized or highly intelligent barbarian? and when they did so was it or was it not simply an attempt to buck the norm?
its possible... but its not likley, mostly because the name barbarian has too much of an influence on how we imagine the character.
Okay, you may find this hard to believe, but the last Barbarian I saw played had a fairly decent intelligence and had an urban background.
I'm not sure that the term Berserker would have helped, as the character she played was actually fairly sly.
Also for me, the term berserker
also creates a picture of an uncivilized brute or possibly borderline insane person with little self control.
|
I'll bite, why does it need to be changed after so many years and editions of being barbarian?
(lots and lots of stuff, cut for space)
The name doesn't need to be changed, necessarily...
I think the point, though-- is that the PF class (and the 3.0/3.5 class before it) has stepped far from any of the historical societies that the Greeks and Romans (more particularly the Romans) used to call "Barbarians" (as the Roman insult has been anglicized). It's evident in your post-- when the image you get includes "dirty", "unwashed", "uncivilized", "lacking due process"...
That's unfair to the historical Goths you malign with such terms. Now, the word has changed in its modern usage, true. And, the historical peoples the Romans (and others) called "barbarians" would never have referred to themselves that way-- they had proper names for their own cultures and kinfolk.
Meanwhile, rage, anger, going berserk in combat... are not necessarily tied to the term "barbarian" anywhere except in Roman legend and D&D. I suppose using the term "Barbarian" for the class is quite accurate-- so long as the class represents the nightmares Romans had about their allegedly "uncivilized" foes.
But, Egoish (and others), that's probably as good a reason as any for why we're having this discussion.
|
|
outside of those that play D&D or games based off of it.On that note, I think Monk is much stranger. Outside of D&D and certain versions of Final Fantasy, I never use monk to refer to a barefisted combatant who teleports and slides down walls, unless of course for whatever reason that person is also a chaste disciple who spends a lot of time in temples and praying.Monk annoys me FAR more. Let's face it, most people don't think kung-fu when they hear the word "monk"...they think about a guy that has given away everything he owns, wears a burlap sack, and has possibly taken a vow of silence.
Even inside D&D (IMO), Monk only automatically draws the "eastern/martial arts" connotation either because it's clear you're talking about the in-game character class; or the person drawing that picture inside his/her head is both a big fan of "kung fu" movies and has not studied European History.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Time to play Devil's Advocate.
Yeah, we should start changing the names of classes because we can, solely because some people dislike the archetypes certain names bring forth (although some of this is likely by design and surely some of it is due to nostalgia) and also because things should change simply because change is good (vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).
For example, these classes should now be renamed and known as:
Alchemist = Apothecary
Barbarian = Savage
Bard = Historian
Cavalier = Outrider
Cleric = Devoutee
Druid = Naturalist
Fighter = Warrior
Inquisitor = Interrogator
Monk = Pugilist
Oracle = Prophet
Paladin = Crusader
Ranger = Warden
Rogue = Knave
Sorcerer = Invoker
Summoner = Conjurer
Witch = Crone
Wizard = Magician
Yep...definately seems better for our beloved roleplaying game. Generic terms for all so that anyone can develop whatever character archetype they want. Definately feels like a much better fantasy RPG. Much, much better...
;)
|
|
The name BARBARIAN does not limit itself to any one who rages in combat. it also creates a picture of an uncivilized brute or possibly borderline insane person with little self control.
To you maybe. I find that image extremely insulting and perilously close to racial and ethnic prejudice, to view all the peoples once labelled "Barbarians" that way. The one excuse for it, is that the Romans did see the 'Barbarians' as uncivilized brutes-- but even the Romans did not see them as insane or lacking in self-control.
I am with Ragnarok Aeon in seeing that description as fairly representative of a 'Berserker', since other Norse people explicitly saw the berserkers as being like that in all of the tales mentioning them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They kept the name "barbarian" because most people misspell "berserker," inexplicably changing the "s" to a "z." Some particularly barbaric people leave off the first "r" as well.
They changed the name of the "thief" class because so many people were misspelling it as "theif." Sadly, just as many (if not more) people misspell the new name as "rouge." I predict the next name will be "thug," to hopefully eliminate this 35-year history of misspellings once and for all.
I also predict the "sorcerer" will get a name change due to the number of people who change the last "e" to an "o."
For some reason, most people don't have a hard time correctly spelling bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, or wizard.
Time to play Devil's Advocate.
Yeah, we should start changing the names of classes because we can, solely because some people dislike the archetypes certain names bring forth (although some of this is likely by design and surely some of it is due to nostalgia) and also because things should change simply because change is good (vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).For example, these classes should now be renamed and known as:
Alchemist = Apothecary
Barbarian = Savage
Bard = Historian
Cavalier = Outrider
Cleric = Devoutee
Druid = Naturalist
Fighter = Warrior
Inquisitor = Interrogator
Monk = Pugilist
Oracle = Prophet
Paladin = Crusader
Ranger = Warden
Rogue = Knave
Sorcerer = Invoker
Summoner = Conjurer
Witch = Crone
Wizard = MagicianYep...definately seems better for our beloved roleplaying game. Generic terms for all so that anyone can develop whatever character archetype they want. Definately feels like a much better fantasy RPG. Much, much better...
** spoiler omitted **
Is it bad that I actually like a lot of these names? These feel closer to a grittier type of fantasy.
I have to say, having just read through the complete Conan corpus by Howard, I think a single-class barbarian fits him perfectly. There's nothing he does that cannot be well-explained by a barbarian with awesome stats and good ranks in barbarian class skills. You can tell the spot or spots in many/most of the stories where he uses rage, and even DR is well represented in some of the tales. I can even see his level progression in different stories.
In fact, I now have a much better understanding of how to flavor a barbarian's abilities and at least one way to role-play one.
(vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).
So, your point is that we should hold on to golden cows, because once a thing is made, it can never be improved.
BECAUSE DR. BERZERKER AM BERZERKER, PHD. AM NOT NEARLY AS FUNNY.
(vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).So, your point is that we should hold on to golden cows, because once a thing is made, it can never be improved.
No, I never did say that nor imply it. However, I did imply that change for change's sake does not improve things, as in the example paradies of changing the class names for little reason or benefit.
I have to say, having just read through the complete Conan corpus by Howard, I think a single-class barbarian fits him perfectly. There's nothing he does that cannot be well-explained by a barbarian with awesome stats and good ranks in barbarian class skills. You can tell the spot or spots in many/most of the stories where he uses rage, and even DR is well represented in some of the tales. I can even see his level progression in different stories.
In fact, I now have a much better understanding of how to flavor a barbarian's abilities and at least one way to role-play one.
meh. I read through it and didn't get Barbarian out of the Howard series at all. He never goes BERSERK.
He's a Ranger with a level or four of Fighter for weapon focus (broadsword) and heavy armor prof, but otherwise, he's all FE Human, Animals and Magical Beasts. Ranger/10 Ftr/1 sums him up MAGNIFICENTLY. He's +6/+6 against humans...his hunting/predatory instincts better then any simple swordsman/fighter. He's stealthy without the pick/trap set of the Rogue, a good tracker, hunter, and got plenty of skill points...he knows at least 7 languages by the end of the stories, which in 1E meant he had an 18 Int. Note that he 'favors' the broadsword, but isn't described as being a swordmaster. He uses any and all weapons he can lay his hands on.
He's got the feat that gives him Dodge bonuses against Humans FE...with +6 at level 10, that's +3 AC, significant in his world.
'Barbarian' in classic contest, meant basically 'not of Rome' or 'not versed in Latin'. It didn't mean not civilized...it was akin to 'gaijin' of Japan...you aren't part of our culture, so you're intrinsically savages.
It has since come into wider use as being low-tech tribes who are not normally literate, but live close to nature.
===Aelryinth
Conan definitely rages in the throughout the stories. In at least half of them he goes into something described as a "fury" or "red mist" that he is described coming out of later.
And I disagree with this "favored enemy" idea. Conan had uncanny dodge, and was equally proficient fighting any sort of enemy. As you've noted he didn't have any particular ability with any specific weapon. And which story, exactly, are you using for the idea that he was good at tracking? Ranks in perception and survival, definitely, but when does he follow someone that's not still physically in sight of him?
Again, everything is explained really well by the Pathfinder barbarian class. I really don't see any holes in it.
From "Queen of the Black Coast"...
In an instant he was the center of a hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs. But he moved in a blinding blur of steel. Spears bent on his armor or swished empty air, and his sword sang its death-song. The fighting-madness of his race was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning fury wavering before his blazing eyes, he cleft skulls, smashed breasts, severed limbs, ripped out entrails, and littered the deck like a shambles with a ghastly harvest of brains and blood.
From "The Phoenix on the Sword"...
Conan put his back against the wall and lifted his ax. He stood like an image of the unconquerable primordial – legs braced far apart, head thrust forward, one hand clutching the wall for support, the other gripping the ax on high, with the great corded muscles standing out in iron ridges, and his features frozen in a death snarl of fury – his eyes blazing terribly through the mist of blood which veiled them. The men faltered – wild, criminal and dissolute though they were, yet they came of a breed men called civilized, with a civilized background; here was the barbarian – the natural killer. They shrank back – the dying tiger could still deal death.
From "The Frost-Giant's Daughter"...
With an oath the Cimmerian heaved himself up on his feet, his blue eyes blazing, his dark scarred face contorted. Rage shook his soul, but desire for the taunting figure before him hammered at his temples and drove his wild blood fiercely through his veins. Passion fierce as physical agony flooded his whole being, so that earth and sky swam red to his dizzy gaze. In the madness that swept upon him, weariness and faintness were swept away.
From "The Devil in Iron"...
Then Khosatral turned again, flailing the air with desperate blows, but Conan, fired to berserk fury , was not to be denied. As a panther strikes down a bull moose at bay, so he plunged under the bludgeoning arms and drove the crescent blade to the hilt under the spot where a human’s heart would be.
There are also several momentary feats of super-strength that are best explained by the use of the appropriate rage power.
No, I never did say that nor imply it. However, I did imply that change for change's sake does not improve things, as in the example paradies of changing the class names for little reason or benefit.(vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).So, your point is that we should hold on to golden cows, because once a thing is made, it can never be improved.
You did imply that. I quoted the part where you implied that. I gave an argument for why Berserker could be better than Barbarian as a class name. Your sarcasm and bad list are not exactly good arguments in favor of your stance.
Alchemist = Apothecary
Barbarian = Savage
Bard = Historian
etc...
sure... bards can be mistrals, skalds, entertainers, battle singers, lute holding dudes or what ever but the point remains BARBARIAN is a name of a group or tribe of people who may have nothing in the slightest to do with the nature of the class.
I find it interesting that not a single person has taken the time to address Irontruths point.
what happens when you make a tribe of barbarians? is every man woman and child in the collection of people supposed to be a muscle bound brute that rages out when they are angry? are they all taking class levels in barbarian? if a person decides to become a fighter are they ejected from the tribe to join the fighter tribe next door? is the shaman of a barbarian tribe a cross class that rages out and casts spells?
make all the jokes you want but if your primary argument against the idea is 'thats how its always been done' then... well i guess thats just your outlook on the world.
I find it interesting that not a single person has taken the time to address Irontruths point.
Dude, what!? I'm sorry I'm not a person, but I did address that point. I even gave some more examples.
what happens when you make a tribe of barbarians? is every man woman and child in the collection of people supposed to be a muscle bound brute that rages out when they are angry? are they all taking class levels in barbarian? if a person decides to become a fighter are they ejected from the tribe to join the fighter tribe next door? is the shaman of a barbarian tribe a cross class that rages out and casts spells?
I mean this is really just a piss poor argument. Do you use Barbarian to describe every tribal culture? If so I'm sorry, but not everyone shares your sentiments.
You can go on about this barbarian tribe and how Barbarian class isn't right for it, so tell me, what the hell does a non-barbarian tribe have? What is the difference between the two? And if it's raging warriors than you pretty much make my point.
The funny part about this is, it's pointless.
Most of us can agree that a decent company will NOT spend a large amount of money on the manpower and resources needed to change every word "Barbarian" in every released book because someone doesn't feel like using rule 0 to deal with super simple aesthetic personal issues.
There's also the tiny fact that berserker is one letter longer. With enough of those extra letters, the format on the already released books might get skeeved, adding extra expenses.
on-topic:
Personally I find barbarian fittig. I am gifted with the ability to not instantly compare a class to a known character, and make my own unique(arguably) characters without having a stroke because my class reminds me of xyz character.
There's also the fact that there's more people who want to keep the name Barbarian than there is people who want Berzerker. I got no solid fact to back it up, just personal experience with my friends and a gut feeling.
Most of us can agree that a decent company will NOT spend a large amount of money on the manpower and resources needed to change every word "Barbarian"
this has already been addressed.
I am gifted with the ability to not instantly compare a class to a known character
kind of irrelivant. the point is not conan. the point is the word barbarian.
There's also the fact that there's more people who want to keep the name Barbarian than there is people who want Berzerker.
I dont think any one here really thinks it some kind of critical issue.
Myself and others like me simply think its a valid point.
not my fault that the simple act of opening the discussion causes people to rage at the idea of looking at the class differently.
Most of us can agree that a decent company will NOT spend a large amount of money on the manpower and resources needed to change every word "Barbarian"this has already been addressed.
I am gifted with the ability to not instantly compare a class to a known characterkind of irrelivant. the point is not conan. the point is the word barbarian.
There's also the fact that there's more people who want to keep the name Barbarian than there is people who want Berzerker.I dont think any one here really thinks it some kind of critical issue.
Myself and others like me simply think its a valid point.
not my fault that the simple act of opening the discussion causes people to rage at the idea of looking at the class differently.
I don't think it's the act of opening the discussion that causes people to berzerk at the idea. I think it's the act of trying to enforce a change/opinion to a concept that has held for years because one can't be content with just the simpler, cheaper(to paizo) solution of changing the fluff in the home game.
The fact that the op asked for a name/fluff change made it become not just sharing/voicing opinion, but suggesting a change many don't deem necessary or timeworthy.
Conan was the original implementation for a 18/00 str in AD@D. He never runs across a human being who is stronger then he is.
Nice quotes! However, I don't see those justifying ten levels of barbarian...more likely 1 or 2. Conan is a thinker, not a brute, and rage is the last thing that comes to him. He functions for most of his career as a soldier and mercenary, takes to civilized training, etc. Doesn't speak of barbarian levels...it speaks of someone walking in between. His rage is definitely not something that builds with time, and its almost topical...not the supernaturally powerful savagery that grabs hold of PF barbs!
As for tracking, just about all his adventures in the Pictish Wilderness extoll his woodcraft. He tracks and follows several enemies and friends during the books. Among the tribes of the north, it's the Aesir in particular and the Vanir who are considered berserkers, while Cimmerians are just considered howling savages. Heh.
I will amend my post to Ranger/10, barb/1, ftr/1. The fighter levels come late, when he becomes a general for the first time. Barb is probably the level he had at Volturnun in his youth. The rest of the time, he's a hunter and slayer of men, not a berserker.
===Aelryinth
Unless you're referring to the comic book character, there is no "z" in "berserker."
Ramza... your argument an imaginary issue.
you seeme to be focused on some idea that people who believe that barbarian is a poor term are some how intent on convincing Paizo to recall all of their product in order to change the names.
that argument is not true. we believe that its a valid point to feel that the word barbarian is a poor term and future editions of the game could or should use berserker or some other better name for the class. How paizo addresses this or even IF they bother to address it is up to paizo and ultimately not that big a deal.
As for tracking, just about all his adventures in the Pictish Wilderness extoll his woodcraft. He tracks and follows several enemies and friends during the books.
Which stories are these?
Is it possible that you're talking about a post-Howard Conan rather than the Conan depicted in Howard's actual stories?
The funny part about this is, it's pointless.
Most of us can agree that a decent company will NOT spend a large amount of money on the manpower and resources needed to change every word "Barbarian" in every released book because someone doesn't feel like using rule 0 to deal with super simple aesthetic personal issues.There's also the tiny fact that berserker is one letter longer. With enough of those extra letters, the format on the already released books might get skeeved, adding extra expenses.
I have already agreed on this fact. So there is no reason to bring it up. I am not debating about whether Paizo should go through and change the core and all later books.
Large groups of people can be wrong. History is so full of examples that I don't think I should even need to list them.
I mean this is really just a piss poor argument. Do you use Barbarian to describe every tribal culture? If so I'm sorry, but not everyone shares your sentiments.
You can go on about this barbarian tribe and how Barbarian class isn't right for it, so tell me, what the hell does a non-barbarian tribe have? What is the difference between the two? And if it's raging warriors than you pretty much make my point.
I'm not sure what you mean by non-barbarian tribe. I could be wrong, but I think people get a picture in their head when they hear the term "barbarian tribe". I too would probably include a member of the Barbarian class in that tribe, but to me it wouldn't be the central focus, which is my point.
The first thing that pops into my head when you say "non-barbarian tribe" is a gypsy clan. But that carries it's own connotations, depending on where you're from that are very separate and distinct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but the point remains BARBARIAN is a name of a group or tribe of people who may have nothing in the slightest to do with the nature of the class.
This is where your opinion obviously deviates. You would suggest changing the class name because of this reason quoted, yet, to me at least (and many others it seems based on posts so far), it seems easier just changing the generalized "adjective" you are using to describe a tribe of primitive, savage, or culturaly different peoples.
Personally, I would tend to use something more descriptive anyway, instead of merely calling a group or tribe "barbarians", I would tend to call them something distinctive or more proper in name such as "The Black Fang", "The Red Riders", or the "River People" to give the group a more interesting flavor or colorful description fitting their nature, unless it is a comment being made as some form of insult that is derogatory to said group (in which other adjectives could also be chosen other than simple "barbarian" to avoid such confusion or assumption).
I still don't understand the reasoning behind arguing the point that the class name should be changed simply because it has class features that doesn't fit a generalized term in the english language.
In that case...why don't we also advocate changing the class name of "Paladin". After all, the definition of a paladin is: any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne; any knightly or heroic champion; any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause. Surely there are several other classes that fit that bill. It could be argued that any class of PC adventurer could be a heroic champion or a defender of a noble cause. Not to mention, where does the class features of lay on hands, divine health, spellcasting, or channeling positive energy fit into this english language "definition" of a paladin?
Therefore, by your same logic, it too should be changed. It must be better to change it since leaving it is "wrong" in feel. We should just scrap the name regardless of what most people would argue a RPG Paladin is all about. Why not change all the class names while we are at it? (Hence my original parady post with class name changes.) Surely a similar arguement could be made for any of them. Where does it end?
At what point does change for change's sake take a fantasy game that is based on mythology and popular culture and turn it into a fantasy game in name only (losing the "feel" of what most would argue is the whole point of the genre in general)?
My $0.02.
I'm not sure what you mean by non-barbarian tribe. I could be wrong, but I think people get a picture in their head when they hear the term "barbarian tribe". I too would probably include a member of the Barbarian class in that tribe, but to me it wouldn't be the central focus, which is my point.The first thing that pops into my head when you say "non-barbarian tribe" is a gypsy clan. But that carries it's own connotations, depending on where you're from that are very separate and distinct.
"Tribe" has the connotation of being primitive, at least it does from where I come from. It's generally used in the context of primitive cultures, thus the word "tribal". There are other terms used to describe what is considered to be more civilized cultures such as clan, cult, settlement, village, etc. (And if you aren't using Barbarian to describe primitive cultures or an uncouth person, what are using it to define?)
I'd also like to ask how many people can be described as going into a rage during battle, that aren't considered barbaric at some level. (And please don't give a number, give examples)
Finally I'd like to point out that Berserker was a class in 3.5 supplements that had a more powerful version of rage but couldn't distinguish friend from foe. Combine that with the fact that Berserk is used in common day tongue to define uncontrollable behavior, and suddenly the class has been flavored to be for those who want to play a deranged, uncontrollably violent tool of destruction.
I'm not saying that Barbarian describes the class perfectly, but Berserker is a much more narrowly defined name that carries a lot of negative connotations that cater to the more anti-social crowd.
I don't make all of my vagabonds Rogues. I don't make all of the disciple of deities Monks. I don't make all my fortune tellers Oracles. And I don't it the other way around either, because a class name is just a label for the bundle of abilities.
As for tracking, just about all his adventures in the Pictish Wilderness extoll his woodcraft. He tracks and follows several enemies and friends during the books.Which stories are these?
Is it possible that you're talking about a post-Howard Conan rather than the Conan depicted in Howard's actual stories?
No.
the one where he runs all the way across the Pict forest to find the exiles in their fort...he's playing cat and mouse with the Pict trackers all the way there. He's setting up ambushes in the forest. He tracks Valeria through desert and plains in the story where he meets her.
Granted, he's not a super tracker, but not all rangers are. He's a killer of men. But he can DO it.
==Aelryinth
Okay, "Beyond the Black River" and "Red Nails".
Again, I'm not convinced he has anything "iconic ranger" as opposed to just a barbarian with skill ranks.
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean by non-barbarian tribe. (Stuff cut for space)
I'm not sure what he meant by "non-barbarian tribe", although what I get from it is not what you get from it (my definition happens to include your reaction though).
To me, a "non-barbarian tribe" is, well, ALL tribal and/or clan societies, seen through their own eyes rather than the racist and prejudicial eyes of Republican & Imperial Rome (and earlier and later, so-called "civilized", societies who took up the same sorts of views as Imperial Rome when looking at any allegedly "uncivilized" group or society).
That being said, however... I think I'm back around to deciding that I personally have no problems (not even personal annoyance) with using the name 'Barbarian' for the class-- as it does accurately represent the Roman soldier's nightmarish vision of that uncivilized, powerful, vicious, brutal warrior from a primitive tribe that killed so many of his friends in the Teutoburg Forest... or his nightmares about "those blue-painted freaks" dwelling north of Hadrian's Wall...
(I'll just continue to understand that these potent warriors whom "civilized" societies label barbarians do not think of themselves using such a term, except in mockery of the civilized men who call them that).
I'm personally of the mind that Berzerker is more accurate a term for the class, whose primary class ability is going into what can be identified as a berzerker rage.
A barbarian is simply someone who is barbaric, suggesting neolithic tribal people or other low-tech, highly spiritual cultures.
So I'm on board with the OP.
However, I don't care that much... probably like the OP, who was likely just pinging the community for verification.
Okay, "Beyond the Black River" and "Red Nails".
Again, I'm not convinced he has anything "iconic ranger" as opposed to just a barbarian with skill ranks.
He's losing his barb levels as soon as he starts messing in civilized realms. He's always there at the fringe, and the stealth and sensory abilities he has are better portrayed by the ranger then the barbarian. Stealth, too...he's considered the best scout on Thunder River...he can wear oiled mail and move more stealthily then men in leather armor.
His fighting prowess is considered animalistic and predatory, which I call a FE effect...he knows his prey. If things go really wild, he can go into battle-rage, but it's not a normal part of his style...he's actually a very intelligent man and a cunning fighter, not a brutal one. Plus, he knows a little druid lore, if not spells!
==Aelryinth
In that case...why don't we also advocate changing the class name of "Paladin". After all, the definition of a paladin is: any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne; any knightly or heroic champion; any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause. Surely there are several other classes that fit that bill. It could be argued that any class of PC adventurer could be a heroic champion or a defender of a noble cause. Not to mention, where does the class features of lay on hands, divine health, spellcasting, or channeling positive energy fit into this english language "definition" of a paladin?
Therefore, by your same logic, it too should be changed. It must be better to change...
A friendly reminder on logic.
The appropriateness of the name for the Paladin class has no bearing on the appropriateness of the Barbarian class, unless you can directly link the two points. As an analogy, it only points out that the Paladin class might also need to have it's name examined, since the Barbarian is already being discussed, thus being on the side opposite of the point you are trying to make.
Just because I have the wrong size tires on my car has no impact on whether I should replace the windshield.