> "Barbarian" just means you aren't from a nation-state
If you want to get hair-splitty about it, that's not what "Barbarian" means.
It means you were a non-Greek during Ancient and Classical Greece. That's it. "bárbaros" just mean "other", "foreigner" "not us"
It didn't matter to them if you were from another nation state. If you weren't Greek, you were a Barbarian. Persians were also Barbarians. Egyptians were Barbarians. Phoenicians were Barbarians, etc.
Thought it was basically Greeks going "Var Var Var" like we would go "blah blah blah" for someone speaking a language they didn't understand.
Basically a dickish way of calling them foreigners
On the one hand I agree that Berserker is better at conveying the concept of an unarmed warrior that falls in to a battlerage, and that is pretty much how I explain the class to new players
On the other hand the class isn't really supposed to just be about mindless killing, even though that's the stereotype. The class is also about a warrior that is more in tune with the natural elements on a non-magical level and more based in tradition than the militaristic fighter.
While they all rage, they're not all mindless. The totem barbarian channels spiritual energy, the storm herald becomes even more in tune with the storm, the zealot channels divine power, the wild magic barbarian its namesake magic. Only the berserker subclass truly goes "berserk" and loses themselves in their rage, hence the exhausting afterwards.
There is also a discussion to be had about naming the most tribal inspired class "barbarian", though that's a different topic
"Barbarian" opens up a wide variety of backstories and personalities. "Beserker" is pretty limiting. That's why Path of the Berserker is the subclass and not the main class.
This tickles me -especially- because they were called something like that in Basic and AD\&D; the "Magic-User" and "Fighting Man," respectively.
I don't know that the idea was to un-marry them from any one cultural context (of course, I am likely misremembering this, and would welcome the correction), but it was the impression I came away with from reading the books.
I'd switch "rage" to "battle trance" before renaming the class "berserker," personally. That alone would likely do wonders for how creatively people think.about barbarians.
"Barbarian" doesn't mean a way of fighting at all, so it is your hot take that makes zero sense at all.
Barbarian is anyone culturally from beyond the frontiers of more civilized states. It encompasses everything from medieval Norse, turkic steppes horsemen, African tribesmen, pacific Islanders, to Slavic peoples, and more. It is literally the snotty "civilized" persons' word for "outlander".
If you want to be really technical, you’re not even right about what a Barbarian is. The word technically refers to anyone who is a non-Greek during Ancient Greece, so it would refer to everyone who isn’t Greek regardless of how “civilized” they are.
DnD is taking the term Barbarian from a fantasy and combat perspective. Fighting “like a Barbarian” means fighting in a wild, “uncivilized” manner. Hence the class name.
Plus, your examples don’t really make sense. The Norse were just as civilized as any other civilization in Europe, if not more so. Same with the Slavic peoples.
(P.S. if you’re calling my take a “hot take”, you obviously don’t know what a hot take is.)
> "Barbarian" just means you aren't from a nation-state If you want to get hair-splitty about it, that's not what "Barbarian" means. It means you were a non-Greek during Ancient and Classical Greece. That's it. "bárbaros" just mean "other", "foreigner" "not us" It didn't matter to them if you were from another nation state. If you weren't Greek, you were a Barbarian. Persians were also Barbarians. Egyptians were Barbarians. Phoenicians were Barbarians, etc.
If you want to get really, really technical, it means 'person with a beard', so all Dwarves are barbarians.
Thought it was basically Greeks going "Var Var Var" like we would go "blah blah blah" for someone speaking a language they didn't understand. Basically a dickish way of calling them foreigners
Oh a Yapanese
On the one hand I agree that Berserker is better at conveying the concept of an unarmed warrior that falls in to a battlerage, and that is pretty much how I explain the class to new players On the other hand the class isn't really supposed to just be about mindless killing, even though that's the stereotype. The class is also about a warrior that is more in tune with the natural elements on a non-magical level and more based in tradition than the militaristic fighter. While they all rage, they're not all mindless. The totem barbarian channels spiritual energy, the storm herald becomes even more in tune with the storm, the zealot channels divine power, the wild magic barbarian its namesake magic. Only the berserker subclass truly goes "berserk" and loses themselves in their rage, hence the exhausting afterwards. There is also a discussion to be had about naming the most tribal inspired class "barbarian", though that's a different topic
"Barbarian" opens up a wide variety of backstories and personalities. "Beserker" is pretty limiting. That's why Path of the Berserker is the subclass and not the main class.
By this logic, the Wizard class should be named 'magic person' and Fighter should be called 'weapon person'.
This tickles me -especially- because they were called something like that in Basic and AD\&D; the "Magic-User" and "Fighting Man," respectively. I don't know that the idea was to un-marry them from any one cultural context (of course, I am likely misremembering this, and would welcome the correction), but it was the impression I came away with from reading the books.
No, you're correct. And over the past 30+ years, we've moved away from that. It's called progress.
Yeah it's not a good name.
I'd switch "rage" to "battle trance" before renaming the class "berserker," personally. That alone would likely do wonders for how creatively people think.about barbarians.
The barbarian shouldn't be a class at all. Its a background, not a class.
This take makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Barbarian is not a background, it’s a way of fighting.
"Barbarian" doesn't mean a way of fighting at all, so it is your hot take that makes zero sense at all. Barbarian is anyone culturally from beyond the frontiers of more civilized states. It encompasses everything from medieval Norse, turkic steppes horsemen, African tribesmen, pacific Islanders, to Slavic peoples, and more. It is literally the snotty "civilized" persons' word for "outlander".
If you want to be really technical, you’re not even right about what a Barbarian is. The word technically refers to anyone who is a non-Greek during Ancient Greece, so it would refer to everyone who isn’t Greek regardless of how “civilized” they are. DnD is taking the term Barbarian from a fantasy and combat perspective. Fighting “like a Barbarian” means fighting in a wild, “uncivilized” manner. Hence the class name. Plus, your examples don’t really make sense. The Norse were just as civilized as any other civilization in Europe, if not more so. Same with the Slavic peoples. (P.S. if you’re calling my take a “hot take”, you obviously don’t know what a hot take is.)