Should "barbarian" have been a ranger kit?
SharGuidesMyHand
Member Posts: 2,583
I figure most people probably won't agree with me on this, but I'll at least try to make my case anyway.
Since EE was released, I've been wanting to play BG1 as a barbarian (and even moreso now that I've found this portrait here:
), but I've always had trouble trying to RP as a barbarian. The most troublesome aspect is probably the fact that your character wasn't actually born among barbarian tribes, but rather, was raised in a secluded library fortress and then "adopted" the lifestyle of a barbarian after a chance encounter with one (which really should make the character a berserker rather than a barbarian, based on their respective kit descriptions). IMO, that kind of background suggests that being a barbarian isn't merely having the misfortune to be born in remote northern lands, but that there's actually some sort of greater purpose to being one.
I've never quite understood how an "elective" barbarian should behave toward others - should I be naive and foolish, gruff and nasty, etc.? But I began to think that being a barbarian would make more sense (at least from an RP perspective) if it was a ranger kit instead. There does appear to be some overlap between rangers and barbarians (they both have a certain connection with nature, for example), and many people here (including myself) will argue that Minsc would more appropriately have been a barbarian than a ranger (again, from an RP perspective). IMO, being a ranger kit would give a barbarian a greater sense of purpose (i.e: protecting nature, guiding and defending lost travelers, etc.). The fact that a barbarian has armor restrictions would also fit in well with the other ranger kits. From a mechanical perspective, it would also mean that a barbarian would begin as specialized in dual wielding, have a racial enemy, and eventually gain druid spells. On the flipside, it would also mean that a barbarian would be restricted to good alignments, and human and elven races - which would probably be enough to turn most people off of this idea.
Still, is there anyone here who shares my view on this, at least from a purely RP perspective?
Since EE was released, I've been wanting to play BG1 as a barbarian (and even moreso now that I've found this portrait here:
), but I've always had trouble trying to RP as a barbarian. The most troublesome aspect is probably the fact that your character wasn't actually born among barbarian tribes, but rather, was raised in a secluded library fortress and then "adopted" the lifestyle of a barbarian after a chance encounter with one (which really should make the character a berserker rather than a barbarian, based on their respective kit descriptions). IMO, that kind of background suggests that being a barbarian isn't merely having the misfortune to be born in remote northern lands, but that there's actually some sort of greater purpose to being one. I've never quite understood how an "elective" barbarian should behave toward others - should I be naive and foolish, gruff and nasty, etc.? But I began to think that being a barbarian would make more sense (at least from an RP perspective) if it was a ranger kit instead. There does appear to be some overlap between rangers and barbarians (they both have a certain connection with nature, for example), and many people here (including myself) will argue that Minsc would more appropriately have been a barbarian than a ranger (again, from an RP perspective). IMO, being a ranger kit would give a barbarian a greater sense of purpose (i.e: protecting nature, guiding and defending lost travelers, etc.). The fact that a barbarian has armor restrictions would also fit in well with the other ranger kits. From a mechanical perspective, it would also mean that a barbarian would begin as specialized in dual wielding, have a racial enemy, and eventually gain druid spells. On the flipside, it would also mean that a barbarian would be restricted to good alignments, and human and elven races - which would probably be enough to turn most people off of this idea.
Still, is there anyone here who shares my view on this, at least from a purely RP perspective?
1
Comments
There was also a "Wilderness Warrior" kit for Ranger that I believe was very similar to Barbarian.
In every case, the PNP kits are much less of a big deal than they are BG. They are mostly about role playing, and add back ground flavor to a character, but very few actual powers or abilities.
But I do agree Barbarian is difficult to justify in BG, from a role playing perspective. I can't quite see anyone growing in Candlekeep being one!
Many players had "problems" justifying the Barbarian kit in Candlekeep.
Well, what is so strange about that? You can be barbaric anywhere! My barbarian was gruff, hairy and insolent. He used to drink wine from a mug and barely managed to use a spoon while eating.
A steak.
Albeit using a fork was just too much, he introduced his axe to the table during official dinners with Ulraunt.
He used to wear slippers into the Theatre and laugh during tragedies. When he came to age, Gorion shaved his mullet, which made my character wear helmets with huge spikes on sides (to scare the barbers). Okay, the only razing he ever saw was setting a book of poetry ablaze and the only pillaging was raiding the pantry with Imoen, but the innate rage at all things too posh for his understanding was there all the time.
And now, that the hated walls of boring Candlekeep are behind him, the world is ripe for taking...
OT: The armor and weapons proficiency limitations as well as the affinity with the wilderness make the Ranger class a fitting one for Barbarians IMO, but like @Southpaw I wouldn't really appreciate the alignment restriction.
To me, a ranger serves some higher purpose (not necessarily good, mind... I have a slight problem with the alignment restriction for rangers). They want to protect, or hunt, or avenge...
A barbarian really only wants battle and glory and fame.
But these are my personal feelings... The great thing about RP'ing is that you can justify almost anything if you try hard enough!
Barbarian is a 100% Fighter kit and it should stay that way. Just the thought of the Barbarian being a Ranger kit gives me the creeps. I mean come on! No more Half-Orc, Dwarf, Gnome or Halfling Barbarians? That preposterous heresy right there!
After all, Barbarian is not moral judgement one way or the other, it's a background and training pack.
If memory serves, the 2E Cleric Supplement even included a Barbarian cleric kit. There was also a "Witch Doctor" cleric and a "Savage" fighter which could all be seen as variations on a theme. It was then up to each DM to determine how all such things might fit for any setting.
But then, PNP is just so much more flexible on these sorts of things.
...Yeah, I don't see barbarian as a ranger, mainly because evil barbarians worshiping Malar are such a big part of the Forgotten Realms setting, and in AD&D, rangers and Malar don't get along.
(Ironically, in 3E, Malar would become one of the biggest ranger deities, but hey, Forgotten Realms. Doesn't have to be coherent.)
Yes, it's heresy, a kit getting its own kits? Absurd of course, but there's that tantalizing menu button there offering us untapped potential of more class options. I want to see a Frostwalker with cold-themed powers, a Skirmisher who takes barbarian mobility to the extreme, a Ragemaster who has more extended rages but reduced speed, a Thorncoat who specializes in retributive damage against those who hurt him, and a Trapkiller who can detect traps and disarms them by attacking them (this was a 3.5 edition optional class feature for barbarians).
Give us the many flavors of barbarians! For that matter, add a barbarian-themed kit to every class for background (and make Branwen one of them).
Neither method is incorrect; sometimes you get a fun kit starting from mechanics, sometimes you get a lousy prestige class starting from flavor (I'm looking at you, Harper Scout). As in all things, I say to strike a balance and pursue both methods. Those who know their Abeir-Toril lore will have a leg-up on me (I think I've read... one? Faerun novel), so I tend to start at the mechanical side: I know my game design.
If you're looking to further balance the class, perhaps you would consider either,
1. Cannot use stealth ability, and/or,
2. Must be human, or at least half-human race (representing the fact that an elven ranger would probably be too "refined" to be a barbarian).
The way that I imagine a barbarian charname (based on the information given in the game's bio), is that they were a reckless, uncontrollable "problem child" while growing up (which actually coincides well with the fact that they have Bhaal's blood flowing through their veins), and it was their barbarian mentor who taught them how to channel or redirect their wild impulses. This enabled the charname to control their inner rage and function normally in society. However, perhaps in order to maintain the connection to spirits of nature, the charname must maintain a simpler, "stripped down" lifestyle, somewhat similar to a ranger kit or druid (hence no use of plate mail armor).