Talk:Barbarian (Dungeons & Dragons)

Multiclassing

• Why is there a section on multiclassing? seems largely to just be someone's opinion on what they like to multiclass as. I don't see how it adds anything to the barbarian class article. Unless I recieve soem good reason not to, I will remove it shortly.62.253.200.30 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I removed it. AndyBQ (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Barbarian (character class) article?

Many of the common rpg roles have an article with the name "X (character class)", where X can be "wizard" or "rogue" and so forth, with another article "X (Dungeons & Dragons)" that is specialized. Barbarian currently lacks the general article. Do you think there should be one? Barbarian is a class in the game Nethack. I'm sure there are other RPGs that also have it. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Diablos II and III also have a Barbarian, but that class doesn't have enough info to survive as a standalone, which is what really needs to be considered and which should be brought up at WP:VG and WP:RPG. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a page for each game that has a barbarian class that I am suggesting but a single more general article. The games you mention could also be mentioned there. Still need more input. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the Barbarian Class

24.148.0.83, although I'm fairly certain that the version that came out in 1977 is the first one that ever came out, I have no reliable source for it. Also, the updated AD&D version that came out in "The Best of White Dwarf Articles #1" is the first one that I'm personally aware of. I bought the basic D&D (blue cover, box version) in 1979, but before 1980, I was told to ditch it in favor of AD&D (since that was what everyone was playing in my school). In 1980, one of my friends bought the "best of" mentioned above and rolled up a barbarian for AD&D.

That's why I'm fairly sure that the one that came out in 1980 was for AD&D. At the very least, that's the system we played it under. Nevertheless, I'm not a reliable source (but I should be!! ) so if someone wants a citation from a reliable source, unfortunately I can't give them one. In any case, it is obvious from the sources I listed that Gary Gygax didn't invent the class; at best, he just made an official version for AD&D.

Be that as it may, in order to keep in line with wiki policies, it might be better to separate the information I recently supplied and put it under a different heading preceding the AD&D section—perhaps we could call it "Pre-AD&D", or something to that effect. What do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For an idea of what you could do with the publication history, check out some of the other character class articles, such as Fighter (Dungeons & Dragons). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Also, after I had a night's sleep on it, the Barbarian character class (BCC) that was reprinted in 1980 in the WD mag was likely used by my circle of gamer friends with AD&D rules even though it was initially meant for basic D&D. This was possible since the rule sets were pretty similar and any conversion that had to be made was simple. Anyway, I'll go ahead and follow your suggestion above later this evening. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. Can someone add in a date (if necessary) to the "Dungeons & Dragons" heading I created? I'm not sure what date range I should put in there. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, myself! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it was "White Dwarf" magazine and not "Dragon" magazine. White Dwarf is published by Games Workshop and focuses on Citatel miniature gaming. Dragon was the old TSR magazine, focused on D&D. The Barbarian was in a Dragon magazine I had at one point in time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.20.245 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Both versions seem to be covered in the Publication history section right now. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool - must have missed that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.20.245 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about the Party Role Section.

The Part Role section seems to me to be WP:OR. However, having played D&D for a long time, I think it is accurate. And since it doesn't say anything controversial or would be objected to by anyone who knows the game, my question is: should we remove the "citation needed" tag? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably does need a citation, because otherwise it just reads as a personal essay of the sort, "yeah, I've played the game and this is how it seems to be to me" - which would be OK if we had a source to cite that to. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I suspected as much. Do you know how long the tag has been up? If it's been up for a long time, then I think the section should be deleted. An alternative would be to cut/paste from PHB2 the following:

Barbarians are savage warriors who deal out powerful blows from their mighty weapons. They charge from foe to foe and seldom feel the pain of an enemy’s strike. For barbarians’ foes, the moments of greatest terror come when barbarians call upon primal forces to lend power to their raging spirits. These rages, although temporary, give a barbarian incredible powers, a combination of skill, willpower, and a legacy of ancient tribal rituals. As a barbarian, you have a link to powerful nature spirits and other primal forces bound to the warriors of your tribe by the songs and totems of your legacy. These spirits lend energy to your rages, transforming you into a devastating force on the battlefield. As you become more experienced, these rages transcend mortal limitations, manifesting directly as waves of elemental power or gifting you with supernatural recuperative powers. When the heat of battle is upon you, will you respond with a sudden charge that fells with one mighty swing of your weapon, or with a prolonged rage that leaves destroyed foes in your wake?

...Or something to that effect. Of course, if this is done with the Barbarian, then the other classes should also have a "party role" blurb. However, it would be much easier to delete the "party role" section here and be done with it. What do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That section is supposed to be about their party role in 3rd edition, the PHB you're referring to is a 4th edition book. Their party role in 4th editin is briefly covered in the second paragraph of the 4th edition section. Dragon Magazine probably has a few Class Acts articles focused on barbarians in 3.x which could be used as sources. Other possible sources include the 3rd and 3.5 edition PHBs, the 2nd edition PHB2, the 3rd edition Sword and Fist and the 3.5 edition Complete Warrior. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any of those reference books. If you have them, or know of a particular Dragon issue that contains the info we're looking for, let me know. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to delete the section, but perhaps it would be better to rewrite it from the available sources - with a separate focus on how the barbarian worked in each edition in which it appeared. That would be some good stuff. Although it would not kill the article if that section were removed. Unfortunately, nearly all D&D articles were written during the 3E era, and so many people thought that D&D articles should be written from a 3E perspective (and there are probably people out there thinking they should be rewritten from a 4E perspective); for an example of an article that gets it right, check out the bulette or cloaker (although note that both were heavily rewritten from their original versions). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbarian (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110181530/http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4pr%2F20090202 to http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4pr%2F20090202

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal of the template messages.

It appears that the issues have been fixed since the template messages were inserted.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, go for it. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)