Why aren't barbarians more common in RPGs...

Why aren't barbarians more common in RPGs? Does everyone really wants to play a skinny civilised "warrior" or a fat wizard?

Yes.

Barbarians tended to get killed quickly when they were up against an organized army.

Roman Legions for example, excelled at taking 100 men and winning against an unorganized force much larger.

Simple fact is, an undisciplined warrior is a liability on the battlefield. I'd much rather have a skilled and trained operative, then one who sees red and charges all the time.

Dude are you kidding? I keep seeing the same Barbarian Damage Sponges come up in my games. Those hardy bastards are fucking impossible to put down once they get rolling.

RPGs rarely feature mass combat so that's not really important. You really want someone who excels at personal combat when you're in a dungeon. Especially if you live in a world where one guy with enough skill can solo armies.

A better question is why OP keeps making threads about barbarians.

They were not undisciplined. This a myth.
Plus, I wouldn't trust in roman sources about their own military prowess.

Roman sources are the only ones left, because they killed all the barbarians.

(And those they did not kill were integrated into the roman legions and culture)

If I want someone who excels in combat, I'll take a fighter. Way more useful then an undisciplined rage machine.

Accumulating items is fun.
Barbarians are only cool if they're bare chested so they can't accumulate as many items.

>malnourished savage calling well-fed, well-trained soldiers skinny

>Roman sources are the only ones left, because they killed all the barbarians.

What was all this then? Undead hordes?

All put down by the Romans.

It's hard to relate to someone, let alone a great warrior, who lives on the fringe of the civilization we're used to. When a majority of people who play tabletop games see people fighting, they look to soldiers. People whose medieval/pseudo-medieval equivalent would be fighters

The closest modern day equivalent to a barbarian or 'warrior' culture belongs to, largely, terrorist groups and maybe some cartels. Harder (but not impossible) to glamorize given modern day sensibilities towards violence and what's acceptable in war. Inbetween that and the fact that not too many people are inclined towards playing Evil (with a capital E) player characters, and you have a dearth of barbarians. Which is a shame really.

You can just have a slave user.
According to the romans, they were indeed taller and stronger than the typical roman

>Roman education

>why is [obviously untrue statement] true?

user, I...

why is barbarian posting a thing this week

Barbarism is usually left to the inhuman hordes who are cut down by the players in droves.

The more correct perception of "barbarians" as plenty civilized people that were capable of advanced metalworking, masonry and sophisticated societies is growing more common.

Why do you keep making these threads?

Most fantasy games don't really follow the original meaning though. It would be pretty weird to depict persians as barbarians..
This is my first barbarian thread.

Actual "barbarian" warriors are kinda interesting, making battle more of a ritualistic thing than someone from a more typical martial culture would. The generic RPG kind are just kinda boring berserkers.

Players I know shy away from them because they aren't much fun. They're only good at combat, and even then they have to manage their rage rounds. Their isn't enough utility to justify choosing them over a monk or fighter for martial characters.

Uncivilized assholes, the lot of them.

Barbarian could really be a subset of fighter or monk honestly, no reason they need a seperate class.

Because you're not playing 4e.

Barbarians are for power fantasy LARPing manlets and literal homosexuals.

Technically they could even be druids if you think about it.

If anything it's a cultural sub-class for fighters, and should hardly be an angry man in a loincloth.

Everyone; he’s a fucking troll.
He’s posted this exact thread, even using Conan as an image, three times in five days and you’re all just so fucking retarded that you don’t realize it.

Because you’re a faggot troll, faggot.

It’s the same guy you fucking moron.

Wrong

What's with all the threads about barbarians lately? We get it, one user really loves Conan, please don't make this a daily thing.

I'm playing a really mild mannered cleric right now, but maybe I should go for a barbarian for my next character. Might be fun to not abide by rules, laws and gods.

I think his point is less about the Barbarian's combat effectiveness on the table and more about the "class fantasy".

Veeky Forums is full of stormweenies who wish they could be Honorable Knight-arus and Deus Vult all the world's problems away. So barbarians, rangers, rogues, and other non-Fighter classes are left by the wayside because of manlets who wanna pretend they're badass fantasy stormtroopers.

I got a lot of mileage out of a Cleric with one dipped level of Barbarian in a 3.x campaign. The extra movement and surprise rage with martial weapons came in handy and kept the COD effect in check.

>projecting

What's going on in this gif, exactly?

Just play Barbarians of Lemuria. Everyone's a barbarian, even the guy playing a magician.

>why OP keeps making threads about barbarians

Barbarians are stereotypically muscular, manly men in skimpy clothing.

Dare I say we can make assumptions about the nature of OP's desires?

user, I...

I'm not gay, but there's a certain beauty In the perfection of the human male body.

Honestly, I think it's our ape brains that make us attracted by female bodies. If you think about it in a purely rational way, a man has a much more effective body than a woman.

>I think his point is less about the Barbarian's combat effectiveness on the table and more about the "class fantasy".
It is.
Barbarian as a class is not the wailing idiot from a tribe of backwards savages. Is the pinnacle of physical superiority (and not martial superiority, mind the words). It's the class with highest hp, with high damage and good saves. It's not filling the tribesman archetype that can be covered with low int, low wis warriors in great numbers, nor the hypercompetent fighter with all kinds of armaments and extreme tactical and martial flexibility the fighter class is supposed to be.
It's filling the niche of that one guy with incredible, unbelievable, raw fighting talent or just so fiercely determined that it doesn't dodge attacks most of the time, it just tanks them with his impervious body. it's the rare, huge unstoppable guy, not just any warrior in the tribe.
it doesn't even relate to being a stranger from a foreign land like the barbarian word originally meant.

>I'm not gay, but there's a certain beauty In the perfection of the human male body.

Hah, that's one of the best "I'm not gay but I'd suck off a hot guy" responses I've seen.

That's a good point.

Many mythical soldiers would probably be barbarians instead of fighters. Their stronger bodies, and the gods intervention, would make skill at dodging unnecessary. They also frequently went into unstoppable rages and killed people with their bare hands or rocks instead of weapons.