Thr Barbarian is a Magic Class

[R.Shackleford]

It isn't rage that makes the Barbarian a magic class, but most sub-classes that the barbarian can take are specifically magic based.

2 out of 6, 1/3 of the options, allow you to stay non-magical.

Out of those 2, one is a racial subclass and the other is a subclass that specifically hurts you and people stay the hel away from. Also, the battrager, with the dwarf rule lifted, makes you use a niche armor/weapon and pushes you taward grappling... You don't really get to try different play styles.

So we have, essentially, 4 magic subclasses.

Now, the Barbarian isn't a caster, but is very much magically focused. They still swing weapons primarily, sure, but I just thought this was a bit neat. They turned a very very martial character into magic class.

[ZenBear]

I always find it odd for any class to be entirely non-magical in a fantasy setting. In a world where magic actually exists, it seems foolish not to use it, like a soldier choosing not to use technology in modern combat. I’m partial to magic systems that imply or explicitly explain how even martial characters tap into magical forces to fuel their attacks. That’s sort of how I see the Barbarian, instinctively tapping into reservoirs of magic.

[Man_Over_Game]

While it does come off a bit odd in some aspects, officially, magical things are only magical if its explicitly said they are magical. This is relevant for abilities like Dispel Magic, which can remove a magical effect.

This is also relevant to other things, like the fact that a Brass Dragon's Breath attack can put elves to sleep, specifically because it's not considered a magical effect. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/128989/fey-ancestry-says-magic-cant-put-you-to-sleep-and-brass-dragon-has-the-abilit)

And while some things DO make sense to be considered magical, not everything is (like the Rally effect from the Battle Master).

A lot of the barbarian subclasses' abilities, while superhuman, are not magical in nature, although a DM can rule whatever he feels is necessary.

For reference, here is the official "magical checklist":

Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?



If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I've always thought of Barbarians as avatars of primal fury or the rage of nature, so having some kind of unconscious link to the raw magic of the natural world makes perfect sense to me. Honestly, 5e PCs are pretty much superheroes compared to normals, so I could easily handwave inherent magical manipulation of the world as an explanation of why Champions get more crits or Rogues do so much sneak attack damage or anything else.

[ErHo]

I cant mentally separate them from just being incredibly mad Druids.

I mean, it almost like a subclass for Druids if you squint

[Kharneth]

I always find it odd for any class to be entirely non-magical in a fantasy setting. In a world where magic actually exists, it seems foolish not to use it, like a soldier choosing not to use technology in modern combat. I’m partial to magic systems that imply or explicitly explain how even martial characters tap into magical forces to fuel their attacks. That’s sort of how I see the Barbarian, instinctively tapping into reservoirs of magic.

Not everyone has the capacity or qualities necessary to use it.

Sorcerers inherit their powers.
Warlocks make pacts with otherworldly beings (sounds hazardous and complicated).
Paladins have a strong conviction towards a cause, you can't just spontaneously create such passion.
Idk how Bards work, but I can't even play a mundane instrument so I think it's fair that not everyone can be a bard.
Clerics are bestowed power from deities... that either takes a lot of work or takes a lot of luck. Who has faith in such troubling times?
Idk how Druids work, but I can only guess it's similar to Cleric due to mechanical similarities.
Do Monks count? They've got like pseudo-magic. Is it magic to untap the body-mind's deeper potential? hahah
Rangers are weird. Idk why they have magic and Idk how they have magic.
Wizards are the most obvious example. It takes a lot of smarts, patience, and dedication. Basically, not everyone is scholar-worthy.

My sort of default character is a non-magical Fighter and I resent the idea that everyone needs to be magical in a fantasy world. There's nothing cooler than a fighter without magical powers standing up to magically empowered monsters and enemies.

Look at Lord of the Rings, why wasn't Aragorn magical?

If you're born a normal, magic-less person what are your options? You can study hard and try to be a Wizard, but is your family capable of supporting this pursuit? I imagine it's expensive to train and study at a Wizardry school. He could join the clergy, but that requires one to have strong faith in something, plus it's probably not very much fun, frankly, being a member of the clergy. You could make a pact to become a Warlock.

Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues, to a lesser extent, are also roles largely determined by birth. Few civilized folk with become a Barbarian over a Fighter and Rogues are generally from less wealthy origins whereas Fighters often come from militaries, militia, etc and some raised on fighting like nobles.

The medieval age was already filled with social roles that were pretty restrictive based on the status and location of your birth. A medieval fantasy doesn't end up being too far off. We can the freedom to make up whatever we can make sense of for our own character backstories, but the more general and common lore among the classes doesn't require that everyone picks up magic in order to compete or that everyone has magic as a readily available option during their life.

[GlenSmash!]

I find that the +3 damage on a grapple hardly pushes Battlerager to grappling any more than advantage on strength checks already does. Now if it was scaling damage it might.

The Battlerager's best ability is it's THP that it can generate every round as long as he is Raging and Recklessly Attacking. Since I'd be doing that as much as possible I might as well swing for the fences with -5/+10 from GWM. I can always elbow, kick or headbutt as a bonus action if I don't end up getting a crit or reduce an enemy to 0 hp.

Like any Barbarian I might grapple in a pinch, but it's hardly a default strategy for the old Battlerager.

[PhoenixPhyre]

First principle of a fantasy world--everything is magical. There are no mundane (non-magical) classes. Commoners are the closest anyone comes to "mundane". Everyone else has at least non-natural resilience.

The problem comes in the equivocation between two different meanings:

Magical effects (for things like dispel magic, etc) should really be thought of as "coherent" magical effects. They're things produced by shaping magical energy into a particular form that exists independently of the user. Spells, items, and things explicitly tagged as "magical" are here. Most things are not, however.

Things that can't exist on Earth includes all the other "a-natural" things. Yes, a rogue's evasion or a fighter's second wind (or action surge) falls under this. So does barbarian's rage or a dragon's breath. Or a werewolf's immunity to most weapons.

[Mikal]

This is why 3.x's granularity of effects was a good thing.
Magic effects =/= supernatural effects =/= spell-like effects =/= extraordinary effects.

[Naanomi]

In a world where magic actually exists, it seems foolish not to use it, like a soldier choosing not to use technology in modern combat.
We call those 'monks'

[Millstone85]

While it does come off a bit odd in some aspects, officially, magical things are only magical if its explicitly said they are magical. [...] For reference, here is the official "magical checklist":Do note that this Sage Advice takes the angle that not all magic counts as such for game purposes, something we are invited to magobabble as a distinction between "background magic" and "concentrated magical energy".


Do Monks count? They've got like pseudo-magic. Is it magic to untap the body-mind's deeper potential? hahahYes, explicitly so.
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse -- specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Again, I am not saying their fists should count as magical for game purposes. Except, of course, starting at 6th level.


Rangers are weird. Idk why they have magic and Idk how they have magic.That's because the ranger competes with the barbarian for the position of druidic fighter.

[Nifft]

That's because the ranger competes with the barbarian for the position of druidic fighter.

Rangers are Druidic ROGUE Fighters.

[Cybren]

First principle of a fantasy world--everything is magical. There are no mundane (non-magical) classes. Commoners are the closest anyone comes to "mundane". Everyone else has at least non-natural resilience.


That's a bad principle that misunderstands the appeal of a lot of fantasy that has been written over the last century plus.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a bad principle that misunderstands the appeal of a lot of fantasy that has been written over the last century plus.

Magical worlds where the magic is just stapled on are internally inconsistent from the basic physical principles. If "magic" (meaning things that aren't possible on Earth) can exist, then everything else must change to incorporate that. This is true even if the end result that's visible on the surface looks very similar.

Thus, if (magic exists) then (everything is touched by magic). Anything else is incoherent world-building.

[Grod_The_Giant]

While it does come off a bit odd in some aspects, officially, magical things are only magical if its explicitly said they are magical. This is relevant for abilities like Dispel Magic, which can remove a magical effect.
Yeah, okay, but the Barbarian subclasses include things like "manifesting ghosts to protect your allies and scout for you" (Ancestral Guardian), hitting everything nearby with fire or lightning (Storm Herald), talking to animals and potentially flying (Totem), and igniting your weapon with (un)holy energy (Zealot). Totem you can maybe make a case for not being too magic, as long as you don't take the 14th level Eagle ability, but Zealot and Storm in particular are painfully obviously magical.

[Man_Over_Game]

While what you're saying makes sense, there's nothing explicitly saying those effects are, or are not, magical. Or, put in another way, these effects are just as magical as a Battle Master or a Rogue. A Battle Master can grant temporary hit points to prevent damage. A Swashbuckling Rogue can force an enemy to ignore all others and to attack the rogue. These duplicate magical effects but aren't described as magic. A monk can run up walls without the use of any magic by the same feature that simply lets them move a little faster.

I'd say these effects are extraordinary in our universe, but more ordinary in theirs. Magic is a coined term, and these Barbarian features don't fit. Perhaps there's a difference between "supernatural" and "magical".


While it does come off a bit odd in some aspects, officially, magical things are only magical if its explicitly said they are magical. This is relevant for abilities like Dispel Magic, which can remove a magical effect. [...] although a DM can rule whatever he feels is necessary.

[Nifft]

Magical worlds where the magic is just stapled on are internally inconsistent from the basic physical principles. If "magic" (meaning things that aren't possible on Earth) can exist, then everything else must change to incorporate that. This is true even if the end result that's visible on the surface looks very similar.

Thus, if (magic exists) then (everything is touched by magic). Anything else is incoherent world-building.

To be fair, though, the vast majority of classical D&D settings are very well described by "internally inconsistent from the basic physical principles".

Some of the most popular settings have also been among the most inconsistent.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, okay, but the Barbarian subclasses include things like "manifesting ghosts to protect your allies and scout for you" (Ancestral Guardian), hitting everything nearby with fire or lightning (Storm Herald), talking to animals and potentially flying (Totem), and igniting your weapon with (un)holy energy (Zealot). Totem you can maybe make a case for not being too magic, as long as you don't take the 14th level Eagle ability, but Zealot and Storm in particular are painfully obviously magical.

The discussion could probably be served by making a clear distinction between magic (the conceptual construct of breaking the physical rules of the real world*), and magic the mechanical tag which is affixed to various game effects.
*which leads us into the discussion about what defines something as 'magical' within a world where magic is possible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, though, the vast majority of classical D&D settings are very well described by "internally inconsistent from the basic physical principles".

Some of the most popular settings have also been among the most inconsistent.

True, but many of them can be made more consistent without losing anything by reassessing how we do things. Instead of insisting that they use Earth physical laws with "magic as breaking the rules", saying that magic is merely one part of the physical laws, which may or may not look anything like (or be analyzable like) Earth physical laws solves a lot of the inconsistency.

[Nifft]

True, but many of them can be made more consistent without losing anything by reassessing how we do things. Instead of insisting that they use Earth physical laws with "magic as breaking the rules", saying that magic is merely one part of the physical laws, which may or may not look anything like (or be analyzable like) Earth physical laws solves a lot of the inconsistency.

I think many settings would need to be discarded or re-written, and the re-writes would probably be better (for me anyway) -- but you might not get all the fans of the original inconsistent mess on board with the new version, at least not easily.

The other issue might be working out all the little incongruities, and doing so in a way that doesn't leave the setting ripe for abuse by clever-yet-disruptive players.

[Cybren]

Magical worlds where the magic is just stapled on are internally inconsistent from the basic physical principles. If "magic" (meaning things that aren't possible on Earth) can exist, then everything else must change to incorporate that. This is true even if the end result that's visible on the surface looks very similar.

Thus, if (magic exists) then (everything is touched by magic). Anything else is incoherent world-building.

See, this tells me you don't really understand the full breadth of what magic is within fantasy as a genre. Sometimes fantasy worlds, and the magic presented therein, want to be internally consistent. You're being overly narrow in your scope.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See, this tells me you don't really understand the full breadth of what magic is within fantasy as a genre. Sometimes fantasy worlds, and the magic presented therein, want to be internally consistent. You're being overly narrow in your scope.

To be satisfying, magic must be consistent in its inconsistencies. It doesn't have to be consistent with anything we know, but it has to be consistent in how it acts. Otherwise it's code for "whatever the writer felt like," which is boring. Just like mary sue characters or deus ex machina endings, magic that doesn't follow its own meta-rules (and thus form part of observable law) is bad world-building.

I'm fine with magic as pure randomness and chaos. But that better carry through the rest of the setting.

I'm fine with non-magic settings getting invaded by magic. But that represents a time-dependent change in physical law, not a simple overlay of rule-less "magic" over observable law. And the setting should begin to adapt to it (with much drama in transition, to be sure).

I'm fine with magic being non-scientific, in the sense that mortals in-setting have no access to "regularize" or even understand the laws. Those laws may be simply the caprice of a powerful being (or group of beings). But that should have knock-on effects on the rest of the setting.

What I object to is having magic be separable from the rest of the setting such that except for those who directly use it (who get to break all the rules everyone else has to obey), no one else can play. I despise "I'm better than you" games. And that style of magic is the ultimate such thing. Especially in RPGs, where it's the root of the Guy at the Gym misunderstanding.

Is there fantasy out there that defies or subverts this principle and does it well? Sure. But that's like anything--you have to know the rules before you can break them well. Doesn't change the fact that they're the exceptions, not the rule.

[Nifft]

What I object to is having magic be separable from the rest of the setting such that except for those who directly use it (who get to break all the rules everyone else has to obey), no one else can play. I despise "I'm better than you" games. And that style of magic is the ultimate such thing. Especially in RPGs, where it's the root of the Guy at the Gym misunderstanding.

Shadowrun kinda gets a pass because the guy at the gym has cybernetic augmentations.

It's a decent example of how far you need to advance muggles if you want magic-users to be special and different but not unbalanced -- though it's arguable how well they succeeded in any given edition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Shadowrun kinda gets a pass because the guy at the gym has cybernetic augmentations.

It's a decent example of how far you need to advance muggles if you want magic-users to be special and different but not unbalanced -- though it's arguable how well they succeeded in any given edition.

Sort of, but even there I'd call those cybernetic augments non-mundane. They're not possible by Earth standards, so in a fantasy setting they're part of "magic". Or at least the non-normal.

[Anonymouswizard]

I always find it odd for any class to be entirely non-magical in a fantasy setting. In a world where magic actually exists, it seems foolish not to use it, like a soldier choosing not to use technology in modern combat. I’m partial to magic systems that imply or explicitly explain how even martial characters tap into magical forces to fuel their attacks. That’s sort of how I see the Barbarian, instinctively tapping into reservoirs of magic.

You're assuming that magic is (relatively):
-easily accessible
-cheap
-easy to use
-powerful
-actually useful

In a setting where all four come together, then I totally agree with you. The only times I can remember a Bender in A:TLA not using Bending to fight are the times where Zuko is trying to hide his identity (and he gives up on hiding it in order to win at least one). Non Benders also have trouble catching up to Benders in raw combat strength, although they're also not completely useless (due to Bending being powerful but not too powerful).

Just remember, if it's common enough people likely won't think of it as magic. Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians aren't seen as magical because the inner strength they use is well known (although some subclasses totally would be considered magical in-setting).

[Man_Over_Game]

Sort of, but even there I'd call those cybernetic augments non-mundane. They're not possible by Earth standards, so in a fantasy setting they're part of "magic". Or at least the non-normal.

I think an easy way to differentiate the two is by using the terms "extraordinary" and "magical". Barbarians are extraordinary, but Eldritch Knights are magical.

For the sake of simplicity, I'd probably assume that every DnD base class is considered extraordinary, but only things that are effected by an anti-magic field are magical.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think an easy way to differentiate the two is by using the terms "extraordinary" and "magical". Barbarians are extraordinary, but Eldritch Knights are magical.

For the sake of simplicity, I'd probably assume that every DnD base class is considered extraordinary, but only things that are effected by an anti-magic field are magical.

That might work as a distinction. I'm not so much concerned with magic per session, merely in removing the mundane from play. No class is mundane. All do fantastic things. Some are magic, some do magic.

[sambojin]

"Originally Posted by PHB p76, The Magic of Ki
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse -- specifically, the element that flows through living bodies."
-----------

"I wanna be a magician! I'm gonna be a ki-ist! "

"OK then. You can be a monk. Every other school of actual magic is forbidden to you."

"Aww. But I wanna do magic too. As a ki-ist!"

"OK then. You can be a four-elements monk."

"Awww. But then my ki would suck....."

[R.Shackleford]

I think I do need to clarify something.

I don't think it's a bad thing. I don't think you have to have connection to magic in a fantasy world (played quite a few campaigns with no/low magic and it works pretty well). I just think it's interesting that one of the premier martial classes is forced to be magically focused a majority of the time.

This wasn't meant to be a "omg barbarians can't be magical", Barbarians are a pretty cool class as they are. Actually I would love a 1/3 caster with the druid list on the barbarian... Low level be able to cast druid cantrips while raging but not higher level spells.

There's a difference between being a spell caster, being arcane magic, or being divine magic and being a magic class. A magic class is a class that pretty much doesn't get any choice but to have some sort of magic. Summoning spirits, creating elemental damage out of nothing, or being able to commune with spirits are all magical.

The difference between the Barbarian and Fighter or Rogue is that the Fighter and Rogue can easily be non-magical. When you think of magical martial, people typically think Fighter (EK) or Rogue (AT) but in reality, Barbarian is the most magical martial.

Side Note: Rangers, Paladins, and Monks are hybrids as you can never get away from having magical abilities... At least with the Barbarian you can choose to be non-magical.

[Millstone85]

"I wanna be a magician! I'm gonna be a ki-ist! "

"OK then. You can be a monk. Every other school of actual magic is forbidden to you."

"Aww. But I wanna do magic too. As a ki-ist!"

"OK then. You can be a four-elements monk."

"Awww. But then my ki would suck....."I was strongly disagreed with the last time I said this, but...

What that hypothetical player needs is the release of psionics, either for the psion class or for the Way of the Soul Knife monastic tradition.

[Zalabim]

Do note that this Sage Advice takes the angle that not all magic counts as such for game purposes, something we are invited to magobabble as a distinction between "background magic" and "concentrated magical energy".

Yes, explicitly so. Again, I am not saying their fists should count as magical for game purposes. Except, of course, starting at 6th level.
That's unspecific, and fluff. It says monks use Ki to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities. I take it to mean Ki can create magical effects, and also physical effects. The whole section is dropped from the SRD anyway, so it's not explicitly magical as a rule. If you choose the right subclass, your monk can have very, very few abilities that are magical or spells as defined by magobabble.

While what you're saying makes sense, there's nothing explicitly saying those effects are, or are not, magical. Or, put in another way, these effects are just as magical as a Battle Master or a Rogue. A Battle Master can grant temporary hit points to prevent damage. A Swashbuckling Rogue can force an enemy to ignore all others and to attack the rogue. These duplicate magical effects but aren't described as magic. A monk can run up walls without the use of any magic by the same feature that simply lets them move a little faster.

I'd say these effects are extraordinary in our universe, but more ordinary in theirs. Magic is a coined term, and these Barbarian features don't fit. Perhaps there's a difference between "supernatural" and "magical".
There actually are things explicitly saying those effects are magical. Or there is not. Path of the Totem Warrior says "In battle, your totem spirit fills you with supernatural might, adding magical fuel to your barbarian rage." Spirit Seeker lets you cast spells. Aspect of the Beast says "At 6th level, you gain a magical benefit based on the totem animal of your choice." Spirit walker is spellcasting again. Totemic Attunement again says "you gain a magical benefit based on a totem animal of your choice." Totem Warriors are magical.

Ancestral Guardians are not generally magical, but at 10th level, Consult the Spirits is a spell. Ghosts are supernatural, but not magical.

Storm Heralds are easy. Storm Aura says, "Starting at 3rd level, you emanate a stormy, magical aura while you rage." Your aura is magical. The rest of the abilities actually don't say, but since they're granted by "the storm" and rely on your environment choice for Storm Aura, they probably will get run as magical too.

Zealots are not magical, at least not in the way that counts. It may be a case of divine power (which is their word of choice) overwhelming or bypassing antimagic field, like the spell says.

[Unoriginal]

I was strongly disagreed with the last time I said this, but...

What that hypothetical player needs is the release of psionics, either for the psion class or for the Way of the Soul Knife monastic tradition.

What I and others disagreed with was your assertion that ki and psionic should be the same thing.

The Soul Knife would indeed be a good alternative for monks who want additional spellcasting. Because you can have both doesn't mean they should be one and the same.

[Anonymouswizard]

What I and others disagreed with was your assertion that ki and psionic should be the same thing.

The Soul Knife would indeed be a good alternative for monks who want additional spellcasting. Because you can have both doesn't mean they should be one and the same.

While I'm a supporter of ki=psi (they both have fairly strong Enlightenment flavouring, both come from within, and both are nurtured by training), I can understand why done people might be against it.

In my setting (focused on levels 1-6, with 7-10 being the equivalent of 'epic heroes of Legend') ki powers, arcane magic, divine magic, and psionics are all ways to tap into a user's chi, their breath of life. It's very homebrew, in that it uses a bunch of custom classes capping at 10th level instead of 20th, but all the magic stems from manipulation of one's chi. So here all player abilities are chi, but only those called out as magic or psionics count as being magical or psionic.

Then again, I'm personally annoyed at the lack of core psionics. Give me my telepathy and crystals!