How do we get rid of the Fighter

[Drolyt]

Barbarian Hero

-1 for linking tvtropes. But really, what about that description doesn't fit the fighter? You know, other than the highly inaccurate bit on ancient history?

[Winnah]

Present in fiction from the Scarlet Pimpernel to Iron Man.

I think it is immediately clear by your own examples that cosmopolitan/sophisticate are in fact not the source of those character's powers. No one is suggesting that classes should be made for every possible background a character could have; the actual argument is that barbarian has come to include a set of themes (like the ones I described) that have very credible claims for deserving to be represented, and have room to be mechanically distinct from refluffs of other classes. It just so happens that by the virtue of the typical campaign setting, those themes have implications for the character background (in the same way being a wizard has implications of being educated).

I don't think you have represented barbarian as a class. What about "Guy from isolated hunter-gatherer tribe" is distinct enough to warrant it's own class?

I can see those themes represented by a template maybe. A class kit or background, certainly. A tag you can put on monsters to separate the standard hill giant and gnoll from hobgoblins and drow.

A mystical tribal warrior could belong to an urban gang, just as easily as an isolated tribe. Just as a ritually tattooed wizard could hail from a primitive tribe.

[Sigil]

That was just a little etymology. Etymology is useful for understanding the meaning of a word, but ultimately what actually matters is what the word means to people who hear it. And if you are denying that what people imagine in their heads when they hear "barbarian" is an offensive stereotype of non-western cultures then I'm not sure what to say.

A quick google image search of the word "barbarian" gives us pretty much exclusively western looking white people in viking style outfits, chainmail-bikini babes, conan, and the occasional mediterranean warrior. So I'd say you'rw pretty fucking off base about what most people think of when they hear barbarian, google seems to think it means viking.

[Drolyt]

That was just a little etymology. Etymology is useful for understanding the meaning of a word, but ultimately what actually matters is what the word means to people who hear it. And if you are denying that what people imagine in their heads when they hear "barbarian" is an offensive stereotype of non-western cultures then I'm not sure what to say.

A quick google image search of the word "barbarian" gives us pretty much exclusively western looking white people in viking style outfits, chainmail-bikini babes, conan, and the occasional mediterranean warrior. So I'd say you'rw pretty fucking off base about what most people think of when they hear barbarian, google seems to think it means viking.

No, that is about right. Race really has nothing to do with it. If you don't think the stereotyped Viking is just as offensive as the stereotyped African then that is your problem.

[Prak]

Barbarian Hero

-1 for linking tvtropes. But really, what about that description doesn't fit the fighter? You know, other than the highly inaccurate bit on ancient history?

-1 for concisely explaining what the popular conception of the barbarian character is?

Wow, ok, how about this- bestial in manners and attitude, but not without cunning and even intelligence, ready to leap into the fray at a moment's notice, able to perceive the world more akin to the way an animal does, through enhanced sense of smell and hearing, and able to use their anger as an asset, while also adept at the use of a wide variety of weapons, even if favouring one or two.

Basically this guy:

[Drolyt]

Wow, ok, how about this- bestial in manners and attitude, but not without cunning and even intelligence, ready to leap into the fray at a moment's notice, able to perceive the world more akin to the way an animal does, through enhanced sense of smell and hearing, and able to use their anger as an asset, while also adept at the use of a wide variety of weapons, even if favouring one or two.

And if you can't see how ascribing those traits to an actual culture group is wildly offensive then you are a moron. Look, Merriam-Webster has this to say about the word barbarian:

of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people

The term is about culture, not individuals.

[Sigil]

You stated, specifically, that "what people imagine in their heads when they hear "barbarian" is an offensive stereotype of non-western cultures". In fact, it is usually a neutral or positive stereotype of a western culture by westerners.

[Prak]

That was just a little etymology. Etymology is useful for understanding the meaning of a word, but ultimately what actually matters is what the word means to people who hear it. And if you are denying that what people imagine in their heads when they hear "barbarian" is an offensive stereotype of non-western cultures then I'm not sure what to say.

A quick google image search of the word "barbarian" gives us pretty much exclusively western looking white people in viking style outfits, chainmail-bikini babes, conan, and the occasional mediterranean warrior. So I'd say you'rw pretty fucking off base about what most people think of when they hear barbarian, google seems to think it means viking.

No, that is about right. Race really has nothing to do with it. If you don't think the stereotyped Viking is just as offensive as the stereotyped African then that is your problem.

It's kind of more of a positive racism, but it's really not offensive.

Hell, race really has nothing to do with it. Yes, it's a big brute of a guy who lives by cunning and badassery, wears little in the way of clothing, though may be covered in chain and fur, long hair, long beard, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour. I seem to recall the most well known barbarian hero, Conan, being described as "swarthy skinned."

Also, it's totally ok to stereotype a culture. Well, usually. People do it all the time, anyway. It's skin colour people leap down your throat about. Even though "race" is essentially a cultural construct to begin with.

And if you can't see how ascribing those traits to an actual culture group is wildly offensive then you are a moron.

The barbarian class is not about a culture, really. It's about a set of skills and attributes which is more commonly found amongst people who live away from civilization. Hrolf the Viking could be a barbarian, but so could Harold the Mountain Man, or, if he's not ascribed Druid or Sorcerer levels, Harry the Hermit.
At the same time, Frjig, Hrolf's wife, is not necessarily a barbarian just because they come from the same village. Maybe she's more about magic and spirit worship and has levels of druid. Maybe she finds anger a liability in combat, and would rather rely on training and patience and has Ranger written on her character sheet.
Harold married a scout from the native tribes, and she has rogue levels because she sneaks around, checks out enemy fortifications/animal activity, and returns to tell the rest of the hunting party.
Harry's a bisexual polyamourist who left society with his closest paramours and regularly screws a wizard, a solitary worshipper of Pelor, and tinker, but they all came from the same settlement, and now all live in the same shack.

Barbarian isn't about culture, it's about class abilities and skill sets. I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock what it means linguistically, we're talking about a game here. Artifact means "An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest," linguistically, but in D&D it means "a powerful magic item that Tim the Enchanter cannot just shit out with a few days in his workshop.

[Winnah]

So Totemist is the class for Berserkers, Cuāuhocēlōtl and other animal themed supermen.

Mystic Warrior can cover the 'noble savage', ninjas and fighting monks.

[Drolyt]

You stated, specifically, that "what people imagine in their heads when they hear "barbarian" is an offensive stereotype of non-western cultures". In fact, it is usually a neutral or positive stereotype of a western culture by westerners.

Because the Huns and Mongols are considered western now. Not to mention that the term has been applied to Native Americans, the group most thoroughly harmed by western imperialism. But yeah, the term is perfectly okay because occasionally white people have applied it to other white people they hate instead of other races.

[Username17]

-1 for concisely explaining what the popular conception of the barbarian character is?

TVTropes doesn't concisely explain anything and is frequently filled with rape apologia. There was a time when linking to TVTropes was good for an argument, now it's equivalent to saying "But my best friend's creepy older brother said..."

Anyway, the simple fact that "Barbarians" include "angry guy with a spear and pelts", "nimble horse archer with pelts", and "wise shaman with pelts" means that the term is essentially worthless as a character class. Any term which applies equally to "gruff guy who distrusts magic" and "primary spellcaster" is not on solid ground for being a character class.

Leaving aside questions of whether it's offensive or not (it is, btw), it simply doesn't do what a "class" is supposed to do: imply some sort of skill set. "Barbarian" is a term that implies a fashion sense where you like wearing leather that still has fur on it. But it doesn't give any indication as to whether you personally stab things or invoke spirits to do stabbing on your behalf. That makes it fucked.

Berserker on the other hand, does not have that problem. You get super pissed and stab things. You presumably have super powers related to getting pissed and/or totems. That is why Berserker is a good class name and Barbarian is completely fucked as a class name.

-Username17

[Drolyt]

Also, it's totally ok to stereotype a culture.

No it fucking isn't.

[Whatever]

If you don't think the stereotyped Viking is just as offensive as the stereotyped African then that is your problem.

Stereotypes are hugely problematic, but one of the main reasons why they're so bad is because they tend to reinforce the oppression and marginalization of minority groups. I don't particularly care how outrageous any stereotypical depiction of a viking is, because (1) no one in Denmark is hurt by that portrayal, and (2) the Danes aren't an oppressed people, in Denmark or outside of it. We haven't spent centuries enslaving and murdering the Danes. They're actually doing quite well for themselves. The stereotype is offensive, sure, but not all stereotypes are equally bad.

By contrast, if you go to basically any country in the world, you'll find racism against Africans that ranges from "extreme" to "institutionalized oppression". "Stereotypical" depictions of African people are a key part of maintaining that, and fighting against those stereotypes is part of being a decent human being.

So yes, if you show me a stereotypical Viking and a stereotypical African, I will find the latter much more offensive (though both are). Because it implicitly supports actual racist beliefs that actual people hold and also helps maintain support for institutional racism and oppression.

[Username17]

We actually did spend centuries enslaving and murdering Danes. The point is that they are doing just fine now and are in no way marginalized by saying insensitive things about their ancestors.

-Username17

[Sigil]

Here are some of the things you have said about the word "barbarian" in this thread, in order from oldest to latest.

Barbarian is a derogatory term the Greeks used to refer to people they consider "uncivilized". It is an offensive stereotype.

This is the most correct thing you have said so far, in that the first sentence is literally factually correct. It is offensive to call someone a barbarian, just like it is offensive to call any person of any race or creed or whatever the fuck a bad name. But that's in a specific context, calling ancient people "barbaric" can simply be pretty fucking factual. This is because you are comparing them to current society. Calling the mongol hordes "barbarians" is pretty much the right way to use that word, they rode around and killed people, that's just how shit was. Is this to say that all aspects of mongol culture, even at the time, were barbaric? No. Is this to say that all mongols are or were barbarians? No. It is demonstrable that the mongols actually ran a pretty rad empire when you get down to it, and that's pretty advanced or civilized. But at the same time I have no problem calling the mongol horde "barbarous".

The entire idea of barbarism is "my culture is better and more civilized than yours and you are bad". It is a Eurocentric concept that has little to do with reality.

This, while an opinion, is also partly correct. Barbarian can be used in the context of "my culture is good". This is not the only use. It is also not Eurocentric.

...when I was a kid and have forever assumed that Barbarians are crazy Gauls

These are guals.



This is where guals are from. Note how that map is where modern day fucking france is? Those gual barbarians you thought about were westerners. Were the gauls actually "barbarians"? That's not the point. Westerners can be barbarians, and in fact it is your own default assumption that a "barbarian" is a westerner by your own admission.

Because the Huns and Mongols are considered western now. Not to mention that the term has been applied to Native Americans, the group most thoroughly harmed by western imperialism. But yeah, the term is perfectly okay because occasionally white people have applied it to other white people they hate instead of other races.

You fucking moron, that was my point. Barbarian isn't about race. All sorts of people from the past get called barbarian. Sometimes people from today get called barbarian as an insult. That's exactly the reason the term barbarian is acceptable, even though you said it sarcastically.

If you can't see the racist connotations of the term I don't think I can help you.

If you can't see that you've used multiple definitions for barbarian in this thread, literally doing a complete flip and not realizing it maintained an entirely consistant but wrong position, then I don't think I can help you. Barbarian is not an inherently racist term.

[DSMatticus]

And if you can't see how ascribing those traits to an actual culture group is wildly offensive then you are a moron.

Barbarian in D&D is not used to describe a culture. It is used to describe an individual. Barbarians in D&D are not a race or subrace (and in D&D, race actually is generally pegged to culture in an entirely "offensive when you think about it" way), they are a class, and the vast majority of the "dudes who melee things" of any particular race which is actually supposed to be barbaric in the sense of the word that is actually condescending and offensive are not barbarians, they are warriors.

I don't think you have represented barbarian as a class. What about "Guy from isolated hunter-gatherer tribe" is distinct enough to warrant it's own class?

What about "guy from isolated hunter-gatherer tribe" is even half of what I said, or indeed even central to the argument? The only reference to it in my posts is as an explanation for why barbarian has come to be associated with some of the themes it has. If you want to beat straw, you don't need me for that.

But what the fuck ever, I'll go through it one more time from square one, because at least the last bit of your post is relevant and worth discussing:
1) "Has animal characteristics," "worships nature," "reveres ancestors," "practices animism," "tribalism" are themes a player could reasonably expect to attach to their characters.
2) Those themes can extend into high level pretty easily. Not all of them (tribalism looks to be the weakest), but "my ancestors have my back" and "I'm an owlbear 2.0 - literally a giant fucking bear with bigass owl wings" and "everything has spirits and I make them my bitch" all go pretty far.
3) Those themes, depending on your other classes, might cover enough unique ground that they deserve their own classes.

In core D&D, you have the druid, the ranger, and the barbarian, all of which draw on those themes (but are also flexible enough, especially barbarian, to not use them at all). Moving out of core, you've got shaman and spirit shaman and a plethora of options for ranger and barbarian that let them cover the themes even better.

If we define barbarian as a class that draws on those themes and give it abilities which represent those themes and then someone uses it to create urban gang warriors, that's great. And if someone just takes berserker and refluffs their rage as "I turn into a bear" and then talks about their ancestors a lot, that's fine too. And if you want to create an arcane caster that hails from some tribal society so you use wizard + backstory, cool. But if there's an actual shaman class that gets some specific class features that have to do with what the themes people associate with tribal societies in fantasy stories, that's fine too.

And when you take the themes I mentioned above and make a martial character class out of them (which is not at all outlandish), the existing name in TTRPG lexicon for the thing you'd want would be either barbarian or ranger, and barbarian will be closer some of the time. And if you already have a berserker class whose shtick is getting angry at things then wrecking them, barbarian is actually pretty nicely defined by the remaining themes.

[Prak]

-1 for concisely explaining what the popular conception of the barbarian character is?

TVTropes doesn't concisely explain anything and is frequently filled with rape apologia. There was a time when linking to TVTropes was good for an argument, now it's equivalent to saying "But my best friend's creepy older brother said..."

I was unaware of this change.

Anyway, the simple fact that "Barbarians" include "angry guy with a spear and pelts", "nimble horse archer with pelts", and "wise shaman with pelts" means that the term is essentially worthless as a character class. Any term which applies equally to "gruff guy who distrusts magic" and "primary spellcaster" is not on solid ground for being a character class.

I actually agree with thsi, I just disgree with Drolyt's assertion that the term is somehow offensive (it's not).

Leaving aside questions of whether it's offensive or not (it is, btw), it simply doesn't do what a "class" is supposed to do: imply some sort of skill set. "Barbarian" is a term that implies a fashion sense where you like wearing leather that still has fur on it. But it doesn't give any indication as to whether you personally stab things or invoke spirits to do stabbing on your behalf. That makes it fucked.

Berserker on the other hand, does not have that problem. You get super pissed and stab things. You presumably have super powers related to getting pissed and/or totems. That is why Berserker is a good class name and Barbarian is completely fucked as a class name.

-Username17

I'm very much in favour of using the term "Berserker." Hell, even "Wild Man" conveys more about skill set and abilities than "Barbarian."

Because the Huns and Mongols are considered western now. Not to mention that the term has been applied to Native Americans, the group most thoroughly harmed by western imperialism. But yeah, the term is perfectly okay because occasionally white people have applied it to other white people they hate instead of other races.

I'm reasonably certain that the term used to marginalize native americans is actually "savage," not barbarian, or at least that the former is used substantially more frequently. And yet no one bitches about the use of the term "savage humanoids" or "savage races" in D&D. Also I'd be willing to bet that from a standpoint of pure numbers, Western Imperialism has hurt other groups far worse. Hell, "non-heterosexual aryan" could be considered a group too, and then you could count the entirety of the holocaust.

[Drolyt]

Here are some of the things you have said about the word "barbarian" in this thread, in order from oldest to latest.

Barbarian is a derogatory term the Greeks used to refer to people they consider "uncivilized". It is an offensive stereotype.

This is the most correct thing you have said so far, in that the first sentence is literally factually correct. It is offensive to call someone a barbarian, just like it is offensive to call any person of any race or creed or whatever the fuck a bad name. But that's in a specific context, calling ancient people "barbaric" can simply be pretty fucking factual. This is because you are comparing them to current society. Calling the mongol hordes "barbarians" is pretty much the right way to use that word, they rode around and killed people, that's just how shit was. Is this to say that all aspects of mongol culture, even at the time, were barbaric? No. Is this to say that all mongols are or were barbarians? No. It is demonstrable that the mongols actually ran a pretty rad empire when you get down to it, and that's pretty advanced or civilized. But at the same time I have no problem calling the mongol horde "barbarous".

The entire idea of barbarism is "my culture is better and more civilized than yours and you are bad". It is a Eurocentric concept that has little to do with reality.

This, while an opinion, is also partly correct. Barbarian can be used in the context of "my culture is good". This is not the only use. It is also not Eurocentric.

...when I was a kid and have forever assumed that Barbarians are crazy Gauls

These are guals.



This is where guals are from. Note how that map is where modern day fucking france is? Those gual barbarians you thought about were westerners. Were the gauls actually "barbarians"? That's not the point. Westerners can be barbarians, and in fact it is your own default assumption that a "barbarian" is a westerner by your own admission.

Because the Huns and Mongols are considered western now. Not to mention that the term has been applied to Native Americans, the group most thoroughly harmed by western imperialism. But yeah, the term is perfectly okay because occasionally white people have applied it to other white people they hate instead of other races.

You fucking moron, that was my point. Barbarian isn't about race. All sorts of people from the past get called barbarian. Sometimes people from today get called barbarian as an insult. That's exactly the reason the term barbarian is acceptable, even though you said it sarcastically.

If you can't see the racist connotations of the term I don't think I can help you.

If you can't see that you've used multiple definitions for barbarian in this thread, literally doing a complete flip and not realizing it, then I don't think I can help you. Barbarian is not an inherently racist term.

You just quoted a completely different person without attribution in the middle of a bunch of quotes that actually were me. That is extremely dishonest and proves you aren't worth discussing this with.

I'm very much in favour of using the term "Berserker." Hell, even "Wild Man" conveys more about skill set and abilities than "Barbarian."

At least we agree on this.

Because the Huns and Mongols are considered western now. Not to mention that the term has been applied to Native Americans, the group most thoroughly harmed by western imperialism. But yeah, the term is perfectly okay because occasionally white people have applied it to other white people they hate instead of other races.

I'm reasonably certain that the term used to marginalize native americans is actually "savage," not barbarian, or at least that the former is used substantially more frequently. And yet no one bitches about the use of the term "savage humanoids" or "savage races" in D&D.

Savage is used more frequently, and hell yes I do have a problem with how D&D uses the term. Still, the fact that barbarian has been used to refer to both Native Americans and Africans is besides the point. It is the concept that matters not the word, and "savage" and "barbarian" are the same fucking concept. Yes they have slightly different connotations, but they are really getting at the same thing, a judgment made of supposedly inferior cultures.

Also I'd be willing to bet that from a standpoint of pure numbers, Western Imperialism has hurt other groups far worse. Hell, "non-heterosexual aryan" could be considered a group too, and then you could count the entirety of the holocaust.

This is just ignorance. The near genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas involved an order of magnitude more deaths than the entire holocaust, albeit it took longer.

[Prak]

I'm reasonably certain that the term used to marginalize native americans is actually "savage," not barbarian, or at least that the former is used substantially more frequently. And yet no one bitches about the use of the term "savage humanoids" or "savage races" in D&D.

Savage is used more frequently, and hell yes I do have a problem with how D&D uses the term. Still, the fact that barbarian has been used to refer to both Native Americans and Africans is besides the point. It is the concept that matters not the word, and "savage" and "barbarian" are the same fucking concept. Yes they have slightly different connotations, but they are really getting at the same thing, a judgment made of supposedly inferior cultures.

No, they're really more about modes of behaviour, as, I believe it was Sigil, said about the Mongols being a fairly objectively barbarous culture. So were the celts, vikings, assorted warlike tribes, the ostro- and visigoths, hell, even the romans and spartans.

Also I'd be willing to bet that from a standpoint of pure numbers, Western Imperialism has hurt other groups far worse. Hell, "non-heterosexual aryan" could be considered a group too, and then you could count the entirety of the holocaust.

This is just ignorance. The near genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas involved an order of magnitude more deaths than the entire holocaust, albeit it took longer.

Admittedly I did not go look into numbers.

[Sigil]

You just quoted a completely different person without attribution in the middle of a bunch of quotes that actually were me. That is extremely dishonest and proves you aren't worth discussing this with.

Fuck man, I used the "Find all posts by..." function to look for the posts you'd made. It does not display quote formatting in that mode apparently, I thought you'd said it. I've edited the post to make it clear that it was not you that said it, but left the content of the post there so as not to be seen to be trying to hide anything.

I'm legit sorry about that, and am sort of embarrassed.

On that note though, I still maintain that barbarian can be offensive but not inherently racist. At this point I think the argument isn't really contributing to this thread about fighters though, and I think that short of one of us miraculously changing our minds we've pretty much reached an impasse. If you want to keep talking about it, it should probably get its own thread.

[Drolyt]

I'm reasonably certain that the term used to marginalize native americans is actually "savage," not barbarian, or at least that the former is used substantially more frequently. And yet no one bitches about the use of the term "savage humanoids" or "savage races" in D&D.

Savage is used more frequently, and hell yes I do have a problem with how D&D uses the term. Still, the fact that barbarian has been used to refer to both Native Americans and Africans is besides the point. It is the concept that matters not the word, and "savage" and "barbarian" are the same fucking concept. Yes they have slightly different connotations, but they are really getting at the same thing, a judgment made of supposedly inferior cultures.

No, they're really more about modes of behaviour, as, I believe it was Sigil, said about the Mongols being a fairly objectively barbarous culture. So were the celts, vikings, assorted warlike tribes, the ostro- and visigoths, hell, even the romans and spartans.

Do you not get how this is a Eurocentric values judgment? Do you also not see how those cultures are all extremely different and that lumping them under one term, a term that basically means "not like our civilization", is extremely problematic? Do you not further see that any possible definition of barbarism that applies to all those groups must also apply to various Native American and African groups which just makes the term even more problematic?

[Drolyt]

You just quoted a completely different person without attribution in the middle of a bunch of quotes that actually were me. That is extremely dishonest and proves you aren't worth discussing this with.

Fuck man, I used the "Find all posts by..." function to look for the posts you'd made. It apparently does not display quote formatting in that mode apparently, I thought you'd said it. I've edited the post to make it clear that it was not you that said it, but left the content of the post there so as not to be seen to be trying to hide anything.

I'm legit sorry about that, and am sort of embarrassed.

Don't sweat it, not a big deal.

On that note though, I still maintain that barbarian can be offensive but not inherently racist. At this point I think the argument isn't really contributing to this thread about fighters though, and I think that short of one of us miraculously changing our minds we've pretty much reached an impasse. If you want to keep talking about it, it should probably get its own thread.

I'm not terribly interested in discussing it further. I still think berserker is a better term, not only because it is less offensive but also because of the reasons Frank put forward, but I doubt I'm going to convince anyone at this point.

[Sigil]

What? No, berserker is a totally fine name for the madangry class. It's what I'm using in my own d20 heartbreaker since it's more descriptive of what the class actually does. I turned barbarian into a background. My whole issue was with barbarian being or not being racist.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've already given you my feelings on Berserker. I think that it implies too narrow of a skill set.

I think that there is room for an archetype where they're empowered by ancestor and/or nature spirits and can do heroic things as long as they keep the burning flame of passion in their hearts. I just think that Berserker is a bad name for it, because 'raaar, I'm SO ANGRY' just doesn't have the roleplaying potential of 'because I believe in myself, Kamina's ghost lets me grow giant robots' or even 'the souls of the people I killed, which includes my family, ACHE for poorly understood justice in the form of massacring random Greek monsters'.

Again, think about why Rogue is a better class name than Thief. And you'll see why I don't like the name Berserker.

[Aryxbez]

Something I had found humorous that was mentioned in that TV tropes article:

Barbarian is a playable class in the MMORPG Age Of Conan. Interestingly, this game makes the barbarian a rogue class with stealth skills rather than a brawling warrior archetype like most games do, as Conan was a thief in a lot of his stories.

That unrelated bit aside, I realized that the "Barbarian/Berserker class could even represent Shonen characters. Since have whole using "anger" for powers going on, while more those anime characters generally use some emotion or another, to access their abilities. Be it them being enraged for something personal, Friendship, or even simply remembering some good memory that inspires them to shake off a condition/heal up/otherwise unlock new ability. So the berserker-type could be about accessing other emotions into supernatural effects, than just anger, unless that would be too broad?

Though, I realize in some fashion, I'd imagine I'd be bringing up the thematic equivalent of a "Rage Meter". Where that would be the in-game description of why it appears, in addition to having taking damage, next round coming up, or whatever increases the meter.

As for Wolverine, he does have a very strong following, and unsure if even Grognards be privy to making fun of him. Though, even within realm of superheroes, he does kinda lack the other capabilities like Flight or range (except when thrown). Though, can amend that with abilities like aggressive movement allows him to close the gap like he does in Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (but farther to accommodate common arena size for the RPG), and Claw lasers like from X-men arcade game. Otherwise, you get the scenario we've all seen plenty of times, where Fighter stunlocked by Wizard

EDIT: Funny, Lago and I, had a similar idea going, good thing I kept forgetting to add this point to my prior posts.