D&D 5E The non barbarian barbarian

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Hello

The barbarian is a very cool class, but it does suffer a bit from the fact that it attempts to mix two concepts - one being the "foreigner/nomad/tribal/less civilized" warrior and the other being the "raging warrior". If you think about it, not all nomads are battle-ragers. In fact I would suspect that the average tribal/nomad warrior with class is a ranger, not a barbarian.

But what if you want to do a battle-raging person who is *not* a foreigner/tribal/nomad person? You enjoy the mechanics and playstyle, but the roleplaying aspect isn't up your alley?

Thankfully, this is rather easy now because of the backgrounds. Here are a few examples.

The dervish (hermit, or perhaps acolyte): You are a mendicant, a nomad relying on charity and odd jobs to survive. You are profoundly spiritual but your views on reality and divinity are at odds with many established religions. When you rage, you tap into the one divine force and are filled with the universe's boundless potential. (I really wouldn't mind playing that one personally)

The thug (criminal or street urchin background): You grew up on the street and had a difficult childhood. Your means to survive the street was low cunning and violence - you grew a reputation and now other street dwellers give you a wide berth to avoid setting off your temper. When you rage, your anger at past trauma gets unleashed

The experimental subject (almost any background): You were kidnapped by an evil cabal of wizard and subjected to strange experiments, but managed to escape. Perhaps you received strange alchemical treatments, were grafted with alien glands or bound with an evil spirit or fiend. Whatever the cause, when provoked in battle y ou are filled with unnatural fury.


Any other ideas for the non-barbarian barbarian?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tony Vargas

Legend
Hello

The barbarian is a very cool class, but it does suffer a bit from the fact that it attempts to mix two concepts - one being the "foreigner/nomad/tribal/less civilized" warrior and the other being the "raging warrior". If you think about it, not all nomads are battle-ragers. In fact I would suspect that the average tribal/nomad warrior with class is a ranger, not a barbarian.
Nod. As much trouble (OK, it wasn't much trouble) as D&D went to giving us Backgrounds, you'd think they could've made 'Barbarian' a background. Is the shaman or head-man or hunter or skald from a barbarian tribe any less a barbarian than the warriors or the one really crazy warrior everyone stays away from who goes berserk now and then? Old question, answer hasn't changed.

But what if you want to do a battle-raging person who is *not* a foreigner/tribal/nomad person?
5e doesn't divorce fluff from crunch all that much. If you were a Barbarian(Sage) or Barbarian (Guild Crafter) for instance, maybe you're a barbarian who came into town and studied more civilized ways.

New sub-classes would be an obvious way to go. (Of course, a Battlerager Fighter Archetype could have handled the Berserker, and Barbarian could have been a Background.) So, Battlerager as a Barbarian sub-class (it doesn't help that it's called a 'Primal Path,' either, does it?) could be a trained/controlled Berserker from a different background who taps latent 'primal rage' from deep within, a personal rather than nature/spirit/tribal-oriented source of fury. You could have a Dervish 'Primal Path' that follows fanatical 'old ways' and 'give themselves to the god' to attain a trance-like rage. I suppose you could even have an Infernal 'Primal Path' where the rage comes from some sort of possession?
 

Shadowdweller00

Adventurer
Any possible number of ways?

The Hedge-Warrior (Folk Hero, Entertainer, and/or Guild Merchant)
You never had any formal battle-training, but your profession earlier in life frequently put you in the path of bandits, drunks, monsters, (angry wives/husbands), and predatory animals; so you learned to fight through the school of hard knocks. Your fighting-style is intuitive and undisciplined and you might not know all that much about organized warfare - but it works. In your particular case, you managed to adapt by harnessing the power of your anger - at your enemies, and life's misfortunes, at those daring to try and prey on yourself or others - and make that anger serve you in battle.

The Rage-Philosopher (Sage, Hermit, or possibly Acolyte backgrounds)
Much like a Monk, you have studied and debated the philosophy of violence. You seek to achieve the perfect state of mind for battle. Your studies and beliefs have lead you to a more primal, animalistic approach to finding this state of mind, much like Robert Louis Stevenson's character, Dr. Jekyll, unleashing his inner demons in the form of Mr. Hyde. Meditation, alchemical concoctions, masochistic self-discipline, and drugs may or may not be involved in the unleashing of your inner demons and finding your personal state of perfect violence. You are well-educated and may even be gentle and mild-mannered - until the other comes out.
 
Last edited:

Tinker-TDC

Explorer
Refluffing is really the way to go. My current game has three samurai consisting of a monk, a fighter, and a barbarian.
Just rename abilities (rage becomes focus, that sorta thing) and the mechanics can be justified as you go.
 

Barbarian is a relative state from one society to another one.
Dnd barbarian are partially inspire from viking. Who were a more organized society than the Indian in North America.
For Rome the barbarian were all others people living in France, Germany, England and so one.

In Dnd we can assume that a barbarian society have no access to arcane magic. Wizard, monk, eldritch knight are kind of classes you should not find in a barbarian society. But all others can be fitted. Viking lived in organized village with farmers, artisan, noble, slaves, medics man, diviner. So most of the background can be fitted.

If you need inspiration take a look at the marvelous tv serie Viking. It can help.
 


Nod. As much trouble (OK, it wasn't much trouble) as D&D went to giving us Backgrounds, you'd think they could've made 'Barbarian' a background. Is the shaman or head-man or hunter or skald from a barbarian tribe any less a barbarian than the warriors or the one really crazy warrior everyone stays away from who goes berserk now and then? Old question, answer hasn't changed.
If it bothers you, take a pencil, scratch out "barbarian" in your PHB, and write in "berserker". Problem solved.
 


That's essentially an exercise in doing that :)
It's not even a refluff. There's no real "member of uncivilized culture" fluff in the barbarian mechanics anymore -- no illiteracy or survival skills or superstitious magic restrictions. It's purely "very angry fellow". (Okay, maybe the totem warrior isn't. But the base barbarian.) Now, I have no problem interpreting the word "barbarian" in the context of the D&D game as a term of art meaning "very angry fellow" rather than "member of uncivilized culture". I write up pirates and street toughs as barbarians as well as members of uncivilized cultures who happen to be very angry fellows. I call them all "barbarians" and I'm perfectly happy. But I do recognize that "barbarian" in general English does mean "member of uncivilized culture", so this could rub some people the wrong way. In which case, this simple word substitution should suffice.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
It's not even a refluff. There's no real "member of uncivilized culture" fluff in the barbarian mechanics anymore -- no illiteracy or survival skills or superstitious magic restrictions. It's purely "very angry fellow". (Okay, maybe the totem warrior isn't. But the base barbarian.) Now, I have no problem interpreting the word "barbarian" in the context of the D&D game as a term of art meaning "very angry fellow" rather than "member of uncivilized culture". I write up pirates and street toughs as barbarians as well as members of uncivilized cultures who happen to be very angry fellows. I call them all "barbarians" and I'm perfectly happy. But I do recognize that "barbarian" in general English does mean "member of uncivilized culture", so this could rub some people the wrong way. In which case, this simple word substitution should suffice.

I meant more the fluff of the class, not the mechanics. As you say (and as my OP), the base barbarian class fits on a lot of "non-barbarian" concepts.

I think the Totem warrior would require more effort to refluff, but it seems doable.
 

Remove ads

Top