D&D 5E The non barbarian barbarian

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Heh. A while back, in a thread on reflavoring, I presented my "Martial friar with a divine/fanatical battle prayer" as a barbarian reflavor, and got told by a lot of people I was going too far outside the box.

They were wrong, of course, but...

 

[5Shilling]

As I just posted in the 'NPCs with class levels' thread, I prefer to think of the PC classes as being pretty unique - they describe the PCs and not necessarily anyone else. Yes there are plenty of barbarians, but none of them have quite the same abilities as the barbarian the PC is playing. Class is a metagame term, and trying to decide which 'class' everyone in the world falls into can lead to some strange contortions. It can be fun in a goofy, gonzo setting, but in a lot of settings I think it is best avoided, in 5E at least.

And to keep on topic, non barbarian barbarians:

A feral youth, raised by wolves and has taken on many of their traits (each totem is actually a member of her adopted pack family). Unknown to her, she is actually a princess - her real family were victims of an evil usurper, but the assassin ordered to kill her couldn't bring himself to do it and so just left her in the forest instead (yes Snow White but with wolves instead of dwarfs).

or:

A sentient flesh golem (could maybe use the UA revenant subrace), the masterpiece of his creator. He is perfectly civilized most of the time and just wants to fit in, but when threatened (especially with fire) he is prone to enter terrifying and unnatural berserk rages.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

We have non-barbarian barbarians.

Our non-barb barbs are known as 'Quiet Ones' and are universally from urban contexts, representing a reaction to the grind of domestication/civilization. I blame the paperwork.

Each is as varied as the next - an overworked white-collar scribe, a dog-tired meat packer, a stressed public official etc - though all are marked by having a point in their life where they just 'snapped'. Naturally, they are represented rule-wise by the Path of the Beserker.

(And we also ensure that totem barbarians follow a single animal totem.)

 

[Mathias Severin]

I love reflavoring. Nobody should have a problem with this if the mechanics stay in place.

I did it awhile back with the Monk. For me, they have no place in a regular mideval setting. So I proposed two reflavorings of the Open Hand. Arcane Duelist, where all aspects are semi permanent spells. Semi-haste for all the extra movement and attacks and so forth.
The other, a Runescarred Warrior, who inscribes eldritch runes in his flesh to power him. Each Monk ability would be a ward, sign, scar or whatever. This guy's body would be a map of all his aspects.

I really like you back alley, no training, warrior barbarian. Makes perfects sense.

The white collar worker who snapped is a great approach as well. Makes me want to play a barbarian.

A barbarian could be an Elan that is in full control of his new body, but if he chooses, he can let out his human aspect and let that person go nuts. This would work great with the Totem Barbarian because you basically reflavor his primal spells and rituals to psychic powers. Wouldn't mind playing this either.

 

[Valetudo]

I want to play a nobleman who is all charm and sophisticated, until you say or do the wrong thing in front of him and he hulks out and smashs a chair on you. Give him all social skills and that improvised weapon feat. Have him be all apologetic afterwards.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Maybe so. Vlad Taltos from Steven Brust's Dragaera novels is a thoroughly urban Jhereg assassin who nevertheless has a familiar, much like a totem, from the deep jungles. Perhaps urban peoples could be prone to romanticize natural totems as much or even moreso than wild peoples. In fact, arguably that is precisely what the WotC writers are and have done.

 

[Valetudo]

Maybe some sort of ancestral cult or relgion forgotten by most that the family still celebrates.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I love reflavoring. Nobody should have a problem with this if the mechanics stay in place.

I did it awhile back with the Monk. For me, they have no place in a regular mideval setting. So I proposed two reflavorings of the Open Hand. Arcane Duelist, where all aspects are semi permanent spells. Semi-haste for all the extra movement and attacks and so forth.

This is a perfect example of how you cannot ever refluff while ensuring that all the mechanics stay in place. In an infinite-resolution roleplaying game like 5E is intended to be, there is no dichotomy between crunch and fluff. In this case, your monk is changing how his abilities would interact with antimagic fields (like beholder eyes) and Dispel Magic/Counterspell/etc. Someone upthread mentioned a barbarian whose rage is actually a prayer. That ought to change both the ending conditions for Rage (cutting on yourself to keep your prayer up doesn't make sense in the same way that it does for rage) and the way it interacts with magical Silence (unless it's a nonverbal prayer) and possibly whether you can rage in the phlogiston.

There is no such thing as pure "fluff".

Now get off my lawn.

 

[Mathias Severin]

Sure. I get where what you mean. But that is also DM fiat territory. In all cases where you need a definite answer to a problem, like antimagic, I would treat the player as a regular monk.
But to be honest, I don't really think the core system of 5E perfectly balanced, so changing small stuff like this makes no difference overall. DMs should allow stuff like this because rule of cool. In case of imbalance, rule zero.

 

[Ancalagon]

As I just posted in the 'NPCs with class levels' thread, I prefer to think of the PC classes as being pretty unique - they describe the PCs and not necessarily anyone else. Yes there are plenty of barbarians, but none of them have quite the same abilities as the barbarian the PC is playing. Class is a metagame term, and trying to decide which 'class' everyone in the world falls into can lead to some strange contortions. It can be fun in a goofy, gonzo setting, but in a lot of settings I think it is best avoided, in 5E at least.

And to keep on topic, non barbarian barbarians:

A feral youth, raised by wolves and has taken on many of their traits (each totem is actually a member of her adopted pack family). Unknown to her, she is actually a princess - her real family were victims of an evil usurper, but the assassin ordered to kill her couldn't bring himself to do it and so just left her in the forest instead (yes Snow White but with wolves instead of dwarfs).

or:

A sentient flesh golem (could maybe use the UA revenant subrace), the masterpiece of his creator. He is perfectly civilized most of the time and just wants to fit in, but when threatened (especially with fire) he is prone to enter terrifying and unnatural berserk rages.

I think personally it's a mistake to only have the PC have PC classes, but that's a different discussion right?

To get back on topic, both of your examples are pretty good - the first one is like the barbarian's barbarian, but with a neat twist. The second one is *excellent*. It would need some working with the DM to make work (surely there are consequences to being a golem?) but it's fantastic stuff. Heck I might steal it for an NPC.

I remember that, some people seemed incredibly offended that you would ever consider reflavouring the barbarian in that way.

As is, for a barbarian tribe, I think only a few would be of the barbarian class. I can imagine there being fighters, rangers, and rogues; clerics and druids might fulfil the role of the tribe's shaman; and wizards and sorcerers might be witchdoctors or simply figures with strange magical powers. Bards could be shamans, witchdoctors, lore-keepers, or skalds. The class is actually quite diverse in the roles it can take on.

On a side note, I think in SCAG they reflavoured the outlander background to Uthgarth tribesman or something.

Yup on the tribe.

I wonder why people would be offended. I mean the friar idea is almost identical to my dervish idea, it's not some kind of bizarro nonsense no one ever came up with....

This is a perfect example of how you cannot ever refluff while ensuring that all the mechanics stay in place. In an infinite-resolution roleplaying game like 5E is intended to be, there is no dichotomy between crunch and fluff. In this case, your monk is changing how his abilities would interact with antimagic fields (like beholder eyes) and Dispel Magic/Counterspell/etc. Someone upthread mentioned a barbarian whose rage is actually a prayer. That ought to change both the ending conditions for Rage (cutting on yourself to keep your prayer up doesn't make sense in the same way that it does for rage) and the way it interacts with magical Silence (unless it's a nonverbal prayer) and possibly whether you can rage in the phlogiston.

There is no such thing as pure "fluff".

Now get off my lawn.

Aaaah that's why

That being said, well you kind of have a point Hemlock. I think it would be worth thinking about those issues during character creation.