Barbarian - Background/Theme or Class?

[Li Shenron]

All of them!

I think the typical D&D Barbarian character has too many concepts embedded in it to make it only a theme or background... for instance IMHO a Barbarian shouldn't by default be as proficient with armors and shields (maybe weapons too) as Fighter but it should be physically more robust and quick/agile due to a life in harsh environments. Something less and something more then, and you can't use the current mechanics of themes to represent this adequately IMHO. Furthermore, if a "theme" defines how you do things rather than who you are, Barbarian doesn't sound like a theme at all. Hence there should probably be a Barbarian class.

OTOH not everyone living in a nomadic/barbaric tribe should automatically be a Barbarian in the class sense, because that is for their warriors only. Thus a "barbarian theme" is perfect for survival-type and wilderness knowledge skills, plus perhaps some special abilities to improve resistance vs weather and environmental hazards.

And then there can be a Berserker theme... in fact "rage" may not even be a Barbarian class features at all. If it will be, then also picking the Berserker theme may improve you at that, but it would make sense that non-Barbarians can also learn to rage, e.g. gladiators in civilized lands, special troops in an army, ruthless street rogues, and crazed cultists and sorcerers?

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'd like the Barbarian (and Samurai) to be background, as they are cultural/social standings.

 

[mach1.9pants]

WotC has already hinted that all classes that have ever been in a PHB will be making a comeback in the new edition. I'm not sure if that will change or not, but it's worth noting.

With that being said, I'm with the Barbarian Background/Beserker Class crowd. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Not quite, they never said that they will be making a come back just that that is an aim. Aims can be not achieved or changed.

 

[FireLance]

Not quite, they never said that they will be making a come back just that that is an aim. Aims can be not achieved or changed.

OH NOES! WAI MUST WOTC KEEP LAIYING TO UZ!? WE HATEZ EET FOREVER!! WEETH NOE LEEMEEEET!!! **RAAAAGEQUEEEET!!one!**

 

[Yora]

I think the concept of a barbarian has enough features to justify a dedicated class.

Rage
Endurance
Speed
Survival Skills

Rage alone can be more than just a single ability. A savage background is certainly a good idea for all kinds of classes like rangers, rogues, druids, and sorcerers. But from what we can tell now, Themes seem to be basically prepacked feat-lists. A Berserker theme open to all classes would mean the character has to put all his feats into Rage, which I think might be overdoing it. Rage can be complex enough to make for a whole class, just as Skill Mastery and Sneak Attack makes a rogue class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What is a barbarian?

The 1e Barbarian was an anti-magic class that broke party cohesion and can go away for that reason.

The 3.X Barbarian was a raging wilderness warrior - theme.

The 4e Barbarian could be a raging wilderness warrior or could be someone so metal that when he cried to the heavens the heavens gave him lightning. Class.

 

[Gothikaiju]

What is a barbarian?

The 1e Barbarian was an anti-magic class that broke party cohesion and can go away for that reason.

The 3.X Barbarian was a raging wilderness warrior - theme.

The 4e Barbarian could be a raging wilderness warrior or could be someone so metal that when he cried to the heavens the heavens gave him lightning. Class.

I would add the Pathfinder version to the class as well-- it gives the Barbarian a highly customizable identity while Raging.

 

[ren1999]

In my thinking there should be the Fighter Class with the Barbarian Theme. The background can consist of a list of skills related to that theme. For example, what did Conan learn before he left his village to go pillage? He could hunt, he helped his grandfather/father the blacksmith.

 

[steeldragons]

Chalk up another vote for Barbarian as a Background. As Grydan noted, since we know that Backgrounds are the cultural placement/elements of the character, Barbarian makes the most sense there.

Things like their Endurance, Wilderness Lore, Keen Senses, etc. can be given to the Barbarian Background.

The Berserker then, is the Theme, that gives the Rage/combat related stuff. The "How you do it" part of the "what you do."

So, for a traditional "D&D Barbarian" class, you would go Fighter class/Barbarian BG/Berserker theme. Other classes, of course could take the Barbarian BG and/or the Berserker theme...to give you your "spell raging mages" (Mage class/something BG/Berserker Theme) or your tribal PCs (Rogue class/Barbarian BG/Lurker Theme, etc...)

Barbarians have never been purely a "class" in my games, for decades. Not in the ways that 3e and 4e allowed them. They are a culture and a class...you had to be human...of a particular set of tribes from this particular part of the world...and then could be a "Barbarian" (raging, tracking, resistance to magic, etc. etc.) on top of that. You could also easily just be a Fighter or thief or shaman of these tribes...but most were considered (among the rest of the world) to be "barbarians" (small "b") because you were one of those tribesmen.

The concepts that you could have a "gentrified elf" or a "city-born halfling" or anything like that and be a "Barbarian" just NEVER made sense to me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would add the Pathfinder version to the class as well-- it gives the Barbarian a highly customizable identity while Raging.

The PF rage powers to me look like the more martial 4e rages to me - themed rather than vanilla rages that actually give an identity to the individual class members.