Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6041405" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I am not sure if you're now thinking I was suggesting multiple barbarian backgrounds, but I wasn't... I was suggesting NO barbarian backgrounds at all, and instead to consider a barbarian human subrace.</p><p></p><p>So then you can have barbarian+clerics (shamans), barbarian+fighters, barbarian+rogues, barbarian+sorcerers etc. by combining it with classes and you can also have barbarian+merchants or barbarian+commoners by combining it with backgrounds.</p><p></p><p>Of course the limit of this idea is, as I mentioned already, that you cannot combine it anymore with races... you're stuck with human barbarians, and this can be wrong for many gaming groups. But notice that in 3e you had subraces such as Wild Elves for example, which were a little bit like barbarian elves.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>On the contrary, I am <em>trying </em>to understand what is the common ground of traditional D&D gaming groups. Might be wrong, but IMHO when someone says "Barbarian" in a game of D&D, the first thing that comes to mind to most players is in fact Conan the Barbarian, or alternatively the barbarian invasions of the dark ages. </p><p></p><p>So I am trying to think: what are the traits that more-or-less define the most common archetype of a D&D "barbarian"? </p><p></p><p>My answer is: physical toughness, survival instinct, familiarity with the wilderness. All these may be connected with the concept of less-than-civilized tribes, on the ground that having a more primitive civilization (perhaps even being nomadic) generally forces all their people to be tougher against the hazards of the wilderness and travel.</p><p></p><p>There is another trait which defines a typical D&D Barbarian, and that is the chaotic rage, but IMHO there are quite a lot of people who have expressed their preference for rage to be separate, so that non-barbarians can have it too and not all barbarians need to be berserker by default, thus I'm leaving it out at least for the moment.</p><p></p><p>Then I think about what are the current mechanics at our disposal: class and background first. Can I use these to represent barbarians well?</p><p></p><p>I bet that 5e ultimately will have a Barbarian class, it worked well enough in the past. But if I like the idea of a barbarian <strong>tribe</strong>, clearly they can't all be barbarian-classed (at least not all single class). They can't all be barbarian <em>warriors</em>. It's ok in 3e, you use the Barbarian class for barbarian warriors, then you can use the Cleric class for their Shamans etc. I would prefer however that you could make a barbarian Fighter, a barbarian Cleri, a barbarian Sorcerer, by combining "barbarian" (whatever mechanic it is) with classes.</p><p></p><p>Background, I am against it. Because the mechanics of background are granting 4 skills and a Trait. Maybe if you can design a GREAT trait for a barbarian background, it would be OK. But it's the skills that leave me skeptic, because beside Survival I don't see everyone in a barbarian tribe being all good at the same skills. They are a tribe, a community, so IMO they will have people specialized at different skills. They will have their commoners, their merchants, their soldiers, their sages, etc. so it might be best if "barbarian" isn't a background so that it doesn't "lock" the choice of a background.</p><p></p><p>Thus I suggested using a subrace, why? For two reasons:</p><p></p><p>- races and subraces are the least strictly defined "character building mechanics"; we have subraces granting larger HD, weapon dice increase, ability bonuses, skills, perception improvements, and totally unique features; there is A LOT of freedom here, so we can come up with ANY defining features that is reasonably good for ALL barbarians (at least the most archetypal ones) including Norse and Maori if you want, without being stuck with 4 skills and a trait (although the trait IS free from design constraints! but it's quite too little)</p><p></p><p>- using a subrace still leaves each PC the choice of class, background and specialty to make plenty of different "barbarian" PC in the same tribe or world</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6041405, member: 1465"] I am not sure if you're now thinking I was suggesting multiple barbarian backgrounds, but I wasn't... I was suggesting NO barbarian backgrounds at all, and instead to consider a barbarian human subrace. So then you can have barbarian+clerics (shamans), barbarian+fighters, barbarian+rogues, barbarian+sorcerers etc. by combining it with classes and you can also have barbarian+merchants or barbarian+commoners by combining it with backgrounds. Of course the limit of this idea is, as I mentioned already, that you cannot combine it anymore with races... you're stuck with human barbarians, and this can be wrong for many gaming groups. But notice that in 3e you had subraces such as Wild Elves for example, which were a little bit like barbarian elves. On the contrary, I am [I]trying [/I]to understand what is the common ground of traditional D&D gaming groups. Might be wrong, but IMHO when someone says "Barbarian" in a game of D&D, the first thing that comes to mind to most players is in fact Conan the Barbarian, or alternatively the barbarian invasions of the dark ages. So I am trying to think: what are the traits that more-or-less define the most common archetype of a D&D "barbarian"? My answer is: physical toughness, survival instinct, familiarity with the wilderness. All these may be connected with the concept of less-than-civilized tribes, on the ground that having a more primitive civilization (perhaps even being nomadic) generally forces all their people to be tougher against the hazards of the wilderness and travel. There is another trait which defines a typical D&D Barbarian, and that is the chaotic rage, but IMHO there are quite a lot of people who have expressed their preference for rage to be separate, so that non-barbarians can have it too and not all barbarians need to be berserker by default, thus I'm leaving it out at least for the moment. Then I think about what are the current mechanics at our disposal: class and background first. Can I use these to represent barbarians well? I bet that 5e ultimately will have a Barbarian class, it worked well enough in the past. But if I like the idea of a barbarian [B]tribe[/B], clearly they can't all be barbarian-classed (at least not all single class). They can't all be barbarian [I]warriors[/I]. It's ok in 3e, you use the Barbarian class for barbarian warriors, then you can use the Cleric class for their Shamans etc. I would prefer however that you could make a barbarian Fighter, a barbarian Cleri, a barbarian Sorcerer, by combining "barbarian" (whatever mechanic it is) with classes. Background, I am against it. Because the mechanics of background are granting 4 skills and a Trait. Maybe if you can design a GREAT trait for a barbarian background, it would be OK. But it's the skills that leave me skeptic, because beside Survival I don't see everyone in a barbarian tribe being all good at the same skills. They are a tribe, a community, so IMO they will have people specialized at different skills. They will have their commoners, their merchants, their soldiers, their sages, etc. so it might be best if "barbarian" isn't a background so that it doesn't "lock" the choice of a background. Thus I suggested using a subrace, why? For two reasons: - races and subraces are the least strictly defined "character building mechanics"; we have subraces granting larger HD, weapon dice increase, ability bonuses, skills, perception improvements, and totally unique features; there is A LOT of freedom here, so we can come up with ANY defining features that is reasonably good for ALL barbarians (at least the most archetypal ones) including Norse and Maori if you want, without being stuck with 4 skills and a trait (although the trait IS free from design constraints! but it's quite too little) - using a subrace still leaves each PC the choice of class, background and specialty to make plenty of different "barbarian" PC in the same tribe or world [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses
Top