Barbarian as a Background/Theme

[Falling Icicle]

I've never really liked the Barbarian as a class, to be honest. For one thing, barbarians are simply non-civilized people. Why should that be a class? Wouldn't a fighter, druid, ranger, shaman, or other character who was raised in the wilderness be a "barbarian"? I think that it makes much more sense to me as a background than a class. As for the raging warrior, I think that would make more sense as a theme. Here's what I'm thinking of:

Background: Barbarian
You were raised among the "uncivilized." Perhaps you were part of a nomadic tribe, or maybe you were raised among wood elves. You are at home in the wilderness. The rigid ways of city life are alien to you. You have training in the skills listed below, and you gain the indicated bonus on any check involving that skill.

Animal Handling +3
Survival +3
Tribal Lore +3
Wilderness Lore +3

You also gain the background feature called spirit guide.
Spirit Guide: You have a special connection with a primal spirit of nature, your animal totem. This is the type of animal native to your homeland that most closely matches your spirit and personality. Your spirit guide sometimes appears to you in your dreams, offering guidance and support, though it speaks to you in cryptic visions and omens. Many babarians know special rites, using intocixating substances, to invoke these visions, usually with the aid of a shaman.

Theme: Berserker
You can unleash your primal fury to gain tremendous strength and resilience. You gain the Rage feat.
Rage: You can fly into a berserker rage, granting you a +4 bonus to Strength and Constitution and immunity to charm and fear effects, and -2 penalty to AC for 1 minute. While raging, you cannot take any action that requires patience or concentration, such as casting spells. You can end the rage prematurely on your turn. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum 1).

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

I really hope not. I want Barbarian to have it's own class. I don't want to play a fighter in barbarian's clothing I want to play a Barbarian.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Does not sound that bad to me... would help modelling conan...

 

[variant]

I really hope not. I want Barbarian to have it's own class. I don't want to play a fighter in barbarian's clothing I want to play a Barbarian.

I never understood how barbarian can be a class. Is not a shaman in a barbarian tribe a barbarian?

 

[Mercule]

I've never seen a point in having a barbarian class. There just isn't enough to differentiate it from the fighter, especially if the fighter actually has some skill selection. Rage/berserk is just something that could be purchased in place of the weapon specialization tree.

 

[Ebon Shar]

I love the idea. I've always hated Barbarian as a class. You can go a step further by saying that almost anything outside of the "core" classes can be created using background and theme. How about Illusionist or any specialized mage as a theme? Certainly Paladin can be a theme, as we see with one of the playtest clerics (and has been discussed on another thread quite thoroughly). Assassin is an excellent use of Theme for a rogue. I hope that's the direction we go so we can prevent the class bloat that we've seen in previous editions.

 

[tuxgeo]

I hope the Barbarian comes out as an optional class so it can have alignment restrictions similar to (and reminiscent of) "any non-Greek."

IRL, the Persians had cities, but the Greeks called the Persians "barbarians" anyway. Barbarism isn't about settlement density or stability, it's about culture and the perceived lack of philosophical sophistication. Many so-called barbarians rarely if ever entered the wilderness -- they stayed on their farms and in their shops.

I like your first example of a background, though; but if the 5E Barbarian does become a class, then there probably won't be any use for a Barbarian background or theme.

Along much the same lines, but not for the purposes of replacing any prior class, how about this potential background:

Hunter:
You spent part of your earlier life near lands where you could hunt, and people there taught you their hunting ways. You retain your proficiency at venery, and can still bring home your vanquished prey with some regularity. You have training in the skills listed below, and you gain the indicated bonus on any check involving that skill.

Animal Handling +3
Jump +3
Natural Lore +3
Survival +3

You also gain the background feature called hunter's weapon.
Hunter's Weapon:
Choose a weapon appropriate for hunting in the area where you spent a significant number of your early years. You gain proficiency with that weapon. (Examples might include bows for deer-stalkers, pack-hounds for fox-hunters (as in "Riding to the Hounds"), spears for boar-hunters (as in "Pig-Sticking"); and, for bird-hunters, such things as falconry, boomerangs, slings with birdshot, or bows with forked arrows.)

(Yes, I know that pack-hounds and falconry aren't in the Equipment List. These are just examples off the top of my head.)

Edit: I just noticed that the initial playtest packet would marginalize the above list of skills -- because there are no explicit conditions under which a Jump check would ordinarily be called for.

Re-edit the next day: So, if a PC with STR 12 and this background declared an intention to pursue his stag by jumping across a creek that is 15 feet wide (comparable to the Moonwash stream in lowtown Fallcrest), then the DM would be able to say, "Hm. You normally can only jump 12 feet, and this is 15. You might get your feet wet. Give me a Strength check." At that point, the +3 to Jump does come into play, and the players rolls 1d20 + 4, which would give a result range from 5 to 24. This could still fail against a Trivial DC of 10, so the player still has to roll well to succeed. Against a Moderate DC of 14, the player would succeed on a 10, so that's 55% chance of success if that were the DC.