Barbarian - Background/Theme or Class?

[Tallifer]

The AD&D Barbarian was definitely distinct, but also almost unplayable. I give it a lot of respect for its distinctive flavour and use of the neglected twelve sided die. Never wanted to play a character in D&D who could not interact well with magical items however.

The Fourth Edition Barbarian is unarguably distinct, powerful, balanced, fun and flavourful. The Primal power source is a great idea as well.

I have seen a Pathfinder Barbarian in action, but the iconic Pathfinder Barbarian is very cute albeit hopelessly unrealistic looking.

 

[TerraDave]

As I noted in the other thread, if a significant minority wants it as a class...they should probably get it. And you could certainly see combining it with other backgrounds and themes....barbarian highlander slayer, perhaps.

Of course, from the poll, I am not sure how many people are voting as I am: thinking it should be a class for others...but maybe not themselves.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This thing again?

The game has room for both. You don't need to make a choice like this.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Very good point!

 

[Remathilis]

Oy. We're going to do this for every class, aren't we?

Make them all classes. We can have a "savage" background if you like.

 

[GSHamster]

Heh, if you go with Barbarian background and Berserker theme, it's actually quite neat to put in different classes and see what you get.

Hand of Crom = Barbarian background + Paladin class + Berserker theme

Rage Mage = Barbarian background + Wizard class + Berserker theme

 

[Lanefan]

The barbarian has never made sense to me as a class. Barbarians are a type of culture and upbringing. Why wouldn't a druid, ranger, shaman, fighter or any other character raised in the wilderness as part of a tribe be considered a barbarian? And what does going into a berserker rage have to do with being a barbarian anyway?

Exactly.

Now take it one small step further and you have my "other" answer:

Barbarian should be a RACE.

A sub-race of Human: lower Int; higher Con or Str; dislike and distrust magic in any form except shamanistic; racial bonus to saves vs. arcane magic; preferred classes Druid (Shaman) or Fighter, or Berserker if allowed; Barbarians cannot be arcane casters of any type without losing ALL racial benefits (they have become too civilized during their training).

Lanefan

 

[Neonchameleon]

Exactly.

Now take it one small step further and you have my "other" answer:

Barbarian should be a RACE.

A sub-race of Human: lower Int; higher Con or Str; dislike and distrust magic in any form except shamanistic;
...
losing ALL racial benefits (they have become too civilized during their training).

Oh HELL no! [/Emerson Codd]

You want there to be a strong, stupid, and unlearned subrace of humans with shamanistic casting? And who can't become civilised without turning their back on their race?

D&D has quite enough in the way of Unfortunate Implications with orc-genocides without adding any of this nonsense.

 

[Chalice]

Conan is a Fighter.

I would like "Berserker" to be something those wishing to Raaaage around the place, could take, in the form of a feat chain, talent tree, or other.

If they really, really had to make this a class, it should be something like a subclass. But it's still entirely underwhelming and unconvincing, as that. They're Fighters. With an advantage/disadvantage. The rest is cultural, which is nothing to do with classes.

 

[TerraDave]

I went to the trouble of doing the other poll....results are almost the same. 45 percent say they should be a class...41 percent over there said they would play it as a class.

i guess we still don't know how many would insist on it being a class.