Barbarian - Background/Theme or Class?

[Dedekind]

It certainly could work both ways, right? I think to gain widespread acceptance, the barbarian theme would have to be pretty rich in content.

 

[Bluenose]

Berserk as a theme I'm all in favour of, but not Barbarian as a background. At least, not unless we also get "Civilised", "Nomad", and "Primitive" as backgrounds. Perhaps a group of Barbarian backgrounds, since I think there should be some differences between a Knight and a Huscarl or a Sage and a Lorespeaker.

 

[grimslade]

Lemon curry SMASH!

The more of these threads we do the more my opinion crystallizes. The Barb should be D.) All of the Above.
Background is a no brainer. Throw in the skills. Add Keen senses or some other trait, maybe live off the land type power. Background should be called Barbarian.
Theme is a little tougher, but a rage mechanic similar to the fighter's Surge mechanic would be passable. Rage feats as you work up in level. The theme can be called Rager.

A class is going to require more than hits hard when raging and takes a licking. A Beserker class needs to be delineated from a fighter/ranger with anger management issues. A Beserker should be a mobile shock troop. A charger with little concern for his own welfare. Resistant to mental magic (he's crazy yo) and movement restrictions. I would want to see a rage feature that boosts combat as the PC takes damage. The closer to death the more potent he is. Maybe a building damage bonus per round after bloodied or reduced to one hit die worth of hit points.
The hit die threshold can be expanded with level. The 'Zerk can have some totemic focus that he can expend like the 3e buff spells, Cats Grace, Bulls strength, Bears Heart, Hawks Eye (attack advantage), Stags speed (movement bonus) and Weasels Luck (disadvantage to foe).
Similar to old rage or Surge, number of times per day, the 'zerk can focus his totem to boost for a round.

In the end, the barb can be a class in the PHB if it is complete for publication. If it is not shaping up to meet the polish of the rest of the classes, it should wait for another book. Same for ranger, paladin, monk and assassin.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Yep.

Not necessarily unlearned, just a different type of learning. Wouldn't know a book if it hit them but the oral history is as rich as any (occurs to me another preferred class should be some sort of non-arcane Bard, or Skald).

I'm looking for a mechanical difference between Romans/Greeks/Renaissance and Vikings/Visigoths/Huns. Subrace seems the obvious start point.

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

Er...huh?

Lan-"who sometimes feels like a member of a stupid unlearned subrace"-efan

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I think its all classes that were in a PHB1, not any old PHB.

"The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition."

​

Not that it matters much with Barbarians in the 3e PHB.

I am greatly in favor of cross-moting the traditional Barbarian into a Background + Theme. I feel these questions need to be answered on mechanical grounds, not historical or flavor grounds. To me, a raging somewhat primitive fighter is all a dnd-barbarian is.

And yes, I think that means that the Assassin, Ranger, and probably Paladin should get cross-moted as well. Bard, Druid, and a few others are questionable, but probably doable. Its hard to say without knowing how much weight the "theme" part of a character will carry.

 

[mlund]

I'd really like to think that the Barbarian and the Illusionist would get their classes packed into their parent class with theme or variant options. The big problem with barbarians vs. the modular design of more evolved versions of D&D is the barbarian failed to divorce Class from Background. He was illiterate as a class feature. Seriously. Illiterate.

"Barbarian" is a background, not a class. Rage-based fighting is a theme, not a class. The traditional barbarian should appear in the Core as a kit out of the Fighter - Great Weapon Fighter + Barbarian Background + Berserker theme.

Likewise they better not trot out Illusionist as a stand-alone class instead of a specialist form of Wizard. That would just be disappointing and awkward.

- Marty Lund

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'd like to see the barbarian as a class and the berserker as a theme, background, or feat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yep.

Not necessarily unlearned, just a different type of learning. Wouldn't know a book if it hit them but the oral history is as rich as any (occurs to me another preferred class should be some sort of non-arcane Bard, or Skald).

I'm looking for a mechanical difference between Romans/Greeks/Renaissance and Vikings/Visigoths/Huns. Subrace seems the obvious start point.

Er...huh?

Lan-"who sometimes feels like a member of a stupid unlearned subrace"-efan

You're looking for that. I'm looking at your idea and seeing Victorian notions on civilising the rest of the world and Africa in specific. "Primitive magic"? Check. Less intelligent? Check. Even despite a strong oral tradition? Check. Stronger? Check. Civilising people to raise their intelligence? Check.

And I can almost guarantee that many people will look at your "barbarian race" and give them black skins. As I say this is a huge can of worms that I want far away from my games.