Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shadus" data-source="post: 5943794" data-attributes="member: 6682446">There is this Lego table-top game for kids called Heroica, and even they saw the need to have a Barbarian character. Barbarian, even though it is so similar to other classes, is a staple of the fantasy genre, and thus deserves it's place as a full-class.While I'm on the topic of 'dose X deserve to be a class or a background/theme' I personally don't see a reason why we can have both for every class. All classes have a thing, even if it's something small, that captures the idea of that class as a whole. Then there are other things, which are common but not exactly set in stone to be a part of that class. Let's use Barbarian as an example. When I think Barbarian, I think lightly armored warrior who can 'rage' to to things not normally physically possible, or just rip dudes apart. This is what makes up the barbarian class, but what of the other elements common to the class; Connection to primal spirits, untrained warrior, or warrior from a primitive clan. These things are ofter forced on to the class, but don't always fit the character, and characters of other classes could use these elements, and thus should be background/themes. Heck, we could even have a theme that gives the user a simpler rage like ability that would still be useful to caster types.One last side note, I like what Pathfinder did with Barbarians, or at least the rage mechanic, and could see something similar being used to flesh out 5E Barbarians to being more than "I get angry and smash things So many times per day".</blockquote>

Verification