D&D 5E Barbarian subclass?

[Szatany]

Although, looking at your list makes me think we could use some kind of "transforming warrior" class

Indeed. I would even go as far as to combine that shifter class with the monk.

IMO:
Types of "Barbarians"
Berserkers that enter an exhausting rage. - fighter subclass
Mystical warriors that transform into wild animals in combat literally. - either a (new?) class or speciality
A fast-running whirling plains-running hunter. - ranger subclass
A primitive Neandertal stereotype of an ape-like brute. - probably a monster or a human subrace
A horse-riding nomad from the steppes. - fighter or ranger, not even a subclass
A ship-building pirate from the North. - ranger or rogue subclass
A feral child, raised by wolves. - background
A moonshine-brewin' mountain hillbilly - a song title?

 

[Ratskinner]

One year into playtesting, and people still don't understand the meaning of "Background"...

To be fair, it sometimes appears the designers aren't really sure what they want it to mean.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, I think the fighting is only over naming rights. Who/what gets to inherit the name "Barbarian" seems to get some folks hackles raised. (Same with Assassin, Ranger, and Paladin to varying degrees, AFAICT)

*cough*warlord*cough*cough*ahem*

Fighting over naming rights is bonkers, though. We've got a game where building a character involves something like 7 possible decisions. Each of those possible decisions should be able to include, "Do I wanna be a Barbarian here?", along with maybe "What KIND of barbarian do I want to be here?"

There's more than one way to be a muscle man with an axe or a stone-age primitive or whatever.

 

[steeldragons]

One year into playtesting, and people still don't understand the meaning of "Background"...

It's still the "what you did/do when you're not adventuring", right? Grants you a couple of non-combat skills or a bonus to certain skills?

In that vein, yeah, Barbarian is/should be a background. Berserkser is a fighting style or "specialty" for the fighter/ranger/paladin [I'd like it for any class, actually] to take.

Barbarian BG could be something like this: Choose 3 skills (or +1 to any 3) of the following skills:
Tracking . . . . . .Running . . . .Acrobatics . . . .Spirit/Totem Lore
Nature Lore. .. . .Riding . . . . .Athletics. . . . . .Geographic Lore
Survival. . . . . . .Sailing . . . . Combat Sense. . Regional [other Barbarian] Culture [etiquette, religious beliefs, diplomacy, etc...]

Maybe a few more. That way, you can make the horseback riding steppe barbarian, the viking, the "wild men", the Conan, the Beowulf, blah blah blah.

To be fair, it sometimes appears the designers aren't really sure what they want it to mean.

This is totally true. See my response to the "what do you want from L&L" thread. In short, make some decisions and stick to them! Define things instead of "ideas" and "concepts" and "theory."

 

[Ratskinner]

*cough*warlord*cough*cough*ahem*

I have no excuse for omitting that.

Fighting over naming rights is bonkers, though. We've got a game where building a character involves something like 7 possible decisions. Each of those possible decisions should be able to include, "Do I wanna be a Barbarian here?", along with maybe "What KIND of barbarian do I want to be here?"

There's more than one way to be a muscle man with an axe or a stone-age primitive or whatever.

I agree. (With the caveat that something being bonkers doesn't seem to be an impediment to people doing it.) Although I'd like to avoid having any specific title appear in more than one category. I think I might snap upon seeing a character sheet that said Race: Barbarian Class: Barbarian(Rager) 4/Ranger(Barbarian) 3 Background:Barbarian Theme: Barbarian. Seeing such a sheet could not help but reduce me to chanting the word "SPAM" in the manner of a Viking Warrior.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Barbarian should very much be it's own class, all those past editions mean a lot in terms of what stays and goes with a new edition. And collapsing a Barbarian class into others will drive away those who will play the new edition.

And while the Barbarian is more narrow as one of the "secondary" base classes like Ranger, Monk, Druid, Paladin and Bard it certainly does have room for a few different archetypes like the standard tribal berzerker, or a more 4e-based totem-warrior. And while the playtest Barbarian is all of one variation, I feel that the one in the current playtest was just a singular attempt at a barbarian type, before they consider splitting it into different subclass archetypes.

 

[cmbarona]

I'm of the opinion that Barbarians should be subclasses of Fighters. Perhaps it's just a naming thing, but I doubt that's it. For the record, I've hated the name "Fighter" for many years now (doesn't the Wizard fight, too?).

But if we assume that Fighters are the class for the masters of non-magical combat, then Barbarians very much fit that bill. I think the Barbarian could be subsumed well by either the Fighter or the Ranger class, although there have been numerous threads about the Ranger's validity as its own class. 4e went a different direction with Barbarians, so I'll admit that they could be significantly different from Fighters as to warrant their own class. I can't say how well they worked since I never played a 4e Barbarian/saw one played, but hey, I could appreciate the attempt for what it was. But unless the designers really flesh out those distinctions, Barbarians are essentially Fighters with a different AC calculation and a different Expertise mechanic. I realize that's over-simplifying it, but I would argue not by much.

To add a little personal experience here, I have played a 4e Warlord from levels 1-30. I think that's quite a robust and versatile class. I think it has enough mechanics that it could be its own 5e class. However! I can also see it being subsumed as a Fighter subclass, if done well, and especially if given abilities that scale with level. Why is this important to the topic at hand? Because if they can make the Warlord into a Fighter subclass, then I believe they can make the Barbarian into a Fighter subclass even easier.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well, considering that the official 1e Barbarian class and most of the 2e Fighter class "Barbarian kits were not ragers, but non magical "uncivilized" warriors , I would like to see the battle rager dropped from barbarian. Besides, it is not as if all battle ragers in various media are "uncivilized" warriors

Yes. It's high time berserker and barbarian were divorced from one another. I'd also like to see a true berserk feature, with more drawbacks, a will save to avoid attacking party members, maybe.

 

[variant]

Barbarian should be a background, beserker should be a fighter subclass

I wish.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes. It's high time berserker and barbarian were divorced from one another. I'd also like to see a true berserk feature, with more drawbacks, a will save to avoid attacking party members, maybe.

The frenzied berserker was a prestige class in 3.x with this mechanic. Unfortunately, the downside was so great it provoked extreme metagaming. Such a character isn't playable, and should only be an NPC.