Barbarians are a race...

[Angel Tarragon]

I tend to agree, although it's difficult to represent in 3.5e

I thought Neanderthals did it pretty well to be honest.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Am I the only person who thinks Barbarians are a race and not a class?

Yeah, in the same way that Halruans, Cormyreans and Dalelanders are races. In other words the set of class abilities, skills, hp, etc. presented in the PHB as "barbarian" I regard simply as "warrior" that a player can associate with whatever cultural background he chooses. Of course I'm one of those rules-loose DMs who allows my PCs to switch around class skills, buy class abilities as feats, alter spell lists and such so my opinion might be biased.

 

[Aleolus]

Well, First ed used Barbarian as a race that could be any combat-oriented class (Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, etc), and the only difference was that they would fly into a rage when fighting.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Well, First ed used Barbarian as a race that could be any combat-oriented class (Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, etc), and the only difference was that they would fly into a rage when fighting.

1st ed introduced the barbarian as a Class in the book Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Greg K]

1st ed introduced the barbarian as a Class in the book Unearthed Arcana.

Yes, and despite its numerous flaws, the 1e barbarian did several things better than the 3e barbarian (my opinion of course). It didn't include rage and it recognized the cultural nature by providing sample cultures (e.g., Amedio Jungle, Wolf Nomads) which tailored the class weapon proficiencies and provided additional skills based upon the character's culture.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Personally I think what needs to be done is seperate Race {biology}, Class {training}, and Culture {learned behaviors} into three mechanical blocks. The current version clumps Class and Culture together, which makes it more of a challenge to parse out the potential of a 'civilized' barbarian.. more so if you don't have a lenient DM like Greg K mentioned above.

THe problem with that is the additional workload. I have worked up a HR on Alt Race and Culture that breaks the mechanics apart for use in my Eberron campaign. Some of these Cultures could be used in other settings, but FR nations would need thier own.

{the basic concept of my alt rule is to provide biological benefits by race and behavior benefits by culture. I hewed as close to core 3e as possible. 4e could have broken the mold and gone this route from the start.. but I doubt it. I added a concept named 'Blooded feat' that you could access based on either race of culture. An example pertinent to this thread is the Draom Culture feat of 'Nature of the Beast' which grants an ability to Rage.}

And yes, the Core Barbarian should be renamed Berserker

 

[Greg K]

Personally I think what needs to be done is seperate Race {biology}, Class {training}, and Culture {learned behaviors} into three mechanical blocks.

I pretty much agree considering that I have advocated the same here on the boards. However, I'd have culture provide training in a couple of skills common to all members of the culture and a feat or two (one of which might be a cultural weapon depending upon the culture). Then, I'd include something along the line of d20 Modern Occupations which could be what you did before training or what you did after training, but before taking up adventuring.

 

[Claudius Gaius]

Well, for whimsy, here's a set of human subspecies based on the magical influences of their birth-realms. The "Totemistic Magic" birthright of those born in the "Barbarian Lands" essentially creates a set of barbarian races. You'll have to scroll down a ways though.