Conan wasnt a Barbarian though, he was a Fighter/Rogue.I like the term Barbarian, and all its heap of negative connotations. Maybe I want to play that kind of character, crude, brutish, uncivilized, primitive.
Oh yeah, and Conan the Barbarian was a great movie!
If you want to divorce culture from the class (background), you're left with the iconic berserker fighting style. Though if we go back to the Conan movie, his fighting style was highly weapon trained, with a penchant for stealth kills and decapitation.
I'd vote for merging the Barbarian and the Ranger in one bundle to represent the far-wanderer warriors living on the fringe, relying on themselves to oppose wild creatures, being used to rare resources and un-regular tactics in combat.
1: Survivor's Will (aka Rage), Unimpeded Resilience (aka Con to AC), Deft Explorer (UA)
2: Reckless Assault, Danger Sense
5: Extra attack, Fast Movement
6: Archetype feature, Deft Explorer Improvement
9: Great Critical
10: Archetype feature, Deft Explorer Improvement
11: Relentless Will
it would pad a little the lack of crunchy feature of the ranger, while reinforcing the theme of both classes.
Tradition?Since 3e, the barbarian's shctick has centered aroung "rage". Coming in from earlier editions, this always seemed an odd choice (as the 1e OG barbariian didn't "rage" in a class ability sense). I had hoped that 5e would have taken the rage bit out of the class and instead place it in a subclass (that way, non-beserker-nspired barbarians wouldn't have to trip over a non-thematic class ability. However, 5e failed
this cityme in this regard. So, if the class is essentially a baked-in beserker, why not call it a beserker?
The term "barbarian" is thematically wider. A class the revolves around a rage mechanic is much less so—it tacks berserking onto "barbarian" concepts where it doesn't belong.That's one reason. The other is probably that Barbarian is thematically wider - it gives more room for concepts like the Ancestral Spirits and Totems and the like. You could do a lot of that with Berserker too, but you'd expect all these things to really be tied into the berserk rage.
It was a call back to the Barbarian in the 1st edition of the game (even if the rage mechanic was new).It's a shallow tradition considering that it started in the (ostensibly) 3rd edition of the game.
That's one reason. The other is probably that Barbarian is thematically wider - it gives more room for concepts like the Ancestral Spirits and Totems and the like. You could do a lot of that with Berserker too, but you'd expect all these things to really be tied into the berserk rage.
so yeah I want to go back to NO RAGE Barbarians that get strength and dex and anti-magic