D&D 5E (2014) The non barbarian barbarian

[Ganymede81]

Any other ideas for the non-barbarian barbarian?

The Path of the Berserker does a good job of representing non-savage barbarians, in the same way the Battlemaster is good at representing knights, samurai, and swashbucklers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Reskinning is as applicable to 5E as to any past edition.

I disagree. Re-skinning was less applicable in classic D&D, for example - 2e even had a spell, Sense Shifting, to make re-skinning happen with spells, mechanically (3e had a feat, Spell Thematics, to a similar end). AFAIK, 5e retained the 3e convention of letting players describe their PCs and gear, so the door to re-skinning equipment and even, to an extent, race, remains open. 4e expanded that to 'powers' (and almost everything was 'powers') segregating natural-language 'fluff' from keyword-heavy jargon 'rules text,' but 5e has pulled back from those excesses. Fluff and crunch are more closely intertwined, classes and their abilities and spells, better differentiated, and language more natural, as a result. And, yes, re-skinning less of a thing.

Not that a DM can't - as you clearly have - make whatever changes are needed to cover some concept not handled in the game as presented. It's just more than mere re-skinning, and in the DM's bailiwick, rather than the players'.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I disagree. Re-skinning was less applicable in classic D&D, for example - 2e even had a spell, Sense Shifting, to make re-skinning happen with spells, mechanically (3e had a feat, Spell Thematics, to a similar end). AFAIK, 5e retained the 3e convention of letting players describe their PCs and gear, so the door to re-skinning equipment and even, to an extent, race, remains open. 4e expanded that to 'powers' (and almost everything was 'powers') segregating natural-language 'fluff' from keyword-heavy jargon 'rules text,' but 5e has pulled back from those excesses. Fluff and crunch are more closely intertwined, classes and their abilities and spells, better differentiated, and language more natural, as a result. And, yes, re-skinning less of a thing.

Not that a DM can't - as you clearly have - make whatever changes are needed to cover some concept not handled in the game as presented. It's just more than mere re-skinning, and in the DM's bailiwick, rather than the players'.

I want to reiterate here, Tony, how much I enjoy and appreciate the clarity with which you elucidate game design principles. Our preferences are not identical but I enjoy your posts. Keep it up!

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've been, and seen, reskinning--at player instigation, with DM approval--since 1E. It was never a problem, it almost never went beyond reskinning into mechanics, and I've never yet played with a DM who didn't consider it just part of gameplay (so long as it fit the campaign).

The notion that any edition was somehow opposed to it, or that flavor and crunch are ever so intertwined as to make it a huge deal, is simply not supported by my experience. I mean, as always, we can play dueling anecdotes all day, but the bottom line is that clearly not everyone reads the editions as "more" or "less" friendly to reskinning the way you do.

 

[Lillika]

I see 5e as even more open to customization than other editions. Backgrounds, and the ability to make a custom background even for AL play leads me to this conclusion. While customization and reflavoring are not the same, they are very closely related. I see 5e as one of the most open ended editions thus far. Tony the example you gave of the player in your group reflavoring the sorcerer into a scion, imo is not reflavoring or even reskinning, there is a direct rules change in that his "magic" is not magic and therefore can't be detected or dispelled as such. I might be using the wrong words or even, be discussing something completely different, but there is a huge difference between reflavoring something, and actually changing any game mechanics involved.

I myself am a very strong proponent of reflavoring to suit a particular idea a person has for a character, as long as absolutely 0 rules are changed. This might mean that a person needs to be much more creative and more imagination needs to be used. For example in my campaign there is a fighter who wanted to reflavor Menacing Attack, to be the enemy being more in awe of the characters perfect form and beautiful sword play as she danced around the battlefield, than in fear of her (even though the rules for frightened would still be used, exactly as written). Another example which is probably pushing more into mechanics (but not so much in my opinion) is that paladins are more bound to characteristics of their god's and alignment than the tenets posted in each oath (using the tenets as something to as a guideline for making more personalized ones that are best fitting for the characters background). Although the Paladin one is the closest to changing rules (even the broken oath section, does not use the words tenets at all), I don't see any rules changes here either with reflavoring.

TLDR: I feel that 5e is the most open and flexible system, and I feel that reflavoring without changing any rules is encouraged.

 

[Ashrym]

The barbarian is a very cool class, but it does suffer a bit from the fact that it attempts to mix two concepts - one being the "foreigner/nomad/tribal/less civilized" warrior and the other being the "raging warrior". If you think about it, not all nomads are battle-ragers. In fact I would suspect that the average tribal/nomad warrior with class is a ranger, not a barbarian.

The average doesn't have a class at all. Those with classes are more likely fighters, possy barbarians, instead of entire populations of spell casters.

But what if you want to do a battle-raging person who is *not* a foreigner/tribal/nomad person? You enjoy the mechanics and playstyle, but the roleplaying aspect isn't up your alley?

The barbarian class is easily the class with the mechanics. Like you posted, background is easy as the main focal point for the characterization. Simply multiclassing into barbarian after 1 level of any other class means the character didn't start with as a stereotypical barbarian.

The tribal fluff is just fluff. It's not in the mechanics. One of the best backgrounds is a soldier as far as characterization goes for the class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see 5e as even more open to customization than other editions. Backgrounds, and the ability to make a custom background even for AL play leads me to this conclusion. While customization and reflavoring are not the same, they are very closely related. I see 5e as one of the most open ended editions thus far.

the example you gave of the player in your group reflavoring the sorcerer into a scion, imo is not reflavoring or even reskinning, there is a direct rules change in that his "magic" is not magic and therefore can't be detected or dispelled as such.

It was a hypothetical example (one that came up in other discussions before the mystic was floated), but that was the point, that it was an example of re-skinning inevitably 'touching' the third-rail of mechanics.

I have not taken re-skinning that far in any 5e game I've run. Mostly gear. One character's shortsword, shield & javelins are gladius, scutum, and pilii - that sort of thing, similar to 3e (some examples there: a caster's shield re-skinned as a holy tome, a lance re-skinned as a sarrissa). In 4e, it was out of control (actual I'm-not-making-this-up examples: an umbrella re-skinned as a light shield, a holy symbol re-skinned as a pistol, rods re-skinned as wheel-locks, a genasi re-skinned as a Djinn, a dragon re-skinned as a water elemental, a pixie vampire re-skinned as a sentient mosquito, a Sorcerer re-skinned as a mad scientist with a flamethrower, a druid re-skinned as Dr.jekyl/Mr.hyde, an Avenger and an Ardent re-skinned as 'secret agents,' a warforged warlock re-skinned as the terminator....).
In 5e, it's back under the DM's control. (Like mouseferatu said "with DM approval.")

I might be using the wrong words or even, be discussing something completely different, but there is a huge difference between reflavoring something, and actually changing any game mechanics involved.

That's a fine, perfectly clear way of saying it, and I don't disagree. It's just that the line between 'flavor' and 'rules' can be very blurry. That's the case in 5e's natural language approach, and it puts re-flavoring, like rule changes, in the DM's court. Which, really, is where any sort of rulings belong.

I feel that 5e is the most open and flexible system, and I feel that reflavoring without changing any rules is encouraged.

DM Empowerment makes 5e enormously flexible and customizable. Work with the DM, and you should be able to play any character you can imagine. But 'reflavoring' without changing any rules (and thus, theoretically over/under the DM's head/nose) is a lot trickier, because it means teasing flavor from rules text, and, IMHO, working with the DM to customize flavor&rules is the better approach. (In part because they can end up being the same thing, perhaps even unexpectedly.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

*blink*

Tony, I can only assume your experience with 4E was vastly different than mine. I never saw anyone assume that reskinning in 4E somehow didn't require DM approval; with all the reskinning I've seen in any edition, 4E included, it was always understood that all of it needed DM approval.

(For the record, I see nothing wrong with some of your examples, while others are a bridge too far for my tastes.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

*blink*

Tony, I can only assume your experience with 4E was vastly different than mine.

Always a safe assumption. ;>

I never saw anyone assume that reskinning in 4E somehow didn't require DM approval; with all the reskinning I've seen in any edition, 4E included, it was always understood that all of it needed DM approval.

3e gave the player license to choose the appearance of his character and gear, that's re-skinning to a limited degree. I don't recall DM approval being needed, but I could be wrong, it's been a while. 4e did the same, and extended it to the flavor text of powers. If you wanted a keyword to change - like the type of damage your spell inflicted - you'd've certainly needed the DM's change-the-rules authority.

And that's a fair rule of thumb, anyway. Cosmetic changes - go ahead. Impact the mechanics, ask the DM. With 5e's DM-Empowerment orientation, there's not such a rigid line between 'cosmetic' and 'mechanic' as in 4e, giving the DM a lot more latitude.

 

[Valmarius]

I have a player in my game who is playing a non-barbaric Barbarian character, using the totem path.
He's one of the last surviving members of a mercenary company, haunted by the comrades who died in a terrible battle.
He gains toughness from the spirit of his bearlike commander, and superior vision from his eagle-eyed scout, etc.
The totems he carries are medals that belonged to each of his fallen friends.