Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6886503" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.  As much trouble (OK, it wasn't much trouble) as D&D went to giving us Backgrounds, you'd think they could've made 'Barbarian' a background.  Is the shaman or head-man or hunter or skald from a barbarian tribe any less a barbarian than the warriors or the one really crazy warrior everyone stays away from who goes berserk now and then?  Old question, answer hasn't changed. 5e doesn't divorce fluff from crunch all that much.  If you were a Barbarian(Sage) or Barbarian (Guild Crafter) for instance, maybe you're a barbarian who came into town and studied more civilized ways.New sub-classes would be an obvious way to go.  (Of course, a Battlerager Fighter Archetype could have handled the Berserker, and Barbarian could have been a Background.)  So, Battlerager as a Barbarian sub-class (it doesn't help that it's called a 'Primal Path,' either, does it?) could be a trained/controlled Berserker from a different background who taps latent 'primal rage' from deep within, a personal rather than nature/spirit/tribal-oriented source of fury.  You could have a Dervish 'Primal Path' that follows fanatical 'old ways' and 'give themselves to the god' to attain a trance-like rage.  I suppose you could even have an Infernal 'Primal Path' where the rage comes from some sort of possession?</blockquote>