# Barbarian - Background/Theme or Class?



## Ellington (Jun 13, 2012)

Would you like to see the barbarian in 5E handled as a class, or would you like the theme of the barbarian stripped down into a theme and class? There's a number of points for each side.

As a background, you could have barbarian fighters, rogues, sorcerers, druids and whatever class you felt like. You'd get the training in the skills you'd expect a barbarian to have, and some neat background ability to give you the flavor of an uncivilized character, like Uncanny Dodge from previous editions or something similar. As for the theme, which would probably be called "Berserker", you'd get the archetypical rage abilities of the barbarian, usable for a multitude of classes. You could have a fighter, ranger or even a paladin that can go into a state of fury that would grant increased offensive combat abilities at the cost of your defense. The barbarian would be who you are, and not necessarily what you do. Not every barbarian would have to be a character who enters a rage on a regular basis, but it would reflect your primal background. For those that wanted the ability to rage, you could take a theme to do so.

As a class, you could have a well sculpted version of the archetypical barbarian, with rage abilities and some of the more primal utility stuff, but the upside would be picking themes and backgrounds to fluff out your character. You could be a barbarian with the slayer or lurker theme, and choose from various backgrounds that would probably make the barbarian a bit more "global". You could have a barbarian with the commoner background and the slayer theme, for example, to represent a character who's got a primal nature but civilized roots, for example. A barbarian wouldn't be where you were from or how you were raised, but something you were born with and the primal powers you'd have developed over time. You could also have backgrounds to serve other classes such as "primal" or "savage", but the rage ability would still be inherently the barbarian thing to do.

Personally, I'd prefer the background/theme approach. I'd like to be able to create characters that enter some sort of state of rage without having to take the barbarian class. A paladin entering a state of holy fury, a ranger embracing his bestial side or just a fighter that gets really, really angry! I'd also like to be able to create a character that has a barbarian background but is a bit more reserved than your typical enraged barbarian. A barbarian ranger sharpshooter who served as a tracker for his tribe, or the barbarian sorcerer who had mystical powers and lived as a hermit. 

I know we've had a lot of "should this class be a class or a theme/background", such as for the paladin and the ranger, but I think the barbarian doesn't have enough of a niche over the fighter to warrant his own class. Please share your thoughts.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 13, 2012)

The barbarian has never made sense to me as a class. Barbarians are a type of culture and upbringing. Why wouldn't a druid, ranger, shaman, fighter or any other character raised in the wilderness as part of a tribe be considered a barbarian? And what does going into a berserker rage have to do with being a barbarian anyway?

That, and barbarians really didn't have much of a niche. They were just fighters with d12 HD and rage. Rangers and Paladins at least had a great deal of distinguishing features, barbarians never did.

I think barbarians make much more sense as a background, and the concept of the raging fighter works better as a theme.

[Edit] If they do have a "barbarian" class, I really hope that they rename it to "berserker" or something else.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 13, 2012)

Barbarian as a background and berserker as a class works for me.  Though we might name them "savage" for the background and "barbarian" for the class just for D&D consistency.


----------



## IanB (Jun 13, 2012)

Prefer it as a class. As a theme it means that any barbarian character is going to come with the mechanical baggage of the base class, and it also means that you can't have for example a barbarian slayer. Make it a class, with some associated themes that other classes can use to make barbarian-like builds, and I think everyone is richer for it.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 13, 2012)

The barbarian needs more than just the rage ability and some sort of raging should be available for every class (spellraging wizards ftw).

That said, when the question comes up wether a class that was in an initial PHB should be a background/theme or a class, I'll always vote class.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm a little biased perhaps-just having completed a substantial rewrite of the barbarian during my houserule consolidation project. Barbarian seems like a classic to D&D. It's hard for me to see the fighter accomodating the concept. Then again, I can definitely see the philosophical argument as to why "barbarian" is a background, not a career, and as to why the berserker is just part of the fighter and/or ranger.

I'm going to cop out and say both. Make a barbarian class, but also make a savage background, and a theme that includes berserk rage.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 13, 2012)

Im for background + Bezerker theme.

That said, I just got through accepting that people really want ranger and paladin as a class. I dont necessarily agree, but I accept the concensus.

Now, if I accept that paladin and ranger are classes, how can I not accept the same for the barbarian?


----------



## john112364 (Jun 13, 2012)

I've actually always liked the barbarian class. I just hate the name of the class. Bezerker fits so much better. Barbarian is a type of society not a class. Change the name and I'm ok with the class.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 13, 2012)

Barbarians go into a rage which boosts their combat abilities. And that's kind of it. Unless the barbarian gets something that sets it apart from other combat classes (like in 4e with the Primal Melee Striker gig), it feels like a real waste to make it a class. One ability doesn't make a good class, no matter how much fluff you add to it. It would also be far more interesting to build a theme with a rage ability that could be applied to multiple classes. I'd love to see a battleraging wizard or rogue.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 13, 2012)

Ideally, Barbarian background and Berserker theme... or even subclass. All I really care about is that there shouldn't be a class called "Barbarian." It would be fine if the base Fighter was the "skilled, trained weapon combatant" and there was a subclass for the "unskilled, untrained, but powerful, melee fighter." 

Just don't call it Barbarian.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jun 13, 2012)

Definitely not a Background - there should be MANY barbaric BGs. That is where you could distinguish different tribes or even cultures. This barbarian word gets associated with complete savages and ferals, to tribal folk, right through to Viking-like cultures. Heaps of room there for many BGs.

AS for themes. What are the main things Barbarians have? Rage and higher HPs. I could see a Rager and 'Tank' as 2 separate themes (but then if the Barbarian is not a class, then access to both might be difficult, which doesn't bother me any).

Raging barbarians should no have to be part of every barbaric/wild type of character. So I guess theme and BG for me.

Though I certainly would not be upset if it stays a class with the ability to build different types of barbarians. (Of course Fighters, Rangers, Druids, SHamans, etc hep to do that anyway)?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 13, 2012)

Barbarian should be a background, because that is what it is. Berserker should be a class or theme or prestige class. Not every barbarian is a berserker, annoys the hell out of me the class name.

However not going to happen since the Barbarian class has been in since UA, Barbarian will be a raging class


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 13, 2012)

If the barbarian were being introduced today, I'd definitely say a background and theme. But it's not, so it should be designed as a class first. If that falls apart, then there's the better alternative.


----------



## Blood & Bones (Jun 13, 2012)

WotC has already hinted that all classes that have ever been in a PHB will be making a comeback in the new edition. I'm not sure if that will change or not, but it's worth noting.

With that being said, I'm with the Barbarian Background/Beserker Class crowd. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.


----------



## Kavon (Jun 13, 2012)

I'd like "Barbarian" to be a background.

I voted for it to be a class, though. I want them to pull a "Thief" and change its name into something more accurate. Battlerager, berzerker, whatever.. Just not Barbarian (since a barbarian can be many things, not just a berzerker).


----------



## Shadus (Jun 13, 2012)

There is this Lego table-top game for kids called Heroica, and even they saw the need to have a Barbarian character. Barbarian, even though it is so similar to other classes, is a staple of the fantasy genre, and thus deserves it's place as a full-class.

While I'm on the topic of 'dose X deserve to be a class or a background/theme' I personally don't see a reason why we can have both for every class. All classes have a thing, even if it's something small, that captures the idea of that class as a whole. Then there are other things, which are common but not exactly set in stone to be a part of that class. Let's use Barbarian as an example. When I think Barbarian, I think lightly armored warrior who can 'rage' to to things not normally physically possible, or just rip dudes apart. This is what makes up the barbarian class, but what of the other elements common to the class; Connection to primal spirits, untrained warrior, or warrior from a primitive clan. These things are ofter forced on to the class, but don't always fit the character, and characters of other classes could use these elements, and thus should be background/themes. Heck, we could even have a theme that gives the user a simpler rage like ability that would still be useful to caster types.

One last side note, I like what Pathfinder did with Barbarians, or at least the rage mechanic, and could see something similar being used to flesh out 5E Barbarians to being more than "I get angry and smash things So many times per day".


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 13, 2012)

Savage Background
Barbarian class
Berserker theme

Knight background
Paladin class
Crusader theme

Survivor background
Ranger class
Hunter theme

Troubadour background
Bard class
Leader theme

Naturalist background
Druid class
Beast theme

Ascetic background
Monk class
Brawler theme

Ya dig?


----------



## Vael (Jun 13, 2012)

I really liked the 4e Barbarian, giving the class a more Primal feel. It allowed the Barbarian to exist with the "Battleraging" Fighter, and give it a more distinct identity than "raging fighter". So, chalk me up as another voting for "all of the above", I want a class, theme and background.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 13, 2012)

Savage Background
Berserker class
Barbarian theme

If they absolutely have to keep the class name as Barbarian, then:

Savage Background
Barbarian class
Berserker theme


----------



## Grydan (Jun 13, 2012)

I voted Other. 

Barbarian is the very definition of a background. It's a cultural label, not a career or fighting style. 

The mechanics traditionally associated with the Barbarian class in D&D need a new name (Berzerker being a popular choice), but I think they'd work better as a class than as a theme, so there wasn't a poll option that fit.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 13, 2012)

All of them!

I think the typical D&D Barbarian character has too many concepts embedded in it to make it only a theme or background... for instance IMHO a Barbarian shouldn't by default be as proficient with armors and shields (maybe weapons too) as Fighter but it should be physically more robust and quick/agile due to a life in harsh environments. Something less and something more then, and you can't use the current mechanics of themes to represent this adequately IMHO. Furthermore, if a "theme" defines how you do things rather than who you are, Barbarian doesn't sound like a theme at all. Hence there should probably be a Barbarian class.

OTOH not everyone living in a nomadic/barbaric tribe should automatically be a Barbarian in the class sense, because that is for their warriors only. Thus a "barbarian theme" is perfect for survival-type and wilderness knowledge skills, plus perhaps some special abilities to improve resistance vs weather and environmental hazards.

And then there can be a Berserker theme... in fact "rage" may not even be a Barbarian class features at all. If it will be, then _also_ picking the Berserker theme may improve you at that, but it would make sense that non-Barbarians can also learn to rage, e.g. gladiators in civilized lands, special troops in an army, ruthless street rogues, and crazed cultists and sorcerers?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

I'd like the Barbarian (and Samurai) to be background, as they are cultural/social standings.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 13, 2012)

Blood & Bones said:


> WotC has already hinted that all classes that have ever been in a PHB will be making a comeback in the new edition. I'm not sure if that will change or not, but it's worth noting.
> 
> With that being said, I'm with the Barbarian Background/Beserker Class crowd. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.



Not quite, they never said that they *will* be making a come back just that that is an *aim*. Aims can be not achieved or changed.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 13, 2012)

mach1.9pants said:


> Not quite, they never said that they *will* be making a come back just that that is an *aim*. Aims can be not achieved or changed.



OH NOES!  WAI MUST WOTC KEEP LAIYING TO UZ!?   WE HATEZ EET FOREVER!!  WEETH NOE LEEMEEEET!!!  **RAAAAGEQUEEEET!!one!**


----------



## Yora (Jun 13, 2012)

I think the concept of a barbarian has enough features to justify a dedicated class.

Rage
Endurance
Speed
Survival Skills

Rage alone can be more than just a single ability. A savage background is certainly a good idea for all kinds of classes like rangers, rogues, druids, and sorcerers. But from what we can tell now, Themes seem to be basically prepacked feat-lists. A Berserker theme open to all classes would mean the character has to put all his feats into Rage, which I think might be overdoing it. Rage can be complex enough to make for a whole class, just as Skill Mastery and Sneak Attack makes a rogue class.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 13, 2012)

What is a barbarian?

The 1e Barbarian was an anti-magic class that broke party cohesion and can go away for that reason.

The 3.X Barbarian was a raging wilderness warrior - theme.

The 4e Barbarian could be a raging wilderness warrior or could be someone so metal that when he cried to the heavens the heavens gave him lightning.  Class.


----------



## Gothikaiju (Jun 13, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> What is a barbarian?
> 
> The 1e Barbarian was an anti-magic class that broke party cohesion and can go away for that reason.
> 
> ...




I would add the Pathfinder version to the class as well-- it gives the Barbarian a highly customizable identity while Raging.


----------



## ren1999 (Jun 13, 2012)

In my thinking there should be the Fighter Class with the Barbarian Theme. The background can consist of a list of skills related to that theme. For example, what did Conan learn before he left his village to go pillage? He could hunt, he helped his grandfather/father the blacksmith.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 13, 2012)

Chalk up another vote for Barbarian as a Background. As Grydan noted, since we know that Backgrounds are the cultural placement/elements of the character, Barbarian makes the most sense there. 

Things like their Endurance, Wilderness Lore, Keen Senses, etc. can be given to the Barbarian Background.

The Berserker then, is the Theme, that gives the Rage/combat related stuff. The "How you do it" part of the "what you do."

So, for a traditional "D&D Barbarian" class, you would go Fighter class/Barbarian BG/Berserker theme. Other classes, of course could take the Barbarian BG and/or the Berserker theme...to give you your "spell raging mages" (Mage class/something BG/Berserker Theme) or your tribal PCs (Rogue class/Barbarian BG/Lurker Theme, etc...)

Barbarians have never been purely a "class" in my games, for decades. Not in the ways that 3e and 4e allowed them. They are a culture and a class...you had to be human...of a particular set of tribes from this particular part of the world...and then could be a "Barbarian" (raging, tracking, resistance to magic, etc. etc.) on top of that. You could also easily just be a Fighter or thief or shaman of these tribes...but most were considered (among the rest of the world) to be "barbarians" (small "b")  because you were one of those tribesmen.

The concepts that you could have a "gentrified elf" or a "city-born halfling" or anything like that and be a "Barbarian" just NEVER made sense to me.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 13, 2012)

Gothikaiju said:


> I would add the Pathfinder version to the class as well-- it gives the Barbarian a highly customizable identity while Raging.



The PF rage powers to me look like the more martial 4e rages to me - themed rather than vanilla rages that actually give an identity to the individual class members.


----------



## Tallifer (Jun 13, 2012)

The AD&D Barbarian was definitely distinct, but also almost unplayable. I give it a lot of respect for its distinctive flavour and use of the neglected twelve sided die. Never wanted to play a character in D&D who could not interact well with magical items however.

The Fourth Edition Barbarian is unarguably distinct, powerful, balanced, fun and flavourful. The Primal power source is a great idea as well.

I have seen a Pathfinder Barbarian in action, but the iconic Pathfinder Barbarian is very cute albeit hopelessly unrealistic looking.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 13, 2012)

As I noted in the other thread, if a significant minority wants it as a class...they should probably get it. And you could certainly see combining it with other backgrounds and themes....barbarian highlander slayer, perhaps. 

Of course, from the poll, I am not sure how many people are voting as I am: thinking it should be a class for _others_...but maybe not themselves.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 13, 2012)

This thing again?

The game has room for both. You don't need to make a choice like this.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 14, 2012)

Very good point!


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 14, 2012)

Oy. We're going to do this for every class, aren't we?

Make them all classes. We can have a "savage" background if you like.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 14, 2012)

Heh, if you go with Barbarian background and Berserker theme, it's actually quite neat to put in different classes and see what you get.

Hand of Crom = Barbarian background + Paladin class + Berserker theme

Rage Mage = Barbarian background + Wizard class + Berserker theme


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The barbarian has never made sense to me as a class. Barbarians are a type of culture and upbringing. Why wouldn't a druid, ranger, shaman, fighter or any other character raised in the wilderness as part of a tribe be considered a barbarian? And what does going into a berserker rage have to do with being a barbarian anyway?



Exactly.

Now take it one small step further and you have my "other" answer:

Barbarian should be a RACE.

A sub-race of Human: lower Int; higher Con or Str; dislike and distrust magic in any form except shamanistic; racial bonus to saves vs. arcane magic; preferred classes Druid (Shaman) or Fighter, or Berserker if allowed; Barbarians cannot be arcane casters of any type without losing ALL racial benefits (they have become too civilized during their training).

Lanefan


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 14, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Now take it one small step further and you have my "other" answer:
> 
> ...




Oh *HELL* no! [/Emerson Codd]

You want there to be a strong, stupid, and unlearned subrace of humans with shamanistic casting? And who can't become civilised without turning their back on their race?

D&D has quite enough in the way of Unfortunate Implications with orc-genocides without adding any of this nonsense.


----------



## Chalice (Jun 14, 2012)

Conan is a Fighter.

I would like "Berserker" to be something those wishing to Raaaage around the place, could take, in the form of a feat chain, talent tree, or other.

If they really, _really_ had to make this a class, it should be something like a subclass. But it's still entirely underwhelming and unconvincing, as that. They're Fighters. With an advantage/disadvantage. The rest is cultural, which is nothing to do with classes.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 14, 2012)

I went to the trouble of doing the other poll....results are almost the same. 45 percent say they should be a class...41 percent over there said they would play it as a class. 

i guess we still don't know how many would _insist_ on it being a class.


----------



## Dedekind (Jun 14, 2012)

It certainly could work both ways, right? I think to gain widespread acceptance, the barbarian theme would have to be pretty rich in content.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 14, 2012)

Berserk as a theme I'm all in favour of, but not Barbarian as a background. At least, not unless we also get "Civilised", "Nomad", and "Primitive" as backgrounds. Perhaps a group of Barbarian backgrounds, since I think there should be some differences between a Knight and a Huscarl or a Sage and a Lorespeaker.


----------



## grimslade (Jun 14, 2012)

Lemon curry SMASH!

The more of these threads we do the more my opinion crystallizes. The Barb should be D.) All of the Above.
Background is a no brainer. Throw in the skills. Add Keen senses or some other trait, maybe live off the land type power. Background should be called Barbarian.
Theme is a little tougher, but a rage mechanic similar to the fighter's Surge mechanic would be passable. Rage feats as you work up in level. The theme can be called Rager. 

A class is going to require more than hits hard when raging and takes a licking. A Beserker class needs to be delineated from a fighter/ranger with anger management issues. A Beserker should be a mobile shock troop. A charger with little concern for his own welfare. Resistant to mental magic (he's crazy yo) and movement restrictions. I would want to see a rage feature that boosts combat as the PC takes damage. The closer to death the more potent he is. Maybe a building damage bonus per round after bloodied or reduced to one hit die worth of hit points. 
The hit die threshold can be expanded with level. The 'Zerk can have some totemic focus that he can expend like the 3e buff spells, Cats Grace, Bulls strength, Bears Heart, Hawks Eye (attack advantage), Stags speed (movement bonus) and Weasels Luck (disadvantage to foe).
Similar to old rage or Surge, number of times per day, the 'zerk can focus his totem to boost for a round.

In the end, the barb can be a class in the PHB if it is complete for publication. If it is not shaping up to meet the polish of the rest of the classes, it should wait for another book. Same for ranger, paladin, monk and assassin.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh *HELL* no! [/Emerson Codd]
> 
> You want there to be a strong, stupid, and unlearned subrace of humans with shamanistic casting? And who can't become civilised without turning their back on their race?



Yep.

Not necessarily unlearned, just a different type of learning.  Wouldn't know a book if it hit them but the oral history is as rich as any (occurs to me another preferred class should be some sort of non-arcane Bard, or Skald).

I'm looking for a mechanical difference between Romans/Greeks/Renaissance and Vikings/Visigoths/Huns.  Subrace seems the obvious start point.



> D&D has quite enough in the way of Unfortunate Implications with orc-genocides without adding any of this nonsense.



Er...huh?

Lan-"who sometimes feels like a member of a stupid unlearned subrace"-efan


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 14, 2012)

Blood & Bones said:


> WotC has already hinted that all classes that have ever been in a PHB will be making a comeback in the new edition. I'm not sure if that will change or not, but it's worth noting.
> 
> With that being said, I'm with the Barbarian Background/Beserker Class crowd. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.




I think its all classes that were in a PHB1, not any old PHB.

"The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition."
​Not that it matters much with Barbarians in the 3e PHB.

I am greatly in favor of cross-moting the traditional Barbarian into a Background + Theme. I feel these questions need to be answered on mechanical grounds, not historical or flavor grounds. To me,  a raging somewhat primitive fighter is all a dnd-barbarian is.

And yes, I think that means that the Assassin, Ranger, and probably Paladin should get cross-moted as well. Bard, Druid, and a few others are questionable, but probably doable. Its hard to say without knowing how much weight the "theme" part of a character will carry.


----------



## mlund (Jun 15, 2012)

I'd really like to think that the Barbarian and the Illusionist would get their classes packed into their parent class with theme or variant options. The big problem with barbarians vs. the modular design of more evolved versions of D&D is the barbarian failed to divorce Class from Background. He was *illiterate* as a class feature. Seriously. *Illiterate*.

"Barbarian" is a background, not a class. Rage-based fighting is a theme, not a class. The traditional barbarian should appear in the Core as a kit out of the Fighter - Great Weapon Fighter + Barbarian Background + Berserker theme.

Likewise they better not trot out Illusionist as a stand-alone class instead of a specialist form of Wizard. That would just be disappointing and awkward.

- Marty Lund


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 15, 2012)

I'd like to see the barbarian as a class and the berserker as a theme, background, or feat.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 15, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Yep.
> 
> Not necessarily unlearned, just a different type of learning. Wouldn't know a book if it hit them but the oral history is as rich as any (occurs to me another preferred class should be some sort of non-arcane Bard, or Skald).
> 
> ...




You're looking for that.  I'm looking at your idea and seeing Victorian notions on civilising the rest of the world and Africa in specific.  "Primitive magic"?  Check.  Less intelligent?  Check.  Even despite a strong oral tradition?  Check.  Stronger?  Check.  Civilising people to raise their intelligence?  Check.

And I can almost guarantee that many people will look at your "barbarian race" and give them black skins.  As I say this is a huge can of worms that I want _far_ away from my games.


----------

