Barbarian makes more sense as a race/subrace/background option than as a class
>>94405403It's an archetype for undisciplined or tribal warriors.
>>94405403yes the class is actually Berserk, barbarian is not a class. Not all barbarians are berserkers.
>>94405403Have you tried not playing DND?
>>94405856Yes, it was awful.
>>94405403Class?
>>94405403Can anyone explain what thought process had illiteracy as a class skill? Or why getting hulk strength is somehow tied to nature?
Can you elaborate on barbarians in your setting?
>>94406524Because Conan the Barbarian.
>>94405403Eh, it's fine, it's such a huge paradigm shift from savage wilderness warrior to disciplined soldier that I can see it needing it's own class rather than being an option for Fighters, same goes for Paladin, the most basic aspects of the classes are similar but overall the differences are just too great, the perceived complexity would be a turn off, you have to make your product marketable.
>>94410143Conan could not only read and write but he also spoke several languages. His character could also fit a Fighter just as much as a rouge because he stole a bunch of shit when he could afford to and was armored every chance he could get his hands on them.He is nothing like the D&D barbarian who embodies the "rage of nature" or however they tie it to Primal power source just like how Druid is totally not a Cleric.I actually love the Barbarian class, I just want their main gimmick untethered from a shit concept.
>>94410185>I just want their main gimmick untethered from a shit concept.Don't people do that already?What concept would you tie it to? Specifically. I get the feeling it wouldn't apply to all the other player characters who also ignore the base concept, regardless.
>>94405403>rename Barbarian to BerserkerThere. Now everything is fine.
>>94405403>Barbarian makes more sense as a race>Yes, I'm 1/4th Barbarian, on my mothers side
>>94410381>Perfectly cogent sentence for average late era romanMakes sense to me.
>>94405403Nothing in D&D makes sense.
>>94405403>raceAbsolutely not. The word is too generic in relation to groups of people and has a very peculiar viewpoint when used to refer to people. At its base, its just a another form of "that foreigner". For the Greeks, who originated the term, it was literally everyone who wasnt greek or greeks whose accent was too rural. The Romans took it and used it the same as the Greeks, meaning "not Roman". Christianity did it too, and so did the Italians. Otherwise the various definitions refer to barbarians as a contrast to the speakers idea of who is civilized or uncivilized.Only a retard would think to use it to refer to a race or species of people in a ttrpg.>subraceThis is actually even more retarded than just race.>backgroundAh, yes, my life skills up to this point are as a wild uncivilized person aka a foreigner to your lands.This is obviously retarded from any standpoint of making a ttrpg.>classSo why is it a class and not called berserker? Simple, berserker is too specific. A Norse word for a type of bear/wolf skin wearing warrior who goes into a fury trance. Barbarian works because it is generic enough to represent all the types who are rude, wild, and violent as their martial arts, with tie-in to the linguistic shift of meaning a hyperviolent warrior ala Conan and other such characters that arose in the early and mid 20th century and refined in the late 20th/early 21st.D&Ds original version of the class wasn't even a class but a kit, a type of "subclass", for the fighter. Its bonus was being charismatic. Of course, there was also the berserker kit, which got Go Berserk aka what we know now as Rage. In 3e several fighter kits were combined into the current Barbarian class. Time had moved on and popular culture had made the barbarian archetype a big angry brute warrior and not merely an uncivilized fighter from the fringes. Nowadays, a rage-filled warrior wielding an axe and wearing little clothing defines the word, thanks in part to modern media.
>>94410363Nothing. The reason why you rage shouldn't be tied down to anything which can then allow any flavor you want.Berserker should just be an insane, violent asshole who likes the pain they cause and recieve. Maybe you have a demon partially possessing you causing you to hulk out. The skies the limit.
>>94406524It isn't and it's just to tie in the barbarian flavor to make it fit in fantasy settings. No one has really given a fuck about the tribal warrior deal since sword and sorcery was the current thing.The class should actually be called hulk or juggernaut which would be the proper names for the main gimmick of the class, which is big dumb bastard making a bee-line to the nearest enemies and crushing them with brute strenght.It also translates well into gameplay desu, 5e barbarian is perfect and simple for players who just want to hulk smash.In contrast fighter should have a lot more complicated options and should be a build-your-subclass deal to fit the highly trained martial fighter stereotype. Some subclasses do it well, others not so much.
here are your barbarians
>>94410185But that's not what people remember from the movie, "language and writing were made available" is not what stuck with people.
>>94413641Yes, the majority of people who have seen the movies ignore the 5 minute bits about Conan's life until he is cut free and even fewer still have actually read any of the books.Ironically, I find the conan books annoying to read as even Conan can be kind of insufferable and I enjoy REH's lovecraft knock-off stories better.
a system can be designed three ways>no classes>3 overarching classes (magic, violence, skill)>a specific class for every popular character archetypelike it or not, D&D fits into the third category even though it does a half-assed job of it. removing any classes from the system would be a further step into genre blandness
>>94405403total agreement. you could easily make it a subclass of fighter, which is the better class. I used to do barbarian all the time, but it got boring.
