PDA

View Full Version : barbarians as a race...



will.h
2007-06-21, 08:05 PM
Is it just me, or wouldn't a barbarian make more sense as a race? I mean, the live in there own tribes, every barbarian is much taller than a regular human...

I'm sure this has probably been brought up before but I'm new, and for some reason this bothers me...

Starsinger
2007-06-21, 08:09 PM
Yeah they could be their own race, or a sub-race of humans... but everyone's terrified to give humans sub-races.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-21, 08:12 PM
Or make them into a template.

What if there were LA -1 races you could add template to? That'd be cool.

Damionte
2007-06-21, 08:17 PM
Is it just me, or wouldn't a barbarian make more sense as a race? I mean, the live in there own tribes, every barbarian is much taller than a regular human...

I'm sure this has probably been brought up before but I'm new, and for some reason this bothers me...

They're not phycisally any different then humans. The only barbarions that are bigger than us were Wulfgar & Conan. They were big period.

Also there are a couple of human sub races. I vaugley recall the "neanderthal" like sub race in one of the books. And a snow adabted type of people in either frostburn or races of destiny. Though the two may be the same sub race and I'm just mixing them up.

Belteshazzar
2007-06-21, 08:18 PM
Yes It would make much more sense for barbarian features (especially rage) to be part of a human subrace. I would personally use the Neanderthals from Frostfell and give them the rage ability similar to that of dire badgers.

P.S. I count Halflings as a human subrace in my campaign world.
And yes the Neandethals do get cold endurance (or whatever it's called but almost everyone forgets they get the equivalent heat endurance (They basically benefit from the Endure Elements spell)

will.h
2007-06-21, 08:26 PM
I just don't think they make sence as a class...generally a race is made up of a group of creatures (for lack of a better word) with the same genetic make up, and I don't agree that most barbarians are average size humans.

What other class do you know all live together in their own seperate society? The closest thing, I could think of would be thieves that belonged to a thieves guild, or magi that belong to a specific order...

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Damionte
2007-06-21, 08:44 PM
I see where you're coming from, I just don't agree with your point of view is all. don't misunderstand me, I cimpletely understand what you're saying and I'm sure that if I agreed with your look on it, I'd probably agree that something is amiss, but I don't.

You're not born a barbarion, you're raised one. The different between a social class, and a racial difference is rather it breeds true if you remove them. If you take a newborn human from a barbarion tribe and raise him as a noble man he'll know nothing of what it takes or is to be a barbarion.

And vice versa, if you snuck into the lords nursery and stole the prince and raised him in a barbarion clan he' d probably turn out to be abarbarion.

Humans are flexible like that. That's why barbarions are not a race. Now on some game worlds where you have humans split up by type it may be that way. But those differences are so superficial that they mean nothign in game terms. A human at 6 foot 2 has the same game stats as a human at 5 foot 6. The type of racial differences that hunmans display are not definable or significant enough in game terms.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-21, 08:56 PM
I really enjoy the fact that Barbarians get 4 skills per level, and the human bonus to this works (in my mind) with the uncivilized-but-skilled theme.

de-trick
2007-06-21, 09:00 PM
i see where you guys come from I'm not sure but look in races of faerun to get a subtype human or dragonlance nomads

Shoyliguad
2007-06-21, 09:01 PM
They should be a race really, I think. Rage is an ability that is really in your blood. A person who was born to two very mellow parents, will still be a bit mellow himself.

Damionte
2007-06-21, 09:03 PM
That's still not an element of race though. That's personality, individual talent. every person in a barbarion clan isn't a member of the barbarion class either.

Shoyliguad
2007-06-21, 09:05 PM
yes but they still probably rage...

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-21, 09:12 PM
Yeah, Barbarian as a Race makes more sense. Though, I would say that the Barbarian class has a place as well. It may be that they couldn't come up with a good name for it.

Berserker almost works, but it's a prestige class as and also carries certain cognations. (A 'Barbarian' should be able to come from any number of cultural backgrounds. Not just being a generic Viking)

Maybe race is going a bit far, but certainly culture. And lets face it that's often enough for another race in D&D. (Look at all those elf variants). Bards, Druids/Shamans (if you use Shamans) are all viable character choices for one from a 'Barbarian' culture.

Truthseeker
2007-06-21, 09:14 PM
Well, one problem is that not all barbarians are human barbarians. Rather than do a spinoff race for everyone, much simpler for it to be a class.

Secondly, if you go out and find a barbarian tribe, odds are that the people there don't all have the Barbarian class --just like the people in the temple aren't necessarily all spell-slinging, armor-wearing experts ala Cleric. Barbarian tribes have their own hunters, scouts, shamans, healers, et cetera. The Barbarian class is just their warriors... y'know, Conan and such. :smallsmile:

I've never really felt that this is such an important fantasy icon that it even needs to be a core class, myself (it's just another type of fighter), but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

The_Werebear
2007-06-21, 09:16 PM
To the point that Barbarian rage is learned:

Dwarves have a variety of abilities that are learned and taught, such as Stonecunning, + to Hit vs Goblin/Orc, Use of Dwarven Waraxe and Urgrosh as Martial Weapons, and Dodge vs Giants.

If a human prince was kidnapped by dwarves and raised by them, theoretically he would get all that, even if he missed out on darkvision, the Con bonus, and saves Vs Poison and Magic.

brian c
2007-06-21, 09:53 PM
In my homebrew setting, I have humans (and halflings) separated into two different subraces each, one "civilized" and one "wild". Elves are also "wild", and dwarves are "civilized". The two human varieties are mostly similar, but with different usual alignments and preferred classes.

For more information on my races, please look here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47155

Dervag
2007-06-21, 10:25 PM
They should be a race really, I think. Rage is an ability that is really in your blood. A person who was born to two very mellow parents, will still be a bit mellow himself.I'm not so sure of that; it sounds like the sort of thing people may pass on as conventional wisdom without ever doing a study or anything to prove it.

There is a huge cultural element to that kind of thing. Very few cultures have ever produced a substantial class of 'berserker' warriors. The berserker's rage is what the barbarian rage ability is modeled after- a berserker would act like a rabid wolverine in battle, charging at people, frothing at the mouth, biting their shields, and otherwise acting like a complete loon. Ideally, their enemies would be intimidated and run away.

Most cultures don't have anything like that, which suggests that it isn't some kind of inherited ability. You could make a species or subspecies with rage as a racial ability, but I don't think you should make that the only way to gain rage.


yes but they still probably rage...There is absolutely no evidence for that in the mechanics of D&D.

Piccamo
2007-06-21, 11:19 PM
This idea is bad. Barbarians should not be a race. There are uncivilized groups of every race and they do not all have levels in barbarian. They do have levels in classes such as warrior, expert, adept, and a few PC classes.

By your logic every class should be a race/subrace:
Bards: Not everyone's music is magical, only those from parents with magical voices can make magic!
Cleric: The gods don't talk to everyone, must be due to ancestry!
Druid: How many people can turn into animals? My parents can!
Fighter: Only people of my race learn new feats this quickly.
Monk: Their ginormous fists make them hit harder; ginormous fists are a feature of their parents.
Paladin: As youths their race's priests lay on hands them...if ya know what I mean...
Ranger: The hatred of another group of people is set into their culture
Rogues: The ability to see someone's weakness and exploit it (sneak attack) is by virtue of race!
Sorcerer: They are descended from dragonz lOlz!!!1
Wizard: Only people of this race are disciplined enough to uncover the arcane arts to this degree.

Its stupid for all of these as its stupid for yours.

Skyserpent
2007-06-21, 11:23 PM
This idea is bad. Barbarians should not be a race. There are uncivilized groups of every race and they do not all have levels in barbarian. They do have levels in classes such as warrior, expert, adept, and a few PC classes.

By your logic every class should be a race/subrace:
Bards: Not everyone's music is magical, only those from parents with magical voices can make magic!
Cleric: The gods don't talk to everyone, must be due to ancestry!
Druid: How many people can turn into animals? My parents can!
Fighter: Only people of my race learn new feats this quickly.
Monk: Their ginormous fists make them hit harder; ginormous fists are a feature of their parents.
Paladin: As youths their race's priests lay on hands them...if ya know what I mean...
Ranger: The hatred of another group of people is set into their culture
Rogues: The ability to see someone's weakness and exploit it (sneak attack) is by virtue of race!
Sorcerer: They are descended from dragonz lOlz!!!1
Wizard: Only people of this race are disciplined enough to uncover the arcane arts to this degree.

Its stupid for all of these as its stupid for yours.

Plato wins this round.

Tallis
2007-06-21, 11:41 PM
The idea of a barbarian subrace is workable. I've considered using human subraces in my campaigns. However, that is not the same as the barbarian class. The class can be taken by any race and can be used to represent different things. You want a rage filled street brawler in your urban campaign? The barbarian class fits can be that. Elite dwarf berserkers? Barbarian. Viking? Appache? Visigoth? Aztec? Zulu? Scottish Highlander? Mongol horseman? Any of these could concievably be barbarians. Saying they can only be one race is too limiting.

Behold_the_Void
2007-06-21, 11:57 PM
I wouldn't call it a Barbarian race and I wouldn't give them rage. Instead, make them a human subrace called "Northlander" or something to that effect, and give them some abilities more indicative of their larger builds and adaptation to harsher climes.

For example, +2 strength -2 dexterity or +2 constitution -2 dexterity might make a good trade off, they're not as coordinated but stronger or heartier.

Dropping an extra feat or extra skill point can give you some room to play around with, giving them bonuses against inclement weather, perhaps even faster movement speed (necessary for chasing down game on the open tundra) or what have you.

LoopyZebra
2007-06-22, 12:07 AM
I agree with what Tallis said; you could have a barbarian subrace, if sufficiently different, but you'd still need the class to model other things. The only source with a separate "barbarian" race that comes to mind is EverQuest, where the barbarians there had distinct differences: they were 8 feet tall, built like a rhino, and fugly. They were a completely different race. Modeling a barbarian race when the only difference between them and normal humans is a strong preference for greataxes, beards, and mead is pointless. These are cultural (and possibly surface appearance) differences, not notable differences in aptitude as determined by genetics.

In summary, making a separate barbarian race that is still primarily human is like making a separate race for blondes because of perceived stereotypes. Both are pointless and offensive.

Jasdoif
2007-06-22, 12:32 AM
The only source with a separate "barbarian" race that comes to mind is EverQuest, where the barbarians there had distinct differences: they were 8 feet tall, built like a rhino, and fugly. They were a completely different race. Modeling a barbarian race when the only difference between them and normal humans is a strong preference for greataxes, beards, and mead is pointless. These are cultural (and possibly surface appearance) differences, not notable differences in aptitude as determined by genetics.Another source with a separate barbarian race is Master of Magic. Of course, that game stratified the human-looking races into "barbarians", "high men" and "nomads", with many differences between each other.

That's pretty much the gist of it right there. In the proper setting, where the human cultures are heavily stratified, a barbarian subrace does indeed make sense. However, "they should be a separate race because the class suggests weird culture" is not a compelling argument.

Querzis
2007-06-22, 12:55 AM
I made a barbarian elf not too long ago, wanna tell him hes actually from a human sub-race? I'm sure hes going to agree with you :smallwink: .

Anyway, barbarian usually come from chaotic society. But chaotic society can be found everywhere, I really dont see how they could be a sub-race when they can come from everywhere. And sorry but rage, just like the paladin smite evil, is just the barbarian fighting style. Every class could actually 'rage' but the barbarian are the only one who really let rage overwhelm them and fight with it. Its their fighting style. A fighter that would do the same thing woudnt be able to fight like that because barbarian actually trained to become stronger when they rage. They are supposed to be chaotic warriors, they fight with their hearts, thats all.

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-22, 05:06 AM
There are uncivilized groups of every race and they do not all have levels in barbarian.

Slight nitpicking, and you may well have not meant it that way, but 'Barbarians' are not necessarily 'uncivilized'. The Romans certainly dismissed these groups as lacking civilization, and it just is not the case.

Less technologically advanced often, yes. But that is not the same as lacking culture. When you get right down to it, Rome could be pretty Barbaric too (gladiator pits and all that comes with that).

But yeah </nitpick>.

Jack Mann
2007-06-22, 05:30 AM
Personally, if I was going to use a D&D class to model, say, the Visigoths, I'd go with fighter rather than barbarian. By the time they sacked Rome, they'd learned from Rome's military tactics, and fought more like soldiers.

Lost Outrider
2007-06-22, 06:43 AM
In a campaign world I'm running my group through, barbarian is a specific class as per the PhB and it can also refer to a sub-race of various nomadic human and orc tribals who collectively call themselves the Free People. Players starting out as human barbarians have to come from those tribes, but the only requirement for adding a level of raging d12 hpts later on is to have spent time with a (class) barbarian from one of the tribes.

Not all members of the race barbarian get the barbarian class features - such as rage or high hit dice. Instead, they get the standard human (or half-orc) racial bonuses with a smattering of plusses on the skills list to represent tribal knowledge and training.

Just because it gets confusing using the same word to mean different things, I just refer to them as Free People outside of the game. Inside the game, what they're called depends a lot on who is doing the talking. In the game, when a soldier from the legion starts cursing barbarians, he isn't referencing the PhB.

Thrawn183
2007-06-22, 07:35 AM
+ 6 Str
+6 Con
-6 Int
-6 Wis
Move speed 40.
DR 1/-
Come out to LA +1?

Piccamo
2007-06-22, 07:58 AM
Slight nitpicking, and you may well have not meant it that way, but 'Barbarians' are not necessarily 'uncivilized'. The Romans certainly dismissed these groups as lacking civilization, and it just is not the case.

Less technologically advanced often, yes. But that is not the same as lacking culture. When you get right down to it, Rome could be pretty Barbaric too (gladiator pits and all that comes with that).

But yeah </nitpick>.

Do you know the definition of uncivilized?
from www.dictionary.com:
un·civ·i·lized [uhn-siv-uh-lahyzd]
–adjective
not civilized or cultured; barbarous.

Now lets look up barbarian:
bar·bar·i·an [bahr-bair-ee-uhn]
1. a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person.
2. a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine.

I am not suggesting they did not have their own culture or society, I am suggesting that they were not as advanced and lacked the same standards as more structured societies. Civilized means to have an advanced culture or society. Barbarians (the general term, not the class) generally lack that.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 09:06 AM
As another poster pointed out, your logic applies to most classes.

Wizards are all smaller and scrawnier than normal humans. Sorcerers are all more charismatic than normal humans.

Human subraces aren't a bad idea in and of themselves, but in that case you'd need to give everybody one, not just divide the world up into "barbarians" and "normal people."

Conan D20 has "Races" of people: "Cimmerian" is one, for example.

Sylian
2007-06-22, 09:09 AM
Barbarian is simply a word to describe someone who isn't "civilizised". You might call your neighbor a barbarian because he don't shower every day, or something. Many civilizised humans call nomads barbarians, so I guess nomads are the "race" you're looking for. In Dragonlance there are many nomad tribes, such as the different Khur tribes, the Que-Shu etc.

Sylian
2007-06-22, 09:11 AM
+ 6 Str
+6 Con
-6 Int
-6 Wis
Move speed 40.
DR 1/-
Come out to LA +1?

Wis? Why? They live in the wilds, so if anything, their wisdom should be higher. +2 con, -2 int, perhaps. Maybe give -2 cha, +2 str. That would make them kind of similiar to half-orcs.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 03:17 PM
Do you know the definition of uncivilized?
from www.dictionary.com:
un·civ·i·lized [uhn-siv-uh-lahyzd]
–adjective
not civilized or cultured; barbarous.

Now lets look up barbarian:
bar·bar·i·an [bahr-bair-ee-uhn]
1. a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person.
2. a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine.

I am not suggesting they did not have their own culture or society, I am suggesting that they were not as advanced and lacked the same standards as more structured societies. Civilized means to have an advanced culture or society. Barbarians (the general term, not the class) generally lack that.
Whilst that is true of the modern word, it is not true of the way it was used in Ancient times or it's etymology. Barbarian was pretty much synonymous with 'foreigner' [i.e. anybody outside Roman civilisation]. It could be equally applied to Celts, Egyptians, Persians and, yes, even Greeks (though there would likely be qualifiers).
The actual etymology is supposedly from Greek encounters with other languages which all sounded like 'barbarbarbar' to them - sounds spurious to me, but that's what I learnt in Latin Class. Barbarian was also, for a time, synonymous with beards, as Romans generally lacked them in contrast to their neighbours, which is the root of the English word 'Barber'.

Regardless, I quite agree that the Barbarian Class would not be better represented as a Race. The Base Class is just a variant Fighter that emphasises an undisciplined form of combat. You could have a 'Barbarian Sub Race', if you wanted, but as others have pointed out, the Barbarian Base Class would still be a a valid role.

Drider
2007-06-26, 04:10 PM
I always kinda thought half orcs WERE the "barbarian/druid" race like elfs are the "wizard/druid" race with halfling as "rogue" and gnomes are "bard"...