Quote Originally Posted by Vogonjeltz View Post
ad_hoc didn't say, but it's implied, that the player was wrong to ignore the Barbarian class concept that offensively in the first place.

The class entry literally states: "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals...to a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue.... Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt." (PHB 46)

Creating an Urchin Barbarian and saying they come from the Big City, love going to hoity toity parties and adore as many people as possible in a room is literally the opposite of what a Barbarian is in D&D. So yeah, if you do that, you're doing it wrong, there's no two ways about it.

You can do it if your DM agrees, and that's fine, but you're wrong. And it's fine, nobody outside your game will care...but if you insist that you're doing it correctly, you're wrong.
What did I just read? There is a wrong way to play a character? Really? "Barbarian" is just the name of a class, it doesn't imply how you are supposed to play your chatacter. You can be an urchin big guy who's job is the assassin and who's class is the barbarian that uses brute strength to kill his targets. Would you say that he is a barbarian? No he is an assassin, but mechanically he's a barbarian. Now it does depend on the adventure's setting, obviously, but I really can't see why a set of abilities and skills named "class" should determinate your character's behaviour.