Should Barbarian be a race subtype

[Nevar]

A friend of mine was recently discussing this with me and I'm not sure if I totaly agree but I can see where he is coming from. Barbarian for the most part is really more of a type of people and not really a class by definition. From that type opens up a slew of classes from berserkers to shamans however to him it's fairly disagreeable that barbarian be a class. I was wondering what everyone else thought of it and if anyone has tried a homebrew creating the barbarian as a racial subtype and not a class.

[Seffbasilisk]

Some races get things similar to a barbarian rage, or have barbarian as a favored class.....


I get what you're saying (as one o' 'em), but I think that's just the folks who'd be likely to go into it in life....such can be said about Sorcerers and such as well.

[Jasdoif]

Barbarian for the most part is really more of a type of people and not really a class by definition.

It's a collection of class features with a short name. Would you prefer "Dude That Gets Mad" for a class name?


More seriously, this very question came up a while back, and my answer remains the same: Unless there's actually a cultural difference between the "barbarians" and their "non-barbaric" cousins, there's no sense in making them racially separate.

[Thinker]

Calling a culture barbarian is ok, but it should not confer the same benefits of the class. The class is a set of mechanics used by players that describes every person of similar training. A race is a set of mechanics that describes every individual where the character is from.

[Person_Man]

The Feral template from Savage Species is close, though it goes beyond native/barbarian culture and into wolf-boy cliche.

But really, race and/or class do not equal fluff. You can be a wizard from a barbarian culture. You just have to be good at roleplaying.

[lord_khaine]

and just because a people are consideret barbarians does not mean all of them have class lvs in barbarian, they might as well be hunters or cleric fx.

[Indon]

Some races get things similar to a barbarian rage, or have barbarian as a favored class.....

I feel this is the optimal solution.

[MrNexx]

Try calling them "Berserkers". The real result? You have to reorder the Player's Handbook if you make it an official change.

[Kethel]

It's a collection of class features with a short name. Would you prefer "Dude That Gets Mad" for a class name?


More seriously, this very question came up a while back, and my answer remains the same: Unless there's actually a cultural difference between the "barbarians" and their "non-barbaric" cousins, there's no sense in making them racially separate.

QFT. There's very little reason to make a change when the class name itself is just an identifier.

[lukelightning]

Why stop with barbarians? What about knights? They are more a social class than a professional class.

[Matthew]

Wasn't there a Thread exactly like this last week?

Anyway, no, there's no reason for Barbarian to be a Racial Sub Type anymore than a Sub Class or Prestige Class (that is to say, unless you want it to be).

[Scorpina]

I don't see why they shouldn't be a class. I don't see how it would work as a racial subtype, for that matter.

[Rasumichin]

Be sure to keep fluff and crunch seperate.
The barbarian class can just as well be played as a pirate, gladiator, thug, dervish, pro-wrestler, bandit/mercenary/other fighter-style-type with severe anger management problems and a dislike for order- in fact, the barbarian class fits every character concept for a frontliner going berserk and smashing things up.

Or, to put it in a nutshell :

It's a collection of class features with a short name. Would you prefer "Dude That Gets Mad" for a class name?

[Matthew]

That's one way of looking at it and that is how it is presented in the SRD. However, the PHB (and other Base Class sources) associates very specific fluff with crunch. You can choose to ignore it or modify it, but it is definitely there as part of the Base Class description.

[greenknight]

I consider the term "Barbarian" to apply to a particular type of culture rather than a class, race or sub-race. I just call them "Battleragers" instead, and give them much the same benefits. I also remove the fluff which says they come from uncivilized lands / barbaric tribes, and the non-Lawful alignment requirement as well.

BTW, there is a Battlerager PrC already in Races of Faerun, but I ignore it.

[Tokiko Mima]

Do you remember when Elf and Dwarf were class options, and no one had a race?

The only Barbarian that immediately comes to mind is Conan, and his people were not all Barbarians. They were peasants of non-descript human origin. Barbarian is a class for wild-lands fighters without formal training, and it's possible to be a goblin barbarian, an orc barbarian, even an elf barbarian. So no, I don't think of barbarians as a race, anymore than I think of 'gypsy' as a race. It's a way of life, which more closely parallels the theme elements found in character classes.

[AslanCross]

The Baldur's Gate series comes to mind. Minsc was a Rashemi barbarian, but his class was ranger (despite the existence of a barbarian class). Still, he could somehow rage.

I do understand where the OP's coming from: a person from a barbaric culture could very well be a ranger and not a barbarian by class, but by RAW a ranger is literate while a barbarian is illiterate--even if they had the same social background.

Then again, one could argue that since the barbarian shares some class skills with the ranger, it's best to represent a barbarian through the class, even if he's a hunter of sorts.

In any case, I still think the barbarian is better represented as a class and not a racial subtype.

[Matthew]

Heh, that's because Minsc was:

Class: Warrior
Sub Class: Ranger
Kit: Barbarian/Berserker

...more or less. Baldur's Gate granted various special abilities for NPCs that seem to be part of 'invisible' Kits. Maybe the source is Forgotten Realms specific, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Zincorium]

Heh, that's because Minsc was:

Class: Warrior
Sub Class: Ranger
Kit: Barbarian/Berserker

...more or less. Baldur's Gate granted various special abilities for NPCs that seem to be part of 'invisible' Kits. Maybe the source is Forgotten Realms specific, I wouldn't be surprised.

Kits were a 2nd edition-wide thing that came up in the player's option books, and most were either horribly overpowered compared to the base classes or completely pointless. Much like the non-human races before we had things like HD adjustments or LA. They weren't fearun specific.

However, Minsc was just a ranger who went berserk because that's what Rashemi Berserkers did. It was a fluff thing that became crunch via DM (or rather, game designer) fiat, because 2nd edition played real loose with the rules like that.

[SurlySeraph]

^ Remember the Kensai kit? In BGII, did you ever make a Kensai/Mage? For those of you who've never played Baldur's Gate, think "Wizard can do it better" + "Fighter whose attacks are all always critical hits." That was a fun combination. *maniacal laugh*

Back on topic, you could just give them Rage 1/day as a regional feat, like all those Forgotten Realms regional feats.

[Dervag]

Being a hulking great warrior with a tendency to fly into a fit of rage in battle isn't hereditary, therefore it shouldn't be a racial subtype. Historically, the same cultures that we would expect to produce barbarian-like people (such as the Norse) also produced plenty of commoners, fighters, clerics, and other classes.

[Scorpina]

The Baldur's Gate series comes to mind. Minsc was a Rashemi barbarian, but his class was ranger (despite the existence of a barbarian class). Still, he could somehow rage.

That's because Baldur's Gate was based on second edition rules, not third edition. The Barbarian class didn't even exist in the original game, for which Minsc was created.

[Matthew]

Kits were a 2nd edition-wide thing that came up in the player's option books, and most were either horribly overpowered compared to the base classes or completely pointless. Much like the non-human races before we had things like HD adjustments or LA. They weren't fearun specific.

I am fully aware of how Kits worked. They didn't actually belong to the Player's Option series, but the Player's Supplement Series. The Berserker Kit pretty much provides for what Minsc was capable of [i.e. Ranger with the ability to go Berserk], but the Kit is not overtly mentioned.

However, Minsc was just a ranger who went berserk because that's what Rashemi Berserkers did. It was a fluff thing that became crunch via DM (or rather, game designer) fiat, because 2nd edition played real loose with the rules like that.

Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea what the rules were for Rashemi Berserkers pre Warriors and Priests of the Realms (1996), when the Region Specific Kit was introduced, but I wouldn't be surprised to find they used the Berserker Kit from the Complete Fighter's Handbook or some variant thereof.

That's because Baldur's Gate was based on second edition rules, not third edition. The Barbarian class didn't even exist in the original game, for which Minsc was created.

Actually not quite true. The Barbarian Fighter Sub Class (which is the equivalent of a 3e Base Class) was introduced late in the 2e run (1995) with the Complete Barbarian's Handbook. It was almost certainly available to the BG developers had they wanted to make use of it.

[MrNexx]

I am fully aware of how Kits worked. They didn't actually belong to the Player's Option series, but the Player's Supplement Series.

Page 64 of Skills and Powers disagrees with you.

[Matthew]

Bah! Those weren't real Kits!

Yeah, stupid me. I was actually thinking of that fact when I was writing that sentence, but it got lost in the prose. Yeah, what I meant was that Kits were introduced in the Player's Supplements...

[MrNexx]

I figured, but I wanted to be a pain. ;-)