I can enjoy playing a barbarian type. I'm not a huge fan of the Barbarian D&D classes, due to "rage" being a core feature. The previously mentioned ACKS take is way more to my liking on the "Barbarian as a Class" side.

If by "Barbarian" you mean Gauls, Celts, Norse, some Anglo-Saxons, Mongols, Scythians, etc, etc, etc, sure.

Arnie in a fur diaper, not so much.

If you are talking about D&D Barbarians, I spent my formative D&D years with B/X and AD&D 1E, so it's never been a "real" class to me. Sure, it showed up in Unearthed Arcana, but even as teens, we could tell that book was not worth using.

I don't really mind them being used, but they've always seemed a little gamey to me. Playing a fighter that is willing to throw himself at the enemy with no care for his own life is kind of interesting concept, but the character class provides mechanical benefits for that take cushion the edges of the risky choices the character makes. Letting them climb as well as Thieves didn't seem fair. Climbing was the one thing AD&D Thieves were uniquely competent at during low levels. Having another class that could do that and be a combat monster as well was kind of a fuck you.

Looking back at the Dragon Magazine they first showed up in, it is interesting that they don't rather the cover which touts an AD&D module, the Bandit NPC class, and Official Monsters.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009214Do you like playing them?  Do you like people playing them in your campaigns?

Yes, but I play a lot of RuneQuest, where a barbaraian is a culture not a class. We have barbarian healers, barbarians priests, barbarian traders and barbarian warriors.

Nope. As presented it's the Conan-is-Hulk, battle-rager type class.

A Viking, a Visigoth Cavalryman, a Hun archer, an Iroquois hunter, a Papuan headhunter are all "barbarians" yet the class doesn't represent them at all.

You're better off just having a berserker. Which can just be a fighter with a kit.

I've no problems with people playing the archetype.

Doing point-buy, happily, I don't have to fret about anyone thinking there's a mechanical advantage to going into battle bare chested that they don't purchase like anyone else might.

I only know the ones from Unearthed Arcana, to which I vote thumbs down as a ridiculous class. Barbarian for me would just be your character's background, not his class.

Yes, but since most class-based games equate "barbarian" with "rage fighter" I refer to them as berserkers in-game since it sounds cool and less insulting.

Quote from: Dumarest;1009335I only know the ones from Unearthed Arcana, to which I vote thumbs down as a ridiculous class. Barbarian for me would just be your character's background, not his class.

Despite playing D&D I'm with Dumarest.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009294If by "Barbarian" you mean Gauls, Celts, Norse, some Anglo-Saxons, Mongols, Scythians, etc, etc, etc, sure.

Arnie in a fur diaper, not so much.

I had a lot of fun playing leather speedo barbarian for a while. I was pleasantly surprised how long he lived. And yes, I used my best Ahnuld impression.

I played a Celtic-styled Barbarian in 5e, who was also a Half-Elf bishonen as well.

He looked like Itachi Uchiha and acted like Groundskeeper Willie, and yes I did speak in a Scottish accent.

Not when they become any excuse for acting Chaotic Stupid. Berserker fighters, people from beyond the pale of civilized lands, sure. I agree that "barbarian" should be a background not a class.

If I ever get to play 5e again (Instead of running it) I'm thinking of trying out a full faux Celtic-'style' Barbarian, who runs around with a big sword and wears nothing but strategically placed blue paint.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009221Define Barbarian, please.  Do you mean the D&D style tribal warrior with anger management issues?  Or someone from what the 'civilized' world considers uncivilized (In D&D 5e terms, anyone with the Outlander Background)?

No, I was thinking about Barbarians as some kind of separate class, as opposed to just playing human fighters who are uncivilized, etc.

I enjoy having someone play the "barbarian" class in 5E games that I run.  It's a fun class to play and be around.  

However, I've never been much to attach archetype or in-game things based merely on the name of a class.  As far as I'm concerned, you could rename the 5E classes using random letters as a mechanical package.  "Class A" has rage and lots of hit points.  The character in the game world may be any number of things.  We had a dwarven "barbarian" that was flavored as very civilized but incredibly tough and stubborn in battle.