D&D 5E Barbarian subclass?

[Szatany]

Should barbarian be rather a fighter subclass than a full class? I can see it working either way, and I'm curious about opinions of others.
Why it should be fighter's subclass:
- barbarian seems rather one-dimensional as a class, compared to fighter and even to 5e paladin
- warlord is roughly a concept of similar breadth, and it's not a separate class
- knight is is like above, and it will be a figher subclass

Why it shoudn't:
- it's been a base class since forever
- there could be subclasses for a barbarian, as proved by 3e's prestige classes

 

[Nymrohd]

Barbarian should be a background, beserker should be a fighter subclass

 

[Szatany]

Barbarian should be a background, beserker should be a fighter subclass

I think I would prefer this setup as well.

 

[Blackwarder]

Barbarian should be a background, beserker should be a fighter subclass

I've been saying the exact same thing since they ennounced Next.

Warder

 

[Nymrohd]

Moreover barbarian prestige classes in 3rd were simply better barbarians (and in 4th they were manga barbarians. . .) The subclass can allow for different rages (destructive rage; increases damage done and maybe better sunder weapons, whirling rage; gives extra attack and extra speed). Meanwhile barbarian is a background for people who come from barbarian tribes. You should be able to be a barbarian shaman or barbarian sorcerer as easily as a barbarian beserker.

 

[gyor]

All all that is too complex to fit into a subclass, its should be its own class so you get the diversity of archetypes.

 

[Jester David]

The barbarian was a class in something like four editions of D&D (OD&D, 1e, 3e, and 4e) so it survives as a separate class mostly due to nostalgia. Just like the paladin and ranger.

It could certainly exist as a subclass, and I don't think many people would object, but there's enough ideas and variations on the barbarian at this point to sustain a full class. Such as your basic barbarian that rages but also the magical barbarians powered by primal spirits.

 

[steeldragons]

Barbarian should be a background, berserker should be a fighter subclass

*spell corrected by me*

AyyyYUP! Everyone's been saying this since 5e was announced.

 

[Li Shenron]

Rage is the defining feature of a Barbarian, but it's too narrow to generate subclasses and too large to be granted via background, so I'd say Barbarian as a Fighter's subclass is the most appropriate.

 

[Bluenose]

I would say it depends on what the Barbarian is supposed to be able to do. If it's purely mundane stuff like attacking recklessly and a range of wilderness skills, a fighter sub-class would do it perfectly well - Battlerager or something like that. If it's supposed to include people who have a "battle fury" that transforms their capabilities, Cuchullain or a Berserk or other Totemic Warrior, then you probably want a separate class - call it a Berserker and I'll be happy.

I actually don't like "Barbarian" as a background, at least not alongside some of the other ones that are already there. If it's going to be there put it alongside Civilised/Nomad/Primitive as one part of a background, the type of culture the character comes from. Then add a second background, Noble/Warrior/Hunter/Crafter/etc as a family background - the characters previous "profession". Alternatively, in the current backgrounds give, list different abilities that characters might get depending on their culture - so all nomad backgrounds mention riding, as an example. I prefer the first method as that makes it possible for published settings to show the different cultures features without having to rewrite a whole pile of career backgrounds.