I tend not to like character classes. Especially when I don't believe in them, and/or they seem artificial and/or silly to me.

The Conan-esque Barbarian as a class seems a bit silly to me.

I don't mind playing them in, say, a Rogue-like computer game.

I have enjoyed playing (and GMing for) Conan himself in GURPS Conan adventures.

I don't mind characters with their own actual background who happen to be Conan-like, for reasons.

I find the idea of entire villages of Conan-types to be a bit silly. For example, even in the 80'd Conan the Barbarian fillm, Conan has a backstory of having been raised in fighting pits and pushing the (silly) Wheel of Pain, and though his village were Crom-worshipping fantasy warrior types, they weren't all muscle-men - I find them ok and not too silly, but if the world has wizards, knights, foresters, and a bunch of Conan-like "barbarians" as a common type of person, that seems a bit silly to me.

I finally opened my copy of GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, by the way, and one thing I find embarrassing is the Barbarian template there, particularly that it starts with a base Strength of 17+, which just seems embarrassingly silly to me, even as a template suggestion.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009736Not 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.

Yeah, I'm in with this common view.

I think there's room for the mechanical class as a raging fighter, but too often it makes for stupid backgrounds where there is a dull and stereotyped divide between civilized and barbaric lands.

Classes should be what you can do, not where you are from or what you do professionally. On a related note, I dislike the tendency where criminals are all one class because "Thief" is a class. There should be some thieves who are fighters, some thieves who are bards, some thieves who are rogues, etc.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1010437I 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.

Yeah, I realised too late that the 'noble princess knight' PC I wanted to play, I should have made her a 5e Barbarian not Fighter.

(not my art but was inspired by this mini)

Quote from: Skarg;1010443I find the idea of entire villages of Conan-types to be a bit silly.

I love my Wilderlands campaign set in Barbarian Altanis, the Altanians are a whole culture of mighty-thewed Conan types (and psychic witches for the women). But I'm aware it's not entirely serious and I'm influenced heavily by stuff like the campy (but brilliant) Flash Gordon movie and early '80s Hollywood barbarian flicks. If I was GMing Harn it'd be different.

I am totally fine with barbarians (both the class and people playing Arnold).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010181No, I was thinking about Barbarians as some kind of separate class, as opposed to just playing human fighters who are uncivilized, etc.

So the Tribal Warrior with anger management issues.  Not a fan of.  It's nice that they've tried to make different types within it's archetype, but...  It's too focused compared to most of the other classes in D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1010504So the Tribal Warrior with anger management issues.  Not a fan of.  It's nice that they've tried to make different types within it's archetype, but...  It's too focused compared to most of the other classes in D&D.

Barbarians are a class in Rolemaster, but they're essentially fighters with improved outdoor skills. They're no more or less battle-ragers than any other class.

I have one in my upcoming game, who is likely to be the primary front-line fighter, as well as the group tracker and outdoor survival expert.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1010576Barbarians are a class in Rolemaster, but they're essentially fighters with improved outdoor skills. They're no more or less battle-ragers than any other class.

I have one in my upcoming game, who is likely to be the primary front-line fighter, as well as the group tracker and outdoor survival expert.

There are other games in which Barbarian is just a social standing too.  But Pundit's thing is D&D and it's derivatives, so that's what I'm falling back on.

Yeah, I never quite liked the Barbarian Class as presented in any of the D&D editions.  Granted, in Lion & Dragon, my "Scots Man" class is how I would do the Barbarian if I have to, but even then there's no reason that one couldn't just use a fighter.