It was really context-dependent, not only socially, but geographically as well : between Frankish leaders in Gaul integrated within the upper ranks Western Roman militia, and a Frisian family dwelling on shifting shores of the North Sea you could have as much if not more differences than between a Roman provincial and a Barbarian living aside. And while you could have important similarities between peoples culturally and socially close (for instance, Frisian and Frankish peoples), the Barbarian categorization also lumps them with peoples with a distinct cultural and social make-up such as Gothic or Alanic peoples.

In fact, we could even say that their main common point was also what differenciated them on the period, namely their relation with the Roman Empire and their relative integration with.

Since the Ist century, and the establishment of the limes on the Rhine and Danube (and also in the highlands of North Africa and Northern Britain , but I suppose this is outside the scope of your question in spite of the important similarities with "mainland" Barbarians), Rome went trough a complex set of interactions with peoples living beyond what was more a controlled but porous border than anything close to a modern border.

This control could take the form of military counter-raids and counter-migrations (Migrations from Germania being already a thing in Gaul or Illyria way before the Roman conquest, notably in search for better lands and access to Mediterranean trade) but on the long term trade exchanges (goods with high social added value against luxury or agricultural products) and a search for stable political partners (trough subsides, alliances, support, etc. with local chiefdoms) and recruitment pools (both mercenaryship of raised bands, numeri, but as well more regular units) made the regions bordering the Roman Empire, and especially along the Rhine, more develloped (with evidences of agricultural sophistication, in particular) and in direct relation with Rome; who represented either by coercition or political/economical influence, a stabilizing element.

This aspect wasn't the only one, however : the Roman conquest of Gaul likely hastened or provoked the ruin of LaTenian polities in southern Germania, and the campaigns against Dacia essentially broke a cyclical tendency to regional hegemony on a wealthy territory, creating an important "vaacum" leaving the door open for newcomers to settle (in the second case, eastern Germanic and Sarmatic peoples). Still, the limes represented a very attractive region in the Barbaricum, and migrating groups in the whole region tended to go West and South (something they already did in the IInd century BCE, think of the Cimbric War, but that the Roman conquests and its conseuences hastened) in search of better lands, subsides, raiding loot, employment, etc.

These migrants groups didn't necessarily share a same way-of-life, and soon colliding groups tended to mix their habits (such as proto-Goths and Sarmatians). But while migration and the absence of proto-urbanization in most of the Barbaricum hints at a lack of territorial identify (and rather a contiunally recomposing popular identity depending of power relationship between tribes, peoples and their leagues) and a relative easiness to leave territories in face of opportunities or crisis, it doesn't imply that these groups were necessarily nomadic or semi-nomadic,but that they could be migrating stepwise (a bit like Helvetii migrated from Germania then attempted a new migration westwards while still being sedentarized). In the same time, and especially in Eastern Germania, the proximity of horse-riding peoples could promote the adoption of semi-nomadic pastoral life among regional peoples : it's seemingly dependent on the relations tribes and peoples had together, their political and economical outlook (pastoral peoples having, while not necessarily, facility on a less sedentarized life). But semi-nomadic peoples as Bastarnae seems to have been fairly uncommon along the Rhine, where small tribal groups forming shifting popular leagues seems to have been mostly agricultural in a region whom productive and social make up was probably not that much different from the immediatly neighbouring regions within the Empire (safe for the importance of Roman urban life and society).

You still had migrations, tough, but the Empire tolerated only legal small-scale migrant groups to cross the limes, either seasonal workers, mercenaries and auxiliaries, and families (rarely before the IIIrd century, more commonly thereafter to make-up for the lack of workforce in provinces).

The situation by the IVth and Vth century, however, could arguably give the impression of the contrary, with the apparent willingness of Barbarian peoples to move on within the Empire : and while climatic changes (especially for farming communities of the North Sea), the fragilized links with the Empire and the huge opportunity that the Third Century Crisis represented for neighbouring peoples organizing themselves into leagues of tribes and peoples(Saxons, Frisians, Franks and Alamans coming in existence precisely for this reason) certainly were set in the continuation of previous migrating tendencies within the Empire, emperors were more than willing to settle Barbarians at their own conditions.

Defeating Barbarians, crushing them and forcefully settling them within provinces under imperial control and service was even becoming a trope of imperial propaganda by the late IIIrd century : people that used to ravage provinces were now forced to work the fields, eventually to defend them against other raiders. Sometime, client chiefs even offered to move within the Empire under imperial service and were authorized to do so. The practice wasn't unknown, and between the relocation of Ubii in Belgica or Vannius' Suevi in Pannonia, there were precedent : but it became much more common to see Barbarians being settled as dedicitii (sort of semi-free peasants, sometimes scattered around), as romanized deportees or refugees obtaining citizenship, laeti and gentiles (deportees or refugees commonaly settled with military obligations). Besides a whole spectrum of statues, newcomers were often depicted as agricultural settlers with military duties (the Roman army was always made up of an important part of auxiliaries, but the relative loss of quality and recruitment pool favoured the use of "militarized peoples" such as Barbarians).

Eventually, it's hard to archeologically make a distinction between Barbarians and Romans in Northern Gaul because not only they shared a similar way-of-life, at least rural-wise, but got integrated within provincial social and political structures (working for Roman landowners, Roman imperial land, or disposed vacant land), their elites seemingly becoming officers of the units they were part of militarily (and some of these elites, as Marobaud or Bauto, even becoming generalissimos and consuls). This social militarisation was probably what made them apart the most from provincial populations (whom members and elites tended to join them with the decline of imperial authority), and this is especially remarkable for peoples that didn't easily settle as Goths. These peoples are a good illustration on how "sedentary" and "nomadic" categorizations do not always work well as Goths remained present in the rough area they emerged as a distinct people out of various indigenous or migrating groups until the late IVth century, living on an agricultural, pastoral and fishing way-of-life (accompagnied by mercenariship and raiding), then moving as an heavily militarized people within the Empire for almost 50 years without stable settlement (and integrating other Barbarians and destitute Romans along the way) until eventually settling in southern Gaul but keeping a strong military aspect : at the exception of Vandals, these militarized Barbarians rather took control over local institutions and did not took over landed property as such (obtaining the fiscal revenues, which included part of the production, instead of the imperial fisc) while settling vacant lands or alongside Roman properties.

For peoples that remained outside late Romania, the situation could look more difficult : migrations didn't suddenly end with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (altough this collapse certainly marked its disappearance) but are seemingly less unified, more small-scale and peripheral : Frisia, notably, seems to have been largely deserted by its population in the Vth and VIth century as the lack of farming lands forced groups to move in post-imperial Britain (as did many North Sea groups with them, from Northern Germania and Scandinavia) where they resumed a relatively egalitarian farming way-of-life (no signs of strong social hierarchisation are really observable in sites attributed to newcomers in Eastern Britain).

How Barbarians lived in Late Antiquity was really dependent on their relation to the Late Roman Empire, how they were settled, at which conditions, and the capacity of imperial authority to enforce them. For the two peoples mentioned in your question, we're essentially talking of agriculturally-based societies with limited social differenciation initially, more or less militarized in relation of piracy and raids, and whom elites, at least appearant ones, appears as military elites within Roman armies (as it can be pointed out by the introduction to Salic Law) and in the late Vth century as associated with civilian landowers or authorities (such as Arbogast, both count and bishop of Treves).

For a more complete overlook of these peoples, I'd suggest reading The Early Germans; Malcom Todd; Blackwell Publishing; 2004