Unearthed Arcana New Barbarian Primal Paths in November 7th Unearthed Arcana

The new paths are

• Path of the Ancestral Guardian
• Path of the Storm Herald
• Path of the Zealot

 

[BookBarbarian]

Well, I believe creating a whole new subclass for a Barbarian that essentially gets to play with advantage and disadvantage a bit is hot air, a disappointment, a waste of space.

What we don't need is "like subclass X but with the ability to hand out disadvantage instead of concept Y".

That way lies madness. An indistinguishable jumble of various ways to hand out the same two things: advantage and disadvantage.

A subclass should have unique (or at least distinct) crunch to be worthwhile.

I'd much rather reserve advantage and disadvantage for the generic effects that many different character classes can accomplish. Simplifying what a common thing like "trip" does into "everyone gets advantage on him while he gets disadvantage on you" is a great 5E invention.

Reducing ancestral spirits into a load of blabbering that doesn't mean anything except yet another way to dish out advantage and disadvantage is a huge letdown.

Things that make you unique should never be anything as bland as that.

Advantage and disadvantage is simple. But also bland. Designers should never confuse the two the way they did here.

I think you have a fair point here Zapp. I think the idea of Barbarian that draws pwer from his ancestors is very cool. I don't like this implementation of it. I would much rather see the Barb drawing Strenth or Wisdom form his ancestors rather than have them summoned to harrass his foes and give them disadvantage. I would rather reflavor the Beast Totems as strong, quick, and skillful ancestors, rather than use this implementation.

 

[CapnZapp]

form his ancestors rather than have them summoned to harrass his foes

I wouldn't mind the Barbarian summoning his ancestors to harass his foes if he actually summoned his ancestors to harass his foes.

Giving out disadvantage in small area is certainly something.

But don't attach a grand description such as "summoning your ancestors" to such a bland game effect!

summoning your ancestors = way cool
the eleventieth way of giving out disadvantage, just like the previous 109 ways = way less cool

 

[Greg K]

In real life, shamans (as spiritual guides and medicinal healers) wouldn't be that far off from the concept of the Artificer/Alchemist.

That is part of it. However, entering ritual trances (whether through meditation, music, dance, drugs, fasting, etc.), divination, and dealing with both benevolent and malevolent spirits (through cajoling, persuasion, intimidation, bribery, trickery as necessary or even outright control in some cultures) on behalf of a community or multiple communities are other key characteristics of the shaman. Those same spirits are often said to be a source of knowledge for what is necessary to heal a particular ailment and other knowledge either directly or contacting other spirits with appropriate knowledge, Furthermore, in many cultures, shaman's are still feared despite their ability to heal, because it is believed that they can use/command spirits to cause harm their enemies (e.g., sending a disease spirit to make you sick and kill you).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Don't make subclasses that, when the fluff is boiled away, they all end up granting advantage to this and disadvantage for that.

I can create a zillion subclasses like that. All equally forgettable.

Of course they're forgettable. You're boiling away the fluff. In the wise words of every plumber ever: there's your problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Don't make subclasses that, when the fluff is boiled away, they all end up granting advantage to this and disadvantage for that.

I can create a zillion subclasses like that. All equally forgettable.

Y'know, I guess you actually do have a point. Sorta. 5e did go the route of differentiating classes mechanically. The same goes for sub-classes. If a class or sub-class is so all-fired different in the 'fluff' department, the existing design precedents (which Mr Mearls is in no way bound by) would seem to suggest they'd get an equally all-fired different mechanic to back it up.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course they're forgettable. You're boiling away the fluff. In the wise words of every plumber ever: there's your problem.

Fluff with no mechanical distinctiveness isn't worth the effort of putting it together.

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course they're forgettable. You're boiling away the fluff. In the wise words of every plumber ever: there's your problem.

This is so very dishonest and actually anti-intellectual too.

You might be happy with a game where everybody gets the same advantage and disadvantage powers, only they differ in how one "uses Jedi mind games" to achieve this, the second "summons his ancestors", the third paints herself blue and runs naked screaming at the enemy, while the fourth uses his superior intellect to predict the enemy's every move.

You can be as sarcastic as you like, it will still not change the fundamental fact that D&D is not only a shared storytelling vehicle, but it is a game as well.

And to be a fun game, we want different classes to actually do different stuff.

Adding more subclasses that in the end do the exact same stuff only in different combinations is the path of 4th edition magic items.

It is bland. It is boring. It doesn't expand the design space for players to explore. It is the wrong path for 5th edition design to take.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You might be happy with a game where everybody gets the same advantage and disadvantage powers, only they differ in how one "uses Jedi mind games" to achieve this, the second "summons his ancestors", the third paints herself blue and runs naked screaming at the enemy, while the fourth uses his superior intellect to predict the enemy's every move.

This is actually a great illustration of much of 4E's combat as well. There being like six different classes with six different fluff descriptions, all of which result in [Push 1 / knock prone]. Which is where a lot of the "sameness" arguments were coming from for a lot of players.

Now granted, quite a lot of 5E has the same sort of thing for simplicity's sake (so for instance, a spell like Blur just grants Disadvantage on attacks, rather than a more singular mechanic such as 3E's "20% miss chance"), but that is indeed one of the main issues with expansion and splatbooks-- you begin seeing the same mechanics appearing over again only this time given to other classes. And you start losing class individuality that way, when what used to be a mechanical result exclusive to one class now can get taken by another one or two.

If you are going to have a book of new options, you HAVE to start generating new mechanical effects. Otherwise you end up just distributing the same effects over more classes, rendering them all less individual. And the game suffers creatively as a result I think.

 

[Fritzo]

Path of the Ancestral Guardian has got to be my favourite of the three. Its ability to give resistance to another PC is a great way to stop minions swamping a weaker character. Great support.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You might be happy with a game where everybody gets the same advantage and disadvantage powers, only they differ in how one "uses Jedi mind games" to achieve this, the second "summons his ancestors", the third paints herself blue and runs naked screaming at the enemy, while the fourth uses his superior intellect to predict the enemy's every move.

It is bland. It is boring. It doesn't expand the design space for players to explore. It is the wrong path for 5th edition design to take.

See, but i don't see how that is the case.

Other than spells (I believe compelled duel does this) what way does a class have to inflict disadvantage on every attack that does not target them? As well as halve speed if an opponent uses disengage?

Is there any other way for the Barbarian to give their resistance to an ally as they are being attacked? I know blade ward grants this resistance, but that is a cantrip a vanishingly few people use since it takes their action before they are attacked.

Do we have a mechanic that allows us to auto-hit something from 30 ft away if they hit an ally?

For your rebuttal to be true, these all have to be things that everyone can do. And, I wonder, if they are granted through feats, is gaining abilities listed in a feat bad for a class ability, like ritual caster, martial adept, magic initiate, the resilient feat, ect?

I mean, if this is similiar to a paladin having magic initiate for blade ward (still can't do it as a reaction), sentinel for attacking people who try to disengage and a long term protection style on top of having compelled duel.... and I guess the sage background for the information ability? I mean, sure, I could get close to some of the same things this barbarian can do, but I don't see how this is something that doesn't have enough mechanical difference from other classes.


And, I'd make a similar argument for Storm Herald, only accented by the fact that free damage auras are incredibly uncommon in 5e.