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

 

[Marandahir]

I can build a Cleric without the Religion skill; "Religion" as a knowledge skill ≠ spirituality, which is pure RP.

Sure, hence why I proposed the second, which is quite similar to that of the Background swap thing. I think it should be an option for the subclass though.

As for the Illiad, that's a great reference point. I was actually thinking a bit about Kaecilius from Marvel, but I just saw Doctor Strange.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, hence why I proposed the second, which is quite similar to that of the Background swap thing. I think it should be an option for the subclass though.

As for the Illiad, that's a great reference point. I was actually thinking a bit about Kaecilius from Marvel, but I just saw Doctor Strange.

Yeah, but the powers the subclass gets already, throwing in an extra proficiency? Yikes...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I would agree that they should get Religion skill automatically. If they want to be Acolytes or some similar religious background so as to have Religion during 1st-2nd, that's fine, and I don't think granting that skill proficiency upsets the balance of the subclass. It adds something that should be inherent to all members of the subclass, but if you already have it you already have it.

It could also say "or another knowledge skill if you already are trained in Religion" if they don't want to penalize Acolytes etc but I really don't think it's a big loss for Acolytes. All it does is allow you to have your background represent a different past before you took up the path of the Zealot.

Acolytes would never be penalized, because that "or another skill if you already have this one" clause is already built into all backgrounds. Furthermore, you can customize backgrounds as much as you like, according to the PHB. If you want to be an Acolyte who's trained in Medicine and Athletics instead of Religion, you can be!

 

[I'm A Banana]

What does this mean?

Briefly, it means that comparing real-world people to fictional archetypes in a game about magical elves is a deeply flawed enterprise. And I think I can leave the rest of your comment alone with the same principle: I don't think the class is meant to model Crusaders or Boko Haram or Israeli settlers or Manifest Destiny-fueled expansionists or Puritan settlers or Jerry Falwell or Nichiren buddhists or Hindu nationalists. If it somehow is meant to do that, it fails catastrophically in it's attempts to do something of seriously questionable value.

But I did this by adding barbarian to a monk. For the concept yall are discussing, adding cleric to a barbarian could show the character growth and insight into the religion the barbarian follows.

Heck, I can do a Berserker Acolyte right out of the PHB, who does know about Tempus;

There's a lot of ways to do a cool synthesis here. In terms of critiquing the thing in front of us that the article provided, though, I'm content to say that this Barbarian subclass as presented fails to be relevant to the Barbarian's story. And that I believe that the Barbarian's story is the major point of having a Barbarian class to begin with.

Mechanically, Rage is pretty much the entire package of the Barbarian Class, and storywise you can do multiple things with that mechanical base, limiting Barbarians to just...barbarians...seems rather lacking to me.

You play a barbarian to be a barbarian, not to be anything else. There are other classes for those other things that you might want to be. If this zealot isn't actually a barbarian first and foremost, it should belong to one of those other classes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This question of using the Barbarian chassis for a Zealot-type character brings up something that I'd actually LIKE to see them do in their Big Book O' Mechanics... which is in addition to your standard list of 2-4 additional subclasses for every class, they also include a bit of "Skills & Powers"-like mechanics equivalency for Class Feature Swaps.

And what I mean by that is go through and do what Rodney Thompson did two years ago for the "Non-Magical Ranger" UA, which was to swap out Ranger spells for the Battlemaster's Combat Superiority. He came up with a mechanics equivalency between the two systems-- 1/2 caster magic and Combat Superiority, which allowed him to swap one out for the other. I'd LOVE it if WotC did that for a lot of the OTHER mechanical systems in the game, so that DMs and player could work together to create the classes the way they want.

What is the mechanical equivalency of Rage? Of Sneak Attack? Of Full Casting, Half Casting, or Third Casting? Of Wildshape? Of Fighting Styles? Of Animal Companions? Of Channel Divinity? Of Metamagic? So on and so forth.

Give us a bit of guidance of what these kinds of mechanical systems are worth, so that we can make knowledgeable exchanges of these things to allow us to adapt the existing classes to do what we want.

So if we want a zealot-like Cleric or Paladin... what can we look to take out of either class in order to insert Rage as a mechanic instead? Can we remove Channel Divinity and put in Rage and remain relatively balanced? Or if we want a thuggish Fighter... what do we need to do to take out Combat Superiority and insert Sneak Attack into the Fighter and remain relatively balanced? If we want our Druid to gain an Animal Companion... can we pull out Wildshape and insert the Beast Conclave's Animal Companion feature, and do we need to do anything else for it? Or can we drop the Druid's spellcasting chart from Full Caster to Half Caster and that allows us to add the Animal Companion feature and remain relatively balanced?

While the Subclass system allows us to create class variants that take some of these kinds of mechanical exchanges into account, and the Multiclass system is one that a lot of players still use today to try and grab that one class feature they want for their particular PC (like a Pact of the Blade Warlock taking a Fighter level for the Fighting Style, armor proficiency, and CON save)... I think giving us instruction on this third possible system of relatively-balanced Feature Swaps could go a long way as well to get us all where we would like our PCs to potentially go. And WotC's help on that to keep things sane would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Arial Black]

Proficiency in the Religion skill is totally not a prerequisite to being a 'holy warrior'!

You don't have to be a Doctor of Theology to be Crusader/Jihadist; just brainwashed by someone who is or, more likely, claims to be an authority on the religion in question.

As for the Holy Aura damaging allies, when you begin a rage you get to choose whether you want this rage to have a damaging aura or not. Frenzy gives you the same choice. (Or, for the pedants, the exactly similar choice. )

I don't believe that any player should be bound by the fluff that goes with any class. I don't believe for one moment that any character with a level in the barbarian class must come from a culture whose highest expression of the sartorial arts is the loincloth!

In the Deathstalker books, a highly civilised noble family has its scions implanted with engineered organs that release chemicals into their bloodstream at will, and the effects of this is, well, 'rage'. They can only do this for a limited number of times per day because the chemicals get used up and have to be regenerated by the normal bodily processes.

If I want to use this as my inspiration for an urban, civilised noble in my D&D games, I will! And the bleatings of the chorus to the effect of, "That's not a real barbarian because real barbarians don't go to university!" will just trigger one of my 'episodes'.

 

[Ganymede81]

I don't think the class is meant to model Crusaders or Boko Haram or Israeli settlers or Manifest Destiny-fueled expansionists or Puritan settlers or Jerry Falwell or Nichiren buddhists or Hindu nationalists.

When I read the class description, what immediately sprang to mind were the Flagellants of Warhammer Fantasy, roving bands of frenzied doomsayers that know no fear and crush their foes with huge flails.

 

[SkidAce]

There's a lot of ways to do a cool synthesis here. In terms of critiquing the thing in front of us that the article provided, though, I'm content to say that this Barbarian subclass as presented fails to be relevant to the Barbarian's story. And that I believe that the Barbarian's story is the major point of having a Barbarian class to begin with.


You play a barbarian to be a barbarian, not to be anything else. There are other classes for those other things that you might want to be. If this zealot isn't actually a barbarian first and foremost, it should belong to one of those other classes.

We change the stories for classes right and left all the time, why would we have to leave the barbarian story alone (if thats what you mean)

To sum up (and avoid the tangent) I think you have missed the mark on this one by imposing a specific view of barbarian, to the exclusion of others.

The word barbarian is very similar to the "story" you mention. Outsiders, tribes, etc. But here is the catch....I have barbarians that are fighters, rogues, etc etc. Perhaps the class should have been called beserker (re: other thread discussions) to avoid what we are experiencing.

So, I think the zealot makes a fantastic beserker!

But I see the point you are trying to make, and respect it. I just don't think its as integral to the class as you perceive.

 

[Marandahir]

Acolytes would never be penalized, because that "or another skill if you already have this one" clause is already built into all backgrounds. Furthermore, you can customize backgrounds as much as you like, according to the PHB. If you want to be an Acolyte who's trained in Medicine and Athletics instead of Religion, you can be!

Well, your second and third sentences are true, but your first is not. The difference is that you don't choose to become a Zealot at 1st level when you choose to become an Acolyte. Thus, you can't go back at 3rd level and say, "I'm learning Religion as a Zealot now, so I'm going to swap out the Acolyte Religion skill for Nature." If you get skills later on, you can't swap them out unless the wording allows as such. So Acolytes-Barbarian-Zealots would be penalized if they weren't planning ahead for 3 levels.

 

[SkidAce]

What is the mechanical equivalency of Rage? ...

So if we want a zealot-like Cleric or Paladin... what can we look to take out of either class in order to insert Rage as a mechanic instead? Can we remove Channel Divinity and put in Rage and remain relatively balanced? Or if we want a thuggish Fighter... what do we need to do to take out Combat Superiority and insert Sneak Attack into the Fighter and remain relatively balanced? If we want our Druid to gain an Animal Companion... can we pull out Wildshape and insert the Beast Conclave's Animal Companion feature, and do we need to do anything else for it? Or can we drop the Druid's spellcasting chart from Full Caster to Half Caster and that allows us to add the Animal Companion feature and remain relatively balanced?

I realize that for others your solution would be better, but man, I really like the way multiclassing works in 5e. My answer to "what is the mechanical equivalent of rage?" would be, take a level of barbarian(beserker!, zen martial artist!, temporarily blessed with power cleric!).

If we could pick and choose parts, IMHO, it would take away from the elegance of the multiclassing system.