D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses the Wild Soul Barbarian and Path of the Astral Self Monk

[Paul Farquhar]

I think warlord is actually a good example of a "storyless" class. It's purely an artefact of 4e game mechanics, any fictional/historical "warlords" can be build as well or better with standard classes.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, none of the classes have a story behind them. Well, maybe paladins I suppose, but, what story is there to a fighter? A rogue? A wizard or a sorcerer? Clerics have at least a diety tied to them, so, there's that, but, very few of the classes come with any built in story.

But, since we're talking about classes that haven't been covered, one of the most popular of the core classes ((and it was a core class in 4e and it was incredibly popular)) hasn't actually been covered.

I was just kinda laughing that folks want to ignore 4e's existence for the most part. It's good to know that, what, almost seven years after the last 4e book hit the shelves, we STILL cannot talk about adding something so poisonous to 5e for fear of 4e cooties.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's not what I mean by "storyless". It might be more appropriate to use terminology like "Primal Archetypes". A type of character that is deeply imbedded in shared stories. The noble knight, the devious rogue who may or may not have a heart of gold, the absent minded wizard/professor. The "great leader" is there, but they pretty much always lead from the front, they don't stand at the back telling others what to do (unless they are a villain).

Not everything in 4e was bad, but the idea that "we have to have a support character that doesn't use magic but is just as good at supporting as a magic using character" is a bad idea that arises purely out of game mechanics with no story basis. That's what people have such a hard time making one for 5e. Look at the Law cleric - designed to do the same job but "oh no, it doesn't count because it uses magic".

 

[Shardstone]

If you consider overpowered and disruptive to play "amazing" then it's amazing.

But fantasy depends on archetypes (general use, not D&D rules use) for it's narrative power. That doesn't mean it has to draw on earlier editions, but it does have to tug on something from the collective unconscious.

This archetype is not overpowered, and no more disruptive than the Wild Soul Sorcerer.

Fantasy does not depend on archetypes. Your limited definition of fantasy may, but even the archetypes you so dearly rely on were pulled out of someone's ass once upon a time. Its time for us to create new stuff, not endlessly repeat Berserkers, Champions, and Hunters for the rest of human existence.

 

[Parmandur]

la la la la warlord la la la la la la la



Actually, while I know that the warlock mugged the class, I really would love to see the Binder make a comeback just because, outside of warlords, it's my absolute, 100% favoritest class.

Now, I need to see if I can convince my DM to let me use that 3rd party Binder book.

Well, why not a Subclass for the Warlock?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This archetype is not overpowered,

I don't know what else you can call a class that provides infinite spell slots for allies.

and no more disruptive than the Wild Soul Sorcerer.

You mean the class my and many other tables ban for being too disruptive?

Actually, the wild soul has a much higher probability of TPKing the party.

Fantasy does not depend on archetypes.

Yes it does.

but even the archetypes you so dearly rely on were pulled out of someone's ass once upon a time.

If so, that "someone" was covered in fur and swung in the trees.

Its time for us to create new stuff, not endlessly repeat Berserkers, Champions, and Hunters for the rest of human existence.

"There is nothing new under the Sun."
-Ecclesiastes 1:9 (Probably written around 400 BCE)

 

[Shardstone]

Having a feature that can be easily fixed in the final version (as UA often are) does not damn the entire archetype.

We have much different groups and circles we hang out in, since I've never seen a Wild Soul issue.

No it doesn't.

You're ignoring a whole lot of fantasy authors who make up their own stuff. Sanderson, Tolkien (his elves are nothing like aelf), Dunsany, Morcock, and so on.

You're twisting a quote to prove an argument that's already failed. Saying "Well nothing ever is new" is trying to use a faux-truism and not understanding what new means.

If your next post has points as thin as these I'm not going to respond to it.

 

[Parmandur]

Having a feature that can be easily fixed in the final version (as UA often are) does not damn the entire archetype.

We have much different groups and circles we hang out in, since I've never seen a Wild Soul issue.

No it doesn't.

You're ignoring a whole lot of fantasy authors who make up their own stuff. Sanderson, Tolkien (his elves are nothing like aelf), Dunsany, Morcock, and so on.

You're twisting a quote to prove an argument that's already failed. Saying "Well nothing ever is new" is trying to use a faux-truism and not understanding what new means.

If your next post has points as thin as these I'm not going to respond to it.

It is pretty clear from Crawford's interview that there was an influence for this, but they aren't going to connect the dots for us.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tolkien would be the first to tell you his elves where not "pulled out of his butt". And the reason they are not like Aelf is he made the Aelf into dwarves.

As for the others, I haven't read Sanderson or Dunsany, but I have studied lots of other fantasy literature. You can always trace the origins of ideas back. And pretty much all fantasy writers openly acknowledge this. If you know any who claim otherwise, I would like to see a quote from them as evidence.

You're twisting a quote to prove an argument that's already failed. Saying "Well nothing ever is new" is trying to use a faux-truism and not understanding what new means.

"New" means putting a fresh coat of paint on something old. The same as it has always done.

In what way am I "twisting" the quote? It's meaning is perfectly clear. It means what it says it means.

If your next post has points as thin as these I'm not going to respond to it.

You didn't actually "respond" to my previous post, apart from with unsubstantiated insults.

 

[Parmandur]

Tolkien would be the first to tell you his elves where not "pulled out of his butt". And the reason they are not like Aelf is he made the Aelf into dwarves.

As for the others, I haven't read Sanderson or Dunsany, but I have studied lots of other fantasy literature. You can always trace the origins of ideas back. And pretty much all fantasy writers openly acknowledge this. If you know any who claim otherwise, I would like to see a quote from them as evidence.



"New" means putting a fresh coat of paint on something old. The same as it has always done.

In what way am I "twisting" the quote? It's meaning is perfectly clear. It means what it says it means.


You didn't actually "respond" to my previous post, apart from with unsubstantiated insults.

Just because you do not know the influence where the Barbarian subclass comes from doesn't mean it's not working off of a specific archetype.

And the mechanics of "infinite spell slots" are something to work out in fine-tuning, the flavor is the point for UA.