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

 

[Arial Black]

And my counterpoint is basically the same: the purpose of the Barbarian class (or any class) is first and foremost to be a story, a fictional archetype, a kind of character. That's the major reason you even HAVE classes in your game - to create packages of mechanics to support a particular character type.

I fundamentally disagree. It's not that the purpose of classes is to realise game mechanics which support someone else's fluff!

It's that the game mechanics are there to weave your own fluff around!

So if your new barbarian subclass isn't first and foremost a barbarian, it's not supporting that narrative.

I'm not interested in supporting someone else's narrative! I'm interested in supporting my own!

If I want to play a hyper-civilised warrior who goes postal, and the mechanics of the barbarian class realise that narrative, then I don't care one whit if it matches other peoples idea of what they think my narrative should be!

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC has already done their best to allow power-swapping in a very constrained way via the Multiclassing rules. They didn't do anywhere near a perfect job, but they did the best they could. Any other system they create is just going to exacerbate any imbalances even worse, so you're better off constructing your new classes out of existing classes. If you want a raging holy warrior, just write up a Barbarian 3/Paladin 9/War Cleric 8 build, give it a fixed progression (which levels to take when), copy that progression onto a chart listing levels 1-20 (including the new ASI levels), and give that chart to your players. Voila! Holy Warrior class, balanced as well as WotC knows how to balance it.

Ick. See, I find that to be entirely inelegant. Having to take a whole bunch of different classes all because you wanted just a single feature out of one and add it to another. Delaying progression in your primary class (meaning the loss or delay of ASIs, feats, other features) because you're forced to take levels in another class to get that class feature, and in addition, a whole bunch of other features you didn't actually want.

I ALWAYS prefer to just swap in a single class feature across classes than force someone to take a whole level of a class they don't actually want. And while I certainly understand some player's beliefs that WotC can't "balance things" right... I don't care and don't find it nearly as onerous as some people feel it is. I'd still rather see them take a concerted shot at a Feature Swap ruleset than not have it at all.

The more ways we have to create the types of characters players want is a-okay with me. Same reason why I didn't dismiss the 5E Prestige Class out of hand either (as that was just merely the Subclass system in a different form, not that it stopped some people from freaking the heck out about it too.)

 

[Greg K]

WotC has already done their best to allow power-swapping in a very constrained way via the Multiclassing rules..

Best for you and some people, perhaps. Not every group uses or even likes the multi-classing rules. Give them options and allow DM or groups decide which is best for them.

 

[Greg K]

I think Zealot is a perfect fit for the barbarian. Civilized folks, both literally and socially, who become holy warriors become paladins. It's formal. Trained. But in tribes from harsh lands, some warriors are still chosen by their war god.

I disagree on the Paladins. If one wants to base it off episodes of Hercules (or was it Xena), there were episodes where Ares gave his blessing by choosing to give power to individuals (including kids if I recall correctly).

 

[Greg K]

I ALWAYS prefer to just swap in a single class feature across classes than force someone to take a whole level of a class they don't actually want. And while I certainly understand some player's beliefs that WotC can't "balance things" right... I don't care and don't find it nearly as onerous as some people feel it is. I'd still rather see them take a concerted shot at a Feature Swap ruleset than not have it at all.

I rarely agree with Defcon 1 but this is my feeling on the matter.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Best for you and some people, perhaps. Not every group uses or even likes the multi-classing rules. Give them options and allow DM or groups decide which is best for them.

You misunderstand me. The hypothetical Holy Warrior class may be constructed using multiclassing rules, but you don't have to sell it to your players as a multiclass build. That's why you copy all the abilities onto a 1-20 chart and give it to your players. They don't even need to know that it was originally a multiclass amalgamation.

A DM who wants more options can have as many options as he wants, but the person I was replying to was asking for structure. WotC is unlikely to create a better structure with some "power-swapping" ad hoc chart than with their multiclassing rules. If you don't​ want structure, then you can just eyeball things.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ick. See, I find that to be entirely inelegant. Having to take a whole bunch of different classes all because you wanted just a single feature out of one and add it to another. Delaying progression in your primary class (meaning the loss or delay of ASIs, feats, other features) because you're forced to take levels in another class to get that class feature, and in addition, a whole bunch of other features you didn't actually want.

I ALWAYS prefer to just swap in a single class feature across classes than force someone to take a whole level of a class they don't actually want. And while I certainly understand some player's beliefs that WotC can't "balance things" right... I don't care and don't find it nearly as onerous as some people feel it is. I'd still rather see them take a concerted shot at a Feature Swap ruleset than not have it at all.

The more ways we have to create the types of characters players want is a-okay with me. Same reason why I didn't dismiss the 5E Prestige Class out of hand either (as that was just merely the Subclass system in a different form, not that it stopped some people from freaking the heck out about it too.)

If you're playing a DM-designed Holy Warrior, then that is​ your primary class. Even if the DM used the multiclassing rules while designing it.

 

[Gadget]

I thought of the enraged, mask wearing, and spike adorned monsters that the religious cult used in Beastmaster when I read the Zealot write up. Or even the shaven headed Acolytes that hung themselves at the leader's command. Neither seemed particularly well versed in theology to me. But this view casts the archetype in a decidedly non heroic role, which need not be the case. I could see a warrior dedicated to the tribes' spiritual, cultural, and territorial values and way of life to such an extent that they can become a Zealot as well.

 

[AverageCitizen]

There's a lot of things that the Barbarian has that don't make a lot of sense for a character like that. While stuff like Fast Movement/Bonuses vs. Traps and the like can be handwaved away, it's a pretty clear handwave, and it weakens the archetype overall to handwave it.

Rage is not the point of the Barbarian class, and if that's all you're really interested in, just loot some version of it and stick it in whatever class makes more sense for you.

I entirely disagree. If you go and read the base Barbarian mechanics, they are completely sterile beyond "raging dangerous combatant". You originally talked about tracking deer, but that isn't a thing for the base Barbarian, and to be frank, saying that fast movement and bonus vs traps is somehow a nature affinity is a poor substitute. The only thing they are "hand-waving" is fluff and assumptions, which I think is cool. It's good to have some sub-classes that turn the class assumptions on their heads, it shows the players it's okay the color outside the lines.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Assuming of course that a raging barbarian would care.

I was actually assuming that the other characters would be the ones that care, since they can move as they wish without the barbarian's say so.

Then again, I get berserkers to make perception checks to perceive friend from foe. What's a little blue on blue between party members eh?

That sounds like punishing the entire group for one player's choice to play a berserker.