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

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nothing. For, like, the third time, it's mostly a question of using the best fit for the job, and fitting the square peg into the square hole. You can make that archetype fit the Barbarian mold, but it is super-janky, so why would you want to? You don't need to go Barbarian to get Rage (or no armor!), so what's the benefit of going Barbarian? It doesn't seem to bring with it much else that plays to the archetype.

... I don't get it, but maybe I need to approach this from another angle for it to make sense to me.

What about this is screaming "PALADIN! CLERIC!" to you? If you think paladin themes work better than barbarian, why? What specifically is causing this.

All I can think of is the whole, "Divine" and "touched by gods" part... which I don't see as being enough to make this a cleric concept instead of a Barbarian.

If that was the case, I think I'd be less vocal about this. But, the zealot's flavor-text doesn't read like a barbarian's. "Some deities inspire their followers to pitch themselves into a ferocious battle fury" has little to do with the motifs of the Barbarian class - the rejection of civilization, thriving in the wilderness, life in wild places, tribes and clans. It's got a HECK of a lot to do with clerics (carrying out the will of the gods, using divine energy) and more than a little to do with paladins (standing against the tide of enemies, called to a life of devotion, fulfilling a higher purpose).

If the zealot is more narrowly conceived of in a way that fits the Barbarian more comfortably, that doesn't come across in the description. Heck, Tempus is a very civilized and honorable deity, with a code and all.

AHA. Found the answer to my question before I even asked it.

And now the disconnect seems clear. I don’t view barbarians as necessarily rejecting civilization. I see them… I’m not sure.

On one hand, I like tying them to “the old ways”, one of my favorite pre-gens is an Orc (pre-volo) Owlbear Totem Barbarian with the Scholar background. He’s a shaman and spiritual leader of his people who decided to go out into the world and learn about the other cultures so his people could better understand them and how to interact with them.

One the other, I like the Noble Barbarian. I’ve got a Barbarian waiting in the wings who is, to phrase it a certain way, “The Knightiest Knight who ever Knighted”. Chivalric code, Romantic Ideals, Honor and the whole nine yards, sword, shield, and half-plate is the ideal equipment by the end. He’s also a Wolf Totem, with the Great Wolf his Ancestor killed to save their lord being their heraldry and themselves having a spiritual connection to that wolves’ pack (spirit wolves for the ritual spells he may use)

Their class is barbarian, and that represents how they interact with certain things, but I have no problem with them both existing side by side. Barbarians aren’t only “Wild Men”, they are the warrior who fights with no concern for life or limb, with passion and fury instead of controlled blows, who relish in the combat before all else. And Zealot fits right in.




I think Tony Vargas in Post #121 and BookBarbarian in #122 phrased it excellently.

However, I see you responded and put forth this (didn't feel like quoting and deleting)

So being a barbarian should affect the way you think about the world and how you relate to the people and powers in it.

So if the Zealot and every other barbarian are different here, the zealot, IMO shouldn't be under the Barbarian class.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ber-7th-Unearthed-Arcana/page13#ixzz4PS4lLw00​

And.... we're into a lot of grey and smoky area here.


My last PC was a Storm Sorcerer Jeweler, who had an Elemental Gem bound to his hand. He was a merchant, an artisan, and an incredibly pious individual. He nearly killed a fellow PC when they tried to steal gold coins off an altar, because he was ammoral and extreme, but also because removing those coins was a mark of disrespect to the god that shrine was dedicated to, and you don't disrespect the gods.

So did my class effect my outlook on the world? Yes, he was haughty and thought more like an Elemental or Djinn than he did a person, because he had this immense magical force in his body which had changed him physically. He was his power.

My background effected it too, he was clearly an artisan merchant, he thought in terms of economies and trade and gold. He despised thieves as parasites upon the world, and the destruction of a trade town was a mortal tresspass.

And then I added other details like his religion, his history as a street rat where he once was what he despises so much,



So, yes class and subclass effects your view on the world, and how you interact with it, but details such as religion and background also are going to shape your characters view.

I could see a frenzy barbarian getting along great with a zealot barbarian. They have a similiar approach to problems, perhaps even similiar personalities. I could also see them not getting along with clerics and paladins, thinking them stodgy and too caught up in ritual to just feel the might of their mutual god flowing through them while the paladin and cleric are upset that someone so clearly directly touched has so little regard for showing the proper respect to their diety.


It isn't choose Column A or choose Column B. Characters are far more complex than that and I don't think Barbarian is so strict in it's flavor it has no room for a god-touched individual
​

 

[Tony Vargas]

Absolutely true, but what does barbarian actually mean?

Someone whose native language sounds like "bar! bar!" to native speakers of classical Greek.

There has been a strong argument, every since the Barbarian first appeared in Dragon magazine, that it's not a class, at all, but a culture, better represented by a 2e Fighter Kit or the like. 5e could've gone there quite easily, and made it Background and tried to sell that to fans of the class, even though it only appeared in a PH1 in 3.x, but it didn't.

I can disagree in specifics, but it seems like there's a more fundamental divide in what the function of a class is or should be.

The function of the Zealot seems in line with other barbarians. He rages.

So being a barbarian should affect the way you think about the world and how you relate to the people and powers in it.

So if the Zealot and every other barbarian are different here, the zealot, IMO shouldn't be under the Barbarian class.

How're they all that different in kind? Sure, they might be very different in the details, but then a Cleric of a CE deity of destruction and an LG deity of mercy are going to be pretty wildly different, and they're both Clerics.

I think if you want to argue that a class shouldn't include this element, that's a fair stance to take, and we can talk about the merits and deficiencies of that stance, but it doesn't seem to be the stance that 5e is taking.

And, if the Zealot does go too far from the basic Barbarian concept for you, as a DM, you just don't adopt it. (Even as a player, you just choose a Path that does work for you.)

 

[Ganymede81]

The thing that delineates different barbarians is the source of the fury within them. For some, it is the emulation of a totem animal. For others, it might be the memory of some sort of pain or injustice. For the zealot, it is their religious conviction that fuels their fury.

It makes sense to me.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Someone whose native language sounds like "bar! bar!" to native speakers of classical Greek.

There has been a strong argument, every since the Barbarian first appeared in Dragon magazine, that it's not a class, at all, but a culture, better represented by a 2e Fighter Kit or the like. 5e could've gone there quite easily, and made it Background and tried to sell that to fans of the class, even though it only appeared in a PH1 in 3.x, but it didn't.

I thought about mentioning the Greek thing, but it's at best a tangent to the topic at hand. I love Barbarians, they are my favorite class, but even I admit it could have been a Fighter subclass that gave up Heavy Armor Prof and other fighter goodies for a d12 hit die, rage, and the rest, but they decided to go a different direction with 5e. By making the Barbarian class and the Outlander background I think they have actually done a pretty good job giving an interesting class to play while separating, thought not completely divorcing, it from the Tribal culture.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I thought about mentioning the Greek thing, but it's at best a tangent to the topic at hand.

Yeah, I just think it's funny.

I love Barbarians, they are my favorite class, but even I admit it could have been a Fighter subclass that gave up Heavy Armor Prof and other fighter goodies for a d12 hit die, rage, and the rest, but they decided to go a different direction with 5e. By making the Barbarian class and the Outlander background I think they have actually done a pretty good job giving an interesting class to play while separating, thought not completely divorcing, it from the Tribal culture.

Nod. There are plenty of 'reasons' for the Barbarian not to be a class or not to need to be a class, but it's been a class, it has fans, it needed to be in 5e. And the 5e Barbarian is actually filling the shoes of prior ed's versions pretty well. The Berserker handles 1e/3e, and while the Totem Barbarian hinted at the Primal-powered class of the 4e PH2, two of these new ones hint at it a little more broadly. And the Zealot reminds me, I think, of a PrC, though I can't place it...

 

[BookBarbarian]

Barbarians aren’t only “Wild Men”, they are the warrior who fights with no concern for life or limb, with passion and fury instead of controlled blows, who relish in the combat before all else. And Zealot fits right in .

Yes! I think you hit the nail on the head here.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It's entirely possible. I'm a well-known outcast and madman, whose manic scratchings foretell, in rambling fragments, only doom and chaos for all right-thinking people of civilization. I'm actually quite a silly person.

​

But that doesn't make me any less interested in offering my commentary on this article!

I see that you are quite ... zealous .. about the issue at hand

 

[BookBarbarian]

FYI I actually do have an issue with the Zealot. It out Berserkers the Berserker. Fighting past unconsciousness and even death is far more interesting to me than Frenzying in exchange for fatigue. Even if it only comes online at level 14. I might even change the Radiant/Necrotic damage of Divine Fury to Weapon damage to make a more non-magical option.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Can't say I'm a fan of magibarians. I've always seen them as the types to shun magic. It also just feels wrong to have magic swirling about a barbarian like some sort of gish. I think the concepts could've been represented in a much more grounded, less gratuitously magical and flamboyant manner.

Plus it all seems like significant power creep. I think I'd rather see them fix the issues with the current core classes and keep them within reach of each other than have the "new cool" that makes the old redundant. Every edition seems to go that route, constantly upping the ante until it's time to wipe the slate clean with a new edition. I was hoping to get more longevity out of 5e.

 

[Marandahir]

Can't say I'm a fan of magibarians. I've always seen them as the types to shun magic. It also just feels wrong to have magic swirling about a barbarian like some sort of gish. I think the concepts could've been represented in a much more grounded, less gratuitously magical and flamboyant manner.

Plus it all seems like significant power creep. I think I'd rather see them fix the issues with the current core classes and keep them within reach of each other than have the "new cool" that makes the old redundant. Every edition seems to go that route, constantly upping the ante until it's time to wipe the slate clean with a new edition. I was hoping to get more longevity out of 5e.

So play a Berserker.

It doesn't feel like power creep to me; the Berserker is insanely powerful in its own right.

As for me (and for most 4e Barbarian players), I'm excited to have a Barbarian with more mystical rage effects. The 5e Barbarian hasn't provided good translations of my 4e characters thus far. The Totem Barbarian always felt quite a bit watered down from my elemental rages in 4e. These subclasses help with that.