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

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

You feel that these options, and the similar ones in other UAs are significantly more powerful than those in the base PHB?

 

[Greg K]

What I love best about this UA is the zealot subclass. I recall a thread (on this forum or the old WotC forums) whereby someone had reflavoured a barbarian to be a friar Tuck style monk with the rage as a form of divine inspiration and it seemed like a quite a few people rallied against their change to the fluff. Well, now we have a barbarian subclass that can fit that exact character type.

I don't mind a divine berserker that can fit a friar, but I am not a fan of the zealot subclass beginning with Divine Fury. If I run 5e, these are 3 more subclasses that I will not be including in a campaign.

5e is looking a lot like 3e- an edition in which, if I run, I ban a most of the official stuff and turn to third parties for material.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

I'll throw my perspective in with the 5e PHB:

Class shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and powers in the multiverse.

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

I don't take that PHB quote the same way as you. For me, what it means is that the ability to rage (or cast spells, or beseech the gods for power, or whatever the mechanics of the class are) shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and powers in the multiverse. Not the fluff that someone else wrote about their barbarian (or wizard or cleric or whatever)!

I make my own narrative/fluff/concept for my own character. It is not dictated to me by the PHB. Each class entry starts with three paragraphs, each representing an example member of that class. These are not rules! You are not obliged to copy one of these three examples in order to be a 'real' member of that class!

When I make my PC I am obliged to follow the game mechanics contained in the class descriptions (possibly modified by my DM); I am not obliged to follow the fluff! The only thing my fluff is really required to do is to explain the abilities I get from that class, and that explanation is up to me; the PHB just has suggestions, and I can go my own way if I want.

For example, if I am a 1st level human barbarian I am not obliged to think of which wilderness I was raised in (on pain of the Role-Playing Police turning up and taking my role-playing privileges away for the crime of not playing my barbarian 'correctly'); I am just obliged to explain my ability to rage somehow.

My Bar 1 isn't obliged to have the outlander background; he could have the noble background. His Rage may be the result of implanted organs, engineered to release massive amounts of adrenaline at will.

He could be under a family curse that makes his temper tantrums really nasty.

He could've been trained/altered/brainwashed to go into a cold, emotionless fury like Christian Bale's Tetragrammaton Cleric John Preston in the film Equilibrium.

It doesn't matter, as long as my concept explains (as convincingly as the suggested fluff does, which isn't a high bar TBH) the abilities I've got, it's nobody else's business to tell me that I'm playing my own character 'wrong'.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What I love best about this UA is the zealot subclass. I recall a thread (on this forum or the old WotC forums) whereby someone had reflavoured a barbarian to be a friar Tuck style monk with the rage as a form of divine inspiration and it seemed like a quite a few people rallied against their change to the fluff. Well, now we have a barbarian subclass that can fit that exact character type.

Yep, that was me. And the (surprising, to me) objections I got to that idea are part of why I spoke/reacted so strongly earlier in this very thread.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I was hoping to get more longevity out of 5e.

You already have. This first major splatbook for 5E won't show up in official book form until 3 years after the release of the game. By that point in editions past we had already gotten a full suite of splatbooks and a complete 3.5 update for 3E... and a complete suite of splatbooks and a full Essentials update for 4E.

 

[Corpsetaker]

You already have. This first major splatbook for 5E won't show up in official book form until 3 years after the release of the game. By that point in editions past we had already gotten a full suite of splatbooks and a complete 3.5 update for 3E... and a complete suite of splatbooks and a full Essentials update for 4E.

The spacing out of book releases doesn't automatically mean you are going to get longevity out of an edition.

 

[Corwin]

The spacing out of book releases doesn't automatically mean you are going to get longevity out of an edition.

Just like the ramping up of splatbook production doesn't automatically mean you are going to get what you want.

 

[CapnZapp]

Meh.

There's already plenty filler content for barbarians. This doesn't change anything. This doesn't open up new ways to play.

Ancestral Guardian: The spirits are only fluff - they have no actual battlefield presence. They are only an overly elaborate way of saying "you got disadvantage" or whatever. And the benefits are kind of hodge-podge. I'd much rather wait for a proper 4E-style Shaman character, where the spirit guardian is a kind of proto animal-companion that actually has a definition on the battlefield. Grade: entirely forgettable.

Storm Herald: ouf. "Powerful, [] effects" - you gotta be kidding me. Way too complicated. Fiddly and mediocre. Wait... that reminds me of something... was this designed by the 4E magic item designer? Grade: Useless.

Zealot: Immediately fire the Ancestral and Storm designer and replace with this one. This one's rules actually work. The "can't be killed" effect comes late, but has an actual battlefield impact. Not to mention is way cool. Grade: worth my reading time.

Overall grade: Scrap the first two and start over from scratch. Keep the Zealot for further fine tuning.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The spacing out of book releases doesn't automatically mean you are going to get longevity out of an edition.

Depends entirely on what you need in order to continue to play a particular game. The fact that [MENTION=6863518]dropbear8mybaby[/MENTION] seems to imply that power creep is a reason why he would stop playing a game... the longer the amount of time between books that present that power creep pushes his stopping point much further along.

 

[Greg K]

I'd much rather wait for a proper 4E-style Shaman character, where the spirit guardian is a kind of proto animal-companion that actually has a definition on the battlefield. Grade: entirely forgettable.

I hope the shaman is not based soley around spirit guardian that are proto animal companions. I want to see ancestral guide spirits shamans. I want to see loa type spirits.