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

 

[SkidAce]

Read this for the Shaman ideas.

View attachment 78241

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Y'know, somebody's probably been dying for them. Order is less important to me than quality.

Certainly. For Shaman, I've heard Artificer sub-class, which sounds weird, but might make sense mechanically.

With each domain constituting a sub-class that sounds like a lot. Cleric & Wizard are already way out ahead in terms of number of sub-classes.

I suspect they will "infuse" the spirits with something like the artificer does items and the alchemist does potions. It will be interesting to see if the infusions are the same across subclasses (assuming they go through with this). Also, artificers and shamans seem like natural pet types, but alchemist is a little out of that (unless an ooze as a pet? some kind of mutated critter?). I have long opined that the best way for a pet class to fit in 5e's action economy would be for the pet owner to cast a spell boosting the pet using the owner's bonus action, and the powered up pet attacks using the owner's regular action. The alchemist could still use his/her action to infuse a potion and throw it at the enemy, but Gloop couldn't make an attack that round.

 

[CapnZapp]

Cleric & Wizard are already way out ahead in terms of number of sub-classes.

I happen to believe it does not make sense to strive for "subclass equality".

To me, it is perfectly natural simpler classes don't warrant as many as complex-er ones.

 

[CapnZapp]

Pssh. Binder subclass. The 3E Tome of Magic even had a sidebar about it.

Although I guess if the shaman is modeled on the 3E totemist, the other incarnum classes do kind of look like artificers.

Just FYI: the Shaman I have play experience with is the 4E one (in the PHB2 I believe).

To express that class in existing 5E class terms, I'd describe it as a Warlock subclass (Warlock because of the "caster with some melee capacity" chassi) with a spectral animal companion in place of most of the regular warlockian features. This SAC would crucially take up a spot on the battlefield (like a real animal companion) but mostly be a focus for buffs and debuffs. Foes would have to choose between attacking the SAC (to get rid of the buffs and debuffs) and to attack the real party members. Since the SAC isn't real, the Shaman can bring it back to the next fight (or even during the same fight, can't remember the specifics).

The cool thing is the Shaman's battle cry "to the bear", meaning allies should stand next to the bear for its bonuses. Of course, 4E depended heavily on intricate battlemat crunch (move one square this way, push a monster three squares that way) that can't (and shouldn't) be translated into 5E.

But to completely do away with a battlefield presence (as does these Barb subclasses) would be a shame IMO. That completely throws out the baby with the bathwater, since all that remains once you see through the fluff is a few very standard ways of getting advantage and imposing disadvantage. Mechanically, that simply is a big "meh". It's simple, but it's too simple. (To make up a meaninful successor to how the Shaman played, at least).

Binders and Artificers I don't know anything about.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Binders and Artificers I don't know anything about.

A binder ritualistically summons spirits, bargains with them, and allows them to inhabit his body and soul, gaining supernatural abilities. The flavor is heavily goetic, but there's a sidebar basically saying "You know, if you refluffed all this as less nightmarish and more natural, you'd totally have a shaman".

An actual artificer in 3E is unlike anything shamanic as far as I can see, but a totemist crafts pseudo-magic-items representing creatures from the Monster Manual and wears them to gain their powers. Like this.

 

[Marandahir]

In real life, shamans (as spiritual guides and medicinal healers) wouldn't be that far off from the concept of the Artificer/Alchemist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Cleric domains to fully cover the entire 3E catalog. Pretty much every sorcerer subclass except the fire dragon descendant.

I agree with needing more Sorcerer subclasses, but we have 9 official Cleric subclasses. Looking at the list I guess we are missing Protection as a Domain... but I don't think we are missing enough crunch in the possible domains to justify giving clerics more subclasses before BArbarians, Bards, Sorcerers, and Druids, who all have 3 or less official subclasses.

Certainly. For Shaman, I've heard Artificer sub-class, which sounds weird, but might make sense mechanically.

That makes sense to me thematically. I have no idea what Shamans have been in past editions, but in other games and lore I've been exposed to they get spirits to bless items, or use items to manipulate spirits. Special ceremonial garments, medicine bags, drums, weapons and shields that have been carved and blessed in specific ritualistic ways.

I could see Artificers having an Arcane (not sure what you'd call it), Primal (Shaman), and Divine (4e's Rune Priest) all centered around making items and tools for later use.

I happen to believe it does not make sense to strive for "subclass equality".

To me, it is perfectly natural simpler classes don't warrant as many as complex-er ones.

But how much impact do Wizard and Cleric subclasses actually have on play? They are far more heavily defined by what spells the player chooses to focus on than their sub-class while the Moon Druid plays very differently than the Land Druid and the Bear Totem plays very differently than the Storm Herald.

I'm not sure you would see such a big divide between a Transmuter and an Enchanter or a Life Domain and a Light Domain.

And with such a glut of options for the Cleric already, I don't see those minor domains being an immediate need.




Also, where are we getting the idea that the Storm Herald and Ancestral Guardian aren't going to have a prescence on the Battlefield. It seems almost the opposite to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I happen to believe it does not make sense to strive for "subclass equality".

To me, it is perfectly natural simpler classes don't warrant as many as complex-er ones.

It's not a matter of equality but of covering concepts, and, ironically, the more complex/customizeable a class, mechanically, the /less/ it needs sub-class proliferation. Take, for instance, all the Wizards sub-classes except bladesinger: they're just school specialties, a wizard can simply learn/prep spells from a given school, and cover the concept of 'specializing' just fine, 2e gave a 'specialist' that covered each of the schools, no problem. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the very 'simplicity' (lack of flexibility/choice) of the fighter & rogue means that they need a new sub-class for every slightly-different concept - swashbucklers and masterminds and bannerettes barely scratch the surface. The latest Barbarian sub-classes also illustrate the issue. Rather than a 'complex' class with choices or customization or different types of Rage available, it is the sub-class can significantly alter how the Barbarian's defining Rage works - you almost need one per primal-magic-Rage Barbarian concept.

It's just a consequence of the class-design philosophy this time around.


Well, and the impetus to avoid adding classes - coming through with the same range of playable character concepts without adding classes will likely mean adding /lots/ of sub-classes. Same goes for fear of PrCs, we don't get PrCs, but we get Battlerager and PDK sub-classes that'd've made more sense as PrCs.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, I believe creating a whole new subclass for a Barbarian that essentially gets to play with advantage and disadvantage a bit is hot air, a disappointment, a waste of space.

What we don't need is "like subclass X but with the ability to hand out disadvantage instead of concept Y".

That way lies madness. An indistinguishable jumble of various ways to hand out the same two things: advantage and disadvantage.

A subclass should have unique (or at least distinct) crunch to be worthwhile.

I'd much rather reserve advantage and disadvantage for the generic effects that many different character classes can accomplish. Simplifying what a common thing like "trip" does into "everyone gets advantage on him while he gets disadvantage on you" is a great 5E invention.

Reducing ancestral spirits into a load of blabbering that doesn't mean anything except yet another way to dish out advantage and disadvantage is a huge letdown.

Things that make you unique should never be anything as bland as that.

Advantage and disadvantage is simple. But also bland. Designers should never confuse the two the way they did here.

 

[CapnZapp]

What we don't need is "like subclass X but with the ability to hand out disadvantage instead of concept Y".

What I'm going for here is a comparison to 4E-style magic items.

Don't make subclasses that, when the fluff is boiled away, they all end up granting advantage to this and disadvantage for that.

I can create a zillion subclasses like that. All equally forgettable.