D&D 5E Two Subclasses from Tasha for Barbarian and Warlock

WotC has posted two previews from the upcoming Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything — the barbarian’s Path of Wild Magic and the warlock’s Genie patron. You can download them both as PDFs.

D&D Celebration | Dungeons & Dragons

dndcelebration2020.com

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah, I like the subclass conceptually, but can tell you that if it isn't a typo (like control warmer), they VERY first houserule I apply to that subclass is making those d3's a d4. The second (assuming there isn't a tweaked wild magic chart already) is to apply my houserule of wild magic I already use for the sorcerer: allowing them to pick if the effect is centered on the caster or the target of where their spell was supposed to be.

Just note that the d3 power is quite strong. It gives the barbarian an attack roll bonus (making it now the most accurate class besides an archer with archery fighting style), and a mini bard ability for skill checks. Its limited by rage but still pretty good.

 

[ZeshinX]

Great... another non-caster subclass with magic... just what we needed.

Thanks for posting though.

Alas, it seems the designers are stuck with that mentality. "Moar magicks!" seems to be their solution for everything in 5e.

I mean I get that it's a known quantity and is generally easier to playtest/final release compared to actual new martial mechanics, but....this has become, in my eyes at least, the one large failing of 5e (each edition has warts, but they all have at least one fundamental wart that really stands out). 5e's gigantic wart is its massive over-reliance on magic as the go-to "thing" for all classes. I mean honestly, just look at what they've done to psionics....magic with a fluffy name. :/

Sure it works...but dear gawd is it boring and unimaginative.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alas, it seems the designers are stuck with that mentality. "Moar magicks!" seems to be their solution for everything in 5e.

I mean I get that it's a known quantity and is generally easier to playtest/final release compared to actual new martial mechanics, but....this has become, in my eyes at least, the one large failing of 5e (each edition has warts, but they all have at least one fundamental wart that really stands out). 5e's gigantic wart is its massive over-reliance on magic as the go-to "thing" for all classes. I mean honestly, just look at what they've done to psionics....magic with a fluffy name. :/

Sure it works...but dear gawd is it boring and unimaginative.

I agree with your overall point and would like to see more mundane character options, but psionics really is just a magic with a fluffy name. Psionic characters are still 'magical' and do not fulfil the role of more grounded mundane options.

 

[Laurefindel]

Alas, it seems the designers are stuck with that mentality. "Moar magicks!" seems to be their solution for everything in 5e.

I mean I get that it's a known quantity and is generally easier to playtest/final release compared to actual new martial mechanics, but....this has become, in my eyes at least, the one large failing of 5e (each edition has warts, but they all have at least one fundamental wart that really stands out). 5e's gigantic wart is its massive over-reliance on magic as the go-to "thing" for all classes. I mean honestly, just look at what they've done to psionics....magic with a fluffy name. :/

Sure it works...but dear gawd is it boring and unimaginative.

Spells (and spell slots) have become the new metric for this edition of D&D.

In itself it's not a bad idea, and spells already provide us with relatively balanced "pre-packaged" sets of abilities/powers/features. But it makes almost everything magic-dependent for the system to hold, which feeds the desire for a low(er) magic game that the system has a hard time supporting without relatively heavy modification or drastic cut in content.

 

[ZeshinX]

I agree with your overall point and would like to see more mundane character options, but psionics really is just a magic with a fluffy name. Psionic characters are still 'magical' and do not fulfil the role of more grounded mundane options.

True enough. Perhaps the Ranger would better illustrate my point lol. An intrinsically martial-minded class that is, as currently official in the PHB, hopelessly dependent on spellcasting to be even mildly effective (and really, dependent on a single spell).

 

[TwoSix]

Spells (and spell slots) have become the new metric for this edition of D&D.

In itself it's not a bad idea, and spells already provide us with relatively balanced "pre-packaged" sets of abilities/powers/features. But it makes almost everything magic-dependent for the system to hold, which feeds the desire for a low(er) magic game that the system has a hard time supporting without relatively heavy modification or drastic cut in content.

It's an interesting conundrum. Good game design principles push designers to streamline and modularize to open up options and make the game more accessible, which is why most rules exceptions get pushed into a spell format (a lot in 5e, and almost exclusively in 4e). But a significant portion of the playerbase seems to desire more discrete subsystems, more in the vein of earlier editions. It'll be interesting to see what path the game takes moving forward.

 

[ZeshinX]

I mean, I get them not wanting to make the mistake of past editions of tacking on unwieldy new mechanics that don't jive well with the established base. Totally understand that. I still very much like and enjoy 5e as is, I should make that clear. I just find it disappointing that 5e (or its designers) seems ill-suited for expanding beyond that base.

I mean...wild magic barbarian?? A class so ill-suited to arcane magic its a laughable concept. If there is any class that is so deeply linked to martial matters, I'd argue it's the barbarian (with the fighter a very close second).

The genie warlock....ugh. Yet another sorcerer bloodline of the past pilfered and given to another class. WotC reeeeeally seems to hate sorcerers in 5e for some reason.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean...wild magic barbarian?? A class so ill-suited to arcane magic its a laughable concept. If there is any class that is so deeply linked to martial matters, I'd argue it's the barbarian (with the fighter a very close second).

Where does it say anywhere it's arcane magic? It's simply concentrated magic from other planes. Arcane magic is a tiny portion of the overall supernatural spectrum available in a D&D setting.

 

[DEFCON 1]

When I want non-magical rangers I just treat a bunch of what they are calling "spells" as just really good extensions of what Rangers can do naturally. Animal Friendship, Hunter's Mark, Longstrider, Find Traps, Locate Animal or Plant, Conjure Barrage, and Locate Creature are all easily considered "non-magical" class features that the Ranger has access to to use in certain amounts throughout the day. Unless of course you're one of the pedantic types who thinks that for it to be "non-magical" it needs to be able to be done over and over and over again, but then again Indomitable would like to speak to you.

So at 2nd level you can make friends with an animal, you can target enemies more easily and do more damage, you can move faster in isolated sprints... at 5th level you become really good at finding traps and tracking animals and plants... at 9th level your Ranger can now fire a "barrage" of arrows really, really quickly as a special attack... and at 13th level you can pretty much track anyone or anything. And none of these need to be considered "spells" or "magic", they're stuff Ranger already do in more minor form, so at certain levels the Ranger can start to do them really, really well at times.

Of course, this would require the player to "nerf" themselves by not taking all the "cool" Ranger effects that are all magical. But you know... if the Ranger player gets mad that they aren't allowed to take Pass Without Trace and make their entire party sneaky... maybe having a "non-magical Ranger" wasn't all that important in the first place?

 

[ZeshinX]

Where does it say anywhere it's arcane magic? It's simply concentrated magic from other planes. Arcane magic is a tiny portion of the overall supernatural spectrum available in a D&D setting.

It's not explicitly stated, correct. Though every instance of "wild magic" I've encountered in D&D has been exclusively arcane (wizardly/sorcerous) in nature. The one exception I've come across were the wild magic zones of Faerun after the Time of Troubles, areas where any magic went bonkers....wizardly, priestly, what-have-you. So....I see wild magic, I immediately correlate it to arcane magic.

You make a good point though, and it was my own assumption that implied it was arcane in nature.