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.

 

[Laurefindel]

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?

Presentation is key.

I bet you could make a LOW MAGIC D&D (TM)* book simply by renaming spells and abilities, restricting the more blatant options, and changing the format of the PHB, but otherwise without any additional rule whatsoever. I've been tempted to do the exercise for a while now.

* a version still allowing for a fair amount of supernatural stuff mind you

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Totally fair. I also hew more towards the "spirit possessed" primal barbarian of 4e than I do the magic crushing barbarian of earlier editions, so that probably biases my take.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Whole arcane/divine thing in the 5th edition is just one vague fluffbox that applies to Forgotten Realms. Whether some magic effect is arcane or not doesn't seem super important to me and isn't necessarily even an answerable question.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Presentation is key.

I bet you could make a LOW MAGIC D&D (TM)* book simply by renaming spells and abilities, restricting the more blatant options, and changing the format of the PHB, but otherwise without any additional rule whatsoever. I've been tempted to do the exercise for a while now.

* a version still allowing for a fair amount of supernatural stuff mind you

There's a crapton of ways to make a LOW MAGIC D&D (TM) book and put it up on DMs Guild if someone wanted to. First and easiest thing would be to just create a dozen "warrior classes" that are merely the Battlemaster Fighter with a Fighting Style and all the Combat Maneuvers pre-selected. Heck, pre-select the Background too if you really wanted to dive deep on the theme.

Want a Gladiator class? Entertainer background, Defense fighting style (the net you use in your off-hand grants extra protection), and then the combat maneuvers that best represent gladiatorial 'spear with net' fighting. So probably like Trip Attack, Goading Attack, Lunging Attack, and Evasive Footwork. Write all of those out as specific features in a complete Class format, and voila, you have a Gladiator class.

Do that a bunch of times, then write a bunch of new rogue subclasses as Classes, then pre-assign some Ranger spells and call them class features, and only use the Berserker and Beast Totem barbarians. You'll end up with an entire book full of low-magic options.

 

[ZeshinX]

Whole arcane/divine thing in the 5th edition is just one vague fluffbox that applies to Forgotten Realms. Whether some magic effect is arcane or not doesn't seem super important to me and isn't necessarily even an answerable question.

It's a legacy of the distinction created for 3.x. I just keep using the terminology, and for my own tastes, I enjoy the fluff related to explaining the nature of "the magic of wizards, sorcerers and warlocks vs the magic of clerics, druids, rangers and paladins". Bards....have always been dabblers and do a little bit of everything....and in 5e have become the New Cleric of 3.x lol.

Arcane and Divine...it's entirely fluff, absolutely. Just happens to be fluff I enjoy and find useful.

 

[Undrave]

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 was personally annoyed how racial abilities were just spells. I rather like the 4e model of each race having a unique power all to themselves they could use once per short rest.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Yeah this is an area where you have to account for your flavor as well as your mechanics, which was an area that caused issues in 4e. Spells as a mechanic tool are very useful, they are clean, packaged, come with preset mechanics that you don't have to re-explain, and interact with many other subsystems of the game in a well understood way.

But flavorwise they carry "baggage", assumptions that some players don't want to play. The nonmagical fighter is still the most popular class from all of the poll stats....so catering to nonmagical classes makes a lot of sense.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah this is an area where you have to account for your flavor as well as your mechanics, which was an area that caused issues in 4e. Spells as a mechanic tool are very useful, they are clean, packaged, come with preset mechanics that you don't have to re-explain, and interact with many other subsystems of the game in a well understood way.

But flavorwise they carry "baggage", assumptions that some players don't want to play. The nonmagical fighter is still the most popular class from all of the poll stats....so catering to nonmagical classes makes a lot of sense.

Everybody gets Powers in 4e: the fans riot!
Everybody gets Spells in 5e: nobody bats an eye!

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Yep. Totally agree.

 

[GarrettKP]

The map on the celebration page has hidden puzzles. Clicking on some images reveal riddles. One riddle (Speakers Palace in Bryan Shander) revealed a new Tasha’s preview: