Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Barbarian and Monk

Unearthed Arcana makes an unexpected return (the last one was back in May) with a three-page PDF containing two subclasses -- Path of the Wild Soul for the barbarian, and Way of the Astral Self for the monk.

 

[OB1]

Yes from a mechanically balanced standpoint that makes sense to me. From a thematic standpoint, I'd probably give them a level of exhaustion after the first use each day. So one without exhaustion but beyond that a level of exhaustion for each use until you take a long rest.

I like this idea. I think the Con Mod per long rest is a good option too.

I was thinking that it could be a bonus action while raging, which makes for a delicious choice to power up your soellcasters by bringing the fight closer to them.

At any rate, love the subclass and have a new target to multi class my WildSor/FeyLock/GlamBard Gnome into!

The Monk class is great as well.

 

[Gradine]

1. Wild Soul Barbarian is... for lack of a better word, wild. I like it, conceptually at least. "I accidentally blow up my own party" should be a comparatively rare occurrence, however, and not something approaching a 50% proposition. I'm not even sure I like 1-in-8, honestly.
2. Also, you couldn't bump that up to a d12, WotC? They're barbarians! d12s are their thing!
3. Astral Soul Monk: So we've learned that locking a WotC designer in a room with a bag of peyote, a Playstation 3, and a copy of Asura's Wrath, and refusing to let them out until they come up with a class archetype, isn't actually that bad of an idea.
4. If your opinion of Eberron includes believing it has robots then your opinion of Eberron is irrelevant. Sorry, I don't make the rules.
5. The idea that a piece of paper with a single line on it is inherently more likely to spur creativity than a complete blank page is neither novel nor really debatable, but it's possible to stretch that concept beyond applicability. There are pros and cons between buffet and package-style character creation options, and they all mostly boil down to player preference. I don't think one or the other could be said to universally allow more room for creative expression than the other (one might think the buffet style to be the obvious answer here, in fact, but again remember there is plenty of ability given towards creative expression when given the opportunity to play with the edges of an established archetype).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Two things-

The more you mix and match abilities willy-nilly, the more you end up with no need for defined classes. Again, there is no objective right or wrong in that, but you eventually get to the point I was saying- why bother with a class system? Just have gestalt abilities to pick and choose from?

Instead, you end up with "Barbarian, with a bit of Wizard," and "Wizard, with a bit of Barbarian" and, combined with feats and MCing, everything in between.

Which brings me back to just saying- great. So how about just presenting these abilities and let people choose them a la carte. You can "point buy" everything from your HD type to proficiencies to abilities to spells. This works for a lot of game systems! But, to me, one of the great things about D&D is the "niche protection" that the class feature has- it's both a bug and a feature, and I'd rather see truly unique classes (and subclasses) that mine the main class rather than continue to cross-pollinate.

I disagree. Having magical Barbarians isn't even the same thing, in every case thus far, as mixing Barbarian and Wizard. They aren't casting spells! They're still raging and hitting things as their primary mode of engaging with combat threats. They're still primarily a combat oriented class. A barbarian/wizard would be completely different.

Not only that, but again and again and again, this Barbarian isn't any less a Barbarian than the Berserker or Totem Barbarian.

5e subclasses aren't remotely, anything at all, like breaking down abilities into point costs and presenting them a la carte. That is an entirely different model of game design. Having subclasses that share thematic space (in this case, just...has magic infused in their body, which is very broad) doesn't invalidate classes.

As to the second point, the whole, "But what about evil DM" doesn't really cut it. Evil DM that doesn't allow MCing certainly won't allow UA material.

I admit that I have the advantage of playing with people I enjoy playing with, so my recommendation, as always, is to play with people that have a good time, regardless of system.

Nothing in my post leans on the idea of a bad DM, though. It doesn't take a bad DM to not allow MC. There are also a lot of players who hate 5e MC mechanics, because they're kludgey as hell, and half the time don't really get you what you're going for. And if the group views MC as something that requires training or a story justification, it's often easier and more immersive to just play an Eldritch Knight, rather than trying to figure out the Fighter/Wizard.

Also, I don't discuss this stuff under the assumption that it will stay UA material. The whole point is to determine if we think it should get published. There's a wide gap between DMs that ban MC, and DMs that play PHB only.

 

[Parmandur]

1. Wild Soul Barbarian is... for lack of a better word, wild. I like it, conceptually at least. "I accidentally blow up my own party" should be a comparatively rare occurrence, however, and not something approaching a 50% proposition. I'm not even sure I like 1-in-8, honestly.
2. Also, you couldn't bump that up to a d12, WotC? They're barbarians! d12s are their thing!
3. Astral Soul Monk: So we've learned that locking a WotC designer in a room with a bag of peyote, a Playstation 3, and a copy of Asura's Wrath, and refusing to let them out until they come up with a class archetype, isn't actually that bad of an idea.
4. If your opinion of Eberron includes believing it has robots then your opinion of Eberron is irrelevant. Sorry, I don't make the rules.
5. The idea that a piece of paper with a single line on it is inherently more likely to spur creativity than a complete blank page is neither novel nor really debatable, but it's possible to stretch that concept beyond applicability. There are pros and cons between buffet and package-style character creation options, and they all mostly boil down to player preference. I don't think one or the other could be said to universally allow more room for creative expression than the other (one might think the buffet style to be the obvious answer here, in fact, but again remember there is plenty of ability given towards creative expression when given the opportunity to play with the edges of an established archetype).

Golems are robots: change my mind.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gradine]

Golems aren't robots.

Golems are corrupted hobbits.

/ducks

Wasn't that kender?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Golems are robots: change my mind.

Do you believe robots, or AI in general, have souls? Because the common belief (among those that believe in souls anyhow) is that they don't. Whether they even have self-awareness is in doubt. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence that we might ever build, one that is fully autonomous and with full moral agency, might only be a P-zombie in the end.

Whether Warforged have souls is a point of contention in-universe (notably, the nation of Thrane refuses to recognize them as persons due to the Church of the Silver Flame doctrine that Warforged are soulless husks), but most of the evidence suggests that they do. Though they were built, not born, they're spiritually no different from a Human or a Dwarf or an Elf. They are alive, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

I think that's the point that annoys people when you call Warforged robots, moreso than pedantic arguments over nomenclature. It heavily implies that they're equipment, not people, especially in a setting and genre that lacks the usual sci-fi tropes about AI. In a harder setting where the existence of a soul is not a given, then there wouldn't be as much contention over whether or not to call sapient constructs "robots", but in a setting such as Eberron where souls are known to exist, which has great ramificafions on interactions with magic and existence after death, the term "robot" becomes much more derogatory.

 

[Parmandur]

Do you believe robots, or AI in general, have souls? Because the common belief (among those that believe in souls anyhow) is that they don't. Whether they even have self-awareness is in doubt. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence that we might ever build, one that is fully autonomous and with full moral agency, might only be a P-zombie in the end.

Whether Warforged have souls is a point of contention in-universe (notably, the nation of Thrane refuses to recognize them as persons due to the Church of the Silver Flame doctrine that Warforged are soulless husks), but most of the evidence suggests that they do. Though they were built, not born, they're spiritually no different from a Human or a Dwarf or an Elf. They are alive, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

I think that's the point that annoys people when you call Warforged robots, moreso than pedantic arguments over nomenclature. It heavily implies that they're equipment, not people, especially in a setting and genre that lacks the usual sci-fi tropes about AI. In a harder setting where the existence of a soul is not a given, then there wouldn't be as much contention over whether or not to call sapient constructs "robots", but in a setting such as Eberron where souls are known to exist, which has great ramificafions on interactions with magic and existence after death, the term "robot" becomes much more derogatory.

I am uninterested in questions about A.I. as such, and more focused on the nature of artificially created beings, intended for robota, that is, forced labor in Czech. Warforged were made unnaturally to do work others did not wish to do, and were not given a choice. They are robots, as are Golems in general, or Brazen Heads from Medieval alchemy.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Golems are robots: change my mind.

Do you need magic or miracles to build a robot?

 

[Parmandur]

Do you need magic or miracles to build a robot?

Immaterial to the form of robota.