D&D General Unearthed Arcana presents another three villainous subclasses

The last Unearthed Arcana gave us some villainous options, including subclasses and feat chains which enabled your character to turn into a death knight or a lich. This week, a new Unearthed Arcana over on D&D Beyond presents us with three new villainous subclasses, following on from the subclasses and feat-chains in the previous playtest document. These subclasses are designed to let players "embrace their inner antiheroes or engage with sinister powers". In this one, we get the Path of Lament (barbarian), Warrior of Venom (monk), and Primordial Patron (warlock).

The barbarian's Path of Lament harnesses sorrow and anguish, leaning into a Banshee's Wail feature which allows the barbarian to cause psychic damage with their voice. The monk's Warrior of Venom enables the character to exude bodily toxins, including hallucinogens and truth serums. This monk also makes use of the Bloodied condition allowing the character's blood to splash onto their attacker when they receive a melee strike, Xenomorph-style. Finally, the warlock's primordial patron is an alliance with a destructive force of nature, such as the Elemental Evils.

You can check out the new Unearthed Arcana playtest here.

 

[Zaukrie]

Daggers, sickles, short swords and scimitars are Monk weapons, this feels like a subclass that probably uses daggers both in melee and as thrown weapons.

A Warrior of Venom Monk will probably Envenom Weapon on a dagger and throw it at their target, and the Martial Arts Damage Die very much applies to the damage of the thrown dagger.

It's still completely lame compared to other classes, especially since you need to use ki to do it.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

What I'm saying is that there should be a choice! The only time someone should be forced to use a monk weapon is when you're taking the Kensei subclass, and only then because weapons are the whole point of the subclass!

Arbitrarily restricting "poison blood" to weapons makes no sense, especially when the most iconic monk weapon is the quarterstaff. Not even a weapon that you could argue involves getting your blood into someone else's bloodstream. Its a giant bludgeon.

Also, most iconic characters who use an ability like this also use it bare-handed. Like on top of my head this is best way to play Yanagi the Poisoner from Baki, you can do both Poison Hand and Void Hand, and while he DOES use weapons he does NOT mix them with poison, he can only deliver poison by hand.

(now I think of it, Yanagi Build would probably be some mix of Warrior of Venom Monk and Battlemaster Fighter, only thing I cannot figure out is how to do Whip Hand)

 

[Maxperson]

Its bad because it arbitrarily forces the unarmed class to use weapons; lots of people play monk specifically because they want that fantasy of not using any weapons. There's nothing about "drawing your poisoned blood out and using it as a weapon" themes that require using, say, a quarterstaff, versus splashing an enemy with your blood after a palm strike. You want to use a weapon, sure, you should be able to do so. Being forced to use a weapon? That sucks. The only monk subclass that should force you to use a weapon is if they remake Kensei.

Why? There are many monk subclasses that don't use weapons. Why should the people who like monks who use weapons only get one single subclass? This is a second monk with weapon subclass, and that's fine. They should make even more of them.

 

[Maxperson]

What I'm saying is that there should be a choice! The only time someone should be forced to use a monk weapon is when you're taking the Kensei subclass, and only then because weapons are the whole point of the subclass!

Arbitrarily restricting "poison blood" to weapons makes no sense, especially when the most iconic monk weapon is the quarterstaff. Not even a weapon that you could argue involves getting your blood into someone else's bloodstream. Its a giant bludgeon.

The most iconic monk martial arts weapon is not a quarterstaff. I've seen far more kung-fu movies(what monk is based on) that use swords and spears than I have quarterstaves. The monk weapons are what they are because of those kung-fu movies of yesteryear.

 

[ECMO3]

At minimum you need strength to make attacks, and what's wrong with a barbarian who maxes strength and con and dumps mental stats? Isn't that like... the stereotypical barbarian?

I have no problem with that stereotype, I just would prefer if the subclasses doesn't encourage it and to me it makes no sense to base it on Constitution. I think it should be Wisdom or Charisma.

 

[ECMO3]

I am not sure I like the idea of a PC turning into Undead creature type, either on the path of Lament or on the earlier Death Knight and Lich Feats.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I like the mechanics of banshee's wail and horrifying strike on the barbarian, but it doesn't seem "lamentation" at all. Maybe if it was Path of Revenge or something. I know they just used demons for the sorcerer, but when I think of evil barbarians, something like demon rage comes to mind (Kostchtchie is an obvious demon lord to be behind it, or maybe the barbarian was possessed by a shadow demon) or maybe some kind of GOO/aberration thing where you saw something your mind can't handle that every so often explodes out of you in a rage (also, you could get Arms of Hadar type tentacles when you rage).

I have been reading English translations of the Legends of the Condor Heroes, so I appreciate the attempt to create Ouyang Feng as a D&D monk, but he isn't just a venom guy, the Exploding Toad Kung Fu is just as important (as I read these novels, I am convinced that the monk should be a martial version of the wizard--you learn and "cast" martial arts moves like a wizard does spells).

If you listed the warlock patrons, I doubt that primordials would top anyone's list of "villainous" patrons. I realize the most villainous patron types have already been taken (and there are certainly some villainous primordials), but this would have made more sense as a 4e "book of evil" thing than a 5.5 "book of evil" thing. I have mixed feelings about this, but maybe a Chaos (or Trickster) God patron might work, where the God isn't interested in having a relationship with His/Her pawn (like a cleric) or having a pesky oath complicating things (like a paladin), but wants someone who will actively cause chaos (not like giving some random person sorcerer powers). Maybe taking a little of the Oath of Treachery paladin from 5e that didn't pan out and moving it to the warlock.

They haven't done a wizard yet, but if I had my choice, the evil wizard would be a contract lawyer type that specializes in making intricate deals with devils and maybe yugoloths [I doubt demons are into the complicated contract thing]. Since an int warlock doesn't seem to be in the cards, this could cover that idea.

 

[SLJ]

I have no problem with that stereotype, I just would prefer if the subclasses doesn't encourage it and to me it makes no sense to base it on Constitution. I think it should be Wisdom or Charisma.

Barbarians already need to heavily pump Strength and Con, and want at least a 14 in Dex, and they don't get the extra ASIs of a Fighter or Rogue. A Barbarian subclass that needs to invest in Charisma (and to a lesser extent Wisdom) is a subclass that nobody's going to play.

 

[Mistwell]

I like the Path of Lament Barbarian thematically, it's a fun concept. I think the biggest thing about Banshee's Wail is just the ability to take out weak mobs of creatures, though I'd have to see how well instantly taking out creatures with HP less than twice your Barbarian level actually works.

It's less powerful than most spellcasters with an area of effect spell. And some spellcaster subclass features, like one of the Cleric ones.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Why? There are many monk subclasses that don't use weapons. Why should the people who like monks who use weapons only get one single subclass? This is a second monk with weapon subclass, and that's fine. They should make even more of them.

I would rather see update to Kensei than get a monk that is forced to use weapons without access to Fighting Styles and Weapon Mastery. I'll be honest, a Monk that has to use weapons and doesn't have option to gain one these features just feels like a roundabound way to make fun of a Monk - trained all life in martial arts, has less sense of tactics and skill in combat with weapons than Rogue or Barbarian.