UA to Become Weekly! Pendleton Ward Helped On New AP!

WotC is currently at Gamehole Con, a convention in the US Midwest. According to a GameholeCon attendee at one of WotC's D&D panels, featuring Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, and Mike Mearls, Unearthed Arcana (Mike Mearl's monthly rules column) is going to become a weekly column. Not only that, Sage Advice will be pausing for a while while Jeremy Crawford joins Mearls on the UA columns. There will be a new Unearthed Arcana every Monday, with the next being three new barbarian options.

WotC's Chris Perkins also said that "The next D&D story is *not* based on Adventure Time. However, Pendleton Ward did help us create it." Ward is, of course, the creator of the US cartoon Adventure Time.

Photo courtesy of @BasementofDeath
SaveSave​

 

[Ath-kethin]

I haven't had a use in my campaigns for most of the Unearthed Arcana articles so far, but the same is true of most material from the Player's Handbook. I think that we could maybe use more sorcerer origin options, and maybe a set of optional rules that address the fact that all wizards optimize the same way (regardless of specialty, sleep, magic missile, and fireball seem to be staple spells the same as they have been for ever wizard since 1974, and that just rubs me the wrong way). Some of the wilder ideas (the "Old Black Magic" article, for example) have been really interesting and I like stuff that operates differently from what we've already seen.

Hopefully, more frequent Unearthed Arcana articles will mean they explore more actual expansions and options and not just retread the same thing over and over.

 

[Valetudo]

Try grease, shatter, and dispel magic if you want to change things up. Grease>sleep after 2nd level.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

I see more negative feedback than positive and the positive all seems to come from players who like being overpowered, or DM's who think balanced rules are an afterthought that doesn't matter.

I said, "forget all the positive feedback," because, while you have seriously mischaracterized the feedback about the new ranger from these boards, even if you hadn't, your uncontextualized citation of my words completely missed the point of what I actually wrote and (in so doing) also mischaracterized my claim. I never said, in proper context, that the UA options have quality control because they are all well balanced. They are not! I said they are part of the quality control process. So, even if your mischaracterization of the UA ranger was accurate, what you wrote still made it look like you didn't bother reading my post or thinking about it before you quoted it.

The fact that the vast majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive is merely a cherry on this frustration sundae. And yes, the majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive. It pretty much amounts to, "great job, but X, Y, or Z feature need tweaking." "X, Y, and Z" usually refers to the following list of issues: too front-loaded; primaeval awareness is a little too strong; the damage buff from "greater favoured enemy" is granted a little too early. None of those, for the record, are egregious imbalances. Yes, additional tweaking is required. Again, however, figuring what needs to be tweaked and how badly it needs to be tweaked is what the UA articles and subsequent polls are for.

I see no reason for the snark either.

I am sorry if I came across as "snarky." To be frank, cherry picking a quote out of my post and responding to it in a misleading manner that implicitly mischaracterizes the content of my post seems fairly snarky to me. Frustration over that action is what led to whatever quantity of snark my post included. But whatever. We can let bygones be bygones. Please, however, take the time to make sure that you are responding to posts appropriately. There is no point in arguing with somebody about whether the content of every UA article is well balanced or not when they have never said anything about every article being balanced.

 

[TerraDave]

Both of those are great news.

It does show the lead time they have for things. They mentioned Wards visit to WotC HQ a long time ago.

At this rate, we should see the UA book in two or three years.

 

[Parmandur]

Both of those are great news.



It does show the lead time they have for things. They mentioned Wards visit to WotC HQ a long time ago.



At this rate, we should see the UA book in two or three years.

He also worked on the Betrayal at Haunted Hill expansion WotC just put out; kind of becoming a main-stay there...

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I said, "forget all the positive feedback," because, while you have seriously mischaracterized the feedback about the new ranger from these boards, even if you hadn't, your uncontextualized citation of my words completely missed the point of what I actually wrote and (in so doing) also mischaracterized my claim.

And you in turn "mischaracterize" my words by implying I was only referencing the feedback from these forums. There are other forums and discussion mediums than this community and I never even implied that I was only talking about these forums, and neither did you, until now.

The fact that the vast majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive is merely a cherry on this frustration sundae.

On these forums? Maybe, I haven't done a qualitative analysis of the data.

And yes, the majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive.

I think you need to expand your horizons beyond these boards if you think that the majority of feedback on it is positive.

I am sorry if I came across as "snarky." To be frank, cherry picking a quote out of my post and responding to it in a misleading manner that implicitly mischaracterizes the content of my post seems fairly snarky to me. Frustration over that action is what led to whatever quantity of snark my post included. But whatever. We can let bygones be bygones. Please, however, take the time to make sure that you are responding to posts appropriately. There is no point in arguing with somebody about whether the content of every UA article is well balanced or not when they have never said anything about every article being balanced.

That's basically a non-apology apology. The "I'm sorry, but it's your fault that I'm sorry," kind of take-back.

But whatever.

 

[TwoSix]

I think you need to expand your horizons beyond these boards if you think that the majority of feedback on it is positive.

Out of interest, what forums? I browse several, and the majority of the feedback I've seen is broadly positive. I'm curious what I might be missing.

 

[Shasarak]

Mike is looking kinda rough in that photo. At least they did not get him in the middle of a yawn or something but man.

 

[Inchoroi]

But...but...what about muh Mystic...?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've never seen the appeal of Adventure Time, but @Corpsetaker's disgust has got me thinking maybe I should give it another try.

Feel free to skip any episode that you find doesn't excite you, and hang on for at least a season. It is, in my never humble opinion, one of the best television programs that has ever been made.

When the the show starts digging into the past, origins of certain characters, emotional growth of Fin and Jake, etc, it's just excellent storytelling. And it's probably not what you think it is. Like, whatever conception you have is probably at least incomplete, even if you've a positive conception of the show. It's not just another Saturday morning cartoon.