Unearthed Arcana What does Unearthed Arcana need?

[Ath-kethin]

I smell PHB2 or PHB 5.5e within a year or so.

Well, they've more or less told us that a PHB2 is on the horizon, though apparently it won't be called that. So your olfactory sense seems to be pretty accurate. It might also equate to a 5.5 type deal, if the included expansions are extensive enough.

 

[ad_hoc]

Unearthed Arcana needs whatever it is they are working on. It's for playtesting. I won't use anything there in an actual game but I am glad they are letting us take a look at what they are working on so we can give feedback.

 

[Waterbizkit]

More variant or "modular" rules would be nice to see, it is one of the platforms they sold the new edition on. I can't give any specific examples because I'm quite happy with 5e as it is so far, but unlike quite a few people around here I don't generally take my own opinions as fact, so options for those who are dissatisfied would be nice especially if they callback to rules from prior editions.

I'd also like to see commentary regarding the actual design choices being made. Don't just throw some subclasses at me and ask what I think, tell me what the concept behind them is and why you chose to model the mechanics the way you did. This sort of thing can go a long way to help people understand why things are the way they are and maybe even help us as the DMs and players to provide better feedback.

Honestly I've been really happy with the game so far and how everything has been handled, so UA is mostly just gravy to me. There are plenty of others however that are less happy with it and using UA to dig a little deeper into the games mechanics could be a good way to help those people eventually get something they're a little more satisfied with.

 

[Ath-kethin]

What does Unearthed Arcana need?

What I would love to see is stuff that doesn't follow lockstep with the PHB templates. A finalized spell-less ranger. A psionics system that isn't just casting spells from the general spell list and calling it something different. I'd love to see a wizard specialist system that actually makes the wizards different from one another based on what spells they can learn and cast, not just on their conjuration of cheap tricks.

I love the subclass system overall, but not having an official archetype until 2nd or 3rd level really hinders character concepts in some ways. It also makes creating new subclasses for specific purposes more difficult, and really impedes the translation of some 2e kits to the new edition.

Actually, I'd love to see an equivalent of the 2e kit system, or something like Primeval Thule's narratives. Also, a system to allow multiclassing at first level, like the way it worked in 2e, so being a fighter/wizard was actually structured into the character from the outset, with no bouncing back and forth between professions required.

In short, I'd like to see stuff that develops the game instead of just heaping more stuff onto it. A few of them have done this already; I'd like to see more of it.



EDIT: typos, as usual

 

[Willie the Duck]

• An article that discusses the drawbacks on designing monsters with the assumption no or few magic items are available to the heroes. Openly confessing how campaigns can easily wreck the balance ...
• ...admitting monsters are generally on the weak side, even compared to the game's own DMG guidelines, and confesses ....

...

• Acknowledgement that it gets old and stale if even mightily high-level heroes can't ...

[emphasis added and clipped for size]

Wow. Just wow.

All I can say is prepare to be disappointed, because good designers of intellectual property know well enough to ignore people who feel they are owed an apology for their expectations not being lived up to.

 

[CapnZapp]

A desire for more character classes came next behind feats, with spells and races clustered not far behind that. We asked in detail about classes, with the ranger easily leading the pack. The sorcerer and druid were the next most popular choices, followed by the fighter and warlock. The rest of the classes were mostly clustered together, with the exception of the wizard and cleric. Both those classes received much less support for new options, making me suspect that most players would rather see additional spells for those classes."

I'd imagine a "desire for more character classes" to be met with psions, artificers, shamen, etc

Not rangers, sorcerers and druids. Those are classes we already have.

(Oh, he meant subclasses. Then somehow the discussion about NEW classes got lost.)

 

[CapnZapp]

In short, I'd like to see stuff that develops the game instead of just heaping more stuff onto it.

Amen to that.

 

[CapnZapp]

Wow. Just wow.

All I can say is prepare to be disappointed, because good designers of intellectual property know well enough to ignore people who feel they are owed an apology for their expectations not being lived up to.

Luckily I don't want nor expect atonement. Just better quality

 

[Parmandur]

I'd imagine a "desire for more character classes" to be met with psions, artificers, shamen, etc

Not rangers, sorcerers and druids. Those are classes we already have.

(Oh, he meant subclasses. Then somehow the discussion about NEW classes got lost.)

They've made it pretty clear new full Classes are going to be limited, mostly handled thru subclasses (and this was clear in the Survey being referenced).

 

[hejtmane]

Ideally, the UA articles aren't just a bunch of new subclasses. After all, the Ranger is getting a new overhaul top to bottom.

Aside from that, I don't think the quantity of Subclasses is what you should be measuring, but rather the quality of them.
Barbarians need options that aren't Totem. And technically the Totem has like 5 mix and match sub-subclasses anyway.
I think the Cleric needs a ton of work, seeing as how nobody seems to like them, and some people are having trouble imagining their purpose of being.

The sad part with Barbarians they screwed up the Battle Rager by a mile both mechanically and how they function compared to the Drizt books made the entire sub class suck. Should have made that the unarmed attacks while wearing the armor is consider a melee attack (1d6) and made the base AC 15. Gave them a charge with damage or a flying leap attack that alone would have helped a ton but WOTC totally dropped the ball on that.

Now I do like the Monk of Long Death, swash Buckler and extra paths for Warlock.