Unearthed Arcana What does Unearthed Arcana need?

[Tony Vargas]

Well, we're getting bards tomorrow. Are they going alphabetical?

It'd be yet another excuse to put off the Warlord as long as possible. ;P

What does Unearthed Arcana need?

Paper?

Barbarian: 6; 2 PHB, 1 SCAG, 3 UA
Bard: 6; 2 PHB, 2+2 UA
Cleric: 9; 7 PHB, 1 SCAG, 1 DMG
Druid: 2; 2 PHB
Fighter: 7; 3 PHB, 1 SCAG, 3 UA
Monk: 5; 3 PHB, 2 SCAG
Paladin: 5; 3 PHB, 1 SCAG, 1 DMG
Ranger: 4ish; 2 PHB, 2ish UA (spell-less)
Rogue: 6; 3 PHB, 2 SCAG, 1 UA
Sorcerer: 5; 2 PHB, 1 SCAG, 2 UA
Warlock: 6; 3 PHB, 1 SCAG, 2 UA
Wizard: 10; 8 PHB, 1 SCAG, 1 UA

That's an interesting summation.

Though they probably are going through and grid-filling/filling-in sub-classes class-by-class, there's untapped design space for new classes, too, the way the Mystic was done.

IMHO, the real question isn't what class 'needs' more sub-classes or which has 'too many' nor that number-of-sub-classes = 'love' for the class or anything. It's more a matter of:

What are character options that players would still have to go back to past editions to get?

• (1e) Multi-Classing from 1st level on
• (1e) Psionics 'wild talents'
• (2e) Psionics (class)
• (2e) Custom priesthoods
• (3e) Fighter, Fighter/X 'builds' focusing on something other than DPR, particularly, IMHO, 'battlefield control' builds.
• (3e) Custom 'thematic' Sorcerer builds.
• (3e) PrCs
• (4e) Warlord / 'Complex' fighter
• (4e) Themes
• (Essentials) Knight ('Aggro' fighter)
• (Essentials) Hunter (Martial 'controller')

What are campaign styles/tools that DMs would still have to reach back to past editions to find good support for?

• (1e) Construction & Seige
• (1e) 'High magic' campaigns
• (1e) Dragonlance
• (2e) Spelljammer
• (2e) & lots of other settings...
• (3e) Commoditized magic
• (3e) Epic level play
• (3e) Eberron
• (3e) NPC Classes
• (4e) All-martial parties / no-magic campaigns.
• (4e) balance (j/k!)
• (Essentials) Skill Challenges

...those're by no means exhaustive....

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

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.

If you look at domains there are basicly 2 types the ones with heavy armor and Divine strike, and those with a bonus cantrip and potent spellcasting.
So maybe they could come up with a 3rd type.

And maybe a optional rule for advanceced players where once can chose heavy armor or bonus cantrip on level one and chose beteween Divine strike and potent spellcasting at 8th level.
With those you can make 4 diferent combinations instatly multiply the posible cleric builds by 4.
What would be listed in the domian would just be the option considerd most compatible with the domains other abilities and domain spells.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

Warlock: 6; 3 PHB, 1 SCAG, 2 UA

Personaly im more interested in looking at character build options then strictly at sub classes.

yes there are 6 Patrons but also 3 boons giving you 18 diferent builds.

So for the warlock they can expand the build options a lot faster then for many other classes.
just adding one more boon would add a aditional 6 build options, and adding another patron adds 3 build options.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't think they need to worry about numbers...just go for holes that aren't easily filled. So far, it seems they are going for more "flavorful" choices--cornercase archetypes with very specific backstories that aren't easily expanded to fit a broader definition. This is disappointing, because it feels like its supplanting their imagination for my own.

I'd like them to ask themselves; is their something we can only really do with Multiclassing? And make that. Once that's covered, they can start just making stuff up.

Barbarian--we need a "civilized" barbarian subclass; a nonmagical choice that isn't as savage, or as limited in use, as the berserker.

Bard--the two main subclasses already do a good job of pushing the jack of all trades into emphasizing a particular direction. We could use one more for characters who push the roguish aspects of a bard.

Cleric--can always use more divine domains.

Druid--pretty well covered.

Fighter--Battlemaster and Champion can be almost anything, so might as well start filling in corner cases--swashbucklers, cavaliers, and the like. I would really like a subclass that gave the fighter some always on saving throw bonuses

Monk--I'm not the best judge of monks, thinking that what we consider "monk abilities" are actually "high level fighter" abilities, so I'll leave that for others.

Paladin--I guess we can always come up with more Oaths, but I don't feel like there is anything I can't play with the existing ones.

Ranger--Honestly, by this point, I hate the ranger. I'd rather we just have the fighter with an outdoorsman background and leave it at that. Or have the paladin and ranger as fighter subclasses.

Rogue--No real holes as far as I can see. The subclasses in SCAG filled up the obvious holes

Sorceror--need more bloodlines. But really needs a "generic" bloodline--an Arcane bloodline, for "Magic courses through my veins!" kind of sorceror.

Warlock--can always have more Patrons. Again, needs something like "Arcane" or "Ancestral" for people who want to be warlocks of Mystra or something, or the latest scion of an ancient cabal of magic-users (that's the trouble with giving all these synonyms different mechanics; if I say "sorcerous cabal" how does a warlock join?). Dr. Strange is basically a Tome Warlock; it would be nice to have something like the Vishanti or Agamotto as a Patron. Not everyone wants to be Faust or Spawn.

Wizards--pretty much covered, might as well start on corner cases.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Barbarian--we need a "civilized" barbarian subclass; a nonmagical choice that isn't as savage, or as limited in use, as the berserker.

Have we ever had that before?

Cleric--can always use more divine domains.

Conceptually, I can see it - I quite like the 2e CPH with the spheres and custom priesthoods, but I wonder how much interest there really is...

Druid--pretty well covered.

Could be a place to put some sort of Shaman.

Fighter--Battlemaster and Champion can be almost anything

Anything that's only a minor variation on multi-attack-based DPR. That leaves out a lot of 3.x builds (a few of them even viable) and Bo9S & 4e martial innovations.

, so might as well start filling in corner cases--swashbucklers, cavaliers, and the like. I would really like a subclass that gave the fighter some always on saving throw bonuses

Noble seems to capture the main thrust of the 1e UA cavalier, and Paladin the Essentials cavalier. Better saves at high level are definitely something I'd like to see (and haven't since AD&D).

Ranger--Honestly, by this point, I hate the ranger. I'd rather we just have the fighter with an outdoorsman background and leave it at that. Or have the paladin and ranger as fighter subclasses.

Can't argue with any of that. Except that Ranger & Pally have been full classes in the past (both 3e & 4e), so probably deserved it this time around.

Rogue--No real holes as far as I can see. The subclasses in SCAG filled up the obvious holes

With Backgrounds diluting any sort of skill-based niche protection, the rogue is prettymuch a backstabber, and, yeah, that's more than covered.

Sorceror--need more bloodlines. But really needs a "generic" bloodline--an Arcane bloodline, for "Magic courses through my veins!" kind of sorceror.

I'm definitely warming to the idea of a generic bloodline, like, to the point of it being a paint-by-numbers bloodline kit for the DM & player to collaborate on.

Wizards--pretty much covered, might as well start on corner cases.

The 5e wizard is a fair bit like the 2e & 3e 'specialist,' but without the non-specialist. I get the call for a generic Tradition (non-tradition?) who just learns a very wide variety of spells, in contrast to the focused traditions - I like 'Mage,' like in 2e, for a name.

 

[Salamandyr]

Tony,

on the Barb--I don't think we have; what seems to always happen is, they always seem to ratchet the barbarian even more savage. But I don't want to have to multiclass into fighter (especially in this edition) in order to develop my character as someone who, while still tapping into the rages of his savage past, learns to fight.

on the wizard--this is actually the only class I'm okay without a generalist on; because the wizard doesn't lose anything. He just gets a little better in his chosen area. In the past we needed a generalist because specializing cut off entire categories of spells. Now you have infinite flexibility-and the benefits of a specialization.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

updated takes on the eberron options, as well as draconians, half ogres, kender, dray, thri-keen, athasian elves, and some good class variant options.

for instance, warlocks that don't take a patron, and instead learn their magic, and bind otherworldly creatures, but are never​ their servants.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It'd be yet another excuse to put off the Warlord as long as possible. ;P

Paper?



That's an interesting summation.

Though they probably are going through and grid-filling/filling-in sub-classes class-by-class, there's untapped design space for new classes, too, the way the Mystic was done.

IMHO, the real question isn't what class 'needs' more sub-classes or which has 'too many' nor that number-of-sub-classes = 'love' for the class or anything. It's more a matter of:

What are character options that players would still have to go back to past editions to get?

• (1e) Multi-Classing from 1st level on
• (1e) Psionics 'wild talents'
• (2e) Psionics (class)
• (2e) Custom priesthoods
• (3e) Fighter, Fighter/X 'builds' focusing on something other than DPR, particularly, IMHO, 'battlefield control' builds.
• (3e) Custom 'thematic' Sorcerer builds.
• (3e) PrCs
• (4e) Warlord / 'Complex' fighter
• (4e) Themes
• (Essentials) Knight ('Aggro' fighter)
• (Essentials) Hunter (Martial 'controller')

What are campaign styles/tools that DMs would still have to reach back to past editions to find good support for?

• (1e) Construction & Seige
• (1e) 'High magic' campaigns
• (1e) Dragonlance
• (2e) Spelljammer
• (2e) & lots of other settings...
• (3e) Commoditized magic
• (3e) Epic level play
• (3e) Eberron
• (3e) NPC Classes
• (4e) All-martial parties / no-magic campaigns.
• (4e) balance (j/k!)
• (Essentials) Skill Challenges

...those're by no means exhaustive....

I'd add, at least, the following:

A class that does what the SWSE Noble does, either as part of the "warlord" class, or as it's own class if "warlord" really needs to be a fighter.

A Sage class. Combine it with the noble, if that works. I think it would.

More Ki options. Not necessarily in the Monk, but I'd settle for monk subclasses and variant options. *see below

Variant class features: I mentioned this in my last post, but to be more clear, I'm talking stuff like a Monk feature that optionally replaces auto learning all languages with something else. a system of expanded channel divinity that optionally replaces paladin spellcasting. Stuff like that.

But also, variants of the classes and/or new subclasses that just work differently, like maneuver based options for all the classes, etc.

More races and race feature variants.

Player end stronghold, organization, kingdom, etc rules.

More rules and options for playing differently, like the modern options, future stuff, but also spelljammers, support for urban focused games, support for a world where magic item crafting and magic are at their zenith, and players and skilled NPCs are the people making the awesome stuff in the DMG, including codified cost tables that make sense in a game where rarity isn't the thing that determines cost, as someone else mentioned.

Player options for things like a campaigns that focus on airships, and other non traditional campaigns. Griffon riders, etc.

and the least likely one, but still something I really want, conversions of all the awesome oddball 4e stuff that was in the magazines, and anything Nentir Vale related that needs conversion to be used in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd add, at least, the following:

A class that does what the SWSE Noble does, either as part of the "warlord" class, or as it's own class if "warlord" really needs to be a fighter.

A Sage class. Combine it with the noble, if that works. I think it would.

Would that noble be anything like MoonSong's? If so, it could certainly fit under Warlord, though the presence of a Noble background complicates the symantics. Given 5e's penchant for tacking caster sub-classes onto traditionally non-caster classes, there are potentially other possibilities as well. Ardent, for instance.

a system of expanded channel divinity that optionally replaces paladin spellcasting. Stuff like that.

If fighters can learn to cast spells, other classes should be able to have sub-classes that don't, sure...

Player end stronghold, organization, kingdom, etc rules.

During the playtest, there was some talk of a 'Legacy Tier,' I wonder how completely that's been abandoned...?

and the least likely one, but still something I really want, conversions of all the awesome oddball 4e stuff that was in the magazines, and anything Nentir Vale related that needs conversion to be used in 5e.

Heh.

on the Barb--I don't think we have; what seems to always happen is, they always seem to ratchet the barbarian even more savage. But I don't want to have to multiclass into fighter (especially in this edition) in order to develop my character as someone who, while still tapping into the rages of his savage past, learns to fight.

What would that be, though? Maybe something like Bo9S 'combat focus?'

on the wizard--this is actually the only class I'm okay without a generalist on; because the wizard doesn't lose anything. He just gets a little better in his chosen area. In the past we needed a generalist because specializing cut off entire categories of spells. Now you have infinite flexibility-and the benefits of a specialization.

I don't know how I missed that.

Of course, a generalist tradition (contradiction in terms?) would presumably get goodies that specialist don't get, so specialist would be 'losing' those, whatever they might be. (Yeah, 'restoring a limitation' on the Wizard by giving it more toys...)

 

[Salamandyr]

What would that be, though? Maybe something like Bo9S 'combat focus?'

Not a knock on whatever it was in Bo9S. I'm sure there would be something cool there, maybe a kensai that turns rages into "intense focus"-redefining what the class is.

But what I want is something like the Champion, but for the barbarian. Something like this...a young Barbarian, let's call him Wulfgar, gets some wandering feet and decides to leave his clan and kin behind to see the world. Naturally, what he really wants to see are the fleshpots of sin his parents have warned that cities consist of. So he travels there, and winds up as an adventurer, a freebooter, and a mercenary. His physical prowess, the gift of a hard life in the Wastes and the cruelest natural selection, give him an advantage over his more civilized warrior peers, but he sees they have advantages too--training at arms that he only competes with thanks to his berserker strength. So, being a smart lad, he learns the way of the blade and bow, and combines skill at arms with his bestial savagery.

Now this character might be a barbarian/fighter multiclass, just like a fighter who knows a few spells could be a fighter/wizard. But it would be more elegant to have a subclass that let that kind of character exist (which is a real common barbarian archetype in fiction) without multiclassing, if for no other reason because now the character wouldn't be missing his extra attack feature for the long time. He's not a berserker. You can make it work by cherry picking abilities and ignoring the flavor from the totem barbarian (which I think is what a lot of people do), but there's enough space her for it's own subclass--I'd rather have this than the Zealot, for sure.