Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Starter Spells; Plus UA Returning To Monthly & Sage Advice Returning

dave2008 · Apr 4, 2017

Hemlock said:
5E is also very married to uniform distributions and d20 rolls as a resolution mechanism to the point where it feels pretty non-idiomatic to do something as simple as say, "The stronger guy wins the arm-wrestling match." (What, no opposed d20 checks?!) Don't get me started on Perception/Investigation checks either.

Perhaps I missed something, but that is exactly how I run 5e. I only call for a check (or save, or attack even), when the result is in doubt. If 18 strength guy is arm wrestling a 10 strength guy it is auto-success, no check needed. I thought this approach was even specifically supported in 5e, but it has been a while since I combed through the books and I tend to play the way I play regardless of edition.

pukunui · Apr 4, 2017

dave2008 said:
I thought this approach was even specifically supported in 5e ...

It is. To whit:

PHB said:
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome
a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

DMG said:
When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores ... Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

Henry · Apr 4, 2017

Saeviomagy said:
Only if 'healing done' is the metric you use, and you care about half a hit point AND your spellcasting modifier is only +2. If you were paying attention to power level, you picked up the far, far superior healing word anyway.

Something on-par with cure wounds is already sub-par. Cure wounds is not a good spell to cast in the middle of a fight.

My main issue with healing elixir is that it'll be pre-cast the day before. That said, if it wasn't a problem with goodberry, it's not going to become a problem now.

my mistake, For some reason I was misremembering that cure wounds does only did straight d8's; however, "doing healing at all" is the metric I use, because I get annoyed when that particular ability gets thrown to wizards just because someone feels like Wizards should be able to heal people. I'm not sure how Healing Word is supposed to be superior; it's only d4s, even if it's a bonus action and ranged. At higher slots, you're just getting d4s.

Goodberry's not a problem because Druids are a type of cleric to me, so if they have healing no problem, and Goodberry particularly, like healing elixir, is a prep-spell and requires time to use (it's a curing magic that takes ten actions to use if one person is benefitting, not economical). Healing elixir gives a wizard or warlock a free 50gp item with every casting, that can be used for pinch healing for anyone in the group; i would expect clerics or druids (or even bards possibly) to have something like that, not every Tom, Dick, or Merlin. If you're inclined to make Alchemists wizard subclasses, have it as a special ability, not just lumped in with the general pool of wizard spells. It's a slippery slope. First, Healing Elixir; then, 3rd level restoration elixir spells, then 4th level remove blindness/poison elixirs, and before you know it wizards have been given 5th or even 4th level revivify ointment creation spells with no gems needed. Why not, clerics can already do it at 3rd level, right?

It's a bit of a soapbox, I admit, but it does annoy me when wizards keep getting thrown other people's lunches. It's historically been a problem, and 5e tomed it down, but I don't want to see it return.

Lanliss · Apr 4, 2017

Henry said:
my mistake, For some reason I was misremembering that cure wounds does only did straight d8's; however, "doing healing at all" is the metric I use, because I get annoyed when that particular ability gets thrown to wizards just because someone feels like Wizards should be able to heal people. I'm not sure how Healing Word is supposed to be superior; it's only d4s, even if it's a bonus action and ranged. At higher slots, you're just getting d4s.

Goodberry's not a problem because Druids are a type of cleric to me, so if they have healing no problem, and Goodberry particularly, like healing elixir, is a prep-spell and requires time to use (it's a curing magic that takes ten actions to use if one person is benefitting, not economical). Healing elixir gives a wizard or warlock a free 50gp item with every casting, that can be used for pinch healing for anyone in the group; i would expect clerics or druids (or even bards possibly) to have something like that, not every Tom, Dick, or Merlin. If you're inclined to make Alchemists wizard subclasses, have it as a special ability, not just lumped in with the general pool of wizard spells. It's a slippery slope. First, Healing Elixir; then, 3rd level restoration elixir spells, then 4th level remove blindness/poison elixirs, and before you know it wizards have been given 5th or even 4th level revivify ointment creation spells with no gems needed. Why not, clerics can already do it at 3rd level, right?

It's a bit of a soapbox, I admit, but it does annoy me when wizards keep getting thrown other people's lunches. It's historically been a problem, and 5e tomed it down, but I don't want to see it return.

I can agree with Wizards not getting it, but I like that Warlock has it. They are so closely tied with Witches, the Historical Potion makers, that not being able to make a potion or two would be very odd indeed. Maybe even those other things you listed, aside from Revivify, because those all seem like potions I have seen witches use in Fairy tales and Folk Lore. I might even look into making a full Warlock that is a potion master, rather than Patron based.

Belltent · Apr 4, 2017

dave2008 said:
Perhaps I missed something, but that is exactly how I run 5e. I only call for a check (or save, or attack even), when the result is in doubt. If 18 strength guy is arm wrestling a 10 strength guy it is auto-success, no check needed. I thought this approach was even specifically supported in 5e, but it has been a while since I combed through the books and I tend to play the way I play regardless of edition.

Pre bounded accuracy that perhaps works. In 5e, however, everyone just about always has a mathematical chance to beat anyone else at anything. Not acknowledging that chance could lead to some salty players.

EDIT: and in your example specifically, it would only be an autofail for the 10 STR on 4 numbers (1-4), and only an autowin for the 18 STR on 4 numbers (17-20). Lots of variables between those two sets.

Dualazi · Apr 4, 2017

[MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION]
I strongly agree, which is one of many reasons I hated the Theurge. Wizards already have huge spell lists that are evidently set to get bigger, they don't need to invade other class' turf as well.
[MENTION=6801219]Lanliss[/MENTION]
While I do like the warlock class conceptually and mechanically, I feel it has strayed pretty far from the theme of classical witches and the like. I'd definitely say that it's easier to create that archetypal character through the wizard/druid/alchemist currently.

Bishop_ · Apr 4, 2017

Robert J. Schwalb is stated as one of the authors of this UA (something unusual given that most time the UA articles are under Crawford and Mearls names). Anyone can identify his influence?

MechaTarrasque · Apr 4, 2017

Lanliss said:
I can agree with Wizards not getting it, but I like that Warlock has it. They are so closely tied with Witches, the Historical Potion makers, that not being able to make a potion or two would be very odd indeed. Maybe even those other things you listed, aside from Revivify, because those all seem like potions I have seen witches use in Fairy tales and Folk Lore. I might even look into making a full Warlock that is a potion master, rather than Patron based.

A cauldron pact implement would be cool, but it would have to be a small one if the party has to lug it into a dungeon....

bganon · Apr 4, 2017

Belltent said:
Pre bounded accuracy that perhaps works. In 5e, however, everyone just about always has a mathematical chance to beat anyone else at anything. Not acknowledging that chance could lead to some salty players.

EDIT: and in your example specifically, it would only be an autofail for the 10 STR on 4 numbers (1-4), and only an autowin for the 18 STR on 4 numbers (17-20). Lots of variables between those two sets.

You're presupposing the resolution mechanism to determine the odds of success. But that's explicitly not what the game says to do. The DM decides odds of success - then, and only then, is the resolution mechanism determined.

Can this lead to seemingly incoherent situations? Yes, but not especially more so than the rest of D&D. If players really get upset over such things, I'm not sure human-adjudicated RPGs are for them.