I'm not sure I like these reviews to have the UA tag, I think I would have prefered a new tag. However, I think it is good that they do these reviews (in particular if they consider including the material in the surveys) and I don't really mind having the playtest style UA material less often. As long as they keep publishing rules mechanics that can be argued about on the forums I'm happy.
Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana March 2016 Review
Z. H. Darkstar
Explorer
Am I pleased that WotC is actually reading DMsG products and featuring them? Yes.
Am I pleased with the notion that we're losing half of the new playtest mechanics distributed in a year because of this? Not in the slightest.
Having new semi-official mechanics to look at each month was the reason that I enjoyed reading UA articles. It showed that further development of 5e materials was continuing each month. It gave some insight into what was coming down the pipe. It sparked conversations about what was done right and what was broken beyond belief. Those conversations would then be reflected by our responses to the followup surveys, which would then influence further UA articles. It was a contiguous loop of development and feedback.
Now we're left with six months of UA articles being devoted to stuff that many people here won't be bothered to read, because of the low likelihood of any of it becoming official material. This should have been made a separate series of articles from the get go. I plan on saying such when the next survey comes out.
If this is truly the future of UA, then I'm not going to bother checking it on odd-numbered months anymore. They will only get my clicks in February, April, June, August, October, and December.
Am I pleased with the notion that we're losing half of the new playtest mechanics distributed in a year because of this? Not in the slightest.
Having new semi-official mechanics to look at each month was the reason that I enjoyed reading UA articles. It showed that further development of 5e materials was continuing each month. It gave some insight into what was coming down the pipe. It sparked conversations about what was done right and what was broken beyond belief. Those conversations would then be reflected by our responses to the followup surveys, which would then influence further UA articles. It was a contiguous loop of development and feedback.
Now we're left with six months of UA articles being devoted to stuff that many people here won't be bothered to read, because of the low likelihood of any of it becoming official material. This should have been made a separate series of articles from the get go. I plan on saying such when the next survey comes out.
If this is truly the future of UA, then I'm not going to bother checking it on odd-numbered months anymore. They will only get my clicks in February, April, June, August, October, and December.
AverageCitizen
Explorer
[MENTION=58401]doctorhook[/MENTION] is right. With a few exceptions, these things generally look like they are less than a day's work away from the play test material. I think the reviews are an opportunity to get some community interaction and fill the schedule of a feature that isn't getting a lot of attention. No foul there, imo, but I don't think UA is ever going to turn into a steady source of solid content. There is no Dungeon or Dragon magazine, anymore. Just the DMGuild. And ensider, of course.
CapnZapp
Legend
I prefer if they do that by purchasing the content and release it officially.
That summarizes it perfectly
S
Sunseeker
Guest
A more unfortunate truth could be is that they don't even have 12 months of potential material in-house.
MechaTarrasque
Hero
It seems like 5e has an underlying message of "don't get caught up in what is 'official', only what is fun", so maybe this is their way of (very slightly) pushing us to the unofficial.
That being said, I would have preferred it to be its own column. Still, the bit about the maw demon was UA was nice: it established a niche and a neat way to fill it. I tended to think of them as throw-away demons before....
That being said, I would have preferred it to be its own column. Still, the bit about the maw demon was UA was nice: it established a niche and a neat way to fill it. I tended to think of them as throw-away demons before....
Jester David
Hero
I like this idea a LOT, but not in place of existing UA content. This was disappointing.
Even if Mike was slammed by Gary Con he could have at least given a minor revision or update on an article, like Battlesystem or the Eberron options.
Even if Mike was slammed by Gary Con he could have at least given a minor revision or update on an article, like Battlesystem or the Eberron options.
Well, except that they don't allow this stuff in their official campaign. So we are supposed to pay to be allowed to playtest it and then pay again for the official released stuff that will later be allowed in Adventurers League.
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
This is not too bad of an idea, but I think it would be better if they did this quarterly, rather than bi-monthly, and give us a list of 8-10 products to check out each time. Then it would feel more worthwhile.
Also, to everyone saying that WotC does not have anything to do with their time, remember that Curse of Strahd was done entirely in-house and not in conjunction with a 3rd party. So the few people who do work on D&D really have not had much spare time the past few months as they finalized and polished the book to make sure it got out on time. What I wonder is if any future books will be done this way too or is it back to farming out the books again?
Also, to everyone saying that WotC does not have anything to do with their time, remember that Curse of Strahd was done entirely in-house and not in conjunction with a 3rd party. So the few people who do work on D&D really have not had much spare time the past few months as they finalized and polished the book to make sure it got out on time. What I wonder is if any future books will be done this way too or is it back to farming out the books again?
Similar Threads
