Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana:Are they revealing limitations in the 5th edition system?

[Corpsetaker]

Something I've noticed with most of the Unearthed Arcana's is they seem to running out of design room. We are getting several classes doing essentially the same thing but only in very minor ways. I'm seeing a less class system and a more broad system coming into play because class niche is slowly being taken away with each new Arcana. I think I've noticed it more with the martial classes than the spellcasters.

I would like to see them experiment more with "new" mechanics than giving us 5 different ways to make the same character. Why haven't they done more with the fighter's maneuver system? I mean they are playtest articles so I want to see some bold new mechanics being tested instead of the same old boring "safe" stuff we keep getting?

Could this be a limitation with the system as a whole? Could it be a creativity limitation? It really reminds me of 4th edition where the only thing separated some powers was a shift instead of a push etc....

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Hmm..

Honestly? No.

And I'll fight any undersized, poorly nourished, very tired man, woman or child who claims otherwise.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think it is more about "do you want us to go in X direction with a given class?" than the specific subclass elements. There are a lot of implicit big questions in the UA's: evil PC options, fighters with built in fluff, guns as a subclass feature, theme protection, more magic barbarians.....

 

[Corpsetaker]

What I believe we are seeing here is someone going from one chocolate bar to the next without even finishing the first. I want to see some actually expansion on the current mechanics. We are getting bombarded with Subclasses like 3rd edition did with PrC's.

 

[fuindordm]

I think they're being very cautious about expanding the mechanics and the design space, but that doesn't mean that 5E can't handle it. The latest version of the mystic and the artificer both play with very different class structures, and I don't see any major problems with them.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Ath-kethin]

I think they are dancing on a delicate line between the conceptual versatility of the pre-WotC days and the "every slight variation on an idea must have its own crunch" ethos of 3e/4e.

Consigning character concepts to subclasses only serves to limit character options, not expand them. Making a horse rider subclass for a ranger, for example, implies that a fighter, wizard, or rogue can't fill that role.

It's part of the reason we are seeing identical concepts across different class options; a "scout" righter, a "scout" rogue, and so forth. Making "scout" a subclass means that if you want a "scout" with a different basic skills set, you need to have a different subclass for each class to do it. And I think that approach is pretty silly.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I think they're being very cautious about expanding the mechanics and the design space, but that doesn't mean that 5E can't handle it. The latest version of the mystic and the artificer both play with very different class structures, and I don't see any major problems with them. Cheers, Ben

My argument would be that Unearthed Arcana is the perfect time to not be cautious and just let it all out for us to judge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Something I've noticed with most of the Unearthed Arcana's is they seem to running out of design room.

As long as they stick to doing sub-classes, sure. Sub-classes don't have a lot of design space left. There's a lot of design space they're choosing not to explore (hopefully, yet).

Full classes give a lot more freedom. The mystic is an example of adding a class opening up design space rather than using it up.

I'm not so sure the Artificer is as good an example...

We are getting several classes doing essentially the same thing but only in very minor ways.

We've had that from the beginning (not just of 5e, either). Every class in 5e leverages the spell list, most of them actually cast, using spontaneous slots.

I'm seeing a less class system and a more broad system coming into play because class niche is slowly being taken away with each new Arcana. I think I've noticed it more with the martial classes than the spellcasters.

I do not follow that, at all. Do you mean the classes don't have much along the lines of traditional 'niche protection' ("only Class A can perform vital task X, therefor every party must have a Class A character")?

Why haven't they done more with the fighter's maneuver system?

The BM's maneuver system is pretty limited. Any maneuver has to be plausible/workable/'balanced' for a 3rd-level BM. Imagine trying to re-design D&D casting with the proviso that every spell had to be usable with a 2nd level slot?

Could this be a limitation with the system as a whole? Could it be a creativity limitation? It really reminds me of 4th edition where the only thing separated some powers was a shift instead of a push etc....

Ultimately, the designers can add whatever you want to a game like D&D. In 3e there was a specific-beats-general rule of thumb, in 4e it was enshrined as 'exception based design,' but 5e uses a very similar approach, just falling back on DM rulings more than hard-and-fast (ish) 'specific-beats-general.'

We are getting bombarded with Subclasses like 3rd edition did with PrC's.

True enough. Sub-classes are easier and less disruptive than new classes, and, they can be quite nice to have in a campaign that declines Feats and/or MCing. (If you assume MCing is universal, for instance, there's little need for an EK or AT - anyone who wants one would just MC to wizard.) And, while proliferation of anything can be problematic in a game like 5e (indeed, most editions of D&D), nothing obliges any DM to use everything that gets tossed out there.

 

[Azzy]

Something I've noticed with most of the Unearthed Arcana's is they seem to running out of design room. We are getting several classes doing essentially the same thing but only in very minor ways.

You could say the same thing about 3e/3.5 with its extra classes and prestige classes. At a certain point, it all runs together.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I don’t think it’s showing the limits of 5e. But I will say that some options do feel like different meditations on similar concepts, while some really could bring something new to the game. The Artificer, path of tranquility Monk, and (for better or worse) Awakened Mystic all spring to mind. And for my part, even if I detest psionics, I prefer the dramatically different options rather than the ones that just feel like slight fiddling.