Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Cleric, Druid, Wizard Options

In another new Unearthed Arcana (these things are coming out fast right now!) the cleric receives a new Divine Domain option: the Twilight Domain; the druid gains a new Druid Circle option: the Circle of Wildfire; and the wizard gains a new Arcane Tradition feature: Onomancy, the magic of true names.

 

[RSIxidor]

It seems that this thread has moved on from actually talking about these subclasses but I'm late to the party.

Twilight Cleric seems neat. I never seem to like domain L17 features but this one is at least regularly useful.

Circle of Wildfire is decent enough. Access to Fireball is always good. I can't decide if I'd rather the Summon Wildfire feature actually wild shape you into that creature or just be something different altogether, like ability to cast Flaming Sphere instead of wild shape. The rest of the features seem fine.

Onamancy is weird. Being able to cast Bless several times a day on allies without spending a spell slot is really good. Resonants all sound pretty useful. Being able to switch damage types is nice.

Really, a feature like Summon Wildfire reminds me that I wish wild shape had not been a base Druid ability. Maybe if all Druid subclasses had another use of the feature, it would be more interesting. Like if Land Druids could use it to do something with their spells or related to their land.

 

[Parmandur]

Actually it can be, because context matters. The so called "Lore Wizard" that turned out to really be a Izzet Wizard is a great example of that.

But was that really a Subclass people wanted? Apparently, it is not.

Keep in mind that the 70% approval rate cut-off for publication has allowed a lot to get through, and why woudl they want content that doesn't excite the fan-base?

 

[Undrave]

Really, a feature like Summon Wildfire reminds me that I wish wild shape had not been a base Druid ability. Maybe if all Druid subclasses had another use of the feature, it would be more interesting. Like if Land Druids could use it to do something with their spells or related to their land.

I agree here.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But was that really a Subclass people wanted? Apparently, it is not.

Keep in mind that the 70% approval rate cut-off for publication has allowed a lot to get through, and why woudl they want content that doesn't excite the fan-base?

People would have been happy enough with the izzet wizard had they known why is was how it was.

And the True Name wizard seems very similar. It doesn't seem generally applicable but in a particular setting it would work well.

Just how specificic can subclasses be? The Raven Queen warlock didn't make the cut, and the kraken warlock has had an attempt made to generalise it's fluff.

 

[Parmandur]

People would have been happy enough with the izzet wizard had they known why is was how it was.

And the True Name wizard seems very similar. It doesn't seem generally applicable but in a particular setting it would work well.

Just how specificic can subclasses be? The Raven Queen warlock didn't make the cut, and the kraken warlock has had an attempt made to generalise it's fluff.

I mean, it's hard to speak in hypotehticals: would context have made the features more appealing, or just understandable? Remember they are not going off of forum buzz, but survey data.

 

[the Jester]

So this version of true names is highly dissatisfying to me. Your true name is... whatever you go by? Ugh. True names are traditionally secrets. If it's just your name, where's the "true" part? This feels like another instance of shoehorning a cool but round concept into a square peg to justify creating some mechanics around it at low levels. I'm not impressed.

I'm not a fan of these three. The Twilight domain is okay, but seems overpowered in several respects (starting with "everybody gets unlimited darkvision!"). The Circle of Wildfire druid seems like it's too much, with all of its "damage who I want AND heal who I want with the same effect, har har" nonsense. And I've already addressed by issue with the conceptual framework of the true names here. I can't see allowing any of these in their current form.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean, it's hard to speak in hypotehticals: would context have made the features more appealing, or just understandable? Remember they are not going off of forum buzz, but survey data.

The survey was flawed because the information provided was inaccurate.

It was more a case of "wut?!" rather than "that sucks" with the Izzet wizard. Outside of a mad gnome people couldn't see why they would want a wizard like that. They had no idea there was going to be a world with a whole guild full of mad wizard-scientists unleashed on the game.

 

[Parmandur]

The survey was flawed because the information provided was inaccurate.

It was more a case of "wut?!" rather than "that sucks" with the Izzet wizard. Outside of a mad gnome people couldn't see why they would want a wizard like that. They had no idea there was going to be a world with a whole guild full of mad wizard-scientists unleashed on the game.

So it wasn't something that would appeal to people, so it didn't make it in. They are interested in people's responses without context, so they can release product that appeals to people who lack context. That's the whole point.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Circle of Wildfire druid seems like it's too much, with all of its "damage who I want AND heal who I want with the same effect, har har" nonsense.

The druid feels quite retro to me. It is very like what you could make in 3rd edition. There was an option for replacing your animal companion with a fire elemental, and there was an option that put fireball et al on your druids spell list. I don't think you could do both at the same time though.

And fire plays an important part in the paganism on which the druid is based. See The Wicker Man.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It depends on how you look at it. One way is "X subclass is very specific to setting B", in which case you probably need to know that it is for setting B. On the other hand, "X subclass is often thought of in terms of setting B, but we expect it to be widely used outside that setting even though it shows up in a setting B book" is also reasonable. In that case, you probably wouldn't want to put the setting in the UA, since "how well does it fit setting B?" will be more of a confounding factor in the subclass review than they want.