Unearthed Arcana New UA: 43 D&D Class Feature Variants

The latest Unearthed Arcana is a big 13-page document! “Every character class in D&D has features, and every class gets one or more class feature variants in today’s Unearthed Arcana! These variants replace or enhance a class’s normal features, giving you new ways to enjoy your character’s class.”

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Gladius Legis]

Sometimes "git gud" is a perfectly valid thing to say, though, like to the morons who want Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro to have an "easy mode," when it goes against the very idea of those games to have such a mode.

 

[Salthorae]

That's the comparison @Undrave was drawing. Experienced player with system mastery telling new player complaining about a class's limitations unduly hamstringing them that their complaints are unfounded = "git gud"

Then I'd have to say I don't think it applies since my response was to someone who'd played a Warlock for 2+ years and a sorcerer for "a few months".

5e has only been out for 5 years or so, so they've been playing those limited spell class options in the system for 3/5th of it, not a new player of 5e by any stretch, and they've been on EN World since 2005, so... yeah.

shrug whatever. I'm done with the back and forth on spell versatility. I'll submit my survey, others will submit theirs and whatever is most popular if it is above their "move to print" threshold will "win" that argument.

 

[Undrave]

Not sure what you're saying here, so maybe?

That's the comparison @Undrave was drawing. Experienced player with system mastery telling new player complaining about a class's limitations unduly hamstringing them that their complaints are unfounded = "git gud"

Yup! Saying "live with the consequences" is basically punishing players with low system master for picking situational spells that might not even do what they thought it did just because they thought the name sounded cool. A modicum of flexibility allows them to repair their mistakes without having to wait sessions upon sessions.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

That said, if one truly feels the need to redress the scales of balance, I could see giving the wizard a bit more spellcasting flexibility through a mechanism similar to the cleric's domain spells, the druid's circle spells, and the paladin's oath spells. A specialist wizard can pick two spells of every level from 1st to 5th from his specialty school that are added to his spellbook and which he always has prepared. Other wizard traditions like the bladesinger have a similar list of spells which can include spells from the cleric, druid, or paladin spell list for extra crotch-kicking goodness. I think the paladin smite spells would be quite appropriate for a bladesinger, for example.

I could see something like the wizard school wants you to know certain spells even if you can't cast them yet.

Regarding Marvel comics Thor. Remind me, can he ‘cast spells’ without his hammer?

It varies. Generally no, but whether that is because his hammer is his focus or he is just drawing on enchantments from the hammer depends on the writer (I think in the late '80s/early 90's, anybody with enough Asgardian mojo [including Asgardian powered mortal supervillain the Wrecker] could do pretty much everything Thor could do with their weapon [a crowbar in the Wrecker's case], and in recent years they have focused on the hammer having intrinsic magical properties as a result of imprisoning the essence of a big magic storm). Sometimes Thor goes full "All Father" when Odin is temporarily dead or retired and then he can cast without the hammer.

Also to complicate things, Odin has enchanted a bunch of weapons to turn worthy mortals into "Thor" so that they could die at Ragnorok leaving the real Thor alive to bring the gods back to life. One of those weapons is Thor's hammer.

 

[Salthorae]

Yup! Saying "live with the consequences" is basically punishing players with low system master for picking situational spells that might not even do what they thought it did just because they thought the name sounded cool. A modicum of flexibility allows them to repair their mistakes without having to wait sessions upon sessions.

If a player can't even be bothered to read beyond the kewl spell name, then I have very little sympathy for their hardship. Sorry.

Also - where was their DM in offering advice to a low system mastery player of a class with very limited options?

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

Also, explain to me how it impacts the theme and flavor, would you? When I think theme and flavor of a Warlock, I think about someone who's made a possibly unwise pact with a mighty inhuman entity for power, or someone who was desperate or lazy enough they didn't want to take the slow path of the Wizard for arcane mastery, or someone who found a way to exploit a loophole in the rules of the cosmos for their own advantage. When I think about a Sorcerer I think about someone with power in their blood, someone with an extraordinary heritage or who had a close brush with cosmic forces, someone whose magic comes from within not without.

Say the party finds out the next adventure they're going on is to a castle that has sunk to the bottom of a swamp so some form of underwater breathing is needed. Neither the sorcerer or wizard in the party has the water breathing spell as it is situational and no water exploration has come up so far. The wizard says to the rest of the party "I'll need a couple weeks of down time to hunt down a spell book or scroll with the spell." But then the sorcerer just says "We can leave right now. I'll have it ready by the time we get there." Which is a situation that really just shouldn't happen given that the wizard's shtick is versatility.

So in my opinion some kind of compromise is necessary.

Proposal 1: Keep spell versatility but also give it to the wizard. The first character I played in 5e was a wizard and while I eventually ended up with more spells than I could shake a stick at at level 10, there were also a few instances where I too wish I had the opportunity to retcon some choices. Around level 6 or 7 I regretted not picking up Detect Thoughts as a divination wizard since it's on theme and would be useful for some social situations. But by that point I had the option to pick up higher level spells on level up that I sure wasn't going to waste those choices on back filling. Another example was that I took Charm Person early on and quickly discovered that with the way our DM ran things that there was no situation in which casting it is a good idea. In combat it doesn't do much to alter enemy behaviour and in town it's a one way ticket to get the NPCs mad at you.

Proposal 2: Remove spell versatility. Allow bards, sorcerers and warlocks to learn spells from scrolls or spell books the same way as wizards. That way those classes have an avenue for correction but it has a cost associated with it.

 

[Kurotowa]

The one thematic problem I have with spell versatility as it is presented is something like this. Say the party finds out the next adventure they're going on is to a castle that has sunk to the bottom of a swamp so some form of underwater breathing is needed. Neither the sorcerer or wizard in the party has the water breathing spell as it is situational and no water exploration has come up so far. The wizard says to the rest of the party "I'll need a couple weeks of down time to hunt down a spell book or scroll with the spell." But then the sorcerer just says "We can leave right now. I'll have it ready by the time we get there." Which is a situation that really just shouldn't happen given that the wizard's shtick is versatility.

See, I would tag that as "mechanical balance and niche protection", not theme. And I'll throw out two counters. One is, what about the party with a Sorcerer and no Wizard? Another is, are you really arguing that the Wizard of all classes is delicate enough it needs niche protection?

 

[Undrave]

If a player can't even be bothered to read beyond the kewl spell name, then I have very little sympathy for their hardship. Sorry.

Also - where was their DM in offering advice to a low system mastery player of a class with very limited options?

Maybe they picked a spell based on theme but it turned out too situational. Like picking multiple spells with a melee range expecting to be charged far more often than they ended up being because their frontline is more efficient than expected? (Like a Sentinel-Polearm Cavalier)

What if it was an Adventure League game and they came with their character ready?

 

[Seramus]

If a player can't even be bothered to read beyond the kewl spell name, then I have very little sympathy for their hardship. Sorry.

Also - where was their DM in offering advice to a low system mastery player of a class with very limited options?

Lots of players misunderstand what they are reading.

Lots of DMs have even less system mastery than their players, favoring the Rule of Cool.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

See, I would tag that as "mechanical balance and niche protection", not theme. And I'll throw out two counters. One is, what about the party with a Sorcerer and no Wizard? Another is, are you really arguing that the Wizard of all classes is delicate enough it needs niche protection?

Under either of my proposals the sorcerer would have an avenue of getting the needed spell without needing a level up. And given that the sorcerer and wizard share more overlap than any other two classes I'd argue that preserving what makes each distinct becomes even more important. Otherwise why even have both?