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

 

[tglassy]

I will only ever troll trolls and I don't see any in this thread. And I like the new feature. What gave you the impression that I don't?

Edit: By the way. Don't attack me personally again.

I wasn't attacking you, man, I was pointing out to other people that arguing with y'all is pointless. The interpretation some of you keep espousing is meant to do nothing more than get people who like the feature to spend half an hour typing up a post trying to logically explain why it is incorrect.

Question: Spell Versatility only activates on a Long Rest. So on your very first long rest, you get to switch a spell. If I chose to switch a Cantrip, which the UA specifically states I can, what feature did I get that cantrip from?

 

[5ekyu]

I see where you're coming from here. The issue I have though, is that the sorcerer, bard, and warlock have a mechanical ability to acquire access to any spell on their list with a day's rest, whereas the wizard has nothing like that at all. It seems to me that, of all classes, wizards should be most adept at accessing spells. With this feature, they fall behind quite a bit. In other words, even if there are perfectly reasonable concepts of bards, warlocks, or sorcerers that aren't limited to specific spells, there are even more of those with wizards. If wizards were also getting this feature with their spell list, and your argument was that the others should get it also, then I wouldn't see as big of an issue.

Part of wizard identity is being better at knowing magic spells than other arcane casters.

...and I guess that actually encapsulates my concern right there.

Catch is, sorcerers, bards and warlocks already "know" all their class spells. They are just limited to swapping one out whren they level up.

Wizards know the ones in their spellbooks and can prepare a lot swap all of the slots daily. In addition they add two new ones every level ( vs sorcerer one) and can add more in game scribing.

So what this versatility is going is giving one flex slot for daily chsnfe, not giving them more spells available.

To me this gives the sorc some touch of text the others.

5th level sorc... one flex slot daily (any spell of given slot) plus 5 prepicked.
5th level wiz ... like 8 prepared daily flex and rituals in book and at least 24 in book.
Cleric druid - similar to wiz but all spells available, same prrp and need to prep for rituals.

 

[Salthorae]

So if all you're saying is this Fighting Style should probably be available to all classes who can pick a Fighting Style, I agree. I took your original request to be a bit more than that, but fair enough.

In the UA Article: Blind Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting are all available to the three Fighting Style Feature classes: Fighter, Ranger, & Paladin.

Heh, actually. When I first read Spell Versatility I understood the same way @Ashrym and others read it. It was only when I read it again to make sure I got right, that I realized the word ‘Spellcasting’ was capitalized, and referring to a feature with a specific name. What threw me off on the first reading was the word ‘this’ − a pronoun lacking a clear antecedent.

The antecedent is clear if you read it as referring to Spellcasting header of the Spellcasting feature which Spell Versatility enhances.

I get how that might not be immediately clear, but there is no reason to assume that versatility works differently than any of the other "enhancement" features in this article which ALL refer back to their original feature as what they are "enhancing".

Question: Spell Versatility only activates on a Long Rest. So on your very first long rest, you get to switch a spell. If I chose to switch a Cantrip, which the UA specifically states I can, what feature did I get that cantrip from?

This is a great point. Cantrips is a different class feature from Spellcasting, so RAW you shouldn't be able to use this to swap out Cantrips despite their "rule tip" sidebar. They'd need to specify in the Spell Versatility Feature that you can swap out "any spell gained from either the Cantrip or Spellcasting" feature.

I think they're probably aiming for concision here, but the "rule tip" adds more words/wordiness to the article than just specifying "either Cantrips or Spellcasting" in Spell Versatility.

 

[tglassy]

This is a great point. Cantrips is a different class feature from Spellcasting, so RAW you shouldn't be able to use this to swap out Cantrips despite their "rule tip" sidebar. They'd need to specify in the Spell Versatility Feature that you can swap out "any spell gained from either the Cantrip or Spellcasting" feature.

I think they're probably aiming for concision here, but the "rule tip" adds more words/wordiness to the article than just specifying "either Cantrips or Spellcasting" in Spell Versatility.

That is incorrect. "Cantrips" is a subheading of Spellcasting, the same way "Spell Slots" and "Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher" are subheadings.

 

[maceochaid]

There are some more of these "Add double your proficiency" mechanic keeps popping up. I think it could help to make "expertise" a defined rule. It could also state There could even be design space opened up for DM's to key things off expertise.

 

[Salthorae]

That is incorrect. "Cantrips" is a subheading of Spellcasting, the same way "Spell Slots" and "Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher" are subheadings.

Hmm, right again

My brain swore to me that Cantrips was a separate feature and not a subheading/section.

In that case, there is no issue/question to me on how this is written. You gained Cantrips from your Spellcasting Feature.

 

[Gladius Legis]

There are some more of these "Add double your proficiency" mechanic keeps popping up. I think it could help to make "expertise" a defined rule. It could also state There could even be design space opened up for DM's to key things off expertise.

Lately, I've been of the mind that every single class should be allowed to "expertise" one (and only one) of the skills on their class skill lists. That'd eliminate the oddity of Rogues being better at Arcana than Wizards, Religion than Clerics, Nature than Druids, etc.

Rogues and Bards (and Rangers with Canny in this doc) can retain their Expertise features as normal, that just means those classes get to Expertise more skills than everyone else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm pretty sure the limit on maneuvers is not due to balance.

I suspect it's more to do with cognitive load and decision time. It's to avoid a situation where the Fighter player gets to level 3 and starts pouring over the book trying to decide whether any of the maneuvers apply to the current situation.

There are 16 maneuvers in the PH, all located on two facing pages in the BM sub-class description.

That's about as many choices for the player to concern himself with for his BM's entire career from 3rd through 20th, as a player of a Druid, Cleric, or even Paladin, needs to consider each long rest, for his 1st level spells, alone.

Doesn't seem like that'd be a concern.
Also don't see how balance could be a concern.

I do like the idea of retraining them as a downtime activity, though - more thematic - also, going all 'training montage' and letting an ally temporarily learn a maneuver as a downtime activity would be pretty cool.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And American lawyers at that, because interpreting it the way Max does requires a brand of legal literalism unpopular in non-US common law countries. I agree with you re the RAI.

I’m being pretty literal, as well, and coming to the opposite conclusion. RAW it changes how Spellcasting works, and specifies that the spell being replaced must come from the specific feature named Spellcasting that is being changed by Spell Versatility.

Heh, actually. When I first read Spell Versatility I understood the same way @Ashrym and others read it. It was only when I read it again to make sure I got right, that I realized the word ‘Spellcasting’ was capitalized, and referring to a feature with a specific name. What threw me off on the first reading was the word ‘this’ − a pronoun lacking a clear antecedent.

Yeah they could have just said “must be a spell gained from the Bard Spellcasting feature” or something like that, to make it more immediately clear.

In the UA Article: Blind Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting are all available to the three Fighting Style Feature classes: Fighter, Ranger, & Paladin.

In my own games I’ll probably allow any class to take the maneuver one as well, but I get why they didn’t allow it officially. Of course I already allow any class with Fighting styles to take any FS in print, so...

I’d also really like to see a Fighter Fighting Style that gives them cantrips, if Ranger and Paladin are getting such things. Let my EK be magic from day one.

The antecedent is clear if you read it as referring to Spellcasting header of the Spellcasting feature which Spell Versatility enhances.

yep. The feature is the feature named Spellcasting, and we can know that because the capitalization of Spellcasting makes it clear that it isn’t a general term, but instead a specific name of a feature, which only leaves the conclusion that it refers to “the specific Spellcasting feature that is being modified, ie the Bard, Warlock, etc, Spellcasting.” It’s clarifying that you can’t swap a Bard spell for a Warlock spell. It has to stay within the class, and it cannot even cross over spells that are Bard spells but come from other features.

This is a great point. Cantrips is a different class feature from Spellcasting, so RAW you shouldn't be able to use this to swap out Cantrips despite their "rule tip" sidebar. They'd need to specify in the Spell Versatility Feature that you can swap out "any spell gained from either the Cantrip or Spellcasting" feature.

I think they're probably aiming for concision here, but the "rule tip" adds more words/wordiness to the article than just specifying "either Cantrips or Spellcasting" in Spell Versatility.

Yeah not sure why they went that route. It’s just weird with how the features are organized in the PHB.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I'm pretty sure the limit on maneuvers is not due to balance.

I suspect it's more to do with cognitive load and decision time.

Unquestionably that's a big part of the motivation.

If you know your players won't do that then I wouldn't see an issue in letting them choose the ones they want (it would probably improve things by allowing the more situational ones to see more use).

That's one reason I suggested letting the maneuver switch---and the spell switch too, for that matter---to be a Downtime activity.