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

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Honestly, I don't think it would do anything bad to the game to just give the Wizard prof in Arcana, and perhaps offer a variant feature where you give up some measure of power (perhaps arcane recovery) in exchange for gaining Expertise in Arcana, and proficiency in History and Religion, gaining Expertise if you already have those trained. Or hell, if you're giving up actual power for it, just make it Expertise in Arcana, History, Alchemist Supplies, and gain a language?

Ya know, let the wizard player choose to be a scholar over being more powerful in a direct and flashy way.

But I'd also just give each class a bonus proficiency like the rogue has with theives tools. Bards get 3 instruments and Jack of All Trades, so they're fine. Rangers get Survival, as do Barbarians. Druids get Nature. Paladins and Clerics get Religion. Fighters get Athletics. Monks get Athletics or Acrobatics? Warlocks and Wizards get Arcana. Sorcerers...honestly I don't wanna give them Arcana, but...what else would it be? There isn't an endurance skill this time around, so...Intimidation?

Some sorcerers probably should be good at Arcana, just not every Sorcerer. A number of things like persuasion, intimidation, deception, stealth, or slight of hand seem like things that particular Sorcerer characters would be exceptionally skilled at in ways that tie into magic they've learned, but I'd agree that there is no existing skill that seems at the core of what every Sorcerer does the way most classes have.

 

[Remathilis]

Hey wasn't there an errata to Primeval Awareness that let you use it without expending a spell slot once per day or something? Did they end up taking that back?

That was part of the Revised ranger 2.0

 

[Yaarel]

I may be wrong, but isn't the appeal of the Fighter versus those other classes the reduced cognitive load?

It seems to me, for many players, the appeal of the Fighter is that the Fighter is nonmagical.

Like the appeal of Batman (nonmagical) versus Superman (magical). There is a kind of pride in being hands on and self-reliant.

Batman and Fighters can be highly complex − including class build, features to choose for the specific situation, which equipment to use, and so on.



Personally, I love the mages. But I get the appeal of the Fighter. I now see Paladin as a compromise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I may be wrong, but isn't the appeal of the Fighter versus those other classes the reduced cognitive load?

It is a rationalization often floated for making the fighter strictly inferior in terms of versatility and depth of play (along with TRADITION! of course). The barely-unstated assumption is that anyone who would be interested in playing a fighter must be sporting a lower quantity of grey matter than those wishing to play a healer, or blaster or full caster.
But, the fighter was popular when it was every bit as complex as any caster short of Wizard (and not far behind that) in 4e, and in 3e when it was quite the engaging system-mastery challenge to create a viable fighter build, at all. So, that assumption is unwarranted.
I also see no reason to think there aren't folks frustrated at the complexity of playing a wizard who'd be much happier just blasting away with something like the HotEC Elemental Sorcerer.

And, of course, the Champion remains virtually cognitive-load free, for any who do conform to the stereotype. Maneuvers are a BM feature, and the BM is meant to be there for anyone wanting to play a more complex 4e-style fighter, or an even more complex Warlord, or a 4e-style non-spellcasting ranger...

...one sub-class, 16 maneuvers, standing in for 3 full classes, 24+ builds, and well over a thousand exploits.
But we're worried it's too much cognitive load for the folks what liked having all that?

 

[Yaarel]

Personally, I prefer 5e eliminate Expertise (or redefine it away).

The normalize both Combat challenges and Skill challenges as using the same bounded-accuracy math.



One way to eliminate Expertise is to define it as an insight bonus that cannot stack with Bardic Inspiration and so on.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Well, the thing is, they aren't.

A rogue cannot lead a group through the wilderness as well as a Ranger. Not even Scout Rogue, unless they also take Outlander.

And the game assumes that you are using the whole "don't require checks for stuff that is a no brainer" guideline, which obviously applies to clerics knowing about religious stuff, druids knowing about the natural world, wizards knowing about magical stuff, etc.

Now, the UA variants do take away some of the Ranger's power in exploration, but since they give it back in the form of expertise, I'm cool with it.

Expertise makes you good when it is a difficult check, not just when it's a no-brainer. How that plays at your table is something where mileage may vary. And I can agree with you on rangers being better because of other exploration abilities, but there is really no clear rules support for what you are saying with the other classes. Naturally if you play it that way more power to you, it is probably best practice.

 

[Parmandur]

It is a rationalization often floated for making the fighter strictly inferior in terms of versatility and depth of play (along with TRADITION! of course). The barely-unstated assumption is that anyone who would be interested in playing a fighter must be sporting a lower quantity of grey matter than those wishing to play a healer, or blaster or full caster.
But, the fighter was popular when it was every bit as complex as any caster short of Wizard (and not far behind that) in 4e, and in 3e when it was quite the engaging system-mastery challenge to create a viable fighter build, at all. So, that assumption is unwarranted.
I also see no reason to think there aren't folks frustrated at the complexity of playing a wizard who'd be much happier just blasting away with something like the HotEC Elemental Sorcerer.

And, of course, the Champion remains virtually cognitive-load free, for any who do conform to the stereotype. Maneuvers are a BM feature, and the BM is meant to be there for anyone wanting to play a more complex 4e-style fighter, or an even more complex Warlord, or a 4e-style non-spellcasting ranger...

...one sub-class, 16 maneuvers, standing in for 3 full classes, 24+ builds, and well over a thousand exploits.
But we're worried it's too much cognitive load for the folks what liked having all that?

I like playing Wizards, and I like playing Fighters. Different animals, built for playing different styles.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Expertise makes you good when it is a difficult check, not just when it's a no-brainer. How that plays at your table is something where mileage may vary. And I can agree with you on rangers being better because of other exploration abilities, but there is really no clear rules support for what you are saying with the other classes. Naturally if you play it that way more power to you, it is probably best practice.

It's the assumed playstyle of 5e as defined in the section on Ability Checks and in the DMG. They should have made it more explicit and front and center, but I think they designed the game with the assumption that most groups would play this way.

Some sorcerers probably should be good at Arcana, just not every Sorcerer. A number of things like persuasion, intimidation, deception, stealth, or slight of hand seem like things that particular Sorcerer characters would be exceptionally skilled at in ways that tie into magic they've learned, but I'd agree that there is no existing skill that seems at the core of what every Sorcerer does the way most classes have.

Yeah, I think Intimidate is the best fit, because what Sorcerer doesn't have some "natural" ability to scare people? I mean, part of the inherent story of the class is being a little unsettling, scary, etc, even to allies.

That was part of the Revised ranger 2.0

The Revised Ranger doesn't use spell slots at all for Primeval Awareness, and never did. Are you referring to the Spell-less Ranger?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

Obviously swapping maneuvers should require listening to "Eye of the Tiger".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It seems to me, for many players, the appeal of the Fighter is that the Fighter is nonmagical.

Like the appeal of Batman (nonmagical) versus Superman (magical). There is a kind of pride in being hands on and self-reliant.

I struggled with this in the early days of developing my WIP system, because it's a world wherein magic isn't separate from the person weilding it, so I didn't expect anyone to come to the non-magical character type from that angle. I honestly figured that the only people who would play non-magical characters would be those who just don't like magic, or who are too accustomed to playing the mundane guy to step away from that.

Turns out, it's impossible to make magic not feel like the character is relying on something other than themselves to get things done, for some people.