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

 

[Garthanos]

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

Currently without expertise we have so little progression I am kind of opposite I want things to fade out as viable adversaries or obstacles let everyone potentially have expertise that 20 percentiles just doesn't convey sufficient progression in skills and in attacks maybe it does because of multi attacking but multi-attacking is bumpy as hell. The fighter doing a precision attack is getting his expertise in on a normal attacks once in a while

 

[Salthorae]

Cross posting this.

DND Beyond just dropped this video with Crawford discussing the new UA

Time Stamped to discussion of Spell Versatility
Non-time stamped

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

I've quite enjoyed playing all sorts of characters over the years, but playing a 1e Magic-user or a 3e fighter are different mainly in a metagame sense, and which class is viable and has some depth or interest or potential on that front has shifted around a little over the editions.
But, I also find I'd like to pay quite different concepts at different times, too, and not necessarily have to radically adjust my play style or applied system mastery, let alone make substantial compromises to the concept, just to get something viable/playable that sorta fits.
5e is not exactly the nadir nor the high point of providing the tools to play the character concept (archetype) you want, without interference from the system, but the fighter is among it's less successful attempts, which is unfortunate, because it's the only option for many concepts.

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.

That's part of it, but, I think, mostly indirect. The fighter is often the only class that fits many character concepts from genre. Heroes don't often cast spells in genre, and are very often warriors of some stripe. As you get to the edges of genre, blurring into action, sci-fi, and history, that only becomes more the case. You really have to get into comic book superheroes before you see the frequency of heroes wielding supernatural powers that you see with casting ability in D&D, and, even then, the sheer variety of such powers routinely used by D&D characters is quite rare (heck, even when you do have a cb character wielding the bizzare breadth of power displayed by full casters, like a Dr. Strange or Reed Richards, it usually comes in the form of a author-force plot device, and mysteriously vanishes thereafter).

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

The build of a 3.x fighter could be, and a 4e fighter could be in play. The 5e fighter fails to live up to either. It's a DPR machine. The BM at best hints at what might have been had the class been given the same chance to shine as others.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

That is a reason why prefer psionic magic in D&D. It is more personal, more self, more self-reliant.

Heh, it makes me apoplectic when some players talk about crystals or slime or Chthulu, thereby losing sight of the only thing that makes Psionics unique. Namely self-reliance. Literally ‘self’ = Greek psukhe.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And so the power creep starts....


(Sorry, been away from Enworld and just read about this.)

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

Although I gravitate towards making characters as magical as possible this is precisely why I sometimes like to play non-magical characters and I wish there was more options for that. There is a basic appeal to the character who braves a world filled with magic using only their mundane skill.

Personally I don't see a Wizard wielding magic through their learning and sheer powers of mind or a Sorcerer whose magic just bursts out from within to be dependant on much of anything beyond themselves. This is also why they seem like complete losers to me if they then multiclass Warlock.

 

[Salthorae]

And so the power creep starts....


(Sorry, been away from Enworld and just read about this.)

LOL.

As always, it's up to DM's what they allow in games. Especially in 5e where literally everything is published as "optional".

That said, I don't see any of these as real power creep.

Niche erosion? sure. Flexibility? sure. Power Creep? I don't see it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is a reason why prefer psionic magic in D&D. It is more personal, more self, more self-reliant.

Heh, it makes me apoplectic when some players talk about crystals or slime or Chthulu, thereby losing sight of the only thing that makes Psionics unique. Namely self-reliance. Literally ‘self’ = Greek psukhe.

Okay, but how is it any more self reliant than sorcerer magic? Or even, for that matter, wizard magic which must be learned through years of dedication and study, like any other complex skill?

The idea that the fighter is self reliant and the wizard isn't is just...so damn weird, to me.

And so the power creep starts....


(Sorry, been away from Enworld and just read about this.)

Not really. Turn all of this on, and nothing in the game will surpass the power levels of the PHB.

It's just cool new options. That's it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And so the power creep starts....
(Sorry, been away from Enworld and just read about this.)

I have to consider resisting the urge to creep power for about 5 years to be a stunning success by D&D-publication standards.

Niche erosion? sure. Flexibility? sure. Power Creep? I don't see it.

Flexibility is power. It's really mostly one of those rising tides that floats all boats, though. ('Cept, maybe, arguably, for the Tier 1 neo-Vancian casters who's boats are already flying.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Thoughts after some reflection...

The debate isn't if Known Spell casters should be permanently locked into their spell choices. They already had the ability to swap out their spells. The topic at hand is if they should be able to do so more often, moving from "once at level up" to "once after a long rest".

Is this too strong? I don't think I've seen anyone claim that, so no. Does it tread on the niche of the Memorized Spells classes? My opinion is that there's enough of a gap between "change one spell after a long rest" and "change all your spells after a long rest" to retain the distinction, though obviously not everyone agrees. Does it break their thematic class mechanics? As I said earlier, I don't see locked spell choices as a core element of the class story. It may define the playstyle of the classes, but I'm a lot more open to playstyle adjustments, especially when it involves making things less punishing and more fun. Am I missing any other arguments against?

Also, let's look at this change in the context of the entire rules packet. There's Cunning Action: Aim to make it even easier for Rogues to have Sneak Attack every round. Fighters get Maneuver Versatility to let them swap a maneuver after a long rest, similar to what Known Spell casters are offered, and Superior Technique to make maneuvers more accessible to non-Battle Masters. Monks get new Ki spenders. Spell lists are expanded. This entire rules revision is about opening up options and loosening restrictions. As part of that complete package, making spell swaps easier makes total sense.

What scares me about the popularity of this idea is... why people want the game to be EASIER?

I mean, seriously, are you guys having trouble staying alive in the edition which has the most generous (not)dying rules? Are you NOT having fun with the first edition that really gives you always at least one new thing to do every level up if you want?

So why this desperate need for a free boost? Why aren't people who have played the game for 5 years asking for MORE challenges in a MORE difficult adventure? Why the laziness of wanting an EASIER game?

It sounds to me like in 3e where a lot of people were not really playing or buying the game but were only pirating and talking about it online, endlessly complaining the game needs house rules, playing the social subgame of "character builds" for PCs who were never really played at a table, and always talking about "high powered games" with everyone boosted... and pretending that doing so is for "experienced" or "hardcore" players!

No dear... hardcore players need no stinking boost! And need no wimpy "I don't have the right spell, this game is unplayable, let me take a nap and I will have exactly what I need tomorrow".

I tell you what... I play this game with my little children, and I am PROUD of the game sometimes giving them a hard time exactly because they don't have the right tool for the job, so they have to think harder. It's even damn educational, even if (or maybe because) sometimes they FAIL because of that!

So how the hell grown up adults who think they are better than average at this game (let's face it, most of us here do) would want the game to be EASIER now, after 5 years? Or are you all worried that the rest of the world with their lower IQ will not want to play D&D with you because it's still too hard? That would be the only reasonable explanation...