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

 

[Tony Vargas]

They can just play a Fighter with a bow and pick up the Nature skill. Same thing really.

I mean, conceptually, an Outlander Fighter covers the archetypes the spell-less Ranger is meant to pretty well, no spellcasting really called for, and, if MCing weren't optional, throw in some Druid and there's no need for spell-full, Ranger, either.
Conceptually.
As far as actual breadth & depth of abilities and resources, OTOH, there's really no comparison. A 5e Outlander Fighter Battlemaster doesn't come anywhere near a 4e Archer Ranger. A 5e Ranger wildly out-magicks a classic 1e Ranger.

Yes, I am still salty that I couldn't play an effective Fighter with a bow in 4e, and got constantly told to go play a Ranger instead for voicing that complaint, can you tell?

4e never did get a handle on any sort of ranged defender, so, yeah, little point to a fighter using, let alone specializing in, the bow - thrown weapons suited it much better.
The Ranger made a great archer, though, had no supernatural and virtually no woodsy baggage left - you had to choose between nature and dungeoneering when picking skills, that was the last vestige of woodsiness - so, yeah, covered the same concepts as an archery-specialized fighter in past editions, quite handily. Really, a lot better, considering what it could do. So, yeah, you got good advice.

"if we use the same mechanics but call it 'martial', that means it's totally not magical" tech back then.

It's d20, everything uses the same mechanics. What you do with 'em differentiates one class from another. For instance, say a character casts Shield & Burning Hands. What class is he? Well, in 1e Magic-User, no question, but at least 2nd level. In 4e? Likewise. In 3.x, could be a Sorcerer or a Wizard of 1st level or higher - wait for him to cast Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer to be sure. In 5e, again, could be Sorcerer or Wizard of 1st level or higher...
...but, in this specific instance,3rd level Fighter.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Hey, something we can agree on. The foundational 0e/1e take on the ranger got spellcasting around name level. But, it was still a case of "this archetype (Aragorn) did something besides hit things with a stick, we'll have to simulate that with spellcasting." The focus on archery and TWFing was something that somehow got added too it, but it stuck pretty tenaciously and was foundational in 3e, which also made the Animal Companion & casting into things at very low level. 4e stripping away all the Aragorn, Grizzly Adams, and half-Druid-casting stuff, and focusing on just the TWF & Archery, with the nature-boy stuff limited to skills, was pretty radical.
Of course, everything in 4e was pretty radical for a cult-classic IP as tradition-bound as D&D.

Archery became a core feature because it is the logical primary weapon of a backwoods dweller or wilderness survivalist. Two-Weapon fighting is all Drizzt's fault.

 

[The Hierophant]

The cleric is already far too prone to horning in on the Paladins territory. I’m not concerned about the power level of the spells.

Melee clerics have been around since the beginning. And far more common than Paladins until recently.

In 5e without extra attacks melee clerics really suffer.

 

[Yaarel]

Archery became a core feature because it is the logical primary weapon of a backwoods dweller or wilderness survivalist. Two-Weapon fighting is all Drizzt's fault.

I assume Ranger Animal Companion was also Drizzts fault?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Archery became a core feature because it is the logical primary weapon of a backwoods dweller or wilderness survivalist. Two-Weapon fighting is all Drizzt's fault.

Those are understandable theories. Archery association with the Ranger seems to go way back, even though it's ability requirements made loading up on DEX difficult in 1e, there was a variant Archer and Archer-Ranger class in Dragon Magazine well prior to UA, IIRC (and, while I recall stuff from back then all too vividly, I can get the year, or even decade, in which something happened wildly wrong, so feel free to check up on that).
Fairly early in my 1e career, I naturally made the archery connection and, when I got a set of stats that actually had some DEX reaction/attacking adjustment and still qualified, made a ranger who was pretty good with a bow. But, it turned out, if you had a good DEX, that ranged attacking adjustment /also/ happened to make you good at TWF, in fact, he turned out to do better going Broadsword & Hand Axe than using the bow, actually slightly disappointing at the time, though he was a fun character in a lot of ways...

 

[CleverNickName]

I can't believe I'm only seeing this just now. Holy carp.

 

[dagger]

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.

It's clear to me that Spell Versatility is meant to allow the other casters to CATCH UP to the Wizard. That's why the Wizard isn't getting as big a 'boost'. They don't need it.



Because it's busy bookkeeping?

I think its just an unfortunate over site, because wizards definitely need a boost.

One boost we have given them is to allow them to concentrate on two spells with a feat. Has worked pretty well, and given them a small nudge towards wizards of older editions.

 

[Undrave]

I think its just an unfortunate over site, because wizards definitely need a boost.

One boost we have given them is to allow them to concentrate on two spells with a feat. Has worked pretty well, and given them a small nudge towards wizards of older editions.

I don't think they need to be like the Wizards of older editions...

 

[Pauln6]

Nothing else asks you to track how many days you use it

I see your point but it's no more complex than tracking a concentration spell for an hour or the number of tally marks on your sheet to keep track of your arrows, potentially less so, since the intention is to allow PCs to swap spells on downtime while limiting changes during the course of an adventure.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I can't believe I'm only seeing this just now. Holy carp.

It was only released Monday. Some people are just here all the time and quite vocal.