Unearthed Arcana Poll: How will the US Class Feature Variants be brought to Market?

[Parmandur]

The thing about the rules in the setting books so far is that-- while they could certainly be used generally-- there was a strong argument for how they were tied to the particular setting (with maybe the exception of the Bladesinger?). It's why I wouldn't be surprised to find psionics rules in a Dark Sun book. Sure, a lot of people will want them outside Dark Sun, but you kind of get why it would be put in that book. WotC have tried to focus heavily on story for both their adventure and setting books, so it seems like rules elements need to have a strong tie-in to the story.

I have a hard time seeing that working with the 'alternative class features'. They are pretty general and don't seem to have any link to a particular setting. Thematically, they seem a better fit for a Xanathar's type book-- a place to expand rules without a strong tie to a given adventure or setting. I'll admit the subclasses we've seen in the prior UA's do seem to hint at some interestingly flavored setting. But maybe the class feature stuff is separate?

Main argument against a Xanathar book is that they might not want to do one for another year. But who knows? The other possibility for the class feature stuff being in a 'setting' book would-- as others have suggested-- be that they would fit well within a book that explores multiple worlds. Then whole book is about expanding options, for settings and everything else. Which maybe would explain the disparate nature of the subclasses they've been exploring?

Anyway, I'm just speculating like everyone else. WotC has done a pretty good job of not giving away their plans beforehand. So I'm ready to be surprised.

AD

You could say the same thing about the Group Patron rules in Eberron: while they are using Eberron themed organizations, the rules could fit in any setting.

 

[lkj]

You could say the same thing about the Group Patron rules in Eberron: while they are using Eberron themed organizations, the rules could fit in any setting.

That's true. But those sorts of rules are easy to flavor with the setting. And they work best as part of a setting.

Now, I want to pause here to recognize that we're in that part of the discussion where my idea is completely non-falsifiable because I can say the same thing for any example you bring up.

I'm sure they could flavor the class options to fit a given setting as well. I'll just suggest that the history of these alternative features (say with the ranger especially) has been to provide a general option for those dissatisfied with the ones in the PH. In other words, I'm mostly making an argument for a sense I have about how they want these new rules to be received. I could easily be wrong.

AD

 

[Parmandur]

That's true. But those sorts of rules are easy to flavor with the setting. And they work best as part of a setting.

Now, I want to pause here to recognize that we're in that part of the discussion where my idea is completely non-falsifiable because I can say the same thing for any example you bring up.

I'm sure they could flavor the class options to fit a given setting as well. I'll just suggest that the history of these alternative features (say with the ranger especially) has been to provide a general option for those dissatisfied with the ones in the PH. In other words, I'm mostly making an argument for a sense I have about how they want these new rules to be received. I could easily be wrong.

AD

Yeah, at this point, we don't know what we don't know!

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Edit: How to eliminate a post?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Pretty sure variant racial traits are just subraces.

You are right, but I mean when some main racial trait is replaced with other. Do you know the article "Martial Cultures" from Dragon Magazine #341?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

You are right, but I mean when some main racial trait is replaced with other. Do you know the article "Martial Cultures" from Dragon Magazine #341?

I haven't read that article, please explain.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I bought that magazine when I was in a capital city. It was like a "remake" of the core races with different racial traits to can play with barbarians, druids or rangers.

The barbarian gnome: "speak with animals" and other spell-like abilities replaced with "cure minor wounds, guidance, jump and resistance (self only).

The ranger gnome lose all spell-like abilities but speak with animals, but can create water, detect poison, and purify food and drink once a day.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I bought that magazine when I was in a capital city. It was like a "remake" of the core races with different racial traits to can play with barbarians, druids or rangers.

The barbarian gnome: "speak with animals" and other spell-like abilities replaced with "cure minor wounds, guidance, jump and resistance (self only).

The ranger gnome lose all spell-like abilities but speak with animals, but can create water, detect poison, and purify food and drink once a day.

I'm not sure I like this idea actually. It more narrowly defines what a certain race/class choice is "supposed" to look like if they're given specific racial traits.

I prefer more class options that can be used regardless of racial choice.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I would rather the option to change some racial traits because I don't like some races/ancestries only can be good for certain classes, for example gnomes for stealth or illusionist spellcasters. An UA article as "martial cultures" should be published.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Variant Race Traits wouldn’t be new subraces, actually.

An option to make Gnomes a +2 Con Race would be a change to the base race, not a sub race. If you chose it, it would be available to any gnome subrace.