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

 

[Salthorae]

The Summoner is more akin to the Necromancer, throwing waves of disposable minions at your foes. It's the opposite side of the coin from having a single powerful magical pet

Meh. That is all in the flavor you attach to what you summon. All the Conjuration/Summoning spells have a "single creature of X CR" option in them. So whatever you summon has the same skin again and again. Having it be the same creature with memories and such is all flavor. Nothing says that the spirits that come to form your creatures in the spells can't be the same ones and remember things.

Pokemon "level up" right?

So you summon something with the "skin" you've determined is your Pokemon but using a different/more powerful Conjuration spell.

Use the find familiar to represent your pokemon's base form and the higher level summons to depict it "powered up".

Shepherd Druid has access to all the best summoning spells on top of their boosts to the creatures: Conjure Animal, Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, Conjure Minor Elemental, Conjure Woodland Being. They can look like anything you want, it's all just flavor text on top of stats.

Give your Druid find familiar either through Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster (Wizard) and go forth intrepid poke-trainer!

I thought the whole point of Pokemon was to "catch them all" anyway? That doesn't sound like a "single powerful magical pet". It sounds like "whatever pet I need at the moment" which the Conjuration spells work really well to emulate.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why can't those people play a Circle of the Shepherd Druid or a Conjuration Wizard to achieve that?

Those two both focus on summoning things to do battle for you, the wizard comes with Find Familiar built-in, no need to stretch to get it even. Why does the Warlock have to expand to accommodate that concept?

Because it'd nooooot faiiiiiiiir that there is some interesting niche in the game that a sorcerer warlock or scorlock can't equal or excel at doing with just their charisma.

 

[Kurotowa]

I thought the whole point of Pokemon was to "catch them all" anyway? That doesn't sound like a "single powerful magical pet". It sounds like "whatever pet I need at the moment" which the Conjuration spells work really well to emulate.

Depends if the character fantasy you're trying to realize is "Dedicated Pokemon game completionist" or "Ash and Pikachu". The latter is the image that has more demand, and the one that Chain Warlock comes closest to satisfying. It still comes up short, but then that's what people are asking for changes over.

Really, I don't see why you're so opposed to the idea. It's not like Chain Warlocks are particularly popular as they are right now. Why not make this an option, especially if it's genuinely optional in the form of Invocations you can take or pass up as you please?

 

[Salthorae]

Really, I don't see why you're so opposed to the idea

Because I can already build that character in 5e without using Warlock.

 

[Kurotowa]

Because I can already build that character in 5e without using Warlock.

Not very well, IMO. You have to twist and kludge and the result is both weak and fails to really live up to the concept. But hey, if you actually want to play that character and are happy building it a different way, more power to you.

 

[Salthorae]

You have to twist and kludge and the result is both weak and fails to really live up to the concept

I don't have to twist and kludge anything, I just have to call everything I summon "Pikachu"

 

[tetrasodium]

Depends if the character fantasy you're trying to realize is "Dedicated Pokemon game completionist" or "Ash and Pikachu". The latter is the image that has more demand, and the one that Chain Warlock comes closest to satisfying. It still comes up short, but then that's what people are asking for changes over.

Really, I don't see why you're so opposed to the idea. It's not like Chain Warlocks are particularly popular as they are right now. Why not make this an option, especially if it's genuinely optional in the form of Invocations you can take or pass up as you please?

Much of this thread has been devoted to how warlock/sorcerer/scorlock was stomping on the toes of wizards & you are wondering why the suggestion that a full caster* warlock be granted equal footing as the pet archtype ranger/artificer options wondering why there is laughter & pushback rather than support? Your surprise is completely bewildering.

* Lets not pretend pact magic rather than slots makes them not a full caster... how many 9th level spells are on the artificer & ranger spell lists, I could six on the warlock list but zero ranger or artificer spells from 5th on up.

 

[NotAYakk]

If it's already too powerful - like, say, every full caster in the game, or the Paladin - it's bad.

Classes in 5e you consider too powerful:
Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid, Cleric, Paladin
Classes you as yet haven't said are too powerful:
Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Monk

And anyone who claims they know if the current artificer is "too powerful" isn't reliable, so I'll leave that one out.

When 5/12 classes aren't in your "too powerful" bracket, maybe the problem is 5/12 not 7/12? Because power for the most part is relative to challenges and other players/classes, and challenges can be tuned up/down.

Now, there is another sense of "too powerful": "too powerful" in the sense that you cannot build interesting adventures for them. And the full casters gain increasing numbers of "campaign altering" abilities as they gain levels, which might not be your cup of tea. But the Paladin doesn't, so I'm still confused.

 

[Kurotowa]

Much of this thread has been devoted to how warlock/sorcerer/scorlock was stomping on the toes of wizards & you are wondering why the suggestion that a full caster* warlock be granted equal footing as the pet archtype ranger/artificer options wondering why there is laughter & pushback rather than support? Your surprise is completely bewildering.

I admit I checked out of the thread for about a week there. And was ignoring that argument before then as silly. But it does add some context, thank you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

too powerful:
Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid, Cleric, Paladin
not too powerful:
Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Monk
...
Now, there is another sense of "too powerful": "too powerful" in the sense that you cannot build interesting adventures for them. And the full casters gain increasing numbers of "campaign altering" abilities as they gain levels, which might not be your cup of tea. But the Paladin doesn't, so I'm still confused.

"Too Powerful" can be misleading. Too versatile, or simply imbalanced might be a more nuanced way of putting it.
Or, the 3.5 class Tiers put it succinctly.

But, let's just say...

Should be nerfed: Wizard, Druid, Cleric,
Could be nerfed a bit without undue hardship: Bard, Warlock, Paladin, Monk,
====================================================================
Doesn't need a boost per se, but could be done better: Sorcerer, Ranger
Could use a boost outside it's best tricks: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue
Needs all the help it can get: Champion, Berserker

Above the line shouldn't be getting any changes unless they rein 'em in somehow. Taking things away (like spontaneous casting from neo-Vanican), or adding back old limitations/restrictions or the like. Below the line could get some new options that improve the design, at least, but even then probably shouldn't increase raw power, at least, not at the things (or thing) it already does well.

So, yeah, a 'rising tide' or overall powercreep, not helpful.