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

 

[NotAYakk]

So you now want to nerf 8/12 classes because they are too strong. Imbalanced. Relative to what?!

Balance requires something on the other side of the scale.

What problem, exactly, wouldn't be fixed by patching 2/12 classes or even 4/12 classes simpler than nerfing 8/12?

And game mechanics wise, it is ridiculously easier path to patch up 2-4 classes with their issues than tear 8/12 down.

 

[tetrasodium]

=

"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.

So you are saying that roughly half the classes in the game are drastically underpowered and so devoid of anything that makes them unique or interesting which could be improved upon that the only solution is to nerf the other remaining half? That about right?

 

[Parmandur]

You can make definitions do anything you want.

Power creep is a term for when new options increase the overall power of PCs in general, even if leaving some builds behind.

In that sense, nothing printed after the phb is power creep in 5e. Nothing makes characters more powerful than you can be with PHB options. Hell, the PHB still contains the most powerful options in the game.

Increasing the power of weak options isn’t power creep. It’s just a balance patch.

Edit: it’s like the arguments over the Hexblade. A Hexblade Warlock PC isn’t more powerful than a Fiend Warlock PC. They’re about on par in a combat focused game for damage focused players.

For control and utility focused players, Archfey and GOO win over either.

The Hexblade is only “OP” if compared as a patron in the most superficial ways possible. It “gets more”, but it doesn’t actually make a stronger character. It just allows a different type of character than what the class normally allows.

I endorse this post entirely.

Obviously, these options haven't been fully balanced, as this is still a draft (as Crawford got out in front of the multiclass potential of the Ranger abilities). Even so, most of these seem ready for primetime as-is. Even the straight "enhancements" like the Aim use for the Rogues Cunning Action aren't really making the Class stronger, they are just smoothing over a known potential table issue (a Rogue wants to get Sneak Attack, and spends a lot of real time on hiding shenanigans). The most obviously "patch"-like variant, the Ranger replacement features are not even "more powerful" for games that push the exploration rules hard...bit most tables don't do that.

 

[NotAYakk]

The most obviously "patch"-like variant, the Ranger replacement features are not even "more powerful" for games that push the exploration rules hard...bit most tables don't do that.

So, I have seen arguments that the Revised ranger is stronger than this variant ranger when you optimize. But I find this variant ranger better written/designed. It fits 5e very well.

It has MC/dip issues, but that is about it.

It is full of Ranger-flavored abilities that fit the class well and don't require piles of extra DM work.

 

[Parmandur]

So, I have seen arguments that the Revised ranger is stronger than this variant ranger when you optimize. But I find this variant ranger better written/designed. It fits 5e very well.

It has MC/dip issues, but that is about it.

It is full of Ranger-flavored abilities that fit the class well and don't require piles of extra DM work.

The "Revised Ranger" is no more, at any rate.

The PHB features are equally viable...in campaigns where they come up. The fundamental mistake was in overestimating how many people would play that sort of campaign, followed up by making several minor ribbon choices immediately.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The "Revised Ranger" is no more, at any rate.

The PHB features are equally viable...in campaigns where they come up. The fundamental mistake was in overestimating how many people would play that sort of campaign, followed up by making several minor ribbon choices immediately.

And overvaluing HP as compared to damage and healing, as Mike noted on the happy fun hour.

This one seems to be okay in that regard, though I’d still almost rather have less easy healing of it and more HP so it can more reliably survive standing near the PCs in a fight.

But yeah, the PHB ranger is “fine” in terms of balance in a travel heavy game.

Though, it still has trouble measuring up to the Paladin, which is an unavoidable comparison, because the Paladin just has so much more Spellcasting freedom and versatility.

Honestly, my only remaining house rule (other than treating the ranger replacements as enhancements bc in our games those features in the phb are ribbons) is to give the ranger prepared casting like the Paladin.

 

[Parmandur]

And overvaluing HP as compared to damage and healing, as Mike noted on the happy fun hour.

This one seems to be okay in that regard, though I’d still almost rather have less easy healing of it and more HP so it can more reliably survive standing near the PCs in a fight.

But yeah, the PHB ranger is “fine” in terms of balance in a travel heavy game.

Though, it still has trouble measuring up to the Paladin, which is an unavoidable comparison, because the Paladin just has so much more Spellcasting freedom and versatility.

Honestly, my only remaining house rule (other than treating the ranger replacements as enhancements bc in our games those features in the phb are ribbons) is to give the ranger prepared casting like the Paladin.

I was speaking primarily about the Deft Explorer and new Favored Enemy features: the base PHB options are comparable in utility assuming the full use of the Exploration rules in the book, but that's an unfortunate assumption in retrospect (and they are too fiddley with choices to no particular advantage).

I'm not entirely sure yet bout the new Beast options, but locating the problem in the stat blocks may be a stroke of genius.

 

[tetrasodium]

But yeah, the PHB ranger is “fine” in terms of balance in a travel heavy game.

I strongly disagree with this because it has a lot of problems, in no particular order

• the official 5e books pretty much lack any meaningful amount if rules beyond things like travel speeds for travel. Sure there are fan made suppliments that improve on that & other things by giving actual interesting rules for travel, but you need to look at how the ranger actually handles it.
• In most cases a ranger is no better or worse than a druid or something with survival.
• If the Ranger's favored terrain & such kicks in for that travel, the effect is that you just automatically succeed & remove that part of the game. This is the fun equivalent of a fighter instantly killing any caster baddies & a wizard instantly killing any martial baddies.
• When a ranger might shine in the case of food & water during travel... the outlander background just automatically succeeds. Given that outlander gives athletics, survival, & a language you hve even or better odds of one or more outlanders in the party.
• Even if you do have a lot of travel, and have interesting rules/mechanics for travel, and rework outlander, and rework the ranger travel related mechanics*... There are still settings with things like well marked roads & maps.

*all of those & more are done in this & it really makes a difference.

 

[Tony Vargas]

=

So you are saying that roughly half the classes in the game are drastically underpowered and so devoid of anything that makes them unique or interesting which could be improved upon that the only solution is to nerf the other remaining half? That about right?

Nah, they can totally meet in the middle.

 

[NotAYakk]

Nah, they can totally meet in the middle.

So, Druid.