Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Spirits Bard and Undeath Warlock

We have a new UA release with two subclasses. The College of Spirits Bard is a fortune teller or spirit medium type character with a big random effect table. Meanwhile the Undeath Pact Warlock is a a do-over of the Undying Pact Warlock.

 

[Umbran]

I took the comment differently, but apparently we can’t talk about it.

Mod Note:

But, you want to talk about not talking about it? Really? You figure taking that's appropriate?

Really, time to let it go.

 

[Umbran]

the answer should be self evident

Mod Note:

Indirect and incomplete statements left "as an exercise for the reader" run up against a variant of Poe's Law. You end up talking just like someone using racist dog whistles.

So, really, don't do that. In contentious arguments, actually state the conclusion in the future.

 

[Haldrik]

Spell schools are less useful because they organize spell themes inconsistently.

Personally, I ignore schools.

Instead, spells organize into thematic domains.

 

[Parmandur]

The race changes are not being made because they are popular. They are being made because WotC think they are right.

So any popularity feedback would be irrelevant - the changes are happening.

For sure, but I would have thought the details could use feedback.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Everything I'm hearing is telling me that banning multiclassing is the right thing to do. Just use the UA options for concept. No one level dip, no problems. I don't like game ideas being shot down and missing the magic 70% because people are worried about multiclassing.

Removing multiclassing has two or three big benefits:

1. It shuts down 95% or more of powergaming shenanigans. You can still powergame a little with feats, but there's not a lot of actually very powerful options with feats and no multiclassing. (If you know your players won't powergame in an annoying way anyways, this isn't a big deal.)

2. Multiclassing can (doesn't always but can) dilute the theme/story/roleplay hook of the classes. Even a fighter is something narratively, but as you mix classes that story hook can get washed away into a pile of numbers and unrelated features. (If you know your players will definitely have a story for their character anyways, this isn't a big deal. But like the above point, it depends on a certain level of trust that you likely don't have unless you've been gaming with this group for a while.)

3. It makes running the game a lot simpler (this is the 'might be big' benefit). There's fewer mechanical interactions to worry about, and the character's concept is much easier to grasp so it's easier to figure out what to do with the pc (ie what sorts of challenges to use).

I wouldn't remove it for the long-running groups I'm part of, but especially for an open-table game I'd highly recommend giving this option some serious thought.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't really feel the need to shut MC down to prevent power gaming. It's perfectly possible to have an adult discussion about MC in session zero and set some boundaries. It's not like allowing MC means allowing anything at all either. You can set whatever parameters you like. I like MC because it means you can build pretty much any concept you want, and I'm not really interested in shutting that down because I can't be bothered to keep my eye on power gaming. That's just me though, YMMV.

 

[Blue]

Removing multiclassing has two or three big benefits:

But that does not mean it outweighs the benefits it brings.

Picture possible character concepts as an index card. Toss some coins on it - those are the classes. Many of the concepts are under a coin - these can be realized by a class. Sometimes coins overlap, and these are concepts like "archer" that can be realized by multiple classes.

There's still a lot of uncovered space on the index card, and it basically falls into to two categories. The larger is the space between coins. Those are concepts that can be made with joining coins together. That's what multiclassing brings us.

After that, all you have left is the space between coins and the edge. Those are concepts we can't realize with the existing classes. New classes add new coins, both to directly cover amd alto to cover in-between spots with the benefit of multiclassing.

I had my eyes opened when sitting down with my eldest daughter when she was a wee lass and asking her to describe a character for us to build. It was no where near D&D. Even zooming in on a few "most important" features was a poor fit. It made me realize that playing withing D&D we think within the shape of the classes, with what we can make, and that it really leaves so much out.

1. It shuts down 95% or more of powergaming shenanigans. You can still powergame a little with feats, but there's not a lot of actually very powerful options with feats and no multiclassing. (If you know your players won't powergame in an annoying way anyways, this isn't a big deal.)

This makes me thing you've actually only seen multiclassing in a few situations. One-shots at specific levels, high level games, or with one of the few badly balanced cherry-pick classes. In basically every other case, multiclassing needs to struggle to stay on-par with single classed characters.

One-shots can grab what's the best at this level, even if it puts them in a debt which means the levels before and/or after will be worse.

High level can get around the sin of delaying ASI/feats or missing the level 5 (and 11) power bumps.

There are a few poorly balanced low levels, as in they give too much. Fighter is one. Warlock (Hexblade) for some. Cleric for those wanting armor, a nice power, spell slots and some of the best low level spells and cantrips.

2. Multiclassing can (doesn't always but can) dilute the theme/story/roleplay hook of the classes. Even a fighter is something narratively, but as you mix classes that story hook can get washed away into a pile of numbers and unrelated features. (If you know your players will definitely have a story for their character anyways, this isn't a big deal. But like the above point, it depends on a certain level of trust that you likely don't have unless you've been gaming with this group for a while.)

I could say single classing does the exact same thing if it doesn't let me realize my entire concept.

The point you brought up of "washed away ... unrelated features" makes me wonder if you have people who are taking random classes for features instead of theme. If that's part of your social contract, then it's fine. If it's not, talk to them.

And again, just because a feature is in a single class (and it's subclass) does not mean that it's a thematic fit for the particular character I am running. Concepts can definitely be more nuanced than "I'm a thief".

3. It makes running the game a lot simpler (this is the 'might be big' benefit). There's fewer mechanical interactions to worry about, and the character's concept is much easier to grasp so it's easier to figure out what to do with the pc (ie what sorts of challenges to use).

Running a single classed caster with the high level spells known from that is more complex in terms of possible mechancial interactions and their effects. Vastly. This is simply not true.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But that does not mean it outweighs the benefits it brings.

Picture possible character concepts as an index card. Toss some coins on it - those are the classes. Many of the concepts are under a coin - these can be realized by a class. Sometimes coins overlap, and these are concepts like "archer" that can be realized by multiple classes.

There's still a lot of uncovered space on the index card, and it basically falls into to two categories. The larger is the space between coins. Those are concepts that can be made with joining coins together. That's what multiclassing brings us.

After that, all you have left is the space between coins and the edge. Those are concepts we can't realize with the existing classes. New classes add new coins, both to directly cover amd alto to cover in-between spots with the benefit of multiclassing.

I had my eyes opened when sitting down with my eldest daughter when she was a wee lass and asking her to describe a character for us to build. It was no where near D&D. Even zooming in on a few "most important" features was a poor fit. It made me realize that playing withing D&D we think within the shape of the classes, with what we can make, and that it really leaves so much out.

The existence of benefits doesn't mean there aren't downsides. As I noted, the benefits themselves are rather variable in their value.

This makes me thing you've actually only seen multiclassing in a few situations. One-shots at specific levels, high level games, or with one of the few badly balanced cherry-pick classes. In basically every other case, multiclassing needs to struggle to stay on-par with single classed characters.

One-shots can grab what's the best at this level, even if it puts them in a debt which means the levels before and/or after will be worse.

High level can get around the sin of delaying ASI/feats or missing the level 5 (and 11) power bumps.

There are a few poorly balanced low levels, as in they give too much. Fighter is one. Warlock (Hexblade) for some. Cleric for those wanting armor, a nice power, spell slots and some of the best low level spells and cantrips.

The existence of non-broken abilities doesn't negate the existence of broken abilities. If people aren't engaging in powergaming, then obviously (and, again, as I already noted) taking measures to prevent that isn't worthwhile.

I could say single classing does the exact same thing if it doesn't let me realize my entire concept.

The point you brought up of "washed away ... unrelated features" makes me wonder if you have people who are taking random classes for features instead of theme. If that's part of your social contract, then it's fine. If it's not, talk to them.

And again, just because a feature is in a single class (and it's subclass) does not mean that it's a thematic fit for the particular character I am running. Concepts can definitely be more nuanced than "I'm a thief".

As I noted (yet again) - it can be an issue. That does not mean nor even imply that it always must be an issue. This is why I said it's not always an issue.

Running a single classed caster with the high level spells known from that is more complex in terms of possible mechancial interactions and their effects. Vastly. This is simply not true.

It's easier on the dm, not the player, because there are fewer different mechanics in play.

In short, there's a difference between "this can happen" and "this will always happen."

 

[Parmandur]

I don't really feel the need to shut MC down to prevent power gaming. It's perfectly possible to have an adult discussion about MC in session zero and set some boundaries. It's not like allowing MC means allowing anything at all either. You can set whatever parameters you like. I like MC because it means you can build pretty much any concept you want, and I'm not really interested in shutting that down because I can't be bothered to keep my eye on power gaming. That's just me though, YMMV.

Crawford, in this week's Dragon+ broadcast, had some interesting thoughts about Multiclassing and how it can be used to refluff and go off the Class grid.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I like the idea that the warlock is turning into something. NPC warlocks have gotten it for a while (the Fathomer in PotA and the Drow Arachnomancer in MToF both had a transformation) but PC's never seem to get it. If they ever do 5.5 or alternate subclass features, I hope they add transformation options in for the existing warlock subclasses.

I would probably change Grave Touched so that when you damage something necrotically, the target makes its save against frightened with disadvantage instead of doing extra damage.