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.

 

[Weiley31]

At this rate with Multiclassing, the feats from the one UA and the ENWORLD Patreon articles is probably the best way of doing 5E Multiclassing without any substantial issues.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

They had that in the Next playtest, and I wish they'd kept it, even just as an optional sidebar thing.

I'd love for my Odinic modified Fey warlock to be randomly stalked by ravens and other corvids, and like, just randomly be framed by a bunch of black birds when he does something notable, and have them scream at him distractingly to explain his flubs, and help him when he ganks fools, etc, but also I'd love to see his eyes change, and shadows to seem to be darker in his pressence, and his unconcious ticks to become more birdlike, etc.

 

[OblivionDrive]

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.

You say this (and generally I agree with you) but one of the podcasts I listen to has one of the hosts regularly have minor freakouts whenever he perceives some new game option as being potentially overpowered.

It always comes back to some discussion of how he expects powergamers (who may or may not be players in the game he's running based on how he talks about things, which he admits is also much less roleplay focused and more crunchy) will craft something insanely broken using it. All I can ever think to myself as I listen is "just how utterly afraid are you of your players that, as the DM, you can't just tell them 'no' when they get up to some broken-ass shenanigans?"

In my years of DMing, I have never once had a player leave a game or pitch a fit when I've declared some power, class, race or whatever off limits for a game I'm running. Maybe I'm just more selective about who I play with but no DM should be afraid of their players being a disruptive table monster if you lay down ground rules and say "yeah, that's not allowed in my campaign." I mean, I do try to stay as flexible as possible to allow them something as close to their concept as we can within the parameters but I'm never afraid to set my foot down.

And I think multiclassing is fine provided you have a justified in-character reason for it. If your fighter plans on taking his next level in, say, wizard, he'd best have been spending most of his downtime for the last several sessions with the party spellcaster doing cram sessions on how basic cantrips work. Now a warlock on the other hand? That just requires the right pact with a sinister force and you could be tossing eldritch blasts tomorrow if you sign your name in the right blasphemous tome.

 

[Fenris-77]

One of the benefits of the internet, and sites like this, is that I don't even have to think too hard about the power gaming side. By the time I'm done reading it, some clever person already has it all gamed out and posted. I'm also a pretty dyed in the wool power gamer myself, so I tend to see a lot of the incipient cheese anyway.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One of the benefits of the internet, and sites like this, is that I don't even have to think too hard about the power gaming side. By the time I'm done reading it, some clever person already has it all gamed out and posted. I'm also a pretty dyed in the wool power gamer myself, so I tend to see a lot of the incipient cheese anyway.

Yeah, I don't need to do nearly as much analyzing, because generally someone else spotted the thing I missed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

As I've said, I'm not so much worried about actual multiclassing shenanigans at the table (as you said, you can and should talk to your players), as I am about fears regarding possible brokenness killing a good concept

You say this (and generally I agree with you) but one of the podcasts I listen to has one of the hosts regularly have minor freakouts whenever he perceives some new game option as being potentially overpowered.

It always comes back to some discussion of how he expects powergamers (who may or may not be players in the game he's running based on how he talks about things, which he admits is also much less roleplay focused and more crunchy) will craft something insanely broken using it. All I can ever think to myself as I listen is "just how utterly afraid are you of your players that, as the DM, you can't just tell them 'no' when they get up to some broken-ass shenanigans?"

In my years of DMing, I have never once had a player leave a game or pitch a fit when I've declared some power, class, race or whatever off limits for a game I'm running. Maybe I'm just more selective about who I play with but no DM should be afraid of their players being a disruptive table monster if you lay down ground rules and say "yeah, that's not allowed in my campaign." I mean, I do try to stay as flexible as possible to allow them something as close to their concept as we can within the parameters but I'm never afraid to set my foot down.

And I think multiclassing is fine provided you have a justified in-character reason for it. If your fighter plans on taking his next level in, say, wizard, he'd best have been spending most of his downtime for the last several sessions with the party spellcaster doing cram sessions on how basic cantrips work. Now a warlock on the other hand? That just requires the right pact with a sinister force and you could be tossing eldritch blasts tomorrow if you sign your name in the right blasphemous tome.

I'm less worried about players actively abusing multiclassing than I am with people's worries about it slowing down and/or preventing new content, via UA.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I've said, I'm not so much worried about actual multiclassing shenanigans at the table (as you said, you can and should talk to your players), as I am about fears regarding possible brokenness killing a good concept

I'm less worried about players actively abusing multiclassing than I am with people's worries about it slowing down and/or preventing new content, via UA.

Semi-double insanity post.

 

[Fenris-77]

When it comes to new rules, or rules interactions, that I haven't really pulled apart or done some math on, I'll often still let a player use it, with the proviso that it may need to be reigned in if it proves too good. Most reasonable adults are fine with that compromise.

 

[CleverNickName]

There's nothing wrong with "power gamers," they just take a little more careful planning on the part of the DM. You won't be able to rely on Challenge Rating to properly balance encounters anymore. Instead, you'll have to increase the AC of monsters and the DCs of traps and spell attacks so that the optimized characters still fall within bounded accuracy. You'll have to adjust the number of hit points on the battlefield at the same time to match the combined DPR of the party. That sort of thing. It takes some practice, but you get used to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's nothing wrong with "power gamers," they just take a little more careful planning on the part of the DM. You won't be able to rely on Challenge Rating to properly balance encounters anymore. Instead, you'll have to increase the AC of monsters and the DCs of traps and spell attacks so that the optimized characters still fall within bounded accuracy. You'll have to adjust the number of hit points on the battlefield at the same time to match the combined DPR of the party. That sort of thing. It takes some practice, but you get used to it.

Yeah, that's all true. Still find it annoying that a default positive experience assumes the player's aren't good at the game, but what are you going to do?