Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7027230" data-attributes="member: 1465">Considering all UA articles so far, the number of 5e classes is up to 14 and the number of archetypes is around 100. While a couple of classes are still somewhat left behind in terms of number of options, I would say that if they finalize and officially release almost all UA archetypes, the total amount is very good to make 5e large enough to cover many years of gaming before exhausting your options! I really hope they will drop only a minimum amount of these archetypes: clearly the Artificer as a Wizard subclass is very likely to be one of the dropped ones, if we get a whole Artificer class, but there will probably be more that won't make it in the book.Personally I often had issues with the implementation of these archetypes, but this means I'd like them revised and corrected, but definitely not abandoned! The concepts are almost all good, and they would all be useful to a lot of gaming groups.Here's my thoughts with some grades A-F (which ignore balance issues and focus on the concept, how much the features match such concept and sound interesting in play).FighterMy favourite was the Arcane Archer (A) although I wish it had a more free-form option for combining standard arcane spells with arrows. I liked the Knight (B) and Samurai (B) but I feel they could be merged into a single archetype representing noble warriors, with some secondary option on the side to pick a different cultural origin (medieval, celtic, oriental, middle-eastern, native american...). Monster Hunter (C) was ok, and so was the Cavalier (C) albeit I didn't like much the re-use of maneuvers. Scout (D) and Sharpshooter (D) are on the bottom of my list and I could definitely live without them, the first because we now have it better as a Rogue archetype, and the second because I really don't think it's a good idea to concentrate so much ranged attacks power into the same character.ClericI absolutely want as many domains as we can get. Grave (A) is a really important addition for having good-aligned clerics of gods of death and the dead. Forge (B) and Protection (B) are both very useful. There is room for more.RogueThis is the class I most wish for more archetypes, because among the "core 4" it has the least amount of them: we still don't have a good enough Indiana Jones model, a MacGyver one, and a James Bond one! Inquisitive (A) is awesome, and Scout (B) should be improved mechanically but is a good concept too.WizardThe easiest class to design subclasses for, but actually it already has so many in core that it doesn't need more. Except that it needed a generic option, and Lore Mastery (A) does that. I know it's OP, but this means it needs fixing, not ditching! I fairly like Theurgy (C) even if I don't feel it's truly needed. Artificer (C) is almost certainly lost and will be a base class instead.BardI just want all of them, the class was the most neglected in the PHB. Satire (A) is my favourite, followed by Glamour (B) and Whispers (B), Swords (C) a bit weaker but not bad.DruidAnother one which needs more option. To be honest, neither Dreams (C), Shepherd (C) nor Twilight (C) truly amazed me, but any addition is welcome by me.PaladinWell these were the subclasses that disappointed me most. I really don't think that evil paladins are nearly as useful as anything else. They are a very niche character option, and with these UA additions we basically have 3 of them already. I would prefer that Treachery (E) (the weakest of the bunch) gets merged with the slightly better Conquest (D) as a single evil option, and perhaps make it more Darth Vader -inspired.RangerI am very happy that they eventually decided to design a base class variant that is compatible with the PHB one. Took them a long time, and in the meantime the Ranger had to be left behind in terms of options. Now that the issue is practically resolved, we can have subclasses that work for both versions. Horizon Walker (B) is by far my favourite, although it could have been more travel-based than combat-based. I also really liked the Primeval Guardian (B), and hope it makes it. Deep Stalker (C) is not that special but solid and certainly useful. I don't care much for the Beastmaster (D) variant, as I thought the core version is fine.BarbarianNot overly interesting to me compared to PHB subclasses, but both Ancestral Guardian (C) and Zealot (C) are still nice enough, and Storm Herald (C) too even if it feels a bit too much considering how many "storm-based" archetypes we already have around.MonkTraditionally the base class I care the least for, I must say that the archetypes really surprised me in a very positive way. Tranquility (A) is truly an awesome concept that allows to play very differently. Kensei (B) is nicely simple and I could see it being used in many games.SorcererNot very original subclasses but definitely needed, considering the PHB options are scarce and too specific. Sea Sorcery (A) was my favourite, I really liked all its features. Phoenix Sorcery (B) was also very good, despite "fire" being practically the most trivial flavor ever, but they managed to avoid the most obvious implementation tropes. Favoured Soul (C) lacks a bit in flavor because the features are too generic, I hope it gets more unique features but the concept is sound. Stone Sorcery (D) a missed opportunity, because it's way too focused on combat, instead of having abilities to control the ground, shape or transmute minerals, travel though solid objects etc.WarlockAnother class that traditionally I cared little for, and positively surprised me in 5e. I like all the archetypes. Hexblade (A) as a Warlock is genius (but shouldn't need the references to Shadowfell), Raven Queen (A) is awesome even if a bit too narrow, Undying Light (A) also was very original and unexpected (this is the archetype I am most afraid it won't make it in an official book!). Seeker (C) was the weakest of the bunch, but I still have a positive opinion on it. Please keep them all!ArtificerMostly I don't like the idea that this is a spellcaster class. I think it would be cooler and more useful (esp. in low-magic campaigns) if it was essentially non-magical, but considering that it started off as a wizard specialty, I don't have hopes that this will happen. Nevertheless, Alchemist (B) was as obvious as it was pretty cool. Gunsmith (C) is too modern for my tastes, but with some adaptations it can still work. There is clearly room for more archetypes, let's hope we get a couple more here.MysticNot a huge fan of psionics here, but I think the 5e direction is right (minus the Far Realm references). I don't have much opinions on the Awakened (B?) and the Immortal (C?) specifically, and it feels like we might get a new look at them in the next UA article, as well as possibly to some of the other subclasses they have mentioned in the past they would work on.</blockquote>

Verification