D&D 5E General feelings about new UA archetypes

[Li Shenron]

Mostly positive feelings, because I love 5e archetypes and I am glad they have chosen to gradually add more, but not nearly as fast as 3e prestige classes.

However now that we're half way through the classes, I also feel like a lot of the archetypes are too simple with mostly inflexible abilities.

I believe that it would be better to have more diversity in complexity, not just low-complexity archetypes but also some that are more customizable.

For example take the Arcane Archer. It's flexible at build, because you choose the Arcane Shot abilities, but only mildly flexible at play because you have very few of those to choose from.

I am not saying it's wrong, but just noticing how they are always a LOT behind in complexity and flexibility spellcasters. I think it'd be nice to get a couple of non-spellcasters subclasses that could cater to players who love highly complex characters.

It's ok to have low-complexity choices. It's just that there is still a huge divide between casters and others. At the same time in fact there is still basically no low-complexity subclass for any casters.

Or am I alone with this?

 

[CapnZapp]

Mostly positive feelings, because I love 5e archetypes and I am glad they have chosen to gradually add more, but not nearly as fast as 3e prestige classes.

However now that we're half way through the classes, I also feel like a lot of the archetypes are too simple with mostly inflexible abilities.

I believe that it would be better to have more diversity in complexity, not just low-complexity archetypes but also some that are more customizable.

For example take the Arcane Archer. It's flexible at build, because you choose the Arcane Shot abilities, but only mildly flexible at play because you have very few of those to choose from.

I am not saying it's wrong, but just noticing how they are always a LOT behind in complexity and flexibility spellcasters. I think it'd be nice to get a couple of non-spellcasters subclasses that could cater to players who love highly complex characters.

It's ok to have low-complexity choices. It's just that there is still a huge divide between casters and others. At the same time in fact there is still basically no low-complexity subclass for any casters.

Or am I alone with this?

No, you're not alone.

The UA offerings are decidely cautious. Compared to the width and breadth of the PHB subclasses the UA ones actually doesn't add much mechanics or complexity at all.

The Arcane Archer is a good example of an exception, as it actually adds a new fairly powerful concept. Still, it's way more limited than many PHB subclasses.

Too many other UA subclasses simply rehash existing features, abilities and mechanics into new combinations.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I don't mind the rehashing of features so much, especially from feats. Although to be honest, I am looking at some of the new features in archetypes and thinking maybe they would work better as part of a feat. Given that 5e made no effort to really differentiate what type of benefits you might get as a feat and what you get in a class, subclass or racial ability, that is probably to be expected.

Also I think the initial design decision to not start all subclasses at level 1 in the class does constrain their design in peculiar ways. That boat has probably already sailed for this edition And bards with subclass features at three points probably suffer the most for it, but it is not the sort of thing that should make bard fans ragequit.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

I feel the design decision to have archetypes start off at later levels for some classes is reflective of the "zero to hero" design build for the game. I mean, obviously, you can't do that for all classes (someone who is part dragon is probably going to be that way from birth), but in general it does fit the feel of the power progression.

At the same time, I have to agree it's extremely limiting, and as a result the archetypes cannot all be truly flexible or else you'd run out of new material very rapidly or risk eliminating the point of even having classes.

I can kinda see why they're going so slowly in this. The design decisions that went into 5E have limited their options in a lot of areas. They can always release plenty of new monsters and setting books (as Pathfinder demonstrates, you can have eleven thousand setting books for one campaign world and still be a success), but that won't drive the game sales as much. And I think UA represents their struggle to keep up the output of new mechanics while still staying within the system they designed.

 

[Li Shenron]

I probably picked the worst example with the Arcane Archer since it's indeed more complex than most, and actually one of my favourites...

A better example could have been the Samurai. Two out of three subclass features are just bonus proficiencies. The last one is rarely triggered. This leaves it with the 3rd level ability which I like and is a bit tactical (although you get it so often that it dilutes the importance of your choice to use it or save it), and the other feature which lets you trade advantage with an extra attack (and I don't know yet if I like it or not ).

Do we really need many subclasses that are so low-complexity? Especially for a base class that is already simple?

Incidentally in my feedback I proposed to merge Samurai and Knight since they are basically both noble warriors and both are lacklusters with unique features IMHO.

 

[Dualazi]

Mostly positive feelings, because I love 5e archetypes and I am glad they have chosen to gradually add more, but not nearly as fast as 3e prestige classes.

However now that we're half way through the classes, I also feel like a lot of the archetypes are too simple with mostly inflexible abilities.

I believe that it would be better to have more diversity in complexity, not just low-complexity archetypes but also some that are more customizable.

For example take the Arcane Archer. It's flexible at build, because you choose the Arcane Shot abilities, but only mildly flexible at play because you have very few of those to choose from.

I am not saying it's wrong, but just noticing how they are always a LOT behind in complexity and flexibility spellcasters. I think it'd be nice to get a couple of non-spellcasters subclasses that could cater to players who love highly complex characters.

It's ok to have low-complexity choices. It's just that there is still a huge divide between casters and others. At the same time in fact there is still basically no low-complexity subclass for any casters.

Or am I alone with this?

I completely agree, but especially because of the schism created by 4th edition, this is never going to change. Aside from 4th, D&D has always had cripplingly few options for non-casters, with almost everything the character in question can do stemming from the basic class features (like early rogues being on trap/lock duty) or cobbled together as 3.x builds that just let the player spam their desired action (trip/attack/disarm/whatever).

Even casters themselves don’t really receive that much, a different spell list maybe, or a change in some proficiencies or minor new ability. Which really leads me to my main point; the sacred cow of Vancian casting is what dooms D&D to a lack of complex options. Every casting class spends a huge amount of time detailing the minor differences in how they approach mostly the same system, and said system is simultaneously so reliable and versatile that there’s no room for anything else really. This shadow falls over non-casters as well, since if they have anything similar (like powers/exploits/etc) they are just accused of being casters as well, since the Vancian system is simply so synonymous with magic at this point.

Likewise, non-casters have a huge amount of emotional baggage from the playerbase, which continues to hamper their design to this day. If I recall correctly, the original playtest material had the superiority die in a lot greater prominence, and I don’t think it was just the fighter that got it. This is a huge shame to me, because die pools seem like a great way to bridge the gap between folks who want realism and those who want more compelling (and fantastical) options for non-casters. However, this was not to be, in no small part due to a clamoring for the ‘simple’ options of classes like the champion, and because subclasses are designed to be subservient to the main class, that meant fighters would mostly be simple by default, with Champion just being ‘simplest’. That realism I mentioned earlier is the main factor of why fighters/non casters will never advance seriously, in my opinion. This is because designers not only have to create a fun and balanced system, but they have to also marry it to a fluctuating ideal of pseudo-realism, a standard that magic, by its nature, doesn’t have to meet. If you think I’m joking, go look at the fighter UA article thread, where from pages 11 to about 30 or so are completely dominated by discussions of the Knight’s mark alone.

Lastly, the subclass system itself is designed to not ‘rock the boat’ in regards to the main chassis. This is why many people (myself included) have said there will never be an acceptable subclass of fighter that emulates the warlord, because there’s no way to separate it from the damage-dealing chassis of the base fighter. Every subclass basically has 3-4 areas of varying budgetary power spread across 20 levels give or take, and that’s just not enough to give an identity more prominent than that of the base class. In other words, it’s (in my opinion) functionally impossible for Wizards to actually have subclasses that effect the complexity of the base class one way or the other.

 

[Remathilis]

I think part of the reason is the PHB ones are designed to be very generic and cover a fairly wide mix of characters. For most classes, the subclass choice usually amounts to "what element of my class do I want to focus on?" or "can I get a side of spellcasting with that?". These new ones, IMHO, are far more specific than the PHB ones; more niche and fine-tuned than the generic ones in the PHB.

I think going forward, most subclasses will end up being very specific niche rather than generic. You'll see something more like the knight or circle of the shepherd than the champion or circle of the land. That said, I suspect one exception; the sorcerer' subclasses are oddly specific (more than any other class, though warlock comes close) so I can imagine a more generic sorcerer blood-type (arcane bloodline?) that covers sorcerers who aren't descended from monsters or use wild magic.

 

[MonkeyWrench]

The new UA options are exciting at first glance, but the more I sit down and look them over, the more underwhelmed I am. Lots of rehashed mechanics, feats as subclasses, or just generic abilities. The biggest offenders are the Ancestral Spirit barbarian and Protection cleric, but most of the other have gotten a solid 'meh' from me once the excitement of getting new options wore off. Zealot and Samurai have been the most interesting to me so far.

 

[Proxxy55]

The subclasses would definitely benefit from some more iteration (so, hopefully, wizards will be listening to the results of their surveys about them).

I think there are some definite hits though. I actually liked the dice mechanic with the druid subclasses, and both myself and one of my current players agreed that all the barbarian subclasses (with the exception of maybe the Spirit one) are really fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mostly positive feelings, because I love 5e archetypes and I am glad they have chosen to gradually add more, but not nearly as fast as 3e prestige classes.

However now that we're half way through the classes, I also feel like a lot of the archetypes are too simple with mostly inflexible abilities.... I think it'd be nice to get a couple of non-spellcasters subclasses that could cater to players who love highly complex characters.

At the same time in fact there is still basically no low-complexity subclass for any casters.

Or am I alone with this?

You're not alone.

It's been an obvious issue for much of the game's history, really. The thing is 5e is very focused on re-capturing the classic feel of D&D, and complex, versatile/flexible caster options contrasting with lower-complexity, DPR- or specific-function non-caster classes is just part of that feel.

You'd think, having established the desired feel strongly in the PH, it'd be 'safe' to open things up a little a few years down the line.... :shrug:

Do we really need many subclasses that are so low-complexity? Especially for a base class that is already simple?

By it's nature, a low-complexity class is less customizeable, so it makes sense, if you want to keep it low-complexity, to present a lot of simple, focused, archetypes.

At least, that sounds like a fair theory to me. But, the Cleric & Wizard, though very complex, have also gotten tons of sub-classes...

 

[Ganymede81]

Incidentally in my feedback I proposed to merge Samurai and Knight since they are basically both noble warriors and both are lacklusters with unique features IMHO.

I'd suggest we both merge the Samurai and Knight into the preexisting Battlemaster archetype; they are both, thematically, different types of Battlemasters anyways.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd suggest we both merge the Samurai and Knight into the preexisting Battlemaster archetype; they are both, thematically, different types of Battlemasters anyways.

In concept, perhaps (indeed, you could just have a Samurai or Knight background and play a battlemaster or champion with it, perhaps with implied features of the background, like kirisute gomen or dispensing Low Justice) but, mechanically, I don't see how the BM could absorb the mechanics of either archetype.

 

[Ganymede81]

I meant that knights and samurai, as students of the science of combat, are already well described by the battlemaster. The archetype even allows the knight or samurai to be proficient in repairing armor, calligraphy, or maybe even tea ceremonies.

As for their mechanics, I'd wager they don't fit well anyways. Nothing about the Samurai's mechanics harkens back to the titular retainers of feudal Japan;everything is just willpower themed, which feels oddly out of place.

 

[Li Shenron]

I meant that knights and samurai, as students of the science of combat, are already well described by the battlemaster. The archetype even allows the knight or samurai to be proficient in repairing armor, calligraphy, or maybe even tea ceremonies.

As for their mechanics, I'd wager they don't fit well anyways. Nothing about the Samurai's mechanics harkens back to the titular retainers of feudal Japan;everything is just willpower themed, which feels oddly out of place.

I think their concept is quite different from "students of combat". That to me is the concept of FIGHTER, as opposed to merely "good at combat" which can apply to all classes.

Instead to me Knights and Samurais are more like "noble educated warriors", with courtly abilities and cultural knowledge. And I think the UA drafts show the same ideas.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

As examples of class design, I really like them.

As play material, we treat them with caution because, as they state, they still require testing.

So my general feelings towards the articles are.. ..mauve. Tho I'm still magenta with regards to the ranger stuff. Would be nice to get some urban goodness in there, simply to read their take and compare it to how I'm running one.

 

[Ashkelon]

They all feel boring for the most part. I want new mechanics. I want new ideas. I want something truly exciting. These new archetypes don't really do that for me. They tend to be nothing more than rehashes of the same old 5e mechanics.

 

[Ganymede81]

I think their concept is quite different from "students of combat". That to me is the concept of FIGHTER, as opposed to merely "good at combat" which can apply to all classes.

Instead to me Knights and Samurais are more like "noble educated warriors", with courtly abilities and cultural knowledge. And I think the UA drafts show the same ideas.

I did not say "students of combat." I said "students of the science of combat." It is a crucial distinction.

I was reflecting this passage in the description of the Battlemaster: "To a Battle Master, combat is an academic field, sometimes including subjects beyond battle such as weaponsmithing and calligraphy. Not every fighter absorbs the lessons of history, theory, and artistry that are reflected in the Battle Master archetype, but those who do are well-rounded fighters of great skill and knowledge."

You are right in that they are "noble" in that, if you are a Knight or Samurai, you probably have some variation of the Noble background. Otherwise, you're describing the Battlemaster all over again.

 

[Colder]

It's OK to have variations on a theme, you know. It's perfectly fine to make a samurai/knight using the Battle Master right now, and it will still be perfectly fine to make a samurai/knight using the Battle Master in a world in which subclasses named Knight and Samurai exist.

But I can't stand when people object to playtest material simply because it can be thematically similar to what's available in the PHB. If that's our only metric then we'll never get a new Fighter subclass because the 3 that we have are generic enough to be virtually any combat specialist.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

On the whole, I could do without them. I thought the Monk’s Path of Tranquility was really inventive and could dramatically change the way one plays a monk. But others, like the Awakened Mystic, Arcane Archer, and Knight, have me dreading their appearance in officially printed materials.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I meant that knights and samurai, as students of the science of combat, are already well described by the battlemaster.

I think their concept is quite different from "students of combat". That to me is the concept of FIGHTER, as opposed to merely "good at combat" which can apply to all classes.

Instead to me Knights and Samurais are more like "noble educated warriors", with courtly abilities and cultural knowledge. And I think the UA drafts show the same ideas.

The Knight and Samurai archetypes as presented certainly have a nod (and a skill-proficiency-granting ability) towards the 'educated warrior' idea, and existing backgrounds can fill in more of the noble part. But they're not 'students of the science of combat' either mechanically or conceptually. They really seem more like different takes on how fighters /feel/ about combat. Yeah, that's pretty soft. What I mean is, the Samurai is all willpower and no-defeat-only-victory-or-death (and that last not without some final blows for victory), while the knight is a chivalric defender of the weak. Their more dramatic combat-focused abilities reflect those differences, and paint them very differently from the BM.