Unearthed Arcana Light, Dark, Underdark - November's Unearthed Arcana

Interesting stuff.

 

[Miniman]

I don't think it can be denied that Tunnel Fighter allows for overpowered builds. It might not be overpowered in and of itself, but it's a gateway to ridiculousness.

Fun times: Tunnel Fighter, Sentinel, Polearm Master. Have a quarterstaff in one hand and a whip in the other.
So you get an opportunity attack if they move from 10 feet away to 5 feet away, if they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, if they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away, if they move more than 5 feet while staying within 10 feet, or if they attack anyone else. All of which reduce their movement speed to 0 if they hit.

And every Barbarian is going to want a 1-level dip in Shadow Sorcerer for a pretty good shot at immortality.

 

[rollingForInit]

It allows a player with the fighting style to swing far more times than character without that fighting style when a large number of AoOs are allowed. It also creates problems if they create feats like Polearm Master that allow for AoOs when approaching a player or Sentinel when allowing AoOs for a player that moves away regardless of using Disengage. It will create long-term problems with any feat that allows an AoO for other situations. I watched this crap with Combat Reflexes in Pathfinder with abilities like Come and Get Me where the player was able to swing an absurd number of times. Combat Reflexes that maxed AoOs at a Dex modifier + 1 was bad enough. When the Mythic Adventures book came out allowing for unlimited AoOs, Come and Get Me and some similar abilities can't remember the name of became ridiculous.

Allowing an unlimited AoO abilities opens the door to absurdity. It becomes worse when some game designer forgets and puts in an ability that synergizes with a feat to create ridiculousness. 5E is already far too easy a game. A fighting style like this just makes a DM's ability to challenge more difficult.

I've dealt long enough with extra AoO min-maxing in Pathfinder. It's one of the things I hated about that game. AoOs are supposed to be limited. I'm putting a limit on the AoOs. I hope Mearls gets control of this kind of crap quickly.

On top of that, being able to swing that many times compared to say something with much better reflexes looks stupid in my mind's eye. I

The concept worked wonders in 4e. I don't really see the issue. Before now, there really was very little a tank could do to leverage their high AC and HP and force the attention away from squishies. No marks, just 1 AoO. As mentioned elsewhere, a group of enemies could just casually run by the fighter and take out the spellcasters. This will make it easier to actually use some sort of strategy when planning out PC positions during combat. This was very much needed. And it requires a constant use of your bonus action, which means that you won't be casting Smite spells, use any feat that gives you extra options from a bonus action, use abilities like Second Wind, etc.

Characters will still have a limited reach, of at most 10ft. So enemies can still walk around them, but that'll take up more movement. It's only really in very close quarters that this gets extremely good, but having such close quarters doesnt' exactly happen every day.

And considering the sheer amount of ultra powerful options spellcasters can get, I think martial characters deserve something that actually makes them more versatile.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, I said the new close archery fighting style was better than archery and your point seemed to be "no, it's better if you take <feat X> and <feat Y>". So, my point was that if you have to take two feats for one option to be better than another and not factor in the cost then the first option *might* need work.

Thank you for assuming my choices need work.

But no, I have an existing build in mind. It is not affected by the addition of this new style.

Have it occurred to you that you might want to take the feats for other reasons than what the close archery fighting style gives you?

In other words, no I am not saying Archery is better than Close Archery but you need to take two feats to make it so. That's a preposterously convolute way of evaluating a build choice.

I am saying, however, that there are builds for which Close Archery is irrelevant because its benefits are only duplicating what the build gives you anyway. And in such cases +2 is clearly better than +1.

My point is that it is a mistake to believe Close Archery overshadows Archery with no other qualification. Don't say Close Archery is just better than Archery like that was true in all cases because it's clearly not.

There is design space for both options. (But yes, that's "in before the nerf" that Close Archery probably needs anyway)

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think it can be denied that Tunnel Fighter allows for overpowered builds. It might not be overpowered in and of itself, but it's a gateway to ridiculousness.

Fun times: Tunnel Fighter, Sentinel, Polearm Master. Have a quarterstaff in one hand and a whip in the other.
So you get an opportunity attack if they move from 10 feet away to 5 feet away, if they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, if they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away, if they move more than 5 feet while staying within 10 feet, or if they attack anyone else. All of which reduce their movement speed to 0 if they hit.

If you by ridiculous mean "very specialized but not especially overpowered" then yes.

Yes, you're reasonably effective in ensnaring people near to you, but you don't deal especially good damage. You have taken two feats instead of +2 to hit and +2 to damage, and you're effectively two-weapon fighting, which is probably the weakest fighting choice.

What this build choice has probably forgotten all about is that just because you're a fighter, you're not an invincible tank. Your most important job as a D&D 5E fighter isn't to tank anyway; it is to jump up into the dragon's face and bludgeon it to death. D&D 5E is much more about killing the out of your enemies before they can drop your comrades, than making sure everyone stays up during the fight.

But if you by ridiculous mean "ridiculously fun to play and to tease the DM" you have a point

 

[Celtavian]

The concept worked wonders in 4e. I don't really see the issue. Before now, there really was very little a tank could do to leverage their high AC and HP and force the attention away from squishies. No marks, just 1 AoO. As mentioned elsewhere, a group of enemies could just casually run by the fighter and take out the spellcasters. This will make it easier to actually use some sort of strategy when planning out PC positions during combat. This was very much needed. And it requires a constant use of your bonus action, which means that you won't be casting Smite spells, use any feat that gives you extra options from a bonus action, use abilities like Second Wind, etc.

Characters will still have a limited reach, of at most 10ft. So enemies can still walk around them, but that'll take up more movement. It's only really in very close quarters that this gets extremely good, but having such close quarters doesnt' exactly happen every day.

And considering the sheer amount of ultra powerful options spellcasters can get, I think martial characters deserve something that actually makes them more versatile.

Unlimited AoOs caused a lot of problems in Pathfinder. My group that has come over from Pathfinder are already crushing 5E encounters. I don't think I want to see Sentinel and Polearm Master builds with unlimited AoOs locking down monsters that are already too easy to beat. Archery is already too strong. Some tank build with Sentinel that can lock down a bunch of creatures why Sharpshooter/Archery Style players blow them down isn't something I look forward to as a DM. I would prefer the game stay more fluid without ridiculous mechanics turning it into a game of group synergy absent any sense of dramatic and dynamic combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

5E is already far too easy a game.

You really need to take a deep breath Celtavian.

5E will never be that tightly designed game that you so clearly crave.

You need to step away, and reexamine your expectations for this game, and for D&D in general.

Yes, D&D might be the only table-top rpg that comes even close to MMO levels of balance calibration, but it will never strive for perfection. 4E clearly showed that's not what people want.

Instead of posting about your dissatisfaction with this fact, why don't you find strength in the fact that you are a competent DM, and that the players can never ever "game" a competent DM.

Besides, this is playtest material. Chill

 

[CapnZapp]

I can pretty much say I won't allow close quarters fighting in games I run; I don't like encouraging ranged weapon use in melee. Trying to shoot a bow at an enraged warrior swinging a sword at you should seem like a bad idea. I like to encourage my ranged characters to need a backup melee weapon, just like I want my melee characters to need a backup ranged weapon.

I'm inclined to agree.

If archers don't run into trouble when their foes are in their faces, what reason would you then have for ever using melee?

To me it appears WotC's playtesters focus on melee because "it has always been that way", not taking the current ruleset to its logical conclusion: every fighter running around like Legolas.

(One reason for using a melee weapon would be to enjoy the benefits of a greatweapon, but no: sharpshooter makes that available to archers as well)

Making it impossible to get around disadvantage when firing when in melee would be a good start to ensuring every fighter (rogue, ranger etc) must at least carry a melee weapon as his or her backup, which strengthen the fantasy archetypes people assume D&D is meant for.

If, otoh, you love the way Legolas obsoletes Gimli, well...

 

[lordmuti]

You can make unlimited amount of AoOs if there are lots of monsters coming at your face. You can take polearm master and be like death-wall for little kobolds and goblins etc, but bigger monsters can still come near you and hit your face hard. You are standing in front, with relatively low AC. Enemy ranged combatants will fire at you for sure. Don't forget the spellcasters too.

You can also take sentinel feat and hit basically everything, stop them at 10ft. It's cool but still you need to invest 2 feats for this.

And you use your bonus action for entering the defensive stance. No action surge, no second wind etc. This is a cool build but not a instant win build imho.

 

[CapnZapp]

So guys, can we just stop and talk about the fact that with the way the article is written RAW Deep Stalker can "Always cast these spells" rather than "Always have these spells prepared"

On the loo? Can cast these spells!

Drunk on bad wine and busy with a wench? Can cast these spells!

Sleeping it off! Can cast these spells!

Unconscious inside the maw of a Purple Worm? Can cast these spells!


Yeah, I think you can safely substitute "add to known spells" (as has been suggested upthread) for that phrasing and not worry about it, Magic Sword!

 

[Celtavian]

You can make unlimited amount of AoOs if there are lots of monsters coming at your face. You can take polearm master and be like death-wall for little kobolds and goblins etc, but bigger monsters can still come near you and hit your face hard. You are standing in front, with relatively low AC. Enemy ranged combatants will fire at you for sure. Don't forget the spellcasters too.

You can also take sentinel feat and hit basically everything, stop them at 10ft. It's cool but still you need to invest 2 feats for this.

And you use your bonus action for entering the defensive stance. No action surge, no second wind etc. This is a cool build but not a instant win build imho.

Don't even want to see it in the game. This is a group game. That ability synergizes to make combats trivial. I hate seeing this kind of power creep when they make something like AoOs unlimited. It's mechanically annoying and leads to ridiculous looking mental scenes in my mind's eye.