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

Interesting stuff.

 

[MYV]

10th level is high level at most tables according to players. Few tables get that high.

And multiclassing is a nerf as it slows down your progression too much. You have to you power combinations just to compete

So no. Stacking these 2 styles is strong but its a HUGE nerf if you dip more than 2 levels of either class.

It may be a subjective, but I think that most of the best features in the game are gained in early lvls while high lvl feature lack.
most of the base classes after lvl 11 progress VERY slowly.

But talking specifically you really think that a ranger 6 is gonna perform better that a ranger 5/fighter 1 with both fighting styles?
You really think that it wouldn't be woth going even fighter 2 for the action surge?

There are SO many cases where multiclass build outperform single class builds that i can't list them.

Multiclass is very powerful in this game and is convenient even without these fighting styles, now it opens even more options but i don't believe they are balanced.
+ 3 to attack with ranged attacks is OP in this edition.

 

[bganon]

I'm fine with CQS if you take away the +1 and just explicitly forbid having both CQS and Archery Style. Even without the +1, I think CQS would be tempting for some character concepts, and forbidding stacking gets rid of the issue where Ranger X/Fighter 1 is strictly superior to pure Ranger.

I'm completely OK with Tunnel Fighter. It's quite good, but unlike most styles you have to use a bonus action to ever get the benefit. I don't really understand why it bothers people, honestly. I can't imagine often running monsters that are so stupid that they'd keep triggering the ability after the second free OA, so there's no infinite attack problem in practice.

 

[Al2O3]

Small comment regarding "Tunnel Fighter gets too many attacks and is overpowered":
Since everyone passing by will get attacked it makes sense that they do not pass by. Since they do not pass by, it can be hard to reach a spellcaster or similar. Thus, it makes sense to attack what is in reach instead, i.e. the fighter. Focusing fire on one character is a good way to bring down that character to 0 HP before injuring the others, reducing the total number of attacks and requiring spells or similar for healing.

So I think the fighting style is great for what is is supposed to do, and using every bonus action to keep it up seems like a reasonable cost given that things like second wind should look real tempting after a round or two.

I really like the idea of combining Sentinel with Tunnel Fighter and the Dodge action for a self-sacrificing rear-guard style of character in a choke point. Probably just awesome in one or two combats however (because then the PC is dead).

 

[Blue]

I like the stuff, but some of it is more front-loaded then the PHB classes which makes it riper for cherry picking for multiclassing.

1. If you pick up a 2nd class that has Fighting Styles, you can have both Archery and Close Quarters Shooter.

2. Front line combatants might like a level of Sorcerer (Shadow) if they have the Chr. Get a chance to make a Con save to stay at 1 HP as often as it comes up? Yes please. Plus a little bit of magic for Shield and Absorb Elements if they don't uyse their reactions otherwise. Paladins have the Chr to multiclass, but Fighters really shine getting Con as a proficient save.

3. A Dragon Sorcerer going for fire could benefit from a level of Warlock (Undying Light) for Charisma to fire (and radiant) damage. Once they hit 6th level Sorcerer for Elemental Affinity they could be adding 2xChr all fire spells.

These aren't bad within themselves, just seem not to follow the same guidelines as the PHB classes for when things get given out. Elemental Affinity is SIXTH while a similar new warlock power is FIRST. This doesn't support the multiclassing paradigm they have set up in not granting abilities too early else it's ripe for abuse.

 

[vandaexpress]

My group had the same "issues" in 4e. Our group powergames quite a lot and we play quite strategically, so we cut through "hard" encounters like they were nothing. Just gotta design tougher encounters if that's the case, and if that is a problem. Have stronger enemies. Have more enemies. Have enemies that the players aren't used to dealing with. Have encounters that puts the party at a disadvantage.

I think this hits the nail on the head - different groups have different levels of competence. I completely agree with Celtavian's read of the situation. I saw the fighting style and instantly saw potential for abuse with polearm master. This may not be a problem for most groups. Mine tends to be powergamey. The easier the core game gets, the more work DMs with powergamer groups have to put into revamping the pre-built encounters in existing adventure paths to provide memorable challenges. I don't like having to keep adding more or tougher enemies above what's provided, I essentially have to re-engineer every encounter from the ground up, which kills a lot of the time-saving value from running a module.

That said, I have come to recognize that I'm in the overwhelming minority of DMs and groups and that my own preferences probably shouldn't dictate the game's development.

 

[Ahrimon]

Here's the issue: one of the major themes/balancing factors of the warlock class is that their power comes at a price. They bargain with powerful, dangerous beings to get their powers. And eventually, somehow, they have to pay. (Or cheat.) Every GM handles this differently: it can be a personal side quest, central campaign plot line, or handled "off-screen", but it's always been part of the warlock class. You play a warlock, you're going to have "patron problems" at some point.

They've kinda thrown all that aside with the Undying Light warlock, so yeah, I'll definitely come up with an actual Named Outsider associated with positive energy (or maybe a celestial?) if I have someone play one of these in my campaign. All I can say for sure is that whoever wrote this totally failed to "get" the central theme of the warlock class. Mechanically, it's interesting. From an RP standpoint, it's a failure.

Have you actually read the warlock in the PHB or are you simply projecting what you thing the warlock should be onto the class.

A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity-beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf.

Your patron's demands might drive you into adventures, or they might consist entirely of small favors you can do between adventures.

What kind of relationship do you have with your patron? Is it friendly, antagonistic, uneasy, or romantic? How important does your patron consider you to be? What part do you play in your patron's plans? Do you know other servants of your patron?

No where does it say that they HAVE to pay a price. While it's a common FLUFF theme behind the warlock it's not a pre-requisite to the class. The character never has to pay up (or cheat) their benefactor if that's not the story that they create.

A perfectly valid warlock story is that they're on friendly terms with their patron who is teaching them just like a wizard and an apprentice. Does the wizard, or fighter for that matter, have to pay up to their mentor?

It gets frustrating to me how many people get stuck in this "they've sold their soul" way of thinking and lock the warlock, and only the warlock, into this one and only way their fluff can go.

I was going to make a "Paladin of Wrath" by re-skinning the infernal warlock but I think I can use this new Undying Light just as well.

 

[Minigiant]

It may be a subjective, but I think that most of the best features in the game are gained in early lvls while high lvl feature lack.
most of the base classes after lvl 11 progress VERY slowly.

But talking specifically you really think that a ranger 6 is gonna perform better that a ranger 5/fighter 1 with both fighting styles?
You really think that it wouldn't be woth going even fighter 2 for the action surge?

There are SO many cases where multiclass build outperform single class builds that i can't list them.

Multiclass is very powerful in this game and is convenient even without these fighting styles, now it opens even more options but i don't believe they are balanced.
+ 3 to attack with ranged attacks is OP in this edition.

Im not saying multiclassing is horrible.

But it is often a "stronger now, weaker later" deal. A dip in fighter is great. Going 2 levels deep in ranger or paladin is a nerf mostly.

But the 6th level of ranger grants more spells and class features and doesn't put you behind on your feats not extra attacks.

So powerful combos are the few times when you aren't heavily weakening yourself.

 

[Mistwell]

I see a lot of comments that Sentinel and Tunnel Fighter work well together. Meh, not so much, in practice. Tunnel Fighter works to prevent the "Conga Line" issue with the movement rules. But Sentinel stops creatures near you. Stopping creatures near you means the Conga Line doesn't work very well (it leaves fewer spots to occupy for those participating int he Conga Line, and slows their movement due to difficult terrain of their ally's space). Sentinel reduces the number of creatures that can get to you in a Conga Line, which means Tunnel Fighter would be triggered less if you have it. There is some synergy there, but the synergy is not "a whole lot more Opportunity Attacks". Adding Sentinel to the mix reduces the number of Opportunity Attacks you will make with Tunnel Fighter, not the opposite.

 

[Jaappleton]

Just talked to Mearls via Twitter.

"Nice job on the new UA. Might there be any new Invocations to accompany the new Patron?"

"If it proves popular, could get some."


So there's that.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Have you actually read the warlock in the PHB or are you simply projecting what you thing the warlock should be onto the class.




No where does it say that they HAVE to pay a price. While it's a common FLUFF theme behind the warlock it's not a pre-requisite to the class. The character never has to pay up (or cheat) their benefactor if that's not the story that they create.

A perfectly valid warlock story is that they're on friendly terms with their patron who is teaching them just like a wizard and an apprentice. Does the wizard, or fighter for that matter, have to pay up to their mentor?

It gets frustrating to me how many people get stuck in this "they've sold their soul" way of thinking and lock the warlock, and only the warlock, into this one and only way their fluff can go.

I was going to make a "Paladin of Wrath" by re-skinning the infernal warlock but I think I can use this new Undying Light just as well.

I'm just gonna wait right here while you go look up the word "pact" in the dictionary. Then we'll talk.