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

Interesting stuff.

 

[Mercule]

I don't think you get a free attack if someone approaches you. You only get one if someone move more than 5 feet within you reach (walking around you).

I just reread it and agree with you. It's pretty much 3E AoO.

 

[Li Shenron]

Great stuff this month

I must say I also immediately thought that the Close-Quarters Shooter style is way too powerful... but TBH I also think the standard Archery style in the PHB is too powerful, given the bounded accuracy I would have expected a +1 bonus only, considering that it applies to ALL your ranged attacks. This one is even more powerful, 3 benefits each one of which could have been enough for a Fighting Style IMHO.

Tunnel Fighter is a bit too complicated for a Fighting Style, compared to all PHB ones. Considering that it has 2 benefits and 1 cost (the bonus action to activate), I think it could be better with just one of the benefit (e.g. the unlimited OAs) but no additional cost.

Everything else looks great to me, although some abilities deserve a clearer wording.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

They make it REALLY confusing publishing two different Warlock archetypes with extremely similar names (Undying vs. Undying Light).

Agreed, I would have gone with Eternal Light or something.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

I think that Undying Light could use one more extra spell per level added to their spell list. I'd add Guiding Bolt and Blinding Smite to the list. Not enough radiant damage output on the list provided.

 

[rollingForInit]

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.

The pact isn't really a "balancing factor", though, because it's 100% dependent on the DM. Some DM's and Warlock players want to have interesting plot hooks, side-quests or just thematic backgrounds. Others don't really want to touch it, and only want the mechanics. Which is fine to me. You can reflavour a lot of classes to better suit your campaign and character concepts without messing with balance. When you can have Paladins without deities, I don't see why you can't have Warlocks with non-interfering patrons. Or just "patrons". That it's all flavour and no mechanics is what makes it so great and allows for so many character concepts.

Likewise, with Undying Light, if you actually want a living Patrons, it'd be as easy to introduce one as it would be to remove the devil from the Fiendish pact.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Tunnel Fighter is a bit too complicated for a Fighting Style, compared to all PHB ones. Considering that it has 2 benefits and 1 cost (the bonus action to activate), I think it could be better with just one of the benefit (e.g. the unlimited OAs) but no additional cost.

Actually, I think a Fighter, Paladin or Ranger having to give up their Bonus action every round to remain in the defensive stance is potentially a rather big deal. That means no Second Wind, no secondary attacks using TWF or Polearm Master, no Healing Words for the paladin, no Hunter's Mark for the ranger, etc. You basically give up your Bonus action each round in order to get extra "virtual" Reactions to make Opportunity Attacks. And as we see with Rogues and Cunning Action... having many things that use your Bonus action make for a complicated dance of figuring out which ones to use when.

 

[Zephyros]

Lets test something:

Paladin 7 - Oath of Vengeance - Relentless Avenger: "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn't provoke AoO"
Polearm Master: "..other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach"
Tunnel Fighter: "While in your defensive stance, you can make opportunity attacks without using your reaction..."

So, by RAW, you can hit the same creature for each 5 feet of movement that it has.

Example:
1_Creature A, is 15 feet from my Paladin B, who used the Tunnel Fighter stance in its round as Bonus Action.
2_A use 5 feet of movement, in direction to B.
3_B use Polearm Feat and make a Attack of Opportunity, then move 5 feet from A using Relentless Avenger.
4_Repeat 2-3 until A doesn't have movement left.

Of course A must not be so intelligent to this work, but would be a fun interpretation of "Don't u dare touch me!".

 

[Psikerlord#]

My initial impression is neutral. Another UA with more class options....? I thought UA was supposed to be for general optional rule variants for the game too?

In my view close quarters shooter is OP, removing disad on melee shooting is too unbalancing for the game (seen that already via crossbow expert).

Tunnel fighter should simply be the standard rule for OAs period.

I dont like the hidey ranger with extra movement in the underdark, suspect OP, for the reasons given in teh article itself (move out of darkvision range and hide every round - really?). Same for the sorcerer with the hound that imposes disad on all saves for the target: OP. The ability to impose disad on saves is almost non-existent in PHB for good reason.

Not sure about the warlock, but, not really my cup o' tea.

Overall: not for me , apart from tunnel fighter.

 

[Salamandyr]

Funny I mentioned I wanted a Dr. Strange-ish warlock pact (I was thinking a pact to magical Order rather than usually evil otherworldly beings), but what I wrote was a warlock whose pact is dedicated to "fighting" evil rather than serving it. Mearls saw my tweet and recommended I check out this months UA.

This definitely fits the bill of an evil fighting warlock and does fit a bit with the old, incorruptible white magician aspect of Strange before the 80's got to him. Not quite as much as a refluffed Great Old One Tome Warlock does, but if the DM won't let me jigger with the background of my pact, this one will do in a pinch.

I definitely like the idea; my one "complaint" and it's not really one, is giving more attack cantrips to the Warlock is a bit of a waste. They've already got the strongest attack cantrip in the game.

 

[Remathilis]

They make it REALLY confusing publishing two different Warlock archetypes with extremely similar names (Undying vs. Undying Light).

Undying Light has 0 calories and sugar than regular Undying.