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

Interesting stuff.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The fighting styles feel more like either/or options for campaigns without feats. In large part they step into the same design space as feats, and present seeming challenges combined with feats.

Using both, I feel like I'd need to add a bunch of provisos, addenda, and quid pro quos to keep things from getting out of hand.

 

[ScuroNotte]

Everyone discusses Polearm feat and Tunnel Fighting style OP. The thing is I can't picture how Polearm feat would be usable. Style used for fighting in "narrow" passageway. That would negate use of Polearm

 

[BookBarbarian]

There's nothing in the Fighting Style description that requires it be used in a confined space.

 

[Leatherhead]

Tunnel fighters represent a play style I don't like. Tunnel rogues might actually be broken.

 

[mlund]

I'm still pretty OK with Tunnel Fighter, but to me the weird corner case isn't with Sentinel, it's with Polearm Master. TF+PM means if a single foe tries to get past you, you get up to three attacks: free OA for entering reach, TF reaction for moving more than 5 feet within reach, and another free OA for leaving reach. That's... a lot, potentially even at level 1 with variant human.

The reason I'm still pretty OK with it is that whether this actually ever happens is entirely under the control of the DM. That's a pretty determined creature to keep ignoring the Fighter. As a DM, if I have a player that wants that badly to play an aggro-drawing tank, I don't see why it hurts to oblige him/her. The opportunity cost is not insignificant.

I wonder, the enemy gets hit when they enter your reach at the point of going from 10' away to 5' away. Does moving from 5' away to adjacent trigger the tunnel fighter's opportunity attack? I'd say "no" as you aren't "within reach" until you enter the 5' away range anyway. Getting hit twice on the way into melee seems a bit excessive.

 

[Pauln6]

I am longing for a shadow warlock. This feels like a tease.

I agree that the fighting styles feel more like feats. The close quarters shooter fighting style should probably just just include the removal of disadvantage within 5 feet. The tunnel fighter looks a bit too bound up in its mechanics so I think a feat is where that one should stay. Should I be nervous about stacking for multiclass characters too? +3 with ranged attacks seems quite good.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

If you can ask him if we'll ever get a non-monstrous more utility driven sorcerer -or at least one that has a familiar- you'd be my hero.

 

[Jaappleton]

If you can ask him if we'll ever get a non-monstrous more utility driven sorcerer -or at least one that has a familiar- you'd be my hero.

I can ask, no guarantee he will respond. Though I will say, in my experience, Mearls has been pretty willing to say what he can on various subjects. It's also my own summation that he uses Twitter interactions as one way to measure fan interest in certain things.

So I'll ask. If he responds, I'll let you know!


EDIT: Mearls responded. Forgive the wording, you're limited to only 140 characters on Twitter, so it had to be short and concise.

"Shadow Sorcs get a nice Hellhound style pet. Depending on fan reaction & input, other pets too? Or a Sorc getting a familiar?"

"possible - I like the hounds focus and limited use. Easier for a DM to handle"

 

[Bayonet]

I'm going to take an unorthodox approach to these new fighting styles.

I'm going to let my players use them, and witness them in action at an average game at my table, before completely losing my shirt over these new choices.

 

[Radaceus]

The bonus action is for the stance and this has to be spent each round if you want to have this ability active.

The way that it is written, it does not allow a character to take multiple reactions. It allows the character to take OAs without using a reaction. There is a difference.

How can you make an opportunity attack without using a reaction? (RAW)

the paragraph below explicitly breaks the RAW in the PHB:

"As a bonus action, you can enter a defensive stance that lasts until the start of your next turn. While in your defensive stance, you can make opportunity attacks without using your reaction, and you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against a creature that moves more than 5 feet while within your reach."

a) we assume we have used our main action to attack/etc(Main action burned)
b) we used our bonus action to assume the stance ( bonus action burned)
c) we can make opportunity attacks without using a reaction (free action? notice the plural...more than one)
d) we can make an attack using our reaction (reaction burned, but what did we do in our main action since we assumed the defensive stance as a bonus action...did we not attack?)

this feature is rife with holes, I personally agree that it should be used when feats are not an option, as well as the Main action must not be used to attack...but there is still the issue with open canon for multiple opportunity attacks...