Unearthed Arcana New UA: 43 D&D Class Feature Variants

The latest Unearthed Arcana is a big 13-page document! “Every character class in D&D has features, and every class gets one or more class feature variants in today’s Unearthed Arcana! These variants replace or enhance a class’s normal features, giving you new ways to enjoy your character’s class.”

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Talisman pact boon:

Shouldn't this also have the text "the wearer of your talisman may enter the Valley of Fire".

And does FFG know about this?

 

[Yaarel]

not true at all. You can take a reaction to move 15 feet. Which is more than 10 feet.

Come on!

The 15 feet are CONDITIONAL.

The 10 feet are both UNCONDITIONAL and STACK to the speed to cover even an even greater distance.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually since it says: "The primal beast is a special creature that a Beast Master can choose for the Ranger’s Companion feature. "

It seems pretty clear to me that the AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws and proficient skills increase just like any other Ranger's Companion. It's not a replacement. It's another option for companion.

AD

P.S. Haven't gotten to the end of the thread, so forgive me if this has been said already

I agree that this is the correct ruling, but I also agree that the text needs to make this explicit, perhaps in a "tip" sidebox.

 

[Yaarel]

Actually since it says: "The primal beast is a special creature that a Beast Master can choose for the Ranger’s Companion feature. "

It seems pretty clear to me that the AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws and proficient skills increase just like any other Ranger's Companion. It's not a replacement. It's another option for companion.

AD

P.S. Haven't gotten to the end of the thread, so forgive me if this has been said already

The ruling is accurate. The Beast Master Ranger does substitute ones own proficiency instead of that of the Beast.

But I feel official rules should rely more on clear straightforward English, and less on rules-lawyer convoluted legalese.

Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree because I think it is a good option.

Yet you fail to explain what it is that you feel is more appealing about the Barbarian Pounce option.

 

[cbwjm]

Yet you fail to explain what it is that you feel is more appealing about the Barbarian Pounce option.

No I didn't, I explained what I found appealing about it in an earlier post which I'm pretty sure you responded to.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Come on!

The 15 feet are CONDITIONAL.

The 10 feet are both UNCONDITIONAL and STACK to the speed to cover even an even greater distance.

I think the point is when you move, not how far.

And how good you think it is depends on how often you actually make use of the barbarian's full 40' move in actual play.

I don't think I would choose it myself, but the fact that people are disagreeing about it suggests to me that it is a fairly well balanced alternative.

 

[Yaarel]

No I didn't, I explained what I found appealing about it in an earlier post which I'm pretty sure you responded to.

Sorry, I guess I missed what was appealing about it.

I will just allow you to like what you like.

But for the sake of others, I would appreciate if its mechanics were a bit beefier.

Pounce could even be added as an ‘enhancement’ to Fast Movement − in addition − and it would be fine.

 

[Yaarel]

I think the point is when you move, not how far.

And how good you think it is depends on how often you actually make use of the barbarian's full 40' move in actual play.

I don't think I would choose it myself, but the fact that people are disagreeing about it suggests to me that it is a fairly well balanced alternative.

The issue is, the hostile has already ENDED its move. So whether the Barbarian moves now or later is mostly irrelevant.

In my experience, extra speed is a big deal. Especially for kiting. But also for controlling the battlefield by catching a caster, a ranged attacker, or a boss.

 

[Don Durito]

Come on!

The 15 feet are CONDITIONAL.

The 10 feet are both UNCONDITIONAL and STACK to the speed to cover even an even greater distance.

It's a neat idea but too conditional. It could have tactical opportunities, but it's hard to see what you could do with it given that it's already eaten your reaction.

The only time it's better is when Fast Movement would put you just out of reach, but not so far as to make you unable to use the power.

It may allow you to get past a heavy frontline - but nobody eats opportunity attacks better than barbarians anyway.

If it ignored difficult terrain or allowed you free movement through enemy's squares it might be better.

 

[Li Shenron]

Woah!

I don't have time to go through them all (there's a lot), and I'm sure there will be some issues here and there ...


BUT I love the concept. Instead of adding more subclasses, or even more classes, this provides greater design versatility within the classes we have.

Which adds a lot to the variety! And easily.

This is a great design concept for easy customization. Two thumbs up for the concept, and I'll have to look closely at the execution.

Yeah, you really need to look closely. Because I had the same first reaction as you, only to be disappointed. During the recent stream of garbage in UA articles, I've been regularly writing in my feedback that we don't need more and more subclasses (especially poorly designed ones) and I repeatedly mentioned in my feedback that I wanted to see something unprecedented such as variant class features exactly.

The problem is that there are only VERY FEW variant class features in this UA. Most of the stuff here is not a "variant" which you can choose instead of a core ability of the class. It's a shameless free bump or extra feature which sounds like a first attempt at a 5.5 revision of the PHB.

A real "variant" does not invalidate the PHB version of a character by making it feel inferior for not having the variant... For example, if you add to the game a new way for a Sorcerer to use spell points, that's a boost, not a variant, because a core-only Sorcerer simply has something less than a Sorcerer using this UA article. There is no choice really. The same thing happens if you just add more spells to a class list.

It's a pity because the real variant class features in this article are actually quite interesting, and not just those which you can get at a certain class level instead of the usual PHB class feature at the same level, but also including for example almost all the new Maneuvers, Metamagic and Invocations. Adding them to the game does not make core-only characters obsolete, because the total number of them per character is the same, there really IS a choice for the player, and ignoring the new options does not lead to an inferior character. There has to be a price to pay for every enhancement, otherwise everyone should get the enhancement (and then you're all playing a revised 5.5 version of the game) or none of them.

Now imagine what happens with the "PHB+1" rule in place: if you pick for your "+1" the book with the variant options, you suddendly get a few free boosts for you PC, while players who needed to pick another book have to pay for its options like they always had. How fair is that?