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

 

[Don Durito]

The BM gets 16 maneuvers to choose from, ever, starting at 3rd, and going through the rest of his career, there's never a new one to absorb, consider, and decide whether to learn or use. Casters face that same level of complexity, at first level, and, again with each new spell level, generally each odd level from 1st through 17th.

It is absurd to characterize the BM as 'too complex' or even complex at all, when most classes present at least an order of magnitude greater complexity, due to casting.

So you don't think that was the reason Battlemasters only start with a limited number of maneuvers then? What was it then? You also said it wasn't about balance. Or do you think it is the reason but the game is just inconsistent about it? In which case maybe? To a degree.

I'm not really sure what your arguing with me about. I mean already said in the very first post go ahead and give the Fighters all the maneuvers if you think the player can handle it. So clearly I don't think it is necessarily too complex. Or you could do what I normally do when teaching a new game and give the players a smaller list of maneuvers until they've got the hang of things and then open up more after one or two combats without the need to gate any of them behind advancement.

I still can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or with the design. If it's the latter then...well...I'm not defending the design.

 

[Don Durito]

And their current spell set is so immense and high-level and powerful?

4e's spell-less Ranger is the aberration here. I'm not saying it doesn't belong, but there on occasion seems to be this expectation that it be the default which is absolutely wild to me.

The 3E Ranger magic could have been easily implemented in 5E by giving them access to Druidic rituals as a ribbon ability. That would be about the same level of flavour and usefullness.

And then you wouldn't have to worry about bonus actions and concentration and all that.

 

[RSIxidor]

Mostly agree, but I really wouldn't modify Jack of All Trades to fit Talisman. The Talisman is just for skill checks and my bards love their initiative and general ability check bonuses.

I did miss that it says "for skill." Honestly, I'd probably pull that limitation out anyway if I was writing it. I'd probably make the function of JOAT a named convention, like Expertise and Proficiency, and use that as a tool to keep them from stacking. You lose the variability of Talisman but don't have the silly MC scenario.

 

[Leatherhead]

4e's spell-less Ranger is the aberration here. I'm not saying it doesn't belong, but there on occasion seems to be this expectation that it be the default which is absolutely wild to me.

They can just play a Fighter with a bow and pick up the Nature skill. Same thing really.*

But, it was still a case of "this archetype (Aragorn) did something besides hit things with a stick, we'll have to simulate that with spellcasting."

To be fair, they didn't have the "if we use the same mechanics but call it 'martial', that means it's totally not magical" tech back then.


*Yes, I am still salty that I couldn't play an effective Fighter with a bow in 4e, and got constantly told to go play a Ranger instead for voicing that complaint, can you tell?

 

[RSIxidor]

What if Spell Versatility granted an extra pool of spells, equal to the caster ability. So, +4 Charisma allows the character to select four spells from the spell list. Then, after each rest, the character can swap in one of these from the pool to count it as a spell known.

Essentially, it is only one extra spell known, but the character can rotate which one it is.

I suggested in another thread that those classes get a bonus "versatile spell known" and that only this spell known can be swapped, which prevents the build from swapping EVERY spell out over a week or two.

I don't hate your idea, but it basically boils down to a limited spell book, right? It also reminds me of the spell repertoires in Pathfinder 2E. Either way, you'd also need to define how that special pool can be grown or modified.

 

[tglassy]

I suggested in another thread that those classes get a bonus "versatile spell known" and that only this spell known can be swapped, which prevents the build from swapping EVERY spell out over a week or two.

I don't hate your idea, but it basically boils down to a limited spell book, right? It also reminds me of the spell repertoires in Pathfinder 2E. Either way, you'd also need to define how that special pool can be grown or modified.

The point was for players who don’t get to level up that much to not be stuck with a spell they never need for months on end. It isn’t so you have a single versatile spell. It’s so they CAN take two weeks of downtime and completely change their character, if they like.

And why is that a bad thing? Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Paladin can do it over night. Literally. Who cares if a Warlock wants different spells than the one he’s got? If his concept isn’t working, and he’s not happy, then he can either just keep playing a character he doesn’t like, ask the DM to let him respec, roll a new character, or just freaking take a week of downtime and pick new spells and be able to keep his character. It really isn’t an ability that needs to be nerfed, at all. How many long rests do you get per play session? How is this something that can be abused when Clerics do it as a matter of course, and they do it better and have more spells to pick from?

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, it's funny. We've ALWAYS had this spell swapping option. It wasn't called that. It was called talking to the DM, pointing out that we had this spell or cantrip on our list that we'd never actually used, and, could we please switch it out for something that we'd actually use in play?

This is just formalizing what we've been doing for the past few years.

 

[tglassy]

Y'know, it's funny. We've ALWAYS had this spell swapping option. It wasn't called that. It was called talking to the DM, pointing out that we had this spell or cantrip on our list that we'd never actually used, and, could we please switch it out for something that we'd actually use in play?

This is just formalizing what we've been doing for the past few years.

Which seems to be what this UA is all about.

If a House Rule becomes universally accepted in 99% of tables, it may as well be acknowledged by WOTC.

 

[Parmandur]

Which seems to be what this UA is all about.

If a House Rule becomes universally accepted in 99% of tables, it may as well be acknowledged by WOTC.

That's basically what Crawford said about it. But instead of universally accepted, the rule is 70% satisfied with something as an option.

 

[Umbran]

For players with any degree of system experience/mastery....

Mod Note:
The next person who makes this insulting, no-true-Scotsman, you-are-a-gaming-weakling-if-you-want -this argument can expect to leave the thread post-haste.

This is UA stuff. Experimental, and entirely optional. You don't like it, don't use it. It existence in general does not impact your game.

Like it, or not, for yourself? Fine. Cast aspersions on people for finding it intriguing, attractive, or fun, and you'll find the discussion closed to you.