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

 

[tglassy]

Basically what I’m hearing the two sides of the Spell Versatility debate is:

For: Thank God I can finally play the game the way I wanted to!

Against: No! They’re supposed to play the game the way I wanted them to!

 

[Salthorae]

I will agree with one point, much of this UA seems to be about further erosion of niche protection.

Unarmed Strikes to fighters
Battle Master Maneuvers to all Fighters (potentially)
Spell flexibility to all limited spell known classes

I think the last sacred cows left are the rogue's "backstab" niche and the cleric/paladin's turn undead niche.

Maybe they picked a spell based on theme but it turned out too situational. Like picking multiple spells with a melee range expecting to be charged far more often than they ended up being because their frontline is more efficient than expected? (Like a Sentinel-Polearm Cavalier)

What if it was an Adventure League game and they came with their character ready?

They can still swap out at level up. Again, if they can't be bothered to know their character and read the spell options they're selecting, maybe Sorcerer or Warlock aren't the classes they should start with or play?

Basically what I’m hearing the two sides of the Spell Versatility debate is:

For: Thank God I can finally play the game the way I wanted to!

Against: No! They’re supposed to play the game the way I wanted them to!

And I'm hearing

For: Thank god I don't have to think about spell selection anymore

Against: No! That is the point of hte limited spell known classes.

YMMV and now I'm done talking about this one. For real this time.

 

[Seramus]

Basically what I’m hearing the two sides of the Spell Versatility debate is:

For: Thank God I can finally play the game the way I wanted to!

Against: No! They’re supposed to play the game the way I wanted them to!

I'm on the fence. I love being able to correct mistakes or spend time learning something new. But I do think "long rest" is too quick.

I would rather it be something like three days.

 

[The Halfling]

Been years since I last posted here..

For sorcerers, what about adding spell versatility as an option to Font of Magic, under flexible casting. To switch spells would require an expenditure of spell points equal to the spell's slot cost. This would limit it to 5th level spells max. Add the limitation of one spell switch per long rest.

Also, i agree that warlock spell versatility would at best fit as a Tome Pact invocation, and not applicable to arcana gained spells.

 

[Undrave]

Battle Master Maneuvers to all Fighters (potentially)

There's already the Martial Adept feat for that so it's not new.

They can still swap out at level up. Again, if they can't be bothered to know their character and read the spell options they're selecting, maybe Sorcerer or Warlock aren't the classes they should start with or play?

Basically they're not good enough to play that archetype? Again "Git gud"

Also, the Warlock gets their spell from a Patron, not that different than a Cleric getting his from a Deity, so I don't know why a chance to change would be a problem.

 

[Parmandur]

I will agree with one point, much of this UA seems to be about further erosion of niche protection.

Unarmed Strikes to fighters
Battle Master Maneuvers to all Fighters (potentially)
Spell flexibility to all limited spell known classes

I think the last sacred cows left are the rogue's "backstab" niche and the cleric/paladin's turn undead niche.

Well, it's a test to see if 70% of people don't care about that. If people like it, they'll publish it.

 

[Garthanos]

Not s'much in 5e where they use magic prettymuch from the get-go. In 3e you could finagle a build using up to 3 levels of ranger to pick up skills & bonus feats without any hippy magic. In 4e the ranger should have been a natural for a thrower build, but it's 'V' design did not work out well, you generally had to go all-melee or all-archery - until Martial Power 2, so you did wait over a year for the STR based alternative, not that axe-thrower is quite as prevalent out there as knife-thrower.

A WHOLE YEAR shocking... like gnomes.... or Warlords.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A WHOLE YEAR shocking... like gnomes....

An intolerable 8 or 9 months for the full gnome race, not just the MM version.

...or Warlords.

Hey, 7 years after the start of the playtest, we finally got a survey question that had something to do with it.

 

[Leatherhead]

You want to chip away at Wizard and Cleric dominance? This is how you do it. "Theme" and "Flavor" are nonsense objections. The game changes constantly and just because something was badly designed in the past is no reason it has to remain badly designed.

Wizards and Clerics aren't Really dominant anymore.
Sorcerers are more popular than Wizards, and Warlocks are more popular than any other full caster. Which isn't surprising considering most people play the in the lower half of the level spectrum.

I never saw it in 3E or 4E, either.

3e had the infamous Hulking Hurler among other options.
And 4e was an odd duck for any kind of ranged Fighter, they couldn't even use bows with most of their powers.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Yup! Saying "live with the consequences" is basically punishing players with low system master for picking situational spells that might not even do what they thought it did just because they thought the name sounded cool.

Or, you know, trying something off the beaten path and not just the same few spells that the charop folks say you have to take. Or having a theme that is cool but proves unworkable. I could think of a lot of reasons. Having some more flex on Cha casters is helpful to keep the game going, too, if character or world concepts push towards Cha casters being dominant. (Yes, the DM could allow these things, but it's nice having "permission".)