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

 

[Parmandur]

I don't get how doing extra damage on top of your extra damage with additional riders and effects is not worth someone's time.

Game-theory wise, the standard Smite is attractive because you can apply the Spell Slot after hitting with an Attack, whereas the Smite Spell can whiff, and "waste" a Spell Slot. So, the Spell is more of a gamble on a limited resources. When it works, though, it works.

 

[Ashrym]

Game-theory wise, the standard Smite is attractive because you can apply the Spell Slot after hitting with an Attack, whereas the Smite Spell can whiff, and "waste" a Spell Slot. So, the Spell is more of a gamble on a limited resources. When it works, though, it works.

I would think it would be relatively hard to "whiff" those spells? I avoid them for the reasons I listed but the general mechanic is still up to a minute while they apply to the next hit. That's not as reliable as the standard smite but seems pretty reliable still. I don't remember any issues with losing the spell, just occasionally the target when I did try them out.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Game-theory wise, the standard Smite is attractive because you can apply the Spell Slot after hitting with an Attack, whereas the Smite Spell can whiff, and "waste" a Spell Slot. So, the Spell is more of a gamble on a limited resources. When it works, though, it works.

This is true, as is the need for concentration, but there is also the simple matter of simplicity. You don't have to think so much about using your smite ability, and paladins aren't usually known for being deep thinkers.

 

[CapnZapp]

Lol I know all about minmaxing. Your notion that rogues have to get two SA per round to not “fail” is the worst sort of hyperbolic CharOp nonsense.

Rogues are woefully behind the curve in games with feats enabled unless they reliably get in that off-turn SA, since there is no feat that increases Rogue DPS like the -5/+10 feats.

In these games (which I suspect is "most games) the Rogue is a middling melee combatant; weak defenses and only average offense. To excuse the weak defense the class' DPS needed to be stellar. In games without feats that might actually happen, but I've never played 5E without feats.

Tl;dr: until there's a feat that ups the Rogue's DPS to a substantial degree, comparable to the Fighter feats, a Rogue desperately needs to unlock the 2nd SA potential.

You can call this "hyperbolic CharOp nonsense" all you want, but that just amounts to you sticking your head in the sand. It is stark reality in actual play experience talking here.

 

[CapnZapp]

Also I’ve been building for and playing around with a “2 SA per round” rogue recently (over the last 6 months, to test the insistence that it’s required in some way, and it’s really easy. Sentinel and Mage Slayer make it trivial.

I would agree, except that, unlike you, I empathize with the millions of players that find it very hard and not trivial at all. I would even theorize the majority of players have no idea they can do this at all.

In fact, out of the core rulebook mechanisms, I would say this (the way the Rogue gets 2 SAs per round) is the most convoluted, least 5E-friendly mechanism of them all.

 

[CapnZapp]

Absolutely. I’ve found that my DPR hungry rogue drops more often, and the extra damage just isn’t worth it.

I would say Rogues drop more often, and the extra skill monkey just isn't worth it.

That is, there is a fundamental flaw in the Rogue class design.

 

[Salthorae]

Smite Spell can whiff

only if you fail to hit someone for a full 10 rounds.

paladins aren't usually known for being deep thinkers

I... guess that's one way to view them. And certainly many players portray them as "hammer & nail" kinds, but there is no reason for that. Given that the originations of the term that became paladin was used for judges and magistrates of the Roman Emperors there is no reason to assume or play them as anything other than deep thinkers.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't get how doing extra damage on top of your extra damage with additional riders and effects is not worth someone's time.

Bonus damage for all of them, caught on fire, knocked prone, blinded, staggered, or even banished are great conditions. Branding smite is probably the weakest one, but all of them have good riders and additional damage that stacks with any other damages.

I feel like people who've never even tried the Smite spells are saying they're not worth it. Like saying you don't like that food you've never tried.

We've played with a Paladin for a dozen levels. Don't think he used even a single Smite Spell.

That isn't because the player didn't try. It's because in the end analysis, they're not worth the trouble.

Just use the spell slots for extra damage.

 

[Hussar]

I don't get how doing extra damage on top of your extra damage with additional riders and effects is not worth someone's time.

Bonus damage for all of them, caught on fire, knocked prone, blinded, staggered, or even banished are great conditions. Branding smite is probably the weakest one, but all of them have good riders and additional damage that stacks with any other damages.

I feel like people who've never even tried the Smite spells are saying they're not worth it. Like saying you don't like that food you've never tried.

Oh, no, we tried them. But, we're capable of doing math and realize that they're generally not worth the trouble. You burn a slot, need to hit, need the bad guy to fail his save, and then need to wait multiple rounds for that extra damage to equal what I'd get just smiting.

Yeah honestly against a foe who isn’t gonna have an easy time saving, I’d rather throw a Wrathful or Blinding early on than just do a little more damage with that slot.

Branding is super situational, but occasionally you get that day where you suspect it will be useful, and you prep it, and it pays off, and it’s fantastic.

Because yeah, someone else could spend their whole action making that greater-invisible vampire wizard visible, but you did it while dealing damage to the bastard, and then made another attack!

Snort. Yeah. That greater invisible vampire wizard is in melee combat with the paladin and the paladin, despite disadvantage on both attacks, manages to tag the vampire.

Yeah, that's not a cherry picked example AT ALL. Because, we are meeting greater invisible vampire wizards so often that is pays to have this readied every day, despite it sitting there like a dead lump in my spell list for 99% of the campaign. It's going to be so much more useful than, say, lesser restoration or protection from poison.

 

[Salthorae]

You burn a slot, need to hit,

So, just like a regular smite.

need the bad guy to fail his save, and then need to wait multiple rounds

Most of them aren't about extra damage, but condition effects. The damage is just a bonus on the conditions.