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

 

[NotAYakk]

I know that Treatmonk is going gaga for the Blind Fighting fighting style....but I don't see what the fuss is about.

Is it a solid ability in several areas? Absolutely. Is it as good as a +2 dmg or +1 AC all the time? I would say yes...but I certainly wouldn't consider it OP, as its going to be a lot more limited.

Unlike every other traditional fighting style, except archery, it can crazy compound with other abilities.

+2 damage, rerolling 1s, a point of AC, disadvantage on a reaction; those don't really combo to non-linear effects. (archery does a bit more, because that +2 to hit compounds with sniping and xbow expert in a unique way; plus hitting is awesome in general)

Blind Fighting in theory generates a big return once comboed with other stuff. How big of a return is unclear.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Unlike every other traditional fighting style, except archery, it can crazy compound with other abilities.

+2 damage, rerolling 1s, a point of AC, disadvantage on a reaction; those don't really combo to non-linear effects. (archery does a bit more, because that +2 to hit compounds with sniping and xbow expert in a unique way; plus hitting is awesome in general)

Blind Fighting in theory generates a big return once comboed with other stuff. How big of a return is unclear.

I haven't checked Treantmonk yet, what does it compound with?

 

[Salthorae]

what does it compound with

Basically anything that would impose heavy obscurement on an area

A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

• A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.

So drop a fog cloud or darkness, etc and even without being able to see someone, your attacks now all have advantage while your opponents have disadvantage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Basically anything that would impose heavy obscurement on an area




So drop a fog cloud or darkness, etc and even without being able to see someone, your attacks now all have advantage while your opponents have disadvantage.

By the strictest and dumbest of RAW, I'm not sure that works.

Heavy Obscurement is patently ridiculous, because it cancels itself out. You are being attacked by a creature you cannot see, so they have advantage, but they cannot see you, so they have disadvantage.

So, RAW as I understand it means that two creatures fighting in heavy obscurement are rolling normally (I change this because I find it stupid, but that is RAW as I understand it)

Blind fighting only says "Being unable to see a creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it, provided the creature isn’t hidden from you."

So, you would have advantage, but you don't get to ignore they advantage an enemy gets from being unseen. So, they would still be attacking you normally.

It is an edge, but not a huge one if you are following RAW instead of homebrewing the interaction.

 

[Ashrym]

I just let everyone flail about in the darkness with disadvantage because they cannot see whom they are attacking to grant advantage. IIRC there was a dev comment along those lines on twitter too but it never hit errata or sage advice that I can see.

I'm not impressed with blind fighting. It seems useful but things like darkness or fog cloud create their own obscurement to let the opponent hide after disengaging. That nullifies the benefits blind fighting granted. A good game of marco polo in the dark could be interesting, but given the heavy armor granting disadvantage trying to sneak in the dark while paladins and fighters are often not that perceptive it doesn't play out that well in my mind. Rangers work out better because of synergy with WIS and typically armor suited to stealth, but they eventually get feral senses anyway.

Blind fighting strikes me as too situational.

2cp

 

[DrC]

I suspect I am a quiet voice alone here. The changes in D&D from 1st edition to 5th edition are significant, but for me, one of the big ones that I really like is that, despite having most of the same magic items, you don't really meet that many - the 'power' of the game is with the players, not their items. But the limitations of the characters make the party make-up important, and teamwork is particularly important when different characters have the different skills needed to meet the challenges thrown at them.

For me, this change is the slow slide of the game to becoming unbalanced. It is the equivalent of a TV show having to have 'Special Guest Stars' because it is not considered as popular any more. This change for D&D will move towards another change and split the community I fear.

Further (phew!), I worry it is driven by the need to keep selling books. If so, Wizards need to open their eyes to the fact that their world is not just the Sword Coast - there is a massive continent for us to explore and there must be the potential for literally 100s of adventures across its landscape - something of course, that has been noticed by others,

I would not like to embrace these changes ... the limitations of the characters are part of the game (apart from the fact that I do feel a little sorry for the Ranger).

 

[Leatherhead]

I know that Treatmonk is going gaga for the Blind Fighting fighting style....but I don't see what the fuss is about.

It's one of a handful of abilities that ignores disadvantage. That's the long and the short of it.

The main use will be a Melee character partnering up with your Devil Sight + Darkness using Hexblade without being totally screwed. I still wouldn't use that tactic, as you lose the ability to make OA's which are the only point of stickiness most melee builds have.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I suspect I am a quiet voice alone here. The changes in D&D from 1st edition to 5th edition are significant, but for me, one of the big ones that I really like is that, despite having most of the same magic items, you don't really meet that many - the 'power' of the game is with the players, not their items. But the limitations of the characters make the party make-up important, and teamwork is particularly important when different characters have the different skills needed to meet the challenges thrown at them.

For me, this change is the slow slide of the game to becoming unbalanced. It is the equivalent of a TV show having to have 'Special Guest Stars' because it is not considered as popular any more. This change for D&D will move towards another change and split the community I fear.

Further (phew!), I worry it is driven by the need to keep selling books. If so, Wizards need to open their eyes to the fact that their world is not just the Sword Coast - there is a massive continent for us to explore and there must be the potential for literally 100s of adventures across its landscape - something of course, that has been noticed by others,

I would not like to embrace these changes ... the limitations of the characters are part of the game (apart from the fact that I do feel a little sorry for the Ranger).

I'm not sure if these abilities (which remove limits on some classes) remove limits on characters.

For example, I had a game not too long ago where the party consisted mostly of rogues, a druid, and a ranger.

If I had introduced the Wild Companion rule to that game, it would have changed the dynamic by giving the Druid a Familiar... but you could accomplish the same thing if one of the two rogues had decided to play a wizard instead. The class being able to cover more concepts does not neccesarily mean that the characters no longer have limitations, it just means that roles can be filled differently.

And, just because you have an option doesn't mean you will end up using it. The Interception Fighting style is really cool for a Fighter to take on the role of defender more, but if I want to build a Fighter who is an agile duel-wielder, this Fighting Style doesn't offer me anything that I want, so I would choose the option I have always had.

 

[Gadget]

I would be hesitant to dismiss the whole UA as out right power creep or perfectly okay. There are a lot of features in there, probably some in one catagory and some in another. It is an effort to re-calibrate some of the classes after years of play experience; and that is an effort I can applaud even if the implementation may have some rough edges.

Finally, yes, WOTC's desire is to sell books. That is pretty much the purpose behind publishing the game in the first place. They really are bending over backwards to avoid invalidating outright the PHB & DMG. On the whole, they have showed remarkable restraint, especially compared to prior editions, with regard to splat content, so I'm willing to cut them a little slack in that area.

 

[Yaarel]

I like the customization that the Class Features bring.

I would even be ok with two separate categories, one for fixes, and one for variants.

This would make the intent of the designers clearer for a specific feature.

Also, the neutrally balanced variants would remain a clearer standard for future balance.