There's a new Unearthed Arcana in town! "The bard receives a new Bardic College feature: the College of Eloquence. Additionally, the paladin gains a new Sacred Oath feature: the Oath of Heroism."
Last edited by a moderator:
You know, GIlgamesh was Crawford's go-to Oath of Heroism example for the Dragon+ stream about this article.I decided that the Paladin of Heroism talks like some combination of Thor, Drax, and Lothar of the Hill People. Might have them hail from Faerun's Old Empires --- maybe one of the Mighty Sons of Gilgeam the God-King?
Just want to put a sort-of transcript of Nathan Stewart's actual comments, as it could be interpreted as referring to setting books in general as opposed to Magic settings specifically.Nate Stewart in January's Spoilers & Swag was asked did there would be more Magic in D&D: his response was that they hadn't known about how successful Ravnica would be early enough to pull the trigger on a 2019 Magic D&D book (!), but that more would be coming soon. They will do more Magic books for D&D eventually, whatever product these tests are for: but three UA in a row for high-magic options that read like Mana themed pairs is interesting.
That's who I've been thinking about, too. Always like the idea of a character who's kind of walking around in a different movie than everyone else, and this type of character can damn near bend reality and drag everyone within his gravitational pull into a whole different genre.You know, GIlgamesh was Crawford's go-to Oath of Heroism example for the Dragon+ stream about this article.
See, I love the flavor of it, regardless of the math. I can see all kinds of situations where you might have to make an ability check every round for multiple/many rounds...or, better yet, you intentionally choose a strategy that results in that because you have the ability...and it’s just fun to do that with advantage every time.I mean, Peerless Athlete is close to objectively worse than certain Rogue traits
That's certainly one way to interpret what he said: my impression, based on listening to it several times, was that he meant Magic settings. They were probably uncertain at that time about the future of the Artificer, too.Just want to put a sort-of transcript of Nathan Stewart's actual comments, as it could be interpreted as referring to setting books in general as opposed to Magic settings specifically.
(timestamp 1 hour 2 minutes)
"How was Ravnica recieved?... Ravnica by the way has been received really well, I can tell you it has been one of the best-selling adventures on D&D Beyond. Fastest selling for sure. So that's cool, we've seen great success around the thing, which we deem as being well-received. So will we be doing more? Yes you will be seeing new settings, I don't know if we'll be doing any new settings this year because of schedules, but yes we are committed to doing it. The problem is we wanted to wait and see how Ravnica was received before we committed to which, and because of its late time release on there, we couldn't like go "Yes that's awesome, put out a new one in six months," so we will be doing more but maybe not this year."
The word "Magic" actually isn't said once in that entire transcript, and although the question is about Ravnica's success, Nathan took that question and answered it like it was about setting books. I find his question of timeline especially interesting, as he says they weren't able to do a new setting in six months but were thinking about doing one that year (this was said in January, so this year 2019), which I think means at that time they were deciding whether or not to release Eberron's Last War book in 2019 (which they eventually decided to do).
That said, that doesn't mean that the next setting won't be a Magic setting. All this says is that we should expect more setting books; whether it is Planescape, something from Magic, or something else seems up-in-the-air.
There's certainly a lot of room in the alignment spectrum for it. Most versions of Hercules fit the Oath of Heroism, and he's not always the nicest guy, as does Gaston from Beauty and the Beast.You know, GIlgamesh was Crawford's go-to Oath of Heroism example for the Dragon+ stream about this article.
I don't parse the Oath as having to embrace predetermination. Not every destiny has to involved predictions of fixed points in the future. It can simply be a matter of being someone with a heap of potential, or being the anointed champion of a particular divinity. And it's really darn easy for someone who's embraced their status as a Chosen One to believe that it puts them above the laws of lesser mortals.The Oath of Heroism could fit anywhere in the alignment spectrum, but I'd argue that believing in the idea of Destiny or Predetermination is philosophically lawful on many levels because it asserts the reality is orderly.
What makes you think it's particularly comedic? And I'm curious how that would work as a Ranger archetype and why it feels more like one? Is it because of the destiny of fighting monsters thing?One does fell that Oath of the Hero is something of a comedy archetype.
Minsc and Boo say this should be a ranger archetype.
Larger than life, then. Not funny at all? The Expeditious Retreat bit is somewhat ironic, but Crawford discussed in the Dragon+ stream that this is unintentionl humor as they wanted the spell for what it does (Speed of Mercury!) not the legacy name.Even gonzo suggests something I don’t think is there, any more so than in the case of “wizard” or indeed, “Paladin”.