D&D 5E New Unearthed Arcana: Wonders of the Multiverse

WotC has posted a new Unearthed Arcana featuring the Glitchling race, the Fate domain, and a handful of backgrounds, feats and spells.

In today’s Unearthed Arcana, we explore D&D character options from across the multiverse. This playtest document presents the glitchling race; the Fate Domain cleric subclass; and the gate warden, giant foundling, planar philosopher, and rune carver backgrounds. Additionally, a collection of new feats provide links to giants and other primordial forces of the planes, while a selection of new spells highlight the power of fate and chance.

Wonders of the Multiverse | Unearthed Arcana | Dungeons & Dragons

Explore character options related to the Wonders of the Multiverse! This playtest document presents a new race and subclass and a collection of new backgrounds, feats and spells, all for use in Dungeons & Dragons.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[MonsterEnvy]

What video?

The video on the first post of this thread where they explain their reasoning.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It would make sense if they were pushing people to use DDB. But they wouldn't manipulate the rules to suit their agenda, would they?

Not quite getting how Prof Bonus Abilities encourage using D&D Beyond

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was not talking about a UA, I was talking about their inability to make mechanics for the other two pillars.

I have to agree. There is nothing all that interesting here, and its ALL combat pillar.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

And Planescape. UAs for both of which heavily featuring the background feat idea have been released back to back.

To me, this is like Tasha's, in that they are presenting it as a limited option, but plan to roll it out for everyone as soon as the approval ratings roll in.

Testing the waters as it were for 5.5e?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Looks absolutely dire.

Rubbish.

Planescape minus everything interesting (or with it utterly minimized to the maximum degree), plus tons of awful D&D elemental Giant bollocks and Viking-style rune-carving nonsense which is a match for the Giant boredom, but a grotesque mismatch with the Planar stuff. As a "bonus" everything is utterly combat-focused, when this would be a good time to avoid that.

Two thumbs hard down.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not quite getting how Prof Bonus Abilities encourage using D&D Beyond

The idea that too many fiddly bonuses are much easier to manage in DDB.

 

[Yaarel]

On the other hand, if feats with level prerequisites are consistently more powerful, then "normal" feats start to feel like trap choices at higher levels. I'd rather the developers try to keep feats balanced with one another* and reserve level prerequisites for narrow cases where an otherwise balanced feat would create issues in low level play.

*and ideally with ASIs, but ASIs aren't balanced with each other so that's hard t evaluate

From where I am coming from,

I love the feats having a level prereq. I see epic boons (in DMs Guide) as a feats with a prereq of level 21. Personally, I would like every class to get their feat at the expected level 20, rather than the given level 19. A choice of a level 20 feat, namely an epic boon, is the perfect capstone. One can always choose a capstone that one wants, rather than get stuck with a meh one if that is what the class forces.

I would love to have feats whose level prereqs are 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. Then feats that are worthwhile at those high levels become available.

In some ways, feats are like spells. There are spells at slot 1 that continue to be useful even at the highest levels. However, most of the time, when at high level, I would be choosing slot 9 spells, not slot 1 spells. Samewise, many of the feats available at level 0 are less useful at higher levels. It is better if there are higher level feats available.

So, the level prereqs make sense to me for feats.



By the way, I like less any prereqs for race and class. The point of a feat is to customize a character concept. To restrict a feat to a particular race or class defeats the purpose of feats in the first place.

I tend to dislike feats that require other feats.

 

[Greg K]

Everything is so combat focused. I want more Exploration and Social Pillar support.

Yeah, I too want more Exploration and Social support.
I also agree with @Blue's dislike for the use of proficency times per day.

At this point, I'll take a new design team for 1000, Alex.

 

[cbwjm]

The idea that too many fiddly bonuses are much easier to manage in DDB.

Not really, you can do the exact same thing as Dndbeyond with a sheet of paper. I used to draw little boxes next to an ability to represent the number of uses and just check them off when used, exactly the same as DnDbeyond.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The idea that too many fiddly bonuses are much easier to manage in DDB.

Not really. They also are not bonuses, as you pick when to use them.