Unearthed Arcana New Year Unearthed Arcana Brings Back Those Old 2E Kits

The scout fighter looks like yet another take at a ranger, but one I'm personally more likely to use. For the Cavalier I might want some more feature related to social interaction, not just the horse part and a proficiency. Something along the lines of what the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight got in SCAG or a new use of superiority dice.

The bard colleges seem nice, but "Tumble" might have a bit too many benefits compared to Rogue Cunning Action.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cavalier and Scout don't get to use Maneuvers. So while the base mechanic is the same, what they do with it is different. If using Superiority Dice means you are a Battle Master than using spells means you are a Wizard.

I don't see much distinction. What's the difference between the second Superiority Die option on each of the new Fighter classes and Precision Attack? Or between the third option for the Cavalier and Trip Attack?

It would seem like three new Manuevers would cover all of these options:
1 - Great Skill. When you make an ability check, you can roll your superiority die and add it to the result (maybe limit this by "that you are proficient in," maybe not). Add the die after you roll, but before success is determined
2 - Agility. If you're hit while wearing light or medium armor, you can roll your superiority die and add it to your AC. If the attack still hits, you take half damage from it.
3 - Protection. If an ally within 5 feet is hit by an attack, you can roll your superiority die and add it to their AC. If the attack still hits, you take half damage from it.

(not convinced those last two can't be rolled into one)

I'd generally prefer them using existing mechanics to model fiction where it is appropriate rather than inventing new ones. There's room for non-BMs who use maneuvers, but the escape velocity for them is pretty high, IMO - the distinction they need is more than "new manuevers."

Like, you could use a Ranger subclass that used superiority dice and manuevers for a more "tactical ranger" feel. That'd probably be meaty, in the same way that the distinction between Wizard and Sorcerer is pretty meaty. But "I'm a fighter who can use superiority dice on some skill checks" isn't a much different from "I'm a fighter who can use superiority dice on my attacks."

Could be something I'm missing, of course!

 

[Avenger_jr]

Banana I feel very similarly to what you just said, and actually edited my last post to mention my feelings towards bedir's post.

I feel that making those options maneuvers would actually be a double edged sword. While it would make the scout and cavalier use mechanics more akin to thosethat already exist, it would also further distance them from the battlemaster. While the scout and cavalier have these 'maneuvers' baked into their archetype features, turning them into proper maneuvers and allowing the battle master to select them continues to allow the battlemaster to be superior to the scout and cavalier. The battlemaster gets the best picks of the bunch, and can be built into any style of play rather than being stuck with one set of options for a specific purpose.

 

[bedir than]

Banana I feel very similarly to what you just said, and actually edited my last post to mention my feelings towards bedir's post.

I feel that making those options maneuvers would actually be a double edged sword. While it would make the scout and cavalier use mechanics more akin to thosethat already exist, it would also further distance them from the battlemaster. While the scout and cavalier have these 'maneuvers' baked into their archetype features, turning them into proper maneuvers and allowing the battle master to select them continues to allow the battlemaster to be superior to the scout and cavalier. The battlemaster gets the best picks of the bunch, and can be built into any style of play rather than being stuck with one set of options for a specific purpose.

Both yourself and [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] have similar thoughts.

With the Scout, which I looked at in more detail because I have a PC in my group that is already playing a light fighter, none of their uses of SD are same as current Maneuvers. Yes, these could be made Maneuvers for anyone, but they are different. One is a nerfed BM Maneuver in that it only adds damage. The other two are completely new angles.

Cavalier reads like an riding BM, and most of their options are essentially BM Maneuvers with a riding requirement.

So yes, these are more similar to the BM than I initially thought (as in the 1st Ranger from UA). On further reading these are focused BM builds, which mimic kits quite a bit. So I still like them, but also recognize the issues brought forth.

 

[TwoSix]

Could be something I'm missing, of course!

Like [MENTION=6672343]Avenger_jr[/MENTION] said, I think it's so there's no confusion as to the interchangeability between the new uses of superiority dice and the battlemaster's maneuvers, especially since cavalier and scout are more subclasses of the battle master, rather than the generic fighter (Subsubclasses?) Cavalier and scout each get some bonus abilities over the battle master, but get a limited list of preselected "maneuver-type" abilities as the trade-off. They easily could have just made them maneuevers, but I get the feelings they didn't want people to assume there could be crossover.

That being said, I don't know if it would be BAD if battle masters could take these, or if they were accessible via the feat. But I think their intent of segregating these abilities away from the battle master is clear.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'm confused, the second bullet ability of both Subclasses is the exact wording of the Precision Attack maneuver (PHB p74).

These are maneuvers without the 'Maneuver' label. They are just pre-selected.

(Which I am clarifying for the point of evaluation and comparison not interchangeability.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel that making those options maneuvers would actually be a double edged sword. While it would make the scout and cavalier use mechanics more akin to thosethat already exist, it would also further distance them from the battlemaster. While the scout and cavalier have these 'maneuvers' baked into their archetype features, turning them into proper maneuvers and allowing the battle master to select them continues to allow the battlemaster to be superior to the scout and cavalier. The battlemaster gets the best picks of the bunch, and can be built into any style of play rather than being stuck with one set of options for a specific purpose.

I think my question is: if the Scout and the Cavalier are basically using manuevers, and we have the Battlemaster, why do we need a separate Scout and Cavalier? These are all just Battle Masters! (Or, they need mechanics that aren't basically ripped off from the Battle Master, which could be meaty!)

With the Scout, which I looked at in more detail because I have a PC in my group that is already playing a light fighter, none of their uses of SD are same as current Maneuvers

I see the first bullet point and I see a (narrow) application of "add superiority dice to a skill check." It's a good mechanic, but it's not exactly distinct.

I see the second bullet point and I see precision attack.

I see the third bullet point and I see "add superiority dice to your AC if you're not in heavy armor," which is kind of a patch to encourage a class with heavy armor proficiency to NOT use heavy armor (which is a little awkward). It works fine, though it's a bit of a kludge.

They easily could have just made them maneuevers, but I get the feelings they didn't want people to assume there could be crossover.

Sure. I think making them "subclasses of Battlemaster" is part of why I'd challenge their existence as-is. Conceptually, they're solid, but mechanically, they're not adding much, and that's no fun. If I played a battlemaster next to a Scout, I'd be all, "Why can't I have an option to use my superiority dice to add to my History and Insight checks? I'll give up artisan's tools, no problem! Maybe even another maneuver!"

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I think the abilities of the Fighter subclasses are worded like that to prevent them from interacting with the Martial Adept feat.

 

[Klaus]

I don't see much distinction. What's the difference between the second Superiority Die option on each of the new Fighter classes and Precision Attack? Or between the third option for the Cavalier and Trip Attack?

It would seem like three new Manuevers would cover all of these options:
1 - Great Skill. When you make an ability check, you can roll your superiority die and add it to the result (maybe limit this by "that you are proficient in," maybe not). Add the die after you roll, but before success is determined
2 - Agility. If you're hit while wearing light or medium armor, you can roll your superiority die and add it to your AC. If the attack still hits, you take half damage from it.
3 - Protection. If an ally within 5 feet is hit by an attack, you can roll your superiority die and add it to their AC. If the attack still hits, you take half damage from it.

(not convinced those last two can't be rolled into one)

I'd generally prefer them using existing mechanics to model fiction where it is appropriate rather than inventing new ones. There's room for non-BMs who use maneuvers, but the escape velocity for them is pretty high, IMO - the distinction they need is more than "new manuevers."

Like, you could use a Ranger subclass that used superiority dice and manuevers for a more "tactical ranger" feel. That'd probably be meaty, in the same way that the distinction between Wizard and Sorcerer is pretty meaty. But "I'm a fighter who can use superiority dice on some skill checks" isn't a much different from "I'm a fighter who can use superiority dice on my attacks."

Could be something I'm missing, of course!

Y'know, I *like* that the Cavalier and Scout aren't 100% different from the Battlemaster. They're a play at a "fixed maneuver list" battlemaster, as it were: less flexibility, but going deeper into a given archetype.

The Scout is the perfect way to provide a "martial Ranger" without completely rewriting the Ranger (since it already has core Spellcasting). Some tuning up would be nice, but I'll have to see it over a campaign arc to judge better.

The Cavalier does adapt the 2e kit: all horseplay, all lance and sword, all the time. Perhaps allowing the 5e version to go a bit farther into Cavalier territory (interaction, protection) would be nice.

But MAN, am I excited to see the College of Swords! The blade was my favorite kit from Complete Bard (had one called "Mack, The Knife", after the song). It differs from the Valor bard through self-application of Bardic Inspiration. In 4e terms, it's more "striker" than "leader". And couple it with the Acolyte background and you'll have the perfect follower of Kelanen, the Prince of Swords (Greyhawk shout-out, yo!).

So, basically, good first impression, excited for the possibilities, want to see more.

 

[Evenglare]

So... okay, what's the endgame with these UA articles? Because they keep referencing that they are going to have more playtest and conversions of older stuff. Which, ya know, is good but then you look at the releases that have come out after the main 3 books and it's filled with stuff we never got to playtest. Unless, I'm mistaken, but most if not all of the stuff in the SCAG was brand new to me. So they are giving us stuff they haven't set hard plans for, and then they release stuff they haven't given us to test thoroughly. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Surely not, it's very confusing to me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, I *like* that the Cavalier and Scout aren't 100% different from the Battlemaster. They're a play at a "fixed maneuver list" battlemaster, as it were: less flexibility, but going deeper into a given archetype.

I'd prefer more novel mechanical expressions of these ideas. Let the BM be the BM. Not everyone should be a BM.