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.

 

[Voort]

What's the general thought of the balance of these options? Anything broken or underpowered?

Not sure about overpowered, but Scout seems really front-loaded. Taking that one level as a Scout gives three good skill proficiencies, multiple maneuvers, and the ranger feature.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I was wondering if anyone was going to point this out. I don't really mind that all the "flourishes" use your bonus action, but it gives the Two-Weapon Fighting style... and then presents a set of options wholly incompatible with actually attacking using your off-hand weapon.

WotC should really re-think how two-weapon fighting is handled, and at least give some sort of option that makes it more usable.

Personally I'd be fine with allowing an attack with an off-hand weapon for every primary attack without requiring an action. I'd need to run the numbers, but that might bring twf into the same ballpark as two-handers, and ahead of shield wielders, and it's similar whether you use feats or not.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Why would they pick the Scout kit to revamp rather than an other? Wasn't there a discussion involving Mike M. discussing how to make the ranger more distinctive? I believe the WoC D&D team wanted to do things to promote the Ranger's specialty. Then, here the scout is introduced. This seems to intrude into Ranger's unique qualities. In fact, it looks like the scout/fighter is given a Ranger class feature.

I think the reasoning behind it is that there are people who want a ranger without magic, and people who don't. With the except of 4e (and every edition has its own weird exceptions) ranger has been a magical class. D&D ranger = magical ranger. Say it with me everyone. But some people don't want a D&D ranger, they want a wilderness warrior or wilderness rogue. Okay, no reason not to you let have that. Hence, the Scout.

Whether or not the Scout ends up meeting the needs of those who want it, Mike Mearls did indicate months ago that he thinks coming up with something like that (an non-magical rangerish option) is important to do.

 

[Xeviat]

I very much enjoy the Cavalier and Scout Fighter Subclasses. I, too, believe that the D&D Ranger should be magical; I disliked the 4E Ranger the entire time until Essentials (it's the only thing that I never warmed up to, and I liked 4E). I like that they have flavor, they have a place in the world, and that they get some non-combat abilities (their extra skills). The battle master's "artisan tool" proficiency they gain at 3rd level is a joke, but the Cavalier and Scout's extra skill proficiencies are a great addition. If non-casters have skills while casters have spells, then they need more of them (and they need to be expanded so they can do more things).

The battle master could be broken up into a few more archetypes; kensai, warlord, sharpshooter, etc. Unique maneuvers and flavorful level 7 abilities for them would be a welcomed addition.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not sure about overpowered, but Scout seems really front-loaded. Taking that one level as a Scout gives three good skill proficiencies, multiple maneuvers, and the ranger feature.

I also noticed how many bonus skills proficiencies these subclasses grant. It is not consistent with the number of proficiencies other classes get. Why does the scout have two more skills than a ranger, and one more skill than a rogue? Also considering how expensive it is in general to earn additional skill proficiencies in 5e, three more profs at once is really a lot.

Then I thought, maybe this is "defective by design" just so that the free UA versions won't be as fair to use as the corrected version which will appear in books we'll pay for.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I was hoping someone else would notice that. It immediately stood out to me that the scout would end up with more skill proficiencies than the rogue, and that seems wrong.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Wouldn't it have been nice if the original fighter subclasses were actual (as in conceptual) archetypes? Then we could have avoided any time a cool concept for a fighter subclass is made someone simply saying - that could just be added to the BM. Yep, every concept can kinda be made with it and people are using this as a hold on other (actual) concepts. BM is not a concept; it is a collection of powers with a mechanic. That is okay, but some people want concepts for their subclasses, but any time one comes up it really irritates me that people just say, "why not just add this subclasses' features to the BM manuevers?"

Some people don't want superiority dice and manuevers.
Adding too many to the Battlemaster really depletes the idea of a subclass (especially one that is already so broad). What is a BM? What will it be if all maneuvers are just added to it. Takes us back to 4E's mass of powers that are siloed and not linked by theme.

Anyway - this has all been stated before, but I am more than happy to see some fighter subclasses actually based upon concepts, even if that means using a tight group of maneuvers or ideas from the all-inclusive BM list.

 

[Ath'kethin]

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 can't really answer your general question ("what's the endgame?"), but the Swashbuckler appeared in the Waterborne Adventures UA article back in May. As I recall, it was one of the best-received aspects of an Unearthed Arcana article, and probably received more playtesting and feedback than most of them. It did not surprise me to see a final version of the Swashbucker in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

So the UA stuff CAN make it to final publication - just not much of it has.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can't really answer your general question ("what's the endgame?"), but the Swashbuckler appeared in the Waterborne Adventures UA article back in May. As I recall, it was one of the best-received aspects of an Unearthed Arcana article, and probably received more playtesting and feedback than most of them. It did not surprise me to see a final version of the Swashbucker in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

So the UA stuff CAN make it to final publication - just not much of it has.

I believe the Storm Sorcerer is also in SCAG--and unless I'm mistaken it was also present in the Waterborne Adventures UA.

As for this month's:
I really well and truly wish that the Scout Fighter had been present in the PHB. Especially if it had had its own feature in place of the "use this Ranger thing." Because it's a Fighter with actual options that apply outside of combat. A Fighter that has at least SOME kind of "special thing" to do, both when stabbing things until they stop moving is the order of the hour, and when it's not. It's not rocking my socks off or anything, but it's a HUGE step up over the Battlemaster (I'm with [MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] here--the artisan tool is a joke).

 

[Ath'kethin]

I believe the Storm Sorcerer is also in SCAG--and unless I'm mistaken it was also present in the Waterborne Adventures UA.

Yup, you're right. I missed that one somehow.

As for this month's:
I really well and truly wish that the Scout Fighter had been present in the PHB. Especially if it had had its own feature in place of the "use this Ranger thing." Because it's a Fighter with actual options that apply outside of combat. A Fighter that has at least SOME kind of "special thing" to do, both when stabbing things until they stop moving is the order of the hour, and when it's not. It's not rocking my socks off or anything, but it's a HUGE step up over the Battlemaster (I'm with @Xeviat here--the artisan tool is a joke).

I have less of an issue with classes that have no "out of combat" special abilities - nothing prevents the fighter from being the party cook or weapon-repair guru, and the class doesn't need spacial abilities to be able to do either. The class is called "Fighter," which implies a strong bent towards combat and combat abilities.

But I also don't see/have any problems with the ranger as presented in the PHB, though for myself I prefer the spell-less variant they put in one of the UA articles. Add hunter's mark as a class ability (an unfortunate oversight in that same UA article), give them the Ritual Caster feat at first level, and you pretty much get my concept of what the ranger class should be.