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.

 

[SailorNash]

I think most kits should be statted out...however I think most could be done with a background or perhaps a feat.

I'm not as concerned overall with power bloat, mostly because choosing Cavalier means you will never choose Scout. Options are good in parallel; it's just the stacking that can be bad.

For the BM-lite subclasses, just roll them up into Battemaster. Make it similar to the build-your-own-Fighter from 3rd. Champion is already there for the easy-mode Fighter anyway. If something looks like a maneuver, then it probably is. And there's nothing wrong with having so much versatility in a single subclass...better than the confusion of subsubclasses, at any rate. Just look at Dynasty Warriors for an example...(almost) every character there is a single-class Fighter, but every one has a unique enough personality and options to stand out.

For subclasses in general, I think it is theme (rather than mechanics) that should define them. However, subclasses do need something unique to stand out. It could be heavily RP enforced, like gods/patrons/oaths, or mechanically driven like Bladesinger or Arcane Trickster. Jester compared to Bard is a good change. Blade versus Valor Bard not so much. And for Fighters specifically...between the fighting style and the extra feats, building "Fighter that's good on horseback" seems easy enough to do without making a somewhat redundant subclass. (Perhaps "suggested builds" could be added for newcomers, with an example package for mounted/archer/etc. including equipment as well as styles/feats?)

 

[Hussar]

I think most kits should be statted out...however I think most could be done with a background or perhaps a feat.

I'm not as concerned overall with power bloat, mostly because choosing Cavalier means you will never choose Scout. Options are good in parallel; it's just the stacking that can be bad.

For the BM-lite subclasses, just roll them up into Battemaster. Make it similar to the build-your-own-Fighter from 3rd. Champion is already there for the easy-mode Fighter anyway. If something looks like a maneuver, then it probably is. And there's nothing wrong with having so much versatility in a single subclass...better than the confusion of subsubclasses, at any rate. Just look at Dynasty Warriors for an example...(almost) every character there is a single-class Fighter, but every one has a unique enough personality and options to stand out.

For subclasses in general, I think it is theme (rather than mechanics) that should define them. However, subclasses do need something unique to stand out. It could be heavily RP enforced, like gods/patrons/oaths, or mechanically driven like Bladesinger or Arcane Trickster. Jester compared to Bard is a good change. Blade versus Valor Bard not so much. And for Fighters specifically...between the fighting style and the extra feats, building "Fighter that's good on horseback" seems easy enough to do without making a somewhat redundant subclass. (Perhaps "suggested builds" could be added for newcomers, with an example package for mounted/archer/etc. including equipment as well as styles/feats?)

The problem with rolling it all up into the Battlemaster is that you wind up with all these options for Battlemaster, but no guidance on how to achieve what you want. Which is great for an experienced player. You want to make X? Take Y and Z manoeuvres is fine when someone has already got a fair bit of D&D under the belt, but, for a new player? It tends to be a bit overwhelming.

And, like 3e, you had a bajillion fighter feats, but, 99% of them never saw play because the big name feats (Power Attack, etc) were so versatile and applied virtually all the time that a more limited feat was generally passed over.

So, you wind up with, say, mount based manoeuvres, that players never take because they know that they will only apply in limited situations, and, because you have such a limited number of manoeuvres, you want to take the ones that apply as broadly as possible. Who's going to take a mounted manoeuvre, which only applies in limited situations, over, say, Precision attack, which applies any time you miss?

Making things packages, and then balancing out the manoeuvres that you get with things like extra skills, for example, balances out the package much better. It's okay that your manoeuvres don't apply all the time, you got some stuff that applies in other situations and makes you more useful. Differently useful is a good thing.

 

[Mephista]

What's great about the Scout and Cavailier is that not only do they have Superiroty dice, but they have abilities beyond combat maneuvers. To think of it, Battlemaster had a non-maneuver ability or two, didn't it? Swapping those out alone is worthy of a new subclass.

 

[jrowland]

College of Satire seems weak at first blush. Though VERY mobile, it's not lucky or wacky enough for my preferences for a "jester" class.

I am thinking they need a "wild magic table" roll when spell-casting, but can use bardic inspiration to move it up or down the list, or some such nonsense.

 

[jrowland]

What's great about the Scout and Cavailier is that not only do they have Superiroty dice, but they have abilities beyond combat maneuvers. To think of it, Battlemaster had a non-maneuver ability or two, didn't it? Swapping those out alone is worthy of a new subclass.

Here I am thinking the Martial Adept feat suddenly looks real good.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Yes! College of Swords! Now I can remake Priscilla Pyrimestes from my 2e game (could never find a decent conversion to 3e) as a Half-elf Bard (College of Swords)/Fighter (Battlemaster). Now hopefully they do Psionics and make a Psychokineticist Order (Order of the Knife?) so I can remake her partner Aidan Buckledown Halfling (Lightfoot) Mystic/Rogue (Thief). I had a lot of fun with them.

 

[SailorNash]

The problem with rolling it all up into the Battlemaster is that you wind up with all these options for Battlemaster, but no guidance on how to achieve what you want. Which is great for an experienced player. You want to make X? Take Y and Z manoeuvres is fine when someone has already got a fair bit of D&D under the belt, but, for a new player? It tends to be a bit overwhelming.

It is great for an experienced player, as you say. Too many options of course would be a bit overwhelming for a new player, and that's why there's the Champion.

Alternatively, similar to suggested race names or class equipment, a table or list could be added with suggested load outs for level 3. Sample Archer gets a bow as their starter weapon plus these maneuvers usable at range, whereas Paladin-lite would get a lance plus these leader-ish ones. Which is similar to the UA approach here, but easy enough to do without a largely-similar subclass.

And, like 3e, you had a bajillion fighter feats, but, 99% of them never saw play because the big name feats (Power Attack, etc) were so versatile and applied virtually all the time that a more limited feat was generally passed over.

So, you wind up with, say, mount based manoeuvres, that players never take because they know that they will only apply in limited situations, and, because you have such a limited number of manoeuvres, you want to take the ones that apply as broadly as possible. Who's going to take a mounted manoeuvre, which only applies in limited situations, over, say, Precision attack, which applies any time you miss?

I definitely agree with you there. That's the one downside to the expanded Battlemaster approach. But, the options would be there if desired. If you're more concerned about optimization than cool/fun factor, you're making that choice yourself. Though that's largely human nature, and hopefully each option itself would be balanced well enough to make the choice meaningful.

The biggest problem is that BM already exists. Had it contained a few abilities, other classes could similarly contain a few other abilities. But since it's already the build-your-own-Fighter, it makes most sense to continue with that existing framework.

There's a few ways they could go with this. They could give it a different named mechanic, similar to how Bards also have a scaling extra die bonus. In that case they'd want to give them different uses or restrictions to make them not feel like BM bonus dice.

The other extreme would be to go all-in with this mechanic. Provide it to enough different classes and subclasses that it no longer feels like a BM exclusive. Make it similar to Fighting Styles where you have access to many but not all of them. Too much and you'd still have the problem of only selecting the strongest and most versatile ones, but done right and it could be similar to a melee "spell list", with universal moves appearing often and specialty moves (Cavalier horseback riding, Pit Fighter kicking sand into the eyes) being added to it excluded from lists where it's thematically appropriate.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Is it just me or are people seeing BM as the CLASS, not subclass? Having such a broad subclass is making it very hard to introduce new ones. Sad that any cool conceptual idea just gets the old 'roll it into BM'... like they don't already have enough.

Some people want these extra concepts but do not want a BM. Why is that so hard to understand? We will never need another fighter at this rate. Just put everything in the BM already exhaustive list.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Is it just me or are people seeing BM as the CLASS, not subclass? Having such a broad subclass is making it very hard to introduce new ones. Sad that any cool conceptual idea just gets the old 'roll it into BM'... like they don't already have enough.

Some people want these extra concepts but do not want a BM. Why is that so hard to understand? We will never need another fighter at this rate. Just put everything in the BM already exhaustive list.

If you have abilities using the superiority dice mechanic, that's what the bm is. If you hate the bm, what is it you actually hate about it?

 

[jrowland]

Really, all you need is a "sidebar" where it's stated, as an option (with DM approval yadda yadd) that you can use "maneuvers" from any sub-classes if you have/use superiority dice.

That way you can have multiple superiority dice sub-classes, for ease-of-play and simplified "loadouts" but allow for advanced players/DMs to open it up.