Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bad Fox" data-source="post: 6819179" data-attributes="member: 6794761">Unearthed Arcana has been running for over a year now (since Feb 2, 2015), and it's given us a ton of interesting articles - many of which I had started to forget about! I thought it would fun to go back and give a little consideration as to which articles worked for me, and which ones I would like to see further updates on.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron" target="_blank">Update for the Eberron Campaign -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 02/02/2015</a>Being quite keen on Eberron, I was excited for this article and would be excited for more updates. I especially want to see WotC take another kick at the Artificer. I thought that the version they presented here needed a lot of work, but I'd love a good Artificer option!<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-when-armies-clash" target="_blank">Rules for Mass Combat in D&amp;D -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 03/02/2015</a>Not an UA that stood out for me. Was it because I don't find mass combat rules interesting, or was I just unimpressed with THESE mass combat rules? I'm not sure. I could see using mass combat in a game, though. So... maybe I'm looking for another take on mass combat? As I think about it, I guess I would be up for an update to this article.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes" target="_blank">Modifying Classes -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 04/06/2015</a>Contains mostly common-sense advice on modifying existing classes, but also the first attempt at a spell-less Ranger. I think it was a nice effort to try and accommodate players who were looking for that. As for an update, you can make the argument that WotC tried another variant on a spell-less Ranger with one of the kits presented in last week's UA.I wouldn't say no to more spell-less Ranger updates, but I'm a lot more interested in getting an alternative to the base Ranger (whether that's spell-less or not).<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-waterborne-adventures" target="_blank">Character Options for a High Seas Campaign -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 05/04/2015</a>Did not interest me in the least. I never need an another UA on this - they can throw some finished rules in a published product, if they want.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/variant-rules" target="_blank">Variant Rules -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 06/08/2015</a>This was the stuff on players making on the rolls, vitality and custom alignment. Interesting-ish, I guess? Maybe? I didn't really do more than skim them, as I'll never use them. Another UA I never need an update on.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/awakened-mystic" target="_blank">Awakened Mystic -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 07/06/2015</a>First try at the Mystic. Major issues, but a good foundation for the Mystic we got last month.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modern-magic" target="_blank">Modern Magic -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 08/03/2015</a>I didn't read this when it rolled out. Looks like a cool piece of work for the right group, but not relevant to any campaign I'd typically participate in. No further updates needed for me. <a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ranger" target="_blank">Ranger -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/09/2015</a>Despite the fact that I had major problems with this Ranger, kudos to them for trying. Like a lot of people, I'm looking forward to an update, and seeing if how they do with the all-beastmaster Ranger that Mearls was talking about. (That said, it kinda feels like it'll be a miracle if they manage to satisfy most people with any one Ranger they present.)<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/prestige-classes-and-rune-magic" target="_blank">Prestige Classes and Rune Magic -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/05/2015</a>One of the things I like most about 5e is how streamlined it is: for me, Prestige Classes run counter to that. If they're lost to the mists of time without ever being heard from again, then that would be okay by me!Then again, I'm sure there are people out there who are gonna say that they love 'em. So, if WotC tried to refine the concept further to make these people happy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/light-dark-underdark" target="_blank">Light, Dark, Underdark! -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 11/02/2015</a>Despite currently running an Underdark campaign, this article didn't grab me. I understand wanting to provide more character options after the release of &quot;Out of the Abyss,&quot; but I prefer UAs that try to test out new concepts that are in the works.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/old-black-magic" target="_blank">That Old Black Magic -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/07/2015</a>Once again, another UA that bored me. I like it when UA is used as tool to launch big ideas out to the community for feedback, not to provide a handful of options for a product release.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/kits-old" target="_blank">Kits of Old -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/04/2016</a>Now, this is a return to a great UA article. I'm really looking forward to seeing an eventual update for this one.<a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/psionics-and-mystic-%E2%80%93-take-two" target="_blank">Psionics and the Mystic -&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 02/01/2016</a>Another great UA, in the form of a great update to an earlier article! Hopefully we'll see another update to the Mystic... maybe a little bit after some updates for other articles.Does anyone else have a strong opinion on the updates that they'd like to see next?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bad Fox, post: 6819179, member: 6794761"] Unearthed Arcana has been running for over a year now (since Feb 2, 2015), and it's given us a ton of interesting articles - many of which I had started to forget about! I thought it would fun to go back and give a little consideration as to which articles worked for me, and which ones I would like to see further updates on. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron"][B]Update for the Eberron Campaign[/B] - 02/02/2015[/URL] Being quite keen on Eberron, I was excited for this article and would be excited for more updates. I especially want to see WotC take another kick at the Artificer. I thought that the version they presented here needed a lot of work, but I'd love a good Artificer option! [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-when-armies-clash"][B]Rules for Mass Combat in D&D[/B] - 03/02/2015[/URL] Not an UA that stood out for me. Was it because I don't find mass combat rules interesting, or was I just unimpressed with THESE mass combat rules? I'm not sure. I could see using mass combat in a game, though. So... maybe I'm looking for another take on mass combat? As I think about it, I guess I would be up for an update to this article. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes"][B]Modifying Classes[/B] - 04/06/2015[/URL] Contains mostly common-sense advice on modifying existing classes, but also the first attempt at a spell-less Ranger. I think it was a nice effort to try and accommodate players who were looking for that. As for an update, you can make the argument that WotC tried another variant on a spell-less Ranger with one of the kits presented in last week's UA. I wouldn't say no to more spell-less Ranger updates, but I'm a lot more interested in getting an alternative to the base Ranger (whether that's spell-less or not). [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-waterborne-adventures"][B]Character Options for a High Seas Campaign[/B] - 05/04/2015[/URL] Did not interest me in the least. I never need an another UA on this - they can throw some finished rules in a published product, if they want. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/variant-rules"][B]Variant Rules[/B] - 06/08/2015[/URL] This was the stuff on players making on the rolls, vitality and custom alignment. Interesting-ish, I guess? Maybe? I didn't really do more than skim them, as I'll never use them. Another UA I never need an update on. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/awakened-mystic"][B]Awakened Mystic[/B] - 07/06/2015[/URL] First try at the Mystic. Major issues, but a good foundation for the Mystic we got last month. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modern-magic"][B]Modern Magic[/B] - 08/03/2015[/URL] I didn't read this when it rolled out. Looks like a cool piece of work for the right group, but not relevant to any campaign I'd typically participate in. No further updates needed for me. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ranger"][B]Ranger[/B] - 09/09/2015[/URL] Despite the fact that I had major problems with this Ranger, kudos to them for trying. Like a lot of people, I'm looking forward to an update, and seeing if how they do with the all-beastmaster Ranger that Mearls was talking about. (That said, it kinda feels like it'll be a miracle if they manage to satisfy most people with any one Ranger they present.) [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/prestige-classes-and-rune-magic"][B]Prestige Classes and Rune Magic[/B] - 10/05/2015[/URL] One of the things I like most about 5e is how streamlined it is: for me, Prestige Classes run counter to that. If they're lost to the mists of time without ever being heard from again, then that would be okay by me! Then again, I'm sure there are people out there who are gonna say that they love 'em. So, if WotC tried to refine the concept further to make these people happy, I wouldn't have a problem with that. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/light-dark-underdark"][B]Light, Dark, Underdark![/B] - 11/02/2015[/URL] Despite currently running an Underdark campaign, this article didn't grab me. I understand wanting to provide more character options after the release of "Out of the Abyss," but I prefer UAs that try to test out new concepts that are in the works. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/old-black-magic"][B]That Old Black Magic[/B] - 12/07/2015[/URL] Once again, another UA that bored me. I like it when UA is used as tool to launch big ideas out to the community for feedback, not to provide a handful of options for a product release. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/kits-old"][B]Kits of Old[/B] - 01/04/2016[/URL] Now, this is a return to a great UA article. I'm really looking forward to seeing an eventual update for this one. [URL="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/psionics-and-mystic-%E2%80%93-take-two"][B]Psionics and the Mystic[/B] - 02/01/2016[/URL] Another great UA, in the form of a great update to an earlier article! Hopefully we'll see another update to the Mystic... maybe a little bit after some updates for other articles. Does anyone else have a strong opinion on the updates that they'd like to see next? [/QUOTE]

Verification