Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
One Year of Unearthed Arcana
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6819418" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>We haven't actually used any of the UA options yet in our game, but I did make some of these options available. Even if not all the stuff got me interested, but I certainly always love to read a new UA article...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not interested in Eberron as a campaign setting at all.</p><p></p><p>I generally don't like adding more PC races by default, but I may allow any of these races in a kitchen sink game. None of them I particularly liked tho. </p><p></p><p>I didn't like the whole Artificer concept and implementation. </p><p></p><p>Always hated Action Points.</p><p></p><p>The only part I actually liked is the Dragonmark feats. Unfortunately, they are not well balanced, at least in the sense that some of them are straight better than the Magic Initiate feat.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>medium</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>none</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Loved it, possibly my favourite UA article!</p><p></p><p>I totally liked the concept and the implementation seemed fairly good. Unfortunately I haven't yet the chance to try them out in an actual game.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>very high</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>all</em> (but this is DM's stuff).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Boring article, I have been creating new classes and subclasses for my 5e conversion of Rokugan, and I did not need these no-brainer guidelines to do so. But certainly giving them a read doesn't do any harm.</p><p></p><p>No interest in Ranger variants. On the other hand, I really welcomed the Favored Soul subclass, as I think in general the Sorcerer needed more subclasses.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>Favored Soul</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We rarely do waterborn adventures at all, but all the material here seemed very usable in all campaigns to me! </p><p></p><p>Again, I don't like adding more PC races by default, but wouldn't object to a player wanting to play this version of a Minotaur.</p><p></p><p>Didn't particularly like the Mariner fighting style, but thought it was at least balanced.</p><p></p><p>Loved the subclasses instead!</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>Mariner</em>, <em>Swashbuckler</em>, <em>Storm Sorcerer</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Small and useless article to me, as I dislike the first two variants, and we already used custom alignments (but these guidelines were particularly useless).</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>none</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Never been a fan of psionics, but I guess I could maybe introduce them in my game is done properly. At least this first implementation sounded interesting and with good potential.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>medium</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>none</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This was awesome to read, but sadly irrelevant for us since we are only interested in fairly traditional fantasy settings, not modern. It might be possible to adapt some spells or more, but it's not worth the effort yet.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>none</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not going to change the default Ranger for any reason. In addition, I hated almost all these ideas.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>none</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Liked the attempt at bringing prestige classes back into the game, much better ideas than in 3e but still falling short of what would be the ideal case. </p><p></p><p>I fairly liked the example prestige class, except for the fact that it seemed it would better deliver as a series of feats than an actual class.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>medium</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>medium</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>none</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I consider the two fighting styles broken, but the three subclasses seemed awesome.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>Deep Stalker Ranger</em>, <em>Shadow Sorcerer</em>, <em>Undying Light Warlock</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Small but good.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>all</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Some concern about these implementations, but otherwise another set of immediately usable material.</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>high</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>all</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>More or less the same as the previous psionics round...</p><p></p><p>Personal appreciation: <em>medium</em>.</p><p>Usefulness potential: <em>low</em>.</p><p>Made available in our game: <em>none</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6819418, member: 1465"] We haven't actually used any of the UA options yet in our game, but I did make some of these options available. Even if not all the stuff got me interested, but I certainly always love to read a new UA article... Not interested in Eberron as a campaign setting at all. I generally don't like adding more PC races by default, but I may allow any of these races in a kitchen sink game. None of them I particularly liked tho. I didn't like the whole Artificer concept and implementation. Always hated Action Points. The only part I actually liked is the Dragonmark feats. Unfortunately, they are not well balanced, at least in the sense that some of them are straight better than the Magic Initiate feat. Personal appreciation: [I]low[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]medium[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]none[/I]. Loved it, possibly my favourite UA article! I totally liked the concept and the implementation seemed fairly good. Unfortunately I haven't yet the chance to try them out in an actual game. Personal appreciation: [I]very high[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]high[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]all[/I] (but this is DM's stuff). Boring article, I have been creating new classes and subclasses for my 5e conversion of Rokugan, and I did not need these no-brainer guidelines to do so. But certainly giving them a read doesn't do any harm. No interest in Ranger variants. On the other hand, I really welcomed the Favored Soul subclass, as I think in general the Sorcerer needed more subclasses. Personal appreciation: [I]low[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]low[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]Favored Soul[/I]. We rarely do waterborn adventures at all, but all the material here seemed very usable in all campaigns to me! Again, I don't like adding more PC races by default, but wouldn't object to a player wanting to play this version of a Minotaur. Didn't particularly like the Mariner fighting style, but thought it was at least balanced. Loved the subclasses instead! Personal appreciation: [I]high[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]high[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]Mariner[/I], [I]Swashbuckler[/I], [I]Storm Sorcerer[/I]. Small and useless article to me, as I dislike the first two variants, and we already used custom alignments (but these guidelines were particularly useless). Personal appreciation: [I]low[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]low[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]none[/I]. Never been a fan of psionics, but I guess I could maybe introduce them in my game is done properly. At least this first implementation sounded interesting and with good potential. Personal appreciation: [I]medium[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]low[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]none[/I]. This was awesome to read, but sadly irrelevant for us since we are only interested in fairly traditional fantasy settings, not modern. It might be possible to adapt some spells or more, but it's not worth the effort yet. Personal appreciation: [I]high[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]low[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]none[/I]. Not going to change the default Ranger for any reason. In addition, I hated almost all these ideas. Personal appreciation: [I]low[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]low[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]none[/I]. Liked the attempt at bringing prestige classes back into the game, much better ideas than in 3e but still falling short of what would be the ideal case. I fairly liked the example prestige class, except for the fact that it seemed it would better deliver as a series of feats than an actual class. Personal appreciation: [I]medium[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]medium[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]none[/I]. I consider the two fighting styles broken, but the three subclasses seemed awesome. Personal appreciation: [I]high[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]high[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]Deep Stalker Ranger[/I], [I]Shadow Sorcerer[/I], [I]Undying Light Warlock[/I]. Small but good. Personal appreciation: [I]high[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]high[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]all[/I]. Some concern about these implementations, but otherwise another set of immediately usable material. Personal appreciation: [I]high[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]high[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]all[/I]. More or less the same as the previous psionics round... Personal appreciation: [I]medium[/I]. Usefulness potential: [I]low[/I]. Made available in our game: [I]none[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
One Year of Unearthed Arcana
Top