Unearthed Arcana Poll: How will the US Class Feature Variants be brought to Market?

[RSIxidor]

I don't understand the argument some have that a PHB2 or revised PHB type book would be too soon. 2E had its second version of the PHB 6 years after release. PHB 3rd had its revised PHB 3 years after release, then PHB2 3 years after that. 4th edition PHB2 came in the second year of the game, and PHB3 the year after that. It could be argued that the fundamental systems of 5E allows for longer periods before a second or revised PHB needs to be released, but I'd argue that 6 years is plenty of time for it to make sense.

Of course, if these new rules aren't intended to be fully incorporated into the base classes, then I could see this being more like a Xanathar's type book full of more granular options than what came before.

To me, it still feels like they're looking at some of the fundamental issues many tables have with each class and seeing if these solutions might work for those tables. To me, that points more towards a revised PHB than a XGTE type book.

I think the one other argument is that there's been less releases each year compared to previous editions, and that it makes the 6 years feel less than it is. That's an argument I don't really have a defense against.

 

[Salthorae]

I don't understand the argument some have that a PHB2 or revised PHB type book would be too soon. 2E had its second version of the PHB 6 years after release. PHB 3rd had its revised PHB 3 years after release, then PHB2 3 years after that. 4th edition PHB2 came in the second year of the game, and PHB3 the year after that. It could be argued that the fundamental systems of 5E allows for longer periods before a second or revised PHB needs to be released, but I'd argue that 6 years is plenty of time for it to make sense.

Of course, if these new rules aren't intended to be fully incorporated into the base classes, then I could see this being more like a Xanathar's type book full of more granular options than what came before.

I'm pretty sure that WotC has said explicitly that they're not going to do a "PHB2" for 5e. I hope they stick to not doing it.

The youtube interviews in the last day with Crawford confirms that these are nto intended to be fully incorporated into the base classes.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I do not mean to invalidate your feelings, but Ravnica was a big success for WotC. The Subclasses may or may not be in future books, but it isn't particularly clear that "people" are mad about it, or that the Class material was all that "people" wanted, since the book sold like hot cakes.

The more important point right now is, we have ~34 pages of materials, much of which might not make it into a book, and no new PC options in the pipeline for this round of testing. Whatever the product is, it is not going to be as option heavy as XGtE. The closest equivalent we have so far is the Setting books: this is more in line with SCAG for page count.

I definitely think that a setting book is possible, but I still find it less likely than a setting book (unless it is a meta-setting, most likely Planescape).

You're citing how there's only 34 pages of rules so far, but Xanathar's actually only has 66 pages of rules for PCs, the rest of the book being tools for the DM and spells. It's technically less than 66 if you don't include art and side-bars.

And I see no reason why the UA content is going to stop getting released today; we could see more subclasses or even more out-of-the-box material released over the next couple of months. If that's the case, a Xanathar's becomes even more likely.

Of course, the "DM's material," may technically be "meta-setting material" for Magic the Gathering or Planescape (or even Spelljammer). So this could technically be a setting book and a Xanathar's at the same time.

 

[Parmandur]

I definitely think that a setting book is possible, but I still find it less likely than a setting book (unless it is a meta-setting, most likely Planescape).

You're citing how there's only 34 pages of rules so far, but Xanathar's actually only has 66 pages of rules for PCs, the rest of the book being tools for the DM and spells. It's technically less than 66 if you don't include art and side-bars.

And I see no reason why the UA content is going to stop getting released today; we could see more subclasses or even more out-of-the-box material released over the next couple of months. If that's the case, a Xanathar's becomes even more likely.

Of course, the "DM's material," may technically be "meta-setting material" for Magic the Gathering or Planescape (or even Spelljammer). So this could technically be a setting book and a Xanathar's at the same time.

Honestly, we don't have enough info to say anything for sure yet. However, based on what Crawford said in these videos, this is it for the PC option tests this go around, at least for Subclasses and variants.

 

[Mistwell]

I think any claim that the ranger changes are not "core rules" will be met with the derision it deserves.

Then I will deride anyone casting such derision. Any alternate ranger will be optional and not the core rules. You have the core rules. They will not be replaced because you find it to be weaker than you prefer.

 

[Mistwell]

@Paul Farquhar

That WotC could compile all of the scattered character options into a single book (or a single pdf), seems plausible.

It makes the Core +1 rule remain viable.

Also, they clearly want these options to be freely available to all players, but without changing the Players Handbook itself. A compilation can achieve both goals.

Gathering all the scattered rules into one book doesn't make the +1 rule viable, it makes the +1 rule meaningless. The entire point of the rule is so you CANNOT use all the rules from all the different books on one PC for those playing under that rule.

It was not just a "protect people from having to shell out so much money" rules. As specified in the rule, "makes it easier for DMs to know how all the characters in the campaign work. Since a DM in a shared campaign must deal with a broad range of characters, rather than the same characters each week, it can be difficult to track all the interactions and abilities possible through mixing options freely. "

Man I really hope they don't gather all the scattered rules under one book - that invalidates the purpose of the rule, and would be kinda a hit to those who did buy those books.

 

[Parmandur]

Gathering all the scattered rules into one book doesn't make the +1 rule viable, it makes the +1 rule meaningless. The entire point of the rule is so you CANNOT use all the rules from all the different books on one PC for those playing under that rule.

It was not just a "protect people from having to shell out so much money" rules. As specified in the rule, "makes it easier for DMs to know how all the characters in the campaign work. Since a DM in a shared campaign must deal with a broad range of characters, rather than the same characters each week, it can be difficult to track all the interactions and abilities possible through mixing options freely. "

Man I really hope they don't gather all the scattered rules under one book - that invalidates the purpose of the rule, and would be kinda a hit to those who did buy those books.

I'm also not sure what WotC's motivation would be to undermine books they are still actively selling in large quantities.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I wonder about WotC is thinking about to copy those ideas from Pathfinder about class and racial feats, a modular system, more flexible but enough simple.

Maybe we could see a future UA about variant racial traits. (I am wishing to see the gnomes).

The variant classes will be in the core player handbook of the next edition, but we will have to wait some years.

We know nothing about to recover classes from previous editions. The blood hunter should be published in a book, and there is no news about the psionic powers and other settings.

 

[lkj]

As Crawford goes into, these are not "Core Rules," these are options that are meant to be balanced with the PHB options. Their goal for the final product is that two Rangers can be in the same party, one using the PHB material, one using these options, and not have it make a difference to gameplay balance. If they aren't quite at that balance in this document, that is their stated goal for the final product.

There are already rules in the Setting books that require they be purchased (or parts purchased on Beyond), such as the Group Patrons, the Artificer Class, extended magic items rules, the extended faction material in Ravnica, etc. If the book is, for instance, Planescape, that shouldn't be a major concern since the tables that use Homebrew and buy books tend to stick with the core cosmology (that's why they assume the cosmology in the Adventures). A bunch of new player options, and a bunch of Planar monsters, is sufficient to entice a significant number of people. The philosophy they developed for Xanathar's Guide, which served them well, was to make books that don't appeal entirely to targeted groups of people, but have enough for a larger audience to want enough of the material to buy it.

Anyways, time will tell: but apparently we are done with material for the existing Classes now, so the new product has a robust but fairly contained section on Classes.

The thing about the rules in the setting books so far is that-- while they could certainly be used generally-- there was a strong argument for how they were tied to the particular setting (with maybe the exception of the Bladesinger?). It's why I wouldn't be surprised to find psionics rules in a Dark Sun book. Sure, a lot of people will want them outside Dark Sun, but you kind of get why it would be put in that book. WotC have tried to focus heavily on story for both their adventure and setting books, so it seems like rules elements need to have a strong tie-in to the story.

I have a hard time seeing that working with the 'alternative class features'. They are pretty general and don't seem to have any link to a particular setting. Thematically, they seem a better fit for a Xanathar's type book-- a place to expand rules without a strong tie to a given adventure or setting. I'll admit the subclasses we've seen in the prior UA's do seem to hint at some interestingly flavored setting. But maybe the class feature stuff is separate?

Main argument against a Xanathar book is that they might not want to do one for another year. But who knows? The other possibility for the class feature stuff being in a 'setting' book would-- as others have suggested-- be that they would fit well within a book that explores multiple worlds. Then whole book is about expanding options, for settings and everything else. Which maybe would explain the disparate nature of the subclasses they've been exploring?

Anyway, I'm just speculating like everyone else. WotC has done a pretty good job of not giving away their plans beforehand. So I'm ready to be surprised.

AD

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Maybe we could see a future UA about variant racial traits. (I am wishing to see the gnomes).

Pretty sure variant racial traits are just subraces.