Unearthed Arcana Recent Unearthed Arcana: Would you play the new options?

[jgsugden]

I've been reading the new options for Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids and Fighters with interest, but I've been asking myself a question at the end of each article and the answer has consistently been no. The question: "If I was making a new character of this class, would I rather play one of these new builds instead of a build from the PHB?"

In an ideal world, the answer each of us give to that question would be "I'm not sure", or "Sometimes". The new builds should not overshadow the PHB, and the PHB should not overshadow these new builds. They should be merely good candidates.

However, consistently, I find that the new builds have flaws that keep them from being candidates that I might play. Some are really underpowered to the point that they'd frustrate me. Others fill a very narrow niche that does not interest me. Others have features that would be difficult to use in regular play (any creature within 10 of you takes damage when you rage means you always need to be far from your allies, requiring multiple d20 rolls to deal damage once, etc...)

If I were starting a barbarian today, I'd start a Totem barbarian. Bard? Lore. Cleric? Light. Druid? Moon. Fighter? Battlemaster.

How many of us would make use of the new options in these UA articles if they were starting a (3rd level) PC of that class today?

If the answer is that very few of these builds will actually see play, one goal of the articles (to get playtest feedback for new ideas) is not going to work out too well.

Thoughts?

 

[manduck]

In most cases, I would no to the UA choices. I tend to like the options in the PHB a bit better. The one exception for me is barbarian. I actually found some of the UA options interesting. The idea of playing a dwarven barbarian who can call on the power of his ancestors sounded like a fun concept that sprang to mind when I read the UA article.

 

[pukunui]

I'd like to play a Forge or Grave cleric, a Twilight druid, and maybe even a Zealot barbarian. Not too keen on the rest. I'd be interested in the Arcane Archer if it wasn't so limited.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd consider both forge and protection domains if I wanted to play a cleric. Not that keen on the druid release, the barbarian ua had some interesting subclasses, I quite like the storm barbarian (not sure on the subclass name). The fighter ua had 4 subclasses, all of which I would be interested in playing.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

Both the new BM ranger class and the arcane archer are classes I want to play. Problem is that I'm almost always the DM

 

[manduck]

I forgot about the UA ranger. In that case, I would play the UA ranger over the PHB ranger. So I guess I have two exceptions where UA is concerned.

 

[TwoSix]

A few of them, like the samurai or the forge cleric. In my mental queue of "concepts to play next", they're still behind several other third-party options.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So far, the Knight and the Samurai are the only subclasses which engage my attention as a player, and which I might consider including in a campaign as a DM.

Both of them would need some editing first. In particular, the wording on the Knight's reaction abilities is atrocious, and it's unclear whether his "impose disadvantage" ability is at-will or per-short-rest.

I view both of them as interesting alternatives to the Champion. Lots of at-will abilities (especially the Knight), a clear niche, and no magic at all nor funny dice pool resources--I like it. If you were running a low-magic campaign (e.g. only 1% of all humans, and 25% of PCs, will have the magical talent to ever become spellcasters), or one with lots of old-style Magic Resistance foes (ones that ignore magic entirely, not just get advantages on saving throws), it might be fun to include these classes as options for variety's sake.

As an aside: Samurai is a bit problematic in a way in that it kind of obsoletes the Barbarian (resistance to damage when it counts, advantage on all attacks, heavy armor, AND four attacks per round? Yes, please) but meh, that's because Barbarians are lame and extremely front-loaded. Anyone who doesn't already share my assessment of Barbarians as "not worth continuing past 5th level at the very most" is probably enjoying Barbarian enough to not feel threatened by a Samurai either.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How many of us would make use of the new options in these UA articles if they were starting a (3rd level) PC of that class today?

If you're actually asking the question, yeah, I might, actually. That's kinda a big deal for me personally, since, while I delight in running 5e, the PH, SCAG and most UA options up to this point haven't been too enticing. It's mostly a matter of being a jaded long-timer picking over a menu that that's very retro. It's nostalgic in its familiarity which makes me happy, but I've done it all to death long since - and the few things that only harken back 6 or 12 years rather 20+ fall short of their recent incarnations.

The ancestor & storm barbarians and the Knight do also fall short in some ways, but they manage to be interesting in spite of that. I could imagine playing a Knight more than an hour without getting completely bored. Maybe not a lot longer (the Essentials Knight(Fighter) was engaging for a few sessions, and it had stances & utilities the Knight Fighter-archetype lacks), but it delivers better on it's predecessors than the Battlemaster or PDK (assuming they were really shooting for the Weaponmaster or Warlord, respectively).

 

[Shiroiken]

All comments assume the mechanics are tweaked

I liked the Barbarian options, and would consider all of them when building a character. The Bard options were meh to me, which is sad because they desperately need more options. The only one of the Cleric I liked was Protection, because it's an attempt to mesh the Cleric and Paladin (hopefully without stepping on the Paladin), but Cleric has the smallest need of new options. Circle of the Shepard caught my attention, but the name is soooo stupid. Generally hate the Fighter options, especially the samurai (which is social caste, dangnabit).