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

[mrpopstar]

I do find myself wishing that they'd focus on getting all of the classes up to par in terms of concept and mechanics before tinkering with the classes that are relatively perfect.
The fighter, ranger, and sorcerer seem to be low-hanging fruit in terms of identity, uniqueness, and expression within the system. Let's come to a consensus on those, then we can talk about layering options.

 

[Waterbizkit]

Aside from a few odds & ends I feel need a bit of cleaning up (wording on some of the abilities mostly) I like most of what I've seen from the recent UA articles. I'd not only play a character using the UA, but as a DM I'd happily let my players play one of the options in the articles.

If I were going to make a Barbarian today, it'd be a Zealot. A Bard? It'd be a toss up between Lore and Glamour. I'd play a Forge Cleric in a heartbeat, hell it'd definitely be the pick out of the whole bunch. The Druids I was slightly less enamored with but Circle of Dreams would definitely be in the mix. And as for the fighter? The Knight and Samurai would be in the running with the Champion.

To me these are meant to be played and tested. It doesn't mean I'd force them down my players throats or feel overly compelled to play one myself, but the option would always be on the table.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Let me add:

I like 5E Fighters, and I think they can be great fun as tanks using options like Push/Grapple/Disarm, but the Knight adds a new way to tank that doesn't necessarily require grabbing your enemy physically with an empty hand. From that perspective it's a refreshing change of pace. It's not entirely clear what the disadvantage represents, but it seems to be some kind of psychological distraction (similar to Compelled Duel or Panache) that centers their attention on you, and it doesn't work on things that can't be frightened--that's enough detail to make it not seem entirely gamist to me, which is good.

It's kind of cool to see a Fighter be a better tank in some situations than a Death Monk.

 

[gweinel]

I was considering the recent subclasses from UA articles and i find em to be inferior than the previous ones. I think Wizards don't sell well what they are offering. It seems to me to be written more hasty than the old ones. From all these subclasses the only ones that found somehow acceptable were the forge cleric and the arcane archer. Even these two i wouldn't play them. All the other were pure disappointment for me.

ps. i don't include the new beastmaster ranger in these. The new beastmaster is inmo is fantastic and i would play him over the ranger in ph

 

[mrpopstar]

Let me add:

I like 5E Fighters, and I think they can be great fun as tanks using options like Push/Grapple/Disarm, but the Knight adds a new way to tank that doesn't necessarily require grabbing your enemy physically with an empty hand. From that perspective it's a refreshing change of pace. It's not entirely clear what the disadvantage represents, but it seems to be some kind of psychological distraction (similar to Compelled Duel or Panache) that centers their attention on you, and it doesn't work on things that can't be frightened--that's enough detail to make it not seem entirely gamist to me, which is good.

It's kind of cool to see a Fighter be a better tank in some situations than a Death Monk.

The disadvantage represents the knight's menacing, which implies that she's harrying the marked target.

I concur! The presentation serves the story, not the game, which I appreciate.

 

[Bawylie]

Yes


-Brad

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yep. I'm not sold on the bards, but every other subclass-based UA we've gotten in the last couple of months has at least one option I would consider. I'm not saying I for sure would take them over standard PH stuff--it depends on the character concept--but I'd at least think about them.

(I have a short high-level "anything goes" campaign coming up where I'm playing a bugbear who used to lead a nomadic nation of goblins--sort of a Mongol-like setup--and I'm seriously contemplating making him a samurai instead of the initially planned battle master.)

 

[MechaPilot]

Yeah. I would use the UA options. Not all of them, of course, but only those which inspire a character concept, or fit with an existing character concept, I could get excited about.

On the other side of the coin, as a DM I have already told my players they can use the UA subclass options.

 

[CapnZapp]

The new Ranger is good because it actually gives us something we needed.

Most of the UA subclasses feels like they're there because they fill in the blanks. More combinations of existing stuff, without any actually new stuff. Not because they actually give us anything new.

That's not entirely true. The Arcane Archer does sow a seed of promise. Now it just needs to be rejigged from a one-trick pony (or three-trick or whatever) into a true workhorse.

But just recombining existing bits of features doesn't do it for me.

 

[Lanliss]

Fighter is the first class they have hit that I have an interest in, and I like both the Arcane Archer and the Knight from it. My favorite class is Monk, so hoping next week will be loaded with good ones.