Unearthed Arcana Spells & Magic Tattoos: New Unearthed Arcana

WotC has posted a new Unearthed Arcana called Spells & Magic Tattoos. "This document provides a magical miscellany: new spells and a new type of magic item, magic tattoos. Most of the spells focus on an alternative style of summoning: conjuring forth a spirit that assumes a physical form you customize to suit the situation."

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I can get behind the spirit summoning spells. A lot of groups I see would have a problem with, "Use the Monster Manual, and pick a monster from the list". Which is probably why a lot of them having casting times of 1 minute, because they could slow the game down picking and choosing and trying to get the stats ready.

Acid stream is of little damage, but it's a cheap way of potentially making an enemy waste an action getting the acid off.

I like the tattoos, even though I don't think they need to reprint that attunement entry for every single tattoo.
Of other tattoos they should include.
-One with wings which give a fly speed.
-You learn a new cantrip (unlimited use, rather than once like Spellwrought).

 

[Weiley31]

Tattoos are also a big thing in Planescape. Planescape:Torment has tattoo magic item slots instead of armour slots.

Tattoos+Revived Subclass.
Keep this up and we can really go full on Nameless One.

 

[Weiley31]

Fur is easy - shave, get the tat, the fur grows back.

Feathers are more problematic, and it would depend on how the DM has decided the tats are obtained. They might rule that the magic ink can be injected into the base of the feathers, or use one of the Variant: Body Modification suggestions.

Magical Quill Pens that Aarachoka use to make spiral outlines on feathers. Or they literally pluck a feather from themselves and wear it like an adornment or something.

 

[Gadget]

Hmmm....Interesting. I've never really been into tattoo magic, but those summon spells look pretty nice. It seems the devs are finally getting a handle on how they want summoning to work. But do we really need a Summon Shadow Spirit and a Summon Undead Spirit? Seems to be a lot of overlap there, at least thematically.

 

[Marandahir]

Hmmm....Interesting. I've never really been into tattoo magic, but those summon spells look pretty nice. It seems the devs are finally getting a handle on how they want summoning to work. But do we really need a Summon Shadow Spirit and a Summon Undead Spirit? Seems to be a lot of overlap there, at least thematically.

I disagree. The Shadowfell has many of the undead, but they are not one and the same. Shadowfell entities are all sorts of gothic horror - think more Ravenloft. Undead could be from the Abyss too – remember that Orcus is the Demon Prince of the Undead, or simply be living dead arising from the material plane.

The Summoning of a Shadow Spirit is drawing forth a planar entity. Summon undead is more similar to Summon bestial spirit - it's a class of beings, but not a planar alignment. This is a bit tougher to explain in 5e since they merge creature class with creature origin. In the past you could have Elemental Demons and Elemental Humanoids and Celestial Humanoids and Fey humanoids and Fey Giants and Shadow Giants and Elemental Giants and Natural Giants… Now planar origin is mixed up with creature type, so elves are not exactly Fey because they need to be humanoids, and Giants are Giants regardless of where they came from…

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Acid stream is of little damage, but it's a cheap way of potentially making an enemy waste an action getting the acid off.

Actually, it could do quite insane damage for a 1st level spell - 30D4 - if the target is unable or not intelligent enough to wipe it off.

Really good against destructible objects. Huge steel vault door? No problem!

 

[Samloyal23]

I like the idea of dyeing feathers. A feathered creature would not be using what could technically be called tattoos, as they are not using a needle to inject dye into the skin, but would be using their own equivalent to a tattoo that functions the same way. That actually makes sense.

 

[MarkB]

Really good against destructible objects. Huge steel vault door? No problem!

Except that it specifically targets creatures.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Except that it specifically targets creatures.

It's an AoE, it would be difficult to justify how it manages to not hit any objects in the area.

 

[dave2008]

It's an AoE, it would be difficult to justify how it manages to not hit any objects in the area.

Its magic and only works on creatures like the spell says. Didn't seem hard to justify to me.

 

[Marandahir]

Its magic and only works on creatures like the spell says. Didn't seem hard to justify to me.

That might or might not be something to give feedback on. From my reading, it SHOULD target everything, but what does that mean for objects – does it melt away that marble column in the middle of the room?

The text of the spell is nebulous. It says that a stream of acid eminates from you in a 30' x 5' line. And then it says each creature caught in that stream has to Dex save or get covered in acid.

The wording sounds like it covers everything in acid in that stream, and if you're a creature, you can try to make a Dex save to avoid it, or you can use your action to scrape or wash the acid off yourself or another creature.

Normally, if a spell only targets creatures, it would say something like, "a stream of acid eminates from you, targetting all creatures within a 30' x 5' line of your choice." Here, the stream's existence seems independent of the effect on creatures, and the spell doesn't say what it does to objects.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That might or might not be something to give feedback on. From my reading, it SHOULD target everything, but what does that mean for objects – does it melt away that marble column in the middle of the room?

The text of the spell is nebulous. It says that a stream of acid eminates from you in a 30' x 5' line. And then it says each creature caught in that stream has to Dex save or get covered in acid.

The wording sounds like it covers everything in acid in that stream, and if you're a creature, you can try to make a Dex save to avoid it, or you can use your action to scrape or wash the acid off yourself or another creature.

Yes, if you compare it to the wording of Fireball, each creature in the AoE gets a dex save, but each target takes damage.

Normally, if a spell only targets creatures, it would say something like, "a stream of acid eminates from you, targetting all creatures within a 30' x 5' line of your choice." Here, the stream's existence seems independent of the effect on creatures, and the spell doesn't say what it does to objects.

Yup, if the spell only affects creatures you should be able to exclude friendly creatures.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Today, I found love.

We were just talking last week about how the creatures summoning trope was not that well covered in 5e.

Now we're good.

Time for a pet class

 

[dave2008]

I get that on one level, but I'd really like to see more unique spells for the other classes, since wizards already have the most spells, the most unique spells, and the most spells that other classes have.

It's just been an annoyance stuck in my craw since they got Steel Wind Strike, which was a cool ranger spell until I realized it was really a good wizard spell that high level ranger's might one day get to copy.

Personally, I think wizards should be able to learn any arcane spell, with the enough research and time to learn the spell, That is a unique feature of wizards IMO. I would probably give wizards a list of spells (common wizards spells) and them give them a trait or something that allows them to learn spells from another class during downtime and with a cost, or something similar.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally, I think wizards should be able to learn any arcane spell, with the enough research and time to learn the spell, That is a unique feature of wizards IMO. I would probably give wizards a list of spells (common wizards spells) and them give them a trait or something that allows them to learn spells from another class during downtime and with a cost, or something similar.

I really hate the notion of that being a wizard thing, tbh. IMO, the Wizard should be the only one that can do it quickly, but anyone should be able to learn any spell I’d they invest the on the time, on scale of workdays per spell level, and maybe train an appropriate skill.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I really hate the notion of that being a wizard thing, tbh. IMO, the Wizard should be the only one that can do it quickly, but anyone should be able to learn any spell I’d they invest the on the time, on scale of workdays per spell level, and maybe train an appropriate skill.

I really liked this approach in 3E, doing it via spell research. There weren't no limits -- a wizard's version of healing was going to be pretty mediocre -- but it felt like a good tool to empower players who really wanted to do something not listed in the books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I really liked this approach in 3E, doing it via spell research. There weren't no limits -- a wizard's version of healing was going to be pretty mediocre -- but it felt like a good tool to empower players who really wanted to do something not listed in the books.

My buddy and I are working on a system for ritual spells specifically where if you have prof arcana, religion, or nature (depending on the spell), you can learn a spell with the ritual tag. It starts at 8 hours per spell level, and higher tiers of spells increase the per level time, so trying to learn level 9 spells is an endeavor that might take months.

 

[dave2008]

I really hate the notion of that being a wizard thing, tbh. IMO, the Wizard should be the only one that can do it quickly, but anyone should be able to learn any spell I’d they invest the on the time, on scale of workdays per spell level, and maybe train an appropriate skill.

Interesting, I guess that is not how I view it. To me, wizards learn magic through research and study. That is their thing. A sorcerer has it in their blood, they can only develop within the limits of that (in fact I think they should have more limited spells based on their bloodline). If they wanted to "research" other magic, that would be akin to multiclassing into a wizard. Similar for the warlock. So sure, a warlock or sorcerer could learn other spells; however, that process essential makes them a wizard. A wizards is someone who learns spells via research and study. So by learning that way, you are learning the wizard way.

That being said, I don't hate your view. It is just different from how I construct my campaign worlds and that is OK.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Interesting, I guess that is not how I view it. To me, wizards learn magic through research and study. That is their thing. A sorcerer has it in their blood, they can only develop within the limits of that (in fact I think they should have more limited spells based on their bloodline). If they wanted to "research" other magic, that would be akin to multiclassing into a wizard. Similar for the warlock. So sure, a warlock or sorcerer could learn other spells; however, that process essential makes them a wizard. A wizards is someone who learns spells via research and study. So by learning that way, you are learning the wizard way.

That beings said, I don't hate your view. It is just different from how I construct my campaign worlds and that is OK.

If the game mechanics didn’t Bork characters that multiclass, I’d perhaps be fine with multiclassing being required to learn other classes spells. But it does.

Luckily you can dabble via magic initiate (IMO a weakish feat that overvalues breadth of choice, but not enough so as to make it a bad feat) and Ritual Caster, but you me, if someone studies arcane magic they needn’t automatically be mechanically a wizard in order to do so.

I don’t really understand the notion of a sorcerer being locked into a short list of spells, either. Why would innate magic mean that? I’d imagine it would mean the opposite. And I think the designers intended the opposite when they gave sorcerers meta magic and sorcery points.

I mean to each their own, but IMO a type of magic should be more like a skill than being wholly owned by a class.

 

[dave2008]

If the game mechanics didn’t Bork characters that multiclass, I’d perhaps be fine with multiclassing being required to learn other classes spells. But it does.

To be clear, I am not talking about game mechanics. Just the concept. If you learn magic from study and research in my view / world - that makes you a wizard. It is what defines wizards.

I don’t really understand the notion of a sorcerer being locked into a short list of spells, either. Why would innate magic mean that? I’d imagine it would mean the opposite. And I think the designers intended the opposite when they gave sorcerers meta magic and sorcery points.

Again, I am not talking about mechanics. I agree that size of list has nothing to do with. However, I think it makes sense for the flavor of sorcerer to have a more narrow focus of magic types, but more variability with that type. For instance, I would love a dragon sorcerer to pick an dragon ancestry, so I sorcerer with red dragon blood would cast only (or almost only) fire magic, but be able to use metamagic or whatever to cast more variations of fire magic (change the shape, range, targets, damage, etc). If feel like there is a lot fiction that supports this type of innate ability restriction. In fact, I think there is more support for something like this than the generalized D&D wizard.

I mean to each their own, but IMO a type of magic should be more like a skill than being wholly owned by a class.

I agree for a wizard, I just don't agree for warlocks and sorcerers. In my view they use magic completely differently. I want my classes to be distinct, not more of the same.