Unearthed Arcana: Cleric, Druid, Wizard Options

In another new Unearthed Arcana (these things are coming out fast right now!) the cleric receives a new Divine Domain option: the Twilight Domain; the druid gains a new Druid Circle option: the Circle of Wildfire; and the wizard gains a new Arcane Tradition feature: Onomancy, the magic of true names.

safe_image.php.jpg
 
Russ Morrissey

Comments

Vael

Adventurer
Names are legitimately one of the hardest things in DnD. I'm not even joking. A poor name choice for a PC can be frustrating. I remember in 4e, we had a Thri-Kreen Rogue. The player took a name off the list of example names, "Pik-ik-cha". And of course, we all called him "Pikachu". If the player had had access to more than the 14 names in the racial write-up, he might have found something better.

So, for me, lists of names are important, and you really can't have too many. Sure, there are others out there, so what? They're fun for a quick perusal, I go through a few when I'm hunting for names. I've used some online name generators, but generally prefer lists like the one in Xanathar's. The more, the merrier, I say.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Names are legitimately one of the hardest things in DnD. I'm not even joking. A poor name choice for a PC can be frustrating. I remember in 4e, we had a Thri-Kreen Rogue. The player took a name off the list of example names, "Pik-ik-cha". And of course, we all called him "Pikachu". If the player had had access to more than the 14 names in the racial write-up, he might have found something better.

So, for me, lists of names are important, and you really can't have too many. Sure, there are others out there, so what? They're fun for a quick perusal, I go through a few when I'm hunting for names. I've used some online name generators, but generally prefer lists like the one in Xanathar's. The more, the merrier, I say.
That's an important point: nobody is arguing that the names tables were absolutely needed, people are saying they were fun and useful. That is not the same thing. Most things in Xanathar werent really needed: knots tying rules, sleeping in armor, how to count squares on a map etc. Those things werent vital to the game, and I doubt players were clamoring for rules on how to tie a knot, but I'm sure many people actually found them fun and/or useful.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
Names are legitimately one of the hardest things in DnD. I'm not even joking. A poor name choice for a PC can be frustrating. I remember in 4e, we had a Thri-Kreen Rogue. The player took a name off the list of example names, "Pik-ik-cha". And of course, we all called him "Pikachu". If the player had had access to more than the 14 names in the racial write-up, he might have found something better.

So, for me, lists of names are important, and you really can't have too many. Sure, there are others out there, so what? They're fun for a quick perusal, I go through a few when I'm hunting for names. I've used some online name generators, but generally prefer lists like the one in Xanathar's. The more, the merrier, I say.
Xanathar's also gave you at least pronounceable names.
Xanathar's gives me Theriatis, Aramil, Dayereth, Beiro, Enialis as potential names.

An online fantasy game generator game me the following -> Celorfin Elelwel Mothilbor Celodhir Arelel Gonare Gwionaeli Toranthing Odrelel Fingildior.
How do you even pronounce half of that?
 

Mistwell

Hero
There's been this obsession with wanting a "Generalist" Wizard even though the main reason for it's existence has been rendered obsolete in 5e as all Wizards get access to all schools of magic now.

Every time some "Generalist" gets brought up: Traditions are like University degrees. And being a "Generalist" is like getting a "General Studies" degree.
Liberal Arts degree is what it's called. And I still want a generalist wizard. One who can swap spells in a shorter period of time, or make quick scrolls for free from their spells known that only they can use, or who gets bonus out of combat spells added to their spellbook every level, etc..
 

Al'Kelhar

Explorer
True Name spell list needs to include a lot more party-friendly spells and less enemy focused one. There is tension in your allies giving you their true names, and tension in using that true name outloud when foes are near, and that needs to be played up more by adding some really beneficial buffs to the list.
As we Aussies say, "yeah, nah". Balancing crunchy benefits with fluff detriments is, generally-speaking, poor design (and I thought disappeared from D&D with 2E). This would entirely rely on the DM to ensure any "misuses" of the PCs' "true names" came home to roost.

IMHO, the Onomancer as an archetype is not about helping allies - it's about obtaining great power over others. It should be a master de-buffer and controller of enemies.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar
 

phantomK9

Explorer
The more Wizard sub-classes they print, the more I wish the Wizard had a two factor leveling.
Much like the Warlock has Patron and Pact boon, Wizards could choose their School Specialty (or generalist) and their Sub-class. A Diviner Onomancer would be a different character than an Evocation Onomancer.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
when I was looking for names for my Deep Gnomes I just picked Polish names.

An online fantasy game generator game me the following -> Celorfin Elelwel Mothilbor Celodhir Arelel Gonare Gwionaeli Toranthing Odrelel Fingildior.
How do you even pronounce half of that?
"See-lore-finn"
"El-el-well"
"Moth-ill-boar"
"See-lodd-here"
"Arr-el-el"
"Go-nah-rey"
"Guii-yonn-ey-lee"
"Torr-ann-thing"
"Odd-rey-lel"
"Fing-gil-dee-yore"

Not that hard.
 

Mistwell

Hero
As we Aussies say, "yeah, nah". Balancing crunchy benefits with fluff detriments is, generally-speaking, poor design (and I thought disappeared from D&D with 2E). This would entirely rely on the DM to ensure any "misuses" of the PCs' "true names" came home to roost.

IMHO, the Onomancer as an archetype is not about helping allies - it's about obtaining great power over others. It should be a master de-buffer and controller of enemies.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar
Already one section of the subclass (casting bless) does in fact focus on allies. I am just wondering why the other part doesn't, except for perhaps the Sympathy option of Resonant. But it's already part of that subclass earlier.
 

Ravenbrook

Villager
I never understood the concept of "true names." Once a true name is revealed, wouldn't it be very likely that at least some of them would be broadcast throughout the multiverse and practically everyone would know them?
After all, wizards and other magic users have rapid ways of disseminating information.
 

Al'Kelhar

Explorer
Already one section of the subclass (casting bless) does in fact focus on allies. I am just wondering why the other part doesn't, except for perhaps the Sympathy option of Resonant. But it's already part of that subclass earlier.
Yep, I agree there might be design space for the wizard class to have a subclass focussed on assisting allies (which seems more generally to be assigned to the bard and cleric classes). I just don't think that, at least insofar as "truenamers" are represented in myth and fiction, that helping allies out is their schtick. They tend to be all about subjugating others and turning those others to their will through the use of "name magic", even if sometimes for ostensibly beneficial ends.

For the Onomancer, as I think I mentioned upstream, I reckon the bless option for the Fateful Naming class feature should be replaced with hex.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar
 
Last edited:
I think the most essential fix for the Onomancer is to change the level required to magically force the revelation of a true name to 21.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
Does an AoE like Fireball target someone simply because they are in the area? Or are they not targets so we can't apply Resonants? (And if it does count, does that mean we can make someone not in the area take the Fireball damage with the Sympathy one?)
I don't think Anyone answered this.

Fireball is kind of a weird spell when it comes to this kind of ruling.
Yes it Targets (official spell mechanic here) an area on the grid, and that is where the spell happens, however to quote the text of the spell itself:
Fireball said:
A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save
Which means everyone who is hit by a Fireball counts as a target of the spell. This is a unique property of the Fireball spell thanks to the wording of the spell.

Lightning Bolt, the Luigi to Fireball's Mario, says this instead:
Lightning Bolt said:
A creature takes 8d6 lightning damage on a failed save
Now, you might think this is mere pedantry and the words are interchangeable, but it has been referenced in a ruling: Spell with one target
Jeremy Crawford said:
Look carefully at the text of fireball: every creature affected is called a target.
And this has been backed up by the official Sage Advice:
Sage Advice said:
Some spells (like eldritch blast ) target a creature. Some others (like fire bolt ) target objects too. Does this mean that I can’t attack the door with eldritch blast?
The target specifications (creature, object, or something else) in spells are intentional.
In contrast, a spell like Darkness targets only areas or objects, and affects creatures who wander into it's zone, who are not targets themselves. Which means a Resonant is off the table for them.
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top