Unearthed Arcana 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.

 

[Dire Bare]

Why the sudden releases of multiple class options in UA after months of little to no content?

Are these for the upcoming Eberron book? Or Perhaps a (unannounced) Guide to Everything 2 (or something similar)

Or is WOTC feeling the pressure to create more player driven content with the release of Pathfinder 2 (and its crunchier approach?)

Why can't it be just as simple as, "Hey, we have these subclasses ready for eyeballs now, so here they are"? Why does it matter?

 

[Yaarel]

Animal companions as class features are dumb. They should just be their own character with level and full features and just be counted as an extra PC for the purpose of encounter balancing. And if you want to make a class good at teaming up with a such character, give them teamwork oriented features that stack with teamwork oriented features on the animal companion itself, but means they can still team-up with a regular PC.

Yeah, that is how I play it too. If someone wants a pet, then play two characters. I dont use XP, so that isnt even an issue.

But alot of people seem to like the concept of the pet as an extension of class features.

I was just giving that as an example that many classes can do: Ranger, Druid, animal companion, Wizard, Warlock, familiar, Cleric, undead, and so on. Many different kinds of pet are conceivably one miniclass.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, I'm with you on this in a lot of ways. I personally don't mind "multiclass" subclasses... where an entire class's theme is subclassed. Because for the most part, a class's "theme" or "flavor" tends to be rather wide, allowing for dozens if not hundreds of different stories or themes to come out of it. So the Eldritch Knight's layering of the Wizard on top of the Fighter or the Path of the Zealot's layering of the Cleric on top of the Barbarian, or the College of Sword's layering of the Fighter on top of the Bard-- it allows for the overlapping of a very wide thematic idea onto another class but doesn't steal the very specific schtick of the single class with its subclass. The College of Swords Bard/Fighter is still a very different thematic idea than the Fighter Samurai.

But when you have very narrow theming-- basically a subclass's theme-- and you layer THAT onto another class... it just reduces the individuality of the story need for both. The theming of what a Warlock is versus what a Sorcerer is, is already tenuous enough... but to then have both of them gain power from the exact same source just reduces the theming even further.

A PC somehow making a connection to some bizarre Far Realm entity and getting power from it is a really cool idea for a character, but it's an exceedingly narrow character theme-- only one out of tens of thousands of people "in-world" would ever actually have it (except in a specific case of a cult where EVERYBODY would have it.) So to then have two or more different classes give different ways of getting that theme just to me dilutes the flavor. This person made a deal with the entity to gain power.... this person just has the power of the entity running through them.

This person is a monk with the powers of shadow running through them. That person is a sorcerer with the powers of shadow running through them. That person is a ranger with the powers of shadow running through them. And now this person is a cleric with the powers of shadow running through them. YOU get to be shadow! And YOU get to be shadow! EVERYBODY gets to be shadow! To me this just feels like the sum is now less than its parts.

If I want a very isolated character idea of having this bizarre ancestral connection to a dragon somehow and in some way... would it kill me to just play a sorcerer? Do I really need to ask that a draconic druid get made too? Or a cleric domain about a wolf totem? Or a sun soul wizard subclass? When you get to that point I feel like the adage becomes more and more true-- when everything is special, then nothing is.

That reminds me.

I wonder if it is possible to have a ‘gestalt’ class at level 1, where you use a point system to add features from whatever classes you want. Then when reaching level 2, level normally in a normal class from there.

For example, 2 cantrip = 2 martial weapons = light armor + shield = medium armor + heavy armor. Swap things in or out.

This allows every character concept to have semblance during character creation.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Onomancer? Why don't they just call the True Namer since it's clearly that class from the 3e Tome of Magic. I almost got the Onomancer subclass mixed up with Oneiromancer (aka Dream Wizard which they should also make a subclass). The presence of such a Wizard means a lot of people are going to be using aliases, and "craft names" or whatever.

The Wildfire Druid, yes I think more Druids should have more "use wildshape to summon something". Though it sort of reminds me of the Artillerist Artificer in how it has a minion that can shoot things.

Twlight Cleric, I like how it can fly but only in the darkness. Though I guess it's more like jumping really far and maybe dancing in the air because it's only for 1 round.

Personally I want an Ovinomancer subclass.
I cast "Sheep"
You mean "Sleep"?
No, I cast "Sheep"

 

[Charlaquin]

It depends on how you look at it. One way is "X subclass is very specific to setting B", in which case you probably need to know that it is for setting B. On the other hand, "X subclass is often thought of in terms of setting B, but we expect it to be widely used outside that setting even though it shows up in a setting B book" is also reasonable. In that case, you probably wouldn't want to put the setting in the UA, since "how well does it fit setting B?" will be more of a confounding factor in the subclass review than they want.

I think you’ve put your finger on my problem with the Artificer here. Yeah, sure, it’s great for Eberron, but what if I want to play an alchemist in a less magitech-heavy setting?

 

[Parmandur]

I think you’ve put your finger on my problem with the Artificer here. Yeah, sure, it’s hrsat for Eberron, but what if I want to play an alchemist in a less magitech-heavy setting?

Apparently, the survey results told WotC that it will work for that purpose.

 

[Charlaquin]

Apparently, the survey results told WotC that it will work for that purpose.

Well, yeah, but

Apparently, the survey results told WotC that it will work for that purpose.

Yeah, and I figured that would be the case. I’m not a fan though.

 

[Seramus]

If you don't want something, you don't buy it. We do that every single day over millions of things. I don't want to eat Almond Joys and thus I don't buy Almond Joys. And this should not bother anybody whatsoever... even the people who love Almond Joys.

But... But... I love Mounds and they haven't made of Mounds in my edition yet. People keep telling me I can just scrape the almonds out of my Almond Joy, but then people look at me funny and I'm losing some of the chocolate every time. They keep releasing Butterfinger, Snickers, and even a Payday... and I know Mounds is way more popular than Payday!

 

[Parmandur]

Well, yeah, but
Yeah, and I figured that would be the case. I’m not a fan though.

That's fair. In a less magitech setting, a Transmuter Wizard with the right toll proficiency fills the Alchemist niché nicely.

 

[Kurotowa]

Oh! Nope, I’m a liar and a fiend. Archivist will be in the update to Wayfinder’s Guide, IIRC. Don’t recall exactly where I saw that, but WGtE will have 1 subclass that isn’t in Rising.

I'm pretty sure what they said in the video is that Rising with have Alchemist, Artillerist, and Battle Smith while the Warfinder's Guide will only have the Alchemist. Neither will offer Archivist at this point.