Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Gives You Subclasses For Monk, Ranger, and Paladin



log in or register to remove this ad

I think they could have added a ribbon ability to the drunken master to get some minor boost if he/she found some exotic hooch--it takes a brave soul (and a good con score) to drink orc wine (does anyone think they ever wash their feet?).
 






cbwjm

Legend
Seeing the new paladin subclass makes me wish that this was a class the gained its subclass at level 1 since this looks like an archetype you should be playing from the beginning.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Seeing the new paladin subclass makes me wish that this was a class the gained its subclass at level 1 since this looks like an archetype you should be playing from the beginning.

If I ever play one I'm going to go armor-less from Level 1 just because.
 

Seeing the new paladin subclass makes me wish that this was a class the gained its subclass at level 1 since this looks like an archetype you should be playing from the beginning.

You can play an archetype from the beginning even if you're not getting any mechanical benefits from it yet.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
You can play an archetype from the beginning even if you're not getting any mechanical benefits from it yet.

Yes but in this case the change from chain, shield, and martial weapon to no armor and simple weapon at level 3 is a little jarring.

I'd probably come up with a level 1-2 concept, maybe doing something to set the stage along the way, and then roleplay a "Road to Damascus" moment at level 3 to explain the transformation.

Or think about the Robert DeNiro character "The Mission".
 

If I ever play one I'm going to go armor-less from Level 1 just because.

If players are going to go Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster I usually work it into the back story and let them have a cantrip at 2 and make checks to try and cast spells. Levels 1-2 go so fast it usually doesn't make sense for your fighter to wake up the morning after fighting a pack of goblins and suddenly be able to sling spells around.

Edit: Messed up the quote
 

Yes but in this case the change from chain, shield, and martial weapon to no armor and simple weapon at level 3 is a little jarring.

Why change at all? If wearing no armor and using simple weapons is logical because you want to appear unthreatening for roleplaying reasons (e.g. at a diplomatic function), then do it. The fact that you have AC 12 instead of AC 18 is, well, because you're first level and you're not a very good Redeemer yet. Just try not to start any fights while unarmored--but you're a Redeemer, so you should already try not to start any fights, ever.

In real play, it seems likely that plate armor and shield will probably be your combat-optimal choice until at least 12th level, and possibly forever. AC 20 (21 with defense style) beats AC 16 + Dex unless your Dex is 20.

And it's not like a Redeemer couldn't wear plate armor and a shield and use a longsword in situations that called for it, even at 20th level. Unless I overlooked something, they're not banned from using heavy armor--they just have the ability to function without it if they spend a whole bunch on Dex.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
About this, I think the idea to base a fighting style on the martial artist actually drinking is silly. It seems to me the popular trope of the "drunken" style comes from the martial artist mastering the use of sudden and seemingly out-of-balance movements, similar to how drunk people move around, in order to deceive the opponent, luring them to believe the "drunken" martial artist is less dangerous, and also surprising them by the unexpected, apparently random pattern of the moves. They pretend they are drunk, as being really drunk would be detrimental to fighting, hence the perform proficiency. It would be nonetheless useful to actually carry around some booze, and to taint one's clothes with it, to improve the performance.

The "trope" was popularized by Jackie Chan, and included actual drinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74OBuMA2qEk
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Why change at all? If wearing no armor and using simple weapons is logical because you want to appear unthreatening for roleplaying reasons (e.g. at a diplomatic function), then do it. The fact that you have AC 12 instead of AC 18 is, well, because you're first level and you're not a very good Redeemer yet. Just try not to start any fights while unarmored--but you're a Redeemer, so you should already try not to start any fights, ever.

Yeah, that's why I also said:

Elfcrusher said:
If I ever play one I'm going to go armor-less from Level 1 just because.
 

The Human Target

Adventurer
Why change at all? If wearing no armor and using simple weapons is logical because you want to appear unthreatening for roleplaying reasons (e.g. at a diplomatic function), then do it. The fact that you have AC 12 instead of AC 18 is, well, because you're first level and you're not a very good Redeemer yet. Just try not to start any fights while unarmored--but you're a Redeemer, so you should already try not to start any fights, ever.

In real play, it seems likely that plate armor and shield will probably be your combat-optimal choice until at least 12th level, and possibly forever. AC 20 (21 with defense style) beats AC 16 + Dex unless your Dex is 20.

And it's not like a Redeemer couldn't wear plate armor and a shield and use a longsword in situations that called for it, even at 20th level. Unless I overlooked something, they're not banned from using heavy armor--they just have the ability to function without it if they spend a whole bunch on Dex.

A paladin with AC 12 and a simple weapon is going to be hard to keep alive until 3rd level.
 


A paladin with AC 12 and a simple weapon is going to be hard to keep alive until 3rd level.

I apologize--apparently my writing wasn't very clear. I'll reiterate in more detail:

Before 3rd level: go unarmored (AC 10-13) in diplomatic situations, any time you want to look harmless, in city adventures, etc. Wear heavy armor and shield (AC 18-21) when necessary, but try to avoid the necessity.

From 3rd level until 12thish: go unarmored (AC 14-20) in diplomatic situations, any time you want to look harmless, in city adventures, etc. Wear heavy armor and shield (AC 18-21) when necessary, but try to avoid the necessity.

From 12thish level onward (or whenever you max Dex): go unarmored (AC 21) all the time, if you have Dex 20. Otherwise see above.

3rd level is not the correct point to stop wearing armor. It just makes it somewhat less costly if you miscalculate when it's okay to leave it at home.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Emissary of Redemption
This sucks.
You get resistance to everything.
You get to deal damage to any creature equal to half of the damage they attacked you.
Both of these abilities shut down on a per creature basis, once you attack, force a saving throw, or even deal damage to the creature in question.

That means this ability will, at best, only work for one attack against any creature. And you have to keep track of each creature you have hurt in order to figure out if it counts for this ability, requiring lots of bookkeeping. But it is a capstone, which means it will never really come into the equation for most games, and in turn will encourage some multi-classing more than the level 3 abilities already do.


The ability states that the enemy “takes damage” equal to what it dealt. It’s a bit much for natural language use, but you aren’t technically dealing them damage. Instead, when they hit you they take damage.

At least, I see that as the intent, otherwise like you say, the ability negates itself which is weird.




Looking back over Relentless Slayer, beyond being very situational, is the 30 ft restriction plus opposed wisdom check enough of a limiting factor?

I've actually rarely seen very good Wisdom on Rangers (they prefer dex and con first, then wisdom at my table) and I'd figure most Monster Slayers would go Archery, which could mean you are usually farther away than 30 ft.


It's actually kind of interesting, the more bestial and straightforward a monster is, the less powerful the Slayer becomes. If they don't have you making saves or they aren't using abilities that trigger Relentless and don't have weaknesses you can exploit... then they lose a lot of power. But, if the enemy is constantly triggering saves (like with spells) and trying all sorts of tricks, then the Slayer gets a massive boost with extra attacks and ways to stop them in their tracks. What are the odds that was intentional I wonder? To make purely monstrous beasts more dangerous to this sub-class than the more subtle and tricky opponents.
 


Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top