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


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.

The subclass gets extra damage, and the class is good and subtracting HP quickly. That is the competence needed to take down the less subtle monsters. This subclass shores up any weakness against the subtle bastards.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not saying you're wrong, but I'd love a reference to that.

Well, first of all, I forget how bloody old Jackie Chan is, and how long he has been doing martial arts movies. It may be that Drunken Master (1978), is what I was thinking of.

I do know that marginals arts styles that imitate drunken movements are ancient, and don't generally involve actually getting drunk.

Beyond all that, I'm not up for a research jaunt right now.
 

Barolo

First Post
Well, first of all, I forget how bloody old Jackie Chan is, and how long he has been doing martial arts movies. It may be that Drunken Master (1978), is what I was thinking of.

I do know that marginals arts styles that imitate drunken movements are ancient, and don't generally involve actually getting drunk.

Beyond all that, I'm not up for a research jaunt right now.

If it helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zui_quan
 

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.

It is interesting, because I think that classes/subclasses that seemingly focus on being good at boss battles at the expense of not being so good at the little fights aren't that popular (see the berserker barbarian and the sorcerer for examples). This might be a good way of doing it, as the drop off for little fights isn't as high for the monster hunter as it is for those classes.
 


Greg K

Legend
It was around and well known for a long, loooong time before Jackie Chan was even popular himself.

It is a rwally old trope.

Mid guess that it was popularized in the 70's, at the latest, in Kung Fu movies/shows.

It goes back to sometime between the 10th and 13th century! So there is precedent for getting drunk. However, given that many systems have a form of drunken kung fu that is simply imitative, I like having a form that does not actually involve getting drunk.

edit: I see someone beat me to it.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It goes back to sometime between the 10th and 13th century! So there is precedent for getting drunk. However, given that many systems have a form of drunken kung fu that is simply imitative, I like having a form that does not actually involve getting drunk.

edit: I see someone beat me to it.

I agree! I have done the actual drunk thing, but I definately prefer to keep that a player choice, not a system feature.


I also would like to point out, this subclass makes an excellent soft technique Kung fu option with a little reflavoring! Especially if you do as I plan to do and make tipsy sway a 1ki ability instead of a 1/SR ability.
 

Many of the weekly UA's had "big questions" built into them. I wonder if one of this week's "big questions" was "do you want less overtly magical monk subclasses?"

It occurs to me that even if someone didn't like the specifics of the drunken master, but wanted less overtly magical monk subclasses, that it would be good to say that in the survey. Of course, I will be saying "how come we didn't get the evil, soul-sucking, bad touch, Mortal Combat monk?" or "how come the 'old guy beats up someone with a stick until they obey him', which is clearly an iconic monk thing went to the paladin instead?", but to each their own.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Many of the weekly UA's had "big questions" built into them. I wonder if one of this week's "big questions" was "do you want less overtly magical monk subclasses?"

It occurs to me that even if someone didn't like the specifics of the drunken master, but wanted less overtly magical monk subclasses, that it would be good to say that in the survey. Of course, I will be saying "how come we didn't get the evil, soul-sucking, bad touch, Mortal Combat monk?" or "how come the 'old guy beats up someone with a stick until they obey him', which is clearly an iconic monk thing went to the paladin instead?", but to each their own.
Hmm... I usually like low-magic stuff, so I like the drunken master, but your necromancer death-touch monk has me intrigued.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app
 

Hmm... I usually like low-magic stuff, so I like the drunken master, but your necromancer death-touch monk has me intrigued.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

I admired the (early) Mortal Combat approach that "honest" martial arts would beat "superpowers", but it is a hard sell in a fantasy game. Of course, druids only wildshape into beasts, so it isn't impossible.....

I don't have specifics for my evil monk in mind, but I have always wondered why monks, which seem like the class most likely to physically touch an enemy in combat, didn't have more of a bad touch gimmick.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top