Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Returns to Monthly With Some Revised Subclasses

the fighter’s Sharpshooter subclass was, by far, the least popular

No one in their right mind liked that abomination. A terrible concept from the start.

 

[Jonathan Alvear]

I've added a Dueling Spear, for lack of a better generic weapon name, that is reach, two handed, 1d6, and Finesse. I thought about giving it versatile, but you only get Reach if it is used two handed, rather than upgraded damage, but that is more complicated than 5e wants weapons to be.

Or you could take the Spear Mastery feat. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls you make with a spear.
When you use a spear, its damage die changes from a d6 to a d8, and from a d8 to a d10 when wielded with two hands. (This benefit has no effect if another feature has already improved the weapon’s die.)
You can set your spear to receive a charge. As a bonus action, choose a creature you can see that is at least 20 feet away from you. If that creature moves within your spear’s reach on its next turn, you can make a melee attack against it with your spear as a reaction. If the attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d8 piercing damage, or an extra 1d10 piercing damage if you wield the spear with two hands. You can’t use this ability if the creature used the Disengage action before moving.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can increase your reach with a spear by 5 feet for the rest of your turn.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or you could take the Spear Mastery feat. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls you make with a spear.
When you use a spear, its damage die changes from a d6 to a d8, and from a d8 to a d10 when wielded with two hands. (This benefit has no effect if another feature has already improved the weapon’s die.)
You can set your spear to receive a charge. As a bonus action, choose a creature you can see that is at least 20 feet away from you. If that creature moves within your spear’s reach on its next turn, you can make a melee attack against it with your spear as a reaction. If the attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d8 piercing damage, or an extra 1d10 piercing damage if you wield the spear with two hands. You can’t use this ability if the creature used the Disengage action before moving.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can increase your reach with a spear by 5 feet for the rest of your turn.

That doesn't do the same thing.

And "or you could just do this other thing that is vaguely similar" isn't something I consider a valid response. IMO, it's basically the same thing as thread crapping, except that it applies to individual posts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Actually, according to Christian doctrine, Christ is God.

Discussing the game stats for a deity actively revered by somewhere around a billion folks might not be the best idea on a forum that's Grandma-friendly and has a no politics rule (which, presumably, also applies to its first cousin of religion).

Only for trinitarians. Non trinitarian Christians, Jesus is a man, and closer to an angel than to being God, as such. A perfect Favored Soul.

Lets ask @Morrus , before continuing any discussion of the particulars of religious figures as examples of character concepts, though. I don't see the harm, as long as we keep it to the context of DnD, and using them as examples. Ie, as long as we talk about them the same way you'd discuss Odin. I worship Odin, but I'm not gonna get offended by a discussion of what class we use to represent him in DnD.

Even though the right answer is clearly a Warlock variant with himself as the Patron. "Sacrificed myself to myself" from the Havamal. Also, he used magics normally only used by female practitioners, and did crazy stuff like ripping his eye out to gain knowledge. I'd either use the Hexblade or Raven Queen as a base, or steal bits from both. Raven Queen lets him grab Tome for the added spells and rituals, and still have Ravens. Harder to give him two wolves, though. Maybe make up a Conjure X spell to give him that just summons twin wolves?
Definately some divination in the spell list. Other than that, just need to be able to be really lethal with that spear, without worrying about Blade Pact. Maybe Hex Blade with the Raven Queen's raven instead of the Shadow hound?

 

[Jonathan Alvear]

Yes to Raven Queen. That was one of my favorites (and I skipped the editions in which she made a previous appearnce, so I have no baggage or nostalgia).

My other favorites, from a flavor perspective, are Tranquility Monk and Redemption Paladin, although the latter needs some of the abilities rethought.

I like those two as well. Maybe we could get another pacifist subclass or two. Like maybe a Bard (that isn't creepy like the Glamour one) and a Cleric domain.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The Flurry of blows made with the Kensei weapon could be limited to the Martial arts die damage for balance.

I'd be fine with that. It's essentially be a refluffing. Mechanically there is no difference, simply visually.

 

[SkidAce]

I'd be fine with that. It's essentially be a refluffing. Mechanically there is no difference, simply visually.

Unless the kensei weapon had flaming or something...then wouldn't it be more than refluffing?

 

[gyor]

I like those two as well. Maybe we could get another pacifist subclass or two. Like maybe a Bard (that isn't creepy like the Glamour one) and a Cleric domain.

What's creepy about the Glamour Bard?

 

[gyor]

Anyone have good build ideas.

I had a odd idea for a Favoured Soul 14/Arcane Archer 3, fly upwards and fire off magical arrows at targets, even fire off one of your special shots then cast a quickened spell in the same turn. I call the character idea Cupid.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That doesn't do the same thing.

And "or you could just do this other thing that is vaguely similar" isn't something I consider a valid response. IMO, it's basically the same thing as thread crapping, except that it applies to individual posts.

I'm pretty certain that despite your rather . . . vociferous response, he was just trying to help you out, and had no intention of "thread crapping" or similar.
You specifically stated that the reach/no reach aspect of your adjustment was problematic and so I wouldn't regard suggesting an option that addresses this problem in some way as an attempt to shut you down.

Out of interest, what were the reasons behind creating that weapon? Did your game need a spearlike weapon that was slashing rather than piercing, or were you trying to replicate a specific unusual weapon from elsewhere?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

What's creepy about the Glamour Bard?

Other than the fact that all enchanter types have some inherent creepiness in them (unless they mind zap you not to think they are creepy), the idea from the fluff that they are super mooches has a lot of jerkiness in it (not the same as creepiness). Just picture the kender glamour bard. I kid, I kid.

The whisper bard has definite creep factor, and I think that the glamour bard suffers from proximity. For players, they didn't do the glamour bard any favors by sticking it with the whisper bard, but for DM's looking for NPC's to annoy the party, it was nice they put them together or else we might have missed out.

 

[Jonathan Alvear]

Other than the fact that all enchanter types have some inherent creepiness in them (unless they mind zap you not to think they are creepy), the idea from the fluff that they are super mooches has a lot of jerkiness in it (not the same as creepiness). Just picture the kender glamour bard. I kid, I kid.

The whisper bard has definite creep factor, and I think that the glamour bard suffers from proximity. For players, they didn't do the glamour bard any favors by sticking it with the whisper bard, but for DM's looking for NPC's to annoy the party, it was nice they put them together or else we might have missed out.

I consider the Whispers Bards scary (in the "that MFer is dangerous" way), not creepy. Glamour Bards are creepy for a couple of reasons. For one, they learned their skills from the Fey, so there's a built-in (if perhaps unwarranted) level of untrustworthiness. The second is more play style. Their powers are all about how enthralling they can make themselves. That kind of narrative can so easily lead to douchenozzle behavior.

 

[gyor]

I consider the Whispers Bards scary (in the "that MFer is dangerous" way), not creepy. Glamour Bards are creepy for a couple of reasons. For one, they learned their skills from the Fey, so there's a built-in (if perhaps unwarranted) level of untrustworthiness. The second is more play style. Their powers are all about how enthralling they can make themselves. That kind of narrative can so easily lead to douchenozzle behavior.

So playing a Glamour Bard is like being D&D's Kim Kardassian.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So playing a Glamour Bard is like being D&D's Kim Kardassian.

Someone who takes non consensual sharing of a private thing making them momentarily famous/infamous, and turns that into a media empire of really impressive scale and total wealth for their whole family?

Yeah, ok, I'll play that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Out of interest, what were the reasons behind creating that weapon? Did your game need a spearlike weapon that was slashing rather than piercing, or were you trying to replicate a specific unusual weapon from elsewhere?

A few reasons.

1. To have a finesse reach weapon. Balance aside, it feels weird to not have the precision based finessers have a light pole arm option.

2. To model, in general, weapons like the dueling glaive, many fighting spears, naginata, etc

3. To give Monks and rogues a reach weapon without requiring a feat or unbalancing glaives by making them finesse.

4. To give small races a polearm. Although I am genuinely considering just dropping the Heavy restriction from being small.

 

[Jonathan Alvear]

A few reasons.

1. To have a finesse reach weapon. Balance aside, it feels weird to not have the precision based finessers have a light pole arm option.

2. To model, in general, weapons like the dueling glaive, many fighting spears, naginata, etc

3. To give Monks and rogues a reach weapon without requiring a feat or unbalancing glaives by making them finesse.

4. To give small races a polearm. Although I am genuinely considering just dropping the Heavy restriction from being small.

Aren't pole arms supposed to be heavier? So they can be used against cavalry? That's part of why I brought up Spear Mastery. You get most of what you are looking for by being an expert in the common spear. Whenever I think of a Monk Spear Master, I think of Gordon Liu. https://youtu.be/jHStrI4jlQA
Speed and precision with a spear.

There's always the whip for finesse and reach. Make it a Monk weapon to scale the damage die. As a DM, I'd let you fluff it to bludgeoning (Meteor Hammer) or piercing (rope dart). Or maybe re-skin a flail as a 3-sectional staff. Would need Flail Mastery for the ability to bypass shields, though.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Aren't pole arms supposed to be heavier? So they can be used against cavalry? That's part of why I brought up Spear Mastery. You get most of what you are looking for by being an expert in the common spear. Whenever I think of a Monk Spear Master, I think of Gordon Liu. https://youtu.be/jHStrI4jlQA
Speed and precision with a spear.

Pole weapons like the pike(longspear etc) were heavy because they were very long - as you say: to deal with cavalry as well as formations of soldiers. If you tried to make them lighter, they wouldn't have the strength to hold up to the forces involved - including foes hacking through the haft. Polearms like the halberd were heavy because they were designed to combine weight with the leverage of a haft to generate a very powerful strike to deal with armour.

There is also the issue that an 10lb, 15ft weapon wielded by a 6ft, 200lb human is much easier to wield than the same weapon being hefted by a 3ft, 60lb halfling.

There is a fair amount of difference between creating a new weapon that anyone can use, and people being able to spend a feat on getting similar effects. Bear in mind that while the finesse property is irrelevant for Monks, it does change the ability balance in the game significantly for other classes. For games inspired by some media, not having to use a whip to be able to optimise a dex-based character wanting reach will fit some concepts better.

There's always the whip for finesse and reach. Make it a Monk weapon to scale the damage die. As a DM, I'd let you fluff it to bludgeoning (Meteor Hammer) or piercing (rope dart). Or maybe re-skin a flail as a 3-sectional staff. Would need Flail Mastery for the ability to bypass shields, though.

I have conceptual issues with the idea of a two-handed Finesse weapon. I personally don't think that there is enough of a requirement for finessers to have a pole weapon for purely game reasons to create one. But me and my group tend to be a little picky about that sort of thing, and I can absolutely see another group wanting to add a weapon like that.

 

[Corwin]

I have conceptual issues with the idea of a two-handed Finesse weapon.

When I see people wanting to make a two-handed finesse weapon, all I can think about is the complaints around here about how much better Dex is over Strength. And how doing so is taking away the one thing Strength had left going for it. Oh well, people live and learn. Eventually. Hopefully.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have conceptual issues with the idea of a two-handed Finesse weapon. I personally don't think that there is enough of a requirement for finessers to have a pole weapon for purely game reasons to create one. But me and my group tend to be a little picky about that sort of thing, and I can absolutely see another group wanting to add a weapon like that.

Watch any period kung fu movie. I know it's a personal taste thing for you, but there is a very strong precedence for finesse two handed weapons to exist (in fact, I'd posit that historical two handed sword fighting was more finesse and less Conan/The Hound).

 

[Corwin]

Watch any period kung fu movie. I know it's a personal taste thing for you, but there is a very strong precedence for finesse two handed weapons to exist (in fact, I'd posit that historical two handed sword fighting was more finesse and less Conan/The Hound).

My problem with this argument is that, really, if you start trying to justify how a weapon is used (by referencing non-game construct examples), you might find yourself starting to justify all weapon attacks requiring "dexterity" to use with any real success in battle. Even a greataxe. Without well placed, accurate swings, you're never going to hit someone, with your greataxe, that doesn't want to be hit.

That's why you see the occasional post about how someone wants to houserule all weapon attacks use Dex for to-hit bonus, and Strength for damage bonus. Because that's where the rabbit hole invariably leads. In truth, anyone generally good at melee fighting is likely going to be fit. Which generally means both dexterous, to at least some degree, and strong. Not Arnie strong, necessarily. But athletic enough that they are, again, "fit". Because that's really what it takes, in general, to be a good melee combatant. 5e lets you tank one of those two aspects of "fitness". Because of that, game mechanics should account for that and adapt accordingly.

IMO, its important to recognize what "finesse" means, in the context of the rules of 5e. Not necessarily just as a general word in our language. Its application in 5e has a very specific purpose. I personally prefer to keep it that way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When I see people wanting to make a two-handed finesse weapon, all I can think about is the complaints around here about how much better Dex is over Strength. And how doing so is taking away the one thing Strength had left going for it. Oh well, people live and learn. Eventually. Hopefully.

I know and understand those objections, I just don't care if strength is important for most characters, and have no problem with Dex being more valuable.

Watch any period kung fu movie. I know it's a personal taste thing for you, but there is a very strong precedence for finesse two handed weapons to exist (in fact, I'd posit that historical two handed sword fighting was more finesse and less Conan/The Hound).

This. Also...

Aren't pole arms supposed to be heavier? So they can be used against cavalry? That's part of why I brought up Spear Mastery. You get most of what you are looking for by being an expert in the common spear. Whenever I think of a Monk Spear Master, I think of Gordon Liu. https://youtu.be/jHStrI4jlQA
Speed and precision with a spear.

There's always the whip for finesse and reach. Make it a Monk weapon to scale the damage die. As a DM, I'd let you fluff it to bludgeoning (Meteor Hammer) or piercing (rope dart). Or maybe re-skin a flail as a 3-sectional staff. Would need Flail Mastery for the ability to bypass shields, though.

Again, I don't understand the value of any of these suggestions, when I've obviously already found the solution that works for me and my group. What you think of when you think of a spear master isn't really the point, is it?

Real life polearms vary quite a bit in weight, because not all were made for dealing with cavalry. Dueling glaives are a real thing, lighter fighting spears and glaives were fairly common dueling weapons in Viking Age Scandinavia, for instance. Some were no heavier than the lighter two handed swords, 5-6 pounds. Naginata also existed, and could be heavy enough to deal with cavalry, or light enough to duel with.

Vastly more important; they exist in the kind of fiction that inspires DnD, and mine has the mechanics of a whip that has been made two handed+reach and moved up one damage die as a result. It's simple, doesn't invalidate any other weapons or the Soear Mastery feat, and accomplishes the goal of having a dueling polearm in the game.