Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Revenant Subrace, Monster Hunter, and Inquisitive

There's a new Unearthed Arcana up from WotC's Mike Mearls, and this month it looks at Gothic Options for your D&D game, supplementing the themes of the recently released Curse of Strahd. The Revenant is a new sub race which can be applied to any existing race, the Monster Hunter is a fighter archetype, and the Inquisitive is an archetype for rogues who excel at solving mysteries. "This month, Unearthed Arcana takes a look at a few new character options appropriate to gothic horror.The revenant subrace provides an interesting way to bring a character back from the dead—a useful option if you’ve lost a character in the mists of Barovia. The Monster Hunter and the Inquisitive are two new archetypes for the fighter and rogue, respectively, well suited to the challenges of Ravenloft or any other gothic horror campaign."

​

Find the 3-page PDF here!

SaveSave​

 

[TwoSix]

I have the same objection to the monster hunter that I did to the cavalier and scout in an earlier UA.

I love them conceptually, but they have nothing to really call their own. They're another battle-dice/maneuver-using class, just with fewer or very slightly tweaked options. I'd much prefer that each subclass have something truly unique to them, something you really can't accomplish with the other archetypes of that class.

I get the feeling that the fact the last few UAs have had "superiority dice-but-different" fighter subclasses is telegraphing something about future design intent (possibly in the future mechanical expansion?); possibly related to the statement that they feel they have a better grasp on how to design 5e now.

 

[ccooke]

I really rather like this.

The Revenant isn't badly balanced - yes, it'll be very hard to kill, but the GM sets the goal. I can definitely see myself using this as a tool to offer to a player at the right time, with a suitably judged task.

The monster hunter looks like it works, and I like the balance of abilities across the tiers.

I'll join the numbers who don't like the name "Inquisitive" for the rogue subclass, but mechanically it looks interesting and fun. I would personally limit Insightful Fighting so you couldn't retry it until either i) The target was attacked, ii) the target took damage or iii) a minute passed. (That should be often enough, and it means the Rogue is able to re-trigger their own check by attacking. It seems to fit the flavour nicely, too. I don't like the idea that the rogue could otherwise burn their bonus action and action on observation until they succeed (even if that would be a poor tactical decision in most cases)).

 

[lkj]

I have the same objection to the monster hunter that I did to the cavalier and scout in an earlier UA.

I love them conceptually, but they have nothing to really call their own. They're another battle-dice/maneuver-using class, just with fewer or very slightly tweaked options. I'd much prefer that each subclass have something truly unique to them, something you really can't accomplish with the other archetypes of that class.

On the other hand, I rather like the idea that, by just expanding the list of battle dice maneuvers, the battle master could be used to create a variety of different archetypes. I don't think I need a new mechanic for each archetype.

Of course it's a separate question whether the battle dice mechanic is always adequate to the task of creating the full flavor of a given archetype (though it does seem like a very flexible mechanic really).

In other words, I'm carefully both agreeing and disagreeing with you at the same time.

AD

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's not that I necessarily object to some subclasses using the battle dice mechanic (though I wouldn't want to see them all go that route). It's just that, if they're going to, they still need to do something with them that doesn't feel like "battlemaster, but more restricted."

That is, they should do something with them that's 1) interesting, and 2) unique to that subclass. If there's no idea that fits, then that class shouldn't use the battle dice--or should, at least, have something else to call its own, in addition.

 

[AverageCitizen]

It's not that I necessarily object to some subclasses using the battle dice mechanic (though I wouldn't want to see them all go that route). It's just that, if they're going to, they still need to do something with them that doesn't feel like "battlemaster, but more restricted."

That is, they should do something with them that's 1) interesting, and 2) unique to that subclass. If there's no idea that fits, then that class shouldn't use the battle dice--or should, at least, have something else to call its own, in addition.

I agree. These things remind me of D&D Essentials classes compared to the 4e core. They are minimalist takes on the Battle Master. While they are elegant in their way, especially compared to the Battle Master, they aren't necessarily better and they are awkwardly close to the original, so it is strange that they exist in the same game.

That being said, they do interact with the Martial Adept feat in interesting ways.

 

[jodyjohnson]

If another subclass of the fighter turns up that gives you a pet and lets you use combat superiority dice to have your pet make an attack along side of yours.......

I rolled this into the Warlord on DMs Guild.

The Ranger-in-my-Fighter stuff seems like a no-brainer since there are a bunch of "no spells" options on DMs Guild. A ranger without spells isn't far off from a fighter - when the Ranger already had Fighting Style, Extra Attack and bonus damage (Hunter). And having already given the Core Ranger spells they aren't going to Errata the entire class before 6th edition.

 

[lkj]

It's not that I necessarily object to some subclasses using the battle dice mechanic (though I wouldn't want to see them all go that route). It's just that, if they're going to, they still need to do something with them that doesn't feel like "battlemaster, but more restricted."

That is, they should do something with them that's 1) interesting, and 2) unique to that subclass. If there's no idea that fits, then that class shouldn't use the battle dice--or should, at least, have something else to call its own, in addition.

Ah. Yes. I was thinking that perhaps all the maneuvers could get put in a pool that you use as a battlemaster and that you pick and choose among them to get your archetype. Save the new archetypes for when you truly need a new mechanic to capture the flavor.

But, since that's not what they are currently doing, I can see why observation didn't get at your issue.

AD

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ah. Yes. I was thinking that perhaps all the maneuvers could get put in a pool that you use as a battlemaster and that you pick and choose among them to get your archetype. Save the new archetypes for when you truly need a new mechanic to capture the flavor.

*nod*

I don't mind giving the battlemaster new maneuvers. It's not like we mind giving the casters new spells, after all.

But yeah, if they're going with all new archetypes, they must be more than "Battlemaster Variant 7."

 

[pdegan2814]

On the other hand, I rather like the idea that, by just expanding the list of battle dice maneuvers, the battle master could be used to create a variety of different archetypes. I don't think I need a new mechanic for each archetype.

My take on making Superiority Dice common to all Fighter archetypes would be something like this:

You still acquire them at Level 3. All Fighters get to use them as generic boosters for attack & damage rolls with weapons. Each archetype then gets some abilities unique to them to use the dice with. Something like this:

Champion: Initiative rolls, Strength(Athletics) or Dexterity(Acrobatics) checks, Str/Dex/Con saving throws(as a counterpoint to the Monster Hunter using them on Int/Wis/Cha saves), something like this
Battle Master: Just like it is now, but they get Precision Attack by default(the other maneuvers add to damage as-is, I don't see a need for a vanilla "Damaging Attack" maneuver like the others would get).
Eldritch Knight: Spell Attack rolls, when making a save against a spell(not sure if this would be OP, might have to set limits on it), Intelligence(Arcana) checks, weapon damage from a Superiority Die is considered magical, perhaps even a way to let the EK deal fire/cold/necrotic/etc damage with the die(though I would limit the EK's ability to choose a type somehow, either learning types the way the Battlemaster learns maneuvers, or something similar).

I'm sure those ideas are woefully unbalanced, but something along those lines would be a way to spread the Superiority Dice mechanic out to the other archetypes, and make it more of a core Fighter feature.

 

[pdegan2814]

I love the flavor of the monster hunter, but from a mechanical standpoint, it just seems like a battlemaster who can't do as much with his superiority dice. And the flavor easily appends itself to both the hunter ranger (who one could argue is already exactly this) and the vengeance paladin.

I dunno, being able to use the dice on Insight & Perception checks can be quite useful, and being able to use them on "mental" saving throws is downright awesome. Not to mention forcing Disadvantage on your target's Concentration save is just MEAN