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​

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Why didn't they include instructions for making half-orc revenants? Why!?

(Naturally, the half-orc in my group was the one that died last session, and this would have been a lot of fun to implement.)

Half-Orc loses 2 Constitution and gains Revenant benefits? It kind of makes it a virtual feat that can be taken when the narrative need arises. I might consider implementing something like that for all the races instead of subrace substitution.

 

[GlassJaw]

I like the monster hunter fighter a lot, but between this and the scout, it sure seems like a lot of ranger-y concepts are moving into the fighter. 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 think this speaks more to the fact that the ranger lacks a clear design goal as opposed to the fighter stealing its lunch. All the ranger variations we've seen make me believe it's easier to tweak the fighter slightly to give it some wilderness survival abilities than creating an entire class around that concept.

 

[DeanP]

"Monster Hunter" because "Witcher" was taken.

Oh, and as an afterthought: Rogue: "Sleuth" might be a better choice than "Inquisitive."

 

[Tectuktitlay]

I think this speaks more to the fact that the ranger lacks a clear design goal as opposed to the fighter stealing its lunch. All the ranger variations we've seen make me believe it's easier to tweak the fighter slightly to give it some wilderness survival abilities than creating an entire class around that concept.

I agree. There are pretty much two major classic variants on the ranger: a fighter variant, and a rogue variant. If you want the magic, mix in some druid levels, and voila. But for the most part, you either have the heavy-hitting fighter variant who charges in with multiple weapons and pounds the crap out of enemies in the thick, a true two-weapon specialist fighter, something we really haven't seen expanded upon fully. Or the sneaky wilderness scout, stealthy, able to survive out in the wilds, and pick off enemies of opportunity, very likely with a bow, sniping from a distance in hit-and-run style.

For the more modern variants, especially the animal companion variant, idk. An entire class that has a companion of some sort, and is really built as two characters that work in concert as one, could be its own unique class, with all sorts of variants. A wilderness warrior with an animal companion is hardly the only variant for such a concept. Rather than being the ranger, such a class would have its own suite of subclasses, from a thrallmaster, to the shaman with its spirit, to a necromancer with one favored powerful undead companion, to the psychic that makes an id or astral construct. The core mechanic is that you are two characters in one, and your basic power level is based on the fact that a large part of your power is invested in a second form that works in concert with you.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Have to agree on the naming of the Inquisitive, should have been Criminal Investigator, or just investigator or Sherlock, know I will be changing the name to better match up with my campaign.

The Revenant just sounds like trouble, just within the dynamics of party relationships.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

I agree. There are pretty much two major classic variants on the ranger: a fighter variant, and a rogue variant. If you want the magic, mix in some druid levels, and voila. But for the most part, you either have the heavy-hitting fighter variant who charges in with multiple weapons and pounds the crap out of enemies in the thick, a true two-weapon specialist fighter, something we really haven't seen expanded upon fully. Or the sneaky wilderness scout, stealthy, able to survive out in the wilds, and pick off enemies of opportunity, very likely with a bow, sniping from a distance in hit-and-run style.

What if I want to play a wilderness survivor with weapons that aren't two-weapon fighting or archery?

What if I want more martial consistency that what the rogue allows (less spike damage, more attacks) but not to the point of the fighter because (a) the amount of skills and features I need to fulfill the character wouldn't fit into a fighter subclass and (b) I recognise that the fighter is meant to be *the* martial character and I'm okay with playing something not quite that focused on martial?

 

[Savevsdeath]

These will all fit nicely in my episodic Eberron campaign.

That's what i'm using them for. My eberron chat players ate this up, and i have a half-dozen players with Blood of Vol, Karnnathi Bone Knight, and other concepts that needed this for oomph. And an inquisitive who is very happy to see the new rogue archtype.

 

[Savevsdeath]

Bit of a Meh PDF there. The fighter is a ranger the rogue is a paladin and the revenat is well great for a 1shot not so much an actual campaign.

Why does everyone keep saying this? It's not true. You can very easily keep that revenant chasing his goal indefinitely if you are even a halfway decent DM. And nothing's stopping you from expanding that goal, such that the original reason for it becomes ever bigger. Think creatively, and this subrace can drive entire campaigns forever.

 

[the_move]

The revenant misses the darkvision trait. Is there actually any undead, who does not have darkvision?
Otherwise a dragonborn revenant oathbreaker paladin sounds like fun.

Half-Orc loses 2 Constitution and gains Revenant benefits? It kind of makes it a virtual feat that can be taken when the narrative need arises. I might consider implementing something like that for all the races instead of subrace substitution.

According to UA Half-Orcs and Half-Elfs do not qualify for the Revenant subrace like any other ummentioned race without a subrace like the EE races. Wonder how a Revenant Genasi would have looked like.

 

[Li Shenron]

So-and-so... call me fairly unimpressed, with UA material becoming bi-monthly now, I was expecting something more interesting. These 3 new options are surely very usable, but are minor additions compared to what we already have.

The most interesting part of this UA for me is certainly the unprecedented idea of cross-race subraces. I am not sure the revenant is a particularly good example*, and the execution is sort of underwhelming, but the mechanical idea of implementing subraces that can be applied to multiple races opens up interesting possibilities.

*mostly because being a revenant is an acquired condition, so you would expect a character to first being a regular member of her race/subrace, then becoming a revenant... at which point you lose your subrace defining abilities (for some like Drow this would mean to seriously undermine their identity)? I don't like mechanics that undo your character, I don't think this plays well unless you are starting the campaign as a revenant.

Monster Hunter is a very trivial concept IMHO. It's not a lot more specific than "monsters fighter" which is almost what every D&D character is, and it fact this implementation ends up having very generic features. But if you make it more narrow like focusing on one type of monsters, you end up with the good-old problems of Ranger's favored enemies. All in all, this is as bland as it is certainly playable, but I would have rather wanted some more original additions...

Inquisitive on the other hand is a very nice concept. Unfortunately the Sneak Attack boosts don't follow the concept. I would assume that this subclass should attract people who want to play an investigator/detective, so why offering combat boosts? The Rogue base class already provides good combat capabilities, it doesn't make sense to think that every subclass must be equally good in combat, because subclasses are exactly one of those areas which can provide a "dial" between the 3 pillars. Why throwing away a degree of design freedom?

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 very much agree.

IMHO the key could be in those new subclasses offer at least some non-combat use of superiority dice, while the Battlemaster being focused on battle would still offer only in-combat uses.