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​

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Revenant was an odd one to design from what I remember of it when it was introduced as a PC race with the 4e material, they essentially had the Revenant a racec and with a large number of subraces respresenting each race. So for this one they're trying to go the other way around. I think they need to create a better bunch of basic guidelines of that to use and what to replace from most races in general.

Interestingly enough the Nameless One from Planescape Torment would actually be a Human Revenant.

 

[Azurewraith]

Quick clarification here on the Revenant. I'd consider using it for my new Curse of Strahd campaign if someone dies. If there character has a subrace, when they are brought back they lose the ability score modifiers of that subrace and gains +1 CON, they also lose any subrace abilities and gain those of the Revenant. Is that correct?

Exactinundo

 

[Queer Venger]

Best UA character options release yet. Excellent stuff, particular fan of the hunter and revenant race options.

 

[Queer Venger]

Conceptually, I like both the Monster Hunter and the Inquisitive, but the names don't work. Monster Hunter seems to generic, when it seems to be focused on the Van Helsing style monsters in specific. I don't have a better alternative, though.

The Inquisitive, though, is clearly a detective, Sherlock Holmes style. Embrace that, call it Detective, make any necessary adjustments, and you have a great subclass.

Detective is too modern for my liking, unless you use this for a modern era D&D game; much prefer inquisitive, sounds more classic D&D.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

 

[Kite474]

Detective is too modern for my liking, unless you use this for a modern era D&D game; much prefer inquisitive, sounds more classic D&D.

Detective is too modern..... Since when has Sherlock Holmes been modern?


Anywho on too the main topic!

I actually like this month's UA for once! Hallelujah!

Monster Hunter: Seems pretty ok. I feel you may be trading a bit much for some of the abilities but its still pretty effective depending on the campaign. All in all pretty solid. It also brings the idea of Superiority Dice being a tried and true "Fighter Thing" to the forefront which im totally ok with!

Inquisitive: Sneak attack for days! Seriously give this dude a level of fighter and the Tough feat and you can pile on that front line damage, and on top of that you have eyes for days too!

Revenant: I like the idea of cross race Sub-Races. Seems like a cool idea and may be a good happy medium for some of the more esoteric "Half-X" Races. Now the only caveat being figuring out what should be the race abilities to go to the chopping block.

 

[Kite474]

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 can sympathize with this. But the big problem is just what do you allow them to DO? Conceptually the Fighter has zip when it comes to unique aspects to be experimented with. Also their's the underlying fear of something being unique but just not worth it, See the poor mess that is the Purple Dragon Knight.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can sympathize with this. But the big problem is just what do you allow them to DO? Conceptually the Fighter has zip when it comes to unique aspects to be experimented with. Also their's the underlying fear of something being unique but just not worth it, See the poor mess that is the Purple Dragon Knight.

The PDK isn't my style of class, but I don't think it's that much of a mess.

But to the larger question... I agree, it's tricky. Thing is, there's no immediate need for new fighter archetypes. I'd rather not have them than have them but not give them truly worthwhile mechanics.

I feel like there's something there for all three I mentioned. There's room, and call, for the scout, the cavalier, and the monster hunter. But making them solid isn't enough, and right now they haven't exceeded "solid."

 

[evilbob]

While not especially daring, this is probably the most ready-to-play Unearthed Arcana yet.

Agreed. Also agreed that this is both good and bad.

Quick clarification here on the Revenant. I'd consider using it for my new Curse of Strahd campaign if someone dies.

This does seem like the best use of it.

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.

Excellent summary. Nothing about this UA is particularly gothic in my mind.

 

[Kite474]

The PDK isn't my style of class, but I don't think it's that much of a mess.

But to the larger question... I agree, it's tricky. Thing is, there's no immediate need for new fighter archetypes. I'd rather not have them than have them but not give them truly worthwhile mechanics.

I feel like there's something there for all three I mentioned. There's room, and call, for the scout, the cavalier, and the monster hunter. But making them solid isn't enough, and right now they haven't exceeded "solid."

I think what may have worked is the idea of Superiority Dice being core to the base fighter. Say you start out with some basic generic maneuvers. Then come level 3. Now you select a subclass and they provide exclusive maneuvers that only that subclass can use. Then as you level in fighter select more generic maneuvers and unlock more of these exclusive maneuvers!

Hell maybe you could group certain maneuvers under "Disciplines/Schools" and... and... I just suggested we just reintroduce Tome of Battle didn't I?