Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks

New playtest material fro WoTC.

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

I think this would be my DM's nightmare if implemented.

 

[Pauln6]

"Subclasses" would become something like kits - bolt-ons for the 3 main classes.I think ranger, paladin and (maybe) barbarian would be kits for the warrior; bard and assassin and whatever for the expert. Wizard and cleric (and druid) would be different types of spellcaster. If these are done with feats, two characters could have the same basic abilities but customize that way. A warrior could take paladin feats, or just the standard combat-ish feats from the current game. In 3.x, spellcasters could cast Any spells; the "type" of magic (divine or arcane) really only impacted the attribute associated (Wisdom or Intelligence). I think this would allow a lot of flexibility and diversity.

Cross-pollination of spells is a game balance nightmare. 5e is the most balanced version I've ever played while maintaining the feel of earlier editions. I would not want to open the Pandora's Box of 2e or CoDzilla of 3e.

 

[mrpopstar]

Using these classes as the base for all things creates an opportunity for Spellcaster (Wizardry), Spellcaster (Sorcery), Spellcaster (Witchcraft), etc. Instead of having different mechanics for each type of spellcasting, we could instead have those divided spell lists we so desperately need (e.g. wizardry manipulates objects, sorcery manipulates energy, and witchcraft manipulates creatures). I'm into it!

 

[paladinn]

Not to mention spellcaster (Cleric). Although I'd be tempted to use the name Mystic instead of Spellcaster, if Mystic hadn't been grabbed for the new UA psionics class.

So if you want a cleric of a god of fire, load up on fire-based spells. Easy-peasy.

There are some channel divinity abilities that, IMHO, would need to be made into spells, but that should be easy too.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Or subscribe to D&D Beyond, very easy to build a PC or NPC.

If I ever need a computer in order to play a tabletop RPG, then something has gone very wrong.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Using these classes as the base for all things creates an opportunity for Spellcaster (Wizardry), Spellcaster (Sorcery), Spellcaster (Witchcraft), etc. Instead of having different mechanics for each type of spellcasting, we could instead have those divided spell lists we so desperately need (e.g. wizardry manipulates objects, sorcery manipulates energy, and witchcraft manipulates creatures). I'm into it!

That sounds more like a PBTA game than DnD, to me.

Part of the appeal of dnd magic is that it works differently. Even in 4e, wizards, clerics, and bards, all did very different things. The actual mechanics of the spellcasters should feel different.

 

[Monayuris]

That sounds more like a PBTA game than DnD, to me.

Part of the appeal of dnd magic is that it works differently. Even in 4e, wizards, clerics, and bards, all did very different things. The actual mechanics of the spellcasters should feel different.

As a counter-point, if you go back to OD&D & B/X, you had a Magic-User class that handled all spell casters (being a warlock or wizard or sorcerer was just a role-playing / background choice... they all worked the same).

B/X was especially interesting in that spells you can cast are the spells you know and that's it (you didn't have a separate pool of spells known to prepare from).

This made B/X spell casters unique since they couldn't just get together for a couple weeks and copy each other's spell books and end up being the same. A B/X magic user with sleep and charm person was a fundamentally different magic user than one with burning hands and magic missile. You could make the case that the first was an enchanter and the second was an elementalist or evoker.

In B/X, what 'kind' of spellcaster you were was dependent on what spells you know.

Personally, I can see a return of a single spell caster class that is defined by what spells are available / known to them.

I add myself to the contingent that is beginning to wonder if there is a viable 'D&D 5E Lite' buried somewhere here:

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As a counter-point, if you go back to OD&D & B/X, you had a Magic-User class that handled all spell casters (being a warlock or wizard or sorcerer was just a role-playing / background choice... they all worked the same).

B/X was especially interesting in that spells you can cast are the spells you know and that's it (you didn't have a separate pool of spells known to prepare from).

This made B/X spell casters unique since they couldn't just get together for a couple weeks and copy each other's spell books and end up being the same. A B/X magic user with sleep and charm person was a fundamentally different magic user than one with burning hands and magic missile. You could make the case that the first was an enchanter and the second was an elementalist or evoker.

In B/X, what 'kind' of spellcaster you were was dependent on what spells you know.

Personally, I can see a return of a single spell caster class that is defined by what spells are available / known to them.

I add myself to the contingent that is beginning to wonder if there is a viable 'D&D 5E Lite' buried somewhere here:

I’d say rather that Basic just only had a wizard, and didn’t include any other spellcasters, and called the wizard the Magic User.

Either way, though, DnD has changed and has a strong identity as what it is now. I’d bet 20$ that most players never played anything before 1e ADND, and id be unsurprised if I found evidence that most never played anything older than 2e or even 3e.

All that said, sure, a workable super basic dnd game could be made using these rules.

 

[Monayuris]

double post

 

[Monayuris]

I’d say rather that Basic just only had a wizard, and didn’t include any other spellcasters, and called the wizard the Magic User.

Either way, though, DnD has changed and has a strong identity as what it is now. I’d bet 20$ that most players never played anything before 1e ADND, and id be unsurprised if I found evidence that most never played anything older than 2e or even 3e.

All that said, sure, a workable super basic dnd game could be made using these rules.

I'm not against your intentions and I agree with you... but I'd just point out.

Sorcerer, warlock, wizard... are just classes created with recent editions to justify the existence of their mechanics. Wizard/Sorcerer difference wasn't a thing then... you are applying modern class paradigms to previous editions. Its kind of a cart before the horse thing. They create new mechanics to make unique spell casting... so they create classes to justify those mechanics.

Sorcerer wouldn't exist if there weren't new mechanics... same with wizard... same with warlock... they are classes that only exist because there are rules that make them so.

Sure the older editions aren't being played by a large number of players, now. But I make a point of changing that. I'm a huge proponent of the older classic editions and I run B/X games at meetups every week. Universally everyone has a great time. Old school gaming is profoundly important, and its principles helped shape the 5th edition of the game.

I think it is important to experience this game throughout its editions.

 

[paladinn]

As a counter-point, if you go back to OD&D & B/X, you had a Magic-User class that handled all spell casters (being a warlock or wizard or sorcerer was just a role-playing / background choice... they all worked the same).

B/X was especially interesting in that spells you can cast are the spells you know and that's it (you didn't have a separate pool of spells known to prepare from).

This made B/X spell casters unique since they couldn't just get together for a couple weeks and copy each other's spell books and end up being the same. A B/X magic user with sleep and charm person was a fundamentally different magic user than one with burning hands and magic missile. You could make the case that the first was an enchanter and the second was an elementalist or evoker.

In B/X, what 'kind' of spellcaster you were was dependent on what spells you know.

Personally, I can see a return of a single spell caster class that is defined by what spells are available / known to them.

I add myself to the contingent that is beginning to wonder if there is a viable 'D&D 5E Lite' buried somewhere here:

This.

Plus, while being a foundation for a good "Lite" game, it could be easily extensible. That really appeals to me: added options without added complexity.