Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Spirits Bard and Undeath Warlock

We have a new UA release with two subclasses. The College of Spirits Bard is a fortune teller or spirit medium type character with a big random effect table. Meanwhile the Undeath Pact Warlock is a a do-over of the Undying Pact Warlock.

 

[Weiley31]

but Eldritch Mind requires Pact of the Tome.

I mean, every spell caster needs a meat shield regardless.

 

[Marandahir]

We DO have Vampire, as a race/folk/PC/, for one of the Planeshift Articles. Continues to eye this Warlock Subclass

Planeshift articles were not published with any sort of the rigour of playtesting that official WotC products go through. They're more like a DM's Guild product; Guild Adept quality of playtesting at best (and even many of the Guild Adept books are broken and unpolished - I say this as a buyer of all of those).

 

[Undrave]

Honestly, the SCAG subclasses could all use a better version anyway, the designers have more experience now so it wouldn't hurt. Plus, the book isn't that useful beyond a few niche options.

The Undead Warlock is... ok. I kind of like the transformation piece, but the effects are too scattershot for a caster. A rage for casters is fun, but it should be a bit more focused than it is right now.
The College of Spirits bard is flavorful but I agree with @doctorbadwolf The whole random story and effect is a big negative.

I think it makes a new solid option for Blade lock! It seems tailor made to make you a solid front liner, at least a few times per day. You get the Temp HP to account for lower base HP and with Mage Armor at-will you can do decently. Grab the last UA's shield feat and your AC is decent and you can use the shield as a focus!

Also, EXPLODING when you die is an hilarious power!

Yeah, that's my biggest complaint. Then again, I have a strong bias against level dipping and/or optimization in general anyway.

I don't know why they didn't do something like, "1/2 your warlock level, rounded down, minimum 1 time". They've done that a few times already in that way.

AUGH, no! That Form of Dread is clearly central to the concept and you'd want to only be able to use it once per day until level 3?! That's lame. Proficiency bonus times is the new paradigm and it works well. They don't balance for multi class, they've said it before.

 

[Charlaquin]

My problem with Oath of Treachery is that it was actually called an Oath. It should've just been a Blackguard and gone from there.

Oathbreaker to me is a Paladin who wilfully and knowingly violated their Oath and decided to go full evil. Blackguard, on the other hand, would be cool if presented as a Paladin who believes they've been following their Oath and have justified increasingly questionable actions against their Oaths, and they've become so adept at lying that they believe their own lies as fact and are unaware of how far they have fallen. I think there's a lot of design space for that concept separate from Oathbreaker, but IMO the "Oath of Treachery" didn't handle it particularly well.

I felt the same way, but because of that I wanted to see them iterate on the idea. Seems too many people felt that way and it failed to meet the 70% satisfaction threshold or whatever it is and they just dropped it. I don’t want to see the same thing happen with the best expression of an Orcus pact we’ve seen so far.

 

[Weiley31]

Planeshift articles were not published with any sort of the rigour of playtesting that official WotC products go through. They're more like a DM's Guild product; Guild Adept quality of playtesting at best (and even many of the Guild Adept books are broken and unpolished - I say this as a buyer of all of those).

I mean yeah I know but still, seems like the flavors would match very well.

 

[Marandahir]

Honestly, the SCAG subclasses could all use a better version anyway, the designers have more experience now so it wouldn't hurt. Plus, the book isn't that useful beyond a few niche options.

Wouldn't mind a revisit for those (unless they were more recently republished in XGE). But I'd love to hear from WotC that the revists are purposeful replacements because the original subclasses were mistakes.

I think it makes a new solid option for Blade lock! It seems tailor made to make you a solid front liner, at least a few times per day. You get the Temp HP to account for lower base HP and with Mage Armor at-will you can do decently. Grab the last UA's shield feat and your AC is decent and you can use the shield as a focus!

And thank Weejas for that! Pact of the Blade was basically toothless until XGE when we got Hexblade, but then it basically became "if you play as a Hexblade, take Pact of the Blade; if you play as any other subclass, do not take it." If we've got 3+ Pact Boon options, they should not be limited to single subclasses for synergy. I realise Pact of the Blade is subpar for Fiend and Archfey and GOOs, but it's there for them. There should be multiple abovepar options for the Pact Boon.

Also, more Arcane Gish concepts are great. Since ExE's inclusion of a Swordmagey artificer in Forge Adepts, I've finally come around to the idea that the Arcane Gish does not need its own class.

I felt the same way, but because of that I wanted to see them iterate on the idea. Seems too many people felt that way and it failed to meet the 70% satisfaction threshold or whatever it is and they just dropped it. I don’t want to see the same thing happen with the best expression of an Orcus pact we’ve seen so far.

When I give feedback, I always caveat it with that I do NOT want them to drop the option, just tinker with it. I fear WotC often takes the wrong impression from dislikes of implementation as if we don't want the concept in the game. Too many great ideas dropped because they didn't hit that threshold!!!

I mean yeah I know but still, seems like the flavors would match very well.

True. I personally prefer Vampires as a non-ancestry concept that is layered on top, whether as a class, or a feat, or a subclass, or maybe the best variation would be a supernatural gift; heck, make Werewolf a supernatural gift and run all these prestige class-y ideas into that territory.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally, I don't think subclasses should be that narrow. Liches and Orcus are both Undead (or closely associated with the Undead). If it's called the Undead, a Lich should be a possible patron. Instead, it should have room for both Pact of the Blade style "Death Knights" and pact of the tome style "Liches-In-Training." And room for being a Vampire thrall.

I do agree about Oath of Treachery; I thought it was vastly preferable to Oathbreaker, and would wish instead that Oathbreaker belonged to a Ronin/historical Black Knight type concept of someone who has abandoned their oaths. I don't see all Oathbreakers becoming Blackguards because they broke their oaths. The one as written feels like someone who broke an Oath of Devotion specifically (maybe also Oath of Redemption). Though the name felt weird - I'm swearing an oath to betray? Treachery is more like the opposite of Oaths, hence the overlap with Oathbreaker. Still was a better iteration on the Oathbreaker's stories, but neither really fulfilled what they were named for. Might be an issue with calling Paladin subclasses Sacred Oaths… in 4Essentials we had the similar but destinct Cavalier Paladin Virtues and Blackguard Paladin Vices. I think Treachery fit that narrative chart a bit better than it did for "Oaths."

Ultimately, I don't MIND them publishing the Undead, but I'd prefer if they just out and said, "this is proposed errata for SCAG." And if they do that, they should just errata Way of the Four Elements Monk, PHB Ranger & Beast Master, etc, rather than dropping them as alternate iterations on the same concept. But then again, maybe this is all for that "Big Book of Character Options and Variants" in which case… sure?

I don’t think it should be errata though. I’m all for patrons being generalized (“The Fiend” standing in for any number of infernal entities instead of just Asmodeus for example), but again, names aside, I think the Undead and the Undying fill very distinct story roles. Forget Vecna vs. Orcus or whatever, the point I was trying to make is that the warlock who makes a pact for eternal life is narratively very distinct from the warlock who makes a pact for the power to raise the dead.

 

[Weiley31]

best variation would be a supernatural gift;

Agreed.

 

[Weiley31]

Undead and the Undying

Arthas the Death Knight/The Nameless One.

 

[Undrave]

The weirdest thing about the Bard is that 'when you start a Long Rest' clause on the ritual ability. You can always start a long rest but you never known if you'll finish it... it feels needlessly open to wonkiness and should just use the old 'finish a long rest' so you still have that spell if you get interrupted.

And thank Weejas for that! Pact of the Blade was basically toothless until XGE when we got Hexblade, but then it basically became "if you play as a Hexblade, take Pact of the Blade; if you play as any other subclass, do not take it." If we've got 3+ Pact Boon options, they should not be limited to single subclasses for synergy. I realise Pact of the Blade is subpar for Fiend and Archfey and GOOs, but it's there for them. There should be multiple abovepar options for the Pact Boon.

Also, more Arcane Gish concepts are great. Since ExE's inclusion of a Swordmagey artificer in Forge Adepts, I've finally come around to the idea that the Arcane Gish does not need its own class.

I made a Fey Bladelock before! I dumped CHA for DEX instead and used Sleep, Shadow Blade and Mirror Image as spells to avoid the need for CHA and had the Mage Armor invocation. It worked decently well...

But this is way better for sure!