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.

 

[Haldrik]

I suppose that's true, and maybe it's not fair of me to think that way. I'm just tired of ideas being tossed because they can't meet WotC's arbitrary 70%, and complaints about multiclassing interactions are pretty common ones in response to UA. The single level MC issue comes up around here a lot.

For me, I agree with 70% methodology − even when there are certain results that I like less.

It helps keep most of 5e popular and useful.

It also helps prevent the edition from accumulating low-quality bloat.




By the way, the experimental UAs remain, even if they failed the 70% test. So there is still some quasi-official niche products already available. Personally, I am happy with the UA Modern, for example.



I am satisfied with DMsGuild being the go-to place for experimental niches.

That said, I find it difficult to navigate and to peruse DMsGuild content. So, even when it is there, it is hard for me to know where to look for high quality stuff that might interest me.

If I was in a physical bookstore, I would peruse the books (while drinking coffee) and decide if I want to purchase it. But that kind of freedom is more restrained in the DMsGuild setup, where there is only a predetermined glimpse, such as a table of contents, or a passage that might not be the part that I want to look more closely at. Here, I am unsure of a solution. Maybe each account can peruse a certain number of books per week, month, or year? Maybe pay money to refresh a perusal? Anyway, it would help me to look at the high quality costly offerings.

Of course, there is much high quality in DMsGuild that is pay-what-you-want! Here, navigation to find it is the main challenge.

 

[Weiley31]

By the way, the experimental UAs remain, even if they failed the 70% test. So there is still some quasi-official niche products already available. Personally, I am happy with the UA Modern, for example.

This is true. DNDwikidot has pretty much all the UA subclasses and feats except for maybe the Love/Unity Domain.

 

[NaturalZero]

I disagree. I think it's profoundly liberating. As liberating as eliminating AD&D race-class restrictions and eliminating AD&D human dual classing vs demihuman multiclassing. I think it's more liberating that eliminating pre-5e class alignment restrictions, more liberating that eliminating AD&D racial level maximums, and more liberating than eliminating 1e AD&D gender strength limitations.

When my main group moved to 4e, we eventually noticed that almost everyone we ever played with automatically fell into racial choices that always gave the "right" numbers for whatever class they wanted to play. Eventually, we decided that everyone could just pick any pair of +2 ability score bonuses at character creation and suddenly we had a whole range of characters that wouldn't have existed if we had kept using the standard racial ability score bonuses. Letting people just pick the stats that make sense for their character instead of being steered towards specific races that gives the "right" numbers is a huge boon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree. I think it's profoundly liberating. As liberating as eliminating AD&D race-class restrictions and eliminating AD&D human dual classing vs demihuman multiclassing. I think it's more liberating that eliminating pre-5e class alignment restrictions, more liberating that eliminating AD&D racial level maximums, and more liberating than eliminating 1e AD&D gender strength limitations.

I agree that some of what each race or subrace gets doesn't really reinforce what the game says each subrace's culture values. The game has historically used racial ability modifiers as a crutch for accomplishing that, and it really shows if you eliminate how they pigeonhole (i.e., stereotype) each race. However, that doesn't mean racial ability modifiers are actually a good design, just that that design has an impact on play. I agree that, for example, mountain Dwarves seem to benefit non-martial classes much more, but I'm not convinced that it really matters that Dwarven Wizards prefer to wear breastplate or half plate.

Damn.

I mean, I don’t really experience the pull toward race/class synergy unless I’m theorycrafting out of boredom, but if even 1% of the community experiences it strongly enough to feel this way about getting rid of racial ASI’s, I’m all for making them optional.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Are most tables that tilted towards combat? In my experience, at least half to two thirds of a session are spent exploring and scouting, negotiating and investigating, dithering and puzzling.

Most tables have these things, but you can't really min-max for them and you can still do them just fine while min-maxing for combat. Partially because the rules are very simple (you either have proficiency or you don't) and partially because the most common fix is to go around the rules in these scenarios - if you can persuade the guards by persuading the dm, there's really no point in investing heavily in persuasion-based mechanics since they won't be used. Maybe proficiency, but you only needed two skills for combats as-is, so that leaves two to put wherever.

In other words, there's no real tradeoff of non-combat abilities vs combat abilities. You can easily have both. Meaning it's better for your character to min-max for combat* than not, because the alternative is just "not being as good at combat." It's not really a question of being worse at another pillar.

*well, min-maxing within the bounds of your character's concept, anyways. If you build a character that's powerful but boring, the boring aspect will probably outweigh the powerful part in your play experience.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

According to you. Again, you're reading into things that just aren't there. ¯\(ツ)/¯

Really, really not, as is plain to see (except for the usual cheerleaders).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Most tables have these things, but you can't really min-max for them and you can still do them just fine while min-maxing for combat. Partially because the rules are very simple (you either have proficiency or you don't) and partially because the most common fix is to go around the rules in these scenarios - if you can persuade the guards by persuading the dm, there's really no point in investing heavily in persuasion-based mechanics since they won't be used. Maybe proficiency, but you only needed two skills for combats as-is, so that leaves two to put wherever.

In other words, there's no real tradeoff of non-combat abilities vs combat abilities. You can easily have both. Meaning it's better for your character to min-max for combat* than not, because the alternative is just "not being as good at combat." It's not really a question of being worse at another pillar.

*well, min-maxing within the bounds of your character's concept, anyways. If you build a character that's powerful but boring, the boring aspect will probably outweigh the powerful part in your play experience.

I agree with most of what you say, but disagree with this conclusion. Combat in 5e is easy, so there is no point in min-maxing for it. The party will win whatever, the only difference min-maxing makes is it might be over a round earlier.

 

[Azzy]

Really, really not, as is plain to see (except for the usual cheerleaders).

Are you still stalking me?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I agree with most of what you say, but disagree with this conclusion. Combat in 5e is easy, so there is no point in min-maxing for it. The party will win whatever, the only difference min-maxing makes is it might be over a round earlier.

... You're not wrong, but if anything that strengthens to point that minimaxing for combat doesn't make you worse at the other pillars, since there's still no opportunity cost for not doing so. You're going to be equally good at non-combat regardless.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with most of what you say, but disagree with this conclusion. Combat in 5e is easy, so there is no point in min-maxing for it. The party will win whatever, the only difference min-maxing makes is it might be over a round earlier.

The difference is that minmaxing can make an individual more successful, which (understandably I think) is something many players like.