Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Starter Spells; Plus UA Returning To Monthly & Sage Advice Returning

Chaos Bolt is the first Sorcerer-only spell. Interesting.

What I've read so far looks really good. I like the idea of Ceremony quite a bit, but some of the effects (Investiture!) might be a little overpowered.

 

[phantomK9]

Even though I personally dislike it, this is how Crawford says the spell works. The second benefit is once per cast.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/849302527069884416

Ah, I see.
So the wording on the UA is really bad.
Basically it should read:

Zephyr Strike
1st-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You move like the wind. For the duration, your
movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
In addition, on the turn you cast this spell the first time you make a weapon attack on your turn before your turn ends, you make the attack roll with advantage, and your speed increases by 30 feet until the end of that turn.

 

[pukunui]

Note that the advantage and speed bonus last "before the spell ends". The spell is a concentration spell that lasts up to one minute. So as long as you are concentrating you would get all the benefits. Although it does seem weird that these affects would be singled out.

The way I read it, and the way that Jeremy is saying it should be read, is that you get a one-use benefit (advantage on your first attack roll and +30 feet movement) that you can choose to use at any one point before the spell ends. The only benefit that lasts the whole way through is the immunity to opportunity attacks. This interpretation is consistent with other spells and abilities of a similar nature (like the paladin's smite spells). Perhaps everyone's feedback about this spell should be along the lines of tightening up the language so the intent is clearer.

... In addition, on the turn you cast this spell the first time you ...

No, that's not the intent. It doesn't have to be on the turn you cast the spell. It could be on turn 3, or turn 5, or turn 9. The point is, it only lasts for one turn, not for all the turns during which you are concentrating on the spell (and benefiting from immunity to opportunity attacks).

 

[Lanliss]

Ah, I see.
So the wording on the UA is really bad.
Basically it should read:

I think that is wrong.

"The first time you make a weapon attack on your turn during the duration"

So, the spell lasts 1 minute. The first time you make a weapon attack in that minute, and only the first time (even if it is 3 turns after you cast the spell), you gain the benefit. It does not count if it is activated by something like an Opportunity attack, or Commanders Strike, because those are not on your turn.

 

[Henry]

32 or 40 hrs or something like that to get the other half of your HD back, but yeah.

I'm not sure how it's a huge difference, though. Yes, it's a little less granular than tracking how long it takes you to memorize each spell and how many hps you get back for that day of rest while the cleric re-memorizes his spells after casting them all as heals. But, it's still a day or so and good to go.

Just another case of simplification, I think. And the DM can always override it. This curse requires that you cast remove curse in the Temple of Whoever in the Land of Unreachable, otherwise remove curse fails automatically. Sorry, the stars are not right, check your ritual and dial again later.

I invented a curse of Netherese design in my 5e campaign, currently afflicting a character. Removal requires several cryptic ingredients that it took them about 6 levels worth of adventuring to attain, that they just recently completed. Nary a complaint of rules-bending from the troup because they're having the time of their lives playing out the story.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For marriage the benefit should continue for 24 hours after each time the marriage is consummated and be lost for a month when one of the partners consummates with someone else.

Hey, don't try to impose puritanical hyper-monogamous ideals on me!

Also, why does it have to be only two people getting married in the first place?

If polyamory was good enough for the inventor of Wonder Woman, it's good enough for anyone!

<grumble>

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Be prepared for your 2nd- and 3rd-level players to constantly be saying, "Oh, last night before the long rest I used all my spell slots to cast elixirs, and now I hand them out to my party members."

Also, your second point is valid, except in campaigns where healing potions (and/or gold) are hard to come by.

Please, WOTC, ditch healing elixir for wizards. (And I love wizards, I'm trying to protect their distinctive flavor.) Let healing spells be the domain of clerics, paladins, druids, and bards.

In all for taking it away from wizards.

But Warlocks should keep it, imo.

 

[Lanliss]

Hey, don't try to impose puritanical hyper-monogamous ideals on me!

Also, why does it have to be only two people getting married in the first place?

If polyamory was good enough for the inventor of Wonder Woman, it's good enough for anyone!

<grumble>

Actually, IIRC, the spell does not specify a limit of 2. It just says adults. It is just that the default thought for most people is a pair, so that is what gets used in the example.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Actually, IIRC, the spell does not specify a limit of 2. It just says adults. It is just that the default thought for most people is a pair, so that is what gets used in the example.

Double checked, and yep.

So, stop assuming two person monogamy!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But Warlocks should keep it, imo.

From a mechanical standpoint, it's actually way more troublesome in the hands of warlocks, because it encourages them to spam short rests. You'd want some wording where the elixir "locks" a warlock's spell slot until it's used, or something like that.

From a flavor standpoint... no, can't get behind it at all. Warlocks have the most selfish and destructive spell list by design, and healing elixir is neither of those things. If you want the archetypical potion-brewing witch to fit in as a warlock, then the entire class needs a pretty drastic overhaul.

So, stop assuming two person monogamy!

So... three-person monogamy, then?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

From a mechanical standpoint, it's actually way more troublesome in the hands of warlocks, because it encourages them to spam short rests. You'd want some wording where the elixir "locks" a warlock's spell slot until it's used, or something like that.

From a flavor standpoint... no, can't get behind it at all. Warlocks have the most selfish and destructive spell list by design, and healing elixir is neither of those things. If you want the archetypical potion-brewing witch to fit in as a warlock, then the entire class needs a pretty drastic overhaul.


So... three-person monogamy, then?

Polyamory, is the preferred term.

Sometimes it is a relationship with 3 (or more) people, but otherwise the same rules as a 2 person relationship, sometimes it doesn't have those rules.

On the warlock stuff, I disagree on all points. It's a small amount of healing, and the Warlock only has a couple slots. Most of the time, they won't have one to spare, and when they do, it's fine.

Thematically, I'm not sure what you objection even is? They...don't have helpful spells...so, they shouldn't get helpful spells?

Also...the warlock can use the potion themselves. So, if your conception of the warlock is somehow purely selfish and destructive...cool? Don't share, I guess?