Unearthed Arcana Variant Rules - Previews and Questions

[Plane Sailing]

The domain wizard, however, is just better then the generalist, so it's hardly balanced.
If you feel that the standard wizard is unbalanced, then a domain wizard would be the solution. I would even tend to agree, because I think that 3.5 tipped the scales to the warrior classes favor. (esp. because of the new Power Attack ruling).

But still, allowing domain wizards makes generalists obsolete. That's all I meant by calling them broken.

I think you are making assumptions based on incomplete information.

You are responding as though domain wizards are meant to be an option that stands alongside plain wizards and specialists. It seems equally likely to me that domain wizards could be dropped into a campaign as the generic wizard class, replacing both generalists and specialists.

That would be a perfectly valid way of using an optional rule for domain wizards, and it would seem to be a perfectly natural one to me.

A more correct formulation of your objection might be "a DM deciding to allow domain wizards as an option alongside generalists is broken". The class variant itself is not.

Cheers

 

[MadBlue]

Level progressions for Defense Bonus:
defense bonus is based on CHARACTER level (not class level), multiclass characters take the better one
classes with no armor proficiency : level/3 +2
classes with light armor proficiency : level/3 +3
classes with light/medium armor proficiency : level/3 +4
classes with light/med. and heavy armor prof. : level/3 +6

Hmm. With this system, a 20th level Monk will have the same AC as an unarmored 20th level Fighter or Cleric.

I would have thought it would be related somewhat to Reflex save, or have the characters choose an "Offensive" or "Defensive" option, like in CoC. If a character picks up an armor proficiency Feat, does the character's Defense Bonus improve, or is the bonus just based on classes that have armor proficiency as a class feature?

 

[Frostmarrow]

Conjuration: acid splash, mage armor, web, stinking cloud, summon monster IV, wall of stone, acid fog, summon monster VII, maze, gate

Frostmarrow:

Dang! I was hoping for Summon Monster I, Summon Monster II, ...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hmm. With this system, a 20th level Monk will have the same AC as an unarmored 20th level Fighter or Cleric.

I would have thought it would be related somewhat to Reflex save, or have the characters choose an "Offensive" or "Defensive" option, like in CoC.

I like this way much better. It means that the core, uh, Fighter class gets to be the best at avoiding being hit in fighting. (the "based of Ref ST" option was used in SWd20 v1 and WoT, but was ditched in SWd20 V2 - too great for rogue types, too rubbish for fighters).

The 20th level Monk would have the same AC as the others... apart from his Wis bonus to AC, of course, which could put it up several more notches quite easily.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wonder if the defense value thing means that base 1st level fighters end up at AC16 by default? That is quite a big boost over what normal 1st level fighters afford.

I wonder if it is a "dodge" bonus, or some other named bonus?

I wonder how shields factor in these circumstances?

 

[Tarril Wolfeye]

Defense bonus is based only on armor proficiency as a class feature.
It doesn't stack with armor bonus, but with all other bonuses (even with shield and natural armor bonuses).
And yes, that means all 1st-level fighters get AC 16 by default.

 

[jasamcarl]

On the domain wizard.

I think I've heard it mentioned by a few designers that the wizard was balanced assuming specialization, so I think you can assume by default that the generalist wizard is underpowered. Now does that mean the domain wizard is balanced? Eh, I'm on the fence. Having the same number of spells, they both sacrafice versatility in certain respects, though the +1 caster level for domain spells is certainly a bit much.

 

[Trainz]

On the domain wizard:

IMC, since basic 3rd ed, as me as the DM and as my friend as the DM, no-one has ever played a wizard, favouring the sorceror instead. So my group feels that the wizard isn't interesting as is.

These changes might be just the thing to put the wizard on par with the sorc IMC. Might.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Some more...

Contacts- They are an optional rule that everyone gets. They're not overly powerful. They are assumed to come from your characters backstory. This variant doesn't do anything for NPCs you meet in roleplay, they are in addition to contacts.

Gestalt - There is a number of especially powerful combos recommended

Level based turning check - It's basically a level check + Charisma modifier vs. 10 + HD + turn resistance + Charisma modifier. There's a maximum number of HD you can turn with a check and the effects are not exactly the same.

Racial paragons - There are drow, dwarf, elf, gnome, half-dragon, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, human, orc, and tiefling paragons. No aasimar though.

About the domain wizard: the biggest problem I see with it is that it's strictly better than the standard wizard AND all specialist wizards as it gets no banned schools. You probably wouldn't use other wizards when using domain wizards.

Thank you

 

[jasamcarl]

On the domain wizard:

IMC, since basic 3rd ed, as me as the DM and as my friend as the DM, no-one has ever played a wizard, favouring the sorceror instead. So my group feels that the wizard isn't interesting as is.

These changes might be just the thing to put the wizard on par with the sorc IMC. Might.

Good. I'm not the only one. I'm still not sure where this notion that the sorcerer is underpowered relative to the wizard comes from.