Unearthed Arcana Waterborne Adventures: New from Unearthed Arcana

I, for one, am very pleased with the different options for existing classes over completely different classes.

I don't really have an balance thoughts. Balance isn't an issue with me unless it's incredibly flagrant.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My point is that if they have to avoid stepping on Krynn's toes, they might as well not step on their own while they are at it.

Feats are just in a really weird design space. They have to be cool enough to compete against +2 to your main stat, but they can't hand out anything that's fundamental to a character concept, since those concepts need to remain valid for any game that doesn't use feats.

Honestly, it probably wasn't the smartest move they could have made.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My point is that if they have to avoid stepping on Krynn's toes, they might as well not step on their own while they are at it.

I think it's actually healthy that there's more than one way to skin the cat.

If you want to be a moble warrior you don't HAVE to take the mobility feat - you can now also be a swashbuckler. Each bit supports its concept fully without requiring anything outside of it to make it work. System mastery is reduced because there's more than one way to the goal. Options are extended. Enjoyment is had by more. The world is a better place.

Similarly, the "minotaurs replace brutes" scenario - more than one kind of brute in the world, more than one story to be told about the big and strong, more than one race to embody that, more people are happy.

Too many people want too many diverse things from D&D to say that there must be One True Mobility Option (or whatever).

 

[bedir than]

I think it's actually healthy that there's more than one way to skin the cat.

If you want to be a moble warrior you don't HAVE to take the mobility feat - you can now also be a swashbuckler. Each bit supports its concept fully without requiring anything outside of it to make it work. System mastery is reduced because there's more than one way to the goal. Options are extended. Enjoyment is had by more. The world is a better place.

Similarly, the "minotaurs replace brutes" scenario - more than one kind of brute in the world, more than one story to be told about the big and strong, more than one race to embody that, more people are happy.

Too many people want too many diverse things from D&D to say that there must be One True Mobility Option (or whatever).

When people design and use their own settings they should be pulling in "some" of the broad scope of DnD, not all of it. There's a wide variety of things out there, but in many cases the uniqueness of setting gets lost because they all try to be everything.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Feats are just in a really weird design space. They have to be cool enough to compete against +2 to your main stat, but they can't hand out anything that's fundamental to a character concept, since those concepts need to remain valid for any game that doesn't use feats.

Honestly, it probably wasn't the smartest move they could have made.

Yeah. I guess if they are trying to please everybody, it was gonna get a little awkward at some point.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I think it's actually healthy that there's more than one way to skin the cat.

If you want to be a moble warrior you don't HAVE to take the mobility feat - you can now also be a swashbuckler. Each bit supports its concept fully without requiring anything outside of it to make it work. System mastery is reduced because there's more than one way to the goal. Options are extended. Enjoyment is had by more. The world is a better place.

I think it would be good to have more than one way to be mobile, I just wish they interacted with one another instead of being redundant. Like TWF: You can just do it, or you can take the fighting style, or you can take the feat, or you can take both. I wish it was like that.

Similarly, the "minotaurs replace brutes" scenario - more than one kind of brute in the world, more than one story to be told about the big and strong, more than one race to embody that, more people are happy.

You misunderstand me, here. The article says that these Minotaurs AREN'T brutes because we already have those. I would have preferred brutes. Because, like you said, it's okay to have more than one brute. But it's fine, I can make them myself.

I get what you mean, though. It is okay to have some things that are redundant, I guess. But it is a little more sloppy than they have been up till now.

 

[TwoSix]

I wish they continued the practice of ensuring that class and racial traits don't overlap feats.

I think feats are broad enough for that to be a nearly impossible practice. I mean, ritual caster is a totally wasted feat for a tome warlock, and I haven't seen a lot of complaints about that. I agree that it also feels a little weird, for me, coming from a 3e/4e background where feat choices were intended to synergize with your class and race features, but I understand and respect that design decision that feats are intended to broaden the character, not specialize them.

 

[ranger69]

It would be interesting so see comments on UA rules after they have been used in play. Peoples perceptions may alter after using them. On all the UA articles I believe WOTC have said that they are playtest. Therefore they should be viewed as such.

 

[ad_hoc]

For direct comparison against a two-handed weapon wielding melee combatant class, I agree with you. But that's not all there is out there.

First, this is a direct upgrade for a sword-and-board fighter at low levels (pre-magic items), since the best they can get is a d8 weapon.

Also, it leaves you with a hand free. Very good for a grappler, even better for a melee casters who can cast spells with somatic components and still have a good weapon (and perhaps a shield).

Let's combine them all. A strength based minotaur skald (bard of valor) who uses expertise on Athletics to grapple even better. Free hands for spells and grappling, better AC with shield, and a weapon with a higher damage die then they could do with that shield otherwise.

Just like racial weapon proficiencies from dwarves and elves, it usually doesn't help those who are already focusing on using those weapons, but does help those who normally wouldn't get something that good.

Sure, that works to the minotaur's strengths.

It sounds fun. Having good options is fine.

The question is whether a minotaur is a better bard than a half-elf.

I would say no. They are better at different things, and that is fine.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I think feats are broad enough for that to be a nearly impossible practice. I mean, ritual caster is a totally wasted feat for a tome warlock, and I haven't seen a lot of complaints about that. I agree that it also feels a little weird, for me, coming from a 3e/4e background where feat choices were intended to synergize with your class and race features, but I understand and respect that design decision that feats are intended to broaden the character, not specialize them.

Well, that is a weird example. I am looking at things like the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat. They are thematically similar but designed so that they interact. They stack, essentially, because they don't improve your ability to fight with two weapons in exactly the same way.

The reason the Fancy Footwork trait and the Minotaur traits are not like the Ritual Caster feat is that they are not self-contained. What I mean is, if you have a Swashbuckling Rogue, he can't get the +10 ft. movement bonus and the ability to ignore difficult terrain without wasting 1/3 of a feat. Which means those options, for him, are essentially removed. It is a little sloppy, that is all I am saying.

Ritual Caster isn't like that, there isn't any part of that feat that the Warlock is missing out on, so it doesn't hurt him in any way.

 

[Inchoroi]

I think feats are broad enough for that to be a nearly impossible practice. I mean, ritual caster is a totally wasted feat for a tome warlock, and I haven't seen a lot of complaints about that. I agree that it also feels a little weird, for me, coming from a 3e/4e background where feat choices were intended to synergize with your class and race features, but I understand and respect that design decision that feats are intended to broaden the character, not specialize them.

Didn't Ritual Caster in the playtest give you two non-ritual spells as rituals? Or am I not remembering that right...?

Well, that is a weird example. I am looking at things like the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat. They are thematically similar but designed so that they interact. They stack, essentially, because they don't improve your ability to fight with two weapons in exactly the same way.

The reason the Fancy Footwork trait and the Minotaur traits are not like the Ritual Caster feat is that they are not self-contained. What I mean is, if you have a Swashbuckling Rogue, he can't get the +10 ft. movement bonus and the ability to ignore difficult terrain without wasting 1/3 of a feat. Which means those options, for him, are essentially removed. It is a little sloppy, that is all I am saying.

Ritual Caster isn't like that, there isn't any part of that feat that the Warlock is missing out on, so it doesn't hurt him in any way.

As far as Swashbuckler goes, I don't think it breaks anything to give them the +10ft of movement, either, but that may just be me.