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.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Eh, there's kind of a precedent for this thing, in every other edition that includes feats. Just like a character with Strength 16 isn't really that strong, because the guy with Strength 20 is obviously stronger, the benchmark for comparison is someone who has everything synergized.

It was kind of the point of 5E, to reduce synergy. It was supposed to be that all you needed was a good stat, and proficiency in something, and you'd be good enough. One of the marks against feats is that it raises the expectations for everyone. If you're not using feats, then the strong fighter with the greatsword is all you need to fulfill the concept, and you're free to spend your other stat boosts on Dex or Wisdom or whatever. If you're using feats, then you're not "good" with a greatsword unless you've also spent the feat on it, because the benchmark for comparison has changed.

I get the idea, but I feel like some of the feats have actually dodged that problem. Greatswords definitely have that problem because the feat just makes you statistically better without changing the concept. I keep going back to TWF, but I really like how they did it, because the feat makes it better and also changes the concept a little to help delineate them. You get better but you also end up using different weapons, so a lot of people can look at it and say, "well, I want to be good at TWF, but I don't want to use two full-size weapons, so I'll just stop here then". If Dual Wielder had just been a bonus or a re-roll then you'd feel obligated.

Anyway my point is that mobility could be more like TWF and less like Great Weapons.

 

[Jester David]

I think that's the primary feature of the sub-class. In exchange for wanting the swashbuckler having to be his own meat-shield and absorb attacks, he gets to do more damage all the time. The Thief and the Assassin get to do more damage in melee only occasionally (only when an ally is adjacent to the enemy), but in exchange they get attacked less often because the other allies are there to take their share of the attacks as well (and oftentimes have abilities that can draw off attacks from the Rogue or reduce effectiveness to enemies who want to attack the Rogue rather than the tanks next to him.)

If you want a Rogue sub-class that is meant to duel with an enemy and go mano-a-mano, there has to be a good reason to make the Rogue want to do it. Giving them their Sneak Attack damage is a way to do so. It becomes "massive damage versus massive damage", first one to blow the other's HP to 0 as quickly as possible wins.

It's certainly one way to do the solo-ing rogue. Giving it some extra AC or parrying might be better though. And it pairs well with ranged allies so the group can still focus fire. Or a tank with a polearm (making this the go to rogue to party with a polearm master warrior).

I wonder if it might be better if it was limited to not having an ally within 10 feet, or even 15 feet. So the rogue really has to be on their own.

Just a random thought, not sure if I believe it. Because this was listed as an "in addition" instead of it's own power that a major upgrade would be, could the intend that this replaces the "ally within 5 feet"? So a normal rogue can SA with advantage or an ally within 5' of the target, and a Swashbuckler rogue can SA with advantage or with no allies adjacent to the target.

Just changes the parameters, not extending them.

Again, not sure I read it like that, just putting it out there for others to digest.

I think if it was replacing an ability it'd be much more clear.

A rogue who isn't getting sneak attack almost every round anyway is doing something wrong. This is barely going to add to their average damage. It's just a little perk. (And yeah, it should have said "within 5 feet" like everything else.)

There's a lot of times rogues won't be getting sneak. Sneak is really a 50-75% bonus to damage. If it were meant to be all the time it'd just be all the time without a rider or restriction.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The feat "Athlete" overlaps the Thief's Second Story Work feature. There is some overlap between the Barbarian's Danger Sense and the Dungeon Delver feat. Mountain Dwarves who do not get shield proficiency from their class have to take the Moderately armored feat if they want to get that proficiency, 'wasting' part of that feat.

My point being; there is plenty of overlap between feats and other abilities already. This not unprecedented.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There's a lot of times rogues won't be getting sneak. Sneak is really a 50-75% bonus to damage. If it were meant to be all the time it'd just be all the time without a rider or restriction.

I guess experiences differ, but having DMed three rogues (one all the way through LMoP, and another two for shorter games), and played one briefly, my observation has been that the rogue players almost never found themselves without sneak attack. It happened, but I can remember most of the times it did, because it stuck out. In such a situation, about half the time the rogue would attack anyway, and the other half they'd find something else to do (like maneuver so they'd get sneak attack next turn).

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think I will be stealing the minotaur mechanics to use as Qunari for my Dragon Age game. Pretty close. I used half orc mechanics originally, but this takes the horns into account (and Qunari are sailors too).

 

[Connorsrpg]

Sorry, skipped a few pages of minotaur monk fighting, but put simply, if a large minotaur's horns deal 2d8, then going by the standard rules for weapon sizes in 5E, then shouldn't they simply deal 1d8 (or the large 2d10)? Why break their own rules? I had already written up a 4E-styled minotaur and used the 1 die for a Medium creature.

I reckon i will now add this minotaur as a subrace...not sure what to call the 4E one now,as it will be the other subrace.

If interested, my minotaur race is here:http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-races

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Sorry, skipped a few pages of minotaur monk fighting, but put simply, if a large minotaur's horns deal 2d8, then going by the standard rules for weapon sizes in 5E, then shouldn't they simply deal 1d8 (or the large 2d10)? Why break their own rules?

While I'm a big fan of character-monster consistency, in this case I don't think it's really much of a thing. These aren't the same kind of minotaur. They are a smaller race that superficially resemble the MM minotaurs. Kind of like halflings to humans. They are built differently. If you just took a MM minotaur and shrunk it to medium size it would make sense to do 1d8, but this is (literally) a whole different creature.

It's worth pointing out that without the context of Krynn, these minotaurs might be difficult to grasp, as they are designed to represent that specific race, rather than just to represent "playable minotaur." Personally, they gave me what I want to see, and I wouldn't be interested in a "Minotaur Runt" write up just to justify playing something that looks like it is out of the MM, but isn't. (If someone wants to play an actual MM minotaur in my game, I just give them a level equivalent with some houserules and let them add class levels via multiclassing.)

 

[Herobizkit]

Did we really get to 16 pages without one horny sailor joke?

Also, how about a Minotaur Swashbuckler/Storm Sorcerer with Dual Wield and the other "Dual Wield" that lets you use non-light weapons?

 

[Inchoroi]

Did we really get to 16 pages without one horny sailor joke?

I know, I was surprised as well.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Perhaps the Texans' kicker is secretly one of these minotaurs. Randy Bullock...