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.

 

[Obryn]

I really don't like the Panache ability. It's a mixture of the 4e taunt ability and a non-magical charm.

It's much more potent than any defender feature in 4e. Marking presents a catch-22. This is on par with the 3.5 knight. Which means it's kind of boring in comparison, but imo fine.

 

[Inchoroi]

I still like the essential narrative of taunting an enemy to reduce their effectiveness, but I think it should feel less like a "Fight me! I'm the one you want!" tank thing and more like a smug "Haha! Wow, you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn! By all means, keep embarrassing yourself!" thing. Here's how I would do it: If they fall for the taunt, they have disadvantage on all attack rolls. The effect lasts for one minute or until they successfully deal damage to you.

Then it's less of a tanking thing and more of a debuff that makes you a somewhat more tempting target.

This is pretty much the best idea.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I shouldn't have to choose between a mechanical benefit OR looking cool. I should be able to have both.

Why do you feel that way? Why should a fighter with a sword and shield be only as effective as a fighter with the same sword and no shield?

On a similar note, who should a fighter wielding a "cool improvised weapon", such as a tree branch or iron pipe, be as effective as one wielding an actual weapon, such as a greatsword? For those advocating the Gamma World style of weapon differentiation.

 

[Fralex]

Fun fact: Swashbucklers can sneak attack enemies their allies aren't near, and sneak attack enemies their allies ARE near, but if the enemy stands next to an unconsious enemy ("enemy" from the enemy's perspective), suddenly it's safe from them!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I really, really love the "ribbons" concept. It has the potential for a great deal of coolness. The first other ribbon I thought of was actually from Piratecat's story hour, the way paladins and clerics of the sun god can look directly at the sun without damaging their vision.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I still like the essential narrative of taunting an enemy to reduce their effectiveness, but I think it should feel less like a "Fight me! I'm the one you want!" tank thing and more like a smug "Haha! Wow, you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn! By all means, keep embarrassing yourself!" thing. Here's how I would do it: If they fall for the taunt, they have disadvantage on all attack rolls. The effect lasts for one minute or until they successfully deal damage to you.

I think I'd prefer that it cause disadvantage to all attack rolls except attack rolls made against the swashbuckler. (Disad on all attacks strikes me as possibly unbalanced.) Then the swashbuckler's various maneuvering abilities come in handy, as the swashbuckler strikes and moves, finding ways to keep the opponent from successfully attacking him.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

[

Why do you feel that way? Why should a fighter with a sword and shield be only as effective as a fighter with the same sword and no shield?

On a similar note, who should a fighter wielding a "cool improvised weapon", such as a tree branch or iron pipe, be as effective as one wielding an actual weapon, such as a greatsword? For those advocating the Gamma World style of weapon differentiation.

I don't think they should be as effective. I think a shield should generally be more effective. I just don't think it should be 2 whole precious points of AC more effective. I'm willing to sacrifice some effectiveness for cool--but not all of it. Choosing to go without a shield (when nothing stops you from using one) is kind of like choosing to go without armor. You are required to take an enormous penalty for the sake of character concept/coolness. I think you should take a penalty, for the sake of verisimilitude. But I think the penalty should be partially offset by a lesser benefit, for the sake of encouraging character concepts.

 

[Fralex]

I think one of my favorite ribbons was giving tieflings access to thaumaturgy. Such a cool way of giving players (and DMs with tiefling NPCs) a bunch of neat little roleplaying tools to emphasize the fact that their character has a significant supernatural presence. You can make their eyes gleam when they're confident, make their voice boom and the ground shake when they're mad, and open or close doors without touching them just to creep people out.

 

[pukunui]

Ah. And I might be unconsciously influenced by the "v3" label on the file for this one--perhaps they put it there to try to implant the impression that it was more polished than it is...

I hadn't noticed the v3. I guess they've been playing around with this stuff internally.

I still like the essential narrative of taunting an enemy to reduce their effectiveness, but I think it should feel less like a "Fight me! I'm the one you want!" tank thing and more like a smug "Haha! Wow, you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn! By all means, keep embarrassing yourself!" thing. Here's how I would do it: If they fall for the taunt, they have disadvantage on all attack rolls. The effect lasts for one minute or until they successfully deal damage to you.

Then it's less of a tanking thing and more of a debuff that makes you a somewhat more tempting target.

My sentiments exactly!

The other thing I've been finding with my paladin is that stuff like compelled duel - and now Panache - is problematic in the context of teamplay. It turns you into something of a glory hog: "I call dibs on the main baddie! None of the rest of you get to fight him! Just me!" Especially if it's a big solo beast like a dragon or giant or something. You can't have your teammates doing nothing lest they break the charm.

 

[redrick]

I like everything save the Panache ability; I don't question its balance as much as its appropriateness as written. It doesn't make sense for a rogue who's jumping in and out to be, basically, taunting a target and trying to tank. Something more appropriate would be a way to get advantage on a regular basis, or bleeding damage, or ignoring resistance, or something, dunno.

Well, it's not exactly tanking. I think the idea of this ability is to attempt to goad an opponent around a battlefield, since the swashbuckler can dart in, attack, and then cunning dash back without drawing an OA. Particularly useful if the opponent has poor ranged options — you can try to draw him into taking OA's from your allies as he tries to charge you.

The major downside of this ability, for the rogue is, of course, rogues really don't want to be the focus of anybody's attacks! Fewer hp and lower AC than some of the others on the field. So, the best way to end the effect is to outmaneuver the rogue so that he can no longer avoid your attacks. Then crush the little pipsqueak with your big heavy weapon. (Since, again, this is only effective against strength-based opponents with crummy ranged damage. Panaching an archer is just asking to be turned into a pin-cushion.)

Not saying the effect might not be unbalanced, but I'm not seeing much reference to that aspect yet.

Also, gotta say that I just love this format. Instead of splat books, we get a Designer's Guide to Hacking Your Game. The pre-built options are cool, but the explanation and analysis is even more valuable, because it's all about, "hey, here's how to make the crunch that you want for your campaign."