Unearthed Arcana What's in YOUR Unearthed Arcana?

[Colder]

Look at that perfect normal distribution! That is a chart of beauty!

 

[Lidgar]

I voted for #3, the neutral option.

I find the options in the PHB to be just fine, and when I want something else, I'll just create it myself.

Having more options to look for inspiration is always nice, but most of the stuff so far on UA has been - yeah, underwhelming or not to my taste.

 

[77IM]

Yeah, I think they're approaching these subclasses all wrong. I think they should start from the premise, "which legit character concepts are difficult to create using just the PHB?" I liked the cleric and druid articles the best because they covered some interesting new ground, while still fitting in with the traditional fantasy genre. The fighter one, OTOH, was mechanically sound but flavor-wise a waste of space; we already have knights, sharpshooters, etc. in the PHB. (I think what people really want is a "warlord" martial archetype. *ducks*)

I'm really waiting for the sorcerer article. The fact that the PHB doesn't have a clear "Elsa" option seems like a pretty big fail to me.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Yeah, I think they're approaching these subclasses all wrong. I think they should start from the premise, "which legit character concepts are difficult to create using just the PHB?" I liked the cleric and druid articles the best because they covered some interesting new ground, while still fitting in with the traditional fantasy genre. The fighter one, OTOH, was mechanically sound but flavor-wise a waste of space; we already have knights, sharpshooters, etc. in the PHB.

I'm really waiting for the sorcerer article. The fact that the PHB doesn't have a clear "Elsa" option seems like a pretty big fail to me.

You can pretty much build Elsa now, using what's been released. The idea of someone that inherently connected to weather would be easily reflavored from the option in SCAG.

(I think what people really want is a "warlord" martial archetype. *ducks*)

*casts Vengeful Gaze of God on*

*Mantra* There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need a short rest.'

 

[77IM]

You can pretty much build Elsa now, using what's been released. The idea of someone that inherently connected to weather would be easily reflavored from the option in SCAG.

If you're willing to reflavor character options, entire classes can be eliminated. The game could be boiled down to a purely effect-based system, with no need for future rules supplements. There are games that work that way, and people really like them. (I'm a huge M&M fan, and it follows this strategy.) But D&D is not like that.

Flavor is baked into the character options in D&D. This can be extremely helpful at open tables and Adventurers' League games and for new or casual players. But it leads to two difficulties:

1) If the character concept you want doesn't exist yet, you need to resort to house-rules or reflavoring. Some people are more comfortable with this than others. Like, if one of my players wanted to be Elsa, it's pretty easy to refluff sorcerer's draconic bloodline (silver) into something more elemental-oriented. But a lot of people would find that unsatisfying. (We can argue whether they are right or wrong, but we won't change their minds. They're not reading this forum.)

2) If character options are redundant, it makes the game more confusing, and is a waste of space. This is my problem with some of the UA options. "Knight" is already a background option (it is a noble variant). Right now, you can play a classic "knight" archetype by taking that background and selecting fighter class and riding a horse and wearing shining armor. You don't need a Knight subclass. And if they introduce a Knight subclass, what does that say about all the "knight" characters who don't take it? Are they less knightly by comparison? The game just doesn't need any of that.

Some of the UA subclasses are better than other in this regard. Like, we could debate for a while whether Samurai should be a background, a martial archetype, or just another word for "noble" in a Japan-esque setting.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

If you're willing to reflavor character options, entire classes can be eliminated. The game could be boiled down to a purely effect-based system, with no need for future rules supplements. There are games that work that way, and people really like them. (I'm a huge M&M fan, and it follows this strategy.) But D&D is not like that.

Flavor is baked into the character options in D&D. This can be extremely helpful at open tables and Adventurers' League games and for new or casual players. But it leads to two difficulties:

1) If the character concept you want doesn't exist yet, you need to resort to house-rules or reflavoring. Some people are more comfortable with this than others. Like, if one of my players wanted to be Elsa, it's pretty easy to refluff sorcerer's draconic bloodline (silver) into something more elemental-oriented. But a lot of people would find that unsatisfying. (We can argue whether they are right or wrong, but we won't change their minds. They're not reading this forum.)

2) If character options are redundant, it makes the game more confusing, and is a waste of space. This is my problem with some of the UA options. "Knight" is already a background option (it is a noble variant). Right now, you can play a classic "knight" archetype by taking that background and selecting fighter class and riding a horse and wearing shining armor. You don't need a Knight subclass. And if they introduce a Knight subclass, what does that say about all the "knight" characters who don't take it? Are they less knightly by comparison? The game just doesn't need any of that.

Some of the UA subclasses are better than other in this regard. Like, we could debate for a while whether Samurai should be a background, a martial archetype, or just another word for "noble" in a Japan-esque setting.

To be honest, the main reason why DnD and its offshoots have always been massively prone to class bloat is because of refusal to reflavor existing rules. UA is reflecting that, which is why the Knight option shows up again; there are people actually demanding it because the background is not enough for them. Back before 3E, when multiclassing was a nightmare, this made sense; from 3E on, it has been more of a legacy problem than anything else, and it's a sacred cow that really should be put out to pasture.

You have to pick your poison. You can either continue with the lack of reflavoring and get the 20,000 useless redundant subclasses, or accept reflavoring and have to create the options you want. DnD has proven repeatedly that, with this game at least, there is no middle ground.

It should also be noted that the knight, even in real life, is both a background and a martial archetype. Even during the medieval era, there were people who had knighthoods that never fought, and there were knights who showed up regularly on the field of battle. Like the samurai, where the proper answer to the argument is that it's all three, the knight is something that cannot be properly modeled within 5E's system accurately without either some heavy reflavoring or a lot of redundancy. Both knighthood and being a samurai is something you could be born into or something you could earn (and both are also nobility). Adding mechanical considerations to backgrounds is one of the biggest flaws the 5E ruleset has, due to the resulting problems in recreating things such as your typical knight or samurai.