Which of these UA subclasses do you HATE?

Which of these UA subclasses do you HATE?

  • Psychic Warrior

    Votes: 19 28.8%
  • Soulknife

    Votes: 17 25.8%
  • Arcane Tradition: Psionics

    Votes: 39 59.1%
  • Rune Knight

    Votes: 13 19.7%
  • Swarmkeeper

    Votes: 23 34.8%
  • The Revived

    Votes: 42 63.6%
  • Twighlight Domain

    Votes: 14 21.2%
  • Circle of Wildfire

    Votes: 16 24.2%
  • Onomancy

    Votes: 37 56.1%
  • College of Eloquence

    Votes: 18 27.3%
  • Oath of Heroism

    Votes: 11 16.7%
  • Abherrant Mind

    Votes: 17 25.8%
  • The Lurker in the Deap

    Votes: 14 21.2%
  • Path of the Wild Soul

    Votes: 25 37.9%
  • Way of the Astral Self

    Votes: 18 27.3%

  • Total voters
    66
So out of curiosity what’s wrong with Onomancy?
It has a unique power to break plots.

Some fantasy storylines make discovering the True Name of some entity or other a key plot point. Arch-fiends and the like go to great ends to conceal them. And now some 2nd level wizard can come along and uncover the deepest secret with no effort at all, and there is nothing even the most powerful arch-fiend can do to stop them.
 
There is only one person I ever saw say they actively hated the warlord. “I don’t see a need” doesn’t mean hate.
Indeed. I deliberately used hyperbolic language for this poll*. I would not confuse a lack of interest in something for hatred.



*and no, it was not intended entirely seriously - but the Dark Side does have cookies...
 
That runs into worse problems from the other direction. Either you need to make a subrace variant for every single eligible race or you end up with "Well I was a halfling but then I died and now I'm all big and generically human looking". By bolting it onto Rogue it's open to everyone and can leverage the class's innate focus on skills and tricks.
I would rather keep the whole "reincarnation" thing a plot point, and setting specific. The Nameless One returns to life because of a warlock style pact. It's not a class feature.

An Epic Boon would be closer to the mark.
 

Kurotowa

Adventurer
I would rather keep the whole "reincarnation" thing a plot point, and setting specific. The Nameless One returns to life because of a warlock style pact. It's not a class feature.
In concept, I like the idea of making it a subclass. It gives you room to put mechanical weight and game abilities behind it, and that makes it more real. More earned. If it's just a plot point in your background it's just chuuni posturing about how amazingly awesome you are even though you're only 3rd Level.

Now, am I in love with the specific execution offered up? Not especially. The whole Grave Bolt thing is kinda wonky. But in the abstract I think it's a solid concept for a Rogue subclass, if the premise is we're doing a book of subclasses that are getting more experimental and specific.
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
There is only one person I ever saw say they actively hated the warlord. “I don’t see a need” doesn’t mean hate.
Coo story, bro.

Maybe if some people wouldn’t take anything that isn’t glowing support as “you’re a h4ter!”, maybe there wouldn’t be so much drama.
Funny, me not being a fan of 4e and all, and supposedly suggesting that others are h4ters. Right, gotcha.

Otherwise I’m anxious to see all of these people saying they hate the warlord or psion, as opposed to people just disagreeing with you
Yeah, because I bet you're really interested in seeing someone dredge through past threads just to show you uo... Or you could just be a sea lion.
 
In concept, I like the idea of making it a subclass. It gives you room to put mechanical weight and game abilities behind it, and that makes it more real. More earned. If it's just a plot point in your background it's just chuuni posturing about how amazingly awesome you are even though you're only 3rd Level.

Now, am I in love with the specific execution offered up? Not especially. The whole Grave Bolt thing is kinda wonky. But in the abstract I think it's a solid concept for a Rogue subclass, if the premise is we're doing a book of subclasses that are getting more experimental and specific.
Another approach would be to use the idea of "Epic Backgrounds" from Heroes of Baldur's Gate.

The background ability is more powerful, but comes with drawbacks as well as benefits.
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
That runs into worse problems from the other direction. Either you need to make a subrace variant for every single eligible race or you end up with "Well I was a halfling but then I died and now I'm all big and generically human looking". By bolting it onto Rogue it's open to everyone and can leverage the class's innate focus on skills and tricks.
Except then if you want to play the nameless one you need to be a rogue, what if you wanted to be a cleric or sorcerer?
 

Kurotowa

Adventurer
Except then if you want to play the nameless one you need to be a rogue, what if you wanted to be a cleric or sorcerer?
I'm not particularly hung up on identifying it as specifically the "Be the Nameless One" subclass. Fiction is full of heroes back from death, or the verge of it. The Crow, Ghost Rider, the Bride from Kill Bill, the recent fad for reincarnation stories in anime, the list goes on.

But I make it a deliberate policy not to treat anything in D&D as something indented to replicate an outside character. Take inspiration from them, sure, but square peg into a round role is an understatement for how badly trying to directly import characters can go. Even characters from a D&D video game.
 

Coroc

Hero
The original ranger got random, rather unusual, followers at 8th level, I think it was. It could include something like a band of pixies or a green dragon, IIRC. They also got the 1st level Druid Animal Friendship spell, which could be - and, can be in 5e -used to get an animal or few to hang out with you, Grizzly-Adams-style.

So, yeah, the Druid and Ranger, from the beginning, could have 'pets.'

It's not like archery & TWF, which the original ranger wasn't especially well-suited to, and, indeed, based on it's considerable stat qualifications, was if anything less likely to have the DEX to do well.
And let us not forget the 1e 2d8 starting hp which made him possibly the potential survivor. I can't tell from experience other than in gold box games since I started pnp in 2e.
 

Tonguez

Hero
It has a unique power to break plots.

Some fantasy storylines make discovering the True Name of some entity or other a key plot point. Arch-fiends and the like go to great ends to conceal them. And now some 2nd level wizard can come along and uncover the deepest secret with no effort at all, and there is nothing even the most powerful arch-fiend can do to stop them.
Im not so sure thats a major issue since the level 2 power is a Charm effect and the likes of Orcus and Demogorgon have Immunity to Charm. But yes I can see that being an issue with something like a Ancient Dragon or the like.

I can also see the issue with too much metamagic in an already magic saturated game.

But True Names are a major fantasy trope so its great to see them being utilised in game.


I'm not particularly hung up on identifying it as specifically the "Be the Nameless One" subclass. Fiction is full of heroes back from death, or the verge of it. The Crow, Ghost Rider, the Bride from Kill Bill, the recent fad for reincarnation stories in anime, the list goes on.

But I make it a deliberate policy not to treat anything in D&D as something indented to replicate an outside character. Take inspiration from them, sure, but square peg into a round role is an understatement for how badly trying to directly import characters can go. Even characters from a D&D video game.
the reference in my head was the Crow (who could possibly pass as a rogue, but not so much the Bride or Ghost Rider). The main issue for me is that this class seems too much like a video game character and not a subclass. A PC ‘ghost/crow/revenant’ should be treated as a Background or a template Not a rogue.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
So out of curiosity what’s wrong with Onomancy?
Three things:
  • It's a Wizard subclass. Wizard subclasses generate more hate than normal because people still have baggage from 3.x days.
  • It replicates metamagic via an alternative mechanic. People are paranoid about the Sorcerer's toes being trod on by anything. Which is doubly weird because Sorcerers have done more than their fair share of stomping on other classes feet.
  • The concept of True Names makes the class weird. In previous lore True Names were hidden divine serial numbers that constituted win conditions for campaigns. With the Onomancer, people automatically know and can even change their True Name. Also what used to be a game winning utterance is now used to grant basic things like extra damage or a penalty on saving throws. The incongruities between the renditions are too great of a gap.

There just isn't anything salvageable from the idea. For starters, a wizard subclass that mimics a sorcerer isn't ever going to get enough approval to make it past UA. But this one was unique in that the mechanics and even the lore threw people off.
 
Last edited:
There is only one person I ever saw say they actively hated the warlord. “I don’t see a need” doesn’t mean hate. Maybe if some people wouldn’t take anything that isn’t glowing support as “you’re a h4ter!”, maybe there wouldn’t be so much drama.

Otherwise I’m anxious to see all of these people saying they hate the warlord or psion, as opposed to people just disagreeing with you
For the record i voted "hate" for all the classes. But i hate psions the most. Just a random side note.
 

Seramus

Adventurer
I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but doesn't the Psion subclass resemble a Starcraft Templar / Archon?

"My life for Athas!"
 

Gladius Legis

Adventurer
Tbh i also voted all. I actually hate 5e classes in general so i wasnt surprised when i found myself hating all this books subclasses.

5e depresses me sometimes.
Question: Why are you even on the 5e boards? It's obvious you hate it, been obvious since you both started posting here. Why devote your time to posting on the boards of a game you obviously hate?
 

Advertisement

Top