Unearthed Arcana: The good, the bad, and the broken.

[MasterMercury]

We've had a lot of UA recently, lots of content. Some of it was pretty good, some of it not so much. What was your favorite? How did your play-tests go?

Personally, I liked the Revised Ranger and the New Druid Wildshape rules. One of my players is a revised ranger right now. Even though she has advantage on initiative, she roles bad on them nearly every time!

We don't have a Druid, but I still like the rules, and I have a whole stack of encounters should one of my players convert to the Old Faith.

[DracoKnight]

Hmmmm...lessee...

Sorcerous Origin, Phoenix Soul: I loved playing this. It's right about where a sorcerer should be on the power curve. The only buff it needs is for Mantle of Flame to be 2/rest like Bladesong. Or maybe scale it like Rage. Tweak that, and I'd be happy to see it in a book! :smallbiggrin:

Otherworldly Patron, Hexblade: Lots of fun, but MAD as hell. During playtest it seemed balanced in every way but one: Curse Bringer should work with Hex Warrior. After that tweak it should be ready for print.

Otherworldly Patron, Undying Light: This...isn't OP...so long as you disallow multiclassing. If you allow multiclassing expect a lot of Undying Light Warlocks/Fire Dragon Sorcerers to pop up and murder everything. This needs major revisiting.

Monastic Tradition, Way of the Kensei: Is broken, not in "OMG, it's SO OP!" It's broken because as written, it doesn't work. Make Kensei Weapons count as Monk Weapons and it works perfectly. I'm intrigued to see what Kensei v2.0 looks like.

[Veldrenor]

Monastic Tradition, Way of the Kensei: Is broken, not in "OMG, it's SO OP!" It's broken because as written, it doesn't work. Make Kensei Weapons count as Monk Weapons and it works perfectly. I'm intrigued to see what Kensei v2.0 looks like.

Could you explain this to me? In my eyes the Kensei works perfectly fine as written (unless you interpret "wielding" and "holding" as the same thing, then yeah it doesn't work).

To the OP:
So far I'm really liking the Stone Sorcerer bloodline. Or, more specifically, I'm really liking Stone's Durability because of the amount of flexibility it granted me during character creation regarding my attributes.

[tkuremento]

Could you explain this to me? In my eyes the Kensei works perfectly fine as written (unless you interpret "wielding" and "holding" as the same thing, then yeah it doesn't work).

To the OP:
So far I'm really liking the Stone Sorcerer bloodline. Or, more specifically, I'm really liking Stone's Durability because of the amount of flexibility it granted me during character creation regarding my attributes.

"monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property."

"You gain proficiency with three martial weapons of your choice. A martial weapon is considered a kensei weapon for you if you’re proficient with it."

Nothing makes a kensei weapon into a monk weapon, so the only choice is shortsword. You can use others for kensei weapons but they won't function as monk weapons and won't be able to be used with abilities that require monk weapons.

[Trum4n1208]

I'll agree with OP. Revised Ranger is great, and works really really well as is. I'm playing one now, and I contribute well to the party, do good damage in combat, etc., all while not being overshadowed/overshadowing anyone else. Revised Ranger gets an A+ in my book.

As for other ones, I like Forge Cleric (it might need to be toned down a bit, especially for multi-classing, but it doesn't seem to be OP in practice in my limited experience). My wife is playing one and is really enjoying it. I like Kensai Monk, and while I'd like to see the "Kensai weapons as Monk weapons" rewrite, it works fine as is. I also really liked Hexblade Warlock. I'd been hoping for some Bladelock support, and that mechanically does it rather well for me. Having said that, the fluff doesn't do much for me (I'd be inclined to think power from the spirit of a great hero or something would be a better fit, but that's purely my opinion).

[DracoKnight]

Nothing makes a kensei weapon into a monk weapon, so the only choice is shortsword. You can use others for kensei weapons but they won't function as monk weapons and won't be able to be used with abilities that require monk weapons.

Exactly this. Change it to allow Kensei weapons as monk weapons, and it's fine.

[Oramac]

I'll agree with OP. Revised Ranger is great, and works really really well as is. I'm playing one now, and I contribute well to the party, do good damage in combat, etc., all while not being overshadowed/overshadowing anyone else. Revised Ranger gets an A+ in my book.

Throwing out another vote for the Revised Ranger here as well.

[gfishfunk]

I have only worked with the tranquility monk, and we modified it a bit. We gave him d6s+Wis modifier instead of lay on hands style healing, as the monk can do it with a bonus action instead of doing an attack. Doing two attacks and then a flurry of blows and then healing hands for up to 60 hp is a bit much. Adding in the dice made it a bit more of a gamble (though the truth is it works just as well).

Works pretty well without being OP for that purpose. I was also going to tinker with the level 11 ability, but we have not got that foar

[jaappleton]

Let me go through the new class options one by one.

Bard - Love Glamour. Whispers? Meh. Love the flavor, dislike the execution. C+

Cleric - Overall its a thumbs up. Nothing sexy, but it all works. Solid. B+

Druid - Overall, solid. Harvest needs to do Radiant instead of Necrotic. B+

Fighter - Wasn't impressed. Too many retreads there, Samurai & Knight are too similar in many ways. Enjoy Arcane Archer, its pretty unique. C

Monk - Tranquility is unique and fun. Kensei, PURELY AS WRITTEN, is a mess. Kensei already has a rewrite in the works, but grading it purely as it is? Kensei is so bad it wrecks the whole article. D+

Paladin - I was legitimately surprised at two "Dark Character" options, but I like them. Conquest is a bit weak, IMO. Love Treachery. B

Revised Ranger - Love every bit of it, fixes a lot of problems. Really well done. A-

Ranger & Rogue Options - Does anyone actually remember this? I had to look it up again. Disappointing. D

Sorcerer - Phoenix needs a big boost, once per day is so limiting. The other options are fun and unique. Love the new Favored Soul, even if I can never make one because SPELL SELECTION IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CHOOSE! B-

Warlock and Wizard - Love Warlock. Hexblade is a TON of fun. Lore Wizard needs to never exist in any form, that's so brokenly overpowered that its mindnumbing. Warlock is lacking some Patron options (Where's Undying Light?), but otherwise its solid. Wizard stuff gets a pure F, while Warlock gets a B.

[Oramac]

Revised Ranger - Love every bit of it, fixes a lot of problems. Really well done. A-

I don't think I've yet seen a single person that didn't like the Revised Ranger. I'm sure they're out there, but the support for this version of the class is so overwhelming I would be shocked if they didn't publish it.

[Trum4n1208]

I don't think I've yet seen a single person that didn't like the Revised Ranger. I'm sure they're out there, but the support for this version of the class is so overwhelming I would be shocked if they didn't publish it.

It's just so good. It's does everything you'd want a Ranger to do without being too much. Bar none, it's my favorite UA. Granted, I'm biased. I'm a big Ranger fan.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Jappleton forgot the barbarian (its ok i do too sometimes) but i really liked it nothing overtly wrong and the flavor is amazing. Solid B

[jaappleton]

Jappleton forgot the barbarian (its ok i do too sometimes) but i really liked it nothing overtly wrong and the flavor is amazing. Solid B

DANG IT!

Barbarian... Honestly? That's a C from me. I'm a big Barbarian fan. Half Orc Barbarian was my first ever 5E character, and I loved it. But the Barbarian UA was subpar. Too much "Do a little extra damage to enemies around you".

I wish there was more variety there. None of the options are bad, but none of them are... "WOW I NEED TO PLAY THIS!"

I'd rather take Totem. I legitimately don't see any better Barbarian archetype than Totem. I see the Barbarian UA options, and they're just... Eh. They're alright. I see the appeal. But they're not better.

[Veldrenor]

You can use others for kensei weapons but they won't function as monk weapons and won't be able to be used with abilities that require monk weapons.

I'm well aware of the fact that attacking with a non-shortsword kensei weapon turns off two abilities for one turn, it still doesn't seem broken as in "doesn't function." It means that Kensei is more like Shadow than Open Hand: it gives you new options rather than augmenting the options you already have (shortswords being the exception).


Throwing out another vote for the Revised Ranger here as well.

Adding yet another vote for the revised Ranger. It's so much more useful than the core ranger, especially the beastmaster archetype (we had a beastmaster in the group at one point and it was painful watching the way it limited him).

I also like the sea sorcerer. A sea sorcerer/GOO warlock focused on the crushing cold of the void seems like a ton of fun. Actually, I'm a fan of all the new sorcerer options (although favored soul feels a little lackluster).

[MasterMercury]

I don't think I've yet seen a single person that didn't like the Revised Ranger. I'm sure they're out there, but the support for this version of the class is so overwhelming I would be shocked if they didn't publish it.

You seemed to have missed the thread when it came out. So many people hated it, from reasons ranging from the initiative makes it an OP multiclass to saying that they actually nerfed beastmastet by limiting animals and substituting prof. bonus instead of adding it.
Personally though, like i said I love it.

[Draco4472]

Revised Ranger and Hexblade were my favorites of what we got, and samurai fighter looks fun to play.

Rogue didn't get a lot of love though.

[Astofel]

From the more recent UAs, I love the glamour bard, it fill a niche that I'm surprised we haven't seen until now, that of the fey-influenced bard. I'm also a big fan of the grave cleric, since I was making a character concept that grave perfectly fit right at the time when it came out. I do think that the sorcerer UA is the best of the bunch, though. I really want to try out a stone sorcerer, phoenix seems really cool and flavourful, and I love the choices that come with favoured soul. I'm a bit meh on sea sorcerer, but the others are fantastic.

From older UAs, I'm keen to give the college of swords bard a shot. Its flourishes seem really fun and I just love the subclass's style. Cavalier fighter also interests me, which is surprising since I've never really had the inclination to play a fighter before.

As for UAs I don't like, I'll throw my lot in with everyone else and say lore master wizard. Not sure what they were thinking with that one, and both the bard's and sorcerer's toes are hurting. That said, I'd still be willing to let someone play one in a game, just so I can see how it actually functions in practice and not just theory. The other one I dislike is the theurge wizard, purely because it gets the cleric's domain capstone before the cleric does, and that's just plain rude.

[Oramac]

You seemed to have missed the thread when it came out. So many people hated it, from reasons ranging from the initiative makes it an OP multiclass to saying that they actually nerfed beastmastet by limiting animals and substituting prof. bonus instead of adding it.
Personally though, like i said I love it.

Oh I was around for that thread. Even posted in it a few times. My initial post was maybe a bit overzealous.

I'm aware some people didn't like it. My point was that an apparent majority of people did like it. This is, of course, entirely subjective as I have not gone back and counted posts or anything.

[Mjolnirbear]

No one seems to be rating the Mystic or the Artificer...

I've DM'd for a Mystic, but it was the reddit collaboration. I found it fun, thematic and balanced, but it was not the UA Mystic.

I'm playing a kobold Artificer at the moment. My DM gave me a +1 INT boost and ruled the thunder cannon is a repeating crossbow (reload after six shots). I said thanks to the INT bonus but I've ignored the reload gift because frankly, I don't need it. We are currently level 3.

I do a ton of damage. It's hard to guess just how awesome pack tactics are and it's skewing the numbers. I'm weilding a ranged greatsword, and the bonus thunder damage just came online.

Outside of combat, tool expertise is as good as your DM makes it. The magic item offsets my kobolds pathetically weak carrying capacity, and were it not a kobold it could provide Darkvision to a human or halfling.

Spells also just came online. They seem... Lacklustre. I'm looking at infusions and when am I gonna want to waste a spell slot infusing a cure wounds or sanctuary on the off chance they need it when I can't cast it? Sure I can Invent white-room scenarios: expeditious retreat when our Scout is apart from the group and gets caught,for instance. But I don't have the spell slots to waste on maybes.

Bottom line, I'm having fun, but it's partly because I'm role-playing a kobold and partly because I'm adding the Artificer feel myself. I'm tinkering, making traps and tools and mcguyvering situations when I can, but the only thing the Artificer chassis gives me to do that is tool proficiency; it's something I could do on any character. The magic item creation is useful but not amazing. The spells are limited and infusions feel like a ribbon. The gun is definitely strong, more so with pack tactics. Detect magic and identify at will would be great, except our campaign is limited in magic items or persistent spell effects at the moment.

With the current spell slots and spell selection, infusions would be much more useful as a int-bonus-per-day free uses. Preparing expeditious retreat on a maybe chance would be better than spending limited resources.

I'd rate the Artificer a C, though my current setup is a B+ for fun.

[Oramac]

No one seems to be rating the Mystic or the Artificer...

I've not DM'd for either of them, but I'll throw in my .02

Artificer: Not really my cup of tea, so to speak, but I don't see anything terribly wrong with it. I'd give it a solid B.

Mystic: It's all over the ****ing place. They tried to do too much with it, and it just feels way too complicated. The flavor is good, though. Balance-wise, parts of it are incredibly OP. I'd give it a D-, mostly because the flavor is good.

[Matrix_Walker]

I've not DM'd for either of them, but I'll throw in my .02

Artificer: Not really my cup of tea, so to speak, but I don't see anything terribly wrong with it. I'd give it a solid B.

Mystic: It's all over the ****ing place. They tried to do too much with it, and it just feels way too complicated. The flavor is good, though. Balance-wise, parts of it are incredibly OP. I'd give it a D-, mostly because the flavor is good.

Ditto for the most part.

I don't think the mystic is OP. I think it has a few good tidbits scattered about, but c'mon...

Six freaking subclasses of psionics and still not one of them can pull off two way telepathy even with a goddamn Discipline called "Telepathic Contact". What the hell?

[Dudu]

I believe we all could expect some brokeness from Mystic. They were pretty ambitious with it. But I find every little piece of Mystic inbalance forgiveable. They introduced a new mechanic with Disciplines. I'd rate it B-, because it's both very fun, but also quite complicate and hardly balanced.

Such thing cannot be said about Lore Master, though. They have no excuse for the obviously lack of balance. I rate that one a D-. He looks fun, and I some rewritting on core features would make it playable, but right now, it's impossible to put a Lore Master wiz in the table without making other classes feel overshadowed.

My veredict is:

The good: New Ranger. A well done fix to a core class. Now it's fun to play ranger again.

The bad: Lore Master Wizard. Overshadows sorcerers hard. Make one of the core aspects of playing wizard, the fact he has to plan carefully ahead, obsolete.

The broken: Well, Lore Master again, obviously, but I wonder about some of the Mystic options, mostly Immortal. With some multiclassing he can become one of the best, if not THE best, tank in the game, while still sporting a wide range of neat abilities. He doesn't even need multiclass to be that good, though. Maybe it was just my impression, needs some testing.

[Callin]

Artificer- B. Solid Class with Great Abilities. Needs to become a Half Caster with a slightly better spell selection. (Playing Currently). Also look at the Magic Items.. they are all over the place.

Bard- C. Overall just ok. Nothing special to me.

Barbarian- B. Love the Ancestor and Zealot

Cleric- B. Both Fine.

Druid- D. A few tweaks and it will be fine. Just not my cup of tea.

Fighter- B. Arcane Archer is ok. I feel it needs a bit more though. Knight is cool. Samurai is Nice. Monster Hunter is good.

Monk- D. Kensai is unplayable and Tranquility needs to have their Healing Hands nerfed

Mystic- ??? From A-D. Just all over the place. I do love Nomad but its SUPER versatile

Paladin- D. Cant say I like the Evil Themes.

Revised Ranger- A-. Hunter is same as it was. Beastmaster (which I have played) is WONDERFUL. Deepstalker is fine. NOT a fan of the Horizon Walker and Primeval Guardian having to use their Bonus Action for some Extra Damage.

Rogue- B. Scout is ok, Inquisitive=Love (probably going to MC with Artificer),

Sorcerer- C. Phoenix needs tweaking, Storm is ok, Favored Soul is sweet, Sea is ok, Stone is neat. Shadow.. meh

Warlock- B. Undying Light is Interesting, Hexblade is cool and needs minor tweaks to be perfect, Raven Queen (also playing this one) is neat. New Invocations are hit or miss honestly.

Wizard- F. Lore Master... WTF? Over.

Forgot Kits- They are ok and could be sent out with minor tweaks.

Feats- Hit or Miss and none of them are very interesting to me.

[Syll]

I've not DM'd for either of them, but I'll throw in my .02

Artificer: Not really my cup of tea, so to speak, but I don't see anything terribly wrong with it. I'd give it a solid B.

Mystic: It's all over the ****ing place. They tried to do too much with it, and it just feels way too complicated. The flavor is good, though. Balance-wise, parts of it are incredibly OP. I'd give it a D-, mostly because the flavor is good.

I'm concerned that when mystic comes out for real they will take that complexity away. In my eyes it's a breath of fresh air to FINALLY have something with fiddly bits again. I recognize that's counter to 5e design philosophy but that complexity is what I've been sorely missing.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I've not DM'd for either of them, but I'll throw in my .02

Artificer: Not really my cup of tea, so to speak, but I don't see anything terribly wrong with it. I'd give it a solid B.

Mystic: It's all over the ****ing place. They tried to do too much with it, and it just feels way too complicated. The flavor is good, though. Balance-wise, parts of it are incredibly OP. I'd give it a D-, mostly because the flavor is good.

I think the mystic is only complicated at first glance. having taken some time i understand the mechanics of psionics pretty well. I wouldn't say its less complicated than the current spellcasting, just different, which is a good thing. There are however parts that need clarity and some word choice that should be fixed but i think that if it were to be released, it be ok. Just make sure to have someone proof read the d*** thing.