Am I the only one who doesn't care about UA anymore?

[Specter]

So, when UA started coming out, it was a bunch of fresh tools that made sense and were bringing stuff everybody wanted to see. Spellless ranger? Cool. Swashbuckler? Awesome! Gothic Heroes? Sure, why not?

But now it seems everything published is either a) not novel enough (like that Arcane Archer), b) outright broken (with or without multis), or c) irrelevant (like... traps?).

So, is UA all downhill from here or do you still look forward to the next Monday?

[Zilong]

You're probably not the only one, but I'd hazard a guess to say that most people still look forward to UAs. I know I'll be sad when they stop putting out new weekly UA articles. Pretty much anything they put out I can use to some extent as both player and DM.

[Arcangel4774]

If you don't think of UA as new content but as beta testing it's a lot better.

[Zene]

I'm with ya. I think for me it's slightly because there's been so much of it; slightly because it's so far off from what it will need to be when it's actually published due to obvious balance issues; and mostly because without any idea of when it will actually become official (A year? 2 years? Never?), it's hard to care. I'm basically just feeling it at the same level as homebrew now.

[Kane0]

It's nice to see a steady flow of content. Sure not all of it will be applicable to all tables, but neither would full book releases be. Plus this way gives tables the chance to use as much additional content as they are comfortable with. The only people I feel bad for are the AL players that are stuck waiting for the official book release before they can get their hands on it. Even then it's nice to have it released to the masses and get reviewed and tested before being put in a proper book that's much harder to rebalance once released.

It's a pretty logical move on their part I reckon.

Edit: Is it just me or do people consider homebrew a dirty word now? I've never seen the issue with it.

[Stan]

I feel like the quality dipped but has come back up. I check them out occasionally but don't follow closely. I did like the latest mystic.

Some of these will never be official; that's the way it goes with playtest material. However, whether something is official has little effect on my play.

[Bahamut7]

Honestly, I would rather see less UAs and more official stuff released (and not just modules). Sure playtesting is good, but some of their UA stuff was obviously broken (good or bad). Take the Artificer...is it balanced from breaking the game sure. Does it seem unique? No. You get a potion bag that magically refills or a gun, with the ability to make a few items. The lore wizard was stupid broken, the mystic (v3 I think) is pretty good and decently balanced. Sure some of the options presented are great and just need slight tweaks.

Playtesting only goes so far. Give us the final copy so we can bring it in. My table is new to 5e and we agreed no UA stuff because of how up and down they are. Though I may ask for the brewing rules.

[Potato_Priest]

I would agree that as they stop putting out class options I care less. Those were at least interesting in the way that they had the potential to fix many of the subclass problems with 5e. The Mystic was well done, and I liked the cleric, druid, and barbarian, but on the whole the contrast between the good material and the bad just makes it seem like they're stumbling around blindly and occasionally putting out good work.

[rooneg]

I agree 100%. I'll be interested when it is printed in a physical book I can play in Adventurers League games. At this point even the stuff that seems interesting is going to get nerfed all to hell in order to not be broken in multiclass situations, it's barely worth caring about it.

[georgie_leech]

I would agree that as they stop putting out class options I care less. Those were at least interesting in the way that they had the potential to fix many of the subclass problems with 5e. The Mystic was well done, and I liked the cleric, druid, and barbarian, but on the whole the contrast between the good material and the bad just makes it seem like they're stumbling around blindly and occasionally putting out good work.

Isn't that the point of testing? To see what is or isn't good work? :smallconfused:

[Potato_Priest]

Isn't that the point of testing? To see what is or isn't good work? :smallconfused:

Well, yes, but testing tends to produce better results when your original ideas have some common sense and quality to them, so that they can be refined. When a class or subclass is built entirely around an inherently flawed mechanic, you can't really fix it by playtesting, only by throwing the whole thing out and starting again.

[Matrix_Walker]

I'm right there with you.

Allot of the downtime and traps type stuff is jut no a no brainer.

[Arkhios]

I'd be a lot more hyped for next UA if they would roll second round for the released sub-classes options, to see how they would fix problems pointed out by the players.

[zeek0]

As someone who homebrews, I like to see new things. I also appreciate the testing. But I think that y'all are mistaken if you think they are solely testing mechanics.

The Psion has had three different iterations, and 5e WotC has a good idea how to balance things. So why the run around? I think they are also testing the feel of the content, not just the balance. Psion is an important project for them, and they want to get it right. Otherwise they might put out something like the ranger: mechanically sound and powerful enough, but underwhelming in play.

[Arkhios]

As someone who homebrews, I like to see new things. I also appreciate the testing. But I think that y'all are mistaken if you think they are solely testing mechanics.

The Psion has had three different iterations, and 5e WotC has a good idea how to balance things. So why the run around? I think they are also testing the feel of the content, not just the balance. Psion is an important project for them, and they want to get it right. Otherwise they might put out something like the ranger: mechanically sound and powerful enough, but underwhelming in play.

I agree with you, but right now there's been too much "new" for me to sink in. That's why I'd much rather see a second round for those options that have been released already than yet another wave of new stuff.

And to be honest, not just the classes, in contrary to what I initially said. I appreciate all the new options, but too much is too much.

[Saiga]

I agree with you, but right now there's been too much "new" for me to sink in. That's why I'd much rather see a second round for those options that have been released already than yet another wave of new stuff.

Quality over quantity. I absolutely agree with that.

There has just been so much content churned out, and a lot of it doesn't feel very well thought out. The sad thing is, even with the most exciting UA I can only think "boy, I really hope to see the revised version of this soon".

[Lombra]

I do believe that UAs give a good bump in inspiration, all the DM tools like traps and downtime activities are awesome because they give the developer's insight on what can add depth to the game. UAs are not for everyone obviously, those who play mostly dungeon crawl style are not very intreasted in downtime, and those who play mainly for the social aspect probably find traps useless. I think that UAs made a good job at covering the three pillars of the game overall. Some classes obviously need a rework but that's to be expected since it's playtest material, one shouldn't get angry or stressed out until the broken/useless features make it in a final book.

[Beelzebubba]

Some of it is great, some of it feels like it should have been play tested with a few more small groups before being released widely. But, that's the 'beta' way of doing things. Test early, test widely, incorporate and revamp.

They're smart, I'm sure some of it is testing to see how far they can push certain things in the way they feel so the avoid the backlash that the overwhelming numbers of 3.x splat or 4.x mechanical change created.

[DanyBallon]

When UA were released once a month people were asking to get more UA release. They moved to a once per week release since december to test out the interest of many sub-classes (maybe for an upcoming book release). Now people are complaining that there's too much UA and stuff isn't well tought. They already stated that they will revert to a monthly basis now that they've got all the "rush" they wanted to test. I believe that in the upcoming month we might see some of these previous UA come back for more testing, especially if they are meant to see an official release.

[Logosloki]

The past few months with the subclass release, the mystic re release, etc has been really heavy so it would be nice to digest it, and for the dev team to bring in round two of those things. Maybe the next few UAs should be light and fluffy just so that tables aren't overwhelmed.

[Specter]

I'd be a lot more hyped for next UA if they would roll second round for the released sub-classes options, to see how they would fix problems pointed out by the players.

This, so much. After putting out so much new content, it would be a refreshing change of pace to see something reworked according to surveys and game experience.

[jaappleton]

I very much look forward to the UA articles.

However, a lot of what's been put out lately over the last few months has been... Well, Specter, you're a bit of an optimizer, like myself. You know the color guidelines for the handbooks.

A lot of whats been put out has been purple. Some gold, so gold it shouldn't be allowed. And a lot of black. (These are strictly overall, not individual features)

Barbarian? Black.
Bard? Black and Purple.
Cleric? Black.
Druid? Black to Dark Blue.
Fighter? A lot of purple. Arcane Archer I'd put at black.
Monk? Purple to outright red. Tranquility is dark blue.
Paladin? Black to blue.
Ranger? Purple to black.
Sorcerer? Purple to black.
Warlock? Actually, light blue.
Wizard? Gold, and it shouldn't be that way.
Mystic? I rate it at blue.
Artificer? Black. Solid attempt, but I'd like to see it as a 1/2 caster.

DM options, like downtime and traps... I'm a player. I've DMed before, for a year long campaign, and I never needed that stuff.

The things rated black are fine. Nothing to write home about, but decent additions. Too much purple. Simply too much. The Wizard stuff can ---- right off.

Curiously, Specter, how would you color-code the class oriented UA?

[Potato_Priest]

Tranquility monk is distinctly gold.

[jaappleton]

Tranquility monk is distinctly gold.

Looking at it again... Yeah. It is.

[NiklasWB]

I used to really like UA, but that was when it felt like they actually took their time to design something that was pretty much balanced and were able to 'fill holes' in the PHB and the DMG. Prime example is Stom soceror and Swashbuckler. Very well done. However, when they started doing weekly stuff I feel like they just rushed out so many sub-classes that weren't needed or were so unbalanced that they made the already existing sub-classes sub-optimal. I also feel like they fell in the "everything new needs to be better and more cool than the existing options"-trap. The new sub-classes were overall made super narrow in terms of fluff, and only fit a very specific character type or concept. Take "Horizon Walker"... Wow, so edgy and such a cool name *barf*... and let's make it a super narrow teleporting fluff thing that only fits one very narrow concept and idea of what the character can do.

What I love about 5e is that I can make 100 different Champion or Battlemaster builds with a specific concept and build in mind, including a Knight or a Samurai... but then comes the UA classes and gives some rather poorly designed extremely specific concept related sub-classes that screw over the existing sub-classes.

This is not to say that there weren't some good ones, like Forge Domain and Grave Domain Clerics, but that is because the Cleric Sub-classes are already so specific to begin with. But those actually "filled a hole" in the PHB. Most of the new UA do not fill holes, they just add new messy and very specific things that could already be done with existing sub-classes.

I guess I'm just opposed to too narrow sub-classes because I feel it is dangerously close to prestige classes and what killed 3e for me. I'd rather have a fairly broad sub-class and make my own build/character within that, than being told through the class exactly what my character is.

I dunno, I'm just ranting now. To end on a dirty note, I hope the UA goes back to filling holes instead of cramming more stuff into holes that are already sufficiently filled. :biggrin:

[Steampunkette]

As you knew when you asked the rhetorical question: No you're not the only person who doesn't care about UA.

If you were the only person who anythinged I'd be ridiculously impressed.

For my part, I'm still excited about the UA. In fact I was running Hoard of the Dragon Queen last night and the players had just arrived in Baldur's Gate for the two week wait while the Cult of the Dragon Wagons reached the city, so I made some immediate use of yesterday's downtime rules.

It helped give the players a feeling that they were actually accomplishing something. The battle-cleric earned a few favors, the rakish monk doubled his money in casinoes and went out drinking with the guards and porters to get a heads up on when the cult got into town. The sorceress spent her time searching through records and rumors for the "Hunting Lodge" where her friend, draconic scholar Talis Kasterel, is said to be kept. And the Dwarf with the name Tunwort spent his two weeks brewing up fine beers and selling them at a tidy profit while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.

It's given the players a feeling of being more a part of the world, and the ability to explore their place in it.

Sure. Some of the UAs have sucked. Or felt too gold or too red or too specialized... but there's someone out there who has flipped their lid in delight at every one of them. There's someone who has taken the broken issues and fixed them for themselves. There's a gaming table enriched by the possibilities. And, really, isn't that enough?

[Syll]

I didn't find the release schedule overwhelming simply because most of it didn't apply to me.

I looked forward to the UA releases because I wanted to see what new ideas they had, but realistically I would never play 5 of the 12 base classes (from utter disinterest in them) and there are 2 more that I'm on the fence about.

Of the classes I am invested in, some of the new options released for each automatically didn't appeal to me so I'm just not feeling the UA fatigue

[Specter]

Curiously, Specter, how would you color-code the class oriented UA?

I can only talk about stuff I remember, so here are some examples:

Path of the Zealot (barb): blue. Great options and even more toughness for a fanatic feel.

College of Whispers (bard): black. Little novelty to abard, most of which can be done by a Lore Bard.

Protection Domain (cleric): purple. Some cute tricks, but not as efficient as support can be.

Circle of the Shepherd (druid): blue. Finally a druid archetype that lets a druid/ranger multiclass be badass a la Palasorc.

Knight (fighter): purple. Complicated mechanics that would see little use in an actual knight playstyle.

Monster Hunter (fighter): blue. Finally you can be a vampire slayer without selling your soul to the gods.

Lore (wizard): gold. Talk about abusing any mechanics you can.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I like having regular UA articles. As a DM first, and a player in campaigns where the DM has no qualms with me playtesting things, I get a chance to use a lot of this stuff.

Even when I don't, they at least inspire me to homebrew my own material, or find other homebrews that work better for what I want. Hatred of the second mass combat rules led me to adapt Birthright's excellent kingdom management and grand warfare for my purposes.

If you're typically a player and only do AL or have DM's that dislike unofficial rules, I can certainly understand not really caring one way or the other. Neat to see what might come next, but that's like listening to that one guy that won't shut up about his ideas for a novel he'll probably never write.

[TentacleSurpris]

Unearthed Arcanas are like trailers for a movie that is stuck in development hell.

I never got excited for them. The only one our group has allowed to be used was the Revised Ranger because the ranger was a steaming pile of garbage.

I reserve my excitement for when WOTC actually pushes out a sourcebook. Suffice to say I get excited about as often as I get sex.

[Arenabait]

The Wizard stuff can ---- right off.

Well, War Tradition is probably a solid black.

[2D8HP]

....I reserve my excitement for when WOTC actually pushes out a sourcebook...


I liked the Swashbuckler, and the Revised Ranger, when I saw them, but I really don't use PDF's (I use a phone without a printer), so it wasn't till SCAG came out that I used the Swashbuckler, and I still haven't used the Revised Ranger.

So yeah UA is interesting to me but not really used by me.

[Cespenar]

My fear is that with all the UAs the system will slowly begin to resemble 3.5's Core + ten thousand classes system.

Which is not that bad in itself, mind, I played 3.5 for quite some time. But a big part of 5e's strength came from its simplicity, in my opinion.

[BillyBobShorton]

I don't even bother. I realize it's play test material, but I scratch my head wondering how some of this stuff even makes it off the table.

The latest spells thing was a joke; basically made spells that Were about 4-5 levels too low. It reminds me of back in 2e days and someone would come to a session with some homebrew spell or ability tweak that was so over the top you could just tell they were trying to get away with having a ridiculous "super character" and not thinking about much else.

[Ursus the Grim]

My fear is that with all the UAs the system will slowly begin to resemble 3.5's Core + ten thousand classes system.

Which is not that bad in itself, mind, I played 3.5 for quite some time. But a big part of 5e's strength came from its simplicity, in my opinion.

This is basically where I'm at with it as well. I recall reading three UAs. Druid, Mystic, and Ranger. Druid because its my favorite class and the latter two because I thought they'd bring something the core game needed.

With a few exceptions it seems more like they're just pushing out content for the sake of content. I'd rather have them curate it a little better and clean it up, then release it as an AL-legal book.

It wasn't uncommon for PC's in 3.5 to have more sources than they had levels. I really don't like seeing characters that use SCAG, EE, the Eberron supplement and three different UA articles. It brings back memories of the kind of thing that killed 3.5 for me.

[Ninja_Prawn]

When UA were released once a month people were asking to get more UA release. They moved to a once per week... Now people are complaining that there's too much UA.

Then surely the answer is fortnightly releases? :smalltongue:

As for myself, I was never excited about UA; I trust the balance of my own 'brew over what WotC produce, and most of the UA material wasn't interesting to me anyway.

There are a few gems in there though. I treat Revised Ranger as official now, for example.

[Steampunkette]

All of the class-kits in the world won't create the same problems that 3.5 had...

Because of two reasons:

No Prestige Classes
Minimal Feat Support.

If they add PCs and throw in Feats like crazy, we're screwed.

[Matrix_Walker]

They did to the Rune Mage in UA, but it was so lackluster it's not a problem.

[DeathEatsCurry]

But a big part of 5e's strength came from its simplicity, in my opinion.

Ignoring the several Ranger do-overs, there have only been two new classes in UA, both of which occupy a significant thematic and mechanical niche that can't be simply emulated with multiclassing (like, say, a Swordmage could), and the Runepriest, which was pretty early in the cycle. So far the majority of UAs have been extra subclasss options, which don't really mess with 5e's simplicity, for the most part. They're a handful of new abilities for already existing classes, this is hardly the same as 3.5s bajillion (prestige) classes. A Kensei Monk is still a Monk. A War Wizard is still a Wizard. Etc. I really don't see how this messes with 5es simplicity. More options beyond the PHB is not a bad thing, provided it's playtested well. If you want simplicity in terms of limited options there is nothing stopping you from sticking to PHB only, but that kind of simplicity is not a strength of the edition. I, for one, would actually welcome some more complex new things, since 5e's simplicity has been a weakness as much as a strength for me.

[Human Paragon 3]

It's been a little uneven, but I there's been a ton of great stuff and it comes out with amazing regularity.

The Artificer, the new Mystic, and all that new Warlock content all came out within a few weeks of each other.

[Ursus the Grim]

Ignoring the several Ranger do-overs, there have only been two new classes in UA, both of which occupy a significant thematic and mechanical niche that can't be simply emulated with multiclassing (like, say, a Swordmage could), and the Runepriest, which was pretty early in the cycle. So far the majority of UAs have been extra subclasss options, which don't really mess with 5e's simplicity, for the most part. They're a handful of new abilities for already existing classes, this is hardly the same as 3.5s bajillion (prestige) classes. A Kensei Monk is still a Monk. A War Wizard is still a Wizard. Etc. I really don't see how this messes with 5es simplicity. More options beyond the PHB is not a bad thing, provided it's playtested well. If you want simplicity in terms of limited options there is nothing stopping you from sticking to PHB only, but that kind of simplicity is not a strength of the edition. I, for one, would actually welcome some more complex new things, since 5e's simplicity has been a weakness as much as a strength for me.

That's a whole lot of stipulations when you're arguing that UA doesn't make things less simple.

In practice, the Mystic isn't really a unique class. Its a mechanical revision of almost all the other classes. It can be your indomitable, empty-handed skirmisher. It can be your elemental caster. It can be your slippery assassin. It can be your party face. It's almost an anti-niche, because it takes the archetypes of most of the other classes and gives you another way to play that archetype.

It also seems like you're trying to argue that 'more options (specifically subclasses) don't mean more complexity'. That's uh, something I think we should talk about, because if that's your opinion I can't wrap my head around it.

The system relies on rules interacting with each other. Each mechanic that's implemented needs to be considered in the context of whats already in the system. When I say 'sure, bring the artificer in', I need to be considering how the class works alongside every other class in the PHB. I need to learn new interactions and be ready to make rulings on things that previously weren't an issue. Then when I bring in the Revised Ranger, I have to consider it weighed against the core rules, and I need to keep in mind its interactions with the artificer. Sure, it might be nothing (I don't think a Ranger/Artificer will break the game) but these little things add up. Well, they're not really additive in terms of complexity. They're multiplicative.

In 3.5, the Tattooed Monk on its own didn't add much complexity. Neither did the Master of Many Forms. Taken in a vacuum, they weren't really complex. And when they threw the Sarrukh into Serpent Kingdoms, it probably seemed like a pretty straightforward thing. But, you mix them all together, along with a few other relatively straightforward mechanics, and you end up with the epitome of munchkinry and the most infamous of 3.5's black eyes.

[DracoKnight]

There are a few gems in there though. I treat Revised Ranger as official now, for example.

I don't know why everyone insists on calling it the "Revised" Ranger...there is only one Ranger, and it wasn't released in the core books.

[Monolilith]

I'm a devoted DM (four campaigns, eight fully planned in a 100% original world), and the new options are kind of a big deal for me. Do I use all of them? Absolutely not. I don't even use all of the official content, I'd cry if someone tried to do a Divination wizard, since I ultimately improv so much.

But I love Unearthed Arcana - as someone with D&D as a special interest, each new installment - no matter how unbalanced - is like a little present to me, that gets me to think more critically about my world and my campaigns. For example, before I found UA I invented a type of merchant called an 'armorcobbler' who can modify armor for a lesser cost than buying new armor altogether as well as scrap and augment found armor, and now that I have better understanding of artificers, that class has allowed me to really give my world a rich magic-item economy. On top of that, I cried for about half an hour when they released the Mystic V3, I loved it that much - a class that's like ME! There's no way Mystics are neurotypical!

In short, I can see how someone might be sick to death of UA, but I love cherrypicking 5E to death, and I don't plan on stopping any time soon. Dat ranger, too.

[Vaz]

So, when UA started coming out, it was a bunch of fresh tools that made sense and were bringing stuff everybody wanted to see. Spellless ranger? Cool. Swashbuckler? Awesome! Gothic Heroes? Sure, why not?

But now it seems everything published is either a) not novel enough (like that Arcane Archer), b) outright broken (with or without multis), or c) irrelevant (like... traps?).

So, is UA all downhill from here or do you still look forward to the next Monday?

Beginning to get like that with 5th edition in general. There are only so many discussions that you can have about the same 3 options. UA was nice for a while, but then you realise that it's mutually exclusive with everything else outside of multiclassing, which the game is "balanced" intentionally around making not the most powerful option. And then you get the fun-deficient mongs who quote the stuff at the top of the UA who complain when you theoretically multiclass reducing those options even further.

[Zilong]

Beginning to get like that with 5th edition in general. There are only so many discussions that you can have about the same 3 options. UA was nice for a while, but then you realise that it's mutually exclusive. And then you get the fun-deficient mongs who quote the stuff at the top of the UA who complain when you theoretically multiclass.

That's a bit of mischaracterization. I usually see the no multiclassing warning come up after someone says that x UA material is broken when multiclassed with y and/or z. In such cases things only really get broken because the warning was ignored. There are some actually broken things in the UA articles, but we were given fair warning about multiclassing.

[Vaz]

That's a bit of mischaracterization. I usually see the no multiclassing warning come up after someone says that x UA material is broken when multiclassed with y and/or z. In such cases things only really get broken because the warning was ignored. There are some actually broken things in the UA articles, but we were given fair warning about multiclassing.

Did you have a point, or just repeat my point?

[Dalebert]

I've never been able to take UA seriously. I realize it's presented honestly as not having been play-tested, but so much of it just seems obviously broken on its face. It doesn't need play-testing to see that.

[Zilong]

Did you have a point, or just repeat my point?

Hm, maybe I just misinterpreted the wording of your post. Essentially, the "op broken multiclassing" analysis that I see some people using seems a bit disingenuous. If that's what you were saying then, yes, I'm repeating your sentiments.

[jitzul]

After the mess that was the monk UA I've grown to thrust homebrew content more then UA content. If I would ever dm I would trust a homebrew (that is not from d&dwiki) waaay more then I would trust Ua. It is kinda sad that people who get paid to make a game get outclassed by the players when it comes to making flavorful and balanced content.

[Ninja_Prawn]

It doesn't need play-testing to see that.

That aspect does annoy me. Public playtesting shouldn't be your 'first line of defense' - especially for WotC, who should be capable of writing something approximately balanced right off the bat. Even if they can't though, maybe if they're bringing in third-party writers to produce some of the UA, they could at least do a quick sanity check with some trusted people who could pick up obvious errors. It would take literally a few hours, and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'd do it for free.

[MrStabby]

So I like UA, although more as something to read rather than something to use. I also like the discussion around it and the fact that the discussion is public.

Yes some UA isn't much better than homebrew but if the people who were to produce homebrew were to read the UA and the responses to it then there would be a good chance that there would be a whole lot less terrible homebrew on the internet. Collectively the rage induced has quite a lot of useful feedback - even if many individual posts don't.

Likewise seeing classes posted and criticised may enable DMs and players to build their own homebrew and help them avoid the crap pushed by 3rd part websites and the DMs guild.

My favourite UA so far is the traps one. The simple traps are simple but a nice reminder to DMs to include a dynamic environment. The complex traps are a thing of beauty - the whole environment in that area turns hostile and tries to kill the PCs and it opens up a whole load of ways that PCs can use skills in a combat type environment. Obviously all this could still be done without the traps UA but it a good illustration of what can be done.

The classes seem to be the most popular - simply because constrained optimisation is a hobby on these forums. Exploring how to build and break characters can be fun and there are more players than DMs.

[blurneko]

I've never cared about play-test material. Any player who is actually interested in role-playing can achieve what they want through the published books with simple refluffing.

[DeathEatsCurry]

I've never cared about play-test material. Any player who is actually interested in role-playing can achieve what they want through the published books with simple refluffing.

Some of us are interested in the rollplay as much as the roleplay. I can refluff a ton, and that's cool (and UA material shouldn't be archetypes you achieve by refluffing). But I still like to see new interesting mechanics, be it in the form of features, feats or spells. Can't get a proper Artificer with a simple refluff.

[Byke]

I agree 100%. I'll be interested when it is printed in a physical book I can play in Adventurers League games. At this point even the stuff that seems interesting is going to get nerfed all to hell in order to not be broken in multiclass situations, it's barely worth caring about it.


QFT...pretty much this now.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't care about UA anymore, I think the random character creation one was what did it for me. The few I've bothered with then have generally been of better quality, but that's because I haven't been looking at them as much as before.

Really, I'm one of the people who thinks that they should do longer less frequent UAs. I'd much rather look at a 10 page document once every other with several bits of playtest material over 3 pages every week, and would feel more confident in it.


That aspect does annoy me. Public playtesting shouldn't be your 'first line of defense' - especially for WotC, who should be capable of writing something approximately balanced right off the bat. Even if they can't though, maybe if they're bringing in third-party writers to produce some of the UA, they could at least do a quick sanity check with some trusted people who could pick up obvious errors. It would take literally a few hours, and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'd do it for free.

As someone trying to build a game right now, I've discovered one of the first things I should do is check with someone else that something isn't stupid. This is partially because I have a smaller version of the magic versus mundanes problem (with resources and time to tinker inventors can do a lot of stuff), so letting a character double the efficiency of a lantern with no time or money would just be silly, but also because I have a tendency to think a certain way (and prefer low combat games, so the combat focused archetype might end up too powerful because as far as I'm concerned combat is rare and they rarely get to shine).

[furby076]

We need a phb2 that includes some new classes, and revised classes (or subs). In the meantime...this stuff is play test material

[Ultra4Life]

As someone who is a fan of AL (I like codified sets of rules that everyone has to play by, so sue me) I've started ignoring UA for the most part. I'll occasionally check it out, but Wizards's slow release schedule means I'll likely never see the chance to put half of what they've made into use. Which makes it irritating.

[skaddix]

yeah a lot of people play AL which means none of it matters for you
You will care when its real.
Also not all classes are equally popular so that is going to cause some to tune out

[Ursus the Grim]

As someone who is a fan of AL (I like codified sets of rules that everyone has to play by, so sue me) I've started ignoring UA for the most part. I'll occasionally check it out, but Wizards's slow release schedule means I'll likely never see the chance to put half of what they've made into use. Which makes it irritating.


yeah a lot of people play AL which means none of it matters for you
You will care when its real.
Also not all classes are equally popular so that is going to cause some to tune out

Unfortunately I think Wizards might never release them as official book content. They've already given it out for free, so sales on a UA book would probably be a little lackluster.

We might get an official AL PDF (ala Elemental Evil) but my hopes for a book are dwindling, especially because it seems like they're scraping the bottom of the barrel for content instead of curating and improving what they have.

[rooneg]

Unfortunately I think Wizards might never release them as official book content. They've already given it out for free, so sales on a UA book would probably be a little lackluster.

We might get an official AL PDF (ala Elemental Evil) but my hopes for a book are dwindling, especially because it seems like they're scraping the bottom of the barrel for content instead of curating and improving what they have.

I would be shocked and dismayed if there is no eventual book that contains some (but not all) of the UA stuff and some stuff that never went through UA. The one example we have of a book with substantial player oriented crunch (Sword Coast Adventurers Guide) worked precisely that way. Some of the new player crunch in that book was previously in a UA (Storm Sorcerer, Swashbuckler) and some was not (Mastermind, Bladesinger, melee cantrips). The fact that they've put out such a huge amount of UA content itself seems to point in this direction, you don't devote that sort of time to this stuff if you don't intend to eventually sell it in some form.

[Cybren]

All of the class-kits in the world won't create the same problems that 3.5 had...

Because of two reasons:

No Prestige Classes
Minimal Feat Support.

If they add PCs and throw in Feats like crazy, we're screwed.

In a hypothetical world where 1) there's no online compendium to get all the rules in one place and 2) there's ~25 sourcebooks each with even half as many races/classes/archetypes as the PHB, you've recreated a lot of the flaws of the 3.5 product line. There's a little less"I didn't plan my build corretly" but there's still "I have to own all these books" and "you shouldn't use Thief rogue, you should use Mugger from Complete Underhandedness and then multiclass with Underninja from Subterranean Asia"